2008 Election

[EasyEJL]

So, he flip-flopped? In all honesty, if he flip flopped and will honestly take that position, I can give a rats ass what his position was prior. All I want is that the good of the country, not the good of politicians seeking power for their "party", is put first. If that has to come in the form of a flip-flopping jelly-spined idiot, I'm fine with it as long as the end result is there.

He didn't flip flop, his opinion is exactly the same its just that as president, he will be able to via vetos if necessary make up the cost savings. Whereas his objection the entire time was that we lowered income without lowering expenses.

If the environmental issues were soley around the global warming, then i as well am unconvinced as to how real and how pressing it is. However using that as the rallying cry to get people together and remove our dependence on middle eastern oil is worthwhile. Electric or hydrogen powered cars would be quite well worthwhile if we reduced the cost of electricity by putting new nuclear plants in place. The reason I added hydrogen is that with an abundant cheap supply of electricity from nukes it becomes feasible to set up local hydrogen stations that do their own electrolysis splitting of hydrogen from water, and then there is no additional or new distribution network needed. Hydrogen fuel cell cars could be running on the road in under 5 years if that was feasible.

 

[kwyckemynd00]

He didn't flip flop, his opinion is exactly the same its just that as president, he will be able to via vetos if necessary make up the cost savings. Whereas his objection the entire time was that we lowered income without lowering expenses.

But the point behind tax cuts, and this is what's scary about McCain to me, is that tax cuts are used as an incentive to increase production and jobs. E.G. if we were getting 20% of $100, that's still less than getting 15% of $200. Lowering taxes = lower production costs = lower product costs = increased production = more workers = higher tax revenues. At least, that's the idea I.E. Ronald reagan was able to increase spending on cold war issues because he increased tax revenues via tax cuts. Yes, he spent lots of money in his effort to win the Cold War, but he was able to do that, and boost the economy at the same time, because of the tax cuts. Tax cuts and increased tax revenues can go hand in hand, they're not mutually exclusive.

If the environmental issues were soley around the global warming, then i as well am unconvinced as to how real and how pressing it is. However using that as the rallying cry to get people together and remove our dependence on middle eastern oil is worthwhile. Electric or hydrogen powered cars would be quite well worthwhile if we reduced the cost of electricity by putting new nuclear plants in place. The reason I added hydrogen is that with an abundant cheap supply of electricity from nukes it becomes feasible to set up local hydrogen stations that do their own electrolysis splitting of hydrogen from water, and then there is no additional or new distribution network needed. Hydrogen fuel cell cars could be running on the road in under 5 years if that was feasible.

The progression toward alternative forms of energy is already underway. I don't think we need put our economy in danger by ramming change down our throats and limiting our access to valuable energy resources, making them more available for competitive economies. Let nature take its course: by nature, humans want cheaper, cleaner, more efficient, and more abundant forms of energy. We're heading that direction already as is indicated by the huge increase in available hybrid vehicles by manufacturers across the board and in all categories of automobile.

 

[EasyEJL]

But the point behind tax cuts, and this is what's scary about McCain to me, is that tax cuts are used as an incentive to increase production and jobs. E.G. if we were getting 20% of $100, that's still less than getting 15% of $200. Lowering taxes = lower production costs = lower product costs = increased production = more workers = higher tax revenues. At least, that's the idea

Right, but in the short term, when you make the change from $20 as 20% of $100 to $15 as 15% of it before it grows towards $200, you need to make up for the $5 somehow. No different than in your household income. Mccain doesn't believe that spending more than you earn works in the long run, and believes the cost cuts should come with it or even before it - shrinking the size of the federal govt.

 

[kwyckemynd00]

Right, but in the short term, when you make the change from $20 as 20% of $100 to $15 as 15% of it before it grows towards $200, you need to make up for the $5 somehow. No different than in your household income. Mccain doesn't believe that spending more than you earn works in the long run, and believes the cost cuts should come with it or even before it - shrinking the size of the federal govt.

Nobody believes spending more than you earn works, not even Bush--he just doesn't care!

The point is, although the government isn't taking as big a portion of the income pie, its getting a bigger pie to take from because the baker had more money to make his pie with. Its the McDonalds concept. They're the kings of the dollar menu, yet their volume allows the them to dominate world-wide fast food. Less profit per unit, but more units. Low taxes work the same.

