Democratic Convention Watch: Open Thread

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Open Thread

WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com

What is McCain's latest "senior moment", what does Obama need to do to win in November or whatever else is on your mind.

And please be excellent to one another. We do not accept name calling or any attacks on our commenters. Any objectionable comments will be deleted. Try to be civil.

Thanks!

Previous Open Thread is here

9481 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 800 of 9481 Newer› Newest»

apissedant said...: waits for facts.... waits for facts...
no facts? No facts? Any sources? No sources? Hmmm...; August 12, 2008 1:49 AM
apissedant said...: Me thinks I've proven that Leah lied, and you have no response...

Your misplaced arrogance is amusing. Me thinks you won't even deny your personal insults...

I don't know if you know how a courtroom works, but you typically debate facts. You have only given a very lax argument towards one, yet there are still five remaining, even if you chalked that up as a misplaced victory. You have never acted rationally when confronted on your, "facts" so I won't pretend it is because of some new development. Your position has always been to levy personal attacks and avoid your own incorrect statements.; August 12, 2008 1:57 AM
apissedant said...: leah said,
apissedant-

Hillary has not conceded the race.

Hillary has not released her delegates.

Hillary has purchased a website for a run in 2012.

I said,
How about this one?
"Hillary has purchased a website for a run in 2012."

This statement is 100% false. It is also not news of the day. Here is the truth:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2008/07/hillary_clinton_buys_2012_website/

This headline lies as well. It clearly states within the article that a group that was previously associated with Hillary Clinton bought a 2012 website, not Hillary Clinton. It also states that this occurred on June 8th, so it is not the news of the day, it is the news of two months ago. Major publications published the news last month.

I said,
Mike,
Don't worry, I'm headed to bed anyways. However, all I'm doing is exactly what you posted you were doing earlier: Dissecting an argument, disproving portions of it, to discredit the entirety of it.

Mike said,
AP,

Wrong. What I was doing was taking statements DIRECTLY from what was posted and rebutting those statements.

Hmmm... she claimed Hillary bought a website. I proved Hillary didn't buy a website. I showed I was refuting a statement she made that was obviously incorrect. You said I was wrong. Explain this.
Can you?; August 12, 2008 2:05 AM
apissedant said...: Mike said,
I know I shouldn't pick and choose parts of their arguments to debunk, but it's a lot simpler to do that than to debunk an entire post by some of the neo-con idiots. Besides, if I effectively disembowel part of their argument, it casts doubt on the entirety of their argument.

Well, I just debunked your post. I was quite obviously doing this exact same thing, which you claimed I was not. Therefore, YOU were wrong. May I have my apology now? Are all of your posts now in question?; August 12, 2008 2:07 AM
apissedant said...: I said,
Why can't we focus on this man and the issues, instead of continually smearing those we don't like? Isn't who Barack Obama reason enough to elect him President?

This is the statement that is supposed censorship, asking why we can't focus on Obama's positives.

you said,
Leah and AP

Please take it to the street! We are not interested in who hit who first!

Mike

Censorship I say! This is not China!!!!; August 12, 2008 2:12 AM
apissedant said...: on that note Dave,
Night! Tell your better half I said he needs to let you "out" more often. (The internet isn't really out, but still); August 12, 2008 2:16 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: apissedant said...
Mike,
That was first reported about a month ago.

(The above was AP's reference to the post I entered earlier about the new regulations on endangered species.)

AP,

The article you posted was about proposed regulations. The MSNBC report was that the regulations have now been published (i.e., issued), and timed to go into effect before a new Congress or President can change them before they go into effect.

There could have been many changes to those regulations between the time they were proposed and published, so who knows how much worse they are now? This article didn't go into any changes between the proposed regs and the published regs.

As a result of working in an independent federal agency that issues regulations, I know how it is possible to make changes in the regulations between the proposed wording and final issuance. I also know how agencies can time the release of proposed regulations, determine comment periods, and publish final regulations so that there is much less opportunity for anyone to notice changes, let alone be able to delay the implementation of those regulations. In the next two weeks (until the day before Congress reconvenes), expect a lot more of this type of underhanded regulation change.

Mike; August 12, 2008 2:18 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: apissedant said...
By the way, you have also again shown your bias and lack of ability to post facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

Every nation censors, the question is the amount of censorship, not whether there is censorship or not.

AP,

It is YOU that have lost reason. Did I state that not every nation censors?

No

YOU read into my very clear language something that I didn't write.

I stated "Other countries censor, some that I'm sure you would recognize as NOT Communist."

Did I state that there are some countries that do NOT censor?

No

I listed the WORST countries as determined by Reporters without borders. By that I implied that there are many more that censor, not that it was an inclusive list.

If I did sate some countries do not censor, then please tell me where.

Otherwise, you need to bone up on your reading comprehension, and not just a little, but a lot. Why? Because you are reading into a lot of what is being said what you want to read, not what was printed. You've done it to Leah and you've done it to me.

Mike; August 12, 2008 2:28 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Dave

I see your what you mean.

Well I've got to hit the hay tomorrow is going to be a long day so take care and have a goodnight.
AJ; August 12, 2008 2:33 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: apissedant said...
It was from a thread a month and a half ago. Of course I don't have access to a thread that old. It is nice to see you don't deny it though.

Now how about all of the other points? Or the point about all nations censoring, or about America being number 48 on the censorship list? It took me two minutes to refute your statement. Learn to fact check.

Someone who makes an accusation, is challenged to fact check, then pats himself on the back for "supposedly" 'fact checking' something else? And when the 'fact check' was to prove a point that wasn't even in question?

Rovian and juvenile.

Again, AP, prove I said what you stated. I did not make any such statement. You can go back in the previous Open Threads. It just takes a bit of time and effort. If you want to continue to argue about it, don't, unless you are prepared to spend some time and energy.

Mike; August 12, 2008 2:36 AM
apissedant said...: ummm... it cannot be fact checked jackass. I cannot fact check that which cannot be fact checked. I personally read your statement. I don't have to fact check my own eyes, I know they work because I'm reading now. Again, will you deny it? Also, no, you cannot go back that many threads to my knowledge. I can go back to the previous open thread, not to one three or four threads ago. Give it a try, if I'm wrong, and you show me a link to two month old threads, then I will gladly dig up your insult.

Witness statements don't need to be fact checked, they are witness statements. You can deny it, and it can be a he said he said, but that is about it.; August 12, 2008 3:02 AM
apissedant said...: I believe I am allowed to use my memory, especially when fact checking is not available. It is infantile of you to decide that I am not allowed to use my memory. You talked about being kicked in the face by someone calling you gay. Where is the fact checking?

Didn't you pat yourself on the back by fact checking the "neo-cons" on their horse crap?

Wow, I guess that makes me the kettle and you the pot, huh?

Where is your fact checking on me patting myself on the back for fact checking? Did you just make a statement from memory with no fact checking?

Again with the pot and kettle! AMAZING!; August 12, 2008 3:09 AM
apissedant said...: here's your back patting post:

Blogger Mike in Maryland said...

I have an admission. I've been a bad boy.

I've been having some fun over at Pollster.com, debunking some of the posts by neo-cons who seem to have swarmed the site recently, trying to convince everyone there that Senator Obama's campaign is now toast.

I know I shouldn't pick and choose parts of their arguments to debunk, but it's a lot simpler to do that than to debunk an entire post by some of the neo-con idiots. Besides, if I effectively disembowel part of their argument, it casts doubt on the entirety of their argument. And they're starting to notice that, and don't like it.

VBG

Mike

August 10, 2008 7:57 PM; August 12, 2008 3:16 AM
Independent Voter said...: I am SOOOOOOOOOO pissed at our local NBC affiliate's "journalist" in Beijing. She did a horrible job covering the Olympic news tonight. I just sent a nasty e-mail to NBC here in San Diego:

Where did this woman get her "journalism" degree. She was horrible tonight talking about the US Men's Gymnastics team. What they pulled off was nothing short of a miracle, especially after the US team lost two of their top athletes.

Her reporting skills when not scripted is so obviously lacking. You really should have sent someone with better impromptu skills. Jonathon Horton just got done complaining that because the Hamm twins were not competing, the majority of people here at home wrote them off. I for one believe in ALL of our athletes, and I think ALL of our "journalists" should at least give the appearance of their support even if they don't support our fellow countrymen.

VERY DISAPPOINTED!; August 12, 2008 4:17 AM
suzihussein22 said...: aunt jean=I didn't mean to just drop out before adding 555-LIMP...to your little black book.

iv dave-I wouldn't like that visual either. :-P

peevish-better half? Are you sure that's not a little biased? ;) Two halves make a whole. I'm not sure what 51%/49% would do in a relationship. Well, yeah, I've seen what it can do, but that's usually the 49% that screws it up.; August 12, 2008 7:22 AM
apissedant said...: soft,
True enough, but I always just liked the phrase.; August 12, 2008 8:56 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Suz

555-limp got it thanks LMAO AJ; August 12, 2008 9:49 AM
Karen Anne said...: "The supposed payout spoken of earlier of 130 million dollars went to charity, resulting in 0 dollars going to the Clinton family."

No, a big chunk of it went to Bill Clinton's monument to his ego (excuse me, I mean his library.)

And as has been pointed out, a lot of the foundation money goes for a lavish lifestyle of travel, etc.; August 12, 2008 1:17 PM
Mike Hersh said...: FROM PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS OF AMERICA

PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS OF AMERICA AND THE NATION TO HOST
FIVE-DAY "PROGRESSIVE CENTRAL" IN DENVER FOR DNC WEEK

Contacts: Tim Carpenter, PDA Executive Director, tim@pdamerica.org and Laura Bonham, PDA Communications Coordinator, laura@pdamerica.org

DENVER, CO, August 10, 2008--Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) and The Nation magazine are teaming up to host "PROGRESSIVE CENTRAL," a five-day gathering for activists, Congressional leaders, journalists and DNC delegates during DNC week at the Central Presbyterian Church, 1660 Sherman Street in downtown Denver. "PROGRESSIVE CENTRAL" will feature more than 20 panel discussions with topics ranging from health care and election reform to the future of progressive politics.

Prominent speakers including Democratic Representatives Barbara Lee, (CA); John Conyers, (MI); Lynn Woolsey, (CA); and Robert Wexler, (FL); and leading progressive activists such as Katrina vanden Heuvel, Tom Hayden, Jim Zogby, Medea Benjamin and Jim Hightower will participate. Events will begin Sunday evening, August 24 and continue daily through Thursday, August 28.

