Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 3:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Would you Obama supporters please take a minute to explain to me why Barack Obama is qualified to be President? You criticize Palin as being too inexperienced to be vice president, but I never hear a discussion of why Obama is qualified to be President. And "he gives a great speech" or "he wants to bring change" aren't qualifications.

I suspect I'll get no response, because there is no credible response, but I'm hopeful.

Posted by natchezsouthside (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 3:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

kmb: Anything anyone would say, you would discount. So why not go and do you own research--read up on Obama and his policies. There are plenty of neutral sources out there--comparison studies and information. You can figure out for yourself why so many people are supporting him. Left, Right and Center.

If you really want to know, you will find out for yourself.

Oh, and no, it's not because "he gives a great speech".

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 3:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, natchezsouthside has nothing. Anybody else?

Posted by natchezsouthside (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 4:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

and clearly neither do you... Nice try tho...

Posted by Teach4Peace (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 5:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Would you McCain supporters please take more than a minute, you'll need it, to explain to me why George Bush was qualified to lead this country? Then tell me why John McCain is qualified to be President? Being a POW and shooting at moose doesn't qualify one for President.

I suspect I'll get no response, because there is no credible response, but I'm hopeful.

Bill Clinton, who had VERY little experience at being President, had one of the most successful Presidential 8 years I have seen in MY lifetime. Oh, but wait, I forgot, you all hate him too. LOL!!!!

Posted by natchezsouthside (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 5:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

now Teach, don't go gettin' all mavericky on us! ;-P

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 5:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

kmbjd -- Obama has written significantly on autobiographical topics, state and society. He has spent significant time from the bottom up in public service and government.

He has done a great job of showing who he is.

He has stood many months of national scrutiny and has won the popular support through that. Because of the scrutiny of modern media he has been vetter far better than 80% of the presidents in history.

If you have not read his books or his writing do you think you should be able to make a decision without studying up a bit?

I mean the theme seems to be from your side that you should get to decide and if someone does not hand you reasons on a platter then they are not qualified. That is a horrible development for folks that consider themselves so superior in intellect even to Obama. It's that entitlement thing I constantly point out about modern conservatives.

Do like I did and read some, then look at what is said about him and see who is fibbing. I am sure you will be impressed one way or the other.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 5:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"vetted" not "vetter" vetter sounds like a barnyard disease, he,he!

Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 5:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

YeahMoron...you still didn't answer Kmb's question.

Posted by 2008 (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 5:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

DOES OBAMA HAVE ENOUGH EXPERIENCE TO BE PRESIDENT:
Newt Gingrich, commenting on Obama's experience: "Well, Abraham Lincoln served two years in the U.S.House, and seemed to do all right." (Meet The Press 12/17)

I don't believe that any amount of rational or list of qualifications would change anyones mind here on this blog. It really isn't important anymore to defend Sen. Obama, his message has already reached the American people, as I write the state of Virginia is looking very BLUE. Wait until all the Jewish grandkids get done with their grandparents in Florida and it will go BLUE to.

It's just not worth the energy discussing Obama's qualifications with died in the red McCain/Palin followers. No offense I hope is taken. We all need to do our own homework. I can't wait to put my OBAMA sign out in my yard.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 6:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As I thought, not one person could name a single thing that makes Barack Obama qualified to be President of the United States.

Teach4Peace, George Bush was the Govenor of one of the largest states in the country with one of the largest economies in the country. The President is the Chief Executive of the U.S. Time as a govenor is the type of experience that most closely mirrors that of the President and therefore is the best place to gain the necessary experience. Not to mention, Bush was a business owner prior to his time as govenor. More executive experience.

John McCain has years of experience in government, not to mention, he has command experience because of his military service.

Bill Clinton was one of the most corrupt President's in US history. Thankfully, he had a Republican congress to keep him in check. And being the political opportunist that he is, he was more interested in himself and his legacy than following some ideological agenda. Unfortunately for him and the country, his narcissism caused him to commit felonies as a sitting President in order to try to preserve his legacy. Pathetic. Not to mention the entire generation of young women and men who think that oral sex isn't sex at all.

Yeahuhuh, "autobiographical topics?" Vetting? Barack Obama was an inconsequential State Senator who voted "present" over 100 times. The only thing of note that he did while in the State Senate was support a law the wouldn't allow Doctor's to treat viable infants who survived botched abortions. Infantacide, in other words.

Barack Obama has had no vetting whatsoever. If he had he would never have gotten this close to the Oval Office. Never in the history of this country have we had such an inexperienced Marxist radical within reach of the Presidency.

And yes, he has written two autobiographies. When a person writes two autobiographies when they haven't done anything, that makes them an egomaniac, not qualified to be President.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 6:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barack Obama himself stated in 2004 that he wouldn't run for President in 2008 because he believed that when a person was seeking a job they should be qualified for that job. A year later, after doing nothing at all in the U.S. Senate, he was running for President. But at least he tried to get that middle class tax cut he campaign on in 2004. Oh wait, I forgot. He never authored a single bill that would provide middle class tax relief and voted against every bill that would have.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 6:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

kmbjd40...uh, he's over 35...we ain't quite sure about the natural American citizen part.

There, it took a conservative to think of even one reason Obama is qualified to be president...LOL.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 6:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes kmbjd40 it is very obvious that you have not read Obama's books. You could just say it.

Your appeal that he is unqualified is a posturing for the ignorant who will not read. It has no effect on those of us who watch McCain Palin posture lamely and then say -- "Oh no I don't think so." If McCain were a maverick when he said his campaign would be clean he would have meant it enough to do it. That is what is obvious about nastiness in your camp. You expect more of the same when you see the campaign. Obama's is different.

It's obvious that when the net drags up those who think Obama a Muslim, or those who think him an Arab, or those who think being qualified to run Washington as it is now is the only way to be qualified, or those who will never vote for a black -- that you guys are just happy to have something in the net. THAT is what the rest of us are trying to move away from -- by degree admittedly.

We don't like ignorance and don't turn our backs on it. But if it takes some ignerunt ones to push us over the top so be it. It would be different if we never wanted to fund education and didn't give a flip about it.

If Obama is the egomaniac why is it he talks about issues more than the other side? Sorry, the fame and blame game is more a part of McCain's world. And Palin's. It is that side that wants us to accept qualification on faith and fame, on being cute and on being there. America has so far rejected it.

To call Obama a Marxist is to admit that you are a bottom feeder looking for those who can be fooled or who are already fools. You should shoot higher.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 6:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe Obama learned enough to see that compared to the rest he WAS qualified.

I have come to agree with that. He can always do what Bush did and let his VP run foreign policy.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 6:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhuh, what Obama is proposing is Marxism. Simply wishing it wasn't so doesn't mean it's not so. He is proposing pure wealth redistribution. His childhood mentor was a communist. His pastor preaches communist doctrine. Ayers and his wife are communists. And the list goes on and on. Purely coincidental, I'm sure. The problem with Obama is he has NO qualifications for the job that he seeks. He's barely qualified enough to be a low level White House staffer.

Posted by Teach4Peace (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 7:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well folks, I'm gone to prepare for my debate watch party. Time to settle down and watch another BEAT DOWN.

GObama '08!!!!

Posted by iameubu (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 7:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/fonzforpres...

Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 7:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'll be waiting for y'all to rush back here and tell me how Obama "won the debate". :)

Meanwhile, it's Britney to the rescue.....
http://wcbstv.com/slideshows/Conservativ...

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 7:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

kmbjd40...I doubt any gnats have read John McCain's book "Faith of My Fathers" or his daughter's new book. I have and it ain't pretty, but it is inspiring. I've also read both Obama books, and they're kinda like Mein Kampf where the bad guy tells you where he came from, what he's gonna do, and dare you to stop him.

McCain's campaign has been far more high road than that of the opponents. McCain has specifically and particularly avoided negative comments about Obama and has corrected in public those he has heard try personal attacks. Obama has NOT reciprocated, but instead thanked McCain for the efforts to be above the mud slinging and then went about slinging mud himself.

Some gnats paint conservatives with a broad brush calling us racists and ignorant, but the fact is that we are the party of racial freedom and if you do a little demographic research you find that a larger proportion of conservatives have a higher educational background than that of liberals...we aren't racist and we aren't ignorant.

The Democrat constituency, on the other hand, tends to be predominantly poor, less educated. Additionally, the few educated liberals at the top have taken the ethnic block votes for granted for years, only hurting them by crippling their incentive to learn and work with handouts.

Democratic efforts have kept the poor uneducated and poor so they could have a constant source of voting power to advance their secular progressive, i.e. socialist, agenda. Throwing money at social welfare and education is a euphemism because they don't actually care about the success of the PEOPLE.

Gnats have things exactly backwards...Obama expects us to elect him because he's a "Rock Star" and not because he has the steady, experienced hand to guide us which he clearly does not. McCain and Palin to the contrary are experienced in both executive and legislative functions as well as foreign policy.

I would point out to you, kmbjd40, that redistribution of the wealth is both a socialist and a marxist tenet...I don't think any one but gnats have said Obama is a marxist (maybe gnats know something we don't), but his enumerated economic policies to date are socialist with a Huey P. Long style "Every man a King" populism which while entertaining is simply fraudulent.

Kmbjd40, I think you would agree that gnats should be swatted and not listened to for sage advice...it just isn't there.

Seems the Obama campaign is like objects in the rear view mirror...they appear closer than they are.

Posted by iameubu (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 7:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OGD try what I do.

Watch with the sound fully off. Put on the 9th. or 7th. symphony by Beethoven for the sound effects portion. Quite entertaining this way and you will notice how camera angles, background, closeup shots, etc are used to manipulate you.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 8:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Kmbjd40...I think that calling Obama a marxist is over the top...while he has communist friends, his proposals are more socialist in nature and don't warrant the epithets of "communist" or "marxist"...that has yet to be displayed.

