Who do you plan to vote for: Obama or McCain?

[WheelsRCool]

Ownership of the corporations by the American public is tantamount to communism; what you meant to say is that 'various Americans privately own the companies and make the decisions by which they do business.' We could also add that this private group is less than 1% of the general population. Who is the one with "a thin understanding of capitalism?"

The thing to remember is that if the various industries are "publicly" owned, i.e. owned by the government, the people have no votes over who controls what whatsoever. We Americans vote for Congress, the President, etc...we don't control or even pay attention to who runs the FDA, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Agriculture, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and the myriad alphabet soup of various agencies. With government in control, you have a government bureaucracy with a monopoly over each and every industry, with no ability for the public to control who runs what.

And there is no political freedom, because when the government owns everything, there is no economic freedom. Political freedom and economic freedom are intertwined completely. If the government owns everything, they boss the people around. It is a socialist fantasy that the government can own and run each industry, but yet remain a democratically-elected government. The government says, "We are dictators," and the people can't do anything because they own and control nothing.

With a capitalist system and a democratically-elected government, the government agencies that do exist are susceptible to the people if they push the government hard enough, for example when the IRS started threatening so many people, there was such an outcry that Congress started looking into it.

But such a thing cannot happen with a socialist economy, where the government has no fear of getting thrown out of office.

The government also then controls prices and wages, which destroys the economy's ability to ration resources. With the Soviet Union, the corruption in the Soviet government was massive, and the entire economy essentially reverted to a black market economy to function.

 

[NeoDevin]

The aspects of healthcare that are subject to the free-market, such as laser eye surgery, are decreasing in price while increasing in quality. Health insurance, drugs, etc...are not.

Just want to throw out that this is an unfair comparison. Laser eye surgery is an elective procedure. Meaning it is up to the individual if/when it is done. If it is more expensive than someone is willing to pay, they will choose to continue wearing glasses/contacts, or if those are too expensive or can't fix their vision problem they will get by with poor vision. Many people do.

Comparing this to other (non-elective) aspects of health care is ridiculous. The first ambulance on the scene of an emergency has an effective monopoly. Whatever emergency room you get taken to then has a monopoly. The patent holder of the drug/equipment needed to cure something fatal has a monopoly. The problem with arguing for decreased government regulation and increased market influences on healthcare is that there can be no competition in many scenarios. Ambulances could charge $10,000 for the 5 minute ride to the hospital, what are you going to say? "No thanks, I'll wait for the next one, hopefully he has a lower rate."?

Essential services (police, fire, military, essential health care) must be regulated, because there can never be true competition.

Edit: And sorry about going off topic.

 

[WheelsRCool]

The patent holder of the drug/equipment needed to cure something fatal has a monopoly.

Yes, but companies that manufacture health equipment compete to sell it to the market that uses it.

The problem with arguing for decreased government regulation and increased market influences on healthcare is that there can be no competition in many scenarios. Ambulances could charge $10,000 for the 5 minute ride to the hospital, what are you going to say? "No thanks, I'll wait for the next one, hopefully he has a lower rate."?

Essential services (police, fire, military, essential health care) must be regulated, because there can never be true competition.

Edit: And sorry about going off topic.

I agree 100%, for services like police, fire, military, etc...those need to be provided by the government. But otherwise, I think doctors should be able to set up and operate their own practices and that the health insurance industry should be a lot more flexible and affordable.

Also the drug industry; some may have noticed me knocking on the extensive regulation of the FDA; well I am not saying we should have no regulation, or no oversight. A free-market economy definitely needs oversight. Just not always from the government.

After having read about the experiences in military hospitals from various soldiers, also Walter Reed for example, I believe hospitals should be privatized overall. State-operated hospitals are awful (no incentives for the employees to perform).

Healthcare is such a huge topic, it could warrant a whole book to discuss it all.

 

[OrbitalPower]

You can vote with a capitalist system.

I just showed how you cannot vote in a capitalist system, because resources were already well controlled before you even came into existence.

And "voting with your dollars" is an anti-progressive, elite democracy concept which says that you have to have money and property to vote.

Even the government itself has moved beyond this regressive, tyrannical system, although the founding fathers of America were also elite democrats who believed you didn't have the right to vote if you were black, a woman, or a man without property.

Thankfully, the government isn't as regressive as captialist tyranny.

