Thursday, August 28, 2008
Sugar-Coated Placebos
The sad reality of things, folks, is that both of these Presidential candidates have been absolutely miserable. This country is staring at 400 billion dollar deficits/a multi, Multi, MULTI, trillion dollar debt and these two clowns have have been giving us shit. I mean, sure, Obama wants to eliminate Bush's tax-cuts. O.K.,fine. But what the hell does that frigging give us, for Christ, 70-80 billion (most of which the Democratic congress would probably blow on increased social spending anyway)? Oh, and then there's Mr. McCain. What's his magic bullet here. Yep, you got it, "ear-marks". I mean, don't get me wrong. That's as good a place to start as any. But what could that alone possibly save us? Try less than 20 billion...............................................You do see what I'm saying here, right? The frigging guys are tinkering. And while they're tinkering, the problem is getting worse. Do the words, demographic nightmare, mean anything to you? The sad fact here is that with the baby-boom generation aging, retiring, and taxing the Medicare/Social Security systems beyond belief, we're going to need something bold and a hell of a lot more honest than those poor excuses for candidates are giving us. Bottom-line, folks, we're either going to have to increase the retirement age, markedly raise taxes, and/or means-test. Hell, we might even have to revisit that nasty little bugger/nonstarter called partial privatization (on a voluntary basis, of course). I seem to recall Senator Biden once saying that partial privatization might in fact be a good idea. Of course, this was before President Bush officially proposed it to Congress (the mere fact that Bush proposed it made him change his mind?). Talk about partisan capitulation, huh?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
68 comments:
Partial privatization won't address the shortfall.
The real problem lies in the general economy and general revenues though.
We might have to go back to shudder Import tariffs. you know like our country ran on for most of it's history and imports were a luxury.
You know back when we were energy self sufficient and we were an exporter nation.
Partial privatization would give people a much better return, long term. Even if they stayed with conservative options like C.D.s and short-term bond funds, they would do much better than with the current system.
long term
And the _Proof_ could/would be destroyed with just one bad round of the economy/Stock Market.
The current system is not intended to be your retirement, it's meant to be a safety net for a large group over a long term.
Everyone has the right to purchase C.D.s and short-term bond funds now, no need to scrap any part of SS for that.
The closer one gets to retirement, the more conservative your choices should be. And it would be a voluntary thing, too. Anybody who wants to stay in the current system would still be able to. Yes, we can get C.D.s now, but not with our S.S. money. And not everybody can afford to put money aside. I like it when the government empowers people.
Will there is NO way to be conservative enough for the fall the stock market is STARTING to go thru,
Most banks haven't written HALF of the toxic debt off they hold off their balance sheets
With the collapse of the US auto corps and the infrastructure which uses to service the US auto industry Wall Street has a long bumpy downward road ahead of it.
Add to that the credit crunch which is starting to hit both the US consumer and business borrowers, the fall can't be supported by new borrowing against falling house prices and balance sheets.
Most who held Enron, Tyco, Worldcom lost their shirts with NO safety net which Social Security Insurance was created to be, a safety net when ALL else fails, like the stock market does from time to time.
Something which is the foundation of a persons retirement NOT something to make hugh profits off of.
You don't use your car insurance as an investment nor dso you use your home or life insurance as an investment vehicle to create a hugh nest egg, it is for when things go wrong.
Social Security INSURANCE is the same type of vehicle for the American people.
Social Security, in the United States, currently refers to the federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program.
See it is an insurance program which right wingers and wall Street want to milk like they milked Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with the sub prime debacle, or how some milked the Iraqi War for their personal financial benefit.
So to claim it needs privatization is to be clueless what it really was created for and why it needs to stop being raided by Reagan type fiscal criminals who want to steal that money and pass the bill to future generations.
I like it when the government empowers people.
