Democratic Convention Watch: Open Thread

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Open Thread

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

Who's going to win, who has a better chance against McCain, or whatever else is on your mind.

We have decided to stop allowing anonymous comments. Not because we don't like reading what people have to say but because Blogger has introduced a new "feature" that makes you go to a second page when the number of comments go over 200.

It's very easy to set up a Google account so that you can continue commenting.

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!

New Open Thread here
Previous Open Thread here

2132 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 1801 – 2000 of 2132 Newer› Newest»

apissedant said...: grey,
That is most definitely part of the problem. However, I would invite you to drive near any major military base. It is absolutely astounding how bad off those that are still in are. Honestly, it isn't because they don't get paid enough. The fact is these kids have absolutely no experience handling money, and they do a horrible job with it. The way the military pays doesn't help, giving large cash bonuses that are too easily wasted in the course of a month. Lastly, they have fabulous credit, because the military will take the money directly out of their paycheck if they have to. This of course makes them victims to creditors that take advantage of them. It has been going on forever, and they only now care because it is making them lose security clearance, and endangering the mission. Before they didn't care, because it was financially forcing them to stay in the military, which was a benefit.; June 08, 2008 12:33 AM
apissedant said...: night all... sleep well; June 08, 2008 12:34 AM
Yamaka said...: BHO Supporters:

Last year, a join tax filer paid:

For a taxable income of 50K 13.4%
For a taxable income of 100K 17.8%
For a taxable income of 400K 35% to the Federal Coffer (not including the FICA; all marginal tax rate)

To my mind, this type of regressive taxation (yes I call it regressive) that punishes hard working highly skilled productive citizens is the prime reason for the poor economy now.

In my mind at least about 30% of this tax revenue is wasted on non-productive bureaucracies, outright theft by billing too much for too little service etc.

What would Barack do to reverse this? How would he bring the robust economy of the 1990s back (when 22 million jobs were created with 3.75% growth in economy)?

I would like to get your view of the policies that Barack should follow.

:-); June 08, 2008 12:37 AM
apissedant said...: Yam,
Your numbers are all wrong. If you are going to post something, post something correct. No person pays 35% tax on all of their income. That is why it is called progressive, because each portion of your income is taxed at a different rate until you get in the highest bracket. After this point, all income is taxed at the same highest rate. All income below this is still taxed at the appropriate level.

The taxes in the 1990s were higher, so your entire statement is ridiculous. You are afraid that our current tax system is punishing high income earners and screwing the economy, and you want to go back to the economy of the 1990s, which screwed the high income earners by an even larger percentage. Think before posting. Your multiple personalities are exhausting.; June 08, 2008 12:42 AM
Yamaka said...: apiss:

I said marginal tax rate.

If you have the last year TAX table, please check it.

I am saying for a taxable income of $400K you pay the marginal rate of 35%.

I just checked the rate.; June 08, 2008 12:53 AM
Beryl said...: Yam,
Bless your heart. If you are genuine HRC supporter, here are my suggestions:

1. Go to the Barack Obama site and learn more about his plans directly from the source.
2. Do a lot more reading about your candidate using INDEPENDENT sources. Ask yourself why the Clintons are unwilling to reveal their donor list and hesitant to fully disclose tax records.
3. Ask yourself why the NY delegation as a part of 23 members of congress who supported her gave her a tongue-lashing on Wednesday during a conference call resulting in her delivering such an eloquent speech today.
4. Recognize that you are also a free agent. No person "owns" you or your vote. Have confidence in your ability to think and act independently.

If you are a member of the RNC paid to troll Dem sites and stir up trouble, I wish you a better way to make a living.

To everyone - rest well.; June 08, 2008 1:01 AM
Yamaka said...: "and you want to go back to the economy of the 1990s, which screwed the high income earners by an even larger percentage."

What is your range of "high income"?

I can compare and tell you how much was the rate in 1990s and now.

The problem with the "Liberal Thinkers" is they don't want to pay their fair share of the taxes, but force the highly productive high skilled people pay lot more than necessary.

A good portion of it (30%) is wasted, which has been my point.

This waste if we can identify and eliminate, we can do the Universal Health Care and other good stuff w/o raising taxes further.

Raising taxes further will hurt the economy more. We will be in recession for a long long time. Job creation will be non-existent.

We need at least 2 million new jobs to absorb the expanding labor force. Econ 101.; June 08, 2008 1:02 AM
Yamaka said...: beryl:

A lot of people know me well at this Site.

I am here at the State Democratic Convention at Austin. I have been a Delegate standing up for Hillary!

Can you handle alternate point of view?

You need most of 18 million Hillary supporters to win the WH and the Congress.

Without her supporters, the Party will lose the WH and the Congress.

You are still angry about Hillary. I don't know why?

Try to understand Hillary supporters and persuade them to vote for Barack if you need to win!; June 08, 2008 1:09 AM
Hippolytus said...: Hi, everyone (including contest entrants). I've been having computer problems this evening, ever since my last post. I'm posting from my wife's laptop.
We have a bit of a problem. Our polls have closed, and the ballot counters have gone AWOL (that means you, Oreo and Matt, among others). Hopefully the Sunday morning shows will be able to favor us with delegate counts through Saturday, but if anyone can find a credible source, please post it here (preferably with a link).
I'm going to sign off for the night, and will hope to announce the contest winner tomorrow.
Thanks,
Hippolytus; June 08, 2008 1:26 AM
Hippolytus said...: beryl,
Why are you using the picture of Leah and her main squeeze on your post? Are you trying to horn in on her action?; June 08, 2008 1:30 AM
Beryl said...: Yam,

If you are indeed who you claim to be, you should know that Hillary doesn't OWN anybody. Therefore, neither HRC nor anyone else has that much power over 18 million people.

Anger? HRC is not worthy of that kind of emotion. Anger must be guiding you so you are projecting it.

I have no intentions of trying to "understand Hillary supporters" and will not attempt to persuade anyone to do anything for at least 2 reasons:

1. It is futile since those who need persuasion after listening to the person they claim to support today are guided by emotion instead of intelligence. I do not care to make a case that taps into their unhealthy emotions.

2. Persuading irrational HRC loyalists takes energy from constructive behavior. There are too many INDEPENDENTS (like me) and Republicans who sincerely want change. Most conduct independent research instead of inquiring on blogs.; June 08, 2008 2:49 AM
Beryl said...: Hippolytus,
Hmmm. I thought I put that picture up first. I use it as my avatar on other forums.

It is really beautiful, isn't it?; June 08, 2008 2:53 AM
Aunt Jean said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; June 08, 2008 3:28 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Beryl Do you really want to know what makes me the maddest is when they say how sorry Bill Clinton is. You know what people sure did like how how he ran this country. Also you ask me what offended me about Obama.Well for one thing [and before I say I know what your answer will be NO HE DIDN'T. He played the race card. He has shown disrespect for Hillary more than once. Yeah sure he's praising her now I wonder why. Now how would he look if he rubbed Her nose in it and showed more disrespect.I'm sorry but I don't believe that Obama can win the GE unless the Media does to McCain what they did to Hillary. That is take everything Hillary and Bill said and made a mountain out of a mole hill.Will I vote for McCain doubt it. But will I vote for Obama I don't know because he just used what was given to him by the media. I will do this, I will give him a chance and really listen to him maybe he will be able to change my mind. I don't really know. Sorry if you don't like what I said because at this time I think it's a moot point. But it does get old people bashing Hillary. Instead of talking bad about her why don't you all talk about Obama and what his plans are and how he will do the things he said. Jean; June 08, 2008 3:32 AM
Joshua said...: The DNC has a new look.; June 08, 2008 5:45 AM
Karen Anne said...: lee,

I think it is not quite right to say Clinton was forced to make that speech to preserve her place in the party.

It's true that had she continued to be divisive, her political future as a Democrat would be toast, but that's just rational. How could it be otherwise? Would you expect the party to approve of anyone who damages the nominee's chances in November?

As to your voting for McCain, that is certainly your right. But, remember if Obama loses this year, much of the blame for that will be laid at Hillary's doorstep, probably irreparably damaging her chances in 2012 or 2016.

I volunteered for Howard Dean and I just about puked at the thought of voting for Kerry. Unlike Obama (who contrary to the belief of some, does not control the media), Kerry had resorted to really rotten tactics, like phone banks that told Dean supporters their polling places had moved. Or calling them repeatedly at horrible hours of the day and pretending to be Dean supporters until they were so irritated they didn't vote.

Nonetheless, I held the puke bag nearby and voted for Kerry, because Bush was a disaster.; June 08, 2008 8:47 AM
Karen Anne said...: Aunt Jean,

Could you post some examples of Obama disrespecting Clinton? I hear that from her supporters often, but I never hear anything but these:

He pulled her chair out for her at some debate (courtesy, be still my heart.)

He said she "was likable enough" in response to a media question right after she had trashed him, and when anyone less diplomatic than Obama would have said something that would have curled the hair of bystanders.; June 08, 2008 8:51 AM
stopOBAMAnow said...: Hello There:

Yesterday Hillary gave a very good Speech. She fire up her supporters, and endorsed the least vetted, least experienced and very risky candidate for the GE.

I get the smell that she and BHO have some serious friction. I expect that Hillary will not be asked to take up a major role in the Campaign. That's good for her, IMO.

Yam:

You have decided to stay with the undemocratic autocratic arbitrarily Rule breaking Democratic Party! I hope they treat you well.

I agree with you Yam: if Hillary supporters stay home - you guess it would be as many as 2/3 of supporters - BHO is a dead meat. In order to bring home all her supporters, Hillary must be given a very visible role. Anyway, that's BHO's head ache. Hillary has done what she needs to do at this point.

The serious problem with BHO's platform would be "his tax the rich and feed the rest" approach. Many of his followers are low skilled low income less hard working group, who would enjoy taxing the rich!

What they don't understand is high tax is a burden to the economy, and it brings in less revenue to the Coffer. Unless they understand this fact, the Moderates and Independents will not vote for BHO.

BHO = WBush = Inexperience = Risky.

Stop Obama Now. He is ObaBush!; June 08, 2008 10:13 AM
ed iglehart said...: Greywolf,

Isn't there a potential conflict iin that I'm sure you want the contracts for said renovations?
;-)
ed; June 08, 2008 10:17 AM
ed iglehart said...: On the AIPAC speech, an incisive and interesting article

Once again, I feel slightly ashamed for doubting Obama. I do hope (against the odds and sixty years of disappointments)
for some form of justice for the Palestinian people.

Slowly, slowly catchee monkey, but third-generation refugee camp dwellers can be forgiven a little impatience...

Salaam, etc.
ed; June 08, 2008 10:31 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Hippolytus said: " beryl,
Why are you using the picture of Leah and her main squeeze on your post? Are you trying to horn in on her action?"
________________

Hippolytus-

I added that photo to my profile and it showed up on my post of:

June 02,2008 3:49pm

Beryl had a different profile photo:

June 05, 2008 10:05pm

Then Beryl began to use my profile photo:

June 06, 2008 12:14pm

They say that imitation is the best form of flattery ;); June 08, 2008 10:37 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Hippolytus-

Regarding the winning number for the contest.

I have not seen a new total anywhere BUT DCW has a thread

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/06/silent-superdelegates.html

that says that there are only 98.5 superdelegates that have not endorsed.

So I would think the extra 18.5 go to the Obama column.

2243.5 (current # in side box)
18.5 (that have recently endorsed)

2261 (new total for Obama)

That is probably as close as we will get unless someone else has a different total.; June 08, 2008 10:57 AM
stopOBAMAnow said...: "you should know that Hillary doesn't OWN anybody. Therefore, neither HRC nor anyone else has that much power over 18 million people"

beryl:

It's true that NO body OWNs anybody, including BHO.

His supporters will desert him once they know he is hopelessly inexperienced against McCain.

Hillary's supporters love her because of her Centrist platform:
fiscal sanity and thoughtful policies, besides a world of real experience.

What does BHO have? Just rhetorical eloquence and misleading talk!

