McCain FLIP-FLOPS, a partial list

[apk919]

Originally Posted by apk919

...Hey, why not let the gov't make cars too? Trabant anyone?...

This is one of my favorite examples of why market forces trump socialism every time:

West Germany (capitalist): Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Porsche, VW
East Germany (socialist/communist): Trabant

Where would you rather have lived?

EDIT: Yes, I know that Germany is considered more socialist than the US... but relative to the old East Germany, it's not even close.

[Kjakk]

East Germany had better beer.

[apk919]

Originally Posted by Kjakk

East Germany had better beer.

Fair enough. I prefer Belgian Ale myself...

[Kjakk]

Trappist is better. Chimay, Rochefort 10, Westvleteren, Westmalle, yummy! Not a fan of Orval though.

[apk919]

Originally Posted by Kjakk

Trappist is better. Chimay, Rochefort 10, Westvleteren, Westmalle, yummy! Not a fan of Orval though.

Yes, exactly! Chimay "Blue" is my personal favorite...

[Kjakk]

I would vote for that! (trying to tie back in to politics)

Belgium is a great place to visit if you've never been.

[Icedog_16]

Originally Posted by glb

Ins cos make about 40%.

g,

Considering that UnitedHealthcare, for instance, posted an 96.28% combined ratio (claims paid + underwriting costs), I'd say that you've grossly overstated what insurance companies make by nearly tenfold. UnitedHealth Group (UNH)) From the referenced source, a comparison of their operating margin with regard to other health carriers is attached below for your reference.

After chiding people for not doing their research, I would expect that you would hold yourself to the same standard.

[Serebo1]

Originally Posted by apk919

Fair enough. I prefer Belgian Ale myself...

Perfect weekend for it.

[Nugget9k]

I fail to see the point here.

Things change over time, everything changes over time. You are putting down someone because they changed their mind? Some of the things you list are almost 10 years apart! lots can happen over 10 years.

I don't like McCain, I am all for Ron Paul but besides that I want my president to have the balls to change his views to meet the needs of the EXISTING economy.

So what you are saying is that you want your president to have 1 view, and never change it for the rest of his life? Thats a disaster waiting to happen.

Now can someone please post a picture of a lotus and change this ridiculous subject?

[apk919]

Originally Posted by Serebo1

Perfect weekend for it.

You've got that right! Eau Rouge and Chimay Blue!

[Moto44]

Originally Posted by Nugget9k

I want my president to have the balls to change his views

That's exactly why I didn't like this label when it was used against John Kerry and I don't like it any better being used against John McCain.

[Kjakk]

Originally Posted by Moto44

That's exactly why I didn't like this label when it was used against John Kerry and I don't like it any better being used against John McCain.

Exactly! It's a flip flop of a flip flop, or maybe it's just hypocrisy. Too bad lots of people fall for it and dont check the facts. I like FactCheck.org.

[Icedog_16]

Originally Posted by Serebo1

Perfect weekend for it.

Would you guys stop talking about it! I've still got 2 1/2 hours until . Now you've made it so I'll have to go and buy myself some Delirium Tremens on the way home!

[glb]

Originally Posted by NMRJock

Condescending.



Also condescending.



And yet you cherry-pick opinions, post them as fact, and belittle anybody that disagrees in the slightest.



Most are not inclined to waste their time arguing with a zealot.



In your list of flip-flops you posted McCain's stance on a housing bailout. Then you posted a second quote that did not contradict the first and called it a flip-flop.



They are all from sources that you consider to be reputable. Conveniently, any source that disagrees with you is deemed disreputable.



Your style of 'debate' and the thinly veiled personal attacks that pour from your condescending posts are what people take issue with.



You could always send your diatribes to him, then post his response here.



A legend in your own mind.



You love your tweaks.



John McCain has a history of 'voting his conscience.' Whether you like to aknowledge it or not he has voted against his party more than most in the legislature. Clever nicknames like 'McSame' or 'BushII' might make for fun barbs, but they're not sensical or logical.



Because the only reason anybody would vote for McCain is greed?

N - thank you.

OK, again: I am not running. I am not the topic of this thread. Feel free to start your own.

This is still blaming the messenger. PLEASE respond to the topics.

1. You confuse, perhaps, sarcasm w/condescention. BTW, neither are against the rules.

2. So, you tell me: what happens to us if spending rises and income decreases?

3. Not cherry-picking, just don't want a cathedral erected around one slight error. You can understand this, right?

4. Most cannot respond logically. If they had answers (see APK, who does often) they would. They'd rather attack people like me.

5. Personal attacks? Nope. Is yours?

I don't cherry pick, even use WSJ and govt sites.

6. Are you contending he didn't change his stance on housing? He did and it's all over if you care to look. Remember, his Gramm's role in this fiasco, pls.

7. It was a tweak, but not frivolous: I do not want anyone's religious beliefs dictating my rights. I do not want books banned. I do not want a national religion. I do not want myth to supplant science. Do you, N?

8. must run. back ltr

[Moto44]

If you will allow me to repeat myself:

The Democrats remind us that Barack Obama took an unpopular stance by opposing the war in Iraq. The Republicans remind us that John McCain risked political suicide in recommended the troop surge in Iraq.

The difficult decisions that the next president will have to make are yet largely undetermined. Depending on the challenges they face, I believe that either one of these candidates is capable of being a great president.

They have both demonstrated the fortitude to stand up to party politics and public opinion when faced with the most difficult questions.

Some would argue that Barack Obama will ruin the country or that John McCain will lead us down the same path as George Bush. It's true that either one of these candidates is susceptible to leading us down something other than the most direct route. But I have faith that both of these gentlemen have the integrity to admit mistake and change course.

