Truth Detector

Obviously you do not listen to Obama's speech or have read his Obamanomics on his website.

The profound differences between Obama and McCain are the following:

Will not support drilling oil in Anwar or offshore.

UNIVERSAL Healthcare

Tex credit giveaways

Trade Protectionism

Raising taxes on Corporations - does anyone know who will be paying these taxes?

Raising taxes on Capital Gains - Does anyone know what this will do to Capital markets and what Capital is?

Raising taxes on individuals making more than $250K

Creating HUGE Government bureaucracies to again create Government jobs instead of private sector jobs.

In the end, what we have is a politician who panders to voters offering up just about everything one can ask for without the slightest clue how to pay for them all. Forget about the deficit; forget about our National debt; more of the same politics of class envy the Democrats brought us the previous 40 years they controlled congress.

This isn't change, the is more of the same irresponsible pandering politics the Democrat party has become famous for. There will be no earmark reform in the Obama Presidency, Obama can't find an earmark he doesn like.

__________________
Nothing can frighten a Socialist more than the TRUTH; and nothing can frighten Obama more than REALITY

Truth Detector

It is a fallacy that America cannot fight the war on terror and promote Democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq.

This kind of specious argument begs the question; what is your point, to argue for defeat in Iraq? How does that make us safer?

What profound absurdity. But such specious arguments also want to pretend that this administration, the previous administration didn't think the SAME thing when it comes to Iraq and Saddam Hussein and that the Congress didn't overwhelmingly support going into Iraq as did the American people.

I'm sorry, but desperate attempts top re-write the historic record won’t wash with anyone with a brain.


You are entitled to your OPINION about Kuwait; however, the UN, a significant number of neighbor nations and the vast majority of world opinion at the time just do not agree with you.

It once more begs the question; what is your point?



Let me guess, you want to believe in the "we all knew there weren't any WMDs" fantasy?

I'd love to take a walk down history lane, but frankly, I could illustrate the nonsense in your inane arguments ad-nausea and you would still promote the ludicrous lie that we only went in for WMDs, obviously not having not read the Joint Resolution, the lie that we knew there were no WMDs and the lie that the previous administration and a majority of BOTH parties in congress didn't believe Saddam was a threat, defying UN resolutions and compromising the UNs sanctions.

But to be quite honest with you, I have better things to do than to once more educate someone, who is wallowing in denial, history and the historic record.

Carry on.

Truth Detector

So what we have here is a specious and absurd argument that the US, I guess we are evil, is trying to CONTROL the world through the Middle East Oil reserves.

This is about as intellectually sound as the specious argument that this administration planned and executed 9-11.


But you are okay just coming up with ignorant conclusions. It doesn't take a genius to figure out your politics by the way. You can feign you are uncommitted all you like, but the fact that you are an Anti-American Liberal cannot be hidden by your specious absurd claims, remarks and less than factual versions of history.

Facts, merit and logic; if your idea is that America is trying to take over the world by controlling Middle East oil, I assure you, you wouldn't know a fact or logic if they walked up and slapped you on the head.

The notion you do not subscribe to any ideology is in itself a lie. All one needs to do is read the nonsense that spills from your keyboard to understand where your ideology comes from.

It's always easy to claim that you stand for nothing; it is much harder to hide it when you blather forums with Liberal nonsense.


I could not possibly read ALL of your posts, but the ones I have represent a Liberal philosophy. So tell us, who do you support in this election?

As I have always stated, if you argue like a DNC partisan, if you take the talking points of the DNC, you just might be a Liberal.

I have heard this argument that one can be Liberal on social issues and conservative on fiscal issues, but it is pretty much a crock and a cop-out. You are either FOR BIG Government running your lives, or you are NOT.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you go down the path of BIG Government, there is no turning back; it ALWAYS leads to more. When you prescribe to the belief that Government should provide for the poor, that Government should provide for your retirement, that Government should provide for your healthcare, that the Government should decide where and how your children are educated, you give up your freedoms and choice.

I don’t CHOOSE the partisan politician who panders to me with the notion I am not responsible for my choices and actions, and that I don’t need to plan for my career, buy my own insurance, choose my own doctors or my save for retirement because the Government will do that for me.

conquer

I don't see anything wrong by creating more goverment jobs. I think that is totally the contrary, that it is good that the goverment becomes a great participant in this task of providing work for the people.

Did you remember the fallacy of the Reagan years? Reagan promised millions of new jobs in his administration and he cut goverment vacancies. He was so cynical that when he was asked for his promise of millions of jobs he showed the Job Opportunities section of a newspaper saying that such was the "evidence".

