Obama turns heel???

[Deadman31]

Ok, I dont know alot about politics but I have been following both of these lying jerk phonies throughout this race. Everyone says Obama is a marxist, socialist, terrorist etc. So if he gets elected, is he gonna do the classic WWE heel turn on us? It seems to me people think he is gonna win and all of a sudden run out during Bidens match against Bill Ayers and hit Biden over the head with the steel chair.

There is a metaphor in there somewhere I believe. :)

[Groucho]

Ok, I dont know alot about politicsYou could have safely left this part out of your post.

[Deadman31]

Ya Im pretty much a dumbass, but I guess my point was the way all these talk show people make it sound is like Obama will win and then all of a sudden reveal himself to be some evil mastermind or something who is out to crush America like the Iron Sheik. :)

[DodgingCars]

Ya Im pretty much a dumbass, but I guess my point was the way all these talk show people make it sound is like Obama will win and then all of a sudden reveal himself to be some evil mastermind or something who is out to crush America like the Iron Sheik. :)

Translation please?

[Deadman31]

What would you like a translation of sir? It just seems like everytime Obama opens his mouth someone brands him as a socialist or today on the radio they were saying he was a marxist. Arent these people taking what he says to the extreme?

[dork]

What is the Iron Sheik's position on offshore drilling?

[ernestrp]

If you vote you will have to do JURY DUTY every couple of years.

[Tracer Bullet]

Why do people want greater voter participation, again?

[The Bus]

Ladies and gentlemen, the average undecided voter.

[Deadman31]

No, actually I have never voted. I am waiting for an honest politician to come along.

[BKenn01]

Ladies and gentlemen, the average undecided voter.

Probably the average Acorn registered voter.

[porieux]

No, actually I have never voted. I am waiting for an honest politician to come along.

Keep waiting.

[JasonF]

I completely understand what Deadman is saying. I'm not sure what that says about me, but here is the translation:

In professional wrestling, the wrestlers are often scripted to "turn heel" -- that is, after a period of being a "good guy," they suddenly become "villains." Deadman's point is that, the way people are carrying on about Senator Obama, they are acting as if national politics is like professional wrestling, and that once Senator Obama takes office, he will reveal himself to be a villainous socialist, or terrorist, or whatever smear you want to pick.

All of this is premised on the assumption that currently, Obama appears to all as a decent American who wants to do what is best for his country.

[Deadman31]

Look, my whole point was I dont think Obama is a terrorist or anything like that, but he and McCain are both scumbags. However, the media likes to point out all of Obamas faults when I am sure McCain has just as many. McCain is just so disingenous all he does he say Obama is gonna do this and Obama is gonna do that when McCain is probably gonna do the same thing. I dont know whatever I am just a political novice I guess.

[Deadman31]

I completely understand what Deadman is saying. I'm not sure what that says about me, but here is the translation:

In professional wrestling, the wrestlers are often scripted to "turn heel" -- that is, after a period of being a "good guy," they suddenly become "villains." Deadman's point is that, the way people are carrying on about Senator Obama, they are acting as if national politics is like professional wrestling, and that once Senator Obama takes office, he will reveal himself to be a villainous socialist, or terrorist, or whatever smear you want to pick.

All of this is premised on the assumption that currently, Obama appears to all as a decent American who wants to do what is best for his country.


Thank You. Sorry if the way I put it made it sound like I was being ridiculous but this is what I meant for the most part.

[FlickMan]

No, actually I have never voted. I am waiting for an honest politician to come along.

and men should expect their wives to be virgins on their wedding night

[The Bus]

Probably the average Acorn registered voter.

Isn't wrestling extremely popular in Kentucky?

[Deadman31]

Well, why should I vote for one of these scumbags and feel responsible for what they do? This way I live a guilt free existence and get into heaven.

[JasonF]

Well, why should I vote for one of these scumbags and feel responsible for what they do? This way I live a guilt free existence and get into heaven.

If you genuinely feel they are just as bad (or just as good, for that matter) as each other, then there probably is no reason for you to vote.

If you think they are both scummy, but one will be worse for the country than the other, then shouldn't you vote for the one who will be better for the country, even if you think he will still be scummy? I'd rather have a partially destroyed country than a completely destroyed country.

[nemein]

Why do people want greater voter participation, again?

That's the question I keep asking...

