do you think any of the candidates can make a difference, if elected?

Bush is an imbecile,he got to where he is because of his daddy and his connections,you think bush has got me covered many times over,in what way exactly ?

From what I've read, Scooby, Bush is in fact much smarter than you. Where is your History degree from Yale? Got one? When did you own the Texas Rangers? Ever? When were you Governor of Texas? Ever? Where is your Master's degree from Yale in Business Administration? Got one?

Like you say, he's the leader of the free world, what heights will you attain in your life?

Heah, any body else on the planet right now is an also ran. Until you get your wish and we go down. You got nothin to say. Your on the outside lookin in, why, because you have no spine. Instead of talking, act! Start your crusade!!!

"Until you get your wish and we go down" who is the we ? dont put all americans into the same basket as you !

McCain is the only one who can have a positive effect. Only if the Democrats lose the house and possibly the senate. The effect he can have will actually (possibly) bring something of a detente' between parties since he is actually quite liberal for a republican.
Clinton and Obama, who will have the power of majority houses will immediately turn the U.S. into an absolute socialist society. They intend to end tax cuts, apply massive tax increases. Abandon the Iraqi's to be taken by Al Queda and likely Iran.
The side effect of tax increases will increase the already heavy burden on the middle class. The government is currently making more off a gallon of gas than the suppliers are.
Hillary proclaimed in her interview with O'reilly that they (the producers) have no right to the exhorbitant profits they are making. "They" at least have the burden of refining and delivering the product. The government need only cash the checks for their -0- effort.

I must have missed that part of their platform....

Did you miss Hillary's O'reilly interview? She intends to tax the American public and all business into bankruptcy. She of course doesn't realize that. But, her proclamation that big business does not have the "right" to the profits they are enjoying clarifies it. Though gas prices are what they are due to the taxes on it she has every intention of taking more from them. That's socialism.
Obama, though not as specific proves the point with his offers of free everything for the people. Apparently not realizing that nothing is free. The middle class will bear the burden.
Business, with the current tax laws will, as they must, will pass their share of taxes on to the customer. Inadvertently placing the burden on the over taxed middle class.

Misrepresentation and oversimplification are alive and well in conservatives today!

As well it is on the other side of the fence.

Perhaps you can take a moment and clarify for us Obama's or Clinton's intentions as far as re-stabilizing the economy.
One example of mis-information that caught my attention was an add for Obama which stated that it is time for the American people to put behind them concerns of health care and economic security.

What does Obama propose to do concerning "economic security" that no one has ever attempted to address? Does he mean that the government will assume whatever debts we impose upon ourselves? More widespread welfare?
What can a politician do to alleviate financial concerns for the average American? Is he guilty of pandering through over simplification? Or are you aware of his plan?

Please do show me where i've oversimplified or misrepresented conservative views. :cool:

Misrepresentation and oversimplification are alive and well in conservatives today!

I did not suggest that "you" had over simplified anything.

I hope you can clarify for me Obama's and Clinton's intentions to "fix" things.
They seem to be a bit vague on the issue.
I don't know about you, but, Obama makes me nervous with his offer of "change".

I don't want change.

1. i was talking about you ,specifically, then you said something like "as well as on the other side of the fence..." which would imply that you were talking about me oversimplifying conservative views.

3. no matter what it may be it certainly isn't to "tax the American public and all business into bankruptcy." as you say.

4. conservatives generally don't.

Misrepresentation and oversimplification are alive and well in conservatives today!

1. Please, take note of this quote. It was "your" statement.


My reply was simply that over simplification is alive and well on the left.

3. Of course Obama and Clinton have no intention of bankrupting the U.S. or business. However their naivet?' allows them to see the American tax payer as the horn of plenty. An endless source.
Of course the fact that we have four forms of government that we pay taxes to, federal, state, county and city is not taken into consideration. Also, the fact that we have employees working in each of those forms of government who spend their time doing nothing more than figuring out ways to get more of our money is ignored by the candidates. They look at the revenue of the federal government and disregard all the other burdens on the people.

4. You seem to be avoiding clarifying the intent of the democratic candidates.
They seem so adamant and so certain that they have the answers that clarification should be a breeze.
Why would I want change? What's wrong in your life that a president is responsible for?

1. let me clarify, when i said conservatives i was talking about you.

of course that's not what you said is it? thus why i said you were oversimplifying!

2. Most recently? I have family members who serve in Iraq, but anyway just because something isn't directly a presidents fault doesn't mean they should not be fixed.

1. OK, whatever.
2. Let them know, they are appreciated. By me.
When something is not directly a presidents fault, it is highly unlikely that another president is going to fix it. And if he is going to fix personal problems with tax paid money, he's a piss poor president.

Is that not what tax money is for?

Tax money is illegal. The practice began with Lincoln. The government had the good sense to stop taxing after the civil war ended. The practice was resumed by Roosevelt after thats when politicians realized they had found the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.