Have you yet seen a liberal try to calm down another liberal when their statements are out of line?...didn't think so.

Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 8:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

iameubu, I'd love to. But I'm currently far flung and have no access to a television. But unless Obama stepped far to the right and McCain far to the left, I doubt it would change my vote. If we were voting between 2 rocks I'd choose the one on the right.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 8:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I finally found something I agree with Obama on...LINE ITEM VETO!...hooray!

Of course, he wouldn't use it except in a partisan way :(

Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 8:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

sammohon, concerning "Have you yet seen a liberal try to calm down another liberal when their statements are out of line?"

I really can't recall.

:(

Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 8:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sam, I think that Line Item Veto is something that EVERY president wants since it gives them more control, power, etc. I'd be extremely surprised if a Democrat controlled Congress would ever give that to any President, even a Democrat president. THEY want the power.

Posted by iameubu (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 8:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OGD Just turned the sound up for about 10 seconds with BO speaking.

"What we are going to have to do is reprioitise and 'invest' in the American people".

Scary.

Confiscate the earnings of those who produce and redistribute them to those who refused to do their own homework in school.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 8:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yep...you heard right.

Posted by iameubu (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 9:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I sure miss Bill Freeman

Wish he was still around to post here.

sam, you're doing a pretty good job in his place though

Like you, he would have had the guts to post his real name.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 9:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That's high praise...thank you for the compliment, although I feel unworthy of it, I shall endeavor to persevere...LOL.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 9:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Joe the plumber won the debate!

Posted by iameubu (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 9:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hope you're right sam.

Fortunately, 200 years ago there was no television.
George Washington would have lost on the visuals.

Posted by iameubu (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 9:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

(A rare bird in the political world, the US Communist Party is feeling rather smug in these days of capitalist turmoil.

At the party's New York headquarters on 23rd Street in Manhattan, regional party chairman Libero Della Piana, 36, laid out why he thinks Marxist-Leninism's time has finally come.

"We are very excited, we feel that we are at a turning point," Della Piana, an imposing half-Italian, half-African American with a pony tail, told AFP.

"We can afford to be less on the defensive for the first time since Ronald Reagan, and we can say our word in rebuilding America on a new basis, rebuilding a better world, instead of one based on the greed of the few."

"We receive more and more phone calls, we have more inquiries from people, we see an increase in interest," Della Piana said. "We hope to be part of the discussion. I can see a role for the Communist Party in this next period.")

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 9:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If Obama is true to his word (although he isn't very often), that they, meaning all community organizers, will help form his policy, he may be right.

Posted by redusmfan (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 10:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Watched it. McCain WON big time. No doubt about it. He was very presidential.

Posted by iameubu (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 10:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Maverick" John McCain and attack-dog Sarah Palin seem to have staked their entire campaign on the powers of racial revulsion. "Linking Obama to William Ayers and domestic terrorism, Palin exhorted that ‘this is not a man who sees America as you see it and how I see America,'" while McCain "melds xenophobic and Orientalist rhetoric, conjuring up the dark inscrutable treasonous Other when he asks ‘who is the real Barack Obama.'" Together, McCain and Palin "tap into the deepest reservoirs of white racial angst."

Cindy McCain has spoken. Shellacked white blond hair bristling with outrage, the beermeister lit into Barack Obama recently at an election rally, accusing him of voting against troop supply funding for soldiers in Iraq and thus endangering her enlisted son. The beermeister's liberation from St John power suit-cosseted trophy wife to mother bear-firebrand has been hastened by Sarah Palin's transformation into the self-styled attack dog of the McCain campaign. The visual choreography of McCain events now spotlights the two in tandem-Palin rallying the Christian soldiers onward with her nationalist screeds on homeland security while the beermeister hovers close behind in all her Stepford glory. Snatching a page from their nativist 19th century white feminist forebears, the beermeister and the demagogue evoke a nightmare vision of black insurgency. Linking Obama to William Ayers and domestic terrorism, Palin exhorted that "this is not a man who sees America as you see it and how I see America," to her rapt audiences.

Despite all his efforts to distance himself from a black agenda, the assiduously race-averse Obama is still playing as a fist in the air Black Muslim to the American Legionnaires in east Overshoe. In response to Palin's innuendo, lynch mob chants of "terrorist," "treason" and "kill him" have been gleefully hurled at Obama, eliciting the usual tepid condemnations from the McCain camp. McCain's contempt for Obama as lawn jockey crashing the country club was on snarling display during Tuesday's debate when the uber male American war hero couldn't bring himself to look at the Senator and infamously referred to him as "that one." In a desperate attempt to reverse his falling poll numbers, McCain melds xenophobic and Orientalist rhetoric, conjuring up the dark inscrutable treasonous Other when he asks "who is the real Barack Obama."

"The McCain-Palin doubletalk express taps into the deepest reservoirs of white racial angst."

Posted by iameubu (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 10:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted for Yea so (s)he dosen't have to waste the time

Yet it is Palin who is the great white hope, mobilizing the faithful in the hinterlands while exploiting the far right electorate's bloodlust. And what better messenger to paint Obama as a black subversive than Palin, whose pro-death (in the sense that she believes that a fetus should supersede the right to life of a real woman) views would even prohibit a woman from getting an abortion in cases of rape and incest? Far right prohibitions on women exercising rights over their own bodies and destinies have a direct correlation with the preservation of God, country and the virtues of white womanhood. Nationhood and the territorialization of white femininity have always been inextricably linked in the American imagination. D.W. Griffith's anti-Reconstruction epic Birth of a Nation, based on Thomas Dixon's The Clansman, associated black rule with miscegenation and the rape of white women. Racial terrorism against Reconstruction-era black legislators was justified on the grounds of protecting the Union from the scourge of race-mixing and a slide into anarchy. Insofar as an Obama presidency foreshadows these primal threats to home and hearth it won't matter that McCain backs welfare handouts for the Wall Street and multinationals and shrugs off his ignorance about how many houses he has while morphing into a populist.

By evoking this symbolism, the McCain-Palin doubletalk express taps into the deepest reservoirs of white racial angst. It has become a truism among many white left progressives that working class whites are essentially voting against their class interests when they vote conservative, but are they really? The scores of white Democrat undecided voters and the all white legions who throng to the McCain-Palin circus tent revivals prove that white class solidarity has been, and always will be, about the defense of the homeland from the incursions of the Other.

Sikivu Hutchinson is the editor of blackfemlens.org and a commentator for Pacifica radio KPFK 90.7 FM.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 10:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Iameubu...Wow...resorting to this kind of flaming must mean that you recognize that you guys lost the debate too.

Posted by iameubu (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 10:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Used to listen to the Pacifica station in Ca. on Sunday night.

Elliot Mintz had a show "The Wayless Way"

Many hard core leftists there. Ah, those were the days.

Posted by iameubu (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 10:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Didn't mean to flame anyone. Sorry Yea, not my intent. I don't hate anyone.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 10:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Iameubu...Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, John Lewis, Stokely Carmichael, Lewis Farrakanh, Huey Newton and Bobby Seale are your role models...sounds like it...how divisive do you want to be? You are a racist, not a soldier or leader against it...people like you will lose the election for Obama.

Clearly you are nervous.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 10:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Iameubu...why don't you request removal of both of your posts and I'll do the same for mine...how 'bout that?...fair?

Posted by iameubu (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 10:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Done

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 11:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I will as well when I trust but verify.

Posted by thegospeltruth (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 12:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It's amazing when you read the different comments here. The conservative side identifies Obama as a Marxist who wants to re-distribute wealth in America and is unqualified to be President (even though he has wrote 2 books).

The left-wing, Limo-driving, liberals on here call everybody that doesn't like Obama "ignorant" and racist. Obviously if conservatives would just read Obama's books they would be enlightened and realize that Obama is the next "Messiah" of the free world.

The left-wing, Limo-driving liberals champion on here is the Impeached President Clinton. UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!!!

To all of you Pro-Abortion, left-wing, liberals out there who are putting your faith in the media polls, please do not be upset come Nov. 4th when Obama gives his angry concession speech and stomps off stage because he was seen for who he really is.

Posted by frogprincenessntz (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 1:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I actually heard a Democrat say tonight, after the debate, that she had done the math on BO's economic package. It computed to the fact that he plans to give checks to the 60 million people who pay no taxes. His program calls for additional spending of over 1 trillion dollars. He plans to take the money from the upper five percent of people? Seems to me, they have the wherewithal to leave the U.S. with their money until the rules change. So for him to give away what he says he will, everyone with a job needs to understand that their hard earned dollars are at risk. As he told Joe, the plumber, BO wants to redistribute the wealth.

BTW, the Democrat said she is voting for McCain.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I read an interesting little study yesterday that detailed research on test subjects in Nebraska to isolate traits associated with extreme political views. It basically subjected people to stimuli and checked which ones with what traits chose to be conservatives or liberals. When subject to loud noises and disturbing images people react on their core fears. Here is an excerpt;

".....Participants who scored high on the skin and blinking stress tests also tended to support military spending, warrantless searches, death penalty, the Patriot Act, obedience, patriotism, the Iraq War, school prayer and the concept of Biblical truth. And they tended to oppose pacifism, immigration, gun control, foreign aid, compromise, premarital sex, gay marriage, abortion rights and pornography.

Those who were less startled by threatening images and noises were more likely to favor foreign aid, liberal immigration policies, pacifism and gun control.... "

It's a great article to explain how conservatives are really mindless school fish incapable of looking past their fears. Why conservative lie more and worse, justify killing other people and demonize their opposition. They are twitching morons, he,he.

