I want a president who understand we are fighting a much bigger war than the one in Iraq, and it is not against some petty little terrorist group. Obama is clueless on that.
Obama wants to end the distraction we call Iraq and go after the actual mastermind and kind of camps that enabled us to be attacked on our own soil. Doesn't sound clueless to me.
Obama also wants to have direct diplomacy with Iran, rather than ignore 'em the way Bush ignored North Korea before they started test firing missiles weekly and declaring themselves a nuclear power.
If Bush is "clued in" and McCain even more so, yeah I want the clueless guy.
For someone who preaches American responsibility so much, especially fiscally, you sure don't seem to mind the per capita amount we're spending on Iraqis.
Originally posted by Fishermage 1. No one needs to take a gun, put it to people's heads, and force people to provide health care for anyone under any circumstance. If YOU feel it is important, YOU pay for people's needs. If not, no need to use the gun of state to do it. That's just plain immoral. If YOu want people to be covered by pre-existing conditions, by all means, go do so. that's no reason to point a gun to people's heads and MAKE them do it. 2. Nothing you are saying justifies pointing guns to people's heads and using government ths way. If you feel "we" have to compete, by all means start a company and do so. 3. Obama is pitching taxe credits and calling them tax cuts, while at the same time allowing the tax CUTS we are already getting to expire. That's a net tax increase. Obviously you don't know what a capital gains tax is. The corporate tax rate is way to high -- everyone's taxes are. Obama's tax plans are geared towards more big government, and against everyone in favor of big government. His big spending programs will hurt everyone. 4. For decades we have been doing the same thing with government education, under democrats, republicans, and it fails. Why will more of the same work THIS time? what magic wand does obama have that will make that which fails always everywhere at all times and places work THIS time? I keep hearing this for the last twenty years and it's always been bull. If you want people to have a better edictaion -- GIVE THEM ONE -- no reason to take the gun of the state, take people's monet by force and do more of what has failed for generations now. How man generations need to be lost before you realize that it is government that doesn't work with these things? Oh, and the reasons I dislike Obama is because he is a LIAR, on the subject of socialism I merely dosagree with him. I dislike him because he is a classic sleazy politician and claimed to be something different. It has nothing to do with his policies. I LIKE Bill clinton, because I know what I get with him. He never lied to the Americian people the way Obama did (even if he lied under oath he is more honest). I also disagreed with Bill clinton although I always liked him. Like and agree or disagree are not the same thing to me. I also don't like Bush and disagree with him on some things.
1. Sure there is. It's the solution to a problem. Not everyone in the country is so scared of government that they feel its pointing a gun to their head. I feel it's government working for us rather than working for big business.
2. Because again, I see it as government investing in the American people for once, and not favoring the American elite.
3. Obama's only allowing PARTS of the Bush tax cuts expire. Thus the whole $250,000 and above argument.
So on the contrary, tax cuts on the middle-class are being made permanent, and that's where we have tax cuts in ADDITION to the tax credits you bring up. Except those are only temporary measures of relief that're supposed to ebb back once our economy picks up.
If you don't believe I understand capital gains taxes, state why. The accusation alone doesn't make a good argument. I just don't agree with your doomsday scenario.
I also don't agree that Obama's "big spending plan" will hurt everyone. Bush cutting domestic programs in order to fund Iraq hurts everyone. A renewal of domestic programs and ending of the Iraq war sounds like the exact change we need.
4. Again with the gun thing, I don't see how that relates to creating new avenues for a college education.
Tell me, how much government do you think should exist? Should we be knitting police uniforms? Putting out California hill fires ourselves? Would militias have sufficed instead of the creation of homeland security?
I also don't buy that Obama's a liar. I see no reason to believe that.
1. I'm not scared of government; I just feel that using a the gun of state, using the brute force of government to make my fellow human beings do my bidding is wrong in most cases that you are advocating. I live without fear every day and every moment of my life. This is about disagreement -- not fear.
2. Government never invests in people, it invests in its own power, which is what Obama and you are advocating.
3. Actually Obama is allowing ALL of the Bush tax cuts to expire. You obviously don't know what your own candidate has said on the matter. He is not making Bush's tax cuts for the middle class permanent. Have you even been to his website and read his plans? he is allowing them to expire; and replacing them with his tax credit scheme.
Also, I guess it also means WHICH Obama you are talking about, since he seems to change his "plans" to suit his needs.
I did state why, with regards to capital gain. A capital gain is the gain/loss you make when you SELL your business. It won't help the small businessman at all -- but it will encourage the small businessmen to sell their businesses to big businesses when Obama's taxes crush them.
No domestic programs have been cut to fund Iraq, but more government spending does more harm than good anyway.
Obama won't end any wars, he intends to move the war into new areas.
4. Everything the Government does it does by force. That means guns. I feel the amount of government that should exist is clearly stated in the Constitution.
Head over to the Libertarian party's website for more information. www.lp.org/
Obama has proved he's a liar all his life; certainly he has proved he is a liar by contrasting what he said when he was trying to get the nomination of his party vs what he has said as he has run against McCain. I have never seen so many lies told by a candidate. The ease with which he lies and re-invents himself is astounding.
I want a president who understand we are fighting a much bigger war than the one in Iraq, and it is not against some petty little terrorist group. Obama is clueless on that.
Obama wants to end the distraction we call Iraq and go after the actual mastermind and kind of camps that enabled us to be attacked on our own soil. Doesn't sound clueless to me.
Obama also wants to have direct diplomacy with Iran, rather than ignore 'em the way Bush ignored North Korea before they started test firing missiles weekly and declaring themselves a nuclear power.
If Bush is "clued in" and McCain even more so, yeah I want the clueless guy.
For someone who preaches American responsibility so much, especially fiscally, you sure don't seem to mind the per capita amount we're spending on Iraqis.
You obviously have as limted an understanding of the overall war we are fighting as he does.
As far as the money we are spending; the war we are involed with now makes World War II look like a walk in the park -- it costs as much as it costs. Defense of our nation is our Federal Government's primary responsibilty.
The Jihad is the greatest enemy we have ever faced -- they are more dangerous tha the Nazis ever were, and far, far better funded.
Also, we were united against the Nazis. the democrats have allowed the Jihad to divide us and have pretty much joined the side of the enemy. That only makes the war harder to win.
Who does the Jihad support for president? YOUR guy. Why is that.
Originally posted by Fishermage 1. I'm not scared of government; I just feel that using a the gun of state, using the brute force of government to make my fellow human beings do my bidding is wrong in most cases that you are advocating. I live without fear every day and every moment of my life. This is about disagreement -- not fear. 2. Government never invests in people, it invests in its own power, which is what Obama and you are advocating. 3. Actually Obama is allowing ALL of the Bush tax cuts to expire. You obviously don't know what your own candidate has said on the matter. He is not making Bush's tax cuts for the middle class permanent. Have you even been to his website and read his plans? he is allowing them to expire; and replacing them with his tax credit scheme. Also, I guess it also means WHICH Obama you are talking about, since he seems to change his "plans" to suit his needs. I did state why, with regards to capital gain. A capital gain is the gain/loss you make when you SELL your business. It won't help the small businessman at all -- but it will encourage the small businessmen to sell their businesses to big businesses when Obama's taxes crush them. No domestic programs have been cut to fund Iraq, but more government spending does more harm than good anyway. Obama won't end any wars, he intends to move the war into new areas. 4. Everything the Government does it does by force. That means guns. I feel the amount of government that should exist is clearly stated in the Constitution. Head over to the Libertarian party's website for more information. www.lp.org/ Obama has proved he's a liar all his life; certainly he has proved he is a liar by contrasting what he said when he was trying to get the nomination of his party vs what he has said as he has run against McCain. I have never seen so many lies told by a candidate. The ease with which he lies and re-invents himself is astounding.
1. Believing the government has a gun to your head sounds like fear to me. I assume in the absence of that fear though, the "gun" doesn't bother you, does it? That same absence of fear applies to me and most other people who believe there's nothing to fear. Except we go the complete crazy route of also believing there's no reason to feel we have a "gun" to our head, since without fear it isn't warranted.
Things like the energy economy. It won't move unless the government throws money at it. The private sector won't take the risks alone. I don't see why anyone would be complacent with taking money from China due to inadequacies in our own economy, and buying oil from the Middle East. It's somehow socialist and big government to spend money here to grow our economy here and create new and renewable energy right here.
We can't be hands on everything in the world except our own country. If we're willing to spend so much abroad, lets spend domestically.
2. Sure? So long as that power is increasing our economy. Lowered unemployment rates and higher middle-class income earnings in particular.
As for the Capital Gains issues, there's more to assets than shares of an entire business, and small businesses do business with small businesses, families invest in family businesses. Money earned by a small business owner is usually invested right back into one. Nothin' wrong with encouraging that.
Isn't the whole Joe the Plumber debacle about a guy wanting to buy a small business, which would require a small business owner to sell it?
4. Again, not to offend you or your own beliefs, but none of that is relevant in the context of this election. Consider it my own fault that I harbor beliefs centered solely around choosing one of the two candidates at hand.
Originally posted by Fishermage 1. I'm not scared of government; I just feel that using a the gun of state, using the brute force of government to make my fellow human beings do my bidding is wrong in most cases that you are advocating. I live without fear every day and every moment of my life. This is about disagreement -- not fear. 2. Government never invests in people, it invests in its own power, which is what Obama and you are advocating. 3. Actually Obama is allowing ALL of the Bush tax cuts to expire. You obviously don't know what your own candidate has said on the matter. He is not making Bush's tax cuts for the middle class permanent. Have you even been to his website and read his plans? he is allowing them to expire; and replacing them with his tax credit scheme. Also, I guess it also means WHICH Obama you are talking about, since he seems to change his "plans" to suit his needs. I did state why, with regards to capital gain. A capital gain is the gain/loss you make when you SELL your business. It won't help the small businessman at all -- but it will encourage the small businessmen to sell their businesses to big businesses when Obama's taxes crush them. No domestic programs have been cut to fund Iraq, but more government spending does more harm than good anyway. Obama won't end any wars, he intends to move the war into new areas. 4. Everything the Government does it does by force. That means guns. I feel the amount of government that should exist is clearly stated in the Constitution. Head over to the Libertarian party's website for more information. www.lp.org/ Obama has proved he's a liar all his life; certainly he has proved he is a liar by contrasting what he said when he was trying to get the nomination of his party vs what he has said as he has run against McCain. I have never seen so many lies told by a candidate. The ease with which he lies and re-invents himself is astounding.
1. Believing the government has a gun to your head sounds like fear to me. I assume in the absence of that fear though, the "gun" doesn't bother you, does it? That same absence of fear applies to me and most other people who believe there's nothing to fear. Except we go the complete crazy route of also believing there's no reason to feel we have a "gun" to our head, since without fear it isn't warranted.
Things like the energy economy. It won't move unless the government throws money at it. The private sector won't take the risks alone. I don't see why anyone would be complacent with taking money from China due to inadequacies in our own economy, and buying oil from the Middle East. It's somehow socialist and big government to spend money here to grow our economy here and create new and renewable energy right here.
We can't be hands on everything in the world except our own country. If we're willing to spend so much abroad, lets spend domestically.
2. Sure? So long as that power is increasing our economy. Lowered unemployment rates and higher middle-class income earnings in particular.
As for the Capital Gains issues, there's more to assets than shares of an entire business, and small businesses do business with small businesses, families invest in family businesses. Money earned by a small business owner is usually invested right back into one. Nothin' wrong with encouraging that.
Isn't the whole Joe the Plumber debacle about a guy wanting to buy a small business, which would require a small business owner to sell it?
4. Again, not to offend you or your own beliefs, but none of that is relevant in the context of this election. Consider it my own fault that I harbor beliefs centered solely around choosing one of the two candidates at hand.
1. Knowing that government IS a gun is simply understanding what government IS. Are laws voluntary? Are taxes? No -- that by definition is a gun to everyone's head.
the energy economy IS where it is because of government money, and because of givernment regulation. get the government out of it.
It is not UP TO YOU how people choose to spend their energy dollars. Yes, it is socialist to have government money used to spend money in any direction taht taht government wants. That is what socialism IS.
As to that last part, once agains you don't understand the issues.
2. Governemt never increases the economy -- it can only do so by getting out of the way.
3. Obama does not say he won't let the middle class tax cuts expire. he will call for EARLY repeal of the other tax cuts. You aren't reading his plan.
The capital gains tax cut will not encourage people to invest in their own business -- it'll encourage people to SELL their businesses. All other things being equal it will lead to small businesses being gobbled up by big business.
What Joe the Plumber debacle? The man asked a question, and Obama replied with socialism. However, you have a small point, there might be more businesses for sale under an Obama administration due to lowering of the capital gains tax on small business. That won't make them more attractive to people lower down on the scale though. The trend will be to sell up, destroying small businesses.
4. If you only want to choose between the two candidates at hand, the choice is easy -- the man who will compromise with socialism vs the full on socialist. I think the answer is easy there as well. McCain all the way. I answered what I answered in reference to YOUR specific question about what size government I believe in.
Both candidates are big government guys, but McCain is obviously the one who advocates the smaller government of the two. It's not even close. Obama is the most socialistic man to ever get anywhere near the white house.
I want a president who understand we are fighting a much bigger war than the one in Iraq, and it is not against some petty little terrorist group. Obama is clueless on that.
Obama wants to end the distraction we call Iraq and go after the actual mastermind and kind of camps that enabled us to be attacked on our own soil. Doesn't sound clueless to me.
Obama also wants to have direct diplomacy with Iran, rather than ignore 'em the way Bush ignored North Korea before they started test firing missiles weekly and declaring themselves a nuclear power.
If Bush is "clued in" and McCain even more so, yeah I want the clueless guy.
For someone who preaches American responsibility so much, especially fiscally, you sure don't seem to mind the per capita amount we're spending on Iraqis.
You obviously have as limted an understanding of the overall war we are fighting as he does.
As far as the money we are spending; the war we are involed with now makes World War II look like a walk in the park -- it costs as much as it costs. Defense of our nation is our Federal Government's primary responsibilty.
