Fat Albert

[PLC1]

first he is not a Dem...there are alot of key issues he is for that the Dems are not for...Some are issues that some Dems happen to also back...some are some they may back personalty but will not back as a party...some are that both parties are run buy special interest and care more about being elected then doing there jobs...and that we need more then 2 options...I did not support Gore because he failed to back at least 5 key issues for me...( alot more then that actually...I did not even by his being a environmentalist as I had not seen much action on it in 8 years, and he would not talk about it during Elections...because like many Dems...less so after Bush...he was scared to say you know what I am liberal, and you know what your wrong...and here is why...vote for me...no they pander and try to find the middle ground and pretend the other side has a valid point...then trade more away to special interest and end up with a bill that says what you want to hear, and does none of it. Libertarians are very far off From the Green party..so I am not shocked...

as for how I ended up with Edwards...this was 2004, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan going already....Nader would have taken the actions I think would have helped prevent both wars...but I did not trust him in charge of the wars after the fact. he also Ran without party packing and I did not care for his VP..Edwards, to me spoke to the middle class, the workers...and I felt a connection like somehow he actually got it...I did not agree on everything, but was the best of the Dems, and no third party appealed to me. Also his idea of medical court system that would rule early if medical cases had merit to go to trial..to reduce the large amount of frivolous lawsuits appealed to me as a sensical way to deal with it. When he lost to Kerry, who I did not care for, and was I have to say good and convincing Kerry backers to change to Edwards ( alot of Kerry backers only backed him because they thought he was best to beat Bush...not because the liked him more) But I had one mission...BUSH must go down, at any cost...I actuly liked his dad...I had no hate of Regan , I liked Bob Dole....I hate/d Bush...and I think it was sad in 2000 he was the best leader the Republican party had to offer,..if you lined up evry Republican house , Senate, and Gov of a state...I would have ranked him at the far end of the list in terms of smart enough, and qualified enough. And the Iraq was to me, was just a throw away of 4000 American lives...do to his fantisy world view and lack of planning ( and I belive at best misleading of the facts building up to the war) so I worked for kerry...though I did not realy care much about him and hated how he stood there and got swift boated.. Dems to often seem want to seem all nice to all...sometimes you need to just say you know what , they are idiots and I am not going to take this from them...not ignore and hope they go away.

In 2008...I had only one Dem i wanted...Biden...( Wes Clark was my VP choice for him) and again there was no major third party guy..) I worked with the Independence party of Minnesota, and spoke at our Constitutional meeting on joining with some other states parties...to basically put Bloomburg out as a third party guy...but after all his wink wink nudge nudge I will run...he did not, so no third party I liked . ( I like libertarian party on Social issues, not Finance)

Also I voted for Perot and Ventura ( Ventrua, best Gov this state has had in years...Pawlenty the worst by far. We had some good Republican ones before him...

Well stated, Pockets. I just hope you never run for office, as you'll never get elected by expressing your positions on so many issues. To get elected, it is necessary to obfuscate and try to make as many disparate voters as possible think you espouse their views.

Colon Powell expressed his views on the issues of the day in a similar manner, and didn't get anywhere in politics. I'm not sure whether he really wanted to or not. I don't think anyone in their right mind would want to run for national office, not the way it's being done currently, but that's just me.

BTW, Nader is a Green, not a Libertarian.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Well stated, Pockets. I just hope you never run for office, as you'll never get elected by expressing your positions on so many issues. To get elected, it is necessary to obfuscate and try to make as many disparate voters as possible think you espouse their views.

Colon Powell expressed his views on the issues of the day in a similar manner, and didn't get anywhere in politics. I'm not sure whether he really wanted to or not. I don't think anyone in their right mind would want to run for national office, not the way it's being done currently, but that's just me.

BTW, Nader is a Green, not a Libertarian.

Yes I know, thats why I was not sure why it was a big deal that Libertarians did not support him...but was asked about it so.....

 

[CoachV40]

Yes I know, thats why I was not sure why it was a big deal that Libertarians did not support him...but was asked about it so.....

That was my poor wording. I hear third party and I think libertarian (too many thought going in my head at once, guess thats why I shouldn't do this while at work.) As I was saying though, I don't really even give credit to the green party as even being a "party".

Pockets, I am curious though how you became a Biden guy. I haven't met to many Biden supporters that aren't from that area. And the natural progression from Biden to Obama was that immediate? Or was it I'm gonna vote Obama over McCain? Not that I even liked McCain that much.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

That was my poor wording. I hear third party and I think libertarian (too many thought going in my head at once, guess thats why I shouldn't do this while at work.) As I was saying though, I don't really even give credit to the green party as even being a "party".

