or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Congratulations, You're Going to Elect a Socialist
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Congratulations, You're Going to Elect a Socialist - Page 2

post #41 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

There are many of us Americans (mostly on the coasts) that really want a more European style culture in this country. We want clean air. We want clean water. We want renewable fuels. We want health care. We want multi-culturalism. We want Christians, Jews and Muslims to co-exist and share ideas and debate scripture. We want to be a thoughtful, reflective, learned society that understand the true costs of these things.

But what we have is..."FUCK YOU COMMIE! SOCIALIST DICKHEAD!"

post #42 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Now tax breaks are bad? WTF is up with these Republicans? They used to be the kings of staying on message. Taunt, taunt, taunt, taunt. What happened?

I can tell you exactly what's happened: the Southern Strategy has come home to roost.

The politics of cultural wedge issues and dog whistling and nudge nudge wink wink code seems bizarrely dated and irrelevant, in the face of real problems, but it's all they have. They've been pandering to low information voters for so long it's made them stupid.

While the party spent all of its energy and resources coming up with new synonyms for "traitor" and gobbling about how we would all die if we didn't do exactly as we were told, the sham of Republican "policy" has degenerated into mindlessly supporting ever more tax cuts, every more deregulation and every more international belligerence. It's become so pro forma they can't even be bothered to articulate the rational-- it's just "Hey! Tax cuts! You like tax cuts! What do you mean, how do we intend to govern? Tax cuts, motherfuckers!"

And now, all of a sudden, the American people are in the mood for a little serious talk about how to navigate our abruptly uncertain future. And the Republicans have...... tax cuts, deregulation and war.

Which even they can tell sucks, so they've doubled down on traitor and we're all going to die if we don't do what we're told.

And guess what? Outside of the base, it doesn't make a bit of fucking sense. It never did, but relatively good times and 9/11 made it much easier to get away with.

"Obama is a socialist" is the motto of a party that has gone completely off the rails-- a party of out of touch extremists, if you will. The only place where that message seems to be consistently playing well is in the South-- were it was born, and, God willing, it will go to die.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #43 of 208
A couple points of interest:

1. What is Socialism?

Quote:
Oxford English Dictionary:
socialism |ˈsō sh əˌlizəm|
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

1. How was the $700 billion dollar bailout not socialism?
2. How is social security not socialism?
3. How is any government regulation not socialism?

The fact is, socialism is everywhere and is a big part of making capitalism work. Karl Marx was wrong, socialism is not an intermediary step between capitalism and communism. Socialism is quite a bit like democracy and the idea of a "republic."

Why is "socialism" so bad? "Socialism" is bad because it was a buzzword during the cold war.

2. Thinking About Taxes

McCain and Bush's economic plans embody trickle-down economics. The problem, however, is that trickle-down economics doesn't work. The only reason wealthy people are wealthy is that they are able to receive a larger distribution of wealth than others. Where does that wealth come from? The lower and middle classes.

When the lower and middle classes have more money, they spend that money, and it goes back to the wealthy.

Consider the following:
  • Suppose Company X makes $500,000 profit per year at a tax rate of 30%, so they keep $350,000.
  • Now suppose company X must pay 45% tax rate, but would make an additional $10 revenue/$6 profit per customer, for a total of 25,000 customers due to middle class tax cuts. The company now makes $650,000 profit, and keeps $422,500 after taxes.
  • The proceeding example assumes each middle class family would be spend their average tax cut of $1000, giving an extra average $10 revenue to 100 companies.

In the example above, the company has a tax rate that's 50% higher, yet they get 1.2 times the profit. The economy is stimulated, and it grows.

This idea is not a foreign concept either. Ford paid his employees great wages for those times, knowing that his employees would then have enough money to purchase cars from him, and he would ultimately get the money back. Keep in mind that an average of $10 revenue to 100 companies is not unrealistic. The principal of the economic stimulus package is the exact same.
post #44 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

There are many of us Americans (mostly on the coasts) that really want a more European style culture in this country. We want clean air. We want clean water. We want renewable fuels. We want health care. We want multi-culturalism. We want Christians, Jews and Muslims to co-exist and share ideas and debate scripture. We want to be a thoughtful, reflective, learned society that understand the true costs of these things.

But what we have is..."FUCK YOU COMMIE! SOCIALIST DICKHEAD!"

I was talking to this guy about universal health care. He looked at me pityingly, and asked "Do you really want cradle to grave social services?"

Apparently the phrase "cradle to grave" is one of those winger code things that means "reeducation camps", or something.

It's amazing to me that a goodly portion of America's working class has been convinced that there is something sinister about any policies that might make their lives a little easier. I guess God just really digs lives of unending toil and suffering, and access to medical care is the devil's playground.

Why couldn't we have been founded by libertines instead of these fucking dour joyless puritan fuckers?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #45 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

I was talking to this guy about universal health care. He looked at me pityingly, and asked "Do you really want cradle to grave social services?"

Apparently the phrase "cradle to grave" is one of those winger code things that means "reeducation camps", or something.

It's amazing to me that a goodly portion of America's working class has been convinced that there is something sinister about any policies that might make their lives a little easier. I guess God just really digs lives of unending toil and suffering, and access to medical care is the devil's playground.

Why couldn't we have been founded by libertines instead of these fucking dour joyless puritan fuckers?

