Re: OT: US Pres election
 

The guy only asked a question. Just a question. What Obama and his cronies did to the man is inexcusable. You cannot at any level expect a reasonable person who possesses any measure of commonsense to believe for a second that what Obama did to that man, regardless of McCain's use of his question or not, to be appropriate. Obama attacked him because Obama's own answer was being used to illuminate his real beliefs. This blaming the victim crap that the left enjoys using so much is really getting old.

Some of you guys are posting some incredibly good posts.

Really now, this is your answer and you're going to stick to it? Leftism ala liberalism, is directly linked to socialism because the left tend to be the party that chooses to employ socialistic ideals such as national health care for one. They believe that it is governments place to provide completely for the people. The left believe in a the ideals of a welfare state and that the power should lay with the government and not with the people. That is a fundamental tenant of socialism.

Obama's own campaign is modeled after the methods used by Linen and Stalin to over throw the Czar of Russia. They talked about how we needed change. In fact Change was the major theme of their entire revolution as it is with Obama's.

Oh ya, by Obama's own addition one of his favorite books was penned by Che Guevara, a committed far left socialist. The one thing he and Hillary had in common.

So by your logic all because some guy broke the law in 2004, its ok for ACORN to do the same? ACORN wouldn't be under federal investigation if they were an honest group of innocent community organizers. Again I go back to the commonsense heart of things. Oh by the way, since the offices of ACORN in Nevada were raided, Obama conceded Nevada.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Che was actually more of a Populist than a Socialist. He saw the indigenous peoples' needs and rights being completely cast aside as insignificant in comparison to the needs and rights of the city dwellers (most of whom were not full-blooded natives). He fought for those people whose entire civilization and culture had been paved over in the name of progress. If you've never really looked into his life, he was really a rather fascinating and compelling persona.

Regarding Socialism, I need to try to clarify this a bit again, as your preconception seems to be a bit confused. Socialism does not remove power from the people, and give it to the government. Socialism removes power only from the senselessly wealthy, and by investing that power into public control, is actually giving it back to the people. So in the example of health care, rather than it being a corporate-for-profit industry that ultimately becomes this monster of money that only cares about numbers, it would (hopefully) develop into an effective tool for enriching the lives of the people. Granted, it's not a magic bullet, and it takes work and planning to make Socialized Medicine work as intended - but if you look at the reality of our current situation, I think you would be hard pressed to extrapolate how it could (even if poorly implemented) really end up less efficient than the broken system that we have in place already.

And finally, regarding "Joe the Plumber". Joe's entire conundrum was fallacious. As a working man, his taxes would go down under Obama. If he managed to put his plan into action to enter management, and take on other contractors, then his taxes would only increase if his revenues exceeded 250k. I think it's fairly ridiculous to assume that the math would not be balanced out in a way so as to allow "Joe" (or anyone else) to develop their business beyond that threshold. It is entirely unreasonable to try to portray this plan as having such a steep curve, as to make it utterly impossible to have a profitable small business larger than 250k/year - and Obama himself has stated that he plans to implement tax credits (for everyone, but with small business in mind) for employing American citizens inside of our borders.


I see a lot more Obama bashing, than any kind of illustration of McCain's superior plans for the nation. Ironic, as it mirrors McCain's own platform - "John McCain, because he's just not as bad as Barack Obama.". :re:


McCain has only one trait that I look for in a leader - he doesn't panic when he's put on the spot. That doesn't really in any way compensate for all of his shortcomings.....

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

A well spoken post Jim,

I'm Voting Democrat

The issue with Obama's tax plan is that while he says he is going to lower taxes on those who earn less than 250k, in reality his plan will increase their taxes by 10 fold over any benefit his tax plan would provide in that he intends to raise taxes on everything from electricity to social security. Sure your income taxes could be lowered, but in the end your capital gains taxes are going to go up. So while you save a couple hundred a year in income tax, when you sell your house, car, property, inherent something, etc, you're going to pay taxes through the nose. His plan will raise taxes from the registering your car to the tax on a bottle of water. From taxing plastic bags to increasing your property taxes. He plans on raising the corporate tax which in turn will cost jobs and force more companies to look outside of the USA for their needs. And I also should point out that every Democrat that has ran on a promise to cut taxes has in the end reneged upon that promise and actually raised taxes.

A super liberal majority of power, congress, the media, and Obama will effectively remove any measure of checks and balances from our government. This means that any law that they wish to pass will get passed. From oppressing first amendment rights to the out and out right dismantling of the second amendment. These facts are not in dispute, they are a reality. A reality that scares the hell out of me because they won't stop with taking our rights away, they will go further by passing laws that will make them more powerful and less likely to be tossed from power. That is something that we as American's cannot allow.

Power should never be horded by one side, it should be shared by all sides so that no one party is denied their rights.

I have no problem with people who want change, I just don't want that change to abrogate my rights under the constitution. For me, this is the crux of it. I cannot support Obama because he voted against our right to defend our families in our own homes without the fear of prosecution or lawsuits. When a person cannot defend their family in their own home from harm or death without the fear of being sent to prison because the used a firearm, or fear of being sued by the very criminal who attacked them, then we no longer live in a society that values an individuals rights. The police are not obligated to protect us as proven by a Florida case. You do not make a person safer by making them defenseless. Obama not only opposes our right to safety in the home, but has vowed to reduce our military, close foreign bases, stop military research, (research that ironically led to the Internet, gps, cellphones, etc), all in the name of making America more world friendly. You do not make a nation safe by making it defenseless. You don't sit down with the enemy and ask them to be nice. All that does is make you weak in their eyes and emboldens them to become even more ruthless. (A lesson we learned through Clinton's politics.)

Ask yourself one question, do we as a nation want to secure our future at the expense of our freedom and safety, or do we want to secure our future without scarifying those fundamental American values that so many of our greatest have fallen to protect?

Obama is a good man, but he is a dangerous man. With a super liberal majority in congress, a willing pro-liberal controlled media, and a proven far left leaning Obama in office, we won't see an awakening of a prosperous future, but rather one that will usher in the end of one.

If my words offend people well then, sick the Obama machine on me. I am sure that I, an average American, deserve to have my entire life investigated and made public for daring to say NO to Obama and his liberalism. Mitigate my comments with rude personal attacks, defile my good name, and offer up liberal talking points to counter my statements. In the end what I say or believe really doesn't matter for Obama is going to win by a horrendous landslide and even though years from now, when we look back at my diatribes and say damn that dude was right on the money, it still won't matter because I'll either be dead, disappeared, or in jail for having dared expressed them in the first place.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

The only person that needs to be blamed for any hike in taxes is Bush.

Doesn't matter who wins, the next president MUST raise taxes. It's not a future I like, but it's the end result of unrestrained liberal spending by the republican party. A government unable to raise revenue is doomed.

As for vast generalizations, I'll point out lumping people in one group never serves anything. Us vs. them doesn't get anywhere.

This is what blows my mind about America today. Here we are, fighting a war that for the first time in half a century has landed clear blows on American soil and spilled American Blood on American Soil, and we are busy trying to rip out each other's jugular or disembowel the other first of pure silliness. Really, did the civil war end? Did the North win? because it seems like America can't decide if it's the Confederate States or United States.

Every one of your arguments can also be laid upon the republican party, the whigs, the federalist, and so on down the chain of history. Many of them are null designed to get the base up into a frenzy. John the Plumber, btw, isn't registered to vote and it's too late for him to register so if he really cared about his taxes, he should've registered to vote. I have no sympathy for his fear of taxes.

And repeating political talking points doesn't make them true.

This I take exception at as very few americans can now look back at the last 8 years and say we've had a prosperous future compared the the 8 that preceded that.



Let's face facts, America right now is weak. We face a crumbling economy, federal debts that won't be paid off for another century (counting only principle) a corrupt government, a divided nation against itself, China is only getting stronger, the russian military has reconstituted itself but couldn't find its missing nukes if their lives depended on it, we can't scare north korea, the UN is crippled by an outdated cold-war setup , and a global energy and climate crisis.

So really, is America strong enough to face these challenges and see Victory?

We are entering a long and hard period of reconstruction that may not succeed. We need someone who has laid out a plan and been consistant, not someone who throws ideas against the wall in the hopes something might stick and drops what he's doing to leap for a photo up.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Azselendor you do a very effective job of countering my comments. It is a pleasure as always to read your posts. While I am swayed to agree with you on a few items there are a couple that I need to offer counter points to.

Bush shouldn't become the scape goat for the fools who are really to blame. Most of which were fired and hired in 06. Those are the real asshats that are behind this. Bush has had no real power since 06.

For the record the US economy grew more under Bush than it did Clinton. That is a verifiable fact of reality. This whole economic situation that we are now in is as much to blame on the failed democratic policies as it is on republican ones. For one, Bush inherited an economy that was going into the tank following 8 years of Clintonomic. Remember black Friday in October of 97? Two, this whole sub prime loan fiasco could have been resolved in 05, but NO, it was blocked by elements of both parties in control. Three, although Bush is the president, the Democrats have had control of Congress for the last two years and have done NOTHING to stem the tide when they could have.

I believe that this whole melt down can be traced right back to rising oil prices. That is what started this disaster ball rolling. It was predicted by a mathmatician back in 1999. He stated that within 10 years the price for oil will be more than $100.00 per barrel. That when that happened the US economy, and that of the world, would fall into chaos. He proved this by math.

