There is a difference between somebody going to school to better themselves and get a quality job and contribute to society, and somebody who sits around and draws checks and sales drugs for a living. These people who don't want to contribute shouldn't be fed.

7/15/2008 8:45:25 PM

Quote :

"sales"

7/15/2008 8:46:50 PM

^ yes now say something that is actually on topic.

7/15/2008 8:47:37 PM

I pretty much agree with your premise. I don't want taxes to be used for "welfare queens," but welfare is far too expansive now to be toned down to a realistic level. As long as there's a system in place that allows a morbidly obese mom to buy free food for her morbidly obese kids, people will continue to take advantage of it.

7/15/2008 8:54:06 PM

We could also do well by not permitting our already huge interest payments on the debt to swell any further by ending these wild-eyed, interventionist ideas about extending America's consumerist caliphate across the goddamned globe.

[Edited on July 15, 2008 at 8:57 PM. Reason : ...]

7/15/2008 8:55:54 PM

Why do you love terror?

7/15/2008 8:58:04 PM

Because it keeps my country great!

[Edited on July 15, 2008 at 9:16 PM. Reason : George Washington: Terrorist]

7/15/2008 9:15:33 PM

Quote :

"not to mention the moral objection of having an even smaller minority footing the bill. So much for fairness or equality. Although it buys you alot of ignorant votes. "Ill give you this.. and we will make someone else pay for it.. you with me?" YES WE CAN (steal from others) Sorry for the rant. I just hate the attitude, which seems to be spreading, that because someone is successful that YOU have a right to their property. It also breeds an attitude that the common man doesnt NEED to pull his own. "

It would be impossible to run any gov. or sustain a country as powerful as the US without a "small minority footing the bill." If this is what upsets you, then you are just wasting time here in TSB, because anarchy is probably not going to happen, and even if it could, no sensible person would argue that it's the better way.

Quote :

"I work 50 hours a week just so I can have 30% of my salary taken and GIVEN to someone who has screwed their life up. I can barely pay my own bills and pay off my student loans and afford a house, yet my hard earned money is STOLEN from me and given to a welfare queen so she can get the latest iPod. I could be completely debt free right now if I had recieved every cent that had earned. Most of you out there could be debt free if youve worked for a few years because most of you on here are honest, responsible people. but yet, you approve of the government setting you back further and further in debt. "

If this is really how you live, then I hate to break this news to you, but you are living beyond your means. It's very likely if you weren't paying any taxes, you would still be struggling, because you obviously don't know how to spend your money.

The vast majority of the people in the 30% tax bracket are living very comfortably, if you're not you're doing something wrong.

[Edited on July 15, 2008 at 9:43 PM. Reason : ]

7/15/2008 9:38:02 PM

Of course, that raises a serious question about why only a small minority can afford to pay the bill...

7/15/2008 9:43:50 PM

.^That is the stupidest question I've ever heard. The reason only a small percentage can pay that is because either a) someone in thier family worked hard and made money before they did and left it to them b) they themselves worked hard and made the money themselves or c) won the lottery. You see the theme here? You work hard and stay focused and you will get what you deserve.

Alot of people work hard all their lives but don't know how to invest their money quite right. But the key is to be smart and work hard, thats how you make money.

[Edited on July 15, 2008 at 11:05 PM. Reason : .]

7/15/2008 11:04:50 PM

^ you are here -> .

The point of gamecat's post is WAAAAAY over here ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------> .



[Edited on July 15, 2008 at 11:36 PM. Reason : ]

7/15/2008 11:36:04 PM

McCain Looks To Make Gains Among Black Voters

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/16/mccain.naacp/index.html


McCain has completely lost his shit if he thinks he's gonna win over any black voters in this election. He'd have better results courting the all-important tree-hugging feminist dyke demographic.