 

[WannaBeHulk]

I honesty think if Obama wins the the Dem ticket, nobody will stop him (and he won't have Hillary on the ticket).

This is very similar to 1992 where as much baggage as Clinton had, he represented change and people voted on that more than any other issue.

Obama is getting a LOT of independent white vote, is picking up Latino vote, dominates African American voters, and attracts a ton of moderates EVEN though he is liberal. Looking at voter turnout even in red states he won, I think he will basically crush anyone on the right.


And I'm a Republican....

The current conditions are far different than the conditions in 1992 when Clinton got elected. I still think when people go vote in November, everything they thought they cared about will be less influencing, and the main motivation for selecting a candidate will be security i.e. war in iraq.

This is discriminating but Obama came from a Muslim father, so his judgment concerning the war may be sympathetic. I find it mind boggling that Romey's faith received much more attention than Obama's background.

The last point I have is the approval rating of the Dem dominant Congress. It's lower than Bush's rating. Plus, this country isn't as efficient when President and Congress are the same party (pure specualtion, I haven't looked too far back into these scenarios).

 

[Mo250]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/07/opinion/07kristof.html?em&ex=1202706000&en=dffec877ec517370&ei=5087

 

[kwyckemynd00]

I find it mind boggling that Romey's faith received much more attention than Obama's background.

As an agnostic who grew up in a mormon family, I don't find it hard to believe at all. You wouldn't believe what people believe about so-called "Mormons". We've literally had service people essentially run out of our house after finding out my parents were mormon (after they asked my parents about the picture of Jesus on the wall!). Its to the point of ridiculous hysteria, honestly. I'm not surprised at all, but I am disgusted, especially with Mike Huckabee. He is truly a disgrace of a person, and if McCain chooses him as his running mate, which I think is likely based on the fact Huckabee stuck it out just to siphon off votes, that will make voting for McCain exponentially more difficult to know we'd have a religious bigot as VP because I'd be afraid he'd prioritize the development of a christian and moral america above all else.

Plus, this country isn't as efficient when President and Congress are the same party (pure specualtion, I haven't looked too far back into these scenarios).

I totally agree. Things seem to work better, which I'm sure comes as no surprise to our founding fathers, when the power is distributed.

 

[Mrs. Gimpy!]

I'll get back to you on this and you McCain comments. And boy it will be fun to compile all of his gutless flip flops and pathetic and arrogant, dishonest statements he has made.

Please do "get back to us" on the McCain comments. I would love to gain some form of positive hope for our potential future president.

As of right now I feel as if we are all going to enter the presidential elections just like last time:
crappy president choice #1 (bush)
Even crappier president #2 (kerry)

 

[AE14]

regarding some earlier comments, I will grant you that ALL of these candidates are empty rhetoric, however the American people as a whole want a change, and will most likely use that thought as their decision making process. If they do, then Obama will most likely be their choice. Addtionally, while there are so many faults with all the candidates out there, his youth and "desire" for change make him more attractive then others

 

[Dwight Schrute]

The current conditions are far different than the conditions in 1992 when Clinton got elected.

No its not. Considering I actually voted in 92 I tend to know what it was like. Clinton's whole campaign was built around the word "change". It was about removing 12 years of Reagan/Bush.

 

[AE14]

Its funny, the connection between Bill and Barack are eerily similar. At the beginning of the '92 campaign no one really thought Clinton had a shot, but he slowly built himself up and he became viable in a very similar way to Obama.

 

[Mo250]

Whats worrying about McCain is his pet schemes to make all supplements FDA regulated , therefore only a small handful of companies would be able to make them (an odd stance for a man who campaigned against big pharm..)--- hello to $50 vitamins and protein powder that costs more per gram than most recreational drugs-- And sadly there's no chance of the insane US anabolic steroids laws being relaxed on his watch.

 

[kwyckemynd00]

regarding some earlier comments, I will grant you that ALL of these candidates are empty rhetoric, however the American people as a whole want a change, and will most likely use that thought as their decision making process. If they do, then Obama will most likely be their choice. Addtionally, while there are so many faults with all the candidates out there, his youth and "desire" for change make him more attractive then others

You're right... Obama is going to be a freight train because he is well spoken, charismatic, and "new". Hillary is neither trusted by, nor liked by, a huge portion of the US population. McCain is just a douche and there won't be enough conservatives behind him to support him to the presidency.

There is ONE positive thing I could see if Obama were elected. I think if we have a black president then many of the race-baiting bastards like Jesse Jackson will finally have to shut their mouths.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

There is ONE positive thing I could see if Obama were elected. I think if we have a black president then many of the race-baiting bastards like Jesse Jackson will finally have to shut their mouths.

There is already tension between the Congressional Black Caucus and Obama. He didn't come up "through the ranks". He doesnt give them "special treatment" which is sort of refreshing.

Another advantage of Obama is he will move to the middle to appease independents and moderates while Mccain has to move to the right to appeal to conservatives. Appease the base during primaries, move to the middle during the general election to win indy's and moderates. McCain can't do that....

 

[EasyEJL]

There is ONE positive thing I could see if Obama were elected. I think if we have a black president then many of the race-baiting bastards like Jesse Jackson will finally have to shut their mouths.

no they won't, because reality hasn't affected their BS so far. They'll just use him as a rallying point of "he made it, don't let the white man hold YOU down"

 

[kwyckemynd00]

You guys are right... what the hell was I thinking? He's an uncle Tom! Well, that leaves ZERO good associated with Obama's presidency, just like the rest of them :sad:

 

[CryingEmo]

Once again, I'm so thrilled by our plethora of different choices for who gets to run the Republic.

 

[AE14]

There is already tension between the Congressional Black Caucus and Obama. He didn't come up "through the ranks". He doesnt give them "special treatment" which is sort of refreshing.

Another advantage of Obama is he will move to the middle to appease independents and moderates while Mccain has to move to the right to appeal to conservatives. Appease the base during primaries, move to the middle during the general election to win indy's and moderates. McCain can't do that....

at the end of the day this might make him the best candidate in a weak field. Amazingly he has captured a public following itching for some sort of change. He has that young vote, that if they turn out in Nov. will win the day for him. He also just had a hell of a weekend, and most likely a hell of a tuesday coming. With Hillary's $$ problems and staff problems, she looks soon to be done. Obama v. McCAin might not be the best options for the republicans, as McCain is all over the place on so many issues.

 

[warnerve]

i went out to eat at a diner the other night in suburban DC area with my gf and we were actually next to people that help with the hillary campaign. they were admiring youtube clips from the obama campaign and discussing how marketable he is.

 

[Mo250]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10rich.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

 

[bLacKjAck.]

Obama will be the next president of the U.S. Obama will have more delegates than Hillary come the convention. If he doesn't get jipped, he wins.

Dem turn out compared to Rep turn out (in EVERY state) is incredible. McCain is really nothing at all to get excited about, and its showing.

 

[AE14]

agreed, the fact that people are still voting for huckabee shows that the repubs are not excited ab out mccain

 

[DBinMD]

No on Hillary and Obama. These items may not apply to both, but, at the least, I see them they are soft on the issue.
1) I’m against abortion, particularly partial birth abortion.
2) Socialized medicine.
3) My wife, the liberal, says Obama supports giving out condoms, I guess needles are next.
4) Pretending that a marriage can between 2 people of the like gender.
5) I don’t feel comfortable with Obama being in national politics for only 4 yrs, talk is cheap, and I’d rather see a voting record.

Partial birth abortion is a deal breaker for me, if you can rationalize it, then you can rationalize anything.

Socialized medicine – Wrong because 1) the government will screw it all up, 2) I don’t want the government making more decisions on health than they do now, the insurance companies are bad enough. Actually, at least with the insurance companies you have more choices.

The federal government takes in way more money than it can handle. Socialized medicine will only make it worse. Our founding fathers were real smart; they built a system that assumed you couldn’t trust people in power. But every new “benefit” we entrust to the government gives it more power (IOW, money is power) and I think the Federal government has way-over stepped it’s boundaries as defined by the constitution.

Generally, speaking I don’t like what goes on with the dems. There are just way too many left-wing loons over there. The republicans have their’s but they don’t seem as bad.

As far as my opinion of the republican candidates, the republican race has only recently narrowed enough for me to start looking at McCain and Huckabee, the primarys only got to my state this week.

DB

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Obama will be the next president of the U.S. Obama will have more delegates than Hillary come the convention. If he doesn't get jipped, he wins.

Dem turn out compared to Rep turn out (in EVERY state) is incredible. McCain is really nothing at all to get excited about, and its showing.