[Deadman31]

Nah, well I started off way back in the beginning thinking Obama was the "good guy" who would win and defend his title at all costs, but McCain dragging him through the mud every chance he gets has really changed my view of everything. Kind of like when Hulk Hogan finally turned bad by joining the NWO. Almost like they goaded him into joining, McCain goaded Obama to stoop down to his level.

Ok maybe I should stop with the wrestling analogies. :)

[Groucho]

Why do people want greater voter participation, again?Nobody wants that. What they do want is greater voter participation amongst people likely to vote for their party.

[Thor Simpson]

Wasn't there a Wrestler that retired after he broke some guy's neck and said it was motivated by his Muslim religion that he had been hiding?

[Deadman31]

Uh-oh. So are you saying Obamas "secret Muslim side" is about to be unveiled?

[OldDude]

No, actually I have never voted. I am waiting for an honest politician to come along.


Oh, well, that's a deal-breaker. Probably not worth registering.

[BKenn01]

Isn't wrestling extremely popular in Kentucky?

And 49 oh scuse me 56 other states?

[crazyronin]

In professional wrestling, the wrestlers are often scripted to "turn heel" -- that is, after a period of being a "good guy," they suddenly become "villains."

You refer to them as "babyfaces" (good guys) or "heels" (bad guys).

[Rockmjd23]

He can't turn heel if he already is. :)

[Dr Mabuse]

:lol:

This whole thread.

:lol:

[eXcentris]

I'd put money on Obama-Biden if there's ever a tag team match. :)

[The Bus]

What is the Iron Sheik's position on offshore drilling?

I believe he said that the USGS is "worse than Michael Jackson" and that he would "break" the back of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary and "fuck it in its ass."

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9K-wEUCCvE0">Here</a> is the interview he had with <i>Drilling Quarterly</i>.

[toddly6666]

Deadman,
If you vote for Obama, I will send you a DVD. Deal?

[creekdipper]

What is the Iron Sheik's position on offshore drilling?

I figured the Iron Sheik was some sort of ultimate condom, so we would know its position in offshore (and onshore) drilling.

Which still doesn't quite explain the Iron Sheik's connection to politics (unless your politician comes from a certain Fla. district which seems predisposed to such things)...but, then again, it has as much to do with politics as much of what we've seen this year. :shrug:

[creekdipper]

I'd rather have a partially destroyed country than a completely destroyed country.

Now, that's the Spirit of '08 talkin'!

Maybe the poll workers should issue clothespins for our noses as we enter the booth.

[Deadman31]

As far as I know, the Iron Sheik probably had more integrity than any politician out there. He never wavered in his belief that Iran #1 USA phooey!!!

[spainlinx0]

As far as I know, the Iron Sheik probably had more integrity than any politician out there. He never wavered in his belief that Iran #1 USA phooey!!!

Wrong. The Iron Sheik proudly proclaims that America is the greatest country in the world, and that he will fuck Hacksaw Jim Duggan in his f****t ass and break his back and make him humble.

[wildcatlh]

In January, Obama will be taking the oath of office. Jim Ross, of course will be calling it. Right before finishing the oath, he will grab a folding chair, hit Chief Justice Roberts over the head with it, and rip off his suit to reveal an "I love Osama bin Laden" shirt, while JR screams "NO DAMMIT! NO DAMMIT!".

Should be great entertainment.

[DarkestPhoenix]

and men should expect their wives to be virgins on their wedding night

Why would I expect that when I've already had sex with her??

[DarkestPhoenix]

Deadman,
If you vote for Obama, I will send you a DVD. Deal?

Do you work for Acorn? Probably a dollar DVD.

[FlickMan]

Well, why should I vote for one of these scumbags and feel responsible for what they do? This way I live a guilt free existence and get into heaven.

I think its in Revelations - The Lord says something to the effect of-

Be ye hot or be ye cold - for the lukewarm I will vomit from my mouth

[Deadman31]

In January, Obama will be taking the oath of office. Jim Ross, of course will be calling it. Right before finishing the oath, he will grab a folding chair, hit Chief Justice Roberts over the head with it, and rip off his suit to reveal an "I love Osama bin Laden" shirt, while JR screams "NO DAMMIT! NO DAMMIT!".

Should be great entertainment.

If you listen to enough of these talk radio types, that is what they make it sound like is gonna happen.

