[QUOTE="halfirishhomer"][QUOTE="Buddha_basic"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="shoeman12"]because he was lying in the first place and now that people realize it he's flip flopping.-Sun_Tzu-

You know you'd be right if that was true but it's not. There has been a flip flopper this election though. He's voted for that 700 billion bailout and wants to buy up all the bad mortgages then turns around and cries how his opponent is a socialist. In fact you even have a picture of him in your sig.

And yea thats antoehr thing. The republican party is yelling "socialist" when thats clearly not even true. Its just a scare tactic and it goes back to mccarthyism back in the 50's.

Really because redistribution of wealth is a socialist tenet, so how is Obama not a socialist?

Wow I don't even know where to begin. Wealth is always being redistributed. How do you think the roads in your neighborhood are built? How do you think policemen and firemen get payed? If you don't know, it's through taxes, and if you don't understand how those are examples redistribution of wealth then I'll be more than happy to explain.

The thing that Obama is trying to accomplish through his tax plan is to give struggling Americans a better opportunity. Now you can cry and moan how that's one of the tenets of socialism all you want, but that's one of the tenets that this country was built on. Not economic equality, but equal economic opportunity.

McCain once said that the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy were a bad idea and were unfair to America's middle class, and he was right. All the Bush tax cuts did was make the rich richer at the expense of making the poor poorer, and now John McCain wants to make those tax cuts permanent.

[QUOTE="septemberluc"][QUOTE="halfirishhomer"]

Saddam Hussein murdered 400,000 of his own people, do you really expect me to believe that they would rather have him in power than have a democracy? And the reason was to prevent Saddam from using WMD's against Israel, which he's been trying to do since the 80's, and to stop the genocide he was committing against his own people.

halfirishhomer

We were talking about invading Iraq for months, are you really stupid enough to believe that he wouldn't hide them if he did have them? But if you still believe he didn't have them, then what do you have to say about the iraqi general who witnessed them moving the weapons into Iran?

And during those talks Colin Powell told the administration he knew exactly where WMDs were in Iraq, and how much. Yet we had inspectors over tehre for months searching and not finding any trace of weapons.

[QUOTE="halfirishhomer"]

Saddam Hussein murdered 400,000 of his own people, do you really expect me to believe that they would rather have him in power than have a democracy? And the reason was to prevent Saddam from using WMD's against Israel, which he's been trying to do since the 80's, and to stop the genocide he was committing against his own people.

septemberluc

And what about Darfur? And north korea? The simple fact is, Bush used his "jesus told me to" speech, and the 9/11 attacks to drive america into a war that failed from teh beginning. And now people that cant seem to admit it was a catastrophe,and instead use the fact saddam killed his own people, and WMDS taht werent there, as reasons why we're over there.

[QUOTE="Buddha_basic"][QUOTE="halfirishhomer"][QUOTE="Buddha_basic"][QUOTE="halfirishhomer"]

[QUOTE="septemberluc"][QUOTE="sonicare"]Because he's going to need to tax a lot of people to support a lot of the programs he's proposing. Money just doesnt magically appear.halfirishhomer

You'd be surprised to learn that tax revenues have increased by 20 percent since the Bush tax cuts, so if Obama thinks he can pay for his 2 trillion dollars in new spending by taxing the rich more, he's dead wrong.

[QUOTE="septemberluc"][QUOTE="sonicare"]Because he's going to need to tax a lot of people to support a lot of the programs he's proposing. Money just doesnt magically appear.halfirishhomer

You'd be surprised to learn that tax revenues have increased by 20 percent since the Bush tax cuts, so if Obama thinks he can pay for his 2 trillion dollars in new spending by taxing the rich more, he's dead wrong.

But see Bush only raised the USA deficit by trillions of dollars. Whereas the last democrat in office (Clinton) raised taxes yes, but spent less and lowered the deficit.

But see Bush was in office during a war, whereas Clinton was not.

You make that comment like this war was the only option, and was executed perfectly. I beg to differ.

What other option was there? The U.N. said there would be consequences if Saddam Hussein didn't come clean about his development of WMD's. And I never said it was managed perfectly but that's not all Bush's fault. We went into Iraq and got rid of Saddam Hussein to help the Iraqi people. If we just left after we overthrew him then Al-Qeada would've overrun the place and all our efforts would've gone too waste.

What was the reason to invade iraq in the first place? I dont think anyone in their right mind today would say it was a good decision. And there actually was a report (20/20 or dateline or something) following genearl Raymond Odierno who had just taken over command from patreus. They specifically asked Iraqi citicens if they wished the americans were gone at the cost of Saddam still being in power. They said yes, because at least they had simple amenities (water, electricity).

The truth is, we had terrorist forces going INTO iraq, to fight americans, after we invaded. Its not the other way around.

[QUOTE="shoeman12"]because he was lying in the first place and now that people realize it he's flip flopping.-Sun_Tzu-

You know you'd be right if that was true but it's not. There has been a flip flopper this election though. He's voted for that 700 billion bailout and wants to buy up all the bad mortgages then turns around and cries how his opponent is a socialist. In fact you even have a picture of him in your sig.

