Posted by Swapmeet (anonymous) on August 24, 2008 at 12:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Similarly, Barack Obama has broken new ground, too. He’s the first black candidate expected to win a major political party’s nomination and he’s got a good shot to become the president."

I can't believe the ND hasn't done their research on this issue. Obama is not black. His dad is Kenyan and his mom is Caucasian. People just trying to make this all about race.

Posted by thetinman (Keith Reynolds) on August 24, 2008 at 6:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Why do we have to make this a black or white race? Let's make this race on there social character of where they stand politically!

Posted by unclered (anonymous) on August 24, 2008 at 9:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I find it interesting that no one refers to Senator Obama as half-white. Anyway, don't kid yourself. Race does matter, especially in Mississippi. People around here need to stop pretending that issues of race are issues of the past. Things are better, but there is still work to be done. What Senator Obama has accomplished in winning a major political party's nomination for president is a significant step forward for America.

Posted by sobeit (anonymous) on August 24, 2008 at 10:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

NDC Why are you feeding the black/white fire?

Posted by sobeit (anonymous) on August 24, 2008 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

NDC would be Natchez Democrat

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on August 24, 2008 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Swapmeet, what has it taken for years to be considered black - 1/32?

You should look that up. Being half-white is no big deal, Obama is culturally more black than white because of the church he went to, who he married, and who he identified with politically. That, although this is not important really, if America is to stand for what it's supposed to.

If most white girls around here brought him home to Daddy he would DEFINITELY be black, so let's not be stupid in what we write.

This is not about race, it's about experience. John Mccain is NOT respected by his party and this party is corrupt and will largely not implement what he says -- because that is how they have treated him for years. McCain is old-school, has little ability to bring new thoughts or effort to office and is ineffective as a leader of his own party. Just a few months ago they hated him.

Obama is less corrupted by the old ways yet is brighter, smarter and faster thinking on his feet than McCain.

YES THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT EXPERIENCE AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT CHANGE. OBAMA'S EXPERIENCE MEANS YOU CAN BETTER EXPECT CHANGE WITH YOUR CHANGE IN LEADERSHIP.

Posted by Swapmeet (anonymous) on August 24, 2008 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhhuh: Okay, let's put the race issue aside like you said. I've posted it elsewhere but here is my partial list to explain to you why I oppose Obama. You are a cold hearted person if you can support a man who supports the procedure in my first point. Read it if you dare and tell me how there is any humanity for anyone who thinks it is okay to do that. If you are okay with anyone who supports that procedure, then you have gone a long way to display your character.

1. He opposed a bill that would give the right to health care to infants who survived abortion procedures saying it would undermine the mother's original decision. He also is in support of partial-birth abortion. The following is a medical description of partial birth abortion: "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."

2. He admittedly has friendly relationship with and sits on a board with William Ayers, a domestic terrorist who bombed the U.S. Capitol, NYC Headquarters, and other buildings and said he didn't regret it at all.

3. He sat under the preaching of Rev. Wright who desecrates the Lord's pulpit by spewing hatred. Obama said he could no longer disown Rev. Wright than he could the black community or his own grandmother. A week or two later he did just that for political expidiency showing he'll throw anyone under the bus to better his position.

4. He has questionable dealings with Tony Rezco who was a slum lord in Chicago. He took contributions from this man and had an acquaintance with him while he was under federal indictment.

5. He wants to increase federal spending by $1 trillion dollars.

6. He supports homosexual marriage.

7. He supports nationalized healthcare which is just a first step down the slippery slope to socialism.

Posted by reb1843 (anonymous) on August 24, 2008 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Just because anyone or anything is labeled a 'first' doesn't make that distinction a 'good' one. There are many 'firsts' in history that were not good for mankind, namely Hitler, the previous mayor of Natchez, the 'first' strike by Japan on Dec. 7, 1941, etc.
Obama is not just black - he is half-white - a mulatto. He's a great orator (like Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, et al) who inspires the sheeple from a teleprompter. Other than that, he has done absolutely NOTHING in his tenure as a senator from Illinois. NOTHING. He's never even had a 'real' job.

