UBinVA

What grade are in and why are you not in school? Let me know how you feel when you bust your ass all day to provide for your family, raise four kids, put them all through college, pay 50% of your earnings to the government and yet they want more. If you live in NYC or other high price areas $250K is not rich. It might be in Buffalo but not here in DC, CA, NYC or other urban areas. Plus, most small businesses declare their earnings on individual tax returns which are subject to these higher taxes. So yes, it not only hurts these people, it hurts their business and businesses will not hire more people.

What is America to you? Please define what America's values are? What do you like about it? How have we become so powerful in such a short time? Socialism: "One step away from Communism" 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

If your lazy and rely on government handouts I agree. For the rest of us who work for a living I seriously doubt it. pBills: Your avatar is disrespectful and trivial. You mock an American hero who spent 5 1/2 in a prison camp and has served his country with honor all his life. You are a disgrace and the leftists in this country are a disgrace.

They do die in vain if the politicians do not have the will to finish the job. Just ask some of the family members who lost loved ones in wars. The only solace they may have is knowing that his/her life was given in a just cause and that the freedoms of others and our own country have been preserved. War is hell and no sane person wants war. But we do not deal with sane people in this world and as the last bastion of freedom and liberty left in the world, it falls on us to do what the world should help us do. Despots, Dictators, extremists and their ilk will not go away and must be confronted. The price has and will be paid for by our brave soldiers. To abandon this cause in the middle of war only to re-engage at a future date with more deviating loses is beyond the pail.

Great post scribo, Although I was supporting Romney in the primary due to his economic background and McCain being too liberal on some other issues, I'm fully behind McCain as the right person at the right time. He knows and understands how to win these wars with the Islamic extremists, and he will be an effective leader in domestic and world affairs. I know one thing, he won't be tested on national defense like Biden said Obama would, and that's a good thing. The perfect storm has hit McCain like a ton of bricks (the economy, the war not being an issue, Bush's rather lack luster performance, etc) and everything is in Obama favor. Having said that, I do believe the polls are over inflated for Obama and McCain is still in the fight. It's one thing to hope for a change and another thing to vote for hope or vote for a known entity. When the sh-- hits the fan and people have to pull that lever, I believe they will think twice and pull the lever for McCain.

I'm quite sure that a Democrat majority, if it comes to be, will be a total disaster and will eventually bring about a new conservative movement ala Ronald Reagan. The only thing that concerns me is at what price. I predict that if the Dems get a super majority the following will occur within the next two to four years: 2 possibly 3 Supreme court justices will retire being replaced by ACLU / left wing type justices. All US attorneys will be fired and replace by Democrats (Clinton did this / Bush did not). All conservative / GOP type personnel in government agencies will be rooted out and replaced. Military budgets for missile defense will be dropped or cut dramatically. Obama's health plan will be replaced by the Kennedy plan of universal health care for all, even the 11-20 million illegals. Bush's tax cuts will be eliminated and replaced by even more taxes and rebates to those who don't even pay taxes. Most free trade agreements will be renegotiated. Obama will pretend to be strong on national defense and talk tough, but behind the scenes, he will be appeasing and weak. The U.N. will have a much larger roll in America's domestic and and international affairs. Small businesses will start to close in record numbers prompting Obama to initial even more government programs to stop the bleeding. Our rights and freedoms as Americans will greatly be diminished through the liberal courts and new legislation . Volunteerism and community run programs will be replaced by larger federal government programs. Radical groups like ACORN and the ACLU will be funded even more and generating even a larger base of democratic support. The larger education systems in urban cities will be taken over by the federal government followed by more control over local schools. The Dems will also eliminate the use of vouches even thou Obama supports them. After this and much more, the American people will be ready for a real change. A change back to reality and basic American principles of self reliance, freedom from government, conservative values, and a basic respect of the individual to be allowed to fail or succeed based on their own merits. The collective welfare of all at the price of a few will be replaced by do unto others as they would do unto you.

With a Democrat Triumvirate and a super majority. Does anyone think this is good besides the lefties? A Pelosi, Reed, Obama lead country scares the hell out me. This country would make such a drastic turn left, it will take 20 years to undo the damage on the supreme court, our military, intelligence services and other socialist policies. If you think Jimmy Carter was bad, just wait, this will be worse.