Many of his supporters are basically low skilled low productive mostly lazy type: many are jobless and/or students on Govt subsidy!

I tell them: work hard and earn better skills and become tax paying high productive citizens!

BHO = WBush = Inexperience = 9/11 =Disaster.

Stop ObaBush Now.; June 08, 2008 10:59 AM
Beryl said...: Aunt Jean,
You still didn't give ONE SPECIFIC example of
1. how Obama disrespected Hillary
2. how Obama played the "race card"

Hillary disrespected Obama multiple times ("I'm ready, McCain is ready, and Obama made a speech.) She played the gender card multiple times including in her concession speech spending more time talking about sexism than conceding. Hillary also played the race card (e.g. the comment about her support of hard working white people). I've just given you SPECIFIC examples to demonstrate how it is done.

Examples of Obama disrespecting HRC either do not exist or you do not have the capacity to communicate them. If the latter is true, take heart. Depending on where you live, you might be able to take advantage of free community college courses. Also, some churches offer educational opportunities for free.

I don't care enough about your decisions to convince you of anything. I do hope that you are not passing on your delusions to other generations.; June 08, 2008 11:04 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: OOoops

2243.5 (current # in side box)
18.5 (that have recently endorsed)

Equals: 2262 (not 2261)

If that number is used then it looks like November Politics would win with the guess of 2265.

Of course Hippolytus has the final word since this is HIS contest ;); June 08, 2008 11:04 AM
Beryl said...: Leah,
I think it is more like "Great Minds Think Alike" as I didn't see that you used that photo. I post and read from gmail.; June 08, 2008 11:07 AM
Kujo said...: As have been reported and mentioned on this thread several times it is worth repeating.

It has been proven that Experience != success, in fact the opposite is true.

The best example is this: Would you elect someone who has 8 years WhiteHouse experience, who has governed over 2 wars, handle attacks on the US soil? Would you elect G.W. Bush?

Also the Reagan administration has been credited with bringing down the USSR by forcing them to fund a war that eventually brought there economy down. The US keep sending just enough weapons to the Afganistans to keep the USSR thinking they could win the war, kept the USSR funding the war.

Now lets look at what is happening in Iraq. Iran keeps sending just enough weapons into Iraq to keep the US funding a war when it's economy is cumbling.

Now we have seen other people on this thread who supported HRC and are not having trouble deciding between Obama and McCain, but ultimately understand that McCain is so different from HRC and what will be better for our country is Obama.

But there is someone else on this thread, stopObamaNow, who never really supported Clinton. Who only did not want Obama to win. Uses unsupported scare tactics like Experience. So what is the real reason behind stopObamaNow, could only be racism.

McCain = Bush = bad experience; June 08, 2008 11:13 AM
Kujo said...: Aunt Jean,

Your argument of playing the race card does not add up.

If he did play the race card it was the stupidest move he did because before race became an issue in this campain, he was getting the middle class vote. It wasn't until the race card was brought up that the middle class became a demographic stat that was going against him.

If I recall correctly that AA's are a minority. So why would someone bring this up to get the minority vote and lose the majority vote.

Just does not make sense.

But what he did do is prevent the little induendo's (sp) that were being spread in this race.

The problem with democratic campains in the past is when negative attacts come out, not to respond. Obama responded immeadiately not only to the big comments but also to the small ones. You may think that someone did not mean anything when they say something small like "Rev Jackson won this state too", but those comments are calculated. These "little" comments are what gets in the back of people minds.

What would be obsetting for a HRC supporter is that they don't see these comments as being that big of a deal and when the Obama camp attacks back with vigor, and the press joins in, it appears the backlash is bigger then the comment itself. Which is true, they were. Thats how you run a successfull campain. But never did he start the attacks, race or any other. He stayed on message the whole time.

The republicans are famous for the phrase "Its not what you say, but how loud and how often you say it." This is what is going to come out of the McCain camp. The democrats need to be ready to squash the crap that will be coming out of his camp.; June 08, 2008 11:26 AM
stopOBAMAnow said...: "So what is the real reason behind stopObamaNow, could only be racism."

kujo:

Thanks for the comment.

Where did you get the feeling of racism from my postings?

I am fiscal conservative, an Independent and worried about the economy and the National Security.

On these issues BHO is very very weak.

Economy cannot come back to life if you increase the taxation on highly productive highly skilled professionals. BHO wants to tax the rich and feed the rest!

He is very weak on National Security. Absolutely no understanding of the dangerous world we live in.

McCain = Experience = Safety = Security.

BHO = Bush = Inexperience = 9/11 = Dangerous.

Stop ObaBush Now.; June 08, 2008 11:27 AM
Meg said...: Here's my philosophical take on how people choose a candidate.

In many cases we make our choice first, based on some gut instinct, chemical reaction to a personality, or a tendency to agree or disagree with our parents.

THEN we look for reasons to support our choice. Sometimes the reasons are feeble. Often times they are not based in fact. None of the reasons really matter because the choice was made first.

Obama generally makes people feel good about themselves when they listen to him. We see his integrity and his wisdom. The person that he is leads us to believe he will make good choices, or at least consider many sides before making a decision.

McCain thinks we must protect ourselves at all costs. Everything pales in comparison to the dangers in the world. Helping people is not as important as saving money and being superior in the eyes of the world is more important than listening. I find that a truly scary world view.; June 08, 2008 11:38 AM
Kujo said...: The reason is simple.

There is 0 proof of that Obama lacks the Experience that is needed.

If we look back at all the presidents it has been proven that experience is not related to success of a president and the opposite is true.

Also, the problem with the economy is being magnified by the war PERIOD.

If you had any other concrete postings except the Obama = crap then I would respect what you would have said. If you show how he is going to be bad for the economy we can discuss it. But you only put these weak posts with no supporting information.

I am a fiscal conservitive as well. My family income (not counting investments) is over 2M/year. I will pay up the gazoo if we raise taxes.

But raising taxes on me will not have any effect on the economy. I can not buy anything else that I don't already have.

Getting people jobs will. The sucess of the 1990's was a direct result of employment. If you remember correctly this is when the tax's where high, but the economy was sound. We even had a surplus.

So I really don't buy the tax arguement.

But if this is your real concern, then I do take back the racist comment. But I do feal that your just misinformed on how to proper generate the economy.; June 08, 2008 11:38 AM
Kujo said...: StopObamNow:

And on security, I really don't understand the rational that getting the world to hate us makes us more secure.

This is what has happened over the last 8 years.

The youth in Iran with its pro-western views were taking control of Iran until the "Axis of Evil" comment came out of Bush's mouth. Since that point the movement was squashed and Iran has stregthened as a threat to us. We have also lost relationships with many other middle eastern countries. We have lost respect in may Asian countries as well as European countries. There is a reason why CITIZENS in most foriegn countries support Obama. This movement from its CITIZENS is now starting to take form as endorsements from their leaders.; June 08, 2008 11:44 AM
Karen Anne said...: stopOBAMAnow,

Re "Many of his supporters are basically low skilled low productive mostly lazy type: many are jobless and/or students on Govt subsidy!"

Why, thank you very much! I didn't realize my MIT degrees and 45 years of hard work made me a low skilled low productive mostly lazy type. Well, that was before I retired, so I guess I am "jobless" now.

Could it be you are engaging in racist stereotypes? Perish the thought.; June 08, 2008 11:55 AM
jpsedona said...: apiss,

Your general opinions about America are like hearing someone drag their nails across a blackboard.

you said: "instantly embarrassed to be an American"

... maybe you want to abolish the first amendment? Who needs to protect religious freedom, guarantees free speech, freedom of the press and assembly and the right to petition the government?

you said: "I just don't want to be associated with these people"

... perhaps you should consider renouncing your citizenship?

you said: "They are doomed to be stupid and vote stupid and be a drain on society until the day they die."

... yes, rail against stupidity. Hate takes many forms, including comments like this.

you said: "Talking doesn't always mean negotiating, and negotiating doesn't always mean caving in to terrorists"

... yes, this was Regan's approach to the USSR, the 'evil empire'.

you said: "The public wants to negotiate by force. Barack was basically forced to say that he would never negotiate with Hamas. The voters are still showing over and over, that they don't know and don't care; that they are blissfully ignorant."

... maybe the more informed voters wants to negotiate from strength? Maybe they are aware that extremes of any variety (isolation and intervention) can be disasterous.

your comment to Yam about marginal tax rates: "Your numbers are all wrong."

... are you one of those people who are always willing to engage their mouths ten minutes before they engage their brains? Or, perhaps you're one of those people who think that because people don't think like you, that they are morally wrong or ignorant?; June 08, 2008 12:02 PM
stopOBAMAnow said...: kujo:

I agree Bush's policy of Unilateralism has made us very unpopular in the world.

IMO, it got started on 9/11/2001. Since WBush was perceived to be very weak and inexperienced, Osama sent his anarchists to hurt us seriously. Twin Towers and 3000 Americans died. This could happen again if Obama, another inexperienced person comes to Power.

In order to retaliate, Bush took the advises of the NeoCons who projected the raw power of US in the middle east. I agree that was a disaster and we are stuck in Iraq.

But McCain is NOT Bush. He understands the problems Bush created. He knows how to shake up the National Security Agency and gets things done. I am NOT confident about Obama on NS.

Proof that McCain is NOT Bush:

Since last 3 months, McCain is very competitive with either Obama or Clinton in polls, although Bush's ratings is less than 30%.

You talk about the Citizens of other countries supporting Obama. Maybe.

For me what is important is what do Americans want in USA, not elsewhere? Once we elect McCain everybody in the world will look up to US.

Obama = Weak on NS = Dangerous.

Stop Obama Now, He is ObaBush.; June 08, 2008 12:03 PM
stopOBAMAnow said...: karen Anne:

I said "Many" and I did not say ALL. For everything there is exception.

On this thread, there are many who are just students and or jobless!
They talk about taxation! My comment was directed at them, not at MIT trained professionals like you!

Please read what I wrote. Not what you thought I wrote.

I don't worry about race at all. I worry about skill level and productivity most of the times.; June 08, 2008 12:09 PM
jpsedona said...: Yam,

you said: "My view is if Hillary is given a prominent role the Party will gain 10 Senate seats and the WH."

I can't see Hillary having any impact on the Senate elections unless she is out campaigning for those candidates specifically. And even if she does work hard for those campaigns, I see her impact as minimally positive (and perhaps negative depending upon whether she motivates conservative involvement).

As far as Bill Clinton is concerned, I only see him helping in rural Appalachia or possibly in Arkansas. But given his in ability to control himself and anger over being tagged with racist comments, I don't think he wants to help Obama.; June 08, 2008 12:09 PM
Kujo said...: McCain had the opportunity to stand up as the voice of reason during the Bush Administration. He publically supported Bush's policies.

What was need to chance the policies of this Administration was a strong voice from the Republican party. Obama and Clinton as well as many other democrats did voice that the Rumsfeld policies were not working and needed to be stopped. McCain never stood up and became the leader that someone with his experience should of been.

It took the people of the US to change what was going on in Iraq when they overturned congress 2 years ago.

When Bush Sr. brought the US in to the first Gulf war, he did it with building a true coalision. A true coalision is build by not only getting the leaders of each country to support and participate in the war, but by getting the support of the people. This was a very difficult thing to do in middle eastern countries.

But Bush Jr did not build a true coalition. He gave other countries insentives to join agree with us in attacking Iraq, but the people of these countries knew better.

Now you argue that is Bush not McCain. I agree. In a different time period I would be supportive of McCain.

But now we need to rebuild this respect in these Middle Eastern Countries. Doing this with a strong arm will not work, it needs to be done with diplomicy. Rember, these countries are not full of educated profesionals. They can be persueded by spirtual leaders who have other alterier motives. As long as the people of these countries do not respect us, the will build future combatents against us.

We have to look at the Iraq war from their perspective. The powerful country of the US when and told everyone that Iraq had WMD and was a threat to everyone. There were no WMD's. So the US attacted in order to remove it leader and tried to change the government to one that supported the US.

