As much as I don’t care for hollywood playing politics. I agree with everything he just said.
Soooo whats so bad about that? He wants to cut taxes, cut a shit ton of federal bullshit spending, and fix the problems with medicaid and Social Security. I fail to see the problem here :gotme:. The president does not control spending…congress does. If he sets forth policies limiting their open spending habbits…thats a good thing right? Our current congress has done jack shit for us, yet is spending TONS of money on BS things. I fully support McCain.
You fail to see the problem because you didn’t read the article.
he’s only a harvard grad…
Because these overhauls do not cover the difference created by these tax changes
Did you even read the article?
Yes…I did…like how he said
“John McCain opposed President Bush’s tax cuts in 2003, because they didn’t include the necessary spending controls. Sen. McCain’s proposed job-growing tax cuts are modest in comparison to his plans to slow the exploding growth of federal expenditures — meaning that contrary to Chairman Greenspan’s assertions, this relief isn’t proposed on borrowed money,” said McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds.
AKA, stop spending money on stupid useless shit and they will work.
Somehow I doubt Greenspan, who has no political agenda, would have missed something like that or he knew it and still believed it wouldn’t make a difference.
Greenspan>Tucker Bounds all day long.
Really? You think Mccain is going to spend less money by keeping our troops in Iraq.
Im pretty sure Greenspan knows what hes talking about.Of course a Spokesman for MCcain is going to say that.
McCaskill said eliminating congressional earmark spending — estimated at $17 billion annually — cannot offset McCain’s proposed tax cuts.
“That’s a huge amount of money, but it’s not even a drop in the bucket to pay for $3.5 trillion in tax cuts,” she said. “So, every time he throws up earmarks and he’s asked how he’s going to pay for it, he knows he’s being disingenuous, he knows he’s not being forthcoming.”
I don’t see how Democrats can “hijack” an investigation in less than 2 weeks, but whatever.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/16/palin.investigation/index.html
I guess she is going to take a play out of the Karl Rove handbook.
Are you kidding me? When she was first announced as the VP pick she said she was fully cooperating, and the democrat leading the investigation said she was fully cooperating. Two weeks after team Obama flies into Alaska the investigation date has changed and subpoenas are being tossed around.
Don’t tell me you didn’t expect the investigation to turn partisan.
The funniest part about this whole firing thing is this is a woman who got elected running on a platform that she was going to clean up a very corrupt government. She won and did just that by firing a whole bunch of people. Is it really a big surprise in a state with as small a population as Alaska that she had personal indirect ties to one of the people fired? I could see the big scandal if she was elected and fired just this one guy but that simply wasn’t the case considering the way she cleaned house.
From my understanding the guy she had fired was fired because he would not fire her ex-brother-in-law. Not exactly the way to use her power. I think the notion of not cooperating comes more from the McCain camp not wanting her to be found guilty of anything before the election. Look how long it is taking to get Karl Rove to testify, and they subpoenaed him directly and he still not cooperating. Again it has only been two weeks so I doubt the dems could get their shit together in time to “hijack” the investigation.
Sounds like righty paranoia to me.
Here is my question to the Palin supporters, if she did misuse her authority as Governor and fired this commisioner for personal reasons, what should be done? Or does it even matter?
The guy tazered his step son, drank beer in the patrol car and they didn’t fire him.:lol:
Sounds like the perfect union situation.
Oh and he illegally shot a moose.:lol:
That’s not, “from your understanding” that’s from your desire to believe something negative because you want Obama elected. Her side is that he was fired because he wasn’t cooperating on budget issues.
Bottom line none of us know the real reason he was fired, and now that she’s in the national spotlight and so much partisan bullshit has been piled on the investigation it’s likely we’ll never know.
:rolljerk: Source and that still doesn’t mean she should have fired the commisioner.
it scares me that the who are you voting for poll here has a strong democratic tilt, meanwhile there are very few vehement dems actually discussing issues in this thread.
Your mother told me last night.:lol:
In 2006, state investigators found Wooten guilty of “a significant pattern of judgment failures,” including using a Taser on his 10-year-old stepson and drinking beer while operating a state trooper vehicle. Wooten was suspended for 10 days as “a last chance to take corrective action.”
And yeah it might not be a great single reason to fire a commissioner, but if I were governor it would certainly go into the “reasons to fire” column of my list, filed under “supports cop who tasered child for fun”.
No my understanding comes from the multiple news organizations including the Fox that have “investigated” this issue. And if that what you say is true why is there an investigation in the first place if there wasn’t some sort of case supporting the charge.
I’m not saying she’s guilty, no one here knows that. But I’m getting tired of the idea that seems to becoming from the republican side which is:
“If you don’t want to be found guilty, cry partisan politics and refuse to cooperate”
If she keeps pulling this shit then she should be the next one subpoenaed. And I would say that even if it was Joe Biden up there.
Biden should be subpoenaed for his hair plugs.:lol:
Those are a crime.
Thank you for providing the source. But it sounds more and more like that was the reason to fire the commissioner than budget reasons.