Biden seems like that acquaintance at a party who has a few too many and before you know it is trying to dance with and paw your wife. You have to walk over and say, "OK, Joe, I think you've had a few too many there, Buddy," while you remove his hand from her shoulder.

Hey Born guy.. if the Hanoi songbird and Moose Hunter are the best the GOP can come up with.. they might want to go back and scrape the barrel again to see what other alternatives might be left.

Obama '08 - for a better America

-- Biden seems like that acquaintance at a party who has a few too many --

They always are the life of the party.. but Biden has been a strong family man all his life. We will leave the pawing the wives to McCain. he is well practiced at it. Of course, that really doesn't matter. What matters is the issues, which is why most Americans are voting Obama.

McCain = Third term Bush.
Obama = Hope for our Country!

you have to seriously wonder what is going through the minds of those who support mccain.. do they really care so little about our country and its future?

Naw, if McCain could have picked Jindal or Michael Steele for example, and those would have been great picks, but nothing like his Palin selection. This is America-we used to like long shots and people who work from the bottom up-that's how many people see Mr. Obama. If Palin had been picked by Obama, you know darn well the Leftists wouldn't be going around saying she's stupid and an idiot.

Now, the Biden pick. He couldn't have picked a more snarky wise guy unless, of course, he had picked Barney Frank. Biden has damaged Obama's campaign far more than Palin has damaged McCain's.

Obama could have picked anybody and the Dems would have immediately sucked up and lauded yet another indication of Obama's genius.

Economics is the study of how some people get others to pay for things they want.

Capitalism is one economic model of a free market, governed by an invisible hand (Adams) that determines price and quantity of goods and services. Ideally, there is no government involvement or interference in its workings. Capitalists under this type of economic system can enjoy unchallenged rewards beyond their financial needs.

Socialism is a form of capitalism that has government involvement in some areas of the economy where capitalism has been determined by the people (or capitalists) to be ineffectively provided by the capitalist system.

Communism is a theory, never tested on a large scale in recent history. It involves ownership of the main producers of goods and services in most areas of the economy and depending on whose version you follow might include small scale production in some areas according to the capitalist model.

To digress for a moment. Some readers will say, "How could you say there were no recent communist countries or economies? Are you nuts?"

The main examples in most people minds include the old Tzarist Russia and the post Japanese, post revoutionary period Peoples Republic of China. The satelite countries of these two giants were nothing more than colonial states controlled to serve the political, economic and military aims of the giants.

The Bolsheviks, after dispatching a corrupt feudal ruling class and unrepresentative interim government (Kerensky) which continued Russia's involvement in an unpopular war while most Russians were unable to feed themselves, get medical care, send their kids to school, heat their huts, etc. created a government that they called communist but was nothing more than a revised, continuation of the Tzarist practices at despotic control of the populace. (One of the first things the Bolshviks did was reopen and rename the Tzar's secret police.) To keep control after the war, then an invasion by pro-Tzarist countries including Britain and the USA to support a counter-revolution of the White Army (old Tzarists), the new rulers tried several ways to increase production and make Russia a first rate power. They conpleted that task by the mid-1950s, a task no one believed possible and one that came at terrible human costs. But is was not communism. It was a simple case of 5% of the population controlling 95% of the wealth. Democracy could not exist.

China took its own road to communism but again the 5%'ers held control of 95% of the wealth.

In neither country did pure communism ever exist. Russia and China (and some of their puppet states) were more in line with the end play of capitalism described by Marshall (early economist) and the economic free market theories centered in Chicago (Milton Friedman) that says that the capitalists will eventually knock each other off in the competitive marketplace and be replaced by new capitalists.

If you see any similarities to the conditions in America do not be alarmed. America has never been a pure capitalistic country. Government is always invited in by the capitalists to do there bidding and on occasion, others have sought to relieve themselves from the burdens caused by that capitalistic desired government intervention.

So claims of saving or destroying America based on concepts of capitalism or socialism are just emotionally charged terms that are being used to emotionally influence some people who respond to these terms without looking at their own self-interest and at the same time advancing the interests of those who never loose sight of them.

This simple analysis (it has been simplified for this discussion)then makes it easier to understand the nonsense that passes itself off as rational or emotional reasoning to vote one way or another and its explains why two people doing the same thing can be argued as good or bad.

One example is sufficient.

One candidate says the other is a socialist because he said he wants to redistribute the wealth. He says this is bad for America, makes that person un-American (sounds like the fear mongering of the 1950's when Congress had a committee with that name) and is bad for the economy. His running mate says she has taken money from oil companies and distributed it to citizens in her state as tax refunds or special payments. This she claims is good and not socialistic or communistic, but an example of how she uses redistribution for good purposes (including supporting her should she run again).

You decide if is it good or bad to redistribute wealth after taking out the fear, emotion factor. After all, are not reduction in taxes, legislation bought by lobbyists and campaign contributions, $700 billion ransoms and rewards for incompetency supportive of redistribution of wealth?

