Candidates Think Flip-Flopping is the Only Way to Win Elections

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Driver of wagons @ 07/09/2008 9:07:10 PM



    With all due respect CC

    You can predict all you want about either candidate but
    Don't be a fool in your own skin and think that what you believe will become a reality

    I respect your opinion but do not agree with it. I have been following McCain's political life for quite a while and as far as I can tell he blew his chance many years ago with his frequent midnight raids on Bills by inserting amendments that would cause them to fail, his temper tantrums durning Senate hearings sabotaging the entire precedings, all caught on CSPAN for the world to see and I was watching. His move to the left after he was swift boated by The Bushies and then came crawling back with his red dog tail between his legs supporting the very creep that destroyed his integrity, his once good name and any chance of being the nominee in 2000 and now he has hired the very Creep (Karl Rove) that designed and instigated his distruction. yeah he has a lot of experience, hasn't learned anything with it and lacks the wisdom, the judgement and the back bone of a great leader. he show signs of the early stages of Alzheimer's disease which is quite evident with his frequent displays of deer in the head light gaffe moments, doesn't understand or even know who we are engaged in battle with in the middle east, thinks the president of Iran is calling the shots for Iran, is the King Daddy of Flip Floppers, has 1400 pages of medical records and those are the only ones that have been released and the list goes on and on.

    These are not reasons why I think you shouldn't vote for Mccain I personaly don't give a rats @ss who you vote for. These are just reasons why I won't vote for him and I have plenty more. so lets just agree to disagree and leave it at that. by the way i don't have clue who in hell you get your information from nor do I care but i do care where i get mine and it is not from Corporate Republican run Main Stream Media. Abraham Lincoln is my favorite President and John Adams my favorite American my favorite Senators Gaylord Nelson and William Proxmier. I have been involved in Politics before I was first able to vote and I have been voting since the Johnson Administration and I did not vote for him. I believe politics is infested with people who just don't have the talent to do things honestly correct no matter whose party you care to look at. The political process is severely broken and McCains history has bore the truth that he will not fix it nor will he even try. he is extremely comfortable in the damaged political process which he has helped to create.

    have a nice life CC and for all of us may we be spared more of the same


    • Posted By: Nins @ 07/10/2008 1:06:32 AM

      Wow, Driver of Wagons, you are wonderful! What a great post. Thanks for being politically involved for forty years. I really admire that.

    • Posted By: NewsWkDickG @ 07/09/2008 9:18:05 PM

      A very excellent post Driver, I give you credit for the pains taken to be objective.

      • Posted By: Concerned Ctzn @ 07/09/2008 10:49:39 PM

        Fair enough Driver. You have your reasons for voting for BO and I have my reasons for voting for JM. It's really that simple. Trust me, I'm not trying to change your vote. Like you, I have an opinion ... nothing more ... nothing less. You cool with that?

        Don't worry, I don't take all the name calling personal. Generally speaking, I try to keep the NC'ing to a minimum. If you treat me (my opinions) with respect ... I'll treat you with respect. On the otherhand, If you start calling me names or putting me down ... obviously I'm gonna defend myself. And this applies to everybody here, not just you. Peace!

  • Posted By: VoteResponsibly08 @ 07/09/2008 11:10:51 PM

    Obama's supporter going into great detail as to why we should vote for Obama...Very interesting and it will leave you speechless,,,, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGeu_4Ekx-o

    • Posted By: Nins @ 07/10/2008 1:01:58 AM

      Vote Responsibly, I think that you should blog more responsibly. That YouTube video that you gave a link for was simply FoxNews right wing propaganda. Just because a Congressman (not Senator) from another state can not name all of Obama's accomplishments does not minimize Obama's accomplishments. More likely, what this vide shows is how FoxNews guests are BAITED by the Fox commentators. Chris Matthews' MO in cases like this is to ask a guest to be on the air and provide them with a list of discussion topics. Then, once they are on camera, he changes the topics to make the person look unprepared and stupid.

  • Posted By: VoteResponsibly08 @ 07/09/2008 10:41:42 PM

    Driver of Wagon...and when you wake up........

  • Posted By: VoteResponsibly08 @ 07/09/2008 10:38:22 PM

    What's the matter with all of you? Obama is not a flip flopper, he just says what ever people want to hear.
    He says what is benefcial at the time.... Just like allowing his kids to interview and now saying he is sorry he did that....Now he has appeased every one...those that thought he should not have and those who enjoyed it!! Poor Obama he did not know better and now he just sorry... Perfect example of a self serving Politian

  • Posted By: NewsWkDickG @ 07/08/2008 5:56:28 PM

    RetiredMarine and anyone else I have antagonized. My only intent has been to express the truth and my frustration but I am exhausted now. I don't think that I have neglected saying anything, it is all here somewhere. I wish you all good will and the best, especially for all of us come 2009. God Bless.

    • Posted By: RetiredMarine @ 07/08/2008 9:15:31 PM

      You haven't antagonized me at all. You state your points, I state mine. I have no idea what you base your information on. All I know is my comments are coming from education, first hand knowledge and first hand experience. None of it comes from the media because you can't believe most of what you see or hear in that format. Have been in Iraq, been on the security detail for the Ambassador and spoke to several Iraqi's. Spent time recruiting, spent time in combat, spent time at Embassies. Am now in insurance so am pretty well educated and knowledgeable in that arena. At no time do I speculate. If people can't handle what I KNOW to be facts, that isn't my problem. All I can do is get it out there. Hopefully you will stick with these blogs. The exchanging of ideas is what helps us all. I don't mean to attack, simply will not allow anyone to accuse me of spreading falsehoods, especially when no facts or substance are behind the accusations. Don't quit now.

      • Posted By: Concerned Ctzn @ 07/09/2008 12:18:26 PM

        Hey NewsWkDickG,

        I agree with RM. Just because we don't agree with all your views and/or overall ideology, doesn't mean we don't respect your opinion/input.

        In fact, I totally agree with you on many of your points about how the neocons have screwed up this nation so bad for self-serving interest. My main point is ... the dems are no different than the Repubs when it comes down to the ugly game of politics.

        Bottom line: Both Party's lie to us whether we like it or not!

        Hope you stay! But if not, thanks for all your input. Peace!

        • Posted By: RetiredMarine @ 07/09/2008 10:21:53 PM

          If only there were a way to get rid or the "Party" mentality. Even the word itself is distasteful (remember "communist Party".... ). Party politics continues to divide us and keep us arguing rather than looking at actual issues that really matter. Look what was going on within the democratic party between Hillary and Obama. hell, they were of the same party and were striking at each other. That is all we get from politicians. It is never... "This is what I am going to do for the country", it is always... "this other person is not worthy because...." Regardless of the party, all they do is tear at each other rather than sell themselves.

  • Posted By: NewsWkDickG @ 07/08/2008 7:07:34 AM

    (continuing from above)

    I have attempted on several instances to respond to those postings but they ignore the truth offered and just go on. I by no means am perfect and my arguments aren???t perfect but the weight of everything should not be ignored. There will be those that attack John McCain???s character and record, I don???t need to do that because I believe the facts speak for themselves. John McCain advocates and guarantees he will continue the falsely justified Iraq War that offers questionable results, significant ongoing costs and has over stretched our military, that he will continue the deficit spending, the failed energy policy, the tax cuts weighted in favor of the wealthy,,, on and on with the irresponsible Bush-Cheney policies favoring a special few. Barack Obama promises, without guarantees, that he will provide change from all of those policies biased against the average American, those that have significantly cost the middle class and instead bring honesty and equitability back to our government. IT WOULD SEEM ONLY RATIONAL TO CHOOSE A CHANCE FOR CHANGE OVER MORE OF THE SAME. Of course that would take an objective and unbiased mentality.

    • Posted By: RetiredMarine @ 07/08/2008 9:52:25 AM

      At first I ignored your post above where you were trying to sound superior and unbiased, but can't ignore it since in the same breath being a loud supporter of Barrack you do the same thing that you accuse others of doing. You neglect to mention that the democrats do the exact same thing as you accuse republicans of doing. One comment I do agree with you in that post however is yes, "Barack Promises - without guarantees". That is the main problem. Like any other political candidate that has ever come out with "Change" as an agenda, he makes wild promises without guarantees. Why do you suppose that is? Because like most politicians he will promise the world to get a vote. And as HD so eloquently stated, people follow like "SHEEP" to the sound of a nice toned message. There are a lot of things that do need changing - government interference in our lives, government spending, special interest groups controlling officials, etc... But these aren't the changes being addressed. Instead there are empty promises of giving you something for nothing. One would think that people would finally learn and realize that nothing comes without a price. Yet, like children, many succomb to these "free" promises. When will we hold our politicians' feet to the fire and make them work for us like they are supposed to be doing? When will we learn from our mistakes? Bush is not a mistake - he was needed at the time when we were under attack, the alternative would have been a weak candidate. Regardless of now - then he was the right choice. Our mistakes have been repeated constantly every time someone runs on "Change". We never seem to learn from this. Oh yes it sounds good, but there is no substance. It is our congressmen & Senators who continually screw things up yet we use the President as the scapegoat. I would like to know when we will start focusing on those who are not representing our best interests yet still have the job.....

      • Posted By: NewsWkDickG @ 07/08/2008 12:44:17 PM

        I never mean to sound superior and have never been accused of it; likely what you sense is how strongly I feel about the subject. By the same token your defense of the Bush-Cheney regime is without merit because it ignores the truth and because it defends criminal action. To vote for John McCain would simply be making the statement that you condone, approve and want more of Bush-Cheney. It is my firm belief that Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rice, Frist, Delay and others should be aggressively prosecuted for lying to the American people, to the world and criminally to the congress and for belligerently using their offices and America???s resources for their own private purposes. The Bush-Cheney administration was a mistake and constitutes the worst presidency this country has ever known and John McCain has not only approved of their action but also advocates continuing with more of the same. There is no way, in good conscience, that I could ever vote for John McCain. Barack's promises for change, even without guarantees, today are the only hope for not going further down the tube. And if you want to talk about sheep being led, then let's talk about what the Republicans pulled off in 2000 & 2004 and what the Bush administration has done throughout their tenure - like justifying attacking Iraq. You write well but that doesn't make what you say valid and personally I'm tired of being lied to or as you say, led around.

        • Posted By: RetiredMarine @ 07/08/2008 5:39:22 PM

          Again my friend (for I have nothing against you to call you otherwise), you call them criminal without substance. I thought we were innocent until proven guilty in this country? If you have evidence then by all means bring it forward. I do not defend Bush or any politician, but I will speak out when people are falsely accusing anyone. When rhetoric takes the place of fact or substance. I am just as frustrated with our politicians as you (maybe even more as I have been in the middle of stupid policies which have placed myself and Marines under my charge in unnecessary hazardous situations). McCain and Bush are two separate individuals. You make it out as if they were the same with rhetoric. You talk about being lied to, or led around? Open your eyes my friend. Get involved in real life rather than following what the media would have you believe. Hell, I don't even think I write well. I just express how I feel and most often feel like I don't adequately do so. My belief is that government should stay out of our everyday business. They should be kept small and let the professionals in their fields do their jobs. It is not their place to take from one to give to another. They are sworn to support and defend the constitution, but both sides (dem/Rep) trample upon those very principles constantly.
          You make a good point, you and I and everyone else need to vote as our conscience dictates. In our posts, we should use that same conscience. How would you feel if someone falsely accused you of being a criminal. They never provide proof or substance, only rhetoric and insist that you are a criminal. That wouldn't feel good do you think? Yet several people in these blogs do just that, while ignoring where the real problem lies. Attack your congressmen with the same fervor you do the President if they aren't representing you. Maybe then things would straighten out. Our country is not dictated by one man. Yes, he is the commander in chief, but most of our contries decisions are not made by the elected president.

          • Posted By: NewsWkDickG @ 07/09/2008 9:50:45 PM

            Hi again RM. Best to ya. I just noticed your comments on my criminal accusation of Bush-Cheney and all and thought they did need an answer, I didn't want you thinking I made those accusations lightly. I suspect everyone today understands that the information that Bush used to justify attacking Iraq was false and I myself think there is more than enough information to support that they were knowingly false; i.e. lies. To lie to the congress is a criminal offense. I myself have no doubt that had there been a sufficient Democratic majority, impeachment proceeding would have been initiated, also for Cheney and prosecutions of a few others as well. The evidence to support that is substantial; i.e. Richard Clark, Ambassador Wilson and more. And yes, I do lump McCain with Bush and that is simply because McCain has said to; also I live in the Senators state and have seen a lot of him. I appreciate and respect your first hand experience but thankfully that is not the only way to become aware, to be educated. Lastly realize that I don't just condemn Bush or even just his administration, even though I feel there is enough evidence to label them as the worst in history. The Republican Congress backed and supported him in everything and are just as guilty; it couldn't have been done without them. The Democrats aren't saints and it is a shame that we really don't have many in politics now. What I see that gives me no choice is that we desperately need change and Barack seems the only one offering it. Good luck guy and enjoy your blogging. Semper Fi

  • Posted By: Concerned Ctzn @ 07/09/2008 8:37:58 PM

    ***** ATTENTION ALL DEMS & REPUBS *******

    Are there ANY current or former military soldiers that frequent these blogs that truly support Obama?

    If so, please let us know. There are some folks (primarily Dems) here that claim they have family or friends in the military that support BO's Iraq policy of cut 'n' run.

    Give us the truth please! Thanks!!

  • Posted By: Johndavidprince @ 07/09/2008 8:00:40 PM

    If I vote against a, ???use of force??? bill, it still passes Congress, the President then mistakenly presumes or interprets it as a, ???Declaration of War,??? and then acts as if it were, where is a flip-flop on my part if only after one year reconstruction has not even began? I would have, even though I voiced a No Vote, had in 2004 wanted troops to stay in Iraq to fix the initial damage done by the War. Lets say 4 to 5 years go by and it becomes apparent that the Police Action, now called a War, is out of control costing a trillion dollars of tax payer funds, while profiteering and fraud run wild, and the world hits an all time record amount of terror attacks. This is only the tip of the poison spear that is the Iraq policy. Knowing all the scandals surrounding the newly released information surrounding the White House and the footing for what they call a War; how, even if back in 2004 I supported keeping troops in Iraq in order for a governmental system could solidify, would I continue to support keeping the military there in 2008? We know a lot more now than back in 2004. It was not until Jan. 30th 2005 when Iraq had their first Democratic Vote (they voted for a Theocracy) Even people who voted No on Iraq and today want all the troops out supported keeping them there until Iraq had the election. Obama has not committed a flip-flop in any way on Iraq. Four years after that vote our troops are still there. Why would any person with a memory of the past years spent in Iraq support remaining one day longer? Obama was right to vote No, he was right to not want to withdraw before the election of 2005 and he is correct to want to pull out the military within 16 months.

  • Posted By: HolyRoller @ 07/09/2008 7:32:19 PM

    Hussein Obama...the candidate for CHANGE....I'll give him credit. He sure Changes a lot..........

    Last fall, Obama's spokesman, Bill Burton was unambiguous. "To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."

    So how did he filabuster today??? He voted YES. Crook and a Fraud.

