**Official McCain Speech Post game thread**

[Sho Nuff 720]

What a stuttering fool he looked like.

 

did he not read the speech before he went on stage?

 

I still don't trust McCain at all.

 

6 weeks ago against drilling, now he's for it?

 

He looked like a stuttering fool? Really?

I think some of you were not watching the same thing as others.

While it was not a great great speech...he was far from a stuttering fool.

 

As for the against drilling...kind of how Obama was against more nuclear plants but is now considering it?

Yeah...ok.

[phillybear 366]

Link?

 

Or is that just a generic reply that Republicans make when they can't avoid the obvious similarities between McCain and Bush?

 

You're going to vote for Obama? But, based on your posting history, don't you hate black people?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Where did this get shot full of holes? I would like to see it. I am not being an ass, I would really like to see it. I haven't really seen where anyone disputed McCain voting with Bush.

 

When did they start giving the Prez a vote in the Senate?

[ERZER 0]

I had gotten home too late to see all of it, posted a thread but then deleted because I realized how late in the speech it was, but I have to say he seemed very nervous at the end. Almost like he was trying to be presidential.

 

As to the POW reference, I really respect the man or anybody who went through that crap in any war. But that is not what defines this man or at least for the election it shouldn't. He's had a very prolific political career and I hope he spoke to that during the speech.

 

"Executive" Experience:

McCain vs Obama

Biden vs. Palin

Obama vs Palin

Biden vs McCain (draw)

 

 

Partisanship

McCain vs Biden

The other two don't have really have enough experience to judge this IMO

 

 

Foreign Policy

McCain vs Obama

Biden vs Palin

Obama vs Palin (draw - going overseas because of a pending election doesn't equal experience)

Biden vs McCain (draw I guess, but McCain seems to be more worldly)

[NewbieJr 541]

You're going to vote for Obama? But, based on your posting history, don't you hate black people?

Only full-blooded blacks.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Wasn't it also true that Obama voted with McCain something like 85% of the time or something too?

 

I had heard that...but not sure.

Looks like he voted almost straight down the democrat party line most of the time.

 

The thing I find funny is how so many on the right were worried about McCain because he has stepped across the aisle before and they think he will sell them out...so many thought he would have to pick a hard core righty as VP to get the base back on board.

 

Yet, the left just claims he is just like Bush.

 

The other one I predicted long ago...just the flip flopping hypocrisy in politics.

 

When Dole ran against Clinton, the right played up Dole's service to the country and the left down played it.

With Bush against Kerry and Gore it was the opposite...the left trumpted their service, while the right downplayed it.

Now, the right is pushing McCain's service and the left does not want it to be talked about.

 

Just too funny.

[edjr 6,580]

And where does it say its up to the President, or gubmint, to "provide american's health insurance"?

 

It's not up to the government to provide the health insurance, but I agree with what Mitt Romeny did here in Massachusetts.

 

If you don't have your own health insurance, you pay a penalty on your taxes when you file.

 

I am very pleased to share yet another round of good news regarding the progress of Massachusetts healthcare reform. Just last week, the Division of Health Care Finance and Policy (DHCFP) released a report showing that, in the first 21 months since the start of reform (July 1, 2006), the rolls of the insured in Massachusetts increased by an astounding 439,000. The newly insured represent 8% of the state's entire population and a very large portion of the number previously estimated to be uninsured (396,000-657,000). More...

 

http://www.mahealthconnector.org/portal/si...fiShown=default

[parrot 789]

It's nice that he vowed to end partisan rancor. Too bad he couldn't have started the night before with his own convention.

[Sho Nuff 720]

It's not up to the government to provide the health insurance, but I agree with what Mitt Romeny did here in Massachusetts.

 

If you don't have your own health insurance, you pay a penalty on your taxes when you file.

http://www.mahealthconnector.org/portal/si...fiShown=default

 

Huh?

So, if someone cannot afford health insurance (which is the complaint by some)...then they get hit with a penalty on their taxes?

[Strike 5,532]

Huh?

So, if someone cannot afford health insurance (which is the complaint by some)...then they get hit with a penalty on their taxes?

