PDA

View Full Version : If Obama is elected as our next president...



rico
08-16-2008, 05:14 AM
How do you think things will pan out? Put your love for the republican/independent party aside and just judge based on his ideas.

But what do you think will happen?

rhino17
08-16-2008, 07:53 PM
I voted new low

LAKERMANIA
08-16-2008, 09:51 PM
he would do his best to put the US economy and situation back on track

gcoll
08-16-2008, 10:08 PM
I have no ****ing clue whatsoever.

SwaggaIke
08-16-2008, 10:26 PM
Hopefully he does things to improve this country. And I also hope he legalizes marijuana. Its a damn shame these dick heads can do coke and be clean in less than a week. You smoke a quarter and you're dirty for at least a month. The **** just ain't right.

DenButsu
08-16-2008, 10:51 PM
I voted for the second option, but I have to say I find the poll choices very odd and random...

Ramon Nivar
08-16-2008, 11:01 PM
Although I don't agree with the redneck part, I personally believe the odds of him being assassinated are extremely high if elected.

DenButsu
08-16-2008, 11:18 PM
Although I don't agree with the redneck part, I personally believe the odds of him being assassinated are extremely high if elected.

Why? And if you do think so about Obama and not McCain, do you think race wouldn't play a factor?

Ramon Nivar
08-16-2008, 11:27 PM
Why? And if you do think so about Obama and not McCain, do you think race wouldn't play a factor?

I think race is a huge factor in it and is why I believe the odds of something bad happening to Obama are high.

ripjhb18
08-17-2008, 12:16 AM
Although I don't agree with the redneck part, I personally believe the odds of him being assassinated are extremely high if elected.

I agree and voted it. I may be a republican but there is no way I would want him dead. Im pretty sure some people in this country still have no tollerance and would attempt to kill him.

rhino17
08-17-2008, 01:38 AM
I voted for the second option, but I have to say I find the poll choices very odd and random...
me too. if elected, i dont personally think he will accomplish much, but there should be something in the middle

kazzy4080
08-17-2008, 02:26 AM
i dont know how well he'll do. i think it be decent but his lack of experience will hurt him. i think we might see the economy get better under him but not by much. however i think he will be better for our nations economy than mccain will.

OnWisconsin2007
08-17-2008, 04:25 AM
Can it get any worse?

DenButsu
08-17-2008, 11:45 AM
I think race is a huge factor in it and is why I believe the odds of something bad happening to Obama are high.

So do you just have a problem - on the level of political correctness - with the term "redneck"? Or do you think a racist yuppie from NYC is going to make an attempt on Obama or something?

Ramon Nivar
08-17-2008, 01:09 PM
So do you just have a problem - on the level of political correctness - with the term "redneck"? Or do you think a racist yuppie from NYC is going to make an attempt on Obama or something?

I think the odds would be higher of someone from the Arian Nation, an African American who feels jealousy or betrayed or even a racist on the inside would be more likely than someone from the South. I also believe there is almost a guaranteed chance that if he is elected his assassination would at least be plotted. That is just my opinion on it.

SmthBluCitrus
08-17-2008, 01:44 PM
I think with the level of secret service that exists it would take one heck of a plan to assassinate any sitting President.

But, I refuse to speculate on the possibility of a planned, plotted, attempted, or successful assassination plot on any President let alone a current nominee, especially based on racial ideas. It's overly and utterly morbid.

tomno00
08-17-2008, 02:06 PM
i dont see him getting assassinated, nor do i see him being a good president... one and done (if he is elected)

SmthBluCitrus
08-17-2008, 04:04 PM
Eh, I don't see that either. Obama will be a two-term POTUS. I do think his first six to ten months are going to be difficult for him, but he won't have a rock bottom approval rating, and by the time the new Presidential election cycle rolls around, he'll be doing well enough to hang on for a second term.

This isn't 1976. And, Obama isn't Jimmy Carter.

OnWisconsin2007
08-17-2008, 04:07 PM
Don't even acknowledge somebody trying to kill Obama. That's just ridiculous. What's he supposed to do, be afraid?

DenButsu
08-17-2008, 08:32 PM
But, I refuse to speculate on the possibility of a planned, plotted, attempted, or successful assassination plot on any President let alone a current nominee, especially based on racial ideas. It's overly and utterly morbid.

True. Good stance.

SmthBluCitrus
08-17-2008, 08:35 PM
Thanks. I'm political.

Max Power
08-17-2008, 08:35 PM
After W, is a new low realisticly possible?

LeoGetz
08-17-2008, 08:55 PM
After W, is a new low realisticly possible?


Realisticly anything is possible, but unless Helen Keller is elected it can't get much worse.

SmthBluCitrus
08-17-2008, 09:05 PM
Realisticly anything is possible, but unless Helen Keller is elected it can't get much worse.

Hey, you never know. She wrote some poetry. Pretty smart girl.

RogerRomo
08-17-2008, 10:02 PM
The country hits a new low. The man has no substance. Can't wait for the real debates. I wonder what he does without his teleprompters...

DenButsu
08-17-2008, 10:42 PM
The country hits a new low. The man has no substance.

Perfect description of the Dubya years.

SmthBluCitrus
08-17-2008, 10:45 PM
LoL! The "real" debates?? Yea, that guy that has delivered some of the greatest domestic speeches of the 21st Century is going to be tripped up by the vocal stylings of Mr. McCain. Because we saw how abysmal he was when debated by both Edwards and Clinton.

I guess I forgot about McCain's superior skills of oration.

rhino17
08-18-2008, 12:11 AM
LoL! The "real" debates?? Yea, that guy that has delivered some of the greatest domestic speeches of the 21st Century is going to be tripped up by the vocal stylings of Mr. McCain. Because we saw how abysmal he was when debated by both Edwards and Clinton.

I guess I forgot about McCain's superior skills of oration.

yeah, speaking skills equate to being a great president :rolleyes:

Tragic Johnson
08-18-2008, 12:32 AM
So do you just have a problem - on the level of political correctness - with the term "redneck"? Or do you think a racist yuppie from NYC is going to make an attempt on Obama or something?

You guys are being ridiculous.

Did a commie pot smoking Hippie try to assassinate Ronald Reagan? No, it was a lunatic with a hard on for Jodie Foster.

I'm sure presidential assassination attempts and aborted all the time. However, I predict that if Hussain Obama gets elected, the liberal media will be digging deep to find such attempts so that they can make this country look racist.

johnnylee722
08-18-2008, 12:35 AM
He has new ideas and he is diffident.. thats what this country needs. Not Bush Jr.

DenButsu
08-18-2008, 01:08 AM
You guys are being ridiculous.

Did a commie pot smoking Hippie try to assassinate Ronald Reagan? No, it was a lunatic with a hard on for Jodie Foster.

I'm sure presidential assassination attempts and aborted all the time. However, I predict that if Hussain Obama gets elected, the liberal media will be digging deep to find such attempts so that they can make this country look racist.

Just keep calling him HUSSEIN Obama and you'll be doing a good enough job of that yourself, without any help from the so-called "liberal media" (who has also been known to perpetuate false, racially based stereotypes about Obama).

SmthBluCitrus
08-18-2008, 06:43 AM
yeah, speaking skills equate to being a great president :rolleyes:

First, nowhere in my post did I say that Obama would be a "great" President. You might want to re-examine your reading comprehension. My response was directed at someone who claimed Obama would ultimately trip during the debates.

Secondly, Obama has the opportunity and (I believe) ability to be great (there, now I've said it). Bush had that opportunity follow 9/11, but he didn't have the ability. Obama has the opportunity to put the good of the country ahead of his personal ambition, and I hope he does it by making us a stronger country domestically -- education would be a great place to start.

But, if you note (and in a more focused response to your witty retort), some of our "greatest" President's had the gift of the spoken word. So, there might be something to that whole "speaking skills" thing after all.

DenButsu
08-18-2008, 06:51 AM
some of our "greatest" President's had the gift of the spoken word. So, there might be something to that whole "speaking skills" thing after all.

Oh, come on. That Gettysburg Address is, like, SO overhyped.

yaowowrocket11
08-18-2008, 11:57 AM
I've seen plenty of Obama nicknames, but ObamaJamma has to be the worst........

:pity:

redsox12
08-18-2008, 12:01 PM
This isn't 1976. And, Obama isn't Jimmy Carter.

True but this also is not 2000 and McCain is not W.

RogerRomo
08-18-2008, 12:10 PM
I've seen plenty of Obama nicknames, but ObamaJamma has to be the worst........

:pity:

I could have just called him something far easier but didn't. This guy has to be the most ill-prepared to lead candidates we have ever had. He Flip Flops more than Kerry did. I wonder when he starts accusing McCain of "swift-boating"... If there was such a thing as swift boating I hope they do it to Obama.

RogerRomo
08-18-2008, 12:14 PM
First, nowhere in my post did I say that Obama would be a "great" President. You might want to re-examine your reading comprehension. My response was directed at someone who claimed Obama would ultimately trip during the debates.

Secondly, Obama has the opportunity and (I believe) ability to be great (there, now I've said it). Bush had that opportunity follow 9/11, but he didn't have the ability. Obama has the opportunity to put the good of the country ahead of his personal ambition, and I hope he does it by making us a stronger country domestically -- education would be a great place to start.

But, if you note (and in a more focused response to your witty retort), some of our "greatest" President's had the gift of the spoken word. So, there might be something to that whole "speaking skills" thing after all.

I just pulled up a seat to your lecture professor. When does class begin? Was that witty enough for you? Go blog about it. I also expect a 5 page response to why Bush is like Hitler. :smoking:

SmthBluCitrus
08-18-2008, 12:18 PM
True but this also is not 2000 and McCain is not W.

Exactly. Whoever takes over as President (and my money is on Obama ... literally) is going to have to take over the country as it is in January 2009. Not September 10, 2001 nor September 12, 2001.

You'll notice that I don't make the McCain = Bush argument. I very rarely make the "Person A = Past Historical Figure" argument about anybody. It places an unfair burden of expectations.

Sure, I have high hopes for Obama ... I have high hopes for anybody that leads the country. I'd prefer to see Obama get that opportunity over McCain because I just don't see him as our President. He is more-or-less inclined to take the country in the same direction it is going rather than correct things (as I see them) -- or at least that's his pre-election rhetoric.

I'm not entirely insulted by his foreign policy ideas as he isn't expressly talking about an Iranian invasion like he was when he was sewing up the nomination. But, I still agree more with Obama's idea of sending envoys to sit down and discuss things with foreign leaders. It couldn't hurt. And, it is a policy that the post-Rumsfeld Bush Administration has adopted by sending Rice to these regimes in the Middle East.

PHX-SOXFAN
08-18-2008, 12:23 PM
me too. if elected, i dont personally think he will accomplish much, but there should be something in the middle

why wouldn't he accomplish much? He'll have quite an advantage with the numbers in congress to get many things passed. We can expect to see some changes no matter who is elected. McCain will have the numbers to get a comprehensive immigration plan through, just like obama. this is just one of the things that will go through no matter which one it is.

