Official Political (Republican/Democrat) Debate Thread

[meteamo]

With all this talk of the middle class, is there is a strict definition for it? If not ....

Open Question to Everyone >> What defines the middle class?

Im voting for a guy whos tax plan is going to work in my benefit. I do not know how anyone could not vote for Obama's plan. As if McCain really cares about the middle class, and Palin seems to really think shes in the middle class as well. Give me a break. Everyone on this forum is probably the middle class that Obama's tax plan will benefit, yet youd rather see big companies get tax breaks if he is not elected.

Economy is the biggest issue now, especially after that stupid bailout was signed. I hope Ron Paul is not right AGAIN about the economy. He foresaw this and told the people in washington what could happen if they interfere and do this bailout.

Lets see what happens.

What did Ron Paul say and when? I still see people by my house with signs saying Ron Paul '08. Either they know something I don't or they just didn't take down the signs yet.

[Kayxero]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04B3Wl2qouw

I think Ron should have been the GOP candidate. He cares more about the middle class then anyone in the election I believe and would def get my vote if he was going against Obama. No matter how much I do like Barack and his plans, Ron def had it down. Only reason he lost is because he just did not have the funding to get his name out there well and he is not the biggest war fan. McCain rode on the war and him being a POW like a white horse.

Watch him scold Bernanke on this stupid bailout.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dv6rQ0U01Yc&feature=related

I really am scared of waht is going to happen to the value of our dollar now. When I get out of college next year I want to feel that the job market will be ok for me and all kids my age. All this bailout did was save the rich, keep them rich and also made the middle class weaker.

oh what to do =/

[Kayxero]

Lol so scripted

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ7Fp6QH150...palin-can-read/

[el_jefe061]

But the biggest difference maker for obama and biden, is the way the media has just fell all over themselves for them. Typical. The biggest question this election? Will the media convince enough of the taxpayers (the ever thinning middle class) to vote for obama? You can't say that the media hasn't done everything in their power to make it happen.

The Republican Party practically has its own network and its own publication, Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, two of the most popular institutions in journalism. The "media bias" is BS.

As for Obama and taxes, it's been proven time and time again that Obama's tax plan LOWERS taxes almost 3 times as more than McCain's plan does for the middle class. THE MIDDLE CLASS WILL BE PAYING LESS UNDER OBAMA. This is no longer under question.

So, unless you're in the richest 5%, why are you going to want to vote for McCain because he'll "lower" your taxes? McCain sounds like a "tax and spend" conservative, if you ask me.

[catzrthecoolest]

Pretty much every network except fox news has a liberal bias...

secondly, i am against obama's tax plan, even though it will allegedly lower taxes more than mccain's, the reason being that i disagree with the whole notion of "income redistribution" that obama seems to embrace. It doesn't seem very fair to the rich, it's as though we're punishing them for being rich...

[RaptorQuiz]

So you'd rather vote for someone who has absolutely no plan at all over someone who has a plan that you don't agree with?

That makes sense.

Thanks for seeing my side of it! :wink:

Oh - and it's laughable that people actually seem to believe McCain has "no plan at all."

[el_jefe061]

Pretty much every network except fox news has a liberal bias...

secondly, i am against obama's tax plan, even though it will allegedly lower taxes more than mccain's, the reason being that i disagree with the whole notion of "income redistribution" that obama seems to embrace. It doesn't seem very fair to the rich, it's as though we're punishing them for being rich...

Nobody is being "punished" for being rich. They're just no longer "rewarded" like they were under the Bush administration.

Let me get this straight, to anyone in particular. If we are not going to draw back taxes for the rich and we don't want to be taxed in the middle class, but we want to stay in Iraq and pay for a bailout plan, where do we get the money? How do we pay for anything?

[piratesmvp04]

Im voting for a guy whos tax plan is going to work in my benefit. I do not know how anyone could not vote for Obama's plan. As if McCain really cares about the middle class, and Palin seems to really think shes in the middle class as well. Give me a break. Everyone on this forum is probably the middle class that Obama's tax plan will benefit, yet youd rather see big companies get tax breaks if he is not elected.

Economy is the biggest issue now, especially after that stupid bailout was signed. I hope Ron Paul is not right AGAIN about the economy. He foresaw this and told the people in washington what could happen if they interfere and do this bailout.

Lets see what happens.

