Who's gonna win
Book Guy
I write it like I mean it, but mostly they just want my money.
Cast your vote here. Not a thread for expressing who you WANT to win, just who you PREDICT is LIKELY to win.
I predict, that 50.00001% of the electoral votes go to McCain-Palin and we have a Republican in the White House. That black-man-from-california effect. Popular vote may be as much as 55% in favor of Obama.
I predict, that 50.00001% of the electoral votes go to McCain-Palin and we have a Republican in the White House. That black-man-from-california effect. Popular vote may be as much as 55% in favor of Obama.
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
119 comments
Most states' electorals follow the popular; in some states, it's actually the law.
The best thing the Republicans can d at this point is prevent Democrat senate control, because that would cement Obama's policies for a generation with unresistable judge appointments.
O.
1. Oversampling of dems v reps, even in polls that try to get it right. Highly unlikely voter turnout will skew that heavily toward the dems.
2. Many of the polls have been intended to shape rather than reflect opinion. They want Obama, and they want everyone to believe it's a done deal.
3. Lying to pollsters. There is the Bradley effect, but I discount that. Greater is the Hillary effect: disaffected Clinton supporters have made it clear they are deliberately lying to pollsters to skew the polls. They think it will give Team Obama a false sense of security. Payback is a bitch, they figure.
Too bad President Bush can run for and win a third term. Yes, I realize he is a walking breathing mess; sometimes a rapid fall is better than a gradual decline.
Obama or McCain is fine, imo, and perhaps that is how the elite feel (so maybe the election will be relatively fraud free). Remember both gentlemen were immediately eager to handout billions to billionaires.
Too bad President Bush can't run for and win a third term.
http://townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulte…
1) Obama is not ahead by 9% in PA, he is ahead by 9% of those who are decided and consented to be polled.
2) Undecides break about 60-70% toward the "incumbent" which in this case, as Obama himself has said is probably McCain.
3) Conservatives under-poll by about 3%.
4) As mentioned above the polling organizations weight based on voter self identification, ho many identify themselves as democrat or republican. That is a lot more volatile number than those who self identify as conservative, moderate, or liberal. That is almost unchanged for 20+ years.
5) Once again we may see record turnout, making turnout models tough to predict, a lot depends on those models.
6) Once again the pollsters, the media, etc are all counting on the youth vote tidal wave to happen. I've been hearing about this game changing youth vote since the mid 80's. It never happens. But they actually could be right one of these times.
OK, a lot of points, the sum of those random snippets is this. If Obama wins PA it is not by any stretch of the imagination going to be by 9%. I wouldn't be surprised to see him lose. Apply to other battlegrounds, shake well, stay up late, 'cause it's gonna be a long night.
As far as the Republican campaign, I thought it was a big screw up. I could campaign a lot better than John McCain did. Then I would go on the attack on Obama's policies including health care. Such as Obama's plan would require your employers health care to provide coverage for people not already in your plan and to provide coverage to those with pre-existing conditions. Let in all the sick people into your companies health plan and then all the healthy employees will have to pay higher health care premiums. Obama can claim it wasn't a tax increase, your health care provider decided they needed to raise their premiums they charge you. Then it goes on from there with social security, etc. etc. It can always be some other group that is charging higher fees. If this doesn't happen then it will be a rationed system, kind of like waiting in a long line just to get gas. Meanwhile McCain wants to tax our current healthcare. They both want to do a cap and trade for carbon emissions on companies. Guess who the companies will charge to pay for all of this? It's whoever buys their products. If you need to buy anything, you'll pay more courtesy of the new president no matter who is elected. I'm not voting for any of those two bozos.
You state, "...'cause it's gonna be a long night." If McCain wins, the democrats will start the 2000 BS again and we'll be weeks, if not months dealing with their BS!
I definitely don't mind being WRONG in this instance and having Obama win easily. IMHO, I think if Obama was a white man he'd win in a massive landslide as a repudiation of the Republicans and President Bush. After President Bush why would I ever believe Republicans will fight for small government?
The main positive that I see with big government Republicans is I think they'll bankrupt the country. (One way of hopefully ending these idiotic wars.) With big government Democrats there is at least the possiblity that the programs will help the poor and middle class. As I said in another thread after these big government Republicans so called "conservatives," communism or socialism is fine alternative, imo.
Some say if Obama loses, it will spark the next Civil War.
If Obama wins, it may spark the next American Revolution. Those who love liberty will not sit idly by as it is destroyed, as Obama so desires.
But I'm hopeful neither calamity shall ensue.
The typical flag waver would be too cowardly to ever violently confront the government. If the government says the sky is bright green with purple polka dots, then that is the absolute truth until the government declares otherwise. The tiny minority that wants liberty would easily and completely be crushed by a government that has no qualms about killing men, women, and children non-combatant or not.
If President Obama wants to take your liberty it is fait accompli. For example, if the U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 decision went againt an individual right to bear arms the vast majority would accept the new reality. A small propaganda program on how turning in your gun is as patriotic as flag waving and there be long lines to turn over private firearms to the government. Throw in a FREE Whopper for each firearm or a tax credit and people might start rioting to turn over their guns first.
The free market is dead. And any traditional sense of liberty is dead along with it.
Everytime that I hear that I feel tempted to waste a little of my time and vote for Obama. :) Unfortunately, he probably is telling the truth when he says he loves America.
Nah. Even if he is a socialist that won't happen. As jablake correctly points out, people will just be like "yeah, whatever".
I don't know if there could be a revolution these days. Providing the "evil dictator" wannabes are patient enough to slow cook it it seems they can get away with anything.
Look at the Bush/Cheney power grab for presidential powers at the cost of civil liberties (the Patriot Act, etc). If people were willing to stomach that without an uprising, I'm not too hopeful.
OTOH, people seem to ultimately care about money the most. If the economy tanks and stays down, here might be some breeding ground for revolution there. But I'm sure things won't get so bad that people won't still have their microwave chicken pot pies to eat. That'll be enough to keep them passive.
Back in the good old days of 1963 the top marginal rate for those earning over $400,000 was 91% (with a maximum effective rate limitation equal to 87% of statutory "taxable income.") In the good old days of 1918 the top marginal rate was 77% for those earning over a $1,000,000.
President Obama may merely return us to the good old days where people understood their income after a reasonable level belonged more to the government than themselves! :) Socialism has a long proud tradition in the U.S. as does total government corruption. Americans fight for liberty? LOL! LOL! LOL!
Truly, that concept of American fighting for individual liberty is hilarious. The typical American is eager to do whatever the government demands; it's democracy or some such crapola. :) I'm 99% certain the government will not restrict your right to wave the American flag, however, so you should be a happy camper.