If obama is elected we can expect to see some economically stimulating spending on infrastructure and education projects that are truly needed. along with a tax system that doesn't cater to the rich.:clap:

PHX-SOXFAN
08-18-2008, 12:25 PM
The country hits a new low. The man has no substance. Can't wait for the real debates. I wonder what he does without his teleprompters...

did you miss previous debates he did well in without teleprompters?:confused:

redsox12
08-18-2008, 12:26 PM
You'll notice that I don't make the McCain = Bush argument. I very rarely make the "Person A = Past Historical Figure" argument about anybody. It places an unfair burden of expectations.

Agreed


I'm not entirely insulted by his foreign policy ideas as he isn't expressly talking about an Iranian invasion like he was when he was sewing up the nomination. But, I still agree more with Obama's idea of sending envoys to sit down and discuss things with foreign leaders. It couldn't hurt. And, it is a policy that the post-Rumsfeld Bush Administration has adopted by sending Rice to these regimes in the Middle East.

I agree with talks but not unconditional talks and I'm just hoping it doesn't turn into what Hitler did with the Olive Branch.

PHX-SOXFAN
08-18-2008, 12:28 PM
I see where you reside. I guess being that close to commie rule has fogged your judgment. Also your little hippie **** can only get you so far... Friggen coward... It's ******* like you that piss me off and love to take it in the butt from liberals like Pelosi and ObamaJamma...

I didn't know we could range to such high levels of intellectual discussion?:confused::speechless: Thanks for your breathtaking view of political policy.:clap:

SmthBluCitrus
08-18-2008, 12:36 PM
I agree with talks but not unconditional talks and I'm just hoping it doesn't turn into what Hitler did with the Olive Branch.

Agree and disagree. It really depends on the nation and the circumstance. I don't think it would be appropriate to make a blanket rule for a preconditioned base before talks can begin.

For instance, smaller rogue states vs. larger. Like the difference between sitting down with Syria or sitting down with Libya ... or even the difference between China and North Korea. Sure, there should be guidelines, but every situation is generally unique unto itself.

Syria is a hotbed for terror support in and around Israel. But what kind of threat are they to us and our allies? Whereas, Pakistan seems to be going down a dark path, yet they have nuclear weaponry and a history of instability with one of our greater economic allies in southern Asia (India).

I guess my call is for a case by case basis. Which, I'm sure you agree with for the most part.

redsox12
08-18-2008, 12:41 PM
I agree somewhat I can't pretend to know that much about politics and global affairs. I only fear a WW3 type of group with Russia, Iran and others threating us, Britain, Israel, etc.

SmthBluCitrus
08-18-2008, 12:44 PM
I agree somewhat I can't pretend to know that much about politics and global affairs. I only fear a WW3 type of group with Russia, Iran and others threating us, Britain, Israel, etc.

Exactly. And, that's why we need to keep very strong and open lines of communication. :)

redsox12
08-18-2008, 12:50 PM
Exactly. And, that's why we need to keep very strong and open lines of communication.

Just as long as they don't promise one thing and then do something else.

SmthBluCitrus
08-18-2008, 01:05 PM
Oh absolutely. But, that's about holding them accountable after the discussions have happened -- or not scheduling discussions if certain pre-conditions aren't met. But, I totally understand what you mean.

We're not going to send an envoy to Country X if the world community told them to abandon their nuclear aspirations and they continue to develop warheads. That's irresponsible. But, we still need to make sure that there is some sort of dialogue with them so they don't go completely rogue and operate under the radar of influence.

Tragic Johnson
08-18-2008, 02:26 PM
Just keep calling him HUSSEIN Obama and you'll be doing a good enough job of that yourself, without any help from the so-called "liberal media" (who has also been known to perpetuate false, racially based stereotypes about Obama).

Are you saying it's racist for me to call him by his name? Should I call Kareem Abdul Jabbar Lou Al Cindor to avoid being reacists?

Sorry dude, that's his name. If people don't like it, blame his parents. If a Republican candidate had such an ironic name, no way, in a million years would any liberal give him a free pass on it.

There are definitely some in the liberal media who were cheering for Hillary who might now have a grudge against Hussein Obama, however, there's way more adoration for this inexperienced ultra-liberal candidate coming from the main stream media than there are any false, racially based stereotypes being perpetuated about him.

SmthBluCitrus
08-18-2008, 02:34 PM
Kareem Abdul Jabbar actually went by Kareem Abdul Jabbar.

Barack Obama goes by Barack Obama.

What's John McCain's middle name? Come on ... can you do it without using google?

PHX-SOXFAN
08-18-2008, 03:24 PM
Kareem Abdul Jabbar actually went by Kareem Abdul Jabbar.

Barack Obama goes by Barack Obama.

What's John McCain's middle name? Come on ... can you do it without using google?

no he can't. he also can't admit that he says his entire name to incite the fearmongering nature towards muslims.

Tragic Johnson
08-18-2008, 04:00 PM
no he can't. he also can't admit that he says his entire name to incite the fearmongering nature towards muslims.

Fearingmongering nature towards muslims? But he's not muslim. :shrug: :laugh2:

Speaking of admitting, why don't you admit what I said:

"If a Republican candidate had such an ironic name, no way, in a million years would any liberal give him a free pass on it." Do you know how many times I have heard that each of Ronald Wilson Reagan's names has 6 letters each and that therefore it means that he's the earthly manifistation of Satan?


No, I don't know McCain's middle name, but I'm guessing (just a wild guess) it's not the same name as a ruthless dictator who hated our country and wanted to see it destroyed.

SmthBluCitrus
08-18-2008, 04:10 PM
Yes, absolutely. Because a name is what binds them together. :rolleyes:

So, I guess we'll just take it from you. You and your ever expanding knowledge of name-based domestic terrorists. We will all wake up in the morning on November 4th and become aware that ... "my God! We're electing Saddam Hussein President of these United States! What were we ever thinking? He'll keep those hidden WMDs in the White House basement!"

And it's John Sidney McCain. Why do I know this? Is it an infatuation with pols middle names? Nope! An indie-leaning right I was talking to a few months back felt it necessary to educate me on how "white" McCain's middle name sounded compared to that of the "godless muslim" Obama. Such a pity, but at least those with which she shared her opinion are in the underwhelming minority.

PHX-SOXFAN
08-18-2008, 04:21 PM
Fearingmongering nature towards muslims? But he's not muslim. :shrug: :laugh2:

Speaking of admitting, why don't you admit what I said:

"If a Republican candidate had such an ironic name, no way, in a million years would any liberal give him a free pass on it." Do you know how many times I have heard that each of Ronald Wilson Reagan's names has 6 letters each and that therefore it means that he's the earthly manifistation of Satan?


No, I don't know McCain's middle name, but I'm guessing (just a wild guess) it's not the same name as a ruthless dictator who hated our country and wanted to see it destroyed.

thank you for showing your hypocrisy:clap::clap::clap: and all in the same post. I didn't have to wait for them to come out separately. Thanks for proving my point, keep fearmongering:speechless::clap::clap:

and no, I've never heard the six letters thing from Reagan. I just now his economic policies have failed time and time again, no matter which new conservative comes along to try and reinstall them

Tragic Johnson
08-18-2008, 05:19 PM
thank you for showing your hypocrisy:clap::clap::clap: and all in the same post. I didn't have to wait for them to come out separately. Thanks for proving my point, keep fearmongering:speechless::clap::clap:

and no, I've never heard the six letters thing from Reagan. I just now his economic policies have failed time and time again, no matter which new conservative comes along to try and reinstall them

The fact that you won't even acknowledge my statement shows your hipocracy and that of all the others liberals who get their panties in a bunch at the mere mention of the man's own given name. And to show such hypacracy is why I even brought it up in the first place, so thanks for proving my point. So, for most liberals, go ahead and compare Bush to Hitler (you're just making an obsevation) but God forbid if you utter Barack's factual middle name, then you're just being hateful. :rolleyes:

SmthBluCitrus
08-18-2008, 05:25 PM
Who's comparing Bush to Hitler? Did I miss something somewhere?

littlejeterfrea
08-18-2008, 05:37 PM
I voted new low. Obama has good ideas and his whole slogan about change sounds really good but I think a lot of pro-Obama supporters are blinded by his popularity and celebrity status that is being bestowed upon him by the media. I don't want to President of the United States to be elected just because of his celebrity status, or more importantly, because "America is ready for a black president." That may be true, but it doesn't make him any more worthy of being president than McCain. Obama is very inexperienced compared to McCain, especially in foreign affairs and with the military. How can a president be the commander in chief of the military if he was never in the military? That's like an NFL team hiring a coach who has never played football before. It doesn't make sense. Obama is also very pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage, yet he claims to be a Christian. I'm a Christian and the Bible says very clearly that homosexuality is a sin and that abortion is murder. It's really sad that Obama doesn't seem to care about the moral values of this country, which were what this nation was built on in the first place.

PHX-SOXFAN
08-18-2008, 06:02 PM
The fact that you won't even acknowledge my statement shows your hipocracy and that of all the others liberals who get their panties in a bunch at the mere mention of the man's own given name. And to show such hypacracy is why I even brought it up in the first place, so thanks for proving my point. So, for most liberals, go ahead and compare Bush to Hitler (you're just making an obsevation) but God forbid if you utter Barack's factual middle name, then you're just being hateful. :rolleyes:

I completely acknowledged it and then pointed out how you back up the stereotype of bringing up his middle name for the exact purpose of linking him to saddam hussein, or other muslims for that matter. It's called fearmongering and that's what you just gave a prime example of in back to back paragraphs. Thanks for proving my point. You're not even trying to be subtle or coy about it.

I never compared Bush to Hitler. I will point his every failure though, which takes quite a lot

SmthBluCitrus
08-18-2008, 06:19 PM
I voted new low. Obama has good ideas and his whole slogan about change sounds really good but I think a lot of pro-Obama supporters are blinded by his popularity and celebrity status that is being bestowed upon him by the media. I don't want to President of the United States to be elected just because of his celebrity status, or more importantly, because "America is ready for a black president." That may be true, but it doesn't make him any more worthy of being president than McCain. Obama is very inexperienced compared to McCain, especially in foreign affairs and with the military. How can a president be the commander in chief of the military if he was never in the military? That's like an NFL team hiring a coach who has never played football before. It doesn't make sense. Obama is also very pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage, yet he claims to be a Christian. I'm a Christian and the Bible says very clearly that homosexuality is a sin and that abortion is murder. It's really sad that Obama doesn't seem to care about the moral values of this country, which were what this nation was built on in the first place.

While I think that it is super that you're a Christian and that's one of the attributes that you are basing your vote upon, nowhere in the Constitution does it define the pre-requisite of a potential Presidential candidate as somebody who is a good Christian. And, nowhere is our Constitution based upon the teachings of the Old or New Testament (or Torah or Qur'an for that matter).

