Skip to main content

I'm not voting against Obama because he's liberal, I'm voting against him because he's socialist.

If you want to increase government bureaucracy, regulations, legislations, and taxes, then Obama is your man. That doesn't sit well with me, so I'm voting against him this election.

No, I'm not a supporter of McCain. To put it simply, McCain sucks and I'm not looking forward to his term. However, I would rather have him than a socialist.
DF, come on don't be disingenuous. "Poor Dan Quayle" had gaff after gaff, not just one misstep. The Potato thing was big because of the arena it was in.

1.) It was taken at an elementary school during a spelling bee. An obvious photo op gone horribly wrong.

2.) It was also after his foolish remarks about the TV show Murphy Brown. The writers of that show, understandably offended, helped keep the joke alive and make it part of the lexicon.

But as I stated, this was just one of many gaffs. I still think my favorite was when he was speaking before the NAACP and attempting to quote their famous slogan, "a mind is a terrible thing to waste", he actually said "What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is."

LOL that still kills me

Here are some other brilliant nuggets from him.

"I have made good judgements in the Past. I have made good judgements in the Future."

"Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child."

"The future will be better tomorrow."

"Welcome to President Bush, Mrs. Bush, and my fellow astronauts"


"[It's] time for the human race to enter the solar system."


"Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things."


"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president, and that one word is 'to be prepared'."


"I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy - but that could change."

"The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history. I mean in this century's history. But we all lived in this century. I didn't live in this century."

"Quite frankly, teachers are the only profession that teach our children."

"We're going to have the best-educated American people in the world"

"For NASA, space is still a high priority."
quote:
Voting for social issues over the pocket book,whatever floats or should i say sinks your boat with that mentality


You really think Obama in the White House raising taxes to fund all of his social programs will help your pocket book?

We need less tax, not more. His ideas are impossible without massive federal spending. How does that benefit one's pocket book?
quote:
Originally posted by Howard Roark:
Leftists certainly don't hesitate to label persons neocons!


At least half of the posters on this thread are so-called "leftists". We have openly admitted to voting for a Democrat in this election. YOU, Howard, are the first to bring up the term "neo-con". So your argument is without merit.

No one has been name-calling except geddon. He/She enjoys slinging "liberal" around as if all Democrats are liberal socially and economically. That is simply not the case.

I, as several other "liberals" (I hate this term. If a label MUST be used I prefer progressive) are a congolomerate of political ideologies. We vote according to how we feel about an issue. The more an issue influences our lives and our liberties, the more likely we are to vote passionately about that issue. A number of us side with the Democratic candidates in this election. We do not want to see a third term of Bush.

People who cannot compromise or see past partisanship want to place a label on everyone. It helps to define their world more easily. When they encounter someone who is not 100% this or 100% that, it shakes up their little snow globe and puts them in panic mode.

Labels fail to define the individual.
It is amazing what we learn from the media. Back in the 1990's when Rush Limbaugh hit the airwaves and conservative radio was making it's debut and hot and popular, the namecalling and the brainwashing began. The democrats are going crazy wondering what happened. Republicans controlled the congress and Bill Clinton was president. With the republican controlled congress and senate and Bill Clinton's FCC director, doors were closed on fair media. Big corporations buying out the media, throwing out the democratic talk shows and filling the airwaves with conservative talk shows. Nowhere in Alabama can you find democratic talk shows on the airwaves. Matter of fact, no where in the south will you find it. AirAmerica, which is a network offering democrat, liberal talk, never aired in the south as far as I know because the conservative radio claimed there was not enough demand from the public to air it and that they couldn't sell the program. So, you had one sided issues verses no issues from the other side to be heard.

Conservatives radio has labeled democrats as unAmerican, socialists, liberals, left wing, as well as others.

So, the media has done a good job in dividing us and if we keep paying attention to the media, the dividing will continue.
You assume that if one doesn't support Obama, they are automatically conservative. That's not always the case.

I consider myself moderate, liberal in some views and conservative in others. My main political belief is that the federal government's power and involvement in every day life should be kept to a minimum, leaving more decision making to state and local government. We're getting farther away from that and Obama won't bring us any closer.