 

The tax penalty is only part of the plan. The state of Mass. will help subsidize your insurance if you can't afford it. The point of the tax penalty is to discourage people who CAN afford it from not carrying insurance and just showing up at the hospital if they get seriously ill knowing that the hospital is legally required to treat you.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

The tax penalty is only part of the plan. The state of Mass. will help subsidize your insurance if you can't afford it. The point of the tax penalty is to discourage people who CAN afford it from not carrying insurance and just showing up at the hospital if they get seriously ill knowing that the hospital is legally required to treat you.

 

WTF!

 

I thought millions didn't have access to healthcare???????????????

[Sho Nuff 720]

The tax penalty is only part of the plan. The state of Mass. will help subsidize your insurance if you can't afford it. The point of the tax penalty is to discourage people who CAN afford it from not carrying insurance and just showing up at the hospital if they get seriously ill knowing that the hospital is legally required to treat you.

 

Sounds better then.

and I agree...there are those who can afford it and fock up the system for sure.

my in laws did for a while and sucked the govt teet known down here as TennCare (which is a big cluster fock from the beginning).

[Snoopy1 0]

With Bush against Kerry and Gore it was the opposite...the left trumpted their service, while the right downplayed it.

.

 

That's a very interesting interpretation of the how the right reacted to Kerry's experience.

[Sho Nuff 720]

That's a very interesting interpretation of the how the right reacted to Kerry's experience.

 

True...some out there chose to completely destroy it and mock it.

 

The point being...whichever side has a candidate that served the country will put that out in the forefront.

And the other side, if their candidate did not serve, will do what they can to minimize its effect.

 

You would have thought during the last election that the left thought it was nearly a requirement for a person to have served in the military to have been president (and in fact, some actually said as much).

 

Those same people don't seem to mind now though.

[Snoopy1 0]

I didn't see McCain's speech, although I plan to watch it online later. I do have a comment about this point though. I'm as PO'ed about the way Bush has created a huge deficit and spent through the roof as anyone but there's a big difference between him and Obama that scares me. Bush cut taxes and then spent a boatload on wars. This is reversible. We're working our way out of Iraq now and hopefully we can minimize our presence in Afghanistan during the next administration. If we make some targeted cuts, etc, we can easily get the deficit under control. But Obama wants to institute programs that you can't simply dismantle when you want to reverse the wasted expenditures. If his health care program gets entrenched we're stuck with it, just like we can't dissolve Social Security now despite it being largely a failure. So, it worries me that Obama could get elected and institute programs such as that that we'd be stuck with going forward.

 

 

First, exactly how is Social Security a huge failure?

 

Second, according to Factcheck.org

-based on research from the Tax Policy Center on both plans-it's McCain who will increase the deficit more than Obama's, so I'm having trouble understanding how you seem to favor McCain in regards to deficit reduction.

[NorthernVike 2,085]

First, exactly how is Social Security a huge failure?

 

 

I am 40 years old and the odds of me ever seeing a dime of the $ I have put in are next to zero.

 

 

That is how Social Security is a huge focking failure.

[Snoopy1 0]

The point being...whichever side has a candidate that served the country will put that out in the forefront.

And the other side, if their candidate did not serve, will do what they can to minimize its effect.

 

Well that's pretty much a given. Sad state of affairs going from Lincoln-Douglas, Kennedy-Nixon when it was about substance to which candidate can dodge the most mud in during the electon cycle.

 

You would have thought during the last election that the left thought it was nearly a requirement for a person to have served in the military to have been president (and in fact, some actually said as much).

 

 

I don't think many said it was a requirement(nearly or otherwise)-after President Clinton's eight years. More playing up the differences of the candidates-one who served and the records indicate was a good leader while serving, one who's service was extremely limited.

 

It's a strategy, gambit-the usual politics as usual---here look at the shiny coin so nobody investigates learns about the real issues.

[Strike 5,532]

First, exactly how is Social Security a huge failure?

 

Do I really have to answer this for you? First of all, I said it's largely a failure. That means it helps to an extent. And when I say that I mean that the programs to offer assistance to those without income and/or with disabilities are good. However, those could be accomplished without SS at a lesser cost. As far as the retirement benefits we receive from SS, that's a joke. It's the worst investment you could possibly make. You'll get a significant -ROI on the money you have invested in SS, assuming there is any when you and I retire. I like my investments to actually make money, not lose money.

