SRL Archive - Discussions & Debates

First of all, I'm not saying that socialism is bad everywhere, but, at least in my opinion, it would be bad for the US. The US has thrived on Capitalism for a while, and it would be a bad idea to switch over now.

I'm bringing this up because of the recent accusations against Obama by McCain and Palin. They have called him a socialist because of how he told Joe the Plumber that he wanted to "Spread the wealth". Do you agree with McCain and Palin, or do you think this is just a lame attempt to try and fight back in the last couple weeks?



Personally, I had realized what Obama was doing long before Joe the Plumber (as I'm sure many people did). Obama supporters need to open their eyes and see where they're going if they elect Obama. Socialism will do nothing positive for the US. Every person who makes a good living (In other words, has an income of over $250,000, according to Obama) by working hard, not giving up, and spending their whole lives on ensuring a good future for themselves will be brought down to the level of those who don't care about their jobs, make no effort, etc.

Now, don't give me crap about how "Not everyone is fortunate enough to go to a good college/university for a good education." and stuff like that. My parents are the proof of how that's wrong. 10 years ago, we moved from Lithuania (A small country in Europe) to the US with 6 suitcases that were filled with all of our belongings. We had no relatives in the US apart from my dad's aunt, who was able to spare enough money to help us rent a 4 room (2 bedroom) apartment (there were three of us). In about 4 years, we were able to rent a small house, after my dad had been doing his residency to become a surgeon for a couple of years. My mom (who knew very little English at the time) was able to go to college for a year or two to learn English. In another year, my mom began her residency as an anesthesiologist. From there, as soon as my dad finished his residency and became a real doctor, we moved into a nice house. My sister was born around that time. Then, recently, my mom finished her residency and now we're in the middle of moving into a very nice house, and under Obama my parents would be stripped of much of what they earned. 10 years of nothing but learning and hard work, and Obama wants to take a lot of it away and turn it into free money for those who probably don't deserve it, nor need it. Anyone can do almost anything, if they put their mind to it.

So, if I could vote, I'd vote for McCain, because I don't want to US to head towards socialism. Now, do you agree with me?

EDIT: And another thing. Obama's plan wouldn't even help the middle class as much as everyone thinks - Correct me if I'm wrong, but he's going to tax businesses more too, right? In that case, the businesses would just pass the costs onto you, making you suffer, not the business.

In the United Stated of America, he might be a socialist. In the Netherlands (or just plain, Europe), he is most definitely a conservative, and would probably be in one of the conservative parties.

Socialism does not help the people who simply don't work, the system that helps them is the capitalistic system, with a very good and extended health care, like (once again) in the Netherlands.

From: Wizzup?
In the United Stated of America, he might be a socialist. In the Netherlands (or just plain, Europe), he is most definitely a conservative, and would probably be in one of the conservative parties.

Socialism does not help the people who simply don't work, the system that helps them is the capitalistic system, with a very good and extended health care, like (once again) in the Netherlands.

Redistributing wealth is socialist anywhere, becuase that IS socialism…

Big Time Socialist.

IMHO, both candidates suck d*ck…

But, I, myself, I'm a Republican, Conservative, John McCain, im not sure about him, see seems a little Liberal, yet a little Conservative.

A socialist program (even a reformist one) would not be a program that props up capitalism when it fails, but one that transforms the economy. None of Senator Obama's proposals do that. Senator Obama’s tax plan is regressive and even less ‘progressive’ than programs put forward under such conservative administrations like the one of Richard Nixon.”

F.N. Brill, National Secretary of the World Socialist Party (US): “Obama is as much a socialist as the Pope is an atheist. Income redistribution isn't a socialist act. It might aid in ameliorating income disparities within a capitalist economy for a limited time. But the logic of capitalism demands the rich grow richer (more capitalization is needed) and the poor grow poorer (their work creates the needed capital used by the rich).”

David Schaich, Socialist Party Campaign Clearinghouse Coordinator: “The idea that Barack Obama is socialist, or quasi-socialist, or semi-socialist, or socialist-light, or anything of the sort, is far-right nonsense. Barack Obama, like John McCain, is very much a ‘politician as usual,’fully committed to the continuation of the capitalist system and the expansion of its empire.

People also fail to acknowlege the following.
Obama basically wants to improve the people under the 250K line…
however a majority of these people are receiving their jobs from businesses over the 250K line… so what will that lead to?
When the business are taxed many of them will be forced to cut jobs and salaries… and whose jobs and salaries are prone to being cut… the people whom Obama is trying to support in his plan. This mix of socialism wont work in a capitalistic economy.

Edit: also people fail to reconize the technical costs of actually redistributing the wealth

From: kingarabian

F.N. Brill, National Secretary of the World Socialist Party (US): “Obama is as much a socialist as the Pope is an atheist. Income redistribution isn't a socialist act. It might aid in ameliorating income disparities within a capitalist economy for a limited time. But the logic of capitalism demands the rich grow richer (more capitalization is needed) and the poor grow poorer (their work creates the needed capital used by the rich).”

Hmm…Unless I'm misunderstanding something - That means eventually, to continue to be capitalist, Obama would have to revert his income redistribution? Or, if it means that even with the income redistribution, the rich will grow richer and the poor poorer…Obama's plan is pointless :confused:

David Schaich, Socialist Party Campaign Clearinghouse Coordinator: “The idea that Barack Obama is socialist, or quasi-socialist, or semi-socialist, or socialist-light, or anything of the sort, is far-right nonsense. Barack Obama, like John McCain, is very much a ‘politician as usual,’fully committed to the continuation of the capitalist system and the expansion of its empire.

How can you say Obama is a Capitalist when he clearly said he wants to "Spread the wealth"?

Look I'm not a Obama supporter but realistically he's not a socialist…
Spread the wealth can be interpreted as socialistic but because hes just taxing and not confiscating property, assets, or money and then giving to the "poor" hes not socialist. His plan has socialist similiarities though.

Look at my sig for my answer. I will expand on this and reply to widget in the other topic when I have time tomorrow. (Long long day)

Well, he was rated on his voting record as more liberal than fellow Senator Bernie Sanders, who is a self-declared Socialist. So what does that tell you?

Define:Socialism

Socialism: An economic system in which the basic means of production are primarily owned and controlled collectively, usually by government under some system of central planning.

I dont see how obama's plan make him socialist. If he wants to take from the rich and spend on the middle class…. I dont see how thats bad.

And for your guys info:

The rich get richer.

The poor get poorer.

What about the middle class? Its leaning to the poor side.

I wouldn't call him a socialist, just someone who stops the ego-tripping of the rich americans who dont give shit about their fellow citizens, and become richer on behalf of the less rich.

Simply put: It's an attempt to bring him down.

Acoording to the Gallup Poll, McCain is short of a few percentages, and many polls like MSNBC, Yahoo, etc; have Obama as the projected winner.

Same thing with Revern Wright, after Wright said all of that, Obama refused to talk to him and he shunned him.

McCain is just throwing cheap punches.


AND


If you ever watch T.V., you always see political ads.

Now watch carefully who cites their information. Every Obama ad either has him saying what he plans on doing, or bashing McCain, pulling sources from where he got it.

McCain's recent ads don't show any citation or sources, making it seem to the people who caught the missed source confused.

When you want to bash somebody, make sure you have proof.

Obama also agrees with single payer health insurance. That would amount to nationalizing 1/7th of the US economy.

You don't think that's a big enough slice of the pie to count as "socialist"?

From: tarajunky
Well, he was rated on his voting record as more liberal than fellow Senator Bernie Sanders, who is a self-declared Socialist. So what does that tell you?

Wow… I didn't know that. Anyways, I don't like either candidate. John McCain doesn't have good policies on Iraq, and Internet Neutrality. I don't like how Obama says that it should be okay for the government to force the phone companies into wiretapping into phones. To me, that's not right. Also, Fox (some might be bogus, but please verify/disprove) said that Obama had relations with Bill Ayres, who is a self-declared terrorist. Obama has also only spent 1-2 years in Congress, part of that time campaigning…

Cut em2 it

From: tarajunky
Obama also agrees with single payer health insurance. That would amount to nationalizing 1/7th of the US economy.

You don't think that's a big enough slice of the pie to count as "socialist"?

What is wrong with nationalized health insure? It's not extremely socialistic, either. Health care is the priority number one. If you become very ill, and have a bad (or no) insurance, you have a big problem. In the Netherlands, you get fines if you don't insure yourself, and there's always a standard insurance.
What better system for health care can you imagine?

you do realise that even if he was a socialist, he couldn't do anything about it.
if he tries to do anything socialist, various pressure groups will simply lobby to stop him.

From: Cut em2 it
Wow… I didn't know that. Anyways, I don't like either candidate. John McCain doesn't have good policies on Iraq, and Internet Neutrality. I don't like how Obama says that it should be okay for the government to force the phone companies into wiretapping into phones. To me, that's not right. Also, Fox (some might be bogus, but please verify/disprove) said that Obama had relations with Bill Ayres, who is a self-declared terrorist. Obama has also only spent 1-2 years in Congress, part of that time campaigning…

Cut em2 it

Its a fact that Barack Obama and Bill Ayers worked together, their kids go to the same school, and live 3 blocks away from each other.

From: Wizzup?
What is wrong with nationalized health insure? It's not extremely socialistic, either. Health care is the priority number one. If you become very ill, and have a bad (or no) insurance, you have a big problem. In the Netherlands, you get fines if you don't insure yourself, and there's always a standard insurance.
What better system for health care can you imagine?

In Hawaii they tried just to insure all the children there, and not a month afterwards they had to stop the program because it was making the state go bankrupt. THAT is why nationalised health care isnt good, people already have so much help they can get, Medicare, Medicade (sp?), Wellfare, lots of charities. Very few people have medical problems and no family/friends to speak of, and those people we already take care of, so we dont need nationalized healthcare.

Edit:

From: Yakman
you do realise that even if he was a socialist, he couldn't do anything about it.
if he tries to do anything socialist, various pressure groups will simply lobby to stop him.

You dont seem to realise, the democrats will be able to do ANYTHING they want, they will be in control of the legislative, and executive branch of government… Simple lobbying wont help tbh…

From: sirlaughsalot
Its a fact that Barack Obama and Bill Ayers worked together, their kids go to the same school, and live 3 blocks away from each other.

To associate Obama as being a terrorist because he used to work with a guy who had links with a terrorist organisation and because his kids go to the same school is so ludicrous it's laughable..

So under that Logic if someone you know, have known or live near kills someone you should be punished because you are obviously going to be sympothetic to killers. Or you should be locked up because you once bought newspapers from a local shopkeeper who you used to say hi to every morning because he turned out to be a pedo.

When is the last time you did a thorough background check on all you friends and associates?

It's also worth pointing out that Bill Ayers does not admit to being an ex terrorist, he admits to being an ex-member of a group that became labled a terrorist group. He claims he left the group once they started blowing things up as he did not agree with what they were doing. He has also never been found guilty of ANY crime in relation to ANY terroist act. But we all knwo that the current USA mantra is guilty even if proven innocent.

From: sirlaughsalot
You dont seem to realise, the democrats will be able to do ANYTHING they want, they will be in control of the legislative, and executive branch of government… Simple lobbying wont help tbh…

yes they'll be in control, but they will still be under the influence of every corporation that donated to them.
the republican party cant stop them doing anything, but Rupert Murdock and his friends can.

you vastly underestimate the power of lobbying.
the state of isreal seems to owe its entire existence to the lobbying power of a minority of jewish americans.

banks work together to protect their common interest. Every company does something like this.
if you're a multi-billion dollar corp. you can just donate equally to both parties, knowing that whoever wins, you'll still have a sizable stake and a lot of influence.


this is why I'm cynical about elections like this, especially in America where there is only two parties to donate to. Other countries have at least five or six.

From: sirlaughsalot

In Hawaii they tried just to insure all the children there, and not a month afterwards they had to stop the program because it was making the state go bankrupt. THAT is why nationalised health care isnt good, people already have so much help they can get, Medicare, Medicade (sp?), Wellfare, lots of charities. Very few people have medical problems and no family/friends to speak of, and those people we already take care of, so we dont need nationalized healthcare.

Lol? The medicare is still going on. Wellfare is going on to. Nearly most children in hawaii have insurance. And if you dont, nd you live in hawaii then you can apply. Economy is running smooth here.

And Mccain just cracked me up

"It's another example that he'll say anything to get elected."

Mccain clearly shouldnt be talking.

From: kingarabian

Mccain clearly shouldnt be talking.

Oh rillie? When has he changed (or updated, as Obama calls it) his views to get more votes?

From: PriSoner
To associate Obama as being a terrorist because he used to work with a guy who had links with a terrorist organisation and because his kids go to the same school is so ludicrous it's laughable..

So under that Logic if someone you know, have known or live near kills someone you should be punished because you are obviously going to be sympothetic to killers. Or you should be locked up because you once bought newspapers from a local shopkeeper who you used to say hi to every morning because he turned out to be a pedo.

When is the last time you did a thorough background check on all you friends and associates?

It's also worth pointing out that Bill Ayers does not admit to being an ex terrorist, he admits to being an ex-member of a group that became labled a terrorist group. He claims he left the group once they started blowing things up as he did not agree with what they were doing. He has also never been found guilty of ANY crime in relation to ANY terroist act. But we all knwo that the current USA mantra is guilty even if proven innocent.

