John McCain

CMK_Eagle

Registered Member
#1
This was getting a bit off track in the Obama thread:
So government regulation is perfect when it enhances the market efficiency (as the GOP officially sees it, according to the weekly standard)? You're just making my point.
How is using government regulation to maximize economic efficiency more in line with "using the state to deliver people from harm" than using government regulation to redistribute wealth to the poor?


The issue at the time was using the uniform code with the army and everything under it's command. The manual written for these troops in the first place. The manual that has existed since before Korea. The manual that's basically similar to what every other force on the planet has.
And thanks to McCain the manual, and its definition of torture, was given force of law for US interrogators. The "intellectual" acrobatics necessary to transform this into a defeat for human rights is truely astounding.


So your support for McCain on this issue is based on the fact that he's (presumably) lying to his constituents?
Where's the lie? I don't doubt that he's pleased to have Hagee's endorsement. You're the one putting words (which go against the vast majority of his record) in McCain's mouth by suggesting that he and Hagee are in lockstep on every single matter of policy.


how come McCain doesn't take the opportunity to reaffirm his respect for the constitution in that respect?
Maybe when someone serious asks if he thinks Congress or the President should have the power to declare war he'll feel the need to do so.


Optionally - what does he consider "national security", and what does he consider "declaration of war".
I suppose he should also explain what he considers a tree...


What about shaping a few questions, or challenging the narrative they want to get out there? Debate? What about demanding some questions to be asked the next time McCain has an interview.
There are slightly more important issues than a bad joke made by a candidate.


In other words, you favour an american superpower with unlimited authority vested personally in the president - but you don't really want to say it, nor want your candidate to be so blunt about is as Bush.
According to McCain, "Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to succeed."

How exactly does that translate into an American superpower with unlimited authority vested personally in the President?


What about reading the bill - it's not that long.
It's a 127-page PDF, and has yet to make it out of committee, so no, I haven't read the entire bill. However, every article on it agrees that it would reduce emissions by 60% through a cap-and-trade system.


And.. the specter of a government "authority" (not yet specified) deciding which businesses are favoured or not is one of the reasons at least some people voted against it.
No one ever voted on the bill - the Committee on Environment and Public Works never even voted on whether or not to advance it to the full Senate for debate.


And, you know, I don't see the difference between levvying fees for a government service, and a tax on the trade of government issued "credits".
It's not a government service. A cap-and-trade system is a government restriction. Nor would the trade of those credits be directly taxed. Revenue would be generated by auctioning them.


That's well- intentioned. But what would it mean in practice? Apart from installing a profit- measuring bureacracy that has the power to regulate which business may or may not be allowed to opt out for trading in credits in the future, with other countries, etc. What are those standards?
Your ability to infer a completely unrelated, and often opposite, conclusion is remarkable. How you manage to equate auctioning permits to pollute with the creation of an agency that measures companies' profits is rather astounding.


And remember that this would not be an agency specifically linked to the particular field where other regulations would be in place
Or it could be the EPA...


Listen - I'm a socialist, I know what I'm talking about
Now there's an oxymoron.
 
#2
This was getting a bit off track in the Obama thread:How is using government regulation to maximize economic efficiency more in line with "using the state to deliver people from harm" than using government regulation to redistribute wealth to the poor?
..I'm simply asking you to look up what those words actually mean. On a different issue altogether, I want you to take a look at what the republicans and democrats are supporting that are so different.

Instead of arguing through assigning some arbitrary definition to what you support, and another to what you oppose.

I know, of course, that I can't expect that. But still.
And thanks to McCain the manual, and its definition of torture, was given force of law for US interrogators. The "intellectual" acrobatics necessary to transform this into a defeat for human rights is truely astounding.
Is it. Do you dispute anything in my account of what actually happened? Do you dispute that the manual was in effect already, until Bush decided it didn't apply?
Where's the lie? I don't doubt that he's pleased to have Hagee's endorsement. You're the one putting words (which go against the vast majority of his record) in McCain's mouth by suggesting that he and Hagee are in lockstep on every single matter of policy.
So you argue that either he's deceiving Hagee and the evangelists for their votes, or you suggest he's sharing their views. In either case, we simply do not know what his policies really build on - although recent comments about Iranian training and support for al- Quida is illustrating enough.