Its actually independent and moderate turnout, but I agree..Obama is going to win.

I like the way he speaks (and so does the rest of America is seems), but you better hold on to your wallets with a liberal as President and Democratic Congress. Get ready for more government, more spending and more exploitation of government programs.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

agreed, the fact that people are still voting for huckabee shows that the repubs are not excited ab out mccain

That is like saying Democrats aren't excited about Obama because people still vote for Hillary.

 

[avgBdybldr]

Obama will be the next president of the U.S. Obama will have more delegates than Hillary come the convention. If he doesn't get jipped, he wins.

Dem turn out compared to Rep turn out (in EVERY state) is incredible. McCain is really nothing at all to get excited about, and its showing.

i agree with this, and i am registered republican. the problem i have with obama is i cannot, will not vote for a man for president that is not willing to wear his patriotism on his sleave. he is unwilling to stand a speak the Pledge of Allegance (spelling?)? And he wants to run this country? hell no. i cannot imagine any single military member, like myself, voting for him. i cannot take orders and/or follow a leader i cannot trust. I didn't vote for mccain either.

 

[AE14]

That is like saying Democrats aren't excited about Obama because people still vote for Hillary.

I disagree, Mccain had this sewn up for a while, while Obama is still only just pulling ahead

 

[AE14]

i agree with this, and i am registered republican. the problem i have with obama is i cannot, will not vote for a man for president that is not willing to wear his patriotism on his sleave. he is unwilling to stand a speak the Pledge of Allegance (spelling?)? And he wants to run this country? hell no. i cannot imagine any single military member, like myself, voting for him. i cannot take orders and/or follow a leader i cannot trust. I didn't vote for mccain either.

I have not heard that, do you have a source for that

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I disagree, Mccain had this sewn up for a while, while Obama is still only just pulling ahead

McCain didn't take the lead until Super Tuesday....Feb. 5th....9 days ago.

 

[avgBdybldr]

I have not heard that, do you have a source for that

i know i'm not to post outside sites, but....

[nomedia]http://http://youtube.com/watch?v=VWTxcT-KMR8[/nomedia]

 

[CryingEmo]

Its actually independent and moderate turnout, but I agree..Obama is going to win.

I like the way he speaks (and so does the rest of America is seems), but you better hold on to your wallets with a liberal as President and Democratic Congress. Get ready for more government, more spending and more exploitation of government programs.

I thought independents can't vote in the primaries...

 

[CryingEmo]

i agree with this, and i am registered republican. the problem i have with obama is i cannot, will not vote for a man for president that is not willing to wear his patriotism on his sleave. he is unwilling to stand a speak the Pledge of Allegance (spelling?)? And he wants to run this country? hell no. i cannot imagine any single military member, like myself, voting for him. i cannot take orders and/or follow a leader i cannot trust. I didn't vote for mccain either.

Patriotism isn't the flag, or a song. It's doing what you feel is in your country's best interest.

The current administration has done a good job with word association. Case in point: support the war AND our troops. So, what exactly does that mean? If you don't agree with the war, then you don't support the troops? Are those two things really connected together like that? And how exactly are you not supporting the troops anyway? Take for example someone who is against the war because they don't want them to die over there. Does that mean they don't support them?

 

[avgBdybldr]

Patriotism isn't the flag, or a song. It's doing what you feel is in your country's best interest.

The current administration has done a good job with word association. Case in point: support the war AND our troops. So, what exactly does that mean? If you don't agree with the war, then you don't support the troops? Are those two things really connected together like that? And how exactly are you not supporting the troops anyway? Take for example someone who is against the war because they don't want them to die over there. Does that mean they don't support them?

i completely disagree. Patriotism is being pround of being an American. Patriotism is the red, white and blue. Patriotism is the flag. Is that why every time the flag touches the ground it must be destroyed? Is that why every time that a flag passes a uniformed soldier/airmen/marine (i.e. a parade, burial service) that they MUST salute? Is that why it is LAW that if the flag is flown at night, it MUST be lit by a direct light source? You don't understand what the flag means and represents the Armed Forces of the United States. Men & women die for that flag, and Obama has the odasity to not put his hand over his heart and pledge? Not my president. Is his religious belief the same reason he will not wear an American Flag lapel on his collar?