Too bad the people the right wingers and wall Street crowd want to "empower" are the very same people who built the fraud which is sub prime and built the fraud which was Enron ET Al for their personal profit while MILKING Millions out of their retirement investments, Social security is still there when frauds like these have done their best to steal as much as they can.
Social Security don't need privatization, right wingers and wall Street bankers need to stop being trying to be white collar criminals with the tax payers money.
Like I said, Clif, it would be voluntary. Cashed in your 401K already, bro? And what about when Obama takes over? He'll clean up all that shit and make it safe to invest again, right? RIGHT?
Getting testy AGAIN son?
Can't rebut so sling a little widdle will anger?
BTW it is insurance, well that means it ain't an investment as much as a last resort before nothing at all, can't a doofus like YOU get that?
Will said "I mean, sure, Obama wants to eliminate Bush's tax-cuts. O.K.,fine. But what the hell does that frigging give us, for Christ, 70-80 billion (most of which the Democratic congress would probably blow on increased social spending anyway)"
ALL YOU EVER DO IS POST LIES AND BS...................
Lets look at the facts Billy
1) Obama doesnt want to eliminate Bush's tax cuts he wants to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the WEALTHIEST 1% of our country.
2) the truth is Obama wants to cut taxes for 95% of America, under his plan the middle class or 80% of america would see a $1000 tax cut or a 300% bigger than McSame's tax cut.
3) Please tell me how cutting taxes for 95% of American and giving 80% of America a 300% larger tax cut than McSame is "eliminating Bush's tax cuts" or raising taxes..........i'm all ears Bill?
4) Obama has stated he will use the tax increase on the top 1% to cut taxes $1000 for the middle class...........do YOU have any evidence he is lying and is REALLY going to use this for social programs and not a tax cut like he says or are you just spreading more unsubstantied lies, propaganda and BS for Right Wing partisan trolls like Volt and Crusty?
Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...
Partial privatization would give people a much better return, long term. Even if they stayed with conservative options like C.D.s and short-term bond funds, they would do much better than with the current system."
BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You know NOTHING about energy or investing Billy...............ONLY a complete FOOL would think investing in CD's when the Fed Funds Rate is 2% and inflation is in the double digits is a GOOD longterm investment.
Do you know ANYTHING about negative interest rates or how a declining dollar impact returns in CD's or bonds..............if you think CD's or bonds are safe in the current environment then your a MUCH bigger fool than i gave you credit for being!
Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...
The closer one gets to retirement, the more conservative your choices should be. And it would be a voluntary thing, too. Anybody who wants to stay in the current system would still be able to. Yes, we can get C.D.s now, but not with our S.S. money. And not everybody can afford to put money aside. I like it when the government empowers people."
Like 1138 wisely said SS is supposed to be a safety net not a crap shoot.
Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...
Like I said, Clif, it would be voluntary. Cashed in your 401K already, bro? And what about when Obama takes over? He'll clean up all that shit and make it safe to invest again, right? RIGHT?"
THATS a PERFECT example of YOUR BILL O'REILLY partisanship.............YOU seem to be under the delusion that just because you occasionally criticize both partys or candidates on certain issues THAT makes you an unbiased moderate, despite the fact that you CONSTANTLY view EVERYTHING through an extremely partisan prism.
Your Obama will clean things up snide remark is a pRIME example...........Energy and the economy are NOT partisan issues the TRUTH and the FACTS are independent of partisanship............Obama can no more prevent an economic implosion brought on by decades of failed disasterous crony capitalitism than bringing an umbrella or wearing a seat belt can prevent rain or a car accident.................Sure wearing a seat belt or carrying an umbrella are wise choices and can help lesson the effects of a car accident and help you stay dry but they cant.........PREVENT a imminent rain storm or car accident any more than Obama can prevent an econonomic implosion.
Sure Obama will put us on a better course with smarter policies but if wee dont put ourselves on the right path by working towards energy independence and creating good paying jobs and adhering to sound economic principles rather than as Bush Senior put it Voodoo economics the endgame will make the Great Depression look like the Good Old Days in comparison.
