Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on April 13, 2008, 10:45:22 AM
-
Colin Powell to be his VP. I know it's a pipe dream, but I would love to see McCain serve one term followed by Powell in 2012.
-
Chris Mathews of Hardball (can you name a more politically connected guy?) believes it will be this man.
Look at him - 100% conservative rating, young, good-looking, strong economic base, armed services committee.
A family man. Worked under Reagan. Knows energy (ethanol!) and transportation. No scandals. Knows how to raise money. Defeated Tom Daschle! Only drawback - he is very very religious, which might not work well with independetn voters.
I cannot think of a better running mate. Best part? He's Obama's age!
John Randolph Thune (born January 7, 1961) is the Republican junior U.S. Senator from the state of South Dakota.
Born and raised in South Dakota, Thune attended college in Los Angeles, California at Biola University before returning to his home state to obtain a graduate degree at the University of South Dakota. He worked as a legislative aid to U.S. Senator James Abdnor and served in the Reagan Administration in the Small Business Administration, before winning election to the House of Representatives in 1996. After three terms in the House, he unsuccessfully challenged Democrat Tim Johnson in the U.S. Senate race in 2002, losing by a mere 524 votes (0.15%). Thune was elected to the Senate two years later, defeating the incumbent Democrat and serving Senate Minority Leader, Tom Daschle, in a historic race that received national media attention.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/John_Thune_official_photo.jpg/160px-John_Thune_official_photo.jpg)
Early life and family
Thune was born in Pierre, South Dakota to Yvonne Patricia Bodine and Harold Richard Thune. Thune's paternal grandfather was an immigrant from Norway who partnered with his brother to start Thune Hardware stores in Mitchell and Murdo, South Dakota.[1] He was raised in the small-town of Murdo, South Dakota. A committed evangelical Christian, Thune graduated with a B.A. degree in Business from Biola University, an evangelical college in Los Angeles, California, in 1983.[2] Thune received an MBA from the University of South Dakota in 1984. He and his wife Kimberley, who is from Doland, South Dakota, have two daughters, Brittany and Larissa.
[edit] Political career
A member of the Republican Party, Thune worked as a legislative assistant for U.S. Senator James Abdnor. Under President Reagan, Thune worked at the Small Business Administration.
Thune was appointed Railroad Director of South Dakota by Governor George S. Mickelson and served from 1991-1993.
[edit] House of Representatives
In 1996, Thune was elected to South Dakota's lone seat in the United States House of Representatives; he won reelection in 1998 and in 2000 was reelected with over 70% of the vote. Thune supported term limits and promised to serve no more than three terms in the House.
Keeping his pledge, Thune instead ran for the United States Senate, challenging Senator Tim Johnson in 2002, and losing by 524 votes (0.15%). Ultimately, Thune decided not to pursue a recount, although there were allegations of vote fraud by Democrats.[3]
Between 2002-2004 Thune worked as a lobbyist for the Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad.[4]
[edit] 2004 Senate race
In 2004, he again ran for the Senate, this time challenging incumbent Tom Daschle, at the time the United States Senate Minority Leader and leader of the Senate Democrats.
The race was the most expensive Senate race in 2004, with $30 million spent,[5] and the most expensive in South Dakota history. It was widely followed in the national media. Thune — along with Senate Minority Leader Bill Frist, President of the United States George W. Bush, and Vice President Dick Cheney — painted Daschle as the "chief obstructionist" of Bush's agenda: "Thune was able to criticize “Daschle for serving incompatible masters,” and portray him, as Frist did when he came to South Dakota to campaign for Thune, as a partisan obstructionist and political heir to liberal icon and former Sen. George McGovern of South Dakota.[6]
Daschle's critics charged the Democrat with using filibusters to block confirmation of several of Bush's nominees to the federal judiciary, and being out of step with the views of South Dakota voters on other political and social issues: "The GOP had targeted Daschle, the Senate minority leader, claiming he had been the chief obstruction to President Bush on such issues as tax cuts, judicial nominees and the war in Iraq."[7] Thune emphasized social issues such as abortion and same sex marriage, and flag burning to highlight the differences between his views and Daschle's, stating, "Two-thirds of the people in South Dakota are in favor of protecting marriage through a Federal Marriage Amendment. You know, two-thirds of the people in South Dakota, probably higher than that, are in favor of an amendment to protect the American flag. You know, the Second Amendment, gun owners' rights, abortion -- those are not wedge issues in South Dakota."[8]
In addition, Thune drove home his strong support for the war: in a nationally televised debate on NBC's Meet the Press, Thune accused Daschle of "emboldening the enemy" by stating President Bush had "failed miserably" to avoid the Iraq war.[9]
When the race began in early 2004, Daschle led by 7 points in January and February. By May, his lead minimized to just 2 points and into the summer polls showed an effective tie. Throughout September, Daschle led Thune by margins of 2-5%; from October until the November 2 election, most polls showed Thune and Daschle tied 49-49 among likely voters.
