Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 286 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
McCain losing ground with working-class whites
Published Friday, October 10, 2008
KITTANNING, Pa. (AP) - The steel mills and coal mines of western Pennsylvania helped fuel the nation's economic engine. Today, old factory shells and boarded-up storefronts stand as bleak reminders of those once-prosperous times.
But the voters in working-class enclaves such as this still are a sought-after prize in presidential politics, and many are belatedly backing Democratic nominee Barack Obama.
In the Democratic primaries, working-class whites consistently supported Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Later polls showed them overwhelmingly favoring Republican nominee John McCain.
Now, driven by fears that their personal finances could further deteriorate, many see Obama as the better choice - their thinking in some cases driven more by concern about how McCain would handle the economy than any growing admiration for his rival.
''I don't know that there's anything I particularly like about him (Obama), but I dislike McCain, and I dislike the way the country is, and Republicans need to change,'' said lifelong Republican Ruth Ann Michel, 64, a retiree shopping in a market in Butler on a recent day. She said her vote for Obama would be her first for a Democratic presidential candidate.
While talk in these parts is mostly about the economy, a prominent - if not unspoken subtext - is race. A study of the impact of racial attitudes on the election conducted by The Associated Press with Yahoo News and Stanford University found that whites without a college education were much more likely to hold negative views of blacks than those with a college education.
Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell says a drowning man doesn't care what color the person is who throws him a life preserver.
''This election is going to be decided when a husband and wife sit at a kitchen table, or a single parent sits at the kitchen table, looks at their bills and figures out who is most likely to help them with their financial condition,'' Rendell said. ''If the answer's Barack Obama, nobody's going to care whether he's black, green, orange, purple, fuchsia or whatever.''
In April, Rendell backed Clinton in the primary and had to answer questions after saying some whites in his state were likely to vote against Obama because of his race.
Darryl Hendon, 50, of Beaver Falls, who is black and on disability, said he thinks some white Democrats are reluctant to back Obama because of his race.
Since early September, growing numbers of whites who have not finished college have been expressing the view that Obama cares about people like them, even as fewer say so about McCain, according to AP-GfK polling.
In early September, McCain had a 26-point advantage among white voters without a college degree who were likely to vote, according to the poll. But by late September, the advantage had dropped to 7 points, with McCain leading 46 percent to 39 percent among this group.
For Obama, that's far better than Democrats have done in recent presidential elections. President Bush carried whites who haven't finished college by 23 points in 2004 and by 17 points in 2000.
In Pennsylvania, a recent Quinnipiac University poll showed Obama with a double-digit lead over McCain, compared with a close race after the political conventions. Clay Richards, a Quinnipiac pollster, said that's because support among working-class voters in the state is growing, and he suspects many former Clinton supporters are moving to Obama's camp.
The candidates' campaign schedules make clear the importance they attach to Pennsylvania's working-class voters.
McCain and running mate Sarah Palin staged a rally Wednesday in the former steel town of Bethlehem in northeast Pennsylvania. On Friday, Palin was stopping in Pittsburgh, then heading for Johnstown in western Pennsylvania, where unemployment recently topped 7 percent. The self-described hockey mom planned to drop the ceremonial first puck when the Philadelphia Flyers open their season against the New York Rangers on Saturday.
Obama, for his part, will be in Philadelphia on Saturday. And on Sunday, his running mate, Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, will be joined in his blue-collar hometown of Scranton by Clinton and her husband, former President Clinton.
In western Pennsylvania, Republican and Democratic voters alike tend to be socially conservative, pro-gun and anti-abortion rights. Many are so-called Reagan Democrats willing to vote for a Republican because of social issues.
While some pockets in this region have recovered and flourished after hard times in the 1980s, many never did. Populations have dwindled and many of those left are elderly.
''The ones who can get a good education ... they leave, which I don't blame them because there's nothing here, really,'' said Georgia Lutz, 55, who was eating breakfast at a diner in Beaver Falls recently with Hendon. ''The economy is absolutely horrible and we're going into a depression right now.''
The working-class vote is particularly important in the battleground states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio, where the percentage of adults without a college degree ranks exceeds the national average.
They also are a key voting bloc because those personally affected by the current economic woes appear to be among the more persuadable voters, according to a recent AP-Yahoo News poll. Among them is Michelle Smith, 41, who works retail during the day at a surplus shop in Kittanning and tends bar at night. Combined, she and her husband have six kids.
''Decent working families can't survive. It's very sad,'' Smith said. ''They raised minimum wage, but now you're paying triple in gas to get to work. It evens itself out.''
A Democrat, Smith said she's leaning toward McCain. While she said she likes Obama on a personal level, she wonders if Obama has what it takes to fix the economy.
Obama's already won over Don Melochick, 58, a construction worker from Whitehall, Pa., in northeast Pennsylvania. A registered Democrat who's voted Republican in the past, Melochick said he plans to vote for Obama because he's ''somewhat better'' than McCain.
If McCain ''hasn't changed nothing in his 30 years ... he's not going to change anything now,'' Melochick said, from the counter of a diner outside Philadelphia. But he adds: ''I don't think Obama will either.''
Comments
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 1:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ditto...this is a great example of the liberal media acting to affect the outcome of the election. The headlines say it all...is it not obvious?
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 3:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Good evening, everyone---there is good news tonight." -
Gabriel Heatter
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Georgia and Mississippi have faded from red to pink on one of the poll maps.
Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 3:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't listen to polls. They are not reliable . Besides McCain will be making a big step forward very soon . Count on it ! If he doesn't our democracy is gone . We will be a socialist country. And you can take that to the bank!
Posted by mudzillaefi (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Obama will glide in on the media wave that is being drummed up by the liberal media. This country will now suffer the next 4 years with a president who has no more experience than I do running government. May God Bless us and Keep us. Our grand parents went through tough times and would always tell us, "if you would have lived like I had to....you would appreciate life and what you have more?" Well i am afraid very soon, we will be able to say we understand and can relate.
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 3:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes it's true.
McCain fumes and sputters on the TV and people think he is more stupid than Obama. Because he is.
Palin looks like an immature cheerleader and people cannot believe this is McCain's best effort.
Sammoron and the whiners blame the messenger because they are slower learners than the national average.
In a big way we have already won -- the Republicans could not field a candidate any more to the left in their party. He does care about the environment and a lot of leftist issues.
Unfortunatley McCain's first choice of VP shows him an idiot, and his election tactics show he can't win without mud slinging. So now we will take the entire country under our control.
Muhahahhah!
Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 3:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Low and behold...Obama admitted knowing Ayers was a terrorist bu thought he was reformed, apperantly he thought wrong. He is also tied so tight with ACORN it's dispicable! Finally the truth is beginning to come out about the messiah.
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 4:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Do they just put a card into you to make your mouth move bunny or do you get trained from that PUMA site that gave you the bum steer on how to conduct a poll?
Do you think a Christian Republicans lie because they think they're saved or do you think they get saved because they are such liars?? He,he!
Posted by harjedalen (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 5:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Most organized labor, particularly Maritime unions, have strongly endorsed Obama and have been membership has been actively trying to get out the vote. McCain has throughout his Senate years been an enemy of America's Maritime Transportation industry. He has tried more than once to repeal America's cabotage laws, putting American jobs at stake.
This white working class voter from Natchez says, "Go
Obama-Biden '08!!!"
Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 6:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
DEMOCRATS ONLY!!! ( the republicans have had too much bad news today, LOL)
http://www.newsweek.com/id/163339
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 6:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
harjedalen...you are correct that most labor unions have endorsed Obama...they have endorsed Democratic candidates for years...and they have lost for years. The reason? The rank and file only joins the union because of the hold the union has on job availability...they don't follow the union lead on anything else, particularly politics.
For example, my wife is a Teamster, hates having to be one, and votes Republican...this is typical. The unions have outlived their usefulness unless they can figure out a way to get rid of gnats.
BTW, what the heck does your color have to do with anything?
Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 6:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
happybunny
Low and behold...Obama admitted knowing Ayers was a terrorist bu thought he was reformed, apperantly he thought wrong. He is also tied so tight with ACORN it's dispicable! Finally the truth is beginning to come out about the messiah.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Bunny, you need to stay more current with the "Party", your Candidate changes tactics once or twice a day. The latest is, he told a suporter this evening, ( on Camara), (Who had said Obama was an Arab) that no, she was whong, that he was a fine, Family Man and that no one need fear him, that they just disagreed on Policy. You need to check back in and get your NEW talking points........>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 6:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
wrong
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 6:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bunny why don't you start on China-Cuba oil drilling in the Gulf.
Yomama and Sam have been in a circle jerk over that one in the opinion section.
I think they have already hired a boat to go blow up the rigs. If their powder gets wet maybe they can whine the Chinese to death! he,he!
Posted by Incognito (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 7:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
For those of you who may not know, there are white people outside of the south. During the primary election, Obama won Iowa. What does this suggest as it relates to how our country is moving forward?
In the words of Patti Labelle, "It's a new day".
Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 7:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
sammohon
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,
Sam, if your Wife HATES being a TEAMSTER, why don't she quit, there a couple hundred people who would LOVE to have her job, probably thousands................
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 7:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
oldhippie...happybunny can admittedly get carried away in her enthusiasm, but she never said anything about Arabs or that Obama was dangerous in any way other than the fact that he makes poor judgements by pointing out his associations.
McCain was showing presidential quality respect and restraint focusing on issues rather than character assasination unlike the Dems.
Posted by Incognito (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 7:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Where was the question of experience when GWB was running for the presidency? Look at where his experience has taken this country.
Posted by Incognito (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 7:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
sammonhon
Restraint at this rally. I've seen other clips of rallies when McCain just sat back and say nothing
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 7:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
oldhippi01...my wife likes her job, she just hates the union...it takes her money, adds an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy and inefficiency, supports candidates most members don't support with the member's own money, invests in mafia schemes, and does very little to help anyone but the union hierarchy...besides, liberals have made it impossible for families to have single bread-winner households by confiscatory taxation and redistribution of the wealth through entitlements to people who won't be productive...she'll keep her job, but the union can take a long walk on a short pier.
Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 7:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You libs spew more hate and invective than your counterparts on television. I didn't think that was possible. You know, for people who are so confident in their candidates chances this November, you're being awfully nasty. You should be medicated right away because I'm afraid that if Comrade Obama loses, you guys might have some type of intracranial bleed or cardiac arrest. Some things you guys might want to keep in mind is that every Democrat since 1976 has been leading in the polls going into election day, some substantially. Carter was up by eight and beat Ford by one. Carter and Reagan were neck-in-neck and Reagan won in a landslide. Gore and Kerry were both leading and lost. Maybe you should temper some of the cockiness until after the election. As to unions, isn't it great that Obama and the Dems want to do away with private ballots in Union elections, something even George McGovern opposes. Man, I bet Stalin is looking up from hell and seeing this group of Dems and saying, "Man, these people are nuts."
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 7:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
He said nothing when he agreed with what the speaker was saying, when he disagreed, as with the woman in question, he corrected her as he should have. Obama won't correct his militant followers unless the media forces him to, which is extremely rare.
Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 7:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes Sam, I know what Bunny was trying to project, BUT I have posted the link below three times for her today and she simply ignors it, because it shows what she does not want to see or hear, but the FACTS are what they are and if you are going to throw Stones, you need to be sure you don't live in a GLASS HOUSE!!>>>>>>>>>>>>>
McCain was showing presidential quality respect and restraint focusing on issues rather than character assasination unlike the Dems.<<<<<<<<<< Now if you want to be taken serious, you need to drop the PROPAGANDA, he did it because the POLLS show that he is loosing his BUTT with the SMEAR CAMPAIGN, so he switched AGAIN.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/1...
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
kmbjd40...Stalin is looking up from hell and saying, "these people are my kind of comrades"...only he's saying it in Russian of course...LOL.
Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 7:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
TROOPER GATE REPORT comes in and reveals that "Sister Sarah"broke the LAW by abuseing her authority.
Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 7:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 7:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You libs spew more hate and invective than your counterparts on television
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Well I see that the POT is still calling the KETTLE Black............>>>>>>>>
Posted by jrn59 (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 7:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OMG! Do ya think ACORN had something to do with the Wilkinson County fraud elections? And check headlines of this article - is this a racist headline?
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 7:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
kmbjd40 said:
"You libs spew more hate and invective than your counterparts on television
You should be medicated right away because I'm afraid that if Comrade Obama loses, you guys might have some type of intracranial bleed or cardiac arrest.
Man, I bet Stalin is looking up from hell and seeing this group of Dems and saying, "Man, these people are nuts."
My question is: Who is spewing hate and invective? Are you having an identity crisis?
I suggest you prescribe the meds for yourself. Dems are tough - we've survived the Bush years (so far).
McCain finally spit it out today and assured us we need have no fear of Senator Obama. Do you believe that? If not, I suggest you contact homeland security.
No one here has claimed victory for Senator Obama.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 7:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oldhippie01...I would advise happybunny to continue to ignore it...it was from Salon magazine, a known liberal outlet...it was written by a known liberal writer (and I use the term writer loosely here)...it had virtually nothing to do with Sarah Palin except to point out she was being as inclusive as possible...and it was completely irrelevant on your part to post it.
Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 7:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"SISTER SARAH" FOUND IN VIOLATION OF A PUBLIC TRUST!! Yes folks, the SAME SISTER SARAH that has been Questioning OBAMA on issue's of TRUST, Go figure......
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 7:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
southernwoman...Dems aren't tough, they're crybabies...they never take responsibility for themselves or anything else and want to blame everyone else...Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are great examples.
BTW...the gnat claimed victory for Obama, but gnats are notoriously deluded.
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 7:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh, I forgot. Homeland security doesn't protect us from socialism - you know, like, caring for sick and hungry children when their parents can't or won't.
Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 7:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Did you look at the Vidio Sam??? I didn't think so, and in view of the fact that SISTER SARAH has been preaching about Obama's minimal contact with an EX terrorist( 30 years ago), who is now teaching, then it is fair to show HER connection to a CURRENT seperatist, that don't want to be an AMERICAN!! WATCH the VIDEO I dare you!
Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 7:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Allow me to repost my earlier post as oldhippie or yeahuhuh might have posted it so you might have a better understanding of what I'm getting at: "You IDIOT libs spew more hate and invektive (oldhippie's spelling) than your moron counterparts on television! Can you get any dumber?! For people so sure your brain-dead candidate is gonna win this November, you ain't talkin like winners! (Facts and civil discorse don't ever make it into their posts so I've omitted the rest as I have no frame of reference on which to form a comparison.)
www.link to some liberal nut site.com
Posted by 2008 (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 8:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have been reading these political blogs for days; no one is going to change their minds here. I hate to say this but so many of you astute bloggers have just drained the political well dry. But the future of our life as we know it will most certainly change with this election. A friend sent me this incredible website that has garnered over 187,130 responses since October 3rd. This 82 year old woman says it like it is. Some of our wisest citizens are elderly, they lived through the Depression and have no fear in saying what they feel whether we agree or not. Aside from the very frank language used by Margaret/Helen (friends of 60 years) and the responses, I find the comments inspiring, it crosses all ages, genders and race from several countries. 187,130 people think, reflect, and pass it on to their families, grandmothers, mothers and friends all over this great country. You are free to disagree, but it warms my heart to know that outside of this very SMALL town people are thinking and trying to make the right choice for the right reasons. Not trying to change your mind just take a look outside of Natchez and see what other people are saying and their reasons why. http://margaretandhelen.wordpress.com
Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 8:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 10
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Shhhhh, calm down #40, you're going to have aneurism, I know you guys are under a lot of stress right now, but it will be good for you to learn how to loose. You could do it a bit more gracefully though, LOL..........
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 8:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
oldhippie01...once again you are WRONG! I did watch the video and that's why I advised happybunny not to waste her time.
Ayers is still a terrorist, he is teaching his terrorist dogma at the college level...Obama, knowingly, sought his support and received it.
Palin's association wasn't with a bomber, it was with a far-right separatist to be sure, but the guy just wants a vote on the issue, not to destroy the US government by fomenting revolution and bombing public facilities...that's a huge difference.
Regarding Palin and the report on "Troopergate" that you brought up...you failed once again to tell the WHOLE truth. Yes, there was a finding that she violated the public trust by not inhibiting her husband from using government resources to achieve the firing of the state trooper in question, but she was NOT found to have breached any of the other laws or ethics of which she was accused.
It should also be remembered that this report is just that, a report by an investigator hired by the entities that wanted to harm Governor Palin. It is not an Indictment. It is not a conviction. Until proven in court it is as valid as a work of fiction. Personally, I admire them both for trying to have a man who Tasers his ten year old stepson fired...they should have, and he should be in prison.
Additionally, I didn't hear you or any other liberals howling and gnashing teeth over "Travelgate" when it was Bill and Hillary involved in a similar kind of incident.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 8:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
oldhippie01...we know how to be "loose", but we don't like to lose...liberals, on the other hand, don't know the former and invent ways to suffer the latter...you haven't won yet!
Just prove your gracefulness by departing arguments you are failing to win.
Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 8:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oldhippie, you are truly clueless. First, you don't understand a basic analogy, and now you don't recognize the use of parody to prove a point. Regarding the Palin report, in addition to what sammohon just posted, the report found that Palin didn't violate any laws. The report itself is nothing more than a political hit piece anyway. If you don't understand that, which based on most of your posts is probably the case, maybe someone can explain it to you. Do you realize that the state trooper in question tasered his own 11 year old step-son, threatened to kill Palin's father, was caught drinking alcohol while on duty, and violated Alaska hunting laws by hunting out of season. Clearly, this man should have been fired. Did you know that the man who was actually fired has stated publicly that Palin NEVER pressured him to fire the trooper?
Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 8:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
That was great 2008 !!! Gotta love Margaret !!
Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 8:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
NOW Sam and # 40, what part of I DON"T CARE do you not understand?? I am through with you.
Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 8:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sammohon, trust me, oldhippie becomes conspicuosly quite in the face a superior argument. There was a health care debate yesterday in which I informed him about the realities of universal health care and I received a one sentence reply stating that I was "lying and spewing propaganda." When I pressed him to tell me where I was lying I got no response, not even a link to some web site. If this guy didn't have liberal blogs and web sites he would have nothing at all to offer. Not that he has much now. And thank you for the "loose/lose" clarification. I commented on that the other day but it had no effect.
Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 8:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"in the face of a superior argument" Sorry.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 8:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
oldhippie01...same strategy Obama supports in Iraq and Afghanistan...CUT AND RUN...LOL.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 9:17 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 9:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You guys are just going through an adjustment period, it'll pass and the only thing superior about either of you is your ego's...............
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 9:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Egos which pale in comparison to yours oldhippie01...say goodnight Gracie.
Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 9:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just one more Nail in the Coffen;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/10...
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 9:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The Huffingtonpost has long been discredited as a news source. Your use of it confirms your partisan myopia.
Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 9:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oldhippie, why don't we go to the source. This is directly from the ethics panel report, specifically, their Findings page: "Govenor Palin's firing of Commisioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads."
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 10:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
sammohon, snopes.com says your post above about Obama's stance on the American flag is a lie.
Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 10:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sammohon, the really don't get it. It's not even worth the effort.
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 10:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
kmbjd40 said:
"And thank you for the "loose/lose" clarification. I commented on that the other day but it had no effect"
and
"Sammohon, trust me, oldhippie becomes conspicuosly quite in the face a superior argument"
kmbjd40, I believe the proper word in the above sentence would be "quiet" rather than "quite".
Conspicuously is also misspelled.
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 10:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
kmbjd40 said:
"Sammohon, the really don't get it. It's not even worth the effort."
kmbjd50, I believe the are correct.
Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 10:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Isn't it great? The Democrats have almost single-handedly brought the world financial system to it's knees and there are about 50% of voters in this country who are so clueless that they think the Democrats are better on the economy. Half of the Congressional Dems should be thrown in prison over this debacle. Unbelievable.
Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 10:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Southernwoman, you are correct, those were misspellings. But mine were typos, oldhippie has used "loose" when he meant "lose" so many times that I've lost count. Hardly the same thing. These aren't English essays after all.
Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 10:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'll have my editor go over each post from now on if it's that important to you.
Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 10:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"kmbjd50, I believe the are correct." First of all, kmbjd40. Secondly, did you mean "thee are correct?" We can do this all day, you see.
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 10:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Things do look bad for the McCain campaign today.
The Palin thing is just not good, and claims it was a partisan witch hunt do not hold much water, except for the dimwitted. It will likely end up only being responsible for a point or two of support if that. It is deniable for her supporters and just a character flaw for everyone else.
McCain's kindnesses he showed Obama today looked a bit scripted -- like a correction for his nasty plan that started after the debate -- except nobody evidently told Sarah and the TV ad crew. It just makes him look erratic -- either he is disingenuous or inept at controlling his own campaign.
The ACORN thing is very interesting and bears scrutiny. If massive voter fraud was provably perpetrated by this organization some prosecutions should and will certainly follow.
But let's examine this. The alleged fraud if it was to be used would require a significant amount of effort and cost for a few votes -- with no guarantee that the votes would be needed in the districts they were registered. The plan would be bulky beyond practicality -- even implausible -- of course a lot of people would be very inclined to believe inner city blacks could easily be so stupid as to hatch an impractical plan.
A much more likely plan would be an intentional effort to submit applications through ACORN to discredit the organization. This effort would be quite easy, all it would take is an examination of bad applications and an accusation -- then the media would carry the message.
ACORN is legally bound to submit whatever applications are given to them, so it would be a nobrainer for some twisted creep to do the job with assurance his fakes would get submitted and noticed if they were crude -- which many were.
The benefit would be to discredit ACORN, blacks, Democrats, and cause mistrust.
A similar fraud plan was used against CBS in the 2004 election to silence their claims about Bush's awol time. A fake document was conveniently submitted for publication by mystery donors, although all the principles who identified the document as fake said that the information on it was dead on -- and the CBS show claims were actually correct -- the credibility question was successfully clouded by the fake and the issue was dropped.
The fake possibility would be easy to do and much more useful to the GOP -- the ACORN plan much less plausible.
We will see. Watch the news. I'll bet this one will be a big story before it is over.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 10:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
southernwoman...can you give me a better link to the Snopes item, if the post is erroneous then I will gladly "suggest removal" myself...unlike liberals who cut and post anything regardless of the veracity, I'll be the typical conservative and admit a mistake and rectify the problem honestly and openly.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 10:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hmm...this place is gnat infested...luckily I don't get bitten by gnats so they don't bother me much...I just ignore them...most other folks should too.
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 11:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
sam, here you go:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/sta...
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 11:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
southernwoman...thanks for the link and I will, true to my word, request removal. I got the info from a normally trustworthy source, but I did err in not verifying first...I will also alert my source that the information is bogus...again thanks for the heads up...would a Democrat go so far to correct an error?
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 11:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
sam, sounded as if kmbjd40 (or 50) was having a bad day, and I was just trying to get him to smile, but I don't think it worked.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 11:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
southernwoman...difficult to make someone smile when criticizing their typing skills...it's normally not too difficult to discern between those who are just ignorant and/or uneducated or just affecting those misfortunes of life, and those who are, let's say "typographically challenged"...kmbjd40 didn't impress me as any of the above, but more in a haste to register thoughts...which can lead to miistakkes.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 11:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OK...did it...recommended removal of the tainted info in my post above and I advised my source to do likewise.
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 12:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
sam, are you not feeling well?
Posted by harjedalen (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 12:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sammohon, I made reference to race because that's what the article is about.
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 1:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
When I told Sam his post quoting Senator Obama saying, among other things, that the American flag represents oppression was a lie,
Sam said:
"thanks for the link and I will, true to my word, request removal. I got the info from a normally trustworthy source, but I did err in not verifying first..."
In a later post, Sam questioned my discernment.
I'm not too smart and all, but sorta suspected if Senator Obama had said the American flag represents oppression, I might have already heard about it.
Someone might even have mentioned it here.
Guess Sam didn't think about that.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 1:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
southernwoman...why would you inquire as to my health? I appreciate your concern, but I'm fine.
harjedalen...my point was that the article and your response saying, "This white working class voter from Natchez says..." are racist to start with and it shouldn't matter what your race is...I just made the point too subtly...no offense intended.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 1:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
southernwoman...I did the right thing, but you still want to hammer down? not very sporting of you.
I didn't question your discernment, although I do now, I simply made a general observation. I did question your efforts to make someone smile while being critical of them. I bet your significant other really appreciates that personality trait of yours.
I do appreciate your honest evaluation of your intelligence...so refreshingly candid...LOL.
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 1:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I forgot to mention Obama's comments about the American flag were said to have been made on Sept 7, 2008 on Meet the Press.
Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 3:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Don't you hate it when your friends drag you into their troubles?
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/R/R...
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 7:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well Grandad it's not like having Enron or Chalabi as a major contributor, and continuing to do business with them, is it?
I would say Rezko's goose is cooked. Let's see what they can buy from him by lowering the temperature of the oven a few degrees.
Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Journalism is truly dead in this country. To present this Palin report as anything other than the political hit piece that it is, shows the disturbing level of media corruption and bias that permeates journalism today. The reports own findings state that "Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads." Their only relevant finding was that she "abused her power" by violating a Statute of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act which reads, "The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust." They go on to state that "although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was 'likely' (emphasis mine) a contributing factor to his termination." Walt Monegan has publicly stated that he wasn't pressured to fire Wooten. This panel was made up of a group of politicians who had no authority in the matter, but who could rush out a report before the election because the official investigation wouldn't be complete before Nov. 4. Wooten was a man who tasered his 11 year old stepson, drank while on duty, threatened to kill Palin's father, and violated hunting laws. Clearly he should have been fired. I'm more upset that Palin 'didn't' make more of an effort to get this guy fired as he is clearly unbalanced and should be in no position of authority. Those are the facts. But if you read the media reports you get the impression that Palin tried to get Wooten fired because of the "bitter" divorce (oh the objectivity, adding the qualifier bitter. Pathetic) he was going through with her sister. So basically, the panel found that Palin fired the guy, which she was within her rights to do, that she did it for reasons unrelated to the Wooten matter, but in their 'unbiased' opinion it was "likely" Wooten was part of the reason. Unbelievable. (Southernwoman, if there are any typos,I apologize in advance.)
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
southernwoman -- oh no now you gone and done it. You must be evil.
I see above that Sammoron has you in his sights, and he is one nasty, decadent conservative -- he knows no humilty.
He will chop you up to prove his manhood then whine about how mean you are. Be afraid -- be verrrry afraid. In person you could blow him over with a sneeze, but he is the terror of the keyboard. He,he!
Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The subject was written by AP, a liberal business to begin with! You are seeing gloomy times down as a result of the housing market started by Fanny, Freedie, and liberal groups such as ACORN! Just wait and see what happens if Owhampy is elected? Owhampy is a born again Muslim and a terrorist in disguise! Just wait and if he is elected and something really bad happens, I will be more than happy to say to all of the liberal "nuts", I told you so. Another DemocRATic conspiracy to get a "nobody" elected! Look at George McGovern and Jimmy Carter, the peanut!
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
kmbjd -- why don't you move to Alaska and straighten those guys out?
If the highly popular governor of Alaska has a difference of opinion with members of both parties in her state I am certain you are right and those parties are shallow, partisan hacks that are up to no good. What else could it be?
And there is a key on your keyboard that says "enter". If you click it twice you can make what ordinary stupid people call a "paragraph". It makes things easier to read -- usually thoughts are grouped into their own paragraph by subject.
You might check with the Palin campaign to see if paragraphs are allowed. They might be a bit highbrow, and look like elitist liberal writing so are discouraged by the spin machine.
Posted by Hardcorps (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sam Hannity and Rushing Limbaugh are losing and it hurts. Hurts them bad. Waah wah wah!
One of their posts goes like:
"Liberal blah blah blah lib blah liberal blah blah blah liberal liberal blah blah blah liberal blah."
Songbird is going to lose. Too many lies over the years. No other POWs will have anything to do with him. A sorry piece of humanity there Hannity. BWAAABWAAHAAAHAAA
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 10:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
No one has lost until the votes are cast and the election is over. Polls were wrong in Carter v. Reagan, Dukakis v. Bush I, Gore v. Bush II, Kerry v. Bush II and, hopefully, will be wrong again.
Conservatives don't tend to use nonsensical words like "blah"...we prefer to tell the truth with words that actually have meaning. Notice the only time the word "blah" appeared, until now, was when a liberal Hardcorps decided to join in and express his opinion which was, "...blah, blah, blah...". I think Hardcorps, like many liberals, just like to type even when the typing conveys no meaning.
An example of a "sorry piece of humanity" is someone who tries to assasinate the character of a true, documented American hero...the hero is McCain, where does that leave you?
There, another gnat swatted.
Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 12:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Journalism is truly dead in this country."
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I will have a talk with Obama and see if we can get you put in charge of "Journalism in the United States" Perhaps we could make it some sort of Cabinet position and tie it into the "Dept. of Homeland Security", so that all News would have to be cleared by you. That way, it would be "FAIR AND BALANCED", just like "FIXED NEWS", LMAO !!>>>>>>>
Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 12:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We all forgive you hardcorp? Your name fits you so well!
Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
the hero is McCain, where does that leave you?<<<<<<<<<<<< How about the other that was there long before he arrived? I guess they don't count and where does that leave you, Punk????>>>>>>>>>>>There another gnat swated.
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 12:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Isn't Sammoron cute the way he pretends to be successful at what he does?
And as if John McCain expects special treatment when he lies about Obama's stances for political purposes.
Sam is a school fish -- and doesn't amount to much on his own without the school. Otherwise he wouldn't feel so threatened by the other side and would toot his own horn a bit less.
Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
rush
" Your name fits you so well!"
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
As does yours sir, your propaganda sounds just like Your Name sake "LIMPBALLS". good day..............>>
Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 12:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
after "OTHER" above insert "600", number lock got bumped
Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 12:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes yeah. I had noticed the Schooling effect as well. I give him credit for hanging on to his "DREAM" though,( they just hate being loosers, LOL.)
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 1 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Look at him.
You know he's smart enough to come up with something besides talking points -- yet he cannot resist.
I think he's reaching out and not very confident he could interest anyone except for those ol' dependable one-liners. They obviously ground him and make him feel safer. He wouldn't have the adventurous spirit it takes to be on the other side. It takes far more courage.
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
blah (blä) Informal
n.
1. Worthless nonsense; drivel.
2. blahs A general feeling of discomfort, dissatisfaction, or depression: "Monday morning Oscar woke up with the blahs" New Yorker.
adj.
1. Dull and uninteresting.
2. Low in spirit or health; down: sat around all day feeling blah.
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 1:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Methinks perhaps he does not understand when someone uses a word for nonsense to describe his handiwork that in fact the word is being used properly.
Now if he was pontiff he could proclaim his writing had merit and get the church to follow him. He might even get the offender punished. But he ain't the pontiff. he,he!
Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 1:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeahuhuh, I must apologize. I will certaintly try to be more grammatically correct in the future. It was insensitive of me not to realize that these posts need be very basic so that someone with your limited intellect can understand them. Perhaps we can assign a letter grade to each post. But given that each of your posts remind me of something an illiterate fourth grader might write, I doubt you'll get very high marks. Not good for the old self-esteem.
But on the bright side, you do hold the record for using the words dumb, stupid, moron, idiot, etc. the most in these posts. Oldhippie was a close second, but you managed to just beat him out. Congrats!
I still find it interesting that none of you libs are ever able to refute my posts. They're all "propaganda" or "lies." There's never a single fact or argument to demonstrate the propaganda or lie, though. Hm.
(Look at all the pretty paragraphs.)
Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 1:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is a special note to the “Literary elitist”, (School Fish) #40 and sambo in an effort to school them to the “real world”. I have read all of your insults and your feeble attempts at self-aggrandizement and, (for the most part) let them slide. However you guys have misconstrued my lack of a come back as some sort of shortcoming, with my intelligence or lack of knowledge of the subject matter at hand. In point of fact, neither of these is true. I have either previously answered your silly and asinine question and you either ignored it, or are too lazy to go back and read previous Post’s, before butting in and making a rectum of your self. Usually though it’s simply a matter of splitting Hairs and I have no time to waste on trivial minutia.
NOW, if I thought there was even an iota of hope of de-programming either of you cretins, I would feel that it was my Patriotic Duty to attempt to do so. Upon careful observation of the two of you however, this would obviously be an exercise in futility and at 68, I have no time to waste. It has become obvious to me that your Optical Nerves have become entangled with your Anal Canal, giving you a Sh*t*y outlook on Life. I am afraid the prognosis is bleak…………
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 1:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hardcorps...the other 600 POWs that you refer to do count, so do McCain's sacrifices...you have no right to impune him...if you were one of the 600 prior to McCain's arrival (you've offered no proof and many have lied about their Vietnam service) then I salute you for that, but you've since become the traitor that you implied McCain was by backstabbing one of your own. You can assail him on the issues if you must, but you can't question his patriotism. It is publically and well documented.
BTW..."Punk"?...surely you can find more imaginative epithets to use...regardless, sophomoric name calling never hurt or stopped me.
An observation...seems you and the gnat are standing in a circular manipulative manner now...how do you find a gnat's...uh, nevermind I don't want to know.
Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 1:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow, oldhippie! That was awesome. Clearly the most literate of your posts. Keep up the good work!
Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 1:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I was going to hop in but have no idea what the heck you all are talking about. Sounds like you all are having a little tif. Please clue me in on the subject at hand.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 1:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
oldhippie01...yeah, keep up the good work, but you might want to work on the content unless you're into writing fiction.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 1:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
happybunny, just having fun messing with liberals and swatting occasional gnats as they buzz by...LOL.
Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 2:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's scary...psychohippie is beginning to sound like duhuh.
Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 2:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oldhippe--What war were you in?
Just curious...
Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
He was drafted into Vietnam, actually he claimed he joined because he couldn't find a job but later said he was drafted so who knows what the truth is.
Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
These Liberal nuts needs to be sent to Africa to try and develop the Continent/ they must be recent graduates of Sergeant Prentiss High School (Natchez). The tribesmen can't live among themselves/sounds like the democRATs of the Good Ole' USA!
Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
a true, documented American hero...the hero is McCain, <<<<<<<< What must be kept in mind here is the fact that the “DOCUMENTATION” was done by a simple Yeoman and the “Subject” was the SON of a FOUR STAR ADMERIAL. Not to take anything away from the man’s Service, but his wife indicated that he didn’t suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome, I found that very interesting for a man that was supposed to have been tortured. I have known a couple guys that survived that hell- hole and they did…………
Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 2:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks bunny, but I would like to hear from the man himself.
Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 2:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
He turned off his computer and forgot how to turn it back on!
Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
LOL rushing, I wondered what the ..... meant.
Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 2:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
He was drafted<<<<< That’s Lie # 1 Bunny>>>>>> into Vietnam, actually he claimed he joined because he couldn't find a job<<<<<<<<<< That’s the truth, so you are one for two>>>>> but later said he was drafted<<<<<<<< NO, that’s LIE #2, One of your Right WAD Buddies said that and so you just naturally assumed that it was true>>>>> so who knows what the truth is.<<<< I do and have the DD 214’s to prove it,( I know you don’t know what that is, Goggle it)
Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Fax me a copy! The subject 214 was probably printed in China and certified by Putin!
Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
See this is what explains your hatred for the military, you joined because you could not find a job and lo and behold...you had to go serve your country in war. It baffles me how anyone in the military can support Obama!
Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 2:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oldhippie---how long did you serve?
Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 2:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oldhippe--What war were you in?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I started out in the Army, took Basic at Ft. Jackson South Carolina, (Tank Hill). After Basic I went to Jump School and the rest is Classified………
Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 2:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Feb. 11 1957 To Dec 14 1964
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 2:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
bunny the way people in the military could prefer Obama is this:
If you wish to prevail through Peace you elect a man of peace -- there are generals to take care of war.
If you intend to be at war you elect a man who best knows best knows war to help the generals plan for being used. A military man need not insist we be at war to be a good fighter. The best warriors never draw blood.
Another great reason would be to avoid having to go to War with a religious nut like Sarah Palin as your commander.
I don't see a hatred for the military in hippie but I do see a tendency for you to lie about people's positions in order to manipulate. The only question is if you notice it and how you feel in your heart about it.
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sam said:
"you have no right to impune him..."
Im`pune´
a. 1. Unpunished.
impugn [imp-yoon]
Verb
Formal to challenge or attack as false [Latin impugnare to fight against]
impugnment n
Sam, I'm not sure what you meant, but you may want to check your words.
Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 2:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So you saw absolutely no combat.
Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 3 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
See this is what explains your hatred for the military, you joined because you could not find a job and lo and behold...you had to go serve your country in war.<<<<<<< Bunny, I had to Volunteer for every thing I did. I finished one enlistment and re-enlisted for a second term>>>>>>>>>>> It baffles me how anyone in the military can support Obama!<<<<<<<<<< That’s very understandable Bunny, you are easily baffled, but if you had watched the Democrat Convention the last Night, you would have seen 26 or 27 General Officers, including Several Admirals, all Supporting Obama, Now do you think those guys would have been out there if they hadn’t checked him out from top to bottom? Let me help you with that one, NO. Not only that but Active Military Contributions to Obama’s Campaign is running 6 to 1 ahead of McCain, go figure. And if that’s not enough for you, I posted two links from Veteran Organizations yesterday on that other thread, supporting Obama and you Ignored those,( as I expected you would), because the truth is only true, if it is what YOU want to believe………..
Posted by jrn59 (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 3:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
WOW! We do not have to go vote, President Barack Hussein Obama has won already what with ACORN saying so and all the white eyes saying so and every one on this blog. Sure hope you will not live to regret your choice, but if you like the 60s (and I lived it,) you should do just fine.