Is that right? NO. But the US says look at all these evil things he did to the Kurds. Wait, the US was funding Iraq when he did these things to the Kurds and knew about it. So why 10 - 20 years later did you do something about it.

Is this respectable? NO! Can we just stand with a better military plan and succeed in Iraq? NO! As long as we do this will we be safter? NO!

At this point in time, McCain does not equal security.

Obama = diplomicy = intelegent use of force = security; June 08, 2008 12:27 PM
apissedant said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; June 08, 2008 12:33 PM
apissedant said...: jpsedona,
I am correct that Yam's statements on tax rates were in fact wrong. The fact is I have been in several of the tax brackets he spoke of, and that I NEVER paid any of those tax rates on all of my income. Maybe you should take a class on filling out a 1040EZ.

I in no way talked about killing the first amendment or silencing the stupid. Just expressed my shame that they exist in such large numbers, and wondered how they could possibly be educated to make more informed and intelligent arguments. To call someone a drain on society is not to express hate, just to express an opinion that they are not a net positive force in this country. Are you telling me Limbaugh in some way contributes to the betterment of America or the world as a whole?

Why I would renounce my citizenship is beyond me. That seems like a silly idea, with such great men as Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, Theodore Roosevelt, JFK, MLK, and the like in history. With great men like Barack Obama and Bill Bradley here today. There are many things to be proud of here in America, both in history and today, but there are also many things to be ashamed of. I don't run away or ignore my, or my country's mistakes. That would be counterproductive and silly, don't you think? The only way to improve yourself, your community, your state, your country, or your world is to learn from mistakes and try to do it better next time. Running away or denying mistakes fixes nothing.

To call my statements hateful, and complain about them, and then mirror very similar sentiments towards me is rather hypocritical, don't you think?

I realize you are attempting to call me a hypocrite, yet I complained about their lack of facts, and the fact that every statement they made was full of hatred and wishes of death, imprisonment or the like on people I like. Most of my statements on this post have been relatively positive, and I have wished neither death nor imprisonment on anyone. I have also used FACTS to support my claims, instead of rumors or conjectures. This would make my statements markedly different from theres, don't you think?; June 08, 2008 12:33 PM
apissedant said...: Yam, jpsedona,
I see he did place the marginal in parenthesis at the end. This is silly and misleading at best. Someone making 400k pays 35% on about, what, 50k of their money? Also, again, he talks of going back to the wonderful economy of 1999, which had an even more, "regressive" tax system than the one he is currently complaining about. If 1999 was so great, and the tax was worse, than it sounds like the tax he is complaining about is not the problem. It seems there must be something else causing the problem.

I can also forward you about 20 emails from Republicans improperly using the numbers he has listed, and applying the tax to all income, not just the marginal income. It is quite obvious the idea that people using these percentages is attempting to give people. To see that it isn't a major problem, and that they don't really pay all that much in taxes, simply look at the Clinton income and taxes for the past 7 years.; June 08, 2008 12:40 PM
apissedant said...: Yam,
Show me this 30% that is wasted. Show me the 50% you claimed was wasted last time you spoke of this problem. You are making up numbers. You have no proof or evidence of this. About 25% goes to interest, another 25% goes to the military. By your numbers, that means the government only needs 20% at most, of what they collect to actually run our government.; June 08, 2008 12:44 PM
apissedant said...: Yam,
Well simple logic would say that since Bush cut taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars, then the tax rate must have been higher prior to him reducing them.
A historical analysis also shows the top marginal tax rate starting at 7% in 1913, climbing to 94% in 1944, then falling to 28% under Reagan. They were then raised to 31% by GHWB, and then 39.6% under Clinton. Our economy was better, those people made more, despite paying more in taxes. Our economy also did quite well in 50s and 60s, where the top rate varied between 70 and 91 percent. Historically there is little to no basis that reducing the top percentage would boost the economy. There is a very large amount of historical data showing that reducing it to a point that leaves the government unable to pay its bills WILL cause a huge economic crisis.

Even if there were 30% in waste, which I highly disagree with, knowing that there is waste does not magically make it disappear. I challenge you to find any company with more than 1,000 employees that does not have waste. The larger a business or a government is, the greater the amount of waste. There will always be some waste, the idea is to minimize, not eliminate. Controlling waste to 0 would cost more than leaving waste as it is.; June 08, 2008 12:59 PM
apissedant said...: jpsedona,
"The Clinton in your review mirror may not be as close as she appears"

What the heck does that mean? Do you mean "The Clinton in your rear view mirror?"; June 08, 2008 1:01 PM
Beryl said...: stop said

"Many of his supporters are basically low skilled low productive mostly lazy type: many are jobless and/or students on Govt subsidy!"

This is poor statement because "many" is obviously not a good qualifier. Two people may be considered "many" in your judgment. More importantly, you know that the reverse is true. Most Obama supporters are college grads and working in positions earning over $50K. HRC's supporters, OTOH, tend to be less educated.

Now that your funny voting math didn't work, you are now trying to alter statistical facts.

Beryl
(A WOMAN with a BA, MA in Mathematics, and ABD in Ed Research and a Senior Manager working fof a Fortune 50 company for 26 years.); June 08, 2008 1:06 PM
apissedant said...: beryl,
Do you really think Yam/Stop is actually an HRC supporter? He has complained about taxes on the wealthy, complained about welfare programs, complained about abortion, complained about illegal immigrants, complained about liberal elitists, and pretty much everything else that Limbaugh says. Does that really sound like a Democrat? Though he has done it all in small increments, you put it together, and you see a Republican.; June 08, 2008 1:13 PM
Uncle John said...: I hope you got a chance to read ed_inglehart's post earlier this morning (10:31 AM). It's about Obama's speech to the AIPAC, and specifically, the status of Jerusalem.

One of the links he posts there is broken, and I get an error when trying to fix it.

Here's the url, split into two lines:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/
obama-on-jerusalem-why-th_b_105749.html

Anyway, Ed, thanks for the heads-up on that. I was critical of Obama for a "premature" statement on status; your link to Huffington gave me some things to think about.; June 08, 2008 1:24 PM
apissedant said...: jpsedona,
Saying that I am ashamed of my fellow countrymen saying terrible hateful things is not hateful or un-American. Saying that I wish that people were less ignorant and more informed is not hateful. Saying that people so focused on division and refusing to look at solutions is not hateful.

This is hateful:
"I would die and slit my wrist before I'd vote for Obama," said a Silver Spring woman in the Clinton volunteers section who gave her name only as Edith. She wore a sign pinned to the back of her Hillary T-shirt proposing: "Remember in November: vote present."

This is hateful:
The clintons' fundamental error: They are too arrogant and dim-witted to understand that the demagogic process in this fiberoptic age isn't about counting spun heads; it's about not discounting circumambient brains.
Professions tend to be self-selected, intellectually homogeneous subgroups of Homo sapiens. Great intellects (especially these days) do not generally gravitate towards careers in the media or politics. Mediocre, power-obsessed types with poor self-images do.

This is hateful:
April 19, 1993:
In Waco there was Terror.
In the White House there were Traitors and Thieves.

This is hateful:
George W. Bush should catch Alzheimer's disease
If anybody deserves to catch this disease (and lots of people do, actually), it's President George W. Mengele Bush. I'm not sure how functional his brain is in its current state (if I had to guess, I'd say not very), but I hope it rots so *bleep* bad that he ends up spending the last 20 or so years of his life wallowing in a puddle of his own *bleep* and *bleep*, to be tended to, Nancy Reagan-style by that ridonkulous murderer/librarian wife of his, and completely neglected by those two cokehead daughters of his who will be here in Creve Coeur servicing myself in every way imaginable (and that's using my imagination, not yours) just to spite that evil *bleep*.

This is hate:
"I wish all Americans were dead and that American soldiers should die."

This is hate:
There’s a new movie called “Death of a President” which portrays the assassination of President Bush.

If you want to be associated with them, if you want them to be the voice that people associate with your nation... well what the heck is wrong with you?
I do not apologize for being ashamed of the people that wrote or created these items. I do not apologize for calling these people useless, or drains on our society. What else could you possibly classify them as?; June 08, 2008 1:30 PM
apissedant said...: uncle john,
Thanks for the link. Great article. It looks like we may again have a country that negotiates and has diplomatic relations instead of rhetoric.; June 08, 2008 1:38 PM
tmess2 said...: Be stil my bleeding heart for those highly paid highly productive professional. While I do not have a problem with anyone making what the market will bear, I don't know of many professions that are highly productive in economic terms -- usefull and necessary to the economy, yes, but no country has ever succeeded long as the provider of professional services.

More importantly, the Leffler curve has been pretty well proven to be an inaccurate economic assumption -- based as it is on the standard economic assumption that everyone wants more goods. Actually, what most people want is the proper balance of goods and time. Thus, a lower tax rate can actually lead to a professional taking more leisure time and working less whereas a higher tax rate can lead to more work. It is all a matter of personal preference.

p.s. I am one of those professionals, not highly paid.; June 08, 2008 1:41 PM
Beryl said...: apissedant said
"Do you really think Yam/Stop is actually an HRC supporter? He has complained about taxes on the wealthy, complained about welfare programs, complained about abortion, complained about illegal immigrants, complained about liberal elitists, and pretty much everything else that Limbaugh says. Does that really sound like a Democrat? Though he has done it all in small increments, you put it together, and you see a Republican."

You are probably right and I just didn't see it. Also, I've been an Independent for 16 years until now so I'm not as clear about the DNC and RNC playbooks.

Guess it is high time to put Yam/Stop on "ignore".; June 08, 2008 1:42 PM
ed iglehart said...: Uncle John

You're welcome! And thanks for noting my clumsy linking - it's that durned extra <br> [carriage return] which seems to find it onto the end of a URL and slip by me from time to time.

The article gave me second thoughts too, and made me hope again that Obama may be able to make things happen in that troubled land.

This link should work for an interesting perspective on where Obama might look for funds to pay for the New America.

And this link to the AIPAC article should work THIS TIME ;-(((

Links R us

;-)
ed; June 08, 2008 1:52 PM
Uncle John said...: Ed,

Both links work.; June 08, 2008 2:05 PM
jpsedona said...: apiss,

Ignorance, as well as hate, takes many forms.

you said: "I do not apologize for calling these people useless, or drains on our society."

I believe that was the same rationale by the Klan and those who wanted to send blacks back to Africa.

The same argument used during the height of Italian immigration a century ago.

The same argument used by some regarding the poor, the retarded, the infirm, illegal immigrants...; June 08, 2008 2:06 PM
ed iglehart said...: Apiss and JP,

"America's chickens are comin' home to roost. Violence begets violence; Hatred begets hatred, and terrorism begets terrorism. ...." Jeremiah Wright

Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
ed; June 08, 2008 2:11 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: John McCain is a fake and has no character...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html

What an awful man!; June 08, 2008 2:14 PM
apissedant said...: jpsedona, (a message from kettle to pot)
Wow, would you like to compare me to Hitler next? I talk about INDIVIDUAL people, and give CLEAR EVIDENCE of their HATRED AND IGNORANCE. You then compare me to people that decided an entire race was useless, using no facts or anything else. You are right, ignorance and hate do take many forms.; June 08, 2008 2:16 PM
apissedant said...: ed,
I agree with you, and Rev. Wright. This is why I am not advocating violence, hatred, violations of the constitution, or anything else. I am just expressing the shame I feel for those who ARE advocating violence, hatred, and violations of the constitution.; June 08, 2008 2:18 PM
stopOBAMAnow said...: My Two Cents on Progressive Taxation and Govt Wastes:

1. I believe Govt inherently acts as the "third party" in collecting and spending tax dollars. This is the basis of waste due to irresponsibility. The person who
earns the money knows how precious it is and how to spend and and save it for the rainy day. Therefore, the Govt must collect tax as minimal as possible. We have too much taxes collected and too much wasted, IMO.

What is progressive tax, IMO?:

Assume the rate is 10% on the income of all sources.