7/16/2008 11:04:06 AM

Quote :

"not to mention the moral objection of having an even smaller minority footing the bill. So much for fairness or equality. Although it buys you alot of ignorant votes. "Ill give you this.. and we will make someone else pay for it.. you with me?" YES WE CAN (steal from others) Sorry for the rant. I just hate the attitude, which seems to be spreading, that because someone is successful that YOU have a right to thier property. It also breeds an attitude that the common man doesnt NEED to pull his own."

There is no overall American attitude about "a right to another's property" bred in democratic or liberal circles. That is a fear my friend, regulated to those that are in fear of losing what they have thus hold on to it even tighter. The common man, who is typically referred to as conservative btw, does not share the opinion they don't have to pull their own weight. On the contrast, they are concerned with how much more people over $250,000 are making and how less their salaries seem to be going.

By that sentiment taxes are the democratic equalizer in maintaining fairness in things both parties use, but how some can afford to help out more seeing as the economy and country's promise of prosperity have treated them far better than their peers.

The hilarity of seeing a larger gap between rich and poor develop in this country as an excuse for keeping the same old tax rates because the economy will fail if we don't, is a sad opinion for those that have supposedly accomplished so much by bringing themselves up by their own bootstraps.

7/16/2008 11:55:52 AM

I never knew that bigun20 was an anarchist.

Good to know.

7/17/2008 9:36:08 AM

Quote :

"There is no overall American attitude about "a right to another's property" bred in democratic or liberal circles. That is a fear my friend, regulated to those that are in fear of losing what they have thus hold on to it even tighter. The common man, who is typically referred to as conservative btw, does not share the opinion they don't have to pull their own weight. On the contrast, they are concerned with how much more people over $250,000 are making and how less their salaries seem to be going. "

Maybe its me, but you seemed to contradict yourself there, or at least hint at jealousy. The fact is that our govt uses taxes, which should be used to raise revenue for the govt, as a way to buy voters, taking from one group to give to another, and altering our behaviors. Couple that with the fact that we have a smaller group paying more and more of the overall taxes it simply isnt fair or a long term strategy for success. There is an attitude of give me something as long as I dont have to pay for it. Just listen to obama or mccain talk for 5 mins, you wil hear about thier plans to give tax breaks to one, raise them for another or just flat out give you money. Well where does that come from?

7/17/2008 9:43:55 AM

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/17/obama-becomes-a-gym-rat/

Quote :

"They said that even when he shot hoops earlier this year with members of the University of North Carolina varsity men's basketball team, they didn't see Obama sweat."

The man doesn't sweat - he's got this in the bag.

Now we just have to figure why this was a news article.

7/17/2008 1:17:02 PM

^ CNN did a puff piece on how Obama is strong and athletic? That is strange. I guess it's more of that media AntiBama Bias.

7/18/2008 12:25:04 PM

WOW! Finally. The McCain campaign is picking up my talking points about Obama's inconsistencies on Iraq and even added a few more. WTG McCrew.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHEIi4XKRmM

Of course, it should be a little shorter and little more to the point. Maybe they will do a re-mix.

7/18/2008 12:42:04 PM

And they're using your lame out-of-context out-of-chronological-order tactics.

Call them up-- maybe they'll hire you.

7/18/2008 12:59:12 PM

^ I'm not sure what you're even talking about "out of chronological order"? The point is that he changed his position OVER TIME so it isn't like these quotes are going to be from the same damn day.

And note, I am not bitching about flip-flops and neither is the McCain campaign. People can change their minds when new information is presented. But Obama's problem is two fold 1) it is hard to justify the changes in his position with the changes in the war effort (the only thing that does seem to be correlated with his changing position is poll numbers--i.e. he'll say whatever the politics demand) 2) he showed poor judgment in predicting that violence would actually increase as a result.

Both of those problems not only tarnish his golden boy reputation, but also deflate his primary argument for being qualified to be commander in chief (that his judgement is better than John McCain's).