That last paragraph was mine, the study was more objective. You conservative school fish should read it so you can get some practice ignoring the truth. Maybe it is another site you can call liberal bias and go on back to demonizing everyone who opposes you.

Great that independent voters saw last night's debate as a mean nasty McCain whose only skill is to attack in a confused fashion and look beady-eyed.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12238565...

The truth about Obama's tax "cuts".

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 11:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

NEW TAXES PROPOSED BY OBAMA
New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet. New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already) New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity) New taxes on retirement accounts, and last but not least....New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!!

Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 11:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhuh, that has got to be the silliest stuff you have posted yet. You are either very desperate or very bored.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 11:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

INHERITANCE TAX
MCCAIN - 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax)
OBAMA Restore the inheritance tax
Many families have lost businesses, farms, ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will only lose them to these taxes.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 11:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

INCOME TAX
MCCAIN
(no changes)
Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $31,250
OBAMA (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts)
Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750
Under Obama, your taxes could almost double!

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

DIVIDEND TAX
MCCAIN 15% (no change)
OBAMA 39.6% - (How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama becomes president. The experts predict that 'Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market, yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.')

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

CAPITAL GAINS TAX
MCCAIN 0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax.
OBAMA 28% on profit from ALL home sales. (How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income.)

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 11:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

duhuhuh, did you put whiskey in your cereal this morning?

Posted by humbleone (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 11:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Just one question for all of the McCain supporters. If McCain is more qualified to be president than Obama, then what is happening to him in the polls. And before y'all give any mumble jumble about the polls not being accurate, they do give the public a general idea of something going wrong in the McCain campaign. And honestly, do y'all really, really, honestly, in your heart of hearts feel that Palin is qualified to be vice-president, or God forbid - president if anything should happen to McCain. Do me a favor, be honest with yourself before responding.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

McCain is behind in the polls because a lot of Americans do not approve of Bush and are blaming the Republican party. In addition, you have those that will vote for Obama simply because he is the first black candidate.
I think Palin is as qualified as Obama and she is not at the top of the ticket. I think she has been portrayed in a very sexist manner and if she was older and less attrective, she wouldn't have endured as many negative attacks as she has.
Did you read the tax information I posted? I for one cannot afford the spreading of the wealth!

Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 11:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

humbleone, Yes to your question. And more so than the other 3 in the race. I do not like lawyers in office (scratch Democrats off the list) and I prefer state governors in office over representives and senators. And always have. Since I always vote to the right, McCain gets my vote by default. But Palin gets my vote with more enthusiasm.

Posted by obamayamama (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What wealth is there to spread? This country needs to be re-structured not re-organized.... bottom line

McCain/Palin 2008

Posted by obamayamama (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 12:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A 3 LETTER WORD:

J O B S

hhahah, that is hilarious!

Posted by obamayamama (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 12:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Do we really want an idiot like Biden to be our VP? I mean, at least Palin can count!

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 12:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That is funny...

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 12:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhuh, I thought you might find this interesting. An eminent psychiatrist recently made the case that liberalism is a mental disorder.

"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded. LIKE SPOILED, ANGRY CHILDREN (emphasis mine), they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave. A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity - as liberals do. A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose econimic and social equality on the population - as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state - as liberals do.

This psychiatrist went on to state that the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:

-creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
-satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
-augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
-rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.

He concluded by stating, "The roots of liberalism - and its associated madness - can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind. WHEN THE MODERN LIBERAL MIND WHINES ABOUT IMAGINARY VICTIMS, RAGES AGAINST IMAGINARY VILLAINS AND SEEKS ABOVE ALL ELSE TO RUN THE LIVES OF PERSONS COMPETENT TO RUN THEIR OWN LIVES, THE NEUROSIS OF THE LIBERAL MIND BECOMES PAINFULLY OBVIOUS (emphasis mine)."

Amen

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 12:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"economic"

Posted by obamayamama (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 1:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

AMEN KMB!

It is decisions of these liberal politicians who are responsible for our current state of economy. Since the Carter days, these liberals have supported rights for people of this country to go out, sign papers for a HUGE mortgage. The people then pay interest on these mortgages for 10 years before even starting on repayment of the actual mortgage!

What happened to conservation? What happened to "you get what you earn"? Why is that such a bad way of life? I want what I earn, and I do not feel like someone else should have it.

Posted by reb1843 (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 1:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I see that the Communist Party USA has endorsed NObama. That sure makes me feel better. NOT! The sheeple are being led to the slaughter by this socialist, and I and my family will not be part of it.
NObama is a liar, a charlatan, and will doom this country. Take it to the bank. On second thought, don't take it to the bank.

Posted by jammin1 (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 1:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I want what I have earned to go to my kids and not to the government. I earned it and I should be able to leave it all to my kids and not have the government RE-TAX what I already paid taxes on just because I gave it to my kids!!!!

DOWN WITH THE DEATH TAX!!!!!!!!!

Posted by Teach4Peace (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 1:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

reb1843, isn't this ironic? We GObama/Biden supporters believe the same of McSame.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 2:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

kmbjd -- I see you did not name your eminent psychiatrist.

What a dung load. You can't even notice the difference in the tone or substance of the two posts can you? Another trait of the twitchers is they are less open to new ideas -- actually scared of the unknown -- and it makes you what you are.

The study I cited is a small one but is interesting. The site I linked has several other studies on behavioral dynamics of the two extremes.

Another interesting piece I read on the same site explains why no matter how bad your guys do, you fellows tend to be unable to change your vote or your vision because you are in your hearts terrified and cannot help it.

They do not mention it to drag you through the mud but suggest that discussions with the people who twitch and are so paranoid might be tempered on the basis that you cannot change your behavior even if you wanted to. In other words we like to pretend we have a choice but one group over the other seems to be less able to choose. It is the "right" -- the militarily dependent, the scared, the school fish -- conservatives.

You guys are terrified and your only hope is to scare the rest of us -- but we have superior logic and look at things more carefully before we freak out.

It explains why bunny and yomama can be so unable to even listen to how they screw up interpretations of polls and graphs -- their terror predisposes them to not listen well and they cannot believe they could be so wrong so do not consider it.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's a couple of interesting points. One of the commentators last night brought up a good point. Bill Ayers is a guy who any America-loving citizen wouldn't even shake hands with, much less have ANY type of personal relationship.

Do all of you realize that, because of his past associations, Barack Obama wouldn't be able to get a White House security clearance? If he weren't a sitting Senator or Presidential candidate, they wouldn't let him on the grounds.

And there's some interesting polling out today. Gallup has Obama up by just 2, Rasmussen by 4. Last week, Obama was up by 11 in the Gallup poll and 8 in Rasmussen. And the IBD poll, which was closest in the 2004 election, acurate to 4/10 of one percent, has Obama up by just 3. Perhaps the Obama supporters shouldn't start popping the corks just yet.

And lastly, ACORN came out this morning and said that Obama lied about the extent of his association with them in last nights debate.

Posted by Spanky (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 2:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.
It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."
For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:
A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.
- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.
- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).
- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.
- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.
- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year
A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.
Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.
The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.
The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.

Posted by jammin1 (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 2:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhuh, if Obama does by some freak chance win, come back in 2 or 3 years and tell us all how wrong we were.

Of course by then the damage will be done, but oh well!!

Either way this goes, History will be made this November 4, 2008.
We will either have the first Black man as a President or the first Female as VP.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 2:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

duhuhuh...again you go on and on about nonsense. What are your thoughts on the tax issues I posted above. Try to answer without insults if at all possible.

Posted by Spanky (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 2:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Continued from above post.
The political left defends "refundability" on grounds that these payments help to offset the payroll tax. And that was at least plausible when the only major refundable credit was the earned-income tax credit. Taken together, however, these tax credit payments would exceed payroll levies for most low-income workers.
It is also true that John McCain proposes a refundable tax credit -- his $5,000 to help individuals buy health insurance. We've written before that we prefer a tax deduction for individual health care, rather than a credit. But the big difference with Mr. Obama is that Mr. McCain's proposal replaces the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance that individuals don't now receive if they buy on their own. It merely changes the nature of the tax subsidy; it doesn't create a new one.
There's another catch: Because Mr. Obama's tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge "marginal" tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.
Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. One mystery -- among many -- of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered.

Posted by 2008 (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 2:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

DOES OBAMA HAVE ENOUGH EXPERIENCE TO BE PRESIDENT:
Newt Gingrich, commenting on Obama's experience: "Well, Abraham Lincoln served two years in the U.S.House, and seemed to do all right." (Meet The Press 12/17)

It really isn't important anymore to defend Sen. Obama, his message has already reached the American people, as of today Senator Barack Obama, Democratic Party: 364 electoral votes Senator John McCain, Republican Party: 169 electoral votes Undetermined: 5 electoral votes.

Rabbit, thought you worked in a bank, how do you ever have enough time to work when you are on the blog during banking hours everyday, just curious. I want your job:)

I can't wait to put my OBAMA sign out in my yard

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 2:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhuh, his name is Dr. Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., MD. And be sure not to miss my post from just a few minutes ago. You'll love it.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 2:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Did you know that Mohamed Atta, the 9/11 ring leader, had a valid Florida driver’s license?
Did you know 13 of the 19 hijackers had obtained valid driver’s licenses? Armed with these licenses, eight of the hijackers even registered to vote!
Here is the shocking fact: Obama strongly supports giving illegal aliens in America driver’s licenses.
He said as much during two Democratic debates earlier this year.
The head of Homeland Security said such thinking was dangerous for national security.
Even Hillary Clinton backed away from Obama’s radical driver’s license plan.
Obama’s position is not a new one: We discovered that Obama has been a major proponent of driver’s licenses for illegals since his days as an Illinois state senator.
We have no doubt that, as president, Obama will also champion this radical plan.
With Osama bin Laden still at large, with al-Qaida promising “spectacular” attacks on the U.S homeland, with the threat of them using weapons of mass destruction against our cities — biological, chemical, and nuclear — can we risk putting such a man in the Oval Office?
Doesn’t he remember what happened on 9/11? More than 3,000 Americans were murdered.
Doesn’t he want to prevent that from ever happening again?
If he supports driver’s licenses for illegals, the answer is clear.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And by the way duhuhuh you did not provide a link nor did you name your source.

