Get ready for socialism!

[RobInKuwait]

Just to set the record straight I am not a liberal, as I staighted previously I am somewhat in the middle on most issues but right now the economy needs major attention in the form of Democratic leadership. As far as the government and your profits, they used to in the form of an import tax (Tariff) which protects the working class of the domestic country. Whats so hard to understand about that?

The working class doesn't need "protection". They are individuals with skills. If their skills are not in demand they should make themselves more marketable and learn new skills. The answer not more taxes on businesses.

 

[Hard Knox]

The working class doesn't need "protection". They are individuals with skills. If their skills are not in demand they should make themselves more marketable and learn new skills. The answer not more taxes on businesses.

There is no doubt that wages should be relative to skill and knowledge, but the problem is that good jobs are decreasing in quantity which leads to a surplus of skilled and knowledgeble laborers and in turn leads to less pay. The taxes on businesses part doesn't make sense because conservative doesn't mean less taxes anymore, if you think that they really want you to keep more of your "hard earned money" you are sadly mistaken. Have the last eight years not been enough punishment? Because it sounds like some of you can't get enough of it.

 

[RobInKuwait]

The taxes on businesses part doesn't make sense because conservative doesn't mean less taxes anymore, if you think that they really want you to keep more of your "hard earned money" you are sadly mistaken.

Obama's Tax Related Voting Record

-Voted NO on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax.
-Voted NO on raising estate tax exemption to $5 million.
-Voted NO on supporting permanence of estate tax cuts.
-Voted NO on permanently repealing the `death tax`.
-Voted YES on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut
-Voted NO on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends.
-Voted NO on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends.

(McCain was 5 YES and 2 NO)

 

[Hard Knox]

Obama's Tax Related Voting Record

-Voted NO on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax.
-Voted NO on raising estate tax exemption to $5 million.
-Voted NO on supporting permanence of estate tax cuts.
-Voted NO on permanently repealing the `death tax`.
-Voted YES on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut
-Voted NO on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends.
-Voted NO on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends.

(McCain was 5 YES and 2 NO)

One thing you need to look at is who is receiving the tax cuts that are pushed for and voted in by majority republicans. It is almost always the top 2%, and I know the arguement is that it will trickle down but its just the rich giving to the rich, which happen to give back to the rich (politicians) and the circle jerk continues on and on.

 

[bpmartyr]

Rich people pay ~95% of the taxes. Why are people so upset about letting people keep the money they earn? We don't need more taxes on the rich or the not so rich, we need smaller government and less spending. I trust the American people to decide how they spend their own money, not a bunch of dipshits in Washington. Keep in mind that chances are you owe the fact that you have a job, if you actually do, to one or more "rich people".

Personally, I am for a consumption tax. But then of course the Libs would want "rich people" to pay a higher rate than everyone else with that system as well. Take your pick: liberty or "fairness". You can't have both.

 

[slow-mun]

If you knew half as much as you thought about these issues you would be on track for an article in the Enquirer.

1. NAFTA was signed by George Bush in the early 90's.
2. The Bush administration and Rupublican majority congress voted to give billions in tax cuts to the already wealthy oil companies, not to mention the fact that Bush and family have a vast amount of interest in Petroleum. The higher the price the more they make because there % stays the same.

3. As far as Corporate interests go the tax means very little compared to the fact that when large corporations get what they want in the form of policy it is always the inverse of what is good for the middle-class (which is the base of our economy). In the past eight years the republican party has neutered if not killed the majority of Unions in this country and continued to allow outsourcing which has driven wages down and lowered the per capita income of this country.

The FED play a significant role in monetary policy, but monetary policy only consists of adjusting the Federal Funds Rate (Interest rate that the FED charges banks). When they lower rates to stimulate the economy often times the side effects are worse than the short term stimulation itself. The side effects being inflation and a decrease in the value of the dollar, which in turn leads to more foriegn ownership.

