So what's your point armydoc4u?

What are you getting at?

Blah blah blah. Do you actually believe that? You are all over the board. Standard liberal fare...... don't focus on one topic longer than it takes to move on to another. If you are able, please throw out one topic and stick with it until you realize you were actually right or wrong and then admit it, leaving the old "switcheroo" out of the equation. Keep repeating "Its okay to be wrong sometimes".

By your last
comment you
offered nothing
to the discussion
except criticism.

I will bring
up more than
one topic if
I think it is
relevant, or
follows a
particular
pattern of
behavior.

This election
is about issues,
and no issue is
off the table.

No, I offered direction. An attempt to keep the discussion a discussion. Rather than puking several different issues in one post, I find it better to get my point across or to learn from others when I am not running around flailing my arms and throwing out talking points and calling them "discussions".

Sorry, I neglected to ask which issue were you referring to? You tickled a few but forgot to include the others.

About issues? Really? I dont see anyone on either side discussing issues with any depth at all. I hear a lot of buzz words, catch phrases and empty platitudes. Bigger governement is not the answer and as long as 50% of this country ( the lower 50% in earnings) pay ZERO taxes they will always vote for the one that offers to give them the most stuff/money/services.

George Bernard Shaw once observed, "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the support of Paul."

An interesting addition to that statement would be to question how is it that one can receive a check from the IRS after not having paid taxes to begin with?

A very good question indeed!! One can also add that tax cuts can only be given to tax payers. How can you cut the taxes of someone that does not pay any?

You do realize that Hilary and Obama both said they wouldn't be able to withdraw the troops during their first term. I like how the Dems would always try to force Bush to withdraw yet now when they are close to getting a chance to be president they are saying they can't do it yet. It was just a ruse to get people to drop support for the Repubs. Politics has just become childish name calling and finger pointing.

Good point. not!

Well Zapchaser, since it
seems that you suck at
multitasking, I'll break
the issues down for you
one at a time.

Issue # 1:

We don't need
to give welfare to
rich people.

Following me,
Zapchaser?

Issue # 2:

Republicans keep
bringing up Ronald
Reagan in this election,
but people are thinking
George Bush Jr. and Iraq.

And that doesn't bode
well for the Republicans.

Got it?

Issue # 3:

The housing crisis was
created on Bush Jr.'s watch.

I'll allow a little
time for my next post
to give Zapchaser time
to catch up.

Yup, I am taking my estrogen pills as we speak so I can keep up with you.
Define welfare for rich people.

Sorry, that makes no sense. In your eves it doesn't matter what the republicans bring up. It is all wrong as you see it.

Examples of welfare for rich people:

http://www.conservativenannystate.org/

http://www.zmag.org/CHOMSKY/sld/sld-1-02.html

Examples of Republicans
invoking the memory of
a dead President:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/04/america/04repubs.php

Importance of the Iraq War:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/26/wbush226.xml

Created by whom? Oh wait, you believe as a liberal that government has to hold your hand while you take a pee to make sure you don't get pinched in the zipper. People are too stupid to know that they are spending beyond their ability to repay, right? Just WHERE does accountability come into the equation and WHO is to be held accountable? You live in Minnesota. A nanny state if there ever was one. Don't you ever feel (a good liberal word) that people are accountable for themselves? Did the lenders break any laws? No. Did they act unethically? I think so. They sold mortgages and shortly thereafter sold the mortgages to another lending institution. No culpability. The first lender didn't care whether or not the homeowner would default, it was out of their sight and would not affect them. The major construction companies that handled financing in house were playing the same game and they got what they asked for. Awwwww the estrogen is kicking in and I am feeling the need to hug somebody, hold hands and sing kumbaya. Is that how it works for you?

Like I said....
Sorry, that makes no sense. In your eves it doesn't matter what the republicans bring up. It is all wrong as you see it

From your link:
Sound economic policy should harness the market in ways that produce desirable social outcomes – decent wages, good jobs and affordable health care.
Yup, I agree.