If we want companies to stay in the US, we need to get rid of the high taxes they pay in this country. They pay much less tax in other countries, and that's why they go there. If we make it more affordable for corporations to invest here, they will keep jobs here. So, there is some benefit to making taxcuts for the corporations.

[MarkB]

The balance point is of equal, if not greater, importance though - how long will the workers continue to work for these corporations when they are being taxed through the yazoo and are still below the poverty line, so although they have jobs and have the privilege of spending 8+ hours per day away from their family, they will come home to a meal of bread and water and live paycheque to paycheque?

If this happens, workers become angry with their situation, refuse to work, and the jobs end up being off-shored anyway.

That said, this would only affect the lower- and lower-middle classes - so who cares, right? As long as Senator McSame and Governor Failin can keep their mortgages paid and their kids in silver spoons, everything is good with the world.

[meteamo]

What companies go to which countries? And wouldn't it have to do with the cheaper labor as well if not more than the taxes they pay? And if everyone pays less taxes than where would we get the money to pay for things that this country pays for?

And just because we lower taxes even more for companies to stay in the US, that doesn't mean that they will stay in the US ... we just hope they would. That's why it's a tricky situation because every side thinks they know what will happen if we do this or we do that ... but in all reality, nobody knows ... they just know it's more likley if we do this or we do that.

And to say that if we make it more affordable for corporations to invest here, they will keep jobs here ... that isn't necesarily true. How about the workforce? Can we compete with the workforce or the salary the companies pay for workers in other countries? Supply and Demand. The bigger the workforce, the lower the average salary and vice versa. The corporations will most likely go to or outsource to the countries that make the most money for them. Follow the money. It would be nice if the corporations stay in this country because of the taxcuts (but they should stay even w/o the taxcuts) but that's not really what happens in real life. What should really happen isn't always what actually happens. And how much tax do we need to cut in order for what you say to happen? And would we even have enough money to even pay for anything? Follow the money. Balance is critical.

[piratesmvp04]

I wouldn't look down on rich people, MarkB (alla silver spoons comment).

Anyways, I agree that you have to provide fair tax relief for middle class people too, and that's why I support the FairTax, which is a progressive tax plan (simply put, rich people get taxed more than poor people). But, we have to acknowledge that the another reason corporations have a hard time making good profit here is because some of the unions are very greedy and demand higher and higher wages. This is not a good example, but here in Pittsburgh, we have some of the highest paid public transit drivers in the country. Part of it is because the county government was foolish in their spending, but the other side is that the drivers demand high wages. Their contract just expired a few weeks ago, and there is a huge possbility they could go on strike soon.

[piratesmvp04]

What companies go to which countries? And wouldn't it have to do with the cheaper labor as well if not more than the taxes they pay? And if everyone pays less taxes than where would we get the money to pay for things that this country pays for?

And just because we lower taxes even more for companies to stay in the US, that doesn't mean that they will stay in the US ... we just hope they would. That's why it's a tricky situation because every side thinks they know what will happen if we do this or we do that ... but in all reality, nobody knows ... they just know it's more likley if we do this or we do that.

And to say that if we make it more affordable for corporations to invest here, they will keep jobs here ... that isn't necesarily true. How about the workforce? Can we compete with the workforce or the salary the companies pay for workers in other countries? Supply and Demand. The bigger the workforce, the lower the average salary and vice versa. The corporations will most likely go to or outsource to the countries that make the most money for them. Follow the money. It would be nice if the corporations stay in this country because of the taxcuts (but they should stay even w/o the taxcuts) but that's not really what happens in real life. What should really happen isn't always what actually happens. And how much tax do we need to cut in order for what you say to happen? And would we even have enough money to even pay for anything? Follow the money. Balance is critical.

True, but if you look at the numbers, companies pay much, much more taxes here than in those countries. The media just doesn't report the numbers because it might weaken their argument for the "evil corporations."

[AstroEric]

This will be on newsstands the 16th:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstor...eal_john_mccain

[meteamo]

This will be on newsstands the 16th:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstor...eal_john_mccain

The best part was reading all the posts under the article and how people were going back and forth.

[piratesmvp04]

I hate those drug addict Rolling Stones.

[maddux31]

I hate those drug addict Rolling Stones.

[el_jefe061]

The problem with lowering taxes for corporations is that they take the money saved and go offshore jobs because the workers there are cheaper, and always will be.