So, enjoy your President Barack Hussein Obama. Pray for our country cause we are going to need it.
Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 3:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So you saw absolutely no combat.<< Hey Punk, if you don’t have a clue what you are talking about you need to keep your damn mouth shut. Now I gave you credit for your service with no way of verifying whether you are even in the Military or not and here you come trying to degrade my service, that Dig don’t Hunt around here BOY……
Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 3:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Owhampy is a "wanna be' that can't be! HIPPIE -You can be "duped" into believing what you want to believe, but you have to be able to see the truth. "Birds of a feather fly together"!
Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 3:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
DOG
Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
?
Posted by mudzillaefi (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well lets see...Obama is an Illinois senator, chicago had more deaths last year than Iraq and Afgan war combined, so when are we gonna pull out of Chicago? This country is partly in a recession folks becuase of who we foresee in th whitehouse, not only becuase who is in the whitehouse. Please remember that our congress right now, is a democraticallyy controlled congress. They are part of the probelm, but low and behold, we won't to top off the cake with a democrat prez? will the last person to leave wall street, please turn out the light.
Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Here you go Bunny and not from, see if you can stand the truth
http://www.votevets.org/index_html
Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am really excited abouth this new candidate I found out about recently! Apparently, he's going to run for President in 2012. Wait until you hear about him.
First of all, as you probably guessed, he's a conservative Republican. And this guy's to the right of Rush Limbaugh! He's a state Senator right now and has the most conservative voting record there. You might have heard of him, his name is Barry Ostrama. He's actually running for the U.S. Senate right now.
Now, I know what you're thinking, "In 2012 this guy won't have nearly enough experience to be President of the United States! State Senator, just a couple of years in the Senate! Come on!" What you don't know is that this guy is really dynamic. I mean, he gives a speech like nobody I've ever heard before. What charisma! Plus, he must be really accomplished, he's already written two memoirs. You'd have to be pretty accomplished to have done that! Otherwise, he'd have to be just some egomaniac or something!
Now, his record in the state Senate, at least on the surface, doesn't seem very stellar. He voted "present" like 150 times! At first, I thought he must be some pansy who's too afraid to take a stance, or a political opportunist. He didn't seem to have any leadership qualities at all. But then I realized the brilliance at work. You see, nobody can tie him down on anything. He can be anything to anybody. Now that's leadership!
At first, I have to admit, I thought there might be a few problems with this guy. I found out that he's been a member of a church whose pastor is a white supremacist. And apparently this guy spews some pretty racist stuff from the pulpit. And he's Barry's spiritual mentor and close personal friend. But good news. No, great news! It seems that Barry didn't know anything about his close personal friend and mentors views! It seems incredible, I know, but in twenty years Barry never had a clue what this guy believed or preached. We really dodged a bullet there. (continued)
Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 3:29 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 3:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Combat Units deployed to Vietnam in 1965...after you got out.
So I won't question your service...but you talk like you are a combat veteran....that sir you are not.
You take issue with McCain's POW status like you know what it's like.
You are THE BIGGEST LIAR on here. And nothing you say will ever change that.
You don't have a damn clue what the hell you are talking about.
And speaking of Dogs...you don't have a dog in this fight.
You are an IDIOT.
Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Then I found out that Barry launched his political career at David Duke's house back in the mid 90's. And that Duke hired him to distribute some education funds he'd gotten through a grant. I found it odd, though, that none of the money actually went to any schools directly, but instead went to some racist front groups so they could distribute the money. Barry even sat on some boards with Duke. I really started to worry after I found all this out. But not to worry. Barry assured me that he didn't know anything about David Duke's racist past, and that Duke was really only someone who lived in his neighborhood. They'd barely even met, just bumping into Duke on occassion. And besides, Duke did all that KKK stuff like 40 years ago when Barry was only 8 years old! Heck, Barry thought he'd been rehabilitated, which I found odd since he didn't know anything about Duke's past. Go figure. Plus, we all know how sorry Duke is about it all, how repentant.
So let's all pull together and vote Ostrama in 2012! I know he's voted the party line 96% of the time and never worked with anybody in the opposing party, but this guy is offering real change! Go Barry!
Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 3:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
#40, is that the Cat that wants to Sterilize all poor Women so they can’t reproduce?
Your gonna have a lot of trouble with your “RIGHT TO LIFE Base there, but maybe you can make them see the advantage of only wealthy, highly educated,( oops, there goes another wad of your Base)people re-producing. Question, what are you gonna do with those Wet Backs, their Catholic, you know………………
Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 3:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oldhippie--did you really just say "Wetbacks"? That's pretty derogatory. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 3:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
NO notfromnatchez, ( oranywhereelse) You are the DAMN FOOL and you need to read your Military HISTORY. If you don't know that there was Military in Nam prior to 65 then we have nothing else to talk about
Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 3:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hippie, you never disappoint. I knew you wouldn't have a clue what I was doing.
Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 3:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
but there were no combat units...their was military advisor there since 1950, but there were no combat units until 1965.
You Big Liar.
Watch out for those pants of yours...they might be on fire by now.
Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 3:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
psychohippie, you're one to talk, you consistently belittle McCain's military career yet get defensive when someone says anything about yours (or lack thereof).
duhuhuh, can you refrain from responding directly to me? I told you yesterday, unless you can respond with facts instead of nonsensical criticism, I would prefer not to hear from you.
BTW I think it's a fabulous idea to sterilize folks on a voluntary basis. It's far less expensive in the long run than paying for all their welfare crack babies.
kmb, great analogy and right on the head. It's ridiculous that these people can't see the faults in Obama. I guess color is blind!
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 4:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
kmbjd40 said:
'At first, I have to admit, I thought there might be a few problems with this guy. I found out that he's been a member of a church whose pastor is a white supremacist."
kmbjd40, you need to be careful, here. Your group could lose some of its most needed, most neglected, least respected members when you make statements like this.
Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 4:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I've yet to receive a 214 from the veteran? Where's the fax?
Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 4:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Kmbjd40? I'll vote for him! O/ by the way I have a $800,000.00 check for him also!
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 4:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have found over the years that most of the guys who say their military service is classified are claiming that because they are frauds. If you don't have the history you claim then you claim it to be classified so no one will call your bluff. The guys who really were classified, guess what...don't talk about it. As soon as Oldhippie mentioned his service was "classified" it threw up a red flag and I had to question his veracity.
I had one guy tell me he was a side door gunner on a Cobra helicopter. When I pointed out that the Cobra was a two-seat attack helicopter and had no side door he finally shut up.
I had another guy, a friend, claim that he was in Vietnam and was recruited by the CIA serving subsequently in Latin America and Afghanistan. He claimed to suffer from Agent Orange and PTSD. Don't get me wrong, he was a wonderful fellow and I liked him a lot, but I was always skeptical because of the secrecy behind his service.
When he died two weeks ago his obit, written by his family, noted that he had served in the National Guard as a cook. Turns out he never went out of country, had a bad case of psoriasis, was a little crazy, but he was a fine cook.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 4:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
rushinghjr...sorry to tell you that there will be no fax nor will there be facts forthcoming from oldhippie.
Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 4:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I guess he passed out...funny how they scurry away so abruptly.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 5:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
southernwoman...impugn was the word I was looking for previously.
Was that a threat you just uttered to kmbjd40? Can't you understand parody and satire or is that realm reserved for liberals?
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 6:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sam, Thank you for bringing this up.
No threat was intended.
Further, the referenced post does not even make sense and is a result of careless reasoning on my part.
I feel better now. My self-respect is intact.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 6:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
southernwoman...kmbjd40's post you referred to was a multi-part analogy...it's easy to see how you might have become confused if you didn't read all of the parts. My respect for you is also intact.
Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sam/ I knew that I was not going to be receiving the subject fax from the disillusioned Owhampy supporter/ also, tell "Chick" Hello for me and to hang in their!
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 11:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It is so refreshing to have the opportunity every four years to remember how much one half of the country hates the other!
We open our arms to you conservatives, can you open your hearts to us?
My liberal brethren, sisters, and comrades- a little help please. I'm trying to come to a full understanding of the abortion issue. Is it our position that an egg is part of a chicken or that it is contained within the chicken?
Another point for you conservatives to consider is that at the time William Ayers' girlfriend blew herself expressing freedom of speech William Ayers was not a terrorist, he was a political and anti-war activist. Those were the people you conservatives were suspicious of back then and it is only lately that you started being suspicious of terrorists- they are two different things entirely.
Incognito you are right, Mississippi is not a good measure of white sentiment towards black people. Our white liberal brethren in Iowa are far more tolerant of other races (except the Mexicans who were used to bust the meat industry unions in the eighties) than Mississippians are. Strangely though, as a one time resident of Iowa I have to tell you black faces in Iowa are far between.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 12:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
See, Ayers was a political activist, not a terrorist:
"In an interview published in 1995, Ayers characterized his political beliefs at that time and in the 1960s and 1970s: "I am a radical, Leftist, small 'c' communist ... [Laughs] Maybe I'm the last communist who is willing to admit it. [Laughs] We have always been small 'c' communists in the sense that we were never in the [Communist] party and never Stalinists. The ethics of Communism still appeal to me. I don't like Lenin as much as the early Marx."
No, Bill, you aren't the last one to admit it. Not if deeds speak. But Bill goes on to explain further:
"The reason we weren't terrorists is because we did not commit random acts of terror against people. Terrorism was what was being practiced in the countryside of Vietnam by the United States."
See, if you bomb the Pentagon you are an anti-war activist. You are only a terrorist if you fly an airplane into it because that is a whole lot scarier. Does that help you conservatives understand the situation any better regarding Bill and President Obama?
I have one question for Bill Ayers though. Exactly how did you avoid prosecution? Who did you really work for? The communist underground, or the FBI or CIA? I mean, you not only stayed out of jail but you ended up with a tenured position. Why was it Richard Wright ended his communist associations? Maybe because he was more honest than you Bill?
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/col/horo...
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 12:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Bill Ayers proposed the Weather Underground act as the white communist guerilla army compliment to the black communist guerilla army of the Black Panthers. The Black Panthers were not as dumb as some in Washington took them to be, because they caught on to some things like this: http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POL...
How was it that Bobby Seale figured out the Panthers were being manipulated but William Ayers didn't figure out the Weathermen were? Did Ayers background in American Studies somehow blind him to the Anglo-American establishment his family was so much a part of?
I just wish our candidate, President Obama, had read the Chicago Tribune or Magazine so he could have seen this controversy about his association coming.
Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 8:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Good morning ya'll . I just wanted to say to rushin , you better hurry up and send that $800,000 ck to obama . I heard he has spent so much money trying to be president that he could use it . The man does like to spend other peoples money . I heard he bought so much TV time for 4 days before the election that if he had used that money to pay off the national debt then there would be no economic crisis in The United States of America ! He kinda reminds me of the television evangelists . He rides a fine lifestyle as long as you,my good friends, think he is the messiah and keep giving him money . Only in your future it will be in the form of higher taxes . When campaigning in 2004' he ran on promises of lower taxes but never had a plan . He's not a solution . He is a problem !
Posted by 2008 (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why are their no political signs all over town this close to an election?
Posted by natchezsouthside (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 10:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Can someone please tell me a couple things:
1. Why does the middle name Hussein matter? My middle namew is Charles. Does that make me a royalist? It seems pretty childish to be name calling. Are you all adults? How many Americans also have that name?
2. Also, what is an ohwampy. I'm not sure if someone is talking about an animal or what? I just don't know what that is.
Thanks
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 10:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
natchezsouthside...I agree with you that the middle name Hussein doesn't matter, it was an accident that his middle name coincided with the last name of Saddam and is moot in any discussion of issues.
I've never understood what an ohwampy is either...seems silly to me.
Now I hope some of my liberal sparring partners will notice that I don't always champion conservatives if they are wrong.
Posted by 2008 (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Can someone please explain to me why their are no political signs in peoples yards and around town. I have never been through an election anywhere in this country and not see signs everywhere?
Posted by natchezsouthside (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 10:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Also the same name as a staunch US ally and a revered leader, King Hussein of Jordan.
Quite frankly whoever wins in Nov. has a miserable task ahead trying to manage the economic mess. It is going to be thankless.
It is going to get a lot worse before it gets better. Millions are going to be out of work. Main St is going to have lots of boarded up windows.
One man didn't get us into this mess and one man is not going to get us out. Let's all try and keep that in mind over the coming years.
Posted by natchezsouthside (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
2008: probably because the lines are severly drawn this time around. Except for people here, no one is trying to change anyone's mind--that's my guess.
