Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin [Archive] - Kung Fu Magazine Forums

Merryprankster

08-23-2008, 10:04 AM

"A whole new world for my party may be on the horizon."

I agree.... 8 years of White House exile. ;)

In all seriousness though, I'm a bit disappointed in the responses here. Incredibly partisan. I fail to understand how, EVEN if you are against Obama, you could think Biden was not the best choice for him and his campaign in terms of both winning and governing.

He brings quite a bit of balance to the ticket, experience, FP expertise, etc. Does he have a loud mouth? Yup. But that will allow him to be the attack dog, and he's a **** good one. He looks and appears at his best when he has his hackles up, unlike BOTH McCain and Obama, who both appear grumpy and sullen when they are challenged. To top it off, he's a blue-collar democrat who can appeal to the working middle class in this country, where Obama comes off as "not one of them." That's a weakness for him, and Biden will/can go a long way towards shoring that up.

Further, he's a known quantity. There aren't going to be any surprises, and that's absolutely key. Whatever Biden is, (loudmouthed, cantakerous, clever...) he is in public, in the light of day.

Of course, watch that last statement be blown out of the water after an FBI release revealing that Biden was involved in a Shetland pony sex scandal or something...

1bad65

08-23-2008, 10:38 AM

In all seriousness though, I'm a bit disappointed in the responses here. Incredibly partisan. I fail to understand how, EVEN if you are against Obama, you could think Biden was not the best choice for him and his campaign in terms of both winning and governing.

Biden on Obama:
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy... I mean, that's a storybook, man."

"The more people learn about them (Obama and Hillary) and how they handle the pressure, the more their support will evaporate."

Biden speaking to Indian-Americans:
"I've had a great relationship [with East Indians in America]. In Delaware, the largest growth in population is Indian Americans - moving from India. You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking."

Biden on McCain:
"The only guy on the other side who's qualified is John McCain."

"I've been calling for more troops for over two years, along with John McCain and others subsequent to my saying that."

Biden on Iraq:

"Sen. Obama said he would do everything possible to end the war in Iraq and emphasized the need for a political solution yet he failed to show up to vote for Sen. Biden's critical amendment to provide a political solution in Iraq.

"Well, the point is, it turned out they didn't, but everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them. He catalogued - they catalogued them. This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream. This was, in fact, catalogued."

And you wonder why Rush Limbaugh was hoping and praying Obama would choose Biden.

RD'S Alias - 1A

08-23-2008, 11:40 AM

Er, huh? Is this a joke and I missed it? Must be...

-David

reply]
Not a joke, just tossing one of my obscour perspectives out there. Here is my thinking;

Obama has no practical experience what so ever, and is clearly not qualified for the job. His ideas are those of a kid who think they have all the answers, but in reality the answers they have are not for questions beyond thier levels and would never work on a national, or world scale.

Unless Obama is Scripted, or teleprompted, he cannot give decisive answers. Rush Limbaugh's 7-1/2 studdering montage taken from a 40 minute speech clearly illuminates this.

In short, he's an actor playing the part someone else scripted for him.

Now, since Biden is a career politician, Obama is going to be really leaning on him to fill the many holes in his resume. Due to his own lack of experience, it stands to reason the Biden will be calling the shots, and Obama will just be his mouth piece.

No matter what, Obama is a puppet of someone else in the Democrat party. With Biden as VP, he will be the puppeteer.

RD'S Alias - 1A

08-23-2008, 12:21 PM

HA!!!!

I was just listening to the announcement speach, EVEN OBAMA just accidentally called him the next President!!!

I am right, Biden is running the show already!!!

rogue

08-23-2008, 12:23 PM

In all seriousness though, I'm a bit disappointed in the responses here. Incredibly partisan. I fail to understand how, EVEN if you are against Obama, you could think Biden was not the best choice for him and his campaign in terms of both winning and governing.

I prefer someone with executive experience, something the O/B ticket doesn't have.

He brings quite a bit of balance to the ticket, experience, FP expertise, etc. Does he have a loud mouth? Yup. But that will allow him to be the attack dog, and he's a **** good one. He looks and appears at his best when he has his hackles up, unlike BOTH McCain and Obama, who both appear grumpy and sullen when they are challenged. To top it off, he's a blue-collar democrat who can appeal to the working middle class in this country, where Obama comes off as "not one of them." That's a weakness for him, and Biden will/can go a long way towards shoring that up.

When was the last time Biden was a member of the working blue collar middle class? What you see as Biden shining many others see another pol who thinks he's better than everybody else.

Further, he's a known quantity. There aren't going to be any surprises, and that's absolutely key. Whatever Biden is, (loudmouthed, cantakerous, clever...) he is in public, in the light of day.

Of course, watch that last statement be blown out of the water after an FBI release revealing that Biden was involved in a Shetland pony sex scandal or something...

Now that would be cool.:D

BTW, If Obama wins, it's four and then out on his ear.

rogue

08-23-2008, 12:23 PM

Supposedly Biden is only worth between 100,00 - 150,000. Dude better call Suze Orman.

1bad65

08-23-2008, 12:34 PM

BTW, If Obama wins, it's four and then out on his ear.

I just hope the US can survive four years of Obama. Look how much damage Carter did in 4 years. And Obama's policies are almost identical to Carter's!

I was one of those disenchanted Conservatives, but within the last few months I've come to realize Obama is such a danger to the US, I have to vote for McCain.

1bad65

08-23-2008, 12:35 PM

Supposedly Biden is only worth between 100,00 - 150,000.

Don't judge his net worth simply by his cheap-looking hair plugs. ;)

doug maverick

08-23-2008, 12:36 PM

in the back of you heads with a snake spear. this is a freaking kung fu forum for petes sake. just when i got use to RD's random OT discussions about anything that pops in his head, i have to deal with the disgust that is american politics, i'm truly sickened and saddened by this, this forum should be a safe haven from that crap. you should all feel ashamed for yourselfs, your masters, and your leanage. oh and BTW vote obama.:D

The Willow Sword

08-23-2008, 12:44 PM

RD'S Alias - 1A

08-23-2008, 12:51 PM

RD'S Alias - 1A

08-23-2008, 12:56 PM

I was hoping for an Obama/Edwards Ticket. I think it would have solidified the Dem presidency, regardless of the affair and all the skeletons being drug out by the right wing media. Edwards had the Unions and Blue collar America in the East.

Sigh:( Now Obama had to go and choose a nimrod like Biden. I dont like him,never did. He certainly doesnt represent me or my values at all. I know MP likes him and all and i can respect that , but really now, i dont see Obama winning this, Obama should have just put Hillary on the Ticket(may have been a slightly better chance there of a win).

get ready for 4 more years of a republican run disaster. :(

Yay:( TWS

Reply]
Personally,it does not matter WHO gets in this time around, it's going to be a disaster...and has been every election since Reagan.

We are suffering from a gross ineptitude on a massive scale. It is SO bad, that anyone smart enough, and qualified enough to be President, is not Dumb enough to actually run for the job.

This leaves us with having to scrape the bottom of the barrel and voting for the least dangerous candidate.

In this case the least of the two evils is McCain.

1bad65

08-23-2008, 01:30 PM

I was hoping for an Obama/Edwards Ticket. I think it would have solidified the Dem presidency, regardless of the affair and all the skeletons being drug out by the right wing media. Edwards had the Unions and Blue collar America in the East.

Are you that lost? :eek:

Edwards political career is done. He was banging a staffer while his wife was fighting cancer! That's low, even for a douche like him.

He really did not have blue-collar and union support like you think. Once the story hit about his house literally being the most expensive in his county, he lost that support. The affair ruined the small support he had left.

Had he connected to core Democrat groups like you said, he would not have finished 3rd in a 3 person race, and that was BEFORE the affair story broke.

bodhitree

08-23-2008, 01:39 PM

Edwards political career is done. He was banging a staffer while his wife was fighting cancer! That's low, even for a douche like him.

Yeah, a lot lower than Larry Craig, oh but wait, he just uses a wide stance. I bet RD practices that stance:D

Black Jack II

08-23-2008, 02:21 PM

The tool that is Biden.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW3ghj5HSkI

He reminds me of Richard Daley. Maybe that is why I can't stand him on a cellular level.

What he said about his own running mate was amazingly stupid.

Is he a good pick, not in my book. Tim Kaine would of been a better choice just to take his state.

uki

08-23-2008, 02:23 PM

wake up and smell the fascism... in god we trust, of course. :)

Merryprankster

08-23-2008, 02:25 PM

I find all this interesting since Obama is ahead in both the IEM and the intrade political markets. He is also ahead in the WSJ political market.

In fact, the WSJ has the contract price on an Obama victory at 62.5%

But hey, what do highly accurate predictive markets know ;)

Yes, I realize all this could change and it could be wrong. But they are pretty good markets, and behavioral economics is actually pretty close to voting in an election.

Oso

08-23-2008, 03:01 PM

does anybody think that there is a really good chance we're going to see the next presidential assassination attempt with Obama as president?

that's honestly been the key though for me as I've been waiting to see who he picked. no matter who was on the republican side, they would have gotten my vote if THAT woman had been picked.

I like Biden simply because he has screwed up and showed real gut emotion to things at times. I agree that it at least seems as if he is what you see.

uki

08-23-2008, 03:11 PM

does anybody think that there is a really good chance we're going to see the next presidential assassination attempt with Obama as president?if that happens, biden will choose hillary to be vice... possible. could just be bait to stir up civil unrest to give another reason to declare martial law.

RD'S Alias - 1A

08-23-2008, 03:23 PM

1bad65

08-23-2008, 04:53 PM

Most of the the 'experts' predicted GW Bush losing the last 2 elections. :rolleyes: Hell, they predicted Hillary to easily win the Democratic nomination and Romney to win the Republican one. Sylvia Browne has a better hit percentage!

If Obama does not get a bounce with his VP pick and the convention, he is in big trouble. His poll numbers have been in a steady decline for awile, and he has had ALOT more media coverage than McCain. FYI, Hillary actually won the last few primary states too.

1bad65

08-23-2008, 04:54 PM

Gee, just what we need, an emotional screw up running our country...:rolleyes:

And someone more leftist than McGovern and Carter as his running mate. :eek:

Merryprankster

08-23-2008, 05:17 PM

1bad,

OK, but I'm not sure what your point about the experts in the last couple of elections being wrong has to do with anything. Prediction markets run on the same engine that powers economies - and has powered them - since bartering began: Behavioral Economics.

They are, in fact, remarkably accurate.

Sooooooo.... since they don't rely on the individual opinion of experts, but on the collective opinion of the entire set of market participants (ie... VOTING) I'd say your comment re: experts doesn't really translate here. Completely different issues.

LOL at the idea that Obama-Biden will somehow be more liberal than Carter or McGovern. That's junk designed to preach to the choir and/or scare the stupid. Clearly, you haven't taken a look at Obama's economic policy proposals. Have you read them at all?

Oso

08-23-2008, 05:47 PM

I like Biden simply because he has screwed up and showed real gut emotion to things at times. I agree that it at least seems as if he is what you see.

Reply]
Gee, just what we need, an emotional screw up running our country...:rolleyes:

well, at least it shows he may not be a total tool of the party.

if's he's such an emotional screw up why has he been at it for so long?

i'm completely undecided at this point. i think we're so screwed up that I'm not sure what's going to 'fix' anything.

Black Jack II

08-23-2008, 05:50 PM

From a Behavioral Economics standpoint. I really think a lot of people, from a cognitive science view, are using a confirmation or belief bias to view Obama in a way that confirms their own preconceptions on what he is and should be.

With a strong confirmation bias people tend in general to avoid information and interpretations which could contradict any prior beliefs. Obama fits into this category very well, that selective "blue" crowd does not want to apply rigorous critical scrutiny to their "chosen one".

Personally, if he get's in, and I really hope he does not. I give him four years.

I just hope he does not totally deep throat the system as bad as some predicate.

rogue

08-23-2008, 06:11 PM

Barack Obama's Plan
Jumpstart the Economy

* Provide Additional Tax Rebates to American Workers: The economy has continued to weaken significantly, despite congressional action to provide immediate tax rebates to American consumers. Stimulus: $20 billion.

* Establish a $10 billion Foreclosure Prevention Fund: Given the downturn in the economy, Obama is calling for immediate creation of his Foreclosure Prevention Fund that will dramatically increase emergency pre-foreclosure counseling, and will help families facing foreclosure to responsibly refinance their mortgages or sell their homes. Obama’s plan will not help speculators, people buying vacation homes or people that falsely represented their incomes. It is meant to help responsible homeowners through this difficult period. Stimulus: $10 billion.

* Provide $10 billion in Relief for State and Local Governments Hardest-Hit by the Housing Crisis to Prevent Cuts in Vital Services: Because of the housing crisis and the weakening economy, many state and local governments are facing significant revenue shortfalls. Barack Obama believes that in the areas hardest-hit by the housing crisis we should provide immediate, temporary funding to state and local governments so that the decline in property values does not cause them to slash critical public services and cut vital infrastructure spending. Stimulus: $10 billion.

* Extend and Expand Unemployment Insurance: Barack Obama believes we must extend and strengthen the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program to address the needs of the long-term unemployed, who currently make up nearly one-fifth of the unemployed and are often older workers who have lost their jobs in manufacturing or other industries and have a difficult time finding new employment. Expanding UI is one of the most effective ways to combat economic turmoil; every dollar invested in UI benefits results in $1.73 in economic output. Obama is calling for a temporary expansion of the UI program for those who have exhausted their current eligibility. Stimulus: $10 billion.

rogue

08-23-2008, 06:13 PM

Provide Middle Class Americans Tax Relief

Obama will cut income taxes by $1,000 for working families to offset the payroll tax they pay.

* Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families: Obama will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they need. Obama will create a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans.

* Eliminate Income Taxes for Seniors Making Less than $50,000: Barack Obama will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. This proposal will eliminate income taxes for 7 million seniors and provide these seniors with an average savings of $1,400 each year. Under the Obama plan, 27 million American seniors will also not need to file an income tax return.

* Simplify Tax Filings for Middle Class Americans: Obama will dramatically simplify tax filings so that millions of Americans will be able to do their taxes in less than five minutes. Obama will ensure that the IRS uses the information it already gets from banks and employers to give taxpayers the option of pre-filled tax forms to verify, sign and return. Experts estimate that the Obama proposal will save Americans up to 200 million total hours of work and aggravation and up to $2 billion in tax preparer fees.

But where we these taxes be made up?

rogue

08-23-2008, 06:14 PM

Trade

Obama believes that trade with foreign nations should strengthen the American economy and create more American jobs. He will stand firm against agreements that undermine our economic security.

* Fight for Fair Trade: Obama will fight for a trade policy that opens up foreign markets to support good American jobs. He will use trade agreements to spread good labor and environmental standards around the world and stand firm against agreements like the Central American Free Trade Agreement that fail to live up to those important benchmarks. Obama will also pressure the World Trade Organization to enforce trade agreements and stop countries from continuing unfair government subsidies to foreign exporters and nontariff barriers on U.S. exports.

* Amend the North American Free Trade Agreement: Obama believes that NAFTA and its potential were oversold to the American people. Obama will work with the leaders of Canada and Mexico to fix NAFTA so that it works for American workers.

* Improve Transition Assistance: To help all workers adapt to a rapidly changing economy, Obama would update the existing system of Trade Adjustment Assistance by extending it to service industries, creating flexible education accounts to help workers retrain, and providing retraining assistance for workers in sectors of the economy vulnerable to dislocation before they lose their jobs.

Invest in the Manufacturing Sector and Create 5 Million New Green Jobs

* Invest in our Next Generation Innovators and Job Creators: Obama will create an Advanced Manufacturing Fund to identify and invest in the most compelling advanced manufacturing strategies. The Fund will have a peer-review selection and award process based on the Michigan 21st Century Jobs Fund, a state-level initiative that has awarded over $125 million to Michigan businesses with the most innovative proposals to create new products and new jobs in the state.

