American people are mislead? Not for Clinton = she is mocked continually by the media - the media is pushing for Obama and pushing hard. They always have, he can do no wrong. But by the polls out now it looks like people are not buying it anymore.

And they are ??????

__________________
"I was born at night, but it was not last night night"

wrong!.........

__________________
A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money.The U.S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself."
Benjamin Franklin
http://i27.tinypic.com/2hn2lpv.jpg

It would be nice to know more about Obama than, "I'm for change" & "Yes we can".
What change?

I am not sure how "fairness" will ruin the economy. Please explain since you have intrigues us!!

He wants your money. - Well that is not good!! The church wants my money, con artists want my money, the town tax collector wants my money....


He's anti-American. - That is an open eneded accusation and I thought that there were laws against that sort of thing. Are not the alien and sdition acts still in force ? Can Bama be charged under that ? Shouldn't he have been subject to hearing in congress ? Wer'nt the Republicans in contrl of Congress when he was first elected a senator so why didn't they hold hearings and charge him with Anti-Americanism ?

__________________
"I was born at night, but it was not last night night"

Yes we should know more about Bama !!!

__________________
"I was born at night, but it was not last night night"

Quick and funny answer lol !!!

__________________
"I was born at night, but it was not last night night"

Well he doesn't really have any, he has spent most of his time as Illinois senator missing senate votes and campaigning for president. So if he can't even do the job he was elected to do here why would I vote for him for president.

__________________
For real coverage of the Iraq war see
http://michaelyon-online.com/

"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American…"

That's wrong and why I disagree with him.


Because a lot of people think you can be like 30% one and 70% the other or what have you and I think that is BS. You either are something or you aren't. I haven't labled Obama a 'communists'. You are the only one that has made such an assertion.

Intolerance? No, I tolerant the collectivists. I just don't agree with them.


The burden of proof should be on you. But nonetheless, government is bad because having so much power over individuals is wrong. The way the government is so big, inept and corrupt is bad. It screws over the individual constantly. Starts wars aggressively that get people killed overseas for no reason. I don't believe in government giving us everything and holding our hand as we cross the street quite frankly.

The opposite of what we have now, surely can only be the best plausible answer.

Go back to page 3 of this thread and look at my post with the YouTube video of the Democratic debate in Pennsylvannia. Skip to about 3:40 in the video and you will see Obama being asked whether or not he would raise the capital gains tax, even though history has shown that the government loses money when the tax is raised, and gains money when the tax is lowered. He responds by casting doubt on what will happen in the future (history repeats itself) by saying that what happened in the past might not happen in the future. He then goes on to say that the tax has to be raised "for the purpose of fairness." If you've heard his line about Warren Buffet's secretary paying higher taxes than him than you know what I'm talking about. The reason why this would ruin the economy is a simple tax problem in economic. For the government to lose money by instituting a higher tax, the economy has to shrink. For the government to gain money by decreasing tax rates, the economy has to grow. This is a relatively new theory in economics but is rapidly gaining support among economists. Of course, it only works to a point. Eventually you would have no taxes but that does not mean the government would get an infinite amount of money. It's a counter-intuitive concept but it makes sense if you think about it and it has been proven in the real world.

__________________
The White Fox Uncertainty Principle states that:
You can never know the position of a liberal and the logic behind it at the same time,
because the closer you get to finding one, the more unknown the other one becomes.

I offer you proof that my uncertainty principle stands true: