Posted by emp (anonymous) on October 28, 2008 at 12:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Does this mean that the great and powerful Obama couldn't stop the rain? Or maybe he was showing his human side.

Posted by MSviaTN (anonymous) on October 28, 2008 at 12:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dear Fellow Business Owners

As a Business owner who employs 30 people, I have resigned myself to the fact that Barack Obama, wll be our next President, and that my Taxes and Fees, will go up in a BIG way.

To compensate for these increases, I figure, that the Customer, will have to see an increase in my fees to them of about, 8%. I will also have to lay off 6 of my employees. This really bothered me as I believe we are family,here and did'nt know how to choose who will have to go. So, this is what I did. I strolled thru the parking lot and found, 8 Obama bumper stickers on my employees cars. I have decided these folks will be the first to be laid off.

I can't think of another fair way to approach this problem. If you have a better idea, let me know.

I am sending this letter to all Business owners that I know.

Sincerely

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 28, 2008 at 12:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dear Fellow Business Owners,

As a small business owner that employs less than 30 people, the stock market crash has meant that my business assets have been cut in half.

I can understand a bank bailout that may one day be paid back but for Republicans to engineer a stock market crash that causes a trillion dollars to simply evaporate in this country is amazing to me.

I figure that I cannot afford 4 more years of Republican free enterprise. Health care costs are so high I have never been able to offer health insurance to my employees, so I have already kept my business small.

Due to Republican policies for the last 8 years, I have decided already that Pakistani workers work much harder for less and my US staff is therefore kept to a minimum. When Bush gave me tax cuts the money went directly overseas to help my business work. I am doing better than ever, but only because of what I have done, not what the government has done.

Obama's plan does not affect me negatively at all. In fact he offers hope to a lot of people I know that health care may become a little more affordable.

I encourage all businessmen that wish to raise their prices to do so and compete with foreign competitors. Go ahead and lay off your employees and let them find employment with a loyal employer -- or better than that let them go into business in competition with you on YOUR training.

Obama/Biden will make our government more honest, and since I can roll with the punches and survive a Republican government, it should be a cakewalk having 4 years of more honest rule for a change.

At least the Democrats won't pretend they are giving me "free enterprise" and I bet a country that actually pays it's bills will make the dollar increase in value and help us all.

Sincerely,

Simon Legree He,he!

Posted by emp (anonymous) on October 28, 2008 at 4:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

yeahuhuh, you are NOT a business owner with 30 employees.

Posted by Dilbert (anonymous) on October 28, 2008 at 4:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhuh:
"Obama/Biden will make our government more honest"

As I was sitting here laughing while reading your post, I actually started laughing so hard my eyes watered up at your post when I got to this part.

"Make our government more honest"

Have you lost total control of your senses? You must have to make a statement such as this.

As an Illinois State Senator, Obama promised to lower taxes on the middle class. Did he? No
Did he even make an attempt, introduce legislation, anything to help lower taxes? No
How very honest of him.

As an Illinois State Senator, Obama filled out a questionnaire about banning hand guns in which he said he would support the banning of handguns. This questionnaire was filled out in his own hand writing, but now Obama said he never, ever has supported the banning of handguns.
How very honest of him.

Obama in one of his talks said that Iran was a tiny country and poised no threat because they spent only 1/10th of what the USA spent on the military. The next day he said Iran posed a grave threat. When asked about saying it was a tiny country, Obama said he never said that, that his quote was taken out of context. Then it was played again in its entirety and was quite clear it was not out of context, Obama was out of his mind.
How honest of him.

When asked about Rev Wrights sermons? Obama stated he didn't ever hear anything like that while he was there.
How very honest of him.

When asked about Tony Rezko, Obama said he did a couple hours legal work for him, but never had direct dealings with him.
How very honest of him.

When asked about Ayers, Obama said he was "Just some guy in the neighborhood".
How very honest of him.

I could go on all day.....

Yeahuhuh, you have one screwed up sense of honesty.

Posted by Dilbert (anonymous) on October 28, 2008 at 4:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well after I finished laughing and got to where I could read Yeahuhuh's post again. I got to the part where he said something about with the Democrats will actually pay the bills.

Yeahuhuh, why don't you do something that even Obama can't do. Explain how he is going to pay the bills while introducing one trillion dollars of new spending. He said it was budget neutral because he was cutting as much as he was increasing and therefore it would be no increase.
How very honest of him.

He is the only one that can come up with these numbers. Al Gore invented the internet and Obama must have invented the calculator.

All of the non-partisan people who have studied this have come up with that he will add over $300,000,000,000 to the deficit and he will never be able to pay for the 1 trillion unless he increases taxes on everyone, and increases them by a whole bunch not just a little bit, a lot.

Come on Yeahuhuh, explain what Obama can't.

Posted by iameubu (anonymous) on October 28, 2008 at 9:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bumper stickers and yard signs are rare this cycle.

Wed. morning facial expressions will define friend or foe.

Posted by bombingeight (anonymous) on October 28, 2008 at 10:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just curious about MSviaTN's comment, are the 30 employees full-time, 40 hour per week workers, and does your net income exceed $250,000 by so much that an 8% increase is required? As I read, understand and have agreement with most, at $250,000 the increase in taxes is $121 per year.

Posted by Incognito (anonymous) on October 29, 2008 at 8:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hopefully, those individuals with the bumper stickers that are let go will identify the commonality and will take you to court.

Posted by MSviaTN (anonymous) on October 29, 2008 at 8:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well - the lastest income # from Biden is $150,000 - and if you do not think that business owners are going to jack up their prices to make the consumer pay their tax increase, then you are nuts! Yeah - Obama may help out the low income families by tax breaks, but they can see past the free money Obama is saying they are going to get! They are not going to be any better off because of higher prices and layoffs - I just don't see how people can't see that.

Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 29, 2008 at 9:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh yeahuyeaughhuh,you have really opened up a can of worms this time . I know thet its hard for you to realize but your appointed one is not an honest man. He lies with the best of them . He lied about his association with Bill Ayers&Tony Rezko. He lied about not hearing rev wright spew racial & American hatred from his pulpit . He lied in his 1st debate with Senator McCain when he said he never said that he would meet with the leaders of Cuba,Venezuela& Iran without preparations at lower levels. Joe Bide even repeated your words in his debate with Sarah Palin .Last Febuary obama said he would meet with these leaders and said he would do it without any preconditions . he lied again and again .Obama lied when he said he always knew the surge would worl. That was last July. You see last year he said he knew it wouldn't work . He lied when he said the reason he didn't vote forfunding for the troops was because the bill didn't include a time line for withdrawal when a year ago obama said it was because he wanted our troops home immediately. The man would have put our troops in more danger by not voting for more funds. Just so he could have his own way . obama can't and won't work with Republicans. The one and only time he did it was with Chuck Luger ...and that bill failed. Last spring your man said he had been a professor of Constitutional law and then as recent as the last debate dsaid he taughta law class. Not exactly the same thing ,is it?And by the way John McCain did vote for funding for our troops . obama also had close relationships withFannie Mae,Freddie Mac, Countrywide, Acorn and as of this morning we are hearing of even more relationships he had or has with people undesireable to a potential president . You have to be joking when you say your boy is honest . Cause it just ain't so!

Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 29, 2008 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry for the type-o's . I'm in a big hurry this morning . Have a great day without me ya'll . And take up for me since I can't be here to do it ,okay? You have to watch out for yeah and such

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 29, 2008 at 10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dilbert (good name)

I don't think you are serious about this. This statement:

"All of the non-partisan people who have studied this have come up with that he will add over $300,000,000,000 to the deficit and he will never be able to pay for the 1 trillion unless he increases taxes on everyone, and increases them by a whole bunch not just a little bit, a lot."

Dilly baby why don't you tell the whole truth?

"The Tax Policy Center has updated its analysis of the fiscal impact of the tax proposals of Presidential candidates Senators John McCain and Barack Obama. In both cases, the impact on the national debt would be greater than under the Center’s previous model.

Senator Obama’s plan as described by his economic advisers would increase the debt by about $3.4 trillion by 2018; Senator McCain’s plan would increase it by $5.0 trillion."

Dilbert your first task is to recognize how wrong you can be. 5.0 trillion is more than 3.4 trillion on this planet.

Then McCain pretends he is more fiscally responsible. Go figure -- prove my point -- Not totally honest government but MORE honest government.

And Democratic presidents are the ONLY party with a history of paying off the deficit since President Ford. The ONLY party. Republicans always deficit spend, so far. Always.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 29, 2008 at 10:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

southernbelle -- you have done a great job of sifting through history and seeing conflicts you can't explain -- or having spin machines whisper them in your ear. Even the way you word your examples are actually untrue -- and you can't see that.

You have not addressed the constant litany of lies the McCain Palin side tells every day. 3 to 1 more untruths, half truths and misleading statements Obama/Biden makes.

You just want a 38% minority party to control the country, and you can't do it on issues, you have to misrepresent people. We understand. We just don't give you a pass for it like you do yourselves.

We like democracy more, and being truthful is more important to us.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 29, 2008 at 10:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

ANYONE WHO WANTS TO ARGUE WITH ANYONE ABOUT HONESTY SHOULD GO FIRST TO:

http://www.factcheck.org

Both sides' fibs are exposed there. I accept their assessment as far more accurate than either campaign.

I know for a fact that conservatives can learn something there about how easy they are to mislead.

Posted by harjedalen (anonymous) on October 29, 2008 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama and the dems will cut the federal budget, but of course he can t actually say what he is going to cut until after he is elected because it will anger the special interests. To me, this is a good thing.
Rock the boat, Barack the vote!!!

Posted by Incognito (anonymous) on October 29, 2008 at 12:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What will be the topic of discussion after the election?

Posted by MSviaTN (anonymous) on October 29, 2008 at 12:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How whoever won cheated :-)

Posted by Spanky (anonymous) on October 29, 2008 at 12:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A lot has been said about the causes of the drastic drops -- and extreme volatility -- in stock prices and the impending recession. Blame has been heaped on low interest rates and dubious mortgage practices, and on the subsequent collapse of real-estate prices and the freeze in financial markets. But one other major factor has largely escaped attention.
To state the obvious: The valuation of an individual stock reflects the collective expectation of investors about a company's future profits, dividends and appreciation, and the same is true of the market as a whole. These profits, in turn, are greatly influenced by government policy on taxes, spending, subsidies, environmental and other regulations, labor laws, and the corporate legal climate. Investors have heard enough from both candidates in the last month or two to conclude that prospects for a flourishing, competitive, growing and reasonably free economy in a McCain administration are bad, and in an Obama administration far worse. (In fact, the market's bearish behavior over the last couple of months pretty closely tracks Barack Obama's gains.)
If you don't believe me, please answer a few questions:

Posted by Spanky (anonymous) on October 29, 2008 at 12:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

- Have you thought of what a gradual doubling (and indexation) of the minimum wage, sailing through a veto-proof and filibuster-proof Congress, would do to inflation, unemployment and corporate profits? The market now has.
- Have you thought of how easily a Labor Department headed by a militant union boss would push through a "Transparency in Labor Relations" law that does away with secret ballots in strike votes, and what this would do to industrial peace? The market now has.
- Have you thought of how a Treasury Secretary George Soros would engineer the double taxation of the multinationals' world-wide profits, and what this would mean for investors (to say nothing of full-scale industrial flight from the U.S.)? The market now has.
- Have you thought of how an Attorney General Charles J. Ogletree would champion a trillion-dollar reparations-for-slavery project (whittled down, to be fair, to a mere $800-billion, over-10-years compromise), and what this would do to the economy? The market now has.
- Have you thought of what the virtual outlawing of arbitration -- exposing all industries to the fate of asbestos producers -- would do to corporate liability and legal bills? The market now has.
- Have you thought of how a Health and Human Services Secretary Hillary Clinton would fix drug prices (generously allowing 10% over the cost of raw materials), and what this would do to the financial health of the pharmaceutical industry (not to mention the nondiscovery of lifesaving drugs)? The market now has.
- Have you thought of a Secretary of the newly established Department of Equal Opportunity for Women mandating "comparable worth" pay practices for every company doing any business with government at any level -- where any residual gap between the average pay of men and women is an eo ipso violation? Have you thought about what this would do to administrative and legal costs, hiring practices, productivity and wage bills? The market now has.
- Have you thought of what confiscatory "windfall profits" taxes on oil companies would do to exploration, supply and prices? The market now has.

Posted by Spanky (anonymous) on October 29, 2008 at 12:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

- Have you thought of how the nationalization of health insurance, the mandated coverage of ever more -- and more exotic -- risks, the forced reimbursement for excluded events, and the diminished freedom to match premium to risk would affect the insurance industry? The market now has.
- Have you thought of Energy Czar Al Gore's five million new green jobs -- high-paying, unionized and subsidized -- to replace, at five times the cost, what we are now producing without those five million workers, and what this will do to our productivity, deficit and competitiveness? The market now has.
I could go on, but you get the point. Nothing reveals Mr. Obama's visceral hostility to business more than the constant urging of our best and brightest to desert the productive private sector ("greed") and go into public service like politics or community organizing (i.e., organizing people to press government for more handouts). Who in his ideal world would bake our bread, make our shoes and computers, and pilot our airplanes is not clear.
And if you think all this comes from an ardent John McCain fan, you couldn't be more wrong. The Arizona Senator has made some terrible mistakes, one of them trying to out-demagogue Mr. Obama to the economic illiterates. This kind of pandering never works. Such populists and other economic illiterates will always go for the genuine article.
Mr. McCain should have asked some simple questions -- pertinent, educational and easily understood by ordinary voters. Such as:

Posted by Spanky (anonymous) on October 29, 2008 at 12:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

- If the rise in the price of oil from $70 to $140 was due to "greed" (the all-purpose explanation of the other side for every economic problem), was the fall from $140 to $70 due to a sudden outbreak of altruism?
- If a bank is guilty both for rejecting a mortgage ("redlining") and for approving it ("greed" -- see above), how might a bank president keep his business out of trouble with the law?
- If the financial turmoil of the last year or so was caused by inadequate regulation, which party has controlled both Houses of Congress and all of its financial committees and subcommittees (where such regulation would originate) in the last two years?
- If we bemoan the sending of $750 billion a year to our enemies for imported oil, which party has prevented domestic drilling for decades that would have made us more self-sufficient?
- You were unhappy with Congress, and in 2006 you cast your lot with those who, like Mr. Obama now, promised "change." Are you happy with the changes that have taken place in the last two years?
None of these questions have been asked loudly or often enough, while the other message -- everything is bad, it's all Bush's fault, and McCain=Bush -- has sunk in. So given his own penchant for business bashing, a McCain win would merely count as damage control.
The market is forward looking. If it is unhappy with a president, it does not wait almost eight years before the numbers reflect it. If it really anticipated good times under Mr. Obama, the market would have gained 40% in anticipation of the transition. By losing that much, it seems to be saying the opposite.
The silver lining in all this is that the market has already "discounted" an Obama win, so if that happens you won't wake up on Nov. 5 to find your remaining savings down the drain. If the unexpected happens, you may be in for a pleasant surprise.
Credit goes to WSJ

Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on October 29, 2008 at 2:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

After the Election, the liberals and socialists of Natchez will be able to talk about the Good OLE' USA becoming a 3rd world country and the downfall of American Business!

Posted by rattlesnake (anonymous) on October 29, 2008 at 3:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

rushinghjr you said it all with your last statement.If odamy wins the USA will cease to exist as we know it.

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 29, 2008 at 4:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

rushing and rattlesnake, if you like our current economic situation, I believe you should vote for McCain, as he will carry on with the Bush policies we've lived with for the past 8 years. The policies translate to: middle class be damned.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 29, 2008 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Great posts Spanky! I can't help but notice that there's been no response from the usual liberal suspects. They tend to fade away in the face of a factual argument.

This quote summarizes liberal and Democrat strategy when it comes to the acquisition of power and the methods used for that acquisition:

"Demogogic ranting that displays confidence in the face of counterevidence is the way to sway UNLEARNED masses (ie. Democrat voters and a good majority of "independents")."

