# UNDECIDEDS SHOULD BREAK FOR MCCAIN



## mdmedicine (Dec 20, 2004)

UNDECIDEDS SHOULD BREAK FOR MCCAIN

By DICK MORRIS

Published on TheHill.com on October 28, 2008

If current survey trends continue, Obama will finish with less than 50 percent in the polls. Even discounting the Nader vote (some people never learn), the undecided voters could tip the race either way. How will they break?

Since there is no incumbent, they cannot automatically be assigned to the challenger; and since turnout is likely to be huge, the current undecided voters will probably make their way to the polls and cast their ballots.

But for whom?

At the beginning of this contest, Obama effectively made the case that the election was a referendum on Bush's performance in office. Painting a vote for McCain as a desire for "four more years of the same failed policies," he made the most of Bush's dismal approval rating. Had he been able to keep the focus on Bush, he would likely have inherited most of the undecided vote.

But as Obama surged into a more or less permanent lead in October, animated by the financial crisis, he has assumed many of the characteristics of an incumbent. Every voter asks himself one question before he or she casts a ballot: Do I want to vote for Obama? His uniqueness, charisma and assertive program have so dominated the dialogue that the election is now a referendum on Obama.

As Obama has oscillated, moving somewhat above or somewhat below 50 percent in all the October polls, his election likely hangs in the balance. If he falls short of 50 percent in these circumstances, a majority of the voters can be said to have rejected him. Likely a disproportionate number of the undecideds will vote for McCain.

But don't write Obama off. His candidacy strikes such enthusiasm among young and minority voters that there is still a chance that a massive turnout will deliver the race to the Democrats. None of the polling organizations has any experience with -- or model for -- so massive a turnout, especially among voters notorious for staying at home. But the primaries proved that these young and minority voters will not stay home this time, but will vote for Obama. The effect of this increased vote is hard to calculate, but it may be enough to offset the undecideds who will vote for McCain.

But the basic point, one week before Election Day, is that even if Obama clings to a four- or five-point lead over McCain in the polling, the election is not over. The question is not so much how large his lead is over the Republican, but whether or not he is topping 50 percent. As long as the polling leaves him below that mark, he is vulnerable and could well lose.

Clearly, in recent weeks, McCain has been able to cast Obama as a leftist. He has made the issue of income redistribution central to the campaign. With the aid of Joe the Plumber and the discovery of Obama's Chicago PBS interview, in which he lamented the absence of redistribution of wealth, McCain has made the proposition seem central to Obama's ideology. The unprecedented power the bailout has given government over the banking industry raises the real specter of socialism in America. The banks have, effectively, been nationalized. How will government use its power over them? This new reality, coupled with Obama's professed pursuit of "social and political justice" through "redistribution of the wealth," is enough to send a shiver down the spine of those who embrace the free market as the key to economic growth.

The audacity of Obama's injection of a social democratic concept borrowed from Western Europe into American politics is stunning. And almost half the voters seem to be buying it.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Yup. McCain will win in a landslide. BHO will be lucky to get DC's 3 electoral votes


----------



## redbellyman21 (Jun 27, 2004)

If you want to talk about a dirty, evil politician, you should look no further than John 2 Face McCain and his dumb nurse Palin. This is a beautiful article on the life of John. He was a rat when POW, he ran against Bush as a direct opposite in policies and beliefs that he brags about today. For all the people who are scared that redistro of wealth is a bad thing, that is a scare tactic, wealth is always redistroed just typically to the super rich. The bottom line is, both parties have bad choices, but a vote for John McCain is a definate vote for Bush and his ideals. How can you be a "maverick", when you tote the party line 94% of the time. Obama is so the lessor evil, and just like south park referenced in 2004, the vote will always be between a giant dousche and a turd sandwhich. Lol Just remember the entire government is corrupt, and more republican deregulation on America will kill this economy. They have sent more jobs and more corporations to other countries, and than give them tax breaks as a thank you. Americans need to drop thsi party system as it stands now, or at the very least fire everyone and start over, and take every lobbyist and throw them in a fiery pit.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

you better vote man. you're from philli.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

redbellyman21 said:


> If you want to talk about a dirty, evil politician, you should look no further than John 2 Face McCain and his dumb nurse Palin. This is a beautiful article on the life of John. He was a rat when POW, he ran against Bush as a direct opposite in policies and beliefs that he brags about today. For all the people who are scared that redistro of wealth is a bad thing, that is a scare tactic, wealth is always redistroed just typically to the super rich. The bottom line is, both parties have bad choices, but a vote for John McCain is a definate vote for Bush and his ideals. How can you be a "maverick", when you tote the party line 94% of the time. Obama is so the lessor evil, and just like south park referenced in 2004, the vote will always be between a giant dousche and a turd sandwhich. *Lol Just remember the entire government is corrupt, and more republican deregulation on America will kill this economy. They have sent more jobs and more corporations to other countries, and than give them tax breaks as a thank y*ou. Americans need to drop thsi party system as it stands now, or at the very least fire everyone and start over, and take every lobbyist and throw them in a fiery pit.










Word

btw, for anyone that thinks that McCain is going to win, buy his stock on intrade.com today and you will make 7 times as much as you put in if he does


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

Jewelz said:


> If you want to talk about a dirty, evil politician, you should look no further than John 2 Face McCain and his dumb nurse Palin. This is a beautiful article on the life of John. He was a rat when POW, he ran against Bush as a direct opposite in policies and beliefs that he brags about today. For all the people who are scared that redistro of wealth is a bad thing, that is a scare tactic, wealth is always redistroed just typically to the super rich. The bottom line is, both parties have bad choices, but a vote for John McCain is a definate vote for Bush and his ideals. How can you be a "maverick", when you tote the party line 94% of the time. Obama is so the lessor evil, and just like south park referenced in 2004, the vote will always be between a giant dousche and a turd sandwhich. *Lol Just remember the entire government is corrupt, and more republican deregulation on America will kill this economy. They have sent more jobs and more corporations to other countries, and than give them tax breaks as a thank y*ou. Americans need to drop thsi party system as it stands now, or at the very least fire everyone and start over, and take every lobbyist and throw them in a fiery pit.










Word

btw, for anyone that thinks that McCain is going to win, buy his stock on intrade.com today and you will make 7 times as much as you put in if he does
[/quote]

dude i already got 50 on it. haha. f*ck that, if i go down, at least im gonna get some relief. lol.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

r1dermon said:


> If you want to talk about a dirty, evil politician, you should look no further than John 2 Face McCain and his dumb nurse Palin. This is a beautiful article on the life of John. He was a rat when POW, he ran against Bush as a direct opposite in policies and beliefs that he brags about today. For all the people who are scared that redistro of wealth is a bad thing, that is a scare tactic, wealth is always redistroed just typically to the super rich. The bottom line is, both parties have bad choices, but a vote for John McCain is a definate vote for Bush and his ideals. How can you be a "maverick", when you tote the party line 94% of the time. Obama is so the lessor evil, and just like south park referenced in 2004, the vote will always be between a giant dousche and a turd sandwhich. *Lol Just remember the entire government is corrupt, and more republican deregulation on America will kill this economy. They have sent more jobs and more corporations to other countries, and than give them tax breaks as a thank y*ou. Americans need to drop thsi party system as it stands now, or at the very least fire everyone and start over, and take every lobbyist and throw them in a fiery pit.










Word

btw, for anyone that thinks that McCain is going to win, buy his stock on intrade.com today and you will make 7 times as much as you put in if he does
[/quote]

dude i already got 50 on it. haha. f*ck that, if i go down, at least im gonna get some relief. lol.
[/quote]

And I got $50 on Joe the fake plumber having to look for a real plumbing job on Nov. 5th


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

redbellyman21 said:


> If you want to talk about a dirty, evil politician, you should look no further than John 2 Face McCain and his dumb nurse Palin. This is a beautiful article on the life of John. He was a rat when POW, he ran against Bush as a direct opposite in policies and beliefs that he brags about today. *you honestly linked an article from rolling stone? oh good God man. if you honestly think that rolling stone is telling you the entire and objective truth then you really need to read some ... um news rather than editorials.* For all the people who are scared that redistro of wealth is a bad thing, that is a scare tactic, wealth is always redistroed just typically to the super rich. *wealth is redistributed to the rich? so the rich are paying the government to redistribute our wealth back to them? if that were the case what's the government need the rich for?* The bottom line is, both parties have bad choices, but a vote for John McCain is a definate vote for Bush and his ideals. How can you be a "maverick", when you tote the party line 94% of the time. *what percentage of the time did obma vote down his party line?* Obama is so the lessor evil, and just like south park referenced in 2004, the vote will always be between a giant dousche and a turd sandwhich.* only as long as people continue to vote for the "lessor" of two evils.* Lol Just remember the entire government is corrupt, and more republican deregulation on America will kill this economy. *yup the government is corrupt. so make sure they keep an eye on those private sector crooks. *They have sent more jobs and more corporations to other countries, and than give them tax breaks as a thank you. *they have send jobs overseas. after our people started demanding we not put that factory there because of the "environment" whatever that was supposed to mean. and all the other "progressive" measures we allowed the government to saddle onto american industry. strangest thing, though. when you force businesses to abide by insane laws that raise costs, they pass those costs on to the consumer. now since the consumer buys foreign goods, the "domestic" company has to outsource or die. now who's fault is it. the americans who "sent those jobs and more corporations overseas" or those who bought from companies overseas after the domestic companies did what the law required?* Americans need to drop thsi party system as it stands now, or at the very least fire everyone and start over, and take every lobbyist and throw them in a fiery pit.


----------



## redbellyman21 (Jun 27, 2004)

So after all the brilliant one liners and responses, so whats ur point? AM I that far off? Wouldnt you agree that our economy is crap? and wouldnt you admit that bush, although not directly responsible for causing our economy issues he was the reigning president and really has done nothing to fix. Camp David will not help him now. So again, my point of my rants where simple. We need change one way or another or we will fall hard.


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

Jewelz said:


> If you want to talk about a dirty, evil politician, you should look no further than John 2 Face McCain and his dumb nurse Palin. This is a beautiful article on the life of John. He was a rat when POW, he ran against Bush as a direct opposite in policies and beliefs that he brags about today. For all the people who are scared that redistro of wealth is a bad thing, that is a scare tactic, wealth is always redistroed just typically to the super rich. The bottom line is, both parties have bad choices, but a vote for John McCain is a definate vote for Bush and his ideals. How can you be a "maverick", when you tote the party line 94% of the time. Obama is so the lessor evil, and just like south park referenced in 2004, the vote will always be between a giant dousche and a turd sandwhich. *Lol Just remember the entire government is corrupt, and more republican deregulation on America will kill this economy. They have sent more jobs and more corporations to other countries, and than give them tax breaks as a thank y*ou. Americans need to drop thsi party system as it stands now, or at the very least fire everyone and start over, and take every lobbyist and throw them in a fiery pit.










Word

btw, for anyone that thinks that McCain is going to win, buy his stock on intrade.com today and you will make 7 times as much as you put in if he does
[/quote]

dude i already got 50 on it. haha. f*ck that, if i go down, at least im gonna get some relief. lol.
[/quote]

And I got $50 on Joe the fake plumber having to look for a real plumbing job on Nov. 5th
[/quote]

that's f*cking funny


----------



## mdmedicine (Dec 20, 2004)

redbellyman21 said:


> So after all the brilliant one liners and responses, so whats ur point? AM I that far off? Wouldnt you agree that our economy is crap? and wouldnt you admit that bush, although not directly responsible for causing our economy issues he was the reigning president and really has done nothing to fix. Camp David will not help him now. So again, my point of my rants where simple. We need change one way or another or we will fall hard.


Sticking a screw driver into your left eye ball and then pushing it deeper into your cranium represents change but is change you will enjoy or change you can believe in? Or is it just change for the sake of change?


----------



## maknwar (Jul 16, 2007)

I want a good change, not a bad change. So a change just to have a change is a bad idea.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

mdmedicine said:


> So after all the brilliant one liners and responses, so whats ur point? AM I that far off? Wouldnt you agree that our economy is crap? and wouldnt you admit that bush, although not directly responsible for causing our economy issues he was the reigning president and really has done nothing to fix. Camp David will not help him now. So again, my point of my rants where simple. We need change one way or another or we will fall hard.


Sticking a screw driver into your left eye ball and then pushing it deeper into your cranium represents change but is change you will enjoy or change you can believe in? Or is it just change for the sake of change?
[/quote]

exactly why obama is the better choice. we've stuck a screwdriver into our left eyeball, and if we vote mccain, we'll drive it deeper.


----------



## mdmedicine (Dec 20, 2004)

r1dermon said:


> So after all the brilliant one liners and responses, so whats ur point? AM I that far off? Wouldnt you agree that our economy is crap? and wouldnt you admit that bush, although not directly responsible for causing our economy issues he was the reigning president and really has done nothing to fix. Camp David will not help him now. So again, my point of my rants where simple. We need change one way or another or we will fall hard.


Sticking a screw driver into your left eye ball and then pushing it deeper into your cranium represents change but is change you will enjoy or change you can believe in? Or is it just change for the sake of change?
[/quote]

exactly why obama is the better choice. we've stuck a screwdriver into our left eyeball, and if we vote mccain, we'll drive it deeper.
[/quote]

I cant believe so many people are so enamored with the possibility of change that they are willing to vote for an unabashed Marxist.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

lmao, i can't believe so many of you are so brainwashed that you will repeat anything you hear on the radio...i heard "marxist" on the radio 2 days before i saw you partisan fellows posting all about it. give it a rest man, i suggest you pick up a book called the communist manifesto, read it, and then explain to me what marxism really is. and not only that, progressive taxation? this was supported by bush, mccain, all your super hero conservative friends. so that point you're trying to make, makes you look stupid in return. good job.


----------



## redbellyman21 (Jun 27, 2004)

r1dermon said:


> lmao, i can't believe so many of you are so brainwashed that you will repeat anything you hear on the radio...i heard "marxist" on the radio 2 days before i saw you partisan fellows posting all about it. give it a rest man, i suggest you pick up a book called the communist manifesto, read it, and then explain to me what marxism really is. and not only that, progressive taxation? this was supported by bush, mccain, all your super hero conservative friends. so that point you're trying to make, makes you look stupid in return. good job.


yay! I like the reference to screwing your cranium... good news tho guys. I ahve a place in vancouver for all of us, if mccain wins!


----------



## mdmedicine (Dec 20, 2004)

r1dermon said:


> lmao, i can't believe so many of you are so brainwashed that you will repeat anything you hear on the radio...i heard "marxist" on the radio 2 days before i saw you partisan fellows posting all about it. give it a rest man, i suggest you pick up a book called the communist manifesto, read it, and then explain to me what marxism really is. and not only that, progressive taxation? this was supported by bush, mccain, all your super hero conservative friends. so that point you're trying to make, makes you look stupid in return. good job.


Don't you think you should stick to retelling stories about your experiences with Obama's c*ck?


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

New rule: stop saying that Sara Palin looks like that lady from SNL. Sara Palin looks like that lady from King Of The Hill


----------



## Avatar~God (Oct 21, 2004)

Jewelz said:


> New rule: stop saying that Sara Palin looks like that lady from SNL. Sara Palin looks like that lady from King Of The Hill


Hahha, funny stuff.


----------



## Dawgz (Aug 18, 2005)

Avatar~God said:


> New rule: stop saying that Sara Palin looks like that lady from SNL. Sara Palin looks like that lady from King Of The Hill












Hahha, funny stuff.
[/quote]

not really, there is no comparison there at all, unless ur racist...which i already know u are...

its okay, dont post back saying ur not.