[creekdipper]

If you listen to enough of these talk radio types, that is what they make it sound like is gonna happen.

Well, the kooks won't be saying it for long, because once the Democrats win all 3 branches of government (after new SC appointments), they will renew the Fairness Doctrine & put all those capitalist SOB's who dominate the talk radio market out of business.

Who said Air America was dead?

[BKenn01]

See OP, its like this. Obama is campaigning like Hulk Hogan of Hulkamainia fame. You know plenty of free candy and all that stuff. Come his swearing in, he rips off the Yellow and Red and puts on the Black and White NWO stuff. And nobody gets free candy.....

[Fanboy]

Wow. OP got a lot more mileage out of this thread than I *ever* would have imagined.

[darkflounder]

I'd put money on Obama-Biden if there's ever a tag team match. :)

I'll go with McCain-Palin. McCain's not got much, with his war injuries. But I bet Palin fights dirty, and could drag a moose down all by herself.

[Lee Harvey Oswald]

Yes, I think Obama will "turn heel" when he raises taxes and causes American jobs to go overseas.

His tax plan is an obamination.

[Calculon]

Hall and Nash at Tanagra.

Eric Bischoff, his arms wide!

[Subgeniusguy]

I think Obama may turn heel when he finds out trickle up economics doesn't work and raising capital gains taxes tends to decrease revenue. Democrats seem to think if they raise taxes on businesses, they'll just subtract the taxes from their profit margin and not change their business strategy. The only way I can see it working is if the middle class tax cut somehow encourages them to spend more even if businesses increases prices on goods and services thereby helping the economy.

I plan on watching the tax stategy of Obama and Congress fairly closely. I think they will teach us some interesting economic lessons. His strategy to garner support appears to be appealing to the masses by a rhetoric of taking more money from those he characterizes as "selfish" in his stump speeches. I take issue with that characterization. If everything comes up sunshine and roses like his supporters say, then I'll re-elect him in four years.

I'm at a point where I have no debt and I'm ready to invest money beyond what I already put in my 401k for my retirement and kid's college. Depending on what figures you believe, Obama has said my taxes won't go up. Hypothetically speaking though, if I made $300k or $4million a year (which I don't), wouldn't it be better for the economy if I invested the money he would take from me in taxes, either in the stock market or back into growing my own business, rather than letting the government spend it. Maybe Obama would argue that wealthy people are hanging on to money rather than investing it due to the slowing economy, and if he takes that money from them and gives it to the middle class or poor, they would spend it and thereby stimulate the economy. I'm not an economist but I feel like Obama's gonna give me an education on it.

I think Obama's foreign policy decisions are anybody's guess.

I tried to break stuff up a little bit Breakfast with Girls.

[classicman2]

When do you all believe that Obama will submit his tax package to the congress - first month, 6 months, 1 year, 2nd year, etc.?

[wabio]

I think Obama may turn heel when he finds out trickle up economics doesn't work and raising capital gains taxes tends to decrease revenue. Democrats seem to think if they raise taxes on businesses, they'll just subtract the taxes from their profit margin and not change their business strategy. The only way I can see it working is if the middle class tax cut somehow encourages them to spend more even if businesses increases prices on goods and services thereby helping the economy.

I plan on watching the tax stategy of Obama and Congress fairly closely. I think they will teach us some interesting economic lessons. His strategy to garner support appears to be appealing to the masses by a rhetoric of taking more money from those he characterizes as "selfish" in his stump speeches. I take issue with that characterization. If everything comes up sunshine and roses like his supporters say, then I'll re-elect him in four years.

I'm at a point where I have no debt and I'm ready to invest money beyond what I already put in my 401k for my retirement and kid's college. Depending on what figures you believe, Obama has said my taxes won't go up. Hypothetically speaking though, if I made $300k or $4million a year (which I don't), wouldn't it be better for the economy if I invested the money he would take from me in taxes, either in the stock market or back into growing my own business, rather than letting the government spend it. Maybe Obama would argue that wealthy people are hanging on to money rather than investing it due to the slowing economy, and if he takes that money from them and gives it to the middle class or poor, they would spend it and thereby stimulate the economy. I'm not an economist but I feel like Obama's gonna give me an education on it.

I think Obama's foreign policy decisions are anybody's guess.

I tried to break stuff up a little bit Breakfast with Girls.