Plus, as I mentioned, you can't "vote on the CEOs" or rearrange the system, you're just to assume that things must be tyrannical and corporate feudalist.

BTW, it was the financial revolution inspired by the policies of Ronald Reagan that made corporate governance a lot more accountable to the shareholders.

It was the Reagan administration that weakened shareholder democracy and put more power into the hands of the CEOs, which is why many corporations have gone bankrupt or even ran themselves into the ground because of CEO incompetence, which costs the economy billions of dollars and thousands of jobs.

The Reagan administration also saw a large transfer of wealth into the hands of the elite, with the gap between the rich and the poor growing even further, near Gilded Age levels.

It was Reagan's disaterous policies that caused a lack of stability as compared to the 50s and 60s.

In a free market economy, without much government intervention, it is a level playing field.

If this were true there wouldn't have been monopolies during the Gilded Age, but of course there were monopolies during that time.

There is no level playing field when corporations are so huge they can shape the market as much as the market shapes them and use patent laws and other corporate protection to hold down the little guy.

In a free-market economy, no corporation is protected by the government. Companies are born, grow old, and die in a free-market.

All corporations are protected by the government and are required by law to make a profit.

In a true "market system," such as market socialism, corporations would be eliminated and capitalism with it.

Wasn't it Theodore Roosevelt who started trust-busting and so forth?

Yes, it was. And that was a good thing, and you don't understand the history of capitalism and why all that had to happen if you don't read about it.

Also, remember, the New Deal by FDR was partially based off of the policies of the Nazi party and the Italian fascist party, and both gave FDR praise for doing things that resembled their policies. The Nazi Party's official newspaper, the Volkischer Beobachter

The New Deal had absolutely nothing to do with Nazi policies.

It was Eisenhower that implemented the National Highway system and favored the car comapnies, not Roosevelt.

Furthermore, Roosevelt's policies were aimed at helping the poor, whereas Nazi policies were aimed at arms profiteering, and other anti-poor measures.

Would have to disagree there; with Reagan, we saw the boot of the government taken off the throat of the economy and an explosion of economic growth and the standard of living.

I suggest historian (a real historian, not junk scholarship again) like Robert Dale's "Politics of Symbolism" to show that this obviously isn't true.

The standard of living decreased, and its expected kids living under the Reagan administration will have less than their parents were able to acquire.

You are correct; capitalism can't function with no government. Government is required to enforce contracts and enforce the rule of law. No government is pure anarchy. The idea is to keep the government as limited as possible.

I'm arguing that protecting corporations is not "limited government" in much the same way protecting feudal lords, or slave owners, is "limited government."

That is a mere propaganda technique by conservatives like Reagan who actually increased federal expenditures in the first place and invaded small, defenseless third world nations.

From my understanding, the estimate is the wealthy pay anywhere from 40% to 80% of the total tax burden.

The top 1% do not pay 40 to 80% of the income tax.

The thing is, is that Social Security is supposed to be a program that the middle-class pays into their working lives, and gets out what they paid into it. This isn't really the case. The people paying into it are who are supporting the people taking out from it at the moment. But you are supposed to get out what you put in.

The problem with SS is that there is a cap on the rich, making it regressive taxation.

Austrian and supply-side economists are real economists, they're just more rare. p

They are rare for the same reason Michael Behe is rare in the field of biology.

They are crazy, anti-scholarship, anti-mathematics and logic, and believing in "self-proving axioms" that are full of philosophical holes that maybe an intelligent 9th grader could refute.

 

[OrbitalPower]

OrbitalPower, you have a pretty thin understanding of capitalism. The basic issue I see repeated several times in that post is this: The fact of the matter is that about half the population of the US owns sock in most of the major companies in the US. That's ownership, which includes voting rights. The American public owns the companies and makes the decisions by which they do business.

This is the old "you have to have so much property" to be able to vote argument.

It's the kind of "elite democracy" that the Federalists supported when they believed if you were a woman, black, or a poor white man without much property, then you were SOL at the voting booth.

Plus, shareholder democracy is somewhat of a myth in modern times. If shareholders had more say I doubt the World Com, Enron, Adelphia, and other corporate scandals would be happening as often.

 

[WheelsRCool]

Plus, shareholder democracy is somewhat of a myth in modern times. If shareholders had more say I doubt the World Com, Enron, Adelphia, and other corporate scandals would be happening as often.

