Vote for Obama is a Vote for Change in the wrong way. Obama= taking away Capitalism and Changing it to Socialized Marxism. To me that is a change in the wrong direction along with the Dems in congrss.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 09, 2008 6:16 PM GMT
    If you vote for a democrat you've got some serious issues my friends. Look at what the Speaker of the House is up to!
    I'm not happy with the Republicans by a long shot. But this woman, and the liberal idea of "equalizing" incomes ... when in the hell did socialism get this prevalent in the U.S.?????????? My God, the Soviet Union and socialism failed ... haven't the democrats found that yet?
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    No wonder this country is in the shape that it is, look at the ideates that are running it. Too bad you can't ship people like HER out of the country.
    Windfall Tax on Retirement Income

    Adding a tax to your retirement is simply another way of saying to the American people, you're so darnn stupid that we're going to keep doing this until we drain every cent from you. That's what the Speaker of the House is saying. Read below...............

    Nancy Pelosi wants a Windfall Tax on Retirement Income. In other words tax what you have made by investing toward your retirement. This woman is a nut case! You aren't going to believe this.

    Madam speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to put a Windfall Tax on all stock market profits (including Retirement fund, 401K and Mutual Fund s! Alas , it is true - all to help the 12 Million Illegal Immigrants and other unemployed Minorities!

    This woman is frightening.
    She quotes..." We need to work toward the goal of equalizing income, (didn't Marx say something like this), in our country and at the same time limiting the amount the rich can invest." ( I am not rich, are you)

    When asked how these new tax dollars would be spent, she replied:
    "We need to raise the standard of living of our poor, unemployed and minorities. For example, we have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in our country who need our help along with millions of unemployed minorities. Stock market windfall profits taxes could go a long way to guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to have as 'Americans'." (Read that quote again and again and let it sink in. "Lower your retirement, give it to others who have not worked as you have for it".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 09, 2008 6:31 PM GMT
    stpete39 saidIf you vote for a democrat you've got some serious issues my friends. Look at what the Speaker of the House is up to!
    I'm not happy with the Republicans by a long shot. But this woman, and the liberal idea of "equalizing" incomes ... when in the hell did socialism get this prevalent in the U.S.?????????? My God, the Soviet Union and socialism failed ... haven't the democrats found that yet?
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    No wonder this country is in the shape that it is, look at the ideates that are running it. Too bad you can't ship people like HER out of the country.


    I think by "ideates" you mean idiots. Delicious irony!
    And it appears you've mistaken Senator Obama for being a white woman named Nancy. While I wouldn't complain if he WAS a Nancy, I think assigning Pelosi's actions/beliefs/legislation to Obama is your fundamental mistake.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 09, 2008 6:36 PM GMT
    This is completely false. Go to Snopes.com to find out more about this hoax: http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/pelosi.asp.

    Oh, and it's "idiots" not "ideates." It's hard to take someone seriously when he can't spell idiots. Or doesn't have a pic. Or anything in his profile.

    Just more fear-mongering from the radical right.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 09, 2008 6:59 PM GMT
    OH sorry for the typo. My picture is still being approved btw. Any who she is still saying we need to help the illegals in our country. Why in the hell should we help thme. Ship them back to where they came. They do not have the same rights as you and me. They are NOT americans. Again Obama wants everything to be Socialized. If he becomes president and does not put into place his so called change. I am sure a Good old boy will take care of that. Just like Hillary said.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 09, 2008 7:09 PM GMT
    stpete39 saidOH sorry for the typo. My picture is still being approved btw. Any who she is still saying we need to help the illegals in our country. Why in the hell should we help thme. Ship them back to where they came. They do not have the same rights as you and me. They are NOT americans. Again Obama wants everything to be Socialized. If he becomes president and does not put into place his so called change. I am sure a Good old boy will take care of that. Just like Hillary said.


    You have no idea what you are talking about. You're advocating having some good old boy assassinate Obama? Are you saying a black man needs to learn his place? Are you for real or are you just trying to start an argument with people here?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 09, 2008 7:17 PM GMT
    Not at all. Just saying he better deliver what he is dishing out. If not, People are going to be upset. And Mrs Clinton is the one who said it not me. Even though his Change platform is all about Marxism.
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Jul 09, 2008 7:39 PM GMT
    Well his opinion should be deleted as well...LOL

    icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 09, 2008 7:44 PM GMT
    That didn't take long!
  • pcsean28

    Posts: 161

    Jul 09, 2008 11:37 PM GMT
    Wow, that guy was some kinda mutant comic-book Limbaugh Ditto-head. In fact I don't think even Michael Savage, let alone Limbaugh talks like that anymore...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 10, 2008 11:52 AM GMT
    Eh eh eh. Another white supremacist hit and run. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 10, 2008 11:53 AM GMT
    In all honesty, Barack Obama will only inspire people to bring change rather than him bringing change.

