So sayeth state Democrats.
My lovely bride's comparative youth and original, maiden name voter registration means she receives a healthy dose of mail from the state Democratic party - younger, single females being a target audience of most left-of-center candidates.
Two pieces arrived with our absentee ballots from the Democrats; the topics:
1) "Dino Rossi wants to impose his personal beliefs on women seeking emergency contraception..."
2) "Dino Rossi opposes a woman's right to choose..."
Message: when in doubt - there being no message from the Democratic incumbent on jobs, the economy, education, or transportation - vote your genitalia.
Visionary.
Posted by Eric Earling at October 18, 2008 01:10 PM | Email ThisThink very open-minded about this. A philosophy of people who want the right to choose, what to revoke the right of others to choose what they sell or don't sell, or what they want to buy from a vendor (or not want to buy).
If their whole idea is to give women the 'right to choose,' then why are they taking the 'right to choose' away from others?
Doesn't sound very fair to me...
Posted by: Brent on October 18, 2008 01:20 PMThe rest of us feel unloved by the Democrats. Guess we won't vote for Queen Christine this year.
Go figure!
Posted by: Camille on October 18, 2008 01:46 PMIf I am in need of a PILL really bad, I think I can find the means to shop around until I find it, if that is my choice.....
So I think the Demo's should start talking about real issues that they CAN CONTROL !
Posted by: Chris on October 18, 2008 03:43 PMDo you know what $119,000 buys you for a starter house in Dallas?
Is the Puget Sound really worth arguing over?
It's no longer a good place to live.
Double the problems, at four times the cost!
True, but how many people know she got her position by screwing the County Executive?
Posted by: The World on October 18, 2008 09:43 PM"Christine Gregoire: Vote Your Genitalia"
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 18, 2008 11:49 PMJohn @ 7. I'd be out of here in a second if my wife wasn't from here. It's nice to raise kids around family, but this state is poorly run, expensive, and full of lefty parasites.
Posted by: Jeff B. on October 19, 2008 12:18 AMWow. The Crickets are screaming here... where's our resident leftists to tell us how screwed up we are on this and so forth?
The silence is deafening!
Posted by: Hinton on October 19, 2008 05:45 AMThis morning when Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama, and gave his reasons why, he was also endorsing Christine Gregoire. He spoke about the "Prefers GOP" party, and their "move to" the right, and their (sickening) attempts at dividing America. He did not like what "his" part was doing, and thus repudiated their smear, and division methods of campaigning.
I am very happy that Former REPUBLICONVICT Secretary of State FULLY endorses my point of view....
I am confident that he feels "his party" should clean up their act and try to bring America together, and work for a brighter future, instead of doing the exact opposite, in their lust for power, and greed.
He didn't say that Republicons are a Disease, in as many words.
I am saying it though.
There is hope that they will someday grow up. Either that, or they will disappear entirely, and the GOP break up into the 5 groups they represent.
AFSMP
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on October 19, 2008 07:54 AMWhen Obama told Joe the Plumber Obama's Big Government would "spread Joe's wealth around", it reminded me of this famous quote, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." -- Karl Marx.
Wikipedia says, "Socialism... 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. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution which represents the transitional stage between capitalism and communism."
European Socialist leaders are upfront & honest about these beliefs. Obama & his ilk squeal "personal attack" & "racism" whenever someone calls Obama what he is...a Socialist.
The greed of Wall Street and Corporate America created this opportunity for a Socialist to become President. Are all Democrats Socialist? Absolutely not. Many Democrats who see Obama for what he is...a Socialist...are struggling with this Election decision.
Obama has mesmerized young people across America with promises of an easy life courtesy of Obama taking more from the rich and giving it to them in the form of Tax Credits, free Health Care and lots of other free stuff. Mighty appealing to someone starting out in life. Socialism isn't sustainable. It's a shallow power grab...not the answer.
Obama understands the need for "Progressive" steps toward a Socialistic State and the words of 6-time American Socialist Party Candidate, Norman Thomas, ""The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."
Colin Powell's reasons for endorsing O-blah-blah are irrelevant. Interesting the anti-war crowd would embrace Powell after his "role" in the Iraq War.
