Can we pick "none of the above"?

Guido wrote:

Can we pick "none of the above"?

I vote "NONE OF THE ABOVE"

Definitely not this guy.

President Obama, during his private pep talk to Democrats, posed a question to the other lawmakers. According to Representative Earl Blumenauer (D)of Oregon, who supports the health care bill, the president asked,“Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care? All it will do is confuse and dispirit” Democratic voters “and it will encourage the extremists.”

Enough said!

I too say none of the above, the separation between to the two parties is generally very narrow and neither have the best interest of the people in mind.

Second Amendment wrote:

Definitely not this guy.
President Obama, during his private pep talk to Democrats, posed a question to the other lawmakers. According to Representative Earl Blumenauer (D)of Oregon, who supports the health care bill, the president asked,“Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care? All it will do is confuse and dispirit” Democratic voters “and it will encourage the extremists.”
Enough said!

So, according to Obama we are anti-government people, and extremists. WOW! What if Bush said that?
The media would be ALL over him.
They would be calling for his head.

MIDDLE CLASS has no one ... don't you see it shrinking?

V must be sleeping. Surely he/she needs to respond and defend the status quo.

Define American Middle Class?

hell surely... the democrats and their socialist policies are not for the working middle class. The only way for their programs to work is to crush the middle class and make them all POOR and dependant on big brother

MIDDLE CLASS:
(in my opinion it starts at about $50,000 annual income - that is lower middle class)
1) Those who can not pay in full for their kids to go to Harvard.
2) High enough income where assistance programs can not be accessed.

Who are the middle class?

They are too poor to easily get by in financial hiccups like Katrina causing an unexpected raise in fuel costs.

Some of us are the ones who have been in a capped pay bracket where raises are far and few between who have been pushed over $80.00 a week closer to the poverty level in the past 3 years because minimum wage does not benefit thew whole pay structure of the national economy.

Isn't it funny ...
the left accuses the right of corporate welfare

yet ... Bush dumped massive amounts in the over 40 year old Head Start program
which means that those who were helped 40 years ago did not gain from it - their kids are in it now!

and ... Obama has bailed banks and auto industries
who were supposedly crippled by defaulted loans
(Barney Franks and the Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae based loans)
... those loans which people were forced to neglect when fuel cost more than doubled
(what can you do? Pay for gas to get to work? or pay on a loan? not mentioning the increase in food cost to feed the family)

If the government had rescued the wages of those in middle class - this is what could have happened:

1 - less people would have defaulted on their credit obligations - more home loans and auto loans would have been kept up

2 - the normal spending which supports much of the nations economy would not have seen such a reduction in spending that rippled through the whole economy.(that's why the Feds sent out cash checks to everyone)

... Once people realize that the Republicans are as fiscally irresponsible as the left and we can't afford either one then we will stand a chance to fix all this mess ...

here is a solution - http://theamericanconservatives.org/cms/

They are gaining ground fast - finally a better way to turn!

Hopefully the last 5 Presidential elections (20 years) which had NO ONE standing for proper conservative values will finally see a change toward the good of all!

AntiTypical wrote:

MIDDLE CLASS:
(in my opinion it starts at about $50,000 annual income - that is lower middle class)
1) Those who can not pay in full for their kids to go to Harvard.
2) High enough income where assistance programs can not be accessed.
Who are the middle class?
They are too poor to easily get by in financial hiccups like Katrina causing an unexpected raise in fuel costs.
Some of us are the ones who have been in a capped pay bracket where raises are far and few between who have been pushed over $80.00 a week closer to the poverty level in the past 3 years because minimum wage does not benefit thew whole pay structure of the national economy.
Isn't it funny ...
the left accuses the right of corporate welfare
yet ... Bush dumped massive amounts in the over 40 year old Head Start program
which means that those who were helped 40 years ago did not gain from it - their kids are in it now!
and ... Obama has bailed banks and auto industries
who were supposedly crippled by defaulted loans
(Barney Franks and the Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae based loans)
... those loans which people were forced to neglect when fuel cost more than doubled
(what can you do? Pay for gas to get to work? or pay on a loan? not mentioning the increase in food cost to feed the family)
If the government had rescued the wages of those in middle class - this is what could have happened:
1 - less people would have defaulted on their credit obligations - more home loans and auto loans would have been kept up
2 - the normal spending which supports much of the nations economy would not have seen such a reduction in spending that rippled through the whole economy.(that's why the Feds sent out cash checks to everyone)
... Once people realize that the Republicans are as fiscally irresponsible as the left and we can't afford either one then we will stand a chance to fix all this mess ...
here is a solution - http://theamericanconservatives.org/cms/
They are gaining ground fast - finally a better way to turn!
Hopefully the last 5 Presidential elections (20 years) which had NO ONE standing for proper conservative values will finally see a change toward the good of all!