* Double Funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership: The Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) works with manufacturers across the country to improve efficiency, implement new technology and strengthen company growth. This highly-successful program has engaged in more than 350,000 projects across the country and in 2006 alone, helped create and protect over 50,000 jobs. But despite this success, funding for MEP has been slashed by the Bush administration. Barack Obama will double funding for the MEP so its training centers can continue to bolster the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers.

* Invest In A Clean Energy Economy And Create 5 Million New Green Jobs: Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial scale renewable energy, invest in low emissions coal plants, and begin transition to a new digital electricity grid. The plan will also invest in America's highly-skilled manufacturing workforce and manufacturing centers to ensure that American workers have the skills and tools they need to pioneer the first wave of green technologies that will be in high demand throughout the world.

* Create New Job Training Programs for Clean Technologies: The Obama plan will increase funding for federal workforce training programs and direct these programs to incorporate green technologies training, such as advanced manufacturing and weatherization training, into their efforts to help Americans find and retain stable, high-paying jobs. Obama will also create an energy-focused youth jobs program to invest in disconnected and disadvantaged youth.

* Boost the Renewable Energy Sector and Create New Jobs: The Obama plan will create new federal policies, and expand existing ones, that have been proven to create new American jobs. Obama will create a federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) that will require 25 percent of American electricity be derived from renewable sources by 2025, which has the potential to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs on its own. Obama will also extend the Production Tax Credit, a credit used successfully by American farmers and investors to increase renewable energy production and create new local jobs.

rogue

08-23-2008, 06:16 PM

New Jobs Through National Infrastructure Investment

Barack Obama believes that it is critically important for the United States to rebuild its national transportation infrastructure – its highways, bridges, roads, ports, air, and train systems – to strengthen user safety, bolster our long-term competitiveness and ensure our economy continues to grow.

* Create a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank: Barack Obama will address the infrastructure challenge by creating a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to expand and enhance, not supplant, existing federal transportation investments. This independent entity will be directed to invest in our nation’s most challenging transportation infrastructure needs. The Bank will receive an infusion of federal money, $60 billion over 10 years, to provide financing to transportation infrastructure projects across the nation. These projects will create up to two million new direct and indirect jobs per year and stimulate approximately $35 billion per year in new economic activity.

Technology, Innovation and Creating Jobs

Barack Obama will increase federal support for research, technology and innovation for companies and universities so that American families can lead the world in creating new advanced jobs and products.

* Invest in the Sciences: Barack Obama supports doubling federal funding for basic research and changing the posture of our federal government from being one of the most anti-science administrations in American history to one that embraces science and technology. This will foster home-grown innovation, help ensure the competitiveness of US technology-based businesses, and ensure that 21st century jobs can and will grow in America.

* Make the Research and Development Tax Credit Permanent: Barack Obama wants investments in a skilled research and development workforce and technology infrastructure to be supported here in America so that American workers and communities will benefit. Obama wants to make the Research and Development tax credit permanent so that firms can rely on it when making decisions to invest in domestic R&D over multi-year timeframes.

* Deploy Next-Generation Broadband: Barack Obama believes we can get broadband to every community in America through a combination of reform of the Universal Service Fund, better use of the nation's wireless spectrum, promotion of next-generation facilities, technologies and applications, and new tax and loan incentives.

Support Small Business

* Provide Tax Relief for Small Businesses and Start Up Companies: Barack Obama will eliminate all capital gains taxes on start-up and small businesses to encourage innovation and job creation. Obama will also support small business owners by providing a $500 “Making Work Pay” tax credit to almost every worker in America. Self-employed small business owners pay both the employee and the employer side of the payroll tax, and this measure will reduce the burdens of this double taxation.

* Create a National Network of Public-Private Business Incubators: Barack Obama will support entrepreneurship and spur job growth by creating a national network of public-private business incubators. Business incubators facilitate the critical work of entrepreneurs in creating start-up companies. Obama will invest $250 million per year to increase the number and size of incubators in disadvantaged communities throughout the country.

rogue

08-23-2008, 06:18 PM

Labor

Obama will strengthen the ability of workers to organize unions. He will fight for passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. Obama will ensure that his labor appointees support workers' rights and will work to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers. Obama will also increase the minimum wage and index it to inflation to ensure it rises every year.

* Ensure Freedom to Unionize: Obama believes that workers should have the freedom to choose whether to join a union without harassment or intimidation from their employers. Obama cosponsored and is strong advocate for the Employee Free Choice Act, a bipartisan effort to assure that workers can exercise their right to organize. He will continue to fight for EFCA's passage and sign it into law.
* Fight Attacks on Workers' Right to Organize: Obama has fought the Bush National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) efforts to strip workers of their right to organize. He is a cosponsor of legislation to overturn the NLRB's "Kentucky River" decisions classifying hundreds of thousands of nurses, construction, and professional workers as "supervisors" who are not protected by federal labor laws.
* Protect Striking Workers: Obama supports the right of workers to bargain collectively and strike if necessary. He will work to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers, so workers can stand up for themselves without worrying about losing their livelihoods.
* Raise the Minimum Wage: Barack Obama will raise the minimum wage, index it to inflation and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit to make sure that full-time workers earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs.

Protect Homeownership and Crack Down on Mortgage Fraud

Obama will crack down on fraudulent brokers and lenders. He will also make sure homebuyers have honest and complete information about their mortgage options, and he will give a tax credit to all middle-class homeowners.

* Create a New FHA Housing Security Program: Barack Obama strongly supports the efforts of Senate Banking Committee Chair Chris Dodd (D–CT) to create a new Federal Housing Administration (FHA) program that will provide meaningful incentives for lenders to buy or refinance existing mortgages and convert them into stable 30-year fixed mortgages. This plan provides an important federal backstop – not a bailout – to this growing national problem. Neither lenders nor homeowners would receive a windfall from this plan.
* Create a Universal Mortgage Credit: Obama will create a 10 percent universal mortgage credit to provide homeowners who do not itemize tax relief. This credit will provide an average of $500 to 10 million homeowners, the majority of whom earn less than $50,000 per year.
* Ensure More Accountability in the Subprime Mortgage Industry: Obama has been closely monitoring the subprime mortgage situation for years, and introduced comprehensive legislation over a year ago to fight mortgage fraud and protect consumers against abusive lending practices. Obama's STOP FRAUD Act provides the first federal definition of mortgage fraud, increases funding for federal and state law enforcement programs, creates new criminal penalties for mortgage professionals found guilty of fraud, and requires industry insiders to report suspicious activity.
* Mandate Accurate Loan Disclosure: Obama will create a Homeowner Obligation Made Explicit (HOME) score, which will provide potential borrowers with a simplified, standardized borrower metric (similar to APR) for home mortgages. The HOME score will allow individuals to easily compare various mortgage products and understand the full cost of the loan.
* Create Fund to Help Homeowners Avoid Foreclosures: Obama will create a fund to help people refinance their mortgages and provide comprehensive supports to innocent homeowners. The fund will be partially paid for by Obama's increased penalties on lenders who act irresponsibly and commit fraud.
* Close Bankruptcy Loophole for Mortgage Companies: Obama will work to eliminate the provision that prevents bankruptcy courts from modifying an individual's mortgage payments. Obama believes that the subprime mortgage industry, which has engaged in dangerous and sometimes unscrupulous business practices, should not be shielded by outdated federal law.

Address Predatory Credit Card Practices

Obama will establish a five-star rating system so that every consumer knows the risk involved in every credit card. He also will establish a Credit Card Bill of Rights to stop credit card companies from exploiting consumers with unfair practices.

* Create a Credit Card Rating System to Improve Disclosure: Obama will create a credit card rating system, modeled on five-star systems used for other consumer products, to provide consumers an easily identifiable ranking of credit cards, based on the card's features. Credit card companies will be required to display the rating on all application and contract materials, enabling consumers to quickly understand all of the major provisions of a credit card without having to rely exclusively on fine print in lengthy documents.
* Establish a Credit Card Bill of Rights to Protect Consumers: Obama will create a Credit Card Bill of Rights to protect consumers. The Obama plan will:
o Ban Unilateral Changes
o Apply Interest Rate Increases Only to Future Debt
o Prohibit Interest on Fees
o Prohibit "Universal Defaults"
o Require Prompt and Fair Crediting of Cardholder Payments

Reform Bankruptcy Laws

Obama will reform our bankruptcy laws to protect working people, ban executive bonuses for bankrupt companies, and require disclosure of all pension investments.

* Cap Outlandish Interest Rates on Payday Loans and Improve Disclosure: Obama supports extending a 36 percent interest cap to all Americans. Obama will require lenders to provide clear and simplified information about loan fees, payments and penalties, which is why he'll require lenders to provide this information during the application process.
* Encourage Responsible Lending Institutions to Make Small Consumer Loans: Obama will encourage banks, credit unions and Community Development Financial Institutions to provide affordable short-term and small-dollar loans and to drive unscrupulous lenders out of business.
* Reform Bankruptcy Laws to Protect Families Facing a Medical Crisis: Obama will create an exemption in bankruptcy law for individuals who can prove they filed for bankruptcy because of medical expenses. This exemption will create a process that forgives the debt and lets the individuals get back on their feet.

rogue

08-23-2008, 06:18 PM

Work/Family Balance

Obama will double funding for after-school programs, expand the Family Medical Leave Act, provide low-income families with a refundable tax credit to help with their child-care expenses, and encourage flexible work schedules.

* Expand the Family and Medical Leave Act: The FMLA covers only certain employees of employers with 50 or more employees. Obama will expand it to cover businesses with 25 or more employees. He will expand the FMLA to cover more purposes as well, including allowing workers to take leave for elder care needs; allowing parents up to 24 hours of leave each year to participate in their children's academic activities; and expanding FMLA to cover leave for employees to address domestic violence.
* Encourage States to Adopt Paid Leave: As president, Obama will initiate a strategy to encourage all 50 states to adopt paid-leave systems. Obama will provide a $1.5 billion fund to assist states with start-up costs and to help states offset the costs for employees and employers.
* Expand High-Quality Afterschool Opportunities: Obama will double funding for the main federal support for afterschool programs, the 21st Century Learning Centers program, to serve a million more children. Obama will include measures to maximize performance and effectiveness across grantees nationwide.
* Expand the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit: The Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit provides too little relief to families that struggle to afford child care expenses. Obama will reform the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit by making it refundable and allowing low-income families to receive up to a 50 percent credit for their child care expenses.
* Protect Against Caregiver Discrimination: Workers with family obligations often are discriminated against in the workplace. Obama will enforce the recently-enacted Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines on caregiver discrimination.
* Expand Flexible Work Arrangements: Obama will create a program to inform businesses about the benefits of flexible work schedules; help businesses create flexible work opportunities; and increase federal incentives for telecommuting. Obama will also make the federal government a model employer in terms of adopting flexible work schedules and permitting employees to request flexible arrangements.

Barack Obama's Record

* Housing: In the U.S. Senate, Obama introduced the STOP FRAUD Act to increase penalties for mortgage fraud and provide more protections for low-income homebuyers, well before the current subprime crisis began.

* Predatory Lending: In the Illinois State Senate, Obama called attention to predatory lending issues. Obama sponsored legislation to combat predatory payday loans, and he also was credited with lobbying the state to more closely regulate some of the most egregious predatory lending practices.

* American Jobs: Barack Obama introduced the Patriot Employer Act of 2007 to provide a tax credit to companies that maintain or increase the number of full-time workers in America relative to those outside the US; maintain their corporate headquarters in America; pay decent wages; prepare workers for retirement; provide health insurance; and support employees who serve in the military.

Not much of a record.
Hold onto your wallets folks.

Yao Sing

08-23-2008, 06:32 PM

And on the other hand you have this business (http://www.waronfreedom.org/dox/BONoUsCitizen.htm).

B-Rad

08-23-2008, 06:57 PM

lol, I can't believe some people actually believe that garbage. Right up there with Bush planning the 9-11 attacks, NASA faking the moon landing, and Jews secretly running the world ;) Just silly stories made up by racists/bigots.

1bad65

08-23-2008, 07:48 PM

The last Democrat to promise a middle-class tax cut was Bill Clinton.

What did you guys buy with that tax cut? ;)

1bad65

08-23-2008, 07:51 PM

So Obama wants to raise taxes on the oil companies when gas prices are at record highs and he wants to bail out the morons who got the ARM mortages. :confused: Sounds like a great economic plan to me. :rolleyes:

1bad65

08-23-2008, 07:58 PM

* Create a New FHA Housing Security Program: Barack Obama strongly supports the efforts of Senate Banking Committee Chair Chris Dodd (D–CT) to create a new Federal Housing Administration (FHA) program that will provide meaningful incentives for lenders to buy or refinance existing mortgages and convert them into stable 30-year fixed mortgages. This plan provides an important federal backstop – not a bailout – to this growing national problem. Neither lenders nor homeowners would receive a windfall from this plan.

Well Chris Dodd does have some experience with the subprime guys:

As Dodd in his role as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee proposed a housing bailout to the Senate floor in June 2008 that would assist troubled subprime mortgage lenders such as Countrywide Bank in the wake of the United States housing bubble's collapse, Conde Nast Portfolio reported that in 2003 Dodd had refinanced the mortgages on his homes in Washington D.C. and Connecticut through Countrywide Financial and had received favorable terms due to being placed in a "Friend of Angelo" program. Dodd was unaware that he was in any type program and does not have a personal relationship with Angelo. Dodd received a mortgage from Countrywide at allegedly below-market rates on his Washington, D.C. and Connecticut homes. Dodd has not disclosed the mortgages in any of six financial disclosure statements he filed with the Senate or Office of Government Ethics since obtaining the mortgages in 2003.

http://www.journalinquirer.com/articles/2008/06/19/connecticut/doc485936db8abf6602319864.txt

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121383295591086669.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121332396326070639.html

08-23-2008, 08:14 PM

I wonder if he will be Obama's puppeteer once (If) they win? We might have the first presidency where the office is run by the Vice.

Do you really think that Dubya can move his lips by himself?

The strings from his Saudi puppeteers are quite clear.

Google: "Bush Saudi Connection"

Rememer, BU$H's have trouble with their lips and the promises they make.

- jo

08-23-2008, 08:24 PM

I just hope he does not totally deep throat the system as bad as some predicate.

Bush has managed to have sex in the rear with 95% of the American people as well as most of the innocent citizens of Iraq.

How anyone can vote for a Republican after the horrors perpetrated by BU$H is beyond me.

Price of oil quadruples under his watch...is he villified as Carter still is today?

Hundreds of thousands of innocent people dead or injured in Iraq over a lie...all to make a few bucks.

The American people's surplus turned into a RECORD deficit that will take generations to erase.

More Americans unemployed than ever.

The economy is in the commode.

The world is more unstable than when Dubya was installed as President.

Yeah, the last seven years have been fun.

The Republican Party....DEATH, DEFICIT, DECEPTION AND RECORD PROFITS FOR BIG OIL!!!

-jo

bakxierboxer

08-23-2008, 08:45 PM

The last Democrat to promise a middle-class tax cut was Bill Clinton.

What did you guys buy with that tax cut? ;)

B.b.b.b.bUT!
He "APOLOGIZED!!!"
He ACTUALLY faked tearing up and sniveling and said that:
"Ah trahd hahdah than Ah evah trahd b'fo en mah lahf/laff...."

It even got "big media coverage".....
(I think it was "his firs' Oafishul Ack")

1bad65

08-23-2008, 09:03 PM

B.b.b.b.bUT!
He "APOLOGIZED!!!"
He ACTUALLY faked tearing up and sniveling and said that:
"Ah trahd hahdah than Ah evah trahd b'fo en mah lahf/laff...."

