Isn't it time for a new election thread?!

[EL the Famous]

Right. Like I'm all for abortions anytime before age 13, but I understand when people don't necessarily understand where I'm coming from on that one. Sucks to get stuck with an ugly kid, though. No doubt about that.

 

thank you for creepily substantiating my point, d. cheap fucking trick, motherfucker.

[Moe_Syzlak]

Anywho.... RCP just moved FL into the Obama column with a 5 pt lead. That brings his electoral total at that site to 304 without toss-ups. FiveThirtyEight has Obama at 351 electoral votes. Electoral-Vote has Obama at 346.

[Party @ the Moontower]

Anywho.... RCP just moved FL into the Obama column with a 5 pt lead. That brings his electoral total at that site to 304 without toss-ups. FiveThirtyEight has Obama at 351 electoral votes. Electoral-Vote has Obama at 346.

 

Damn good #'s. Excellent links.

[bleedorange]

Obama: "It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

 

I fundamentally disagree with this concept. My wife and I work hard for the money we earn. We choose to save some, try to wisely invest some of it, and try to provide a decent lifestyle for ourselves and our daughter. But apparently, this income and these investment choices are considered, by Obama and others, to be too much money and the government should take more of it than it already does to give to other people.

 

This is not the government's job, and it lends more credence to the socialist claims that people are prone to make of Obama.

 

BTW, I understand a lot of people on this board are socialists, or at least lean that way (which boggles the mind), so I understand why Obama is such an attractive candidate to them. But not to me.

[Moe_Syzlak]

I fundamentally disagree with this concept. My wife and I work hard for the money we earn. We choose to save some, try to wisely invest some of it, and try to provide a decent lifestyle for ourselves and our daughter. But apparently, this income and these investment choices are considered, by Obama and others, to be too much money and the government should take more of it than it already does to give to other people.

 

This is not the government's job, and it lends more credence to the socialist claims that people are prone to make of Obama.

I don't read it that way at all. I'm in the camp that would pay more under Obama's plan, but the past eight years have shown, IMO, that a global economy such that it is cannot sustain the trickle down policies of Reaganomics (if they ever could). I would love to see government spend less, but we are in too big of a hole to simply spend less so our revenue needs to come from someplace (preferably not China) and I think those that can afford it should pay it. To me, that's country first. The GOP talking points will call it redistribution of wealth, socialism and giving hard-working folks' money to lazy slobs, but you're smarter than that. I think an apt analogy is rent. If you live in a nicer house and neighborhood, you'll pay more. I could pay next to nothing to live in a housing project, but I doubt many would choose to do that. Sure there are abusers, but the vast majority of people living in lower tax brackets DO work hard and barely scrape by. That needs to change, IMO, for the long-term health of our nation.

 

Now, if you believe that Reaganomics or some other policy is better suited to right the ship, I'd love to hear it. But don't assume anybody is pushing for socialism or doesn't have a valid opinion that simply differs from yours.

[John Smith]

Lighten up.

 

I am lightened up I'm in a good mood. I sense a landslide and a 60 seat senate.

 

I only care who the guy from Everclear says I should vote for, so I know to vote for the other guy.

 

Ditto: I do the same with Brittney Spears, Chuck Norris, Ted Nugetn and Angelina Jolie's dad

 

you want to disenfranchise the irresponsible?!

 

Careful, this could backfire on you, have you seen the footage out of the McCain rallies?

[John Smith]

This is not the government's job, and it lends more credence to the socialist claims that people are prone to make of Obama.

 

Is it socialist for the US governemnt to be spread all over the world providing corporate security to American companies? Afterall what is protecting American interests all about anyway? And I thought this for years even as I was serving. I fully agree with old Smedly on this one.

[Tweedling]

I agree. I rarely see an argument for McCain or any of the other 4 presidental canidates that are not Obama. All I hear is that those of that support Obama control the election thread and spout nonsense about M/P. BS! I don't see non Obama supporters being bashed here, I see Obama supporters being called lots of silly things because there seems to be more of us and we post many news articles that are pro-O.