Think hard. Reject Obama & Gregoire's Utopian Socialist agenda.
You're spouting off like a damn fool, repeating the neat little Republican talking points like a good right-wing robot. You're far too stupid to realize though that if the economy is going into a downturn, the major concern of most working-class Americans is not the apparent slurs you think you're throwing but whether the policies proposed will help them get through. They've looked at the approaches, they've looked at temperament, and McCain has come up far short.
And in terms of Rossi... he's a tool, but he has run a FAR better campaign. I am concerned about all of these issues that you're discussing, but that's irrelevant to the anti-incumbent Obama/Rossi sentiment in the air.
Policy wonks that flail around to try to define a message don't survive as well as charismatic speakers with a refined strategy in political campaigns, either at the national or state level.
Posted by: demo kid on October 19, 2008 09:53 AMYou know, like all your Pravda posts?
Posted by: hinton on October 19, 2008 10:45 AMAnything else he uttered was eyewash to cover that.
Since you're such a total leftist scumbag, I'm not surprised that you failed to see that.
But given all the lies you've posted here, there's a great chance that you knew, but just couldn't bring yourself to admit it.
Also, perhaps you leftist scum might come along and try to "cure" this disease of which you spew.
I think I'd like that. In fact, I would look forward to your bogus effort.
Posted by: Hinton on October 19, 2008 10:56 AMAs for industry ,what gives him the power to tell companies they can't outsource jobs. He's proposed even more punishing environmental regulations on business. And of course he's basically said he has no problem shutting down the coal mining industry. Shall I go on? Because have plenty more examples of his Marxist philosophy. And BTW, we aren't talking about what McCain may or may not do. That is irrelevant to the argument. You need to prove to us why Barry is NOT a closet Marxist. You've been given plenty of examples that suggest he is. Saying "Yea, but McCain...." is not evidence. See how that works? I didn't think so. But give it a try.
Posted by: Dave on October 19, 2008 12:08 PMOf course O-blah-blah isn't going to propose nationalizing Industries during an election. Obama understands the need for "Progressive" steps toward a Socialistic State and the words of 6-time American Socialist Party Candidate, Norman Thomas, ""The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."
1st O-blah-blah does as much as he can with taxes, regulations and other re-distribution mechanisms...then he takes over companies he has caused to fail. How can you not see that?? Oh, I forgot...demokid has his eyes covered, ears plugged and loudly sings Happy Music.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on October 19, 2008 12:45 PMAnd as far as I can tell, the banks that failed were dropped by improper valuation of risk and ineffective regulation of risk instruments. To think that it would be a grand plot by Democrats to gain control of the banking industry is outlandish and paranoid.
Ans as far as becoming unhinged... I merely called you an idiot. You prefer prefacing your statements with "LEFTIST PINHEAD KLOWNS". Learn to spell, and learn how to turn the Caps Lock key off.
@21: dumbokid, you obviously have not read anything other than Barry's website for your information.
I think that I've been there exactly twice. Even propaganda from the campaign I'm backing is still propaganda.
Yes, he has proposed dramatic changes to the tax code. Namely, taking my money and giving it to people who don't pay taxes. And raising middle class taxes to do it.
We all pay taxes, income tax and otherwise. Apparently, there are two differences between what you and I think is fair, though. First, a dollar is not worth the same to everyone. I'd prefer that a poor household use a dollar to eat than a rich household use it to drop a down payment on a second house, and that opinion is reflected in our progressive tax code. Second, there needs to be a social safety net to ensure that people aren't steamrollered by bad economic situations. Call it "welfare", but we're all in this together, and assuming that other people need to be hung out to dry when the economy goes south is harsh and, dare I say it, un-American.
Do I understand that there are people that are quite willing to sponge off the system? Sure. I get it. Frustrates the crap out of me that there are people that feel entitled to services. I do volunteer work, and some of the population that we serve assume that social services should be at their beck and call. That is not what these services are there for. But the alternative is to cast these folks out into some pretty stark conditions, ones that have not been aided by funding cuts and program restructuring to date.