20K earner pays $ 2,000
100k earner pays $ 10,000
500K earner pays $ 50,000
1 Mill earner pays$ 100,000 to the Govt Treasury. This is progressive. As the income goes up the earner pays more $ towards the tax. But the rate is the same 10% of the gross.

What is regressive and punitive is
"the marginal tax rate" jumping up starting from say 10% to 15% to 20% to 28% to 31% to 35% as the income goes up.

This punishes the highly productive high skilled upwardly mobile people. This is economically speaking counter-productive.

On Govt Wastes:

1. Shut down Dept of Home Land Security and its TSA.

2. Slowly cut down the military budget to match the aggregated dollar amounts spent by Russia, China, N. Korea and other enemies of the US.

3. We can shrink the various bureaucracies as much as 20% by increasing efficiency and automation.

When we don't have money, we need to be frugal, period.

You cannot give free lunches to anyone!

Somebody has to pay for it.

Who will pay for "middle class tax cut" and for Universal health care that Obama wants to enact?

Any answer other than fiscal sanity and efficiency?; June 08, 2008 2:22 PM
Beryl said...: Leah shared:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html

McCain has horrible character and so does Cindy for stealing prescription drugs using a charitable foundation. They are a match.

(I totally believe that he was messing around on Cindy too.); June 08, 2008 2:30 PM
apissedant said...: stop,
The GDP is roughly 13.4 trillion. This would lead to 1.34 trillion in tax revenue. This is not enough to cover the expense of the war and the interest on the national debt, let alone other government expenses. Also, taking 2,000 from someone making 10,000 does not leave them enough money for rent and food.; June 08, 2008 2:37 PM
jpsedona said...: apiss,

you said: "The GDP is roughly 13.4 trillion. This would lead to 1.34 trillion in tax revenue. This is not enough to cover the expense of the war and the interest on the national debt, let alone other government expenses"

How much is the 2008 interest on the debt? How much is the 'war cost' for 2008?

Add the two numbers together. What's the total?

Which is larger, the total you came up with, or $1.34 trillion?; June 08, 2008 2:50 PM
Joshua said...: Beryl...
“Aunt Jean, You still didn't give ONE SPECIFIC example”

It is my experience in visiting multiple websites that opposition to Obama or support for Hillary was never based on reason and logic. There is no rational reason to oppose Obama. Specific reasons to oppose Hillary are legion and I personally have listed several on this blog.

But Hillary is not old news. The fight now is against McCain. Here are some of my reasons for opposing McCain:
1. He really the Manchurian candidate. This scares me that this man is the nominee of the Republican Party. The trigger he will have is not going to be a rifle, but the actual nuclear launch sequence of the country. If this does not scare you, then you have not read about how McCain actually served his time as a POW. He was segregated from the other POW’s and was given VIP treatment as soon as the Vietnamese discovered that he was the son of the commander for the Pacific Fleet. Before voting for McCain, please read this.
2. McCain is a man of no character.
3. McCain is another George Bush in many ways. For one, he has failed in everything he has done. He graduated from military academy almost at the bottom of his class. He has crashed multiple jets that belong to the American tax payer. He capture in Vietnam was due to his incompetence. He was shot down in a maneuver he should have easily evaded .
4. McCain is a man without principle .
5. His own fellow Republican Senators have stated quite openly that they shudder to think that McCain could get his fingers on the nuclear button. He is irrational and unhinged. He is prone to bursts of anger and uncontrollable rage. He has referred to his own wife with the most derogatory sexist language. And did so in public.
6. He is an opportunist and stands for nothing more that say anything do anything to win office:
a. He hated Bush till it was convenient to kiss his behind to win office.
b. He hated the religious right till he needed their vote.
c. He was against the Confederate Flag, then he was for it, then he was against it. It all depends on what is most expedient at any time.; June 08, 2008 2:59 PM
apissedant said...: jpsedona,
It would be rather difficult to estimate the costs of the 2008 year. It would also be impossible to give you the exact GDP of 2008. This is why I obviously used past numbers. The "war" costs are not the only costs of the war. You also have to include the cost of the DoD as a whole. It would be rather hard to wage a war without a military, don't you think? Again, already added up, already stated, they are essentially the same number. If you would like to check with the IRS, you'll notice our overall expenses are about 3.2 trillion, which is much larger than 1.34 trillion.; June 08, 2008 3:01 PM
apissedant said...: jpsedona,
If you have other figures, I encourage you to post them, instead of implying that my figures are incorrect, without a single statement to the contrary.; June 08, 2008 3:03 PM
Beryl said...: Mike posted:
"6. He is an opportunist and stands for nothing more that say anything do anything to win office:
a. He hated Bush till it was convenient to kiss his behind to win office."

I agree. He reportedly commented at a party with Candice Bergen that he did not vote for Bush and later denied that claim.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/us/politics/09huffington.html?partner=rssnyt

He either lied at the party (showing off) or is lying now. Either way, he cannot be trusted. I'm really sick of politicians who feel that it is OK to lie.; June 08, 2008 3:10 PM
jpsedona said...: Apiss,

As ussual, you are an "expert" until it comes to the facts...

$261B - Interst on the National Debt per Budget
$145B - War on Terror per Budget

Total: $406B

You slipped in the DoD when challenged on "your facts".

But OK, let's add in DoD:

$481B - DoD budget per budget

$887B ... a bit less than $1.34 trillion?

Btw, Discretionary spending for 2008 is about $1.1 trillion... when you look at total receipts for 2008, it's estimated to be about $2.6 trillion... that includes taxes for social security, medicare, income taxes, corp taxes, and other sources.; June 08, 2008 3:18 PM
Meg said...: Leah:

That post is pretty horrible and probably fairly biased. Let's see if it surfaces before November and who brings it up.

The bit about being quite the party animal in his 20's sounds familiar.; June 08, 2008 3:21 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Karen anne I know that obama supporters will deny this but in the last debate he shot her the bird. I ask my brother in law just to look at it and to see if he seen anything out of place. He dislikes Hillary and doesn't know to much about Obama he's a McCain fan big times. Well he watched the video and he said wow he just brushed her off and shot her the bird.. I can understand you not wanting to admit that he would to something like that but he DID. Plus he has called her some bad things at the rallies.All I'm saying is both parties has been at fault but with the medias help and the screwups with the people that worked for her Obama won. But I do believe that if the media would have been fair she would have still won.Obama has not been vetted yet very much there will be more4 to come you wait and see. It will not be Hillary fault if he loses and it foolish to even think that. Jean; June 08, 2008 3:23 PM
Aunt Jean said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; June 08, 2008 3:28 PM
countjellybean said...: I haven't seen the video of the so-called bird-flipping incident, so I can't comment on it specifically.

However, I do want to mention that during the 80's, the manager of the San Francisco Giants, Frank Robinson, had the habit of rubbing the side of his nose with his middle finger. Opposing teams would sometimes take offense to this, thinking he was surreptitiously giving them the bird. Fortunately, there were enough recorded TV images of him rubbing his nose as a matter of habit.; June 08, 2008 3:38 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Karen anne I know that obama supporters will deny this but in the last debate he shot her the bird. I asked my brother in law just to look at it and see if he seen anything out of place. He dislikes Hillary and doesn't know to much about Obama he's a McCain fan big times. Well he watched the video and he said wow he just brushed her off and shot her the bird.. I can understand you not wanting to admit that he would to something like that but he DID. Plus he has said some bad things at the rallies about her.All I'm saying is both parties has been at fault but with the medias help and the screwups with the people that worked for her Obama won. But I do believe that if the media would have been fair she would have still won.Obama has not been vetted yet very much there will be more to come you wait and see. It will not be Hillary's fault if he loses and it's foolish to even think that. Why do you obama supporters still want to trash Hillary is beyond me. I do believe when a dog is down you don't keep kicking it and that is exactly what you are doing so please let it go! Don't for one minute think, that I believe Hillary is a dog it was just a figure of speech. I have so much respect and pride in backing her. She will go down in history as being a great Lady Doesn't matter if the Obama supporters like it or not. The votes were more or less split down the middle what makes your half so right and her half so wrong please explain that.I know you will not agree with me but Obama will not win the GE without Hillary supporters or at least a big part of them. Everyone thinks [obama supporters] that they will calm down and go ahead and vote democrat I'm telling you right now that won't happen without Obama and his supporters quit trashing Hillary, Obama has so why can't you . Jean; June 08, 2008 3:39 PM
Aunt Jean said...: countjellybean

you are right some people have a habit of it but I have watched Obama several times and he uses his pointer finger to scratch his cheek except that one time. Jean; June 08, 2008 3:41 PM
Joshua said...: Oops, several mistakes in my prior post. It was posted without proofreading. I was hurrying off to answer to my better half. She had something to tell me. I’ll repost my objections to McCain:
1. He really is the Manchurian candidate. This scares me that this man is the nominee of the Republican Party. The trigger he will have is not going to be a rifle, but the actual nuclear launch sequence of the country. If this does not scare you, then you have not read about how McCain actually served his time as a POW. He was segregated from the other POW’s and was given VIP treatment as soon as the Vietnamese discovered that he was the son of the commander for the Pacific Fleet. Before voting for McCain, please read this.
2. McCain is a man of no character.
3. McCain is another George Bush in many ways. For one, he has failed in everything he has done. He graduated from military academy almost at the bottom of his class. He has crashed multiple jets that belong to the American tax payer. His capture in Vietnam was due to his incompetence. He was shot down in a maneuver he should have easily evaded .
4. McCain is a man without principle.
5. His own fellow Republican Senators have stated quite openly that they shudder to think that McCain could get his fingers on the nuclear button. He is irrational and unhinged. He is prone to bursts of anger and uncontrollable rage. He has referred to his own wife with the most derogatory sexist language. And did so in public.
6. He is an opportunist and stands for nothing more than say anything do anything to win office:
a. He hated Bush till it was convenient to kiss his behind to win office.
b. He hated the religious right till he needed their vote.
c. He was against the Confederate Flag, then he was for it, then he was against it. It all depends on what is most expedient at any time.
7. He does not understand foreign policy. He can’t even tell the difference between Iran and Iraq. He does not understand the difference between Shia and Sunni. He thinks that Iran is in bed with Al Quaeda. His sidekick, the Likud Party Israeli senator with offices in Connecticut, had to correct him on camera that Iran was not aiding Al Quaeda.; June 08, 2008 4:00 PM
apissedant said...: jpsedona,
Where do you get these numbers from? Your numbers are not correct. Did you count in the extra money required for the war? NOOOOO. Didn't they just approve another 200 billion? You do your budget the same way as President Bush.
Also, your interest number is completely off. You used the "projected" 2008 costs, which as anyone who follows government knows, is never the REAL cost.

As far as adding the DoD, that was not an addition, that is a part of the war machine, heck, that IS the war machine. How do you not include the war machine in the war?

Here's a link, for those that are intellectually challenged... (yes, that's you jpsedona)
http://www.federalbudget.com/

Here is an even better one. THIS IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S OWN WEBSITE. IT GIVES HOW MUCH WE HAVE ALREADY PAID IN INTEREST IN FY2008. IT IS 267 BILLION AND COUNTING.
LAST YEAR WAS 430 BILLION, AND IT IS ON THE RISE.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm

Now jpsedona. Rest your feeble mind. I just showed you the ACTUAL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET. I just proved you were wrong. You have given no source, and I have given the federal government? What say you now? Can you admit when you're wrong? Can you now apologize for questioning my intelligence while yours was so blatantly missing from the equation?; June 08, 2008 4:06 PM
Aunt Jean said...: kugo but what you are missing in the statement of 11:26 am is that Bill said that Jesse Jackson run a great campaign and Obama has ran a great campaign. There was not one word of a racist remark in that it is only in the minds of Obama supporters because they want it there and with a lot of help from the media.Plus the fact that Obama took advanage of it which I thought was wrong of him.Jean; June 08, 2008 4:07 PM
apissedant said...: A little extra tidbit to chew on, the last time we spent less than 240 billion on interest, was in 1988. That was 20 years ago, I'm not expecting you to do complex math like subtraction, so I did it for you. You have proven more than unable to do a Google search, let alone math.; June 08, 2008 4:07 PM
Joshua said...: Beryl,

I agree that McCain cannot be trusted. I encourage posters to read Arianna Huffington’s book: Right Is Wrong: How the Lunatic Fringe Hijacked America, Shredded the Constitution, and Made Us All Less Safe before voting Republican in November.; June 08, 2008 4:10 PM
jpsedona said...: apiss,

Obviously, you are a very disturbed young man. The page with your info was not the US budget... try a "real" government site like the US Gov...

