Topic: The Presidential Race
started by: TameThaTane
Posted by TameThaTane on Oct. 30 2007,10:24 pm
Here's the race. It'll be Hillary Clinton Verses Mitt Romney. I stand by that and it'll come to fruition. Just watch, I'm always right. Said told you so so many times I can't even remember all of them.
Keep this thread alive as proof of how correct I always am. Make your predictions here.
Posted by REPOMAN on Oct. 30 2007,11:03 pm
picks the two front runners and then wants a bannana if he's right... 
what a chimp - Hillary is the presumptive nominee by quite a bit - all you have to do is get lucky choosing the GOP candidate...
what a moron...
of course I've told you that so so many times I can't even remember all of them...
Posted by TameThaTane on Oct. 31 2007,12:26 am
Not so fast repo. Obama will most likely win IA and New Hampshire giving him great momentum. Let's hear your prediction. Who's it gonna be? Put your rep on the line.
Posted by REPOMAN on Oct. 31 2007,6:57 am
(TameThaTane @ Oct. 31 2007,12:26 am)
QUOTE
Not so fast repo. Obama will most likely win IA and New Hampshire giving him great momentum.
Let's hear your prediction. Who's it gonna be? Put your rep on the line.
Let's hear your prediction. Who's it gonna be? Put your rep on the line.
my reputation - what reputation...
I already agree it's Hillary on the Democrat side and on the GOP side I have no idea who it's going to be...
I would prefer Huckabee with Thompson as my second choice...
after those two there are significant flaws in all the rest...
of the Democrats I would least object to Biden and Richardson...
if Hillary does get nominated (which I believe she will) it gives the GOP the biggest opportunity for victory in a year when defeat would otherwise be virtually assured...
I'm fairly sure that significant percentages of the population will not vote for Hillary because of gender, the Billary factor (Clinton fatigue) and her personality just grates on a lot of people...
as for Obama I'm not sure that a large enough percentage of Americans are ready for a black man to become president - and if they are will his name do him in...
you have to admit - with what is going on in the world today being blessed with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be the kiss of death in a tight election...
with today's political climate I believe virtually any of the Democratic candidates would beat any of the GOP candidates with the exception of Hillary and Obama...
it appears virtually certain that Hillary will get the nom - and if not Obama - with a slim chance Edwards can pull it out...
are the Democrats really going to fumble away their golden opportunity by nominating someone that is unelectable - I think so...
Posted by TameThaTane on Oct. 31 2007,8:26 am
if Hillary does get nominated (which I believe she will) it gives the GOP the biggest opportunity for victory in a year when defeat would otherwise be virtually assured...Why would it be virtually assured?I'm fairly sure that significant percentages of the population will not vote for Hillary because of gender, the Billary factor (Clinton fatigue) and her personality just grates on a lot of people...False, just a % of the Republican base which is a minority
as for Obama I'm not sure that a large enough percentage of Americans are ready for a black man to become president - and if they are will his name do him in...False, Americans are ready for a woman or a black
you have to admit - with what is going on in the world today being blessed with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be the kiss of death in a tight election...False, that's just stupid
with today's political climate I believe virtually any of the Democratic candidates would beat any of the GOP candidates with the exception of Hillary and Obama...False, a democrat will win because the right-wing base doesn't like any of it's candidates
it appears virtually certain that Hillary will get the nom - and if not Obama - with a slim chance Edwards can pull it out...True, you're 1 for 5
are the Democrats really going to fumble away their golden opportunity by nominating someone that is unelectable - I think so...False, Hillary is becoming excepted by older right-wing women
Why do you choose Huckabee? Because he's a minister who believes in everything you hold dear. The drug war, hating immigrants and your religion?
Let me get this straight, you chastise me because these predictions are somehow obvious, yet when I ask you they aren't...You're a kook to be sure.
Posted by Glad I Left on Oct. 31 2007,8:56 am
Personally it doesn't matter who is nominated. Whether a Republican or Democrat wins the whitehouse means nothing. They will just steal from the common folk in different ways. Until a non-career politician is elected I think we are in for more of the same. 
Posted by ICU812 on Oct. 31 2007,9:16 am
Go Billary 
Posted by hymiebravo on Oct. 31 2007,9:30 am
Its too bad Mrs.GW isn't running against her. That would make the debates a little more interesting anyway.
Yep just sit back and watch the fur fly.
Posted by JeffJimenez on Oct. 31 2007,10:27 am
Nice comments Repo. I agree with you regarding Hilary. She just kinda bugs me. Its not because she is a woman but because she comes off as a know it all. If she were a guy, I would not vote for her/him. I am leaning toward Obama, mostly because of his ability to reach out to the common folk. He comes off as being sincere. One can only hope that this type of leadership works in Washington.As far as the GOP, I am leaning toward Romney. He is the least "politician like" and he wears cool suits.
Posted by Wareagle11B on Oct. 31 2007,10:48 am
For the Democrats it would appear at this time that Hillary does have the nomination wrapped up and it is hers to lose. Things can change come time for the vote however. I could see the Democrats pulling some back door political moves to get Hillary to bow out however. Promise her a powerful position within the government should a Democrat OTHER than Hillary get elected. Barrack Obama would be a good choice if the Democratic party does pull the back room maneuver but unfortunately because of his name and race it is unlikely he would get the nod as well. This is my opinion and only mine btw.As for the Republicans I wouldn't mind seeing Romney or Thompson get the nod.
Posted by JeffJimenez on Oct. 31 2007,11:23 am
I like Thompson as well. He has a good background and quite frankly seems pretty down to earth. My only concern with Thompson is his age. I like your Democratic analysis Eagle. Do you think that the Dems would pull a stunt like that on Hilly?? I just feel that if she were elected it would be business as usual. We need a new face with fresh ideas. Obama really fits that bill.
Posted by Common Citizen on Oct. 31 2007,11:52 am
QUOTE
I just feel that if she were elected it would be business as usual. We need a new face with fresh ideas. Obama really fits that bill.
Dittos other than the Obama comment... I would replace that line with...we need a new party that can compete against the other two ...imo
Posted by REPOMAN on Oct. 31 2007,12:00 pm
(TameThaTane @ Oct. 30 2007,10:24 pm)
QUOTE
Here's the race. It'll be Hillary Clinton Verses Mitt Romney.
I stand by that and it'll come to fruition. Just watch, I'm always right. Said told you so so many times I can't even remember all of them.
Keep this thread alive as proof of how correct I always am. Make your predictions here.
I stand by that and it'll come to fruition. Just watch, I'm always right. Said told you so so many times I can't even remember all of them.
Keep this thread alive as proof of how correct I always am. Make your predictions here.
QUOTE
Let me get this straight, you chastise me because these predictions are somehow obvious, yet when I ask you they aren't...You're a kook to be sure.
no, moron...
I chastized you because you were chirping about how smart you always are:
QUOTE
I stand by that and it'll come to fruition. Just watch, I'm always right. Said told you so so many times I can't even remember all of them.
one doesn't have to be that smart to say that Hillary will be the nominee - she's running away with the damn thing - that's my point, chimp...
as to your question about why would GOP defeat be virtually assured - two words: Iraq war...
as to your statement that only a percentage of the Republican base finds Hillary's personality objectionable, you are out to lunch - most polls show that 50% or more Americans say they would not vote for her under any circumstance - ever, that's obviously more than just a percentage of the GOP base - that's a lot of independents and even some donkeys...
maybe American voters are ready for a woman or a black - I didn't say they weren't - I just stated "I don't know if they are" - and the fact is that remains to be seen...
I choose Mike Huckabee for the same reason that most people choose their candidate - because his views, statements and promises come closest to what I am looking for and expecting from in a President...
and by the way - you couldn't debate your way out of a paper bag - twerp...
Posted by Wareagle11B on Oct. 31 2007,12:20 pm
Jeff I could see the DNC doing just that for at least 2 reasons. 1) Hillary's husband. I don't think that the DNC would want him around to create issues with what he has done in the past. I know this shouldn't matter but in politics, especially on the national stage, it does.
2) While the country may be ready for a woman to be president Hillary is too polarizing in her views for the country as a whole to elect her.
I could easily see them pulling the back room maneuver for those reasons alone.
But what we all must remember about politics at every level is as the joke goes........Little Girl asked her dad after he had read her a fairy tale before bed, "Daddy do all fairy tales begin with once upon a time? No honey some begin with IF I AM ELECTED."
Posted by jimhanson on Oct. 31 2007,12:32 pm
I like Huckabee and Thompson as well--my top choices. Neither one seems to be a "professional" politician--Huckabee is calm, rational, and states his position well. He has had a slow but steady increase in the polls, so much so that many now consider him "top tier". Thompson is "folksy". The image his detractors would like to convey is that he "doesn't want it bad enough." I see that as a strength--someone that is NOT an "activist politician"--someone that, like Reagan, can set the tone and direction, and not micromanage. That's what the BEST CEO's do.On the Democrat side--in a rational world, a 1 1/2 term senator that has never run ANYTHING (business, city, state) --that has a particularly undistinguished legislative career (name any important legislation she has authored? Post office names don't count), and whose entire claim to fame was consistent scandal and misuse of government power (filegate, travelgate, whitewater, white house travel staff, chinese fund-raisers) would not even be CONSIDERED for a top slot.
Similarly, a half-term junior Senator--ALSO with no important legislation on his record would never be considered for the top slot.
But then--we're talking about Democrat Politics--where even Dennis Kucinich ("Hey, is there a debate going on?" he shouted after being ignored at the last Dem debate) is included!
Posted by TameThaTane on Oct. 31 2007,2:57 pm
I like the comment about Thompson being too old and "Thompson is "folksy". Ya, folksy is as folksy does...
He has two kids under the age of 5 and a trophy wife 25 years his junior who dresses like Britney Spears.
The Republican base is gonna love first lady Britney Spears. A woman young enough to be his first born daughter. A first lady who was a toddler during the Carter administration.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Oct. 31 2007,3:19 pm
No Viagra Required
Unlike Newt and Rudy, Thompson’s second marriage did not overlap with his first wife. Thompson and Sara Lindsey divorced in 1985. He didn’t meet Jeri Kehn until 1996 and they married in 2002.
And unlike WALNUTS! McCain’s latest wife, Thompson’s latest wife 40 years old isn’t known to be a crazy drug addict! Bring dignity back to the White House in 2008 — elect the serious-looking actor guy!
Posted by jimhanson on Oct. 31 2007,4:09 pm
Thompson had the best line of the evening on the last debate. After Chris Wallace said "some people think you are lazy" in going after the Presidential nomination, Thompson stated his credentials--early graduate from Law school, prosecuter by age 30, tapped by Howard Baker as a prosecuter for Watergate in his early 30s, elected twice to the Senate, going back to private practice, another vocation as an actor.......As Wallace started to break away for a commercial break, Thompson jumped back in and said "And two kids under the age of 4--if anyone thinks THAT'S lazy, I suggest they follow suit!"
Posted by Common Citizen on Nov. 01 2007,11:13 pm
Huckabee's stance on the IRS is refreshing. He will give Mitt and Thompson a lot of competition because of his lock on the Christian conservatives, especially in Iowa. Although his positions as an uber conservative may rally the base he will have problems in the northeast for that very same reason.Give him a few more debates and he may just get the nod.
Posted by TameThaTane on Nov. 01 2007,11:32 pm
An Arkansas Babtist minister for president? Puh-leeze! That's all we need is Bubba the Nascar dad and his ex-Hooter waitress wife making public policy...
Posted by Common Citizen on Nov. 01 2007,11:35 pm
I knew the "christian conservative" line would get ya 3T.
Posted by TameThaTane on Nov. 01 2007,11:37 pm
You should move to Alabama and be amongst your people.
Posted by Common Citizen on Nov. 01 2007,11:40 pm
So why do you assume I'm black now?
Posted by Botto 82 on Nov. 02 2007,12:04 am
I think he was referring to white Alabama, or as Dennis Miller once put it, Darwin's waiting room.
Posted by Common Citizen on Nov. 02 2007,8:21 am
I know what he meant...I'm just needling him a little
Posted by Common Citizen on Nov. 30 2007,12:53 pm
(TameThaTane @ Oct. 30 2007,10:24 pm)
QUOTE
Here's the race. It'll be Hillary Clinton Verses Mitt Romney.
I stand by that and it'll come to fruition. Just watch, I'm always right. Said told you so so many times I can't even remember all of them.
Keep this thread alive as proof of how correct I always am. Make your predictions here.
I stand by that and it'll come to fruition. Just watch, I'm always right. Said told you so so many times I can't even remember all of them.
Keep this thread alive as proof of how correct I always am. Make your predictions here.
Not so fast...Senator John Edwards is making one last ditch effort...
< Man takes hostages at Clinton campaign headquarters >
Posted by TameThaTane on Nov. 30 2007,1:23 pm
Obama will win IA caucus. Best candidates are Obama on he dem side and Ron Paul on the rep side.
GOP is pushing Hillary because that's who they feel they can beat.
GOP won't win this time around. Bush made sure of that. Look at England and Oz...both went dem.
Posted by Common Citizen on Nov. 30 2007,1:25 pm
^ What about France?
Posted by TameThaTane on Nov. 30 2007,1:28 pm
What about France? Still far more liberal than even our dems.
Posted by Common Citizen on Nov. 30 2007,1:35 pm
QUOTE
GOP won't win this time around. Bush made sure of that. Look at England and Oz...both went dem.
Nicolas Sarkozy was the leader of the Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) a right wing political party in France and is now the French President.
Germany's President is also a conservative I believe.
Posted by Whiskero on Nov. 30 2007,1:54 pm
I'm sorry but I can't get around Obama's name. Sounds too much Iranian like.
Posted by TameThaTane on Nov. 30 2007,2:13 pm
^How weak is that? How narrow minded. Guys like you shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Posted by Whiskero on Nov. 30 2007,2:15 pm
I know I'm not the only one thinking that.
Posted by Sher-Wood on Nov. 30 2007,2:26 pm
Fred Thompson 08'
Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 30 2007,3:23 pm
Canada also dumped the labor party.
Posted by TameThaTane on Nov. 30 2007,3:59 pm
England and Oz are the barometer though. Other countries can't compare because they are too far to left. Republicans simply can't win because 80% of Americans are fed up with this war and all GOPer's want to continue with it. It's so simple really. Americans are very upset like I've never seen in my entire life.
Posted by hairhertz on Nov. 30 2007,4:07 pm
Will Obama select Oprah as his running mate if he wins the nomination? [i think Hillary, for the record, has it wrapped up already
]
Posted by pccm on Nov. 30 2007,4:16 pm
Okay boys!!! I just moved into the area...thinking about buying andwanted to get a feel for the town...Where should I go to get a real feel for it?
Posted by wellstones pilot on Nov. 30 2007,4:23 pm
(pccm @ Nov. 30 2007,4:16 pm)
QUOTE
Okay boys!!! I just moved into the area...thinking about buying and
wanted to get a feel for the town...Where should I go to get a real feel for it?
wanted to get a feel for the town...Where should I go to get a real feel for it?
Try Northwood, Iowa or maybe Owatonna.
Albert Lea is the rectum of Minnesota!
Posted by pccm on Nov. 30 2007,4:31 pm
Where is northwood?
Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 30 2007,4:56 pm
Most conservatives are pushing for Hillary! Especially after this poll by Zogby null< My Webpage > The only problem--it's a Zogby poll--not too reliable. It also shows Obama and Edwards as being more electable than she is.
The RealClearPolitics compendium of polls shows Giuliani and McCain within the margin of error against her--but Obama does better. < My Webpage >
On the topic of world-wide conservative/liberal leaders, Germany also has a center-right Chancellor. Who would have thought--Germany, France, and Canada having conservative governments.
Regarding labor Prime Ministers in England and Australia--I don't view that as a real barometer of sea change--though the PM is Labor (as was Blair) England is still keeping a pretty conservative (for them) course--much to the disappointment of the traditional laborites.
Though the PM of Australia governs with a Labor coalition, he does so with ties also to the conservatives. He has broken precedents with the Labor party all along--refusing to appoint cronies on the basis of party seniority, living in the government house only for State functions, etc. He wants Australian troops out of Iraq, but will not set a date. On the other hand, he does have the liberal "apology" disease--he wants to make a national apology to the aborigines. Too early to tell how he will govern.
Posted by TameThaTane on Nov. 30 2007,5:33 pm
Ron Paul's the best candidate, but America's too stupid to vote him in. Obama would be a generational change which is sorely needed. So tired of this 40 year battle of hippies VS conservatives. SO tired of the Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton dynasty. Not a dimes worth of difference between any of em.
One certainty though is Republicans can't win because of the the war in Iraq. It's one reason why McCain tanked. He was most vocal about it. It's shocks the senses any Republican thinks he can win by being pro war. When we gets down to 1 on 1 debates the Republicans are going to get killed. This war..a lie, can't be defended.
Ron Paul could beat Obama, but even Hillary could beat any Republican handily. I've never seen Americans more upset over anything in my life. They all know they were lied to and there'll be hell to pay. Mark my words. It's funny Jim even thinks there's a chance. He's such a partisan. Blindly follows the GOP. I'm a Republican, but know when to speak up when I see my party's clearly wrong.
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 01 2007,11:29 am
Did you even bother to look at the links? I have NEVER put much faith in the Zogby poll (they were one of the pollsters predicting a Kerry blowout) but they show ANY of the top five beating the Hildabeast.If you checked the other link, it shows ALL of the major polls. Most of the polls are within 3%--the margin of error. Hardly a Clinton blow-out, is it?
And how is simply posting links to these polls partisan?
QUOTE
Blindly follows the GOP.
If you had been paying attention, I've mentioned that not only have I not donated to the GOP for nearly a decade (I give to the NRA--ANY office seeker can claim the money--but few libs do) voted for Ventura, Perot, Penny--on record as saying I would vote for Lieberman, on record as opposing McCain--on record as stating that there is little philosophical difference between the parties.You fail to differentiate between supporting Conservatives and the GOP--the Repubs have abandoned their principles and become "Donk Lite"--the reason I quit actively participating. Give your money to causes you believe in--and let anybody that can prove they need it step up and claim it.
As far as which way I'd vote--show me the most conservative candidate, (like Perot and Penny) and I'll support them. I haven't seen any conservative Dems in years that we are eligible to vote for--have you? The Dems have been hijacked by the extreme left--Soros, Daily Kos, Hollywood.
The irony is--you label yourself as a Republican. Are you conservative, or have you become the "neo-Republicans"? If so, what differentiates you from the Donks? Perhaps YOU would care to defend them?
Posted by hymiebravo on Dec. 01 2007,1:10 pm
I thought he said he was a Libertarian.
Posted by TameThaTane on Dec. 01 2007,1:47 pm
Republicans used to be libertarians.
Posted by hymiebravo on Dec. 01 2007,1:59 pm
QUOTE
On the other hand, he does have the liberal "apology" disease--he wants to make a national apology to the aborigines
Didn't they have a pretty explicit written out plan to wipe the Aborigines off the face of the earth ?
Thats a pretty agressive thing to do to an entire race of people.
Its been quite a while since I read about it. But from what I remember. That was the " just" of it.
An apology seems like a little thing for something like that. lol
What should they do just not say anything pretend like it never happened ?
Posted by hymiebravo on Dec. 01 2007,2:16 pm
It is quite the quandary though. Saying..." look man, we're sorry we tried to wipe you off the face of the earth. Can I have a hug ? " doesn't sound that great either.
But you never know it may have very positive results.
Posted by hairhertz on Dec. 01 2007,4:59 pm
I'd hazard a guess that most of the realtors in town are sitting around twiddling their thumbs waiting for a customer to stop in. Any of them would probably be willing to give you a grand tour of the town with a long monolog [sp?] about the pros & cons of each neighborhood.
Posted by Common Citizen on Dec. 02 2007,8:34 am
Ron Paul is an isolationist...just listen to his retoric...wait a minute...wasn't Hitler an isolationist prior to WWII?
Posted by TameThaTane on Dec. 02 2007,8:57 am
I see the logic, the linkage. You're brilliant. Ron Paul IS Hitler! Ya...that's the ticket...
Posted by Common Citizen on Dec. 02 2007,9:09 am
That is a bit extreme, hence, the tongue sticking out...
Posted by TameThaTane on Dec. 02 2007,9:27 am
Extreme? It's insane. 
Beep beep..here come de short bus...all aboard!
Posted by fredbear on Dec. 02 2007,10:07 am
AMAZING - I post this on another topic and flip over here and it's the same loser BS.Its funny how all of TTT posts have to go the way of the pathetic loser....insult everyone who doesn't jump on his bandwagon.
TametheTard - Come up with something different from the short bus reference, it's getting old - someone thats as brilliant as you shouldn't have any problem.
CC - what do you mean he's doing nothing - he's on this forum with it's dozens of users, as soon as he convinces all of us of his superior intelligence it will be on to the next local forum for say a town of 30,000 people. I'm not gonna hold my breath.
Is there anyone else on this forum that has to continue to tell everyone how intelligent and rich they are? And, of course, how EVERYONE else is stupid. What a tool.
Posted by TameThaTane on Dec. 02 2007,11:26 am
You make the exact same post in two different threads and claim I'M posting the SAME BS? You call me childish names and claim I'M the childish one! LOL
It'd be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
Posted by hymiebravo on Dec. 02 2007,11:53 am
QUOTE
You make the exact same post in two different threads
Maybe theres something wrong with the "board".
From this thread...
QUOTE
hairhertz · Posted on Dec. 01 2007,4:59 pm
I'd hazard a guess that most of the realtors in town are sitting around twiddling their thumbs waiting for a customer to stop in. Any of them would probably be willing to give you a grand tour of the town with a long monolog [sp?] about the pros & cons of each neighborhood.
I'd hazard a guess that most of the realtors in town are sitting around twiddling their thumbs waiting for a customer to stop in. Any of them would probably be willing to give you a grand tour of the town with a long monolog [sp?] about the pros & cons of each neighborhood.
Is that some sort of non sequitur random humour ? lol
Or this from the Eagles Mess thread.
QUOTE
(Common Citizen @ Dec. 02 2007,9:04 am)
Caught that Spidey...Yale graduate and fighter pilot...turned $500k investment into $14million in ten years when he sold the Ranger's. Wish I had his brain.
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 02 2007,12:33 pm
Hymiebravo QUOTE
Saying..." look man, we're sorry we tried to wipe you off the face of the earth. Can I have a hug ? " doesn't sound that great either.
My point exactly. It could be said that we tried to exterminate the Indians in the U.S.--and we have people that think an apology to them is in order.
Look at the Brouhaha with the Pelosi-Turkey request for an "apology" for something we weren't even involved in--it may get us thrown out of one of our most important bases.
Look at the repeated requests for an "apology" for slavery.
An apology from someone who was not involved is insincere, and accomplishes nothing.
No U.S. President in over 150 years owned slaves. It has been over 200 years since slaves were brought to the U.S. No U.S. citizen owns slaves.
The same can be said for the the Indians--it's been over 130 years since the Indian wars were last fought. Nobody alive today participated in them.
The same can be said for the Australian prime minister and the aboriginals.
The same can be said for Pelosi's ill considered resolution calling on Turkey to apologize for the 1915 Armenian slaughter. Nobody involved is still alive, no perpetrators, nobody in the Turkish government, and the U.S. wasn't even involved.
What's worse than no apology? An insincere apology. And an insincere apology by someone not involved mocks and demeans any REAL apology.
Posted by TameThaTane on Dec. 02 2007,12:39 pm
I'd apologize to Armenian Kim Kardashian all day long..
Posted by hymiebravo on Dec. 02 2007,1:09 pm
^
Posted by Botto 82 on Dec. 02 2007,5:46 pm
3T = No girlfriend.Go figure.
Posted by fredbear on Dec. 02 2007,8:06 pm
(TameThaTane @ Dec. 02 2007,11:26 am)
QUOTE
You make the exact same post in two different threads and claim I'M posting the SAME BS?
You call me childish names and claim I'M the childish one! LOL
It'd be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
You call me childish names and claim I'M the childish one! LOL
It'd be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
It's called "cut and paste". Google it and even you can learn how to do it. Are you that clueless?
You can't even go one post without insulting people - the lowest common denominator if you can't carry on a real argument.
Haven't you figured out that no one here gives a rats behind about your supposed intelligence and imagined wealth? Or even who you think is going to be president.
It's pretty clear to everyone your intelligence comes from spending all day and night on the internet or watching Oprah and your wealth comes from inheriting your mom's doublewide.
Pathetic is right.
Posted by Common Citizen on Dec. 03 2007,9:56 am
(hymiebravo @ Dec. 02 2007,11:53 am)
QUOTE
Or this from the Eagles Mess thread.
(Common Citizen @ Dec. 02 2007,9:04 am)
Caught that Spidey...Yale graduate and fighter pilot...turned $500k investment into $14million in ten years when he sold the Ranger's. Wish I had his brain.
QUOTE
(Common Citizen @ Dec. 02 2007,9:04 am)
Caught that Spidey...Yale graduate and fighter pilot...turned $500k investment into $14million in ten years when he sold the Ranger's. Wish I had his brain.
I was referring to the picture...not the subject matter of the thread...
Posted by hymiebravo on Dec. 03 2007,12:56 pm
QUOTE
Caught that Spidey
What was it that you proclaim to have " caught " ?
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 03 2007,1:58 pm
A Gulfstream jet with 15 people on board stopped on the runway in Mason City this morning due to smoke in the cockpit. The runway was closed, and two other business jets had to hold.Curious--15 people is inordinately high for a Gulfstream, and Hillary is supposed to be in Clear Lake today. I just heard another Gulfstream going in there. Replacement aircraft? Do you suppose it is just a coincindence?
Posted by ICU812 on Dec. 03 2007,2:15 pm
QUOTE
due to smoke in the cockpit
Does Bill have his pilots license?
Posted by hymiebravo on Dec. 03 2007,2:21 pm
I hope she wasn't wearing that DARK lipstick she had on in one of her most recent commercials she'll scare everyone away. lol
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 03 2007,2:23 pm
He doesn't inhale, remember? Maybe it was an overheated cigar.
Traced the original Gulfstream--it is registered in New Hampshire. Both Gulfstreams came up from Des Moines. Nothing on any of the news channels.
Posted by hymiebravo on Dec. 03 2007,2:37 pm
Heres my new method for people who can't really decide who to vote for and don't really have the time to research the issues.Say the Candidates name as if they were president.
Like this....
President Hucklebee
President Bloomberg
President Biden
Well I think you get the idea.
Then vote for the one you like the sound of the best.
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 03 2007,5:02 pm
Talked to a pilot in Mason City. He said Hillary was on the second airplane, a Hawker jet, and that the aircraft had to circle for an hour. No mention of who was on the Gulfstream--press corps? Advance men? It wasn't a Government registered aircraft, so unlikely to be Secret Service.With her well-known temper, can you imagine the fireworks?
Posted by TameThaTane on Dec. 03 2007,6:15 pm
Why make it personal with Hillary Jim? I'm not intimidated by strong women. I grew up with three of em in the form of three sisters. Let's talk about issues. What issues are most important to you this election cycle?
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 03 2007,6:39 pm
Well, let's put it this way. You see, it wasn't Edwards, Obama, Richardson, Biden, or any of the also-ran Donks on the plane (Kucinich would have used his own flying saucer). So when I reported that there was a GULFSTREAM, and that HILLARY was going to be in Clear Lake--and that it is reported that she was not on that plane, but on a follow-up plane, THAT'S ALL THERE WAS TO IT.
I'd have done the same thing if the Breck Boy or Joe the Plagiarist was involved.
Did I say anything about Hillary?
You may not remember, but I stated that most Conservatives WANT her to win the nomination. She has the highest negatives.
There's something almost Freudian in your defense of her when there was no attack, though. Or maybe it's an Oedipus complex.
Posted by TameThaTane on Dec. 03 2007,6:59 pm
Didn't you once call her the Hilda-beast? She's a tad too socialist for my taste, but her intelligence doesn't intimidate me. I'm tired of this Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton dynasty. It's unhealthy to have the same people running the country for that long.
It'll be Romney VS either Hillary or Obama. Huckabee will win Iowa but will be corrected by New Hampshire to Romney. Obama will win Iowa.
I want less government, less taxes and more states rights, plus more Liberal leaning judges. The supreme court is much too far to the right. They don't respect constitutional rights.
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 04 2007,10:01 am
I have called her the Hilda-Beast--but not in the context of reporting on the Mason City incident. It could have been any of the candidates--she was just the one involved.QUOTE
I want less government, less taxes and more states rights, plus more Liberal leaning judges.
