Here is why you are not voting for Obama

[ViRedd]

Exactly, there is no way possible I could be proud of this country. Maybe 30 or 40 or more years ago, but not now we've become pampas, spoiled, egotistical pussies that don't give a ten foot flying fuck about anything but our wallets.

Yosemite is pretty nice. Yellowstone is great. The Coast in the Pacific Northwest is awesome. Fishing in Alaska is wonderful. The fact that you can go into business for yourself is terrific. I like the idea that I can travel between the states without passing through a customs office at each border. Being able to contract on my own with my doctor, and selecting any doctor I want to, is really nice. Working with hard working people who are high achievers fits me well. Looking over the landscape at American innovation and our can-do spirit "sends a thrill up my leg." That's just a few things that make me proud of my country.

Now then, let's talk about our government and how the Constitution is being trashed. Now there's something not to be proud of.

Vi

 

[desertrat]

Now then, let's talk about our government and how the Constitution is being trashed. Now there's something not to be proud of.

Vi

well vi, since a good portion of the constitution's trouble has come from your favorite party perhaps you're now willing to vote libertarian. if you are not in a battleground state a protest vote is symbolic without influencing the election.

symbols matter.

 

[hom36rown]

califronia definietely isnt a battleground state, so might as well

 

[ViRedd]

well vi, since a good portion of the constitution's trouble has come from your favorite party perhaps you're now willing to vote libertarian. if you are not in a battleground state a protest vote is symbolic without influencing the election.symbols matter.

LMAO! I've been registered as a Libertarian for 25 years now. The last Republican president I voted for was Ronald Reagan. The only Republican state representative I've voted for was Tom McClintock and Bruce Hershenson. In fact, I actually worked on Hershenson's campaign. Now, you may ask ... why McCain this time around? The answer is ... the Libertarian Party hasn't a chance in hell of winning and neither does Ron Paul, who is actually my favorite candidate in the race.

Look, I feel that electing McCain and Palin is of dire importance because the Democrat Party has been purged of its moderate leaders and taken over by the Marxist wing of the party. As a Libertarian, can you imagine what will happen to government if the executive branch is taken over by a Marxist like O'Bama? Think: Pelosi, Reid, Boxer, Kennedy, Biden and O'Bama in control of our lives ... not to mention the two to three Supreme Court nominees coming down the pike over the next four years.

Palin should be giving Libertarians hope ... I know she's convinced me. Consider this: If McCain/Palin wins, the election in 2112 will be between Palin and Hillary. One is for the expansion of the private sector, the other wants to nationalize it. Which of those two scenarios is more favorable to your libertarian leanings?

Vi

 

[desertrat]

Which of those two scenarios is more favorable to your libertarian leanings?

Vi

i think you missed my point. or perhaps changed subjects as you have been known to do here. anyway, neither of our votes is meaningful for determining the election given the states we live in. if you want to make your vote count you need to move to a small swing state like colorado. doubt if either of us is that committed however.

as for the republicans so called free market perspective i think you must be joking. given the state of the financial markets you can expect similar government controls from either party. its going to be a regulation-fest and you might as well accept it. think mccain's emergency commission - which by the way is a typical washington dodge, no?

and to carry your water, the democrats have made some serious noises that are quite marxist in tone.

add to that we, imo, have four candidates each with serious, serious flaws makes the choice even more unpalatable.

i say vote for what you believe in.

 

[medicineman]

McPalin is Bush 44, two dumbass idiots that had for an economical advisor a guy that said the people were experiencing a mental recession, and the economy was fine, I guess Black Monday and Wednesday blew that arguement into the weeds. Those two will finish this country off and probably start WWIII.