Budget of the United States Government: Fiscal Year 2008

you originally said: "The GDP is roughly 13.4 trillion. This would lead to 1.34 trillion in tax revenue. This is not enough to cover the expense of the war and the interest on the national debt, let alone other government expenses"

If you think you're factual, prove me wrong and show how the war cost and the interest are more than $1.34 trillion... or, just admit you "mistated" the facts.; June 08, 2008 4:19 PM
jpsedona said...: apiss,

If you're not a fan of Presidential budgets, try the CBO:

CBO 2008 Spending Projections; June 08, 2008 4:34 PM
apissedant said...: jpsedona,
Obviously, you're an idiot and don't know how to follow directions. The second link was most definitely the actual federal government's web page. I don't know if you realize how the internet works, but that's why it has .gov at the end of it. That's why it says treasurydirect prior to that. Here is a link from wikipedia explaining who treasury direct is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TreasuryDirect
Again, you have linked with a PROPOSED BUDGET, not an actual budget. I have linked you to the ACTUAL EXPENDITURES. This is the same trick you attempted with war costs, not including extra allotments that have been approved since that budget was originally created. Check the second link again. It IS the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. It has REAL numbers. Learn to follow directions, then come back and speak. If you lost the link, here it is again.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm; June 08, 2008 4:37 PM
apissedant said...: Again, you have posted a PROPOSED BUDGET. I work with ACTUAL BUDGETS. I work with proven history, not with fairy tale futures. This again, fails to account for the extra 200 billion approved for the war on terror after the budget approval, as well as other expenses.; June 08, 2008 4:39 PM
stopOBAMAnow said...: apissedant said
"Do you really think Yam/Stop is actually an HRC supporter? He has complained about taxes on the wealthy, complained about welfare programs, commplained abcoout abortion, complained about illegal immigrants, complained about liberal elitists, and pretty much everything else that Limbaugh says. Does that really sound like a Democrat? Though he has done it all in small increments, you put it together, and you see a Republican."

Wrong.. Wrong. Very wrong.

Yam is a fiscal conservative. He is a Centrist Democrat - a FOB, Friend of Bill.

He never said a word about abortion anytime - I have been reading ALL his posts thoroughly.

Not much on welfare programs, Not much on illegal immigration.

His suggestion was to increase the Legal Immigration of young, healthy skilled workers from Europe, Asia and other countries to meet the demographic challenges of SS Funding. This will solve the possibility of SS going bankrupt.

By doing such innovative engineering we can avoid taxing more. Obama wants to lift the income cap on SS taxation, which Yam believed was reckless and unnecessary.

Apiss... please do not distort Yam's words. He has been very clear about his political philosophy. Go, get a good paying job, and start paying tax. Because you and your other Liberal Ideologues consume same amount of "Federal Benefits" as the high income people do by paying enormous tax at 35% marginal rate!

Yam was a delegate to the State Democratic Convention at Austin, TX, which will make him as a bona-fide Democrat, IMO.

Any day, I agree with the numbers jp posts on budget matters than yours. You pull figures from the thin air! You are very judgmental, and as hateful as anybody you blame!

Stop name calling. Stay on issues.; June 08, 2008 4:40 PM
apissedant said...: jpsedona,
Even your own links disagree with you. They show the DoD costing 572 billion. This is of course still short, but it is much higher than you said it was.; June 08, 2008 4:40 PM
apissedant said...: stop,
A) Bill raised the highest marginal tax rate.
B) I am a military veteran, and have no problem with my current job or any I have had in the past.
C) The idea that we all enjoy the same benefits from the federal government is somewhat mistaken.
Someone with a 50 million dollar home receives the same protection from the insurance company as someone that has a 50 thousand dollar home, so why do they pay different rates? Those with more have more to protect, and therefore pay more to protect it.; June 08, 2008 4:48 PM
apissedant said...: jpsedona,
I don't hear anything.... where are you? Your "facts" don't match with your own facts. All my facts are consistent, and now I'm waiting for a reply. A way in which you can defend your PROPOSED facts against my ACTUAL facts.; June 08, 2008 4:49 PM
jpsedona said...: apiss,

I don't question your intelligence, I question your honesty and sbility to admit when you're wrong.

As an example, per the CBO, the "net interest" for 2007 was 238B and they projected 2008 to be $234B. To understand this number, you need to understand what makes up the net.

I am using budget numbers for FY2008 since any other data would be incomplete. Why don't you total the amount spent in FYI 2007... I'll even let you throw in a couple hundred billion... how much was it?

you originally said: "The GDP is roughly 13.4 trillion. This would lead to 1.34 trillion in tax revenue. This is not enough to cover the expense of the war and the interest on the national debt, let alone other government expenses"

If you think you're factual, prove me wrong and show how the war cost and the interest are more than $1.34 trillion... or, just admit you "mistated" the facts.; June 08, 2008 4:53 PM
Independent Voter said...: Stop says, "For me what is important is what do Americans want in USA, not elsewhere? Once we elect McCain everybody in the world will look up to US."

-----

I disagree with you 100%. If McCain gets in everybody will be looking up alright, but it won't be UP to the US, they will be looking UP for bombs!; June 08, 2008 5:00 PM
apissedant said...: jpsedona,
I sent you the actual treasury department numbers. How do you argue with those? The numbers you are using are not the actual totals.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/opdie052008.pdf
That is 2008 to date. The total expense is 267 billion on our debt so far this year. That is not actually paying off any of the debt, just interest. The previous link gives the total expenses of previous years, showing 2007 as 406 billion dollars. Your military expenditures did not include the 200 billion dollar request made less than a month after the PROPOSED BUDGET was approved. I am either questioning your intelligence or your honesty. By using partial numbers, you are getting a partial picture. I gave you more complete numbers. Even these do not account for retirement and VA benefits for the military and the civilians working with the military, which is listed under non-military discretionary spending. These are all expenses associated with operating the military. They MUST ALL BE INCLUDED.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm
That link, for the third time, is the Treasury Direct's analysis of interest costs on the national debt. This IS the Federal Government, why would they lie or mistate their own costs?; June 08, 2008 5:05 PM
stopOBAMAnow said...: apiss said

"A) Bill raised the highest marginal tax rate."

True; but he achieved the balanced budget, and the Surplus which belonged to the SS Fund, and the Economy was booming, dollar was high and most people were very happy. Our US Brand was reigning supreme.
"B) I am a military veteran, and have no problem with my current job or any I have had in the past."

Were you paying taxes at high marginal rate?

"C) The idea that we all enjoy the same benefits from the federal government is somewhat mistaken."

Your example of private Insurance Co protecting properties, and per capita consumption of Federal Benefits is totally ludicrous, you know it.

Let me tell you your assertion that 10% of GDP is not enough for military, interest payment etc is flat out wrong.

jp proved it beyond any doubt. Accept you were wrong and move on.
That I call being a real MAN.

jp is one of a few thoughtful persons in this blogsite. Next is Jim and Yam!; June 08, 2008 5:07 PM
apissedant said...: TOTAL INTEREST EXPENSE ON PUBLIC ISSUES $21,229,325,407.91 $156,288,186,526.30
TOTAL INTEREST EXPENSE ON GOVT ACCOUNT SERIES $1,159,170,490.19 $110,003,962,340.27
TOTAL INTEREST EXPENSE ON THE PUBLIC DEBT $22,388,495,898.10 $266,292,148,866.57

That is copied and pasted from the Federal government. That is year to date FY2008.; June 08, 2008 5:08 PM
jpsedona said...: Apiss,

You really are just like Hillary. You originally said: "The GDP is roughly 13.4 trillion. This would lead to 1.34 trillion in tax revenue. This is not enough to cover the expense of the war and the interest on the national debt, let alone other government expenses"

Come on, you can admit there's no way that you can prove that the expenditures on the war plus interest are off by many hundreds of billions. Or maybe you can prove yourself correct?

Btw, ALL discretionary program spending in 2007 was less than $1.1 trillion...; June 08, 2008 5:11 PM
apissedant said...: stop,
Apparently you didn't follow any of the links. I linked to the ACTUAL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and proved him wrong. He linked to a message with a proposed budget from President Bush. Follow the links and get back Stop.
Also, it is not ludicrous. The more you have, the more you pay to protect what you have. The more you have, the more you use. The company Wal-Mart has trucks all around the country using the federal roads. They have students in the public school system being educated that will eventually be working for them. They had a 30 million dollar road built outside their major building on the tax payer dime. The federal government never built me a 30 million road specifically for my use. It sounds to me like they are using more of federal government funds than I am. I don't have 500 trucks using federal roads for my profit. I don't have tens of thousands of employees being educated on the government tab. This company is largely owned by the Walton family. It sounds to me that they are getting a lot more benefits out of the government than I am.

As for earning more than 400,000 a year, no I don't. Luckily, we don't live in 17th century Europe, and I don't have to be a millionaire to vote. It sounds like you're the elitist. "Only those that make more than 400,000 a year can have a vote in our government."; June 08, 2008 5:14 PM
jpsedona said...: Apiss,

Per the independnent CBO, the net interest for 2007 was $238B.

The reason to use "Net" is that there's about 192B in interest income that offsets the interest paid.

So, for 2007 interest paid was $430B ... less interest received $192. That yields $238 in interest expenditures "net".

Try the cbo numbers...

CBO Spending Outlook ... this includes 2007 actuals and 2008 projections. Just show that you're not in denial or lying... just find war spending plus interest being more than $1.34 trillion...; June 08, 2008 5:19 PM
apissedant said...: jpsedona,
I already proved it. Now you are just being repetitive. Did you actually look at the interest costs? It will be nearly 500 billion this year. I showed the link. It showed that it was 406 billion last year, and it is 267 billion YTD. There is 572 billion spent on the military, just DoD discretionary spending. The government has since approved an extra 200 billion so far, YTD. This does not include other War on Terror funding, just those specifically assigned to DoD. There is 150 billion assigned in the regular discretionary non military portion that YOU showed. There is also 50 billion assigned to the Department of Homeland Security. Total it up, 500 billion, 200 billion, 572 billion, 50 billion, 150 billion. That is 1.47 billion. Interest is not discretionary, you don't get to choose whether or not to pay for it. You're using the one column as if it is the limit, yet there is another column, a larger column, that you ignore.; June 08, 2008 5:19 PM
Karen Anne said...: Aunt Jean,

I saw that video, and I, of course, do not believe Obama shot Hillary the bird. Besides the fact that he's a gentleman, he would have to be pretty stupid to do that when it was being videotaped.

Unlike the Clintons (ref the Bosnia video, and Bill claiming he hadn't said something he'd said just the day before), Obama knows about video and the Internet, since he's of a younger generation.

What "bad things" did he say at rallies?

Yes, Hillary got about half the vote. No rational person is saying her half of the Democratic voters does not count. In fact, they are very important.

People have been still "trashing" Clinton after Obama won because she was trying to delegitimize his nomination by falsely claiming she had won the popular vote, and by not conceding, thus dragging out the delay until he could start really campaigning against McCain.

Now that she has corrected those things, I expect things will change. Although with both Clinton supporters and Republican trolls continuing to post false stuff, I expect some Obama supporters will post back. Kind of a waste of time, IMHO, now.; June 08, 2008 5:23 PM
apissedant said...: jpsedona,
Enough, you can repeat yourself a thousand times and you're still wrong. Look at the chart I listed. Dispute that chart. You have not even mentioned a single thing I have told you, except that it wasn't the federal government. Which it quite obviously is. You still haven't addressed that mistake. Remember when I missed the fact that Yam put afterwards that it was (marginal tax rate) and I had missed it. I admitted that I missed it, though I still felt it was a dishonest way to state the claim. You have yet to admit a single mistake, despite regardless of anything else, you're definitely wrong on that one.