On November 2, 2004, Thune defeated Daschle by 4,508 votes, winning 51% of the vote and became a well-known Republican figure in the U.S. Senate. Daschle's loss was the first ousting of a serving Senate Majority or Minority Leader since 1952, when Arizona Senator Ernest McFarland lost his seat to Barry Goldwater.
[edit] Senate service
Thune was chosen to be the GOP's Chief Deputy Whip. He also serves on the Senate's Agriculture, Commerce, and Armed Services Committees.
Soon after arriving in the Senate, Thune wrote language into a transportation bill expanding the pot of federal loan money for small railroads, enabling his former client to apply for $2.5 billion in government financing for its project.[10]
As a U.S. Senator, Thune also took a leading role in formulating energy policy. He pushed for the final passage of a comprehensive energy bill, which finally overcame a series of Democratic filibusters and passed the Senate in 2005. Thune helped pass another energy bill in late 2007. Thune is a particular advocate of ethanol and wind energy, which are linked to South Dakota's high levels of corn production and its windy prairies. Thune's hometown of Murdo is considered one of the windiest towns in the nation.
Thune, along with South Dakota's senior Senator Tim Johnson, was also faced with the challenge of keeping Ellsworth Air Force Base in Box Elder, South Dakota (near Rapid City) open after the Department of Defense announced plans to close the base as part of its 2005 round of base closures. The Pentagon announced that it planned to move all of Ellsworth's B-1 bombers to Dyess Air Force Base in Texas. Ellsworth Air Force Base is one of South Dakota's largest employers, and a critical component of the state's economic well-being, making it necessary for the state's political leaders to fight for its continued existence. Senator Thune, along with Senator Tim Johnson (D), lobbyied Washington, specifically the Defense Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission, to keep Ellsworth open. In their lobbying efforts, they argued that it made little sense to consolidate all of the nation's B-1s in a single location due to the risk of a single attack or tornado taking out the fleet. Also, it was discovered that the Pentagon may have overlooked a lawsuit that possibly prevented B-1 pilots at Dyess from engaging in adequate training. While the fate of Dyess was still in the air, Thune declared that he had strong doubts about issues such as John Bolton's nomination as United Nations ambassador, "I've said all along that I'm going to play whatever cards I have to get the best possible outcome I can for my base," he is reported as saying.[11] Ultimately, the BRAC Commission voted 8-1 to reverse the Pentagon's recommendation to close Ellsworth.[12]
[edit] Political philosophy
John Thune is a Christian conservative.[13]
The American Conservative Union gave Senator Thune a rating of "100" in 2006.[14]
Thune's religious faith is also an important component of his political philosophy. He has stated, "Having a Christian worldview shapes my decision-making with respect to all aspects of my life. I always respect people in public life who are principled, and those principles have to be connected to something. And my faith is what serves as the anchor and directs my actions."[15] In June 2006, Thune reaffirmed his strong support to amend the United States Constitution to ban same sex marriages: "The federal marriage amendment debate simply is an opportunity for us to affirm our support for marriage...It is an important debate to have in this country."[16]
In a 2005 interview with Christianity Today, Thune supported invading Iraq, expressing a hope that this would result in greater religious freedom: "Liberating Iraq from decades of tyranny and dictatorship, bringing about political freedom, will create an atmosphere of where religious freedom will come to Iraq. And that opens the door, obviously, for the Christian faith there as well."[17]
-
In a 2005 interview with Christianity Today, Thune supported invading Iraq, expressing a hope that this would result in greater religious freedom: "Liberating Iraq from decades of tyranny and dictatorship, bringing about political freedom, will create an atmosphere of where religious freedom will come to Iraq. And that opens the door, obviously, for the Christian faith there as well."[
Too bad it had the exact opposite effect.