Pockets, I am curious though how you became a Biden guy. I haven't met to many Biden supporters that aren't from that area. And the natural progression from Biden to Obama was that immediate? Or was it I'm gonna vote Obama over McCain? Not that I even liked McCain that much.

I liked Biden as a guy who was smart, and had a very good Foreign Policy record, someone I trust on Military matters, and was the only one to really put up a plan for Iraq. Just the more I read about him the more I knew, the more I felt he was a smart guy who while liberal, was not weak on Security, and also good working class guy ( ok so makes a bit more then most but not super rich as well.

as for how I went from him to Obama...it was not smooth, I had issues with Obama...mainly on security and experience. I liked him for VP maybe, but felt would outshine anyone running as a VP but Clark would be first Pick for that. I gave McCain a long shot, I never ruled him out for some time, but Obama was the way I leaned, becuse well I am liberal...but I "use" to like McCain...but then he started playing to much to his base, and throw in the implication that Obama wanted us to lose Iraq so he could gain politicaly...( that realy set my mind to go Obama...I hate that kind of politics) and well lets just Say picking the Idiot from Alaska...made sure nothing was going to make me vote for him.

McCain 2000 was good....McCain 2008 was a hollow shell of the guy I liked and Respected as a politician even when did not agree.

 

[CoachV40]

I liked Biden as a guy who was smart, and had a very good Foreign Policy record, someone I trust on Military matters, and was the only one to really put up a plan for Iraq. Just the more I read about him the more I knew, the more I felt he was a smart guy who while liberal, was not weak on Security, and also good working class guy ( ok so makes a bit more then most but not super rich as well.

as for how I went from him to Obama...it was not smooth, I had issues with Obama...mainly on security and experience. I liked him for VP maybe, but felt would outshine anyone running as a VP but Clark would be first Pick for that. I gave McCain a long shot, I never ruled him out for some time, but Obama was the way I leaned, becuse well I am liberal...but I "use" to like McCain...but then he started playing to much to his base, and throw in the implication that Obama wanted us to lose Iraq so he could gain politicaly...( that realy set my mind to go Obama...I hate that kind of politics) and well lets just Say picking the Idiot from Alaska...made sure nothing was going to make me vote for him.

McCain 2000 was good....McCain 2008 was a hollow shell of the guy I liked and Respected as a politician even when did not agree.

I can understand that answer. I pride myself as being an independent thinker. I will vote for a democrat if I feel like he is good, qualified, and solid individual. I love politics its what I do, teach, went to school for and I just can't wrap my head around Biden being anything more than a Senator. I understand the need for a solid game plan in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I guess I really didn't support that part of the Biden campaign. With Biden theirs also the likelihood of a open mouth insert foot moment at any time, and that also bothered me. After all we are talking about the Presidential Office, and I know that Bush wasn't an articulate creature by any means. Obama is articulate I will give him that........

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I can understand that answer. I pride myself as being an independent thinker. I will vote for a democrat if I feel like he is good, qualified, and solid individual. I love politics its what I do, teach, went to school for and I just can't wrap my head around Biden being anything more than a Senator. I understand the need for a solid game plan in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I guess I really didn't support that part of the Biden campaign. With Biden theirs also the likelihood of a open mouth insert foot moment at any time, and that also bothered me. After all we are talking about the Presidential Office, and I know that Bush wasn't an articulate creature by any means. Obama is articulate I will give him that........

see I like his screw ups, they are honest...bits of truth slip out, and ok yea so he swears...so do I, shows he is more honest in my view. Problem with Bush was even when he said what he wanted to say...he sounded liked a retard. And when Biden screws up a little thing, I know that he knows what he is talking about and it was a slip of words...when Bush did...I realy could not say I think he knew what he was talking about regardless.

also as a independent, but liberal...would would you think I would go to?

 

[CoachV40]

see I like his screw ups, they are honest...bits of truth slip out, and ok yea so he swears...so do I, shows he is more honest in my view. Problem with Bush was even when he said what he wanted to say...he sounded liked a retard. And when Biden screws up a little thing, I know that he knows what he is talking about and it was a slip of words...when Bush did...I realy could not say I think he knew what he was talking about regardless.

also as a independent, but liberal...would would you think I would go to?

I'm not liberal, but looking at the two options left Clinton or Obama, if I were a Democrat I would have gone with Clinton over Obama. At least she had more experience, sounded more like she knew what she was talking about, and you got the impression from her that she wanted to be President......Not just have power.

 

[PLC1]

I'm not liberal, but looking at the two options left Clinton or Obama, if I were a Democrat I would have gone with Clinton over Obama. At least she had more experience, sounded more like she knew what she was talking about, and you got the impression from her that she wanted to be President......Not just have power.