The Jihad is the greatest enemy we have ever faced -- they are more dangerous tha the Nazis ever were, and far, far better funded.
Also, we were united against the Nazis. the democrats have allowed the Jihad to divide us and have pretty much joined the side of the enemy. That only makes the war harder to win.
Who does the Jihad support for president? YOUR guy. Why is that.
Sounds just like the Daily Kos on this issue. I find that interesting.
Exactly, 'Jihad'. If you belive al-Qaeda is an idea, or even if you believe its an army more than an idea, it wasn't in Iraq until we invaded. It found action through insurgency. Didn't we then SPREAD it? I'd rather go back to what we originally identified as the source.
There's also the other interest of Israel, and Iran's only gotten bolder through the Iraq war.
And mentioning things like "funds" only reminds me of Obama wanting to put more money in Afghanistan to dissuade things like farmers engaging in the poppy trade, which funds terrorism, because they feel they have to in order to survive.
I want a president who understand we are fighting a much bigger war than the one in Iraq, and it is not against some petty little terrorist group. Obama is clueless on that.
Obama wants to end the distraction we call Iraq and go after the actual mastermind and kind of camps that enabled us to be attacked on our own soil. Doesn't sound clueless to me.
Obama also wants to have direct diplomacy with Iran, rather than ignore 'em the way Bush ignored North Korea before they started test firing missiles weekly and declaring themselves a nuclear power.
If Bush is "clued in" and McCain even more so, yeah I want the clueless guy.
For someone who preaches American responsibility so much, especially fiscally, you sure don't seem to mind the per capita amount we're spending on Iraqis.
You obviously have as limted an understanding of the overall war we are fighting as he does.
As far as the money we are spending; the war we are involed with now makes World War II look like a walk in the park -- it costs as much as it costs. Defense of our nation is our Federal Government's primary responsibilty.
The Jihad is the greatest enemy we have ever faced -- they are more dangerous tha the Nazis ever were, and far, far better funded.
Also, we were united against the Nazis. the democrats have allowed the Jihad to divide us and have pretty much joined the side of the enemy. That only makes the war harder to win.
Who does the Jihad support for president? YOUR guy. Why is that.
Sounds just like the Daily Kos on this issue. I find that interesting.
Exactly, 'Jihad'. If you belive al-Qaeda is an idea, or even if you believe its an army more than an idea, it wasn't in Iraq until we invaded. It found action through insurgency. Didn't we then SPREAD it? I'd rather go back to what we originally identified as the source.
There's also the other interest of Israel, and Iran's only gotten bolder through the Iraq war.
And mentioning things like "funds" only reminds me of Obama wanting to put more money in Afghanistan to dissuade things like farmers engaging in the poppy trade, which funds terrorism, because they feel they have to in order to survive.
The Jihad is more than al qaeda. Hussein was as much a part of it as bin laden, as is Qaddafi, even though both of them lean more towards the secular. The source of our enemy is not al qaeda, that's one of the many symptoms.
Iran's "boldness" is irrelevant to this war. Israel now has a nice, easy, free fly zone over iraq for when they need to attack them.
If we want to take the poppy money out of the Jihad against us, we need to legalize drugs. Obama not only doesn't understand our enemy or the war we are fighting, he keeps bringing up side issues that will undermine the effort.
Anyone who divides the country in time of war for the sake of getting elected doesn't deserve the office he is running for. That's been Obama all along.
Originally posted by Fishermage 1. Knowing that government IS a gun is simply understanding what government IS. Are laws voluntary? Are taxes? No -- that by definition is a gun to everyone's head. the energy economy IS where it is because of government money, and because of givernment regulation. get the government out of it. It is not UP TO YOU how people choose to spend their energy dollars. Yes, it is socialist to have government money used to spend money in any direction taht taht government wants. That is what socialism IS. As to that last part, once agains you don't understand the issues. 2. Governemt never increases the economy -- it can only do so by getting out of the way. 3. Obama does not say he won't let the middle class tax cuts expire. he will call for EARLY repeal of the other tax cuts. You aren't reading his plan. The capital gains tax cut will not encourage people to invest in their own business -- it'll encourage people to SELL their businesses. All other things being equal it will lead to small businesses being gobbled up by big business. What Joe the Plumber debacle? The man asked a question, and Obama replied with socialism. However, you have a small point, there might be more businesses for sale under an Obama administration due to lowering of the capital gains tax on small business. That won't make them more attractive to people lower down on the scale though. The trend will be to sell up, destroying small businesses. 4. If you only want to choose between the two candidates at hand, the choice is easy -- the man who will compromise with socialism vs the full on socialist. I think the answer is easy there as well. McCain all the way. I answered what I answered in reference to YOUR specific question about what size government I believe in. Both candidates are big government guys, but McCain is obviously the one who advocates the smaller government of the two. It's not even close. Obama is the most socialistic man to ever get anywhere near the white house.
1. The government is going to spend money in any direction the government wants regardless of who's elected. If you call that "socialist", then both candidates are. I'm just going to vote for the guy who spends the American people's way.
2. Things like unemployment cost us, so if domestic spending were put forth to encourage job creation, I'd call that an effect on the economy. I'm just going to vote for the guy who's doing that.
3. Again you're arguing only entire assets, there's capital gains beneath that. Be it expanding a business through moving to another building with one more necessary room or selling any other asset that might've appreciated in value, in order to buy others. I see expansion.
4. Since I don't believe either candidate is "socialist", how socialist either one is can't be a determining factor. I find it dumb any number of people would add the word to their verbiage simply because Obama had the audacity to call progressive taxes what they were.
Originally posted by Fishermage 1. Knowing that government IS a gun is simply understanding what government IS. Are laws voluntary? Are taxes? No -- that by definition is a gun to everyone's head. the energy economy IS where it is because of government money, and because of givernment regulation. get the government out of it. It is not UP TO YOU how people choose to spend their energy dollars. Yes, it is socialist to have government money used to spend money in any direction taht taht government wants. That is what socialism IS. As to that last part, once agains you don't understand the issues. 2. Governemt never increases the economy -- it can only do so by getting out of the way. 3. Obama does not say he won't let the middle class tax cuts expire. he will call for EARLY repeal of the other tax cuts. You aren't reading his plan. The capital gains tax cut will not encourage people to invest in their own business -- it'll encourage people to SELL their businesses. All other things being equal it will lead to small businesses being gobbled up by big business. What Joe the Plumber debacle? The man asked a question, and Obama replied with socialism. However, you have a small point, there might be more businesses for sale under an Obama administration due to lowering of the capital gains tax on small business. That won't make them more attractive to people lower down on the scale though. The trend will be to sell up, destroying small businesses. 4. If you only want to choose between the two candidates at hand, the choice is easy -- the man who will compromise with socialism vs the full on socialist. I think the answer is easy there as well. McCain all the way. I answered what I answered in reference to YOUR specific question about what size government I believe in. Both candidates are big government guys, but McCain is obviously the one who advocates the smaller government of the two. It's not even close. Obama is the most socialistic man to ever get anywhere near the white house.
1. The government is going to spend money in any direction the government wants regardless of who's elected. If you call that "socialist", then both candidates are. I'm just going to vote for the guy who spends the American people's way.