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 29, 2008 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That's a great cut N paste Spanky.

I heard Karl Rove -- the Queen of Disinformation saying that the other day on FOX noise channel. Remember him -- he's the guy that said he had secret polling information that showed Democrats would not win the congressional elections in 2006 -- the night before they slam dunked the house and senate.

That stock market rise record rise yesterday sort of makes that look stupid doesn't it? A lot of people looking for deals in those long-term interests.

I just heard a nice piece by a linguist on MPB on how lame McCain was to resurrect that old "socialist" term after trying so many other lame Obama labels for the stooges who repeat his one-liners. Trying to pique the word association psychoses of followers he used one label after another to get something to stick in their heads -- it largely worked ONLY with the 38% party faithful who would vote for anything the Republicans offered. he pointed out that Bush/Cheney never used the label -- but alot of their stooges did for sure.

Being raised a redneck I know the lure of a catchy word. The smaller the vocabulary the better for rednecks. KISS -- keep it simple stupid -- is a good Republican strategy. I think they should keep using it.

rushing and rattlesnake are such geniuses about predicting -- wonder if they can predict a single stock to buy to make them rich since they are so good at predictions. Bet they never did it once.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on October 29, 2008 at 4:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think you meant Barney Frank when you said Queen of Disinformation Yh. Isn't he the one who had the underage male prostitution ring operating out of his townhouse? Too bad it couldn't have stayed in business, maybe then Larry Craig could have avoided the embarrassment he was forced to seek in (alledgly) soliciting sex in the men's room.

Expect yesterday's record rise to be soon followed by another record fall Yh. It doesn't have anything to do with faith in Obama or lack thereof.

I wonder why Wall St. has donated money to the Obama campaign 3 or 4 to 1 at the rate they've donated to McCain?

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on October 29, 2008 at 4:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh, I forgot, the latest release of monetary aggregates shows an annualized rate of increase of 347%. That is why the market it able to jump up and down. The Fed keeps pumping money into it. So, we have a 347% increase in money supply and a decrease in GDP. A current inflation rate, in terms of real prices, of 15%. Whoever gets elected, it should be an exciting show.

Did either of these candidates vote against the taxpayer rescure plan?

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 29, 2008 at 5:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks for confirming what I said Enkik.:

"It doesn't have anything to do with faith in Obama or lack thereof"

And yes we all expect the market to up and down.

And Barney Frank ain't even a wart on the unwiped rear of the master -- Rove. The man who hatched the Permanent Republican Majority in a democratic republic where Republicans are only 38% of the population -- what a patriot! You of all people have to admire cult manipulation on that order.

And yes, we will have to deal with socialists no matter who wins -- one will call his opposition a socialist and pretend he is not one. The other does not talk about it so much because it is stupid to parse labels.

I heard Rush (was it?) talking a while back about hoping Democrats won this round because in the process of weathering the storm conservatives will have endless opportunities to feed the faithful the faux blame.

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 29, 2008 at 5:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"I wonder why Wall St. has donated money to the Obama campaign 3 or 4 to 1 at the rate they've donated to McCain?"

Maybe because they like to put their money on the candidate they believe will win?

I'll take my chances on Senator Obama selling out to wall street as I have no doubt that Senator McCain will continue George Bush's deregulation policies.

Doesn't really matter as far as my investments now - I'm looking for a sock without a hole in it - doesn't have to be a big one.

I'll go for the tax relief for middle class.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 29, 2008 at 6:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhuh, you seem to be fixated on this 38% number. I assume you're talking about party ID. The polls vary, but they all show party ID at about 38% Democrat, 34% Republican, the rest not affiliated with any party.

And I hate to tell you, socialist is not merely a label that's being thrown around. Don't you find it a little strange that nearly all of Obama's close friends and the people who've had the most influence on him, by his own admission, are either communists or hate this country? That doesn't bother you at all? In his own book he talked about how carefully he chose his friends, which included socialists, Marxist's, and radicals. He even talked about attending socialist seminars and rallys where Marxist literature was being handed out. Doesn't any of that matter to you at all?

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 29, 2008 at 6:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

km, our current president hangs with the Saudis - the nationality of the 9/11 terrorists.

Posted by Dilbert (anonymous) on October 29, 2008 at 6:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhuh, just so I understand, you think my name Dilbert is a funny name and your name is "Yeahuhuh". Well that doesn't surprise me, that argument is as far off as anything else you post.

I said, Obama's spending would increase the deficit by over 3 trillion dollars. You then said I was wrong because Obama would actually increase it by 3.4 trillion dollars. Thanks for proving me right?

Then you go on and say that Obama's "economic advisers" say McCain's would increase it by 5 trillion. So, I state non-partisan people saying one thing, which you turn around and back up and then you pipe in to argue with what "Obama's advisers" say? Are you serious? I wonder what they say at Obama.com, guess I need to just get all my facts from there.

Then you say I need to realize how wrong I can be? I never said in my post that 5 trillion wasn't more than 3.4 trillion. I said Obama's spending plan would increase the deficit by over 3 trillion, which you turned around and agreed with. So what exactly were "WE" wrong about? (If I say it and you agree with it, that means we were both wrong)

Did ya'll see in the news where all the illegal people that ACORN registered to vote, have also been found to be donating money to Barack Obama? Seems "Mr. Honest" Obama (according to weird named Yeahuhuh) turned off the security for credit cards that verifies the name on the card matches the address on the file for the card and he has Mickey Mouse donating money to his campaign. So far these donations are about half of his money raised (estimated at 300 million dollars). I'm glad he is so honest and upfront. But at least this explains why he refuses to release the names of his donors.

Posted by harjedalen (anonymous) on October 29, 2008 at 7:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

HEY REPUBLICANS....John Mccain IS A SOCIALIST!!!!During the 2000 campaign, on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” a young woman asked him why her father, a doctor, should be “penalized” by being “in a huge tax bracket.” McCain replied that “wealthy people can afford more” and that “the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don’t pay nearly as much as you think they do.” The exchange continued:

Young woman: Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism and stuff?. . .
McCain: Here’s what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.

DOn't believe me, watch the video!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2JPbQOHE...
I guess Mccain used to be a cool maverick!!! What a flipflop this time around!!!
What would Joe the Plumber have to say about this?

Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 29, 2008 at 7:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Okay,you democrats.please explain to me exactly what does your man obama mean when he says "economic justice"? Is he talking about Americans as a whole or Americans paying for racial injustices so many years ago ? I don't feel that living in the land of the free has been an injustice for me . And I don't want to spread my little money around to people too lazy to get off there yay yay's to make their own . Here's another little fact that hasn't been brought up in these comments...obama pays his female workers 82%on the dollar . I guess it's just a mans'world and oh-de-ho bama is not going to change it for the better for most of us .McCain/Palin 2008' One other thing John McCain is not even remotely like George Bush . I know that's hard for some of ya'll to understand.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 29, 2008 at 8:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Southernwoman, are you implying that Bush is secretly a Saudi? Or a terrorist? Are you saying that all people of Saudi descent are terrorists? You're using a false analogy. That's the same as saying that if all the people involved in a plane crash had carrots with their in flight meal, the carrots caused the plane to crash.

I somehow doubt that if McCain had a large number of friends who were white supremacists, and if he had attended the meetings of racist groups, that you libs would just blow if off and say it was unimportant. But please correct me if I'm wrong.

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 29, 2008 at 9:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

km, you said:

"And I hate to tell you, socialist is not merely a label that's being thrown around. Don't you find it a little strange that nearly all of Obama's close friends and the people who've had the most influence on him, by his own admission, are either communists or hate this country? That doesn't bother you at all? In his own book he talked about how carefully he chose his friends, which included socialists, Marxist's, and radicals. He even talked about attending socialist seminars and rallys where Marxist literature was being handed out. Doesn't any of that matter to you at all?"

km, I don't happen to believe anyone is defined by the company they keep, you, me, George Bush or Barack Obama.

I have a great friend who is an atheist. Some of his arguments have made me look at my faith in a new way. As a result, my faith has been made stronger. And he has forgiven me for trying to "get him saved".

Tonight on Larry King, Senator McCain said he did not believe Senator Obama is a socialist.
I

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 29, 2008 at 9:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

km, perhaps Senator Obama's policy would be more palatable for you if you think of it as a reverse trickle-down economic policy (aka voo-doo economics).

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 29, 2008 at 9:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Southernwoman, you're being incredibly naive. If one of your friends holds a particular belief, then of course that doesn't mean that you share that belief. But if you had a large number of associates who were athiests, chances are that you would share their beliefs. That's just human nature. We are naturally drawn to those who are like us and share our world view.

Obama, in the recently released 2001 NPR interview, used phrases like "economic justice," "wealth redistribution" and the like. These are all phrases associated with either socialism or Marxism. When you couple that with a long line of associates who are admitted Marxists and socialists, and the fact that Obama attended socialist meetings, I don't think it's a very hard case to make that he shares that belief system.

And keep in mind that he stated in his book that he chose his friends carefully. These weren't random, and thereby coincidental, associations. He knew exactly what he was doing, and exactly who these people were.

I've stated this in an earlier post, but did you realize that if Obama were applying for a staff position at the White House that he wouldn't be able to get a security clearance because of his past associations? Doesn't that tell you anything?

And McCain can't come right out and say that Obama is a socialist because of the political implications.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 29, 2008 at 9:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why can't you liberals accept reality? Ronald Reagan and so-called "trickle-down economics" were responsible for the longest period of peace-time economic growth in this nations history. When Reagan took office we had double digit inflation and interest rates. Unemployment was through the roof. The economy was stagnant. His tax cuts doubled revenue to the Treasury, created 20 million new jobs and slashed unemployment. Those are facts.

The Democrats believe in the Galbreath theory of economics which is that the government should take more money in taxes because they believe they are better able to spend it than you and I are. This theory has been disproved repeatedly throughout history, yet they can't abandon it. It's senseless really.

Something else you might want to consider. It was recently pointed out to Obama that when the capital gains tax rate is cut that revenue to the government actually increases. He said that he knew that, but that it was "fairer" to raise it anyway on the so-called "rich." If that doesn't tell you something, I don't know what will.

Posted by Lily_Dream (anonymous) on October 29, 2008 at 10:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In the famous song of the late great Mr. Sam Cooke,

"It's been a long time coming, but I know a change is 'gonna come, oh yes it is".

Yeahuhuh, I believe you know what I'm talking about!!!!!

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 29, 2008 at 10:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

km,
If I were only naturally drawn to people who are like me and share my worldview, I WOULD be naive and ignorant.

You use "friends" and "associates" interchangeably in your post above - they are not the same.

Economic justice can be interpreted many, many ways; for me, one example is giving more people a chance to go to college, such as "your friend" you recently spoke so highly of who was able to obtain loans to help pay for his education. Another example would be making affordable health care available.

We could interpret the recent nationalization of the banking system as socialistic.

The Earned Income Tax Credit, begun in 1975 during (R) President's Ford's administration, could be interpreted as socialism.

In almost all his speeches, I've heard Senator Obama speak of the necessity of everyone taking personal responsibility for their lives. I don't believe that is a marxist tenet.

McCain claims to be a straight shooter who puts country first - what political implications would he allow to stand in his way of coming right out and saying that Senator Obama is a socialist if he believes Senator Obama is a threat to our so-called capitalist system?

Posted by bombingeight (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 12:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

From MSviaTN "Well - the lastest income # from Biden is $150,000 - and if you do not think that business owners are going to jack up their prices to make the consumer pay their tax increase, then you are nuts! Yeah - Obama may help out the low income families by tax breaks, but they can see past the free money Obama is saying they are going to get! They are not going to be any better off because of higher prices and layoffs - I just don't see how people can't see that."

I believe the number is $250,000 earned income below which tax reductions occur. If that income level is what you mean by "low income families", well that's over 90% of us. Further, I think we have already seen those higher prices and layoffs, and Obama has not even be elected yet!

I asked if your 30 employees were full-time - and next, do they have health care benefits or are we paying their or other uninsured employees' costs through higher hospital and medical costs to those of us who are insured?

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 7:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

bombingeight --

I bet you hit on something asking MSviaTN the nature of employee health status.

I just bet that entire letter was another cut and paste pretend situation that has been used so often by the McCain campaign and it's followers.

I bet MSviaTN is not as described -- sort of like Joe the Plumber. Joe Plumber has proven himself to be a national laughing stock to a little over half the people, but the McCain campaign uses him to stroke the folks who could never bring themselves to change parties anyway. The rest of us see him as an icon of their stupidity and bad judgment.

However, my letter above describing employment and business concerns is totally true.

I think when you roll over the rocks you will find something consistent about this campaign. One side is more honest than the other side -- the side who is pretending more is using lies, slurs and deception in order to get a minority party with failed vision into power -- again.

It is not such a mystery why politics is happening the way it is.

Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 8:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

yeah,I guess Joe the Plumber has struck a nerve since he gets brought up so much by the liberals.He has that common sense way of talking about things and all of us Joes and Janes like that . Straight talk. All he wanted was a straight answer and look at where it took him . We still don't get a straight answer without a bunch of bologna with it . I,like a lot of people will be glad when this is all over . That won't happen on Tuesday . This will be too close of a race to be able to call anyone a winner. Acorn has already set the doubt of the real winner, whoever that may be. Until we can be assured of good honest people inside the voting arena and out ,there will be doubt. Whatever happens I pray it is the right choice. I pray nothing more than more economic struggle is in our future . We can live with that .IF obama is elected ,then I truly hope he proves me wrong about himself and the way I feel he will govern . IF John McCain is elected I hope he proves to the nation that he is the right choice and will keep this country safe and prosperous. I hope he proves to be the AmeriCAIN that I believe he is !

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 8:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't know fellows. I wonder about what you must be eating.

emp -- who didn't read before he popped off -- says I am not an employer with 30 employees. Here is what I said I was :

"As a small business owner that employs less than 30 people, the stock market crash has meant that my business assets have been cut in half."

I am totally that, honestly, I have my doubts about MSviaTN beng an employer at all, though.

And Dilbert, to answer your questions, the reason your name is funny in our context is this, taken from an online dictionary describing the character :

"Although he is kind, intelligent, and works hard, he is never very successful, but he has a very intelligent dog."

Dilbert the character works for someone else who holds him back through stupid mistakes. You get it? See the relevance?

I think that's funny, you think I am "far off" -- go figure. Maybe you just don't get liberal humor.

You said Obama's spending would increase the deficit, and cited all the independent expert world. So I produced an independent estimate that shows McCain's deficit reduction would be far worse.

I didn't cite Obama advisors, I cited independent sources -- you said they were Obama's advisers -- go figure. Then you rant some. Ho hum.

I don't think I agreed with anything, nor did I ever claim Obama's efforts at deficit reduction would work before the deficit got worse -- but I think he will bebetter than McCain. I took issue with your using the term "all the non-partisan people who have studied this". Because as my mama used to say, "all" and "none" are the biggest words in our language, and you should watch how you use them.

Just so you'll know, I took issue at your NOT saying that McCain's proposals were viewed by some independents as creating a much larger deficit -- since you took issue with Obama's plan on honesty grounds.

I'll give you another example of how stupid you appear to be:

"Did ya'll see in the news where all the illegal people that ACORN registered to vote, have also been found to be donating money to Barack Obama?"

Literal accuracy Dilbert. ALL the illegal people didn't do anything. Your statement on it's literal face is completely stupid.

Why bother to put down factual errors in even your wording except to show us that you don't pay much attention to what you say or evidently read.

The McCain campaign is largely composed of people like you who are a few cents shy of a dollar, and the folks that tell them what should scare them.

I know you won't like what I said. I don't like what you say -- the problem is that I put down what I actually mean and when you do it can't be literally true. There is no doubt about my complaints. The only question is can you admit you take rhetorical license in your writing and in your thinking?

If you can't use the word "all" correctly, exactly how smart do you think you are about politics?

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 9 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhuh, you didn't respond to my posts. You're hurting my feelings.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

southernbelle, yes it will be good when this is over. In many ways. And you should relax and watch something that even though it scares you is beautiful in special ways.

Joe the Plumber -- just so you will know -- is a metaphor to the rest of us for how lame McCain is in his fighting. Joe is too much THE weapon McCain chose to pick up and fight -- another weapon like Sarah Palin -- and he looks a bit dumb to fight the way he has chosen to fight. Even a lot of Republicans agree.

Joe doesn't appeal to most folks. He looks like a skin-head, and we know about those nuts. Joe is someone who told a fib about his plans in order to look bigger than he actually is. He owes taxes already and hasn't paid them. Even if he was able to buy the business he said he wanted to he wouldn't make enough money to be in trouble with the Obama plan.

The whole Joe the Plumber thing is designed to rally the friends of the McCain camp that already support him, but it does nothing to the enemies of McCain, and it makes independents wonder if McCain has lost his mind.

I hope this stuff is over quickly, too. If Sarah and Joe want some relief from the embarrassment McCain has heaped on them they can get it then. But if they stick their hands back into the fire we can all just enjoy the show. I'm sure both of them can get a job at FOX -- like that reporter who was Cheney's stooge in the Plame leak and got fired from her job for bad reporting.

Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 9:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I know "joe" is a metaphor and I still believe the real "Joe"asked a good question to obama . You can't deny that and I really don't care about the real Joes' personnal life or how he wears his hair or in his case doesn't wear his hair . This isn't about that. Actually most people I know love Joe and Sarah so I guess we just hang with differant crowds. So you see we are products of the company we seek. With obamas questionable friends and associates ,where does that put him?

Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 9:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You know its pretty sad when poor ole Joe gets attacked for asking a legitimate question .you are right Yeahu,I should relax because even if your guy and the dems own congress and therefore the United States, nothing last forever . Americans are strong people and we do more than just survive . You have to admit this has been one hellava fight.In the end we are all in this together .

Posted by MSviaTN (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 9:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhuh - that was an email that a friend of mine sent me - I started to put " " at the beginning and end after i typed it but I figured it wasn't really that important - it had nothing to do with my honesty - geeze - but regardless if it is me or a friend it is something that makes logical sense but it seems to me that Obama supporters can't understand logical sense. Obama can't do all of the things he is saying he is going to do without raising taxes!!! He originally said the tax increase would only be to those making over $250k - he has now lowered that amount to 200K but Biden said the other day $150K - so WHO KNOWS??? SO how is the business owner going to pay for the increased taxes - YOU THE CONSUMER - and BY LAYOFFS. As for the health care issue - there is NO WAY his plan can work - he is not going to be sure EVERYONE has healthcare. He says "I believe every American has the right to affordable health care" - doesn't sound like a promise to me that everyone American is going to be insured. One of the steps he is saying he will mandate is required larger business owners to insure workers - and who is going to pay for that YOU THE CONSUMER once again and some of those workers will probably even be let go. For the recrod - I don't like McCain's plan to help people get affordable health care either, BUT at least what he is saying is something that is doable.

Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Right on ,MSvia TN !! obama will just make us all pay more taxes and run businesses,therefore jobs,out of America . John McCain has proven his willingness to fight for this country. obama doesn't have a clue what it takes . He wasn't even dry behind the ears when John McCain was fighting for his country . He knows what it takes . It takes jobs and hard works to get this nation back on its feet. On the one hand the dems say this country is going down the tubes and the other hand they say they want to spread the wealth . That doesn't make sense. If we are such a poor nation that we can't be proud of ourselves then exactly what wealth is he going to spread around. Yes obama wants to be the commander of spreading it around and McCain wants to be The Commander in Chief ! We need a president, not a dictator that wants to tell us where we will spend our money . one other thing , McCain is still very much aware of what's going on around the world . He has proven time and time again he is superior in foriegn affairs and he will only prove it again . He has the courage and wisdom to keep us safe . He has already been tested and he is tried and true ! We may be on the other side of the ocean but you can bet this election is being watched by the rest of the world . Some of them are are just waiting and watching for the weak link . And that my friends could be obama .

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 9:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Belle, Yes we agree on the difference in thinking among who we associate ourselves with. The challenge is to realize that each of us sees things that are true, but that one side of us probably is more factually correct in our position.

The biggest problem for folks who do not like Sarah and Joe is Sarah and Joe's apparent dishonesty. And in calmer times that claim could be examined more carefully.

One question is, exactly how questionable ARE Obama's friends? McCain's friends have already cost us all a bundle, and so far Obama's friends have not.

Joe didn't reveal anything about Obama that Obama hadn't already stated very plainly, and McCain's statement that somehow Joe did us all a favor and ferreted out some secret truth is nutty to most folks. There was no secrecy at all. The only people who ever said Obama had secrets mostly accepted that story and didn't bother to look very deeply.

As far as Obama the redistributor, all taxes, subsidies, financial incentives, and commerce itself redistributes the wealth. As Clinton said last night, in the last 8 years, government has already redistributed the wealth in ways that have hurt the American people, and for the same people to pretend there is something wrong with redistribution per se is just dishonest.

However Obama does it, comparing the campaigns, Obama's efforts will likely be better thought out than McCains would have been. And we will have to wait and see.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 10:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

MSviaTN thanks for fessing up on that letter. I didn't think it passed the smell test.

Was it REALLY from a friend who honestly claims that is true, or was it one of those legends that are made up to make a point? I suspect the latter. That is OK but it smells like Joe the Plumber.

If Obama can only accomplish 1/5 of what he wishes he will be so far out zooming ahead of McCain's polices that he will be hailed as a hero. It's only people that don't want him to succeed that would call his goals a lie because he will not attain all of them.

Look what is running your country already and those that have supported him -- talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Oh, I shouldn't have said "black", bad reference -- he,he!

Honestly folks, McCain has nothing but more of the same to offer.

His first promise to run a clean campaign is evidence of how honest he will be in government. By comparison the fibs Obama has told are tiny.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Let's see, why don't we list just a few of the things Obama and Democrats want to do:

-They want to get rid of private ballots in union elections.

-Barney Frank wants to cut the military budget by 25%, ignore the deficit, and have a huge increase in government spending.

-They want to nationalize 401(k) plans, making them part of the SSA, and also remove the pre-tax contribution provision.

-They want to enact the Freedom of Choice Act which removes all restrictions on abortion from conception to full term.

-They want to reenact the "Fairness Doctrine" in an attempt to silence their critics.

-They want to give health insurance to between 10 to 12 million illegal immigrants.

And the list goes on and on. Now that's change we can believe in!

I'm still waiting for your response to my earlier posts, yeahuhuh. I'm not holding my breath, though.

Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuh you still don't get . McCain is not Bush ! As far as a clean campaign goes ,the only mistake John McCain made was not going after the rev wright in an even bigger way . That was one of the first of many obama red flags.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And how could I forget, Obama wants to raise the minimum wage to over $9 by 2010 and then index it to inflation, which will cause massive layoffs, increased prices and slow the economy.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 10:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

kmbjd40 -- Your character is showing because your list is not accurate.

That is why you guys are losing. We are tired of you.

Why do you guys depend on who is president so much to prop up your sense of wellbeing?

I will do just fine and not because of who is president is, but because of who I am. If you cannot live well in America perhaps you might consider South Africa or somewhere more to your liking.

Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't want you libs to think I don't believe in funding for special interest . Like our senior citizens for instance. I believe in health care for everybody ,young and old and in between .I believe in helping parents with children as does Sarah Palin and John mcCain . I believe in helping special needs children while they are growing up and I believe in helping them after they are all grown up . I believe in giving our troops everything they need to help them keep this country safe and I believe in not forgetting those veterans when they come home . I believe in more jobs and better pay and people getting what they work for . I believe in the American Dream and I believe in this land of opportunity and I want all of us to have an equal opportunity . I don't want that to change . And neither does John McCain . I believe this country is still big enough to welcome immigrats that want to build their futures here if they go about it legally. We are a country built on immigrants . My ancestors were immigrants and probably yours were too. John McCain wants that too. Everytime I hear obama saying "the truth is" it puts me in mind of the used car salesman that says"trust me" . I know lies ,not fibs, have been told on both sides . That's called politikcan . to politicize every statement a politician makes until it looks like nobody is telling the truth . My vote comes to me from the past actions of my canidate . He is tried and true and I choose him to be in my foxhole . There is no doubt .

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 10:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Which part of my list isn't accurate?

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 11:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

kmb, points 3 and 4 are inaccurate on their face and we have already discussed them. You know they are factually inaccurate but put them up anyway to take advantage of anyone who doesn't know so well. Repeat, repeat, repeat one liners and the dumbest will accept them -- they become the truth -- wasn't that Rove's statement, more or less?

The rest of them are one-sentence BS too short in scope to be accurate. Exactly like McCain's latest claims attempt to slur Obama through association on the Palestinian supporter professor -- I swear you guys are soggy toast.

Your campaign depends on folks who don't think very far. That's cool, everyone welcomes the votes of the ignorant but some folks bend them into ignorance to get those votes more than others. Politics is the lesser of evils, but nobody trusts a determined liar.

You guys are giving us an incredible gift -- the moral high ground.

Posted by harjedalen (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama and the dems do not want to take away secret union ballot. You are referring to the Employee Free Choice Act that would require employers to honor an already legal process. Under this process, when more than 50% of workers sign cards indicating they want to join a union, the employer may honor their wishes without the additional steps involved in an election, which the workers may still opt for. Yes, its a transparent process. The regular Union elections would still be by secret ballot.
Union members are hardworking taxpayers generally not dependent on government welfare, have better wages than non union workers, and most have decent medical benefits and retirement plans.
Republican Teddy Roosevelt often in his speeches referred to the important right of workers to organize and form unions. What happened to the Republicans?

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 12:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you har.

Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 12:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah uhhuh, who died and made you a profiler? Why do you always have to resort to calling people ignorant and such when they don't agree with you . I think its time for you to take a few deep breaths and relax. You don't know everything anymore than any of the rest of us. Let's try to walk arm in arm even if we can't see eye to eye ,okay ?

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 12:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Har, the card they would sign is done publically and would then preclude an election with a private ballot.

Yeahuhuh, perhaps you should research the 401(k) issue. We did discuss the abortion issue and you were wrong. I know you won't accept it, but it's true.

My other points were true as well. Barney Frank is on tape just a couple of weeks ago saying exactly what I posted. The 47 million uninsured number includes 10 to 12 million illegal immigrants. And several high ranking Democrats have already stated publicly that they want to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine."

You really have no idea who these people are that you support do you? You really don't understand what they believe and what they represent. Maybe you should put down the Kool Aid and do some research.

Posted by destiny (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 1:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Southernbelle---kmbjd----have enjoyed your posts and happy to know you are going with the McCain/Palin ticket.

I've learned you have to ignore the opinions of yeahu. And since I learned to do that, I skip over his/her posts. They have no meaning to me and I feel it a waste of time.

Keep up the good fight and help McCain/Palin on to victory.

Posted by destiny (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 1:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Also obama 'ain't' the god he wants everyone to believe he is b/c as "emp" said on the first post today, he did get wet. I hope that's what he will end up being,...a wet blanket...!

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 1:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

kmbjd40 we did research the abortion issue and your claim that the sought goal was the rights to abortion at any time during the pregnancy was shown by all the documents to be untrue based on the wording of the documents. That includes the 2004 versions and the latest or 2007 versions.

It was then that you said you "knew" (I believe that was your term) that the full term rights to abort was what they "really" wanted as your only basis.

By that same yardstick I could say that I "knew" you were a pig who could type and I would be just as literally right. You can research the wording if you want to.

Let's not forget that you said above that Obama and Democrats "want" these things. I don't think you can show me ANY Democrat on the record for wanting full term rights to abort.

On the matter of the 401K we researched that one too and learned that one professor's plan was being studied or elements of it were being studied-- and that what anyone (Obama or Democrats) wanted was not yet jelled. Further that the provision to nationalize your 401K was presented as an optional element that one could choose at considerable compensation.

You lost your credibility with me when your assessment of the abortion issue was stated as you felt you had the right to "know" that people want things they do not state and in fact they stated were different than what you assume. You are arrogant to put words in other people's mouths on that topic.

If you have the right to presume that people are patently dishonest then you bring that supposition about yourself to the discussion as a tacit consideration. In your case, however your re-statement of erroneous positions and again ascribing them to others PROVES you are unworthy of belief -- in other words for you the assumption is no longer simply tacit.

Until you patch up that little ethical dilema, I state that your statements are too brief to be honest representations, and that your standards for honorable discourse do not at this time allow you an entitlement to consideration.

Quit pretending, sport. You know enough about the language to be accurate in what you write.

Posted by Dilbert (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 2:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhuh, you have this HUGE problem with typing one thing there by "saying" on here, when in your pea sized brain, you 'claim' to mean something totally different. So yes, I have a hard time understanding anything you are talking about, but I don’t think it is because you are a liberal, I think it is because you talk in gibberish.

I don’t have issue with what you said at all. After coming to these boards for a short time, I have come to expect you to ramble on with a lot of stuff that makes absolutely no sense and then to turn around and argue that you have “proven” yourself right, but actually only proven that you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

So I said “All”? That’s it? That’s the best you can come up with, to come back on me about? See, you should be going for McCain/Palin because they are more attuned to those with special needs, such as yourself.

So I said “All”? Now let’s get to the point. Did Obama disenable the basic security system on credit cards, which has allowed many questionable donations to be sent in to his campaign, which “SOME” (better than all? Yeahuhuh) estimate to be over $300 million? Yes he did. It is a documented fact, just like it is a well document fact that your “MORE honest” candidate has refused to list the people who have donated to his campaign. You can make an argument about me being stupid, because I said “All” but you show yourself to be ignorant by picking something like me saying all, instead of disputing any point I made that your more honest candidate did something questionable, yet again.

Now, “the problem is that I put down what I actually mean and when you do it can't be literally true.”

Are you kidding? You put down what you actually mean? Like when you started bashing Palin on your personal points, but when I said something about it, you came back with what you meant was what the polls were showing? You are the worst person on these boards when it comes to putting down what you actually mean. Well I take that back. I think you put down what you mean, and then someone comes along and shows you to be the idiot you are, and then you come back saying that they misunderstood you because what you really meant was something totally different than anything you posted.

Oh, and my name isn’t based on the character. It is based on my grandmothers’ pet which she loved dearly, not that it is any of your business. Just another dumb attack. Want to start griping about how much money I spent on clothes this month? I know you will find it hard to believe, but there are actually many things named Dilbert, not just the cartoon character. When I think of “Yeahuhuh” I think of someone basically not paying attention, just nodding incoherently and not having any understanding of anything being said. Yeah, the name fits you well.

Posted by Swapmeet (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 2:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think Obama is shameless. He fabricated his being black to stoke racial tensions which will help him get votes. The Kenyan government has his dad listed as an Arab African, not a Black African. His mother is caucasian.

So if your father is Arab African and your mother is Caucasian, how are you black? He also said that he won't look like the people on our money. He also said that people are talking about his funny name. No one from the McCain has made race an issue. Obama's camp has carried forth the lie that he is black and stoked racial tensions to help him get elected. It's sad the media has not shown that he is not black but instead make it a point to talk about making this a historic election. Historic in that we will have the first president of Arab African descent in the white house.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 2:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhuh, why don't you read this link:

http://www.nrlc.org/FOCA/LawmakersPropos...

I'm sure that if you read slowly, even you might understand it. Democrats don't want ANY restriction on abortion. Don't you get that? Apparently not.

As to the 401(k) issue, doesn't it bother you that the Democrats are even CONSIDERING nationalizing 401(k)'s? Or taking away the pre-tax provision?

I notice you didn't address the other issues I discussed, including my posts from last night. What a surprise.