The thing to remember is, bureaucracy is bureaucracy. Both are corrupt. In general, capitalism gives businesses a large incentive to shy away from corruption, because otherwise the market kicks them out of business. The difference is, with a socialist economy, with a government monopoly over everything, corruption in the bureaucracy is free to flourish. One can't "fire" the bureaucracy like one can a corrupt corporation.

Capitalism isn't perfect; it is the system that works best for flushing out corruption, though.

It's like the U.S. government. Does it have corruption? YEAH! But is it as corrupt as certain other nations? Nope, because it is so transparent. And usually where this is corruption, it oftentimes gets exposed eventually.

And the capitalist system kicked Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, etc...all out of business. But remember for each of them there are thousands of other companies that are not corrupted like that.

 

[russ_watters]

The truth is that 50% of American households hold stock only if you include mutual funds and retirement accounts, which of course do not grant voting rights.

Yes they do - it's just that you don't vote directly. Sorta like in a representative democracy. And because big investment houses own huge pieces of the companies they invest in, they have a huge influence on the voting.

Furthermore, even most of the direct stock holdings of the American public do not grant voting rights to those companies, they are so called 'preferred shares' which have a higher rate of dividend payments, in contrast to 'voting shares.'

Are you saying that there is more preferred stock out there than common stock? I'm reasonably certain that isn't the case, though I'm looking for stats. I know in my case (a very small investor), I've never owned a preferred stock.

Are you trying to be intentionally deceiving? Dictionary:

"Public is of or pertaining to the people; relating to, or affecting, a nation, state, or community; opposed to private; as, the public treasury, a road or lake."

Ownership of the corporations by the American public is tantamount to communism; what you meant to say is that 'various Americans privately own the companies and make the decisions by which they do business.' We could also add that this private group is less than 1% of the general population. Who is the one with "a thin understanding of capitalism?"

Are you? There are a lot of definitions of public and you were very specific in the ones you picked.

Dictionary:
"open to all persons"

Stocks are publicly traded. Companies that issue stock are public companies. I know you must have heard these terms before.

Now to be fair, the Wik link suggests it can be either meaning - but it should be quite clear about which I intended:

public company usually refers to a company that is permitted to offer its registered securities (stock, bonds, etc.) for sale to the general public, typically through a stock exchange, but also may include companies whose stock is traded over the counter (OTC) via market makers who use non-exchange quotation services such as the OTCBB and the Pink Sheets.

The term "public company" may also refer to a government-owned corporation. This meaning of a "public company" comes from the tradition of public ownership of assets and interests by and for the people as a whole (public ownership), and is the less-common meaning in the United States.

"Publicly owned company" can also have either meaning, although in the United Kingdom it will usually be interpreted as meaning a company in the public sector (being owned by national, regional or local government).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_company

Unless you are British - that could explain why you misinterpreted it.

 

[russ_watters]

This is the old "you have to have so much property" to be able to vote argument.

It's the kind of "elite democracy" that the Federalists supported when they believed if you were a woman, black, or a poor white man without much property, then you were SOL at the voting booth.

No, it really isn't. It's an economic system, not a political system. There is no reason that a person should have control over a company they don't own.

Plus, shareholder democracy is somewhat of a myth in modern times. If shareholders had more say I doubt the World Com, Enron, Adelphia, and other corporate scandals would be happening as often.

Not true. Those were plain ordinary frauds. The shareholders had all the control they needed - they just didn't have good information. They were quite simply lied to.

 

[russ_watters]

I just showed how you cannot vote in a capitalist system, because resources were already well controlled before you even came into existence.

You may have said it, but that doesn't make it right. How old are you? Were you in existence when Microsoft was founded? It is one of the biggest companies in the world and it didn't exist 30 years ago. The entire industry didn't exist 30 years ago.

How 'bout Wal Mart?

And if you own stock in these companies, you most certainly can vote for the CEO.

I don't think it's morally right for the government to protect corporations at all.

I find that statement very odd. Are you in favor of the Sherman Act? Is there a moral component to it? Does it protect anyone? Who?

 

[mheslep]

This is the old "you have to have so much property" to be able to vote argument.

It's the kind of "elite democracy" that the Federalists supported when they believed if you were a woman, black, or a poor white man without much property, then you were SOL at the voting booth.