Without getting to deep into the whole religous aspect of your text (I don't want to turn this into a religion thread), the Bible does contain flaws, inaccuracies, and contradictions. So, for a political thread, I personally wouldn't use it as a base of judgement. Then again, I don't classify myself as a Christian, so there is probably something to that.

But, just because he's pro-choice (not pro-abortion, as you put it) and pro-civil unions (he's actually anti when it comes to defining a homosexual relationship as marriage, but also against an amendment banning gay marriage).

You also don't have to have military experience to be a President, let alone a good President. We've had a number of Presidents that have had no military experience -- and one sitting in office that has no military/combat experience. You may have heard of Thomas Jefferson. He was certainly one of the greatest Presidents we've had and he didn't serve in the military. The man was around during the Revolutionary War, and he didn't fire a musket.

Frankin Roosevelt, who could be considered among the greatest Presidents of the 20th Century (and my idol and reason I'm a Democrat). He didn't serve in the military either. And, he managed ok as commander-in-chief of the armed forces throughout that little skirmish we like the call World War II.

Vote for who you vote for. That's your deal. But, at least take accurate information into the voting booth with you. Get to know what policies they actually stand for, and the platforms they would pursue. Don't listen to the campaign ads from the opposition that do nothing but smear and attack character.

Tragic Johnson
08-18-2008, 06:22 PM
I completely acknowledged it and then pointed out how you back up the stereotype of bringing up his middle name for the exact purpose of linking him to saddam hussein, or other muslims for that matter. It's called fearmongering and that's what you just gave a prime example of in back to back paragraphs. Thanks for proving my point. You're not even trying to be subtle or coy about it.

I never compared Bush to Hitler. I will point his every failure though, which takes quite a lot

No, it's not "fearmongering". That's simply following the Liberal talking points that claim it is. I say this because (now going back to the statement you DID NOT even acknowledged), if a conservative candidate had such an ironic name, you would think it was funny that, given recent history, he actually had such a name. It would never cross your mind to see it as "fearmongoring". Irony is funny and in this case, that's what it is: funny. But also, I find it interesting (and again, this is why I brought it up) that liberals (not necessarily just you in particular) get all upset and put labels on it and act all igdignant as if your side never engages in the type of behavior that you are accusing me (and those others who call him by that name, which again, is his REAL name) of. Have you ever heard the term "Religious Right", an all time favorite of the left? Now, what do you that means? Do you think, perhaps, that it is meant to elicit certain emotions from people? Do you think there are any racial connoctations attached to that (or do you think they mean a black church in the South :rolleyes:)?

Please, get off your high horse. It's funny that it is his name and that liberals get upset about it.

It is nice to live in a country where you can freely point out what you perceive to be the failures of the sitting President. I applaud you for exercising that right and truly hope than in the future, when people like me start pointing out what we perceive to be President's Hussein Obama's failures, people won't say we're just being recists because, for one thing, I'm yet to see a President who doesn't make mistakes.

RogerRomo
08-18-2008, 09:05 PM
No, it's not "fearmongering". That's simply following the Liberal talking points that claim it is. I say this because (now going back to the statement you DID NOT even acknowledged), if a conservative candidate had such an ironic name, you would think it was funny that, given recent history, he actually had such a name. It would never cross your mind to see it as "fearmongoring". Irony is funny and in this case, that's what it is: funny. But also, I find it interesting (and again, this is why I brought it up) that liberals (not necessarily just you in particular) get all upset and put labels on it and act all igdignant as if your side never engages in the type of behavior that you are accusing me (and those others who call him by that name, which again, is his REAL name) of. Have you ever heard the term "Religious Right", an all time favorite of the left? Now, what do you that means? Do you think, perhaps, that it is meant to elicit certain emotions from people? Do you think there are any racial connoctations attached to that (or do you think they mean a black church in the South :rolleyes:)?

Please, get off your high horse. It's funny that it is his name and that liberals get upset about it.

It is nice to live in a country where you can freely point out what you perceive to be the failures of the sitting President. I applaud you for exercising that right and truly hope than in the future, when people like me start pointing out what we perceive to be President's Hussein Obama's failures, people won't say we're just being recists because, for one thing, I'm yet to see a President who doesn't make mistakes.

Amen Sir! Be easy on the liberal messiah. He's there equal to Ronald Reagan. Moon Bats... Ahhh... Great entertainment aren't they?

Raidaz4Life
08-18-2008, 09:09 PM
I voted a new low by default... but I really don't think that.... but I don't see any of his policies improving this countries condition.... we are hovering around recession and generally raising taxes is not what you wanna do during that time

SmthBluCitrus
08-18-2008, 09:13 PM
I voted a new low by default... but I really don't think that.... but I don't see any of his policies improving this countries condition.... we are hovering around recession and generally raising taxes is not what you wanna do during that time

His plan actually includes lowering the taxes on the middle class -- those that actually need that extra money to spend to stimulate the economy -- and raise the taxes on the wealthy. It isn't an overall tax hike.

TheRuckus
08-18-2008, 09:31 PM
Obama is very inexperienced compared to McCain, especially in foreign affairs and with the military.

I'd rather our president be less experienced and intelligent than an experienced moron.


Obama is also very pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage, yet he claims to be a Christian. I'm a Christian and the Bible says very clearly that homosexuality is a sin and that abortion is murder.

News flash: This isn't the 14th century. It's okay to be Christian and not automatically kowtow to everything written in the Bible or spoken by the Vatican. Besides, the Bible was written by men, which makes it fallible, and it's not like the Church doesn't change their position on things all the time.


It's really sad that Obama doesn't seem to care about the moral values of this country, which were what this nation was built on in the first place.

The same moral values that included oppression of women and minorities, as well as enslavement? My, what a paragon of virtue this country is and always has been. Face it: this country was founded by a bunch of white, land and slave-owning men who weren't quite as gung-ho about God as Puritans and didn't want to pay their taxes.

And before any of you conservative nutjobs get started on me, I have just as many issues with the political left as I do the right, so attempts by any from either side to resort to the status quo of name calling, propaganda and zealotry will fall on deaf ears.

RogerRomo
08-18-2008, 09:32 PM
His plan actually includes lowering the taxes on the middle class -- those that actually need that extra money to spend to stimulate the economy -- and raise the taxes on the wealthy. It isn't an overall tax hike.

Anyone making over $42,000 a year.
Anyone collecting MediCare/Medicaid
Anyone who is not a minority.

I am sure you know all of the other ones so I will spare the details. 1.6 Trillion dollars isn't a tax hike? Why tax the wealthy more? What have they done? Have you ever gotten a job from a poor person? Didn't think so. Go ahead and look up the meaning of Socialism and Distribution of Wealth. Do you not believe in capitalism? Lastly, do you know how previous generations got out of problems? Busted their butts, quit complaining and doing something about it. NOT waiting for "big brother" to bail them out. Attack my grammar too, it's the only valid thing you can get me on. These are facts.

Raidaz4Life
08-18-2008, 09:40 PM
I'd rather our president be less experienced and intelligent than an experienced moron.



News flash: This isn't the 14th century. It's okay to be Christian and not automatically kowtow to everything written in the Bible or spoken by the Vatican. Besides, the Bible was written by men, which makes it fallible, and it's not like the Church doesn't change their position on things all the time.



The same moral values that included oppression of women and minorities, as well as enslavement? My, what a paragon of virtue this country is and always has been. Face it: this country was founded by a bunch of white, land and slave-owned men who weren't quite as gung-ho about God as Puritans and didn't want to pay their taxes.

And before any of you conservative nutjobs get started on me, I have just as many issues with the political left as I do the right, so attempts by any from either side to resort to the status quo of name calling, propaganda and zealotry will fall on deaf ears.

actually any real christian knows that first statement in 100% false, and I really have no idea what would lead you to say that. Obviously you shouldn't lecture on what you know nothing about.

Second this country was not founded on the oppression of minorities or women... it was necessary to get full support for the revolution... and most of our founding father felt it was a necessary sacrifice in order to avoid falling under the precedent the British were setting. Nice try though but if you actually study history you'd know most of the Americans at that time didn't support slavery and the ones that did, did it because their economies were centered around the slave labor. If you're going to further try and correct me with all the racist crap of the early 1900's I will argue that was purely due to the terms of the reconstruction period after the civil war and actually had very little to do with an actual desire to oppress minorities

TheRuckus
08-18-2008, 09:51 PM
actually any real christian knows that first statement in 100% false, and I really have no idea what would lead you to say that. Obviously you shouldn't lecture on what you know nothing about.

Second this country was not founded on the oppression of minorities or women... it was necessary to get full support for the revolution... and most of our founding father felt it was a necessary sacrifice in order to avoid falling under the precedent the British were setting. Nice try though

So you believe that the book you find in your nightside table at a motel, the one that is plagued by issues with ethical interpretation, translation and inconsistency is the unfiltered, 100 percent true word of God? There's a difference between faith and gullibility, friend. Anyone who merely accepts anything as the unvarnished truth without bothering to contemplate it is a fool at best.

I'm not a Christian, although I was raised Catholic; however, I have actually read the Bible and I think it functions decently enough as a loose guide on how to live, but I ultimately regard it as a work of fiction. You're more than free to accept your own interpretation of it, but to immediately assume I know "nothing" about the Bible like a "real Christian" would is elitist and bigoted, not to mention wrong.

SmthBluCitrus
08-18-2008, 10:06 PM
Anyone making over $42,000 a year.
Anyone collecting MediCare/Medicaid
Anyone who is not a minority.

I am sure you know all of the other ones so I will spare the details. 1.6 Trillion dollars isn't a tax hike? Why tax the wealthy more? What have they done? Have you ever gotten a job from a poor person? Didn't think so. Go ahead and look up the meaning of Socialism and Distribution of Wealth. Do you not believe in capitalism? Lastly, do you know how previous generations got out of problems? Busted their butts, quit complaining and doing something about it. NOT waiting for "big brother" to bail them out. Attack my grammar too, it's the only valid thing you can get me on. These are facts.

I think I'll actually respond to you. With the baiting and trashing you frequently use I don't think you'll be around long anyway.

I'd like you to find where $42,000 is a firm and solid number from somewhere other than a GOP attack machine (I did a little looking for you below, and all I found were flawed McCain arguments ... so good luck)

But to answer a few of your questions ...

Why tax the rich more? Because they can afford it. The wealthy get their money on the backs of those "poor" that they employ. And, they continue to get wealthier when they cut the benefits of their workers (while they continue to line their wallets, pockets, and bank accounts).

Obama isn't advocating socialism (I love your right wing buzz word usage though - it's so rare here :rolleyes:). Maybe you should read a bit into what socialism entails and then get back to us. This isn't a proletariate revolution and it's not a complete redistribution of wealth.