I never said that Barack Obama was a terrorist, but it makes you wonder how good his judgement is when he works with a man twice, for several years… Also Ayers is quoted in 2002 as saying "I wish we would have done more". He was not convicted because of a prosecutiorial error. They performed wire-taps and he was not prosecuted because of that, he did however admit to committing/helping to commit those acts…

From: Yakman
yes they'll be in control, but they will still be under the influence of every corporation that donated to them.
the republican party cant stop them doing anything, but Rupert Murdock and his friends can.

you vastly underestimate the power of lobbying.
the state of isreal seems to owe its entire existence to the lobbying power of a minority of jewish americans.

banks work together to protect their common interest. Every company does something like this.
if you're a multi-billion dollar corp. you can just donate equally to both parties, knowing that whoever wins, you'll still have a sizable stake and a lot of influence.


this is why I'm cynical about elections like this, especially in America where there is only two parties to donate to. Other countries have at least five or six.

I do agree that lobbying has seemed to have lots of influence. But conservatives dont have armies of lobbyists to pressure the politicians, and the Democrats want to silence the conservatives anyway.

From: kingarabian
Lol? The medicare is still going on. Wellfare is going on to. Nearly most children in hawaii have insurance. And if you dont, nd you live in hawaii then you can apply. Economy is running smooth here.

And Mccain just cracked me up

Mccain clearly shouldnt be talking.

I didnt say that medicare wasnt going on, i was talking about the Hawaii kids that dont have state insurance anymore because they were going bankrupt. Do you live in Hawaii? Seriously, when was the last time McCain changed his ideals for no apparent reason other than getting votes? Also Social Security is driving us into the ground, I will never see a penny of that money with the way the system is today.

Edit: Also just so you know i was talking about http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/10/17/hawaii.health.ap/index.html?eref=rss_us

CNN Liberal enough source for you?

From: kingarabian

And for your guys info:

The rich get richer.

The poor get poorer.

What about the middle class? Its leaning to the poor side.

How are the rich supposed to continue being successful if Obama decides to take over half their salary away from them?

From: Markus
I wouldn't call him a socialist, just someone who stops the ego-tripping of the rich americans who dont give shit about their fellow citizens, and become richer on behalf of the less rich.

Greedy businessmen aren't the only ones who would lose their money to Obama's plans. Any American family who has actually TRIED to put together a good life has the ability to be earning over $250,000. Why should those who have worked for their hard earned life have to give it away to those who don't deserve it?

From: noodlesalan
Simply put: It's an attempt to bring him down.

Acoording to the Gallup Poll, McCain is short of a few percentages, and many polls like MSNBC, Yahoo, etc; have Obama as the projected winner.

Same thing with Revern Wright, after Wright said all of that, Obama refused to talk to him and he shunned him.

McCain is just throwing cheap punches.


AND


If you ever watch T.V., you always see political ads.

Now watch carefully who cites their information. Every Obama ad either has him saying what he plans on doing, or bashing McCain, pulling sources from where he got it.

McCain's recent ads don't show any citation or sources, making it seem to the people who caught the missed source confused.

When you want to bash somebody, make sure you have proof.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baIFocVnJpc

Obama: "I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's good"

There's your proof.

From: sirlaughsalot

I didnt say that medicare wasnt going on, i was talking about the Hawaii kids that dont have state insurance anymore because they were going bankrupt. Do you live in Hawaii? Seriously, when was the last time McCain changed his ideals for no apparent reason other than getting votes? Also Social Security is driving us into the ground, I will never see a penny of that money with the way the system is today.

Edit: Also just so you know i was talking about http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/10/17/hawaii.health.ap/index.html?eref=rss_us

CNN Liberal enough source for you?

Yes but its still going. My younger siblings all have health insurance from the state, and so do many others.

I dont see whats wrong with social security now? Maybe if we did not spend 10B a month in iraq we wouldnt have to worry about it.

From: Runescapian
How are the rich supposed to continue being successful if Obama decides to take over half their salary away from them?

Thats the point. Why should the rich keep getting rich, while the rest of the other classes suffer? That bailout plan was to bailout all the top people. And guess who has to pay for it? The middle class.

From: kingarabian

I dont see whats wrong with social security now? Maybe if we did not spend 10B a month in iraq we wouldnt have to worry about it.

Everyone says the war is all the doing of Bush. Two things about that -

1) The Democratic majority in Congress is responsible for it just as much as Bush
2) What would you have done with the war? Leave Iraq go, and show the world that we don't care if terrorists attack us?

From: Runescapian
Everyone says the war is all the doing of Bush. Two things about that -

1) The Democratic majority in Congress is responsible for it just as much as Bush
2) What would you have done with the war? Leave Iraq go, and show the world that we don't care if terrorists attack us?

1) The democrats got into congress two years ago. Bush started the war in 03.
2) What power do the terrorists have now? Nothing. Do you think were in Iraq because of the terrorists? Were there for the oil and protection for isreal. Afghanistan is the place were the "terrorists" are at. After all osama lives there.

EDIT: lol I think were starting to go off topic…

From: kingarabian
1) The democrats got into congress two years ago. Bush started the war in 03.
2) What power do the terrorists have now? Nothing. Do you think were in Iraq because of the terrorists? Were there for the oil and protection for isreal. Afghanistan is the place were the "terrorists" are at. After all osama lives there.

1) Bush wanted the war to happen and pushed for it, but plenty of people you agree with wanted it to happen then as well. I will clarify why below.

2) I have said this a thousand times and i will say it again. We went into Iraq to secure a foothold for Democracy and to get a man who was killing 80+ of his own people every day and helping terrorists, out of government. Protection for Isreal makes sense and I agree with that, Isreal is a very important ally in my opinion.

From: kingarabian
1) The democrats got into congress two years ago. Bush started the war in 03.
2) What power do the terrorists have now? Nothing. Do you think were in Iraq because of the terrorists? Were there for the oil and protection for isreal. Afghanistan is the place were the "terrorists" are at. After all osama lives there.

1) (Edit: Assuming you mean Democrats got majority in congress) Oh, right forgot about that :p Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't most Democrats agree with it too?

2) Ok, I got the terrorists and the WMDs mixed up… The war wasn't done for no reason, it was because of the alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction. If some of your best sources are telling you that there's a major threat that can wipe out half of the world, are you just going to stand by and do nothing? Bush and Congress did what needed to be done, and it turned out your sources were wrong. Now what? You just destroyed a country and you leave it in ruins? Nope, you have no choice but to stay there and help rebuild, which still hasn't been completed.

From: kingarabian
1) The democrats got into congress two years ago. Bush started the war in 03.
2) What power do the terrorists have now? Nothing. Do you think were in Iraq because of the terrorists? Were there for the oil and protection for isreal. Afghanistan is the place were the "terrorists" are at. After all osama lives there.

1. You seriously think the democrats just got into congress…? >.<
2. NOTHING? Did you happen to not hear about the WTC being attacked? Yeah, you're right. They have no power. Please, stop letting these conspiracy theories and propaganda get to you.

A little something to add to RuneScapian's post. Guess who gave the intel that influenced George Bush's decision to go into Iraq? The recent Obama supporter, the almighty (prick) Colin Powell

From: bullzeye95
1. You seriously think the democrats just got into congress…? >.<

I think he's saying that the Democrats just recently got the majority. If so, that's right.

EDIT: And it's always best to have the President be of one party and the majority of congress the other. This way, if a bill is passed, that means it must be a good bill if both the Democrats and Republicans like it.

From: bullzeye95
1. You seriously think the democrats just got into congress…? >.<
2. NOTHING? Did you happen to not hear about the WTC being attacked? Yeah, you're right. They have no power. Please, stop letting these conspiracy theories and propaganda get to you.

You think we already fucked up the "terrorists" yet?
Remember there was no such thing as al qaeda in iraq until they made up that bullshit. The people that attacked TWC are in Afghanistan aight? Not Iraq. And no dont tell me they have groups in iraq, cause thats ridiculous.

The dude that killed 80 people a day is dead for a while now. (and this affects the U.S how? his killing people in iraq not in America) Saddams WMD were destoryed by isreal 10-15 years ago.

From: Runescapian
I think he's saying that the Democrats just recently got the majority. If so, that's right.

EDIT: And it's always best to have the President be of one party and the majority of congress the other. This way, if a bill is passed, that means it must be a good bill if both the Democrats and Republicans like it.

Amen to that.

From: kingarabian

The dude that killed 80 people a day is dead for a while now. (and this affects the U.S how? his killing people in iraq not in America) Saddams WMD were destoryed by isreal 10-15 years ago.

So you're saying that if your most trusted sources are telling you that a country has the power to blow up half the world and you can stop it, you would ignore them?

If the sources (Not sure exactly on who they were… Powell? CIA?) had been right, Bush would be a hero across the world right now.

From: Runescapian
So you're saying that if your most trusted sources are telling you that a country has the power to blow up half the world and you can stop it, you would ignore them?

If the sources (Not sure exactly on who they were… Powell? CIA?) had been right, Bush would be a hero across the world right now.

No but Powell was wrong. In the end iraq did not have any WMD. I dont like Collin Powell, I wish he backed Mccain -.-.

Watch Fahrenheit 9/11 by micheal moore. It explains everything in depth.

EDIT: getting back on topic

Isn't Sarah Palin A "Socialist" too?

From: kingarabian
No but Powell was wrong. In the end iraq did not have any WMD. I dont like Collin Powell, I wish he backed Mccain -.-.

Watch Fahrenheit 9/11 by micheal moore. It explains everything in depth.

EDIT: getting back on topic

Isn't Sarah Palin A "Socialist" too?

So Bush did what any President would have done, meaning he did the right thing. You cannot say Bush did the wrong thing on that issue, and he has handled it nearly the best possible way.

About the Palin thing you mentioned… I just skimmed through it, but I gathered that she had the oil tax raised, and therefore the Alaskans got more money for their oil, right? Then, she decided to give some of those profits to the Alaskans? Well, that's not socialism. She was giving the profits to EVERYBODY, not taking from the rich and giving to the poor to even them out. She was increasing the amount of money everybody had.

EDIT: Oh, I might have misunderstood that. The supposed socialist part of that is the fact that she's increasing the oil tax and therefore that's worse for the rest of the US? They have the right to increase their tax on it for whatever reason it was needed, and Palin was generous by giving some of it back to the people.

From: kingarabian
You think we already fucked up the "terrorists" yet?
Remember there was no such thing as al qaeda in iraq until they made up that bullshit. The people that attacked TWC are in Afghanistan aight? Not Iraq. And no dont tell me they have groups in iraq, cause thats ridiculous.

The dude that killed 80 people a day is dead for a while now. (and this affects the U.S how? his killing people in iraq not in America) Saddams WMD were destoryed by isreal 10-15 years ago.



Amen to that.

Wow dude, so you dont think that Al Qaeda exists or what? We are not at war with Iraq just fyi…

A dude kills 80 of his own people effects the US because that is a travesty of peoples rights, for being a liberal (Im sorry if this assumption is incorrect) you dont seem to care much about peoples natural rights…

Also your "Amen to that." comment seems to make you agree with us, you should favor McCain over Obama, because guess what? The democrats have a majority in congress and if Obama wins, they will have two branches of government, and the checks and balances will be virtually useless…

From: sirlaughsalot
Wow dude, so you dont think that Al Qaeda exists or what? We are not at war with Iraq just fyi…

A dude kills 80 of his own people effects the US because that is a travesty of peoples rights, for being a liberal (Im sorry if this assumption is incorrect) you dont seem to care much about peoples natural rights…

Also your "Amen to that." comment seems to make you agree with us, you should favor McCain over Obama, because guess what? The democrats have a majority in congress and if Obama wins, they will have two branches of government, and the checks and balances will be virtually useless…

Yes Al qadea did not ever exist in Iraq until they made up this bullshit that its in there. The "main" reason we went to war in Iraq is because of the thought of WMD (and oil). Powell said it, bush said it, and isreal wants it because saddam was a threat to it. So…. now lets look at iraq? Its demolished, the city of baghdad is fucked up to the max. Saddam is long dead, turns out there was no WMD. We should have left 2 years ago. But of course Iraq has oil left. We want that, and thats the reason why were in Iraq. If you deny this and say its for the "terrorists", then please check your facts 100%. Al qadea was made in afgahanistan and its still there.

I dont like bush. Im part of the 75% that say he did a bad job. And who is there to blame? Congress? Please, maybe if we did not spend 10b a month in iraq then our economy would be in better hands.

The united states should mind its own business, and let other countries handle its own problems.

From: kingarabian
Yes Al qadea did not ever exist in Iraq until they made up this bullshit that its in there. The "main" reason we went to war in Iraq is because of the thought of WMD (and oil). Powell said it, bush said it, and isreal wants it because saddam was a threat to it. So…. now lets look at iraq? Its demolished, the city of baghdad is fucked up to the max. Saddam is long dead, turns out there was no WMD. We should have left 2 years ago. But of course Iraq has oil left. We want that, and thats the reason why were in Iraq. If you deny this and say its for the "terrorists", then please check your facts 100%. Al qadea was made in afgahanistan and its still there.

I dont like bush. Im part of the 75% that say he did a bad job. And who is there to blame? Congress? Please, maybe if we did not spend 10b a month in iraq then our economy would be in better hands.

The united states should mind its own business, and let other countries handle its own problems.

You're telling me that after you invade a country, and it turns out that it was for no reason, you're going to leave the country in ruins and not help them at all? That would be disastrous for the US if we would have done something like that…

From: kingarabian
Maybe if we did not spend 10B a month in iraq we wouldnt have to worry about it.