Plus, shareholder democracy is somewhat of a myth in modern times. If shareholders had more say I doubt the World Com, Enron, Adelphia, and other corporate scandals would be happening as often.

You're using democracy and capitalism almost interchangeably here; they're two very different things.

 

[koolmodee]

OrbitalPower, you have a pretty thin understanding of capitalism. The basic issue I see repeated several times in that post is this: The fact of the matter is that about half the population of the US owns sock in most of the major companies in the US. That's ownership, which includes voting rights. The American public owns the companies and makes the decisions by which they do business.

People owning the companies and making the decisions. Wasn't that communism?

Russ, can you name one big public company from which I buy, say, hundred stocks and
then make the decisions by which they do business?

 

[Crosson]

Unless you are British - that could explain why you misinterpreted it.

I didn't misinterpret your use of the word "public", but I do consider your argument to be flawed by the fallacy of equivocation. Can you and wheelsRcool can admit that American companies are privately owned and controlled? Or will you resort to equivocating the term "public company" to mean "company that is owned by the American public."

Both of you are also stretching the idea of shareholders voting rights way past the limits of sensibility. You are trying to argue that capitalism is "sorta like a representative democracy", when it would be much more accurate to say that it is like a oligarchy i.e. the major decisions are made by a relatively small group of private citizens, the ones who own a large amount of capital.

The decisions in a democracy are determined by the masses of people. The prices in a free market are determined, somewhat more indirectly, by the choices of the masses of people. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, and so obviously the choices of production are determined by the owners, at most a minority group of private citizens. The free market has a fairly predictable effect on the production choices of the private capital owners, and this gives the masses of people some indirect control over what is produced. But the greedy private capital owners surprisingly do not always follow free market reasoning, for example in the other thread where we are discussing internet service providers that fail to provide choices for their customers. Ultimately this is because the ISPs are privately owned and controlled, and the owners decided that their interests was not in sync with the suggestions of the free market.

Contrast this with a socialist or communist free market, wherein the means of production would be privately owned by everyone, and goods and services could be produced and traded in markets by the laws of supply and demand. Much of the confusion of socialism/communism involves the fallacy that final goods and services should be treated the same as capital. While there is some overlap between these categories, there is also enough of a difference that a communist free market could be possible.

Before this thread gets shutdown for being "off topic", I want to summarize that we are arguing over nationalized healthcare, which Obama supports and Mccain opposes.

 

[WarPhalange]

Yes they do - it's just that you don't vote directly. Sorta like in a representative democracy. And because big investment houses own huge pieces of the companies they invest in, they have a huge influence on the voting. Are you saying that there is more preferred stock out there than common stock? I'm reasonably certain that isn't the case, though I'm looking for stats. I know in my case (a very small investor), I've never owned a preferred stock. Are you? There are a lot of definitions of public and you were very specific in the ones you picked.

Dictionary:
"open to all persons"

Stocks are publicly traded. Companies that issue stock are public companies. I know you must have heard these terms before.

Now to be fair, the Wik link suggests it can be either meaning - but it should be quite clear about which I intended: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_company

Unless you are British - that could explain why you misinterpreted it.

So... when you say you want to privatize health care... you mean you want the government to run it?

 

[Crosson]

There is no reason that a person should have control over a company they don't own.

But how is ownership determined? Once someone starts to hoard wealth beyond what they can immediately protect, they become dependent on misinformation to prevent others from taking their excess. Why shouldn't the workers take control of the factory? The masses of people have the power to take control by force, and they have the power to change the laws. They have every reason to take wealth from the rich.

 

[Gokul43201]

McCain, because I know where he stands, for the most part.

I can easily come up with websites that document and discuss Obama's multitude of flip-flops.

And it would be completely irrelevant to the discussion because no one has yet said they were voting for Obama because they "know where he stands, for the most part".

Moreover, this undelivered promise to document Obama's flip-flops instead of addressing McCain's only suggests that you do not have a defense for McCain's.

It is interesting they don't quote him on his actual position, but the paraphrase just says we should 'consider' it.

Not to worry, guys - Obama supports drilling now! http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-04-obama-oil_N.htm

Isn't it interesting here too, that they didn't quote him on his actual position?

That's as of Friday, though. Where will he be tomorrow? Stay tuned...