Didn't President Obama say paying more taxes is patriotic? If so, he is one sharp pencil.
"Undecides break about 60-70% toward the 'incumbent'"
No, they really don't.
Any state poll where Obama leads by <or= 3-4 points he could lose, but he's up by so much in so many states...he can't lose this election...it's been over for quite a while now.
"Under that scenario both of your contentions are theoretically possible"
No, they're not...because they've NEVER happened in modern times since all of the states started to assign their electoral votes in relatively the same way.
"Obama hates America."
Keep the nonsense right on coming there wing-nut...
"If Obama wins, it may spark the next American Revolution."
Nope...all your guns amount to NOTHING when compared to the U.S. govt..
"Unfortunately, I believe that MUSLIM is going to take office!"
He's not a Muslim Bones...and quit hiding behind your new TUSCL name...
And then if anyone comes for my weapons, they will only get the ammunition.
You'll be labelled a "terrorist." You know that favorite phrase of supposedly "conservative" Republicans. Better stock up on the food and make sure you have a safe supply of water! LOL!
I can just see a U.S. tank rolling over your home with you in it (makes no difference if your home is filled with women and children!) from the blind side. You probably won't even get to fire a couple of rounds into the ground.
In the 2 "hot" wars the government is playing around with currently it is amazing the locals are able to fight back even a little bit (usually killing more of their own people than the enemy). The advantage of modern technology is just overwhelming. The one real advantage these villagers have over the mighty U.S. government is that with any luck they can financially devastate the enemy invader---remember this was one of Bin Laden's stated goals; the U.S. government bankrupt itself by overreaction and overreaching.
Additionally, it was a plan employed by the Reagan adminstration to help bankrupt the Soviets. Sort of fitting that the same freedom fighters as President Reagan referred to them may succeed in bankrupting 2 super powers of the modern age. :)
So a handful of "terrorists" err holy warriors mainly from Saudi Arabia pull off a huge attack in great part thanks to incredible government incompetence----gross incompetence bordering on criminal. So does the corrupt U.S. government start attacking Saudi Arabi? LOL. Of course not. It didn't even want Bin Laden. Why attack Iraq? Oh gee, what a wonderful way to print money for President Bush's oil buddies. Nothing to do with 911, but facts aren't easily understood by U.S. cattle. The country is a total fraud.
This mortgage scam wasn't any secret in the least. The Wall Street Journal was going off the deep end over it years earlier while it could have been fixed fairly cheaply. Just as the government chose to ignore intelligence reports about the "terrorists" it chose to ignore the budding mortgage mess. It is a stupid government game to control and defraud. The "terrorists" weren't a deep dark secret. Incompetence could be blamed . . . that always possible given some of the low intelligence of some of those in charge. The "mortage mess" certainly wasn't a deep dark secret either. You've got a "conservative" national publication screaming for more government oversight and you even have hearings. So what? It was just another stupid government fraud and the rich again succeed in stealing with the help of government.
So wage the idiotic war against "terrorism" and increase their strength while the government needs to print more and more money (or hopefully raise your taxes thru the roof) to play the game that only embitters the larger islamic community and destabilizes a nuclear state.
It certainly wasn't the terrorists who sent America broke this time. It was America that sent America broke. (I think the closest argument you could make it that the war on terrorism was a distraction. Without the attention should or would have been on the pending collapse).
In any case, from what I'm reading it looks like even though the US is the key culprit in this crisis, the world financial system is engineered in such a way that the rest of world will end up suffering more, and contribute more than their fare share to the bailout.
jablake, I think you and I might disagree on the length of an NFL football field from goal-line to goal-line; however, I'm going to risk this question in hope of finding a bit of common ground: Would you favor term limits for congress?
The term limits is actually a little more complex than I would think at first glance. I'm concerned some lowlife gets elected and seeing no future in politics due to term limits is very contemptuous of his constituents and sells his power to the highest bidder. Yes, I realize that happens now. However, some politicians are a little discrete and choosey because they love the perks of office. One huge source of the problem, imo, is the rules controlling the politicians giving one senator or representative too much power over what should, imo, be an equal ranking senator or representative. Get rid of all the seniority crap.
A buddy got to speak with and chew out Alcee Hastings (the buddy is the same one who fell in love with McCain after speaking with him). The representative explained that you have to cut a load of dirty deals to get any power or benefits for your constituents. What little I know of these rules they were designed to breed extreme corruption and give control to a tiny few. It is total sleaze. Just as the government is total sleaze; it isn't a great country. Very far from it.
Speaking of total sleaze here in Miami years ago there were lawsuits attempting to get a paper trail so that election results couldn't be hacked without getting detected. Of course, the federal court gave thumbs down to that plea because electronic voting is secure. LOL! Yep, computers are just so famous for their security. :) A neat scam was pulled on a gambling issue. The State of Florida found 70,000 electronic votes or some such number and then had the nerve to claim they knew the computer was undercounting 3 months earlier. Yeah, right. Have a known computer error that undercounts votes and you wait 3 months for the election to take place and then you announce the error. What a bunch hoodlums and the judges can be far worse.
Greatest country? Tell me about it when you get screwed. A friend, an old guy like me (same buddy as above), swears he was innocent of all manner of serious drug charges (I've always known him to be an anti-drug nut and flag waver). Basically, he was facing loss of all his considerable real estate (he is an extremely hard worker and actually helps the less fortunate; a great person except for his flag waving) as well as being behind bars for life. After a hell hole of judicial games he was finally found to be innocent. Anyway, despite his ordeal he was still a flag waver. Even if his property was wrongfully stolen by the government and he was sentenced to life for a crime he didn't do, I think he'd still be a flag waver.
Would it be fair to say the governmnet spent a trillion dollars on the war on terror? How much did they force financial institution to spend of this war? My bank was sure as hell complaining. I think a good deal of the spent government money is "black hole" aka secret for security reasons. Also, don't forget all the pork that was demanding for a yes vote. Government wants to throw away billions on an endless terror war . . . well, gonna have to sweeten the pot to buy votes to get the money. Typical government bribery.
Plus, there is the cost of paying for crippled and no longer productive vetrans. Costs just built in for the next few decades. No small or limited government for America.
Anyway, a trillion could definitely be the straw that broke the camel's back so to say.
Nobody's going to be coming for your weapons...don't buy into the fear...
"they went bankrupt because socialism always fails."
Not exactly...they went bankrupt, in part, because we greatly outspent them in "defense" spending and their trying to keep up ended very badly for them.
Actually, I'm a little shocked the U.S. is in the top 30. It does come as no surprise to me that some Cubans who fled Castro wanted to leave ASAP after experiencing the U.S. firsthand. Imagine people being happier in Castro's Cuba than the U.S. I knew an old Cuban who was very anti-communist and welfare, but he'd rather have been allowed to return to Cuba even if forced to apologize than be stuck in the U.S. Oh, since he fought against Castro with U.S. help some "deep" thinkers would consider him a "terrorist." LOL! I guess sorta like President Washingtion could be considered a "terrorist."