And has not this redistribution of wealth allowed three billionnaires to decide undemocratically how the New York City Charter should be rewritten so one favored billionnaire whose net Wall Street wealth went from $5 to $20 billion over the last his eight years in office be permitted to run for another term?

These are impacts of redistribution of wealth through government involvement in the capialist free market but no longer controlled by any invisible hand but their own.

So let's stay on target folks. If you are rich, you know what your economic interest is and how economics works to get others to pay for their wars, scandels, incompetency and excessive wealth. They get the middle class to vote against its own economic, family and political interests by raising the flag of socialism and communism. In the meantime they seek maximum government involvement in anything that improves their economic positions including acts that are socialistic and communistic

Proof: 95% of the American wealth resides in the hands or control of 5% of the population (excluding what American capitalists are willing to exchange with China, India, Saudia Arabia and Japan to maintain their favored positions at home). The American dream of owning a home, working at a fair rate of comensation, being able to eat, get medical care, raise educated kids, retire in dignity for middle class Americans has beome just that: a dream and a bad one at that.

I believe that when you really look at the tax code today, the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don’t pay nearly as much as you think they do when you just look at the percentages. And I think middle-income Americans, working Americans, when the account and payroll taxes, sales taxes, mortgage pay — all of the taxes that working Americans pay, I think they — you would think that they also deserve significant relief, in
my view…

Obama did not sell Mighty Putty or The Juicer in his infomercial last night, but it would have made the production a lot more interesting.

The Associated Press watched it, and surprisingly, the 30-minute infomercial also failed to impress them:

“Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was LESS THAN UPFRONT in his half-hour commercial Wednesday night about the costs of his programs and the crushing budget pressures he would face in office.

Obama’s assertion that “I’ve offered spending cuts above and beyond” the expense of his promises is accepted ONLY by his partisans. His vow to save money by “eliminating programs that don’t work” masks his FAILURE throughout the campaign to specify what those programs are - beyond the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.”

Calvin Woodward reports that Obama misled viewers on at least five key points in his 30-minute final argument:

--Health care costs - Obama claimed his plan would lower costs by $2500 per year per family, but it DOES NOT. In fact, Obama can’t point to any particular cost reductions. He plans to spend $50 billion over five years on modernization and chronic-disease prevention and presumes that this will lower costs in the future, but in the meantime it RAISES COSTS at least in the short run on everyone (the $50 billion doesn’t come out of thin air).

--The Pay-Go of his plans - NO, he hasn’t demonstrated that he’s found the revenue for his spending, despite his claims last night. Non-partisan analysts believe that his spending programs will ADD at least $428 billion to the DEFICIT in his first term, and that’s if you accept his non-specific pledge to cut spending in other areas.

--Tax cuts for working class families - Before the commercial aired, he had already begun BACKING AWAY from that idea because of the financial crisis, although Obama didn’t acknowledge it in the ad.

--The “right” to affordable health care - Obama DOES NOT guarantee coverage in any of his plans, at least not for adults.

--Getting out of Iraq - Obama noted that the US spends $10 billion a month in Iraq and talked again about “bringing that war to a close” — but he’s BACKED AWAY from his previous pledges to get out on a strict 16-month timetable, which is as fast as the remaining units can be properly withdrawn.

Break:
If Obama wanted to tax the rich, Obama would have suggested a flat rate take to remove all the tax loopholes used by the rich, and that includes Warren Buffet. Obama is a phony.

Obama continues to deceive America voters. Obama supporters talk about Governor Sarah Palin, but Obama keeps lying to be the president. No one can believe a person that continues to lie about his program and continuously deceives the voting public. Obama supporters cannot substantiate their rhetoric.

Update America does not respond to any Obama supporters without credentials.

Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat Catholicam fidem: Quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit, absque dubio in aeternam peribit.
Fides autem catholica haec est: ut unum Deum in Trinitate, et Trinitatem in unitate veneremur. Neque confundentes personas, neque substantiam seperantes. Alia est enim persona Patris alia Filii, alia Spiritus Sancti: Sed Patris, et Fili, et Spiritus Sancti una est divinitas, aequalis gloria, coeterna maiestas. Qualis Pater, talis Filius, talis Spiritus Sanctus. Increatus Pater, increatus Filius, increatus Spiritus Sanctus. Immensus Pater, immensus Filius, immensus Spiritus Sanctus. Aeternus Pater, aeternus Filius, aeternus Spiritus Sanctus. Et tamen non tres aeterni, sed unus aeternus. Sicut non tres increati, nec tres immensi, sed unus increatus, et unus immensus. Similiter omnipotens Pater, omnipotens Filius, omnipotens Spiritus Sanctus.Et tamen non tres omnipotentes, sed unus omnipotens. Ita Deus Pater, Deus Filius, Deus Spiritus Sanctus. Et tamen non tres dii, sed unus est Deus.
Ita Dominus Pater, Dominus Filius, Dominus Spiritus Sanctus. Et tamen non tres Domini, sed unus est Dominus. Quia, sicut singillatim unamquamque personam Deum ac Dominum confiteri christiana veritate compelimur: ita tres Deos aut Dominos dicere catholica religione prohibemur. Pater a nullo est factus: nec creatus, nec genitus. Filius a Patre solo est: non factus, nec creatus, sed genitus. Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio: non factus, nec creatus, nec genitus, sed procedens. Unus ergo Pater, non tres Patres: unus Filius, non tres Filii: unus Spiritus Sanctus, non tres Spiritus Sancti.
Et in hac Trinitate nihil prius aut posterius, nihil maius aut minus: sed totae tres personae coaeternae sibi sunt et coaequales. Ita ut per omnia, sicut iam supra dictum est, et unitas in Trinitate, et Trinitas in unitate veneranda sit. Qui vult ergo salvus esse, ita de Trinitate sentiat. Sed necessarium est ad aeternam salutem, ut incarnationem quoque Domini nostri Jesu Christi fideliter credat. Est ergo fides recta ut credamus et confiteamur, quia Dominus noster Jesus Christus, Dei Filius, Deus et homo est.
Deus est ex substantia Patris ante saecula genitus: et homo est ex substantia matris in saeculo natus. Perfectus Deus, perfectus homo: ex anima rationali et humana carne subsistens. Aequalis Patri secundum divinitatem: minor Patre secundum humanitatem. Qui licet Deus sit et homo, non duo tamen, sed unus est Christus. Unus autem non conversione divinitatis in carnem, sed assumptione humanitatis in Deum. Unus omnino, non confusione substantiae, sed unitate personae. Nam sicut anima rationalis et caro unus est homo: ita Deus et homo unus est Christus. Qui passus est pro salute nostra: descendit ad inferos: tertia die resurrexit a mortuis. Ascendit ad caelos, sedet ad dexteram Dei Patris omnipotentis: inde venturus est iudicare vivos et mortuos. Ad cuius adventum omnes homines resurgere habent cum corporibus suis: et reddituri sunt de factis propriis rationem. Et qui bona egerunt, ibunt in vitam aeternam: qui vero mala, in ignem aeternum.
Haec est fides catholica, quam nisi quisque fideliter firmiterque crediderit, salvus esse non poterit. Amen.

LMAO...at a high school?
desperate actions by desperate dems.
make DEMS look like ther counting on the kiddie vote !

Don't you just the one sided analysis? Like how Obamas spending plans are so terrible.. until you compare them to McCain, and discover that his are roughly twice that of Obama.. and that doesn't even include his health care disaster band-aid, the 'high-risk' pool, which would then tack on another $1 trillion.
Oh, wait, didn't he just propose capping the capital gains tax.. whoops, lets tack on another $100 billion. And the really amazing thing about McCain is that he has no plans to raise any revenue to pay for all that spending.. no, he actually wants to DECREASE revenue (by $4.2 trillion over 10 years!).

McCain - a dumber bush on steroids.

Everyone go vote!!! This election is very important!!

Go Obama - Biden!!!

Obama has won it.

What is with his civilian national security force? Is that the equivalent of the German brown shirts in WWII? Yikes. THis is turning into a very scary country.

And we are going to have 8 years of that racist Joe Biden - said Obama was clean and articulate.

today,
Here in rural Iowa we have a description for people people like you: "So ignorant that he couldn't pour pee out of a boot with the instructions written on the heel"!

Donna Hughes, I must admit I see a lot of value in your searing argument.

The point now is that we are in apost rational society. What are we going to do to survive as a culture?

I am waiting your insights and reasoned opinion.

Donna Hughes, I should have mentioned that attitudes like yours are why America has gotten scary. Why are you so angry - rhetorical question - please do not answer - I know it is Bush's fault. Bush is not running in this election. Bush hated McCain's meddling - which eventually turned things around in Iraq. I am hoping we will not be putting out fires in Israel in the next few weeks and months.

Shortly after McCain chose Palin (I can see Russia from my house!)as his running mate he was heard to say, when asked, that he had consulted her a number of times on foreign policy!

Now THAT's SCARY!

So you are worried about Israel? Joe Biden took his sons to Europe as teenagers to see the sites of the concentration camps, so that he could impress upon them what a horrible episode in history that was, and that we won't let it happen again.

Joe Biden has a real problem with the abuse of power.

We look toward the future - towards a new paradigm for the world, instead of trying to still apply the old blueprint, which is like trying to put a square peg in a round hole.

And, yes, we are mad as hell after 8 years of Bush and the Neocons, and we aren't going to take it anymore! We were Independents, but we are now Democrats.

hmn,
you mean that coffeshop Sen.Biden goes to and talks to real people, that has been closed for 20 years.

I am going to vote for some one who does not hate America.

Biden is a punk. Look at the way he saunters around and says ridiculous crap.