You aren't likely to find them in one party. (Edited to add: You may find them in the Constitutional Party)The Repubs generally favor less government--Dems can't help introducing more bills--and every time you introduce a bill, you not only take away rights from somebody, but you create a government bureaucracy to administer it.
Less taxes--Repubs usually CUT taxes--and Dems think that is a BAD thing.
States Rights--Repubs are usually FOR the right of states to make their own law, while Dems favor a strong central government and consolodation of power.
More liberal judges--that's not only in confilict with your other stated desires, it's in conflict with
QUOTE
They don't respect constitutional rights.
On the contrary--conservative judges believe that the Constitution means just what it says--AND NO MORE. It is the liberal judges that "find" new meanings in the Constitution--that describe it as a "living, breathing document".Witness the witless Federal cases, "finding" a rationale for eminent domain, when there is no local need of land--or the Federal judge in Wisconsin that opened Minnesota and Wisconsin lakes to Indian fishing and spearing--despite 3 signed documents selling their rights. She took a page from Edwards, and "channelled" what she THOUGHT the Indians were thinking at the time. Had that been any civil contract, she would have been laughed off the bench. And you want more of THAT?
Just taking a chance here, but I'm guessing that you want to assert a Constitutional right to smoke pot. Fair enough--I don't think the government has a Constitutional ability to regulate it, either. But liberal interpretation of the Constitution have insinuated the ability of government to create all KINDS of bureaucracies not mentioned in the Constitution. Example: Gun control--there wasn't Federal gun control before the 1934 Federal Firearms act--a Rooseveldt initiative. The Rooseveldt Supreme Court upheld the Constitutional challenge--and opened the floodgates for any number of "findings" without benefit of public debate or lawmaking.
Posted by ICU812 on Dec. 04 2007,10:16 am
I could never vote for her, my wife who always cancels my votes the her blue state voting ways informed me she would NOT vote for Hillary, that was nice to hear.Her commercial running now really makes me fear should she be nominated/elected............eliminate corporate tax cuts......................not a good idea.
Then she touts oil prices are hurting middle class Americans...........what the hell can she do about oil prices as president?
The one thing I will enjoy if a Dem is president, you know it, global warming will go away.
Posted by TameThaTane on Dec. 04 2007,10:40 am
Far right wing judges have systematicly usurped personal rights. It's shocking really, the personal liberty that's been taken away from us. The liberty guaranteed by the constitution. The numerous and blatant examples are too lengthy to post here. But this issue is so important and the court so lopsided, that I'll be voting democrat this time around unless Ron Paul wins the nomination. If Pat Robertson will vote for an Italian connected mobster because of judge nominations it shows how important these positions are.
Posted by Common Citizen on Dec. 04 2007,11:17 am
QUOTE
The numerous and blatant examples are too lengthy to post here.
QUOTE
I'll be voting democrat this time around unless Ron Paul wins the nomination.
Is that why you deleted the post where you said you were voting Republican? BEEP BEEP...
QUOTE
If Pat Robertson will vote for an Italian connected mobster because of judge nominations it shows how important these positions are.
QUOTE
^How weak is that?
How narrow minded. Guys like you shouldn't be allowed to vote.
How narrow minded. Guys like you shouldn't be allowed to vote.
The only thing we have to fear is fear itself...FDR BEEP BEEP...
Admit it...these issues are way above your head...
Posted by hairhertz on Dec. 04 2007,11:19 am
FDR, not JFK - fear quote
Posted by Common Citizen on Dec. 04 2007,11:35 am
(hairhertz @ Dec. 04 2007,11:19 am)
QUOTE
FDR, not JFK - fear quote
Thanks HH...to quick on that one.
Posted by TameThaTane on Dec. 04 2007,11:37 am
^ LOL
Posted by hymiebravo on Dec. 04 2007,11:59 am
I caught that one Common Citizen. QUOTE
The oil needed by the Tin Woodman had a political dimension at the time because Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company stood accused of being a monopoly (and in fact was later found guilty by the Supreme Court.) In the 1902 stage adaptation the Tin Woodman wonders what he would do if he ran out of oil. "You wouldn't be as badly off as John D. Rockefeller," the Scarecrow responds, "He'd lose six thousand dollars a minute if that happened." (Swartz, Oz p 34).
Posted by hymiebravo on Dec. 04 2007,12:01 pm
QUOTE
Witness the witless
Thats funny I like that one.
Witness the witless. lol
Posted by Common Citizen on Dec. 04 2007,12:03 pm
Ya I thought that was clever...
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 04 2007,12:09 pm
QUOTE
It's shocking really, the personal liberty that's been taken away from us. The liberty guaranteed by the constitution. The numerous and blatant examples are too lengthy to post here.
If there are that many examples, it should be EASY for you to come up with some. It isn't hard to come up with examples of judicial activism--
*"finding" something in the Constitution that allows the government to control guns
*"finding" within the Constitution that laws don't have to be written by any deliberative body--they can just be implemented by a Federal agency
*"finding" within the Constitution that though there are THREE LEGAL DOCUMENTS to the contrary, numerous witnesses, and photographs--that the judge THINKS she knows what the indians were thinking over 150 years ago--and now have rights to spear fish outside the limits in MN. and Wisconsin
* "finding" that there is a prohibition against display of religion in public places--though every courthouse has a reference to it, Congress opens with prayer, it is in the very Constitution and Declaration of Independence that guarantees our rights, and it is on our currency.
* "finding" within the Constitution that cities have the right to take property from individuals--even when not needed for public works, because it is "for the public good". Whatever happened to the item in the Bill of Rights prohibiting "unreasonable search and seizure"?
* "finding" that homosexuals have a RIGHT to sodomy?
* "finding" that discrimination is illegal in SOME cases, but discrimination in the form of "affirmative action" in others IS legal--the Michigan case where a top student was kept out of school because he was white, and the school needed to include more black students.
All of these things were "found" in the Constitution--even though they weren't written--and "interpreted" by liberal judges.
Don't forget that it was the liberal Supreme Court under Rooseveldt that passed the Marijuana Control Act in 1937!
null< My Webpage >You, of all people, should be most afraid of the judiciary exercising powers not specifically given to them. Can you imagine being charged with a crime--there is no statute on the books prohibiting it--but some judge "found" that it was illegal?
Posted by Common Citizen on Dec. 04 2007,12:20 pm
^it'll be a while...he's searching...BEEP BEEP
Posted by TameThaTane on Dec. 04 2007,12:25 pm
Eminent domain-take from the poor and give to the rich like a reverse Robin HoodSearch and seizure-Roadblocks netting everyone without probable cause. Seizing assets without the need for even a criminal conviction. The legal fiction of declaring property guilty of a crime.
Rebuking medical necessity as a defense for terminally ill cannabis users. How much pure hate does it take to deny a substance, that hasn't been shown to kill anyone, (aspirin causes thousands of deaths per year) for a terminally ill patient. This is so sick, so hate filled it defies any logic. It's like putting a teacher to death for naming a Teddy Bear Mohamed. No, it's worse.
Numerous homeland security issues, from warrant-less home searches to Internet based snooping.
The list goes on and on....
This is an ultra right wing court and Robertson knows he's one man shy of making hundreds of thousands of women murderers. We can't afford anymore ultra right wing judges.
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 04 2007,2:29 pm
QUOTE
Search and seizure-Roadblocks netting everyone without probable cause.
Sorry--that was upheld by the liberal Warren Court in 1968QUOTE
Seizing assets without the need for even a criminal conviction
These were heard in 1992. Dissenting? Conservatives See here. QUOTE
JUSTICE STEVENS, joined by JUSTICE BLACKMUN, JUSTICE O'CONNOR, and JUSTICE SOUTER,
QUOTE
The legal fiction of declaring property guilty of a crime.
I would assume that is in conjunction with the case above. Or do you think that finding PROPERTY "guilty" is a reference to the libbie prediliction to blame inanimate objects (guns, SUV's, buildings) for the crimes of their owners? QUOTE
Rebuking medical necessity as a defence for terminally ill cannabis users.
Would that be the 2005 Gonzales vs. Raich decision? Note that the CONSERVATIVES supported legalization--the liberal majority did not. SEE HERE QUOTE
Joining Justice John Paul Stevens's majority decision were Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote separately to say he agreed with the result, though not the majority's reasoning. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas dissented.
QUOTE
Numerous homeland security issues, from warrant-less home searchs to internet based snooping.
And HOW MANY prosecutions have there been under the Patriot act--an act that wasn't enacted at all by activist judges, but almost unanimously by CONGRESS--and renewed by a more liberal Congress?Sorry--maintaining that the Supreme Court is
QUOTE
an ultra right wing court
just because they won't legalize weed like you want them to just doesn't fly.
Posted by TameThaTane on Dec. 04 2007,2:44 pm
I thought you said it was the liberals on the court that wouldn't allow states to legalize?
Posted by Common Citizen on Dec. 04 2007,2:45 pm
What are the odds of these two being on the same ticket? I don't think Billary would ever consider playing second fiddle to another man like she did in the 90's.
Posted by TameThaTane on Dec. 04 2007,2:49 pm
I don't get. You show where liberal judges were responsible for not decriminalizing cannabis for medical necessity, then say, "just because they won't legalize weed like you want them to just doesn't fly."Well, which is it? Who won't legalize? Who are they?... conservatives? The right wing court you quoted?
Posted by hymiebravo on Dec. 04 2007,3:11 pm
QUOTE
Clarence Thomas dissented.
Thomas probably wasn't even paying attention.
He probably just wanted to get back to pinching his underling's heinys and watching porn. lol
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 04 2007,3:11 pm
The four Conservatives cited voted for legalization in 2005. Unfortunately, they were in the minority.When I said "They won't legalize it" I was referring to the Supreme Court in total.
To my knowledge, there hasn't been a test case certified to the Supreme Court since then. What does High Times have to say?
The Supreme Court has hardly been "extreme right wing", has it?
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 04 2007,3:17 pm
QUOTE
What are the odds of these two being on the same ticket? I don't think Billary would ever consider playing second fiddle to another man like she did in the 90's.
Here's a picture of Billary.
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 04 2007,3:18 pm
QUOTE
What are the odds of these two being on the same ticket? I don't think Billary would ever consider playing second fiddle to another man like she did in the 90's.
Here's a security cam photo of Obama and Hillary discussing the ticket.
Posted by hymiebravo on Dec. 04 2007,3:23 pm
I would invest in companies that make pants suits. For if elected she will have that presidential influence factor in sales of items influenced by her.
Kennedy: men quit wearing hats.
RR: the jellybean thing.
Clinton: altoids and cee-gars
That type of thing .
Posted by hymiebravo on Dec. 04 2007,3:28 pm
QUOTE
Here's a security cam photo of Obama and Hillary discussing the ticket.
Good for her !
I'm back on the Hillary band wagon after seeing that. lol
It's going to FUN when shes president I can't wait.
Posted by dinomac on Dec. 05 2007,9:43 am
Huckabee is taking this election by storm. Just wait... this is just the beginning. Before long you will see Governor Huckabee far out pacing Mayor Guiliani and the others.We are witnessing a wonder in action. Mike Huckabee has not bought this rise in the polls by pouring tens of millions of dollars into advertising. He has earned this fantastic rise because of the message he brings. He connects with Americans of all walks. He has a positive message of hope for our country.
The pundits are trying to downplay his surge, but if you honestly look at Huckabee's numbers, it's hard to deny that he is on the move nationwide.
Huckabee is real, and appeals to real people. He hasn't had quite the $$$ of the others; hence the SLOW rise.
Now the rise itself is feeding further rise in polls, because people who have never heard of Mike Huckabee are researching and discovering he thinks how they think, and does not fit the mold of politicians who we are so tired of having to choose between rather than support.
Huckabee is best suited to take on any mud-slingers because he does not return fire. Hillary is rooting for Rudy, Huckabee would be too stark a contrast against her style, and he would win.
Posted by TameThaTane on Dec. 05 2007,10:18 am
What a joke! I'm keeping your post to rub it in your face when this baptist preacher gets booted out in New Hampshire and beyond. He did well in IA only because of evangelical kooks like yourself. Get real!
QUOTE
We are witnessing a wonder in action
Don't you mean a miracle...a miracle from God..because he's a Republican"
Posted by Blackwell on Dec. 05 2007,10:42 am
Arkansas TmesHuckabee: Immigrants' friend
Mike Huckabee's star may fall as precipitously as it rose in the presidential stakes, but it is time to ask if something mysterious but important is happening in the electorate or if his rise is only evidence of a field of fatally vulnerable candidates.
In the six months between the beginning of the debates and the Iowa caucuses, the only Republican candidate who has not fallen in the estimation of the polls is the one who is inarguably the most liberal and the one who sounds most like a Democrat. Huckabee would dispute that description but it comports with his record in Arkansas and even with his public utterances when he is forced to defend that record and in thoughtful moments far away from the madding crowds of Iowa and South Carolina Republicans.
A month ahead of the caucuses Huckabee is leading the field in Iowa, and he has risen sharply in national polls so that he competes with the incredibly shrinking big four, which has to be a reflection of his glib, witty and saccharine performance in all the debates. It has liberal pundits across the country gushing about what a generous, reasonable and straight-shooting person he is. Those are not adjectives that many in his own party in Arkansas would have applied to the governor even a year ago. The Republican leader of the state Senate once called on him to be kinder in his public remarks about fellow Republicans.
If Republicans are turning to the moderate in a field of sullen men bent on seeing who can be the most reactionary, it is an unusual phenomenon. Republicans suspected they were nominating a liberal in 1952 when they picked Dwight Eisenhower over Mr. Conservative, Robert A. Taft, in the most contentious convention of modern times, but they did so because they thought he could beat the Democrats and that the sainted Taft, who wanted to roll back Social Security and the whole New Deal, couldn't. But winnability isn't Huckabee's secret. The same polls showing him gaining say that Republicans think he would be less likely than others to win.
On the other hand, maybe the conservatives who see him as the truest ideologue just do not know him. His standard stump talk, which you can catch often on C-SPAN, does carry a litany of conservative dogmatisms: lower taxes, smaller government, abortion, gay marriage, and even tough immigration controls.
Huckabee's immigration stance is at once the most emblematic of his liberal impulses and politically the most paradoxical because immigration is the dominant GOP issue. The campaign of Sen. John McCain, the early front-runner, imploded over his steadfast support of the administration's humane immigration bill, but Huckabee makes McCain look like a nativist.
Romney tried to nail Huckabee in the last debate for passing a law giving children of illegal immigrants state-paid college scholarships and in-state tuition rates. Huckabee defended it eloquently, pointing out first that it did not become law — the House of Representatives passed it easily but Republicans blocked it in the Senate — and that he wanted to live in a country that did not punish children for the sins of their parents. (He also said the youngsters would have to have applied for citizenship to get a scholarship, which was not true. The bill said youngsters would have to give the college a statement that they intended to seek legal status some day.)
That bill was not an isolated instance. The highlight of his last two years in office was his running war with Republican lawmakers and the “Shiite wing” of his party — his words — over what he called their bigotry and fearmongering over immigration.
He bitterly fought (with Democratic help) a Republican bill restricting government services to U.S. citizens, calling it race baiting and demagoguery, and when the bill failed he condemned a plan to put the same proposal on the ballot and doubted the “Christian values” of the sponsor.
“What this has done is inflamed a whole lot of people's emotions, making them think we've got to rush in and pass some laws to stop some terrible thing going on that isn't going on,” he said.
But it was going on. At Huckabee's behest, the state became one of only seven states that used Medicaid money to cover prenatal care for immigrant women because Hispanic women had an unusually high prenatal birth-defect risk.
Over the objections of conservative nativists he worked to get a Mexican consulate in Little Rock to help immigrants with labor problems and getting papers. He condemned federal agents for raiding an Arkadelphia plant and instantly deporting Mexican workers and splitting their families. When a key administration official sent an email with some derogatory doggerel about Hispanic immigrants Huckabee dumped him with the admonition “racial stereotyping by state leaders is simply not funny and must be consequenced.”
In a remarkable talk to the Political Animals Club he said God had given America “a second chance” to do the right thing by treating Hispanics better than it had treated blacks for much of its history.
“One of our greatest challenges is making sure we don't commit the same mistakes with our growing Hispanic population that we did with African-Americans 150 years ago and beyond,” he said. “I feel the Lord, frankly, has given us a second chance to do better than we did before. I hope we will do that.”
Immigration is supposed to be the wedge issue for Republicans next year. If that's so, let's hope that Mike Huckabee is their man.
Posted by TameThaTane on Dec. 05 2007,11:18 am
Iowans like the Huckster because:1. The voting public is very old
2. This old electorate is partial to Jesus loving politicians..ie: Pat Robertson;
3. They don't vote with their minds. In fact they don't think at all. They ask themselves who they think Jesus would vote for and it must be a pastor. He's God person and so he'll do the right thing.
I know Jesus, he's a personal friend of mine and Mike Huckabee is no Jesus!
Posted by Dump Pewlenty on Dec. 05 2007,1:47 pm
Posted by dinomac on Dec. 05 2007,3:08 pm
TTT,I hope you know Jesus... I really do! Your comments and criticisms of others in these forums do not show that. But, that's between you and your friend Jesus.
As far as the best Presidential Candidate... Mike Huckabee is the only logical choice if we want change in Washington and the rest of the country. He'll bring Republicans and Democrats together. Any other candidates running at this time will tear this country apart. And I'm afraid, that's what this country wants and will eventually get. This country will collapse without proper leadership and we can't even imagine the rise in unemployment, taxes, gas prices and inflation. What's coming down the pike will make the Depression look like a small dip in the economy!
TTT... if Jesus is your friend... please pray to Him and have him help this country see it's evil ways and repent... so we can become the great "God-fearing" country we once were.
Posted by TameThaTane on Dec. 05 2007,3:16 pm
When was this country better than it is now? You really don't want to go back in time. You just think you do.
Posted by Glad I Left on Dec. 05 2007,7:32 pm
QUOTE
You really don't want to go back in time. You just think you do.
I wish I could go back in time... ...and put your mother on the pill
Posted by hymiebravo on Dec. 06 2007,11:37 pm
(Glad I Left @ Dec. 05 2007,7:32 pm)
QUOTE
QUOTE
You really don't want to go back in time. You just think you do.
I wish I could go back in time... ...and put your mother on the pill
Screw going back in time I want to go into the future. lol
Posted by hymiebravo on Dec. 06 2007,11:45 pm
All kidding aside on the Hilary thing. Sometimes it seems like the Presidential candidate is SO strong. The VP isn't really that important to them in terms of making them MORE electable or having any kind of bearing what-so-ever.
I think with Hillary its MORE important than maybe anybody. It almost seem likes shes going to need somebody more obscure to run with.
When you place her beside any of the others seeking the nomination it just doesn't seem to do anything for here in a positive fashion.
Cut to tonight...
I saw the commercial with Wes Clark doing her bidding. That looked good he would be an asset I think as a VP to her.
THATS who she should get/pick. IMO
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 07 2007,9:37 am
You are correct--the days of picking a VP to "balance the ticket" are gone.QUOTE
When you place her beside any of the others seeking the nomination it just doesn't seem to do anything for here in a positive fashion.
The problem with Hillary is that she BECOMES the news--the subject of talk.Like Paris Hilton (100 pounds heavier and without the looks) she is famous simply for being famous. She has no record of accomplishment as a Senator, and has never actually RUN anything--a business, (unless you count cattle future trading)
a city, a State, or even a department head or cabinet member (unless you count the disaster in her secret health care meetings early in Bill's term).The question people should be asking themselves--why would a 1 1/2 term Senator, a HALF term Senator, and a 1-term-and-out Senator--all with no record of accomplishments-- even be CONSIDERED for high public office?
The answer--like the Hollywood "glitterari"--they are simply famous for being famous--good at acting--playing someone besides who they really are.
Posted by TameThaTane on Dec. 07 2007,1:59 pm
How much experience did Bush 2 have? Texas has a weak governor system. ...About as much experience as Paris Hilton has in auto mechanics.
Posted by Common Citizen on Dec. 07 2007,2:21 pm
^ beep beep
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 07 2007,3:22 pm
QUOTE
How much experience did Bush 2 have? Texas has a weak governor system.
Well, to start with, he WAS a Governor. And Hillary was what?
And Obama was what?
And Edwards was what?
What business, department Head, Governorship, or Cabinet Post did ANY of them hold before being elected Senator?
How much experience does ANY of these people have running ANYTHING? Can you name ANY meaningful legislation orginated by any of these three candidates?
Like Hollywood "Stars", it's pure name recognition--not what they've accomplished. Creatures of a publicity machine.
Hillary should be President, because she was a First Lady?
Obama should be President, because he gave a speech at Kerry's convention?
Edwards should be President, because he was a failed vice-presidential candidate?
ALL THREE OF THEM COMBINED EQUAL 3 SENATE TERMS.
Posted by hairhertz on Dec. 07 2007,3:50 pm
How about we pick some one who isn't a politician? LOU DOBBS makes more sense than all of the leading candidiates of both parties combined.
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 07 2007,3:57 pm
Glenn Beck--you can't embarrass him. He's an acknowledged former drug user, alcoholic, reformed liberal. He has all his vices BEHIND him!
Posted by Liberal on Dec. 07 2007,4:05 pm
I can't stand to watch Lou "Communist China" Dobb's.
Posted by TameThaTane on Dec. 07 2007,5:01 pm
So you have to be a governor to run how? A weak governor actually has less experience in the federal realm than a senator for a major state.Lou Dobbs is a laughing stock. I like O'Reilly better ...and HIS stance on illegals. Bill says we shouldn't arrest illegals because WE are complicit. We hire them creating the demand. Exactly. Until we sanction ourselves we can hardly put all the blame on the other party. Well, that is unless you're a neocon.
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 07 2007,5:55 pm
Look again. You don't have to be a Governor--you could be a Congresscritter, a Cabinet member, a big-city mayor, head of an Agency, or have run a business.NONE of the three have ANY administrative background.
Experience with the Federal realm? Can you name any major legislation ANY of the three has sponsored--other than naming post offices?
Most people wouldn't hire any of these three to run your COMPANY--let alone the nation. In a rational world, these three wouldn't even be under consideration--but in a Hollywood world of people whose idea of social involvement involves "Deal or no deal" and "Dancing with the stars"--they'll fit right in.
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 07 2007,6:01 pm
QUOTE
I can't stand to watch Lou "Communist China" Dobb's.
Agreed! Dobbs style is just MEAN. It's one thing to challenge a guest, but Dobbs not only cuts them off in mid-sentence (a trait shared by other "talk" shows) before they can develop their point--but he makes rude comments that the guest isn't allowed to answer.
I don't often agree with Tim Russert, but he asks good questions--politely, and with a smile. Glenn Beck ENGAGES guests in conversation--does not "talk over" them--allows them to make their point--but unlike Larry King--Beck still asks the hard questions.
Posted by TameThaTane on Dec. 07 2007,8:18 pm
Doesn't the fact she was co-president (your own words) for 8 years count? She has eight years experience in the White House and is married to a former president! You don't think he can't be an adviser and she didn't learn on the job as the presidents wife? Heck, she's overqualified if anything compared to Bushie.
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 08 2007,11:57 am
QUOTE
She has eight years experience in the White House and is married to a former president!
If THAT is your criteria, you should be a fan of Nancy Reagan! You still keep dodging the fact that she has never run anything--and despite the opportunity as a Senator, she has a particularly undistinguished career.
Inept?
Just doesn't care?
Still "learning on the job?
What major company in the world would hire her as a CEO with her lack of credentials and accomplishment?
Posted by TameThaTane on Dec. 08 2007,12:40 pm
She WAS co-president. You conservatives said so.Doesn't matter because Obama will be the nominee.
It'll be Obama vs Romney(Romney will beat the Huckster in NH) and conservatives won't vote for a Mormon because they are too shallow and bigoted.
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 09 2007,3:56 pm
QUOTE
She WAS co-president. You conservatives said so.
Really? I have a pretty good memory, and I can't remember any conservatives saying she was "co-president". Perhaps that she and Bill DESERVE each other--but never "co-President. Just in case I had forgotten, I Googled "Hillary Co-President". Nothing there, except for a number of bloggers and an occasional newspaper editor saying that her whole resume was based on HER implication that "she had experience in the White House". Her attempts to tie to Bill for election seem to verify that it is HER attempt to invoke that experience to pad her resume--not the other way around.
You might recall that Der Schlickmeister boasted of "Two for the price of one" early in his Presidency--until she made such a hash of Health Care that they couldn't even GIVE away a free program. You never heard that phrase from him again.
It speaks volumes about the Donk electorate that they would put up as leading candidates 3 people with so little experience at running ANYTHING.
QUOTE
Doesn't matter because Obama will be the nominee.
I've asked you the question before--but you keep dodging it--what have ANY of these people ever run? Obama is even less experienced than Hillary! QUOTE
It'll be Obama vs Romney(Romney will beat the Huckster in NH) and conservatives won't vote for a Mormon because they are too shallow and bigoted.
Can't let you get away with that one--you might notice that the two candidates you mention are leading the Repub. nomination process--and they are the most religious candidates in either party. I would say that they are RESONATING with the conservative base--not the base running away from them.
Posted by TameThaTane on Dec. 09 2007,9:22 pm
When MTV was starting out they wanted people with no previous TV experience. The result. NEW and better forms of television. Ground breaking methodology that revolutionized the whole industry. Similar to what Spielberg did with movies. Same thing we need with politics. That's the problem with you old people. Can't see when it's time for a serious and radical change.
The base WILL run away from a Mormon and it'll be funny to watch because it'll be like their own eating their young. And he will beat the babtist preacher in NH.
I like Mitt Romney, but the base will destroy him out of their own bigotry. Good.
Posted by hymiebravo on Dec. 09 2007,9:57 pm
Romney looked a little tippy I thought when I saw him on TV the other day.I was thinking gosh...how old is this guy ?
RR was 100 years old but he seemed to project that he wasn't wobbly. Well physically anyway. lol
Obama would kick every other candidates butt in any type of athletic event I'm thinking. lol
Posted by TameThaTane on Dec. 10 2007,3:49 pm
Looks like the Huckster WILL be the GOP nominee!
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 10 2007,4:00 pm
QUOTE
Can't see when it's time for a serious and radical change.
You mean like the Russian Revolution? (1917) The National Socialist Party? (30s)
Dumping Churchill for Attlee after WW II? (40s) (but he was voted back in after they figured out their mistake)
Push button auto transmissions and tailfins? (1950s)
Don't forget the Hippie/Yippee generation were calling for radical change in the 60s--looks pretty stupid now--Haight/Ashbury is "gentrified" now.
People in the 70s also demanded "change"--it brought out shag carpeting, avacodo refridgerators, leisure suits, goofy haircuts, Disco, Jimmy Carter, and crappy cars.
Kids in the 80s were CERTAIN that the Cold War couldn't be won, that an anti-missile shield couldn't be built, that the Earth was about to freeze, and that "New Coke" was better than "old Coke".
In the 90's we were told that the "new paradigm" for business was no longer "brick and mortar buildings", but "dot.coms"--where there was no actual product. It resulted in what Greenspan called "irrational exhuberance" in the stock market--people speculating on the "BFY" principle (bigger fool than you.)
Ever wonder why older people seem intolerant of younger generations? It's because they would like to prevent the younger generation from making the same mistakes THEY did--they've seen it all before. Sometimes, you just have to let people learn for themselves. Even former radicals like Tom Hayden eventually go mainstream.
Every generation is going to be "for change". (Even the Donks in 2006 promised "change"--and people believed them).
Reminds me of the old joke--"Hey, I thought WE were the 'Pepsi generation."
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 10 2007,4:17 pm
QUOTE
The base WILL run away from a Mormon and it'll be funny to watch because it'll be like their own eating their young. And he will beat the babtist preacher in NH.
"The base" is supporting the two most religious candidates out there. What do you base your information on? If they are "running away" from any candidates, "the base" is running away from Giuliani and McCain for being too liberal--and Ron Paul for simply doing a Dennis Kucinich impersonation as a whack job.
Who are you talking about when you say
QUOTE
And he will beat the babtist preacher in NH
Who is "HE"?
Posted by Liberal on Dec. 10 2007,4:18 pm
Do you make this stuff up on the fly?Most of my friends were kids in the 80's and most everyone I know would agree that you're delusional.
Posted by TameThaTane on Dec. 10 2007,4:25 pm
the cold war hasn't been won, Just ask Putin. What are we gonna do when China starts bossing us around Jim? They will be the world power some day. We need to make friends and alliances now, not play kingpin and dominate everyone like some bully.
