Yeah, as opposed to the big government mommy the Bush administration created over the last 8 years.
[quote]Amused59 wrote:
I’m just kind of horrified that a comment made in passing qualified this candidate as a socialist. After two years on the campaign trail, countless interviews where he’s been terribly clear on his agenda,
so many people prefer to be scared by John Mc
Cain’s shrieking accusations or Obama being too far to the left, and his association with terrorist. Remember, friends don’t let friends vote Republican.[/quote]
stupidity rears it’s ugly head.
[quote]Amused59 wrote:
Yeah, as opposed to the big government mommy the Bush administration created over the last 8 years. [/quote]
I’m sure that everyone who dislikes Obama is a Bush loving republican.
[quote]Amused59 wrote:
Yeah, as opposed to the big government mommy the Bush administration created over the last 8 years. [/quote]
You do remember the conservative outcry over all that, don’t you? Given that Bush’ approval ratings are hovering around 25%, where is the evidence for strong Republican support of Bush - is it in your imagination?
[quote]Amused59 wrote:
I’m just kind of horrified that a comment made in passing qualified this candidate as a socialist. After two years on the campaign trail, countless interviews where he’s been terribly clear on his agenda,
so many people prefer to be scared by John Mc
Cain’s shrieking accusations or Obama being too far to the left, and his association with terrorist. Remember, friends don’t let friends vote Republican.[/quote]
What about that he claims to have been drawn to Marxists in school.
I’d also like to say there is a difference between his beliefs and what he thinks he can pull of with the American people. Someone can be socialist and support programs that lead the country closer to socialism without those programs being 100% socialist philosophy.
[quote]Amused59 wrote:
I’m just kind of horrified that a comment made in passing qualified this candidate as a socialist. After two years on the campaign trail, countless interviews where he’s been terribly clear on his agenda,
so many people prefer to be scared by John Mc
Cain’s shrieking accusations or Obama being too far to the left, and his association with terrorist. Remember, friends don’t let friends vote Republican.[/quote]
He also said NOT IN PASSING on O’reiley that sharing the tax money is “Neghborly”. As he goes along…it is more clear that he is a socialist at heart and believes all people deserve THE SAME, regardless of effort.
He also said the supreme court should have ruled for income redistributon as part of the Civil rights ruling.
[quote]Amused59 wrote:
I’m just kind of horrified that a comment made in passing qualified this candidate as a socialist. After two years on the campaign trail, countless interviews where he’s been terribly clear on his agenda, >>>[/quote]
Is that you in your avatar?
UNREAL!!!
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Amused59 wrote:
I’m just kind of horrified that a comment made in passing qualified this candidate as a socialist. After two years on the campaign trail, countless interviews where he’s been terribly clear on his agenda, so many people prefer to be scared by John Mc
Cain’s shrieking accusations or Obama being too far to the left, and his association with terrorist. Remember, friends don’t let friends vote Republican.
He also said NOT IN PASSING on O’reiley that sharing the tax money is “Neghborly”. As he goes along…it is more clear that he is a socialist at heart and believes all people deserve THE SAME, regardless of effort.
He also said the supreme court should have ruled for income redistributon as part of the Civil rights ruling.[/quote]
Look man. Obama could chain these guys upright in a dungeon and loop a tape of himself declaring his love for Marxist ideology for 3 weeks straight and they’d emerge making statements like the above.
yeah, my Avatar…on a good day. But if you don’t think the Republicans have been redistributing wealth to the top 1% for the last 8 years, I’m sure you thought they did a bang-up job with Hurricand Katrina as well.
I don’t think big government is the solution to all problems, but it is the solution to certain problems. Not the least of which is repairing the economy. If we leave the economic patch job to the private sector, they’ll undoubtedly fund it by selling plutonium on a chip to school lunch programs nationally.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Our cities are being overrun by feral children devoid of family structure because the Obama’s of the world have relieved parents of their responsibilities by providing them with other people’s money to keep them alive and dependent.
They have been convinced that somebody other than themselves is unjustly responsible for their woes and hence responsible for solving them.
The fact that this glaring undeniable fact is not almost universally recognized by the citizens of this rotting country is absolutely mystifying.
Why don’t otherwise intelligent people understand this?
I’ve been wondering that for a long time.
Sometimes I think it’s that people confuse “good intentions” with desirable results. [/quote]
You do remember what is paved with good intentions don’t you?
The Aussies know how handle this public health crap, they do it right.
But immigration officials refused permission for the Moellers to settle permanently because youngest son Lukas, 13, failed health tests and was judged by officials as likely to be a permanent drain on taxpayer funding due to his condition.
[quote]Amused59 wrote:
yeah, my Avatar…on a good day. But if you don’t think the Republicans have been redistributing wealth to the top 1% for the last 8 years, I’m sure you thought they did a bang-up job with Hurricand Katrina as well.