The bottom line is that an economy only thrives if the middle class (working class) is thriving, and the republican policy of supporting Big Business and the trickle down theory is not even relatively efficient.

That's not actually true.......

NAFTA
Main article: North American Free Trade Agreement

Bush's administration, along with the Progressive Conservative Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, spearheaded the negotiations of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which would eliminate the majority of tariffs on products traded among the United States, Canada, and Mexico, to encourage trade amongst the countries.[50] The treaty also protects intellectual property rights (patents, copyrights, and trademarks), and outlines the removal of investment restrictions among the three countries.[50]
The agreement came under heavy scrutiny amongst mainly Democrats, who charged that NAFTA resulted in a loss of US jobs.[9] NAFTA also contained no provisions for labor rights;[51] according to the Bush administration, the trade agreement would generate economic resources necessary to enable Mexico's government to overcome problems of funding and enforcement of its labor laws.[51] Bush needed a renewal of negotiating authority to move forward with the NAFTA trade talks. Such authority would enable the president to negotiate a trade accord that would be submitted to Congress for a vote, thereby avoiding a situation in which the president would be required to renegotiate with trading partners those parts of an agreement that Congress wished to change.[51] While initial signing was possible during his term, negotiations made slow, but steady, progress. President Clinton would go on to make the passage of NAFTA a priority for his administration, despite its conservative and Republican roots — with the addition of two side agreements — to achieve its passage in 1993.[52]

The treaty has since been defended as well as criticized further. The American economy has grown 54% since the adoption of NAFTA in 1993, with 25 million new jobs created; this was seen by some as evidence of NAFTA being beneficial to the US.[53] With talk in early 2008 regarding a possible American withdrawal from the treaty, Carlos M. Gutierrez, current United States Secretary of Commerce, writes, "Quitting NAFTA would send economic shock waves throughout the world, and the damage would start here at home."[53] But John J. Sweeney of The Boston Globe argues that "the US trade deficit with Canada and Mexico ballooned to 12 times its pre-NAFTA size, reaching $111 billion in 2004."[54]

 

[Hard Knox]

That's not actually true.......

What do you mean that its not actually true?

 

[slow-mun]

What do you mean that its not actually true?

George Bush signed an agreement with the other countries, but Bill Clinton made it law.

BACKGROUND: On September 25, 1990, President Bush officially notified Congress of his intent to begin negotiations on a free trade agreement with Mexico. Canada--which negotiated a free trade agreement (FTA) with the U.S. in 1988--joined the NAFTA talks on February 5, 1991.

President Bush asked Congress on March 1, 1991 for a two-year extension of fast track negotiating authority to implement two important objectives--the GATT multilateral trade talks and the proposed NAFTA negotiations. Under the fast track process, the Administration is required to present a completed agreement to Congress, at which time lawmakers vote to accept or reject the agreement without amendments.

Opponents of the trade pacts immediately introduced legislation to deny the President a fast track extension--H. Res. 101 (Dorgan--D-ND-AL) and S. Res. 78 (Hollings--D-SC). They claimed that NAFTA would end in job losses for American workers. But President Bush cited three major economic studies, all of which concluded that NAFTA would benefit the U.S. in terms of exports, output and jobs.

In an effort to allay congressional concerns, President Bush submitted an action plan to Congress on May 1, 1991 that outlined specific steps the Administration would take to address labor, economic and environmental issues surrounding the negotiations. The action plan won the support of key congressional leaders, including Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (D-IL-8) and Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-TX)--chairmen of the House and Senate committees with jurisdiction over trade matters.

Industry's efforts in communicating the importance of the GATT and NAFTA negotiations were successful, as both the House and Senate rejected organized labor's attempt to deny the President fast track authority. The House voted 231-192 against H.Res. 101 on May 23, and the Senate voted down S.Res. 78 on May 24 by a 59-36 tally.

Following congressional approval of fast track, negotiations continued for more than a year. Negotiators from the three nations announced a final agreement on August 12, 1992.