Tim Carpenter, PDA National Director said, "'Progressive Central' will be a progressive oasis, where like-minded people will meet to network, share ideas, learn from the country's foremost progressives, and help build the progressive movement. When Progressive Democrats of America launched in Roxbury, MA. during the 2004 DNC Convention, our hope was to help build the progressive movement, both inside and outside the Democratic Party. It's four years later, and we are better organized, better focused, and well on our way to achieving our goal. We've planned a great event and hope the visitors to Progressive Central will experience progressive community building at its best."

Laura Bonham, PDA Communications Coordinator said, "Progressive Central will be a hive of activity. With The Nation, we have brought together some of the country's foremost progressive minds--members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, independent media, and national and local activists--to discuss some of today's hottest issues. We'll offer space to learn, relax, and meet people It's going to be a wonderful happening. During Convention week, PDA volunteers and staffers will be visiting hotels hosting DNC delegates to personally invite them to visit PROGRESSIVE CENTRAL."

Schedule overview for PROGRESSIVE CENTRAL: The Monday through Thursday schedule will include informal gathering time, 10-11 a.m.; free panels hosted by The Nation, 11 a.m.-12:30; lunch, 12:30 p.m.-1 p.m.; and two PDA-hosted panels, 1 p.m.-4 p.m. A week-long pass (suggested donation $125) and tickets for individual PDA events (suggested donation $10 per day), box-lunches will be available for $12.50. Lunches and tickets may be purchased in advance on the website or on-site before the various events, subject to availability. "PROGRESSIVE CENTRAL" is easily accessible by public transit, including the 16th Street shuttle, whose final stop at Broadway brings attendees to within easy walking distance of the site. Paid parking is also available near the site. A comprehensive schedule of events and speakers is below.

About Progressive Democrats of America: Progressive Democrats of America is a Political Action Committee that is not formally affiliated with the Democratic Party. Progressive Democrats of America was founded in 2004 to transform the Democratic Party and the country. It seeks to build a party and government controlled by citizens, not corporate elites--with policies that serve the broad public interest, not just private interests. PDA is a grassroots Political Action Committee (PAC) operating inside the Democratic Party, and outside in movements for peace and justice. Its inside/outside strategy is guided by firm progressive principles. PDA played a key role in the electoral victory of November 2006. PDA recently led a successful campaign to include a "guaranteed health care for all" plank in the Democratic Party Platform. That effort, begun in late July, gained formal support from more than 450 DNC delegates to date.

About The Nation: Founded in 1865, The Nation is the longest-running weekly publication and a respected journal of opinion, featuring analysis on politics and culture. The Nation is based in New York City, and remains a leading voice in the progressive political movement.

Event Schedule--updated / revised schedule is online here.

Sunday Night, Aug. 24: PDA's "Progressive Welcome to Denver," 8-10 PM: Welcome by Joan Fitz-Gerald. Music by Dan Reed. Hosted by Mimi Kennedy, PDA Advisory Board Chair. With: Rep. Barbara Lee (CA), Congressional Progressive Caucus; Katrina vanden Heuvel, Editor, The Nation; Tom Hayden, author, activist; Jim Zogby, Arab American Institute and DNC member; Jim Hightower, journalist.

Mon-Thurs. 9-11 AM, Networking and informal meetings with supporting organizations--such as Code Pink, Velvet Revolution, Backbone Campaign, Common Cause, Democrats.com, California Nurses Association and local activist groups and "special guests" in the sanctuary before the panels begin at 11 AM.

Monday Aug. 25: Healthcare Not Warfare, 10-10:30 AM Stephen Zunes, Prof. of Politics and Intl. Studies (USF). 11 AM: The Nation Conversations Series: Healthcare, Aids, and Africa. Moderated by author John Nichols with Rep. Barbara Lee, Rep. John Conyers (MI) and Richard Kim. 1-2:05 PM: Healthcare Panel: Healthcare NOT Warfare campaign co-chairs Norman Solomon and Donna Smith (founder, American Patients for Universal Healthcare); Dr. Rocky White, Health Care for All Colorado, Marilyn Albert, RN, CNA/NNOC; and Rep. John Conyers. 2:10 - 3:15 PM: NOT Warfare Panel: Rep. Lynn Woolsey, Co-chair CPC, Norman Solomon, and Kathleen Snyder, Gold Star Mom. 3:15 - 4: Q & A, Closing Comments. 4-5 PM Community Conversation on healthcare moderated by "Be the Change."

Tuesday Aug. 26: Media Reform & Activism, 11 AM - 12:30 PM: The Nation Conversations Series: Out of Iraq. Moderated by John Nichols with Rep. Lynn Woolsey (CA), Co-chair Congressional Progressive Caucus, and Tom Hayden. 1-2:15 PM: PDA Panel: Media Reform. Moderated by Jeff Cohen, author and founder of FAIR; with John Nichols; Laura Flanders, journalist, Nation Radio and Grit TV; Shireen Mitchell, Digital Sistas; Maeve Conran, KGNU Community Radio Denver-Boulder; Chris Rabb, Afro-Netizen. 2:30 - 3:45: PDA Panel: Clean, Fair, Transparent Elections. Steven Rosenberg author of Count My Vote; John Bonifaz, legal director of Voter Action, and founder, National Voting Rights Institute; Mimi Kennedy, election protection advocate; Harvie Branscomb, Coloradoans for Voting Integrity; Rev. Lennox Yearwood, Hip Hop Caucus.

Wednesday Aug. 27: Economic Justice and Global Warming, 11 AM - 12:30 PM: The Nation Conversations Series: Immigration Reform and Economic Justice. John Nichols, Moderator; with Rep. Jim McGovern (MA), and Bob Moser, contributing writer to The Nation. 1-2:15 PM: PDA Panel: Economic Justice/Ending Poverty. John Nichols, Moderator; Rep. Barbara Lee; David Sirota, author, journalist; Carmen Rhodes, Front Range Economic Strategy Center; Jordan Garcia. 2:30 - 3:45 PM: PDA Panel: Global Warming. John Nichols, Moderator; with Medea Benjamin, Global Exchange, Code Pink and PDA Advisory Board; Nancy LaPlaca, Energy Consultant with Bardwell Consulting Ltd.; Majora Carter, Sustainable South Bronx.

Thursday Aug. 28: Constitutional Law & Congress and PDA: Onward from Denver,
10 - 10:30 AM. Vincent Bugliosi, author, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder.
11 AM - 12:30 PM: The Nation Conversations Series: Restoring and Maintaining our Constitutional Rights. Moderated by John Nichols with Rep. Robert Wexler (FL), Rep. Keith Ellison (MN) and Victor Navasky, publisher emeritus of The Nation. 1-2:30 PM: PDA Panel: Constitutional Law and Congress. John Nichols moderator; Steve Cobble, Fellow, Institute for Policy Studies; Leslie Cagan, United for Peace and Justice. 2:30 - 3:45:PDA Panel: PDA Onward from Denver, Building the Progressive Movement, Working the Inside/Outside Strategy. Mimi Kennedy, moderator; with Steve Cobble; Tim Carpenter, PDA National Director; Laura Bonham, PDA Communications Coordinator; Norman Solomon; Jodie Evans, CodePink founder; Bill Moyer, Executive Director, Backbone Campaign.

For tickets, maps, parking, lunches and more information, visit PROGRESSIVE CENTRAL.; August 12, 2008 2:47 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: apissedant-

Mike in Maryland made a good point in one of his previous comments.

Something seems to not be right here. Perhaps you are stressed out with your wife overseas or you've been studying too much, or you've had a lack of sleep lately. I don't know if it is any of those things about your personality does seem to have changed in the past couple of days.

I wish you well and I hope you get some rest.

Btw, I have given up waiting for an apology from you, but I have forgiven you.; August 12, 2008 2:57 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: "The Media's Problem Of "False Balance" Showing Itself In Electoral Map Analyses"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-nickolas/the-medias-problem-of-fal_b_118420.html

.; August 12, 2008 3:12 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: From Political Wire

Obama Did Register for the Selective Service

Pajamas Media swats down the rumor circulating on the Internet for months that Sen. Barack Obama did not fulfill his Selective Service obligation. It turns how he registered at a post office in Hawaii on September 4, 1980.

"It is difficult to determine why no one had confirmed Obama's Selective Service registration until now."

August 12, 2008
.

Another RUMOR debunked!; August 12, 2008 3:32 PM
Richard said...: AP - Sorry, I was confused. I think I should hold out on commenting until I am back on reliable internet and can reread everything. Right now I'm on Wi-Fi at the local mall. I can't believe how 'Net dependent I've become; every time I don't know even something trivial my first instinct is to open Google. Even when I'm connected to my mom's dialup it's like I'm back in 1995...; August 12, 2008 3:51 PM
apissedant said...: karen,
The charity does not pay the Clinton bills. It can pay for them to travel as long as they are traveling for the purposes of the charity. Several journalists from several papers have concluded that this is one of the best and most charitable non-profit institutions around.

His lavish lifestyle is paid for by his multimillion dollar bank account. It would be larger, but he gave 10 million of his own money to the charity. It is not some elaborate way for wealthy people to hide money. It is associated with Nelson Mandella, and it has spent 10 billion dollars fighting AIDs in Africa, and has rivaled the spending of the entire US government over the same time period. How amazing is that? A private institution run by donations that gives as much to fight AIDs as the entire US government, which has 300 million people and a 3 trillion dollar budget funding it?

NELSON MANDELA is associated with this charity. Since when did Nelson Mandela become a money hungry thief?

The Clintons have done many things that would be considered to show a lack of scruples. Why can you not insult them on these, instead of spreading these unsubstantiated rumors, and trying to destroy the image of a charity that by all official counts, is a great charity.

You still can't explain one simple point: Why would someone give 130 million dollars as a bribe in order to get a contract that was only worth tens of millions of dollars?; August 12, 2008 3:59 PM
apissedant said...: By the way, I picked up my Newsweek this week, and the title on the front was, "What Bush Got Right." I assume this is going to be a very short article.; August 12, 2008 4:00 PM
apissedant said...: Why would you pay a 130 million dollar bribe to get a contract that is only worth tens of millions of dollars?; August 12, 2008 4:07 PM
apissedant said...: Why would you pay a 130 million dollar bribe to get a contract that is only worth tens of millions of dollars?; August 12, 2008 4:07 PM
apissedant said...: Why would you pay a 130 million dollar bribe to get a contract that is only worth tens of millions of dollars?; August 12, 2008 4:07 PM
apissedant said...: It is quite sad that not a single person arguing against the Clintons has given a single reasonable piece of evidence or a valid argument. I, arguing the opposite idea, have been the only one to offer a single valid reason, or proof that it is a valid reason. I offered Bush's proven record of effectively taking bribes, and offered that people will do this to pad their ego, despite the fact that it does not personally enrich them. No person on the opposite end of the argument mentioned any of this until I offered it as a valid argument.

