>>>>When anyone points out the fact that your "would be" king is butt naked, I think you think it's all rhetoric. You are standing in the Obama soup line, and if he gets elected, we'll probably meet in the real soup lines.....
>>>
>>>I'm voting for Obama, but I'm not drinking the Kool Aid. I tend to be more of a Libertarian, and definitely don't like the ideas he's floating regarding economic "fairness". I don't think he's going to get a lot of his ideas, if indeed they are truly what he wants to get accomplished, through Congress.
>>>
>>>I'm voting for Obama because Republicans have to pay for Iraq and their fiscal policies. You can claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility, but if you don't walk the walk, then don't talk the talk.
>>
>>I'm assuming you meant libertarian(small l). This is where I fall politically and as such I cannot understand your logic as an Obama presidency hands complete control of the government to a single party. This does not bode well for libertarian idea of limited government interference in people's lives. I'll feel much better with a divided government. Of course, McCain isn't much of a divide on many issues but he's the only other choice. Recent history (Carter, Clinton 92-94, W) does not speak well to one party rule.
>>
>>As far as having to "pay for Iraq and their fiscal policies", you're assigning blame to one party while absolving the other. One party is not made up of wide-eyed children being led by the other. These are conniving, crooked thieves and liars who will say and do anything to retain and expand their power. They all deserve our contempt, blame and most importantly our suspicion. A libertarian should know that.
>
>There is one common thing about fiscal practice (one may talk whole day about fiscal 'policies', i.e. theoretically, but practice is more important , imho). Let's say US congress discusses another spending bill (fiscal practice is about spending, though some 'fiscally conservative' dems may have different opinion). The practice of these proceedings is following. Reps propose one spending number, Dems- another one (50% higher; they are 'fiscally conservative', but currently, just currently, they have more important priorities). The result is usually a compromise between these two numbers.
>The ugliest part of the story happens when some 'fiscally conservative' people (small 'l' as you correctly said) use it to start complaining about Rep's fiscal policies.

The latest "fiscally responsible" items our esteemed elected officials have engaged in is a ridiculous "stimulus" and a couple of massive, "they're too big to fail", "rescues" and bailouts. I'm not seeing any difference in the fiscal policy nor practice between the leadership of either party. Both are engaging in CYA politically motivated economic manipulations in order to keep their positions through the next election. Meanwhile no other appropriations are being enacted due to Pelosi's absolute refusal to allow debate on any topic she disagrees with for fear it might pass.