Discussion in 'TPU Frontpage Polls' started by W1zzard, Oct 1, 2008.
You have mine......i would suggest.....you are a strong contender!
ID vote you in DaMulta, you are a man after my own heart. Stop foreign aide to all these countries too so we can fix our social services (SS, Disability, 401k, 401n, 404k, etc MEdicare) and we will be ok.
Trickle down economics isnt the way to go in my opinion. Obama sort of wants to do that in some sense, with the redistribution of wealth (I personally dont think its that good of an idea) Capitalism works to a degree a hell of alot better than anything else out there. Greed doesnt work that well and this bailout is stupid. They dont bail me, or you or anyone else out when we are in trouble. ITs complete bullshit as Big John said.
BTW, Big John, you are an angry individual. The Democrats are not all bad and have done good things for us. Think FDR and the depression .
Personally, neither one of these candidates are going to cut my taxes, give me more money, etc. I dont care what they say. Apparently, Middle Class means high 40s, to low 50s to 250k a year. I probably make right below 40k a year. So neither of them will put more money into my pocket.
I could go on and on, but I think I made my point. McCain would be better for defense of the country, Obama has reached out and gotten more folks to vote. Plain and Simple, McCain has lost this election, Powell (an African American) has thrown his weight behind a democrat. THat is truly reaching across the isle.
BTW, I have that audio file from the Howard Stern Show. PM me if you want it sent to you via email. I dont think I can upload it to the site.
Government involvement in these things (medicare, for example) have not resulted in anything good happening.... they've resulted in government attempting to control healthcare, which results in less care for us all...
You obviously don't know what "trickle down economics" are. Obama is NOT trying to do that. He says it's failed. Instead, he wants to impose a ton more taxes on us all, and "force" the money 'down' through the government maw. 20% of it all will be lost in the bureaucracy and waste... Trickle down IS capitalism.
Angry? Me? seeing my country destroyed by a moron like Obama should make anyone angry. The ignorance of the american sheeple, well, that makes me angry too. As to FDR, well, many a conspiracy theory suggests that FDR got us into a war to stimulate the economy through government spending. True or false, the war DID spur the economy. It was the later repeal or protectionist policies (during his second term) that allowed industry and the American consumer to continue the process. Without the war, and the repeal of those protectionist tariffs, etc., the Depression could have lasted longer.
obama says he would, but by raising corporate taxes, all the goods you buy will go up in price, so you'll never see it... McCain would leave you right where you are, and reduce corporate taxes to make american industry more competitive at home and around the world.
Umm, obama is a Democrat, dude. A socialist leaning democrat. Never reached across the isle at all, ever. Voted with the democrat party 97% of the time on key votes.
sounds like it's funny!
Government control healthcare works over here, healthcare is completely free and is paid for by our taxes, with the right approach it can be managed well, there is no "divide" in respect to income levels for access to it, everyone is entitled, some choose to take private purely to cut wait times etc but generally it's pretty good, arguably the best in the world! Obviously it is not something any government wants to try when the economy is the way it is but it can work well is my point.
But poor stupid crack heads who fuck themselves up should not have access to MY money, even in the form of healthcare.
Women who get pregnant because they're too dumb or lazy, should not have access to my money to raise those kids, or birth them, for that matter. If you want me to pay for the baby, then I get permission to order your sterilization too - so you don't do that shit again.
In US maybe a political party consists of tens of millions of registered voters, but in the end there's only two parties playing games there.
In here we've quite a few parties, at least in Germany/Austria it's not any different. I dont know about the rest of EU though, prolly England has the same as USA. To let the total civilization count away of this, from what I meant is that at least for us there's a party with members and actually people from the party. I dont call those members, which are basicly just dedicated voters helping their party as much as possible in the society, the actual party.
Maybe this is seriously different in USA, but a party here of course has some roots with certain people because of their ideology. But eventual people from the party are allowed, be it in reasonable terms, to say what they think there should be changed. That's why the VVD in our country got so popular because Wilders could say things a lot of people wanted to hear, be it balanced by the rest of the party. He left the VVD and set up his own PVV, resulting mostly the rooted liberal still support VVD anyway but the popularity of PVV didnt show since Wilders could actually express everything resulting in like Islamapobia and only specializing on that and certain immigration issues but had nothing else to offer. That's what I mean with a political party being 'small', at least compared to a real ideology from say national socialism, anti-western etc.
You know Taliban was actually given money from USA government right? Besides that, it's plain rubbish to be honest. Bin Laden has been the one using economical warfare for all the time, both against Russia as well as against USA. Actually, Taliban isnt permitted to excist by, AFAIK, any Mid East countries but I could be wrong on that.
That's quite hypocrit, Bush has just as much innocent blood on his hands if not the whole USA government for the past 16 years.
It's a bit like what was first? The egg or the chicken. I said it a few times already, Osama's actions did not came out of the blue as a "haha lol, lets mess with USA". There's a weird history between USA and Taliban. Although, Im not praising those actions from Osama, but at 9/11 I cared more if my food wasnt too cold than about that really, and lots of people cared as much as I did.
I still see them they want USA to leave though, it was only two days ago on the news Violence maybe became worse, will it stay at that level though? What does it change?
I meant from both sides, USA soldiers are just as much comitting suicide there for their 'ideology'.
Seriously, they'll remain in Afghanistan and Pakistan at least. Word wide recruitment has been going on for years now. It's not a bunch of friends who knew each other from a 2K population town.
China isnt all that communistic anymore, at least it's pretty much using capitalistic movements now to or not to boost it's communistic structure. China is one of the most communistic countries and it worked/works for a long time but it's not the real communism either, they've a mix. But currently China is slowly getting hit by the capitalistic fall in the west too.
Well, we actually went 1 week to Turkey cause my sister was getting married. Was pretty cool though, but one week is way too short:shadedshu
Please get out of that shell and actually read what I say.
Im saying at some point everything is working so nice everyone is taking risks which actually pay very well. More risks are taken untill a huge amount of the population, banks and compagnies actually have no clue what exactly is going on, but this doesnt matter at that moment because it just 'works'... for that moment. Certain factors are being an issue for certain parts of the structure and it all falls down and the destruction isnt even clear thus far.
And by this I mean that the government actually should just, well, be it records of everything. Not as a serious control or whatever, but if some part of the structure is taking risks what might cause a global scrapheap I do think a government is allowed to warn that certain part of the structure.
Funny as I saw Bush in '02 I think saying that he wanted special deals from certain banks for poor people who have been known not to pay their credit back, being a complete asshat regarding money etc so they could buy their own houses.
Obama remarks on those who would call him socialist (a remark I've heard in this thread several times): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0PU70gumck
Obama has Robin Hood economics. He's gonna take $700,000 from the people that earned it and pay it to the poor bastards that don't. It's socialist through and through.
It never was a "bailout." It's an "economic recovery plan." It is government's job to intervene if the shit hits the fan and intervene they did. We won't know if it worked for several years yet.
The Democratic party was Democratic back in the 1930's and 1940's. Today it is a completely different that is centered around Progressivism (one step away from Socialist). They are not the same.
McCain won't give you more money but he'll make every dollar you do have more valuable in international markets but cutting US debt. He will not raise anybody's taxes either.
Powell really doesn't matter. It is no surprise that he endorsed Obama.
McCain works best in second place. Don't count him out until it is over.
If it weren't for the fat lady singing, we could hear that last nail going in the coffin...
only a one point difference now in ohio in the polls
My vote is for McCain. More experience. Fancy words mean nothing to me.
Half the time he votes "present." ROFL
There is always two opinions on every subject, one in favor and one against. Likewise, there is only a handful of issues that are vote-deciding at each election (like this general election is all about the economy). You really only need two parties. There are other parties like the Libertarian, Constitutionalist, and Green party but the only areas they differ is in the subjects that aren't that important right now. As such, people vote for the majority party that is most in-line with their beliefs. As long as there is more than one party and the willingness for people to vote are split relatively even, the system works. Problems arrise when there is just a single-party system.
Back in the 1980's. Everything has changed in regards to Afghanistan since 2000.
There is a difference between military, terrorist, and civilian. There is also a difference between accidental and intentional.
I already stated in this thread that bin Laden had a rogue army with no war to fight. Because Saudi Arabi came to USA to deal with the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait instead of bin Laden, bin Laden got furious and declared war on USA.
It's just like police--you don't like them unless you need them. Of course they don't like our pressence there which is why they are going to gradually draw down the US troop presence; however, if the enemy steps up efforts to inflict pain, we may have to bulster the troop count to deal with it. As stated before, while on the defense, your enemy decides your actions.
Has nothing to do with "ideology." A lot that commit suicide see something that they can't erase from their mind be it accidentally shooting a civilian or piles of corpses. War is ugly and some just can't take it. They feel that the only way to free their mind is to die. Only one soldier, that I know of, was going to "commit suicide" as a weapon and he was dishonarbly discharged and considered a defector--the enemy. I don't know what happend to him since.
It's a communist government with some capitalist ideals injected where the government sees fit. China makes a lot of their money by manufacturing goods sold around the world. Since consumers aren't buying anymore, their goods have no market. No one is really spared from this crisis.
"Senator McCain's campaign actually said a couple of weeks ago that they were going to launch a series of attacks on my character because they said if we keep talking about the economy we're going to lose."
McCain never said that. In fact, I'm pretty sure the guy that did say that is no longer working on the campaign. "Weeks ago" is a lifetime on the campaign trail. Obama really needs to come up with new material.
"He has been attacking the heck out of me."
See above quote. Obama has been just as, if not more negative than McCain not only in advertisements but also on the campaign trail and in the debates.
Endorsements does not make his tax-plan non-socialist.
Why does he keep saying "middle class?" Has he forgotten there is a high and low class and their opinion matters too?
Obama wants to pay those that do have a job more and make it so businesses of all sizes are unwilling to expand due to lack of capital. Put simply, it makes a bad situation worse.
"These are the folks that work hard everyday."
Again, lower and upper classes don't?
"...fighting for the American dream..."
The American dream does not involve government hand-outs.
"...I call it opportunity and there is nothing more American than that..."
Why not give an opportunity to everyone? Why single out the wealthy? That, is socialist.
The $700,000 tax cut for CEOs is only a "tax cut" if Obama gets elected and takes that money away from them. McCain wants to extend the Bush tax cuts which means no body's taxes increase. And remember, those CEOs buy up expensive cars which are paying other people's wages and they buy expensive homes which raise land values. I have absolutely no problem with them keeping that money because me, in the middle class, could eventually see it. I don't need Uncle Sam to steal it from that CEO and stick it in my pocket--he/she earned that money as much as I earn my own. It is shameful how the Democratic party is criminalizing the must successful people among us.
The $300 billion is to free up capital which, I should add, an FDIC board member says we must do that in order to keep land values from plummeting.
$4 billion to Exxon Mobile is a capital gains tax cut if memory serves. That tax break does not single out oil companies. It applies to all corporations big and small. Obama singles out that one because Exxon Mobile is one of the most highest grossing companies in the USA and they deal mostly in oil--which American's apparently hate.
Oh, and he is not "giving" away $200 billion. That is money he is not going to take away from them to begin with. You know how many jobs $200 billion worth of capital can create? Great spin Obama...
Is having a job you didn't have before not "relief?" Is seeing your taxes not go up "tax relief?" I'd say yes. I'd hate to be making over $250,000 if he were elected...
"Change," as in increasing taxes, is a bad thing to be doing right now.
Biden is, a moment waiting to happen.
And Obama is not an American? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyspCRmJv7w
and that's with all the million probably false ACORN voter registrations!
I heard of that. Obama's sister, Grandmother, and himself all sang different songs as to where he was born and the birth certificiate Obama himself submitted appears to have been altered. The film confirms what I heard. :|
Even if the case gets pushed beyond election day, his Presidency would be revoked with immidiate effect meaning Biden would take over.
I think its funny watching a McCain speech then an Obama.. McCain's crowds are dead compared to Obama's.
I've always been taught that you help those in need. Which makes me a democrat.
Yes I believe the people that need food should get food.
Yes I believe the people that need medical care should get medical care.
Yes I believe in a free education for our kids.
Yes I believe in the government regulation of the people on top. Look what they do to people in China, and what they make them work for compared to here. Do you think that they would do that here if they could?
I do admit I am pro army. But I think we should be more about pro defense. I think we should be in space now, each and every one of you. At least our military should be(they more than likely are)at least in space full force.
I would like NASA to remain to the public, but I would like to put them back in the books with the military money wise. We would just start having top secret stuff going along public knowledge.
How I see it is, there is always people in the background that's doing all the planing when their party is in the office. So Dem or Rep those ideas are always flowing from the same group of people. The President is just the yes or no man on top. Yes he does have some plans but most are made by the people around them. Those who are not bound to the 2 term rule of being President.
No, it doesn't. What makes you a Democrat or Republican is if you think it is the government or if it is the good will of the people that does the helping. The Democrats say it is the government and the Republicans say it is the people.
If we don't know about it, that means the enemy doesn't know about it. If the enemy doesn't know about it, they can't counter it. It should be kept that way for the sake of saving the lives of those that serve.
That's why I said I was a democrat, the GOVERMENT should help those in need. If I pay in money(taxes), I want it to help someone.
I think u missed out on what I said. Projects going along as in separate programs that u and me don't see.
My dad has been paying about 40% out of every check that he gets for as long as I can remember. He still believes that the more you make the more you should pay. It's for the good of the whole, the government takes care of you and me and everyone else that lives here.
I can't say I don't share his view points, because I just see it the way my father sees things for the most part.
isn't funny how those view points are past down so many times?
I don't think I follow then. The stuff I'm talking about are classified top secret and beyond top secret--things DARPA and the DoD work on.
Children are naturally impressionable and their parents are in a position to make the strongest impressions. Adults have to be careful about what they talk about in front of children for that reason. It closes their minds to ideas...
give a man a sandwich, he eats today. Teach the man a skill, he can feed himself for a lifetime. If that man chose to drop out of school, FAIL! no food for you.
sorry, if you choose to screw up your own life, why should your stupidity deprive me and my family of the fruits of my hard labor?
Free? intersting. you must believe in that mythical being known as "Government Money". There is no such thing. All the money the government has is seized from the people by the use of the State's police power
Yeah, look at how sucessfull that has been in Cuba... oh, and the poor working man in China, working in conditions like our Industrial boom age... no plant safety, etc.
Yeah, they did put Provide for the Common Defense in the constitution, didn't they...
Accountability for nasa, but what about for Medicare, Medicade, social security?? You want accountability for one government project, but not for the massive black hole of the entitlement programs?? Let's regulate THOSE before we regulate the CEO of Home Depot.
If I could go back in time, I would add this to the constitution:
All bills must cover one topic only.
No law may be passed that takes money or property from one group for benefit of any other.
No person may serve more than 2 terms in any single body of government, nor more than 4 in any bodies combined.
Being on the same topic doesn't mean it isn't an earmark. Instead of all the bridges to no where ending up on a various bills, they would all be on a highway/transportation bill. It is really difficult to right legislation that would ban earmarking...
That's way to broad and would virtually eliminate all entitlement programs. Some people are dependant on the services of Social Security and Medicaid but it needs to be policed to get the people that don't need it out of it.
I like that one. I think it would be very beneficial by introducing fresh ideas on a regular basis.
I think what we need more than anything else is a means of leveling political playing fields. Like right now, McCain is simply getting out-spent by Obama and all these third party candidates like Nader have no chance of competing even approaching the level of McCain because of capital. I mean, why is that political campaigns are even allowed to advertise at their own whim? Why isn't political advertising similar to debates where they are required to be set up in an argument, counter-argument, closing argument form? The way campaigning it set up these days, it's almost guaranteed that the one with the most money will win, especially on the scale of the Presidency where there are hundreds of millions of potential voters.
Separate names with a comma.