Now, if you want to talk about personal responsibility, I have a hard time believing that an upper-class tax cut really fits with that. Explain otherwise.
As for industry ,what gives him the power to tell companies they can't outsource jobs.
He's giving corporations tax breaks for not outsourcing jobs. That's a "free market" solution. He's not imposing tariffs or declaring that he'll revoke licenses or nationalize industries or anything. Republicans and Democrats have a long history of relying on tax credits to promote certain agendas.
And of course he's basically said he has no problem shutting down the coal mining industry.
Because "clean coal" will just appear from the heavens?
Shall I go on? Because have plenty more examples of his Marxist philosophy. And BTW, we aren't talking about what McCain may or may not do. That is irrelevant to the argument.
It is exactly relevant to the argument. You're proposing that Obama is a "Marxist", but your candidate is proposing solutions that are similar. Buying and renegotiating mortgages? If that proposal came from Obama, you'd be using it as proof, but if it comes from your candidate, apparently it's quite kosher.
You need to prove to us why Barry is NOT a closet Marxist.
Again, look above. You're trying to argue of something's existence because of a LACK of evidence. All the Republicans have been able to provide is twisted circumstantial evidence, and to assume that I need to "prove" that it's wrong is absurd.
You've been given plenty of examples that suggest he is. Saying "Yea, but McCain...." is not evidence. See how that works? I didn't think so. But give it a try.
This election isn't taking place in a vacuum. Looking at the distance between the two candidates on certain issues is relevant to taking the context into account.
Posted by: demo kid on October 19, 2008 01:40 PMHe's giving "tax breaks" if they meet certain coditions... and if they have to pay enough to actually be able to USE a "tax break".
Want to stop outsourcing? Make the country corporation friendly. Get US off the top two list of highest corporate taxes in the WORLD. That alone would go a long way to overcoming the lower taxes PLUS incentives that other countries use to lure those evil corporations.
You have no need to look beyond Delaware or Nevada for proof of how business and tax friendly environments attract BUSINESS. Even Obambi admitted that in a recent slip of honesty.
Obambi's "tax breaks" are like offering candy to a diabetic... yeah, it's tempting and it might taste good but eventually will kill the diabetic.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 19, 2008 01:54 PMAnd yes, getting tax breaks offered by the government should involve meeting certain conditions. That seems responsible, no?
Regarding outsourcing, I'm skeptical that tax breaks or deregulation would be able to do much of anything. Outsourced labor is cost-competitive based on very low wages and nationalized healthcare, and not simply on corporate income tax breaks. Personally, I view that as a feel-good punitive measure more than anything else.
Finally, this talk of the US having the "top two list of highest corporate tax rates in the world" is a drastic oversimplification. Read:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6902/11-28-CorporateTax.pdf
It's very informative. It also pretty much says that the statutory corporate tax rate in the US is competitive with the other G7 countries, and the variation between the countries is not markedly large.
Posted by: demo kid on October 19, 2008 02:26 PMYou still haven't adequately shown that many of Barry's policies are not Socialistic. And again, saying "Yea, but McCain..." is not a proof point. We aren't talking about McCain. Nor is it relevant what other countries tax policies are or how we compare.
Now, please, disprove that Barry is not proposing giving free money to people that don't pay taxes.
Posted by: Dave on October 19, 2008 05:29 PMYou still haven't adequately shown that many of Barry's policies are not Socialistic. And again, saying "Yea, but McCain..." is not a proof point. We aren't talking about McCain. Nor is it relevant what other countries tax policies are or how we compare.
Now, please, disprove that Barry is not proposing giving free money to people that don't pay taxes.
Posted by: Dave on October 19, 2008 05:31 PMYou still haven't adequately shown that many of Barry's policies are not Socialistic. And again, saying "Yea, but McCain..." is not a proof point. We aren't talking about McCain. Nor is it relevant what other countries tax policies are or how we compare.
Now, please, disprove that Barry is not proposing giving free money to people that don't pay taxes.
Posted by: Dave on October 19, 2008 05:48 PMYou still haven't adequately shown that many of Barry's policies are not Socialistic. And again, saying "Yea, but McCain..." is not a proof point. We aren't talking about McCain. Nor is it relevant what other countries tax policies are or how we compare.
Now, please, disprove that Barry is not proposing giving free money to people that don't pay taxes.
Posted by: Dave on October 19, 2008 06:00 PMThe power to raise income taxes is in the Sixteenth Amendment, which gives no restrictions as to how these taxes are enacted. Let me know if you find any in the text.
Now, in terms of whether this is socialistic... what the hell does that mean to you? If anything aside from a flat tax is "taking from the rich to give to the poor", you're not going to be happy with anything that I say. Of course, you're probably not happy with any federal assistance to the poor, regardless of the nature of that assistance. To that... well... a country run by the likes of you would be a sorry, desperate place.
In terms of practical solutions though, this has the best chance to provide a positive economic impact for the country, without putting us in the economic hole that the Bush administration drove us into.
Posted by: demo kid on October 19, 2008 06:03 PMSo what you're saying is that your vice-presidential candidate will be supporting Gregoire?
Posted by: demo kid on October 19, 2008 06:06 PMI know what Communism and Socialism look like, and I see where they led, and how they recover. You see, I'm here in my apartment in Shanghai right now (and it's beautiful out - going to be 77 and sunny again today).
Obama has suggested nationalizing the healthcare industry. This is not just healthcare; it will have the effect of nationalizing the entire insurance industry as well.
Your fellow Slavers have openly suggested - in Congressional panels - nationalizing the energy companies. And Obama - with his closed-market, big government solutions - falls right in line.
Obama feels that a Government consuming 1 of every 5 dollars is not big enough. He promises to spend another trillion, bringing Government's direct share of the GDP to 26%.
Add in another 15% for healthcare and insurance. Then add another 15% for energy. Government controls 56% of the GDP. That is virtual Socialism.
If you can't see the facts clearly, it's because you're either ignorant or willfully ignoring. I don't think it's the former, so I'm sure its partisanship meaning the latter.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 19, 2008 07:17 PMBut stop lying about these policies. Obama has NOT proposed nationalizing ANY industries. In fact, out of the Democratic candidates, his healthcare proposals were panned for not going far enough in their coverage. Any attempt to suggest otherwise is simple fearmongering, rooted in the floundering of a failed campaign.
Likewise, you're throwing around figures that have no basis in fact. Fifteen percent for energy and healthcare is not substantiated.
Stop being such a partisan crybaby.
Posted by: demo kid on October 19, 2008 07:48 PMThat's right towards the top of your rank hypocrist list, dumbo. When I look it up in the dictionary, it says "See: dumbo."
That empty suited anti-American racist bigot you support is using bribary with tax dollars to get the poverty vote.
"cut taxes for 95% of the people" doesn't count when the top 10% are paying 60% of those taxes, and, of course, when the bottom 40% or so don't pay a dime.
So, even for the 10's of millions who pay nothing, they'll still get a check.
It's that you and your kind are so attracted to that kind of hucksterism and all the rest of his lies that defies anything approaching logic.
But then, you short bussers ARE all alike.
Posted by: Hinton on October 19, 2008 08:01 PMThe fruits of my labor are at least kept now. I can redistribute them as I see fit, rather than having the Government force such issue.
As far as being a pathetic excuse for an American, if believing in the rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness means you are not an American than I gratefully give up that title.
You Slavery Party thieves and liars are the ones who foul and spoil the name of the nation, and trample the flag which I proudly served for 6 years. I served - did you? There's an amazing correlation between sniveling Slavers like you and those who never served, or never even worked with the military. The concept of patriotism and love of Country and Ideals is anathema to you!
America will always reside within my heart and mind, even if you Slavery Party hacks - bigoted racists and haters - destroy the current incarnation. The fact I have better success and freedom outside your confines should shame you!
And Obama absolutely calls for nationalized healthcare. How you can say with a straight face that is not the case is ludicrous, but I've come to expect that from you and your ilk.
Bot Obama, rather than using the nationalization method of Marx, will employ that of Mussolini, Hitler, and Franco - Fascism. Yes you Slavery Party members have taken the mantle of that triumvirate of evil, and you seek to take it to an ever higher level.
The facts are obvious, but partisan Slaver hacks like you revel in the path of destruction you so cherish for all.
Capitalism promises unequal distribution of success. Socialism guarantees equal distribution of misery.
Enjoy the misery you will create. Look no further than the nightmare of insurance we have in Washington State to see what's coming for the US if Obama and the rest of the Slavery Party get their way.
And you Slavery Party hacks also call for nationalizing the oil industry.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 19, 2008 08:55 PMWow... America will always reside within your heart and mind, while you're not paying taxes and cavorting around in a country that many of your ilk find to be an enemy. You're the worst excuse for an American... one that pays lip service to the principles for this country without having a clue as to exactly what living in a democratic society truly means.
And again... when your message doesn't stick, you resort to fearmongering. Truly a sign of a bankrupt philosophy. You start talking about socialism and nationalization, and you show that you don't understand a single thing about what it means. Thinking that random remarks or attempts to extend healthcare to the uninsured amounts to a drive towards "socialism" in any actual sense of the word is absurd. The proof is circumstantial, and a BIG stretch, and you're completely irrational by linking efforts to actual socialism.
Enjoy selling out your principles, sir.
Posted by: demo kid on October 19, 2008 09:13 PMYou kiss your mom with that mouth?
As far as taxation, learn before you write. Of course, I'm sure you take ZERO deductions and pay the absolute maximum, and then give even more since your god Government and its prophet Obama expect as much of you?
There is nothing about fear-mongering. You throw labels, and pout and whine, yet when presented with cold, hard facts you simply cannot rebut. Obama WILL nationalize health care. It's in his own words, it's in his own deeds, it's in his own plan The Slavery Party is ON RECORD as calling for nationalization of the oil companies. And there is nothing your petulance can do about it. Facts are irritating things, aren't they you ignorant Slaver?
I am selling out my principles? On the contrary, I have laid them bare and follow them consistently. You on the left - the Slavers, the Marxists, the lazy - have no principles.
I guess that is why it's easy for you to change your mind, redistribute wealth as you see fit, and deny the existence of the fundamental principles of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
At least here in China the progress is towards more of each. You Slavers want to regress. Mao would be so proud! Thankfully a billion Chinese have seen better to move from his failed policies that you and your ilk are so enamored with...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 19, 2008 09:41 PMGregoire would like to control your penis. She'd like to have it lopped off. So, their even.
Posted by: bananaland on October 19, 2008 11:16 PMYou're the one equating the Democratic Party with slavery, so as far as I'm concerned, if you can give it, you can take it.
Of course, I'm sure you take ZERO deductions and pay the absolute maximum, and then give even more since your god Government and its prophet Obama expect as much of you?
That's not the point, and you know it. I've never taken a tax credit that's given me money that I haven't earned, however... even when I was a starving student.
I am selling out my principles? On the contrary, I have laid them bare and follow them consistently.
Well, I guess that being mercenary is part of your principles, then.
At least here in China the progress is towards more of each.
A Great Leap Forward, eh? Justify it however you like.
Posted by: demo kid on October 20, 2008 07:52 AMAs a child, I actually watched a cleric close to my family come "under the guns" of the state-sponsored media when he dared to point out that a change in city master plan would cut off the only source of clean water to the many families already living in a slum next to the citys garbage dump.
Within days, this truly good man was painted as being a "plant," a "spy" a "womanizer," etc. (There was probably more. I was just a child and probably missed some of the truly nasty stuff.)
first, a "citizens group" (which was actually run by the local police commander) stormed his church "in protest" and destroyed everything of value. He was quickly jailed and his charitable organization was thrown out of the country and he was jailed within a few weeks.
He was destroyed because he dared question those in power.
I watched something similar happen last week with Joe the Plumber. (He asks a simple policy question and the next day he's on the news as a tax cheat and "imposter.") I watch our local media and democratic party try their best to slime Tim Eyeman in a similar manner.
I imagine what will happen when the Dems hold both houses and the Presidency. It is a truly chilling thought.
Posted by: johnny on October 20, 2008 09:58 AMYou're a fool then to think that this isn't done on both sides. Witch-hunts are only good for sitting presidents and candidates that are not your own, then?
