MadScientist, a detailed post from a leftist is, indeed, rare, and merits a detailed response. I congratulate you for having a significantly higher level of brains and balls than practically all the other forum lefties. Just the same, you are wrong in your post as follows:Originally Posted by MadScientist
I'm not black, but I can point out a few obvious holes in your argument.
1) The 'gay agenda' is basically treat gays as people, without discrimination. Gays aren't any particular harm to blacks, but bigots are.
2) Most blacks, like most whites will get a tax cut under Obama, but not McCain. If you are pulling in more than $250,000 good for you, but don't expect that many to worry about your higher taxes.
3) Putting money into the hands of people who will spend most or all of it, as Obama's plan will do, will stimulate the economy far more than in the hands of people who are not spending it.
4) Obama's call for increasing the minimum wage, will boost more than just the very lowest wages, stimulating the economy (see #3), and getting people off welfare.
5) Obama's health care plan has a better chance of getting passed and covering people. McCain's plan that includes taxing employer paid health insurance is likely to cost many people more than the health tax rebate he proposes.
6) The best way to reduce abortions is by improving the economy and by giving kids a comprehensive sex ed (how's that abstinence only thing working for you Bristol Palin?)
Tex, if the Packers o-line would open up as many holes as are in your arguments, Grant, Jackson and Lumking would each get 200 yards a game.
1. That's NOT what the "gay agenda" is. It is the promotion, teaching, and displaying in entertainment of the idea that homosexuality is nothing worse than a morally equivalent alternative to normal heterosexual behavior. Blacks I know, whether they are the moral church-going type or the ghetto thug type or any type in between are MORE opposed to gayness and any promotion of it than most white people. Anybody honestly disagree with that?
2. Obama's 95% getting a tax cut is pure fiction--an out and out LIE. McCain's tax cuts will be across the board, which means everybody gets them except those who pay no tax at all.
3. Putting more money in the hands of low income people--"those who will spend most or all of it" would indeed be a good thing, but first of all, it would NOT be the result of Obama's plans, and secondly, would NOT be MORE beneficial than increasing the money in the hands of upper income people--who would invest it. If you don't believe me, just ask Howard.
4. Historically, raising the minimum wage has been a nightmare for the very people the libs claim to want to help. Increasing the cost of employing individuals invariably causes employers to employ less individuals--a lot of working poor get laid off. Still, Dem/libs continue to push the same fail idea. More people end up ON welfare instead of getting off--assuming you include "unemployment compensation" as welfare. In addition, the economy is NOT stimulated by purely private sector transactions, but only by either government confiscating less tax money or injecting money. Forcing employers to pay higher wages does neither.
5. You're right that Obama's health care plan has a much better chance of getting through a Dem/lib controlled Congress. However, it also has a 100% chance of doing more harm to the country and everybody in it than McCain's. The best plan of all is NO PLAN AT ALL--leaving well enough alone.
6. I don't recall commenting about sex ed. I'm pretty much neutral/don't care about that. Similarly, while I am tacitly against abortion, it ranks pretty far down the list of issues for me.
My arguments actually are much more similar to the PASS BLOCKING of the Packer O Line, but then, I went all through that in the other side of the forum.
Reply With Quote