McCain is the R's best choice.

Beefy said:
RS. Toppy is a libtard when it comes to gun control for one, healthcare 2, AA 3, and a few others. He's pretty far left. But he's right on about most econ issues.

His message is simple. Work hard and live well. Make the right choices and life is easier. And Women under 65 pounds are hot.

Also, on enviornmental issues.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding? Top is plain retarded on economics. He's a protectionist and generally supports massive subsidies.

Healthcare is economics primarily.

On AA, how is he left of the other Dems?

Yeah, he's a giant gun grabber. There's one I guess. Anymore?
 
now...

– $ 9,203,128,316,884*"
Government Spending, Lower Taxes and Economic Prosperity

Enforcing Fiscal Discipline...
Ending Pork Barrel Spending
Making Tough Choices
As president, John McCain is prepared to make the tough, fair, and responsible choices that honor our promises to current beneficiaries and to our children. Every year these decisions are delayed makes meeting this responsibility more difficult and expensive.
Promises made to previous and current generations have placed the United States on an unsustainable budget pathway. Unchecked, Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare obligations will grow as large as the entire federal budget is now in just a few decades. Without comprehensive bipartisan reform to America's entitlement programs, the nation will be unable to meet the challenges of providing vital medical and social security assistance to future generations.

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/4a3ab6fe-b025-42b1-815b-13c696a61908.htm
 
You gotta be kidding me. McCain is not going to reduce the debt problem. He only goes for reductions in government when it scores some symbolic point, e.g., pork barrel spending. Meanwhile, he is a warmonger above any candidate since his idol Teddy. He wants to federalize boxing and ufc oversight. He wants an expansion of the drug war. He supports all sorts of limits on speech and voted to expand medicare.

"I would rather have a clean government than one…where ‘First Amendment rights’ are being respected that has become corrupt. If I had my choice I’d rather have a clean government." - McCain

The guy is basically a Nazi.
 
I voted for McCain in the California Primary 8 years ago in some grandma's house in Woodland Hills. I won't do it again. He is a war mongering prick. I can relate to him in terms of the pork spending, but in budgetary issues, he's nowhere close to Ron Paul and he thinks Iraq is a big party which will hopefully never end.
 
RStringfield said:
Are you kidding? Top is plain retarded on economics. He's a protectionist and generally supports massive subsidies.

Healthcare is economics primarily.

On AA, how is he left of the other Dems?

Yeah, he's a giant gun grabber. There's one I guess. Anymore?
Click to expand...

Well, he's a leftist anyway.
 
Beefy said:
:clink:

Right on Toppy.



RS. Toppy is a libtard when it comes to gun control for one, healthcare 2, AA 3, and a few others. He's pretty far left. But he's right on about most econ issues.

His message is simple. Work hard and live well. Make the right choices and life is easier. And Women under 65 pounds are hot.

Also, on enviornmental issues.
Click to expand...

Top is actually a leftist economically, he just believes that saying so will lose you elections. So he advocates not saying so, and then once you are in, drastically slashing military spending to fund universal health care and free college.

He calls people like me libtards, as a sort of beard. So he can stay in the closet. Like a repressed homosexual calling others queer...you see?

That is why I mostly ignore him when he goes on those rants.
 
Darla said:
Top is actually a leftist economically, he just believes that saying so will lose you elections. So he advocates not saying so, and then once you are in, drastically slashing military spending to fund universal health care and free college.

He calls people like me libtards, as a sort of beard. So he can stay in the closet. Like a repressed homosexual calling others queer...you see?

That is why I mostly ignore him when he goes on those rants.
Click to expand...

I actually kind of like the little guy. He's kind of like a pet, cute and stupid.
 
Darla said:
Top is actually a leftist economically, he just believes that saying so will lose you elections. So he advocates not saying so, and then once you are in, drastically slashing military spending to fund universal health care and free college.

He calls people like me libtards, as a sort of beard. So he can stay in the closet. Like a repressed homosexual calling others queer...you see?

That is why I mostly ignore him when he goes on those rants.
Click to expand...

late edit

Yep, like I said his economics are retarded.
 