Posted by 2008 (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have been reading these political blogs for days; no one is going to change their minds here. I hate to say this but so many of the astute bloggers have just drained the political well dry. But the future of our life as we know it will most certainly change with this election. A friend sent me this incredible website that has garnered over 213,645 responses since October 3rd. This 82 year old woman says it like it is. Some of our wisest citizens are elderly, they lived through the Depression and have no fear in saying what they feel whether we agree or not. Aside from the very frank language used by Margaret/Helen (friends of 60 years) and the responses, I find the comments inspiring, it crosses all ages, genders and race from several countries. 213,645 people think, reflect, and pass it on to their families, grandmothers, mothers and friends all over this great country. You are free to disagree, but it warms my heart to know that outside of this very SMALL town people are thinking and responding. Not trying to change any minds just take a look outside of Natchez and see what other people are saying and their reasons why. Knowing that the bloggers here for the most part have a short attention span I would hope that all would have an open mind to read what others have to say outside of Natchez. http://margaretandhelen.wordpress.com
I also wonder if after Balloon Fest the signs will go up.
Posted by natchezsouthside (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
go to www.fivethirtyeight.com and look at the state by state polling.
this isn't just about McCain and Obama. It is a national transition away from the governmental policies of the last eight years.
I beleive it is a move toward a country this will become more inward looking and more caring about it's own people rather than worrying about the world.
That $600 billion in Iraq would have done a whole lot to improve security at home. And fix some bridges, roads, and decrepid school buildings.
Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Did any of you know that another Repubican canidiate all but conceded in electoral defeat the summer before he was elected ? It happened in 1864 . His name was Abraham Lincoln . I'd say all is not over yet .
Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 11:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You know, thinking about this has brought another thing to mind . 1864 was a very war weary ,economically challenged time . It was also revolutionary . This fighting amongst ourselves will not work . We need to be more bi-partisan . I know it's hard since the opposition can be like a copperhead and stike without warning . He carries venon as well . Think long and hard on this one, ya'll. No matter how you decide to vote it is going to change things and it is possible to sink further down . We could very easily become a socialist country . Beware of a soft spoken politician . We need a president with the passion and mentality to do whatever is possible to bring us back on our feet . We have been going downhill since prayer was taken out of our schoolrooms . We need to stop spending money on folks that don't like us very much and bring charity where it belongs . In the home first. We are not dead yet but we are a sick nation and we can't continue helping our neighbors until we are better . McCain knows how to make us better . McCain/Palin 2008'
Posted by 2008 (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 12:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The next president will need to be prepared to immediately on a moments notice address world changing events. I believe Obama will surround himself with the advisors needed to assist him with these Presidential duties. The McCain/Palin team represent to me a future that I can not believe in or have any faith in on any level. I want to look to our future with a President that I can put my trust in, who I can trust to be diplomatic and carry a big stick if needed. I would not want to leave that decision in the hands of McCain or Palin, we have done that already. Isn't it great to have the availability and ability to disagree. Thank you for the referral natchezsouthside. Have a great day all...
Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 12:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I love having a place we can agree to disagree . I have another historical fact to throw out at ya'll . Did you know that Dwight D. Eisenhower politics were reducing government spending,keeping the military stong, protecting law & order in the U.S. and he agressively opposed the spread of communism abroad & supported the overthrow of potentially pro-soviet governments in Iran & Guatemala. People liked "Ike". His politics sounds a lot like McCains . Not too much obama there and not Bush either . It was an econonically sound time for us . America First ! Remember those Leave It To Beaver days when we were all proud to be an American ! McCain/Palin 2008'
Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 12:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We have to look at our past before we can change our future . If it worked once it can again.
Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 12:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
2008/ The site that you referred everyone to is just a liberal "trash"site for cases like you! Sorry, I had to call it as I see it!
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 1:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why are their no political signs all over town this close to an election?
I support Senator Obama in this election.
I believe I would be socially ostracized and invite property damage if I placed one of his signs in my yard.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 1:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
southernbelle...I think I've earned my conservative bonafides here, but I must point out a few historical aspects of Eisenhower's presidency that maybe some didn't know.
People did like Ike and most liked the social situation of the country with the primary exception of race relations which he did very little about except to pass it on to Kennedy and Johnson.
He did reduce government spending, but at the expense of the military. He knew the military intimately and didn't trust it. He was also one of the first to condemn the military/industrial complex that became so dominant during the Vietnam era.
He was very good for law and order, but on confronting communism, not so good. He excoriated Truman for his "containment policy", but upon taking office continued and expanded that same policy.
He refused to get into Vietnam early, contrary to his own containment policy, when it might have done some good, but later as an ex-President advised Kennedy and Johnson to dive in deeper to an almost impossible situation.
There is a book that I highly recommend, "A Grand Delusion-America's Descent Into Vietnam" by Robert Mann, which accurately and even-handedly describes the various roles of Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and the other relevant political players during the Vietnam War.
Politically, Ike failed to stop McCarthy's red scare crusade when he easily could have done so.
I liked Ike too, but like all people and politicians he had his warts.
Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, Ike was involved in the first rebellious acts with civil rights but you are right . He didn't really want to be involved . He was very reluctant to send troops to enforce intergration in Little Rock . But reluctant or not ,he did it . That was in his second term . It seems to me past presidents don't do as well in their second terms .
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 3:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have a question for those who profess to be fearful of Senator Obama because his middle name is Hussein.
Are you also afraid of men named:
Adolph
Benito or Benny
Jack (as in The Ripper)
Charles (as in Manson)
Jeffrey (as in Dahmer)
Jim (as in Jones)
Jones (as in Jim Jones)
Josef or Joseph (as in Stalin or Biden)
Karl or Carl (as in Marx or Rove)
Posted by 2008 (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 3:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by rushinghjr on October 12, 2008 at 12:53 p.m.
2008/ The site that you referred everyone to is just a liberal "trash"site for cases like you! Sorry, I had to call it as I see it!
Well rushing like I said I wasn’t trying to change anyone’s mind, however as I stated I would hope one could be open-minded to read other points of view without being antagonized to the point of sophomoric retorts. I read liberal and conservative sites as I try and get the most points of view possible. However, I do write with respect no matter who I am addressing, even if we disagree, it serves no one’s purpose to be rude. I am sure your reasons for disagreeing with my choice are as important to you as mine are to me.
My question posed earlier regarding why no political signs in town? Was answered by only one person… Posted by southernwoman: “I support Senator Obama in this election. I believe I would be socially ostracized and invite property damage if I placed one of his signs in my yard.” What does that say about this town, even if only one person feels that way it’s one person to many. What kind of a place is Natchez?
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 3:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
For someone who isn't trying to change anyone's mind 2008 those sites you provided links to certainly do have a nasty tone to them- so much so that as a confirmed liberal Democrat I am shocked that this type of hateful rhetoric is being used by President Obama's supporters to promote his campaign. I really don't think he would approve of that sort of verbal violence. How can he bring us together when so many on our side want to continue creating division? Shame on you.
We're gonna spread happiness
We're gonna spread freedom
Obama's gonna change it
Obama's gonna lead 'em.... remember that?
In the world President Obama will usher in 2008 hate speech of all types will be frowned upon- even if it comes from within our own party which will of course dissolve in time as the whole concept of state dissolves in our march toward pure democracy. Since we are the leaders in this movement of love and democracy we should set the example by not linking to hate filled sites!
That goes for the rest of you who call yourselves liberal but get on here to destroy our party by appealing to the lowest common denominator, mob sentiment! Straighten up, you are giving our party a bad name!
Posted by pollym44 (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
rushingjr--------A WANNABE------WHAT????????????
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 3:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And look here 2008, don't condemn our whole local community because one or two closet liberals are afraid to stand up for what is right.
Heavens! If I have to come down to headquarters and spank the lot of you I will! This is the time for unity and throwing off the baskets so our liberal light can shine!
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 4:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Holy cow, I've only been a liberal for a week and I'm already better at it than most of you. How are we going to win this election by behaving as we accuse the other side of behaving? This is a very bad way to start a social revolution.
To answer your question 2008, apparently our national party apparatus realizes we have Mississippi sewn up so why waste money on campaign signs? They also know most of us don't have thirty to sixty dollars to spend on getting our own made so I am sure they will forgive us. A simple lapel pin, a small flag or donkey will do to let others know where we stand.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 4:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Also, for you white voters who haven't made up your mind yet, or you conservatives like Sam who may secretly admire President Obama, but who don't want to vote for a black man, I would like to remind you that President Clinton was our first black president so you won't be contributing to anything radical or morally wrong if you vote for President Obama.
Why don't we discuss some issues for a change? Like, for instance, if I have to buy health insurance for my kids but can only afford it for myself, who will buy mine? Once universal health care at last becomes law we need to figure out how all this is going to work.
Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 6:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
In honor of oldhippie:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/t...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSFSUbMWe...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4yCwqtuv...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMYty1PgH...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsynspIqA...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrsBKGpwi...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPSDnGMzI...
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 6:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
2008...fear of being ostracized or of inviting property damage due to a political sign being placed in your front yard is simply bowing to a fear that is probably misplaced. The folks who received a blue finger for voting in Irag during their first election did so at the risk of their lives. I think the likelyhood of anything serious happening to you is almost nil and is a bit of manufactured drama.
I blog on here under my real name. I will have a McCain sign in my front yard. If it is stolen it will be replaced. If I receive property damage I will help the police capture and convict the perp. I will even protect myself, my family and my property by force of arms if need be, but I will not be silenced.
If you fail to express your political opinion openly you run the risk of helping take us to a Stalin-like closed society where everyone is afraid of everyone and everything.
BTW, his, Stalin's, is the only name you list that I would be nervous about seeing again.
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 6:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Making a choice has been so easy this presidential election year.
My choice to support Senator Obama allows me to vote, without conflict, my conscience, my pocketbook, and for the candidate I believe to be best suited for the job.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 6:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
EnK...I appreciate a true liberal Democrat like yourself, (although Idefinitelymight definitely might have a word to say about the sincerity of your miraculous conversion), decrying the hate language contained on many liberal websites. I will join you by stating it is inappropriate and counterproductive on conservative websites too.
We, you and I, should encourage our candidates to support legislation to immediately silence political disagreement and take the perpetrators of such free speech immediately out to the wood shed and beat the crap out of them. I would say shoot them, but out of an abundant respect for your candidate's stance on gun control, I think that might be a little rude.
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 6:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sam said:
"2008...fear of being ostracized or of inviting property damage due to a political sign being placed in your front yard is simply bowing to a fear that is probably misplaced"
and
"I will have a McCain sign in my front yard"
Sam, I said that, not 2008.
I wouldn't have any fear either if I put up a McCain sign in my neighborhood.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 6:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
southernwoman, my apologies to both you and 2008 for the mixup.
I still don't think you have much to fear. Conservatives tend not to be as virulent nor violent as liberals because most of us are old folks...LOL.
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 7:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sam, I'm okay with your not being violent, although you might have some aspirations to intimidate such as questioning what my significant other might think of me for being critical of his typing errors (actually, my SO would laugh, especially in the context in which I pointed them out and if the typos had done no harm). Let's not go any further into what our significant others might think of us, okay?
I only mentioned the typos because I believe you and others aspired to intimidate Hippie (as if you could intimidate Hippie!!!) by constantly pointing out his constant use of "loose" when he apparently meant "lose".
I was merely trying to say that we all make mistakes (and I thought the typo that allowed me to make a pun was kinda funny, but it's okay with me if you didn't) but you guys became overly defensive, I thought.
Further, I am not afraid that you or any of your friends will damage my property. I believe you will admit the political atmosphere is hostile.
Peace.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I would agree that the emotions run high and much has been said that probably would have been better left unsaid.
I'm glad you pointed out the pun, I clearly missed it...darn, and I take pride in my own skills in the practice of the lowest form of English humor...LOL.
I don't think we were trying to intimidate oldhippie01, but we were responding strongly to his intimidation, name calling, ignorance, lack of facts and dubious military history. Had he been a little less rude he might have met a little more gentle reception of his views.
Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 7:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What happened to the Oldhipster?
He just disappeared.
Maybe he got called on some "classified" mission.
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 7:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sam, you failed to respond to the personal issue.
Do you agree that we not speculate any further on what opinions SOs may have of our personality traits?
Sam said,
"I don't think we were trying to intimidate oldhippie01, but we were responding strongly to his intimidation, name calling, ignorance, lack of facts and dubious military history."
So who did hippie intimidate? Was it bunny?
Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 8:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
He's probably taking a trip down memory lane ! Look at this, he makes so much noise that everybody misses him . Sometimes I wish I knew the identity of all of ya'll .
Posted by iameubu (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 8:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Maybe Oldhip laughed his a$$ of so many times he started utilising other body parts and went POOF!
Seriously though, hope he is ok.
Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 8:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
He was quite the comedian. Maybe he fell and couldn't get up.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 8:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
southernwoman...I agreed and so I didn't respond to the personal issue...LOL.
