PDA

View Full Version : Chicago Politics


Drefish99
10-20-2008, 12:08 PM
Wanted to share with the rest of America a little bit of our great Chicago Politics that will according to the media will be moving into the White House soon. Most of America probably doesn't know all this but they may learn the hard way.

BODY COUNT IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS
292 MURDERED IN CHICAGO
221 KILLED IN IRAQ

OUR LEADERSHIP IN ILLINOIS ;

SEN. BARACK OBAMA
SEN. **** DURBIN
REP. JESSE JACKSON, JR.
GOV. ROD BLOGOJEVICH
HOUSE LEADER MIKE MADIGAN
ATTY. GEN LISA MADIGAN
MAYOR RICHARD DALEY
ALL DEMOCRATS


THANK YOU FOR THE COMBAT ZONE IN CHICAGO. OF COURSE THEY ARE BLAMING EACH OTHER. CAN'T BLAME THE REPUBLICANS, BECAUSE THERE AREN'T ANY.!!!!!

STATE PENSION FUND $44 BILLION IN DEBT, WORST IN THE NATION.
COOK COUNTY (CHICAGO) SALES TAX 10.25%, HIGHEST IN THE NATION.
CHICAGO SCHOOL SYSTEM ONE OF THE WORST IN THE NATION.
WORST NEPOTISM AND SYSTEMATIC HIRING FOR GOVERNMENT POSITIONS IN THE NATION (DON'T WANT TO RUN FOR GOVERNMENT ANYMORE? MAYBE MY SON CAN TAKE MY PLACE)


THIS IS THE POLITICAL MACHINE THAT OBAMA SAYS HE COMES FROM IN
ILLINOIS. AND NOW WE HAVE A CANDIDATE THAT SAYS HE'S GONNA 'FIX' WASHINGTON POLITICS.!!!!!

Yeah. Can't you just imagine how? We are what America is headed. Democratically ran government where citizens are just too fed up to complain anymore and too frustrated to do anything. Spread this information as our media won't. Do the research if you don't believe me.



The views expressed in this thread are the views of the author and do not necessarily. reflect the views or policies of Spyder or Kingman Corp.

calebh
10-20-2008, 01:27 PM
i think it's odd you put US legislators at the top of the list of those in charge in illinois. maybe they used to be (as in obama's case), but they aren't any more...

also, what's the civilian body count in the last 6 months in iraq? i bet it's MUCH higher than 300. or do only americans count?

not trying to argue, as i don't like democrats any more than i like republicans (maybe i'm a crazy idealist thinking we can have a decent welfare system without excessive taxes or bureacratic waste). i'm just trying to balance things a bit.

also, coming from the republican dominated south, things aren't much better ;) didn't you ever hear of tom delay or david vitter? those are just the big names.

"The only difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Democrats allow the poor to be corrupt, too." - Oscar Levant

durrell
10-20-2008, 01:39 PM
I think his biggest point is Obama is a liar and America is too dumb to see it.

xsvly-fat
10-20-2008, 02:29 PM
also, what's the civilian body count in the last 6 months in iraq? i bet it's MUCH higher than 300. or do only americans count?


I think he was refering to only Americans but I'm not sure and even if he wasn't its not like the Army is killing civilians, there own people are killing each other and if you added up all of the people that they killed I'm sure it would be over 300 but why should America take blame for that when they are trying to stop it?

DFSniper
10-20-2008, 04:31 PM
got this from a friend, thought it would fit (in 2 parts):

Things Americans must know about Barack Hussein Obama before Nov. 4th.

The mainstream media has done everything in their power to cover up all negative actions and characteristics about Barack Obama. The American public has the right to know these facts about the “Messiah” candidate before election day.

1. Barack Obama wants to raise taxes on families, and businesses that make over $250,000 annually. About 80% of small businesses around the US make at least $250,000 a year. If their taxes get raised, they run the risk of not being able to afford the taxes. If they can’t afford the taxes, then they will need to get rid of employees, resulting in unemployed Americans. Not a good idea if you ask me.

2. Barack believes in socialized everything. He wants to make “Universal” Healthcare, which is just another way of saying Socialized Healthcare. Sounds great right? Well what he forgets to mention, is that the tax payers will be the main source of the income that will pay for the Universal Healthcare.

Obama needs to make the money to pay for this healthcare somehow right?

3. Obama says he wants to make sure that any young person can afford to go to college if they choose to do so. Well with college costing so much per person. How do you expect Obama will afford to keep this promise. He will be raising taxes enough nationally to provide this money for college bound Americans. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to pay for my own college, let alone every other Americans.

4. The United States national debt has now reached over 10 TRILLION dollars, and its rising everyday. Barack Obama plans on creating over another TRILLION dollars worth of new government programs that we can’t afford. Guess where the money will come from to fund those programs??? Tax payers.

5. Obama wants to expand government and make government larger. He believes that his administration will have a way to solve every problem an American will encounter. It sounds great to have someone solve your problems for you doesn’t it?? But the larger the government gets, the more control they will have over the American people. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to pay more taxes for government programs that are only going to limit and control what I can do as an American.

6. Obama wants to limit the amount of profit that the oil companies can make. Windfall Profit tax will take a certain percentage of oil companies profits and redistribute those profits throughout the country to programs that are lacking money to run. Again, sounds nice to help people out that need the money. BUT, imagine if you were the company making a great profit, and your President took a portion of it away from you. You worked hard for that money, would you want your government taking it away and giving it to someone else? OF COURSE NOT. If Obama can limit the amount of money that a major corporation makes, then imagine how easy it would be to limit the amount of money YOU make.