The basic idea of cutting taxes for the middle class and having more reasonable taxes for the upper class is the middle class will take their money and put it back into the economy, giving more profits to the wealthy. So if you're Joe Schmo and you're taking your taxcut to buy electronics from Bob Millionaire's corporation, and this happens hundreds of thousands of times over, then you're putting money back into the pockets of corporations and enriching the economy. It's a three fold effect, what do people think the stimulus plan was?

Corporations do not drive the economy. The middle class does. Give the money to the middle class to buy the products and spend the money on corporations, and you're rewarding both classes, not just the rich.

It's not looking down on rich people, it's about fairness. Under the Bush administration, and under Reagan, the rich had lower taxes than the middle and lower class. Its wrong, because corporations already make huge profits, and it makes no sense to lower their taxes even more. Cutting into extra windfall profits is not looking down on the rich, it's fairness.

European corporations pay much higher taxes than anyone here. It's not that the corporations here should pay HIGH taxes, but reasonable taxes. Is it reasonable that companies like HP are giving ridiculous pensions to failures like Carly Fiorina, while laying off 20,000 workers? Not at all.

Billion dollar corporations don't notice tax cuts like the middle class. If you're rich, you're not going to notice an extra 5-10%; the middle class will.

In one vital respect, however, the comparison is deeply unfair to the current president: George W. Bush was a much better pilot.

That... is... golden.

This article just re-affirms my belief that John McCain is not a war hero. He was a reckless and mediocre pilot, a reckless and careless human being, and did everything he could to break the code and get out of captivity, despite what he says.

He also provided the name of his ship, the number of raids he had flown, his squadron number and the target of his final raid.

What McCain glosses over is that accepting early release would have required him to make disloyal statements that would have violated the military's Code of Conduct. If he had done so, he could have risked court-martial and an ignominious end to his military career. "Many of us were given this offer," according to Butler, McCain's classmate who was also taken prisoner. "It meant speaking out against your country and lying about your treatment to the press. You had to 'admit' that the U.S. was criminal and that our treatment was 'lenient and humane.' So I, like numerous others, refused the offer."

War hero my ***. He never pulled anyone out of harms way like John Kerry did, or went into the jungle to track down Vietcong. John McCain retreated to the ready room when there was a fire on his ship, and went to Saigon the day after to chase after hookers.

[piratesmvp04]

The problem with lowering taxes for corporations is that they take the money saved and go offshore jobs because the workers there are cheaper, and always will be.

The basic idea of cutting taxes for the middle class and having more reasonable taxes for the upper class is the middle class will take their money and put it back into the economy, giving more profits to the wealthy. So if you're Joe Schmo and you're taking your taxcut to buy electronics from Bob Millionaire's corporation, and this happens hundreds of thousands of times over, then you're putting money back into the pockets of corporations and enriching the economy. It's a three fold effect, what do people think the stimulus plan was?

Corporations do not drive the economy. The middle class does. Give the money to the middle class to buy the products and spend the money on corporations, and you're rewarding both classes, not just the rich.

It's not looking down on rich people, it's about fairness. Under the Bush administration, and under Reagan, the rich had lower taxes than the middle and lower class. Its wrong, because corporations already make huge profits, and it makes no sense to lower their taxes even more. Cutting into extra windfall profits is not looking down on the rich, it's fairness.

European corporations pay much higher taxes than anyone here. It's not that the corporations here should pay HIGH taxes, but reasonable taxes. Is it reasonable that companies like HP are giving ridiculous pensions to failures like Carly Fiorina, while laying off 20,000 workers? Not at all.

Billion dollar corporations don't notice tax cuts like the middle class. If you're rich, you're not going to notice an extra 5-10%; the middle class will.

I understand your points, and they are valid. However, I have to disagree on your point that corporations do not drive the economy. Corporations are the ones that provide jobs for people, make loans so that regular people can make investments, etc. If corporations did not drive the economy, why then are we in this mortgage crisis that is caused partly because of bad loaning policy by financial institutions? I think that a solid economic policy is one that ensures that all parties are treated fairly.

Again, that is why I support the FairTax. The FairTax eliminates corporate taxes and other taxes that corporations pay which is passed down to the consumer, and it replaces it with a 23% federal sales tax. This makes the cost of producing items cheaper essentially. And the prebate plan provides a prebate check to families based on their income, and this covers the tax for food, clothing, and other high necessities. So, if you're a lower clas citizen, you pay no tax for food, clothing, etc. (Imagine getting that Columbia sweatshirt for cheaper!) And, since the only tax you will pay is the FairTax, that means that rich people will pay more tax since they spend more than poor people do. So, the FairTax is progressive.