And yes, I believe in capitalism, but not in it's purest sense. I believe it needs to be regulated to thrive so we don't experience overwhelming busts like this nation and the world experienced during the 1930's. But, I do believe in the free market, and I'm all for global trade (off shoring and the like ...). I'm a firm believer in the Thomas Friedman "Flat World" model. But, the key point to that model is the idea that the government also needs to step in and play a role to make sure that the United States stays competitive with the rest of the world.

So, everybody just "busted their butts" in the 30's and the nation rose out of the Great Depression, huh? Go back to history class. The government under FDR "socialized" a lot. They created the WPA with the New Deal that put a lot of people back to work -- YES! Government sponsored works projects that gave people jobs when there were no jobs to be had.

The WPA was ultimately terminated because WWII kicked up and we re-tooled yet again to support the total-war effort. Then, when those troops came home, they were treated to the GI Bill that allowed them to better themselves and we saw large growth through the 50's. Sure, there were other outlying factors -- such as a devestated Europe and a rebuilding Japan -- but it was because of those government sponsored programs that the nation was able to lift itself out of the hole it was in.

Doesn't look like I need to "attack your grammar," your history is bad enough.

---------------------------------------------------------


Tax plan face off: Obama vs. McCain

The rich would pay more under Barack Obama's tax plan, and the poor and middle-class would pay less, a nonpartisan analysis finds. Under John McCain's plan, the rich would pay much less than they do now, the poor and middle-class would pay a bit less, and the federal deficit would grow, the study found.

Obama says he would hike several taxes on people making more than $250,000, including the amount they pay on capital gains. Currently, the top income tax rate is 35 percent. Under Obama, that would go back up to 39 percent. Obama's staff told the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center he would raise the rates for people in the top two brackets -- about 2.5 million filers out of 100 million-plus. People in those high tax brackets would see the tax rate on their capital gains hiked from the current 15 percent to 20-28 percent.

Obama started his campaign saying his plans would not increase taxes for people earning less than $250,000. But he found himself in an apparent contradiction by saying he would tax all income to fund Social Security, not just income up to $102,000, as is now the case. So now, Obama's plan calls for no Social Security tax on income between $102,000 and $250,000, but all income above $250,000 would be taxed for Social Security.

The 95 percent-plus of the American population that earns less than $250,000 would see the following tax breaks: A $500-per-worker tax credit for people who earn less than $150,000 and do not itemize, and a $4,000 credit per child in college. Seniors who earn less than $50,000 would pay no income tax.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1031268,CST-NWS-tax30.article


Provide Middle Class Americans Tax Relief
Obama will cut income taxes by $1,000 for working families to offset the payroll tax they pay.

Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families: Obama will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they need. Obama will create a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans.

Eliminate Income Taxes for Seniors Making Less than $50,000: Barack Obama will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. This proposal will eliminate income taxes for 7 million seniors and provide these seniors with an average savings of $1,400 each year. Under the Obama plan, 27 million American seniors will also not need to file an income tax return.

Simplify Tax Filings for Middle Class Americans: Obama will dramatically simplify tax filings so that millions of Americans will be able to do their taxes in less than five minutes. Obama will ensure that the IRS uses the information it already gets from banks and employers to give taxpayers the option of pre-filled tax forms to verify, sign and return. Experts estimate that the Obama proposal will save Americans up to 200 million total hours of work and aggravation and up to $2 billion in tax preparer fees. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#tax-relief

(I'm done copying and pasting -- but here are a few more sites for you to visit)
http://www.newsweek.com/id/151621/page/2

http://freedemocracy.blogspot.com/2008/08/factcheckorg-mccain-misrepresents.html

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/more_tax_deceptions.html

Raidaz4Life
08-18-2008, 10:14 PM
So you believe that the book you find in your nightside table at a motel, the one that is plagued by issues with ethical interpretation, translation and inconsistency is the unfiltered, 100 percent true word of God? There's a difference between faith and gullibility, friend. Anyone who merely accepts anything as the unvarnished truth without bothering to contemplate it is a fool at best.

I'm not a Christian, although I was raised Catholic; however, I have actually read the Bible and I think it functions decently enough as a loose guide on how to live, but I ultimately regard it as a work of fiction. You're more than free to accept your own interpretation of it, but to immediately assume I know "nothing" about the Bible like a "real Christian" would is elitist and bigoted, not to mention wrong.

Well I sincerely apologize I was not trying to sound elitist and I am very sorry that i came across that way and hope you can forgive me... but you basically said that Christians should pick and choose what they want to believe out of the Bible am i wrong? I will concede the Bible does have some differences in interpretation but I strongly doubt that you will find a legitimate version of the Bible in which God accepts homosexuality or abortion.

TheRuckus
08-18-2008, 10:22 PM
Well I sincerely apologize I was not trying to sound elitist and I am very sorry that i came across that way and hope you can forgive me... but you basically said that Christians should pick and choose what they want to believe out of the Bible am i wrong? I will concede the Bible does have some differences in interpretation but I strongly doubt that you will find a legitimate version of the Bible in which God accepts homosexuality or abortion.

No worries. I hold no rancor in this discussion.

I'm not saying Christians should heed some lessons and disregard others, but to regard to Bible as completely infallible is a mistake, given the issues. All I'm trying to say is that ultimately, everything in this world is subject to the hypocrisy, deceit and fallibility of man. Also, the Bible contains passages which openly support the institution of slavery in the Old and New Testaments, genocide, religious intolerance and subjugation of women. All of these acts are morally reprehensible. Where is the lesson to be learned in them?

DenButsu
08-18-2008, 10:24 PM
actually any real christian knows that first statement in 100% false

Actually, any real Christian knows that - according to their own book - god said "judgment is mine" - which means that neither you nor any other mere mortal has the right or the authority or the power to judge who is or is not a "real Christian".

Raidaz4Life
08-18-2008, 10:25 PM
No worries. I hold no rancor in this discussion.

I'm not saying Christians should heed some lessons and disregard others, but to regard to Bible as completely infallible is a mistake, given the issues. All I'm trying to say is that ultimately, everything in this world is subject to the hypocrisy, deceit and fallibility of man. Also, the Bible contains passages which openly support the institution of slavery in the Old and New Testaments, genocide, religious intolerance and subjugation of women. All of these acts are morally reprehensible. Where is the lesson to be learned in them?

you'll have to show me these verses because outside of slavery in which the Bible does not actually support it but rather merely states that a slave should do his work faithfully and not riot against his master I can't think of anywhere that stuff is supported

Raidaz4Life
08-18-2008, 10:30 PM
Actually, any real Christian knows that - according to their own book - god said "judgment is mine" - which means that neither you nor any other mere mortal has the right or the authority or the power to judge who is or is not a "real Christian".

LOL I'd say I'd have the right to call out someone who deceives my brother's in Christ. I am not judging him based on his beliefs I say he has every right to believe that but at the same time when someone preaches something in an attempt to deceive I have every right to call it out as a lie.

TheRuckus
08-18-2008, 10:32 PM
Actually, any real Christian knows that - according to their own book - god said "judgment is mine" - which means that neither you nor any other mere mortal has the right or the authority or the power to judge who is or is not a "real Christian".

This is a point I meant to make. The parameters set by the faith are that God is infallible, and all others are not. If there is actually a God, I'd certainly hope he's never wrong.

DenButsu
08-18-2008, 10:45 PM
LOL I'd say I'd have the right to call out someone who deceives my brother's in Christ. I am not judging him based on his beliefs I say he has every right to believe that but at the same time when someone preaches something in an attempt to deceive I have every right to call it out as a lie.

And how exactly are you qualified to determine who is and is not "attempting to deceive"? You have ESP or something?

RogerRomo
08-18-2008, 10:48 PM
I think I'll actually respond to you. With the baiting and trashing you frequently use I don't think you'll be around long anyway.

I'd like you to find where $42,000 is a firm and solid number from somewhere other than a GOP attack machine (I did a little looking for you below, and all I found were flawed McCain arguments ... so good luck)

But to answer a few of your questions ...

Why tax the rich more? Because they can afford it. The wealthy get their money on the backs of those "poor" that they employ. And, they continue to get wealthier when they cut the benefits of their workers (while they continue to line their wallets, pockets, and bank accounts).

Obama isn't advocating socialism (I love your right wing buzz word usage though - it's so rare here :rolleyes:). Maybe you should read a bit into what socialism entails and then get back to us. This isn't a proletariate revolution and it's not a complete redistribution of wealth.

And yes, I believe in capitalism, but not in it's purest sense. I believe it needs to be regulated to thrive so we don't experience overwhelming busts like this nation and the world experienced during the 1930's. But, I do believe in the free market, and I'm all for global trade (off shoring and the like ...). I'm a firm believer in the Thomas Friedman "Flat World" model. But, the key point to that model is the idea that the government also needs to step in and play a role to make sure that the United States stays competitive with the rest of the world.

So, everybody just "busted their butts" in the 30's and the nation rose out of the Great Depression, huh? Go back to history class. The government under FDR "socialized" a lot. They created the WPA with the New Deal that put a lot of people back to work -- YES! Government sponsored works projects that gave people jobs when there were no jobs to be had.

The WPA was ultimately terminated because WWII kicked up and we re-tooled yet again to support the total-war effort. Then, when those troops came home, they were treated to the GI Bill that allowed them to better themselves and we saw large growth through the 50's. Sure, there were other outlying factors -- such as a devestated Europe and a rebuilding Japan -- but it was because of those government sponsored programs that the nation was able to lift itself out of the hole it was in.

Doesn't look like I need to "attack your grammar," your history is bad enough.

---------------------------------------------------------





(I'm done copying and pasting -- but here are a few more sites for you to visit)
http://www.newsweek.com/id/151621/page/2

http://freedemocracy.blogspot.com/2008/08/factcheckorg-mccain-misrepresents.html

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/more_tax_deceptions.html

Thanks for your response! When you answer my questions with facts I will respond with mine. You "sources", may as well of come out of a cereal box. We got out of the Great Depression due to bravery and dedication of our citizens, you know, The Brave. Not little pet projects that your so called history lesson just told us all. Stop lying, your nose will get longer. :D

Wars = $$$, power, jobs. I should know I work for Boeing IDS.

Raidaz4Life
08-18-2008, 10:52 PM
And how exactly are you qualified to determine who is and is not "attempting to deceive"? You have ESP or something?

well Den I'd say when someone speaks out against the Bible its pretty easy to determine

DenButsu
08-18-2008, 11:04 PM
well Den I'd say when someone speaks out against the Bible its pretty easy to determine

But not being a 100% fudamentalist, not having a literal belief in every single word that's written in the Bible (or whichever version of the Bible you happen to favor) is not "going against the Bible". It's going against YOUR INTERPRETATION of the Bible.

Would you condemn all denominations of Christianity, all the various ways of practicing Christianity, that do not fit into your narrow definition of what it is?

And who endows you with the authority to make such a judgment? "God"? Do you think you speak for him? Are you a prophet?