I meet people from all over the world here in Miami. Some are very pro-U.S. and others think just take the money and endure. A pro-U.S. ladyfriend who has travelled the world says that in her opinion the main benefit of living in the U.S. is that she can be with her friends and family. She describes the U.S. as one of the better countries in the world as long as you don't have too much contact with the government. She has had very negative experiences with the IRS.
I would like to see people who make such inflammatory statements to back them up with documentary evidence - or retract them.
AHEM, I clearly heard the soon to be leader of the free world espouse a belief in spreading the wealth. Definitely, that reeks of hating America and also sounds like a tenet of Islam. What next he opposes charging interest? If McCain was truly interested in fighting for our freedoms, then he'd punch the spreading wealth espouser smack dab in the nose for starters. Then, a little water boarding just so the youngster learns the proper chain of command. Send 'im to church every Sunday with a Bible, easy language version, and presto he should be on his way to recovery.
Oh, and as for BG, "I don't recall the Democrats "starting" the 2000 BS ..." That is a matter of historical record. Bush won by the election tally, and the automatic recount. Gore called for a recount, which under Florida law had to be of ALL ballots and done within the pre-decided period before the election was certified. Gore went to court to demand (and he got) a court order to prevent the election from being certified, and to order a recount of only certain votes (undervotes) in 3 counties. The election was decided, it was Gore who filed suit to stop the certification. That is a fact. I'm not really interested in debating further than that, because quite frankly people are immune to facts when it comes to the 2000 recount.
MG: "Not exactly...they went bankrupt, in part, because we greatly outspent them in 'defense' spending and their trying to keep up ended very badly for them. "
MG is partially right. However, how's point (likely) was that if "socialism" was so great the USSR would have been able to keep up (and even top) the US's spending. If "socialism" was so great a spending war would have led to... The US's economic collapse not the other way around.
Unfortunately it's all a complete straw man. The USSR was neither socialist, nor communist, nor Marxist. Lenin and later Stalin made some significant departures from these ideologies such that it was closest to fascism minus private ownership of property. The system was a bit unique in this respect, so I just like to call it by its proper name: Bolshevism and not confuse it with anything else.
That's the point...there IS no evidence of these claims, period.
"My mistake was that I read few articles stating that the expectation was that undecideds would break for McCain, and a apparently incorrectly remembered statistic attributed it to breaking for the incumbent."
This is a "change election" because the American public is super-overwhelmingly of the opinion that the country is on the "wrong track" and in need of a serious course correction. Whomever embodied that perceived needed change would have won this election cycle, and that person was Obama, period.
+
"Trotskyists after World War 2 described the states created through USSR occupation as well as through guerilla movements in Yugoslavia, Albania, China, Cuba, and Vietnam as deformed workers' states, since they did not result from the degeneration of a democratic workers state but were politically dictatorial from the beginning."
Sounds pretty accurate to me.
I think both the liberals and conservative have valid points, and the trick is not to take things to extremes. That's why I'm pretty centrist myself. I don't want too much socialism nor too much capitalism. A true "swing voter".
Now getting back to your post: I believe that part of the reason things didn't turn out the way Marx predicted, was, in large part, though not completely because society moderated toward socialism in response to his philosophy.
It was better that than risk a complete overturning. In fact, many hardcore Marxists dislike their socialist breathen for precisely that reason:
They would like to see unbridled Capitalism because they know that would be less palpable to workers, and, according to this theory, trigger the revolution they dream of. According to them socialism is just delaying giving Capitalism the rope it needs to hang itself. (So, ironically, a truly hardcore Marxist would like to see massive deregulation, and maybe a flat tax, because in his or her mind it would speed "the revolution".)
They did, unless you have a different scenario that makes "starting" different than the start.
Bush may be registered as a Republican, but one thing he isn't is a conservative. There is becoming a large divide between Republican and conservative.
Sort of like JFK as a Democrat and liberals of today.
___________________
arbeeguy, you asked for evidence or retraction on a couple of statements. One of them -- "Obama hates America" -- was my own. So, I'll tell you why I believe that. Understand first that any such statement about another person's beliefs and feelings is always necessarily just my opinion. But I'll try to back it up.
1. Obama verbally trashed America on his European tour this summer, particularly in Germany. He also verbally trashed America when talking to a little kid who asked him why he wanted to be president.
2. Obama says America and our Constitution are "fundamentally flawed." (Ref, Chicago public radio discussion, ca. 2001)
3. Obama sought out and stuck with for two full decades Rev Jeremiah Wright, who repeatedly preached hatred for America. Examples include screaming rants like "U.S. of KKK A." and "No! No! No! NOT God Bless America; God DAMN America!"
4. Obama said of America, "White man's greed runs a world in need."
5. Obama said of U.S. military in Afghanistan (of which I was one), "They're just air-raiding villages and killing civilians."
6. Obama sought out and maintained friendships with William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. Obama has tried to distance himself from them during the past two years, because he seeks the presidency. But he has repeatedly lied about the depth of the friendship, and distracted attention from the matter with the ridiculous dodge "I was 8 years old when they bombed those buildings." How old was Obama when Ayers said "I don't regret setting those bombs...I wish we had done more"? That was on 11 September 2001, by the way.
7. Obama's political life (starting in his late teens) has been inspired and motivated by the writings of the late Saul Alinsky. Alinsky's book "Rules for Radicals" has been Obama's political bible. It describes in detail how to "fundamentally change" America: moderate your tone, convince people you are fairly middle of the road (when in fact, Obama is to the left of the Senate's lone self-acknowledged Socialist, per voting record), and destroy the country from within government once you attain power. The book is dedicated to "The first and most successful radical: Lucifer." Yes, that Lucifer, a/k/a Satan.
The list could go on and on, but you get some idea how I arrived at my conclusion, Obama hates America.
IMHO, I don't think he made that mistake. Here are his actual words: "This is a 'change election' because the American public is super-overwhelmingly of the opinion that the country is on the 'wrong track' and in need of a serious course correction. Whomever embodied that perceived needed change would have won this election cycle, and that person was Obama, period."
McCain *could* have *embodied that perceived needed change* (if he was a different person). He like many "conservatives" were in love and may still be in love with President Bush. Everytime I hear that clip where he is bragging about voting or supporting the President 90% of the time, if true, it confirms to me that he is a lemming or cuts dirty deals or actually supported the President. The Wall Street Journal was madly in love with President Bush. And, my thought was if President Bush represents real conservative values, then I'm ashamed of ever supporting conservatives.
