Who Else is Scared That a Liberal Will Win in "08??

darkcrow

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Liberals aren't the problem. The fed and the MIC are. The only 3 candidates that address this issue are outcasted and marginalized by the media. Who owns the media?

sigh...go figure

i wasn't being serious. i was being sarcastic... maybe i should ahve used a smiley... wonder if there is a "sarcastic" smiley. if not someone should make one.

bryn_cmbs

binauralonthecape wrote:

the media darlings are so in love with Barack and Hillary, but i'm so scared that a liberal will win the election and completely destroy our country, Barack seems like the least polarizing democratic candidate so theres a good chance he will win the nomination, but he will become an extreme liberal if elected because of all the pressure on the democratic side, it will be a sad day for all americans if a democrat takes the office with a full majority in the congress.

No, it will be a happy day.

macgyver06

binauralonthecape wrote:

the media darlings are so in love with Barack and Hillary, but i'm so scared that a liberal will win the election and completely destroy our country, Barack seems like the least polarizing democratic candidate so theres a good chance he will win the nomination, but he will become an extreme liberal if elected because of all the pressure on the democratic side, it will be a sad day for all americans if a democrat takes the office with a full majority in the congress.

who are you obeying?

Uncle Leo

I don't see Kucinich winning. Therefore, fear not. No liberal will win.

SilverSeed

I don't understand this utter fear of liberals when we've watched a conservative controlled legislature throw everything to shit. I say bring on the libs, only place to go is up.

Cosmo

sorryFOOL wrote:

No I'm not but the Democrats are not going to cut your taxes. They never have and they never will. They too are just as interested in helping the rich as the republicans are and is because they are the rich. Then keep in mind that if you make over 100k a year you are in the top 5% in this nation. Now I know alot of people who make more than 100k a year and they pay ALOT more in taxes than I do and I make 50K a year. As a matter of fact when 1 friend made 95K he came home with the same $$ in his pocket as when he got a raise to 105K so that tax bracket obviously pays a greater %.

...
Democrats will tax you to pay for the programs.
Republicans will not tax you to pay for the programs.
Both SPEND. Where is the money supposed to come from? Where is the Trillion Dollars for the War coming from?
...
And yeah.. remember the 'Contract With America' thing in 2000? please, tell me which of these Conservative ideals are yours:
-Large intrusive government agencies with blatant disregard for your rights.
-Massive debt incurred by relentless spending.
-Assignment of political favors for, not just for Cabinet positions, but candidates for the Judicial Branch (see Harriet Meirs).
-War of choice.
-Employing Soviet Union style torture tactics on 'Enemy Combatants'.
-Soliciting of sex in public bathrooms... naked jerk-off with young male interns.
...
This is what the Republican controlled Legislature and Executive offices gave you. You want more of this?

hailhailkc

blackredyellow wrote:

It cracks me up that the right thinks Hilary is a liberal... She's further right than Romney was a few years ago.

If you took 90% of her comments and said they were from a republican candidate, no one would doubt you.

What people say, and what they do, are two totally different things.

hailhailkc

Cosmo wrote:

...
Democrats will tax you to pay for the programs.
Republicans will not tax you to pay for the programs.
Both SPEND. Where is the money supposed to come from? Where is the Trillion Dollars for the War coming from?
...
And yeah.. remember the 'Contract With America' thing in 2000? please, tell me which of these Conservative ideals are yours:
-Large intrusive government agencies with blatant disregard for your rights.
-Massive debt incurred by relentless spending.
-Assignment of political favors for, not just for Cabinet positions, but candidates for the Judicial Branch (see Harriet Meirs).
-War of choice.
-Employing Soviet Union style torture tactics on 'Enemy Combatants'.
-Soliciting of sex in public bathrooms... naked jerk-off with young male interns.
...
This is what the Republican controlled Legislature and Executive offices gave you. You want more of this?