I truly hope the GOP continues to fracture itself into the small ideological factions you suggest. If you know your history, it's traditionally been the manner in which all parties sealed their own demise. The interesting thing is, that most of the people who espouse this fail to see the beauty of strength in numbers. Forming a party that basically appeals to any particular faction in any political party has previously diminished their numbers to the point of non-effectiveness. Read up on the Know-nothings of the 1850's, or the Southern Democrats of the 1860's, their particular beliefs were incapable of doing anything but put a loser on the ballot. So, say what you will, the current Democratic Party covers more ground when it comes to numbers. The secret? Compromise.

Vidiotic,

I thought the democratic vote machine was dead in Illinois. But, it's pretty obvious that you keep it well oiled, and running.

What do you feed it? Cookies???

I bet you voted more times on this poll, than the total amount of points that our beloved Bears have scored this season.

Second Amendment wrote:

Vidiotic,
I thought the democratic vote machine was dead in Illinois. But, it's pretty obvious that you keep it well oiled, and running.
What do you feed it? Cookies???
I bet you voted more times on this poll, than the total amount of points that our beloved Bears have scored this season.

Although I've been a Dem. all of my life, I vote for the candidate that seems to have a better grip on reality. This tends to exclude most GOP candidates. I did vote for Reagan in 1980 (not a Carter hater, I just thought that we needed Reagans guidance at the time, by 1984 it became clear that his underlings were simply greedy corporate lackeys), and Jim Edgar as Governor of Illinois. I actively support well thought out plans, no matter where they come from, and I don't listen to propaganda from either party. Where and when did you come about your beliefs?

Vidiotic wrote:

<quoted text>
Although I've been a Dem. all of my life, I vote for the candidate that seems to have a better grip on reality. This tends to exclude most GOP candidates. I did vote for Reagan in 1980 (not a Carter hater, I just thought that we needed Reagans guidance at the time, by 1984 it became clear that his underlings were simply greedy corporate lackeys), and Jim Edgar as Governor of Illinois. I actively support well thought out plans, no matter where they come from, and I don't listen to propaganda from either party. Where and when did you come about your beliefs?

I was born and raised in Brighton Park neighborhood on the south side of Chicago. I've been around Chicago politics most of my life. I was a student and product of the Chicago public school system my entire childhood, and thru my teen years. So, I know first hand how horrible the "Democratic Machine" in Chicago has and continues to run things.

Yes, in my early years, I did vote democratic because my parents told me so, only because my father was a union member, and my mother work for the post office. Not for any other political reason. I remember the days when the local precinct captain would ring our doorbell, and talk with my parents. That was the case of "One hand washes the other".

Then I joined the military.(GO ARMY!)
In the military....
I learned about sacrifice and commitment.
I learned about values, and what it really means to be free.
I learned a lot, much more then anything I was taught in school.
I consider those days, as my birth into Conservatism.
From then on my whole outlook was different.
I looked at our beautiful country from a whole new prospective.
And the love that I now have for it.
That's when I understood what "OLD GLORY" really represented.

White signifies purity and innocence,
Red, hardiness & valor, and Blue, the color of the Chief (the broad band above the stripes) signifies vigilance, perseverance & justice."

That's why I vote.
And the influence it has on, who I chose to vote for.

Vidiotic wrote:

<quoted text>
I truly hope the GOP continues to fracture itself into the small ideological factions you suggest. If you know your history, it's traditionally been the manner in which all parties sealed their own demise. The interesting thing is, that most of the people who espouse this fail to see the beauty of strength in numbers. Forming a party that basically appeals to any particular faction in any political party has previously diminished their numbers to the point of non-effectiveness. Read up on the Know-nothings of the 1850's, or the Southern Democrats of the 1860's, their particular beliefs were incapable of doing anything but put a loser on the ballot. So, say what you will, the current Democratic Party covers more ground when it comes to numbers. The secret? Compromise.