SmthBluCitrus
08-18-2008, 11:40 PM
Thanks for your response! When you answer my questions with facts I will respond with mine. You "sources", may as well of come out of a cereal box. We got out of the Great Depression due to bravery and dedication of our citizens, you know, The Brave. Not little pet projects that your so called history lesson just told us all. Stop lying, your nose will get longer. :D

Wars = $$$, power, jobs. I should know I work for Boeing IDS.

Yea, that's right. Brush them off. From what I've seen I wouldn't expect any less from you.

I suppose the plan that Obama presents on his website is completely fabricated, and McCain actually holds the real information as to what Obama intends to do. Sure wish we could all have your smarts.

Same with factcheck.org ... that "nonpartisan, nonprofit, 'consumer advocate' for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics."

But, I guess anything that isn't from your conservative attack machine is nothing but liberal commie/socialist rhetoric.

Oh, and you're incredibly astute to completely disregard the WPA and the rest of FDR's New Deal projects. I mean, I guess that four-year History BA I have (from my non-public -- read private -- university) really isn't doing me well. Because, it's more than obvious that you, in your infinite wisdeom, hast bested mine own intelligence.

Guess all those history books were wrong ... oh woe is me.

redsox12
08-19-2008, 12:10 AM
Frankin Roosevelt, who could be considered among the greatest Presidents of the 20th Century (and my idol and reason I'm a Democrat). He didn't serve in the military either. And, he managed ok as commander-in-chief of the armed forces throughout that little skirmish we like the call World War II.


It's very interesting to hear that FDR is the reason your a democrat. May I ask you do you believe the democrat party is the same as it was when FDR was president? Ronald Reagan switched to republican because he said that the party was not the same anymore, it had become more liberal. I believe Bill O'Really said FDR would not like the party as it were today as he was more traditional. I had a congressman that switch from democrat to republican for the same reasons. I'm just wondering what you think.

DenButsu
08-19-2008, 12:24 AM
redsox12, I doubt if any American politician whose career peaked 60-70 years ago were to see the modern incarnations of either the Democratic or the Republican parties that they'd really even be able to recognize them as their own at all...

PUGS1688
08-19-2008, 12:42 AM
He is like every other puppet, just a different color. What he says and what he'll do will be 2 different things. He'll push the National ID card like it predicted years ago. This country will turn slowly into a socialist society. People will expect money and free healthcare from the government, and with that, they will get a higher inflation rate and crappy healthcare service.

SmthBluCitrus
08-19-2008, 08:40 AM
It's very interesting to hear that FDR is the reason your a democrat. May I ask you do you believe the democrat party is the same as it was when FDR was president? Ronald Reagan switched to republican because he said that the party was not the same anymore, it had become more liberal. I believe Bill O'Really said FDR would not like the party as it were today as he was more traditional. I had a congressman that switch from democrat to republican for the same reasons. I'm just wondering what you think.

While I'll absolutely agree that the Democratic Party of today isn't the same Democratic Party of the 1930's and 40's, much of the same ideology holds true today. And, to be quite honest, the party is actually more conservative than it was then, too. Imagine trying to get a comprehensive Social Security bill passed in the current climate -- if it didn't already exist, it never would.

I'll tell you an overview of my personal political ideology ...

I believe the government has a responsibility to maintain the best interests of its citizens. I don't think most people would argue that point -- but the way that is executed is certainly up for discussion. More to the point, I believe that they hold a responsibility to the social good (not socialism, per se) of the citizens. That we can undertake certain benefits like a national health system, federalized education, etc ... without destroying the free market, and in fact, strengthening the way the market runs and its efficiency.

Now, I'm an avid free market Democrat in the Thomas Friedman mold (lol - I feel like I keep saying that). I do believe in the right for workers to unionize, but I'd like to see that restructured. I think a lot of unions have passed the point that they're useful anymore; the teachers union in particular. But, individual workers need the ability to work together for their best interests when it comes to the business owners. In this aspect, I think FDR would disagree -- but we're at a point that is different from the 30's and 40's. Our industrial base is crumbling.

I also believe that the global economy is here to stay, and that we need to embrace it or the rest of the world will pass us by. I realize and understand that work is going to go where the labor is cheapest. And, I'm also conscious of the fact that the work that gets shipped overseas also has a positive effect on that culture (so long as they're not sweatshops with child labor churning out $5.95 Wal*Mart shoes). If you look at India and China, those are great examples of what kind of positive effect off shoring has done. Much to the point that China has even begun to off-shore some of its work to areas of South America. Labor is fluid and it goes to where expense is low and production is high, and I don't have a problem with that.

However, where the United States differs is that we're generally the people who are still leading with the brainpower and advanced technology. And, we need to maintain that to be the global economic leader. Worrying about petty issues such as health care and medicine, education, and other social issues only stand in the way of being productive. If we allow government intervention into those, it takes the responsibility out of the hands of the citizens to allow them to develop that new tech, or create that new invention.

I actually hate the Obama health care plan (shh ... don't tell). It doesn't go far enough. I want to see us closer to the NHS out of the United Kingdom. Sure, it's going to raise taxes, I'll absolutely admit that. But, the fact that it will save money in other areas would do well for the financial situation of the country. So, you'd possibly end up paying $300 - 500 more in taxes every year, but you'd also be saving $50 - 100 every paycheck (I don't know solid numbers, but from some of the numbers I've read we -- the individual taxpayer -- ends up saving money at the end of the year).

So, I suppose I should sum this up. I'm a Democrat based on the FDR model because I believe the government has a responsibility to the citizens of the country. I believe the party has shifted right in certain areas (generally social good areas), and left in other areas (a lot of isolationist rhetoric the past few years). As a world leader, we have a responsibility to the rest of the world ... not necessarily as a police force, but certainly a responsibility.

Any questions? I just woke up, and haven't had my coffee yet, so take it for what it is. :D

redsox12
08-19-2008, 12:30 PM
redsox12, I doubt if any American politician whose career peaked 60-70 years ago were to see the modern incarnations of either the Democratic or the Republican parties that they'd really even be able to recognize them as their own at all...

I guess I'm trying to ask if FDR saw what was happening now, would he like it or not?


I actually hate the Obama health care plan (shh ... don't tell). It doesn't go far enough. I want to see us closer to the NHS out of the United Kingdom. Sure, it's going to raise taxes, I'll absolutely admit that. But, the fact that it will save money in other areas would do well for the financial situation of the country. So, you'd possibly end up paying $300 - 500 more in taxes every year, but you'd also be saving $50 - 100 every paycheck (I don't know solid numbers, but from some of the numbers I've read we -- the individual taxpayer -- ends up saving money at the end of the year).


I think the most important question is not about the money but if the health care will still be good, or stretched out to the point that you lose overall care, like in some counties where you wait several months compared to here you don't wait half that long.

yaowowrocket11
08-19-2008, 01:02 PM
Thanks for your response! When you answer my questions with facts I will respond with mine. You "sources", may as well of come out of a cereal box. We got out of the Great Depression due to bravery and dedication of our citizens, you know, The Brave. Not little pet projects that your so called history lesson just told us all. Stop lying, your nose will get longer. :D

Wars = $$$, power, jobs. I should know I work for Boeing IDS.

Normally, answering another ones questions is a key part of a debate. Not avoiding them, which makes you seem clueless.

Wars = unneeded casualties, higher taxes, hate for America

I would rather keep some Americans alive rather than create a few jobs, and have a little more power.

SmthBluCitrus
08-19-2008, 01:04 PM
I guess I'm trying to ask if FDR saw what was happening now, would he like it or not?

I'm sure it would be a mixed bag. He'd probably like the progressive talk about energy and government investment in new energy sources. But, I'm sure he'd be taken aback a bit by the global economy. He'd probably be upset to see the housing market the way it is, especially since guidelines were set to help avoid what we've experience the past few years.



I think the most important question is not about the money but if the health care will still be good, or stretched out to the point that you lose overall care, like in some counties where you wait several months compared to here you don't wait half that long

And that's a valid question, but unfortunately that's not something that we'd know until after the fact. And, at that point hindsight is 20/20. But, I think we need to go after healthcare reform with both barrels blazing. We need to fight the rising costs so that Joe and Jane Everyday American can afford it. Healthcare shouldn't be something primarily for the wealthy.

Some will argue that the poor do have health care options. That they can walk into any ER and get help for the arm they just sliced in half, or the concussion they received. And, that's great ... for injuries that have already occured. It costs the hospitals a bundle (some of it out of their own coffers), but at least there is some sort of post-condition care.

But, what about early detection of cancer? What about preventative health care? It is, by far, cheaper in the long run to be able to have these people in doctors offices and clinics getting regular check-ups to make sure they're healthy and productive. Not only would it save you and me tax monies, but it would help the economy by having a healthy group of working adults.

We'd be able to further combat the growing epidemic of diabetes because people would have the opportunity and ability to walk into any doctors office in the country and not have to worry about co-pays or bills in the mail that end up going past due.

CuseDude87
08-19-2008, 02:21 PM
Now, I'm an avid free market Democrat in the Thomas Friedman mold (lol - I feel like I keep saying that). I do believe in the right for workers to unionize, but I'd like to see that restructured. I think a lot of unions have passed the point that they're useful anymore; the teachers union in particular. But, individual workers need the ability to work together for their best interests when it comes to the business owners. In this aspect, I think FDR would disagree -- but we're at a point that is different from the 30's and 40's. Our industrial base is crumbling.

I read through this thread, and have agreed with each and every point you have made up until I saw this.

Unfortunately, teachers get a very raw deal from superintendents and the school boards above them. They are suits in a main office that most of the time have never set foot in a classroom as a teacher, and therefore have no idea what it takes to be successful. This does not, however, hinder them from making life hard on teachers by prescribing certain ways of dealing with students, parents, curriculum, etc. without a firm understanding of how the classroom actually functions. This is a major problem.

As for unions--teachers unions especially, as you said--they are still very necessary to ensure that teachers are not ripped off by the board. They already make a pittance, even at the top end of their payscale, and do not need board members telling them to forget about a raise and asking them to pay a higher premium for health insurance (I know this from experience).

My question for you is, what about teachers unions do you feel is unnecessary?

BTW, loved and agreed with the rest of your posts throughout. :)

SmthBluCitrus
08-19-2008, 03:16 PM
I read through this thread, and have agreed with each and every point you have made up until I saw this.

Unfortunately, teachers get a very raw deal from superintendents and the school boards above them. They are suits in a main office that most of the time have never set foot in a classroom as a teacher, and therefore have no idea what it takes to be successful. This does not, however, hinder them from making life hard on teachers by prescribing certain ways of dealing with students, parents, curriculum, etc. without a firm understanding of how the classroom actually functions. This is a major problem.

As for unions--teachers unions especially, as you said--they are still very necessary to ensure that teachers are not ripped off by the board. They already make a pittance, even at the top end of their payscale, and do not need board members telling them to forget about a raise and asking them to pay a higher premium for health insurance (I know this from experience).

