Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well said and I agree, especially with the abortion one. I don't even care whether a candidate is pro-life or pro-choice anymore. Basically the supreme court has determined abortion to be a "constitutional" right. To change that, historically is took a "constitutional amendment". I don't see the bozos from any party agreeing on a constitutional amendment this day and age.
Right and I talk to people that actually vote on that issue. It's depressing.
Right and I talk to people that actually vote on that issue. It's depressing.
I was going to let something slide but can't.
You stated you can't support the right because of gay rights issues,but voted FOR Obama...who opposes gay marriage(assuming that is the 'gay rights' you are referring to).
And THEN you complain about others being concerned about aborting children....
We need a third party? Sure, that's a start. Personally I think we need about five or six major parties and coalition governments.
I'm a social libertarian, support fiscal responsibility, and badly want regulations to prevent exploitation by all power - primarily government or corporate. Who do I vote for? Repubulicans go 0-for-3. Democrats aren't much better.
Yes, we need the Libertarian party to step up. We need Libertarians to stop voting Republican and vote for Libertarian candidates.
Obama is toast. Even his supporters are deserting him as they him lie at every juncture and totally abandon his promise to be more transparent and open. His big government agenda is overwhelming millions of Americans.
Do you know how long the Libertarian party has been in existence? How long it has been running Presidential candidates? Do you know what the percentage of the vote they have garnered? If Libertarians were to put their effort into the Republican party they would see much more of their philosophies in practice right now .
I was going to let something slide but can't.
You stated you can't support the right because of gay rights issues,but voted FOR Obama...who opposes gay marriage(assuming that is the 'gay rights' you are referring to).
And THEN you complain about others being concerned about aborting children....
You see any issues with your logic?
I see what you're saying. I should have been more clear on that. It's the use of the political tool that grates me. When I spend time trying to research platforms and I'm bombarded with gay this and that, abortion this and that, etc, there's simply nothing to learn. I tried to vet Palin and McCain and there was just too much bologna to be bothered.
I see what you're saying. I should have been more clear on that. It's the use of the political tool that grates me. When I spend time trying to research platforms and I'm bombarded with gay this and that, abortion this and that, etc, there's simply nothing to learn. I tried to vet Palin and McCain and there was just too much bologna to be bothered.
Well...I look at things from a Constitutional viewpoint if I can.
If it is allowed by the Constitution,then it is the fedgov's business.
Abortion is not the fedgov's business,neither is marriage...these 'issues' are there to divide people and keep them preoccupied while the nation goes down the tubes.
Well...I look at things from a Constitutional viewpoint if I can.
If it is allowed by the Constitution,then it is the fedgov's business.
Abortion is not the fedgov's business,neither is marriage...these 'issues' are there to divide people and keep them preoccupied while the nation goes down the tubes.
Yes, that's exactly my point. I watched every rally on both sides and can't imagine the millions of dollars spent with speeches, cheers and jeers, over stuff that is just meant to distract. I ran across similar in the 2004 elections. It's the same garbage recycled.
To be clear, I'm not anti-reform. I just think the timing is off and I'm using my own common sense here. Correct me where you find me to be wrong.
Did you read his proposed policies in '08? The issues here are stratified and I'll attempt to break it down. How did he intend to pay for reform?
1. The way he planned to pay for it, in part, was via savings. This is highly dependent on a well-employed workforce and healthy economy. You can state the current costs for the uninsured will reduce the deficit by $100 (random number for ease) based on unemployed rates and those that subsist on the public dole. Ok, implement reform based on monies coming in. With the economy in the tank, and a greater number of uninsured, costs are actually higher than when the proposal was drafted and that reduction in deficit is going to go down. The numbers have simply changed.
2. Another way he planned on paying for it was by taxing investment income. Well, obviously that's problematic given this deep recession. The projected income from those taxes is no longer a reality since everybody has been losing money and a loss of money equals a loss of tax on that revenue.