As the oil prices rose, people had less and less disposable income so they started to use their credit cards. Once those were maxed out they stopped paying their mortgages so they could eat, keep the car, buy gas, and keep the lights on. The price of oil kept going up, mostly because the oil companies were buying their own oil via the speculator market which they only stopped after Bush and Congress finally threatened to look into the speculator market at the behest of conservative talk radio hosts and angry Americans. People who had these sub prime mortgages were the ones that were hurt first, once they stopped paying their mortgage and their homes fell into foreclosure the banks that held the paper started to fail. The rest is history in the making.

I tend to agree with you in that tax increases are most likely going to happen. So why do both candidates keep saying they are going to cut taxes? Why not cut spending instead? And I hate to be the voice of reason all the time, but under Obama, government is poised to grow thus increasing the debt. In order to pay for his projects, taxes are going to have to be raised. And as we know, lower taxes fuel an economy, and higher taxes, especially in these times, stall the economy.

Fact Check: "The Ohio press reports that he (Joe the Plumber) is in fact registered to vote, under a slightly misspelling of his name." The misspelling was due in part to a clerical error.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

So he shouldn't be blamed that/because he had no real power?

I don't even know about the power thing. I mean, I see that man as incompetent and always mostly saw him as kind of a puppet from the start, yes. But for others, I'd think he just wasn't as prominently visible in the media, and thus less present.

And that's what, I'd assume, will unfortunately be the perception about the next president and his party, whoever it may be. "Usurper, he was good for nothing, he raised our taxes!" It's bad if people don't understand that it is necessary and the carefree living that they had before wasn't really viable and showed its ugly downside in the end.

Well, regardless what you do, you won't solve the climate crisis now even if you tried with all your might, you can only adapt and I hope that America will, same for global energy. As for North Korea, I see that one as a paper tiger. If there is one land that has hit rock bottom except Africa, then it's North Korea, I'd say, at least for the people that live there. I don't think they'll have the breath to continue like this that much longer.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

I am willing to bet that North Korea is about to lift the current and join the world. They have nothing to loose and everything to gain. I hope North Korea announces today that they willing to work with everyone in putting the cold war to bed.

What I want to see is a person elected to office that won't abrogate our constitutional rights because the far left or right want them too. Despite all the nasty things Bush has been accused of, there lacks a genuine lack of proof as to his abuse of power. I do believe that he aloud himself to be manipulated and played and in turn was used as a tool to benefit people like Cheyenne and that bastard Dumbsfield.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

What do you call the USA PATRIOT Act, then? Or maybe I misunderstood those sentences? And I may probably be biased, but it was my impression that Bush was the one that wanted the Iraq war most and it was mainly his initiative and determination to carry through with this, it wasn't somebody else who pressured him into that. We don't have to discuss that thing again, though, good that we got over it.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Atrocities, you are most likely correct about Bush being maniplated by his subordinates.

However, the captain of the ship is the one who is solely responsible for the well being of the ship. If the ship runs aground in the middle of the night, the captain is held responsible, even if he was soundly sleeping at what is a normal sleep period. Others will also accrue punishments, but the man in charge is ultimately held responsible.

If everything was sunny and rosy, I'm sure Bush would be the first one to claim the credit, even if the good times were the result of actions by subordinates. So all the blame should also fall on his shoulders.

I would like to hear someone, anyone, admit to being responsible for the present crisis. That's probably not going to happen. Republicans blame democrats, Democrats blame Republicans: the wealthy blame the poor, the poor blame the wealthy: and so on.

The economists are now busy finding the faults in their reasoning; yet not one will admit that economics is merely a pseudo-science and all the equations that they pass off as science were developed so that they fit past numbers. Then they use the self same numbers to verify the accuracy of their equations.

I really have no idea what the future holds, but I'll make one prediction.

At some point the world economy will revive, the politicans will lie to us some more and the poor will always be downtrodden.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

And it is again somewhat misleading to claim that
and
The Democratic majority in Congress, especially in the Senate, is slim. Bush has threatened or wielded his veto pen against pretty much anything the Democrats have tried. And the Republicans in the Senate have stood firm together and ensured that any Democratic bills have needed 60 votes overcome a filibuster. Often the Democratic leadership, not being able to enact their own solutions and believing that something must be done, has brought the White House's proposals to the floor and allowed them to pass with a majority of Republican and a few Democratic votes.
A president with a strong minority in Congress is hardly powerless, especially one who has expanded the power of the executive as no administration since Nixon has tried to do. And one who seems willing to play chicken with the welfare of the country to avoid any compromise.