2. Things like unemployment cost us, so if domestic spending were put forth to encourage job creation, I'd call that an effect on the economy. I'm just going to vote for the guy who's doing that.
3. Again you're arguing only entire assets, there's capital gains beneath that. Be it expanding a business through moving to another building with one more necessary room or selling any other asset that might've appreciated in value, in order to buy others. I see expansion.
4. Since I don't believe either candidate is "socialist", how socialist either one is can't be a determining factor. I find it dumb any number of people would add the word to their verbiage simply because Obama had the audacity to call progressive taxes what they were.
1. No, you are simply voting for the more socialist between two socialists.
2. Domestic spending costs jobs because we need to tax to get them. That leads to a net loss of jobs no matter what government does. that is why it best they just stay out of it.
3.No, capital gains have nothing to do with what you are talking about, Capital gains only come into play when the business is sold. All the rest come under either the personal income tax, which Obama will raise, and the corporate tax, which Obama will raise..
4. You just said about BOTH are socialists. Libertarians have been calling socilaists socialists since Nixon, and before. It is nice to see people finally catching on. Will it be enough to keep the monster from getting elected? Probably not, but at least, once again, the people were told before they elected another socialist.
The Jihad is more than al qaeda. Hussein was as much a part of it as bin laden, as is Qaddafi, even though both of them lean more towards the secular. The source of our enemy is not al qaeda, that's one of the many symptoms. Iran's "boldness" is irrelevant to this war. Israel now has a nice, easy, free fly zone over iraq for when they need to attack them. If we want to take the poppy money out of the Jihad against us, we need to legalize drugs. Obama not only doesn't understand our enemy or the war we are fighting, he keeps bringing up side issues that will undermine the effort. Anyone who divides the country in time of war for the sake of getting elected doesn't deserve the office he is running for. That's been Obama all along.
'cept most Americans are against the war, I wouldn't call it division.
I also find it funny you ask me "Why does Jihad support Obama?" when you recognize its more of an idea than it is a single entity; leader, nation, army or otherwise.
As for Israel's ability to attack Iran, yeah we don't want that to happen. So let's vote for the guy who's interested in diplomacy.
As for legalizing drugs; we aren't the only nation that has a problem with opiates. The entire world would have to legalize it. I rather vote for the guy interested in having the US expand the Afghan government's encouragement of growing things other than poppy.
The Jihad is more than al qaeda. Hussein was as much a part of it as bin laden, as is Qaddafi, even though both of them lean more towards the secular. The source of our enemy is not al qaeda, that's one of the many symptoms. Iran's "boldness" is irrelevant to this war. Israel now has a nice, easy, free fly zone over iraq for when they need to attack them. If we want to take the poppy money out of the Jihad against us, we need to legalize drugs. Obama not only doesn't understand our enemy or the war we are fighting, he keeps bringing up side issues that will undermine the effort. Anyone who divides the country in time of war for the sake of getting elected doesn't deserve the office he is running for. That's been Obama all along.
'cept most Americans are against the war, I wouldn't call it division.
I also find it funny you ask me "Why does Jihad support Obama?" when you recognize its more of an idea than it is a single entity; leader, nation, army or otherwise.
As for Israel's ability to attack Iran, yeah we don't want that to happen. So let's vote for the guy who's interested in diplomacy.
As for legalizing drugs; we aren't the only nation that has a problem with opiates. The entire world would have to legalize it. I rather vote for the guy interested in having the US expand the Afghan government's encouragement of growing things other than poppy.
Most people are against the war because people like you undermined us during the war.
Why do all of America's enemies support Obama?
So you want Iran to destroy Israel as well. Thanks for confirmation.
So where do you get the idea that Obama is any different than McCain on encouragement of Opium growth? Why do you keep avoiding the main things and going after the superfluous/
Why do all of America's enemies support Obama? Why do all islamists? Why do the islamists match the Daily Kos word for word on this issue?
can you name any of America's enemies that support McCain?
Originally posted by Fishermage 1. No, you are simply voting for the more socialist between two socialists. 2. Domestic spending costs jobs because we need to tax to get them. That leads to a net loss of jobs no matter what government does. that is why it best they just stay out of it. 3.No, capital gains have nothing to do with what you are talking about, Capital gains only come into play when the business is sold. All the rest come under either the personal income tax, which Obama will raise, and the corporate tax, which Obama will raise.. 4. You just said about BOTH are socialists. Libertarians have been calling socilaists socialists since Nixon, and before. It is nice to see people finally catching on. Will it be enough to keep the monster from getting elected? Probably not, but at least, once again, the people were told before they elected another socialist.
1. That's a terrible thing for you to believe and have to deal with, but I don't believe either of our candidates are socialists, so my conscience is clear.
2. War spending sure hasn't turned around the unemployment rate. I look at it like this: there's an emerging energy economy that's already created jobs in the private sector, and is a sector that can, will and must grow, except investors need to be encouraged to take risks. It'll create jobs.
To talk about something other than the "energy economy", part of our rising unemployment comes from the collapse of the housing market which hurt the construction industry; so what's wrong with proposing to put money behind infrastructure that'll employ those kind of people and turn around unemployment?
You don't have to answer because again, you're arguing against big government period, I'm only arguing against McCain.
3. Alrighty so you believe capital gains only result from the sell of entire businesses.
Obama isn't raising personal income taxes for those beneath $250,000.
He's also leaving the corporate tax rate where it is, besides cuts he's giving to companies that keep jobs here rather than shipping business across seas.
In 2004, all of that "terrorist endorsement" talk might've worked, since asking it is meant only to create fear. If Castro wants our of-age youths to go to college and the US economy to lead in new and renewable energy, awesome.
You'd maybe have something if it weren't for the fact that all of the peaceful nations of the world including our allies weren't behind Obama as well.
Originally posted by Fishermage 1. No, you are simply voting for the more socialist between two socialists. 2. Domestic spending costs jobs because we need to tax to get them. That leads to a net loss of jobs no matter what government does. that is why it best they just stay out of it. 3.No, capital gains have nothing to do with what you are talking about, Capital gains only come into play when the business is sold. All the rest come under either the personal income tax, which Obama will raise, and the corporate tax, which Obama will raise.. 4. You just said about BOTH are socialists. Libertarians have been calling socilaists socialists since Nixon, and before. It is nice to see people finally catching on. Will it be enough to keep the monster from getting elected? Probably not, but at least, once again, the people were told before they elected another socialist.
1. That's a terrible thing for you to believe and have to deal with, but I don't believe either of our candidates are socialists, so my conscience is clear.
2. War spending sure hasn't turned around the unemployment rate. I look at it like this: there's an emerging energy economy that's already created jobs in the private sector, and is a sector that can, will and must grow, except investors need to be encouraged to take risks. It'll create jobs.
To talk about something other than the "energy economy", part of our rising unemployment comes from the collapse of the housing market which hurt the construction industry; so what's wrong with proposing to put money behind infrastructure that'll employ those kind of people and turn around unemployment?
You don't have to answer because again, you're arguing against big government period, I'm only arguing against McCain.
