A Teachable Moment

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Krohn @ 10/01/2008 10:17:59 PM

    A man of great wisdom:
    http://www.atlah.org/broadcast/manningreport.html

  • Posted By: Krohn @ 10/01/2008 9:50:20 PM

    Obama's dirtiest, darkest secret!:
    http://larrysinclair.org/

  • Posted By: LudwigVanBeet @ 10/01/2008 12:55:46 AM

    PRESIDENT OBAMA< please take your seat here in the Oval Office .Pres. Obama Do your best to straighten out this Horrific, Destruction that the Repig's have done to our beautiful America.. We Independents and Dem's will help. Do not , I repeat DO NOT expect any help from the RePIG's as they will Sabotage, Lie, Smear your every good intention, Limbaugh and Fixed News will take credit for anything good that you do. God Bless.

  • Posted By: mccainsupporter @ 09/28/2008 1:58:28 PM

    Independent voters and many voters who might otherwise vote for a Democratic candidate do not like running out of gas or waiting for hours in gas lines.
    Vote for Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin if you worried about having gas available to put in your gas tank. Atlanta and Nashville voters know that Democratic hot air will not fill your gas tank.
    Democrats should be happy, oil companies are not making record profits selling gas because there is now no gas to sell. Democrats have finally accomplished their goal in the Southeast. Independent voters do not like running out of gas or waiting hours in gas lines.
    Why should Barack Obama insist that the removing the offshore ban should be part of a comprehensive energy ban? Why should it be a bargaining chip. Lifting the offshore oil drilling ban is the right and appropriate thing to do and should not have been used as a Democratic leadership fillibuster or extorsion tool to extract concessions on other issues. The current gas lines and closed gas stations with no gas in the Southeast including Georgia, Tennessee, and North Carolina are just a prelude of what we can expect under Barack Obama and Joe Biden energy policies of limited offshore exploration and no new refineries.


    Although these gas lines are an immediate result of the recent hurricane Ike that hit Galveston and the Gulf coast, they are indicative of the tenuous nature of our refinery capacity and existing supplies of petroleum. Our refineries have been stretched to their limits for decades. Do you think, oil companies are going to invest in the future in new refineries in the United States given the tepid Democratic Party leadership support of the oil industry and their insistence on mandates for alternative energy sources. Oil companies would have to be crazy to invest even a nickel in new refineries or even do basic repairs to existing refineries. It is also a shame that the gas lines and empty gas stations are mainly in the Southeast which will become Redstates for McCain/Palin next month. It would be more poetic justice that the blue states of the northeast should suffer from the gas shortages caused by their Democratic leadership. The Northeast has been lockstep in their opposition to offshore oil drilling, nuclear power, clean coal, and even wind energy in the Massachusetts Bay area.

    • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 09/29/2008 3:20:08 PM

      Gas has doubled under Republican rule. They like this because it enriches their friends. Simple as that.

      • Posted By: RavenMaven @ 09/30/2008 11:29:54 PM

        Wow. Life in your utopia is very simple isn't it. George Bush, whom you credit with being about as sharp as a wet dishtowel, somehow has the savvy to single-handedly affect the world oil price on a whim, for the benefit of his drinking buddies. No concern whatsoever for the financial tailspin this would have on his country's economy. Just so his "rich" friends get "richer". Is that right? You are quite the intellectual aren't you....

  • Posted By: ThinkingBeing @ 09/28/2008 7:10:59 PM

    Let's say Palin manages to cram hard enough to not embarrass herself at the debate. What does that matter? We can't "un-see" what we've already seen. She would already know these things if national and world politics and people had naturally intrigued her. She didn't set out seeking national office and is woefully unqualified for it.

    BTW, people have been using the argument that a lot of Americans don't have a passport so it should matter that Palin didn't get one until a year ago. Apples & oranges. it doesn't matter if a private citizen doesn't have a passport. If anyone who isn't aspiring to be a world leader doesn't want to travel, that's just a life preference like all others. Plus, it's expensive and that makes it difficult for many who might like it. What does matter is a person running for second highest position in the country, a WORLD leader, and yet has no interest in visiting ANYWHERE else in the world. It just supports that lack of passion for things for which our VP and President need to have the greatest natural interest.

    • Posted By: RavenMaven @ 09/30/2008 10:36:46 PM

      Look folks. She is not as eloquent and poised as Obama. She is not as prone to say something stupid ( Stand up Chuck!) as Biden, and she is not as experienced as McCain. So what. you are worrying about the travel plans and passport status of my VP candidate while I am worrying that the democratic ticket has the least experienced candidate ever to appear on a major party's ticket. This is the most irresponsible and reckless thing the democratic party has ever done. He is a good speaker. That is IT. Nothing more. Mariah Carey is a good singer. Why don't you nominate her for president? She's a Democrat. She's mixed race. She's a woman. It covers all the bases right? Has to be a democrat, has to be a minority, has to be talented at something and have star quality. That is it! You should have Mariah Carey on your ticket!



      Obviously I am making a joke to make a point. He has no business being President with his background.

      The terrorists will surely cower at the though of having to hear Obama give another lecture, and run right back into the hills and caves they live in.

  • Posted By: wertheworld @ 09/28/2008 7:11:31 PM

    Sarah Palin should remind everyone that RONALD REAGAN was a gov. of CA. with no foreign affairs experience and look at what he had accomplished.

    Furthermore, she is running for VP only and if MCaine survived Vietnam, he will survive a presidency.

    Let's get to bottom line and Obama flim flam.

    • Posted By: IonaTrailer @ 09/29/2008 12:18:42 PM

      I live in California and Ronald Reagan screwed this state up royally when he was governor. When he became president he was even worse. People who like Reagan are either rich people who have benefited from his tax policies and de-regulating the Federal government so that there is no oversight - pollution, the banking scandal, etc,. or they are morons who vote against their own self interest. Which one are you?

      • Posted By: wcor242 @ 09/29/2008 1:59:55 PM

        Must have been alot of rich people when he won 49 out of 50 states in 84.
        I guess all the "poor" people stayed home that day !

        • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 09/29/2008 3:08:46 PM

          The far-reaching deleterious affects of Reaganomics took a while to measure. At the time, his borrow and spend policies gave the economy a temporary boost, but blew up our deficit and the voodoo economic principles he championed have led us into the financial mess we are now in.

          • Posted By: RavenMaven @ 09/30/2008 10:21:45 PM

            Wow, you are giving him a lot of credit there. I am proud of you. nearly thirty years since he took office and just now the true effect of his policies are being shown. Nothing that any of the Presidents since him did could have had any effect on this? If it takes thirty years to crash, then maybe we should just do it again, after all your plan will crash in 4 years.

      • Posted By: RavenMaven @ 09/30/2008 4:05:35 PM

        I am the one who did not get nuked as a result of having a President that had the guts to stand up to the Soviet Union and lead from a position of strength to negotiate the end of the cold war on our terms. That is the one I am. You little minded people forget what we face as a nation. You only know what handouts the government has for you, not that it is saving your life, and the lives of everyone in the world from the evils of this world like communism, terrorism and socialism. The man literally saved the world, and you think people who voted for him are stupid? You obviously were not alive then. Even democrats were voting for him. His 1984 election was one of the greatest political landslides in history. The DNC could have put the pope and Ghandi on their ticket and they still would have lost. His leadership truly transcended party lines. Something you know nothing of.