    NOBAMA!!!

  • Posted By: Driver of wagons @ 07/09/2008 5:45:21 PM



    You'd think with all the media consternation with the non-existent "flip flop" of Obama on Iraq (you know, the one where he didn't change his position at all), reporters would be blowing their stack at the true flip flop from John McCain on Iraq.

    Late yesterday, Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki said it's time for the US to leave, or set a timetable to leave.

    There you have it. The Iraqis are basically telling the US that they endorse Obama's policy -- they want us to set a timetable to bring the troops home. John McCain in 2004 said we'd respect such a request, telling the Council on Foreign Relations:

    Well, if that scenario evolves than I think it's obvious that we would have to leave because -- if it was an elected government of Iraq, and we've been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government then I think we would have other challenges, but I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.
    I just checked the McCain campaign website, and so far, he hasn't announced today that he will respect the sovereign government of Iraq, and adjust his Iraq policy to include a timeline for bringing troops home.

    According to theWashington Post:

    "McCain was silent on the comments Monday."

    but his top foreign policy advisor said:

    "Senator McCain has always said that conditions on the ground -- including the security threats posed by extremists and terrorists, and the ability of Iraqi forces to meet those threats -- would be key determinants in U.S. force levels."

    That, my friends (as Senator McCain would say), is a flip flop. It is a major policy reversal. Saying "conditions on the ground" will determine when you start to bring troops home is an indefinite commitment, not a timeline with a goal for redeployment. And, McCain's lack of consistency or clarity of vision on Iraq is trickling down.

    This is not the way to formulate policy on Iraq, and if in the White House, this kind of waffling on the major issue of our time from McCain would have disastrous consequences. When you send a signal to a foreign nation that you will leave their land when asked, you better do it, when asked. If not, you only bolster the notion that you are an occupier, and the idea that the only way to get rid of us is with deadly force.

    John McCain's silence on the issue is severely troubling -- it's as if he doesn't know what to do now. His advisor saying McCain will stick to his guns -- Iraqi wishes be damned -- is a flip flop from his previous position. Combined, it is a very bleak and discouraging view of what a McCain administration would look like on what is, supposedly, his biggest strength. This proves (along with many other gaffes) this is not his strong point it actaully is his weakest.


  • Posted By: Nins @ 07/07/2008 7:20:33 PM

    Did you know that if McCain is elected you will have to pay income tax on the value of the medical insurance that your employer gives you? Worse still, he is offering a tax break for people who pay their own insurance, BUT only $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families.

    Let's say you have a family of four. Your insurance policy costs would be at least $1,500-2,500 per month under a self-pay plan, which cost more than employer group plans. So, you pay $18,000 -$30,000 per year for insurance, and you get to deduct only $5,000 of that. If you paid $25,000 for you insurance, you would be out of pocket $20,000 per year. This is FAR WORSE than the current system, where if you are self employed you can deduct 100% of you medical insurance costs.

    So, if you're not self employed, you would stick with your Employer's plan. Employer plans for a family of four have a value of $900-$1,500 per month totaling 10,800-$18,000 per year. Surprise! On April 15th, you owe tax on all of that as INCOME to you. Say your bracket is 25%, and the value of your Employer medical plan is $14,000. You will OWE THE IRS an additional $3,500, and that's ON TOP of whatever monthly premium you already pay to your employer for your insurance.

    Many analysts say that McCain's new rules would encourage employers to stop offering health benefits. If that happened, then far fewer Americans would be insured than are insured today, because what family of four can afford $18,000-$30,000 out of pocket per year for self-pay health insurance?

    Furthermore, McCain's plan does not require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions of people who self-pay their insurance. People under employer group plans have all of their pre-existing conditions covered. This is a hugely unfair aspect of the current system. Insurance companies can afford to cover the pre-existing conditions of the much larger pool of people with group insurance, but they refuse to pay the pre-existing conditions on the smaller pool of self-pay customers. They have been allowed to price gouge the self-pay customers, which is a form of market manipulation that should be illegal.

    So let's say one of your kids had diabetes and you have high blood pressure, then your employer stops offering insurance. You now have to buy your own, but you and your child are INELIGIBLE due to pre-existing conditions. Oh, yeah, they will let you buy the insurance, but you can't use it for any pre-existing condition until you have paid on time every month for two years. And you know what happens at one year and 11 months? You get a letter saying your policy has been cancelled. I have many patients this has happened to.

    McCain's plan SUCKS.

    It does nothing to help middle class working Americans afford or obtain medical insurance. In fact, it makes the current system WORSE.

    http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/29/mccain_unveils_health_care_pla.html?nav=rss_email/components

    • Posted By: RetiredMarine @ 07/07/2008 8:01:03 PM

      Because I am currently a liscensed benefits advisor dealing with Major Medical Insurance and Medicare Insurance from several companies, I have a few comments on your points:
      1. If your employer currently gives you money for medical insurance - you pay taxes on it. If your employer "reimburses" you for your insurance (after you pay it), that is not taxed. This is the system now, not something McCain has cooked up.
      2. I enroll families of 4-6 in medical plans ranging from $250 to $550 per month average. Some have more expensive plans based on age and preexisting conditions. Again has nothing to do with the President and everything to do with the insurance companies.
      3. Employer (group) plans are NOT taxed. If you have one taxed, then someone somewhere is screwing you over. (Again - not the president)
      4. These analysists you mention must not be in the insurance industry based on the quotes you are giving. Sounds more like someone with a political agenda spreading more lies and fears.
      5. It isn't the president, it is the state insurance commission that decides if preexisting conditions HAVE to be covered. There are only a few states that require insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions and those cost significantly more. Everyone is sharing the burdon of helping to pay for someone elses condition. This is NOT McCain, this is in effect now and has been for quite a long time.
      6. If you are going from group insurance to private insurance and have a child with Diabetes, you have spent X amount of years paying less for it to begin with thanks to your employer's contribution. In such a case you have COBRA. After 18 months on Cobra you fall under HIPPA eligibility for guaranteed coverage. So to say you would have someone uninsurable is false.
      7. Medical patients you are dealing with probably are not telling you the whole story if their insurance was cancelled. There are more likely many other reasons for a cancellation - such as failure to pay premiums - which your patients aren't telling you
      8. The President doesn't decide the insurance rules anyway. If he did, insurance would change every few years with each election - making a bigger mess.
      9. In my experience, Americans can afford health insurance if they want it. Problem is people focus on other "leisure" priorities then complain that they have nothing left for insurance.
      Universal health care would be even worse. The Gov't did a crappy job with Medicare and now we expect them to handle all health care? I sure hope it never comes to that!

      • Posted By: Nins @ 07/09/2008 2:01:57 AM

        Dear Retired,

        In reference to you points (1) and (3): What you don't understand is that McCain WANTS TO TAX EMPLOYER GROUP PLANS. Whatever you employer spends to insure you will be taxed as if it was you income. This is totally different from current tax law. NOT money they give you so can can buy your own insurance with it, but money they spend to insure you, money that you never see.

        In reference to points (2) and (4) of your blog: I don't know what state you are in or if maybe you are helping people to get public assistance or Medicare, but if you can privately insure a family of four for $250 a month I want in on it. You may not know that prices of premiums vary widely from state to state. The same Blue Cross individual plan that costs $212 per month in Hawaii will cost $562 a month in New Jersey. This is because the states set the rules of how much an insurer can charge, and rules are extremely different in different states.

        Also in reference to (4), the analysts are varied, some are partisan and some non-partisan. I try to read all points of view. The premium prices are averages based on policy costs across the USA for self pay HMO individual plans (not employer group plans).