Last edited:
Darla said:
No I'm not pretending anything SF. We live in a country that has been taken over and is now run by corporations. Everything is being geared towards the corporations and the super-rich. I grew up in a pretty affluent neighborhood and no one i know from childhood, is doing as good as our parents did. That's the opposite of the American dream and it didn't happen by accident.

The truth is, class warfare has been waged since the reagan revolution. They've been winning. I think Obama is just another corporate candidate and it's why i support Edwards. But...I am around a lot of racists, and due to recent personal experiences with them, I've realized I can't not vote for the first black President. I get the magic of it. I understnad what it means, but also, what it does not mean. I'll vote for him, but I also don't believe that economically, he means that big of a change. Though of course, he's going to be better than the bushies. I mean he wouldn't veto the Schip bill, but guess what? Neither would Hillary.

It's Edwards who could have been our most progressive president since FDR. Of course, he coudl be full of shit and Obama could end up being far more progressive than he has let on in the general, you know? I keep my fingers crossed, you never really know. Look at what compassionate conservatism meant, after all. How many people knew it was code for getting it in the butt?
Click to expand...


You want to know WHY the income gap widened so much during the Reagan years, the Clinton years and now? Because we witnessed one of the greatest bull runs in the market in the history of this country. Because even when they go up about the same percentage (like 2000-2006) the gap still widens. Because the only way for it to narrow is for the wealthy to make less of a percentage gain than the middle class and poor. On the whole, are the wealthy typically the more successful or are they typically less successful? On the whole, do they have more money to save and invest?

The data can obviously be cherry picked all to hell. I just did. Had I added say 1998 and 1999 to the 2000-2006 time frame the percentage gain was vastly different. Why is that?

It is because the bulk of the wealthy's income does not come from wages. It comes from investment income.... capital gains, dividend income, rental income etc... So when the markets are doing well.... the gap spikes, because the wealthy have a greater percentage of their assets invested.

Side note... please do not talk about the income gap and then shift to real wages. There is a distinct difference in the two and wages does not show a complete picture. It actually skews things in FAVOR of the wealthy.
 
Darla said:
It's Edwards who could have been our most progressive president since FDR. Of course, he coudl be full of shit and Obama could end up being far more progressive than he has let on in the general, you know? I keep my fingers crossed, you never really know. Look at what compassionate conservatism meant, after all. How many people knew it was code for getting it in the butt?
Click to expand...

One more thing on the last paragraph.... If Edwards is so unbelievably concerned about the income gap, could he address the gap between himself and his legal assistants during the years he was a trial liar (I of course mean lawyer.... how silly of me)

I would like to know what that gap was like. Perhaps the liars supporters could pry that information from him.
 
Superfreak said:
You want to know WHY the income gap widened so much during the Reagan years, the Clinton years and now? Because we witnessed one of the greatest bull runs in the market in the history of this country. Because even when they go up about the same percentage (like 2000-2006) the gap still widens. Because the only way for it to narrow is for the wealthy to make less of a percentage gain than the middle class and poor. On the whole, are the wealthy typically the more successful or are they typically less successful? On the whole, do they have more money to save and invest?

The data can obviously be cherry picked all to hell. I just did. Had I added say 1998 and 1999 to the 2000-2006 time frame the percentage gain was vastly different. Why is that?

It is because the bulk of the wealthy's income does not come from wages. It comes from investment income.... capital gains, dividend income, rental income etc... So when the markets are doing well.... the gap spikes, because the wealthy have a greater percentage of their assets invested.

Side note... please do not talk about the income gap and then shift to real wages. There is a distinct difference in the two and wages does not show a complete picture. It actually skews things in FAVOR of the wealthy.
Click to expand...

Yep... When the economy does well capital gains most. When the economy does poorly capital loses most. Especially when the expansions are largely a product of the fed blowing bubbles. So when you start from a recessionary period and line that up against an expansionary period of course the income gap is going to widen. It's nothing but dishonest propaganda.
 
