New President Won't Have an Easy Time Paying for New Initiatives, Fiscal Experts Say

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

He also promised to use the public financing system for the election. Everything Obama syas must be taken with a grain of salt. His word means nothing.

What's your take on McCain's word?

I mentioned earlier today that it was quite a thing to see John McCain denouncing Barack Obama for breaking his word on public financing when McCain himself is at this moment breaking the law in continuing to spend over the spending limits he promised to abide by through the primary season in exchange for public financing. (By the FEC's rules, we're still in the primary phase of the election and will be until the conventions.)
I want to return to this subject though because this is not hyperbole or some throw away line. He's really doing it. McCain opting into public financing, accepted the spending limits and then profited from that opt-in by securing a campaign saving loan. And then he used some clever, but not clever enough lawyering, to opt back out. And the person charged with saying what flies and what doesn't -- the Republican head of the FEC -- said he's not allowed to do that. He can't opt out unilaterally unless the FEC says he can.

Talking Points Memo | McCain Breaking the Law in Plain Sight
FEC Warns McCain on Campaign Spending

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

There's a lot at stake in this election, f'ck the fair play b.s.

Interesting.....it's OK to "f'ck the fair play" if it means a Democrat wins the White House. But when CIA and military intelligence officials rough up a terrorist or waterboard him in the interest of protecting American lives they should all be "outed and prosecuted" (paraphrased).

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

What's your take on McCain's word?
Talking Points Memo | McCain Breaking the Law in Plain Sight
FEC Warns McCain on Campaign Spending

In my eye's Obama can change his mind if he want's and I just don't see what the real big deal is to start with. Maybe someone could explain why its a big deal other than just saying he flipped flopped. That article you posted about MacCain while he says its illegal he does not provide a link to anyone backing this view. He is a liberal writer who has slanted view so I would need more info and something proving that he knew he was doing something wrong. While I'd never vote for Obama I can state why and I do not have to nit pick everything he does I just need to point to his platform he is running on. McCain does not do much for me either but he is the lesser of the two.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by firstdown

In my eye's Obama can change his mind if he want's and I just don't see what the real big deal is to start with. Maybe someone could explain why its a big deal other than just saying he flipped flopped. That article you posted about MacCain while he says its illegal he does not provide a link to anyone backing this view. He is a liberal writer who has slanted view so I would need more info and something proving that he knew he was doing something wrong. While I'd never vote for Obama I can state why and I do not have to nit pick everything he does I just need to point to his platform he is running on. McCain does not do much for me either but he is the lesser of the two.

Read the second link - it's a WP article quoting Jan Baran and Brad Smith, two of the leading Republican campaign finance attorneys. Mason is also a Republican, and a current commissioner.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

Read the second link - it's a WP article quoting Jan Baran and Brad Smith, two of the leading Republican campaign finance attorneys. Mason is also a Republican, and a current commissioner.

Did you read the date on that article? Feb. 22, 2008 I believe those issues have been resolved by now. I love how that person who wrote the article had to jump back and forth on the issues and also in the first paragraph its pretty clear the writer was out to attack him by adding his own insults at McCain.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Did you read the date on that article? Feb. 22, 2008 I believe those issues have been resolved by now. I love how that person who wrote the article had to jump back and forth on the issues and also in the first paragraph its pretty clear the writer was out to attack him by adding his own insults at McCain.

Ok, I read more on this issue and I guess its not dead and is left up in the air because the Dem's have block Bush from appointing anyone to to fill the post that enforces the rules.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Interesting.....it's OK to "f'ck the fair play" if it means a Democrat wins the White House. But when CIA and military intelligence officials rough up a terrorist or waterboard him in the interest of protecting American lives they should all be "outed and prosecuted" (paraphrased).

Indeed, what's your point?

It would have been nice if you added the fact that I don't think you can "out" someone that's not undercover. It would certainly have made your sexy post more interesting.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Ok, I read more on this issue and I guess its not dead and is left up in the air because the Dem's have block Bush from appointing anyone to to fill the post that enforces the rules.

No, that's not why.

The Dems tried to get the slate appointed before Memorial Day, but the Republicans blocked it.
CQ Today - Bush Nominates Senate Rules Panel Insider to Federal Election Commission Post

Don't be fooled by the naive statement in that article that the Dems would "control" the FEC 3-2. All FEC action requires a at least a 4 vote majority. No party can "control" anything at the FEC.

Now, the Dems are holding things up:
CQ Politics | FEC Nominees To Face Senate Confirmation Vote Next Week

I don't buy the line about the lawsuit - nothing happens quickly at the FEC, and there is no question that the lawsuit will still be in OGC when the new commissioners arrive, regardless of when that is.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

Indeed, what's your point?

It would have been nice if you added the fact that I don't think you can "out" someone that's not undercover. It would certainly have made your sexy post more interesting.

Here's your post I was referring to:

"Security through obscurity? I would hope and pray that my tax money is being used to provide real security. Besides, Gitmo and the other black interrogations sites aren't exactly top secrete. Finally, I would like to add that I am of the opinion that anyone who as participated or authorized torture should be outed and held accountable. I can't help it."

I really don't care who "outed" who regarding Plame and the recent CIA interrogator. Neither person's identity should have been made public.

My point is that you are either for "fair play" (morals, standards, doing what's right, standing by your word, and such) or you are results based (do what it takes to achieve the desired result). You apparently believe it's OK for Obama to do whatever it takes to win an election, but it's not OK for the CIA and military to do whatever it takes to protect American lives. IMO your positions are inconsistent and biased by your politcal views.