It's really funny that you'd pick Oil Drilling to highlight Obama's flip-flopping (Incidentally, he hasn't flip-flopped in his opinion that offshore oil drilling is not a good idea. To my knowledge, he has only said that he will not vote against a bill that includes some limited drilling as part of a broader energy plan. He still doesn't think it's a good idea, but will make the compromise in order to break a partisan deadlock. The only reversal is in his decision to make a bipartisan compromise on this issue.)

On the same note, McCain was against most drilling until two months ago, but now thinks it's a really good idea. Where will he be tomorrow?

Yes, I would like to see them.

You want references for all of them? At least half of them are common knowledge.

Okay, this will take a while, but I'll do them a little bit at a time...

On Roe v. Wade:

1. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations. -- August 20, 1999, San Francisco Chronicle

2. "I share our common goal of reducing the staggering number of abortions currently performed in this country and overturning the Roe vs. Wade decision. -- McCain Campaign letter to National Right to Life Committee Associated Press, Aug 24, 1999

3. MR. RUSSERT: Now, [Supreme Court] Justice [Antonin] Scalia, as you know, believes that Roe v. Wade, which made abortion legal in this country, was incorrectly decided. Do you agree with him?

McCAIN: Yeah, I certainly do to some degree because it was based on medical knowledge and technology at the time that indicated that babies are, children are not viable at its earliest stage as they are today. -- June 19, 2005, Meet the Press (MSNBC)

4. Q: Would the day that Roe v. Wade is repealed be a good day for America?

ROMNEY: Absolutely.

BROWNBACK: It would be a glorious day of human liberty and freedom.

GILMORE: Yes, it was wrongly decided.

HUCKABEE: Most certainly.

HUNTER: Yes.

THOMPSON: Yes.

McCAIN: A repeal. -- GOP Primary debate, MSNBC, May 3, 2007

Umm...what?

So where does he stand: should repeal, shouldn't repeal, or should repeal "to some degree"? Or does he just have different opinions for different audiences?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200611220001
http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/John_McCain_Abortion.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/mccain082499.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8245636/

 

[Bystander]

"Vote for?" Neither.

Vote against? Both.

To which am I most opposed? They're both running for dogcatcher, collateral duties being to take out the garbage, shovel the walks, make all the nasty, dirty little on-the-spot decisions about "things" (earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, blizzards, floods, wars, illegal aliens, and other obnoxious minutia), wrestle congress over spending, maintain infrastructure, and lead assorted "sheep" to overgrazed meadows --- John does have a record for picking up after other peoples' messes at his own expense. A thin edge to JM.

 

[Gokul43201]

More references for Russ...

2. McCain on the Religious Right:

Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right.

-- McCain Campaign speech at Virginia Beach, Feb 28, 2000

RUSSERT: Do you believe that Jerry Falwell is still an agent of intolerance?

MCCAIN: No, I don’t. I think that Jerry Falwell can explain to you his views on this program when you have him on.

-- McCain in Meet the Press (MSNBC), Apr 2, 2008

I must not and will not retract anything that I said in that speech at Virginia Beach. It was carefully crafted, it was carefully thought out.

-- McCain on Hardball (MSNBC), Mar 1, 2000

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0002/28/se.01.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12067487/page/4/
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/02/mccain-falwell/

 

[russ_watters]

Isn't it interesting here too, that they didn't quote him on his actual position?
It's really funny that you'd pick Oil Drilling to highlight Obama's flip-flopping (Incidentally, he hasn't flip-flopped in his opinion that offshore oil drilling is not a good idea. To my knowledge, he has only said that he will not vote against a bill that includes some limited drilling as part of a broader energy plan. He still doesn't think it's a good idea, but will make the compromise in order to break a partisan deadlock. The only reversal is in his decision to make a bipartisan compromise on this issue.)

That's a great hedge, Gokul, but it is just plain wrong. Here's what he said previously:

"When I'm president, I intend to keep in place the moratorium here in Florida and around the country that prevents oil companies from drilling off Florida's coasts..."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/02/campaign.wrap/

No hedge, just no drilling (poor wording aside...).

You want references for all of them? At least half of them are common knowledge.

Okay, this will take a while, but I'll do them a little bit at a time...

I appreciate it. And yes, I agree that some are common knowledge, but some don't seem right -- exaggerated, perhaps.

