I'd like to remind everyone that democracy is about the majority. You are supposed to vote for the person who will serve you best.

I can break this entire campaign into three issues: the war, the gas prices and healthcare.

The war wont affect you unless you're a soldier or you have family that is a soldier, and then I would expect you to actually contact them and ask them how they want you to vote. For many this is a none issue.

The gas prices are not going to go down if there are windfall taxes, or if there is more ethanol (since it's still more expensive) or if this environmentalism movement keeps rejecting bills that allow us to drill our own oil.

And healthcare is not going to help the majority of people, and it will not be free or cheap. If it is cheap it will not be good. So again, that's a none issue for most people because they either already have it, and if you don't have it, all that's going to happen is that you're forced to pay for it through taxes - you wont have a choice in the matter.

So once again, remember that in democracy you're supposed to vote for what's best for you. You're not supposed to vote in favor of people or policies that are rooted on idealisms that hurt you more than help you.

If this were true wouldent hillary be the democratic nominee? Got to love how thoes democrats can screw up an election! LOL the party of the people! Yeeeaaahhh......

Well, democrats have never supported democracy. That's why there is a system of super delegates.

True in practice, but you're supposed to vote for the person who will serve the country best. The difference between the two has a lot to do with why even Republicans aren't fiscally responsible anymore. Just slather money around.

You of all people know money doesn't grow on trees. And even if it did we'd have to pay to harvest it. For everyone there is a cost and a hopeful gain in world security.

I think the windfall thing is more about making them "pay their dues". Actually ethanol could bring the price down. It's pricey to make but that's covered by subsidies, so in midwestern states the ethanol gas is cheaper. Some other tax of course has to be higher somewhere as a result. I think the fundamental issue of ethanol is that we'd rather pay our own people more for the energy than some other country. That actually might be profitable since the money is going back into the economy instead of, because oil is fungible, Iran which might eventually result in extra military expenses.


Have you even met Democrats???? The idea is that it's paid for through your taxes not theirs.

And that's sad. We all wish that didn't happen, but the truth is the elected president may only be ideal for 10 percent of the population - and I'm not being racist -.-...


That's very true. I personally don't think the cost of the war is very large considering that military spending hasn't gone up any with respect to GDP, but you're right.


And I find that to be the idealism that is misleading people to vote for an idea that wont lower gas prcies, but actually increase them. Maybe I'm stupid, but I am fairly certain that most people would like lower gas prices.
That's something of a double standard. Consider that subsidiaries are government spending and that you just said that the war was costing too much. I don't support subsidiaries for anything other than healthcare.
That's a very good point, but consider that we have oil. Why don't we drill oil? Because farms have a lot of political power, because environmentalists have a lot of political power, and because congress makes heaps of money off the price of gas being what it is.

That is the lie that they're trying to sell.

Stop trying to define the debate into your rigid right-wing box.

Ok sir. Should I define it in a rigid left-wing box? Allow me to try.

All soldiers are terrorists themselves. They think they're fighting for freedom, but they're really anti-American. The war is costing too much, and the people are sick of it, we want change. We also want to force people to pay for health insurance, and by people, we mean the rich people who have been controlling washington for too long with their money. We also want a cleaner environment. Those sick oil corporations are polluting the earth. They should be forced to pay more in taxes, and we should use that money to destroy their industry. By taxing them to the moon we will finally get em. Then we can subsidize ethanol to the point that it's affordable, at least more affordable than gas - which is only at that price because of the greedy corporations. Once we're energy independent on ethanol, maybe we can fix the problem of global famine.

Now, here's the game: how many hypocritical statements did I make?

No, because your poor imitation of a 'left-wing' box is also distorted in a way to attack the left-wing position in general, and to advocate your own.

If you want your threads to be something more than an ideological echo-chamber for the Right, then maybe you should try being a little more moderate in thread introductions for subject, rather than just having the same old right-wing circlejerk which changes no ones' mind and bridges out to no one except the same old crowd.

..........

__________________
EVERY WORD YOU SAY IS A DOOR WAY TO YOU!

Actually Raharu Haruha is a perfect example of a reaction not to Obama in particular but any 'Change', these people are so TERRIFIED of a changing society and human progress that they will fight against it so hard and attack it so virulently that they turn the majority of people away from their own cause.

There's a name for people like Raharu Haruha, it's called a Reactionary.