    • Posted By: RO in Reno @ 09/28/2008 7:54:41 PM

      I agree, and look at what Reagan gave us, Trickledown economics, 10% unemployment, tripled the number of homeless , The S%L crisis, an economic crisis unparalled in modern history until GWBush
      Deregulated Social Security so it could be spend as earmarks, some 3.8 Trillion is missing.
      As Govenor of Calif closed down all the mental health facilities and put the mentally deranged on the streets of LA , I'm certain Palin can do just as well

      • Posted By: BunchofChemies @ 09/29/2008 12:42:06 AM

        Good point. Ronnie is over-rated. Indeed, there is a UNR study by Elliot Parker, Ph. D. in economics that examines the economic growth under the two parties over time. It is linked on this page: http://econpapers.repec.org/RAS/ppa302.htm

        • Posted By: RavenMaven @ 09/30/2008 4:12:35 PM

          Again. Reagan's Presidency was not about economic growth. It was about bringing the cold war to an end by any means necessary. Of course there was massive spending. He had to rebuild the military from that mothballed mess that Carter left him into a true SuperPower military in order to deal from a position of strength. Of course you are too busy trying to rewrite history to bother with the facts. Yeah Reagan was a failure, Sure.... Whatever. Idiots.....

  • Posted By: ISIDRO MOTACO @ 09/29/2008 9:09:15 AM

    I just cannot understand why the media is so harsh on PALIN and don't acknowldge gross and disapoint comments from the DEMOCRATIC TICKET, such as - 57 or 58 states mentioned by OBAMA and the comments on TV in 1929... this one made by BIDEN.

    • Posted By: Klok @ 09/29/2008 10:54:37 AM

      Because she has shown herself to be unknowledgeable and unintelligent airhead whenever she speaks on her own. The only time she seems to do well is when she is told what to say. It is not just the media who is hard on her. Many conservative commentators who originally supported her are realizing that her selection is a big mistake and in my opinion a real insult to women.

      • Posted By: RavenMaven @ 09/30/2008 10:08:36 PM

        Let's see, what if we tinker your words just a bit...

        "Because Obama has shown himself to be unknowledgable and unintelligent whenever he speaks on his own. The only time he seems to do well is when he is told what to say. Its not just the conservatives that are hard on him. Many Democratic commentators including Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, and his own V.P. Pick, Joe Biden, have publicly said numerous times that Obama is unfit and unqualified to lead this nation. "

        Hmm your quote is very versatile....

      • Posted By: Husker84 @ 09/29/2008 12:26:09 PM

        Isidro, What you refer to are merely gafs. A gaf is what McCain made for example when he referred to "trouble on the Iraq-Afghanistan border." I'm sure he knows his geography better tahn that? Right? But it is truly stupid to claim foreign policy experience because you live in proximity to something. There is a difference between a gaf and being just plain stupid. Example: I am not bilingual just because I grew up on Corpus Christi Street.

        • Posted By: News and Notes @ 09/29/2008 1:08:14 PM

          Biden said Hillary may have been a better pick for VP than he. I suspect Biden doesn't want the job, and he should have said so when it was offered to him. Worse than the TV comment in 1929 was Biden saying FDR was president in 1929.

          • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 09/29/2008 3:00:08 PM

            They are gaffes. Think of all the humorous gaffes Bush has made almost daily. My favorite was when he said that the terrorists won't stop thinking about ways to harm America, and neither will we. Those on the left laughed and gave him a pass, because we know he didn't mean that he's trying to harm America (though he surely has). Palin is uninformed on the issues. This is not gaffe territory but a measure of ignorance.

            • Posted By: RavenMaven @ 09/30/2008 10:38:36 AM

              I agree that people make silly mistakes sometimes when there is a camera in their face. Not sure not knowing how many states there are qualifies as a gaffe, or perhaps just a product of his Indonesian grade schooling. Yeah I know he went to Harvard, but so did Bush so that is a wash. I am not terribly impressed with Harvard these days if these two are the examples of its product.

            • Posted By: News and Notes @ 09/29/2008 3:50:30 PM

              Bush has been a terrible president. A dangerous combination of arrogance and indifference. I'm not convinced Biden wants to be VP.

    • Posted By: tmitch10 @ 09/29/2008 1:34:07 PM

      Saying 40, instead of 50 is forgivable. Saying I can protect the free world, based on my home's proximity to a desolate region of an aggressive super-power is unthinkable for a VP candidate.

      McCain: "WHO VETTED THIS LADY?!?!?"

  • Posted By: Omnius @ 09/29/2008 10:13:39 AM

    Come on Howard, The First Dummy doesn't even work since "Sinner" Sarah became the Governor. I wonder if he is the brains behind the governor calling all the shots since he seems to be privy to all her government e-mail. I seriously doubt that the Wicked Witch of Alaska can ever make comments outside of snarky petty partisan talking points. She's just a windup action doll with a few memorized lines. She won't be able to parrott herself out of this debate. I'll be watching the debate this week because I'm in need of some comedic relief and she'll be providing me with many laughs at her numerous gaffes. I think Joe Biden will win the night easily and will shame "Sinner" Sarah into a national joke. I wonder if she'll cry onstage in order to gain sympathy?

    • Posted By: Braes @ 09/29/2008 10:34:49 AM

      Since Biden can't direct anything toward her per the agreed upon rules, all the R's have to do is buy the questions she has the answers memorized for. Spew a bunch of parroted lines for 90 minutes.
      This is just a front.

      • Posted By: RavenMaven @ 09/29/2008 3:56:44 PM

        What if she actually pulls it off. What if she goes up there and delivers a credible performance that demonstrates a command of the issues. The "interviews" she has been given were really just the media trying to "Vett" her because they thought McCain didn't. So they give her a history test that Clinton, Gore, Kerry and even Carter would have failed. The issues are not "What is the Bush Doctrine?". Honestly, how many people, even inside of the beltway, would have known specifically what Gibson was referring to? Nobody.

        • Posted By: Doug-P @ 09/30/2008 1:52:00 PM

          Enter Your CommentAnd what if pigs fly, and what if McCain strokes out next week?

          • Posted By: RavenMaven @ 09/30/2008 9:50:14 PM

            And what if you utter a non inflammatory statement or lucid well thought out point. Nevermind, I see that isn;t going to happen...

        • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 09/29/2008 4:22:34 PM

          If she pulls it off, then it's a testament to her handlers who were able to prepare her. If they are smart, they will analyze what she did wrong in the interviews and try to counteract those tendencies. For instance, I'd bet money that McCain actually looks at Obama in the debates to come. Hopefully, for your side, they get him to not smirk maniacally when his opponent is speaking as well.

          I know what the "Bush Doctrine" is, as do just about anybody who pays attention to politics and foreign policy.