I didn't accuse him of raising taxes, idiot. Eliminating Bush's "tax cuts for the wealthy" (that's how they word it, right?) is how I should have stated it. And since I was focusing on the deficit, Mr. feeble-minded, if Obama cuts taxes for ANYBODY, that will make the deficit even worse. Of course, Obama will increase social spending, stooge. He's promising everybody everything. His health care plan alone is going to tax the treasury beyond belief. He's a politician, Mike. They like to spend the taxpayers money. I really don't think that you read carefully what I write. And you're kind of a nut-ball, too.
Clifffff, it's the taxpayer's money. It gets taken out of their paycheck (the payroll tax - oops, forgot, you don't work) every week. If they want to invest it in corporate America or in C.D.s, they should be able to, no?
Clifffff, you're crazy. The fact that you see me as partisan shows how incredibly off the charts partisan you are. If I'm partisan, what are you, Clifffff? I'm a partisan Republican who hasn't voted Republican in 20 years, and who isn't going to this election, either. How frigging delusional can you be, ass-hole? Look back to my postings before I met you lunatics. They were like 85% critical of the right. It was only after I became exposed to you whack-jobs that I got closer to the 50-50 mark. You frigging guys pushed me in that direction with your lunacy-ladened spite. Glorifying Obama - he's a frigging dude, for Christ sakes.
Selective perception, you guys have turned it into an art-form. Impressive and, yet, sad. Very sad, actually.
Bill Clinton's crony capitalism? The government, though, THEY can be totally trusted. Incredible.
Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...
I didn't accuse him of raising taxes, idiot. Eliminating Bush's "tax cuts for the wealthy" (that's how they word it, right?) is how I should have stated it."
Well Will...........there is a HUGE difference between a blanket ELIMATING THE BUSH tax cuts which implies raising taxes on EVERYONE and a qualified Elimiating the Bush Tax cuts for the wealthies 1%...................ONE implies RAISING taxes for EVERYONE while the other implies raising taxes for the top 1% while cutting taxes for 95% of the country and cutting taxes 300% MORE than McSame for 80% of the country which is a TAX CUT NOT an elimination of a tax cut ie a tax increase.
So YOU NEED to either admit you made a mistake and were ighnorant of the facts or were being dishonest and trying to carry water for the Right wing and spread lies and propaganda to smear Obama.............something a fair minded unbiased moderate would NEVER do!!!!
Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...
Clifffff, it's the taxpayer's money. It gets taken out of their paycheck (the payroll tax - oops, forgot, you don't work) every week. If they want to invest it in corporate America or in C.D.s, they should be able to, no?"
ANOTHER disrespectful smear of a veteran..........can the "get a job" Welfare bum" or "sucking of the tit of the productive " comments be far behind?
Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...
Bill Clinton's crony capitalism? The government, though, THEY can be totally trusted. Incredible."
There you go AGAIN viewing EVERYTHING threw a hyper partisan prism, and erecting strawman arguments
1) I never brought up, Clinton, i never defended Clinton.
2) If you want my opinion on Clinton i'd be happy to give it to you, unless you'd rather keep creating strawman arguments for me?
3) Clinton was certainly corupt and had a slimy side that has been extremely clear in this election.........but the economy particularly the working class did exponentionally better under Clinton than uder Bush.........wages for the poor and middle class went up, we had a surplus rather that a huge deficit, we hade peace rather than endless war, energy prices were low, inflation was low................yeah Will i'll take more of Bill Clinton's crony capitalism.........thats just the way i roll!
Bill O'Reilly said "And since I was focusing on the deficit, Mr. feeble-minded, if Obama cuts taxes for ANYBODY, that will make the deficit even worse."