 

[russ_watters]

Q3. Where does McCain stand on teaching Intelligent Design in schools?

<<For his 2000 campaign, he was against it, opposing GWB's stance. Now he is for it. Where will he be tomorrow? >>

I'd like more on this one, if you don't mind. Here's what I could find on the issue:

McCain believes in evolution, personally believes that :"intelligent design" "creationism" shouldn't be taught in SCIENCE class, but is willing to leave that decision up to the states, ultimately, and also, believes that students should be exposed to the theory elsewhere, presumably in religion or social studies class.

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/05/mccain_and_crea.html

The link includes quotes back as far as 1999 that appear consistent. A carefully crafted hedge, to be sure, but a consistent one.

It also appears to me that the mention of teaching it may be a little bit of a trick for the religious types because he seems to be saying that it should be taught for the purpose of debunking (a view that I share, though I think science class is where it needs to happen).

"Shhh, you shouldn't tell them," he said, mimicking those who would shield children from the fact that some people believe in intelligent design. The former prisoner of war said he also disagreed with Cold War-era efforts to prevent Marxist-Leninism from being taught in schools, saying it was better for Americans to understand their enemy. He noted that he didn't say that intelligent design needed to be taught in "science class," leaving unclear exactly what class he thought it should be taught in. He said he believed local school boards, not the federal government, should determine curricula. [2006]

http://www.nysun.com/new-york/mccain-does-manhattan-by-the-issues/36187/

----------------------------------------------------------

Q4. Where does McCain stand on the issue of the Confederate flag (and related race issues)?

<<During the 2000 primaries, he supported SC flying the Confederate flag, calling it a "symbol of heritage". A couple years later, he said that it "should be taken down". Over a similar time frame, he opposed a MLK holiday before he supported it. But on the issue of Affirmative Action (AA), he switched the other way. In 2000, he supported AA and rejected ballot measures to ban it. Today, he supports the Arizona ballot measure to ban AA. Where will he be tomorrow? >>

This one is relatively clear. What you quoted was a dodge of a question, not an answer. He didn't say one way or another if it should be removed in that quote. The reality is, his position even in 2000 was not supporting the Confederate flag.

In his 2000 presidential bid, Mr. McCain, of Arizona, seemed to straddle the issue, first calling the flag "a symbol of racism and slavery" but then releasing a statement saying he understood both sides.

"Some view it as a symbol of slavery; others view it as a symbol of heritage. Personally, I see the battle flag as a symbol of heritage," Mr. McCain said.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jan/18/mccain-romney-hit-over-confederate-flag/

Note that he didn't say one way or another if it should be kept, he just stated the arguments of both sides about what it means. That enables people to hear what they want to hear even though he didn't say it.

I believe the flag should be removed from your Capitol, and I am encouraged that fair-minded people on both sides of the issue are working hard to define an honorable compromise," McCain said in his speech on conservative reform to the South Carolina Policy Council. [emphasis mine]

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/04/19/mccain.sc/

 

[Gokul43201]

That's a great hedge, Gokul, but it is just plain wrong. Here's what he said previously: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/02/campaign.wrap/

No hedge, just no drilling (poor wording aside...).

There's a difference between changing your opinions of right and wrong and changing your decision to work with something that you thing is wrong. For instance, it would be different if McCain said he thought Falwell was still an agent of intolerance but he now realizes that he must nevertheless work with Falwell for the greater good. But McCain has now changed his opinion of Falwell. That's the difference I was pointing out. Yes, Obama has changed his stance on drilling (he is more amenable to permitting it) but hardly any more than McCain.

Where does he say today that he supports lifting the moratorium? To my knowledge he has only said he will consider supporting a comprehensive bill that includes it. Support for a bill, does not imply support for every single provision within the bill, does it?

More references for people...

3. On Inteligent Design and Creationism:

I can't easily find references directly quoting McCain's opposition to teaching Creationism, from the 2000 campaign. My rough recollection is that Bush was pretty insistent on it being taught, while McCain wanted it left to local school boards to decide, though he was personally against the idea.

More recently:

Daily Star: Should intelligent design be taught in schools?

McCain: I think that there has to be all points of view presented. But they've got to be thoroughly presented. So to say that you can only teach one line of thinking I don't think is - or one belief on how people and the world was created - I think there's nothing wrong with teaching different schools of thought.