 

[desertrat]

McPalin is Bush 44, two dumbass idiots that had for an economical advisor a guy that said the people were experiencing a mental recession, and the economy was fine, I guess Black Monday and Wednesday blew that arguement into the weeds. Those two will finish this country off and probably start WWIII.

greetings medman, been seeing your posts for some time. thoght i;d say hi. hi.

while i think you make some great points elsewhere, especially the erosion of civil liberties under the repubs, i gotta say i disagree with you here. economics is 90% psychological and it is traditional for the current admin to have a rosey outlook. it actually has nothing to do with politics.

mccain saying the economy was sound was plain stupid however, by proving his own assertion that he didn't understand economics.

 

[medicineman]

greetings medman, been seeing your posts for some time. thoght i;d say hi. hi.

while i think you make some great points elsewhere, especially the erosion of civil liberties under the repubs, i gotta say i disagree with you here. economics is 90% psychological and it is traditional for the current admin to have a rosey outlook. it actually has nothing to do with politics.

mccain saying the economy was sound was plain stupid however, by proving his own assertion that he didn't understand economics.

So greetings to you also. My question about the disagreement is this: McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time, he was involved in a Savings and loan scandal years ago (Supposedly false, wink wink) his economic advisor said we were just experiencing a mental recession, and you think that McPalin is not 4 more years of the Bush doctrine? They just don't pass the smell test, something stinks with them. JMHO.

 

[desertrat]

, and you think that McPalin is not 4 more years of the Bush doctrine? .

actually, i don't think the situation will permit four more years of the same approach. and most republicans are fed up with bush anyway. so, no i don;t think it will be a continuation of the same policies. that's just an (effective) democratic talking point.

i'd bet that the mccain doctrine might be worse than the bush doctrine. more bellicose towards russia, more willing to commit troops that have no business in that country (can you say pakistan and iran?), more willing to push a religious right agenda. ignorant of economics and the real lives of average americans.

edit - and last but not least, more willing to violate our civil liberties.

 

[medicineman]

actually, i don't think the situation will permit four more years of the same approach. and most republicans are fed up with bush anyway. so, no i don;t think it will be a continuation of the same policies. that's just an (effective) democratic talking point.

i'd bet that the mccain doctrine might be worse than the bush doctrine. more bellicose towards russia, more willing to commit troops that have no business in that country (can you say pakistan and iran?), more willing to push a religious right agenda. ignorant of economics and the real lives of average americans.

edit - and last but not least, more willing to violate our civil liberties.

So OK, not the same, but worse. My sentiments exactly. Snake handlers at the ready.

 

[fdd2blk]

McPalin is Bush 44, two dumbass idiots that had for an economical advisor a guy that said the people were experiencing a mental recession, and the economy was fine, I guess Black Monday and Wednesday blew that arguement into the weeds. Those two will finish this country off and probably start WWIII.

i just saw todays commercial. we are now "in a time of crisis".

 

[desertrat]

So OK, not the same, but worse. My sentiments exactly. Snake handlers at the ready.

yea, we agree on republicans but i doubt we agree on democrats.

dems - too ready to appropriate the fruits of the productive segment of our society to support whatever favored group or program is in vogue. too willing to promote class warfare as a political tool. too tied to special interest groups like the teachers' union to create any real reform. acutally, to tied to all social programs to do any reforming.

vote libertarian.

 

[medicineman]

yea, we agree on republicans but i doubt we agree on democrats.

dems - too ready to appropriate the fruits of the productive segment of our society to support whatever favored group or program is in vogue. too willing to promote class warfare as a political tool. too tied to special interest groups like the teachers' union to create any real reform. acutally, to tied to all social programs to do any reforming.

vote libertarian.

Hey, I'm for some social programs. Libertarians are for free trade and no social programs. We can all see what that free trade and no regulation has done to the economy. Greed is running rampant, and untill the time when man actually gives a shit about one another, we need social programs to keep those less fortunate alive and living a respectful life. I'm not advocating slackers, but "teach a man how to fish", in other words, offer them jobs, Medical, schooling, opportunities. Just treat everyone like you'd like to be treated, that's a start.