          • Posted By: RavenMaven @ 09/29/2008 5:07:56 PM

            I'll agree with you on the debate points you made. Not on the Bush Doctrine point. The term is an unofficial media buzz word used to describe a wide ranging set of principles and practices employed by the Bush Administration. It is not an official term referring to a specific piece of legislation. Gibson could have been referring to any number of things with his question. Having said all of that, I'll agree she should have answered it better.

            • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 09/29/2008 5:25:18 PM

              In fact, you are wrong. Not too long after 9/11, Bush codified some of the foreign policy changes he hinted at in his post-9/11 speeches. This took the form of the official "National Security Strategy of the United States" put out by the NSC. This was widely analyzed and called the "Bush Doctrine" from day one. She should have known this. I knew it, and I'm just an amateur who pays a little more attention to politics than average. While, it's probably ironically true that Bush himself would probably lack the curiosity to know what the Bush Doctrine was if he were in Palin's place, that's hardly a ringing endorsement.

              • Posted By: RavenMaven @ 09/29/2008 5:55:00 PM

                I think perhaps we are both wrong and both right on this one. You are correct about the National Security Strategy document by NSA ( I did know this). And I am right that this is a wide ranging set of principals and practices wrapped up in in an all encompassing "policy". . Under the term "Bush Doctrine", Gibson could have been referring to treatment of captive terrorists, preemptive strikes, intelligence gathering practices, surveillance of domestic terrorism suspects, tapping cell phones, and so on.

  • Posted By: ObamaBidenNOW @ 09/29/2008 2:01:13 PM

    In a few weeks we will make a choice that will decide our future. I follow a economist named bob proctor who has called the top and bottom of every market crash since the 70s correctly. He perfectly predicted the current real estate market meltdown ,and the picture he paints about what will happen in the next couple years Is terrifying. He thinks it will be worse then the great depression. Banks in the US are going under one after the other. Country wide the largest morgage bank in the world Bear Stearns and Lehman brothers , and Merrill Lynch which are 3 out of the top 5 wall street firms. And now Fanny and Freddy which hold 50 percent of the home loans in the United States. The goverment took them over because they are essentially bankrupt. If they didn't the entire financially system would virtually shut down, the stock market would crash And we would suffer beyond what any of us have seen before The future of these companies will fall into the hands of our next president
    Bush just like Mcain doesn't understand the economy.

    That not just my opinion its his own words. Not only does he not understand how to fix it
    He does not understand exactly what is broken. Its no surprise that he doesnt. The people that make up these
    securities use complex math models very few people understand.
    Bush and mccain both can take the credit for this mess since they helped deregulate the laws that were protecting us.


    Bush's economic advisor Phil Graham wrote the deregulation bill that allowed banks take risks with all of our future.
    Now Phil Graham is the head of mccains economic policy ,and mccain wants to make him the next secretary of the treasury.
    No one in this country can afford for that to happen. The last time bush met with his economic advisors was in march. He either didnt realize or didnt care that anything was wrong. Phil Graham had the guts to say we are in a mental recession after he helped create the worst economy in our lifetime.
    It will take the best and brightest minds in the world to get us out of this nightmare. As bad as bush has done mccain would be
    incredibly worse because things are in much worse shape. The next president will not inherit a surplus like bush did but a tanking economy and a 11,600,000,000,000 deficit. Most of Bush created and it will take decades to pay it back.
    If you do what you have always done then you will do get what you have always __________

    When it comes to policy bush and mccain are the same 90 percent of the time.
    So why are the polls even close then ?

    The chairman of mcains campaign recently said that people don't vote on issues

    they vote on a personality composite which means. He is trying to sell you personality instead of results.
    He believes people will vote against there own self interests.

    Lets teach him we are smarter then that .
    Hold them accountable now while it will still help
    Elect Obama Biden 2008

    • Posted By: RavenMaven @ 09/29/2008 3:29:38 PM

      So we are smarter than that by electing someone who knows even less about the economy? Obama's own website states that he admits that he is not an expert on the economics. But we are supposed to trust his leadership in this area? He is a lawyer ( not even a practicing lawyer) with no experience at anything other than being a professional job applicant. Your rant is just a regurgitation of the sound bites his campaign is brainwashing its followers with.

      • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 09/29/2008 3:34:45 PM

        Obama knows about the economy. You see smart people have nimble minds. They can learn about a whole hosts of subjects, not just one.

        My advice to you is to look at the poll numbers regarding who people think will handle the economy better, then get back to us.

        • Posted By: RavenMaven @ 09/29/2008 4:31:36 PM

          Wow you have been drinking the KoolAid, havent you? At your job, do you have the responsibility of hiring and firing people? If so, do you base your hiring decisions on what the candidate says he can do in the interview, or what his resume proves he is capable of? Further, do you hire the one that is most popular with the office staff, or the one who has the proven experience to do the job. I don;t give a hoot what the poll numbers say. I am not voting to make you happy, I am voting based on what I think is important for the country and for my family and I. This is not a popularity contest.

          • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 09/29/2008 4:41:18 PM

            If I was hiring for president (and nobody except ex-presdients have experience) I'd look for someone who is smart, well-spoken, disciplined, prudent, has an even temper, an understanding of how national policy works, and an understanding of the pertinent issues. Obama has all these.

            • Posted By: RavenMaven @ 09/29/2008 4:47:58 PM

              Nice job Obama, you didn't answer the question ( as usual for your candidate). Answer the question I asked. not the one you wanted me to ask.

              • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 09/29/2008 4:57:44 PM

                Nobody who is eligible to run for president, with the exception of Jimmy Carter and George Bush I have any presidential experience. So, you can't look at direct experience. Instead, you have to look at relevant experience, such as time in government, which Obama has 12 years. Intelligence....Obama has it spades. Prudence...Obama has demonstrated excellent temperament during the campaign and his general comportment publicly. Knowledge...Obama has shown he knows the issues well enough to best John 'But, I'm a POW" McCain in debate on foreign policy. Judgment.....Obama correctly and bravely opposed the Iraq war during a time when doing so was verboten for private citizens and extremely perilous for politicians.

                Aside from not getting shot down and breaking under torture, I would argue that Obama has much more diverse and pertinent experience than McCain with regards to the challenges the next president will face. McCain has a bunch of time in the Senate but what does that give you? What does he know about the real world outside of his 7 or 8 houses? Obama is an easy call and increasingly independents are seeing it that way too.

                • Posted By: RavenMaven @ 09/30/2008 5:15:05 PM

                  Experience: I challenge you to name one President that got elected that had less executive experience than Obama. Oh and by the way. McCain's 26 years in the senate don't quite measure up to his predecessors here either, but 26 years in the senate and a decorated military commander and former POW, trumps a community organizer and a first term junior senator any day of the week.

                  W: Governor of Texas
                  Clinton: Governor of Arkansas
                  GHW Bush: Vice President, CIA Director, and much more
                  Reagan: Two Term Governor of California
                  Carter: Governor of Georgia
                  Ford : Vice President
                  Nixon: Vice President
                  Johnson: Vice President
                  Kennedy: Senator
                  Eisenhower: Four Star general, Commander of Military WWI
                  Truman: Vice President

                  OK so hopefully you get the point. It is not good enough to be a first term junior senator and make the leap to President, particularly with no other credentials whatsoever. That community organizer stuff doesn't cut it either.