Sorry, but that's a cop out non-answer. Iraq is being funded by BORROWED dollars. Iraq spending is not sustainable on a permanent basis. That argument is based on the idea that we could use the Iraq money to save Social Security and Medicare, etc, but the reality is that "the Iraq money" isn't ours to spend in the first place. It's borrowed.

Obama and those who talk about using "the Iraq money" as their own personal piggy bank are simply advocating that we take that unsustainable spending and make it permanent. They want us to continue spending like we're at war, long after the war has ended.

timer thats good your taking interest in politics so young
and its good that your a conservative

and barack supports ACORN, the #1 anti-capitalist group in america

From: tarajunky
Sorry, but that's a cop out non-answer. Iraq is being funded by BORROWED dollars. Iraq spending is not sustainable on a permanent basis. That argument is based on the idea that we could use the Iraq money to save Social Security and Medicare, etc, but the reality is that "the Iraq money" isn't ours to spend in the first place. It's borrowed.

Obama and those who talk about using "the Iraq money" as their own personal piggy bank are simply advocating that we take that unsustainable spending and make it permanent. They want us to continue spending like we're at war, long after the war has ended.

That blows…the U.S is in real Debt.

From: kingarabian
Isn't Sarah Palin A "Socialist" too?

The Alaska Constitution requires that natural resources in the state be used to benefit the citizens of Alaska. Sarah Palin was complying with the state Constitution, which was her responsibility as the leader of the state.

Hes a dirty, dirty socialist…



Thus, we should get him into office :p

Reading through this thread (well, the on-topic parts mostly), I think I'd like to add something. There is a difference between socialism and communism.
A thing that I notice a lot when Americans get talking about socialists (no offence to all you Americans :) ), they start throwing around words like 'anti-capitalist', 'socialist', like they're insults. Take countries like Canada, or many countries in Europe for example. They're liberal, and have things like gov't healthcare, but they're still certainly 'capitalist' countries, and it's not like the government is trying to throw out the whole economic system and replace it with some Marxist paradise…

Saying that Obama is socialist is fine - I'm fairly sure he's intelligent enough to realize that he can't just go and change the whole economic backbone of the country. As for issues like public health, I think it's a good idea, but I'm not sure if it would work so well in the United States. When Canada nationalized public healthcare, there were maybe 20 million people in the country altogether. Converting a completely private system in the US for 250 million (is that right?) people in the US would be difficult, to say the least.

From: A G E N T 83
Reading through this thread (well, the on-topic parts mostly), I think I'd like to add something. There is a difference between socialism and communism.
A thing that I notice a lot when Americans get talking about socialists (no offence to all you Americans :) ), they start throwing around words like 'anti-capitalist', 'socialist', like they're insults. Take countries like Canada, or many countries in Europe for example. They're liberal, and have things like gov't healthcare, but they're still certainly 'capitalist' countries, and it's not like the government is trying to throw out the whole economic system and replace it with some Marxist paradise…

They are insults :p. Socialism may work in smaller countries, but it cannot, or at least will not work in the US. If "redistributing wealth" isnt socialist (actually its more communist). National healthcare wouldnt work, you see people get ideas mixed up with practice, we have way to many people to insure. If we do it at all, we should link it to voting, you only get national healthcare if you are a registered voter ;)

From: A G E N T 83

Saying that Obama is socialist is fine - I'm fairly sure he's intelligent enough to realize that he can't just go and change the whole economic backbone of the country. As for issues like public health, I think it's a good idea, but I'm not sure if it would work so well in the United States. When Canada nationalized public healthcare, there were maybe 20 million people in the country altogether. Converting a completely private system in the US for 250 million (is that right?) people in the US would be difficult, to say the least.

It would run us into the ground to nationlize health care, we would have much higher taxes than we do now, a very large portion of my dad's income is taxed away. According to Hillary Clinton's plan, the money required would be able to pay for 7 other government sections.

From: A G E N T 83
Saying that Obama is socialist is fine - I'm fairly sure he's intelligent enough to realize that he can't just go and change the whole economic backbone of the country.

It's insidious.

The liberal agenda is RARELY about proposing radical change. It's about the accumulation of small changes over a period of time that eventually lead to the radical change they have always had in mind. Just like a frog being cooked in a pot of water. By the time the frog realizes there's something horribly wrong, it's too late.

First they prop up Medicare as "the greatest program in history" (and also the most unsustainable, with over 78 TRILLION in unfunded future bills waiting for young people to pay). Then they are constantly harping for better VA benefits, since that's another single payer socialistic government health insurance plan. They've already exploited the population's compassion for seniors and veterans to extend their socialism. The next group they are now targeting is children. They are exploiting compassion for children to try to socialize health insurance coverage there.

As of today, the government ALREADY pays for more than 50% of all health care costs nationwide, which is a staggering amount. Wouldn't you think that if all these socialized, single payer health plans could actually drive down prices in our health care system that they would already be low? They control half the market already, so why can't they drive the prices down? And since they obviously can't do so today, why would they do so once they had a monopoly?

Like I said, they could arbitrarily drive costs down on Medicare, VA health care, Medicaid, etc, TODAY. They just have to tell the doctors, "You MUST see these patients, and we will only reimburse you for XX dollars for doing so". They actually do this from time to time now. They just arbitrarily slash reimbursement levels for 1 procedure or another. But they don't do this on a large scale because then many more people would become aware of what they're doing, and it would be politically unpopular. So I have little to no faith in a single payer US system being able to drive down costs, since those changes will be just as unpopular or even more unpopular (due to all the baby boomers now retiring) in the future. In fact, on Medicare, they purposely tied their own hands by writing mandatory spending increases into the law, based on a formula that guarantees total Medicare spending will grow faster than inflation every year until the end of time.

I found out there is a standing lawsuit against Barack Obama questioning his citizenship. There was a video on is but i dont have he link but http://bobmccarty.com/2008/10/21/barack-obama-citizenship-lawsuit-still-breathing/ there is the story.

From: sirlaughsalot
It would run us into the ground to nationlize health care, we would have much higher taxes than we do now, a very large portion of my dad's income is taxed away. According to Hillary Clinton's plan, the money required would be able to pay for 7 other government sections.

Probably, today's economy isn't the greatest frame of reference to talk about economic disasters, etc. :o …
I don't really understand how it would though. Either people are paying for healthcare themselves, or they are paying for it through taxes. Fundamentally (although probably not exactly) it ought to balance itself out. (Obviously, I don't understand it that well, not being from the USA).

Moreover, it's not like increasing taxes to support such a program would be disastrous. Unpopular, naturally, but not disastrous. From a few seconds of google research, I'm pretty sure that the top marginal income tax rate in the US is 35%, for the 375 000 + bracket. In Ontario (my province), it's 46% for more than $123 000/a. If our country hasn't exploded yet, I don't think the USA would.

As a side note, I agree with whoever disagreed with the 'The Iraq Money' argument. (tara maybe?). People are always throwing around these big numbers from the US counter-insurgency effort, but the bottom line is that they'd rather not be spending that money, period, than to put it in some other programs.

From: sirlaughsalot
I found out there is a standing lawsuit against Barack Obama questioning his citizenship. There was a video on is but i dont have he link but http://bobmccarty.com/2008/10/21/barack-obama-citizenship-lawsuit-still-breathing/ there is the story.

Apparently Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship. When he registered in Indonesia as a child, his citizenship was listed as "Indonesian", meaning that Indonesia would not recognize him as a US citizen.

However, the US does allow dual citizenship with Indonesia, so him being an indonesian citizen doesn't automatically disqualify him as a US citizen with our country.

I don't think a young child is capable of renouncing their citizenship, either way. And the reality that Obama was born on US soil in Hawaii is strengthened by the fact that a birth announcement with his name appeared in the local paper that weekend.

In reality, McCain has bigger problems with being a "natural born" citizen, since he was born on a military base in Panama. However, the Congress already passed a bill recognizing McCain as a natural born US citizen for the purpose of qualifying to be President.

There's lots of much more important stuff to ding Obama for, and I don't think this is going anywhere.

From: A G E N T 83
Probably, today's economy isn't the greatest frame of reference to talk about economic disasters, etc. :o …
I don't really understand how it would though. Either people are paying for healthcare themselves, or they are paying for it through taxes. Fundamentally (although probably not exactly) it ought to balance itself out. (Obviously, I don't understand it that well, not being from the USA).

Moreover, it's not like increasing taxes to support such a program would be disastrous. Unpopular, naturally, but not disastrous. From a few seconds of google research, I'm pretty sure that the top marginal income tax rate in the US is 35%, for the 375 000 + bracket. In Ontario (my province), it's 46% for more than $123 000/a. If our country hasn't exploded yet, I don't think the USA would.

As a side note, I agree with whoever disagreed with the 'The Iraq Money' argument. (tara maybe?). People are always throwing around these big numbers from the US counter-insurgency effort, but the bottom line is that they'd rather not be spending that money, period, than to put it in some other programs.

What the thing is, people would abuse the system, go into the ER, our ER's would be backed up. For instance, my mom has a lot of experience with that she works on phone lines to help people on wether to go to the ER or not or what is wrong ect. She asks every person at the end of the call what they would have done if she hadnt called back, and 95% said go to the ER. One time on a child there was a 101 temp (normal is 98.6) my mom called back 30 minutes later, and they were already loading him into the ambulance. It is a fact that higher taxes arent good for the economy, especially with our economic climate, we dont need taxes.

Also, they say all the time they want to use the money we use on the war for other things…

So…you guys like war?

he wants to spread the wealth and give tax refunds to people that dont pay taxes. hes not a socialist hes a commy

From: oliver1205
he wants to spread the wealth and give tax refunds to people that dont pay taxes. hes not a socialist hes a commy

Except that he's not a communist.

Seriously, words only hold so much value. If he's said something five times it could be used as good evidence for promoting whatever cause, but if you misspeak something once it really doesn't mean anything unless it unveils corruption or whatever (which in this case it isn't). He says "spread the wealth", what's so bad about things like public schools? I sure wouldn't have an education if we didn't have them. Even the fact that our school offers calculus in high school is nice. That's spreading the wealth, you're giving money to questionably certified teachers and administrators, but even they might not have jobs without them, not to mention the people like me who need it for proper education (more like a pile of papers that says I'm capable of standard thought).

and barack supports ACORN, the #1 anti-capitalist group in america

The #1 anti-capitalist group in America?? ACORN (site) is "The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now". They do things like register people to vote who otherwise wouldn't be able to (for things like lack of transportation or whatever), gather funding for schools and housing, getting better working rights for very-low wage jobs, and other things that would normally be associated with the lower class, around and below the poverty line. They have over 350,000 members, and the only reason they're considered a "bad" organization is because occasionally, some people will attempt to use their portable voting registration whatever to commit voter fraud (vote twice, etc). Most of these are sorted out by ACORN themselves, and the rest get filtered through by whoever actually counts the votes. Obama has good cause to support them. (Sorry for going out on a tangent, but I'd like to be able to copy+paste this to people who thing ACORN is evil).

Oh right, about the actual thread :p. I think by our standards, Obama would be *somewhat* of a Socialist, but if you define Capitalism by corruption of the government by lobbying to sway votes for related issues in a way that will help your business (and therefore you) attain more money, then America is a very Capitalist country indeed. We could use some more of this "Socialism".

From: kingarabian
So…you guys like war?

Seems most people do =\.

Socialist or not, Obama would make a much better President than McCain. And the dumbass decision to make Palin a VP candidate is reason enough not to even consider voting for McCain.

From: Widget
Except that he's not a communist.

Seriously, words only hold so much value. If he's said something five times it could be used as good evidence for promoting whatever cause, but if you misspeak something once it really doesn't mean anything unless it unveils corruption or whatever (which in this case it isn't). He says "spread the wealth", what's so bad about things like public schools? I sure wouldn't have an education if we didn't have them. Even the fact that our school offers calculus in high school is nice. That's spreading the wealth, you're giving money to questionably certified teachers and administrators, but even they might not have jobs without them, not to mention the people like me who need it for proper education (more like a pile of papers that says I'm capable of standard thought).

Most people knew he wanted to 'spread the wealth', since he was raising taxes on the wealthy and giving free money to the poor and cutting taxes on the middle class. After he said it though, it was really easy to prove it. Public schools aren't socialism. Everyone pays for it (the wealthy more than the poorer), and everyone has a choice whether they want to go to it or not. Whereas Obama wants to take money from the wealthy and not give anything back to them.

Again, as I've been saying, Obama wants to take money from those who work non-stop and have worked non-stop their whole lives, and give it to those who are too lazy to get a job or have a job but haven't spent their whole lives getting a good job (maybe with the select few who have worked their whole lives, but couldn't get enough money for college or something).

From: lakerzz8
Socialist or not, Obama would make a much better President than McCain. And the dumbass decision to make Palin a VP candidate is reason enough not to even consider voting for McCain.

Lol.

You're saying McCain was a dambass to pick Palin (What has she done that's stupid/dumb?) when Obama picked BIDEN?! Go to youtube, type in Biden, and watch some of those videos (He says J-O-B-S is 3 letters, for example)

EDIT:

From: kingarabian
So…you guys like war?

I prefer war to being blown up by an A-Bomb.

From: Runescapian




Lol.

