Anti Obama?

[BABronco]

Im curious as to why those who dislike obama actually don't like him? Is there a specific reason?

[baja]

Of the three he is my choice hands down and with Hillary out I might vote for him twice. He could suck but he is the only one that has the potential to be really great.

[Dukes]

No experience, not qualified, questionable associations, socialist, the list continues.

Everyone who votes against him will be labeled as racists. This will be a fun five months.

[Dudeskey]

No experience, not qualified, questionable associations, socialist, the list continues.

Everyone who votes against him will be labeled as racists. This will be a fun five months.

by that same loony logic, that would make McCain a fascist

[snowspot66]

Questionable associations is basically everybody in politics.

I don't understand the "not qualified" one. I'd like to hear an explanation as to what you mean. Honest answer please.

The experience thing is questionable in my opinion. I think it's over rated. They did a study of nurses. They took experienced ones and new ones and put them through a simulation of a patient having a code.

The "patient" died faster with the experienced nurse than the new nurse. The inexperienced nurse was unsure of things and therefore was slow and methodical. They eventually made a mistake that killed the patient. The experienced nurse quickly assessed the situation and immediately avoided the mistake the newer nurse made. They then promptly made a different mistake. End result the patient died in a faster time than with the newer nurse.

Mistakes will be made no matter how much experience you have. Some information you just don't have. Some situations you just can't control.

That's why I think you should make the decision on the platform and not how much time the candidate has spent robbing the tax payers in congress.

Now, I can understand people not liking his platform. That's perfectly fine. I don't like all of it. Some of it I strongly disagree with. But I'll probably vote for him anyway. I don't think his more extreme left plans will pass Congress. I also see McCain as W II.

[Spider]

Im curious as to why those who dislike obama actually don't like him? Is there a specific reason?

Here is my reasoning ......
1. A local union in Chicago asked him to help save their Jobs ....... He was far to busy to even show up and speak ......
2. He could no more throw Wright under the Bus then his Grandmother = He tossed his ass when the political pressure was on ....
3. Reznick ( SP?) dirty as hell , not on the level of a Bush and Cheney .... but bad
4. Coke use .. sorry folks I appreciate his candor ....... But ...
5.But I will wind up voting for him

[Dukes]

Questionable associations is basically everybody in politics.

I don't understand the "not qualified" one. I'd like to hear an explanation as to what you mean. Honest answer please.

The experience thing is questionable in my opinion. I think it's over rated. They did a study of nurses. They took experienced ones and new ones and put them through a simulation of a patient having a code.

The "patient" died faster with the experienced nurse than the new nurse. The inexperienced nurse was unsure of things and therefore was slow and methodical. They eventually made a mistake that killed the patient. The experienced nurse quickly assessed the situation and immediately avoided the mistake the newer nurse made. They then promptly made a different mistake. End result the patient died in a faster time than with the newer nurse.

Mistakes will be made no matter how much experience you have. Some information you just don't have. Some situations you just can't control.

That's why I think you should make the decision on the platform and not how much time the candidate has spent robbing the tax payers in congress.

Now, I can understand people not liking his platform. That's perfectly fine. I don't like all of it. Some of it I strongly disagree with. But I'll probably vote for him anyway. I don't think his more extreme left plans will pass Congress. I also see McCain as W II.

What makes him qualified? What has he really done? Can anyone name his accomplishments beyond writing a feel good book and reading off a teleprompter?

He's been in the Senate since '04, and has spent the majority of that campaigning. He has no substance, just great speeches written by someone else.

[Spider]

What makes him qualified? What has he really done? Can anyone name his accomplishments beyond writing a feel good book and reading off a teleprompter?

He's been in the Senate since '04, and has spent the majority of that campaigning. He has no substance, just great speeches written by someone else.

where was these questions when Bush was running ya phony bastard ?
I am not a Obama supporter , I hold him to the same standard as Bush ..... you just toe the party line , pretend you have a point

[Dukes]

Well gebers buddy, you're just dying to repeat the past 4-8 years aren't you? Some might think we could learn from our past mistakes. Guess not.

[Spider]

Well gebers buddy, you're just dying to repeat the past 4-8 years aren't you? Some might think we could learn from our past mistakes. Guess not.

dont give me that **** , no one could **** up as bad as Bush ......... I gave my reasons why I dont like Obama , But he is far better , then the goof we have now

[Dukes]

5.But I will wind up voting for him

Talk about toeing that party line.....

Good job buddy! :wave:

[Dukes]

dont give me that **** , no one could **** up as bad as Bush ......... I gave my reasons why I dont like Obama , But he is far better , then the goof we have now

He's not running against Bush you neanderthal

[Spider]

He's not running against Bush you neanderthal

The hell he isnt ....... McSame .....Pay attention

[Spider]

Talk about toeing that party line.....

Good job buddy! :wave:

No it isnt toeing the party line McSame wants to pick up where Bush left off .......Keep drinking the kool aid

[Bronco_Beerslug]

He's not running against Bush you neanderthal
Uh, maybe you had better check into that a little more.

[Hogan11]

No experience, not qualified, questionable associations, socialist, the list continues.

Exactly the reasons why he's the best candidate. We've seen what the opposites of the reasons you listed get us, no one needs four more years of that.

[enjolras]

He's been in the Senate since '04, and has spent the majority of that campaigning. He has no substance, just great speeches written by someone

The man was the editor of the Harvard Review. His ability to string words together is unquestioned. I'm guessing that your dislike for him has much more to do with the (D) next to his name than anything else.

I like him because he's an intellectual. He's extremely logical and well reasoned. I don't always agree with his conclusions, but I'm always impressed by his logic. Smarts trumps experience every day of the week.

[Hogan11]

The man was the editor of the Harvard Review. His ability to string words together is unquestioned. I'm guessing that your dislike for him has much more to do with the (D) next to his name than anything else.

I like him because he's an intellectual. He's extremely logical and well reasoned. I don't always agree with his conclusions, but I'm always impressed by his logic. Smarts trumps experience every day of the week.

Well, yeah.....but......is Obama the one you'd really want to have a beer with? Afterall, that's what really counts!!!!! Ha!

[Bronco_Beerslug]

The man was the editor of the Harvard Review. His ability to string words together is unquestioned. I'm guessing that your dislike for him has much more to do with the (D) next to his name than anything else.

I like him because he's an intellectual. He's extremely logical and well reasoned. I don't always agree with his conclusions, but I'm always impressed by his logic. Smarts trumps experience every day of the week.Well, not really but it sounds good, I guess. I'm not sure America is ready for a president that can actually form proper sentences and has a decent command of the language after 8 years of it being butchered every time Harvard educated Bush opened his mouth.

[Bronco Jamus]

I don't like him because he's also talking about spending more money and increasing the budget even more, increasing taxes that do not generate more revenue at those levels(captial gains), and he's talking about government subsidized health care. These are all bad things.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I don't like him because he's also talking about spending more money and increasing the budget even more, increasing taxes that do not generate more revenue at those levels(captial gains), and he's talking about government subsidized health care. These are all bad things.Link(s)?

[epicSocialism4tw]

McSame

McCain is about the furthest from Bush that the Repubs could have offered.

This "McSame" idea is ignorant.

[Dukes]

Well, not really but it sounds good, I guess. I'm not sure America is ready for a president that can actually form proper sentences and has a decent command of the language after 8 years of it being butchered every time Harvard educated Bush opened his mouth.

He's been in the spotlight for less than a year and he's already racked up this many. He's hardly perfect. Which is fine, but don't make him out to be something he's not. He can't articulate any better than Bush when he doesn't have a teleprompter


http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/21/barack-obama-gaffe-machine/
Barack Obama: Gaffe machine
Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2008

All it takes is one gaffe to taint a Republican for life. The political establishment never let Dan Quayle live down his fateful misspelling of “potatoe.” The New York Times distorted and misreported the first President Bush’s questions about new scanner technology at a grocers’ convention to brand him permanently as out of touch.

But what about Barack Obama? The guy’s a perpetual gaffe machine. Let us count the ways, large and small, that his tongue has betrayed him throughout the campaign:

* Last May, he claimed that Kansas tornadoes killed a whopping 10,000 people: “In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed.” The actual death toll: 12.

*Earlier this month in Oregon, he redrew the map of the United States: “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”

*Last week, in front of a roaring Sioux Falls, South Dakota audience, Obama exulted: “Thank you Sioux City…I said it wrong. I’ve been in Iowa for too long. I’m sorry.”

*Explaining last week why he was trailing Hillary Clinton in Kentucky, Obama again botched basic geography: “Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it’s not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle.” On what map is Arkansas closer to Kentucky than Illinois?

*Obama has as much trouble with numbers as he has with maps. Last March, on the anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march in Selma, Alabama, he claimed his parents united as a direct result of the civil rights movement:

“There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born.”

Obama was born in 1961. The Selma march took place in 1965. His spokesman, Bill Burton, later explained that Obama was “speaking metaphorically about the civil rights movement as a whole.”

*Earlier this month in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, Obama showed off his knowledge of the war in Afghanistan by honing in on a lack of translators: “We only have a certain number of them and if they are all in Iraq, then it’s harder for us to use them in Afghanistan.” The real reason it’s “harder for us to use them” in Afghanistan: Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish. The Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi, or other non-Arabic languages.

*Over the weekend in Oregon, Obama pleaded ignorance of the decades-old, multi-billion-dollar massive Hanford nuclear waste clean-up:

“Here’s something that you will rarely hear from a politician, and that is that I’m not familiar with the Hanford, uuuuhh, site, so I don’t know exactly what’s going on there. (Applause.) Now, having said that, I promise you I’ll learn about it by the time I leave here on the ride back to the airport.”

I assume on that ride, a staffer reminded him that he’s voted on at least one defense authorization bill that addressed the “costs, schedules, and technical issues” dealing with the nation’s most contaminated nuclear waste site.

*Last March, the Chicago Tribune reported this little-noticed nugget about a fake autobiographical detail in Obama’s “Dreams from My Father:”

“Then, there’s the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don’t exist, say the magazine’s own historians.”

* And in perhaps the most seriously troubling set of gaffes of them all, Obama told a Portland crowd over the weekend that Iran doesn’t “pose a serious threat to us”–cluelessly arguing that “tiny countries” with small defense budgets can’t do us harm– and then promptly flip-flopped the next day, claiming, “I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.”

Barack Obama–promoted by the Left and the media as an all-knowing, articulate, transcendent Messiah–is a walking, talking gaffe machine. How many more passes does he get? How many more can we afford?

[Dukes]

McCain is about the furthest from Bush that the Repubs could have offered.

This "McSame" idea is ignorant.

I mind as well start calling Obama "Barack O'Carter"

[epicSocialism4tw]

The man was the editor of the Harvard Review. His ability to string words together is unquestioned. I'm guessing that your dislike for him has much more to do with the (D) next to his name than anything else.

I dont think that this has alot of bearing. He doesnt write his speeches anyhow. It only takes a good actor to deliver.

About the "D"...what really scares people is the platform. For me its socialized medicine...any proponent of this hasnt ever seen socialized medicine. It sucks.

I find it difficult to understand how the Obama Magic has hypnotized so many away from seeing his questionable past, questionable associations, questionable statements, questionable relationships, questionable behaviors, questionable experience, etc.

The guy is scary, and it has nothing to do with a letter "D", and everything to do with reality.


I like him because he's an intellectual. He's extremely logical and well reasoned. I don't always agree with his conclusions, but I'm always impressed by his logic. Smarts trumps experience every day of the week.

Not so sure about that.

I have still yet to see anything that he has accomplished for the people, and not for himself.

[Hogan11]

Barack Obama–promoted by the Left and the media as an all-knowing, articulate, transcendent Messiah–is a walking, talking gaffe machine. How many more passes does he get? How many more can we afford?