[el_jefe061]

I understand your points, and they are valid. However, I have to disagree on your point that corporations do not drive the economy. Corporations are the ones that provide jobs for people, make loans so that regular people can make investments, etc. If corporations did not drive the economy, why then are we in this mortgage crisis that is caused partly because of bad loaning policy by financial institutions? I think that a solid economic policy is one that ensures that all parties are treated fairly.

No economy can survive without the banks and brokerage houses. However, since we're no longer an economy that produces goods as much as it buys them, we're run by the consumer. The consumer is the middle class. The economic problems seen by this have already hit the middle class in terms of foreclosure; now it's hitting the business. We're in this mess partially because people couldn't pay for their mortgages.

If a corporation outsources its jobs to India, then they're not giving us any jobs. If they're not giving us jobs, how do they stay afloat without the middle class?

As for "FairTax", I do not know the ins and outs of the subject, so I'll only say this: A flat sales tax easily favors the rich and is a recipe for economic disaster. If that is just a flat sales tax, it's not a good thing in my mind.

[lautrec]

The balance point is of equal, if not greater, importance though - how long will the workers continue to work for these corporations when they are being taxed through the yazoo and are still below the poverty line, so although they have jobs and have the privilege of spending 8+ hours per day away from their family, they will come home to a meal of bread and water and live paycheque to paycheque?

If this happens, workers become angry with their situation, refuse to work, and the jobs end up being off-shored anyway.

That said, this would only affect the lower- and lower-middle classes - so who cares, right? As long as Senator McSame and Governor Failin can keep their mortgages paid and their kids in silver spoons, everything is good with the world.

The reason workers are ABLE to leave their jobs, is because the government dole has become so HUGE that many Americans, sadly, feel as though its the responsibility of the govt. to take care of them cradle to grave. That includes having the ability to walk away from their job, and know the govt will be there to give them welfare. It includes the ability to bear more children than they can afford to support,without the father, and the govt. steps in as surrogate daddy.

I believe Obama is preaching class warfare, and redistribution of wealth, disguising it as "compassion" and "change" and wants to EXPAND the already too large govt.

That's the type of "plan" I cannot support. The last thing on this earth I want the United States of America to become, is a European type nation. I lived there for two years, it's not what i want for our country.

[lautrec]

The problem with lowering taxes for corporations is that they take the money saved and go offshore jobs because the workers there are cheaper, and always will be.

The basic idea of cutting taxes for the middle class and having more reasonable taxes for the upper class is the middle class will take their money and put it back into the economy, giving more profits to the wealthy. So if you're Joe Schmo and you're taking your taxcut to buy electronics from Bob Millionaire's corporation, and this happens hundreds of thousands of times over, then you're putting money back into the pockets of corporations and enriching the economy. It's a three fold effect, what do people think the stimulus plan was?

Corporations do not drive the economy. The middle class does. Give the money to the middle class to buy the products and spend the money on corporations, and you're rewarding both classes, not just the rich.

It's not looking down on rich people, it's about fairness. Under the Bush administration, and under Reagan, the rich had lower taxes than the middle and lower class. Its wrong, because corporations already make huge profits, and it makes no sense to lower their taxes even more. Cutting into extra windfall profits is not looking down on the rich, it's fairness.

European corporations pay much higher taxes than anyone here. It's not that the corporations here should pay HIGH taxes, but reasonable taxes. Is it reasonable that companies like HP are giving ridiculous pensions to failures like Carly Fiorina, while laying off 20,000 workers? Not at all.

Billion dollar corporations don't notice tax cuts like the middle class. If you're rich, you're not going to notice an extra 5-10%; the middle class will.

That... is... golden.

This article just re-affirms my belief that John McCain is not a war hero. He was a reckless and mediocre pilot, a reckless and careless human being, and did everything he could to break the code and get out of captivity, despite what he says.

War hero my ****. He never pulled anyone out of harms way like John Kerry did, or went into the jungle to track down Vietcong. John McCain retreated to the ready room when there was a fire on his ship, and went to Saigon the day after to chase after hookers.