    Hillary Clinton, don't give up, my thought is always with you.icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 10, 2008 2:46 PM GMT
    Dance saidHillary Clinton, don't give up, my thought is always with you.icon_razz.gif


    Is Hillary reading our forum now? She gets messages via our little gay site? Sweet!

    Yo! Hil! 'Member that sweater you borrowed? I need it back, beeotch. And stop calling my man. He thinks you smell like Aquanet and mothballs. Call me. Let's do lunch, Tranny.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 10, 2008 3:06 PM GMT
    hafakasi saidI think by "ideates" you mean idiots. Delicious irony!
    And it appears you've mistaken Senator Obama for being a white woman named Nancy. While I wouldn't complain if he WAS a Nancy, I think assigning Pelosi's actions/beliefs/legislation to Obama is your fundamental mistake.
    LOL. You know I make this mistake all the time. I mean they look so much alike they could be twins!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 10, 2008 3:12 PM GMT
    Dance saidIn all honesty, Barack Obama will only inspire people to bring change rather than him bringing change.

    Hillary Clinton, don't give up, my thought is always with you.icon_razz.gif
    icon_eek.gifI think Hillary already gave up. She is backing Obama! This is a true leader, one that inspires people to change. SO if Obama does this, then he will have succeeded.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 10, 2008 3:14 PM GMT
    You can sort of tell a nutjob by the amount of opinion they try to cram into the subject line of a post.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 10, 2008 3:17 PM GMT
    None of us really know what Senator Obama or Senator McCain would do if elected president. We all have to use our best guess based on the evidence presented and filtered through our seperate frames of reference. My best guess is that Senator McCain would be the better choice. If you disagree with me, well, fine. I hope that whoever wins the election does a good job.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 10, 2008 3:38 PM GMT
    Photobucket
  • fitnfunmich

    Posts: 181

    Jul 10, 2008 3:50 PM GMT
    When the last Democratic President left office we had money in the bank. Under 8 years under the current Republican President we are in dept some 9 TRILLION dollars.

    Clearly the Republicans are spending us into bankruptcy. They talk alot about "less spending, smaller government" but do not back up that supposed philosophy with anything tangible.

    You may have issues with the Democrats and that's fine, but don't confuse your own political paranoia with economic reality.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 10, 2008 4:01 PM GMT
    Just take some soma and everything will be better.

    Shouldn't you be worrying about Britney anyway and not the state of our nation?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 10, 2008 4:46 PM GMT
    fitnfunmich saidWhen the last Democratic President left office we had money in the bank. Under 8 years under the current Republican President we are in dept some 9 TRILLION dollars.

    Clearly the Republicans are spending us into bankruptcy. They talk alot about "less spending, smaller government" but do not back up that supposed philosophy with anything tangible.

    You may have issues with the Democrats and that's fine, but don't confuse your own political paranoia with economic reality.


    Lest anyone forget, the Congress holds the purse strings for our government and is responsible for our tax dollars. A president can not spend tax dollars without the consent of the Congress. While I do not think GW has been good for our country or a good president, I do not put all the blame on his shoulders. Maybe everyone should take a closer look at the politicians from their own districts and check thier voting records on spending. oh, and just for clarity I did not vote for GW, EITHER time his was elected!

    As for having money when the last Democratic president left office, I suggest you check your facts. It is true that we had a more balanced budget but it was not the policies of Clinton that did that for us. I think history will show you that was accomplished by the policies of the previous congress and president. Who was that president? Hummmm, I think that was a Republican by the name of Ronald Regan. Don't get me wrong, I am not affiliated with any party. I consider myself an independent but I do believe in giving credit where credit is due.

    Personally, I think that is part of the problem in this country. People get in this rut with supporting one party or another and blindly go where the party leads. WAKE UP! Get the facts and vote for the best canidate. The parties are not that different anymore. As a matter of fact there are more Democrates in Congress that are millionaires than any other party.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 10, 2008 4:50 PM GMT
    John43620 saidNone of us really know what Senator Obama or Senator McCain would do if elected president. We all have to use our best guess based on the evidence presented and filtered through our seperate frames of reference. My best guess is that Senator McCain be the better choice. If you disagree with me, well, fine. I hope that whoever wins the election does a good job.