Posted by Swapmeet (anonymous) on August 24, 2008 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhhuh: You also say that race is defined by culture rather than bloodlines. I disagree with you. I see some white boys on Alcorn State's campus when I go to school who have apparently adopted black culture because of their dress, euphenisms, and music preferences (not that anything is wrong with it, it is what it is). I don't call those guys black. They are still white. And just as those boys are white, Obama is more white than he is black. That is why this is not an historic election like everyone is airing it out to be.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on August 24, 2008 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

OK Swapmeet. Whatever you say. Maybe your daddy wouldn't call him black if sis brought him home, but almost every white dad in Adams would and almost all of the black dads.

I'm just hoping for a different election and we can't afford to keep up the same things in government.

Every election the GOP says the opposition is a socialist, and every time the GOP elects a president he proves what a liar they are and runs up deficit spending buying votes and influence by selling the national treasury -- Reagan, Bush I and Bush II all did it like they were in lockstep. If that doesn't work they try to fight an oil war and win re-election by looking tough. The whole while they make government bigger and sell off contracts to run it to the people that gave them campaign money.

Or, like the present Bush, they invent a list of enemies that are no real threat and knock them off one by one and pat themselves on the back the whole time for an audience of idiots here at home -- then the terrorists try to pay us back.

The election is historic for a variety of reasons, and I hope arguing about Obama's blackness does not become the intellectual cutting edge in this one. For most folks, those white boys who dress and act black would BE black if they had 1/5 blood. They would just be bright. But if race is not an issue then it doesn't matter, and if blacks want to see him as black then I would not be wanting to deny them the choice.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on August 24, 2008 at 12:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Admit this Swapmeet. You didn't compile those traits and you don't know the details of them.

Bills in congress become SO complex that there can be a zillion reasons to oppose a bill that has plenty of good points, then a dishonest hack job can be done by a dishonest person to give you a quote you think proves your prejudices. Most of the bills about abortion in congress have been submitted in a variety of ways to more get votes from the living rather than to offer hope to the unborn. Opposing universal health care probably kills more babies than anything right now.

Do like I do -- DO NOT read sites for information that are slanted. Read them to see their angle and the check them out.

Ask yourself this -- exactly how did McCain manage to graduate 894th out of a class of 899?

Experience being the disrespected maverick of your party does not equate to having a brain. You gotta be smart to be a good president, and not stuck in your ways that don't work. Nothing matters as much.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on August 24, 2008 at 12:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhuh...McCain was self-admittedly rebellious in his youth, partially as a way to protest his feeling that he was forced into a naval career he didn't really want by the illustrious previous careers of both his father and grandfather and familial pressure.

That same rebelliousness also stood him in good stead enabling him to resist torture, to the extent any man can and should be expected, for six years at the hands of the North Vietnamese.

Remember...America was built on rebellion, one with Great Britain and another amongst ourselves, and numerous smaller ones as well. Nevertheless, that rebelliousness is part of the American experience, tradition and psyche.

Regarding having a brain, don't forget that McCain was one of the first to say the strategy in Iraq wasn't working and to present the surge strategy that is...that takes brains and courage! Obama simply cries that it isn't working even when faced with the facts to the contrary on the ground.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on August 24, 2008 at 1:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhuh...the following is a quote from one of your previous posts: "For most folks, those white boys who dress and act black would BE black if they had 1/5 blood. They would just be bright."

This is a pretty disturbing statement, particularly coming from you. I deem you to be one of my more erudite, if misguided, bloging partners and would hate to think that this statement truly reflects your views.

I, for one, do not agree with the statement nor do I personally feel that way. Where did the 1/5 part come from? Are you harkening back to the 3/5 Compromise contained in the original Constitution? That was rescinded by the 14th and 15th amendments and further buried by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the National Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Seems to me that people should be able to identify with whatever culture they choose at whatever time they choose. Almost everyone is Irish at least one day a year. We all love Chinese New Year, Mexican Cinqo De Mayo, German Oktoberfest and Italian food. I don't see why Kwanzaa and Juneteenth can't be celebrated by all people just like the others I mention and many I haven't.