You're saying McCain was a dambass to pick Palin (What has she done that's stupid/dumb?) when Obama picked BIDEN?! Go to youtube, type in Biden, and watch some of those videos (He says J-O-B-S is 3 letters, for example)

Really? You haven't noticed anything dumb that Palin has done? The fact that the SNL sketches against her actually use quotes from her real interviews and speeches should give you a little hint. But let me make a quick list for you before you go to youtube and catch the rest of the dumbshit she has said.
1. She doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is and tried avoiding the question
2. She could not name a single magazine or newspaper she reads
3. She said she can see Russia from her house, which gives her forein policy experience
4. She was for the bridge to nowhere, then when it got voted down, she suddenly became against the bridge to nowhere.
5. During the debates she flat out said, I'm not going to answer any of these questions, I'll talk about what I want to talk about (That's not how a damn debate works, idiot.)
The list goes on and on, but I'm sure you can find more on your own.

From: Runescapian

EDIT:



I prefer war to being blown up by an A-Bomb.

Have you been in a war? Actually fought? We'll see how much you prefer it when you're actually there risking your life everyday. And our continued presence in countries that despise us will make the A-bomb a much more likely event than if we pull out right now.

1. The News Makes Me Sad … So I Don't Watch It

Sarah Palin at a North Carolina fundraiser:

At those times on the campaign trail when sometimes it's easy to get a little bit discouraged, when, you know, when you happen to turn on the news when your campaign staffers will let you turn on the news … Usually they're like "Oh my gosh, don't watch. You're going to, you know, you're going to get depressed."

Maybe her handlers could put on a puppet show instead – something fun that allows Palin to maintain her cheery optimism in the face of overwhelming evidence that the McCain campaign has imploded. There was once another politician similarly unconcerned with current events and the news: George W. Bush. That went well.

2. The People Don't Elect U.S. Presidents, God Does

Upon being asked by James Dobson if the McCain ticket's precipitous slide in the polls gets her down:

… [it] strengthens my faith, because I'm going to know, at the end of the day, putting this in God's hands, that the right thing for America will be done at the end of the day on Nov. 4. So I'm not discouraged at all.

… and I can feel it too, Dr. Dobson. I can feel the power of prayer, and that strength that is provided through our prayer warriors across this nation.

Ah yes, the always helpful "prayer warriors," whose appeals to the Almighty actually count for more than the average American citizen's vote. Apparently the next president of the United States will be handpicked by God.

3. Palin Believes in "Divided" States of America

At a fundraiser:

We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hardworking, very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation.

Palin later apologized for the statement. But her backpedaling shouldn't get her off the hook for putting forth a deeply divisive vision of America. How would conservatives have reacted if, in an attempt to pander to uber-liberals, Obama said "I love visiting the parts of the country where people aren't close-minded assholes"? Probably not well.

4. The Vice President Is Supreme Boss of the Senate

Here's what Palin said when Brandon, an elementary school student, asked: "What does the vice president do?"

That's something that Piper would ask me! … They're in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom.

To be fair, Palin had no idea what the VP does the last time the issue came up, so this is almost an improvement. Except that saying the vice president (who is only nominally head of the U.S. Senate) makes policy changes through Senate legislation reveals an embarrassing ignorance of our government's system of checks and balances. Also, it's a bit disconcerting to hear someone running for VP endow that office with God-like powers over a separate branch of government.

5. Delusional Response to Troopergate

"Well, I'm very, very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing … any hint of any kind of unethical activity there," said Sarah Palin last Sunday, soon after she was found to have engaged in wrongdoing and unethical activity in the "Troopergate" investigation. Again, a propensity for denial and lies, a deep aversion to reality – not the best ways to signal your commitment to "change" from "politics as usual."

6. Vicious Attack on Obama

The following quote needs little introduction. It's famous now, not only for its inaccuracy but also for how much this line of attack has fallen flat with voters and backfired on the McCain campaign:

Our opponent though, is someone who sees America it seems as being so imperfect that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.

Outright deception is probably not something the American voters are looking to put in the White House; pretty sure they've had enough of that in the past eight years.

7. The Lord is a Pollster

While speaking in North Carolina, Palin decided to take a moment to thank God for a very small bump she and McCain experienced in their otherwise sliding poll numbers.

We even saw today, thank the Lord, we saw some movement.

People often thank God for things that appear to be outside the realm of divine intervention. An incredibly small bump in the polls though? Seems excessive. Not to mention, Obama now has the widest lead he has ever had in the polls. Should God be given credit for that too?

8. America's Teachers' Rewards Are in Heaven (but Nowhere to Be Found on Earth)

In the vice presidential debate, Palin had this to say about Sen. Joe Biden's wife's career in education:

You mentioned education, and I'm glad that you did. I know education you are passionate about with your wife being a teacher for 30 years, and God bless her. Her reward is in heaven, right?

Governor, America's teachers should not have to wait until heaven; they should be praised and rewarded right here on Earth. Possibly with living-wage salaries.

9. I Read … All the Publications

When Katie Couric asked Palin the complex trick question of where she gets her news, the two women had the following exchange:

Couric: And when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this – to stay informed and to understand the world?

Palin: I've read most of them again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media –

Couric: But what ones specifically? I'm curious.

Palin: Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me over all these years.

Couric: Can you name any of them?

Palin: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news.

With all of the intensive reading Palin has done over the years, it's a wonder she's had time to do other important things, like govern Alaska and learn to play the flute.

10. Some of my best friends are gay, but …

From the same interview with Couric:

One of my absolute best friends for the last 30 years happens to be gay and I love her dearly, and she is not my "gay" friend, she is one of my best friends, who happens to have made a choice that isn't a choice that I have made, but … I'm not gonna judge people.

Stating in no uncertain terms that being gay is a choice is an odd thing to do on mainstream, national television when medical and psychological associations have contended for years that sexual orientation is biologically determined. Then, she slimily criticizes that so-called "choice" by saying it is not one she would make. But hey, some of her best friends are gay …

11. A Little Wet Behind the Ears …

During the vice presidential debate, when Palin was asked which policy plans proposed by the McCain-Palin ticket would have to suffer due to the current economic crisis, Palin gave a pretty dubious response: none. When pressed on the issue, Palin decided that an easy out would be to fall back on her inexperience:

And how long have I been at this, like five weeks?

Uh … wow, that actually wasn't dumb at all. In that case, she was absolutely right.

From: lakerzz8
Really? You haven't noticed anything dumb that Palin has done? The fact that the SNL sketches against her actually use quotes from her real interviews and speeches should give you a little hint. But let me make a quick list for you before you go to youtube and catch the rest of the dumbshit she has said.
1. She doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is and tried avoiding the question
2. She could not name a single magazine or newspaper she reads
3. She said she can see Russia from her house, which gives her forein policy experience
4. She was for the bridge to nowhere, then when it got voted down, she suddenly became against the bridge to nowhere.
5. During the debates she flat out said, I'm not going to answer any of these questions, I'll talk about what I want to talk about (That's not how a damn debate works, idiot.)
The list goes on and on, but I'm sure you can find more on your own.


Have you been in a war? Actually fought? We'll see how much you prefer it when you're actually there risking your life everyday. And our continued presence in countries that despise us will make the A-bomb a much more likely event than if we pull out right now.

I havent heard of any of those things that she said, but ill take your word for it. But I have to say at least one thing

4. She learned more about "the bridge to nowhere" and was against it, thats how things work, not being able to change your opinion on something is rediculous.

Okay, lets go to Barack's experience.

1. He was a senator, that means, absolutely no executive experience
2. He is #1 on the ticket, Palin is #2, the fact that people compare him to her is amazing (goes to show how much experience he really has)
3. He has not done much if anything at all in the Senate (he repeatedly voted "present') , he was part of the "Do nothing congress"
4. The things he worked on with William Ayers, were COMPLETE and utter failures

so lemme sum it up, Barack has No experience, has not done much in his current job, and what he did do were failures… How can you want to vote for a man who hasnt done much and what he did do he didnt do well..

How did we go from the dumb things Palin said to Obama having no experience? I never argued that Obama has a lot of experience. However, he has one thing that Palin lacks: intelligence. Obama is a very bright guy. You don't need years of experience to make a well-thought out and correct choice. Obama has a great education and turned down a well-paid job to help out his community. And what he lacks in experience he makes up for it by having Biden who has years of experience as a senator.

Oh and on top of everything, Palin is being investigated for ethics violations. That's what we need!

I was never comparing Palin to Obama, you did, so it's you making that comparison. Don't complain when it falls apart because people respect Obama and consider him intelligent, while everyone knows Palin doesn't know anything besides energy.

From: lakerzz8
Really? You haven't noticed anything dumb that Palin has done? The fact that the SNL sketches against her actually use quotes from her real interviews and speeches should give you a little hint. But let me make a quick list for you before you go to youtube and catch the rest of the dumbshit she has said.
1. She doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is and tried avoiding the question
2. She could not name a single magazine or newspaper she reads
3. She said she can see Russia from her house, which gives her forein policy experience
4. She was for the bridge to nowhere, then when it got voted down, she suddenly became against the bridge to nowhere.
5. During the debates she flat out said, I'm not going to answer any of these questions, I'll talk about what I want to talk about (That's not how a damn debate works, idiot.)
The list goes on and on, but I'm sure you can find more on your own.


Have you been in a war? Actually fought? We'll see how much you prefer it when you're actually there risking your life everyday. And our continued presence in countries that despise us will make the A-bomb a much more likely event than if we pull out right now.

1) Personally, I've never heard of it, but from what I gathered from watching the news, they said that it can be interpreted as a variety of different things, that's why she said "Well, in what respect?", and proceeded from there.
2) I wouldn't either if all the media did was bash me for no reason.
3) Ok, that's 1.
4) Why does everyone look down on people changing their minds? That just proves they aren't stubborn and are open to people trying to prove them wrong.
5) Don't remember that (then again I didn't watch too much of the VP debate), link me please.

You're telling me you'd rather get blown up than fight it and have a good chance to live?

Pulling out right now is just plain stupid >_< The best we can do now is help Iraq rebuild itself.

From: lakerzz8
1. The News Makes Me Sad … So I Don't Watch It

Sarah Palin at a North Carolina fundraiser:

At those times on the campaign trail when sometimes it's easy to get a little bit discouraged, when, you know, when you happen to turn on the news when your campaign staffers will let you turn on the news … Usually they're like "Oh my gosh, don't watch. You're going to, you know, you're going to get depressed."

Maybe her handlers could put on a puppet show instead – something fun that allows Palin to maintain her cheery optimism in the face of overwhelming evidence that the McCain campaign has imploded. There was once another politician similarly unconcerned with current events and the news: George W. Bush. That went well.

2. The People Don't Elect U.S. Presidents, God Does

Upon being asked by James Dobson if the McCain ticket's precipitous slide in the polls gets her down:

… [it] strengthens my faith, because I'm going to know, at the end of the day, putting this in God's hands, that the right thing for America will be done at the end of the day on Nov. 4. So I'm not discouraged at all.

… and I can feel it too, Dr. Dobson. I can feel the power of prayer, and that strength that is provided through our prayer warriors across this nation.

Ah yes, the always helpful "prayer warriors," whose appeals to the Almighty actually count for more than the average American citizen's vote. Apparently the next president of the United States will be handpicked by God.

3. Palin Believes in "Divided" States of America

At a fundraiser:

We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hardworking, very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation.

Palin later apologized for the statement. But her backpedaling shouldn't get her off the hook for putting forth a deeply divisive vision of America. How would conservatives have reacted if, in an attempt to pander to uber-liberals, Obama said "I love visiting the parts of the country where people aren't close-minded assholes"? Probably not well.

4. The Vice President Is Supreme Boss of the Senate

Here's what Palin said when Brandon, an elementary school student, asked: "What does the vice president do?"

That's something that Piper would ask me! … They're in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom.

To be fair, Palin had no idea what the VP does the last time the issue came up, so this is almost an improvement. Except that saying the vice president (who is only nominally head of the U.S. Senate) makes policy changes through Senate legislation reveals an embarrassing ignorance of our government's system of checks and balances. Also, it's a bit disconcerting to hear someone running for VP endow that office with God-like powers over a separate branch of government.

5. Delusional Response to Troopergate

"Well, I'm very, very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing … any hint of any kind of unethical activity there," said Sarah Palin last Sunday, soon after she was found to have engaged in wrongdoing and unethical activity in the "Troopergate" investigation. Again, a propensity for denial and lies, a deep aversion to reality – not the best ways to signal your commitment to "change" from "politics as usual."

6. Vicious Attack on Obama

The following quote needs little introduction. It's famous now, not only for its inaccuracy but also for how much this line of attack has fallen flat with voters and backfired on the McCain campaign:

Our opponent though, is someone who sees America it seems as being so imperfect that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.

Outright deception is probably not something the American voters are looking to put in the White House; pretty sure they've had enough of that in the past eight years.

7. The Lord is a Pollster

While speaking in North Carolina, Palin decided to take a moment to thank God for a very small bump she and McCain experienced in their otherwise sliding poll numbers.

We even saw today, thank the Lord, we saw some movement.

People often thank God for things that appear to be outside the realm of divine intervention. An incredibly small bump in the polls though? Seems excessive. Not to mention, Obama now has the widest lead he has ever had in the polls. Should God be given credit for that too?

8. America's Teachers' Rewards Are in Heaven (but Nowhere to Be Found on Earth)

In the vice presidential debate, Palin had this to say about Sen. Joe Biden's wife's career in education:

You mentioned education, and I'm glad that you did. I know education you are passionate about with your wife being a teacher for 30 years, and God bless her. Her reward is in heaven, right?

Governor, America's teachers should not have to wait until heaven; they should be praised and rewarded right here on Earth. Possibly with living-wage salaries.

9. I Read … All the Publications

When Katie Couric asked Palin the complex trick question of where she gets her news, the two women had the following exchange:

Couric: And when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this – to stay informed and to understand the world?