Top of the page I linked to:
BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT
DEBT ACCOUNTING BRANCH
INTEREST EXPENSE ON THE PUBLIC DEBT
RECAPITULATION FOR MONTH ENDING
May 2008; June 08, 2008 5:23 PM
Emit R Detsaw said...: I know there have been several of these, and this is not a new one, but LEE and STOP, if you are confused as to who you should vote on, you can go to:

http://www.vajoe.com/candidate_calculator.html

It's a Veterans site.

I just scored an 84.21% match to Obama, the next highest for me was Clinton at 78.95%. FYI McCain hit only 42.11% for my answers.

How have the Vets been doing that take this calculator? (would be interesting to just see it between Obama and McCain now that it is down to 2)

# Gravel - 15.98%
# Huckabee - 13.00%
# Giuliani - 10.48%
# Romney - 9.17%
# Kucinich - 8.37%
# Cox - 6.82%
# Biden - 6.57%
# Clinton - 5.51%
# Obama - 4.87%
# Dodd - 3.51%
# Hunter - 3.51%
# Tancredo - 2.25%
# Paul - 2.13%
# Tommy Thompson - 1.99%
# Fred Thompson - 1.94%
# Richardson - 1.36%
# Edwards - 1.08%
# Brownback - 0.93%
# Mccain - 0.54%

Nice to see McCain where he belongs.; June 08, 2008 5:24 PM
apissedant said...: Dispute that and stop repeating yourself. You have neither admitted the one obvious mistake, or discounted or argued a single fact I have shown you. I acknowledged and argued yours... they are "proposed" and not "actual". I am debating on actual expenses, not proposed.; June 08, 2008 5:24 PM
jpsedona said...: Apiss,

You said "War" and "interest"... wouldn't be covered by $1.34 trillion...

Oh yeah, let's add in the base DoD; oh, that doesn't work? Let's add in homeland defense. That doesn't work? Oh that doesn't work, let's ignore the facts... created your own.

My last word: your just being dishonest and unable to deal with realties.

If you want to post some additional stuff feel free, I will be back tomorrow...; June 08, 2008 5:27 PM
apissedant said...: The total you give, again, arguing your silly documents... involves putting social security funds in the general fund to offset the debt. That is not appropriate and both you and I know it. You do not get to call social security interest money earned by the government. That is taxpayer money for retirement or disability, not for the general fund.

The fact that you have the nerve to call me dishonest while requiring money to be stolen from social security for your numbers to work is absolutely shameless.; June 08, 2008 5:29 PM
apissedant said...: jpsedona,
when exactly was the department of homeland security created? For what purpose? OH YEAH, THE WAR ON TERROR. Who is currently using the over 200 million in war money? Oh yeah, the DoD. My initial statement that it was over 1.34 trillion included these numbers. Whether you realized it or not is not my problem. I realize that you can not wage a war without a military, which means the military is a part of the war. The DOHS was created to help wage the war. That counts. This is how my total arose, again, if you did not realize, I don't care. I don't have to add the VA or civilian military fund to overcome it, I'm just saying, they are a part of waging war.

YOU STOLE FROM THE SOCIAL SECURITY FUND TO MAKE YOUR NUMBERS WORK.
I think your dishonesty dwarfs the dishonest you claim I had. Again, I am not adding these, I had included the 600 billion for the military in the original number. It is obvious that there is no way to reach 1.34 billion without it. You say you don't question my intelligence. If that is true, you must realize that I would know that 200 billion plus 500 billion does not equal 1.34 billion, which means I must have included more in my original numbers.; June 08, 2008 5:34 PM
apissedant said...: jpsedona,
You questioned my intelligence, my integrity, and my numbers, but never once disputed a single link I posted. Obviously you cannot deal with reality or mistakes. You even went so far as to decide the Treasury Direct is not part of the government.; June 08, 2008 5:36 PM
apissedant said...: From the web page of the President of the United States. A direct quote from President Bush explaining what the war on terror entails:
"We are using every tool of finance, intelligence, law enforcement and military power to break terror networks, to deny them refuge, and to find their leaders."

President Bush himself has listed all of these tools as a part of the "War on Terror," and thus, expenses associated with it should be considered expenses for that war.; June 08, 2008 5:48 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: LOL.... people that believe internet rumors are just plain silly.

Senator Obama did NOT shoot Hillary 'the bird'.

First of all the video in question was NOT at a debate. The video was taken at one of Obama's rallies.

There are two videos shot from different angles and in the second video you can see TWO fingers as he touched his face. The index finger is behind his middle finger.

He merely touched his face - that was all.

.; June 08, 2008 5:48 PM
stopOBAMAnow said...: apiss:

"You still haven't addressed that mistake. Remember when I missed the fact that Yam put afterwards that it was (marginal tax rate) and I had missed it. I admitted that I missed it, though I still felt it was a dishonest way to state the claim."

Obviously, you didn't know how to read a sentence! Yam's sentence was very clear!

And, you don't know what dishonesty is.

You are a very confused person.

________________________________

Indep:

Thanks for the comment.

My only worry is whether another 9/11 would come on us because of the perceived "weakness" of BHO.

I am very confident that McCain will protect US no matter what.

He may or may not do much on the Economy.

On the Iraq: McCain wants to withdraw the troops in about 4 years, while BHO wants to do it in about 2 years, as a consequence he could create a haven for Al Queda in Iraq. I am worried about it.

War was the wrong war waged by WBush on wrong intelligence. 70% of Americans approved it at THAT time. Now in hindsight 20/20, we see it clearly, the WAR should have been averted from the beginning.

We are where we are. WE need to bring it to a safe conclusion. That's what McCain wants. I agree with him. He will safely end it in about 4 years.; June 08, 2008 5:58 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: jpsedona said...
So, for 2007 interest paid was $430B ... less interest received $192. That yields $238 in interest expenditures "net".

And what is the makeup of the 'interest received'?

The Social Security trust fund, and other trust funds. In other words, monies that the US government holds in trust.

The ONLY place that the US government can invest "surplus" funds is in US Government funds - they're called Treasuries. The trust funds figure the income from interest to grow the funds, therefore the 'interest received' as a result of those funds will be figured in when it is time to disperse those funds.

I worked for a federal government agency that was not funded with appropriated monies. The agency's monies came from the entities it regulated. All of that money was private, not government money. Even so, since the agency was a federal government agency, any money received in excess of immediate needs was, BY LAW, placed in short-term Treasuries. The agency gained a few tens of thousands of dollars each year that could be used in the agency. However, the funds used by the agency could not exceed the total budget that had received Congressional Approval.

If the agency had been an appropriated agency, the monies earned through Treasury investment would have been in the same category of 'interest earned' that leads to a 'net' interest. It is nothing but a bookkeeping way of making the books look better. All the 'net interest' does is document the money that the government takes from one pocket to put into it's other pocket. That money is not from outside the government, but money switched from one pocket to another withing the government. And the other thing it does is reduce the current payments, but increases the total amount to be paid in the future.

Mike; June 08, 2008 5:58 PM
apissedant said...: ugh, I matched Clinton.; June 08, 2008 5:59 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Karen Anne I hate to disappoint you but she did win the pop. vote. He shouldn't get any votes from Michigan. The DNC didn't require him to take his name off the ballot just not campaign there he choose to take his name off the ballot because of Iowa. But I suppose you are going to say that is a lie too.Plus you cannot count the caucuses that had primarys also like Texas. I also totally and I mean totally disagree about the finger I DO believe that he did exactly that and thought he could get away with it. Which he did with his supporters and the media but Hillary knows that is what he meant doesn't matter if you believe it or not.As far as her conceding the night she lost well it was the sd's that took it over not the primary so why should she do it on their time table. Did it really hurt anything to wait a few days I don't think so. So it was just obama supporters complaining about Hillary just like they do all the time.I would explain some of the offending things that he said at the rallies but like I said it's a moot point in more ways than one. Jean; June 08, 2008 5:59 PM
apissedant said...: stop,
with all the mistakes you have made in reading and typing in this thread, I take your insult as a compliment. People can miss a statement. It happens all the time. Especially when it is placed at the end in parenthesis for the purpose of hiding the truth.
I admitted my mistake in missing the sentence, and all I'm asking is for someone to admit their mistake in saying that Treasury Direct does not belong to the government.; June 08, 2008 6:02 PM
Aunt Jean said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; June 08, 2008 6:03 PM
Joshua said...: The Obama campaign would have to be insane to accept another “debate” hosted by ABC News. Did they forget the sandbagging that the gnome Stephanopolous did to Obama while carrying Hillary’s water? I would seriously question his judgement if he were to accept another “debate” by ABC News. And I worry that he would accept any challenge from BushMcCain. Obama should probably not debate BushMcCain unless there is something for him to gain. He is polling ahead of BushMcCain. It is common knowledge that in a campaign the front-runner does not debate the lesser opponent. Why give him free publicity? Obama can attract 80K people at his event while BushMcCain gets 100 people. Why expose BushMcCain to the wide audience that would tune in to see Obama? It makes no sense to me at all why the Obama camp would even immediately accept a challenge thrown down by that old, confused, Manchurian candidate.; June 08, 2008 6:05 PM
apissedant said...: Mike, I am back to agreeing with you again. I also looked over your proposals in the reform thread, and on second look they looked a lot better. I liked the idea of delegate penalties that states that go early in order to encourage later contests. I do have a question though... Iowa and New Hampshire already have very few delegates, yet they still are able to force most candidates to withdraw. Do you think reducing their delegates by two or three would really make a big difference in impact?; June 08, 2008 6:06 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Leah you have the right to believe what you want to believe. I watched the video over and over and yes I BELIEVE TOTALLY THAT HE SHOT HILLARY THE BIRD. Yes he had the other finger up there also but he bent it. I think I know when someone shoots the finger or not. The one thing that always got me the most about Obama supporters is they always always never thought that Obama did any wrong. I've got news for you he is human just like we all are and he makes stupid mistakes just like everyone else. He is not God and he's far from perfect. Even though Obama supporters think he is.That is what is going to cause the problems in the GE. Jean; June 08, 2008 6:08 PM
apissedant said...: Mike,
Would he look like a wimp if he didn't debate though? It seems like an early debate on neutral ground would help him a little, but not the 12 town halls that McCain wants. I agree in not giving him to many venues and exposing himself to too much scrutiny while ahead.

It is important that he stays on the news though, and this would help. We all know that the swift boaters will come out with something and flood the airwaves. It is important for Obama to drowned those out.; June 08, 2008 6:09 PM
apissedant said...: aunt jean,
I would agree he is not God and that he has done wrong in the past. I believe that Obama himself would easily agree to this. I honestly don't think it was meant to be the bird though.; June 08, 2008 6:11 PM
Aunt Jean said...: apissedant

The one thing I do know at this point it really doesn't matter if he did or didn't. The fact is that most Hillary supporters think he did. That was the point I was making. Jean; June 08, 2008 6:14 PM
apissedant said...: aunt jean,
That is a good point. I hope that they are able to get over that. Like you said, he isn't perfect, so even if he made a mistake, is it reason enough to write him off? Is that reason enough to give the Presidency to McCain, who you disagree with much more often?; June 08, 2008 6:16 PM
Joshua said...: apissedant...

Then Obama should originate the idea, not accept one proposed by BushMcCain. I want to elect a leader not a “me too” follower.; June 08, 2008 6:20 PM
apissedant said...: mike,
I can understand that. Although remember he also campaigns on bipartisanship and ability to play nice with others. If McCain does come up with a good idea, wouldn't it be important for Obama to give him credit and agree with that idea?

