Why I'm so disinterested...

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Yeah yeah... I like Palin. Not a huge fan of McCain or Obama...

BUT...

The last eight years were supposed to be about the Republican party being in total control. That (theoretically) meant lower taxes (which we got) and smaller government which never happened and in fact increased like a sailor's odds of contracting something icky on weekend leave in bangkok.

Enter Obama... Change!

But change to what? Smaller, cheaper government? Nope. In fact, his spending proposals make the last eight years look like fiscal conservatism. Heh... Immdiate pull out in Iraq? Nope.

So what are we voting for when we vote for Obama? "He's not Bush" and "He's not Republican" seems to be the line of the day and to be honest I understand the sentiment. But what are we getting with him?

Smaller government? Nope. Cheaper government? Nope. Experience? Nope. Hell, he's not even going to pull troops out of Iraq immediately. So why is anyone here voting for him besides he's not part of the Bush/Cheney/Rove group?

Seems kind of irrational to trade the mess we're in for an even bigger mess where spending is concerned.

What makes you think that things will be better with D's in charge of the executive and legislative than they were when Rs were in control?

I see our government working best when one party owns one branch an one owns the other. Obviously single party rule is a major opening for corruption.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Yeah yeah... I like Palin.

We like Palin too, for President of the PTA but not for VP or the USA.

 

[Druidx]

Because with Obama you can HOPE for the best

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Druidx
Because with Obama you can HOPE for the best

Where as McCain you just hope to god he doesn't die in office and leave the little incompetent Soccer Mommy in charge.

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Yeah yeah... I like Palin. Not a huge fan of McCain or Obama...

BUT...

The last eight years were supposed to be about the Republican party being in total control. That (theoretically) meant lower taxes (which we got) and smaller government which never happened and in fact increased like a sailor's odds of contracting something icky on weekend leave in bangkok.

Enter Obama... Change!

But change to what? Smaller, cheaper government? Nope. In fact, his spending proposals make the last eight years look like fiscal conservatism. Heh... Immdiate pull out in Iraq? Nope.

So what are we voting for when we vote for Obama? "He's not Bush" and "He's not Republican" seems to be the line of the day and to be honest I understand the sentiment. But what are we getting with him?

Smaller government? Nope. Cheaper government? Nope. Experience? Nope. Hell, he's not even going to pull troops out of Iraq immediately. So why is anyone here voting for him besides he's not part of the Bush/Cheney/Rove group?

Seems kind of irrational to trade the mess we're in for an even bigger mess where spending is concerned.

What makes you think that things will be better with D's in charge of the executive and legislative than they were when Rs were in control?

I see our government working best when one party owns one branch an one owns the other. Obviously single party rule is a major opening for corruption.

All you have to do is ask yourself this: How is the country doing over the last 8 years? Do you want more of that, or do you want someone better? If you like what direction the country has headed over the last 8 years, then vote McSame. If McSame wins though after you voted for him, expect another war (bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran), expect more "borrow and spend" GOP budgeting, and expect even looser regulations on Wall Street and the financial market.

If you want someone to balance out the budget, and bring a better economy to our country, vote Obama. Historically speaking the economy has done better with a Democrat in charge of the white house, and personally I don't feel this great country can afford another 4 years of borrow and spend. When you talk about spending money, just look at how much the last administration has spent on Iraq.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Yeah yeah... I like Palin. Not a huge fan of McCain or Obama...

BUT...

The last eight years were supposed to be about the Republican party being in total control. That (theoretically) meant lower taxes (which we got) and smaller government which never happened and in fact increased like a sailor's odds of contracting something icky on weekend leave in bangkok.

Enter Obama... Change!

But change to what? Smaller, cheaper government? Nope. In fact, his spending proposals make the last eight years look like fiscal conservatism. Heh... Immdiate pull out in Iraq? Nope.

So what are we voting for when we vote for Obama? "He's not Bush" and "He's not Republican" seems to be the line of the day and to be honest I understand the sentiment. But what are we getting with him?

Smaller government? Nope. Cheaper government? Nope. Experience? Nope. Hell, he's not even going to pull troops out of Iraq immediately. So why is anyone here voting for him besides he's not part of the Bush/Cheney/Rove group?