At least as many as Reagan got
http://www.perrspectives.com/images/ReignError.jpg

[epicSocialism4tw]

He's been in the spotlight for less than a year and he's already racked up this many. He's hardly perfect. Which is fine, but don't make him out to be something he's not. He can't articulate any better than Bush when he doesn't have a teleprompter


http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/21/barack-obama-gaffe-machine/
Barack Obama: Gaffe machine
Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2008

All it takes is one gaffe to taint a Republican for life. The political establishment never let Dan Quayle live down his fateful misspelling of “potatoe.” The New York Times distorted and misreported the first President Bush’s questions about new scanner technology at a grocers’ convention to brand him permanently as out of touch.

But what about Barack Obama? The guy’s a perpetual gaffe machine. Let us count the ways, large and small, that his tongue has betrayed him throughout the campaign:

* Last May, he claimed that Kansas tornadoes killed a whopping 10,000 people: “In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed.” The actual death toll: 12.

*Earlier this month in Oregon, he redrew the map of the United States: “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”

*Last week, in front of a roaring Sioux Falls, South Dakota audience, Obama exulted: “Thank you Sioux City…I said it wrong. I’ve been in Iowa for too long. I’m sorry.”

*Explaining last week why he was trailing Hillary Clinton in Kentucky, Obama again botched basic geography: “Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it’s not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle.” On what map is Arkansas closer to Kentucky than Illinois?

*Obama has as much trouble with numbers as he has with maps. Last March, on the anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march in Selma, Alabama, he claimed his parents united as a direct result of the civil rights movement:

“There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born.”

Obama was born in 1961. The Selma march took place in 1965. His spokesman, Bill Burton, later explained that Obama was “speaking metaphorically about the civil rights movement as a whole.”

*Earlier this month in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, Obama showed off his knowledge of the war in Afghanistan by honing in on a lack of translators: “We only have a certain number of them and if they are all in Iraq, then it’s harder for us to use them in Afghanistan.” The real reason it’s “harder for us to use them” in Afghanistan: Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish. The Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi, or other non-Arabic languages.

*Over the weekend in Oregon, Obama pleaded ignorance of the decades-old, multi-billion-dollar massive Hanford nuclear waste clean-up:

“Here’s something that you will rarely hear from a politician, and that is that I’m not familiar with the Hanford, uuuuhh, site, so I don’t know exactly what’s going on there. (Applause.) Now, having said that, I promise you I’ll learn about it by the time I leave here on the ride back to the airport.”

I assume on that ride, a staffer reminded him that he’s voted on at least one defense authorization bill that addressed the “costs, schedules, and technical issues” dealing with the nation’s most contaminated nuclear waste site.

*Last March, the Chicago Tribune reported this little-noticed nugget about a fake autobiographical detail in Obama’s “Dreams from My Father:”

“Then, there’s the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don’t exist, say the magazine’s own historians.”

* And in perhaps the most seriously troubling set of gaffes of them all, Obama told a Portland crowd over the weekend that Iran doesn’t “pose a serious threat to us”–cluelessly arguing that “tiny countries” with small defense budgets can’t do us harm– and then promptly flip-flopped the next day, claiming, “I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.”

Barack Obama–promoted by the Left and the media as an all-knowing, articulate, transcendent Messiah–is a walking, talking gaffe machine. How many more passes does he get? How many more can we afford?


I dont think that actual examples will work on this website. People don't like to read that many words.

You'd be better served to spam the board with anti-Obama comics and photochops that make him look mule-stupid.

[Dukes]

I dont think that actual examples will work on this website. People don't like to read that many words.

You'd be better served to spam the board with anti-Obama comics and photochops that make him look mule-stupid.

Right. I keep thinking regular books instead of pop-up books. I'll remember next time.

[yavoon]

socialist, hollow rhetoric, closely associated with some of the most vile and unbecoming ppl I can think of. here's a taste:

"god damn america"
"us of kkk-a"
"america is the greatest sin against god"
"I have never been proud of my country"
"america is mean"
"I don't regret setting bombs, I feel we didn't do enough"

of course for a lot of the lefties on this board thats just "truth to power."

[epicSocialism4tw]

socialist, hollow rhetoric, closely associated with some of the most vile and unbecoming ppl I can think of. here's a taste:

"god damn america"
"us of kkk-a"
"america is the greatest sin against god"
"I have never been proud of my country"
"america is mean"
"I don't regret setting bombs, I feel we didn't do enough"

of course for a lot of the lefties on this board thats just "truth to power."

That is very sad, and at the same time true enough to make one disappointed.

[Bronco Jamus]

Link(s)?

It's well known if you are following the campaigns. You are also certainly free to look it up

[spdirty]

No it isnt toeing the party line McSame wants to pick up where Bush left off .......Keep drinking the kool aid

Ha! http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080605/D913QG1O0.html

looks like all the comparisons are pissing McSame off. Hopefully this might get him to have a Dean moment, the media follows suit, and before the convention the delegates can right the wrong and put someone else in there.

[spdirty]

5.But I will wind up voting for him

bullshlt you should vote for yourself. I'll be your Karl Rove.

[Bronco Jamus]

McCain is about the furthest from Bush that the Repubs could have offered.

This "McSame" idea is ignorant.

I agree. While I haven't made up my mind yet, the McSame stuff lacks observation.

[spdirty]

I agree. While I haven't made up my mind yet, the McSame stuff lacks observation.

doesn't matter...the purpose of it is to get under his skin. And its working.

[Spider]

McCain is about the furthest from Bush that the Repubs could have offered.

This "McSame" idea is ignorant.
Oh bull........
Tax cuts ....
Iraq .....
Wire tapping
The Economy .......any differences are minor and window dressing so he can say he isnt the same as Bush

[Spider]

bullshlt you should vote for yourself. I'll be your Karl Rove.
LOL My boss would fire me ......... Says I cant be president and a driver at the same time

[Rohirrim]

I neither like, nor dislike him. All I tell people is this: Wiki every candidate of the two major parties who has ever run for president and look at their resumes. Then, compare their resumes to Obama's. It's an illuminating exercise.

[Spider]

I dont think that actual examples will work on this website. People don't like to read that many words.

You'd be better served to spam the board with anti-Obama comics and photochops that make him look mule-stupid.

just cause someting is wrapped up in long winded bull**** doesnt make it right ...
Look at the main issues .....
Tax cuts = McSame
Wire tapping = McSame
Iraq= McSame
Economy= McSame
Immigration= McCain , Kennedy , Bush , Reagan

[Dukes]

Can't forget this little gem. I can't wait to hear more of these once he debates McCain without a teleprompter

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/e7ds-s0-IEY&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/e7ds-s0-IEY&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Bronco_Beerslug]

It's well known if you are following the campaigns. You are also certainly free to look it upActually, I follow them pretty closely and have read both of their sites so you provide the links.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I can't wait to hear more of these once he debates McCain without a teleprompter


Hilarious!

McSame (a guy who admits "economics isn't my strong suit" and whose grasp of foreign policy issues is only slightly better than GeeDubya's) is going to debate Obama (a graduate of Harvard Law School and president of Harvard Law Review) and you would have us believe Obama is the guy who is going to need the teleprompter?

Too funny! :D

File this one under "right-wingers say the darndest things."

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

All Agree, McCain Needs Some Help in the Speechifying Department. Maybe Obama Can Coach Him. (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/06/04/mccain-s-rough-opening-night.aspx)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The imprint of Barack Obama: The DNC will no longer accept contributions from federal lobbyists or take contributions from PACs (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/06/dnc-no-more-con.html)

[Dukes]

No cartoon?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

No cartoon?

No rebuttal?

[Dukes]

I'd rather go teach math at the local mental ward. They have a better chance at comprehension than you.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I'd rather go teach math at the local mental ward. They have a better chance at comprehension than you.

Opting for the ad hominem instead of actually denying my last post about an Obama vs. McSame debate, eh?

Why am I not surprised?

Dishonest tactics like these are all regressives like you have left in the tank.

[cutthemdown]

Here is my reasoning ......
1. A local union in Chicago asked him to help save their Jobs ....... He was far to busy to even show up and speak ......
2. He could no more throw Wright under the Bus then his Grandmother = He tossed his ass when the political pressure was on ....
3. Reznick ( SP?) dirty as hell , not on the level of a Bush and Cheney .... but bad
4. Coke use .. sorry folks I appreciate his candor ....... But ...
5.But I will wind up voting for him



wait a minute you said that was 100 percent a deal breaker for you. I thought you were a man of principal? Man this is a huge letdown. Say it ain't so OBAMA DID BLOW!!!!

[JCMElway]

Here is my reasoning ......
1. A local union in Chicago asked him to help save their Jobs ....... He was far to busy to even show up and speak ......
2. He could no more throw Wright under the Bus then his Grandmother = He tossed his ass when the political pressure was on ....
3. Reznick ( SP?) dirty as hell , not on the level of a Bush and Cheney .... but bad
4. Coke use .. sorry folks I appreciate his candor ....... But ...
5.But I will wind up voting for him

God Bless America!

[Pseudofool]

Using Michelle Malkin as a source is like using Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh--she's a complete neo-con shill.

McCain is not he McCain of 2000, he's changed his stance on veteran reform, taxes, campaign reform, his religious pandering. The man doesn't even recall his own voting record.

For being as "experienced" as McCain is, it's pretty shocking how little he knows about any domestic policy other than immigration.

And for those of you who have problems with gov't aided healthy care (a far cry from socialism, as we'd have to pay for it); I'd suggest you put your money where your mouth is and vote for a Privatized Army, that way you can have Defense Insurance at your work, and if you can't pay, well the terrorist get you.

The only good reasons not to vote for Obama is that you've already got it made in the shade and don't want to share any of your fine weather. What the privileged don't realize is just how dependent their privilege is on an economy that screws a huge economic class here and a bigger own overseas. Poor rich people. Boo-hoo.

We have a choice in this election; we can be on the side of a historical, world-rippling movement, or we can vote our own self interests. Sometimes its more important to show solidartity behind a historical figure than to vote your ideology. You can get your ideologically improved candidate the next time around. The best bet for the Republicans is to crash and burn and rebuild on actually sound conservative principals.

[Drek]

I personally consider Obama the most qualified person for the job.

He's easily the best educated and has a far superior grasp on law, especially constitutional law, than any presidential candidate we've had in a while.

His understanding of history in this country is far superior to even McCain, who was alive for most of it (I know, cheap shot). He has clearly read up on what made the cornerstone presidents (Washington, Lincoln, FDR, Truman) great and wants to live by their example, not the status quo Washington has developed.

He actually HAS a Native American policy, unlike any other candidate in about 50+ years, and its one that actually corresponds to all the treaties and laws we've put on the books but choose to ignore.

He has done some REAL community building work, "in the trenches" as it were, not just paying lip service to it while in a political office he gained through lobbyists and corporate investors.

He has made himself a millionaire through our capitalist system without inherited/married wealth and/or political and commercial ties. Which causes me to get a great amount of humor from when people call him a socialist. He's a social liberal, that is true as he wants to provide the basics of a good life (food, shelter, health care) to all citizens, but he's far from an economic socialist, he's simply opposed to the commercially controlled "free market" we're now living under.

A lot of people don't like Obama because they're dyed in the wool republicans. A lot of people don't like him because deep down somewhere the fact that he is half black makes them believe he's going to give greater precedent to minorities. Some because they're just truly racist and/or sexist. Ultimately its a group of people who are content with the status quo, no matter how much of a burden its putting on a large part of this country, not to mention the billions of other people on this planet stuck in third world nations who's standard of living is below our homeless.

For anyone who actually takes a serious look at his policies, without the biased filter so many people in this country resort to, and his experience in the social, legal, commercial, and political arenas, they'd find that not only his he qualified for the job, he's probably the most qualified candidate we've had in decades.

[Spider]

[/B]


wait a minute you said that was 100 percent a deal breaker for you. I thought you were a man of principal? Man this is a huge letdown. Say it ain't so OBAMA DID BLOW!!!!

I know , and I still dont defend Obama , Still dont think he is the best we got right now , but he is a far cry better then McSame , and I will vote Democrat ....But I will be just as hard on Obama as I was on Bush ....

[cutthemdown]

I know , and I still dont defend Obama , Still dont think he is the best we got right now , but he is a far cry better then McSame , and I will vote Democrat ....But I will be just as hard on Obama as I was on Bush ....

If he screws up remember it was probably the coke :~ohyah!:

[Spider]

If he screws up remember it was probably the coke :~ohyah!:

I wanted to sit this election out .....But I have to do my duty as a citizen

[Odysseus]

McCain is about the furthest from Bush that the Repubs could have offered.

This "McSame" idea is ignorant.

McCain doesn't come with the same pedigree that Bush has and doesn't have the deep well of strong political good will. He is essentially a confused Democrat whose lack of understanding of any issue caused him to vote conservative a few times which he later turns into apologies. I have never seen a candidate apologize so much in my whole life.

I am sorry Florida Everglades. I am sorry Martin Luther King supporters. I am sorry gay people. I could name 20 more but it's boring. The guy is tepid, a horrible public speaker, and despite being a war hero is not really in touch with what is impacting the guys on the ground.

McCain doesn't frigging listen.

McCain wants to be his own man but it's hard for him. Comparing him to George Bush, or what George Bush should have been, is a high compliment.

[spdirty]

I know , and I still dont defend Obama , Still dont think he is the best we got right now , but he is a far cry better then McSame , and I will vote Democrat ....But I will be just as hard on Obama as I was on Bush ....

You should just vote for whomever you think will make the best president...don't limit it to the bs 2 party system. Don't know who Ill be votin for but it sure as hell isn't Obama and it most likely isn't McCain.

[Odysseus]

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Flip_Flop_McCain_NOW_Supports_Bush_s_Warrantless_W iretaps

More wiretaps anyone?

[gunns]

No cartoon?

We've got you. And Llama. Oh and let's not forget the real funny man, yavoon. Are the attempts at rebuttals a real attempt to feel better about that last vote for President? An I'm sorry and I won't do it again would do well but I doubt that with you 3, just more of McSame.

The biggest laugh in this thread is the one where Obama wants to spend more money. I'll ask for that link also and just ask has Bush left any more money to spend? He's made Carter look like a fiscal genious.

[Pseudofool]

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Flip_Flop_McCain_NOW_Supports_Bush_s_Warrantless_W iretaps

More wiretaps anyone?

I think he flip-flopped on that today and called their legality, "ambiguous."

But flip-flops aren't legitimate criticism...oh well.

[TDmvp]

I personally consider Obama the most qualified person for the job.

He's easily the best educated and has a far superior grasp on law, especially constitutional law, than any presidential candidate we've had in a while.

His understanding of history in this country is far superior to even McCain, who was alive for most of it (I know, cheap shot). He has clearly read up on what made the cornerstone presidents (Washington, Lincoln, FDR, Truman) great and wants to live by their example, not the status quo Washington has developed.

He actually HAS a Native American policy, unlike any other candidate in about 50+ years, and its one that actually corresponds to all the treaties and laws we've put on the books but choose to ignore.

He has done some REAL community building work, "in the trenches" as it were, not just paying lip service to it while in a political office he gained through lobbyists and corporate investors.

He has made himself a millionaire through our capitalist system without inherited/married wealth and/or political and commercial ties. Which causes me to get a great amount of humor from when people call him a socialist. He's a social liberal, that is true as he wants to provide the basics of a good life (food, shelter, health care) to all citizens, but he's far from an economic socialist, he's simply opposed to the commercially controlled "free market" we're now living under.

A lot of people don't like Obama because they're dyed in the wool republicans. A lot of people don't like him because deep down somewhere the fact that he is half black makes them believe he's going to give greater precedent to minorities. Some because they're just truly racist and/or sexist. Ultimately its a group of people who are content with the status quo, no matter how much of a burden its putting on a large part of this country, not to mention the billions of other people on this planet stuck in third world nations who's standard of living is below our homeless.

For anyone who actually takes a serious look at his policies, without the biased filter so many people in this country resort to, and his experience in the social, legal, commercial, and political arenas, they'd find that not only his he qualified for the job, he's probably the most qualified candidate we've had in decades.


i stopped reading after he is the most qualified , cause if dude was white he wouldn't even be in it cause any white man with as little qualifications as he has would be laughed outa the race and asking me what is the problem with my Big Mac ...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

i stopped reading after he is the most qualified , cause if dude was white he wouldn't even be in it cause any white man with as little(sic) qualifications as he has would be laughed outa the race...

ROFL!

Any white man?

http://aethlos.com/welt/uploaded_images/bush_monkey-772104.jpg
"You know I could run for governor but I'm basically a media creation. I've never done anything. I've worked for my dad. I worked in the oil business. But that's not the kind of profile you have to have to get elected to public office."

- George W. Bush

[Odysseus]

i stopped reading after he is the most qualified , cause if dude was white he wouldn't even be in it cause any white man with as little qualifications as he has would be laughed outa the race and asking me what is the problem with my Big Mac ...

I remembered saying the same thing about a guy who was nothing more than an actor and despite my early contempt for him he actually made some pretty remarkable changes. It's amazing who we are willing to quote in an effort to appear that we have any sense of negative discourse.

[Spider]

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/L/y/1/obama_driving_hillary_crazy.jpg

[cutthemdown]

I wonder if black people will riot if Obama loses.

[Spider]

If Obama wins , I cant wait to get to parts of the South and Minneapolis and let them people know , theys has got a black leader .......... should be fun ;D

[cutthemdown]

If Obama wins , I cant wait to get to parts of the South and Minneapolis and let them people know , theys has got a black leader .......... should be fun ;D

some people will be really upset. But if your upset because he is black it's probably a good thing for a person to go through. It will help them grow.

[cutthemdown]

If anything after Obama elected it will be blacks who expected some sort of change in their lives that will be most dissapointed. If anything white racists expecting blacks to come ask for 40 acres and a mule will be the ones surprised and pleasently pleased that Obama isn't really interested in those type of issues. He's a politicians politician and IMO he will avoid issues that seem predominantly black in a first term as President.

[Bronco Jamus]

some people will be really upset. But if your upset because he is black it's probably a good thing for a person to go through. It will help them grow.


This is hands down the best comment on the race aspect of this election that I have read or heard.

[Kaylore]

I'm warming to O'Bama. There are several things that can happen with him and all of them are good.

1. He'll defeat McCain. That's not bad. McCain needs to lose so we won't have to see him ever again and to send a message to the party that we need true conservatives nominated and not neo-cons.

2. O'Bama seems like a fresh perspective, and while I disagree with a lot of it, I like his optimism and hope. Liberals tend to be very negative and talk about everything wrong with the world and how Big Government is the only thing that can fix it. O'Bama seems more upbeat and if he won, it hopefully would get the party to nominate more optimists.

3. I think the black community needs more role models like him. Maybe this can start a trend where working hard in school and wearing a suit doesn't make someone "white" and "a sellout" and put a dent in the gang-bang culture.

4. If his policies succeed, then the country is better.

5. If his policies fail, then Republicans come back into power.

Pretty much it's a win-win from where I'm sitting.

[Kaylore]

If Obama wins , I cant wait to get to parts of the South and Minneapolis and let them people know , theys has got a black leader .......... should be fun ;D

Good one!

Reasons 6: I want the racists to suck it! I hope he serves two terms just to see those guys squirm!

[Odysseus]

If anything after Obama elected it will be blacks who expected some sort of change in their lives that will be most dissapointed. If anything white racists expecting blacks to come ask for 40 acres and a mule will be the ones surprised and pleasently pleased that Obama isn't really interested in those type of issues. He's a politicians politician and IMO he will avoid issues that seem predominantly black in a first term as President.

The real problems and real answer are going to hurt all of us. I think a lot of people are going to be surprised including some of Barack's fiercest attackers.

[yavoon]

Using Michelle Malkin as a source is like using Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh--she's a complete neo-con shill.

McCain is not he McCain of 2000, he's changed his stance on veteran reform, taxes, campaign reform, his religious pandering. The man doesn't even recall his own voting record.

For being as "experienced" as McCain is, it's pretty shocking how little he knows about any domestic policy other than immigration.

And for those of you who have problems with gov't aided healthy care (a far cry from socialism, as we'd have to pay for it); I'd suggest you put your money where your mouth is and vote for a Privatized Army, that way you can have Defense Insurance at your work, and if you can't pay, well the terrorist get you.

The only good reasons not to vote for Obama is that you've already got it made in the shade and don't want to share any of your fine weather. What the privileged don't realize is just how dependent their privilege is on an economy that screws a huge economic class here and a bigger own overseas. Poor rich people. Boo-hoo.

We have a choice in this election; we can be on the side of a historical, world-rippling movement, or we can vote our own self interests. Sometimes its more important to show solidartity behind a historical figure than to vote your ideology. You can get your ideologically improved candidate the next time around. The best bet for the Republicans is to crash and burn and rebuild on actually sound conservative principals.

lol so vote for the socialist who loves to associate with people who hate america, because of the color of his skin. wow if that isn't some ****ing racist ass reasoning I don't know what is.

and throw in the typical socialist anti-prosperity rhetoric.

[yavoon]

We've got you. And Llama. Oh and let's not forget the real funny man, yavoon. Are the attempts at rebuttals a real attempt to feel better about that last vote for President? An I'm sorry and I won't do it again would do well but I doubt that with you 3, just more of McSame.

The biggest laugh in this thread is the one where Obama wants to spend more money. I'll ask for that link also and just ask has Bush left any more money to spend? He's made Carter look like a fiscal genious.

granted your grasp of logic is tenuous, but obama's spending habits are not related to bush's. you may now return to your own, ignorant, hateful, logically fallacious discourse.

[cutthemdown]

The real problems and real answer are going to hurt all of us. I think a lot of people are going to be surprised including some of Barack's fiercest attackers.

Really if Obama wants to tackle healthcare reform, education, stopping the war in Iraq he won't have anytime to worry about what Farrakhan or Jesse Jackson want. Those 2 morons won't get the time of day for Obama. For one Obama doesn't need them he already has the black vote. Two, it would turn off white people.

[Pseudofool]

lol so vote for the socialist who loves to associate with people who hate america, because of the color of his skin. wow if that isn't some ****ing racist ass reasoning I don't know what is.

and throw in the typical socialist anti-prosperity rhetoric.Where did I mention vote for him because of the color of his skin. That won't be the only historic thing coming out of the Obama presidency...your response is shades of racism, buddy.

I think all people who accuse any American of hating America (rather than policies) is dealing with some really serious deep-seated demons. I mean it's totally uncalled for.

[Bronco Jamus]

The biggest laugh in this thread is the one where Obama wants to spend more money. I'll ask for that link also and just ask has Bush left any more money to spend? He's made Carter look like a fiscal genious.

Obama's early buget numbers exceeds George Bush's buget by almost a trillion dollar according to CNN. Not to mention he wants to enact subsidized health care. Meaning the insurance rates will keep going up and the tax payers will pay it funneled through the government. Which will lead us to socialized health care and a reduction in services to cover the masses. Not to mention illegal immigrants and their access to said healthcare. There is nothing good about that from a tax perspective. It'll be an entitlement black hole like medicare and social security. Keep laughing I guess.

He also wants to raise capitial gains tax which has shown to reduce government revenues. Probably because investments become static because people don't want to lose their gains. This will affect all the retiring baby boomers and leave less money for them to retire on and dependent on social security that has already seen a reduction in benefits since it's inception.