                  • Posted By: jarcher1 @ 09/30/2008 9:49:52 PM

                    How about a guy named Abe Lincoln? How much *executive* experience did he have?

                • Posted By: RavenMaven @ 09/30/2008 7:36:16 PM

                  By all accounts even in the liberal media, McCain won the debate. They admit his answers were factual, more credible and based on first hand knowledge and experience with the issues. Obama, as usual, had better presentation and delivery skills, so while many of the obama elite thought he won, it was only because they were too busy being wooed by his voice to actually hear what he was saying, which was nothing.

                  What does McCain know outside of his 7 houses? I'll tell you. He knows the world leaders on a first name basis. He knows when to use diplomacy and when diplomacy will make you weak. He knows what it really means to fight a war and lose. He knows what has happened in the Capitol every day for the last 26 years and who is responsible for it. He knows how to put the lives of others before his own interests ( tell me how does Obama get to make 4.7 million dollars a year if all he has done is be a senator and a social worker?). What does Obama know? He knows how to run a political campaign. ( According to him, running the campaign provides the executive experience you need to do the job you are campaigning for. I actually heard him say this. I almost cried I was laughing so hard. That would be like me saying, well I can fill out the job application so therefore I must be able to do the job. What else does he know? Oh yeah He knows how to divide his party instead of bringing it together. what else? Oh yeah, he knows how to get three bills passed out 506 he sponsored. What else? He knows that he has no clue what it means to fight a war or serve in the military. He knows he has no clue what it means to sacrifice anything for your country. He knows he has no clue what it is like to tell your own party they are dead wrong and take a very politically risky position on an issue because he knew it was in the best interest of the people, Mcain has done this numerous times.

                  What else does he know?

                  • Posted By: jarcher1 @ 09/30/2008 9:39:06 PM

                    Where are these accounts in the liberal media? Are they really all accounts of the liberal media? I haven't come across any yet and I'd like to see for myself. But having read several already that don't claim McCain won the debate, I doubt your statements truth content. Actually there is a piece in this very publication fact checking both Obama and McCain's statements and finding McCain to be the more erroneous.

                    You read minds now too? How else would you know the minds of so many "Obama elite" thought he'd won because they were too busy being wooed by his voice? He did say enough of something to be analyzed endlessly by pundits on both the left and right, so how is that nothing?

                    Then we come to the tedious list of what you claim McCain knows. In fine sir, where are the facts to back up your assertions? What evidence can you give to support you *opinion* that "He knows when to use diplomacy and when diplomacy will make you weak." I'd really like to believe you got this out of someplace other than the clear blue sky, so what say, how about letting us in on the facts that make you think so? He knows the world leaders on a first name basis. *The world leaders* has the strong implication of all the world leaders. I think you're lying about this one. Where is the evidence that he knows how to put the lives of others before his own interest. Produce the evidence if you will so all of us can marvel at his sainthood and your sagacity. How Obama makes 4.7 million, if that is accurate (I think I saw a figure about half that but its not worth the effort to run down at the moment), is he writes books, ever hear of royalties?

                    You actually heard Obama say running his campaign qualifies him for the job of President? Where, when? Is there a record of this? I would have thought a statement like this would have be repeated over and over again by the right if by nobody else, yet this is the first I've heard of it. Are you sure you didn't just hallucinate it? Its alright if you did, there are medicines that really do help.

                    Now, as for what Obama doesn't know, I'm going to give this short shrift. Again I must ask do you read minds? I can't conceive of any other way for anybody to know for certain what a person doesn't know. Ah yes there is perhaps another way - did the Voice of God tell you? Please seek medical help immediately if this is your evidence.

                    I am forced to conclude from your own statements that you have no more content to your post that a hodgepodge of opinions and unsupported assertions.

                • Posted By: News and Notes @ 09/29/2008 6:00:31 PM

                  Generally presidential candidates have vast experience on a national stage, or they have been the governor of a state for a very long time. McCain has much more experience than Obama, but there are policy arguments you could make in favor of Obama. Obama has come a long way. As far as accumulating wealth, very few 47 year olds earned $4.2 million in 2007. I'm sure by the time Obama is 72 he too will have mroe houses than he can count

            • Posted By: News and Notes @ 09/29/2008 5:57:39 PM

              You just described Hillary Clinton

          • Posted By: AskPlus @ 09/29/2008 6:25:38 PM

            Kool-Aid?
            Popularity contest?
            Your family?

            Maybe if Mr. McCain just once did his job instead of being there for 26 supporting the RNC plan, stealing our money, calling names and finishing nothing, you might have a point. He's as useless as his VP choice. Now that was a good vetted pick, right?

            • Posted By: RavenMaven @ 09/30/2008 7:03:35 PM

              OK, so you are not well informed. I'll fill you in.
              Koo-Aid: Jim Jones was a maniac cult leader who brainwashed his followers into committing mass suicide by drinking Kool-Aid ( actually it was Flavorade) laced with poison in what became known as the Guyana Tragedy during the early 80s. Subsequently, the pop culture reference to "drinking the Kool-Aid" became synonymous with blindly following a leader or adopting a philosophy without regard for common sense, the facts of the issue, or self preservation -- in other words "brainwashing".

              Popularity contest: My post was a response to a poster who suggested that since polls show people think Obama will handle the economy better, then I must be wrong if I do not agree. This notion is ludicrous and laughable.


              My Family: Yes. My Family. I vote for who I think will do the best job for my country, my family, and myself, in that order. You should too.

              I do not fault people for voting for Obama. There is a lot to like about the guy. I fault people for picking a candidate based on who has the best sound bite, or what Keith Olberman says, or some arcane extreme left or right wing political view that could never work in actual practice. In other words if your only arguments for choosing a candidate is the sound bites produced by the candidate, or the mudslinging stories produced by the biased media, then you are not truly voting your will, you are voting their will, and that my friend is dangerous. When you cast your vote, if you have cast it based on what you truly feel is important for this country, your family, and yourself then I support you. If all you have to guide you is Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow, God help you.

      • Posted By: AskPlus @ 09/29/2008 6:22:25 PM

        You saw the debate, you've read the editorials. You know Mr. Obama is good. But like most in the GOP -you lie. I'm sure you've read that too. If you've read anything about your candidate, you would stop your nonsense and disappear like other McCain supporters.
        Two words: Sarah Palin.
        Four more: I supplied the bail-out.

  • Posted By: Earthprotection @ 09/29/2008 12:18:53 PM

    Here are the things we should be saying on these blogs. Let's stop wasting time attacking people. If the American people keep talking to their legislatures about these universal values, our country could be better than it is.
    1) Universal or affordable healthcare
    2) High Tech. Green jobs
    3) War on poverty
    4) Community policing
    5) Humble Foreign Policy
    6) No more corporate lobbyists

    • Posted By: wcor242 @ 09/29/2008 1:38:41 PM

      War on Poverty ?
      What is your definition of poverty ?