Here's what I'm suspecting is happening (or hoping for): The average American is wondering why the very same people who have told them for decades that they can't have universal healthcare, that SCHIP is too expensive, that prescription drug benefits are a detriment to the pharmaceutical companies, etc.... these are the very same people who have absolutely no problem spending 1000 times more money on Iraq and bailing out the banks, bailing out AIG, bailing automotive. And they're saying, "Fuck you, you're going to spend some of that money on the American people goddammit!"
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #46 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

John McCain, Town Hall meeting in 2000...

I love how socialism is now a four lettered word in American politics.

I showed this to my brother and nephew (staunch McCain supporters)...stunned silence.

Uh...REAL republicans don't like McCain. They're voting for Palin and a heart attack or something.
post #47 of 208
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gastroboy View Post

As we know there should only be one kind of socialism.

The kind that gives handouts to rich people and corporations and their good friends.

The kind that Bush has practised.

1. Classic straw man tactic. I don't support corporate welfare.
2. Can you give examples of these "handouts" that Bush has supposedly supported?
3. Care to address this?



Quote:

Fascinating how the glowing eyes in the deep sockets of the Skull & Bones has mesmerised the middle classes of America to hand over their hard earned gelt to those who inherited their wealth.

It's like some massive Dutch Auction or Pyramid Selling Scheme where they think it'll be their turn next under the golden faucet.

Which founding principles were they? The slavery, or the big land steal?

Founding principles of individual liberty and responsibility, limited government, freedom of expression of religion, low taxes. Do you recall learning about the Boston Tea Party by chance? That was about a .5% tax being levied. Now we're talking about raising the top marginal rate from 36 to 50 percent, doubling capital gains, raising corporate taxes and giving out $1000 checks to people that don't pay taxes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

I am afraid you don't understand: The civil rights movement was about redistributive change. It was about giving political and eventually economic power to blacks. Period. You cannot logically claim otherwise. In fact, to claim otherwise is to ignore the role the civil rights movement played in our history.

Yes, but it wasn't about handing out other people's money through redistribution of wealth. At least, it wasn't supposed to be. It was about giving blacks the same opportunities whites had.

Quote:

The constitutions cultural blind spots are simply those that would have allowed Jim Crow to continue to exist. There is nothing in the constitution to support the Brown decision. NOTHING. That IS a problem with the constitution.

But what Obama said is that we're still dealing with those blind spots today. I disagree. Oh, and I'm sure there would be a lot folks that would argue that Brown was decided based on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Quote:

This whole false discussion enrages me because conservative blow hards aren't simply criticizing Obama's take on the civil rights movement (and his take is that of a constitutional conservative) but by doing so they are making suggestions that the entire civil rights period was a mistake -- you cannot have it both ways, either the power redistributive policies of the Civil rights era were ok and Obama is correct, or Obama is the devil and the civil rights judicial acts were wrong.

Jesus H. Christ! No one is challenging his views on the Civl Rights movement. What they are challenging is the views he intimated on redistributing wealth by what amounts to force. You can't just ignore the underlying views in what he said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Guess what? McCain voted pro-socialist by leaping without looking at the bailout. Screw him. Four years without Republicans? We could use the break.

Yeah, and so did Obama. Get real.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

I love you too.

But why are you laughing? Apart from points four and seven (your being an 'idiot', which you are not), all of these things appear to be true. Sticking up a LOL isn't addressing any of these responses.

So socialism isn't that bad and we have it already so we might as well expand it. Wow.

Quote:

The tape is a load of shit. He's not saying what you really, really want him to be saying. He just isn't.

Yeah, he really is. He's saying exactly what I claim he is. He's talking about redistributing wealth through the courts, something he laments is not possible with our Constitution.

Quote:

And if you think socialism's bad, come and have a coffee in Denmark. It's not really socialist, but compared to what Obama wants to do it's unalloyed Bolshevism. And everyone has a flat screen TV and an espresso machine.

(I just don't get American socialism fear. I like America, and Americans, but this... I just don't get.)

The United States is not Denmark. Period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

John McCain, Town Hall meeting in 2000...



I love how socialism is now a four lettered word in American politics.

I showed this to my brother and nephew (staunch McCain supporters)...stunned silence.

Uh...what is wrong with that clip? He's talking about the progressive tax system, which he is saying is not as bad for the rich as it would seem.


Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

But it's weirder than that-- they're using "socialism" to mean something like "progressive income tax" plus "sort of acknowledging that poor folks could use a little help" plus "for the sake of this argument, poor folks equal colored people."

Uh, no..socialism is not a progressive income tax. Also...a little help? Are you kidding? We've transferred over $5 trillion to the poor in the last 40 years, and where has it gotten them? No where. The kind of programs Obama supports expanding have only made things worse, because they, not the nation's economic philosophy are fundamentally flawed.

Quote:

It's as if, faced with the likely election of a moderate, centrist Democrat-who-just-happens-to-be-black, the Republican Party has decided to listen to it's inner John Birch and campaign like its 1955.

Who in the hell would that be?

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

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

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

Quote:

Remember, the "respectable" opposition to the civil rights movement involved branding everyone involved, from Martin Luther King on down, as "communists." It wasn't antipathy to extending civil liberties to African Americans, oh no no no, it was that socialists and commies were using America's blacks and their liberal enablers to undermine the basic foundations of our society and usher in an age of radical federal control. See, because once Washington was allowed to tell a state that they couldn't have whites only drinking fountains or segregated schools it was only a matter of time till we all had to call one another comrade and our children would be taken from us to be indoctrinated in this foreign "black people are citizens too" ideology.