And you're okay with being taxed even more? (I know you are for the war, but where do you draw the limit??)

soulsinging

hailhailkc wrote:

And you're okay with being taxed even more? (I know you are for the war, but where do you draw the limit??)

last i checked, he opposed the war for being pointless and unnecessary.

my though is if you're going to increase spending, you've got to pay for it somehow. since neither party is willing or able to reduce it, we might as well pay for it. maybe once people see 75% of their income going away in income taxes they'll start to look a little closer at what politicians are doing with that money. cos they sure don't seem to give a fuck right now. the republicans are increasing spending and telling you you should be happy becos they're cutting taxes. what they're doing is mortgaging your children's future for political capital right now. that's as low as it gets as far as i'm concerned. at least the dems are honest about where they plan to get the money. the republicans just ignore it and assure us they'll figure something out eventually.

Cosmo

hailhailkc wrote:

And you're okay with being taxed even more? (I know you are for the war, but where do you draw the limit??)

...
If it actually GOES to the programs... yeah.
Someone HAS to pay for F-22s... M-1A1s... Kevlar... bullets.
...
The problem is SPENDING. If the Republicans (specifically, the Bush Administration and the then Republican Legislature) is going to cut taxes... then, shouldn't they curb their spending also?
...
Like, when you go out shopping for some big ticket item... like a house. Do you buy just any house, or one that fits your budget? If you want that 10,000 sq.ft. mansion on the beach... shouldn't you make more money?
In the current government's case... it is passed on to the future.
You are not feeling any pain in this war. The only ones who are... the soldiers, their families and your kids and grandkids who will be strapped for paying your bills.
Is that another 'Conservative Ideal' I was never aware of?
...
P.S. I am against this war and have been since 2002.
...
P.P.S. Merry Christmas... Welcome back...

TheAnti-Santa

Seriously what could one person do to "completely destroy" a country?

cornnifer

sorryFOOL wrote:

If each individual would take personal responsibility and do something nice for somebody else in need we would not need these programs.

i'm tired of this bullshit line. Do you honestly think this will ever happen on a scale large enough to make a difference? To seriously reduce poverty and hunger? To provide healthcare? You know damn well it will never happen. So does Hannity, Limbaugh, and every other conservative bullshit artist that says this shit. Give me a break.

Uncle Leo

cornnifer wrote:

i'm tired of this bullshit line. Do you honestly think this will ever happen on a scale large enough to make a difference? To seriously reduce poverty and hunger? To provide healthcare? You know damn well it will never happen. So does Hannity, Limbaugh, and every other conservative bullshit artist that says this shit. Give me a break.

It's the tragedy of the commons. Most of us want a little more. Most people probably wish they made, oh, 10-20% more. But they'll always feel that way, no matter how much they get (or are taxed). So most don't give a lot of money to reduce poverty and health care.

If everyone bought a car that got 2 mpg more, we'd save tons of oil and reduce less. Same if everyone walked, rather than drove for shorter trips.

By this logic (the right wingers, not Corny), we should just do away with (or finish doing away with) all pollution laws and say "if polluting companies would just forgo some profit for the good of the world, things would be better." Sure. But they won't.

Philanthropy is nice, but shit, half the people on this fairly liberal board think that all poor people are lazy and helping them out just reinforces that laziness. Philanthropy will not get it done in terms of feeding the poor and dealing with healthcare. It's not that people want this to occur, it's that they want what's theirs.

So the question is not whether or not people voluntary philanthropy could make a real dent, because we all in an honest moment know that they cannot. The question is whether there is a government role in doing so. I happen to think so, because I think the market fails when good blue collar jobs have been replaced by wal mart, when one job is not enough to feed your kids and when so many kids don't have health care. Then again, I don't think there is a one-to-one relatioship between "hard work" and "success."

cornnifer

Uncle Leo wrote:

It's the tragedy of the commons. Most of us want a little more. Most people probably wish they made, oh, 10-20% more. But they'll always feel that way, no matter how much they get (or are taxed). So most don't give a lot of money to reduce poverty and health care.

If everyone bought a car that got 2 mpg more, we'd save tons of oil and reduce less. Same if everyone walked, rather than drove for shorter trips.