I really don't understand why I keep responding to you at all. You obviously don't have the intellectual capacity for critical thinking. At first, you just amused me. Now I'm actually starting to feel sorry for you. There's obviously some pathology involved here that makes you incapable of seeing reality. And we all know what that pathology is. Sadly, it's that most debilitating of mental disorders: liberalism.

Posted by rattlesnake (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Swapmeet I don't think anybody knows what odamy is. I don't think he knows himself, but there is a name for people like him. I just cant put it on here.

Posted by Idefinitelymight (Tom Scarborough) on October 30, 2008 at 3:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

kbmjd40--Your facts regarding the effects of the Reagan tax cuts are incorrect. Rather than doubling revenue to the Treasury--as you maintain--according to a non-partisan study conducted by the US Department of the Treasury, tax receipts declined by 1% of the GDP during the Reagan years. Indeed 16 million jobs were created, but this was most likely the result of the Reagan administration's massive deficit spending that served as a Keynesian style economic stimulus. The quadrupling of the national debt (largely because of the massive buildup of the military) during the Reagan years is what stimulated the economy. The truth is that supply-side tax policies accomplished little or nothing, except shifting the heaviest burden of taxation onto the middle and lower-middle income tiers, while reducing taxes on the wealthiest two percent of incomes.

When Obama speaks of spreading the wealth, he means distributing the burden of taxation more equitably so that the middle class isn't carrying the disproportionate share of the tax load, and the wealthiest five percent are paying their fair share, which they have not done for three decades. It is manifestly clear that the Reagan/Bush tax cuts did not have the desired effect of expanding the number of jobs--in fact the wealthy kept most of the benefits for themselves. Those in these forums who shriek the loudest in opposition to Obama's "socialist" economic policies don't seem to understand that they will be the very ones benefitting most from a tax reduction.

Do you folks really believe that after 30 years of proof to the contrary, the supply-side theories that underpin Republican economic policies and put the heaviest financial burden squarely on the backs of the middle-class, are really in your best interest? As goes the middle class, so goes America. Why do you continue to line up every four years to vote for economic policies that continue to screw you, and jeopardize our nation's finances?

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 3:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

kmbjd40- I read that link the first time you offered that page.

You and the opinions on the page are at odds with the people who wrote the bill, and it's wording.

They would not have included the language about viability unless they meant it. Their responsibilities are greater than yours and the people who published the page you offer.

That there are exceptions to the health of the mother that a doctor must decide is totally reasonable. If you would like to legislate that a woman's doctor cannot decide what is in her interests, then no wonder you aren't satisfied.

You see, you have a problem. You can't keep women from having an abortion, you never could. You can just make it less safe for them. You struggle for a law that can be comprehensive enough and it is too hard to even do that. That is because you are unbalanced -- the evidence -- you have to lie about people's positions to even get traction on your standards being considered.

But even that is a far cry from" Obama and Democrats" wanting what you say they want. You are lowballing, my friend, for lying to attempt to affect political outcome.

I'll assume your statement admits you misspoke on the 401K matter. Faced with the fact you are lying on the 401K matter, now I should be indignant they are even considering options? I WANT legislators to search far and wide for options and discuss them. I want them to reject the ones that do not work. YOU? I don't want YOU involved in the process because you are a liar. A bald-faced one at that. How about THAT?

I didn't even go to the trouble to address the rest of your offerings because I am doing to you what the population is doing to McCain. I am no longer treating you with the respect I would someone who was telling the truth.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 4:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Okay, this is like talking to a wall. As I've informed you before, there is no threat to a woman's health where an intact dilation and extraction is a proper procedure. NONE. Therefore, the procedure itself is useless medically. And I don't want to keep women from having an abortion. If a woman's life is actually at risk from a pregnancy, then termination is, of course, an appropriate option. What I AM against is an individual deciding to end the life of a separate and distinct human being as a matter of convenience. It is not our place to decide that another human being doesn't have the right to live based on trivial concerns like the mother being "distressed" because she's pregnant. And I hate to tell you, those political hacks responsibilities are not anywhere close to being greater than mine. I have people's lives in my hands, quite literally, every day. And please tell me what restrictions the Dems and libs DO want on abortion.

I did not misspeak about the 401(k) issue. Why do you think that bureacrats and politicians should be considering doing anything with 401(k)'s? There's nothing wrong with 401(k)'s the way they are.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 4:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Shouldn't a fair share of taxes be an equal share? What is fair or equal about one person paying more than another? In fact, what is fair about any of us paying this ridiculous tax to begin with when the government can function just fine without it?

Both parties have the middle class under attack.

The fact is Yh, and Tom, that forcing anyone to pay a share for those who don't pay is redistribution of wealth and is socialism. The whole purpose of an income tax is redistribution and control of society by how that redistribution is done. Instead of fighting with each other about which side is doing it wrong you should be banding together to put an end to income tax altogether, at least on earned income. Tax the hell out of unearned income since that is only gained through usury and hurts everyone and is the real mechanism that keeps the poor poor and makes the rich richer, and makes it all the harder for the middle class to expand and prosper.

You have taken a very nasty tone towards so many on here Yh, why can't you treat them with the same respect and humor you treat me? And about that viability argument you keep making, that Blackmun supported. How many one week old children do you know who are capable of surviving on their own outside the mother's womb? How many three year olds are ready to fend for themselves without aid of parents? So that argument is just plainly not an honest one, since you care so much about honesty. The only difference between a child in the womb and a baby in the mother's arms is that in the womb the connection is the umbilical cord and in the arms it is the bond of love the mother feels for the child. No matter how you attempt to justify it with your off brand of Christianity it is the severance of that connection between mother and child, whether cord or love, that is the offense to the child. If the child is allowed to emerge from the womb there is at least some chance that child will find sustaining love even if its own mother does not want to give it. Killing the child in the womb denies the child all possibility.

Yes, it is wrong to kill children with bombs too. Yet the president can't do that without congress providing the funding. So quit saying only the other side is responsible for that because that is also dishonest.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 4:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dilbert -- wow that was great.

Here is a link that begins to address your concerns. The specifics charges you are making do not hold much water unless you assume two things:

1) He is going to use the money and not give it bad to donors over the limit.

2) His non-use of automatic address verification constitutes a fraudulence-producing cloak. (stupid claim)

Now read this:

"Former FEC chairman and current Center for Competitive Politics chairman Bradley A. Smith was online Monday, Oct. 27 at 2 p.m. ET to discuss his article on what Obama's astounding donation totals mean for the future of money in politics.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

Bel Air, Md.: The huge amount of money raised in this election by Obama spells the death of campaign finance reform. Looks like that several people donated more than the whatever limit it is by using fictitious names and addresses and contributing several under-$200 donations. Names like Mickey Mouse and Will B. Good may be flagged easily, but if they were a step more clever and used innocuous names, they would not be flagged. Contrary to your assessment, this indeed is corrupting the process.

Bradley A. Smith: Well, not really. These contributions are made by credit card. The campaign therefore has a way to track the real donors, and a legal obligation to report the sources accurately or refund the money. I'm comfortable that will happen. You might say the process is working.

__________

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 4:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Unless I grievously misunderstand the issue you seem to raise through your rage:

There is nothing illegal with what Obama did. The records are still there and he is still liable to the laws effect.

There have been many charges about foreign donors and a host of suspicions in you stooges who have thrown about everything BUT the toilet and the sink at Obama -- but nothing has stuck so far because he is smarter than you guys are.

I don't know what you know about credit card transfers, but they are transparent in the end, and there is nothing that you can do to completely erase the trail of transfers.
Not using the address verification function only affects whether you can cross-reference to particular addresses. To disclose properly you cannot know if one residence contains several donors, and the names of those who accidentally donate more than the limit are still a matter of record. Therefore it doesn't matter whether address verification function is used or not.

If someone does not wish to give their real name then that will be dealt with easily on credit card transfers where eventual reroute to their account is an option within the specifics of the law. If you do not like the campaign accepting the money then sorting out the facts then you don't know much about politics. Both sides do that regularly.

Much ado about nothing as usual.

Republicans field massive misinformation campaigns to get elected. If you only represented 38% of your town you would have to do something special to get elected, and the Republicans -- with help from folks like you -- throw crap at their opponents to make the other guys appear demonic.

As far as I can see from the news and issues releases by legitimate news groups, your claim is addressed by the above statements, If not let me know.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 4:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhuh, you seem to have overlooked the fact that many of Obama's donations are coming from prepaid credit cards and are therefore untraceable. Hm.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 4:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I wonder how many prepaid credit cards George Soros could buy and then have the money fraudulently donated to the Obama campaign? Couple of hundred million? I guess we'll never know.

Wait, I forgot, yeahuhuh tells us the Dems are as pure as the wind driven snow. Shame on me for even thinking such a thing.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 4:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You are wasting your time kmbjd, Yh is a true believer. You might as well try to get a Muslim to eat bacon.

While Yh believes people are inherently evil and unable to govern themselves, that applies only to people who aren't Democrats. Jews have thier gentiles, Muslims have their infidels, and Democrats have Republicans, conservatives, and the third parties. Only Democrats know the true way to salvation, it has been revealed to them through their superior qualities as self-reflective tissue masses. When Democrats express hate it is out of love for all of mankind.

Posted by Gimmeabreak (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 4:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Fabricated being black, come one...seriously?

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 5:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sure, he's half white, how does that make him black? Or are his supporters trying to perpetuate that stereotype of the one-drop law? Haven't the Democrats moved beyond racial considerations? Why do they keep promoting Barack as the first black president? Shouldn't they be promoting him as simply the best candidate based on his years of public service and his impressive record of legislation and votes for the policies he says he is going to institute? I mean heck, he's been a Senator for two years and look at all he's done in that short time.

Shouldn't they be promoting his combat leadership? After all, Chicago has had 125 war deaths this summer, almost double the war deaths in Iraq for the same time period.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 5:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

EnKiKur, you are right, of course. I mostly try to ignore him, but sometimes, in moments of weakness, feel compelled to refute some of his idiocy.

On a different, and more worthwhile, note, this is from Larry Kudlow at National Review Online:

"The dumbest thing I heard today on the economy was a statement from Sen. Obama. He says the decline in GDP is 'a direct result of the Bush administration's trickle down, Wall Street first, Main Street last policies that John McCain has embraced for the last eight years and plans to continue for the next four'."

"Wait a minute. Did I miss something here? After the bursting of the tech bubble and the 9/11 attacks, George Bush lowered tax rates across-the-board for individuals and investors. The stock market rallied uninterruptedly for five years. The economy expanded from the end of 2001 to the end of 2007. Are we to really believe the Obama narrative that cutting tax rates is the cause of the downturn? Not the credit shock? Not the Obama-supported government mandate to sell unaffordable homes to low-income people and to pressure Fannie and Freddie to securitize these loans? And not the oil shock, as well?"

"It was really tax CUTS that caused this recession?"

"That's the dumbest story ever told."

Thank you, Larry. But what did he expect from Barack "I Never Met a Communist I Didn't Like" Obama?

Posted by Idefinitelymight (Tom Scarborough) on October 30, 2008 at 5:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

[quote]Instead of fighting with each other about which side is doing it wrong you should be banding together to put an end to income tax altogether, at least on earned income. Tax the hell out of unearned income since that is only gained through usury and hurts everyone and is the real mechanism that keeps the poor poor and makes the rich richer, and makes it all the harder for the middle class to expand and prosper.[quote]

Enki--Were our society to have remained a Jeffersonian, non-interventionist, agrarian-based republic, that would only be natural. But it is not. We are, in fact, a postmodern, militaristic, hegemonic, industrial society with a seething underclass that has no stake in the system and nothing to lose. Given that we are a perversion of what the Founding Fathers had intended, in our current mutation the government certainly needs to levy an income tax. American power must be globally projected, energy resources that don't belong to us must be co-opted to fuel an economy based on hyper-consumption, and the underclass needs to be bought off with just enough government largesse to prevent the blossoming of revolution from below. I am truly sympathetic to the vision you and many others have of a minimalist federal government, stripped of the power to tax for anything other than the basic costs of day to day business. You and I know that will never come to pass.

One question--since it is principally the wealthy who have a disproportionate share of unearned income through capital gains on investment porfolios and speculative ventures, would a tax solely on unearned income not fall disproportionately on them? That would seem to me to cause a flight of capital to safe investment havens outside the country, and would have disastrous consequences for the economy.

Posted by Idefinitelymight (Tom Scarborough) on October 30, 2008 at 5:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

kmbjd40--I am not an economist, but I think I know enough to say with some confidence that the economic boom from 2001-07 was a boom based on consumer spending--it was a boom financed by home equity loans, credit cards, and a welter of new financial geegaws (mortgage backed bonds, cdos, etc...). The superstructure of the boom was honeycombed with so much credit and debt in the personal and institutional spheres that it had to collapse eventually. It was NOT a boom undergirded by solid growth in the manufacturing sector, a healthy expansion of the job market across all sectors, or sensible oversight of financial markets. We mortgaged the future of our children and grandchildren so we could swill at the trough in the present. Certainly the Bush tax cuts were in no way responsible for the boom, except that the wealthy had more trickle-up disposable income to play with, and the corporations had more money to move production to foreign countries and to hire foreign workers to man all of those outsourced American jobs.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 5:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Now I know you guys can't button your pants around that giant belly of pre-supposed guilt you have for Barack -- but I think we are innocent until proven guilty here.

Like McCain slurring the Palestinian connnection link and implying that because he made the slur that everyone should make all documents available for everyone -- if he knew they wouldn't do that it would be a perfect slur --unverifiable but alive for a few days before the election -- perfect.

Just like the ACORN suits since before 06' that never find anything? Just like the prosecutions that the Gonzales Justice Department sought from the prosecutors they fired for not playing their way before the election? It only matters for a few more days, huh? Accuse. Accuse. Accuse. Stupid people's votes count just as much as smart people's votes.

Great idea also about the prepaid credit cards. Maybe I will buy a million or so so I can influence elections in the future. Gee whiz guys and this is to ensure that nobody is in a position to have bought BaracK? He is so anti-business how could he help anyone -- he and the government will own everything.

Enkik -- you know if you have black blood you are black. Where did you grow up? I understand why that is even an issue with the boneheads but do you actually care about that?

Wonder what they would say about YOUR past associations, Enkik? Now THAT is a long- term association with questionable individuals, he,he!

You guys are shooting blanks aren't you? Can you imagine the block party on MLK Street on Wednesday?

Posted by Idefinitelymight (Tom Scarborough) on October 30, 2008 at 5:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

kmbjd40--PS: Not to get all partisan or anything, but the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act in 1999 may have been one of the principal reasons we are in this mess today. It was overwhelmingly supported by Republicans, and staunchly opposed by Dems. You simply can't put the fox in charge of insuring the safety of the hens.

Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 6:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh you are so colorful,yahuh huh, "can't button your pants around that giant belly of pre-supposed guilt"! I had to unbutton my skirt just so I could do a real gut wrenching belly laugh on that one .If laughter adds years to your life then you just helped me live to be at least a hundred. Innocent until proven guilty? I think your man has been caught with egg on his face already .It is so obvious I'm surprised that even you can't see it. How can you possibly trust obama with the economy much less the security of this country . If the comments on this site can't convince you then I have to say you are a lost cause . But you are only one vote and those polls you believe in so much are showing McCain is closing in . Wow! This is going to be fun !And Tom, I have a lot of respect for your opinions even if I don't always agree with you . You're a pretty smart man but not infalible. In other words ,even you can be wrong.

Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 6:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

obamas' real calling is either in Hollywood or teaching speech . That man does run on !

Posted by iameubu (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 6:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Help spread the word to the undecided and those who are well meaning, but don't have time to research.

Anyone have a lighter?

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff79/...

donate here, (goptrust dotcom), I have

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 6:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Idefinitelymight, while I certainly respect your opinion, I must also respectfully disagree. Consumer spending is responsible for 70% of economic activity, but to say that consumer spending between 2001-2007 was primarily financed by debt is an overstatement, to say the least. Debt certainly plays a role. But what most people don't seem to understand is that the vast majority of people pay their credit card bills on time, as well as their mortgage payments. 90% of mortgages are being paid on time even now.

The Bush tax cuts were across-the-board, which allowed people to keep more of their own money and spend more of their own money, instead of having to resort to borrowing as much for the things they wanted and needed. Every time the government cuts taxes we see an uptick in economic growth. That is just a fact.

We currently have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. That's one of the primary reasons that some businesses choose to move to other countries who are more hospitable to business. Raising corporate taxes, as Obama wants to do, will only make the problem worse.

But this whole notion that "outsourcing" is taking jobs from Americans is nonsense. Outsourcing actually creates American jobs, and is beneficial to the economy in other ways as well. Number one, outsourcing saves Americans money by keeping prices lower. It is simply a fact that it is cheaper to produce certain goods in other countries, which is a plus to American consumers.

Outsourcing also allows businesses to create new jobs by shifting some functions overseas, where it's cheaper, thereby allowing them to exand their operations here. Don't believe me? Since 1992, the US has lost 391 million jobs to outsourcing. What you probably don't realize is that we created 411 million new jobs during that same period. The fact of the matter is that the companies that sent jobs abroad ended up hiring twice as many workers at home.

And this idea that manufacturing jobs are better is a myth as well. The fact of the matter is that service industry jobs pay better and have better working conditions.

And I still don't understand this animosity towards the "rich." Most of the rich in this country earned what they have, and are responsible for the jobs that keep this economy going. Becoming wealthy is something we should all aspire to. The idea that any of us can become rich is a great motivator.

Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 6:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It is what it is ,iameube. You've got that right !

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 6:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry idefinitely, but the change in the banking regulations was a bipartisan effort (90 Senators voted for it, including Joe Biden) that was signed into law by Bill Clinton. Plus, economists, and Clinton himself, say the bill actually lessened the impact of the current crisis.

Posted by Idefinitelymight (Tom Scarborough) on October 30, 2008 at 6:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

PSS: In response to Kudlow's assertion that Obama is crazy for blaming the downturn on the Bush tax cuts (and I have not read where Obama actually said that), though they are not directly responsible for the downturn they did decrease tax revenues for the federal government. When the spending of the Bush administration went through the roof it became necessary for the government to increase borrowing. As borrowing continued to increase, the Treasury had to raise rates on bills, notes and bonds to attract buyers, thus further raising the cost of borrowing. In this sense, I think a case can be made that the Bush tax cuts contributed significantly by reason of decreased revenue and increased borrowing costs.

Posted by Idefinitelymight (Tom Scarborough) on October 30, 2008 at 6:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

kmbjd40--fyi--the vote in the House was 363-57, with 15 abstentions. Which economists maintain this? I would be very interested to read their interpretations.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 6:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Idef, go to www.factcheck.org and read the article entitled "Who Caused the Economic Crisis?" from October 1st.

Posted by Dilbert (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 6:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhuh.
My rage? You are an idiot.
I don't assume anything. I pointed out some facts, you didn't like them because they are negative to the person you support for President, you went off on one of your rants that is filled with a whole lot of nothing.

It has been well documented, although not on MSNBC, so I am sure you missed it. Many of the people donating to his campaign are using pre-paid credit cards and gift cards. What is the problem with this I am sure you will ask.

"The problem with such cards, campaign finance lawyers said, is that they make it impossible to tell whether foreign nationals, donors who have exceeded the limits, government contractors or others who are barred from giving to a federal campaign are making contributions"

"the Republicans -- with help from folks like you -- throw crap at their opponents to make the other guys appear demonic"

Well I guess since I left out McCain's increasing the deficit in our earlier talk and you took "issue" with it, I guess I can take issue with the fact that you have left out that Obama is throwing more crap than anyone. It has been very well pointed out that Obama is spending a lot more money on negative ads than McCain. It has been very well pointed out that Obama is showing more negative ads than McCain. By you purposely leaving this out, and then saying that the Republicans are throwing crap, shows how stupid you are. To take one of your lines.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 6:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Also, go to www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg2001.c... for info on the Bush tax cuts.

Posted by Idefinitelymight (Tom Scarborough) on October 30, 2008 at 7:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

kmbjd40--Thanks for the response--I appreciate the civility. Different perspectives need not be antagonistic, a point that seems to elude many on these forums.

Yes, most Americans are still making payments on time, but there is no denying that American consumers have had to curtail a significant amount of discretionary spending in order to be able to maintain those payments. I know I have. Now we are on the threshold of what I expect will be a pretty deep recession as cycle after cycle of reduced consumer spending increasingly contracts the economy.

Yes, the tax cuts were across the board, but the consensus among economists is pretty unanimous that corporations, and the top five percent of individual households received the lion's share of the cuts. This would be entirely in accordance with supply side theory. The underlying idea of course is that those who benefit most from a tax cut will use the capital they retain to expand business and create more jobs. If you compare the numbers of jobs created during the Bush years to the Clinton years (4.8 million vs 22.4 million), it is pretty clear that this did not happen. One can only surmise that corporations used the money for such things as extravagant executive compensation packages and lord knows what else. But it wasn't used to create very many new jobs.

No animus here against the wealthy--I would love to be one of them! But is it not in keeping with the ideals of our society that everyone shoulders their fair load of taxation? The current tax structure hits the broadest base of consumers--the middle class-- the hardest. They are the very ones who will need to have enough discretionary income to help spend us out of this recession. Redistributing the tax burden equitably will reduce the depth and duration of the impending recession.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 7:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dilbert what can I say.

You need to calm down before you pop a gasket. I think the only solution to your credit card fears will be a cashless society. We can all get the mark of the beast, too.

kmbjd -- Sorry I won't swallow your list. It is not accurate. What can I say to that beside try to explain why I think that.

Tom -- keep up the good fight.

belle -- have a long life on that belly laugh.

Maybe after the smoke clears we can sort out some of these issues, but something makes me think that they are specially thrust upon us at the last minute to stimulate conversations just like this.

In the meantime I will be in a swing state for a day or two doing my evil scheming.

Posted by Idefinitelymight (Tom Scarborough) on October 30, 2008 at 7:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

southernbelle--hell, you'll get no argument out of me on that one! Sometimes I'm so right that I'm wrong. If I am going to be proven wrong about something, I'll at least try to learn something from those who have vanquished me. That's one reason I enjoy Enki and Sam--I learn a lot from them through my disagreements with them (though I do get pissy with Enki on occasion...he never holds it against me!)

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 7:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Idef, it IS refreshing to have a civil exchange of ideas and information for a change. While people may disagree on some things, there is certainly no need to be disagreeable. Thanks for the posts. :)

Posted by iameubu (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 7:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Spend us out of this recession. No "money" to spend. Just plastic.

We need stuff. We need stuff to keep all of our stuff in.

Most manufacturers saw many years ago that the majority of the population only want things. If a manufacturers' thing was a high quality thing made in the USA that was designed to dazzle and last, and constructed with care, it didn't sell well when placed in the marketplace next to the cheaper crappy piece of junk thing made by the other guy. Why? Because it was made with quality materials by craftspeople with families > cost more. Ask any retailer around here and they will tell you that the vast majority of people only want the cheapest version of the thing. When you purchase the cheapest thing you have more $space left on your credit card to buy more cheap, crappy things. Then, when your thing malfunctions and there is no one to repair it, you just put it in the storage locker and buy another cheap thing. Thereby, sending money you don't have, but promise to pay at some future date, to an overseas worker, for his bowl of rice, and their greedy, but crafty bosses here.

Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 7:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tom, a lot of what you say makes sense,since we all know the rich have lived well while taking advantage of the tax loopholes. After all most laws are made by lawyers. Then we have the poor,that have taken advantage of our good intentions and liberal government by handing down years and years of welfare living . They,as a rule, feel its owed to them . It's not. Most had plenty of time and opportunity to reverse their situations . I don't feel sorry for those that didn't . To keep sending our hard earned money to these people makes us enablers. I don't want that and neither do you . It is not about race anymore . Heaven knows I am a middle age white woman from the south and against all odds ,I have moved on beyond adversities as I believe most of us have . I do believe in special interest groups, like the mentally ill and physically impaired,to name a couple. Redisistributing so called wealth in this country will cripple the good ole USA . I don't believe it will ease the economic situation we have gotten ourselves into . And on top of that we need an experienced leader in foreign affairs. This is important to our growth . obama is not ready for this task. He is either too naive or he has another agenda in mind . one more thing... what's wrong with a tax across the board ? None of us are really better than our fellow man . So why wouldn't it work ?

Posted by Idefinitelymight (Tom Scarborough) on October 30, 2008 at 7:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

kmbjd--read the Factcheck article--I'm not entirely persuaded--I disagree that the Gramm legislation actually softened the impact. But I'll admit my understanding of it was flawed. Thanks for pointing me to the link.

Sorry, but I give Heritage the same amount of credibility as I give MoveOn, which is virtually none. Neither organization is a remotely reliable source of objective information, let alone truth.

Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 7:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I respect enk and sam and many others on this site too . Even if I don't agree with them ,they make me think about what they say and they tend to do it without ridicule. This has been good for me.

Posted by iameubu (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 8:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

southernbelle "what's wrong with a tax across the board ?"

In my view, the tax burden should be shared equally. When there is a vested interest there is responsibility.

Posted by Idefinitelymight (Tom Scarborough) on October 30, 2008 at 8:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

southernbelle--You make some implicit assumptions that are complicated, and quite possibly wrong. Assumption #1 is that many, if not most of the poor on welfare are deliberately jobbing the system--"taking advantage of our good intentions..." as you put it. Is there generational culture of welfare that will not work, and has no intention of ever working? Certainly there is. But welfare abuse should not define the system. Here's a quote from the Urban League given before the House Ways and Means Committee in 1996:

"The welfare system is an extremely dynamic system. In an "average" year, about one-half of the AFDC caseload leaves the welfare rolls. The best available estimates indicate that between one-half and two-thirds of those who leave do so because they have found paid employment. A small percentage (less than 15 percent) leave for marriage and the remainder leave for a variety of other reasons. Those who leave are replaced by new applicants who have never received assistance before and by families who have received assistance previously and are returning to receive assistance again.

The majority of families who leave the welfare system do so after a relatively short period of time -- about half leave within a year; 70 percent within two years and almost 90 percent within five years. But many return almost as quickly as they left -- about 45 percent return within a year and 70 percent return by the end of five years."

When one takes into account all of this movement on and off the welfare rolls, only a moderate fraction of recipients who ever turn to the welfare system for support end up spending relatively long periods of time on the welfare rolls.

Though the figures contained in this testimony aren't great, it does indicate to me that most people on welfare are making an effort to get off of it, with varying degrees of success. So I think your assumption that welfare is populated by a vast class of malingerers who won't work may not be accurate.

Assumption #2 is that Obama's unfortunate and uncharacteristic rhetorical lapse in which he used the loaded phrase, "spread the wealth," means that if elected he will initiate an ill-defined confiscatory program of wealth redistribution. As I mention in an earlier post, what he is describing is simply the redistribution of the tax burden so that it is shared equally by all income levels of society. If the tax burden of the middle class is lowered because the upper income tiers finally begin paying an equitable share, than there has in effect been a redistribution of wealth. Why is that so sinister?

Assumption #3--Obama doesn't have enough experience in foreign affairs. You are right, he does not. And the last eight years certainly point to the perils of having a president untutored in diplomacy. This is the one area where I am somewhat nervous about an Obama presidency.

Posted by brod (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 8:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm just waiting to see ACORN get busted. Voter fraud. I'm waiting to see the media really lose it. All these projections, etc. Don't give up until the last vote is counted. Have you noticed that when Obama is on TV, you mostly see white people standing behind him? What is that implying? I see those people as really too stupid to see beyond the message. We all better look beyond the message...McCain/Palin 08. If obama goes in, within less than 72 hours we'll be a third world country, if we last that long. He only has Biden to lean on in case of a terrorist attack. He won't have a chance. McCain*McCain*McCain. If you took race out of the equation, McCain would be a shoe in. Right now, Obama is viewed as the great non-white hope. He has no experience, people. He can talk, that's all.

Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 9:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tom , I see what I see and what I see is not necessarily what is going on nationwide . I see people in our area, Adams and surrounding areas, that work the system . I believe in equal opportunity. Period . I don't believe in taking advantage of people more fortunate than I. Many years ago ,almost forty, I took advantage of our welfare system for one month . My five year old son was deathly ill and needed health care I could not afford . I am grateful for all the Americans that paid for his operations . I owe a debt . The only way I can repay that debt is being a caring ,thoughtful and tax paying citizen. I don't mind that . but....I see ,with my own eyes , so many people in our own area looking for the free ride . Maybe that doesn't happen as a rule in Chicago and Los Angelos or Centerville, USA but I see it all too often here. You can't change obamas rhetoric when he has some of the best speech writers on the face of the earth writing his speeches for him . He has all the best money can buy to write those speeches and still many many Americans don't buy it . I'm glad you ,at least , can see we do have to worry about more than economic crisis . We have to stay the best and be the best ,through out this whole wide world ,Because we are right !

Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 9:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

McCAIN/PALIN /2008'

Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 9:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't think Tuesday , November the 4th will be the end of this ! No matter what happens at the polls. I just hope its peaceful !

Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 30, 2008 at 9:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You know what I don't understand . It's how a person like obama can sit there and talk about how everybody in America should have the chance to become all they can be and that's exactly the privilieges he was granted when he was born in Hawaii . He wouldn't be where he is today if not for the policies of our government. How dare he rebuke this! He hasn't fought for this country ,he has fought against it and he doesn't deserve our votes.

Posted by bombingeight (anonymous) on October 31, 2008 at 1:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"How dare he rebuke this!" I suggest for your thoughtful consideration that how he dares to do this is because he is an American citizen. That does not require "fighting for this country" as you perceive it. It is exactly what citizenship requires of each of us.

"We have to stay the best and be the best ,through out this whole wide world ,Because we are right !" Finally, one of the greatest mistakes a corporation, city, state or country can make is to believe its own public relations material. "The best"? Let me count some of the ways that you are making this error: standard of living, health care and outcomes of healthcare, patent applications and ownership, K-12 education, and quality and safety of the national infrastructure. In each of these areas, we are not the "best", but we should and could be.
It really is time to think and decide whether we can be what you clearly want the country to be.

Posted by Omega (anonymous) on October 31, 2008 at 2:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhuh and EnKiKur must be getting the “research” off the liberals pages. Either that or they are both incredibly stupid. They both are irrational and since you can’t rationalize with an irrational person, you are all wasting your time. If the lying Barack Hussein Obama wins this election God save the country.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on October 31, 2008 at 2:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sure I care about the black blood issue Yh. The Democratic Party likes to constantly remind the various groups under their sway that they are different, that their difference makes them special, and that because they are special the Democrat Party is going to take special care of them. In other words, the Democrats like to create division among people who would more quickly develop unity if not for the constant reminders of race and class division. That is why you see the left media red faced with orgasmic glee as they proclaim Barack to be the first black president, when they made the same claim about Bill Clinton, probably with more accuracy.

Black intellectuals, if that is what Barack wants to claim he is, have traditionally been more disdaining of their racial heritage than the white liberals who support them. Richard Wright is a perfect example- look at his comments about his sharecropping father and how he felt no connection to him at all.

Barack reminds me a bit of Gilgamesh who was two thirds divine; Gilgamesh was two thirds divine because his mother was a goddess and his father was a human. Barack is two thirds white because his mother was white and his father black. (We are two thirds our mother because of mitochondrial dna). Gilgamesh set out on an adventure to gain the immortality reserved for those who were completely of divine origin and was unsuccessful because he could not change the fact that his father was human. Does Obama seek the unobtainable goal of complete whiteness through servitude to a system created by whites? He says his Marxist mother was the strongest influence in his life and has adopted her philosophical ways. But Obama's mother cursed Obama in the same way that Gilgamesh's mother cursed Gilgamesh- by birthing a mixed heritage.

