pvolcko wrote:I can't believe you are saying this seriously. Signing up for a credit card and irresponsibly buying things on that credit is akin to addiction? Credit card companies who provide a vital service in our economy, are heavily regulated, provide full disclosure of their credit terms and rates and penalties, provide updates on those terms as they change, and compete on the open market with other reputable companies... these are drug dealers?
mikeandgerry wrote:Barack Obama is an untested, wild card. He has zero leadership experience with any real accountability.
mikeandgerry wrote:His associations with Bill Ayers is certainly disturbing as is his association with other shady Chicago and Washington insiders
Sarah Palin is qualified to have her finger on the button of our entire nuclear arsenal? That doesn't scare you?
mikeandgerry wrote:Why don't you ask the same question of Barack Obama? Doesn't it scare you that a man who willfully associates with terrorists and coercive manipulators (community organizers and ACORN) will have a finger on the button? WHY AREN'T YOU ASKING THAT QUESTION, DEVIL?
mikeandgerry wrote:Sarah Palin'seet are being held to the fire and she will be victorious in her effort to rid the people of Alaska of a power-abusing state trooper.
mikeandgerry wrote:When did Obama EVER have his feet held to the fire for any of his actions? The press has done nothing to vet this man. They haven't asked him ANY difficult questions. He has NEVER been in any difficult situations. They have licked his unworthy feet because he is a minority and accuse those who criticize him of being racist. WHY DOESN'T THAT SCARE YOU, DEVIL?
mikeandgerry wrote:A vote for Barack Obama is a vote for socialism and communism.
mikeandgerry wrote:Welcome the new slave master, Barack Obama.
Devil505 wrote:Interesting choice of imagery there......"slave master".........I wonder what was running through your mind???
mikeandgerry wrote:The fact that Sarah Palin was found to have abused her power by 10 Republicans and 4 democrats in an inquiry group only proves that she upset the political apple cart in Alaska. All of her serious accusers are Republicans that she defeated fairly on merit.
mikeandgerry wrote:Socialism is terrorism. Socialists (the precursor to communists) believe that force is an acceptable ideological enforcement mechanism.
mikeandgerry wrote:Because I dared to mention race, I knew you would sieze upon the opportunity to imply that I am racist. Innuendo is the weapon of cowards.
mikeandgerry wrote:understand that my life has been dedicated to integrity and fairness and the raising of two adopted children.
Devil505 wrote: Who decides who is above the law?
I didn't say she did or didn't abuse her power, I said she deserves her day in court. That "group" is not court.
What I know of her actions is this:
A state trooper tazered a child and threatened individuals. That is an abuse of power. She instructed his boss to fire him which was the proper action. The boss didn't do it because the police have a fraternal bond. That was an abuse of power. She used "budgetary cuts" to force the issue in which she was correct but her actions were not correct. Palin had an altered state-of-mind owing to her personal involvement in the issue through her sister. That clouded her judgement about the boss's refusal to fire the trooper. The group judging her has decided that the technical issue of a false budgetary cut to rid the Alaskan people of a corrupt trooper was an abuse of power. The group judging her is composed of 10 republicans and 4 democrats per your description. The group hasn't weighed in on the abuse by the trooper. The lead republican in the group complaining about her was defeated by Palin in the Alaskan Republican gubernatiorial primary. She took out a well heeled political incumbent and upset the balance of power in Alaskan politics. That means that politics is skewing the judgement groups decision and any determination of her guilt or innocence must be made in court. We call that the "rule of law" in America.mikeandgerry wrote:Socialism is terrorism. Socialists (the precursor to communists) believe that force is an acceptable ideological enforcement mechanism.
Then John McCain is a terrorist too, right? Didn't he "Suspend His Campaign" to come rushing back to Washington to ensure that Socialism would succeed in Congress? (Ron Paul stood by his principles)
mikeandgerry wrote:I wrote John McCain a letter indicating my displeasure with bailing out Wall St.
mikeandgerry wrote:Since we have a republic, we can't do anything about their current vote, just oust them in the next election.
mikeandgerry wrote:McCain is my only choice despite his dissapointing vote on the bailout.
Devil505 wrote:mikeandgerry wrote:Because I dared to mention race, I knew you would sieze upon the opportunity to imply that I am racist. Innuendo is the weapon of cowards.
I have absolutely no way of knowing what is in your mind other than by going by what you write here, so that is what I use to form my opinions.
Devil505 wrote:It would appear that you have defeated your own argument for voting for McCain:
Let's do a little logic here:
A person who favors Socialism is a terrorist
You admit being displeased that John McCain voted for Socialism
Therefore: John McCain is a terrorist....but you will still vote for him.
(Let's try to keep this a friendly debate amongst us coal brothers & agree to simply disagree....OK?
I'll stipulate that I have no real evidence to brand you a racist & you have no real evidence to brand me a coward....Fair enough?