3. Alrighty so you believe capital gains only result from the sell of entire businesses.
Obama isn't raising personal income taxes for those beneath $250,000.
He's also leaving the corporate tax rate where it is, besides cuts he's giving to companies that keep jobs here rather than shipping business across seas.
4. I hear you, but I don't agree with you.
1. I was answering YOu who said BOTH are socialists, Now you are shifting. Much like the candidate you support.
2. Why do you keep changing the subject. This entire topic has nothing to do with the war. Why hijack it? I debated you on it for awhile after you started it, but now I see you are playing with a red herring here.
"A capital gain is a profit that results from investments into a capital asset, such as stocks, bonds or real estate, which exceeds the purchase price. Conversely, a capital loss arises if the proceeds from the sale of a capital asset are less than the purchase price."
not raising personal income tax for those beneath 250K per year will kill small businesses.
He is raising corporate taxes. How does HE determine whether a company keeps jobs HERE? that is impossible to determine or enforce. Essentially you are giving him the power to run ALL American business here. Pure fascism.
In 2004, all of that "terrorist endorsement" talk might've worked, since asking it is meant only to create fear. If Castro wants our of-age youths to go to college and the US economy to lead in new and renewable energy, awesome.
You'd maybe have something if it weren't for the fact that all of the peaceful nations of the world including our allies weren't behind Obama as well.
In other words, you refuse to answer why all our enemies want Obama. It's not about, what works, but about WHY would our enemies back him?
The leaders of those nations havem't been as unified as our enemies in this.
In 2004, all of that "terrorist endorsement" talk might've worked, since asking it is meant only to create fear. If Castro wants our of-age youths to go to college and the US economy to lead in new and renewable energy, awesome.
You'd maybe have something if it weren't for the fact that all of the peaceful nations of the world including our allies weren't behind Obama as well.
In other words, you refuse to answer why all our enemies want Obama. It's not about, what works, but about WHY would our enemies back him?
The leaders of those nations havem't been as unified as our enemies in this.
In 2004, all of that "terrorist endorsement" talk might've worked, since asking it is meant only to create fear. If Castro wants our of-age youths to go to college and the US economy to lead in new and renewable energy, awesome.
You'd maybe have something if it weren't for the fact that all of the peaceful nations of the world including our allies weren't behind Obama as well.
In other words, you refuse to answer why all our enemies want Obama. It's not about, what works, but about WHY would our enemies back him?
The leaders of those nations havem't been as unified as our enemies in this.
Please explain why only Laos and the Phillipines rather see McCain in office, rather than say, our NATO allies? What's going on there? *boggle*
Those two countries are in the front lines in defense against the Jihad.
Still won't answer why our enemies want Obama though. To me, that's the on;y part of the world's opinion that matters.
Anyway since you have ceased to actually answer anything, and this is going around in circles, I will leave you to your vote for the friend of our enemies.
1. I was answering YOu who said BOTH are socialists, Now you are shifting. Much like the candidate you support. 2. Why do you keep changing the subject. This entire topic has nothing to do with the war. Why hijack it? I debated you on it for awhile after you started it, but now I see you are playing with a red herring here. 3. that is what capital gains MEANS, not what I believe. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gain "A capital gain is a profit that results from investments into a capital asset, such as stocks, bonds or real estate, which exceeds the purchase price. Conversely, a capital loss arises if the proceeds from the sale of a capital asset are less than the purchase price." not raising personal income tax for those beneath 250K per year will kill small businesses. He is raising corporate taxes. How does HE determine whether a company keeps jobs HERE? that is impossible to determine or enforce. Essentially you are giving him the power to run ALL American business here. Pure fascism.
1. Right, I was for socialism, before I was against it. Like I said, I don't care what you title either of 'em, its just verbiage. I only care about the issues, and thus my vote or Obama.
2. I'm not changing the subject, I just bring up specific examples. I don't believe in making baseless arguments as you seem to be found of. Obama's a liar, his issues are bad, he's a socialist, etc. Say WHY. In the absense of you explaining why, I feel the need to explain why I think he ISN'T.
And this was just to bring up his spending points and explain why they were investments in American people.
3. As for the claim that NOT raising personal income tax for those beneath 250k will kill small business; that doesn't quite match the assumption that leaving people beneath that amount with more of their money helps them invest in and start new small businesses.
In 2004, all of that "terrorist endorsement" talk might've worked, since asking it is meant only to create fear. If Castro wants our of-age youths to go to college and the US economy to lead in new and renewable energy, awesome.
You'd maybe have something if it weren't for the fact that all of the peaceful nations of the world including our allies weren't behind Obama as well.
In other words, you refuse to answer why all our enemies want Obama. It's not about, what works, but about WHY would our enemies back him?
The leaders of those nations havem't been as unified as our enemies in this.
Please explain why only Laos and the Phillipines rather see McCain in office, rather than say, our NATO allies? What's going on there? *boggle*
Those two countries are in the front lines in defense against the Jihad.
Still won't answer why our enemies want Obama though. To me, that's the on;y part of the world's opinion that matters.
Anyway since you have ceased to actually answer anything, and this is going around in circles, I will leave you to your vote for the friend of our enemies.
Don't forget my allies too!
I don't know why "the Jihad" endorses Obama. Feel free to tell me why, I'm sure it can sway my vote if its relevant.
The fact that they support him alone though doesn't effect my vote. I don't believe in letting our political process be held hostage by videotapes from the Middle East.
Comments
Vote Democrat. It's easier than working.
Played: Runescape, World of Warcraft, Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning
Obama wants to end the distraction we call Iraq and go after the actual mastermind and kind of camps that enabled us to be attacked on our own soil. Doesn't sound clueless to me.
Obama also wants to have direct diplomacy with Iran, rather than ignore 'em the way Bush ignored North Korea before they started test firing missiles weekly and declaring themselves a nuclear power.
If Bush is "clued in" and McCain even more so, yeah I want the clueless guy.
For someone who preaches American responsibility so much, especially fiscally, you sure don't seem to mind the per capita amount we're spending on Iraqis.
1. Sure there is. It's the solution to a problem. Not everyone in the country is so scared of government that they feel its pointing a gun to their head. I feel it's government working for us rather than working for big business.
2. Because again, I see it as government investing in the American people for once, and not favoring the American elite.
3. Obama's only allowing PARTS of the Bush tax cuts expire. Thus the whole $250,000 and above argument.
So on the contrary, tax cuts on the middle-class are being made permanent, and that's where we have tax cuts in ADDITION to the tax credits you bring up. Except those are only temporary measures of relief that're supposed to ebb back once our economy picks up.
If you don't believe I understand capital gains taxes, state why. The accusation alone doesn't make a good argument. I just don't agree with your doomsday scenario.
I also don't agree that Obama's "big spending plan" will hurt everyone. Bush cutting domestic programs in order to fund Iraq hurts everyone. A renewal of domestic programs and ending of the Iraq war sounds like the exact change we need.
4. Again with the gun thing, I don't see how that relates to creating new avenues for a college education.
Tell me, how much government do you think should exist? Should we be knitting police uniforms? Putting out California hill fires ourselves? Would militias have sufficed instead of the creation of homeland security?