My question for you is, what about teachers unions do you feel is unnecessary?

BTW, loved and agreed with the rest of your posts throughout. :)

Well thanks. Appreciated.

I suppose I was being hasty when I said that teachers unions weren't necessary, or at the very least I failed to elaborate further.

I absolutely agree that there is certainly some sort of a rift between the teachers and the administrators. I was fully on the pathway towards becoming a history teacher, but after doing field work inside the classroom (and seeing the conditions that teachers work in, and how little support they get from "the office") I decided that it wasn't for me. I don't have the ability to listen to some kid in a secondary ed class (7th - 12th) stand up and shout derogatory language at me ... and then not be able to do anything about it, and no - I don't want to beat the kid.

However, I did say that it seems as though the teachers union is unnecessary. Let me clarify by saying that I do think that teachers should be able to unionize. But, I feel that (for the most part) the unions have gotten weaker and aren't able to protect the teachers they way they should be protected. I suppose a more correct term would be that they've had their hands tied. We've seen stagnating wages and decreased benefits and I suppose a lot of it has to do with NCLB.

I would LOVE to see NCLB scrapped, or at the very least re-tooled. But, if we were able to federalize education from pre-k through 12, then I don't see how a teachers union would still be necessary. We'd be able to funnel revenue into the system so local systems aren't based on local income rates. Should little Jimmy in wealthier suburban city X be entitled to a better education and more opportunities than little Danny in inner city X?

Now, of course, different measures would need to be undertaken (and this would all be legislated, naturally), but a teacher in San Francisco is going to need to make a whole lot more money than a teacher in Cedar Rapids, IA. The sheer cost of living is drastically different -- and at that point, it would have to be left up to the individual states.

I hope that explains a bit better as to my feelings on the teachers union. There just isn't the strength there to keep things on an even keel.

Raidaz4Life
08-19-2008, 04:35 PM
But not being a 100% fudamentalist, not having a literal belief in every single word that's written in the Bible (or whichever version of the Bible you happen to favor) is not "going against the Bible". It's going against YOUR INTERPRETATION of the Bible.

Would you condemn all denominations of Christianity, all the various ways of practicing Christianity, that do not fit into your narrow definition of what it is?

And who endows you with the authority to make such a judgment? "God"? Do you think you speak for him? Are you a prophet?

Lol I don't see how I am judging? All I did was say that it is wrong to tell Christians to not believe the Bible because it was written by men thats it. I don't care one way or another how each person personally interprets it but I do have the right to correct a person who claims that Christians should avoid listening to the Bible when the Bible says the opposite. I find it funny how you are attacking me for so called "judging" when all I was doing was correcting a person who was judging way before I ever allegedly did.

RogerRomo
08-19-2008, 05:16 PM
A copy and paste. A long retort to your messiah. I know, I am being a hypocrite but this article is one all should read.

Each year I get to celebrate Independence Day twice. On June 30 I celebrate MY independence day and on July 4 I celebrate America's.

This year is special, because it marks the 40th anniversary of my independence. On June 30, 1968, I escaped Communist Cuba and a few months later I was in the US to stay. That I happened to arrive in Richmond on Thanksgiving Day is just part of the story, but I digress.

I've thought a lot about the anniversary this year. The election year rhetoric has made me think a lot about Cuba and what transpired there.

In the late 1950's most Cubans thought Cuba needed a change, and they were right. So when a young leader came along, every Cuban was at least receptive.

When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him. They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in. When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed. When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said "Praise the Lord." And when the young leader said, "I will be for change and I'll bring you change," everyone yelled, "Viva Fidel!"

But nobody asked about the change, so:
*By the time the executioner's guns went silent the people's guns had been taken away.
*By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed.
*By the time everyone received their free education it was worth nothing.
*By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him.
*By the time the change was finally implemented Cuba had been knocked down a couple of notches to Third-World status.
*By the time the change was over more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes.

You can call those who made it ashore anywhere else in the world the most fortunate Cubans.
And now I'm back to the beginning of my story.

Luckily, we would never in America fall for a young leader who promised change without asking, "WHAT change? How will you carry it out? What will it cost America?"

Would we? Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

Manuel Alvarez, Jr

Tragic Johnson
08-19-2008, 06:41 PM
Luckily, we would never in America fall for a young leader who promised change without asking, "WHAT change? How will you carry it out? What will it cost America?"

Or how about just asking: "Where have you brought significant change in a large scale so that we know you are capable of doing it?"

DenButsu
08-20-2008, 01:38 AM
Or how about just NOT LYING about Obama being a communist or in any way remotely similar to Castro? That would be even easier. :nod:

RogerRomo
08-20-2008, 12:25 PM
Or how about just NOT LYING about Obama being a communist or in any way remotely similar to Castro? That would be even easier. :nod:

Look at his views. Look at what it means to be a socialist. Yet another topic to prove he is an elitist who can't even take care of his own family, yet alone a nation.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2590614/Barack-Obamas-lost-brother-found-in-Kenya.html

OnWisconsin2007
08-20-2008, 04:06 PM
Yeah, because guys like George W. Bush are doing so much better?

PHX-SOXFAN
08-20-2008, 04:10 PM
Look at his views. Look at what it means to be a socialist. Yet another topic to prove he is an elitist who can't even take care of his own family, yet alone a nation.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2590614/Barack-Obamas-lost-brother-found-in-Kenya.html

this shows he can't take care of his family?:confused: give me a break, he didn't run out on a wife.

And Obama's an elitist? He's not the one who owns nine houses in this race, nor did his wife just make millions in a buyout of an american company by a foreign company that will cost americans jobs. I think you're confused about who the elitist is in this race. If Kerry's wife was ripped for her worth and policies, McCain's wife should get it 10x as much.

b1e9a8r5s
08-20-2008, 04:52 PM
this shows he can't take care of his family?:confused: give me a break, he didn't run out on a wife.

And Obama's an elitist? He's not the one who owns nine houses in this race, nor did his wife just make millions in a buyout of an american company by a foreign company that will cost americans jobs. I think you're confused about who the elitist is in this race. If Kerry's wife was ripped for her worth and policies, McCain's wife should get it 10x as much.

No, he's the one who's campaign, after the general consesus was that McCain did better than he did in the faith forum, floatted the idea out there that McCain had heard the questions early. Because after all, how could someone as dumb as McCain, best someone as smart as Obama?

Elitist doesn't mean rich. It means "The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources."

RogerRomo
08-20-2008, 05:32 PM
Like it or not Bush has not put us into a recession. Policies put in place by Clinton years ago set us up for disaster. Gas is coming down. Why? DRILL. For the past couple of months there has been growth, hell event throughout his term there has been growth. The housing market bubble burst. Bubbles burst. Not Bushs' fault. For the past two years the Democrats control congress. They should receive the bulk of the blame, not President Bush. The article does clearly show how Sen.Obama won't even recognize his true roots. As for McCain running out on a wife... Come on... LOL

CuseDude87
08-20-2008, 08:43 PM
Like it or not Bush has not put us into a recession. Policies put in place by Clinton years ago set us up for disaster. Gas is coming down. Why? DRILL. For the past couple of months there has been growth, hell event throughout his term there has been growth. The housing market bubble burst. Bubbles burst. Not Bushs' fault. For the past two years the Democrats control congress. They should receive the bulk of the blame, not President Bush. The article does clearly show how Sen.Obama won't even recognize his true roots. As for McCain running out on a wife... Come on... LOL

Yeah, that surplus in the economy during Clinton's administration really sucked. :rolleyes:

Sure, deflect blame from Bush's pitiful economic policies onto the Congressional Democrats. It's not like they have to face a veto every time they want to pass a bill. :rolleyes:

DenButsu
08-20-2008, 11:33 PM
he is an elitist

Brief quiz for you, RR:

Which candidate...

...is worth over $100 million?

...owns 10 houses?

...flies around in a $12.6 million corporate jet?

...walks around in $520 Italian loafers?

...believes $5 million a year in income is the cutoff for the wealthy?

...believes that those making $500,000 a year, or $1 million a year, or even $4 million a year are not "rich"?

...'s wife said, "And in Arizona the only way to get around the state is by small private plane and I wound up loving it and buying a plane."?

...was the one, when asked, "When was the last time you pumped your own gas and how much did it cost?", who then replied, "I don’t recall and frankly, I don’t see how it matters."?

...is the REAL elitist?


----If you answered JOHN McCAIN to ALL of the above, you're a winner! :clap:



----------------------------
Do YOU stick YOUR flag pin DIRECTLY into YOUR bare FLESH, Obama?!?!?

http://images.salon.com/comics/tomo/2008/04/28/tomo/story.jpg

(^for enhancing the post)

Tragic Johnson
08-20-2008, 11:49 PM
Brief quiz for you, RR:

Which candidate...

...is worth over $100 million?

...owns 10 houses?

...flies around in a $12.6 million corporate jet?

...who walks around in $520 Italian loafers?

...believes $5 million a year in income is the cutoff for the wealthy?

...believes that those making $500,000 a year, or $1 million a year, or even $4 million a year are not "rich"?

...'s wife said, "And in Arizona the only way to get around the state is by small private plane and I wound up loving it and buying a plane."?

...was the one, when asked, "When was the last time you pumped your own gas and how much did it cost?", who then replied, "I don’t recall and frankly, I don’t see how it matters."?

...is the REAL elitist?


----If you answered JOHN McCAIN to ALL of the above, you're a winner! :clap:


So, if you are a millionaire who graduated from Columbia and Harvard, you could NOT possibly an elitist because someone else has more money than you?? :shrug: But then, only Warren Buffett could be an elitist? Nice logic. :rolleyes:

DenButsu
08-20-2008, 11:55 PM
So, if you are a millionaire who graduated from Columbia and Harvard, you could NOT possibly an elitist because someone else has more money than you?? :shrug: But then, only Warren Buffett could be an elitist? Nice logic. :rolleyes:

All I'm saying is that:

a) It's CRYSTAL CLEAR that McCain is MUCH MORE of an elitist than Obama is, and

b) that therefore his charges of elitism are bogus and hypocritical.

Tragic Johnson
08-21-2008, 12:17 AM
All I'm saying is that:

a) It's CRYSTAL CLEAR that McCain is MUCH MORE of an elitist than Obama is, and

b) that therefore his charges of elitism are bogus and hypocritical.

Cool, that makes more sense to me. That's how you see it, it's your opinion, I can respect that. Personally, creating your own Presidential emblem and acting as if you are already president (taking foreign victory tours) months before it's over, and suggesting that you were "chosen" by a higher being to be President is way more elitist, but that's just me.

DenButsu
08-21-2008, 12:26 AM
suggesting that you were "chosen" by a higher being to be President

That was Bush.

RogerRomo
08-21-2008, 10:49 AM
That was Bush.

No that was Nancy Pelosi. "He is a gift sent from God". Speaking of course about Obama.