      • Posted By: RavenMaven @ 09/29/2008 4:44:46 PM

        According to Obama, it is anyone making less than 250,000 per year. They are in need of federal aid because they only make 249,999.00 per year. Let's steal money from those awful "rich" people who make $250,001.00 dollars per year and give it to those poor unfortunate ones who make only $249,999.00 per year. That is the plan to fix america's financial woes. Those who are truly in poverty can expect NO CHANGE whatsoever from this plan. It makes the rich poorer, but does not make anything different for anyone else. Great plan.

        • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 09/29/2008 4:48:57 PM

          It's caled the middle-class. I know cons have tried their best to get rid of the middle-class, so they can go back to the rich/poor dynamics that made the early industrial revolution so profitable. However, we still do have a middle-class in America that needs help.

          By the way, $250,000/year is definitely rich no matter which part of the country you live in.

          • Posted By: RavenMaven @ 09/30/2008 9:06:29 PM

            Not when the average modest house cost 384k and the average family car costs 35k, then add in college for the kids and insurance and retirement plans and so on and so forth . You see, 250k is what the average suburban family needs to make ends meet in suburbia these days. That is middle class no matter how you slice it. Your view of middle class is obviously "anyone who is not homeless or on welfare". That is not realistic. There are plenty of homeowners who are poor. Heck, My wife and I make a total of about 150k (before taxes) and we don't have a pot to piss in. So don;t tell me how I am nearly rich. because I am not. If we made 250k like we used to, we still would not be rich, we'd just be able to pay our bills and have a little left over for savings like any other middle class family. So get off your high horse about who's rich and who isn't. Rich is 4 million a year like Obama makes. That is rich. I have nothing against rich people. I say more power to them if they can reap the rewards of their hard work. I am just not living in a fantasy world that says that I am one of them. And I don't believe the American people who are just making ends meet at 250k per year are going to fall for that one either.

        • Posted By: Doug-P @ 09/30/2008 1:47:39 PM

          Ok rocket scientist , Obama never said below a 1/4$ was poverty, he said middle class. pull your head out of your ass and take a deep breath. You need the oxygen

          • Posted By: RavenMaven @ 09/30/2008 8:12:04 PM

            Doug, I appreciate your concern over my oxygen levels. You are obviously a caring and sensitive man. But I am doing just fine thanks.

            Obama's tax plan ignore's the poor. they don't pay taxes now, and they won't pay taxes under his plan. NO CHANGE. The only thing at play is the rich and middle class. Now it is a lot more profitable for the government to give a small tax break to the middle class ( that will have no sustaining effect on their financial situation -- Again NO CHANGE) and slap a heavy tax burden on those making 250k a year or more to pay for all of Obama's billions of dollars worth of programs, which will have NO CHANGE on the situation of the people they are designed to help. They are on Welfare today, and four years from now, they will still be on welfare. So what has changed. The folks making 250k per year and more have nearly half their money consumed by federal income tax. Nothing meaningful has changed for the middle class and nothing at all has changed for the poor. The government has spent billions of dollars on programs that have had no meaningful effect on anyone other than those who had to pay for them. this is your idea of a great plan? How will this stimulate job growth in the U.S.? O h yeah, we'll need thousands of non english speaking people to work at these new government agencies to watch nothing happen.

      • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 09/29/2008 3:22:13 PM

        Just use the federal definition, if you like.

  • Posted By: Earthprotection @ 09/29/2008 12:31:13 PM

    Great Solution for our economic crisis. Bring green jobs to America. Wind power can employ rural people in farming states. Filters used for power plants can be build right here in America. We have lost many great paying jobs to the Europeans and the Japanese. The side benefit of completely going green is our children might have a chance. Sure you could be ignorant enough to argue about it. Do you think e should take a chance though? Plus lose all the econmic money other countries are making.

    • Posted By: RavenMaven @ 09/30/2008 7:58:35 PM

      I totally agree. Energy initiatives are the next "Internet". I think we will see an energy boom in the next ten years that will rival the dot com boom and the real estate boom. hopefully we are smart enough to contain and sustain this one.

  • Posted By: Earthprotection @ 09/29/2008 12:38:23 PM

    Do you think the word liberal is a bad thing?
    Sweden, Switzerland, Canada, Norway, Germany
    Who has the higher standard of living? Who has the lower crime rates? Who has the stronger middleclass? Why can anyone argue against this in America? Unless your a corporate interest, who can send experienced professionals to fool the average American that universal healthcare will create more beaucracy; but in reality we experience more corporate beauacracy than ever before in the medical industry. Why is this message so hard to get across?

    • Posted By: RavenMaven @ 09/30/2008 7:56:18 PM

      Becasue it is not true. I suggest you truly study these places from the perspective of a citizen before you make your judgement. What you are describing is not liberalism by the way, it is socialism. I know there is not much of difference, but its socialism nonetheless. The places you describe have absurd income tax rates. People only keep less than half of what they make, and the cost of goods and services is very high and it is also heavily taxed ( 20%) Government services are lackluster at best and corrupt at worst. Typical bureaucracies that aren't particularly good at anything. Were there is no competition, there is no motivation to be very good at what you do. Spend an hour at the DMV or the post office and then tell me if you want those people operating on you.

  • Posted By: moonliteandpjs @ 09/29/2008 1:21:22 PM

    What I am afraid may happen is that Palin will get a pass, being able to attack behind the smile and Joe is such a gentleman that he may not ask her the really tough questions where she obviously knows so very little. And I don't care if he said FDR was on TV, he was on the radio and in those days that was the same thing. I do care however that Palin's ex preacher has a problem with witches!

    • Posted By: RavenMaven @ 09/29/2008 3:32:15 PM

      Why? Are you a witch?

      • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 09/29/2008 3:38:27 PM

        Raven's are often "familiars" for witches. Hmm...

        • Posted By: RavenMaven @ 09/29/2008 4:38:52 PM

          Stupendous comeback. I am really speechless.... Wow how clever you are.

          • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 09/29/2008 4:46:40 PM

            Thank you. My whole aim is to impress wingnuts because I value their opinion so highly.

            • Posted By: RavenMaven @ 09/30/2008 4:59:36 PM

              You are welcome. Then your friends must be very impressed. I however am not.

    • Posted By: News and Notes @ 09/29/2008 3:43:33 PM

      In 1929 FDR was not president

  • Posted By: ISIDRO MOTACO @ 09/29/2008 11:55:06 AM

    There is one thing that I don't understand. Why the media is so unfair to PALIN for the interview given to CBS and don't acknowledge that OBAMA mentioned 57 states in the UNITED STATES and BIDEN mentioned the TV in 1929...ONLY ONE PERSON HAS TO CARRY THE STUPIDITY OF THE OTHE TWO?... It would be nice if all could be split...

    • Posted By: nimodahooligan @ 09/29/2008 12:32:44 PM

      because what obama and biden said were things that every american does on a daily basis, have a slip of the tounge...they hammer palin so hard because they are testing her and she is failing miserably...she doesnt have just a slip of the toungue, she genuinely has no clue...THE MEDIA THRIVES ON STUPIDITY YOU MORON....WHY DO YOU THINK THEY CONTINUALLY HAVE A HAY-DAY WITH BUSH AND HIS CRONIES??