[yavoon]

Where did I mention vote for him because of the color of his skin. That won't be the only historic thing coming out of the Obama presidency...your response is shades of racism, buddy.

I think all people who accuse any American of hating America (rather than policies) is dealing with some really serious deep-seated demons. I mean it's totally uncalled for.

no I was merely pointing out the racists who are voting for obama by skin color. but please explain to me, the historiocity of obama besides his skin color.

accuse ANY? how's this:

michelle obama: I've never been proud of my country. America is mean.
Jeremiah Wright: God damn america. the us of kkk-a.
Michael Pfleger: America is the greatest sin against god.

is that ANY old reason? the left has maned up in this election, they ****ing hate america and they're gna let us know it.

[Pseudofool]

I'm warming to O'Bama. There are several things that can happen with him and all of them are good.

1. He'll defeat McCain. That's not bad. McCain needs to lose so we won't have to see him ever again and to send a message to the party that we need true conservatives nominated and not neo-cons.
I'm not conservative, but I really think the real conservatives have to wish for this outcome, because the Republican party has a lot of work to do from the inside to represent the values of actual Republican voters. I'm not really sure how it will play out, but a good amount of defection to the "libertarian party" and democratic landslides might help the GOP to reconfigure to sensible conservative policies...

[TDmvp]

I could have swore i ask you to leave me be L.A. , and i thought we had a agreement sence you didn't reply to me ripping you a new one... but no you are like that big black hemorrhoid just lurking there under the skin ...
I will ask you again ... put me on ignore if you can't just not speak to me ... if you can't handle that please go outside and play hide n go *** yourself .... i will not ask again ...

[Maximus]

I wonder if black people will riot if Obama loses.

You're joking right?

[Pseudofool]

no I was merely pointing out the racists who are voting for obama by skin color. but please explain to me, the historiocity of obama besides his skin color.
He defeated a Clinton in a Democratic primary. He raised more money in a primary than any candidate EVER. He will end the Iraq war. He will bring about universal system of health care (a buy-in system), etc. etc. You may not like these policies, but they will be historic, and probably better for everyone.
michelle obama: I've never been proud of my country. America is mean.She clarified her comments--speaking directly about voter turnout. Nontheless, not being proud and hating are two different things.
Jeremiah Wright: God damn america. the us of kkk-a. A Black preacher being pissed about how American policy had treated Black folks? Heaven forbid. The guy was a Marine, you douche. Don't mistake metonymy (using the whole for a part or a part for a whole, a rhetorical device) for actual literally speaking. He clearly means "god damn american policy towards black people over course of history" he probably doesn't mean "god damn America for granting civil liberties" or some such nonsense.
Michael Pfleger: America is the greatest sin against god.Isn't this the guest speaker at Obama's church? I doubt Obama even knew the guy.
the left has maned up in this election, they ****ing hate america and they're gna let us know it.What? Does this make sense to anyone else?

Nonetheless, Guilt-by-association is pretty thin gruel. I can only imagine the nutcases and evil shills McCain has come across in his 40 years as a Republican politician, esp. given his new found neo-con-ism.

[yavoon]

He defeated a Clinton in a Democratic primary. He raised more money in a primary than any candidate EVER. He will end the Iraq war. He will bring about universal system of health care (a buy-in system), etc. etc. You may not like these policies, but they will be historic, and probably better for everyone.
She clarified her comments--speaking directly about voter turnout. Nontheless, not being proud and hating are two different things.
A Black preacher being pissed about how American policy had treated Black folks? Heaven forbid. The guy was a Marine, you douche. Don't mistake metonymy (using the whole for a part or a part for a whole, a rhetorical device) for actual literally speaking. He clearly means "god damn american policy towards black people over course of history" he probably doesn't mean "god damn America for granting civil liberties" or some such nonsense.
Isn't this the guest speaker at Obama's church? I doubt Obama even knew the guy.
What? Does this make sense to anyone else?

Nonetheless, Guilt-by-association is pretty thin gruel. I can only imagine the nutcases and evil shills McCain has come across in his 40 years as a Republican politician, esp. given his new found neo-con-ism.

yes they're all being misinterpreted it! we should all just let them clarify! clarify! clarify! and by clarify I mean scrounge around for some excuse so they don't look quite as bad.


obama and pfleger know each other rather well, both have raised money for each other, and obama has given pflegers church millions in tax dollars. and by all accounts obama has lavished praise and support on all the people I've quoted, often at the very end throwing them under the bus w/ some "thats not the person I knew" spiel.

and yes I guess unless obama says "you know what? **** america" during an election campaign then everything else should be out of bounds. frankly I'm shocked pfleger had the balls to let his true feelings out so recently.

[Maximus]

If anything after Obama elected it will be blacks who expected some sort of change in their lives that will be most dissapointed. If anything white racists expecting blacks to come ask for 40 acres and a mule will be the ones surprised and pleasently pleased that Obama isn't really interested in those type of issues. He's a politicians politician and IMO he will avoid issues that seem predominantly black in a first term as President.

Let me attempt to dispel the misconception that Black People are expecting things to get better just because Obama is Black. Politicians are politicians. However, Obama has vision and common sense in his corner. Common sense has been absent from the whitehouse for the last 8 years. Actually common sense has been absent from the republican agenda and whitehouse for eons.

Any president or party that can take a surplus of money and squander it... then start deficit spending without restraint... lacks common sense, brains and morals.

Obama isn't going to avoid issues that some may see as Black... Poverty has no color. Electing obama will end a whole bunch of idiotic thinking and unjustified fears which are based on his ethnicity. The idea that an African American is not qualified is shattered.

[yavoon]

Let me attempt to dispel the misconception that Black People are expecting things to get better just because Obama is Black. Politicians are politicians. However, Obama has vision and common sense in his corner. Common sense has been absent from the whitehouse for the last 8 years. Actually common sense has been absent from the republican agenda and whitehouse for eons.

Any president or party that can take a surplus of money and squander it... then start deficit spending without restraint... lacks common sense, brains and morals.

Obama isn't going to avoid issues that some may see as Black... Poverty has no color. Electing obama will end a whole bunch of idiotic thinking and unjustified fears which are based on his ethnicity. The idea that an African American is not qualified is shattered.

yah but that stereotype is already changing. the two most successful immigrant groups in america are africans and east asians. africans having more education than the average, making more money, and....wait for it....voting more republican. 40% of the ivy league's "blacks" are immigrants. they are by most accounts atleast as successful as recent chinese immigrants, and vastly more successful than african-americans in the historic context. and of course, obama is one. obama is also very upper class, being related to the ruling aristocracy in kenya(first cousins to odinga).

[Pseudofool]

yes they're all being misinterpreted it! we should all just let them clarify! clarify! clarify! and by clarify I mean scrounge around for some excuse so they don't look quite as bad.


obama and pfleger know each other rather well, both have raised money for each other, and obama has given pflegers church millions in tax dollars. and by all accounts obama has lavished praise and support on all the people I've quoted, often at the very end throwing them under the bus w/ some "thats not the person I knew" spiel.

and yes I guess unless obama says "you know what? **** america" during an election campaign then everything else should be out of bounds. frankly I'm shocked pfleger had the balls to let his true feelings out so recently.Dude, quit speaking you're just embarrassing your fascist/neo-con comrades.

[yavoon]

Dude, quit speaking you're just embarrassing your fascist/neo-con comrades.

yes anyone who takes any objection to: "god damn america." "us of kkk-a" "america is the greatest sin against god." "I've never been proud of my country." is obviously just a neo-con fascist or.....whatever.

[Spider]

Dude, quit speaking you're just embarrassing your fascist/neo-con comrades.

It is Yavbitch . they are used to him embarrassing them ..... Be thankful you missed the Dennis Northcut is a better receiver Then Rod Smith bull**** he was slinging

[Maximus]

yah but that stereotype is already changing. the two most successful immigrant groups in america are africans and east asians. africans having more education than the average, making more money, and....wait for it....voting more republican. 40% of the ivy league's "blacks" are immigrants. they are by most accounts atleast as successful as recent chinese immigrants, and vastly more successful than african-americans in the historic context. and of course, obama is one. obama is also very upper class, being related to the ruling aristocracy in kenya(first cousins to odinga).

It may be changing but, the resistance is still there. Electing Obama will not remove it instantly but the argument and ideaology based on skin will esentially die! I see the resistance all over the blogs and here too. Lots of people jumped on Michael Pfleger because of his white priviledge comments aimed at Hillary. The man told the truth... I mean look at the comments about Obama not being qualified... Bush has less qualifications after 8 years... McCain has less after all his years in politics yet people throw experience at Obama... Why?

I find it obsurd that anyone would say that Obama wouldn't be taken seriously if he were white... being white is an immediate qualification in american society! If a white man ran a internet campaign like obama he would be applauded for his innovative business sense... people would recognize the ability to adapt a new technique as unquestioned leadership. Ross Perot would be proud. If his ability to handle finances in his campaign are any indication of his abilities he will definitely have the ability to mobilize people to cut tax loopholes and give people ( Middle Class ) a tax cut from those savings.

People keep listening to the speeches, but do they really listen? In my opinion no... people are programmed to think and act within established boundries... this is why his message is being missed and a major reason why things aren't changing as quickly as they should.

[yavoon]

It may be changing but, the resistance is still there. Electing Obama will not remove it instantly but the argument and ideaology based on skin will esentially die! I see the resistance all over the blogs and here too. Lots of people jumped on Michael Pfleger because of his white priviledge comments aimed at Hillary. The man told the truth... I mean look at the comments about Obama not being qualified... Bush has less qualifications after 8 years... McCain has less after all his years in politics yet people throw experience at Obama... Why?

I find it obsurd that anyone would say that Obama wouldn't be taken seriously if he were white... being white is an immediate qualification in american society! If a white man ran a internet campaign like obama he would be applauded for his innovative business sense... people would recognize the ability to adapt a new technique as unquestioned leadership. Ross Perot would be proud. If his ability to handle finances in his campaign are any indication of his abilities he will definitely have the ability to mobilize people to cut tax loopholes and give people ( Middle Class ) a tax cut from those savings.

People keep listening to the speeches, but do they really listen? In my opinion no... people are programmed to think and act within established boundries... this is why his message is being missed and a major reason why things aren't changing as quickly as they should.

first I don't believe you understand ppl's objection to obama's qualifications/experience. though I understand that many many hatemongers will call any criticism of obama racist, like pfleger. pfleger no more speaks the truth than pfleger's hero's, wright and farrakhan, speak the truth. they are all hateful demagogues who make their chops on the racism of the people they speak to.

and really? ppl are missing his speeches? his speeches are like the #1 draw of his entire campaign. I think you are a little deluded.

[cutthemdown]

You're joking right?

yes.............of course I know they will riot.Hilarious!

[Pseudofool]

yes anyone who takes any objection to: "god damn america." "us of kkk-a" "america is the greatest sin against god." "I've never been proud of my country." is obviously just a neo-con fascist or.....whatever.It's not only your sentiment, it's your method of discourse. Take sometime to work through the logic of your fascism before you put to the keyboard.

[Pseudofool]

yes.............of course I know they will riot.Hilarious!I have some serious qualms your use of the word "they." If there are a shenanigans and Obama loses, I will riot, and my pigment is undeniably transparent.

[cutthemdown]

I have some serious qualms your use of the word "they." If there are a shenanigans and Obama loses, I will riot, and my pigment is undeniably transparent.

Then you are they.

[epicSocialism4tw]

No rebuttal?

Dude, I wouldnt expect anyone outside of the local partisan crew to take your stuff with anything more than a passing glance as bothersome propaganda spam.

[Kaylore]

I'm not conservative, but I really think the real conservatives have to wish for this outcome, because the Republican party has a lot of work to do from the inside to represent the values of actual Republican voters. I'm not really sure how it will play out, but a good amount of defection to the "libertarian party" and democratic landslides might help the GOP to reconfigure to sensible conservative policies...

