• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Who are you leaning towards?

beer good said:
On the news? Really? I expect it to be on various blogs and opinion pieces, simply because people know that if you just ask the question "But is Obama a Muslim?" enough times, it doesn't matter if the answer is "No, of course he isn't" every single time; sooner or later people will start to think "Muslim" whenever they hear his name. And as we all know, Muslims are nothing but insane bomb-throwing terrorists, the lot of them. :rolleyes:

This, of course, has nothing to do with the fact that he's black and not named John Smith and that most of the people who don't want him to win are white. Oh no. Not at all. Perish the thought.
Click to expand...


I'm getting tired of seeing this and I'm a conservative. It's an old issue question that has been answered. I don't believe a muslim would ever deny being a muslim.
 
silverseason said:
Well, I was born in Cincinnati (who knows where that is!) and I have voted and can vote and intend to vote again this time.

McCain is as dangerous as George Bush in my opinion. It would be a third Bush term.

I was originally a John Edwards supporter, but liked all the major candidates. (In 2004 I favored Howard Dean, which shows you my political stripes.) Hillary and Bill have really worn me out with their shrill "he can't win" campaign. Obama can do a great job if the Democrats get behind him.

And, no, he is not a muslim - not that it should matter.
Click to expand...

I don't think the Republicans would want Bush back for another four.

What is it about McCain that makes him dangerous?
 
Robert said:
It's rare, but it has come up. I looked for a few minutes but I can't find it, either. I'll keep looking when I get time, but in the mean time take a close look at her policies.

One thing I can say about her is that what you see is what you get.

If you want socialist policies then she's your gal.

I don't care who you vote for, but I would rather that people took the time to make an informed decision.
Click to expand...

I grew up in England when there were some fairly left-leaning Labour governments. Her policies are nothing like that. If you can come up with some information about where she says (as opposed to Bill O'Reilly saying) that she's in favour of nationalising the airlines, the steel industry, the transport industry, and even health care, I'd be very interested to see it. She's even proposing to keep private insurance companies involved in her health care plan.
 
Champagne said:
I grew up in England when there were some fairly left-leaning Labour governments. Her policies are nothing like that. If you can come up with some information about where she says (as opposed to Bill O'Reilly saying) that she's in favour of nationalising the airlines, the steel industry, the transport industry, and even health care, I'd be very interested to see it. She's even proposing to keep private insurance companies involved in her health care plan.
Click to expand...


These are all Socialist policies...

1. Her universal health care plan
2. Her promises to take money away from people "for the universal good"
3. Raise Taxes, raise taxes and did I mention her promise to raise taxes.
4. More government control in private industry.
 
No they aren't. Her universal health care plan isn't a government plan, it involves private insurance but simply makes provision for people to be covered who aren't covered now.

Your points 2 and 3 are basically the same thing, and increasing taxes isn't a socialist policy in and of itself. Of course any leader is going to say that increasing taxes will be for the good of society in general, or there's no point increasing taxes. What else are they going to say? We're increasing taxes because we know it's a bad thing? If the country is running a large deficit and there isn't scope to reduce it by reducing spending (which at the moment there really isn't on account of the war), raising taxes is the most sensible alternative. And since recent tax cuts seem to have disproportionally benefitted the segment of society with the highest income, it isn't unreasonable to expect that segment of society to shoulder a larger part of any tax increase. Lower-income people have basically seen their income stand still for the last couple of years - why should they be the ones to pay the bulk of the higher taxes we need to get out of this deficit? It's sort of interesting how, as soon as the most wealthy members of society are asked to pay more taxes - even if it's only a small proportion of the amount that their taxes have been cut, someone is always shouting "socialism!"

Government control in private industry in what sense? Socialism involves government ownership of private industry, which isn't at all the same thing. Since it's been shown time and again that the various voluntary restrictions and self-policing aren't working, but companies are continuing to pollute, produce dangerous goods, and treat their workforce poorly while making record profits, it's about time mandatory regulation was reintroduced. Most of these companies have asked for it, and government regulation isn't a socialist policy.
 
On a more general note. Why is everything that goes with "socialism" necessarily negative? Is it not possible there are elements of even the most oppresive and deplorable governments where we might pick and choose what works best?
 
joderu95 said:
On a more general note. Why is everything that goes with "socialism" necessarily negative? Is it not possible there are elements of even the most oppresive and deplorable governments where we might pick and choose what works best?
Click to expand...

It's the American way. Wonderfully Pavlovian reaction.

USSR equals godless communism equals socialism equals liberalism equals Democratic equals evil. America equals God's own country equals democracy equals capitalism equals Republican equals good.
 
I think she should. Don't think it's a good thing for the democrats in the elections in November to have one half supporting Hillary and the other half supporting Obama, they should be forming some sort of united front if ever they want to defeat the republicans.
 
Obama is almost there. I think he passed the magic threshold but not by a lot. It's still possible that Hillary will get the nomination but then again I have a chance of dating Helena Bonham Carter. :p

Hillary is either too proud or stubborn to back down and admit defeat. It makes me wonder if I want someone like that as our next president.
 
sparkchaser said:
Hillary is either too proud or stubborn to back down and admit defeat. It makes me wonder if I want someone like that as our next president.
Click to expand...

To her defense, it's been less than 24 hours and it's not even noon in New York yet (right?) If I were a betting man, I'd bet that there'll be a carefully worded announcement in time for the evening news today, or this week at the latest.
 
She should have bowed out a month or more ago. The longer she drags this out, the more time the Republicans will have to rally forces.
 
Well, think about it in adifferent way, if you were in a race just because the other person is almost at the finish line , do you just stop?:D
 
That doesn't make sense to me.

Hillary still running in a race she is clearly losing is hurting the party because fif she quit a month ago that would have been a month longer the Dems would have had for planning. Every day she prolongs this is another day the Republicans gain.
 
Alot of people are baffled as to why she is staying. All the morning news today are talking about it.
She said she's staying at least until June 3.

Is she being selfish, hardheaded? why? I mean she can't be that naive as to realize excacly the point you are making?
 
I would venture a guess and say over half of the Democratic Party is wondering the same thing.

Obama has a positive operating income for his campaign and Hillary is $31,000,000 in the hole. That's not good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top