marks2065

Economic redistribution also happens whenever people, through better education, job training, and encouraging entrepreneurship, are able to get out there and earn a better living. oh the horror. you are correct but at least they earned it instead of getting a handout (welfare) from the government.

So you think the "journalist" in the video asked difficult questions? The questions were an absolute farce, skewed and loaded up to the point of laughability. It's interesting what biases do...I saw Biden acting rather tactful and about as respectful as he could have been with that bat-faced reporter (and no I am not voting for Obama/Biden)...you and your pal airdvr see a frustrated child. I believe it's because that's you want to see. What's scarier is that you perceive this as real journalism. It's not...it's called "being a partisan hack." Huge difference. The former is vital to a healthy democracy...the latter pisses on the democratic process. maybe the question was worded wrong but it is still a valid question. the left would have crucified Palin if she gave the same reaction to the same question. since when is it wrong to ask the hard questions to dems but ok to ask them of the rep side? what shows me that Biden is a joke is how he answered the question the afterwards said no more interviews of from that station, of course they won't do any more interviews that might question their stance and harm their position to elect the new redistribution and chief, Obama.

you may not but alot of other people seem to have an issue with it. but you know if she wasn't dressed well then they would bich about that. but i think that they just want to avoid what is really important that way Obama doesn't have a chance to put his foot in his mouth and possibly loose.

isn't it funny how Powell was part of the problem until he traded sides? Powell was part of the rep party for as long as i can remember and has followed the rep party views for that time. seems to me that he traded sides for other reasons than his political views. Powell said in his speech he was unhappy about the nasty camaigning coming out of the rep's camp, did he not see the shit coming out of Obama's camp? the percentage of negative ads is higher from the rep's side but Obama has spent more money and time on negative ads than McCain. Just because the percentages are in favor of Obama doesn't mean the actual #s are in his favor. this i guess would make Powell's reasons to switch a lie or at least a misrepresentation of his motives. Or you could open your eyes and take a good look at the GOP, 2008 edition. and you still didn't answer the question on how much Obama spent on his suite. lets be fair now. nobody is comparing just critisizing. you don't think Obama didn't spend 75-100k on his suites. $3000-$4000 a piece and i know he has at least 20 of them. Obam has spent 4 times the amount as McCain on this campaign, talk about waste! Since YOU know so much about Obama's suits, why don't YOU do YOUR own research and tell us the total. While you're about it, tell us how much McCain and Biden spent too. (Judging by Biden's appearance, it looks like he got his off the shelf at J.C Penney) why should either be an issue? is there nothing better to bitch about? but if you are going to bitch about one you should first gather the facts about the other and then see if there is really a reason to bitch. also i don't think Obama is going to give his clothes to charity after the election so i would say the real injustice would be on his end>

It's indeed a sign of the times when Republicans cry out against one candidate having larger war chest than the other. Just an observation. getting pissy about some money spent on clothes is the issue here. i was just pointing out that Obama has wasted alot more than that, so why the issue about the Palin family clothing bill?

isn't it funny how Powell was part of the problem until he traded sides? Powell was part of the rep party for as long as i can remember and has followed the rep party views for that time. seems to me that he traded sides for other reasons than his political views. Powell said in his speech he was unhappy about the nasty camaigning coming out of the rep's camp, did he not see the shit coming out of Obama's camp? the percentage of negative ads is higher from the rep's side but Obama has spent more money and time on negative ads than McCain. Just because the percentages are in favor of Obama doesn't mean the actual #s are in his favor. this i guess would make Powell's reasons to switch a lie or at least a misrepresentation of his motives. Or you could open your eyes and take a good look at the GOP, 2008 edition. and you still didn't answer the question on how much Obama spent on his suite. lets be fair now. nobody is comparing just critisizing. you don't think Obama didn't spend 75-100k on his suites. $3000-$4000 a piece and i know he has at least 20 of them. Obam has spent 4 times the amount as McCain on this campaign, talk about waste!

isn't it funny how Powell was part of the problem until he traded sides? Powell was part of the rep party for as long as i can remember and has followed the rep party views for that time. seems to me that he traded sides for other reasons than his political views. Powell said in his speech he was unhappy about the nasty camaigning coming out of the rep's camp, did he not see the shit coming out of Obama's camp? the percentage of negative ads is higher from the rep's side but Obama has spent more money and time on negative ads than McCain. Just because the percentages are in favor of Obama doesn't mean the actual #s are in his favor. this i guess would make Powell's reasons to switch a lie or at least a misrepresentation of his motives.

i see your neglecting to give all the information again. like what did Obama pay for his suites? those are not cheap. also the clothes that Palin got most will be auctioned off and the money given to charity. so something good will become of the money spent.

Maybe, but they have enjoyed great expansion under Bush. i don't think it is an expansion more like a relocate to more centralized position. they seem to have gathered in a smaller area of the world. also they have always been there just not heard from alot until the last 10 years.

I don't think anyone including the op would want the above but I'm curious, how would you punish the offender who is on death row? Add 15 months to their sentence. put them in the express lane. move the execution up 30 days and cancel their appeal.

no i think the terror groups want Obama because he is going to be soft on foriegn affairs like clinton (most likely softer) and that will give time for the terrorists to regroup and expand.

Obama wants to raise taxes on some to give directly to others, and that is socialism and welfare and that is wrong.

shame on both sides these people should not have signed something they didn't read and they should not have been decieved.

so it is the fault of the hard working people that the lazy, unmotivated, can't control their spending people can get what they don't deserve? i wasn't always with extra cash or insurance, i worked 2 jobs up to 80 hours a week to get were i am at. make those that are in the low income brackets do the same, earn it!

if the person registered themselves wrong they can't vote. And how will you tell if the error was made by the voter or the people entering data in the databases? that is why alot of states have a time period to register before the election to verify registration. also all voters should have to produce id before voting. Why should a voter have to register a long time ahead, just in case some data entry clerk made a tipo typeo misteake mistook mastake fuk up. this also gives the gov time to verify that they should be eligible to vote. give the system time to work so both sides are checked and verified.

UNFORTUNATELY, thanks to the examples set by Reagan and Bush, we have an economy whose foundation is a mountain of debt. That in turn means that TRUST is required to get the necessary credit to invest in any business. The obscure investment instruments and derivatives invented by the Wall St. Whiz Kids eventually made it unclear which institutions could be trusted to pay back any loans, and the trickle down effect killed the economy. Much as I also dislike bailing out the Wall St. Whiz Kids, doing nothing would have been far far worse as the economy would be completely paralyzed from top to bottom, right down to the level of small businesses like yours. Sometimes the medicine tastes vile, but you have to take it anyway. so you are saying bush did the right thing? . I suspect Bush had very little to do with it. It's "The Paulson Plan". so a republican put together the plan

Even if you're right (and though I don't think you are, I understand why you fear it will be), I submit to you that doing things like squandering a surplus and running up a trillion dollar deficit feeding the military-industrial complex's slop troughs so that G.W. Bush can exorcise the demons of his Oedipus complex in Iraq is hardly a worthwhile expense of blood and treasure, either. I'd rather spend a buck supporting a crack baby than causing the needless death of an 18 year old hero. sqandering a surplus? clinton left office 3 trillion dollars farther in debt than when he came in. bush sqandering a surplus is bullshit. Right! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt - 119k sorry on 2.5 trillion further in debt

Well, she doesn't look delightful to me, and her actions sure don't fit that description. if you were the one at the desk in the oval office you might think differently. face it clinton is an unmoral pice of shit for what he did. he cost the taxpayers alot of money with his lies and poorly influenced alot of younger impressional people.

Even if you're right (and though I don't think you are, I understand why you fear it will be), I submit to you that doing things like squandering a surplus and running up a trillion dollar deficit feeding the military-industrial complex's slop troughs so that G.W. Bush can exorcise the demons of his Oedipus complex in Iraq is hardly a worthwhile expense of blood and treasure, either. I'd rather spend a buck supporting a crack baby than causing the needless death of an 18 year old hero. sqandering a surplus? clinton left office 3 trillion dollars farther in debt than when he came in. bush sqandering a surplus is bullshit.