I merely pointed out that McCain has certain views that resonate extremely well with the evangelists, and that McCain does nothing to distance himself from these extremists.

This is of course a way to highlight the hypocrisy involved when Obama is attacked for associations with Wright and Farrakhan, as well as a way to illustrate how extreme the "center" and "acceptable" dialogue about foreign policy is in the US general media- narrative.

Maybe when someone serious asks if he thinks Congress or the President should have the power to declare war he'll feel the need to do so.
Not the voters, then? And naturally it must be asked in the specific context, in which McCain can declare that he only would go to war for valid reasons, because he would only go to war for valid reasons. Isn't that right? God forbid someone would question the basis of the candidate's assumptions, or the substance of their credibility on foreign policy issues - isn't that right?

I suppose he should also explain what he considers a tree...
Just limiting ourselves to war would be fine.
There are slightly more important issues than a bad joke made by a candidate.
Yes. Like his views on Iran, on the foreign policy narrative on american influence in the middle east, as well as his views on legitimate reasons for deploying military force. And what the process would be, regarding the Congress and the Constitution.

Questions which, of course, should be asked of Obama as well. If that is of any interest, of course. Although I'm sure by then the substance of the problem would be completely irrelevant.

According to McCain, "Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to succeed."
Amazing. How do you square that with the recent comments about Iran? I also recall Bush and some of his "serious" supporters proclaiming a similar sentiments at the UN, in the long, long ago. How did that turn out?
How exactly does that translate into an American superpower with unlimited authority vested personally in the President?
What better example than having someone quote the president's word as what defines proper use of military might.

It's a 127-page PDF, and has yet to make it out of committee, so no, I haven't read the entire bill. However, every article on it agrees that it would reduce emissions by 60% through a cap-and-trade system.
They might agree that this is the proposed target of the bill.

Elsewhere in the world, that's what we call "theory".
No one ever voted on the bill - the Committee on Environment and Public Works never even voted on whether or not to advance it to the full Senate for debate.
It was proposed as an amendment to a budget- proposal twice. There was a pretty large battle over it, and lots of "liberals" hailed the bill as - if not a victory - then proof that they were advancing a popular bill and good policy. I disagree, for the reasons I gave.

It's not a government service. A cap-and-trade system is a government restriction. Nor would the trade of those credits be directly taxed. Revenue would be generated by auctioning them.
I'm sure you accused me of sophistry just a couple of paragraphs ago.

Your ability to infer a completely unrelated, and often opposite, conclusion is remarkable. How you manage to equate auctioning permits to pollute with the creation of an agency that measures companies' profits is rather astounding.
The authority the bill establishes is not defined in the bill. The exceptions mentioned, is not defined. The way the agency would be financed, is not specifically defined. The way they would award credits, and be given opportunity to define certain businesses as exempt, is not defined. That is the substance of my criticism. I am not arguing, obviously, that a theoretical bureau in a theoretical government with angels as administrators would ever do something not exactly as you imagine this thought agency's intentions are.

Or it could be the EPA...
Really. Do they have the authority to assign exceptions to industry standards as well, dependent on "economic considerations"?

Now there's an oxymoron.
My point, my unfortunate american friend, is that I have experience with government agencies and government policies. I've been involved in enacting, and failing abysmally, to make the law have any real effect on what was done in the end. One of my friends (who is a conservative minimalist) work in a government agency that oversees the efficiency of implementations of various programs. And so I've learned to have a healthy amount of scepticism for promises and intentions in politics. Something that is not merely cynicism, but an explanation for why I say that effective means to define considered bills and policy is a necessity.

And I won't lie to you - the way some of you speak about government, about intentions turning into action, and about the power of declaring up is down, makes me cringe. And so does the thought of the bureacrats in Washington having this sort of environment to work in.

But regardless of that, I'm simply asking you to exercise some common sense. Theory and assumption can of couse make good talk at the party rally - but it doesn't make policy. And until we can establish that, I don't see any point in having this discussion.