Posted by: demo kid on October 20, 2008 10:38 AMdemo, you really should stop trying to defend your position. With every post you prove yourself more yourself more and more ignorant of the Constitution. The 16th Amendend with the authority of Congress to collect taxes on income. Heretofore not a power granted to Congress. Income tax was originally intended to help fund the Civil War. You do realize Congress repealed the income tax in 1872, right? No, of course you didn't. So it was never intended to be permanent. In 1894 Congress struck down a the most recent income tax proposal of 2% over $4,000.
In 1909 the issue was raised again. Republicans thought they could kill the concept by proposing an amdendment. Alas, they were wrong. So, yes, the 16th Admendment does, unfortunately, grant the Fed Govt the power to take a certain percentage of MY MONEY. Of course the Amendment doesn't address how such taxes should be spent. That was NOT the intent of the amendment. The issue Congress was trying to solve was how to collect more tax revenues to fund their Constitutional obligation. So, I will gladly show you what the Constitution grants Congress the power to spend tax money on: Article 1, Section 8. The 16th Amendment does not supercede that Article. Get it? Didn't think so.
"Now, in terms of whether this is socialistic... what the hell does that mean to you? If anything aside from a flat tax is "taking from the rich to give to the poor", you're not going to be happy with anything that I say. Of course, you're probably not happy with any federal assistance to the poor, regardless of the nature of that assistance. To that... well... a country run by the likes of you would be a sorry, desperate place."
I never said taxation was socialist. What I asked you was a SIMPLE yes or no question, yet you have failed to answer. Does Barry propose collecting taxes from those that PAY TAXES and given welfare..er...I mean, "tax credits" to those that pay NO TAXES? YES, or NO? It's a simple question, but for some reason you refuse to answer.
As for helping the poor, I'm all for that, and you are too, it appears. I do it through this thing called "Charity". My issue has nothing to do whether there should be assistance for the poor or not. My issue is that this is NOT the role of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. And since you seem to be wanting to defend your position by quoting the Constitution, I challenge you to read Article 1, Section 8 that outlines the specific duties of Congress and tell me where Congress is granted that authority. And I will again give you a hint so you are not chasing your tail...it is NOT the General Welfare Clause. Ready? GO!
In point of fact, Congress does address this issue. Since you fancy yourself a scholar of Constitutional Amdendments you will recognize the 10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
So, the power to take my money and give it to someone else has not been delegated to the U.S Congress. Conversely it does not prohibit the States from doing so. Ergo, this welfare issue is something for the States to resolve if they so choose. Or to the people (which is why there are charities).
Seriously, you need to understand the concept of LIMITED GOVERNMENT on which this country was founded. More important, Barry does. The President, nor Congress has the Constitutional authority to do the majoriy of what Barry is proposing. Which is why the Marxism question is being raised. Unlike other countries, we have a LIMITED GOVERNMENT which grants more power to the STATES than it does the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Unfortunately most poeple don't understand that. Becase it unfortunately is not taught in public schools. (and given the way most teachers vote, I wonder why?)
"This election isn't taking place in a vacuum. Looking at the distance between the two candidates on certain issues is relevant to taking the context into account."
Actually, you are wrong. We are not talking about comparing the two candidates. The charge was made the Barry is a Marxist. You disagreed with that, yet provided no facts to support your position. Barry is on record as saying he will take money from those who pay taxes and give it to those who don't. If that is not a socialistic concept, I don't know what is. No where in the argument was McCain's policies raised. So, using him has a proof point is irrelevant to the specific argument. It would be like if I accused you of robbing a bank and your defense was "yea, but you robbed a 7/11". If you want to discuss rather I did or didn't, that is a separate argument and not "intwined". You need to prove you didn't if it's not true. Barry is accused of wanting to implement Marxist/Socialist policies, based on what he plans to do. If that accusation is wrong, it needs to be proven. Saying, "Yea, but McCain...." disproves nothing! So, please, one last time..Does Barry propose takingn money from people that pay taxes and given it to people who don't? YES or NO? Is a simple answer.
Posted by: Dave on October 20, 2008 04:33 PM