Although I disagree with them on multiple accounts, as president, they both will have my full respect and support.

That said, we still have a choice to make. And debating the issues in a constructive way is essential to the process. You may feel like your opinions have no effect on anyone, but I assure you that they have an effect on me. I suspect I'm not the only one.

[fishguy]

^ repost^

[glb]

Originally Posted by NMRJock

In your list of flip-flops you posted McCain's stance on a housing bailout. Then you posted a second quote that did not contradict the first and called it a flip-flop.

Fact is, he did flip, didn't he. try google, I'm on road.

Originally Posted by NMRJock

They are all from sources that you consider to be reputable. Conveniently, any source that disagrees with you is deemed disreputable.

N, any evidence of this stmt?

Originally Posted by NMRJock

Your style of 'debate' and the thinly veiled personal attacks that pour from your condescending posts are what people take issue with.

N, given all the attacks on me (this, for another), I've been awfully polite and request you post my "personal attacks"

Originally Posted by NMRJock

You could always send your diatribes to him, then post his response here.

Pls send them to him for me.

Originally Posted by NMRJock

A legend in your own mind.

a bit trite; i was joking.

Originally Posted by NMRJock

Because the only reason anybody would vote for McCain is greed?

Did I say or imply that??

Originally Posted by NMRJock

John McCain has a history of 'voting his conscience.' Whether you like to aknowledge it or not he has voted against his party more than most in the legislature. Clever nicknames like 'McSame' or 'BushII' might make for fun barbs, but they're not sensical or logical.

Ah, N, we come to the crux: Your mistaken belief that the 2008 McCain is the same as thee 2000 McCain.

This entire post refutes that misguided notion. He's not a "maverick" any longer:

Proudly proclaimed he voted w/bush rotten poliicies 95% of time

Flipped over 25 times on important issues...to try to get elected.

Lied about vets and Gulf, to people's faces.

Wants to continue catastophic bush tax policies...which he was first against.

NEW: Bellied up to relig right, after calling leader "agents of intolerance"

Promised a clean campaign but started trying to bash Obama.

Are these the actions of a man voting his conscience? a maverick?

You should be able to see that they are decidely not.

They are the actions of a man willing to repudiate his basic beliefs to curry favor. Someone so desperate to get elected he will now say anything.

I ask you to review what's been posted here by many of us, and let us know if my statement doesn't ring true.

-g

[ezmoney]

Originally Posted by glb

So, you tell me: what happens to us if spending rises and income decreases?

g
What happens if spending decreases and income increases? Ans: We wake up from our dream because politicians don't do things like this! This should be the scenario we want.

Just one point. If tax reduction (letting people have more of their own money) never helps why are both parties so quick to approve stimulus packages? All they are is a onetime tax reduction.

[local600]

John McCain on Iraq - “I don’t think Americans are concerned if we’re there (Iraq) for 100 years, or a 1,000 years, or 10,000 years”



Sarah Palin on running mate rumors: “As for that VP talk all the time, I’ll tell you, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day?

[glb]

Originally Posted by apk919

It's not a straw man. Somehow health care has to be rationed, it can't be completely open ended. If government is the only source of health care, then gov't bureaucrats make the decisions, not you, and you have no alternatives. If private insurance makes the decisions, you get to decide which private insurance company gets to do so, based on what their policies offer, how much your willing to pay for, their reputation for honesty and service, etc. Hey, why not let the gov't make cars too? Trabant anyone?

You would? You'd take all choice away from individuals?

Obama says he wouldn't. Many in his party would (i.e. you). Who would win that argument with Democrats in control of the WH, House, and Senate?

HaHa... you miss the point.
If gov't rations health care, people will sue the gov't for letting their loved ones die. And juries will award them large $$$. From your pocket and mine.

User pays. Means tested gov't assistance can be provided to assist people in purchasing private insurance. If everyone has to choose which insurance policy they purchase, it will force insurance companies to compete to provide better service and options. When a third party pays (i.e. employers, gov't), there's much less incentive for insurance companies to keep costs down, service high.

A - Thank you again for another interesting response.

1. Who is making decisions about our healthcare now? It is clerks who work for the insurance companies. It is people who have a vested interest in disallowing claims to keep costs down.

Shirley, you’ve seen interviews with these people who are now ashamed of what their companies made them do to people. One place among many: “Sicko”.

Obama, IIRC, wants to set up medical professionals to make these calls. This has GOT to be fairer and better for us patients.

2. Note that the government runs health care plans right now and quite efficiently. We could reduce healthcare costs an immediate 40% by taking for-profit insurance companies out of the mix. Note this is MY proposal; Obama still wants ins cos involved. I don’t.

Moreover, we could actually negotiate with drug companies (like every other country) for much lower prices.

Can someone explain to me why “market force” Republicans refused to allow our country to negotiate lower costs??????????????

3. I think you are correct in that eventually we will join the modern world and take insurance company profits out of the equation. But, not yet.

4. One cannot sue the govt w/o govt permission in most cases. Now, ins companies are being sued. Who pays when these cos lose? We do.

5. Your plan won’t work, as competition has not lowered ins costs to date. I agree about means testing for many applications, but healthcare costs will not appreciably lower w/o taking the 40% profit and admin costs out of it.

PLEASE remember, this has been proven to work in every modern country. We are the only one with this bad system, wherein we pay the most but don’t always get the best. (Many posts in other threads prove this.)

Repubs (such as you in this particular case) are acting as if this has never been done. Repubs have, for decades, scared people about “socialized medicine” by lying, obscuring facts, misrepresenting data, etc.

Do NOT fall for this BS propaganda. K?

It's been tried and true.

- g