Redistribution of Wealth

[Rick Parker]

Why get excited, isn't that what our wives have been doing to us for years???

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by VRM

Well, Goodwin...here we come...

CdC, I'm sure you are familiar with Jesse Owens. If you are not then look him up. Germany did everything they could to marginalise blacks, jews, gypsies, gays, and anybody else who did not fit in the Aryan Christian mould.

At the time mainstream America also looked down on many of those groups. A perfect example is the Tuskeegee airmen who had to work x-times as hard to get the same respect as white pilots. America did not set out to exterminate those groups, so if America is compared to Germany in the '40s we compare favourably, but because we did not treat minorities as equals we do not rate perfectly in that comparison.
In 1954 things were better, but still not perfect. And being an Aryan looking guy myself I have never been on the receiving end of the sort of racism that Obama has probably had to deal with. In the movie 'We Were Soldiers' there is a segment where all the wives are sitting around discussing how to get things done, and one of the more naive women asks where the others do the rest of their laundry because the laundromat she goes to will only do t-shirts, socks, and briefs. They look at her with a puzzled expression, and she explains that the laundromat has a sign in the window that says 'No Coloureds'. They all immediately look at the wife of one of the soldiers (she is black) and everything gets very uncomfortable. Now I was too young to remember anything like that, but that was late '60s, and I have certainly seen pictures.

Fast forward to today - now the bad guys are Muslims and gays, though there are still people who are holding on to older prejudices, as evidenced by the two who were caught planning to kill Obama as a cap to a killing spree of blacks.

So if Obama compares the US and Germany in WW2 it is not that he is trying to emulate Germany. That would be suicidal, and I really doubt that is his goal. Sounds to me like he would be trying to do what he can to fix a problem that he would most likely be a lot more personal to him than to either one of us. Maybe you would be better off calling him a Tuskeegee airman as he seems to want to fight racism at home.

Steve

What a huge load of codswallow, VRM - I really don't care to assume what Obama is thinking - he's at best a National Socialist - besides, what he has had to endure in his lifetime doesn't give him authority or the thinking pattern to install 'stuff' that he believes will make things right for every soul in America. He needs to be rejected.

[Silverback51]

I will sure be glad when this election is over.

And I will never understand why anyone argues about this. Your odds of convincing anyone that differs from your opinion is about the same as changing lead to gold. Short version is, it's not going to happen.

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by Silverback51

I will sure be glad when this election is over.

And I will never understand why anyone argues about this. Your odds of convincing anyone that differs from your opinion is about the same as changing lead to gold. Short version is, it's not going to happen.

True, but only relating to those arguing - but, there is always a possibility that someone is lurching around that may be influenced by codswallow, therefore - one must challenge it whenever possibly, over and over again - it's not fun, but someone has got to do it.

In other words - the dreaded huge buggerin' wankers will take over if they are not pointed out as huge buggerin' wankers.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by cobra de capell

True, but only relating to those arguing - but, there is always a possibility that someone is lurching around that may be influenced by codswallow, therefore - one must challenge it whenever possibly, over and over again - it's not fun, but someone has got to do it.

In other words - the dreaded huge buggerin' wankers will take over if they are not pointed out as huge buggerin' wankers.

That is absolutely true CdC (except for your syntax which is very Bush-like). That's why I have not started a single one of the election year propaganda posts here, and why I keep responding to the propaganda that you and others post. Gotta do what I can to save those folks who might be 'lurching' around like Frankenstein zombies.

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by VRM

That is absolutely true CdC (except for your syntax which is very Bush-like). That's why I have not started a single one of the election year propaganda posts here, and why I keep responding to the propaganda that you and others post. Gotta do what I can to save those folks who might be 'lurching' around like Frankenstein zombies.

Sounds good VRM - and I'll work on that syntax thing and comparing me to Bush is like coming in first place, thanks.

Please, carry on - post all you want - basically, you are the entertainment around here, sort of like Combes on Hannity's show on Fox - you are always good for a laugh.

[cobra bill]

Oh there you go again, you forgot the space between Cobra and Bill the real cobrabill is going to get his feathers ruffled again!

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by cobra bill

Oh there you go again, you forgot the space between Cobra and Bill the real cobrabill is going to get his feathers ruffled again!

What make you think I forgot?

