@ehaflett said:

...I'm voting the issues and voting my conscience and that feels good to me. It's nice because I don't have to watch the news or tap into the 24-hour news/spin cycle because they never talk about 3rd parties, and I don't have to watch the debates. It's pretty nice, I recommend it.

Thanks Eric, I needed this to further validate my voting for Bob Barr. I had suggested I might change my vote to McCain if I got mad enough at the liberal media. Thanks for bringing me back from the edge...

This issue of economic rights he speaks of is not a new thought or concept. This country was founded on the principle of all men being created equal with equal access to the bounties of this wonderful land.

People are just eating up this nitwit's oratory skills. This is how gullible they are. It's all about the sheen and nothing about the substance. He's nothing more than a snake oil salesman with a huge advertising budget.

I'll trust you to tell me what he said. It will be the same old yarn re-woven.

What are you laughing about? The facts regarding the oil tax sharing policy in Alaska? Facts only, please. I'm well aware where McCain stands...he deserves it. Obama doesn't deserve the presidency. I'm not scampering, I'm just parsing the bullshit around here, that's all.

EDIT: I find it interesting that for all these years the liberals chastised the conservatives about their "love" of money and now that Obama has tons of it, nary a word. I'm sick of all the hypocrisy, everywhere. There is little honor anymore; in character and in morals.

@gunawan w said:

thank's solo and dave for inspiring images and great style.
i'm

Thanks for resurrecting this thread, Gunawan. And thanks to Dave R for the beach sand style.

@solo said:

Palin taxed the oil companies and gave the money to Alaskans.

A few facts might be helpful. Alaska has no state income tax since they reap revenue from their windfall profits tax on the oil industry. They then distribute some of this to their citizens. This tax was in place long before Palin. She did, however, push through and increase in this tax.

So, to say Palin taxed the oil companies and gave the money to Alaskans is a little disingenuous. Please, just the facts, Maam.

@tomsdesk said:

Now this is who we have always been as a country...and I'm all for it:

Egalitarianism (derived from the French word égal, meaning equal) is a political doctrine that holds that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights.[1] Generally it applies to being held equal under the law and society at large.

Where, pray tell, did you get the idea that this country is all about economic equality? You can't be serious. EDIT: This country IS all about giving everyone the same economic opportunity, however.

@david. said:

I've never seen as many vacuous arguments for a candidate as I have for Obama.

Boy, isn't this the truth.

@solo said:

It is sad for me to see so much conservative knee-jerk reaction - when conservatism used to be a proud, intellectual movement. Now it just seems based on fear and propaganda. Fight, fight, fight - that's what I hear from McCain. Well, fighting is not going to get us where we want to go - we have to be smart enough to work together, to find new solutions, and to innovate ourselves out of this crisis.

It IS a proud and intellectual movement. In no way does John McCain represent true conservatism. As I've said before, the liberals of old were dignified and intellectual, like Patrick Moynihan. Now you guys have Pelosi, Reid, Franks, Dodd. These are NOT dignified individuals. They are ruining your party, just like Bush, Stevens, Hatch are ruining the Republican party.

At least I have the clarity of thought to see this.

@tomsdesk said:

:roflmao:

Glad you think my picture is funny.

@unknownuser said:

Someone just sent this to me. . ..

%(#FF0040)[Subject: redistribution of wealth- a practical application

...At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.]

Of course most of those voting for Obama will be on the receiving end of this redistribution. I can't even believe we're having a conversation regarding whether we should adopt socialism. Re-brand and redefine it how you will with wonderful sounding terms like "solidarity" or "social consciousness", it's still socialism.

@tomsdesk said:

@unknownuser said:

...Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.?...

Not this guy for sure:

And sure as hell not this guy:

@glennwarner said:

Obama's motto: " Ask not what your country can do for you....demand it."

LOL. Good one for your first post!!