Exactly. And have you noticed that one of BHO's favorite lines goes something like "McCain wants to give tax cuts to wealthy corporations that ship our jobs overseas?" . that line right there about tax cuts to those that send jobs oversseas is the key. smart people would realize that McCain wants to keep jobs here and Obama will drive them overthere. Nope. Not only incorrect on the basis of Obama's stated policies, but flies in the face of the Bush administration's economic report (2004) in which BUSH's administration (staunchly supported by John "I am a Derugulator" McCain) said how beneficial it is to the US economy to outsource jobs. Check for yourself in" Economic Report of the President and The Annual Report of the Council of Economic Advisers, US Government Printing Office, Washington DC February 2004. so you don't think raising taxes on bisinesses will hurt jobs? I think Exxon Mobil and BP aren't hurting too much right now. GM and Ford have problems relating to their poor management decisions, not their taxes. Then there are those laid-off Lehman Bros. employees, nothing to do with taxes. But you can't escape the fact that the Bush administration put in writing in an official administration publication that outsourcing jobs to other countries is good for us. lets get off of bush No, let's not. Because those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it. Bush has been a case study in how to ruin an economy and turn the most respected nation in the world in to one that now has almost no respect. And McCain not only sided with Bush until very recently when Bush became a liability, but the GOP itself considered Bush to be better when it had the choice between them in 2000. you are right history is needed to be known to learn, but McCain is his own person and has disagreed with Bush and clinton and reagan on several ocasions. i agree with some of your ideas and houghts but that doesn't mean i will be like you. Obama has voted with bush at times does that mean he will be like bush? you agree with bush on this bailout does that mean you are like bush? McCain has voted against his party 10% of the time isn't that important? doesnt that mean he will do some things differently?

if the person registered themselves wrong they can't vote. And how will you tell if the error was made by the voter or the people entering data in the databases? that is why alot of states have a time period to register before the election to verify registration. also all voters should have to produce id before voting.

UNFORTUNATELY, thanks to the examples set by Reagan and Bush, we have an economy whose foundation is a mountain of debt. That in turn means that TRUST is required to get the necessary credit to invest in any business. The obscure investment instruments and derivatives invented by the Wall St. Whiz Kids eventually made it unclear which institutions could be trusted to pay back any loans, and the trickle down effect killed the economy. Much as I also dislike bailing out the Wall St. Whiz Kids, doing nothing would have been far far worse as the economy would be completely paralyzed from top to bottom, right down to the level of small businesses like yours. Sometimes the medicine tastes vile, but you have to take it anyway. so you are saying bush did the right thing? the problem i have is the continued increase in spending and the promotion of welfare that Obama has promised. both of these things will create more problems and make it harder to get out of this mess.

How much will next year's trillion dollar deficit hurt jobs? The weak dollar is a big part of the oil price. Only exporters benefit, and only if they don't have to import resources to make their product. Taxes don't exist in a vacuum. We have to cut our deficit before we can think about cutting our taxes, because we cannot sustain 500-1000B deficits for very long, even with an economy of our size. your correct we need to cut spending and get ourselves out of this mess. Obama promises to raise taxes and spending, the very thing we cannot do.

Exactly. And have you noticed that one of BHO's favorite lines goes something like "McCain wants to give tax cuts to wealthy corporations that ship our jobs overseas?" . that line right there about tax cuts to those that send jobs oversseas is the key. smart people would realize that McCain wants to keep jobs here and Obama will drive them overthere. Nope. Not only incorrect on the basis of Obama's stated policies, but flies in the face of the Bush administration's economic report (2004) in which BUSH's administration (staunchly supported by John "I am a Derugulator" McCain) said how beneficial it is to the US economy to outsource jobs. Check for yourself in" Economic Report of the President and The Annual Report of the Council of Economic Advisers, US Government Printing Office, Washington DC February 2004. so you don't think raising taxes on bisinesses will hurt jobs? I think Exxon Mobil and BP aren't hurting too much right now. GM and Ford have problems relating to their poor management decisions, not their taxes. Then there are those laid-off Lehman Bros. employees, nothing to do with taxes. But you can't escape the fact that the Bush administration put in writing in an official administration publication that outsourcing jobs to other countries is good for us. lets get off of bush and concentrate on now. bush is going away and either McCain or Obama is getting in.if Obama raises taxes to large companies will it hurt the economy by costing jobs? If McCain lowers taxes will it hurt the economy by costing jobs?

the liberal media does have a lot to do with it. they are on a quest to sway an election for the first time in history and reporting this story would hurt that. If you think the media has never played a role in elections before, then you really need to learn a bit more about history. However, as I said before, it's district politics and not really something anybody on a national level -should- give a shit about anyway. He's a nobody and the issue is lame anyway. Meanwhile we have; Iraq and the global economic meltdown. What the fuck would YOU put on page one? Quoteyou are right, what is on page one is what should be there, but we need balance and that means if you want to yell at one you have to yell at the other if they do the same thing.