I think she still does. Maybe she'll try again in '16.

Looking at the lineup last time around, both Republican and Democrat hopefuls, the only one that was worth a damn was Romney. Of course, he wasn't electable, as the Christian Right would never vote for a Mormon. Why he might legalize polygamy, or some such nonsense.

The rest of them weren't really presidential material.

Maybe if the Republicans had fielded a viable candidate, then campaigned on that candidate's qualifications and Obama's lack thereof, rather than harping on how Obama was a Marxist socialist Muslim terrorist AntiChrist born in Kenya and all that nonsense, they would have won.

Come to think of it, there's no maybe about it.

 

[Pandora]

I think she still does. Maybe she'll try again in '16.

Looking at the lineup last time around, both Republican and Democrat hopefuls, the only one that was worth a damn was Romney. Of course, he wasn't electable, as the Christian Right would never vote for a Mormon. Why he might legalize polygamy, or some such nonsense.

The rest of them weren't really presidential material.

Maybe if the Republicans had fielded a viable candidate, then campaigned on that candidate's qualifications and Obama's lack thereof, rather than harping on how Obama was a Marxist socialist Muslim terrorist AntiChrist born in Kenya and all that nonsense, they would have won.

Come to think of it, there's no maybe about it.

I think Mitt Romney was a better choice than McCain but I do not think anyone could win against obama at that point in time. People were fainting over him literally. News casters had tickles running up and down their legs, without ever seeing his IQ he was deemed to have one of the highest ever by media morons. In obama's own words, they are drinkin' the juice. I can only assume he meant the kool-aid! Many of those people now wish they never voted for him but you could not tell them that in 2008.

90 percent of the people opposing obama spoke of his lack of qualifications, and a small percent (myself included) even cared to ask why he used an Indonesian passport instead of an American, or why he showed two different certificates of live birth rather than 1 birth certificate and that only in person to one source. Or why he had all of his records sealed from kindergarten on. and less than I would guess 2 percent said things like he was the anti christ and probably half of those said it with sarcasm rather than conviction.

His being a marxist, nah he is just an American loving conservative we all know that right! He proves it every day while he tries to spread the wealth around just like he told Joe the Plumber

 

[PLC1]

I think Mitt Romney was a better choice than McCain but I do not think anyone could win against obama at that point in time. People were fainting over him literally. News casters had tickles running up and down their legs, without ever seeing his IQ he was deemed to have one of the highest ever by media morons. In obama's own words, they are drinkin' the juice. I can only assume he meant the kool-aid! Many of those people now wish they never voted for him but you could not tell them that in 2008.

90 percent of the people opposing obama spoke of his lack of qualifications, and a small percent (myself included) even cared to ask why he used an Indonesian passport instead of an American, or why he showed two different certificates of live birth rather than 1 birth certificate and that only in person to one source. Or why he had all of his records sealed from kindergarten on. and less than I would guess 2 percent said things like he was the anti christ and probably half of those said it with sarcasm rather than conviction.

His being a marxist, nah he is just an American loving conservative we all know that right! He proves it every day while he tries to spread the wealth around just like he told Joe the Plumber

I think a viable candidate would have won by campaigning on Obama's lack of experience, but then, there's no way to prove that now.

Obama is not a Marxist, despite his comment about "spreading the wealth." What he was talking about was the graduated income tax. If that's Marxism, then every president since Roosevelt has been a Marxist. Anyone who believed that, along with the other silliness already mentioned, wouldn't have voted for a Democrat if Beelzebub had been running against him.

It was Bush, Palin, and McCain, not necessarily in that order, who got Obama elected.

But, that's just my opinion. There's no way to prove it.

 

[Pandora]

I think a viable candidate would have won by campaigning on Obama's lack of experience, but then, there's no way to prove that now.

Obama is not a Marxist, despite his comment about "spreading the wealth." What he was talking about was the graduated income tax. If that's Marxism, then every president since Roosevelt has been a Marxist. Anyone who believed that, along with the other silliness already mentioned, wouldn't have voted for a Democrat if Beelzebub had been running against him.

It was Bush, Palin, and McCain, not necessarily in that order, who got Obama elected.

But, that's just my opinion. There's no way to prove it.

I can not disagree that there were no real candidates and that Bush's popularity or lack of helped the D's

I really do wonder, what do you think obama is? A capitalist? I would agree he is full blown capitalist when it comes to his own personal money, just not ours. I do not really understand how anyone can deny he is at the very least a modern marxist, meaning a bit watered down from the original. I don't even think there is anything wrong with him being a marxist. I do not subscribe to that sort of thinking but also do not begrudge another from believing in it.

