Yep. It's going to be political this time.
These are facts which are easily corroborated:
1. President Bush has been the President of the United States for the last eight years.
2. 82 percent of Americans feel the country is on the wrong track.
3. McCain says he's a maverick, and is going to bring change to Washington.
4. John McCain has voted in agreement with Bush 95 percent of the time.
5. John McCain says, "The fact is, I have agreed with President Bush far more than I've disagreed with him. On the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I've been in total agreement and supportive of President Bush."
6. Synonyms for the word 'change' according to Merriam-Webster's Thesaurus: alteration, difference, modification, redoing, refashioning, remaking, remodeling, revamping, revise, revision, reworking, variation.
7. The pertinent meaning for 'maverick' according to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary: "An independent individual who does not go along with a group or party."
In light of these facts, these are the questions I have:
1. If fact #2 is true, is it safe to say that the overwhelming majority of Americans feel that change must happen?
2. How can change or any of the synonyms for it (see fact #6) happen in the US if the person who becomes the next leader of the country is in "total agreement" with the way things have been done for the last eight years (see fact #1) on "the most important issues of our day"?
3. How can John McCain claim to be a maverick (see fact #7) in light of facts #4 and #5?
4. What is John McCain going to do to alleviate fact #2 that differs in any significant way from what Bush and his administration has done for the past eight years (see fact #1) in light of facts #4 and #5?
I'm just asking. Inquiring minds want to know.
6 comments:
i don't support mccain because i think he's the ideal candidate. i support mccain because he's the most likely to prevent obama from becoming president and ruining our economy with marxist philosophies.
i don't support mccain. i oppose obama.
Okay. Point taken. To be fair, neither of them are "ideal." But come on, ruining our economy? Our economy's already been ruined due to the whack economic policies put forth by our current genius of a president.
And why does it have to be marxist, b? Perhaps Obama's economic policies are a little too liberal for your tastes. But he's not advocating Cuba-style forcible redistribution of wealth under government control.
it's marxist because he wants to redistribute the wealth of the upper 10% of americans to pay "their fair share..."
look, i'm a flat busted, dirt poor newlywed who will UNDOUBTEDLY benefit from comrade obama's tax policy. but my dad isn't poor. he grew up poor, and he worked very, very hard to get to where he is. he pays something like 40% of his income in taxes. i pay about 20%. not only does he pay a higher percentage, but he pays more in taxes than i make a year! how much more does he have to pay to pay his fair share?
face it - your boy is a marxist.
Now you may think I'm a Marxist after this, but why can't "fair" be contained in a concept that is according to one's ability to pay? I know you may argument may be on shaky, almost un-American ground, but hear me out.
After you pay your 20%, are you still flat busted and dirt poor? Yep. And after your dad pays his 40%, is he still pretty well-off? Yep.
It's not "fair" as in number and percentages-wise fair. But if everyone had to pay the exact same percentage of their income, regardless of income, wouldn't it follow that you'd be even flatter busted and dirtier poor and your dad would be even better off? (I'm saying as compared to the "unfair" tax levels.) But it would be "fair."
It's like, how can a millionaire complain that he's paying more in taxes than a family eking by on poverty level-line income? He's a blasted millionaire! But it's not "fair."
This sort of ties in to why we disagree on Affirmative Action, too. It's not "fair."
You say "marxist," I say "helping those who need help," let's call the whole thing off . . . :-)
So, you're basically saying "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," right?
That's the freaking communist manifesto.
And here's the thing. Dad gives liberally to the church and to those who are in need.
I'm poor because I'm a newlywed, because I work part time, because I made bad financial decisions, and because I'm a college student. Why is it anyone's problem that I'm poor? I survive, and I make enough money to take care of all the needs, some of the wants, and I dream about the rest. My wife and I have a plan to get out of debt and live comfortably.
The difference is people think they deserve far more than is fair. Why is it, that in some of the poorest neighborhoods in Indianapolis, where something like 60% of all the welfare dollars go, do you see more satellite dishes than anywhere else in the city?
I agree with the first sentence of your last paragraph.
And the answer to your last question is a sad, sickening, and complicated one.
I'm very glad your father gives of his resources, and I wish you the best in your future success.
The bottom line is that we both have a different view of the role of government . . . and that you think I'm a Commie. lol.
Post a Comment