7. Obama is trying to convince the country that Capitalism is not good for America. If you don’t know what Capitalism is, let me explain. Capitalism is the freedom and ability to earn as much money from your business as possible. The harder you work, the more money you make. Otherwise known as the “American Dream”. To be rich and successful is the ultimate goal for anyone wanting to start their own business. Don’t let your next president take that away from you.

8. Obama has talked about taking away your 2nd Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms. If he wants to take away the right to own a gun, imagine how easy it will be for criminals to break into your house, and endanger yourself and your family. Taking away peoples guns will do nothing to limit the amount of shootings in this country. Criminals will still have ways to purchase or steal guns. That’s why they are called criminals, because they don’t care about laws and rules. Besides it will make a lot of Americans very angry to have their guns taken from them.

DFSniper
10-20-2008, 04:32 PM
9. “My first name (Barack) is not Arabic - it is Swahili.” – says Barack Obama. He may have been named Barack which is a Swahili name, but the origin of his name is in fact Arabic. Some say it might not matter where his name originates from, but if it didn’t matter, then why would Obama himself try to hide this fact about his name.

10. Obama has close ties to several very radical people. His church’s pastor, named Jerimiah Wright, who was the man that wed Obama and his wife, is a very racist radical person. Wright claims that white people in America invented the AIDS virus to spread to all of the black people. He doesn’t believe in “god BLESS America”, but instead he has been recorded saying “God DAMN America”. Obama claims that he had no clue that Jerimiah Wright had these negative beliefs after attending his church for over 20 years. He has been Obamas “spiritual mentor” for so many years, and he has never heard him say these racist comments? Obama is good at one thing, and that’s lying.

11. A man by the name of William Ayers set off bombs at the Pentagon, and the White house back in the 1960’s. Mr. Ayers says that he is a first degree communist and radical thinker. Obama served as director of a organization that was founded by Ayers that tried making new education alternatives in the city of Chicago. He also announced his race for the Illinois senate from the living room of William Ayers. Voting for a man to be the president of the United States that has such close ties to such radical people, is just a scary idea. Some Obama supporters will say “so what he was only 8 years old when Ayers did the bombings”…..etc . This is true, but should the next president still be friendly with a national terrorist?? I think not. Obama needs to use common sense when making friends.

12. Obama says that he “never practiced Islam”. When he attended school as a child in Indonesia, he was registered as a Muslim. No child is allowed to attend the Meteng Primary School without practicing Islam. I’m not going to vote for a president that once practiced the same religion as the people who attacked our own country on Sept. 11.

13. Obama’s full name is “Barack Hussein Obama”. Sound familiar? Some people recently have used his full name when talking about Obama, and they are now under investigation by Barack’s “people” to see if they can convict these people with any charges. Why would Obama send out an investigation on a person that simply pronounced his full name? It’s not the man that said these things fault that Obama’s middle name is Hussein. Obama must believe that if people know his middle name that it will feel a little too close for comfort and ruin the chances of becoming president.

14. Senator Obama says: “I understand what it is to be an African American”. By US law he is not an African American, but he is an Arab American. Here is a look at the actual background of Barack Obama: 50% white (mother), 6.25% African American (father, one side, 1 generation removed), and 43.25% Arabic (father). According to US law, you must be at least 12.5% of a certain race to claim racial status to that race. So he is actually more White and Arab than he is African American. Race should not matter when it comes to an election. A man of any race should have the right to become President of the US as long as he is qualified. But let’s not claim that a man is of one race, when so many different sources proof that he isn’t.

15. Obama voted 94 times to raise American’s taxes.

16. Obama was once an attorney and leading member of “Acorn”, which is a coalition of community organizers in the United States. When he worked for Acorn, he trained others how to become successful community organizers. This group goes around their local regions and gets people to register to vote in upcoming elections. Recently Acorn has been caught being involved in voter fraud. They have had fake voter ballots made up using the same hand writing to forge up to hundreds of fake names. In order to vote, you must be a registered American citizen with proper identification. These ballots have no proof of real people signing them. They have also paid a man on the street with cigarettes, if he would vote up to 70+ times for Barack Obama. I guess Obama didn’t train these new members of Acorn as well as he thought, or was his miserable training all planned out??? You be the judge.

17. Obama also has a group of his campaign people seeking out any person or organization that advertises the negative “anti-obama” tv or radio commercials. His theory is that if he doesn’t like it or agree with the message, that it should be considered criminal. If he is tryin to find someone as a criminal because they simply stated a few true facts about him, then that should be a little proof that he has way too much information to hide from America.

18. Finally. When Obama supporters make claims that Vice President hopeful Sarah Palin doesn’t have the experience it takes to make office…..remember these things. Sarah Palin was once a regular woman making ends meet to support her family. She made her way from a member of the local PTA, to mayor of her town, then to Governor. She has served her state and nation for years now. Obama has been a senator for about 3 years now. Most of the time he has been a senator, he has been running for president, which has taken away from his role as full time senator. His VP running mate Joe Biden has admitted that not only would Hilary Clinton been a better VP pick for Obama, but that Barack Obama himself is not experience nor ready to be the president of the United States. It’s sad when the republican VP pick has more experience than the Democratic PRESIDENTIAL pick.

When you go to cast your vote for the next president of the United States in early November, remember that not everything you hear about in the news is the truth about Obama. The mainstream media has openly favored the election of Obama as president. Have you ever noticed that you hear bad things about John McCain in the mainstream news channels, but nothing bad about Obama? It’s not just a coincidence. It’s unfair.

Take what you will from this information. It’s not a way to make you change your mind, but it’s a way to inform you about things that the media does their best to hide. If you honestly feel that Obama would be the better guy to be president, then go ahead and vote for him. But if the truth about Obama is just all negativity, then that should tell you something about his character.