By this logic (the right wingers, not Corny), we should just do away with (or finish doing away with) all pollution laws and say "if polluting companies would just forgo some profit for the good of the world, things would be better." Sure. But they won't.

Philanthropy is nice, but shit, half the people on this fairly liberal board think that all poor people are lazy and helping them out just reinforces that laziness. Philanthropy will not get it done in terms of feeding the poor and dealing with healthcare. It's not that people want this to occur, it's that they want what's theirs.

So the question is not whether or not people voluntary philanthropy could make a real dent, because we all in an honest moment know that they cannot. The question is whether there is a government role in doing so. I happen to think so, because I think the market fails when good blue collar jobs have been replaced by wal mart, when one job is not enough to feed your kids and when so many kids don't have health care. Then again, I don't think there is a one-to-one relatioship between "hard work" and "success."

i hear ya. This whole "charity should take the place of social programs" business, actually makes me angry to a certain degree. Its laughably ridiculous. Who wil be providing this altruism? The middle class? The middle class is all but extinct. The few remaining members are paying the bills and maybe eating out a few times a month. Poor folks, obviously, will not be making donations to EACHOTHER. Where will the generosity come from. It would HAVE to come from the rich, and everyone knows the filthy rich in this country did not get that way by being charitable.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Run to the government...beg them to help you...

Good luck...aint gonna happen. You get to be their slave every time. Especially right now.

so think about it, and wtfu (wake the f up) shake yourself if necessary

puremagic

More importantly, who's afraid we will elect someone who will "Stay the Course"?
--Our economy can not afford to stay the course.
--Our foreign policy can not afford to stay the course.
--Our entire system of government can not afford to stay the course.

It's ok to look out for your own party, but not at the expense of the entire Nation, not at the expense of the Constitution and not at the expense of the integrity of the Office of the President of the United States.

Right now, I don't see a candidate out there (Democrat or Republican) willing to put the American family before Iraq needs, even though they see you struggling, see you trying to hold your head up. They keep saying they know there's a bumpy road ahead, those bumps are turning into potholes for too many Americans.

WMA

puremagic wrote:

More importantly, who's afraid we will elect someone who will "Stay the Course"?
--Our economy can not afford to stay the course.
--Our foreign policy can not afford to stay the course.
--Our entire system of government can not afford to stay the course.

It's ok to look out for your own party, but not at the expense of the entire Nation, not at the expense of the Constitution and not at the expense of the integrity of the Office of the President of the United States.

Right now, I don't see a candidate out there (Democrat or Republican) willing to put the American family before Iraq needs, even though they see you struggling, see you trying to hold your head up. They keep saying they know there's a bumpy road ahead, those bumps are turning into potholes for too many Americans.

I'm not so sure about this one.

The Democrats are running on a bunch of people issues. Healthcare, fair wages, a tax structure that will help those that need the money, environmental standards, as opposed to the standard scare tactics, moral issue agenda of the right.

The Republicans want to cut the programs in place now to help the low income rise up. No minimum wage increases, affordable health care, lessen environmental standards, privatise everything. Tax cuts to the rich for a supposed 'trickle-down economy', that never seems to trickle down. But they are against terrorists, abortion, gay people, and immigration.

Katzenjammer

Think about it, bitches.

Kann

Katzenjammer wrote:

Think about it, bitches.

Exactly. What is the difference already?

ledvedderman

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Barack and Hillary are pro war. They say they are against war because they have to in order to have any hopes of winning.

I am just curious where you get Barack being "pro war". You got any beef to go with that comment? I can tell you in 2004 when he was running in the Democratic primary (before the Democrats even considered being against the war) in Illinois he was speaking out against the way. So he's so pro war that he was against the war before it was cool to be anti-war?

I'm sure you'll respond with something about him leaving all military options on the table when it comes to Iran. Don't you think that there are plans on the table for pretty much any military action in any hot spot across the world? Any leader that didn't have a plan for if the shit hits the fan is unfit to be commander in chief.