Obama has said he will PAY for all his tax cuts by raising taxes on the wealthiest 1%...........please explain how that will make the deficit worse.............Obama has said his tax cuts UNLIKE Bush's and McSame's will be revenue neutral............besidesthe Right Wing says cutting taxes increases revenue to the treasury and cuts the deficit..............Are you saying the Right Wing are liars..........or are you just ONCE AGAIN accusing Obama of lying with out a shred of evidence to back up your riddiculous unsubstantiated CLAIM?
Clifffff, it's the taxpayer's money.
....and SHIT for Brains they get it back in retirement, or if they become disabled.
They even have a provision for dependents in the INSURANCE when the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program is paying out the benefits of the insurance program they worker payed into.
IT IS insurance doofus not an investment scheme stoopid
Now go back to telling us all about your failed dates.
You can CLIAM to be a non partisan ASSHOLE
but you spew right wing talking points all the time you stupid ASSHOLE.
Getting testy AGAIN son?
Can't rebut so sling a little, widdle will cry baby anger?
BTW widdle will, I payed into Social Security insurance when I defended your gutless chicken hawk yellow bellied pussy ass son, so NOW I am collecting MY insurance benefits back .......
So you can thank me or STFU son.
Mike, most non-partisan non-stooges knew what I meant. But if it makes you feel any better, I probably should have worded it more precisely. BUT, as the left has consistently stated (correctly, I might add), over 90% of Bush's tax-cut did in fact GO TO THE WEALTHY. I thought that my point should have been understood. That Clinton shot was directed at Clifffff. It was to point out that we had a Democratic President for part of that time frame he was talking about. He seems to want to blame the Republicans for everything.
One thing that people forget about is that, for the last 6 years of Clinton's administration, he had to work with a Republican congress. Therefore, any blame that the right wants to foist on Clinton, must be shared by that congress. And, likewise, any credit that the left wants to give Clinton, must also be shared. This, from a guy who hated Clinton AND Gingrich.
Mike, FOCUS. As usual your pea-brain of a mind drifted and missed the actual points of my post. The post was about deficits and how NEITHER of these two mediocre candidates has even modestly addresed the issue. Obama's repealing of Bush's tax-cuts FOR THE WEALTHY will only garner 80billion (the deficit is 400 billion). And that's assuming that the Dems DON'T spend it, show more restraint that Republicans did for the past 8 years, etc.. McCain's main focus is even more anemic; earmarks (less than 20 billion). That was my focus, Mike. Oh, and if you doubt my numbers, they come from Robert Samuelson. He's pretty reliable. Don't you think?
Yes, Clifffff, we do get the money back (though, I know a lot of young people who aren't so sure). But, if a person feels that they can do better managing their own money, who are you to say that they can't. I, for example could do WAY better putting a portion of my payroll tax into my teacher retirement fund. And, like I said, Clifffff, IT IS VOLUNTARY. Anybody who likes the current sysetem can stick with it. And it's partial, too; only a portion of your payroll tax could be used in the private sector. Come on, Clifffff, be reasonable here.
And, Mike (again, focus, please), I didn't say that Obama would necessarily make the deficit WORSE, just that neither he or McCain has been adequately addressing it. Man, it must be tiring being you.
What's your diagnosis, Clifffff?
None of YOUR business asshole since YOU are NOT a qualified doctor to determine what I have.
Since the doctors in the United States Army and the veterans Administration who know much more then YOU ever will decided that I needed to be medically diagnosed as permanently disabled, and could NO longer serve the country in Uniform just shut the fuck up asshole and stop pretending your Crusty's little brother.
Other wise you start looking like a clone of the freepers who questioned why veterans need any thing after all they all voluntereed.
And son since you are a GUTLESS yellow bellied pussy who NEVER served, I don't need to ever answer your slanderous questions.
And, like I said, Clifffff, IT IS VOLUNTARY.
NO son paying FOR insurance LIKE I DID, while I served the country, is NOT voluntary other wise when somebody who REFUSED to pay for the insurance is disabled they end up on a public assistance program they NEVER contributed to.
