I am for people peacefully having the right to live their lives. What Gay Americans do is their business, and for those who spend their time telling themwhat to do......I wonder what would hapen in the majority of Americans suddenly decided you couldn't carry a gun?

People need to live and let live.

Why do you feel that the rich should not be left to live...

I do not support any intrusion into the personal lives of Americans in any case. I have said this many times. I have said that I dont agree with that aspect of the Republican party. (except for abortion).

I have said the government should treat all classes (tax brackets) the same. I think all American's social lives should be off limits.

How do you support your stance for more intrusion into the pockets of the rich, if you are so much against the government controlling lives?

BTW, I thought the Republicans already had fiscal responsibility and values in the Party. If they already have these things......why is JM working to return them to the Party?

They haven't as of late.

Why do you feel that the rich should not be left to live...

I do not support any intrusion into the personal lives of Americans in any case. I have said this many times. I have said that I dont agree with that aspect of the Republican party. (except for abortion).

I have said the government should treat all classes (tax brackets) the same. I think all American's social lives should be off limits.

How do you support your stance for more intrusion into the pockets of the rich, if you are so much against the government controlling lives?

They haven't as of late.

I have stated my thoughts on the wealthy in this country. And as you are so fond of telling people.....

Go back and read my posts.

I have stated my thoughts on the wealthy in this country. And as you are so fond of telling people.....

Go back and read my posts.

I have read your posts, that is why I became confused. You seem to now believe the government should play a less intrusive role in people's lives.

I find this to be contradictory to what you have said in the past. That was my question. How can you justify strong government involvement with people's wallets, but not their bedroom?

My understanding is that McCain has moral beliefs, but does not want to force them on all Americans. Much like he doesn't want to force a tax burden on any one group of people.

Edited September 17, 200817 yr by Casey008

That former Clinton fund raiser mentioned in Roman's post said that Obama was arrogant and you know how that word usually plays with some of the masses......

I don't recall giving the Democrats any credit for strategy but I am going to give them points for their convoluted offshore drilling legislation that the Republicans are going to slap down. To me it's politically savvy because it gives them the opportunity to say to those who are for offshore drilling that they did try to support it in some form and the big bad Republicans shot it down. And to those that oppose it they can say that they attached all kinds of restrictions to protect the things that they care about most.

I like that McCain was against a bailout of AIG yesterday and then softened his position today. I think it's absolutely horrible that the government has to bailout any of these corporations but I would rather see that then let AIG go under and take a lot of banks with them in the process.

And while I'm on this little kick about where the taxpayer's money goes, I will say that there was a time when I was extremely put off with the whole idea that my taxes were going to fund people on welfare because I thought they were a bunch of lazy shiftless people who are sponging......yes, there are some of those and some people file fraudulent claims, etc., but again I'm looking at a broken system and I don't have the heart to say that the babies that benefit from it shouldn't get food, clothing or medical care because of the people that are fleecing the system. It needs to be overhauled but I don't advocate punishing the innocent while the problems are being addressed.

That former Clinton fund raiser mentioned in Roman's post said that Obama was arrogant and you know how that word usually plays with some of the masses......

I don't recall giving the Democrats any credit for strategy but I am going to give them points for their convoluted offshore drilling legislation that the Republicans are going to slap down. To me it's politically savvy because it gives them the opportunity to say to those who are for offshore drilling that they did try to support it in some form and the big bad Republicans shot it down. And to those that oppose it they can say that they attached all kinds of restrictions to protect the things that they care about most.

I like that McCain was against a bailout of AIG yesterday and then softened his position today. I think it's absolutely horrible that the government has to bailout any of these corporations but I would rather see that then let AIG go under and take a lot of banks with them in the process.

And while I'm on this little kick about where the taxpayer's money goes, I will say that there was a time when I was extremely put off with the whole idea that my taxes were going to fund people on welfare because I thought they were a bunch of lazy shiftless people who are sponging......yes, there are some of those and some people file fraudulent claims, etc., but again I'm looking at a broken system and I don't have the heart to say that the babies that benefit from it shouldn't get food, clothing or medical care because of the people that are fleecing the system. It needs to be overhauled but I don't advocate punishing the innocent while the problems are being addressed.

That Clinton doner was never going to vote for him in the first place. Just glad she didn't call him "uppity".

I can't help but feel that if Palin would have kept her word and just talked to the prosecuters, this would not be a stiry and it would have went away. Now, even if she didn't do anything wrong, it gives off the impression, like the Bush Admin., that she and her people can skirt anything they want and get away with it. It makes her look above the law.

Edited September 17, 200817 yr by Roman

I have stated my thoughts on the wealthy in this country. And as you are so fond of telling people.....

Go back and read my posts.

On this topic I say that I understand that people want to hold on to their money and that rich people shouldn't have to take care of anyone other than themselves, etc. I was once stuck on that myself and since I've unraveled myself from the painful feeling of property owners in my county being responsible for schools and any and everything else above renters.....I'm good now.

Life isn't fair and again, Life isn't fair.

If it were then the Indidans would still have their land.

If everyone in the land started out with the same opportunities, same amount of money, land, etc. and some did extremely well and were being asked to take care of the ones who didn't then I'd understand riding that argument to death, but that isn't the case. People are paying for the paths that their ancestors either chose or were forced into. It's not fair.....Life is not fair.....see my point about the Indians....now if they whine about the land people are going to say that it wasn't us that took your land or it's in the past or get over it....so then....

One thing for certain is that nobody caling themselves a Christian is going to make a proper argument about how the rich shouldn't suffer for the poor, etc.

Obviously I need to stop

but I simply must add that.....Life isn't fair.

That Clinton doner was never going to vote for him in the first place. Just glad she didn't call him "uppity".

I can't help but feel that if Palin would have kept her word and just talked to the prosecuters, this would not be a stiry and it would have went away. Now, even if she didn't do anything wrong, it gives off the impression, like the Bush Admin., that she and her people can skirt anything they want and get away with it. It makes her look above the law.

Did you really say skirt? You bad sexist you.....

On this topic I say that I understand that people want to hold on to their money and that rich people shouldn't have to take care of anyone other than themselves, etc. I was once stuck on that myself and since I've unraveled myself from the painful feeling of property owners in my county being responsible for schools and any and everything else above renters.....I'm good now.

Life isn't fair and again, Life isn't fair.

If it were then the Indidans would still have their land.

If everyone in the land started out with the same opportunities, same amount of money, land, etc. and some did extremely well and were being asked to take care of the ones who didn't then I'd understand riding that argument to death, but that isn't the case. People are paying for the paths that their ancestors either chose or were forced into. It's not fair.....Life is not fair.....see my point about the Indians....now if they whine about the land people are going to say that it wasn't us that took your land or it's in the past or get over it....so then....

One thing for certain is that nobody caling themselves a Christian is going to make a proper argument about how the rich shouldn't suffer for the poor, etc.

Obviously I need to stop

but I simply must add that.....Life isn't fair.

Did you really say skirt? You bad sexist you.....

IA. Any true Christian would provide for the less fortunate if they have the means to do so. But there is a HUGE difference in charity and government mandated redistribuion of wealth.

I feel the government has no place in mandating the role that only charities should play.

Edited September 17, 200817 yr by Casey008

MSNBC just reported, for the first time, a youth vote poll in Nevada.

Obama 61% - McCain 34%.

The youth vote will decide this whole thing.

On this topic I say that I understand that people want to hold on to their money and that rich people shouldn't have to take care of anyone other than themselves, etc. I was once stuck on that myself and since I've unraveled myself from the painful feeling of property owners in my county being responsible for schools and any and everything else above renters.....I'm good now.

Life isn't fair and again, Life isn't fair.

If it were then the Indidans would still have their land.

If everyone in the land started out with the same opportunities, same amount of money, land, etc. and some did extremely well and were being asked to take care of the ones who didn't then I'd understand riding that argument to death, but that isn't the case. People are paying for the paths that their ancestors either chose or were forced into. It's not fair.....Life is not fair.....see my point about the Indians....now if they whine about the land people are going to say that it wasn't us that took your land or it's in the past or get over it....so then....

One thing for certain is that nobody caling themselves a Christian is going to make a proper argument about how the rich shouldn't suffer for the poor, etc.

Obviously I need to stop

but I simply must add that.....Life isn't fair.

Did you really say skirt? You bad sexist you.....

The McCain Campiagn responds......

"We feel that the sexist comments by Roman is a political atttack aimed at destroying Governor Palin. We will not standfor further insults....even though he says he was scratching his ear when he typed that word."

So sorry.

MSNBC just reported, for the first time, a youth vote poll in Nevada.

Obama 61% - McCain 34%.

The youth vote will decide this whole thing.

I think the elderly will play a large role as well. The baby boomers are getting up in age and the "older" population is larger than the "younger" population.

That's why I couldn't understand the ad from the Obama camp poking fun at McCain's internet usage. I believe that may have turned off many older Americans.

Plus, McCain has said that the injuries and the pain involved with his shoulders are the main reason he doesn't email often.

I think the elderly will play a large role as well. The baby boomers are getting up in age and the "older" population is larger than the "younger" population.

That's why I couldn't understand the ad from the Obama camp poking fun at McCain's internet usage. I believe that may have turned off many older Americans.

Plus, McCain has said that the injuries and the pain involved with his shoulders are the main reason he doesn't email often.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/12/y...r_n_126130.html

Yes, McCain Can Use Electronics

It's so easy.

Edited September 17, 200817 yr by Roman

The McCain Campiagn responds......

"We feel that the sexist comments by Roman is a political atttack aimed at destroying Governor Palin. We will not standfor further insults....even though he says he was scratching his ear when he typed that word."

So sorry.

Now that is funny! :lol:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/12/y...r_n_126130.html

Yes, McCain Can Use Electronics

It's so easy.

First they say McCain can't use a computer. Then when it's pointed out he doesn't email because of his damaged arms, they show that he can use a computer and cell phones, rendering the ad by Obama a lie any way you look at it. Ridiculous.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/12/y...r_n_126130.html

Yes, McCain Can Use Electronics

It's so easy.

As I said the other day, I only post with the amen chorus but I will say that those older people can't use the internet themselves won't take offense to Obama's ad on McCain. It would be offensive if Obama were saying that old people can't adapt to technology because they're old......McCain hasn't held himself out to be the representative of senior citizens.....even if he is one.....and he's not trying to make himself appear to be one.....even though we can clearly see he is....so saying he's behind the times is not a knock on the elderly......it's a knock on him.

Now that is funny!

And I should have added before to that senior bit....hello Joe Biden!!!!