These are just brief statements about the real Obama. I feel that people should be able to think for themselves. So if you feel that these statements are false, then do some research and you will see in time that they all have truth to them. If you still want to vote for Obama after learning NON media facts of the man, then go ahead. That is the great thing about this nation is you have the freedom to make your own decisions. Use that freedom while you still have it.


like it says, take from it what you will, and do your own research.

personally, i don't like the fact that he hasn't had a lot of experience in politics, yet is still considered "the best man for the job"

colonel_moo
10-20-2008, 07:03 PM
I think the fact that people even bring up the origin of Obama's name as an attack against him is the most ignorant, offensive, and just downright rediculous thing I've ever heard regarding an election. If I even hear that mentioned, I immediately dismiss anything that person has to say. If you are that prejudice (read: racist) to allow something so trivial affect your voting decision, I simply cannot trust your judgment enough to listen to any of your other opinions.

I also think its laughable that people accusing Obama of being a liar (which i'm not contesting... all politicians are liars) think that McCain is not.

DFSniper
10-20-2008, 07:06 PM
i agree, that whole name thing is a bit of a stretch, but its hard to overlook a lot of the other stuff.

calebh
10-20-2008, 07:53 PM
I think he was refering to only Americans but I'm not sure and even if he wasn't its not like the Army is killing civilians, there own people are killing each other and if you added up all of the people that they killed I'm sure it would be over 300 but why should America take blame for that when they are trying to stop it?
they wouldn't be dying if not for our interference in the region... and if you say they would have died under saddam, i'll remind you we put saddam in power.

again, i ask, do only americans count? a human is a human is a human.

xsvly-fat
10-20-2008, 09:12 PM
they wouldn't be dying if not for our interference in the region... and if you say they would have died under saddam, i'll remind you we put saddam in power.

again, i ask, do only americans count? a human is a human is a human.

I agree with you, in a way, but why did we go over there in the first place?

And yes I'm pretty sure he ment only Americans, why should we take blame for it when we haven't been killing civilians, we went over there to stop it all and it isn't an over night job, ok I'm done with this but can I ask you a question first? What do you think would happen if we pulled out tomorrow?

calebh
10-20-2008, 10:02 PM
more people would die, and it would still be our fault. i'm not trying to say whether or not we should be there right now. i take issue with the attitude that american lives are the only ones that matter.

DRAGON
10-20-2008, 10:25 PM
I think the fact that people even bring up the origin of Obama's name as an attack against him is the most ignorant, offensive, and just downright rediculous thing I've ever heard regarding an election. If I even hear that mentioned, I immediately dismiss anything that person has to say. If you are that prejudice (read: racist) to allow something so trivial affect your voting decision, I simply cannot trust your judgment enough to listen to any of your other opinions.

I also think its laughable that people accusing Obama of being a liar (which i'm not contesting... all politicians are liars) think that McCain is not.

Ya, I'd vote for a guy named Hitler in a minute wouldn't you? :dodgy: -

Osama Obama = loser.......McCain rules Florida! - :D

I predict we won't really find out who won till some time in the spring. There's already evidence of fraudulent absentee votes -

durrell
10-20-2008, 10:34 PM
I also think its laughable that people accusing Obama of being a liar (which i'm not contesting... all politicians are liars) think that McCain is not.

McCain isn't the one trying to capitalize on Bush's screw-ups. Obama is. He preaches change, but has no way of backing it up.

And my biggest issue with Obama is that he (and his supporters) preach about racism and equality, but who has made this a racist election?

Oh, that's right. Obama and his supporters. All of the NAACP leaders and their buddies are doing everything they can to try to get every single African-American Obama supporter to the polls by November 4th. They are the ones who feed the racism America deals with, not the people they are so "against".

And for anyone saying that white people are racist for not voting for Obama, that's laughable. It goes both ways, friends. I'd be willing to bet the people voting for Obama merely because he's African-American is close to equaling those who won't vote for him because of his race.

Pick your poison. That's what this race boils down to.

calebh
10-21-2008, 06:46 AM
I predict we won't really find out who won till some time in the spring. There's already evidence of fraudulent absentee votes -
i like how mccain has made a huge issue out of that, but, interestingly enough, the republicans are in on it, too.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-fraud20-2008oct20,0,3842357.story

colonel_moo
10-21-2008, 06:52 AM
And for anyone saying that white people are racist for not voting for Obama, that's laughable. It goes both ways, friends. I'd be willing to bet the people voting for Obama merely because he's African-American is close to equaling those who won't vote for him because of his race.

Pick your poison. That's what this race boils down to.

I agree totally. The same arguments came up around Deval Patrick in Massachusetts. You should vote for someone based on their qualifications/ideas, not their race (and that includes their name).

Regarding the statement "McCain isn't trying to capitalize on Bush's screwups," well you're right he isnt, but thats simply because he CANT. He voted with bush on most of those screwups. He knows that and everyone else knows that, so he just doesn't talk about it. Obama's entire campaign theme is change (whether or not that will happen is not certain I agree) but that means to change the status quo. Since the status quo is president Bush, why wouldn't he talk about it?

durrell
10-21-2008, 08:27 AM
Well you may have a point there, but the problem is a lot of Bush's screw-ups have been related to Congress and that will continue to happen as long as we pay more attention to the president than the Congress. America is a democracy, not a dictatorship. Our president doesn't make the laws and fiscal decisions. But yet everyone chooses to blame and look to the president for all of our problems.

I guess you really can't blame Obama for capitalizing on the ignorance of many Americans. I just hate to see it happen. There are going to be a lot of disappointed people come 2012 if Obama becomes president. That is, if we don't get blown to pieces due to his idea to basically totally disarm our military.

*Sigh*

STRIKEFIRST
10-21-2008, 09:54 AM
BEARS, BEETS, BATTLESTAR GALACTICA!

