Calling Obama supporters

[Kelli in TN]

Yeah, we don't want this thread to get confused with that... other thread.

 

What other thread?:confused:

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

What other thread?:confused:

 

The gay marriage thread. The one where people are one gender but marry the opposite one that the majority of folks who are of that gender might marry, if they were to get married. Because you thought he was one gender, but he was the other...

 

That one.

 

Never mind. :glare:

 

Dang, woman, it hasn't even a prayer of getting a chuckle if I have to explain it! :D

[Melinda in VT]

allow me to challenge this as well. what principle justifies requiring the rich to pay more of their income in taxes than anyone else? simply b/c they can afford it? or b/c they were successful? why?

 

I do have a philosophical problem with taxing the rich more. there are economic reasons not to tax the rich as well.

 

You and Dianne (? I think, I can't see at the moment) asked similar questions. I just posted a response to her that I think covers it.

[Jennifer in NH]

The gay marriage thread. The one where people are one gender but marry the opposite one that the majority of folks who are of that gender might marry, if they were to get married. Because you thought he was one gender, but he was the other...

 

That one.

 

Never mind. :glare:

 

Dang, woman, it hasn't even a prayer of getting a chuckle if I have to explain it! :D

:lol::lol::lol: Please, please let's not even go there! That is one thread that I am staying away from...is it up to 400 posts yet? I don't have that much time..;)

[Diana in OR]

Why not reduce spending? Why should people pay a higher percentage of their income to the government simply because they were financially successful? This is really a sincere question. I like to understand the "other side" of the argument because I know we all come from different experiences and I find it interesting.

 

I can't answer from a national perspective, but I can from a local one :), at least on your question about reducing spending. First, I think there are areas where govt. at any level can find to reduce spending/waste. And I think raising any sort of taxes and fees should be a last resort and not the first line of defense. FWIW, I think the tax rate should be the same no matter how much one's income is.

 

What we are seeing in our state is the result of voter-supported legislation from the early 1990s that changed our state Constitution to limit property tax increases to 3% in any given year. What that means is that in years where inflation is higher than 3%, jurisdictions that receive support from property taxes are in the red. After many years of this, some communities in our state are literally closing down their libraries, they've stopped maintaining parks, and cut back on their police force, road maintenance and repair, etc. That is also why on your property tax bill, the assessed value of your home (the amount the tax is based on) is about 40% of its actual value, or what you could sell it for.

 

It's a no-win situation. Raise taxes and people (understandably) get upset. Lower taxes and people are happy until the govt. can no longer provide services they've become accustomed to.

[cornopean]

You imply that if the wealthy pay less in taxes they will create more wealth for everyone else. I think that was proven false in Reagan years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle_down_economics

my position is more that when anyone is allowed to keep more of their wealth the economy as a whole improves. Hence tax cuts are good for the economy; tax hikes are bad for the economy. That is my basic position. Are you defending Obama's idea that higher taxes will better our economy?

 

and I don't see how my position is proven false by the Reagan years. be more specific.

[Mrs Mungo]

my position is more that when anyone is allowed to keep more of their wealth the economy as a whole improves. Hence tax cuts are good for the economy; tax hikes are bad for the economy. That is my basic position. Are you defending Obama's idea that higher taxes will better our economy?

 

Let's ask this question a different way: what has the current administration done to help the economy? Whose plan are you looking at? I'm not going to argue a ghost position and wait around for you to whip a rabbit out of your hat. Put your cards on the table.

[Kay in Cal]

4) Every word against the war *is* a word against those proudly serving

 

I think this is fundamentally untrue. Both my parents were career military, both Vietnam veterans. My dad retired the day after I graduated from High School, but I grew up on and around military bases. My mother worked at the Pentagon on 9/11--she still does, but a civilian now, she retired as an Air Force Colonel about 10 years ago. I am strongly anti-war, but would never dream of speaking "a word against" those who serve. I question this war, was one of the few who seemed to be against it before the invasion began, and I do care deeply about the American troops in harms way, some of whom I know personally, all of whom are "my" people--the military community that raised me.

 

Part of what we do in a democracy "is" question wars. Do you think that no administration has ever made a poor decision? Or only that no poor military decision has ever been made? Do you believe that citizens have no right or responsibility to ensure that the best possible decisions are made by the government they elected? My religious convictions only add impetus for me to speak out and exercise a civic value.