I also don't buy that Obama's a liar. I see no reason to believe that.
1. I'm not scared of government; I just feel that using a the gun of state, using the brute force of government to make my fellow human beings do my bidding is wrong in most cases that you are advocating. I live without fear every day and every moment of my life. This is about disagreement -- not fear.
2. Government never invests in people, it invests in its own power, which is what Obama and you are advocating.
3. Actually Obama is allowing ALL of the Bush tax cuts to expire. You obviously don't know what your own candidate has said on the matter. He is not making Bush's tax cuts for the middle class permanent. Have you even been to his website and read his plans? he is allowing them to expire; and replacing them with his tax credit scheme.
Also, I guess it also means WHICH Obama you are talking about, since he seems to change his "plans" to suit his needs.
I did state why, with regards to capital gain. A capital gain is the gain/loss you make when you SELL your business. It won't help the small businessman at all -- but it will encourage the small businessmen to sell their businesses to big businesses when Obama's taxes crush them.
No domestic programs have been cut to fund Iraq, but more government spending does more harm than good anyway.
Obama won't end any wars, he intends to move the war into new areas.
4. Everything the Government does it does by force. That means guns. I feel the amount of government that should exist is clearly stated in the Constitution.
Head over to the Libertarian party's website for more information. www.lp.org/
Obama has proved he's a liar all his life; certainly he has proved he is a liar by contrasting what he said when he was trying to get the nomination of his party vs what he has said as he has run against McCain. I have never seen so many lies told by a candidate. The ease with which he lies and re-invents himself is astounding.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Obama wants to end the distraction we call Iraq and go after the actual mastermind and kind of camps that enabled us to be attacked on our own soil. Doesn't sound clueless to me.
Obama also wants to have direct diplomacy with Iran, rather than ignore 'em the way Bush ignored North Korea before they started test firing missiles weekly and declaring themselves a nuclear power.
If Bush is "clued in" and McCain even more so, yeah I want the clueless guy.
For someone who preaches American responsibility so much, especially fiscally, you sure don't seem to mind the per capita amount we're spending on Iraqis.
You obviously have as limted an understanding of the overall war we are fighting as he does.
As far as the money we are spending; the war we are involed with now makes World War II look like a walk in the park -- it costs as much as it costs. Defense of our nation is our Federal Government's primary responsibilty.
The Jihad is the greatest enemy we have ever faced -- they are more dangerous tha the Nazis ever were, and far, far better funded.
Also, we were united against the Nazis. the democrats have allowed the Jihad to divide us and have pretty much joined the side of the enemy. That only makes the war harder to win.
Who does the Jihad support for president? YOUR guy. Why is that.
www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE49T76620081030
Sounds just like the Daily Kos on this issue. I find that interesting.
fishermage.blogspot.com
1. Believing the government has a gun to your head sounds like fear to me. I assume in the absence of that fear though, the "gun" doesn't bother you, does it? That same absence of fear applies to me and most other people who believe there's nothing to fear. Except we go the complete crazy route of also believing there's no reason to feel we have a "gun" to our head, since without fear it isn't warranted.
Things like the energy economy. It won't move unless the government throws money at it. The private sector won't take the risks alone. I don't see why anyone would be complacent with taking money from China due to inadequacies in our own economy, and buying oil from the Middle East. It's somehow socialist and big government to spend money here to grow our economy here and create new and renewable energy right here.
We can't be hands on everything in the world except our own country. If we're willing to spend so much abroad, lets spend domestically.
2. Sure? So long as that power is increasing our economy. Lowered unemployment rates and higher middle-class income earnings in particular.
3. I have read Obama's plan, and it says he's repealing only the top portion of Bush's taxes: "Repealing a portion of the Bush tax cuts for families over $250,000" http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf
As for the Capital Gains issues, there's more to assets than shares of an entire business, and small businesses do business with small businesses, families invest in family businesses. Money earned by a small business owner is usually invested right back into one. Nothin' wrong with encouraging that.
Isn't the whole Joe the Plumber debacle about a guy wanting to buy a small business, which would require a small business owner to sell it?
4. Again, not to offend you or your own beliefs, but none of that is relevant in the context of this election. Consider it my own fault that I harbor beliefs centered solely around choosing one of the two candidates at hand.
1. Believing the government has a gun to your head sounds like fear to me. I assume in the absence of that fear though, the "gun" doesn't bother you, does it? That same absence of fear applies to me and most other people who believe there's nothing to fear. Except we go the complete crazy route of also believing there's no reason to feel we have a "gun" to our head, since without fear it isn't warranted.
Things like the energy economy. It won't move unless the government throws money at it. The private sector won't take the risks alone. I don't see why anyone would be complacent with taking money from China due to inadequacies in our own economy, and buying oil from the Middle East. It's somehow socialist and big government to spend money here to grow our economy here and create new and renewable energy right here.
We can't be hands on everything in the world except our own country. If we're willing to spend so much abroad, lets spend domestically.
2. Sure? So long as that power is increasing our economy. Lowered unemployment rates and higher middle-class income earnings in particular.
3. I have read Obama's plan, and it says he's repealing only the top portion of Bush's taxes: "Repealing a portion of the Bush tax cuts for families over $250,000" http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf
As for the Capital Gains issues, there's more to assets than shares of an entire business, and small businesses do business with small businesses, families invest in family businesses. Money earned by a small business owner is usually invested right back into one. Nothin' wrong with encouraging that.
Isn't the whole Joe the Plumber debacle about a guy wanting to buy a small business, which would require a small business owner to sell it?
4. Again, not to offend you or your own beliefs, but none of that is relevant in the context of this election. Consider it my own fault that I harbor beliefs centered solely around choosing one of the two candidates at hand.
1. Knowing that government IS a gun is simply understanding what government IS. Are laws voluntary? Are taxes? No -- that by definition is a gun to everyone's head.
the energy economy IS where it is because of government money, and because of givernment regulation. get the government out of it.
It is not UP TO YOU how people choose to spend their energy dollars. Yes, it is socialist to have government money used to spend money in any direction taht taht government wants. That is what socialism IS.
As to that last part, once agains you don't understand the issues.
2. Governemt never increases the economy -- it can only do so by getting out of the way.
3. Obama does not say he won't let the middle class tax cuts expire. he will call for EARLY repeal of the other tax cuts. You aren't reading his plan.
The capital gains tax cut will not encourage people to invest in their own business -- it'll encourage people to SELL their businesses. All other things being equal it will lead to small businesses being gobbled up by big business.
What Joe the Plumber debacle? The man asked a question, and Obama replied with socialism. However, you have a small point, there might be more businesses for sale under an Obama administration due to lowering of the capital gains tax on small business. That won't make them more attractive to people lower down on the scale though. The trend will be to sell up, destroying small businesses.
4. If you only want to choose between the two candidates at hand, the choice is easy -- the man who will compromise with socialism vs the full on socialist. I think the answer is easy there as well. McCain all the way. I answered what I answered in reference to YOUR specific question about what size government I believe in.
Both candidates are big government guys, but McCain is obviously the one who advocates the smaller government of the two. It's not even close. Obama is the most socialistic man to ever get anywhere near the white house.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Obama wants to end the distraction we call Iraq and go after the actual mastermind and kind of camps that enabled us to be attacked on our own soil. Doesn't sound clueless to me.
Obama also wants to have direct diplomacy with Iran, rather than ignore 'em the way Bush ignored North Korea before they started test firing missiles weekly and declaring themselves a nuclear power.
If Bush is "clued in" and McCain even more so, yeah I want the clueless guy.
For someone who preaches American responsibility so much, especially fiscally, you sure don't seem to mind the per capita amount we're spending on Iraqis.
You obviously have as limted an understanding of the overall war we are fighting as he does.
As far as the money we are spending; the war we are involed with now makes World War II look like a walk in the park -- it costs as much as it costs. Defense of our nation is our Federal Government's primary responsibilty.
The Jihad is the greatest enemy we have ever faced -- they are more dangerous tha the Nazis ever were, and far, far better funded.
Also, we were united against the Nazis. the democrats have allowed the Jihad to divide us and have pretty much joined the side of the enemy. That only makes the war harder to win.
Who does the Jihad support for president? YOUR guy. Why is that.
www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE49T76620081030
Sounds just like the Daily Kos on this issue. I find that interesting.
Exactly, 'Jihad'. If you belive al-Qaeda is an idea, or even if you believe its an army more than an idea, it wasn't in Iraq until we invaded. It found action through insurgency. Didn't we then SPREAD it? I'd rather go back to what we originally identified as the source.
There's also the other interest of Israel, and Iran's only gotten bolder through the Iraq war.
And mentioning things like "funds" only reminds me of Obama wanting to put more money in Afghanistan to dissuade things like farmers engaging in the poppy trade, which funds terrorism, because they feel they have to in order to survive.
Obama wants to end the distraction we call Iraq and go after the actual mastermind and kind of camps that enabled us to be attacked on our own soil. Doesn't sound clueless to me.
Obama also wants to have direct diplomacy with Iran, rather than ignore 'em the way Bush ignored North Korea before they started test firing missiles weekly and declaring themselves a nuclear power.
If Bush is "clued in" and McCain even more so, yeah I want the clueless guy.
For someone who preaches American responsibility so much, especially fiscally, you sure don't seem to mind the per capita amount we're spending on Iraqis.
You obviously have as limted an understanding of the overall war we are fighting as he does.
As far as the money we are spending; the war we are involed with now makes World War II look like a walk in the park -- it costs as much as it costs. Defense of our nation is our Federal Government's primary responsibilty.
The Jihad is the greatest enemy we have ever faced -- they are more dangerous tha the Nazis ever were, and far, far better funded.
Also, we were united against the Nazis. the democrats have allowed the Jihad to divide us and have pretty much joined the side of the enemy. That only makes the war harder to win.
Who does the Jihad support for president? YOUR guy. Why is that.
www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE49T76620081030
Sounds just like the Daily Kos on this issue. I find that interesting.
Exactly, 'Jihad'. If you belive al-Qaeda is an idea, or even if you believe its an army more than an idea, it wasn't in Iraq until we invaded. It found action through insurgency. Didn't we then SPREAD it? I'd rather go back to what we originally identified as the source.
There's also the other interest of Israel, and Iran's only gotten bolder through the Iraq war.
And mentioning things like "funds" only reminds me of Obama wanting to put more money in Afghanistan to dissuade things like farmers engaging in the poppy trade, which funds terrorism, because they feel they have to in order to survive.
The Jihad is more than al qaeda. Hussein was as much a part of it as bin laden, as is Qaddafi, even though both of them lean more towards the secular. The source of our enemy is not al qaeda, that's one of the many symptoms.
Iran's "boldness" is irrelevant to this war. Israel now has a nice, easy, free fly zone over iraq for when they need to attack them.
If we want to take the poppy money out of the Jihad against us, we need to legalize drugs. Obama not only doesn't understand our enemy or the war we are fighting, he keeps bringing up side issues that will undermine the effort.
Anyone who divides the country in time of war for the sake of getting elected doesn't deserve the office he is running for. That's been Obama all along.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Why does the Jihad want Obama to win?
fishermage.blogspot.com
1. The government is going to spend money in any direction the government wants regardless of who's elected. If you call that "socialist", then both candidates are. I'm just going to vote for the guy who spends the American people's way.
2. Things like unemployment cost us, so if domestic spending were put forth to encourage job creation, I'd call that an effect on the economy. I'm just going to vote for the guy who's doing that.
3. Again you're arguing only entire assets, there's capital gains beneath that. Be it expanding a business through moving to another building with one more necessary room or selling any other asset that might've appreciated in value, in order to buy others. I see expansion.
4. Since I don't believe either candidate is "socialist", how socialist either one is can't be a determining factor. I find it dumb any number of people would add the word to their verbiage simply because Obama had the audacity to call progressive taxes what they were.
1. The government is going to spend money in any direction the government wants regardless of who's elected. If you call that "socialist", then both candidates are. I'm just going to vote for the guy who spends the American people's way.
2. Things like unemployment cost us, so if domestic spending were put forth to encourage job creation, I'd call that an effect on the economy. I'm just going to vote for the guy who's doing that.
3. Again you're arguing only entire assets, there's capital gains beneath that. Be it expanding a business through moving to another building with one more necessary room or selling any other asset that might've appreciated in value, in order to buy others. I see expansion.
4. Since I don't believe either candidate is "socialist", how socialist either one is can't be a determining factor. I find it dumb any number of people would add the word to their verbiage simply because Obama had the audacity to call progressive taxes what they were.
1. No, you are simply voting for the more socialist between two socialists.
2. Domestic spending costs jobs because we need to tax to get them. That leads to a net loss of jobs no matter what government does. that is why it best they just stay out of it.
3.No, capital gains have nothing to do with what you are talking about, Capital gains only come into play when the business is sold. All the rest come under either the personal income tax, which Obama will raise, and the corporate tax, which Obama will raise..
4. You just said about BOTH are socialists. Libertarians have been calling socilaists socialists since Nixon, and before. It is nice to see people finally catching on. Will it be enough to keep the monster from getting elected? Probably not, but at least, once again, the people were told before they elected another socialist.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I ask again: why does the Jihad want Obama to win? Why does every American enemy want Obama to win?
fishermage.blogspot.com
'cept most Americans are against the war, I wouldn't call it division.
I also find it funny you ask me "Why does Jihad support Obama?" when you recognize its more of an idea than it is a single entity; leader, nation, army or otherwise.
As for Israel's ability to attack Iran, yeah we don't want that to happen. So let's vote for the guy who's interested in diplomacy.
As for legalizing drugs; we aren't the only nation that has a problem with opiates. The entire world would have to legalize it. I rather vote for the guy interested in having the US expand the Afghan government's encouragement of growing things other than poppy.
'cept most Americans are against the war, I wouldn't call it division.
I also find it funny you ask me "Why does Jihad support Obama?" when you recognize its more of an idea than it is a single entity; leader, nation, army or otherwise.
As for Israel's ability to attack Iran, yeah we don't want that to happen. So let's vote for the guy who's interested in diplomacy.