        Your number (5) is EXACTLY the point. The rules governing health care prices should be national, not on a state by state basis, and if you are a member of a plan that exists in more than one state (like Blue Cross) you should be able to keep your plan when you move to another state. BOTH Obama and McCain are trying to level the playing field by nationalizing the rules.

        (6) COBRA runs out after a few months. It only exists to allow you time to find a new policy. And it is not cheap.

        (7) It is sad but true that people lose their insurance ALL THE TIME without cause. It is not because they don't pay. Read the fine print on your policy. The insurance company has the right to cancel your policy at any time, for any reason, or even for no reason.

        (8) See number (5) again. The President him- or her- self does not create insurance law. But the President defines policy, and sends that policy to Congress for a vote of approval. If they approve, the policy becomes law.

        (9) Most middle class families people do not spend $2,500 a month on leisure activities and therefore burn up the money they could have bought insurance with. Few people with kids would be so imprudent (except maybe the druggies).

        I appreciate your comments, Retired Marine, but you need to realize that the point of my blog is that McCain's medical insurance plan includes provisions to tax people on the money their employers pay out for their health insurance.

        • Posted By: Driver of wagons @ 07/09/2008 5:18:35 PM



          Thanks Nins for the good work

      • Posted By: NewsWkDickG @ 07/07/2008 9:28:01 PM

        It is hard to imagine that anyone wouldn???t see that the current status of things is not very good and that to a very large extent that the problems are the direct result of the focus of the Bush-Cheney administration with the strong, belligerent backing of the Republican Party. To deny/defend/ignore all of that is ridiculous and would simply constitute a refusal to admit/face reality and be evidence of having a closed/biased mentality that would be useless to argue with. Their total concentration on benefiting Special Interests and a select few, including themselves, while giving the majority apathy, subterfuge and the costs is totally evident in everything done, now requiring drastic change in order to turn things around. Much is offered to rationalize and camouflage everything but to get into debating each individual issue is a distraction that serves only to confuse, likely being their real intent.

        DECISION 08:
        __________________
        MORE OF THE SAME
        or
        CHANCE FOR CHANGE,
        your choice!
        ____________________
        (that is all there is, the rest is BS)

        • Posted By: RetiredMarine @ 07/08/2008 9:43:53 AM

          Once again you attempt to sound superior in an attempt to make people think you know what you are talking about. The current insurance situation has been around for quite some time, yet you would make people think somehow that Bush-Cheney were responsible for those who "can't afford" insurance. I at least mentioned FACTS based on experience and knowledge that comes from actually being licensed and operating in the field. You address no specific point, and simply state that we refuse to face reality. Well, Dave, you are failing to face reality because you speak of that which you know nothing in an attempt to steer people from the truth. Perhaps if you would stick to facts as they are instead of trying to "rationalize" and appeal to people's emotions, then you finally could claim to be fair and unbiased. Until then, it sounds more as if you are an Obama plant, intent on distorting the facts. If I am wrong about that, I do appologize, but your posts are a bit remeniscent of Obama speaches.... (eloquent and full of meaningless babble meant to make people "feel" good about what you are saying.)

          Have been through a great deal of experiences from combat to military recruiting and now insurance industry. Have been in a lot of people's homes both recruiting for the military and enrolling people in insurance. In both cases I have seen people on welfare - living off the dole of the public - who often are better off than most middle class. (i.e. large screen TV's, Nice Cars, etc...). Yet, they fail to have insurance. My wife works at a medical clinic and sees exactly why you and I pay more for insurance. People without will come in, get treated and fail to pay their bill. In turn, the Dr's charge more for everyone to make up for their losses. That trickles down to insurance companies who again pay more out, and the consumer ends up with larger premiums. That has NOTHING to do with the President (whether democrat or republican). Yet, extreme liberals will always use the insurance as a political tool to make their candidate look better. My only hope is that the public in general sees through the BS and uses their own intelligence.

          COBRA for people coming off employer plans, it is expensive (they are taking upon themselves the portion the employer was paying), then after 18 months they can get into a plan under HIPPA eligibility rules - usually a much less expensive plan. Without waiting 18 months under COBRA, they can normally enroll in a regular major medical plan (usually less expensive but people get used to the group coverage and feel they are being cheated somehow). It is perception. At any rate, most people can get into a plan, but several want everything for nothing so they don't. (Again - freedom of choice so they can't really complain if they made the decision)

          • Posted By: NewsWkDickG @ 07/08/2008 12:52:36 PM

            Again cute and well stated but as I said before that doesn't make it right. You criticize without the discipline of having your own writings true to the standard you try to set. I agree with your 'hope that the public in general sees through the BS and uses their own intelligence', hopefully objectively and not as happened in 2000 & 2004. By the way this is from an ex-Republican and an ex-Marine, not that it matters.

            • Posted By: RetiredMarine @ 07/08/2008 5:42:55 PM

              Actually the points I just made above come from education, facts and first hand experience. So please tell me where I was not being "truthfull". If you will accuse me of being dishonest, at least have the integrity to tell me where and why.

              • Posted By: NewsWkDickG @ 07/08/2008 6:18:00 PM

                Read the comments and stop being selective in what you decide is worth noting. It is all there and ignoring it doesn't make it otherwise. Cute but what the hell, Semper Fi

                • Posted By: RetiredMarine @ 07/08/2008 9:20:31 PM

                  I have read the comments. All your comments are speculations and rhetoric. I am trying to figure out where they come from, but you never state facts or sources - you respond "read the posts". That isn't an answer my friend

      • Posted By: loriw @ 07/08/2008 2:19:38 AM

        As always RetiredMarine you make some very good points. I can especially agree with point #9. I see that frequently with the younger generation that feels that the latest and greatest electronic gadget or gaming device is a necessity but health insurance is not.
        I do have to say that most people cannot afford Cobra insurance, it is outrageously expensive because i believe you pay not just the employee part but the employer's portion also. I didn't kknow that HIPPA covered guaranteed coverage for insurance , I thought it only had to do with Protecting privacy of medical information.

      • Posted By: Concerned Ctzn @ 07/07/2008 8:33:30 PM

        Thank you sir (RetiredMarine)! Thanks for your insight and clarification on the matter! As usual, I also threw in my two-bits under Nins' double post down below.

  • Posted By: Nins @ 07/09/2008 1:41:22 AM

    Obama has always been a moderate Democrat. He has some liberal ideas and some conservative ones, but overall he is a centrist. Read his book Audacity of Hope (written more than four years ago) and you will see that he is saying the exact same things today that he was saying then.

    The liberal media and the radical right have both wanted to paint Obama as a leftist liberal, each for their own reasons. They each were guilty of creating an image of Obama that simply is not accurate. Now, they are both screaming, the liberals saying "He's going centrist and abandoning the liberals!" and the right wingers saying "He's flip flopping by going moderate!"

    Both factions are wrong. Obama has not changed. Obama himself referred to this problem last fall, when he said that people were going to project all kinds of ideas onto him, and that some of them were going to be disappointed, because he can only be who he is.

    Obama is a moderate Democrat. Always was a moderate Democrat. End of story.

    • Posted By: Concerned Ctzn @ 07/09/2008 10:38:39 AM

      Uhh, umm, err, wella, hmmm ... I think he's a centrist. That's what he is today anyway.

    • Posted By: sharenews @ 07/09/2008 2:04:41 AM

      NATIONAL JOURNAL???s
      2007 Vote Ratings
      Obama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007
      By Brian Friel, Richard E. Cohen and Kirk Victor, National Journal
      © National Journal Group Inc.
      Thursday, Jan. 31, 2008

      Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the MOST LIBERAL senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate.

      http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/



      OBAMAs IS A LIBERAL

      Obama has a progressive record as a community organizer, state senator and candidate for Congress. He has alliances with LEFT-WING intellectuals in Chicago's Hyde Park community (we all know who they are) and he has a liberal voting record such as on criminal defendants rights.

      http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/clinton_obamas_too_liberal.php

      • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 07/09/2008 10:32:53 AM

        Sharenews, all this stuff you waste your time on is BS and I don't care where you got it from. Obama is a moderate! Sorry, share, I didn't mean to be rude.