And yea thats antoehr thing. The republican party is yelling "socialist" when thats clearly not even true. Its just a scare tactic and it goes back to mccarthyism back in the 50's.

[QUOTE="shoeman12"]because he was lying in the first place and now that people realize it he's flip flopping.jubino

True. Once elected, he'll probably increase taxes for everyone after he realizes he won't have enough money to support his half-baked plans.

Just curious, which half baked plans?

[QUOTE="Buddha_basic"][QUOTE="halfirishhomer"]

[QUOTE="septemberluc"][QUOTE="sonicare"]Because he's going to need to tax a lot of people to support a lot of the programs he's proposing. Money just doesnt magically appear.halfirishhomer

You'd be surprised to learn that tax revenues have increased by 20 percent since the Bush tax cuts, so if Obama thinks he can pay for his 2 trillion dollars in new spending by taxing the rich more, he's dead wrong.

[QUOTE="septemberluc"][QUOTE="sonicare"]Because he's going to need to tax a lot of people to support a lot of the programs he's proposing. Money just doesnt magically appear.halfirishhomer

You'd be surprised to learn that tax revenues have increased by 20 percent since the Bush tax cuts, so if Obama thinks he can pay for his 2 trillion dollars in new spending by taxing the rich more, he's dead wrong.

But see Bush only raised the USA deficit by trillions of dollars. Whereas the last democrat in office (Clinton) raised taxes yes, but spent less and lowered the deficit.

But see Bush was in office during a war, whereas Clinton was not.

You make that comment like this war was the only option, and was executed perfectly. I beg to differ.

[QUOTE="septemberluc"][QUOTE="sonicare"]Because he's going to need to tax a lot of people to support a lot of the programs he's proposing. Money just doesnt magically appear.halfirishhomer

You'd be surprised to learn that tax revenues have increased by 20 percent since the Bush tax cuts, so if Obama thinks he can pay for his 2 trillion dollars in new spending by taxing the rich more, he's dead wrong.

[QUOTE="septemberluc"][QUOTE="sonicare"]Because he's going to need to tax a lot of people to support a lot of the programs he's proposing. Money just doesnt magically appear.halfirishhomer

You'd be surprised to learn that tax revenues have increased by 20 percent since the Bush tax cuts, so if Obama thinks he can pay for his 2 trillion dollars in new spending by taxing the rich more, he's dead wrong.

But see Bush only raised the USA deficit by trillions of dollars. Whereas the last democrat in office (Clinton) raised taxes yes, but spent less and lowered the deficit.

Hannity and Colmes found a book by Ayers from the mid-70's where Ayers dedicated the book to Sirhan Sirhan, who is the killer of Robert Kennedy. How Democrats can align themselves with someone with these crazy associations like Wright, Khaledi, Pflager, and Ayers is crazy.

jfcundiff

YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING ME. Duxup is right. things are blown way out of proportion. People should be offended and angry at the republican campain for these smear compaigns assuming that republicans are dumb enough to believe them.

The Bill Ayers accusation is so blown out of proportion its unbelievable. Its like saying someone you work with now, but dont hang out with (we'll call him hank), murdered smoeone 20 years ago, before you even knew Hank. He served his time and is now on the straight and narrow working a legitimate job with you, but because you know him, youre considered a murderer too.

Obama was 8 when Ayers had loose ties with a terrorist group that commited a terrist act. Years later when Ayers was on the straight and narrow as a PROFESSOR of a universit, he served on the same council as Obama to reform education. Yea..terrorist..right.

The Khaledi accusation is another one. Obama was seen at a convention with Khaledi, yes, but Khaledi is a proffesor for Columbia University. Not a terrorist. If hes so bad than how come the IRI(international republican institute), which McCain was charimen of during this time, gave Khaledis research group nearly 500,000 dollars for research?

Look, im not saying vote Obama, im not saying Vote McCain. All im saying is show youre smarter than the smears and dont base your decision on this BS.

I love these topics.

Michael Chrichton as stated above does write good books but i wouldnt recommend"State of Fear" even if i were blind.

Sphereis more like it.

Gravitys Rainbowis def. a book to consider. Its bible thin pages and constant tangents are surely to keep people away, but let me say that when you understand it, the book is amazingly written. (Not for anyone looking for leisure reading)

Stephen Kingcan be hit and miss with some of his books. Id recommend Dark Tower series, The Stand, Desperation(awesome book).

Chokeby Chuck Palahniuk is a great read. Its now coming out in movie form, hopefully they do the book justice.

The Roadby Cormac McCarthy is an amazing post apocolyptic type novel. Really a great read. Dont let the bland dialogue put you off, but rather let it set the tone of the landscape. This is also morphing into movie form in november i believe.

Blindness (yet another one moving to the box office), is a great read. I felt sometimes it rambled, and the lack of grammar can make it difficult to differentiate who is speaking, almost as if youre blind yourself at times. The styyle will either pull you in or push you away. Still a great read IMO

Donnie Brascois a great undercover/mob read based on true events. The movie does it no justice..in fact..dont even think of watching the movie.

Night Watchby Sergei Lukyanenkois on my bookshelf but i have yet to read it. Ive heard only great things about it. Anyone here bury their heads in it?