D?j? vu all over again?

[DD]

Now if she had been 43 and he had been 25....we would call her a cougar, right?

 

[Geo]

The only differences are that Kennedy had experience and Obama has almost no experience. One other noticeable difference is that Kennedy words, "ask not what your Country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your Country." Obama on the other hand wants to create more government dependency, getting people to ask what their Country can do for the people. The difference is HUGE.

BTW, I love the redundant thread title. I love the redundant thread title.

Everything is relative. I trust what you say that Obama has less experience than JFK without verifying. But hopefully you aren't missing the point...

There was a stark contrast between the charisma of JFK and RN during that debate. And there was a stark contrast between Obama's speech (and the whole vibe with the venue, crowd, etc.) and McCain's on that same night...

Experience (or lack thereof) for any of the parties doesn't change that. This is the point of the thread, IMHO...

G

 

[LuciferSam]

The capital gains tax is not just about stocks. The capital gains tax is about selling an asset. It doesn't consider how long you've owned it (except for the difference between short and long term gains = 1 year) or the rate of inflation. In some people's cases it could be about selling a company, or intellectual property, in which you've had the honor of paying income taxes all along while developing those items for sale....again while paying income taxes to do so. It can be about receiving a meager royalty on something you've sold...while none of it considers the rate of inflation.

To tax wealth, while not taxing the wealthy, would mean that people who are not wealthy have wealth. That sounds like a slogan to me. I am not wealthy by any means, but if someone wants to increase capital gains taxes on me, because they consider it wealth....Well, I'm thinking they are out of touch.

It's a misconception to consider capital gains as "wealth". It's just a plan to redistribute what some people have worked hard as hell for.

Even if people didn't work hard for it, should luck be taxed? I don't think so. I think Obama's got some explaining to do.

 

[30ashopper]

Goofer, which McCain do you think will campaign against Obama ~ maverick McCain or McBush? Other than his personal life, I liked McCain when he was a maverick ~ before he sucked up to Bush.

Gypsea - that was a cheap shot and you know it. Is that the kind of race the Dems want this fall? Is that the kind of campaigning Obama stands for? If so, nothing has "changed".

 

[Gypsea]

Gypsea - that was a cheap shot and you know it. Is that the kind of race the Dems want this fall? Is that the kind of campaigning Obama stands for? If so, nothing has "changed".

It's not meant to be cheap. It's just an honest question. My first choice this fall would be for the maverick McCain but clearly he was going towards his base in the primary. Which group will he campaigning for in the general election? If he stays with the Bush policies he will lose many people in the middle. I would then be for Obama. Just trying to see which way he will be leaning. Still hoping to see his maverick ways return.

 

[Linda]

Goofer44,

Your points are well taken. I just wonder how the media's giddiness might carry over to the electorate and cause some town hall debate blind spots. Of course, Obama's candicacy is historic but heaven help McCain if he calls a reporter sweetie.

And oh yeah, back to the earlier news article about Obama being "hip" because he and Michelle touched their fists together. You wanna hear hip and cool? McCain married a woman who owns a beer distributorship. Now, that is cool.

Can you even imagine if McCain had been the one to say that he had been to all 57 states. The media would have had a field day - declaring that this was an obvious indication of dementia.

 

[Jdarg]

It's not meant to be cheap. It's just an honest question. My first choice this fall would be for the maverick McCain but clearly he was going towards his base in the primary. Which group will he campaigning for in the general election? If he stays with the Bush policies he will lose many people in the middle. I would then be for Obama. Just trying to see which way he will be leaning. Still hoping to see his maverick ways return.

I think so many people feel this way. I remember Bdarg and I talking about him several years ago- how he was a "maverick" and seemed to think for himself. "Wow", we thought, "here is a guy that seems to get it", especially in the way he could work with everyone, not just Republicans. We felt quite optimistic!

Of course that all changed - I guess he probably had to "adjust" to make certain groups happy. I still admire McCain on several levels, but he can't be my guy.

I am dreading this campaign. Two very fine men will be ripped to shreds.

 

[BeachSiO2]

I think so many people feel this way. I remember Bdarg and I talking about him several years ago- how he was a "maverick" and seemed to think for himself. "Wow", we thought, "here is a guy that seems to get it", especially in the way he could work with everyone, not just Republicans. We felt quite optimistic!