[stengun]

Howdy,

I am a life long Democrat (44yo) and a blue collar worker. A member of the United Steelworkers of America Local #7366. A Disabled American Veteran. A proud gun owner. A believer in the Bill of Rights and the Holy Bible.


I do not trust Obama. Any politician will lie to get elected and I feel this is 1,000X's true for Obama. He has put out the message that he will spread the wealth. Obama has intentitional misled the "Welfare Class" to believe that he will take money from the rich and give it to the poor. This is just a lie to get the "Welfare Class", whom in general, do not vote, to get up off their welfare butts and vote for him. There is roughly the same number of voting Repubs and Dems. The Swing voters decide the election. Even if the swing voters split 50/50 for McCain and Obama, if Obama can get 1% of the "Welfare Class" that can vote, to vote, he will win the election. So, I feel that Obama has lied to get the "Welfare Class" to vote for him.

Plus, all the things that Obama says that he will do for the poor and lower middle-class is going to be very expensive. Who is going to pay for this? Not the ultra-rich, the MegaCorp, Big Oil or the Big Box Store. They own too many politicans to vote to tax them or take their money away.

Obama has lied to America.

John McCain......... I can think of a million people that I would vote for as President before McCain. But I can think of a million and one that I would vote for as President before I would vote for Obama.

Gee, out of over 300 million in the USA, I want another candidate!

Paul

P.S. I sure am disappointed with the Republican Party and especially the NRA and other gun rights groups. The NRA beat Al Gore in 2000 and the Swift Boat groups beat Kerry in 2004. I guess the Republican Party, the NRA and the Swift boaters must really want Obama to win.

[NeoConMan]

Originally Posted by clayfoushee

And that would be similar to what Ronald Reagan did in 1986 when he signed legislation which greatly expanded the size of the earned income credit. The credit resulted in a larger tax refund for lower income people, which was, of course, A CHECK. He didn't call it a "welfare payment," and he was not accused of being a socialist.

Bush gave $750 ($1500 per couple) to poor people, and less or nothing to those more well off. He wasn't called a Socialist, and it wasn't called welfare.

But I digress . . . the reason certain people have earned income, but pay no tax is in part due to legislation provided by the Reagan Administration.

Your oversimplification and vilification of T. Roosevelt, Bush, Reagan and other Republicans leaves a rather large and obvious hole in your logic.

Let me spin it my way briefly, see if you don't completely disagree.
Reagan, Bush, and Roosevelt were pandering to the Left.
Yes, the Art of the Deal and the Spirit of Compromise are alive and well in politics.

I got none of those benefits, but I paid for them - same as you.
Reagan did some stupid things, as much as I admire him I will admit it.
Mariel Boatlift, anybody? Much of our illegal immigration trouble is tied to that.

Roosevelt was imperfect, though widely regarded as a man's man and a savvy politician.
He did stupid stuff before and after office, nearly killed him.

Bush got my vote FOUR TIMES.
(I was in Texas when he was Governor)
His second term has been terribly disappointing to me, I fear McCain may be worse.

I ask you to think about this;
Compare these men to ANY of the Defeatocrats in office in the last 43 years I've been alive.

Can you imagine where we would be, how many American lives would have been lost now if Al Gore was in the White House on September 11, 2001?
I'll go to my grave believing this little economic snafu brought on by the Dems is nothing compared to the Depression we would have been in since 2002.

Nobody would even remember October 1929, the 1930's or the Dust Bowl.
We would have far surpassed ALL of that with Gore trying to run the economy and the environment.

[cobra bill]

How could anyone vote for McCain that cares about America's future!

Even in current era of the blogosphere, punditry that’s actually useful – as opposed to simple ranting – is nuanced. It at least acknowledges that reality is rarely black and white. It admits that there are usually two sides to every story. It recognizes that policymaking often requires balancing competing legitimate goals. (That’s why it’s hard.)

Unfortunately, nuance simply isn’t part of the record of Republican presidential nominee John McCain on economic globalization. Throughout his Congressional career and his presidential candidacy, his words and deeds on trade, manufacturing, investment, and related issues have been so unrelievedly dreadful across the board that they could easily be mistaken for propaganda by his opponents.

