We saw a very good economy in the 1990s, under a Democratic President. Your economic argument holds no water.
I'm not sure how you can make this statement after reading my post on the matter. I specifically listed Bill Clinton as an exception to most Democratic tax policies. He enacted many supply-side policies, and was an ardent free-trader. He signed NAFTA, for example -- over the objection of many in his own party, by the way. It divided both parties to a degree, but more than 3 times as many Democrats in the House voted against it than Republicans. The ratio was almost 3-1 in the Senate, as well.
If you want to make the case that my "economic argument holds no water," go right ahead. But if that statement is based simply on the fact that we saw growth under a Democratic President, then I think you have significantly misrepresented my position.
There is no reason to believe that Democrats do not support business and investment.
Their current nominee has suggested that oil companies are making too much money, and therefore anything above a certain amount should be seized. He has also suggested that we renegotiate NAFTA, despite the fact that it's been an unmitigiated success and is largely responsible for the growth in the 90s you mentioned above. He has suggested that we raise taxes on the wealthy. He has suggested we raise the capital gains tax.
How does one conclude that these policies are not openly hostile towards business and investment? What WOULD be? Opening fire?
Let's have a debate here. You say there is "no reason to believe that Democrats do not support business and investment." But why? I find myself responding to statements. Let's hear arguments. I've layed mine out above.
"Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran" is not even a joke. It's more than tone death. It shows callous disregard for all the men and women who have died.
I'm not sure how one argues with simple declarations like this. Though I do wonder why there isn't similar outrage for Obama's statements about Pakistan and Iran, too. They might not make for good soundbites, but they're every bit as callous, and don't even have the hint that they might have been meant in jest.
And to say that McCain has a disregard for the military...wow. Good luck selling that. I don't think you'll find a buyer.
But then again, we have a President who doesn't even go to funerals.
This is an awfully shallow criticism. Should he cherry-pick the ones he goes to? What does he say to the families of the ones he doesn't attend? This is one of those subjects that there is no right answer to. And it's the kind of shot you only take if you already don't like the guy. Fact is, from what I've read no President has attended more than a tiny fraction of military funerals. By the by, I did read an article which mentioned that he has met with many of these families in private. It's not as showy as going to funerals, and it was barely reported.
Anyway, I don't want to get bogged down in these side-arguments, but every time we reach a point of contention you throw out these asides. It'd be as if everytime I criticized Obama on something, I tossed our some inflammatory thing about Rev. Wright. Let's argue about what we're arguing about.
Karl Rove is the master of dirty tricks and if you don't know that, I have no idea what to say. And of course, Bush knew it. He was so angry he pushed Bush aside.
I know he's accused of dirty tricks all the time, basically none of which are ever proven. The accusations are enough to make me wonder, but not enough for me to even pretend it's some sort of established fact, as you have. You can't make all sorts of accusations based on rumor and then tell me it constitutes an argument.
Of course, politics prevailed and many years later he was hugging the guy. I wonder how his wife felt? But no matter, this is a somewhat petty argument but what is important here is my overriding feeling that McCain is NOT the maverick the press and/or others want him to be. He toed the line. He gave up his integrity.
Depends on how narrowly you define "maverick" then, doesn't it? Based on what you're saying, you seem to disqualify anyone who agrees with their party or even makes overtures to people they've disagreed with, no matter how many times they've stood alone on principle. I think that's a pretty odd definition, though, partially because such a person has obviously never existed.
You know, Obama has called the decision to go to war with Iraq the "most important foreign policy decision of the last 20 years." His opposition to it (though he didn't have a vote at the time, as he was only a State Senator) is the basis for his entire candidacy. And yet he chose someone who voted for it. Did "politics" prevail there, too?
My ex-husband is a republican. I live in a rural county, surrounded by them. I have voted republican. But I do not apologize for talking about the Republican "party" as a party -- there is no other way to describe them. And it is this party that I am dead-set against based on their recent track record. If you are a party loyalist, then I guess I am criticizing you on some level and lumping you into a group. But you are the one that is supporting the party.
I am supporting certain candidates. I am not voting straight ticket, nor would I dream of defending some of the loonies on the far-right. Like the Democratic party, the Republican party contains many different people of many different viewpoints. That's what happens when you have a two-party system in such a large country: both parties contain so many people that two people can be in the same group, and be quite different.
The Republican party has included both Pat Robertson and Steve Forbes. Both Tom Ridge and Jesse Helms. It's all over the place, just like the Democratic party. To dismiss the entire party because you don't like what Bush has done just doesn't make sense. This should be about the candidates: their beliefs, their judgment, and their qualifications.
I make emotional arguments because I am emotional about what has happened the last 8 years. Imo, we should all be more emotional about it. Those that aren't maybe don't care. I do. I actually believe this country is not acting in a manner that is consistent with our founding principles. That can make some people angry. And about using stark language, I've tiptoed around this stuff and I asked myself the question, why? I don't think we should be! This is an extremely important election. The most important in my lifetime, imo.
See, I have no problem with this. You're being upfront about your reasons, and I respect that. But, like I said, reason and logic still have to have their day, and reasonable people should be able to agree that -- even when emotion is justified -- it invariably clouds our views. It has certainly clouded these arguments, in my opinion. Without the extreme anger you feel, I expect they would unfold quite differently. But because of it, most of these posts contain small asides and jabs that don't advance an idea or argument. Indeed, they seem to serve no purpose other than to allow you to vent.
You're entitled to vent, of course, but these things are not persuasive, nor should they be.
BTW, you used "stark" language also -- are you saying Obama thinks businesses are "evil"? Ahem...
No. As is fairly clear in my post, I was speaking generically, and even then I used the phrase "necessary evil." Anyway, you can use stark language if you want. Sometimes, it's justified. But you won't catch me using such language without a perfectly calm, rational explanation of why I believe it, either. And I'll usually reserve my starkest language for disagreeable ideas, and not people.
I don't want to make an assumption about you, Yoda, but what really bothers me is loyalty to party over country. Loyalty to some idealogy that isn't even in the game anymore. The Dems are no longer "tax and spend," it's more complicated than that. And the Republicans have proven that they not only believe in free market, they believe in it so much the middle class is suffering!
What Republican economic policy has caused the middle class to suffer? What about the free market has done this to them? Last I checked, our economy was horrendously bound by regulation on any number of fronts.
Anyway, I didn't oversimplify the Democratic position, or even use the phrase "tax and spend." You're right, it's a lot more complicated than that. That's my point about Republicans, too: it's ALL more complicated than you're saying.
And, again, if you say you value a politician who puts country over party, I don't see how you come down on Obama's side. It is easly demonstrable that McCain has bucked his party on many major issues, whereas Obama has rarely done so, and when he has, it has been on fairly tame issues with plenty of Democratic defections. Exactly the sort of thing you do when running for President.
Since you raised the "tax and spend" line, though, I have to ask why it's inappropriate when the Democratic nominee for President is proposing we spend buckets of money on healthcare (even by his certainly modest projections), and do this by increasing taxes? This isn't "tax and spend"?
And their "idelogy" about foreign policy should concern every American. It sure as hell worries those not in America -- traveling abroad you have to be careful not to say you support Bush (Republican) because if you do, it will not be very pleasant. Many people say "so what." I think we should care about what others think of us.
Of course we should care what other people think of us. The point of disagreement lies in whether we should care enough to let it influence (or outright dictate) our policies to us.
Personally, I think this is just another one of those issues that only comes up if you dislike the President. If you like the guy, it's just an example of how bold and brave he is to go it alone. If you don't, it makes him arrogant and inconsiderate. The overwhelming majority of complaints leveled at this administration are the kind of thing each party invariably overlooks in their own standard-bearers.
And thanks for the response.
Thanks for your patience!
I might need to make use of it again, though, depending on how many replies I find myself having to reply to, of course.
Closed Thread
), but certainly you know SOME people are, which would make the generalizations insulting whether they apply to me or not, wouldn't it? I don't object merely because some of these things describe me; it's objectionable anyway, because it makes a very broad statement about a very large group of people.
One of my most dramatic points of disagreement with the Democratic party is its insistence on villifying business, and penalizing it as if it's an endless cash register that they can tax into oblivion without consequence.
etc.), we seriously diverge over political party/ideals.
I didn't say anything of the sort.