Both sides are name calling. Neo-con, Bible-thumper, racist, and the ever constant Nazi comparisons are common among the left. Yes, the media does throw fuel on the flames, but it's not limited to talk radio. The radical op-ed pieces that are constantly posted here often resort to insults and name calling.

We're living in an age where a wealth of information is easily accessible. The problem is it's hard to tell what is accurate and what has been tampered with. There are many who aren't interested in finding the truth, they only want the information that agrees with them. Whether it's accurate or not doesn't matter.
quote:
Originally posted by Howard Roark:
The post on labels were generic and did not apply to just this thread, therefore my argument has merit.


Why one would desire to call themselves a progressive is beyond me. In the thirties, progressives identified with Mussolini and his fascist movement. Joe McCarthy spent most of his career in the Progressive Party.


No, the post on labels was not generic. It seems you are quick to label just like the next guy.

I mean progressive in the true sense of the word: "moving forward, advancing".

Liberal is no longer a viable option because many Republicans and the MSM have equated liberal with radical. The two are not the same. I am not radical; therefore, I can no longer use the term liberal.
Actually, conservativism is defined as "the inclination, esp. in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order."

Conservative is defined as: 1) tending to oppose change 2)traditional in style 3)cautious 4) of a branch of Judaism that allows certain authorized modifications in the law

Liberal is defined as: 1) open-minded, tolerant 2)favoring civil and political liberties, democratic reforms, and protection from arbitrary authority

Liberalism was listed as a noun under liberal.

(American Heritage ver.4)
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
Taxing a few millionaires to help with some SOCIAL programs,is that so bad?


Yes it's bad, what you described is redistribution of wealth by the government. Otherwise known as socialism.


Nash, I have heard you refer often to both the viable Democratic candidates as socialist. Usually your post are somewhat good arguments, many of which I agree with but see a different solution. For example, it is the Republicans who want to get into your personal life, and under the last Democratic administration we had the smallest government in modern times, vs the huge federal government we have now under Republican rule.
However, socialism is a system wherin the government owns everything and everybody works for the government with wages based on " from each according to their abilities, to each according to their need" . Please present some credible link where any candidate running for anything in this country , is proposing that.
I have not found any example where that is the case.
quote:
NashBama, I take it that you're for small government, right? That is cool, I like that also. But under Bush, we are not small its big. We are deep in debt. Don't Conservative mean NO CHANGE?


You're making assumptions again. My lack of support for Obama doesn't mean I support Bush, I don't.

Besides, Bush has nothing to do with this conversation. He's currently a lame duck president who is on his way out. Why did you even bother bring him up in the first place?

We do need change in our government, but not the change Obama wants. Every plan and solution he has involves government programs, bureaucracy, and tax payer funding. If you have a problem with the size of the federal government now, just wait until Obama gets a hold of it.
We have the biggest government we've ever had because the government now has the okay to spy on your phone calls (if they choose), spy on your internet usage time, and charge you with terrorism for anything suspicious.

Under the Patriot Act, we are one step below a police state. That is far from the government not being involved in the individual's life.

Hopefully, the Patriot Act will expire and not be renewed. There are better means of catching "terrorists" than spying on random Americans...
quote:
The ol BIG GOVERNMENT,horse crap argument again,Expanded police protection,public education,medicare,social security ALL great


Police and education are operated and funded locally, with some federal funds. When the federal government gets involved, you get things like No Child Left Behind. How is that a good thing?

Medicare is a bureaucratic nightmare and if you're banking on retiring only on Social Security, I hope you like dog food. Both are expensive programs that reduce the size of your check offering nothing in return. You would be better off putting that money in a health savings account, 401k, and mutual funds. However, that's not possible since the government knows best.

Jefferson said a government that can give you everything you want has the power to take it all away. Remember than next time you hear Obama talk about how he'll use the government to solve all of your problems.
quote:
Nashbama, You don't mean you want your mom, dad,granny and grandpa's medicare taken away? Please Nash, tell me that you are a better person.


They have insurance.

Besides, why should you have to pay for my family's health care? Is it fair that money from your pay check goes to someone else's health care? I don't think so. It would make more sense for everyone to put that money in their own health savings account which they have access to. That would make sense, so the fed won't go for it.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
Nashbama, You don't mean you want your mom, dad,granny and grandpa's medicare taken away? Please Nash, tell me that you are a better person.


They have insurance.

Besides, why should you have to pay for my family's health care? Is it fair that money from your pay check goes to someone else's health care? I don't think so. It would make more sense for everyone to put that money in their own health savings account which they have access to. That would make sense, so the fed won't go for it.



hmmmmm, Lucky ones to be able to afford health care insurance. I too am very lucky to have it.

But how about all those that cannot afford the high cost of health care insurance? I mean if you are making $5.50 per hour, it would be hard to put back money that you need for gas to get to work.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
The ol BIG GOVERNMENT,horse crap argument again,Expanded police protection,public education,medicare,social security ALL great



Medicare is a bureaucratic nightmare and if you're banking on retiring only on Social Security, I hope you like dog food. .


At one time some dog food was in fact eaten by some people on the lower economic rungs the ladder. Reagan saw to it that additives were put in to make dog food unpalatable to humans in order to stop poor people from being able to eat dog food. That's how he showed his compassion.
''At one time some dog food was in fact eaten by some people on the lower economic rungs the ladder. Reagan saw to it that additives were put in to make dog food unpalatable to humans in order to stop poor people from being able to eat dog food. That's how he showed his compassion.''



excelman, I remember the news story very well. I agree.
quote:
Besides, why should you have to pay for my family's health care? Is it fair that money from your pay check goes to someone else's health care? I don't think so. It would make more sense for everyone to put that money in their own health savings account which they have access to. That would make sense, so the fed won't go for it.



By that reasoning taxpayers who do not have children attending public schools should pay less taxes because why should they pay for your kids or others,also some call the police constantly and i dont know if i have ever called the police should i and others like me pay less? Socializing education is ok but to socialize healthcare for seniors 65 and older is wrong?? Well of course it is to some because a Democrat created the imo brilliant plan
quote:
But how about all those that cannot afford the high cost of health care insurance? I mean if you are making $5.50 per hour, it would be hard to put back money that you need for gas to get to work.


Most of the people making $5.50 an hour are covered under their parents insurance because they still live at home and attend high school.

When I was in college, I cleared about $11k a year. I paid for my own health insurance. There are always options.

No, socializing education is not okay. Which is better, a public school or private school? Those in private schools consistantly test higher and have a lower drop out rate than public.

There is a country in the Netherlands that has no public schools. The government provides a certian ammount of money for each child, but pays it directly to the school of the parents' choice. The schools have to compete for students to stay in business and only the best schools make it. Needless to say, those kids are way ahead of us.

Countries that have socialized health care have waiting lists that are years long, piss poor quality, and sky high taxes. Many people pay for private care despite the fact they are offered "free" health care.
I don't know what year you were in college Nash, but when I started my working life somewhere around 1969, I was paying $12 / month for family plan insurance. My employer paid the difference, but I don't know what it was.
When I was preparing to retire, it was before the current idiot was in office, and the cost of carrying my insurance into retirement was $450 / month as I would have to pay all of it. By the time I actually did retire in 2003, that cost was around $900/month.

I do know , however, that in 1976 I ran my hand through a glass door and had to go to the emergency room at Baptist Hospital in Memphis for 2 hours of sewing my ligaments back and sewing the wound back up.
When I left the hospital, I was presented with the entire bill (as I used to have to file insurance myself) The bill was $18 for the use of the e room, and $18 for the surgery. Thats right , $36 total. Of course that was before Reagan deregulated the medical business.
My point is, that the cost of medical care has gone up at some exponential rate and is no longer affordable to those who are at the lower paying jobs, and in addition, many companies have begun to drop medical insurance in order to control their cost (after all , their competitor in Japan, or China, or ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE INDUSTRIAL WORLD) does not have to pay those cost putting US companies at a competitive disadvantage.
I paid $100 a month and had a $1000 deductible. It wasn't easy, but cheaper than paying a hospital bill. It saved my butt a few times.

I'd like to know how many people who say they can't afford insurance have a credit card or cable TV. How many chose to make payments on a brand new car rather than pay for health insurance?

I'm not saying our current system is perfect, it's not. I'm saying that the sure fire way to screw it up even worse is to allow our health care to become another government beauracy.