Well what would you propose? <i>Somebody</i> is going to have to pay more taxes even after pulling out of Iraq and cuts in spending......especially with the looming social security problem. Would it be better if we made Bush's tax cuts permanent and increased taxes for people in the 15-28% tax brackets since they aren't the supposed investors who drive the economy?

[Subgeniusguy]

Well what would you propose? <i>Somebody</i> is going to have to pay more taxes even after pulling out of Iraq and cuts in spending......especially with the looming social security problem. Would it be better if we made Bush's tax cuts permanent and increased taxes for people in the 15-28% tax brackets since they aren't the supposed investors who drive the economy?

Like I said I'm not an economist and I also don't resent paying taxes but I don't think one group should have to pay a "more fair" share than others just because they are successful. Plus, Obama is not proposing a means to fix Social Security or even get us fiscally sound. He only knows of more spending and entitlement programs that he wants to initiate. The money he is taking from the top earners is firstly to fund the middle class tax cut. Your post seems to indicate he is going to be fiscally responsible with that money. It's merely a scheme to promote class jealousy and win an election. The budget will still not be balanced and Social Security will be no closer to being solvent.

It's also wrong to say the middle class are not investors. My parents never made a great deal of money but did have low risk investments through IRA's and other funds. They always saved and lived within their means. They don't have a Social Security problem because they never anticipated that it was the government's duty to take care of them in retirement. I never really looked at Social Security as a tax anyway since it was supposed to be given back to me. I consider myself middle class but yet I'm an investor. My 401k is an investment. Many working people I know have a 401k or at least an opportunity to participate. I will not have a Social Security problem unless the government taxes me into poverty.

I've already conceded that Obama will win the election. Like I said, I'm curious to see if any of it works. If things become all rosy, I will vote for him in the next election. I, by no means, tow the party line either. The bailout was an idiotic idea from the start and I think McCain's main error was not objecting to it. I say that too with my 401k going down the toilet. I voted against my Republican senator that voted for it. I also like Obama's stance on the war in Iraq, he was against it in the beginning and now he wants them to pay their own way. I just don't see how he'll "jump start" the economy.

As to what I would propose, I propose you not look to the government to solve anything because they are incapable. Look after yourself and your family, work hard and spend wisely, live on less than you make and invest for a reasonable rate of return. If you are unhappy with your lot in life, work to improve yourself and make yourself marketable and never whine.

[Brack]

Obama wouldn't just "give it to the poor." What will be set in place are things like job creation, which is a long-term investment, but one that I think is well worth doing.

The rich just aren't cutting it. Well they are, but what they're cutting is jobs.

[BKenn01]

How do you increase taxes on business and create jobs. Thats a bunch of BS. All Obama will do is take more of the bottom out of the tax base, and increase their reliance on govt.

[Brack]

How do you increase taxes on business and create jobs. Thats a bunch of BS. All Obama will do is take more of the bottom out of the tax base, and increase their reliance on govt.

If you're creating jobs, you will get tax cuts.

[Subgeniusguy]

The government does not exist to create jobs. Jobs are created in the private sector. Government only accomplishes anything by getting out of the way. I don't want people employed by government. The one thing about somebody with a government job- the only way to get rid of 'em is to promote him. The government has shown itself incapable of running anything efficiently. This "job creation" thing is just another meaningless buzzword for attracting votes. Increase business taxes and see how many jobs are created.

[Brack]

The government does not exist to create jobs. Jobs are created in the private sector. Government only accomplishes anything by getting out of the way. I don't want people employed by government. The one thing about somebody with a government job- the only way to get rid of 'em is to promote him. The government has shown itself incapable of running anything efficiently. This "job creation" thing is just another meaningless buzzword for attracting votes. Increase business taxes and see how many jobs are created.

That is merely your opinion.

[wabio]

The government does not exist to create jobs. Jobs are created in the private sector. Government only accomplishes anything by getting out of the way.

But the gov't should pass policy favoring <i>domestic</i> job retention over offshoring. It's a policy issue, not a work creation issue. Big business will ship your job overseas as soon as it becomes feasible......giving your job to a cheaper foreigner while leaving you unemployed. What then happens to the unemployed? They require public assistance (i.e. unemployment, re-education, possibly welfare, etc.) funded by taxes. This becomes a major problem when you consider there are over 1 billion Chinese and 1 billion Indians, both of whom have many highly educated workers ready to take your place at a lower wage.

