Yes, we can.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by JWBear

How would the founding fathers feel about domestic spying and the Patriot (sic) Act?

Fair question, and it is very tough to say.

I must say, being that I am a strict constructionist and I must be true to my belief system, that they would indeed object as a violation of the 4th amendment.

That being said, I personally do not have problems with the echelon system and software flagging personal conversations based on keywords for later analysis by a human. I'm not sure how they what they would think about that, because the flagging of keywords can perhaps mean that it is no longer unreasonable to listen in.

[wendybeth]

I resent the hell out of our tax dollars going to the industrial war complex. By that, I mean the apolitical politicians- like Cheney- who stand for nothing more than profit at any cost, even if it means the destruction of our country and the deaths of thousands of our citizens. I never thought you were rich, Scaeagles- I really don't concern myself with such matters, but I do know that you cite money as a primary motivator in your political decisions. I like money as much as the next person, but not at the cost of my humanity.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

First is that raising taxes will result in raised revenue, far from a certainty, and I would argue the opposite takes place.

And you'd be wrong. (or rather, you'd be just as likely to be wrong as right since all the evidence has shown that far too many economic factors are at play for incremental changes, up or down, in taxation to produce any sort of predictable, measurable effect on overall revenue due to economic growth or shrinkage).

By the same token, ignoring the last clause of the sentence, I agree that raising taxes is not a certain path towards revenue increase (see above). But the reality is that our spending is growing and that's not going to change no matter who is in office. The only thing that is going to have an effect at this point is military spending and McCain will certainly continue the trend of blowing the budget out of the water on that. From the standpoint of economic stability, while my druthers would be to make large cuts in all areas where there is waste, that's simply not going to happen in the short term so the next best thing is to stop the bleeding via un-budgeted military spending and continue to ensure there is enough revenue to cover the current levels of approved waste. When we had a budget surplus, moves were being made to begin cutting intelligently because Congress could look at the budget rationally instead of in panic mode. It'd be nice to be there again.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

II do know that you cite money as a primary motivator in your political decisions. I like money as much as the next person, but not at the cost of my humanity.

It isn't that my motivation is that I like money more than the next person. I am just against legalized theivery and redistribution of wealth, which is what I regard a large portion of taxation as. I am against the legalized pyramid scheme of social security. I do not believe that it is the place of government to determine that they can make better use of money I earn than they can. And I resent the hell out of the fact that the government never feels like they can do with less....it is ALWAYS more. Sadly GWB has failed me (and America) mightily in this area with the virtually exponential growth of the federal budget.

[wendybeth]

Saying GW failed is understating the situation. He and his gang have lied and stolen from the American people, and the world as well. They are nothing more than criminals- not failed idealists. I look at the actions of people like Limbaugh, who openly encouraged crossover voting, and wonder why anyone would align themselves with a party that engages in such cynical and deceptive practices. I'll take a good sex scandal over this **** anyday.

[scaeagles]

Sorry, but crossover voting has been going on with dems for a long time. This is how we got McCain as the republican nominee. I guess open primaries are OK unless they aren't.

I don't agree on the "stolen from the American people" thing.

GD, I knew you'd jump on that statement, but an argument can be made and has been by many an economist, though certainly not supported by what you cite.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

GD, I knew you'd jump on that statement, but an argument can be made and has been by many an economist, though certainly not supported by what you cite.

I have never seen any remotely convincing argument. Every argument I've seen is based either purely on theory, or on short-term economic effects that can easily be attributed to other factors and (as demonstrated by my link, and countless other sources) are negated by opposing trends in any long term analysis. There has never been any credible evidence of the supposed stimulating economic effect of incremental tax cuts that has crossed my eyes.

[wendybeth]

Scaeagles, somehow I knew you'd come back with a 'but they do it too' argument. Bad behavior is bad behavior, and it needs to stop somewhere. THAT is my main reason for voting for Obama- I will not vote for a candidate who engages in destructive politics . It's one thing to point out inconsistencies and untruths, and quite another to manufacture and engage in deception. So long as Obama continues on the high road, I will gladly follow.

[wendybeth]

The Obama campaign is getting some major backing today: Delegates aligning with Obama.

"

At least four new Democratic superdelegates shifted toward Obama on Wednesday, convinced by his double-digit victory in North Carolina and better-than-expected showing in Indiana that he will be the candidate who takes on McCain in November.

Among the newly added supporters was Virginia’s Jennifer McClellan, who used to support Clinton, as well as North Carolina Democratic Party Chairman Jerry Meek, North Carolina Democratic National Committee member Jeanette Council and California DNC member Inola Henry.

Earlier in the day, 1972 presidential candidate George McGovern, who formerly backed Clinton, gave his blessing to Obama, saying he didn’t see how Clinton could win."






I took the article from FauxNews so Scaeagles wouldn't feel it was unbalanced.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

Dear Hillary supporters:

When If Obama officially receives the Democratic nomination for President, will you then toss your support over to him? Vote McCain? Stay Home?

I will, without hesitation, toss my support to Obama. This crap about, "if my candidate doesn't win, I'll vote for McCain or just not vote" peeves me to no end.

There are two Supreme Court Justices that are not likely to last for another four years. If they were to be replaced by the types of judges that McCain has pledged to support, we are royally screwed. I urge anyone who is contemplating following through on their professed threat to vote for McCain if they candidate doesn't win the nomination to carefully consider the ramifications of a judicial branch that is completely lopsided before making that decision.

Hell, I even know of a few conservatives who shudder at that prospect and have cited it as the number one reason they will not vote for McCain.