 

I guess I can understand that confusion of feelings--my father in law is still horribly insulted by anyone mentioning that we lost the Vietnam war, or that it was not worthwhile geopolitically speaking. He still is personally insulted by that statement. But there can be individual heroism even in the midst of wars that were unwise from the standpoint of the government. There are plenty of stories throughout history about individuals who were in the "wrong" war, or even on the "wrong" side, who still fought bravely and well and did their best to make some goodness in the midst of despair. I don't think there are many in the anti-war movement of today who would deny that reality.

[Phred]

I understand your perspective.

 

I've got a stepson proudly serving his second tour in this war. I don't expect you or anyone else to support that. But it would sure be nice if the anti-current war crowd would admit that the issue of national security, terrorism, commerce, oil and the US role in international relations is:

 

1) Complex

2) Pre-dates the administration you hate so much, and pre-dates those before that one

3) Presents no one correct action; are choices emerging from circumstances that stink and presents options that are the best of the worst

4) Every word against the war *is* a word against those proudly serving

Hold on.

 

Let me be very clear about something. I'm a proud American who proudly supports our military. My kids are taught to get up off their butts and put their hands over their hearts every time a flag goes by. Respecting the military and American does not mean I have to shut up about a war that I've been against since before the army left to fight it. It's wrong. And... while our troops are over there fighting their asses off, and dying... which just kills me.... (if you could see me gritting my teeth right now and pounding the keys... deep breaths...)

 

I will NOT shut up and I will NOT give in that I'm against those proudly serving. They're following their orders and I would expect them to do nothing less. But *I* am the one who gives them those orders. *I* am the American people. If the military has forgotten that they serve me then perhaps a reminder is in order. They fight so that *I* can speak against a war like this. And while I am so grateful to them for following their orders that doesn't mean I agree with the orders they're being given.

 

Are we clear?

 

1) Complex

2) Pre-dates the administration you hate so much, and pre-dates those before that one

3) Presents no one correct action; are choices emerging from circumstances that stink and presents options that are the best of the worst

The problems of terrorism are complex. This administration doesn't seem to understand that. While you use the word do you really understand what you're saying? This problem of terrorism goes back about 4,000 years. There's nothing we can do to change what has already happened. We certainly aren't going to fix complex problems like this in the way that this administration has done. Sitting with the leaders of Egypt and Israel and telling them 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."Mr Bush went on: "And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it.'

 

 

He's doing this in my name. He's waterboarding suspects in my name. He's ruined the reputation of America around the world in my name. He's taken the nation to war in my name. He doesn't listen, why would he when he's convinced God is telling him what to do? This isn't what America is supposed to be. I can't wait until next January.

 

 

And if you haven't noticed... we're being attacked right now. In our wallets. All the countries that control the oil are right there where Osama has influence. Our military if of no use whatsoever.

 

Now... maybe we should ask why our ports are still not secure. Our borders. We're spending billions on Iraq and next to nothing here at home. When the next bomb goes off here at home, will you care that Baghdad is secure?

[Mrs Mungo]

Personally, I find your style in this conversation to be a little distressing. I feel that your approach is confrontational and I feel as if your questions themselves are more a set-up than an invitation to dialogue... that might just be your conversational style clashing with mine, and I assume that your intentions are positive, but I wanted to let you know that I find the tone off-putting, fwiw. So, if I sound a little defensive, please forgive me - I *do* want to have a pleasant dialogue! :)

 

You said this so much better than I did. :lol:

[Jenny in Atl]

Are you a flat tax kinda gal?

 

Fair tax! :D

[cornopean]

The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

I am told that this is not true.

 

 

Consider the outrageous sums of money CEOs are getting in many companies these days. (Someone else mentioned that in this thread too.)

 

at what point, does a salary become "outrageous"? also what is envy?:001_smile:

 

 

 

I think it is fair to require those who have been more fortunate to contribute more financially.

notice your choice of words here. you said "fortunate". but they weren't fortunate....they were "successful". They produced something that people wanted and hence they earned buckets of cash. I see no problem with that. If they started it and made it what it is, then they can do whatever they very well want with it (within the law).