Of course that all changed - I guess he probably had to "adjust" to make certain groups happy. I still admire McCain on several levels, but he can't be my guy.

I am dreading this campaign. Two very fine men will be ripped to shreds.

I agree his rhetoric had to change to win the primary but his Senatorial actions are still those of working to find compromise. Keep in mind he is a strong leader in the Group of 14 that is bipartisan and has worked to bring some issues to the forefront in the Senate. Some of which I don't like (McCain-Feingold for one) but still demonstrate that he "worked for actual changes" as a senator. His voting record and actions as a Senator have been "maverick" which is why he had to go more conservative to win the primary.

Contrast that to someone who says they are for change yet I have been unable to find many occasions in his three years as a senator where he didn't vote party lines or where he sponsored substantial bipartisan legislation. If what I read is correct his voting record is more than 90%+ democratic.

I guess my point is that I am glad it is moving out of the primary season where substance and actions will become more important then oration and rhetoric. It should be exciting for all of us to truly see specifics of not only how people say they are going to do things but what they have done.

IMO, BOTH candidates have some explaining to do and there are still a substantial number of undecideds out there to be educated by facts. I look forward to spirited discussions between such different candidates to see who will be the better leader. I just hope that the negative personal attacks don't overshadow the substantial differences in message and ideals that they both have.

 

[goofer]

It's not meant to be cheap. It's just an honest question. My first choice this fall would be for the maverick McCain but clearly he was going towards his base in the primary. Which group will he campaigning for in the general election? If he stays with the Bush policies he will lose many people in the middle. I would then be for Obama. Just trying to see which way he will be leaning. Still hoping to see his maverick ways return.

I did not take it as a cheap shot. Perfectly valid question. I think that McCain is moving back to the Maverick McCain. He has been distancing himself from Bush and the Bush policies. His latest comments on the surge, the prosecution of the war, the lack of a veto pen, his consistency against earmarks, and his repudiation of the extreme right wing religious leaders are all vintage McCain. McCain is shrewd enough to know that his Maverick McCain persona is the meat and potatos of his success and of his bipartisanship respect. I look forward to a spirited and respectful campaign.

 

[rapunzel]

I agree his rhetoric had to change to win the primary but his Senatorial actions are still those of working to find compromise. Keep in mind he is a strong leader in the Group of 14 that is bipartisan and has worked to bring some issues to the forefront in the Senate. Some of which I don't like (McCain-Feingold for one) but still demonstrate that he "worked for actual changes" as a senator. His voting record and actions as a Senator have been "maverick" which is why he had to go more conservative to win the primary.

Contrast that to someone who says they are for change yet I have been unable to find many occasions in his three years as a senator where he didn't vote party lines or where he sponsored substantial bipartisan legislation. If what I read is correct his voting record is more than 90%+ democratic.

Well, I was particularly impressed with the legislastion he proposed in the Senate yesterday -

The Strengthening Transparency and Accountability in Federal Spending Act of 2008 is the culmination of a bipartisan effort by Senator Barack Obama and Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK). Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) and Senator John McCain co-sponsored the bill. Yes, Obama's such a shark, so ready to rip people to shreds that he let McCain sign on as a co-sponsor.

The new bill would build upon and improve previous efforts by Senators Obama and Coburn to provide public access to federal grant and contract information through the USASpending.gov web site. Among other things, it would require copies of each federal contract and details of the bidding process to be published online.

The provisions of the bill were outlined in a joint press release on June 3.

"People from every State in this great Nation sent us to Congress to defend their rights and stand up for their interests," Sen. Obama said in a prepared floor statement. "To do that we have to tear down the barriers that separate citizens from the democratic process and to shine a brighter light on the inner workings of Washington. This bill helps to shine that light."

While most government agencies have cooperated with the contracting transparency requirements that were adopted in 2006, some intelligence agencies have dragged their heels in opposition. The Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, which used to disclose their unclassified contracts, actually withheld such information from the USASpending.gov database in 2007 and 2008.

from http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/06/obama_introd.html

The good news is that, regardless of the outcome of this election and whether we continue on the road to becoming a country without a middle class -- and those are so pleasant to live in -- perhaps some of us should think of moving to Haiti or Malawi ?-- we will see a change in the influence peddling that has become the business of our government.