Posted by obamayamama (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Impossible happybunny, aduhduh only knows how to switch the subject instead of staring straight into it. Truth is he can't answer or respond adequately so his only tatic is to VEER AWAY!

2008 de-ja-vu... no need to say the same thing twice.
But since you did, I will to:

What wealth is there to spread? This country needs to be re-structured not re-organized.... bottom line.

It is decisions of these liberal politicians who are responsible for our current state of economy. Since the Carter days, these liberals have supported rights for people of this country to go out, sign papers for a HUGE mortgage. The people then pay interest on these mortgages for 10 years before even starting on repayment of the actual mortgage!

McCain/Palin 2008

I can't wait for you to put that Obama sign out so I can destruct it! Better hurry, not much time left.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 2:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

2008...I've had my McCain sign in my yard for the last two months, what are you waiting on?

Posted by 2008 (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 2:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Trying to find out where the Democratic signs are to get in this town, any suggestions? Otherwise will have to have them brought up from New Orleans.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 2:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama...

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I ordered mine off the internet, no idea. I doubt they havbe a local Natchez office.

Posted by MSviaTN (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

For the life of me I cannot understand HOW you Obama supporters cannot see through his B.S. on taxes!!!! It seems to me the ONLY people that would support him on this are those that do not pay taxes and are seeing $$ signs on receiving more FREE money when he "redistributes the wealth" - is that the case? If not - enlighten me please.

Posted by MSviaTN (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

HappyBunny - did not know about the new taxes on homes that are more than 2400 sq. ft. - what is that exactly?

Posted by 2008 (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 2:41 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 2:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MSviaTN, you're right but I really don't think they vote based on facts if you read duhuhuh's posts that's clear.
It's downright scary...if he gets elected, this country will go to hell in a hurry. Given the current situation overseas and the state of our economy, we are in grave danger.

Posted by MSviaTN (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 2:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

HEY 2008 - your response sounds actually like a threat on someone's life - not just a piece of vinyl stuck in someone's yard - there is quite a difference and really a stupid response.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well Bunny thank you for noticing I left off that link. I usually qualify what I offer if it is not my own quote. I see none of the other numbskulls and knuckledraggers noticed that about me forgetting to add the link. That's probably the most constructive thing I have seen you do in a month.

http://www.livescience.com/topic/politic...

I suggest you read all the articles on the page and I guarantee you will see something a bit new. There are much better studies out there but these are well above the level of banter on this board so should be understandable to some of you.

Honestly folks (conservatives) this stuff is a step up to understanding yourselves. The nature of how your minds work is a clue to why you have lost power and you will continue to do so.

When you elected Bush and fought the rest of us to shut up you should have been policing your own but nooooo. Not you. Your pleas, demands and scare tactics have us losing patience. So we are taking the country back.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 2:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MSviaTN, I can't find it now, it was posted on CNN money page but now it says the page is not found.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 2:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

duhuhuh..of course you cannot respond with factual data or without insult, whatever was I thinking??

Posted by 2008 (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 3 p.m. (Suggest removal)

HEY ms via TN....do you live here? If you did then you might think diferently. And again if my sign is on my property then who ever would come on my property to destroy it would be tresspassing wouldn't they? And if bammy is being cute/sarcastic with their threat my response to them was equally cute/sarcastic. Why in the world would someone make such a ludicrous remark about destroying a sign on private property. It would never occur to me or enter my mind to do something that stupid or ignorant. So people disagree...so what, aren't we all educated adults here.

Posted by obamayamama (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 3:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

blah blah blah duh duh duh. Who is we? Nobody ever "had" the country to begin with.

"Honestly folks (conservatives) this stuff is a step up to understanding yourselves. The nature of how your minds work is a clue to why you have lost power and you will continue to do so."

Since when is it bad to CONSERVE? I thought that was how someone achieves financial success. Why conserve now? It will just get spread around like manure if Obama gets elected. This is a shame. Hey yeahiamaduh, go follow your new age "David Koresh" named Barack Obama. He has all of you people brainwashed into thinking something positive will come. But we can all see he is lying through his teeth. There are so many things I want to suggest to you but my comment would be disabled.

Buckshot huh 2008, that was what I was going to use! But if you want to use that, fine with me; I will have your house the next week!

Posted by MSviaTN (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am really not sure what you mean about talking differently if I lived there - agree that saying you are going to destroy a sign on someone's property is a bit immature, but please agree with me when it is not comparison to threatening someone's life - I am pretty sure threatening someone's life could get you arrested - evey if you are being sarcastic - just saying think before you speak - you too yamama - I agree with 99.9% of what you say but for the sake of us that are on your side please don't stoop to comments like that :-).

Posted by 2008 (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bammy: Why would you threaten to destroy a sign on private property? Just because they don't hold the same political belief that you do? I mean really, you came at me first with that threat....grow up and take an alieve, your head must be splitting.

Posted by MSviaTN (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh - Never mind 2008 - misread what you said - you said thinking - I lived there for over 30 years - and still come visit quite often because lots of family and friends are there - so really still not sure what you are saying when you say i would think differently.

Posted by 2008 (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 3:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MSVIATN
I thought before I wrote and a fanny full of anything is not life threatening. Believe me far worse has been written on these blogs whenever right of personal property has come up. Evidently the other poster's comment was to be taken seriously. And you know what....who cares if McCain signs are everywhere, that's just the way it is here, but I also have a right to put up a sign and not expect or fear any retribution from ANYONE. Isn't that why we live in a FREE country, with the choice to vote as we each see fit.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 3:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

2008 did you look for one on the internet?

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.democratnationalcommittee.com...

Here you go...

Posted by 2008 (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 3:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

HB: I called my daughter she will be bringing some from Demo. headquarters in a larger town. But thank you for asking.

Posted by MSviaTN (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 3:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Still wondering why you say I would think differently if I lived there - think differently on what?

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 3:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I wonder if yeahuhuh realizes that if the pharmaceutical companies are rendered incapable of doing research on new medications, as he wants, that he might be effected in a big way. After all, what if one of these companies is currently researching a cure for liberalism, the new, hip, mental disorder? I mean, he could be cured. Think how much happier he would be.

Posted by obamayamama (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 3:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

2008: Wow, I see you must speak for yourself when you say not all of us on here are educated adults. Ever considered that maybe since you hide behind a screen name on the Natchez Democrat website, maybe I would not have a CLUE where you live??? I mean really, if I took everything I read on here seriously, I would have committed suicide ESP after all of aduhuhuh's insults!

I dont even live in that area, matter of fact, i live over 250 miles from there! Now before you start spatting off about that, I have earned the right (22 years) to contribute my input concerning the MISS LOU. And you should know that whatever you write on this site is subjected to ridicule and/or sarcasm. Why would you even write something about how you cant wait to put a OB sign in your yard? Shouldn't you already have one? The election is less than 3 weeks away!

It wasn't a threat, it was a joke. However, yours was a threat. And what you may not know is even if someone is on your property, if you shoot and they live, THEY HAVE A LAWSUIT. So you may want to take it easy with that trigger finger.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 3:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

LOL kmb!

Posted by 2008 (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 3:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well Bammy, A joke it is :)

Posted by obamayamama (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 3:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

hey 2008, I feel the love ;)

LOL kmb, that is pretty good. But I not sure there is a cure for duh, he is in too deep.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 3:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

WAY to late for duhuhuh!

Posted by Spanky (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

One of the most misleading statements during the presidential debates was when Barack Obama claimed that William Ayers was just "a guy in the neighborhood."
But that piece of spin is nothing compared to the false story now being peddled by Mr. Obama's media supporters that Mr. Ayers -- who worked with the Democratic nominee for years to disperse education grants through a group called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge -- has redeemed his terrorist past. In the New York Times, for example, Frank Rich writes that "establishment Republicans and Democrats alike have collaborated with the present-day Ayers in educational reform."
I've studied Mr. Ayers's work for years and read most of his books. His hatred of America is as virulent as when he planted a bomb at the Pentagon. And this hatred informs his educational "reform" efforts. Of course, Mr. Obama isn't going to appoint him to run the education department. But the media mainstreaming of a figure like Mr. Ayers could have terrible consequences for the country's politics and public schools.
The education career of William Ayers began when he enrolled at Columbia University's Teachers College at the age of 40. He planned to stay long enough to get a teaching credential. But he experienced an epiphany in a course offered by Maxine Greene, who urged future teachers to tell children about the evils of the existing, oppressive capitalist social order. In her essay "In Search of a Critical Pedagogy," for example, Ms. Greene wrote of an education that would portray "homelessness as a consequence of the private dealings of landlords, an arms buildup as a consequence of corporate decisions, racial exclusion as a consequence of a private property-holder's choice."
That was music to the ears of the ex-Weatherman. Mr. Ayers acquired a doctorate in education and landed an Ed school appointment at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC).

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 4:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The nutty professors should not be allowed to influence their students politically. Most of them are left wing hippies.