Oldhippie tries to intimidate anyone who takes issue with anything he says.
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 8:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Okay, Sam, it's a deal.
Peace.
Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 8:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's too bad hippie isn't around. I was hoping he'd take a look at the links I posted. I thought that maybe a little reality might have a positive impact on the guy.
Posted by iameubu (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 9:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
For your Sunday evening entertainment. Before settling down to 'Space Pirate Radio' at midnight.
The American Socialist States
http://www.youtube.com/user/machosaucepr...
or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acQluy7ny...
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 9:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sam, under President Obama you will still be able to shoot people, but you won't be able to do it with a .308 or .322
Posted by redusmfan (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 9:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Don't look a gift horse in the mouth!! He is not here and it is nice.
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 10:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
EnKiKur, aww shoot, (pun intended for Sam), I won't be able to go squirrel hunting.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 10:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
EnK...Aww...I wasn't going to use firearms at all... but I realize that under the new Obama World Order that even conservatives must become somewhat more liberal to survive...guess I'll just have to get rid of the .357mag, .44 Navy Colt, Walther P38 9mm parabellum, AR15 and M107 Barrett...DARN!
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 10:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
southernwoman...thanks for the joke, you must have grown up on a punny farm.
Do I have to give up my M203 grenade launcher...it's really cool and I like it a lot...will Obama let me keep it?...please, pretty please.
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 10:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Seriously, I believe we need to close the gun show loopholes for purchasing automatic weapons, and quickly.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 10:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Have you considered switching to nail bombs for squirrels Sam? That's what Bill Ayer's girlfriend was making when she got blown up.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 10:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What loopholes specifically and how?
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 10:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Automatic weapons can be purchased at some gun shows without a background check.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 10:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I thought it was already illegal to own a fully automatic weapon unless you represent the government.
Hey Sam, now that McCain is campaigning for President Obama, are you still going to vote for him? Your party should have nominated Hillary, at least she would have tried to win.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 10:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh, you are talking about semi-automatic weapons southernwoman. I was worried for a minute there.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 10:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Squirrels...tree rats...nature's speed bumps...maybe bombing is the answer to those pesky little critters...they're too cute and tasty for their own good...always stealing the birdfood out of the feeder...they should immediately be relegated to endangered species status!...uh, oh...PETA's knocking on my door...what could they want?
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 10:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I see you are avoiding my question about whether or not you are going to vote for President Obama now that McCain is supporting him- typical conservative evasion.
Posted by iameubu (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 10:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Like most possibilities for social interaction around here, this board is a closed loop system.
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 10:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks for the correction, EnKiKur.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 10:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Actually EnK, unless the law changed while I wasn't looking, it is perfectly legal to own an fully automatic weapon if you have the proper documentation and approval from your county sheriff. I've known several collectors in town who own them. Heck, for all I know you might have owned one before you walked the road to Damascus and saw Obama.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think when they finally get the national id in that will take care of the background check problem southernwoman. It's just a matter of computing power and that is growing by leaps every year.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 11:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
EnK...I haven't given up yet...the fat lady may be warming up, but she isn't singing yet.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 11:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, you are right, you have to have some kind of special permit but I thought it was federal.
There was this story earlier this year about a guy who loaned a rifle to a friend and the friend fired 120 rounds in semi mode at a rifle range, then the gun jammed and fired three rounds. The owner of the gun was convicted in federal court of owning a machine gun:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTI...
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 11:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
EnK...it may well be a federal permit, but it has to have local approval from the SO...I bet they're difficult to get these days.
Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 1:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sam! Do not give up yet! The battle is just beginning! Some liberals are just lost causes? After the battle, then the real "WAR" will begin?
Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 3:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
iameubu, "Like most possibilities for social interaction around here, this board is a closed loop system"
Don't feel left out. It looks like our posters are experiencing some new found unity. I'm sure there's room for everyone. I suggest that come voting day we all meet for refreshments. Then we can all walk down to the polls, hand-in-hand. :)
Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 4:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
EnKiKur, "The owner of the gun was convicted in federal court of owning a machine gun"
Thanks. I read the article. They said convicted of "transferring" (loaning) to someone else. And went on to say they did not get him for ownership or the borrower for possesion. Only him for transferring. Strange. But ain't this being brought to us by the same foks that so brilliantly lit up the Waco skys and put Ruby Ridge on the map?
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
John McCain's campaign strategy of the week is to go on Letterman and kick Senator Obama's backside at the debate on Wednesday night.
Apparently, McCain has also surfaced with a plan for additional tax cuts.
In the meantime, I guess Sarah Palin will continue to tell us she and John know who our enemies are.
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 10:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
southernlady, would you be comfortable should Sarah Palin become president, say, during the next year?
Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Geez....SW would you be comfortable with Biden? I surely wouldn't. What is your point???
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well I see you guys have been able to get along here without me while I was having fun this weekend.
It does look like you mostly had to get fairly substanceless in your posts, He, he!
The only thing I see that I would offer anything on was the Ike worship discussion between Belle and Sammoron.
Ike was very popular here but his role in Guatemala's and Iran's "replacing pro-Soviet" governments was far more that "support".
Ike actually installed the Shah, and it was more over oil ownership and development than it was a caution against Soviet Expansionism. That led to 25 years of Iran hardening against us, creation of the Savak Secret Police, and ultimately the overthrow of the Shah, the Hostage Crisis Carter endured, supporting Saddam in killing a million in the Iran/Iraq War, us shooting down one of their airliners and the rise to power of the Theocracy that now rules that country.
It stands as an example to Muslims all over that area what we are capable of, and if things had taken a different course, we may not have the problems today we do with Alqaida -- we lost the Iranian Oil anyway, but not before the US British companies there made megabucks during the Shah.
His Guatemalan efforts were also far more than "support". Fighting a candidate who had been elected to nationalize the holdings of foreign megacorps like United Fruit, he put in place a string of right wing dictators with atrocious human rights records and preserved the incredible poverty of the region.
Most conservatives have a tendnecy not to give a flip about the people they manipulate, so I would expect Sam's and Belle's assessments of the Eisenhower years to reflect the US/Soviet angst and not mention the humans they manipulated to undertake their uberconflict.
Ike was popular but he did many things covertly (instead of with the military) that hamper us to this day. Almost none of the things he accomplished covertly became known until many years after his rule, but his speech on how military/industrialists will always find you a war you MUST fight is poignant after the Bush years and the conservative idiots who failed to understand Ike's warning.
Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 11:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Charlie Brown's Teacher is back...wuh wuh...wuh wuh wuh.
Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 12:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeah ,I do find all this very interesting . Where were the Democrats when all this was happening ? I'll tell you where they were . In Vietnam . Ike's administration was still close enough to WWII to be feeling the pain . Of course they were still concerned about the Soviets . Even Kennedy was,and rightfully so . We should still be worried about them and not turn our backs to them .You can call it manipulation if you want . I call it leadership . There will be things known about Bush in years to come also, as it has with all presidents . That's a lot of hindsight . We can't see into the future but I hope we have more leaders like "Ike"
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 2:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Geez....SW would you be comfortable with Biden? I surely wouldn't. What is your point???
hi bunny, I'm interested in other women's honest opinions of Sarah Palin.
Yes, I would feel comfortable with Senator Biden as president.
Posted by natchezsouthside (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 3:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The investigation on Palin's abuse of authority is out and it is pretty bad. She is in it up to her neck.
Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 3:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You must have read the wrong report NatchezSS.
Posted by natchezsouthside (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 4:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
from conservative Andrew Sullivan:
The Branchflower report ... makes for good reading, if only because it convincingly answers a question nobody had even thought to ask: Is the Palin administration shockingly amateurish? Yes, it is. Disturbingly so.
The 263 pages of the report show a co-ordinated application of pressure on Monegan so transparent and ham-handed that it was almost certain to end in public embarrassment for the governor ... Monegan consistently emerges as the adult in these conversations, while the Palin camp displays a childish impetuousness and sense of entitlement.
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 4:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This excerpt is from an article by Frank Rice:
"From the start, there have always been two separate but equal questions about race in this election. Is there still enough racism in America to prevent a black man from being elected president no matter what? And, will Republicans play the race card? The jury is out on the first question until Nov. 4. But we now have the unambiguous answer to the second: Yes.
McCain, who is no racist, turned to this desperate strategy only as Obama started to pull ahead. The tone was set at the Republican convention, with Rudy Giuliani’s mocking dismissal of Obama as an “only in America” affirmative-action baby. We also learned then that the McCain campaign had recruited as a Palin handler none other than Tucker Eskew, the South Carolina consultant who had worked for George W. Bush in the notorious 2000 G.O.P. primary battle where the McCains and their adopted Bangladeshi daughter were slimed by vicious racist rumors."
One of the reasons I do not trust Senator McCain's judgement is: Desperate people do desperate things.
Posted by natchezsouthside (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 4:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
also from Andrew Sullivan regarding Troopergate:
As I've said, Palin's lies are not like most political lies. They are not spin or vagueness or misdirection or clever use of words. They are simply statements that what has been empirically shown to be true is false, or vice-versa. They are denials of basic reality. They are a function of some kind of psychological detachment from reality. She either has a serious psychiatric problem or her mindset makes Bush's funamentalist psyche seem positively flexible. In either case, her presence on the ticket simply makes a vote for McCain unacceptable. She should be a deal-breaker for any rational person.
Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 5:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sarah Palin broke NO LAWS! Alaska has a unique CHARTER of Government that states the GOVERNOR has the ultimate and final authority of STATE EMPLOYEES as to their Employee Status. There are several states in the USA which has the same form and very similar to Alaska's! The liberals are very jealous of Palin amd McCain! Palin's EX Brother-In-Law is a No-count Alaska Sate Trooper, who has broken several State Laws and even threaten Palin's father with Physical HARM! The Superintendent of the Alaska State Police was fired for carrying out his duties of following of his job! I would have fired him to!
Posted by time4change (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 5:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
In a TV ad, McCain says Obama "lied" about his association with William Ayers, a former bomb-setting, anti-war radical from the 1960s and '70s. We find McCain's claim to be groundless. New details have recently come to light, but nothing Obama said previously has been shown to be false.
(for more)
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/...
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 5:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
rushinghjr said:
"Sarah Palin broke NO LAWS! Alaska has a unique CHARTER of Government that states the GOVERNOR has the ultimate and final authority of STATE EMPLOYEES as to their Employee Status. There are several states in the USA which has the same form and very similar to Alaska's! The liberals are very jealous of Palin amd McCain! Palin's EX Brother-In-Law is a No-count Alaska Sate Trooper, who has broken several State Laws and even threaten Palin's father with Physical HARM! The Superintendent of the Alaska State Police was fired for carrying out his duties of following of his job! I would have fired him to!"
I agree that Palin's ex-brother-in-law sounds like an unsavory character.
I don't know Alaskan law, but if Sarah had the authority to do so, why didn't she just flat out fire this man?
Why did she go behind the scenes instead, having her husband call the superintendent?
Does Alaskan have a law against threatening someone with physical harm? If so, why was the trooper not prosecuted?
Another charge was made that the trooper tasered a child. Does Alaska have a law against endangering a child? If so, why was the trooper not prosecuted?
The trooper has also been accused of drinking on the job
and illegally killing a moose.
So why wasn't the trooper fired already?
How did this man get hired on as a trooper in the first place?
That's what I want to know.
Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 6:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh yes, Andrew Sullivan. The same "conservative" who's supporting Obama, opposed Palin from the start, and was one of the nuts spreading the rumor that Palin's Down Syndrome afflicted child was in fact her daughters child. Regarding "Troopergate," why don't you go back and read the actual findings of the report that I referenced in an earlier post (10/11 at 8:21 a.m.) instead of reading the opinions of biased commentators.
Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 6:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
time4change, Obama made the ridiculous claim that when he launched his political career in Ayers house that he didn't know about his past. Funny, he also claimed he didn't know anything about his pastor of 20 years' radical views either. Ayers was a well known figure in Chicago politics. For Obama to claim he knew nothing about him is either a lie, or he is incredibly obtuse. As to the claim about Wright, surely even you die-hard libs don't buy that one.
*Vote Ostrama 2012!*
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 7:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The liberals persist in complaining about lies spread about Obama, but continue to put out lies about McCain and Palin in far more abundance and virulence, refuse to condemn the liars like the Reverend Wright and John Lewis, beg McCain to play the race card, and never, ever apologize and take action against those who spread the lies.
McCain in the mean time defended Obama as a good man, a family man who cares about this country, he has condemned those of his followers who have lied against Obama, he has refused to bring the Reverend Wright issue into the race in order to avoid all appearances of racism, he has apologized for the actions of some overly zealous supporters time and time again.