Posted by bianca on Dec. 10 2007,4:41 pm
I think it will be interesting if someone like Oprah Winfrey backing Obama will make a difference in Black women voters, although they seem to be banking on it. She's very visual on who she wants to get the nomination and it's not Hillary, Barbara Streisand is in that camp although unlike Obama and Winfrey I haven't heard of any road trips they've made together.
Would like to see an Obama/Clinton ticket if they didn't seem to loathe each other as much as they do.
Disclaimer: IMO, Not impressed by Clinton at all but I think it might be inevitable as she clings onto her husbands coat tails just as George junior hung on dad's.
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 10 2007,4:41 pm
Liberal--That's because they haven't grown up yet.Which of these are not true?
QUOTE
Kids in the 80s were CERTAIN that the Cold War couldn't be won, that an anti-missile shield couldn't be built, that the Earth was about to freeze, and that "New Coke" was better than "old Coke".
Reagan won the Cold War by convincing the Russians that whatever they did, we would match or exceed. They couldn't keep up.null< My Webpage >Strategic Defense Initiative. From Wikipedia
QUOTE
The proposal was sharply criticized for its potential costs, doubts that it would be technologically feasible and afford complete protection against all delivery systems, concerns that it would violate the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty and destabilize the nuclear balance of power.
You remember "Global Cooling" don't you? That was the "sky-is-falling" unfounded liberal hand-wring prior to liberal flip-flops that now say the Earth is WARMING (and it's all our fault)
"Delusional"? You just haven't faced reality yet.
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 10 2007,4:54 pm
QUOTE
What are we gonna do when China starts bossing us around Jim?
They won't be bossing us around--unless the U.S. elects a wimp. We have the tools--we just have to be willing to use them if needed--and not let them rot away, like Clinton. Surrendering to anybody that comes along in an attempt to appease them has always been the province of liberals--from Chamberlain to Carter to Clinton. Attempts to appease have ALWAYS made the world a more dangerous place. Liberals have never learned that lesson. Conservatives already KNOW the danger of appeasement, from trying to get along with liberals!
QUOTE
They will be the world power some day. We need to make friends and alliances now, not play kingpin and dominate everyone like some bully.
And the Chinese are such a PEACEFUL nation (kind of like Islam is the "Religion of Peace") How about some examples of our "Bullying" China?
You liberals really DON'T like the U.S.--do you?
Are you still "working on" the examples I asked for about what Hillary, Obama, and Edwards have ever run?
Posted by TameThaTane on Dec. 10 2007,5:24 pm
What did your boy GW run? It sure wasn't Texas. It's a weak Governor set up and you know it. It doesn't matter. We want new fresh, young blood. No experience necessary. Only incumbents have experience as a president Jimbo.
Posted by Ned Kelly on Dec. 10 2007,6:53 pm
(TameThaTane @ Dec. 10 2007,5:24 pm)
QUOTE
What did your boy GW run? It sure wasn't Texas. It's a weak Governor set up and you know it.
It doesn't matter. We want new fresh, young blood. No experience necessary. Only incumbents have experience as a president Jimbo.
It doesn't matter. We want new fresh, young blood. No experience necessary. Only incumbents have experience as a president Jimbo.
Most every business W has been involved in went into a loss situation. He was then helped back up by Daddies buddies.
Daddies friends helped get W to the White House. He actually thinks he is President....the man couldn't find his a$$ with a map........
..... While Cheney makes the decisions which are making us look like a 3rd world country......... ned
Posted by Liberal on Dec. 10 2007,7:14 pm
QUOTE
Liberal--That's because they haven't grown up yet.
Even if you were born in 89 you'd be 18 now.
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 11 2007,11:39 am
Gee--in a few more years, they'll be able to take a legal drink, or enter into legal contracts! The statement was not about chronological age--it might be better described as MATURITY. It's a fact of life--most people become more conservative as they grow older, move out of their parent's basement, get a job, start paying taxes, have kids, and experience the real world.
I notice that you ignored the "serious and radical changes" mentioned, except for the 80s. You dispute that--I asked you which are not true. (sound of crickets chirping).
Ned
QUOTE
Most every business W has been involved in went into a loss situation
Ah, yes, more of the "Bush is Stupid" meme. Donks have said that about every Republican President since Eisenhower--and only the truly demented believe it. The guy flew fighter jets, got a Masters of Business Administration degree from Harvard, was elected TWICE as Governor of Texas, beat the Donks TWICE as President--and the best you can come up with is "Bush is Stupid"? Perhaps you'd like to contrast and compare with Al "flunked out of DIVINITY SCHOOL and dropped out of Vanderbuilt" Gore, or Teddy Kennedy--who TWICE got caught and expelled for cheating on tests (paying another student to take the test for him) or any of the other pantheon of the libbie "brain trust".
Maybe if you had clicked on Wikipedia (it's simple enough that a liberal can understand it) you would have found
QUOTE
After obtaining an MBA from Harvard University,[31] Bush entered the oil industry in Texas. In 1977, he was introduced by friends to Laura Welch, a schoolteacher and librarian. They married and settled in Midland, Texas. Bush left his family's Episcopal Church to join his wife's United Methodist Church.[1]
In 1978, Bush ran for the U.S. House of Representatives from the 19th Congressional District of Texas. His opponent Kent Hance portrayed Bush as being out of touch with rural Texans; Bush lost by 6,000 votes.[32] Bush returned to the oil industry, becoming a senior partner or chief executive officer of several ventures, such as Arbusto Energy,[33] Spectrum 7, and, later, Harken Energy.[34] These ventures suffered from the general decline of oil prices in the 1980s that had affected the industry and the regional economy. Additionally, questions of possible insider trading involving Harken have arisen, though the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) investigation of Bush concluded that he did not have enough insider information before his stock sale to warrant a case.[35]
Bush moved with his family to Washington, D.C., in 1988, to work on his father's campaign for the U.S. presidency.[36][37] Returning to Texas after the campaign, Bush purchased a share in the Texas Rangers baseball franchise in April 1989, where he served as managing general partner for five years.[38] Bush actively led the team's projects and regularly attended its games, often choosing to sit in the open stands with fans.[39] The sale of Bush's share in the Rangers brought him over $15 million from his initial $800,000 investment.[40]
In 1978, Bush ran for the U.S. House of Representatives from the 19th Congressional District of Texas. His opponent Kent Hance portrayed Bush as being out of touch with rural Texans; Bush lost by 6,000 votes.[32] Bush returned to the oil industry, becoming a senior partner or chief executive officer of several ventures, such as Arbusto Energy,[33] Spectrum 7, and, later, Harken Energy.[34] These ventures suffered from the general decline of oil prices in the 1980s that had affected the industry and the regional economy. Additionally, questions of possible insider trading involving Harken have arisen, though the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) investigation of Bush concluded that he did not have enough insider information before his stock sale to warrant a case.[35]
Bush moved with his family to Washington, D.C., in 1988, to work on his father's campaign for the U.S. presidency.[36][37] Returning to Texas after the campaign, Bush purchased a share in the Texas Rangers baseball franchise in April 1989, where he served as managing general partner for five years.[38] Bush actively led the team's projects and regularly attended its games, often choosing to sit in the open stands with fans.[39] The sale of Bush's share in the Rangers brought him over $15 million from his initial $800,000 investment.[40]
TTT
QUOTE
What did your boy GW run? It sure wasn't Texas. It's a weak Governor set up and you know it.
Same advice for you, TTT--try actually READING. From the same article QUOTE
As governor, Bush successfully sponsored legislation for tort reform, increased education funding, set higher standards for schools, and reformed the criminal justice system. Under his leadership, Texas executed a record 152 prisoners.[42] Bush used a budget surplus to push through a $2 billion tax-cut plan, the largest in Texas history, which cemented Bush's credentials as a pro-business fiscal conservative.[41]
Bush also pioneered faith-based welfare programs by extending government funding and support for religious organizations that provide social services such as education, alcohol and drug abuse prevention, and reduction of domestic violence. He proclaimed June 10 to be Jesus Day in Texas, a day where he "urge[d] all Texans to answer the call to serve those in need."[43]
In 1998, Bush won re-election in a landslide victory with nearly 69 percent of the vote.[44] Within a year, he had decided to seek the Republican nomination for the presidency.
Bush also pioneered faith-based welfare programs by extending government funding and support for religious organizations that provide social services such as education, alcohol and drug abuse prevention, and reduction of domestic violence. He proclaimed June 10 to be Jesus Day in Texas, a day where he "urge[d] all Texans to answer the call to serve those in need."[43]
In 1998, Bush won re-election in a landslide victory with nearly 69 percent of the vote.[44] Within a year, he had decided to seek the Republican nomination for the presidency.
I've always wondered why libbies would call someone that beat their own best time after time "stupid". What does that say about their own candidates, or lack of ideas?
Posted by Common Citizen on Dec. 11 2007,11:58 am
Jim, This has been pointed out numerous times in the past on these threads. Yet, people insist on ignoring the facts. People blinded by this hate can't help themselves...thus the term, Bush Derangement Syndrome, was coined several years ago. In order to deal with this disorder, much like the Betty Ford Clinic that deals with drug and alcohol addiction, there's a new one under construction which I heard is going to be named the Tom Daschle Clinic said to help those with BDS...
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 11 2007,12:24 pm
Given the prevalence of BDS and the inability of some voters in Florida to figure out ballots that can be operated by third graders, perhaps it is time to return to LITERACY TESTS as a condition of being able to vote.As proven on this board, there are a lot of people out there incapable of independent thought--they only know what they hear on lib-TV.
Posted by Liberal on Dec. 11 2007,12:33 pm
QUOTE
Gee--in a few more years, they'll be able to take a legal drink, or enter into legal contracts!
I'm guessing that you were "grown up" at 18.
Posted by Liberal on Dec. 11 2007,12:35 pm
QUOTE
As proven on this board, there are a lot of people out there incapable of independent thought--they only know what they hear on lib-TV.
This from the guy that believed everything about Able Danger.
Posted by hymiebravo on Dec. 11 2007,1:09 pm
QUOTE
His opponent Kent Hance portrayed Bush as being out of touch with rural Texans; Bush
That explains all that I'm just a "good ole" "Texas country boy", stuff in his compaigns. lol
It's interesting when you hear the background of W, you can see how his past has influenced what he went on to do, or does now.
For example: I saw a thing on Frontline were they discussed the Pat Robertson phenom, during his fathers compaign.
After he ("W") saw the potential for votes there...he tapped into that, and courted that group. During his own campaign.
I thought "W" had more than one insider trading case that he was involved in. But thats just going from memory from things I have read in the past.
You have to admit that having people way up in politics and power in the country sure couldn't have hurt when it came to be aquitted of those charges.
Failed oil ventures: Must feel like sweet revenge or something the way things are now. Making everybody in Houston and the outlying areas money now.
The Dan Rather thing:
The thing is... He "W" is in a postion were he can have evidence and documentation surpressed and or destroyed.
The reason the Bush's knew he probably made it up, was because they KNEW they had destroyed all the evidence and coved it up. lol IMO
Also I could have swore I read/heard Jim saying that Bush sucked not that long ago here.
Something about him("W") beating someone (Kerry) who sucked more... I believe was how it was stated.
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 11 2007,1:18 pm
QUOTE
Tom Daschle Clinic said to help those with BDS...
And Olberman worked SO HARD to get it named for himself! That being said, I'm sure that libbies have a lot of "clinics" that they can "invest" in to "help" those with afflictions experienced by DONKS.
The Harry Reid Institute for Land Speculation.
The Joe Biden home for serial plagiarism.
The Kucinich Center for those abducted by UFOs.
The Nancy Pelosi Outreach for Contrary Foreign Policy.
The Murtha Retreat for those with such low self-esteem that they think they can never win.
The Ted Kennedy Bar, Grille, and Dive shop.
The John Kerry non-military home for Stolen Valor.
The John Edwards Halfway House for Gay, Lesbian, Transgendered, and Hair-Obsession.
The William Jefferson ("Mr. Freeze") money storage facility.
The Sen. Byrd Bedsheet and Klan uniform Laundry.
The Sharpton/Jackson School for Advanced Racebaiting and Shakedowns.
The Liberal Correspondence Course on Blaming Inanimate Objects. Learn to blame guns, buildings, "Evil Republicans", SUV's, "Global Warming" instead of the real perpetrators.
The Katrina School for Disproved Meteorological Phenomenons. Located at the New Orleans Superdome. Blame Bush for hurricanes, blame the weather for the failings of the populace, AVOID blame for the inability to forecast hurricanes even as well as random chance. Also on the same campus--The "I Am A Victim" Center. Courses include "I'm going to stay right here until government comes to help me", "Scamming the Government with bogus claims", "Cops--Protect & Serve, or Join in the Looting?", "How to get along with 25,000 of your neigbors in one big building with no running water". Guest lecturer--Mayor Nagin, on "Bush didn't send me no bus drivers for all them busses.". Students will be housed in FEMA trailers for several years, and paid over half a million dollars per person. They will be required to attend the "Blame Bush" seminars every week until kicked out of school.
The Air America Shelter for unemployed liberal radio and TV hosts-- Randi Rhodes, Al Franken, and Phil Donahue have tenure.
The Al Gore Safety Center for people with such severe paranoia that they believe the WHOLE WORLD is out to get them. This one is still in the planning stages, until they can find a place to hold all Liberals. (I suggest France.)
The Florida Coloring Institue to teach libbies how to fill in the circle on a ballot.
The Permanent Outrage Psychiatric Center for libbies that are always outraged about SOMETHING.
The Barking Moonbat Game Reserve for Endangered Moonbats. Help a helpless little Moonbat get along in the real world.
The Hillary Clinton Bi-Polar Mental Health Clinic. Helps people like its namesake come to grips with their multiple personalities, and figure out who they are TODAY. Remedial courses in lamp throwing, staff browbeating, and counseling on "How to stay with your lying, cheating, philandering husband".
Like the Mayo Clinic, there is ONE Center where you can have all of your ills treated--The Bill Clinton Center for Sexual Predators, Liars, Rapists, and Perjury.
SADDLY, I HAVE TO REPORT THE CLOSING OF SOME LIBERAL CENTERS.
The "I Love America" center, the "Win in Iraq" center, the "Democratic Institute for new Policies", the Swift Boat Crewmembers for John Kerry, The Clinton Ethics Center, the Democratic Plan to Save Social Security, The Progressive Peace through Military Strength Institute, and Protect Individual Rights--Keep Government Small
have all closed due to lack of interest.
Posted by Common Citizen on Dec. 11 2007,1:23 pm
^ ouch that stings... I can see the steam rising above the numerous homes and businesses on the Albert Lea skyline...
Posted by hymiebravo on Dec. 11 2007,1:29 pm
I'm sure he could come up with just as much for the other side if he felt so inclined.
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 11 2007,1:34 pm
Hymiebravo QUOTE
His opponent Kent Hance portrayed Bush as being out of touch with rural Texans; Bush
That explains all that I'm just a "good ole" "Texas country boy", stuff in his compaigns. lol
Bush lost by 6,000 votes. He went on to win the Governership--TWICE--beating incumbent Ann Richards, and the SECOND time with 69% of the vote. His opponent might ALLEGE that he was "out of touch"--but you have to admit that his was obviously in touch with Texans! That explains all that I'm just a "good ole" "Texas country boy", stuff in his compaigns. lol
QUOTE
It's interesting when you hear the background of W, you can see how his past has influenced what he went on to do, or does now.
For example: I saw a thing on Frontline were they discussed the Pat Robertson phenom, during his fathers compaign.
After he ("W") saw the potential for votes there...he tapped into that, and courted that group. During his own campaign.
Given that Bush is an Evangelical, wouldn't that be natural? As opposed to the opportunist Hillary--affecting a fake "Southern Accent" when speaking down south--or John Kerry's "Who among us does not like NASCAR?" For example: I saw a thing on Frontline were they discussed the Pat Robertson phenom, during his fathers compaign.
After he ("W") saw the potential for votes there...he tapped into that, and courted that group. During his own campaign.
QUOTE
I thought "W" had more than one insider trading case that he was involved in. But thats just going from memory from things I have read in the past.
The name for that error is called WRONG. (snicker)QUOTE
You have to admit that having people way up in politics and power in the country sure couldn't have hurt when it came to be aquitted of those charges.
Are you SERIOUSLY saying that because he had a famous father that he is presumed guilty? The man is ACQUITTED--what does he have to do to stop the chattering chipmunks of the Donk party?QUOTE
Failed oil ventures: Must feel like sweet revenge or something the way things are now. Making everybody in Houston and the outlying areas money now.
And everybody was LOSING money then. We lived in Houston from 1980-83--it was a disaster for the whole CITY. People just walked away from homes and businesses--large office buildings were called "see throughs" because they were unoccupied. I suppose that is Bush's fault, too. QUOTE
The Dan Rather thing:
The thing is... He "W" is in a postion were he can have evidence and documentation surpressed and or destroyed. The reason the Bush's knew he made it up probably was because they KNEW they had destroyed all the evidence and coved it up. lol IMO
Do you have ANY evidence that documentation was supressed or destroyed? If you do, you should send it to SEE-BS--they fired their star anchor for FABRICATING stories. There is PLENTY of evidence that the story was fabricated. Few people realize the seriousness of what Rather was trying to do--fabricate a story to bring down the Presidency of an innocent man. This is more like a CIA (or KGB) plot than a major network--on second thought, no it isn't. The thing is... He "W" is in a postion were he can have evidence and documentation surpressed and or destroyed. The reason the Bush's knew he made it up probably was because they KNEW they had destroyed all the evidence and coved it up. lol IMO
QUOTE
Also I could have swore I read/heard Jim saying that Bush sucked not that long ago here.
Something about him("W") beating someone (Kerry) who sucked more... I believe was how it was stated.
I said "It has to rankle liberals that the guy they think is Stupid keeps beating them. It isn't that Bush is GOOD, it is that their candidates are so BAD."Something about him("W") beating someone (Kerry) who sucked more... I believe was how it was stated.
Still true.
Posted by Common Citizen on Dec. 11 2007,1:35 pm
QUOTE
I'm sure he could come up with just as much for the other side if he felt so inclined.
Probably could but then what fun would that be...
Posted by hymiebravo on Dec. 11 2007,1:47 pm
QUOTE
.I think it will be interesting if someone like Oprah Winfrey backing Obama will make a difference in Black women voters, although they seem to be banking on it.
Why in the helk, doesn't Oprah just run herself ? lol
QUOTE
Disclaimer: IMO, Not impressed by Clinton at all but I think it might be inevitable as she clings onto her husbands coat tails just as George junior hung on dad's.
Well...you know that old saying about, behind every "great/successful man"...
I can't help but think that woman had a great deal to do with the guy having coat tails period.
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 11 2007,2:03 pm
QUOTE
Disclaimer: IMO, Not impressed by Clinton at all but I think it might be inevitable as she clings onto her husbands coat tails just as George junior hung on dad's.
Let's see--Bush 41 was a one-term President. He was out of office 8 years. I don't think that is much for "coat tails". I think "coat tails" is vastly over-rated. The Donks kept Congress during the Nixon years. They kept it with Reagan's twin wins--the greatest blowout in election history didn't help Repubs. Clinton won in 1996--despite losing Congress.
Hymiebravo
QUOTE
Well...you know that old saying about, behind every "great/successful man"...
Let me see if I can finish that for you--"is a controlling, manipulative, power-hungry BITCH!" Is THAT what you had in mind? QUOTE
I can't help but think that woman had a great deal to do with the guy having coat tails period.
Where is that STRIKETHROUGH button?--strike through "Coat" and the observation would be accurate.
Posted by hymiebravo on Dec. 11 2007,2:20 pm
QUOTE
Given that Bush is an Evangelical, wouldn't that be natural? As opposed to the opportunist Hillary--affecting a fake "Southern Accent" when speaking down south--or John Kerry's "Who among us does not like NASCAR?"
That Kerry quote is funny as helk.
Yes it's not a bad thing for people to use their losses/mistakes to help them later on to achieve success.
It always makes me think of something I read one time about the contract that that " Colonel" character supposedly got Elvis to sign.
It was supposed to be this super-duper iron clad contract.
The "Colonel" as the story went, had said that through out his life/carreer he had signed all these bad contracts that basically he wound up on the bad end of.
So what he did was take all those contracts and compiled one from the contents, of all of them, and THAT was the one he had Elvis sign. lol
So yes hopefully we all live and learn and do better each step of the way.
I guess what I got from the Frontline thing was that "W" may have had his sights on the presidentcy all along. More so than I had thought.
Just like RR he didn't just pop up one day and say he wanted to be president. He was planning that one for quite a while before he was brought to the national spotlight.
Helk maybe in the final analysis "W" is a Fricken genious.
QUOTE
I said "It has to rankle liberals that the guy they think is Stupid keeps beating them. It isn't that Bush is GOOD, it is that their candidates are so BAD."
Still true.
Still true.
Okay I'll accept that as a Bush sucks.
Posted by Common Citizen on Dec. 11 2007,2:31 pm
You need to read Dead Certain: The Presidency of GWBIt's an interesting story about where W's thoughts were about public office 10, 20, 30 years ago. written by Robert Draper from GQ magazine which I believe to be a liberal publication.
I liked it because it wasn't just a Pro-W book. May give some of you a little more insight into the whole Iraq issue as well from Draper's investigative perspective.
Posted by TameThaTane on Dec. 11 2007,6:00 pm
Arguing about a lame duck is futile. We need to talk about the liberal tax raiser/baptist preacher and pro immigration libby and the Liberal Governor from Massachusetts. Looks like the rght is taking a hard left! Also the supreme court finally saw the light on grossly unfair cocaine drug laws and corrected itself. The vote 7-2. Not even close. The kooky dissenters? Uncle Tom and skull-lito. BOTH GOP appointed Nazi's. So much for Jims BS about the court and drug war law!
Posted by TameThaTane on Dec. 11 2007,9:00 pm
Boy...that shut em up! LOL
Posted by Common Citizen on Dec. 12 2007,8:25 am
^ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............
Posted by Madd Max on Dec. 12 2007,9:08 am
(TameThaTane @ Dec. 11 2007,6:00 pm)
QUOTE
a lame duck
This one
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 12 2007,11:12 am
QUOTE
Arguing about a lame duck is futile.
I agree--the DONKS are still running against Bush. QUOTE
Looks like the rght is taking a hard left!
There is little difference between the parties--the best that can be said about most Repubs is that they are "Donk Lite". That said, they ARE all to the right of the 7 midgets the Donks are putting forth.QUOTE
Also the supreme court finally saw the light on grossly unfair cocaine drug laws and corrected itself.
I agree--Cocaine is cocaine. Jail sentences should be the same for both.QUOTE
The kooky dissenters? Uncle Tom and skull-lito.
You didn't read the news article in full. The reason for their dissent? They believe that eliminating guidelines would INCREASE disparities. Sentencing guidelines were set forth so there WOULDN'T be disparities. Now, judges can go back to imposing any sentence they want. See the following quote from ReutersQUOTE
But dissenting Justice Samuel Alito argued that the rulings, which significantly broaden a judge's sentencing flexibility, could make sentence disparities wider, not narrower.
There is also pressure in Congress to revise a 1986 law mandating longer sentences for crack, which is considered more addictive than powder cocaine and a source of street violence.
There is also pressure in Congress to revise a 1986 law mandating longer sentences for crack, which is considered more addictive than powder cocaine and a source of street violence.
Judges free to impose any sentence they want--is THAT what you want?
And WHO was in charge of Congress in 1986 when this law was passed? Blame the DONKS.The two "dissenters" you disparage only did so to uphold consistent sentencing--not to make cocaine more or less legal.
Your liberal credentials are showing--you rail against these dissenters, yet of the 7 member majority opinion, 4 of them were Repub. appointees. You should be glad that they are sticking up for your rights!
This was a clear vote for individual rights--yet there are obviously people that continue to look for a bad side--if someone gave them a pony, they would complain about having to clean the pen.
Posted by hymiebravo on Dec. 12 2007,11:55 am
QUOTE
Bush was hardly a big financial player. He needed $606,000 to become a co-owner - a small sum by baseball standards. But he could come up with only $106,000, so he borrowed another $500,000 from a bank at which he was a director. That gave him a 1.8 percent ownership in the club. The other owners did Bush an enormous favor, deciding to up his stake to nearly 12 percent. This was bonanza for Bush, giving him his first real test of Texas-sized financial success. Overnight, Bush was in a position to become a very wealthy man. The purchase took place at a time when Bush's father was president, and some of the other co-owners of the Rangers were major backers of then-President Bush, including Fred Malek and billionaire investor Richard Rainwater.
The success of the Rangers deal was assured by a tax increase. Bush, who would later emulate his father's ''no new taxes'' mantra in politics, pushed hard for a sales tax hike to help pay for the construction of the new ballpark at Arlington. To increase pressure for the tax hike, Bush and his fellow investors became one in a long line of baseball ownership teams to threaten to move the club out of town unless the public paid for a new stadium. The strategy worked, the sales tax was increased, and owners profited substantially.
All of that enabled the Rangers ownership team to sell the club later for three times the original price. But for Bush, the deal was even sweeter because his ownership stake had been increased from 1.8 percent to nearly 12 percent. Having invested $606,000, Bush received shares worth $14.9 million.
The success of the Rangers deal was assured by a tax increase. Bush, who would later emulate his father's ''no new taxes'' mantra in politics, pushed hard for a sales tax hike to help pay for the construction of the new ballpark at Arlington. To increase pressure for the tax hike, Bush and his fellow investors became one in a long line of baseball ownership teams to threaten to move the club out of town unless the public paid for a new stadium. The strategy worked, the sales tax was increased, and owners profited substantially.
All of that enabled the Rangers ownership team to sell the club later for three times the original price. But for Bush, the deal was even sweeter because his ownership stake had been increased from 1.8 percent to nearly 12 percent. Having invested $606,000, Bush received shares worth $14.9 million.
So THAT was Bush's definative moment and really demonstarted his keen financial/business prowess eh ?
$106,000 ?
You shouldn't be anywhere near ownership of a profesional sports franchise should you ?
You couldn't even be a "hot dog vender" at a standium with that I would think.
Unless...
< http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0712-06.htm >
Posted by hymiebravo on Dec. 12 2007,12:10 pm
Anyway...I don't get that imigration stance with Hucklebee.
He doesn't want to see us make the same mistakes we made with black people in this country.
Were those slaves jumping on ships and sneaking into this country illegally ?
I'm guessing the fact that they were chained and shackled is a fairly good indicator, that they didn't really wanna come along for the ride.
So I guess if we drag your butt here by force then it puts us in a bad mood and we treat you accordingly.
But if you sneak in illegally we're supposed to be nice to you, because you saved us the shipping charges ? lol
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 12 2007,12:33 pm
Now THERE's a real objective site. "Breaking News and Views for the Progressive Community"? Bush went to Texas in 1975, and bought into the Rangers in 1989. In the intervening 18-32 years, libbies haven't given any credible evidence of wrongdoing on his part--despite allegations and investigations of insider trading. The SEC cleared him. From your hostile source:
QUOTE
Joan Claybrook, president of the advocacy group Public Citizen, said, ''The report by the SEC staff was pretty conclusive that while they [Bush and Harken's lawyers] had violated the law on failure to file the Form 4, the issue on the insider trading they felt very clearly was not there.''
William McLucas, who was the SEC's enforcement director at the time, said that it was common for reports to be late and that he stood by the SEC's finding. Asked whether the agency was intimidated by the fact that it was investigating the president's son, McLucas responded: ''The fact is that it wasn't lost on the staff who it was and the fact is it really didn't make a difference. The matter was treated the same way if it was John Doe or George Bush.''
William McLucas, who was the SEC's enforcement director at the time, said that it was common for reports to be late and that he stood by the SEC's finding. Asked whether the agency was intimidated by the fact that it was investigating the president's son, McLucas responded: ''The fact is that it wasn't lost on the staff who it was and the fact is it really didn't make a difference. The matter was treated the same way if it was John Doe or George Bush.''
George Soros was also part of Harken Energy, according to the article--but no mention of wrongdoing for HIM.
QUOTE
A report by the Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan group that investigates the finances of politicians, attributes Harken's interest in Spectrum 7 to the lure of Bush's name.
A THIRD investigation clears him.QUOTE
Bush's great-uncle, Herbert Walker, was a founder of the New York Mets, and Bush was a big baseball fan. Major League Baseball officials were looking for a group of Texas investors to buy the Rangers, and Bush's name came up.