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

Dawgz said:


> New rule: stop saying that Sara Palin looks like that lady from SNL. Sara Palin looks like that lady from King Of The Hill












Hahha, funny stuff.
[/quote]

not really, there is no comparison there at all, unless ur racist...which i already know u are...

its okay, dont post back saying ur not.
[/quote]










just because he said he looks like curious george doesn't mean he's calling him a monkey....lol...probably is, but whatever.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

/\/\

i don't care about this thread i just love that pic. oh Lord, sharpton should be on it too, though.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

can someone give me a legitimate argument FOR mccain without mentioning palin, obama, biden, or anything OTHER than mccain?


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

r1dermon said:


> can someone give me a legitimate argument FOR mccain without mentioning palin, obama, biden, or anything OTHER than mccain?


are we allowed to mention experience and socialist tax theories? Or is that talking about obama? I've always thought McCain was a good guy. He's given his life to the country, being a POW and passing up his chance to be released shows me his great moral "fiber". He's pissed off his own party more than any other republican, which I find admirable. Posting all of this is just giving you an open season to pick it apart, but whatever.

the sad thing is it's come to where everyone doesn't vote for who they like, they just don't vote for who they don't like. How many people said that in the last election?


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Don't you hate it when your campaign is drowning and your fake plumber forgets to show up ?



> (CNN) - Joe Wurzelbacher, aka Joe the Plumber, has become an integral part of John McCain's presidential bid, but it appears the Arizona senator's campaign and the now-famous Toledo plumber need to work on their communication skills.
> 
> McCain aides told CNN's Dana Bash Wurzelbacher would appear with the Republican presidential candidate at his first campaign event in Defiance, Ohio. But in what was a slightly awkward moment for McCain, Wurzelbacher was nowhere to be seen when the Arizona senator called out for him.
> 
> A campaign aide later said Wurzelbacher had "decided not to come" and may join McCain later in the day.


Uh huh... what is he so busy doing ? It's not like he has a job or anything...


----------



## PELIGROSO PYGO (Aug 27, 2008)

If Obama does win the election, are McCain supporters going to accept it or be ignorant and still complain about how hes muslim, the devil in disguise, and hes a terrorist? and i also didn't realize it was ok to post pics that some ppl may find offensive.. (Obama- Curious George) in that case next time i should post one of a fat red neck eating bacon with a jar of mayo next to him..


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

PELIGROSO PYGO said:


> If Obama does win the election, are McCain supporters going to accept it or be ignorant and still complain about how hes muslim, the devil in disguise, and hes a terrorist? and i also didn't realize it was ok to post pics that some ppl may find offensive.. (Obama- Curious George) in that case next time i should post one of a fat red neck eating bacon with a jar of mayo next to him..


may find offensive? MAY find offensive? are you serious? or should i not have said that because you may have found it offensive? if a random pic of obama next to a cartoon of curious george sets you off...


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

That pic's not offensive.. it's all in good fun.

I always thought former NBA star Patrick Ewing looked like an ape, I don't think it's racist just cause he happens to be black


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

i'm a huge arnold fan. the good non-pot smoking arnold, that is. but i don't sweat jewelz for shitting on my childhood hero do i?


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

mdrs said:


> i'm a huge arnold fan. *the good non-pot smoking arnold, that is*. but i don't sweat jewelz for shitting on my childhood hero do i?


Are you also a fan of the good non-steroid taking Arnold ?









btw, I hope that was a joke (with you I never can tell), as I am a big Ahh-nold fan myself, hence the avatar. I have the Pumping Iron DVD where this scene is from.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Jewelz said:


> i'm a huge arnold fan. *the good non-pot smoking arnold, that is*. but i don't sweat jewelz for shitting on my childhood hero do i?


Are you also a fan of the good non-steroid taking Arnold ?:laugh:

btw, I hope that was a joke (with you I never can tell), as I am a big Ahh-nold fan myself, hence the avatar. I have the Pumping Iron DVD where this scene is from.
[/quote]

steroid taking arnold? he took steroids? sh*t, now tell me there isn't a santa claus.

nah i was kidding. in person, you'd have a hard time telling as well.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Yeah I figured you were, but wasn't sure - this is when smileys are useful


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

Boobah said:


> can someone give me a legitimate argument FOR mccain without mentioning palin, obama, biden, or anything OTHER than mccain?


are we allowed to mention experience and socialist tax theories? Or is that talking about obama? I've always thought McCain was a good guy. He's given his life to the country, being a POW and passing up his chance to be released shows me his great moral "fiber". * He's pissed off his own party more than any other republican, which I find admirable.* Posting all of this is just giving you an open season to pick it apart, but whatever.

the sad thing is it's come to where everyone doesn't vote for who they like, they just don't vote for who they don't like. How many people said that in the last election?
[/quote]

WRONG, george W bush pissed off his party more than anyone.

and pissing off your party does not mean you vote against them, as mccain has clearly shown.


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

r1dermon said:


> can someone give me a legitimate argument FOR mccain without mentioning palin, obama, biden, or anything OTHER than mccain?


are we allowed to mention experience and socialist tax theories? Or is that talking about obama? I've always thought McCain was a good guy. He's given his life to the country, being a POW and passing up his chance to be released shows me his great moral "fiber". * He's pissed off his own party more than any other republican, which I find admirable.* Posting all of this is just giving you an open season to pick it apart, but whatever.

the sad thing is it's come to where everyone doesn't vote for who they like, they just don't vote for who they don't like. How many people said that in the last election?
[/quote]

WRONG, george W bush pissed off his party more than anyone.

and pissing off your party does not mean you vote against them, as mccain has clearly shown.
[/quote]









you really need to work on your reading comprehension skills... i'm telling you www.hookedonphonics.com

I'm talking about how the big pundits like limbaugh completely despise him b/c he's a little more liberal than him. I didn't mention voting record b/c i knew you would start regurgitating statistics about how many times he's voted party lines.

How about you? why do you have such a man-crush on Obama?


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

that's funny, i present facts, and you say something about gayness...you really need to have your heterosexuality checked.

hookedonphonics? did it work for you? is that a referral?


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

r1dermon said:


> that's funny, i present facts, and you say something about gayness...you really need to have your heterosexuality checked.
> 
> hookedonphonics? did it work for you? is that a referral?





> WRONG, george W bush pissed off his party more than anyone.
> 
> and pissing off your party does not mean you vote against them, as mccain has clearly shown.


please point to one of those great facts you presented in that comment that has anything to do with what i said. Not a referral, i'm just trying to help you out because it seems like you really don't read anything; you just hit reply and start typing.

heterosexuality checked? why? is being gay a disease?


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

he pissed off his party more than any other republican is not true, therefore, even if i said "no" it's still a fact, that you're incorrect. there is no other person on gods green earth that republicans have turned on (as a fellow republican) than george bush. nobody. period. that's why the mccain camp is distancing itself from bush, though it's really hard to do when you vote with the guy almost 100% of the time...

ok fine, it's WAY lower than that, 90%....my bad. just gotta get the facts right.


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

r1dermon said:


> he pissed off his party more than any other republican is not true, therefore, even if i said "no" it's still a fact, that you're incorrect. there is no other person on gods green earth that republicans have turned on (as a fellow republican) than george bush. nobody. period. that's why the mccain camp is distancing itself from bush, though it's really hard to do when you vote with the guy almost 100% of the time...
> 
> ok fine, it's WAY lower than that, 90%....my bad. just gotta get the facts right.


okay..other than G-dub, whom EVERYONE hates including republicans. You got me there katie couric.

you pulled up the stereotypical response to the party line thing, so i'll whip mine out...The McCain-Feingold, McCain-Lieberman and McCain-Kennedy bills. working with democrats


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

ok that's 3...

what i find fascinating is that all these people are yelling "oh noes, imagine if the dems controlled everything", yet they support a candidate who has been working with the people they're afraid of...hmm...

so either he hasn't been working with them that much, in which case, he hasn't really veered across party lines like he says he has, OOOORRRR, he HAS been working with them a lot, in which case, what's the big deal?


----------



## Aaronic (Apr 22, 2005)

Jewelz said:


> Yup. McCain will win in a landslide. BHO will be lucky to get DC's 3 electoral votes


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

r1dermon said:


> ok that's 3...
> 
> what i find fascinating is that all these people are yelling "oh noes, imagine if the dems controlled everything", yet they support a candidate who has been working with the people they're afraid of...hmm...
> 
> so either he hasn't been working with them that much, in which case, he hasn't really veered across party lines like he says he has, OOOORRRR, he HAS been working with them a lot, in which case, what's the big deal?


you asked me why i like him, i told you. He's not afraid to piss off his own party. I listed 3 bills that he co-sponsored with democrats. You still haven't told me why you like Obama so much.


----------



## Avatar~God (Oct 21, 2004)

Dawgz said:


> New rule: stop saying that Sara Palin looks like that lady from SNL. Sara Palin looks like that lady from King Of The Hill












Hahha, funny stuff.
[/quote]

not really, there is no comparison there at all, unless ur racist...which i already know u are...

its okay, dont post back saying ur not.
[/quote]

Bahhaa, I'm not even joking when i say i didnt put the whole "************" joke along with him looking like curious George...... lmfao, ahha, i got that off some random site I was searching through. Like jewels said its all in good fun.

How do you figure I'm a racist? sh*t, you can call me a racist because of the fact that I hate little gansters that walk around acting hard and find it in their best interest to go out of there way to make someone else feel less superior to them with their ass hanging out and you cant understand a damn word they are saying because they are "hood". But, that goes for blacks, whites, arabs pretty much any f****t who thinks they are "baller" growing up nowhere close to "the ghetto". I've been in two fights with these types of people, deffinitly wasnt as hard as they made them selfs out to be haha

So yes, I am racist against "hood rate wanna be's" and that goes for all races... Not sure if you can call that a racist though

I grew up with plenty of black friends along with other races

Are you a democrat trying to play the race card on me, im sorry.


----------



## Avatar~God (Oct 21, 2004)

PELIGROSO PYGO said:


> If Obama does win the election, are McCain supporters going to accept it or be ignorant and still complain about how hes muslim, the devil in disguise, and hes a terrorist? and i also didn't realize it was ok to post pics that some ppl may find offensive.. (Obama- Curious George) in that case next time i should post one of a fat red neck eating bacon with a jar of mayo next to him..


why do you even care about this election your Canadian

Also the whole race thing is a sad excuse for democrats. If McCain wins you will hear "Americans are Racist" from the same people that live here.

Get the hell over it, that is one of the main arguements when I talk to dems in person.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

^^

Funny because the main thing I hear from Republicans is the new proverbial race card card.. "You're calling me racist !!!"

Methinks you posted the pic as bait because you knew someone would accuse of racism so you could go on a rant


----------



## Avatar~God (Oct 21, 2004)

Jewelz said:


> ^^
> 
> Funny because the main thing I hear from Republicans is the new proverbial race card card.. "You're calling me racist !!!"
> 
> *Methinks you posted the pic as bait because you knew someone would accuse of racism so you could go on a rant*


Hahaha, I didnt but now i know how stir things up a little bit in case things are getting a little lame







just post a picture of a monkey randomly or a picture of a "fat red neck with chicken" haha


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

redbellyman21 said:


> So after all the brilliant one liners and responses, so whats ur point? AM I that far off? Wouldnt you agree that our economy is crap? and wouldnt you admit that bush,*although not directly responsible for causing our economy issues * he was the reigning president and really has done nothing to fix. Camp David will not help him now. So again, my point of my rants where simple. We need change one way or another or we will fall hard.


Do you have any clue what a free market means?

Anyways, there are ups and downs in markets. You all want to think the end days are near, not the case at all... I know your hoping for it tho.

* We need change *










Ive heard this somewhere before. Change we can believe in maybe?


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

PELIGROSO PYGO said:


> *If Obama does win the election, are McCain supporters going to accept it or be ignorant and still complain *about how hes muslim, the devil in disguise, and hes a terrorist? and i also didn't realize it was ok to post pics that some ppl may find offensive.. (Obama- Curious George) in that case next time i should post one of a fat red neck eating bacon with a jar of mayo next to him..


Naw... were gonna sit back and look at you Osama supporters and say " told ya so..."


----------



## PELIGROSO PYGO (Aug 27, 2008)

Avatar~God said:


> If Obama does win the election, are McCain supporters going to accept it or be ignorant and still complain about how hes muslim, the devil in disguise, and hes a terrorist? and i also didn't realize it was ok to post pics that some ppl may find offensive.. (Obama- Curious George) in that case next time i should post one of a fat red neck eating bacon with a jar of mayo next to him..


why do you even care about this election your Canadian

Also the whole race thing is a sad excuse for democrats. If McCain wins you will hear "Americans are Racist" from the same people that live here.

Get the hell over it, that is one of the main arguements when I talk to dems in person.
[/quote]

WHY DOES IT MATTER TO ME!!! YOU ACTUALLY ASKED ME WHY DOES IT MATTER TO ME!! so what if i'm canadian don't you realize that America has a big effect on this planet.. it does matter to me because in a way it still affects us.. and our economy, doesn't matter if your not "American", stupid remarks like that annoy me.. why do you think the whole world is watching you guys? You can argue with me or not but The President of the United States has a big influence on our planet, that goes especially for your neighbours...


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

PELIGROSO PYGO said:


> If Obama does win the election, are McCain supporters going to accept it or be ignorant and still complain about how hes muslim, the devil in disguise, and hes a terrorist? and i also didn't realize it was ok to post pics that some ppl may find offensive.. (Obama- Curious George) in that case next time i should post one of a fat red neck eating bacon with a jar of mayo next to him..


why do you even care about this election your Canadian

Also the whole race thing is a sad excuse for democrats. If McCain wins you will hear "Americans are Racist" from the same people that live here.

Get the hell over it, that is one of the main arguements when I talk to dems in person.
[/quote]

WHY DOES IT MATTER TO ME!!! YOU ACTUALLY ASKED ME WHY DOES IT MATTER TO ME!! so what if i'm canadian don't you realize that America has a big effect on this planet.. it does matter to me because in a way it still affects us.. and our economy, doesn't matter if your not "American", stupid remarks like that annoy me.. why do you think the whole world is watching you guys? You can argue with me or not but The President of the United States has a big influence on our planet, that goes especially for your neighbours...
[/quote]

yeah...but why does it matter to you? you're canadien


----------



## PELIGROSO PYGO (Aug 27, 2008)

Boobah said:


> If Obama does win the election, are McCain supporters going to accept it or be ignorant and still complain about how hes muslim, the devil in disguise, and hes a terrorist? and i also didn't realize it was ok to post pics that some ppl may find offensive.. (Obama- Curious George) in that case next time i should post one of a fat red neck eating bacon with a jar of mayo next to him..


why do you even care about this election your Canadian

Also the whole race thing is a sad excuse for democrats. If McCain wins you will hear "Americans are Racist" from the same people that live here.

Get the hell over it, that is one of the main arguements when I talk to dems in person.
[/quote]

WHY DOES IT MATTER TO ME!!! YOU ACTUALLY ASKED ME WHY DOES IT MATTER TO ME!! so what if i'm canadian don't you realize that America has a big effect on this planet.. it does matter to me because in a way it still affects us.. and our economy, doesn't matter if your not "American", stupid remarks like that annoy me.. why do you think the whole world is watching you guys? You can argue with me or not but The President of the United States has a big influence on our planet, that goes especially for your neighbours...
[/quote]

yeah...but why does it matter to you? you're canadien









[/quote]

actually you got that wrong, i wasn't born in canada.. the first 2 years of my life i spent in Ft. Lauderdale FLORIDA!! YES FLORIDA.. SO THAT MAKES ME A WHAT?? A AMERICAN.. i consider myself a canadian now because i spent most of my life here which makes sense don't you think..