At first when I read this, I was a bit upset. Honestly, it's funny (or sick, or sad) that Presidential Campaign Politics have come to this. Having served with men who were in similar situations as Senator McCain, and having heard their similar stories, I just cannot discount what it meant to be held captive by the North Vietnamese.

Is McCain a hero for being a POW? I don't think he would even say that he is. I think the point is that he did his best while imprisoned, and when he got out after 7 years, didn't turn on his country (which had made some bad errors and mistakes in an unpopular war), and went on to continue serving honorably.

Is MCain a war hero? Probably not by his standards, but he has embodied the American spirit; even when things are at thier absolute worst, HANG on, HANG in there, PERSEVERE and do the best you can with what you have in your given situation.

While I don't agree with Senator McCain on all of his policies and plans for the Presidency, I don't hate him because he has transformed a horrible, nightmarish situation into motivation for himself to serve and persevere. I do respect the man for being willing to climb into that Skyhawk that day, and attempt to do a job many of us won't or cannot.

Senator Obama has also done some respectable things in his career. He has been a community organizer, a state senator and a US Senator. While much is made of his half-blackness, I don't think that is the primary thing he would want people to consider when voting for or against him. I would reckon the same applies to John McCain when one ponders his affairs in Vietnam and whether to vote for against him based on whether or not they consider him a "hero".

It really comes down to which one you agree with more. It would nice to get past all the rhetoric and histrionics, which serves nothing.

[MarkB]

The reason workers are ABLE to leave their jobs, is because the government dole has become so HUGE that many Americans, sadly, feel as though its the responsibility of the govt. to take care of them cradle to grave. That includes having the ability to walk away from their job, and know the govt will be there to give them welfare. It includes the ability to bear more children than they can afford to support,without the father, and the govt. steps in as surrogate daddy.

The long and short of my point in that quote was following this sort of route:

Lots of workers become unhappy with working conditions/pay.

Workers go on strike until an amicable agreement is reached between the 2 sides - employer and employees.

No agreement is made, workers stay off work until issue is resolved, probably getting another job in the mean time.

Company moves jobs off-shore.

Whether some like it or not, the government does have a responsibility, a certain duty of care, to its citizens. Does that mean they have to be spoon-fed a life because they're too lazy to go out and work themselves? Of course not. However, if the government is introducing taxation rates that are affecting large parts of the country, large demographics and large numbers of people, who else is responsible for this but the government?

I believe Obama is preaching class warfare, and redistribution of wealth, disguising it as "compassion" and "change" and wants to EXPAND the already too large govt.

That's the type of "plan" I cannot support. The last thing on this earth I want the United States of America to become, is a European type nation. I lived there for two years, it's not what i want for our country.

If all people in the U.S. had a fair shake to start with, began life on a level footing with their peers, and had a start to their life that was in accordance with the constitution that is valued so much, then your point here would hold water.

They don't, and it doesn't.

Do you honestly think redistribution of wealth is a bad thing when the U.S. is regarded as one of, if not the, richest nation in the world with countless multi-billion dollar corporations, yet anywhere around 12-16% of their citizens can be living below the poverty line at any given point in time? How is it fair that 1 man can light his $200 cigar with a $50 bill, and another man can be malnourished, begging in the streets for change to feed his family?

McCain's tax "plan" benefits the already comfortable members of society, and corporations. Obama's tax plan benefits the members of society who are not comfortable and are already struggling. I've seen poverty, and I've seen struggle. It's not a nice feeling. My only concern about the election is that Obama won't be elected because of the ignorance of those who want to add yet more money to their already sizeable fortunes, and over the last few decades, have managed to spread their trash-filled preachings on to their often-spoilt offspring, who follow the same pattern, and will cast their votes in between their early morning swim in their garden pool and their meeting with their financial advisor in the afternoon to discuss their stock prices.

[piratesmvp04]

No economy can survive without the banks and brokerage houses. However, since we're no longer an economy that produces goods as much as it buys them, we're run by the consumer. The consumer is the middle class. The economic problems seen by this have already hit the middle class in terms of foreclosure; now it's hitting the business. We're in this mess partially because people couldn't pay for their mortgages.

If a corporation outsources its jobs to India, then they're not giving us any jobs. If they're not giving us jobs, how do they stay afloat without the middle class?

As for "FairTax", I do not know the ins and outs of the subject, so I'll only say this: A flat sales tax easily favors the rich and is a recipe for economic disaster. If that is just a flat sales tax, it's not a good thing in my mind.