That's what people don't get. The rank-and-file Republicans are pissed at Bush too. Basically he's convinced America that Republicans can't be trusted with a budget. And why should they? Bush grew government more than Clinton and never figured out a way to pay for it. Screw him and screw this spending crap. We need to get all the Neo-cons on a ticket and watch them lose so that when the party goes back to the drawing board they get back to what put them in office in the first place.

[epicSocialism4tw]

That's what people don't get. The rank-and-file Republicans are pissed at Bush too. Basically he's convinced America that Republicans can't be trusted with a budget. And why should they? Bush grew government more than Clinton and never figured out a way to pay for it. Screw him and screw this spending crap. We need to get all the Neo-cons on a ticket and watch them lose so that when the party goes back to the drawing board they get back to what put them in office in the first place.

I cannot turst the approach of the Repubs because they have not proven that they are fully beyond subjugation to the global economy.

[Odysseus]

That's what people don't get. The rank-and-file Republicans are pissed at Bush too. Basically he's convinced America that Republicans can't be trusted with a budget. And why should they? Bush grew government more than Clinton and never figured out a way to pay for it. Screw him and screw this spending crap. We need to get all the Neo-cons on a ticket and watch them lose so that when the party goes back to the drawing board they get back to what put them in office in the first place.

The Neo cons have done a lot of harm to the Republican party. It's a shame that the original Republican tenants of ownership were not brought back.

The first thing that needs to be done is complete accountability in government which includes full disclosure of earmarks, exposure of lobbyists, due process, and clear access to government.

My hope is when the pendulum swings again the real Republicans get it right.

[cutthemdown]

Republicans need to stop trying to force there vision of morality on people. That's what turns off most of my friends that are Democrats. The low tax actually appeals to a broad group of Americans. It's the anti-gay, anti-abortion, be religious or go to hell attitude that turns off a lot of voters they could win over.

[cutthemdown]

That's what people don't get. The rank-and-file Republicans are pissed at Bush too. Basically he's convinced America that Republicans can't be trusted with a budget. And why should they? Bush grew government more than Clinton and never figured out a way to pay for it. Screw him and screw this spending crap. We need to get all the Neo-cons on a ticket and watch them lose so that when the party goes back to the drawing board they get back to what put them in office in the first place.

The fact Huckabee did so well for awhile just shows how out of touch the super religious people are with the Americans who are not as religious. I mean that dude is one of those people who think the earth is only 6000 yrs old and he got votes.

[Spider]

Republicans need to stop trying to force there vision of morality on people. That's what turns off most of my friends that are Democrats. The low tax actually appeals to a broad group of Americans. It's the anti-gay, anti-abortion, be religious or go to hell attitude that turns off a lot of voters they could win over.

Lower taxes would be great , my gross last week was 1,800 , my take home was 1,106.25 .i didnt pay that much under Clinton .but I am pro union , you get a rep that is fair to unions I would change my stance . Lets face it Most Dems are spineless guppies

[BroncoInferno]

Republicans need to stop trying to force there vision of morality on people. That's what turns off most of my friends that are Democrats. The low tax actually appeals to a broad group of Americans. It's the anti-gay, anti-abortion, be religious or go to hell attitude that turns off a lot of voters they could win over.

Right on. There is actually some conservative economic theory that I agree with--not all of it, but some--but I absolutely will not abide by the intrusive social agenda.

[epicSocialism4tw]

The best thing about the possiblilty of Obama's election is that we can finally get out the shovels and start burying guys like Sharpton, Jackson, Wright, and the rest of the race-money machine.

It's kind of hard to convince people that whitey hates the honorable black man when whitey votes a relatively dishonorable one into office.

[cutthemdown]

Sharpton will have no choice but to wait for a black issue to arise then try and shove it down Obamas throat. If Obama doesn't budge then black leaders like Sharpton who get their money by race baiting will have to attack Obama as not being black enough.

[yavoon]

It's not only your sentiment, it's your method of discourse. Take sometime to work through the logic of your fascism before you put to the keyboard.

so the person who sides w/ the most violent and hateful anti-american rhetoric gets to toss around the word fascist like candy. whatever, just keep defending the hatemongers.

"america is the greatest sin against god." the more you defend it, the more ppl realize you agree w/ it.

[yavoon]

The best thing about the possiblilty of Obama's election is that we can finally get out the shovels and start burying guys like Sharpton, Jackson, Wright, and the rest of the race-money machine.

It's kind of hard to convince people that whitey hates the honorable black man when whitey votes a relatively dishonorable one into office.

and what on god's earth makes you think that obama would want to get rid of any of them? wright is his mentor, and father figure.

[Pseudofool]

so the person who sides w/ the most violent and hateful anti-american rhetoric gets to toss around the word fascist like candy. whatever, just keep defending the hatemongers.

"america is the greatest sin against god." the more you defend it, the more ppl realize you agree w/ it.I'm defending anything. You can keep playing seven degrees with Obama, no one will believe--other than lose so far right, and would never vote for anyone other than Republican--that as substantive criticism. It didn't work for Hillary, who is much much more formidable than McCain, it's not going to work for McCain.

[Pseudofool]

and what on god's earth makes you think that obama would want to get rid of any of them? wright is his mentor, and father figure.Umm, no. He was his Pastor, in a church full of thousands of people. Obama was in his twenties when he met Wright. He's already completely disassociated himself from Wright's self-aggrandizing hate-talk.
Say hi to Rush for me.

[Dukes]

Umm, no. He was his Pastor, in a church full of thousands of people. Obama was in his twenties when he met Wright. He's already completely disassociated himself from Wright's self-aggrandizing hate-talk.
Say hi to Rush for me.


Did he do that because he actually realized there was a problem with Rev Wrights behavior, or because he was dropping in polls?

[Pseudofool]

Did he do that because he actually realized there was a problem with Rev Wrights behavior, or because he was dropping in polls?Probably because the pastor he thought he knew turned out to be crazy as a loon and use the national stage as a way to further his own ego. At that point, he already had a large enough delegate lead that Hillary couldn't catch up.

Seriously, if this is the best the right wing can come up with, Obama wins in a landslide.

Obama's second cousin on his father's side once, knew a man, who said he saw someone reading the Communist Manifesto.
"So what's that make us?"
"Absolutely nothing." In the words of Rick Morronis (sp?)

[SonOfLe-loLang]

so the person who sides w/ the most violent and hateful anti-american rhetoric gets to toss around the word fascist like candy. whatever, just keep defending the hatemongers.

"america is the greatest sin against god." the more you defend it, the more ppl realize you agree w/ it.

I think its funny that someone who is clearly right wing is accusing democrats of hate mongering. The conservative movement was BORN by exploiting the racial divide in the 60's.

[cutthemdown]

Probably because the pastor he thought he knew turned out to be crazy as a loon and use the national stage as a way to further his own ego. At that point, he already had a large enough delegate lead that Hillary couldn't catch up.

Seriously, if this is the best the right wing can come up with, Obama wins in a landslide.

Obama's second cousin on his father's side once, knew a man, who said he saw someone reading the Communist Manifesto.
"So what's that make us?"
"Absolutely nothing." In the words of Rick Morronis (sp?)

The electoral college just not set up for too many landslides. It has happened but I see a close election that comes down to 2 maybe 3 states. I predict FLA/COLO will play a big role.

[Bob]

There are some things that I like about Obama – I respect his oratory style and his intelligence. But there are many, many things about him that not only concern me, but scare the hell out of me and many folks that are middle of the road or right of center.

1. It seems that most problems are not reduced by greater government involvement, most problems are exacerbated and amplified by it. We are already a sheeple people, and the more we suck on the government teet, the less able we are to stand on our own feet. To me, and it seems that many of Obama's solutions are rooted in a secular version of “hope.” Obama’s hope is that he can lead a beneficent Big-Brother that will at first cajole, later manipulate and shame, and if he feels he has a “mandate” “force us” to reevaluate ourselves through his own false assumptions about how bad America is, and how we should "change" for the collective good of the Socialist Politic.
2. His tax and cap solution to “reduce” CO2 emissions would perhaps reduce emissions more by adding another $1.50 per gallon to the price of gas -- any politician that cares more about potential problems to the environment 50 years from now, and is willing to sacrifice our economy now and does not recognize that China and India are ignoring these regulations, and in the case of China is drilling for oil 50 miles off our shores, and doesn't see the threat to our economy and our environment by not being aggressive with energy exploration is a complete moron.
3. Obama’s hope seems to me to be connected to a vision of an America that does not respect second amendment rights and the place of God in the founding principles of this nation. At times Obama has spoken in very paternal terms regarding “those who cling to God and religion” to one group, while speaking out on the other side of his mouth. While he campaigned in Montana – he disingenuously assured those here that he supported the Second Amendment. All of his support in commercials seems inappropriately couched in the context of sportsmen's rights, rather than the founding fathers understanding of why individuals need to be able to protect itself from tyrannical governments –like the one that Obama would possibly create. Also Obama has not done those things legislatively in this area to resolve my serious concerns.
4. There are some that support him that seem to idolize him – it creeps me out -- I wonder if they support his tone without considering the implications of his content. I worry that when support of an individual leader crosses over into something that feels like the shallow infatuation of pubescent school girls getting hot and bothered over some boy-band. His supporters in Machiavellian fashion would follow him off a cliff without considering his past, or the implications of the “new direction” that he would like to take this great country. Hell, I wonder how many who support him, and his new deal know about the past of this country – despite its warts we are pretty amazing. I love America, and think that his wife, and many of those he has surrounded himself by embrace the notion of blame America first, and more embarrassed by who we are.
5. I wouldn’t make excuses for the black KKK. Why does Obama get a pass by the media? They are not only bias, they will be running a 24 hour infomercial, when they should be at least attempting to be subjectively providing information to the American public.
6. Obama actually has stated that he believes that it would be a good thing to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens – nuff said.

[yavoon]

I think its funny that someone who is clearly right wing is accusing democrats of hate mongering. The conservative movement was BORN by exploiting the racial divide in the 60's.

the racial divide? who uses identity politics? democrats. lets setup this scenario.

pre 1964 civil rights act, the south is solidly democrat, democrats are huge race baiters to hold up segregation. 1964 civil rights act, more republicans vote for it than democrats, the south is de-segregated and also now votes republican more often.

now the democrats are for affirmative action, again extremely racial, again democrats. the democrats have always been about race and identity. the mere fact they jumped their racist demagoguery shouldn't fool anyone.

[yavoon]

Umm, no. He was his Pastor, in a church full of thousands of people. Obama was in his twenties when he met Wright. He's already completely disassociated himself from Wright's self-aggrandizing hate-talk.
Say hi to Rush for me.

"mentor" and "father figure" are all things Obama has personally called wright. along with "crazy uncle" and a few other things. so good job at total failure on that denial.

[yavoon]

I'm defending anything. You can keep playing seven degrees with Obama, no one will believe--other than lose so far right, and would never vote for anyone other than Republican--that as substantive criticism. It didn't work for Hillary, who is much much more formidable than McCain, it's not going to work for McCain.

it seems to cause obama to throw a helluva a lot of ppl under buses. so I don't think he has quite the same opinion you have.

[SonOfLe-loLang]

the racial divide? who uses identity politics? democrats. lets setup this scenario.

pre 1964 civil rights act, the south is solidly democrat, democrats are huge race baiters to hold up segregation. 1964 civil rights act, more republicans vote for it than democrats, the south is de-segregated and also now votes republican more often.

now the democrats are for affirmative action, again extremely racial, again democrats. the democrats have always been about race and identity. the mere fact they jumped their racist demagoguery shouldn't fool anyone.