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

PELIGROSO PYGO said:


> If Obama does win the election, are McCain supporters going to accept it or be ignorant and still complain about how hes muslim, the devil in disguise, and hes a terrorist? and i also didn't realize it was ok to post pics that some ppl may find offensive.. (Obama- Curious George) in that case next time i should post one of a fat red neck eating bacon with a jar of mayo next to him..


why do you even care about this election your Canadian

Also the whole race thing is a sad excuse for democrats. If McCain wins you will hear "Americans are Racist" from the same people that live here.

Get the hell over it, that is one of the main arguements when I talk to dems in person.
[/quote]

WHY DOES IT MATTER TO ME!!! YOU ACTUALLY ASKED ME WHY DOES IT MATTER TO ME!! so what if i'm canadian don't you realize that America has a big effect on this planet.. it does matter to me because in a way it still affects us.. and our economy, doesn't matter if your not "American", stupid remarks like that annoy me.. why do you think the whole world is watching you guys? You can argue with me or not but The President of the United States has a big influence on our planet, that goes especially for your neighbours...
[/quote]

yeah...but why does it matter to you? you're canadien









[/quote]

actually you got that wrong, i wasn't born in canada.. the first 2 years of my life i spent in Ft. Lauderdale FLORIDA!! YES FLORIDA.. SO THAT MAKES ME A WHAT?? A AMERICAN.. i consider myself a canadian now because i spent most of my life here which makes sense don't you think..
[/quote]

yeah...but why does it matter to you? you're canadien


----------



## Wide_Eyed_Wanderer (Aug 22, 2006)

OBAMA was STOLEN from Africa BROUGHT to America!


----------



## PELIGROSO PYGO (Aug 27, 2008)

Boobah said:


> If Obama does win the election, are McCain supporters going to accept it or be ignorant and still complain about how hes muslim, the devil in disguise, and hes a terrorist? and i also didn't realize it was ok to post pics that some ppl may find offensive.. (Obama- Curious George) in that case next time i should post one of a fat red neck eating bacon with a jar of mayo next to him..


why do you even care about this election your Canadian

Also the whole race thing is a sad excuse for democrats. If McCain wins you will hear "Americans are Racist" from the same people that live here.

Get the hell over it, that is one of the main arguements when I talk to dems in person.
[/quote]

WHY DOES IT MATTER TO ME!!! YOU ACTUALLY ASKED ME WHY DOES IT MATTER TO ME!! so what if i'm canadian don't you realize that America has a big effect on this planet.. it does matter to me because in a way it still affects us.. and our economy, doesn't matter if your not "American", stupid remarks like that annoy me.. why do you think the whole world is watching you guys? You can argue with me or not but The President of the United States has a big influence on our planet, that goes especially for your neighbours...
[/quote]

yeah...but why does it matter to you? you're canadien









[/quote]

actually you got that wrong, i wasn't born in canada.. the first 2 years of my life i spent in Ft. Lauderdale FLORIDA!! YES FLORIDA.. SO THAT MAKES ME A WHAT?? A AMERICAN.. i consider myself a canadian now because i spent most of my life here which makes sense don't you think..
[/quote]

yeah...but why does it matter to you? you're canadien
[/quote]

what a ball breaker


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

PELIGROSO PYGO said:


> If Obama does win the election, are McCain supporters going to accept it or be ignorant and still complain about how hes muslim, the devil in disguise, and hes a terrorist? and i also didn't realize it was ok to post pics that some ppl may find offensive.. (Obama- Curious George) in that case next time i should post one of a fat red neck eating bacon with a jar of mayo next to him..


why do you even care about this election your Canadian

Also the whole race thing is a sad excuse for democrats. If McCain wins you will hear "Americans are Racist" from the same people that live here.

Get the hell over it, that is one of the main arguements when I talk to dems in person.
[/quote]

WHY DOES IT MATTER TO ME!!! YOU ACTUALLY ASKED ME WHY DOES IT MATTER TO ME!! so what if i'm canadian don't you realize that America has a big effect on this planet.. it does matter to me because in a way it still affects us.. and our economy, doesn't matter if your not "American", stupid remarks like that annoy me.. why do you think the whole world is watching you guys? You can argue with me or not but The President of the United States has a big influence on our planet, that goes especially for your neighbours...
[/quote]

yeah...but why does it matter to you? you're canadien









[/quote]

actually you got that wrong, i wasn't born in canada.. the first 2 years of my life i spent in Ft. Lauderdale FLORIDA!! YES FLORIDA.. SO THAT MAKES ME A WHAT?? A AMERICAN.. i consider myself a canadian now because i spent most of my life here which makes sense don't you think..
[/quote]

yeah...but why does it matter to you? you're canadien
[/quote]

what a ball breaker
[/quote]

lol sorry man


----------



## PELIGROSO PYGO (Aug 27, 2008)

Boobah said:


> If Obama does win the election, are McCain supporters going to accept it or be ignorant and still complain about how hes muslim, the devil in disguise, and hes a terrorist? and i also didn't realize it was ok to post pics that some ppl may find offensive.. (Obama- Curious George) in that case next time i should post one of a fat red neck eating bacon with a jar of mayo next to him..


why do you even care about this election your Canadian

Also the whole race thing is a sad excuse for democrats. If McCain wins you will hear "Americans are Racist" from the same people that live here.

Get the hell over it, that is one of the main arguements when I talk to dems in person.
[/quote]

WHY DOES IT MATTER TO ME!!! YOU ACTUALLY ASKED ME WHY DOES IT MATTER TO ME!! so what if i'm canadian don't you realize that America has a big effect on this planet.. it does matter to me because in a way it still affects us.. and our economy, doesn't matter if your not "American", stupid remarks like that annoy me.. why do you think the whole world is watching you guys? You can argue with me or not but The President of the United States has a big influence on our planet, that goes especially for your neighbours...
[/quote]

yeah...but why does it matter to you? you're canadien









[/quote]

actually you got that wrong, i wasn't born in canada.. the first 2 years of my life i spent in Ft. Lauderdale FLORIDA!! YES FLORIDA.. SO THAT MAKES ME A WHAT?? A AMERICAN.. i consider myself a canadian now because i spent most of my life here which makes sense don't you think..
[/quote]

yeah...but why does it matter to you? you're canadien
[/quote]

what a ball breaker
[/quote]

lol sorry man
[/quote]

its all good bro lol


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

Avatar~God said:


> If Obama does win the election, are McCain supporters going to accept it or be ignorant and still complain about how hes muslim, the devil in disguise, and hes a terrorist? and i also didn't realize it was ok to post pics that some ppl may find offensive.. (Obama- Curious George) in that case next time i should post one of a fat red neck eating bacon with a jar of mayo next to him..


why do you even care about this election your Canadian

Also the whole race thing is a sad excuse for democrats. If McCain wins you will hear "Americans are Racist" from the same people that live here.

Get the hell over it, that is one of the main arguements when I talk to dems in person.
[/quote]

wtf? what dems do you talk to? the only place i hear talking about the race card is talk radio, like they want someone to bite so they can make a huge issue about it.

to those concerned, here is why i support obama.

the number 1 reason i support obama is because he represents a kind of change the USA has never seen in my opinion. not just because he's black (although, that is part of it), but because he represents what young people are fighting for these days. most people my age are attracted to obamas policies.

obamas healthcare policy is a lot better than mccains, lets just put that out there...and im done debating, i've come to my conclusions, and that's it. you can believe that 5000 dollars is going to help you out immensely, but i dont.

obamas stance on guns is not radical like hillary's...which is why i would've voted for mccain if hillary got the nod from the DNC.

obama supports redirecting troops from a really useless conflict in iraq, to a more productive one in afghanistan.

obamas tax policy is a lot better than mccains, despite what right wingers will tell you. he provides tax cuts for middle class, the people saying "spread the wealth around" are making 250k a year or more. this is the problem, i saw on cnbc the other day that nearly half the bailout money is going to be paid in salary. bonuses, raises...etc. for these CEO's to run their companies into the ground...i say tax them 100%, that's f*cking bullshit, that's our money.

and there IS a class structure in this country. people in the top 10% get more out of the government than people in the bottom 90%. they get special treatment. they should pay more taxes, period.

anyway, that's my stance with obama on the MAJOR issues. do not try and argue with me, i will not reply. just tell me how you differ. without using the word socialist, marxist, lunatic, extremist, or all those other words i hear so much in todays media.


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

r1dermon said:


> If Obama does win the election, are McCain supporters going to accept it or be ignorant and still complain about how hes muslim, the devil in disguise, and hes a terrorist? and i also didn't realize it was ok to post pics that some ppl may find offensive.. (Obama- Curious George) in that case next time i should post one of a fat red neck eating bacon with a jar of mayo next to him..


why do you even care about this election your Canadian

Also the whole race thing is a sad excuse for democrats. If McCain wins you will hear "Americans are Racist" from the same people that live here.

Get the hell over it, that is one of the main arguements when I talk to dems in person.
[/quote]

wtf? what dems do you talk to? the only place i hear talking about the race card is talk radio, like they want someone to bite so they can make a huge issue about it.

to those concerned, here is why i support obama.

the number 1 reason i support obama is because he represents a kind of change the USA has never seen in my opinion. not just because he's black (although, that is part of it), but because he represents what young people are fighting for these days. most people my age are attracted to obamas policies.

obamas healthcare policy is a lot better than mccains, lets just put that out there...and im done debating, i've come to my conclusions, and that's it. you can believe that 5000 dollars is going to help you out immensely, but i dont.

obamas stance on guns is not radical like hillary's...which is why i would've voted for mccain if hillary got the nod from the DNC.

obama supports redirecting troops from a really useless conflict in iraq, to a more productive one in afghanistan.

obamas tax policy is a lot better than mccains, despite what right wingers will tell you. he provides tax cuts for middle class, the people saying "spread the wealth around" are making 250k a year or more. this is the problem, i saw on cnbc the other day that nearly half the bailout money is going to be paid in salary. bonuses, raises...etc. for these CEO's to run their companies into the ground...i say tax them 100%, that's f*cking bullshit, that's our money.

and there IS a class structure in this country. people in the top 10% get more out of the government than people in the bottom 90%. they get special treatment. they should pay more taxes, period.

anyway, that's my stance with obama on the MAJOR issues. do not try and argue with me, i will not reply. just tell me how you differ. without using the word socialist, marxist, lunatic, extremist, or all those other words i hear so much in todays media.
[/quote]

1. Osama has publicly said he is in favor of reenacting the AWB. 
He has publicly stated he is against citizens carrying weapons.

2. He has publicly stated he will allow the bush tax cuts to expire... INCREASING taxes.

Whenever I ask someone why they are voting for Osama and the word "change" comes up, i end the convo and move on.

PLEASE in the future if you wish to talk about the Messiah, do not mention change....

Race card? One word... Steele

as in the former lt Governor from MD. He is a republican so it was justified... right?


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

when Obama ran for the Illinois state senate the political group, Independent Voters of Illinois (IVI), asked him if he supported a â€œban [on] the manufacture, sale and possession of handgunsâ€ and he responded â€œyes.â€

another questionnaire administered by IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test didnâ€™t ask about banning all handguns, but it did find that Obama wanted to â€œban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.â€

In addition, from 1998 to 2001, Obama was on the board of directors for the Joyce Foundation, which funded such anti-gun groups as the Violence Policy Center, the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, and Handgun Free America. Both the Violence Policy Center and Handgun Free America, as its name suggests, are in favor of a complete ban on handguns. During his tenure on the board, the Joyce Foundation was probably the major funder of pro-control research in the United States.

Obama also opposes the current laws in 48 states that let citizens carry concealed handguns for protection claiming, despite all the academic studies to the contrary, that "I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations."

^^BTW even Hillary is for ccw.

Oh ya and then theres the fact that hes from the windy city... Where he has not once stood up for support to remove the gun ban city wide. Funny that it also happens to be Americans #1 most violent city


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Ex0dus said:


> 2. He has publicly stated he will allow the bush tax cuts to expire... INCREASING taxes.


As has McCain


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

Jewelz said:


> 2. He has publicly stated he will allow the bush tax cuts to expire... INCREASING taxes.


As has McCain








[/quote]

He has "promised" to "try" and extend them


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

Ex0dus said:


> If Obama does win the election, are McCain supporters going to accept it or be ignorant and still complain about how hes muslim, the devil in disguise, and hes a terrorist? and i also didn't realize it was ok to post pics that some ppl may find offensive.. (Obama- Curious George) in that case next time i should post one of a fat red neck eating bacon with a jar of mayo next to him..


why do you even care about this election your Canadian

Also the whole race thing is a sad excuse for democrats. If McCain wins you will hear "Americans are Racist" from the same people that live here.

Get the hell over it, that is one of the main arguements when I talk to dems in person.
[/quote]

wtf? what dems do you talk to? the only place i hear talking about the race card is talk radio, like they want someone to bite so they can make a huge issue about it.

to those concerned, here is why i support obama.

the number 1 reason i support obama is because he represents a kind of change the USA has never seen in my opinion. not just because he's black (although, that is part of it), but because he represents what young people are fighting for these days. most people my age are attracted to obamas policies.

obamas healthcare policy is a lot better than mccains, lets just put that out there...and im done debating, i've come to my conclusions, and that's it. you can believe that 5000 dollars is going to help you out immensely, but i dont.

obamas stance on guns is not radical like hillary's...which is why i would've voted for mccain if hillary got the nod from the DNC.

obama supports redirecting troops from a really useless conflict in iraq, to a more productive one in afghanistan.

obamas tax policy is a lot better than mccains, despite what right wingers will tell you. he provides tax cuts for middle class, the people saying "spread the wealth around" are making 250k a year or more. this is the problem, i saw on cnbc the other day that nearly half the bailout money is going to be paid in salary. bonuses, raises...etc. for these CEO's to run their companies into the ground...i say tax them 100%, that's f*cking bullshit, that's our money.

and there IS a class structure in this country. people in the top 10% get more out of the government than people in the bottom 90%. they get special treatment. they should pay more taxes, period.

anyway, that's my stance with obama on the MAJOR issues. do not try and argue with me, i will not reply. just tell me how you differ. without using the word socialist, marxist, lunatic, extremist, or all those other words i hear so much in todays media.
[/quote]

1. Osama has publicly said he is in favor of reenacting the AWB. 
He has publicly stated he is against citizens carrying weapons.

2. He has publicly stated he will allow the bush tax cuts to expire... INCREASING taxes.

Whenever I ask someone why they are voting for Osama and the word "change" comes up, i end the convo and move on.

PLEASE in the future if you wish to talk about the Messiah, do not mention change....

Race card? One word... Steele

as in the former lt Governor from MD. He is a republican so it was justified... right?
[/quote]

steele? like the author?

i know you end the convo at "change" because you know mccain is bush. and you dont have the intellectual ability to argue against it.

and i wasn't talking about the messiah, i was talking about obama, not sure if you've heard his name...oBama.

change change change change change

change we can believe in.


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget in The Washington Times | ' Obama Leaves a Bigger Deficit'
By 2013 Barack Obama would outspend John McCain by at least $27 billion and as much as $119 billion, according to a new analysis of their tax and spending proposals.

McCain would cut taxes more than Obama, but would make deeper spending cuts, too, leaving him less in the red, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, headed by a former top Clinton administration official and former Republican congressman.

The projected deficit for 2013 is already $147 billion, so both men would leave the country in poor fiscal shape.

The most surprising thing about the analysis is how close the candidates' proposals are by 2013: McCain's gradual reduction of troops in Iraq ends up saving nearly as much as Obama's faster pullout, and Obama's increased taxes on high-income families only saves $48 billion that year.

Broken down by broad category, the group said McCain's tax cuts - including renewing most of the Bush tax cuts -- would subtract between $417 billion and $485 billion from government revenues, his health care plan would subtract another $54 billion to $65 billion, but his other spending cuts and proposals figure to save $291 billion to $304 billion. Coupled with the $147 billion baseline deficit, he would leave the country between $314 and $406 in the red.