It's in the Republican DNA, and Nixon's Southern Strategy means they've kept the idea active and thriving. I really don't think they can help it: black people with power equal communism.

That is so ridiculous it doesn't merit any further response.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #48 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Here's what I'm suspecting is happening (or hoping for): The average American is wondering why the very same people who have told them for decades that they can't have universal healthcare, that SCHIP is too expensive, that prescription drug benefits are a detriment to the pharmaceutical companies, etc. are the very same people who have no problem spending 100 times more money on Iraq and bailing out the banks. And they're saying, "Fuck you, you're going to spend some of that money on the American people goddammit!"

Of course, the very same people who had no problem dropping trillions on war and bailouts will scream like frightened children if Obama has the temerity to spend a little on working people.

Just like the same people who had no problem with a Republican President and Republican Congress absolutely running roughshod over the minority party have suddenly been transfixed by the looming horror of single party rule and are scrambling to dust off their "bipartisanship is the greatest good" powerpoint talks.

Just like the same people who stood and cheered when Bush invaded Iraq will completely lose their shit if Obama attempts any kind of military action at all, no matter how justified.

Just like the same people who had no trouble with an imperial, lawless presidency will demand new checks and balances and controls on Obama.

Just like the same people who thought it all to the better if Bush used his Justice Department as a tool for political dirty tricks will shriek "partisan witchhunt" if the Obama's administration ever investigates a Republican for anything, ever.

Having said all that, the thing I like most about Obama is that he isn't cowed by the winger show. He doesn't apologize or act like he's running for president of a country of yahoos and reactionaries. I don't think he'll govern like that, either.

I think you're right: the average American is better than all this, but for too long we've had "liberals" that acted like they weren't. That let the loudest, angriest voices spook them into behaving like their ideology was something to be downplayed or disguised.

I kind of think (or at least hope) that when the noise machine starts up, Obama will basically say "whatever, dudes" and continue talking to the people who got him elected. The majority of Americans.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #49 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

1. Classic straw man tactic. I don't support corporate welfare.
2. Can you give examples of these "handouts" that Bush has supposedly supported?
3. Care to address this?





Founding principles of individual liberty and responsibility, limited government, freedom of expression of religion, low taxes. Do you recall learning about the Boston Tea Party by chance? That was about a .5% tax being levied. Now we're talking about raising the top marginal rate from 36 to 50 percent, doubling capital gains, raising corporate taxes and giving out $1000 checks to people that don't pay taxes.



Yes, but it wasn't about handing out other people's money through redistribution of wealth. At least, it wasn't supposed to be. It was about giving blacks the same opportunities whites had.



But what Obama said is that we're still dealing with those blind spots today. I disagree. Oh, and I'm sure there would be a lot folks that would argue that Brown was decided based on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.



Jesus H. Christ! No one is challenging his views on the Civl Rights movement. What they are challenging is the views he intimated on redistributing wealth by what amounts to force. You can't just ignore the underlying views in what he said.



Yeah, and so did Obama. Get real.



So socialism isn't that bad and we have it already so we might as well expand it. Wow.



Yeah, he really is. He's saying exactly what I claim he is. He's talking about redistributing wealth through the courts, something he laments is not possible with our Constitution.



The United States is not Denmark. Period.



Uh...what is wrong with that clip? He's talking about the progressive tax system, which he is saying is not as bad for the rich as it would seem.




Uh, no..socialism is not a progressive income tax. Also...a little help? Are you kidding? We've transferred over $5 trillion to the poor in the last 40 years, and where has it gotten them? No where. The kind of programs Obama supports expanding have only made things worse, because they, not the nation's economic philosophy are fundamentally flawed.



Who in the hell would that be?

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

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

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



That is so ridiculous it doesn't merit any further response.

Quote:
The United States is not Denmark. Period.

But something's rotten!

Oh! That would be Bush or McSame and the well dressed snowbilly!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #50 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Of course, the very same people who had no problem dropping trillions on war and bailouts will scream like frightened children if Obama has the temerity to spend a little on working people.

Just like the same people who had no problem with a Republican President and Republican Congress absolutely running roughshod over the minority party have suddenly been transfixed by the looming horror of single party rule and are scrambling to dust off their "bipartisanship is the greatest good" powerpoint talks.

Just like the same people who stood and cheered when Bush invaded Iraq will completely lose their shit if Obama attempts any kind of military action at all, no matter how justified.

Just like the same people who had no trouble with an imperial, lawless presidency will demand new checks and balances and controls on Obama.

Just like the same people who thought it all to the better if Bush used his Justice Department as a tool for political dirty tricks will shriek "partisan witchhunt" if the Obama's administration ever investigates a Republican for anything, ever.

Having said all that, the thing I like most about Obama is that he isn't cowed by the winger show. He doesn't apologize or act like he's running for president of a country of yahoos and reactionaries. I don't think he'll govern like that, either.

I think you're right: the average American is better than all this, but for too long we've had "liberals" that acted like they weren't. That let the loudest, angriest voices spook them into behaving like their ideology was something to be downplayed or disguised.

I kind of think (or at least hope) that when the noise machine starts up, Obama will basically say "whatever, dudes" and continue talking to the people who got him elected. The majority of Americans.

You nailed it, my friend. My wife and I were just ranting about this in the car. "Filibuster" will be their new favorite word. Of course, when we were the minority party we were bullied into a corner and shouted down about "the nuclear option." When we demanded investigations into shenanigans we were laughed at, ridiculed, and "scheduled into oblivion". When we asked to see the evidence of Saddam's weapons programs we were called traitors, seditionists, and wishing harm on our soldiers. When we cried foul about Bush's claims of uranium from Niger we were pummeled with accusations of Bush Hatred.

I remember EVERYTHING quite clearly.

I remember the way they looked down at us.

I remember how they giggled about building their permanent Republican majority.

AND I HOPE DEMOCRATS GIVE THEM THE SAME DOSE OF MEDICINE THEY SHOVED DOWN OUR THROATS NOT SO LONG AGO!
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #51 of 208
Hey SDW! Here in Oregon ( you remember the " out of the way " place where unemployment numbers don't matter ) we can mail in our ballot. Guess what I just did? No kidding!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #52 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Now we're talking about raising the top marginal rate from 36 to 50 percent, doubling capital gains, raising corporate taxes and giving out $1000 checks to people that don't pay taxes.

Read my post about the flow of the economy.

Also, question for you:

Is humanitarian aid to developing countries socialism?
post #53 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Uh...what is wrong with that clip? He's talking about the progressive tax system, which he is saying is not as bad for the rich as it would seem.

The video shows that McCain is distorting what Obama has said about taxation when McCain himself supports that same thing and refuted that it is "socialism" in this video.

What I see is a Cynical hypocrisy.
post #54 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Yes, but it wasn't about handing out other people's money through redistribution of wealth. At least, it wasn't supposed to be. It was about giving blacks the same opportunities whites had.

First, SDW, please break your responses because it is obnoxious editing them down to the relevant parts. Obama wasn't talking about redistribution of wealth. You are. The fact that you need to apply your concepts of what Obama was talking about to interpret the recording that way says more about you than it does about Obama.


Quote:
But what Obama said is that we're still dealing with those blind spots today. I disagree. Oh, and I'm sure there would be a lot folks that would argue that Brown was decided based on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

First, in another time the 14th Amendment was interpreted as ALLOWING separate but equal. Look, these problems still exist -- the constitution is always interpreted in the context of the culture that exists at the time. Even the separate but equal interpretation has found a come back in recent years with bussing cases presented before the court. You may think that these simply reflect the constitution's true intent, but in reality they are simply cultural interpretations du jour.



Quote:
Jesus H. Christ! No one is challenging his views on the Civl Rights movement. What they are challenging is the views he intimated on redistributing wealth by what amounts to force. You can't just ignore the underlying views in what he said.

He said nothing to that effect. Nothing at all. Stop making things up.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #55 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Listen to the clips. He clearly and strongly favors redistribution of wealth.

Everyone who doesn't believe in complete anarchy favors redistribution of wealth, because ALL governments must collect taxes, all governments must spend some tax revenue on public works, and every single time the government takes money from one person and gives it to another -- be it a policeman, a guy paving a road, or a social security recipient -- the dreaded "redistribution of wealth" has occurred.

Either every government which has ever existed is "socialist", or your definition of socialism needs to be fleshed out a little more than a catch phrase used as red meat to stir up the Republican base.

There are, of course, different forms of socialism to discuss as well, but with so much gosh-it-doesn't-fit-on-a-bumper-sticker complexity to deal with, let's try crawling before we try walking.

Special bonus points if you can explain why the United States under Republican President Eisenhower, when the top tax rate on the wealthy was 91-92% (yes, those first digits are NINES, though I imagine there had to be quite a few loopholes) wasn't widely considered to be a socialist nation, and why a terrible economic collapse DIDN'T happen during the 1950s under tax conditions that today's Republicans, screaming and frothing, would decry as a sure-fire recipe for nothing short of total and utter economic apocalypse.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #56 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

SDW just intimated that he wants to kill all black people.

*gasp* *shock* *horror*


It's already happening... Commie Obama indoctrinates underage Aryan children with hypnotic terrorist fist-jabs of Socialism...



Will someone think of the children?!!!

At least he didn't kiss him on the belly...
post #57 of 208
[QUOTE=SDW2001;1331535
The United States is not Denmark. Period.[/QUOTE]

No, it isn't.

But maybe if you followed its example, and embraced evil socialism, you could have a standard of living as high as Denmark one day.
post #58 of 208
I think I may be a socialist now. Just like Alan Greenspan, I am reconsidering my commitment to free market principals. The free market works well in most cases, but not for health insurance, and not for any of these companies who became "too big to fail".
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #59 of 208
Here in the Left Wing, "Socialist" is a code word for "someone who is NOT going to fuck up the economy even further with failed Reaganomic principles or free market economic anarchy", so if we're going to finally elect a "Socialist", then my response is this: ABOUT FUCKING TIME.
post #60 of 208
SDW you seem to forget the time from 1992 - 1994.

This if you will recall was a period where by the Democrats pretty much had full control in both the executive and legislative branch of government at the federal level.

You and other hardcore "cheerleader" party loyalist Republicans keep on spreading all this fear mongering about how awful things will be with an Obama as president -Democrat majority in Washington scenario but do you not think that if the Republicans re-group as they BADLY need to the same (republicans advancing in congress in 1994) could not potentially happen in 2010 say if Obama is President with a democratic majority congress for these next two years?


If not why not? Do you not have faith in members of the republican party (today) to be as effective (to organize, make their case to the public, have a plan or roadmap) as the members in 94?

Or

Do you not think things under the management of the Democrat majority scenario will be bad enough to lead to a change mid-term?

Please do tell why you are so worried...

And if you will recall Clinton raised taxes.

My memory of the Clinton years while they were not always admirable were of a time where by the US did much better for itself than we have during the last 8 years.

I think you need to understand all of the points I list above and try to see why not all of America buys the talking points of your fear mongering and rhetoric.


You see,

When you sit by all these last eight years and make excuses for your guys in power every time they blunder things as opposed to calling them out on each count as I have you allow them to become politically inviable in the future which is where we are now.

Had any "Republicans" had the balls to call their own leaders on the table when they blundered maybe I would have more sympathy for the lot of you.


Sorry but the proof is not in the pudding regarding your empty scare mongering rhetoric.

Go look in the mirror and take inventory.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #61 of 208
Quote:
The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the general government are levied, Jefferson wrote in 1811. The poor man, who uses nothing but what is made in his own farm or family, will pay nothing. (With) our revenues applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings.

Fucking socialist.

Quote:
Teddy Roosevelt was a vocal proponent of this idea in the early 1900s. I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective: a graduated inheritance tax increasing rapidly with the size of the estate, he said in 1910.

Commie swine.

'Spreading the wealth' is nothing new to U.S.
post #62 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

Everyone who doesn't believe in complete anarchy favors redistribution of wealth, because ALL governments must collect taxes, all governments must spend some tax revenue on public works, and every single time the government takes money from one person and gives it to another -- be it a policeman, a guy paving a road, or a social security recipient -- the dreaded "redistribution of wealth" has occurred.

The first two examples are not redistributing wealth. That's a society collectively paying for public services.

Only the social security example involves the redistribution of wealth.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #63 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

The first two examples are not redistributing wealth. That's a society collectively paying for public services.

Only the social security example involves the redistribution of wealth.

Maybe you want the phrase "redistribution of wealth" to have a particular, limited meaning -- a limited meaning which doesn't fill my heart with terror anyway -- but whenever one citizen pays a tax, and another citizen gets a benefit paid out from the pool of money the first citizen's taxes went into, wealth has been redistributed.

I have no children, and likely never will, yet I still pay plenty in local property taxes, a large portion of which goes to pay for public education. I receive an indirect benefit that comes from living in a (more or less) educated society, which tends to increase the overall wealth and security of that society. Parents with children, however, benefit far more than I do from my local tax dollars. There's little doubt my wealth is being redistributed to families with young children.

I don't particularly mind. I can accept that I'm expected to make this contribution to society at large. (I wish the quality of the schools was better, but that's another matter.)

Even if I were to grant you the limited meaning you want to push for this particular phrase, I don't recall McCain or Palin stumping on a platform of eliminating Social Security. They must be socialists too, huh?
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #64 of 208
So, you gotta figure that the oppo research people are poring over every single recorded thing Obama has ever said, in the hopes of coming up with something that can be teased into "I am a huge socialist wealth redistributing monster."

And what they come up with is an old radio interview on the civil rights movement and the courts. So we've got that, and an out of context remark about spreading the wealth around, a reference to the dreadful specter of progressive taxation.

Just out of curiosity, what kind of king hell socialist leaves such a vanishingly slight paper trail? Is it that Manchurian thing, where he's been keeping it all bottled up lo these many years, so he can spring it on us all it once, once he's president?

Here's a great take on the the McCain/Republican noise machine and its brokenness:

Quote:
But once you’ve made a narrative choice, you do have to stick with it - you can’t just keep bouncing around, or people become confused. If you are telling the story of a scary vampire, you can’t decide in chapter 2 that he’s also 500 feet tall and radioactive and bent on destroying Tokyo, in chapter 3 that he is actually a giant man-eating shark, and in chapter 4 that he is all this and a super-terrorist trying to plant a nuclear bomb in Los Angeles. All of these things are, indeed, scary, but taken together they add up to a muddle.

This is the problem. It’s not just the McCain campaign’s problem - although their inability to pick a narrative and stick to it is a special kind of inexcusable - it’s a problem for the entire wingnut noise machine. Obama is a Marxist Muslim Arab Jesus Black White Terrorist Technocrat Racist Do-Gooder Liberal FDR Stalin Hilter [me: Chamberlain!] Commie Fascist Gay Womanizing Naive Cynical Insider Noob Boring Radical Unaccomplished Elite Slick Gaffe-Prone Pedophile Pedophile-Seducing Liberation Theology Atheist Etc. & Anti-Etc. with a bunch of scary friends from - wait for it! - the Nineteen Hundred And Sixties. It makes no sense. It’s a jumble sale of fears and scary associations from 50 years of wingnut witch hunts and smear campaigns, a flea market of pre-owned and antique resentments, and if one does detect a semi-consistent 1960’s motif running through it all, that’s because that’s when most of these ideas were coined.

Apparently we're going to close out the campaign with "socialist" being the slur du jour (although I wouldn't be all that surprised to wake up tomorrow to discover Drudge trumpeting evidence that Obama is a Nazi), but that comes after celebrity, false messiah, empty suit, opportunist, thug, Chicago machine politician, terrorist, etc.

It's been sad to watch our friends go chasing after each and every one of these, every time with full conviction and astonishment that we aren't terribly impressed with their reasoning.

It seems to be a kind of defining characteristic of your dead-ender winger these days: you get to be completely wrong 100 times in a row, and then act stunned that your 101st declaration of truth isn't received as self-evidently true.

Which would be sort of funny, as far as it goes. It's the follow up of withering contempt and disgust that people just aren't getting it, or that not paying any mind to people that are reliably and repeatedly wrong is some kind of liberal shortcoming, that's actually pretty off-putting.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #65 of 208
As long as we have to borrow money from communists we better shut up about how bad it is.
post #66 of 208
post #67 of 208
I remember during the debates Obama seemed to phrase most problems as a lack of funding. From Main street to former western block countries it seemed the central problem was that not enough funding was provided for [insert whatever problem the moderator brought up].
post #68 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

I remember during the debates Obama seemed to phrase most problems as a lack of funding. From Main street to former western block countries it seemed the central problem was that not enough funding was provided for [insert whatever problem the moderator brought up].

Um. No... That was McCain's spin on the debate.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #69 of 208
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball View Post

A couple points of interest:

1. What is Socialism?



1. How was the $700 billion dollar bailout not socialism?
2. How is social security not socialism?
3. How is any government regulation not socialism?

1. It was.
2. It is.
3. That I don't agree with. Clearly some regulation is needed.

Quote:

The fact is, socialism is everywhere and is a big part of making capitalism work. Karl Marx was wrong, socialism is not an intermediary step between capitalism and communism. Socialism is quite a bit like democracy and the idea of a "republic."

Why is "socialism" so bad? "Socialism" is bad because it was a buzzword during the cold war.

No, socialism does not work. It does not help capitalism work. Certain safeguards can be put in place on unrestrained capitalism, but that's not socialism.

Quote:

2. Thinking About Taxes

McCain and Bush's economic plans embody trickle-down economics. The problem, however, is that trickle-down economics doesn't work.

Actually, you're totally wrong. It does work. Why? Because "the rich" pay the taxes. The rich create jobs. It's been proven three times in the last 40 years that when the upper brackets are cut, the entire economy is stimulated. Kennedy did it. Reagan did it. Bush did it, but to a lesser extent. Trickle-down works.

Quote:


The only reason wealthy people are wealthy is that they are able to receive a larger distribution of wealth than others. Where does that wealth come from? The lower and middle classes.

No. It comes from them EARNING it, either through investment, business or employment. The only way in which you're correct is that the "rich" provide jobs for the lower and middle classes. They can't do that if they are taxed into oblivion.

Quote:

When the lower and middle classes have more money, they spend that money, and it goes back to the wealthy.

The middle class doesn't have money unless the wealthy do. That's the flaw in your reasoning.

Quote:

Consider the following:
  • Suppose Company X makes $500,000 profit per year at a tax rate of 30%, so they keep $350,000.
  • Now suppose company X must pay 45% tax rate, but would make an additional $10 revenue/$6 profit per customer, for a total of 25,000 customers due to middle class tax cuts. The company now makes $650,000 profit, and keeps $422,500 after taxes.
  • The proceeding example assumes each middle class family would be spend their average tax cut of $1000, giving an extra average $10 revenue to 100 companies

In the example above, the company has a tax rate that's 50% higher, yet they get 1.2 times the profit. The economy is stimulated, and it grows.

This idea is not a foreign concept either. Ford paid his employees great wages for those times, knowing that his employees would then have enough money to purchase cars from him, and he would ultimately get the money back. Keep in mind that an average of $10 revenue to 100 companies is not unrealistic. The principal of the economic stimulus package is the exact same.

The ignorance and faulty assumptions are astounding. Where does the extra money per customer come from? What you're describing is demand-side economics, which won't work on its own and in spite of tax increases on the supply side.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #70 of 208
Quote:
The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. . . . The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. . . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

~ Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations (1776)

Overtaxed
post #71 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

1. It was.
2. It is.
3. That I don't agree with. Clearly some regulation is needed.



No, socialism does not work. It does not help capitalism work. Certain safeguards can be put in place on unrestrained capitalism, but that's not socialism.



Actually, you're totally wrong. It does work. Why? Because "the rich" pay the taxes. The rich create jobs. It's been proven three times in the last 40 years that when the upper brackets are cut, the entire economy is stimulated. Kennedy did it. Reagan did it. Bush did it, but to a lesser extent. Trickle-down works.



No. It comes from them EARNING it, either through investment, business or employment. The only way in which you're correct is that the "rich" provide jobs for the lower and middle classes. They can't do that if they are taxed into oblivion.



The middle class doesn't have money unless the wealthy do. That's the flaw in your reasoning.



The ignorance and faulty assumptions are astounding. Where does the extra money per customer come from? What you're describing is demand-side economics, which won't work on its own and in spite of tax increases on the supply side.

Again, I'm a little confused as to why people who have been very, very wrong about a great many things think it appropriate to lecture other people on "obvious" points of truth. I mean that as a general observation, not anyone in particular.

BTW, if Social Security is "socialism", doesn't that mean that every president since FDR has been a supporter of socialist policies?

If the bailout is socialism, doesn't that make Bush the greatest socialist president in our lifetimes?

I guess I'm not sure why I should be concerned about Obama's "socialism", since the way it's being defined makes it the normal state of affairs for at least the last 70 years or so.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #72 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

1. It was.
2. It is.

Doesn't the whole "OMG!!1!11! OH NOES!11!!!!" talk about Obama being a socialist lose just a little bit of the punch we're supposed to feel from this attack when you have to admit that McCain is a socialist by your standards too, just perhaps not as much of one as you seem to think Obama is?

Vote McCain: The lesser of two socialists!
Vote McCain: Not quite as friendly with Karl Marx as Obama!

The real irony of this is that McCain picks Palin as a VP, supposedly staunchly conservative, but governing a state that treats oil reserves largely as a public resource, redistributing much of the wealth that comes from the sale of oil to all of the citizens of the state.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #73 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox

if Social Security is "socialism", doesn't that mean that every president since FDR has been a supporter of socialist policies?

No "if" (it is), and...Yes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox

If the bailout is socialism, doesn't that make Bush the greatest socialist president in our lifetimes?

No "if" (it is), and...Probably, and he had plenty of company. But not so much support from the people which is interesting. I wonder if we just witnessed another step toward dictatorship.


Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox

"socialism", since the way it's being defined makes it the normal state of affairs for at least the last 70 years or so.

Pretty much...though I'd say more like 80-90 but most intensely since FDR with bigger or small jumps (under Republicans and Democrats in the White House and Congress) from time to time. It has been and continues to be a slow, evolutionary process. But who knows. Obama is different () perhaps he'll Change(tm) and surprise us all and decide that his subjects should have freedom. We can Hope(tm).
post #74 of 208
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball View Post

Read my post about the flow of the economy.

Also, question for you:

Is humanitarian aid to developing countries socialism?

No. It's humanitarian aid.


Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

First, SDW, please break your responses because it is obnoxious editing them down to the relevant parts. Obama wasn't talking about redistribution of wealth. You are. The fact that you need to apply your concepts of what Obama was talking about to interpret the recording that way says more about you than it does about Obama.

He absolutely WAS talking about redistribution of wealth. Are you kidding? He practically said "let's redistribute wealth." My lord.

Quote:




First, in another time the 14th Amendment was interpreted as ALLOWING separate but equal. Look, these problems still exist -- the constitution is always interpreted in the context of the culture that exists at the time. Even the separate but equal interpretation has found a come back in recent years with bussing cases presented before the court. You may think that these simply reflect the constitution's true intent, but in reality they are simply cultural interpretations du jour.

So? What are you saying, that the Supreme Court sometimes overrules itself? Surely you jest!

Quote:


He said nothing to that effect. Nothing at all. Stop making things up.

That's the thing with you liberals. You argue and obfuscate and justify and parse until words simply don't have any meaning. "Socialism" and "redistribution" mean something. Let me know when you've figured out what.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

Everyone who doesn't believe in complete anarchy favors redistribution of wealth, because ALL governments must collect taxes, all governments must spend some tax revenue on public works, and every single time the government takes money from one person and gives it to another -- be it a policeman, a guy paving a road, or a social security recipient -- the dreaded "redistribution of wealth" has occurred.

No, using tax revenue for public infrastructure has occurred. That's what taxes are supposed to fund. Socialism and redistribution results when money is taken from one group and given to another.

Quote:

Either every government which has ever existed is "socialist", or your definition of socialism needs to be fleshed out a little more than a catch phrase used as red meat to stir up the Republican base.

There are, of course, different forms of socialism to discuss as well, but with so much gosh-it-doesn't-fit-on-a-bumper-sticker complexity to deal with, let's try crawling before we try walking.

It's not my definition that's the problem, it's yours. You clearly have no understanding of the term.

Quote:

Special bonus points if you can explain why the United States under Republican President Eisenhower, when the top tax rate on the wealthy was 91-92% (yes, those first digits are NINES, though I imagine there had to be quite a few loopholes) wasn't widely considered to be a socialist nation, and why a terrible economic collapse DIDN'T happen during the 1950s under tax conditions that today's Republicans, screaming and frothing, would decry as a sure-fire recipe for nothing short of total and utter economic apocalypse.

Uh, because those were different times economically? Did you notice that Kennedy and Reagan changed those policies, setting off economic growth each time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

SDW you seem to forget the time from 1992 - 1994.

This if you will recall was a period where by the Democrats pretty much had full control in both the executive and legislative branch of government at the federal level.

You and other hardcore "cheerleader" party loyalist Republicans keep on spreading all this fear mongering about how awful things will be with an Obama as president -Democrat majority in Washington scenario but do you not think that if the Republicans re-group as they BADLY need to the same (republicans advancing in congress in 1994) could not potentially happen in 2010 say if Obama is President with a democratic majority congress for these next two years?

Or perhaps we completely disagree with his proposals and legitimately think they suck? Perhaps we think they will alter the fabric of this nation, weakening it economically, militarily and socially?

And yes, I agree the GOP could come back in the mid terms. But is that a reason to vote for Obama?

Quote:


If not why not? Do you not have faith in members of the republican party (today) to be as effective (to organize, make their case to the public, have a plan or roadmap) as the members in 94?

Or

Do you not think things under the management of the Democrat majority scenario will be bad enough to lead to a change mid-term?

Please do tell why you are so worried...

And if you will recall Clinton raised taxes.

My memory of the Clinton years while they were not always admirable were of a time where by the US did much better for itself than we have during the last 8 years.

Yes, yes. "Things were great under Clinton!" Could you, Fellowship, please describe on policy that Clinton instituted that helped the economy?

Quote:

I think you need to understand all of the points I list above and try to see why not all of America buys the talking points of your fear mongering and rhetoric.

Right, that's all it is: Fear mongering and rhetoric. My lord, the irony is dripping. OBAMA IS THE KING OF RHETORIC. And once again, there is no fear mongering here. I simply don't think we should a elect a socialist who does not like this country as its currently structured. His view of America is the polar opposite of mine.

Quote:


You see,

When you sit by all these last eight years and make excuses for your guys in power every time they blunder things as opposed to calling them out on each count as I have you allow them to become politically inviable in the future which is where we are now.

No one has made excuses. The GOP is to blame for certain things, and they are not to blame for certain things. They are to blame for deficits. They are not to blame for the current economic situation. Just two examples.

Quote:

Had any "Republicans" had the balls to call their own leaders on the table when they blundered maybe I would have more sympathy for the lot of you.

Uh, plenty of Republicans did that. You just would rather think of us as a monolithic group. It makes arguing easier.

Quote:


Sorry but the proof is not in the pudding regarding your empty scare mongering rhetoric.

Go look in the mirror and take inventory.

Fellows

Yeah, you really showed me, fellows! See, there are only a few reasons someone won't vote for Obama or would dare criticize him:

1. He's racist.
2. He's not an enlightened socialist liberal.
3. He's stupid.


I think it's you who needs to take inventory. Spend a little time looking into the man that you're going to help make President of the United States. He's a race baiting socialist/marxist with terrifyingly naive views on foreign policy. He's ridiculously inexperienced. But hey, he's not old like McCain! And most importantly, he's not Geroge Bush. CHANGE!
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #75 of 208
Winger reality, something to behold. Phew.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #76 of 208




post #77 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Winger reality, something to behold. Phew.

Really. Apparently, "the words one says" mean nothing against "the crackpot theory we hold regarding your beliefs."

Well, that and the mighty power of putting next to every statement you don't understand well enough to coherently rebut.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #78 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

No, it isn't.

But maybe if you followed its example, and embraced evil socialism, you could have a standard of living as high as Denmark one day.

Just imagine! The entire population well-educated and ... oops! Hit on it: well-educated. What is all the fuss about eastern elites?

Read an article that quoted somebody saying that Obama went to Harvard and therefore doesn't understand the common man, but McCain and Palin do. Somebody doesn't know the background of those of whom they speak. McCain was a military brat, son of an admiral and those guaranteed perks. Obama worked his way up and used loans to pay for his education; no freebies. Palin, well, that's another problem.


Palin' appeal is to the rather less-educated. INdeed, thre is talk about restructuring the Republican party around Palin and if you don't support her, you're out. The list is long, and most of them are rather better educated.

---

About socialism: Palin's children are part Yup'ik and thus can receive some money from teh US gubberment.

Hmm...

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #79 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

He absolutely WAS talking about redistribution of wealth. Are you kidding? He practically said "let's redistribute wealth." My lord.

He said redistributive change which isn't redistributing wealth. In point of fact, and I have addressed this before, the civil rights movement was about redistributive change -- power, both economic and political, was redistributed to a dispossessed minority.

This is the last time I will repeat myself. The next time you ignore the facts as reality has them, you will be on my ignore list.


Quote:
So? What are you saying, that the Supreme Court sometimes overrules itself? Surely you jest!

Yeah and that's because of cultural changes and particulars that the constitution doesn't prevent, exactly what Obama was saying. hahahahahahahaha. oh, right, you use the for that.


Quote:
That's the thing with you liberals. You argue and obfuscate and justify and parse until words simply don't have any meaning. "Socialism" and "redistribution" mean something. Let me know when you've figured out what.

Socialism doesn't mean progressive taxes. It means state ownership of means of production. Neither candidate supports that.

Redistribution is the nature of any tax system. You take money from the people and give it to the government to spend as they like. There is an intrinsic redistribution that occurs there.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #80 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I think it's you who needs to take inventory. Spend a little time looking into the man that you're going to help make President of the United States. He's a race baiting socialist/marxist with terrifyingly naive views on foreign policy. He's ridiculously inexperienced. But hey, he's not old like McCain! And most importantly, he's not Geroge Bush. CHANGE!

McCain is just an angry old goat with a chip on his shoulder who's best argument as to why to vote for him is why not to vote for the other guy. He has embraced a platform of hate, fear and deception. He has sold his soul and gone against everything he has said he stood for just to get elected. His view on foreign policy will keep us at war for many years to come.

He chose as a running mate a rather dim-witted girl from nowhere who cannot speak and only seeks greater good for herself and who panders to the dumb and angry amongst us, fueling them instead of leading and trying to improve their lot. With McCain's health, she could actually become president, and I doubt not that disaster would be far behind. She would be tested every day by world leaders less tolerant than the US media. She also uses people and discards them without a whim, including her own daughter. Though she claims to be a Christian, I see very little of that faith showing through. Two months into the campaign and she still hasn't got a clue as to what the job she seeks actually entails.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Congratulations, You're Going to Elect a Socialist