Because more government control means less prosperity and less freedom. Mainly, less freedom.Originally Posted by Martin
I don't vote all of them in. And I don't control all of their policies. Unfortunately, too many politicians get elected by promising things to people -- people who would rather vote for their money than work for it.But you vote these people in. You don't like it you have a choice.When did this happen?That's democracy... you know, that good old fashioned regime that seems to be forced on a country that doesn't necessarily want it...What strictly-Republican policies have been bad for America or the world?I want to see a return to a Democrat-run Presidency because quite frankly the world, not only America has been abused by the Republicans for a good... oooh 8 years now.
Honestly, I want to hear it. Tell me what strictly-Republican policies have been bad for America or the world.You think so? If you're so confident that Reagan was such a bad President, you can make a different thread about it.Don't get me started on the debt-ridden Reagan years. Because quite frankly it's an argument I will win I assure you.Being a "nice guy" doesn't help when they're trying to lead a country.Barack is a nice guy, I have to say.Just wondering -- how many have there been so far?I watched the Presidential Debates (the ones so far) and he is coming across very well but still there's something about his aggressiveness regards Pakistan that I find a titch unnerving.Are you serious? McCain is too old? Well Obama is black! And Palin is a woman! And Biden is, umm, ugly! That must mean they would be bad in public office!McCain is too old and I hate Palin with a passion.Calling her a "disgrace to women", a "terrible threat", and "an environmental catastrophe" is "just a smidge too harsh"? I guess comparing her to Hitler would be just a bit, just a minescule amount more harsh?Bridgitte Bardot wrote a fantastic letter which I'm quoting here:
"By denying the responsibility of man in global warming, by advocating gun rights and making statements that are disconcertingly stupid, you are a disgrace to women and you alone represent a terrible threat, an environmental catastrophe."
Although I think it's perhaps just a smidge too harsh I can't help but agree.
Palin doesn't buy into the belief that man is responsible for global warming and supports Constitutional rights and freedom. Those aren't bad things.Nuclear energy is some of the most efficient, cleanest, most cost-effective energy the world knows. Supporting more nuclear energy is not just logical, it's smart.Now I'm not exactly a liberal green but when Mr. McCain's great plan for renewable energy sourcing is to build and I guess I'm paraphrasing slightly but: "... build a whole stack of nuclear power stations..." I start to ask questions.How dare those evil Republicans support the United States military!But hell it's a massive mistake to carry on with a blatantly military-biased Republican regime.
Viewing America from the inside, I care more about the country itself than I care about how other people outside the country see it. Like I said, it's the President's job to take care of the U.S., not to make it more popular.Until the country becomes poor, weak, and Muslim -- and drops all support for our ally, Israel -- some countries in the Middle East will hate us. Until the country becomes poor, weak, and communist, some countries in Asia will hate us.As for your enemies not wanting you dead anymore, it could happen.
Once again -- I look out for the country more than I give a damn about how much other countries like us.
For the same reason, I highly doubt you want your country to become more like the U.S. so we'll like your country more.No reason Iran should detest us? You're right. But they do anyway -- because we're Christian, free, and support the existence of Israel and the lives of Jewish people.There is no reason Iran should detest you; if your response to this is to bring up the Islam-Hates-America thing, if you can bring the Saudis on board, taking the Iranians shouldn't be hard.Sure, there's a time for diplomacy, and there's a time for military use. And even Republicans have proven that they prefer diplomacy to immediate military use.Acting tough is called for in some situations, but given the current political climate of the world I must say that I don't think this is the time for it.Like they're doing in Iraq and Afghanistan?Surely it would be better, safer and more sensible for America to cultivate friends around the world?That brings to mind an interesting question -- how long did it take for Russia to get NATO and UN support for their military action? And if they didn't, where was the worldwide outcry about it?Macedonia and Georgia want McCain because their governments seem to think that he, being more edgy about Russia, would fast-track them into NATO.I'd honestly like to know more about that. Do you have any credible sources?... (Georgia started the August war) ...How so?Also, one of Obama's policies is to strengthen your military.They still don't have the technology. They have ICBMs because of Clinton, but they don't have supercarriers, or, say, supersonic stealth aircraft.I see the logic in this move, because China are about to overtake you. At last count they had more troops and submarines, and are fast approaching having the largest air force and navy in the world.