So there WAS a reason for him to be involved in baseball--the article states that he was a "big baseball fan." According to Wikipedia's bio of Bush,
QUOTE
When the Rangers franchise was sold for $250 million in 1998, at a total profit of $170 million, Bush personally received $14.9 million for his $600,000 investment. [6]
What was NOT said in the Common Dreams or Wikipedia article was that since he put the buyout together, he was a General Partner--garnering more money than those who simply invested. If Wikipedia's numbers are correct, that is a total of 8.76% of the profits--not the 12% of Common Dreams--or 6% above his 1.8% investment--common for a General Partner. (Documents refer to him as "Managing Partner".
How did he get to 12%? Common Dreams conveniently leaves that out. Here it is, from ESPN
QUOTE
At the time, his share is 1.8 percent equity interest, plus another 10 percent bonus if the team is later sold and the investors get back their original investment plus interest
Contrast and compare that with Hillary's ONE DAY VENTURE in to Cattle Futures trading--something she had never done before, and despite making $100,000 in a single day, inexplicably never did AGAIN.
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 12 2007,12:37 pm
QUOTE
But if you sneak in illegally we're supposed to be nice to you, because you saved us the shipping charges
"If we're so cruel to minorities, why do they keep coming here? Why aren't they running AWAY from the U.S.--sneaking across the border into Mexico?"--Ann Coulter--column "The mind of a liberal"
Posted by Common Citizen on Dec. 12 2007,12:39 pm
QUOTE
Were those slaves jumping on ships and sneaking into this country illegally ?
They were being sold to European slave traders by their own brothers from other tribes in Africa.
Posted by hymiebravo on Dec. 12 2007,1:45 pm
That whole article (common dreams) says to me that Bush just basically floated along on people wanting to "suck up" to the Bush's So some guy who had $106,000 was considered some major big deal in the whole affair ?
If its my bank and you say I want to Borrow $500,000 to purchase a 1.8% interest in a floundering baseball team.
And I wanna secure the loan with my shares of stock in my floundering oil company that is in debt millions of dollars.
I would tell you to take a hike. ( oh wait did you say you were the president's son ? )
Isn't that how the Stock market crashed, people borrowing money to invest in the stock market ?
It said He worked for the bank too.
Wasn't that around the time of all the failed savings and loans. You know people borrowing money with bad/fake collateral and all that.
I don't get it...
If it were my organization and you were Mr. $106,000 which only amounted to 1.8% of the whole affair you would be getting people coffee, and NOT putting together any deals. lol
1.8% makes you a "managing partner" ?
Did anybody have any significant investment in that whole affair ?
I guess I always thought that major profesional sports franchises were owned and held by people that had MAJOR dollars. And that pieced together deals with multiple investors were generally frowned apon.
You know, like if you have to ask you can't afford it.
Or in the case of a "Pro Sports" team if you can't buy the team yourself you can't come in.
You Can't afford it.
The whole of idea of owning a team is supposed to be a badge of wealth I thought.
I would imagine the reason they would have wanted his name highlighted and sticking out in a major way was for the "name recognition" factor.
The same reason he was sitting out in the stands
at games.
Which would help their ultimate goal which was getting the Tax payer built stadium.
He's about as much of a business guru/genious as Donald Trump is. IMO
Born on 3rd base and thinks he scored a triple.
Or maybe in the case of "W" all of his ardent fans think he scored a triple.
Posted by hymiebravo on Dec. 12 2007,1:58 pm
So working in government is the perfect place for him.
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 12 2007,4:37 pm
QUOTE
If its my bank and you say I want to Borrow $500,000 to purchase a 1.8% interest in a floundering baseball team.
It was hardly a floundering baseball team. According to ESPN, the team had been recapitalized with the people that Bush brought in--the 1.8% of that capital certainly WAS worth $500,000--and subsequently more. They had used the new money to sign new players--notably Nolan Ryan--and the next year ended up with a winning season. Finally, the new corporation included the Astrodome lease as an asset.QUOTE
It said He worked for the bank too.
Wasn't that around the time of all the failed savings and loans. You know people borrowing money with bad/fake collateral and all that.
That is character assassination by inuendo. The bank didn't lose any money. The bank had good collateral. There is no connection between the Savings & Loan "crisis" and his borrowing money. I borrowed money during that time, too--the bank didn't lose any money on me, either.Wasn't that around the time of all the failed savings and loans. You know people borrowing money with bad/fake collateral and all that.
QUOTE
1.8% makes you a "managing partner" ?
No--1.8% was the SHARE he bought. A General Partner or Managing Partner is usually the person that put the deal together, and/or makes the day-to-day deals. Look at most housing developments.I have no interest in watching other people play sports--just looking up the background on the computer to see if the link was accurate. It was--as far as it went. It just didn't tell the WHOLE story.
Posted by Common Citizen on Dec. 13 2007,9:30 am
What's up with congress?Headlines:
< Democrats Blaming Each Other For Failures >
< Intraparty Feuds Dog Democrats, Stall Congress >
< Democrats Bow to Bush's Demands in House Spending Bill >
< Dems cave on spending >
This congress will be the achilles' heel of the donks whitehouse ambition.
LameDuck?
hehehehe - GW
Posted by hymiebravo on Dec. 15 2007,7:34 pm
Does everybody like the commercials with Hillary's mom and daughter ?
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 16 2007,10:29 am
"Vote for my daughter because I think she's a good person"? null< My Webpage >
Posted by hymiebravo on Dec. 18 2007,4:29 pm
It makes me think of Rod Gram's commercial with his mom in it. I just cringe when I see it. Everytime I see one of her commercials... I hear no way in my head. lol But I thought Bush would lose too. So maybe she's a shoe in. She sure has the bucks that's painfully evident.
Who's gonna beat that Obama commercial.
" I don't wanna pit the red states against the blue states... I wanna be the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA !!!!" (or something close to that)
Who can compete with that ? lol
Too bad a lot of his fan base isn't old enuff to vote.
Posted by Madd Max on Dec. 18 2007,11:29 pm
(hymiebravo @ Dec. 18 2007,4:29 pm)
QUOTE
Who's gonna beat that Obama commercial.
" I don't wanna pit the red states against the blue states... I wanna be the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA !!!!" (or something close to that)
Who can compete with that ? lol
Too bad a lot of his fan base isn't old enuff to vote.
" I don't wanna pit the red states against the blue states... I wanna be the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA !!!!" (or something close to that)
Who can compete with that ? lol
Too bad a lot of his fan base isn't old enuff to vote.
Iowa Still Wide Open
With only 16 days until the Iowa Accuses the race for President in the Hawkeye state is still wide open.
Our exclusive polling partner Survey USA asked Iowans how they would vote in the following matchups.
In the battle of New York Hillary Clinton comes in at 47-percent and Rudi Gillian not far behind at 42 percent.
What if it was republican mitt Romney against Hillary Clinton?
45-percent would vote for Romney while 48 percent said Clinton.
Now here it gets really close, Clinton virus Mike Huckabee it's basically a tie 45% for Huckabee
46% for Clinton.
In a match up with Republican John Mccain also very close 46% Mccain, 45% Clinton.
Now we are going to switch to democrat Barack Obama.
Obama with a decent lead over the former New York Mayor 36% Giuliani
55% Obama.
Obama verus Mitt Rommney…. Obama wins again 39% Romney to 51% Obama.
Another victim for the Illinois Senator when he goes head to head against Mike Huckabee… 52% Obama 39% Huckabee.
Obama wins again against John Mccain, 39% Mccain 51% Obama.
All of these surveys have a plus or minus margin of 4.3 percent
Obama looks like he is starting to get some traction
Posted by Common Citizen on Dec. 19 2007,8:19 am
I think Edwards is finished...granted I don't put a lot of stock in this publication...but I wonder if the Clintonista's had anything to do with this one, too.Then you read polls like this...who the hell knows...
< Edwards Leads in Iowa >
Posted by Common Citizen on Dec. 19 2007,8:22 am
How's this for a subliminal message... 
He claims it was just a book shelf in the back ground.
Posted by hairhertz on Dec. 19 2007,9:49 am
I'd love to see nobody get the endorsement for either party in Iowa. Then what?
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 19 2007,10:30 am
Rasmussen Polling had an interesting twist last night on Hannity & Colmes. Instead of a "Beauty Contest" amongst likely voters in primary states and caucuses that only attract the party faithful, they polled "Who would you like to BLOCK from the White House"? Giuliani and Obama polled in the teens, nearly everyone else polled below 10%--but nationwide Hillary polled 40%!
Conservatives need to send her some campaign money!
Posted by GEOKARJO on Dec. 20 2007,10:33 am
I am reminded of a story I read in the enquirerQUOTE
Gary Hart[1] (born Gary Warren Hartpence, November 28, 1936) is a lawyer and public servant from the state of Colorado. He formerly served as a Democratic U.S. Senator representing Colorado (1975–1987), and ran in the U.S. presidential elections in 1984 and again in 1988, when he was considered a frontrunner for the Democratic nomination until withdrawing from the race because of a scandal
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 22 2007,2:57 pm
The Rassmussen poll I mentioned on the 19th was released to the public today. null< My Webpage >It shows both Hillary and Romney with 47% "NO WAY!" votes--followed closely by Giuliani. The favorable vs. unfavorable table shows an interesting story. Here is a ranking of favorable/unfavorable.
QUOTE
Core Favorability/Opposition Among Unaffiliated Voters
Candidate
Def. FOR
Def. AGAINST
Net
McCain
20%
26%
-6
Obama
22%
31%
-9
Edwards
20%
31%
-11
Thompson
18%
31%
-13
Huckabee
16%
34%
-18
Romney
18%
38%
-20
Giuliani
18%
44%
-26
Clinton
22%
48%
-26
Paul
14%
43%
-29
Bloomberg
8%
42%
-34
Candidate
Def. FOR
Def. AGAINST
Net
McCain
20%
26%
-6
Obama
22%
31%
-9
Edwards
20%
31%
-11
Thompson
18%
31%
-13
Huckabee
16%
34%
-18
Romney
18%
38%
-20
Giuliani
18%
44%
-26
Clinton
22%
48%
-26
Paul
14%
43%
-29
Bloomberg
8%
42%
-34
Posted by Ned Kelly on Dec. 22 2007,5:49 pm
John Edwards is the best man for the job. From either party! IMHO....... ......ned
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 23 2007,11:46 am
So you voiced your opinion--care to tell us why? Was it the ability to "channel" dead people--to speak what you think they might have thought to a jury and gain millions of dollars?
Was it his brilliant performance in the 2004 race? (OK, I admit he was chained to a millstone of a running mate.)
Was it his distinguished single term in the Senate--with a lot of bills authored? Perhaps his vast foreign policy experience? His diplomatic skills? His military experience? His business acumen?
Was it his "poverty tour"--going around the country talking about "two Americas"--since dropped when his 28,000 sq. ft. house and lavish lifestyle was exposed?
Or maybe it is his $1200 haircut (earning him the title "The Breck Girl") that you like?
What job are you talking about? What is he qualified for? Lawyer for the Village People? Or since you are not TELLING, we shouldn't ASK.
Edited to add this that came out today--Obama Criticizes Edwards record null< My Webpage >
Posted by hymiebravo on Dec. 23 2007,1:49 pm
I think Edwards could be a good supporting cast member to say... President Bartlet. lol
Posted by Ned Kelly on Dec. 23 2007,4:00 pm
(jimhanson @ Dec. 23 2007,11:46 am)
QUOTE
So you voiced your opinion--care to tell us why?
Because I knew it would get some sort of nasty comment from you, since you are of the opinion that you are smartest person to ever post on the forum. Your continued posts degrading anyone who thinks differently than you show only your stubborn ignorance. .........
.....ned
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 24 2007,9:34 am
Feeling a little insecure, Ned?You made a statement that you thought Edwards was the best man for the job--but can't seem to come up with any reasons for saying why you thought that. What are his attributes?
There's got to be SOME reason you like him.
Posted by Ned Kelly on Dec. 24 2007,12:03 pm
(jimhanson @ Dec. 24 2007,9:34 am)
QUOTE
You made a statement that you thought Edwards was the best man for the job--but can't seem to come up with any reasons for saying why you thought that. What are his attributes?
There's got to be SOME reason you like him.
There's got to be SOME reason you like him.
My sense of human nature finds him the most sincere of all the candidates running. The tragedies he and his wife have lived through and managed to survive if not become stronger. I personally don't care for Obama nor Clinton. Or any front runner at this point
In my minds eye the dream ticket would be Edwards and Huckabee or Huckabee and Edwards.
Whatever happens, Gridlock will continue to hold our nation hostage from being a true example of Democracy. There is enough blame to go around, both parties are guilty as hell!
No matter who we elect we get screwed
Since a third party cannot get elected we need to kick the arses of party leadership no matter what party affiliation that mirrors our political beliefs...."Thats all I have to say about that" Forrest Gump.....
......ned
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 24 2007,1:50 pm
QUOTE
The tragedies he and his wife have lived through and managed to survive if not become stronger.
He isn't the only one to have bad things happen to him. McCain, of course, endured years of prison and torture. Obama's father left at age 2. Romney was hit in a near-fatal car crash in France. Thompson has non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (cancer). Kucinich was so poor growing up that the family lived in a car. Duncan Hunter is a decorated war hero. Giuliani was a Democrat in his early life. And of course, Hillary has Bill. QUOTE
Since a third party cannot get elected we need to kick the arses of party leadership no matter what party affiliation that mirrors our political beliefs...."
Agree. That's why the Rassmussen poll is so telling--the negativity vs. electability of each of the candidates is shocking.Michael Reagan had a great column a couple of weeks back, where he took both the Dems and Repubs to task for advocating PROGRAMS--not PRINCIPLES to cure our ills. He chided both for making vague promises ("change", or "new beginning") instead of exactly what they would do, and the principles behind them. I looked up the link to the column null< My Webpage >
He's right. If you look back on all of the great Presidents, they governed by PRINCIPLE (small government, civil rights, beat the Axis, etc.) NOT PROGRAMS.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Dec. 24 2007,3:39 pm
Wrong Thread
Posted by No more rash on Dec. 27 2007,8:57 pm
Alot comming from Mr Hanson. You are the one who ruined the Elks club right???
Posted by GEOKARJO on Jan. 03 2008,4:36 pm
Zogby: Obama Moves into Lead Thursday, January 3, 2008 9:01 AM
Article Font Size
Democrat Barack Obama continued his upward momentum through the evening before the Iowa caucuses, capturing the lead ahead of rivals John Edwards and Hillary Clinton.. Meanwhile, Republican Mike Hucakbee widened his lead over Mitt Romney down the stretch, the newest and last Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby daily telephone tracking poll in Iowa shows.
Obama broke through the 30% barrier for the first time, gaining 31% support after another strong day leading up to the caucuses. But more dramatic was Clinton’s four-point drop in this last day of tracking. Edwards moved into second place by himself after another day where he steadily gained ground. This fifth and final daily tracking poll was conducted using live telephone operators in the Zogby call center in Upstate New York. Edwards finished this Zogby daily tracking in Iowa in the same place as four years ago, when Zogby correctly identified the finishing order of the candidates in that caucus.
Obama continued to perform very well among younger likely Democratic caucus-goers, while Clinton enjoys strong support from older voters. Among men, Obama has sprinted ahead of Edwards, who is now second. Clinton continues to lead among women, but only by a small margin.
With a Huckabee surge and a Romney dip, the former Arkansas governor opened up a six-point lead over his nearest rival. Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson also lost a point, and Arizona Sen. John McCain, who has been surging in New Hampshire, faded here into a tie for fourth place.
Huckabees strength among women was notable he leads Romney by a 37% to 25% margin, while enjoying a narrow 27% to 25% edge among men. Huckabee also continued to show well among those likely caucus-goers age 25-34 and age 35-54, where he held significant leads over Romney and the rest of the field.
The telephone tracking survey of Democrats included 905 likely caucusgoers surveyed over four days. The margin of error for the Democratic survey was +/ 3.3 percentage points. For the telephone survey of likely Republican caucusgoers, the sample included 914 people and carries a margin of error of +/- 3.3 percentage points. Both the Democratic sample and the Republican sample include interviews from Dec.30, 2007, to Jan. 2, 2008.
Posted by hymiebravo on Jan. 03 2008,5:09 pm
QUOTE
Obama continued to perform very well among younger likely Democratic caucus-goers
That's a pretty neat thing in and of itself. But they will have to show up and in big numbers.
The only candidates to be able to do something simliar that I can think of... would be the Wrestler and "The Terminator".
Getting people that aren't usually even considered-- because they don't usually get involved--to get off their butts and get involved--AND actually vote. Is what I'm refering to.
Posted by bianca on Jan. 03 2008,10:27 pm
Obama takes first and Edwards second......that's what I'm talkin' bout. 
On to New Hampshire
Posted by TameThaTane on Jan. 03 2008,10:50 pm
1. Big story is massive dem turn out. Dems will win this time around.2. Romney will be the Repub nominee.
The repubs strategy of pushing Hillary isn't working it seems. They don't know how to deal with Obama other than calling him a negro terrorist.
It'll be funny to watch Hannity deal with dissing Obama. Hannity isn't even close to being in his league.
Posted by USMC5811 on Jan. 04 2008,2:53 am
(TameThaTane @ Jan. 03 2008,10:50 pm)
QUOTE
1. Big story is massive dem turn out. Dems will win this time around.
2. Romney will be the Repub nominee.
The repubs strategy of pushing Hillary isn't working it seems. They don't know how to deal with Obama other than calling him a negro terrorist. It'll be funny to watch Hannity deal with dissing Obama. Hannity isn't even close to being in his league.
2. Romney will be the Repub nominee.
The repubs strategy of pushing Hillary isn't working it seems. They don't know how to deal with Obama other than calling him a negro terrorist.
It'll be funny to watch Hannity deal with dissing Obama. Hannity isn't even close to being in his league.
Posted by hairhertz on Jan. 04 2008,6:21 am
Huckabee 
did fantastic in IA, anybody notice Chuck Norris standing behind him on the podium last night?Hillary, Hillary, Hillary. People want big change, not the same old stuff regardless of what sex you are
Posted by Common Citizen on Jan. 04 2008,8:46 am
The donks should be happy after last nights turn out. You know something just ain't right with Huckabee when you have the NEA endorsing him. It just doesn't pass the sniff test. That's all I'm saying.
Hillary's in trouble. If she fails in New Hampshire, John Edwards will win the nomination. Obama will not survive a national campaign.
I was surprised Thompson did as well as he did. I thought he was MIA during the whole affair.
I liked CNN's coverage of the caucuses.
Headline when speaking about the democrat's:
OBAMA WINS CAUCUS (large font)
Headline when speaking about the republican's:
Huckabee wins Republican Caucus (small font)
Mitt Romney 2nd (smaller font)
They would also put Obama's picture above Huckabee's...
For obvious reason's I'm biased. But hey...it's just an observation.
Posted by TameThaTane on Jan. 04 2008,9:02 am
QUOTE
If she fails in New Hampshire, John Edwards will win the nomination. Obama will not survive a national campaign.
100% wrong on both counts and I'll bring up this post in the future to prove it. One more strike and you wiff out.
Posted by Common Citizen on Jan. 04 2008,9:39 am
(TameThaTane @ Oct. 30 2007,10:24 pm)
QUOTE
Here's the race. It'll be Hillary Clinton Verses Mitt Romney.
I stand by that and it'll come to fruition. Just watch, I'm always right. Said told you so so many times I can't even remember all of them.
Keep this thread alive as proof of how correct I always am. Make your predictions here.
I stand by that and it'll come to fruition. Just watch, I'm always right. Said told you so so many times I can't even remember all of them.
Keep this thread alive as proof of how correct I always am. Make your predictions here.
You mean kind of like this?^^^
Posted by TameThaTane on Jan. 04 2008,10:45 am
You forgot this:QUOTE
Not so fast repo. Obama will most likely win IA and New Hampshire giving him great momentum.
I admit I was a just a tad swayed by all the Republican propaganda pushing Hillary because it's who they feel they can beat, but STILL got it right! LOL
You on the other hand aren't even in the ballpark.
Posted by Eddie Cochran's Ghost on Jan. 04 2008,11:15 am
(TameThaTane @ Jan. 04 2008,10:45 am)
QUOTE
You forgot this:
I admit I was a just a tad swayed by all the Republican propaganda pushing Hillary because it's who they feel they can beat, but STILL got it right! LOL
You on the other hand aren't even in the ballpark.
QUOTE
Not so fast repo. Obama will most likely win IA and New Hampshire giving him great momentum.
I admit I was a just a tad swayed by all the Republican propaganda pushing Hillary because it's who they feel they can beat, but STILL got it right! LOL
You on the other hand aren't even in the ballpark.
So in other words no matter what the f you say, you are always right?
How convenient.
Posted by TameThaTane on Jan. 04 2008,11:24 am
Is it over?
Posted by Common Citizen on Jan. 04 2008,11:36 am
Please... ...you're killin' me.Your Hillary prediction was definitive and your Obama comments were pure speculation...unless you're a FLIP FLOPPER...
...here try this... stick your finger in your mouth and then hold it up to the wind...
Posted by TameThaTane on Jan. 04 2008,12:05 pm
I was for Obama from day one and still am. Like I said, the neocons Hillary surge was very well executed and I was just a bit...a tad swayed but then came back to reality and got it right. I was testing the waters and when I got a bite I corrected Repo. It's all in there. 1. Repubs will lose big in the election
2. Their nominee is a toss up, but it's a moot point since they can't win no matter who it is. The neocon and the evangelicals time is up! About time! They took a hard right and kept going right until they went on circles, got dizzy and crashed.
President Obama, please step forward. Hillary's old guard. Edwards is against medical marijuana. He's an idiot and represents the old way of thinking.
Obama has smoked pot and tooted a little caine...next...
We're over it. Doesn't matter if he did. President Obama please take your rightful seat in history. When I heard the statement of his relatives in a Kenyan village it brought tears to my eyes. The American dream is about to be realized and the neocon is about to be destroyed. Two birds with one stone.
Let it me known from this day forward, power is being shifted to a new generation....my generation.
Posted by Common Citizen on Jan. 04 2008,1:39 pm
If the democrats turn out on election day like they did last night, then we'll have a donk in the whitehouse. I am not overly impressed with any of the candidates the republicans are putting forward other than Duncan Hunter. Which, if hasn't already, will be dropping out. Ron Paul still spikes my curiosity. I like his health care policy. As far as the Neocons taking a hard right?
QUOTE
The neocon and the evangelicals time is up! About time! They took a hard right and kept going right until they went on circles, got dizzy and crashed.
What planet do you live on. The reason we're even contemplating a donk whitehouse and congress is because they DIDN'T take a hard right. Just look at the lack of spine they had on the border and illegal immigration issues...
Can someone put an emoticon up of a calf sucking a cows teat?
Posted by TameThaTane on Jan. 04 2008,3:01 pm
What a kook. Just like all the serious media people said about Iowans. " We have all these really serious issues and all they care about are some Mexicans in the country illegally?"It's the Neocon war stupid. It only cost us 2 trillion dollars and $3.00 gas!
Anyhoo the game is over. The writing is on the wall. We have a new generation of voters ready to get off their butts and not let the Geo's and the church lady's of the world determine who runs the country anymore. My advice to the neocons --->It's the war stupid.
Posted by Ned Kelly on Jan. 04 2008,5:48 pm
(Common Citizen @ Jan. 04 2008,1:39 pm)
QUOTE
The reason we're even contemplating a donk whitehouse and congress is because they DIDN'T take a hard right. Just look at the lack of spine they had on the border and illegal immigration issues...
I agree. The Repubs had the Whitehouse and both houses of congress for 6 years and did nothing about illegal immigration. Lets face it, the cheap labor is too attractive to their supporters......big business. If it wasn't for the illegals all of our jobs would be in China.........
....ned
Posted by Eddie Cochran's Ghost on Jan. 04 2008,7:14 pm
(Ned Kelly @ Jan. 04 2008,5:48 pm)
QUOTE
(Common Citizen @ Jan. 04 2008,1:39 pm)
QUOTE
The reason we're even contemplating a donk whitehouse and congress is because they DIDN'T take a hard right. Just look at the lack of spine they had on the border and illegal immigration issues...
I agree. The Repubs had the Whitehouse and both houses of congress for 6 years and did nothing about illegal immigration. Lets face it, the cheap labor is too attractive to their supporters......big business. If it wasn't for the illegals all of our jobs would be in China.........
....nedSo why are the libs so bothered when the feds make raids on plants and deport the illegals? I can see right through your phoney crocodile tears.
Posted by TameThaTane on Jan. 04 2008,9:31 pm
As you know, I'm a contributor to Baracks campaign. Here's an E-mail he sent me....
"TTT"--
We just won Iowa, and I'm about to head down to talk to everyone.
Democrats turned out in record numbers tonight, and independents and even some Republicans joined our party to stand together for change.
Thank you for everything you've done to make this possible.
Barack
Posted by Eddie Cochran's Ghost on Jan. 05 2008,7:25 am
(TameThaTane @ Jan. 04 2008,9:31 pm)
QUOTE
As you know, I'm a contributor to Baracks campaign.
Here's an E-mail he sent me....
"TTT"--
We just won Iowa, and I'm about to head down to talk to everyone.
Democrats turned out in record numbers tonight, and independents and even some Republicans joined our party to stand together for change.
Thank you for everything you've done to make this possible.
Barack
Here's an E-mail he sent me....
"TTT"--
We just won Iowa, and I'm about to head down to talk to everyone.
Democrats turned out in record numbers tonight, and independents and even some Republicans joined our party to stand together for change.
Thank you for everything you've done to make this possible.
Barack
So you want a cookie?
WGAF?
Posted by Ned Kelly on Jan. 05 2008,10:56 am
(Eddie Cochran's Ghost @ Jan. 04 2008,7:14 pm)
QUOTE
(Ned Kelly @ Jan. 04 2008,5:48 pm)
QUOTE
(Common Citizen @ Jan. 04 2008,1:39 pm)
QUOTE
The reason we're even contemplating a donk whitehouse and congress is because they DIDN'T take a hard right. Just look at the lack of spine they had on the border and illegal immigration issues...
I agree. The Repubs had the Whitehouse and both houses of congress for 6 years and did nothing about illegal immigration. Lets face it, the cheap labor is too attractive to their supporters......big business. If it wasn't for the illegals all of our jobs would be in China.........
....nedSo why are the libs so bothered when the feds make raids on plants and deport the illegals? I can see right through your phoney crocodile tears.
The only reason the "Feds" are cracking down is because us Moderates have said "enough". A political ploy by the right wing Bush Inc to pacify the moderates in both parties. Please see my previous post: The repubs have had control of the Whitehouse and both houses of congress for 6 years and did nothing! What we got was a bunch of lies and a war that was lost in the beginning by going in on the cheap. The Bush Legacy will follow him until history forgets about it.......
.....ned
Posted by Ned Kelly on Jan. 05 2008,11:05 am
If you need the definition of "moderate" please look it up on Wikipedia. ECG, you might just find you are one of us too, if you are as well informed as you want us to think. You cannot agree with your party all of the time, or can you?................. ......ned
Posted by GEOKARJO on Jan. 05 2008,12:36 pm
Before you are sold on a candidates opinion and point of view maybe you should research his beliefs< Obammas Church in which he professes to be a member >
< Snopes take on it. >
QUOTE
Trinity United Church of Christ has been called by God to be a congregation that is not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ and that does not apologize for its African roots! As a congregation of baptized believers, we are called to be agents of liberation not only for the oppressed, but for all of God’s family. We, as a church family, acknowledge, that we will, building on this affirmation of "who we are" and "whose we are," call men, women, boys and girls to the liberating love of Jesus Christ, inviting them to become a part of the church universal, responding to Jesus’ command that we go into all the world and make disciples!
We are called out to be "a chosen people" that pays no attention to socio-economic or educational backgrounds. We are made up of the highly educated and the uneducated. Our congregation is a combination of the haves and the have-nots; the economically disadvantaged, the under-class, the unemployed and the employable.
The fortunate who are among us combine forces with the less fortunate to become agents of change for God who is not pleased with America’s economic mal-distribution!
W.E.B. DuBois indicated that the problem in the 20th century was going to be the problem of the color line. He was absolutely correct. Our job as servants of God is to address that problem and eradicate it in the name of Him who came for the whole world by calling all men, women, boys and girls to Christ.
We are called out to be "a chosen people" that pays no attention to socio-economic or educational backgrounds. We are made up of the highly educated and the uneducated. Our congregation is a combination of the haves and the have-nots; the economically disadvantaged, the under-class, the unemployed and the employable.
The fortunate who are among us combine forces with the less fortunate to become agents of change for God who is not pleased with America’s economic mal-distribution!
W.E.B. DuBois indicated that the problem in the 20th century was going to be the problem of the color line. He was absolutely correct. Our job as servants of God is to address that problem and eradicate it in the name of Him who came for the whole world by calling all men, women, boys and girls to Christ.