In a separate initiative, the U.S. EPA and its Mexican counterpart released an environmental plan in 1992 to address air, soil, water, and hazardous waste problems along the U.S.-Mexican border. In conjunction with the border plan, President Bush proposed a 70 percent increase in the budget for border environmental projects to $241 million for FY 1993.

Ironically, Congress rejected a $50 million EPA request to clean up U.S. "colonias"--unincorporated U.S. communities along the Mexican border. House members also cut in half the President's $65 million request for a Tijuana-San Diego sewage treatment plant. Similarly, the Senate failed to authorize $120 million to help clean up the U.S.-Mexican border.

Legislative Action: Hearings on NAFTA were conducted throughout 1992 in dozens of congressional committees. On September 18, 1992, President Bush formally notified Congress of his intent to sign NAFTA, fulfilling the 90-day notification period required under current law.

Three weeks later, Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton gave his support to the agreement, adding that side agreements with Mexico addressing the environment and worker rights may be necessary. Clinton listed several steps he would take if elected--none of which required renegotiating the NAFTA text.

As expected, some Democratic lawmakers resumed their attacks against NAFTA during the 1992 election campaigns. House Majority Leader Gephardt (D-MO-3) called for significant changes to the agreement. Two Michigan Democrats--Sen. Don Riegle and Rep. Sander Levin--resurrected efforts to amend the fast track process. Riegle's plan would have allowed floor amendments to the agreement in five areas: labor standards, environmental standards, unemployment and retraining benefits, rules of origin, and dispute resolution. Similarly, Levin's proposal would have permitted the House to consider NAFTA under a modified closed rule with up to four amendments. The resolutions gained a substantial number of cosponsors but never received floor consideration.

President Bush signed the NAFTA agreement on December 17, 1992 at a meeting of the Organization of American States. The accord was signed prior to the expiration of the President's negotiating authority, forcing Congress to either change its procedures or to consider NAFTA under fast track rules--which limits the amount of debate and requires lawmakers to vote up-or-down on the measure without amendments.

103rd Congress: President Clinton reiterated his desire to negotiate side agreements on NAFTA in the areas of safeguards, labor and environmental issues in January. Negotiations with Mexico and Canada began in the spring.

Anti-NAFTA forces--led by organized labor, some environmental activists, former presidential hopeful H. Ross Perot and consumer groups led by Ralph Nader--launched verbal attacks against the trade pact on Capitol Hill early and often in 1993, despite President Clinton's efforts to allay their concerns. In related action, several House members with close ties to organized labor announced the formation of an "Anti-NAFTA Caucus" early in 1993. In July, more than 100 House and 7 Senate Democrats joined House Majority Leader David Bonior (D-MI-10) in urging President Clinton to postpone action on NAFTA until after Congress had completed work on health-care reform--a strategy that most NAFTA supporters believed would kill the trade pact. The White House responded that both NAFTA and health-care reform would be on the agenda in the fall.

Trade officials from the three NAFTA nations announced August 13 they had reached a deal on side agreements. Lawmakers returning home to their districts in August were barraged by anti-NAFTA sentiment. Many supporters of NAFTA returned to Washington publicly undecided on the pact. Convinced that NAFTA's passage was contingent upon a strong push by the White House, dozens of House Republicans--led by Minority Leader Newt Gingrich (R-GA-6)--said they would withhold their support until the President demonstrated his commitment to the issue.

That commitment came September 14, 1993, when President Clinton--accompanied by former Presidents Ford, Carter and Bush--issued a strong statement of support for NAFTA.

NAFTA in the Courts: Another key development in the NAFTA battle occurred in the courts. Three opponents of NAFTA--Ralph Nader's Public Citizen organization, the Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth--filed suit in 1992 against the Bush Administration for not completing an environmental impact statement (EIS) on NAFTA. A federal judge sided with NAFTA opponents in a controversial decision announced June 30, 1993. The ruling would have required the Administration to complete an EIS on NAFTA before sending it to Congress--a process that would have taken months or even years.