Instead everyone on the opposite end has implied that it has in some way personally enriched the Clintons, despite mounds of evidence proving the opposite, and no proof for the argument at all. Completely unsubstantiated.

Offer evidence. That is how an argument is properly carried out, not by ad hominem attacks or a magic trick where you distract with one hand while making an illogical argument with the other.; August 12, 2008 4:14 PM
apissedant said...: So I ask again, why would a greedy businessman pay a 130 million dollar bribe to get a contract that is only worth tens of millions of dollars?; August 12, 2008 4:16 PM
apissedant said...: Leah,
Why did you claim Hillary bought a 2012 campaign website, when it was actually Hillary supporters?
Why did you claim it was the news of the day, when it actually occurred on June 8th, the day after she dropped out of the race?
Why did you claim that you have never tried to tell me what I should or should not say on this website, when you so clearly have?
Why did you claim like the language of Aunt Jean was so terrible, when you yourself swore on this website?
Why would you complain about me asking us to stay on the positives of Obama instead of the negatives of the Clinton, when Obama himself said that same message?

Those are issues, refute an issue, not a person.; August 12, 2008 4:49 PM
apissedant said...: When you're attacking a Democrat, there is an easy way to tell when you've gone completely off the deep end: When FOX NEWS won't even air your accusations.

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Aug05/0,4670,AIDSConferenceClinton,00.html

There are no more avid Clinton haters than those over at Fox News, yet Fox News has several articles about all the wonderful things the Clinton Foundation has done, and I couldn't find any that implied they were getting any sort of monetary benefits from the charitable work.

How far out in left field are you, when even Fox News won't agree with your argument AGAINST the Clintons?; August 12, 2008 5:04 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: apissedant my responses are in BOLD

Leah,
Why did you claim Hillary bought a 2012 campaign website, when it was actually Hillary supporters?

Marc Ambinder reports that, “A company associated with Hillary Clinton’s top presidential campaign advance staff has purchased a website domain that hints of a 2012 presidential bid for the vanquished senator from New York.> *** That to me is the same as HRC. ADVANCE STAFF is not equal to an ordinary supporter. Using your logic I could say that 'Hillary doesn't pay her bills' since it is not actually her physically making out the checks and putting them in the mail!<

Why did you claim it was the news of the day, when it actually occurred on June 8th, the day after she dropped out of the race?

I NEVER said no such thing about it being the news of the day. I posted about that HRC2012 website in a list of other items.

Why did you claim that you have never tried to tell me what I should or should not say on this website, when you so clearly have?

If you are under the impression that I have told you what to say or not to say merely from my past suggestions that we should try to stay on topics concerning the election, candidates, and politics - then so be it.

Why did you claim like the language of Aunt Jean was so terrible, when you yourself swore on this website?

I consider the 'F' word to be vulgarity. I have never used that word on this website or anywhere else.

Why would you complain about me asking us to stay on the positives of Obama instead of the negatives of the Clinton, when Obama himself said that same message?

Please cite a comment where I have ever complained about anyone saying positive things regarding Obama. Btw, you are no Obama, I don't need a lesson from you about what Obama has said and has not said.

Now will you please leave me alone - this tit for tat is childish and a waste of time.; August 12, 2008 5:11 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Correction:

The sentence "Now will you please leave me alone - this tit for tat is childish and a waste of time."

should have been in BOLD.; August 12, 2008 5:14 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: My comment regarding the 2012 website was here:

August 10, 2008 2:03 PM

There was no inference that it 'was the news of the day'.

I would appreciate it if when someone is accusing me of saying things that I have not said for them to also post a citation of where the comment can be found, otherwise all accusations of that ilk will be ignored. Thank you.

Now excuse me, I am heading over to some other websites where people are discussing the election and not spending time on personal attacks. Ciao!; August 12, 2008 5:22 PM
Joshua said...: It is too late to impeach Bush. But Pelosi had a chance in 2006, and she “took impeachment off the table” thwarting the reason the Democrats were given the majority. It behooves us to teach Pelosi a lesson. I implore every person who supports Obama because he is the purest example of a sane thinker who was against the Iraq war from the get to. We must defeat Pelosi.

I remind every poster here that some Obama supporters are truly post-partisan. I am among them. There are no good Republicans. None. There are also some Democrats who aided Bush either by commission (Hillary, John Edwards, et al who voted for the obscenity called Authorization to Use US military against Iraq) or omission (failed to hold Bush to account for his actions including the illegal wiretapping).

Please support Sheehan is her efforts to make our government accountable to us. Thank you.; August 12, 2008 5:25 PM
apissedant said...: A company associated with Hillary Clinton is not Hillary Clinton. Therefore you claim was patently false. I have volunteered for Barack Obama's campaign, am I now Barack Obama? You have proven my point, thank you.

As for the news of the day...
Well you said
Blogger Leah Texas4Obama said...

apissedant-

Anything is that is the news is FAIR GAME to talk about.
Right now the hot topics in the news are:
Barack Obama
Hillary Clinton
Bill Clinton
John Edwards
John McCain

they are all fair game.

When you are in the public eye the public has the right to state their opinion about you.

A well informed person reads ALL the news. This is not China ;)

August 11, 2008 12:31 AM
Blogger Leah Texas4Obama said...

apissedant-

Hillary has not conceded the race.

Hillary has not released her delegates.

Hillary has purchased a website for a run in 2012.

I have not been bashing HRC, I have been posting information that is relevant to this election.

Just because someone mentions HRC doesn't mean that they are bashing them.

August 11, 2008 1:03 AM
Blogger Leah Texas4Obama said...

apissedant-

I confess I have not been to Washington Post today.

But I have been to

RealClearPolitics
CNN
MSNBC
HuffingtonPost
DemConWatch
The Page
Politico.com
FoxNews

If you go to the politics sections of anyone of those you will see Hillary, Bill or Hillary and Bill in the top stories.

August 11, 2008 1:08 AM

I have already shown that I did not tell you what to say, I simply asked why we couldn't speak of the election and our candidate and his positives instead of Hillary's negatives. In this previous statement, you most definitely said HILLARY purchased the website. Hmmm... that's enough. Maybe you should have ignored me as you said you would yesterday, instead of venturing into a personal attack today. You can't complain about personal attacks when it is YOU who starts them.
Please do ignore me, I have no desire to speak to you, but I respond to accusations.; August 12, 2008 5:31 PM
apissedant said...: Your statement that you had read the headlines of the day, and that anything in the headlines was fair game, implies that Hillary buying a website was "news of the day." You can argue semantics all you want, but the semantics are in my favor.; August 12, 2008 5:32 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Popping back in for a moment to post this great news!

National

Gallup

Obama 45
McCain 38
Nader 1
Barr 1

Obama +7.0

Obama/Sebelius '08; August 12, 2008 5:43 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Yep-

Take two or three DIFFERENT posts from different times ... stir them all up and come up with some sort of delusional spin!

I truly am ignoring you from now on, and if I see any further attacks on me I will report them to Matt and Oreo.

Have a good day.; August 12, 2008 5:50 PM
Beryl said...: Alright, alright -- Enough!!!

What is new on the campaign trail?; August 12, 2008 5:58 PM
Vicki in Seattle said...: pissed ant, you are posting way too much lately. I can't really keep up. I don't think others are attacking you (that I see) -- and your responses are overboard, even if they are.

me, I just stop responding when I feel someone is attacking me. It stops the attacks, and saves my precious time, energy, and breath (and carpal tunnel).

isn't it evening there? maybe it's time to chill out for a bit. you appear to be stressed out about something - no shame in it, it happens to us all. but maybe it's Miller time. Or Lowenbrau time. or whatever you have available.

take care!; August 12, 2008 6:01 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: McCain: “We are all Georgians”

http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/08/12/mccain-we-are-all-georgians/

***Hmmm, John McCain doesn't speak for me - I am an American and a Texan!
This coming from a man that bashed Obama for saying that he was a 'citizen of the world' - Now McCain is a Georgian! Hahahaha ;); August 12, 2008 6:04 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: AP,

You, as the accuser, are the one who MUST prove their case.

And you are now on my ignore list, along with certain other people.

Oh, just one more thing - there could be many reasons a person pays $130 million in order to get 10s of millions of contracts. One reason is called expectation that other contracts will follow, not necessarily from the same place, but that other contracts will follow.

It's done a lot in Pentagon contracting, even though it's illegal. The derogatory term is called 'low-balling' the bid.

The reason the company puts in a bid that will lose money if they win the bid? Because they have expectations of either change orders that will up the final price to make the contract profitable and/or they expect that more contracts will follow.

Mike; August 12, 2008 6:05 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: McCain Assures Town Hall That Death Stalks The Supreme Court Justices

Earlier today, John McCain gave one of his famous Straight Talk Express Town Hall Extravaganza Applesauce Chat Revival Shows in York, Pennsylvania, and during the Q&A section, said something jarring with regard to his "conservative stance" on issues. Seeking to reassure the questioner that he has only the best intentions for fans of hardcore conservative judicial activism, he told the questioner that there were going to be two-to-three vacancies on the Supreme Court soon. This was, in McCain's words, "According to people who decide these things."

But SCOTUS justices have lifetime appointments! So, who are "people" that "decide these things?" Absent any other explanation, one has to assume that McCain is in close contact with the Grim Reaper himself. It makes me wonder what McCain knows of the plans that Pestilence and Famine have for America between now and the year 2013.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/12/mccain-assures-town-hall_n_118478.html

.; August 12, 2008 6:10 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Here is an example of the pure stupidity and twisting of facts that CNN is doing these days:

On the front page of the CNN web site, the headline reads:
Ticker: Republican wanted for Obama's VP

When you click the link, the headline reads:
Former McCain ally touted for Obama's VP

But then when you read the story (and yes, story, in the classical definition meaning 'made up'), we find that:
Former Republican Rep. Jim Leach endorsed Barack Obama's White House bid Tuesday, and said he hopes the Illinois senator considers a former GOP ally of rival John McCain as his running mate.

The former GOP ally? Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel

Pitiful is the best descriptive I can give.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Mike; August 12, 2008 6:13 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: From DemConWatch...