Seems kind of irrational to trade the mess we're in for an even bigger mess where spending is concerned.

What makes you think that things will be better with D's in charge of the executive and legislative than they were when Rs were in control?

I see our government working best when one party owns one branch an one owns the other. Obviously single party rule is a major opening for corruption.

If you want someone to balance out the budget, and bring a better economy to our country, vote Obama. Historically speaking the economy has done better with a Democrat in charge of the white house, and personally I don't feel this great country can afford another 4 years of borrow and spend. When you talk about spending money, just look at how much the last administration has spent on Iraq.

Bwahaha..... The only way he will even come close to balancing the budget is if he is a flat out liar. Not that McCain will either but don't kid yourself by saying Obama intends to balance the budget.

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Yeah yeah... I like Palin. Not a huge fan of McCain or Obama...

BUT...

The last eight years were supposed to be about the Republican party being in total control. That (theoretically) meant lower taxes (which we got) and smaller government which never happened and in fact increased like a sailor's odds of contracting something icky on weekend leave in bangkok.

Enter Obama... Change!

But change to what? Smaller, cheaper government? Nope. In fact, his spending proposals make the last eight years look like fiscal conservatism. Heh... Immdiate pull out in Iraq? Nope.

So what are we voting for when we vote for Obama? "He's not Bush" and "He's not Republican" seems to be the line of the day and to be honest I understand the sentiment. But what are we getting with him?

Smaller government? Nope. Cheaper government? Nope. Experience? Nope. Hell, he's not even going to pull troops out of Iraq immediately. So why is anyone here voting for him besides he's not part of the Bush/Cheney/Rove group?

Seems kind of irrational to trade the mess we're in for an even bigger mess where spending is concerned.

What makes you think that things will be better with D's in charge of the executive and legislative than they were when Rs were in control?

I see our government working best when one party owns one branch an one owns the other. Obviously single party rule is a major opening for corruption.

If you want someone to balance out the budget, and bring a better economy to our country, vote Obama. Historically speaking the economy has done better with a Democrat in charge of the white house, and personally I don't feel this great country can afford another 4 years of borrow and spend. When you talk about spending money, just look at how much the last administration has spent on Iraq.

Bwahaha..... The only way he will even come close to balancing the budget is if he is a flat out liar. Not that McCain will either but don't kid yourself by saying Obama intends to balance the budget.

Have you looked at the differences of where the US deficit goes from Clinton to Bush? Under Clinton's administration the deficit would have been gone by 2012. Having McSame in charge already spells disaster; he already plans to use more "borrow and spend" budgeting, except there is one problem - the credit is starting to dry up.

When George Dubya Bush came into office, it was the equivalent of giving your wife the credit card so she can blow all your nicely earned credit on shopping for crap you didn't need, then expecting you to foot the bill. It's the same thing here, McCain's policies already spell disaster before they are even in place, it's like he wasn't even aware of what was going on in Wallstreet right now. McSame in office = disaster for our economy, right when it's at it's weakest.

 

[43st]

Originally posted by: Darwin333
Bwahaha..... The only way he will even come close to balancing the budget is if he is a flat out liar. Not that McCain will either but don't kid yourself by saying Obama intends to balance the budget.

Most of time Obama mentions a plan, he says how he will pay for it. Nothing he's said so far has suggested a tax increase, so that's good enough for me. Time will tell though, since this economy will be a huge problem for the next President. I honestly don't see how they will be able to afford the current, ultra low, tax rates if the economy gets much worse.

I think my problem with McCain is that you just can't trust him. His campaign is very similar to the Bush campaign, and Bush ended up doing the exact opposite of almost everything he campaigned on.

 

[SP33Demon]

It's simple. Obama won't HURT the country in a way that it can't be fixed, unlike this asshat in there now (as well as the asshat who has the R Nomination).

 

[Moonbeam]

Whoozyerdaddy:

Yeah yeah... I like Palin. Not a huge fan of McCain or Obama...

BUT...

