[Dornado]

Originally Posted by blazerboy30

I'd like to see the list. Can you show me the link?

I remember calling you out on this, regarding Obama's stance on taxes. You had nothing.

I linked you to an article detailing his tax policy (that he had just made public...) and you refused to look at anything substantive that it included.

He mentioned very specific changes he wanted to make... I don't understand, you want the text of legislation that doesn't exist yet or what?

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by Dornado

No problem... I can't wait for another 6 months of you pondering the mystery of Barack Obama...

So wanting to know more about a candidate is now some kind of shortcoming? If you can't see that he's still an unknown quantity, then you're simply not looking hard enough.

Originally Posted by Dornado

When McCain talks about an issue, he's running on the issues... when Obama talks about an issue somebody else wrote it for him, or it isn't really what he feels.... sounds like a level playing field.

Sigh. I've explained this before and I'll do so again. McCain has a lengthy voting record. We know what he's going to do if he gets into office. I felt the same way about Hillary Clinton, although I disagreed with her policy prescriptions.

Barack Obama is a blank slate. Even when he takes a stand (e.g., meeting face to face with anyone without condition) he then changes it. He doesn't want to be pinned down on anything. In contrast, we know enough about McCain to know what his stand is on meeting face to face without condition without opening his mouth on the specific issue. Why? Because we know John McCain, just like we know Hillary Clinton.

It's so funny that I'm viewed on this board as a die-hard McCain supporter. About the only things I agree with Sen. McCain on is the War on Terror and earmarks. On immigration, energy policy and CEO pay, I'm on the other side of the fence.

The sad reality of this board is anyone that isn't a full-throated supporter of Barack Obama gets called to the mat. As I said before, in this little Bizzaro World the question isn't "Who do you support?" it's "Why aren't you supporting Barack Obama?"

Originally Posted by Dornado

Enjoy the future callouts.

Yep, this era of "post-partisan politics" is going to be super duper.

P.S. I accept your apology for falsely accusing me of calling you stupid.

[barfo]

Originally Posted by maxiep

That's because he doesn't have any specific prescriptions.

Originally Posted by msnbc

Obama will outline a three-point plan to address short-term economic problems facing the country, aides said in a conference call with reporters, including (1) an additional stimulus package of $50 billion; (2) the creation of a $10 billion fund to prevent foreclosure; and (3) Cutting taxes “up to 1,000 per family” making less than $150,000 a year.

“This combination of stimulus, housing and tax relief for the middle class are what we need right now. It is a great contrast to what the McCain campaign is putting forward," said adviser Austan Goolsbee in his most high-profile return since NAFTA-gate. It comes the first business day after Clinton dropped out.

Sounds pretty specific to me. And apparently sufficiently so to your bud Goolsbee.

barfo

[Dornado]

Originally Posted by maxiep

The sad reality of this board is anyone that isn't a full-throated supporter of Barack Obama gets called to the mat. As I said before, in this little Bizzaro World the question isn't "Who do you support?" it's "Why aren't you supporting Barack Obama?"



Yep, this era of "post-partisan politics" is going to be super duper.

P.S. I accept your apology for falsely accusing me of calling you stupid.

If you look at John McCain's voting record and get any kind of consistency out of it, congratulations.

The issue is not whether you support Barack Obama... I appreciate you trying to play the victim card here while trying to paint me as some partisan zealot... but when your position is "I'm an independent... but I don't know about that Obama character"... don't you kind of expect that (especially in the context of a message board) someone might ask for an elaboration?

And if the elaboration sheds light on things that we think are inconsistent in your reasoning, you don't want us to point those things out? Seems kind of boring.

As for my "false accusation"... maybe I missed something and we were in geometry class... but I'm pretty sure you were calling me "obtuse" for a different reason...


Anyway... we can have the discussion you think is fair... you obviously have a problem with the mysterious Barack Obama, who do you support?

[barfo]

Originally Posted by maxiep

Barack Obama is a blank slate.

That seems like a bizarro argument to me. Obama is a fairly typical democrat policy-wise and supports most if not all of the party platform. Do we know his specific feelings about the ambassador to Bangladesh or what color of drapes Michelle would hang? Maybe not, but to say you don't have any idea of what Barack Obama would do in office is to say you have no idea what a Democratic president would do in office.

It's so funny that I'm viewed on this board as a die-hard McCain supporter.

It's because you so passionately - and selectively - attack Obama that people assume you are for McCain. It's kind of rare to have someone excited about politics, but have no candidate. A bit like being a die-hard NBA fan but not caring which team wins.

You say you haven't made up your mind who to vote for, and I believe you. But I'd suggest that if you ever want to make up your mind, you might want to start looking for some good in the candidates, rather than only looking for flaws. And if you really don't like either of them, there is always Bob Barr.

