Len
Apprentice Member
Posts: 74
|
Post by Len on Aug 30, 2008 20:02:27 GMT -5
You keep saying he is an "empty suit" and "devoid of content" but what exactly do you mean by that. He has said specifically what changes he will bring and how he will pay for them. You might not agree with his views but he is certainly not devoid of content. I won't embed it to avoid bolverk's smite, here is Pat Buchanan's reaction to Obama: www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0Fru4dZLGA#I'm sorry I missed the speech that you saw and heard. Pat B. hit it on the mark. It was a good speech in that....well, he laid out the points better than my boring rant....but that is simply because he is a practiced orator. Obama did not slip into that Black cadence that he may employ at times, as he was trying to reach those that do not cotton to him to much. Good choice. I believe Pat said it was a great speech FOR A CONVENTION speech. That is not to say Obama revealed true substance. He promised this and that, coming to conclude that he will pay for it with taxes. And how does his government get taxes? Big Biz. And will they pay out of profits? No, they'll pass it along to me in costs of their goods and services. No free lunch, but Obama's folks are not taught to look at that light, so they worship either in the dark, or the dark itself. |
|
|
|
Post by nacosta on Sept 1, 2008 14:42:26 GMT -5
im voting demo to give illegals better benefits and their anchor babys a better chance of going to college.
|
|
|
|
Post by lawbreaker on Sept 11, 2008 14:42:08 GMT -5
[td][/td]
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Sept 11, 2008 15:14:41 GMT -5
[/td][/quote] I think you missed the point entirely, lawbreaker. |
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Sept 11, 2008 15:18:09 GMT -5
First example calls for lower taxes spurring investment. It seems more business and companies seemed to either close down or leave the country causing many layoffs or lost jobs. It seems that businesses close down, but it also seems that businesses start up. Not everyone is an MBA, and some businesses should just close before they lose even more money. According to economic statistics, on the whole, the economy is doing better now than it did in 2002, the end of the Clinton recession. Maybe you, Mink, could provide some specific examples of what you are referring to. You say that domestic drilling will "ruin our environment." Yet, when Hurricane Katrina whacked the platforms in the Gulf, I don't recall reading about massive oil spills. Could it be that technology has advanced somewhat since our last oil spill in 1969? Yes, it will "take years for production," but, if we don't start now, it will never happen. Two, maybe three, liberal myths dispelled. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Sept 11, 2008 17:08:08 GMT -5
Thanks harpman1 for the examples, although I don't think they worked for the Repulicans this time around. First example calls for lower taxes spurring investment. It seems more business and companies seemed to either close down or leave the country causing many layoffs or lost jobs. Well, that is not the exact truth. California has seen an exodus of business from this state, but that is due to our excessive burden placed on businesses here. Buck knives is a prime example, a California business from the time it was created, until the cost of doing business here forced this California born business out. Thank you Democrats. Second example for reduced environmental regulation has caused more problems instead of solving anything. Maybe I need a specific here to better understand your point. There has been no reduced environmental regulation for you make such a statement. In fact, the increased environmental regulation has caused more problems then the number of animals it has saved. When companies do enviromental impact reports, which are approved, and then has to stop construction and get a new one, just how much money do you think it wastes? Millions upon millions of dollars to do the same report over. The simple fact is that a great deal of this money is for lawyers. And they are ripping us off. Third example of domestic oil drilling will not only take years for production, but will cost millions, not to mention ruin our environment. This one hasn't been implemented so how can you say it has worked? Well, most liberal politicians would agree with what you say, but not the people who would make money on that oil. Drilling here would not only decrease the price of oil, it would create more jobs. Increasing the amount of our own natural resources we use is not only neccessary, it is the responsible thing to do. As far as it destroying the environment, that is not the truth. Though there have been environmental disasters in the past associated with drilling, these problems have been addressed. Drilling for oil is safer then shipping oil in, which is what we do now. Remember the Exxon Valdez? |
|
|
|
Post by thewholetruth on Sept 20, 2008 10:17:30 GMT -5
There won't be a "Obama/Biden win" due to the fact that they are already planning to feign illness to take Joe off the ticket and replace him with Hellary. Desperation is driving the DNC bus again. LOL It will be Palin/McCain in 2008. Palin will clean up Washington. You heard it here first, Mink. ;-) Many businesses, big and small have already been stamped out or barely squeaking by during bush's reign..... I think Republicans will feel the pinch if Obama/Biden win because this team will have to fix the deficit again ! |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Sept 20, 2008 15:41:50 GMT -5
There won't be a "Obama/Biden win" due to the fact that they are already planning to feign illness to take Joe off the ticket and replace him with Hellary. Desperation is driving the DNC bus again. LOL It will be Palin/McCain in 2008. Palin will clean up Washington. You heard it here first, Mink. ;-) Many businesses, big and small have already been stamped out or barely squeaking by during bush's reign..... I think Republicans will feel the pinch if Obama/Biden win because this team will have to fix the deficit again ! Thewholetruth, what does this have to do with the topic of the thread? |
|
