- This topic has 450 replies, 30 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 10 months ago by
Coronita.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 27, 2008 at 11:05 PM #262897August 28, 2008 at 12:10 AM #262607
greekfire
ParticipantRenterclint: No, a vote for those not in the establishment is not a wasted vote. A vote for Hillary Clinton, Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Allan Keyes, etc., is basically a big middle finger to the establishment. The two party system is totally rigged, as you probably know already.
The Republicans will say that a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama; while the Democrats will say that a vote for someone like Ralph Nader is a vote for McCain. This is how the two parties have continued to trap a lot of voters over the years, but not me.
Obama and McCain aren’t as different as the media will have us believe that they are. They are very similar. I respect your desire to research the candidate’s positions. I recommend that you research not only the candidate’s stated positions (and voting records), but that you also research the Constitutional positions on these issues. Check out Ron Paul’s ideology and voting record and compare it to the Constitution and you will will find no equals…Ron Paul, you will find, is the true champion of the Constitution.
Don’t take my word for it…do your own research on the above topics and let me know what you think. I am confident that you will come to the same conclusion as I (and many others) have.
August 28, 2008 at 12:10 AM #262812ParticipantRenterclint: No, a vote for those not in the establishment is not a wasted vote. A vote for Hillary Clinton, Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Allan Keyes, etc., is basically a big middle finger to the establishment. The two party system is totally rigged, as you probably know already.
The Republicans will say that a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama; while the Democrats will say that a vote for someone like Ralph Nader is a vote for McCain. This is how the two parties have continued to trap a lot of voters over the years, but not me.
Obama and McCain aren’t as different as the media will have us believe that they are. They are very similar. I respect your desire to research the candidate’s positions. I recommend that you research not only the candidate’s stated positions (and voting records), but that you also research the Constitutional positions on these issues. Check out Ron Paul’s ideology and voting record and compare it to the Constitution and you will will find no equals…Ron Paul, you will find, is the true champion of the Constitution.
Don’t take my word for it…do your own research on the above topics and let me know what you think. I am confident that you will come to the same conclusion as I (and many others) have.
August 28, 2008 at 12:10 AM #262819ParticipantRenterclint: No, a vote for those not in the establishment is not a wasted vote. A vote for Hillary Clinton, Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Allan Keyes, etc., is basically a big middle finger to the establishment. The two party system is totally rigged, as you probably know already.
The Republicans will say that a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama; while the Democrats will say that a vote for someone like Ralph Nader is a vote for McCain. This is how the two parties have continued to trap a lot of voters over the years, but not me.
Obama and McCain aren’t as different as the media will have us believe that they are. They are very similar. I respect your desire to research the candidate’s positions. I recommend that you research not only the candidate’s stated positions (and voting records), but that you also research the Constitutional positions on these issues. Check out Ron Paul’s ideology and voting record and compare it to the Constitution and you will will find no equals…Ron Paul, you will find, is the true champion of the Constitution.
Don’t take my word for it…do your own research on the above topics and let me know what you think. I am confident that you will come to the same conclusion as I (and many others) have.
August 28, 2008 at 12:10 AM #262870ParticipantRenterclint: No, a vote for those not in the establishment is not a wasted vote. A vote for Hillary Clinton, Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Allan Keyes, etc., is basically a big middle finger to the establishment. The two party system is totally rigged, as you probably know already.
The Republicans will say that a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama; while the Democrats will say that a vote for someone like Ralph Nader is a vote for McCain. This is how the two parties have continued to trap a lot of voters over the years, but not me.
Obama and McCain aren’t as different as the media will have us believe that they are. They are very similar. I respect your desire to research the candidate’s positions. I recommend that you research not only the candidate’s stated positions (and voting records), but that you also research the Constitutional positions on these issues. Check out Ron Paul’s ideology and voting record and compare it to the Constitution and you will will find no equals…Ron Paul, you will find, is the true champion of the Constitution.
Don’t take my word for it…do your own research on the above topics and let me know what you think. I am confident that you will come to the same conclusion as I (and many others) have.
August 28, 2008 at 12:10 AM #262907ParticipantRenterclint: No, a vote for those not in the establishment is not a wasted vote. A vote for Hillary Clinton, Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Allan Keyes, etc., is basically a big middle finger to the establishment. The two party system is totally rigged, as you probably know already.