The last thing we need is another christian nut bag thinking it's ok to spend US tax dollars to promote their favorite fairy tale in other countries.
-
We now know this man believes loss of American lives for the purpose of exporting religion is a good thing.
Some will love that, some will hate that.
-
We now know this man believes loss of American lives for the purpose of exporting religion is a good thing.
Some will love that, some will hate that.
Well, you can add me to the hate category.
Loss of any lives for the purpose of exporting religion makes him no better than the durkas.
-
Well, you can add me to the hate category.
Loss of any lives for the purpose of exporting religion makes him no better than the durkas.
Yoou know this is a religous war right.....dwayne?
-
wonder how much wars they will wage in the name of their god ::)
-
Yoou know this is a religous war right.....dwayne?
It is for the pedo durkas, Bukkake Boi Julian.
For us it's about oil regional stability war on terror.
-
It is for the pedo durkas, Bukkake Boi Julian.
For us it's about oil regional stability war on terror.
and bringing democracy ::)
-
In a 2005 interview with Christianity Today, Thune supported invading Iraq, expressing a hope that this would result in greater religious freedom: "Liberating Iraq from decades of tyranny and dictatorship, bringing about political freedom, will create an atmosphere of where religious freedom will come to Iraq. And that opens the door, obviously, for the Christian faith there as well."
Too bad it had the exact opposite effect.
The last thing we need is another christian nut bag thinking it's ok to spend US tax dollars to promote their favorite fairy tale in other countries.
Ironically, under Saddam, Iraq had religious freedom where Sunni, Shi'ites, Christians, Jews, and Bahai's lived side by side in peace. All of that is changed now, and Christians have fled in droves. There's no place for them in today's Iraq :'(
-
and bringing democracy ::)
Yeah. That too. :P
Durka durka pedo mohammed jihad.
-
Ironically, under Saddam, Iraq had religious freedom where Sunni, Shi'ites, Christians, Jews, and Bahai's lived side by side in peace. All of that is changed now, and Christians have fled in droves. There's no place for them in today's Iraq :'(
haha exactly, what a tool who wrote the article. Saddam even said he had respect for jews.
He was a modern leader and hated islamists.
-
We're worse than them. Neocons believe Jesus' first appearance will be in Israel so we must spend whatever it costs (money, lives, international good will, etc..) to secure the region. There invasion had no actual benefit to the typical American and the Iraqi people had more stability with Saddam.
-
Colin Powell to be his VP. I know it's a pipe dream, but I would love to see McCain serve one term followed by Powell in 2012.
McCain is a horrible candidate. He's a Bush clone with a bad comb-over.
Here's part of his platform: On-going War in Iraq & possibly Iran, Tax cuts pay for themselves--so more tax cuts in the face of crushing national debt, and torture by the CIA is A-OK.
It doesn't matter whether he picks that Yes-man Powell.
Remember Colin Powell at the UN? When He lied his ass off to make sure the Iraq attack happened.
That's what America needs! More right-wing yes-men working in tandem with a right-wing ideologue!
Haven't you had enough after 8 years of misery and failure?
-
We're worse than them. Neocons believe Jesus' first appearance will be in Israel so we must spend whatever it costs (money, lives, international good will, etc..) to secure the region. There invasion had no actual benefit to the typical American and the Iraqi people had more stability with Saddam.
i always thought it was about the people but its not, they dont care about people. they install a dictator to keep the people in check, when it suits them they remove it again.
-
i always thought it was about the people but its not, they dont care about people. they install a dictator to keep the people in check, when it suits them they remove it again.
We put Saddam in power.
Ultimately, Saddam knew exactly how to deal with those tiny tits. The US just couldn't understsand that allowing endless inspections would make him look weak and errode the fear he instilled in the populace.