  • Posted By: datzamore@aol.com @ 07/08/2008 10:40:01 PM

    The issue of flip-flopping will pale in comparison with Obama's connections. Around most of America, east coast, west coast and midwest....this man is being viewed as a phony with a nice smile. The issue of Obama's "close 20 year relationship" with a bigot named Reverand Wright is being discussed at the water cooler by White, Asian and Jewish Americans every day more and more. And the good reverand's "close relationship" with one of America's biggest racists, Louis Farrakhan, who was given a lifetime achievement award. (wow). Birds of a Feather....and most of America is starting to figure it out. Especially Hillary fans and Jewish voters. Remember, this is the same nation that re-elected a very unpopular George Bush only 3 1/2 years ago during an unpopular war. - And now....46-44....the Obama Fever Gap is wearing off fast. - John McCain will win this election.

  • Posted By: sharenews @ 07/08/2008 4:44:21 PM

    Gallup Daily: July 8, 2008

    Obama 46%

    McCain 44%

    The nations registered voters remain closely divided in their presidential preferences, with 46% of those interviewed in Gallup Poll Daily tracking from July 5-7 saying they will vote for Democrat Barack Obama and 44% favoring Republican John McCain.

    more: http://www.gallup.com/poll/108700/Gallup-Daily-Obama-46-McCain-44.aspx

    Wow, what happened here? Obama had a 6 point lead a few days ago last I looked. CNN just had a story on this saying that the flip-flopping tag is starting to stick and promotion of it is only going to get worse.

    • Posted By: Wisconsin Voter @ 07/08/2008 5:29:27 PM

      Republicans selling half the story again. The truth is the Gallup poll has been the most conservative (not politically) and has shown a tight race off and on. It's not that Obama is loosing, but that the poll has a mild change from time to time in a tight poll.


      TELL THE WHOLE TRUTH SHARENEWS!

      • Posted By: Wisconsin Voter @ 07/08/2008 5:35:52 PM

        You will note that McWar lost a point in another poll. Since your looking at daily polls.

        http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/general_election_match_up_history

        • Posted By: sharenews @ 07/08/2008 7:00:39 PM

          Yes, it depends on which poll you want to go by as some are calculated differently than others. But really, considering McCain is supposed to be a McBush, I cant get over the spread is not double digit in Obamas favor. Guess time will tell. : - )

          • Posted By: Wisconsin Voter @ 07/08/2008 8:32:56 PM

            So now your flip-flopping. You started trying to basically say that Obama is loosing his lead, but after I called you on it you are now trying to say that you expected more of a bounce..

            So either he is loosing his lead or he didn't get the bounce you expected. If Obama did this you would be calling it a flip-flop.

  • Posted By: Kboogie @ 07/06/2008 7:21:40 PM

    WOW!!! Still no changes, huh? I would think polling after the most patriotic of America's patriotic celebrations would have given McCain a certain boost.

    "Democratic candidate Barack Obama continues to maintain a slim margin over Republican John McCain, 48% to 42%, according to Gallup Poll Daily tracking conducted July 2-3 and July 5. Today's three-day rolling average is based on interviewing conducted in the two days before the July 4 holiday, July 2-3, and Saturday, July 5."

    Sunday, July 06, 2008
    The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows Barack Obama attracting 47% of the vote while John McCain earns 40%. When "leaners" are included, Obama leads 49% to 44%.

    RCP Average = 5.8+OBAMA

    Electoral College: 238 OBAMA to 163 McCain

    Seems that McCain doesn't own the "patriotism" label as he'd hoped........

    • Posted By: HolyRoller @ 07/06/2008 8:30:21 PM

      KB....when it comes to the polls, you are the, go to guy. Your numbers are directly quoted, and always reliable. Good job, and usually good posts. Well I admit, you always have good posts.

      You do have a problem with your info, though. It is missing a valuable piece of information. It's missing the most accurate and reliable poll. The poll that's, the mother of all polls. The HolyRoller Poll. You left it out. It's America's voice, poll. The Inside Edition poll. The real deal poll. Not to worry though. Since you didn't mention it, I'll help you out, and post its most recent findings.

      LIKELY Voters..........American Hero John McCain- 67% Mohammed Messiah, B. Hussein Obama-29%

      Most trustworthy...... American Hero John McCain-91% Tony Rezko's Buddy, B. Hussein Obama- 9%

      Want to drill in the U.S. for oil, NOW??........Yes-94% No-6% (there's always a few idiots, incl. in the poll)

      Believe Jeremiah Wright's spiritual disciple, B. Hussein Obama is a Crook and a Fraud???......Yes100% No-0% (even the idiots knew that)

      K.B., I'm sure your grateful for the info, but think nothing of it. I enjoy helping others, in times of need. So take care. Hope you had a great 4th. And feel free to call on me for help, anytime.

      NOBAMA!!!




      i

      • Posted By: NewsWkDickG @ 07/07/2008 1:11:34 PM

        HollyRoller cut the BS, you go on and on without class, meaning, honesty or pertinence. Do you really think people are that easily swayed. I know, the Republicans did it in 2000 & 2004. Hopefully not this time, even with your help.

        • Posted By: Concerned Ctzn @ 07/07/2008 8:17:03 PM

          NewsWkDickG, you just don't get it. Do you? Bottom line is the Democrats are using the same ol' sorry "FEAR TACTICS" that the Repubs used in 2000 and 2004 to slip into the W.H. Dems just use a different type of fear tactics (i.e, the skies falling because of the last 8 years of NeoConvict rule!)

          So please explain to me why or how Dems are any better than Repubs when it comes to the FEAR CARD? Please enlighten me!!!!

          • Posted By: NewsWkDickG @ 07/07/2008 10:09:34 PM

            One real big difference is that we can hope there will be more honesty and a concentration on benefiting all of the people and not just Special Interests and a select few (including the politicians themselves). There are no guarantees with Obama, only a chance for change, but the guarantees with McCain are for more of the same ... and we are just coming out of eight years with the worst presidency this country has ever known. And that comes from an ex-Republican now Independent.

            • Posted By: RetiredMarine @ 07/08/2008 9:34:31 PM

              You can hope for honest, but as history shows (as well as recent campaign history) you aren't going to get that with Obama either. Hope without a plan is a wish. Wish in one hand and crap in the other and tell me which one fills up first. Hope and Change is nothing more than a play on emotions to win an election. Same tactic used for a very long time.

  • Posted By: rocketman3.5 @ 07/06/2008 11:50:33 PM

    only a fool would vote for a fool like obama, sad thing is theres a lot of fools and idiots in the world.

    • Posted By: Wisconsin Voter @ 07/07/2008 1:36:45 AM

      Um McWar is the fool who wants us in a war that we should not be in.

      McWar is the one that expects us to believe the BS express about drilling.. Ya big oil is going to willingly lower their prices.

      McWar is the one who needs a terrorist attack to help his odds.

      I say McWar can have my flag pin and I'll even tell him where to stick it!

      • Posted By: RetiredMarine @ 07/07/2008 8:58:18 AM

        So you make your decisions based on ONE issue? Most democrats in congress voted along side the republicans in congress to go to war. Like it or not, we are there. The consequences of our future actions affects not only us, but the people in Iraq. We can finish (whether we agree with the war or not), or we can cut tail and run and leave a vacuume for another dictatorship to emerge. I am sure if it were you and your family facing the same situation, you might appreciate the "outsiders" being in there for a time.