Also, like you said, the loser is always begging the winner for debates, so that is partially par for the course.; June 08, 2008 6:22 PM
Joshua said...: apissedant

The “town hall” debate idea proposed by BushMcCain is the second hare-brained idea that Obama seems to be accepting. The first was to join BushMcCain in a visit to Iraq before November. I am very uncomfortable for Obama to accept anything proposal from the BushMcCain camp. That camp would never propose anything that would benefit Obama at their expense. Obama had better stop being such an accommodating person. I want someone who will kick ass. I understood why he treated Hillary with kid-gloves throughout the Primary season: she is a woman and a gentleman never hits back a woman, and 2, she is a fellow Democrat even if she behaved like a Repugant.

But with BushMcCain, it should be mano-o-mano. Everything goes. Don’t stop till you draw blood.; June 08, 2008 6:29 PM
Aunt Jean said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; June 08, 2008 6:30 PM
Aunt Jean said...: apissedant

you are right that shouldn't be a good enough reason to vote for McCain but you also have to understand most Hillary supporters are mad as hell.Maybe these next few months things will cool off. I really don't know I guess we will just have to wait and see. I do know that I can't vote for McCain.jean; June 08, 2008 6:32 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Attorneys and U.S. Senators do NOT give the bird to other Senators especially when they are being video tapped by the national media. This whole thing is ridiculous. Senator Obama doesn't even let audience members at his town halls use mild swear words such as damn and hell. He has really gotten on them when they have and he finds it highly offense. He would never give the bird to anyone - it is not in his character to do so.

I find it highly offensive that the Hillary supporters have such low regard for Senator Obama who is a Senator of the United States of America.

I am really tired of people not showing him respect and treating him like he is some sort of street thug.

And to those people that keep saying that Senator Obama has shown disrespect to Senator Clinton either post some quotes or be quiet about it. He has always said nice things about Senator Clinton and has only gone after her on issues.

Enough is enough.; June 08, 2008 6:32 PM
Beryl said...: apissedant,
I think Obama will welcome ideas and credit those who generate them.

However, do you expect McCain to do the same? I don't since he has shamelessly stolen his campaign slogans without giving him credit.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/04/mccain-rips-off-obamas-sl_n_105266.html
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0608/A_logo_you_can_believe_in.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6283548; June 08, 2008 6:35 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Leah you need to get off your high horse you talk about us showing respect for Obama have you shown respect forHillary I don't think so.Respect is a two way street. Jean; June 08, 2008 6:37 PM
Joshua said...: Personally I ignore posters whining about showing Hillary respect. First you never demand respect. You earn it. And if you have to ask for respect, then you haven’t earned it. Additionally, Hillary did not respect herself. She stayed on the stag long past when it was sane to do so. Any self-respecting politician would have bowed out after Obama had the string of 11 consecutive unanswered victories. Hillary ran her campaign on fumes of entitlement. This is the last comment I will waste on that woman.; June 08, 2008 6:39 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: I am still waiting for someone to post quotes where Senator Obama has disrespected Senator Clinton. I do not expect to see any anytime soon because they do not exist!

Obama/Kathleen Sebelius '08; June 08, 2008 6:40 PM
Independent Voter said...: Stop -On the Iraq: McCain wants to withdraw the troops in about 4 years, while BHO wants to do it in about 2 years, as a consequence he could create a haven for Al Queda in Iraq. I am worried about it.

War was the wrong war waged by WBush on wrong intelligence. 70% of Americans approved it at THAT time. Now in hindsight 20/20, we see it clearly, the WAR should have been averted from the beginning.

We are where we are. WE need to bring it to a safe conclusion. That's what McCain wants. I agree with him. He will safely end it in about 4 years.

-----

You forget that the majority of Iraqi's legislators WANT US OUT! As do the majority of IRAQI citizens. They don't want us there, in ANY capacity. So tell me again, why we should continue helping them? Isn't it time the US STOPS throwing good money (not so good anymore) after bad?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mike - Why expose BushMcCain to the wide audience that would tune in to see Obama?

----

Why not? Can you imagine all the BOO'S that would be thrown at McCain? He would look like the complete idiot that we all know him to be.; June 08, 2008 6:48 PM
Joshua said...: Funny, Independent. But I prefer that BushMcCain be accorded no exposure. You would be surprised that there are many American who would be swayed by his arguments. No one ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the American voter.; June 08, 2008 6:52 PM
Beryl said...: Leah,

Stay on your high horse. We all know that Obama has only been a gentleman and consistently speaks highly of HRC. No one on this site has been able to cite a specific negative comment from him. Frankly, I don't know he can remain so calm and composed in the face of the negativity slung by her.

Bill knows that Obama has been respectful too and commented that Obama gets his SUPPORTERS to do his dirty work. (Those who have conveniently forgotten his comment can Google it.) We know that Bill's comment was another one of his many lies because Obama doesn't even know most of his supporters!

HRC has had enough attention and it is time to talk about McCain.; June 08, 2008 6:52 PM
greywolf said...: Okay.. time for me to chime in.

For everyone that is talking about the townhall debates that McCain proposed.

1 he proposed them because he is tight on money.
2.Obama's reply, not a bad Idea; however, (everyone already knows Obama is no dummy), he said we will look into a format and locations and get back to you. We do not agree with the format you propose, so we will come up with something and let you know, but not right now, I have other things that I need to do first.
3. McCain came back at him about it and Obama replied, if you want a town Hall type debate that is fine but not on the terms you proposed. Your proposed audiance are too small, the locations are not right, and your format is all wrong. We will get back to you on this at a later date, but NOT not, I have other things to do and take care of.
4. So dont worry, Obama will do the town hall debates but not as many as proposed by McSame, Obama proposed 6-8 max, there are already several debates scheduled and Obama does not want to spend a lot of time on town hall meeting when he can draw bigger crowd on his own.
This came from the Obama camp by the way.; June 08, 2008 6:54 PM
apissedant said...: mike,
Ok, I can totally agree with that. The idea of going to Iraq with McCain is definitely a bad idea, and doing 12 town halls I disagree with. The idea of coming together for a couple town halls I think would be ok though.

The Iraq one seems really stupid though, I definitely agree there. It gives validity to McCain's claim that his analysis doesn't count because he hasn't gone to Iraq often enough. This is especially painful since as far as I know, McCain has still not admitted he was wrong about troop levels. I say if McCain would publicly admit he was mistaken, then Obama could go with him to Iraq. The main idea would not be to let McCain plan the whole trip though. They could just visit the 8 nice neighborhoods, and ignore the 800 dangerous ones. He would have to have a hand in the planning. This would never happen anyways, because McCain won't admit he was wrong.; June 08, 2008 6:54 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Disrespectful quotes FROM Senator Clinton:

1)
"Shame on you, Barack Obama."
(Said while waving papers in the air with the tone of a scolding mother."

2)
"I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."

3)
"Maybe we should ask Barack if he's comfortable and needs another pillow."
(During a national debate)

And there are many more that I am not going to waste my time posting. She has never once apologized to Senator Obama for being disrespectful and rude.; June 08, 2008 6:56 PM
apissedant said...: beryl,
agreed

greywolf,
Agreed. Smaller amount is good, a few is good for both sides. Also, McCain has flip flopped a lot, and made a lot of mistakes on stage. He is proposing all of these because yes, he is broke, and yes, he is behind. He is gambling, going for all or nothing. Odds are he will hurt himself more than he helps himself, but he doesn't have much to lose.; June 08, 2008 6:57 PM
Independent Voter said...: leah -

the only thing that I thought was disrespectful (not that she didn't ask for it) was when he referred to her as Annie Oakley.; June 08, 2008 6:58 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: apissedant said...
Do you think reducing their delegates by two or three would really make a big difference in impact?

First, this discussion should be on the other thread. VBG

Maybe 10% per cycle would be too little. At 10% reduction, no, it wouldn't make much difference the first cycle. And no, not during the second cycle. But by the third cycle, it starts to make a difference. Fourth cycle, you are talking almost half the delegation. If the states are so headstrong to keep their caucus and primary first, then they deserve to be shunned as they would be by then.

Maybe 25% reduction the first time, then 50%, then 75%, and finally total (if they keep insisting on being first), would work better.

It took a long time for the mindset of 'first in the nation' to set in. It will take some time to get Iowa and New Hampshire to get out of that mindset. If they really believe it is best for the process, then they should be able to document it. Since it's all subjective, they can't document anything except that it's cheaper to campaign in a small (population) state than in a large (population) state. There are plenty of states in the same population range as New Hampshire, and 20 states with smaller populations than Iowa (although Iowa's population isn't growing right now, so it could soon slip from 30th largest population).

Mike; June 08, 2008 6:58 PM
Beryl said...: Greywolf,
I heard the same thing regarding those Town Hall meetings.

Obama and his supporters are smart (education is a wonderful thing) and will not allow McBush to set the agenda.; June 08, 2008 6:58 PM
apissedant said...: aunt jean,
That's good, and I completely understand and sympathize with that opinion. The fact is, if Hillary had miraculously won this primary, I would be hard pressed to support her right now. However, in November, allowing McCain to win would be worse for me. I hate a lot of things she did, but common sense would require me to forgive them in light of the bigger picture.; June 08, 2008 7:00 PM
greywolf said...: One last chime in.

I am going to assume we are all adults in here, all this nit picking back and forth stuff reminds me of a bunch of pre-school crap.

Okay so there is a lot of crap being circulated out there in wonder, supid land. A reasonable, well thinking, grounded, adult will instantly recgonize that stuff for what it is.
This is no longer about who did what or who said what during the primaries. This is about a GEneral Election. So I would strongly recommend every one take a real big elephant sized chill pill. Think about what your saying and doing. We are supose to be building a mass voting coalition (SP) for Obama, and the Democratic party. We are not supose to be talking about all the things from the past.
If someone in here has heart burn about Hillary and the way you feel she was treated. GET OVER IT !!!
For every thing that you say happened to Hillary, if you are HONEST and ADULT about it, you will know that simular and some worse demeaning and degrading things were said about OBAMA. So again, GROW UP AND GET OVER IT.
You do not see the candidates sitting around crying and fussing, they are quietly letting the raw nerves settle and then they will come out like gang busters and Kick McSames back side all the way to the Senate where he belongs.

SO STOP IT, GET ALONG, HAVE A REASONABLE DIALOGUE ABOUT HOW WE CAN HELP OUR CANDIDATE GAIN THE WHITE HOUSE. all this nitpicky stuff is getting very silly, and it needs to stop.; June 08, 2008 7:03 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: greywolf-

Regarding the Obama McCain town hall meetings I think McCain has made a fatal error.

I have watched most of the Obama town hall rallies over the past few months and Obama does very well in that format.

Also, it is always the person that is behind or has less money that calls for debates (free airtime) so we can clearly see that McCain is already at a disadvantage.

McCain's proposal for one debate per week for 10 weeks was ridiculous. He is trying to get Obama off of his schedule because he knows Senator Obama is planing a 50 state strategy and targeting the red states.

Obama is not going to do anything that is not in his best interests just like when Hillary was hollering for debates towards the end and he didn't fall for the trap.

Obama/Sebelius '08; June 08, 2008 7:03 PM
apissedant said...: mike,
I would definitely agree with a penalty, and it is almost impossible to prevent states from scheduling their primary whenever they want. I say a randomly drawn primary. Movement within +-4 days is allowed without penalty so they can decide the day of the week. Any movement outside of that has at least 50% penalty. That way NH and Iowa could retain first in the nation, but it would be tiny. I think the penalty would eventually have to grow though, because like I said, their small number of delegates still seems to decide a lot, so even at 50% they should still decide more than any other state.
Sorry about the location, but old threads disappear of the radar, and this one is always here!; June 08, 2008 7:05 PM
apissedant said...: *off; June 08, 2008 7:06 PM
greywolf said...: If you have what you feel is a legitimat gripe then provide proof, documented proof, other wise leave it alone and get on with life for pet's sake as well as for your own mental and emotional well being. If going to those sites that really piss you off, gets you so upset that you can not come in here and carry on a reasonable adult conversation about getting Obama into the white house; then stop going to those sites. You already know they are full of a bunch of stupid, brainless, fear mongering republicans that are trying their best to keep the you all fighting. It looks like it is working from my perspective.; June 08, 2008 7:06 PM
Emit R Detsaw said...: Anyone hitting other blogs to start trying to correct bloggers on the Facts about Obama.