Posted by bianca on Jan. 05 2008,12:44 pm
Totally Grasping there Geo! Get a grip, how 'bout some substance here to go with your fillers ...and 3T you got "ripped" I got the same exact email, and I haven't donated a dime. Come on back down to Earth and join us commoners, won'tcha?
All ya gotta do is sign up for supporting his campaign and lo and behold.....Shazam! An email a day from either him or his wife personalized to anyone who signed up for his campaign this summer.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Jan. 05 2008,12:48 pm
I gave you the links you decide how you want to interpret it.I am looking at all the candidates. In my mind this church in which he is a 20 year member, openly admits it practices and promotes reverse discrimination.
Posted by bianca on Jan. 05 2008,1:00 pm
QUOTE
you decide how you want to interpret it.
Wow, cuckoo for cocoa puffs.
Oh wait the puffs are black so I guess I can't say that to you.You might want to study up on "where" you pull your information up but then again.......like you said
QUOTE
you decide how you want to interpret it
OMG No....we can't be havin any ub dem jungle bunnies runnin around up in our country eatin their fried chicken and chittlins, this is our country, his kind need be back up on doze ole plantationz cuz they there should noze where thar place should be and itz in da fieldz not in da house.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Jan. 05 2008,1:03 pm
You know it took me almost an hour to read the entire website and its links of the church in which he is a 20 year member have you even clicked on the link yet.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Jan. 05 2008,1:15 pm
From Obamas churches web siteQUOTE
Dr. Wright’s talking points (3.1.7) for Trinity United Church of Christ its Web site and the Black Value System (in response to Erik Rush’s comments (2.28.07) on the Hannity and Colmes show):
• One of the biggest gaps in knowledge that causes the kind of ignorance that you hear spouted by this man [Erik Rush] and those like him, has to do with the fact that these persons are completely ignorant when it comes to the Black religious tradition. The vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone’s book, Black Power and Black Theology.
• Black theology is one of the many theologies in the Americas that became popular during the liberation theology movement. They include Hispanic theology, Native American theology, Asian theology and Womanist theology.
• I use the word “systematized” because Black liberation theology was in existence long before Dr. Cone’s book. It originates in the days of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. It was systematized and published by theologians, Old Testament scholars, New Testament scholars, ethicists, church historians, and historians of religion such as Dr. James Cone, Dr. Cain Hope Felder, Dr. Gayraud Wilmore, Dr. Jacqueline Grant, Dr. Kelley Brown Douglas, Dr. Renita Weems, Dr. Katie Cannon, Dr. Dwight Hopkins, Dr. Linda Thomas, and Dr. Randall Bailey.
• These scholars, who write in various disciplines, also include seminary presidents like Dr. John Kinney and professors of Hebrew Bible, like Dr. Jerome Ross. Black liberation theology defines Africans and African Americans as subjects – not the objects which colonizers and oppressors have consistently defined “others” as.
• We [African Americans] were always seen as objects. When we started defining ourselves, it scared those who try to control others by naming them and defining them for them; Oppressors do not like “others” defining themselves.
• To have a church whose theological perspective starts from the vantage point of Black liberation theology being its center, is not to say that African or African American people are superior to any one else.
• African-centered thought, unlike Eurocentrism, does not assume superiority and look at everyone else as being inferior.
• There is more than one center from which to view the world. In the words of Dr. Janice Hale, “Difference does not mean deficience.” It is from this vantage point that Black liberation theology speaks.
• Systematized Black liberation theology is 40 years old. Scholars of African and African American religious history show that Black liberation theology, however, has been in existence for 400 years. It is found in the songs, the sermons, the testimonies and the oral literature of Africans throughout the Diaspora.
• One of the biggest gaps in knowledge that causes the kind of ignorance that you hear spouted by this man [Erik Rush] and those like him, has to do with the fact that these persons are completely ignorant when it comes to the Black religious tradition. The vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone’s book, Black Power and Black Theology.
• Black theology is one of the many theologies in the Americas that became popular during the liberation theology movement. They include Hispanic theology, Native American theology, Asian theology and Womanist theology.
• I use the word “systematized” because Black liberation theology was in existence long before Dr. Cone’s book. It originates in the days of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. It was systematized and published by theologians, Old Testament scholars, New Testament scholars, ethicists, church historians, and historians of religion such as Dr. James Cone, Dr. Cain Hope Felder, Dr. Gayraud Wilmore, Dr. Jacqueline Grant, Dr. Kelley Brown Douglas, Dr. Renita Weems, Dr. Katie Cannon, Dr. Dwight Hopkins, Dr. Linda Thomas, and Dr. Randall Bailey.
• These scholars, who write in various disciplines, also include seminary presidents like Dr. John Kinney and professors of Hebrew Bible, like Dr. Jerome Ross. Black liberation theology defines Africans and African Americans as subjects – not the objects which colonizers and oppressors have consistently defined “others” as.
• We [African Americans] were always seen as objects. When we started defining ourselves, it scared those who try to control others by naming them and defining them for them; Oppressors do not like “others” defining themselves.
• To have a church whose theological perspective starts from the vantage point of Black liberation theology being its center, is not to say that African or African American people are superior to any one else.
• African-centered thought, unlike Eurocentrism, does not assume superiority and look at everyone else as being inferior.
• There is more than one center from which to view the world. In the words of Dr. Janice Hale, “Difference does not mean deficience.” It is from this vantage point that Black liberation theology speaks.
• Systematized Black liberation theology is 40 years old. Scholars of African and African American religious history show that Black liberation theology, however, has been in existence for 400 years. It is found in the songs, the sermons, the testimonies and the oral literature of Africans throughout the Diaspora.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Jan. 05 2008,1:24 pm
The Pastor as well as the membership of Trinity United Church of Christ is committed to a 10-point Vision:A congregation committed to ADORATION.
A congregation preaching SALVATION.
A congregation actively seeking RECONCILIATION.
A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.
A congregation committed to BIBLICAL EDUCATION.
A congregation committed to CULTURAL EDUCATION.
A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA.
A congregation committed to LIBERATION.
A congregation committed to RESTORATION.
A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Jan. 05 2008,1:39 pm
OK Bianca you threw out all those racial anecdotes in your previous post. I f you were anyone that was notably a pubic figure you would have been crucified by this group of fanatics.The emancipation proclamation happened the slaves were freed not only black slaves it freed Indian slaves and many slaves of mixed races. There were white slaves who were sold into prostitution. Look how many white men died securing the freedom for the blacks in the civil war.
The civil rights acts of the 60's and the black power marches of the 70's secured even more freedoms for the blacks.
There is BET cable TV but it is politically incorrect to have a WET cable channel.
As far as I can read throughout this church's web site it still believes its people are still oppressed and living in the days of the 60's.
I served in the Army with a lot of good black soldiers and there was no black and white there was equality all of our blood was red.
Posted by TameThaTane on Jan. 05 2008,2:02 pm
Geo's runnin' scared, I can tell. He feels he must take it to Obama now...for obvious reasons.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Jan. 05 2008,2:37 pm
(TameThaTane @ Jan. 05 2008,2:02 pm)
QUOTE
Geo's runnin' scared, I can tell. He feels he must take it to Obama now...for obvious reasons.
What I am saying is the followers (the people who believe in this churches ideas and agenda) are the results of a deep rooted hatred for whites. Now each one of them were born free and integrated into an America society that was trying to put its past behind itself and move on to a greater United America.
If they insist on living in the past then they need to dump on the tribes that captured their ancestors and sold them to the slave traders. White people were not in the jungle capturing these victims knocking them over the head and tying them up.
Their ancestors where living in a jungle in tribes who warred with neighboring tribes. The losers were made slaves and sold or traded like cattle.
Our ancestors saw nothing wrong with this until a movement started by white decent folks who decided that slavery was wrong and after more than 140 years a war was fought that put brother against brother, father against son, to secure the freedom of the slaves, and still today radical black religious groups like this one still exists.
The followers of this church were born free enjoy the same opportunities as I have and have more freedoms of speech than I ever will have.
Posted by TameThaTane on Jan. 05 2008,4:17 pm
Everyone discriminates, even you Geo.Yer gonna have to do better an dat if you want to diss President Obama.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Jan. 05 2008,8:08 pm
(TameThaTane @ Jan. 05 2008,4:17 pm)
QUOTE
Everyone discriminates, even you Geo.
Yer gonna have to do better an dat if you want to diss President Obama.
Yer gonna have to do better an dat if you want to diss President Obama.
Convincing you or anyone else is not my agenda. True everyone discriminates, My point is this church's agenda and the beliefs of this church will have a major impact on the White House should he be elected to the presidency.
QUOTE
A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA
I believe we need a leadership that will focus the next four to eight years on the current issues and problems here at home and not the special interest of a religious lobbying group
Posted by TameThaTane on Jan. 05 2008,11:11 pm
QUOTE
My point is this church's agenda and the beliefs of this church will have a major impact on the White House should he be elected to the presidency.
See? Here you're projecting. This is what neocons do.
Posted by bianca on Jan. 06 2008,8:41 am
Call to Renewal Keynote Address| June 28, 2006
Washington, DC
Good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to speak here at the Call to Renewal's Building a Covenant for a New America conference. I've had the opportunity to take a look at your Covenant for a New America. It is filled with outstanding policies and prescriptions for much of what ails this country. So I'd like to congratulate you all on the thoughtful presentations you've given so far about poverty and justice in America, and for putting fire under the feet of the political leadership here in Washington.
But today I'd like to talk about the connection between religion and politics and perhaps offer some thoughts about how we can sort through some of the often bitter arguments that we've been seeing over the last several years.
I do so because, as you all know, we can affirm the importance of poverty in the Bible; and we can raise up and pass out this Covenant for a New America. We can talk to the press, and we can discuss the religious call to address poverty and environmental stewardship all we want, but it won't have an impact unless we tackle head-on the mutual suspicion that sometimes exists between religious America and secular America.
I want to give you an example that I think illustrates this fact. As some of you know, during the 2004 U.S. Senate General Election I ran against a gentleman named Alan Keyes. Mr. Keyes is well-versed in the Jerry Falwell-Pat Robertson style of rhetoric that often labels progressives as both immoral and godless.
Indeed, Mr. Keyes announced towards the end of the campaign that, "Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama. Christ would not vote for Barack Obama because Barack Obama has behaved in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved."
Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama.
Now, I was urged by some of my liberal supporters not to take this statement seriously, to essentially ignore it. To them, Mr. Keyes was an extremist, and his arguments not worth entertaining. And since at the time, I was up 40 points in the polls, it probably wasn't a bad piece of strategic advice.
But what they didn't understand, however, was that I had to take Mr. Keyes seriously, for he claimed to speak for my religion, and my God. He claimed knowledge of certain truths.
Mr. Obama says he's a Christian, he was saying, and yet he supports a lifestyle that the Bible calls an abomination.
Mr. Obama says he's a Christian, but supports the destruction of innocent and sacred life.
And so what would my supporters have me say? How should I respond? Should I say that a literalist reading of the Bible was folly? Should I say that Mr. Keyes, who is a Roman Catholic, should ignore the teachings of the Pope?
Unwilling to go there, I answered with what has come to be the typically liberal response in such debates - namely, I said that we live in a pluralistic society, that I can't impose my own religious views on another, that I was running to be the U.S. Senator of Illinois and not the Minister of Illinois.
But Mr. Keyes's implicit accusation that I was not a true Christian nagged at me, and I was also aware that my answer did not adequately address the role my faith has in guiding my own values and my own beliefs.
Now, my dilemma was by no means unique. In a way, it reflected the broader debate we've been having in this country for the last thirty years over the role of religion in politics.
For some time now, there has been plenty of talk among pundits and pollsters that the political divide in this country has fallen sharply along religious lines. Indeed, the single biggest "gap" in party affiliation among white Americans today is not between men and women, or those who reside in so-called Red States and those who reside in Blue, but between those who attend church regularly and those who don't.
Conservative leaders have been all too happy to exploit this gap, consistently reminding evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their Church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage; school prayer and intelligent design.
Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait. At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that - regardless of our personal beliefs - constitutional principles tie our hands. At worst, there are some liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word "Christian" describes one's political opponents, not people of faith.
Now, such strategies of avoidance may work for progressives when our opponent is Alan Keyes. But over the long haul, I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in people's lives -- in the lives of the American people -- and I think it's time that we join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy.
And if we're going to do that then we first need to understand that Americans are a religious people. 90 percent of us believe in God, 70 percent affiliate themselves with an organized religion, 38 percent call themselves committed Christians, and substantially more people in America believe in angels than they do in evolution.
This religious tendency is not simply the result of successful marketing by skilled preachers or the draw of popular mega-churches. In fact, it speaks to a hunger that's deeper than that - a hunger that goes beyond any particular issue or cause.
Each day, it seems, thousands of Americans are going about their daily rounds - dropping off the kids at school, driving to the office, flying to a business meeting, shopping at the mall, trying to stay on their diets - and they're coming to the realization that something is missing. They are deciding that their work, their possessions, their diversions, their sheer busyness, is not enough.
They want a sense of purpose, a narrative arc to their lives. They're looking to relieve a chronic loneliness, a feeling supported by a recent study that shows Americans have fewer close friends and confidants than ever before. And so they need an assurance that somebody out there cares about them, is listening to them - that they are not just destined to travel down that long highway towards nothingness.
And I speak with some experience on this matter. I was not raised in a particularly religious household, as undoubtedly many in the audience were. My father, who returned to Kenya when I was just two, was born Muslim but as an adult became an atheist. My mother, whose parents were non-practicing Baptists and Methodists, was probably one of the most spiritual and kindest people I've ever known, but grew up with a healthy skepticism of organized religion herself. As a consequence, so did I.
It wasn't until after college, when I went to Chicago to work as a community organizer for a group of Christian churches, that I confronted my own spiritual dilemma.
I was working with churches, and the Christians who I worked with recognized themselves in me. They saw that I knew their Book and that I shared their values and sang their songs. But they sensed that a part of me that remained removed, detached, that I was an observer in their midst.
And in time, I came to realize that something was missing as well -- that without a vessel for my beliefs, without a commitment to a particular community of faith, at some level I would always remain apart, and alone.
And if it weren't for the particular attributes of the historically black church, I may have accepted this fate. But as the months passed in Chicago, I found myself drawn - not just to work with the church, but to be in the church.
For one thing, I believed and still believe in the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change, a power made real by some of the leaders here today. Because of its past, the black church understands in an intimate way the Biblical call to feed the hungry and cloth the naked and challenge powers and principalities. And in its historical struggles for freedom and the rights of man, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world. As a source of hope.
And perhaps it was out of this intimate knowledge of hardship -- the grounding of faith in struggle -- that the church offered me a second insight, one that I think is important to emphasize today.
Faith doesn't mean that you don't have doubts.
You need to come to church in the first place precisely because you are first of this world, not apart from it. You need to embrace Christ precisely because you have sins to wash away - because you are human and need an ally in this difficult journey.
It was because of these newfound understandings that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ on 95th Street in the Southside of Chicago one day and affirm my Christian faith. It came about as a choice, and not an epiphany. I didn't fall out in church. The questions I had didn't magically disappear. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt that I heard God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.
That's a path that has been shared by millions upon millions of Americans - evangelicals, Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims alike; some since birth, others at certain turning points in their lives. It is not something they set apart from the rest of their beliefs and values. In fact, it is often what drives their beliefs and their values.
And that is why that, if we truly hope to speak to people where they're at - to communicate our hopes and values in a way that's relevant to their own - then as progressives, we cannot abandon the field of religious discourse.
Because when we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew; when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations towards one another; when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we assume that we will be unwelcome - others will fill the vacuum, those with the most insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends.
In other words, if we don't reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans and tell them what we stand for, then the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons and Alan Keyeses will continue to hold sway.
More fundamentally, the discomfort of some progressives with any hint of religion has often prevented us from effectively addressing issues in moral terms. Some of the problem here is rhetorical - if we scrub language of all religious content, we forfeit the imagery and terminology through which millions of Americans understand both their personal morality and social justice.
Imagine Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address without reference to "the judgments of the Lord." Or King's I Have a Dream speech without references to "all of God's children." Their summoning of a higher truth helped inspire what had seemed impossible, and move the nation to embrace a common destiny.
Our failure as progressives to tap into the moral underpinnings of the nation is not just rhetorical, though. Our fear of getting "preachy" may also lead us to discount the role that values and culture play in some of our most urgent social problems.
After all, the problems of poverty and racism, the uninsured and the unemployed, are not simply technical problems in search of the perfect ten point plan. They are rooted in both societal indifference and individual callousness - in the imperfections of man.
Solving these problems will require changes in government policy, but it will also require changes in hearts and a change in minds. I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturers' lobby - but I also believe that when a gang-banger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels somebody disrespected him, we've got a moral problem. There's a hole in that young man's heart - a hole that the government alone cannot fix.
I believe in vigorous enforcement of our non-discrimination laws. But I also believe that a transformation of conscience and a genuine commitment to diversity on the part of the nation's CEOs could bring about quicker results than a battalion of lawyers. They have more lawyers than us anyway.
I think that we should put more of our tax dollars into educating poor girls and boys. I think that the work that Marian Wright Edelman has done all her life is absolutely how we should prioritize our resources in the wealthiest nation on earth. I also think that we should give them the information about contraception that can prevent unwanted pregnancies, lower abortion rates, and help assure that that every child is loved and cherished.
But, you know, my Bible tells me that if we train a child in the way he should go, when he is old he will not turn from it. So I think faith and guidance can help fortify a young woman's sense of self, a young man's sense of responsibility, and a sense of reverence that all young people should have for the act of sexual intimacy.
I am not suggesting that every progressive suddenly latch on to religious terminology - that can be dangerous. Nothing is more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith. As Jim has mentioned, some politicians come and clap -- off rhythm -- to the choir. We don't need that.
In fact, because I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality, I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics, and who is also secular, affirm their morality and ethics and values without pretending that they're something they're not. They don't need to do that. None of us need to do that.
But what I am suggesting is this - secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Moreover, if we progressives shed some of these biases, we might recognize some overlapping values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the moral and material direction of our country. We might recognize that the call to sacrifice on behalf of the next generation, the need to think in terms of "thou" and not just "I," resonates in religious congregations all across the country. And we might realize that we have the ability to reach out to the evangelical community and engage millions of religious Americans in the larger project of American renewal.
Some of this is already beginning to happen. Pastors, friends of mine like Rick Warren and T.D. Jakes are wielding their enormous influences to confront AIDS, Third World debt relief, and the genocide in Darfur. Religious thinkers and activists like our good friend Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo are lifting up the Biblical injunction to help the poor as a means of mobilizing Christians against budget cuts to social programs and growing inequality.
And by the way, we need Christians on Capitol Hill, Jews on Capitol Hill and Muslims on Capitol Hill talking about the estate tax. When you've got an estate tax debate that proposes a trillion dollars being taken out of social programs to go to a handful of folks who don't need and weren't even asking for it, you know that we need an injection of morality in our political debate.
Across the country, individual churches like my own and your own are sponsoring day care programs, building senior centers, helping ex-offenders reclaim their lives, and rebuilding our gulf coast in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
So the question is, how do we build on these still-tentative partnerships between religious and secular people of good will? It's going to take more work, a lot more work than we've done so far. The tensions and the suspicions on each side of the religious divide will have to be squarely addressed. And each side will need to accept some ground rules for collaboration.
While I've already laid out some of the work that progressive leaders need to do, I want to talk a little bit about what conservative leaders need to do -- some truths they need to acknowledge.
For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn't the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn't want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves. It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it.
Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.
And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles.
This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing. And if you doubt that, let me give you an example.
We all know the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham is ordered by God to offer up his only son, and without argument, he takes Isaac to the mountaintop, binds him to an altar, and raises his knife, prepared to act as God has commanded.
Of course, in the end God sends down an angel to intercede at the very last minute, and Abraham passes God's test of devotion.
But it's fair to say that if any of us leaving this church saw Abraham on a roof of a building raising his knife, we would, at the very least, call the police and expect the Department of Children and Family Services to take Isaac away from Abraham. We would do so because we do not hear what Abraham hears, do not see what Abraham sees, true as those experiences may be. So the best we can do is act in accordance with those things that we all see, and that we all hear, be it common laws or basic reason.
Finally, any reconciliation between faith and democratic pluralism requires some sense of proportion.
This goes for both sides.
Even those who claim the Bible's inerrancy make distinctions between Scriptural edicts, sensing that some passages - the Ten Commandments, say, or a belief in Christ's divinity - are central to Christian faith, while others are more culturally specific and may be modified to accommodate modern life.
The American people intuitively understand this, which is why the majority of Catholics practice birth control and some of those opposed to gay marriage nevertheless are opposed to a Constitutional amendment to ban it. Religious leadership need not accept such wisdom in counseling their flocks, but they should recognize this wisdom in their politics.
But a sense of proportion should also guide those who police the boundaries between church and state. Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation - context matters. It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase "under God." I didn't. Having voluntary student prayer groups use school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats. And one can envision certain faith-based programs - targeting ex-offenders or substance abusers - that offer a uniquely powerful way of solving problems.
So we all have some work to do here. But I am hopeful that we can bridge the gaps that exist and overcome the prejudices each of us bring to this debate. And I have faith that millions of believing Americans want that to happen. No matter how religious they may or may not be, people are tired of seeing faith used as a tool of attack. They don't want faith used to belittle or to divide. They're tired of hearing folks deliver more screed than sermon. Because in the end, that's not how they think about faith in their own lives.
So let me end with just one other interaction I had during my campaign. A few days after I won the Democratic nomination in my U.S. Senate race, I received an email from a doctor at the University of Chicago Medical School that said the following:
"Congratulations on your overwhelming and inspiring primary win. I was happy to vote for you, and I will tell you that I am seriously considering voting for you in the general election. I write to express my concerns that may, in the end, prevent me from supporting you."
The doctor described himself as a Christian who understood his commitments to be "totalizing." His faith led him to a strong opposition to abortion and gay marriage, although he said that his faith also led him to question the idolatry of the free market and quick resort to militarism that seemed to characterize much of the Republican agenda.
But the reason the doctor was considering not voting for me was not simply my position on abortion. Rather, he had read an entry that my campaign had posted on my website, which suggested that I would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose." The doctor went on to write:
"I sense that you have a strong sense of justice...and I also sense that you are a fair minded person with a high regard for reason...Whatever your convictions, if you truly believe that those who oppose abortion are all ideologues driven by perverse desires to inflict suffering on women, then you, in my judgment, are not fair-minded....You know that we enter times that are fraught with possibilities for good and for harm, times when we are struggling to make sense of a common polity in the context of plurality, when we are unsure of what grounds we have for making any claims that involve others...I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words."
Fair-minded words.
So I looked at my website and found the offending words. In fairness to them, my staff had written them using standard Democratic boilerplate language to summarize my pro-choice position during the Democratic primary, at a time when some of my opponents were questioning my commitment to protect Roe v. Wade.
Re-reading the doctor's letter, though, I felt a pang of shame. It is people like him who are looking for a deeper, fuller conversation about religion in this country. They may not change their positions, but they are willing to listen and learn from those who are willing to speak in fair-minded words. Those who know of the central and awesome place that God holds in the lives of so many, and who refuse to treat faith as simply another political issue with which to score points.
So I wrote back to the doctor, and I thanked him for his advice. The next day, I circulated the email to my staff and changed the language on my website to state in clear but simple terms my pro-choice position. And that night, before I went to bed, I said a prayer of my own - a prayer that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me.
And that night, before I went to bed I said a prayer of my own. It's a prayer I think I share with a lot of Americans. A hope that we can live with one another in a way that reconciles the beliefs of each with the good of all. It's a prayer worth praying, and a conversation worth having in this country in the months and years to come.
Thank you.
Learn Issues Media News Blog Action States Store Donate Privacy Policy
Posted by Eddie Cochran's Ghost on Jan. 06 2008,9:33 am
(Ned Kelly @ Jan. 05 2008,10:56 am)
QUOTE
(Eddie Cochran's Ghost @ Jan. 04 2008,7:14 pm)
QUOTE
(Ned Kelly @ Jan. 04 2008,5:48 pm)
QUOTE
(Common Citizen @ Jan. 04 2008,1:39 pm)
QUOTE
The reason we're even contemplating a donk whitehouse and congress is because they DIDN'T take a hard right. Just look at the lack of spine they had on the border and illegal immigration issues...
I agree. The Repubs had the Whitehouse and both houses of congress for 6 years and did nothing about illegal immigration. Lets face it, the cheap labor is too attractive to their supporters......big business. If it wasn't for the illegals all of our jobs would be in China.........
....nedSo why are the libs so bothered when the feds make raids on plants and deport the illegals? I can see right through your phoney crocodile tears.
The only reason the "Feds" are cracking down is because us Moderates have said "enough". A political ploy by the right wing Bush Inc to pacify the moderates in both parties. Please see my previous post: The repubs have had control of the Whitehouse and both houses of congress for 6 years and did nothing! What we got was a bunch of lies and a war that was lost in the beginning by going in on the cheap. The Bush Legacy will follow him until history forgets about it.......
.....nedThe Moderates pushed this issue? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND?
The moderates and the left didn't want a border fence built. Did you EVER look at the vote results?
Are you stupid, blind, ignorant, partisan or a combination of all?
You make me laugh.
Posted by TameThaTane on Jan. 06 2008,10:50 am
NO side wants a great wall of China built. That's why it isn't being built. Dems don't hate them enough and Repubs are making too much money off them.
Face it, you're in a the minority whether you believe it or not.
Don't fret. I have to put up with all kinds of stupid laws I don't like so you do too.
Posted by Ned Kelly on Jan. 06 2008,11:34 am
(Eddie Cochran's Ghost @ Jan. 06 2008,9:33 am)
QUOTE
Are you stupid, blind, ignorant, partisan or a combination of all?
Lookin in the mirror again?Saw very good description of yourself, did ya?........ Thank you, you just made my day........
.....ned
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 06 2008,1:47 pm
Fox News’ is excluding Ron Paul from its GOP presidential candidates forum Sunday, The forum is the last chance for voters to see the Republican candidates face-off before New Hampshire’s primary Tuesday. Fox’s decision to limit participation runs counter to their Fair and Balanced claim, "truth Rupert Murdock can't handle the truth"..Paul had 10 percent of the vote in Thursday’s Iowa caucuses--well ahead of Giuliani--and was polling near 10 percent in New Hampshire--again ahead of Giuliani, as well as Thompson.
Posted by hymiebravo on Jan. 06 2008,4:09 pm
I missed a little bit of the beginning of the New Hampshire debate last night--and bits and pieces here and there but...It seemed like at the onset all the GOP candidates were going after Huckabee. They seemed to be trying to convey that they were the "heavy weights" or something--and they were going to set him straight about that--early on/right away. lol
I suppose he should have been the target though--since he handed them all their collective--rear-ends in Iowa.
Afterward--all the reporters were talking about how Romney was attacked and didn't look good.
I thought he looked good and did well...
He had that center seat which made him look like he was in charge--which made for a nice visual enhancement in you will.
He seemed to shut down Huckabee pretty good--when Huckabee attacked his voting record--he shot back and Huckabee clammed up. It gave the impression to me that Huckabee was wrong. Whether or not he was that's the way it comes across. IMO
When he sparred with McCain--McCain just seemed to be at a loss.
Romney: "Do they get to stay here???" (in reference to McCain's Illegal alien proposal)
McCain: (who cares he sucks.lol)
I'm sure he(McCain) spends all day surrounded by people kissing his arse. So it's like this unfathomable shift in gears to have to respond to anything else. ("Skip" Humphrey was like that too IMO)
Other than that nobody really blew Romney off the stage I thought.
Paul was the only one it appeared to get any type of response from the crowd. He got what could be considered a smattering of applause. That was more than the rest got during the debate from what I saw.
Julie-enny lisped his way threw some sort of Regan impression. But overall--he's very good on camera and I hate to say it-- because I really don't care for the guy (as a presidential candidate) is probably the strongest candidate of any of the GOP guys.
The Dems...
They all seemed hoarse and "road-weary" for one thing.lol
But Richardson seems to come across pretty strong for a guy nobody talks about--or even seeminly considers seriously.
I've read/seen/heard some speculation that he could be vying for a possible--VP position with Obama.
He told all his supporters in Iowa to support Obama--after he "tanked it" there. Thus the reason behind the speculation.
It was postulated by some that it would play out sort of like the Cheney-Bush situation. lol
Which kind of seems like a joke since Obama is way more inpressive than Bush--as a communicator and person who can get people revved-up and inspired. IMO
But none-the-less I thought he looked good and would have ranked him in the top 3 or 4 in terms of a speaker/ communicator that night--both sides included.
Other than that--I remember Edwards seeminly crying and whimpering about something. That didn't impress me. When he resorts to that my openess to him shuts off. lol
And then the most lively point of the night was when it got a little heated between Clinton and Obama and the crowd got into it a little.
I think she was trying to explain her acomplishments during her first two terms as President in the 90's or something--and that Obama JUST had words !
Ha-ha.
Words indeed...
That he does. lol
Posted by Whiskero on Jan. 07 2008,8:42 am
That is the first debate that I have sat through the whole thing.Actually, I really enjoyed it.
I was very impressed with the Democrats and particularly with Clinton and Richardson. I do agree that the experience of those two, I believe, would be a betterment to this country than Obama or Edwards. But who knows.
Posted by Common Citizen on Jan. 07 2008,9:15 am
I was waiting for Huckbee to throw a punch if Romney physically touched his arm.Where in the world was Ron Paul? Shame on Fox News for telling us who the leading Republican candidates are. Like Ex mentioned previously...he had a double digit showing in Iowa and I felt it warranted a seat on the panel.
...and media wonders why we despise them.
Posted by Common Citizen on Jan. 07 2008,9:40 am
TALK OF HILLARY EXIT ENGULFS CAMPAIGNSMon Jan 07 2008 09:46:28 ET
Facing a double-digit defeat in New Hampshire, a sudden collapse in national polls and an expected fund-raising drought, Senator Hillary Clinton is preparing for a tough decision: Does she get out of the race? And when?!
"She can't take multiple double-digit losses in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada," laments one top campaign insider to the DRUDGE REPORT. "If she gets too badly embarrassed, it will really harm her. She doesn't want the Clinton brand to be damaged with back-to-back-to-back defeats."
Meanwhile, Democrat hopeful John Edwards has confided to senior staff that he is staying in the race because Hillary "could soon be out."
"Her money is going to dry up," Edwards confided, a top source said Monday morning.
Key players in Clinton's inner circle are said to be split. James Carville is urging her to fight it out through at least February and Super Tuesday, where she has a shot at thwarting Barack Obama in a big state. But others close to the former first lady now see no possible road to victory, sources claim.
Developing...
[The dramatic reversal of fortunes has left the media establishment stunned and racing to keep up with fast-moving changes.
In its final poll before Iowa, CNN showed Clinton with a two-point lead over Obama. Editorial decisions were being made based on an understanding the Democratic primary race would be close, explained a network executive.]
Posted by bianca on Jan. 07 2008,9:53 am
Clinton is an idiot and she wants womens votes yet she stayed with a man that had sex with other women while they were married and in the whole countries eyes. Not my idea of a "strong" woman. And she wants women to give her their votes, she would've received a lot more respect and consideration if she would have left his a$$ when he was president and shown that she could stand on her own two feet and didn't need Bill Clinton (and apparently still does). The woman just looks so insincere speaking, like she doesn't even believe what she is saying.....and that's besides the fact she voted for the war we'll pay for forever and now says we shouldn't be there.Her idea of "change" and so-called "experience" is ridiculous. When she speaks of change it's of being able to "change her mind about things" when she sees fit.
Posted by justmealmn on Jan. 07 2008,10:11 am
QUOTE
Her idea of "change" and so-called "experience" is ridiculous. When she speaks of change it's of being able to "change her mind about things" when she sees fit.
Thats a womans right to "change her mind about things" most women seem to have that right as they see fit. So thats why she'll not make it in as President of the United States.
Posted by Whiskero on Jan. 07 2008,11:27 am
I would not call Clinton an idiot....I do however, wished she would have left her husband at the time of the scandal. Maybe she would now come across stronger.
Posted by Common Citizen on Jan. 07 2008,12:45 pm
Wyoming Republican Caucus ResultsRomney 67%
Thompson 25%
Hunter 8%
Others 0%
Posted by GEOKARJO on Jan. 07 2008,3:16 pm
QUOTE
Clinton is an idiot and she wants womens votes yet she stayed with a man that had sex with other women while they were married and in the whole countries eyes. Not my idea of a "strong" woman.
Say she did divorce Bill. You would vote for a divorced woman? I give her credit that she can still hold her head high knowing she married the man for better or worse.
Posted by canvasback on Jan. 07 2008,3:19 pm
What does divorce have to do with anything?? I would vote for someone for whom the vows didn't take!....not Hillary though...
Posted by MADDOG on Jan. 07 2008,3:41 pm
(TameThaTane @ Oct. 30 2007,10:24 pm)
QUOTE
Here's the race. It'll be Hillary Clinton Verses Mitt Romney.
I stand by that and it'll come to fruition. Just watch, I'm always right. Said told you so so many times I can't even remember all of them.
Keep this thread alive as proof of how correct I always am. Make your predictions here.
I stand by that and it'll come to fruition. Just watch, I'm always right. Said told you so so many times I can't even remember all of them.
Keep this thread alive as proof of how correct I always am. Make your predictions here.
Just keeping your first post "alive" for ya TTT.
Posted by TameThaTane on Jan. 07 2008,4:01 pm
I said that knowing Obama would win. I was drawing out neocons who insisted Hillary would be the nominee. Remember how that was all the rage? I was setting out the hook like I always do expecting neocons to jump on Hillary as the leader and they did, even chiding me for making the prediction as if it was a forgone conclusion. Then I corrected them by telling them Obama would win...read the next post as proof. My post was meant to rebuke the neocons who were obviously setting up Hillary as the nominee because it's who they think they can beat. I was parroting the neocons to see if there were any takers and sure enough they responded. To which I said not so fast...
I knew the score and was trying to tell them the score.
Posted by hymiebravo on Jan. 07 2008,4:22 pm
I'm just curious--do all the candidates have the "ring-tone" and "text prompt" stuff that Obama has?Anybody know?
Posted by Eddie Cochran's Ghost on Jan. 08 2008,9:58 pm
How's President Obama doing tonight?
Posted by grassman on Jan. 09 2008,6:58 am
She's baaaccck! I just hope she can make some of her ideas a reality IF she happens to be elected. Not my first choice but something about Obama just does'nt set right with me.
Posted by Whiskero on Jan. 09 2008,8:36 am
I totally agree Grassman. I will vote for Clinton, unless by some fluke Richardson would pass them all.
Posted by Common Citizen on Jan. 09 2008,8:49 am
(TameThaTane @ Jan. 07 2008,4:01 pm)
QUOTE
I said that knowing Obama would win. I was drawing out neocons who insisted Hillary would be the nominee. Remember how that was all the rage? I was setting out the hook like I always do expecting neocons to jump on Hillary as the leader and they did, even chiding me for making the prediction as if it was a forgone conclusion. Then I corrected them by telling them Obama would win...read the next post as proof.
My post was meant to rebuke the neocons who were obviously setting up Hillary as the nominee because it's who they think they can beat. I was parroting the neocons to see if there were any takers and sure enough they responded. To which I said not so fast...
I knew the score and was trying to tell them the score.
My post was meant to rebuke the neocons who were obviously setting up Hillary as the nominee because it's who they think they can beat. I was parroting the neocons to see if there were any takers and sure enough they responded. To which I said not so fast...
I knew the score and was trying to tell them the score.
^Waiting for the flip flop again...
Posted by MADDOG on Jan. 09 2008,10:34 am
Perhaps getting emotional got to the bleeding hearts.< Hillary gets emotional >
Posted by Common Citizen on Jan. 09 2008,11:13 am
If true, what does that say about how and why we choose a President.How much we can sniffle in public? Now that's funny. I think that totaling rallied Hillary's female base.
Posted by bianca on Jan. 09 2008,11:43 am
QUOTE
Perhaps getting emotional got to the bleeding hearts.
That's exactly what I thought when I saw and heard her display.
Wow, now I've read that Bill got all teary-eyed. Does that mean double-digit victory in the Nevada caucuses or the South Carolina primary? QUOTE
If true, what does that say about how and why we choose a President.
Well...in New Hampshire anyways.
Time will tell I guess.Obama still comes out more human and sincere than his rival. IMO, he'll get his momentum back.
McCain coming from behind was interesting though. Still anybodies game.
Posted by hymiebravo on Jan. 09 2008,12:33 pm
Maybe New Hamshire should sucede from the union and McCain can be President of New Hampshire. lol I agree it's still very early and very much up for grabs.
It's interesting though- I thought I heard at one point some mention of a high turnout from a sort of non-traditional group of voters. Which lead me to believe it would have been young voters-and probably for Obama-and probably a victory for him there.
Later on they mentioned a high turn-out of elderly WOMEN as being the cause of the victory for Clinton. So maybe in the final analysis its impossible to trump the older woman vote. Or elderlies in general.
Thats were Erdman(give a local example lol) did all his campaigning for mayor basically didn't he- at all the senoir centers and courted that group the most bascially. But really most candidates do that because they are the ones generally speaking who will actually go out and vote.
The majority of the Clinton ads I saw around here prior to the Iowa run-showed her around elderly woman too.
Well the two ads that I saw- that ran amidst the other 1,000's and 1,000's of Obama ads.lol
Anybody see that faux/election/poll thing on KAAL last night?
They listed possible election scenarios for president. And what the supposed out-come would be in MN.
Two things I remember...
I think it showed Obama would beat any GOP guy. BUT McCain would beat Clinton in MN.
But its very early and I don't know how much stock I would put in that. But I actually could see that happening nationwide too. If he ever got to that point.
Time will tell what will happen.
Obama is still doing extremely well. IMO
Posted by Whiskero on Jan. 09 2008,1:20 pm
I heard tell that on the news last night, girls were "swooning and screaming" over Obama proclaiming he is the new black Elvis? Oh my, I sure hope not. (Then I just found out his middle name is Huessane--my spelling of that is so bad!) That is scary.
Posted by hymiebravo on Jan. 09 2008,1:31 pm
I was kind of thinking that too-myself-but I was thinking of him more as a Jimi Hendrix or maybe even The Artist Formerly Known As Roger. lol
Posted by hymiebravo on Jan. 09 2008,1:38 pm
But the only thing that would be similar I think would be that kind of phenom thing that comes about and the rarity of which it occurs.I think he is a rarity. But being as that he's not a pop-star or a musician I think it would be more accurate to compare him to maybe a JFK or a MLK or maybe even a Malcom X. (sans the seemingly militant anti-white side of MX).
And I have actually pondered him meeting a similar fate myself-which would really suck.
Posted by scorenix on Jan. 09 2008,9:13 pm
(bianca @ Jan. 09 2008,11:43 am)
QUOTE
Obama still comes out more human and sincere than his rival. IMO, he'll get his momentum back.
Yeah, if you like a candidate who stands and says "we need to change" but then doesn't say what or how. But hey, he wants change, and gee, Clinton doesn't want change, why even Obama said so!
Was the Clinton choke-up a fake? Who knows? Certainly she is under a lot of pressure. Look at the abuse she was taking. And pundits were saying she would withdraw after getting killed in the primary. Certainly the questioner wasn't in on it, she admits to having voted for Obama.
And in 1972, Muskie was the odds on favorite to win. What killed him? Choking back the tears in public. And, I believe, in New Hampshire. Was seen as too soft, could not handle the job, as tears (he said snowflakes) rand down his cheeks. So I'm sure against that famous backdrop, Clinton's campaign thought it best to show emotion.
In the 2006 election, it was said a certain candidate who lost a surprising election had tears in his eyes. Was that to show his softer side?
Clinton's campaign is angry that nobody calls Obama on the carpet and ask for policy statements. Gee, he's for education, he's against the Iraq war, but ask what he'll do, and he tucks and runs. He learned what happens when he rambles on about his plan for health care.
Edwards' campaign is said to be scratching their head at Obama. They said 25% of his supporters did not feel he was qualified to be president, but that change was necessary, and he was the best to bring forth change. One just wishes he would say what that change is. Then again, why? he's got everyone following him who wants "change".
Posted by grassman on Jan. 09 2008,9:31 pm
Obama strikes me as a rallier but skates around a direct question. Is he in cohoots with pharmacitical lobbiests?
Posted by hymiebravo on Jan. 10 2008,12:00 pm
I guess I'm the only one who thinks that Edwards was already crying prior to the Clinton thing.To me the apparent sort of stammering coupled with the lilting of the voice is basically the same thing-whether you actually see the fluid - or not.
With Edwards I figure its bascially in his Lawyers "trick bag".
At the end of the day- I think they do what they have to do to get in. That is the reason they(or I would hope so) run. All that talk about raising awareness-phooey. That's just a form of "token" homage paid to those who actually think they cant get elected speaking anything that even remotely resembles clear speaking of the truth.
Look at a guy like Ron Paul he basically got laffed/mocked and ridiculed...by the other GOP candidates during that first New hampshire debate.
Funny thing is I didn't think McCain really came across that much better that night.-paticularly when you consider he didn't have to deal with that element-like Ron Paul did.IMO
QUOTE
Richard Nixon, who is said to have lost the 1960 presidential election in part due to his unfortunate stubbled appearance during the televised United States presidential election debates with John F. Kennedy.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_o'clock_shadow >
A classic.
Posted by Common Citizen on Jan. 30 2008,8:44 am
A man died and went to heaven. As he stood in front of St. Peter at the Pearly Gates, he saw a huge wall of clocks behind him.He asked, "What are all those clocks?"
St. Peter answered, "Those are Lie-Clocks. Everyone on Earth has a Lie-Clock. Every time you lie the hands on your clock will move."
"Oh," said the man, "whose clock is that?"
"That's Mother Teresa's. The hands have never moved, indicating that she never told a lie."
"Incredible," said the man. "And whose clock is that one?"
St. Peter responded, "That's Abraham Lincoln's clock. The hands have moved twice, telling us that Abe told only two lies in his entire life."
"Where's Hillary Clinton's clock?" asked the man.
"Hillary Cinton's clock is in Jesus' office. He's using it as a ceiling fan."
Posted by Madd Max on Jan. 30 2008,10:22 am
Democrat John Edwards to end his presidential bidBy NEDRA PICKLER , Associated Press
Last update: January 30, 2008 - 10:12 AM
DENVER -
Democrat John Edwards is exiting the presidential race Wednesday, ending a scrappy underdog bid in which he steered his rivals toward progressive ideals while grappling with family hardship that roused voters' sympathies, The Associated Press has learned.
The two-time White House candidate notified a close circle of senior advisers that he planned to make the announcement at a 1 p.m. EST event in New Orleans that had been billed as a speech on poverty, according to two aides. The decision came after Edwards lost the four states to hold nominating contests so far to rivals who stole the spotlight from the beginning — Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.
The former North Carolina senator will not immediately endorse either candidate in what is now a two-person race for the Democratic nomination, said one adviser, who spoke on condition of anonymity in advance of the announcement. Clinton said Wednesday that Edwards called her to inform her about his decision.
Obama told reporters Edwards had exited the race in a "classy" way. "I think he's run a great campaign," said Obama, who aides said also spoke with Edwards Tuesday night and asked for his endorsement.
In a statement from his campaign, Obama said Edwards "spent a lifetime fighting to give voice to the voiceless and hope to the struggling, even when it wasn't popular to do or covered in the news."
"While his campaign may end today, the cause of their lives endures for all of us who still believe that we can achieve that dream of one America," the statement said.
Four in 10 Edwards supporters said their second choice in the race is Clinton, while a quarter prefer Obama, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo poll conducted late this month. Both Clinton and Obama would welcome Edwards' backing and the support of the 56 delegates he had collected.
Edwards waged a spirited top-tier campaign against the two better-funded rivals, even as he dealt with the stunning blow of his wife's recurring cancer diagnosis. In a dramatic news conference last March, the couple announced that the breast cancer that she thought she had beaten had returned, but they would continue the campaign.
Their decision sparked a debate about family duty and public service. But Elizabeth Edwards remained a forceful advocate for her husband, and she was often surrounded at campaign events by well-wishers and emotional survivors cheering her on.
Edwards planned to announce his campaign was ending with his wife and three children at his side. Then he planned to work with Habitat for Humanity at the volunteer-fueled rebuilding project Musicians' Village, the adviser said.
With that, Edwards' campaign will end the way it began 13 months ago — with the candidate pitching in to rebuild lives in a city still ravaged by Hurricane Katrina. Edwards embraced New Orleans as a glaring symbol of what he described as a Washington that didn't hear the cries of the downtrodden.
Edwards burst out of the starting gate with a flurry of progressive policy ideas — he was the first to offer a plan for universal health care, the first to call on Congress to pull funding for the war, and he led the charge that lobbyists have too much power in Washington and need to be reigned in.
The ideas were all bold and new for Edwards personally as well, making him a different candidate than the moderate Southerner who ran in 2004 while still in his first Senate term. But the themes were eventually adopted by other Democratic presidential candidates — and even a Republican, Mitt Romney, echoed the call for an end to special interest politics in Washington.
Edwards' rise to prominence in politics came amid just one term representing North Carolina in the Senate after a career as a trial attorney that made him millions. He was on Al Gore's short list for vice president in 2000 after serving just two years in office. He ran for president in 2004, and after he lost to John Kerry, the nominee picked him as a running mate.
Elizabeth Edwards first discovered a lump in her breast in the final days of that losing campaign. Her battle against the disease caused her husband to open up about another tragedy in their lives — the death of their teenage son Wade in a 1996 car accident. The candidate barely spoke of Wade during his 2004 campaign, but he offered his son's death to answer questions about how he could persevere when his wife could die.
Edwards made poverty the signature issue of both his presidential campaigns, and he led a four-day tour to highlight the issue in July. The tour was the first to focus on the plight of the poor since Robert F. Kennedy's trip 40 years earlier.
But even as Obama and Clinton collected astonishing amounts of money that dwarfed his fundraising effort, Edwards maintained a loyal following in the first voting state of Iowa that made him a serious contender. He came in second to Obama in Iowa, an impressive feat of relegating Clinton to third place, before coming in third in the following three contests.
The loss in South Carolina was especially hard because it was where he was born and he had won the state in 2004.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Jan. 30 2008,11:02 am
Sen. Ted Kennedy’s endorsement of Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination should come as no surprise to readers of Newsmax’s Insider Report, which has disclosed Kennedy’s membership in the so-called “Gang of Four” Hillary Clinton haters. The Four — Kennedy, John Kerry, Howard Dean, and Al Gore — have pledged to stop Hillary from getting the nomination, and each has his own reason for detesting Clinton.
Newsmax has learned from Democratic sources that Gore is said to be waiting until after the primaries on Super Tuesday, Feb. 5 to enter the fray with an endorsement.
The word in political circles is that if Obama appears the winner that day, Gore will endorse him — in hopes of driving the final nail into the coffin of the Hillary Clinton campaign.
As the Insider Report has disclosed on several occasions beginning in June 2005, Kennedy and Gore have been disgusted by Bill and Hillary Clinton’s moderate politics.
Both were disturbed by Hillary’s hawkish stance on the Iraq war. Early on in the 2008 race, Kennedy had even endorsed Kerry for the 2008 nomination.
In his endorsement speech Monday, Kennedy praised Hillary Clinton, but then made veiled comparisons with her and Obama, noting that the Illinois senator opposed the Iraq war from the beginning and that he does not “demonize” his opponents.
Who could Uncle Ted be referring to with those comments?
Former White House hopeful Gore blames his 2000 loss on Hillary, whom he says siphoned off key resources to her Senate race.
Howard Dean blames the Clintons for his 2004 campaign woes. A year earlier, Clinton had launched a behind-the-scenes campaign to pressure fellow Democrats not to support Dean for president.
As the Insider Report disclosed in July 2006, Dean supporters were unhappy with Clinton’s stand on Iraq and her cautious shift to the center. And Sen. Kerry feels Hillary stabbed him in the back, promising to go all out to support his 2004 White House campaign but then doing as little as possible to help him.
Newsmax.com cited Kerry’s membership in the Gang of Four on Jan. 10 after Kerry announced his endorsement of Obama for president. Now Kennedy has joined him.
Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, has not yet endorsed a candidate, but insiders say he is working behind the scenes to promote Obama’s candidacy, in the belief that Hillary is too polarizing to win a general election
Newsmax.com
4152 West Blue Heron Blvd, Ste 1114
Riviera Beach, FL, 33404 USA
Posted by Common Citizen on Jan. 30 2008,1:31 pm
QUOTE
The Four — Kennedy, John Kerry, Howard Dean, and Al Gore — have pledged to stop Hillary from getting the nomination, and each has his own reason for detesting Clinton.
Interesting...if these four donks are for Clinton before they were against her, then maybe Clinton IS the best choice for the Democrat party. hmmm.....
Posted by january on Jan. 30 2008,1:41 pm
Scorenix or anyone out there who knows. I would like to caucus for the Democrats. Please explain to this unknowning person what to do, how to do it and where we go to do it? Thanks
Posted by hymiebravo on Jan. 30 2008,1:54 pm
January.aanderson9445@charter.net
Send your questions there.
Posted by Madd Max on Jan. 30 2008,2:33 pm
januaryYou can also check out this website
< http://www.geocities.com/fc_dfl/ >
Posted by Common Citizen on Jan. 31 2008,8:40 am
(january @ Jan. 30 2008,1:41 pm)
QUOTE
Scorenix or anyone out there who knows.
I would like to caucus for the Democrats. Please explain to this unknowning person what to do, how to do it and where we go to do it? Thanks
I would like to caucus for the Democrats. Please explain to this unknowning person what to do, how to do it and where we go to do it? Thanks
Why in the world would you ever want to do that?
If you really want to help change this country volunteer for a third party...
Posted by Blackwell on Feb. 03 2008,7:18 am
John McCain's rush to stamp out pork could block medical clinic or sewage plant near youWASHINGTON - Earmarks are only pork when someone else is feasting on them. On your plate, they're veggies. They are the train that takes you to visit Aunt Betty, or the health clinic down the street, or the waste treatment plant that makes your water safer to drink. They're not all bridges to nowhere. They're also bicycle trails to somewhere.
If John McCain is true to his rhetoric in the Republican presidential campaign, he would take a broad ax to spending that voters, upon closer examination, might wish were cut in a more discerning way. The two dozen states voting in presidential primaries Tuesday are home to thousands of projects financed by earmarks, the pet pork that members of Congress carve out of the federal budget.
The Arizona senator's criticism of pork pleases crowds, for no one likes to see tax dollars thrown at silly things. "No earmarks," he says. "Not 10,000. Not one. Zero."
And he got an unintentional assist from President Bush, a convert to the anti-pork cause after he signed a spending law that legislators had stuffed with 10,000 local projects costing more than $10 billion.
A small taste of the earmarked spending sought in 2007 by lawmakers from Super Tuesday states:
_In California, $438,000 to Monterey County for gang prevention and intervention.
_In Illinois, $5 million for the Red Cross to buy backup generators, cots, shelter trailers, emergency vehicles and more.
_In New Haven, Conn., $487,000 to help families and children exposed to violence and trauma.
_In Oneonta, N.Y., $243,000 for hospital equipment and facilities.
_In St. James, Mo., $412,000 to expand services to abused and neglected children.
_In North Dakota, $390,000 to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe for a methamphetamine prevention program.
Earmarks are the refuge of lawmakers who for whatever reason don't like the normal method of setting government spending priorities. Either their pet projects don't make the grade on their merits or they see them as too urgent to wait their turn. And they insist they know their district's priorities better than Washington could.
In any event, earmarks are an end run around the process that is supposed to make sure money is spent based on well-considered value judgments.
Pork haters like McCain say an agency with its eye on the national interest and an objective way of looking at a region's needs should decide on such spending, not members of Congress currying local — sometimes very local — favor.
But McCain's spending plan does not make such distinctions between waste and worthy. In his accounting, if it's an earmark, it's bad and it's gone. He counts on saving all the money now spent on earmarks to help pay for his tax cuts.
McCain has been celebrated for years by watchdog groups cheering his fight against waste, and there's always plenty in the budget to raise eyebrows if not hackles. A $50-million indoor rain forest for Iowa, anyone?
In a Republican campaign debate, McCain ribbed Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who also wants to be president, for helping to secure $1 million for a museum commemorating the 1969 Woodstock Music and Art Fair, a seminal event in hippiedom and the counterculture.
"I'm sure it was a cultural and pharmaceutical event," he said dryly. "I was tied up at the time." McCain, who was captive in a Vietnam prison when Woodstock happened, turned that line into a campaign ad. The money has been stripped from a spending bill.
Now he talks at every opportunity about the "bridge to nowhere."
He means an Alaska bridge that would have connected the town of Ketchikan to its airport, which is accessible only by ferry, at a cost of close to $400 million by state estimates.
Critics noted the now-shelved project involved building a structure higher than the Brooklyn Bridge and nearly as long as the Golden Gate to an island where 50 people live. Proponents noted the airport on the island serves 200,000 people a year and air traffic plays a vital role in Alaska, where roads are scarce and often unusable because of the weather and terrain.
Earmarks in a literal sense refer to the marks cut on the ears of livestock for centuries to claim ownership. Now, it's more specifically about pigs.
Congress has taken steps to make earmarks more accountable, so members can't secretly slip a pet project into a bill or associated documents.
Clinton has had much company in seeking earmarks. Presidential rival Barack Obama lists dozens on his Senate Web site, among them $3 million to replace 40-year-old projection equipment at a planetarium, $3 million for a Chicago underpass, $750,000 for two water towers and $5 million for the Illinois Red Cross.
Now Bush vows to veto any spending bill that does not cut the number and cost of pet projects by half.
He's having agencies disregard earmarks that members of Congress insert into documents that accompany legislation. But earmarks can continue to go into legislation itself, and surely will.
Evidence that pork can be filling at times was under McCain's nose recently, although he apparently did not know it.
Campaigning in South Carolina, he visited a factory and praised the armored, mine-resistant military vehicles made there to be used in the war.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a McCain ally, noted to an Associated Press reporter that the plant, on a shuttered U.S. naval base, had received money from an earmark.
Posted by grassman on Feb. 03 2008,8:17 am
I totally agree with getting rid of earmarks. If something cannot pass on its own merit, so be it. I do not like seeing something worthwhile dismissed just because there was something tagging along that was not worthy. Our House and Senate has plenty of time to address each issue on it's own. Like a famous football coach said, "do your job and do it right." I believe it's a simple yae or nae.
Posted by Santorini on Feb. 03 2008,10:32 pm
Chelsey Clinton was visiting with an officer who just returned from his 3rd tour in Iraq.Wildly impressed Chelsey said to the officer,
"WOW, 3 tours in Iraq, you must not be afraid of anything!"
"oh yes," the officer responded.
"There are 3 things I'm afraid of."
"oh yea," Chelsey stated, "What are they?"
The officer's response:
"Osama, Obama, and Yo Mama!"
Posted by wildjim on Feb. 03 2008,10:52 pm
I was surprised to see that neither Rep Brown nor Sen Sparks would say who they are supporting. Not sure which is worse,them not knowing who this close to Tuesday or them being afraid to take a position.
Posted by Blackwell on Feb. 04 2008,8:36 am
OMG. I read that Mr. Benda is undecided as well. At this point in time I would rather have our elected officials worrying more about getting thing done (roads, dump site ect.) in the 2008 legislative session then who to support for president. Just sounds like more GOP crying
Posted by january on Feb. 04 2008,11:27 am
Well here goes. I know that I am going to get flack but this is what I believe. I'm for Obama. I am dead set against Hilary Clinton.
Mrs Clinton does have experience. But all experience is not good experience.
As the first student to address her graduating class at Wellesly....she was on her way!!!!
She got into Yale and met Bill Clinton. He passed the bar on the first try. She did not. She flunked the bar and had to retake it.
It was widely tauted that she was one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America. Those in the know said "She is not even one of the most 100 influential lawyers in Little Rock."
She attempted and failed during Bills first term to lead the change for comprehensive insurance for all Americans but this too showed her lack of leadership and forthought.
She has publicly taken abuse from her husband as Governor and President and since.
Every man, woman and child in this country is told ,in fact, it is enblazened on our consciousness that taking abuse from another person is wrong and if we allow it.......we are a very real part of the problem.
She did not publicly stand up to his abuse. She obviously did not privately, either. She did nothing
How can we respect any man or woman that sells themselves to the highest bidder be it for money or the Presidency?
I look at her and I listen to her and I think......your lust for power, your lust for glory....your lust....you would sell your own soul
Posted by Madd Max on Feb. 04 2008,2:23 pm
(january @ Feb. 04 2008,11:27 am)
QUOTE
Well here goes. I know that I am going to get flack but this is what I believe.