7/18/2008 1:17:43 PM

Quote :

"1) it is hard to justify the changes in his position with the changes in the war effort (the only thing that does seem to be correlated with his changing position is poll numbers--i.e. he'll say whatever the politics demand)"

It's not tough to believe at all when you realize two things:

1) the only real change in his position was concerning whether we should have a timetable or not. This isn't a huge change. All your talk of him being for the war or being for immediate withdrawal is laughably dishonest.

2) there are plenty of things that correlate with this change and the poll numbers-- such as how deep into the crapper Iraq was falling. You can't tell me there was no real impetus to change strategy in the 2006-2007 time frame. The surge wouldn't exist if there wasn't

Quote :

"2) he showed poor judgment in predicting that violence would actually increase as a result."

So we have McCain, who thought the Iraq War would be a good idea.

And Obama, who thought the surge would be a bad idea.

Who wins/loses the judgment competition?

[Edited on July 18, 2008 at 1:38 PM. Reason : ]

7/18/2008 1:37:44 PM

^ Boone, um. Obama went from saying we should stay in Iraq in 2004 to today saying we should begin withdrawal immediately. That's a pretty huge shift. Is that shift justified by any "realities on the ground"?

If so, can you provide specific evidence? Like I was saying in our previous discussion, US casualties today are half what they were in July of 2004 when Obama said that we should stay in Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003

The Iraqi people also support America's presence. According to the latest BBC poll, over 70% say they do not want the US to begin with withdrawing troops immediately (though it's clear they eventually want us to leave).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/14_03_08iraqpollmarch2008.pdf

It's true that sectarian violence made things very bad for a long time (though even once fighting began Obama didn't begin calling for immediate withdrawal until he began his presidential campaign in 2007), but that was before the surge that Obama opposed. Now, in that same BBC poll, Iraqi's report remarkable increases in their quality of life over last year.

The best predictor of Obama's position is still the polls.

[Edited on July 18, 2008 at 2:33 PM. Reason : ``]

7/18/2008 2:20:27 PM

Quote :

"Boone, um. Obama went from saying we should stay in Iraq in 2004 to today saying we should begin withdrawal immediately. That's a pretty huge shift. Is that shift justified by any "realities on the ground"?"

"we should stay in Iraq in 2004" -- in other words, no timetable

to

"we should begin withdrawal immediately" -- in other words, begin the timetable. Notice how the "begin" modifies "withdrawal immediately?"

Why do you insist on selecting such a intellectually dishonest interpretation? The only change he made was from being against timetables to supporting them. That isn't huge.

Quote :

"If so, can you provide specific numbers? Like I was saying in our previous discussion, US casualties today are half what they were in July of 2004 when Obama said that we should stay in Iraq."

Are you seriously arguing that we didn't need a new plan in 2006-2007? I honestly don't know where to begin with this...

How about this-- you tell me why McCain supported the surge, and that will be your answer for why Obama changed his mind about timetables. Or did the GOP give in to public opinion when flip-flopping on their anti-escalation rhetoric?

[Edited on July 18, 2008 at 2:37 PM. Reason : .]

7/18/2008 2:36:21 PM

Also, your interpretation of Obama's words are so dishonest that you almost made me forget that Obama has been firmly against the war in general since day one.

That sort of ruins the bulk of your argument, since once we sift through your BS, we're really discussing why Obama changed his mind over how we should exit the war he never liked. He never changed his opinion about the war in general.

Makes your claims of correlation seem pretty off:



You do remember the primary reason why we chose him over your beloved Hillary, right? Because he's always been against the war. From 23% to 63%. Consistent.

Hahah, that makes me wonder-- if this sort of thing is so important to you, how the hell did you ever support Hillary? She genuinely did shift with public opinion.



[Edited on July 18, 2008 at 2:49 PM. Reason : .]

7/18/2008 2:45:24 PM

He's been against the initial invasion of Iraq since day one, but that is not the same thing. Now that we are actually there, he's been all over the map on what we should do.