I don't disagree with anything you said. I just think you shouldn't say that corporations don't run the economy because that is so wrong. It a combination of both sides: corporations producing products and jobs, and consumers taking the money earned from those jobs and buying the products.

As for the FairTax, it is similar to a flat tax, but much, much less primitivee. The flat tax is just a flat federal sales tax. The FairTax is similar, but it has many other features that make it work better than the flat tax.

[lautrec]

The long and short of my point in that quote was following this sort of route:

Lots of workers become unhappy with working conditions/pay.

Workers go on strike until an amicable agreement is reached between the 2 sides - employer and employees.

No agreement is made, workers stay off work until issue is resolved, probably getting another job in the mean time.

Company moves jobs off-shore.

Whether some like it or not, the government does have a responsibility, a certain duty of care, to its citizens. Does that mean they have to be spoon-fed a life because they're too lazy to go out and work themselves? Of course not. However, if the government is introducing taxation rates that are affecting large parts of the country, large demographics and large numbers of people, who else is responsible for this but the government?

If all people in the U.S. had a fair shake to start with, began life on a level footing with their peers, and had a start to their life that was in accordance with the constitution that is valued so much, then your point here would hold water.

They don't, and it doesn't.

Do you honestly think redistribution of wealth is a bad thing when the U.S. is regarded as one of, if not the, richest nation in the world with countless multi-billion dollar corporations, yet anywhere around 12-16% of their citizens can be living below the poverty line at any given point in time? How is it fair that 1 man can light his $200 cigar with a $50 bill, and another man can be malnourished, begging in the streets for change to feed his family?

McCain's tax "plan" benefits the already comfortable members of society, and corporations. Obama's tax plan benefits the members of society who are not comfortable and are already struggling. I've seen poverty, and I've seen struggle. It's not a nice feeling. My only concern about the election is that Obama won't be elected because of the ignorance of those who want to add yet more money to their already sizeable fortunes, and over the last few decades, have managed to spread their trash-filled preachings on to their often-spoilt offspring, who follow the same pattern, and will cast their votes in between their early morning swim in their garden pool and their meeting with their financial advisor in the afternoon to discuss their stock prices.

MarkB - I appreciate and respect your stance and opinions on these issues. I simply don't see it the same way you do, therefore, I cannot support redistribution of wealth.

I beleive that all people are created equally, by God, under God, and for God's purposes. Whilst this would lend itself to a communal society, and it will eventually, I cannot support communism or socialism that is controlled and ran by man. "All men are created equal, some are just a little more equal than others" 1984-George Orwell.

If man were capable of running a non-corrupt government (which I don't believe ANY country does completely) then, yes, communism and resditribution would be fine. Until God is in charge, I don't see this happening.

As for poverty, I too have seen it, once lived in it, and have tired to help those in its grips. It's ugly as you say, and very tough for those in it. However, it is also an opportunity for those sticken to rise above, and achieve. This is rarely the case, but it does happen. Poverty also allows God's people to practice and serve one of His basic tenents, which is to take care of the widows, the imprisoned and the poor. Poverty, in my opinion, is a mission field and we must do what we can to help these people.

I do not trust the government to properly minister and help those who are in poverty. I see welfare as another means of enslaving minorities, trapping them into endless cycles of welfare dependence and apathy. I've spoken to those who are in this cycle, and cannot break free from the bonds of government "care". I beleive that if our government was less HUGE, more centered on the Godly principles it was founded on, and less taxing to those in its realm, people would take care of the poor and downtrodden.

I know we will disagree on this, and that's fine. All of this is just my opinion, and though you may consider this naive and/or ignorant, I have gone through some changes in my life to lead me to these views. Suffice it to say, that when I was a young man, in my 20s, I was very liberal, very big government, pro-socialism. I've followed that path, and I could never see the light at the end.

sorry for the rant, thanks, Lautrec

[MarkB]

Lautrec, I definitely don't consider you naive or ignorant, not at all. We, as people, are bound to disagree on certain things - if everyone agreed on everything, life would be pretty boring. Like you, I see the points you make and respect your reasons for having them, despite the fact that I disagree on some of them. That doesn't mean either of us are wrong - we just have different views. To loosely copy a line from Martin Luther King Jr., I'm just glad we can disagree without being argumentatively disagreeable. :)