Hybrids: '06 Civic Hybrid Magnetic Pearl w/Navi (as of July 1, 2006)
Re: Congratulations: Obama
STOP terrorism - Drive a HYBRID
350 miles a week ------------ 2006 HCH II, Magnetic Pearl, w/NAVI (born on May 25, 2006)
350 miles a month ---------- 2003 Mazda Tribute ES-V6
350 miles a year (for now) - 1986 Mercedes 560SL
When Obama came out for his victory speech, my wife and I described the look as grim determination. Although a significant portion of it may have been the fact he had just suffered a significant personal loss which would have tempered anyone's enthusiasm.
Both McCain's concession speech and Obama's victory speech were gracious and set the right tone for moving forward. I voted for McCain, but living in Illinois it was pretty much a symbolic move. Having said that, I'm still excited about the future, as I feel Obama is a leader the country can rally behind.
Obama definetly has a steep hill to climb with all the troubles plaguing the nation today. Much caused by the outgoing president as well as the past generations of the other two branches.
A truly amazing man also faces great expectations from the public, some seem to almost consider a mythical, godliness status. That too no doubt imposes additoinal pressure.
Although I generally vote Republican because of their platform of lower taxes, less government (liberty) their actions have been opposite for quite some time, so I am no Republican. I am conservative.
McCain has always been a maverick - someone who opposed pratctically everything I believed in while in the Senate, only to change coat for his presidential run. This I give to Obama - he has never hid what he believes in.
Liberty for me means freedom from an oversize central government, allowing me to make my own path throuth life. We've seen the Imperial Federal Government inflate several times over in the past 10 years or so under the Repubs, and with Pelosi, Reid today gleefully handing out yet uncollected trillions can be disturbing. Granted it's a very complicated situation, but endless government intervention is not the answer.
refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly
I suppose one could argue the takeover of a large part of our economy (Healtcare), federal control over our financial institutions, as well as automobile production (etc etc etc) falls into that catagory. Toss in a few gifts such as "free" childcare, "Free" tuition etc paid for by the confiscation from someone else.
I've heard that it's not fair when America's wealthy retain their means: it should be taken and redistributed via taxes to the less wealthy- thus attempt the equalitarian society. Although real relief (Such as the Florida voter who proclaimed Obama's going to fill her tank and pay her mortgage) won't be achieved, exploitation of envy will.
America is the most powerful ship in the world today, about to be steered by a Jr senator, along with Pelosi, Reid and Franks - all govern from a radical far left ideology. There is little hope any of them will govern from even a centrist position.
Should this Republic be steered that direction, I would hope that the little opposition the Repubs can offer would be enough to keep liberty alive, tossing sand in the cogs of a socialist machine, breaking the legs off their platform where possible.
"United behind Obama"
We will see. He has a very, very hard road ahead.
Efficient drivers do it better. 1003 miles a tank personal record. 74MPG calculated. HCH1 CVT
Last edited by Hot_Georgia_2004; 11-15-2008 at 02:35 PM.
Oboma should be a good leader for your country! But I for one am glad to see the world slow down! To many container ships at sea and on our hy-ways. Electronics industry gone crazy! Everything you buy is obsolete before you learn how to use it! To many extreamists running around the world looking too get even! Greedy CEO's! A larger world will be safer? H
I've heard that it's not fair when America's wealthy retain their means: it should be taken and redistributed via taxes to the less wealthy- thus attempt the equalitarian society.
Two points to make (and yes, I know you weren't arguing FOR redistribution):
1 - People who have worked hard to create their wealth only to have it all taken away to share with others will soon stop working so hard to make it.
2 - The definition of fairness is a key point: I believe that charging everyone the same tax rate is fair, while others would argue that it's fair for those who make more money to be taxed at a -higher- percentage, since they can "afford" it.
Attention mods: if the following is too off course, feel free to delete the section. I included it because this is the "Anything Goes" forum and it's already a political discussion. Copied from an e-mail circulating the internet....
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men - the poorest - would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man - the richest - would pay $59. That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement - until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut).
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six - the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"
The six men who paid the bill realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.
But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man who pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too . . . It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!".
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man, "why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine that!
The socialists (at least here in the US) doesn't want to redistribute what the rich already have, only their income.
If you don't like liberal/socialism then stop packing more people in a small area. When 50% of the US population lives on 13% of the land, you wonder why both west and east coasts are liberal. It is no secret why the highway system was proposed under a Republican admin, it helps spread people around more - ensuring they stay conservative. What confuses me is why the Republicans weren't pushing for hybrids even more than the Democrats since they help keep people in cars and spread out. Probably another reason why they're out of power now.
I spent four years in the Marine Corps and that was real socialism and authoritarian. So I know instantly when someone claims our country has become 'socialists' that they never served our country in the armed forces. This also calls into question their loyalty to our country ... to make such patently false claims.
In the 1860s, a bunch of Southern nuts talked themselves into armed rebellion between the election of Lincoln and his taking office. That pattern appears to be repeating and it is just as foolish today as it was 148 years ago. Understand, I don't have a problem with "venting," but that doesn't mean I have to like it.
So let's look at what that documented Socialist, GW Bush, has done. His administration is spending $700 B. in borrowed money, future taxes to pay off that debt, to buy bank stock. His Socialist rates of bank ownership are a little higher than straight confiscation and it does mean US Federal ownership of banks.
Until Obama takes office, we're still living under GW Bush's administration and his bitter, divisive, fiscally irresponsible legacy. GW Bush also had 6 years of Republican House and Senate (thankfully ended two years ago.) GW Bush and the Republicans earned the spanking they got at the polls.
Criticize Obama for what he has done but winning the Presidency was and remains a brilliant success. But until Obama takes office, we still have one President, GW Bush, and his policies are leaving a terrible and growing mess that Obama and a Democratic Congress will have to clean up.
ps. You are free to see my contribution:
Obama, Barack (D)
After April 3, use e-mail to contact me:
Last edited by bwilson4web; 11-21-2008 at 07:11 AM.