End times are nigh: Sarah Palin

[Jeffbert]

I do know better than to expect rational debate from belivers, but I will put my head in the lion's mouth anyway. I have been watching this thread for a while but held my peace because it was futile to argue. But here goes:

You have been vigorously scrutinizing the Republican candidates, have you no critiques of either Obama or his Biden? I know this activates your defensive mechanisms, and you are now likely considering new attacks of the Republicans. Before you respond, let me show you my open-minded scepticism:

I am agnostic, so I too have a problem with people believing the unbelievable. But with respect to Conservatives, they tend to believe in a loving, caring, God who has a book that is chock full of miracles, but very conveniently has believers who excuse him from doing any such miracles now. They pray, and lay hands on people, saying that God has healed so & so, but the blind, lame, mentally retarded, etc are left for dead. They say that God's ways are above our ways, thus, we cannot understand why these are left to suffer.

The Liberals, on the other hand, believe that big government, higher tax rates on certain segments of wage-earners, more regulations, and less freedom are the answers to all problems. Their candidates moan over businesses that have relocated their manufacturing facilities overseas, and Americans who lost their jobs because of it. It cost the businesses big bucks to move, so why did they move? It might have been because certain politicians raised the cost of having those facilities in the USA by raising minimum wages (repeatedly), passing laws that mandated other massive expenditatures, etc. Also, these things likewise motivated business owners to hire criminal aliens.

The graduated income tax is the way these politicians appeal to lower income voters; as is the raising of the minimum wage; however, by sticking it to the rich, they remove motivatation the rich had to start new businesses, expand old ones, and even may cost new workers their jobs. How does Obama intend to give tax cuts to 95% when no more than 70 % even pay taxes?

I could go on, but it is futile to expect anyone who has already posted here to apply the same scrutiny to their own politicians as they apply to the Republicans'.

[Kevin]

It was the republicans that drove this country over 9 trillion into debt while borrowing 2 trillion from China.

You know how they did that Jeffbert?

THEY DEREGULATED THE GOVERNMENT

It is ON THE REPUBLICANS HEADS.

I don't care if you don't like that, but it is the truth! It is exactly what happened back in the mid-late 20s under the Secretary of Commerce HERBERT HOOVER and THEN PRESIDENT HERBERT HOOVER.

You're not going to get a tit for tat from me on this issue, jeffbert, because NEITHER BIDEN NOR OBAMA EVER DID ANYTHING THIS VULGARLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE COUNTRY! Sarah Palin and John McCain both SUPPORT this retarded way of handling government finances.

[cmoon]

Jeffbert> Great post. The problem for a lot of people is there really isn't a party that represents ordinary US Americans anymore. Modern day republicans are not historically the party that Republicans once were--and if they were, I probably would be a republican. The argument can also be leveled at democrats, who once represented a more down-to-earth blue collar perspective.

In today's politics, all bets are off. The republicans have come to represent an almost cartoon religious right which is ironically not a majority view in this nation at all; but so many people are even more afraid of the cartoon-esque extreme liberals that it is hard to blame them. The truth is that both parties suck.

In the up and coming election, I have no problem supporting Obama (and personally believe that McCain (w/o Palin) isn't a bad candidate either), but regardless, it will always be a lesser of two evils (or weevils ) Ultimately we will not see the correct leader for the US who would be someone who did not feel the need to bow to the lowest common denominator (be it religion, party, class, race, etc.), but I feel at times this can never happen in the US. Given all that, Obama may give us a good 4 or 8 years...at least something better than what we've had with Bush.

Whatever we get, I hope they put far more focus on environmental issues. Blah:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7651981.stm

[Jeffbert]

Leave it to you, to bring up the Hoover admin, when we are talking about 2008. Just becuase you insist that the the current Republicans presidential candidates are responsible for the Democrat controlled Congress' spending habits does not make it so!

Besides that, you have in no way addressed anything I said in my 1st post. Perhaps you did not even read it. I wondered if you could direct the same degree of scrutiny towards the Democrat candidates as you have toward the Republican candidates. I am quite satisfied that you both cannot and would not. You easily see faults in the republicans, but conveniently overlook similar faults in the Democrats.

[Kevin]

Jeffbert, I do like discussing things with you, but this is one area you really need to be careful about broaching with me.

I brought up the Hoover Administration because if you had any ounce of schooling background in civil rights law like I did, you would've been educated on the systematic removal of personal rights and economic regulations that were removed by that man.