Here is a snip from one of the articles you refused to read from our previous discussion.

Quote :

"The July 27, 2004, Tribune article quoted Obama as saying: "There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage". The article went on to note that Obama "opposed the Iraq invasion before the war. But he now believes U.S. forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation -- a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration.""

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801140002

If you read the entire article you will see that media matters is saying the exact same thing I'm saying. That Obama was against the initial invasion, but in 2004 he supported our continued presence in Iraq. That is a huge shift compared with current position (immediate withdrawal).

And in the McCain video you again see him saying the same thing later that year. This is not out of context. This is what he actually said.

When Tim Russert called him on statements like these in 2007, Obama said that he didn't think it was the right time to object because the Democrats had two nominees that had voted for the war.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21738432/

Is Tim Russert a partisan hack too?

[Edited on July 18, 2008 at 3:10 PM. Reason : ``]

7/18/2008 3:07:32 PM

Quote :

" Is Tim Russert a partisan hack too?"

No, he's dead. But he certainly was partisan when he was alive.

7/18/2008 3:28:05 PM

^ I actually thought he was very nonpartisan, especially considering his background--campaigning for Bobby Kennedy and working as a Democratic staffer on the hill.

But hey, why argue what Obama actually said? Just accuse everyone who disagrees of being partisan or racist. That should cover all the bases.

7/18/2008 3:37:24 PM

I would actually argue that he was slanted to the left, but go ahead and take what I said and run to the hills.

7/18/2008 3:38:35 PM

Quote :

"But he now believes U.S. forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation"

You'd call that being for the war in general? Adhering to the pottery barn rule is changing position? I don't think anyone was saying it'd be a good idea to leave pre-civil war.

And could you please explain the difference between a timetable and a gradual withdrawal beginning immediately? Forgive me for being so obtuse that I can't distinguish between the two.


You've established that he's changed his position on how/when we should get out. If you want to think his position change was unwarranted, then "whatever," but you've yet to explain to me how Obama's support for a timetable was political, but McCain's support for the surge was not.

You really have to rise above semantics and cherry-picked quotes if you want to convince anyone that his position on the war in general has changed at all.

And I'm still kind of morbidly curious to hear your thoughts on Hillary's stance(s) on the war. I know it's not directly relevant to the Obama issue, but it I think it would put your current critique of Obama's in perspective.

7/18/2008 3:43:22 PM

SkankinMonky I never said you said you meant otherwise. But please take what I say and run for the hills.

[Edited on July 18, 2008 at 3:45 PM. Reason : ``]

7/18/2008 3:44:47 PM

Quote :

"You'd call that being for the war in general? Adhering to the pottery barn rule is changing position? I don't think anyone was saying it'd be a good idea to leave pre-civil war."

No, I'd call that being for staying in Iraq without any call for withdrawal in the near future (as Obama himself said, a position not very from George W. Bush's own position). Kinda the opposite of his current position, which is to immediately begin withdrawal and to be out of Iraq within 16 months.

Boone it's obvious you don't actually want to discuss this issue. You openly said you would not read the links and you apparently won't read the excerpts I quote in this thread. So what's the point? If Obama's own words won't convince you (and the links are right there if you think i'm taking them out of context) nothing will.

So I guess we're done.

7/18/2008 3:50:08 PM

I read into the links, and never said I wouldn't?

Why are you looking for a cop-out?

Quote :

"No, I'd call that being for staying in Iraq without any call for withdrawal in the near future"

Exactly-- in other words, being against a timetable. Then after three years of futility, he was for a timetable.

That's the extent of the change-- why are you so desperately trying to turn one change into six?

7/18/2008 3:54:19 PM

^ wow.

7/18/2008 3:57:43 PM

So should I expect an actual response at any point?

7/18/2008 4:03:06 PM

No. You're being obtuse.

In 2004 Obama said we should keep our troops in Iraq and that his position was not very far from GW Bush's. He also refused to call for a withdrawal when asked by reporters.

