Do Not Vote Obama.

How could anyone consider voting for someone as politically inept as Obama...The Senator has yet to produce an original thought. His voting record within the senate is frightening....VOTING PRESENT is not what he was elected to do. He became a senator of Illinois based upon the platform in which he ran...His platform did not include voting present as apposed creating change.


Furthermore his plan of of further supporting the most corrupt group in the world(The United Nations) with Billions more of the US tax payer's dollars is laughable...Seriously look at what has been given to the United Nations over the last 15 years and compare that with aid that made it to the intended locations.

And Finally the ideas that personally piss me off the most are the Democratic ideals that every American has the right to own a home...yes even those on welfare...The Democrats continue to try to pass legislation that will not provide housing for those on welfare but to buy them houses...It is one thing to provide Temporary relief for those on hard time but to buy them houses and on top of that to give them money to live on for life is STUPID....Welfare was intended to be a temporary relief for those who had fallen on hard times not a way of LIFE.


So when the Election Rolls around remember to vote NOBAMA.

http://www.votesmart.org/voting_cate...hp?can_id=9490

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/...rned_from.html

http://www.nobama.com/

Voting present? What kind of fish is that? Supporting the UN? Yeah, the guy must be a nutjob. The Democrats want to buy a home for all Americans? Source, please.

No they just what to allow for those on welfare to get financing for homes....which they are given housing vouchers for....meaning they are approved for home loans which are in turn paid for by the tax payers.


As for a source go to any democratic run website and search for housing vouchers...DLC or DNC both list their platforms on the situation.

The problem isnt that the democrats are trying to pass legislation to pay for housing for those on welfare but that they already did pass such legislation....Another serious issues is the adverse affects of the high Corporate taxes that democrats continue to try to raise while republicans are trying to lower them....As we can see from the current state of the economy the senate and House have done a great job of destroying jobs within the US so that they could create money for their ambitious welfare agenda.

nobama in o8


i gotta ask why on earth would anyone even consider him :S it sickens me to think he might be our president

Quote:

---

Furthermore his plan of of further supporting the most corrupt group in the world(The United Nations) with Billions more of the US tax payer's dollars is laughable

---

lol.

Obama ftw! at least he doesnt have his head stuck six feet in the sand..

Can you people seriously consider voting for McCain? I've been waiting, and waiting, and waiting for the Republicans to tell me ANYTHING specific. So far all i've heard from them are vauge statements. Now, I know it's a "political game" they're playing. Washington has been playing this same game for decades now. BS the voters with political sidestepping and double-talk to get out of answering any question that can be held against them. You may not agree with everything Obama says, but at least the man is willing to say it. Now McCain is trying to shift the focus away from the economy. Are you freaking nuts? What could be more important at this moment in time than the economy? Housing? Can't buy a house without money. Education? Can't build schools without a stable economy. The environment? That's going to fix itself. Under continued Republican control this country is heading back to the days of living in log cabins and heating with wood. Riding a horse and farming because you A) don't have gas B) couldn't afford it if you did C) couldn't afford the car even if you could get the gas.

McCain had it easy in the primaries, everyone else gave up early. He never had to go through the prolonged mud-slinging Barak had to endure from Hilary. Now he's trying to play dirty, but most of it we've already heard. His entire campaign strategy seems to be based on showing why Obama is wrong for the job, with not much effort put into telling us why he's RIGHT for the job. Tired of all that mumbo jumbo, i'm interested in someone with balls.

Oh, on a side note. Taxes will go up regardless of who wins the election. If you think otherwise you're a moron. How else are we going to have any hope of getting out of this hole we're sinking into? Barak has a much better economic plan than McCain, and I wish him well getting through the political red tape required to do anything harder than requisition paperclips.

I personally dont mind my taxes raising...depending on the reasoning. Employment is out there I didnt join the Army to protect the right of the unemployed to stay unemployed. I joined the army to protect the Ideals of our Capitalist....NOT SOCIALIST government. The fact that the top 10% of wage earners in this nation pay 90% of the taxes is disgusting. I am Not Rich, I am not Elitist, but I do believe that every Adult in this nation should at the very least try to support themselves...I Understand that Some are unable but if the welfare system were to truly be investigated how many leaches do you think you would find?

You ask about the economy i ask you to look at things that have caused this...

How is it that people that have never even paid taxes can some how collect Social Security? And i am not talking about Senior Citizen i am speaking of the young.

Welfare is a true beast...It was set up to support people on a temporary basis not support families for generations...Call me callus but this is reality. People graduating High School just to jump onto the welfare system...we soon after set them up with housing vouchers(originally intended to cover rent) And now they are qualifying for home loans....Their Payments for there houses covered by the Housing vouchers....And you dont see a flawed system?


If you want McCain's stance check his voting history he is loyal to putting an end to the free ride system....



FREEDOM IS NEVER FREE!!!

I've checked McCain out, and he seems to change his mind mid-sentence based on whatever his advisors tell him. He's like a shock victim, retreating to whatever keeps him safe. His viewpoints don't break away from that either, as they change depending on what new information he's told. You'll see, starting 1 minute ago, in the debate. :)

And I was right.

Referring to Obama as "that one" shows how condescending he is, and avoiding shaking hands? What, he doesn't want any of the black to rub off or something? Give me a break.

Quote:

---

I joined the army to protect the Ideals of our Capitalist....NOT SOCIALIST government.

---

I joined the Army for love of country. So I guess your against the bail-outs? Corporate welfare and socialism?

Quote:

---

The fact that the top 10% of wage earners in this nation pay 90% of the taxes is disgusting.

---

It's Wealth Distribution that is disgusting. the top 20% of wage earners hold about 85% of all private wealth. The rest, 80% of the country holds about 16% of all private wealth.

Quote:

---

if the welfare system were to truly be investigated how many leaches do you think you would find?

---

How many years have the republicans held office? Has this been taken care of? I agree with you. They need to weed these people out.

Quote:

---

And Finally the ideas that personally piss me off the most are the Democratic ideals that every American has the right to own a home...

---

That was your George Bush REPUBLICAN buddy there...

How can anyone consider to vote for Bush2? Mccain is Bush2, he will do what Bush did. In other words, f**k up usa.

Did you know that statistics show that usa's economy ALWAYS run better during democrat governments?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sully

I personally dont mind my taxes raising...depending on the reasoning. Employment is out there I didnt join the Army to protect the right of the unemployed to stay unemployed. I joined the army to protect the Ideals of our Capitalist....NOT SOCIALIST government. The fact that the top 10% of wage earners in this nation pay 90% of the taxes is disgusting. I am Not Rich, I am not Elitist, but I do believe that every Adult in this nation should at the very least try to support themselves...I Understand that Some are unable but if the welfare system were to truly be investigated how many leaches do you think you would find?

You ask about the economy i ask you to look at things that have caused this...

How is it that people that have never even paid taxes can some how collect Social Security? And i am not talking about Senior Citizen i am speaking of the young.

Welfare is a true beast...It was set up to support people on a temporary basis not support families for generations...Call me callus but this is reality. People graduating High School just to jump onto the welfare system...we soon after set them up with housing vouchers(originally intended to cover rent) And now they are qualifying for home loans....Their Payments for there houses covered by the Housing vouchers....And you dont see a flawed system?


If you want McCain's stance check his voting history he is loyal to putting an end to the free ride system....



FREEDOM IS NEVER FREE!!!

---

No offense to you whatsoever, but you should try to live in for example Norway for 1 year, and get to know what kind of system we run over here. Just for your own sake, for reflection. It never hurts to know how others do it. :) Then you might find you have another view on your own system, or you will find you still agree with it.

I have encountered more than the US Gov't....and i have lived abroad. Korea, Germany, Iraq...doesnt change my views.


And for the Record although the President is the "guiding" hand of the government it is Congress that makes laws...And FYI Democrats hold the power in congress.

South Korea, Germany and Iraq - that sounds like places where the US has military bases, is that when you came in contact with other governments?

And when that guiding hand can veto any law that the congress makes you might say that the hand is a bit more than just a guide, one might be tempted to say that no law would get through unless it was approved by the hand.

American Hegemony is the bomb!

I cannot believe that Barak Hussein Obama is leading in the polls. It is unthinkable and utterly ridiculous. I am severely let down by the american people.

Obama has done nothing to represent Illinois, his campaign is a slogan. "Change", of course we need change, I suppose that is all the democratic base needs.

The man distributed ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS that was donated for education to liberal and fringe groups at the behest of Ayres, the leader of the Weather Underground. MURDER, BOMBS, ATTACKS ON THE CAPITAL, OPEN REBELLION is what this domestic terrorist group took part in. Ayres was acquitted due to illegal wiretaps. When interviewed he said that he wished more people would have been killed and he has also told people to kill their parents.

One organization that received substantial monies from Barak Obama is ACORN. ACORN picketed banks and lending institutions to try and bully them into giving homeloans for credit challenged inner city citizens. When this did not work they went to the big guys, FREDDIE AND FANNIE. ACORNs lobbyists are responsible for the loosening of credit requirements in Freddie and Fannie. No wonder they were the first to fall. Also, they are currently under investigation for voter registration fraud. Intimidating people into registering multiple times.

Reverend Wright, Obamas spiritual advisor for 20 years was "LIKE A FAMILY MEMBER". His children were baptized in his church. G0DDAMN AMERICA! G0DAMN WHITE AMERIKKKA!

Even his wife Michelle is anti-american. She just recently became proud to be an american, of she has, now that her husband is running for president.

Obama can distance himself from these issues if he wants, however, it doesnt change the facts. He plays the game well, but he is a shell with no experience. His career has not been devoted to helping the american people, it has been devoted to his own personal gain and becoming president. The main question is after looking at all of the people he associated with to get where he is, how much does he owe......and what will he do when he is president?

The democratic party has become a socialist institution that panders itself to the disenfranchised. If Obama becomes president and he is backed by a democratic senate I fear for our country.

I love arguments based on how they voted in some vote. All of them have something disagreeable they voted for. They have to. You don't get support for the stuff you want unless you give support to someone else. But we finally have the chance to have a president with a strong congressional support. Maybe they can cut out some of the game and get down to more of the business.

Bush had strong congressional support and he didnt do jack, except spend money like a democrat. This country is going to have some hard times ahead due to this bailout and the implementation of Barak Obamas policies. For the first time he will really have to make decisions that he will be held accountable for.

I just want to show people who believe that Dems are all about government spending that they have it all backwards. If you notice Republican presidents lower money coming into government but increase spending. i.e. more debt. Borrow & Spend. Democratic Presidents Have increased money coming into the Government but LOWERED spending.

Check for yourself. Lot's of info here...

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

Republicans DO NOT reduce government spending.

Quote:

---

Bush had strong congressional support and he didnt do jack, except spend money like a democrat.

---

I agree with you on the congressional support. Spend money like a Democrat? You mean like a republican. Check the link above. Republican Presidents have outspent the Dems for decades now.

Quote:

---

This country is going to have some hard times ahead due to this bailout and the implementation of Barak Obamas policies.

---

Already blaming Obama??!! Lol. But you all keep saying he hasn't accomplished anything in his short career. It had nothing to do with Bush/Republican deregulation policies huh? lol.

Quote:

---

For the first time he will really have to make decisions that he will be held accountable for.

---

That can be said of any President just stepping into office no matter who it is. You do know that Obama has just as much if not more experience than many prior US Presidents.

I suppose the term "spending" is to generalized. Republicans cut "entitlement" programs and spend money on defense and wars. All major spending increases on your chart also coincide with our nation going to war. If you took wartime spending out of the equation I am sure there would be a huge difference. Clinton was not a typical democrat and W is not a typical republican.

Obama has his name on one piece of legislation and his role in that was minor. He has not done anything else. He is very good at taking other peoples success and making it look like it was his idea all along and finally people listened to him. He is a good at the game of politics, of course he is a Chicago politician.

I do not blame Obama for the current crisis, however, it is not solely deregulation either. The last I knew, we are a Constitutional Republic that practices democracy and capitalism. When groups like ACORN lobby for drastic changes in lending guidelines of major financial institutions, so that unqualified buyers can get houses through "community reinvestment", its a recipe for economic disaster. This crisis is not because of "predatory lending", its because people who cannot afford to buy houses were being approved for loans. The banks didnt knock on these peoples doors and make them buy a house. They went to the banks and because of left wing programs, they were approved.

I am sure that Barak and most of the african american community would love him to be the first black president, however with a 800 billion bailout and his trillion dollars worth of new government programs, increased business taxes and the lack of a clear cut plan for his socialization of healthcare I am afraid there may not be any going back from the socialism that grow during his presidency.

Lol, I just heard on the news about a county that had 18K new democratic registrants and 8K of them were duplicates from ACORN. Considering this is what the polls are based on, I dont think Obamas numbers are as good as people think. This is fraud in the truest sense. Obama may not be responsible for it, however he is aware and will not stop it. I suppose he is getting $800,000.00 worth.

"Race Baiting". Watch it. The McCain campaign is beginning to use the race card as well as calling him unamerican. This late, this far behind in the polls, and hearing Sen. Obama bought a 30 minutte block of airtime on the major networks a few days before the election, you don't try this crap. It's cheap and lame and not very presidential. It's not very good foreign policy either. Want to start another war? Or lose support for the 2 we are currently fighting? If they aren't starting it, then they dang sure need to be stopping it. It's your rally, your speech. Your campaign. Do you control it? If you can't, how do you expect to lead such a culturaly diverse civilization? Shameful and not worthy of my vote.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bes...ce.baiting.cnn

"That one" is hardly racist.

Race is an issue. I am not one of the masses of white people that have this complex I call "Guilty of being white". I want a president that is going to represent me and my interests.

Some guy trying to be the first black president with ties to domestic terrorists, black nationalist spitual leader, A PLO organizer, the most liberal senator in washington and his view that the poor are entitled to my money does not sit well with me.

I have a mortgage....and I still have my house. I have changed jobs due to the job market. I still pay my bills. I have worked for everything that I have and I guard it. I suppose if you are used to having everything given to you and that is a culture propagated by the politicians you support then its okay to not pay your bills and then cry when you lose your house.

Republicans represent the moral, successful and grounded people of the USA. Democrats represent the disenfranchised, fringe groups and minorities by promising to give them what the republicans have worked for. This is not american, our country is being hijacked by socialists.

You have such a narrow-minded view of the issues further discussion is pointless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Astares

You have such a narrow-minded view of the issues further discussion is pointless.

---

Interesting, please elaborate. How exactly am I narrow minded? I represent the middle upper class, the most taxed bracket in the US. I am pretty p!ssed that my tax dollars are now going to the debt racked up by lending practices that were put in place because of lobbyists from ACORN.

Self responsibility, discipline and accountability...maybe ACORN should form a community outreach program that teaches these standards for success.

Quote:

---

Race is an issue. I am not one of the masses of white people that have this complex I call "Guilty of being white". I want a president that is going to represent me and my interests.

Some guy trying to be the first black president with ties to domestic terrorists, black nationalist spitual leader, A PLO organizer, the most liberal senator in washington and his view that the poor are entitled to my money does not sit well with me.

---

Ties to a domestic terrorist? Stretching the truth a little are we? Factcheck.org covered this. Please read.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...ill_ayers.html

McCain camp is desperate.

Doesnt change the facts at all. This website is the same worthless democrat spin. It shifts attn to the annenberg foundation, so what, No one cares about the annenberg foundation. What people should care about is the "friendly"(Axelrod), financially lucrative and career boosting relationship Obama had with a domestic terrorist.

"The UIC records showed that Ayers was instrumental in securing the $50 million education grant to reform Chicago Public Schools, part of a national initiative funded by the late Ambassador Walter Annenberg. . After Chicago was awarded the money, Obama served as president of the Challenge’s board of directors, the fiscal arm that disbursed the grants to schools and raised private matching funds. Ayers participated in a second entity known as the Chicago School Reform Collaborative, the operational arm that worked with the grant recipients.

ANd where did the money go? I am sure ayers and obama had a much different definition of reform than the officials at the annenberg foundation.

I do agree that McCain is desperate, no doubt about it. I am not a McCain supporter and I do not vote along party lines, however, Obama is insulting to everything I believe in. It is ridiculous that he thinks so little of the American public.

americans are screwed no matter who wins, obama or mccain, they both suck.

hooray for "democracy"!

Quote:

---

Doesnt change the facts at all. This website is the same worthless democrat spin.

---

So now Factcheck.org is a democrat website with a democrat spin? Wow... a little far off on that comment too.

What is insulting about 'everything you believe in' about Obama? Can you list them? Or are you just using blanket statements?

"Did you know that statistics show that usa's economy ALWAYS run better during democrat governments?"

oh? prove it

traditional republican economic strategy has shown to be far more efficient throughout the 20th century, or have you not heard of ronald reagan?

