amazingkarma

Then why can't they drink a 32 oz soda, eat movie popcorn, or chug a latte? How can you argue in favor of having the right to get abortions based on the sanctity of a woman's body but turn around and tell them what they can or cannot introduce to that body? Isn't that classic hypocrisy? And even if you can twist it enough to justify it, talk about a twisted set of priorities.

I heard a short, very well put quote on the radio the other day.

"It should be the role of the government to ensure equal opportunity, not equal results."

Which do you think it is?

I know I'll get a TON of smartazz answers, but I'm serious. I have a decent job, but well below his "rich" line of $200K per year, and I see no reason at all to vote for him. He has done nothing for me, the average middle class guy. At least President Bush gave me a tax break. Eventually with the huge number of unemployed, they'll have to move that "rich" line lower and lower to collect more and more taxes. So while his positive policies only seem to help the poor, unemployed, or union workers, the only possible policies that could effect me, the middle class, are negative ones, such as higher taxes and reduced future Social Security benefits, which I don't expect to ever see regardless of which party is in office.

I would like to get some legitimate answers from some genuine middle class people. I KNOW why the poor, unemployed and union workers want to vote for him, they want everything free, but I just don't get why the middle class would.

Shouldn't this just end the silly argument about the supposed Republican war on women? When will hypocrisy like this be exposed and people held accountable? Doesn't this just scream for term limits so people can't say one thing to pander to their base and do the complete opposite? Aren't these women ashamed for what they themselves are doing to the women on their own staff?

http://nation.foxnews.com/democrats/2012/05/24/sen...

Why can't he go to Washington AND do the debate? Before being beckoned by President Bush, he said he had to stay where he was to prepare for the debate. Why not to what he's talking smack about, go to Washington to do his job AND prepare for the debate?

Just more typical Obama BS.

I had some squirrel seed that grew into a couple gianormous pumpkin vines and I had two pumpkins grow. At first they stayed green for a long time, got quite big (maybe 20 inches long, maybe 12 inches across and smooth) then started growing thier ridges a bit and now have finally turned a very light orange.

My question is, how do I know when to pick them? Thanks!

Here we go again. I thought you Democrats were voting for change, but now YOUR candidate wants same ole same ole by ignoring the needs of the people during a campaign.

That "change" thing you guys keep yelling about gets weaker and weaker everytime McCain makes a bold new move and Obama just "stays the course"...kinda like someone I remember...Democrats hate him...what's his name again?

Huh? Do you not bother reading what the "bailout" consists of?

First off, the government (NOT THE BANKS) forced the banks to lower their lending standards due to recent tweaks to the Democrat-sponsored Community Reinvestment Act of 1998. This causes a temporary boon for the "rich" as the lower class run out to buy 10 times the house they can afford.

Second, the banks have to write off tens of billions in bad loans that they were forced to give or face unrealistic penalties from the government, and the companies begin to tank. This causes massive losses the the "rich" as the assets of the companies tank.

Third, the government BUYS mortgages (and now apparently credit card and auto loans which I can't believe) from the banks at a discount to face value (asset value) and will reap the benefits the government as home prices rise in the future. This is at best a wash for the "rich" as they unload risky assets (they all won't default) but they lose value on the loan as they only get paid asset value, not face value.

Lastly, the government gives judged the authority to realign loans to lower, more affordable interest rates for those that are facing forclosure. This MASSIVELY benefits the speculators, those that can't manage their finances, those that bought above their means, and those that should've never owned a home in the first place, in other words THE LOWER CLASS, not the "rich".

So in the end, the middle class gets screwed with any possible losses (but won't recieve tax relief when any profits are realized, that's for sure) while the only ones that benefit are the morons that tried to beat the system, can't read a mortgage application (and were "handed" a bad loan according to Hillary Clinton) and people that just don't feel like paying their bills.

How you come to the conclusion that this is some bailout for the "rich" (other than the typical blind Bush rage) is beyond me. It's clearly a bailout of the incompentent, something we should get used to if Obama wins the Presidency. "Government encouraged neighborliness" is just around the corner.

They're now ripping McCain for calling for oversight and regulation, for "changing" his position, or his party's position (and to think I once searched online to see if there was a previous case of someone getting kicked out of a political party because McCain was driving me crazy) out of one side of their mouths while screaming for "change" out of the other side of their mouths.

So which is it? Do you want change or change? I can see (though I can't understand) your raw, unhealthy, completely unproductive, self destructive hatred for Bush, but why are you ripping on change when change is what you've been harping on for over a year now?

Is Obama really "change"? Obama has toes the far left party line 100% of the time. 100%. That is change? Thus far he hasn't done anything to tick off the far left. Every time he states a position he leaves himself an "out" so he can go back left but pander to the right. (like he supports "safe" nuclear energy...who supports unsafe nuclear energy? what if he decides there is no "safe" nuclear energy? nice out...)

At least McCain PROVES he can move away from party lines and doesn't need to leave himself an out. THAT is change folks, not toeing the party line.

To not vote for McCain and vote for Obama because you hate Bush makes zero sense, especially when you claim you're voting for a candidate that hasn't changed since the get-go.

So you're really going to allow your raw, nearly incohrenet rage at Bush to cause you to vote for Obama?

Nearly a trillion dollars in social programs? Just this morning on the today show he said that since the 700B bailout has come out, that they might have to use a "stepped approach" to impliment them "depending on available tax revenues". He also mentioned tax credits for homeowners in trouble, so that is even less tax revenue. So people making over $250K are going to pay nearly a trillion dollars AND pay the difference lost to tax credits?!?!? Huh?