[BKenn01]

But the gov't should pass policy favoring domestic job retention over offshoring. It's a policy issue, not a work creation issue. Big business will ship your job overseas as soon as it becomes feasible......giving your job to a cheaper foreigner while leaving you unemployed. This becomes a major problem when you consider there are over 1 billion Chinese and 1 billion Indians, both of whom have many highly educated workers ready to take your place at a lower wage.

It is not that simple. As a country, we do not have enough people to fill the open positions. In certain positions there is just so much that can be paid for the job. Rabid consumerism is also contributing to this. Everyones favorite internet DVD store is a prime example. I honestly do not know how they stay in business with the prices they charge.

[Brack]

I'm think the idea of rebuilding our infrastructure would be a good start.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/31/opinion/edbrooks.php

[Subgeniusguy]

But the gov't should pass policy favoring <i>domestic</i> job retention over offshoring. It's a policy issue, not a work creation issue.

I have no disagreement with this but that does not change the fact that the private sector is where jobs are created. I live in a state where the high school drop out rate is >50%. There are not enough asses to even keep the seats warm. How can I be sympathetic to a call for more public assistance to re-educate when people in my state won't take advantage of a public educational system I whole heartedly fund? I am a product of public education in my own state (secondary and university), and I can tell you first hand that it can prepare you for financial independence. My academic work was rewarded at every level with more opportunity for advancement regardless of my financial standing. People make their own bed. This is still the land of opportunity in my eyes. India and China are not well known for civil liberties. I see people of Indian and Chinese descent extremely happy to be in this country and working hard to fulfill their American dream. You need not worry about other countries undercutting workers here either when there are plenty of illegal immigrants here to, as I hear democrats constantly say, "do the jobs American's won't do." Despite whatever negatives you can come up with regarding illegal immigrants, they are generally hard working people grateful for every opportunity they get here even though their illegal status opens them up to untold levels of exploitation. I am not defending their right to be here either.

When it reaches a point where people can vote themselves an entitlement because the number of people in need of a handout outnumber those who contribute, we will all be SOL. Call me selfish if that is the word that fits, but public assistance can reach a point where it injures those it is supposed to help. I fully support rewarding effort and helping those in need short term. When people in my own family hit me up for money, I offer to sit down with them and their bills and help them to get fiscally fit and help them short term if need be. Typically, they don't want my advice or to eliminate things from their budget that are unnecessary (cigarettes, cable TV, etc). My point is that an unconditional handout makes people more dependent.

Infrastructure rebuilding would require the private sector to employ people to do the work. It should be done for the sake of the tax payers of this country because it needs to be done and not just because people need a job. I want accountability for my money because it is my money. The govenment need never forget where tax dollars come from. I can't be grateful to a politician for allowing me to keep more of the money I EARN. That goes for democrat or republican since I've already stated that I voted against my republican Senator that voted for the bailout which as far as I'm concerned is the biggest fraud ever committed against the American taxpayer.

I have problems with McCain as well. His $300billion proposal to bail out individual mortgage holders is ridiculous. Like I continue to say, I fully expect Obama to educate me. Since he is in the lead and I have already voted, no one need try to convince me of his rightness. You only have to wait and let him show me the way. I was critical of Bush and I'll be critical of any future President. There is nothing wrong with advocating a strong work ethic or that government behave responsibly. As Brack pointed out, all this is merely my opinion. I doubt anybody would pay to hear it. It's just my own frustrations coming to fruition. That guy in the link Brack gave doesn't seem to be a big Obama fan either.

[Brack]

I was only really talking about your stance on what government is for. That's debatable, considering government is simply an extension of the people. It doesn't have to be an "us vs. them." Why can't "them" actually represent the majority, and not the interests of the rich?

And David Brooks on Obama:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1JhTiSmpE8g&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1JhTiSmpE8g&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Subgeniusguy]

I'm not sure what your saying with "us vs them", but I don't see government as having the right to represent the interests of the rich over the poor or vice versa or being able to decide who belongs to which group. In general, I believe that people that build wealth earn their money. I do not want to see a system emerge that punishes success or stifles entrepreneurship. The majority does not always vote in its best interests either which is why we don't have a true democracy. Obama will have his opportunity to shine. I can say honestly that I wish him no ill will. According to his plans, my life will pretty much be uninterupted. He'll have to convince me with action though, the campaign rhetoric doesn't do it for me.