DNCC Announces Monday Night Speakers

http://www.demconwatchblog.com/2008/08/dncc-announces-monday-night-speakers.html

---
In my opinion the Dem convention is going to be awesome this year!; August 12, 2008 6:25 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Focus On The Family Asks God To Rain Out Obama Speech

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/12/focus-on-the-family-asks_n_118512.html

.; August 12, 2008 6:47 PM
apissedant said...: Mike,
I am under no obligation to prove anything to you, and you have accused me of just as much as I have accused you of. You have offered no proof but your biased opinion for your accusations, where I has offered my memory of your statements. My word is better proof than your untrained psychiatric opinion.

As to your analogy to defense contracts, we're talking about Uranium for nuclear power in Kazakhstan, not a fleet of aircraft for the military. The analogy is beyond strained. The Pentagon will always continue to order more aircraft and tanks, where as Uranium is a limited supply and a natural resource. There will not be a windfall of Uranium mines in this man's name because of this. It will most definitely not result in a 500 million dollar profit.

On this note, you and your cohorts are ACCUSING Clinton of wrongdoing, yet you have offered no proof. Doesn't this fail to meet your own standards that you have just set forth?

That's what I thought.

Feel free to ignore me, I will not lose any sleep at all over it.

I will continue to recognize the good and bad that people have done, whether they are currently in my favor or not. You can continue to denigrate and assassinate the character of all those that disagree with you. Eventually you'll be the only person you'll like, and you'll die a sad, lonely old man. ENJOY!; August 12, 2008 6:52 PM
Independent Voter said...: WOW! I cannot believe I just heard what I heard. MSNBC announced a few minutes ago that the IOC is eliminating baseball and softball from the Olympic Games after this year because the US demolishes their competition every Olympic cycle. How rude is that? Just because our athletes in those two sports are excellent at what they do, they cancel the sports? Is that not f'd up or what? (Note: I don't watch either of these sports in the Olympics, but I just thought it is messed up.); August 12, 2008 7:12 PM
Beryl said...: Whoo Hoo!
Poll: Obama leads among Christians
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/polinaut/archive/2008/08/poll_obama_lead.shtml?refid=0
A poll by the Barna Group, a Christian polling and resarch organization says Democrat Barack Obama maintains a nine point lead over Republican John McCain among Christians. The poll finds that the race is tightening.

Among the key findings -

1) Of the 18 faith groups identified in the polls, McCain is only leading among evangelicals and it's a narrow lead. Obama leads among the other 17 faith groups identified including the born again vote (Barna notes that would mark the first time in more than two decades that the born again vote has swung toward the Democratic candidate.

2) McCain has a narrow lead among evangelicals but a third say they're undecided and McCain's support is weakening among the group:

While some Christian voters seem to be questioning their early support for Obama, the McCain candidacy does not seem to be gaining momentum among evangelicals. Since June, the current level of support Sen. McCain has among evangelical voters has declined significantly (dropping from 78% to 61%).

The poll found that the Christian perspective is similar to that of the general voting public. Here are some interesting tidbits from George Barna:

-- When comparing the dimensions on which each candidate stands out in the eyes of voters, Sen. Obama emerged as the candidate of new ideas, for being black (mentioned as their reason for supporting him by 9%), for being different from George Bush (9%), and for his positions on health care (9%). In each case, the percentage of people naming those reasons substantially exceeded the percentage that identified those as reasons for their support of the Republican candidate.

Similarly, Sen. McCain stood out as being more likely to gain support related to his experience, knowing what the nation needs, for his position on taxes (9%), for being conservative (8%), for being a war hero (8%), and because of his military background (6%).

-- "It is unusual to see such significant movement within the core segments of the Christian community," George Barna explained. "While there is still a decided preference for Senator Obama, the more conservative element of the Christian population is slowly coming to grips with what an Obama presidency might be like. As the finer points of a wide range of issues are clarified by each nominee, the initial excitement about Senator Obama has lost some luster to an increasing number of people whose vote is influenced by their spiritual perspectives. If Sen. McCain converts such apprehensions into votes, this will be a closer race than many have anticipated."
http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrowPreview&BarnaUpdateID=314; August 12, 2008 7:15 PM
Richard said...: Wow, the wonders of Wi-Fi. I get to spend 15 minutes reading AP make a mountain out of Leah's decidedly molehill-sized report of something ambiguous she read on a website. AP, Leah wasn't making a personal attack, just another of her very informative posts about things she's reading. If you want to correct something, fine, but there's no need to make such a big deal of it.; August 12, 2008 7:16 PM
apissedant said...: Rich,
At the very least she accused me of being mentally unstable and wanting this site to be run like a totalitarian regime. Please explain which part of this attack was not personal. Apparently wi-fi just means it all loads, not that you actually read it.; August 12, 2008 7:22 PM
apissedant said...: Rich,
For your information, since you must not have read everything, I did correct her on her facts. The article she quoted said former ASSOCIATES of Clinton bought a website. This was one of many incorrect facts brought forth. My attempt to correct was met with personal accusations, so I returned the favor. You may take punches lying down, but I believe in striking back when someone personally attacks my character.; August 12, 2008 7:27 PM
apissedant said...: Dave,
Nobody watches baseball. ;); August 12, 2008 7:28 PM
jean said...: Indy,
That is the rudest thing I have heard.
Ironically as I take my kid to baseball practice.
You know the next thing will be basketball.
Son is baseball and daughter is basketball.
That sucks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Several older friends of the son
tried out for the jr.olympics for baseball.
Talking to the son "That is not cool and it is dumb."
jean; August 12, 2008 7:30 PM
jean said...: ap,
It is now a time to bite your tongue:0
jean; August 12, 2008 7:31 PM
Richard said...: Actually, AP, I have read yours and Leah's posts, and I do not agree at all that she said anything out of line. Leah did not suggest that you are unstable; she merely pointed out that your posts lately have been out-of-character (something with which I heartily agree). Perhaps she should not have suggested reasons that might be so (stress, etc.), but that's as far as I will go.

As for your claims that she personally attacked you by suggesting you wanted to run this site like a totalitarian regime, that is another example of your blowing something small way out of proportion. Often people make references to our freedom of speech or say things like "it's a free country" or "this isn't China" without any intention of implying that the person they are talking to is a fascist or Communist. To interpret her statements that way smacks of extreme paranoia. And before you respond that I'm accusing you of being unstable, let me say that I am not making any judgment about your state of mind, I am only commenting on what I observe of your behavior.; August 12, 2008 7:54 PM
Joshua said...: "the question in Elizabeth Edwards's case is: Why in the world did she go ahead and let him run -- run with him, run hard all across the country, giving her all despite her stage four cancer and her two young children -- after she knew. After she knew about his dalliance with a bouncy, blond so-called filmmaker with a penchant for New Age spirituality."

That is the question the author was addressing. The answer is simple really: John and Elizabeth are both phonies. Why else would two people go to law school then make their career about “fixing the healthcare system.” If you truly care about the healthcare system and you possess the wherewithal, you would go to medical school. Not law school. Those two care nothing about the poor or their health. They are both cynical Machiavellian politicians telling the people what they want to hear. Why else did John suddenly reinvent himself in 2007 to be the angry vocal populist? Where was this populism when he ran in 2003? He was counting on the voters being stupid and that they would buy anything. And he was wrong. The voters are smarter than Edwards thinks. That is why he didn’t even win his own state in 2004. And in 2008 he didn’t even win his county. But never mind. There are some unsophisticated people who are Edwards’ supporters.

Never mind.; August 12, 2008 8:00 PM
Beryl said...: Do not feed trolls.
Do not feed trolls.
Do not feed trolls.
Do not feed trolls.
Do not feed trolls.
Do not feed trolls.
Do not feed trolls.
Do not feed trolls.
Do not feed trolls.
Do not feed trolls.

Even when they appear to be rational, do not feed trolls.; August 12, 2008 8:15 PM
jean said...: YEA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Beryl
Do not feed trolls.
Do not feed trolls.
Do not feed trolls.
Do not feed trolls.
Do not feed trolls.
And have a great day;)
jean; August 12, 2008 8:18 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Beryl-

Thank you for posting your comment regarding the polling of the Christians.

I had no idea Obama was doing that well in that demographic. Like you said - wooo hoo!

Obama/Sebelius '08; August 12, 2008 8:22 PM
apissedant said...: Rich,
She didn't state that it was a "free country" or that we have, "freedom of speech" and I questioned WHY she didn't state that argument. She stated this is not China. Implying that I was attempting to control or censor her speech, which I was not. I was in fact saying what she had said to me before, and what Barack Obama had personally asked of his supporters. I gave reference to this in one of the posts.

If you do not judge her statements as personal attacks on me, than you, just as well, can not judge my statements at her as personal attacks either.

She said I was saying things that were not true, I said that she was lying. (TIE)

She said that, "this is not China," with implications that are obviously in contention. I said that she was a hypocrite, because she had previously tried to influence my statements, so how can she object to me attempting to influence hers? (?)

She said that there must be something mentally or emotionally wrong with me at this time, because my posts were out of character. I responded that she must have hit her head, because she's dreaming. (TIE)

So please explain... those are her statements, right next to my statements. How exactly are you judging my statements any worse than hers?

I like facts. You have said that I have made this personal, yet all of her attacks came first, and you judged none of hers as personal attacks.

Now, Mike in MD has said that levying charges against a person at this site must be substantiated. He, you, and Leah have all levied a charge that my recent posts are, "out of character" and there must be something mentally or emotionally wrong with me in order to explain it.

I ask you to please provide me with evidence that this is in fact out of character.

I know you cannot, not only because you cannot access the content from the time before the change that supposedly caused the shift in personalities, but because you would find me having quite similar arguments with aunt jean, jean, Mike in Md, StopObamaNow, Mike, Yamaka, and jpsedona. One of those, with "Mike," was so infantile and ridiculous that he ended up accusing me of impersonating a Chemistry student, and not actually being one at all. Why I responded to that one I do not know, because that was truly ridiculous. If I was impersonating something to make myself appear greater than I am, I probably wouldn't choose a college student. I might choose a medical doctor, like Mike, or a nuclear engineer, like Stop. Leah herself interjected in between an argument between myself in Mike in Md, long ago, before my wife left the country. If I remember correctly, this was the argument where Mike in Md called into question my ability to raise my child. Leah, in that particular case, had judged Mike in Md out of line. Mike in Md accused then, as both he and Leah are accusing now, that I was simply arguing for arguments sake.