The invasion pretty much has us (and the budget) screwed forever. Leaving means it will ultimately become an Islamist state with no buffer zone between Iran and Israel. On some level I believe Cheney knew this. The guy is some wierd evil genious and it's crazy that he believed we would be welcomed as liberators. He must have a secret religious, financial or whatever reason to want a permanant US military presence between Iran and Israel. No matter what anyone thinks of him.... no one thinks he's stupid so there's no way he thought invading Iraq would lead to anything other than a permanent US presence.
-
We put Saddam in power...wow? I fail to see this guy as a religious nutbag...not my guy but he's not a crusader either. U guys take the least little thing a jump to the logical Lib conclusion. U make Iraq seem like a wonderful secular state under Saddam. ::)
"Last year I went to Iraq. Before Team America showed up, it was a happy place. They had flowery meadows and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles"
-
We put Saddam in power...wow? I fail to see this guy as a religious nutbag...not my guy but he's not a crusader either. U guys take the least little thing a jump to the logical Lib conclusion. U make Iraq seem like a wonderful secular state under Saddam. ::)
"Last year I went to Iraq. Before Team America showed up, it was a happy place. They had flowery meadows and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles"
He was a monster. But he was the US's monster. We armed him and financed him. Even when he was gassing the Kurds, he was our boy.
He slipped up by falling out of our favor. He had to go. And go he did.
-
Ironically, under Saddam, Iraq had religious freedom where Sunni, Shi'ites, Christians, Jews, and Bahai's lived side by side in peace. All of that is changed now, and Christians have fled in droves. There's no place for them in today's Iraq :'(
O Rly? http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/reliraq03.html
-
McCain is a horrible candidate. He's a Bush clone with a bad comb-over.
Here's part of his platform: On-going War in Iraq & possibly Iran, Tax cuts pay for themselves--so more tax cuts in the face of crushing national debt, and torture by the CIA is A-OK.
It doesn't matter whether he picks that Yes-man Powell.
Remember Colin Powell at the UN? When He lied his ass off to make sure the Iraq attack happened.
That's what America needs! More right-wing yes-men working in tandem with a right-wing ideologue!
Haven't you had enough after 8 years of misery and failure?
I'd call him average. Better than Bush in 2000. Not nearly as good as Powell would be today. Much better than Obama or Hillary.
-
I'd call him average. Better than Bush in 2000. Not nearly as good as Powell would be today. Much better than Obama or Hillary.
Why do you say that?
He thinks tax cuts pay for themselves and then some!
Sen. McCain: "No. None. None. Tax cuts, starting with Kennedy, as we all know, increase revenues. So what's the argument for increasing taxes? If you get the opposite effect out of tax cuts?"
Do you think that?
I think McCain is a scam-artist playing to the worst in people. Definitely not presidential material.
-
Why do you say that?
He thinks tax cuts pay for themselves and then some!
Sen. McCain: "No. None. None. Tax cuts, starting with Kennedy, as we all know, increase revenues. So what's the argument for increasing taxes? If you get the opposite effect out of tax cuts?"
Do you think that?
I think McCain is a scam-artist playing to the worst in people. Definitely not presidential material.
I say he's better than Bush in 2000 because his education is almost on par with Bush, he has a better military record, he's more experienced, and he's smarter. (But I still think he’s just an average candidate.) He's better than Obama, because Obama is a liberal who admittedly offers nothing new; just big government and socialism with different packaging.
I support candidates who have the mindset that the money belongs to the people and government should always be trying to help the people keep more of their own money. Obama is just the opposite: take from the haves, give to the have nots, use the government to ensure everyone has an equal opportunity, even if that means the brazen redistribution of wealth.
-
I say he's better than Bush in 2000 because his education is almost on par with Bush, he has a better military record, he's more experienced, and he's smarter. (But I still think he’s just an average candidate.) He's better than Obama, because Obama is a liberal who admittedly offers nothing new; just big government and socialism with different packaging.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HHHHAAAAAAAAA
Wish I had some of that Kook Aid.
-
McCain is a poor choice. I respected him more when he was less of a polititian back in the day.
-
McCain is a poor choice. I respected him more when he was less of a polititian back in the day.
He's O.K. Just O.K. For yet another election we will be given a slate of mediocre candidates on both sides. Frustrating.