A very wealthy wildly pro-U.S. gentleman who fled Iran was explaining to me why he loved President Bush. He is a muslim, btw. Anyway, he explained to me how the corrupt religious courts stole millions and millions of worth of property from him. And, that basically even though he is a muslim, he believed these extremists needed to be smacked down by the U.S. and just was praying that President Bush would topple the corrupt Iranian regime.
After, listening to him praise the U.S. and President Bush, I told him that as far as I was concerned the U.S. is an extremely corrupt country and his loss of property at the hands of corrupt religious courts in Iran sounded like my experience in U.S. courts. After hearing that my losses were "only pennies" he dismissed them as being trivial and not worth complaining about. Yes, to him due to his extreme wealth my property was "only pennies" and to many wealthy filth that would be the response. That in my opinion is a good reason to level the playing against wealthy filth that have that mentality. Normally, I wouldn't want the government to steal any of his money. But, if he thinks it is ok for the courts to steal "only pennies" from me then what the hell he needs to be reduced to my "poverty level" and kept there!
Generally, my interest in redistributing the wealth would be near zero----with a corrupt country and arrogance to boot that changes radically and the Democrats don't look bad in the least. ***Start redistributing even if it ends up making everyone less well off---it is a question of freedom from people who have no qualms about an oppessive government as long as the oppression involves stealing "only pennies" or abusing poor people.*** The government needs to steal that gentleman's wealth BIG TIME so he can start appreciating "only pennies."
As far as those who love America because they rose from poverty to riches. That wonderful. And, if a corrupt court steals your hard earned property will you still be yapping about what a wonderful country the U.S. is? For some the answer is definitely a big YES. A crooked court system could leave them penniless and they'd still be yapping this is the greatest country on earth. OK, it is good to see a person with that type thinking isn't holding himself to a different standard. He loves the government unconditionally; apparently.
It was amazing to me that the gentleman could not seem to comprehend that stealing a thousand dollars from me very well could be like stealing a million dollars from him. In fact, it could be much worse! Even after the Iranian religious courts were stealing millions and millions from him, he still had millions and plenty of luxury. True, he had to flee his country of birth. I would LOVE to be able to flee my country of birth (the U.S.) and stay above a povertty existence. I thought I was free from this country, but health and property values collapsing trapped me here. A neighbor was telling me to fight for my "birth right." I don't have the health or the money for any fighting. All I could hope for is those who believe this is such a wonderful country get their money stolen by either a corrupt court or a redistributor of wealth. Then maybe a few wealthy assholes *might* learn.
Anyone who decries the corruption of that central government should be very concerned about the chance that Obama gets the chief executive slot, with like-minded individuals in charge of the legislature.
Yes, I understand that. In fact, that is why I was a Republican for most of my life. What some Republicans fail to understand is that for me at least there is a tipping point. This may or may not be a good example. I generally consider abortion to be murder. However, I do not want the nit wit government to start jailing women or doctors for what in my mind should be thought of as a very serious crime. Many people are of the mentality that if there is a crime, then there has to be a law. I don't buy that at all. The law may create even more evil; especially if it means more government to enforce the law. So, let's say a women is raped and the nit wit government forces her thru all manner of legal terror to have the child. Guess what? In my opinion, that nit wit government needs to be compensating her fully for the cost of raising the child as well as her lost opportunities. IOW, more government is practically mandated and it can be much more government.
Another example: Perhaps also a poor one. The nit wit government decides to wage a massive war against drug abusers (abuser being define as anyone who even looks at a joint or other non-approved drug). Suddenly, the police believe they have the right to start searching people at random and the vile government courts agree with them. It gets worse. Because of all the arrests the judges being real smart asses and totally corrupt decide to use various procedures to take away people's rights (poor people's rights, actually) to a jury trial in both civil AND criminal cases. Wonderful, just what I would expect of government lovers. Unfortunately, for me this is a tipping point. If the nit wit government has the right to randomly search me (treat me like an animal) and has the right to eliminate my right to a jury trial (at the time understood to be a jury of one's peers), then guess what? I want compensation from that nasty government. Compensation could be in the form of more real welfare benefits for the poor and middle class. IOWs, if the government is going to get large and abusive, then the rules change. Rip off the rich who support this filth and rip them off big time. A wealthy friend many years ago was saying the criminal justice system wasn't bad at all. Yes, for him it was nothing to make bail and pay tens of thousands of dollars to high priced attorneys. For him it was a joke. The worst thing was just the arrest. But, his family didn't suffer and the tens of thousands paid to attorneys didn't even dent his wallet. Oh, it was a 2-bit gun charge: He shot out the tires of his own car to stop it from being stolen. Yes, the gun grabbers need to be feared. The clowns who attempted to steal his car----long criminal records of theft and violent crime.
Basically, so called "conservatives" support all manner of more government. My response is well if the government is going to get big for these "good deeds," then it needs to get much bigger to do other compensating "good deeds." Yes, it *might* make everyone poorer. I've got news for you: It may be better for *everyone* to be poorer than to have a wealthy class who doesn't feel the whip of government. If poor people are going to suffer rotting in jail because they can't meet the government's obscene bail demands, then the wealthy asshole who support government need to suffer the same way. If a government judge laughs at a poor person wanting a jury trial, then the wealthy supporters of government need to feel the same pain.
It would be wonderful if the country could have less government and a free market, that ain't in cards. So since more government is the only choice socialism, imo, is the way to go. Yes, imo, it is ok if it is a smaller pie for everyone. Maybe wealthy government lovers might learn their lesson? LOL! :) Naw, as long as they don't feel the whip of government they generally don't give a crap.
To me the only real choices appear to be huge government with endless war and an expanding prison complex or huge government dedicated to throwing money at social problems. Gee, I prefer NOT to have endless war and an expanding prison complex. I guess that means I'm a socialist! With President Bush allegedly representing capitalism, socialism or communism looks more attractive by comparison.
how: Thanks, I like your posts as well!
You state, "One of the things that truly disgusts me about so called "conservatives" is they whimper about fiscal responsibility or there is no money for this social program or that social program and then when it comes time for killing people or giving away money to the wealthy billions and billions and billions appear and money is no object."
I, as a conservative should point out the flaws in your statement.
1. There should be ZERO money for social programs in the FEDERAL budget! Source: The US Constitution.
2. Killing people. That is one on the things the US Constitution allows the FEDERAL government. Our military does two things well, break things and kill people. That is what a military does. Now, how and when it is used, that is open for debate. Source: The US Constitution.
3. The FEDERAL government has ZERO money to give away. It only has money taken from us. That said, what people do with THEIR money is no one elses business. Now whether they do what is legal or illegal, that is NOT the FEDERAL governments business. Source: The US Constitution.