They are asserting the exact same argument, yet claiming there is a change. Hmmm... that seems inconsistent at best.

So I ask you,
A) How were my statements more personally vicious than hers?
B) When did the supposed change in character take place?; August 12, 2008 8:28 PM
apissedant said...: I would also have you notice, that the argument also contained beryl, yet neither her nor I ever got person with one another. I also asserted that I understood and agreed with her perspective.

Arguing with those I disagree with is not out of character, I have done that forever. Responding vigorously against personal accusations has also always been something I do. I would like to see how you possibly explain how you judge a change.; August 12, 2008 8:32 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Anyone know what's up with Chris Matthews being gone so much on MSNBC? He showed up for one day then disappeared again!; August 12, 2008 8:36 PM
Beryl said...: Yes, Leah. I'm really happy about the Christian response despite the reverse psychology being used by the Repugnicans. All of their "Messiah", "Chosen One" and even "Anti-Christ" garbage isn't working, Thank God!

They will say and do ANYTHING to win. We need to operate on the premise that they are ALWAYS lying. They will say one thing truthful to get our attention and then spew out their lies.

This is what I've been telling my Republican family for years. The Repugs have been claiming the "Christian-right" for years based on single issues like abortion and gay-rights. They know that their platform positions will have NO effect on our culture.

Have abortions stopped? No!
Have gays gone straight? No!

It does cloak them with piety while they work all manner of evil. They lie, steal, cheat, and wage war trading lives for wealth.

Many Christians (especially the youth) are beginning to see this.; August 12, 2008 8:51 PM
apissedant said...: beryl,
And it was a Republican appointee who wrote the majority opinion on Roe Vs. Wade in the first place. With 7 of 9 SC justices being Republican appointees, there has still been no change.; August 12, 2008 9:03 PM
suzihussein22 said...: aunt jean-Even with cool gadgets, my other half only got one meteor out of 400 attempts in 2 hrs...bummer.

Give peace a chance? I see peace is the Rep. Con. theme this year from reading the DCW main page. How novel!

I also saw somebody almost did another green screen for McCain...too funny! :D; August 12, 2008 9:07 PM
jean said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; August 12, 2008 9:18 PM
Vicki in Seattle said...: they did NOT do another green screen for McCain!

OMG! well, it's an open invite to Stephen Colbert ... be prepared for many amusing videos!; August 12, 2008 9:25 PM
suzihussein22 said...: It's interesting how Clear Channel had their djs report on Obama being on vacation. Of course they left out some of his family lives there.

Thank goodness I'm almost packed. You guys get a vacation from me for a few days, unless you want me to send an alter ego to amuse you. ;); August 12, 2008 9:25 PM
jean said...: suzi,
I posted something about your other halfs photography session with the meteors and it just came out wrong. Kinda like playboy.
I deleted it and I hope you do not take offense.
Sorry:)

jean; August 12, 2008 9:25 PM
apissedant said...: lol jean,
We're all friends here... I don't like the implication that we might accidentally offend one another. ;); August 12, 2008 9:29 PM
suzihussein22 said...: vicki-I'm sorry to disappoint, but they only considered it. ;(

I'm sure Part II would have been hysterical!; August 12, 2008 9:29 PM
jean said...: ap,
You know, with dealing with our disagreements we are professionals with eachother.
We have had more than a few.
jean; August 12, 2008 9:36 PM
apissedant said...: jean,
True enough, we have disagreed quite a few times, but always with mutual respect. :)

How was your day?; August 12, 2008 9:38 PM
Independent Voter said...: p'd ant - one thing I think that people fail to remember is that until the mid 60's (which most of them were hold over from 50's and 60's - with three exceptions that were appointed by Nixon between 70 and 72). It was the late 60's that the pendulum swung past the two parties. The Republican Party up to that point had been the "inclusive" party and the Democratic Party was the "exclusive" party. Meaning Republicans were the tolerant and Democrats were intolerant. All this changed in the 60's under Nixon's bid for presidency.; August 12, 2008 9:42 PM
suzihussein22 said...: jean-I didn't see anything that offended...accepted.:)

The history of basketball in the Olympics I can pretty much remember. Somebody started using professionals on their team, so we started including pros. They were beating us soundly, then we started kickin' butt, now they just want to do away with it and softball? Why couldn't they just stick with "amateurs"? BTW, I was pretty good in badminton. ;)

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/3122885/8871996

levity...ooh ooh; August 12, 2008 9:49 PM
jean said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; August 12, 2008 9:49 PM
jean said...: suzi,
They are doing away with baseball and I said basketball would be next.
jean; August 12, 2008 10:00 PM
Kujo said...: Back to VP talk.

I suspect Obama will pick Evan Bayh

I support Hagel, most qualified candidate plus really would show everyone Obama represents change.

I also like Nunn but would prefer him as Secretary of Defence; August 12, 2008 10:09 PM
suzihussein22 said...: jean-It sounds like the policy most of the schools have in this region too. It was tricky for us to get migraine medicine to our son for a few months...grr. I have a niece who can't compete in swimming anymore because of her heartbeat being too fast.; August 12, 2008 10:17 PM
suzihussein22 said...: Not all pumas are bad-

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/150003

more levity; August 12, 2008 10:20 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Kujo-

I am still betting on Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, she is the one person LEAST likely to have ever had an affair ;)

As far as all the guys in the running - Bayh, Kaine, Biden, etc. we don't know for sure if they have ever 'fooled around' so I am sure the Obama team is looking a little closer right now at those guys.; August 12, 2008 10:23 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Oops I also wanted to say in my previous post...

Kujo-

I like Hagel but I really do not think Obama will pick a republican.

The VP will be one heart beat away from becoming president and I do not think Obama and the Democratic party will do anything that will enable the Republicans to regain control of the White House.; August 12, 2008 10:25 PM
jean said...: suzi,
My son has had migraines since 2nd grade. Instead of Immitrex he now takes Migranol which is an inhaler which works great.
School policy, inhalers:)
jean; August 12, 2008 10:26 PM
apissedant said...: Dave,
I kind of disagree with you on the intolerant/tolerant issue. I think FDR was most definitely a Democrat as we think of Democrats today. There was a very significant shift in the two parties, but it wasn't a complete switch from one party to the other.
In any case, Justice Blackmun wrote Roe vs. Wade, and he was a Nixon appointment. Chief Justice Burger, who originally was with the majority, did not switch to being against Roe vs. Wade until the 1980's. Burger was also a Nixon appointment.; August 12, 2008 10:31 PM
suzihussein22 said...: I'm not getting complacent and I haven't heard too much about Obama-

John McCain leads in the polls that ask voters who is best able to handle the war and/or the military. Thus, any military conflict around the world will help John McCain in November. So... enter Russia as a huge campaign issue.

This is from usaelections.com; August 12, 2008 10:33 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: PUMA Hillary Supporters Hold Closed-Door Convention Strategy Meeting

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diane-tucker/puma-hillary-supporters-h_b_118522.html

---
In my opinion Hillary should have flew to D.C. and met with them and told them to stop their $hit and start helping get a democrat back into the WH!; August 12, 2008 10:36 PM
suzihussein22 said...: jean-My son took the tablet form of Midrin. My husband was getting migraines from impacted wisdom teeth, but his doctor never mentioned inhalent form...hmmm.; August 12, 2008 10:37 PM
Independent Voter said...: p'd ant - My bad, I do agree with most of your statement to an extent. My original statement was mostly referring to "Southern Democrats", which I totally forgot to clarify in my original post. Sorry!; August 12, 2008 10:42 PM
Independent Voter said...: Leah, I totally agree with you, IF AND ONLY IF she knew the meeting was taking place. I personally don't think she knew about it. I'm sure you disagree with my assessment.

Leah, I really hope you get off this Hillary kick soon. No, I'm not telling you what to say or not say. All I'm saying is that every time Hillary's name is brought up on here, everyone goes ape shit!; August 12, 2008 10:45 PM
jean said...: Indy,
No ****;)
Levity.
jean; August 12, 2008 10:48 PM
Independent Voter said...: LOL jean.; August 12, 2008 10:48 PM
apissedant said...: Dave,
THAT, I can agree with. ;); August 12, 2008 10:53 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Independent Voter-

True - but I am sure the PUMAs would do anything possible to be able to have her meet up with them at some point - even pay for her trip ;); August 12, 2008 10:58 PM
Independent Voter said...: Leah, I'm sure the PUMAs would jump at it also, but I don't think their "wish" will be granted.; August 12, 2008 11:01 PM
Independent Voter said...: Thanks p'd ant.; August 12, 2008 11:02 PM
apissedant said...: LOL @ Jon Stewart,

"Oh war. It is just God's way of teaching Americans geography."; August 12, 2008 11:02 PM
tmess2 said...: Indep. Voter,

Actually, the U.S. does not dominate baseball because we are stuck sending players who are not on the 40 man roster of the major leagues. Cuba does.

The official reason why baseball and softball were eliminated is that not enough nations actively play the two sports. (In softball, the same 4 countries have been the top 4 in all three previous olympics). Outside of East Asia and North America, neither sport is particularly popular and room had to be made for other sports.; August 12, 2008 11:08 PM
Independent Voter said...: tmess, thanks for the info. I was just conveying what was stated via NBC, but I think your assessment makes a lot more sense than the US simply dominating the sport.; August 12, 2008 11:12 PM
apissedant said...: Not that I'm a big baseball or softball fan, but is javelin throwing really more popular than baseball and softball?; August 12, 2008 11:17 PM
Independent Voter said...: p'd ant - I think it is more popular on an "individual" basis. A country can get away with sending one person as opposed to an entire team.; August 12, 2008 11:21 PM
suzihussein22 said...: peevish-lol...I don't care who you are, that's funny...and true as far as Americans' knowledge of such things as the Pakistan/Iran border. Jon Stewart's just a comedian after all. ;) My other half got a good laugh out of that one, too. We can't get Comedy Central to play on our system.; August 12, 2008 11:24 PM
suzihussein22 said...: javelin throwing...it's all greek to me.; August 12, 2008 11:25 PM
apissedant said...: Dave,
True enough. Much cheaper to send one man than an entire team, and the opportunity to actually win might help encourage them to send a man/team as well.

Soft,
That's terrible! Jon Stewart is the reason I have such a messed up sleep schedule. If I forgot to watch at 11, I stay up to watch at 1. I go through withdrawal symptoms when he takes one of his frequent vacations. With as many vacations as that man takes, you'd think we'd elected him to office!; August 12, 2008 11:27 PM
Beryl said...: "Leah, I really hope you get off this Hillary kick soon. No, I'm not telling you what to say or not say. All I'm saying is that every time Hillary's name is brought up on here, everyone goes ape shit!"