Democrats need to learn that as well ... especially since the Blue Collar Democrat has no real representation as well

However - it is not that new of a concept (1800's)

Hannibal used a similar tactic (if you look at it as a cause instead of a result)... it's called divide & conquer

Seriously - other than name - what is the REAL difference between republican and democrat?

the only thing the dems and repu have agreed on in 70yrs is how to eliminate the third party

Second Amendment wrote:

<quoted text>
I was born and raised in Brighton Park neighborhood on the south side of Chicago. I've been around Chicago politics most of my life. I was a student and product of the Chicago public school system my entire childhood, and thru my teen years. So, I know first hand how horrible the "Democratic Machine" in Chicago has and continues to run things.
Yes, in my early years, I did vote democratic because my parents told me so, only because my father was a union member, and my mother work for the post office. Not for any other political reason. I remember the days when the local precinct captain would ring our doorbell, and talk with my parents. That was the case of "One hand washes the other".
Then I joined the military.(GO ARMY!)
In the military....
I learned about sacrifice and commitment.
I learned about values, and what it really means to be free.
I learned a lot, much more then anything I was taught in school.
I consider those days, as my birth into Conservatism.
From then on my whole outlook was different.
I looked at our beautiful country from a whole new prospective.
And the love that I now have for it.
That's when I understood what "OLD GLORY" really represented.
White signifies purity and innocence,
Red, hardiness & valor, and Blue, the color of the Chief (the broad band above the stripes) signifies vigilance, perseverance & justice."
That's why I vote.
And the influence it has on, who I chose to vote for.

Watch out SECOND.
VID is going to claim that you were brain washed by the military.

AntiTypical wrote:

<quoted text>
"Democrats need to learn that as well ... especially since the Blue Collar Democrat has no real representation as well"

You say this as if it's an accepted fact. The Democrats are backing the "Card check" bill. The legislation would let employees form a union if a majority of them in a workplace sign authorization cards. It wouldn't require an additional election that could be manipulated by either side. The Right is selling this as a law to ban free elections, but they obfuscate the true intent of the bill.
This country wouldn't have the standard of living with out the ability to freely organize for better conditions. If you haven't noticed, the loss of the 40 hour work-week coincided with the weakening of the unions. So, who is helping the people more?

Vidiotic wrote:

<quoted text>
You say this as if it's an accepted fact. The Democrats are backing the "Card check" bill. The legislation would let employees form a union if a majority of them in a workplace sign authorization cards. It wouldn't require an additional election that could be manipulated by either side. The Right is selling this as a law to ban free elections, but they obfuscate the true intent of the bill.
This country wouldn't have the standard of living with out the ability to freely organize for better conditions. If you haven't noticed, the loss of the 40 hour work-week coincided with the weakening of the unions. So, who is helping the people more?

It is an accepted fact ...
UNLESS a person is blind to the harm and damage that unions do toward our ability to compete with other corporations throughout the world.

Trust me on this ... I will not engage in ANY talk about unions and their self entitlement mentality toward excessive wages.

just ask yourself how well did the union do for those at Bethlehem Steel in Lackawanna New York?
It was the worlds largest steel plant.

AntiTypical wrote:

<quoted text>
It is an accepted fact ...
UNLESS a person is blind to the harm and damage that unions do toward our ability to compete with other corporations throughout the world.
Trust me on this ... I will not engage in ANY talk about unions and their self entitlement mentality toward excessive wages.
just ask yourself how well did the union do for those at Bethlehem Steel in Lackawanna New York?
It was the worlds largest steel plant.

The Steelworkers Union alone did not bring about the demise of the American steel industry. A complete ignorance on the possibilities of growth of competition world-wide, and a refusal to lower profit expectations on the part of corporate ownership had a hand in it. Unions DID demand too much from the 60's to the 80's (having worked in management and being the son of a Union representative, I had a unique perspective). Oddly, union members of the day remind me of the stubbornness of the right today (read that as tea-baggers) concerning accepting our changing world. Both sides were wrong, and both sides suffered. This does not mean that either side needs to be abolished. The American Unions are necessary to the well-being of the workers. As times and technologies change, so must the dynamic between the two.
The Democratic party has had the support of organized labor for so long for good reason. They have the workers interests, almost without exception, in mind.(Remember, it was a Republican controlled Congress, with profits alone in mind, that forced NAFTA through. Clinton amended it to add some environmental and employment protection, but corporate greed negated that.)
So, in my opinion, Unions and their traditional partners, the Democrats, have the middle class interests in mind.
I'm sure that some of the more vocal protesters out there today were clothed, fed, and housed by union members. Without the tempering balance of American unions, we'd all be working in some industrial hell designed in the 1800's.