3. Another way he planned to pay for it is with tanning bed taxes and similar. I believe that tax started this past July1. Again, common sense tells me that since our economy is in the tank, consumer confidence is at an all time low, people might not continue to spend on frivolous items as we once did. It's no secret that people aren't generally spending. So, this hurts business in a recession as well as questionable assumptions on monies that might not manifest.
Another issue when it comes to reform and unemployment is for those that are already unemployed. Businesses that are struggling are not going to find re-hiring attractive with added costs. Companies are making due with a smaller workforce. It's a fragile economy and we should tread lightly.
Another issue is that unemployment extensions are adding to the national deficit at record rates. We're just going deeper into debt. That's not to say we won't find our way out of this mess, but how will the economy be catapulted if businesses are concerned with added costs and unwilling to rehire; consumers unwilling to spend; and small businesses taking a hit with added taxes; and monies that were to be relied upon are drying up? It's a catch-22.
Again, it's bad timing and it is overwhelming.
Darn, Nitsua. I spent all that time writing up the post.
I consider myself an Independent. I voted for Obama in 2008, but I probably won't vote for him again. I look to the left charging the Tea Party and frankly, I see a bunch of loons pointing fingers. I look to the right at Beck et al with their crap about gay marriage, again, another lot of full of loons. Both the dems/liberals and Repubs/conservatives seem to have lost their minds. And they do much of the same thing - war, cries of racism, exude laziness, steal, etc. At this juncture, I don't think it matters who is POTUS or who has the house majority.
Well I consider myself independent as well but i didn't fall for Obama's hope and change trickery.
He did not state how he was going to do/pay for it so it was all for show.
Anyway Glenn Beck and suck are really just fake imo. They jumped on the tea party band wagon after they got popular and before that they insulted them to death pre-popularity.
Sarah Palin jumped on to tea party side because it got popular as well and other republicans are trying to neo-con the tea party.
Tea party = old-school republicans + independents from Libertarian paleo-conservative backgrounds.
Neo-con= War mongers NOT tea-party. Stop saying Sarah Palin + Glenn Beck type is tea-party please. It is an insult to independents. They might have changed who knows.
People like Peter Schiff, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Austrian school economists, and such for the state rights over federal rights, Abolishing FED are the real tea party people. They are pretty much trying to hijack the republican party running as candidates. The fake ones like Brown who voted for 2000page financial reg bill was a fake tea party candidate. Please investigate each one for their merits.
Not the war mongers and more social welfare for illegal immigrants.
Easy way to solve welfare problem would be at least requiring people on them and those on unemployment insurance to work for the government. AT least clean the streets or something to ween them off of dependency.
No work no pay pretty much. Student grants = work study, like working for school make it required but give them internship credit as well as the grant.
Thing like that.
Anyway, Peter Schiff which you guys know are running for CT senate. If you live there please vote for him on AUG 10 2010 so he can do some good for the country. Everyone else like Linda McMahon and Blumenthal is pretty much more of the same or worse. Lesser of the 2 evils would be Peter Schiff or Rob Simmons, but Rob did the same thing but he just doesn't know better imo.
Peter would know what he is doing for the country at least and unlike most would be much more principled than everyone running. Yes he's an independent(sheep) in republican(wolfs') clothing.
But I am not really sure if everyone else running as tea party a candidate are as sincere as these 3 individuals I listed running for office.
You know he's OK since he was part of the Ron Paul 2008 pres nomination committee as a economic adviser. So he should not be like the fake one from Mass. Senator Scott Brown that voted for 2000 page bill without reading it.
Maybe someone should try high jacking the democratic side as well hmm just to try to, divide and conquer.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and I agree, especially with the abortion one. I don't even care whether a candidate is pro-life or pro-choice anymore. Basically the supreme court has determined abortion to be a "constitutional" right. To change that, historically is took a "constitutional amendment". I don't see the bozos from any party agreeing on a constitutional amendment this day and age.
