[Bond]

Before I begin, I would just like to say that I am always open to changing my mind and my political viewpoints, and I don't view this as a a sign of weakness or "flip-flopping." It's honest introspection.

Originally Posted by Professor S

Bush is not running for President. I know Obama thinks he is, but McCain is not Bush, and I'm surprised that Bond has fallen for this kind of propoganda. I don;t even think McCain likes Bush, but feels he needs to play politics.

I agree. McCain is definitely not Bush. But as I said before, I believe 2000 was McCain's year, not 2008. McCain has definitely drifted away from several of his more moderate viewpoints to the right to appease the Republican party's base. Just as I would agree with you that McCain doesn't particularly like Bush, do you think McCain particularly likes Palin? McCain is no Bush, and Palin is no McCain.

I like McCain, but I don't like him in this election cycle.

Bond's assertion that Obama would be ANYTHING like Clinton when it comes to spending is absurd, even according to Obama's budget. Obama wants to increase spending by 1 trillion and has no real plans to pay for it. Worse yet, Congressional leadership want to increase spending by three times that amount, and they are the ones who will send the bills to Obama. So the question is, do you think Obama will veto a spending bill from the leadership of his own party? Do you really think ANYONE is getting a tax cut under Obama or a democrat led Congress? Mark my words: If Obama wins, you will hear the following in an address: "America, these times are far too tasking and our deficit is far to large for us to have tax cuts at this time. But, I will send out some checks to those that are truly struggling (read: those that don't pay taxes in the first place) and together we will get through these tough times." Mark my words.

Well, I thought Bush would continue Clinton's balanced budget, and I was very mistaken about that, so I could be wrong here again. But, if Obama does raise taxes on the top 5%, stops foreign intervention, and even decreases military spending, I do believe there is some hope for a balanced budget. Of course, if he increases spending dramatically in the medicare, medicaid, and social security spectrum (the welfare spectrum), then there is no hope.

I do favor McCain's tax policy over Obama's. I don't like the idea of income tax on principle, but sometimes one has to air on the side of pragmatism over principle. But let's go back to Bush again for one moment. Decreasing taxes in a time of war? Obama's tax policy isn't the worst thing in light of Bush's mishandling of the economy.

Look, I am (my family) is not going to benefit at all from Obama's tax plan. If anything, we'll most likely have our taxes raised. But sometimes you have to put country first, and not always vote in one's own self interest.

"This is Obama's time". That sounds like it came stright from an Obama ad. How do you think he'll heal woulnds when he is the most liberal Senator in the country? How has he ever shown he has been anything but lock step behind his party?

Was not the Cold War Reagan's time? Was not the Civil War Lincoln's time? Was not the beginning of our country Washington's time? In light of history, I think this argument is quite rational and strong, but I don't have time to expand upon it.

We're talking about someone who has stated they want to redistribute wealth, or "share your success"... this is a tenant of socialisma and one of the planks of communism. Obama may not be a socialist, but he sure sounds like one.

I don't disagree, but let's end corporate welfare just as soon as we end the redistribution of wealth.

Obama says a lot of nice things, but the sad fact is little of what he says relates to any of his brief experience in public service. Bond, it blows my mind that with the supreme court in jeopardy, a congress led by idiots, yes IDIOTS like Pelosi and Reed and a time with so much at stake you would ignore all of your poltiical principles and vote based on feeling ("It's Obama's time" has nothing to do wiuth issues or facts) rather than rational thought. Thats not what intellectual Republicans do.

I again don't disagree. I would much rather have different parties control the Executive and Legislative branches of government.

And where are these intellectual Republicans? As far as I'm concerned, they're gone.

Originally Posted by Xantar

I'm no admirer of Bond or TheGame, as you well know. Hell, I used to call TheGame willfully blind and ignorant to his face, and I tend to think Bond's decision to vote Obama sort of gives the lie to his stated support for split government (which I never believed anyway, but that's another post). Believe me, I'm not stepping in here because those two are suddenly my best buddies. I'm posting this because of what I see as a disturbing tendency for you to turn everything into a ranting, personally-insulting tirade against everyone who disagrees with you.

I believe that one should stand by one's theoretical political principles, but, in the end, govern in a centrist fashion (aka. compromise), as I view centrism as the best hope for our country. I find the assertion that you think I'm "lying" rather insulting, but I digress.