Convince Me That We Can Trust The Dems In Nov.

I see millions of oppressed Iraqis in rape rooms and mass graves are not vital... and a bribed UN by Saddam is not vital, my question is vital to whom, the enemy?

Thanks for your educated opinion but I prefer to go with democracy versus corruption. You are losing here bad.

You are asking the impossible.

Had Obama been "experienced" and thought things through he would not be CHANGING his policy at every breath. But Obama is a politician not a HARBINGER Is Harbinger of change. Is harbinger too big a word? Look it up you are the one with the college education. I not only went to college but I also attended a seminary. Even Joe Biden has called Barack inexperienced. I am sure Biden will be CHANGING that tune.

Obama has offered the American people a thousand smackeroos to vote for him...

Obama, "the most liberal member in congress" has moved to so many positions it is no wonder he hasn’t "changed" his name... Your arrogance suggests you are the only own who knows anything. Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

Gore and his Sierra environmental "club" stinks of Marxism...

So the dems are that far gone huh? I knew it!

And what of the dems big boy George Soros' MONEY? That broad side of the barn is coming at you rather fast. ALSO, I put a couple asterisks in your base tasteless college educated verbal explicative.

This is why the good for nothing obstructionist democrats ran for the hills instead of voting for a NEW energy policy. FEAR OF CHANGE…

I could go on all day pointing out the holes in this sieve. Kuvasz,
your line of talking points will never float.

You're still a ******* moron; Hayek won the Nobel Prize in ECONOMICS not PEACE.

Look fella, you stated that the democrats were usurping democracy for a totalitarian regime. pointing out that they have a 14 % approval rating is not evidence for your idiotic claim. so again, prove with facts that the democrats are usurping democracy or shut the hell up.

btw please, define the term "socialist" which you bandy like you actually know the meaning of the word.

I learned how to curse by working in a textile mill for three and a half years on third shift while working my way to being the validictorian of my college while the sons of the owners of the same mill jacked off and watched me get A's to their C-minuses.

Being scared of "change," as you have shown is not equal to to backsliding nor changing policies. If it is, show me AN EXAMPLE.

Do you actually know the English language AND how to use it to communicate your thoughts; because you are beginning to act like Humpty Dumpty?

When he used a word, it meant just what he choose it to mean, neither more nor less.

Even children are less obtuse than you.

You saw millions of oppressed Iraqis in rape rooms? Prove it. Go ahead, prove that MILLIONS of Iraqis were raped.

The enemy were those who actually attacked America, that would be the Taliban supported al Queada who lived in Afghanistan, not in Saddam-ruled Iraqi territory when the Americans invaded.

You are so stupid that you don't even know the history you actually lived through.

First, I'm not arrogant. You are dumb. Second, it shows, because you are so dumb that you willingly accept anything that reinforces your previously held opinions, and that shows that you have little to no ability for discerning facts from fictions. Likely, you would eat **** and love the taste because it looks brown like milk chocolate.

e.g., "Obama is the most liberal senator." That accusation comes from the National Review.

The editors of the National Journal, and their ridiculous method of determining who has the "most liberal" voting record in the Senate.

Here are seven reasons that this study is meaningless, except to the people in charge of attack ads for the Republican National Committee:

• In 2006, Obama was the 10th most liberal senator; in 2005, he was the 16th most liberal, according to the same statistical methods.

• The 2007 rankings are based on 99 votes"and Obama only participated in 66 of them.

• John McCain missed so many votes in 2007 that he avoided being rated altogether.

• In 2004, the National Journal obliged the Republicans by making John Kerry it's number-one liberal"entirely on the basis of his votes on economic issues, because he hadn't voted frequently enough in the foreign policy and social issues categories to be rated at all.

• In 2007, a vote to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission was counted as a "liberal" vote"as were all votes in opposition to the war in Iraq.

• Karl Rove has already said, "Nonpartisan ratings say that [Obama] has a more liberal and a more straight-party voting record than Senator Clinton does. Pretty hard to do."

• Adam Nagourney, chief political correspondent for the New York Times, said he would never use anything like the National Journal's rating to assess a candidate's voting record. When he saw the Journal's ratings, he said, his first thought was, "regardless of its merits, that's going to be a Republican attack ad."

I readily admit that I may have only one eye, but that makes me king in the land of blind fools like you.

You stated earlier that in 1980 you voted for Al Gore in that election. I posted his use of the populist theme of the "people versus the powerful."

Yet, you call that "stinking Marxism?"

Are you on drugs or something? You cannot even respond with an intelligible answer to why you could decry "socialism" and have voted for a guy eight years ago who is more "socialist" than the guy whom you criticize now.

Are you an adult or simply a teenager who has yet to form a mature critical mind?

maybe you haven't been paying attention, but when the congress returns fron vacation an energy bill will be on their agenda. and oil drilling off shore will be part of the package along with tax rebates to those who use wind and solar power..

does that make you happy?

What is on the agenda is LONG OVERDO and largely irrelevant since the Democrats will not pass anything.

As far as another round of tax rebates, stop the bullsh!t and lower taxes .

If you have a crytstal ball that shows you how the future unfolds you ought to use it and get rich instead of pestering a2k with your ignorant bullshit. You are bitching about what you believe will happen not what has happened because the energy legislation is coming up in september. btw It has been the House Republicans who have spent the last 16 months attempting to slow down legislation so fools like you can rail against a do nothing Congress.

Okay brainiac tell us how low you want taxes to go when you have a $250,000,000,000 yearly deficit that causes your own government to borrow money from the Arabs and Chinese, which itself causes the US to kowtow to the bankers who own the debt. If you cut taxes you force the government to continue borrowing money or defund the programs people want.

Remember that Clinton left the government with a balanced budet, and was drawing down on the national debt from $7 trillion to $5.7 trillion, while over the past 7 years, Bush and the Republican led Congress until 2007 increased the budget hundreds of millions of dollars and increased the national debt to $9.4 trillion.

And you want to elect a chief executive that follows along that path?

In 1993 President Clinton inherited the deficit spending problem and did more than just talk about it; he fixed it. In his first two years and with a cooperative Democratic Congress he set the course for the best economy this country has ever experienced. Then he worked with what could be characterized as the most hostile Congress in history, led by Republicans for the last six years of his administration. Yet, under constant personal attacks from the right, he still managed to get the growth of the debt down to 0.32% (one third of one percent) his last year in office.

When President Bush II came into office in 2001 he quickly turned all that progress around. With the help of a Republican controlled Congress he immediately gave a massive tax cut based on a failed economic policy; perhaps an economic fantasy describes it better. The last year Mr. Clinton was in office the nation borrowed 18 $billion dollars. The first year Mr. Bush II was in office he had to borrow 133 $billion. The first tax cut Bush pushed through a willing Republican Congress caused an upswing in government borrowing that was supposed to stimulate the economy, but two years later Bush had to push through yet another tax cut. The second tax cut was needed because it was clear that the first one did not work. Economic history tells us the second did not work either.

As a result of all his tax cutting with no cutting in spending, in 2003 President Bush set a record for the biggest single yearly dollar increase in debt in the nation’s history. He did it again in 2004, increasing the debt more than half a trillion dollars. Since 2003 total borrowing has exceeded $500,000,000,000 per year. Even Mr. Reagan never increased the debt that much in a single year; Mr. Reagan’s biggest increase was only 282 billion, half of GWB’s outrageous spending. As a result of the fact that the debt was already pretty high when Bush II entered office, his annual rate of increase is only averaging 7% per year so far. In 2006 he was holding press conferences bragging that the debt was increasing at the rate of only 300 billion dollars a year, yet in reality it was twice that. Again the facts do not match Neo-Con rhetoric.

Okay, fella' let's cut taxes on the wealthiest so that they will invest in more factories and other businesses in countries such as China where wages are low, and then our middle and lower classes can lose their jobs! Smart. Here's the problem, your logic is putting the money into the few and let's hope they do the right thing.

How about we help out the middle class (the largest populated class) and see if they will spend it more wisely. My guess is that they will either save it, invest it, or spend it. Either way it is good for the economy. Oh, and that just might be good for big business as well as the middle class will more than likely be buying their products.

It comes down to this. Either you believe in the trickle down theory, or the trickle up effect. I like to see it move from the bottom up.

Any red-blooded American patriot would not want America to become weaker, but tax cuts for the rich instead of the middle class weakens the nation, so I assume that calling for tax cuts for the wealthy (incomes over $275,000, the top 1%) instead of the middle and lower classes (up to incomes of $150,000, the bottom 99%) makes you a traitor.

So put up or shut up, tell the rest of the class where you want to cut or raise taxes to strengthen America.

You can trust the Dems to raise taxes and cripple our economy.

Apparently, you know nothing about the last 30 years of this US govt bullsh!tting Americans about "energy independence" and we are no further along than we were 30 years ago. As a matter of fact, our dependence on foreign imports is greater now than it was 30 years ago.

You post is largely based upon ignorance on your part as this objective voter places blame on both sides of the aisle. This energy subject has been a circle jerk for each party and the only ones getting rich are the politicians who receive "payday" from big oil companies.

I do not plan on jumping for joy (like you) about another small tax rebate for all. This is another circle jerk buy you democratic party leaders to try to "cheer" up folks like you.

Common sense dictates that if they can find money for a rebate, then lower the taxes immediately.

I would agree with middle class tax cuts so long as we define the middle as income earners from 50K to 250K/yr.

Neither candidate has a meaningful tax plan so get used to the fact that it will be up to Congress to handle the budget and if we have a Democratic congress, I predict higher taxes across the board.