You can be against the war and still support the troops. Those two do not have to be married to each other. For example, sending a gift package to a soldier over their in the sandbox is supporting the soldier, not the war.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I thought independents can't vote in the primaries...

In some states (mostly caucus's) they can't...most can. In fact there was an article about Republican turnout voting for Hillary because they would rather see her than Obama. TO contrast that, many independents and moderates who voted Republican are now going for Obama.

Democrats and Republicans rarely win an election..its who gets the independent and moderate votes. In 2004, Bush got it. This time, Obama will....although McCain should hold some while not gaining as much conservative vote.

 

[CryingEmo]

i completely disagree. Patriotism is being pround of being an American. Patriotism is the red, white and blue. Patriotism is the flag. Is that why every time the flag touches the ground it must be destroyed? Is that why every time that a flag passes a uniformed soldier/airmen/marine (i.e. a parade, burial service) that they MUST salute? Is that why it is LAW that if the flag is flown at night, it MUST be lit by a direct light source? You don't understand what the flag means and represents the Armed Forces of the United States. Men & women die for that flag, and Obama has the odasity to not put his hand over his heart and pledge? Not my president. Is his religious belief the same reason he will not wear an American Flag lapel on his collar?

I think you're confusing patriotism with nationalism. I also think these objects and symbols are being treated with a religious like reverence.

You'd save your fellow soldier before a flag, I'm sure. The symbol has meaning, but it's not the meaning itself.

As far as Obama is concerned, I'm not sure why he chooses not to wear a lapel pin. I know alot of people are doing it to protest certain decisions or policy's the current administration has made. It's not done to disrespect people who died for the country--I don't think anyone really believes that. It's like, do you really someone who doesn't rise for the pledge does so purposely to spite people who died? The more logical reason is that maybe they feel embarased or don't feel like being forced to do it.

The flag does make a nice shield to hide behind when the powers that be make bad decisions...

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I think you're confusing patriotism with nationalism. I also think these objects and symbols are being treated with a religious like reverence.

Actually, he is not. Nationalism is not what he is describing at all and I would be wary of telling anyone serving in the military what the "meaning" is.

 

[avgBdybldr]

Actually, he is not. Nationalism is not what he is describing at all and I would be wary of telling anyone serving in the military what the "meaning" is.

Thank you Jerry.

 

[CryingEmo]

Actually, he is not. Nationalism is not what he is describing at all and I would be wary of telling anyone serving in the military what the "meaning" is.

Nothing wrong with being enthusiastic to support your country, but when the same enthusiasm is used to deafen dissenting opinions, it's not being patriotic anymore...

 

[EasyEJL]

freedom of speech cuts both ways, if you feel free to say what you want, opponents should be free to tell you to STFU.

 

[CryingEmo]

freedom of speech cuts both ways, if you feel free to say what you want, opponents should be free to tell you to STFU.

It's not freedom of speech, it's the idea of being patriotic. I think you can be patriotic and not agree with what someone is doing. Actually, the country was supposedly founded on those principles.

 

[EasyEJL]

What I was saying it that it is just as much freedom of speech for someone to call another person an ass and unpatriotic for burning a flag as anything else. Someone is free to call you unpatriotic if they so choose. there is no simple litmus test for patriotism, so there is a lot of grey space inbetween patriotic and unpatriotic to which people can form their own opinions of a person's patriotism or lack thereof.

 

[CryingEmo]

What I was saying it that it is just as much freedom of speech for someone to call another person an ass and unpatriotic for burning a flag as anything else. Someone is free to call you unpatriotic if they so choose. there is no simple litmus test for patriotism, so there is a lot of grey space inbetween patriotic and unpatriotic to which people can form their own opinions of a person's patriotism or lack thereof.

Yeah, I agree with what you're saying. I didn't say they couldn't disagree with me though.

 

[skunkman]

Reading the replies in this thread and witnessing my generations actions (mostly a bunch of pussy's) makes me sad and angry about the direction we are heading. If you read some history there was a a lot of discussion of federal power and state power. Hence the Federalist and Anti-Federalists. From my limited understanding the dividing factors for most Americans was Basically determining how much power (money) the feds control.

Now fast forward today and this topic may be discussed but nothing short of a revolution is going to take control of the situation. America used to thrive on the free market. Now we have programs that not only our own citizens can use but ILLEGAL immigrants can use and NOT pay taxes. I live on the west coast and I grew up in the ghetto you could say. Almost every mexican there was working under the table, sending illegally earned money to mexico all the while collecting free food and housing. Not to mention free health care.