Palin: I've read most of them again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media –

Couric: But what ones specifically? I'm curious.

Palin: Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me over all these years.

Couric: Can you name any of them?

Palin: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news.

With all of the intensive reading Palin has done over the years, it's a wonder she's had time to do other important things, like govern Alaska and learn to play the flute.

10. Some of my best friends are gay, but …

From the same interview with Couric:

One of my absolute best friends for the last 30 years happens to be gay and I love her dearly, and she is not my "gay" friend, she is one of my best friends, who happens to have made a choice that isn't a choice that I have made, but … I'm not gonna judge people.

Stating in no uncertain terms that being gay is a choice is an odd thing to do on mainstream, national television when medical and psychological associations have contended for years that sexual orientation is biologically determined. Then, she slimily criticizes that so-called "choice" by saying it is not one she would make. But hey, some of her best friends are gay …

11. A Little Wet Behind the Ears …

During the vice presidential debate, when Palin was asked which policy plans proposed by the McCain-Palin ticket would have to suffer due to the current economic crisis, Palin gave a pretty dubious response: none. When pressed on the issue, Palin decided that an easy out would be to fall back on her inexperience:

And how long have I been at this, like five weeks?

Uh … wow, that actually wasn't dumb at all. In that case, she was absolutely right.

1. Again, with the media bashing you every 5 minutes for no reason, I wouldn't watch the news much either. With GWB, that doesn't mean anything. Just because somebody has one little thing in common with another person doesn't mean that they're exactly the same lol.

2. Handpicked by God? I take it you aren't Christian, otherwise you would understand what she means by what she said.

3. When someone says someone is 'very kind', does that mean everyone else is a jerk? She said many little towns were very patriotic, how do get that the rest of the US isn't patriotic out of that?

4. You expect her to explain checks and balances to an elementary school student?

5. Don't really get what that's about, I'd look it up, but I'm in a hurry atm.

6. She was talking about him being acquainted with that Ayers guy or whatever? Again, I'd look it up, but I'm in a hurry.

7. See #2 (Some people are more religious than others and would thank God after finding that their stocks went up 5 cents)

8. Valid point, but for some reason I doubt that's all she said…

9. Ok, so far that's 3 that I can't prove you wrong on.

10. 4 Things then, but I bet if you took a poll of 100 people and asked them why some people are gay, I bet you'd get atleast half saying choice.

11. You expect her to know everything about McCain's plans in a couple weeks? What are they, how much they cost, what they would need for them, etc. Sure if that's all you concentrated on for like a week, but there's more important things to do when you're a VP candidate.


I'd make a list of all the dumb thing Biden has done/said, but that'd take too long :D + I have to go for now.

The media narrative on Pallin is that she isn't ready to be President because she doesn't have foreign policy experience. They laugh when people point to her experience as a mayor and governor, and demand to know how those positions gave her foreign policy experience.

Why isn't that the same narrative for Obama, who has little to no foreign policy experience?

During the Dem primary Obama was routinely exposed for his extremely thin foreign policy experience, and supporters were forced to come up with things like "He lived in another country when he was 10, so he understands the world", or "He has a multicultural heritage, so he can understand world conflict" etc. Is that any less laughable than saying you can see Russia from your porch? No.

Palin was NOT chosen for her foreign policy experience. Bill Clinton had no foreign policy experience. Ronald Reagan had no foreign policy experience. Almost no governor does. She was chosen because this is supposedly a "CHANGE" election, and she has a record of bringing change to government, and of taking on the power brokers and bosses in both parties back in Alaska.

Since Obama says he's running on CHANGE in a CHANGE election, what is the logic behind choosing a Washington insider that has spent 36 years there as VP?

Those bashing Palin over foreign policy and pretending that Obama is somehow better qualified either have short memories, or they weren't paying attention during the Dem primary when that was one of Obama's biggest failures.

I prefer war to being blown up by an A-Bomb.

Keep up with the war, and will probably get bombed soon.

From: kingarabian
Keep up with the war, and will probably get bombed soon.

Pull out and we lose the respect of half the world because we raided a country and left it in ruins. Along with that, the Iraqi people would hate us for doing so, increasing the chance. Now, if we stay, we can still get our favor with the innocent people.

You're still saying that you would rather have had Bush do nothing when the CIA was telling him that they're positive there's WMDs in Iraq. If you respond, respond to that :)

Runescapian, as a VP candidate, she has to know what is going on with the rest of the world, and the best source is the newspapers. If you avoid ALL newspapers because you are being bashed, then that shows what a weak leader you are. So what next, you're going to declare war on a country that makes fun of your mom?

Also, I like how you say completely going from for something to against it AFTER it got voted down is being open-minded. But what John Kerry did (changing his mind or the way he voted) was called flip-flopping.

From: Runescapian
Pull out and we lose the respect of half the world because we raided a country and left it in ruins. Along with that, the Iraqi people would hate us for doing so, increasing the chance. Now, if we stay, we can still get our favor with the innocent people.

You're still saying that you would rather have had Bush do nothing when the CIA was telling him that they're positive there's WMDs in Iraq. If you respond, respond to that :)

Oh yes, because the rest of the world respects us so much for invading a country that we had no business invading. And I'm sure the Iraqi people love having intruders in their country.

From: lakerzz8
Oh yes, because the rest of the world respects us so much for invading a country that we had no business invading. And I'm sure the Iraqi people love having intruders in their country.

'No business invading'?? What do you call the WMDs that the intelligence sources were talking about. And the innocent Iraqi people probably prefer the US to be there to help them restore order.

EDIT:

From: lakerzz8
Runescapian, as a VP candidate, she has to know what is going on with the rest of the world, and the best source is the newspapers. If you avoid ALL newspapers because you are being bashed, then that shows what a weak leader you are. So what next, you're going to declare war on a country that makes fun of your mom?

Also, I like how you say completely going from for something to against it AFTER it got voted down is being open-minded. But what John Kerry did (changing his mind or the way he voted) was called flip-flopping.

Newspapers and magazines aren't the only sources of news in the world >_<

Since when did John Kerry come into this conversation?
EDIT: I'll assume you meant Palin

So people don't have the right to change their minds anymore :confused: It's one thing if somebody is constantly changing their opinion on all kinds of different issues, but it doesn't mean anything if she changed her mind about one issue.

From: tarajunky
The media narrative on Pallin is that she isn't ready to be President because she doesn't have foreign policy experience. They laugh when people point to her experience as a mayor and governor, and demand to know how those positions gave her foreign policy experience.

Why isn't that the same narrative for Obama, who has little to no foreign policy experience?

During the Dem primary Obama was routinely exposed for his extremely thin foreign policy experience, and supporters were forced to come up with things like "He lived in another country when he was 10, so he understands the world", or "He has a multicultural heritage, so he can understand world conflict" etc. Is that any less laughable than saying you can see Russia from your porch? No.

Palin was NOT chosen for her foreign policy experience. Bill Clinton had no foreign policy experience. Ronald Reagan had no foreign policy experience. Almost no governor does. She was chosen because this is supposedly a "CHANGE" election, and she has a record of bringing change to government, and of taking on the power brokers and bosses in both parties back in Alaska.

Since Obama says he's running on CHANGE in a CHANGE election, what is the logic behind choosing a Washington insider that has spent 36 years there as VP?

Those bashing Palin over foreign policy and pretending that Obama is somehow better qualified either have short memories, or they weren't paying attention during the Dem primary when that was one of Obama's biggest failures.

You're focusing too much on foreign policy. Obama has Biden for that, and McCain has himself. On experience in general, Obama pwns Palin. The state of Alaska has something like 675,000 people in it, and Wasalia has 5,500 people. Chicago has 2,800,000 people, 9,70,000 including the suburbs around it (though parts of it are in other states).

[Ok, I've had this post half-finished for 3 days now and I probably won't bother to finish it so I'll post it anyway :p (Firefox saving *everything* in sessions ftw)]

Edit for what I missed:

From: Runescapian
'No business invading'?? What do you call the WMDs that the intelligence sources were talking about. And the innocent Iraqi people probably prefer the US to be there to help them restore order.

EDIT:

Newspapers and magazines aren't the only sources of news in the world >_<

Since when did John Kerry come into this conversation?
EDIT: I'll assume you meant Palin.

He means Kerry. Lots of people think that the main reason that Bush won in the 2004 elections after coming off as such a bad president the first 4 years is because Kerry was flip-flopping quite a bit. This made Kerry look 'weak', and Bush is very good at pretending he knows what he's talking about so long as he as ample time to prepare (otherwise, Bushisms happen :p). People tend to value image for leaders more than politics this day and age, which is a bit saddening, but it's the truth. McCain is trying to be some epic war hero that he isn't. Palin is trying to be a "hockey mom". Biden is trying to be some random nice guy who happens to know everything about foreign policy, and I can't even name whatever Obama's trying to do (just a generic responsible leader figure?).

Regardless, it seems that Obama and Biden have almost certainly won (see maps), so there's not much use arguing anymore :). United we stand, divided we fall.

From: Runescapian
'No business invading'?? What do you call the WMDs that the intelligence sources were talking about. And the innocent Iraqi people probably prefer the US to be there to help them restore order.

EDIT:



Newspapers and magazines aren't the only sources of news in the world >_<

Since when did John Kerry come into this conversation?
EDIT: I'll assume you meant Palin

So people don't have the right to change their minds anymore :confused: It's one thing if somebody is constantly changing their opinion on all kinds of different issues, but it doesn't mean anything if she changed her mind about one issue.

I dunno I thought it was the U.N told america of iraq's WMD or w/e.

And as I posted before, there was a poll that states more then enough iraqi people dont want america in iraq.

From: Widget
You're focusing too much on foreign policy. Obama has Biden for that, and McCain has himself. On experience in general, Obama pwns Palin. The state of Alaska has something like 675,000 people in it, and Wasalia has 5,500 people. Chicago has 2,800,000 people, 9,70,000 including the suburbs around it (though parts of it are in other states).

Obama didnt hold any position (except for "community organiser" wtf?!) in Chicago. Do you know what a senator is? He is a SENATOR, he doesnt lead people, he makes legislation. The mayor of a town is better qualified to be president than that. She was the governor of a large state with LOTS of money.

From: Widget

[Ok, I've had this post half-finished for 3 days now and I probably won't bother to finish it so I'll post it anyway :p (Firefox saving *everything* in sessions ftw)]

Edit for what I missed:

He means Kerry. Lots of people think that the main reason that Bush won in the 2004 elections after coming off as such a bad president the first 4 years is because Kerry was flip-flopping quite a bit. This made Kerry look 'weak', and Bush is very good at pretending he knows what he's talking about so long as he as ample time to prepare (otherwise, Bushisms happen :p). People tend to value image for leaders more than politics this day and age, which is a bit saddening, but it's the truth. McCain is trying to be some epic war hero that he isn't. Palin is trying to be a "hockey mom". Biden is trying to be some random nice guy who happens to know everything about foreign policy, and I can't even name whatever Obama's trying to do (just a generic responsible leader figure?).

Regardless, it seems that Obama and Biden have almost certainly won (see maps), so there's not much use arguing anymore :). United we stand, divided we fall.

Thats funny "United we stand,divided we fall." I would figure that with a war you would especially need to be united in a common effort to WIN. No matter how misfounded a war may be (I dont think it was) you should at least be able to support the people who go over and serve for what they think is the best thing for our country.

From: kingarabian
I dunno I thought it was the U.N told america of iraq's WMD or w/e.

And as I posted before, there was a poll that states more then enough iraqi people dont want america in iraq.

The UN told Saddam repeatedly to let them search but he wouldnt let them. He was saying that he was gonna use WMD's on us and intelligence pointed to the fact that he did have them, so what are we to do?

I dont think that the Japanese people liked us much after we bombed two of their cities, but they got over it and now are good allies. Its a little different in this situation, but nearly the same thing, we are protecting ourselves and liberating another people…

To get this thread back on topic, a 2001 interview of Barack Obama by a public radio station was unearthed earlier today, and was quite shocking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

I don't see how anyone can hear that and think Obama is NOT a socialist.

I mean come on, he thinks that wealth redistribution is a CIVIL RIGHT. And although he said that it would be politically difficult to justify a court ruling that made it a civil right, he never says that it would be wrong to do so, or that he wouldn't support it.

As a previous community organizer for ACORN himself, he says that the civil rights movement should have focused more on community organization, since that is better able to create the power structures necessary to force wealth redistribution onto the country.

You can't get much more blatant than that. Obama is a socialist at heart, period. And his campaign promises aren't worth a peso, let alone a penny. If he wins this election and Dems have large majorities in both houses of Congress, all bets are off, and radical socialist changes will be forced on this country.

From: sirlaughsalot
Obama didnt hold any position (except for "community organiser" wtf?!) in Chicago. Do you know what a senator is? He is a SENATOR, he doesnt lead people, he makes legislation. The mayor of a town is better qualified to be president than that. She was the governor of a large state with LOTS of money.



Thats funny "United we stand,divided we fall." I would figure that with a war you would especially need to be united in a common effort to WIN. No matter how misfounded a war may be (I dont think it was) you should at least be able to support the people who go over and serve for what they think is the best thing for our country.




The UN told Saddam repeatedly to let them search but he wouldnt let them. He was saying that he was gonna use WMD's on us and intelligence pointed to the fact that he did have them, so what are we to do?