Posted by Spanky (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 4:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Chicago might seem to be the least likely place for Mr. Ayers to regain social respectability for himself and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn. After all, the Windy City was where their Weathermen period began in 1969, with Mr. Ayers, Ms. Dohrn and their comrades marauding through the Miracle Mile, assaulting cops and city officials and promulgating slogans such as "Kill Your Parents."
But Chicago's political culture had already begun to change by the time the couple returned in 1987. And the city would change even more dramatically when Richard Daley Jr. became mayor in 1990.
Daley the son has maintained as tight a rein over the city's Democratic Party machine as did his father, doling out patronage jobs and contracts to loyalists and tolerating as much corruption as in the old days. But unlike his father, he was ready to cut deals with veterans of the hard-core, radical left who were working for their revolutionary ideas from within the system they once sought to destroy from without. There is no lack of such veterans. One of Chicago's congressmen, Bobby Rush, is a former chairman of the Illinois Black Panther Party; Louis Gutierrez, a former leader of a Puerto Rican liberation group, the Puerto Rican Socialist Party, is another.
In this Chicago, where there are no enemies on the left, Mr. Ayers's second career flourished. It didn't hurt that his father, Thomas Ayers, was the CEO of the Commonwealth Edison company, a friend of both Daleys and a major power broker in the city.
Mr. Ayers was hired by the Chicago public schools to train teachers, and played a leading role in the $160 million Annenberg Challenge grant that distributed funds to a host of so-called school-reform projects, including some social-justice themed schools and schools organized by Acorn. Barack Obama became the first chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge organization in 1995. When asked for an opinion on the Obama/Ayers connection, Mayor Daley told the New York Times that Mr. Ayers had "done a lot of good in this city and nationally."
In fact, as one of the leaders of a movement for bringing radical social-justice teaching into our public school classrooms, Mr. Ayers is not a school reformer. He is a school destroyer.

Posted by Spanky (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 4:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

He still hopes for a revolutionary upheaval that will finally bring down American capitalism and imperialism, but this time around Mr. Ayers sows the seeds of resistance and rebellion in America's future teachers. Thus, education students signing up for a course Mr. Ayers teaches at UIC, "On Urban Education," can read these exhortations from the course description: "Homelessness, crime, racism, oppression -- we have the resources and knowledge to fight and overcome these things. We need to look beyond our isolated situations, to define our problems globally. We cannot be child advocates . . . in Chicago or New York and ignore the web that links us with the children of India or Palestine."
The readings Mr. Ayers assigns to his university students are as intellectually diverse as a political commissar's indoctrination session in one of his favorite communist tyrannies. The list for his urban education course includes the bible of the critical pedagogy movement, Brazilian Marxist Paolo Freire's "Pedagogy of the Oppressed"; two books by Mr. Ayers himself; and "Teaching to Transgress" by bell hooks (lower case), the radical black feminist writer.
Two years ago Mr. Ayers shared with his students a letter he wrote to a young radical friend: "I've been told to grow up from the time I was ten until this morning. Bullsh*t. Anyone who salutes your 'youthful idealism' is a patronizing reactionary. Resist! Don't grow up! I went to Camp Casey [Cindy Sheehan's vigil at the Bush ranch in Crawford, Texas] in August precisely because I'm an agnostic about how and where the rebellion will break out, but I know I want to be there and I know it will break out." (The letter is on his Web site, www.billayers.org.)
America's ideal of public schooling as a means of assimilating all children (and particularly the children of new immigrants) into a common civic and democratic culture is already under assault from the multiculturalists and their race- and gender-centered pedagogy. Mr. Ayers has tried to give the civic culture ideal a coup de grace, contemptuously dismissing it as nothing more than what the critical pedagogy theorists commonly refer to as "capitalist hegemony."
In the world of the Ed schools, Mr. Ayers's movement has established a sizeable beachhead -- witness his election earlier this year as vice president for curriculum of the American Education Research Association, the nation's largest organization of education professors and researchers.
If Barack Obama wins on Nov. 4, the "guy in the neighborhood" is not likely to get an invitation to the Lincoln bedroom. But with the Democrats controlling all three branches of government, there's a real danger that Mr. Ayers's social-justice movement in the schools will get even more room to maneuver and grow.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 4:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yomama, I have reviewed the stacks and been unable to find the post I had ascribed to you wherein you admitted that you weren't much for research and learned from banter such as this board.

I lieu of finding such a post I am forced to recant my claim against your lack of research being admitted by you. My apologies for misquoting you.

However, I did come across the original text of you claiming some incredible stupid things about deficit spending by Reagan Bush and Clinton. This is the sort of thing that causes me to think you are either stupid or nuts.

"Ford almost caused another depression. Percentage rates were as much as %23. When Reagan stepped it, this country's deficit went down and percentage rates were as low as 3%.
It was Clinton who came in and gave all that money away leaving Bush to clean up after him. NOW YOU DEMOCRATS HAVE SOMEONE TO BLAME IT ON. "(Then you went on)

"Yeahuhuh, it was not the BUSH deficit, it was the CLINTON deficit. You can reap your "details" all you want, but facts explain the TRUTH. Ford almost caused another depression. Percentage rates were as much as %23. When Reagan stepped it, this country's deficit went down and percentage rates were as low as 3%.
It was Clinton who came in and gave all that money away leaving Bush to clean up after him. NOW YOU DEMOCRATS HAVE SOMEONE TO BLAME IT ON."

I won't supply the links again to show how wrong you were. I will just leave these wrong statements to show the difference between how we research what we say. You look them up for yourself and find your own generic Excel Charts.

You can't be that far wrong Yomama and still have your head on right. But you got my apology on my impressions of how you come to such insane conclusions. So there.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 4:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Impressive piece by scared people on Ayers.

Let me see, you guys are scared to death and want me to be scared, too. In return for scaring me I should give you my vote.

Do I have it right?

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 4:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't think anyone is trying to scare you, they are simply stating their opinions. Opinions that differ from yours...that just makes them stupid and ignorant.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 4:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Do I have it right?

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 4:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I already mention this in a previous post, but everyone look at the headline on the Drudge Report right now.

www.drudgereport.com

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 4:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"mentioned"

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 5:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Drudge included the *traditional results only 2 points apart, but neglected to include the *expanded version of the same poll which still shows 49-43.

Both are national likely voter polls, just different ways of interpreting what "likely voter" means.

The national poll is worthless, though, if it was valid Gore would have been our president and we would be much closer to energy independent by now.

Actually it is the state polls and the electoral vote that decides and Mccain is in trouble on that one.

You might not like what I say but you have to admit that I always will give a more accurate picture of what is happening than any of you guys that are trying to get the minority party candidate elected on false pretenses.

27% more of the uncommitted voters who saw last nights debate thought Obama won. McCain got nasty and his side thought he won -- because they tend to be nasty. he,he!

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 5:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhuh, once again, as I posted earlier, Rasmussen has the race at 4 and the IBD poll, the most accurate poll in 2004, has the race at 3. The polls are clearly trending towards McCain. Most of the battleground polls are within the margin of error and generally lag behind the national polls anyway, so they won't reflect the trend for several days.

And also again (I get so tired of repeating myself), Dem identification is at 38.4% and Repub identification is at 34.4%. Whew! Huge difference. These numbers vary almost daily.

Your claim of 27% of uncommitted voters saying Obama won is meaningless. I saw a poll of uncommitted voters that said it was 46-44 for Obama, within the margin of error.

If you think we would be closer to energy independence under Gore, you probably need to put the bong aside for a little while. It's cleary affecting your judgement.

And you give a "more accurate picture of what is happening?" If you give a more accurate picture of anything then I'm Mickey Mouse. Hey, I guess that means I can vote in Ohio!

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 7:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Who won last nights debate? Some say Joe the Plumber. But...is Joe the Plumber even a plumber?

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1...

Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 7:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhuh. who is it that gets "nasty"?
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/J/J...

If they can't give "Joe the Plumber" a good tax answer they simply try to discredit him instead. Why not? He's just a normal guy (one of the little people) so no harm in chewing him up and spitting him out, right?

But hey, the "nasty" crowd certainly had no problem attacking a 17 year old girl and her unborn baby either. :(

Posted by iameubu (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 7:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

For those dressing to the left in this election, check this out.

http://www.skattetryk.dk/2006/10/13/kapi...

N. & S. Korea, nightime satellite picture.

Can anyone find Pyongyarg, Residence of the 'Great Leader"?

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 7:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh my, the Republicans must have expected the newshounds to let Joe the Plumber slide without noticing that he had sprung a few leaks.

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 7:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We don't have to play nasty OldGrand, the news peoples do it all for us.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What about Obama's elitest statement today "Have you ever seen a plumber make a quarter of a million."
I have seen plenty, if they run their business sccessfully they can make a very good living.
This is the man who is the salvation of the middle class...right!

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

btw OldGrand, what I remember about the 17 year old and "the anouncement" is that just prior to that, some commentors were accusing Palin of falsifying the birth of her newborn and claiming that the newborn really belonged to the daughter which is the reason why Palin announced her daughter's pregnancy to clear up those rumors. I've actually not heard any comments about the daughter's unborn baby. And if you were referring to me with that comment, I only posted a video of the 7 year old licking her hand and smoothing down the baby's hair at the convention because I thought it was funny.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 7:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

time4change...are you Peace007's alter ego??

Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 7:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

time4change, concerning "We don't have to play nasty OldGrand, the news peoples do it all for us"

I disagree. They do MUCH of it for you. But not all. And I have yet to hear your (collectively) complaints about it.

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 7:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's a link to an article about the relationship between Senator Obama and numerous others (including some members of the Republican Party) and William Ayers.

As far as I know NPR is not associated with the communist party.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/politics/2008/1...

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 7:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Once I was talking with a plumber and he told me that if it wasn't for doctors, lawyers, and other wealthy folks he would have kept running his own plumbing business if they would have paid him what they owed him and when he did the job. He said they were the worst to get money out of after he had done work for them, but a poor old soul in a raggedy old house driving a raggedy old car would pay up right then when the job was done. So the plumber I was talking to had to close down his business and go to work for someone else.