Prove it METALLICA. You want him to prove it then you state a fact that you now need to prove.

Regan and Trickle down economics has now been proven to not work.

Supply-side economics is an arguably heterodox school of macroeconomic thought that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created using incentives for people to produce (supply) goods and services, such as adjusting income tax and capital gains tax rates. Supply-side economics is often conflated with trickle-down economics, now a term given to right-leaning economists' views.[1] The term supply-side economics was coined by journalist Jude Wanniski in 1975, and popularized the ideas of economists Robert Mundell and Arthur Laffer.
The typical policy recommendation of supply-side economics is to achieve the proper level of marginal tax rates, which, by virtue of the high rate of taxes in general, equates with cutting of taxes.[2] Maximum benefits are achieved by optimizing the marginal tax rates of those with high-incomes and capital who are deemed as most likely to increase supply and thus spur growth.[3] Mainstream Keynesian macroeconomics, by contrast, contends that tax cuts should be used to increase demand, not supply, and thus should be targeted at cash-strapped, lower-income households, who are more likely to spend additional income.[4][5]
Many early proponents argued that the size of the economic growth would be significant enough that the increased government revenue from a faster growing economy would be sufficient to completely compensate for the short-term costs of a tax cut, and that tax cuts could, in fact, cause overall revenue to increase.[6] Some assert this was borne out during the 1980s, when many supply-siders claim tax cuts ultimately led to an overall increase in governmental revenue due to stronger economic growth, although many economists doubt this claim.[7][8] To date many economists do not see supply-side economics as a respectable school of thought, with Alan Blinder, calling it an "ill-fated" and perhaps, "silly" school on the pages of a 2006 MIT textbook;[4] Bush advisor Greg Mankiw offered similarly sharp critisim of the school in the early editions of his introductory economics textbook.[9] In a 1992 article for the Harvard International Review James Tobin wrote, "[The] idea that tax cuts would actually increase revenues turned out to deserve the ridicule…"[10] But while few modern economists claim that tax cuts will completely pay for themselves, some empirical and theoretical research suggests that tax cuts do help to pay for themselves through increased economic growth, though the end result, even conservative economists contend, will be a significant reduction in revenues.[3] The Reagan administration was the first to implement supply-side policies and call them that. Some maintain that they failed to deliver the promised benefits.[11]
“ The extreme promises of supply-side economics did not materialize. President Reagan argued that because of the effect depicted in the Laffer curve, the government could maintain expenditures, cut tax rates, and balance the budget. This was not the case. Government revenues fell sharply from levels that would have been realized without the tax cuts.
- Karl Case & Ray Fair, Principles of Economics (2007), p. 695.[11]
”
Supply side proponents Trabandt and Uhlig argue that "static scoring overestimates the revenue loss for labor and capital tax cuts",[12] and that instead "dynamic scoring" is a better predictor for the effects of tax cuts.
Historical origins
Supply-side economics developed during the 1970s in response to the Keynesian dominance of economic policy, and in particular the alleged failure of demand management to stabilize Western economies during the stagflation of the 1970s, in the wake of the oil crisis in 1973.[13] It drew on a range of non-Keynesian economic thought, particularly Austrian school thinking on entrepreneurship and New classical macroeconomics.
As in classical economics, supply-side economics proposed that production or supply is the key to economic prosperity and that consumption or demand is merely a secondary consequence. Early on this idea had been summarized in Say's Law of economics, which states: "A product is no sooner created, than it, from that instant, affords a market for other products to the full extent of its own value." John Maynard Keynes, the founder of Keynesianism, summarized Say's Law as "supply creates its own demand." He turned Say's Law on its head in the 1930s by declaring that demand creates its own supply. [14] However, Say's Law does not state that production creates a demand for the product itself, but rather a demand for "other products to the full extent of its own value." A better formulation of the law is that the supply of one good constitutes demand for one or more other goods.[15]
In 1978 Jude Wanniski published The Way the World Works in which he laid out the central thesis of supply-side economics and detailed the failure of high tax-rate progressive income tax systems and U.S. monetary policy under Nixon in the 1970s. Wanniski advocated lower tax rates and a return to some kind of gold standard, similar to the 1944-1971 Bretton Woods System that Nixon abandoned.
In 1983, economist Victor Canto, a disciple of Arthur Laffer, published The Foundations of Supply-Side Economics. This theory focuses on the effects of marginal tax rates on the incentive to work and save, which affect the growth of the "supply side" or what Keynesians call potential output. While the latter focus on changes in the rate of supply-side growth in the long run, the "new" supply-siders often promised short-term results.
The supply-siders were influenced strongly by the idea of the Laffer curve, which states that tax rates and tax revenues were distinct -- that tax rates too high or too low will not maximize tax revenues. Supply-siders felt that in a high tax rate environment, lowering taxes to the right level can raise revenue by causing faster economic growth. They pointed to the tax cuts of the Kennedy administration and the high rates of the Hoover and Nixon administrations in justification.[citation needed]
This led the supply-siders to advocate large reductions in marginal income and capital gains tax rates to encourage allocation of assets to investment, which would produce more supply. Jude Wanniski and many others advocate a zero capital gains rate.[16][not in citation given] The increased aggregate supply would result in increased aggregate demand, hence the term "Supply-Side Economics".
Furthermore, in response to inflation, supply-siders called for indexed marginal income tax rates, as monetary inflation had pushed wage earners into higher marginal income tax brackets that remained static; that is, as wages increased to maintain purchasing power with prices, income tax brackets were not adjusted accordingly and thus wage earners were pushed into higher income tax brackets than tax policy had intended. [13]
Supply-side economics has been criticized as essentially politically conservative. Supply-side advocates claim that they are not following an ideology, but are reinstating classical economics. Yet, supply-siders such as Jude Wanniski have argued for lower tax rates to increase tax revenues, and that redistribution of income through taxation was essential to the health of the polity -- a fact which is anathema to traditional conservatives.
Some economists see similarities between supply-side proposals and Keynesian economics. If the result of changes to the tax structure is a fiscal deficit then the 'supply-side' policy is effectively stimulating demand through the Keynesian multiplier effect. Supply-side proponents would point out, in response, that the level of taxation and spending is important for economic incentives, not just the size of the deficit.
The Reagan administration justified such changes in socioeconomic terms with the argument that "a rising tide lifts all boats".

merry christmas, from wikipedia

the only reason why supply-side economics hasnt seen as much success as it is theoretically supposed to, is because of limitations and restraints by the government

if this country had a true free market economy, the benefits would have been seen more clearly

Quote:

---

"Did you know that statistics show that usa's economy ALWAYS run better during democrat governments?"

---

That was your claim. Not all that you posted above. What you posted does not prove your statement.

I'll give you a quick link that covers the last 20 years.

http://www.academycomputerservice.co...ics/charts.htm

Just a quick repost that I think covers it all rather well.

* When Republicans get power they tend to emphazise helping the rich rather than the middle class or the poor. They cut taxes for the rich, provide subsidies for the rich and increase spending for military purposes. As much as they might like to, they cannot lower greatly the governmental expenditures for helping the middle class and the poor, because they then would not be able to stay in power in a pseudo-democracy such as the U.S. Thus, deficits increase, which leaves less funds for investment in the economy and the economy suffers. Also, the obvious lack of interest in the welfare of the workers who produce the goods lowers the morale and causes productivity increase to slow down. When the economy gets bad enough the Democrats get voted into power.
* When Democrats get power they tend to increase taxes for the rich and cut military spending, which allows deficits to decrease, and perhaps even surpluses to occur, and therefore leaves more money to invest in the economy and the economy grows. They emphasize the welfare of the workers who produce the goods and the productivity increases faster.
* After the economy is rolling along well, more citizens tend to think they are going to be wealthy and they want the tax cuts for the rich that the Republicans always promise. So Republicans get elected again and the cycle begins with Republican power again.

actually, that WAS NOT my claim, it was a claim i was disputing from earlier in this thread

what i was also saying, is that TRADITIONAL republican economics has great potential, it just hasn't been carried out very well, due to the fact that the u.s. has a poor economic foundation for such strategies

the changes needed are rather simple, but with modern political approaches, they will never be made

and the above post describes the political tug of war that brings this country steadily down the stagnant steps of economic failure

neither side can fix it, but even if they could, they would never get enough time to

welcome to the world of today

Quote:

---

actually, that WAS NOT my claim, it was a claim i was disputing from earlier in this thread

---

Ahhh... sorry. My mistake. I apologize for attributing that to you.

anyways, i was saying that republican theory is better than republican practice

better than democratic theory