It even got "big media coverage".....
(I think it was "his firs' Oafishul Ack")

No kidding. And remember; he said he didn't really raise taxes, we just all had to 'contribute more'. :rolleyes:

1bad65

08-23-2008, 09:04 PM

Hundreds of thousands of innocent people dead or injured in Iraq over a lie...all to make a few bucks.

It wasn't a lie according to Joe Biden. ;)

bakxierboxer

08-23-2008, 09:29 PM

No kidding. And remember; he said he didn't really raise taxes, we just all had to 'contribute more'. :rolleyes:

Probably thought that "da peepul's" disbelief that he hadn't delivered on the supposed tax-cut would cover up some of the shock/outrage over the tax-hike.... or was I supposed to call that a "greater contribution"?

unkokusai

08-23-2008, 09:53 PM

LOL at the idea that Obama-Biden will somehow be more liberal than Carter or McGovern. That's junk designed to preach to the choir and/or scare the stupid.

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

http://www.nationaljournal.com/conventions/co_20080823_9669.php

*ahem*

Merryprankster

08-24-2008, 08:49 AM

unkokusai,

Even if Obama's voting record is the most liberal NOW, that doesn't at all speak to whether he is/was/will be more liberal than Carter or McGovern. You have to compare Obama to those two, not to his contemporaries.

The assertion was that he will be more liberal than Carter or McGovern. My assertion is that that is a bogus claim. How does comparing Obama to his contemporaries - who are all arguably FAR more centrist than Carter, McGovern, and what were "liberals" in the late 60's and 70's make the case that Obama is more liberal than Carter and McGovern?

And liberal how? What does that mean? Are we upset with his tax policy? His views on public morality? His interest in the environment?

Or is he just a "liberal," because that's a great way to rally the troops and scare people that the communists are coming?

Here's one thing I'm certain of: If I have to chose between tax and spend or borrow and spend, I'm picking tax and spend every time. Dear god, I sure hope he raises taxes. I hope he can allow the Bush tax cuts, which were completely unnecessary and fiscally unbalanced, to phase out, and then I hope he can raise them some more for good measure. I also hope we get a consumption tax sometime soon, structured in a way that is progressive enough not to screw working families. **** straight we have to contribute more. We have some programs in the government that need to be closed down too, but our tax revenue is not near enough to cover what we are doing.

The Republicans have lost all sense of fiscal discipline, proposing that the solution to every economic problem is a tax cut. The bottom line is that the Laffer curve was always a laugh and defies both common sense and experiential results. Or have you not noticed our ballooning debt? We don't starve the government, we just borrow to finance it, because despite the rhetoric, baby boomers - that screaming me generation raised in unparalleled U.S. economic boom times - are unwilling to shoulder the twin burdens of increased tax rate and decreased services. They want what they want and they don't care that it's built on credit. You invest in the FUTURE with credit, not in the NOW.

Republicans have tried for years to pass all of this off as the Democrats fault, but it's a fake argument that the public is about ready to stop swallowing and vomit up....just like conservative Christians have started to wake up to the idea that hey...the environment is a real freakin problem. Don't worry guys, you're only 20+ years late, but we're glad to have you on board anyway.

This is a lot like me hoping world oil prices and gas prices at the pump continue to rise.

The nuts and bolts of Obama's proposals tend to be rooted in (get ready for it), behavioral economics. A great example - if you want to raise retirement savings rates in the U.S., make the default for a 401K to be opted in at a minimum level. Now, you can opt OUT, and you can increase that level if you want, but by defaulting it to opt in, you are going to get far more people to save. Your decision to choose hasn't been eliminated. You can still do whatever you want with your money, but when you make it easy to save, people will.

Republicans: Your greatest hope lies in guys like Ross Douhat and Reihan Salam. Follow them. At least your **** will make sense.

unkokusai

08-24-2008, 09:17 AM

And liberal how? .

On his voting record.

unkokusai

08-24-2008, 09:18 AM

I'm picking tax and spend every time.

You're sure picking it this time. Here's hoping you and your ilk end up the minority come voting day.

Black Jack II

08-24-2008, 10:35 AM

The Republican Party....DEATH, DEFICIT, DECEPTION AND RECORD PROFITS FOR BIG OIL!!!

For the love of Chr!st your nuts. Enjoy your tin-foil hat and ultra high speed d!ldo from Lover's Lane.

Black Jack II

08-24-2008, 10:50 AM

Higher income taxes, higher social security taxes, higher investment taxes, higher corporate taxes, massive new domestic spending, and a health care ideal that perhaps could be the next goose step to a full-scale, single-payer system.

Sorry but that is not on my wish list in a economic downturn.

That is about as attractive as a 300lb she-male stripper getting spastic diarrhea all over a nice and fluffy birthday cake at your grandmothers 90th celebration. It's just the wrong way to put out the candles.

1bad65

08-24-2008, 10:54 AM

You have to compare Obama to those two [Carter and McGovern], not to his contemporaries.

Ok, I'll do that:

Dear god, I sure hope he raises taxes.

I also hope we get a consumption tax sometime soon...

The bottom line is that the Laffer curve was always a laugh and defies both common sense and experiential results.

Exactly things Carter did, and McGovern was for as well. What's especially scary is that we are facing alot of the same issues we had during Carter: rising inflation, fluctuating interest rates and unemployment, unrest in the Middle East, and rising gas prices. And we all saw how Carter's policies made things so much worse, his economy could only be measured by the Misery Index.

1bad65

08-24-2008, 10:59 AM

And Carter did something economists thought was impossible; he had inflation, unemployment, and interest rates ALL rising at the same time! And it got so bad all three were in DOUBLE DIGITS at the same time!!!! :eek:

AJM

08-24-2008, 11:08 AM

I wonder if he will be Obama's puppeteer once (If) they win? We might have the first presidency where the office is run by the Vice.
No. We have that now.

1bad65

08-24-2008, 11:23 AM

I'm just waiting for Obama to say we need to convert to the Metric System! ;)

RD'S Alias - 1A

08-24-2008, 11:28 AM

rogue,
I read all the things you posted. It sounds to me like he's promising the moon. You can't just massively cut taxes like he is proposing, AND spend Billions and Billions and Billllllions of dollars on all those social programs he wants.

If he is going to afford all that stuff, he's going to shift the tax burden to the wealthy, and the corporations (You know, the guys who give us all jobs to feed our families?)

Now, 2 things are going to happen with that, the first is the corporations are going to drastically raise prices in order to stay in business and remain profitable, SO in the end the every day worker will have to pay it anyway.

TWO in those environments where raising prices is not an option, businesses will fold, especially small Mom & Pop kinds of places who just don't have the financial strength to survive it all.

THREE (an pay close attention to this) By shifting the tax burden to the rich, and corporations what you will do is make the USofA the WORST pace in the world ot do business, so you will see a massive flood of businesses and corporations leaving the US and setting up shop in China.

Things are really bad in the US as it is. If I had the means, *I* would set up a business in the Caribbeans somewhere, and enjoy a tax free life style now. Infact, many people do this already.

Instead of making the flight of businesses and corporations WORSE, we need to make it MORE attractive to do business in the United states.

You can't just coddle all the citizens of this country, and shield them from thier mistakes cradle to grave. if you do that, you will kill the rugged independence this country was founded on, and the Unties States of America will shortly be no more.

The Soviet union fell, don't think we won't too...especially if we start following in thier footsteps.

1bad65

08-24-2008, 12:57 PM

Excellent post RD. I have agreed with you 100% on this thread.

Let me play off your words to make another point.

Now, 2 things are going to happen with that, the first is the oil companies are going to drastically raise gas prices in order to stay in business and remain profitable, SO in the end the every driver will have to pay it anyway.

TWO in those environments, businesses will fold, especially small Mom & Pop kinds of places dependant on gasoline who just don't have the financial strength to survive it all.

If Obama does raise taxes on the oil companies and bans offshore drilling (which was his original position:rolleyes:), get ready for $6 a gallon gas AT LEAST. The only reason OPEC is lowering the price now is because they see that if they do not the US may very well start pumping it's own crude. Once that option is off the table, OPEC is holding all the cards.

The Willow Sword

08-24-2008, 02:01 PM

http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/19/news/economy/oil_money/index.htm?postversion=2008081917

Peace,TWS

rogue

08-24-2008, 05:24 PM

RD'S Alias - 1A

08-24-2008, 06:07 PM

The wealthy already pay more taxes than the middle class. In fact, they pay more in TAXES than the common man even makes in a year.

What needs to be done, is have it is so everyone shoulders thier fair share, not make it so one segment of the population is raped to support everyone else.

rogue

08-24-2008, 06:40 PM

http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html

Black Jack II

08-24-2008, 07:17 PM

The third line in the first paragraph of that article rogue is where the money is at...

RD'S Alias - 1A

08-24-2008, 08:24 PM

Aside from his brain washed drones, i think Obama scares the hell out of everyone else. Hillary does too.

The real question is this, once the law suites are filed, and it is proven Obama can't be president because of his citizenship status, does Hillary become the dems candidate? or does McCain automatically win by default because the Dems didn't have a candidate?

KC Elbows

08-24-2008, 11:28 PM

Here's hoping you and your ilk end up the minority come voting day.

I'm not sure Merryprankster has an ilk. My impression of his politics is that it is always exceedingly well informed, and is always based around what he feels is best for America over what is best for a specific party, and some of the things I have seen him support in debate were more than welcomed by what you undoubtedly see as your "ilk". He's not a raving partisan in the least, and as an voter informed by sources more useful and subtle than those favored by partisan nutjobs, unfortunately lacks enough of an "ilk" amongst the voting population.

I'm gonna drink a cold one to the entertaining fact that one day you are gonna be talking politics on here and you're gonna find some political point you are standing up for explained better and defended better by MP. Ask Rogue, it happens to everyone on here, regardless of party affiliation. You'll be high fiving him, sure, as his water boy.

Ah, a nice cool SPG Special Dark...so refreshing.

rogue

08-25-2008, 04:45 AM

What KC said. :cool:

My favorite thing that happens here is when people call MP a right wing shill.:D Those are clearly people new to the forum or those who don't read what he's written. Hell, even when I disagree with MP I still listen to what he's saying and will check out a lot of the books he talks about.

unkokusai

08-25-2008, 06:55 AM

I'm gonna drink a cold one to the entertaining fact that one day you are gonna be talking politics on here and you're gonna find some political point you are standing up for explained better and defended better by MP. Ask Rogue, it happens to everyone on here, regardless of party affiliation. You'll be high fiving him, sure, as his water boy.

Ah, a nice cool SPG Special Dark...so refreshing.

Boy, that'll sure show me! :rolleyes:

rogue

08-25-2008, 09:06 AM

I'm not sure Merryprankster has an ilk.

He did, but it got hit by a car when it ran out of his yard.:(

NJM

08-25-2008, 09:39 AM

He did, but it got hit by a car when it ran out of his yard.:(

Rogue, will John McCain save my ass from the turrist invasion like Bush did?

I mean I was watching all these terrorist mixicunns come over the border and then the Glorious Homeland Security took them away in a van and I was like LOL THANK YOU GEORGE THEY WERE GONNA STEL MY JERB AND SEWERCIDE BOMB ME!

KC Elbows

08-25-2008, 01:21 PM

Boy, that'll sure show me! :rolleyes:

I'm sorry, I'd take the time to respond, but the ilk have a lodge meeting in ten minutes. Fortunately we have been 100% successful in our current project, we've used public money to taint the water in certain cities so that conservatives there lose the ability to distinguish between moderates and communists.

Next, we're working on a barbecue sauce that causes them to become unable to distinguish between conservative spending and wasteful spending.

In the final phase, we're going to introduce a small amount of a pathogen to American cheese that makes them simultaneously divorce and try to blame others for the state of marriage in the U.S.

The beauty is, no one has thus far noticed our nefarious plans at work!

Long live the ilk![insert secret handshake]

Lucas

08-25-2008, 01:52 PM

man am i glad i dont eat american cheese, drink water or go to bbq's

1bad65

08-25-2008, 03:02 PM

so that conservatives there lose the ability to distinguish between moderates and communists.

Yeah, that Obama guy is a real moderate on taxes, spending, and abortion. :rolleyes:

No_SuRReNDeR

08-25-2008, 03:57 PM

Just from a phonetics stand point Biden is a bad choice ..let me preface this point by saying I really like Obama........but ............

Obama and Biden sounds allot like Osama Bin Laden.....

and ignorant people being what they are...

rogue

08-25-2008, 04:36 PM

Rogue, will John McCain save my ass from the turrist invasion like Bush did?

Why yes, yes he will.

1bad65

08-25-2008, 04:49 PM

Rogue, will John McCain save my ass from the turrist invasion like Bush did?

How many more terrorist attacks on US soil have there been since 9/11? ;)

Contrast that to the Clinton Administration's record on terrorism.

rogue

08-25-2008, 05:13 PM

Within two years of Obama getting in something will go down. The turrist will just view Obama as someone who will let them get away murder.

B-Rad

08-25-2008, 05:46 PM

How many more terrorist attacks on US soil have there been since 9/11?
Well, we did kind of import them into Iraq. They're all too busy murdering Iraqi civilians to give us much trouble.

Black Jack II

08-25-2008, 06:17 PM

Well, we did kind of import them into Iraq. They're all too busy murdering Iraqi civilians to give us much trouble.

sweet for us.

1bad65

08-25-2008, 06:36 PM

Well, we did kind of import them into Iraq. They're all too busy murdering Iraqi civilians to give us much trouble.

Like it or not, thats the military's job. To protect the citizens of the US against foreign aggressors. I would rather the terrorists have to fight our highly trained and well armed troops than unarmed American civilians just trying to get to work.

unkokusai

08-25-2008, 07:07 PM

Well, we did kind of import them into Iraq. They're all too busy murdering Iraqi civilians to give us much trouble.

You didn't answer the question.

NJM

08-25-2008, 08:16 PM

How many more terrorist attacks on US soil have there been since 9/11? ;)

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc, BIOTCH.

rogue

08-25-2008, 08:21 PM

Well, we did kind of import them into Iraq. They're all too busy murdering Iraqi civilians to give us much trouble.

And a lot of them, though not enough, are dead, or back trying to get in European & American Universities. Don't worry B-Rad, their A-squad is still around.

http://www.xomba.com/soccer_match_in_baghdad_draws_100_000_and_no_viole nce_a_positive_sign_for_the_future_of_iraq

NJM

08-25-2008, 08:23 PM

And a lot of them, though not enough, are dead, or back trying to get in European & American Universities.

http://z.about.com/d/animatedtv/1/7/p/I/sp806_Goobacks_2.jpg

DEY TUK OUR SLOT!

DER DUK UR JERRRRRRRRRRB!

1bad65

08-25-2008, 08:42 PM

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc, BIOTCH.

I'll take that as a ZERO.

NJM

08-25-2008, 09:17 PM

I'll take that as a ZERO.

O correlation: hath causation known thee?

KC Elbows

08-25-2008, 09:57 PM

Yeah, that Obama guy is a real moderate on taxes, spending, and abortion. :rolleyes:

Would you be able to distinguish a moderate if one was put before you? Could you name off the last two elections you put a fiscal conservative in the White house?

Cutting taxes does not, on its own, infer any sort of conservatism, if what else is being done with the budget isn't conservative.

In relations to earlier statements, people argue against taxing the wealthy as though it were wrong, everyone gets taxed, and the rich certainly don't have to pay the percentage of their earnings that most people do, so how making it slightly more fair is wrong I don't know. Additionally, fairly taxing across the boards does not mean that business will dry up, it is only if it becomes unfair or too difficult to do business. Even under current conditions, the idea that everything will go over to China if US businesses shouldered a fair tax burden is silly, there are whole other problems with doing business in China that make it so that companies will not want to be headquartered out there, plus the relative reliability of the US market, especially since those companies are established here.