        At any rate, there are many more issues than the tired and lame "War" excuse. If you base your decisions solely on one issue while ignoring the others, that places you as a fool

        • Posted By: NewsWkDickG @ 07/07/2008 1:04:00 PM

          You neglect so much in your appeal. Relying on one issue is how the Republicans got elected when appealing to peoples individual emotions, fears, biases and prejudices using exaggeration, deception, lies and corrupted others while avoiding the issues. Know I say that as an ex-long-time-registered-Republican. And talk about responsibility, the Bush Admin has neglected their responsibility to the majority of Americans on all issues, including the war, providing apathy, subterfuge and the costs to most as they concentrated on providing benefit to Special Interests and a few, including themselves in the long term. And lets not minimize the War on Iraq which was executed for those same selfish reasons, neglecting the real War on Terror, being falsely justified and ignoring that Iraq and Iran countered and kept each other under control - talk about leaving a vacuum. Besides there is still plenty of reason to question whether we will ever leave Iraq as a stable, Democratic, allied country - talk about wasting and continuing to, our fighting forces.
          Semper Fi

          • Posted By: Concerned Ctzn @ 07/07/2008 7:53:07 PM

            Hey NewsWkDickG,

            I got one thing to say to you: Didn't your parents teach you that TWO WRONGS, NEVER MAKE A RIGHT?

            I too believe that W & Co. got us into a real mess. But like Retiremarine so eloquently pointed out to you, regardless of who's to blame:

            We could either cut ???n??? run (talk about chaos!)

            OR

            The next Pres. can do his best to mop up the mess and restore at least some order back into that region. I know! It's gonna be quite a feat! But let's let John McCain and our brave soldiers do their job! God bless them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            • Posted By: NewsWkDickG @ 07/07/2008 10:01:51 PM

              It is not cutting and running to bring an end to 4000+ US servicemen being killed, 25000+ being injured, 100s of US dollars being spent in an unending conflict that was falsely justified, benefits only Special Interests and a select few, that we have been constantly lied to about, that took effort away from the real War on Terror (that we are going to have to go back to in Afghanistan) and that quite possibly may never produce a stable, Democratic ally. Do our service people a justice and get them out of a effort that is only serving politicians interests.

              • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 07/07/2008 10:16:53 PM

                Excellent comments!

                • Posted By: RetiredMarine @ 07/08/2008 12:06:18 PM

                  Do our service people justice by actually listening to them rather than the media machine with their own political agenda. Most service people who have served do not want to cut and run as this would negate the sacrifices already made and actually make our efforts meaningless and wasteful.

                  The 4000+ serivecemen are already dead. Cutting and running wil not bring them back. Nor will cutting and running do service to their sacrifice. That would be spitting on their sacrifice as well as on the 4000+ lives lost due to terrorist attacks before the war. Have you been to Iraq? You say we are being lied to, yet as usual site no clear examples. This fear and emotion tactic is typical. For your information, the surge has been working. Iraqi government is starting to take charge (in fact they have been developing a time table for US withdrawal of troops). Many liberals don't want to hear this because it deflates any arguements. However, please sho me any war lasting this long that less lives were lost. In this request I am NOT minimizing lost lives, but rather trying to show a perspective in midst of the exagerrated statistics being thrown out at us. If you honestly think that the war on terror is limited to Afghanistan, then you are very nieve. Terrorists are worldwide - if they were in one place, the would easily be destroyed.

                  • Posted By: NewsWkDickG @ 07/08/2008 5:25:46 PM

                    Talk about rationalizing, the terrorists are not just in one location (Afghanistan) but it would be hard to counter that we would have been far better off finishing the job there and not being sidetracked into Iraq which now brings Iraq to the forefront and still requires significant effort in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The costs weren't suppose to be this high and the justification was suppose to be real and it was suppose to be quick and the results are still questionable - bring the troops home for their sake and the country's.

                    • Posted By: RetiredMarine @ 07/08/2008 9:32:06 PM

                      Sounds like a repeat of vietnam. Lets bring the troops home, don't let them finish or win....

          • Posted By: RetiredMarine @ 07/07/2008 8:28:11 PM

            and again, you posted a one sided arguement. BOTH democrats and republicans use the very same tactics you mention. But, democrats always use the excuse to blame the republicans for the very tactics they use.

            We need to get the paty politics out of there and focus on issues and our country priorities rather than getting one person elected by attempting to descredit him through party fear practices

            Both parties have problems. That isn't the issue

            • Posted By: NewsWkDickG @ 07/07/2008 9:25:24 PM

              The last eight years have been extremely one sided, to say otherwise is totally irresponsible and deceiving. It is hard to imagine that anyone wouldn???t see that the current status of things is not very good and that to a very large extent that the problems are the direct result of the focus of the Bush-Cheney administration with the strong, belligerent backing of the Republican Party. To deny/defend/ignore all of that is ridiculous and would simply constitute a refusal to admit/face reality and be evidence of having a closed/biased mentality that would be useless to argue with. Their total concentration on benefiting Special Interests and a select few, including themselves, while giving the majority apathy, subterfuge and the costs is totally evident in everything done, now requiring drastic change in order to turn things around. Much is offered to rationalize and camouflage everything but to get into debating each individual issue is a distraction that serves only to confuse, likely being their real intent.

              DECISION 08:
              __________________
              MORE OF THE SAME
              or
              CHANCE FOR CHANGE,
              your choice!
              ____________________
              (that is all there is, the rest is BS)

              • Posted By: RetiredMarine @ 07/08/2008 11:36:14 AM

                Now you are again being dishonest and playing on emotions. The past 8 years we have seen congress battle with the president at every turn since his accepting office. Yes, one sided does accurately describe the problem. Except that the problem lies on congress. We are quick to use the president as a scapegoat for failure on congress' part to get anything done. If they would stick to representing us and leave the special interest pork out of the equation, life would be better for all. If you want to place blame on the past 8 years, place it where it belongs - at least try to be honest and fair. Like him or not, at least our homes haven't been attacked after he took action. That kind of tells you something.

        • Posted By: NewsWkDickG @ 07/07/2008 1:17:54 PM

          Forgot to mention that you neglect to consider that because of what Bush-Cheney have (dishonestly) done our troops are desperately still needed in and will likely have to go back to Afghanistan to finish what they should have, instead of attacking Iraq to benefit Special Interests and a select few.
          Again, the truth - Semper Fi

  • Posted By: Nins @ 07/07/2008 12:57:24 PM

    Did you know that if McCain is elected you will have to pay income tax on the value of the medical insurance that your employer gives you? Worse still, he is offering a tax break for people who pay their own insurance, BUT only $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families.

    Let's say you have a family of four. Your insurance policy costs would be at least $1,500-2,500 per month under a self-pay plan, which cost more than employer group plans. So, you pay $18,000 -$30,000 per year for insurance, and you get to deduct only $5,000 of that. If you paid $25,000 for you insurance, you would be out of pocket $20,000 per year. This is FAR WORSE than the current system, where if you are self employed you can deduct 100% of you medical insurance costs.

    So, if you're not self employed, you would stick with your Employer's plan. Employer plans for a family of four have a value of $900-$1,500 per month totaling 10,800-$18,000 per year. Surprise! On April 15th, you owe tax on all of that as INCOME to you. Say your bracket is 25%, and the value of your Employer medical plan is $14,000. You will OWE THE IRS an additional $3,500, and that's ON TOP of whatever monthly premium you already pay to your employer for your insurance.