Because of the burdensome procedural requirements associated with an EIS, the ruling posed a serious threat to all future U.S. trade agreements. If allowed to stand, America's trading partners would have had little or no confidence in the ability of the U.S. to fulfill its part of a trade bargain in a finite period of time. The Clinton Administration asked a U.S. appeals court to reverse the decision, as did the NAM and 11 other trade associations in an amicus brief filed July 20. The appeals court concurred with NAM arguments on September 24 and reversed the federal judge's decision.

1993 Legislative Action: Following several weeks of congressional hearings on NAFTA, the President sent the NAFTA implementing bill to Congress on November 4. Anti-NAFTA forces claimed they had enough votes to defeat the bill in the House, but as the House vote scheduled for November 17 approached, intense lobbying efforts by the White House and by the NAM and its members proved successful.

In the end, the House approved NAFTA by a 234-200 vote. The Senate followed suit by approving NAFTA 61-38. President Clinton signed the legislation into law (P.L. 103-182) on December 8, and the agreement took effect January 1, 1994.

Developments Since Passage of NAFTA: Passage of NAFTA has tremendously benefitted the U.S. economy. The pact eliminated Mexican tariffs on some 4,500 items. The Commerce Department reported in 1994 that within six months of NAFTA's implementation: 1) U.S. exports to Mexico reached record levels ($24.5 billion); 2) exports to Canada and Mexico accounted for roughly 100,000 new American jobs; and 3) key capital goods exports to Mexico were more than 20 percent higher than the same period in 1993.

Major Provisions in NAFTA: NAFTA is consistent with GATT international trading rules and does not erect new barriers to countries outside North America. Key provisions include:

1.TARIFFS. NAFTA phases out all duties in North America within 15 years. All of Mexico's tariffs on U.S. manufactured exports will be eliminated in 10 years.
2.NON-TARIFF BARRIERS. Mexico agreed to cut back or phase out several programs that have impeded U.S. exports to Mexico, including import licensing restrictions and standards that require U.S. firms in Mexico to purchase Mexican--rather than American--parts.
3.RULES OF ORIGIN. Strict content requirements in NAFTA are designed to ensure that North American firms--rather than Asian or European companies--are to be the principal beneficiaries. For example, NAFTA increases the domestic content requirement for automobiles from 50 percent under the U.S.-Canada FTA to 62.5 percent over an eight-year period.
4.INVESTMENT. U.S. companies operating in Mexico will be treated equally with Mexican companies. Mexico also agreed to drop requirements that had forced foreign companies to export more than they imported as a condition of being allowed to invest.
5.INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. NAFTA provides a higher level of protection for intellectual property rights--patents, trademarks and copyrights--than any other bilateral or multilateral agreement.
6.GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT. New provisions, especially in the areas of oil and gas equipment and power generating equipment, provide new opportunities for U.S. companies.
7.SAFEGUARDS. The agreement allows any country to apply restraints if imports in one sector or another come in so fast that they threaten the existence of the domestic companies in that business.

This report was prepared by the NAM Member Communications Department. Copyright © 1998 by the National Association of Manufacturers.

 

[Hard Knox]

George Bush signed an agreement with the other countries, but Bill Clinton made it law.

Thats what I mean about it being a true statement
President Bush signed the NAFTA agreement on December 17, 1992 at a meeting of the Organization of American States.

George Bush and fellow Republicans had the ball rolling hard when Clinton came into office and many Democrats were totally against NAFTA.

 

[grila jujitsu]

Obama has clinched the Democratic nomination. Get ready to give even more of your hard-earned money to the government to fund those social programs that work so well!

im so down! id rather fund social programs. unlike the rep who create programs and dont fund them. Also, got to love those rep, sending us in to a 3 trillion dollar def. didnt bill balance the budget? oh yeah he did!

 

[strategicmove]

Obama is just another candidate that tells people to blame everyone else for their problems without looking at the root of the problem, YOURSELF!

How about elaborating on this? General comments of this type usually have low informational content!

 

[Dwight Schrute]

If you knew half as much as you thought about these issues you would be on track for an article in the Enquirer.

You are so clueless thats its astonishing.

1. NAFTA was enacted on January 1, 1994 under Bill Clinton.



"Implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) began on January 1, 1994. This agreement will remove most barriers to trade and investment among the United States, Canada, and Mexico."



If Bill Clinton and Democrats were so against it they could have easily scrapped it between 1992-1994 when you had a Democratic majority in Congress. Even that "genius" Jimmy Carter supported it. So the blame go around for a policy that's actually works according to almost 90% of economists.

So its a economists dream....a Republican idea yet a Democrat majority and Democrat President signed it into law and its still the Republicans fault.

2. The tax cuts were the same breaks that Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter kept in place. Or do you prefer taxing them more and paying $9/gallon like they do in the UK? When you tax oil companies more who do you think gets hit the hardest? Them or the low income family that they pass the tax too.

And if you actually took the time to look at some of these oil companies balance sheets...as traders do (like me who OWNS oil) you would see margins are DOWN. Record profits and record expenses. But making a ton of money is just SO evil...

You don't' like oil prices? As a free American you can go BUY OIL STOCKS AND HEDGE YOUR LOSS.

But instead of blaming the consumer who buys the SUV's and uses the gas (not to mention your Union pension funds investing in oil driving the price higher), its the oil companies fault.


3. The tax means very little? What have you been smoking? They get what they want in terms of policy? Did they lobby to tax themselves higher? Did they lobby to more global warming restrictions on them that forbids them to invest in domestic factories rather than building elsewhere? Did they lobby cap and trade policies which would severely restrict new domestic factories while taxing existing companies more?

The corporate tax rates that forced many of these companies overseas killed your unions. Its simple economics. If I can pay half the tax and half the labor costs over the Mexican border...guess what..I'm moving. Who enabled that? Bill Clinton.

I didn't see the Unions against that massive amnesty program called "comprehensive immigration". Why? More dues...more people in the Union and diluting their own membership with cheaper labor and less skilled workers.

You want better labor policies? Don't tax the companies into the ground that provide that labor because they will go somewhere else.

4. An extremely narrow view that reflects a "couple classes in economics".

If you didn't lower the interest rates to combat the severe tightening you wouldn't have banks lending to each other not to mention relief form the current housing crisis. The dollar is in its normal 30 yr fluctuation range and its the same thing Greenspan did in the 70's to combat a recession. I guess your couple classes didn't cover that part. Is there a reason Bernanke just started to comment on the need to strengthen the dollar? Yeah..its called following history. If you didn't lower rates in the past 9 months you could have guaranteed a deep dark recessions for a long time to come.

When you lower the value of the dollar to increase exports, you increase production, you increase investment in the US (unlike your isolationist view that fears foreign ownership)....you increase those things that help keep the economy afloat in the times of a contraction. Once the credit crisis has cleared you stop cutting rates (which they already have stated)......people starting go long the dollar....commodity prices start to go down....foreign currencies go down, we buy them up...and the cycle begins again.


Or you could have the latter...notice there is a credit crisis but don't lower rates...choke every financial institution there is and basically cause your whole economy to crash sending every 401k and retirement fund in the the ****ing ground. Go ask your Union members if they would like to pay a bit more for gas and food for a couple years or watch their retirement fund drop by 50%. I think I know the answer but generally people like you who look at things form such a narrow minded view just won't get it.

You want to know why oil prices are going up? Its your Union pension funds and funds managers investing in it.



There is a reason people like Obama get elected...its because people like you think only George Bush and Republicans enacted NAFTA.

 

[BodyWizard]

didnt bill balance the budget? oh yeah he did!

no, actually - he didn't, any more than HRC is "winning the popular vote".

 

[Dwight Schrute]

no, actually - he didn't, any more than HRC is "winning the popular vote".

He cut defense spending by 60%. THats how he magically created a surplus. He used that money to fund many social programs which he himself even admitted basically failed (massive medicaid and welfare fraud). He then reallocated much of those funds back to defense spending late in his second term.