No flaws clubber. You need to read what I wrote just a little more closely.
So the U.S. Constitution allows for the federal government to be killing people. That ain't the point. The point is so called "conservatives" whimpering there is *no money* until they wish to start killing people. The argument wasn't the Constitution doesn't allow for that, which is very debatable. The issue is whether the budget will allow for it or not. So, I hear endless whimpering from so called "conservatives" that this social program is too expensive or that social program is too expensive, but give 'em an opportunity to be spending billions and billions on killing people and suddenly there is no shortage of money.
The Federal government has plenty of money to give away. If nothing else, then the gold in Fort knox and its endless land holdings. But, the real power of the Federal government to give away money is the fact the it now operates a fiat currency and can print money endlessly. Yes, technically the Federal Reserve authorizes the Treasury to print the money and federal government issues the Federal Reserve IOUs paying 3% interest in return (at least that is how I remember the details--the Federal Reserve had provided me with some very educational information on the creation of endless dollars). A beautiful scam that U.S. Supreme Court approved . . . I believe by a 5-4 decision.
The U.S. Constitution is the biggest joke or fraud in the land. The government courts have contempt for it as do most members of Congress.
Oh, these supposed "conservatives" overwhelmingly have no qualms about voting for this social program or that one as long as the amounts aren't too obscene or it is a pet interest. Hell, supposed "conservatives" were probably voting to give ACORN millions.
It is my understanding that the government courts fraudulently use the interstate commerce clause to justify wealth transfer programs.
Anyway, there is always the possibility that a federal judge honestly believes that interstate commerce clause allows for these social programs. Anyway, if they didn't use the interstate commerce clause they'd find some other excuse because their law training teaches contempt for the law----it's malleable and changing and etc.
Reading the opinions of so called "conservative" Supreme Court justices is just as disgusting as reading it from liberal Supreme Court justices. The main difference is liberal justices seem to be a hell of a lot more honest about what they're doing. The "conservatives" are just as much judicial activists from the opinions that I had read.
Doesn't need to. Supposedly, the powers of the Federal government are limited and enumerated. The government's courts have basically said the Federal government has unlimited power to do whatever it wishes in economic matters under the "interstate commerce clause." I say that is a blatant fraud. :) (Yes, I'm a nobody.)
So, if the Federal government is actually limited by the Constitution that eliminates at the Federal level the implementation of marxism and socialism.
'No state shall make anything but GOLD & SILVER coin a tender in payment of debts.'" http://www.buildfreedom.com/e-gold.htm
This is a provision that I would LOVE to see the completely corrupt government courts enforce. You think you'll find a judge or State that will be limited by Article 1, Section 10? LOL! Good luck with that one. The government courts, State and Federal, are committed to giving Federal Reserve Notes value.
The Constitution is a joke and fraud. Geez, just look at decisions on Sixteenth Amendment. What a disgrace.
When government courts openly instruct jurors not to apply the Golden Rule, what I see is unadulterated evil that makes me sick to my very soul. Hey, that is an example of what government courts are all about and perhaps most Americans are loving it. I would like to think other people born and raised in America have the same strong belief in the Golden Rule. I don't believe that is the case even amongst the religious. My neighbor had no qualms about voting for a conviction because he needed to get back to work and couldn't follow the English of the case. Yes, he repeatedly told the government masters that his English was very poor. How would like to have people like him deciding your fate---so much for the original intent of a jury of your peers. :( But, I'm supposed to be all pro-America with a government like this? Yeah, right. :(
The question is really moot, but to say that the reason that Obama has won this election has nothing to do with the mood of the country (which is *desperate* for pretty much any kind of change from the status quo of the GOP) is just silly.
"This is why liberals so often fail in economic arguments, they try to tell people that where you are today is where you will always be, unless the government helps you."
Nonsense...Democrats are about promoting equal rights & social justice, which allows the very kind of success that you describe to happen!
"Sort of like JFK as a Democrat and liberals of today."
As per usual clubber, you have no idea what you are talking about!
"I really enjoy learning from your posts"
...from a troll...LOL...unbelievable!
"Obama verbally trashed America on his European tour this summer, particularly in Germany. He also verbally trashed America when talking to a little kid who asked him why he wanted to be president."
No, he really didn't.
"Obama says America and our Constitution are 'fundamentally flawed.'"
This, of course, is an *intentional* mischaracterization of what Obama said, and no one is taking that old "interview" seriously at this point.
"who repeatedly preached hatred for America. Examples include screaming rants like 'U.S. of KKK A.' and 'No! No! No! NOT God Bless America; God DAMN America!'"
Again, more nonsense that's been *intentionally* taken out of context. The KKK isn't based in the USA?? The description that Wright was giving from the Bible of how God does not look favorably on the killing of innocent civilians, especially women & children, in retaliation for a military strike (like the USA & it's allies have been doing for many, many decades now) isn't accurate??
"Obama said of America, 'White man's greed runs a world in need.'"
Yet another "quote" that has been intentionally, completely & totally taken out of the context from which it was written!
"Obama said of U.S. military in Afghanistan (of which I was one), 'They're just air-raiding villages and killing civilians.'"
Wrong again...Obama was simply saying that he didn't want our efforts in Afghanistan to deteriorate into this because of a lack of troops, period. What Obama REALLY said:
"We've got to get the job done there [in Afghanistan] and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there."
"Obama sought out and maintained friendships with William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn."
Nope...Obama barely knows these two people, and neither have anything to do with his campaign or how he will run the country when he becomes President, period.
"Alinsky's book 'Rules for Radicals' has been Obama's political bible. ... (when in fact, Obama is to the left of the Senate's lone self-acknowledged Socialist, per voting record)"
All of this is utter baloney. The "most liberal score" from the Right-wing outlet that labelled Obama was based on a small, cherry picked set of votes and did not include votes that the Senators missed. The idea that Senator Sanders is LESS liberal than Obama is ludicrous! Alinsky's teachings as they related ONLY to his methods for community organzing influenced Obama in his early career as a community organizer, period end of story.
"Obama's plans ('spreading the wealth around') are designed to elevate the already-too-great power of the central government, and make more people dependent thereon."
We have a strong central govt. because the Articles of Confederation (which had a very weak central govt.) failed. Governments EXIST to redistribute wealth. How do you think the streets get swept or plowed...with your tax money alone?? Nope, with yours and everyone else's tax monies combined...there is nothing wrong with this arrangement BTW.
"I've always wonder about that 'voted with Bush 90% of the time' thing. It could be lying with statistics. I wonder what % of the time Obama voted with Bush?"
http://www.cqpolitics.com/cq-assets/cqmu…
McSame voted with GWB over 90% of the time and with the GOP over 81% of the time. Obama voted with GWB only 41% of the time and with the Dems 96% of the time.
It's a shame that a lot of "conservatives" in this country have only half-truths & outright lies to "back up" their blind, ideologically-based opinions.
I think the best spin the Repubs could put on that one would be that McCain is more of a "maverick" than Obama. 81% party unity McCain vs. 96% Obama. Of course, that one would probably just blow up in their faces, since McCain would then lose support with the Repbulican base.
MG: "It's a shame that a lot of 'conservatives' in this country have only half-truths & outright lies to "back up" their blind, ideologically-based opinions. "
Yeah, like liberals are any better.
I don't think being a "maverick" generally hurts McCain. The "Republican base" assuming that means Republicans supporting President Bush pretty much needs to be rebuked, rejected, and renounced vigorously so there is no mistaking McCain for President Bush. Listening to McCain except when he starts up with the "terrorist" nonsense leaves me feeling more kindly toward him. (Regardless, I wouldn't vote for him or Obama.)
I can even feel somewhat kindly toward Palin, until she starts up with the "terrorist" nonsense or God wants war b.s. If God wants war, then let the big boy himself wage it. Geez, these religious nuts are irritating and scarey (yes, that includes the Holy Warriors of 911).
Hell, why not take the profits from the fast food industry and give those to Alaskans. Everyone should know that fast foods are probably more deadly than mood altering drugs! I *hate* fast foods and actually wouldn't mind too much if the nit wit government waged war against them.
Here's a thought: Wealth redistributing may sometimes be a necessary evil to protect society. Of course, I'd much rather have small limited government if that was a real choice.
Completely agree!
Write-in "jablake" for President!
Project much how...you haven't posted one, single, solitary, verifiable fact as far as I can see from ANY of your posts. You, as usual, have nothing to back up your posts except...more of your own opinion...that's almost the definition of ignorance!
"Isn't the supposedly 'conservative' Palin a wealth redistributor?"
Of course she is! The whole oil profit-sharing thing that they have up in AK is virtually the same to employing a Windfall Profits tax on the oil companies, which the GOP routinely, blindly rails against. It's called hypocrisy BTW...
Thank you for the endorsement. :) The Wall Street Journal years and years ago went on and on ranting and raving about how fast food pushers had to be protected by Congress. How holding these companies legally accountable was tantamount to paternalism. Individual responsiblity and choice was their mantra. Yet, when it comes to certain mood altering and or performance enhancing drugs The Wall Street Journal is 100% in favor of big beautiful all knowing and all powerful government. And, still they yelp about individual responsibility i.e. to be a slave of the government's whims as well as yelp about individual choice i.e. the individual chooses to rot away in a government prison and or have his wealth stolen for non-government approved choices. Typical "conservative" nonsense i.e. small government until they wish to force their b.s. and filth on others. I prefer the liberal agenda compared to this "conservative" nonsense.
Too many conservatives can't comprehend that their "pet projects" for more government can have very nasty unintended consequences. Love the phoney War on Terror? Wouldn't it be wonderful if that government war ended up eliminating the "free market" for decades and decades? :) You know nationalize all business and let everyone get the goodies of being on the government tit. I sure as hell think so; especially when government is busy stealing my freedom and wealth. I sure as hell expect some compensation for loss of freedom in the form of support for my own "pet projects" like social justice and the right to all manner of goodies! You know just like the government privileged merchants of war.
Of course she is!"
She is probably way too mentally challenged to figure that out. :( The sad thing is her intelligence level is probably the norm in the U.S. or maybe even higher than the norm. NO!!!, from the interviews I saw it wasn't the media's fault she came across as a pea brain she accomplished that pretty much on her own. I guess the media could have tried to conceal her ignorance and lack of intelligence by coaching her before each interview. Not sure even that could have helped her.
I think the thing about Palin's "stupidity" (as perceived by the populace in general) is that the event over-matches her. She can probably handle a cocktail party just fine, probably as well as -- or better than -- most of us here. What she can't handle is media pressure, PLUS a big crowd, PLUS meeting big names she's only ever read about, PLUS having to be "perfect" all the time. She's "not ready" AS A CANDIDATE.
(By the way, I also think her policies and opinions are pretty poor, and would be very bad for the country. But that's mostly a different, though related, issue, from the question of her innate intelligence and "mental speed.")
I think we could agree on many points, but to really have a discussion on a chat board is nearly impossible. I will agree that conservative "whimper" about no money for social programs, rather than whimper that there should be NO money for them!
Very true; I see a chat board as a place to throw out ideas and hopefully see if there is any community around core values e.g. the Golden Rule or term limits or guns for babies or etc. Yes, I can see where term limits could be seen as a "core value" in that there may be a strong basic belief that ordinary type folks should be running the government. Definitely an idea with merit, imho.
Yes, it would be very nice if conservatives argued that there is no money for social programs because the Constitution doesn't allow it. Also, although Federal Reserve Notes do a tremendous amount of good that is a massive redistribution of wealth! (I'm not blind to the benefits of social programs or fiat currency . . . I just would prefer to see another path . . . one more conducive to freedom from government.)
I have always been anti term limits, but have started to lean the other way. I do, however, think there should be some way to keep the really good elected official. Of course, that wouldn't be needed often. Perhaps they would need to get at least 67% of the vote to stay in office.
Usually, imho, when a politician has that type of popularity it is either a short spike in popularity due to war success or attack, or because the politician is giving away tons of government money.
I can see pro and con with term limits. For the most part I see these politicians as totally negative in value so there shouldn't be any real harm in sweeping them out after a certain arbitrary number of years. (I would love to see President Bush finish the mess he started, however.)
I don't think it addresses the fundamental flaw in government and that is one objection that I may have. It is an issue, that imo, requires some serious thought and consideration of all manner of arguments.
Incisive insight! Not only does it uncloak the nefarious nulliverse of Walt Disney, but Warren Buffet as well. Flag wavers time to add Mr. Buffet to the cross hairs and squeeze or he'll be acquiring your stocks, if you own any, for pennies on the dollar. Of course, Mickey Mouse as President would be tasty as cheeze after the last 8 years of incompetence. :)
MISTERGAY LOSES AGAIN!
Who'd a thunk after so many soldiers purportedly died for our freedoms that voters would just trash it in a single election. LOL! As an old girlfriend used to tell me: Fuck freedom, just show me the TV dinners and the color TV! Yep, that is what real freedom fighting is about. Not, bombing hapless villagers or threatening the world's oil supply to fill the pockets of your oil barron backers. So who is promising more TV dinners? I'd guess Obama (universal health care), but McCain has money to give away to cash strapped homeowners (at least he is trying to be modern and a moderate). Both seem to vaguely understand that this is at heart a socialist nation and the election may very well go to he who convincingly promises more and better TV dinners and color TVs. Ah, yes, the value of democracy (assuming the election hasn't been successfully rigged).
OK, some poster in some thread asserted President to be Obama ia a MUSLIN. You know the thin plain-weave cotton cloth used to make turbans and curtains . . . OK, correction that was he is a MUSLIM a far more sinister concept that has something to do with Allah and his reward of smoking hot virgins if you blow yourself up and kill a bunch of people especially Americans. So is our President to be Obama truly a MUSLIM?
Well, I would say the proof is on those who would assert he is not a MUSLIM. I mean I think the dude's dad was a MUSLIM so it is pretty much an open and shut case. Yes, I realize President to be Obama claims not to be a MUSLIM. So what? Like a politician especially a President to be is going to tell the truth except on pain of death. And, with MUSLIMS since they seek death that won't work either!
Also, we must remember the lessons of 911. No, not the lesson that government is grossly incompetent and routinely throws away 100s of billions of dollars. You should have known that before 911. OK, think hard; real hard. Kill MUSLIMS all over the world!!! Well, yes that is one lesson. The other important lesson is never ever trust a MUSLIM! Yes, I realize they were chanting death to America as they boarded the airplanes on their Holy Mission of Divine Retribution, that just shows how tricky and devious they are. I mean you know to never trust a MUSLIM so if they start chanting death to America are you really going to trust them? No. And, these MUSLIMS knew that which is one reason besides it being mellifluous they were chanting death to America and hanging out at stripclubs. Thus, if President to be Obama says he is a MUSLIM it might prove he is, but if he says he isn't a MUSLIM well that doesn't prove anything either. See how tricky these MUSLIMS can be!
The burden of proof must always be on those asserting someone is not a MUSLIM. Safety and security first and foremost.
They were both reading cue cards BG.
Well, she did, imo, seem very likeable except that I'm really tired of hearing terror or terrorism to scare people. She could be the nicest most honorable person in the world and I hear those T-word and instantly think zombie fraudster.
Seriously, it doesn't concern you that there are God knows how many people in this world that would just love to cut of your head? And yes, I do believe that they will ALWAYS keep trying. I'd much rather keep them busy somewhere else in the world then invite them over here.
You have any idea at all why these people hate Americans so much? I believe, and I may be incorrect, that the reason is because the U.S. has decided to take sides in an ongoing religious war---arming and funding their enemy.
Sorry, I don't give a fly F about thier stupid religion or Christianity or any other religion. Time to get the hell out of the war. Those Israelis who wish to flee to America---well, that is the least America can do. And, generous resettlement benefits would be very nice. Fighting over that stupid piece of desert that God allegedly gave to one group or another is completely brain dead.
America should get out of that fight ASAP!!! :)
What is dangerously ignorant is sacrificing Americans in a stupid religious war that America has no real stake in. Time to quit arming and funding Israel. You take sides in a war and surprise surprise the other side might start trying to kill your people!!! Those Israeli who believe in peace should be encourage to immigrate to the U.S. Yes, I realize that the U.S. isn't nearly as wonderful as Israel. Hey, I suffer here and if I can suffer living in America, then peace loving Israelis should at least try to make the effort for peace. :)
Oh and if God really did grant one group or another this tiny piece of desert than time to let God do the fighting. Gee, these religious nuts are totally worthless and bring nothing, but death and misery. Of course, with any luck they'll bankrupt the U.S. and in that case it is all worth it and I was wrong to oppose the government's phoney War on Terror. :)
Nope, because the number of people that might want to do that is really, really small, and they are never going to get the chance anyways. The idea that the USA is going to be taken down by a bunch of mostly backwards people that plan their operations in caves in the middle of nowhere in the Middle East is just silly.
"I'd much rather keep them busy somewhere else in the world then invite them over here."
LOL...that's what Bin Laden sez..."let's fight them over there (Iraq) so that we don't have to fight them over here (Afghanistan & Pakistan)"...and the stupid Right-wing plays right into his hands...
You didn't answer my question, but rather spouted more rhetoric.
"Who'd a thunk after so many soldiers purportedly died for our freedoms that voters would just trash it in a single election."
What I want to know, jablake, is what, exactly, is the "it" referred to in this sentence. Judging from the previous paragraph, one might thing that "it" referred to "our freedom". But maybe not. If "it" refers to freedom, would you please explain exactly how one election (regardless of outcome) would "trash our freedom" ? Please be as specific as possible. I am really interested in what you have to say on this point.
No, I doubt that you really are. Please keep in mind that jablake is a self-proclaimed crazy person.
Be very careful about MG claiming anyone is a "self-proclaimed" anything. I would double check that "fact".
In any, MG is a short-bus rider, so ought to take the advice of people in glass houses not throwing bricks.
Yes, "it" refers to our freedoms. Remember, I've been watching Palin and news snippets of how President to be Obama is a socialist and gun grabber on the far left who hates America and pals around with terrorists. And, how with larger Democratic majorities (praise lord if that is true, which I think it will be; remember I've been a Republican for almost my entire life) there will be no stopping President to be Obama. And, let's not forget his anti-American pastor of 20 years. And, his wife hasn't been proud enough of America----probably another radical anti-American.
So basically if you believe that President to be Obama is actually very much anti-American and will have strong Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress then BOOM!!! Practically overnight President to be Obama working with the Democratic majorities can start filling the federal courts with anti-American judges and start passing anti-American legislation. An example, may be nationalization of the banks and other financial institutions as well as key manufacturers like Burger King. Ideally, every American will have a government job that provides a living wage.
Anyway, as judge Bork has pointed out the Bill of Rights takes away just as much freedom as it grants; so in reality there is no loss in trashing it. For example, the American people would according to polls love to criminalize hate speech and pornographic speech and probably anti-American speech. The First Amendment takes away their freedom to have their democratically elected representatives pass constitutional laws that will reflect their needs and desire for safety. The American people are left unprotected from this terror!!! Oh my god, time to spend another $1 trillion on another government phoney War of ???
Basically, I hope you understand that what I typed is very context based. Palin seems like a joke (likeable, imo, but mentally slow), but millions of people take her seriously. And, she is a governor. A popular one at that. I was watching the interviews with her and thought my god anyone can be governor. God wants a war with Iran? I think I watched a video of her mouthing some nonsense like that. Need to see that actual clip again because it was so surreal.
You know President to be Obama is so slick and polished, a rock star if you will, that before you know it throngs of Americans will be chanting in tune with him Death to America!!! LOL! At least President to be Obama will be able to make peace with most of the sane world. :) That peace dividend, assuming President to be Obama is the real deal, would be very nice. Unfortunately, under President Bush, America has made so many enemies where none previously existed that he may be forced to continue the government's phoney War on Terror.