Simple match...Obama and the Dems are going to let the "Bush Tax Cuts" expire...Our taxes go up, inlcuding the middle class...Obama "Cuts Taxes for 95% of WORKING FAMILIES" (amazing he keeps leaving the working families part out) Do the math...Bush tax cuts expire + Obama tax cuts = HIGHER TAXES FOR ALL!

DFSniper
10-21-2008, 10:34 AM
Well you may have a point there, but the problem is a lot of Bush's screw-ups have been related to Congress and that will continue to happen as long as we pay more attention to the president than the Congress. America is a democracy, not a dictatorship. Our president doesn't make the laws and fiscal decisions. But yet everyone chooses to blame and look to the president for all of our problems.

I guess you really can't blame Obama for capitalizing on the ignorance of many Americans. I just hate to see it happen. There are going to be a lot of disappointed people come 2012 if Obama becomes president. That is, if we don't get blown to pieces due to his idea to basically totally disarm our military.

*Sigh*
QFT.


as for the tax cuts, we talked about it in economics today, and Obama actually has a better tax plan than McCain. if Obama's is successful, poor families will actually GET more money from taxes, and those making $1M or more will lose about $140,000. in McCain's case, his would actually GIVE those in the $1M bracket about $170,000. now, just because the [future] president says he's going to do something, that doesn't mean it'll pass in Congress (ok, in Obama's case it probably will.)

calebh
10-21-2008, 12:28 PM
obama's tax plan is that roughly (meaning there will be exceptions, as always) everyone earning less than 250,000 a year will get a tax cut, while those above that mark will have no change or more taxes. given the fact that my family earns less than 100,000 a year and still manages to send me to a nice private college (don't ask me how, my dad should be working for someone like warren buffet, and i'm not majoring in business lol), i think those whose taxes would be raised can afford it.

i don't agree with the huge increases in spending that would accompany most of obama's other plans, whether taxes are raised or not. we have a record huge debt that needs to be at least partially paid off.

as for presidential power... allow me to quote myself from another thread
the president has a lot of power, and it's especially evident when the opposing party barely controls congress. the democrats can't push anything through without worrying about a veto. if it gets vetoed, they don't have the votes to push it through anyway. bush doesn't respect congress. all presidents have the right to appoint judges while congress isn't in session, but few have ever disrespected congress enough to appoint people who would never make it through congress.

yes, i realize presidents can't do everything on their own. but they do have a lot of power. think of foreign affairs, where the president is the face of the american government to other nations. the president sets the attitude of the government towards other nations. look at iraq, here we are in a war, yet there was never a clear declaration of war, the majority of americans oppose it, but bush wanted it. never mind the cause of it, bush got us there and kept us there pretty much regardless of what congress has said. remember in 2006, when all the democrats said we would leave iraq? why are we still there? you could blame it on congress, but every time the democrats have come close to ending it, bush threatens a veto, which i've already pointed out, can't be overruled by such a slim majority. personally, i just think congress should grow a pair...
and when it comes to fiscal responsibility, the white house writes the budget, then presents it to congress, where it generally just gets bigger, even with a republican congress. roughly two-thirds of our current ~$10,000,000,000,000 debt was incurred under just two presidents, both republican. (an eCookie to anyone who can guess both correctly) if congress did what it's supposed to, then sure, the president wouldn't have that much power. but that 6 years of a republican congress rubberstamping bush is apparently very difficult to turn around with such a slim majority.

this is one of the reasons i don't like the republican party. the one area where i'm actually very conservative, they aren't anymore.

durrell
10-21-2008, 10:20 PM
Like my dad says.."Bush spent like a Democrat."

:p

calebh
10-22-2008, 05:36 PM
for more on bush's abuse of power, see http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1840274,00.html

Despite repeated requests, the Administration has refused to share with congressional committees the text of its negotiating draft, even on a confidential basis. But elements of the proposals under negotiation have steadily leaked out from the Iraqi side, and now an Arabic-language newspaper, Asharq Al-Awsat, has published what it says is the full draft agreement.

The draft agreement published by Asharq Al-Awsat would clearly contravene the U.S. Constitution.
The constitutional violation is plain: the agreement would cede the President's authority over U.S. forces in the field to a committee, on which the Iraqis would have veto power.By taking this step, the President seeks to remove the most fundamental check on the abuse of executive power — the power of the purse.the Administration has cut Congress and the American people out of the loop.

Drefish99
10-22-2008, 06:00 PM
But I thought people wanted Iraq to be more in control of their own destiny. Even the democrats wanted them to be more in control. This is making it easier by giving their government more control of what they want our involvement to be.

Not to mention this is all hearsay on the Iraqi side from "leaks". How do we even know what parts of that are accurate?

calebh
10-22-2008, 08:08 PM
But I thought people wanted Iraq to be more in control of their own destiny. Even the democrats wanted them to be more in control. This is making it easier by giving their government more control of what they want our involvement to be.
the white house crafted the agreement. many iraqis don't like it, and the government won't OK it without some major revisions. http://abcnews.go.com/International/WireStory?id=6085487&page=1
Iraq's Cabinet decided Tuesday to ask the U.S. for changes to the draft agreement as key Shiite lawmakers warned the deal stands little chance of approval as it stands.


Not to mention this is all hearsay on the Iraqi side from "leaks". How do we even know what parts of that are accurate?this is true. but why would they lie? and what else are we going to go off of? our own white house won't give us the details. you going to trust them? if nothing else, it fits perfectly with the rest of bush's 8 years

interceptorMR2
10-22-2008, 09:14 PM
I think his biggest point is Obama is a liar and America is too dumb to see it.


Tell me about it. We have quite the list to back that up.