I don’t think big government is the solution to all problems, but it is the solution to certain problems. Not the least of which is repairing the economy. If we leave the economic patch job to the private sector, they’ll undoubtedly fund it by selling plutonium on a chip to school lunch programs nationally.[/quote]
Yeah, Bush sent the hurricane to the coast of mississippi and New Orleans. Forget the fact that the mayor of New Orleans did nothing. He did not send help, he did not allow the Red Cross access to the area, use the means at his disposal to get people out, he did nothing.
Oh yeah, let’s not forget the good ol’ governor who also did nothing. She sent no help, she did not send the national guard in…She let the coast guard totally fend for themselves…Bush is in Washington, so how the fuck is that cluter fuck his fault?
Other than hide stolen money in their freezers, what did the representatives of Louisiana do? Oh yeah, not shit!
If your house catches on fire, do you call the president? Or should the local authorities take the reigns? Call the president of course!
FEMA dude. It’s what they were designed to do. Anyway, I’m the first one to tell you if you’re standing infront of a speeding bus get the fuck outta the way. But what happens to your aging parents in the nursing home as the levees break?
We have seemingly digressed from the original topic. But I for one welcome the change of the Obama Whitehouse, and will be sorely disappointed if McCain pulls a squeeker and pitches a massive coronary leaving Sarah Palin at the helm. And 'fess up, all of you will too.
[quote]Amused59 wrote:
FEMA dude. It’s what they were designed to do. Anyway, I’m the first one to tell you if you’re standing infront of a speeding bus get the fuck outta the way. But what happens to your aging parents in the nursing home as the levees break?
We have seemingly digressed from the original topic. But I for one welcome the change of the Obama Whitehouse, and will be sorely disappointed if McCain pulls a squeeker and pitches a massive coronary leaving Sarah Palin at the helm. And 'fess up, all of you will too.[/quote]
Simple, don’t fucking leave your parents in the nursing home in the first place, and don’t fucking leave your parents to die from the incoming hurricane. Or is Bush supposed to take care of that too?
BTW speaking of the hurricane, did you do anything to help? Or did you sit back all comfy at your dinner table shaking your head watching it all unfold on tv and whine to everyone who would listen about how Bush is evil cause he didn’t do anything? If a tornado demolishes the town I reside, does the president have to do anything?
No, that’s why states have governors and towns/cities have mayors that work with local agencies and communities to step in on such things, and what would the point be if the president came down and did a photo op? Maybe some people could get his autograph and sell it on Ebay or shake his hand.
Not fessing up anything, almost anyone will do besides Obama, I like what little freedom i’ve got left.
[quote]pat wrote:
Amused59 wrote:
yeah, my Avatar…on a good day. But if you don’t think the Republicans have been redistributing wealth to the top 1% for the last 8 years, I’m sure you thought they did a bang-up job with Hurricand Katrina as well.
I don’t think big government is the solution to all problems, but it is the solution to certain problems. Not the least of which is repairing the economy. If we leave the economic patch job to the private sector, they’ll undoubtedly fund it by selling plutonium on a chip to school lunch programs nationally.
Yeah, Bush sent the hurricane to the coast of mississippi and New Orleans. Forget the fact that the mayor of New Orleans did nothing. He did not send help, he did not allow the Red Cross access to the area, use the means at his disposal to get people out, he did nothing.
Oh yeah, let’s not forget the good ol’ governor who also did nothing. She sent no help, she did not send the national guard in…She let the coast guard totally fend for themselves…Bush is in Washington, so how the fuck is that cluter fuck his fault?
Other than hide stolen money in their freezers, what did the representatives of Louisiana do? Oh yeah, not shit!
If your house catches on fire, do you call the president? Or should the local authorities take the reigns? Call the president of course!
[/quote]
You forgot to mention that both the mayor and governor were liberals.
[quote]Amused59 wrote:
FEMA dude. It’s what they were designed to do.[/quote]
And according to the law, their hands were tied until a request for help was made.[quote]
Anyway, I’m the first one to tell you if you’re standing infront of a speeding bus get the fuck outta the way. But what happens to your aging parents in the nursing home as the levees break? [/quote]
Well people asked one nursing home before the events, and they told the people they were prepared. (They weren’t.) Not sure why this is Bush’s fault though.[quote]
We have seemingly digressed from the original topic. But I for one welcome the change of the Obama Whitehouse, and will be sorely disappointed if McCain pulls a squeeker and pitches a massive coronary leaving Sarah Palin at the helm. And 'fess up, all of you will too.[/quote]
I will not be happy if McCain is president. I do not want him to have a coronary, and doubt he will have one. (If he was going to have one it most likely would have happened by now.) But I would actually prefer a Palin presidency over McCain.
Every single problem I have with McCain is multiplied by Obama. I realize you are of the opinion that Republicans are evil, and that peppers your beliefs. I know that all the candidates actually believe that what they are doing is good for America.
