RESPECT

[Deputy Nutz]

oh my god, nutz & oregon are refighting the vietnam war.

where do you guys stand on korea? I think Brett Favre got screwed by the Packers.

where do you stand on your partner delivering a swift donkey punch to the back of your head?

[ThunderDan]

Re: RESPECT

I am going to vote for Obama because I too beleive in spreading the wealth. I am in the 33% tax bracket and thats fine with me.

Go ahead and spread your wealth - that's admirable. But why would you want your money to go through the government? Much like the Annenberg challenge, your money - shifting and squeezing through the bowels of government - will be used for all sorts of things that do nothing to spread the wealth - it will go to all sorts of pet projects of politicians who just love to hear that there is a sucker born every minute.

This is so humorous. I answered your last question so you change the topic one more time.

Now it's about wasteful spending and government.

Are you trying to tell me that I should trust the Republicans for 4 more years not to waste money. We have had a Republican president for the last 8 years and he couldn't find one bill to veto? Nothing came over his desk that was wasteful?

The next President is going to need a decisive government that is able to act quickly. McCain with his "terrorist" adds has pissed off the entire Democratic Party. How is he going to be able to get anything passed when both the Senate and the Congress are controlled by the Democrats? He will not get the cooperation that he has been telling us about to reach across the aisle after his campaign. He has burned up all goodwill he had with the Democrats in Washington will his campaign.

Mccain never had goodwill with dems..he had "I'll cave in and go against my entire party to help you pass your socialist agenda" goodwill....that is not the kind I wanted him to have as president anyway...Show me one piece of bipartisan legislation mccain passed that an honest conservative liked.

How about the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act with Wisconsin's very own Russ Feingold(D)?

[ThunderDan]

Re: RESPECT

I am going to vote for Obama because I too beleive in spreading the wealth. I am in the 33% tax bracket and thats fine with me.

Go ahead and spread your wealth - that's admirable. But why would you want your money to go through the government? Much like the Annenberg challenge, your money - shifting and squeezing through the bowels of government - will be used for all sorts of things that do nothing to spread the wealth - it will go to all sorts of pet projects of politicians who just love to hear that there is a sucker born every minute.

This is so humorous. I answered your last question so you change the topic one more time.

Now it's about wasteful spending and government.

Are you trying to tell me that I should trust the Republicans for 4 more years not to waste money. We have had a Republican president for the last 8 years and he couldn't find one bill to veto? Nothing came over his desk that was wasteful?

The next President is going to need a decisive government that is able to act quickly. McCain with his "terrorist" adds has pissed off the entire Democratic Party. How is he going to be able to get anything passed when both the Senate and the Congress are controlled by the Democrats? He will not get the cooperation that he has been telling us about to reach across the aisle after his campaign. He has burned up all goodwill he had with the Democrats in Washington will his campaign.

I'd rather have less passed than more. I'd rather have less spending than more. If McCain simply counteracts the overspending tendencies of the congress that would be enough. If you recall, McCain didn't vote for Dubya's tax cut because he wanted spending cuts to go with it. Now that it's in place it would be insane to get rid of it with a looming recession. McCain is much less likely to allow the Congress to have their way. They are already gearing up for 300 billion more in spending, in addition to the 1 trillion that Obama wants to spend, the over 1 trillion the congress has spent on various bailouts, and the 'massive' increases Barney Frank wants (one of the major architects of the current economic disaster). Why would you want a compliant Obama with a spend crazy Congress?



P.S. did you answer my question from before?

Because if we have a government that has one party in control something can get done. Hey, it might be right or it might be wrong but at least we are doing something. If the party in control is doing a horrible job get rid of them in 4 years at least they had a chance.

Stagnation is not the sign of a good government.

[texaspackerbacker]

A few odds and ends here:

Bobblehead, good post about WWII. In addition, you could have added, even though it was the Japs that actually attacked us, we took on the even more significant enemy power, the Germans--a historic parallel to the War on Terror.

Regarding Vietnam and the tired leftist party line about America being wrong for getting into it, a big HELL NO! to that.

As anybody who lived through that itme period and was not part of the problem knows and understands, it was a BILATERAL WORLD at the time of the Vietnam War. There was that old evil empire, Soviet Communism, and there was the dominant force for good in the world, America. We fought in Vietnam to disrupt the progress of worldwide Communism--THE VERY VALID DOMINO THEORY. It is precisely BECAUSE we fought Communism that the LEFTIST/pro-Communist media at that time and the LEFTIST/pro-Communist education establishment since that time have promoted the concept of the basic wrongness of the Vietnam War. Rather, it was the way that war was fought--half-heartedly and in the context of trying to lessen the hate and negativity about the American cause spewed by the leftist media at the time that was flawed.

This crap about "none of the 19 hijackers were from Iraq" is the same old anti-American demagoguery and propaganda we have been hearing since day one. Saddam Hussein indeed was financing international terrorism; He had an al Qaeda training camp iside his borders; He DID have WMDs and was working on others. Taking him out was indeed, a valid part of the War on Terror.

And going back to Thunder Dan's original post about Obama's "spreading the wealth around" concept, I say again, the bad guys--Obama's people--are doing a much better job in the game of politics than the good guys--McCain's people. That "spreading the wealth" line is going to sound GOOD to a helluva lot more people than it sounds bad to--or than the "Joe the Plumber"/"protect the wealth" campaigning sounds good to.

[Cheesehead Craig]

oh my god, nutz & oregon are refighting the vietnam war.

where do you guys stand on korea? I think Brett Favre got screwed by the Packers.

where do you stand on your partner delivering a swift donkey punch to the back of your head?

Is this is advice from the same therapist to have you suck cock 24/7?

[mraynrand]

Re: RESPECT

Because if we have a government that has one party in control something can get done. Hey, it might be right or it might be wrong but at least we are doing something. If the party in control is doing a horrible job get rid of them in 4 years at least they had a chance.

Stagnation is not the sign of a good government.

What a remarkable statement.

[SkinBasket]

Re: RESPECT

Because if we have a government that has one party in control something can get done. Hey, it might be right or it might be wrong but at least we are doing something. If the party in control is doing a horrible job get rid of them in 4 years at least they had a chance.

Stagnation is not the sign of a good government.

What a remarkable statement.

It's actually a pretty succinct summation of the way democrats approach policy.

[ThunderDan]

Re: RESPECT

Because if we have a government that has one party in control something can get done. Hey, it might be right or it might be wrong but at least we are doing something. If the party in control is doing a horrible job get rid of them in 4 years at least they had a chance.

Stagnation is not the sign of a good government.

What a remarkable statement.

No it's not remarkable. Its realistic.

Let's assume that the Republicans are right and small government is good (lets just ignore the last 8 years; I'm talking about when the Republicans were champions of small government). If the Democrats control the legislature the Republicans can't pass their needed laws and government cannot shrink. We therefor cannot see the result of smaller government because it can't exist. Therefor we cannot see if small government is actually better than big government.

We should judge a society not on how well the richest man lives but how badly the poorest man lives.

[mraynrand]

Re: RESPECT

We should judge a society not on how well the richest man lives but how badly the poorest man lives.

Why?