@david. said:

Four more reasons NOT to vote for Obama:

Senator Obama's Four Tax Increases for People Earning Under $250K

And, another:

Throw Out the Constitution for Reparative Economics (eg, Reparations by Redistribution)

The first link is very insightful. I never thought about the possibility of the Bush tax cuts expiring resulting in a de facto a tax increase. Not to mention Obama's claim he will raise capital gains tax rate from 15% to as much as 28%.

@Bob, we Americans are a capitalistic and entrepreneurial lot and not at all fond of government taking our money so they can "spread the wealth". We take great care of all our citizens. The poor (and the illegal aliens) have better health care plan than I do, for example.

@unknownuser said:

@bellwells said:

It's every bit as relevant as the media's claptrapping over Palin's experience. In fact, it's MORE relevant since he's running for president.

"Does it not bother anyone but me that before coming to the US Senate, Obama had never held a public office outside of his neighborhood?"

Need I explain this any further? I'm not feeling like running in rhetorical circles right now.

Ah ha, the key word being before. I overlooked that. EDIT: However, the fact remains that the "experience" thing is not being equally applied here.

@unknownuser said:

@baker518 said:

Does it not bother anyone but me that before coming to the US Senate, Obama had never held a public office outside of his neighborhood?

How is this relevant now?

It's every bit as relevant as the media's claptrapping over Palin's experience. In fact, it's MORE relevant since he's running for president.

@chango70 said:

@bellwells said:

OK, I should have read your previous posts before responding. For me, religion is a private and personal reverence for nature and the nature of things. As I said, I believe in God, but I'm not a fanatic about it. I believe in heaven and I believe I will "see" past loved ones there.

I have to admit I'm confused about the beginning of our universe. It's easier for me to believe in the Big Bang theory than it is for me to believe God waved his hand and....voila! This is where I get stuck. My belief in God cannot rectify or explain this dichotomy. I wonder if my belief system is more consistent with that of the Native American Indians.

The eminant 13th century theologian Thomas Aquinas whom many believe is the most important figure in laying the foundation of scientic enquiry in the West have a easy answer for you. He believes that God simply set in motion the chain of event that lead to our reality. He is the prime mover, and do not interfere in our lives. Aquinas believed that truth is known through reason (natural revelation) and faith (supernatural revelation). In the dark ages for Europe it was a beacon of light that inspired others to persue truth through reason. He was condemed for his belief in reason and was excommunicated posthumously. God as a prime mover might be interesting to you as that is not inconsistent with Big Bang, as science as of now have no means to speculate about the conditions before big bang and indeed if there is a 'before' (since time was supposed to have been created at the Big Bang).

In the words of Artie Johnson; verrrry interesting!

OK, I should have read your previous posts before responding. For me, religion is a private and personal reverence for nature and the nature of things. As I said, I believe in God, but I'm not a fanatic about it. I believe in heaven and I believe I will "see" past loved ones there.

I have to admit I'm confused about the beginning of our universe. It's easier for me to believe in the Big Bang theory than it is for me to believe God waved his hand and....voila! This is where I get stuck. My belief in God cannot rectify or explain this dichotomy. I wonder if my belief system is more consistent with that of the Native American Indians.

@chango70 said:

@bellwells said:

Pete, faith is not belief without knowledge, it is belief without proof. Subtle but critical distinction.

Ron, any knowledge thats worth two cents can be PROVED! Otherwise its speculation at best, hocus pocus at worst. Do you really think people should lay down their life for speculation? Where is the morality of that? There is this wonderful talk by Dan Dennett on Dangerious Memes http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/dan_dennett_on_dangerous_memes.html which applies to all religions and ideologies. Religion is like a virus or parasite. To use a Deleuzian term, they have the same 'engineering diagram'.

Huh..where did this come from? I'm stating the definition faith. I believe in God, yet I cannot prove his existence. I don't need to. And you don't need to ridicule those who do believe in God. Arrogance and secularism are a virus or parasite.