People have to take some personal responsibility for themselves. Life isn't easy, no one said it was. One has to work for what they have and be smart with what they earn. We have charities to help those who are mentally or physically unable to earn. Those who are able to work and earn should take care of themselves.
I see your point, but lets do some math.
If someone with a family is paid $15.00/ hour (a relitavely good rate around here. That equates to $600.00 / week.
Assume 4 weeks / month that is $2400 / month. Sounds good, but if we assume that that person will pay about 27% in taxes, SS and other de-ducts, that leaves $1752.00 / month take home.
Lets just say, for the sake of argument now, that that person pays rent or mortgage of $400/month (a real bargain now days) that leaves $1300 per month. Now, lets assume that that family wants to stay wearm in the winter and comfortable in the summer, and be able to cook their food and keep it cool in the frig. I don't know what an average utility bill would be, I have an extremely good one, so I'll just say that average is about $125/month. That now leaves $1175. Phone bill (without internet) should run around $50 leaving $1125. Been a while for me, but I guess if you really try, eat a lot of beans and rice, you can feed a family of 4 for $100/week = $400/month, leaving $725/month.
Last I heard , you could get Blue Cross family plan (assuming no pre-existing problems) for $695 / month. That leaves $30 / month. Maybe you can buy clothes for your kids at Salvation Army for $15/ month leaving $15 / month to buy gas to get to that job in the paid for car .
I can surly see how someone in that income category could forgo that $695 for health insurance, and trust in luck to not get sick with anything that is serious. If they have to, they can take Bush's advise and go the the emergency room at the local hospital, putting that financial burden on you and me, but what the hell , maybe they should just forgo that house and live in a box under the O'Neil Bridge, and dumpster dive for food.

BTW, your assumption that these people can just be carried on their parents insurance is just screwed up. Most insurance companies will not carry one's children over 18 unless they are in college, and will not carry them after about 22 at all.
quote:
Originally posted by excelman:
I see your point, but lets do some math.
If someone with a family is paid $15.00/ hour (a relitavely good rate around here. That equates to $600.00 / week.
Assume 4 weeks / month that is $2400 / month. Sounds good, but if we assume that that person will pay about 27% in taxes, SS and other de-ducts, that leaves $1752.00 / month take home.
Lets just say, for the sake of argument now, that that person pays rent or mortgage of $400/month (a real bargain now days) that leaves $1300 per month. Now, lets assume that that family wants to stay wearm in the winter and comfortable in the summer, and be able to cook their food and keep it cool in the frig. I don't know what an average utility bill would be, I have an extremely good one, so I'll just say that average is about $125/month. That now leaves $1175. Phone bill (without internet) should run around $50 leaving $1125. Been a while for me, but I guess if you really try, eat a lot of beans and rice, you can feed a family of 4 for $100/week = $400/month, leaving $725/month.
Last I heard , you could get Blue Cross family plan (assuming no pre-existing problems) for $695 / month. That leaves $30 / month. Maybe you can buy clothes for your kids at Salvation Army for $15/ month leaving $15 / month to buy gas to get to that job in the paid for car .
I can surly see how someone in that income category could forgo that $695 for health insurance, and trust in luck to not get sick with anything that is serious. If they have to, they can take Bush's advise and go the the emergency room at the local hospital, putting that financial burden on you and me, but what the hell , maybe they should just forgo that house and live in a box under the O'Neil Bridge, and dumpster dive for food.

BTW, your assumption that these people can just be carried on their parents insurance is just screwed up. Most insurance companies will not carry one's children over 18 unless they are in college, and will not carry them after about 22 at all.


First off, if you can't pay the bills you shouldn't have two kids... but that's another discusion entirely. Second, it sounds like the persons spouse needs to go out and get a job. As Nash said "life is tough".
If you are trying to support a family of four on $15 an hour, you can't just put in 40 hours a week and quit. Factor in 20 hours of overtime a week and that income goes way up. That's an extra $1800 a month before taxes. That's enough to cover insurance and have some left over for saving.

Plus, you can find insurance cheaper than that with higher deductibles. It doesn't take long to save up $1000 or more to keep that covered.

Besides, it's not the government's job to take care of your family. It's yours. Those who need help can and should find assistance from private charities. Allowing the government to step in just raises taxes and makes it that much harder to get by.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×