Actually, she mentioned a Huffington Post article about PUMA. I also agree that Hillary is the one person who can shut them down with a clear and precise directive.

"I appreciate your sentiments but your efforts are detrimental to MY objective which is to help Barack Obama become elected. Please follow my lead and redirect your energies to stop the Republicans."

If they continue, she should publicly reject and denounce them.; August 12, 2008 11:30 PM
Independent Voter said...: beryl, I agree that Hillary should publicly and strongly take your suggestion. I just don't think it needs to be brought up on here since every time Hillary's name is mentioned an argument ensues and everyone goes ape shit. That's all I was saying. All of us already know that the PUMAs are going to try to derail Obama, but that doesn't mean that we need to discuss their every move.

Personally I would much rather see them ignored. By acknowledging them they become empowered. Ignore them and treat them like trolls and they eventually get the point that nobody cares about them.

Why do you think people on here say "not to feed the trolls"?; August 12, 2008 11:44 PM
suzihussein22 said...: peevish-You should feel sorry for me. I make do with youtube clips.; August 12, 2008 11:44 PM
tmess2 said...: The PUMA attitude seems to be spreading. Last week, we had the primaries in my state. We had a very close three-way race for Attorney General.

The winner by about 800 votes was a former Republican State Senator who switched parties last year. I would describe him as somewhere between an Eisenhower Republican and a Reagan Democrat. In my state, the Republican Party has gone so far to the right that you basically have to support the death penalty for homosexuals and abortion providers to get the Republican nomination, so there is no more room for Eisenhower Republicans or Reagan Democrats in the state Republican Party.

Since the primary, I have seen ton of posts in the comment sections of state blogs from supporters of the losing candidates stating that they can't support the winner because he wasn't the best candidate.

At some point this year, Democrats are going to have to remember that we fight during the primaries but that at the end we unify behind our nominees because that is the only way that we can win in the fall and whatever flaws our nominees may have, the Republicans would be worse.; August 12, 2008 11:46 PM
suzihussein22 said...: I have seen that HRC has asked all her supporters to stand behind Obama and doesn't seem to be encouraging the extreme ones. If WC doesn't be more positive about backing Obama, he will probably start losing credibility. I'm not too upset about a roll call in itself at the convention, because that's in the rules. This is just such a pivotal election cycle at such a critical juncture for our country.; August 12, 2008 11:51 PM
suzihussein22 said...: nighty night y'all; August 12, 2008 11:53 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: suzi-

I've read quite a bit PRO and CON regarding HRC's name being put into nomination. I agree more with the opinion of some that it would be more divisive than unifying.

I guess we don't have long to wait now to see which way it will go.

13 days until the Democratic Convention; August 12, 2008 11:55 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Looks like Hagel WILL NOT be the VP pick!!!
---

Hagel won't endorse McCain or Obama, spokesman says

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/12/election.2008.hagel/index.html

Excerpt:

"Sen. Hagel has no intention of getting involved in any of the campaigns, and is not planning to endorse either candidate," Hagel spokesman Jordan Stark said.

The two-term senator from Nebraska is leaving office after his current term and will be overseas on official business during this year's party conventions, Stark said.; August 12, 2008 11:58 PM
apissedant said...: Obama Denounces Ludacris due to anti-Clinton rap song
Clinton Endorses Obama, Calls for Party Unity
"The way to continue our fight now, to accomplish the goals for which we stand, is to take our energy, our passion and our strength and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama the next president of the United States," [Clinton] said.

Both Obama and Clinton have asked their supporters to come together, work together, and support their common goals. It has already been agreed upon by almost everyone here, that a candidate cannot control or be held responsible for the actions of all of their supporters. They can attempt to set the tone, and direct them towards positive endeavors, but we do live in a "free" country, and some of their supporters will continue to do what they want, whether it is destructive to their campaign or not.

Many here have already hypothesized that most PUMA people never supported Obama in the first place, and they were just McCain voters trying to stir controversy.

PUMA founder gave 500 dollars to John McCain during 2000 election cycle

Well.... I feel that speaks for itself.; August 13, 2008 12:01 AM
Independent Voter said...: tmess, what state is that?

suzi & Leah, I too have heard both arguments, but I don't think we will ever know which way will be the best way. I personally think there should be a roll call vote, so that the PUMAs and other "distractions" to show them that Obama IS the party's nominee which would take all the air out of their argument.; August 13, 2008 12:02 AM
apissedant said...: Goodnight soft!
Sleep well!; August 13, 2008 12:02 AM
Independent Voter said...: Leah, it is also possible that they are saying that to throw people off Hagel's trail.

We've seen it before. Remember the first meeting Obama and Clinton had at Dianne Feinstein's DC home.; August 13, 2008 12:06 AM
apissedant said...: Dave,
As long as the Obama delegates don't raise a hissy fit, a roll call vote won't be terrible. I'm afraid of a possible vocal retort by a minority of Obama delegates, which is then matched with a slightly larger vocal minority of Clinton delegates, and it possibly escalating to something stupid and destructive. The roll call vote scares me over this possibility.; August 13, 2008 12:06 AM
Independent Voter said...: G'night Soft; August 13, 2008 12:07 AM
Independent Voter said...: Good point p'd ant. I understand that, but if they are already planning a coup why not just deflate their balloon with their own ammunition?; August 13, 2008 12:09 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: IV- I don't know. I doesn't seem to me that they would issue a statement saying that he will be overseas when he won't be... that would be lying when there is no need to lie.; August 13, 2008 12:10 AM
Independent Voter said...: You're probably right Leah. But it came from Hagel's spokesperson not Obama's. And we know how "honest" those Republicans are...LOL...Just kidding!; August 13, 2008 12:17 AM
apissedant said...: Dave,
I don't have a problem with it, as long as one of the two groups decides to act like adults. Either the Clinton delegates act like adults and don't flip out when there isn't a roll call vote, or the Obama supporters act like adults and don't flip out when there is a roll call vote.

I believe people often have a mob mentality. Once the fight starts, everyone jumps on board. I think there is ample evidence for it on this site alone, and I believe you have effectively said as much also. I am not so sure I trust the 4000+ delegates to all act as adults.; August 13, 2008 12:26 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Well now the everyone seems cheery - I'm off to bed.

Nighty nite and sweet dreams ;)

OBAMA/Sebelius '08; August 13, 2008 12:26 AM
Independent Voter said...: LOL Leah.

I totally agree with you p'd ant. And I share your fears. You would think (I know I know) that people would be rational enough to know that if there is a roll call vote and Clinton is not chosen by the majority of delegate that they would do whatever they could to better her actual chances rather than hurt them by acting like fools at the convention. This ALSO goes for Obama's delegates.

I know that the PUMAs are trying to "punish" the DNC, but they fail to realize that they may be hurting/punishing the DNC, they are also hurting Clinton and the rest of the country at the same time.; August 13, 2008 12:49 AM
apissedant said...: Dave,
I still believe that there is at least a minority in every group that are working against their own best interest, either intentionally or unintentionally. The difference with Clinton was that it was such a close and well publicized campaign, and that it was literally 50/50 in members.

Look at the Republicans and Democrats. We are a 50/50 split, and there are plenty of Republicans that won't talk to you after you mention you're a Democrat, and will call you a terrorist, a baby killer, or a Communist. There are also plenty of Democrats that will not talk to you if you identify yourself as a Republican. They will instantly call you a Nazi, a fascist, or a crook.

These people instantly turn off anyone in the middle that is listening to them speak. These people make up a small minority of either party, yet they get the most publicity. How many people believe that Michael Moore, PETA, and Cindy Sheehan are examples of typical Democrats? How many people think that Jesse Helmes, Ted Haggard, and Bill O'Reilly represent the majority of Republicans?

Do you honestly believe that any of those people are a proper representation of either party? Yet they're the ones that get the press time, and they often stain their own party.; August 13, 2008 1:02 AM
apissedant said...: The major issue with that, btw, is that Obama and Clinton made a point of revetting their delegates at one point in time, to make sure that their supporters were in fact their supporters. This may have resulted in a more polarized group of delegates, which could be detrimental to the end goal of unification.; August 13, 2008 1:03 AM
Independent Voter said...: p'd ant - part of the vetting process however, is that they support the nominee in the end. Hence the Clinton delegate whose delegate status was revoked when she publicly claimed that she would be voting for McCain if Hillary did not become the nominee.; August 13, 2008 1:13 AM
apissedant said...: Dave,
Well that's good news... but vetting 4000+ is still no small task. I'm not sure, but I think a friend of mine is a Clinton delegate. He has finally come over to the Obama camp, but it was not a happy union. He had several run ins with Obama supporters at previous events, and found that they were very disrespectful.

Sometimes emotions overpower logic, and the end result is people transfer their dislike of the supporters onto the candidate who they support, who did nothing wrong. Not a good thing, but it happens. I don't like watching out for people's toes, or walking on egg shells, but there is a difference between that, and just choosing not to focus on the disagreements of the past. Moving on to the next step is what is important, which means both sides forgiving what occurred in the primaries.

Is the minority in both camps who are unwilling to do this large enough to cause trouble? It doesn't have to be very large. There will be plenty of tv cameras there, all salivating in anticipation of some major scuffle, with their lenses examining the facial expressions of the delegates, and waiting for a stupid comment or a boo.

There are some definite negatives to the 24 hour news world we live in.; August 13, 2008 1:23 AM
Independent Voter said...: Agreed p'd ant.; August 13, 2008 1:43 AM
apissedant said...: Well Dave, it looks like I should go to bed. Eva expected me to go to bed at a normal hour... and it is 2am already. If she signs online and sees me... I'm gonna be in trouble. hehe... ;)

NIGHT!; August 13, 2008 1:45 AM
Independent Voter said...: LOL - G'night p'd ant

-----

I'm signing off for the night also. I'm transferring the Olympic coverage to disk.; August 13, 2008 1:57 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Jean are you sure your son doesn't have what is called cluster headaches. They can be very disabling. this is a very important question and I will explain it to you if you would like. AJ; August 13, 2008 1:57 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Dave
but I haven't had a chance to bug you LOL. AJ; August 13, 2008 1:58 AM
Aunt Jean said...: AP

so I see you are runing off also just be that way LOL AJ; August 13, 2008 1:59 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Tmess2

I so agree with you:

At some point this year, Democrats are going to have to remember that we fight during the primaries but that at the end we unify behind our nominees because that is the only way that we can win in the fall and whatever flaws our nominees may have, the Republicans would be worse.