    Many analysts say that McCain's new rules would encourage employers to stop offering health benefits. If that happened, then far fewer Americans would be insured than are insured today, because what family of four can afford $18,000-$30,000 out of pocket per year for self-pay health insurance?

    Furthermore, McCain's plan does not require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions of people who self-pay their insurance. People under employer group plans have all of their pre-existing conditions covered. This is a hugely unfair aspect of the current system. Insurance companies can afford to cover the pre-existing conditions of the much larger pool of people with group insurance, but they refuse to pay the pre-existing conditions on the smaller pool of self-pay customers. They have been allowed to price gouge the self-pay customers, which is a form of market manipulation that should be illegal.

    So let's say one of your kids had diabetes and you have high blood pressure, then your employer stops offering insurance. You now have to buy your own, but you and your child are INELIGIBLE due to pre-existing conditions. Oh, yeah, they will let you buy the insurance, but you can't use it for any pre-existing condition until you have paid on time every month for two years. And you know what happens at one year and 11 months? You get a letter saying your policy has been cancelled. I have many patients this has happened to.

    McCain's plan SUCKS.

    It does nothing to help middle class working Americans afford or obtain medical insurance. In fact, it makes the current system WORSE.

    http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/29/mccain_unveils_health_care_pla.html?nav=rss_email/components

    • Posted By: Concerned Ctzn @ 07/07/2008 7:39:07 PM

      Nins,

      For the first time in a long time, I actually agree with you on something. I DON'T LIKE JOHN'S PLAN EITHER!

      BUT WHAT'S BO'S PLAN?

      Allow W's tax cuts to expire???which of course is a tax increase for all no matter how you slice it???along with other sneaky tax increases to pay for a socialistic BamaCare. No thank you! The old ploy of robbing Peter to pay Paul just doesn't cut it with me anymore. I see right through that kinda of BS now. I don't care if it's a Rebub or a Dem asking me to raise my taxes???I SAY NO EVERY TIME NOW! Why should I (a member of the humble middle-class) have to pay for all of congresses financial mistakes? When I screw up my bank account (check book), nobody comes to my aid to bail me out. We all pay our fair share of taxes to keep this country up and running. So again! Why should any of us feel that it's somehow our duty or obligation to fork out more of our hard earned money to bailout the govmt? Like me and the family, Big Bro it's time for you to tighten your belt! No more easy tax dollars coming from me???not if I have a vote on it anyway.

      Back to our broken healthcare system: Instead of increasing taxes, which John's plan does as well, to pay for a Band-Aid solution to our current healthcare system, let's start looking at the bigger picture. I told my kids since they were in grade school: YOU BETTER GO TO COLLEGE AND GET A GOOD DEGREE in a field that's in high demand, otherwise be ready to face the ugly consequences later on. Simply put:

      GOOD EDUCATION / DEGREE (in a hot field) = GOOD PAYING JOB and ultimately good healthcare bennies.

      I've always told or taught my kids, long before they all went off to college, don't ever depend on the government or anyone else for that matter to put food on your table, a roof over your head and provide you with all the other necessities of life (incl healthcare). You are ultimately in charge of your own destiny! Bottom line: Get a good education and everything else will ultimately fall into place. PERIOD!

      Let's all stop talking about free healthcare for all and let's start-up a more responsible dialogue like you get what you work for.

      God Bless the Good ol' US of A!!!

      • Posted By: RetiredMarine @ 07/07/2008 8:16:13 PM

        I fully agree with you that it is our individual responsibility to take care of ourselves. It was never the governments role to take care of us. Problem is that several in our society do not want to take responsibility for themselves and want the government to tell them what they can do, when they can do it and how they can do it.

        • Posted By: NewsWkDickG @ 07/07/2008 9:54:43 PM

          Lets be serious; it isn't about government taking care of everyone, it is about government being honest and not just taking care of a few insiders and themselves. You talk about being fair, then don't fault people for getting upset with an unfair, dishonest, self-serving administration that neglects their responsibilities.

          • Posted By: RetiredMarine @ 07/08/2008 11:32:33 AM

            You throw out accusations of unfair treatment. Please be kind enough to site real examples rather than rhetoric.

            • Posted By: NewsWkDickG @ 07/08/2008 5:16:08 PM

              You can start with tax cuts weighted heavily to favor the wealthy, proposed 'private accounts' for Social Security that would cause the systems demise, the Katrina fiasco, stating Global Warming isn't a problem, the administration's release of the CIA's identity, stating bringing back American drugs into the US would be unsafe, causing the squelching of the Wiretapping Without Court Order during a election year but saying it was for national security reasons, trade agreements that encourage the exportation of American jobs and taxes,,,, on and on, simply unending as always favoring Special Interests and a select few while neglecting and giving only subterfuge to the average American.

              • Posted By: RetiredMarine @ 07/08/2008 9:30:18 PM

                Well, last time I checked, everyone got a tax cut, even the poorest amoung us. Everyone seemed to get a rebate check (even those who didn't pay taxes), so that rhetoric about only the rich getting a tax break is as tired as it id deceptive and entirely false - meant to play on peoples emotions.
                The actual proposed allowing people to take care of their own investments as part of their social security retirement actually was a good idea. The system is broken. We all put money into it, yet it has been so mismanaged by an inept government that it is dwindling. At least his proposal put the power in your own hands to work towards your retirement. Of course that meant people actually taking and accepting responsibility for themselves - something most liberals don't think we are capable of doing. Not up on the CIA release of names (which is a bad choice). Wiretapping for National Security has been going on for quite some time. To believe otherwise is nievety. Special interest groups have been keeping America from advancement. (i.e. your environmentalist who fight to stop our production of energy). The list goes on and on... Many of your points are partial facts that have been twisted and distorted by party politics for their own purposes but are far from honest integrity.

        • Posted By: loriw @ 07/08/2008 2:36:14 AM

          I have said over and over again that we in this country do not have a shortage of health care but a shortage of HEALTH. Talk about personal responsibility...people in this country want to smoke, drink, do illegal drugs, have unprotected sex with multiple partners, supersize everything they eat etc....then they want their doctor to throw a whole lot of health care at them and "fix" all their health problems for them with out any real effort on their part. We need more preventative health care practices and more personal responsibility for preserving one's health.

  • Posted By: NewsWkDickG @ 07/08/2008 4:53:53 PM

    (continued from above)
    As just one example take the often rationalized Iraq War which was falsely justified, misleadingly reported and now, offered as necessary to be maintained indefinitely. This last point is emphasized as being necessary for the honor of our troops, to allow for success and to defend against terrorism. All of that neglects that we are only there, after attacking was dishonestly justified, for the benefit of Special Interests and a select few and to satisfy GWBush???s ego with his legacy then being he was the president that brought Democracy to the region. Don???t believe that, then consider that the real problem was in Afghanistan (but without oil) and defeating Iraq took away the real countering factor of Iran (bad mistake). Facts that are neglected are 4000+ US service men have died, 25000+ have been injured, $100s of billions US dollars have been spent, it is the effort of a farce coalition with America paying 95+% in lives and dollars, the Iraqi oil was suppose to pay for the war and the rebuilding effort, the Iraqis are fighting Iraqis while their government squabbles over every detail for sectarian advantage, it now is likely a civil war of questionable duration and for questionable results, our military is stressed with our service people asked to do more than what is reasonable, our people have been killed by some of the very people they are fighting for, it has been deceptively declared part of the War on Terrorism when it has literally taken from that effort and with our service people needed to return to Afghanistan and become further stretched, we are making Iraqi???s wealthy with American dollars to help us fight their war and all this while the reporting, at best, has been manipulated to serve the Bush Administration???s purposes. It really is about time it was ended for the sake of our troops and more ??? and as I said, this is only one example. Semper Fi

    • Posted By: RetiredMarine @ 07/08/2008 5:28:32 PM

      Well, you would be wrong. I wish I were paid to make comments - I make less now than I did on active duty.... But once again, you are diverting the facts. Please tell me where my criticism is in the posts rather than imply it. Please tell me where I am not using the truth (again, rather than simply accusing me of it) I am a 20+ yr veteran of 2 wars and a conflict (Grenada) and simply cherish the freedoms that I dedicated those years to supporting. I too am fed up with not only republicans, but democrats as well. The tactics you just used against me is a prime example of the simplistic and distorting of facts that I have been fed up with. Accusations without substance or explanation.