Anyways how many businesses really make over $250,000 on paper after they get through with all those deductions and exemptions? Some may make $250,000, but on paper it ends up looking more like $15,000. But if an hourly working person makes $50,000 he will pay more in taxes than the business man that made $250,000.

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 7:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OldGrand the news is where I just heard the news about Joe the Plumber and also about Palin's daughter.

Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 7:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

time4change, I wasn't referring you to specifically. It is the collective vitriol I've read over the last few weeks. If you have not seen the horrible things written about Palin (private life), her children and her unborn grandbaby you must not be reading very much. :(

I've seen the "nasty" from both sides and I think I'm on record as standing against it. But its just a little too much for one side to claim the other is being "nasty" while trying to cloak themselves with righteousness. :(

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 7:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

happybunny how goes the stock market that you invested in the other day?

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 7:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It goes well, thank you. Everything I invested in is up :) !

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 7:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OldGrand sometimes I don't have time to read all that much. Are you speaking about the National Enquirer or just online?

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 7:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well congratulations on that happy...wanta give some tips?

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 7:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

happy I explained about the name change, I guess you missed it, but it's not an alter ego.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 7:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well let me just say..financials are down right now and if you pick the right ones...SWEET!!

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 7:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I wondered where you went. I missed the name change thing, what was the reason?

Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 7:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

time4change, ha! Sorry, but no tabloids on my news list. But here's the favorites...... :)

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/fronts/RAW?...

http://www.cnn.com/

http://www.foxnews.com/

http://www.drudgereport.com/

http://newsbusters.org/

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/ind...

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/Index00.asp

http://english.aljazeera.net/

http://www.canadafreepress.com/

http://www.reuters.com/

http://www.upi.com/?c=TopNews

Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 8:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

happy, our agent called last week with some investments he advised us to buy into. I sure hope he was right, cause I'm tired of watching my 401 keep losing! Going to hang in there for 5 more years though.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 8:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am not even looking at my 401K statement...YIKES. I think if you have the kahones, it's a good time to buy, not short term but long term. Just have to do your research and see which companies you think wil make it. I hope it works out for you.

Posted by iameubu (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 8:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

time4

You are exactly right here
"Anyways how many businesses really make over $250,000 on paper after they get through with all those deductions and exemptions? Some may make $250,000, but on paper it ends up looking more like $15,000. But if an hourly working person makes $50,000 he will pay more in taxes than the business man that made $250,000."

A number of years ago I got into a conversation with 3 other 'sports' parents. Each had a service or production type of business. They were all HARD CORE Democrats. I'm sure you would not be surprised to hear that they were all bragging about their 'non payment' of income taxes. Nice houses, new vehicle every year for themseves and the wife(deductible as a business cost of course), kids in private school, etc. Cash only whenever possible, no receipts, etc. What got me though was they were Democrats, all hated Reagan.

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 9:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OldGrandDad, don't blame me if Joe the Plumber or his employer doesn't have a license, if Joe is behind in his taxes or that he wants to go into the plumbing business but doesn't have a business plan.

Are these good business principles?

Posted by vidnat (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 9:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Any body can make good money in a capitalist system if they work hard and have good money management.

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 9:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have some new evidence against Senator Obama for you, courtesy of SNL:

Someone suspects Senator Obama may sleep on muslin sheets.

And he has possibly been seen playing with terriers.

Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 9:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

southernwoman, that's the discrediting attacks I'm talking about. Depending on localities where you work, you don't necessarily need a license to do that sort of work or maybe not need one to own the business. And maybe his license is in the works? Does it really matter in connection to his questions he gave to Obama?

How can one side of this political divide be pro voter rights for convicted felons, in and out of prison, and then suggest a man's questions and opinions should be totally discredited because he is behind on his taxes? Again, does his tax situation REALLY matter in connection to his questions? It sounds to me like the guy feels he is overtaxed and has proof to show it.

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 9:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hi bunny, did you make up those income tax comparisons from whole cloth (maybe muslin)?

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 9:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You libs just don't get it. John McCain is absolutely right; right now would be the absolute worse time to raise taxes on anybody. Taking any more money out of the private sector and giving it to the government would be an absolute disaster. Especially taking it away from business. The private sector keeps our economy going, the government only impedes it. In case you haven't noticed, the government doesn't do anything well. The government is a study in inefficiency, waste and corruption. FDR raised taxes during the Depression, as well as burdened the country with the New Deal, thereby prolonging and deepening that period economic chaos. In fact, he turned the Depression into the Great Depression. Perhaps you Obama supporters should step back and think about that.

Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 9:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"When you have no basis of argument, abuse the plaintiff."
Marcus Tullius Cicero

:(

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 9:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OldGrandDad, I believe you need to speak with Senator McCain about bringing this guy out into the public realm and subjecting him to scrutiny.

Senator McCain seemed to make Joe the Plumber the centerpiece of the debate table last night.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 9:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Southernwoman, it was disgraceful the way the Obama campaign set out to destroy Joe the plumber today. And you buying into their rhetoric and propagating it here only adds to that disgrace. This was a working man with legitimate concerns. Unfortunately for him, he hit the mark with Obama. He exposed Obama's plan for what it is, pure socialistic redistribution that will hurt common, everyday people, not just the "rich." And Obama actually made a tremendous gaffe by stating he wanted to "spread the wealth," conjuring up the spirit of Huey P. Long. Like the majority of Democrat politicians, we are finding that there are no depths to which the Obama campaign won't stoop.

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 9:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

When you want to avoid answering questions, talk about Joe the Plumber. - me

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 9:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh bunnycakes you missed me. How sweet, lol. Or, was it that you thought you had run me away? It was simple really. I changed my password and suffering in my old age as I am from short term memory loss, I forgot what I changed my password too, lol. Reading minds the way you do, I'm sure you could tell me what I changed it too.

Look if John McCain wins the election, I'll support him, ok? I only hope you all will do the same if Obama wins. Is that fair enough?

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 9:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

good one southernwoman.

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 9:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

kmbjd, why is it that I just heard on the news that Joe the Plumber has decided that Obama's plan would be the best one for him, or rather, for him if he really did make $250,000 and was a plumber? lol

Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 9:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

kmbjd40 is correct about them trying to destroy and discredit the guy. And not on his ideas. Its him as a person they want to destroy. Because he had the nerve to ask the Great Obama a hard question - something the "mainstream" media refuses to do.

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 9:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I love the idea of spreading the wealth. I only hope a little spreads my way, lol.

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 9:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OldGrand, I didn't see any Obama news teams asking old Joe any questions...they all looked like main stream media to me.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 9:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What questions? Who is avoiding answering questions? McCain, me? OGD? Why do you people always respond to legitimate arguments with nonsense? Why are you seemingly incapable of offering an intelligent counter-argument? Because you have no counter-argument.

I have presented, time and again, arguments from my particular side of the ideological aisle. To date, not one of you libs have made a single refutation based in evidence or fact. The reason, in my humble opinion, is that you've made an emotional choice in this election, not an intellectual one. Therefore, any argument that points out your candidates weaknesses is lost in the euphoric fog that is clouding your brains. You can never be convinced because you don't want to be convinced. Your like children who've shoved your fingers in your ears and are screaming "nah, nah, nah."

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 9:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh, well excuse me for living kmbjd. And I hate to burst your bubble, but it's just that I haven't been paying all that much attention to anything you've written before now. LOL I'm really sorry.

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 9:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

NPR (is NPR an approved source here?) reported Joe the Plumber did not understand Senator Obama favors lowering taxes for small businesses that make less than $250,000, based on their net income rather than what they grossed.

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 10:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And might I point out kmbjd, that your comment is the one that looks the most emotional...just like McCain looked in last nights debate...all weird, like he was on the verge of blowing a huge gasket.

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 10:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Don't get all upset kmbj, I will right this moment click on your username and read what you've written...hope that helps.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 10:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

time4change, I like WORKING for my wealth, and not having the government standing in my way or stealing it from me to either waste or give it to people who've made the CHOICE to do absolutely nothing with themselves.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 10:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Southernwoman, NPR is the radio equivalent of MSNBC. And I hate to tell you, but 50% of that famous 5% that Obama wants to tax are small business owners.

As usual, neither you nor time4change have addressed a single thing I've said. Shocking. If we conservatives are so wrong about all this, please, I'm begging you please, explain to me the error of my ways.

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 10:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

oh my goodness kmbjd, I read about 2 pages and that's about all I could stand.

As Bill Mayher earlier said on Larry King Live...with the amount of money the US has spent under George Bush for wars and has borrowed from foreign countries, someone soon will have to start paying some taxes.

I'm glad to know that you've made some money kmbjd. I hope you're willing to really support your country...the one that you should love enough to pay your share of taxes too.

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 10:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

btw, I did think that John McCain was pretty funny tonight on Larry King Live, as was Barrack Obama at that fancy white tie thingie they attended to honor Al Smith. Both of them were a hoot. I hope you saw that.

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 10:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So kmbjd, you are saying that you are wealthy? Just how much consists of being wealthy? What did you do to EARN your wealth?

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 10:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm just wondering km, can I just call you km since I keep forgetting which letters go where? Who do you think John McCain was talking about when he said that some of the wealthiest people he knows are not happy?

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 10:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. I wasn't in the mood to debate and I was just saying nah nah nah like you said. Happy now? You win, you're the smartest. Ok? And goodnite.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 10:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No, I did not say that I am wealthy. But I am someone who by any objective standard has done quite well. But I have achieved what I have through hard work, not govt hand-outs. And I can promise you, if you saw how much I pay in taxes right now, you'd probably agree that I "pay my share" and then some.