In 2008, he says we should begin withdrawal immediately and be out of Iraq in 16 months.

Those are two very different positions. If you want to say they are essentially the same I'm not sure what I can do to convince you other wise. And I won't try.

[Edited on July 18, 2008 at 4:10 PM. Reason : ``]

7/18/2008 4:09:02 PM

So at least you're starting to admit that he's only made one basic policy change, and not six.

Now,

1) Distinguish "wanting to keep troops in Iraq" from "being against a timetable."

2) Distinguish "gradual withdrawal effective immediately" from "being for a timetable."

You're purposefully splitting hairs in order to create distinctions that just don't exist.

7/18/2008 4:12:31 PM

No. In 2004 Obama said we should stay in Iraq. He did not even mention withdrawal let alone setting a time-table for that withdrawal.

I've already given two other examples of him saying this in 2004. Here's one more. Here the reporter says "and you think troops should be withdrawn" and Obama says "No, I never said troops should be withdrawn."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kFrFIFizkU

He went from saying we should not withdraw to saying we should. Time tables for withdrawal are a different issue (he flipped on those too).

But this is really as much as I will say about it. I don't have the energy I used to for deflecting blatant spin.

[Edited on July 18, 2008 at 4:30 PM. Reason : ``]

7/18/2008 4:24:02 PM

fox news just said that obama has 300 hundred foreign policy advisors

are you kidding me?

7/18/2008 4:41:10 PM

Real Men Vote for McCain

Top 10 reasons why:

1. Barack Obama spent 20 years sitting in church while his preacher and others bad-mouthed the United States of America. Navy pilot John McCain spent five years being tortured in the Hanoi Hilton, and refused a chance to walk out ahead of fellow POWs with more seniority.

2. Obama wants to cut and run from Iraq regardless of conditions on the ground or future consequences. McCain took on the president and secretary of defense in demanding more troops for Iraq, a policy that is inarguably winning the war. He also has two sons who fought in Iraq.

3. McCain supports nuclear power. Obama backs wind energy.

4. Obama wants restrictive gun control because only economically depressed middle-Americans “cling to God and guns.” McCain unwaveringly supports the Second Amendment.

5. McCain has deviated from his party’s conservative base on several occasions (McCain-Feingold Bill, Gang of 14, McCain-Kennedy Bill, opposition to torture). Obama has voted the left-wing line every single time, and been designated the most liberal Senator in Congress.

6. Obama is willing to meet with hostile state leaders like Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez without preconditions. McCain will set conditions first, talk later — maybe.

7. Obama is married to a bitter, angry lawyer who became “proud” of her country for the first time this year. McCain’s wife is a beer heiress who founded an organization to provide MASH-style units to disaster-torn world regions. Did I mention that she’s a beer heiress?

8. Obama supports higher taxes for a government-run nanny state that will coddle all Americans like babies. McCain trusts people to spend their less-taxed money however they wish.

9. The name John McCain sounds like “John McClain,” the action hero played by Bruce Willis in the manly Die Hard series. “Barack Obama” sounds like the kind of elitist villain John McClain has to outwit and defeat.
10. McCain is endorsed by Clint Eastwood, Sylvester Stallone, and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Obama gets support from Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Oprah Winfrey, Tom Hanks, and every weenie in Hollywood. Plus, Susan Sarandon has vowed to leave the country if McCain gets elected. Case closed.

7/18/2008 11:30:31 PM

^^ hey, man, more advisers, more positions. Perfect for Obama

7/18/2008 11:47:12 PM

^^Ug ug ug, ug ug?

Quote :

"Ug ug ug ug ug"

ug ug ug

Ug ug ug, ug ug. Ug ug ug ug ug, grunt.