I remember Hillary promising WNY a bunch of jobs when she became Senator. What happened? Nothing! She blames that evil Bush. No politicians can create jobs, are you people fools? The only thing politicians can do is get the government off our back, lower taxes rates, and let us compete in a free and open market. That's how jobs and businesses are created. There must be incentive, capital, and risk takers to create jobs and wealth. When incentive is taken away, capital drys up, and risk averse people not willing to put it on the line for a profit due to higher taxes and regulations you get a recession.

Don't known if this is true but, I heard Obama's half brother George Hussein Onyango Obama called 911 in Kenya to stop the flow of human waste running in front of his mud hut. Vote Obama: He'll take care of us just like he takes care of his family. How about a little wealth distribution from family to family Barack? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...d-in-Kenya.html

Read this. It's all you need to know about this topic and Journalism in this country and was written by a Democrat. http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html

This election will be very very close. I think it's a toss up right now and could go either way. Polls should not sway anyone's choice and everyone should vote. I have a statistics background and these polls based on the sample size, people selected (Dems, Indies, GOP), people not telling the truth, etc. are very suspect at best. Pollers also manipulate the raw data to anticipate the eventual voter turnout and other methods. In this election I think most historical polling analysis can be thrown out. The dynamics are way different than any other election to date. Interesting article by Ann Coulter about this topic. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29050 Ann Coulter Analysis: Reviewing the polls printed in The New York Times and The Washington Post in the last month of every presidential election since 1976, I found the polls were never wrong in a friendly way to Republicans. When the polls were wrong, which was often, they overestimated support for the Democrat, usually by about 6 to 10 points. In 1976, Jimmy Carter narrowly beat Gerald Ford 50.1 percent to 48 percent. And yet, on Sept. 1, Carter led Ford by 15 points. Just weeks before the election, on Oct. 16, 1976, Carter led Ford in the Gallup Poll by 6 percentage points -- down from his 33-point Gallup Poll lead in August. Reading newspaper coverage of presidential elections in 1980 and 1984, I found myself paralyzed by the fear that Reagan was going to lose. In 1980, Ronald Reagan beat Carter by nearly 10 points, 51 percent to 41 percent. In a Gallup Poll released days before the election on Oct. 27, it was Carter who led Reagan 45 percent to 42 percent. In 1984, Reagan walloped Walter Mondale 58.8 percent to 40 percent, -- the largest electoral landslide in U.S. history. But on Oct. 15, The New York Daily News published a poll showing Mondale with only a 4-point deficit to Reagan, 45 percent to 41 percent. A Harris Poll about the same time showed Reagan with only a 9-point lead. The Oct. 19 New York Times/CBS News Poll had Mr. Reagan ahead of Mondale by 13 points. All these polls underestimated Reagan's actual margin of victory by 6 to 15 points. In 1988, George H.W. Bush beat Michael Dukakis by a whopping 53.4 percent to 45.6 percent. A New York Times/CBS News Poll on Oct. 5 had Bush leading the Greek homunculus by a statistically insignificant 2 points -- 45 percent to 43 percent. (For the kids out there: Before it became a clearinghouse for anti-Bush conspiracy theories, CBS News was considered a credible journalistic entity.) A week later -- or one tank ride later, depending on who's telling the story -- on Oct. 13, Bush was leading Dukakis in The New York Times Poll by a mere 5 points. Admittedly, a 3- to 6-point error is not as crazily wrong as the 6- to 15-point error in 1984. But it's striking that even small "margin of error" mistakes never seem to benefit Republicans. In 1992, Bill Clinton beat the first President Bush 43 percent to 37.7 percent. (Ross Perot got 18.9 percent of Bush's voters that year.) On Oct. 18, a Newsweek Poll had Clinton winning 46 percent to 31 percent, and a CBS News Poll showed Clinton winning 47 percent to 35 percent. So in 1992, the polls had Clinton 12 to 15 points ahead, but he won by only 5.3 points. In 1996, Bill Clinton beat Bob Dole 49 percent to 40 percent. And yet on Oct. 22, 1996, The New York Times/CBS News Poll showed Clinton leading by a massive 22 points, 55 percent to 33 percent. In 2000, which I seem to recall as being fairly close, the October polls accurately described the election as a virtual tie, with either Bush or Al Gore 1 or 2 points ahead in various polls. But in one of the latest polls to give either candidate a clear advantage, The New York Times/CBS News Poll on Oct. 3, 2000, showed Gore winning by 45 percent to 39 percent. In the last presidential election the polls were surprisingly accurate -- not including the massively inaccurate Election Day exit poll. In the end, Bush beat John Kerry 50.7 percent to 48.3 percent in 2004. Most of the October polls showed the candidates in a dead-heat, with Bush 1 to 3 points ahead. So either pollsters got a whole lot better starting in 2004, or Democrats stole more votes in that election than we even realized.

