|
|
|
Dear guest,
Welcome to the internet's top destination for the civil discussion of politics. This is a forum for discussion and debate of the issues, and not for personal remarks aimed at other discussants.
This forum has no political affiliation and welcomes your perspective on the issues. Membership is free. If you would like to join the discussions and debates please REGISTER HERE.
All new members should review the forum rules. The "Today's Posts" button automatically adjusts itself to fit your screen on its first use for Firefox and on its second use, for Internet Explorer. Have a pleasant day. (This is a spam free board.)
|
 |
|

05-03-2008, 11:50 PM
|
 |
Moderator
Napolitano or Sebelius for VP; make history, Obama
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 12,420
Country:
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by calidem411
I'm glad that you agree with me on this one. However, I've always said that we all know what's in the Clinton's closet. That is not being a hypocrit.
There's alot about Obama that we don't know...
|
Your comments are hypocritical. You come down on Obama like a ton of bricks when he does something unethical, but you turn a blind eye to the more than a dozen times that Hillary has done something unethical.
|

05-03-2008, 11:59 PM
|
 |
Mercenary
Libertarian-Leaning Liberal
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 312
Location: Oregon
Country:
|
|
|
I thought his speech on why there should be no tax holidary made a lot of sense. He did not seem overly critical of the other candidates. He merely explained why they were wrong, and said why they were advocating it (for votes). I do think his speech may have been a bit stronger if he had mentioned why he voted for it in Illinois and what was different about that decision (e.g. learning from his mistake, or different situation), but I wouldn't say it's a huge strike against him.
In fact, I think a politician changing his/her mind can be a good sign, so long as it isn't done capriciously. As times change, so too should policies, and we want somebody who can learn from their mistakes instead of making them again and again. I do trust Obama more than Clinton or McCain, but I wouldn't say he's an ideal candidate. I would like it if he had more experience, but I think he has adequate experience.
|

05-04-2008, 12:29 AM
|
 |
Moderator
Napolitano or Sebelius for VP; make history, Obama
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 12,420
Country:
|
|
|
I'd say that Obama's attack on McCain and Hillary was disingenuous, since he did the same thing about 8 years ago. He did the same pandering he accuses others of doing. He can say they are WRONG, but to call it pandering is hypocrisy.
Of course I don't agree with partisan lies of merely attacking Obama when he fails. We should also attack McCain and Hillary when they fail if people want to make honest comments and not just partisan lies.
WEB
|

05-04-2008, 02:03 AM
|
 |
Squire
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 108
Country:
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited
In fact, I think a politician changing his/her mind can be a good sign, so long as it isn't done capriciously. As times change, so too should policies, and we want somebody who can learn from their mistakes instead of making them again and again. I do trust Obama more than Clinton or McCain, but I wouldn't say he's an ideal candidate. I would like it if he had more experience, but I think he has adequate experience.
|
And why is there such a double standard in this forum? It's ok for Obama to change his mind at almost every single topic, but when Hillary does something everyone come down with a ton of bricks as Du bois insinuates that I do.
__________________
Barack will say anything to get elected, He's a politician!
Rev. Jeremiah Wright
|

05-06-2008, 02:47 AM
|
 |
Conscript
|
|
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10
Location: L. A.
Country:
|
|
HAH..
Good one.
|

05-06-2008, 10:06 AM
|
 |
Moderator
Napolitano or Sebelius for VP; make history, Obama
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 12,420
Country:
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by calidem411
And why is there such a double standard in this forum? It's ok for Obama to change his mind at almost every single topic, but when Hillary does something everyone come down with a ton of bricks as Du bois insinuates that I do.
|
Your attempt to attack the forum is a dishonest attempt to change the subject from the biased standards you maintain when discussing the Obama/Clinton race. Instead of trying to blame others to take the heat off of your biased remarks, it would be less dishonest and less morally corrupt if you re-considered these biased standards you employ.
|

05-06-2008, 10:57 AM
|
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 128
|
|
Hillary opposed a repeal of New York's gas tax in 2000.
Quote:
Here's what Clinton said at her October 8, 2000 debate with Lazio: "[O]ne of my fundamental disagreements during this campaign with my opponent was when he called for the repeal of the gas tax. Now, the gas tax is one of those few taxes that New York actually gets more money from Washington than we send. And we are totally reliant on it to do things like finishing I-86 in the Southern Tier, or the fast- ferry harbor works up in Rochester, as well as the work we need to do here in the city. So you can count on me to support infrastructure."
And here's a June 28, 2000 Newsday clip: "Campaigning in the Hudson Valley, Lazio continued a two-day assault on Clinton's support of maintaining the 18-cent federal gas tax and then used tough rhetoric to declare that 'trust' and 'character' were campaign issues during an evening fundraiser in Manhattan that raised more that $1 million. Clinton, meanwhile, lashed out at Lazio's plan to repeal 4.3 cents of the gas tax, calling it 'a bad deal for New York and a potential bonanza for the oil companies.'"
"During a visit to a shopping mall in the Buffalo suburbs, Clinton said that 'the gas tax is one of the few exceptions where we actually get more money back than we send to Washington.'"
|
Hillary and the gas tax - First Read - msnbc.com
|

05-06-2008, 11:02 AM
|
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 128
|
|
|
So both Democratic candidates have completely flip-flopped on their stand over a gas tax repeal. So chew on that for a minute.
Which brings us to the real question. Should the federal gas tax be repealed for the summer? Then that will tell you which candidate to support on that particular issue.
|

05-06-2008, 11:05 AM
|
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 128
|
|
|
I would save the cost of about a third of a tank of gas over the summer if the federal gas tax of 18.4 cents/gal was lifted over the summer.
Not even 20 dollars. The government would lose about 9 billion dollars in revenue.
Can your vote be bought for less than 20 bucks?
|

05-06-2008, 11:07 AM
|
|
Conscript
|
|
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 17
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnuf Said
|
lol i had never seen this before, and of course the broadcast media never picked up on it so its not been mentioned at all over the last week. Hmm I wonder why, maybe its because they want to keep this thing between Clinton and Obama going a bit longer so they can keep their ratings up? This is really a bombshell tho. In my opinion, Clinton going from saying that repealing the gas tax is stupid to suddenly saying its the greatest idea ever is much worse than obama's change. With Obama's change, at least he can say "I tried it before, it didn't work out too well, we learned from the mistake and that's why I oppose it now." With Clinton's change its more like "What? Gas tax repeal a bad idea? I never said that, i've always wanted to repeal the gas tax. Hmm you don't believe me? Will Mr. Benjamin Franklin help concince you?"
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:02 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8 Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC6
A vBSkinworks Design
 |
|