RogerRomo
08-21-2008, 10:50 AM
Brief quiz for you, RR:

Which candidate...

...is worth over $100 million?

...owns 10 houses?

...flies around in a $12.6 million corporate jet?

...walks around in $520 Italian loafers?

...believes $5 million a year in income is the cutoff for the wealthy?

...believes that those making $500,000 a year, or $1 million a year, or even $4 million a year are not "rich"?

...'s wife said, "And in Arizona the only way to get around the state is by small private plane and I wound up loving it and buying a plane."?

...was the one, when asked, "When was the last time you pumped your own gas and how much did it cost?", who then replied, "I donít recall and frankly, I donít see how it matters."?

...is the REAL elitist?


----If you answered JOHN McCAIN to ALL of the above, you're a winner! :clap:



----------------------------
Do YOU stick YOUR flag pin DIRECTLY into YOUR bare FLESH, Obama?!?!?

http://images.salon.com/comics/tomo/2008/04/28/tomo/story.jpg

(^for enhancing the post)

If you were rich would you want to be taxed for being rich? isn't it the same as profiling for other reasons? Land of the free, free to make yourself rich without someone trying to re-distribute your wealth. Right?

johnnylee722
08-21-2008, 10:54 AM
No matter how he does he is going to look great becuase he is following one of the worst presidents in USA history.

DenButsu
08-21-2008, 10:25 PM
No that was Nancy Pelosi. "He is a gift sent from God". Speaking of course about Obama.

'I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen... I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it.'
-Dubya (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/nov/02/usa.religion)


And no, I wouldn't mind paying my fair share of taxes if I got rich, rr. First of all, I would be thankful, and not bitter, that I was born in a country that enabled me to have the opportunity to get rich in the first place. Secondly, my attitude about that would be gratitude, not contempt, for that country. So yes, thirdly, I would gladly accept a sense of civic responsibility to give something back to the country that had given so much to me so that others might have the same opportunities, and I would not reject that responsibility out of selfishness, greed, or scorn for those who weren't so lucky as me.


Now, I'd feel much less happy about paying those kinds of taxes if they were financing unnecessary wars rather than strengthening the state of the domestic economy, education, and health care system. But yeah, I'd do my part and I wouldn't ***** about it.

CuseDude87
08-21-2008, 11:15 PM
'I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen... I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it.'
-Dubya (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/nov/02/usa.religion)


And no, I wouldn't mind paying my fair share of taxes if I got rich, rr. First of all, I would be thankful, and not bitter, that I was born in a country that enabled me to have the opportunity to get rich in the first place. Secondly, my attitude about that would be gratitude, not contempt, for that country. So yes, thirdly, I would gladly accept a sense of civic responsibility to give something back to the country that had given so much to me so that others might have the same opportunities, and I would not reject that responsibility out of selfishness, greed, or scorn for those who weren't so lucky as me.


Now, I'd feel much less happy about paying those kinds of taxes if they were financing unnecessary wars rather than strengthening the state of the domestic economy, education, and health care system. But yeah, I'd do my part and I wouldn't ***** about it.

You're getting sigged. Agree 100%.

EDIT: Nvm, it's too long. lol

RogerRomo
08-22-2008, 01:26 PM
'I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen... I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it.'
-Dubya (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/nov/02/usa.religion)


And no, I wouldn't mind paying my fair share of taxes if I got rich, rr. First of all, I would be thankful, and not bitter, that I was born in a country that enabled me to have the opportunity to get rich in the first place. Secondly, my attitude about that would be gratitude, not contempt, for that country. So yes, thirdly, I would gladly accept a sense of civic responsibility to give something back to the country that had given so much to me so that others might have the same opportunities, and I would not reject that responsibility out of selfishness, greed, or scorn for those who weren't so lucky as me.


Now, I'd feel much less happy about paying those kinds of taxes if they were financing unnecessary wars rather than strengthening the state of the domestic economy, education, and health care system. But yeah, I'd do my part and I wouldn't ***** about it.

You make some good points. I can acknowladge that. The bolding however is an attempt to insult my intelligence? If its not forgive me. However, why is the democrat response already more taxes? More taxes doesnt work. We are already some of the highest taxed people on earth. It all boils down to the management. We dont need anymore of these Pelosi/Clinton organizations being set up. This world is set up as survival of the fittest. You can't play with the big dogs, get out of the way. Sad but true and I dont agree with it. It's just how it is....

PHX-SOXFAN
08-22-2008, 01:33 PM
You make some good points. I can acknowladge that. The bolding however is an attempt to insult my intelligence? If its not forgive me. However, why is the democrat response already more taxes? More taxes doesnt work. We are already some of the highest taxed people on earth. It all boils down to the management. We dont need anymore of these Pelosi/Clinton organizations being set up. This world is set up as survival of the fittest. You can't play with the big dogs, get out of the way. Sad but true and I dont agree with it. It's just how it is....

obama will lower taxes for 90%+ of the population, you are ill informed. Furthermore the current conservative economic policy is largely to blame for the status quo. Coincidentally, McCain is right in line with the failed Bush economic policies. It should be pretty easy for Obama to connect these dots over the next few months as reports continue to show worsening economic conditions as they have for several quarters now. The economy will no doubt be the number one issue, and one guy has a different plan than the failed plan that is currently in place. connect the dots

SmthBluCitrus
08-22-2008, 01:41 PM
You make some good points. I can acknowladge that. The bolding however is an attempt to insult my intelligence? If its not forgive me. However, why is the democrat response already more taxes? More taxes doesnt work. We are already some of the highest taxed people on earth. It all boils down to the management. We dont need anymore of these Pelosi/Clinton organizations being set up. This world is set up as survival of the fittest. You can't play with the big dogs, get out of the way. Sad but true and I dont agree with it. It's just how it is....

That point is absolutely up for debate. While we generally have the highest corporate tax rate (I think we go back and forth with Canada for the top spot there), our income tax rate isn't close to highest.

Our top income tax rate sits at 39%, with social security adding another 7% on SS taxable income ($72,600).

However, you look at a place like the Netherlands and their 60% rate/29.9% SS up to $21,300, and they are certainly higher, far and away. In fact, a few other countries have income tax rates over 50% ... Denmark, Germany, Sweden. Italy, the UK, and Canada also have income tax rates higher than we do (at the highest point).

Married couples with two children (my family fits into this category) has a take home rate around 80%. That's certainly one of the higher rates in the "Western" world. Compare that to Italy's 65%, and Denmarks average of around 55% take home ... and actually, only Hong Kong, with their miniscule tax rates, really only take home more on average than we do (by percentage).

chicubs377
08-22-2008, 02:45 PM
Obama seems really shady to me.

Raidaz4Life
08-22-2008, 02:48 PM
'I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen... I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it.'
-Dubya (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/nov/02/usa.religion)


And no, I wouldn't mind paying my fair share of taxes if I got rich, rr. First of all, I would be thankful, and not bitter, that I was born in a country that enabled me to have the opportunity to get rich in the first place. Secondly, my attitude about that would be gratitude, not contempt, for that country. So yes, thirdly, I would gladly accept a sense of civic responsibility to give something back to the country that had given so much to me so that others might have the same opportunities, and I would not reject that responsibility out of selfishness, greed, or scorn for those who weren't so lucky as me.


Now, I'd feel much less happy about paying those kinds of taxes if they were financing unnecessary wars rather than strengthening the state of the domestic economy, education, and health care system. But yeah, I'd do my part and I wouldn't ***** about it.

Well last time I checked... more often than not its not the government who is paying you.... and I know you'll probably argue that the taxes are going back to the people who allowed you to make money in the first place but the flaw with the tax system is that you don't get to decide what your taxes are going to, the government does.

You might think your tax dollars are going towards helping people when in reality they could just be going towards the president getting a toilet seat made of 24k gold.

I for one am not a big supporter of taxes going into improving the education system. I believe we could put all the money in the world into getting advanced facilities with the newest technology... yet not see a single change in test scores or the drop out rate (which in Dallas was a huge problem).

PHX-SOXFAN
08-22-2008, 03:38 PM
Well last time I checked... more often than not its not the government who is paying you.... and I know you'll probably argue that the taxes are going back to the people who allowed you to make money in the first place but the flaw with the tax system is that you don't get to decide what your taxes are going to, the government does.

You might think your tax dollars are going towards helping people when in reality they could just be going towards the president getting a toilet seat made of 24k gold.

I for one am not a big supporter of taxes going into improving the education system. I believe we could put all the money in the world into getting advanced facilities with the newest technology... yet not see a single change in test scores or the drop out rate (which in Dallas was a huge problem).

you dismiss the other advantages of spending money on education, like creating jobs, positive economic impact, and increasing gdp overall. coincidentally all of these things are overlooked by conservative policy contributing to our poor economic status quo:speechless:

Raidaz4Life
08-22-2008, 06:46 PM
you dismiss the other advantages of spending money on education, like creating jobs, positive economic impact, and increasing gdp overall. coincidentally all of these things are overlooked by conservative policy contributing to our poor economic status quo:speechless:

since when has education needed jobs? Everywhere I have been to school they are struggling to fill the positions available with qualified teachers... but hey thats just me... and you are criticizing conservatives for this? I have NEVER heard a liberal say that education needs more money to create jobs and fix the economy its always to save our youth and get us up to par with the rest of the world in terms of education

Drucifer
08-22-2008, 07:47 PM
I have no ****ing clue whatsoever.I'm with you.

The economy is such an f'ing mess right now, anything he does would improve it. I'm hoping he pushes green to the hilt. That he make a Kennedy put a man on the moon -like speech, but focusing on energy.

Militarily, who knows. I don't think he's ballsless, but in this world, we have no ideal where he's going to be tested and by whom.

DenButsu
08-22-2008, 08:55 PM
You make some good points. I can acknowladge that. The bolding however is an attempt to insult my intelligence? If its not forgive me. However, why is the democrat response already more taxes? More taxes doesnt work. We are already some of the highest taxed people on earth. It all boils down to the management. We dont need anymore of these Pelosi/Clinton organizations being set up. This world is set up as survival of the fittest. You can't play with the big dogs, get out of the way. Sad but true and I dont agree with it. It's just how it is....

The bold is intended to emphasize those things because I feel strongly about them. No insult intended whatsoever.

And economic Darwinism is bull****. We live in a society, and it only works if we spend at least some of our time and resources taking care of each other.

That may sound hokey to you, but dig it: That's what our military does. They take care of us, protect us and keep us safe. That's what our police force does, they take care of us. Our firefighters, too. And in reality, "they" are not "they" but "we". We are a society that works best when we have social institutions established that enable us to take care of each other, to help each other out when necessary. At the bottom of it, this is a principle that all reasonable conservatives and liberals agree on. It's really just a matter of where the line is drawn. I happen to think that health care and education should be included (as rights) in this realm. Many conservatives disagree.

But whether you want to pretend this isn't true or not, we do all live in the same world, and in that sense our fates are bound. We're all in this together, and it is in our own self interest for us to help each other out.

CuseDude87
08-23-2008, 12:05 PM
The bold is intended to emphasize those things because I feel strongly about them. No insult intended whatsoever.

And economic Darwinism is bull****. We live in a society, and it only works if we spend at least some of our time and resources taking care of each other.

That may sound hokey to you, but dig it: That's what our military does. They take care of us, protect us and keep us safe. That's what our police force does, they take care of us. Our firefighters, too. And in reality, "they" are not "they" but "we". We are a society that works best when we have social institutions established that enable us to take care of each other, to help each other out when necessary. At the bottom of it, this is a principle that all reasonable conservatives and liberals agree on. It's really just a matter of where the line is drawn. I happen to think that health care and education should be included (as rights) in this realm. Many conservatives disagree.

But whether you want to pretend this isn't true or not, we do all live in the same world, and in that sense our fates are bound. We're all in this together, and it is in our own self interest for us to help each other out.

Exactly. Thanks for taking the time out to actually spell it out for people.

I feel that most liberals and conservatives were raised in that particular mold, so it's hard for most to think about, rationalize, and comprehend the existence of others.

I've met people on the right and the left who both follow their specific dogmas, and it's utterly disgusting. Once our country (and the world, for that matter) learns that having empathy for each other is OK, it will be a much better place. It is the conception of a dog eat dog world and that leaving others in the dust is okay is what brings the basis of what this country was founded on down.

fins08
08-23-2008, 03:41 PM
Some idiot racist will shoot Obama.

PHX-SOXFAN
08-23-2008, 05:39 PM
since when has education needed jobs? Everywhere I have been to school they are struggling to fill the positions available with qualified teachers... but hey thats just me... and you are criticizing conservatives for this? I have NEVER heard a liberal say that education needs more money to create jobs and fix the economy its always to save our youth and get us up to par with the rest of the world in terms of education

that's because you fail to recognize that spending on education and infrastructure funds the construction industry which has a far reaching effect on the economy. It's easy to overlook this huge fact when looking at things very narrowly and after watching the failed policies of this administration in education, infrastructure and domestic policy overall. It will be an even bigger issue as the unemployment rate gets over 6% and gdp falls again in the next quarter.

Beno7500
08-23-2008, 06:48 PM
He will bring the united states down to a new low.

jetsfan28
08-23-2008, 06:51 PM
I definitely think A, with B being the second choice

Brewersin08
08-23-2008, 07:10 PM
LoL! The "real" debates?? Yea, that guy that has delivered some of the greatest domestic speeches of the 21st Century is going to be tripped up by the vocal stylings of Mr. McCain. Because we saw how abysmal he was when debated by both Edwards and Clinton.

I guess I forgot about McCain's superior skills of oration.

Hitler had superior oratory skills. That doesn't make him a good leader obviously.

gcoll
08-23-2008, 07:13 PM
I love how option A is bigoted. Kind of funny.

SmthBluCitrus
08-23-2008, 08:36 PM
Hitler had superior oratory skills. That doesn't make him a good leader obviously.

On the contrary, Hitler was an amazing leader -- not sane, moral, or just ... but a good "leader" nonetheless.

And no, that's not a pro neo-nazi comment. Hitler was a horrible horrible person. But, his leadership ability was anything but questionable (up until about 1942-3).

Oh, and this also isn't a comparison of Hitler and Obama. Lincoln and Roosevelt (both) had amazing oratory skills as well. And, I'm sure we'd consider them to be good leaders and role models.

No, oratory skills don't make a leader great, but they certainly help to inspire.

gcoll
08-23-2008, 11:53 PM
Obama's oratory skills are overrated.

But, while we're on the subject of great orators.......why not throw Winston Churchill's name in there? There's an example of a great orator, and also a great leader.

And. He was very witty. Which is something that Obama lacks. One of my favorite lines, is when a woman told Churchill something along the lines of "If I were your wife, I'd put poison in your coffee" to which he replied "If you were my wife, I'd drink it"

DenButsu
08-24-2008, 12:57 AM
Obama's oratory skills are overrated.

If so, that has mostly been done by his opponents and critics (most notably Hillary and McCain).

Apophis
08-24-2008, 06:22 AM
I voted for
He will do good things and help improve our country. 33 44.00%

gcoll
08-24-2008, 08:06 AM
If so, that has mostly been done by his opponents and critics (most notably Hillary and McCain).

No.

It's not this way anymore, because Obama's been around a bit now....but when he first came on the scene, they were calling him the messiah, and whatnot. Ever since that speech at the convention.

The hype around him and his speaking skills was ridiculous. It's died down a bit now. And yes, Mccain does feed into it. But that's a reaction to the hype. He's trying to capitalize on the inevitable backlash that comes from something getting that much positive attention.

DenButsu
08-24-2008, 08:39 AM
Besides McCain's attack ad, I've never seen anyone call Obama the "Messiah".

And while his speaking skills may be "overhyped", that hype is in fact based on the reality that his speeches have a powerful affect on a lot of people. They pack a potent emotional punch. Mock him all you want for drawing big crowds (like in Berlin), but the draw to him is much deeper than a media creation. Whether you think the "hope" and "change" themes are cheesy or not, whether you buy them or not, they do strike a chord with millions of people. Just because he doesn't inspire you personally doesn't mean he doesn't have the ability to inspire others.

The best example of this was his keynote speech 4 years ago. Because at that time, nobody knew who he was. There was a buzz before his speech that "maybe this guy is someone special" or something like that. But for the vast majority who had probably never heard of him before, and definitely never heard him speak, that was a real jaw-dropper. He blew the roof off the joint.


I'm sure Republicans will get as much mileage as they can on the "celebrity" rap when Obama gives his speech at Mile High at the convention. But if you think the only reason he's going to pack a 70,000 seat stadium (and I've heard tickets are selling for about $5000 now) is just because of "hype" or "kool aid", then you're really just not recognizing what's really going on. The McCain camp has done a pretty effective job this month of painting Obama as "out of touch" with the people. But the reason he's trying so hard to do that is because he's actually aware that Obama is actually "in touch" and connecting to millions of voters in a much more powerful and personal way than McCain is able to do.

ari1013
08-24-2008, 09:13 AM
Hitler had superior oratory skills. That doesn't make him a good leader obviously.
And clearly this thread already reached a low even before I got to make my first post.

SmthBluCitrus
08-24-2008, 09:25 AM
That's what you get for going away and getting married.

RogerRomo
08-25-2008, 11:48 AM
That point is absolutely up for debate. While we generally have the highest corporate tax rate (I think we go back and forth with Canada for the top spot there), our income tax rate isn't close to highest.

Our top income tax rate sits at 39%, with social security adding another 7% on SS taxable income ($72,600).

However, you look at a place like the Netherlands and their 60% rate/29.9% SS up to $21,300, and they are certainly higher, far and away. In fact, a few other countries have income tax rates over 50% ... Denmark, Germany, Sweden. Italy, the UK, and Canada also have income tax rates higher than we do (at the highest point).

Married couples with two children (my family fits into this category) has a take home rate around 80%. That's certainly one of the higher rates in the "Western" world. Compare that to Italy's 65%, and Denmarks average of around 55% take home ... and actually, only Hong Kong, with their miniscule tax rates, really only take home more on average than we do (by percentage).

So your in favor of higher taxes? You don't think they pay too much also? I don't see your point. Higher taxes is not the answer. Answer me this; who pays 80% of the overall taxes? In America of course. I can tell you this, it's not the middle class or the poor...

SmthBluCitrus
08-25-2008, 12:08 PM
So your in favor of higher taxes? You don't think they pay too much also? I don't see your point. Higher taxes is not the answer. Answer me this; who pays 80% of the overall taxes? In America of course. I can tell you this, it's not the middle class or the poor...

Well, that's not what my post was about. That post was based on the claim that we had the highest tax rates in the modern world. Our wealthy aren't the highest taxed people on earth -- they do pay a decent sized share, but they can afford it. And, I think it's absolutely fair.

But, to answer your question ...

I'm in favor of taxes. (Notice I didn't say higher taxes)

I believe in a progressive tax system where the wealthy are taxed at a higher rate than the middle class. Again, the wealthy can afford it, and the middle and working classes need that break. The top 1% aren't in danger of going broke because they're in a higher tax bracket, but the other 99% need that break so they can keep the market chugging along.

Twinke Masta
08-25-2008, 12:15 PM
all man loves money, he will fall to the oil companies

RogerRomo
08-26-2008, 12:05 PM
Well, that's not what my post was about. That post was based on the claim that we had the highest tax rates in the modern world. Our wealthy aren't the highest taxed people on earth -- they do pay a decent sized share, but they can afford it. And, I think it's absolutely fair.

But, to answer your question ...

I'm in favor of taxes. (Notice I didn't say higher taxes)

I believe in a progressive tax system where the wealthy are taxed at a higher rate than the middle class. Again, the wealthy can afford it, and the middle and working classes need that break. The top 1% aren't in danger of going broke because they're in a higher tax bracket, but the other 99% need that break so they can keep the market chugging along.

What is this whole "fair", BS you talk about? Do you think if you go into a dealership and buy a car you should pay more because you have more money to spend? Your argument is just liberal jibber. It's like talking to brick walls. I too favor taxes, notcie you pretty much did say higher taxes, just only with the wealthy. Crafty...

SmthBluCitrus
08-26-2008, 12:29 PM
What is this whole "fair", BS you talk about? Do you think if you go into a dealership and buy a car you should pay more because you have more money to spend? Your argument is just liberal jibber. It's like talking to brick walls. I too favor taxes, notcie you pretty much did say higher taxes, just only with the wealthy. Crafty...

LoL - if it's just "liberal jibber" then why do you care to talk to us?

Paying taxes isn't buying a car. It's paying into a system so we can make sure that we have police officers on the streets, non-pocked streets so you can get to work, fire fighters to put out the flames to save your house, schools to put your kids through ... I don't need to go further.

Yea, the wealthy can afford it and I'm for a progressively higher rate for the more you make.

lilboytwister99
08-27-2008, 09:04 PM
I think race is a huge factor in it and is why I believe the odds of something bad happening to Obama are high.

Well, I hate to say this (with no disrespect towards Nivar), I agree. I've also heard a lot of the same from friends and family.

Ya know I asked my 15 yr old cousin who the students at his high school would like to see in office. He said they all want Obama in office. I dont think it shocked me as much as I thought it would. Obama seems to bring a lot to the table, but trust me it wont be the easiest job trying to fix Bush's big mess.

McCain reminds me of a little Bush, and I think if he got in, we'd face no changes at all. Im not necessarily a democrat, but I think this country needs a change. Now whether we get the change we're looking for is up to whomever gets the Office.

I dont think either candidate is worth voting for, but I just hope whomever gets in office tries to use some common sense and just make decisions based on his best judgment. Thats all I ask of our next president.