The government has become a giant nipple for all the parasites to freely suck on. (I am not singling out mexicans. Many people of different races are guilty of the same thing. I just happen to have first hand experience with the mentioned case) We are not making the country stronger by giving hand outs. If an animal has baby's and a runt is not able to get food from the mother it will die. This is how nature works.

Sadly our once great nation has created an UNnatural state that will destroy itself or be destroyed by others not because of the ignorant but because of the tolerant.

"Tolerance is the attitude of those who believe in nothing." - G. K. Chesterton​

Today people and politicians have been so brainwashed and desensitized by tolerance that we don't even know when an entity is destroying us within. How would/could we know? The government is supposed to have the peoples best interest in mind. Is it in the interest of the middle class for our GOVERNMENT to pay for someone else's food, shelter, DOCTOR bills? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Is it in the best interest to not only give out these things but elect a president who make more of these programs? Personally I do not think that there is person running that is going to change. Every candidate with a chance to win is basically the same. Why do they all believe that socialization is the way to go? (if you do not believe that that is the way our country is headed you are blind)It is because the media is controlled by powerful men. Power creates a drive for more power and the only way to have more power is to govern more people. The entire human race is a pyramid scheme. It is basically leading to a one world government. Who will be on top of America's pyramid? As far viable choices it's going to be a f*cking liberal piece of sh*t who's only interest if f*cking our country up so bad that we are forced to unite with other countries. This includes Dems and Repubs.

Todays America is so corrupted that moderates and independents(major votes) will allow extremist(obama) to represent our country because people are so f*cking tolerant that anything goes. It is basically an anarchy of our leaders. Anything goes man.

The government is not supposed to feel bad for charity cases. People are supposed to feel bad and take action. If you feel led to feed someone or give them a place to stay that action comes out of the heart. The government was not designed as a heart. It was a designed as a brain. Some thing to overlook and monitor the functions of what other cells in the body are doing(states). We have given the brain too much control. It is fine when the brain tells us breathe involuntarily but when it starts telling me that I should allow germs to thrive freely without checking, and to give away money that I earned to some else without consent; I would start to wonder who is really in control.

I am going to try and bring this back on topic my mentioning that unless there is a revolution America is going to go down the sh*tter just as any other powerful country through out the ages. Every option at the moment lacks any character capable of being called a "President of the USA".

 

[CryingEmo]

When it comes to taxes and socialized programs, at the very least, they are a nessasary evil or good depending on how you look at it.

No taxes? Fine, no roads, or infrastruture. Good luck getting to work without getting a flat tire.

No socialized programs? Cool, but where do you send your kids during the day? Need a book, no library. Got a fire? No firefighters. Crime in your area? Cool, but no police, sorry.


To speak in generalities, the problem is corruption. Certain socialized programs work very well, and could be way better with less corruption = more money, more funding, less money out of your pocket.

 

[EasyEJL]

No socialized programs? Cool, but where do you send your kids during the day? Need a book, no library. Got a fire? No firefighters. Crime in your area? Cool, but no police, sorry.

There is a huge difference between social programs like these that can only operate on an economy of scale compared to welfare checks, food stamps and free housing. you should work to feed yourself and provide a roof over your own head.

 

[DBinMD]

Good post, Skunkman, and with an added bonus quote from G.K. Chesterton.:clap2:

 

[skunkman]

When it comes to taxes and socialized programs, at the very least, they are a nessasary evil or good depending on how you look at it.

No taxes? Fine, no roads, or infrastruture. Good luck getting to work without getting a flat tire.

No socialized programs? Cool, but where do you send your kids during the day? Need a book, no library. Got a fire? No firefighters. Crime in your area? Cool, but no police, sorry.


To speak in generalities, the problem is corruption. Certain socialized programs work very well, and could be way better with less corruption = more money, more funding, less money out of your pocket.

The fact that your rebuttals main points take our reality to such an extreme as no taxes, roads, infrastructure, library's, firefighters, and police proves the fact that people are brainwashed by media propaganda.

