Finally, a black man voting for McCain

[Amerikanse]

Personally, sounds to me like he'd be better off voting for Bob Barr, but I digress.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxhYampIl7A

Condensed version: Black man extrapolating on how the Democrats are preying on Black America.

I'm pretty much right on with everything he says. The liberals don't empower blacks, they shackle them.

 

[Alan]

Liberals prey on people's differences. Hence why the support "multiculturalism".

 

[grayston]

Personally, sounds to me like he'd be better off voting for Bob Barr, but I digress.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxhYampIl7A

Condensed version: Black man extrapolating on how the Democrats are preying on Black America.

I'm pretty much right on with everything he says. The liberals don't empower blacks, they shackle them.

It always amuses me to see the word 'liberal' being used as a slur. When I was growing up, the enemy was the Conservative Party, while the liberals were the ones who would try to liberate the country.

Liberate - free - liberal - freedom ... do you see the link?

Liberals say that you should have the power to make your own decisions. In fact, an extreme form of liberalism says that you should be able to do whatever you want, as long as you don't stop anyone else from doing what they want.

Liberals are for freedom of expression, freedom of choice, freedom of association ... generally, they're for freedom.

So please, please, explain to me how liberals "shackle" anyone.

 

[Arthur]

The term 'liberal' is used very differently in USA and Europe. As is 'conservative'.
In USA liberal has come to mean left-wing statist (ie more government), with 'progressive' social policies on abortion, homosexual unions, euthanasia, etc. In this sense, Obama is more 'liberal' than Clinton.

 

[grayston]

The term 'liberal' is used very differently in USA and Europe. As is 'conservative'.
In USA liberal has come to mean left-wing statist (ie more government), with 'progressive' social policies on abortion, homosexual unions, euthanasia, etc. In this sense, Obama is more 'liberal' than Clinton.

Amazing. That's what 'liberal' means to me too.

So... liberals shackle people by giving them the freedom to have abortions and gay marriage?

 

[Arthur]

Amazing. That's what 'liberal' means to me too.

So... liberals shackle people by giving them the freedom to have abortions and gay marriage?

Well, along with the package comes increased State meddling in the economy, thousands of new laws regulating ever smaller details of life, huge restrictions on property rights, and a whole bunch of laws restricting freedom of speech (whole new categories of 'hate crimes' and 'hate speech' heretofore unknown). The State becomes the arbiter of ideas. These are intolerable shackles.

 

[Alan]

Amazing. That's what 'liberal' means to me too.

So... liberals shackle people by giving them the freedom to have abortions and gay marriage?

What about the person who gets aborted. Where's their "freedom". Then you can add PC censorship, multiculturalism, large nanny state, affirmative action, stringent gun control......

Yeah feel the freedom

 

[Sneeky]

Finally, a black man voting for McCain

an American coconut?

 

[brevity]

Words are meaningless, meanings are not
Words stay the same, their meanings not

This even applies on an individual level, where, let us use the word: honour,will mean slightly different things for even my brother and for me.

So Liberal is a dirty word in US politics. Yet I find myself calling myself one rather proudly, as per the definition provided by grayston.

Go figure

 

[noxibox]

Liberals are essentially in favour of social change and progress even in the US, although the term does have some differences to the way pretty much everyone else uses it. If someone calls themselves conservative, specifically those who label themselves social conservatives, which version of the world are they trying to hold onto?

 

[Amerikanse]

Liberals are essentially in favour of social change and progress even in the US, although the term does have some differences to the way pretty much everyone else uses it. If someone calls themselves conservative, specifically those who label themselves social conservatives, which version of the world are they trying to hold onto?

What kills me is that you educated South Africans are deathly afraid of your taxes going up in your own country, but you want a verified socialist in office in the U.S.

And no, I don't care WHAT Obama says about his tax plan. He still wants to Spread the Wealth Around. Rob from the rich, give to the poor, borrow from the middle class.

Social issues aside, liberals in the U.S. want to do three things.

1. Cater to 3rd world dictators like Robert Mugabe, Ahmedinejad, and Chavez (who now we find out can't keep the lights on in Caracas).

2. Punish successful Americans by taking their money. It doesn't matter where it goes to me--it's still wrong.

3. Undermine American society by encouraging racial division and class warfare. Sources available on request.

Please understand not all liberals are this way. Many people consider themselves social liberals but fiscal conservatives.

 

[grayston]

What kills me is that you educated South Africans are deathly afraid of your taxes going up in your own country, but you want a verified socialist in office in the U.S.

And no, I don't care WHAT Obama says about his tax plan. He still wants to Spread the Wealth Around. Rob from the rich, give to the poor, borrow from the middle class.

Social issues aside, liberals in the U.S. want to do three things.

1. Cater to 3rd world dictators like Robert Mugabe, Ahmedinejad, and Chavez (who now we find out can't keep the lights on in Caracas).

2. Punish successful Americans by taking their money. It doesn't matter where it goes to me--it's still wrong.

3. Undermine American society by encouraging racial division and class warfare. Sources available on request.

Please understand not all liberals are this way. Many people consider themselves social liberals but fiscal conservatives.

I believe Obama said he was willing to engage in debate with Iran's Prime Minister, rather than taking the path of Bush and threatening to bomb the country. Call me crazy, but Obama's method sounds a bit more effective to me. It also shows he's learning from other people's mistakes - which is even better than learning from your own.

As for taxes - I could live quite happily on slightly less than $250,000 per year and I'd still get a tax break in the US! Don't think of it as punishing success - it's more about discouraging excess.

And I would love to see your sources on how liberals, currently fronted by a mixed-race man preaching harmony between all people (for a change), are encouraging racial division. It's not like American society with its history of racial intolerance has been doing much for integration so far...


When I see John McCain on tv, he looks scared and uncertain and tries to manipulate his audience by using tricks that would make even Richard Nixon blush. (Okay, not quite, but telling the US it should vote for him so that he could help some plumber called Joe? C'MON, dude!) But it seems because 5% of the American people might not be able to buy a new car because more of their money is going towards alleviating crime and poverty, Obama's campaign is in danger.

I don't get it. To me it doesn't even seem like there's a contest, and yet 45% of the American people still want John McCain? How can this be? I really want to know!

 

[Claymore]

What kills me is that you educated South Africans are deathly afraid of your taxes going up in your own country, but you want a verified socialist in office in the U.S.

Who would that be?

And no, I don't care WHAT Obama says about his tax plan. He still wants to Spread the Wealth Around. Rob from the rich, give to the poor, borrow from the middle class.

So, you're saying that what you say about Obama's tax plan is correct, and that what Obama says is not?

Social issues aside, liberals in the U.S. want to do three things.

Bit of a blanket statement, that. Did you interview all the liberals?

2. Punish successful Americans by taking their money. It doesn't matter where it goes to me--it's still wrong.

Hmmm, I see Cindy McCain paid 26% of her $4.2m in taxes. That's well below the maximum rates, and a lower percentage than most middle-class Americans are paying. Think that's fair?

 

[Claymore]

I believe Obama said he was willing to engage in debate with Iran's Prime Minister, rather than taking the path of Bush and threatening to bomb the country. Call me crazy, but Obama's method sounds a bit more effective to me. It also shows he's learning from other people's mistakes - which is even better than learning from your own.

I read a really interesting article today on Obama's approach: take a look, it's a worthwhile insight:
Why Barack Obama Is Winning

As for taxes - I could live quite happily on slightly less than $250,000 per year and I'd still get a tax break in the US! Don't think of it as punishing success - it's more about discouraging excess.

I found the Freakonomics perspectives on the tax plans interesting. It shows the effect in graph form in several different ways:
Competing Tax Plans: Two Perspectives

One of the graphs comes from here:
Chartjunk

I wonder why the vast majority of economists support Obama?

 

[icyrus]

What kills me is that you educated South Africans are deathly afraid of your taxes going up in your own country, but you want a verified socialist in office in the U.S.

And no, I don't care WHAT Obama says about his tax plan. He still wants to Spread the Wealth Around. Rob from the rich, give to the poor, borrow from the middle class.

Sure, don't let facts get in the way of you spouting bullsh*t.

 

[Alan]

I believe Obama said he was willing to engage in debate with Iran's Prime Minister, rather than taking the path of Bush and threatening to bomb the country. Call me crazy, but Obama's method sounds a bit more effective to me. It also shows he's learning from other people's mistakes - which is even better than learning from your own.

Without preconditions. No doubt you approved of Neville Chamberlain's attempts to "debate" with Hitler. McCain would debate with Iran too. It's just they have to meet certain preconditions first. What's wrong with that. Oh and what 'mistakes" are you referring too

And I would love to see your sources on how liberals, currently fronted by a mixed-race man preaching harmony between all people (for a change), are encouraging racial division. It's not like American society with its history of racial intolerance has been doing much for integration so far...

A man who for decades supported a bigoted divisive lunatic and his organization. How does playing the race card and race baiting equal "preaching Harmony"

When I see John McCain on tv, he looks scared and uncertain and tries to manipulate his audience by using tricks that would make even Richard Nixon blush. (Okay, not quite, but telling the US it should vote for him so that he could help some plumber called Joe? C'MON, dude!) But it seems because 5% of the American people might not be able to buy a new car because more of their money is going towards alleviating crime and poverty, Obama's campaign is in danger.

Or it could be because he's a lying populist politician with no experience and a history of associations with convicted felons, unrepentant communist terrorists and bigoted lunatics.

I don't get it. To me it doesn't even seem like there's a contest, and yet 45% of the American people still want John McCain? How can this be? I really want to know!

Perhaps if you actually did some research for yourself without soaking up propaganda from the MSM it might become clear

For example the Washington Post are laughablly claiming Al Qaeda would prefer McCain as pres based solely on web forum posting lol. Yes they'd prefer the man who's policy defeated them in Iraq over the guy who wanted to hand the country over to them on a platter

Oh and here's more interesting facts on Weather Underground taken from an interview with a FBI informant in 1982

I asked, “well what is going to happen to those people we can’t reeducate, that are diehard capitalists?” and the reply was that they’d have to be eliminated.

And when I pursued this further, they estimated they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these reeducation centers.

And when I say “eliminate,” I mean “kill.”

Twenty-five million people.

I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of which have graduate degrees, from Columbia and other well-known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people.

And they were dead serious.

 

[grayston]

Without preconditions. No doubt you approved of Neville Chamberlain's attempts to "debate" with Hitler.

Two sentences in and you're already making correlations to Hitler! Is your argument really that empty?

A man who for decades supported a bigoted divisive lunatic and his organization. How does playing the race card and race baiting equal "preaching Harmony"

Ah. The bigoted diviside lunatic would be that guy from Weather Underground who didn't like the Vietnam War very much? Sounds to me like he just needed someone to talk to. If Obama is willing to talk to people, instead of shoving them aside such that they feel the need to resort to terrorism in order to be heard... then, go Obama!

Both Obama and McCain played the race card. It's despicable and they both lose marks for it. But at least Obama could afford to lose those marks.

Or it could be because he's a lying populist politician with no experience and a history of associations with convicted felons, unrepentant communist terrorists and bigoted lunatics.

Yeah? What has he lied about?

How does one former anti-war protestor become multiple "convicted felons, unrepentant communist terrorists and bigoted lunatics"? Is he an amoeba? Did he breed?

Perhaps if you actually did some research for yourself without soaking up propaganda from the MSM it might become clear

For example the Washington Post are laughablly claiming Al Qaeda would prefer McCain as pres based solely on web forum posting lol. Yes they'd prefer the man who's policy defeated them in Iraq over the guy who wanted to hand the country over to them on a platter

Al Qaeda want McCain in office because he would intesify the conflict and give the terrorists something to fight for. They don't want Obama in office. How are you supposed to kill American soldiers when they've all gone back home to America? When your hated enemy throws up a white flag and asks you to put your guns down and start talking for a change, that's a bit of a kick in the teeth for a terrorist. I mean - how is he supposed to cry for attention if people just going around giving it to him?

MSM - mainstream media. In your definition, that would be anyone except Fox or Sky, right?

 

[Alan]

Two sentences in and you're already making correlations to Hitler! Is your argument really that empty?

No it's correlation with Chamberlain. Then again is the a correlation between Ahemi and Hitler Still I asked what's wrong with preconditions along with what was the "mistake" he was refeing to.

Ah. The bigoted diviside lunatic would be that guy from Weather Underground who didn't like the Vietnam War very much? Sounds to me like he just needed someone to talk to. If Obama is willing to talk to people, instead of shoving them aside such that they feel the need to resort to terrorism in order to be heard... then, go Obama!

Um no. The bigoted lunatic would be his mentor Jeremiah Wright. I guess then by your logic anybody who resorts to terrorism needs to heard and talked too. What exactly would that achieve?

Both Obama and McCain played the race card. It's despicable and they both lose marks for it. But at least Obama could afford to lose those marks.

Really? How so

Yeah? What has he lied about?

The question should be what hasn't he lied about

How does one former anti-war protestor become multiple "convicted felons, unrepentant communist terrorists and bigoted lunatics"? Is he an amoeba? Did he breed?

*sigh*

Perhaps you should look up Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko. Perhaps you should also read Ayers declaration of war against the U.S along with their "communist manifesto" before writing them off as mere "anti-war protester". After all your average anti war protester didn't run around risking people's lives blowing up buildings

Al Qaeda want McCain in office because he would intesify the conflict and give the terrorists something to fight for. They don't want Obama in office. How are you supposed to kill American soldiers when they've all gone back home to America? When your hated enemy throws up a white flag and asks you to put your guns down and start talking for a change, that's a bit of a kick in the teeth for a terrorist. I mean - how is he supposed to cry for attention if people just going around giving it to him?

Are you serious

Give up and go home and suddenly everything will be okay. What gives you the impression "talking" will stop them? All Clinton did was talk and look what good it did him. Hell just look what's happening in Zim. I see a lot of talking there too.

MSM - mainstream media. In your definition, that would be anyone except Fox or Sky, right?

You obviously haven't been watching any SKY News then

 

[Kompete]

What kills me is that you educated South Africans are deathly afraid of your taxes going up in your own country, but you want a verified socialist in office in the U.S.

And no, I don't care WHAT Obama says about his tax plan. He still wants to Spread the Wealth Around. Rob from the rich, give to the poor, borrow from the middle class.

Social issues aside, liberals in the U.S. want to do three things.

1. Cater to 3rd world dictators like Robert Mugabe, Ahmedinejad, and Chavez (who now we find out can't keep the lights on in Caracas).

2. Punish successful Americans by taking their money. It doesn't matter where it goes to me--it's still wrong.

3. Undermine American society by encouraging racial division and class warfare. Sources available on request.

Please understand not all liberals are this way. Many people consider themselves social liberals but fiscal conservatives.

I am going to go way off topic...Amerikanse, where are you from? and why are you engaging on this topic with South Africans?

 

[Amerikanse]

In which I respond to various accusations.

so you're calling Obama a liar on his tax plan?

Since when do politicians tell the TRUTH!! I don't trust John McCain either--but maybe a little more than BHO. The only person who has been telling the truth this campaign season is Ron Paul, and look where that got him.

As for taxes - I could live quite happily on slightly less than $250,000 per year and I'd still get a tax break in the US! Don't think of it as punishing success - it's more about discouraging excess.

Since when is that the government's job? I want rich people investing their money back in the economy, not bigger, less efficient government.

I believe Obama said he was willing to engage in debate with Iran's Prime Minister,

I'm having difficulty finding the exact words, but Obama said he would meet with Ahmedenijad without preconditions. That means while Iran is still threatening to blow up Israel and is sending guns and ammo to terrorists who kill women and children in Iraq, Obama would calmly sit down and talk him out of it.

To be honest, the original problem is that the U.S. has put itself in a bad position by being so close to Iran by virtue of the invasion of Iraq (which was, in hindsight, a very bad idea). This puts the U.S. in the bind of trying to defend territory without starting a war. The Iranians know this and that is why they are screwing with the U.S.

However, I do NOT believe the answer to to ask nicely for them to stop. I'm not sure what should be done but that is not it.

Hmmm, I see Cindy McCain paid 26% of her $4.2m in taxes. That's well below the maximum rates, and a lower percentage than most middle-class Americans are paying. Think that's fair?

No, I don't think it's fair. You're talking to a man who would like to see income tax abolished entirely. But an acceptable step forward would be to even out the tax bracket for those making $40-$50k and up. As in, a flat percentage.

I am going to go way off topic...Amerikanse, where are you from? and why are you engaging on this topic with South Africans?

My sig line says it all. Basically I enjoy interacting with you people, even if we don't always see eye to eye. A lot of Americans have nothing but disdain for how foreigners see their country, but I think getting an outside perspective is refreshing and vital. A country with as much international presence as the U.S. cannot make the mistake of having a close-minded, stubborn approach to the world at large, When you do that...well, you wind up where the U.S. is now.