And please don't reference Bill Maher. He's an idiot with a big mouth and a small IQ. Like most libs, he doesn't seem to realize, or want to accept, that when you cut taxes you actually increase revenues to the govt by stimulating economic growth. Reagan's tax cuts caused govt revenues to double because we had a period of unparalleled growth. The same thing happened when Kennedy cut taxes, and yes, when George W. Bush did it. It works every time.

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 10:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

WPA projects built by socialism:

Mississippi Museum of Natural Science
Jackson War Memorial Building

Does anyone know if Clear Springs Recreational Area was built by the WPA? I think it was, but I can't find anything to substantiate my belief. If it was, there may still be marxists lurking there.

Posted by vidnat (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 10:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Has any one heard of Bill Maher's new movie? Its called Religulous and it makes fun of religion. He can't be trusted to tell the thruth about any thing.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 10:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That's your argument? Oh well, I tried.

The hour grows late, time to sign off.

Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 10:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

time4change, all of the "mainstream" media are pro Obama. It is obvious to all except those who refuse to be honest with themselves. This election has seen an end to the charade of media non-partisanship. Even in the primaries they showed blatant bias. If you don't believe me, ask Hillary or Bill.

And to the left/liberals/Democrats, the few news organizations that give right-slanted news or even balanced news are the outcasts. Fox News is obviously the offical Boogeyman of the Democrats.

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 10:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Senator Obama says if he is elected he will bring Warren Buffet into his administration.

Warren Buffett in an anti-capitalistic (is that a word?) administration? I think not.

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 10:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

VidNat, it won't be played here, nor will W.

Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 10:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

vidnat, I haven't seen the movie and don't plan to. I've read enough of the guy's comments in the past to know where he is coming from. He's just another example of the hatred the left demonstrates against Christianity.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 11:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

southernwoman...not to help you prove socialism is good, but just for informational purposes other projects built by the WPA in this area:

Natchez City Auditorium
Vicksburg City Auditorium

I know, I used the original blue prints for reference when I did the last renovations to the Natchez City Auditorium back in the mid-80's.

So what's your point? That socialism was used to build them, yep. That it helped us get out of the Great Depression?...nope...WWII did that...sorry.

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 11:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

sam, I agree that WWII brought us out of the depression, but the WPA was instrumental in keeping many of those who fought in WWII fed during the 30s.

Do you know if Clear Springs Recreational Area was a WPA project?

The WPA writer's project was pretty awesome, too, I think.

I posted another pun for you (whole cloth/muslin) - did you see it?

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 11:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

km, I watch FOX news, too. It's just that they shout so much and it hurts my ears. NPR is more civilized, I think.

I listen to Rush and Hannity as well. They hurt my ears, too.

And NPR is not so hyperbolic.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 11:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

southernwoman...I would agree that of all of FDR's alphabet soup agencies, the WPA was one of the most effective primarily because it helped build infrastructure. However, most of his attempts to break the Great Depression by forming bureaucracies, many of which we still live with today, and throwing massive amounts of money at them were abysmal failures.

As I recall, and this is strictly from memory so don't hold me to it, Clear Springs was a joint WPA and CCC project. The WPA built the roads and buildings, the CCC built the dam, planted trees, dug ditches, layed walkways, etc.

The writer's project was pretty nifty...a boon to history by recording what would have hitherto been lost. Unfortunately, I fear that if the economy continues the way it is GWB will be our Hoover, and Obama will be our FDR, except there isn't a WWII on the horizon to save him as it did FDR. We may be doomed to repeat history by creating more government and spending more money on more bureaucracy with no good coming from it.

No, I didn't see it, I'm sorry, I missed the pun...I do love them so...I'll have to go back and look for it...thanks for remembering though.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 11:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oops, sorry, that should have read, "laid walkways".

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 11:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

sam, I am forever grateful that our country enabled many WWII vets the opportunity to obtain education they might not have been able to obtain otherwise.

I believe education is the best form of entitlement. And I believe they were entitled more than anyone else. And, yes, I do believe they worked hard. And, yes, I do believe they deserved it.

And I think our country benefitted greatly from the money spent.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 17, 2008 at 12:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

southernwoman...if ever there was an entitlement that I would be for it is education, but it has got to be a REAL education, not the pseudo-education our children receive in public schools when they graduate with deficient knowledge of reading, writing, math and fundamental English.

Explain to me why it is that when English is our national language we can't get kids to learn to read or speak it? They can't handle English now, how are they supposed to learn Spanish too? Oh, well, that's a different soap box to stand on in a different blog.

My father enjoyed the GI bill and I think it was a stroke of genius on the part of whoever thought it up, which is probably not the guy that got credit for it. I think our veterans deserve no less than the best we can offer them!

Y'know for a conservative and a liberal we're doing pretty well at finding some common ground and at least disagreeing with civility...it's refreshing.

Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on October 17, 2008 at 3:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, that really was refreshing. I think I'll have another...
http://www.foxnews.com/photoessay/0,4644...

But in all reality, I bet McCain and Obama have much more in common than they do with folks like us. :0

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 17, 2008 at 8:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think Sam and Old GD should be entitled to get along with folks from the other side, and it is nice to see someone willing to discourse with them. Actually most of us get along with folks who are on the other side every day -- people have this unwritten rule that talking about politcs is something NOT to do in public -- only in special forums like this.

It is always nice after someone's policy preferences screws over an entire country for the sake of a tiny wealthy minority for nearly a decade for people to treat them civilly when they insist on 4 more years as if they weren't responsible. That is what is amazing about continued civility today. To quote a TV personality it is amazing that folks aren't marching with their pitchforks.

Personally, for my experience, people getting along in the South usually amounts to liberals-leaners keeping their mouth shut so people will still come to them to get their dry-cleaning done.

Even Sam's puzzlement over the problem of educating children with language is a puzzlement to me. Sam does not realize that even ordinary kids and adults are disenfranchised by forces and circumstances complex enough that the normal conservative priorities do not address their peculiar malaise. Never mind if they have enough food stamps to afford twinkies.

And conservative society in general does not address these things in the best ways they could be addressed, as society still uses ostracism to sort people socially for the good of whomever. So there exists an entire other way of looking at and fixing problems and THAT is conservatism's political opposition. Sam's normal solution -- to pontificate on their stupidity.

It seems that society's way-- conservatism's way -- to address these matters is to ostacize people into compliance -- and that is what is not working.

The changes that started in 1964 had the most to do with the progress in language use around here. Then white flight from the schools wrestled progress from the mouth of inevitability. And too many folks walk around saying stuff like -- "oh these kids' language skills are terrible and I can't understand that!"

To prove me right, Sam, if he is true to form will start mentioning gnats and how he is the exterminator. He,he!

Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on October 17, 2008 at 8:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhuh, I'm in contact and conversation with liberal leaning Obama supporters everyday. And sometimes all day. Its no great strain. Some folks love to get into the politcal arguments constantly and I tend to take mine a few at a time. And I'm more likely to try and seek out common ground where we can agree. If I think I have a chance at convincing someone to form another opinion, I might try to do so. Other than that I'm willing to live and let live and still be neighbors and friends and workmates. I have no fear of anyone blaming me for my votes (or supposed votes). They never do. They will always blame the president first and the congress second, no matter which party is in power. Thats the American way. "Projection" is the word, I believe. :)

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 17, 2008 at 9:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well I think most folks on this board would say that you are a very nice person Grandad. Much nicer than Sam :-) But let's be honest. I am white -- I know exactly what I am talking about.

I think we both know, not only are there a lot of conservatives who are not nice people, there are some of them who will shoot you (liberals aren't prone to assasinate), try to put you in jail quicker if you're liberal, tear down your political yard signs, put tire tracks in your yard, and throw their beer bottles into your driveway. THEN talk bad about you, avoid your business, and be happy when you move to New Olreans.

It only takes a few young, determined or militant folks to give the impression -- but conservatives have a special paranoia all their own and there are more of them in Mississippi than liberal nuts. Things are much better since 1964 in this respect, and the vast majority of people are nice enough and silent in their ostracisms.

If you think what I said is projection you need to put two Obama stickers on your car and drive around Mississippi with your white face grinnin'. And watch out where you park your car!

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 17, 2008 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And did we all hear that Joe Plumber was not a licensed plumber, could never afford to buy his boss out anyway, and would be better suited by Obama's tax plan if he wanted to get set up better in business for the day he migh make $250,000. From what I saw, Joe will never make $250,000 in one year.

Gotta love McCain's communication wisdom and how he gets his point across. And how very shallow under the surface things are the OPPOSITE of what he claims. haahahah!

Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on October 17, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhuh, concerning "with your white face grinnin"

Why you think I'm white?

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 17, 2008 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

duhuhuh....what are you tlking about? Now you have resorted to the race card? GEEZ and just when I thought you had stooped to new lows...you belittle Joe the plumber, who did nothing other than ask Obama a question. Does that make him fair game for the liberal media to tear him apart. You make me SICK!!!

Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on October 17, 2008 at 9:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhuh, more and more I become afraid that Whoopie Goldberg was right and that some of us actually do live in totally seperate worlds. I can see ignorance, hatred, stupidity, violence, intimidation, vandalism and littering all around. Its from Blacks and Whites and Asians and any other category of human species folks want to make up. Its also among Democrats and Republicans. I fail to see how you can only see the world's evils among the conservative side. But I do understand the need that some folks have to categorize folks in order to better make their generalities. :(

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 17, 2008 at 9:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think you libs should keep attacking ole Joe. I think that is exactly the right strategy. I pray that Obama and Biden keep doing it.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 17, 2008 at 10:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I feel sorry for that poor man. A single father living in a small town and they are bringing up his finaces, and tax issues. Yes it makes the Obama camp look small minded and cruel, which they are but he doesn't deserve that.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 17, 2008 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Isn't it a great image, the Mighty Obama, champion of the middle-class, using the full resources of his campaign to smash a typical middle-class voter who dared point out the obvious flaw in Obama's tax policy? McCain should put out a cartoon that shows a giant Obama crushing little Joe under his shoe.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 17, 2008 at 10:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This just in, AP/Yahoo poll: Obama 44, McCain 42, with 873 Democrats sampled, 650 Republicans sampled. I hope all the libs kept those receipts for all the champagne they bought for election night.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 17, 2008 at 10:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The key to understanding conservative and liberal visions is in the starkness of our views Grandpa.

