deluca67 Posted October 30, 2008 Report Share Posted October 30, 2008 I'm all for weeding these people out. Has McCain even addresed the issue? He will tell us what Obama will do but I have yet to hear what he plans on doing about the poor in this country. Is it more "trickle down" economics of giving tax breaks to the rich as they will have more money to create jobs and invest? Hasn't that been proven to not work? I would guess the wealthiest Americans would tend to disagree. For them it has and will continue to work just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knightrider Posted October 30, 2008 Report Share Posted October 30, 2008 I'm all for weeding these people out. Has McCain even addresed the issue? He will tell us what Obama will do but I have yet to hear what he plans on doing about the poor in this country. Is it more "trickle down" economics of giving tax breaks to the rich as they will have more money to create jobs and invest? Hasn't that been proven to not work? Constitutionally, where does it say government is supposed to do anything about the poor? Or is it that you believe the constitution was written to limit the states' rights, but not the federal government's rights? WRT your second question, where is this proof you speak of and what was all that prosperity in the 80's, 90's, and most of the 00's? Why is it that the current economic downturn, directly due to the idea of "spreading the wealth" though "equal opportunity lending practices" instituted in the Clinton administration, somehow gets blamed on Reagan? How can this racist say this iivL4c_3pck and still be taken seriously as a candidate? He is the equivalent of a black David Duke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted October 30, 2008 Report Share Posted October 30, 2008 Constitutionally, where does it say government is supposed to do anything about the poor? Or is it that you believe the constitution was written to limit the states' rights, but not the federal government's rights? WRT your second question, where is this proof you speak of and what was all that prosperity in the 80's, 90's, and most of the 00's? Why is it that the current economic downturn, directly due to the idea of "spreading the wealth" though "equal opportunity lending practices" instituted in the Clinton administration, somehow gets blamed on Reagan? How can this racist say this iivL4c_3pck and still be taken seriously as a candidate? He is the equivalent of a black David Duke. Always a distraction from the McCain folks; never a real argument. Again, you led us down the wrong path TWICE. Why should we listen now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knightrider Posted October 30, 2008 Report Share Posted October 30, 2008 Always a distraction from the McCain folks; never a real argument. Again, you led us down the wrong path TWICE. Why should we listen now? I am not a McCain folk. Anyone who could sponsor a bill to limit free speech, especially free political speech, will never get my vote. Not that my vote would ever matter in Massachusetts, but I will likely vote for Libertarian Bob Barr. Your "distraction" is my issue. The Democratic candidate is a racist. I'm sorry you find racism to be a distraction. I am curious though (is that a distraction from you?), what is it you mean by saying I led you down the wrong path twice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted October 30, 2008 Report Share Posted October 30, 2008 I am not a McCain folk. Anyone who could sponsor a bill to limit free speech, especially free political speech, will never get my vote. Not that my vote would ever matter in Massachusetts, but I will likely vote for Libertarian Bob Barr. Your "distraction" is my issue. The Democratic candidate is a racist. I'm sorry you find racism to be a distraction. I am curious though (is that a distraction from you?), what is it you mean by saying I led you down the wrong path twice? Excuse me if I missed something, but where in there was Obama being racist? oh, btw Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -3.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.26 I have to say, I'm torn though. I have some very politically right leanings too, so I've found myself to be the epitome of moderate. That's why I hate both candidates. I just wonder why we as Americans cannot figure out a common ground, things that most of us can agree on? Instead we end up with all these economic and political outliers getting their voices heard and issues addressed, while the rest of us who fall along the best fit line are stuck going "man, this stinks." :wallbash: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted October 30, 2008 Report Share Posted October 30, 2008 Constitutionally, where does it say government is supposed to do anything about the poor? It doesn't but it'll be my door and your door they come knocking down to get what they need to live. I'm guessing at that point you'll shoot them and feel good about yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted October 30, 2008 Report Share Posted October 30, 2008 The Democratic candidate is a racist. Why do you think he is a racist? His affiliation with his former pastor? There are tons of people who we all deal with closely on a regular basis who are racist. It doesn't mean you or I share the same values. I'll listen to any argument you want about Obama's and McCain's policies but throwing out lies like that are irresponsible and misinformed. The only places that assert Obama's racism are right wing looney sites and news outlets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted October 30, 2008 Report Share Posted October 30, 2008 What am I missing here? A "tax and spend liberal" who plans to cut taxes on poor and middle class workers getting shredded by Republicans -- the "cut taxes and spending" party that has just presided over a drunken binge of spending. Is the whole world mad? Seriously... some of you need to study Obama's tax plan. Only 2% of those benefiting from the first incarnation of it were non-workers. In an albeit slimy flip-flop (McCain owns many of those, too), Obama tweaked the plan to make that 0%. This is not welfare. And he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone, only allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. And Joe the Plumber is a fraud. But a neat political trick, nonetheless, getting all the po' fat bald guys, the Joe Sixpacks, to think the Socialist is coming for their beer money. Again, a truly disgraceful political trick (not quite as bad as "Libby" Dole's ads depicting her opponent as godless, right down to a voice, not her opponent's, dubbed in at the end saying, "there is no God") and the main reason, as I said before, I got turned off by McCain. As for "spreading the wealth," Bubba rightly pointed out that there's been plenty of that the last eight years as tax cuts have benefited the wealthy disproportionately. Wonder where that wealth came from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted October 30, 2008 Report Share Posted October 30, 2008 If we could just trim off from all sides the fringe branches on the American Tree; we would have a much healthier and nice looking plant that would be growing better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted October 30, 2008 Report Share Posted October 30, 2008 Just the facts... http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_welfare.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted October 30, 2008 Report Share Posted October 30, 2008 If we could just trim off from all sides the fringe branches on the American Tree; we would have a much healthier and nice looking plant that would be growing better. This is the perfect analogy. :beer: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted October 31, 2008 Report Share Posted October 31, 2008 I am not a McCain folk. Anyone who could sponsor a bill to limit free speech, especially free political speech, will never get my vote. Not that my vote would ever matter in Massachusetts, but I will likely vote for Libertarian Bob Barr. Your "distraction" is my issue. The Democratic candidate is a racist. I'm sorry you find racism to be a distraction. I am curious though (is that a distraction from you?), what is it you mean by saying I led you down the wrong path twice? On paragraph 2: No, he's not. And any implication to the contrary is meant to be a distraction from the issues. Obama is no more a racist than is McCain, and I don't believe either of them to be a racist. On paragraph 3: Your first paragraph takes care of it. I mistook you for a blind-faith, whoever-doesn't-agree-isn't-a-real-American conservative, and for that, I apologize. I've dealt with too much free-speech hating over the last eight years (whoever doesn't agree with the adminstration is anti-American and/or not a patriot, right?), and sometimes I overreact. I actually like the Libertarian party, and I'm not a party-line person. But I'm disgusted with the path down which our country has been led. Again, my apologies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FogBat Posted October 31, 2008 Report Share Posted October 31, 2008 A woman that loves the Sabres AND laissez-faire capitalism?! Alas, it was an illusion too good to be true :cry: . What's wrong, MC? Don't you like Ayn Rand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FogBat Posted October 31, 2008 Report Share Posted October 31, 2008 Sounds like the American Taliban I guess this guy sounds like the American Taliban: "It is impossible to rightly govern without God and the Bible." (George Washington) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FogBat Posted October 31, 2008 Report Share Posted October 31, 2008 yes, those that view gov't in both veins are cut from the same cloth - gov't is the ultimate enabler The State - not God - is their Savior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FogBat Posted October 31, 2008 Report Share Posted October 31, 2008 Bring back the Whig's! (or no-nothing's or pick your own favorite old timey party!) Federalists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FogBat Posted October 31, 2008 Report Share Posted October 31, 2008 I'm all for everyone being equal and knowing they're equal :) Unfortunately, as could be said about Communism: In theory, it works. In practice, it doesn't. Arkady Shevchenko knew this first hand. The higher-ups in the Politburo/Supreme Soviet were significantly paid higher than the common man, and yet they claimed that they were fighting and working for them. Speaking of which, Kim Jong-il, that so called "Dear Leader" of the North Korea people, starves his own. And people say they got it really bad here in America... <_< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FogBat Posted October 31, 2008 Report Share Posted October 31, 2008 When you vote I think you do vote for what is best for the country. How we view the country and it's needs are greatly influenced by our individual lives. I'm sure if I were wealthy I would be voting for McCain and would be excited by the prospect of the status-quo staying in power and reaping the benefits of additional tax breaks. As it is I am not wealthy and I find myself being crushed under the current economic and health care polices. To answer your question I guess I have to say my vote will be personalized because my view of the country is personalized. I take issue with this because either you haven't read up on what some billionaires are saying or you are assuming that all rich people vote Republican. I can name a couple of billionaires off the top of my head who are voting for Obama: Warren Buffett and George Soros. Let's not forget the Hollywood elites who have traditionally voted on the Left either. Furthermore, it has been documented that Obama is receiving hefty contributions from Corporate America (as opposed to Small Business America). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted October 31, 2008 Report Share Posted October 31, 2008 I guess this guy sounds like the American Taliban: "It is impossible to rightly govern without God and the Bible." (George Washington) Washington was a slave owner. I would guess many of his values would be different today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FogBat Posted October 31, 2008 Report Share Posted October 31, 2008 Does anyone plan on voting for the candidate that is best for the country or are you just going to vote for the guy that helps you the most? The two may coincide but I believe a number of people are personalizing this election (and others) to whichever candidate they think will help them out financially. Does anyone actually care about this country or do we all get wrapped up in "looking out for number one" ideals? Yes, I did rant in support of McCain in the past. However, given that both Obama and McCain have skeletons in their closet, and both of them assail each other's proposals for the country, I don't see a dime's bit of difference between the two. I'm not going to waste space on Biden, but I will say that with each passing day, Sarah Palin is really making me feel uncomfortable. At least I can say that the candidate for POTUS I originally endorsed (and will vote for without a doubt) doesn't have any character or integrity issues. With that said, I am convinced that with everything I've read about Chuck Baldwin, I am going on the record here to say that I will vote for him on Tuesday. I know he doesn't stand a chance of winning with the way the system has the deck stacked against third parties (BTW, I do respect those of you who are voting for Barr or Nader (sorry, I can't take Miss "Cellphone Battery" seriously)), but my conscience just does not feel comfortable with voting for the lesser of two socialistic tendencies. As Chuck Baldwin said during a 3rd party debate with Ralph Nader, "Voting between the lesser of two evils is like asking a 1st century Christian to choose between Nero and Caligula - which one is going to kill fewer Christians?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FogBat Posted October 31, 2008 Report Share Posted October 31, 2008 Washington was a slave owner. I would guess many of his values would be different today. Not to justify Chattel slavery, but not every slave owner was brutal to their slaves. That is the assumption that has long been puffed up. Stonewall Jackson was actually known to have been kind to those who were in his possession. Furthermore, Washington died before William Wilberforce led the charge in Parliament to abolish slavery throughout the United Kingdom in 1807. While Amazing Grace could have been better directed and edited, it does showcase the struggles and support that Wilberforce encountered in his quest to put the coup de grace upon Chattel slavery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted October 31, 2008 Report Share Posted October 31, 2008 I guess this guy sounds like the American Taliban: "It is impossible to rightly govern without God and the Bible." (George Washington) That quote is most likely specious. (not that I think it matters either way). The quote is often attributed to Washington giving a speech to the Delaware Indians. It just ain't there. Although he does tell them that they would be happier if they became Christian. http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/ot2www-wa...amp;id=gw150049 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FogBat Posted October 31, 2008 Report Share Posted October 31, 2008 That quote is most likely specious. (not that I think it matters either way). The quote is often attributed to Washington giving a speech to the Delaware Indians. It just ain't there. Although he does tell them that they would be happier if they became Christian. http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/ot2www-wa...amp;id=gw150049 I'll have to look that over in the next day or two. I'm getting really tired and have to call it quits for the night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted October 31, 2008 Report Share Posted October 31, 2008 Not to justify Chattel slavery, but not every slave owner was brutal to their slaves. That is the assumption that has long been puffed up. Stonewall Jackson was actually known to have been kind to those who were in his possession.Furthermore, Washington died before William Wilberforce led the charge in Parliament to abolish slavery throughout the United Kingdom in 1807. While Amazing Grace could have been better directed and edited, it does showcase the struggles and support that Wilberforce encountered in his quest to put the coup de grace upon Chattel slavery. So was Robert E. Lee, a concept which seemed to have been lost on all them racist southerners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjag Posted October 31, 2008 Report Share Posted October 31, 2008 Disturbing. Yet, there is money for a $700 billion Wall Street bailout not to mention the billions spent in Afghanistan and Iraq fighting manufactured wars. Umm. I'll give you Iraq, but you can't say Afghanistan was manufactured. After all they were complicit in sending four airplanes after the economic, military and poltical infrastructure of this country. You have to pay for that action and what ever part you played in it. Certainly the response is one to debated by the politicians and the historians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.