Not from Me
If that is how you feel that is fine. You are going to take part in the process and that I will always respect
Posted by grassman on Feb. 06 2008,7:48 am
All time records for people turning out to vote. Now I was just watching the news and they were interviewing a black woman. She voted for Obama. She said to her " it was more important to her to get a man of color in than get a woman in." Now you can't get any more racist than that can you. So it comes down to the race and the gender rather than what their platform is. I wonder if all the hair stylists were out in droves before supporting Edwards! Amazing. 
Posted by hmmmnoidea on Feb. 06 2008,8:19 am
Evangelicals turning out in record number to vote, thought this was about politics not religion, race or gender. I knew this was gonna be a screwed up year for politics, and the next 4 are going to be hell no matter who wins.
Posted by january on Feb. 06 2008,2:30 pm
grassman:The Clinton machine has preached and preached and preached that getting a women in is much more important than getting a Black in.
If you look at the EEOC levels of discrimination, Blacks are at a higher level than women.
I rest my case.
Dick Morris is right about Hillary.
Posted by bianca on Feb. 06 2008,3:30 pm
great posts, january. I too think Morris was onto something. Her smile doesn't even look genuine 
Posted by George's Mom on Feb. 06 2008,8:13 pm
What happened to our little biotch - TTT?Are you still looking into your crystal ball and seeing Romney?
You've covered your bases on the Dem side by saying both Hillary and Osama will get it.
My question: Why not my boy George?
He isn't so dislike President Billy Clinton.
Clinton had a intern in the White House - my George had a waitress at Eddie's
Hillary stayed with Bill - Patty stayed with George.
Ooops. Hillary married Bill. Never mind.
Posted by bianca on Feb. 07 2008,12:25 am
QUOTE
A strong Republican for 35 years, Kathy Phillips showed up at the Democratic caucus Tuesday to vote for change, and Obama.
She said she was inspired to see Obama speak and hear what he had to say. With the possibility of Clinton as president, Phillips said, there’s no telling what the country could get if Clinton was in the White House.
Referencing the infidelity of President Bill Clinton and the recent comments he made on the campaign trail, Phillips asked, “How is she going to take care of our house when she can’t control her own?”
With Obama, Phillips sees a sense of hope and change.
“Washington is broken,” she said.
She said she was inspired to see Obama speak and hear what he had to say. With the possibility of Clinton as president, Phillips said, there’s no telling what the country could get if Clinton was in the White House.
Referencing the infidelity of President Bill Clinton and the recent comments he made on the campaign trail, Phillips asked, “How is she going to take care of our house when she can’t control her own?”
With Obama, Phillips sees a sense of hope and change.
“Washington is broken,” she said.
Boy, Jim that's gettin' pretty bad when even the long standing 'pubs are even starting to turn their backs on their party.
Posted by No more rash on Feb. 07 2008,1:02 am
I know there are a lot of people who dislike hillary, but I wonder how many white dems would vote for McCain over Obama. Serious question not trying to be raciest.
Posted by Common Citizen on Feb. 07 2008,1:39 am
Washington is broken... so I'll vote for a donk... yep, that's quite a change from who is running our government now...oh wait, it's a donk majority in congress... People will vote for Obama, not because they think he'll do the best job or is the most qualified, but because they want to be able to tell their kid's and grand kid's that THEY voted for the first black president, qualified or not. Sorry, I really think people are that simple minded...:rofl:
Haven't had a chance to read the whole article yet, but what I would like to know is why she was a republican in the first place. When most people think republican, they think pro-life, pro-gun ownership, capitalism, personal responsibility, lower taxes, etc, etc.. I'm not saying one has to agree with every political plank of their party, but which value is she, all of a sudden, prepared to sacrifice just for the sake of change? Did she all of a sudden become anti-life, anti-gun ownership, a socialist?
One more question...
What is on Obama's resume that makes you feel that he is the most qualified person to lead this country or what has he done to lead you to believe that he would do the best job? Just asking?
Posted by George's Mom on Feb. 07 2008,3:34 am
What is Barack Obama's major accomplishment that makes him the best qualified man to be POTUS?
Posted by bianca on Feb. 07 2008,5:35 am
Oh....Where to begin. Lol
Posted by bianca on Feb. 07 2008,6:21 am
QUOTE
People will vote for Obama, not because they think he'll do the best job or is the most qualified, but because they want to be able to tell their kid's and grand kid's that THEY voted for the first black president, qualified or not. Sorry, I really think people are that simple minded...:rofl:
.......and the flip side of that is the massive amount of people who won't vote for him because HE IS BLACK. Sorry, I really think a lot of people are still that simple minded.
I don't agree with all of his ideas but a good percentage of them. Something is definitely not working and maybe we do need someone that is not easily "bought and paid for"
Here are some that I personally like that affects people that I am concerned/care about:
Pay Inequity Continues: For every $1.00 earned by a man, the average woman receives only 77 cents, while African American women only get 67 cents and Latinas receive only 57 cents.
End Deceptive Voting Practices
Obama will sign into law his legislation that establishes harsh penalties for those who have engaged in voter fraud and provides voters who have been misinformed with accurate and full information so they can vote.
Create New Job Training Programs for Clean Technologies: The Obama plan will increase funding for federal workforce training programs and direct these programs to incorporate green technologies training, such as advanced manufacturing and weatherization training, into their efforts to help Americans find and retain stable, high-paying jobs. Obama will also create an energy-focused youth jobs program to invest in disconnected and disadvantaged youth.
Invest in Rural Areas: Obama will invest in rural small businesses and fight to expand high-speed Internet access. He will improve rural schools and attract more doctors to rural areas
Protect Homeownership and Crack Down on Mortgage Fraud
Students Left Behind: Six million middle and high school students read significantly below their grade level. A full third of high school graduates do not immediately go on to college. American 15 year olds rank 28th out of 40 countries in mathematics and 19th out of 40 countries in science. Almost 30 percent of students in their first year of college are forced to take remedial science and math classes because they are not prepared.
Address the Dropout Crisis: Obama will address the dropout crisis by passing his legislation to provide funding to school districts to invest in intervention strategies in middle school - strategies such as personal academic plans, teaching teams, parent involvement, mentoring, intensive reading and math instruction, and extended learning time.
Reward Teachers: Districts can reward teachers who work in underserved places like rural areas and inner cities. And if teachers consistently excel in the classroom, that work can be valued and rewarded as well.
Make Government Spending More Accountable and Efficient:
Cut Pork Barrel Spending: Obama introduced and passed bipartisan legislation that would require more disclosure and transparency for special-interest earmarks. Obama believes that spending that cannot withstand public scrutiny cannot be justified. Obama will slash earmarks to no greater than year 2001 levels and ensure all spending decisions are open to the public.
End Wasteful Government Spending:
Irresponsible Tax Cuts: President Bush's policies of giving tax breaks for the wealthy will cost the nation over $2.3 trillion by the time they expire in 2009.
Improve Mental Health Care. Mental illness affects approximately one in five American families. The National Alliance on Mental Illness estimates that untreated mental illnesses cost the U.S. more than $100 billion per year. As president, Obama will support mental health parity so that coverage for serious mental illnesses are provided on the same terms and conditions as other illnesses and diseases.
Millions of Americans are uninsured or underinsured because of rising medical costs: 47 million Americans — including nearly 9 million children — lack health insurance with no signs of this trend slowing down.
Health insurance premiums have risen 4 times faster than wages over the past 6 years.
*Quality, Affordable and Portable Coverage for All
*Lower Costs by Modernizing The U.S. Health Care System
*Lowering Costs by Increasing Competition in the Insurance and Drug Markets
Remove Incentives to Enter Illegally
Obama will remove incentives to enter the country illegally by cracking down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants.
Of course, these are promises we all would like to hear but IMO, he's the best person for the job. I think we need to CHANGE the direction we are in right now. He seems to be more for the underdog....the middle-class and poor. I think people should be rewarded for wanting better and working hard to get there and the middle-class really struggles.
Just my opinion.
Posted by hymiebravo on Feb. 07 2008,11:51 am
I think it's interesting that Democrats allow Republicans and Independents at their event. But the Gop doesn't allow anyone else in theirs. It seems like it opens it up to corruption. You know how you hear about GOP folks supposedly wanting Clinton to run because they feel like they can beat her. Well then they could go Caucus for her then couldn't they? And then vote GOP. lol
Although most of the supposed GOP crossover people I've heard about were for Obama.
Posted by ICU812 on Feb. 07 2008,12:15 pm
QUOTE
Here's the race. It'll be Hillary Clinton Verses Mitt [Romney.
or not
< Romney Out >
Better prediction than mine though, my guy was out longggggggggggggggg ago.
Whose gonna get the nod from decrats?
Posted by This is my real name on Feb. 07 2008,12:27 pm
My guess right now would be Obama vs McCain, so either way it looks like there will be a Democrat in the White House.
Posted by hymiebravo on Feb. 07 2008,12:30 pm
(ICU812 @ Feb. 07 2008,12:15 pm)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Here's the race. It'll be Hillary Clinton Verses Mitt [Romney.
or not
< Romney Out >
Better prediction than mine though, my guy was out longggggggggggggggg ago.
Whose gonna get the nod from decrats?
Yep some people sure screwed the GOP out of a good candidate. IMO
Campared to whats left.
Everytime I've seen McCain have a meltdown(or what appears to be one) he can't even seem to get a sentence out. That can't be good. lol
But that would be another first for the U.S. right? Oldest President ever elected. Or at least that's what I've been hearing. Seems hard to believe anyone could be older than RR was. lol
Posted by hymiebravo on Feb. 07 2008,12:34 pm
I'm not saying that in and of itself is a bad thing. If you are of sound mind I have nothing against a 70 year old running. I would have - rather have had - Jimmy Carter the past 8 years than another Bush.
Posted by TameThaTane on Feb. 07 2008,12:59 pm
*Whoever wins the democratic primary will be our next president. No one wants a super war monger who knows squat about the economy. Especially in these times. McCaine will be beaten easily. TTT has spoken.
Posted by grassman on Feb. 07 2008,2:55 pm
TTT I have to agree on this one. The Bush administration has screwed this country up so bad that the American public would be white knuckled to see another Republican President at this point. I guess Hillary was right," it took a Cinton to clean up the first mess that a Bush created, now it'll take another Clinton to "TRY" and clean up the mess from this Bush."
Posted by Common Citizen on Feb. 08 2008,9:24 am
(bianca @ Feb. 07 2008,6:21 am)
QUOTE
QUOTE
People will vote for Obama, not because they think he'll do the best job or is the most qualified, but because they want to be able to tell their kid's and grand kid's that THEY voted for the first black president, qualified or not. Sorry, I really think people are that simple minded...:rofl:
.......and the flip side of that is the massive amount of people who won't vote for him because HE IS BLACK. Sorry, I really think a lot of people are still that simple minded.
I don't agree with all of his ideas but a good percentage of them. Something is definitely not working and maybe we do need someone that is not easily "bought and paid for"
Here are some that I personally like that affects people that I am concerned/care about:
Pay Inequity Continues: For every $1.00 earned by a man, the average woman receives only 77 cents, while African American women only get 67 cents and Latinas receive only 57 cents.
End Deceptive Voting Practices
Obama will sign into law his legislation that establishes harsh penalties for those who have engaged in voter fraud and provides voters who have been misinformed with accurate and full information so they can vote.
Create New Job Training Programs for Clean Technologies: The Obama plan will increase funding for federal workforce training programs and direct these programs to incorporate green technologies training, such as advanced manufacturing and weatherization training, into their efforts to help Americans find and retain stable, high-paying jobs. Obama will also create an energy-focused youth jobs program to invest in disconnected and disadvantaged youth.
Invest in Rural Areas: Obama will invest in rural small businesses and fight to expand high-speed Internet access. He will improve rural schools and attract more doctors to rural areas
Protect Homeownership and Crack Down on Mortgage Fraud
Students Left Behind: Six million middle and high school students read significantly below their grade level. A full third of high school graduates do not immediately go on to college. American 15 year olds rank 28th out of 40 countries in mathematics and 19th out of 40 countries in science. Almost 30 percent of students in their first year of college are forced to take remedial science and math classes because they are not prepared.
Address the Dropout Crisis: Obama will address the dropout crisis by passing his legislation to provide funding to school districts to invest in intervention strategies in middle school - strategies such as personal academic plans, teaching teams, parent involvement, mentoring, intensive reading and math instruction, and extended learning time.
Reward Teachers: Districts can reward teachers who work in underserved places like rural areas and inner cities. And if teachers consistently excel in the classroom, that work can be valued and rewarded as well.
Make Government Spending More Accountable and Efficient:
Cut Pork Barrel Spending: Obama introduced and passed bipartisan legislation that would require more disclosure and transparency for special-interest earmarks. Obama believes that spending that cannot withstand public scrutiny cannot be justified. Obama will slash earmarks to no greater than year 2001 levels and ensure all spending decisions are open to the public.
End Wasteful Government Spending:
Irresponsible Tax Cuts: President Bush's policies of giving tax breaks for the wealthy will cost the nation over $2.3 trillion by the time they expire in 2009.
Improve Mental Health Care. Mental illness affects approximately one in five American families. The National Alliance on Mental Illness estimates that untreated mental illnesses cost the U.S. more than $100 billion per year. As president, Obama will support mental health parity so that coverage for serious mental illnesses are provided on the same terms and conditions as other illnesses and diseases.
Millions of Americans are uninsured or underinsured because of rising medical costs: 47 million Americans — including nearly 9 million children — lack health insurance with no signs of this trend slowing down.
Health insurance premiums have risen 4 times faster than wages over the past 6 years.
*Quality, Affordable and Portable Coverage for All
*Lower Costs by Modernizing The U.S. Health Care System
*Lowering Costs by Increasing Competition in the Insurance and Drug Markets
Remove Incentives to Enter Illegally
Obama will remove incentives to enter the country illegally by cracking down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants.
Of course, these are promises we all would like to hear but IMO, he's the best person for the job. I think we need to CHANGE the direction we are in right now. He seems to be more for the underdog....the middle-class and poor. I think people should be rewarded for wanting better and working hard to get there and the middle-class really struggles.
Just my opinion.
ok. This is a nice wish list, but....I'm not asking what he hopes to do...
I'm asking why I should hire him to be President...what has he done...what are his accomplishments that qualifies him to be CEO of the USA?
Posted by bianca on Feb. 08 2008,4:28 pm
CC- being a conservative I can't see you hiring him but here ya go, the ones I like anyways: It'll all come down to personal preference in the end and he stands for more of the things I would like to see the government run towards.Housing: In the U.S. Senate, Obama introduced the STOP FRAUD Act to increase penalties for mortgage fraud and provide more protections for low-income homebuyers, well before the current subprime crisis began.
Predatory Lending: In the Illinois State Senate, Obama called attention to predatory lending issues. Obama sponsored legislation to combat predatory payday loans, and he also was credited with lobbied the state to more closely regulate some of the most egregious predatory lending practices.
American Jobs: Barack Obama introduced the Patriot Employer Act of 2007 to provide a tax credit to companies that maintain or increase the number of full-time workers in America relative to those outside the US; maintain their corporate headquarters in America; pay decent wages; prepare workers for retirement; provide health insurance; and support employees who serve in the military.
Record of Advocacy: Obama has been a leader on educational issues throughout his career. In the Illinois State Senate, Obama was a leader on early childhood education, helping create the state's Early Learning Council. In the U.S. Senate, Obama has been a leader in working to make college more affordable. His very first bill sought to increase the maximum Pell Grant award to $5,100. As a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee, Obama helped pass legislation to achieve that goal in the recent improvements to the Higher Education Act. Obama has also introduced legislation to create Teacher Residency Programs and to increase federal support for summer learning opportunities.
Health Insurance: In 2003, Barack Obama sponsored and passed legislation that expanded health care coverage to 70,000 kids and 84,000 adults. In the U.S. Senate, Obama cosponsored the Healthy Kids Act of 2007 and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Reauthorization Act of 2007 to ensure that more American children have affordable health care coverage.
Women's Health: Obama worked to pass a number of laws in Illinois and Washington to improve the health of women. His accomplishments include creating a task force on cervical cancer, providing greater access to breast and cervical cancer screenings, and helping improve prenatal and premature birth services.
Federal Ethics Reform: Obama and Senator Feingold (D-WI) took on both parties and proposed ethics legislation that was described as the "gold standard" for reform. It was because of their leadership that ending subsidized corporate jet travel, mandating disclosure of lobbyists' bundling of contributions, and enacting strong new restrictions of lobbyist-sponsored trips became part of the final ethics bill that was signed into law. The Washington Post wrote in an editorial, "The final package is the strongest ethics legislation to emerge from Congress yet."
Google for Government: Americans have the right to know how their tax dollars are spent, but that information has been hidden from public view for too long. That's why Barack Obama and Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) passed a law to create a Google-like search engine to allow regular people to approximately track federal grants, contracts, earmarks, and loans online. The Chicago Sun-Times wrote, "It would enable the public to see where federal money goes and how it is spent. It's a brilliant idea."
Illinois Reform: In 1998, Obama joined forces with former U.S. Sen. Paul Simon (D-IL) to pass the toughest campaign finance law in Illinois history. The legislation banned the personal use of campaign money by Illinois legislators and banned most gifts from lobbyists. Before the law was passed, one organization ranked Illinois worst among 50 states for its campaign finance regulations.
A High Standard: Unlike other candidates Obama's campaign refuses to accept contributions from Washington lobbyists and political action committees.
PAYGO: Obama voted in 2005, 2006, and 2007 to reinstate pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) federal budget rules.
No-Bid Contracts: Obama has introduced and helped pass bipartisan legislation to limit the abuse of no-bid federal contracts.
Obama has worked on numerous efforts in the U.S. Senate to increase access to and use of renewable fuels, including corn-based and cellulosic ethanol. He cosponsored legislation to investigate the root causes of health disparities including for rural areas and to start addressing them.
He cosponsored the Emergency Farm Relief Act of 2006 to make grants to state agriculture departments for direct economic loss payments to eligible small businesses. He cosponsored legislation that became law to combat the scourge of methamphetamines.
Against Raising the Federal Debt Limit: In 2006, Obama voted against misguided Republican efforts to raise the statutory debt limit at the same time the Republicans were pushing through massive debt-financed tax cuts for the wealthy.
Crack Down on Employers: Obama championed a proposal to create a system so employers can verify that their employees are legally eligible to work in the U.S.
Fix the Bureaucracy: Obama joined Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) to introduce the Citizenship Promotion Act to ensure that immigration application fees are both reasonable and fair. Obama also introduced legislation that passed the Senate to improve the speed and accuracy of FBI background checks.
.....again these are just the ones I personally like.
Just my opinion
Posted by George's Mom on Feb. 08 2008,5:18 pm
Sounds weak to be President.Compare Barack's accomplishments with what my little guy, George has done!
Put Albert Lea on the map for anyone that used You Tube last summer.
Ran for mayor and nearly got 1% of the vote his first time out.
Has been to the courthouse to raise the awareness of the judges of the evil REPOMAN.
Rescued Patty from the arms of another man - twice!
Makes everyone in the room seem smarter just by walking in.
Posted by scorenix on Feb. 08 2008,8:54 pm
(january @ Feb. 04 2008,11:27 am)
QUOTE
I'm for Obama. I am dead set against Hilary Clinton.
How can we respect any man or woman that sells themselves to the highest bidder be it for money or the Presidency?
I look at her and I listen to her and I think......your lust for power, your lust for glory....your lust....you would sell your own soul
How can we respect any man or woman that sells themselves to the highest bidder be it for money or the Presidency?
I look at her and I listen to her and I think......your lust for power, your lust for glory....your lust....you would sell your own soul
And are you saying Obama is an innocent here? That he never sold out? Never got bought out?
Posted by MADDOG on Feb. 11 2008,10:05 am
O.K. now what? My feminist hero slipped off the couch.< Ann Coulter >
Posted by hymiebravo on Feb. 11 2008,11:34 am
CODE
And are you saying Obama is an innocent here? That he never sold out? Never got bought out?
They said he won a "spoken word" Grammy on the news this morning.
Posted by hymiebravo on Feb. 11 2008,11:46 am
(MADDOG @ Feb. 11 2008,10:05 am)
QUOTE
O.K. now what? My feminist hero slipped off the couch.
< Ann Coulter >
< Ann Coulter >
How do people even watch that tripe looks like something you might see in North Korea.
They have their legions and they have the hook in deep.
Posted by Common Citizen on Feb. 11 2008,12:15 pm
^I agree...I consider myself a conservative and I can't even stand the words that she spews...Bianca-thanks for your response...I have been out for a awhile and wouldn't give your post justice by using a one liner on why I disagree with some of those statements. don't get me wrong...I agree with a few things that he stands for but not with the majority.
For instance the PAY-GO issue...I agree with this in principle but the Pay-Go issue doesn't not address government over-spending. All we are doing is taking money from one thing and spending it somewhere else whether we have it or not. I wish I could do that with my budget.
Posted by bianca on Feb. 11 2008,3:56 pm
Wow,Coulter "campaigning for Hilary" if McCain gets the nomination??
NOW I want McCain to get the nomination- just because if she campaigns for Clinton, even more democrats will slide over to Obamas side. She is one harsh woman.I think she secretly has a thing for McCain
QUOTE
All we are doing is taking money from one thing and spending it somewhere else whether we have it or not.
When doesn't government borrow from somewhere to give it somewhere else?
Posted by Common Citizen on Feb. 12 2008,10:12 am
^ exactly...that's my point. The PAY-GO retoric convinces you that it is a good thing while they keep you off the real issue of reducing government spending.So I don't see Obama interested in a smaller government. In fact, I see him as growing the governement.
Current Tax Rates
Income Tax top bracket: 35%
Income/Payroll tax: 37.4%
Cap gains Rate: 15%
Dividend Rate: 15%
Estate Tax (2010): 0%
Obamanomics Plan
Top Income Tax Rate: 39.6%
Income/Payroll: 52.2%
Cap Gains: 28%
Dividend: 39.6%
Estate Tax: 55%
Tell me you're not ok with this change in the tax rates. If you are, then that tells me these tax rate increases will mean nothing to you and that you are actually greedier than the the wealthy by taking their money and giving it to others who haven't earned it.
Every economist knows that the way to grow the economy long term is by increasing capital and investments...
His economic advisor stated that we have had the shortest lived economic recovering under Bush in the past 40 years. He is wrong. We are in our 7th year which is about 10-12 months longer than average. The only other recoveries that have lasted longer were under the Clinton and Reagan presidency.
Posted by hymiebravo on Feb. 12 2008,12:49 pm
QUOTE
Income/Payroll: 52.2%
Where did you get that tidbit of imformation the Obama for president website?
That seems a little hard to believe that anybody would run on that platform. " and if elected I'll take over half of your income". lol
Posted by hymiebravo on Feb. 12 2008,1:09 pm
QUOTE
His economic advisor stated that we have had the shortest lived economic recovering under Bush in the past 40 years. He is wrong. We are in our 7th year which is about 10-12 months longer than average. The only other recoveries that have lasted longer were under the Clinton and Reagan presidency.
Your guy Bush must be like the "Slingblade" of economics.
Posted by Common Citizen on Feb. 12 2008,2:44 pm
(hymiebravo @ Feb. 12 2008,12:49 pm)
QUOTE
Where did you get that tidbit of imformation the Obama for president website?
That seems a little hard to believe that anybody would run on that platform. " and if elected I'll take over half of your income". lol
That seems a little hard to believe that anybody would run on that platform. " and if elected I'll take over half of your income". lol
That's just it. That's why it is not on his platform. It is hidden in the details that the average Joe will never hear. People are so caught up in his "new hope" speech making ability's that they forget to look at the numbers behind his policies. I have not seen any substance from either the Obama campaign or the Clinton campaign...just a bunch of wish lists. How else they will be able to pay for eveything.
My numbers come from a news interview by Larry Kudlow in which Obama's economic advisor participated in. He did not dispute the numbers at the time of this interview.
Obama said it himself when he stated that he will tax the rich and give tax cuts to the "good hardworking Americans". As if those making over $200k a year are not hard working? C'mon. That is an insult to anyone who is or who dares to be successful. Don't you agree?
Posted by grassman on Feb. 12 2008,3:21 pm
I think the definition of todays success has reached excess. Warren Buffet even wanted to know why his secretary pays a higher percentage in taxes than he does. The gap has reached a down right gross preportion.
Posted by Common Citizen on Feb. 12 2008,3:37 pm
That's not what my point is. You're comparing apples to oranges. What you failed to mention was that Buffet's tax was based on what private equity and hedge fund staff pays on their share of the profits, known as carried interest, or 15 per cent capital gains. It is not the same as someone paying INCOME tax on 200k. Two totally different parts of the tax code. If Buffet was paid in the same way his secretary was paid there is no way he would be paying a lower rate.
Carried Interest
A share of any profits that the general partners of private equity and hedge funds receive as compensation, despite not contributing any initial funds. This method of compensation seeks to motivate the general partner (fund manager) to work toward improving the fund's performance.
Carried interest is meant to serve as the primary source of income for the general partner. However, the general partner must ensure that all the initial capital that the limited partners contribute is returned along with some previously agreed upon rate of return.
Posted by bianca on Feb. 12 2008,3:46 pm
QUOTE
The gap has reached a down right gross preportion.
Well said, with conservatives there is no middle-class, you are either well to do and taxed uhhhh equally or you are poor and getting help financially, through heating subsidies, medical insurance, food, etc. while the middle class doesn't make the cut-off so they are the ones that "struggle" to be successful.I have no problem with people being successful and working hard to get where they are but even as far as education goes....the poor get their education paid for through grants, the rich have the money and resources to pay for college, but the middle class again gets the short end of the stick.
There's got to be some sort of equality to how things are, the middle class shouldn't be working their a$$es off to just "stay afloat" and when a republican/conservative is in office there is no middle class.
Just my opinion....
Posted by Common Citizen on Feb. 12 2008,3:58 pm
So then we're in agreement that a progressive tax system is unfair? Good. That's what I thought you meant...
Posted by TameThaTane on Feb. 12 2008,4:38 pm
QUOTE
Warren Buffet even wanted to know why his secretary pays a higher percentage in taxes than he does.
It's not that Warren doesn't pay enough, it's that his secretary pays too much.
Posted by grassman on Feb. 12 2008,5:27 pm
It is not the same as someone paying INCOME tax on 200k. Two totally different parts of the tax code. If Buffet was paid in the same way his secretary was paid there is no way he would be paying a lower rate.(quote)Exactly
. A share of any profits that the general partners of private equity and hedge funds receive as compensation, despite not contributing any initial funds. This method of compensation seeks to motivate the general partner (fund manager) to work toward improving the fund's performance (quote)
Get paid in stocks and options instead of a paycheck. Good way to get out of paying regular income tax. Another good trickle down theory from good ol Reagan.
Where did you get those rose colored glasses you look through. They must be designer. Enron I bet!
Posted by bianca on Feb. 12 2008,5:32 pm
Who is your man, CC- .....and why?
Posted by TameThaTane on Feb. 12 2008,5:39 pm
QUOTE
Get paid in stocks and options instead of a paycheck. Good way to get out of paying regular income tax
Thank you. I have for decades. Income tax is for chumps. Then again all I see is chumps insisting their taxes be raised. You've got money to burn or you wouldn't have insisted on triple times property tax increases for just one example. I didn't see people voting down a very hefty school referendum. If you insist on more taxes, you'll get em.
Posted by grassman on Feb. 12 2008,7:25 pm
We voted ours down 2-1, so don't lump me in there.
Posted by hairhertz on Feb. 13 2008,5:14 am
After winning in Maryland, Virginia & Washington DC, Obama has moved ahead of Hillary in delegate count.3 landslide wins last night. At least the democratic party process is entertaining compared to the republican one. I wonder when the dirty tricks will begin?
Posted by TameThaTane on Feb. 13 2008,5:21 am
It's already happened. Hillary first tried to use Obama's teen drug use against him and when that didn't work she called one of his supporters a slum lord. Piss on Hillary. Those are cheap shots from a cheap ho.
Hillary and McCaine are old school...the past. America is ready to move on into the future, not go back to yesterdays leaders. Their time has come and gone.
Posted by Common Citizen on Feb. 13 2008,9:30 am
(bianca @ Feb. 12 2008,5:32 pm)
QUOTE
Who is your man, CC-
.....and why?
.....and why?
I'm having a tough time this year. Everyone I was leaning toward is out. I consider myself an uber-conservative, well maybe not uber, but a conservative none the less, and certainly not a neocon. And neocon's and liberal's are all that's left. I will have to base my final decision on who I feel will do the least damage to my family from a security and financial standpoint.