Additionally, I'm curious which of these big companies that might leave could still exist away from US corporate welfare, something they'll have a hard time replacing.

1bad65

08-25-2008, 10:38 PM

Could you name off the last two elections you put a fiscal conservative in the White house?

Ronald Reagan and John F Kennedy. 1980, 1984 and 1960 respectively.

See how easy it is to answer questions in a debate, maybe NJM and B-Rad could try it one day. :rolleyes:

1bad65

08-25-2008, 10:51 PM

Additionally, fairly taxing across the boards does not mean that business will dry up, it is only if it becomes unfair or too difficult to do business. Even under current conditions, the idea that everything will go over to China if US businesses shouldered a fair tax burden is silly, there are whole other problems with doing business in China that make it so that companies will not want to be headquartered out there, plus the relative reliability of the US market, especially since those companies are established here.

Additionally, I'm curious which of these big companies that might leave could still exist away from US corporate welfare, something they'll have a hard time replacing.

It's not just the taxes, it's all the regulations they have to deal with. If you watched the Olympics, it's not too hard to figure out the Communist Chinese obviously do not have near the environmental laws we do. Their air makes Southern California's look great! It's also quite pathetic companies in the United States of America find it cheaper to do business in A COMMUNIST COUNTRY rather than in their own country.

And yes, many jobs are lost to China. I work in the high-tech industry. We invented the term 'outsourcing'. So I think I know a thing or two on the subject.

Intel, Motorola/Freescale and Wal-Mart are examples of big companies that have moved alot of jobs over to China from the US. That corporate welfare line is garbage, it's just a talking point liberals use to fool morons into thinking taxing and regulating 'Big Business' at ridiculous levels is a great idea.

NJM

08-26-2008, 12:36 AM

See how easy it is to answer questions in a debate, maybe NJM and B-Rad could try it one day. :rolleyes:

Hey, it's not my fault if you embrace a logical fallacy!

Correlation does not imply causation!

It is irrelevant how many terrorist attacks have happened in the US, unless you can directly link the phenomenon of less terrorist attacks to Bush's actions!

1bad65

08-26-2008, 06:07 AM

It is irrelevant how many terrorist attacks have happened in the US, unless you can directly link the phenomenon of less terrorist attacks to Bush's actions!

Are you really this blind and stupid? Or are you trolling?

The Willow Sword

08-26-2008, 06:39 AM

How Many IRAQI terrorists have attacked the USA? Answer :NONE
How Many IRAQI terrorists were on the planes that crashed into our WTC's Answer:NONE.

Sure you can make the argument that we havent had any terrorist attacks on US soil since we invaded Iraq. But is it a direct result of us Invading Iraq? I dont think so. I think the answer to that is that AFTER the 9-11 attacks we finally pulled our pants up and started becoming more aware of security threats. However it hasnt stopped wacked out college students from going on a shooting rampage,or any of the other "attacks" that have happened by American citizens(non muslim/arab) since 9-11.

Fundies like to make the excuse that, well we need to fight em over there so that they dont come here. well, if they are already here as the Bush administration claims then why havent they done anything to us Since 9-11? It certainly is not because the administration is doing illegal wire taps and thwarting plans at every turn.:rolleyes: Believe me if these "terrorist sleeper cells" were wanting to attack us on our own soil they would have done it already. 9-11 would have been the incentive that the sleeper cells needed to start wreaking havoc on the US. So i think the whole excuse that Cons and repubs are making is pure and utter BULLSH!T!!

As for paying Taxes, Despite what you've heard, we actually pay more "taxes" than France or any European country -- and get none of the benefits they receive.

The only reason Social Security is running out of money is because people who make over $102,000 a year pay NO social security tax on what they make over $102,000 (if they did, we'd have enough money in Social Security for the next 75 years!).

Peace,TWS

1bad65

08-26-2008, 06:54 AM

Iraq was known to be involved in the training of terrorists and Saddam himself boasted how he paid suicide bomber's families for the bomber's actions. So don't even say Iraq was not into terrorism.

And we all know Afghanistan was. And still NO ATTACKS on US soil since 9/11.

Even you liberals have to admit that Reagan and GW Bush handled terrorism alot more effectively than Carter and Clinton. They actually did something about it! Imagine that.

1bad65

08-26-2008, 06:57 AM

As for paying Taxes, Despite what you've heard, we actually pay more "taxes" than France or any European country -- and get none of the benefits they receive.

You really live in your own little world, don't you? :rolleyes:

Don't worry, if Obama gets elected we can all pay at least $7 a gallon gas and be more like those Europeans who have obviously solved every economic problem known to man.

The Willow Sword

08-26-2008, 07:06 AM

into their fundamentalist mentally ill religious BS.On their own people (just like we are only not as extreme, or are we?) . Did they come over here?(they meaning iraqis) No they didnt. Yet another excuse that says well its better that we took saddam out now lest he do something rash to the USA. and actually he WAS about to do something rash to the USA. He was about to trade his oil in EURO dollars instead of US Dollars. We just couldnt allow that now could we?:rolleyes: oh yeah forgot, he tried to have Bush Senior wacked. almost succeeded. well i guess a vendetta is about as good of any reason to invade a country and turn it upside down and bomb thousands of innocent civilians. :rolleyes:

I tend to think a bit more detailed in that if someone tried to kill my dad i would go after the individual rather than his family and his relatives and his country and people etc etc. Seems like Italian Mob mentality ,if you ask me, that Bush and his cronies are exhibiting.

i also tend to think a little bit more focused on who it actually was that attacked us. Saudi's were on those planes and one syrian. But we are "friends" with those people. If we are such good friends then why in the hell did they attack us like that? and WHY didnt the Saudi government not do as much to quell their own findamentalist "terrorists"? well maybe its because THEY CELEBRATE AND SUPPORT their muslim radical leaders. Just like WE support our radical evangelical leaders. Maybe thats why we have so much in comon with Saudi arabia. or maybe its oil.:rolleyes:

Peace,TWS

SimonM

08-26-2008, 07:29 AM

I remember when this forum purported to be about martial arts. So I propose we invite McCain and Obama to a cage match.

Fight to submission, winner gets to be president.

Obama's younger and fitter but McCain has been tortured before and might have a higher pain threshold. It's be more entertaining than reading all this yawn inspiring back and forth between deluded conservatives who believe Obama is too far to the left and deluded liberals who believe Obama is not a conservative.

I'll give him this: he's good on gun laws and abortion. But seriously, the guy is not anything any real leftist would call left wing.

<ducks>

CLFLPstudent

08-26-2008, 07:32 AM

Iraq was known to be involved in the training of terrorists
The terrorist camps were inside of the no-fly zone. If we knew they were training there, we could have bombed them at will with no threat to our airplanes.
and Saddam himself boasted how he paid suicide bomber's families for the bomber's actions. So don't even say Iraq was not into terrorism.

So does Saudi Arabia. Why no war there?

And we all know Afghanistan was. And still NO ATTACKS on US soil since 9/11.

Even you liberals have to admit that Reagan and GW Bush handled terrorism alot more effectively than Carter and Clinton. They actually did something about it! Imagine that.

GW has made the region MORE unstable. As bad as Hussein was, he was hated by the Islamic Fundamentalists as much as we are. He kept them in check - how many suicide bombings happened in Iraq while he was in power? Now it is a calling for all of these idiots to come blow themselves up for Allah or whatever. We should have finished the job in Afghanistan and probably Pakistan, and gotten the hell home. Our armed forces are not trained to be, and aren't meant to be policemen.

1bad65

08-26-2008, 08:43 AM

The Saudi Arabian government pays suicide bomber's families? :eek: That's news to me. Care to provide proof of that.....

As for the danger Saddam posed, just listen to Joe Biden:

"Well, the point is, it turned out they didn't, but everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them. He catalogued - they catalogued them. This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream. This was, in fact, catalogued."

MasterKiller

08-26-2008, 09:22 AM

The majority of suicide bombers are Saudi.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/18791.html

CLFLPstudent

08-26-2008, 09:42 AM

Here is one article : http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,465438,00.html, but of course the 'official' word from the Saudi's is denial.

Another:http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0704/terrorist_insurance.php3

About channeling monies through the US, some of which originates in Saudi Arabia, to families of suicide bombers.

Here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/659113/posts a woman tells of getting checks from Iraq and Saudi Arabia

Here:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0204/12/bn.17.html
A transcript of a CNN broadcast about a telethon Saudi Arabia had to raise money for suicide bomber families

Here are some examples.... Don't tell me you think the Saudi's are not involved in this whole ****hole of a mess.

NJM

08-26-2008, 10:25 AM

Are you really this blind and stupid? Or are you trolling?

How am I being blind or stupid?

Ultimatewingchun

08-26-2008, 10:54 AM

"Anyone remember him acting like a total ******* to the guy with the rifle at the Democratic debate. It became a big deal on youtube."

***NO, but I do remember him totaling the guy on youtube with the assault rifle at the Democratic debate - the guy who referred to his rifle as "his baby" and wanted to know if Biden would pass legislation to help make it easier for law enforcement to "take his baby away from him".

The guy was a f u c k i n g sicko who needed to be called out - and Joe Biden had the guts to do it.

Which is one of the many reasons why he'll make a great vice president.

1bad65

08-26-2008, 11:19 AM

I'm not denying some Saudi citizens have supported and comitted terrorist acts. I want to see where the Saudi GOVERNMENT pays suicide bomber's families.

Saddam was the President of Iraq. He ran the country. He paid the bomber's families. I want to see where the Saudi GOVERNMENT does the same.

1bad65

08-26-2008, 11:21 AM

The guy was a f u c k i n g sicko who needed to be called out - and Joe Biden had the guts to do it.

I guess Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Patrick Henry, Ben Franklin, etc are all 'f u c k i n g sickos' as well then. :rolleyes:

SimonM

08-26-2008, 11:30 AM

Your constitution doesn't say "right to bear automatic assault weapons" right?

The Willow Sword

08-26-2008, 11:38 AM

but not obsessive about it like the numuts of the NRA are, the constitution DOES give us the right to bear "ARMS" and of course when that was adopted they did not have fully automatic "ARMS" at the time. we have since created more advanced weaponry. Do i need to explain it to you? dont insult intelligences here when it comes to constitution intepretation.

It was stupid and moronic for that guy to show up with "his baby" and parade himself like an idiot. Even though i dont really Like Joe Biden i think he dealt with that wacko perfectly. I think any other person who is a smart and humble gun owner would have kicked this guy's @ss as well.

Peace,TWS

1bad65

08-26-2008, 12:14 PM

Your constitution doesn't say "right to bear automatic assault weapons" right?

Gotta fall back on semantics, huh? :rolleyes:

Ok, lets do that. The 3rd Amendment reads:

"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

So, according to your logic the Goverment could do it an apartment, condominium, or mobile home then, right?

Lucas

08-26-2008, 12:19 PM

i want to start carrying a RPG in that case. can never be too safe. if one guy has a semi auto asault rifle, i want propelled grenades so im more safe from him.

you dont need more than a pistol imo. pistols kill people just fine. save the big guns for the police and military.

1bad65

08-26-2008, 12:20 PM

Basen on what Obama and Biden have said about gun owners, they have lost a big part of a large voting bloc.

Remember how well Obama's condescending remarks on guns and religion played out in Pennsylvania? A toss up state went overwhelmingly to Hillary after his remarks.

1bad65

08-26-2008, 12:22 PM

save the big guns for the police and military.

In the Founding Fathers time, private citiznes actually had better, more accurate rifles than the Armies of the day did. They trusted the citizenry because they knew an armed populace was the best way to combat tyranny.

What does that say about politicians who want to outlaw as many guns as possible in the hands of the people?

Lucas

08-26-2008, 12:24 PM

muskets? please.

your lowest grade modern pistol makes the best gun back then look like a toy.

there is necessity and then there is desire. two totally different things.

also, our population is QUITE a bit different then it was a couple hundy years ago.

Lucas

08-26-2008, 12:27 PM

SimonM

08-26-2008, 12:30 PM

Gotta fall back on semantics, huh? :rolleyes:

Ok, lets do that. The 3rd Amendment reads:

"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

So, according to your logic the Goverment could do it an apartment, condominium, or mobile home then, right?

Actually no.

What I'm arguing is that limiting the scope of those arms which the public has access to is not violating the right to carry non-descript "arms".

As the second ammendment speaks to what is allowed and the third instead speaks to a disallowed activity they are not a good comparisson. Instead I'd be more likely to compare it to the first ammendment and how it has been ruled in your courts that it does not protect libelous print, slanderous speech or shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre.

SimonM

08-26-2008, 12:35 PM

dont get me wrong, im all for owning guns. rifles are fine, if they are for hunting. (although if your really cool you use a bow) but imo you dont NEEEEEEEED more than a handgun.

you just dont need more.

There is a reasonable argument for allowing access to bolt-action rifles and breech loading shotguns. You know, for hunting.

But assault rifles, sub machine guns, rocket launchers and tactical nuclear weapons should NOT be in public hands.

MasterKiller

08-26-2008, 12:41 PM

In the Founding Fathers time, private citiznes actually had better, more accurate rifles than the Armies of the day did. They trusted the citizenry because they knew an armed populace was the best way to combat tyranny.

They also counted slaves as 1/3 of a person. That was then. This is now.

Vash

08-26-2008, 12:44 PM

Please note her comments on the home-owner defending his place of residence against a mob.

Also, the remarks regarding the real reason for Amendment Two.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675&pr=goog-sl

The Willow Sword

08-26-2008, 12:44 PM

Having an AR in your home i think is warranted, just in case the sh!t really hits the fan and you need to utilize something effective. As for general home defense, a pump action shotgun is just fine. IF this country ever had to defend itself from an invader it would behoove us to have something like an AR. The Point is being responsable and not obsessing over it. Keeping a weapon like an AR under tight lock and key and only utilizing it if you are in dire emergency.(of course there is practice at your local firing range).

I dont think that Obama/Biden is going to relinquish the 2nd amendment and take all our Arms away. This will never happen, it just wont. But regulating things can be a good idea especially if you have some nutjob who has a criminal history and an overstated sense of paranoia. and yes yes yes people are going to get guns no matter what. but we DO have to have some sort of regulations. People need to be made accountable under the eyes of the law the consequences of their actions and certain gun regulations make for that to happen. Because some dumb hick who has priors for domestic abuse or DUI gets all p!ssed because he cant own an AR 14 or some other weapon and makes the excuse that his "constitutional rights" are in violation. hey man its the price you pay for being a low life. so if you own a weapon illegally and you get caught then you have to answer for it.

Peace,TWS

Vash

08-26-2008, 12:47 PM

They also counted slaves as 1/3 of a person. That was then. This is now.

How do you equate slavery with weapons retention?

KC Elbows

08-26-2008, 01:10 PM

Ronald Reagan and John F Kennedy. 1980, 1984 and 1960 respectively.

See how easy it is to answer questions in a debate, maybe NJM and B-Rad could try it one day. :rolleyes:

You weren't old enough to vote in any of the elections you just mentioned. The question was which ones did YOU elect.

KC Elbows

08-26-2008, 01:16 PM

It's not just the taxes, it's all the regulations they have to deal with. If you watched the Olympics, it's not too hard to figure out the Communist Chinese obviously do not have near the environmental laws we do. Their air makes Southern California's look great! It's also quite pathetic companies in the United States of America find it cheaper to do business in A COMMUNIST COUNTRY rather than in their own country.

And yes, many jobs are lost to China. I work in the high-tech industry. We invented the term 'outsourcing'. So I think I know a thing or two on the subject.

Outsourcing is different than companies moving outright to there, which they won't be doing even with more taxes, because China still has some risks companies aren't so willing to subject themselves to.

