Calling libertarians conservative is being charitable, as there is a more appropriate label: insane. Libertarianism is fine and dandy when government action needs to be prevented - like the invasion of Iraq, warrantless wiretapping, or torturing detainees held by the federal government. However, when government action needs to be taken - disaster planning, global climate change, market regulation, health care - Libertarianism is a brick wall.
Furthermore, Libertarians are only against federal power, and think that the Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government. So if your state mandates school prayer in public schools, gives their state and local police free reign to torture confessions out of people who are arrested, or tap your phones without warrants, sad day for you.
Based solely on performance: Does anyone want the morons in Washington to have a say in your health care?
When will moron wingnuts realize that with private insurance companies have doctors that have never met you decide what care you should receive, and that socialized medicine provides better care for less money?
Just how many times do laissez-faire economic policies have to wreck the economy before you guys give them up? Not even Alan Greenspan, Ayn Rand fanboy extraordinaire, is buying it anymore. Government regulations don't force Blue Cross to take your premiums and try to find ways to deny you coverage. Government regulations don't force HMO's into forcing you to get approved treatments at approved hospitals. Government regulations don't force health insurers to have doctors that have never met you decide what care you should be receiving.
Socialized medicine provides better care for less money. Deal with it. Go find a Delorian and travel back to 1985, because we aren't buying your bullshit anymore.
Because some states wont do it, and because travel would be a pain in the ass. Why would California want to pay for a Californian who gets sick whilst staying in Texas? Why would Texas want to pay for a patient that's a resident in another state?
So how many more decades of flipped out hate is US going to get for something that happened 50 years ago?
911, the bombing of the marine barracks in Lebanon, and the hostage crisis in Iran in the late 70's all happened years ago, why is the right wing still whining about them?
And why shouldn't the US blank-check support Israel?
Why did immigrant Jews have a greater right to the land than the people who were already living there?
No other country in the region has been invaded as much.
Uh, no. Israel is the aggressor and always has been. Settlers ignored plans to draw up a Palestinian state along with a Jewish one (even though the plan gave the 30% Jewish population 56% of the land) and declared independence. Israel started the 1967 war, not any of the Arab or Persian nations around it, where they sized the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
And Israel is a useful ally to the US.
Not when it gives a large part of the world a legitimate reason to hate us and want nuclear weapons. Israel can complain about security when it withdraws to it's 1967 borders, grants Right of Return to refugees, and pays a few billion dollars in reparations. Until then, it will have no right to security and no legitimacy.
ok so your evidence for this is where? or are you just repeating something you heard somewhere that sounds like something agreeable to supporting your current political predisposition?
Look at any other industrialized country. Hell, look at Cuba: they have nearly the same quality of care that we do, for 1/30th as much money.
sorry, i need facts.
They've been out for a long time, you've just ignored them. But if you want a nice summary, go rent Sicko. Yes, by Michael Moore - what, you think he didn't fact-check his movie knowing it would be attacked by wingnuts and the media?
Invalid comparison. The Republicans never approached the crucial filibuster proof majority. But you already new that
Lame attempt to dodge the issue.
You obviously assume I'm some Republican.
If it talks like a Republican, and is Concerned like a Republican, it's probably a Republican.
So you really think there's going to be some kind break-away group of Democrats that will go against their party to provide some check on it's power? Man, I hate to call names, but that's just naive.
Naive? Pot, meet kettle. The only time Democrats have stood against Bush on a serious issue was the privatization of Social Security. Any other issue - the Iraq invasion, Supreme Court appointments, ending the war in Iraq, warrantless wiretapping - the Democrats in Congress not only caved, but some actively pushed Bush's agenda (see Reid, Rockefeller and Hoyer on warrantless wiretapping).
The conservative end of the Democratic party is well to the right of Richard Nixon, and no more compatible with the progressive wing of the party than Focus on the Family is on the same page as the Log Cabin Republicans.
