...as the one in this country, we will end up with the candidate we deserve regardless of the outcome of this election.

If Thomas Jefferson were around today he'd want to burn this country to the ground, starting in Washington DC.

Egads! It's nearly intolerable being around all of these stupid, simple people, isn't it?

They're all stupid of course until they elect your guy. Fuck off.

A perfect example ladies and gentlemen...

You fuck off dipshit.

I agree that to many people vote emontionaly, AND I am gettig to be that way TOO! but it is from watching this country be drained by poor leadership.

Get some math majors online, I intuit that a Bayesian inference can be made that GOP presidents have bad fiscal and military capabilities.

You don't have to invoke Bayes' theorem to convince anyone that the Bush/McCain economic and foreign policies have been and will be continue to be disasters. It is not an accident that the McCain campaign doesn't want a serious discussion of real issues. The Palin-style roast of Barack Obama is all they have to offer. Well, Don Rickles isn't qualified to be a VP candidate either.

Even when McCain does talk about a serious issue, he manages to be dishonest about it. Consider new offshore oil drilling, McCain's gift to the oil industry. That offshore oil isn't "American" oil in any meaningful sense. The oil companies would sell it on international markets to the highest bidder. A lot of good that would do us.

McCain certainly doesn't want to talk about the budget deficit. There are only three choices here. Raise taxes, cut entitlement programs, or cut the military. Barack Obama has made a choice. McCain continues to waffle. Well, that's not leadership and allowing the national debt to explode is not putting country first.

'There are only three choices here. Raise taxes, cut entitlement programs, or cut the military.'

why do you insist on telling this big lie over and over and over and over. cutting taxes has had the effect of increasing revenue to the treasury every time it's tried. from JFK to reagan to bush to thatcher.

i assume you will just disregard the evidence in this matter and continue to tell the big lie.

"cutting taxes has had the effect of increasing revenue to the treasury every time it's tried. from JFK to reagan to bush to thatcher."

Bwhahahahahahaha! You, sir, are a comedian. Does Grover Norquist want to cut taxes to "starve the beast". Or to "feed the beast"? <link> Someday you Republicans are going to have to get your stories straight on this point.

i can see why they get away with telling the big lie. they are telling it to dimwits such as yourself.

Mister Chang!

Wonderful to have you enter the fray once more and shed your infrared brand of light upon the subject. Those of us who see in the visible spectrum still can't tie in how over-extending our military in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now soon-to-be Georgia will help our nation spend less. Let us not forget how quick to war McCain has been vs Russia. How he chides Obama for being "diplomatic" with Europe and how he touts his P.O.W. time as an entitlement to executive power instead of a learning experience on war's ugly nature.

Tax change is complex. You over-simplify it. Cut taxes if you wish. That gives the government less income to work with. Raise taxes? Big business and Big Oil have made a FORTUNE off of the average american. Most tax raises are on common commodities or on level incomes. The upper brackets are not seeing the same pain and have a multitude of offshore / protected income shelters. Tax them more. Tax the poorest Americans less. Cut Taxes? Yes, but only to the lowest brackets. If the poorest Americans have more income, they just might make their credit card payments and make their mortgages. Work bottom up. Republicans just don't get that and insist that only the richest Americans can bump the economy in the right direction. Truly a party "For the rich. By the rich."

Blessings.

'Cut taxes if you wish. That gives the government less income to work with.'

knock knock. that IS the big lie.

'Tax the poorest Americans less.'

how the fuck are you going to do that when they don't pay any taxes now?

Tax them more. Tax the poorest Americans less.

I never understood this argument. You obviously have never been poor nor have you ever known any poor people.

Poor people in the US don't pay income taxes. They get money back from the government. How can you tax someone less when you are already taxing them a negative amount? Only 20% of the US budget is spent on the military. While this should definitley be reduced, that leaves 80%. Where did you think that money was going?

Maybe go out in public once in a while and meet some real people in the real world. Get away from your computer for a while. You might get some perspective about the way things actually are.

@ irvingchang:

You didn't answer my question. Does Grover Norquist want to cut taxes to "starve the beast"? Or to "feed the beast"? <link>

why don't you go look at government revenues after the tax cuts of 1961. 1982 and 2002. you will see that revenues rose each time.

injecting grover into the argument is like humping my leg.

Clinton increased tax rates and during the eight years of his administration federal government revenues increased by 86%. Bush decreased tax rates and during the first seven years of his administration federal government revenues increased by 27%.

The source of the data is OMB historical tables: <link>

Read 'em and weep. Grover Norquist has it right.