Are you saying that unless you actually have a blood heritage tie you can't celebrate a culture? I think you should be proud of your blood heritage and culture and celebrate it but not to the point of creating hate towards another. In Obama's case he comes primarily from two blood heritages and cultures and should be proud of and celebrating both!

Posted by sentas (anonymous) on August 24, 2008 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Keep it up Yeahuhuh.

Posted by Kaintuck (anonymous) on August 24, 2008 at 4:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This incessant discussion about skin color and "blood" is the least important factor in casting an informed vote. If you were buying a horse, would its color matter THAT much, compared to its size, age, gait, disposition, etc.? If someone has truly deep-seated moral reasons for their vote, like Swapmeet, bless her heart, that's great - its a free country. I think that both of these guys are pretty similar actually, in their personal preferences about many of these social issues. That is why McCain is so despised by social conservatives. Do you think that Natchez and America are better-off today than they were 8 years ago? Are Natchez and America headed in the right direction? If so, vote for McCain; its that simple. If you think not, vote for Obama, or even the Constitution Party candidate. Our Founding Fathers provided a good system for governance - the envy of the world!

Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on August 24, 2008 at 10:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Owhampy is a wanna be who will never be! Michelle neither!

Posted by Swapmeet (anonymous) on August 24, 2008 at 11:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

(Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on August 24, 2008 at 12:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Admit this Swapmeet. You didn't compile those traits and you don't know the details of them.)

I usually don't go here Yeahuhuh, but I scored a 27 on my ACT and carry a 3.67 GPA. I know those are not super impressive, but I am able to formulate my ideas and place them in my writing. This year I placed second in the state in the Literacy Essay division as I observed Mark Twain's traits of realism which potrayed the prevalence of physical, emotional, and psychological abuse in the Mississippi river valley during the 19th Century. I am able to gather information, process it, and hash it out in my own words. Everything I wrote in those points are my words, and I believe Obama is a man with questionable character considering his associations. His friendship with William Ayers of the Weather Underground is enough to scare anyone. If you want to vote for Obama, then God bless you and help you. I will not vote for a man who thinks it's okay for infants to breathe out their last breaths for 20 minutes without the right to a doctor's care.

Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on August 24, 2008 at 11:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

1/2 white and 1/2 black...still makes this an historic election like everyone is airing it out to be.

Honestly hope I don't have to read that discription of a partial birth abortion one more time...I've had a visual all day...hopefully no children were reading. Abortion should not be used as a form of birth control, and when decided upon by a woman and her doctor, should be done in the first few weeks. But, who knows when or why that other type of abortion has been done? I can't imagine a women deciding to abort after carrying a child to full term...why wouldn't she just give the baby up for adoption at that point?...I don't feel like I know enough about that type of procedure, or why a doctor would do that type of procedure. Or why Obama voted that way...I plan to do more reading. It seems to be more of an issue during elections, as I'm reminded of hearing the same during the last election, yet nothing was changed in 8 years. The abortion issue alone would not keep me from voting for Obama, since I know how McCain feels about war. War aborts live babies, pregnant mothers, families, whole villages, dogs, cats, livestock, trees, medical facilities, ruins water supply, destroys electricty, plus much much more...and breeds hatred in those who survive.

From what I've read about McCain, he will cut out all family planning and health clinics that give out birth control, and many of you people are already complaining about having to fund welfare and food stamps for people that continue to breed while getting assistance. Plus, he said on national TV that he would keep the troops in Iraq for a hundred years if that's what it takes, just like in Korea and Germany. If I were on Social Security and Section 8 assistance, I would be real sure about McCain's plans for that too.

Don't just read what McCain and his groupies say about Obama, they are trying to win an election, read what Obama says on his website.

Posted by Swapmeet (anonymous) on August 24, 2008 at 11:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

(Posted by Peace007: Honestly hope I don't have to read that discription of a partial birth abortion one more time...I've had a visual all day...hopefully no children were reading.)

