[GHook93]

Quote by: Technosoul And that is why he advoates more pork for the war in Iraq? More pork for oil companies?

This is very disingenious to make a false claim and not back it up with a link. Very disingenious. Especially when the spending powers are with Congress. McCain can propose a pork barrel plan to Congress, but has he has show he doesn't spend money on pork. (see my fatest pig thread for proof).

And he still would like to ban abortions and other things that the fundamentalists do not like.

Might be true, but I don't think it over-welms his political objectives. To his credit he does support stem cell research.

I care more about saving the economy rather than saving the right to abortion.

He is only saying that Bush miss-managed things and he would handle it better, but he still has the same basic agendas as Bush.

WRONG, he is stating he would reduce taxes and spending, much different than Jr (until at least to the end of Bush's Presidency). Its not much different than Obama stating hope, hope, hope. But never defining how he will get to "hope," except if you mean raising taxes

So tell us please. How does McCain REALLY differ from President Bush?

(1) A history of lowering spending and lowering taxes. Things that Bush didn't do during his Presidency
(2) Support global warming legislation
(3) Has reached across the idle and teamed up with Democrats like Feingold, Lieberman and Kennedy
(4) Actually had a plan to combat illegal immigration
(5) Support stem cell research
(6) He talks about the necessity of getting our allies to back us in military operations. Which is a direct opposite of Bush.
McCain Remarks on Foreign Policy - washingtonpost.com
(7) McCain is against torture, wants to close Gitmo and wants MCA to be amended.
(8) McCain called for the US to reduce its nuclear aresenal to give incentive to others to do the same.
NTI: Global Security Newswire - Thursday, March 27, 2008
(9) He is against artic drilling and supports ethanol (stupid in my opinion).
He is using outsourcing of jobs as a justification to allow businesses to polute America and to defeat the Unions in a unregulated manner, same as Bush would do.

Just a few to name.

He favors drilling for oil in environmentally sensitive areas, same as President Bush.

John McCain on the Issues
Do your research!

He uses his status as a Nam Vet to pursue all those bad policies while the Vet hosipitals were underfunded and miss-managed by Halliburton.

Not sure on the hospitals, but the label of him as a mindless hawk is disingenious.

Lebanon: From the NY times (hardly a pro-Republican paper)

delivered by McCain on Sept. 28, 1983. The Reagan administration was seeking Congressional authorization to support the deployment of U.S. Marines in Lebanon. McCain, a freshman legislator, decided to oppose his president and party. McCain argued that Lebanese society, as it existed then, could not be stabilized and unified by American troops. He made a series of concrete observations about the facts on the ground. Lebanon was in a state of de facto partition. The Lebanese Army would not soon be strong enough to drive out the Syrians. The American presence would not intimidate the Syrians into negotiating. “I do not foresee obtainable objectives in Lebanon.” He concluded. “I believe the longer we stay, the more difficult it will be to leave, and I am prepared to accept the consequences of our withdrawal.” This was not the speech of a man who thinks military force is the answer to every problem. It was the speech of one who conforms policies to facts. And it came a month before a terrorist attack that killed 241 Americans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/op...=1&oref=slogin

Iraq: (He was a strongly critized the war effort before most people and he villified by his own party for it)

second speech was delivered on Nov. 5, 2003. This was not a grand strategy speech. It was a critique of the execution of existing U.S. policy. First, McCain wondered about the Pentagon’s publicity campaign in Iraq: “When, in the course of days, we increase by thousands our estimate of the numbers of Iraqis trained, it sounds like somebody is cooking the books.” He then pointed out that the U.S. had not committed sufficient troops. He called for a counterinsurgency strategy in which U.S. forces would actually hold secure territory. “Simply put,” he said, “there does not appear to be a strategy behind our current force levels in Iraq, other than to preserve the illusion that we have sufficient forces in place to meet our objectives.” He excoriated the arrogance of Paul Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority: “The C.P.A. seems to think that all wisdom is made in America, and that the Iraqi people were defeated, not liberated.” This was the speech of a man, adjusting to changing circumstances, who was calling on the administration to adjust quickly as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/op...=1&oref=slogin

his advocacy of the withdrawal of US troops from Lebanon in 1982 (prior to the attack on the Marine barracks),[1] Somalia in 1993, and Haiti in 1994.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/op...=1&oref=slogin

So show us the facts about why he differs from the mainstream Republican agendas?

See above.

What would he do differently then Bush to solve the high cost of medicene, to improve public education, to insure womens rights, to end the unjustified war in Iraq, to improve the well being of the middle class worker, to take steps to slow down our dependancy on nuclear weapons and nuclear energy, to solve the problems in the middle east, to regulate those credit car rip offs, to get Big Brother off the internet, to make it possible to live off of the fixed income of Social Security, to upgrade our transportation system to meet future demands, to empower middle class workers via unions that are not on-the-take, to correct the stupid way the forefathers set up our elections, to save us form our dependancy on forien manufacturing, to reduce the impact of global warming and climate change. To secure our nation form terrorism without giving up our rights to privacy, to make work migration from Mexico a workable system, to improve the state's ability to respond to a major emergency, to reduce gun violence by the criminal sector of our country, to give Christians a little more say-so about community standards that are fit for their children. How will he deal with the concerns of gay people who are now "out of the closet" and do not intend to go back there again?

What would the Democrats do. Raise our taxes and increase government?