As for legalizing drugs; we aren't the only nation that has a problem with opiates. The entire world would have to legalize it. I rather vote for the guy interested in having the US expand the Afghan government's encouragement of growing things other than poppy.
Most people are against the war because people like you undermined us during the war.
Why do all of America's enemies support Obama?
So you want Iran to destroy Israel as well. Thanks for confirmation.
So where do you get the idea that Obama is any different than McCain on encouragement of Opium growth? Why do you keep avoiding the main things and going after the superfluous/
Why do all of America's enemies support Obama? Why do all islamists? Why do the islamists match the Daily Kos word for word on this issue?
can you name any of America's enemies that support McCain?
fishermage.blogspot.com
Iran: for Obama. Chavez: for Obama. Kim Jong Il. Obama. Al Qaeda: check.
None of America's enemies wants McCain. Hmmm. why is that?
fishermage.blogspot.com
Castro is an Obama man as well. Forgot about him.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Oh yeah, Hamas too.
fishermage.blogspot.com
1. That's a terrible thing for you to believe and have to deal with, but I don't believe either of our candidates are socialists, so my conscience is clear.
2. War spending sure hasn't turned around the unemployment rate. I look at it like this: there's an emerging energy economy that's already created jobs in the private sector, and is a sector that can, will and must grow, except investors need to be encouraged to take risks. It'll create jobs.
To talk about something other than the "energy economy", part of our rising unemployment comes from the collapse of the housing market which hurt the construction industry; so what's wrong with proposing to put money behind infrastructure that'll employ those kind of people and turn around unemployment?
You don't have to answer because again, you're arguing against big government period, I'm only arguing against McCain.
3. Alrighty so you believe capital gains only result from the sell of entire businesses.
Obama isn't raising personal income taxes for those beneath $250,000.
He's also leaving the corporate tax rate where it is, besides cuts he's giving to companies that keep jobs here rather than shipping business across seas.
4. I hear you, but I don't agree with you.
In 2004, all of that "terrorist endorsement" talk might've worked, since asking it is meant only to create fear. If Castro wants our of-age youths to go to college and the US economy to lead in new and renewable energy, awesome.
You'd maybe have something if it weren't for the fact that all of the peaceful nations of the world including our allies weren't behind Obama as well.
1. That's a terrible thing for you to believe and have to deal with, but I don't believe either of our candidates are socialists, so my conscience is clear.
2. War spending sure hasn't turned around the unemployment rate. I look at it like this: there's an emerging energy economy that's already created jobs in the private sector, and is a sector that can, will and must grow, except investors need to be encouraged to take risks. It'll create jobs.
To talk about something other than the "energy economy", part of our rising unemployment comes from the collapse of the housing market which hurt the construction industry; so what's wrong with proposing to put money behind infrastructure that'll employ those kind of people and turn around unemployment?
You don't have to answer because again, you're arguing against big government period, I'm only arguing against McCain.
3. Alrighty so you believe capital gains only result from the sell of entire businesses.
Obama isn't raising personal income taxes for those beneath $250,000.
He's also leaving the corporate tax rate where it is, besides cuts he's giving to companies that keep jobs here rather than shipping business across seas.
4. I hear you, but I don't agree with you.
1. I was answering YOu who said BOTH are socialists, Now you are shifting. Much like the candidate you support.
2. Why do you keep changing the subject. This entire topic has nothing to do with the war. Why hijack it? I debated you on it for awhile after you started it, but now I see you are playing with a red herring here.
3. that is what capital gains MEANS, not what I believe. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gain
"A capital gain is a profit that results from investments into a capital asset, such as stocks, bonds or real estate, which exceeds the purchase price. Conversely, a capital loss arises if the proceeds from the sale of a capital asset are less than the purchase price."
not raising personal income tax for those beneath 250K per year will kill small businesses.
He is raising corporate taxes. How does HE determine whether a company keeps jobs HERE? that is impossible to determine or enforce. Essentially you are giving him the power to run ALL American business here. Pure fascism.
fishermage.blogspot.com
In other words, you refuse to answer why all our enemies want Obama. It's not about, what works, but about WHY would our enemies back him?
The leaders of those nations havem't been as unified as our enemies in this.
www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1031943.html
fishermage.blogspot.com
In other words, you refuse to answer why all our enemies want Obama. It's not about, what works, but about WHY would our enemies back him?
The leaders of those nations havem't been as unified as our enemies in this.
www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1031943.html
Again, newsflash, the entire WORLD rather see Obama in office: http://www.gallup.com/poll/111253/World-Citizens-Prefer-Obama-McCain-More-Than-3to1.aspx#2
Please explain why only Laos and the Phillipines rather see McCain in office, rather than say, our NATO allies? What's going on there? *boggle*
In other words, you refuse to answer why all our enemies want Obama. It's not about, what works, but about WHY would our enemies back him?
The leaders of those nations havem't been as unified as our enemies in this.
www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1031943.html
Again, newsflash, the entire WORLD rather see Obama in office: http://www.gallup.com/poll/111253/World-Citizens-Prefer-Obama-McCain-More-Than-3to1.aspx#2
Please explain why only Laos and the Phillipines rather see McCain in office, rather than say, our NATO allies? What's going on there? *boggle*
Those two countries are in the front lines in defense against the Jihad.
Still won't answer why our enemies want Obama though. To me, that's the on;y part of the world's opinion that matters.
Anyway since you have ceased to actually answer anything, and this is going around in circles, I will leave you to your vote for the friend of our enemies.
fishermage.blogspot.com
1. Right, I was for socialism, before I was against it. Like I said, I don't care what you title either of 'em, its just verbiage. I only care about the issues, and thus my vote or Obama.
2. I'm not changing the subject, I just bring up specific examples. I don't believe in making baseless arguments as you seem to be found of. Obama's a liar, his issues are bad, he's a socialist, etc. Say WHY. In the absense of you explaining why, I feel the need to explain why I think he ISN'T.
And this was just to bring up his spending points and explain why they were investments in American people.
3. As for the claim that NOT raising personal income tax for those beneath 250k will kill small business; that doesn't quite match the assumption that leaving people beneath that amount with more of their money helps them invest in and start new small businesses.
In other words, you refuse to answer why all our enemies want Obama. It's not about, what works, but about WHY would our enemies back him?
The leaders of those nations havem't been as unified as our enemies in this.
www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1031943.html
Again, newsflash, the entire WORLD rather see Obama in office: http://www.gallup.com/poll/111253/World-Citizens-Prefer-Obama-McCain-More-Than-3to1.aspx#2
Please explain why only Laos and the Phillipines rather see McCain in office, rather than say, our NATO allies? What's going on there? *boggle*
Those two countries are in the front lines in defense against the Jihad.
Still won't answer why our enemies want Obama though. To me, that's the on;y part of the world's opinion that matters.
Anyway since you have ceased to actually answer anything, and this is going around in circles, I will leave you to your vote for the friend of our enemies.
Don't forget my allies too!
I don't know why "the Jihad" endorses Obama. Feel free to tell me why, I'm sure it can sway my vote if its relevant.
The fact that they support him alone though doesn't effect my vote. I don't believe in letting our political process be held hostage by videotapes from the Middle East.