RStringfield said:
Yep... When the economy does well capital gains most. When the economy does poorly capital loses most. Especially when the expansions are largely a product of the fed blowing bubbles. So when you start from a recessionary period and line that up against an expansionary period of course the income gap is going to widen. It's nothing but dishonest propaganda.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Which is why you have to be careful to look at the timing of the data set selected for analysis. As I stated.... I cherry picked. My time frame did however include an economic downturn (March 2000-March 2003) AND an upturn (March 2003-2006)... which is why the total percentage gains were similar for all income segments. Funny how no one mentioned the income gap shrinking back in 2000-2003. I wonder why?
 
RStringfield said:
You gotta be kidding me. McCain is not going to reduce the debt problem. He only goes for reductions in government when it scores some symbolic point, e.g., pork barrel spending. Meanwhile, he is a warmonger above any candidate since his idol Teddy. He wants to federalize boxing and ufc oversight. He wants an expansion of the drug war. He supports all sorts of limits on speech and voted to expand medicare.

"I would rather have a clean government than one…where ‘First Amendment rights’ are being respected that has become corrupt. If I had my choice I’d rather have a clean government." - McCain

The guy is basically a Nazi.
Click to expand...
He actually said this!?! Holy shit are there NO REPUBLICANS that believe in unhampered free speech? The first amendment has become corrupt? Fuck that guy I think the melenoma has become a brainenoma.
 
Superfreak said:
You want to know WHY the income gap widened so much during the Reagan years, the Clinton years and now? Because we witnessed one of the greatest bull runs in the market in the history of this country. Because even when they go up about the same percentage (like 2000-2006) the gap still widens. Because the only way for it to narrow is for the wealthy to make less of a percentage gain than the middle class and poor. On the whole, are the wealthy typically the more successful or are they typically less successful? On the whole, do they have more money to save and invest?

The data can obviously be cherry picked all to hell. I just did. Had I added say 1998 and 1999 to the 2000-2006 time frame the percentage gain was vastly different. Why is that?

It is because the bulk of the wealthy's income does not come from wages. It comes from investment income.... capital gains, dividend income, rental income etc... So when the markets are doing well.... the gap spikes, because the wealthy have a greater percentage of their assets invested.

Side note... please do not talk about the income gap and then shift to real wages. There is a distinct difference in the two and wages does not show a complete picture. It actually skews things in FAVOR of the wealthy.
Click to expand...
And the other fact is that MORE people have moved ABOVE the 100k per year barrier and the below 30K level has not changed very much at all so you have a wider gap cause more people are making more money. Cept for Asshat who lost his job to some Illegal Mexican who was dark enough to claim that he was black so that he got his job from AA. Poor AHZ.
 
McCain won't stnad a chance against Obama. He's too old, and has no executive experience. He can't woo woman voters away from the Democrats. Only Romney can do that.
 
Socrtease said:
And the other fact is that MORE people have moved ABOVE the 100k per year barrier and the below 30K level has not changed very much at all so you have a wider gap cause more people are making more money. Cept for Asshat who lost his job to some Illegal Mexican who was dark enough to claim that he was black so that he got his job from AA. Poor AHZ.
Click to expand...

That is true as well. Which is why I hate this class warfare crap from idiots like Edwards.

I am still waiting for guesses from the liberals on this site as to what the income gap was between Edwards and his legal assistant(s). Somehow I bet they really really don't want to address that.
 
Superfreak said:
That is true as well. Which is why I hate this class warfare crap from idiots like Edwards.

I am still waiting for guesses from the liberals on this site as to what the income gap was between Edwards and his legal assistant(s). Somehow I bet they really really don't want to address that.
Click to expand...


Who cares?

Again, this is a complete right-wing MYTH. What you call 'class warfare' is simply people (most of them, anyway) advocating ways to bring lower classes UP, not bring the rich down.

There is nothing hypocrtical about Edwards being rich. We're doing the country a great disservice if we suddenly exempt the wealthy from talking about poverty & middle class issues. Since most of our reps are wealthy, it would certainly limit help for those problems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top