I only do it because people need to know what it really entails. People just hear abortion and they let it go to some recess of their minds. I am a man and I know people say "men shouldn't cry" but the first time I read this description of partial-birth abortion it cause me to weep. I really don't know what else to say. Being a father of beautiful girl makes this a very sensitive issue with me. I can't help it. I just can't see how people can be on the pro-death side instead of the pro-life side.

Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on August 25, 2008 at 12:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

(Posted by Swapmeet: I just can't see how people can be on the pro-death side instead of the pro-life side.)

How can you consider the Republicans to be pro life when they are warmongers? McCain was just as involved in the war as Bush, and he wants to continue warring for 100 years...even though he is as old as dirt and has one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peeling. Plus, he won't even discuss his thoughts on religion, but instead gives an account of something "he says" happened while he was a POW. I have seen at least one website saying that he borrowed that tale. Plus, I've seen others saying that the Mother Theresa tale was fabricated into the real story of the adoption. If that is true, was his tears real? Why were his tears not considered as a sign of weakness as the Republicans said Hillary's were? Can McCain answer a question without bringing up his POW days? I feel like we are being emotionally blackmailed. And just being a POW doesn't qualify one for president. There are many ex-POWs, but most of them aren't using that fact to gain importance or an election. Oh, and one more thing...McCain refuses to be baptised as per his current preacher.

Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on August 25, 2008 at 12:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

G'Nite Swap.

Posted by Swapmeet (anonymous) on August 25, 2008 at 8:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

(Posted by Peace007: How can you consider the Republicans to be pro life when they are warmongers?)

I'm not Republican peace. I'm an independent. I'm pro-life and Obama and other abortion supporters are pro-death.

Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on August 25, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There was a time when I was just like you...100% anti-abortion. And now, it's not that I'm necessarily for abortions; I really don't like abortions...it's more so, that I'm for allowing each woman to make her own decision. In a child's case, her parents would need to make that decision for her if she were raped and became pregnant. Being born again is not a shield against real happenings in this life...if you recall in the bible, God says he allows it to rain or shine on whomever He wills. God can and will put you to the test if he so chooses. I hope you recall the tests He put Job, Daniel, and some others through. But, no matter what happens in our lives, we must continue to worship God, seek His forgiveness and mercy, accept His will for us, and allow each other individual the chance to find their own way to Him...without trying to become God over them ourselves. Let him without sin cast the first stone. If God wanted us all to be like minded, he would have given us one mind and one direction, instead of allowing us freedom of will. Could you still accept me as a friend and a human being, even if I don't think exactly the same as you, or would you turn your back on me? You've never stood in my shoes and you don't know where I've walked, nor I you. God knows.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on August 25, 2008 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No Swapmeet I know you didn't mean to misstate but Obama and his side are actually Pro-life. The Pro-life label has been misused by lying politicians.

The side that supports Obama oppose unnecessary wars, they oppose pollution that kills thousands silently, they stand to keep our environment healthy and that preserves all life. In the area of abortion rights, they balance a person's freedom to run his own life with the rights of the unborne by setting limits on when abortions can happen.

The other side kills things they don't like or that get in their way and grandstands on the abortion issue because it does not cost them anything to make it illegal for poor people to bear children they can't afford. To prove their soul, the "pro-life" crowd after mandating that others must bear children does not want to help pay for the children.

If you vote for a Republican you are a republican when it counts. Don't pat yourself on the back for your abortion stance unless you have the soul to raise a child that would have been aborted. Otherwise you just want to run other people's life and to do that you will give the key to the gun locker to the people who will kill folks for oil and politics.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on August 25, 2008 at 12:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sammohon, now, no offense but you write like you are drunk.

It would always just be easier for you to re-read a piece than to explain it to you but here goes.

I do not care a HOOT about whether anyone identifies with any particular culture. They can do what they want, act the way they want, whatever. They can dye their hair black or shave it bald and call themselves Buddhist or Nepalese or Native American or whatever and vote and think accordingly.

I only referred to what they would be called by the majority and that was in reply to someone else's stupid claims about what to call folks.

I simply took someone's statement about Not being black where they cited the white boys at their school and said that if they acted like that AND had a smidgin of black they WOULD BE black in almost everyone's jargon. The 1/5 is an arbirtary figure above the minimum required by some states who legislated on the issue.

Geez man get a grip and follow the flow.

Posted by BeautifullyDefined (anonymous) on August 25, 2008 at 1:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OH my goodness, I really don't care who wins as long as these gas prices go down, I need a new hand bag!!!!

Posted by Swapmeet (anonymous) on August 25, 2008 at 3:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

(Posted by Yeahuhuh: Don't pat yourself on the back for your abortion stance unless you have the soul to raise a child that would have been aborted.)

Actually, yeahuhuh, I would do it in a heartbeat. Because of my current circumstances, I might be adopting a child after I begin my teaching career next year. Depends on whether they will adopt to a single father such as myself. I really wouldn't care what kind of child it is whether it be white, black, Chinese, or even disabled in some way. I will just do it as God directs me to.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on August 25, 2008 at 10:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhuh...I was trying to follow the flow and it wasn't clear what you meant, at least to me. I was trying to give you a chance to clear up and ambiguous statement.

I assure you that I was cold, stone sober and your comment relative to that wasn't conducive to productive discourse. You may need to get a grip yourself.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on August 26, 2008 at 10:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sam excuse me if my comment was not productive. Perhaps this reply will address something ideological that is bigger than our discussion.

I do tend to take on complicated concepts when I write, and most often it is necessary to see what I am replying to before one assumes that anything I say is a rigid opinion. I am not timid but much I say will best make sense in context.

You are able and one of the more cocky on this forum, but you are prone to pontification on matters of ideology. When I say something ideological I have at least several aspects of provably real that I am addressing, and when you fly in to dismiss my point through simple contrary edict or certainty-about-your-misunderstanding and not through qualification, I will pretty consistently treat you as though that were illegitimate in civilized discourse. If I erred in my rebuke because I anticipated your style as revealed in our other dialogs, please excuse me.

There is a commonality to our conflict that is also seen in the larger conflicts between the left and the right, and it mirrors the way each of us -- and entire halves of our culture -- think, see and act. This speaks more honestly to the difference between left and right than the mangled treatment of issues we see more often.

The remedy to our unproductive conflict lies in realizing that pontification when used to invalidate a more thoughtful tome is aggression -- since nobody gets to ignore the pontiff, the tendency to claim such authority as a tactic is strong for those bent on conquest especially in the name of status quo.

Conservatives tend to be who they are very often out of a reaching for the ideological authority of those principles simple enough to have prevailed over time -- but they too often use that authority as a way to dominate -- as a battle tactic -- in areas not related to their greatness. When that misapplication occurs, it becomes necessary either to shoot down the pontiff or submit to him, and things do become personal far too quickly in personal discourse.

We use that same power entitlement concept with conservative foreign policy and the costs are significant terror, oil market uncertainties and growing disrespect -- precisely because those are the areas we choose to mis-use our authority and they give us a return visit. Conservatives are especially prone to NOT seeing any other way that could work.

I won't be apologizing for shooting you down when you misuse the assumed authority of your ideology in discourse, so in the spirit of civilization, perhaps we could stick to carefully worded qualifications and careful reading.

If I used pre-emptive strike in an anticipation of your next statements, and your misunderstanding was more innocent, excuse me again. It can be a messy tactic and innocents can be harmed. But I still don't quite look upon you as an innocent, He,he!

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on August 26, 2008 at 11:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

An apology just as convoluted as your logic...capricious, specious and arrogant...and totally expected...funny, you call ME cocky...I'm sorry, but you won that race, it's the only one you'll win...you didn't shoot me down, you simply resorted to slander when you couldn't adequately defend your views...it's a shame, with your obvious intelligence and writing skills that you can't do better than be sophomoric...shameful misuse of talent, if you ask me, but, of course you didn't and wouldn't...you obviously think you're smarter than everyone else...NO WONDER YOU'RE A DEMOCRAT...it suits you.

Posted by meluvcookies (anonymous) on August 27, 2008 at 8:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Just in case some of you are still coming back to this blog, please check James David Manning's speech at this website: www.atlah.org/broadcast/ndnr07-28-08.htm...

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on August 27, 2008 at 10:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I honestly don't mean you any harm Sam, but your position and mine on this matter might be germaine to the entire liberal/conservative conflict and I think my comments are legit. Even something as innocent as my statement that if someone acts black culturally and has any black blood most people would call him black can escalate when the details of how we communicate get obscured.

Like I said about your pontification, you'll have to do better at fleshing out why that was a slander if you want the conviction to stick. You did in that last post simply attempt to accuse slander by edict, then insult, then you pointed the "elitist" finger that is supposed to elicit an emotional response that invalidates my message. See what I mean? Maybe not.

If the rewards of living your private conservative life are obvious in self-aggrandisement -- which not many disagree with as a reasonable seat of conservatism -- then the abrasive nature of how you might get your way in ideological conflict can be just as predictable. I know and was raised with staunch conservatives who understand this imperial temptation and avoid it in their personal letters.

While you might take issue with my pedantic and elitist sophomoric rendering do not excuse yourself for your confidence to the point that you think you can just label and fume without rebuke.

Conservatism has resided as the dominant thought form in our culture so long that it has written itself an entitlement to political domination, and entitlement is a peculiar malady for a discipline that prides itself on "no free rides". Imagine an entire sitting ideology demanding that it be able to dominate even if it cannot do the work to flesh out it's claims when challenged. What happens when that occurs is that non-conservatives like the present president invade government posing as the real thing, and install the corrupt. Meanwhile, in a social exercise, the rank and file fight the middle and the left for "conservatism" and forget to question themselves and that is how you guys fausted the present blasphemous, mutated PIG of a government upon us. He,he! Did I say that right?

And I'm more of an anti-Republican right now in history than a Democrat. My feeling is that Democrats are just Republican lite, and the two sides become more alike in fielding one another's tactics.

If you try to paint a world that by design only leaves your side in control I will point out what you did. And if you are dishonest or manipulative I will try to show how I think you did it. Simply being called arrogant or elitist is generally not sufficient to silence my message, though it worked for a while on me like it does on most.

This is the work necessary to keep our culture honest and healthy. But I am sorry if your feelings are bruised. Not sorry enough to change my message, but sorry.

Posted by Krogers (anonymous) on August 27, 2008 at 1:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

well the article was pretty good and straight-forward

Obama doesn't have the experience that we can rely on to protect our country and continue our GOOD economy

if you listen to the Democrat Convention, what do you hear?

NOTHING about what they intend to do, except give away universal health care, but not how they intend to pay for it, that and mostly bashing McCain.

Nothing on the vast array of issues that we need to hear specifics about. It's been all about Barrack's family, his wife trying to say she's a good American, and Hillary trying to say she now backs Barrack. SO WHAT!!

So far the Democratic Convention has been a waste of time, nothing done, no issues addressed, just mudslinging and giveaway talk.. .......... typical of the liberal Democrat agenda.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on August 27, 2008 at 1:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Krogers, just on economic stimulation they have done more in a day or two than you have in your lifetime. Guess you missed that, huh?

Posted by sentas (anonymous) on August 27, 2008 at 4:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Careful with Freddy Krogers, Yeahuhuh. He likes to teach punks a lesson - with his feet! You should peruse his epic backlog of posts sometime... pretty funny stuff.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on August 27, 2008 at 11:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm not sure, but Yeahuhuh seems to be EnKiKur in liberal drag...LOL. Sorry, EnK if it's not true, but...the impression remains.

Yeahuhuh...I do agree with you in one aspect...GWB has been a disappointment to conservatives...tax cuts without reciprocal spending cuts is either inflationary...due to the Treasury printing more money and the Fed lowering interest rates to cover the revenue gap, or depressing to free markets by neither responding and subsequent restriction of capital availability.

Some of it wasn't his fault like 9/11 and the War on Terror, Katrina, etc., but some was created by him by not using his veto until his last year in office and the tax cuts with no spending cuts. We are hoping McCain will be the Reaganesque conservative we've been looking for, but the jury is still out on that...regardless, he is a better choice than anyone else left standing.

So, except for your fifth paragraph and including the last two sentences in that paragraph, I disagree with you, but at least there was some commonality. I really hate that since you write so much you will have to go back and count to see what you said...hee, hee, hee.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on August 27, 2008 at 11:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ed Rendell just had a moment of insanity on TV...he claimed that the war in Iraq was "the worst war in American history"...did he completely forget about the Democrat started and escalated war in Vietnam?...people seem to forget that LBJ went into Vietnam on far less and probably trumped up evidence...it cost us 50,000 men for nothing...this war has cost less than 5,000 and Iraq is free!

Posted by sentas (anonymous) on August 28, 2008 at 7:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow, only 5000 dead - I never saw it like that, but you're right, it's a bargain!

I've changed my mind about the whole thing! Even if it was a war waged in the wrong country, I mean, it was only 5000 dead. What's the diff?

Or maybe you're more convinced by economic numbers than body counts. $3 trillion really is chump change.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on August 28, 2008 at 12:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sam, thanks for the qualification on where you agree. Your agreement about strategies used in conservative acquisition of the rights to control is not necessary.

Maybe I am like Enkik, who I have come to admire. But the points you mentioned on the fly deserve some fleshing out, lest you use them for something they are not appropriate for -- like an excuse for conservatism to mis-perform under Bush.

I think if you will look you will find that Reagan, too, was a deficit spender, as was Bush's father George. The Holy Grail of conservatism is that if we just give the taxes back to the most monied, that in a closed system (which we are not), the increased private investment will outstrip the vitality of a system that uses government more to manage jobs. That is the stated reason that deficit tax rebating is morally acceptable. I don't think Daddy Bush really believed it but he continued the practice for the second reason below that they deficit spend.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on August 28, 2008 at 12:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The theory for the uninitiated is that lower taxes on the new increased flow will surpass the old flow in tax revenue production -- an elusive goal that has never been achieved to the extent pretended. In the meantime, those tax rebates and the unrealized dreams of way lower taxes for the common folk buys a jillion votes -- and this reason is the one result of tax rebate illusion that works like a charm. So they deficit spend, despite knowing that Reagan's supply side economic model is long disproven as a panacea.

That does amount to vote buying starting at the time they know the model works imperfectly if at all. George's experiment with a totally cooperative congress proved the nonviable nature of the supply side panacea beyond a doubt. He squandered what he could have gotten from it on a war that managed mainly to just get him re-elected to a second term. If Iran ends up being the Iraqi majority's favored ally when the smoke settles then that is a further cost of his plan -- and his election.

I think also what you will find is that the 9/11 attack was actually a counter-attack that was lodged against us because of Desert Storm, which was executed by George's father, Big George. Ossama Benladin stated as much after the attack claiming it was a reprisal for the US "using the Saudi Holy Land to kill and denigrate Muslims". In fact 9/11 and the earlier attempts against the WTC were reprisals for a string of actions done during Reagan's 80's and George senior's DS tipped the scales.

Let's remember that 9/11 followed Reagan/Bush's support of Saddam and meddling in the Iran-Iraq War (which killed a million Muslims), us shooting down an Iranian airliner, and other actions in the area that gave Israel a blank check for conquest and that displaced Muslims.

The lukewarm response Clinton gave to the Mid East during his tenure to appease the Muslim haters unfortunately did not cleanse us of a much more robust past, and Ossama then struck during the tenure of the main perpetrator's son. Father/son stuff is big with them.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on August 28, 2008 at 12:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You don't have to agree with Benladin's method to see that he is not illogical, he just broke the rules and expanded our own militarism outside the bounds of our capability and lodged a successful strike that took us to our knees and cost us big. Yet when given the opportunity the right chose to sum up the enemy's motivation as "they hate our freedom", a peculiarly self-serving omission of their own culpability in this unfortunate incident.

My bitch with conservatives on this is that they don't have the spine to admit that chain of events, because they feel entitled to launch such aggressive actions in their interest without consideration or remorse. And now you use 9/11 as an excuse for Bush's malfeasance as if his party had nothing to do with calling 9/11 on us all. It's just dishonest and it is a bedfellow of the pontification urge I cited above.

Conservatives have grown into a perverse entitlement culture, and their excesses are costing us too much. The other side will not be perfect, but right now, the edge of our abyss is closer with the self-styled, less-than-honest pontiffs of the GOP.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 7:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I read this interesting letter from Anne Kilkenny that is the web rage. She is evidently a real person, and not everything she said about Palin is bad, but most of it is less than good. It is interesting to hear from someone who knows her well since the rest of us just know what we're told.

http://www.andrys.com/palin-kilkenny.htm...

This lady is entitled to her opinion, and I am sure it is more qualified than anything the rest of us has to judge from.

Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 12:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How he will do it:

Lowering Costs by Increasing Competition in the Insurance and Drug Markets: The insurance business today is dominated by a small group of large companies that has been gobbling up their rivals. There have been over 400 health care mergers in the last 10 years, and just two companies dominate a full third of the national market. These changes were supposed to make the industry more efficient, but instead premiums have skyrocketed by over 87 percent.

Barack Obama will prevent companies from abusing their monopoly power through unjustified price increases. His plan will force insurers to pay out a reasonable share of their premiums for patient care instead of keeping exorbitant amounts for profits and administration. His new National Health Exchange will help increase competition by insurers.

Lower prescription drug costs. The second-fastest growing type of health expenses is prescription drugs. Pharmaceutical companies are selling the exact same drugs in Europe and Canada but charging Americans more than double the price. Obama will allow Americans to buy their medicines from other developed countries if the drugs are safe and prices are lower outside the U.S. Obama will also repeal the ban that prevents the government from negotiating with drug companies, which could result in savings as high as $30 billion. Finally, Obama will work to increase the use of generic drugs in Medicare, Medicaid, and FEHBP and prohibit big name drug companies from keeping generics out of markets.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/health...

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The GOP claims Democrats mean more money spent, and Republicans offer a more frugal approach.

If anything the opposite is historically indicated. When they controlled both houses and the admin, Republican spending surpassed everyone in history. This is especially true if you consider tax cuts to the wealthy as part of the Republican spending to purchase votes and try again to stimulate the economy that way despite increased investment overseas that dilutes the US reinvestment of money rebated to the most wealthy.

Republicans know that their middle class supporters are not very likely to check the facts, and their strategy is to get the most votes they can by taking advantage of this fact and continuing to portray the other side as the taxers and spenders.

The Brookings Institution predicts an increase in taxes for the middle class from both candidates, if the candidate's policies are enacted. For Obama's plans they predict it would amount to 5% increase for middle class families by 2012. For McCain's proposals 3% increase by 2012. But the potential benefits of both plans are starkly different. This is what the Republican strategy seeks to downplay.

What Obama's plans buy are incentives to decrease the cost of medicine, health care, and the inclusion of the remaining few who don't have health care insurance. Obama's plans also include a detailed and aggressive effort to provide incentives for alternative fuels, in an attempt to lower fuel costs and get us off petroleum -- when you consider his entire vision, the 2% additional Obama plans to spend could yield far greater savings for middle class families through decreased costs of these core items. Obama also seeks to reduce taxes for the most poor of the working population and the most elderly. Obama also plans to increase taxes on the most wealthy in order to stop the investment flow overseas, based on the fact that middle class taxpayers are far more likely to spend their dollars in the US economy.

McCain's plans offer a more market oriented approach to oil and less intense attempt to wean us off petroleum. His plans to reform health care are not ambitious, and center on the creation of a non-profit corporation, but no real change in the way things are done at present. He does plan to keep the tax cuts to the most wealthy and has little change in mind for the tax code otherwise. McCain's 3% is more than half the increase of the Obama plan but with no vision to change anything else.

McCain's plans do seem to be more of the same policies we have seen for the last 8 years. But they cost almost as much as the more ambitious plans offered by the Democrats.

Central to the Republican strategy is that their rank and file will not understand the more ambitious nature of Democratic proposals and how that could impact future costs. So they summarize Democratic plans as spending with no real payoff -- basically what the Republican plans actually offer.