I dont think that the Japanese people liked us much after we bombed two of their cities, but they got over it and now are good allies. Its a little different in this situation, but nearly the same thing, we are protecting ourselves and liberating another people…

1. What is wrong with being a community organizer? It's a bad thing to be helping out your community? Mccain/Palin laugh at Obama for being a community organizer but then Palin goes out and tries to prove herself to be a regular "hockey mom". I would rather be a community organizer than a hockey mom.
2. The only reason Alaska has LOTS of money is that its pretty much owned by the oil companies. Every citizen gets something like 3,000 a year from the oil companies because they drill there. And I believe that when Palin was mayor, she ran the city into a deficit.
3. No one is against the troops, we are against the war. And as a country we are almost united against the war (more people against it than for it). It makes no sense to continue doing something because we already started. You can argue the initial reasons for starting the war all you want, but there's no arguing that we have nothing left to do there and must begin withdrawing. It is costing our country too much to stay.
4. Don't compare World War II, where we were fighting Fascism and Nazis with Iraq. The decision to bomb Japan was controversial enough, but it can be argued that it helped END THE WAR, not prolong it like you want to do with Iraq. If you want to draw comparisons to previous wars, Iraq is most like Vietnam. That one ended well…

From: lakerzz8
1. What is wrong with being a community organizer? It's a bad thing to be helping out your community? Mccain/Palin laugh at Obama for being a community organizer but then Palin goes out and tries to prove herself to be a regular "hockey mom". I would rather be a community organizer than a hockey mom.

There is nothing wrong with being a "community organiser" but it is hardly a good qualifier for a reason to be president…

From: lakerzz8

2. The only reason Alaska has LOTS of money is that its pretty much owned by the oil companies. Every citizen gets something like 3,000 a year from the oil companies because they drill there. And I believe that when Palin was mayor, she ran the city into a deficit.

How can she run a place into a deficit when what she is famous for is reform? Can you provide any kind of proof on that?

From: lakerzz8

3. No one is against the troops, we are against the war. And as a country we are almost united against the war (more people against it than for it). It makes no sense to continue doing something because we already started. You can argue the initial reasons for starting the war all you want, but there's no arguing that we have nothing left to do there and must begin withdrawing. It is costing our country too much to stay.

It does make sense, finish what you started, actually do what you set out to do. If you pull out now, you waste all of the people who sacrificed their lives for you. I can and I will argue that there are still things to do there.

From: lakerzz8

4. Don't compare World War II, where we were fighting Fascism and Nazis with Iraq. The decision to bomb Japan was controversial enough, but it can be argued that it helped END THE WAR, not prolong it like you want to do with Iraq. If you want to draw comparisons to previous wars, Iraq is most like Vietnam. That one ended well…

Okay lets go with Vietnam. That was the first really televised war, you saw what was going on, and it scared people. That war was to stop the spread of communism. There was too much bickering and fighting in the US, troops came home and were called "baby killers" and were spit on. Do you know who lost us that war? Ourselves, it was not our troops but the people and the government who lost the war. So do you want to "loose" another war? Oh and by the way, the vitnamese wanted us to be there, when we left they begged us to stay.

Also you didnt seem to actually read what I said because I was saying that the Japanese didnt really like us after we bombed their cities.

Nice link btw Tara, Obama is a Socialist/Communist its a fact…

Edit- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fxz3UgwCR0&NR=1 The music gets annoying, but read the info, and listen to what he says, and it is true…

From: sirlaughsalot
There is nothing wrong with being a "community organiser" but it is hardly a good qualifier for a reason to be president…

When Obama himself says that community organization is the most effective way to create the power structures necessary to forcibly impose the redistribution of wealth, I'd say there absolutely is something wrong with it.

Not every community organizer is a socialist, but based on Obama's own stated socialist philosophy it's clear that HE himself was acting as a community organizer in order to promote a socialist agenda. We don't need those type of community organizers in this country, and we certainly don't need them in the White House.

You can rant all you want and believe the lies but at the end of the day, OBAMA IS THE PRESIDENT ELECT!

From: lakerzz8
You can rant all you want and believe the lies but at the end of the day, OBAMA IS THE PRESIDENT ELECT!

The only lies there might be here are the words from Obama's mouth. Either

1) The US will fail because he is penalizing wealthy people for being successful

2) He will go back on his promises and save the US


The only reason he got elected is because, for the next year or two, 95% of Americans will be better off (while the 5% who deserve to be better off will just be OK). Those people who'll be better off voted for him, but not all. Why? Because they see the consequences that will come in the future from this. The election was 52%-47% (I think?) popular vote (Obama's favor). The only reason it wasn't 95%-5% is because nearly half give some time to think (using Obama's own slogan) "Will we be better off four years from now?"

From: Runescapian
The only reason he got elected is because, for the next year or two, 95% of Americans will be better off (while the 5% who deserve to be better off will just be OK).

Wow… Deserve to be better off…? /nukefacepalm

That's not democracy, that's racism. Republicans don't say some people should be better off than others either.

From: Wizzup?
Wow… Deserve to be better off…? /nukefacepalm

That's not democracy, that's racism. Republicans don't say some people should be better off than others either. Maybe just join Mr Hitler instead.

So somebody who took extra years of education for college and medical school + works twice as long (+ probably as hard, if not harder) doesn't 'deserve to be better off' than a guy who never went to college and works 30 hours a week? I mean, sure, it's not like Obama is completely making everyone equal, but that doesn't mean that that's not what could eventually happen. If the guy who never went to college wanted to have a good life, he should have went to college and did more with his life. He chose that path, let him continue it.

EDIT: Btw, what does racism have to do with this :confused:

Socialism is a great concept. It doesn't mean take from the rich give to the poor, it means, help the poor become the rich.

Agreed, some people sicken me in the sense that all they want is welfare. Although, there is no real way to combat and tell the difference between these folk and those who are trying to live normally, and get farther into a good career. They might just be daunted by the large bills, who says that's right? Why should someone not be able to work up to their potential because of their financial state?

All, in all. I'm a socialist. Proud of it. Not a communist, but socialist.

From: Nava2
Socialism is a great concept. It doesn't mean take from the rich give to the poor, it means, help the poor become the rich.

Agreed, some people sicken me in the sense that all they want is welfare. Although, there is no real way to combat and tell the difference between these folk and those who are trying to live normally, and get farther into a good career. They might just be daunted by the large bills, who says that's right? Why should someone not be able to work up to their potential because of their financial state?

All, in all. I'm a socialist. Proud of it. Not a communist, but socialist.

I've told this story multiple times, I believe on this thread and some others, but my parents are living proof that your financial state shouldn't be an obstacle if you really want something. We came to the US with six (Yes, six) suitcases, and now my parents are both doctors with good salaries 10 years later.

All I can say is: Damn.

I wanted McCain to win so I could stare at Palin. Not.

Runescapian did george bush junior work hard to get where he was?
did hillary clinton?

I'm sure they worked reasonably hard, but the main reason they are where they are is because they are related to previous high positions.

there is also quite a few Dole's and Kennedy's in power. You could easily call it a dynasty.

you call it democracy, i call it feudalism


i don't know about the Netherlands Wizzup, but in the UK, we are unlikely to elect John Thatcher and Barry Churchill as the next head of state.

From: Yakman
Runescapian did george bush junior work hard to get where he was?
did hillary clinton?

I'm sure they worked reasonably hard, but the main reason they are where they are is because they are related to previous high positions.

there is also quite a few Dole's and Kennedy's in power. You could easily call it a dynasty.

you call it democracy, i call it feudalism


i don't know about the Netherlands Wizzup, but in the UK, we are unlikely to elect John Thatcher and Barry Churchill as the next head of state.

True. But put it this way -

- Not all people who are wealthy/powerful worked hard to get there

- Everyone who is not wealthy/powerful did not work extra hard to try and get there (except maybe in some rare cases, like if you come from a poverty-stricken family then obviously it'd be extremely hard to get into college, etc.).

So therefore I think that those people that did not take the extra effort to live wealthy/powerful lives shouldn't just be handed it on a silver platter (Even though some people like the ones you mentioned were). Yes, Obama isn't going to make them rich or powerful, but he is basically lowering the standard of 'rich' by taking from the rich, and then giving to everyone else so everyone is getting closer to being equal, maybe eventually to the point where we will all be equal AKA socialism.

From: Runescapian
So somebody who took extra years of education for college and medical school + works twice as long (+ probably as hard, if not harder) doesn't 'deserve to be better off' than a guy who never went to college and works 30 hours a week? I mean, sure, it's not like Obama is completely making everyone equal, but that doesn't mean that that's not what could eventually happen. If the guy who never went to college wanted to have a good life, he should have went to college and did more with his life. He chose that path, let him continue it.

EDIT: Btw, what does racism have to do with this :confused:

You do realize that Obama won with a majority of those with a college degree and McCain won with a majority of those without a college degree. Even the rich people that will be taxed more, some of them voted for Obama because they realized the country as a whole would be way better off with him as President. Warren Buffet, the richest man in the world is an Obama supporter! Most McCain supporters are from the South, where I doubt there are lots of million dollar jobs for them to do. But just about every urban city was in favor of Obama. The urban cities where the businessmen and lawyers and doctors live.

From: lakerzz8
You do realize that Obama won with a majority of those with a college degree and McCain won with a majority of those without a college degree. Even the rich people that will be taxed more, some of them voted for Obama because they realized the country as a whole would be way better off with him as President. Warren Buffet, the richest man in the world is an Obama supporter! Most McCain supporters are from the South, where I doubt there are lots of million dollar jobs for them to do. But just about every urban city was in favor of Obama. The urban cities where the businessmen and lawyers and doctors live.

Facts? Have any proof for this statistic? I can also say that Obama had the devil jump out of his ass, run and stab Hillary in the back… Warren Buffet can easily take his money outside the US and evade taxes…

My theory is that there are a lot of wealthy people that don't think they deserve it. They went to college, got a degree, went on to law school or got an MBA or something and started making lots of money. Now they have a guilty conscience because they realize they never really worked any harder than the next guy, and only took advantage of the opportunities presented them. They perceive all the ills of society as a lack of OPPORTUNITY, caused by a racist/sexist/classist society.

On the flip side, you have the people that worked their butts off to make themselves rich, either with a new idea or building a business, or taking a calculated risk and succeeding. They don't see the world that way. They think ANYBODY can do what they did, since the opportunity is based on their own actions. They weren't handed anything by society, they went out and created their own opportunity. They see America as the land of opportunity, not the land of suppression.

And although it's true that some make too much money for merely following the path laid before them by others, the last thing we should be doing is punishing the type of entrepreneurship and risk taking that have made many people rich.

When so many people refuse to follow through and even complete high school, how is that society's fault? That's the path laid out for everyone, and many never bother. Some fail due to bad luck or bad parenting or discrimination, but many more fail due to their own bad choices.

Well, Obama won. Next day stock market tanks, dow drops 500 pts, today down another 500; Russia starts a campaign against Poland. Maybe I will be able to say "I told ya so", even before he becomes sworn in…

From: Brown
Well, Obama won. Next day stock market tanks, dow drops 500 pts, today down another 500; Russia starts a campaign against Poland. Maybe I will be able to say "I told ya so", even before he becomes sworn in…

It seems that the US will be in a crisis as soon as Obama gets sworn in. Hmm, depending on how that works out, a lot of opinions might get changed.

Obama has only been in presidency for 2 whole days. You can never rely on stock markets cause they go up and down randomly. Some months they can be good some months there bad.

The stocks wont be any better right now if mccain won.

This is hilarious stuff. He just one, still NOT IN OFFICE and you guys are still on his ass. Give him a chance.

From: lakerzz8
You do realize that Obama won with a majority of those with a college degree and McCain won with a majority of those without a college degree. Even the rich people that will be taxed more, some of them voted for Obama because they realized the country as a whole would be way better off with him as President. Warren Buffet, the richest man in the world is an Obama supporter! Most McCain supporters are from the South, where I doubt there are lots of million dollar jobs for them to do. But just about every urban city was in favor of Obama. The urban cities where the businessmen and lawyers and doctors live.

Not trying to be racist or anything, but the reason urban cities went to Obama and all democrats is because the cities are usually predominantly black. At least where i live the doctors and lawyers dont live in the cities. They live in the suburbs, and drive their nice BMW's and Mercedes to work everyday. Its a fairly simple thing. You can see it just by driving around. If you drive into the poorer part of the cities youll see Obama signs everywhere. Then if you go out to the suburbs and drive by the nice estates youll see more McCain signs. Simple as that…

From: sirlaughsalot
Facts? Have any proof for this statistic? I can also say that Obama had the devil jump out of his ass, run and stab Hillary in the back… Warren Buffet can easily take his money outside the US and evade taxes…

Here's some polling from Gallup to prove my point:


Now let's see your proof of the devil jumping out of Obama's ass and stabbing Hillary, please.

If Buffet can easily evade taxes, what's stopping anyone else from doing so? Or why go through the trouble of doing so if voting for McCain would have been better for him?

From: nobody u kno
Not trying to be racist or anything, but the reason urban cities went to Obama and all democrats is because the cities are usually predominantly black. At least where i live the doctors and lawyers dont live in the cities. They live in the suburbs, and drive their nice BMW's and Mercedes to work everyday. Its a fairly simple thing. You can see it just by driving around. If you drive into the poorer part of the cities youll see Obama signs everywhere. Then if you go out to the suburbs and drive by the nice estates youll see more McCain signs. Simple as that…

Except the areas around the big cities went for Obama as well, meaning the suburbs.

From: lakerzz8
Here's some polling from Gallup to prove my point:


Now let's see your proof of the devil jumping out of Obama's ass and stabbing Hillary, please.

If Buffet can easily evade taxes, what's stopping anyone else from doing so? Or why go through the trouble of doing so if voting for McCain would have been better for him?




Except the areas around the big cities went for Obama as well, meaning the suburbs.

Not all suburbs… This is still true:

If you drive into the poorer part of the cities youll see Obama signs everywhere. Then if you go out to the suburbs and drive by the nice estates youll see more McCain signs. Simple as that…

From: lakerzz8
Here's some polling from Gallup to prove my point:


Now let's see your proof of the devil jumping out of Obama's ass and stabbing Hillary, please.

If Buffet can easily evade taxes, what's stopping anyone else from doing so? Or why go through the trouble of doing so if voting for McCain would have been better for him?




Except the areas around the big cities went for Obama as well, meaning the suburbs.

You're probably right about the education, which I don't understand… Anyhow, the most likely reason that multi-millionaires support Obama, is, as I believe many have stated, because they want to 'share their money'. Which is find stupid because you could just donate yourself and become respected, but now Obama is doing it for you >_<

From: tarajunky
My theory is that there are a lot of wealthy people that don't think they deserve it. They went to college, got a degree, went on to law school or got an MBA or something and started making lots of money. Now they have a guilty conscience because they realize they never really worked any harder than the next guy, and only took advantage of the opportunities presented them. They perceive all the ills of society as a lack of OPPORTUNITY, caused by a racist/sexist/classist society.

On the flip side, you have the people that worked their butts off to make themselves rich, either with a new idea or building a business, or taking a calculated risk and succeeding. They don't see the world that way. They think ANYBODY can do what they did, since the opportunity is based on their own actions. They weren't handed anything by society, they went out and created their own opportunity. They see America as the land of opportunity, not the land of suppression.

And although it's true that some make too much money for merely following the path laid before them by others, the last thing we should be doing is punishing the type of entrepreneurship and risk taking that have made many people rich.

When so many people refuse to follow through and even complete high school, how is that society's fault? That's the path laid out for everyone, and many never bother. Some fail due to bad luck or bad parenting or discrimination, but many more fail due to their own bad choices.

I find your theory to be completely and utterly false. The driving force of capitalism is self-interest. This is known as the "invisible hand". This is the reason why people make the best products, not to please you, but to make the most money. This is the reason why people continue making their products, not to keep the people happy, but to keep their stacks of money growing. There is no way in hell so many people "feel bad" about being rich. The rich want to get richer. Those that care, donate money while still trying to get rich.

My point is that many people reject the American dream. They think they are stuck with the life that society has given them. They work at a job they hate, but can't think of anything better to do so they keep doing it.

There was a lot of talk about Joe the Plumber, and how he wanted to live the American dream of becoming a rich man. Not everyone thinks they will ever be rich. As long as you have a mindset to succeed and become rich, then of course you want the government to keep out of your way and let you succeed. But if you're on the other side and never think you'll amount to much more than you already are, suddenly getting a handout from the government to help make your life a little better or a little easier starts to make a lot of sense to you.

If everyone thought like Joe, Republicans would win in a landslide every election. So obviously quite a few people don't think like that.

From: sirlaughsalot
…. Obama had the devil jump out of his ass, run and stab Hillary in the back…

And that is SO gunna be my new signature.

Do you have any idea how much rioting would have gone on if McCain was elected? All of those uneducated black people would get the idea everyone was being racist and start one riot, then another city would follow… Not saying it doesn't or did not have been like that, but as the author from To Kill a Mocking Bird wrote (to the effect of): "When something involves a nigger, everyone seems to loose there heads […]".

And it seems as there still might be a trend in uneducation in blacks, they'd just want to fight something, as most poor, uneducated people do.

And instead we have uneducated white people going around blaming black people for Obama winning and how he's socialist and a terrorist and whatnot :D

From: Widget
And instead we have uneducated white people going around blaming black people for Obama winning and how he's socialist and a terrorist and whatnot :D

Well…considering they're/we're right….:rolleyes:

Jk. I no longer think he's a pure socialist himself, but he's paving the way for socialism. I still find it unfair how he wants to take even more from the wealthy (considering that its something like the top 10% Americans by income pay 50% of the US' taxes… And that's under Bush), but I can't change that, so I suppose I'll accept it. I won't stop hoping that somebody will come in and change America back to how it is now, except with somehow peacefully ending that war, getting some good ideas on how to get money for the US, etc. Now THAT would be nice, but, alas, it probably won't happen.

But Obama is definitely a terrorist! He's associated with Ayers for Pete's sake… Just kidding =P

I find it funny how people think whites are racist against blacks -_- Esp. when you take into account how African-Americans voted like 96%-4% for Obama >_<

From: Runescapian
Well…considering they're/we're right….:rolleyes:

Jk. I no longer think he's a pure socialist himself, but he's paving the way for socialism. I still find it unfair how he wants to take even more from the wealthy (considering that its something like the top 10% Americans by income pay 50% of the US' taxes… And that's under Bush), but I can't change that, so I suppose I'll accept it. I won't stop hoping that somebody will come in and change America back to how it is now, except with somehow peacefully ending that war, getting some good ideas on how to get money for the US, etc. Now THAT would be nice, but, alas, it probably won't happen.

But Obama is definitely a terrorist! He's associated with Ayers for Pete's sake… Just kidding =P

I find it funny how people think whites are racist against blacks -_- Esp. when you take into account how African-Americans voted like 96%-4% for Obama >_<

Do you really find it surprising that a minority voted in heavy favor of a man that is the same as them? Pretend you're Indian. If an Indian man is running for President, chances are, most Indians would vote for him. Most white people voted for McCain (not in such heavy numbers, but then again, there have been nothing but white presidents, and only 1 other black presidential candidate other than Obama). Voting for Obama is not reverse racism by Blacks, it's hoping that someone that is similar to them can finally help make things equal.

From: tarajunky
My point is that many people reject the American dream. They think they are stuck with the life that society has given them. They work at a job they hate, but can't think of anything better to do so they keep doing it.

There was a lot of talk about Joe the Plumber, and how he wanted to live the American dream of becoming a rich man. Not everyone thinks they will ever be rich. As long as you have a mindset to succeed and become rich, then of course you want the government to keep out of your way and let you succeed. But if you're on the other side and never think you'll amount to much more than you already are, suddenly getting a handout from the government to help make your life a little better or a little easier starts to make a lot of sense to you.

If everyone thought like Joe, Republicans would win in a landslide every election. So obviously quite a few people don't think like that.

You have proven that not everyone believes they can succeed (and since the playing field isn't level for everyone, it's not exactly that far-fetched). But you have yet to prove why the richest people would feel guilty for having money, while simultaneously trying to earn more. That manes no sense. Yes, if everyone thought like Joe (being a plumber without a license, claiming you're going to buy your business when you make nowhere near 250k+ a year, wanting McCain's tax policies when you benefit much more from OBama's, and owing 2k+ to the state in back taxes), I'm sure the Republicans would win.

From: lakerzz8
You have proven that not everyone believes they can succeed (and since the playing field isn't level for everyone, it's not exactly that far-fetched). But you have yet to prove why the richest people would feel guilty for having money, while simultaneously trying to earn more. That manes no sense. Yes, if everyone thought like Joe (being a plumber without a license, claiming you're going to buy your business when you make nowhere near 250k+ a year, wanting McCain's tax policies when you benefit much more from OBama's, and owing 2k+ to the state in back taxes), I'm sure the Republicans would win.

The playing field is level, people can be born into income brackets, but rich people still have to make a name for themselves, if they inherit it and are a known dumbass they will be the person who inherited his fortune and will therefor have no respect, on the other hand, someone who makes it for himself will get lots of respect from his peers.

The richest people would feel guilty because not all of them got their money the hard way (see the above paragraph).

Okay so you want to attack Joe? Okay, well lets get one thing straight, he was getting his plumbing license and the school he went to burned down. Has he EVER said he needed to make 250k+ a year to get his business? Also Obama AND Biden have said that Obama's tax plan will effect lower and lower income brackets, first it was 250k and up, then Obama said it was 200k+ and Biden said it was 150K+…

His back taxes? So? He didnt realise he had some unpaid taxes? Whoopedy-do, doesnt make him a bad guy because he owes a bit of money to the government… Also, who has the right to look at his tax records? Why would the Obama Camp be able to put that out? And why would someone from
INSIDE the IRS put that out? That person should be fired on the spot.

Sadly all this is a moot(sp?) point the fact is, Obama said "redistribute wealth" which has been attributed to being a socialist, and he has had several "outs" in which he could have said he didnt mean that, but he kept with his statements. I dont see how this has gone for so long, it is a fact, he has made socialistic comments.

Doesn't matter, they still have all the money.

From: sirlaughsalot
The playing field is level, people can be born into income brackets, but rich people still have to make a name for themselves, if they inherit it and are a known dumbass they will be the person who inherited his fortune and will therefor have no respect, on the other hand, someone who makes it for himself will get lots of respect from his peers.

The richest people would feel guilty because not all of them got their money the hard way (see the above paragraph).

Okay so you want to attack Joe? Okay, well lets get one thing straight, he was getting his plumbing license and the school he went to burned down. Has he EVER said he needed to make 250k+ a year to get his business? Also Obama AND Biden have said that Obama's tax plan will effect lower and lower income brackets, first it was 250k and up, then Obama said it was 200k+ and Biden said it was 150K+…

His back taxes? So? He didnt realise he had some unpaid taxes? Whoopedy-do, doesnt make him a bad guy because he owes a bit of money to the government… Also, who has the right to look at his tax records? Why would the Obama Camp be able to put that out? And why would someone from
INSIDE the IRS put that out? That person should be fired on the spot.

Sadly all this is a moot(sp?) point the fact is, Obama said "redistribute wealth" which has been attributed to being a socialist, and he has had several "outs" in which he could have said he didnt mean that, but he kept with his statements. I dont see how this has gone for so long, it is a fact, he has made socialistic comments.

Wrong.

1. The playing field is not level. The chances of me making the money Paris Hilton has just for being the daughter of a rich guy are slim to none. Whether she is respected by peers or not makes no difference, she has a lot of money and believe it or not, money talks. Also, what if you're born with a disability, are you on a level playing field? If you have to drop out of school to provide for your family and can't get the education necessary to do a high-end job, the playing field isn't even.

2. Rich people don't feel guilty for being rich. That's like handsome people feeling guilty for looking good or smart people feeling guilty for being smarter than you. Get over this bullshit. I like to make money, I don't feel bad if I make money and you don't - That is the core of our economic system.

3. No, he doesn't need to make over 250k+ to buy a business, but unless his business is failing heavily, one would assume you need good money to buy a business. If I'm wrong, I'll save up my lunch money for a few days and buy a few businesses. Also, the Obama plan affects couples with 250k and less a year, single people 200k and less and the 150k was a mistake, a typo if you will.

4. Yes, whoopy-doo. If the person you chose to represent the average American is BREAKING THE LAW BY NOT PAYING HIS TAXES and you're using him to support your economic policy?!?! And I don't know about the Obama camp putting that out, I read it as a report by the AP (associated press), and I agree his tax records shouldn't have been released, but they were.

5. One comment does not make a man. We'll see how Obama runs the country.

From: lakerzz8


2. Rich people don't feel guilty for being rich. That's like handsome people feeling guilty for looking good or smart people feeling guilty for being smarter than you. Get over this bullshit. I like to make money, I don't feel bad if I make money and you don't - That is the core of our economic system.

You've never felt bad for somebody because they couldn't do something? I definitely feel bad for a bunch of kids at my school who, try as hard as they might, can't understand a concept or can't keep up with the school work. You don't feel bad for people who aren't as smart as you? I certainly do.

Another thing - What are charities for? If, as you say, people just wanted to make more and more and not give anything away, charities would be completely pointless. They're kept running by the people who want to give their spare money to the people they feel sorry for.

What Obama is doing is basically FORCING all the wealthy people (whether they feel like they don't deserve their money or not) to participate in a 'charity', in a way.

Well. MOST people who give to charities actually care what they're foar. Some people like to give to charities just so they can have that "aura", may I say. Just so they can say that they've given to charity.

I don't think people who have their life given to them on a silver platter deserve anything more than I do. So, I am HALFWAY for socialism.

From: Runescapian
You've never felt bad for somebody because they couldn't do something? I definitely feel bad for a bunch of kids at my school who, try as hard as they might, can't understand a concept or can't keep up with the school work. You don't feel bad for people who aren't as smart as you? I certainly do.

Another thing - What are charities for? If, as you say, people just wanted to make more and more and not give anything away, charities would be completely pointless. They're kept running by the people who want to give their spare money to the people they feel sorry for.

What Obama is doing is basically FORCING all the wealthy people (whether they feel like they don't deserve their money or not) to participate in a 'charity', in a way.

There's a difference between feeling bad for someone and feeling guilty about yourself. Do I feel guilty that I'm smarter than most kids at my school? No. Do I feel bad for the ones that try really hard, sure. I will volunteer my time and try to help them in a subject, but I won't stop studying myself and dedicate my time to them and let my own grades slip (which is the equivalent of feeling guilty enough to NOT want to make money so that others can have yours). Charities are there so that you can help others, not because you want to get rid of money. There's a difference between donating to cancer research and throwing money out of a plane.

Edit: BTW, donating to charities is also a good way to get a tax break. Another example of people trying to secure their own money.

From: TViYH
I don't think people who have their life given to them on a silver platter deserve anything more than I do. So, I am HALFWAY for socialism.