      • Posted By: wcor242 @ 09/29/2008 1:44:10 PM

        I see, its a slip of the tongue to say TV's from 1929 !
        Very interesting. They; Being the media are soo overtly biased towards Obama it is not even funny.
        He has no experience as a leader. Giving good speaches doesnt make one a leader !
        "They" are testing her. What a load of crap. Who is "They". Lets test Obama. All he does is agree with other people when he doesnt know the issues

        • Posted By: Cazador1972 @ 09/29/2008 1:51:34 PM


          Obama has been on the campaign trail for almost two years. He has given literally hundreds of interviews (Palin has had three), has done the Sunday news rounds several times, has been on more than a dozen televised debates and scrutinized by the media.

          • Posted By: wcor242 @ 09/29/2008 2:18:38 PM

            Yes, Obama, Lots of interviews, but what type of questions
            From "The View". the question was. Arent you related to brad pitt.
            Well, thats important to know !

            • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 09/29/2008 2:52:14 PM

              When you are great, there's not much negative to bring up. McCain has a lot of negatives, so a lot to bring up. That's just the way it works. All of the rights vapid criticisms of Obama have been like water off a duck's back.

              • Posted By: RavenMaven @ 09/29/2008 3:43:42 PM

                Great? What has he done to be called Great? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Kennedy. Reagan. Churchill. Ghandi, FDR and Teddy, MLK, Lincoln, Franklin, Jefferson, Washington. These men were Great. Obama is a junior senator from illinois. He has gotten less than 3% of the bills he sponsored passed. He has very questionable dealings with felonious real estate conmen, was put in place by chicago political machine because he was articulate, and associated with pastors who spewed treasonous hatred for America from the pulpit. And he is Great because of that?

                • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 09/29/2008 4:18:19 PM

                  He's great because he has risen to the top of his party and has inspired millions as a leader for a new generation.

                  Of course only 2% of his bills have passed, the Congress was controlled by the cons until recently.

                  You cons with your talking points. All of the allegations against Obama have amounted to nothing. It's old news. Hammering these talking points will not win you votes. You need to find new lines of attack, or better yet find a way to promote your candidate other than the fact that he was a lousy pilot and was shot down.

                  • Posted By: RavenMaven @ 09/29/2008 4:55:57 PM

                    So this puts him in a league with Ghandi? because he rose to the top of his party? So did Michael Dukakis. Is he great also? The fact is, he is NOT Great. He is at best an average politician ( and I am being generous here), and an above average orator. Now I am as impressed with his flair for public speaking as any of you. He has charisma. But there is no substance beneath it. nothing there at all. I will not be fooled by this "Hollywood"approach to poltics.

                    • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 09/29/2008 5:10:07 PM

                      I didn't say he was Ghandi. Politicians in general can't be completely untainted if they get to the top.

                      Dukakis did not inspire millions. He was a non-starter out of the gate. Those of us who supported him, did so grudgingly because he was better than Bush I. Dukakis, Kerry, and to a lesser extent Gore fall into the safe and timid category. Democrats failed because they were afraid of the bold choice and went with the blandest they can find. In 1992 and now again in 2008, we've found a real leader with backbone and political grit. Obama will not be swift-boated.

                      I don't really care about your vote. You are obviously lost. I do care about the independents and Obama has the exactly correct strategy for capturing those independents, which he is doing in droves.

                      You've yet to back up any of your vague assertions about Obama. They are simply thrown out there without any substantive details. That's too be expected. Just don't expect it to convince anyone, a yellow-dog such as myself or independents for that matter.

                      • Posted By: RavenMaven @ 09/30/2008 9:59:24 AM

                        I am not lost. I am correct. There is a difference. It seems you are just interested in making folks think like you do, without any interest in whether you are correct about what you say. I am just offering up the alternative point of view on the issues you raise. Notice that I am not on here waiving a McCain/Palin Flag. I am just illustrating that your arguments don't hold water. What "vague assertions" are you referring to. My assertions have beenspecific rebuttals of the points you are making. You say Obama will make a great leader. I question how you arrive at that conclusion, when nothing in his experience has been great, or even good. You say he is experienced enough to be President. I say based on what ? I state facts such as that he has never been in charge of anything. This is irrefutable and you know it. I state facts like he has never finished a job he has started. This is irrefutable as well. He has made a career out of campaigning for his next job. Very little effect or influence in the Senate ( Less than 3% bills passed).

                        These are not vague assertions. They are direct, in your face, rebuttals of your assertion that he is qualified. I don;t think he is. And you are not convincing anyone that he is, because your argument is that he is qualified becuase YOU SAY he is qualified. which is laughable. If anyone is on here spewing "vague assertions" it is you my friend.

                        • Posted By: magicmike @ 09/30/2008 11:46:47 AM

                          Speaking of flags- Where was that GREAT WAR HERO'S flag pin on his lapel at the debate. Your side CRITICIZED and CALLED Sen Obama UN AMERICAN when he did not wear a flag pin. What is Mr McCain exempt because HE was a POW.

                          • Posted By: RavenMaven @ 09/30/2008 4:54:01 PM

                            Brilliant comment Magicmike. You really upstaged my argument with that one. Wow the flag pin. Well let's just call the election off then.....

                            Yes. The POW thing means he bought and paid for that right with his own blood. When Obama spends five years in torture in a Vietnamese prison camp and refuses special treatment so that his fellow prisoners can be set free first, then I will give him a break on the flag pin thing too.

                            Dimwit.

                  • Posted By: RavenMaven @ 09/29/2008 4:58:58 PM

                    You see, it is not a "talking point". The man is not qualified to be the President of The United States. Based on his resume, he isn't even really qualified for a cabinet position in someone else's presidency. He is just a pretty face smooth talking Pelosi Puppet. And you have bought it, hook line and sinker.

                    • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 09/29/2008 5:19:31 PM

                      It is a talking point. That's why it's not working. The independents who have come to Obama know all of the points the right is trying feebly to make and they discount them because they simply have no substance.

                      By all means, stay the course. It's a losing strategy, and thus I welcome it. I only give the right sound advice, because I know they are too stubborn to take it.

                      • Posted By: RavenMaven @ 09/30/2008 10:21:30 AM

                        Why do we need your advice? Our candidate was your candidates first choice for V.P. four years ago. Yet you guys are bashing him as though he was the devil incarnate. It shows how shallow your party is. It shows how the election is more important to you than the issues. It also shows that your party is notoriously ineffective at winning elections. BTW, Perot won it for Clinton, otherwise he would have lost as well.

                      • Posted By: RavenMaven @ 09/30/2008 10:18:02 AM

                        It is working. Its plain for you to see. If he was so obviously a good choice for our next President, considering how poorly the country was managed in the last 4 years, he should be winning by a landslide. But he is not. It is really a dead heat. This means the American people are not convinced that choosing him is any better than where they are at now. If you can't win an election under these circumstances, then you have a very weak party and a very weak candidate.

              • Posted By: News and Notes @ 09/29/2008 3:46:45 PM

                When you don't have much experience, you haven;t had a chance to screw up much.

                • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 09/29/2008 4:37:02 PM

                  Obama had more government experience than Hillary. This is a fact. The experience canard didn't work in the primaries and it won't work in the general either.

                  • Posted By: News and Notes @ 09/29/2008 6:07:41 PM

                    Why do you have to slap Hillary in defense of Obama? Hillary helped raise money so Obama could get his senate seat. If Hillary did nothing else but listen and observe while Bill was governor and president, she learned a whole lot. I would not count each of Obama's years representing a liberal Chicago district with each of Hillary's years as a US senator. Hillary was one of the youngest women ever in the top 100 lawyers in the US. If you want to defend or articulate Obama's experience, go for it. But undermining Hillary is not a persuasive argument

            • Posted By: News and Notes @ 09/29/2008 4:29:57 PM

              Obama turned down more debates with Hillary, and turned down town hall meetings with McCain. He was more interested in scripted Hollywood style speeches in Germany and Mile High Stadium. If I were a relative unknown on the national scene, I would be THIRSTING to do more interviews so the public would get to know me better. His campaign is much too scripted

              • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 09/29/2008 5:40:38 PM

                Fact: Obama is doing the exact number of debates as have been traditional in the general election cycle.

                Fact: The Democrats debated 20+ times over the course of the primaries.

                Both Clinton and McCain tried to use debates to gain advantage. In the case of McCain, he wanted to control the terms of the town hall meetings. Obama is too smart to give away the game like that. Face it folks, Obama has outsmarted them all. I can't wait until he uses that intellect in real international diplomacy.

                • Posted By: News and Notes @ 09/29/2008 6:04:45 PM

                  Outsmarted is not the word I would use. Scripted and choreographed maybe. Hillary was out doing interviews with hostile reporters during the primaries. Obama is a superb politician and orator

          • Posted By: wcor242 @ 09/29/2008 2:24:33 PM

            I am going to tell you something. McCain would be a far greater and able leader than Obama on a number of levels. Way more experience, Would cut government spending, Would lead by example and not speaches, his actions in the past speak for themselves. Campaign Finance Reform, Warning about Fannie and Freddie Mac, Agains Ear Marks and corruption, Has not taken one Earmark himself in 26 years in the Senate, I trust McCain when he says something that he will do it and someone doesnt like it he will tell them where to put it. I think Palin is the same way. To me Obama seems like a University Professor who likes giving lectures but are not a leader whatsoever and are weak and would fold under pressure

            • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 09/29/2008 2:50:56 PM

              Two words: Keating Five

        • Posted By: phanar27 @ 09/29/2008 4:50:46 PM

          Being a bad pilot does not make you a leader either.

    • Posted By: Cazador1972 @ 09/29/2008 2:07:24 PM


      Because getting your facts mixed up about when the television was invented doesn't really affect anybody. It's funny, but hardly anything that would have an effect on our lives. When Palin doesn't seem to know anything about the economy or even her supposed expertise of energy policy, then that's scary, because we are talking about crises that have a direct effect on our lives, especially right now.

      In other words, if I'm flying to Portugal I don't really care if the pilot knows that its capital is Lisbon, but I do care plenty if he doesn't know what an altimeter or Pressure Cabin is.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1PXHqrSp58

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8__aXxXPVc

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvUsdmqGYV8

      Come on, Isidro, are you seriously willing to put your life in this woman's hands? Do you really want her a heartbeat away from the presidency?

      • Posted By: News and Notes @ 09/29/2008 3:45:28 PM

        Problem is, I'm not sure about putting my life in Obama's hands, and he is on the top of the ticket

        • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 09/29/2008 4:15:35 PM

          Vote however you want. You don't have to be amongst the majority that will elect Obama.

          • Posted By: News and Notes @ 09/29/2008 4:28:23 PM

            Its thank kind of presumptiveness that could be perilous to Obama. There is already a perception that he is arrogant

            • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 09/29/2008 4:36:09 PM

              I'm being presumptive. He isn't.

              I picked Obama from the start and correctly foresaw what has transpired. Thus, I trust my own instincts. For instance, I've been saying for years that Americans will not elect a grumpy Republican as president. Call it the Dole factor. It probably started after Nixon. Americans like their Republican presidents to be simple and charismatic. Republicans don't wear cranky well. The way McCain turned off independents with his demeanor in the recent debate supports my theory.

              • Posted By: News and Notes @ 09/29/2008 6:03:10 PM

                I didn't pick Obama from the start. However, I am very attentive to the campains, and we will see what happens. As a Hillary supporter I was (and still am) called every name in the book by many Obama supporters. I'm skeptical but I (and many others like me) can still be persuaded

                • Posted By: captain k @ 09/29/2008 6:43:20 PM

                  if you are a hillary supporter, and voted for the candidate that shares her stance on the majority of issues, your decision would be quite easily made.

  • Posted By: 4carol @ 09/30/2008 4:31:33 PM

    Don't really care how likable she is, she doesn't know enough about any of the issues to be credible...........PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Posted By: paulte @ 09/30/2008 4:00:07 PM

    Sarah should simply ask Biden if it would make more sense for him to be on the top of the Dem ticket and Obama with his lack of experience to be on the bottom of the Dem ticket? Whatever one can say about Sarah's lack of experience to be President, it applies just as much (if not more) to the empty suit and community organizer presently on the top of the Dem ticket!

  • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 09/28/2008 4:40:59 PM

    Someone needs to get Palin up to date on McCain's effort to enact financial reforms back in 2005 before her debate. She didn't have the answer when Katie Couric asked, but McCain was a co-sponsor of S. 109.

    • Posted By: Cazador1972 @ 09/28/2008 5:43:53 PM


      It is quite a problem to want to cram in a month what it takes bright individuals years to learn. People, admit it, she is utterly unprepared. Even if she, somehow, gets through the debate without embarrassing herself, she's still cramming information a president needs to have expert knowledge on. If Rome had been built in a day it would have crashed.

      Wake up, people, PLEASE. We already had a president who fell sleep at the wheel and allowed 9-11 and the Katrina aftermath to happen. Are you ready to put the life of your kids, mothers and fathers on this person's hands?

      • Posted By: RavenMaven @ 09/30/2008 3:42:34 PM

        9/11 happened on Clinton's watch. The event may have occurred a few months after he left office, but the execution of its planning all took place on his watch. not Bush. He had the intelligence on Bin Laden. He even had BinLaden dead to rights for the cole bombing and refused to take him out. 9/11 was your boy's fault.

      • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 09/28/2008 5:49:39 PM

        Exactly, which is one reason I won't vote for Obama.

        • Posted By: Cazador1972 @ 09/29/2008 2:19:33 PM


          Obama "crammed"? Obama has done more debates, interviews and news rounds than Palin and MCcain put together in THIS election. Palin has given three and has crashed and burned in two of them and even with Hannity she seemed lost. Are you actually going to say Obama doesn't know the issues? I'm sorry, but that's bull. You can say you don't agree with him or that you like McCain's supply-side economics better, but to say Obama doesn't know the issues is bull poopie.

          • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 09/29/2008 3:15:19 PM

            It doesn't matter. If Obama hadn't known his stuff, his numbers would have dropped post-debate. Instead, he's reached new highs. I told the righties months ago that the "experience" canard wasn't going to win this election for them. They had better find something big against Obama, or it's lights out.

            • Posted By: RavenMaven @ 09/30/2008 3:38:20 PM

              You have had candidates with lesser liabilities than this lose the last two times out. I wouldn't count your chickens yet....

  • Posted By: Achilles22 @ 09/30/2008 12:46:34 PM



    Palin should probably just be quiet and say she has a sore throat....

    This woman has disqualified McCain by exposing him as a fraud.

    Country First?

  • Posted By: SMcGinnis @ 09/30/2008 12:43:11 PM

    The same argument can be made about McCain and education. Did McCain go to college?? NO, how were his grades at the academy hid Daddy got him into?? VERY POOR and finally just because someone is in the military it makes them "experienced" to be President?? WHAT?? At least Barack took the time to get educated...

    And in the debate, Barack kept saying you are "right " to Mccain on the DUMBEST issues of the night. Look back at what he was agreeing with him on... They were not key isues, they were generic - everybody agrees with statements. Were you watching the same debate, or did you just read that online and decide to jump on the bandwagon. Sure Obama agrees we have to get corruption out of Wallstreet and DC - so does all of America.

  • Posted By: Chyna @ 09/29/2008 9:55:26 AM

    THERE ARE REALLY SOME IDIOTS WHO ARE REALLY ROOTING FOR THESE TWO TO WIN THIS ELECTION. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE, BUT IT IS WHO WILL LOOK OUY FOR ALL OF OUR NEEDS; RED, GREEN, YELLOW, BLACK, WHITE AND PURPLE. I GUESS THE ONE'S WHO ARE SUPPORTING THE RUPUB. PARTY ARE THE ONE'S WHO AREN'T STRUGGLING ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS. I AM A FULL TIME EMPLOYEE AND STUDENT AND IT IS HARD B/C EVERY LITTLE BIT YOU SAVE IT IS SHIPPED RIGHT BACK TO THE MAKERS AS SOON AS YOU CAN GET IT. GAS IS REALLY SICK, PEOPLE ARE LOSING THEIR HOMES, JOBS ARE SCARCE FOR THE PEOPLE WHO REALLY HAVE AND WANT TO WORK. I AM 21 YEARS OLD AND I NEVER WOULD HAVE IMAGINED TO BE LIVING THIS WAY. I GUESS THE ONE'S WHO SUPPORT HIM ARE THE ONES WHO THIS INCREASE IN EVERYDAY LIFE COSTS HAS HAD NO EFFECT UPON. B/C WITH HIS TAX PLAN THAT'S WHO'S GETTING BENEFITTED THE MOST EVEN IF WE ARE THE ONES WHO LITERALLY ARE BARELY MAKING IT OFF A JOB THAT WE SHOULD LIVE COMFORTABLY ON. AMERICA THINK LONG AND SMART.

    OBAMA/BIDEN "08"

    • Posted By: RavenMaven @ 09/29/2008 4:02:34 PM

      At 21 , no one lives comfortably off of their job. You have not even started your career yet. You are at the ground floor of what will be a decades long struggle to earn the right to live comfortably. When you have finally achieved success after working hard at it for over twenty years, then you will fully appreciate how much it hurts to have some liberal politician tell you that you should now be penalized for that achievement, and you should have to pay five times as much taxes as those snot nosed little 21 year olds who are not content with how uncomfortable they are...

      • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 09/29/2008 4:24:19 PM

        Someone has to pay. You can only get it from where it exists. Myself, I'll be happy to pay a higher bracket, because it means I'm making more money overall. I doubt there are many people purposely limiting their success to stay in a lower bracket.

        • Posted By: RavenMaven @ 09/29/2008 5:14:35 PM

          Yes we all should pay equally.There is no reason that you should pay a higher percentage of your income to taxes than I do. If you earn more than me, then you are already paying more actual dollars in taxes than I am, but that is not good enough. They want you to pay a higher percentage of your income than I do, for what reason? There is no justifiable reason for this. It is blatant penalization of the successful. If you are successful, it is not your fault that I am not as successful as you. Why should you have to pay a higher percentage than me?

          • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 09/29/2008 5:31:52 PM

            The reason is the more you make, the more you take from the system. A simple example, you are a Senator and you have 8 houses. That's 8 fire departments that have to be paid to protect your house. You have a business that trades with China. Money has to be spent to negotiate trade deals to keep that relationship going. Money has to be spent to keep trade routes open and ensure that commerce flows...etc..etc

            • Posted By: RavenMaven @ 09/30/2008 11:58:18 AM

              The intended result of this idea is socialism. If we levy huge fines(taxes) on the rich in order to make them pay for everyone else in this country, then they will no longer be rich. They will become middle class as a result of losing over half of their income to taxes. There will always be a bill gates, but even today there are only a handful of those types of folks. When I say Rich, I am talking about Obama's definition of rich (over $250k in income).. if we tax all the rich people to death then all the rich people will be just middle class people, and so middle class becomes the new "rich". So you will tax those "rich" people to pay for the poor, until finally we are all poor and dependent on the government for everything. Socialism. Make everyone "equal" and dependent on the government. Joe Biden calls this "Patriotism". He wants to take your money and give it to someone else under the guise of Patriotism. He says it is the right thing to do. He says that it is your responsibility to make everyone equal to you, or make yourself equal to everyone else, on the success ladder. Where is individual accountability and responsibility. Why don't those people who will receive your money have a responsibility to pay their fair share of taxes? Remember some of those people make only a thousand dollars less than you do to begin with. You only look at the extremes. You see Bill Gates and say he should pay for all the homeless, because he dares to be rich. He already gives away billions of dollars to education and charity and pays billions more in taxes but that is not good enough for you. But that is not where the reality is in America. The reality is that the average "rich" person in America lives on the same street as the average "middle class" person and the average "poor"person according to Obama's definitions. The extreme divide you like to paint is not real. And so for most of America you are taking money from one neighbor and giving to another and it does not make any sense at all. But it sounds great on the campaign trail because we can show pictures of Donald Trump next to a picture of a homeless guy and blame Republican "Greed" for America's problems...

            • Posted By: RavenMaven @ 09/29/2008 6:03:06 PM

              You could not possibly be more wrong about this. The business owner employs people. He is not a drain on the system, he is the source of its energy. Why don't you guys get that? If he has eight houses, then he pays property taxes on those eight houses that cover the impact of those homes on their respective communities, such as fire departments. That has nothing whatsoever to do with Federal income tax. Businesses shoulder the costs of international business themselves. The problems ( NAFTA) happen when the government tries to step in where it is not needed.

        • Posted By: RavenMaven @ 09/29/2008 5:17:04 PM

          No. You wouldn't. The guy who makes $ 249K has more money than the guy who makes $251k in obama's plan. The 251 guy pays an absurdly higher tax burden, but the 249 guy gets a tax break. So he is "rich" and the "rich guy" has less money than him.

          • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 09/29/2008 5:28:20 PM

            There has to be a line drawn somewhere. That's why they call it a tax bracket.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse