My thoughts on Obama

[Toro]

#1: He is an extreme liberal..

#2: Totally unqualified to be president..

#3: Possible racist.. due to his church of choice..

#4: He has totally sold his supporters of bag of goods by using meaningless terms such as "change" and his supports cant name one thing he has done in congress..

#5: The only thing he offers different is his race.. You got a bunch of liberals/America haters who think America is still this horrible racist country and that Obama is what America needs.. Its called white guilt, they learned that way of thinking in the liberal colleges and public schools..

#6: If Obama was some white guy, saying the same crap, no one would vote for him..

And the great things is that we'll get to listen to the Far Right scream this nonsense for at least four years!

 

[Working Man]

Oh yeah we all know he meant that we were literally going to be engaged with the Iraqis for 100 years....LOL

Ten bucks says that as soon as we start to move the last 1ooo troups from Iraq, China will send in 500,000 troops to secure THEIR new oil fields.

But, that in itself isn't reason enough to have our soldiers getting blown up for a war that isn't popular, and was based on bad info..

 

[Working Man]

And the great things is that we'll get to listen to the Far Right scream this nonsense for at least four years!

I don't want Obama or Clinton. Only difference is that one is white, one is black, they both have Dxxx.

I do not joke when I say I would love to have Lou Dobbs as President.

That being said, it just might be the time that the Left gets the laugh at the expense of the right. The right should have demanded, and received a more constrained administration that didn't piss away American Rights and wealth..

How could any honest, and proud Republican be happy with the state of the affairs this country is in?? If seeing jobs lost, our economy in a shambles, and no one being held accountable is good news, then it is certainly time for change...

Hey buddy, can you spare a five?? (inflation)

 

[rayboyusmc]

Billy left US with a surplus.

George is leaving US with a record deficit. He and Cheney, however, will retire with the millions they are making off the war.

McCain is a loose cannon. If he were to be elected, he will tell all the real right wingers to piss off. He won't need your approval anymore.

 

[Working Man]

Billy left US with a surplus.

George is leaving US with a record deficit. He and Cheney, however, will retire with the millions they are making off the war.

McCain is a loose cannon. If he were to be elected, he will tell all the real right wingers to piss off. He won't need your approval anymore.

That may be so, that BC left us with a surplus. But, what did her do for foriegn policy that could have precluded the attacts on the US?? Why didn't he act on stabilizing US relations with the Middle East countries in general, and not just his favorite.

What could have he done to stem the flow of jobs to the Asian Rim, and to other third world countries? Those very countroes that have now taken our billion$$ in trade deficit, and plan to use it against us??

I don't see BC as the last savior of the US.. He was in it for himself. Hillary clearly stayed with him because of illusions of self grandure.. If anything, she is more focused, and on track than Bill ever was.. It's the wrong track for me, but I am not a democrat anyhow.

Too bad the slate isn't like an Etch a Sketch, where we could shake it a few times and have "all of the above" disappear.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Bill Clinton did not leave us with a surplus. It was through the efforts of private enterprise, entrepreneurial skills, and ingenuity that brought this country a surplus. Also, a surplus is just excess money that the govt has gathered through higher taxes, which really should be in the taxpayers pockets. The govt should never run a surplus off of the taxpayers. The ledger should balance when all programs have been funded.

 

[jreeves]

Billy left US with a surplus.

George is leaving US with a record deficit. He and Cheney, however, will retire with the millions they are making off the war.

McCain is a loose cannon. If he were to be elected, he will tell all the real right wingers to piss off. He won't need your approval anymore.

That's a lie, Bill Clinton, didn't leave us with a surplus maybe he balanced the budget. But we still had a huge defecit. Try that Lie somewhere else. Mccain comment LOL, the NY Liberalistic Times has done what Mccain hasn't been able to do, that's unite the Republican party. As soon as Obama's Liberal ways get out to the mainstream America, his poll numbers will drop like a rock. Hillary can't exactly call him a liberal......

 

[Obama4Pres08]

#1: He is an extreme liberal..

#2: Totally unqualified to be president..

#3: Possible racist.. due to his church of choice..

#4: He has totally sold his supporters of bag of goods by using meaningless terms such as "change" and his supports cant name one thing he has done in congress..

#5: The only thing he offers different is his race.. You got a bunch of liberals/America haters who think America is still this horrible racist country and that Obama is what America needs.. Its called white guilt, they learned that way of thinking in the liberal colleges and public schools..

#6: If Obama was some white guy, saying the same crap, no one would vote for him..

you forgot #7 Your next president!

 

[Gunny]

you forgot #7 Your next president!

Keep dreaming.

 

[Obama4Pres08]

Keep dreaming.

We will talk when Obama crushes McLiberal(McCain for those in Texarkana) in the national elections!

I cannot wait!

 

[jreeves]

We will talk when Obama crushes McLiberal(McCain for those in Texarkana) in the national elections!

I cannot wait!

This is hillarious an Obama supporter calling MCcain a liberal...LOL

 

[Gunny]

We will talk when Obama crushes McLiberal(McCain for those in Texarkana) in the national elections!

I cannot wait!

Three months ago Hillary was a shoe-in on the left and Guilliani a shoe-in on the right. Don't count your chickens before they hatch.

As an aside, do you even know where Texarkana is? That would be in Arkansas for those of you elitist dolts that don't know how to navigate through mapquest.

 

[Shogun]

It is the third year in a row the federal government has taken in more than it spent, and has paid down the debt. The last time the U.S. government had a third consecutive year of national debt reduction was 1949, said the official.

The federal budget surplus for fiscal year 1999 was $122.7 billion, and $69.2 billion for fiscal year 1998. Those back-to-back surpluses, the first since 1957, allowed the Treasury to pay down $138 billion in national debt.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/

 

[midcan5]

Bill Clinton did not leave us with a surplus. It was through the efforts of private enterprise, entrepreneurial skills, and ingenuity that brought this country a surplus. Also, a surplus is just excess money that the govt has gathered through higher taxes, which really should be in the taxpayers pockets. The govt should never run a surplus off of the taxpayers. The ledger should balance when all programs have been funded.

There is some truth in that but since the economy did so well under Clinton after he raised taxes doesn't that tell us something? The conservative line is that if we reduce taxes magic happens. Bush proved that wrong and now is asking for the tax reductions to be made permanent. Considering the infrastructure is crumbling as we reduce taxes that ultimately were supposed to put more money in the coffers and fix everything something is wrong with this picture. Soon we will pay no taxes as the reductions continue to help us out of the next recession.....and the next......


"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm

 

[jreeves]

There is some truth in that but since the economy did so well under Clinton after he raised taxes doesn't that tell us something? The conservative line is that if we reduce taxes magic happens. Bush proved that wrong and now is asking for the tax reductions to be made permanent. Considering the infrastructure is crumbling as we reduce taxes that ultimately were supposed to put more money in the coffers and fix everything something is wrong with this picture. Soon we will pay no taxes as the reductions continue to help us out of the next recession.....and the next......


"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm

President Bush put in tax rate cuts. This boosted the economy and tax revenue is up. So it wasn't a "tax cut", because tax revenue increased.

www.federalbudget.com

 

[JeffWartman]

President Bush put in tax rate cuts. This boosted the economy and tax revenue is up. So it wasn't a "tax cut", because tax revenue increased.

www.federalbudget.com

Which should be irrelevant if you believe in limited government.