Daily Star: Does it belong in science?

McCain: There's enough scientists that believe it does. I'm not a scientist. This is something that I think all points of view should be presented.

-- McCain interview with Arizona Daily Star, Aug 28, 2005

McCain gave the keynote speech last year at an event co-hosted by the Discovery Institute, the primary propaganda machine for IDC. The event itself was about the US role in global affairs, and I expect that McCain's speech was too (I couldn't find a transcript).

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/opinion/90521
www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/in...=271&program=Discovery+Institute&isEvent=true

 

[wildman]

I am voting for Obama for what probably amounts to a strange reason. Basically, the fiscally irresponsible "fake Democrats" have hijacked the Republican Party and they need to be punished. The only real hope for this country is to kick these characters out and hope that whoever replaces them (after Obama makes a mess of things) are different.

 

[isly ilwott]

I will be voting for someone other than Barack Hussein Obama. He is a socialist, elitist, narcissist, slick-talking politician with racist friends, a racist wife and a racist spiritual mentor. He will ruin whatever is left of our economy when he takes office. He will do what he can to destroy capitalism and freedom to do business for profit.

I may vote for Bob Barr just to make a statement for the Libertarian views...mainly SMALLER, less intrusive government. Barack Hussein Obama and his liberalism (communism disguised as socialism) will increase the already too strong control of government over the people by offering handouts to everyone on his list at the expense of what are now successful capital ventures...like the oil companies. He and Pelosi together with Harry Reid and the rest of the dumb masses running our congress and courts will literally have us all by the balls...and they will squeeze them 'til we pass out.

 

[WarPhalange]

I am voting for Obama for what probably amounts to a strange reason. Basically, the fiscally irresponsible "fake Democrats" have hijacked the Republican Party and they need to be punished. The only real hope for this country is to kick these characters out and hope that whoever replaces them (after Obama makes a mess of things) are different.

Hypothetically, if Obama does a job you approve of, what will you do then? Would you consider voting him in a 2nd term, or if the Republicans ran someone other than the lame bunch they ran this time, would you vote for him/her instead?

 

[WarPhalange]

I may vote for Bob Barr just to make a statement for the Libertarian views...

Don't you mean Robert Laurence Barr Jr.?

 

[OrbitalPower]

I may vote for Bob Barr just to make a statement for the Libertarian views...mainly SMALLER, less intrusive government. Barack Hussein Obama and his liberalism (communism disguised as socialism) will increase the already too strong control of government over the people by offering handouts to everyone on his list at the expense of what are now successful capital ventures...like the oil companies. He and Pelosi together with Harry Reid and the rest of the dumb masses running our congress and courts will literally have us all by the balls...and they will squeeze them 'til we pass out.

The oil companies get the biggest handouts out of nearly any industry; the US even spends more money fighting and protecting the oil in the ME than what it's worth.

Democrats actually favor across the board regulation in the market, where it is supposed to affect all corporations equally, or all corporations to the extent that they violate the law, rather than the corporate favortism of the Republicans. The Bush administration has also led to the largest expansion of the federalist budget in modern times.

I never understood this "Libertarian Party" (a party who would be considered tyrannical according to the original libertarians) claim that shifting power into the hands of private, unaccountable corporations is somehow "small government." It's like claiming old, colonial America was "smaller, better government."

It is clear that a "libertarian government" would be anti-human rights, anti-democracy, anti-freedom.

 

[Gokul43201]

Well, except the main point: like I said before, nowhere in any of that does it say he supported keeping the Confederate flag on the SC capital bldg and in that first link, McCain is quite clear about what he said and why: he dodged the question because he didn't want to lose SC.

That was the main point? Okay, McCain didn't use those exact words, but anyone hearing his response would have gotten the impression that he supported it. So okay, perhaps it's a cleverly worded dodge, intended to deceive. McCain describes his own answer as a compromise of his principles and an act of cowardice.

But more pertinent to the topic of knowing where McCain stands, can you tell me how McCain personally sees the Confederate flag: as a symbol of Heritage or as a symbol of Racism and Slavery? I can't. From your own quotes it seems he sees it as the first on one day and the second on another.

Also, I think I've answered your other question about McCain's support for teaching ID/Creationism, and teaching it as a science. Clearly, he has stated support for both proposals.