Additionally, the US economy would have to fall quite a bit to make it worth while not to outsource some jobs, and cutting or raising taxes will not change that fact. Nonetheless, some products are not so easy to make outside of the first world, and the liability issues of doing business in China are certainly important.

Additionally, if corporate welfare is not an issue, welfare on the whole isn't. I'm certain you don't believe that.

SimonM

08-26-2008, 01:29 PM

Assault Rifles and Home Defense:

Let's look at the qualities of the AR and compare it to the needs of home defense counterbalanced to risk to bystanders:

1) Penetration of shots: Assault rifles propel projectiles forcefully. The bullets are shaped to penetrate. That means they don't lodge and bounce around inside a body or bounce off of a wooden beam in the frame of your house. They punch through.

2) Range of fire: Assault rifles tend to be very long range weapons, especially compared to handguns and shotguns. They can effectively hit people from much ****her away than the opposite side of the living room... in fact that is what they were designed for.

3) Rate of fire: What differentiates bolt-action rifles from assault rifles is that an assault rifle can potentially fire much quicker than bolt action weapons.

So you have a weapon that can potentially spray bullets a considerable distance with rapidity and these bullets can potentially penetrate narrow walls, windows, etc. and keep on going. In most ordinary home-defense scenarios more control is better. Go with a hand gun or, better yet, a bladed or thrusting melee weapon (or even better a baseball bat). After all self defense is based on the precept of minimum necessary force. In a worst case scenario, a home invasion by a group of violent armed assailants, you are probably screwed just as much with an assault rifle as with any "lesser" weapon. You just might take another one or two people down with you. So really it's not significantly enhancing your safety to have military grade weapons.

What's more, with more controlled weapons the chance that you, the defending party, will injure an innocent bystander are reduced. Low caliber hand guns with a low muzzle velocity and bullets that are more likely to stay in the body of the target than punch through are just less dangerous to the kids next door.

SimonM

08-26-2008, 01:30 PM

How do you equate slavery with weapons retention?

His point was that the culture of the founding fathers was different from your modern culture.

1bad65

08-26-2008, 01:46 PM

As the second ammendment speaks to what is allowed and the third instead speaks to a disallowed activity they are not a good comparisson.

Read the Bill of Rights one day.

Notice how it when it says 'shall not' its ALWAYS in reference to the State/Government and NEVER in reference to the people. Anyone who tries to say the Constitution is about limits as to what the people can do has truly *******ized that great document.

1bad65

08-26-2008, 01:47 PM

You weren't old enough to vote in any of the elections you just mentioned. The question was which ones did YOU elect.

No true conservative has been elected since I could vote. I have done my part by voting, the last 2 I voted for were Alan Keyes and Ron Paul.

Lucas

08-26-2008, 01:48 PM

Its all in the name. Assault Rifle.

I cant remember the last time I or anyone I know actually needed an assault rifle to defend their home.

If you do, your either into organized crime and have gotten yourself where you deserve, or you are fighting the police force and deserve to be shot.

If you need more or faster bullets, get two pistols.

I do have a few friends that own assault rifles, and I've had a lot of fun shooting them out in the canyons at targets, old cars, and other random things. But I'll stand by my reasoning that we dont need them in the general populace.

Well, until the zombie apocolypse gets there, then we should hand em out like candy.

1bad65

08-26-2008, 01:51 PM

In reference to China, I say again that is truly a disgrace that companies find it easier and cheaper to deal with a Communist country than the US. That's just pathetic.

You're correct in that none will completely move 100% of their operations over there right now, but we have lost thousands of jobs to China. And if the taxes and regulations keep making it harder, US businesses will find a way to survive. Will that mean moving to China? Or the Caribbean? Or Europe? Who knows, but if they cannot survive here, they will have 2 choices- Leave or Go Bankrupt.

Why not just make it easier for them to do business here in the first place?

Lucas

08-26-2008, 01:55 PM

SimonM

08-26-2008, 01:55 PM

Read the Bill of Rights one day.

Notice how it when it says 'shall not' its ALWAYS in reference to the State/Government and NEVER in reference to the people. Anyone who tries to say the Constitution is about limits as to what the people can do has truly *******ized that great document.

I was reading your bill of rights when I made reference to that.

The fact that the second refers to what is allowed to the public while the third sets limits on government behaviour actually strengthens my argument - that comparing the second and third ammendments is invalid.

As I said in my previous post the restrictions on speech that are not seen as violations of the first ammendment are a better comparrison to gun control law.

NJM

08-26-2008, 02:08 PM

Don't worry guys.

John McCain says you can't invade countries in the 21st century.

That **** is actually impossible now.

Nobody can do it.

It hasn't been done in the 21st century.

Lucas

08-26-2008, 02:09 PM

lol.

that was a good one.

Vash

08-26-2008, 02:15 PM

His point was that the culture of the founding fathers was different from your modern culture.

That shows what sleep deprivation does for you.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Ultimatewingchun

08-26-2008, 02:22 PM

As usual, ibad, you're both disengenuous and clueless - just like the Karl Rove lie-through-your-teeth-to-get-what-you-want spin machine that you obviously try to emulate on any and all political theads you participate in.

Washington, Jefferson, and the like would have vomited all over the the headcase on youtube with the assault rifle he loves more than life itself...his "baby".

1bad65

08-26-2008, 03:50 PM

As usual, ibad, you're both disengenuous and clueless - just like the Karl Rove lie-through-your-teeth-to-get-what-you-want spin machine that you obviously try to emulate on any and all political theads you participate in.

Name just one thing I have said that is untrue. One.

Washington, Jefferson, and the like would have vomited all over the the headcase on youtube with the assault rifle he loves more than life itself...his "baby".

I'm not so sure. But I'm fairly certain they would have tarred-and-feathered people like Nancy Pelosi, Obama, Joe Biden, and Bill Clinton.

The Founding Fathers were outraged at the high taxes the government levied on people. Back then the average taxes a family paid was around 2%. Now its around 50%.

rogue

08-26-2008, 05:42 PM

The terrorist camps were inside of the no-fly zone. If we knew they were training there, we could have bombed them at will with no threat to our airplanes.

Bomb are less effective for that kind of thing then you would think. You really want a head count, see who you got and pick up intel. Can't to that with a B-1.

So does Saudi Arabia. Why no war there?

Oil, they don't project military power (we help them with that) and they are smart enough not to threaten those who help guarantee their existence.

GW has made the region MORE unstable. As bad as Hussein was, he was hated by the Islamic Fundamentalists as much as we are. He kept them in check - how many suicide bombings happened in Iraq while he was in power? Now it is a calling for all of these idiots to come blow themselves up for Allah or whatever. We should have finished the job in Afghanistan and probably Pakistan, and gotten the hell home. Our armed forces are not trained to be, and aren't meant to be policemen.

How did Bush make the area more unstable as the place has been a basket case for at least 5 or 6 decades? It also doesn't matter to anyone but an Iraqi how many suicide bombings happened on their soil, what matters is how many suicide bombings did he help happen elsewhere.

Assault Rifles and Home Defense:

Let's look at the qualities of the AR and compare it to the needs of home defense counterbalanced to risk to bystanders:

1) Penetration of shots: Assault rifles propel projectiles forcefully. The bullets are shaped to penetrate. That means they don't lodge and bounce around inside a body or bounce off of a wooden beam in the frame of your house. They punch through.[quote]

That depends on the cartridge...
The 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge with the standard military ball bullet (NATO: SS109; U.S.: M855) will penetrate approximately 15 to 20 inches (38 to 50 cm) into soft tissue in ideal circumstances. As with all spitzer shaped projectiles it is prone to yaw in soft tissue. However, at impact velocities above roughly 2,700 ft/s (820 m/s), it may yaw and then fragment at the cannelure (the groove around the cylinder of the bullet). These fragments can disperse through flesh and bone, inflicting additional internal injuries.[1] Fragmentation, if and when it occurs, seems to impart much greater damage to tissue than bullet dimensions and velocities would suggest. This fragmentation effect is highly dependent on velocity, and therefore barrel length: short-barreled rifles generate less muzzle velocity and therefore rounds lose effectiveness at much shorter ranges than longer-barreled rifles.

There has been much criticism of the poor performance of the round, especially the first-round kill rate when using firearms that don't achieve the velocity to cause fragmentation. This typically becomes an issue at longer ranges (over 100 m) or when penetrating heavy clothing, but this problem is compounded in shorter-barreled weapons. The 14.5-inch (37 cm) barrel of the U.S. military's M4 Carbine can be particularly prone to this problem. At short ranges, the round is reported to be mostly effective, and its tendency to fragment reduces the risk of "overpenetration" when used at close range. However, if the round is moving too slowly to reliably fragment on impact, the wound size and potential to incapacitate a person is greatly reduced. Several alternate cartridges have been developed in an attempt to address the perceived shortcomings of 5.56 mm ammunition including the 6.5 Grendel and the 6.8 SPC.

Recently, advances have been made in 5.56 mm ammunition. The US military has adopted for limited issue a 77-grain (5.0 g) "Match" bullet, type classified as the Mk 262. The heavy, lightly constructed bullet fragments more violently at short range and also has a longer fragmentation range.[citation needed] Originally designed for use in the Mk 12 SPR, the ammunition has found favor with special forces[citation needed] units who were seeking a more effective round to fire from their M4A1 carbines.

[quote]2) Range of fire: Assault rifles tend to be very long range weapons, especially compared to handguns and shotguns. They can effectively hit people from much ****her away than the opposite side of the living room... in fact that is what they were designed for.

ARs are not very long range weapons but more for short to medium range. Barrel length is usually a clue to what a weapons range is.

3) Rate of fire: What differentiates bolt-action rifles from assault rifles is that an assault rifle can potentially fire much quicker than bolt action weapons.

Well duh. A double action revolver can fire much faster than a bolt action weapon. What differentiates a bolt action from an assault weapon is that one is manual and the other isn't.

Oso

08-26-2008, 05:54 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/26/obama.threat/index.html

just saying...that I said something a couple days ago

1bad65

08-26-2008, 07:44 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/26/obama.threat/index.html

just saying...that I said something a couple days ago

Some have said that Obama picking Biden is a form of life insurance. See, if Obama wins and is assassinated, that idot becomes President.

1bad65

08-26-2008, 07:46 PM

Bomb are less effective for that kind of thing then you would think. You really want a head count, see who you got and pick up intel. Can't to that with a B-1.

Correct. Bill Clinton tried the 'just lob a few Tomahawk missiles their way' strategy. And we all saw what a deterrent to terrorism that was. :rolleyes:

CLFLPstudent

08-26-2008, 08:41 PM

Bomb are less effective for that kind of thing then you would think. You really want a head count, see who you got and pick up intel. Can't to that with a B-1.

So the 1000's of sorties we flew over Iraq/Kuwait in Gulf War I had little effect? Better we risk the lives of our servicemen/women for this crap? How much less cost in lives and dollars would this action have cost us if we stuck to bombings and cruise missile strikes?

Oil, they don't project military power (we help them with that) and they are smart enough not to threaten those who help guarantee their existence.

Are you saying Iraq's military power had the strength to hit us on US soil? Are you agreeing that Saudi Arabia is not as innocent as most would like to believe?

How did Bush make the area more unstable as the place has been a basket case for at least 5 or 6 decades? It also doesn't matter to anyone but an Iraqi how many suicide bombings happened on their soil, what matters is how many suicide bombings did he help happen elsewhere.

By removing a leader who was as AS HATED BY THE FUNDAMENTALIST AS WE ARE. Yeah he was an asshat but he didn't trust the fundamentalists either and kept them in check. Now you have jihadist asshats running all over the country blowing themselves up to kill americans - many of these asshats are Saudi as was stated above. By giving the poor, uneducated and misguided people who are brainwashed into believing there will be 1000 virgins waiting for them when they ignite their bomb belts ( who are taught this in, among other places, Saudi Arabia) a place to kill americans, GW made the area more unstable than it was before.

Black Jack II

08-26-2008, 08:52 PM

The guy was a f u c k i n g sicko who needed to be called out - and Joe Biden had the guts to do it.

The guy was not a sicko you total lunatic. He was showcasing his natural Freedom granted to us by our very sacred 2nd. Binden was tested and failed. Their is a reason he has the lowest score from the NRA.

Washington, Jefferson, and the like would have vomited all over the the headcase on youtube with the assault rifle he loves more than life itself...his "baby".

It was not an assault rifle. Get educated you head case. Washington and Jefferson would of totally understood the concept he was imparting.

Penetration of shots: Assault rifles propel projectiles forcefully. The bullets are shaped to penetrate. That means they don't lodge and bounce around inside a body or bounce off of a wooden beam in the frame of your house. They punch through.

Dead Wrong. Where the hell did you learn terminal ballistics??

BTW- All rifles fire projectiles forcefully:rolleyes:

The 5.56 nato round actually is made to bounce around and lodge inside the targets body to create a more deadly wound channel. It is the main reason the soviets made some transformations on the AK-47's much larger grain 7.62 to the AK-74's 5.45 after seeing what the M-16 was capable of doing in Nam.

Listen, it is all about the bullet, different rounds are constructed to behave in different ways, depending on the intended target. What are you talking about, copper jacketed steel core's, frangible rounds, long range rounds with very low drag...........get a context.

It's all about the rounds and muzzle energy. Compare it to the engine under the hood of the car.

Their is so much science involved in shooting you need a math degree. If you don't know what you are talking about take a seat.

Range of fire: Assault rifles tend to be very long range weapons, especially compared to handguns and shotguns. They can effectively hit people from much ****her away than the opposite side of the living room... in fact that is what they were designed for.

What you are not getting and I doubt you ever will is that they tie the scare tactic buzzword of Assault Rifle, of which I own more than one btw under the now defunct 1994 ban, and really class it in with any rifle.

What you just said above, besides being a uneducated sounding statement, goes for any high powered hunting rifle or carbine for that matter.

Do you even know their is a difference between a Battle Rifle and a Assault Rifle?

Rate of fire: What differentiates bolt-action rifles from assault rifles is that an assault rifle can potentially fire much quicker than bolt action weapons.

A assault rifle is selective fire. None of the weapons under the now defunct Assault weapons band were selective fire. They were not automatic weapons. It was a bullcrap law made to scare sheeple.

Go with a hand gun or, better yet, a bladed or thrusting melee weapon (or even better a baseball bat). After all self defense is based on the precept of minimum necessary force. In a worst case scenario, a home invasion by a group of violent armed assailants, you are probably screwed just as much with an assault rifle as with any "lesser" weapon. You just might take another one or two people down with you. So really it's not significantly enhancing your safety to have military grade weapons.

This has to be one of the most uneducated statements I have seen on this board in a LONG time. Please tell me you don't teach self defense.

These people may not even be around if not for there use of firearms.

http://www.khou.com/news/local/stories/khou080808_mp_burglar_shot.28b59d49.html

http://www.sunherald.com/pageone/story/711027.html

http://www.ocala.com/article/20080723/NEWS/306035810/0/News01

LMAO at suggesting a knife or bat is better...**** I need to get drunk now.

1bad65

08-26-2008, 09:01 PM

So the 1000's of sorties we flew over Iraq/Kuwait in Gulf War I had little effect? Better we risk the lives of our servicemen/women for this crap? How much less cost in lives and dollars would this action have cost us if we stuck to bombings and cruise missile strikes?

The Gulf War was a conventional war. What we have now in Iraq is a guerilla/insurgent war. They are completely different, and thus require different tactics.

CLFLPstudent

08-26-2008, 09:11 PM

The Gulf War was a conventional war. What we have now in Iraq is a guerilla/insurgent war. They are completely different, and thus require different tactics.

No, we are talking about terrorist camps in the north of Iraq. We knew about them. They were in the Iraq no-fly zone. We controlled the airspace completely. We could have bombed and fired cruise missiles at will, non-stop. Are you telling me that would not have had an effect?