The Republicans will say that a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama; while the Democrats will say that a vote for someone like Ralph Nader is a vote for McCain. This is how the two parties have continued to trap a lot of voters over the years, but not me.
Obama and McCain aren’t as different as the media will have us believe that they are. They are very similar. I respect your desire to research the candidate’s positions. I recommend that you research not only the candidate’s stated positions (and voting records), but that you also research the Constitutional positions on these issues. Check out Ron Paul’s ideology and voting record and compare it to the Constitution and you will will find no equals…Ron Paul, you will find, is the true champion of the Constitution.
Don’t take my word for it…do your own research on the above topics and let me know what you think. I am confident that you will come to the same conclusion as I (and many others) have.
August 28, 2008 at 12:21 AM #262618urbanrealtor
Participant[quote=condogrrl]Obama will be our first affirmative action president. The less qualified candidate is promoted to president because of his color.[/quote]
In affirmative action, the boss promotes based on quotas. The bosses are the public and nobody is forcing them to do anything. Are you asserting that the public has no free will?
[quote=condogrrl] No wonder people don’t want to entrust the country to him. [/quote]
Well, polls would disagree with you on this. Last I checked he was running even with McCain.
[quote=condogrrl]Would you want an affirmative action doctor to operate on you? [/quote] Surgeon operate (thats why doctors call them “cutters”–among other things). Doctors examine. You don’t help your case with dumb mistakes. And the experience and qualifications of a health provider (or cutter) are what matters most. I don’t generally take their minority status into account.[quote=condogrrl]Would you even want an affirmative action mechanic to work on your car? [/quote] See previous.
[quote=condogrrl]No, I want a truly qualified person. [/quote]Last I checked the qualifications for presidency are A: Getting Elected and B: meeting the requirements of article 2
[quote=condogrrl]Obama’s credentials are weaker than mine. [/quote] Umm… how is your resume better? Harvard law? Harvard law review? Are you a professor or lecturer (I mean outside of the blogosphere) in Constitutional Law? Have you been elected to the state legislature? Have you been elected to the Senate?
[quote=condogrrl]And I’m not so arrogant to think that I could run this country successfully.[/quote]
[/quote] Just arrogant enough to talk about how you are smarter than the democratic process. Please post when you have more intelligent criticisms.August 28, 2008 at 12:21 AM #262822Participant[quote=condogrrl]Obama will be our first affirmative action president. The less qualified candidate is promoted to president because of his color.[/quote]
In affirmative action, the boss promotes based on quotas. The bosses are the public and nobody is forcing them to do anything. Are you asserting that the public has no free will?
[quote=condogrrl] No wonder people don’t want to entrust the country to him. [/quote]
Well, polls would disagree with you on this. Last I checked he was running even with McCain.
[quote=condogrrl]Would you want an affirmative action doctor to operate on you? [/quote] Surgeon operate (thats why doctors call them “cutters”–among other things). Doctors examine. You don’t help your case with dumb mistakes. And the experience and qualifications of a health provider (or cutter) are what matters most. I don’t generally take their minority status into account.[quote=condogrrl]Would you even want an affirmative action mechanic to work on your car? [/quote] See previous.
[quote=condogrrl]No, I want a truly qualified person. [/quote]Last I checked the qualifications for presidency are A: Getting Elected and B: meeting the requirements of article 2
[quote=condogrrl]Obama’s credentials are weaker than mine. [/quote] Umm… how is your resume better? Harvard law? Harvard law review? Are you a professor or lecturer (I mean outside of the blogosphere) in Constitutional Law? Have you been elected to the state legislature? Have you been elected to the Senate?
[quote=condogrrl]And I’m not so arrogant to think that I could run this country successfully.[/quote]
[/quote] Just arrogant enough to talk about how you are smarter than the democratic process. Please post when you have more intelligent criticisms.August 28, 2008 at 12:21 AM #262829Participant[quote=condogrrl]Obama will be our first affirmative action president. The less qualified candidate is promoted to president because of his color.[/quote]
In affirmative action, the boss promotes based on quotas. The bosses are the public and nobody is forcing them to do anything. Are you asserting that the public has no free will?
[quote=condogrrl] No wonder people don’t want to entrust the country to him. [/quote]
Well, polls would disagree with you on this. Last I checked he was running even with McCain.
[quote=condogrrl]Would you want an affirmative action doctor to operate on you? [/quote] Surgeon operate (thats why doctors call them “cutters”–among other things). Doctors examine. You don’t help your case with dumb mistakes. And the experience and qualifications of a health provider (or cutter) are what matters most. I don’t generally take their minority status into account.[quote=condogrrl]Would you even want an affirmative action mechanic to work on your car? [/quote] See previous.
[quote=condogrrl]No, I want a truly qualified person. [/quote]Last I checked the qualifications for presidency are A: Getting Elected and B: meeting the requirements of article 2
[quote=condogrrl]Obama’s credentials are weaker than mine. [/quote] Umm… how is your resume better? Harvard law? Harvard law review? Are you a professor or lecturer (I mean outside of the blogosphere) in Constitutional Law? Have you been elected to the state legislature? Have you been elected to the Senate?
[quote=condogrrl]And I’m not so arrogant to think that I could run this country successfully.[/quote]
[/quote] Just arrogant enough to talk about how you are smarter than the democratic process. Please post when you have more intelligent criticisms.August 28, 2008 at 12:21 AM #262880Participant[quote=condogrrl]Obama will be our first affirmative action president. The less qualified candidate is promoted to president because of his color.[/quote]
In affirmative action, the boss promotes based on quotas. The bosses are the public and nobody is forcing them to do anything. Are you asserting that the public has no free will?
[quote=condogrrl] No wonder people don’t want to entrust the country to him. [/quote]
Well, polls would disagree with you on this. Last I checked he was running even with McCain.
[quote=condogrrl]Would you want an affirmative action doctor to operate on you? [/quote] Surgeon operate (thats why doctors call them “cutters”–among other things). Doctors examine. You don’t help your case with dumb mistakes. And the experience and qualifications of a health provider (or cutter) are what matters most. I don’t generally take their minority status into account.[quote=condogrrl]Would you even want an affirmative action mechanic to work on your car? [/quote] See previous.
[quote=condogrrl]No, I want a truly qualified person. [/quote]Last I checked the qualifications for presidency are A: Getting Elected and B: meeting the requirements of article 2
[quote=condogrrl]Obama’s credentials are weaker than mine. [/quote] Umm… how is your resume better? Harvard law? Harvard law review? Are you a professor or lecturer (I mean outside of the blogosphere) in Constitutional Law? Have you been elected to the state legislature? Have you been elected to the Senate?
[quote=condogrrl]And I’m not so arrogant to think that I could run this country successfully.[/quote]
[/quote] Just arrogant enough to talk about how you are smarter than the democratic process. Please post when you have more intelligent criticisms.August 28, 2008 at 12:21 AM #262917Participant[quote=condogrrl]Obama will be our first affirmative action president. The less qualified candidate is promoted to president because of his color.[/quote]
In affirmative action, the boss promotes based on quotas. The bosses are the public and nobody is forcing them to do anything. Are you asserting that the public has no free will?
[quote=condogrrl] No wonder people don’t want to entrust the country to him. [/quote]
Well, polls would disagree with you on this. Last I checked he was running even with McCain.
[quote=condogrrl]Would you want an affirmative action doctor to operate on you? [/quote] Surgeon operate (thats why doctors call them “cutters”–among other things). Doctors examine. You don’t help your case with dumb mistakes. And the experience and qualifications of a health provider (or cutter) are what matters most. I don’t generally take their minority status into account.[quote=condogrrl]Would you even want an affirmative action mechanic to work on your car? [/quote] See previous.
[quote=condogrrl]No, I want a truly qualified person. [/quote]Last I checked the qualifications for presidency are A: Getting Elected and B: meeting the requirements of article 2
[quote=condogrrl]Obama’s credentials are weaker than mine. [/quote] Umm… how is your resume better? Harvard law? Harvard law review? Are you a professor or lecturer (I mean outside of the blogosphere) in Constitutional Law? Have you been elected to the state legislature? Have you been elected to the Senate?
[quote=condogrrl]And I’m not so arrogant to think that I could run this country successfully.[/quote]
[/quote] Just arrogant enough to talk about how you are smarter than the democratic process. Please post when you have more intelligent criticisms.August 28, 2008 at 12:30 AM #262627CA renter
ParticipantPersonally, I would rather they have no income tax at all and just increase sales tax, property tax, etc. to compensate for the lost tax revenue. Lets tax the spender instead of the savers.
——————–
AN,That would be a regressive tax, causing the rich to get richer (they spend far less of their income on necessities) and the poor to become poorer (most of their income goes to consumption). Since the majority of workers are not “rich,” work would be punished while gambling would be rewarded (trading/investing for a profit — taking money OUT of the economy and into the wealthy person’s account).
Exactly how does that make for a better society where the greatest number of people can live in a healthy, safe, productive environment?
“Taxing the rich” is not class warfare. It is trying to maintain a balance of power between capital and labor.
The “rich” control money flow, and always direct the flow back to themselves, leaving less for the productive workers.
By taxing the workers and not taxing the rich, you concentrate money/power into fewer and fewer hands — those with money will accumulate at staggering rates without cap gains and higher rates for higher incomes, while the workers will have nothing.
Sounds like a third-world country to me.
August 28, 2008 at 12:30 AM #262832ParticipantPersonally, I would rather they have no income tax at all and just increase sales tax, property tax, etc. to compensate for the lost tax revenue. Lets tax the spender instead of the savers.
——————–
AN,That would be a regressive tax, causing the rich to get richer (they spend far less of their income on necessities) and the poor to become poorer (most of their income goes to consumption). Since the majority of workers are not “rich,” work would be punished while gambling would be rewarded (trading/investing for a profit — taking money OUT of the economy and into the wealthy person’s account).
Exactly how does that make for a better society where the greatest number of people can live in a healthy, safe, productive environment?
“Taxing the rich” is not class warfare. It is trying to maintain a balance of power between capital and labor.
The “rich” control money flow, and always direct the flow back to themselves, leaving less for the productive workers.
By taxing the workers and not taxing the rich, you concentrate money/power into fewer and fewer hands — those with money will accumulate at staggering rates without cap gains and higher rates for higher incomes, while the workers will have nothing.
Sounds like a third-world country to me.
August 28, 2008 at 12:30 AM #262839ParticipantPersonally, I would rather they have no income tax at all and just increase sales tax, property tax, etc. to compensate for the lost tax revenue. Lets tax the spender instead of the savers.
——————–
AN,That would be a regressive tax, causing the rich to get richer (they spend far less of their income on necessities) and the poor to become poorer (most of their income goes to consumption). Since the majority of workers are not “rich,” work would be punished while gambling would be rewarded (trading/investing for a profit — taking money OUT of the economy and into the wealthy person’s account).
Exactly how does that make for a better society where the greatest number of people can live in a healthy, safe, productive environment?
“Taxing the rich” is not class warfare. It is trying to maintain a balance of power between capital and labor.
The “rich” control money flow, and always direct the flow back to themselves, leaving less for the productive workers.
By taxing the workers and not taxing the rich, you concentrate money/power into fewer and fewer hands — those with money will accumulate at staggering rates without cap gains and higher rates for higher incomes, while the workers will have nothing.
Sounds like a third-world country to me.
August 28, 2008 at 12:30 AM #262890ParticipantPersonally, I would rather they have no income tax at all and just increase sales tax, property tax, etc. to compensate for the lost tax revenue. Lets tax the spender instead of the savers.
——————–
AN,That would be a regressive tax, causing the rich to get richer (they spend far less of their income on necessities) and the poor to become poorer (most of their income goes to consumption). Since the majority of workers are not “rich,” work would be punished while gambling would be rewarded (trading/investing for a profit — taking money OUT of the economy and into the wealthy person’s account).
Exactly how does that make for a better society where the greatest number of people can live in a healthy, safe, productive environment?
“Taxing the rich” is not class warfare. It is trying to maintain a balance of power between capital and labor.
The “rich” control money flow, and always direct the flow back to themselves, leaving less for the productive workers.
By taxing the workers and not taxing the rich, you concentrate money/power into fewer and fewer hands — those with money will accumulate at staggering rates without cap gains and higher rates for higher incomes, while the workers will have nothing.
Sounds like a third-world country to me.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.