How? Well, every thing you mentioned is something good and you decided to envision a world without it. This is a typical liberal view. Lets see how f*cked we can make the world look then tell everyone that this is going to happen UNLESS you listen to me. This tactic works and the people that utilize it understand that people are compromising their own critical beliefs in the process. The people who believe it do not realize that they are giving there freedoms away.

As I said they want you to be tolerant so when people tell you the truth you do not realize it is true. You are so afraid that you are offending a group of people that beliefs become weak and fragile. You have been brainwashed to believe nothing is wrong. When this happens you create a mind and life with no direction. So why does this matter? Weak minds are easily controlled. Control = power.

What I did is take things that are bad for the country and remove them.

If you agree that socialized programs are corrupt why would you vote for a man that is inevitably going to create more problems? Do you not realize that corruption has such a stronghold on our government that any new program is going to enter the playing field with the same level of corruption. Do you really believe like Obama can tell the government to takes its hand out the cookie jar? You are naive if you believe their hand will be removed. We have not only given them access to the cookie jar, we have entrusted them with the entire f*cking stock of cookies.

A group of people willing to stand up to the now unconstitutional America is the only way we will have a nation of freedom and success of the old.

 

[DBinMD]

When it comes to taxes and socialized programs, at the very least, they are a nessasary evil or good depending on how you look at it.

No taxes? Fine, no roads, or infrastruture. Good luck getting to work without getting a flat tire.

No socialized programs? Cool, but where do you send your kids during the day? Need a book, no library. Got a fire? No firefighters. Crime in your area? Cool, but no police, sorry.


To speak in generalities, the problem is corruption. Certain socialized programs work very well, and could be way better with less corruption = more money, more funding, less money out of your pocket.

I think you are missing Skunkman’s point. There’s nothing wrong with taxes, however, we need more discretion on socialized programs.

The Constitution permits the federal government only 2 areas, defense and interstate commerce. So roads and infrastructure programs are fine. The Founding Fathers did this for a reason; simply, you can not trust people in power. Our whole system of checks and balances is based on this.

As far as school: it’s a black hole for money. We keep spending more money but the kids aren’t getting any smarter. The reason is simple; it’s the parents that determine the standards, not the money being spent. But any politician that says this will be branded as anti-school or something similar. There is nothing in the constitution that permits the feds here. Schools can be funded at the state level. If you don’t like your state’s handling and you can find a better one, then you can move.

Similarly, the same with police and firefighters, good ideas, but keep the feds out of it.

The real problem is our erosion of values. We are trying to spend more money on schools and police to make up for it.

Skunkman’s point wasn’t there shouldn’t be programs but there are some things that can not and should not be funded 1) at the federal level, or 2) not at all. As much as we wish such things, they just don’t work, and it’s a slow loss of freedoms.

 

[kwyckemynd00]

I think you are missing Skunkman’s point. There’s nothing wrong with taxes, however, we need more discretion on socialized programs.

The Constitution permits the federal government only 2 areas, defense and interstate commerce. So roads and infrastructure programs are fine. The Founding Fathers did this for a reason; simply, you can not trust people in power. Our whole system of checks and balances is based on this.

As far as school: it’s a black hole for money. We keep spending more money but the kids aren’t getting any smarter. The reason is simple; it’s the parents that determine the standards, not the money being spent. But any politician that says this will be branded as anti-school or something similar. There is nothing in the constitution that permits the feds here. Schools can be funded at the state level. If you don’t like your state’s handling and you can find a better one, then you can move.

Similarly, the same with police and firefighters, good ideas, but keep the feds out of it.

The real problem is our erosion of values. We are trying to spend more money on schools and police to make up for it.

Great post. Its sad how inaccurate "common knowledge" is with regards to issues like increased spending for social programs, schools included. The exponential increases in spending have made virtually no progress, and like you said, it all comes back to the home/culture.

 

[wormwood]

Cut and Run, Cut and run.. Thats not a political solution to an existing problem, its a gutless and cowardly decision to run awayt from the problem without solving it and it will harm this country and the middle east for decades.

Cut and run is the most politically pathetic position I have ever seen. I guess Democrats want to relive the glory days of vietnam. Quite pathetic that one of America's lowest points is the high point of the democratic party. Further proving that if its bad for America, its good for Democrats.

democrats want to relive the glory days of vietnam?

uh... if i remember correctly, that war was started by LBJ (a democrat), and ended by Nixon (a republican). where do you get the impression that democrats are gutless?