 

 

In part I think this is because I know in my own life, my success has not been totally due to my own efforts. I've been blessed with a good brain, a stable childhood, access to education, and just some lucky career breaks, to name a few things.

do you think govt should try to legislate fairness back into life? can govt possibly know all these factors and how to address them so as to make life fair?

[battlemaiden]

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding about the effect of raising corporate tax rates. The companies will just leave. They are already leaving. Other countries are lowering their taxes for corporations while we raise ours.

 

We can call them evil all day long- creating more competition is the only way to keep corporations self-correcting. The government can't take away a CEO's salary anyway, so how does any candidate expect to change that? Off-shore loop holes? Why do you suppose they put it there? Because the US government wants to grab more of their wealth. Competition is the answer!

 

How about tax incentives for companies to put their profits into charities, ex-prisoner reform/hiring programs, research, etc. Things that actually do help the country (as opposed to the government programs that aren't effective....ever).

 

And as for our debt- I have a really hard time swallowing that somehow raising our taxes, anybodies taxes- putting more money in the government's hand- is going to fix anything! The Democrat and Republican's spending is out of control, why would I give them more money to overspend?

 

I'm sorry to have answered out of turn---I'm certainly no Obama supporter.

 

Jo

[Phred]

and employing most of America..ducking now!

You're right.

[cornopean]

Let's ask this question a different way: what has the current administration done to help the economy? Whose plan are you looking at? I'm not going to argue a ghost position and wait around for you to whip a rabbit out of your hat. Put your cards on the table.

sorry...I started the thread. I get to ask the questions. :tongue_smilie: (start a new thread if you want)

 

I am simply asking those who support Obama's tax policy to explain to me how they expect a tax hike to better our economy. so far, no takers.:bigear:

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

It is one thing to advocate and suggest different methods and/or procedures in our war on terror. But for a person to claim that they support the troops but want us to lose, that is not possible. The SUPPORT THE TROOPS; END THE WAR crowd are self-contradictory IMO.

you can't say "I am a Yankees fan" but then want them to lose.

 

the crucial question here is do you want us to win. the democratic party, for the most part, does not want us to win.

 

Sorry, dude. False dichotomy. "End the war' does not clearly equal "want us to lose."

 

What are you doing to support the troops other than waving your flag and putting a magnet on your car? When you tell me what it is, I'll let you know if I will allow myself be called an "end the war and want them to lose" person by YOU, sir. I have grey hairs in my head from worrying and loving and supporting with my two hands troops with actual names and faces who put boots in the desert during this war either in combat or support, one of whom fathered my children and is sitting upstairs right now, thanks be.

 

I may be naive, and I may be wrong, but until you spend a year not watching the news because you simply can't cry hard and still function about another report of soldiers captured and tortured, don't be telling me about who is wanting whom to lose.

 

As to wanting to lose the "war on terror"? Puhleeze. A *declared* war on terror? Declaring a *war* on drugs worked equally well, especially as a pretext for suspending civil rights of citizens.

 

Let's declare an equally nonsensical war on snarly posters. Then come take me away, why doncha. Somebody? (Please?)

[Phred]

It is one thing to advocate and suggest different methods and/or procedures in our war on terror. But for a person to claim that they support the troops but want us to lose, that is not possible. The SUPPORT THE TROOPS; END THE WAR crowd are self-contradictory IMO.

you can't say "I am a Yankees fan" but then want them to lose.

 

the crucial question here is do you want us to win. the democratic party, for the most part, does not want us to win.

You have yet to define what "win" means. When you do, let me know.

[cornopean]

The problems of terrorism are complex. This administration doesn't seem to understand that. While you use the word do you really understand what you're saying? This problem of terrorism goes back about 4,000 years. There's nothing we can do to change what has already happened.

by parity of reasoning.....We will never eliminate murder, therefore we should cease all efforts to catch and jail murderers. yes?

 

 

We certainly aren't going to fix complex problems like this in the way that this administration has done. Sitting with the leaders of Egypt and Israel and telling them 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."Mr Bush went on: "And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it.'

prove that Bush thinks God is telling him what to do.

 

 

 

He's doing this in my name. He's waterboarding suspects in my name. He's ruined the reputation of America around the world in my name. He's taken the nation to war in my name. He doesn't listen, why would he when he's convinced God is telling him what to do? This isn't what America is supposed to be. I can't wait until next January.

Italy, Germany, France, and London have all elected pro-US presidents/mayors. I think the world's LEFT hates the US; not the world. Else, how do you explain these elections where majorities voted in pro US leaders?

[Phred]

Here's what I would like to see. If we as a country go to war then we as a country have to pay for it. All of us "feel the pain" as it were. I wonder how eager you'd all be to "win" a war with no foreseeable end point if the money for it were coming directly out of your pocket.

[Joanne]

Are we clear?

Quote:

1) Complex

2) Pre-dates the administration you hate so much, and pre-dates those before that one

3) Presents no one correct action; are choices emerging from circumstances that stink and presents options that are the best of the worst

 

The problems of terrorism are complex. This administration doesn't seem to understand that. While you use the word do you really understand what you're saying?

 

I'm out of this conversation. If you can't respect my words and assume me to be of average intelligence as to understand the words I use, and feel it's necessary to:

 

1) Insult me

2) Refuse to acknowledge the inappropriateness of "retardican"

 

I will not discuss this with you.

[cornopean]

You have yet to define what "win" means. When you do, let me know.

win means a stable and secure society with a govt that can keep it that way.

[Kelli in TN]

 

 

The problems of terrorism are complex. This administration doesn't seem to understand that. While you use the word do you really understand what you're saying? This problem of terrorism goes back about 4,000 years. There's nothing we can do to change what has already happened. We certainly aren't going to fix complex problems like this in the way that this administration has done. Sitting with the leaders of Egypt and Israel and telling them 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."Mr Bush went on: "And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it.'

 

 

He's doing this in my name. He's waterboarding suspects in my name. He's ruined the reputation of America around the world in my name. He's taken the nation to war in my name. He doesn't listen, why would he when he's convinced God is telling him what to do? This isn't what America is supposed to be. I can't wait until next January.

 

 

 

Now... maybe we should ask why our ports are still not secure. Our borders. We're spending billions on Iraq and next to nothing here at home. When the next bomb goes off here at home, will you care that Baghdad is secure?

 

 

It was a long post so I deleted parts of it to quote. I just want to say that I agree with you on this. I am so proud of our military that when I see them I cannot help but cry.

 

But this war is not right. This war is wrong in so many ways. And I can say that and still be patriotic and so can you and so can anyone else. We are Americans and we have every right to speak against the decisions of our government without being labeled unpatriotic.

 

I do not feel secure, I do not feel protected by my government and the longer this war lasts the less secure I feel.

 

I mourn the valuable American lives that have been snuffed out for...what? Oil? Ego? I mourn the innocent Iraqi lives lost and the mess their country is now. Hussein was undoubtedly a cruel dictator, but come on? Have we left the people in better shape? I don't think so.

 

So, now I will just stand here and hold this....:iagree:

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

You said this so much better than I did. :lol:

 

And with CLASS. Unlike, say... the way *I* did. LOL

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Here's what I would like to see. If we as a country go to war then we as a country have to pay for it. All of us "feel the pain" as it were. I wonder how eager you'd all be to "win" a war with no foreseeable end point if the money for it were coming directly out of your pocket.

 

You posted under me, but you're answering someone else, right?

[Mrs Mungo]

sorry...I started the thread. I get to ask the questions. :tongue_smilie: (start a new thread if you want)

 

I am simply asking those who support Obama's tax policy to explain to me how they expect a tax hike to better our economy. so far, no takers.:bigear:

 

Sorry, I didn't realize it was a one-way conversation. I'll step out.

[Kelli in TN]

."

 

 

Let's declare an equally nonsensical war on snarly posters. Then come take me away, why doncha. Somebody? (Please?)

 

You know I luv ya, girl, right? But is this declaration gonna apply to folks on both sides of the issue?

[cornopean]

Sorry, dude. False dichotomy. "End the war' does not clearly equal "want us to lose."

Can a person claim to love the yankees and at the same time claim he wants them to lose?

 

 

What are you doing to support the troops other than waving your flag and putting a magnet on your car? When you tell me what it is, I'll let you know if I will allow myself be called an "end the war and want them to lose" person by YOU, sir. I have grey hairs in my head from worrying and loving and supporting with my two hands troops with actual names and faces who put boots in the desert during this war either in combat or support, one of whom fathered my children and is sitting upstairs right now, thanks be.

well whoever it is that served in your family, please tell him that we applaud him for his service more than words can express. I mean that.

 

 

As to wanting to lose the "war on terror"? Puhleeze. A *declared* war on terror? Declaring a *war* on drugs worked equally well, especially as a pretext for suspending civil rights of citizens.

I see the issue this way;

 

1. Is there such a thing as terror?

2. Do we need to fight it?

3. How do you think we should fight it?

If you answer the first two questions "no", then we in big trouble IMO.

[Melinda in VT]

I am told that this is not true.

 

I'm looking at things like this statistics quoted in David Rothkopf's book Superclass: "In the late 1970s, the ratio of wealth held by the richest one-fifth to that of the poorest one-fifth in Manhattan was about twenty to one; today it is fifty-two to one." (p.72)

 

 

at what point, does a salary become "outrageous"? also what is envy?:001_smile:

 

Again, according to Rothkopf, "the average CEO of a large corporation takes home 364 times the income of his average employee (a ratio that is ten time higher than when I started in the working world, in the late 1970s)."

 

Are you implying someone is envious? On what basis?

 

 

 

notice your choice of words here. you said "fortunate". but they weren't fortunate....they were "successful". They produced something that people wanted and hence they earned buckets of cash. I see no problem with that. If they started it and made it what it is, then they can do whatever they very well want with it (within the law).

 

Yes, they were successful in part because they were fortunate. Few people are successful due only to their own efforts.

 

 

 

do you think govt should try to legislate fairness back into life? can govt possibly know all these factors and how to address them so as to make life fair?

 

I think government should try not to kick people when they are down. I do not think the government should be knowingly unfair.

[TXMomof4]

You're listening to Rush aren't you?

 

For one thing, isn't the economy screwed up because of your retardican administration spending money it didn't have on a war that didn't need to be fought? Since when does anyone think they can spend and spend and spend and spend without consequences? Where do you think the money comes from when we go to war and spend money like we have been without raising taxes? It comes from selling bonds. During WWII WE bought the bonds that funded the war. Today our deficit is funded by bonds that other countries buy. Countries like Saudi Arabia, China and Japan. They've bought trillions of dollars of bonds over the last four years. Which is one of the reasons our dollar is worth so much less than it was four years ago. We have to pay off those bonds WITH INTEREST.

 

The current outstanding public debt as of now is:

That's $30,000 or so for every man, woman and child in the country.

 

So what was the Republican plan for this? Reduce taxes on the wealthy. Taxes have never been so low on corporations and the highest earning 1%. Perhaps, before we start looking at a candidate who's proposing fiscal responsibility we could look at your folks who've given us eight years of fiscal irresponsibility, a war that didn't need to be fought, an economy that's in the tank and a reputation around the world a bunch of fat, ignorant idiots.

 

 

You know what? The dems have been in control in the senate and the house now for how long? A

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

You know I luv ya, girl, right? But is this declaration gonna apply to folks on both sides of the issue?

 

I don't know. I'm just pretty sure someone should come take *me* away.

[Phred]

by parity of reasoning.....We will never eliminate murder, therefore we should cease all efforts to catch and jail murderers. yes?

No... I was pointing out that terrorism is a problem with a very long history that we can't change. I didn't say we should do anything about it.

 

prove that Bush thinks God is telling him what to do.

I did. It's called a link and it was in the paragraph.

 

Italy, Germany, France, and London have all elected pro-US presidents/mayors. I think the world's LEFT hates the US; not the world. Else, how do you explain these elections where majorities voted in pro US leaders?

Opinion of the US has steadily fallen around the world. (PEW study) Protests follow GW Bush wherever he goes. What you "think" doesn't seem to matter very much in terms of what's real.

[cornopean]

I am so proud of our military that when I see them I cannot help but cry.

I beleive you on this.

 

 

But this war is not right. This war is wrong in so many ways. And I can say that and still be patriotic and so can you and so can anyone else. We are Americans and we have every right to speak against the decisions of our government without being labeled unpatriotic.

do you want us to win this war?

 

 

I do not feel secure, I do not feel protected by my government and the longer this war lasts the less secure I feel.

on Sept. 12, 2001.....would you have believed me if I had told you that for seven years, we would not be attacked? would you feel more secure if Saddam was still in power giving aid, intel, and weapons to terrorists?

 

 

I mourn the valuable American lives that have been snuffed out for...what? Oil? Ego? I mourn the innocent Iraqi lives lost and the mess their country is now. Hussein was undoubtedly a cruel dictator, but come on? Have we left the people in better shape? I don't think so.

I too mourn the lives lost but they will be wasted if we pull out now.

and do you seriously beleive that the Iraqis were better off when Saddam was in power?

[Kay in Cal]

prove that Bush thinks God is telling him what to do.quote]

 

Excerpts from a Slate.com article by Steven Waldman

 

"Stephen Mansfield, author of The Faith of George W. Bush, goes on to say: "Not long after, Bush called James Robison (a prominent minister) and told him, 'I've heard the call. I believe God wants me to run for President.' " Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention heard Bush say something similar: "Among the things he said to us was: I believe that God wants me to be president, but if that doesn't happen, it's OK.' "

 

Are the White House and the Bush campaign actively encouraging the idea that Bush has been put there by God? Bush has been careful to never say anything close to that in public. And yet the combination of passages in carefully vetted speeches and quotes from close friends or supporters indicate that this is the understanding.

 

In one sense, it's not surprising that some people believe this. Many, if not most, Americans believe that God intervenes in the lives of humans. If that weren't the case, prayer might be considered superfluous, meaningless. If God intervenes in the affairs of ordinary humans who pray for recovery from illness or a better job, it only stands to reason that He would control something as consequential as an American presidency.

 

Yet it's hard to recall another instance of a presidential campaign so confidently promulgating the idea that its candidate had divine endorsement. The potentially dangerous implication is that since God put George W. Bush in the White House, opposing him is opposing Him. A person could get smited for that."

[Phred]

win means a stable and secure society with a govt that can keep it that way.

Would you mind linking to something from 2002 that shows where Bush stated that?

[Kelli in TN]

do you want us to win this war?

 

 

 

I too mourn the lives lost but they will be wasted if we pull out now.

and do you seriously beleive that the Iraqis were better off when Saddam was in power?

 

 

I don't know what winning would mean, so I do not know if I want it or not. Idealistically, I want it to have never started. Realistically, I want it over before any more lives are lost.

 

I don't want say the lives were wasted, I feel so disrespectful towards their great sacrifice to say it was a waste. But I don't know why their lives were sacrificed by those in control. I don't see a clear agenda here.

[Phred]

I'm out of this conversation. If you can't respect my words and assume me to be of average intelligence as to understand the words I use, and feel it's necessary to:

 

1) Insult me

2) Refuse to acknowledge the inappropriateness of "retardican"

 

I will not discuss this with you.

Oh please grow up. Now you're pulling the "I'm taking my ball and going home" routine? I use one fun manhandle of a word... fine, retardican is of course inappropriate. How exactly is that insulting you? I didn't aim that at you, you weren't in that conversation at the time. But you feel it's appropriate to beat me with the good ol' "my son is fighting the war so you can't say anything against it".

 

Please... if I wanted to insult you I'd be much more accurate and plain about it.

 

Now comon... if you have something to add to the conversation you're more than welcome.

[battlemaiden]

What are you doing to support the troops other than waving your flag and putting a magnet on your car? When you tell me what it is, I'll let you know if I will allow myself be called an "end the war and want them to lose" person by YOU, sir. I have grey hairs in my head from worrying and loving and supporting with my two hands troops with actual names and faces who put boots in the desert during this war either in combat or support, one of whom fathered my children and is sitting upstairs right now, thanks be.

 

I may be naive, and I may be wrong, but until you spend a year not watching the news because you simply can't cry hard and still function about another report of soldiers captured and tortured, don't be telling me about who is wanting whom to lose.

 

As to wanting to lose the "war on terror"? Puhleeze. A *declared* war on terror? Declaring a *war* on drugs worked equally well, especially as a pretext for suspending civil rights of citizens.

 

I agree that saying END THE WAR is not equal to being anti-troop. Who doesn't want to end a war? Really?

 

Here I am to shout: I want this frickin' war over! Over! Over! Over!

 

But I find it naive and foolish to say that "leaving the area" equals "over" or peace. That is the problem I have with both Obama and Clinton.

 

And I definitely have a problem with candidates wanting to talk their way out of international dispute/conflict. This is usually stated by people who think the world will respect Obama more than they did Bush because they think Bush is an "idiot"- right, Phred? Afterall they've been listening to our own congress say it for eight years. And if Obama becomes president they will probably hear the Republicans in congress calling Obama ineffective/inexperienced/naive etc. for the duration of his term- and I will call those congressmen/women who insult our president unpatriotic too!

 

My public criticism's of the presidential candidates will end in November. And then I will begin fighting for issues through my representatives, and correspondently (okay, I completely made that word up) slapping them around ;) if necessary.

 

Jo

[Mrs Mungo]

Let's declare an equally nonsensical war on snarly posters. Then come take me away, why doncha. Somebody? (Please?)

 

~Takes Pam's hand and leads her out of the thread.~

 

He's not interested in our opinions, he just wants to set us up for a lecture, don't bother.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

 

 

I see the issue this way;

 

1. Is there such a thing as terror?

2. Do we need to fight it?

3. How do you think we should fight it?

If you answer the first two questions "no", then we in big trouble IMO.

 

1) Well... is "duh" too strong a word here? Rhetorical, right? Sorry, gotcha. First rule of sales -- make sure your mark agrees with you. Get them saying "yes" right away. "Duh" will have to do, sophomoric as it is. (Is there a level below sophomoric? It probably is that. Freely admitted.)

 

2) Fight it by going around randomly with no particular plan to begin with and playing Extreme Catch Up with the very LIVES of our bravest? Uh, not bloodly likely. Fight it with a plan and where it lives, you betcha. Fight it with rentacops at the airport and wiretapping on our citizens and by torture and secret prisons "not on American soil, because we wouldn't want to taint the "Homeland"? Hell, no.

 

3) See above. Fight it by being a shining example of righteousness, even when it's inconvenient. Fight it by preserving freedom, not by supplying arms to dictators then wondering (aloud and as a pretext for war when it suits us) why the same dictator used them against his own people after years of genocide that we ignored when it was convenient for us to do so.

 

I'm a mom, soon to be a nurse, and a wife. I'm not particularly well-versed in military strategy, nor do I have a plan for fighting terror. Perhaps others more intelligent and wise in such things do. Perhaps, as you seem to imply, we all should have such a plan ready at hand.

 

I'm not sure which clothes the Emperor should wear. Royal costuming is not in my area of expertise. But I don't need my glasses to know that he isn't wearing clothes. And that it appears to be quite cold out there.

[Susan Wise Bauer]

I agree, Joanne. Strongly held positions can be stated without insulting and flame-provoking rhetoric like "retardican."

 

I'm not closing the thread yet, because MOST of you are being VERY MATURE.

 

SWB

[cornopean]

I'm looking at things like this statistics quoted in David Rothkopf's book Superclass: "In the late 1970s, the ratio of wealth held by the richest one-fifth to that of the poorest one-fifth in Manhattan was about twenty to one; today it is fifty-two to one." (p.72)

but this is a measure of income equality. this doesn't tell you actual wealth. if everyone makes $5/hour then by the measure you gave above, we are very well off. but what if some people make $5/hour and others make $500/hour and a few make $5mil/hour........which society is better off?

 

statistics on income inequality are virtually useless.

 

 

 

Again, according to Rothkopf, "the average CEO of a large corporation takes home 364 times the income of his average employee (a ratio that is ten time higher than when I started in the working world, in the late 1970s)."

excellent. I see no problem here.

 

 

Are you implying someone is envious? On what basis?

b/c it seems to me that people who complain about the wealth gap or income inequality are a hairs breadth from envy.

 

 

 

Yes, they were successful in part because they were fortunate. Few people are successful due only to their own efforts.

actually, according to Danko's book, The Millionaire Next Door

 

* Most of us have never felt at a disadvantage because we did not receive any inheritance.

About 80 percent of us are first-generation affluent.

 

[Phred]

Ok ok... I've been slappped around appropriately... no more "retardican"-type language.

[Jenny in Atl]

I'll take a shot. I'm an odd one (no surprise there! :lol:). I'm pretty sure I will be voting for Obama. I do believe he will raise taxes, hoping to grow government in order to fund jobs programs, social services, etc. Now, I'm a Libertarian/Fair Tax kinda gal, so you may ask... why would I vote for Obama? Because in spite of having some strong economic differences, I still think he is the most open, educated, thinking, and interesting choice. As many have said here, none of those running have set their hearts a fire nor mine.

 

Right now, I see little difference between the Dems and Reps, both spend too much, both are more interested in power, getting into office and staying there, than in solving the real issues that challenge us. Not sure this will ever change, I see the same thing in countries all over the world. So, I have no easy answers.

 

Not sure if this answered your question. :001_huh:

[battlemaiden]

~Takes Pam's hand and leads her out of the thread.~

 

He's not interested in our opinions, he just wants to set us up for a lecture, don't bother.

 

Wait...which "he"? I'm confused.

[Jennifer in NH]

Fair tax! :D

 

Me too!

[battlemaiden]

I'll take a shot. I'm an odd one (no surprise there! :lol:). I'm pretty sure I will be voting for Obama. I do believe he will raise taxes, hoping to grow government in order to fund jobs programs, social services, etc. Now, I'm a Libertarian/Fair Tax kinda gal, so you may ask... why would I vote for Obama? Because in spite of having some strong economic differences, I still think he is the most open, educated, thinking, and interesting choice. As many have said here, none of those running have set their hearts a fire nor mine.

 

Right now, I see little difference between the Dems and Reps, both spend too much, both are more interested in power, getting into office and staying there, than in solving the real issues that challenge us. Not sure this will ever change, I see the same thing in countries all over the world. So, I have no easy answers.

 

Not sure if this answered your question. :001_huh:

 

I like your post. It states your position.

 

But....

 

a Libertarian voting for Obama? :svengo::blink::blink::svengo:

 

:D

 

Jo

[Mrs Mungo]

Wait...which "he"? I'm confused.

 

The original poster. At least, that's the conclusion I came to when he refused to answer my questions in kind. For what it's worth, I actually reported Phred's initial post because even though I agree with him in principle, I couldn't agree with the way he said it. Sorry, Phred. eta: I just mention the latter lest anyone think I'm taking sides on posting style based on which ones agree with me.

[Kelli in TN]

I'll take a shot. I'm an odd one (no surprise there! :lol:). I'm pretty sure I will be voting for Obama. :

 

 

 

 

Shhhhh!!! Can you keep a secret?

 

 

 

 

 

This here diehard conservative is thinking about voting for him too. There is one major issue that is holding me back. I am looking for a way to come to peace with that issue. But I have no peace about the other candidates either.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

But I find it naive and foolish to say that "leaving the area" equals "over" or peace. That is the problem I have with both Obama and Clinton.

 

I'm not sensing or hearing or reading that either believes that. (And I'm not defending them because of their party, just because I'm pretty sure that's not the position. Both are pretty aware of the complexities of ending the conflict. ?? I'll need to google this issue more, but it honestly hasn't been on my radar *as* an issue.

 

And I definitely have a problem with candidates wanting to talk their way out of international dispute/conflict.

Back in the day, I always saw this route as the right one because it was Biblical, as in "Seek peace, and pursue it." Psalm somethingorother. At least make that the first option. Bomb first and talk later doesn't appeal to my sense of what America is all about.

 

 

And if Obama becomes president they will probably hear the Republicans in congress calling Obama ineffective/inexperienced/naive etc. for the duration of his term- and I will call those congressmen/women who insult our president unpatriotic too!

 

See, now, I just call them rude. If they were unpatriotic, they likely wouldn't be serving. :001_smile:

 

 

 

...and correspondently (okay, I completely made that word up) slapping them around ;) if necessary.

 

You go, Jo. I'm proud to be a fellow military wife alongside you.

[cornopean]

Yet it's hard to recall another instance of a presidential campaign so confidently promulgating the idea that its candidate had divine endorsement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_McKinley#Disputed_quotation