If you do not think has shown more marxist in his thinking than anything else, what is it you think he is and why do you think it?

 

[PLC1]

I can not disagree that there were no real candidates and that Bush's popularity or lack of helped the D's

I really do wonder, what do you think obama is? A capitalist? I would agree he is full blown capitalist when it comes to his own personal money, just not ours. I do not really understand how anyone can deny he is at the very least a modern marxist, meaning a bit watered down from the original. I don't even think there is anything wrong with him being a marxist. I do not subscribe to that sort of thinking but also do not begrudge another from believing in it.

If you do not think has shown more marxist in his thinking than anything else, what is it you think he is and why do you think it?

What do I think Obama is, politically?

He is a big government statist, much like his predecessor.

He is also a liberal Democrat, which isn't much different from a liberal Republican.

Obama believes that a big powerful government is the solution to problems, rather than a problem in and of itself.

Other than health care reform, not much has changed with the changing of the guard in Washington.

 

[Pandora]

What do I think Obama is, politically?

He is a big government statist, much like his predecessor.

He is also a liberal Democrat, which isn't much different from a liberal Republican.

Obama believes that a big powerful government is the solution to problems, rather than a problem in and of itself.

Other than health care reform, not much has changed with the changing of the guard in Washington.

A statist is like saying a modern marxist to me. Not the original marxist but a new watered down version of the old style marxist. Nothing is like it originally was, not communism not marxism, not even capitalism. Everything has been watered down.

Health care has passed, so far he has not been able to pass his other ideas, cap and trade exc. that seems to me to be a world wide marxist idea. It doesn't help the states at all or the nation for that matter, it will weaken us. His constant remarks about us not being a world leader, superpower exc. Things he still wants and is trying to do. If he passes them all is he still just a statist? Isn't statist a new term to describe an offshoot of marxist? like liberal is an offshoot of progressive. Except that now progressive is the new term for liberal.

 

[PLC1]

A statist is like saying a modern marxist to me. Not the original marxist but a new watered down version of the old style marxist. Nothing is like it originally was, not communism not marxism, not even capitalism. Everything has been watered down.

Health care has passed, so far he has not been able to pass his other ideas, cap and trade exc. that seems to me to be a world wide marxist idea. It doesn't help the states at all or the nation for that matter, it will weaken us. His constant remarks about us not being a world leader, superpower exc. Things he still wants and is trying to do. If he passes them all is he still just a statist? Isn't statist a new term to describe an offshoot of marxist? like liberal is an offshoot of progressive. Except that now progressive is the new term for liberal.

I suppose it depends on your definition of "modern Marxism." Karl Marx would never have recognized the Obama administration as espousing his ideals.

And no, the ideal of "from each according to his abilities" etc. is not a hallmark of the Obama administration, despite what his enemies are saying.

Do we really take from the rich to give to the poor?

Warren Buffet doesn't think so.

In an experiment of one, Buffet polled his coworkers to find out how their effective tax rate compared to his rate of 17.7%. The results of Warren’s poll: Buffett’s $60,000 a year secretary paid 30% of her income to the federal government and the average effective tax rate for the office mates who took the poll was 32.9%. Not one of the fifteen employees who took Warren’s poll paid a lower percentage of their income in taxes than Buffett’s 17.7% effective tax rate.

The hype about how we are trying to create an egalitarian society by forcing the rich to pay for the poor is just that: Hype.

 

[Pandora]

I suppose it depends on your definition of "modern Marxism." Karl Marx would never have recognized the Obama administration as espousing his ideals.

And no, the ideal of "from each according to his abilities" etc. is not a hallmark of the Obama administration, despite what his enemies are saying.

Do we really take from the rich to give to the poor?

Warren Buffet doesn't think so.



The hype about how we are trying to create an egalitarian society by forcing the rich to pay for the poor is just that: Hype.

How on earth can you think we are not taking from the rich and giving to the poor?

Rich pay not just more in taxes they pay at a higher rate. the poor pay zero taxes and in fact get things free from the government IE the richer tax payers.

Warren Buffet is an idiot who praised obama while talking bad about him behind his back. If he can not make up his mind on who he wants for president I am not shocked that he can not make up his mind on if the rich are paying for the poor.


Who on earth is paying for my drunk brothers section 8 housing? and his food stamps?

How do I get a check back from the federal government bigger 3 or 4 times bigger than I paid into it? Unless the money literally grows on trees, I am getting it from the rich tax payers who are paying the way for the poor like me.

Its bad enough that we extort the rich for their money but my gosh lets at least give them credit for the funds!