We WON'T have change! The Republicans grew the goverment at a record pace, you think that's going to CHANGE under the Democrats?????
Simple minded red herring. It's not a question of big government or small government, but the right amount of government. And it depends on the area - we're surrounded by two peaceful nations and the world's two largest oceans, so our defense spending could be a fraction of what it is now. However, passing universal health care would provide us with better care for less money.
It is a vote to give a group of politicians (in this case Democrats) TOTAL POWER.
So was this also a problem for you from 2000 to 2006, or is it a new issue of convenience, like Obama's "lack of experience" (of which he has far more than George W. Bush did in 2000).
We are staring down the barrel of a unchecked-and-unbalanced, filibuster-proof majority for one party.
Which is the only way we're going to have change. The Republicans, who couldn't whine enough about Democratic obstruction while they were in charge, have broken all filibuster records since the Democrats back the Senate in 2006.
Do you really want to give THAT kind of power to a few hundred people?
Yes. Keep in mind that the differences in the Democratic Party have been far larger than in the Republican party. You have pro-life Democrats, big business Democrats, environmentalist Democrats, and one socialist. And remember that the media has a word that applies to Democrats and not Republicans: accountability.
and most of the other big-name female Democrats in the Senate are too far to the left for my tastes (Feinstein comes to mind).
Fienstein is only to "the left" on women's issues and the environment. Otherwise, she's been as much of a Bush enabling hack as any Republican in the Senate.
I do find it amusing that the Republicans are resorting to the "divided Government" card and warning us all about the dangers of a single party controlling Congress and the White House. If they were being just a little bit more intellectually honest they'd end the argument with "Look how badly we fucked it up when we had that much power!"
The only thing consistent about Republicans is their inconsistency. To have some fun, stop the next overly Concerned wingnut who's complaining about Obama's "lack of experience" and ask him if he voted for Gore as opposed to Bush in 2000. Gore had 30 years of varied government service, while Bush's resume consisted of skipping out on his Air Guard commitments, driving businesses into the ground and serving five years as (at best) the 2nd most powerful politician in Texas (lt gov has more power than gov in TX).
So are the Dems. As far as principles go, the only difference between them is that people have forgotten how full of crap the Dems are.
Ah, the usual BS false equivalency. There are plenty of crappy Dems, but the party isn't rotten to the core the way the GOP is. If you are a Republican and not a big enough asshole on taxes or guns, the Club for Growth or Focus on the Family will come in and primary your ass out of town.
The poor pay sales taxes, payroll taxes, sin taxes, property taxes, and fees. The poor pay plenty of taxes. And if the minimum wage had risen at the same rate as executive pay over the last few decades, it would be over $50 an hour. The only thing more pathetic than McCain's massively hypocritical attack on Obama's "socialism" is that so many people are repeating it.
the definition of which has dropped over the course of the past year from $1m to $250k to $200k to $150k
[Citation needed]
but rather because he wants to tax the rich and give it to the poor who are already not paying taxes.
A lie and a lie, respectively. Taxes and social programs aren't handouts, they are what gives us a middle class. Even if you are the biggest elitist on the planet, you want taxes and social spending because it means better educated employees and more customers with more money in their pockets for whatever business you are in or invested in. Secondly, poor people pay plenty of taxes: payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, sin taxes, and fees.
If you are saying that legalizing drugs (AND NOTHING ELSE) will fix the problems I care about, like crackheads walking down the street, crimes by drugaddicts, etc, then you need to have your head examined.
Is that so, Mr. Pot? If drugs were legal, crackheads wouldn't have any incentive to commit crimes because crack wouldn't be $500 an ounce. They'd just walk down to the nearest gas station, buy a few hits just as they would a pack of cigarettes, and go smoke it at home while minding their own business, just as they would cigarettes.
You'd think we would have learned our lesson with Prohibition: banning substances creates many problems while solving none.