 

Show me the Obama supporters who are trying to squash free speech on this board. I personally have asked 10 times now for an honest and clear argument for anyone that is not Obama. I have yet to see it. All this crying over O supporters making up lies, throwing insults, and ignoring true debate here is nothing more than BS!

Why are you in a position to 'defend' a candidate?

[Party @ the Moontower]

 

Your point?

[Tweedling]

Your point?

It seems as though you're asking everyone to provide you with reasons they are voting for McCain. As if we owe it to you to defend our our decisions.

I just thought you and FHF should get together a little more since he asked me why I should "defend" my decision.

[caliber66]

I fundamentally disagree with this concept. My wife and I work hard for the money we earn. We choose to save some, try to wisely invest some of it, and try to provide a decent lifestyle for ourselves and our daughter. But apparently, this income and these investment choices are considered, by Obama and others, to be too much money and the government should take more of it than it already does to give to other people.

 

This is not the government's job, and it lends more credence to the socialist claims that people are prone to make of Obama.

 

BTW, I understand a lot of people on this board are socialists, or at least lean that way (which boggles the mind), so I understand why Obama is such an attractive candidate to them. But not to me.

So you make more than $250,000/year?

[Party @ the Moontower]

It seems as though you're asking everyone to provide you with reasons they are voting for McCain. As if we owe it to you to defend our our decisions.

I just thought you and FHF should get together a little more since he asked me why I should "defend" my decision.

I don't recall talking to you on this subject, or asking everyone to respond with a detailed list for me to ponder. Read what I posted and you can see what I was talking about, and to whom it was written to. Then get back to me.

 

Oh, and I'd love to get together with FHF a little more. I'm married to the dude. We will think of you tonight when in bed.This ones for you...

[lost highway]

I fundamentally disagree with this concept. My wife and I work hard for the money we earn. We choose to save some, try to wisely invest some of it, and try to provide a decent lifestyle for ourselves and our daughter. But apparently, this income and these investment choices are considered, by Obama and others, to be too much money and the government should take more of it than it already does to give to other people.

 

This is not the government's job, and it lends more credence to the socialist claims that people are prone to make of Obama.

 

BTW, I understand a lot of people on this board are socialists, or at least lean that way (which boggles the mind), so I understand why Obama is such an attractive candidate to them. But not to me.

 

You will not see a negative effect unless you earn more than 1/4 mill a year. I believe everyone who works full time feels that they work hard. Some people make a lot more and they are taxed proportionately less. The government doesn't simply give money to other people. It uses it to do all the important things you are already aware of: run libraries, schools, hospitals, build roads, the post office, all those pretty tanks etc ad infinitum.

 

The governments job is very much so to run programs funded by tax dollars. Our government is partially socialist. Obama is not really a socialist. President W. collected some tax money to bomb some folks abroad, the only difference is he started cutting tax simultaneously and ran up a hefty debt for the rest of us to live under. All those baby killing machines are expensive.

[Winston Legthigh]

cheap fucking trick

At fucking Budokan!

[viatroy]

So you make more than $250,000/year?

 

 

I'm afraid the "we work hard for ours" argument is bullshit. Everyone works hard for the money -- someone's got to fill all those minimum wage McJobs so that investors can prosper. And that person, who likely has to work a second job, perhaps raise kids while they're at it, after working hard for as many hours as it takes, doesn't have the opportunity to scrimp and save and buy a house and invest what's left -- because there IS nothing left (and no healthcare along the way). The idea that everyone has the opportunity to rise to the top is horseshit -- capitalism needs its wage slaves to transfer to wealth to the top.

[lost highway]

At fucking Budokan!

 

(you're borderline genius for that one)

[sweetheart-mine]

I'm afraid the "we work hard for ours" argument is bullshit. Everyone works hard for the money -- someone's got to fill all those minimum wage McJobs so that investors can prosper. And that person, who likely has to work a second job, perhaps raise kids while they're at it, after working hard for as many hours as it takes, doesn't have the opportunity to scrimp and save and buy a house and invest what's left -- because there IS nothing left (and no healthcare along the way). The idea that everyone has the opportunity to rise to the top is horseshit -- capitalism needs its wage slaves to transfer to wealth to the top.

 

well said.

 

and the "we work hard" bit, as if others lower on the income scale don't, is incomprehensible to me.

[Tweedling]

I don't recall talking to you on this subject, or asking everyone to respond with a detailed list for me to ponder. Read what I posted and you can see what I was talking about, and to whom it was written to. Then get back to me.

 

Oh, and I'd love to get together with FHF a little more. I'm married to the dude. We will think of you tonight when in bed.This ones for you...

Oh, I thought you were talking to ALL "non Obama supporters". Maybe just certain ones?

 

Yeah, I know you two are married but you shouldn't waste time thinking of me in bed.

[bobbob1313]

I'm afraid the "we work hard for ours" argument is bullshit. Everyone works hard for the money -- someone's got to fill all those minimum wage McJobs so that investors can prosper. And that person, who likely has to work a second job, perhaps raise kids while they're at it, after working hard for as many hours as it takes, doesn't have the opportunity to scrimp and save and buy a house and invest what's left -- because there IS nothing left (and no healthcare along the way). The idea that everyone has the opportunity to rise to the top is horseshit -- capitalism needs its wage slaves to transfer to wealth to the top.

 

So you want wealth redistribution, from top to bottom, then?

[Tweedling]

I work hard for my money.....and that's no bullshit.

 

I love that argument. Thanks bleedorange

[lost highway]

So you want wealth redistribution, from top to bottom, then?

 

You don't redistribute wealth. You use resource (more of which sits at the top) to distribute services and opportunities. I don't take from Mr. Million and give everybody a dime. Mr. Million just has to take a little hit on his paycheck like everyone else, only it's bigger because he makes a little more than everyone else. This money makes sure that as a country we are in good health (which is good for the economy), it makes sure that those who do not see an equal playing field are given programs and opportunities to be educated and work, instead of dirt poor and disenfranchised. This lowers crime rates, drug addiction, prison costs, child mortality, child obesity etc. etc.

 

It's all a question of whether or not you see the realities of Socio-Economic Class. Once it is acknowledged it becomes clear that equality is impossible without social programs.

[Party @ the Moontower]

Oh, I thought you were talking to ALL "non Obama supporters". Maybe just certain ones?

 

Yeah, I know you two are married but you shouldn't waste time thinking of me in bed.

 

 

 

 

There isn't any point in going back and forth with you on this one. I did not speak in absolute terms concerning this shit. Go back and read the lines dude. You will often pick out stuff I say and shuffle it between your legs until it smells the way you like it. Whatever gets you off man. Peace. And now I can't help but think of you while in bed tonight...damn.

 

[bjorn_skurj]

I work hard for my money too. (Honest!) My success, like everybody else's, didn't occur in a vacuum. There was a decent, if not awesome, public education, which took place in a context of an orderly society and economy, and literate people who wanted to consume the product I helped produce. To have all that costs money, which we render in the form of taxes. Since the people who make more money can afford to pay more taxes, that's what they do. Trickle-down economics holds that if you shift the burden away some from people who make more money, those people will use that money to create jobs for the people onto whom the burden has been shifted, thus increasing prosperity for all. Sounds great, but the fact that it has become harder and harder for middle-class people in this country says to me that something went wrong. Readjusting that burden so a healthy middle-class can be grown does not spell "socialism" to me.

[viatroy]

So you want wealth redistribution, from top to bottom, then?

 

 

I want a more equitable distribution of wealth -- you may disagree with that politically, and that's okay with me, it's definitely the dominant paradigm. There is enough wealth concentrated in very few hands (and for what purpose?) to allow people at the bottom get paid well enough to enjoy a reasonable standard of living. American productivity, still strong, has created massive wealth at the top, and it's not trickling down. Morton Freidman, Alan Greenspan and their neocon pals have driven this thing into the ground. Time for an major overhaul.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

i feel safe in saying that jeff tweedy actually wept into his laptop after reading the last couple of posts. seriously, how do you guys look at yourself listening to wilco in the mirror?

 

 

I hear that when the Revolution comes, what you have in your record collection will determine if you go against the wall or not.