I've been on this site for like two seconds and already I am discussed by peoples ignorance of this coming '08 presidential election. I use to be ignorant of how important this election was going to be, but now I see that this years election is like the Superbowl of elections, the world olympics of election. It just hit me of how important and much this election is going to affect me as a youth.
One thing that is ticking me off though is the fact that everyone is saying that Obama is not ready to be president. Well if that's the case then I mean none of the candidates are ready for anything. I mean the only candidates that are worth looking at and worth listening to are Hilary and Obama. What is this? Are nation rather recieve a wack president and risk our country go into a recession, rather than to see a change be made and have one of our better candidates try and help us get away from this recession that we're headed into.
First Time
By Im4change - Posted on January 17th, 2008
Tagged: '08 Elections
• Better future
"have one of our better candidates try and help us get away from this recession that we're headed into."
Which better candidates?
How are they going to stop a recession?
Why do you think we are heading into a recession?
Are you sure you are not the one we should be 'discussed' with?
I'm pretty DISCUSSED with ARE nation, too. : )
"Harder than ya'll cause I'm smarter than ya'll
I know that deep down it's got to be bothering ya'll
Pay attention, watch fly gon get larger than ya'll
Put your pride on the rocks, make you swallow it all"
I counter Obama's "We need Change" idea with this:
He is a sitting Congressmen. He is in the BEST position for change. If he wants this ambiguous 'change', why isn't he submitting bills in the democrat-controlled congress to bring about this 'change' ?
The Congress has more impact on bills than a President does.
The only specific change I've heard him call for is an occupation of Waziristan instead of Iraq.
"Harder than ya'll cause I'm smarter than ya'll
I know that deep down it's got to be bothering ya'll
Pay attention, watch fly gon get larger than ya'll
Put your pride on the rocks, make you swallow it all"
Yeah, but only to appear hawkish in the 'hunt for BinLaden"
he really has no specific changes to make. Or, more specifically, has no changes that he could make as President that he could not put forth now as Senator (and even have more control over it now as Senator)
The same with Hillary.
The call to change by a Senator running for President is a joke. . . wool to be pulled over the eyes of the sheep-minded American public. If they REALLY wanted change, they'd submit the plans for change now as Senators.
What they want is power. The only real change that they seek is ther own personal power.
But, what can one expect from a socialst?
He's not a socialist. Are you Glenn Beck?
"Harder than ya'll cause I'm smarter than ya'll
I know that deep down it's got to be bothering ya'll
Pay attention, watch fly gon get larger than ya'll
Put your pride on the rocks, make you swallow it all"
He supports a form of Universal Healthcare, which is one of the hallmarks of socialism.
He believes that the Constitution is a 'living document' to be interepreted as THEY see fit, another hallmark of socialism.
He believes in intense governmental (specifically federal) regulation of many industries, another hallmark of socialism.
He opposed the idea of rating government programs for effectiveness, believing that federal programs ought to be funded by tax dollars without any efficiency checks, which is a hallmark of socialism.
He supports higher taxes (though he frames it in the typical 'for the rich' way), which is a hallmark of socialism.
He believes in more federal involvement in education, which is a hallmark of socialism.
He wants to ban "Semi-automatic" weapons (which is almost every pistol except a revolver, not to mention most rifles), and gun grabbing is a hallmark of socialism.
He wants to continue the dependence upon the government for Social Security, and dependence upon the government is a hallmark of socialism.
While he is not the full blown socialist that Hillary is, I'd definately call him at least "Socialist-Lite"
"He supports a form of Universal Healthcare, which is one of the hallmarks of socialism."
You can have private universal health coverage, too. Would you consider that a hallmark of socialism?
"He believes that the Constitution is a 'living document' to be interepreted as THEY see fit, another hallmark of socialism."
See my reply to your Georgia post. That has nothing to do with socialism either.
"He believes in intense governmental (specifically federal) regulation of many industries, another hallmark of socialism."
In a socialist society private firms would be virtually nonexistent.
"He believes in more federal involvement in education, which is a hallmark of socialism."
So Bush and Reagan are socialists? And federal involvement, per say, has nothing to do with socialism.
"He supports higher taxes (though he frames it in the typical 'for the rich' way), which is a hallmark of socialism."
Why oh why has the money supply grown? He also claims to support a middle class tax cut. That's socialist too apparently; right?
And Hillary is not a socialist either.
Your tactics can be employed against you as well. Do you support a publicly financed military? Of course, ****. Do you support publicly financed public safety officers? **** You're ****
"Harder than ya'll cause I'm smarter than ya'll
I know that deep down it's got to be bothering ya'll
Pay attention, watch fly gon get larger than ya'll
Put your pride on the rocks, make you swallow it all"
(comment edited by Fallon for ToS violation).
A... Private.... government-funded healthcare system? No... we really can't. Either the funding is from the person going to the doctor or the funding is from the government.
Umm... yeah... the Constitution specifically protects us from socialism, and the socialist movement has, for decades, tried to get people to interepret the Constitution as a 'living document' so it can be altered without having to offically alter it.
No, they exist, they're just taxed and regulated so heavily that it is less hassle to just work for the government version that has to spring up to take the place of the private versions that go out of business due to over-regulation.
Uh... yeah.... federal involvement is kind of a key identifier of Socialism.
Historically, time and time again, higher taxes result in less money for the government. Lower taxes result in more money for the government. When you raise taxes on ANY segment of the population it is bad, but when you raise taxes on the 'rich' so they pay their 'fair share' (Keep in mind that well over half of this nation's taxes are paid by the top 5 to 10% of wage earners, that seems pretty unfair to me), their cost of business goes up. That filters down to all of us, making the poor poorer, and the middle class poor.
Yeah... yeah she is.
"A... Private.... government-funded health care system? No... we really can't. Either the funding is from the person going to the doctor or the funding is from the government."
I never said a private, government-funded health care system. There are three basic models of universal health care: a tax incentive and individual insurance market (this is essentially a private model and favored by the likes of Bush and Romney. I guess they're socialists too.); a public incentive model (the one you only seem to recognize; finally, a mixed private-public model (the name says it all).
"Umm... yeah... the Constitution specifically protects us from socialism, and the socialist movement has, for decades, tried to get people to interpret the Constitution as a 'living document' so it can be altered without having to officially alter it."
I'm not going to get into a detailed discussion on Locke. He wasn't a market-economy guy by my standards though. I'm also not going to get into a never ending discussion about the vagueness of the Constitution. If it weren't living it would've been explicit in all forms (see: due process of law).
"No, they exist, they're just taxed and regulated so heavily that it is less hassle to just work for the government version that has to spring up to take the place of the private versions that go out of business due to over-regulation."
According to whom?
"Uh... yeah.... federal involvement is kind of a key identifier of Socialism."
There's no difference in terms of "what's more socialist" between federal and state and local funding. If it's public then it's public no matter if the funds come from Washington or Alabama.
"Historically, time and time again, higher taxes result in less money for the government. Lower taxes result in more money for the government. When you raise taxes on ANY segment of the population it is bad, but when you raise taxes on the 'rich' so they pay their 'fair share' (Keep in mind that well over half of this nation's taxes are paid by the top 5 to 10% of wage earners, that seems pretty unfair to me), their cost of business goes up. That filters down to all of us, making the poor poorer, and the middle class poor."
What in the world are you talking about? I mentioned nothing about the federal government's collection of funds, only the money supply; the two are not synonomous. When inflation is a concern (as it is now), it is much better to direct taxation cuts to lower income workers due to their propensity to consume more than save (MPS is virtually nonexistant); otherwise, you will see a larger growth in inflation.
"Harder than ya'll cause I'm smarter than ya'll
I know that deep down it's got to be bothering ya'll
Pay attention, watch fly gon get larger than ya'll
Put your pride on the rocks, make you swallow it all"
------------------------------------------
*Comment Edited By Kristinalyig07 for TOS violations*
I'd quote the parts of this post that I flagged, but I'd hate for the mods to have to clean out two comments.
I was actually going to edit it myself and change it to "what a joke", but you *beat me to it.
*Edited by T_Time for TOS violation on 1/17.
"Harder than ya'll cause I'm smarter than ya'll
I know that deep down it's got to be bothering ya'll
Pay attention, watch fly gon get larger than ya'll
Put your pride on the rocks, make you swallow it all"
Please remember that name-calling, even if it does seem trivial, is not tolerated.
-----
Soar high and laugh on the wind
~Fallon~
"If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them."- Thoreau
-----
I see that he can call whomever he'd like a socialist, but I call someone a joke and it's just too much?
"Harder than ya'll cause I'm smarter than ya'll
I know that deep down it's got to be bothering ya'll
Pay attention, watch fly gon get larger than ya'll
Put your pride on the rocks, make you swallow it all"
That you disagree with my assessment on two Democrat presidential candidates does not give you an open field to personally call me a joke or insult my intelligence.
That was my assessment of you; an assessment that is much more factual than yours.
"Harder than ya'll cause I'm smarter than ya'll
I know that deep down it's got to be bothering ya'll
Pay attention, watch fly gon get larger than ya'll
Put your pride on the rocks, make you swallow it all"
To Lance:
Stop calling people socialists. Just because they have socialistic ideals doesn't mean that they're socialists. Besides, you label 99.9% of politicians as socialists. So, it's kind of lost meaning. Think up something new; call them Terrorists.
To Lincoln:
The reason Lance was able to call Obama and Clinton socialists is because we allow "name-calling" to an extent. For example, if you wanted to call W a baboon or the missing link, you're free to. However, if you wanted to call Lance an ignorant Christian, you'd be moderated. Equally true, if he directly calls you a socialist, we will be happy to moderate his ass. Watch out for implications, too, apparently.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Click to send Hate Mail
Choice Picks
Nah, just those to the left of Lieberman. Heh.
I don't sink as low as those who call President Bush or Vice President Cheney 'terrorists' . . .. I reserve that term for people who think that blowing me up for not being them is a good thing.
Doesn't it? [-(
Out of non-defensive and non-combative curiosity, at what point would you call someone a socialist?
At any point in which my freedom of speech is not limited by a legally binding contract that I previously agreed to.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Click to send Hate Mail
Choice Picks
Point out where he called you a socialist and I would be more than happy to edit and send the same warning to him, but I'm not seeing it. I moderate what I find as I find it or as it is flagged for me. I don't have time to play favorites. It's not that difficult to discuss like adults without resorting to personal attacks and name calling. If he called you a socialist, show me and I'll deal with it. In the meantime, that does not excuse you resorting to name calling. It's not a "he started it" matter and it annoys me that people continually use that as if it's some excuse or justification.
-----
Soar high and laugh on the wind
~Fallon~
"If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them."- Thoreau
-----
"It's not a "he started it" matter and it annoys me that people continually use that as if it's some excuse or justification."
I never said anything remotely close to that. @#%$. Bye.
"Harder than ya'll cause I'm smarter than ya'll
I know that deep down it's got to be bothering ya'll
Pay attention, watch fly gon get larger than ya'll
Put your pride on the rocks, make you swallow it all"
@#%$ Edited Accordingly Nick 1/17/08 10:59PM EST
No, you said something along the lines of why do I get in trouble for calling him a joke when he can call whoever he wants a socialist. It comes across as if you're justifying your behavior because he started it. Whether he called you a crap flinging monkey or a brilliant man, doesn't excuse you retaliating in kind.
-----
Soar high and laugh on the wind
~Fallon~
"If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them."- Thoreau
-----
If I may further add... spelling errors aside (though they do make one question some things), if you have a stated belief that no one else should be 'worth looking at' except Obama and Hillary, why should we take your opinion as informed?
Knowing what you want to know about the only candidate you think is 'worth' knowing about isn't what 'being informed' is all about.
Being informed involves knowing alot about all of the candidiates. That way, you can ACTUALLY compare and contrast, rather than issuing blanket statements that dismiss anyone you don't wish to discuss.