Is lying, manipulating and misrepresenting facts, and changing positions with the latest polls to get control of the White House more morally wrong than waterboarding a known terrorist to save American lives? That's debatable, but I don't believe the two are very far from each other morally. (And for the record, both candidates are lying, manipulating, etc.)

I guess I'm a "do whatever it takes" (within reason) guy. You may not agree, but at least I'm consistent.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Here's your post I was referring to:

"Security through obscurity? I would hope and pray that my tax money is being used to provide real security. Besides, Gitmo and the other black interrogations sites aren't exactly top secrete. Finally, I would like to add that I am of the opinion that anyone who as participated or authorized torture should be outed and held accountable. I can't help it."

I really don't care who "outed" who regarding Plame and the recent CIA interrogator. Neither person's identity should have been made public.

My point is that you are either for "fair play" (morals, standards, doing what's right, standing by your word, and such) or you are results based (do what it takes to achieve the desired result). You apparently believe it's OK for Obama to do whatever it takes to win an election, but it's not OK for the CIA and military to do whatever it takes to protect American lives. IMO your positions are inconsistent and biased by your politcal views.

Is lying, manipulating and misrepresenting facts, and changing positions with the latest polls to get control of the White House more morally wrong than waterboarding a known terrorist to save American lives? That's debatable, but I don't believe the two are very far from each other morally. (And for the record, both candidates are lying, manipulating, etc.)

I guess I'm a "do whatever it takes" (within reason) guy. You may not agree, but at least I'm consistent.

Why do you feel Obama is doing whatever it takes to win an election?

And maybe I'm confused about your fundamental argument here, but are you suggesting that his (Obama) opting out, changing his mind, flip-flopping, or whatever you want to call it, is on the same moral playing field as, say, the government's role in waterboarding?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Here's your post I was referring to:

"Security through obscurity? I would hope and pray that my tax money is being used to provide real security. Besides, Gitmo and the other black interrogations sites aren't exactly top secrete. Finally, I would like to add that I am of the opinion that anyone who as participated or authorized torture should be outed and held accountable. I can't help it."

I really don't care who "outed" who regarding Plame and the recent CIA interrogator. Neither person's identity should have been made public.

My point is that you are either for "fair play" (morals, standards, doing what's right, standing by your word, and such) or you are results based (do what it takes to achieve the desired result). You apparently believe it's OK for Obama to do whatever it takes to win an election, but it's not OK for the CIA and military to do whatever it takes to protect American lives. IMO your positions are inconsistent and biased by your politcal views.

Is lying, manipulating and misrepresenting facts, and changing positions with the latest polls to get control of the White House more morally wrong than waterboarding a known terrorist to save American lives? That's debatable, but I don't believe the two are very far from each other morally. (And for the record, both candidates are lying, manipulating, etc.)

I guess I'm a "do whatever it takes" (within reason) guy. You may not agree, but at least I'm consistent.

My disdain for torture is not based on political bias, it's based on morality not to mention domestic and international law. It's a serious matter and you're equating it on the same moral field as Obama opting out of public financing? That to me is absurd.

BTW, RNC + Conservative 527's are projected to raise ~250 million. Fair play my ass.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Why do you feel Obama is doing whatever it takes to win an election?

My reference there is to saden mentioning "f'ck the fair play, b.s." in an earlier post. To me, saden implied that it's time for Obama to do whatever it takes to win the election.

And maybe I'm confused about your fundamental argument here, but are you suggesting that his (Obama) opting out, changing his mind, flip-flopping, or whatever you want to call it, is on the same moral playing field as, say, the government's role in waterboarding?

I'm not equating Obama's stance of taking public financing or not to water-boarding. In a broader sense, I am talking about politicans, not specifically Obama, misrepresenting facts, misleading voters, saying one thing and then doing something completely opposite to win an election. If you are OK with that, I don't believe there is a huge moral difference between that and government personnel who have evidence that a known terrorist (murderer) can provide information that will save American lives and limited waterboarding is part of the process to get this information.

I'm NOT saying we should be waterboarding every suspected terrorist in custody. I'm also NOT saying we should be using it at a level worse than what our Special Operations forces undergo in training. It has also only been used on three very high level and dangerous terrorists.

All I'm saying is that there are a lot of grey areas out there in campaigns, protecting our country and many other areas. Neither Democrat or Republican, liberal or convservative is going to be outside of the grey areas.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

My reference there is to saden mentioning "f'ck the fair play, b.s." in an earlier post. To me, saden implied that it's time for Obama to do whatever it takes to win the election.

I'm not equating Obama's stance of taking public financing or not to water-boarding. In a broader sense, I am talking about politicans, not specifically Obama, misrepresenting facts, misleading voters, saying one thing and then doing something completely opposite to win an election. If you are OK with that, I don't believe there is a huge moral difference between that and government personnel who have evidence that a known terrorist (murderer) can provide information that will save American lives and limited waterboarding is part of the process to get this information.

I'm NOT saying we should be waterboarding every suspected terrorist in custody. I'm also NOT saying we should be using it at a level worse than what our Special Operations forces undergo in training. It has also only been used on three very high level and dangerous terrorists.

All I'm saying is that there are a lot of grey areas out there in campaigns, protecting our country and many other areas. Neither Democrat or Republican, liberal or convservative is going to be outside of the grey areas.

Oh, okay I see where you're coming from. Understood.