 

[russ_watters]

That was the main point?

Considering how you wrote the question, yeah:

Q4. Where does McCain stand on the issue of the Confederate flag (and related race issues)?

The confederate flag was your benchmark issue, being that it was the only issue in the question. If AA had been your benchmark issue, you would have put it in the question statement.

Okay, McCain didn't use those exact words, but anyone hearing his response would have gotten the impression that he supported it.

You heard what you wanted to hear. What you heard, he didn't say. Clearly, not "anyone" hearing the response would hear what you did. Heck, even one of your links from the original statement has a quote from some radom SC redneck who saw straight through it! C'mon Gokul, you're too smart for this kind of bs.

But more pertinent to the topic of knowing where McCain stands, can you tell me how McCain personally sees the Confederate flag: as a symbol of Heritage or as a symbol of Racism and Slavery? I can't.

Seriously? I don't see how it could be clearer: he does not support it and he was always in favor of taking it down. And that is because it is a symbol of the racist/slavery heritage of the south (see thought process in my next post).

Also, I think I've answered your other question about McCain's support for teaching ID/Creationism, and teaching it as a science. Clearly, he has stated support for both proposals.

Again, you were loose with your interpretation, reading things that he didn't say. Same goes for your interpretations of Obama: you interpret him as being consistent by ignoring when he changes his stance.

 

[russ_watters]

Maybe I understand the confederate flag thing because I see it almost exactly the same way as McCain does. Here's how it works:

1. The Confederate flag is a symbol of southern heritage. Heck, that's basically a trivial historical fact right there. It literally is that.

2. What is that heritage? Well, the flag is actually the Confederate battle flag, which makes it a symbol for the confederate side of the Civil War and what they stood for.

3. The Civil War was partly/largely about slavery, not to mention treason/dissolving the union.

4. Therefore, the Confederate flag is a symbol of the southern heritage of slavery and treason and shouldn't be flown on a state capital.

It really is simple.

 

[Gokul43201]

Considering how you wrote the question, yeah: The confederate flag was your benchmark issue, being that it was the only issue in the question. If AA had been your benchmark issue, you would have put it in the question statement.

I wasn't asking if the Confederate flag was the main point. I was asking about your specific wording about flying the flag on the SC capitol. Anyway, the Flag became the "main point" of my point#4 only because I decided to take down point#5,6 and consolidate everything into #4. (I may be getting the numbering wrong here)

You heard what you wanted to hear.

Clearly, it's what McCain wanted me to hear, and more importantly it's what McCain wanted SC to hear. Or he wouldn't call his choice of words an act of cowardice and a compromise of principles.

What you heard, he didn't say. Clearly, not "anyone" hearing the response would hear what you did.

I would think most people would have, barring some random rednecks.

Heck, even one of your links from the original statement has a quote from some radom SC redneck who saw straight through it! C'mon Gokul, you're too smart for this kind of bs.

What bs? McCain admits he was being deceptive, but you don't think so?

Seriously? I don't see how it could be clearer: he does not support it and he was always in favor of taking it down. And that is because it is a symbol of the racist/slavery heritage of the south (see thought process in my next post).

If you look at the way most Confedereate Flag proponents seem to deal with this, calling the flag a "symbol of heritage" implies that it is a thing of pride. There's a very clear dichotomy implicit in the wording: symbol of heritage = good; symbol of slavery = bad.

Again, you were loose with your interpretation, reading things that he didn't say.

So when McCain was being asked a question about ID, because he didn't use the words "ID" in his response, he could just as well be talking about real estate values or Britney's rehab program.

Same goes for your interpretations of Obama: you interpret him as being consistent by ignoring when he changes his stance.

Wait, this is interesting. You say that what's horrible about Obama is not that he flip-flopped on Oil drilling, but that he was positioning himself to play both sides. Now you admit that on ID, McCain was doing essentially the same thing, but that's a positive?

 

[Air]

I can't vote as I live in UK but if I had the chance to vote then it would go to Obama.

 

[Raven]

Here's another poll that asks the same question. http://www.votenow2008.blogspot.com" gives you the chance to vote for McCain or Obama according to your state of registration and calculates the Electoral Votes based on the responses. By the way ineligible voters such as Americans under the age of 18 or Non-American citizens can also place their vote to be heard in sections provided specifically for those groups.