 

[desertrat]

Libertarians are for free trade and no social programs. Just treat everyone like you'd like to be treated, that's a start.

this libertarian is for fair trade and social needs met by society, not government. coercive charity via taxation is not one person helping someone in need, it is a government accruing power by favoring one group over another.

part of being a morally strong libertarian is to accept the responsibilty we all have to help people less fortunate than us. but a moral imperative is a different animal than a government compulsary system and generates a lot of the class tension in this country. when you have half the population paying no taxes and 5% paying more than 50% you have a formula for social unrest.

as for the golden rule, i've noticed some pretty nonproductive and personal attacks on the site that regularly violate that rule. calling people " dumbass idiots " instead of attacking the policies will not convince a single person that your points might be right and should be taken seriously. don't you think??

 

[jabrown3]

just cause you smoke pot doesnt mean you have to be a tree hugger desertrat.

 

[desertrat]

just cause you smoke pot doesnt mean you have to be a tree hugger desertrat.

i have personally cut down 5,000 trees with my handy chainsaw. you should also read the rest of the thread. no one who knows me would call me a tree hugger. i am just someone who believes he has a moral obligation to help other people. i am not saying that others have to share my moral imperatives.

 

[jabrown3]

moral obligation meaning national heath insurance?
AND a national increase of tax that will turn most middle class homes into poverty?

 

[desertrat]

moral obligation meaning national heath insurance?
AND a national increase of tax that will turn most middle class homes into poverty?

you clearly failed to read my other posts in this thread. i am not a democrat seeking big government. i am a libertarian who thinks both republicans and democrats have grown the government too much.

and raising taxes on the middle class is just an overused talking point of both sides. no one is going to raise taxes on the middle class. watch out if you;re in the highest brackets.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

Yes they are, they are going to jack my capital gains rate up, which effects me, and I am part of the middle class, and I would like to be able to retire with out relying upon the government.

Even if there is an exception for people making less than $50K a year on the capital gains rate the rich will move to have the corporation decrease dividends and retain more earnings for M&A, Expansion and Capital Expenditures. Which means even if I am exempt (this year, next year I might be on the other side of that mark) then I am still going to see the growth of my retirement portfolion decreased, and thus get indirectly taxed.

Or, if the taxes are hiked on the boss, he's less likely to give me a raise as big as the one I got for the last two years. Which means I'm being taxed indirectly again.

I'll concede they probably wont raise taxes on the middle class directly, but indirectly is a whole different story.

Besides, regardless of who's paying them, Taxes are Immoral.

 

[desertrat]

Yes they are, they are going to jack my capital gains rate up, which effects me, and I am part of the middle class, and I would like to be able to retire with out relying upon the government.

Even if there is an exception for people making less than $50K a year on the capital gains rate the rich will move to have the corporation decrease dividends and retain more earnings for M&A, Expansion and Capital Expenditures. Which means even if I am exempt (this year, next year I might be on the other side of that mark) then I am still going to see the growth of my retirement portfolion decreased, and thus get indirectly taxed.

Or, if the taxes are hiked on the boss, he's less likely to give me a raise as big as the one I got for the last two years. Which means I'm being taxed indirectly again.

I'll concede they probably wont raise taxes on the middle class directly, but indirectly is a whole different story.

Besides, regardless of who's paying them, Taxes are Immoral.

i really don't know where to start, but i'l give it the old college try.

first, for almost all of the "middle class" a capital gains tax would be offset by government transfers of wealth to the middle class. like your national health insurance for example. like an education credit. the middle class is a net tax beneficiary because they have the political pull to make it so.

second, raising the cap gain rate has no effect on dividends. dividends are normal income to the irs. raising the cap gains rate will make people and companies defer their gains and move investments into tax shelters. it will slow economic growth and shift dollars to unproductive investments (read green), but it won't affect dividends except to increase them.

third, taxes aren't immoral, people are. taxing for essential government services (read up on what a public good is) is not immoral as it is the only feasible way to pay for public goods. things like breathable air. but immoral people take advantage of the power of government to expand it into areas it has no business in.

why does every repub seem to think if you are not a repub you are a liberal. the repub party is too liberal for me. jc