Obama, meanwhile, who has also promised to renew many Bush tax cuts, would subtract $360 billion in revenue, would cost another $65 billion for his health care plan, and would save just $139 billion with his new spending cuts. His plans would leave the country with a deficit of $433 billion in 2013

By 2013 Barack Obama would outspend John McCain by at least $27 billion and as much as $119 billion, according to a new analysis of their tax and spending proposals.

McCain would cut taxes more than Obama, but would make deeper spending cuts, too, leaving him less in the red, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, headed by a former top Clinton administration official and former Republican congressman.

The projected deficit for 2013 is already $147 billion, so both men would leave the country in poor fiscal shape.

The most surprising thing about the analysis is how close the candidates' proposals are by 2013: McCain's gradual reduction of troops in Iraq ends up saving nearly as much as Obama's faster pullout, and Obama's increased taxes on high-income families only saves $48 billion that year.

Broken down by broad category, the group said McCain's tax cuts - including renewing most of the Bush tax cuts -- would subtract between $417 billion and $485 billion from government revenues, his health care plan would subtract another $54 billion to $65 billion, but his other spending cuts and proposals figure to save $291 billion to $304 billion. Coupled with the $147 billion baseline deficit, he would leave the country between $314 and $406 in the red.

Obama, meanwhile, who has also promised to renew many Bush tax cuts, would subtract $360 billion in revenue, would cost another $65 billion for his health care plan, and would save just $139 billion with his new spending cuts. His plans would leave the country with a deficit of $433 billion in 2013


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

no, wrong, all that sh*t mccain talks about doing, wouldn't happen, have you taken a look at the senate races?



> McCain's Potentially Miserable First Term
> By Tom Bevan
> 
> Suppose for a moment John McCain wins the Presidency. Yes, with only four days to go the idea remains very much a long shot. But suppose McCain defies political death one more time and ekes out a victory on Tuesday. What then?
> ...


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

> steele? like the author?
> 
> i know you end the convo at "change" because you know mccain is bush. and you dont have the intellectual ability to argue against it.
> 
> ...


It took you 10minutes to come up with that garbage?

The McCain = Bush argument is about the dumbest one ive ever heard.

r1, I know you are a gun hobbyist and I know your well aware of Osamas views on citizens owning guns. Is the kool-aid really THAT good?


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Ex0dus said:


> The McCain = Bush argument is about the dumbest one ive ever heard.


The funny thing is, it would actually make you like McCain more, am I right ? Why isn't president Bush campaigning for McCain ? Clinton is stumping for Obama


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

While its true in 2002 he voted against the tax cuts, he has come out recently and said they he will infact extend them.

Why Bush is not campaigning for McCain I will not comment, only will say thats prob for the best for McCain at the moment









I can almost guarentee in the coming years we learn how much Bill actually hates Osama and hes campaigning only to keep in good standings with the DNC


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Ex0dus said:


> I can almost guarentee in the coming years we learn how much Bill actually hates Osama and hes campaigning only to keep in good standings with the DNC


And I can *almost* guarantee that BHO will make Hillary the health care tsar, send Bill to UN and make their friend Rahm Emmanuel the Chief of Staff (already rumored) and everyone will live happily ever after..


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

everyone hates osama...where have you been?

obama on the other hand, looks like the majority of the country likes him, and his buddies. we're having a redistribution party on tuesday, if anyone wants to join us, everyone is bringing one thing, cookies, beer, chips, soda, so that everyone else can drink, eat, and be merry...me personally, im redistributing shrimp cocktail and a 30 rack of cold ones...

have fun with the redistribution.

change change change.


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect

Alls fun and games at a pot luck, sure.... But try and "redistribute" my hard earned money to some f*cking bum and its a different story.

You still have yet to comment about Osamas gun issues r1


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

i know nothing of osamas gun issues...


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

oh crap...you must've misspelled it...well i'll give you a pass...

oBama on guns. from what i've read, is not as anti-gun as hillary, which is fine by me. guns will never be banned. it's just an impossible proposition.

anyway, i dug this up, im not sure if this is even partisan or what, but i can imagine, anything with obama and gun in the title is going to be right wing...anyway, i thought it was a good read, obama and I definitely disagree on guns somewhat, but he's right about registration and training...tell me what you think about this article?

http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack...Gun_Control.htm


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

r1dermon said:


> i know nothing of osamas gun issues...


Osama obviously opposes any kind of gun control and loves himself some AK-47s..










He also hates gay people, thinks evolution is bogus and is pro-life.

Ex0dus thinks McCain is too liberal anyway, looks like he just found himself a new write-in candidate


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

r1dermon said:


> everyone hates osama...where have you been?
> 
> obama on the other hand, looks like the majority of the country likes him, and his buddies. we're having a redistribution party on tuesday, if anyone wants to join us, everyone is bringing one thing, cookies, beer, chips, soda, so that everyone else can drink, eat, and be merry...me personally, im redistributing shrimp cocktail and a 30 rack of cold ones...
> 
> ...


Actually, if you want to do it Obama style, you invite everybody to your house. They don't bring anything. You then offer cookies, beer, chips, and soda free of charge. Also, they get to sleep in your bed even though you paid for it. For the drunks there that steal your electronics, you laugh it off and don't call the cops because it would be too harsh. Instead, you even give them your clothes because if they steal, they must be worse off then you. Yep, sounds about right.

*Come to think of it, nobody is really invited, they just crash the party and you have to do all those things.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

diddye said:


> everyone hates osama...where have you been?
> 
> obama on the other hand, looks like the majority of the country likes him, and his buddies. we're having a redistribution party on tuesday, if anyone wants to join us, everyone is bringing one thing, cookies, beer, chips, soda, so that everyone else can drink, eat, and be merry...me personally, im redistributing shrimp cocktail and a 30 rack of cold ones...
> 
> ...


Actually, if you want to do it Obama style, you invite everybody to your house. They don't bring anything. You then offer cookies, beer, chips, and soda free of charge. Also, they get to sleep in your bed even though you paid for it. For the drunks there that steal your electronics, you laugh it off and don't call the cops because it would be too harsh. Instead, you even give them your clothes because if they steal, they must be worse off then you. Yep, sounds about right.

*Come to think of it, nobody is really invited, they just crash the party and you have to do all those things.
[/quote]

oh really? obama is making you redistribute 100% of your assets? jesus man...now im really scared, do you have a link where i can see something as terrible as that? man, i dont know about this barack hussein osama guy anymore...whew.


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

Jewelz said:


> i know nothing of osamas gun issues...


Osama obviously opposes any kind of gun control and loves himself some AK-47s..










He also hates gay people, thinks evolution is bogus and is pro-life.

Ex0dus thinks McCain is too liberal anyway, looks like he just found himself a new write-in candidate








[/quote]

God I missed you Jewelz









TBH, in a perfect world I would have voted for Bob Barr.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

exodus, did you read the link i provided? lemme know what you think?


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Ex0dus said:


> i know nothing of osamas gun issues...


Osama obviously opposes any kind of gun control and loves himself some AK-47s..










He also hates gay people, thinks evolution is bogus and is pro-life.

Ex0dus thinks McCain is too liberal anyway, looks like he just found himself a new write-in candidate








[/quote]

God I missed you Jewelz









TBH, in a perfect world I would have voted for Bob Barr.
[/quote]

Well, I don't know how imperfect your wold is, but Bob Barr is on the ballot in my state. Personally though, I wouldn't vote for someone who's been a conservative Republican his whole life and then all of a sudden changed his stances on just about every social issue like Patriot Act and the War on Drugs immediately prior to getting the Libertarian Party to nominate him.

P.S. Missed you too


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

r1dermon said:


> oh crap...you must've misspelled it...well i'll give you a pass...
> 
> oBama on guns. from what i've read, is not as anti-gun as hillary, which is fine by me. guns will never be banned. it's just an impossible proposition.
> 
> ...


He skates around the answer alot.

*Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok
Q: You said recently, "I have no intention of taking away folks' guns." But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you've said that it's constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?

A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions.
*

If there is a handgun ban... all handguns are illegal. IMO I should not have to ASK to carry a weapon on my persons. Its not a privilege given to me by the state... its a RIGHT given to be by our forefathers.

*He voted against letting people violate local weapons bans in cases of self-defense*

*When I queried him about the vote, he said, "I didn't find that [vote] surprising. I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry. *

If hes for families defending themselves... how is he against LAWFUL citizen exercising their RIGHT given to them by the US Constitution?

*A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. Voting YES would:*

I was stabbed with a pencil as a child. Does that mean my parents shoudl be allowed to sue the pencil manufacturers? Absurd! Yet again more frivolous law suits (one of Americans cancers)

*# Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.*

ALL semi automatic weapons?? BOO!

Ill pass on that. If Osama is elected... Americans will stand up and there will be a changing of the guard... Again another right given to us in the Constitution


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

r1dermon said:


> everyone hates osama...where have you been?
> 
> obama on the other hand, looks like the majority of the country likes him, and his buddies. we're having a redistribution party on tuesday, if anyone wants to join us, everyone is bringing one thing, cookies, beer, chips, soda, so that everyone else can drink, eat, and be merry...me personally, im redistributing shrimp cocktail and a 30 rack of cold ones...
> 
> ...


Actually, if you want to do it Obama style, you invite everybody to your house. They don't bring anything. You then offer cookies, beer, chips, and soda free of charge. Also, they get to sleep in your bed even though you paid for it. For the drunks there that steal your electronics, you laugh it off and don't call the cops because it would be too harsh. Instead, you even give them your clothes because if they steal, they must be worse off then you. Yep, sounds about right.

*Come to think of it, nobody is really invited, they just crash the party and you have to do all those things.
[/quote]

oh really? obama is making you redistribute 100% of your assets? jesus man...now im really scared, do you have a link where i can see something as terrible as that? man, i dont know about this barack hussein osama guy anymore...whew.
[/quote]

Who said 100%? Surely, you can do without some chips, soda, cookies, beer, and a bed. Heck, I never said you had to give away your car, PS3, flatscreen TV, laptop, girlfriend(of course, you support prostitution, so how about your girl for $5?-j/k). If they stole it, heck you're better off then 95% of those crashers. Help spread the wealth and contribute to the American dream.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

diddye said:


> everyone hates osama...where have you been?
> 
> obama on the other hand, looks like the majority of the country likes him, and his buddies. we're having a redistribution party on tuesday, if anyone wants to join us, everyone is bringing one thing, cookies, beer, chips, soda, so that everyone else can drink, eat, and be merry...me personally, im redistributing shrimp cocktail and a 30 rack of cold ones...
> 
> ...


Actually, if you want to do it Obama style, you invite everybody to your house. They don't bring anything. You then offer cookies, beer, chips, and soda free of charge. Also, they get to sleep in your bed even though you paid for it. For the drunks there that steal your electronics, you laugh it off and don't call the cops because it would be too harsh. Instead, you even give them your clothes because if they steal, they must be worse off then you. Yep, sounds about right.

*Come to think of it, nobody is really invited, they just crash the party and you have to do all those things.
[/quote]

oh really? obama is making you redistribute 100% of your assets? jesus man...now im really scared, do you have a link where i can see something as terrible as that? man, i dont know about this barack hussein osama guy anymore...whew.
[/quote]

Who said 100%? Surely, you can do without some chips, soda, cookies, beer, and a bed. Heck, I never said you had to give away your car, PS3, flatscreen TV, laptop, girlfriend(of course, you support prostitution, so how about your girl for $5?-j/k). If they stole it, heck you're better off then 95% of those crashers. Help spread the wealth and contribute to the American dream.
[/quote]

Really, is that what went on during the Clinton years ?

All Obama wants to do is roll back the taxes for the wealthy to what they were in the 90's. Remember the 90's when we had record surpluses,robust economy, peace and prosperity ? The horror !!!


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

Lets be honest. Obama is going to be the most liberal president we've had. He'll make Clinton look like a fiscal conservative


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

diddye said:


> Lets be honest. Obama is going to be the most liberal president we've had. He'll make Clinton look like a fiscal conservative


Specifically, how ?


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

Take from the rich and give to the poor.

While I agree some of the top 100 CEOs are making way way to much and enjoying the fat life... Who is to impose of the small business man who works his ass off 70+ hrs a week and earns 251,00.00 a year?? America is great because we offer opportunity. Taxing you cause you make to much is imo absurd. If i had it my way, id use the consumption tax and thats it. With this method your still taxing those who spend more, more (typically rich) but your not outright taxing them cause they make to much. No taxes on everyday household items, etc etc.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

We have to raise taxes, we're $10 trillion in debt largely because of borrow and spend policies of the Bush administration. We've doubled the national debt since Bush came into the office. Just because the taxes to cover that spending haven't been collected yet doesn't mean they won't have to be, eventually.

Neither of the candidates has a clear plan, though.
McCain proposed cutting pork barrel spending which is only $18 billion out of $3 trillion budget while giving tax breaks to everyone, more to the wealthy and less to the middle class. Obama's proposing new spending but he's being a bit more realistic because he wants to raise taxes on the wealthy while cutting them for the middle class and the poor. McCain's proposing new spending as well, like how he offered to buy everyone's bad mortgages.

Essentially, both of their plans fall short.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

Jewelz said:


> We have to raise taxes, we're $10 trillion in debt largely because of borrow and spend policies of the Bush administration. We've doubled the national debt since Bush came into the office. Just because the taxes to cover that spending haven't been collected yet doesn't mean they won't have to be, eventually.
> 
> Neither of the candidates has a clear plan, though.
> McCain proposed cutting pork barrel spending which is only $18 billion out of $3 trillion budget while giving tax breaks to everyone, more to the wealthy and less to the middle class. Obama's proposing new spending but he's being a bit more realistic because he wants to raise taxes on the wealthy while cutting them for the middle class and the poor. McCain's proposing new spending as well, like how he offered to buy everyone's bad mortgages.
> ...


C'mon. We all know Bush spends money like crazy. Blaming our economic crisis solely on him is unfair especially since your party had a large role in our current problems. Did Bush create the dot com bubble crash he inherited from Clinton? The democrats have their hands dirty with the freddie mac/fannie mae fiasco when Bush got shot down for tighter regulation. Say what you want about Iraq, but the Democrats also voted for it. Isn't it sad that Obama hides his pleasure in our poor economy? The worse it does, the better his poll numbers will be. Our whole gov't is to blame so stop pointing fingers at one party. Obama is not going to be the savior he proclaims to be. Raising taxes on the rich when 43% of our country doesn't pay any income taxes at all is wrong.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Jewelz said:


> We have to raise taxes, we're $10 trillion in debt largely because of borrow and spend policies of the Bush administration. *it's impossible to lay this at any administration. if we're really being fair, we're in this kind of debt because of bullshit entitlement crap started by the new deal. we have ran up quite a tab under the current administration there is no doubt, but it's not ALL bush's fault. that does not, however mean we need to raise taxes. we only need to do that if we don't SHRINK THE GOVERNMENT.* We've doubled the national debt since Bush came into the office. Just because the taxes to cover that spending haven't been collected yet doesn't mean they won't have to be, eventually.
> 
> Neither of the candidates has a clear plan, though.
> McCain proposed cutting pork barrel spending which is only $18 billion out of $3 trillion budget while giving tax breaks to everyone, more to the wealthy and less to the middle class. *if you want "fair" the rich should get more tax breaks. we tax the sh*t ouf of the rich. as i said to r1, why should you pay an additional $4 per gallon at the pump because the owner says "you can afford it?"*Obama's proposing new spending but he's being a bit more realistic because he wants to raise taxes on the wealthy while cutting them for the middle class and the poor. *how is that more realistic? the middle class doesn't pay as much in taxes and the poor don't pay any. they get refunds that cover their taxes at the end of the year whilst spending massive amounts of public money on entitlements. * McCain's proposing new spending as well, like how he offered to buy everyone's bad mortgages. *not just him. he and obama tripped over each other to make that happen, as did most of the democrats and and a lot of the republicans.
> ...