Worse, these problems go way beyond McCain’s proud support for every single outsourcing-focused trade deal served up since the North American Free Trade Agreement. They also go way beyond his habit of mistaking free-market platitudes for sensible approaches to (a) overcoming specific, concrete challenges faced by American producers in often hostile global marketplaces, and (b) fixing the dangerous weaknesses pervading the world economy – thanks largely to the toxic mix of U.S. trade policy negligence and foreign mercantilism.

When the picture of McCain’s globalization policies is rounded out by his enthusiasm for globalizing (read “outsourcing”) American defense procurement and undermining domestic defense producers, a genuinely appalling conclusion emerges: McCain’s dominant impulses in this sphere add up to nothing less than blanket opposition to realistic strategies for promoting the U.S. economy’s productive sectors – along with an equally powerful determination to ignore or actually coddle foreign predation.

the rest of the article http://www.americaneconomicalert.org...p?Prod_ID=3053

[wtm442]

Originally Posted by cobra bill

How could anyone vote for McCain that cares about America's future!

the rest of the article http://www.americaneconomicalert.org...p?Prod_ID=3053

Simple answer. Because the alternative to McCain is pure suicide.

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by wtm442

Simple answer. Because the alternative to McCain is pure suicide.

BINGO - Now, that should be the quote of the entire process1

[cobra bill]

That's just fear mongering and has no basis in fact, you have little faith in our democracy, no one man can change our democracy, our for-fathers were very careful about that, not even W was able to, and he really tried to tear up the constitution.

[wtm442]

Originally Posted by cobra bill

That's just fear mongering and has no basis in fact, you have little faith in our democracy, no one man can change our democracy, our for-fathers were very careful about that, not even W was able to, and he really tried to tear up the constitution.

You are absolutely correct. But Obama can surely open the door to destruction if the Senate goes heavily Democratic.

[Ron61]

Isn't the Senate already just about Democratic controlled? I just fear that all of Congress is going to go heavy Democratic and with what we are going to have for a President, I really wonder about the future of the country. Oh well, I voted and that is about all that I can do.

Ron

[Dan40]

Originally Posted by Ron61

Isn't the Senate already just about Democratic controlled? I just fear that all of Congress is going to go heavy Democratic and with what we are going to have for a President, I really wonder about the future of the country. Oh well, I voted and that is about all that I can do.

Ron

In the semi-brilliant words of Nancy Pelosi, "With a Democratic President, a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate, our government will be much more BI-PARTISAN!"

Wha???

The Liberal Loony Left, dangerous but entertaining.

Dan

[wtm442]

Originally Posted by Ron61

Isn't the Senate already just about Democratic controlled? I just fear that all of Congress is going to go heavy Democratic and with what we are going to have for a President, I really wonder about the future of the country. Oh well, I voted and that is about all that I can do.

Ron

What I should have said was a "filibuster proof Senate". Controlling 60 seats is the holy grail and would allows the Dumbocrates to block filibusters from the Republicans and truly run the chamber with an iron fist.

If we end up with a Democratic run Senate (especially if its 60 or more seats), House of Reps and President -- watch out. We will be in serious deep doo doo. To quote Mark Twain .... "To lodge all power in one party and keep it there is to insure bad government."

[jhv48]

Originally Posted by cobra bill

That's just fear mongering and has no basis in fact, you have little faith in our democracy, no one man can change our democracy, our for-fathers were very careful about that, not even W was able to, and he really tried to tear up the constitution.

That's what they thought about Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Ghengis Khan, Caesar, etc.

[cobra bill]

Originally Posted by wtm442

What I should have said was a "filibuster proof Senate". Controlling 60 seats is the holy grail and would allows the Dumbocrates to block filibusters from the Republicans and truly run the chamber with an iron fist.

If we end up with a Democratic run Senate (especially if its 60 or more seats), House of Reps and President -- watch out. We will be in serious deep doo doo. To quote Mark Twain .... "To lodge all power in one party and keep it there is to insure bad government."

You know it's not too often I can say this, but I agree with you, though the end of the world never happened when the republicans had full power of all three branches of government, we still survived, and we will again! It's always best to have checks and balances, the only ones it will harm is the party in power, it's what happened to the republicans, when they had all the power, they abused it and now the voters will extract there revenge, if they do what they are supposed to do they will be rewarded, I have my doubts though that any party will do the right thing if the voters don't hold their feet to the fire! So all is not lost if the democrats take power, a lot of dems are from conservative districts, all we need to do is hold their feet to the fire!