I can't support either side. It's a no win situation...

I can't support a man that wants to 'SPREAD THE WEALTH'. If I want to help people out I will. At least I get a chance to do it on my own now. With Obama's plan I get taxed to do the same thing. Eff that.

animus Wrote:I can't support a man that wants to 'SPREAD THE WEALTH'. If I want to help people out I will. At least I get a chance to do it on my own now. With Obama's plan I get taxed to do the same thing. Eff that.

That's what Karl Marx wanted to do, "'SPREAD THE WEALTH". I am more of a John Smith type of guy. John Smith said, "if you don't work, you don't eat". Obama is a socialist at best and has a lot of communist tendencies. He hung out with Ayres a true communist, Rev. Wright and even Louis Farrakhan.

JFK would rollover in his grave, if saw how the Democratic party has become socialist!

bitcruncher Wrote:I can't support either side. It's a no win situation...

But you have to choose! So vote for the one that you think is best of the worst.

I choose the tree hugger...

bitcruncher Wrote:I can't support either side. It's a no win situation...

Bit, FWIW I think you've had by far the most convincing arguments and best points in this thread. If you don't mind my asking, since you don't support either of the two major party candidates, who are you pulling for?

firmbizzle Wrote:

L-yes Wrote:

firmbizzle Wrote:

L-yes Wrote:

CyberBull Wrote:Again, Americans want to talk about our failing economy, improving education and energy independence. Instead, we get the guilty by association game.

Guilt by association? I'm asking for explanation and you have yet to offer one. Well done, you must have been re-educated.

Don't care....The economy matters more to me. Stay focused. The man will organize us. and get us to a better place.......smart and organized, what are you offering?

First I'd get rid of Fanny and Freddie. They are quasigovernmental organizations that rooted the economic collapse with an egalitarian mandate made by leftists that for practical purposes implied all people should be home owners. It's my opinion that this lending policy was set in place to collapse the market as collapse was a predictable end when you have close to a trillion dollars in bad mortgages and the legislative oversight does NOTHING to correct the problem. The collapse would predictably lead to more government control, which it has.

While home ownership should be a goal it is not for everyone. Remember when it was a big deal to save up that 20-30% down payment and buy a house? Last year you could walk out of college with your degree and buy a house with no money down and no interest payments for months. Home ownership has been a devalued part of the American dream.

I'd look at regulating Wall Street; short selling, derivatives and other exotic practices that most Americans including myself don't completely understand seem to put the market at risk and are illusory ways of creating wealth. We have to keep Wall Street grounded and attempt to prevent future economic bubbles where dishonest folks can take the money and run.

Now my turn. What part of Obama's plan is going to take us to a better place? The $500.00 check you'll get in the mail every year for doing nothing? Taxing small business into an underground economy? Socializing health care so that our system is as crappy and cumbersome as Canada's?

Freddie and Fannie are not the root cause of the problem. The problem was speculation. Everybody trying to flip their house or do a heloc. It's a problem when you buy your home for $90,000 in 2001, and try to sell it for $490,000 in 2005. It makes it next to impossible to come up with the 20% to buy a home. We are talking about $18,000 cash (or the price of a car) vs $98,000 cash(which is the cost of the home. We have avoided America's problems for so long that socialism may be or only option. The Free market sure aint going to get us out of our problems. 80 million baby boomers retiring, who had 50 million kids. The math doesn't work. We need to invest in our infrastructure, our elderly, and our children. America is broke.

How can you say freddie and fannie were not the root of the problem? Their collapse and the bad debt of the 'sub-prime' market that infected the entire financial sector led directly to this implosion! Those 'companies' and their policies kicked this thing off! There is no question. You have your head in the sand or worse.

A story on the mess.

CyberBull Wrote:

L-yes Wrote:

CyberBull Wrote:

L-yes Wrote:

bitcruncher Wrote:You think McCain is going to help America?

No matter who we choose, we lose...

I look at a guy with zero experience in most anything with a background in the Chicago political machine. He has Marxist principle at the heart of most of his policies. I'd vote for Jimmy Carter over this guy.

As most of the world is electing center right politicians we're going to take a hard left turn with a 'leader' who's never led anything much less the largest economy on earth. He's a par for the course leftist who thinks that failed ideas will work this time merely because it's he who will be executing them.

Sorry but its hard to take whatever twisted point you were trying to make seriously when you try and make Obama appear to be a terrorist. I guess since one side has no new ideas they have to resort to petty character assassination and fear mongering.

Hamas endorsed Obama. I'd hardly call that "petty character assassination and fear mongering". I'd call it something that needs some explanation and exploration. Thanks for bringing it up.

Again, more fear mongering and the desperate tactics of a party that is has run out of ideas, or perhaps even afraid of ideas themselves.

What fear mongering?

All L-Yes did was point out a FACT...one that probably not many people even knew about.

I believe Libs rush to name call if one disagrees with their position and/or speaks/writers about a factual event that goes about the leftists teachings...the libs always whine "free mongering".