    John, I'm shocked. Just shocked. You sounded reasonable in that post. Congratulations...you just made me believe in miracles.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 10, 2008 4:53 PM GMT
    eaglearm saidHummmm, I think that was a Republican by the name of Ronald Regan. Don't get me wrong, I am not affiliated with any party. I consider myself an independent but I do believe in giving credit where credit is due.

    Okay, I checked history, and it's quite clear under the Reagan administration that the budget was not balanced, and he ran up the largest debt (up to that point in history). GWB has beaten him there.

    Stop making Reagan into a hero.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 10, 2008 4:55 PM GMT
    John43620 saidNone of us really know what Senator Obama or Senator McCain would do if elected president. We all have to use our best guess based on the evidence presented and filtered through our seperate frames of reference. My best guess is that Senator McCain be the better choice. If you disagree with me, well, fine. I hope that whoever wins the election does a good job.



    How profound of you.
  • fitnfunmich

    Posts: 181

    Jul 10, 2008 5:20 PM GMT
    Eaglearm: Yes there is more to the economy than who holds the Executive Office. But one thing is certain, and that is that it was our President who chose to invade Iraq, and that decision has cost us hundreds of billions that would not otherwise have been wasted.

    Personally, I think the President should have resigned immediately when it became apparent that there were no WMD in Iraq, but in any case I would not vote for any candidate who wants to keep our troops there indefinitely. Quite simply, we cannot afford it.

    So McCain wants to keep the troops there for another 100 years, and Obama wants them out. The latter is the best decision diplomatically, militarily, and most certainly economically.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 10, 2008 5:52 PM GMT
    eaglearm said

    Lest anyone forget, the Congress holds the purse strings for our government and is responsible for our tax dollars. A president can not spend tax dollars without the consent of the Congress. While I do not think GW has been good for our country or a good president, I do not put all the blame on his shoulders. Maybe everyone should take a closer look at the politicians from their own districts and check thier voting records on spending. oh, and just for clarity I did not vote for GW, EITHER time his was elected!


    By no means am I an expert in economics; however, the Democrats have only had a small majority since Fall 2006, thus being previously outweighed by a strong Republican majority in both Executive and Legislative branches. A weakening of checks and balances, in a way, that would allow the President to steer fiscal policies (per his advisors) to a greater extent than would be possible were there a Democratic Congressional stronghold. Maybe, instead of saying it's W's fault, we could say it's the current administration's policies that have created a rather significant financial tail spin.

    eaglearm saidAs for having money when the last Democratic president left office, I suggest you check your facts. It is true that we had a more balanced budget but it was not the policies of Clinton that did that for us. I think history will show you that was accomplished by the policies of the previous congress and president. Who was that president? Hummmm, I think that was a Republican by the name of Ronald Regan. Don't get me wrong, I am not affiliated with any party. I consider myself an independent but I do believe in giving credit where credit is due.


    What facts are you referring to, I wonder? I'd be interested in reading where your facts for the above statement comes from...?

    Here are 2 pieces of information to challenge what you say above:


    Keeping in mind that Clinton took office in January 1993 after inheriting the policies from Reagan, then Bush, Sr. - 12 years of Republican policies; from: http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/new/html/Tue_Oct_24_155324_2000.html
    "In January 1993, the Congressional Budget Office projected that the deficit would grow to $455 billion by 2000. In fact, the unified budget had a surplus of $237 billion in FY 2000 -- the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever, even after adjusting for inflation."

    and, from:
    http://budget.house.gov/doc-library/2008/2008-06-02fiscal-reversal.pdf
    The Bush Administration’s Legacy:
    A Dramatic Fiscal Reversal

    Administration Policies Have Dramatically Reversed the Fiscal Outlook — This
    Administration inherited a $5.6 trillion projected ten-year surplus, and has replaced it with record
    deficits. In all, the Administration’s fiscal and economic policies have led to a deterioration of
    over $8 trillion – the largest fiscal deterioration in American history.


    eaglearm saidPersonally, I think that is part of the problem in this country. People get in this rut with supporting one party or another and blindly go where the party leads. WAKE UP! Get the facts and vote for the best canidate. The parties are not that different anymore. As a matter of fact there are more Democrates in Congress that are millionaires than any other party.



    While some of the above is true, in my opinion, I wouldn't hesitate to say that Obama and McCain differ on quite a number of issues. Relative to a Nader or Barr, however, the two presumptive nominees are more "center." Nonetheless, great idea to be informed about candidates. The only problem is that, thanks to Bush policies, who has the time to inform themselves since minimum wage still sucks ass and lots of people are in huge debt, just like our country!! icon_wink.gif (I guess that's why Fox News "talking points" are so attractive!)