 

Second, according to Factcheck.org

-based on research from the Tax Policy Center on both plans-it's McCain who will increase the deficit more than Obama's, so I'm having trouble understanding how you seem to favor McCain in regards to deficit reduction.

 

Again, my point isn't about how much the deficit is but on whether we can alter any changes made to it by the next President. If McCain increases the deficit it will be standard lower taxes, spend more politics like Bush. I'm not happy with that and I hope that turns out not to be the case. But we can just change that whenever we choose. Obama wants to institute plans such as his disgusting health care plan that will not be nearly as easy to get rid of. And that's my problem. If he gets to institute those plans we'll be stuck with them like we are SS.

[Snoopy1 0]

I am 40 years old and the odds of me ever seeing a dime of the $ I have put in are next to zero.

That is how Social Security is a huge focking failure.

 

Thanks for dogmatic answer...wonderful anaylsis.

[donhaas 18]

This is funny: McCain's peoples put the wrong picture in the background during his speech

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/213806.php

 

 

A lot of people were asking tonight: what the hell was that mansion up behind John McCain tonight during the first part of the speech? As I noted below, the TV close-ups only showed McCain's head against the grass in the picture, which made it look like he was reprising his famed green screen performance. And when they panned out, it looked like McCain was showing off one of his mansions.

 

Well, several readers have written in to tell me that the building is actually the main building on the campus of the Walter Reed Middle School in North Hollywood, California.

 

So it's not a mansion, but a middle school. But that still doesn't answer the question of why they picked this picture to have him standing in front of -- when I would imagine that 99.9% of the US population would have no idea what they were looking at.

 

Late Update: I'm surprised this hadn't occurred to me. But several readers have suggested that perhaps one of the tech geeks charged with setting up the audio/visual bells and whistles for the evening was tasked with getting pictures of Walter Reed Army Medical Center but goofed and got this instead. At first I thought, No, that's ridiculous. This is a major political party with big time professionals putting this together. Nothing is left to chance. I mean, is this the RNC or a scene out Spinal Tap or Waiting for Guffman? I still have a bit of a hard time believing they're quite that incompetent. But when you figure in what appears to be the utter lack of any logic for this school being behind McCain and the fact that it has 'Walter Reed' in its name, I'm really not sure you can discount this possibility.

[parrot 789]

If he gets to institute those plans we'll be stuck with them like we are SS.

 

 

To McCain's credit he stood against the GOP's "disgusting" Medicare D plan I believe.

[NorthernVike 2,085]

Thanks for dogmatic answer...wonderful anaylsis.

 

 

God your a candyass when it come to these threads.

 

you ask for an answer and I gave you one.

 

You want me to go into it further fine.

 

SS was originally designed to provide approx 10% of a persons retirement monies. But every two bit politician trying to buy votes added more and more benefits to it without increasing what people pay into it. They made so many promises that the dumbfucking masses of this country came to believe that SS will provide for all of their retirement needs. And some fuckchops like Obama are promising even more.

[Isotopes 1]

When did they start giving the Prez a vote in the Senate?

 

He doesn't get a vote but we pretty much always know his position. They are saying that McCain voted in-line with Bush's position.

[Sho Nuff 720]

He doesn't get a vote but we pretty much always know his position. They are saying that McCain voted in-line with Bush's position.

 

So he voted in line mostly with his party.

And Bush's position, while not always popular, does not always make it the wrong position either.

Its a misleading stat but makes a nice soundbite.

[mobb_deep 920]

As usual, you show you have no freakin clue about anything outside your own little circle.

 

As usual, we can depend on you for another witty one liner. If you ever actually defended a subject with some sort of thought out, well written response, I think I'd pass out. Reading through this thread, it's pretty obvious most of you fall into group 3, with a few clinging to their group 2 bibles. It's obvious none of you are in group 1, because you all live in BFE middle America.

[Isotopes 1]

So he voted in line mostly with his party.

And Bush's position, while not always popular, does not always make it the wrong position either.

Its a misleading stat but makes a nice soundbite.

 

I agree with that. I also think that Obama voted with the Democrats something like 97% of the time.

[Isotopes 1]

I also liked what McCain said about transparency and accountability in his administration. I thought he was kind of calling out the Bush Admin. I am not sure if he would actually do it but it is nice to dream that they would actually take responsibility for their actions.