What about me, the middle class guy working 40+ hours a week while also trying to make a small business work? I have a family, I have to pay for school, we have college loans, so what do I get? I'm paying all my bills so I'm screwed?

So who pays after the $250K+ are tapped out? How does he plan to pay for all this? Is he lying about implimenting programs to pander to the poor or will he raise taxes on the middle class. Check the math, it's one or the other. Period.

I want to know what's in it for me. I know, everyone will rip on me for being selfish, but my FIRST priority is my family. I donate time to my church, I donate a lot to Goodwill, Salvation Army, and the local food bank, so it's not like I don't do what I can...

The math just doesn't work...

Doesn't seem so. So the Democrats are not following the will of the majority, just a vocal minority and special interests instead of the will of the people.

Is this the kind of change the Democrats are talking about? Sounds like more of the same to me.

What about me? If they're going to bail out speculating, living-above-their-means dirtbags, then I, as a hard working, bill paying, mortgage-within-my-means American should be getting a HUGE helping hand, right?

http://cbs4denver.com/politics/palin.essay.denver....

No wonder Democrat's generally carry the younger vote. This is a small example, and one that someone actually had the courage to speak out about. No wonder Democrats want to build more schools and pay teachers more instead of counselling parents on being a good parent.

PLEASE, no railing on about this candidate or that candidate or Bush or whoever, I'm just wondering what is your core issue this election?

The war? Taxes? Abortion? Economy? etc...

Mine is taxation. I will vote for who will really tax my family and my small business the least.

How about you? (I'd even prefer you not say who you'll be voting for so this doesn't get sidetracked into who will really do what) Thanks! :)

For instance, I vote based almost exclusively on taxation. I don't care who is running, but I'll vote for who I think will tax less in the long run. In other words, I don't care if Palin gets caught humping the mailman or Obama gets caught mainlining herion, I'm still voting for who will tax me less.

Are others out there like me, that are already decided no matter what, or do you think that these distractions really matter to a majority of America?

Yet news articles all over today are talking about Democrats from Franks to Pelosi to Warren all either convening committees that will talk with Paulson and Bernake next week or demanding deeper investigations into what happened that caused the recent problems on Wall Street.

Obama thought it was a dumb idea yet every Democrat in Congress is demanding investigations just like McCain did?

In 2004 Michelle Obama was making $126K at University of Chicago Hospital. The next year, the year Barrack Obama is elected Senator, she gets a raise to $316K. The next year Obama requests a $1M earmark for the hospital.

I thought he was against "the same politics that have crippled Washington".

Is this the "change" he is talking about? Oh, and I don't expect any honest answers since the people who should be answering this question will just go off the handle about McCain or Bush or something else completely unrelated to avoid having to face Obama's sleazy Washington insider past.

It's been 3 years so far that the West has grovelled at the feet of Iran begging them to stop producing weapons grade Uranium. What has that done except give them another 3 years of development time? Nothing. We gave Saddam a few months to comply and nothing and so far we've given Iran 3 years and nothing.

Is there ever a point at which the Democrats will use force? Maybe a few million people have to die first? Maybe Israel is nuked? I'm not fond of sticking our necks out for them, but does an entire country have to be nuked for the Democrats to maybe, kinda, sorta admit that joining hands and singing Kumbaya might not work with everyone?

Here is the BIGGEST problem with liberals. They simply assume people are stupid. The problem is, they see right through them. One thing I've seen posted ad nauseum today on Y!A is...

"As if it couldn't support itself, Alaska ranks No. 1, year after year, in money it sucks in from Washington. In 2005 (the most recent figures), according to the Tax Foundation, Alaska ranked 18th in federal taxes paid per resident ($5,434) but first in federal spending received per resident ($13,950). Its ratio of federal spending received to federal taxes paid ranks third among the 50 states, and in the absolute amount it receives from Washington over and above the amount it sends to Washington, Alaska ranks No. 1.'

First I think it's HILARIOUS that all the liberals and media keep restricting their articles to PER CAPITA info, as opposed to maybe PER SQUARE MILE info, lol. But more to the point THIS INFO IS FROM 2005! The prior governer was a spending madman, you know, the guy that Palin ran out of office. Now, after she taxed the bejesus out of the oil companies (that the liberals hate) the state will have a 9 billion budget surplus.

So what you liberals are actually pointing out is how amazing an executive Palin is. Do you really think people don't get that? Do you really think they're so stupid they don't notice that you're spewing 2005 info that has nothing to do with her?

Nice try, just more votes for Palin. Thanks!

When Democrats in our city of 100,000 banned books in our public school libraries decades ago? Huckleberry Finn was banned from our public school system going back 20+ years to when I was in high school. Why are they trying to use this against her when it's been accepted by Democrats for decades? (Ok, I understand the terror and panic part, but if anyone out there REALLY believes this argument, for other than simple trashing reasons, I'd like to know why it is bad for Palin, good for Democrats)

So when he said a few months back "We belong to the greatest country in the world, and I invite you to join me to change it", he wasn't kidding? I thought it was taken out of context, yet today he says...

"And we’ll help ensure that more of our kids have access to quality after-school and summer school and extended school days for students who need it – because if they can do that in China, we can do that right here in the United States of America. …"

So he wants to change the greatest country in the world into China? Nice.