I suppose you could see it that way, if you had no idea what you are talking about. If you are at that $250,000 level, your taxes would only go up 3%, and it's a marginal rate. And any personal money that you need to put into your business would just be written off on your taxes, putting you back below $250,000.
people call obama a socialist because, well, for one, his health care plan is EXACTLY socialist
That's a lie.
it will also be a disaster
As is usually the case, take the opposite of the wingnut viewpoint and you have reality. The problem with Obama's plan is that it's not socialized medicine, which provides better care for less money than our system.
he has also flat out said he wants to 'spread the wealth around'. THAT is socialist.
So you're against income redistribution? I'm sorry, but this is a capitalist country, commie.
you yourself mentioned that we're trillions in debt. so, why spend the way he is?
Because social spending is what creates a sizable middle class. Even if you are the biggest elitist on the planet, you want taxes and social spending because it means more qualified employees and more customers with more money in their hands for whatever business you are in or are invested in.
speaking of ACORN, look them up and see obama's affiliation with them. check out their site. it basically translate to 'politically motivated group dedicated to getting poor people free shit'. it's as socialist as it gets. hence obama's very accurate label as a socialist.
Feel free to stop lying through your teeth at any time. I know, it might get your wingnut merit badge revoked, but it's worth it.
wait, what? PROFITS? that's right. that bailout, wasn't just a grant. it was comprised of LOANS. loans that need to be paid back.
As the old saying goes, if you owe the bank $10,000, you have a problem. If you owe the bank $100,000,000, the bank has a problem. This bailout was passed without any teeth, so don't be surprised when Goldman Sachs says "we're sorry, we'd love to pay back some money, but our board needs it's 15% annual pay increase to stay competitive". If Congress had any sense, they would have followed Peru's example and forbidden companies to pay out dividends or bonuses until they repaid the loans.
it's also the ridiculous pensions they have to pay to retired union members
More garbage. Unions didn't bring down Detroit, executive greed did. The Big Three made the exact same mistakes they made in the 70's (made big gas guzzling vehicles instead of fuel efficient cars while gas prices soared) with the exact same result (they had their lunch eaten by the Japanese). And for all the whining of the anti-union fanboys for how they cost companies money and protect the incompetent, GM's CEO has presided over almost a $70 billion loss during his time at the company, and he still has his job.
Look at how he has run his campaign, indeed, without holding to his promise to use public funding (which McCain did, and has been polling close up until recently).
Despite the media outrage over his "broken promise" (Washington Post, 6/20/08), Obama's stance on public financing has actually been much more qualified; he pledged in a 2007 questionnaire only to "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election" (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 2/18/08). Similarly, Obama stated at a February news conference (New York Times, 2/15/08): "If I am the nominee, I will make sure our people talk to John McCain's people to find out if we are willing to abide by the same rules and regulations with respect to the general election going forward."
By doing a fair job at shaking off all of the baseless right wing smears of associations he has had with crazies.
Fixed that for you. Playing the "associations game" is for fools and tools, because there isn't a person on this planet that can't be connected to an unsavory individual in one or two steps.
The only reason that he has made it this far is the lack of a critical eye on the part of the media.
Another tired lie that was debunked months ago. Yes, Obama got much love from the media - just ask anyone who supported John Edwards in the primaries - but that all changed when he passed Hillary Clinton. The media spent two months obsessing over Rev. Wright while Hillary's Bosnian Sniper Rifle fable was a one day story.
If you don't already know, that's when Gibson asked Obama why he would raise Cap gains to 28, when revenues from the tax increased when Clinton lowered it to 20, and again when Bush lowered it to 15. Revenues, for your edification, means the money the government took in. His answer: to make it more fair.
The reason revenues go up after tax cuts is simple: the population keeps growing. But the budget has to grow to meet the needs of that increasing population, so while revenues may go up after a tax cut, they don't go up enough to make up for the loss in revenue. Or, more simply, this talking point was debunked when Clinton raised taxes and revenues went way, way up, not down.
Remember that Palin has more executive leadership experience than Obama.