Hold on a sec, are you just making up history now? Democrats were the ones that pushed for desegregation (and even had plans for universal health care) until the south shot it down because it would mean black people would be able to use the same hospitals as whites. The south turned republican because the conservative movement sympathized with their fear of race. Strangely enough, the south, politically and economically should side with democrats. The south is poorer than the coasts and democrats always bring governments that disseminates the money more fairly. The neocons (starting with reagan in the 60's as well as Nixon) are the ones that exploited the fears of the south (with the racial divide) and won over their votes despite not really even holding their best interests at hand.

Read Paul Krugman's Conscience of a Liberal or Rick Pearlstein's new book Nixonland. It discusses how the conservative movement used race as a means of winning over the south much more convincingly than i can.

[SonOfLe-loLang]

"mentor" and "father figure" are all things Obama has personally called wright. along with "crazy uncle" and a few other things. so good job at total failure on that denial.

Why don't you just call him a muslim terrorist while youre at it. This whole reverend wright thing is a load of BS. Plus, his comments were really no different than some of Martin Luther Kings. So he's an angry old, racist black man. Wow! Who knew those existed. Barack Obama is an intelligent, fair, and well rounded individual who really has no history of being similar to Wright. It's typical right wing conspiracy fear tactics.

[yavoon]

Hold on a sec, are you just making up history now? Democrats were the ones that pushed for desegregation (and even had plans for universal health care) until the south shot it down because it would mean black people would be able to use the same hospitals as whites. The south turned republican because the conservative movement sympathized with their fear of race. Strangely enough, the south, politically and economically should side with democrats. The south is poorer than the coasts and democrats always bring governments that disseminates the money more fairly. The neocons (starting with reagan in the 60's as well as Nixon) are the ones that exploited the fears of the south (with the racial divide) and won over their votes despite not really even holding their best interests at hand.

Read Paul Krugman's Conscience of a Liberal or Rick Pearlstein's new book Nixonland. It discusses how the conservative movement used race as a means of winning over the south much more convincingly than i can.

1964 civil rights act:

The original House version:

Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

you feeding at the propaganda trough notwithstanding. its also ignorant of you to say say that poorer places should be socialist, which is utter horse****, poorer places need development and investment even more and would benefit more from attracting it, not form turning into some writ large cuban ****hole. if you took two seconds to look at which previously poor nations have prospered the most you would find that the vast majority do so by being business friendly. this includes taiwan, hong kong, china, india, and ireland. where as the places that fail horribly and miserably do so by "distributing things more fairly" see: every country in africa with its neverending wealth redistribution schemes and rampant poverty.

in fact india is a really good example because india naturally leans very socialist and even has a real communist party in national politics. to counteract this they have carved out special economic zones to escape the socialist bureaucracy, these places are generally prosperous, attract migrants, pay tons of taxes and develop high end infrastructure. again, actually being pro-capitalism=success, being pro-socialist=equality of poverty.

another point to make. mugabe, the thug that he is didn't start starving his people to death until he really dove into wealth redistribution.

[SonOfLe-loLang]

1964 civil rights act:

The original House version:

Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

you feeding at the propaganda trough notwithstanding. its also ignorant of you to say say that poorer places should be socialist, which is utter horse****, poorer places need development and investment even more and would benefit more from attracting it, not form turning into some writ large cuban ****hole. if you took two seconds to look at which previously poor nations have prospered the most you would find that the vast majority do so by being business friendly. this includes taiwan, hong kong, china, india, and ireland. where as the places that fail horribly and miserably do so by "distributing things more fairly" see: every country in africa with its neverending wealth redistribution schemes and rampant poverty.

in fact india is a really good example because india naturally leans very socialist and even has a real communist party in national politics. to counteract this they have carved out special economic zones to escape the socialist bureaucracy, these places are generally prosperous, attract migrants, pay tons of taxes and develop high end infrastructure. again, actually being pro-capitalism=success, being pro-socialist=equality of poverty.

First off, quit bringing up the civil rights act because you know that claiming the conservative movement is the party of the black people is complete BS. Just look at demos today? Since when has the AA community ever been republican. Seriously, read those two books. The neocon movement was built on exploiting race. Those two authors spending pages and pages discussing the issue.

And everytime you bring up socialism, you bring up poor countries that, no matter what, will be poor. If America had a billion people to support (as China and India do), many will be poor. Hell, India has 250 people that think they DESERVE to be poor (the dalits) because of what they did in a past life. And as for the special economic zones in China and India, there are tons of reasons these places prosper. It can't be simply stated that they do simply because they are capitalist. And everytime I bring up the European union and their socialist tendencies, you come at me with some BS about the global economy and how they will cease to exist when blah blah, when they are at the top of the quality of life surveys every year (along with us of course, since we are rich). I never called for overall equality, i just call for better distribution of wealth based on simple ideology. We had it before the neocons came into power and even had a better sense of it during the clinton years. Somehow the economy prospered and didnt lead to the BS we are currently in thanks to deregulated markets. As ive said many times, the economy is best when the middle class is strong and consistently feeding it. It makes most sense to always keep that strong and not wait for "market corrections"

[yavoon]

First off, quit bringing up the civil rights act because you know that claiming the conservative movement is the party of the black people is complete BS. Just look at demos today? Since when has the AA community ever been republican. Seriously, read those two books. The neocon movement was built on exploiting race. Those two authors spending pages and pages discussing the issue.

And everytime you bring up socialism, you bring up poor countries that, no matter what, will be poor. If America had a billion people to support (as China and India do), many will be poor. Hell, India has 250 people that think they DESERVE to be poor (the dalits) because of what they did in a past life. And as for the special economic zones in China and India, there are tons of reasons these places prosper. It can't be simply stated that they do simply because they are capitalist. And everytime I bring up the European union and their socialist tendencies, you come at me with some BS about the global economy and how they will cease to exist when blah blah, when they are at the top of the quality of life surveys every year (along with us of course, since we are rich). I never called for overall equality, i just call for better distribution of wealth based on simple ideology. We had it before the neocons came into power and even had a better sense of it during the clinton years. Somehow the economy prospered and didnt lead to the BS we are currently in thanks to deregulated markets. As ive said many times, the economy is best when the middle class is strong and consistently feeding it. It makes most sense to always keep that strong and not wait for "market corrections"

the conservative movement is MOST DEFINITELY NOT the party of black people. man you don't get it. its that attitude, that racist demagogue crap that democrats wallow in.

yah you bring up europe, and I bring up that europe's economies are not solvent. they are essentially on borrowed time. if you think our social security looks bad, europe's future is drano. like us europe is leveraging its future to prop up its welfare state, only its doing it even more drastically and it doesn't have any military left to cut to fund the welfare state. not to mention europe is still not nearly as close to america as people like to imagine.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2005/03/12/cneucham12.xml

"The Association of European Chambers of Commerce in Brussels warned that the transatlantic gap had widened yet further in the past five years by all key measures, despite the pledge by EU leaders at the 2000 Lisbon summit to transform Europe into the world's "most dynamic knowledge-based economy" by the end of the decade.

The EU-wide umbrella group, known asEurochambres said the EU's overall employment rate was still stuck at levels attained by the United States in 1978, chiefly due to an incentive structure that discourages women from working and prompts early retirement by those in their fifties.

It found that the European Union's research and development levels were achieved by America as long ago as 1979, while the lag time on per capita income is 18 years."

and yes it can be 100% stated that india's special economic zones prosper by being capitalist, because thats entirely why they exist. that is essentially their purpose, to be capitalist islands in a swamp of socialism.

[SonOfLe-loLang]

the conservative movement is MOST DEFINITELY NOT the party of black people. man you don't get it. its that attitude, that racist demagogue crap that democrats wallow in.

yah you bring up europe, and I bring up that europe's economies are not solvent. they are essentially on borrowed time. if you think our social security looks bad, europe's future is drano. like us europe is leveraging its future to prop up its welfare state, only its doing it even more drastically and it doesn't have any military left to cut to fund the welfare state. not to mention europe is still not nearly as close to america as people like to imagine.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2005/03/12/cneucham12.xml

"The Association of European Chambers of Commerce in Brussels warned that the transatlantic gap had widened yet further in the past five years by all key measures, despite the pledge by EU leaders at the 2000 Lisbon summit to transform Europe into the world's "most dynamic knowledge-based economy" by the end of the decade.

The EU-wide umbrella group, known asEurochambres said the EU's overall employment rate was still stuck at levels attained by the United States in 1978, chiefly due to an incentive structure that discourages women from working and prompts early retirement by those in their fifties.

It found that the European Union's research and development levels were achieved by America as long ago as 1979, while the lag time on per capita income is 18 years."

and yes it can be 100% stated that india's special economic zones prosper by being capitalist, because thats entirely why they exist. that is essentially their purpose, to be capitalist islands in a swamp of socialism.

What am i not getting? I simply claimed that the conservative movement used exploited race for their political gains. What am i not getting here?

And what does that entire article have to do with wealth distribution? You honestly think this country will go to hell in a handbasket if the Bush Tax Cuts are removed and the money gained helped to establish more social programs and infrastructure repair? You honestly think this country will fall apart with a higher minimum wage (which no one could come close to living on?) It's insane. And the idea that economic disparity is key to boon innovation (as you once claimed) is also crazy as the country continued to grow by great proportions when the rich paid very high taxes. We are still the richest country in the world, by far, yet are still the only developed nation without universal health care. Perhaps if we spent a little less money on defense (where i think we can all agree money is wasted by the millions), we can enjoy some of the perks these poorer countries seem to have.

[yavoon]

What am i not getting? I simply claimed that the conservative movement used exploited race for their political gains. What am i not getting here?

And what does that entire article have to do with wealth distribution? You honestly think this country will go to hell in a handbasket if the Bush Tax Cuts are removed and the money gained helped to establish more social programs and infrastructure repair? You honestly think this country will fall apart with a higher minimum wage (which no one could come close to living on?) It's insane. And the idea that economic disparity is key to boon innovation (as you once claimed) is also crazy as the country continued to grow by great proportions when the rich paid very high taxes. We are still the richest country in the world, by far, yet are still the only developed nation without universal health care. Perhaps if we spent a little less money on defense (where i think we can all agree money is wasted by the millions), we can enjoy some of the perks these poorer countries seem to have.

Im with you on infrastructure, but not social programs. you keep bringing up the 50's-70's, and I keep saying that it is not a replicable time in world history, I have explained probably 3 times why this is so. I assume you are now just being a malicious asshole by ignoring all those points.

and I like how your reply basically boils down to "hey maybe we can steal this money and it wont matter much and then we could spend it on stuff that I kinda think is cool." so typically socialist. its not about development or prosperity or technology or advancement, its all about how much you can rape the rich to fund stuff you like, hopefully w/o trainwrecking the economy.

and like I said, its been proved again, and again, and again, and again, and agiain and again, over the last 100 years that being business friendly WINS, literally. name me a country that was poor, endeavoured on an enormous socialist program then became rich? maybe ones w/ absurd amounts of oil? thats probably it. the rest failed! their people are poor. while there are numerous examples of economies becoming business friendly and their economies BOOMING, I mean BOOMING. maybe reality just hates commies, who knows.

[yavoon]

its also of note that capitalism has been and will continue to be by FAR the world's #1 weapon against poverty. proving orders of magnitude more effective then every aid package, or socialist welfare benefit ever has. just basic things like individual property rights taking over from socialist communal/state ownership has generally had enormous impact on economic development.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/01/02/INGORAIISN1.DTL

"According to a recent study by the World Bank, 2004's growth reflected "an expansion without precedent over the past 30 years." Equally encouraging, the report notes that "the rapid growth of developing economies ... has produced a spectacular, if not historic, fall in poverty.""

"For example, most Americans would be surprised to learn that millions of poor people who live on less than $1 per day would be better off if they could go into debt. The reason they can't is that the institutions required to sustain capitalism are not present."

