does not deserve to be president

[chunko]

Originally Posted by TallTexan

Great response. You show me a article about Buffet, a Hillary supporter, who is trying to get Hill elected. This guy just proved my point. The numbers are the numbers. You cannot dispute the fact that 20% of wage earners pay 80% of all taxes. Think about that. When you raise taxes on the ''rich'' again, they will pay 90-100% of taxes. Is that what you think is fair? If the U.S. takes in 3 trillion in taxes, the top 20% pay 2.4 trillion and the other 80% pay 600 billion. Drop the liberal line and consider how you would feel to go out to eat with your buddies and every time you had to pay $80 of a hundred dollar tab. Your buddies tell you that you have more money that them so you must pay. I bet you would tell some one to kiss your back side.
Like I say, if the libs are going to be happy, the top 20% will just put up another 600 billion and the rest of the country can just sit back and pay nothing. Only a socialist could agree with that.

A larger percentage of my income goes to taxes than the 3rd wealthiest man in the country... I have a problem with that, so now I'm a socialist?

Word.

[kman]

Originally Posted by skyhammer

Actually, Tall Texan made a good point. The far left that has taken over the Democrat Party is endorsing Fascist economic policies.
Let me explain.
The Fascists were completely against individualism in general and especially against individualism in a free market economy. There agenda included minimum wage laws, government restrictions on profit making, progressive taxation of capital, and rigidly secular schools.
Do any of those policies sound familiar?
Unlike the Communists, the Fascists did not seek government ownership of the means of production. They just wanted to call the shots as to how business would be run.
They were for industrial policy long before the liberals coined the phrase in the U.S.
The whole Fascist economic agenda bears a remarkable resemblance to what liberals would later advocate.
During the 20's, progressives in the U.S. and Britain recognized the kinship with those of Mussolini, who was widely admired by the left.
Prominent Socialist H.G Wells called for Liberal Fascism, saying " the world is sick of parliamentary politics."
George Bernard Shaw expressed his admiration for Mussolini as well as for Hitler and Stalin, because "they did things, instead of just talk."
In Germany, the Nazis followed in the wake of the Italian Fascists, adding racism in general and anti-semitism in particular, neither which was part of Fascism in Italy or in Franco's Spain.
W.E.B Dubois(whom Obama likes to quote), was so taken with the Nazi movement, that he put swastikas on the cover of the magazine he edited, despite complaints from his Jewish readers.
Even after Hitler achieved dictatorial power in Germany in 1933, DuBois declared that the Nazi dictatorship was " absolutely necessary in order to get the state in order".
Only after Hitler and Mussolini disgraced themselves, mainly by their brutal military aggressions in the 30's, did the left distance themselves.
In short, during the 20's and early 30's, Fascism was not only looked upon favorably by the left but was recognized as having kindred ideas, agendas and assumptions.
All you have to do is view Clinton's and Obamas web site and you will see that the economic policies they are proposing come right out of the Fascist economic play book.

fascism is the merging of gov't and corporate power. Under the Bush administration we have lobbyists authoring legislation, and oil industry executives developing our energy policy. Your trying to tell us that this is the liberal agenda? So Bush and shotgun Chenney are liberals? wtf!! When did that bate and switch happen?

[TallTexan]

Originally Posted by kman

fascism is the merging of gov't and corporate power. Under the Bush administration we have lobbyists authoring legislation, and oil industry executives developing our energy policy. Your trying to tell us that this is the liberal agenda? So Bush and shotgun Chenney are liberals? wtf!! When did that bate and switch happen?

Fascism is the government controlling corporate power by dictating what they can and cannot do. Right now, the free market controls what you pay and how much you earn. When the gov takes over, they will tell the corp how much you make and how much people will pay for your products. In other words, you are no longer in power. You have never heard Bush and Cheney trying to give power to no body but the people. With corporations, you can buy their products if you want and if you do not want to buy them, they go broke. The consumer has the power. For gasoline, the Arabs have the power but we did get to keep the moose trail in Alaska.