In small and rare cases the private sector can bring better quality of work against the government's, I can tell because I used to work for the goverment and I witnessed the poor quality of work provide by private companies which charged exaggerated amounts of money for it. The employess of these private companies had no health insurance and no other benefits but the minimum required by law, plus their pay was so low.

In a current US economy where any help is welcome, the job opportunities given by the government are indeed a great help.

About taxes. Right now the fantasy is that lowering taxes increases the benefits of the economy. Sure, right.

Tell me, where the money to pay for the services provided by the government will come from? Magic?

Right now, instead of taxing people, the current administration is borrowing money from other countries, and you enjoy a fake good economy. You are like a dude with his credit cards, using them to buy new cars, new clothes, electronics of all kind, even to pay your new house, but sooner or later you will have to pay to the bank the money you are borrowing.

This is US right now, and the only way to come out from the current hole is by start to pay some of the debt, and the only way to do so is by collecting taxes...unless the private companies offer to contribute with the money voluntarily.

If you don't agree that collecting taxes is a right measure to stop the borrowing the money which increases our national debt, I am open to listen your solution, to explain how the national debt increasing can be stop.

Obama is the right man because for this moment in history when US has fallen into a potential debtor, November is the right moment to say: enough!

__________________
Knowledge is more important than imagination.
Conquer.

scourge99

False dichotomy. One can ascribe to regulation or oversight in one area and not another. Moreover, there can be different degrees of regulation and oversight. It is not an all or nothing, black and white, republican or democrat. However, republican or democrat are the only choices. A deuche or a turd sandwich.

__________________
Petty Desire or Grand Ambition?

Truth Detector

I suggest that you READ what I posted carefully; your notions are regarding "regulating" while mine are Social welfare programs, the dichotomy is in your inability to understand the debate:

Quote:Originally Posted by Truth Detector
You are either FOR BIG Government running your lives, or you are NOT.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you go down the path of BIG Government, there is no turning back; it ALWAYS leads to more. When you prescribe to the belief that Government should provide for the poor, that Government should provide for your retirement, that Government should provide for your healthcare, that the Government should decide where and how your children are educated, you give up your freedoms and choice.

I don’t CHOOSE the partisan politician who panders to me with the notion I am not responsible for my choices and actions, and that I don’t need to plan for my career, buy my own insurance, choose my own doctors or my save for retirement because the Government will do that for me.

The notion that Government politicians will self regulate their own desire to pander to voters to maintain their power cannot be substantiated anywhere in history.

Once you have Universal Healthcare, you can never go back. Once you have Social Security ponzi schemes, you can never go back. Once you have Medicare, you can never go back. Once you subscribe to the notion that Government must provide for the wellbeing of its citizens, you hand over your freedom of choice and will never get it back.

Your notion you suggest is the same fantasy Marxists believed in; that Government can be reigned in. They forget the HUMAN factor.

With that, enjoy watching the election from your easy chair and voting for, Ron Paul (?) and avoid that douche or a turd sandwich and let the rest of us decide for you. Sometimes you eat the turd sandwich to keep the Socialist douche from turning the country into a European basket case.

scourge99

social welfare is argueably a form of regulation...
What about Indian reservations, Emancipation, and the Patriot act? Afterall, we live in a republic and not a democracy for this very reason. Its not easy nor should it be to go against the will of the people, even if most of them are idiots.

Based on what? You haven't seen it revert for your narrowly tailored examples so it must be true? You're using inductive reasoning when you have less than 4 tests?

You're making absolutist claims in of all things politics!!!
I don't mean to say that legislation is NOT hard to reverse. It most definitely is.

Ha, Ron Paul. He's funny.

and sometimes you pick the deuche because the turd sandwiches are too focused on ****ting all over the world to notice the fixes needed at home.

---

I'm trying to decide what's worse.

Hot head McCain on foreign policy without a glimmer of hope for our crumbling domestic programs

OR

Clueless foreign policy Obama with domestic programs of tax and spend blindly turned to overkill.

Turd sandwich and a deuche. No doubt.

peanuts4u2

We need change please visit Pitchfork and Torch Society
They have the right ideas

Goose

While I do agree that Ron Paul is one of the few true Goldwater conservative, we must stop looking at the world as though it were 9/10/01. It's not. We are at war, whether we like it or not. And so I believe very strongly that it was right that we bring the fight off our soil to the enemies' home. Other than the war, I think Ron Paul is spot on.

In the meantime, for a laugh, check out http://wwwgrandoldtees.com.

danarhea

Problem is, we went to war with the wrong country, and bin Laden is still free as a bird.

__________________
Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2012