But it only takes a little knowledge and understanding to see that if Obama does get his programs through, that will be bad for the economy. (I have posted links to research into this subject already. Some from Berkley no less.)
Unfortunately discussing the subject with some people who don’t seem to get it is like trying to discuss proper exercise with the guy curling in the squat rack. (Or the skinny kid I recently talked to who wanted to only train his upper body.)
People saying how cutting taxes for the rich somehow automatically raises them for the poor. Or being upset because somebody actually has more then you do. (If I can’t have it, nobody should.)
Nobody ever mentions that some of the people making over $200K in a year might only be able to do that once. (This is called a windfall.) There are people who spent years building up a business, and never made more then middle class income. But after 25 years they sell the business for half a mil. Hey, now they can pay that extra in tax for being rich. Even though it was 25 years to build up that value.
What is sad is how every time something is done right, and it benefits America, we praise the wrong people. Then when something goes wrong, we blame the wrong people.
Just like the guy who asked why the JFK tax increases caused the economy to improve. Oblivious to history. Did not know that JFK (and LBJ) cut the highest tax rate.
I really do not give a damn who people like or dislike. Just figure out what is really going on, and what will actually be of the most benefit to this country. Trying to base it only on who we like or hate is quite shallow.
[quote]100meters wrote:
snipeout wrote:
100meters wrote:
snipeout wrote:
100meters wrote:
snipeout wrote:
Food for thought. The top 1% of wage earners earns twice as much as the bottom 50% does. The top 1% pays 13 times the amount of tax that the bottom 50 does. How much more of the burden should they carry?
I bust my ass working overtime to make 6 figures. If I can do this with no college education and only 5 years of military experience, any one can.
I have never been given anything from any one, I have always paid my bills and saved my money. I detest the fact that one party in this country thinks I need to support the “less fortunate”.
Now, because I bust my ass my wife and son have everything they need and want. Fuck anyone who wants more of my money.
Do you really think baby jesus can add all this new spending and cut taxes for 95% of sheeple?
If spending is your issue, don’t vote McCain right?
All governments spend. It is necessary for the country to survive. The point you sheeple don’t get is this guy is just going to increase government entitlements to people who won’t work just to collect these entitlements.
You are so hopelessly blinded by the MSM that you don’t even have your own opinion, you just spew liberal talking points. Try thinking for yourself with out influence from the NY times.
I believe in a strong military and simple trickle down economics. The country doesn’t get stronger from the bottom up, it gets stronger from the top down. Taking more money from those who create jobs and industry and giving it to those who won’t work doesn’t make us stronger.
Explain how economy did not get stronger work under LBJ, JFK, and Clinton.
Explain how well trickle down worked under GWB, Bush Sr., Reagan.
In other words: stop making shit up.
I will preempt this statement by noting you are from notoriously liberal Mass. and don’t expect you to think for yourself, you had plenty of legislators and professors teach you how to think.
You’re kidding right? The shit storm that Reagan inherited from Carter. Double digit inflation and interest rates. Carters infamous “Americas best days are behind us”. This country saw some of its best economic growth during Reagans admin. Not to mention the Cold war dismantling of the USSR. Sorry bud, you don’t have a leg to stand on with Reagan.
I’ll give you Bush senior not much for the economy.
GWB also inheritted a terrorist mess from old Billary, 9-11, the stock market tumble and then the tax cuts to revive the economy and push the markets through the roof.
You have got to be kidding about LBJ.
My fondest memories of Billary include him being impeached(go figure a lying liberal). Being a military police officer for USARPAC(head qtrs for southern pacific command) being on continous 12 hour shifts and being on 30 minute recall for 8 straight months 7 days a week all because he wagged the dog with the Sudan missile launch.
Being extremely underfunded during my deployment in Kosovo. Watching WTC 93 treated as a crime and not an act of terrorism.
So you got nothing. Figured.[/quote]
Did you even read his post? I wasn’t going to comment on this thread, but still. To say he has nothing substantial in that post is complete rubbish.
But then again, you aren’t even worth the time of day in my book. We’ll see what your tune is when your liberal policies fail.
Redistribution of wealth = socialism
[quote]100meters wrote:
But increase MORE with tax hikes. Bush’s tax cuts did lead to more revenue, but we always have more revenue. The problem: They don’t pay for themselves. That’s bad.Minus the Bush tax cuts, we’d have had MORE revenue.
You could of course compare real per person revenue growth between Reagan and Clinton, but you know–you’d look like a fool.
Better to just kind of make stuff up.[/quote]
Well, duh! By your logic then 100% tax would be ideal.
So cutting taxes, which increase revenue, don’t pay for themselves? What universe did you study arithmetic in?
As for numbers, let’s see yours. It’s funny how people who demand numbers never seem able to produce any of their own. And yes, we expect to see full references.
You are such a widget (as OctoberGirl would say.)
[quote]RebornTN wrote:
<<< We’ll see what your tune is when your liberal policies fail.[/quote]
You’re seeing that right now.