Obama supporters....
-
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.
-
StangerBanger96;237412 wrote:
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...She's an idiot. Period.
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
Source? I can also show you were he (McCain) was for the deregulation of that industry, but now has flip-flopped his stance and says there needs to be more gov't involvement and oversight.
Talk all the smack you want about Obama, it's a free country....unless you want to protest at a Bush rally, then they arrest you or turn you away.
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.
-
tjamz;237416 wrote:
She's an idiot. Period.We can definitely agree on that.
tjamz;237416 wrote:
Source? I can also show you were he (McCain) was for the deregulation of that industry, but now has flip-flopped his stance and says there needs to be more gov't involvement and oversight.This is what McCain said in 2005, he seems to have been a oracle. lol
Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
Bassplayer;237215 wrote:
As long as they aren't bothering other people, any person should be allowed to do whatever they want. It's not our job to tell other people who they can be attracted to. If you can't deal with someone else being different then GTFO. That's a real shady thing to judge someone by their sexual orientation. I'll defend that til the day I die.Judging someone and not supporting thier lifestyle are two different things. What is real shady is the lack of moral fibers that the country is clinging to. The country was founded on wonderful principles and should not change because of people who want no rules and do anything as long as it makes them feel good.
-
-
Ron Paul, September 10, 2003:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul128.html
Perhaps the Federal Reserve can stave off the day of reckoning by purchasing GSE debt and pumping liquidity into the housing market, but this cannot hold off the inevitable drop in the housing market forever. In fact, postponing the necessary, but painful market corrections will only deepen the inevitable fall. The more people invested in the market, the greater the effects across the economy when the bubble bursts
As usual, Ron Paul 0wnz everyone at all things financial.
Fannie and Freddie have been great for democrats to reward supporters with cushy management jobs with zero accountability. Now we're paying the price.
-
00Ws6TransAm;237421 wrote:
Judging someone and not supporting thier lifestyle are two different things. What is real shady is the lack of moral fibers that the country is clinging to. The country was founded on wonderful principles and should not change because of people who want no rules and do anything as long as it makes them feel good.Basically, the rules of this country are as follows:
Do whatever you want so long as what you are doing does not infringe on the rights of others.
I don't see how gay rights affect me (either in a positive or negative manner).
Morality is great...but not everyone has the same morals. Some religions recognize and allow gay couples, others don't. Which set of morals are right? The one that says "Love everyone as you love yourself" or the one that says "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve"?
-
tjamz;237442 wrote:
Which set of morals are right? The one that says "Love everyone as you love yourself" or the one that says "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve"?You don't have to hate someone simply because you disagree with thier actions. You can still love someone (not in a kissy kissy way) and strongly disagree with what they are doing.
Speaking of strongly disagreeing, I can't wait for the debates to start! Especially the VP debates. I hope Biden wears a cup that nite.
:icon_rabbit:
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
I'd love to see an unscripted/unnegotiated debate between all candidates (VP and Pres) where any question goes. I think McCain would do better than Obama at that and that Biden would destroy Palin...heck let the two candidates ask each other a few questions even. That would be a fun debate to watch. Unfortunately what we are going to see is watered down questions that won't show the candidates true colors.
But having said that, even though a candidate "wins" a debate, it does not guarantee them a seat in the oval office.....Bush proved that.
Now for my take on Obama. He's not a messiah. I disagree with him on many issues, however I feel that he would be a good leader for this country.....but ONLY if he has a republican house/senate to challenge him. Clinton was best during his last six years and was subpar at best during his 1st two. I honestly think Bush would have been better if he had a democrat house and senate for the majority of his term...that way they would have had to challenge each other. Right now, the dems are giving him just enough rope to hang himself, which is too bad. I'd rather see a successful president from EITHER party than one who is not highly regarded. Unfortunately party line politics comes into play and no one gives a flying fuck what happens to our country so long as their party comes out smelling like a rose.
In reality, if both parties worked together more we would be far better off. I'm not saying that each side give in on everything, but at some point you have to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do....is that too much to ask from either party?
-
tjamz;237442 wrote:
Basically, the rules of this country are as follows:Do whatever you want so long as what you are doing does not infringe on the rights of others.
I don't see how gay rights affect me (either in a positive or negative manner).
Morality is great...but not everyone has the same morals. Some religions recognize and allow gay couples, others don't. Which set of morals are right? The one that says "Love everyone as you love yourself" or the one that says "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve"?
I'd like to see how long the human race would last if "Adam and Steve" type of morals prevailed. My guess it wouldn't last...wonder why...maybe "God" knew what he was doing.
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