BF2S Forums here ya go, get the homeless registered to vote for Obama

Pug wrote:

I don't think there's anything wrong with poor people voting.

If I think McCain's better for me I'll vote for him, just like if a poor dude thinks Obama is better for him then he votes for him.

Of course, I'd perfer some real welfare restructuring over extending what's all ready available.  But what do I know, I haven't paid attention to the help-for-the-poor political positioning by the candidates since I think its about bombs, the economy, and the environment this time around.

I would like to see more people vote for who's best for the country, rather than themselves. I think that even the selfish would find they get the most benefit from that in the end.

Obama has three years in the US senate, and almost eight in the Illinois State Senate. Overall, that's about twice the political experience of Dubya.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

How dare you lowing, being so ignorant of the ideal goals liberals hold? You only define the success of their plans by how they fiscally effect you and your family, and selfishly abuse your right to the vote by giving it to the party that has only your best interest in mind. Have you thought about the thousands of people that don't make ends meet for themselves? Who can vote for them?

No, you think that just because you have a paying job and support your family that you can only think of yourself. Well I'll have you know that I have quite the decent job for my age, and I pay for most everything in my life. My parents feed, clothe, and provide shelter for me, but I pay for all my fast food and my (hefty) computer related expenses. So think twice before you start calling me a kid, because some others of us also have a pay check and we don't mind sending maybe half the percentage you do off to the government, that's just a part of life. Hell, I wouldn't mind paying the same percentage as you, how much difference does it really make to put off building my new computer for a generation or so?

There is nothing to your American Dream crap. America needs change in any direction, it doesn't particularly matter which one, and Obama is courageous enough to provide us with hope to carry us in that other direction.

You ain't paying for jack yet.

Congrats on thinking about being a pilot!  Even as an Officer, starting out you ain't going to be making a whole lot. 

I don't care what you do with your paycheck, but I don't want half of MINE going to the Government.  Taxing the crap out of its citizens isn't a part of life in US.

Obama is a sham.  Too bad so many people have bought into the "backstreet boy" built up politician.  But hey!  He's almost got a FULL year in the Senate!  Woot.

*courageous enough to provide us with hope*????  Good god that is weak.

@ lowing: I get what you were saying, I'm not against any legit voters exercising their constitutional right to vote.  I do find humor in the DNC's approach in Denver.

@Kman: Bush has proved himself anything but fiscally conservative.  I'm pretty pissed at him for the aid crap.

A lot of Americans appear to be very greedy. Not many seem to agree with the concept of tax.

Pug wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Although accurate numbers are impossible to come by -- no one keeps national records on homeless veterans -- the VA estimates that nearly 200,000 veterans are homeless on any given night.

That is interesting, it reminds me of how East Germany never used to keep statistics on suicide. Statistics like that don't make for good reading I guess.

Wow.  A suicide stat guy.  I can't think of a more depressing job.

It's easier to pretend nothing is wrong when there are no official statistics to suggest otherwise.

Braddock wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

How dare you ...  .....him for the aid crap.

A lot of Americans appear to be very greedy. Not many seem to agree with the concept of tax.

What's up B!? 

Yea, ever since that tea party thing...  Nah, I don't like taxes.  I do give money to chairity, but I pick which one.  I don't want the government doing that for me.  I like less government in my life.  I do realize that there is a need for certain social programs, but I feel that they are widley abused (at the expense of the taxpayer).

Pug wrote:

Braddock wrote:

A lot of Americans appear to be very greedy. Not many seem to agree with the concept of tax.

I would think it actually stems from people wanting to control where their taxes are spent instead...

...which is a basic difference between the GOP and the Dem parties.

I suppose that is a problem in many societies, many liberals don't get to withhold tax money for weapons, defence and war though so what's the difference?

Pug wrote:

Braddock wrote:

A lot of Americans appear to be very greedy. Not many seem to agree with the concept of tax.

I would think it actually stems from people wanting to control where their taxes are spent instead...

...which is a basic difference between the GOP and the Dem parties.

You mean like the out of control military industrial complex?

Which even John McCain describes as "borderline corrupt"...

I seriously doubt he'd say that again now that he's running for president.

Braddock wrote:

I suppose that is a problem in many societies, many liberals don't get to withhold tax money for weapons, defence and war though so what's the difference?

Well first off, there are no liberal parties in the US (that get to be president anyway).

There are many differences, too many to name really.  But to give you an idea of one of the primary differences:

Dems = bigger government = better way to direct the funds where they belong and more support for lessor known programs aka spreading out the spending to help a little everywhere, and also the Dems believe the government is better at figuring out where to spend the money then you are.

Reps = smaller government = more money goes is passed to where its needed because there's less overhead, believes smaller less popular projects should die out because they aren't supported by the public per se.  Also believes the public is better at supporting what they want rather than the government.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Braddock wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

A lot of Americans appear to be very greedy. Not many seem to agree with the concept of tax.

What's up B!? 

Yea, ever since that tea party thing...  Nah, I don't like taxes.  I do give money to chairity, but I pick which one.  I don't want the government doing that for me.  I like less government in my life.  I do realize that there is a need for certain social programs, but I feel that they are widley abused (at the expense of the taxpayer).

Unfortunately a system of specifically selecting what you want to pay tax for would be totally unworkable. But even beyond the actual concept of tax itself, many Americans feel they should be allowed to amass vast, vast amounts of wealth without limit and that any infringement on this right would be an outrage...this is often brought up by certain posters in USA vs. EU debates (as though the EU has some sort of cap on wealth!?). It just seems like pure greed to me and ironically a lot of the people who show some of the signs of this greed are the same people who support wars of 'liberation' where Iraqis who don't particularly want US help get tax payers money over fellow American citizens who could really do with the help.

I'm not directing this at you by the way DB and I don't mean to sound insulting, it's just an observation - it's also not a judgment of all Americans.

Pug wrote:

Braddock wrote:

I suppose that is a problem in many societies, many liberals don't get to withhold tax money for weapons, defence and war though so what's the difference?

Well first off, there are no liberal parties in the US (that get to be president anyway).

There are many differences, too many to name really.  But to give you an idea of one of the primary differences:

Dems = bigger government = better way to direct the funds where they belong and more support for lessor known programs aka spreading out the spending to help a little everywhere, and also the Dems believe the government is better at figuring out where to spend the money then you are.

Reps = smaller government = more money goes is passed to where its needed because there's less overhead, believes smaller less popular projects should die out because they aren't supported by the public per se.  Also believes the public is better at supporting what they want rather than the government.

Instead of "Dems =" and "Reps =", you should probably say "Dems claim they =" and "Reps claim they =". The current administration is a great example of how what they say and what they do don't always match.

chittydog wrote:

FEOS wrote:

chittydog wrote:

Obama has three years in the US senate, and almost eight in the Illinois State Senate. Overall, that's about twice the political experience of Dubya.

Only if you don't count his time as Texas governor and President.

Sorry, I meant before he became President.

He did have six years of executive experience as compared to Obama's zero.

But do we really want to use GWB as the measuring stick?

Obama can't touch McCain's experience record. He needs to stay away from that tarbaby.

lowing wrote:

God, I hate liberals

No shit.  The funny thing about this thread is I knew who wrote it at the very same time I read the title.

Braddock wrote:

Unfortunately a system of specifically selecting what you want to pay tax for would be totally unworkable. But even beyond the actual concept of tax itself, many Americans feel they should be allowed to amass vast, vast amounts of wealth without limit and that any infringement on this right would be an outrage...this is often brought up by certain posters in USA vs. EU debates (as though the EU has some sort of cap on wealth!?). It just seems like pure greed to me and ironically a lot of the people who show some of the signs of this greed are the same people who support wars of 'liberation' where Iraqis who don't particularly want US help get tax payers money over fellow American citizens who could really do with the help.

I'm not directing this at you by the way DB and I don't mean to sound insulting, it's just an observation - it's also not a judgment of all Americans.

I got ya, and I've read some of the post where you do take a jab or two and this was no were near that caliber.  I'm with K'man to a point.  We don't have a state tax in Florida, we offset it with a sales tax.  Down side to that is when state sales are down let's say due to no tourists (hurricanes, economy) less taxes are pumped into the state.  Hence FL has a nice budget shortfall (It's in the Billions).   

No, it wouldn't work for people picking and choosing which taxes they want to pay.  I just don't think that the Government spends my money very wisely.  The less I have to give them, the less they can piss away.

I'm not really for taxing the wealthy more.  I don't think that because one has money (whether they worked their ass off, for it or merely inherited it), he/she should be penalized more.  Obama's proposed increase on capital gain taxes would make my small portfolio fucking pointless.  Sad too for I am kinda making progress to retirement.  Hell, maybe I'll end up relying on the state now.....

I dunno about the claims made by others and the parallelism you seemed to notice, but remember -Several years ago it was both the D's & R's who voted to go into Iraq.  Even before 9-11 (seems to be the magic date & yes I know Saddam had nothing to do with it) predominate D's were calling for the forcible removal of Saddam.