Do you love Democrat Hypocrisy?

Can you show me those numbers? Outside of Europe and the Commonwealth.

They never had it.

Can you prove that?

They were - Until Obama broke it.

WOuld an example of this be how Obama has trashed Hillary and Palin?

Does one usually poor water on a pyre when trying to light it?

You mean Obama can't campaign and win against women because that's a denial of women's rights?  Some strange logic you present there Dr Guy.

Is this ALec Baldwin in disguise?

Do you fear controlling your own retirement?

It does seem that way for those of us on in years.

And I am sure Krugman had nothing to do with it.

Everyone conveniently forgets Jumpin Jim Jeffords

Then I guess you dont trust USNews and World report either.  Well, it is just a liberal blog rag anyway.

Campaign against?  Or trash?  Hint: Google is your friend if you have been living on an icebert for the last 10 months.

No, I haven't been living on a icebert.  Trash is your characterization that you made to suit your purposes and little else.  You have also failed to show in any legitimate way how Obama has denied women's rights.

My posts on this topic are clear, I will in no way support any destruction of the present Social Security system as proposed by Bush's appointee Biggs, the Cato Institute and other Republican idealogues who want to take the Social Security Trust Fund and turn it over to Wall Street.  Plain and simple Dr. Guy.  The links I provided in this thread clearly support and corrorborate my postion on this matter.

Um....democrats are attempting this.  It is fact.

Period....I don't think so. 

Do you understand how ACORN lobbied democrats and these institutions to grant people loans they couldn't afford?  But then again, you think this is just a "grass roots" organization.  How sad really.

Holy Gucamole!!! 80 comments in 1 day aint bad!

Island Dog-

We often disagree on well, just about everything. But I do respect the fact that you stick to your guns and often enrich a debate rather than detract from it.

In short, I disagree with just about everything you say, but respect you regardless of the politics.

If I may throw in my 2 cents, I don't think you really have much to worry about no matter who becomes president. Much has already been pre-determined:

Whoever takes office is going to inherit a mess, economically, militarily and politically. This is unavoidable, and is exactly what happened to GWB.

What many people don't understand is that ever since the 70's when N. America moved away from a production economy we replaced it with a fairytale financial economy in which money trades hands and magically creates more wealth without anything actually being done or produced (this is called the FIRE economy- Finance, Insurance, Real Estate) The only way this can happen is through the creation of bubbles, which are entirely unsustainable. Under Clinton, the economy seemed to be doing great because he had his term timed perfectly for the tech bubble. When he left office, everything was peachy and then things burst during GWB's first term.

This would have hapenned regardless of who was in power at the time.

With GW, while I disagree vehemently with his policies across the board, all he was doing was the time honored and well established tradition of fueling another bubble, this time predominantly housing. There's also the national security bubble which has seen over a trillion dollars of public money pumped into private companies that were making peanuts before but that bubble still has a while to go yet.

However, whereas Clinton was able to get out of office before his bubble burst, GW is not so lucky. He was close though- if things would have held a couple more months he probably would have gotten away with it. So whoever comes into power now is inheritting the colapse of another bubble.

 On the domestic side Obama's policies will be a little more populist than McCain's but overall the core of their beliefs really aren't that different. Yes, Obama may raise taxes on business but this is pretty much inevitable considering the current situation (Bush did reduce government revenue while increasing spending.... hhhhmmmm....) Anyway, I'm sure there'll be ample loopholes to recover much of the new taxes anyway! If you do a comparison, you'll see that both politician's believe in Globalization and have a fairly similar foreign policy outlook. Obama will be a little slower to bomb other countries but he'll still do it nonetheless.

And, on a lighter note. 

There are more and more Americans who say the biggest problem we face is our own government, I'm finding it harder and harder to disagree with them.

What I meant by "I blame the people" is that they just sit back and allow the government to get away with blantant obvious disregard for spending wisely without hardly a wimper. I hear it all the time...people bitching about one thing or another...but when I ask them what they are trying to do about it...the answer is usually nothing. I realized full well that the countries being run by a bunch of idiots...but the people here are so full of apathy the idiots know they can get away with it...so having said that...it makes ya wonder who the real idiots are?

CarGuy1:  The Obama "quote" you reproduced was apparently widely ciruclated by e-mail.  However, it was actually written as a piece of satire by John Semmens.  Obama was not on Meet the Press on September 7.

Well I read the story ID but it lacks credibility.  First of all no legislation has been drafted yet.  Secondly, the story doesn't indicate the purpose of the hearings sited and only examines the presentation of one participant.  I'm sure this committee heard from others on this matter as well.  Finally, the story discounts market timing risk and Investor novice risk.  How many people have a sufficient education to understand enough about markets and today feel secure about their 401Ks? 

Why should investing in markets be the only means available to the common citizen for saving for their own retirements?  What is wrong with wanting the lower yields but, much greater safety and protection afforded in the full faith of our government?  Does anyone remember the pension benifits that Corporations lobbied the Congress to be rid of and replaced with 401K plans?  Many executives still enjoy the benfits of traditional retirement pensions.  So do many Governement employees.

It's inevitable because that's what he wants.  To tax some Americans to give to another.  That is the wrong thing to do in these economic times.

Meet Joe the CEO.

You think they don't want to take over 401K's?  Is there any money that democrats don't want to tax and regulate?

If it gets to this point where there is actual legislation to look at then I'll re-consider what your saying until then your arguement is a strawman. 

In other words, there's no facts or evidence in anything you've pointed to or posted for what you're saying.  Namely this:

Please keep in mind Bush's appointee Biggs actually developed real Legislation that never passed that would have destroyed Socail Security as I had indicated and provided more than sufficient links to back up what I was saying with some facts.

Vote McPalin.