      As for Bush's "intent", unless you are a mind reader, psycic, etc... please tell us how you come to your conclusions other than what the liberal media has put out. You al;so mention 4000+ servicement dies. Yes, that is true. It kind of happens in war. But where were you complaining about the 4000+ non military who died from terrorist attacks? Where was your complaints about Clinton doing nothing? It is easy to use facts if they suit your needs while neglecting other just as (if not more) important facts. You mention the Iraqi was as a "Civil War". I spent 2 years there recently. Have you spent any time there, or are you going by what CNN and others have reported? I can tell you most military personnel are pissed off at the false reporting and misleading of America that has taken place by these news media stations. Yes, I firmly believe that Iraq should help fund this war. We liberated them, we helped get them out from under an evil dictator and have poured way too much money into them. Yet we see nothing. You say it is a war for oil. But where is the oil? Other countries got the contracts. But, as the US has done before, we rebuild countries, spend money into getting them fixed, then our politicians forgive the debts and somehow we even end up owing them... (Germany, Japan, etc...). You want to blame folks? Blame our elected congressmen and senators.

      Yes, we need to end this. But pulling out (cutting and running) will end up costing us even more in the long run after the vacuume created is filled by someone hostile to the US. Problem is that no one seems to look at the big overall picture. We have become a microwave society, feeding the id (the I want it now mentality). We put bandaids on amputated appendages. This simply does not work. It also would make everything we have done meaningless. yes 4000+ lives lost for no reason since we want to be quitters. Plus, we would look weak and cowardly. If you understood the mentality of many of our aggressors, you would understand that they do not respect weakness and would only take it as a signal to strike harder.

      • Posted By: Wisconsin Voter @ 07/08/2008 5:43:41 PM

        You have some FACTS wrong. When you are talking about 9-11 you are not telling anyone that we pulled troops from Afghanistan, where the terrorist are, to go to Iraq where the terrorist were not. Iraq is not Germany, who wanted help, or Japan.

        The people in Iraq do not want us there, in fact even the people Bush had set in office are stating that they are wanting a time table for us to get out.

        American oil companies did get no bid contracts for Iraq oil as well.

        • Posted By: RetiredMarine @ 07/08/2008 9:10:22 PM

          Whois telling you they didn't want us there? The Media? In two years of being in Iraq, I spoke with several Iraqi's - every last one was glad we were there. I have spoken with regular citizens as well as government officials. Saddam was a bastard who continually abused his people. To think that they aren't glad to be liberated is simplistic foolishness. So, based on my knowledge and experience, my facts are correct. Where do your supposed facts come from? Were you there? Or - like so many who think they know something, are your "facts" from the media?

          Please do tell me what facts I put out are wrong and state your source rather than making a comment without substance behind it. It is easy to make a simple statement based on ignorance so please tell us what your first hand knowledge and experience in the matter is.

          As for 9/11 - Seperate issue. However, terrorists were in Iraq (as well as in several other countries)- most of those we fought against were not Iraqui insurgents. Most came from other countries (including Iran). Now that is probably something your precious media NEVER revealed - which is quite typical seeing how the whole time I was there, we were all sickened by what falsehoods were actually being reported back home.

          Yes - the Iraqi's are finally setting a time table. The reason is because they are finally ready. Control has been slowly being turned over to them as their military and police forces were trained and ready. To even attempt to make that point an issue defending "they don't want us there" is a typical left wing liberal distortment of facts.

      • Posted By: NewsWkDickG @ 07/08/2008 5:44:13 PM

        I have stated all the things you ask for in several of my comments. I'm glad to hear that you are not staff. At this point pulling out cannot be considered 'cutting and running' especially when understanding it wouldn't be all at once but rather 'carefully' and while putting pressure on the Iraqi's to live up to there responsibility. The troops are still going to have a lot to do with Afghanistan unfinished, Pakistan needing help, and Iran threatening. While being stretched in Iraq over this long of a period others know we are unlikely to commit to more efforts and they take advantage. If you truly understand the situation, then you know our services, especially the National Guard, need a break and reforming.

  • Posted By: NewsWkDickG @ 07/08/2008 4:54:39 PM

    Attn. RetiredMarine: I am getting the distinct impression that you are actually volunteer/paid staff and that doing this stuff is an assignment. That appears to be the case as you seem well practiced in doing it, are tenacious not to miss anything and simply utilize the Bush-Rove techniques: i.e., don???t answer a criticism but rather criticize the critic; say whatever loud, often and stick to it; doesn???t have to be the truth just emphatically said; accuse the competition of something before they accuse you of it; etc. You have said that I come across as if trying to be superior and, if true, I???m honestly sorry as that really is neither my nature nor my intent. I do however really believe strongly and have for some time been totally fed up with what the Bush Administration and the Republican Party have been doing (talk about people coming across as trying to be superior ??? and arrogant, and obnoxious, and self-indulgent, and dishonest,,,). What you may be sensing is my simple frustration with seeing the truth avoided, ignored and suppressed, again something that has been quite common over the last eight years. Of course you have to ask, who judges what the truth is? To answer that, what I am talking about is what any rational and objective person would unemotionally see as the truth.
    (continued below)

  • Posted By: HDavidson @ 07/07/2008 11:46:01 PM

    Awe what a good little sheep. you hit just about every one of the Sean Hannity/FOXpublican talking points that there has been, so cudos to you.
    UNFORTUNATELY, as usual you are FULL OF RACIST SH!T! Nobody cares about Rev Wright, unless you just want to again boost his numbers and make him stronger, like each time it came up in the primaries. Also Only about 13% of voters still think he's Muslim, 13% why does that sound familuar? Oh yeah that is the combined number of people from Wva And Kn who said they would not vote for him because he's BLACK, not Muslim, BLACK.
    You see I have figured out the whole "Muslim" joke. I refuse to believe that 43 million people can be that STUPID, when it is clear that he is NOT and NEVER has been a Muslim. He is however BLACK and always has been (at least half). It's not ok, or socially acceptable to hate himm for being "Black" you can't just come out and call him the "N" word, not anymore. BUT, you can hate him if you "believe" he's Muslim, right now that is acceptable socailly, now only by about 28% of the population, but it's easier to claim that's why YOU hate him and get away with it then to just say..."I hate that "N" word"...and it makes you angry that you can't just come out and say it, you think it should be your right, and it is, you're just a coward, so you say "Muslim" instead of "N" word. Shame on you RACIST.

    • Posted By: RetiredMarine @ 07/08/2008 11:21:50 AM

      HD, this is why you aren't taken very seriously. Why do you insist on making everyone racist simply because they do not believe as you do? The race card issue is as tired and old as any other fear mongering or lie spreading campaign. Granted there are racists out her. But it is the true racist who has to resort to name calling and use the race issue when they have no real arguement or case.

      • Posted By: HDavidson @ 07/08/2008 4:10:07 PM

        hey ret, 2 things:

        1. I'm just calling a spade a spade.
        2. You support McCain, you think you have ANYcredibility? (rhetorical)

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse