As woodsrider said, a college education doesn't make you bright. :thumb:

 

Going through college doesn't necessarily make anyone smarter, but it does teach you how to think on your own, work hard among other things. Most people that graduate college are either smart, or work their butts off to get through.

:sleep: :sleep:

 

So it's okay when the current administration does something wrong, but if it were Barack Obama doing the same thing there would be something else in place of the :sleep:.

Going through college doesn't necessarily make anyone smarter, but it does teach you how to think on your own, work hard among other things. Most people that graduate college are either smart, or work their butts off to get through.

News flash for you, you don't have to go to college to be smart or hard working.

So it's okay when the current administration does something wrong, but if it were Barack Obama doing the same thing there would be something else in place of the :sleep:.

No, the :sleep: is because I've heard this tired grumbling from you now so many times now I’m hearing it in my sleep.

So it's okay when the current administration does something wrong, but if it were Barack Obama doing the same thing there would be something else in place of the :sleep:.

Back to the thread, what about Barack Hussein Obama does it for you.

Actually what I've read states that those who further their education tend to lean more towards the liberal side politically, therefore making the ones with MORE education democrats. :thumb:

 

I have earned a Bachelor in Education a Masters of Education in school counseling and have taken about 18 hours in additional courses from a variety of disciplines. I graduated Summa Cum Laude. I say that not to brag but to underscore the fact that I am not stupid, ignorant, or uninformed. I am a registered Republican and consider myself ultra conservative . . . so we do exist . . . and probably in numbers greater than you are considering. Perhaps what you have read was written by democrats that wanted to skew the statistics . . . and now you have the rest of the story:D

I have earned a Bachelor in Education a Masters of Education in school counseling and have taken about 18 hours in additional courses from a variety of disciplines. I graduated Summa Cum Laude. I say that not to brag but to underscore the fact that I am not stupid, ignorant, or uninformed. I am a registered Republican and consider myself ultra conservative . . . so we do exist . . . and probably in numbers greater than you are considering. Perhaps what you have read was written by democrats that wanted to skew the statistics . . . and now you have the rest of the story:D

That and what he's told by liberal professors in college. :thumb:

That and what he's told by liberal professors in college. :thumb:

 

Exactly!:thumb:

What are five things that Hillary has accomplished that doesn't directly tie into Bill's presidency? Five things that McCain accomplished not relating to his time in the armed forces?

I will let a Democrat list Hillary's accomplishments. I expect the list would be only marginally more impressive than Obama's.

 

As for McCain, off the top of my head I would list:

 

1. McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act.

 

2. Founding member of the Gang of 14.

 

3. McCain-Kennedy immigration (i.e., amnesty) bill.

 

4. McCain-Kennedy-Edwards (patient's bill of rights)

 

5. McCain-Lieberman (greenhouse gases tax and regulation bill)

 

Keep in mind that I do not view any of the above accomplishments as desirable but they do demonstrate that McCain has been an effective US Senator who has managed to get things done during his career.

So you call him a socialist, but won't hold your allegations to the same standards you require his supporters to?

Obama advocates sending hundreds of billions of dollars to the UN, advocates increasing taxes on the wealthy, cutting the taxes of those who pay little federal income tax already, and has a voting record to the left of Bernie Sanders. You may choose to believe that Obama is an all-American capitalist at heart, but surely you are fair-minded enough to see why many Americans might consider Obama to be something quite different.

So how is this different than George Bush's signature on the 2002 Monterrey Consensus? I believe the language is nearly verbatim, calling for developed countries to up their support for developing countires to .7% of GDP? Is this concrete evidence that George Bush is a socialist?

I think that you have mistaken me for a George Bush apologist. I support him on three basic issues: abortion, the war on terror (including the Iraq War), and tax policy. Other than that, Bush has done nothing to convince me that he is a conservative.