[Sho Nuff 720]

As usual, we can depend on you for another witty one liner. If you ever actually defended a subject with some sort of thought out, well written response, I think I'd pass out. Reading through this thread, it's pretty obvious most of you fall into group 3, with a few clinging to their group 2 bibles. It's obvious none of you are in group 1, because you all live in BFE middle America.

 

Simple...you have no clue about middle america...or anything about this country outside of the area you live in.

You have proven this over and over and over again with your comments on this board.

 

But thanks again for being an ignorant tool on a message board trying to tell others why they believe things.

Oh...and you are completely dead wrong again too.

[parrot 789]

I also liked what McCain said about transparency and accountability in his administration. I thought he was kind of calling out the Bush Admin. I am not sure if he would actually do it but it is nice to dream that they would actually take responsibility for their actions.

 

 

I like McCain, and I think he really believes in a lot of what he says. But he's had to make some deals and lie down with a few dogs to get this nomination. I hope if and when he wins the election he is willing and able to act on what he believes.

[Snoopy1 0]

Do I really have to answer this for you? First of all, I said it's largely a failure. That means it helps to an extent. And when I say that I mean that the programs to offer assistance to those without income and/or with disabilities are good. However, those could be accomplished without SS at a lesser cost. As far as the retirement benefits we receive from SS, that's a joke. It's the worst investment you could possibly make. You'll get a significant -ROI on the money you have invested in SS, assuming there is any when you and I retire. I like my investments to actually make money, not lose money.

 

I feel I must disagree about SS being "largely a failure". In a historical context it did what it was created to do, provide income to retired workers, in a time way before 401K's, company pensions.... I understand your point, You and I easily could find a better way to invest that 9% than SS. That though isn't necessarily the case with all Americans.

 

Without checking the 40% number you posted on taxaction earlier-how many of those people have the means, capabilites or even opportunties to fully fund/plan for retirement? It must be a significant portion that don't have access to company retirement plans or have the disposal income to self-invest. What kind of mess would be created if we just gave them that 9%---how much of it would go into future savings.

 

From what you said, it seems you are more upset that SS has been amended to allow people with the means to better plan for their own retirements. On that point, I'm in agreement, though unsure exactly how that transistion could be done successfully. As it is basically a ponzi-how does one make the transition without crippling the existing system and those recieving it now? That's going to be a tough trick.

 

Again, I agree that it should be ammended to reflect current times-something along the lines of half of your contribution should be of a discrentionary(though in someway regulated---Strike, Fulltiltpoker isn't a legitimate retirement invenstment)nature. By regulated, I only mean that the money could only be invested in some type of approved retirement option, Roths, 401ks, company pension plan...whatever.

 

Again, my point isn't about how much the deficit is but on whether we can alter any changes made to it by the next President. If McCain increases the deficit it will be standard lower taxes, spend more politics like Bush. I'm not happy with that and I hope that turns out not to be the case. But we can just change that whenever we choose. Obama wants to institute plans such as his disgusting health care plan that will not be nearly as easy to get rid of. And that's my problem. If he gets to institute those plans we'll be stuck with them like we are SS.

 

As for the healthcare thing---there are just so many variables about this arguement that I think it's easier to predict next months weather than the cost/loss/benefit of any plan. One of the things that I just keep coming back to when I look at this arguement is not the moral issue of wheter people do or don't deserve it, but the pragmantic one---if I recall correctly, this country loses over a trillion dollars(looking for a link, will provide when I have more time for a search) a year from lost worker productivity because of inadequate or not having healthcare options. To me, I can't think of a better reason to adress the issue than the fact that a trillion bucks is a huge chuck of GDP.

 

Anyway, we can go back to partisan sniping now.

[gocolts 300]

But to align him with Bush is possibly the most ignorant thing I've read here, which is saying a lot.

You read your own posts??

[NorthernVike 2,085]

You read your own posts??

[gocolts 300]

That's a very interesting interpretation of the how the right reacted to Kerry's experience.

Like that time Kerry saved that guy who fell in the river. The reason he was in the river was Kerry heard what he thought was gunfire and hit the throttle so focking hard he threw the guy out of his boat. When he realized it was safe again, he rescued the guy he himself put in the water because of his courage.

[Strike 5,532]

You and I easily could find a better way to invest that 9% than SS. That though isn't necessarily the case with all Americans.

 

Anyone who pay in to the SS system could find a better way to invest that money. A simple, 100% insured, savings account at 2% would be better. It's not like they have to be stock market savvy to earn a better ROI than SS.

 

Without checking the 40% number you posted on taxaction earlier-how many of those people have the means, capabilites or even opportunties to fully fund/plan for retirement? It must be a significant portion that don't have access to company retirement plans or have the disposal income to self-invest. What kind of mess would be created if we just gave them that 9%---how much of it would go into future savings.

 

Not sure what you mean by all of this. Are you saying it's the govt's responsibility to plan for people's retirement because they're too dumb to do it themselves? Are you suggesting that I should give a huge chunk of my earnings to SS because some people are too dumb to save for them self? Is that your position? Because if someone is going to force me to pay in to a system thinking I'm not capable of doing it myself, they sure as hell better get a decent ROI on my money. Do you have any idea how much better a retirement most people would have if they could get a proper ROI on their SS contributions?

 

From what you said, it seems you are more upset that SS has been amended to allow people with the means to better plan for their own retirements. On that point, I'm in agreement, though unsure exactly how that transistion could be done successfully. As it is basically a ponzi-how does one make the transition without crippling the existing system and those recieving it now? That's going to be a tough trick.

 

Is the light bulb finally going on as to why I'm opposed to Obama? His plans would be similar and just as difficult to alter/remove. That's why I think it's imperative that he not get elected.

 

One of the things that I just keep coming back to when I look at this arguement is not the moral issue of wheter people do or don't deserve it, but the pragmantic one---if I recall correctly, this country loses over a trillion dollars(looking for a link, will provide when I have more time for a search) a year from lost worker productivity because of inadequate or not having healthcare options. To me, I can't think of a better reason to adress the issue than the fact that a trillion bucks is a huge chuck of GDP.

 

I'd like to see the link but I doubt it will impact my stance on any of this. There is no way to accurately measure this. I'd look at the study but my guess is it would make a bunch of flawed assumptions.

[gocolts 300]

First, exactly how is Social Security a huge failure?

 

Second, according to Factcheck.org

-based on research from the Tax Policy Center on both plans-it's McCain who will increase the deficit more than Obama's, so I'm having trouble understanding how you seem to favor McCain in regards to deficit reduction.

One thing they are not taking into account is all the businesses moving when BO becomes POTUS. The revenue will go down so much with an BO presidency, we wont be paying down sh1t. He will bring this country to it's knees. Just wait till November if he wins and the sell off that happens on wall street as people pull their money out to avoid the capital gains giant increase.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

First, exactly how is Social Security a huge failure?

 

It's a ponzi scheme that congress has used to buy votes with. They have stolen every last penny brought in that didn't immediately go out in the form of payments.

 

The only way anyone could think it isn't a dismal failure is if they believe there is actually a "trust fund" with money in it.

[gocolts 300]

First, exactly how is Social Security a huge failure?

Maybe if each and every POTUS didn't raid the SS fund, it wouldn't be in such bad shape.

[parrot 789]

One thing they are not taking into account is all the businesses moving when BO becomes POTUS. The revenue will go down so much with an BO presidency, we wont be paying down sh1t. He will bring this country to it's knees. Just wait till November if he wins and the sell off that happens on wall street as people pull their money out to avoid the capital gains giant increase.

 

Oh Good Lord.

 

Yeah, business is going to abandon the largest economy in the world because we return the capital gains level to a level it was at for many years.

[gocolts 300]

Oh Good Lord.

 

Yeah, business is going to abandon the largest economy in the world because we return the capital gains level to a level it was at for many years.

Ummm no. The capitol gains thing has to with people yanking their money out of wall street. The gigantic tax increases on businesses Obama is proposing is what will send them running for other countries. Not every business mind you, but all that can. Like how California drove businesses out with their high taxes for businesses.

[mobb_deep 920]

Simple...you have no clue about middle america...or anything about this country outside of the area you live in.

You have proven this over and over and over again with your comments on this board.

 

But thanks again for being an ignorant tool on a message board trying to tell others why they believe things.

Oh...and you are completely dead wrong again too.

 

Again, you've totally convinced me with yet another post offering absolutely nothing of substance to prove otherwise.

 

Way to "stay the course". I know how much you tards love that approach.