Conservatives want it simple -- they keep it simple. Good and Evil, right and wrong. The fewest regulations possible they have no faith in complexity because it confuses them. They hate government because it's complexity in the modern era is beyond them -- so they try to dismantle it and individuals seek to profit from that -- that is why you guys are losing.

Liberals think in terms of shades of gray -- in trends.

I can say that conservatives are more violent as a trend, and you find one who is not to pretend what I say is not true. That way the simplicity of conservatism has appeal to one type of person -- but it is a lie if the world is actually a complicated place that can best be addressed by men who value complexity as opportunity, not avoid it out of their fear.

As far as character, who mentioned Joe the most in the debate, bunny? The man who sought to use him dishonestly, John McCain.

After McCain used him dishonestly against Obama, now it comes out Joe was not what he pretended to be. And McCain did not vet him. The man deserves the scrutiny, but of course you would grant him totally useful for what Mccain did, but when the truth is known that was a bit of a lie -- so you want to silence it because you pretend compassion for the man. You don't even know from moment to moment why you believe what you do -- because the world --even yours -- is more complicated in honesty than you would ever admit it to be.

I feel sorry for the poor man, too. He should have kept his mouth shut and not stepped forward with a lie himself -- that he stood in any way to buy his boss out.

Another entitlement for a liar on your side you want, bunny? What happened to standing up for yourself? Telling the truth, and being personally responsible? You are a joke -- your brand of political conservatism is a joke.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 17, 2008 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I can't believe people are falling for it. Have you noticed duhuhuh just goes away when you call him on anything.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 17, 2008 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How was he used dishonestly? He was approached by Obama and he asked Obama a simple question. McCain simply quoted Obama, what is dishonest about that? Say it...NOTHING!

You are a jacka$$!! Do you ever wonder why every one makes derogatory comments about you? Surely there is a valid reason.

Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on October 17, 2008 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhuh, concerning - - -> "Conservatives want it simple -- they keep it simple. Good and Evil, right and wrong. The fewest regulations possible they have no faith in complexity because it confuses them. They hate government because it's complexity in the modern era is beyond them -- so they try to dismantle it and individuals seek to profit from that -- that is why you guys are losing.

Liberals think in terms of shades of gray -- in trends."

You obviously happen to be the one thinking in the black and white terms. You keep categorizing folks. Trying to pigeonhole them into nice little categories. The world don't work like that. Folks are simply not like that. If people were all like that we could form a committee, have a meeting, accomplish the objectives and be out in 10 minutes. Reality overrides the categories you like to force people into.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 17, 2008 at 10:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Keep going yeahuhuh, I love it. Keep spreading the liberal wealth. I think Joe should be deported. At the very least he should be thrown in prison. Knock him down, kick him, spit on him. It's all good.

Perhaps you should again reference my post from yesterday about liberalism, the newest mental disorder. Your posts this morning are certainly lending credence to it.

Bunny, I think he believes that if he ignores me I'll just go away. Good luck with that.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 17, 2008 at 10:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Just an aside, but I wonder why there haven't been any interviews with William Ayers asking HIM about his relationship with Barack Obama. Strange, huh?

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 17, 2008 at 10:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You won't understand in this lifetime Grandapa because you think you are entitled to the good you can do with your way of seeing, but you don't think your way of seeing has any downsides.

We could not handle a complicated debate in 10 minutes even if we used committees more because people mis-state the situation to curry themselves favor -- like you just did.

You guys feel it your entitlement to power.

I say sit down for 4 years we trusted you once and you still bend the turth to get your way. We won't break your jaw to shut you up. We will just take the country away from you.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 17, 2008 at 10:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Again with the entitlement crapola. That is a democratic concept as in...I am entitled to your paycheck.

The only thing I am entitled to is what I earn through my job!

Posted by Gimmeabreak (anonymous) on October 17, 2008 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Probably because Ayers is not running for President, Obama is.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 17, 2008 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

No, it's because he has declined all interview requests.

And Bush is not running for President...McCain is.

Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on October 17, 2008 at 11:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhuh, there you go again with -> "You guys"

You lump everyone into your own categories......

Don't feel bad. Its a Democrat trait, for sure.

Sorry, but I'm not following the "curry themselves favor --like you just did" or "You guys feel it your entitlement to power". At least as it applies to me. Maybe you need to rethink or reword. Or I'll try to re-read once I get up in the morning. Its been a long day. Y'all have a good day.......

Posted by obamayamama (anonymous) on October 17, 2008 at 11:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It's not called "lumping into a catagory", it is called stereotyping. And what is this suppose to mean:

"But let's be honest. I am white -- I know exactly what I am talking about." haah, who is really the joke yeahuhuh!

Also, just to correct at least one of your insults, I recently stated that I form opinions based on the importance of this country. I do not listen to media, only public radio. I also enjoy conversating/debating to whoever (not just people on this site) is interested. Democracy is to blame for the economy, not the war. If we totally pull out of Iraq, terrorism would arise still and eventually make its way back to the US.

This country needs to be regain structure NOT reorganization. There is no wealth to spread, people have lost more than half of their retirement. Over a half a billion jobs have been lost so far. Conservation is necessary which means the GDP will decrease thus further deepening the recession. We do not need any new policies imposed on taxes right now. We need to rebuild now, and worry about CHANGE later. That is the bottom line.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 17, 2008 at 12:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh fellows it doens't matter that Obama is a Muslim, and Arab or he hangs with radicals, or his preacher is anti-American -- "you people" do not lump people into categories.

he,he. You guys slay me. Go worship at a muslim church tonight to prove howopenminded you are. he,he!

Posted by obamayamama (anonymous) on October 17, 2008 at 12:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I would certainly be interested in attending a muslim church. It has to be amazing to watch so many people become over-powered by their beliefs. To drop to their knees all pointing toward Mecca multiple times a day, to believe it is okay to kill innocent people just because they are standing there, even people of their own religion, to be that determined and believe in something that much shows their dedication. That is admirable.

Maybe if we accept them, they will accept us. Maybe not..

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 17, 2008 at 1:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How do you give a tax cut to 95% of Americans, when 40% of Americans DON'T PAY TAXES? And how can you add $1.3 TRILLION in spending programs, NOT including what his health care plan will cost...during an economic crisis, while giving tax CUTS to 95% of Americans, and raising taxes on the remaining successful people who EMPLOY the middle class?

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 17, 2008 at 1:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Happybunny, the simple answer is that you can't. But this notion that Obama has ever intended to cut anybody's taxes is fiction. Democrats don't cut taxes, they raise them. Cutting taxes to a Democrat would be the equivalent of cutting off one of their arms. Tax cuts are antithetical to everything Democrats believe in. You see, it's not our money, it's their money, because they know how best to spend it. Any money they "allow" us to keep is a gift.

Remember Bill Clinton's famous '92 middle class tax cut. Once elected that idea was quickly discarded. Then he went on to raise middle class taxes as part of the largest tax increase in U.S. history.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 17, 2008 at 1:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"increases"

Posted by Gimmeabreak (anonymous) on October 17, 2008 at 1:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There are many Christians out there who feel it is okay to kill innocent people, and they are just as intolerant of Muslims as the Muslims are of them. Remember the KKK?-those were fine, upstanding christians who believed that they were doing God's work (sarcasm for those of you who dont get it)
Lets be fair here, there are good and bad people in this world of every race, creed and religion.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 17, 2008 at 1:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The KKK was driven by racial hatred, not religious intolerance. Radical Muslims commit acts of terror based on their religion. They're equal opportunity killers. To say that many in the KKK were Christians and they killed minorities, therefore Christians kill innocent people and are somehow equivalent to radical Muslim's, is a false analogy. That's the same as saying that everybody who develops heart disease also drinks water, therefore water causes heart disease.

Posted by Gimmeabreak (anonymous) on October 17, 2008 at 1:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Racial hatred, religious intolerance, what does it matter...murder is murder. Do you think the KKK didnt kill fellow whites that supported blacks? If not, you would be wrong. This isnt about the KKK though, that was just an example.
I dont feel that it is a false analogy..because both groups killed anyone who opposed their views of white supremacy or Islam.
All I am intending to say as I have said before is that there are crazy people of every religion and race.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 17, 2008 at 2:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I couldn't agree more.

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 17, 2008 at 4:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Senator McCain says he cares about education, Joe the Plumber, special needs children.

Senator Obama has stated he supports legislation to give families income tax credits for education.

Everyone now seems to agree (except for the most prolific "conservative" writers on this site) that Joe the Plumber would be more likely to succeed as a small businessman under Senator Obama's tax plan than under Senator McCain's.

Senator Obama supports health care legislation to improve the lot of special needs children.

Senator McCain's statements remind me of a lot of some Christians who profess care and concern but don't back up their words with action.

I believe some people who profess to support Senator McCain and some who do not talk about their candidate preferences at all (to protect life, liberty and property) will vote for Senator Obama.

Voting by secret ballot has not yet been made a "national security concern".

Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on October 17, 2008 at 5:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"But let's be honest. I am white -- I know exactly what I am talking about."

Does this mean he thinks black people don't know what they are talking about?