McCain, How Many Houses Do You Own?

Thank you for getting that point! I can't imagine a world where, if I was that bad off, my brothers, sister or parents wouldn't be right there to help with whatever they could. In fact, it's happened, and they did. Now, it could be that his half brother is living like that by choice and Obama has tried to do for him. If that is the case, then more power to both of them. If not, then yes, Obama has the right to decide who he will help and who he doesn't... but if he reserves that right for himself, it's awful small of him to not respect that right for the rest of us.

I commented on other aspects of "housegate" in one of annies threads on the topic. http://www.mylot.com/w/discussions/1664007.aspx?p=2 It's more of a rant but it speaks to the petiness of the whole issue, check it out.

The whole half-brother thing is another situation in which Obama's opponents have an attack ready no matter what he says/does. If it came out that he DID help George O. out, I'd bet anything the attack would be that he cares more about helping people overseas than about helping Americans at home. After all, that HAS been argued already, concerning the Global Poverty Act (which doesn't mandate any additional US spending AT ALL). Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. That's how smear artists work. Real, thoughtful people would not try to show him in the worst light possible NO MATTER WHAT.

The investors also create jobs. I wonder if either Obama has ever created a job in their lives.

That is spinning the top right off the table clrumfelt. The fact that he has no clue how many houses he owns suddenly turns to that proves he is great fr the economy. A good investor knows the homes he owns. I don't care how rich.

What people forget is, if your retirement is part of a mutual fund or other group plan, you can't answer similar questions about your own assets. Which means a huge number of the people who are shocked at McCain, are no more knowledgable about what they own than he is.

So they're hypocrites. And I doubt they're going to ask themselves the same question and try to answer it.

Maybe I don't know to much about this, but I have never heard of a mutual fund or group plan in which someone will own an entire house or condo. Does this happen with extremely wealthy investors?

Funny how any "explanation" is fine to supporters, even if it isn't the same "explanation" every time... ;~D As for the other things, the terrorist made Iraq the epicenter of the war on terror, once they lost there, they turned their hopes on Afgantistan. When was the Commander of Operations over Afganistan ever denied troops because Gen. Patreaus said he needed them more in Afganistan? Sec. Rice and the tenetative agreement with Iraq is right in line with what Prs. Bush has long said about withdrawal. That is, when the government of Iraq feels it is ready to be independent, then the US and other coalition nations will withdraw. Just because Obama seems to agree with that policy doesn't mean he came up with it. Nice try though. ;~D

"Obama who called for a 16 month troop withdrawal form Iraq starting in January...today Secy Rice sign an agreement to do just that." Do you really think the conditions in Iraq were the same in January that they are today? Do you really think that we have made absolutely no progress in the last 8 months? Conditions are different and the potential for troop withdrawal is something that must be consistently looked at as situations on the ground continue to develop. Right now violence is at its lowest. That was not the case in January.

True Taskr, also, 8 months ago, Obama was saying he would call for the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. I wonder what happened to that promise?

So what is the difference between a rich man who is out of touch with the middle class and middle class people who are out of touch with the rich? Judging any group of people based on preconcieved notions is still prejudice.

Wouldnt some people say that its the extreme opposite with Obama? That you would be putting a very inexperienced person that is too young "hands on the buttons"? I dont think that because he owns the house that it makes him arrogant or that he didnt want to answer at the moment. He was a prisoner of war, and at least he served his country, again, you cant say that about Obama either.

I just have to say this, probably my most un-PC remark ever made here but here goes. At least Clinton was smart enough to get out of war, not only did McCain go to war he got captured, and now this is a central argument as to why he should be president.

But on the other hand as an American or any other working person if we got someone to manage our money for us wouldn't we be better off? Can't fault a man or woman that has hired someone to handle their money now can we? You get someone to help you with your finance that knows more about investments and things of that nature wouldn't we all be doing better?

It's just another example of lazy, incompetent "reporters" spewing something they figure will pass as "news". There are plenty of things they could come up with against McCain, fortunately for the lazy bums, they don't need anything deeper than this.

True, but didn't Obama's big draw have something to do with NOT being just another politician? If he isn't about changing politics as we know it, there's nothing that makes him any different, so all you can go on is experience and his stand on issues... two things that don't speak well for him.

Ok, I'll challenge you on that one (in a friendly way, of course). He says he wants to increase taxes on the wealthy to increase opportunity for everyone... When in history did tax increases on anyone help opportunity for anyone else? The last two major tax CUTS have created record federal revenues. Clinton inhereted the longest continuous period of growth in our economy, yet after his tax increases, he left office with a recession. The incompetent press and the left wing like to paint Prs. Bush's tax cut as "a tax cut for the rich", yet again, it brought it more money, not less. It was part of an economic plan that helped our economy survive the attacks of 9/11, the worst hurricane season in florida in decades and the double wammy known as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. So Obama's plan is to do exactly what history has proven to decrease revenues? But with the phantom "increased" revenues from the tax increases, he will somehow be able to increase defense spending, increase medical spending, increase spending on education, increase spending on alternative energy, increase spending... His whole "Blueprint for Change" is one spending increase after the other. For the last 8 years, if the Democrats didn't like a bill, they asked Prs. Bush, "How are you going to pay for this"... of course, they never asked that for their own earmarks and pork... but anyway)... How does Obama intend on paying for all this change? By taxing the rich. Ok, that challenge went far longer than I intended, but when I headed over to http://Barackobama.com to verify what I was saying, I noticed more spending than even I was going to accuse him of.

Obama has seemed to change his views on a couple of things since before the campaign. It dissapoints me to an extent, but I guess they all are politicians trying to get elected.