He did have success with education spending (mainly higher education) though...But thats more of a business investing decisions than social program....

 

[Hard Knox]

I'm done trying to convince you thick skulled republicans about whats good for you and this country. If you'd stop listening to the right wing radio shows you'd actually learn whats really going on. Also, for the Soup Nazi, I have an extensive background in the military and have traveled the entire country and several other countries so your smarta** comments about me being some nieve college student are as out of line as the rest of the garbage that you countinously spew out of your radio show parroting a**. Good luck in the future if you happen to maintain republican leadership in the White House, you'll pay in the end but unfortunately so will I.

 

[timmmah]

Republicans are NOT good for the economy EVER! Anyone who argues this statement doesn't understand what the party actually stands for!!!! So vote Democrat or watch the economy get worse because McCain feels that everything is fine and the economy will take care of itself, this Lazze Faire attitude is not what this country needs after eight years of abuse by the Republican party. (NAFTA, Big Oil, and Corporate interests) have corrupted our politicians (majority of whom are Republican). I am normally independent on most issues because I am in the middle on most issues, but the most important issue right now is the economy so VOTE Democrat because to vote independent is a waste of a vote.

I agree with the outlook on Mccain as a lazzes faire style of leadership, however the country is not ready to vote for a black man, or a woman, many of the older voters are still racists and it's too bad for the democratic party that skin color can cause the loss of some of the vote.

 

[Hard Knox]

I agree with the outlook on Mccain as a lazzes faire style of leadership, however the country is not ready to vote for a black man, or a woman, many of the older voters are still racists and it's too bad for the democratic party that skin color can cause the loss of some of the vote.

I agree, it will be close no doubt.

 

[strategicmove]

I agree with the outlook on Mccain as a lazzes faire style of leadership, however the country is not ready to vote for a black man, or a woman, many of the older voters are still racists and it's too bad for the democratic party that skin color can cause the loss of some of the vote.

Whose opinion is this?

 

[timmmah]

Whose opinion is this?

Don't be so naive, we both know racism is still very much alive in the minds of small town rednecks and some from our grandparents generation, these people have a twisted view of society and hopefully their kind will eventually come to pass, no doubt, but they still vote. Who's opinion is this? it's just my opinion, if it offends you, wake up! where is the world where everybody gets along and nobody is mean to anybody just because they look different? Cause if there is one, I want to go there, but that world just doesn't exist yet , my freind.

 

[RobInKuwait]

How about elaborating on this? General comments of this type usually have low informational content!

I think hes referring to these democratic mantras:

-Blame oil companies

-Blame "evil" corporations

-Blame the rich

-Blame racism and sexism

-Blame republicans

American government was not founded to make sure everyone has food on their table, it was founded to ensure everybody has the opportunity to make their OWN living.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I'm done trying to convince you thick skulled republicans about whats good for you and this country. If you'd stop listening to the right wing radio shows you'd actually learn whats really going on. Also, for the Soup Nazi, I have an extensive background in the military and have traveled the entire country and several other countries so your smarta** comments about me being some nieve college student are as out of line as the rest of the garbage that you countinously spew out of your radio show parroting a**. Good luck in the future if you happen to maintain republican leadership in the White House, you'll pay in the end but unfortunately so will I.

:toofunny:

 

[strategicmove]

Don't be so naive, we both know racism is still very much alive in the minds of small town rednecks and some from our grandparents generation, these people have a twisted view of society and hopefully their kind will eventually come to pass, no doubt, but they still vote. Who's opinion is this? it's just my opinion, if it offends you, wake up! where is the world where everybody gets along and nobody is mean to anybody just because they look different? Cause if there is one, I want to go there, but that world just doesn't exist yet , my freind.