-David

bakxierboxer

08-26-2008, 09:21 PM

.... deluded conservatives who believe Obama is too far to the left......

Actually, there are some who'll swear that he's too far to the right.... but that was pretty obviously based on the video clip of his tossing a gutter-ball when he attempted to show that he's "just folks" at a local bowling alley......

1bad65

08-26-2008, 09:23 PM

No, we are talking about terrorist camps in the north of Iraq. We knew about them. They were in the Iraq no-fly zone. We controlled the airspace completely. We could have bombed and fired cruise missiles at will, non-stop. Are you telling me that would not have had an effect?

Remember, we got a UN resolution to invade Iraq and remove Saddam. Are you saying Bush should have just bombed these supposed camps on his own valition?

1bad65

08-26-2008, 09:26 PM

but that was pretty obviously based on the video clip of his tossing a gutter-ball when he attempted to show that he's "just folks" at a local bowling alley......

Was it anything like John Kerry trying to eat that Philly Cheesesteak and looking like a fool? ;)

I love how these elitist liberals always go to county fairs, bowling alleys, and eat fast food just to try and connect with the 'common man'.

NJM

08-26-2008, 09:27 PM

Remember, we got a UN resolution to invade Iraq and remove Saddam.
Dude, what the ****?

I just told you, McCain explained that.

There ARE no invasions in the 21st century. Stop making stuff up.

bakxierboxer

08-26-2008, 10:09 PM

Was it anything like John Kerry trying to eat that Philly Cheesesteak and looking like a fool? ;)

I don't recall that Kerry actually got around to trying to eat the dang thing.... I do remember that they quickly left the fast-food joint and went looking for "proper food" (preferably something French?)

I love how these elitist liberals always go to county fairs, bowling alleys, and eat fast food just to try and connect with the 'common man'.

Yeah... it usually ends up looking "wrong" one way or another.

In any case, the "event" is thoroughly documented on Google, although the actual "money shot" is nowhere to be seen....

rogue

08-27-2008, 04:44 AM

By removing a leader who was as AS HATED BY THE FUNDAMENTALIST AS WE ARE. Yeah he was an asshat but he didn't trust the fundamentalists either and kept them in check. Now you have jihadist asshats running all over the country blowing themselves up to kill americans - many of these asshats are Saudi as was stated above. By giving the poor, uneducated and misguided people who are brainwashed into believing there will be 1000 virgins waiting for them when they ignite their bomb belts ( who are taught this in, among other places, Saudi Arabia) a place to kill americans, GW made the area more unstable than it was before.

Ummmm, I'd like to make a minor point, hatred of Sadaam didn't stop Islamic terrorists from hitting us on Oct 12, 2000 (USS Cole), June 25 1996 (Khobar Towers), Aug. 7, 1998 U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam Tanzania, June 14, 2002 American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, and a little thing on 9/11/2001. All before removing Sadaam.

rogue

08-27-2008, 04:46 AM

I watched Hillary last night and have to wonder how come she's not at the top of the ticket. I really don't like her policies but have to say she looked and sounded good, even possibly presidential.

Mas Judt

08-27-2008, 05:08 AM

Hah! Isn't Biden the guy who wrote the 'omnibus counter-terrorism act' of 1995? After the McVeigh bombing? You know, the act that would have allowed the US military to be used domestically to arrest people and makes the Patriot Act look completely unobtrusive on our rights.

Wheee - now Obama is going to give his acceptance speech in a place that 'looks like a greek temple.'

Speaking of Obama - this child of Chicago politics - where the mob, business and government are intertwined - is a typical Chicago hack - taking money for favors as a state senator, and extensive ties to questionable sorts. I can't even imagine the f@cking we will get when Chicago politics go national...

SimonM

08-27-2008, 06:16 AM

He was showcasing his natural Freedom granted to us by our very sacred 2nd.

natural freedom?!?
sacred second ammendment?!?!??!

So I see it that you have elevated constitutional law to the level of religion. Or do you, rather, worship on the altar of the boomstick. Either way I hope you aren't a christian since you are breaking one of those pesky commandments.

MasterKiller

08-27-2008, 06:19 AM

Was it anything like John Kerry trying to eat that Philly Cheesesteak and looking like a fool? ;)

I love how these elitist liberals always go to county fairs, bowling alleys, and eat fast food just to try and connect with the 'common man'.

LOL. Like East-Coast-born, Yale-educated, Coke-sniffing G W Bush pulling weeds at his Texas ranch during interviews?

Remember, Bush lost his first run for Governor because they called him an elitist outsider. :rolleyes:

The Willow Sword

08-27-2008, 06:44 AM

pwned:cool:

Bush was the worst governor we ever had here in Texas and Ann Richards was the Best, rest her soul.

1bad65

08-27-2008, 06:50 AM

Remember, Bush lost his first run for Governor because they called him an elitist outsider. :rolleyes:

You may want to get your facts straight before posting.

1bad65

08-27-2008, 06:52 AM

natural freedom?!?
sacred second ammendment?!?!??!

So I see it that you have elevated constitutional law to the level of religion. Or do you, rather, worship on the altar of the boomstick. Either way I hope you aren't a christian since you are breaking one of those pesky commandments.

Actually the Founding Fathers did say our rights were God given.

MasterKiller

08-27-2008, 06:57 AM

You may want to get your facts straight before posting.

The House, my bad. Nevertheless...

"In 1978, Bush ran for the House of Representatives from Texas's 19th congressional district. His opponent, Kent Hance, portrayed him as being out of touch with rural Texans"

SimonM

08-27-2008, 07:00 AM

Answer me this 1 bad:

Do you believe that the founding fathers of the United States had some sort of special connection to the divine?

Do you believe that they could forsee the development of weapons technology over the subsequent 230 years?

Do you believe civilians, in the United States, should have unrestricted access to weapons of mass destruction?

1bad65

08-27-2008, 07:09 AM

Do you believe that the founding fathers of the United States had some sort of special connection to the divine?

Not any special connection, but they were Christians and proud of it. They also said their religious beliefs did indeed influence their policy decisions.

Do you believe that they could forsee the development of weapons technology over the subsequent 230 years?

Common sense says they would know weaponry would get more advanced as time went on. But again, the average citizen had a rifle far superior to the ones the armies of the day fielded and yet the Fathers had no problem allowing them the rights to own the superior weapons.

Do you believe civilians, in the United States, should have unrestricted access to weapons of mass destruction?

No.

1bad65

08-27-2008, 07:11 AM

1. Do you think the Founding Fathers would have supported killing unborn babies based solely on the mother's whims?

2. Do you think they would support the average family paying around 50% of their income as taxes?

CLFLPstudent

08-27-2008, 07:13 AM

Ummmm, I'd like to make a minor point, hatred of Sadaam didn't stop Islamic terrorists from hitting us on Oct 12, 2000 (USS Cole), June 25 1996 (Khobar Towers), Aug. 7, 1998 U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam Tanzania, June 14, 2002 American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, and a little thing on 9/11/2001. All before removing Sadaam.

How many of these bombings were done by Iraqi terrorists? How many were done by terrorists trained in iraq? Are you one of those who believe that Iraq had a part in September 11? :rolleyes: Sure, terrorist attacks have happened while Hussein was in power, where is the correlation?

When we established the 'no-fly' zones in Iraq, we effectively allowed the terrorist camps to set up without fear of attack by Hussein. I'm saying if we bombed and cruise missile'd the **** out of it instead of sending in our troops on the ground, how much would we have saved in terms of money and american lives?

-David

MasterKiller

08-27-2008, 07:18 AM

Not any special connection, but they were Christians and proud of it. They also said their religious beliefs did indeed influence their policy decisions.

Maybe you should get your facts straight. Some were Deists and Unitarians. Thomas Jefferson called Christianity "the cult of Jesus" and predicted it would die out.

John Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

SimonM

08-27-2008, 07:26 AM

Not any special connection, but they were Christians and proud of it. They also said their religious beliefs did indeed influence their policy decisions.

Oks so what they believe was given to them by God is human and fallable. So that implies that the constitution, written by those men, is NOT a divine document. Moving on.

Common sense says they would know weaponry would get more advanced as time went on. But again, the average citizen had a rifle far superior to the ones the armies of the day fielded and yet the Fathers had no problem allowing them the rights to own the superior weapons.

Not really answering the question I asked. That being said I'd argue that the rapidity of technological change has followed an exponential pattern through the 20th century. At the end of the 1700s it was certainly picking up from the 1000 years of relative torpor that proceeded it but I would suggest that the rate of change was something that your founding fathers could not accurately estimate.

No.

Ok, so in principle you agree that the 2nd ammendment does not provide unrestricted access to any armarment. Because if you believed it did allow that unrestricted access you would have to argue civilians should be allowed tactical nuclear weapons - since they are arms and since the 2nd ammendment does not specify firearms. Once you agree to that weapon control laws exit from the realm of constitutional law (just as libel and slander are not in the realm of constitutional law despite the appearance of restricting the application of the first ammendment). As long as civilians have access to some sort of "arms" the constitution is, in letter, adhered to.

SimonM

08-27-2008, 07:30 AM

1. Do you think the Founding Fathers would have supported killing unborn babies based solely on the mother's whims?

Considering they considered slaves (who were born) to count as 1/3 of a person I question whether they could have reasonably considered the incomplete genetic material of parents that would eventually become a baby to have personhood.

2. Do you think they would support the average family paying around 50% of their income as taxes?

No. But that doesn't mean that taxation for services isn't a good idea. The economy of 230 years ago is rather different than the one of today.

Here is one major difference: I consider the opinions of the founding fathers of the USA to be largely irrelevant. More eighteenth century hypocracy at it's best. You think it's important. :D

MasterKiller

08-27-2008, 07:57 AM

It should also be mentioned that the founding fathers were part of the enlightenment and therefore their religious practice revolved around REASON, far removed from the faith-based fundamentialists Christians we see today.

Black Jack II

08-27-2008, 08:04 AM

Actually the Founding Fathers did say our rights were God given.

Beat me to it:D

Do you believe that the founding fathers of the United States had some sort of special connection to the divine?

No. But the core of what is America was greatly influenced by the values and belief structure in Christian principles. But when the Founders wrote the nation's Constitution, they specified that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article 6, section 3)

They wanted to ensure that no single religion could make the claim of being the official national religion, such as England had.

Do you believe that they could forsee the development of weapons technology over the subsequent 230 years?

LMAO-typical side angle attack on the 2nd. Get something new. But considering your lack of knowledge on firearms in your previous post its not at all uncommon.

Here is one major difference: I consider the opinions of the founding fathers of the USA to be largely irrelevant.

Your from Canada so who gives a sh!t when it comes to that topic.

1bad65

08-27-2008, 08:18 AM

I consider the opinions of the founding fathers of the USA to be largely irrelevant.

They only wrote the Constitution for the country that has become the most prosperous country in the world.

Do you put more value in the opinions of people like Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, and Bill Clinton by chance?

1bad65

08-27-2008, 08:20 AM

Maybe you should get your facts straight. Some were Deists and Unitarians. Thomas Jefferson called Christianity "the cult of Jesus" and predicted it would die out.

Actually most were Christians, Protestants to be more precise.

But in their wisdom they made sure to give the people freedom of religion, even though they knew some would choose religions other than their own.

SimonM

08-27-2008, 08:20 AM

Do you believe that the founding fathers of the United States had some sort of special connection to the divine?
No.

Ok so the document is NOT sacred.

Your from Canada so who gives a sh!t when it comes to that topic.

Apparently 1bad65 does.

And if I can heckle the crazies who believe that the Christian God told them that they had permission to carry assault... sorry "battle" rifles and get some entertainment out of my blase work day before I head to the kwoon for a good sweat than I'm happy.

Honestly I couldn't care less if I convince you of anything. You are a complete nutjob. It's just fun poking at your pseudo-religious pseudo-patriotism bound in a misinterpretation of a centuries old rationalist legal document. :D

1bad65

08-27-2008, 08:21 AM

Considering they considered slaves (who were born) to count as 1/3 of a person I question whether they could have reasonably considered the incomplete genetic material of parents that would eventually become a baby to have personhood.

They did say we all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

1bad65

08-27-2008, 08:28 AM

Ok so the document is NOT sacred.

The document created a system of government that has given us ALOT more prosperity than you socialists in Canada.

And if I can heckle the crazies who believe that the Christian God told them that they had permission to carry assault... sorry "battle" rifles...

No one said that, idiot. But considering you were educated in a socialist country, we know why your reading comprehension skills are lacking.

MasterKiller

08-27-2008, 08:32 AM

Actually most were Christians, Protestants to be more precise.

But in their wisdom they made sure to give the people freedom of religion, even though they knew some would choose religions other than their own.

Actually, MOST were freemasons which were Deist, by the most. The Constitution itself never mentions God or Christianity. The reference God in the Declaration of Independence is a Deist reference to the Natural Order.

SimonM

08-27-2008, 08:48 AM

The document created a system of government that has given us ALOT more prosperity than you socialists in Canada.

That is highly questionable. Us socialists in Canada got Canada universal health care that uniformly scores higher ratings from independent third parties than your mess. Canada is not a bunch of bumpkins living in igloos and talking in hoser accents.

He was showcasing his natural Freedom granted to us by our very sacred 2nd.

No one said that, idiot. But considering you were educated in a socialist country, we know why your reading comprehension skills are lacking.

Referencing the freedom to carry arms as a "natural" freedom (a reference to natural law which is law reflecting the fundamental nature of reality) - which in this context, combined with the use of the word sacred, implies the intervention of the divine. Or, a god-given right. So, actually, Black Jack II DID say that. And I was responding to Black Jack II when I countered.

And Canada is not a socialist country. Us socialists managed to include a few socialist ideas into the social safety net... because, get this, THEY WORK... but Canada is a member of the G8 and very much plays the capitalist game.

Black Jack II

08-27-2008, 09:07 AM

He was showcasing his natural Freedom granted to us by our very sacred 2nd

Again with the comprehension issue. Sacred can mean regarded with reverence or secured against infringement. Kind of like how someone takes a sacred oath...

That is highly questionable. Us socialists in Canada got Canada universal health care that uniformly scores higher ratings from independent third parties than your mess.

Universal health care is a cancer. Our mess, you mean the mess which provides the best emergency health care system in the world:rolleyes:

SimonM

08-27-2008, 09:12 AM

It was the bit about "natural" freedoms that drives your statement AWAY from that definition of sacred. It is not my comprehension that is at fault.
You are just **** poor at expressing yourself if that wasn't your intent.

Black Jack II

08-27-2008, 09:18 AM

Actually, MOST were freemasons which were Deist, by the most.

Very true, a main virtue in being a Freemason is the believe in a Supreme Being or in some jurisdictions, a Creative Principle.

Freemasons always stress non-dogmatism and tolerance (albeit often within certain defined limits). This openness has led to friction between Freemasonry and organizations which hold a negative view of ecumenism, or are themselves intolerant towards other forms of belief and worship. Masons have been opposed throughout history by various religious groups, such as some Protestants and certain Muslims.

If you want to get historic, Freemasonry is often identified with 19th-century bourgeois liberalism and often viewed traditional Christianity as a reactionary power defending the status quo against the advance of human freedom and science.

By this we mean the Church proper and not believe in a Grand Architect.

Black Jack II

08-27-2008, 09:25 AM

It was the bit about "natural" freedoms that drives your statement AWAY from that definition of sacred.

Sorry no cigar for you.

Freedom is a broad concept and it can be given a number of interpretations by different schools of thought.

When we speak of the right to bear arms it is a inner freedom to the right of self defense. The right you are born with as an autonomous being who is capable of exerting free will and choice.

Not freedom in terms of political liberty. Though this two is part of what makes American the great experiment.

SimonM

08-27-2008, 09:28 AM

Way to backpedal nutjob.

The Willow Sword

08-27-2008, 09:29 AM

Not any special connection, but they were Christians and proud of it. They also said their religious beliefs did indeed influence their policy decisions.