M: The fact that you like a Nobody from Nome and that translates over to 'qualified to be President, in your mind, indicates to me what you say and will say are the words of a person lacking intelligence and discriminating judgment.

W: The last eight years were supposed to be about the Republican party being in total control. That (theoretically) meant lower taxes (which we got) and smaller government which never happened and in fact increased like a sailor's odds of contracting something icky on weekend leave in bangkok.

Enter Obama... Change!

But change to what? Smaller, cheaper government? Nope. In fact, his spending proposals make the last eight years look like fiscal conservatism. Heh... Immdiate pull out in Iraq? Nope.

M: NO enter fear, all the paranoid delusions implanted in you via billions spent in Republican propaganda. The devil you know means a worse devil is coming for sure and other such tripe.

W: So what are we voting for when we vote for Obama? "He's not Bush" and "He's not Republican" seems to be the line of the day and to be honest I understand the sentiment. But what are we getting with him?

M: We are getting the near statistical impossibility that he could be worse than Bush or McCain.

W: Smaller government? Nope. Cheaper government? Nope. Experience? Nope.

M: Yup, no more lack of government regulation over Wall Street and the raping of the average person.

W: Hell, he's not even going to pull troops out of Iraq immediately. So why is anyone here voting for him besides he's not part of the Bush/Cheney/Rove group?

M: You look at the voters who voted for Bush and the disaster they brought and you see who they wouldn't vote for. Then you go to work and try as hard as you can to elect that person those fools are afraid of. You look at their compass knowing they've painted north as south.

W: Seems kind of irrational to trade the mess we're in for an even bigger mess where spending is concerned.

M: Exactly, which is why that's exactly the direction we know we need to go. Stupid does as stupid is so we look and do something different.

W: What makes you think that things will be better with D's in charge of the executive and legislative than they were when Rs were in control?

M: The mere fact it scares the shit out of you. The up side down point up and away with their feet.

W: I see our government working best when one party owns one branch an one owns the other. Obviously single party rule is a major opening for corruption.

M: What you see is your dead ass anchor keeping the country too paralyzed to fix the insanity and destruction wrought on the nation by the Republican party. What you hope for is that the American people never have any evidence that the Democratic wave that is coming will permanently erase all the lies that hold this country nailed in its primitive past.

What you fear is the metamorphosis and the growing of wings, the death of the ravenous caterpillar and the birth of the butterfly. What you fear is the breaking of the dam and the flow of the water of life.

The imprisoned animal paces its pace whether the bars are there or have been removed.

 

[heyheybooboo]

You lost me with ""Yeah yeah... I like Palin.""

And this just in: Because of the Republican VooDoo Economics of the last 8 years there is no money to spend.

So much for your fallacy ...

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Yeah yeah... I like Palin. Not a huge fan of McCain or Obama...

BUT...

The last eight years were supposed to be about the Republican party being in total control. That (theoretically) meant lower taxes (which we got) and smaller government which never happened and in fact increased like a sailor's odds of contracting something icky on weekend leave in bangkok.

Enter Obama... Change!

But change to what? Smaller, cheaper government? Nope. In fact, his spending proposals make the last eight years look like fiscal conservatism. Heh... Immdiate pull out in Iraq? Nope.

So what are we voting for when we vote for Obama? "He's not Bush" and "He's not Republican" seems to be the line of the day and to be honest I understand the sentiment. But what are we getting with him?

Smaller government? Nope. Cheaper government? Nope. Experience? Nope. Hell, he's not even going to pull troops out of Iraq immediately. So why is anyone here voting for him besides he's not part of the Bush/Cheney/Rove group?

Seems kind of irrational to trade the mess we're in for an even bigger mess where spending is concerned.

What makes you think that things will be better with D's in charge of the executive and legislative than they were when Rs were in control?

I see our government working best when one party owns one branch an one owns the other. Obviously single party rule is a major opening for corruption.

All you have to do is ask yourself this: How is the country doing over the last 8 years? Do you want more of that, or do you want someone better? If you like what direction the country has headed over the last 8 years, then vote McSame. If McSame wins though after you voted for him, expect another war (bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran), expect more "borrow and spend" GOP budgeting, and expect even looser regulations on Wall Street and the financial market.