August 12, 2008 11:46 PM

Aunt Jean; August 13, 2008 2:13 AM
apissedant said...: lol jean, sorry have gre on thursday and school starts in 2 weeks... need to stabilize sleep pattern; August 13, 2008 2:15 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Ap I guess I will have to forgive you. LOL goodnight sweet dreams about wife and child . AJ; August 13, 2008 2:18 AM
apissedant said...: night dave and aj; August 13, 2008 2:18 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Goodnight to everyone else except the trolls. AJ; August 13, 2008 2:20 AM
Karen Anne said...: I really don't like the Elizabeth Edwards bashing that's been going on in some blogs lately.

She is in a hugely different position from other "wronged wives," in knowing that she is going to die in the next few years and so having to put much more of an emphasis on keeping her family with young children together until then.

Imagine if she had gotten a divorce, and then tried to manage a household with at least part time custody of the kids while her health decines. Or the upheaval to the kids of first a divorce and then her death.

As to convincing Edwards not to run, good luck with that when she didn't have the leverage of leaving. And once he ran, she was out of options in terms of supporting him or not.

Meanwhile, is there anyone on Planet Earth who doesn't think that baby is his? Nice childhood she will have, with her father disowning her and a mother from the trash heap.; August 13, 2008 5:49 AM
apissedant said...: Karen,
"Mike" is a troll. No one else is bashing Elizabeth Edwards. ;); August 13, 2008 6:16 AM
apissedant said...: Correction, no one else on this site. There was a discussion a few days ago about it. The general consensus with regards to Elizabeth were quite sympathetic due to her issues with both a cheating husband and terminal cancer at the same time.; August 13, 2008 6:24 AM
Karen Anne said...: Linc Chafee, former Republican Senator, would be a great choice for VP - honest, the only Republican to vote against the war, didn't vote for Bush in 2004, now involved in Republicans for Obama. I can dream...

HuffPost had someone bashing Elizabeth.; August 13, 2008 7:39 AM
apissedant said...: ahhh...
Yeah, there will always be someone attacking... anyone really. If I had just a few years to live, and I had children in the house... I couldn't put my family through a long and bitter divorce no matter what my significant other did or did not do. I don't know about anyone else, but that isn't how I would want to spend my last years on earth.; August 13, 2008 7:54 AM
apissedant said...: Did anyone see Rush Limbaugh's comments, that Edwards probably just wanted a woman that used her mouth for something other than talking? Man that guy is classy. To think there are actually people that turn to that man to get their "news."; August 13, 2008 8:14 AM
Beryl said...: Regarding Rush and his misogynist statement.

Why aren't is the public requiring McLame to "reject and denounce" him?

Obama is the only one required to "reject and denounce" anyone the public doesn't like (e.g Farrakhan, Rev Wright). Nobody else is required to jump through those hoops.; August 13, 2008 11:04 AM
Vicki in Seattle said...: excellent point, Beryl!

who do we call to ask the MSM to do that?; August 13, 2008 12:01 PM
Beryl said...: Vicki

I send my rants to this email list:

wolf.blitzer@cnn.com,
joescarborough@msnbc.com,
Anderson.cooper@cnn.com,
worldnewstonight@abc.com,
evening@cbsnews.com,
eugenerobinson@washpost.com,
verdict@msnbc.com,
countdown@msnbc.com,
hardball@msnbc.com; August 13, 2008 12:11 PM
Independent Voter said...: Check out Obama's new hard-hitting ad.

It's quite good.; August 13, 2008 1:12 PM
Beryl said...: That is a good ad that hits the main flaws in the McBush policies.

GObama!; August 13, 2008 1:18 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Dave and Beryl

that ad sums it up about McLame.
It was a good for Obama!
Good afternoon everyone..AJ; August 13, 2008 1:30 PM
Independent Voter said...: Hello AJ. Sorry about last night. I was trying to concentrate on weeding out the commercials when transferring the Olympics over to disk and I kept getting some in there. UGH. I hate when that happens.; August 13, 2008 1:34 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Beryl

try to look at it this way [your post about [denounce and reject]at least Obama cares for the people enough to do that if it is needed by them.

While McLame could give a crap what people say. Just goes to show how much he cares [what a joke] about McLame caring.

AJ; August 13, 2008 1:36 PM
Aunt Jean said...: IV

me too that's ok I forgive you LOL.Did you get err done.[me trying to be funny so you had better laugh] LOL AJ; August 13, 2008 1:40 PM
Beryl said...: "
try to look at it this way [your post about [denounce and reject]at least Obama cares for the people enough to do that if it is needed by them.

While McLame could give a crap what people say. Just goes to show how much he cares [what a joke] about McLame caring."

Excellent point, AJ

The last time I saw him do that, it did seem that he did it with another's feelings in mind.

I think the OLD McCain (pre-suckup to the Bush power-mongers) might have denounced Rush's comment. This campaign has either changed him for the worse or we now see the REAL McCain. Either way, I do not like what I see.; August 13, 2008 2:51 PM
Independent Voter said...: LOL AJ, yes I got err done. I'm actually heading out for a bit. I'm meeting Bill for lunch. He's feeling a bit neglected :( But he also know this happens every 4 years (Olympics and all). He wasn't able to go with my brother, my niece, and I to six flags and Sea World last week. I wish he could have gone because he is so much fun on roller coasters. I swear, although he's 49 he screams like he's a 12 year old girl.

Anyway, gotta go. Chat with ya in a bit.; August 13, 2008 2:56 PM
Independent Voter said...: beryl, I think it is more like we are seeing the "real" McCain. Remember he voted numerous times against the MLK holiday and has fought against civil rights in Arizona. He's voted against women's rights on numerous occasions. He's voted against the middle class every chance he's gotten. So, although he used to be considered a "maverick", I think he was given that title without anyone really giving his record a thorough looking over.; August 13, 2008 3:00 PM
apissedant said...: Dave,
And in more than 20 years in the Senate, he never championed any legislation that would help veterans or soldiers. He automatically got the "friend of the Veterans" label, so he decided he didn't have to work for it. As college costs continually rose 8% per year, he never said or did anything about the fact that the GI bill never increased by more than 2.5% in any given year.; August 13, 2008 3:10 PM
Dink Singer said...: The Arkansas State Chairman, Bill Gwatney, was shot at Democratic Party Headquarters in Little Rock this afternoon. He is in critical condition.; August 13, 2008 3:52 PM
apissedant said...: Thanks for the update dink, that is very sad. The police killed the suspect, so we may not find out why.; August 13, 2008 4:14 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; August 13, 2008 4:31 PM
jean said...: Bill Gwatney just passed.
Lord please take care of him and his family.; August 13, 2008 5:12 PM
Beryl said...: No Tax on Seniors earning over $50K?
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OBAMA_UNTAXING_SENIORS

In theory, I like it. Not sure how practical though.; August 13, 2008 5:33 PM
Beryl said...: Republican endorsement of Obama:
http://learfield.typepad.com/radioiowa/2008/08/jim-leach-endor.html
Not all Repubs are crazy!; August 13, 2008 5:35 PM
apissedant said...: beryl,
I think you have a typo two posts up.; August 13, 2008 6:01 PM
Karen Anne said...: Beryl, you mean earning under $50,000.

I think the analysts in that article are nuts. I'm a senior, income under $50,000 and I pay thousands in tax.

I think some people have the idea that when income is low, taxes go to zero, but the government taxes people with incomes that are shockingly low. Take a look at the tax tables sometime.

Where the heck they got the idea that most seniors are well to do, I can't imagine. This plan would be a real boon for the seniors sitting around trying to figure out if they can afford both food and meds.; August 13, 2008 6:26 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: RNC Stalks Obama In Hawaii

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/13/rnc-stalks-obama-in-hawai_n_118764.html

.; August 13, 2008 6:41 PM
Beryl said...: apis/Karen,
Yep that is what I should have typed.; August 13, 2008 7:03 PM
Aunt Jean said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; August 13, 2008 8:49 PM
Aunt Jean said...: To everyone

that is so sad about Mr. Gwatney what is this world coming too. There is so much crime in this world. Filled with hate and all the ugliness in the world.

Why someone doesn't want peace in their life is beyond me.All I know is it so damn sad. AJ; August 13, 2008 8:50 PM
Beryl said...: Keith showed Rush's comment on Elizabeth today. It was worse than I thought it would be.

He really should not have done that. Criticizing or joking about a woman with cancer opened the door for something really bad to happen to him.

I'm not wishing anything bad to happen but it is just the way the world works. When (not if) it happens, remember where you read the prediction.; August 13, 2008 8:52 PM
apissedant said...: Karen,
I'm against getting rid of senior taxes. I believe we should take care of both our children and our seniors, but I don't think a senior needs 50,000 after taxes to survive. The average income in this country is only a little over 40,000 a year, so why should seniors, with no children to take care of anymore, need even more protection? Also, much of our taxes go to pay interest on the ridiculous national debt, which is a result of baby boomers voting themselves tax cuts by electing Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, while at the same time allowing these men to increase spending. Effectively, the voters decided that their kids and their grandchildren could pay their bills for them. Now to give these same people a tax break seems misplaced. It is important that we actually pay off a piece of the debt, so we won't cripple MY CHILDREN. I am willing to pay my part, and I hope others are willing to pay theirs too. I will never make a vote for the purpose of giving myself a tax cut.; August 13, 2008 8:58 PM
jean said...: ap,
Very few if any have their children pay or take care of them,
pride.
The costs for seniors with, healthcare, needing someone to drive them, help to take care of their home if they own or rent, and assisted care is fantastic cost.
You are so out of touch it is, I actually cannot think of a word to discribe it.
You are doing the absolute thing which you may need to review.
jean; August 13, 2008 9:12 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama '08; August 13, 2008 9:13 PM
Aunt Jean said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; August 13, 2008 9:13 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Ap

I agree that $50,000 seems a little much.I don't see anything wrong with giving them a break because most seniors are on meds. I can't believe what some of them cost. AJ; August 13, 2008 9:17 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Add up what seniors pay now for food, medical insurance, medicine, glasses, dentures, doctor and hospital bills, utilities, car maintenance car insurance, home insurance, home health car workers, etc. and many times their income is not enough to cover their own and their spouses expenses.

Seniors that are working to help pay their bills shouldn't have to pay income-tax if they are not making very much money.

