I'll take McCain's judgment over the alternative 7 days a week and twice on Sunday.

 

A question for democrats? Why is it that you think the government can do a better job of deciding how to spend your income than you can?

 

Guiliani's affair IMO is not why he is not the nominee.

I have my own questions about the collective sanity of republicans, but I don't think it's on topic. Or constructive, because it always devolves into a name calling thread, no matter how pure the intention. That's why I don't post in those threads.

I have my own questions about the collective sanity of republicans, but I don't think it's on topic. Or constructive, because it always devolves into a name calling thread, no matter how pure the intention. That's why I don't post in those threads.

 

It is an honest question. I will not call anyone names, it is a free country and people can believe what they want to. That is what makes us great. Just interested in the answer. I agree it is a little off topic for this thread, I'll start a new one if that is necessary.

I laugh everytime a Democrat suggests marital infidelity as a reason not to support a Republican candidate.

Leather, this is a typical Democrat style attack. Just like Hillary ( trying to attack Obama's personal life ) against someone from her own party. The man is a war hero and our country needs a war veteran during this hostile period in our history. If we don't continue to attempt to build an alliance with Iraq and have a presence in the middle east, Bin Ladden will be hiding out in the Rockie mountains instead of the Afgan Mountains.

 

P.S. Obama is being attacked by Cunningham, a radio personality, not by McCain.

 

First this is not just the typical Democrat style it is the political style in America. Democrat or Republican. And yes Obama is being attacked by Cunningham, but Obama never attacked McCain. So that is not a good argument. Neither candidate is attacking it their political parties that are attacking.

 

And as far as the spin stops here, that guy is so conservative it is not funny. Cunningham was on Hannity and Combs again last night and the democratic guy on there could not keep from cracking up at Willie because he knows how he is and he basically said he it was his stitch to do that. They are the same left wing right wing. Trying to sell books and TV shows. Hannity just keeps trying to say that Obama is racial because of his dealings with Farrakhan and the church he goes to and the paper his wife wrote. He can't get anyone to bite on it and I think that is funny. He is going into dangerous territory there. IMO

I laugh everytime a Democrat suggests marital infidelity as a reason not to support a Republican candidate.

 

Is that like a Republican not supporting a Democrat for the same thing?

I laugh everytime a Republican suggests marital infidelity as a reason not to support a Democratic candidate.

It all comes down to policies for me. I don't care if you have 10 mistresses or if you were born in a mosque. It simply comes down to social policies, national security and taxation. I agree that some on the left and right use scare tactics and spread rumors (such at the Obama e-mails and the accusations against McCain) I just doubt that many on here care about that stuff. It is usually used to garner the uneducated or mildly interested vote. If people would simply focus on issues we would be much better off. Though I don't see that happening anytime soon........

Is that like a Republican not supporting a Democrat for the same thing?

It's completely different. Democrats have affairs because they only think about themselves. Republicans have affairs because they married a Democrat.

LN: Were any of the three prosecutors ever able to charge the Clintons on Whitewater? I hope you'll react with similar fervor the next time that's brought up.

 

Not to worry, my friend. Check my prior posts and you'll see that I have reacted with similar fervor when some of our far right members have made similar slimy attacks of Democrats.

I laugh everytime a Democrat suggests marital infidelity as a reason not to support a Republican candidate.

 

And I laugh everytime a Republican does the same thing.

It's completely different. Democrats have affairs because they only think about themselves. Republicans have affairs because they married a Democrat.

 

I thought my wife was going to the "store" an awful lot these last few months.

I have to this point tried NOT TO do ATTACK politics but it appears that Conservatives do not care to.

 

I decided to make this post once posters said that Barack Hussein Obama must have tough skin to be President. He cannot change his name, his color or his father but many have attacked those things in very intimate details, nonetheless.

 

This is the point to this thread!! IT IS OKAY TO ATTACK BARACK OBAMA because he is bi-racial, his father is from Kenya or his middle name is Hussein (things he cannot change) BUT IT IS NOT OKAY TO ATTACK JOHN SYNDEY MCCAIN.

 

Barack Obama has been attack for "supposedly" being a Muslim, for being bi-racial, for his father, for his wife's remarks, for his middle name, etc. Are these not personal???

 

 

As to the bolded part, my kids when they were young tried to use similar "logic" when they tried to explain their bad behavior. Other people messing up is not an acceptable excuse; at least not in my life. Sorry if it sounds like I'm preaching from the pulpit, but your origin post and other similar stuff bothers me. Saying Sen. Obama needs thick skin is okay. Saying Sen. McCain has a temper is okay. Heck, I think the Keating 5 info is fair game, except that you failed to point out a very important part (which I pointed out). Discussing prior votes and prior actions as a Congressman or state legistator is fair AS LONG AS its done accurately. Bringing the personal lives of either candidate and their families into the debate is not.

I agree with not bringing the personal lives of the candidates into the already ugliness that exists

1989- Cindy McCain abuses pain killers and even stole pills from her own AVMT, non-profit organization (yes this is a federal offense before you ask). She escaped prison by getting counseling and treatment.

I love this one. :lol: Never mind that Barack Hussein Obama abused drugs including cocaine. After all Superfan, you know what many people may say, "once a drug abuser, always one"

I can't tell you who I've done returns for, but I've never seen these tax breaks either.

 

I'm with you brother.

 

An article in yesterday's WSJ discussed Sen. Obama's support for the Patriot Employer Act that was introduced in August of 2007. In effect the bill would designate certain employers as "patriot employers". The definition of "patriot employer" takes four pages, but in essence, according to the WSJ a "patriot employer" is something that fulfills the "fondest Big Labor agenda"

 

Patriot employers would get a 1% tax break (which to me again confirms that companies shipping jobs over seas do not get tax breaks. If that was the case, then it would be a matter of eliminating those breaks as opposed to coming up with new incentives for companies that don't). To fund the 1% tax breaks, no patriot employers would have to start paying U.S. taxes on income earned overseas, as opposed to paying the corporate tax of the host country where they are earned. Since the U.S. tax rate is higher than many host countries, this would mean a big tax increase on earnings abroad. All of a sudden non patriot employers would be at a bigger disadvantage with their foreign competitors not subject to the higher U.S. corporate tax rate.

 

The article cites an international tax expert at PWC who concludes that this change would "raise the cost of capital of U.S multinationals and cause them to lose market share to foreign rivals". The article goes on to state that offshore activities of U.S. companies tend to increase rather than decrease domestic business (emphasis added mine) and cites a study conducted by economists at Harvard and Michigan that found that more foreign investment by U.S. companies leads to greater domestic investment and that the hiring of more offshore employees is positively, not negatively, associated with the number of U.S. employees that are hired because what is often produced offshore are component parts to final, higher-value-added products manufactured in the U.S.

 

The article states that if the U.S. already didn't have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, companies would have less incentive to move jobs (and earnings) overseas. Rather than giving patriot employers a 1% tax break, it makes more sense to reduce the U.S. corporate tax rate by 10% for every corporation.

 

The article concludes by pointing out what most people already should understand: that corporations don't pay taxes, rather they just collect them. Higher corporate taxes are really paid by employees through lower wages and salaries.

 

Great article for those that still think that we should penalize businesses that move jobs overseas, that think that companies with employees overseas get some type of corporate welfare, and that think that we should increase corporate tax rates. Its on page A16 of yesterday's edition if you want to read it.