Naturally the media should investigate a guy who actually ask Obama a question that he answered like a good Marxist. The media can investigate this guy but can't even investigate the actual Presidential Candidate himself. You people on the left are truly pathetic. Obama wouldn't even be able to get a security clearance based on the questions they ask about associations to radical groups and anti-American activities. But if he's an elected official it all doesn't matter. He'll have the keys to the car and drive it right off the cliff.

How about this: It's not that I want to punish your success, but I'll do it anyway. It's not that I want to punish your success, but I have to. It's not that I want to punish your success, but where else do I get the money to give to someone else. It's not that I want to punish your success, but I can't punish the unsuccessful, they have no money. Either way, he's going to try to do it and like it when he does. If people don't really want to do something they won't. He does, and he will.

"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the blue-collar worker asked. After Obama responded that it would, Wurzelbacher continued: "I've worked hard . . . I work 10 to 12 hours a day and I'm buying this company and I'm going to continue working that way. I'm getting taxed more and more while fulfilling the American Dream." "It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama told him. "I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too. http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publi.../pub_detail.asp So the way I read this, if I succeed, the government will tax (punish) me more so that another guy can also have a chance at success. So tax punishment now equates to other peoples chances of success, got it! So with that additional government revenue generated off people’s success as stated above, what programs will be created to promote another person’s success? Or will that additional revenue just go into the government coffers and spent on useless social programs that don’t promote job creation and just stymies possible success. The problem is that one person’s success should not be dependent on another person’s success or failure. We are individuals and we either fail or succeed based on our own merits and hard work. If I succeed, hopefully I’ve created a business that employees people and make their life better. But to equate my success with higher tax revenue so that others can do it makes no sense unless you are a socialist. Hence, Obama is a socialist as are all of his supporters. Repeat after me Obama supporters: I am a Socialist. I am a Socialist. I am a Socialist. I am a Marxist. (You’re one of these too!) I am a Socialist. I am a Socialist. I am a Socialist. I am a Marxist.

If you're really honest about extremism, look no further than the Dailykooks and MoveOn.org. The hate and vitriol against Bush and the GOP is far more extreme than anything on the right even with the worst congress in the history of the U.S. under Democratic leadership.

As opposed to the choosen one who has no resume!

Bong hits with Obama!

So referencing a blog that references a New York Times Article is not a credible source? You people are in such denial that even your counter points fly in the face of the facts. And anyone that believes the NYT's is not in the bag for Obama along with most MSM reporters have their head up their too far up their a$s. This subject has been hashed here more than once and no one on the left can state one fact that discounts it. You can say FOX and talk radio are right wing but not CNN, ABC, NBC, NPR, CBS, MSLSD, NYT, WashPost, LA Times, ChiCom Tribune et. al.

Just like your V.P. candidate http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/0...sm_problem.html

They're not F&cked. What difference does it make what the value of the house is? If they can still afford the mortgage payments nothing has changed except the difference between market value and what they owe. Only if they have to move or sell do they incur that loss. This is the time to buy people. Rich people know this, that's how they become rich. Most people panic and bail out when prices are low and buy back in when prices go higher. The total opposite of what you're supposed to do. I just put $20K in my SEP IRA today.

So how do the dems spin this? (blame the GOP? I'm sure they will try with help from the MSM) In truth they can't, because they had enough votes to pass it themselves. A vote against socialism is as good as it gets. Let the markets adjust accordingly and then move on. Maybe the answer to this mess is to eliminate government interference in the cap market to begin with and limit the size of these companies.

Experience is no substitute for judgment! Look at Senator Biden’s IDEAS on foreign policy. It quickly becomes apparent that Senator Biden gets it wrong more times than he gets it right. For example, an article by Amir Taheri in the New York Post documents some of Senator Biden’s lack of judgment in the foreign policy arena: ** In 1979, Senator Biden agreed with President Carter that the fall of the shah in Iran represented progress in the area of human rights. He agreed with the President that we shouldn’t use force, or react strongly, to the Iranian takeover of the US Embassy and the parade of blindfolded hostages. Carter’s namby-pamby response is the reason we had so many days of the Iranian Hostage Crisis on late-night TV. ** Senator Biden opposed President Regan’s “hard line” stance against the Soviet Union. He believed that we should continue the failed policy of “détente.” President Reagan’s policies won the Cold War. If we had taken Senator Biden’s approach, we may still be paying subsidies to the “Evil Empire.” ** After Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, Senator Biden voted against the use of force to kick Iraq out of Kuwait in what became known as the Gulf War. ** Although Senator Biden did vote to authorize the use of force against Iraq for Operation Iraqi Freedom, he has since been a vocal critic of the war in Iraq. He’s stated that the war has been lost and opposed the surge strategy. ** Senator Biden proposes to end the war in Iraq and bring the troops home by partitioning Iraq into three separate, semiautonomous regions; one for the Shi’ites, one for the Sunnis, and one for the Kurds. He calls it the “Biden Plan.” He apparently got the idea for partitioning a sovereign country, despite their wishes, from the partitioning of Bosnia in the 1990’s something he was also involved with. (Look how successful that’s been. The US military is still there.) ** In 2004, Senator Biden spoke at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland and trashed the US as a democratic country. In his speech he claimed the US had no moral authority to preach democracy in the Middle East. He said, “We don’t have much of a democracy ourselves. Remember our own presidential election; remember Florida!” ** Senator Biden, like Senator Obama, supports entering into a dialog with the leaders of Iran, without preconditions.

If Palin had Obama's radical background and associations she'd be toast. The media has not done it's job concerning Obama or Biden for that matter. The MSM is in the bag for these guys and it shows. Same goes for the bailout. The MSM is covering up the mess the dems made by years ago that got this whole ball rolling. But all you hear from the MSM and the dems is that it's the GOPs fault. Everyone has blood on their hands with mess including Bush, but to only blame the GOP and greedy wall street is a flat out lie. McCain has not made this case known and is blowing this opportunity to state this to the people. When the GOP was pushing for increased regulations and warning about Fanny/Freddy. The Dems hunkered down and protected Raines/Gerlic et. al. and said everything was fine and that the regulators where out of order. http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/the...how_we_got.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8060902626.html View this and see the C-SPAN feed of the hearings. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/0...g_franklin.html

View this video and then tell who wanted more regulations on Fanny and Freddy. Truth be told, these outfits where run by democrats and gave big $ to democratic candidates. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/0...g_franklin.html This all started on the Clinton watch when the government started intervening in the credit market to push low income lending. Since HUD became their regulator in 1992, Fannie and Freddie each year are supposed to buy a portion of "affordable" mortgages made to underserved borrowers. Every four years, HUD reviews the goals to adapt to market changes. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8060902626.html In 1995, President Bill Clinton's HUD agreed to let Fannie and Freddie get affordable-housing credit for buying subprime securities that included loans to low-income borrowers. The idea was that subprime lending benefited many borrowers who did not qualify for conventional loans. HUD expected that Freddie and Fannie would impose their high lending standards on subprime lenders. Banks typically back prime loans with customers' deposits. But subprime lenders often rely on money from Wall Street investors , who buy packages of loans as investments called mortgage-backed securities. In 2000, as HUD revisited its affordable-housing goals, the housing market had shifted. With escalating home prices, subprime loans were more popular. Consumer advocates warned that lenders were trapping borrowers with low "teaser" interest rates and ignoring borrowers' qualifications. HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay. Freddie and Fannie adopted policies not to buy some high-cost loans. That year, Freddie bought $18.6 billion in subprime loans; Fannie did not disclose its number.

yellowlinesandarmadillos Where are you? Cat got your tongue on the definition of Socialism? Pretty scary stuff IMO, but we're half way there anyway so lets go for the gusto and elect Obama.