By Craig Offman, National Post
Published: Tuesday, July 03, 2007
. . . In his findings, Dr. Sageman found that 62% of group members had a university education, a percentage that surpasses the United States." http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.h…
Dang! Not only do the Holy Warriors number over 20 people, but 62% of group members had a university education. Yikes, that is terrifing, time for Americans to hide under their beds until the mighty U.S. finally exterminate 'em in 2084! BTW, this lends even more credence to the idea that President to be Obama is a MUSLIM being as he has a university education and let's not forget his MUSLIM daddy and his anthropologist mommy!
Oh wait, I think Palin has a university education. OK guys, you can get out from under your beds. Just a slight overreaction to the fact that 62% of the Holy Warriors had a university education.
New plan. Offer these 62% free graduate and doctoral education. By the time these suckers get done learning they'll be wayyyyyy past their prime fighting age. Even more intriguing is that we know one motivation for self-combustion amongst Holy Warriors is God's promised reward of smoking hot virgins. Thus, when these old highly educated Holy Warriors are finally able to return to the field of battle just keep 'em away from the Viagra. In all probability they'll be more interested in prune juice than smoking hot virgins. LOL! :) Now, if they still insist on virgins, then America has a hell of problem because in America virgins are in fact rarer than an honest politician. Solution? Well, medical technology may again save millions; perhaps even 300 million Americans. See there is this medical procedure known as revirginization; actually I think that is just the street term. Yep, that is the street lingo. I asked Gambling dancer (yes, I'm talking to that one, again) for the ebonical term and she was shocked that men even wanted virgins and said that's just fucked up! Anyway, the medical term for revirginization is hymenoplasty.
One trillion dollars ought to be able to buy a lot of hymenoplasty for smoking hot women, ladies and gentlemen. Point is, there isn't any reason for the U.S. to be mass murdering innocent men, women, and children even if they're MUSLIMS. Now, if they're Republicans with a Palin sized IQ . . . :)
Always a pleasure to read your posts positive or negative. You know how some men prefer fat women and some men prefer slim women and some men prefer all women? For the longest time I didn't believe any men could possibly prefer fat women. Yes, I understood that for some men a hole is a hole is a hole and looks just weren't important. But, to prefer fat women??? That was just beyond my limited imagination.
I sure you understand my point. :)
To be a little blunter (sp?), I got a call today from a stripper buddy who is all crazy in love with Obama. She was calling me to see if I voted and that was about all she called for other than to ask about my health (it sucks and I'm in pain). Naturally, I first assumed she wanted to make sure that I voted and voted for Obama. I told her no and she starts complaining. I said well at least you voted for Obama. She says no, fuck America. I said but, you love Obama. She laughed and said yes that is true, but fuck America. I'm disappointed she didn't vote since she had a strong preference and had even bothered to register. For whatever reason she just wanted to confirm that I wasn't going to vote. As if I was some type of role model? :(
Anyway, if she happened to state that she loved America it wouldn't make too much difference to me. I'd be a little disappointed perhaps, but her opinion is her opinion. Her opinion is fuck America. I happen to agree with that opinion and whoop de doo. People love America, they hate America, they don't care one way or the other. Sometimes their reasoning is interesting. Sometimes it is boring. Sometimes it is brain dead. Sometimes it is verbose. Etc. Etc. Etc.
So have I adequately answered your question or you do you still need the crayon version?
BTW, if she had registered and had a strong preference for McCain, then likewise I'd have been disappointed that she didn't vote. It's a 2for: Why bother registering if you're not going to follow thru? And, you specifically registered because you had a strong preference.
Oh well, not like voting improves the result or the system.
It seemed like at the polling places I saw that people weren't in lines. Perhaps I wasn't observant. The supporters of whoever Obama? could have been it wasn't important to me. Could have been supporters of McCain. Anyway, the supporters of whoever looked like they were having a blast. Did someone pay them? I guess it isn't important either way.
Hi arbeeguy,
You were right! :) President Obama. And, I was wrong. Excellent call on your part.
Exactly...LOL...
Like I said before...President Obama...get out the cryin' towels Right-wingers...
I'm a Right-winger. No need for a cryin' towel. The Republicans are just pathetic. Intellectually. Morally. Their endless fear mongering unfortunately worked with too many too long. I hope there was a total slaughter in the House and Senate. One Republican in the Congress is one too many.
I'm supposed to be afraid of Bin Laden? Seems surreal. I've probably got a better chance of being hit by lightning or getting killed getting a lap dance.
I was wrong.
As for President-Elect Obama, he will be MY president throughout his term. While I will vigorously oppose any policy he tries to push that represents an erosion of liberty or an attack on the constitution, I wish him safety and health. This is One Nation.
Well, I wish President Obama success. I hope to see an extreme left wing agenda that's initially candy coated. Universal health care, higher taxes for the rich, peace with the Islamic nations on terms that make them consider the U.S. a long lost brother, full diplomatic and political relations with Cuba and perhaps reparations to pay for past U.S. crimes, modication of "predator loans" and debt forgiveness on a massive scale, a nationalization of banks and other financial institutions, massive cuts in defense spending including veterans benefits, mandatory liability and personal injury insurance for all gun owners including picture IDs and fingerprints; yes, a lot of good deeds for President Obama to get busy on. With any luck the Republicans won't find their backbone or brains.
Old Retired Guy, aka Arbeeguy
Well, if there isn't a small limited government, then my preference is for a very large left wing government that puts the people first. Bascially, one of the highest priorities needs to be wealth equality. Not a brilliant idea as far as wealth creation, but social justice can be much more important.
It is like the example of the stripper over at Angels with a bad chip on her shoulder. It seemed liked she'd been screwed by the government and felt that society owed her. Yes, society did owe her and big time. The problem is collecting. Do you collect from the little old lady who supports the government, but doesn't have a clue as to its rip-offs or oppression? Do you collect from the lawyer who just rationalizes it is a dog eat dog world? How about the clueless flag waver? The man she was ripping off turned out to be just a very nice guy who chose the wrong dancer. For whatever reason he could not read her body language even a little.
The problem besides her ripping off the customer is that she creates problems for other dancers. Anyway, he felt a lot better once the situation was explained. The manager even offered him a full refund for all dances from her plus a refund of the rip off amount. The nice guy didn't want a refund and was just happy for the explanation and club response.
Problem still existed in that that dancer is a threat to society . . . not a large threat most likely. But, she was aggressive (and potentially very violent, imo) and not everyone would be capable of standing up to her especially outside the club environment.
Wouldn't surprise me if she was rotting in prison or dead right now, but who if anyone did she hurt on her way there.
If it destroys the U.S., then that is hardly much of a loss, imo.