O/T Presidential Election-Who do you match up with? - Page 6

Serious I can tell you have issues. Getting a little personal, but I expect that from conservatives. You must be angry. Conservatives had their chance after 8 years of prosperity under Clinton. Now it's time to pay the piper. You sound like a Druggy limbaugh listener. Factcheck.org already said it is all lies. lol just like the lies from the swift boat veterans. Remember they apoligized to Kerry after the election.  Get use to it. PRESIDENT OBAMA !

 

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_obama.html

 

My little socialist Andy,

In reference to the Swift  Boat Vets you posted this statement "Remember they apoligized to Kerry after the election."

I don't remember....Please provide the link.

Thanks,

RPK

ross  perot  for  president,,,,,,,,,is he still alive.

john

Tesj10 THat is what isaw oon the television over here, That Obama was talikng about banning hand Guns etc and that he was not for it I saw it but when can anyone believe the Television or more so newpapers for the truth If he gets in and then Bans them we will know then , But when has any politician in the world ever said things and kept there word , they are few and far between that do Steve

liberalandy, you are of course right about the growth in the national debt under other Republican administrations. This, for me, is the problem with idealogues.

The crap that they spout about Republicans being fiscal conservatives never stands up to any scrutiny. But that does not stop them repeating the nonsense. Facts be damned!

BTW, I notice you are being labelled a "socialist" which of course is pretty hilarious given that the Bush adminstration is taking major equity positions in banks and other privately owned corporations! Can you imagine what the reaction of Republicans would have been if Clinton or any other Democratic administration had taken such action under the same set of circumstances?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth into a small section of society who control capital, and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.[1]

What part of this definition does Barack Obama disagree with, actually?

When the government taxes a company disproportionately and redistributes the money made, it is taking profits of the company and essentially controlling how the money is spent.........That's your man........NOT MINE!!!
 

RPK

 

The 2nd amendment to the US constitution isn't about hunting. It's about self-defense from both criminals and the state. That canard about "hunting rifles are okay, ugly assault weapons are not okay" is just that, a lie. It's a bait and switch tactic. If you fall for it thinking that Obama and Biden will leave your long guns alone, you'll find out that your dad's WWII 30.06 Garand is considered an assault rifle or your $5,000 handrubbed and fitted walnut target rifle is an assault rifle.

As for the so-called difference between gang guns and citizen guns - the only thing a gun ban does is disarm victims.  Criminals by definition do not obey the law. They're always going to have guns. And guess what? The police have no, repeat NO, legal responsibility to protect you. They will investigate your rape or murder, but they are not legally liable for preventing it. You can't sue them for not preventing your loved one's murder.  You are responsible for your own safety. Period.  I know that comes as a nasty shock to some liberals, but it's true.

In response to TessJ10...

McCain not support waiting periods on gun purchases will not make it any easier for 'inner city gang' criminals to get guns.  There's a huge black market with illegal guns in the inner cities...crimimals don't really care what the law says.  They'll get their weapons anyway.

And as far as the guns in the city being different from keeping a hunting rifle, as Obama apparently made the distinction, the fact is that the city is a far more dangerous place than the country or a small town.  If I lived in a big metropolitan city, you can bet I'd have at least one handgun, whether it was legal or not.  It's the difference between being a victim and being a survivor.  The law of this government may prevent me from owning a gun, but the fact is that I have an inalienable right to live, and to protect my children and property. 

Another thing folks might want to keep in mind...You can't ban everything that someone might use to commit murder or other crimes with.  Water can kill, as can knives, glass, cars, trucks, food, trains, heavy objects falling, foams, poisons, baseball bats, clubs, doors, and the list goes on.  Belts can be used to strangle.  Plastic bags can be used to suffocate.  So you see there's no real way to prevent crime by banning the items used to commit it.  A better course of action might be to instruct every law-abiding American adult in the proper use of firearms in self defense.  Think about it:  If you were intending to, say, rob a bank, or shoot up a shopping mall or school, but you knew everybody else there was also packing, you'd know that as soon as you opened fire, your tangent would be over.  The best defense is a good offense.  That's a simple fact that cannot be explained away. 

As for who I'd lean toward in the election...More of the same, or something worse?  I think I'll have to agree with the words of a well-known historical figure, Patrick Henry: 

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?  Forbid it! Almighty God!  I know not what course others may take, but as for me, GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!"  

One could easily swap out the word 'security' for either life or peace.  Unfortunately, there is a price to pay for freedom, and security and freedom are not synonomous.  We can't have both.

One last thing, liberalandy, most things that democrats have always supported are things that go against the Bible and everything upon which this great country was built, such as gay rights, abortion, gun control, stem cell research on human embryos, etc.  Sadly enough, the very concepts that are touted today by the politicians are the things that are impossible to achieve anymore.  "United We Stand'?  Who are we kidding?  This nation is so divided that it's not funny.  We're divided along racial lines, even though we're all "Politically Correct", we're divided along gender lines, along party lines, and the list goes on.  We couldn't stand united if this country were to be attacked by a foreign power.  Sadly enough, the democrats want to disarm us, saying we don't need our guns, we're safe.  If so, then why does the President (and candidates) need the Secret Service.  Why do we need to hire more and more police?  Why are laws getting stricter and stricter?  It's clear to me that more laws and more butchery to the Constitution hasn't fixed the problems. 

And I thank God that this nation fought for its freedom from England before the American people lost their backbones to a bunch of lilly-livered politicians who can't tell the truth to save their lives.

Crystal

I had to make an addendum to my earlier post.  Fact is, neither John McCain nor Barack HUSSEIN Obama are a good choice for president.  Neither will serve the interests of the people, although McCain will protect a few of our human rights that Obama will sacrifice.  The government is out of control, because those wealthy suckers sitting in office leaching our country dry have forgotten that the government of the US is supposed to be "of the people, by the people, for the people". 

Here's one other thing to think about.  Throughout history, countries have tried the route we are taking, invading other countries to bring them around to our way of thinking, regulating every aspect of life, and disarming their people.  Whether they had a democracy, a socialist society, or a dictatorship, I invite you to consider the ultimate result of their attempts.  Let's see, there was the Roman Empire, Asia, France, and England, to name a few.  All made a bid for control of the world in one way or another, and some multiple times.  It didn't work.  It cannot work.  We are not all the same.  There's a reason the Arabic people live the way they do, and the tribes of Africa the way they do, as well as the Asian countries and Europe.  As they say, you can take the boy out of the country, but you can't take the country out of the boy.  It's a fact.  The fact that Obama is Muslim is troubling in so many ways, not the least of which is the fact that, as has already been posted, the followers of Islam have been behind a lot of the terrorism in the world today.  We are viewed, by Muslims, as being infidels, asfilth that deserves to be wiped off the face of the earth, and they are willing to kill themselves to assure that a few more of us are gone.  Do we want to elect to Presidency of our country a man who follows a religion that views us in such a negative way?  The best way to destroy something is from within, and by being even more liberal, Mr. Obama will help to assure that we destroy ourselves with a little help from the extra government we seem to crave.  Sad, isn't it, how few people will actually look at the big picture and not just the little issues that they prattle about?  I just hope that when the dust settles from this disaster, there are a few good Americans left to pick up the pieces and rebuild God's country.  It brings tears to my eyes to think that our great-country is in this state, and the US is not even 250 years old yet.  Sad....

If Americans don't wake up and forget the political pandering and the bought-off politicians, and remind them that they are under our control, and not the other way around, then not a one of us has any right to complain.  If you hand your freedom over to a criminal, then don't complain when you don't have any.

Crystal

RPK, the very link that you provided offers a much more expansive definition of "socialism" than the excerpt you provided.

We have had a Republican president for the past eight years and a Congress controlled by Republicans for six of those eight years that has doubled the national debt running gigantic budget deficits, expanded the Medicare program though we could ill-afford it and then to top it all off, is now taking major equity positions in financial institutions - effectively a partial nationalization of those institutions.

"Comrade Bush is nationalizing banks,'' (Hugo) Chavez said in comments broadcast by state television. "Now Bush is to the left of even me.''

As far as income and wealth redistribution, we already have a progressive income tax system which by implication seeks to achieve precisely that effect. The past eight years have seen a massive redistribution of wealth with the middle-class getting the short end of the stick.