Hey, you have to know that she is lying just to win over the lefties. If she came into office she would not simply yank everyone immediately out of Iraq. Now Barack, that is a different story. I do think she would yank them out immediately.

Hillary is just using rhetoric to get votes. Barack is just talking dumb.

Yanking the troops out now by either would be incredibly stupid, especially with all the recent good news from there. Half the provinces under control of the Iraqis, likelihood the majority if not all by next year under their control. 2 million barrels of oil per day, could increase by 200k this year. An INF report predicts there will be a 7-8% economic growth this year, and the year to follow. The UN is even agreeing that Iraq is on a great progress. Every IMF fund package Iraq has received they have paid off way ahead of schedule. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080123/EDITORIAL06/228781142/1013/EDITORIAL)

Sounds like REALLY good news to me.

I'm not voting for Barack or Hillary though, there is no way I will vote for someone who said "I have a million ideas. The country can't afford them all." But there is also no way I am voting for a man who has absolutely no experience in governing or a long standing presence in Congress.

There is also no way I am voting for two who will increase taxes FOR ALL through social programs and the HORRIBLE mistake that would be universal healthcare. Taxes from that alone would go up incredibly.

I'm suspicious of anyone who' want that job?

Oh, and for all those people who yell increase the taxes for the rich, punish them for their success, they don't deserve it all are forgetting a few key economic points.

In the form of a question:

Who is it that hires and employs the working class? First, you now want them to pay even a higher minimum wage, which means smaller businesses will have to do layoffs cause they cannot afford it. And, then you want to increase their taxes, which means a loss of profit and thus the likeability that they cannot afford further workers, cannot afford the current number of workers, and may have to cut wages.

Now, how exactly is that a smart idea, to increase taxes for the rich? If you actually were economic savvy and could read the news, you'd know that the 2006 Income Taxes were the HIGHEST on record gathered by the federal government.

How is that possible? Lower taxes for all, the rich especially = higher spending (which filtrates all around the business sector), higher production, higher employment.

Economics 101

I changed my mind, neither Obama nor Hillary will remove troops from Iraq. They will keep them there, however they may withdraw some numbers quite quickly. But, other than that they know better.

At least someone is
talking about solutions
for ending the occupation.

No one on the Republican
side is addressing it,
except maybe for Ron Paul.

As for tax breaks for the rich,
who has a lot of the disposable
income in this country?

It's the middle class.

Now there is a housing crisis
caused by predatory lending.

Who allowed lendors to hook
home buyers with multiple
mortgages?

That should never have been
allowed.

So what happens then?

People lose their homes,
maybe go into bankruptcy
(if they can declare that)
or debt reorganization,
disposable income goes
down, less money to buy
goods and services, and
the people who provide
these goods and services
(a lot of them wealthy)
can't sell those goods
and services any more!

And the middle class
still pays the most
taxes of anyone.

Again, standard liberal jibberish.

Don't hold the population accountable for entering into home loans they could not afford. (people are too stupid. they need the almighty government to protect them from themselves and the evil corporations that should be controlled by the government. right mister castro?)

The middle class is the largest segment of the population so it stands to reason (sorry for using that word)that they supply the largest portion of tax revenue. Perhaps it would sound better if we said: Go out there and succeed! We will be happy to negate your hard work and resulting success by incrementally taxing you beyond your wildest dreams because wealth redistribution is what we are really after.

Yeah zap, that makes a lot of sense. corporations should be allowed to prey on people and the government just sit back and say oh well. That sounds like a nice country to live in. Like Italy 1940.

Have you ever read our counstitution? It says Congress has the right to regulate all commerce. Our Founding Fathers put that in there because they were students of history. Someone always regulates. It's either a dictator, or a representative gov. or those who have the economic power.

I guess in your ideal world, you would like to be at the mercy of those with wealth. If there was no gov. regulation, you would have nothing! It would be walmart and ATT and you would take what they gave you.

Repugs just are not students of history. Bush proved that. Basically the little jerk embodied everything your saying, and look how good that's turning out.

Basically, 9/11 allowed repugs to put just about all their theories into practice and we now see the results.

Your still going to try to defend the insane just because you can't admit your wrong?

Come to the enlightened side, and quit getting trickled on!

Hey Starsailor, if staying in Iraq is such a good idea, why don't you join the Army or Marines and get in a combat unit. Your only 25. If I was your age and believed it was our duty to stay in a war, that's where I would be.

So practice what your preach. If your not willing to go, then it must not be a worth while fight, huh?