Actually the founding fathers were "deists" or "freethinkers" and they may have been christian but one of the main reasons for doing what they set out to do was to get the religious influences OUT of government/policy(they were not religious zealots nor were they evangelical radicals). Hence why the revolution started to begin with. Taxation with representation, and keeping the church/royalty OUT of policy governing. or did you forget that? i think you did, just reminded you.

Common sense says they would know weaponry would get more advanced as time went on. But again, the average citizen had a rifle far superior to the ones the armies of the day fielded and yet the Fathers had no problem allowing them the rights to own the superior weapons.

This line of reasoning doesnt ring of common sense to me, back then it was musket rifles and musket pistols and cannons. Citizens werent allowed to own cannons at their front door(which seemed to be the "advsnced weaponry of the time), they WERE allowed their rifles for hunting and when the time came to be called into service they would have one at the ready, since back then rifles were utilized for hunting primarily and defending one's home secondary.

1. Do you think the Founding Fathers would have supported killing unborn babies based solely on the mother's whims?

I think the founding fathers would not have utilized the government to dictate a womans reproductive rights, this would have been a church matter but still i dont feel, based on the writings of the founding fathers, that they would have even allowed the church to dictate or control ANYONE. However the mentality back then was different and the constitution did not protect slaves or even free them. things change and move forward, glad that we have a evolution of thought and ideals to abolish slavery, give women voting rights, give a choice to a woman and her own body.

2. Do you think they would support the average family paying around 50% of their income as taxes?

Hard to say, the economy was terrible back then. after the revolutionary war the American economy sucked big time and we almost lost the country back to the britts in the war of 1812(no-one wants to bring this up as it is an ebarrassment to the country.) And we dont pay 50% of our income in taxes today, were the hell do you get those figures from, your X-box?:rolleyes:

Peace,TWS

Black Jack II

08-27-2008, 09:48 AM

Way to backpedal nutjob.

LMAO you tool.

What part again is the nutjob.....because I believe you have the right to self defense?

Douchebag.

1bad65

08-27-2008, 09:51 AM

And we dont pay 50% of our income in taxes today, were the hell do you get those figures from, your X-box?

Between federal income, state income, sales, capitol gains, gasoline, sin, estate, etc the average family does pay about 50% of their income in taxes.

SimonM

08-27-2008, 09:51 AM

LMAO you tool.

What part again is the nutjob.....because I believe you have the right to self defense?

Douchebag.

No becuase you define your right to self defense as carrying a bigger, badder gun. Whacko.

1bad65

08-27-2008, 09:53 AM

What part again is the nutjob.....because I believe you have the right to self defense?

According to the liberals here you have the right to defend yourself, it just has to be with a musket. :D

SimonM

08-27-2008, 09:57 AM

:rolleyes: Yes, that is EXACTLY what I said.

You know because I never said civilian arms should be limited to bolt action rifles, breach loading shotguns (for hunting) and small caliber pistols (for home defense).

Lucas

08-27-2008, 09:57 AM

i didnt see anyone say you should not be able to bear arms and defend yourself.

I did see people say that you dont NEEEEED a freaking assault rifle. which you dont. and if anyone truly think you NEEEED an assault rifle for home defense....then they are indeed a nutjob.

Ive never had to defend myself with an assault rifle.

also back in the day when "the citizens had better rifles" it was because the government would not have been able to supply each man a rifle quick enough if the need were to arise. Now we can. easily.

also the gov NEEDED the population to have those weapons. today, we dont NEED.

too much wants here and not enough paying attention to actual need.

little kids screem i want my toy i want my toy. not grown men.

1bad65

08-27-2008, 09:58 AM

Since announcing Biden as his VP choice and 2 days of the Democrat convention, Obama is down another 2 points in the polls.

Way to go there buddy!

1bad65

08-27-2008, 10:01 AM

Where the hell did you people learn history?

You do realize the main reason for the 2nd Amendment was to protect the people against oppressive government, not burglars.

Lucas

08-27-2008, 10:10 AM

lol @ that.

then was different than now.

go get your assault rifles and when you NEED to protect yourself from the US government. Good luck fighting our military with you puny assault rifle.

It wouldnt matter if every man woman and child in the states had the biggest badest assault rifle on the planet, our military would own us if it was the civs vs the pros.

Lucas

08-27-2008, 10:11 AM

thats part of why our 'enemies' use suicide bombs and road side bombs. assualt rifles dont do a whole lot agains tanks and armored gunned transports, helicopters and planes.

Black Jack II

08-27-2008, 10:14 AM

This was just heartwarming. I guess move away from the vehicle does not mean her.

Anyone who knows anything about Code Pink knows they suck ass.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfISlq1gzK8

rogue

08-27-2008, 10:15 AM

When we established the 'no-fly' zones in Iraq, we effectively allowed the terrorist camps to set up without fear of attack by Hussein. I'm saying if we bombed and cruise missile'd the **** out of it instead of sending in our troops on the ground, how much would we have saved in terms of money and american lives?

-David

You wouldn't have saved anything. For bombs to take out human targets with any certainty, you need boots on the ground and eyes on target. For the most part bombing campaigns don't work for breaking the will of people to fight and may have the opposite effect.

Crap, I forgot one February 26, 1993 (World Trade Center bombing) from my list.

Black Jack II

08-27-2008, 10:17 AM

I did see people say that you dont NEEEEED a freaking assault rifle. which you dont. and if anyone truly think you NEEEED an assault rifle for home defense....then they are indeed a nutjob.

My AR-15 is not my home self defense choice but it is my choice at certain range functions.:D

BTW- for those that are to stupid to understand it the first time. These weapons were not selective fire weapons.

1bad65

08-27-2008, 10:22 AM

Crap, I forgot one February 26, 1993 (World Trade Center bombing) from my list.

As there were so many terrorist attacks during the Clinton administration, it's easy to forget some. ;)

Lucas

08-27-2008, 10:38 AM

ive always found it hard to even pay attention to people in debates that throw around childish insults like "stupid" "moron" "idiot" That was a primary thing to avoid in actual debates, back when I was going to meets and such for high school.

Everyone is a stupid idiot. no need to point it out unless you are talking about yourself.

1bad65

08-27-2008, 10:44 AM

That's just the way Simon and TWS debate issues.

CLFLPstudent

08-27-2008, 10:48 AM

You wouldn't have saved anything. For bombs to take out human targets with any certainty, you need boots on the ground and eyes on target. For the most part bombing campaigns don't work for breaking the will of people to fight and may have the opposite effect.

I guess the Iraqi's who basically gave up after the air war in GWI had the opposite effect? You are telling me that a bombing campaign on the terrorist camps in Northern Iraq ( which happened to arise because of our no-fly zone) similar to that of the beginning of GWI would have no effect, but in fact have an opposite effect? Kind of like fighting a ground war there has an opposite effect? There are more terrorists in Iraq now than there was before. I know you're going to say "better there than here" but that is not what this war was started for in the first place. So we were either lied to about the reports of WMD's and the completely fabricated "Mobile Chemical Labs" via Colin Powell at the UN, or we were lied to about why we wanted to go in there in the first place - to change the regime and cause it to be a hotspot for terrorists.

Crap, I forgot one February 26, 1993 (World Trade Center bombing) from my list.

Again, with your growing list of terrorist attacks, show me where these bombers were Iraqi, or where they were trained in Iraq. There is no link. The majority of them are/were Saudi, Pakistani and Kuwaiti, our so-called allies.

-David

Lucas

08-27-2008, 11:00 AM

That's just the way Simon and TWS debate issues.

Its not just them. But It takes what could be an intelligent and eloquent posting/reply and takes a lot out of the validity of the poster, at least IMO.

When I see a man talking and what he is saying may sound well grounded or a good argument, but then he starts spouting belittling insults it takes a lot of validity away from that persons character. making it difficult to take them seriously.

at least thats just me and how i interact with other adults in real life.

maybe its the internet that turns people into these kinds of insult throwers.

i like to see things as equally as i can from both sides.

for instance if you read my posts, you'll see a common trend on this thread. I am debating need vs want on the subject of owning assault rifles.

i could care less if everyone does own an assault rifle. they are fun to shoot and can kill pretty **** well. but again, i stand by my point, you dont need them.

a lot of people have a problem distinguishing between want and need. not many take it upon themselves to ask themselves what truly is the difference. its a line few can see clearly.

SimonM

08-27-2008, 11:07 AM

That's just the way I try to get dumb political threads locked so that we can get back to bickering over martial arts. :D

Lucas

08-27-2008, 11:11 AM

That's just the way I try to get dumb political threads locked so that we can get back to bickering over martial arts. :D

lol fair nuff

NJM

08-27-2008, 11:19 AM

Thomas Jefferson called Christianity "the cult of Jesus" and predicted it would die out.

Can you link dat quote for me?

I'm not so sure he said that.

And if he did 1:

Christianity IS the cult of Jesus, by definition, is it not?

And 2: It hasn't died out yet. I don't see it dying out any time soon.

Shaolinlueb

08-27-2008, 11:20 AM

nice video! always love a good slamming at a protest.

MasterKiller

08-27-2008, 12:19 PM

Can you link dat quote for me?

I'm not so sure he said that.

And if he did 1:

Christianity IS the cult of Jesus, by definition, is it not?

And 2: It hasn't died out yet. I don't see it dying out any time soon.

"There is not a young man now living in the US who will not die an Unitarian," --Thomas Jefferson, 1822.

"One day the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in the United States will tear down the artificial scaffolding of Christianity. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.” -- Thomas Jefferson, 1823

MasterKiller

08-27-2008, 12:30 PM

Between federal income, state income, sales, capitol gains, gasoline, sin, estate, etc the average family does pay about 50% of their income in taxes.

No sh1t. Between city, state and federal, you get it from both ends.

1bad65

08-27-2008, 12:38 PM

I guess the Iraqi's who basically gave up after the air war in GWI had the opposite effect? You are telling me that a bombing campaign on the terrorist camps in Northern Iraq ( which happened to arise because of our no-fly zone) similar to that of the beginning of GWI would have no effect, but in fact have an opposite effect?

ONCE AGAIN: A conventional war is very different than a guerrilla/insurgent war.

1bad65

08-27-2008, 12:40 PM

No sh1t. Between city, state and federal, you get it from both ends.

No kidding.

And the estate tax is the worst in terms of fairness. Here you take someone who has been successful in life and earned alot of money and when they die the government nails them that last time.

Lucas

08-27-2008, 12:40 PM

the ol taxes are pretty awful.

but alot of those guys back then might not have cared if i had to pay those taxes as long as they didnt.

dont rich people part with a smaller percentage of their monies than I do?

NJM

08-27-2008, 12:41 PM

"One day the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in the United States will tear down the artificial scaffolding of Christianity. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.” -- Thomas Jefferson, 1823

In context, that quote is a denunciation of Mainstream Christianity which Jefferson believed was corrupt. Read it in context!

MasterKiller

08-27-2008, 12:44 PM

In context, that quote is a denunciation of Mainstream Christianity which Jefferson believed was corrupt. Read it in context!

Jefferson believed Paul corrupted the true story of Jesus by adding all the mystic mumbo-jumbo. The Jeffersonian bible is clearly his take on a rational, well-reasoned approach to Christianity, which, by the way, is diametrically opposed to the message of the fundies currently making all the noise in this country.

NJM

08-27-2008, 12:48 PM

Jefferson believed Paul corrupted the true story of Jesus by adding all the mystic mumbo-jumbo. The Jeffersonian bible is clearly his take on a rational, well-reasoned approach to Christianity, which, by the way, is diametrically opposed to the message of the fundies currently making all the noise in this country.

There we go.

1bad65

08-27-2008, 01:18 PM

dont rich people part with a smaller percentage of their monies than I do?

That depends. For example; if you are below the poverty line and do not smoke or drink, you pay mostly just sales taxes. If you are below the poverty line and smoke 3 packs a day and drink a 12-pack a day, you pay a large percentage of your income in taxes.

The rich pay alot in taxes. Too much, IMO. And I'm not rich by any standards, except Bill Clinton's, as I make more than $35k/yr.

The top 25% of wage earners pay 86% of the Federal income taxes.
The top 50% of wage earners pay 97% of all income taxes.
The top 1% of wage earners pay 39% of all income taxes.

Those are IRS numbers btw-- http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05in05tr.xls

Lucas

08-27-2008, 01:29 PM

i guess it all comes back to that old saying

only 2 things in life are for sure, death and taxes.

im just waiting to die so i dont have to pay taxes anymore.

1bad65

08-27-2008, 01:35 PM

im just waiting to die so i dont have to pay taxes anymore.

You're out of luck then. They level the estate tax on you AFTER you die.

And both Biden and Obama have voted against repealing it too.

lkfmdc

08-27-2008, 01:41 PM

The Willow Sword

08-27-2008, 01:58 PM

oh come off it you idiot. you are getting on my last nerve. you insult people here just as much as they insult you, same goes with BJ II. I think ive made some pretty decent statements and without the blatent insulting, until now.

YES i think that when some whackjob parades his weapon around spouting off 2nd amendment YEAH i think he is pretty irresponsable, obsessive and needs a swift kick in his @anus to set him straight. I actually agree with having whatever you need to have to defend your home, within reason and it being legal. PLain and SIMPLE.

Peace,TWS

Lucas

08-27-2008, 02:08 PM

You're out of luck then. They level the estate tax on you AFTER you die.

And both Biden and Obama have voted against repealing it too.

Im fine with that. I have no family, no next of kin. they can sqeeze my dead ass for all the cash they want.

Black Jack II

08-27-2008, 04:08 PM

YES i think that when some whackjob parades his weapon around spouting off 2nd amendment YEAH i think he is pretty irresponsable, obsessive and needs a swift kick in his @anus to set him straight

LOL.

He was not parading around anything. He was on a remote view from home and trust me there is nothing irresponsable and obessive about protecting your rights and asking questions on those you are electing.

I actually agree with having whatever you need to have to defend your home, within reason and it being legal. PLain and SIMPLE.

BTW- that above statement makes no sense, the first part you say you actually agree with having whatever you need to have to defend your home and the next you try and reason the first section away.

I don't think you even know what you are actually fixated on.

So to help you out I will ask you.

What is your beef extactly:cool:

Remeber, Unlike Britons, Americans are citizens and not subjects. And there's a very great difference between the two. Americans do not worship their government as god, which is a thousand-year-old tradition in Japan. Nor, like the Japanese, do we believe that government is infallible, as if government authority were an extension of family authority

1bad65

08-27-2008, 04:31 PM

What is your beef extactly:cool:

Somebody must have ruffled his tinfoil hat.

Black Jack II

08-27-2008, 04:52 PM

Somebody must have ruffled his tinfoil hat.

LOL.

No, I think that is Ultimate Wing Chun. Get him on one of his Rockerfeller groves....;)

Water Dragon

08-27-2008, 05:20 PM

Slow day at the gym so let's play a game,

To everyone who thinks taxes are such a nifty thing and that the "rich" should pay more

Take all of the money you have in your pockets out right now, throw 00.35 out a window for every dollar you have....

but wait, that's just for the first $15 you have. For every dollar after than $15, throw a quarter out the window

but wait, if you have more than $50 then throw out 00.50 for every dollar you have

Sounds like fun, doesn't it :rolleyes:

Actually, assuming you file married filing joint, You keep your first ten dollars. You throw out $ .10 for every dollar up to around $ 16. Then, it's $ .15 to about $ 36. From $ 36 to around $ 65 it's a quarter, $ .28 until around $ 128 where it jumps to $ .36 for every dollar. Anything over $ 230 throw out $ .38 which is where personal income tax maxes out.

