Redistribution of Wealth

[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."

[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!

[MChat]

Originally Posted by cobra bill

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!

The difference is, Republicans (conservatives) are by nature conservative. Meaning they are slow to take action and generally leave things pretty much as they are. When the Reps had control, the biggest complaint against them is that not much "got done."

Democrats, on the other hand, are "progressives" and couldn't leave things alone even if we were living in a complete utopia. With a fillibuster proof majority in the congressional houses and an Obama presidency this country will lose more freedoms in 4 years than it has in the past 232 years combined.

[cobra bill]

Originally Posted by MChat

The difference is, Republicans (conservatives) are by nature conservative. Meaning they are slow to take action and generally leave things pretty much as they are. When the Reps had control, the biggest complaint against them is that not much "got done."

Democrats, on the other hand, are "progressives" and couldn't leave things alone even if we were living in a complete utopia. With a fillibuster proof majority in the congressional houses and an Obama presidency this country will lose more freedoms in 4 years than it has in the past 232 years combined.

You are correct! the republicans want things as they were when the robber barrens rules and slavery was legal, progressives have always strived to make this a better world, granted they often step on there on feet in the attempt but at least we try! and have made great strides, nothing has ever come from conservatives all the great things we enjoy today about our society came from progressives, otherwise we would be working 70 hour weeks making next to nothing no child labor laws no sick time no vacations, it would be indentured servitude for all and only the elite would vote, the women's suffrage movement would never have taken place civil right would never have happened there's a huge list of good things that progressives have done, name one that the conservatives have done to make things better.

[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 jhv48

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

Well I have to tell you Bush and Cheney come closer to that description then Obama, There grab for power was unprecedented in our nation's history, they tortured prisoners, ran gulags spied on Americans removes habitués corpus as well as Posse commutates, and let's not forget the Bush doctoran! this was the biggest assault on the constitution that was ever done in all our history! Not even any of the world wars, or the cold war, was there ever such an assault on the constitution and your boy McCain bought into it all, I think what you all might be afraid of is a democrat asserting those same powers, That's why I feel comfortable voting for Obama, he is a constitutional scholar and will know and respect what it stands for.

[Dan40]

Originally Posted by cobra bill

Well I have to tell you Bush and Cheney come closer to that description then Obama, There grab for power was unprecedented in our nation's history, they tortured prisoners, ran gulags spied on Americans removes habitués corpus as well as Posse commutates, and let's not forget the Bush doctoran! this was the biggest assault on the constitution that was ever done in all our history! Not even any of the world wars, or the cold war, was there ever such an assault on the constitution and your boy McCain bought into it all, I think what you all might be afraid of is a democrat asserting those same powers, That's why I feel comfortable voting for Obama, he is a constitutional scholar and will know and respect what it stands for.

"There [their] grab for power was unprecedented in our nation's history, they tortured prisoners, ran gulags spied on Americans, etc., etc."

Sorry but that statement is completely incorrect. During WWII, much more liberties and freedoms were put 'on hold' than anything Bush did. [check with the Japanese Americans that had their land and businesses and FREEDOM taken away] Then we were fighting an enemy that wanted to conquer and control us and exploit our territory and resources. The typical historic reason for war. Now we are at war with an enemy that only wants us all DEAD. They don't want our money, they don't want our land, they don't want our people. They want our lives to END.
Yet when the enemy says, "We will kill you all!" The liberals say, "Well let us discuss this." Evidently there is enough insanity to go around.

Dan

[cobra bill]

Originally Posted by Dan40

"There [their] grab for power was unprecedented in our nation's history, they tortured prisoners, ran gulags spied on Americans, etc., etc."

Sorry but that statement is completely incorrect. During WWII, much more liberties and freedoms were put 'on hold' than anything Bush did. [check with the Japanese Americans that had their land and businesses and FREEDOM taken away] Then we were fighting an enemy that wanted to conquer and control us and exploit our territory and resources. The typical historic reason for war. Now we are at war with an enemy that only wants us all DEAD. They don't want our money, they don't want our land, they don't want our people. They want our lives to END.
Yet when the enemy says, "We will kill you all!" The liberals say, "Well let us discuss this." Evidently there is enough insanity to go around.

Dan

Point taken in the case of the Japanese, however we would not have an enemy in the Muslim world had we not meddled in the lives, the treaty of Tripoli held for years with the Muslims, when we tried to bring in western culture and Christianity is where they got pissed off. They want us out, that's all.

[MChat]

Originally Posted by cobra bill

That's why I feel comfortable voting for Obama, he is a constitutional scholar and will know and respect what it stands for.

Might want to rethink that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

(In his own words)


And if he's such a "constitutional scholar" then why is he so for preventing the people from their right to bear arms?

[cobra bill]

Originally Posted by MChat

Might want to rethink that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

(In his own words)


And if he's such a "constitutional scholar" then why is he so for preventing the people from their right to bear arms?

That video had nothing to do with fire arms

[MChat]

Originally Posted by cobra bill

That video had nothing to do with fire arms

No, that video had to do with Obama's views on the constitution. Basically he wants to radically alter the meaning of it to give credibility to his "redistribution of wealth" plan.

[NeoConMan]

Originally Posted by cobra bill

I feel comfortable voting for Obama, he is a constitutional scholar and will know and respect what it stands for.

The pointy-headed pseudo-intellectuals have applied their scholarly talents and deduced their candidate must be Obama.

No reality involved whatsoever.

Oh, but they are so much more intelligent than us knuckle-dragging Conservatives....

[cobra bill]

Originally Posted by NeoConMan

The pointy-headed pseudo-intellectuals have applied their scholarly talents and deduced their candidate must be Obama.

No reality involved whatsoever.

Oh, but they are so much more intelligent than us knuckle-dragging Conservatives....

Well we already tried stupid for the last 8 years that has not worked out so well has it!