If you want someone to balance out the budget, and bring a better economy to our country, vote Obama. Historically speaking the economy has done better with a Democrat in charge of the white house, and personally I don't feel this great country can afford another 4 years of borrow and spend. When you talk about spending money, just look at how much the last administration has spent on Iraq.

How can you say Obama is better? He hasn't done anything to prove he can lead. Besides with his track record of getting into office, as soon as he becomes President, he's going to start working on becoming the leader of the UN.
A lot of he Obamabots claim that Obama is a fresh face and that he isn't "soiled" by the way Washington does politics. Which is true. He's already been broken in the Chicago way. If you really wanted someone that hadn't been "corrupted" by the system, then you would have supported Palin. She's as far from Washington DC as you can get.
If you want Change, why not have someone to speak into the presidents ear that can give him a glimpse of what the common American faces. The closest Obama and Biden can come to knowing that is what they hear on TV.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Have you looked at the differences of where the US deficit goes from Clinton to Bush? Under Clinton's administration the deficit would have been gone by 2012.

Clinton had very little to do with that accomplishment...you can largely thank the true fiscal conservatives running Congress at the time.

I will say this...it seems to me that the ideal scenario for running this nation is a moderate Democrat (i.e. Clinton) serving as the check against a true fiscally conservative Congress. It still blows my mind that the Republicans went on a spending spree once Bush took office.

Obama = liberal President serving as the check against a liberal Congress...yes, this will end well...unless Obama emerges as a true champion of change, and is willing to keep his own party in check...his Senate record suggests otherwise.

McCain, despite his fall from grace over the last few years, at one time held a reputation for being able to work on both sides of the political divide, and has chosen to challenge the groupthink of the Republicans on more than one occcasion.

So who do you pick...the unproven Senator with a partisan record but a catchy campaign slogan and the hope that he will somehow make things better...or the experienced Senator who used to represent something meaningful, but in recent years got a bit cozy with the very leadership that got us into our current mess.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Juddog
If you want someone to balance out the budget, and bring a better economy to our country, vote Obama. Historically speaking the economy has done better with a Democrat in charge of the white house, and personally I don't feel this great country can afford another 4 years of borrow and spend. When you talk about spending money, just look at how much the last administration has spent on Iraq.

Bwahaha..... The only way he will even come close to balancing the budget is if he is a flat out liar. Not that McCain will either but don't kid yourself by saying Obama intends to balance the budget.

Completely balance? I doubt it.

Set us on the right track so that we have a better shot at balancing it than we did with Bush or would with McCain? You betcha.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Yeah yeah... I like Palin. Not a huge fan of McCain or Obama...

I think that fact alone disqualifies you from making any sort of rational argument against Obama. Don't you have some moose to shoot, books to ban, and witches to put on trial?

 

[kage69]

Yeah yeah... I like Palin

Hehehe, now there's a great thread starter...

So, the question is - have you seen any of her recent interviews, or have you blocked them out and just keep her convention speech in constant mental rotation?


lol, wow.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
How can you say Obama is better? He hasn't done anything to prove he can lead. Besides with his track record of getting into office, as soon as he becomes President, he's going to start working on becoming the leader of the UN.
A lot of he Obamabots claim that Obama is a fresh face and that he isn't "soiled" by the way Washington does politics. Which is true. He's already been broken in the Chicago way. If you really wanted someone that hadn't been "corrupted" by the system, then you would have supported Palin. She's as far from Washington DC as you can get.
If you want Change, why not have someone to speak into the presidents ear that can give him a glimpse of what the common American faces. The closest Obama and Biden can come to knowing that is what they hear on TV.

Ah, another GOP sheeple manipulated by a TV ad. So sad.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

And the Republican policy of "Borrow and Spend" is somehow more noble? At least the Democrats are honest enough to tell America that they have to pay for the government they want/get.

Republicans tell America that there really is a "Free Lunch" out there. And Republicans will give it to America: No problems, ever. And Conservatives somehow defend that practice.