Yes ASSWIPE they can VOLUNTARILY add to that I have NO problem with it,
but asking that gutting a program which has SUCCESSFULLY been a safety net for decades, and the reich wingers LIKE you are here doing .... dishonestly spinning half truths and delusional projections far into the future to destroy another portion of what helped create the middle class for the enrichment of the very wealthy and wall street crooks is well simply astounding from some piss ant who claims to be a moderate!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Asking to PRIVATIVE social security INSURANCE is NOT reasonable asshole it is extreme like the rest of the right wing attack on the middle class Reagan started.
Numbnuts why do ya think the middle class has lost so much economic ground since Reagan and his extreme right wing agenda has undercut the very foundations of the American Middle class?
Because they wanted to hand most of the economic benefits of this society to the very wealthy, and 28 years after Reagan began his dishonest attack on the middle class they have succeeded because the income gap between those who WORK and those who scheme to find ways of getting MORE wealth have never been wider since the crash of 1929. and we all know how that crash ended. with the great depression and the FDR response to stop the very wealthy from manipulating the economic pie to the detriment of the rest of America, too bad the attacks and slimy moves by the extreme right wing people like Phil Gramm and yes John McCain has helped create conditions NOT seen since 1the great depression.
Son your lack of understanding of what happened back them and WHY some push for returning to the very economic tactics which created the great depression is astounding,
So stick to posting updates of YOUR failed dates and attacks on Bill-O ..... at least you didn't look so shit eating stoopid back then, just paste eating stupid.
Maybe you can get a job being an ass-hole. THAT you're qualified for. Well, that and taking choices away from other people.
Clifffff, if you don't want your payroll (hypothetical in your case) deductions to be managed by you, then let the government handle them. I prefer the option to handle my own.
I voted for Reagan in '84 and Bush in '88. Snce then, I've either voted Democratic or Independent. You can't hold me accountable, buddy. You're frigging arguing with yourself, dullard.
STOOPID they are payroll deductions FOR an INSURANCE policy
NOT an investment numbnuts,
Damn No wonder you fail at so many dates son,
Your stoopid as a bag of cowshit ....
If you want an INVESTMENT added to the insurance policy you're free to do it, BUT the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program is an insurance program NOT any investment program,
try reading R-E-A-L S-L-O-W and move your lips son, maybe that will help the FACTS sink in son.
I got a buddy who was in the Army. He's medically retired too. Vericose veins...
Oh and Cliffy?
FDR's policies actually made the depression worse. If it hadn't been for WW2 we might have never came out of it. The supreme court even shut down several of his projects. (after he tried to stack it with 6 more justices...)
FDR's policies actually made the depression worse.
Bawhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwahwhahwhhwhwhahahahwhahaaaaa
Dolt that is one of the out right funniest things you have ever written son.
It was Hoover policies which made the great depression worse .... much worse to the average American.
Granny hips has a "buddy" with varicose veins?
"FDR had promised "I propose to you that the government, big and little, be made solvent and that the example be set by the President of the United States and his cabinet...Stop the deficits! Stop the deficits!" FDR made a flat promise to "reduce the cost of government operations 25 percent" and called for a sound gold currency (!). Instead, Franklin Deficit Roosevelt engaged in an orgy of spending and implemented the first twelve planks of the Socialist Party platform, which in substance was the New Deal. In his first year he proposed spending 10 billion on 3 billion of revenues; from 1933 to 1936 government expenditures went up more than 83 percent. He closed all banks with no intention or thought of ever re-opening them (banks are not needed in Marxist economics). After two years the New Deal was such a failure through waste, mismanagement and outright graft that FDR had to introduce a "New New Deal." The ND has been called 'a study in economic confusion.' FDR undermined the Constitution with blank-check appropriations which allowed him to control spending and blank-check legislation which allowed him to set up agencies to pass laws and regulations."