Wrong. Obama was the head of the Harvard Law Review, and the executive of his state senate office, his U.S. Senate office, and his campaign, which has over 50 times the number of employees as Wasilla, Alaska.
Obama has 295 days in the Senate. That's 9 1/2 months of legislative experience without a single piece of significant legislation to show for it.
Liar. Obama came up with federalspending.gov with Tom Coburn, which puts the entire federal budget online, so you can see exactly where your tax dollars are going.
If you are going to condemn Palin for lack of experience, than you should be voting for McCain because the Democratic nominee has NO executive leadership experience.
Aside from the batshit insanity of claiming a lady that - doesn't know what Hamas is, can't name a Supreme Court case aside from Roe V Wade, and can't answer basic political questions to save her life - is more experienced than Obama, there's the enormous hypocrisy of it all. McCain spent months attacking Obama for his "lack of experience", only to select someone dumber than George W. Bush to be his running mate. It's as if Obama, who's spent years touting his early opposition to the Iraq war, picked Donald Rumsfeld to be his VP. Insane.
You forgot the biggest one: municipalities. Go into a municipal court and the vast majority of cases will either be moving violations or drug related. This is because the city makes money from fines, defense attorneys make money as do "treatment" programs. Maybe one in forty cases will have something to do with a real crime: violence/theft/vandalism.
99% of the drug problem isn't the use of drugs, but problems caused by the war on drugs. If they were legalized, you'd have no more reason to worry about crack labs than you would have to worry about drunken moonshiners.
In this sense, Obama looks much stronger than McCain. Too bad he has nearly zero experience.
I see one Republican talking point slipped into an otherwise good post - since when is 12 years legislative experience "nearly zero?" Obama has more experience than Carter did when he became president, and vastly more than George W. Bush did in 2000.
In your crackhead dreams. If the Dems don't get a 60 seat supermajority this year, they will in 2010. Even more so since the different factions of the Republican party are just itching to purge the either the "RINO's" or the Jesus Freaks from the party.
Slashdot Mirror
Calling libertarians conservative is being charitable, as there is a more appropriate label: insane. Libertarianism is fine and dandy when government action needs to be prevented - like the invasion of Iraq, warrantless wiretapping, or torturing detainees held by the federal government. However, when government action needs to be taken - disaster planning, global climate change, market regulation, health care - Libertarianism is a brick wall.
Furthermore, Libertarians are only against federal power, and think that the Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government. So if your state mandates school prayer in public schools, gives their state and local police free reign to torture confessions out of people who are arrested, or tap your phones without warrants, sad day for you.
Based solely on performance: Does anyone want the morons in Washington to have a say in your health care?
When will moron wingnuts realize that with private insurance companies have doctors that have never met you decide what care you should receive, and that socialized medicine provides better care for less money?
Just how many times do laissez-faire economic policies have to wreck the economy before you guys give them up? Not even Alan Greenspan, Ayn Rand fanboy extraordinaire, is buying it anymore. Government regulations don't force Blue Cross to take your premiums and try to find ways to deny you coverage. Government regulations don't force HMO's into forcing you to get approved treatments at approved hospitals. Government regulations don't force health insurers to have doctors that have never met you decide what care you should be receiving.
Socialized medicine provides better care for less money. Deal with it. Go find a Delorian and travel back to 1985, because we aren't buying your bullshit anymore.
Because some states wont do it, and because travel would be a pain in the ass. Why would California want to pay for a Californian who gets sick whilst staying in Texas? Why would Texas want to pay for a patient that's a resident in another state?
Liar. What you are spouting is as much baseless bullshit as the "he's a muslim" smear.
So how many more decades of flipped out hate is US going to get for something that happened 50 years ago?
911, the bombing of the marine barracks in Lebanon, and the hostage crisis in Iran in the late 70's all happened years ago, why is the right wing still whining about them?
And why shouldn't the US blank-check support Israel?
Why did immigrant Jews have a greater right to the land than the people who were already living there?
No other country in the region has been invaded as much.
Uh, no. Israel is the aggressor and always has been. Settlers ignored plans to draw up a Palestinian state along with a Jewish one (even though the plan gave the 30% Jewish population 56% of the land) and declared independence. Israel started the 1967 war, not any of the Arab or Persian nations around it, where they sized the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
And Israel is a useful ally to the US.
Not when it gives a large part of the world a legitimate reason to hate us and want nuclear weapons. Israel can complain about security when it withdraws to it's 1967 borders, grants Right of Return to refugees, and pays a few billion dollars in reparations. Until then, it will have no right to security and no legitimacy.
ok so your evidence for this is where? or are you just repeating something you heard somewhere that sounds like something agreeable to supporting your current political predisposition?
Look at any other industrialized country. Hell, look at Cuba: they have nearly the same quality of care that we do, for 1/30th as much money.
sorry, i need facts.
They've been out for a long time, you've just ignored them. But if you want a nice summary, go rent Sicko. Yes, by Michael Moore - what, you think he didn't fact-check his movie knowing it would be attacked by wingnuts and the media?
Invalid comparison. The Republicans never approached the crucial filibuster proof majority.
But you already new that
Lame attempt to dodge the issue.
You obviously assume I'm some Republican.
If it talks like a Republican, and is Concerned like a Republican, it's probably a Republican.
So you really think there's going to be some kind break-away group of Democrats that will go against their party to provide some check on it's power? Man, I hate to call names, but that's just naive.
Naive? Pot, meet kettle. The only time Democrats have stood against Bush on a serious issue was the privatization of Social Security. Any other issue - the Iraq invasion, Supreme Court appointments, ending the war in Iraq, warrantless wiretapping - the Democrats in Congress not only caved, but some actively pushed Bush's agenda (see Reid, Rockefeller and Hoyer on warrantless wiretapping).
The conservative end of the Democratic party is well to the right of Richard Nixon, and no more compatible with the progressive wing of the party than Focus on the Family is on the same page as the Log Cabin Republicans.
We WON'T have change! The Republicans grew the goverment at a record pace, you think that's going to CHANGE under the Democrats?????
Simple minded red herring. It's not a question of big government or small government, but the right amount of government. And it depends on the area - we're surrounded by two peaceful nations and the world's two largest oceans, so our defense spending could be a fraction of what it is now. However, passing universal health care would provide us with better care for less money.
It is a vote to give a group of politicians (in this case Democrats) TOTAL POWER.
So was this also a problem for you from 2000 to 2006, or is it a new issue of convenience, like Obama's "lack of experience" (of which he has far more than George W. Bush did in 2000).
We are staring down the barrel of a unchecked-and-unbalanced, filibuster-proof majority for one party.
Which is the only way we're going to have change. The Republicans, who couldn't whine enough about Democratic obstruction while they were in charge, have broken all filibuster records since the Democrats back the Senate in 2006.
Do you really want to give THAT kind of power to a few hundred people?
Yes. Keep in mind that the differences in the Democratic Party have been far larger than in the Republican party. You have pro-life Democrats, big business Democrats, environmentalist Democrats, and one socialist. And remember that the media has a word that applies to Democrats and not Republicans: accountability.
and most of the other big-name female Democrats in the Senate are too far to the left for my tastes (Feinstein comes to mind).
Fienstein is only to "the left" on women's issues and the environment. Otherwise, she's been as much of a Bush enabling hack as any Republican in the Senate.
I do find it amusing that the Republicans are resorting to the "divided Government" card and warning us all about the dangers of a single party controlling Congress and the White House. If they were being just a little bit more intellectually honest they'd end the argument with "Look how badly we fucked it up when we had that much power!"
The only thing consistent about Republicans is their inconsistency. To have some fun, stop the next overly Concerned wingnut who's complaining about Obama's "lack of experience" and ask him if he voted for Gore as opposed to Bush in 2000. Gore had 30 years of varied government service, while Bush's resume consisted of skipping out on his Air Guard commitments, driving businesses into the ground and serving five years as (at best) the 2nd most powerful politician in Texas (lt gov has more power than gov in TX).
So are the Dems. As far as principles go, the only difference between them is that people have forgotten how full of crap the Dems are.
Ah, the usual BS false equivalency. There are plenty of crappy Dems, but the party isn't rotten to the core the way the GOP is. If you are a Republican and not a big enough asshole on taxes or guns, the Club for Growth or Focus on the Family will come in and primary your ass out of town.
The poor pay sales taxes, payroll taxes, sin taxes, property taxes, and fees. The poor pay plenty of taxes. And if the minimum wage had risen at the same rate as executive pay over the last few decades, it would be over $50 an hour. The only thing more pathetic than McCain's massively hypocritical attack on Obama's "socialism" is that so many people are repeating it.
the definition of which has dropped over the course of the past year from $1m to $250k to $200k to $150k
[Citation needed]
but rather because he wants to tax the rich and give it to the poor who are already not paying taxes.
A lie and a lie, respectively. Taxes and social programs aren't handouts, they are what gives us a middle class. Even if you are the biggest elitist on the planet, you want taxes and social spending because it means better educated employees and more customers with more money in their pockets for whatever business you are in or invested in. Secondly, poor people pay plenty of taxes: payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, sin taxes, and fees.
If you are saying that legalizing drugs (AND NOTHING ELSE) will fix the problems I care about, like crackheads walking down the street, crimes by drugaddicts, etc, then you need to have your head examined.
Is that so, Mr. Pot? If drugs were legal, crackheads wouldn't have any incentive to commit crimes because crack wouldn't be $500 an ounce. They'd just walk down to the nearest gas station, buy a few hits just as they would a pack of cigarettes, and go smoke it at home while minding their own business, just as they would cigarettes.
You'd think we would have learned our lesson with Prohibition: banning substances creates many problems while solving none.
I suppose you could see it that way, if you had no idea what you are talking about. If you are at that $250,000 level, your taxes would only go up 3%, and it's a marginal rate. And any personal money that you need to put into your business would just be written off on your taxes, putting you back below $250,000.
oh boy, where to start.
Indeed.
people call obama a socialist because, well, for one, his health care plan is EXACTLY socialist
That's a lie.
it will also be a disaster
As is usually the case, take the opposite of the wingnut viewpoint and you have reality. The problem with Obama's plan is that it's not socialized medicine, which provides better care for less money than our system.
he has also flat out said he wants to 'spread the wealth around'. THAT is socialist.
So you're against income redistribution? I'm sorry, but this is a capitalist country, commie.
you yourself mentioned that we're trillions in debt. so, why spend the way he is?
Because social spending is what creates a sizable middle class. Even if you are the biggest elitist on the planet, you want taxes and social spending because it means more qualified employees and more customers with more money in their hands for whatever business you are in or are invested in.
speaking of ACORN, look them up and see obama's affiliation with them. check out their site. it basically translate to 'politically motivated group dedicated to getting poor people free shit'. it's as socialist as it gets. hence obama's very accurate label as a socialist.
Feel free to stop lying through your teeth at any time. I know, it might get your wingnut merit badge revoked, but it's worth it.
wait, what? PROFITS? that's right. that bailout, wasn't just a grant. it was comprised of LOANS. loans that need to be paid back.
As the old saying goes, if you owe the bank $10,000, you have a problem. If you owe the bank $100,000,000, the bank has a problem. This bailout was passed without any teeth, so don't be surprised when Goldman Sachs says "we're sorry, we'd love to pay back some money, but our board needs it's 15% annual pay increase to stay competitive". If Congress had any sense, they would have followed Peru's example and forbidden companies to pay out dividends or bonuses until they repaid the loans.
it's also the ridiculous pensions they have to pay to retired union members
More garbage. Unions didn't bring down Detroit, executive greed did. The Big Three made the exact same mistakes they made in the 70's (made big gas guzzling vehicles instead of fuel efficient cars while gas prices soared) with the exact same result (they had their lunch eaten by the Japanese). And for all the whining of the anti-union fanboys for how they cost companies money and protect the incompetent, GM's CEO has presided over almost a $70 billion loss during his time at the company, and he still has his job.
Look at how he has run his campaign, indeed, without holding to his promise to use public funding (which McCain did, and has been polling close up until recently).
Wrong:
By doing a fair job at shaking off all of the baseless right wing smears of associations he has had with crazies.
Fixed that for you. Playing the "associations game" is for fools and tools, because there isn't a person on this planet that can't be connected to an unsavory individual in one or two steps.
The only reason that he has made it this far is the lack of a critical eye on the part of the media.
Another tired lie that was debunked months ago. Yes, Obama got much love from the media - just ask anyone who supported John Edwards in the primaries - but that all changed when he passed Hillary Clinton. The media spent two months obsessing over Rev. Wright while Hillary's Bosnian Sniper Rifle fable was a one day story.
If you don't already know, that's when Gibson asked Obama why he would raise Cap gains to 28, when revenues from the tax increased when Clinton lowered it to 20, and again when Bush lowered it to 15. Revenues, for your edification, means the money the government took in. His answer: to make it more fair.
The reason revenues go up after tax cuts is simple: the population keeps growing. But the budget has to grow to meet the needs of that increasing population, so while revenues may go up after a tax cut, they don't go up enough to make up for the loss in revenue. Or, more simply, this talking point was debunked when Clinton raised taxes and revenues went way, way up, not down.
The guy is a lunatic.
You're wrong about everything.
Remember that Palin has more executive leadership experience than Obama.
Wrong. Obama was the head of the Harvard Law Review, and the executive of his state senate office, his U.S. Senate office, and his campaign, which has over 50 times the number of employees as Wasilla, Alaska.
Obama has 295 days in the Senate. That's 9 1/2 months of legislative experience without a single piece of significant legislation to show for it.
Liar. Obama came up with federalspending.gov with Tom Coburn, which puts the entire federal budget online, so you can see exactly where your tax dollars are going.
If you are going to condemn Palin for lack of experience, than you should be voting for McCain because the Democratic nominee has NO executive leadership experience.
Aside from the batshit insanity of claiming a lady that - doesn't know what Hamas is, can't name a Supreme Court case aside from Roe V Wade, and can't answer basic political questions to save her life - is more experienced than Obama, there's the enormous hypocrisy of it all. McCain spent months attacking Obama for his "lack of experience", only to select someone dumber than George W. Bush to be his running mate. It's as if Obama, who's spent years touting his early opposition to the Iraq war, picked Donald Rumsfeld to be his VP. Insane.
You forgot the biggest one: municipalities. Go into a municipal court and the vast majority of cases will either be moving violations or drug related. This is because the city makes money from fines, defense attorneys make money as do "treatment" programs. Maybe one in forty cases will have something to do with a real crime: violence/theft/vandalism.
99% of the drug problem isn't the use of drugs, but problems caused by the war on drugs. If they were legalized, you'd have no more reason to worry about crack labs than you would have to worry about drunken moonshiners.
In this sense, Obama looks much stronger than McCain. Too bad he has nearly zero experience.
I see one Republican talking point slipped into an otherwise good post - since when is 12 years legislative experience "nearly zero?" Obama has more experience than Carter did when he became president, and vastly more than George W. Bush did in 2000.
Problem: socialized medicine provides better care for less money.
You do realize your party has moved so far to the right (and drug the Overton window with it) that you're a dirty fucking hippy by this point?
In your crackhead dreams. If the Dems don't get a 60 seat supermajority this year, they will in 2010. Even more so since the different factions of the Republican party are just itching to purge the either the "RINO's" or the Jesus Freaks from the party.