A thread for undecided voters

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

know1 wrote:

Illegal Immigration - I oppose nationalism and racism (which is what I think most of the debate is about) and I think we should relax our laws to the point that anyone who wants to come here, work and live should be welcomed with open arms and and extremely simple citizenship process. I'm more concerned about people in general than I am in helping "Americans" to the exclusion of another human being.
.

bullshit. you know all anti-illegal immigration people arent racist, and your only concern is fattening your wallet.

i love sweeping generalizations too.

digster

MattyJoe wrote:

Redistribution of wealth.

From Wikipedia:

"The economic/political system of communism forwards the idea that a government, serving the interests of the proletariat, would confiscate the wealth of the rich and then distribute benefits to the poor. Critics of state-managed economies, notably Milton Friedman, point out that the slogan "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." turns ability into a liability and need into an asset. They cite the former Soviet Union and The People's Republic of China as examples of countries where, despite aggressive economic regulation, wealth continues to be distributed unevenly. However, such arguments are straw man arguments based upon misrepresenting the goals and nature of the governments of the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistribute_wealth#Redistribution_of_wealth_and_public_policy

Socialism is a form of Communism, by the way.

Barack's policy:

Higher taxes on the rich, and "tax credits" for the poor.

From his site:

"Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit: Obama will increase the number of working parents eligible for EITC benefits, increase the benefits available to parents who support their children through child support payments, increase benefits for families with three or more children, and reduce the EITC marriage penalty, which hurts low-income families."

"Provide Tax Relief: Obama will provide all low and middle-income workers a $500 Making Work Pay tax credit to offset the payroll tax those workers pay in every paycheck. Obama will also eliminate taxes for seniors making under $50,000 per year."

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/poverty/

Socialism is leftist, and Obama is a liberal, so his policies as you stated them were, and I quote; "It's Obama who's trying to trick you into thinking socialist ideals are what's best for this country by using the media to pump himself up into a demigod." If you consider a progressive income tax stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, I cannot say anything to dissuade you. Such inflammatory language takes away from the debate; you cite Obama's elmination of taxes for seniors making under 50,000 a year, and you consider it communist in nature. These plans and policies are not socialist in nature, they are liberal in nature. Such liberal thinking in the United States involves a consideration and affirmation that "promoting the general Welfare" as stated in the Constitution applies to more than just protecting our shores and citizens from foreign invasion.

Also, per wikipedia:

"Socialism advocates complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange" - a key tenet of socialist thinking (not just Communist thinking, as you cited, which is a form of socialism and not socialism itself). Where is a 'complete nationalization' under Obama's proposed policies? I would not say that Obama is nowhere near socialism. Obama is liberal, and socialism is liberalism played out to its extreme. McCain is a conservative, and you do not hear me calling him a fascist because he adheres to the social right-wing, or calling him an anarchist because he believes in as smaller government. Socialism, fascism and anarchism are the extremes of the political spectrum, and Obama and McCain and his policies sit far from those intense and inflammatory extreme. So therefore I still think it's ridiculous to call his plans 'socialist.'

I also wish you'd respond to the rest of my earlier post, since that was at the meat of what I was trying to say.

OffHeGoes29

MattyJoe wrote:

Socially, yes the Dems were more conservative back then. But that's because that's what the common man of the South wanted. They still had the same ideology, it was just implemented differently. They mainly supported the South, however, because they supported more independent States, not because of slavery. They were against a strong central government. Thomas Jefferson essentially founded the party, although it was not called the Democratic party until Andrew Jackson. But it had the same ideology from the very beginning.

And the Repubs were anti-slavery, but that's because businessmen in the North didn't rely on slavery to earn a living, like farmers in the South did. They didn't care if slavery was abolished because it wouldn't have affected them. Since slavery was thought of as barbaric anyway, why not support its abolition and, therefore, improve your image? Repubs were still aligned with businesses.

I didn't know that. I guess I need to do some more reading.

know1

MrSmith wrote:

bullshit. you know all anti-illegal immigration people arent racist, and your only concern is fattening your wallet.

i love sweeping generalizations too.

I can honestly say that my stance on illegal immigration has nothing whatsoever with fattening my wallet and has everything to do with caring about people who are trying to better themselves.

EvilToasterElf

blondieblue227 wrote:

mattyjoe

Not falling for it. if the Rebs can’t even put it on their website or mention it in ONE speech, then fuck em. Just because Sarah has a special needs baby doesn’t mean I’m voting for them either. I maybe young, but I’ve noticed something. Rebs are for big business and Dems are for the little people. And I must be a little person because the Rebs can’t even mention my group. A group that covers over 50 million people. that being said, 50mil is a lot of votes to ignore. it's a slap in the face in my opinion. I go my state’s General Assembly every year to ask for more funding, so don’t tell me they wouldn’t cut money on programs for people with disabilities, because they do it all the time.

Sorry 88keys, I’ll shut up now. I’ve said my two cents

So 1 in 7 people in the United States qualifies as disabled? That seems pretty high...

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

know1 wrote:

I can honestly say that my stance on illegal immigration has nothing whatsoever with fattening my wallet and has everything to do with caring about people who are trying to better themselves.

ok, but i have a hard time believing Mr. "Bush has been good to me the last 8 years so forget about all the bad shit" suddenly gets all altruistic when it comes to immigrants.

and i can honestly say that stance on illegal immigration has nothing whatsoever with racism. its scientifically impossible for me to be less racist heheh.

88keys

blondieblue227 wrote:

Sorry 88keys, I’ll shut up now. I’ve said my two cents

No apologies necessary... you're making a case for what's important to you. That's what this thread is about.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

for me the only decision is either the lesser of two evils (Obama) or throw my vote away on a third party. or better yet vote for myself.

i guess since i live in Texas and my vote is pretty meaningless, i'm leaning towards voting for myself.

who wants to be my VP?

blondieblue227

EvilToasterElf wrote:

So 1 in 7 people in the United States qualifies as disabled? That seems pretty high...

.....that's what the stats say. i did a search on google. a number of sites say it's around 50mil. maybe they're counting elderly too.
it's a slap in the face they ignore us in speeches etc.

88keys wrote:

No apologies necessary... you're making a case for what's important to you. That's what this thread is about.

thank you.

88keys

Did the Sarah Palin interview on ABC help anyone at all in deciding their vote?