"In fact, the recent success of developing countries at fighting poverty could be an Economics 101 lesson for today's American classroom. In East Asia and the Pacific region alone, the number of poor dropped from 472 million in 1990 to 271 million in 2001. By 2015, that number should shrink to 19 million, according to the World Bank.
The bank predicts that the total number of those living in poverty will be halved between 1990 and 2015. Globally, that means that those living on $1 per day or less would drop from 1.2 billion in 1990 to 622 million in 2015.
It is undeniable that 2004 was a great year for the poor. The World Bank's prediction that global poverty will continue plummeting is particularly encouraging. But if we are ever to wipe poverty from the face of the Earth, our next generation of leaders must first understand what makes the global economy tick -- the fundamental relationship between free trade and economic growth."

[Pseudofool]

1. It seems that most problems are not reduced by greater government involvement, most problems are exacerbated and amplified by it. We are already a sheeple people, and the more we suck on the government teet, the less able we are to stand on our own feet. To me, and it seems that many of Obama's solutions are rooted in a secular version of “hope.” Obama’s hope is that he can lead a beneficent Big-Brother that will at first cajole, later manipulate and shame, and if he feels he has a “mandate” “force us” to reevaluate ourselves through his own false assumptions about how bad America is, and how we should "change" for the collective good of the Socialist PoliticYeah, deregulating the housing and energy industry turned out to be GREAT ideas. It's a myth that the private sector can somehow run public domains better than the gov't--over the short run, the private sector always does better, but we should always be concerned about the long run. Unless, well you're McCain and won't be there, when the for-profit utilities stop being efficient and start price gouging...

[Pseudofool]

its also of note that capitalism has been and will continue to be by FAR the world's #1 weapon against poverty.Dumb. Dumb. Capitalism at best, merely moves poverty to another shore (think third world). Cheap labor WILL run out.

More over the capitalistic notion of specialization grows more suspect the longer and longer the supply lines grow. We pay MORE for transporting goods than the actual worth (use value or exchange value) of goods--that's precisely when captialism doesn't work. I seriously doubt you've read much economic theory beyond what's been given to you in the Business College, much less thought rationally through any of the Capitalism's mythical tenants and how they really function in a global economy and whether or not they are sustainable.

[yavoon]

Dumb. Dumb. Capitalism at best, merely moves poverty to another shore (think third world). Cheap labor WILL run out.

More over the capitalistic notion of specialization grows more suspect the longer and longer the supply lines grow. We pay MORE for transporting goods than the actual worth (use value or exchange value) of goods--that's precisely when captialism doesn't work. I seriously doubt you've read much economic theory beyond what's been given to you in the Business College, much less thought rationally through any of the Capitalism's mythical tenants and how they really function in a global economy and whether or not they are sustainable.

obviously you only read that sentence. please read whole post, remove pathetic ignorance.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGORAIISN1.DTL

"According to a recent study by the World Bank, 2004's growth reflected "an expansion without precedent over the past 30 years." Equally encouraging, the report notes that "the rapid growth of developing economies ... has produced a spectacular, if not historic, fall in poverty.""

"For example, most Americans would be surprised to learn that millions of poor people who live on less than $1 per day would be better off if they could go into debt. The reason they can't is that the institutions required to sustain capitalism are not present."

"In fact, the recent success of developing countries at fighting poverty could be an Economics 101 lesson for today's American classroom. In East Asia and the Pacific region alone, the number of poor dropped from 472 million in 1990 to 271 million in 2001. By 2015, that number should shrink to 19 million, according to the World Bank.
The bank predicts that the total number of those living in poverty will be halved between 1990 and 2015. Globally, that means that those living on $1 per day or less would drop from 1.2 billion in 1990 to 622 million in 2015.
It is undeniable that 2004 was a great year for the poor. The World Bank's prediction that global poverty will continue plummeting is particularly encouraging. But if we are ever to wipe poverty from the face of the Earth, our next generation of leaders must first understand what makes the global economy tick -- the fundamental relationship between free trade and economic growth."

btw anyone notices how closely the anti-capitalists and barack obama supporters are? gee wonder why that is.

[Pseudofool]

Using studies done by the World Bank on Poverty is akin to using McDonald's studies to show how it's actually making people skinny. Examine the biases of your sources before you present them as fact. (Yes, if only poor people could go into DEBT they'd be better off!).

If you're not religious I don't know how you sleep at night having the views you do. Shameless narcissism. You and W*GS ought to have some sort of free market, greed is good club, I mean you'd like have five members.

[SonOfLe-loLang]

Im with you on infrastructure, but not social programs. you keep bringing up the 50's-70's, and I keep saying that it is not a replicable time in world history, I have explained probably 3 times why this is so. I assume you are now just being a malicious a-hole by ignoring all those points.

and I like how your reply basically boils down to "hey maybe we can steal this money and it wont matter much and then we could spend it on stuff that I kinda think is cool." so typically socialist. its not about development or prosperity or technology or advancement, its all about how much you can rape the rich to fund stuff you like, hopefully w/o trainwrecking the economy.

and like I said, its been proved again, and again, and again, and again, and agiain and again, over the last 100 years that being business friendly WINS, literally. name me a country that was poor, endeavoured on an enormous socialist program then became rich? maybe ones w/ absurd amounts of oil? thats probably it. the rest failed! their people are poor. while there are numerous examples of economies becoming business friendly and their economies BOOMING, I mean BOOMING. maybe reality just hates commies, who knows.


I'm not being a malaicious a-hole, i just simply don't agree...shocking! Fact is, the country is still the richest in the world and yet we somehow exist without social programs other countries, with less money, enjoy. There's a happy medium here you are completely ignoring while you are too busy talking about extremes. You bring up economic growth from the Bush Boom, without looking where the money is going. The only ones to really benefit from that, in the US, were the top 1 percent, while the rest of America lost money which contributed to our current problems. The gap between the rich and the poor has never been greater and the strangest thing that the right wingers refuse to accept, is that it takes government intervention for us to avoid a recession (between regulation, stimulus checks...etc). So there's a happy medium between letting business flourish and taking care of the cogs who help run it.

I never quite understood the logic behind letting business run free with tax cuts and deregulaton, as if these big businesses will create more money and take care of the middle and lower class. That clearly isnt happening because the money is staying up top and not trickling down. I'm not sure the answer, but it certainly ain't the current situation. There's being business friendly and there is letting them roam free and completely take advantage of the little cogs to earn them more money. **** like giving the the telecoms immunity (re: the wiretapping) is providing big business with way too much control.

And what's wrong with social programs and new deal type policy anyway? Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are three enormously popular programs, all government run and somehow our country's "innovation" hasn't hit the skids.

[Bob]

Yeah, deregulating the housing and energy industry turned out to be GREAT ideas. It's a myth that the private sector can somehow run public domains better than the gov't--over the short run, the private sector always does better, but we should always be concerned about the long run. Unless, well you're McCain and won't be there, when the for-profit utilities stop being efficient and start price gouging...

Yes, Most problems are made worse ... in my opinion. I have seen some instances in history when government steped in, where it turned out very well --- like breaking up some monoplies of teh steal industry at teh turn of teh last century, or setting up labor laws to protect children, and even the public school system. But in Most Cases when people are given freedom, and some rules to play by, I think that is a better way to address most social and economic problems. Futhermore I do see that many communities with all kinds of social problems -- where well intentioned help from governmental sourses seems to erode capasity. In Minn several years ago there was a big push to get people off welfare and back to work, now many more pople are off the rolls and giving back to the system. The media would be inclined to focus on those few poor sould that got crushed by teh transition, but the vast majority, and their posterity will be better off for it. I believe in a safety net of some type, but it is human nature to work less hard if they know that net will always be there, and will be there for any and all reasons. The USSR took away many natural motivations from the inclination we all have to get ahead -- not to get ahead at any expense, but to improve ones situation in life -- I think the government got too big under Bush, and will likely get bigger under McCain or Obama, it is only a question of degree.

[Bob]

Dumb. Dumb. Capitalism at best, merely moves poverty to another shore (think third world). Cheap labor WILL run out.

More over the capitalistic notion of specialization grows more suspect the longer and longer the supply lines grow. We pay MORE for transporting goods than the actual worth (use value or exchange value) of goods--that's precisely when captialism doesn't work. I seriously doubt you've read much economic theory beyond what's been given to you in the Business College, much less thought rationally through any of the Capitalism's mythical tenants and how they really function in a global economy and whether or not they are sustainable.

Bull crap rooted in Soviet propaganda. Our system is not perfect by any means -- but you must be hanging out with Michelle Obama, the Princeton educated woman who feels so let down by our oppressive system to think straight. Just have hope bro, Big Brother is coming and will retrain people like me – I wonder if you will be taxed more for my re-education?

Did the USSR make their people rich? How about China -- is our consumerism helping them out a tad, or India, did we pull Japan out of poverty? Most countries that have been communist and have taxed the hell out of their people and businesses are moving away from that – look it up from a credible source. We I believe are the second highest in the world for the taxes we impose on our businesses – Russia is paying their oil companies to explore more, we want to sue them, or make them pay for their greedy 9% profit rates. Now that we are on this topic – there has been talk about nationalizing big oil – or taxing them more – and we don’t think those costs would be passed on to us? How bout we actually stop talking about becoming energy independent, but actually do what everyone else in the freaking world is doing (including those right-ring, environmentally bankrupt Europeans) and build our energy creating capacity by building a refinery or two, our how about coal to fuel? We only have a few generations worth of that in Montana alone…

[broncocalijohn]

No experience, not qualified, questionable associations, socialist, the list continues.

Everyone who votes against him will be labeled as racists. This will be a fun five months.

good reasons but the one i bolded is what the Clinton voters went through in the primaries. Is was nice to see the label they put on Republicans actually had that effect on the race both white and black. Even though I do not agree with both Democrats stance on issues, I at least know where Clinton has been. Clinton's experience is not that much more than Obama's experience but she was around many of the same people while her husband was in office. She was a mouth piece that gave her influence and voter appeal when she ran for Senate. I just feel Obama is full of cliches and perfect words to "mend" an answer. One of the best was concerning illegal aliens and a border fence, he answered that he would talk to each mayor (or official) in those towns to see what they want and to get an environmental study! Illegal aliens crush any environment and most of the towns on the border want the fence and/or protection. Just another answer of me scratching my head.

[broncocalijohn]

And what's wrong with social programs and new deal type policy anyway? Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are three enormously popular programs, all government run and somehow our country's "innovation" hasn't hit the skids.

One answer to fail... Baby Boomers! Social security will either run out of money or cut off those that have another generation to wait for it. Same with medicare/medicade as people live longer and we dont have enough workers to help those baby boomers and even some of thier parents! Look at the union workers for the car industry. Their pensions put a huge prize tag on every car just to pay for the program. Problem solvers would be letting a portion of Social Security be held privately to invest and secure the retirement. It was shown that just putting it in the most conservative bond through the US treasury would give about the same amount as sitting in the general fund. This isnt even a part of those that invest and make a much better profit. Not even a chance to implement a portion on a voluntarily basis. Why? Because Dems dont trust their own citizens to do better than the government. I believe it is to prove that WE can do a better job than the government. When we waste on an individual basis, we are responsible until programs like bankruptcy and such help out. Waste in government is the norm and should not be encouraged to have them run our daily lives.

[broncocalijohn]

Using studies done by the World Bank on Poverty is akin to using McDonald's studies to show how it's actually making people skinny. Examine the biases of your sources before you present them as fact. (Yes, if only poor people could go into DEBT they'd be better off!).

If you're not religious I don't know how you sleep at night having the views you do. Shameless narcissism. You and W*GS ought to have some sort of free market, greed is good club, I mean you'd like have five members.