But I agree with Obama on the fact that in the 20 something years he went to Reverent Wright's church, there's just no way he could have heard any of that horrid stuff he said! Oh and lets not forget that Bill Ayers has been reabilitated! :dodgy:

Another thing that really pisses me off is that today I had a talk with an "obviously unbiased" teacher, when I was explaining to a friend of mine that what Obama was proposing was extremely socialistic. I simply said that during his conversation with "Joe the Plumber," Obama said that he wanted to "spread the wealth" which is by definition socialism, and one of our staff members who was in the library at the time near us overheard me and attempted to correct me. She stated that what he said was NOT socialism and that Obama's plan simply puts more taxes on the wealthier people and then some of that money is distributed into programs that are designed to help with the financial situations of the middle class.

The funny thing was, I couldn't respond, because I was afraid of laughing. I just thought to myself, uh wait a minute, you just proved my point. What you just said is a textbook definition of socialism, so how can you tell me that that isn't socialism?

She also told me some crap about how Obama's plan will benefit small businesses. Assuming a neutral position due to the fact that I didn't know much about the situation, I asked my dad whether it really did benefit small businesses. This teacher told me that Obama's plan cuts capital gain taxes on small businesses, but when I took the question to my dad, who, mind you, has been in the mortgage and financial business for over 20 years and has a little bit of experience in this field, told me what capital gain was, etc etc.

Then I asked him, well isn't that a good thing that Obama cuts capital gain taxes for these small businesses? Shouldn't that be good? Why is it bad?

He replied, "What Obama doesn't want us to know, is that small businesses don't pay capital gain taxes. They never have paid capital gain taxes, so how can you cut taxes that never existed?"

Aside from the fact that Obama lies about his relations with people like Reverend Wright and the terrorist/60s radical William Ayers, looks down upon joe the plumber yet continues to say he is for the American people, votes present in the senate as much as possible so he won't have a record later that could go against him, and lies in his ads about cutting taxes in general or cutting taxes that don't exist, he sounds like a top notch guy to me.

And anyways, we all know that democrats just LOVE to cut taxes.


I hate all of this socialistic crap, It goes against our nation's foundation. in the early stages of our nation, the republic gained prosperity through capitalism, and our American Dream surfaced, being defined as "working hard to gain success and material prosperity."

The way I see it, I don't think socialistic principles are fair in this country. We work hard to earn our money, and then someone out there decides that "you made too much money" and says "hey, i've got an idea! I'll take at LEAST a third of your hard earned money, and spread it around!" Socialism in my opinion is essentially for lazy people. You don't want to have to work for your success, you just want to get a check for having a pulse? Then socialism is the choice for you! I'm not saying that socialism doesn't work in general, but when you attempt to put socialistic principles into an economic system that is nearly the polar opposite of socialism, I can guarantee you things won't be pretty.


Mind you, I'm only 16, and I already know better than the yearbook teacher at my high school...


EDIT: Almost forgot, this teacher also told me that If I wanted to find some unbiased material, I should look at international news, like BBC. Only problem with that is that, quite frankly, the liberal media is all they hear out there, and therefore they are all brainwashed with one extreme way of thinking.

DFSniper
10-23-2008, 04:23 AM
EDIT: Almost forgot, this teacher also told me that If I wanted to find some unbiased material, I should look at international news, like BBC. Only problem with that is that, quite frankly, the liberal media is all they hear out there, and therefore they are all brainwashed with one extreme way of thinking.

yep, thats what my english/us history teacher told me too. theyre just not AS biased.

vikingshadow
10-23-2008, 04:51 AM
In defense of those teachers - just because we tend to agree and "see" things "clearly" on this forum, they (teachers and OTHER career minded people) ALSO "see" things "clearly" because that's who they visit and talk with in their world. Being a teacher has NOTHING to do with it. You can insert any career into the teacher spot - their job is yearbook teacher, or librarian or English teacher - not political advisor or political guru. If it were a GOVERNMENT teacher, then I'd be concerned, but I don't go to a 1st grade teacher to discuss calculus, if you get my drift. (Sorry, I'm touchy when kids (no offense, just I see this happening a lot) try to one-up a teacher because, ooooo, they're a TEACHER and should know everything about everything.)

Remember, not everyone spends their time paying attention to forums where all they talk about is politics. The media has done a lot of damage as far as twisting people's perception on any story, and because of this many people don't know exactly what they believe or know now. It's VERY obvious that definitions are NOT as defined as we once thought as evidenced by all the "this means that" and "No, it means that" going on with everyone.

Ok, early morning rant over. Let's just not single out a single group of people for any particular reason not really having anything to do with anything, k?

DFSniper
10-23-2008, 04:56 AM
:up: vike.

my economics teacher is one of the few that i listen to, because for the majority, he's pretty unbiased and sees the election from a professional point of view, even if he is voting for obama (but that doesnt mean i think less of him)

STRIKEFIRST
10-23-2008, 01:59 PM
OBAMA-REAL CHANGE or AMERICA’S GREATEST CON MAN



On the ISSUES- YOU READ and DECIDE



FALLACIE

Senator Clinton and Obama’s voting record are not the same .Out of the 13 amndt or bills mentioned, Senator Clinton had a 10 yes and 3 no votes, while Sen. Obama had 13 no’s. Senator McCain had 8 yes to 5 no’s.

We blame the Republican Party for our mess but as you will see by the vote count, it takes a bi-partisan vote to get anything passed

.