-
He's O.K. Just O.K. For yet another election we will be given a slate of mediocre candidates on both sides. Frustrating.
::)
-
I say he's better than Bush in 2000 because his education is almost on par with Bush, he has a better military record, he's more experienced, and he's smarter. (But I still think he’s just an average candidate.) He's better than Obama, because Obama is a liberal who admittedly offers nothing new; just big government and socialism with different packaging.
I support candidates who have the mindset that the money belongs to the people and government should always be trying to help the people keep more of their own money. Obama is just the opposite: take from the haves, give to the have nots, use the government to ensure everyone has an equal opportunity, even if that means the brazen redistribution of wealth.
I see. So even if his policies--like his borrow and spend policy--are wrong-headed, you will support him b/c he will cut taxes. Those tax cuts will be a short term gain for you. The long term loss of your share of the national debt does not play a role in your calculus it seems.
I think McCain's Borrow and spend/cut taxes at all costs approach to fiscal sanity is a national nightmare. It is not conservative.
I think McCain's advocacy of CIA torture is anti-american b/c torture does not issue from our traditions. It is not a conservative opinion.
I think McCain's constant cheerleading for the failed occupation of Iraq and his bellicose attitude towards Iran are counterproductive to real diplomacy. That's not conservative.
Where did Obama admit that he offers "nothing new"...I thought his entire campaign was about 'change'?
-
It has been long established that McCain is not smart. He graduated near the very bottom of his class and has proven to be one of the dimmer bulbs in the Senate. :-[
-
It has been long established that McCain is not smart. He graduated near the very bottom of his class and has proven to be one of the dimmer bulbs in the Senate. :-[
Yes, but old BB believes that if he posts with conviction he can change reality.
-
This sums it all up for me with regard to our choices for president:
-
It has been long established that McCain is not smart. He graduated near the very bottom of his class and has proven to be one of the dimmer bulbs in the Senate. :-[
He's a bad student but he's not a dumb man.
He's dishonest and that's enough for me.
He constantly beats the drum that tax cuts raise tax revenues.
Even Pres. Bush's own economists deny that supplyside fairy tale.
-
He's a bad student but he's not a dumb man.
He's dishonest and that's enough for me.
He constantly beats the drum that tax cuts raise tax revenues.
Even Pres. Bush's own economists deny that supplyside fairy tale.
Come on, Decker. At least be fair about it.
He said that tax cuts WITH spending cuts raise tax revenues.
That is why he claims he was originally against the Bush tax cuts - they came with zero cuts in government spending.
-
Come on, Decker. At least be fair about it.
He said that tax cuts WITH spending cuts raise tax revenues.
That is why he claims he was originally against the Bush tax cuts - they came with zero cuts in government spending.
Sen. McCain: No. None. None. Tax cuts, starting with Kennedy, as we all know, increase revenues. So what’s the argument for increasing taxes? If you get the opposite effect out of tax cuts?
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTMxOWRkYjgyNDhjOTU5ZTY2OWU2ZTg2ZmUxMzQ1NjQ=&w=MQ==
That's from March 5 of this year.
Apparently McCain forgot about the spending cuts. And even with spending cuts, tax cuts are a loser for federal revenue. We carry around a 9 trillion dollar debt that still has to be paid for.
He's being facile to the point of blatant dishonesty.
-
...He said that tax cuts WITH spending cuts raise tax revenues.
....
THE FACTS:
Spending was not why McCain said he opposed President Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.
In 2001, McCain said the $1.35 trillion tax cut benefited the wealthy at the expense of the middle class.
"I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief," McCain said then.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080131/D8UH1CF80.html
-
THE FACTS:
Spending was not why McCain said he opposed President Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.
In 2001, McCain said the $1.35 trillion tax cut benefited the wealthy at the expense of the middle class.
"I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief," McCain said then.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080131/D8UH1CF80.html
Okay... so what did he mean by this?
"The tax cut is not appropriate until we find out the cost of the war and the cost of reconstruction," McCain said then.
No tax cuts until we find out what the bill is going to be?
-
Okay... so what did he mean by this?
"The tax cut is not appropriate until we find out the cost of the war and the cost of reconstruction," McCain said then.