I do not understand why you sound so worked up in your response. I asked that question exactly because I am not naive. You should expect your statements to be challenged. I asked that question precisely because I felt it was your opinion. Obama is just as white as he is black! And he is now the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party. That is not trivial.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Don't be so naive, we both know racism is still very much alive in the minds of small town rednecks and some from our grandparents generation, these people have a twisted view of society and hopefully their kind will eventually come to pass, no doubt, but they still vote. Who's opinion is this? it's just my opinion, if it offends you, wake up! where is the world where everybody gets along and nobody is mean to anybody just because they look different? Cause if there is one, I want to go there, but that world just doesn't exist yet , my freind.

Yet you ignore the 92% of black people that voted for Obama. So its ok for 92%.....92%!!!!!!! of a black people to vote for a black candidate and the term racism is NEVER used but when poor white people don't vote for black man its racism.

Did the old people of Iowa not get the white people memo?

 

[timmmah]

I do not understand why you sound so worked up in your response. I asked that question exactly because I am not naive. You should expect your statements to be challenged. I asked that question precisely because I felt it was your opinion. Obama is just as white as he is black! And he is now the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party. That is not trivial.

By knowing it was my opinion and still stating; whose opinion is this? You led me to defend my statement. I am definitely "worked up" on this issue because change is so necessary but may not happen due to the closed-mindedness of some voters. I am aware that Obama is the candidate that will represent the Democratic party, and I am planning to cast my vote for him, I am however distraught that his chances of winning may be slim due to the fact that he is only as white as Wayne Brady or Tiger Woods:wave:

 

[timmmah]

Yet you ignore the 92% of black people that voted for Obama. So its ok for 92%.....92%!!!!!!! of a black people to vote for a black candidate and the term racism is NEVER used but when poor white people don't vote for black man its racism.

Did the old people of Iowa not get the white people memo?

He defeated Clinton by a margin of 4 to 1 among black voters, Clinton defeated Obama 2 to 1 among Mexicans, it's about who will benefit which race as to who that race will vote for.

 

[mindgrappler]

Republicans are NOT good for the economy EVER! Anyone who argues this statement doesn't understand what the party actually stands for!!!! So vote Democrat or watch the economy get worse because McCain feels that everything is fine and the economy will take care of itself, this Lazze Faire attitude is not what this country needs after eight years of abuse by the Republican party. (NAFTA, Big Oil, and Corporate interests) have corrupted our politicians (majority of whom are Republican). I am normally independent on most issues because I am in the middle on most issues, but the most important issue right now is the economy so VOTE Democrat because to vote independent is a waste of a vote.

Wrong, most are demo's, as is our Congress.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

He defeated Clinton by a margin of 4 to 1 among black voters, Clinton defeated Obama 2 to 1 among Mexicans, it's about who will benefit which race as to who that race will vote for.

Yet when white people vote for a white candidate because as you say "its all about who will benefit"...its called racism.

 

[AM07]

I'm not voting for Obama because he's BLACK.


























This is a JOKE. To all of you pussy liberals who can't take a joke, move to a secluded island.

 

[timmmah]

Yet when white people vote for a white candidate because as you say "its all about who will benefit"...its called racism.

It is?

 

[Dagron]

This election reminds me of the movie brewster's millions... you gotta either vote for a typical Washington insider and a sellout, or you vote for a Marxist... I mean, if there were ever a clear, bold faced highlighting of the failure of the two party system, we are looking at it right now. The whole thing is really pretty disgusting :dump:

 

[bpmartyr]

Invalid Link Removed

 

[Dwight Schrute]

It is?

According to MSNBC, yes.

 

[timmmah]

According to MSNBC, yes.

I'm not really sure what side your on here, so you want to vote for a white guy because you don't want to vote for a black guy but you don't think that that should be called a racially-biased vote? Why don't you just vote according to where the candidate stands on the issues and imagine that everyone is a greenish-hue in color?:donut:

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I'm not really sure what side your on here, so you want to vote for a white guy because you don't want to vote for a black guy but you don't think that that should be called a racially-biased vote? Why don't you just vote according to where the candidate stands on the issues and imagine that everyone is a greenish-hue in color?:donut:

I never said I wanted to vote for anyone.