In all likelihood Obama's sense of class struggle comes from his own inner conflict caused by the maternal curse given to him by his mother which subjects him to the condemnation of two cultures. Self loathing is an old theme in the Marxist movement, beginning with Karl Marx himself:

"Once society has succeeded in abolishing the empirical essence of Judaism – huckstering and its preconditions – the Jew will have become impossible, because his consciousness no longer has an object, because the subjective basis of Judaism, practical need, has been humanized, and because the conflict between man’s individual-sensuous existence and his species-existence has been abolished." Karl Marx, Jew

Marxism seeks to erase race and class through the adoption of communist philosophy. By adopting these philosophies Obama is in reality attempting to cut himself off from his blackness, as well as his whiteness, in order to become the ideal state citizen of no class and no race that exists only in the imagination.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on October 31, 2008 at 3:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Tom,

"Goods moved from low-price areas to high-price areas and money moved from high-price areas to low-price areas because goods were more valuable where prices were high and money was more valuable where prices were low. Thus, clearly, money and goods are not the same thing but are, on the contrary, exactly opposite things. Most confusion in economic thinking arises from failure to recognize this fact. Goods are wealth which you have, while money is a claim on wealth which you do not have. Thus goods are an asset; money is a debt. If goods are wealth; money is non-wealth, or negative wealth, or even anti-wealth." Tragedy and Hope, Carrol Quigley, p. 44

The wealth of America is not the pieces of paper debt sold back and forth. The wealth of America is the land, the resources, the people and their desire and capacity to make use of the available resources. The holders of paper "capital" might flee the country, but they won't be taking the land, resources, or any of the people but themselves. The truth is those greatest holders of this paper debt don't live here anyway and their activities have already had disastrous consequences for our country. It is only through dismantling the mechanisms that allow them to transfer wealth through paper transactions that we can put an end to the disastrous consequences they allot to us as they loot our land, resources and people. That is why we should band together instead of fighting one another over who is the best person to aid our looters in their schemes.

To illustrate my point I would like for one of you of each party to explain to me why it is preferrable for a private bank to issue and regulate our money rather than for Congress to do it through the Treasury Department. My contention is that this practicre cannot be in any way justified because everyone knows that it is better not to pay interest than to pay interest. Why impose debt on ourselves? As irrational as this is, with eager support from both parties, this is the very mechanism that is draining our economy, taking the wealth of the people and putting it into the hands of corporations and international banks.

Posted by frogprincenessntz (anonymous) on October 31, 2008 at 4:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If you are still for Obama this is what he want too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjNo_0cW-......

Today, an estimated 3700 DIED!

Obama is for this and much more. How many more have to DIED before we say it is enough?

I think if you vote for the Democrats, you also have blood on your hands.

Posted by harjedalen (anonymous) on October 31, 2008 at 5:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

From some BS above, "Obama's mother cursed Obama in the same way that Gilgamesh's mother cursed Gilgamesh- by birthing a mixed heritage."

I have news for you, its not a curse. People of mixed heritages shall inherit the Earth...

Posted by Omega (anonymous) on October 31, 2008 at 7:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A couple of stories not picked up by the Communist News Network—

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/31/...

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/30/...

Posted by Idefinitelymight (Tom Scarborough) on October 31, 2008 at 7:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Enki--I completely get your point. I did take enough classes in basic econ to grasp these concepts. But the fact of the matter is that the intrinsic value of land lies in its capacity to be productive through some form of capital improvement, either cultivation or structural. Though both forms of improvement demand labor inputs, they also require the infusion of the paper capital you hate so much to purchase additional capital inputs necessary to maximize the productive value of the land.

I have no doubt that had you had lived 200 years ago, it would have been you that killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel rather than Aaron Burr! You are a Jeffersonian, Enki, and I mean that in the most complimentary way. But as ideal as the pre-Hamiltonian republic may appear in our romantic recall, remember that debt was a defining feature of the agrarian economy. Because of the endemic shortage of specie and institutional banking--especially in the South--debt was secured by land, and by the enslaved. Everyone was in debt to everyone else--let me take you to the Historic Natchez Foundation someday where the city and county court records from the 18th and 19th centuries have been archived. You will see what I'm talking about. In a local economy without enough specie and institutional credit to lubricate the system, and without the Bank of the US to ameliorate the economic seizures (particularly the Panic of 1837), land and slaves functioned not only as capital assets, but to an extent also as mediums of exchange. Jacksonian economic policy led to wildcat banking, and a proliferation of valueless currencies. Hence the shadow currency system of personal promissory notes that evolved, and the explosion of litigation that resulted from the tidal wave of defaults during economic contractions. You cannot do away with paper, because without it land cannot be improved to its full capacity, and labor cannot be compensated. Private banks are depositories--the lessons of the 1820s and 1830s confirm the folly of allowing them to issue and regulate money.

Posted by Idefinitelymight (Tom Scarborough) on October 31, 2008 at 8:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Enki--PS: Your take on Obama's "curse" is a bunch of hooey. I sure hope Faux News doesn't pick up on this!

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on October 31, 2008 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Enki how many people do you know who are not a little bit of a mixed race in this country? Are you a pure blood? I know I'm not. If the world didn't end when Gilgamesh's mom mixed him, I don't guess we should worry about that curse now. God created all of the races and if he didn't want us to mix, he would have kept us all separate by placing us on different planets. Some say that Eve carried the eggs for all of the races in her genes and when she gave birth, she gave birth to a white skinned child, a black skinned child, a red skinned childe, and a yellow skinned child. As intelligent as you are, I would think you would have more sense. Did you have any choice in your race or were you just born that way?

Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 31, 2008 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh ya'll it is a curse. My very good friend that died last year of cancer had to give herself a bone marrow transplant to extend her life. She was half Japanese and half white . It was very hard to find a donor that matched of the same race . When they couldn't find one in time the second time she needed one,she died . She was born out of wedlock at a time in Japan when if their government had known about her father being a white man ,then she and her mother would have been killed . When she was three years old her father brought her mother and her to America . During her life she suffered greatly from prejudice . That is a curse . If she were here today she would be the first to tell you that. It had its advantages though. Her children were given a free education to the very best of schools because they were in a minority . I'm very happy they got their education but my children had to pay their on way because their parents are white . Not fair ! I believe in equal opportunity for all . Leave no child behind . The time is here. Vote McCain/Palin on Tuesday

Posted by 2008 (anonymous) on October 31, 2008 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

We all bleed red......there is only ONE RACE and that is the Human Race

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on October 31, 2008 at 9:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I haven't been able to receive a scholarship for my child for being a minority in this country, so southernbelle maybe you shouldn't be so upset over your pure bloods not receiving one. I agree that there should be equal opportunity for all to receive an education and Obama wants to give each child an equal opportunity.

When you agree to stop bombing Iraqi and Afghan children, I will help you stop abortion.

Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 31, 2008 at 10:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

time4change "when you agree to stop bombing Iraqi and Afgan children ,I will help stop abortion" . That doesn't make any since . I don't want any children killed . In the womb or out of it . Don't be so narrow minded . All of God's children are precious . obama saying he wants to give everybody an equal opportunity is just rhetoric . I truly believe his real agenda for wanting the White House will not come to light until its too late . By the way, I like to ask ya'll if you've decided where you want to put barack hussein obama street and when do ya'll think it would be the best day for a barack hussein obama national holiday ? I wonder how many babies are born being named barack hussein ?

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

southernbelle your comment doesn't make any SENSE. You are the one with the narrow minded view. You can not be pro-life and support war; btw, war aborts not only the unborn child, but also the mother, the father, the siblings and the whole village. Who cares what people name their children? Who cares where a street named for Obama is located? We have survived a Martin Luther King Street in every town in the USA and I remember when YALL thought he was the devil. McCain may be white, but that don't make him right and it sure looks like by your comment that is why you want to vote for him. Instead of thinking of Obama as black think of Obama as having his melanin located closer to the surface of his skin while McCain is lacking any melanin period.

Human skin color can range from almost black (due to very high concentrations of the dark brown pigment melanin) to nearly colorless (appearing reddish white due to the blood vessels under the skin) in different people. Skin color is determined by the amount and type of melanin, the pigment in the skin. Variation in skin color is largely due to genetics. As a general pattern people with ancestors from tropical regions (hence greater sunlight exposure) have darker skin than people with ancestors from subtropical regions.

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on October 31, 2008 at 10:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

When you agree to stop bombing Iraqi and Afghan children, I will help you stop abortion.

Posted by Swapmeet (anonymous) on October 31, 2008 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey time4change,

Here is what Obama supported. The following is from a health website: "Intact D&X, or partial birth abortion first involves administration of medications to cause the cervix to dilate, usually over the course of several days. Next, the physician rotates the fetus to a footling breech position. The body of the fetus is then drawn out of the uterus feet first, until only the head remains inside the uterus. Then, the physician uses an instrument to puncture the base of the skull, which collapses the fetal head. Typically, the contents of the fetal head are then partially suctioned out, which results in the death of the fetus and reduces the size of the fetal head enough to allow it to pass through the cervix. The dead and otherwise intact fetus is then removed from the woman's body."

A despicable person who allows this.

Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 31, 2008 at 12:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

time 4 change , nobody in their right mind wants to go to war . And don't take everything I write about so seriously . Lighten up a little . We will survive . I just hope your man obama doesn't bring war to our soil while he is being tested . We might need to keep our guns . I never understood why in the old movies the women just stood there wringing there hands when the fighting was going on.Women may not be as physically stong as a man but we can fight for what's right when we need to . Remember ya'll,obama doesn't have as strong of a relationship with the NRA as he does with people like Bill Ayres . I guess bombs are more to obamas liking . Talk about killing villages. We can't even pretend to know how hard that would be for us . It would make these days of economic distress look like the good ole days .

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on October 31, 2008 at 1:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

swapmeet, when you agree that bombing Iraqi and Afghan children is wrong, I will help you stop abortion.

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on October 31, 2008 at 1:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

southernbelle Obama doesn't want to take away your right to bear arms, he just wants to take away your right to bear submachine guns and oozies. There's so many illegal guns on the street, there is no way Obama could take away all of the guns in the first place.

Posted by rattlesnake (anonymous) on October 31, 2008 at 2:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

time4change You are wrong obammy does want to take away our right to bear arms. He wants to ban the use of firearms for home defense. Check with the NRA and get the truth about this man or whatever he is.

Posted by broonzy (anonymous) on October 31, 2008 at 3:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

he even wants to kill babies cuz he's a commie and he's a terrorist cuz he's married with Benladen and he wanna sell america to russia and his friends are nazis and in fact his real name is 666 but palin's preacher will protect us from witchcraft.

Posted by rattlesnake (anonymous) on October 31, 2008 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Google NRA obama and find out for yourself.

Posted by Omega (anonymous) on October 31, 2008 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Let's See-----

.A Guy named Joe, who happens to be a plumber with ambitions for a bigger business, questioned and challenged a Guy named Barack, who happens to be running for President of the US/Leader of the Free World…

And within 24 hours the Media has given us more information about Joe's life than they've given us about Barack's life in the past 18 months.

Thanks to a diligent press corps, we now know about Joe's professional licensing status, his income tax situation, his employment history, his domestic squabbles, his voting record, everything associated with his personal identity; his education…. It's probably been reported somewhere whether he wears boxers or briefs.

Thanks to a lazy press corps…We still don't know what grades Obama made in college; how he got into Harvard; when he met Bill "the bomber" Ayers; when he stopped doing illegal drugs; his medical history; whether he still smokes cigarettes; the extent of his affiliation with socialist/communist organizations; why he's no longer a licensed attorney; whether he lied on his Bar application;----

Whether he'd qualify for a security clearance if he were just an "average Joe;" what passport he used to travel to Pakistan in 1981; who his ex-girlfriends are; whether he was or still is an Indonesian citizen; why his Kenyan grandmother insists he was born there; whether he was ever legally named Barry Soetoro or anything else besides Barack Hussein Obama-----;

Why he needed the help of a crook to purchase his family home; where he was on Nov. 6 and 7, 1999; what the long-version of his birth certificate says; why he helped an anti-American, pro-Islamic candidate for Kenyan President against US interests; why he listened to Rev. Wright's sermons for 20 years; how many times he took his kids to a Rev. Wright sermon; what he actually did as chair of the Annenberg Challenge; the depth of his relationship with ACORN…

Well, you get the idea.

But, really, I am SO relieved that the Mainstream Media has done its job vetting Joe The Plumber, who is NOT running for public office, but who had the AUDACITY to challenge Barack Hussein Obama, who wants my vote for President of the United States of America."

Posted by united (anonymous) on October 31, 2008 at 4:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I thought racism was almost gone, but i can tell by these comment that it's still here. Strong. People stop being so hateful.

Posted by allsmiles (anonymous) on October 31, 2008 at 4:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's really sad, but no racism will always be a part of our society.

Posted by yankee (anonymous) on November 1, 2008 at 1:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It's human nature. Racism will live on no matter what.
Do you pull for your kid in a sporting event more than others? If the USA is facing Russia in hockey do you root for one or the other? RACISM is natural. Can't get rid of it. Fact of life and will always be. So deal with it.
Thats what you guys are always talking about on this website, rasism. Not what's important. The future of your children. I pray that you love your children enough to elect a believer in GOD not allauh.
How are you gonna feel come January when your president-elect takes the oath-of-office on the Quran?

Posted by united (anonymous) on November 1, 2008 at 9:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Being racist is not human nature. I have many friends in natchez different races.race is black/white. the color of your skin. not what team we are for. this shows your ignorance. This is not worth my time. Surley this blog is for people who want to be more than what they are. Maybe u should let everyone know who u are instead of hiding anonymous and let people know how u truly feel.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on November 1, 2008 at 9:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

McCain has taken a 1 point lead in the Zogby polls one day tracking, 48%-47%. Let's keep those fingers crossed.

Posted by united (anonymous) on November 1, 2008 at 10:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

gallup antional tracking Obama 52% McCain 41%. Go to Gallup daily. It shows national polls

Posted by kpage (anonymous) on November 1, 2008 at 10:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

All I know is that if Obama wins the election, I'll qualify for free money. Now I won't have to finish school. I'll be getting me some of the "spread the wealth" money. I can be on the welfare rolls the rest of my life and can have things I only dreamed of working for all my life. Can I have some commodity cheese too? It makes good grilled cheese. Can I have some extra money to pay my car insurance and buy my kids the special tennis shoes they want? How about a 2-story home. I have three kids who want more space. I want this home to be on the lake and I want a yardman, too. Spread the wealth people, spread the wealth. Now I don't have to aspire anymore. He's gonna just give it to me!

Will Obama give me these things? I guess if I swear on the Muslim bible (I can't spell Quran) and don't mind worshipping a god who wants me dead because I love Jesus.

Posted by vidnat (anonymous) on November 1, 2008 at 10:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Fully automatic weapons have been illegal for many many years and are not needed for sporting or home defense. Obama does't want the pubic to have guns but he will always have guns protecting him.

Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on November 1, 2008 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Polls only show the opinions of the people asked. No one has asked me yet.

Posted by Incognito (anonymous) on November 1, 2008 at 11:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

McCain/Palin ticket, republicans question McCain's decision

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7W6hG4bp...

Posted by broonzy (anonymous) on November 1, 2008 at 4:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Joe the plumber is not a plumber.
Joe the plumber is called Samuel Wurzerbacher.
Joe the plumber does not want to be anymore the owner of a plumbing business. He wants to be a country singer and a superstar.
Let's stop the farce. Some Americans depise shrewd people like Obama. They prefer to believe in the Palin-McCain fictions : a VP controls the senate, Obama is a socialist, Joe is a plumber and he won't get a tax cut from Obama (WRONG !!!). All of this is slander and aspersion.
Vote Pro-America, Vote Barack Obama !!!

Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on November 1, 2008 at 6:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

obama and michelle are not proud of their country but they are asking for a job from americans that will pay them well . They despise this country so much they are ashamed of our flag and what it stands for . They have no respect for our leaders or you . They stand by anti-american friends and associates that feel the same . And some of you want to vote for him because he is black . How simple is that ?

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on November 1, 2008 at 6:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Broonzy, Joe the plumber is a plumber. He works under his bosses license. He's also a private citizen who asked a Presidential candidate who showed up in his front yard a legitimate question. Then the Dems and libs do what they always do to those they view as a threat: They set out to destroy the person because they can't destroy the question. Pathetic and chilling.

And Obama isn't merely a socialist, he's clearly a Marxist. It's pointless pointing out what should be an obvious fact to all you Kool Aid drinkers, but I'm ever hopeful that you people will open your eyes. But there's about as much chance of that as Obama cutting ANYONE'S taxes. I hear that middle-class figure is down to $120,000 now. And he's already "lowering expectations" about what can be accomplished if he's elected. It's all so Clintonian.

This election just proves once again that there should be a minimum IQ requirement for voters. But since the Dems rely on the uneducated to win elections, we know that will never happen.

Posted by concernedNTZcitizen (anonymous) on November 1, 2008 at 7:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

AMERICA think before you vote!

OBAMA BIDEN 2008!!!!! He wants to make a change. How? By telling thousands of innocent babies you MUST die because their mother couldn't keep her legs closed and didn't have the good sense to use protection.

OSAMA BIN LADEN --Terrorist, someone who has/had his people thinking he was for good. Making a change for the better. How? By killing innocent people terrorizing others.

His name is to close to Bin Laden for any American to vote for him.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is more AMERICAN that Obama.

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on November 2, 2008 at 12:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm not afraid of Obama, he's just like one of my kids. He has a muslim father, but he was raised by his Christian mother. Obama is not going to force anyone to have an abortion, but if a child, a tween, a teen, or a female gets raped, it won't be illegal for them to have an abortion. Obama will leave it up to them to make that choice, while they didn't have any choice in being raped.

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on November 2, 2008 at 12:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barack has spoken often about his Christian faith: "I learned that my sins could be redeemed. I learned that those things I was too weak to accomplish myself, He would accomplish with me if I placed my trust in Him.… kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt I heard God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth and carrying out His works."
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/06/23/a_...

Barack Obama has been endorsed by a number of prominent Christian leaders, including Brian McLaren and Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, who has been close with President Bush in the past. A group of pastors has also praised Obama for standing up for American families and addressing social justice concerns:
http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2...

Other Christian leaders have announced they are supporting Barack Obama, and you can watch their video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eUkc9GCM...

Barack believes faith can be a powerful force to help those who need it most. As President, he will establish a Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships to help churches and religious groups provide much-needed social services in their communities:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/pol...

Posted by kpage (anonymous) on November 2, 2008 at 7:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

He sure uses pretty words, don't he?

Posted by Idefinitelymight (Tom Scarborough) on November 2, 2008 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, kpage, he does speak well. I can certainly understand why you would think this is a good reason not to vote for him. Anyone who speaks well obviously must be a terrorist, or an enemy of the state. Smart people with good oratorical skills are of dubious patriotism. They deserve our suspicion.

Vote for the candidate you would most like to have a beer with, America. This electoral strategy certainly has worked out well for us for the past eight years. Why quit it now?

Posted by Omega (anonymous) on November 2, 2008 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama voters are either voting based on race or they are incredibly stupid.

Posted by kpage (anonymous) on November 2, 2008 at 2:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Pretty words must have substance. Rhetoric is mainly used by experienced orators to avoid answering incriminating questions. Of course Obama, "the chosen one", can sway a crowd who isn't LISTENING. Anyone can get caught up in his sing-song melodies. It's pretty. But JUST THE FACT that he has a questionable past, questionable friends, and questionable plans forces me to vote against him. I could care less what color the man is. He's too suspicious, period.

When I saw pictures of visits to the Middle East by McCain and Obama, only McCain visited with the troops. Obama chose to primp and play ball. That cinched it for me.

Posted by Idefinitelymight (Tom Scarborough) on November 2, 2008 at 2:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Omega--Maybe they will vote for Obama not because they are stupid, but because they are smart enough to recognize that the supply-side shibboleth of "let's make the rich richer because it's good for the country" has been utterly and completely discredited. Maybe they will vote for Obama because they reject the American holy trinity of religious fundamentalism, unbridled hyper-consumption (it's patriotic and Godly to be wasteful, dontcha know!), and the faux-populism of the Republican party. Maybe they will vote for Obama because they recognize the threat to national security that is posed by living in a society where one in five people believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth; where over 60% percent reject evolutionary theory, but believe that Creationism is scientifically credible; where nearly half of adults believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old; where two-thirds of American adults can't name the three branches of government, or find Iraq on a map of the world. Maybe they are fed up with being told that because they self-identify as Liberals (look up the definition--note the translation of the Latin root, liber), they are terrorist-lovers, Communists, America-haters, elitists, Godless spawns of Satan, and any number of other snarling insults to their patriotism hurled at them from the Right.

No matter who wins the election, a very large part of American society is serving notice that they have had enough of the social and religious sanctimony of the Christian Right, and the scorched-earth politics of the Republican party. Indeed it is time for a change. I hope all of you End-timers, Millenialists, and Limbaugh ditto-heads are paying attention.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on November 2, 2008 at 4:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others." [Ambrose Bierce, "Devil's Dictionary," 1911

I don't see the connection between the word denoting free and the government control modern self-identified liberals wish to impose on the last vestiges of freedom, except when it comes to the freedom to choose to kill the unborn, or the freedom of anarchy promoted through the modern liberal's drift to democracy.

Is it a free man who works five months out of the year for his government? is it a free man who can't speak his mind for fear of reprisal by law and unaccountable beareaucrats? Who must submit to any number of unelected officials who dictate what kind of house one must live in, what kind of car one must drive, and what one must do with one's trash?

You liberals, Tom, have a very strange sense of freedom.

Posted by Omega (anonymous) on November 2, 2008 at 4:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Idefinitelymight, which are you? Are you a take money from others and give it to me socialist? Are you an, I don’t care if he is a liar? Are you one of the ones that are to stupid to see through him? Or are you all of the above?

Posted by Omega (anonymous) on November 2, 2008 at 5:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"If you'are not a liberal when you're 20, you have no heart. But if you're not a conservative by the time you're 40, you have no brain."

Winston Churchill

Posted by yankee (anonymous) on November 2, 2008 at 5:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

united- I appreciate you comment, but you really should'nt have bothered. I also have many friends and family of many races. There are just no muslims that wants to destroy our COUNTRY! You thought racism was gone ha-ha. My point! You Voters for obama are really giving up ALOT! GOD be with you when you can find HIM! It's not only about black/white dumbbut. Let them take everything you've fought for all your all your life and your childrens future. YOUR THE ONE! Thanks anyway. MY point was these blogs are full of racism.Not just me.

Posted by yankee (anonymous) on November 2, 2008 at 5:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

by the way your really not being honest with youself. Come on. You must live in the perfect world noone can seem to find. hOPE YOU FIND REALLITY!

Posted by Idefinitelymight (Tom Scarborough) on November 2, 2008 at 5:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The spectacular failure of long cherished Republican economic canons will now force that free man who worked five months of the year for the government to work an extra five years in order to pay for the new program of welfare for the rich. I wonder how many of the bailed-out rich are self-described Conservatives who live in exclusive gated-communities that are governed by restrictive codes and covenants about paint colors, plantings, where cars can be parked...well, you get the picture. The irony is thick.

What is it exactly that Conservatives are conserving, Enki? Is it the final three years of Clinton budget surpluses that under the leadership of the Bush administration have since morphed into a $500 billion annual deficit? Is it the admiration and willingness of our allies to accept our leadership in the wake of 9/11, which has since evaporated as a result of the "Ready, Fire, Aim!" foreign policy of this administration? Is it respect for the rule of Constitutional law, even as the administration used the war on terror as justification for ordering the warrantless surveillance of hundreds of thousands of Americans, and as a power-grab by the executive branch? Is it the careful stewardship and conservation of our energy and mineral resources, even as the Bush administration has freed industry from government oversight of pollution controls and resource depletion?

You Conservatives have a uniquely warped understanding of what it means to conserve.

Posted by Idefinitelymight (Tom Scarborough) on November 2, 2008 at 6:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Omega--Since you are such an authority on Churchill, I'm sure you are already familiar with these words of his on Liberalism: "Liberalism is not Socialism, and never will be. There is a great gulf fixed. It is not a gulf of method, it is a gulf of principle. Socialism seeks to pull down wealth. Liberalism seeks to raise up poverty. Socialism would destroy private interests; Liberalism would preserve private interests in the only way in which they can be safely and justly preserved, namely by reconciling them with public right. Socialism would kill enterprise; Liberalism would rescue enterprise from the trammels of privilege and preference. Socialism exalts the rule; Liberalism exalts the man. Socialism attacks capital, Liberalism attacks monopoly."--Winston Churchill

I am neither a Socialist, nor stupid.

Posted by yankee (anonymous) on November 2, 2008 at 7:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

time4whaterver YOU ARE SICK! You must not have children. OUR MEN AND WOMEN OF ARMED FORCES DO NOT KILL CHILDREN. You are wrong so very wrong to say that. obama wants to kill all children unborn no matter the circumstance. Yes we have a choice when needed as*****. Not just let the poor things lay suffering to die because of stupid mistakes. Your right to vote for a heartless person like obama bin laden. And i thought race was hateful!

Posted by yankee (anonymous) on November 2, 2008 at 8:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

yeadumdum- you seem to be the smartest person on this blog site (NOT). You seem to have a comment about fire in the eyes and hate. How when Even those on your side you seem to degrade. As the facts are you are fighting for the wrong thing. It would really be nice if we could actualy have a desent african-american president. But guess what we are not. Haven't you got it yet? Haven't you been listening? You have the RACIST RED in your eyes. YOU have the FREEDOM of choice. Take advantage of it . IT may be gone soon. GOODNIGHT ALL! GOOD LUCK! I LOVE AMERICA>

Posted by yankee (anonymous) on November 2, 2008 at 8:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As the time grows near for us to deside or what will be desided for us. As a new comer on this web site, where I've read alot through the past few weeks. I'M PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN! I'm also proud of my NEPHEW who gave his life to Protect Me and MY FAMILY in afganistain at the age of 21. You people have your own opinion. What I've read most is rscism. So you that want obama so bad. If he's to win..... <Canada sounds fine to me >. The UNITED STATES will never be the same. Black White Hispanic ETC. GOD BLESS YOU! AND GOD BLESS AMERICA! Thank you MY BRAVE MARINE,MY DEAREST NEPHEW, I'll never throw in the white flag. Thanks to those who really know what the true meaning of AMERICA and UNITED WE STAND means.

Posted by yankee (anonymous) on November 2, 2008 at 8:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If I had a few typos' so be it it's hard to type through tears.

Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on November 2, 2008 at 9:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on November 2, 2008 at 12:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm not afraid of Obama, he's just like one of my kids. He has a muslim father, but he was raised by his Christian mother

Even Obama states his mother was an atheist. But you gotta believe what you want to I guess, instead of the truth.

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on November 2, 2008 at 9:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

yankee what do you call it when bombs strike schools? That's what happened recently in Pakistan. I didn't say they meant too, just that innocent people including children get killed during wars. Sorry about your nephew.

Posted by harjedalen (anonymous) on November 3, 2008 at 7:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The only redistribution of wealth has been for the last 8 years as the rich got richer and the gap between rich and working middle class grew.

Vote Obama, and close the gap to help the working taxpayers who create the wealth for the rich, those of us making less than $250000 a year.

Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on November 3, 2008 at 7:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I've personally gotten richer in the past 8 years, but not $250,000 worth. But I have worked for it, no body gave it to me. I earned it the old-fashioned way.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on November 3, 2008 at 8:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree I am doing better -- but certainly not because of Bush and the Republicans -- I did it myself.

Also, I have not paid all the taxes it will take to pay off the Republican bills. That will take a loooooong time.

Posted by kpage (anonymous) on November 3, 2008 at 8:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

freedom...I've been taught that's the only way to get it.

Posted by bstarrrn (anonymous) on November 3, 2008 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Indefinitely, Huh....from your post on Winston Churchill's quote-it appears to me he was saying that Socialism and Liberalism are interchangeable, or so close to it that the least bit of leaning and one could tumble right on over into Socialism. Let's face it Nobama is up to his hairline into Socialism. Anyone that thinks their taxes are not going to increase is not thinking clearly. Nobama will allow the Bush tax cuts to lapse, and then everyones' taxes will go back up (except the 45% of Americans that pay NO taxes at all). Then he will add even more taxes. Being a small buisness owner, he scares the living hell out of me. This is not the guy we need as our President. Just my humble opinion.
For Real Change VOTE:
MCCAIN/PALLEN

At least we may have a fighting chance (and I do mean that in every sense of the word).

Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on November 3, 2008 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

McCAIN IS COMING IN FOR THE CLOSING ! McCAIN/PALIN PACK YOUR BAGS YA"LL ARE HEADED FOR THE WHITE HOUSE !

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on November 3, 2008 at 10:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't know about how anyone would call up more Bush-type policies -- especially if they were a small business owner.

I am a small business owner, and my brother is too. I only have a couple of employees but he runs up to 30, and we agree that Bush cost everyone too much already and his policies are exactly what McCain seems to promise.

So we represent 2 small business owners who are completely behind Obama/Biden. How could anyone support McCain and actually be paying attention to what just happened to them under Bush?

Obama/Biden -- for a government a bit more honest than you can get with Republicans.

Posted by Idefinitelymight (Tom Scarborough) on November 3, 2008 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

bstarrn--You might have some problems with reading comprehension, as do many of your right wing brethren on these forums. It's pretty clear as Churchill describes it what the differences are between Liberalism and Socialism. Go back and try it again.

Once again--Obama's plan would reduce the tax rate for middle income families, while raising it for the top five percent of incomes. He says 95% of American families would receive a tax cut under this plan, but Factcheck says it would be more like 80%. Still, once the top five percent start paying a proportionately equitable rate of 39.5% (the previous rate before the Bush tax cuts), the "redistribution" of wealth you all are freaking out about will benefit most of you. I fail to see what is remotely socialistic about relieving the middle classes of the heaviest portion of the tax burden, and expecting the top income tiers to pull their proportional weight (and yes, Sam, we have already agreed that a flat tax would be preferable, but it ain't going to happen anytime soon).

Posted by Incognito (anonymous) on November 3, 2008 at 11:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

McCain/Palin ticket, republicans question McCain's decision

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7W6hG4bp......

People are actually in support of a McCain/Palin ticket.

Posted by bstarrrn (anonymous) on November 3, 2008 at 11:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Tom, actually my reading comprehension is above 160, and my analysing ability is not far behind. Frankly, I totally dislike the man and know he is a liar. Anytime anyone hides as much about himself as he does, usually means there is a whole lot more to hide. I don't like Muslims and I know they hate us, we are infidels-nothing-to them, and anyone that thinks they are not going to hit us again is WRONG. I want someone in the White House that all the idiots in the world know will not hesitate to protect us on American soil and all our brave young men and women the world over. No I don't want Nobama in there, someone that egotistical can only cost our country many many more lives-both men, women, and children.

GO MCCAIN

Posted by allsmiles (anonymous) on November 3, 2008 at 11:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

To much has been said on both sides, you can't trust what anyone says right now, or believe anything to be the truth. I'm registered a Democrat, a white Female and I don't have a good feeling about Obama being elected, it's scary. It's not the color of his skin that bothers me, it's the fact he could not salute the flag and he is of Muslim descent. It's that fact in a nutshell. My gut just says he's not the man to vote for. I will more than likely vote for McCain/Palin tomorrow.

