Im voting republican but BOY is Sarah Palins accent and voice annoying!

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by VinnyRaptor
http:///forum/post/2778979
she did good in the Couric interview? dude the whole country is making fun of the Couric interview. OMG i cant believe even you are trying to justify it. these so called "gotcha" questions are laughable. what newpapers do you read? " ya know all of them" any one's in specific? " yah know like all of them" thats only a "gotcha" question if you dont READ! she believes abortion should be illegal period! she also believes the planet is 6000 yrs old!
she's nothing but a pretty faced evangelical zealot.
Dang Vinny I gotta agree with you here. I am just hoping they had palin sandbagging so she will look better in the debate.
However the whole age of the planet thing is BS. She hasn't said anything like that.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2778990
Newsweek story and obama has said he was there.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/132874
"but it received broad exposure at last week's debate on ABC, when Obama was asked a question about their relationship. Obama, who lives near Ayers in Chicago's Hyde Park, attended an event at Ayers's house when Obama ran for the state Senate in 1995—and served on the board of a nonprofit with him for several years."
I don't need a picture for proof when your candidate admitted it in a debate and his team also admits it.

So Newsweek says he was there, and this confirms it? Again, hearsay. Nowhere in that article does it say Obama admitted he went to Ayers apartment. Show me pictures. Not some claim by an unreliable source or some staff writer. Where's a copy of the statements that were said at this debate? Give me audio of the conversations. Still reaching I'm sorry to say.

You really need to prioritize your issues regarding this election. You're on this quest to tie Obama to a guy that did something stupid 40 years ago. Read the articles you posted. Obama and his team clearly state the media is making something out of nothing. Read how many encounters he said he had with the man while they were serving on the CAC Board.

 

[reefraff]

So all these publications say Obama was there and Obama has never denied it yet you don't believe it. Whatever

 

[rotarymagic]

Originally Posted by 1knight164
http:///forum/post/2774598
Were you referring to Scarface?
nope... if I explain it, this thread will go south VERY fast.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2778452
well I am sure your preacher/pastor would advise against it... as well as playing the numbers...
Most preach/pastors I know would too.
Of course, those same preacher/pastors would laugh if I asked which was worse, gambling or supporting late term abortions...

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2779079
.... You're on this quest to tie Obama to a guy that did something stupid 40 years ago. ....
What, exactly, is the statute of limitations for terrorism in your mind?
Bin Laden attacked us on 9-11. Hey, that's been over 7 years ago. Would it be ok if a Republican started his campaign in a cave in Afghanistan with him?

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2779211
What, exactly, is the statute of limitations for terrorism in your mind?
Bin Laden attacked us on 9-11. Hey, that's been over 7 years ago. Would it be ok if a Republican started his campaign in a cave in Afghanistan with him?
What has Ayers done in the last 40 years that would even indicate he would commit what you call another terrositic attack? Nothing. Plain and simple.
Ayers can't even be put in the same category as Bin Laden. If he could, he'd either be dead because he would've been executed, or he'd still be sitting in a prison serving a lifetime prison term with no possibilty of parole. I don't want to waste my time reasearching AGAIN what happened with the various events of the Weatherman Underground. But if I recall, only one or two people were physically harmed, unintentionally, by one of the small explosions this group set off in protest of the Vietnam War. If it weren't for that, these people you call 'terrorists' were nothing more than a radical group of college kids that blew up a couple of rooms in some buildings. Every explosion they set off, they first notified the authories as to when and where it would go off. Bin Laden an Al-Qaeda had a planned attack that killed thousands of Americans using a sneak attack, and used our own planes filled with innocent victims. So if you want to put Ayers in the same category as Bin Laden, I guess you can. That's your perception of what a terrorist is. I know how you like to quote defintions to prove your point. Like I said when this Ayers junk started up for the upteenth time, "been there, done that."

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2779079
You really need to prioritize your issues regarding this election.
aren't you the guy that brings up the keating five (this was how long ago) the cheating on his wife (this was how long ago) and the potential mafia connections (this was how long ago)....none of which have anything to do with issues.
You want to talk issues, I would, but a socialist (you) and a conservative (me) won't see eye to eye on that either. so was the surge a good thing or not, your own candidate can't make up his mind about this simple question...give me a break.
as for what my issues are, less friggin government...and Obama has pledged to increase social spending creating MORE govt. programs, further increasing our budget thus the bidget defecit, thus the national debt.
Some people need to look at history a bit more. Taxes mean squat without fiscal spending....You see the current lending crisis but you are ok with MORE government spending.
Taxes going up or down historically have not helped any situation...as the ALWAYS bring in the same percentage of revenue compared to GDP. look at it...from a percentage aspect it has remain flat for over 100 years mostly.....but let's spend more, our economy is in the tank, but spending more government money is wise, lets owe more money as acountry, that will fix things.
THAT is my friggin issue...and neither one of these moronic yahoos will balance a budget....but one will come closer than the other and not at the cost to our national military defense.

 

[sickboy]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2779493
so was the surge a good thing or not, your own candidate can't make up his mind about this simple question...give me a break.
All I'm gonna say about this is that I supported the surge, but it is not solely responsible for the decrease in violence. The Anbar awakening, *what's his faces's* (sorry can't remember his name...the cleric) militia calling a truce, and the surge all happened within a couple months. Its hard to say what was solely responsible and its dangerous to confuse causation with correlation.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2779514
All I'm gonna say about this is that I supported the surge, but it is not solely responsible for the decrease in violence. The Anbar awakening, *what's his faces's* (sorry can't remember his name...the cleric) militia calling a truce, and the surge all happened within a couple months. Its hard to say what was solely responsible and its dangerous to confuse causation with correlation.
Not really. I think most experts in this region will tell you the Awakening and the Cease Fire are both direct results of more boots on the ground over here and the impression our military gave that we weren't backing down.
In doing that, we finally were able to get the locals to begin trusting us...
The issue, however, is that most leading Democrats were, and still are, calling the surge a failure...