I want the same standard applied to everyone.


You brought up the fact that there are white people that won't vote for a black guy because some are racists. "small town rednecks and some from our grandparents generation"


What I am telling you is that the same argument applies for the 92% of black people that voted for a black guy and probably won't vote for a white guy.


When someone questions the motives of white people...the racism term is thrown around, but when someone questions the motives of black people (who support the black candidate 92%) the term racism is never used....


Use the same standard for everyone.

 

[timmmah]

I never said I wanted to vote for anyone.


I want the same standard applied to everyone.


You brought up the fact that there are white people that won't vote for a black guy because some are racists. "small town rednecks and some from our grandparents generation"


What I am telling you is that the same argument applies for the 92% of black people that voted for a black guy and probably won't vote for a white guy.


When someone questions the motives of white people...the racism term is thrown around, but when someone questions the motives of black people (who support the black candidate 92%) the term racism is never used....


Use the same standard for everyone.

There is a reason people like Obama get elected...its because people like you think only George Bush and Republicans enacted NAFTA.


this is your post earlier, sounds kinda like you want Mccain to win(somebodys gonna):cheers:. I'm not trying to make you out to be anti-black, but until everyone is anti-racism, it will flourish in parts of america. racism is a joke.
p.s. I really liked what you said in the gas prices thread. We as a society are much more well-off than we were when you and I were kids( I'm 33), and many have lost sight of that.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

There is a reason people like Obama get elected...its because people like you think only George Bush and Republicans enacted NAFTA.

Had nothing to do race and more to do with solely blaming one party for a group effort.

this is your post earlier, sounds kinda like you want Mccain to win(somebodys gonna):cheers:.

I am a Republican that's holds fiscal conservative views but more liberal social policies than your average conservative. There are things I like about McCain and things I do not. The same goes for Obama. I've looked at some of his economic policies and they aren't that bad but when he starts speaking and pitching the rich vs poor argument, its irritating.

I'm not trying to make you out to be anti-black,

One of my best firends would laugh at that one...I'll tell him tomorrow morning when we tee off at 8:32

but until everyone is anti-racism, it will flourish in parts of america. racism is a joke.

Of course it flourishes in places...but sometimes you get sick of hearing its whitey's fault when many of whiteys firends voted and actually nomindate a black man for President.

p.s. I really liked what you said in the gas prices thread. We as a society are much more well-off than we were when you and I were kids( I'm 33), and many have lost sight of that.

If I asked for something like a cell phone that had a $50/month charge when I was 13, my dad would tell me to mow the lawn for 3 years and then I could have it. So in response I got my first job at $3.00/hour at the age of 14 (got working papers) scrubbing the grease pits and peeling potatoes/onions at a local burger joint.

 

[CryingEmo]

If Socialism is really happening I'm quitting my job and going on welfare son!


If not, then boohoo. :rofl:


For the dems, a better canidate would have been John Edwards for the experience factor.

For the repub's, I liked Ron Paul.

Then there should be a third party wild card like Kucinich or something... meh Nader will do it again I guess.


More canidates = more fun, and less boring. Mccain is boring to me. At least Obama plays basketball... or something.

 

[AM07]

We as a society are much more well-off than we were when you and I were kids( I'm 33), and many have lost sight of that.

Better off how? In terms of technology, yes, but one could easily make a valid argument that people in my generation (early-mid 20s) experienced less freedoms than your generation, of which had less freedoms growing up than people in an earlier generation, and so on.

 

[BodyWizard]

I blame our WW2 victory

 

[timmmah]

Better off how? In terms of technology, yes, but one could easily make a valid argument that people in my generation (early-mid 20s) experienced less freedoms than your generation, of which had less freedoms growing up than people in an earlier generation, and so on.

Agreed, we used to leave our door unlocked and didn't worry too much about someone snagging your kid off the street like now, but in terms of ease of lifestyle, it's gotta be hard for you to imagine a life without everyone you know having a cell phone, the connection with freinds that we have now is unreal.