Posted by Idefinitelymight (Tom Scarborough) on November 3, 2008 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Congratulations on your reading comprehension score--I was not aware there was a standardized score for measuring reading comprehension. Your assertion that Obama is a Muslim causes me to be skeptical of the accuracy of the assessment. Obama is not a Muslim. He is a Christian, and his children were baptized as Christians. Whatever his religious beliefs might be, they don't particularly matter to me--I don't care if he worships like a voodoo priest so long as he can steer us through this economic maelstrom, and point us in the right direction. I believe he can. He certainly can do no worse than your party has done during the past eight years.

Might I suggest you do a little reading on the Crusades of the late Middle Ages for some perspective on why radical Muslims might regard Christianity with such antipathy?

Do you remember that the Bush administration received a clear warning from the CIA that an attack on the World Trade towers was imminent, but did nothing to avert it? Of course, with the abysmal performance of the CIA over the past two decades it may be unfair to lay the blame for the lack of preparedness entirely at the feet of the administration. Still, no one seemed to be minding the store when there was plenty of evidence that we were about to come under attack. I suspect whether it is McCain or Obama, the new president will be prepared, and will have the fortitude to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent another catastrophic attack against us.

Hatred is the product of fear and ignorance. Eliminate fear and ignorance and hatred will dissipate. Your willingness to project hatred against all of the adherents of the world's largest faith, when it is a radical, lunatic fringe that has arrayed itself against us, bespeaks your fear and your ignorance.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on November 3, 2008 at 12:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How do you explain this Tom? http://my.barackobama.com/page/community...

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on November 3, 2008 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tom, your posts have taken on a decidedly nasty tone. You seemed so calm and level-headed in your earlier posts. You now seem to be sinking into the yeahuhuh crap pit of discourse.

I find it amusing that you libs, who outwardly seem so confident in Comrade Obama's chances of victory tomorrow, are still so vitriolic in your rhetoric. Perhaps that confidence is only a thin veneer masking an underlying uncertainty. Just an observation.

Yeahuhuh, you ask how small business owners can support McCain/Palin after what the Bush policies have done to them? Didn't you write in an earlier post that you've done really well during the Bush years? But wait, were you granted special immunity or something that protected you from the damage? The fact of the matter is, our economy grew, the stock market thrived and unemployment was less than 5% for most of the Bush years (which in economic terms is 0 unemployment). The economy seems to have started its precipitous slide after the Dems took over the House and Senate, and their idiotic energy and housing policies finally blew up in their and everybody else's faces.

Prediction: Obama wins the popular vote 49% to 48%, the rest goes to 3rd party candidates. McCain wins the electoral college and the Presidency. McCain will even pick up Pennsylvania since it's now been revealed that Obama wants to bankrupt the coal industry and see electricity prices, and I quote, "skyrocket."

Posted by bstarrrn (anonymous) on November 3, 2008 at 1:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Frankly, Tom, I could really not care less as to what you think. I personally find you both obnoxious and very full of yourself. I never used the word hate, it was dislike. And anyone who doesn't have some fear is, to me, the ignorant one. You sound to me like you admire these people that so hate Christians--well, I'll still say a prayer for you. Actually, if I remember correctly, it was Bill Clinton that was first alerted to the possibility of an attack on our country and chose not to do anything.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on November 3, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

From the Chicago chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America: "Secondly, the NP's '96 Political Program has been enormously successful with 3 of 4 endorsed candidates winning electoral primaries. All four candidates attended the NP membership meeting on April 11th to express their gratitude... Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration. "- http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng47... under New Party Update.

If a candidate accepted endorsments from the Klan, signed a contract to promote the Klan, as Obama has done for the New Party and Democratic Socialists, would you suspect that the candidate was at heart a Klansman? What about it Tom?

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on November 3, 2008 at 1:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tom my salutations for waiting so long to frank with the other side. Folks like bstarrn are idiots and I will say it. That reading comprehension score of 160 is really great. What, 160 out of a thousand? And his other score is almost as high? How stupid do these guys think they can be without being insulted for it?

kmdgdb -- I did well for the last 4 years because of me, I will be glad to see Obama elected because I have more character and care more about what is true than either you or Mr. McCain. You however in forgetting to cite the the debt payback and what that will do to the honest eventual bottom line stick to the dishonest lower road. That is why you guys are losing. You are bottom feeders. You pretend moral indignation from a medical procedure that kills fewer that the military blunders you also support -- give us a break.

The fact was that Bush and Company ran the economy with the money faucet wide open and prosperity did not last, in case you didn't notice. If you were a speculator and got your money out you made money. If you had your money in land and stocks you probably broke even or lost.

You are the fella who with 30 polls to cite for the last few weeks only cited the few where McCain was close. I predict your prediction is wrong. I also predict we both prosper during the Obama years -- after Republican excesses work their way out of the economy, and that will be slowly.

Posted by broonzy (anonymous) on November 3, 2008 at 1:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhuh, your have so much patience...
kmbjd40, you're full of hate. "Kool Aid Drinkers", you mean Blacks, huh ? and when you think "ignorants", you mean the same thing? Do you think you have any culture? Well, planter's culture, maybe. I just hope your camp will lose, Master.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on November 3, 2008 at 1:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Crusaders are tireless broonzy.

Posted by Idefinitelymight (Tom Scarborough) on November 3, 2008 at 1:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry yeahuhhuh--I don't really like to engage in your brand of discourse. I think your slash and burn style of "discussion" does more to discredit our side than it does to help it.

I owe bstarnnn an apology for calling him/her ignorant in my previous comment. Though we may disagree, bstarnn is not ignorant--just sees things differently from me. Things tend to get a little raw in the heat of the moment. I am requesting that my comment be removed. Please accept my apology.

Posted by broonzy (anonymous) on November 3, 2008 at 2:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tireless... maybe 'cause they drink kool aid !

Posted by 2008 (anonymous) on November 3, 2008 at 2:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This has been a long journey these past 2 years since the candidates proclaimed their intention to run for President: Lessons I have learned along the way…

Never take what is written on a blog as truth, most comments are opinions only

Always do your OWN research on the issues and candidates

Keep religion and government separate

Intense dislike for any negative ads or smear tactics

No patience with anyone who does not show common curtsy, respect for others and civility or anyone who resorts to name calling to make a point

Tolerance and respect for those I disagree with doesn’t always come easy, but I do try and take the high road.

No matter which candidate wins, when we wake up on Wednesday morning the one thing that is certain is that we will have a new President. Whether we are happy about the choice or not it is our responsibility to take the HIGH ROAD and do what is best for the country. On the other hand, if you are so miserable by the country’s choice everyone does have another choice…..move to another country.

Posted by bstarrrn (anonymous) on November 3, 2008 at 2:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

broonzy and yeahuhhuh, two things--Kool Aid Drinkers has nothing to do with "Blacks", the term started on Bill O'Reilly on FOX News to mean someone with blinders on or someone that sees just one side of something-no matter what logic is given. And 160 is in reference to IQ-something that you apparently know nothing about, average IQ is like 110-120(that may be a little high).

Tom, thank you for your apology, I do accept it. You, at least, after cooling off, are a gentleman.

Posted by broonzy (anonymous) on November 3, 2008 at 3:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

bstarm, we know what IQ is. but you don't know what being humble is, I see.
Bill O'Reilly... what a cultural reference...
About Kool Aid : did you see those signs made against Obama saying that he's a commie who will "share the wealth" (what an awful idea !) : you had a bucket of fried chicken, kool aid, watermelon and so forth. We both know that "kool aid drinkers" means. you won't fool us with some O'Reilly poor rethoric.
2008 : Canada is too cold and Mexico is too dry. I'll move to Iran when we will invade it.

Posted by naturegirl (anonymous) on November 3, 2008 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You all need to check out this interview with a very educated African-American lady before you vote:

http://www.inspirationtoday.com/insptoda......

Go to the Sept. 29 interview - you may learn something.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on November 3, 2008 at 3:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

broonzy, O'Reilly's comment about kool-aid drinkers comes from the kool-aid served to the followers of Jim Jones who allowed their leader to poison them. I believe the drink that goes with your menu is either RC, Nehi Orange, or Pepsi.

Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on November 3, 2008 at 3:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Kool-Aid drinkers" is a phrase that was coined after the infamous Jim Jones cult sucides referring to the fact that he ordered his followers to drink cyinade laced kool aid, and they followed him blindly. Those who refused were shot. So the phrase is as bstarrn stated - it refers to those who follow a charismatic leader, even when their common sense should know better.
Most of my black friends leave the kool-aid to the kids, and prefer a beer, cola, or a big glass of my iced tea.

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

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-fre...

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on November 3, 2008 at 3:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGAaOATLL...

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on November 3, 2008 at 4:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's home district includes San Francisco.

Star-Kist Tuna's headquarters are in San Francisco, Pelosi's home district. Star-Kist is owned by Del Monte Foods and is a major contributor to Pelosi. Star-Kist is the major employer in American Samoa employing 75% of the Samoan workforce.
Paul Pelosi, Nancy's husband, owns $17 million dollars of Star-Kist stock.
In January, 2007 when the minimum wage was increased from $5.15 to $7.25, Pelosi had American Samoa exempted from the increase so Del Monte would not have to pay the higher wage. This would make Del Monte products less expensive than their competition's.
Last week when the huge bailout bill was passed, Pelosi added an earmark to the final bill adding $33 million dollars for an 'economic development credit in American Samoa'.
Pelosi has called the Bush Administration 'corrupt'.
She should know.

Posted by Classylady (anonymous) on November 3, 2008 at 4:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I will pray about the situation with the economy and what will happen to our nation. In the meantime I think the Bible Scripture from Judges 4:1-24 is interesting-- it speaks of a man named "Barak" and the outcome of Israel.

You can read it yourself from the Bible or online at the following website: http://www.jesusfolk.com/Bible/07004.htm......

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on November 3, 2008 at 4:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Broonzy, I think instead of drinking Kool Aid you must have been smoking some of those funny cigarettes. If you don't have the first clue what a phrase means, perhaps you should research it first before commenting on it. Why is everything about race with you libs? Give it a rest, for God's sake.

Yeahuhuh, I must agree with you about something, as much as it pains me to do so. I've commented on this before, but I'll restate what I said. I agree that Bush and the Republican congress spent far too much. That was perhaps the biggest failing of the Bush administration in my opinion. But as I also stated, they were just governing like Democrats. Surely you don't think that the Democrats are going to rein in spending. John McCain is the only candidate even talking about getting spending under control. Obama wants to spend another trillion dollars and Barney Frank said we should forget about the deficit for now because we need a big increase in spending. Just as Democrats never cut taxes, they also never cut spending. If you think otherwise, you and broonzy must be sharing one of those funny cigarettes I referenced earlier.

Oh, and I have an update. The Obama middle-class number is now down to $97,000. How low will it go? Maybe we could start a pool.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on November 3, 2008 at 4:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Broonzy, you remind me of oldhippie. I wonder...

Posted by broonzy (anonymous) on November 3, 2008 at 5:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No, of course, in Mississippi, it's not about race at all... when you talk about kool aid drinkers, it refers to white pentecostals, of course.
I'm no hippie or whatever you think.
you should try those funny cigarettes, it's good with kool aid.

Posted by broonzy (anonymous) on November 3, 2008 at 5:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

EnKiKur, kool-aid is this and that too.
I never drink soda.
I do not have tv.
I'm no hippie.
I'm still pro-american.
and will vote Obama :))))))

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on November 3, 2008 at 5:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So because we're in Mississippi, a phrase that is used to refer to people who follow someone blindly, and has no racial connotation at all, has somehow morphed into a racial epithet? That's a briliant line of thinking. (I'm being sarcastic, of course.)

Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on November 3, 2008 at 5:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Personally I like kool-aid. My favorites are lemon/lime and strawberry, but grape is good too! LOL

Posted by broonzy (anonymous) on November 3, 2008 at 6:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

kmbjdjdjhuduuuh40, read your previous comment, and tell me if it has no racial connotation. You're trying to justify your words in a billoreilly manner, good for you, honkey.
By the way, when you use irony or sarcastic figures, people are able to undertsand what you mean, you don't need to state 'heee, I'm sarcastic now'.....
Mississippi... paradise for Black people, I just miss the good ol' times, Master!

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on November 3, 2008 at 6:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I just read my earlier post again. There is nothing racial in it. If you're infering things from what was written, then your own prejudices and false assumptions are leading you to false conclusions. In my post, I was referring to liberals generally, not any particular race. The only way your accusation would have any weight would be if the only people supporting Obama were black. Plus, the phrase "Kool Aid" would have to be unclear in its meaning. Since the meaning of the phrase is established and well known, you argument is baseless.

Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on November 3, 2008 at 9:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The following was written by James L. Lambert, a Christian news commentator and I copied it from his column at onenewsnow.com. I know many on here claim to be Christians, and all I ask is that they read this and search their hearts:
While an Obama presidency admittedly would be historic, a person's skin color obviously shouldn't be a criteria for voting for that candidate. Religion -- especially the Christian religion -- has deep roots in this country. Yet it seems that many people who claim the Christian faith are casting their religious values to the curb in favor of being able to claim a role in "a historic event."

Rev. Adlai E. Mack, senior pastor and founder of Christians United Church in San Diego, is alarmed by this trend. It was during the early 1970s, while working toward his bachelor's degree from Princeton University, that Mack was introduced to moral dilemmas such as abortion. He was influenced by Dr. Paul Ramsey, professor of ethics, who decried the technique of ending human life so cavalierly in the womb.

According to the Life Education and Resource Network (LEARN) -- the largest African-American evangelical pro-life ministry in the country -- three out of five pregnant African-American women will abort their child.

Besides currently performing his full-time duties as a local pastor, Mack is a longtime Christian activist who routinely visits abortion clinics with the mission to persuade mothers to forgo terminating the life of their unborn child. Last week, Mack directed his thoughts to fellow believers in the church and to the black community at large.

He told this writer on Thursday: "If you're willing to sacrifice your babies, your children, and your business for Mr. Obama, you have that choice -- but I will not."

Mack continued: "If Obama wins, the babies lose. If Obama wins, your children will be discipled by homosexual [activists] in the public schools. If Obama wins, small businesses will suffer. Raising taxes would be the worst remedy during an economic downturn."

Rev. Mack notes that Senator Obama has the most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate and is a longtime friend of abortion providers. Since joining the Senate in 2005, the Illinois senator has received a 100-percent rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America, the leading abortion advocacy group in the United States.

Furthermore, Obama has injected himself into the debate on gay marriage by denouncing Proposition 8, the California initiative that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Most Christians agree that Christ himself has already defined marriage as between one man and one woman (Matthew 19:4).

On election eve, Mack concludes by asking his fellow believers: "Are you willing to sacrifice [your beliefs, your convictions] for this one man?"

I ask: Are you willing to put Obama before Christ?

Posted by broonzy (anonymous) on November 4, 2008 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama is a Christian.
I will vote for Obama despite the fact I am an atheist. And I have the right, in this country, to stand for what I don't believe in :) I would not vote for the Christ, he was a revolutionary and a socialist. However, I respect Christians. And Christians will vote in mass for a Christian named Obama.
A warmonger like McCain makes a better Christian? Crusaders honored the name of the Christ when they killed millions of infidels??? Freedom42, I just can't swallow your o'reilly type of soup.

Posted by broonzy (anonymous) on November 4, 2008 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Privacy and freedom : those are two things somebody like freedom42 does not respect. welcome to the 13th century america where gay marriage and abortion are important issues. Those are just diversion of real economic problems. we should vote for the man who will help the middle classes.
by stating that Obama is a baby killer or whatever, you are just trying to sully a character. An election is first and foremost about ideas.
welcome to the 13th century america where abortion is an important issue, where what's going on in your neighbor's house, or in her belly should concern everyone. In every western countries in the world, abortion is not even discussed, because they respect people's privacy (by the way, you liked the bush administration eavesdropping? you liked the fact they didn't do anything for the pro-life cause during the time they had the full capacity to do something???). Women are smart enough to decide themselves what they should do. Abortion was forbidden in communist countries such as romania or albania, with disastrous consequences. You are the socialist !!!