If we're going to use an irrelevant comparson like this, let's throw in some more numbers to show the whole picture. It's gonna cost about $ 12 for housing, although you might be able to squeak by on $ 5 if you're willing to live in an infested slum. Food's gonna be about $ 6 at a minimum and let's say $ 1.20 for utility's. We still have to get to work though, so we'll need gas. That's a good $ 17 if you fill your tank once a week. So just to survive and work in the US, you're gonna need a minimum of about $ 35 just to live. We haven't even looked at things like insurance, tv, phone, or clothes. IF you have kids, you'll get about $ 1.20 back for each one, let's hope the kids don't need clothes, school supplies or anything like that.

If you have $ 100, you have about $ 65 left over in disposable income before taxes. If you have $ 30, you can barely survive. What do we do about the poor guys with only $ 20? Do we let them starve? If not, how can we make sure they can also survive if we don't give some of our discretionary money? What about the stuff we demand form the government. We all wanna be safe from terrorists, thugs, and mma practitioners and that takes money from somewhere. We want things like streetlights, and fire protection, and roads. Without taxes, how do we support those services. If we need taxes to finance services, and if society has some sort of responsibility to itself, how can we achieve these without taxing the rich more than the poor?

Black Jack II

08-27-2008, 06:06 PM

Water Dragon

08-27-2008, 06:31 PM

First off, it is just wrong from a general standpoint on principle to think those that are wealthy should support those that are not, this is a form of what some term social justice but is just a form of theft.

Second, many people mistakenly believe that increasing the marginal rate will collect more revenue from the rich in general but historically it does not matter.

The only way to get more tax revenue is to increase the GDP. This means a concerted effort to accelerate the manufacturing and construction fields and using new technologies and systems.

A tax rate hike will reduce GDP.

First off, Jack, Don't take what I said and twist to make a point. I'm smart enough to catch that and you're not slick enough to pull it off. Don't say wealthy when I'm talking society. You're talking about a small subset of society while I'm speaking about society as a whole. If people making $ 250K a more paid tax and those under $ 250K didn't, I would agree that is unfair. That's the argument you're twisting, not the argument I'm making.

Second, My above post basically paraphrased the syllabus from one of my grad level seminars I had back in college. There are a myriad of options out there. Each one has it's cost and benefit. I find it odd that you can so simply solve a question that congress, policy makers, the president, and a myriad of intellectuals can't figure out.

That's what I dislike about these threads. Everyone comes out spouting these opinions and assumptions which many times have nothing to do with the question posed.

You said society should not support people. You actually said wealthy, but I gave my thoughts on that one above. Do you feel that if a 17 year old girl in labor walks into a hospital at midnight in Chicago in the middle of February and has no means to pay or insurance, she and the baby should be thrown into the street to freeze? If not, then you do believe that there is some responsibility held by society. The question is what do we define as support. That's a valid question, and one I don't think anyone here can totally define. But the job of policy is to define that. The point of politics is to get YOUR policy passed and not the other guys.

Why can't we talk policy instead of fear mongering and other forms of bull ****?

Black Jack II

08-27-2008, 06:42 PM

If we need taxes to finance services, and if society has some sort of responsibility to itself, how can we achieve these without taxing the rich more than the poor?

You said rich right here man. You just said wealthy. What did I miss?

You may be talking society, that is granted but it is not to hard to stretch or confuse your point if you also state rich, which is aka wealthy:cool:

You said society should not support people.

Water......

I did not say society should not help people out. I don't see that anywhere in my post to you dude.

Do you feel that if a 17 year old girl in labor walks into a hospital at midnight in Chicago in the middle of February and has no means to pay or insurance, she and the baby should be thrown into the street to freeze?

First off, don't try and paint me into that picture, you know **** well that is not something any sane person would think or do and I have never lead anyone to believe this at any point.

We all know a person in labor gets treatment when going into a hospital on an emergency bases, you can break your hip right now, and with insurance or no insurance you can walk into a public hospital and get emergency medical care for you needs.

The question is what do we define as support.

I define support in the context of the "limited". I am all for "limited" programs to help those that need it. Limited being in terms of time and common sense and not in terms of general dollars.

Water Dragon

08-27-2008, 06:57 PM

You said rich right here man. You just said wealthy. What did I miss?

Note Jack, that I said tax the rich more than the poor. I'm speaking of a graduated tax system where everyone pays according to ability. I'm saying EVERYONE contributes, that's what you're missing. I do believe that everyone has the right to at least a roof over their head, food in their belly, and access to some way to better themselves. I disagree with giving direct monetary hand outs. Less food stamps, more gov'ment cheese if you will. I do believe the government should directly support higher education. It's an investment on the future tax base.

First off, don't try and paint me into that picture, you know **** well that is not something any sane person would think or do and I have never lead anyone to believe this at any point.

Thank you, sir, for making my point. You absolutely do believe that there is a need for some level support. In fact, you became enraged when I suggested that the girl be thrown out into the cold. From here I can argue that you agree that the wealthy should support those who are not just as we should support this poor girl. It is our tax dollars that are funding are stay. The question is to what degree. You already answered this here.

I define support in the context of the "limited". I am all for "limited" programs to help those that need it. Limited being in terms of time and common sense and not in terms of general dollars.

My question to you is, how would you define these limited policies? How do we deal with poverty, healthcare, and educational issues? More importantly, what is your solution to financing whatever services you see as required?

I'd be interested in anyone else's resoponce to this question as well.

Mas Judt

08-27-2008, 07:32 PM

The real problem with our tax system is that it is designed as a plaything for the politicians and the powerful interests that own them to manipulate the citizens without the courtesy of a vote or due process.

Water Dragon

08-27-2008, 08:31 PM

I agree with that statement wholeheartedly. The current system is extremely inefficient to say the least.

1bad65

08-27-2008, 10:20 PM

I find it odd that you can so simply solve a question that congress, policy makers, the president, and a myriad of intellectuals can't figure out.

You do realize that the current Speaker of the House does not know that natural gas is a fossil fuel, right? :eek:

With idiots like that, problems do not get solved. They only get worse.

NJM

08-27-2008, 10:43 PM

You do realize that the current Speaker of the House does not know that natural gas is a fossil fuel, right?

At least she acknowledges the Iraq War happened! Unlike John McCain!

1bad65

08-28-2008, 03:34 AM

At least she acknowledges the Iraq War happened! Unlike John McCain!

Since this is your only answer for every issue discussed, let's look at what he said.

McCain said, in relation to Russia attacking Georgia: "In the 21st Century, nations don't invade nations"

In that case a nation, Russia, attacked another nation, Georgia.

In the case of the Gulf War a UN coalition (backed by a UN resolution as well), attacked the nation of Iraq.

See the difference?

And also, McCain never said the Iraq War did not happen, so stop trying to be witty by completely changing the man's words.

Mas Judt

08-28-2008, 04:49 AM

Frankly, the thing that truly frightens me is the democrats record - heck, they INVENTED 'national socialism' (Just a slightly more friendly version - they only killed political opponents and 'undesireables' (not counting the forced sterilizations (yes folks, it happened here, under the Democrats). Then there is the abdication of security assets during the cold war (yay! Jimmah). Not to mention massive tax rates that crippled the economy and created the misery index. Of course Repubs like Nixon (the coming of the neo-con - which is really just a demoncrat in a good suit) added to the problem by believing we were all Keynsians now...

Now, we did okay under Clinton, largely thanks to Newtr Gingrich coming in swinging a big axe on stupid programs ans scams our 'elected' officials were pulling.

Meanwhile - Obama is also part of a political machine that does 'national socialism' one better - it brings the mob into the government/corporate axis.

While I'm sure McCain is bought and paid for by many of the same interests, at least he is actually qualified for the job and does not demonstrate the poor judgement or do the favors for money like Obama. And he''s not tied to corrupt Illinois politics.

Biden is a typical cypher - used to bullshtting in the senate and writing bills that gut the constitution.

With guys like these about to have their own Nuremberg rally complete with an adoring throng complete in the Mile High city, is there any doubt why educated people are a bit nervous?

It's sad, with our non-constitutional 'two-party' system, we vote for who do the least damage, not who is actually good. Unless you are a democrat - then you arrogantly believe any arrogant empty suit will save you.

Water Dragon

08-28-2008, 05:03 AM

This is exactly what I mean. The last few posts above are great examples of fear mongering and smack talking. The problem with American policies is everyone prefers to play that game instead of looking for solutions to problems.

So-and-so is evil. This party is retarded, The Democrats/Republicnas are the devil, if Obama/McCain get elected he will eat our children.

I think it's a shame.

08-28-2008, 06:01 AM

Funny how the Republicans bash the Dems over "tax and spend" when the money is used to help Americans, yet the Republicans have no problem spending BILLIONS on invasions, war and death overseas. The Repubs have taken the first balanced budget (with a surplus) and turned it into the biggest deficit of all time. Our grandchildren will be paying for BU$H's Follies.

- jo

1bad65

08-28-2008, 06:13 AM

With guys like these about to have their own Nuremberg rally complete with an adoring throng complete in the Mile High city, is there any doubt why educated people are a bit nervous?

I've said this before, and it's a great point.

The other particulary scary thing about Obama is that we facing alot of the same problems we faced in the 70s. And Obama's solutions are almost to a letter EXACTLY what Carter tried.

1bad65

08-28-2008, 06:14 AM

yet the Republicans have no problem spending BILLIONS on invasions, war and death overseas.

You seem to have forgotten about LBJ and the Vietnam War.

CLFLPstudent

08-28-2008, 06:15 AM

You do realize that the current Speaker of the House does not know that natural gas is a fossil fuel, right? :eek:

Can she pronounce the word "nuclear" correctly? :rolleyes:

To be honest, neither candidate does it for me. Maybe it is time to build the underground shelter, stockpile food and ammo, and wait for the revolution :D

-David

Water Dragon

08-28-2008, 06:25 AM

To be honest, neither candidate does it for me. Maybe it is time to build the underground shelter, stockpile food and ammo, and wait for the revolution :D

-David

This is where I disagree with most people. I think both candidates will make a good president. I simply disapprove of the general direction the Republicans will take this country. No need to fling poo and insults and demean anyone's characters (that's in general, not toward anyone specific). What does that do besides pull away from the issues? And THAT (this thread being a great example) is why this country's in the shape it's in. People don't decide leadership based on policy. They vote based on rumors, emotion, and abstract ideas. HEll, I'd love to have a bear with George Bush, he seems like a cool guy to hang out with. That no way in hell qualifies him to be President though. And that's basically what happened these past two elections.

MasterKiller

08-28-2008, 06:27 AM

HEll, I'd love to have a bear with George Bush, he seems like a cool guy to hang out with. That no way in hell qualifies him to be President though.. I thought Bush only ate human babies?

Mas Judt

08-28-2008, 06:34 AM

Like I said, we vote for the least damage. The democrats would pull us into a cesspool of conflicting radical ideologies - they have to lie and obfuscate constantly to try and avoid letting people know what they really think.

Now are there repubs that do this too? Sure - but often they are going against the party platform when they do this, while the Democrats lie about what they actually believe in order to get elected, then ttry like crazy to get activist judges to pass edicts when votes don't work. I don't like tyranny and the Dems seem devoted to it.

Personally, I think Obama would be a disaster. McCain only slightly better.

WD - both Jefferson and Eisenhower were right.

1bad65

08-28-2008, 06:39 AM

while the Democrats lie about what they actually believe in order to get elected,

This is so true. The last Democrat to be completely honest about his beliefs was Mondale. And he lost in the biggest landslide in a Presedential election.

1bad65

08-28-2008, 06:41 AM

Can she pronounce the word "nuclear" correctly? :rolleyes:

You wanna debate stuff thats relevant or just hit on how someone talks?

OK, just a few days ago Obama did not even know what city he was in.

Mas Judt

08-28-2008, 06:51 AM

Actually, WD - my posts are all factual. Policy and character matter. You know the level I play on in the professional world - it holds true there as well as in politics. I wouldn't care how 'good the diection' of someones policies were if they have a history of questionable ethics and behavior.

If we had a repub nominated as corrupt as say Bill Clinton (I mean, who has 150 people mysteriously die around them always before an investigation or testimony?) and the Dems had a, say Bill Richardson, who seems to be a person of good character and competent, but whom I disagree with on many policy issues - I'd have to vote for Richardson, as he'd do less damage with questionable policy but decent character and competence than some I agreed with who was corrupt and incompetent.

It's never just about policy. And never just about Beer.

CLFLPstudent

08-28-2008, 06:52 AM

You wanna debate stuff thats relevant or just hit on how someone talks?

OK, just a few days ago Obama did not even know what city he was in.

Well, I think it's embarrassing that our president can not speak english correctly. It reflects his "Yale" education.:p

-David

Mas Judt

08-28-2008, 06:53 AM

Promising social justice is how the gangsters get in ... fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Wilsonian USA, and more.

Yeah the trains run on time (sort of), and you get badly provided free services, but at what price?

1bad65

08-28-2008, 07:21 AM

Well, I think it's embarrassing that our president can not speak english correctly. It reflects his "Yale" education.

Well I think it's more embarrassing when our President gets blow jobs from a fat intern. It reflects on his lack of character.

CLFLPstudent

08-28-2008, 07:33 AM

Well I think it's more embarrassing when our President gets blow jobs from a fat intern. It reflects on his lack of character.

Geeze, everything is tit-for-tat with you. I'm not saying what Clinton did was right, why are you assuming this?

Personally I think the 2 party system is rotten to the core.... they both suck. I don't know what we should do, but the direction EITHER party will take us has a lot of uphill climbing to do to make things right.

So, as a Republican, you feel it's OK to spend $9 billion a month on the Iraq war? And you don't want to raise taxes? How are we going to fund the war? How much has China already loaned us?

Let me guess your reply.... Well, so-and-so (democratic) president did this and this to cause this x many years ago, so there.

You know what? That kind of logic is exactly what goes on in the Isreal/Palestine conflict and nothing ever gets solved.

Burn it all down, lets start over! :D

-David

The Willow Sword

08-28-2008, 07:39 AM

My "Beef" as you put it lies with those who like to pervert the 2nd amendment and any form of the constitution in to an excuse to undermine the Law and to obsess over something that they should not be obsessing over.

You can ask questions of a senator without having to come off like an a$$hat like that guy did with Biden. It wasnt an "honest" question it was a "baited" question filled with arrogance and contempt. Now you can have these opinions about a senator but when you ask them a question you can do it in a manner that reflects decency and not some lame brained hickery attitude,because what you get back is exactly what you put forth and that is what Biden gave back to that numnuts.

As for where i stand with the gun issue? i have already stated it. I am an advocate of the 2nd amendment but i dont obsess over it and i dont have this overwhelming sense of paranoia that it is going to be revoked, because YOU know as well as i that it wont, no matter if a dem gets in office or whomever.
Now we can debate "regulations" until we are blue in the face. I feel that owning a firearm is a great responsability and one should be humble in the face of it. Most guys i know who own rifles, (Ar's and the like) dont go around touting the kind of BS i hear from alot of Pundents of the NRA, and some of them are actually NRA members but they are not radicals. Its people like that guy who questioned Joe biden that give gun owners a bad rep because most of conservative rural America possesses this mentality, in my opinion.
Now despite your slander of me regarding what you Believe i stated about our soldiers, i do respect them and their service and THEY,or atleast the ones i have had the opportunity to talk to and be around do not possess the mentality that i have seen with Gun ownership. Mainly because they have been in the worst situations and have had to actually Kill people and that in itself can humble a person in the correct way as to not view their weapon as "Their Baby" and hold onto it as if it were some crack pipe that they could never put down. its those kind of people who have itchy trigger fingers and who are radicals, like the Tim McVeighs of the world. Come on Black Jack II despite what you think of me regarding politics and the like, we gotta agree on this issue. You being an owner of an AR-15 as you have implied with earlier posts.

Peace,TWS

P.S. Wow did i just show you a smidgeon of respect?:eek: d@mn.