I really liked Duncan Hunter but I knew he was dead in the water the day he announced. Not a lot of fan fair from the media. No rock star appeal. But fundamentally he is a very sound conservative (not a neocon) based on his policies and voting record.
I have never been a McCain fan. The only thing I like about Huckabee is his stance on the IRS and what he claims he would do surrounding that issue, but I can't take him seriously.
So I'm at a crossroads. I feel the republican party has lost it's way and is currently redefining what it means to be conservative (and I'm not convinced its for the better). Much like what the donks went through when Bush was elected the first time. The donks regained power in congress by going back to their roots of the 90's and being who they truly are, tree hugging-libs. I do admire them for that. They know who they are and are ok with it. The republicans lost the house and the senate because they forgot who they were and what they stood for. They saw a shift in public opinion prior to the last election and tried to re-invent themselves just to remain in office rather than staying true to their beliefs. We the people saw through that and made them pay for their mistake. The donks had figured this out in their own party by reinforcing their beliefs which ultimately motivated their base. I'm not saying that they followed through on their promises, though, once they gained control. Because they haven't. I see plenty of people within the donk party upset at the people they voted for, that their promises have yet to come to fruition, which will make them vulnerable for the next election.
So, I'll be doing a lot of this
for a while.
Posted by hymiebravo on Feb. 13 2008,3:33 pm
If Obama were an emoticon here - he would be this one. <----Obama
Posted by Counterfeit Fake on Feb. 14 2008,10:33 am
Remember the days when you could vote for someone and not feel like you needed a shower to wash off the filth? Each election it is less and less who I would like to vote for and more who do I need to vote against. Those I do actually like end up dropping out.
Posted by TameThaTane on Feb. 15 2008,4:35 am
John McCain on economics< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcdLO3jKkPo&feature=related >
Posted by Common Citizen on Feb. 15 2008,9:05 am
I find this article offensive. For a media outlet to stoke the fires of racism is irresponsible. I feel that it is the media that will turn this years elections into a racial issue not the common citizens of this country. I do not believe that it is about race. If it is, then why are so many white people backing Obama. Shame on Politco.com and other news outlets in their attempt to divide us for the sake of controversy.< White Men Hold Power Balance >
Posted by GEOKARJO on Feb. 15 2008,11:08 am
Run accross this for all you republicans out there.
Posted by hymiebravo on Feb. 15 2008,1:02 pm
QUOTE
Run accross this for all you republicans out there
Yea. I'm sure there aren't GOP guys that have been there and done that.
The trick is is you answer like the 1st Bush when they ask you.
You say something like..."not going to answer the sleazy questions" . Then that's the end of it. And nobody ever thinks about it or remembers it.
And the press doesn't start publishing pornography for us all to read. And all the other good stuff surrounding that event.
A "tabaco" lawer who the government was in litigation with. Being left in charge of trying to impeach the president...
That always struck me as kind of odd.
I mean as long as we're all going to just parrot the "party Line" here.
Posted by Common Citizen on Feb. 15 2008,2:14 pm
(bianca @ Feb. 08 2008,4:28 pm)
QUOTE
Record of Advocacy: Obama has been a leader on educational issues throughout his career. In the Illinois State Senate, Obama was a leader on early childhood education, helping create the state's Early Learning Council. In the U.S. Senate, Obama has been a leader in working to make college more affordable. His very first bill sought to increase the maximum Pell Grant award to $5,100. As a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee, Obama helped pass legislation to achieve that goal in the recent improvements to the Higher Education Act. Obama has also introduced legislation to create Teacher Residency Programs and to increase federal support for summer learning opportunities.
Every increase of the Pell Grant or this or that funding will be matched by tuition increases. The colleges and universities will be given a blank check. Who do you think runs our education system? Certainly not conservatives. The vast majority of our colleges and universities are run by the liberal elite.
While everyone is sitting around complaining about big oil and big pharmaceuticals, the lib’s are carving out their own piece of wealth by one of the most highly subsidzed businesses in this country. Yet you will never hear about price gouging or price fixing from Pelousy and Company. I would argue that the price tag for tuition at these institutions have significantly outpaced the rate of inflation and the rate at which our oil prices have increased.
I like his idea on early childhood. However, I would like specifics on how he plans to accomplish the wish list he has described in his Presidential Early Childhood Education.
QUOTE
Reform No Child Left Behind.
What needs to be reformed? I may have my own ideas, but what are his?
QUOTE
Ensure access to high-quality early childhood education programs and
child care opportunities so children enter kindergarten ready to learn.
child care opportunities so children enter kindergarten ready to learn.
Another example of our education taking over parenting responsibilities from the parents. Every thing a kid needs to know prior to entering kindergarten should have been done up to this point by the parent(s). But because our culture has been brainwashed by the NEA we all sit back and wait for the government to raise our kids at an earlier age than what is necessary.
QUOTE
Work to place effective teachers in every classroom in America, especially
those in high-poverty, high-minority areas.
those in high-poverty, high-minority areas.
So they do admit that our education system is broken? I'm confused.
Yet when somebody tried to come up with a solution (BUSH), like ‘No Child Left Behind’, he was fought against with every tooth, nail, and NEA member. It eventually passed but it would not have seen the light of day with our current congressional members.QUOTE
Reward effective teachers for taking on challenging assignments and
helping children succeed
I agree with pay for performance. Now. What measuring stick will we use?helping children succeed
QUOTE
Support highly-effective principals and school leaders.
Say again, last. Do they need a pat on the back or an atta boy when they do what they’re paid to do? What does he mean by support?
QUOTE
Make science and math education a national priority.
Agree!! But how?
QUOTE
Reduce the high school dropout rate by focusing on proven methods to
improve student achievement and enhance graduation and higher
education opportunities.
improve student achievement and enhance graduation and higher
education opportunities.
I would imagine every candidate believes in this. Have you ever heard a candidate state, “I would like to increase the high school drop out rate.”?
QUOTE
Close the achievement gap and invest in what works.
How? What is it that he believes is working? Again, he is vague.
QUOTE
Empower parents to raise healthy and successful children by taking a
greater role in their child’s education at home and at school.
greater role in their child’s education at home and at school.
How? Again, he is vague? What does he mean by empower. He tends to use a lot of colorful language but no substance. Words like hope, empower, change, etc… Words that make you feel good inside. Right? Tell me which candidate is not for that?
That’s why I want to see more substance and less poetry.
Posted by TameThaTane on Feb. 15 2008,3:56 pm
This one! I am not a crook! Vote John McCain...NO you CAN'T!
< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAg_-U1E0x8 >
John McCain sings the Beach Boys!
< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg >
Straight talk express goes off tracks
< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI&feature=related >
John McCain remixes beach boys tune!
< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awY0XznyPTc&feature=related >
Posted by hairhertz on Feb. 16 2008,7:58 pm
yea, let's vote for 8 more years of great repub leadership..... ....Ron Paul
Posted by Common Citizen on Feb. 17 2008,9:31 am
(hairhertz @ Feb. 16 2008,7:58 pm)
QUOTE
yea, let's vote for 8 more years of great repub leadership..... ....Ron Paul
....Ron PaulI don't know about you but having a Republican president was great for my family.
My income taxes went down, the stock market is up, went over 7 years without a recession, and we haven't been attacked in this country since 9/11. The only taxes that went up for me were property taxes because of decisions made locally.
Gas prices went up but not as high as college tuition. And when you consider the rate of inflation over the past 40 years, the increased gas prices have lagged. My income also increased.
My 401(k) and other investments are higher than where they were in 2000.
So went wrong with you and your family over the past 8 years that should be blamed on a republican adminstration? Please, do tell.
Posted by grassman on Feb. 17 2008,10:24 am
I'm so happy your investments have been doing so wonderful. I guess you have yours so to heck with everybody else. Alot of people do not have extra funds laying around to invest. They have to concentrate more on trying to keep food in the house, a roof over their head, and gas in their vehicle. Why don't you invite Bush over for some fine dining and a glass of port. Oh ya, Bush says he is in touch with the American people, but is he really?
Posted by Common Citizen on Feb. 17 2008,6:20 pm
I'm glad you're happy. It doesn't take a rocket scientist, and I'll bet the majority of people with retirement accounts have experienced the same. I give the response I do for a reason. I wanted to draw out exactly the things you think Bush is responsible for and it worked. When people blame things on the administration I call them on it because I strongly disagree with the finger pointing in this situation.
Don't get me wrong though. I think that congress and the administration can be blamed for somethings that happen from the policies they implement. But when it comes to someones income? C'mon. That doesn't cut the mustard with me. Unless your disabled, most of us have choices and make choices when it comes to our work. The biggest problem is that people live above their means. How you think that is Bush's fault is beyond me.
You said...
QUOTE
Alot of people do not have extra funds laying around to invest.
How is this Bush's fault? I would challenge you to let go of the liberal and left wing media talking points and give me the direct links to Bush and his policies that prevent people from investing as little as $25 a month (which many mutual funds accept). I always speak to people and hear about people not having a pot to piss in, and yet it's no problem for them to spend well over $25 a month on cigs, booze , or going out to eat.
QUOTE
They have to concentrate more on trying to keep food in the house, a roof over their head, and gas in their vehicle.
Why is this? The inflation rate has remained low for several years. If your income has not kept up with the low inflation rate we've experienced you're in the wrong occupation. If you like your occupation to much to change for a better paying job that provides you with the raises necessary to keep up with or out pace inflation, then quit your complaining.
See, all the problems you've just describe are self-imposed and have nothing to do with the Bush administration. I get fed up with people blaming someone else for their predicaments. If people would spend more time working on their own problems and bettering themselves and less time on pointing fingers, we'd be a better nation for it.
nuff said...
Posted by grassman on Feb. 18 2008,2:20 am
I also like to see how far one will go to defend their party, right or wrong. You really believe what your party tells you, How quaint. Let's see some of the fall out of the republican party. Feel free to add a few if you can think of them.
Starting back when Reagan took away alot of regulation.
Runaway pharmacutical.
Runaway gas prices.
Runaway medical costs.
Food prices skyrocketing.
Unsafe drugs put on the market.
Energy costs soaring.
Company brass making huge profits while sticking it to the little guy.
You see, Reagan had this vision that if the wealthy make alot of money they will let it trickle down to the rest of the public. Well, we all know the wealthy loves more wealth so they turned the tap off and kept it for themselves.
It all comes down to greed and not caring about anyone else.
When drug companies put out a drug that they know will kill people ,yet fail to remove it because of the riches, what do you call that. I call that the free for all this country has become.
Posted by TameThaTane on Feb. 18 2008,2:31 am
All true grassman. Did you know T-paw in on a short list for McCains VP?
Posted by fredbear on Feb. 18 2008,8:21 am
(TameThaTane @ Oct. 30 2007,10:24 pm)
QUOTE
Here's the race. It'll be Hillary Clinton Verses Mitt Romney.
I stand by that and it'll come to fruition. Just watch, I'm always right. Said told you so so many times I can't even remember all of them.
Keep this thread alive as proof of how correct I always am. Make your predictions here.
I stand by that and it'll come to fruition. Just watch, I'm always right. Said told you so so many times I can't even remember all of them.
Keep this thread alive as proof of how correct I always am. Make your predictions here.
Always right?
Maybe 50% right.............maybe.
But I suppose I'll be a short bus riding fricking moron because I called you out.
Posted by TameThaTane on Feb. 18 2008,8:26 am
I didn't see you having the testicular fortitude to make a early prediction you silly wimp! Who would've thought a super war monger would be the repub nominee when 75% are vehemently against it! Ha!
And the democratic primary is still undecided short bus.
Posted by Common Citizen on Feb. 18 2008,8:56 am
You still didn't answer my question. How is it Bush's fault that, QUOTE
people do not have extra funds laying around to invest. They have to concentrate more on trying to keep food in the house, a roof over their head, and gas in their vehicle.
So you don't agree with my previous statement then? Just wondering, because if you can not comprehend the quote below then we will never agree on the governments role vs. personal responsibility. If you don't agree then you truly believe that the gov't should be in ourlives from cradle to grave, directing our lives at every turn.
QUOTE
See, all the problems you've just describe are self-imposed and have nothing to do with the Bush administration. I get fed up with people blaming someone else for their predicaments. If people would spend more time working on their own problems and bettering themselves and less time on pointing fingers, we'd be a better nation for it.
You're new list,
QUOTE
Runaway pharmacutical.
Runaway gas prices.
Runaway medical costs.
Food prices skyrocketing.
Unsafe drugs put on the market.
Energy costs soaring.
Runaway gas prices.
Runaway medical costs.
Food prices skyrocketing.
Unsafe drugs put on the market.
Energy costs soaring.
is not a one party issue. It seems that Clinton spent 8 years in office. What did he do to solve the problems you claim we've had since Reagan? I am not trying to defend any party. I am trying to get the point across that the problems you mentioned can be solved by ourselves without the dependence on the government. If Clinton was in office today, I would have asked the same question. But then again, would you have had the same complaints if a donk was in office?
Posted by fredbear on Feb. 18 2008,9:01 am
Logical, intelligent, stick-to-your-guns, no insult comeback. Typical TTT reply, "I'm wrong, but at least I came out and made a fool of myself and you didn't". Oh, wait you didn't admit to being wrong.
I don't make predictions whose outcome is based on the whims of the American people. There's just too many idiots such as yourself out there.
But I also don't guarantee stupid crap that comes to me in a THC induced haze...you silly loser.
I said you were maybe 50% right - that's the Dem candidate...dumbass
Any other guarantees?
P.S. - nice to see you admit to riding the short bus once.
Posted by scorenix on Feb. 18 2008,11:31 am
(Common Citizen @ Feb. 15 2008,2:14 pm)
QUOTE
[
That’s why I want to see more substance and less poetry.
That’s why I want to see more substance and less poetry.
Why provide substance when a mere speech talking of hope, talking of promise, seems to get the huddle masses following him?
Turns out one of his latest speeches was taken directly from the speech given by the Governor of Massataxes. Directly "copied" without acknowledgment. Of course now the governor of Massataxes says he and Obama are close. They talk often. And they talked of him saying those words. Yeah, right.
And a presidential candidate that quit smoking as soon as running for president, because, well, it won't look right?
Posted by hymiebravo on Feb. 18 2008,12:33 pm
You don't like that???Obama sitting outside the Whitehouse sucking on a "heater" "keeping it real".
They had a funny bit on I think it was Letterman the other night. It started out talking about how this election. There is a chance for history to be made. With the election of either a woman or a black man.
Then it cuts to - something like - well don't forget... there's still an "old white guy" running too. The Republican party. Electing "old white guys" since 1776 or something.
I thought it was kind of funny. I got a chuckle out of it.
Posted by Common Citizen on Feb. 18 2008,1:21 pm
(grassman @ Feb. 18 2008,2:20 am)
QUOTE
I also like to see how far one will go to defend their party, right or wrong. You really believe what your party tells you, How quaint.
Let's see some of the fall out of the republican party. Feel free to add a few if you can think of them.
Starting back when Reagan took away alot of regulation.
Runaway pharmacutical.
Runaway gas prices.
Runaway medical costs.
Food prices skyrocketing.
Unsafe drugs put on the market.
Energy costs soaring.
Company brass making huge profits while sticking it to the little guy.
You see, Reagan had this vision that if the wealthy make alot of money they will let it trickle down to the rest of the public. Well, we all know the wealthy loves more wealth so they turned the tap off and kept it for themselves.
It all comes down to greed and not caring about anyone else.
When drug companies put out a drug that they know will kill people ,yet fail to remove it because of the riches, what do you call that. I call that the free for all this country has become.
Let's see some of the fall out of the republican party. Feel free to add a few if you can think of them.
Starting back when Reagan took away alot of regulation.
Runaway pharmacutical.
Runaway gas prices.
Runaway medical costs.
Food prices skyrocketing.
Unsafe drugs put on the market.
Energy costs soaring.
Company brass making huge profits while sticking it to the little guy.
You see, Reagan had this vision that if the wealthy make alot of money they will let it trickle down to the rest of the public. Well, we all know the wealthy loves more wealth so they turned the tap off and kept it for themselves.
It all comes down to greed and not caring about anyone else.
When drug companies put out a drug that they know will kill people ,yet fail to remove it because of the riches, what do you call that. I call that the free for all this country has become.
In ancient times, a King had a boulder placed on a
roadway. Then he hid himself and watched to see if
anyone would remove the huge rock Some of the
king's wealthiest merchants and courtiers came by
and simply walked around it. Many loudly blamed the
King for not keeping the roads clear, but none did
anything about getting the stone out of the way.
Then a peasant came along carrying a load of
vegetables. Upon approaching the boulder, the
peasant laid down his burden and tried to move the
stone to the side of the road. After much pushing
and straining, he finally succeeded. After the
peasant picked up his load of vegetables, he noticed
a purse lying in the road where the boulder had
been. The purse contained many gold coins and a note
from the King indicating that the gold was for the
person who removed the boulder from the roadway. The
peasant learned what many of us never understand!
Every obstacle presents an opportunity to improve our condition.
The only difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying is that you would rather wait for the government to come and help move the boulder out of the way. IMO.
Posted by TameThaTane on Feb. 18 2008,1:37 pm
LOL what a load of BS!
Posted by bianca on Feb. 18 2008,4:08 pm
QUOTE
I don't know about you but having a Republican president was great for my family.
How did President do that for you and your family by himself?
QUOTE
I think that congress and the administration can be blamed for somethings that happen from the policies they implement.
....tell me again how President Bush did anything "noble" or worthwhile by himself when Congress is always involved in decisions?
What great things did President Bush do in your eyes that he will be remebered for, based solely on his decision?
It's all just a crap shoot....locally or nationally. Of course they are going to promise us the moon, that's not only part of politics but competition. No matter who is ever in there...Dem or Repub have they ever been able to deliver on all of the promises they made?
Posted by Common Citizen on Feb. 18 2008,4:45 pm
(bianca @ Feb. 18 2008,4:08 pm)
QUOTE
QUOTE
I don't know about you but having a Republican president was great for my family.
How did President do that for you and your family by himself?
QUOTE
I think that congress and the administration can be blamed for somethings that happen from the policies they implement.
....tell me again how President Bush did anything "noble" or worthwhile by himself when Congress is always involved in decisions?
What great things did President Bush do in your eyes that he will be remebered for, based solely on his decision?
It's all just a crap shoot....locally or nationally. Of course they are going to promise us the moon, that's not only part of politics but competition. No matter who is ever in there...Dem or Repub have they ever been able to deliver on all of the promises they made?
Financially:
Economic Growth And Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA)
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
Security:
The war on terrorist
Posted by bianca on Feb. 19 2008,8:37 am
QUOTE
Financially:
Economic Growth And Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA)
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
Economic Growth And Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA)
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
single-handedly did what?QUOTE
Security:
The war on terrorist
The war on terrorist
Seriously?!
Do you realize you just put a double entendre there?
It's your vote.......but last I knew there were no winners when it comes to terrorism and IMO we're most likely as susceptible today to an attack as we were pre-911.
Posted by grassman on Feb. 19 2008,10:17 am
The President picks his cabinet. Bush's cabinet runs the country sort of speak. Our war on terror in Iraq was based on lies. If you don't see that, that is really too bad. This war has financially been a boon for some of Bush's associates. How many billion dollars have we pumped into an endless war? How many of those dollars have been spent wisely? I just came back from Kansas City and was really pissed at the shape of some of the freeway I had to drive on. We can pump all that money into Iraq, while our very own infrastructure dissolves.This country is going to hell in a hand basket. Jobs are going to other countries. The companies that do build here automatically have their hand out to see what the govt. will give them. How in the world did that ever get started?
The working class struggles to keep up with rising cost of living,while the top brass pats each other on the back on how well they have kept costs down, here's a bonus.
Granted the whole govt. has had some sort of play in what has happened. I just hope things can be fixxed before a total collapse.
The republican way of spending is, buy now and pay later. What happens when later knocks on the door? What an inheritance for the young.
CC you might be comfortable now, but when the not so well off have nothing left to give up, it'll be your turn.
Posted by TameThaTane on Feb. 19 2008,10:46 am
There's 9 billion missing...poof...gone from Iraq and that's just what we know about. That's 9000 million dollars. Kind of hard to just lose one would think. This whole thing has been nothing a but a looting of the government by Bushies.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Feb. 19 2008,1:51 pm
Cute
Posted by Common Citizen on Feb. 19 2008,5:02 pm
QUOTE
QUOTE
Financially:
Economic Growth And Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA)
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
single-handedly did what?
Financially:
Economic Growth And Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA)
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
single-handedly did what?
you can google these acts.
QUOTE
and IMO we're most likely as susceptible today to an attack as we were pre-911.
I don't blame you for believing this. If my only source for the war on terror was Murtha, Pelousy, Reid, and the left wing media & co, I would believe the same thing. Don't beat yourself up too bad.
Posted by Common Citizen on Feb. 19 2008,5:29 pm
Grassman,QUOTE
Our war on terror in Iraq was based on lies.
Yep, you're right. Saddam Hussein even admitted that he lied.
QUOTE
This war has financially been a boon for some of Bush's associates.
define associates and prove it. Pelousy and co. have been trying their hardest to take Bush down, why haven't they proved this to be the case, then.
QUOTE
This country is going to hell in a hand basket. Jobs are going to other countries.
Wait a minute here. You bitch about big corporations and how evil they are all the time, and when they finally up and leave, you want them back?
QUOTE
The republican way of spending is, buy now and pay later.
This is not the republican way. This is the way of Neocon's. I am just as angry about this as you are.
QUOTE
CC you might be comfortable now, but when the not so well off have nothing left to give up, it'll be your turn.
I've had my turn and it was during Bush's presidency, but I am not going to sit around and spend my days blaming him or pointing fingers. Yes things have been tight for me in the past but all that did was teach me to realign my priorities and to learn what was important in my life. Every day get's better and better. I have never lost hope through my past difficulties. Just because I see things as the glass half full doesn't mean that I'm rich, or that I am better than anyone else. I just think any other way would be down right depressing.
Even under the Clinton presidency, I felt America was the greatest country in the world. But to listen to the other side of the aisle attack Bush and bitch about who we are now or who you think we may have become as a country, pisses me off. I'm tired of hearing, every day, our very own representatives in congress tell us how bad our country sucks. NEWS FLASH!!! Canada is only a short 7 hour drive from here.
And 3turd...go suck an egg!!
Posted by bianca on Feb. 19 2008,6:00 pm
Although you seem to be clueless on Bush QUOTE
But to listen to the other side of the aisle attack Bush and bitch about who we are now or who you think we may have become as a country,
Please don't tell me that you think this hasn't been the case with any president that has been in office for two terms. Both sides are to blame for this, not just one party. Politics have never been pretty.
You're right on the money with this:
QUOTE
Yes things have been tight for me in the past but all that did was teach me to realign my priorities and to learn what was important in my life. Every day get's better and better. I have never lost hope through my past difficulties. Just because I see things as the glass half full doesn't mean that I'm rich, or that I am better than anyone else. I just think any other way would be down right depressing.
There just might be hope for you yet, CC
Posted by grassman on Feb. 20 2008,6:07 am
CC
Posted by grassman on Feb. 20 2008,6:12 am
Georgie!
Posted by bianca on Feb. 20 2008,7:29 am
^
Posted by Common Citizen on Feb. 20 2008,10:08 am
It wasn't that funny...bianca...ok maybe a little...If anything were to really happen to Spain you can bet they'll be calling us first.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Feb. 20 2008,11:01 am
There is a great amount of interest in this year’s presidential elections, as everybody seems to recognize that our next president has to be a lot better than George Bush. The Democrats are riding high with two groundbreaking candidates — a woman and an African-American — while the conservative Republicans are in a quandary about their party’s nod to a quasi-liberal maverick, John McCain. Each candidate is carefully pandering to a smorgasbord of special-interest groups, ranging from gay, lesbian and transgender people to children of illegal immigrants to working mothers to evangelical Christians.
There is one group no one has recognized, and it is the group that will decide the election: the Angry White Man. The Angry White Man comes from all economic backgrounds, from dirt-poor to filthy rich. He represents all geographic areas in America, from urban sophisticate to rural redneck, deep South to mountain West, left Coast to Eastern Seaboard.
His common traits are that he isn’t looking for anything from anyone — just the promise to be able to make his own way on a level playing field. In many cases, he is an independent businessman and employs several people. He pays more than his share of taxes and works hard.
The victimhood syndrome buzzwords — “disenfranchised,” “marginalized” and “voiceless” — don’t resonate with him. “Press ‘one’ for English” is a curse-word to him. He’s used to picking up the tab, whether it’s the company Christmas party, three sets of braces, three college educations or a beautiful wedding.
He believes the Constitution is to be interpreted literally, not as a “living document” open to the whims and vagaries of a panel of judges who have never worked an honest day in their lives.
The Angry White Man owns firearms, and he’s willing to pick up a gun to defend his home and his country. He is willing to lay down his life to defend the freedom and safety of others, and the thought of killing someone who needs killing really doesn’t bother him.
The Angry White Man is not a metrosexual, a homosexual or a victim. Nobody like him drowned in Hurricane Katrina — he got his people together and got the hell out, then went back in to rescue those too helpless and stupid to help themselves, often as a police officer, a National Guard soldier or a volunteer firefighter.
His last name and religion don’t matter. His background might be Italian, English, Polish, German, Slavic, Irish, or Russian, and he might have Cherokee, Mexican, or Puerto Rican mixed in, but he considers himself a white American.
He’s a man’s man, the kind of guy who likes to play poker, watch football, hunt white-tailed deer, call turkeys, play golf, spend a few bucks at a strip club once in a blue moon, change his own oil and build things. He coaches baseball, soccer and football teams and doesn’t ask for a penny. He’s the kind of guy who can put an addition on his house with a couple of friends, drill an oil well, weld a new bumper for his truck, design a factory and publish books. He can fill a train with 100,000 tons of coal and get it to the power plant on time so that you keep the lights on and never know what it took to flip that light switch.
Women either love him or hate him, but they know he’s a man, not a dishrag. If they’re looking for someone to walk all over, they’ve got the wrong guy. He stands up straight, opens doors for women and says “Yes, sir” and “No, ma’am.”
He might be a Republican and he might be a Democrat; he might be a Libertarian or a Green. He knows that his wife is more emotional than rational, and he guides the family in a rational manner.
He’s not a racist, but he is annoyed and disappointed when people of certain backgrounds exhibit behavior that typifies the worst stereotypes of their race. He’s willing to give everybody a fair chance if they work hard, play by the rules and learn English.
Most important, the Angry White Man is pissed off. When his job site becomes flooded with illegal workers who don’t pay taxes and his wages drop like a stone, he gets righteously angry. When his job gets shipped overseas, and he has to speak to some incomprehensible idiot in India for tech support, he simmers. When Al Sharpton comes on TV, leading some rally for reparations for slavery or some such nonsense, he bites his tongue and he remembers. When a child gets charged with carrying a concealed weapon for mistakenly bringing a penknife to school, he takes note of who the local idiots are in education and law enforcement.
He also votes, and the Angry White Man loathes Hillary Clinton. Her voice reminds him of a shovel scraping a rock. He recoils at the mere sight of her on television. Her very image disgusts him, and he cannot fathom why anyone would want her as their leader. It’s not that she is a woman. It’s that she is who she is. It’s the liberal victim groups she panders to, the “poor me” attitude that she represents, her inability to give a straight answer to an honest question, his tax dollars that she wants to give to people who refuse to do anything for themselves.
There are many millions of Angry White Men. Four million Angry White Men are members of the National Rifle Association, and all of them will vote against Hillary Clinton, just as the great majority of them voted for George Bush.
He hopes that she will be the Democratic nominee for president in 2008, and he will make sure that she gets beaten like a drum.
Gary Hubbell is a regular columnist with the Aspen Times Weekly.
Posted by bianca on Feb. 24 2008,10:33 am
I might be a little behind times with this but I just read that one of the potential running mates McCain is contemplating is Tim Pawlenty.Thoughts?
Posted by Botto 82 on Feb. 24 2008,10:50 am
Just saw T-Paw on FOX News Sunday. Chris Matthews asked him point blank if he was considering running with McCain. Pawlenty was all, "Well, I have a day job, running the State of Minnesota..."
Posted by hairhertz on Feb. 24 2008,3:27 pm
(Botto 82 @ Feb. 24 2008,10:50 am)
QUOTE
Just saw T-Paw on FOX News Sunday. Chris Matthews asked him point blank if he was considering running with McCain. Pawlenty was all, "Well, I have a day job, running the State of Minnesota..."
.....and not running it very well, just think of what T-Paw could do on a national level? Anybody remember the Peter Principle?