Obama supporters....
-
Obama girl? And any one of her hot friends making out would be basically pure sex
here a psht, there psht, everywhere a psht psht
PVC SQUAD MEMBER #2- 95 CIVIC EX- DD 320whp on a mustang dyno
-
get a room already....
-
Here's another one....
-
zbrown;237348 wrote:
sad thing is ....gay guys ^^>>>>>>>> Obama
Ok....so I know you farm Zach, which of the two candidates is going to be better for you as a farmer? The one who supported the farm bill or the one who opposed it?
-
tjamz;237350 wrote:
Ok....so I know you farm Zach, which of the two candidates is going to be better for you as a farmer? The one who supported the farm bill or the one who opposed it?harm;237354 wrote:
I'm still amazed you're even thinking of supporting Obama, being as you're a small business owner.I don't need hand outs to make things work........
Just because the Democrats (the Messiah) support something that benefits farmers and McCain doesn't.........doesn't make me feel obligated to vote for them in the least...
I am just one part of the system.....and the whole system has to work.....
sure some Dem. supported farm bills are gonna help me.... but in the long run, all their other socialist programs are gonna kill me and the capitalist system....
IMO
-
I agree that two adults ought to be able to choose to do what they like. I find it ironic that the other people in this thread that claim to be infavor of strong individual rights would be Obama supporters.
The progressive agenda, in general, is pretty anti-individual rights. They're for "some" freedoms, like being homosexual, or having abortions, or those sorts of things, and they're blatantly anti-individual rigths when it comes to homeschooling, gun ownership, healthcare choice, retirement planning, etc, etc.
I suppose that if gay activism is your single-voter-issue, obama might be your pick (although he might not -- the Democrats pretty much take the homosexual vote for granted but there are gay guys that don't let their sexuality define them.. they're guys that happen to be gay.. not gays that happen to be guys. )
On the other hand, if individual freedoms are important to you, the progressive-leftist agenda may be a pretty poor move. The libertarian party would be the best move in that case.
-
zbrown;237361 wrote:
I don't need hand outs to make things work........Just because the Democrats (the Messiah) support something that benefits farmers and McCain doesn't.........doesn't make me feel obligated to vote for them in the least...
I am just one part of the system.....and the whole system has to work.....
sure some Dem. supported farm bills are gonna help me.... but in the long run, all their other socialist programs are gonna kill me and the capitalist system....
IMO
Here's my take on the farm bill (very condensed version here...)
Nearly every country has a "farm bill" and it isn't 100% to prop up the farmers, it is more so there to ensure that the food supply for the USA is produced in the USA. We have already seen what happens by having energy sources coming from foreign countries...it leaves us vulnerable to high and fluctuating fuel prices. By having the farmers and the commodities they support backed up in the event of an emergency (or incentives to make sure that we have the proper amount of a given crop being produced to keep up with the demands of the US population) we are insuring that not only will the farmers have a better chance of making it to the next year in the event of catastrophic failure, we are also making sure that our citizens can afford to eat those goods. We can ride our bikes to work if we have to, but I'm not sure how good those same bikes would taste if we ran out of food.
The "cost" of the farm bill per citizen is much less than the "benefit" of having it. Much like the cost of bailing out companies like AIG has a big benefit as well.
-
Biden: There’s a fundamental philosophy difference here. Take a look. We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle class people.
Snow: Anyone making over $250,000 a year…
Biden: …is going to pay more. You got it. It’s time to be patriotic, Kate. Time to jump in. Time to be part of the deal. Time to help America get out of the rut
(clears throat)
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA........
OH MAN SO NOT GETTING MY VOTE...
-
zbrown;237387 wrote:
yeah i heard rush going off on biden telling "paying taxes is patriotic"lol
Not paying them is illegal, therefore un-patriotic....patriotic is doing what is right for the country to get through whatever crisis that may be. I don't like taxes, and I don't like excessive gov't spending (ideally I'd LOVE to see no gov't programs, but that won't happen ever again as both sides have pet projects they won't let go and some programs would cause the collapse of the american economy if they were out-right cancelled). Would I have phrased it the way he did? No.
Both sides keep spending more and more, but only one side wants to be fiscally responsible enough to pay back the debt...via taxes.
I'm fairly certain that less than 1/100th (if any) of the people on this site are going to be affected by this tax increase that they are proposing, and this would really only affect those who received the most recent tax cut (which Bush is credited with giving) by reversing it back to the way it was during the previous administration.
I'd be ok with increasing it on people making over $100k/year or families making more than $200k/year. Or a flat tax with ZERO deductions for any individual other than dependants. Businesses would still get to write off their business expenses, so it would not affect them.
I know this is where Dave will jump in and say "why don't we make EVERYBODY pay the same dollar amount?" which in theory sounds great, but in practice would have a huge impact on the middle class and near-poverty level people, therefore pushing more of them to welfare/food stamps/whatever. Great idea, impossible to implement w/o affecting a LOT of people adversely.
-
Obama explains Socialism
According to the Associated Press story, Senator Obama gave a little girl a brief explanation of his plan for universal health insurance coverage and improved education. Then he explained his view that the wealthy should pay the expenses of people who are not wealthy:
"We've got to make sure that people who have more money help the people who have less money," Sen. Obama said. "If you had a whole pizza, and your friend had no pizza, would you give him a slice?"
Senator Obama glossed right over the difference between a moral imperative to be kind to people and government force that throws people in jail if they refuse to pay up.
Maybe the senator should have explained it to her this way:
"If you had a whole pizza, and your friend had no pizza, should you be expelled from school if you refuse to give him a slice?"
Or maybe he should have explained it this way:
"If your mommy and daddy worked very hard at their jobs and went to school at night so they could make enough money to give you everything you need, should they have to give that money to all the parents who dropped out of school and wasted their time, and to all the parents who spent their money on things that your parents passed up so they could support you?"
Or maybe he could have explained it this way:
"If you build a lemonade stand and buy lemons and sugar and pitchers and cups and stand out in the hot sun all day selling lemonade, and at the end of the day you have fifteen dollars, whose money is that? Is the answer the same if it's only two dollars? What if it's fifty dollars?"
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
This post is deleted!
-
One funny thing I found recently is Nanci Pelosi saying "NO" when asked if the Dem's had ANY responsibility regarding the recent financial crisis...
Funny thing about it, McCain and several other Republican congressmen wanted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac investigated about 3 years ago because they could see an issue. The Dem's felt that there was no problem and shot that idea down...One dem in particular was against it I do believe, but since it seems to be illegal to say anything bad about the "messiah" I wont
Also in regards to taxes, I do believe the war that eventually got our Nation started was over taxes, and the rate they were being taxed at back then was MUCH lower than our current tax rates...Fundamentally, Republicans want small government in the hands of the people and Democrats want a large central/Federal government. Unfortunately as of recently the Republicans have been making the central government larger, making them almost the same as the Dem's in that regard. As for other beliefs, Dems lose hands down IMO.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login