----------



## Avatar~God (Oct 21, 2004)

Know what I was thinking about, as far as the whole "taking from the rich and giving it to the poor" issue goes, well I am in no way rich(not even close) but why should the rich be punished. Alot of those business owners bust there ass to have what they have and because of it they get taxed more? We could all go out there and bust our ass (I'm not saying we dont now, but in a different way) and take the risk's a lot of these business owners and the "big guys" take to get where they are today. I don't believe in Punishing the rich for what they have acquired but I also dont believe in punishing the poor for not being rich.

Why should anyone be taxed more than anyone else? I know that not everyone has the same opportunities to go to some top school of their choice because of funding but some very wealthy people have started from nothing.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Avatar~God said:


> Know what I was thinking about, as far as the whole "taking from the rich and giving it to the poor" issue goes, well I am in no way rich(not even close) but why should the rich be punished. Alot of those business owners bust there ass to have what they have and because of it they get taxed more? We could all go out there and bust our ass (I'm not saying we dont now, but in a different way) and take the risk's a lot of these business owners and the "big guys" take to get where they are today. I don't believe in Punishing the rich for what they have acquired but I also dont believe in punishing the poor for not being rich.**we have an entire network of social programs set up to prop up the poor. i'm not passing judgment on those who use those programs, but that is what they're intended for. as per the irs website, the poor don't pay taxes, either. that's hardly punishing them.**
> 
> Why should anyone be taxed more than anyone else? I know that not everyone has the same opportunities to go to some top school of their choice because of funding but some**or many** very wealthy people have started from nothing.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

Ex0dus said:


> oh crap...you must've misspelled it...well i'll give you a pass...
> 
> oBama on guns. from what i've read, is not as anti-gun as hillary, which is fine by me. guns will never be banned. it's just an impossible proposition.
> 
> ...


He skates around the answer alot.

*Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok
Q: You said recently, "I have no intention of taking away folks' guns." But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you've said that it's constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?

A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions.
*

If there is a handgun ban... all handguns are illegal. IMO I should not have to ASK to carry a weapon on my persons. Its not a privilege given to me by the state... its a RIGHT given to be by our forefathers.

well technically states have rights, and what obama is arguing is that in cities where guns are peddled by people who are able to buy them, to people on the streets who use them in gangs and other illicit things like that, the cities should be able to enact some type of restrictions on the guns. personally, i feel the major problem with guns is their sales...not their ownership...we have to get to the sales part, and make sure everyone who buys one, is a quality representative of what a responsible gun owner should be...im in no way endorsing obamas reply, but i dont think he really skated around the issue on this one...

*He voted against letting people violate local weapons bans in cases of self-defense*

*When I queried him about the vote, he said, "I didn't find that [vote] surprising. I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry. *

If hes for families defending themselves... how is he against LAWFUL citizen exercising their RIGHT given to them by the US Constitution?

i agree with you on this one, concealed carry, as a general interpretation, should never ever be "banned". that would be irresponsible, and more would have to be investigated into a possible plan to ban, so-to-speak.

*A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. Voting YES would:*

I was stabbed with a pencil as a child. Does that mean my parents shoudl be allowed to sue the pencil manufacturers? Absurd! Yet again more frivolous law suits (one of Americans cancers)

see, this one i agree with, because, barring all those retarded law suits like, ohh, my 8 year old son grabbed my unlocked, loaded semi-auto with one in the chamber and the safety off, and accidentally shot himself in the head, so now you owe us millions of dollars, there could be a legitimate case made if a safety malfunctioned, or a gun malfunctioned due to a defect, an improperly cast barrel...etc...this would basically hold harmless any gun manufacturer for anything and everything that goes wrong, not just "frivolous law suits"...i do agree though, that most law suits on the topic are really dumb and are a result of improper gun usage.

*# Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.*

ALL semi automatic weapons?? BOO!

ban the sale of all semi-auto's? i've never seen that written anywhere but on this link, so that would also have to be looked at more carefully...im almost sad that the mccain camp hasn't come out with some type of FACTUAL gun ad which would outline obamas vs. his stances, and visa versa, as it is a hot topic, and it hasn't been touched this election....at all!

Ill pass on that. If O*B*ama is elected... Americans will stand up and there will be a changing of the guard... Again another right given to us in the Constitution








[/quote]

sorry, i replied INSIDE your post, so it's kind of tricky to find my responses...


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

Avatar~God said:


> Know what I was thinking about, as far as the whole "taking from the rich and giving it to the poor" issue goes, well I am in no way rich(not even close) but why should the rich be punished. Alot of those business owners bust there ass to have what they have and because of it they get taxed more? We could all go out there and bust our ass (I'm not saying we dont now, but in a different way) and take the risk's a lot of these business owners and the "big guys" take to get where they are today. I don't believe in Punishing the rich for what they have acquired but I also dont believe in punishing the poor for not being rich.
> 
> Why should anyone be taxed more than anyone else? I know that not everyone has the same opportunities to go to some top school of their choice because of funding but some very wealthy people have started from nothing.


i disagree, making money is different when you have millions and billions of dollars, than when you work a 9-5 and save 300 bucks a week. (which by todays standards would be phenominal savings).

taken from: http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03m...viewswolff.html


> MM: How does the U.S. wealth profile compare to other countries?
> Wolff: We are much more unequal than any other advanced industrial country.
> 
> Perhaps our closest rival in terms of inequality is Great Britain. But where the top percent in this country own 38 percent of all wealth, in Great Britain it is more like 22 or 23 percent.
> ...


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

diddye said:


> We have to raise taxes, we're $10 trillion in debt largely because of borrow and spend policies of the Bush administration. We've doubled the national debt since Bush came into the office. Just because the taxes to cover that spending haven't been collected yet doesn't mean they won't have to be, eventually.
> 
> Neither of the candidates has a clear plan, though.
> McCain proposed cutting pork barrel spending which is only $18 billion out of $3 trillion budget while giving tax breaks to everyone, more to the wealthy and less to the middle class. Obama's proposing new spending but he's being a bit more realistic because he wants to raise taxes on the wealthy while cutting them for the middle class and the poor. McCain's proposing new spending as well, like how he offered to buy everyone's bad mortgages.
> ...


C'mon. We all know Bush spends money like crazy. Blaming our economic crisis solely on him is unfair especially since your party had a large role in our current problems. Did Bush create the dot com bubble crash he inherited from Clinton? The democrats have their hands dirty with the freddie mac/fannie mae fiasco when Bush got shot down for tighter regulation. Say what you want about Iraq, but the Democrats also voted for it. Isn't it sad that Obama hides his pleasure in our poor economy? The worse it does, the better his poll numbers will be. Our whole gov't is to blame so stop pointing fingers at one party. Obama is not going to be the savior he proclaims to be. Raising taxes on the rich when 43% of our country doesn't pay any income taxes at all is wrong.
[/quote]

Never said it was solely Bush's fault but it hapenned under him. I agree Obama is not the saviour; where does he proclaim to be one ?

Obama takes pleasure in our poor economy ? So let's see, you make a strawman argument - obviously you can't witness the pleasure because he "hides it" and then you begrudge the guy for hiding some secret pleasure which you have no idea if he does or not.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

mdrs said:


> . *it's impossible to lay this at any administration. if we're really being fair, we're in this kind of debt because of bullshit entitlement crap started by the new deal. we have ran up quite a tab under the current administration there is no doubt, but it's not ALL bush's fault. that does not, however mean we need to raise taxes. we only need to do that if we don't SHRINK THE GOVERNMENT.*


Never said it was* all* Bush's fault. I apologize, I should've made myself more clear. Shrinking the government can be a good start as well; I propose we start with out bloated defense budget. 


> *if you want "fair" the rich should get more tax breaks. we tax the sh*t ouf of the rich. as i said to r1, why should you pay an additional $4 per gallon at the pump because the owner says "you can afford it?"*


You know, usually when a person's reply includes a word with quotations marks around it it means that the person who he is replying to had used the aforementioned word. I never said I want fair, I want something that's a fix. Contrary to what libertarians believe, not all tax hikes are evil and sometimes they're plain necessary.



> *how is that more realistic? the middle class doesn't pay as much in taxes and the poor don't pay any. they get refunds that cover their taxes at the end of the year whilst spending massive amounts of public money on entitlements. *


Because middle class is struggling, they simply they don't have that much to give. Sad but true.



> *not just him. he and obama tripped over each other to make that happen, as did most of the democrats and and a lot of the republicans.
> *


They both voted for the bailout but as I recall, McCain is the only one that went as far as to offer actually buying up everyone's bad mortgages.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

You're basically blaming bush for all our problems when all you do is mention bush. How often do you criticize any democrats? Most of your posts are cliche's about George.


----------



## Uncle Jesse (Feb 18, 2007)

Avatar~God said:


> New rule: stop saying that Sara Palin looks like that lady from SNL. Sara Palin looks like that lady from King Of The Hill












Hahha, funny stuff.
[/quote]

not really, there is no comparison there at all, unless ur racist...which i already know u are...

its okay, dont post back saying ur not.
[/quote]

Bahhaa, I'm not even joking when i say i didnt put the whole "************" joke along with him looking like curious George...... lmfao, ahha, i got that off some random site I was searching through. Like jewels said its all in good fun.

How do you figure I'm a racist? sh*t, you can call me a racist because of the fact that I hate little gansters that walk around acting hard and find it in their best interest to go out of there way to make someone else feel less superior to them with their ass hanging out and you cant understand a damn word they are saying because they are "hood". But, that goes for blacks, whites, arabs pretty much any f****t who thinks they are "baller" growing up nowhere close to "the ghetto". I've been in two fights with these types of people, deffinitly wasnt as hard as they made them selfs out to be haha

So yes, I am racist against "hood rate wanna be's" and that goes for all races... Not sure if you can call that a racist though

I grew up with plenty of black friends along with other races

Are you a democrat trying to play the race card on me, im sorry.
[/quote]

I knew you were from Michigan before I even looked! If I had to guess I would say south of Detroit?

Just a side note like AG I'm not raciest ether, but I seem to notice if I say I am voting for McCain people always say "why cuz he's white?" Yet some black people say they is voden fo o-bah-mah cuz he be black and thats not raciest?

http://detroit.craigslist.org/rnr/900031902.html


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Jewelz said:


> . *it's impossible to lay this at any administration. if we're really being fair, we're in this kind of debt because of bullshit entitlement crap started by the new deal. we have ran up quite a tab under the current administration there is no doubt, but it's not ALL bush's fault. that does not, however mean we need to raise taxes. we only need to do that if we don't SHRINK THE GOVERNMENT.*


Never said it was* all* Bush's fault. I apologize, I should've made myself more clear. Shrinking the government can be a good start as well; I propose we start with out bloated defense budget.

*so you'd like to shrink govt by starting with one of the very few things the government not only does well but is constitutionally obligated to do? how invasive in your life is defense? defense has produced more technologies that have changed this world than any other part of government. if you agree that government should be shrank, why not start with something it's NOT supposed to be doing?*



> *if you want "fair" the rich should get more tax breaks. we tax the sh*t ouf of the rich. as i said to r1, why should you pay an additional $4 per gallon at the pump because the owner says "you can afford it?"*


You know, usually when a person's reply includes a word with quotations marks around it it means that the person who he is replying to had used the aforementioned word. I never said I want fair, I want something that's a fix. Contrary to what libertarians believe, not all tax hikes are evil and sometimes they're plain necessary.

*a fix is not raising taxes. that only enables the government to continue spending money on things it should not be. the fix is stopping unconstitutional spending and actually living within our means. that is the ONLY fix that will force the government to learn and as such, not have to raise taxes at a later date as well.*



> *how is that more realistic? the middle class doesn't pay as much in taxes and the poor don't pay any. they get refunds that cover their taxes at the end of the year whilst spending massive amounts of public money on entitlements. *


Because middle class is struggling, they simply they don't have that much to give. Sad but true.

*so because our government is spending tons on programs that are illogical and unconstitutional and we have to generate revenue to support these, we should tax the rich because they do have that much to give? *



> *not just him. he and obama tripped over each other to make that happen, as did most of the democrats and and a lot of the republicans.
> *


They both voted for the bailout but as I recall, McCain is the only one that went as far as to offer actually buying up everyone's bad mortgages.

*fair enough. in effect, becoming the financier of the credit agency is pretty much the same thing. but mccain did come out and say that so you're right on that one.*

[/quote]


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

mdrs said:


> *so you'd like to shrink govt by starting with one of the very few things the government not only does well but is constitutionally obligated to do? how invasive in your life is defense? defense has produced more technologies that have changed this world than any other part of government. if you agree that government should be shrank, why not start with something it's NOT supposed to be doing?*


And there you go. The difference between and the biggest liberals in this country is simply how you want to spend taxpayers' money.



> *a fix is not raising taxes. that only enables the government to continue spending money on things it should not be. the fix is stopping unconstitutional spending and actually living within our means. that is the ONLY fix that will force the government to learn and as such, not have to raise taxes at a later date as well.*


I am all for curbing unnecessary spending and reasonable tax hikes.



> *so because our government is spending tons on programs that are illogical and unconstitutional and we have to generate revenue to support these, we should tax the rich because they do have that much to give? *


Meh, same old argument over and over again. I understand your position, you're against domestic spending. Unfortunately for you, in this political environment you're attempting to swim upstream. Medicare Rx was actually one of the most popular things that Bush had done - go figure.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

diddye said:


> You're basically blaming bush for all our problems when all you do is mention bush. How often do you criticize any democrats? Most of your posts are cliche's about George.


I just criticized Obama's economic plan on the this very page of this thread


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Jewelz said:


> And there you go. The difference between and the biggest liberals in this country is simply how you want to spend taxpayers' money.
> 
> yeah i have an issue cutting the budget of departments that are constitutional over ones that aren't. that IS the difference, good observation.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

mdrs said:


> And there you go. The difference between and the biggest liberals in this country is simply how you want to spend taxpayers' money.
> 
> yeah i have an issue cutting the budget of departments that are constitutional over ones that aren't. that IS the difference, good observation.
> 
> ...


[/quote]

No, it neither makes it ok or not ok, it's simply a fundamental difference of opinion. I was merely pointing out what the current mood of the country was. BTW, I certainly didn't mean that we should eliminate the defense altogether, I was just suggesting that it's something that could be_ trimmed _somewhat.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Jewelz said:


> No, it neither makes it ok or not ok, it's simply a fundamental difference of opinion. I was merely pointing out what the current mood of the country was. BTW, I certainly didn't mean that we should eliminate the defense altogether, I was just suggesting that it's something that could be_ trimmed _somewhat.


i know you weren't seeking elimination. you're usually reasonable, as long as you don't realize it. but i don't see it as a difference of opinion. when you tell the public they have a right to these entitlements, you violate their independence. you don't exactly force them to be dependent on the state, but is is a quandary. and there is no doubt that there are most certainly dems (i'm not saying all or even the majority) out there that WANT these people dependent on the state to ensure votes. much the same as unions and government workers.

bottom line and if you feel i'm wrong not just that we don't agree let me know, i don't OWE this to ANYONE.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

can anyone tell me how much we spend on defense in a year?

how many air craft carriers do we have in comparison with the rest of the world?

how many stealth fighters, in comparison with our enemies?

how many nuclear bombs?

fighter jets?

laser guided ordinance?

spy planes and satellites?

missile defense systems?

now, how many people were saved on 9/11 due to defense spending?