"Winston Churchill said in 1937: "The Washington administration has waged so ruthless a war on private enterprise that the US...is actually...leading the world back into the trough of depression." The New Deal was repudiated by the voters in 1938 and the Republicans took effective control of Congress. FDR made the depression worse and prolonged it, including the FDR recessions of 1937 and 1939. When he was elected there were 11,586,000 unemployed and in 1939 - seven years later- there were still 11,369,000 unemployed. In 1932 there were 16,620,000 on relief and in 1939 - after seven years - there were 19,648,000 on relief. The war eventually ended it. FDR supporter Merle Thorpe wrote in 1935, "We have given legislative status, either in whole or in part, to eight of the ten points of the Communist Manifesto of 1848; and, as some point out, done (sic) a better job of implementation than Russia."
"# 1935 Supreme Court unanimously ruled FDR's National Recovery Administration (NRA -a.k.a. Nuts Running America), the centerpiece of the New Deal, unconstitutional (Schechter v US). The NRA was a total assault on free enterprise. Industry was to be straight jacketed into government-mandated cartels given the authority to set prices, determine production levels, and regulate the workplace. This was something akin to Mussolini's fascist corporativism; and expanded executive power at the expense of the Congress and the courts. Democrat Senator Carter Glass denounced the NRA as "the utterly dangerous effort of the federal government at Washington to transplant Hitlerism to every corner of this nation."
# 1936 Supreme Court ruled FDR's Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA) unconstitutional (US v Butler). This was the program that plowed crops under and senselessly slaughtered millions of animals at a cost of $700,000,000 over two years. By cutting corn production the US had to import 30 million bushels from abroad. The Supreme Court ruled the AAA was "a central government exercising uncontrolled police power in every state of the union."
# In 1934, the British Leninist theoretician R. Palme Dutt published a scathing analysis of the New Deal as "social fascism" - as the reality of fascism cloaked with a thin veneer of populist demagogy. The Roosevelt policy, wrote Dutt, was to impose a State monopoly capitalism through the NRA, to subsidize business, banking, and agriculture through inflation and the partial expropriation of the mass of the people through lower real-wage rates and to the regulation and exploitation of labor by means of government-fixed wages and compulsory arbitration. When the New Deal, wrote Dutt, is stripped of its "social-reformist progressive camouflage," the reality is a new Fascist type of system of concentrated State capitalism and industrial servitude. The motive for FDR sending observers to Italy to learn how to implement Fascism in America is that the left at the time believed that Fascism was a midpoint between capitalism and Soviet-style Communism, that it was a large and useful step. They believed by converting capitalism to Fascism and then Fascism to Communism, violent revolution was unnecessary."
http://www.geocities.com/mark_willey/fdr.html
A reich wing version of history from dolty, who'd a thunk it?
The same CLOWN dolty uses for his hit job against Roosevelt has a website praising Joe McCarthy as a true American and those he was against as unholy communists even though the republicans in the Senate were the ones who lead the censure against Joe's unAmerican tactics.
Dolt your a reich wing GUTLESS asshole and will always be one .....
Well Cliffy, you're big on the Pentagon Papers. Try reading the Venona Papers...
Seems like you don't want to acknowledge all your heroes are communist sympathizers, communist agents or just plain outright communists.
Wanna try using Real American history instead of the reich wing MADE up version son?
Oh that's right then you couldn't attack everyone who disagrees with the right's attack on the middle class as communists ....
Instead of accepting that people who disagree that helping the very wealthy STEAL from the rest of us are really patriotic Americans like the ones who fought against the same type of abuse by the British during colonial times of the American Middle Class and working people.
I guess after the exposeure of the right wing in America as the corrupt bastards the rest of us all knew they were, your revisionist history is all ya got left eh son?
BTW gutless are ya ever gonna make it to Iraq or was that a lie of convenience also like three showers a day?
Dolty with your last post on your blog it looks like your in LOVE ...... hope will don't get too jealous.
Tryin' real hard at gettin' Sara to notice ya eh boy?
Good luck son, maybe she will.