The economy being our number one issue is discussed first. Out of the plans proposed, Sen. Obama recently had the endorsement of former secretary of state Colin Powell, and he said it was primarily on how he is handling the economy, as can be read on the Obama site. What handling? First he did not want to take the time to make sure the bailout plan was approved, while Sen. McCain was crossing partly lines to push for its approval. Second, when asked what he would do, Sen.Obama said he would have to wait and see what the others came up with first. Next, Let us look at Colin Powell credentials .The former joint chief of staff and secretary of state under President Bush. Is Colin Powell an economist? NO. But he is the one who sat in front of the United Nations Security Council and misled them about weapons of mass destruction .The only man that has less credibility then George Bush because Colin Powell did not have the moral fortitude or courage and come out in front of the American People, and admit he was duped by civilians into it, and in coming out early could have saved countless lives. His pride was more important than his country .It was not until Colin Powell’s aide came out with it that the story broke, after Colin Powell finished out the rest of his term in office. Sen. Obama has told us countless times how the senators who voted for war were not too smart, and none of them were a former Joint Chief, so what does that say for Colin Powell? Sen. Obama wants to make him one of his top advisers.

The endorsements on Sen. McCain’s proposal come from economists and economic professors from all over the country. They are not politicians. They range from Harvard, Princeton, Michigan and Ohio State University and so many more. A total of 39 economic scholars.



Health insurance and tax credits:

McCain’s is easy to figure out. Take the yearly employer based insurance premiums (eg. $400 a month X 12 months = $4800 per year) multiply by the income bracket percentage. If the family makes a total of $40,000 in income they would fall into the 15% bracket .So 15% x $4800= $720 This $720 is then deducted from the healthcare tax credit of $5000, so this family would receive a $4280 credit on their tax return to use in any matter they see fit. Simple and easy for everyone to figure out .If your are a low income family, let us say making $18,000 a year with no insurance, then you inform the government on your return who you prefer your coverage to be with and they will send the $5,000 strait to the insurance provider to guarantee that the premiums are paid and the family has coverage. It is untrue the way the Obama campaign makes it out, that it is more taxes for a family to pay.

This same family with a max deduction of joint filing, children expense, $80000 mortgage on the Obama website calculator gets a $2023 credit/savings. If they had no children or mortgage they would get $1000 .A far cry from McCain’s health care credit without the extra other tax savings and credits. Obama’s health care is a bunch of promise and wait and see. Nothing simple





The Obama Promises of change in Washington on lobbyists, tax relief, health care, energy independence, immigration and other reforms to bi-partisanship. His promises are from his website and his voting record is from www.senate.gov. , .On entire bills to amendments on, what Sen. Obama said was important to the American people.



I will first mention this amendment that was Roll Call Vote 20 on 3/3/2005. This is to show Senator Obama’s play on words. Its description was: To limit the amount of interest that can be charged on any extension of credit to 30 percent. The entire text is:



SA 31. Mr. DAYTON proposed an amendment to the bill S. 256, to amend title 11 of the United States Code, and for other purposes; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. TERMS OF CONSUMER CREDIT.

(a) Cap on Interest Chargeable.--A creditor who extends credit to any consumer shall not impose a rate of interest in excess of an annual rate of 30 percent with respect to the credit extended.

(b) Preemption of State Law.--The provisions governing rates of interest under subsection (a) shall preempt all State usury laws.

(c) Exemption to Preemption.--If a State imposes a limit on the rate of interest chargeable to an extension of credit that is less than the limit imposed under subsection (a), that State law shall not be preempted and shall remain in full force and effect in that State.

In numbers, this is what it meant to the low income .If you are one of the less fortunate and can only get a cash advance loan or one of those 99% interest loans ,then these are how the numbers crunch. On a $2000 loan at 99% interest, a person pays back almost $4000 for the loan. ($2000 interest and $2000 principal) On a $500 cash advance loan,a person pays back $550 after two weeks, turns out to be approximately 250% interest over the year .So the $500 turns into a $3000 pay back -$2500 in interest.

Had this bill passed,it would have taken the $2000 loan down to a pay back of $2600,a saving of $1400.The cash advance loan after 2 weeks would have been $507.Over the year, it would have taken the payment to a total of $650.A total saving on interest of $2350.

Sen. Obama and Sen. Biden voted NO. Sen. Clinton voted yes. It was a democratic sponsored bill.

Sen. Obama was asked twice why he voted No. The first time he said it had add ons he did not approve of. When he was called on it, after someone researched it and found out Sen. Obama miss spoke, his next response was that it was not good enough, Senator Obama wanted 20%.





1) On trade



HIS PROMISE to implement trade policies that benefit American workers and increase the export of American goods



Obama promises one way and votes the other.



9/15/2005-Roll Call Vote232-S. Amdt 1665-To prohibit weakening any law that provides safeguards from unfair foreign trade practices



The entire text of the Amdt is as follows;



SEC. 522. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to negotiate or enter into a trade agreement that modifies or amends any law of the United States that provides safeguards from unfair foreign trade practices to United States businesses or workers, including (1) imposition of countervailing and antidumping duties (title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; 19 U.S.C. 1671 et seq.); (2) protection from unfair methods of competition and unfair acts in the importation of articles (section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930; 19 U.S.C. 1337); (3) relief from injury caused by import competition (title II of the Trade Act of 1974; 19 U.S.C. 2251 et seq.); (4) relief from unfair trade practices (title III of the Trade Act of 1974; 19 U.S.C. 2411 et seq.); or (5) national security import restrictions (section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962; 19 U.S.C. 1862).





HIS VOTE-NO (REJECTED 39 yes- 60 no). There were 11 democrats who voted against it , otherwise it would have passed 50-49 . Senator Clinton voted for it.









2) On the lobbyists and special interests issues



HIS PROMISE is to limit lobbyist’s influence, shine sunlight into the earmark process and promote open government.



Obama promises one way and votes the other.







3/29/2006-Roll Call vote 82-S.2349 -To provide greater transparency with respect to lobbying activities, to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to clarify when organizations described in section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 must register as political committees, and for other purposes

. HIS VOTE – NO (passed 90 yes-8 no) There were 39 democrats who voted yes but not Senator Obama. Senator Clinton voted for it.



6/28/2005-Roll Call Vote 160-S. Amdt 1003-To require conference report inclusion of limitations, directives, and earmarks.



The entire text of the amdt is as follows: SEC. __. Any limitation, directive, or earmarking contained in either the House or Senate report must also be included in the conference report in order to be considered as having been approved by both Houses of Congress.





HIS VOTE-NO (rejected 33 yes-59 no) There were 20 democrats who voted against it or it would have passed 53-39. Senator Clinton and McCain voted for it



<Continued Next Post>

STRIKEFIRST
10-23-2008, 02:00 PM
3) On the tax issue



HIS PROMISE is broad tax relief for middle class families and a higher education tax deduction



Obama promises one way and votes the other.



First on 11/18/2005, S. 2020 – Roll Call Vote 347, which includes relief packages under Title 1 of the bill for Katrina, Rita, and Wilma affected areas. This bill also includes many other provisions for a) increasing the alternative tax exemption for single and joint filings, b) safe guards against weakening trade laws c) provisions that curtail tax loopholes and shelters and many other provisions

The second bill on 2/2/2006, HR 4297 –Roll Call Vote 10 of the 109th Congress which is listed as Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 includes the following a) $70 billion in tax cuts and credits b) $21.9 billion for health care for veterans, disability compensation, and hospital infrastructure for veterans from 2006 until 2010 c) provisions for exempting an individual filling a single return of $42500 and a joint return of $62500 from the alternative minimum tax d) a higher education tax deduction e) a provision that changes the tax on oil companies that produce over 500,000 barrels so that if oil prices increase over what they paid for it , then the oil company ‘s taxable gross income will be adjusted to the difference and many other provisions.(this would increase revenues to the government and, or keep prices down.)



HIS VOTE on HR 4297-NO (passed 66 yes-31 no) There were 17 democrats who voted for it but both Sen. Obama and Biden voted no and Sen. Clinton and McCain voted yes .



HIS VOTE on S.2020-NO (passed 64 yes- 33 no) There were 15 democrats who voted for it , including Sen. Clinton and McCain , but both Sen. Obama and Biden voted no .





4) On clean air and alternative fuels

HIS PROMISE is to give $150 billion for clean air technology over the next 10 years and to cut our dependence on foreign oil



Obama promises one way and votes the other.



6/21/2005-Roll Call Vote 144-S.Amdt 817-To provide for the conduct of activities that promote the adoption of technologies that reduce greenhouse gas intensity in the United States and in developing countries and to provide credit-based financial assistance and investment protection for projects that employ advanced climate technologies or systems in the United States.



HIS VOTE-NO (passed 66 yes-29 no) 19 democrats voted yes including Sen. Clinton but again Sen. Obama and Biden voted no.



8/01/2006-Roll Call Vote 219-S.3711-A bill to enhance the energy independence and security of the United States by providing for exploration, development, and production activities for mineral resources in the Gulf of Mexico, and for other purposes.



HIS VOTE-NO (passed 71 yes- 25 no) 18 democrats voted for it including Sen. Clinton and McCain but Sen. Obama and Biden voted no.



5) On helping veterans



HIS PROMISE is committed to helping the heroes who defended our nation today and the veterans who fought in past years



Obama promises one way and votes the other.



2/2/2006-Roll Call Vote 10-HR 4297-authorizes $21.9 billion for veteran’s health care, disability compensation, and hospital infrastructure from 2006t to 2010.



HIS VOTE-NO (passed 66 yes- 31 no) There were 17 democrats who voted for it but both Sen. Obama and Biden voted no and Sen. Clinton and McCain voted yes.



6) On Immigration



HIS PROMISE is a) create secure borders b) improve our immigration system



Obama promises one way and votes the other.



5/17/2006-Roll Call Vote 126- S. Amdt 3979-To increase the amount of fencing and improve vehicle barriers installed along the southwest border of the U.S.



HIS VOTE-NO (passed 83 yes-16 no) 27 democrats voted yes including Sen. Clinton and McCain .



4/26/2006-Roll Call Vote 94-S. Amdt 3594-bill includes funds for salaries and vehicles for border patrols, customs, and immigration enforcement



HIS VOTE –NO (passed 59 yes-39 no) 7 democrats voted for it .



5/18/2006-Roll Call Vote 134-S. Amdt 4038- To require aliens seeking adjustment of status under section 245B of the Immigration and Nationality Act or Deferred Mandatory Departure status under section 245C of such Act to pay a supplemental application fee, which shall be used to provide financial assistance to States for health and educational services for non-citizens.



HIS VOTE –NO (passed 64 yes-32 no) 19 democrats voted for it to pass Including Sen. Clinton



6/6/2007-Roll Call Vote 192- Sessions Amdt. No. 1234; To save American taxpayers up to $24 billion in the 10 years after passage of this Act, by preventing the earned income tax credit, which is, according to the Congressional Research Service, the largest anti-poverty entitlement program of the Federal Government, from being claimed by Y temporary workers or illegal aliens given status by this Act until they adjust to legal permanent resident status.



HIS VOTE-NO (passed 56 yes-41 no) 14 democrats voted for it to pass.



6/6/2007-Roll Call Vote 189- Bingaman Amdt. No. 1267 As Modified; To remove the requirement that Y-1 nonimmigrant visa holders leave the United States before they are able to renew their visa



HIS VOTE-YES (rejected 41 yes-57 no) 13 democrats voted against it Including Sen. Clinton and McCain.







Summary,

13 no votes across all party lines. Shows no bi-partisanship or concern for anyone’s welfare. For me, its more of the same .My way or the highway .Is it not what they criticize President Bush for, him thinking his ideas are the only right ones.

Promises one way and votes the other.





My Thanks to Claude F****e for a lot of research and hard work.

STRIKEFIRST
10-23-2008, 02:03 PM
The media has done a lot of damage

Speaking of the media....

Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
(This was originally published in the Rhinoceros Times of Greensboro, North Carolina)
by Orson Scott Card
October 20, 2008
An open letter to the local daily paper -- almost every local daily paper in America:
I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get
the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.
This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush
administration.
It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that
home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to
approve risky loans.
What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.
The goal of this rule change was to help the poor -- which especially would help members of minority
groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a
house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house -- along with their credit rating.
They end up worse off than before.
This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress
and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such
attempt and tried to loosen them.
Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of
Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies
were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political
campaigns of congressmen who support increasing their budget.)
Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth
about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700
billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting
personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?
I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty
parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."
Instead, it was Sen. Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied
that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to
watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even
further in promoting subprime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.
As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?"
(http://snipurl.com/457to): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the
Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."
These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to
Page 2 of 3
prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.
Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the
crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who
took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!
What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?
Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number two recipient of
campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.
And after Fred Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground,
was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice
on housing.
If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we
would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.
But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain
campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign -- because that campaign had
sought his advice -- you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely
because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.
You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.
If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story,
because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish and
possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.
If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the
American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.
There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq
sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension -
- so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false
impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)
If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President
Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack
Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false
impression.
Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's
money to buy or subscribe to your paper.
But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie -- that the housing crisis should
somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to
blame everything bad -- even bad weather -- on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them
to.
If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth -- even if it
hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.
Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the
Page 3 of 3
probable consequences. That's what honesty means. That's how trust is earned.
Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and
naivete time after time -- and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.
Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the
pregnancy of her unmarried daughter -- while you ignored the story of John Edwards' own adultery for
many months.
So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?
Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that
journalism is supposed to stand for?
You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women (NOW) threw away their
integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless
women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.
That's where you are right now.
It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and
help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.
If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print
if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had
consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending
practices.
Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the
reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping
the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.
You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a senator, to do what it took to prevent
this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get
Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.
This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading
the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.
If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe -- and vote as if -- President Bush
and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.
If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats -- including Barack Obama -- and do so with the same
energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans -- then you are not journalists by any standard.
You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real
journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a daily newspaper in our city.

STRIKEFIRST
10-23-2008, 02:04 PM
I have never cluttered a forum like this...Ladies and Gentlemen I apologize! :D

DFSniper
10-23-2008, 02:06 PM
reading that, hilary starts to sound good...

interceptorMR2
10-23-2008, 03:54 PM
thats what I said to my friends today. I had another annoying confrontation today with my ap us history class, and we were talking about lies that politicians have said, and of course, the only ones being said were "Bush lied about winning the war and the surge working!"

But hey, guess what? WAIT A MINUTE! The surge DID work, and people that have never had a say in anything that goes on in their government have voted for the first time in their lives, and were proud of it, and there were none, zip, nada, ZERO, attacks on election days.

The ignorance of my classmates of course isn't surprising considering that they won't care until they have their OWN lives on their own, but I was just amazed at one of my classmates, when she said that Palin has made just as many mistakes as Biden has.

so wait, was the mistake Palin made have to do with her having an 80 percent approval rate in her state?

Last I checked it was BIDEN who voted against successful sweeps like the surge, and Ronald Reagan's dealings with the Soviet Union, not Palin.

One of the kids in my math class kept saying "Obama will win and it will be great!" so I asked him if it was because he will cut taxes, and shockingly enough, he said "yeah! That will help the economy, like small businesses and such!" And of course, I replied, "The capital gain taxes that Obama plans on cutting don't even exist, so what is there to cut?" He just replied "Obama is great and will win the election, I'll bet you."

Gotta love ignorance because ignorance is bliss :dodgy:

vikingshadow
10-23-2008, 03:55 PM
Nah. (edit - to DF)

I still think she's watching this as closely as she can - she's going to come back in 2012 and say, "See? I TOLD you America screwed up by choosing Obama over me, and he got elected. See what he did to us?!" or "See? I TOLD you that America screwed up by choosing Obama over me, in which he subsequently lost to McCain and now we're screwed!"

She's going to come out looking like the darling that lost, and everyone's going to go gaa gaa over her, and I'm going to puke cause she's gonna win...

DFSniper
10-23-2008, 04:54 PM
and by that time i'll have my citizenship paperwork in order (hopefully) and vote against her :D

but seriously, everyones going to see all the empty promises the democrats made, and turn around and vote republican (assuming the democrats win)

STRIKEFIRST
10-23-2008, 04:55 PM
Nah. (edit - to DF)

I still think she's watching this as closely as she can - she's going to come back in 2012 and say, "See? I TOLD you America screwed up by choosing Obama over me, and he got elected. See what he did to us?!" or "See? I TOLD you that America screwed up by choosing Obama over me, in which he subsequently lost to McCain and now we're screwed!"

She's going to come out looking like the darling that lost, and everyone's going to go gaa gaa over her, and I'm going to puke cause she's gonna win...

Bryce, I have never felt closer to you than now...:D

Jut kidding...

On a serious note...my Father and Step mother have removed the Obama signs from their yard...they did a little research on there own and have "seen the light" :D How he spawned 4 conservative children is beyond me!

calebh
10-23-2008, 05:19 PM
and by that time i'll have my citizenship paperwork in order (hopefully) and vote against her :D

but seriously, everyones going to see all the empty promises the democrats made, and turn around and almost vote republican (assuming the democrats win), but then they'll remember bush and vote... nader?
fixed :P