In an all-ground war, China has no competition. But in three-tier combat -- and as far as training and technology go -- it'll take a while for them to get to the level of the United States.You're suggesting that McCain would be more likely to attack an opposing superpower, and basing that suggestion on his joke concerning attacking a present enemy of the United States?What I mean is, should a situation develop where, in a hypothetical world, China stands as hegemon and America feels they've done wrong, McCain, based on 'Bomb Iran', seems like he'd be more likely to attack as part of America's transition to not being the hegemon anymore.C'mon, it was a good song. If you're referring to Barbara Ann, it wasn't a Beach Boys tune, I believe The Regents first performed it. If you're referring to Bomb Iran, that was a parody from 1980.And, now that I've mentioned Bomb Iran (sung to a Beach Boys tune, I do believe) I'll add that a politician of any creed anywhere in the world supporting a vile, disgusting song like that is deplorable.Maybe you can give me some examples of America breaking the rules.Pre-emptive war is still a war crime, and perhaps the days are coming when America won't be powerful enough to tell everyone else to obey these rules while they flounce about breaking them anymore.Your only support for that idea is the debt of Wasilla, which is a result of issues that were VOTED ON BY THE POPULATION. Which means that Palin isn't responsible for it at all.I said that Palin was less experienced because the only things she's been near she's screwed up royally.Well, for one thing ... VOTE. As in, "yes" or "no". If you actually want to learn things about Obama, you should look up how many votes he was in on, how many he was absent from, and how many he simply voted "present" on.... (what more can a senator do, and has John McCain done, than vote how they feel will benefit America?) ...Once again, if you're accusing Palin of the debt, you're wrong. If you're accusing Palin of the bridge to nowhere, you're wrong. And if you're accusing Palin of abusing her power ... how else can I say this ... you're wrong. Oh wait, no, you're right! That's why Palin has been convicted and accusations against her have been supported by facts, instead of devolving into a witch hunt, right?... but at least that pile of nothing hasn't created piles of debt, mountains of wasted money (see: bridge/roads to nowhere) and abused power?You can if you want, but they do. This is somewhat well-known. Just like the fact that women have a longer life expectancy than men do.Maybe black people really do have a shorter life expectancy. I can't be bothered looking it up.Say again, how old is Obama?But still, he's not even 45 yet!And he's much more of a dumbass. He's got more stupid comments than Palin does. If you watched the debate, you would hear him talking about going to a restaurant that has been closed for twenty years, or how the U.S. and France kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon. Or maybe you would have seen him reveal his lack of knowledge on the U.S. Constitution, or the 1800+% error on money spent on Afghanistan or Iraq, or his flat-out lies on McCain's record on nuclear test ban treaties.He is going nowhere at the behest of natural causes. Biden is not as old as McCain, but more importantly, he hasn't had cancer four times.Palin supports a child's right to life more than she supports a woman's right to not be inconvenienced by her own irresponsibility. That's a good thing. And of course she won't gather ALL Hillary voters, but there are some that are dumb enough to vote for her for no other reason than that she's a woman -- just like they were dumb enough to have supported Hillary because she's a woman, and just like there are people that are dumb enough to support Obama because he's black, and, yes, people that are dumb enough to hate Obama because he's black.I still don't think Hillary voters would pick Palin. Palin is not an advocate for women's rights at all...I'm willing to bet that you've never seen the entire, non-edited interview, have you? They have shielded her from some reporters and interviewers because they do nothing but attack and berate her. She has every right to refuse questions.HIs campaign shields her from reporters, and when she gets let near them, she comes off with the rot we saw in the Couric interview.
I'm still waiting for somebody to offer actual stupid quotes from Palin. Not quotes that are taken out of context, not quotes that are misunderstood or manipulated, but actual stupid quotes.
Then it should be easy for you to find, shouldn't it? So tell me -- When did Palin Say that Obama was a terrorist?
Bookmarks