LOL
Sorry son but My heroes ain't in the generation you seem to hate, ya know those who fought back again' out right corporate corruption and right wing mis-management until the whole house of cards collapsed, and then they went on to WIN WW2 instead of gettin' us all stuck in a total fiasco with NO clue as to how to get out.
Your at least a generation or two off son.
You don't wanna admit your heroes wish they could have established a fascist state here and are STILL tryin' son ............
She seems to have already noticed me Clif.
Thing is, if she's gonna hang with me, she's gonna have to become educated. And possibly lose her defensive arrogance in her stupidity.
She'd take a hell of a lot of cleaning up before I could take her home to meet the parents...
probably have to shave her pits and legs and bathe once in awhile.
You know how them hippy chicks smell...
I guess you can dream and jerk off till then eh dolt?
"Yes, we can get C.D.s now, but not with our S.S. money. And not everybody can afford to put money aside."
Those are the people least able to make good choices in the open market and most need the protection of the SS system.
You defeat your own arguments at every turn.
Wow, thank God. I was afraid that all of these comments were screeds against me. LOL Clifffff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How you doin'? Seriously, though, yes, it's an insurance but it could also be seen a form of "whole life" policy, something that many people consider to be an investment. Just a thought. And the government forces us into it, bro. Partial privatization appeals to me in that it affords people the right to stay in the current system but also the right to take a portion of their payroll deduction and invest it. Biden himself once thought it was a good idea. Oh well.
Oh, and, Clifffff, please, no more with the Nazi imagery. I asked Mike to stop and he's been good about it. I find it an insult to the people who actually suffered under Hitler. Speaking of, did you see how the Anti-Defamation League smacked down Madonna for juxtaposing pictures of McCain,Bush, and Hitler? That's kind of how I feel, too.
Clifffff, you criticize Voltron for using the Communist label too often to describe people who disagree with him. O.K., maybe, but you do the same thing with people who disagree with you. Anybody (including me, a guy hasn't voted Republican for President since papa Bush in '88) who strays a little too far from your message gets labeled a "right winger" (or worse). Maybe you guys can call a truce on this stuff. Look at me, peace-maker. LOL
Widdle Will
I NEVER said Nazi son, that was all in YOUR head,
I said fascist state like Mussolini and Franco had.
I believe you said "reich wing" once or twice. Look, bro, I know you're frustrated with the Republicans. I actually share some of those frustrations. But if you want to help Obama (who I gained A LOT of respect for yesterday with his Palin comments), you might want to tone it down a notch. You certainly don't want people thinking that your views represent his. That would cost him, I'm pretty sure. Later man.
Anybody stupid enough to think MY views make Obama change his views is probably too dumb to find a voting booth in the first place.
Actually, Clif, I was thinking that, if people still on the fence (still as many as 7%) saw the LC blog and thought that maybe Obama's views were synonymous with yours, that, too, might scare them off. I hope I'm not too far out on a limb here by saying that Obama (in both substance and tone) is a tad more reasonable than you guys. He's actually a lot like me in that he's somewhere in the vastness betwixt you and Voltron.
Trust me will Obama is between what you have shown and what I have shown in each of our writings, he is no wheres near anything Voltron writes.
I am speaking of the issues writings not the more "crusty style" remarks of course.
I think Cliffy has you on that one Will.
I keep tellin ya I'm somewhere to the RIGHT of Rush Limbaugh...LOL
Anybody who can honestly claim Rush is to the left of them stands alone way out side the main stream of American political thought.
Hell they are to the right of both Franco and Mussolini ... and probably thinks John Birchers are wimps also.
Hey the fairest and most efficient form of government is a benevolent dictatorship.
Problem is they don't STAY benevolent.
Volt, benevolent is in the eyes of the beholder,
You want to convert or Kill all Muslims, which you probably think is being benevolent.
And Churchill is right, democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
And all forms of dictatorship have been tried.....long before Churchill made that statement.
Post a Comment