I even apologized for a post that I made of a TV transcript that had been represented to me as authentic. As soon as I apologized I asked for removal of my own post. I also emailed the person who sent it to me and advised them not to spread the misinformation. He emailed me back thanking me and promising he would take that action and contact the person who sent it to him.
I don't believe many Obama supporters would go to such lengths to return civility to campaigning, at least I haven't seen any indication of it yet, except in the case of Obama himself, who is too smart to participate in the mudslinging himself, but he won't rein his supporters in to the degree McCain has.
He should rake John Lewis over the coals for the character assasination Congressman Lewis has spewed forth, just as McCain stopped the dumb "Off With His Head" chant heard so much on liberal TV lately...funny, liberal news outlets only showed the chant and not the stopping of it. Not one liberal, that I'm aware of, has stood up and publically and loudly condemned John Lewis.
I believe McCain. I don't believe the DailyKos and the Huffington Post...no one should.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 7:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
BTW, the room has been reinfested with gnats, someone call the fumigators.
Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 9:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I've been working most of the day, making the money to pay for the gas, to go to work tomorrow, so I haven't had the chance to get into this little spat. However, I will say this and this is all I'm gonna say (believe it or not). I trust McCain more than I trust Obama. Research on both has convinced me McCain is the only choice we have at this point. I would also feel very confident if Palin were to become President for any reason, more so than I would feel if Biden were to become President. I can't change anyone's mind, I refuse to post youtube sites, and I don't care what anyone else's opinion is. And here is the kicker - I believe whoever is elected it will be because God wants him or her there. If, as a Christian, I truely believe EVERYTHING is in the hands of God, then why should I believe He would not be able to handle the election? I know some of you are saying, yeah this would make an easy out, but that is not the reason for my belief. If I truely believe the Bible is the word of God, then I have to believe we are near the end times if not actually in them. And the end times will bring hate and destruction, which we are already seeing. Just look at the posts on this blog. Twenty years ago people would be ashamed of themselves fighting like this! How many would let their children call others names like moron or idiot? I have been guilty of some name calling myself, and for that I do apologize, but lately this whole thing has gone overboard. Everyone - vote for the person you truely believe will lead our nation best. Don't vote for a party or a race - vote for a person.
Posted by iameubu (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 9:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have lived both sides of the political spectrum.
1968 Nixon
1972 McGovern
1976 Ford
1980 Barry Commoner & Angela Davis
1984 Reagan (Wow Batman, he's done a pretty good job so far)
1988 Jesse Jackson (After finding out how Bush had been shoved down Reagans throat in 1980)
1992 Perot
1996 Libertarian, don't remember his name,
2000 Bush
2004 Bush
2008 ABO (anyone but O)
The left side views everything through the eyes of a child. All things based on emotion. Reason and logic not required.
The right side are the headmasters who give you a swat when you colour outside the line.
The OB acolytes are mostly emotional. "Look at him! He's so beautiful." Anyone have some water? Some don't care what he stands for because he looks somewhat like them. Others, see more handouts. Then there are many who just hate. They hate anything they perceive to be the 'other side'.
Mc side sees the loss of everything they and their ancestors worked for about to enter the sewer system.
Voters please read this:
Washington's Farewell Address 1796
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washin...
Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 9:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
In regards to the Sarah Palin matter in Wasilla, Alaska, I would suggest that if anyone is concerned about the incidents regarding her ex Brother-In-Law, get in touch with the District Attorney for the applicable County where Wasilla is located. To be honest with you, Palin followed the LAW and fired the Superintendent of the Alaska State Law as defined by their Charter or Constitution. Another fact is that the actions of what happened in Alaska is NO BUSINESS of anyone in the State of Mississippi! In other words everyone needs to wake up in America and get a life and realize what is going on with the spread of socialism in America today! The DemocRATS want to see capitalism destroyed, the distribution of wealth, and the spread of a Social Order that follows the order of a welfare state. Remember, Vote McCain-Palin! The life you save may be your own!
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 10:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
iameubu...WOW, 36% track record, maybe you should rethink your strategy....I'm doing pretty well at 63%.
Posted by redusmfan (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 10:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To all:
These are excerpts from Barrack Hussien Obama's books, please get the word out in the next few weeks. It is scary, he is not for us, he is against us completely.
From Dreams of My Father:'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'
From Dreams of My Father : 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.'
From Dreams of My Father:'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.'
From Dreams of My Father: 'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.'
From Dreams of My Father:'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself , the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'
And FINALLY the Most Damning one of ALL of them!!!
From Audacity of Hope:'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'
We CANNOT have someone with this type of mentality running our GREAT nation!! I don't care whether you a Democrat or a Conservative. We CANNOT turn ourselves over to this type of character in a President. PLEASE help spread the word.
Posted by iameubu (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 10:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Don't care if I'm on the winning side or not. Vote how I feel at the time. Though I did have one of those bumper stickers that said " Don't blame me, I voted for McGovern".
Listen to G. Liddy now on XM. Good American
Was wrong in 1972. Though McGovern has even come out against the OB
Fell for a real babe who was Peace and Freedom in 1980
Was a small farmer in 1988
1992 General Motors paid Perot huge sum of $ some years earlier to "go away" after had tried to reform a company on its last legs due to lack of innovation and caving to unions
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 10:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
iameubu...I can understand some of that because I went through some of it...I actually agree with McGovern that labor union votes should be private...so does my wife, she is a Teamster and votes Republican..."real babe", Angela Davis...you're kidding right?...if that ain't sleeping with the devil.
Posted by iameubu (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 10:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
sam Whoops! The babe was Cathy something who I met at a party in Santa Barbara. She had been a Congressional Page the previous semester. Went home with me that night and I was suddenly a Peace and Freedom Party worker! Spent many hours putting flyers on peoples doorsteps.
Elections to decide who runs the free world really shouldn't be decided by those who have yet to 'grow up'.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 11:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Like I said, I can understand that, been through some of it...almost voted for Carter for similar reasons, but I just couldn't figure anyone thinking Angela Davis was a "babe"...LOL.
Found myself and my children walking a Teamster strike line when I'm an avowed anti-labor union and small business conservative...go figure, you some pretty dumb things in the name of love...LOL.
Posted by iameubu (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 11:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Not love. Lust. Never saw her again after the election.
Unions once had their place, but not now. Company I worked for back in the Peace and Freedom era was taken over by Mobil Oil, which was union. I don't remember the exact circumstance but an hourly employee I tried to correct said "I'm a half Black half Mexican female union member and I can do the job any way I f...... want"
Made me think.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 11:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sam, how do you feel about the Bar Association and the American Medical Association?
And why are you anti-labor union? Do you own a mega-corporation? What is your opposition to workers bargaining collectively?
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 11:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I gotta say when my wife has worried about her job I've had to calm her by saying the only way you could be safer is to be ethnic also...if the union won't save your job the government will, no matter how bad an employee you are...I don't like to say or think that, but it's the truth and it shouldn't be.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 11:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And how long do you think that 1000 point gain will last? As long as a FEMA check? Reckon the plunge protection team, now that it has unlimited access to future tax revenues, had anything to do with today's gains?
I was listening to Howard Bloom talking about the tulip bubble last night and he said something interesting in between promoting his leftist agenda (he is further to the left than I am and that is pretty far left). He observed that Holland's government could have stepped in and maintained the tulip bubble through the crash. Looking back, can you see that would have done any good? Having the government support the unrealistic price of tulips? That is essentially what is being done with our banking system, price support. Naturally so since the Fed's focus has always been on price support.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 11:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
EnK...as much as I would like to joust, I've probably already made enough trouble between me and my wife about unions if she finds out...and I'm sure she will...oh, what the heck.
They aren't unions, they are free associations of professionals who aren't required to belong to the associations to obtain or keep their jobs. They do, however, hold too much power, simply by peer pressure...as does the association I belong to the American Institute of Architects.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 11:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Enk...about 90% longer than the down days do...the stock market over the last 100 years has never failed over ten year intervals to make money.
Bloom would certainly be the guy to talk about tiptoeing through the tulips I suppose.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 11:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Snicker...I guess being a newbie, you're a blooming liberal now?
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 11:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
They may not be unions but they do join together to collectively wield power, as do corporations. I see no harm in workers doing it as well especially within the context of the industrial system unions coalesced in.
The only place I do object to the presence of unions is in government. Particularly the education unions. By no stretch of the imagination can teachers be said to suffer from danger of exploitation.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 11:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think you ought to investigate that claim you make about the 10 year interval money making history of the stock market Sam. Compare it with the every year history of increase in inflation over the same time period.
The 10 year claim is one of those statistics that come after the lies and damn lies part of the statement. There have been far more losers in the stock market than there have been winners, and that is where the gains come from. There are only gains as long as there are more buyers than sellers, and the whole point of investing is to become a seller some day. What matters is what you can sell for when you need to sell. As long as everyone is buying everyone is making money (or appears to be).
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 12:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
By the way Sam, that last comment of yours was the first time my feelings have been hurt as a liberal. I hope you are proud of yourself.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 12:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I will investigate further, but I thought I had that on pretty good sources like the Wall Street Journal, but I'll check again...as southernwoman will attest, when I'm wrong I'm not afraid to admit it...perhaps I'll be wrong tomorrow, who knows?
For every winner there is a loser (as opposed to "looser", a bow to our recently AWOL typographically challenged liberal)...unfortunately, but the losers don't have to remain so...that's the paradoxical beauty of the capitalist system unlike your recently adopted share-the-wealth revived Huey P. Long corpse socialism.
It is a grand game...the winner knows when to play, when not to, and when to get out...very Darwinian don't you think? It only gets screwed up when the government protects the ones who shouldn't have played the game. Like playing no limit poker and the dealer keeps giving money to the guy that got a bad beat...not a fair playing field...socialism is ruining the game.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 12:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
EnK...I am so sorry, I forgot you were a virgin liberal...I should have been more delicate and sensitive to your feelings...my sincerest apologies...Humph, ha, hmm...I'm sorry did I snort?
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 12:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
My point is that apparent wealth is not the same as real wealth Sam, and only real wealth is important. Wall Street wealth is too often only imaginary and serves to perpetuate a system that is inherently immoral or, for the religious, sinful.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 12:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
EnK...have you become a backsliding liberal so soon?...you're not suppose to consider religion...you are now a secular progressive...never fear, I take my profits and protect them and then go again, so the profits aren't imaginary, at least as far as I'm concerned...caveat emptor!
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 12:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Say goodnight Gracie.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 12:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Inflation makes part of your profits imaginary and taxes eat up a lot of the rest, so in the end, how much profit is there really? It is all part of the same magical belief system that money can make money when it cannot. Money is useful only for what it can buy.
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 8:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I dare say the clock is ticking and in many parts of the country person after person is becoming more uncomfortable with the McCain/Palin ticket. Wonder how that could be???
The only people who cannot adjust their vote to the circumstances on the ground appear to be the hyper-ideological, the hopeless racist, and the incessantly tax-cut or handout-motivated.
The rest of us will decide this election. He,he!
Posted by straightshooter1 (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I dare say you must be a fat lady singing uhuh.
Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If Owampy is elected, The Good Ole' USA will come a 3rd World Country. The DemocRATS want Capitalism to fail! If you liberals don't care for a conservative form of government, leave the United States and move! Owhampy needs to get a life and move back to his beloved Kenya! You know, his grandmother on his father's side still claims that he was born in Kenya!
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 10:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Rushingjr, failing to get respect for his one-liners and special capitalizations, demands that those who disagree with him leave the country.
Citing African sources, he attempts to slur Obama with the stark accusation he is African Born.
Meanwhile Republican operatives checking on rushingjr's successes and failures decide that his invention of the DemoRATS word game is clever enough to give him a job cleaning toilets in the Mexican worker's restroom at RNC headquarters -- but only if he does it at minimum wage.
Delighted, rushingjr declares that he is honored and that job creation is what this nation is all about.....he, he!
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 11:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yh, as a new liberal I need some help understanding job creation. How is our new President, the second black one, going to create jobs? I already know about the one million new domestic based homeland security jobs, and the three million green job corps jobs, but beyond that how is it going to be done? Will President Obama just say "let there be jobs" and the jobs will be there, or will he create more new agencies like the first two I mentioned? I wonder if we could do that on the local level as well to help out our new President. All we would need to do is to raise taxes enough to pay some new local government employees a fair wage, about ten dollars an hour. We could double employment locally in a short time if people already working would just share half of what they make with the city. Then we would have twice the number of people working and with the money multiplier effect everybody would be a lot more prosperous on the same amount of money!
Posted by destiny (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 12:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What obama fans do not, can not, or will not understand, is one certain fact. McCain voters do not have the time to worry about these silly polls that have obama in the lead. They are too busy working to put food on the table, to pay the bills, and help with kids homework etc. They don't have time to sit and post on these blogs or any other blogs. Neither the time to sit on their backsides waiting for handouts like welfare checks or any other checks from the government.
