[OFB Cafe] JOE BIDEN: RIAA STOOGE

[Timothy Butler]

>> "well, It'd be nice" if the people demanding fiscal responsibility
> from the poor, who pushed some pretty awful bankruptcy legislation
> through a few years ago, would be held to their own standards. And the
> people who were set to lose money if the bailouts didn't happen should
> have been aware of the risks when they put money in a non-insured
> investment.

	Agreed, to an extent. But, if you let major investment banks go  
under, it would have rocked the entire economy, not just the  
investors. It wouldn't have been trickle down economics, it would have  
been downpour economics.

>
>
>>       You know as well as I do that that quote is out of context. I  
>> don't
>> believe your so gullible as to really think that is what McCain's
>> statement said. Let's debate intelligently by not taking either side
>> out of context, shall we? Give McCain a whole sentence and the matter
>> evaporates.
>
> Ok, here's the whole sentence from the transcript:
>
> Q: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years —
> (cut off by McCain)
>
> McCAIN: Make it a hundred.

	There's more to McCain's remark -- he goes on to say (using what  
might be best called a dash and not a period) that he supports keeping  
troops there for 100 years in the same manner they are in South Korea  
(i.e. not fighting). He did not say he would fight the war for 100  
years. The key is that then he follows it up with a sentence saying,  
as long as Americans are not harmed or killed. Quoting this to say  
McCain would favor the status quo for 100 years is disingenuous.

----
Q: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years —  
” (cut off by McCain)

McCain: “Make it a hundred.”

Q: “Is that …” (cut off)

McCain: “We’ve been in South Korea … we’ve been in Japan for 60 years.  
We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me.  
As long as Americans …”

Q: [tries to say something]

McCain: “As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or  
wounded or killed. That’s fine with me, I hope that would be fine with  
you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world  
where Al Qaeda is training and equipping and recruiting and motivating  
people every single day.

----



>
>
>
>>> The same way that Bush was a fiscal conservative?
>>
>>       He failed in that point, clearly. I don't see any reason to  
>> expect
>> McCain to follow suit.
>
> Except that, in 2004, after Bush had clearly failed in his promise to
> be a fiscal conservative, you still supported him completely. The fact
> that you don't see a reason that McCain, who claims to support Bush's
> fiscal policies to this day, would follow in his footsteps isn't
> surprising. You're not exactly a good judge of character (or
> government policy,) going by your track record.

	That's where the two party system fails us. Kerry was worse than  
Bush. I'm not going to vote for the LP candidate and help elect Kerry,  
so I vote Bush. President Bush does have some good fiscal policies,  
such as his tax cuts. His big problem is that he basically adopted the  
Democrats' policies on adding new bureaucracy, and matched that with  
one end of fiscal conservatism. The two together don't work.

	McCain wishes to continue Bush's tax cuts. However, McCain has also  
pledged to veto pork barrel spending, which is something President  
Bush has not done. Hence my point. An anti-pork president would not be  
four more years of Bush. This is not a hard concept is it?

	C'mon, Fred, you're a smart guy. I really believe that. So, stop  
sounding like the Obama campaign and start thinking for yourself. I  
know plenty of Obama supporters that can think for themselves, and  
they agree with Obama on most things, but they realize McCain is not  
Bush (and everyone seemed to understand that until this year) and they  
are fair enough to give McCain context on the quote above. Only those  
adopting old-style politics of the sort Obama rails against can  
misquote McCain and suggest he is identical to Bush -- if you claim  
new-style politics AND do those things, you have a major issue with  
cognitive dissonance.

	But this election is all about cognitive dissonance. I am listening  
to liberal feminists calling up on the radio and screaming that Sarah  
Palin belongs at home caring for her baby; that even though her  
husband has said he would stay home with the kids, that isn't the same  
as a mother caring for the children. They'd scream bloody murder if  
the tables were turned and those sorts of things were said.

	Let's instead set everything on the table fairly. Present the case  
for both sides without misrepresenting the other. In *that* context,  
the best side will win, not the most manipulative. I'm all for new- 
style politics. I just wish the people that allegedly support it would  
actually do it.

	-Tim

---
Timothy R. Butler | "Turning and turning in the widening gyre
tbutler at ofb.biz   |  The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
timothybutler.us  |  Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
uninet.info       |  Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world..."
                                                 -- W. B. Yeats