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

r1dermon said:


> can anyone tell me how much we spend on defense in a year?
> 
> how many air craft carriers do we have in comparison with the rest of the world?
> 
> ...


that is a question that can't be answered. how many people didn't die because of defense spending? who the hell knows. what window of spending? spending in the last 30 years? you're asking for hypothetical numbers for your hypothetical question. how many lives where saved by defense spending when the departments charged with protecting the US from that kind of attack are the FBI and CIA? should we have a constant garrison in all major US cities? should we use more "spy planes" and "laser guided ordinance"? that makes no sense at all. tell me that's just a warm up argument.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

the argument is, if we used half of our resources, and went to war with the entire world, we'd win...then we'd still have the other half sitting in a bunker somewhere. we have more carrier fleets than the entire world combined, in-fact, isn't there only 2 other countries with a carrier fleet? who else has a legitimate air force besides the US? (including israel, because they are the US, essentially). there is absolutely no reason to have that many defense resources.

billions and billions of dollars a year. missile defense? who the f*ck has a missile that can reach us? i mean, even if they parked a boat off the shore, to fire a missile at us, the coast guard would f*ck their world up before they could even arm the thing. the point is, we're so far advanced, that it's pointless, because the rest of the world is not advanced at all! it's like bringing an M60 to the french and indian war. and then you've got a bazooka as a trump card. a total waste.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

r1dermon said:


> the argument is, if we used half of our resources, and went to war with the entire world, we'd win...then we'd still have the other half sitting in a bunker somewhere. we have more carrier fleets than the entire world combined, in-fact, isn't there only 2 other countries with a carrier fleet? who else has a legitimate air force besides the US? (including israel, because they are the US, essentially). there is absolutely no reason to have that many defense resources.
> 
> billions and billions of dollars a year. missile defense? who the f*ck has a missile that can reach us? i mean, even if they parked a boat off the shore, to fire a missile at us, the coast guard would f*ck their world up before they could even arm the thing. the point is, we're so far advanced, that it's pointless, because the rest of the world is not advanced at all! it's like bringing an M60 to the french and indian war. and then you've got a bazooka as a trump card. a total waste.


so if i understand you, your argument is based on another hypothetical unprovable statement? is that what i'm getting? who has missiles that would reach us? ummm anyone with one nuke and a sub? how about the countries that are nearby that are currently allies?

regardless, there are innumerable benefits from defense spending. when people ask why we continue to fund NASA, the answer is always the tech we get from just random research is worth the money. with defense, that's true only exponentially more. modern life could not exist if it wasn't for a "bloated defense budget" during the 1970s, in particular, when defense was also NOT popular.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

name some innumerable benefits that since the 70's have no doubt cost over a trillion dollars to develop?

i'd say there are more astounding benefits coming out of the medical field myself...but that's just me.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

r1dermon said:


> name some innumerable benefits that since the 70's have no doubt cost over a trillion dollars to develop?
> 
> i'd say there are more astounding benefits coming out of the medical field myself...but that's just me.


uhhh, how about the internet and everything we've developed from that? i'd say we've easily broken even on that one, huh? it would take decades to list all the technologies that have been developed from one little project called ARPANET. i trust that's enough for you? you know, one bit of tech that not only spawned thousands of different technologies but also revolutionized the modern world?


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

im sorry, but to say that the united states, through military defense spending, created the internet, is a REDICULOUS stretch at best.

and please, try and stop talking to me in such a condescending tone.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

r1dermon said:


> im sorry, but to say that the united states, through military defense spending, created the internet, is a REDICULOUS stretch at best.
> 
> and please, try and stop talking to me in such a condescending tone.


i will when you stop saying really stupid things that five minutes of reading would fix.

first off, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) not only developed TCP/IP but also ARPANET which became the internet. they made the concept of packet switching a reality.

http://www.boutell.com/newfaq/history/inventednet.html
*



Larry G. Roberts

Click to expand...

*


> created the first functioning long-distance computer networks in 1965 and designed the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET), the seed from which the modern Internet grew, in 1966.


http://www.tech-faq.com/who-invented-internet.shtml


> The Internet was invented in the United States during the late 1950s to the 1970s by a group of researchers and scientists at the newly formed Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) after the former Soviet Union launched Sputnik. Realizing that the United States had suffered a great technological blow by allowing the USSR to hold the first successful satellite launch, ARPA set out to create a brand new technology unlike anything that had ever been done before; and the Internet was the result of their hard work.


you were saying?


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

end of story...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm

it's useless...


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

r1dermon said:


> name some innumerable benefits that since the 70's have no doubt cost over a trillion dollars to develop?
> 
> i'd say there are more astounding benefits coming out of the medical field myself...but that's just me.


Are you aware a war helped get us out of the great depression? Im just curious....


----------



## scent troll (Apr 4, 2005)

Ex0dus said:


> name some innumerable benefits that since the 70's have no doubt cost over a trillion dollars to develop?
> 
> i'd say there are more astounding benefits coming out of the medical field myself...but that's just me.


Are you aware a war helped get us out of the great depression? Im just curious....
[/quote]
No, he is not. Like many of his liberal friends he's completely numb to the reality of history and documents and more in tune to MSNBC for "facts". Hense...he's a liberal.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

umm? what's the basis of that question? that's a little out of left field if you dont mind me saying. yes, im aware...are you also aware that that was a necessary provoked war? are you aware that all of our defense spending THEN didn't prevent an attack on pearl harbor? are you aware that we spend over 100 BILLION dollars more than the rest of the world on defense? how much is enough? i mean, if tomorrow bush said, hey, we're gonna increase defense spending by 500 billion dollars...is it still going to be worth it? i mean, our quality of life will probably further slump, but we'll still be stopping bad guys who we can't see...



Ocellatus2000 said:


> name some innumerable benefits that since the 70's have no doubt cost over a trillion dollars to develop?
> 
> i'd say there are more astounding benefits coming out of the medical field myself...but that's just me.


Are you aware a war helped get us out of the great depression? Im just curious....
[/quote]
No, he is not. Like many of his liberal friends he's completely numb to the reality of history and documents and more in tune to MSNBC for "facts". Hense...he's a liberal.
[/quote]

dude, you should go get sterilized, you dont make a single point ever. not one...just stupid insulting sh*t. history? read about hitler, then read about george bush...then connect the dots. and hey, try creating an argument next time, instead of just labeling people.

http://www.ninjapirate.com/logic.html


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

We have for the past 70years had a country (economy) based largely on defense spending. 
If anything we have to much government and its complete horse sh*t. We can save billions by cutting back on some of the gov programs... Welfare & social security come to mind among countless others. Gov isnt here to wipe out ass when we go poo, they arnt here to baby our every need. They are here to ensure our liberties (freedoms) are being met and thats it.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

ok, combine all the useless horseshit programs (which i agree, there are way too many), and erase them...now, what percentage is that of defense?

we could lower our defense spending...even 100 billion dollars (which im sure a lot of that money is horseshit programs), take out all the other bullshit programs like social security (i agree, it's retarded, let people save their own f*cking money, and dont make me give my money away on a weekly basis), cut everything, including defense, pay down the national debt, and live happily ever after with low ass taxes...

this will never happen. the government is the biggest business in the world, and they want everyone's money. unfortunately.


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

Social programs = 1st to get the axe.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

welfare needs reform, not the axe. since the government has an interest in every person, the government is going to do what it can to turn them into productive members of society. my aunt was on welfare in the 90's, now she holds down 3 jobs, and takes care of her two college age kids in a nice house in a suburban boston town. she never would be where she is if she hadn't gotten assistance.


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

Sure... Im all for assistance. Id be all for welfare if my tax money went to a program that helped those in need find employment or help them ,ASSIST NOT GIVE. I am totally against the free handout system it now is.


----------



## scent troll (Apr 4, 2005)

r1dermon said:


> dude, you should go get sterilized, you dont make a single point ever. not one...just stupid insulting sh*t. history? read about hitler, then read about george bush...then connect the dots. and hey, try creating an argument next time, instead of just labeling people.
> 
> http://www.ninjapirate.com/logic.html


Uh oh, I hit a soft spot. Funny you bring up Hitler. I've read about him possibly more than any other person. Rise and Fall of the Third Reich is a good book. Perhaps you should read about him (and not just tell others they should) and connect the dots with your party. Can't argue with an idiot though, you'll just drag me down to your level and beat me with experience.


----------



## scent troll (Apr 4, 2005)

What can I say r1...let me sum it up like this.


----------



## Piranha Dan (Nov 11, 2007)

r1dermon said:


> can anyone tell me how much we spend on defense in a year?
> 
> how many air craft carriers do we have in comparison with the rest of the world?
> 
> ...


Hopefully, way more then anyone else in the world. As for 9/11, what you really have to ask is how many similar terrorist attacks were _prevented_ by those nukes, aircraft carriers, and spy satellites?


----------



## scent troll (Apr 4, 2005)

You can't use 9/11 as an example anymore man. Liberals consider is cliche and a scare tactic. Hell, some even think we got what we deserved. Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it.

And as for the zero terrorist attacks on American soil and American interests abroad in the past 7 years, well, who knows why that happened, but it surely had NOTHING to do with the Bush presidency since thats actually a good thing. (rolls eyes)


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Ocellatus2000 said:


> You can't use 9/11 as an example anymore man. Liberals consider is cliche and a scare tactic. Hell, some even think we got what we deserved. Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it.
> 
> And as for the zero terrorist attacks on American soil and* American interests abroad in the past 7 years*, well, who knows why that happened, but it surely had NOTHING to do with the Bush presidency since thats actually a good thing. (rolls eyes)


There haven't been any attacks on American interests abroad in the past 7 years ? Llatus, when will you quit talking about things you have absolutely no clue about ?


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

r1dermon said:


> end of story...
> 
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm
> 
> it's useless...


useless? indeed. that one program that you dismissed previously is probably the MOST profitable research project in the history of mankind. there is no telling how much money was generated from that little bit of tech much less how many jobs were created WORLDWIDE because of it.

you make a spectacularly stupid statement. you then show me a link and your counterpoint is "it's useless..."? are you serious? wow. how am i supposed to respect your opinions when you do this time and time again. the modern world exists because of our defense spending and your argument to curb some defense spending is "it's useless". i wish we were running for office against each other, man. i'd love to televise you arguing with me.

you didn't even put your little link for election polls at the bottom of your post. you feeling okay pookie?


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

Obama's great speech skills. Palin doesn't look so bad now.

Undecideds will have an easier time picking a candidate now...makes porky pig look good. Feel free to embed for me


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Conservatives scolding a candidate for stumbling when he talks is beyond hilarious.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

everyone on tv all the time has a blooper reel. it doesn't mean anything. but jewlez bush was pretty eloquent as a first time candidate. years from now, we'll realize that a: he wasn't that bad but mainstream media really did go out of their way to make him look like a moron and b: he probably had a stroke.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

Scolding? I'm just dishing out what you give us. Can't handle it? Besides Jewelz, sorry, you're 4 years too late. Time to get some new material.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

mdrs said:


> Scolding? I'm just dishing out what you give us. Can't handle it? Besides Jewelz, sorry, you're 4 years too late. *Time to get some new material.*


OK


----------



## primetime3wise (Sep 28, 2003)

Ex0dus said:


> when Obama ran for the Illinois state senate the political group, Independent Voters of Illinois (IVI), asked him if he supported a â€œban [on] the manufacture, sale and possession of handgunsâ€ and he responded â€œyes.â€
> 
> another questionnaire administered by IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test didnâ€™t ask about banning all handguns, but it did find that Obama wanted to â€œban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.â€
> 
> ...


They took er' gunsss!!


----------



## primetime3wise (Sep 28, 2003)

they all just shuffle around the tax burden a little bit, same old news. that being said, shouldn't we all be for that as it stands with obama? lol, i'm far from rich. however, both candidates fiscal spending and planned foreign policies are insane, so i may vote libertarian...but then deregulation and more money for the top would likely happen, so i'm














i may just vote now on who is the least socially conservative, since i despise religion.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Jewelz said:


> everyone on tv all the time has a blooper reel. it doesn't mean anything. but jewlez bush was pretty eloquent as a first time candidate. years from now, we'll realize that a: he wasn't that bad but mainstream media really did go out of their way to make him look like a moron and b: he probably had a stroke.


Yup, when he ran for governor of TX, he was an eloquent speaker/debater, at least from what I saw.

Enough already of the "evil mainstream media"; I hear that from right and the left; suspect that these people were probably repeatedly hit with the rolled up newspaper when growing up

[/quote]

as you said, quotes are for what's being quoted. i'm not saying it's evil, i'm saying an impartial media that actually tries to investigate and report NEWS is fast becoming an endangered species, in this country.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

mdrs said:


> everyone on tv all the time has a blooper reel. it doesn't mean anything. but jewlez bush was pretty eloquent as a first time candidate. years from now, we'll realize that a: he wasn't that bad but mainstream media really did go out of their way to make him look like a moron and b: he probably had a stroke.


Yup, when he ran for governor of TX, he was an eloquent speaker/debater, at least from what I saw.

Enough already of the "evil mainstream media"; I hear that from right and the left; suspect that these people were probably repeatedly hit with the rolled up newspaper when growing up

[/quote]

as you said, quotes are for what's being quoted. i'm not saying it's evil, i'm saying an impartial media that actually tries to investigate and report NEWS is fast becoming an endangered species, in this country.
[/quote]

I can agree with that.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

primetime3wise said:


> everyone on tv all the time has a blooper reel. it doesn't mean anything. but jewlez bush was pretty eloquent as a first time candidate. years from now, we'll realize that a: he wasn't that bad but mainstream media really did go out of their way to make him look like a moron and b: he probably had a stroke.


Yup, when he ran for governor of TX, he was an eloquent speaker/debater, at least from what I saw.

Enough already of the "evil mainstream media"; I hear that from right and the left; suspect that these people were probably repeatedly hit with the rolled up newspaper when growing up

[/quote]

as you said, quotes are for what's being quoted. i'm not saying it's evil, i'm saying an impartial media that actually tries to investigate and report NEWS is fast becoming an endangered species, in this country.
[/quote]

I can agree with that.
[/quote]

that seems to happen more and more, lately. can you talk to r1 for me? he seems to either get more crazy or just manages to always seem pissed off and in his own world. perhaps he'll listen to you.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

mdrs said:


> everyone on tv all the time has a blooper reel. it doesn't mean anything. but jewlez bush was pretty eloquent as a first time candidate. years from now, we'll realize that a: he wasn't that bad but mainstream media really did go out of their way to make him look like a moron and b: he probably had a stroke.


Yup, when he ran for governor of TX, he was an eloquent speaker/debater, at least from what I saw.

Enough already of the "evil mainstream media"; I hear that from right and the left; suspect that these people were probably repeatedly hit with the rolled up newspaper when growing up

[/quote]

as you said, quotes are for what's being quoted. i'm not saying it's evil, i'm saying an impartial media that actually tries to investigate and report NEWS is fast becoming an endangered species, in this country.
[/quote]

I can agree with that.
[/quote]

that seems to happen more and more, lately. can you talk to r1 for me? he seems to either get more crazy or just manages to always seem pissed off and in his own world. perhaps he'll listen to you.
[/quote]

Well, me and r1dermon see eye to eye on most issues, but honestly a lot of times I skip over your exchanges with him so I am not sure exactly what's being said unless something really jumps out.. when I stop by to look at these political threads I don't have time to read every post, so I just kinda read what's addressed to me.


----------



## primetime3wise (Sep 28, 2003)

mdrs said:


> everyone on tv all the time has a blooper reel. it doesn't mean anything. but jewlez bush was pretty eloquent as a first time candidate. years from now, we'll realize that a: he wasn't that bad but mainstream media really did go out of their way to make him look like a moron and b: he probably had a stroke.


Yup, when he ran for governor of TX, he was an eloquent speaker/debater, at least from what I saw.

Enough already of the "evil mainstream media"; I hear that from right and the left; suspect that these people were probably repeatedly hit with the rolled up newspaper when growing up

[/quote]

as you said, quotes are for what's being quoted. i'm not saying it's evil, i'm saying an impartial media that actually tries to investigate and report NEWS is fast becoming an endangered species, in this country.
[/quote]

I can agree with that.
[/quote]

that seems to happen more and more, lately. can you talk to r1 for me? he seems to either get more crazy or just manages to always seem pissed off and in his own world. perhaps he'll listen to you.
[/quote]

yes, i don't trust either, is that hard to understand? especially considering recent events? it's not an either /or issue. the ties between corporate america and our gov't are a club, that none of us are remotely in. and as far as the social conservatives, it really has to do with the mindset those types of people tend to adopt...palin tards, not rational.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

Jewelz said:


> Scolding? I'm just dishing out what you give us. Can't handle it? Besides Jewelz, sorry, you're 4 years too late. *Time to get some new material.*


OK













[/quote]

What? That's the best you can do? That wasn't even funny. I know you can do better. Here's something pretty funny for Obama

Uh

Btw, how do i embed videos?


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Jewelz said:


> yes, i don't trust either, is that hard to understand? especially considering recent events? it's not an either /or issue. and as far as the social conservatives, it has more to do with the mindset those types of people tend to adopt.


no, i understand. it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. it really is an either/or. what other regulatory system can you implement? i'm a social conservative. but unless it's to protect human life, i don't really ask my government to get involved. a common mistake is to think all social conservatives will expect the government to further their views.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

mdrs said:


> the last one, he said that saying us defense spending was responsible for the invention of the internet is ridiculous at best. when i showed him the error of his ways, he gave a link showing how much we spend on defense and said "it's useless". agree with him all you want, show him how to make a point. at least i can respect how you communicate, most of the time.


Only if you can persuade our good friend md that there are more useful ways to contribute to political discussion besides copying and pasting Ann Coulter columns and constant one-liners "my guy's gonna kick yer guy's ass !"


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Jewelz said:


> the last one, he said that saying us defense spending was responsible for the invention of the internet is ridiculous at best. when i showed him the error of his ways, he gave a link showing how much we spend on defense and said "it's useless". agree with him all you want, show him how to make a point. at least i can respect how you communicate, most of the time.


Only if you can persuade our good friend md that there are more useful ways to contribute to political discussion besides copying and pasting Ann Coulter columns and constant one-liners "my guy's gonna kick yer guy's ass !"









[/quote]

difference is i dont' talk to the other conservatives on this site all that much. and he's posted those articles for years, i don't see what the problem with that is. one liners aren't much good for discussion though, i'll give you that. he'll eventually realize it's not a boxing match. it sort of is except that no matter which one wins, we all lose. party politics, eh.


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

r1dermon said:


> can anyone tell me how much we spend on defense in a year?
> 
> how many air craft carriers do we have in comparison with the rest of the world?
> 
> ...


WOW i'm coming in late, but that might be the dumbest damn thing i've ever read on this site. All of the things you listed are designed to protect us from a bigger threat, IE China deciding they'd like some vacation property in Florida.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

Boobah said:


> can anyone tell me how much we spend on defense in a year?
> 
> how many air craft carriers do we have in comparison with the rest of the world?
> 
> ...


WOW i'm coming in late, but that might be the dumbest damn thing i've ever read on this site. All of the things you listed are designed to protect us from a bigger threat, IE China deciding they'd like some vacation property in Florida.
[/quote]

really dude? you think china has a chance in hell against us in a war? what type of military infrastructure do they have? the second we start losing any type of war, the nukes start flying, and we win anyway. we've already ammassed a huge ass arsenal of weapons, unmatched by every country combined, why do we need more? why can't we cut 10% of the military budget and put it towards something useful? like a tax break.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Boobah said:


> WOW i'm coming in late, but that might be the dumbest damn thing i've ever read on this site. All of the things you listed are designed to protect us from a bigger threat, IE China deciding they'd like some vacation property in Florida.


don't bother, man. i tried talking with him about this. i showed him the error of a couple statements he made and see the good it did. he's still trying to defend the original statement. don't argue war with someone who a: tells a vet he doesn't know about war and b: thinks any nuclear war is winnable.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

mdrs said:


> WOW i'm coming in late, but that might be the dumbest damn thing i've ever read on this site. All of the things you listed are designed to protect us from a bigger threat, IE China deciding they'd like some vacation property in Florida.


don't bother, man. i tried talking with him about this. i showed him the error of a couple statements he made and see the good it did. he's still trying to defend the original statement. don't argue war with someone who a: tells a vet he doesn't know about war and b: thinks any nuclear war is winnable.
[/quote]

hey, since the internet justifies it, why dont we spent 14 trillion dollars on defense?

jerry springer said it best yesterday on cspan, NATIONAL DEFENSE...what is it? it's not military, he said less than 1millionth of 1% of us will die because of a suicide bomber, or a plane crashing into our building, but 99.999% of us will die because of a disease or an accident...why the hell do we spend so much on bombs, when we should spend so much on treatments for diseases?


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

r1dermon said:


> WOW i'm coming in late, but that might be the dumbest damn thing i've ever read on this site. All of the things you listed are designed to protect us from a bigger threat, IE China deciding they'd like some vacation property in Florida.


don't bother, man. i tried talking with him about this. i showed him the error of a couple statements he made and see the good it did. he's still trying to defend the original statement. don't argue war with someone who a: tells a vet he doesn't know about war and b: thinks any nuclear war is winnable.
[/quote]

hey, since the internet justifies it, why dont we spent 14 trillion dollars on defense?

jerry springer said it best yesterday on cspan, NATIONAL DEFENSE...what is it? it's not military, he said less than 1millionth of 1% of us will die because of a suicide bomber, or a plane crashing into our building, but 99.999% of us will die because of a disease or an accident...why the hell do we spend so much on bombs, when we should spend so much on treatments for diseases?
[/quote]

jerry springer said it best? okaaaay. i TOLD you about benefits we're still enjoying from tech from defense spending. you said that defense spending didn't have anything to do with the internet. i showed you you were wrong, you showed me a link and that was it. nevermind that you can't even hope to calculate how much money something like the internet has generated.

why do you ask questions to which you mock the answers. you don't want answers. you want people to give up and agree with you.


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

r1dermon said:


> can anyone tell me how much we spend on defense in a year?
> 
> how many air craft carriers do we have in comparison with the rest of the world?
> 
> ...


WOW i'm coming in late, but that might be the dumbest damn thing i've ever read on this site. All of the things you listed are designed to protect us from a bigger threat, IE China deciding they'd like some vacation property in Florida.
[/quote]

really dude? you think china has a chance in hell against us in a war? what type of military infrastructure do they have? the second we start losing any type of war, the nukes start flying, and we win anyway. we've already ammassed a huge ass arsenal of weapons, unmatched by every country combined, why do we need more? why can't we cut 10% of the military budget and put it towards something useful? like a tax break.
[/quote]








i don't even know how to respond to that....

First of all your reply has nothing to do with defending your original retarded statement about 9/11.

no china and everyone else in the world doesn't have a chance in hell against us because of all that "wasted" money we throw at defense. You do know other countries have nukes right? that's just asinine to say that if we start losing we'll just launch nukes and win like it's our fallback plan. if we launch, so will they...bye bye world. The US is the most powerful country in the world, and everyone knows it (militarily speaking). I'd prefer to keep it that way, hence why i'd rather just go ahead and not get a tax break for that purpose.

i think this was pointed out already, but you do know that must avionic and space exploration technology is derived from military breakthroughs, right?


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Boobah said:


> i think this was pointed out already, but you do know that must avionic and space exploration technology is derived from military breakthroughs, right?


dude, he didn't even know the internet came from military spending. i'm telling you, this is a waste of time, unless you enjoy it.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

mdrs said:


> WOW i'm coming in late, but that might be the dumbest damn thing i've ever read on this site. All of the things you listed are designed to protect us from a bigger threat, IE China deciding they'd like some vacation property in Florida.


don't bother, man. i tried talking with him about this. i showed him the error of a couple statements he made and see the good it did. he's still trying to defend the original statement. don't argue war with someone who a: tells a vet he doesn't know about war and b: thinks any nuclear war is winnable.
[/quote]

hey, since the internet justifies it, why dont we spent 14 trillion dollars on defense?

jerry springer said it best yesterday on cspan, NATIONAL DEFENSE...what is it? it's not military, he said less than 1millionth of 1% of us will die because of a suicide bomber, or a plane crashing into our building, but 99.999% of us will die because of a disease or an accident...why the hell do we spend so much on bombs, when we should spend so much on treatments for diseases?
[/quote]

jerry springer said it best? okaaaay. i TOLD you about benefits we're still enjoying from tech from defense spending. you said that defense spending didn't have anything to do with the internet. i showed you you were wrong, you showed me a link and that was it. nevermind that you can't even hope to calculate how much money something like the internet has generated.

why do you ask questions to which you mock the answers. you don't want answers. you want people to give up and agree with you.
[/quote]

yes, jerry springer did say it best, defense spending when the internet was created versus now is a lot different...not nearly as much was spent on defense back then as opposed to now...

some of what is in this article i disagree with, however, most of it is on the money.



> A new report just came out about global military spending. It's up 45% in the past decade. And of course the world is far more safe and secure and peaceful because of it. Snort. There is actually little or no correlation between increased military spending and security as far as I can tell. In fact there's so much wrong with this obscene situation it's hard to know where to start. However, I've never let that stop me before, so I will go from the general to the specific.
> 
> First of all this represents a colossal waste of money. Money spent on the military is easily the worst way money can be spent in any long term sense, it's literally money poured down a rathole. It creates very few jobs compared to other types of spending, and creates nothing of long term value. Money spent on infrastructure, education, health care, and research would be far more useful in the long and the short run. In a very real sense out-of-control military spending destroys its own nation through waste of resources as much or more than it will ever damage its enemies real or perceived.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

mdrs said:


> the last one, he said that saying us defense spending was responsible for the invention of the internet is ridiculous at best. when i showed him the error of his ways, he gave a link showing how much we spend on defense and said "it's useless". agree with him all you want, show him how to make a point. at least i can respect how you communicate, most of the time.


Only if you can persuade our good friend md that there are more useful ways to contribute to political discussion besides copying and pasting Ann Coulter columns and constant one-liners "my guy's gonna kick yer guy's ass !"









[/quote]

difference is i dont' talk to the other conservatives on this site all that much. and he's posted those articles for years, i don't see what the problem with that is. one liners aren't much good for discussion though, i'll give you that. he'll eventually realize it's not a boxing match. it sort of is except that no matter which one wins, we all lose. party politics, eh.
[/quote]

There is absolutely no problem with posting articles; I am just saying there is a lot of benefit to also engaging in constructive debate where you offer opinions constructed in your own words, wouldn't you agree ?

BTW, have you decided who you are voting for ?


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

r1dermon said:


> can anyone tell me how much we spend on defense in a year?
> 
> how many air craft carriers do we have in comparison with the rest of the world?
> 
> ...


WOW i'm coming in late, but that might be the dumbest damn thing i've ever read on this site. All of the things you listed are designed to protect us from a bigger threat, IE China deciding they'd like some vacation property in Florida.
[/quote]

really dude? you think china has a chance in hell against us in a war? what type of military infrastructure do they have? the second we start losing any type of war, the nukes start flying, and we win anyway. we've already ammassed a huge ass arsenal of weapons, unmatched by every country combined, why do we need more? why can't we cut 10% of the military budget and put it towards something useful? like a tax break.
[/quote]

Yes, very much so. While China does not have the exact hardware we have, they are far superior than you are giving them credit. Plus, there is also speculation they have the means now to detect our old stealth technology ( a spy sold the secrets to china) Oh ya, then theres the fact they have the largest standing army IN THE WORLD and MILLIONS AND MILLIONS more in reserve.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

r1dermon said:


> the last one, he said that saying us defense spending was responsible for the invention of the internet is ridiculous at best. when i showed him the error of his ways, he gave a link showing how much we spend on defense and said "it's useless". agree with him all you want, show him how to make a point. at least i can respect how you communicate, most of the time.


Only if you can persuade our good friend md that there are more useful ways to contribute to political discussion besides copying and pasting Ann Coulter columns and constant one-liners "my guy's gonna kick yer guy's ass !"









[/quote]

difference is i dont' talk to the other conservatives on this site all that much. and he's posted those articles for years, i don't see what the problem with that is. one liners aren't much good for discussion though, i'll give you that. he'll eventually realize it's not a boxing match. it sort of is except that no matter which one wins, we all lose. party politics, eh.
[/quote]

There is absolutely no problem with posting articles; I am just saying there is a lot of benefit to also engaging in constructive debate where you offer opinions constructed in your own words, wouldn't you agree ?

BTW, have you decided who you are voting for ?
[/quote]

i'm leaning toward bob barr, but i still have a LOT of reading to do in the next couple days.

and yes i would agree. you pass that on to r1 and i'll see what i can do with md.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

ok, on the assault weapons, that's the part i disagree with in the article...

nobody is saying that defense spending is bad, or whatever you're taking it as, it's just overbloated. there's no need for 600+ billion dollars a year for defense...none.

different how? it's different in terms of quantity...how much money was spent on the internet's development? how much money was spent on defense in that decade? that's how it's different.

a standing army can be well funded with less than 600+ BILLION dollars.

by everyone's standards, do you go to the doctor? sure do, in-fact, EVERYONE goes to a doctor...now, in the last 100 years, how many people have gone to the doctor, and gotten medicine to overcome an illness...raise your hands...

ok, now, how many of you, have been saved by a missile defense system, raise your hands...

the US is a superpower, but that was due to the industrial revolution, manufacturing jobs, etc...the war played a substantial role, but overall, american's used to work on materials, now we dont do sh*t for manufacturing...ala, huge ass economic problem.

simple fact? lets see some data on that...

listen asshat, im not saying that military spending isn't good. im saying it NEEDS to be cut back, there's no point in having a 600 billion dollar security system, especially when terrorist attacks still happen, and people get killed every day.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

r1dermon said:


> ok, on the assault weapons, that's the part i disagree with in the article...
> 
> nobody is saying that defense spending is bad, or whatever you're taking it as, it's just overbloated. there's no need for 600+ billion dollars a year for defense...none.
> 
> ...


ah, name calling. there's the r1 i'm so used to. again, the missle defense system question is retarded because you're forcing your reader to answer a question with a hypothetical answer. once more, that's not an effective tactic when debating with someone who's not ten.

and again, i asked for facts. you gave me more of your opinions. show me why (without injecting your OPINION) it "NEEDS" to be cut back.

the war didn't "help" us become a superpower. if you don't know what "the broken window" is you might look that up too when talking about econonmics. and we don't have manufacturing jobs here like we used to because of so many moron politicians waging war against business with minimum wage, environmental laws, unions, and all the other crap your party loves to shove down the throats of businesses. they go to OTHER COUNTRIES because the people here start buying foreign to save a buck.



> nobody is saying that defense spending is bad, or whatever you're taking it as, it's just overbloated. there's no need for 600+ billion dollars a year for defense...none.
> 
> different how? it's different in terms of quantity...how much money was spent on the internet's development? how much money was spent on defense in that decade? that's how it's different.


i copied this because i wanted to make a special point about how incoherant this sounds. quantity? you ask for facts that would make your argument rather than look them up yourself (lazy) and then don't explain why i'm supposed to take your OPINIONS as facts. don't tell me about how "we don't need" something. that's not a fact. that's your opinion. if you honestly can't seperate your opinions from actual facts, you need to learn how to do that to communicate effectively.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

no, not lazy, just unwilling. listen, you know my stance, im saying, there's no need for 600 billion dollars, you say hypothetical, well, i say, the evidence suggests that it doesn't make us safer, we've been attacked, people died, security FAIL. uber fail. hypothetically it would be beneficial to spend 15 trillion dollars on defense, right? that's what you're saying...there is no end, because you people are stuck in the military mind-set...war and military are necessary things, but jesus f*cking christ, 600 billion dollars of taxpayer money on a defense system, plus whatever the iraq war is going to cost, i mean, the money is so huge that it's not even fathomable. and once again, im NOT proposing to cut 50% of the defense spending...but you know what, you want to find facts about how useless it is? go ask the people who died on 9/11...they'll tell you how vital defense spending is...i'd rather not give the government the overwhelming power to go to an all out unprovoked war...i know you're a gungho righty, but you know, drop your cowboy hat and give it some thought.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

r1dermon said:


> no, not lazy, just unwilling. listen, you know my stance, im saying, there's no need for 600 billion dollars, you say hypothetical, well, i say, the evidence suggests that it doesn't make us safer, we've been attacked, people died, security FAIL. uber fail. hypothetically it would be beneficial to spend 15 trillion dollars on defense, right? that's what you're saying...there is no end, because you people are stuck in the military mind-set...war and military are necessary things, but jesus f*cking christ, 600 billion dollars of taxpayer money on a defense system, plus whatever the iraq war is going to cost, i mean, the money is so huge that it's not even fathomable. and once again, im NOT proposing to cut 50% of the defense spending...but you know what, you want to find facts about how useless it is? go ask the people who died on 9/11...they'll tell you how vital defense spending is...i'd rather not give the government the overwhelming power to go to an all out unprovoked war...i know you're a gungho righty, but you know, drop your cowboy hat and give it some thought.


as we've covered before, 911 was not a matter for the military to defend us from. the CIA and FBI are not lumped in with "defense spending". you can continue to blame the military for not stopping 911, but it only makes you look more unwilling to do a little of research and find out what agencies were charged with safeguarding against domestic attacks. drop your picket sign and give it some thought.

i show you how much tech and money is generated from defense spending (since a good bit of it is for research and development) and you come back with opinions and the oft repeated "we don't need it" argument. you can at least try do do better than that. you talk about not empowering the government you don't trust to "go out on an unprovoked war" but you want to give them power over your doctors as well as your teachers and your retirement. how does that make any sense? or do you not think of it that way?

oh, and laziness is an unwillingness to do actual research.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

see, now thats your problem...where did i say i want the government to have power over healthcare? teachers? retirement? im against social security, you just like to put words in peoples mouths.

my stance? defense spending should be cut back.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

r1dermon said:


> see, now thats your problem...where did i say i want the government to have power over healthcare? teachers? retirement? im against social security, you just like to put words in peoples mouths.
> 
> my stance? defense spending should be cut back.


when have you said in other threads that you were in favor of public education and healthcare? are you serious? as for the social security, i stand corrected. you can talk about me putting words in other people's mouths all you want but you're still the one calling me a "gung ho righty" even though i'm not a rep.

i know what your stance is. i'm waiting for your facts to back that up. i can and have shown factual benefits to defense spending. can you show facts that prove the benefits of cutting spending back? actual facts, though not just vague opinions.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

well, the facts seem to be straight here, so i'll cite my source, even though it looks like a little bit of a biased site.

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

anyway, R&D accounts for only 79 billion dollars out of a projected 965 billion for total spending for the military. NASA recieves 9 billion, the other 50% of NASA's funding comes out of the general fund. operations is 241 billion, the war in iraq is projected to run 200 billion next year alone. and our enemies pale in defense spending when compared.

The U.S. outspends Iran and North Korea by a ratio of 72 to one. and the top 15 spenders in national defense, 12 are allies of the US.

sources are cited here..

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/index.html
http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/
http://old.armscontrolcenter.org/archives/002279.php

and another interesting thing i read at the bottom



> Function vs. Agency/Department. Not all military spending is done by the Department of Defense. For example, the Department of Energy is responsible for nuclear weapons. Consequently, calculations of military spending should consider the function of the budget item regardless of the department or agency in charge of it. However, not everyone agrees what constitutes a military function. For example, WRL includes the 70% of Homeland Security (which includes the Coast Guard), and half of NASA in military spending, while other groups do not.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

while i'll thank you for finally putting up some factual links, yes a site against war is not what i'd consider a valid source. i don't cite fox or other sites as a courtesy and to save time from the inevitable "faux" crap i get.

so we spend a lot of money on defense. i'll consider that established. what is it you think would be better off with that money. and please don't put us through the agony of suggesting unconstitutional programs because that's not going to get us anywhere. at least suggest things that our constitution provides for rather than random pet projects of our federal overlords.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

how about nothing? how about a tax break? how about take those billions of dollars and let us keep them...i want my goddamn money! social security is a crock of sh*t! you can call obama/biden a socialist, marxist, communist all you want, but jesus christ, take a look at social security! that's REALLY socialism! and why the hell are we stuck footing the bill? why does the government think it's better suited to look after my money? im sure im capable enough to invest it and gain better returns than social security will ever get me. and that's the truth.

how about healthcare? why not create a government funded pharmaceutical establishment? not necessarily to compete with what's already out there, but to supplement it?

why not invest it in wind farms or solar panels? or any type of alternative energy initiative? now, im not saying to cut up the defense fund until it's pea sized, im saying, there's a considerable amount of billions that im SURE could be shed.

and just as a supporting argument FOR the website i posted, i did post their sources as well, which can be considered credible, or, as credible as the whitehouse is to you i guess...


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

*take a look at social security! that's REALLY socialism! *

We have a democrat to thank for social security....


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

> Social Security is currently the largest social insurance program in the U.S., constituting 37% of government expenditure and 7% of the gross domestic product[6] and is currently estimated to keep roughly 40% all Americans age 65 or older out of poverty.[7]


ok, well, we can't go back in our time machine, and im sure, when it was established, it was an effective program, but with the whole baby boomer population, there's just no way that social security can keep itself together, especially with government spending going out of control.

so the question is, if not social security, then what? what happens to the poor planners? once again, the state has an interest in everyone...

i feel as though, maybe im more capable than a lot of people, in that i can save my money, whereas a lot of people cannot get by like that. i would think that an optional social security type of program would work better than a forced one. and in terms of "unemployment", if you claim unemployment, that money should come directly from your social security savings.


----------



## Doktordet (Sep 22, 2006)

break for McCain? Its him who should be getting a break - literally. He should just pack up, trot on to the nearest nursing home and STFU from all the bs political rhetoric he's been spewing out to the American people.


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

Doktordet said:


> break for McCain? Its him who should be getting a break - literally. He should just pack up, trot on to the nearest nursing home and STFU from all the bs political rhetoric he's been spewing out to the American people.


Is this your 1st time experience with politics? If so, welcome.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

dude, mccain is not bad. it's the punditry and the RNC behind him (and sarah palin...she sucks). they are the ones spewing all the hate rhetoric, im sure mccain's campaign advisor says it's in his best interest, but come on, it's really just disgusting to see such money spent on mostly fluff, bullshit adds. half truths, complete rhetoric, how about obamas half brother, and now i heard HALF aunt? how the hell do you become a half aunt? and it is possible to not know a thing about a half brother...its just immense volumes of bullshit flowing from both sides. in the grand scheme of things though, mccain is a good guy, an american war icon, worked hard and fought hard, worked his way through the political process to get to where he is today...im not voting for him, but it's not because i dont like him. in-fact, he would've been my choice in 04, over john kerry (who lets face it, sucked...but still, bush was/is worse). and my choice in 00 had i been old enough to vote. it's just i feel that an obama biden ticket is what's right for this country at this point in time...


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

r1dermon said:


> how about nothing? how about a tax break? how about take those billions of dollars and let us keep them...i want my goddamn money! social security is a crock of sh*t! you can call obama/biden a socialist, marxist, communist all you want, but jesus christ, take a look at social security! that's REALLY socialism! and why the hell are we stuck footing the bill? why does the government think it's better suited to look after my money? im sure im capable enough to invest it and gain better returns than social security will ever get me. and that's the truth.
> 
> *how about healthcare? why not create a government funded pharmaceutical establishment? not necessarily to compete with what's already out there, but to supplement it? *
> *
> ...


i won't point out who started social security because it was already done. i will point out who the AARP usually votes for as to reason social security limps on today.

as for wind farms, when the tech is profitable, it's the place of the private market. i told you to stick to CONSTITUTIONAL ways to spend that money. and you can't "suppliment" the market by creating a govt agency to sell drugs. that doesn't supplement the market any more than ford does gm.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

by supplement i mean R&D. i dont mean marketing.

and wind-farms and solar panels aren't profitable if you dont make profit off of them. and who's competing with private sector? which private sector company sells wind generated electricity?


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

r1dermon said:


> by supplement i mean R&D. i dont mean marketing.
> 
> and wind-farms and solar panels aren't profitable if you dont make profit off of them. and who's competing with private sector? which private sector company sells wind generated electricity?


wtf does that mean? you're asking if there's private companies that have wind farms in the us?


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

Boobah said:


> by supplement i mean R&D. i dont mean marketing.
> 
> and wind-farms and solar panels aren't profitable if you dont make profit off of them. and who's competing with private sector? which private sector company sells wind generated electricity?


wtf does that mean? you're asking if there's private companies that have wind farms in the us?
[/quote]

yes, that's what im asking...do you have an answer?


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

r1dermon said:


> by supplement i mean R&D. i dont mean marketing.
> 
> and wind-farms and solar panels aren't profitable if you dont make profit off of them. and who's competing with private sector? which private sector company sells wind generated electricity?


wtf does that mean? you're asking if there's private companies that have wind farms in the us?
[/quote]

yes, that's what im asking...do you have an answer?
[/quote]

are you seriously asking that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_States

other than the fact we're the second largest producer of wind energy in the world....

here's a list of the wind farms in the US

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wind_...e_United_States

the wind farms in the US are owned by investors, i'm not sure what stupid point you're trying to make is..

http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/pdfs/wp...downers_faq.pdf here's an article...go to who owns wind farms


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

r1dermon said:


> by supplement i mean R&D. i dont mean marketing.
> 
> and wind-farms and solar panels aren't profitable if you dont make profit off of them. and who's competing with private sector? which private sector company sells wind generated electricity?


government research? seriously? private market research is always much more effective.

and what exactly is "solar panels aren't profitable if you don't make profit off of them?" i mean my first impulse is "well yeah, no sh*t," but i'm guessing you were trying to say something else maybe? the reason the private market doesn't do it is because it's not profitable. if it's not profitable, it's going to cost buttloads of money (that you'll be flushing down the crapper) to make power to sell. and while i don't feel like looking up companies that sell alternative energy (GE) i'll say that there are a lot that sell electricity and regardless of how it's made, government doesn't need to be doing it as well.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

private market research is always much more effective...

lets take a look at military spending, who does all the R&D? boeing? BAE? lockheed? raytheon? these are all government subcontractors paid to do the R&D. what im saying is, why can't we subsidize companies for healthcare R&D? why can't we throw money at wyeth? phizer? etc... to me that would be effective in coming up with better, less costly healthcare solutions. not at the treatment level, but at least at the pharmaceutical level.

the government could make wind-farms to generate power for government buildings and structures, as well as roadways, etc...they could also provide incentives for people to invest in alternative, renewable energy sources. why not throw money at R&D for that?

boobah, come on man, we've just entered a state of civil conversation...dont be the assclown to ruin it.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

r1dermon said:


> private market research is always much more effective...
> 
> lets take a look at military spending, who does all the R&D? boeing? BAE? lockheed? raytheon? these are all government subcontractors paid to do the R&D. what im saying is, why can't we subsidize companies for healthcare R&D? why can't we throw money at wyeth? phizer? etc... to me that would be effective in coming up with better, less costly healthcare solutions. not at the treatment level, but at least at the pharmaceutical level.
> 
> ...


i understand what you're saying about healthcare costs, but the costs are high because of government subsidy. the same thing is happening with colleges. these things are extremely expensive because healthcare providers know that the government will (for the most part) pick up part of the check. this keeps costs really high. i just got a bill for $75 for two xrays (don't have insurance). i KNOW it doesn't cost that much to just do the xray. while in the ER, i only got about 15-20 min of actual face time with a doctor and a cheap arm sling. i'll be amazed if my bill for SITTING IN THE ROOM for five hours will be less than $500. this is because government is so great about picking up the check for "people that need it". i'm not just talking out my ass.

long story short, we don't need more research to make healthcare cheap, we just need to stop all the damn subsidies.

and while i don't agree with the delivery, boobah does have a point. we DO make a lot of wind power. and the government does provide tax incentives for alternative energy. you can get credits for putting up solar panels or windmills.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

but as far as i can tell, government isn't investing in R&D FOR solar panels and wind farms, which i think would be a viable use of taxpayer money, since eventually, we're all going to be relying on that technology for energy in this country. especially if government wants to spread the message that we should be more dependent on domestic production of energy. instead of backing a drilling plan, why not invest time and money into an infrastructure plan?

healthcare costs are high because they know they can juice insurance companies. and medical malpractice lawsuits which inevitably are sometimes frivolous. im not against law-suits, but i think this country as a whole has relied on them as the ultimate "get rich quick" scheme. and unfortunately, the justice system has bought the bullshit. they are however, a necessary evil. the doctor that leaves his knife inside of someone's body after stitching them up, needs to get punished, and the punitive damages for that should as well be substantial.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

r1dermon said:


> but as far as i can tell, government isn't investing in R&D FOR solar panels and wind farms, which i think would be a viable use of taxpayer money, since eventually, we're all going to be relying on that technology for energy in this country. especially if government wants to spread the message that we should be more dependent on domestic production of energy. instead of backing a drilling plan, why not invest time and money into an infrastructure plan?
> 
> why not both? what's wrong with using all the resources we have at our disposal? it would take x amount of years for oil to be viable, but how many years would it be before we have a breakthrough in solar, wind, or other sh*t. i'm in favor of it, to a point as part of national security. but it's a VERY slippery slope, man. however, we should be using money from unconstitutional programs rather than ones the constitution mandates.
> 
> ...


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

well, in order for that to come about, "frivolous" would have to be definable by law. and im not sure it is currently. lol. which is sad.


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

r1dermon said:


> private market research is always much more effective...
> 
> lets take a look at military spending, who does all the R&D? boeing? BAE? lockheed? raytheon? these are all government subcontractors paid to do the R&D. what im saying is, why can't we subsidize companies for healthcare R&D? why can't we throw money at wyeth? phizer? etc... to me that would be effective in coming up with better, less costly healthcare solutions. not at the treatment level, but at least at the pharmaceutical level.
> 
> ...


haha yeah...civil...sure.


----------



## Graffight (Nov 16, 2008)

mdrs said:


> by supplement i mean R&D. i dont mean marketing.
> 
> and wind-farms and solar panels aren't profitable if you dont make profit off of them. and who's competing with private sector? which private sector company sells wind generated electricity?


government research? seriously? private market research is always much more effective.

*Except for when it comes to the military right...and the invention of the internet?*

and what exactly is "solar panels aren't profitable if you don't make profit off of them?" i mean my first impulse is "well yeah, no sh*t," but i'm guessing you were trying to say something else maybe? the reason the private market doesn't do it is because it's not profitable. if it's not profitable, it's going to cost buttloads of money (that you'll be flushing down the crapper) to make power to sell. and while i don't feel like looking up companies that sell alternative energy (GE) i'll say that there are a lot that sell electricity and regardless of how it's made, government doesn't need to be doing it as well.
[/quote]

many things are not profitable off jump...sometimes for the greater good companies spend money on things because they believe it will be profitable in the future. do you suggest that the government should not spend money on solar and wind energy because it's not profitable now?


----------



## Graffight (Nov 16, 2008)

as i just noticed this thread is preeeeety old...ah well.....


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

Sure, why not spend some money to invest in wind and solar energy. While were at it, why dont we built some new clean burning coal power plants? We have an overabundance of coal in this country, with the clean coal technology, why not use that too? Oh hey, while were at it... why dont we drill off the coastal line of the USA for oil, we got alot there...


----------