Do you think that people who have worked hard all their lives and made themselves rich deserve to decide who get's their money after they die? What if they want to make their kids' lives easier than the life they had?

What about a parent that saves $50k and sets it aside for their kids' college education? Do you think that kid "deserves" an extra $50k so they don't have to have a part time job while they're in school like many others? Or do you think that parent should have to put that money into a big pot for all the kids whose parents blew their money on drugs and liquor?

From: lakerzz8
There's a difference between feeling bad for someone and feeling guilty about yourself. Do I feel guilty that I'm smarter than most kids at my school? No. Do I feel bad for the ones that try really hard, sure. I will volunteer my time and try to help them in a subject, but I won't stop studying myself and dedicate my time to them and let my own grades slip (which is the equivalent of feeling guilty enough to NOT want to make money so that others can have yours). Charities are there so that you can help others, not because you want to get rid of money. There's a difference between donating to cancer research and throwing money out of a plane.

Edit: BTW, donating to charities is also a good way to get a tax break. Another example of people trying to secure their own money.

Well then I guess I incorrectly phrased my point. Let me start over…

Some people who are where they are because of help from others (whether it be that their parents paid for college, a parent's position helps them climb up the ranks, etc.) feel bad for other people because they weren't fortunate enough to have the kind of help they did. Therefore, they'd like to give them some of their money to help them out. These kind of people voted for Obama, because they WANT him to take their money and give it to other people.

On the flip side, there are people who worked as hard as possible for their money, and now live a comfortable life. They know what it was like to live poorly, but they also know how hard it was to work up to where they are now. These people don't want to give their money to others because they know that, if they wanted to and worked hard enough, the poorer people could work their way up to a comfortable life too. These people voted for McCain, probably more as a vote against Obama (which is how I would have voted), because they don't want Obama taking their hard-earned money and giving it to those who haven't worked as hard as they did.


And what you're saying you wouldn't want to do (lower your grades so they're more like everyone else's) is pretty much what Obama wants to do >_< -

He's taking money (i.e. higher grades) from the richer (i.e. better students) so they have less money (i.e. worse grades) and giving the money (i.e. higher grades) to the poorer (i.e. worse students) so they can get richer (i.e. higher grades) to get more EQUAL (i.e. Socialism).

So as long as there are no flaws with what I just said, you should be against Obama :D But, of course, you'll find something I missed >_<

@ tarajunky: I'm talking about the people who've never known what it's like to be poor. The people who have never seen poverty.

From: TViYH
@ tarajunky: I'm talking about the people who've never known what it's like to be poor. The people who have never seen poverty.

That would include about 90% of people in the developed world, who have no idea how people live in true poverty and desperation in 3rd world countries.

Where do you draw the line?

It's more like 70% of America.

As long as Obama is spreading the wealth, why spread it here where people live in relative ease?

Why isn't he raising taxes on people making $10,000 per year to ship it oversea to help those making $10 per year?

At it's core, Socialism is about people saying "ME, ME, ME". It doesn't matter whether they're lower class, middle class, or upper middle class, whether they're American or European. They always seem to think that they're getting a raw deal out of life and that somebody else should pay to fix it.

Maybe we should set up a "poverty exchange" program where American whiners can go live in Ethiopia or Guatemala for 6 months, while one of the poor from that country comes here. I have a feeling that such a program would put an end to a lot of the whining.

From: Runescapian
Well then I guess I incorrectly phrased my point. Let me start over…

Some people who are where they are because of help from others (whether it be that their parents paid for college, a parent's position helps them climb up the ranks, etc.) feel bad for other people because they weren't fortunate enough to have the kind of help they did. Therefore, they'd like to give them some of their money to help them out. These kind of people voted for Obama, because they WANT him to take their money and give it to other people.

On the flip side, there are people who worked as hard as possible for their money, and now live a comfortable life. They know what it was like to live poorly, but they also know how hard it was to work up to where they are now. These people don't want to give their money to others because they know that, if they wanted to and worked hard enough, the poorer people could work their way up to a comfortable life too. These people voted for McCain, probably more as a vote against Obama (which is how I would have voted), because they don't want Obama taking their hard-earned money and giving it to those who haven't worked as hard as they did.


And what you're saying you wouldn't want to do (lower your grades so they're more like everyone else's) is pretty much what Obama wants to do >_< -

He's taking money (i.e. higher grades) from the richer (i.e. better students) so they have less money (i.e. worse grades) and giving the money (i.e. higher grades) to the poorer (i.e. worse students) so they can get richer (i.e. higher grades) to get more EQUAL (i.e. Socialism).

So as long as there are no flaws with what I just said, you should be against Obama :D But, of course, you'll find something I missed >_<

Find me these so called people that feel bad for their wealth and want to give it to others. All charities are based on people that have diseases, live in extreme poverty, etc. There are no charities for the middle class (which is Obama's main focus). So donating to charities and Obama's plan to cut taxes on the middle class are two different things. The middle class is what drives the economy therefore the rich people that voted for Obama know that by slightly raising their taxes, they'll help increase the spending of the middle class and increase their profits more anyway. And all those rich-ass people have off-shore bank accounts anyway so they aren't too worried about their money.

And Obama's tax plan would be more like extra credit for the dumber kids and not really affecting the rich because a few thousand taken from a millionaire does not compare to a few thousand given to someone making 50k.

From: tarajunky
As long as Obama is spreading the wealth, why spread it here where people live in relative ease?

Why isn't he raising taxes on people making $10,000 per year to ship it oversea to help those making $10 per year?

Because unlike Bush who was more focused on giving Iraqis freedom at the expense of his own people, Obama will be focused on Americans. Obama was not elected President of the World. He was elected President of the United States. Therefore the US should be his top priority. It won't fall second to "Bringing our troops home with a victory!" Like McCain wanted to do, while sacrificing more lives, money, etc. in unnecessary fashion.

From: lakerzz8
Find me these so called people that feel bad for their wealth and want to give it to others. All charities are based on people that have diseases, live in extreme poverty, etc. There are no charities for the middle class (which is Obama's main focus). So donating to charities and Obama's plan to cut taxes on the middle class are two different things. The middle class is what drives the economy therefore the rich people that voted for Obama know that by slightly raising their taxes, they'll help increase the spending of the middle class and increase their profits more anyway. And all those rich-ass people have off-shore bank accounts anyway so they aren't too worried about their money.

And Obama's tax plan would be more like extra credit for the dumber kids and not really affecting the rich because a few thousand taken from a millionaire does not compare to a few thousand given to someone making 50k.

You act like everyone who makes over 250k is a millionaire who has nothing to do with his/her money. I didn't look it up, but I'd guess that 75%+ of Americans that make over 250k make between 250k and 750k. Yes, this tax rise hardly affects the millionaires, but, for example, with my family, this means we'll get to see our relatives in Europe like once every five years, instead of every other year. How would you like it to not see any of your aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, etc. for 5 whole years? Now, you'll say, just don't do other things and you'll have enough money to go to Europe. But, by saying that, that'd be basically telling us to sell our house, buy a cheaper one, or get rid of our cars, and get cheaper ones, etc. My parents planned for the future, and now Obama wants to ruin that.

And as for the middle class would spend more, that would only help businessmen, not anybody else.

As for what millionaires said they want Obama's tax plan, I don't have time atm to look up exactly who said it, but why else would a millionaire support Obama's tax plan?

{me} says: How about this: WAIT AND WE'LL FIND OUT!

From: TViYH
{me} says: How about this: WAIT AND WE'LL FIND OUT!

But that'll take like…. 1.5 months until he's president, and maybe 2 after that till he gets his tax plans in! Way too long a wait :rolleyes: (+ This is fun :p)

But whatever we say, we won't change anything.

*Ahem*

From: Runescapian
(+ This is fun :p)

Lol. Ohkayyyy. I must agree with you there :)

It gets fun until people start giving terrible reasoning.

But, either way, we won't truly know until after his term.
Unless his socialism leads to world terror, then of course we might know earlier :P

Read this and give me your responses plawkzz: http://www.newsweek.com/id/169192

From: Runescapian
You act like everyone who makes over 250k is a millionaire who has nothing to do with his/her money. I didn't look it up, but I'd guess that 75%+ of Americans that make over 250k make between 250k and 750k. Yes, this tax rise hardly affects the millionaires, but, for example, with my family, this means we'll get to see our relatives in Europe like once every five years, instead of every other year. How would you like it to not see any of your aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, etc. for 5 whole years? Now, you'll say, just don't do other things and you'll have enough money to go to Europe. But, by saying that, that'd be basically telling us to sell our house, buy a cheaper one, or get rid of our cars, and get cheaper ones, etc. My parents planned for the future, and now Obama wants to ruin that.

And as for the middle class would spend more, that would only help businessmen, not anybody else.

As for what millionaires said they want Obama's tax plan, I don't have time atm to look up exactly who said it, but why else would a millionaire support Obama's tax plan?

Your family's taxes (making 250k-750k) won't increase by as much as those making over 1 mil. So I don't see how this would cut the amount of trips you can take in half. Also, your relatives could visit you? And I don't see how your family could make over 250k+ but not have enough money to travel? My family makes under 250k but we travel every year. I've been to Italy, Germany, France in consecutive years… Assuming you guys aren't a family of like 10 and you don't fly only first class and stay at the top hotels you can afford the trip since my family can and you make more money.

From: TViYH
Lol. Ohkayyyy. I must agree with you there :)

It gets fun until people start giving terrible reasoning.

But, either way, we won't truly know until after his term.
Unless his socialism leads to world terror, then of course we might know earlier :P

Read this and give me your responses plawkzz: http://www.newsweek.com/id/169192

That article is complete bullshit. There is as much chance of 666 winning the lottery as any other 3 digit number, like 123. Also, how many lotteries have been run in the whole state of Illinois? I didn't bother reading through too much of the article because it is complete bullshit and lacks any concrete facts. I also find religious fanatics like the owner of raptureready.com to be complete idiots.

From: lakerzz8
Your family's taxes (making 250k-750k) won't increase by as much as those making over 1 mil. So I don't see how this would cut the amount of trips you can take in half. Also, your relatives could visit you? And I don't see how your family could make over 250k+ but not have enough money to travel? My family makes under 250k but we travel every year. I've been to Italy, Germany, France in consecutive years… Assuming you guys aren't a family of like 10 and you don't fly only first class and stay at the top hotels you can afford the trip since my family can and you make more money.

Well I don't exactly how much my parents make, but they told me that they'd lose about 20-30k every year. Usually, they don't save up money, and spend it when they have enough for some sort of trip (A roundtrip to Europe = about 20k I think?, with 4 people). With relatives visiting us, we can take one relative in at a time (so basically we have like a grandparent with us 90% of the time), but, it isn't easy because not just everyone can get into the US. Even then, we have to pay for it, since Lithuania (where they live), isn't that wealthy of a country. I've never been in first class (nor business class) on an airplane. I've never been in a 5 star hotel (I think the best was a 4 star on a special occasion of some sort). We are a family of 4 (soon to be 5 O_o). Maybe your parents made a different choice in life, and instead of living in a better house or having better cars, they're leaving money aside to go on trips. And, well, my parents didn't expect someone to come in and take 20k of their income.

What numbers are they basing this 20-30k loss on? I live in a good sized house (we got it right before the housing market bubble burst), we buy a new car every couple of years, live very comfortably, and still have plenty of money left over on travel. Like I said, if you can afford a large house, you're not living paycheck to paycheck and therefore you can set aside money for a few months and make the trip. 20k for a round trip? Let's say tickets are 1k each, that's 8k for you and your family there and back. Now you spend 12k over there in Europe? How long do you usually stay on these trips?

As long as you're a "leech" (and yes, almost all teenagers fall into this category), raising taxes and spreading the wealth makes perfect sense.

Perhaps that's why so many young people are more liberal.

Once they start paying taxes, people naturally tend to become more conservative. Especially once they start taking on responsibilities like house payments, raising a family, etc. All the sudden you become PAINFULLY AWARE of how much of your money is getting "spread around", and realize how wasteful and inefficient and reckless the government is with your money.

From: tarajunky
As long as you're a "leech" (and yes, almost all teenagers fall into this category), raising taxes and spreading the wealth makes perfect sense.

Perhaps that's why so many young people are more liberal.

Once they start paying taxes, people naturally tend to become more conservative. Especially once they start taking on responsibilities like house payments, raising a family, etc. All the sudden you become PAINFULLY AWARE of how much of your money is getting "spread around", and realize how wasteful and inefficient and reckless the government is with your money.

But think of those poor Chicago planetariums that don't have the 3 million dollar projectors they so badly need! :p


Lakerz, please please please….. please explain to me how giving checks to 20 million non tax payers is somehow not socialist?

There is no pure form of economy. Therefore the principles of several different economic plans (socialist, capitalist, etc) come together to make up ours. Though we lean heavier on the capitalistic aspects, sometimes a capitalistic society does not work in the way that it should (as in right now). So giving checks to 20 million non tax payers helps people get buy, start spending, and bolster the economy. Sure it has socialist overtones, but so is welfare and a lot of other government programs.

From: lakerzz8
There is no pure form of economy. Therefore the principles of several different economic plans (socialist, capitalist, etc) come together to make up ours. Though we lean heavier on the capitalistic aspects, sometimes a capitalistic society does not work in the way that it should (as in right now). So giving checks to 20 million non tax payers helps people get buy, start spending, and bolster the economy. Sure it has socialist overtones, but so is welfare and a lot of other government programs.

any all those government programs are mest up. the government cant run anything right. the only thing they should do it protect this country. trust them with my money? haha