But be assured, and you can take this to the bank, MCCAIN voters will be in one accord on Nov.4. Then the fat lady can sing as President McCain assumes his office.
Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 1:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Enk, I can't explain anything to you from a liberal perspective, sorry.
There is one major flaw Obama hasn't addressed. The people need to have the desire to work. Why work when you can sit at home and collect welfare.
Posted by natchezsouthside (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 2:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, gee, given the long term GOP reign over Mississippi, you would think McCain/Palin would be following Mississippi's map of success and leadership that the GOP has had in place for decades.
Among the 50 states Mississippi is first in per capita income! First in all education standings! First in job growth! First in new business development! Thats what you get with decades of GOP rule in Mississippi!
What? You mean Mississippi is still at the bottom of nearly all state rankings, in spite of decades of GOP rule?
How can that be?? How can Mississippi be in 50th place with the GOP running the state for decades?
According to the righties here, the GOP can fix everything! Elect the GOP and all will be fixed! 50th place and ruled by the GOP??? Nah!! Can't be!!!
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 2:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wacky ideas that come from the left are no more helpful than wacky ideas that come from the right natchezsouthside, as a confirmed liberal I can admit that. Mississippi's per capita income is only one half of the top ranked state natchezsouthside. It is probably not like that due to Mississippi politics, but likely has something to do with the large number of people we have who don't have jobs and don't seek them out and are perfectly happy to live as they do. We are also the most obese state, allegedly.
The top six ranked states are all states in the northeastern financial sector, the same states who have sought to subdue the rest of us since the union began. I bet there is a lot more income disparity there than in Mississippi. They are rich because they suck our money out of us one way or another.
Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 2:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Precisely my point, they are perfectly content to sit at home on the government dime and not have a job. Although this occurs all over the country, for some reason it's more prevelant in the deep South.
Posted by natchezsouthside (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 3:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
But you both are confirming my point. With the GOP in charge of MIssissippi, why were people allowed to languish on welfare and social aids. Why have the GOP led gov't not lured industry and jobs to Miss? Why have the GOP leaders not found ways to fix problems?
If, as many assert, the GOP is the answer in this election, how come their legislative agendas have not worked for decades in Miss?
You can't blame those on welfare for ALL the last place stats.
And how and why have the GOP, in decades of rule, not figured out how to advance the quality of life in Miss and improve rankings.
We aren't talking a couple years--we are talking decades--GOP Gov after GOP Gov and GOP legislatures.
Where is their agenda? Where is their leadership? And after so many decades of bottom-of-the-barrel rankings, why do people still vote for the GOP. They have failed you miserably.
I think Miss. could be the birthplace of a new party--'cause if any place needs new ideas and new leadership it is Miss.
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 3:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Enkik I would like to help you out with your understanding but I think you have a problem or two that will keep you from understanding and being lifted.
First is your sardonic wit -- a gigantic mote in the eye -- despite it's entertaining nature to the nerdy among us.
Second, your apparent insistence that everything follow your ideology, and that your ideology must be extreme. Most folks do not allow themselves such extreme latitude in ideology, instead taking the tack that somewhere in the middle must be more correct. You might be more comfortable there.
Ideology is a way of seeing in the ideal -- the big picture. To go from the sidelines to one side or the other ideologically en extremis is unnatural save some extreme life trauma -- or a lifelong inclination toward extreme ideology. There are actually people who are not comfortable unless they throw themselves up against one wall or the other -- that way their choices are easier because they only have one direction. You may be one of those.
The other side of the coin are the ideologically extreme out of laziness. I don't think that is your problem. Those types usually insist on using an ideological base that also solves social bonding problems -- multiplexing political, spiritual and social needs into one feild of endeavor. They usually have poor thinking skills being predisposed to such a mammoth mulitplex -- too many thoughts vying for the mind's attention tends to lead to internal compromise.
As for jobs, just say to yourself that Democrats are Republican lite, and they will create jobs the same way the Republicans do -- as this is generally true.
The one difference is that Republicans have not noticed that the supply-side bucket is leaking into international commerce, so tax cuts do not exclusively go to create jobs here -- but some are siphoned to China and India. Therefore the prohibition of keeping the tax money from middle incomers and giving it back to the wealthy is no longer in vogue as an ideologically Biblical economic fact.
Democrats are apt to inject cash back into the lower classes on the assumption that it will get spent here a time or two before some investor class individual invests in Pakistani witgets, like I would.
Me, I like to understand all the ideologies, and the vote pragmatist. Either liberal or conservative ideology could create a viable system if applied well, I suppose.
Personally, I am only interested in giving Republicans a time out based on their continuing barf of untruths that has been coming out of their mouths for the last 25 years of so. Without some quiet time they could lose our asses for us. You could just choose to be that sort of pragmatist and save yourself some ideological grief.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 3:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
hmmm, I guess I have to admit that since my Obama epiphany I have forgotten to realize how extremely left he is. Thank you for reminding me of that but I will not allow it to diminish my devotion to him or the party. I would have thought you would have some praise for my voice of moderation in the discussions here, so this is the second time my feelings have been hurt since I became a liberal.
I am more interested in the issues than in the personalities, my adoration for President Obama nothwithstanding, so I ask again for your help.
Is it our position that an egg is part of the chicken, or something separate from it? If the egg leaves the chicken, can the chicken survive? What is our offical position on this as pragmatic liberals?
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 4:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Don't be so down on Mississippi natchezsouthside. In terms of numbers of people living in poverty and on social aid Democratic Illinois beats Mississippi hands down. So does New York.
Posted by natchezsouthside (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As I am not a liberal, I have to pass on offering their perspective on your question.
Posted by natchezsouthside (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 4:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
That may well be, but then why is Miss. last in almost all state rankings? There are dozens on all sorts of subjects apart from welfare recipents on which Miss consistently comes up last.
Why doesn't the GOP seem to be able to lead Miss to 45th? 40th?
Why after all these decades have they led Miss only to 50th?
Is re-electing the same party with the same re-tredded ideas over and over the problem, or the solution?
Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 4:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So let me get this straight, the Democrats want to "inject" cash back into the lower classes on the assumption that it will get spent here. Am I to understand from this comment, yeahuhuh, that you are one of the 47% of intellectually challenged in this country who actually believes that raising taxes on the top 5% 'helps' the economy? Let's, for the sake of clarity, take a real life example and examine this redistributionist notion.
A friend of mine is a general surgeon. He came from a very humble background. To say it was lower middle class would be generous. But my friend was smart, he studied hard, made good grades. When he graduated from high school, he attended college with scholarships, loans and a part-time job.
After he completed his undergraduate work, finishing at the top of his class, again through hard work and boundless determination, he entered medical school. After four years of medical school, a year of internship, and many years as a resident physician where he was sometimes forced to work as many as 36 hours straight for very little pay, he completed his medical training.
During the course of his medical training, he accumulated hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. What my friend did, in other words, was take advantage of the opportunities that this great country affords everyone.
Fast forward to today. Comrade Obama says he wants to raise taxes on anybody making over $250,000. It's only fair, he says. Then, he claims, he wants to cut the taxes of the bottom 95%. One problem with that claim is that the bottom 35% don't pay taxes, so they'll just get a check from the govt. In other words, Obama will take my friends hard earned and well deserved money, and give it to people who chose not to take advantage of what this great country has to offer. Who instead have become non-producing drags on society. Many of these people are my friends patients, who can't pay, but whom he treats anyway, often without the slightest hint of appreciation.
Also, my friends practice is a small business. So, as a direct result of the tax increases, he'll be forced to lay off employees.
But isn't it only fair? My friend, who has worked hard his entire life, is being punished for that hard work and success, while those who lay around waiting for the govt to give them something are rewarded.
Though, I suppose when they use their new welfare payments to buy alcohol, cigarettes and drugs, they will be spending the money here at home and helping the economy. Of course, I guess the people who work for my friend who'll lose their jobs are just out of luck. But hey, what's fair is fair, right?
Posted by natchezsouthside (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 5:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
so, I'm confused about those 35% who don't pay taxes, so they will get a check...
That 35% who you say Obama is giving a check to... aren't they already getting a check from George Bush for the tax cuts he gave them? And doesn't Bush want to make permanent the checks he is giving those 35%?
Wow, first they are getting a check from Bush and now they are going to get ANOTHER check on top of Bush's check, from Obama.
Man! I wish I knew that! I would be one of those that 35% Bush was already giving checks to!
Who knew that is the way the IRS hands out money!
Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 5:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, ntchz, you are correct. I take it from the tone of your post that you either don't believe it or wasn't aware of what Obama and the Dems are planning. Forgive me if I'm not surprised.
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 5:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Like I said Enkik, you should suspect you view the world through sardine-colored glasses.
Oh, and you will constantly have hurt feelings as a liberal.
Eventually you will callous over, and you can eat two conservatives before breakfast, because they are really school fish far more dependent on government and society than are the ideologues of the left. In the meantime the other guys opening shot is you should leave your country if you think differently than them. That sort of insult gets as easy to swallow as weak tea.
Tuff up honeychile -- you ain't felt suffering yet, you are too interested in your own ideological whims to have faced the raging bear or the crazed eagle.
The upside is that liberal girls are far more fun than conservative girls. If that doesn't matter to you maybe the right would be a better side. he,he!
Posted by natchezsouthside (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 5:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
kmb: one other thing. Since you obviously left out stating that YOUR taxes would also be going up, I am guessing that you qualify as one of those in the 95% noted by Obama who will get a tax cut.
So are you saying you are not taking the tax cut? Are going to turn your tax cut over to your friend making more than $250K? Or are you giving it to the IRS?
Can you clarify for us?
Posted by natchezsouthside (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 5:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
well kmb: so are you saying you didn't support Bush's tax cut either?
Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 5:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Obama is not going to cut taxes. How can he fund the federal government by taxing only 5% of the nation?
Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 6:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes ntchz, my taxes are also going up. I won't tell you if I fall into the top 5%, it's none of your business. But another part of the Obama fantasy is that only the top 5% will see a tax increase. Economists who have reviewed his plan say that actually the top 20% will see their taxes increase. And if you think Obama is going to cut anybodys taxes, I've got a bridge to nowhere to sell you.
You probably don't know this, but during his 2004 Senate run he promised a middle-class tax cut. But once he was elected he didn't propose a single piece of legislation that would have decreased middle-class taxes. And when he had the chance to vote for such a decrease, he voted against it. 94 times! Oh wait, I'm sorry, it was only 54.
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 6:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
natchezsoutside -- don't let Enkikur pull your chain.
When he said he numbers of assistance people in Illinois and New York were greater than in Mississippi he forgot to mention the populations of these states dwarf Mississippi.
We do hold very high PER CAPITA ratings. You are right.
Free enterprise governors and the wisdom of the marketplace are accurately reflected in Mississippi's figures -- especially before the Civil Rights Bill, when things were much worse and conservatives ran the state like they really wanted to.
Shame on you Marty. Not everybody is a nerd.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 9 p.m. (Suggest removal)
natchezSS...it should be remembered that many of our GOP governors had to work with Democratic legislatures which hampered their efforts.
Additionally, we had some Democratic governors in between who almost immediately set out to undo the good done by GOP governors as soon as they reached office...Ronnie Musgrove comes leaping to mind. Now as a failed governor he's trying to ride Obama's coattails into the Senate.
Furthermore, to date, most of the local county and municipal elected officials have always been Democrats and remain so...maybe you should look to where the actual power is wielded, i.e. the legislature and local government, in order lay blame for Mississippi's shortcomings.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 9:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
kmbjd40...I was about to call you on that 94 vote number...he hasn't been present in the Senate often enough to have voted on tax decreases. I'm surprised he even cast the 54 votes. Hard to vote if you ain't there.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 9:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
natchezSS...you can't raise spending and give tax cuts without massive deficit spending...that's what GWB did in spite of McCain's and other's advice against it and opposition to it. If you cut taxes to help the economy you must cut spending to offset the tax cuts.
That difference between McCain and GWB isn't going to be acknowledged however by liberals or the liberal media...they prefer to chant about "McCain is four more years of Bush", which is more than just false.
Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 9:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Not to mention the democratic Congress, add in the Obama factor and we are hosed!!!
Posted by iameubu (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 9:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff79/...
Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 10:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
LMFAO iameubu....classic!
Posted by natchezsouthside (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 11:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
thanks for the lecture sam.
But i am well versed in taxes and spending.
So what big across the board spending cuts are coming when McCain wins?
Oh, and the moderates--we aren't noting any difference between McCain and Bush either--'cause there really isn't any anymore. There use to be, but McCain abandonned those principles to try and get elected.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)