What is more, I don't consider foreign aid to be a "giant leap toward global socialism." Sound fiscal policy? Not for us right now. "Global socialism?" No.

If global income redistribution on an unprecedented scale does qualify for a socialist proposal, then I have no hope of changing your opinion, so I will try no more.

Obama advocates sending hundreds of billions of dollars to the UN, advocates increasing taxes on the wealthy, cutting the taxes of those who pay little federal income tax already, and has a voting record to the left of Bernie Sanders. You may choose to believe that Obama is an all-American capitalist at heart, but surely you are fair-minded enough to see why many Americans might consider Obama to be something quite different.

 

Yes, I’m certain that through increased foreign aid and a tax hike, Obama will wrest the means of production away from American companies, nationalize all industries, and begin setting prices in lieu of the market. A conjecture any reasonable person would make.

 

I think that you have mistaken me for a George Bush apologist. I support him on three basic issues: abortion, the war on terror (including the Iraq War), and tax policy. Other than that, Bush has done nothing to convince me that he is a conservative.

 

I haven’t mistaken you for anything. I’m simply waiting for you to preface George Bush’s name with “socialist,” since he does meet at least one of your “concrete” requirements for being one.

 

If global income redistribution on an unprecedented scale does qualify for a socialist proposal, then I have no hope of changing your opinion, so I will try no more.

 

So “global socialism” is defined, from my understanding of your posts, as an increase in foreign aid from rich states to poor states. By the standard you are applying, we’ve been socialist for a long time, being that we donate the most dollar amount to developing countries among developed countries. Or the fact that we are one of the creators, let alone largest monetary contributors, to the Bretton Woods Institutions. Curious, though, that the largest criticisms of these institutions are that they have been a vehicle to spread (force, if you are joining hands around the WTO) capitalism to less developed states.

 

Clearly we have a fundamental disagreement over the definition of socialist. Although I suppose the term can be slightly subjective, labeling anyone left of a laissez-faire capitalist a socialist is disingenuous, in my opinion.

I haven’t mistaken you for anything. I’m simply waiting for you to preface George Bush’s name with “socialist,” since he does meet at least one of your “concrete” requirements for being one.

The subject of the thread is Obama and Bush is not even eligible to run again.

So “global socialism” is defined, from my understanding of your posts, as an increase in foreign aid from rich states to poor states. By the standard you are applying, we’ve been socialist for a long time, being that we donate the most dollar amount to developing countries among developed countries. Or the fact that we are one of the creators, let alone largest monetary contributors, to the Bretton Woods Institutions. Curious, though, that the largest criticisms of these institutions are that they have been a vehicle to spread (force, if you are joining hands around the WTO) capitalism to less developed states.

 

Clearly we have a fundamental disagreement over the definition of socialist. Although I suppose the term can be slightly subjective, labeling anyone left of a laissez-faire capitalist a socialist is disingenuous, in my opinion.

Fair enough. I believe that those refusing to acknowledge that left wing politicians like Obama can and do propose socialist policies that fall short of advocating the immediate nationalization of private companies smacks of disingenuity. If this nation elects either Hillary or Obama, we will continue on the slippery slope toward socialism, only at an accelerated rate.

I want to know where they are going to get the money to pay for all these wonderful things they are going to do for us. It sounds good, but what are they and who are they going to bankrupt to do it? (our country?)

 

Yeah the way it is today is going well for us. We are not on our way to bankruptcy now. I think they will get the money from taxing the people like the one in avatar.

I want to know where they are going to get the money to pay for all these wonderful things they are going to do for us. It sounds good, but what are they and who are they going to bankrupt to do it? (our country?)

To paraphrase a popular ad campaign, "What do you have in your wallet?":D

 

Unless you already have an empty wallet and bank account, you are a potential revenue source.

Yeah the way it is today is going well for us. We are not on our way to bankruptcy now. I think they will get the money from taxing the people like the one in avatar.

So you want to put heavy taxes on the rich? Or businesses?