Do you live in a community living? Everything is shared equally? Dude, this is America where we purchase things based on wants and not necessarily needs. Yes, it can bite you in the A$$ like buying a Surburban for a family of three and now gas is killing them. But that is what this country is founded on. FREEDOM! It used to be that you were responsible for your own doing so you better make the correct choice or pay the price. We already know that your quotes from a few months back of having a socialistic country is a pipe dream. That is enough for me to know.

[SonOfLe-loLang]

One answer to fail... Baby Boomers! Social security will either run out of money or cut off those that have another generation to wait for it. Same with medicare/medicade as people live longer and we dont have enough workers to help those baby boomers and even some of thier parents! Look at the union workers for the car industry. Their pensions put a huge prize tag on every car just to pay for the program. Problem solvers would be letting a portion of Social Security be held privately to invest and secure the retirement. It was shown that just putting it in the most conservative bond through the US treasury would give about the same amount as sitting in the general fund. This isnt even a part of those that invest and make a much better profit. Not even a chance to implement a portion on a voluntarily basis. Why? Because Dems dont trust their own citizens to do better than the government. I believe it is to prove that WE can do a better job than the government. When we waste on an individual basis, we are responsible until programs like bankruptcy and such help out. Waste in government is the norm and should not be encouraged to have them run our daily lives.


I don't know what world you're living in that you think people aren't greedy. When you deregulate and institute your libertarian dream, economic inequality grows and we get wonderful things like depressions and recessions. People are naturally money hungry, especially corporations. Government is needed to regulate the markets to keep them from spiraling out of control. Market corrections only work on extremes, which isnt exactly beneficial to society. Since when has the New Deal become the enemy to innovation and politics?? Also, don't you like not having to pay police officers if you need them? If your house is burning, do you want to count your pennies before you call the fire department? Privitizing to make competition simply doesn't work. It has never proven to work. That's what we have with healthcare today and its a friggin mess. It baffles me that a more equal society with a booming middle class (like we had in the 60's) is such a strange concept to people.

Don't ever compare Bush's big government to a democratic big government. They couldnt be more different. And the demo big government wouldnt give immunity to telecoms and sponser bills that allow spying like the current admin does and mccain wants to do.

[TailgateNut]

Don't ever compare Bush's big government to a democratic big government. They couldnt be more different.



^5

[Pseudofool]

Do you live in a community living? Everything is shared equally? Dude, this is America where we purchase things based on wants and not necessarily needs. Yes, it can bite you in the A$$ like buying a Surburban for a family of three and now gas is killing them. But that is what this country is founded on. FREEDOM! It used to be that you were responsible for your own doing so you better make the correct choice or pay the price. We already know that your quotes from a few months back of having a socialistic country is a pipe dream. That is enough for me to know.I'm fine with a regulated free market. I'm not sure why you would go to the extreme opposite of what I'm against, and assume that's what I'm for...

[Pseudofool]

Bull crap rooted in Soviet propaganda. Our system is not perfect by any means -- but you must be hanging out with Michelle Obama, the Princeton educated woman who feels so let down by our oppressive system to think straight. Just have hope bro, Big Brother is coming and will retrain people like me – I wonder if you will be taxed more for my re-education?

Did the USSR make their people rich? How about China -- is our consumerism helping them out a tad, or India, did we pull Japan out of poverty? Most countries that have been communist and have taxed the hell out of their people and businesses are moving away from that – look it up from a credible source. We I believe are the second highest in the world for the taxes we impose on our businesses – Russia is paying their oil companies to explore more, we want to sue them, or make them pay for their greedy 9% profit rates. Now that we are on this topic – there has been talk about nationalizing big oil – or taxing them more – and we don’t think those costs would be passed on to us? How bout we actually stop talking about becoming energy independent, but actually do what everyone else in the freaking world is doing (including those right-ring, environmentally bankrupt Europeans) and build our energy creating capacity by building a refinery or two, our how about coal to fuel? We only have a few generations worth of that in Montana alone…I'm not sure how what I said led to you going off on your communist rant, but whatever. It doesn't look like we can have a conversation that criticizes capitalism without introducing communism. They are not opposites, nor do we need to invoke one when criticizing the other.

[SonOfLe-loLang]

I'm not sure how what I said led to you going off on your communist rant, but whatever. It doesn't look like we can have a conversation that criticizes capitalism without introducing communism. They are not opposites, nor do we need to invoke one when criticizing the other.

Because they ALWAYS do that. They always go to extremes. I do identify myself as a socialist actually, but also fully realize that a socialist government in it's truest form cannot work (just like any government). However, i'd love to implement more of a socialist belief in our government, which democrats generally do. I dunno, way back in kindergarten that lesson on sharing stuck with me, what can i say. We all contribute to society, many people work hard and don't get their due. Many people aren't born with the same opportunities (this work hard and you can acheive the dream thing is BS.) We've lived in an America that did a better job at sharing it's wealth (and continued to prosper) and we can again.

[W*GS]

When you deregulate and institute your libertarian dream, economic inequality grows and we get wonderful things like depressions and recessions.

The business cycle tends to be worsened with increasing governmental interference - bubbles are larger and crashes are deeper.

People are naturally money hungry, especially corporations. Government is needed to regulate the markets to keep them from spiraling out of control.

You've described perfectly the fatal conceit of socialism, and why it cannot work - that politicians and bureaucrats (who are apart from the rest of us in that they cannot be "naturally money hungry") are smart enough and selfless enough to regulate markets. That's hubris to the extreme.

[W*GS]

Dumb. Dumb. Capitalism at best, merely moves poverty to another shore (think third world). Cheap labor WILL run out.

How do you explain, then, the drop in poverty across the world over the last 100 years or so? Did the USSR or communist-era China do that?

[broncocalijohn]

I don't know what world you're living in that you think people aren't greedy. When you deregulate and institute your libertarian dream, economic inequality grows and we get wonderful things like depressions and recessions. People are naturally money hungry, especially corporations. Government is needed to regulate the markets to keep them from spiraling out of control. Market corrections only work on extremes, which isnt exactly beneficial to society. Since when has the New Deal become the enemy to innovation and politics?? Also, don't you like not having to pay police officers if you need them? If your house is burning, do you want to count your pennies before you call the fire department? Privitizing to make competition simply doesn't work. It has never proven to work. That's what we have with healthcare today and its a friggin mess. It baffles me that a more equal society with a booming middle class (like we had in the 60's) is such a strange concept to people.

Don't ever compare Bush's big government to a democratic big government. They couldnt be more different. And the demo big government wouldnt give immunity to telecoms and sponser bills that allow spying like the current admin does and mccain wants to do.


First of all, where does it state that i dont see greed in people? In fact, read my next post on pseudo. I never said anything about regulation or deregulations. I know we need to regulate banks and make sure they have enough money saved so a depression hit on the banks dont happen again. I never said privatize the whole social security system. Go back and read that I said we should be allowed to invest a portion privately. It is our money, but you like the system because it shares regardless of the fact that it can cripple us in the next generation. We have the post office, police, fireman, etc. They are part of the government roles paid by us. But, it does have its flaws of being coerced into bigger pay for less work that the private sector would be paying. I will also jump to your other post about turning your back on hard work = opportunity. Those that agree with you are in the Obama camp (or at least his wife) and have no business being president of our country. There are too many people that breezed by the early portions of their life and now pay for it by having a crappy job and/or family life. My parents didnt pop me out the first year they got married like so many low income to low middle income families. They saved five years for a house (working two jobs each) and then had me in their six year of marriage. By the time they got divorced in 1982, they owned 5 homes and had good jobs. Dont make excuses for the millions of those that screwed up. This country gives the best opps to succeed.

[SonOfLe-loLang]

The business cycle tends to be worsened with increasing governmental interference - bubbles are larger and crashes are deeper.



You've described perfectly the fatal conceit of socialism, and why it cannot work - that politicians and bureaucrats (who are apart from the rest of us in that they cannot be "naturally money hungry") are smart enough and selfless enough to regulate markets. That's hubris to the extreme.


While its true that BAD government policy can create recessions, a complete free market will assure it as the market won't correct itself until the extremes happen. Which is fine if you like high highs and low lows, but i personally would rather not have those swings.

After all, its government intervention that is saving our current under regulated market from collapse. So it's not the ROLE of government that is poison to society, its bad policy. (though in the current case, it was underregulated traders that really did us in)

[SonOfLe-loLang]

First of all, where does it state that i dont see greed in people? In fact, read my next post on pseudo. I never said anything about regulation or deregulations. I know we need to regulate banks and make sure they have enough money saved so a depression hit on the banks dont happen again. I never said privatize the whole social security system. Go back and read that I said we should be allowed to invest a portion privately. It is our money, but you like the system because it shares regardless of the fact that it can cripple us in the next generation. We have the post office, police, fireman, etc. They are part of the government roles paid by us. But, it does have its flaws of being coerced into bigger pay for less work that the private sector would be paying. I will also jump to your other post about turning your back on hard work = opportunity. Those that agree with you are in the Obama camp (or at least his wife) and have no business being president of our country. There are too many people that breezed by the early portions of their life and now pay for it by having a crappy job and/or family life. My parents didnt pop me out the first year they got married like so many low income to low middle income families. They saved five years for a house (working two jobs each) and then had me in their six year of marriage. By the time they got divorced in 1982, they owned 5 homes and had good jobs. Dont make excuses for the millions of those that screwed up. This country gives the best opps to succeed.

Simple fact, the more money you have, the more opportunity you have. There are many people who live in inner cities that dont have access to education or just dont have the opportunity that someone like i had growing up. This BS about the American dream is just that...its possible, but hard work doesn't guarentee you anything..it helps, but its not a guarantee. Also, i just saw a graph within the past few weeks that showed that economic standing was more important than education for continued economic success.

[broncocalijohn]

Simple fact, the more money you have, the more opportunity you have. There are many people who live in inner cities that dont have access to education or just dont have the opportunity that someone like i had growing up. This BS about the American dream is just that...its possible, but hard work doesn't guarentee you anything..it helps, but its not a guarantee. Also, i just saw a graph within the past few weeks that showed that economic standing was more important than education for continued economic success.

love to see thatgraph as the worst we do in areas like engineering, the more foreigners we bring in. But, education is not what everyone needs to be successful. You dont need to be rich to be considered successful. Owning your own home can be considered successful in many people's eyes.Of course there are many people in the inner city. We have given them the New deal you so love and all it has created is 3 generations of welfare. They
dont need to be rich, but trying to get out of the ghetto should be a goal. Finishing school, not getting pregnant at 16, breaking the law etc. are all standards in bad neighborhoods. No need for any of this regardless of your income. There is never an excuse for dirty neighborhoods based on your income. Excuses is what drives these people down. They should be looking up to those in the neighborhood that get out of the neighborhood. I am not rich, but I strive to be just that without a college degree. All I did was work my A$$ off. Those that dont want to work past 8 hours at a low wage, will never get out of their rut.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Using studies done by the World Bank on Poverty is akin to using McDonald's studies to show how it's actually making people skinny.

:rofl: ^5

Yvonne posts some consistently silly sh*t here, but that one is definitely a candidate for the blue ribbon.

[Pseudofool]

How do you explain, then, the drop in poverty across the world over the last 100 years or so? Did the USSR or communist-era China do that?Let's see some evidence of this. How do you define poverty? Do you define against a standard of living within a given country or compared to US wealth? It seems narrow-sited to suggest that it was the PRIVATE SECTOR that's helped third world countries become less poor when really it's human innovation, and social/liberal programs. Let's see you produce some evidence that's in print, buster.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Let's see some evidence of this. How do you define poverty? Do you define against a standard of living within a given country or compared to US wealth? It seems narrow-sited to suggest that it was the PRIVATE SECTOR that's helped third world countries become less poor when really it's human innovation, and social/liberal programs. Let's see you produce some evidence that's in print, buster.

Chirp, chirp, chirp...

http://www.livefoods.co.uk/images/scanocrix.jpg