I personally like to know as many facts (good or bad) about ANYONE that I may/may not vote for (Keating 5? Marxists ties? National War Hero? Community Organizers?).

Its sad when others do not do the same.

CatsClaw Wrote:Obama's like a Duke, or a USC or the Cowboys or the Yankees at their peak. Or a Michael Jordan-lead Chicago Bulls at their peak. They're all winners, and nobody could beat them, so they had to rip them, and take personal shots at them, and slander them and accuse them of cheating and so forth. So Obama's getting the same treatment. Can't beat him in an election so why not accuse him of being friends with someone who murdered thousands of people?

Who did that? Pay attention.

Wilkie01 Wrote:

animus Wrote:I can't support a man that wants to 'SPREAD THE WEALTH'. If I want to help people out I will. At least I get a chance to do it on my own now. With Obama's plan I get taxed to do the same thing. Eff that.

That's what Karl Marx wanted to do, "'SPREAD THE WEALTH". I am more of a John Smith type of guy. John Smith said, "if you don't work, you don't eat". Obama is a socialist at best and has a lot of communist tendencies. He hung out with Ayres a true communist, Rev. Wright and even Louis Farrakhan.

So was Ronald Reagan a socialist sympathizer? Afterall, since he has ties to the same school reform foundation that Obama and MANY prominent Chicago republicans were part of back in the early 2000s?

In terms of Rev Wright and Farrakhan, I too find those guys deplorable...but are they any different than all the questionable characters who call themselves "Christians" yet litter their world views with fear, ignorance and often have more in common with the far right wing fringe of the party than mainstream America. Have you read many of the blogs that are supposedly Christian? I could be crazy, but I see more politics than the word of Jesus from a lot of these groups.

I was outraged while reading some "right leaning" blogs that basically said that you can't be a Christian and vote for Obama, essentially b/c he doesn't represent the Christian "god"! What is up with that? Since I am Christian I find that kind of propaganda offensive. what's next.....if you are Catholic...you are not a "real" Christian? Afterall, since the politics of the 1950s & 60s are coming back in style, why not bring back one the "real concerns" regarding JFK who was labeled as a "papist". That is, since he was a Roman Catholic who would he show greater allegiance to: the Pope or the Constitution?

Odd times in America.....

Crimsonelf Wrote:

SF Husky Wrote:

L-yes Wrote:Hamas endorsed Obama. I'd hardly call that "petty character assassination and fear mongering". I'd call it something that needs some explanation and exploration. Thanks for bringing it up.

So if bunch of white supremacists groups endorse McCain does it mean McCain has character issues that needs some explanation and exploration?

Good point, Husky.

I think the answer to 'why Hamas, castro and Chavez would endorse Obama?' is simply because he's not Bush or of his party. They have absolutely no way of knowing that he would somehow be lenient w/ them.

Isn't that a HUGE assumption?

Maybe Hamas, Castro (both of them) and Chavez have had contact with folks in the Obama campaign and/or many of Obama's "friends" (i.e. Hello Sidney Poitier, Chavez's #1 fan...and a close FRIEND of Obama).

Another person could be just as tough or even tougher on terrorists, communists and others than Bush...so that's not the answer either (they have absolutely no way of knowing...isn't that what you just wrote?).

Somehow...I think an exchange of information HAS taken place...with is why most of the US Enemies (either terrorists organizations or those states against Freedom) already know EXACTLY what Obama will do for them...and that is a very sad picture indeed (for the US...GREAT for the "bad guys").

CatsClaw Wrote:Obama's like a Duke, or a USC or the Cowboys or the Yankees at their peak. Or a Michael Jordan-lead Chicago Bulls at their peak. They're all winners, and nobody could beat them, so they had to rip them, and take personal shots at them, and slander them and accuse them of cheating and so forth. So Obama's getting the same treatment. Can't beat him in an election so why not accuse him of being friends with someone who murdered thousands of people?

Each of those teams you mentioned have actually PERFORMED and PRODUCED, over and over and over again.

What has Obama done again?

firmbizzle Wrote:Freddie and Fannie are not the root cause of the problem. The problem was speculation. Everybody trying to flip their house or do a heloc. It's a problem when you buy your home for $90,000 in 2001, and try to sell it for $490,000 in 2005.

Totally incorrect.

When Carter signed the Community Reinvestment Act, which forced banks to lend mortgages to those that normally couldn't afford it...that started the whole ball of wax.

Then in the 1990's, civil rights groups for Clinton's had to expand the program and enforce more penalties to those banks that did not.

Then...Democratic crooks were named to run Fannie and Freddie...and those CEO's (now a part of Obama's campaign) earned TENS of MILLIONS of BONUS $$$$$$$ for surpassing their quotas on loans to people who couldn't AFFORD THEM.

In 2004...McCain and others fought to bring Fannie/Freddie down...but Libs like Sen Dodd and Barney Frank (who both received the most campaign $$$$, along with Obama from Fannie/Freddie) fought back to PROTECT those failed gov't programs...so that their pals (CEO's) could continue to earn TENS OF MILLIONS OF $$$$$$$$.

It wasn't the speculators that instead of earning $250,000 for flipping a house...and only would make $20,000-$70,000 that caused this market to collapse...this collapse started under Carter...exploded under Clinton...and then was protected by Chris Dodd and Barney Frank 4 years ago.

What i want to know is where do McCain and Obama stand on BE expansion? Do they favor a split? By the way I dont think mccain is catholic.(not all irishmen are, hence the "troubles" in northern ireland)

KnightLight Wrote:I believe when Libs use an argument when if one disagrees with their position and/or speaks/writers about a factual event that goes about the leftists teachings...the libs always whine "free mongering".

KL -- is it any different from the often used page from the Republican playbook, that charges anyone who disagrees with them a "leftist liberal", as is if that is supposed to be some sort of insult?

Regarding fear mongering, since when did misleading phone calls filled with innuendo of fear become acceptable to McCain's campaign? Afterall, during the 2000 elections McCain condemned such tactics in South Carolina by George Bush. If the "truth" that he wants to get out is so important why did he wait until "4th and long" to bring these things up? Especially, since Senator Clinton brought this up during the primaries.

Again, I ask: why now? Why bring up this stuff when there are so many more important things that Americans are facing?

Is it suddenly more important b/c McCain is down in the polls?

I like Obama and will be voting for him over Old Man River and that twit he has for a running mate...

CyberBull Wrote:I was outraged while reading some "right leaning" blogs.....

That's because you (and most in your occupation) are liberal democrats.

I'm sure many who view the world opposite of you might say the same exact thing about "left leaning" blogs.

CyberBull Wrote:

Wilkie01 Wrote:

animus Wrote:I can't support a man that wants to 'SPREAD THE WEALTH'. If I want to help people out I will. At least I get a chance to do it on my own now. With Obama's plan I get taxed to do the same thing. Eff that.

That's what Karl Marx wanted to do, "'SPREAD THE WEALTH". I am more of a John Smith type of guy. John Smith said, "if you don't work, you don't eat". Obama is a socialist at best and has a lot of communist tendencies. He hung out with Ayres a true communist, Rev. Wright and even Louis Farrakhan.

So was Ronald Reagan a socialist sympathizer? Afterall, since he has ties to the same school reform foundation that Obama and MANY prominent Chicago republicans were part of back in the early 2000s?

In terms of Rev Wright and Farrakhan, I too find those guys deplorable...but are they any different than all the questionable characters who call themselves "Christians" yet litter their world views with fear, ignorance and often have more in common with the far right wing fringe of the party than mainstream America. Have you read many of the blogs that are supposedly Christian? I could be crazy, but I see more politics than the word of Jesus from a lot of these groups.

I was outraged while reading some "right leaning" blogs that basically said that you can't be a Christian and vote for Obama, essentially b/c he doesn't represent the Christian "god"! What is up with that? Since I am Christian I find that kind of propaganda offensive. what's next.....if you are Catholic...you are not a "real" Christian? Afterall, since the politics of the 1950s & 60s are coming back in style, why not bring back one the "real concerns" regarding JFK who was labeled as a "papist". That is, since he was a Roman Catholic who would he show greater allegiance to: the Pope or the Constitution?

Odd times in America.....

Not knowing which 'right'leaning blogs' you're referring to I have to guess that they might be opposed to abortion which is a major hang up for many people. They probably find it 'offensive' that you are 'offended' by their views.

These aren't odd times as much as they are confused.

CyberBull Wrote:KL -- is it any different from the often used page from the Republican playbook, that charges anyone who disagrees with them a "leftist liberal", as is if that is supposed to be some sort of insult?

I use the "JFK" standard in regards to the Democratic party (i.e. moderate/Blue Dog Democrat wing).

Obama's view are more in lined with Marxists/Socialists than they are of JFK.

In fact...JFK was to the RIGHT of John McCain in many issues.

In 47 years...the Democratic Party has gone from:

And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.

to

"Spread the wealth"

I don't think any other explanation is needed.

animus Wrote:I can't support a man that wants to 'SPREAD THE WEALTH'. If I want to help people out I will. At least I get a chance to do it on my own now. With Obama's plan I get taxed to do the same thing. Eff that.

95% of Americans will see a tax cut.....95 PERCENT! To me that is the linchpin to this election. If Obama doesn't go back on his word, (see George Bush Sr) it will be a win for middle class America. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

Secondly, its unfathomable stretch between Obama's tax plan and the supposed communism this country is on verge of entering if Obama gets elected.

The only way America is going to reinvent itself is to invest in itself in areas such as education, energy independence, gov't reform, ect...

Unfortunately, the only party with new ideas and talking about re-investing in the American middle class and our entire infrastructure is Obama's. Perhaps, McCain is too.....but his message is getting drowned out in the negative attack ads trying to turn Obama into Osama.