No tax cuts until we find out what the bill is going to be?
Great. Dualing McCains.
I don't see any call to cut spending in that sentence. But in all fairness, I have seen him make comments about restraining spending. However, he's playing to the nutbase of the republican party with supplyside bromides and I hope it sinks him.
Sen. John McCain said, "I've never voted for a tax increase in 24 years," .... "Never, ever, not under any president including President Reagan, and I will never vote for a tax increase, nor support a tax increase."
And Mr. McCain proclaimed himself a believer in the notion that cutting taxes increases revenue for the government by spurring economic growth. “Don’t listen to this siren song about cutting taxes,” Mr. McCain told supporters gathered here under a tent in a driving rain. “Every time in history we have raised taxes it has cut revenues. And is there anybody here that needs to have their taxes increased?”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/us/politics/18campaign.html?_r=2&ref=politics&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
-
I see. So even if his policies--like his borrow and spend policy--are wrong-headed, you will support him b/c he will cut taxes. Those tax cuts will be a short term gain for you. The long term loss of your share of the national debt does not play a role in your calculus it seems.
I think McCain's Borrow and spend/cut taxes at all costs approach to fiscal sanity is a national nightmare. It is not conservative.
I think McCain's advocacy of CIA torture is anti-american b/c torture does not issue from our traditions. It is not a conservative opinion.
I think McCain's constant cheerleading for the failed occupation of Iraq and his bellicose attitude towards Iran are counterproductive to real diplomacy. That's not conservative.
Where did Obama admit that he offers "nothing new"...I thought his entire campaign was about 'change'?
No, it's not as simple as supporting someone who will cut taxes. It's about supporting someone with the mindset that it's not the government's money. It's about opposing someone who is a quasi socialist and believes in the redistribution of wealth.
Regarding Obama offering nothing new, Colossus posted this in another thread:
"I'm different than any of the politicians you've heard from in Washington. Of course, I propose no different solutions than what any of my other constituents. But what I can promise you is that I can present those same solutions to you in a brand new package, never seen before." -- Barack Obama
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=207228.0
-
This sums it all up for me with regard to our choices for president:
lol. A shame isn't it?
-
No, it's not as simple as supporting someone who will cut taxes. It's about supporting someone with the mindset that it's not the government's money. It's about opposing someone who is a quasi socialist and believes in the redistribution of wealth.
Regarding Obama offering nothing new, Colossus posted this in another thread:
"I'm different than any of the politicians you've heard from in Washington. Of course, I propose no different solutions than what any of my other constituents. But what I can promise you is that I can present those same solutions to you in a brand new package, never seen before." -- Barack Obama
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=207228.0
But Beach Bum, it is the government's money--tax dollars.
All governments redistribute tax dollars. It just usually goes to the destitute or elites.
As for Obama, who truly creates anything? Are we not all arrangers?
-
I actually think Hillary is the smartest of the bunch. If she didn't also favor a quasi-socialist agenda, I'd consider voting for her. She isn't easy to like, but I think she is intelligent, assertive and would be effective as a leader.
McCain has talked about cutting spending along with tax cuts, but I agree, I'd like to hear a lot more of that from him.
We cannot tolerate forced redistribution of wealth. It does nothing to change work ethic, broken families and poor values and choices.
-
lol. A shame isn't it?
Pitiful is more like it. :-\ The irony in all of this is that we'll likely see a record attendance in voting this year. Voters (new and old) are exited about a pitiful selection to choose from.
-
I actually think Hillary is the smartest of the bunch. If she didn't also favor a quasi-socialist agenda, I'd consider voting for her. She isn't easy to like, but I think she is intelligent, assertive and would be effective as a leader.
McCain has talked about cutting spending along with tax cuts, but I agree, I'd like to hear a lot more of that from him.
We cannot tolerate forced redistribution of wealth. It does nothing to change work ethic, broken families and poor values and choices.
I think hilary could certainly get the job done, ...but she is someone I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw her.
Axeing a perfectly good solution, in favour of elite backers is something I could see her doing in a heartbeat.
She's a woman with the ability to sodomize you to such an extent, you wouldn't see it until her penis was piercing the top of your skull IMO.
See Nordic, ...you're not the only one who can post sodomy analogies. :P (Didn't want you to stand out)
-
But Beach Bum, it is the government's money--tax dollars.
All governments redistribute tax dollars. It just usually goes to the destitute or elites.
As for Obama, who truly creates anything? Are we not all arrangers?
This is where we have a fundamental disagreement. It's not the government's money. It's our money. That's the difference in mindset I'm talking about.
Obama wants to "roll back" tax cuts (i.e., raise taxes) so he can pay for things like socialized healthcare. That kind of approach is just wrongheaded. Both he and the people in control of the purse strings should be finding ways to reduce spending, reduce the amount of our money they take from us, and get out of our way.
-
Pitiful is more like it. :-\ The irony in all of this is that we'll likely see a record attendance in voting this year. Voters (new and old) are exited about a pitiful selection to choose from.
I'm certainly not excited. :-\
-
This is where we have a fundamental disagreement. It's not the government's money. It's our money. That's the difference in mindset I'm talking about.
Obama wants to "roll back" tax cuts (i.e., raise taxes) so he can pay for things like socialized healthcare. That kind of approach is just wrongheaded. Both he and the people in control of the purse strings should be finding ways to reduce spending, reduce the amount of our money they take from us, and get out of our way.
We are the government via our elected officials. The tax money is always 'ours'. You want to keep more of your money despite the facts we are at war and in debt. I understand that. I disagree but I understand.
Obama wants national healthcare with existing insurance plans. That's a big mistake in my opinion.
-
This is where we have a fundamental disagreement. It's not the government's money. It's our money. That's the difference in mindset I'm talking about.
Obama wants to "roll back" tax cuts (i.e., raise taxes) so he can pay for things like socialized healthcare. That kind of approach is just wrongheaded. Both he and the people in control of the purse strings should be finding ways to reduce spending, reduce the amount of our money they take from us, and get out of our way.
I thought Obama's approach was to divert the funds spent on the war towards improving things at home.
Instead of investing a billion to kill Iraqi's, ...take the money and use it to help Americans.
Certainly is a much healthier approach if you ask me.
-
We are the government via our elected officials. The tax money is always 'ours'. You want to keep more of your money despite the facts we are at war and in debt. I understand that. I disagree but I understand.
Obama wants national healthcare with existing insurance plans. That's a big mistake in my opinion.
I not only want to keep more of my own money, I want you to keep more of yours. I want every taxpayer, regardless of income, to have as little government intrusion into their pockets as possible.
-
I thought Obama's approach was to divert the funds spent on the war towards improving things at home.
Instead of investing a billion to kill Iraqi's, ...take the money and use it to help Americans.
Certainly is a much healthier approach if you ask me.
Where did he say this? I don’t see this as a healthy approach. He shouldn't be trying to find more ways to spend more money using the government to try and "level the playing field." He should be talking about reducing the amount of money we spend. We already spend enough. We need things like our enforcement branches in the private sector and to help root out discrimination, but there is already enough money being funneled "to help Americans."
-
Where did he say this? I don’t see this as a healthy approach.
You don't see it as a far healthier approach to stop killng others, and start helping yourselves? ::)
He shouldn't be trying to find more ways to spend more money using the government to try and "level the playing field." He should be talking about reducing the amount of money we spend. We already spend enough. We need things like our enforcement branches in the private sector and to help root out discrimination, but there is already enough money being funneled "to help Americans."
The problem is the money is being funneled right out of the US treasury and into the hands of the elite.
-
You don't see it as a far healthier approach to stop killng others, and start helping yourselves? ::)
The problem is the money is being funneled right out of the US treasury and into the hands of the elite.
No, it isn't far healthier to shuffle money we don't really have anyway from one campaign to another. ::)
How exactly are taxpayer funds being funneled right into the hands of the elite?
-
No, it isn't far healthier to shuffle money we don't really have anyway from one campaign to another. ::)
How exactly are taxpayer funds being funneled right into the hands of the elite?
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/em/keep_away.gif)
Evidently, these issues fly even further above your head than I thought.
-
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/em/keep_away.gif)
Evidently, these issues fly even further above your head than I thought.
::)