[kman]

Originally Posted by TallTexan

Fascism is the government controlling corporate power by dictating what they can and cannot do. Right now, the free market controls what you pay and how much you earn. When the gov takes over, they will tell the corp how much you make and how much people will pay for your products. In other words, you are no longer in power. You have never heard Bush and Cheney trying to give power to no body but the people. With corporations, you can buy their products if you want and if you do not want to buy them, they go broke. The consumer has the power. For gasoline, the Arabs have the power but we did get to keep the moose trail in Alaska.

your wrong it is the melding of the two, but you are right the people are no longer in power, so your half right. So you must also be half left, in the middle just like me. Do yourself a favor, read a little more on fascism and report back your findings.

[chunko]

Originally Posted by TallTexan

Great response. You show me a article about Buffet, a Hillary supporter, who is trying to get Hill elected.

Man, I love how you summarized Buffet.

I'm pretty sure that's how his biography will start.

[TallTexan]

Originally Posted by kman

your wrong it is the melding of the two, but you are right the people are no longer in power, so your half right. So you must also be half left, in the middle just like me. Do yourself a favor, read a little more on fascism and report back your findings.

I know all I want to know about fascism. I study freedom and democracy. I know one thing, I don't want government telling me nothing. I, through my vote, want to tell them what I want done in this country. Left to the left, we will be standing in milk lines at 5am trying to feed our kids because there is no competition in the markets. Go to Russia and get the definition of fascism, they know it well. By the way, don't know much about melding, but you probably need a second opinion on your definition of fascism.

[Kronos1965]

Originally Posted by TallTexan

I know all I want to know about fascism. I study freedom and democracy. I know one thing, I don't want government telling me nothing. I, through my vote, want to tell them what I want done in this country. Left to the left, we will be standing in milk lines at 5am trying to feed our kids because there is no competition in the markets. Go to Russia and get the definition of fascism, they know it well. By the way, don't know much about melding, but you probably need a second opinion on your definition of fascism.

You seem to be confusing definitions...

1. In Russia, they still practice Communism.
The definition of communism is “ a system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.” The definition of fascism is “A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.”

2. For those who espouse being "on the right", so far Republican controlled bodies want to ban stem cell research, abortion rights, increase spying on law abiding citizens, and in NC recently, they want to prevent people from buying lottery tickets. Under President Reagan, the Federal Government enacted the minimum age for drinking alcohol.

Looks like the right has many examples of controlling what you can do/cannot do...Left to the right apparently, we will eventually all be in jail...

[Kooshtaka]

Good definitions Kronos... ...

Going back to the original topic of this thread... I support Obama... let me say that at the outset... The reason I support Obama is because he is inspirational... and I despise Hillary... She specifically said that she would not visit any of the reservations (Native American) because according to her she is too busy... The Federal Gov't has a trust relationship with the reservations and with the Alaska Natives... since the President is the figurehead and top executive of the federal gov't... if she were President it would be a part of her job to meet with the reservations sometime in her 4 years... I mean it's not like the reservations are on the farside of the world... How hard would it be to take a couple weekends over the next 4 years to visit some of the reservations?... personally i don't think it would be all that hard... so it is my opinion that HILLARY CLINTON does not deserve to be president!

[chunko]

Originally Posted by Kronos1965

You seem to be confusing definitions...

1. In Russia, they still practice Communism.
The definition of communism is “ a system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.” The definition of fascism is “A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.”

2. For those who espouse being "on the right", so far Republican controlled bodies want to ban stem cell research, abortion rights, increase spying on law abiding citizens, and in NC recently, they want to prevent people from buying lottery tickets. Under President Reagan, the Federal Government enacted the minimum age for drinking alcohol.

Looks like the right has many examples of controlling what you can do/cannot do...Left to the right apparently, we will eventually all be in jail...