7/19/2008 12:19:11 AM

MALIKI: I SUPPORT OBAMA’S WITHDRAWAL TIMETABLE
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/19/maliki-i-support-obamas-withdrawal-timetable/

Quote :

"Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told a German magazine that he supports Barack Obama’s plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office."

7/19/2008 3:36:49 PM

Fantastic.

7/19/2008 3:56:02 PM

Too bad over 70% of Iraqis disagree with Maliki according to the BBC's most recent poll:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/14_03_08iraqpollmarch2008.pdf

But i forgot. They're lying...or the BBC is....but Maliki is not. You know, because we agree him.

[Edited on July 19, 2008 at 7:12 PM. Reason : ``]

7/19/2008 7:10:45 PM

LOL

Quote :

"Via e-mail, a prominent Republican strategist who occasionally provides advice to the McCain campaign said, simply, "We're fucked.""

7/19/2008 7:10:56 PM

^^ Did you even read that poll? It is mostly negative towards the US being there.

Q20 Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose the
presence of Coalition forces in Iraq?

Mar08 Aug07 Feb07 2005 2004
% % % % %
Strongly Support 7 5 6 13 13
Somewhat Support 19 16 16 19 26
Somewhat Oppose 31 26 32 21 20
Strongly Oppose 41 53 46 44 31
Refused/don’t know 1 - - 3 10

72% strongly oppose or somewhat oppose the presence of coalition forces.

Q23 Overall, do you think the presence of US forces in Iraq is making security in our country
better, worse, or having no effect on the security situation?

Mar08 Aug07 Feb07
% % %
Better 27 18 21
Worse 61 72 69
No Effect 11 9 10
Refused/don’t know 1 - -


61% say our presence is making things worse

7/19/2008 7:28:57 PM

moron,

Oddly, you left out the question most relevant for Obama's policy. When asked how long coalition forces should remain, only 38% said we should leave now as Obama suggests.

The data seems easy enough to interpret to me. They don't want us to leave now, but they don't like their country being occupied by a foreign power either and they would like us to leave eventually. Makes sense to me.

Quote :

"Q22 How long do you think US and other Coalition forces should remain in Iraq? Should they leave now, remain until security is restored, remain until the Iraqi government is stronger, remain until Iraqi security forces can operate independently, remain longer but leave eventually, or never leave?"

Leave now 38%
Remain until security is restored 35%
Remain until the Iraqi government is stronger 14%
Remain until the Iraqi security forces can operate independently 10%
Remain longer but leave eventually 3%
Never leave 1%
Refused/don’t know -

[Edited on July 19, 2008 at 8:13 PM. Reason : typo in my original post, it should be over 60% not 70]

7/19/2008 8:11:32 PM

well now that security seems restored i guess its time to do what 73 percent of the people suggest

7/19/2008 8:13:57 PM

^ Don't put words in the Iraqi's mouths. This poll was conducted only in Feb, so the greatest gains from the surge had already been taken into account. That leads me to believe that the respondents are looking for a total end to the volence in Iraq, not just down to 80% of pre-surge levels as they currently are.

Or are you just saying whatever it takes to get the conclusion you want? Iraq is going to shit, so we should leave. Or maybe it's going so good that we should leave?

[Edited on July 19, 2008 at 8:22 PM. Reason : ``]

7/19/2008 8:20:10 PM

^^^ That question doesn't reject Obama's platform either, because it could easily be in 16 months, or 8 months that they feel their country has reached those goals. The wording of that question does not in anyway say that Obama's plan to leave in 16 months is not what they want. The US leaving could easily be what helps restore security (since 60% of IRaqis think our presence is what's making things insecure), and maybe the Iraqi police force don't feel the incentive to step up with our guys backing them. Considering that the vast majority don't like us there, and think we're making it unsafe, I don't see how leaving, especially now Iraq is a tad bit more stable, wouldn't have a positive effect. And especially with 90+% thinking it's a good thing to be able to live sunni/shiite, I think the Iraqi people know what they have to do.

7/20/2008 12:34:00 PM