Bush has attempted to remove EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE SAME EXACT LAWS THAT HOOVER DID!

What irritates the hell out of me with you neo-cons, and that IS the political theory in which you subscribe your beliefs on this messageboard, is that you absolutely refuse to take a history lesson and review the bills that are proposed and the bills that are passed by the varying officials in our government past and present. You then whine and moan about "bringing up hoover" or "bringing up mccarthy", when people get pissed when so called leaders like BUSH, ROVE and MCCAIN attempt to pass the exact same laws they passed 50 or 80 years ago.

Nobody gets a free pass on that issue, Jeffbert. So I advise you very heavily on watching who and what you defend when we're discussing something as important as what caused the economic crisis/great depression/removal of the bill of rights. I will crack open my Civil Rights book and my Political History Books on those issues.

That post was more or less a warning about attacking Obama while you support McCain. I didn't give you a full response because you've gotten upset when I've opened my history books on you before.

So the real question right now is this:

Katie Couric to Jeffbert: "Jeffbert, with all of the irritation and stress that Kevin is under concerning his new L.L.C. and debuting his board gate in Connecticut on Friday of this Week, do you think it's wise to provoke him with statements such as this:
"Leave it to you, to bring up the Hoover admin,"
and this:
"Besides that, you have in no way addressed anything I said in my 1st post. Perhaps you did not even read it.""

I'll be happy to go in it with you but you got really upset when we had that discussion concerning the constitution and states/personal rights.

[Jeffbert]

You still have not addressed anything I said, Kevin! Rather, you presume that I am pro-Mc Cain & you attack his positions as though I agree with all of them. I do not! I am quite disagreeable with more than a few of his positions.

I will waste my time by saying it again, I am a sceptic; I scrutinize both sides of an issue. I am not a Conservative; I am a sceptic. I do not agree with Rush Limbaugh on all points. I do not agree with anyone on all points. I think about things from an open-minded POV. It is unfair of you to assume otherwise; I do not know how many times I have said this, yet you continue to assume that I am a Conservative. I do admit that I support many of the Conservative positions on the issues, but not all.

I did say that the Liberal politicians made the laws that increased the cost of having businesses in the USA; & that the businesses moved those facilities to China & elsewhere at great cost beacuase in the long run they would save $. The people who voted for these politicians thought they were voting for better lives, but they lost their jobs because of it. Yet, none of your responses have taken issue with this statment; instead, you brought up Hoover!

I also & primarily said that you cannot apply any scrutiny towards the Democrats' candidates, much less the same amount you direct toward the Republicans'. Thus far, you have proven me right!

& why do you bring up civil rights? Why do you bring up your game? While I would be very pleased if your game becomes profitable for you, it has nothing to do with any of the points I raised, as also civil rights are irrelevant to those points. Stick to attacking those points or concede.

[Jeffbert]

Thanks, cmoon. I fear an Obama presidency because he is a tax & spend guy who hopes to appeal to the lower middle class & poor voters by promising to raise taxes on the rich & cut taxes on the lower end. However, the bottom 30 to 40% of workers do not even pay taxes; so how will he cut their taxes? He proposes $1 trillion in new spending! He will cripple our economy if he does. Believe me, I do not support the bail-out program, not in the least. While it may indeed have been necessary to do something, they rushed the thing through the process, & even added another $150 billion to it. That bypasses the whole point of the legislative process.

Back to Obama: he is a Jr. Senator, with less than a single year in the Senate. In the Ill Senate, he voted 'present' far too many times for anyone to really know where he stands on these issues. What we do know is that he is the most radical leftist in the entire Congress; even left of H. Clinton, who is a Marxist. He wants to make health care a government-run thing, but our health care is the best in the world only because people make $ on it. If the profit incentive is removed, who will risk $ developing new drugs? I could go on, but, will stop here. While McCain may have a few policies with which I disagree, it seems to me, that he would do much less damage than Obama would.

[Kevin]

* he is a tax & spend guy

Quantify your claim before you say anything else.

[Jeffbert]

Are you trying to refute my entire post by taking issue with only one point? a point, which BTW, I certainly did detail in that very same sentence. Kevin, you quite simply do not know how to make a proper argument.

I thrice defied you to refute my statements, & thrice you evaded the issue.

[Kevin]

[Jeffbert]

[Kevin]

[Jeffbert]

[cmoon]

[Jeffbert]