Agreed. It used to be that the Republicans were in favor of more freedoms, less government. Now they are in favor of less freedoms, more government...yet if you asked folks like TallTexan...you'd never know it. I think it's dangerous to assume either party's $hit don't stink. (In my view...) In order to bring about positive change, you have to be willing to cross party lines on occasion. The republican party has moved into very dangerous territory with Bush...I hope to see it change soon so that I might want to vote for one again. Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate that believes in small (probably too small) government.

[Kooshtaka]

Originally Posted by adavis99

Agreed. It used to be that the Republicans were in favor of more freedoms, less government. Now they are in favor of less freedoms, more government...yet if you asked folks like TallTexan...you'd never know it. I think it's dangerous to assume either party's $hit don't stink. (In my view...) In order to bring about positive change, you have to be willing to cross party lines on occasion. The republican party has moved into very dangerous territory with Bush...I hope to see it change soon so that I might want to vote for one again. Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate that believes in small (probably too small) government.

very good stuff adavis...
espcially about the fact that "it's dangerous to assume either party's $hit don't stink." And also when you talked about the ability to cross party lines is the deciding factor in bringing about positive change. And so far only McCain and Obama have shown that they do, can, and will. Obama possibly a little more so than McCain, But Hillary has consistently touted that she will fight. Fighting drives people further apart and less likely to bring people together.

[TallTexan]

I have already been through this definition crap with Clinton. In Texas, we know what the definition of is is. We have our own defininition of other things like fascism and communisim. So put away your Webster and vote for your heroes.

[Tmaxxattack]

Originally Posted by Kooshtaka

very good stuff adavis...
espcially about the fact that "it's dangerous to assume either party's $hit don't stink." And also when you talked about the ability to cross party lines is the deciding factor in bringing about positive change. And so far only McCain and Obama have shown that they do, can, and will. Obama possibly a little more so than McCain, But Hillary has consistently touted that she will fight. Fighting drives people further apart and less likely to bring people together.

Uh...when has Obama ever crossed party lines? He ALWAYS seems to vote blue regardless of the issue. McCain is the one who has lost a good portion of his base in the primaries for crossing party lines in the past. He is closer to what Obama claims to be than Obama is. Obama is closer to a 60's radical than he is to any new ideas (change). As long as he keeps talkin' and smilin' his followers seem to keep eating it up regardless of any lack of substantive evidence behind what he is saying.

[slayer]

If any of you believe the photo was not doctored; I have some ocean front property in Arizona I will sell you for real cheap.

[Kooshtaka]

Originally Posted by Tmaxxattack

Uh...when has Obama ever crossed party lines? He ALWAYS seems to vote blue regardless of the issue. McCain is the one who has lost a good portion of his base in the primaries for crossing party lines in the past. He is closer to what Obama claims to be than Obama is. Obama is closer to a 60's radical than he is to any new ideas (change). As long as he keeps talkin' and smilin' his followers seem to keep eating it up regardless of any lack of substantive evidence behind what he is saying.

I was refering to his ability to bring in a very significant amount of the independents. McCain also can bring in independents but to a lesser degree than Obama. Clinton does worse than any of them in bringing in independents. Yes, McCain has gotten into some very hot water with many of the conservative Republicans over his stances on several of the issues. i.e. immirgration.

[Kronos1965]

Originally Posted by Tmaxxattack

Uh...when has Obama ever crossed party lines? He ALWAYS seems to vote blue regardless of the issue. McCain is the one who has lost a good portion of his base in the primaries for crossing party lines in the past. He is closer to what Obama claims to be than Obama is. Obama is closer to a 60's radical than he is to any new ideas (change). As long as he keeps talkin' and smilin' his followers seem to keep eating it up regardless of any lack of substantive evidence behind what he is saying.

I'll agree with you that McCain has shown more ability to want to cross party lines than other current candidates. For that, he's made me want to listen to what he says.

Clinton has shown a considerable adverse reaction to considering to work across party lines and so her stances I find less likely to be carried bi-partisan and more by brute force and argument.

The candidate who chooses to work across the party lines has a greater chance to make real change for the next four years.