I missed Tim Russert this election year big time.

[DarkestPhoenix]

Where is Hogan?

[wabio]

I have no disagreement with this but that does not change the fact that the private sector is where jobs are created. I live in a state where the high school drop out rate is >50%. There are not enough asses to even keep the seats warm. How can I be sympathetic to a call for more public assistance to re-educate when people in my state won't take advantage of a public educational system I whole heartedly fund?

That's what the minimum wage jobs are for. A basic job or starting point for the uneducated and unmotivated like the folks in your example. You need not feel any sympathy towards these people since there really is no dignity working for minimum wage anyways.

You need not worry about other countries undercutting workers here either when there are plenty of illegal immigrants here to, as I hear democrats constantly say, "do the jobs American's won't do."

The jobs companies are offshoring aren’t the same jobs the illegals are willing to do “that Americans won't do" (i.e. janitors, gardeners, cooks, construction, agriculture, dishwashers, meat packing, etc.). There’s no reason for companys to send these overseas since most of these jobs don’t pay squat anyhow, except for construction (which really isn’t outsourceable). The only exceptions might be low-level manufacturing type jobs (i.e. T-shirt factory). The fear is the loss of white collar jobs which we are now starting to see.

When it reaches a point where people can vote themselves an entitlement because the number of people in need of a handout outnumber those who contribute, we will all be SOL. Call me selfish if that is the word that fits, but public assistance can reach a point where it injures those it is supposed to help. I fully support rewarding effort and helping those in need short term.......My point is that an unconditional handout makes people more dependent.

True. I'm not a proponent of entitlements either (welfare, alimony, etc.). But when it reaches a point where poor and middle class families with two working adults can't cut it, we will all be SOL too. IMO raising minimum wage addresses both my previous stances. I mean, what better? Paying $1 more per hour to someone willing to work for it, or (as an extreme example) lowering mimimum wage and compelling many of these workers to seek welfare and food stamps funded by taxes? There is zero productivity in the later. If I was president, I would attempt to eliminate welfare and food stamps while increasing minimum wage to ~$10-11/hr.

Infrastructure rebuilding would require the private sector to employ people to do the work. It should be done for the sake of the tax payers of this country because it needs to be done and not just because people need a job. I want accountability for my money because it is my money...... That goes for democrat or republican since I've already stated that I voted against my republican Senator that voted for the bailout which as far as I'm concerned is the biggest fraud ever committed against the American taxpayer...... There is nothing wrong with advocating a strong work ethic or that government behave responsibly.

Pretty much agree with all of this. I would personally like our gov't to start focusing more on the needs of our own people rather than being overly concerned about the welfare of foreigners overseas. Iraqi children aren't the ones filling the coffers in Washington. We need a better domestic policy. We have some serious problems within our own borders that need addressing (jobs, costs of healthcare and education, social security, energy)

[Brack]

I'm not sure what your saying with "us vs them", but I don't see government as having the right to represent the interests of the rich over the poor or vice versa or being able to decide who belongs to which group. In general, I believe that people that build wealth earn their money. I do not want to see a system emerge that punishes success or stifles entrepreneurship. The majority does not always vote in its best interests either which is why we don't have a true democracy. Obama will have his opportunity to shine. I can say honestly that I wish him no ill will. According to his plans, my life will pretty much be uninterrupted. He'll have to convince me with action though, the campaign rhetoric doesn't do it for me.

The government's sole purpose is to serve the people. That's what I meant by "us" vs. "them," them being the big bad government that appears to be popular for people to hate. The "all encompassing government" idea gets annoying. Same thing when people talk about "the media" as this big machine. It's simply people motivated by money, just like any other industry. But I think it's important to have leaders and policies that try to make the country better, and not simply continue policies that favor the wealthiest of individuals, and that's not taxes. Talk about the rich as the driving force of this country, but they will jump ship the moment they're not making money, and many times it's not in their best interest to innovate and create new jobs. Wouldn't they be doing that now if this were the case? I don't buy this "the market is in adjustment" bull crap that so many like to spew during economic crisis, as if it's inevitable.

Actions do speak louder than words, and you sound reasonable in giving Obama a chance (that is if he wins).