The sad reality of this board is anyone that isn't a full-throated supporter of Barack Obama gets called to the mat.

Since you are so eager to wrestle, it seems a little odd for you to object to being called to the mat.

barfo

[blazerboy30]

Originally Posted by Dornado

I linked you to an article detailing his tax policy (that he had just made public...) and you refused to look at anything substantive that it included.

Nope. I responded to your so-called "detailed" tax policy article, and it was nothing but more dreams, aspirations and platitudes. Maybe you should read that thread again.

Voice of Reason

Calling the statement of "repealing Bush's tax cuts" as detailed and substantial is jibberish, and lame. Especially because at times he has said he won't repeal ALL of Bush's tax cuts. Saying there will be a tax break of up to $1000 for some families is not detailed and substantial.

This is a perfect example of him not having a valid stance on an issue (and it is a huge issue), whether you want to take off the blinders or not.

I don't understand

This is painfully obvious.

[blazerboy30]

Originally Posted by barfo

That seems like a bizarro argument to me. Obama is a fairly typical democrat policy-wise and supports most if not all of the party platform. Do we know his specific feelings about the ambassador to Bangladesh or what color of drapes Michelle would hang? Maybe not, but to say you don't have any idea of what Barack Obama would do in office is to say you have no idea what a Democratic president would do in office.

Maybe I wasn't paying enough attention during the Clinton years, but was Clinton also a typical democrat, policy-wise? I read a few articles today talking about how Obama is veering significantly from the Clinton and Rubin approaches. If they were typical democrats policy-wise, and Obama is significantly different, Obama doesn't seem to be typical (with respect to the economy and spending)

at least in his public pronouncements has not emphasized the market-friendly, deficit-reduction aspects of the economic approach credited to former President Bill Clinton and former Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin in the 1990s.

nytimes

[Dornado]

Originally Posted by blazerboy30

Nope. I responded to your so-called "detailed" tax policy article, and it was nothing but more dreams, aspirations and platitudes. Maybe you should read that thread again.

Voice of Reason

Calling the statement of "repealing Bush's tax cuts" as detailed and substantial is jibberish, and lame. Especially because at times he has said he won't repeal ALL of Bush's tax cuts. Saying there will be a tax break of up to $1000 for some families is not detailed and substantial.

This is a perfect example of him not having a valid stance on an issue (and it is a huge issue), whether you want to take off the blinders or not.



This is painfully obvious.

I pretty clearly said the article was "a start"... when he's talking about cutting income taxes... giving people a specific credit per person or per family... isn't he talking about his tax policy? You're just cherry-picking parts of the article where they talk about generalized concepts of fairness (which, by the way, still have some value)... I never said that his comment about the Bush tax cuts specifically represented anything "detailed and substantial", so take that garbage elsewhere.

Anyway, It was a CNN article referencing a press conference he had where he unveiled his tax policy... all of the candidates did it the same way... you wanted me to provide you with tables and graphs? Some statistical analysis? That's what I don't understand - The legislation doesn't exist yet - how is his tax policy any less specific than John McCain's?

[barfo]

Originally Posted by blazerboy30

Maybe I wasn't paying enough attention during the Clinton years, but was Clinton also a typical democrat, policy-wise? I read a few articles today talking about how Obama is veering significantly from the Clinton and Rubin approaches. If they were typical democrats policy-wise, and Obama is significantly different, Obama doesn't seem to be typical (with respect to the economy and spending)

I didn't mean to say that Obama would be an exact duplicate of Clinton. More that he will be similar to Clinton in many ways - more similar than Bush to Clinton, more similar than McCain to Clinton, more similar than Bush to Obama, etc.

Now to your specific point, Clinton was a bit off the norm for Democrats on some economic issues. However, as far as Rubin goes, Obama just this week signed a top Rubin deputy, Jason Furman, to his economic team. And there is even some speculation that Rubin could be chosen as VP. (Unlikely, I'd bet.)

barfo

[zagsfan20]

Originally Posted by blazerboy30

What is his specific plan? The "plans" I have heard him talk about have changed drastically over just the last few months.

Please discuss, in detail, some of these "a lot of specifics" that Obama stands for.

Funny you imply he flip flops. McCain is in centerfield as far as Republicans go, since this campaign has started he has begun to creep far to the right to appease the hardcore conservatives. Remember when Limbaugh and all the other cronies were bashing him after he sealed up the Republican nomination?

[stockfire]

It's painfully obvious to read to the OT board these days. It's as if lil' blazer boy, maxie, and the rest had a back room meeting of "ok guys, let's put up a post everyday trashing Obama. We know our candidate is ****, and the only way to make him look passable is to attempt to ruin the other guy... ready? everyone grab your line of rhetoric and remember... repeat it over and over and. Eventually they won't bother responding and we'll look right. Goooooo team * group kiss*"