 

[gonefishcrazy]

Its funny how McCain/Palin keeps bringing up the surge to cover the fact that McCain voted for the war and that it was a mistake.

The big issue on the Iraq war is that it never should have been waged.

So stop with the surge sidestep.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by gonefishcrazy
http:///forum/post/2779589
Its funny how McCain/Palin keeps bringing up the surge to cover the fact that McCain voted for the war and that it was a mistake.

The big issue on the Iraq war is that it never should have been waged.

So stop with the surge sidestep.

Monday morning quarterbacking is true leadership.

 

[perfectdark]

Originally Posted by gonefishcrazy
http:///forum/post/2779589
Its funny how McCain/Palin keeps bringing up the surge to cover the fact that McCain voted for the war and that it was a mistake.

The big issue on the Iraq war is that it never should have been waged.

So stop with the surge sidestep.

Yea I agree... Instead we should of asked Bin Laden for a letter of apology and a promise to never do it again, and then move on with our lives...

 

[reefraff]

You want to know what a true lack of character and judgement is? Obama speaking out against the war as a state legislator who had absolutely no facts regarding Iraq's WMD's. It was a political stunt to get headlines, nothing more.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2779493
aren't you the guy that brings up the keating five (this was how long ago) the cheating on his wife (this was how long ago) and the potential mafia connections (this was how long ago)....none of which have anything to do with issues.
You want to talk issues, I would, but a socialist (you) and a conservative (me) won't see eye to eye on that either. so was the surge a good thing or not, your own candidate can't make up his mind about this simple question...give me a break.
as for what my issues are, less friggin government...and Obama has pledged to increase social spending creating MORE govt. programs, further increasing our budget thus the bidget defecit, thus the national debt.
Some people need to look at history a bit more. Taxes mean squat without fiscal spending....You see the current lending crisis but you are ok with MORE government spending.
Taxes going up or down historically have not helped any situation...as the ALWAYS bring in the same percentage of revenue compared to GDP. look at it...from a percentage aspect it has remain flat for over 100 years mostly.....but let's spend more, our economy is in the tank, but spending more government money is wise, lets owe more money as acountry, that will fix things.
THAT is my friggin issue...and neither one of these moronic yahoos will balance a budget....but one will come closer than the other and not at the cost to our national military defense.
Sorry, not me who brings up Keating and McCain's infidelities. I think I have mentioned Keating in respect to McCain hanging out with shady people, but that's about it. And I completely agree with the issues you've brought up. And you're right, I don't think either one of these guys are capable of fixing it. I guess we just disagree on whose the lesser of two evils.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2779610
Sorry, not me who brings up Keating and McCain's infidelities. I think I have mentioned Keating in respect to McCain hanging out with shady people, but that's about it. And I completely agree with the issues you've brought up. And you're right, I don't think either one of these guys are capable of fixing it. I guess we just disagree on whose the lesser of two evils.
For me it really boils down to their economic policies. One thinks redistribution of wealth is the answer. And that just doesn't work. There is nothing fair about taking money from people working and giving it to people who aren't.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by gonefishcrazy
http:///forum/post/2779589
Its funny how McCain/Palin keeps bringing up the surge to cover the fact that McCain voted for the war and that it was a mistake.

The big issue on the Iraq war is that it never should have been waged.

So stop with the surge sidestep.

and they leave out details... the Surge first is a tactic not a strategy... however there were many factors that aided the current conditions and the surge alone is not the reason for less violence... there was a cease fire, Anbar awakening, USA paid insurgents to change sides, etc.

 

[sickboy]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2779662
For me it really boils down to their economic policies. One thinks redistribution of wealth is the answer. And that just doesn't work. There is nothing fair about taking money from people working and giving it to people who aren't.
Middle class tax cuts are a little different than redistributing wealth. I know you are a trickle down man, but face it, with the MPC numbers, who will spend the money and therefore give us a real economic boost? The middle class.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2779814
Middle class tax cuts are a little different than redistributing wealth. I know you are a trickle down man, but face it, with the MPC numbers, who will spend the money and therefore give us a real economic boost? The middle class.
I'm not against tax cuts to the middle class. (judging from their past history I don't think either candidate will cut taxes) That is fine. I'm discussing the tax the rich, and expand government entitlement programs that obama proposes.
This isn't the first democrat to run on a tax cuts platform.
Second, regarding supply side economics, I've never seen a poor man hire 100 people. It is the old cliche, give a man a fish (what obama wants to do) he'll back tomorrow, teach him to fish (what supply side economics is) and they'll eat for life.

 

[sickboy]

I'm not against supply-side economics all the time, I think that economic policy should be dynamic and that not one policy should be used all the time. And yes I understand that free riders creates a problem, but generally it is so minute in comparison to how much it can help that the benefits outweigh the costs. But I'm also not saying we should just give things to people, that ruins motivation, as you stated.
But at this time, I believe we need to give a break to the middle class. The rich will still benefit, and in fact, if you raise their taxes you will get more investment. How? In order to dodge the higher income tax, businesses & the rich will invest more than they did before to avoid income tax and/or pay the relatively lower cap gains tax. Then the middle class takes their extra money and spends it in businesses that the rich own. The rich gain either way, directly or indirectly.