10 things you should know about John McCain (but probably don't)

Don't forget to cite the MoveOn.org email this came from... Got it today myself!
David

quote:

Originally posted by NaimDropper:
Don't forget to cite the MoveOn.org email this came from... Got it today myself!
David

Oops, sorry ... I got it from a friend.

All best,
Fred

Fred,

Need you stoop to plagiarism to make your point? Have you not spread enough propaganda, partisan and not?

Respectfully,

Jim

and another point

Where do you get off assuming that the readers here are somehow ignorant and uninformed.

From where do obtain the information and opinions that we "probably don't know" about? Do you have a hotline to "conspiracies r us"? Do you have some god given talent to see through the bullshit that the common man and forum member might be duped by?

Shame on you for your elitist and judgmental outlook on your fellow man. "10 things you should know", indeed!

Jim

Jim, I never claimed to have compiled this, nor did I assume the friend who sent it to me had either. The sources are clearly cited; it's all from the public record. "Plagiarism" is a far stretch.

I'm just passing along information to anyone interested by posting a virtual handbill on a virtual public kiosk.

All best,
Fred

Fred

quote:

6. He's one of the richest people in a Senate filled with millionaires. The Associated Press reports he and his wife own at least eight homes! Yet McCain says the solution to the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get a "second job" and skip their vacations.

That he is independently wealthy is a total irrelevance in my book. Just because a politician is male does not mean they cannot talk about women's issues. Just because they are rich does not mean they cannot talk about poverty issues.

Some of your other points are pretty weak on fact and long on opinion-the opnions of analysts/lobby groups and quango's that I have a sneaky feeling are rather likely to be aligned rather against republicans in general!

I have no doubt a far more persuasive argument can be built against McCain than this rather poor list!

A question: do the presidential candidates publish a manifesto document? Not that anyone really follows it slavishly if they get elected but it does provide a reasonably clear guide of the intentions of each individual should they be elected.

10 Things You Should Know About Barack Obama (but probably don't)

1. His biggest contributors are Wall Street banks and corporate law firms.
Seven of his top ten donors are some of the world’s biggest banks and financial institutions that are behind the sub-prime mortgage crisis and are now looking for big bailouts and corporate welfare from the federal government, while the rest of us are left with the bill (see www.opensecrets.org for a list of Obama’s donors).

2. He won’t end the U.S. occupation of Iraq.
While Obama says he would end the war in 2009, like Clinton he has been very careful to call only for the removal of combat troops from Iraq. His position might look good when compared to McCain’s statements about staying in Iraq for 100 years. In reality, Obama’s plan would also maintain tens of thousands of troops, special operations forces, and bases – as well as private mercenaries like Blackwater - in Iraq for years to come.

3. He promotes the expansion of the U.S. military.
Like Bush, Obama has called for increasing the size of the U.S. military by 92,000 troops. He calls for redeploying thousands of troops from Iraq to Afghanistan to strengthen the U.S. occupation there.

As William Hartung writes, Obama has said “we will probably need to ‘bump up’ the military budget in a new administration” (Foreign Policy in Focus, 2/21/08). At $614 billion (not counting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan!), the proposed U.S. military budget for 2008 is already larger than the rest of the world’s military spending combined.

4. He has repeatedly voted to fund the war in Iraq.
While he spoke out against the war before entering the Senate, as a Senator Obama has voted for over $300 billion in funding to continue the war.

5. He supports the continuation of the for-profit healthcare system.
Michael Moore’s film Sicko has provided ample evidence to show the key problem with the U.S. healthcare system is that it is controlled by big, for-profit insurance companies and HMOs, yet Obama wants to leave power in their hands.

Moore points out that Obama is “now the second largest recipient of health industry payola after Hillary” and now takes “more money from the people committed to stopping universal healthcare than any of the Republican candidates” (michaelmoore.com, 1/4/08).

6. He supports NAFTA and corporate free trade.
In the Ohio primaries, Obama decried how corporate free trade deals like NAFTA have hurt millions of working people. Yet within days, it came out that his top economic advisor was telling the Canadian government not to take it seriously – it was “more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans” (AP, 3/3/08).

This hypocrisy is not new. As the Associated Press reported, “In his 2004 Senate campaign, [Obama] said the U.S. should pursue more deals such as NAFTA” (2/26/08).

7. He voted to re-authorize the Patriot Act in 2005.
As Ralph Nader’s running mate Matt Gonzalez points out, this was “easily the worst attack on civil liberties in the last half-century. It allows for wholesale eavesdropping on American citizens under the guise of anti-terrorism efforts” (“The Obama Craze: Count Me Out,” beyondchron.com, 2/27/08).

8. He voted for the 2006 bill to build a 700-mile fence on the U.S.-Mexican border.
This racist, anti-immigrant, nationalistic bill will force immigrants to cross in even more dangerous areas. Around 500 immigrants die each year attempting to cross the border, a number that has soared since the early 1990s owing to the growing militarization of the border.

9. He supported Bill Clinton’s “welfare reform.”
This bill disproportionately hurt poor blacks and Latinos by cutting off guaranteed federal aid to families with dependent children. Poor single mothers were forced to look for jobs to qualify for aid under the guise of “personal responsibility.” But the government failed to take responsibility for providing them with decent, living-wage jobs, meaning many have sunk even deeper into poverty, stuck working minimum-wage jobs or forced out onto the streets.

10. He is not campaigning against the racist criminal injustice system.
While Obama calls for the elimination of sentencing disparities for crack and powder cocaine, he has spent very little political energy speaking out on this or other issues relating to the racist criminal injustice system.


(The complete ease with which such lists can be compiled is a direct reflection of their essential lack of value (much like a handbill stuck on a phone pole). IMHO, of course.)

quote:

Where do you get off assuming that the readers here are somehow ignorant and uninformed.

I was uninformed and now scared even more.

Thanks Fred for the information

BTW, the list I posted above - including the commentary expressed within - was shamelessly lifted from elsewhere, as was Fred's list. Before anyone takes issue with item "x" on the list, the actual content of the list is sort of beside the point.

quote:

Originally posted by Diccus62:

I was uninformed and now scared even more.

Thanks Fred for the information

Me too, so I second that thanks.

Six of one, half dozen of the other.

Actually, jayd, I don't think these lists are completely devoid of value because at the least they illustrate that any candidate who has a realistic shot at becoming president is compromised by definition, and Obama is no exception. In the case of McCain, I myself was previously somewhat uninformed on his views and to a certain extent had bought into the conventional wisdom that he was a "moderate" Republican, which he is clearly not.

If I wanted to support a candidate whose positions on every single issue align with my own, it would have to be someone much further left, like Kucinich or Nader and even then I'd have some quibbles. But the reality is that a truly left-wing candidate will never take the office and compromise is name of the game. It all depends on the nature and extent of that compromise, and the character of the candidate. For me, Obama is far from perfect but he's one of the best to come along in many decades, and despite his stance on some issues I think America, and the world, will be greatly improved by an Obama presidency.

All best,
Fred

quote:

Originally posted by fred simon:
I don't think these lists are completely devoid of value because at the least they illustrate that any candidate who has a realistic shot at becoming president is compromised by definition, and Obama is no exception.

If you find genuine value in such a list, fair enough (I don't, nor do I in any such "10 things completely robbed of their context" list). However, in light of your analysis above, perhaps "10 Compromises McCain has made to strengthen his support among the far right" might have been a more apt (or at least fair-minded) title?

quote:

I think America, and the world, will be greatly improved by an Obama presidency.

That you think this is voluminously clear.

Bruce, the point is not just that McCain is wealthy (so are Clinton and Obama); of course the rich can talk about issues of poverty. The point is what they say about those issues ...telling people facing foreclosure to get a "second job" and skip their vacations is cavalier to say the least, especially when many of those are facing foreclosure due to unfettered predatory lending practices by the banking industry.

By the way, I don't maintain that the list isn't opinionated and, in general, aligned with anti-Republican views. While I don't agree it's a poor list, if you can compile a "far more persuasive argument" against McCain, please feel free to do so!

To answer your question, every candidate has a web site where their platforms are clearly laid out.

All best,
Fred

quote:

Originally posted by fred simon:
...telling people facing foreclosure to get a "second job" and skip their vacations is cavalier to say the least

Whereas Obama's solution - let the rest of the taxpayers pony up $30 billion to bail them out - is a picture of practicality.

quote:

Originally posted by jayd:

quote:

Originally posted by fred simon:
...telling people facing foreclosure to get a "second job" and skip their vacations is cavalier to say the least

Whereas Obama's solution - let the rest of the taxpayers pony up $30 billion to bail them out - is a picture of practicality.

From Obama's website:

Protect Homeownership and Crack Down on Mortgage Fraud

Obama will crack down on fraudulent brokers and lenders. He will also make sure homebuyers have honest and complete information about their mortgage options, and he will give a tax credit to all middle-class homeowners.

* Create a Universal Mortgage Credit: Obama will create a 10 percent universal mortgage credit to provide homeowners who do not itemize tax relief. This credit will provide an average of $500 to 10 million homeowners, the majority of whom earn less than $50,000 per year.

* Ensure More Accountability in the Subprime Mortgage Industry: Obama has been closely monitoring the subprime mortgage situation for years, and introduced comprehensive legislation over a year ago to fight mortgage fraud and protect consumers against abusive lending practices. Obama's STOP FRAUD Act provides the first federal definition of mortgage fraud, increases funding for federal and state law enforcement programs, creates new criminal penalties for mortgage professionals found guilty of fraud, and requires industry insiders to report suspicious activity.

* Mandate Accurate Loan Disclosure: Obama will create a Homeowner Obligation Made Explicit (HOME) score, which will provide potential borrowers with a simplified, standardized borrower metric (similar to APR) for home mortgages. The HOME score will allow individuals to easily compare various mortgage products and understand the full cost of the loan.

* Create Fund to Help Homeowners Avoid Foreclosures: Obama will create a fund to help people refinance their mortgages and provide comprehensive supports to innocent homeowners. The fund will be partially paid for by Obama's increased penalties on lenders who act irresponsibly and commit fraud.

* Close Bankruptcy Loophole for Mortgage Companies: Obama will work to eliminate the provision that prevents bankruptcy courts from modifying an individual's mortgage payments. Obama believes that the subprime mortgage industry, which has engaged in dangerous and sometimes unscrupulous business practices, should not be shielded by outdated federal law.


What's your solution?

Which candidate do you support and why?

Sincerely,
Fred

Yes, I've read his website - that's where I got the $30 billion figure (confirmed by Kruger of the NY Times).

Honestly, I don't have a solution. Am I supposed to? Do you? I sort of thought that solving things like the sub-prime mortgage crisis was what elected officials or people hoping to become same were supposed to do (I'm neither, by the way). Rather than sitting around solving these problems, I spend my billable hours at a regular old job, so I can contribute taxes to fund the solutions of people like Obama (and yes, McCain, Clinton, all of them). After I make my mortgage payment, of course. If you have the free time, expertise, and resources to devote to coming up with independent solutions to such complex issues, I applaud you.

By the way, what does my personal candidate choice have to do with anything? If I say Ron Paul, does that make McCain's plan less "cavalier"? If I say Nader, does that make Obama's plan less burdensome to taxpayers?

quote:

Originally posted by jayd:

By the way, what does my personal candidate choice have to do with anything? If I say Ron Paul, does that make McCain's plan less "cavalier"? If I say Nader, does that make Obama's plan less burdensome to taxpayers?

What your choice has to do with is that choosing a president is, by definition, embracing compromise. In a perfect world, Nader comes closest to my views on most issues, and for his significant contribution to the welfare of society through the decades I consider him an American hero. I also agree with Paul on some issues, and applaud his willingness to speak truth to power.

But in the world in which we live only three candidates have a real shot at the office, and soon enough there will be only two. In 2000 Nader said there was no difference between Gore and Bush, and tragically the world has spent the last eight years suffering because of the very real difference. The world cannot afford that kind of mistake again.

Sincerely,
Fred

quote:

Originally posted by munch:
I dont think its goverments fault .
Its the banks that let there sellers get away with murder.
Its called Greed

It's definitely called greed, but it's not at all limited to just the banks ... many in government are beholden to the banks, directly or indirectly, and often look the other way or even facilitate the fleecing of the public.

It's not just the banks, either, it's the entire corporate culture at large -- the banks, the oil companies, Enron, etc. -- and the politicians in their pockets, which, in the current administration, includes those at the very top.

All best,
Fred

quote:

Originally posted by fred simon:

What your choice has to do with is that choosing a president is, by definition, embracing compromise. In a perfect world, Nader comes closest to my views on most issues, and for his significant contribution to the welfare of society through the decades I consider him an American hero. I also agree with Paul on some issues, and applaud his willingness to speak truth to power.

But in the world in which we live only three candidates have a real shot at the office, and soon enough there will be only two. In 2000 Nader said there was no difference between Gore and Bush, and tragically the world has spent the last eight years suffering because of the very real difference. The world cannot afford that kind of mistake again.

That's all well and good, but my contributions to this thread are less about the relative merits of the candidates than about the poor suitability of "virtual handbills" as a tool for evaluating those merits.

Devices like the "Ten Things You Should Know" list are used routinely by (for example) staunch creationists in their attacks on evolution. In my opinion, that's about all such context-free factoid lists are good for. As a mechanism for conveying any substantive information, they're pretty poor. One might as well be using Powerpoint.

quote:

Originally posted by fred simon:

It's definitely called greed, but it's not at all limited to just the banks ... many in government are beholden to the banks, directly or indirectly, and often look the other way or even facilitate the fleecing of the public.

It's not just the banks, either, it's the entire corporate culture at large -- the banks, the oil companies, Enron, etc. -- and the politicians in their pockets, which, in the current administration, includes those at the very top.

Hope there's plenty of room in those pockets:

Top contributors to the Obama campaign:
1. Goldman Sachs
2. JP Morgan Chase & Co
3. UBS AG

quote:

Originally posted by jayd:

Devices like the "Ten Things You Should Know" list are used routinely by (for example) staunch creationists in their attacks on evolution.

So you feel the device is more important than the content within? There's no difference whatsoever between verifiable facts about McCain's stated positions and creationist attacks on evolution?

All best,
Fred

quote:

Originally posted by jayd:

Top contributors to the Obama campaign:
1. Goldman Sachs
2. JP Morgan Chase & Co
3. UBS AG

Goldman-Sachs and JP Morgan are also among the top contributors to the campaigns of Clinton and McCain.

I don't understand what your point is ... I have never claimed that Obama has not made compromises. No one can win the presidency without doing so.

I'm still interested to know what you're looking for in a candidate, and who it is that meets your uncompromising standards.

All best,
Fred

quote:

Originally posted by fred simon:
So you feel the device is more important than the content within? There's no difference whatsoever between verifiable facts about McCain's stated positions and creationist attacks on evolution?

I feel context is important. It's a subtle thing.

quote:

I don't understand what your point is ... I have never claimed that Obama has not made compromises. No one can win the presidency without doing so.

I just find it difficult to see how same=different. Others with greater vision can apparently see how McCain, Bush, Clinton, et al. will be in a bank's pocket, while Obama won't.

quote:

I'm still interested to know what you're looking for in a candidate, and who it is that meets your uncompromising standards.

And I'll say yet again, despite your interest, that's not what I'm here to discuss. Still, if it matters so much to you, you can assume I'm torn between Kat Swift and Vermin Love Supreme. There, go nuts.

Fred

Cecil Rhodes once said that to be born British was to win the lottery of life. Reading this thread has made me wonder if being born American was a curse of the Gods.

You have 300 million people and yet you are down to these three as your next leader.

You poor sods.

Commeriserations

Mick