All Goverments Tax & Spend. If they didn't, they couldn't operate. If you don't want a government that can tax or spend, then you don't want government, period. That's a fine position to have, but I really doubt that John McCain and the GOP are actually anarchists.

No - if you believe that people need a state and government, they you have to accept that people will have pay for it through taxation. It's just a question of who's taxed, how much, and on what to spend those taxes.

Republicans rely on this "Tax & Spend Liberal" trope because they don't want people look at who they want to tax (middle class and working poor), how much they want to tax them (the middle-class and working poor proportionally more than the rich), and what they want to spend it on (defense boondoggles for their contractor friends and families, i.e. themselves).

McCain wants to tax employer-paid health insurance as regular income. In other words, he's proposing a major tax increase on everyone who gets health benefits at work. If McCain thinks Obama is a tax and spend liberal, that is better than borrowing from foreign countries to spend beyond our means. At least with the taxation, we won't owe any foreign country that we may even dislike for one reason or another.

Republicans are tax-and-spend, too. They're just sneaky about it. After you have paid taxes on your income, they sneak in and tax it again by printing more money to pay for their runaway spending. This destroys the value of the dollars you already have. It also effectively reduces your income without reducing your taxes.

And there is no truly responsible way McCain can do what he is saying. He wants to cut taxes (ie buy votes) while spending, spending, spending. He talks about earmarks as if they really matter. Estimates have total earmarks at $16-$18 Billion, but next year's deficit is already projected to be in excess of $400 Billion. Where else is McCain going to get the money?

And look at Wall Street. Does anyone even remember that McCain supports the privatization of Social Security? Could anyone imagine what would be happening to this country in the last 3 or 4 days if SS had been privatized? People would be rioting, Wall Street would be burning and Bush would be bailing out SS in fear of his life.

 

[evident]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Yeah yeah... I like Palin. Not a huge fan of McCain or Obama...

BUT...

The last eight years were supposed to be about the Republican party being in total control. That (theoretically) meant lower taxes (which we got)

you didnt get lower taxes, you got a deferrment which we're all going to have to pay, starting with the iraq war and ending with the $700B bailout

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
In fact, his spending proposals make the last eight years look like fiscal conservatism.

Stopped reading your nonsense there.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Topic Title: Why I'm so disinterested...
Topic Summary: Obama will be more of the same... A LOT more of the same... Ooodles and ooodles more of the same... Spend spend spend

So stay the course with Republicans?

Yea that makes a lot of sense :roll:

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
It's simple. Obama won't HURT the country in a way that it can't be fixed, unlike this asshat in there now (as well as the asshat who has the R Nomination).

So you don't think "universal health care" will bankrupt us? Do you have any idea how expensive that will be? The universal health care BS panders to the poor who do not add anything to the tax base. Now they will be taking even more money. Where exactly does he plan on getting this money to pay for his health care plan? Oh wait he doesn't know or care because once he (if) get's into office he'll say well we just don't have the money, but if you vote for me next time I'll make it my #1 priority.

 

[TheSlamma]

Ever notice when you put money into the system though the value of the USD goes up? When you go to war and give tax brakes and print money it goes down?

What good is an extra $600 a year when your $40K income is only really worth $30K or less? Wow now you have an income worth $30K + $600 useless.

 

[Druidx]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
And the Republican policy of "Borrow and Spend" is somehow more noble? At least the Democrats are honest enough to tell America that they have to pay for the government they want/get.

Not really, they are claiming someone else will pay your way.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
It's simple. Obama won't HURT the country in a way that it can't be fixed, unlike this asshat in there now (as well as the asshat who has the R Nomination).

So you don't think "universal health care" will bankrupt us? Do you have any idea how expensive that will be? The universal health care BS panders to the poor who do not add anything to the tax base. Now they will be taking even more money. Where exactly does he plan on getting this money to pay for his health care plan? Oh wait he doesn't know or care because once he (if) get's into office he'll say well we just don't have the money, but if you vote for me next time I'll make it my #1 priority.

Yeah you're right, middle class people never go bankrupt or lose their coverage.

Actually it happens all the time, and the only people truly immune are the super rich and ex-Congress people.