I think Obama is on the corect side of this issue!; August 13, 2008 9:21 PM
apissedant said...: jean,
The seniors in trouble are the the seniors making 50,000 a year. They are the seniors who are just getting social security income, and often have enough write offs to ensure that they have no tax liability. A tax break on those making 50,000 a year will not do anything to assist these seniors.
My dad will soon be of retirement agent, and he will have his government retirement check as well as his social security. Many other retirees of the current time will have a pension as well as their social security benefits. Those of us that are younger will undoubtedly be required to have lower social security benefits than those currently retired. Most of those companies have either drastically reduced pension plans, or completely gotten rid of them. Even government retirement is often on the decline when inflation is considered. At the same time our national debt is spiraling out of control.
How will we of the future take care of ourselves? Will we pass on to our children your debts as well as our own debts as well as the interest on your debts?
This is irresponsible. This method of thinking is exactly what got us into this trouble in the first place, and more recently caused the housing debacle, by continually borrowing with the idea that values would continue increasing and we would never have to actually pay for our houses.
If my father and the other people of his generation did not put away enough money to take care of his retirement, I feel sorry for him. I also hope I'll be able to chip in and help him out. If that is not a possibility, our government cannot afford to take out a loan in my child's name for him to maintain his lifestyle.
Social security was never intended to fund retirement. It is an insurance program, just in case everything else goes wrong, there is something left to help out.

Why is it out of touch to say that people have to pay their bills? Is it not true that these current seniors financed their lifestyles by voting themselves tax cuts at the expense of their children and grandchildren? Is it not true that people are currently worrying that medicare and social security our insolvent, and those of us who will be retiring in the future will have to receive even smaller benefits?

As a soon to be parent, my primary concern is my child's well being. I can't in good conscience leave them with this burden. It is not fair, and it would make me an irresponsible parent. My own well being comes second to my child's, not at the expense of my child's.; August 13, 2008 9:28 PM
jean said...: ap,
Most of the people that help seniors are paid under the table.
IT IS NOT TAX DEDUCTABLE.
Many seniors have to pay someone to clean the bathroom and the tub because they cannot bend over that long etc.
Under the table is 7-8 bucks an hour and tax deductable is 11 to 15. The agency gets a big cut.
jean; August 13, 2008 9:30 PM
jean said...: I did not even finish reading your post.
Having dinner.
You need to choose your battles and again your absolutes on a continuous level need to be reviewed.
LEVITY.
jean; August 13, 2008 9:33 PM
apissedant said...: medicare covers a large portion of these expenses. The result is most definitely not 50,000. My grandmother and my grandfather both retired. They had owned some property, and a few small mom and pop grocery stores. Due to this, they had no retirement from any sort of company or the government, only social security and medicare. Social security and medicare covered a very large portion of their bills, including oxygen tanks, hospital visits, doctor visits to the home, and many other things. They paid a portion, but the majority was funded by the government. They were able to pay the bills they had left with the money they had saved for retirement. They did not expect the government to fund their retirement, they knew better. Why my father and my uncles were not this wise I do not know, but again, the government cannot subsidize their lifestyle at the expense of my child's.; August 13, 2008 9:33 PM
apissedant said...: jean,
I believe there is no more important battle than the financial stability of this nation, and the inclination of people to constantly vote themselves tax cuts. Everyone wants all this stuff from the government, but no one wants to pay for it. Anyone making under 90,000 dollars just wants to raise taxes on those people who make over 90,000 dollars, while at the same time giving themselves a tax cut. Those making more than 90,000 dollars just want to cut the benefits, because they don't need them anyways. GREED; August 13, 2008 9:36 PM
apissedant said...: Again, the cost of living for seniors doesn't even matter that much. The fact is we either give them more money and give those in the future almost nothing, or we continue giving them the same and still end up giving retirees of the future less. We all have to be willing to make sacrifices to put our nation back on track.

As I've mentioned, the average household in America is now spending 104% of their income every year. There used to be a time when people left their children money when they died, now they leave their children bills. I find this irresponsible.; August 13, 2008 9:40 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: This coming from a person that has sent their wife overseas to have a baby because the government over there pays more than the USA does?

LOL!

Give the seniors a break and let's not tax their income if they want to work after they retire! Old people that make from $1 to $49,999 shouldn't have to pay income tax.

My retired aunt that is raising one of her grandkids works part-time as a care giver for an elderly man. A good portion of her pay goes to income tax and social security. She gets a small social security check each month herself and she still has to pay income-tax and social security on her income - that is just not right!; August 13, 2008 9:41 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Ap

Do you have any Idea what the cost is for seniors to get medicaid? Under 700 a month. You can get QIB after that until you make so much money. Which is a small amount then after that it's different. My uncle gets to much [1250] a month he gets no help other than medicare. There is a deduction. He's not in terrible health but there is a few things wrong. He only has 3 meds a month that medicare pays for he has to buy the rest. Medicare doesn't kick in until at the end of the year on dr. visits because of the deduction. My other uncle his med. that he had to pay for was over $900 a month. So you see they do need a break now like I said $50,000 is alittle much but they do need a break. AJ; August 13, 2008 9:47 PM
Beryl said...: Exactly AJ & Jean.

You wrote my thoughts. The cost to seniors is quite high when you factor in health care. Meds are astronomical.

Apis,

Time is on your side so you don't have to think as much about the immediate economy as it relates to your pension and 401K. Over the next 10 years, the market will likely recover or you'll have other investment options. We've all been where you are.

My mother is a senior and I have less than 15 years to go before I am SS eligible. Hopefully I won't need to early retire and dip into my declining/leveled-off 401K earlier. However, those who are already seniors are faced with disappearing or frozen pensions and dwindling savings.

A senior who worked hard for 40 years paying lots of taxes should not have to live AT or BELOW the poverty line because of our government's failed economic policies. I'm not convinced that $50K is the perfect clip-level but I do think current seniors need a break.

More importantly, most seniors are no longer capable of working to augment their incomes.

Finally, many seniors do not have any family to care of them. I have no children so I'll be totally dependent on my savings/pension/SS. Thankfully, I've been smart with my money but many people in my age-group are in worse spots. Some are caring for children and parents at the same time.; August 13, 2008 9:50 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Leah

seniors that make under [not counting what they get for ss] $26,000 doesn't pay income tax on it don't know about ss.. AJ; August 13, 2008 9:55 PM
Dink Singer said...: I have been preparing my elderly mom's tax return for many years. Her taxable income is under $30,000. One of the truly unfair things about our tax system is that many elderly folks like my mom pay a much higher marginal tax rate than the rest of us. That's because for every additional dollar of income, 85 cents of Social Security goes from untaxed to taxed. So instead 15%, the marginal rate is 27.75%. That's just about the same marginal rate as those making $100,000. It was much worse before the Bush tax cuts. At that time the marginal rate was 51.8%, more than 30% higher than the richest Americans paid.; August 13, 2008 9:59 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Aunt Jean-

Yes they have to pay social security and in some states you have to pay state income tax also - that what my aunt pays - not federal income tax.; August 13, 2008 10:00 PM
apissedant said...: beryl,
Sorry, I have to go eat.... but I want to respond to part of your post.

"you have time on your side"

That is exactly the mindset that is the problem. Everything will be fixed with time, therefore we don't have to worry about it. We are in this predicament because we didn't worry about the future, we had short term thinking. Time only heals wounds if you clean and bandage the wound, otherwise it just becomes infected.

Will costs for tomorrow's seniors be any lower? Doesn't every single economist say that we either have to increase taxes or decrease benefits in order to keep social security and medicare solvent?

So why should we do the opposite for the people of today, on the backs of the people tomorrow?

Again, my well being comes second to my children's, not at the expense of my children. My father and my grandparents feel/felt the same way, and my dad IS of retirement age. My dad still constantly tries to give me money, despite the fact that I continually refuse to take it. If he were to decrease his tax liability at the cost of my retirement income, he would just be using the government to steal that money back.; August 13, 2008 10:02 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Beryl

I'm on SS disablity . I got hurt on the job at the age of 45 yrs old. Before I was able to get on ss disablity I lost around $600,000.Now I could tell you how and why I lost that much money but it doesn't really matter anymore.I did get away with enough money to buy me a modest home so I'm doing ok. I only get enough to pay my bills there is nothing left. I could blame the gov. and it's true because of all the red tape it took me 9 years to get ss disabity. I've had several surgeries because of my injury. More to come.Don't think I'm whining about what happened to me because I'm not all I'm trying to say is even when people plan for their future shit happens that they don't expect. AJ; August 13, 2008 10:15 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: .

Countdown to Dem convention: 12 days

.; August 13, 2008 10:20 PM
Dink Singer said...: Aunt Jean:

Sorry, but a single senior (e.g. a widow) with an adjusted gross income of $25,999, none of it from Social Security, using the standard deduction, would have owed $1,998 in income tax for 2007. Even if the AGI was only $15,999, the tax would be $593. To owe no tax, income would have to be less than $10,055.; August 13, 2008 10:22 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama '08; August 13, 2008 10:23 PM
Aunt Jean said...: To everyone be back in alittle while have to run over my sisters for a few minutes. AJ; August 13, 2008 10:23 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Dink then the ss office and income tax office lied to me. My family and I was having a talk about it and we were disagreeing so I called and they said if it is under $26000 that they didn't have to file.Called the ss office they said the same thing.Go figure who knows what is correct.AJ; August 13, 2008 10:27 PM
jean said...: Beating a dead horse.
Everyone let it go.
Ap you have become a purist and a bit unrealistic. Figures are only good if they can be proven realistically.
I have redone this Post 5 times.
I will not argue this.
I would appreiciate if you would take time to review.
That your parents can afford that is great.
Most cannot.
I really am done.
jean; August 13, 2008 10:34 PM
apissedant said...: aunt jean,
I feel your pain on SS disability. My mother has MS, and she still works, despite the fact that she can only use one arm (and no legs). She does this, because she can't actually afford to get on disability. The red tape and the time it takes is too long, and it won't pay for someone to come to the home to care for her, and since she can only use one arm, this would not work. This is actually why my parents financial situation is not as good as it should be, although bad accounting practices didn't help.; August 13, 2008 10:42 PM

«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 800 of 9481 Newer› Newest»

Welcome to Democratic Convention Watch

Blog Archive

Democratic Convention 2008

Democratic National Convention History

Denver & Colorado Democrats

DCW in the News

Friends of DCW

2008 Republican National Convention

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Open Thread

9481 comments:

Tags