Where did I say anything about corporations? I was speaking of the middle class. Perhaps you missed that when I said "middle class". Corporations ARE regulated. That is not what is.......oh, I get it, you are speaking lib to me! Sorry! I don't equate middle class to wealth as much as I don't equate individuals in the corporate world to corporations which are NOT PEOPLE! Enlightened? Try educated.

Easy on the hate pal, you have no idea if he tried and failed or whatever someone's reasoning is. Some people can't get in because they are repulsively obese. Some because their education can't progress beyond that of a slug. Some because they, quite honestly, are a danger to themselves. Mind you, none of this is directed at you. I am merely pointing out the fact that assuming often makes a person out to look like an ass. I am sure you are a kind hearted liberal who loves the world and holds no hatred or malice, only peace and love for your fellow man. At least that is what liberals SAY they believe.
Love,
The Repugs.

Without a doubt....YES.


EXPERIENCE, EXPERIENCE, EXPERIENCE.

Everything she has promised has come through in previous years. She is a woman of her word (and that is impossible to find in politics these days).

Also look how great the economy was during the clinton administartion...education...health care....FORIEGN AFFAIRS.

America HAD jobs, she never supported foriegn outsourcing....

Look what wonders BUSH did with this terrific idea.



FOR AMERICAN WORKERS, FOR EDUCATION, FOR OUR FUTURE


YES

YES

YES

I'll avoid responding to your personal attacks. But you said don't hold people accountable bla bla bla. For entering into loans bla bla bla. Well think it out zap, who were they entering into agreements with in those loans, think on it, yes that's right it's corporations! Good zap, now your catching on.

Why do you think even the repugs are using the phrase "predatory lending practices"?

Even very educated people were taken in by these sub-prime loans. That's what the role of our gov. should be to protect citizens from con artist and theives. Not just have economic anarchy like you seem to think would be a good idea.

As far as your middle class thing goes, there was no middle class in this country before FDR. Let me tell you in LIB speak,

WE CREATED THE MIDDLE CLASS! If I knew your families history, I could show you how lib programs helped you to get whatever it is you got! You can kid yourself and think your so wonderful and hardworking you just made your own way, but people that came before you worked a lot harder and didn't have a pot to **** in! That is before FDR and all the LIB programs you hate so much. Like GI bill, and subsidized home loans, and trust me I could go on and on!

The Gov and Libs are not your enemy, the greedy rich are!

Monosyllabic♥Girl: You have a future in poltics!

You got my vote!

Well that is incredibly original. Each man has their own role to play. I am humbled by the men and women of our armed services and have overwhelming admiration for them and what they have volunteered to do. I will not fall prey to your sensationalist agendas.

lol you won't fall prey to one of thos roadside bombs either, with ya? Yeah, I love all these chicken hawks running around saying what a good idea it is to be there, but that's not your role. Your role is to sell real estate that the warriors coming back will never be able to afford.


But Obama is just dumb. We need someone smart like Mccain who can't figure out who the hell attacked us in the first place. Do you have some medical reason you can't fight? Like Rush Limbau who had a boil on his arse?

Maybe you have a future in Republican politics. That will be your "role" sending other people to back up your tough words.

Personal attacks, gotta love it. Did you take that whole coming practice from one of your beloved bleeding heart websites?

Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and many other great military strategists and leaders of the world never served in the military.

However, FDR and Churchill were amazing wartime Presidents/Prime Ministers, who did not only sit back and let their advisors do the work, but they themselves took the helm and made many decision that led the Allies to victory.

Are you saying FDR or Churchill were chickenhawks cause they never served? Or more importantly, are you saying that they were not good wartime Commanders in Chiefs because they never served in the military? Just because they never served in the military does not mean they were not great military leaders and strategists.

Get a clue, lay off the non-sensical personal attacks.

By the way, Sun Tzu never served in combat, his role was military strategist and yet never fought himself.

Even better, was Thomas Jefferson a chickenhawk to you? He and many others wanted to go to war with the greatest military empire in the world. He NEVER fought in the war, he led from the sidelines as others fought. In your opinion, Thomas Jefferson would be a chickenhawk, most of our Founding Fathers, from what you believe, would be considered chickenhawks.

Keep on sticking to your incredibly weak argument bent solely on personal attacks.

hillary winning the dems nomination is what the republicans would like to see happen

and if she does

the possibility of a third party (with the right people running
could be a possibility

can we say paul obama maybe

hey never know

Personally I'm against her, she's just another puppet.

she is a first term senator

and even bill says you should not elect a first term senator

Let's return to monarchy, then instead of arguing pubs and dems we can foment revolution against the cruel overlords