Having fun on a couple military sites. It will limit my time in here, but I feel it's time better spent at this point. ;o); June 08, 2008 7:09 PM
apissedant said...: independent,
I still say we need to throw more money in Iraq, but not more troops. I still argue troops do nothing, because the problem is their economy. Increase the rebuild effort and decrease the military effort. Stop being bullies and start being mentors.

I have an unrelated question... Has anyone seen all the videos of American soldiers doing terrible things, like throwing dogs of cliffs and stuff? Is that stuff real or fake?; June 08, 2008 7:11 PM
stopOBAMAnow said...: "You forget that the majority of Iraqi's legislators WANT US OUT! As do the majority of IRAQI citizens."

Indep:

Was there any legislation passed and signed by the President of Iraq to this effect?

My recollection is Al Maliki Govt wants US to stay there till their Army/Police stand up to the task of protecting the country.

Please enlighten me on this issue.; June 08, 2008 7:13 PM
apissedant said...: Sorry grey, but I meant nothing personal with my stuff earlier. I was personally insulted and told to renounce my citizenship. I take offense to that. Probably should have ignored it.; June 08, 2008 7:13 PM
apissedant said...: stop,
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/51624/; June 08, 2008 7:15 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Emit R Detsaw -

I normally post on the CNN comments and the comments on HuffPost. I used to post on FoxNews to correct smears but they don't approve many messages over there anymore so I don't go there. I signed up on Hillary's site to post some unity comments but they don't approve anything over there so I gave up there too. There are alot of Obama supporters posting on the McCain site to the Hillary folks telling them that they are disrespecting Hillary by supporting McCain but no one listens over there. I have noticed that the Hillary website is not approving as many 'vote McCain' comments today as they were yesterday.; June 08, 2008 7:15 PM
apissedant said...: Nonbinding resolution, but a majority of legislatures did sign it.; June 08, 2008 7:16 PM
Independent Voter said...: pissed ant - I still say we need to throw more money in Iraq, but not more troops. I still argue troops do nothing, because the problem is their economy. Increase the rebuild effort and decrease the military effort. Stop being bullies and start being mentors.

----------

I agree with you on the troops. HOWEVER, we need to REMOVE our "contractors" and let the Iraqi people rebuild their country. I agree that we should be helping them pay for it, but we should NOT have our contractors over there "stealing" their jobs.; June 08, 2008 7:17 PM
apissedant said...: stop,
as to the President, I'm not sure if you understand how democracies work. One man does not hold all power, his word is not the word of Iraq. He is A player, the most important player, but still just A player.; June 08, 2008 7:18 PM
greywolf said...: I wasnt pointing at anyone... it is just getting really stupid in here. We should be thinking of ways to make it better not worse.

Lets come together and if nothing else come up with a plan to hit those sites that are talking trash and flood them with documented proof that goes against what they are saying.
go each day and past a bunch of url's that defeat what they are saying. But dont engage them in a mindless conversation because it will only frustrate you and anger you. We need to unite and bring in new voters not fight amongst ourselves.

Softspokey what you said about the town hall meeting is correct. Obama will kick his hinney, especially if he does his home work first as far as the Iraq thing is concerned as well as the economy. Then he needs to hammer McCain on his voting record as it applies to those issues.
If Obama comes at McCain with facts, McCain will beging to stutter, stammer and step all over himself making numerous fopas. He may even show his angry side and slam dunk himself into never never land.; June 08, 2008 7:21 PM
apissedant said...: independent,
100% agreement. A large portion of our money, but their workers. Solve two problems at once, unemployment and rebuilding. Hopefully after many of the items are rebuilt, they can actually work inside the buildings they build.

I say, moderate troop withdrawals down to almost nothing in 2 years. Every dollar we save by the withdrawal is reinvested into the Iraqi economy. Set some sort of a timetable where that money goes down to 0, because we can of course not fund their economy forever, but we have a responsibility to do something about it now.; June 08, 2008 7:23 PM
Independent Voter said...: Thanks for posting the link p'd ant; June 08, 2008 7:24 PM
apissedant said...: grey,
Agreed. The coolest part about McCain is that he can't lie worth a damn. He looks so fake and pathetic lately, and he stammers constantly. I remember the old straight talk express... he did well when he got to tell the truth.

Obama hits him with facts and forces him to lie, and all the viewers will know it.; June 08, 2008 7:25 PM
stopOBAMAnow said...: Here is my two cents on Debates:

BHO is weak on Debates. He did not win any at all against Hillary, IMO.

He stammers, stutters and comes across as awkward, naive and unprepared. The facts and figures are NOT on his finger tips or tongue tips, you may!

In a Town Hall format, McCain could do very well against him.

But, BHO would beat him on prepared speeches with teleprompter 10 to 1.

On delivery of prepared speeches, no one can beat BHO, not even Bill Clinton!

Yam... don't get angry at me!

Your Bill is very good in many other aspects of Campaigning.; June 08, 2008 7:27 PM
greywolf said...: topOBAMAnow said...
"You forget that the majority of Iraqi's legislators WANT US OUT! As do the majority of IRAQI citizens."

Indep:

Was there any legislation passed and signed by the President of Iraq to this effect?

My recollection is Al Maliki Govt wants US to stay there till their Army/Police stand up to the task of protecting the country.

Please enlighten me on this issue.

All this staying there is a BUSH and McCain adgenda. It is not what the president of Iraq or the parliment wants. What is happening is bush put the president into power, and he is using that man like a puppet. What Iraq needs to go is get thier money in order, start using it to rebuild their economy. They have almost 300 billion in banks right now from oil sales that is not being used for anything. They need to get their finance part of the government in order and then get to work rebuilding, getting their markets back inline, import food, and vairous supplies to kick start their economy.
Then they need to put their peoople to work rebuilding their electrical system, roads, telephone, Tv, schools, hospitals, shopping centers. There are enough things to do there that they could put all the country to work rebuilding and reorganizing. They also have all the money they need to do that plus with the oil sales as they are they are bringing in billions daily. The do not need any more of our money.
Obama has it right..., tell them to get cracking and start taking care of business militarily and economically because we are leaving starting ??? and will be out no later than ???. We will leave a few thousand troops in the southern most city to assist you for a year after that but they will leave also when you have it all together.; June 08, 2008 7:29 PM
Independent Voter said...: p'd ant - agreed! Perhaps not fund 100% savings from the troop withdrawl - but possibly closer 75% or so. You have to remember the revenues they are taking in from the oil (which was supposed to fund this war from the beginning.)

I find it absolutely hilarious (more of an ironic funny) that the Republicans in this country harp on the US welfare system (which makes up less than 5% of the budget - provided Social Security is not included since it is the largest welfare program in this country) yet they feel the corporate welfare we give to these US contractors is okay.; June 08, 2008 7:31 PM
apissedant said...: Dave,
No problem on the link.
I think there would be room to negotiate how much they get in the deal, but it would definitely be extra incentive for them to get us to leave if they were going to get paid for it.
Corporate welfare is everywhere, Bear Sterns, Halliburton, Chrysler, the airlines, Worldcom, Tyco, and a million other companies we've given government money. Why this is ok, and giving a starving kid a few pounds of beef is totally wrong is beyond me.; June 08, 2008 7:39 PM
greywolf said...: Last report is that Iraq has something in the neighborhood of 600billion in foreign banks. their banking system is messed up.

they are taking in approximately 5-8 billion a day in oil sales.

The reason we are in Iraq now is Bush wants to establish a military base in the middle east incase that area turns into a war zone, that way we can keep the oil flowing for the US. That people is the only reason we are there...OIL..OIL... OIL.
Now if Bush had invested that now 700Billion he has spent on that war toward developing alternative fuel, we would be heading in the right direction.
We need to start growing sugar cane and cane like plants and turn that into fuel. It is cheaper to produce than corn base fuel, it cost a lot less to produce because the by product is used to provide the energy source for the plants and the waste product is not harmful to the planet and environmnent where as the waste product from corn is harmeful. It takes more energy and cost to produce one gallon of corn based eth. You can produce 25 gallons of sugar cane and cane product fuel for the same cost as corn eth.; June 08, 2008 7:39 PM
Independent Voter said...: p'd ant - he coolest part about McCain is that he can't lie worth a damn. He looks so fake and pathetic lately, and he stammers constantly.

--------

And that is READING a teleprompter; June 08, 2008 7:42 PM
apissedant said...: grey,
What will we do with our embassy? The world's largest and most expensive embassy has to be used for something!; June 08, 2008 7:42 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: apissedant said...
Sorry about the location, but old threads disappear of the radar, and this one is always here!

Scroll down the home page of DemConWatch, and the link to the 'DNC nomination changes' thread is still there.

Mike; June 08, 2008 7:43 PM
stopOBAMAnow said...: "as to the President, I'm not sure if you understand how democracies work. One man does not hold all power,"

You missed my question to Indepen:

Was there a legislation passed and signed into law as to the removal of US forces from Iraq?

My recollection is None. Maliki Govt wants US to stay there for now.; June 08, 2008 7:48 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Everyone is going to be surprised at how well Obama will do in town halls with McCain. Obama has had a lot of town halls and he does NOT stutter or stammer.

Also I believe in the scheduled presidential debates McCain is going to lose his temper and look like an angry old man!

McCain doesn't have a chance up against Obama.

McCain is going to get all of his facts wrong during the debates and he will look like he doesn't know what the heck he is talking about!

Obama/Sebelius '08; June 08, 2008 7:49 PM
apissedant said...: Mike,
I know it is still there for now, but most people can't find it after awhile. Like the VP thread, it went from like, 30 posts in a day to 1 post in a week. No fun talking or arguing with myself. Not when I'm on my meds at least.; June 08, 2008 7:52 PM
apissedant said...: stop, you again changed your question. It initially had to be signed into law by the president. Scroll up and read. Again, the link showed a non-binding resolution. The original statement made by another was that Iraqis don't want us there. We now proved that both the people and the leaders in fact don't want us there. Of course they don't make a law that requires us to leave, because they realize this would be a bad political choice.
It is America's choice to be there, and they realize that the best solution is for America to choose when to leave. For this reason, they have circulated many government non-binding resolutions to the US Congress to ask our Congress to make it law that we leave. It is OUR law that put us there, and has kept us there, diplomatically it would be best if it was OUR law that removed us.; June 08, 2008 7:56 PM
greywolf said...: My reasoning for stating that Bush wants a permanent military base is two fold.

While in the Army, I was in the Intelligence field. One of our war game senerios was establishing a permanent military base in the middle east to protect the oil supply.
Secondly, the current doctrin with in the DOD, called or budgeting and staffing a base in the Middle east for that same purpose. It was the belief at the time that we could have a base in the middle east befor 2010. That war time senerio was practiced many times, to include the mass movement of combat troops for that same purpose by military airlift command.

Plus I read every news paper available daily that is where I get most of my information. As a minimum I read the wall street, ny times, local paper, boston globe, ect... on the average I read 4-6 newspapers daily. Plus I am all over the internet every day reading every thing I can find that has to do with the world situation.; June 08, 2008 7:57 PM
Independent Voter said...: grey - your "war game scenario" doesn't sound like much of a "game" any longer - does it?; June 08, 2008 8:03 PM
greywolf said...: My recollection is None. Maliki Govt wants US to stay there for now.

If you go to the huffington post, aobut 4 or 5 days ago there was an article that I posted into here that states the Iriqi parliment by a majority vote has stated that they want the US to leave Iraq as soon as possible. their time frame is that we should be completely withdrawn within 3 years max. The Iraqi parliment has sent a letter signed by each memeber requesting the US House and Senate estabilish a binding resolution for a phased with drawal from Iraq begining mid next year with the intent of having all of our forces out of their country with in 3 years from the day we begin withdrawal.; June 08, 2008 8:03 PM
greywolf said...: For the time being they want us to stay and assist with the security and rounding up the insurgents while they build up their military and police force as well as secure their oil and rebuild their banking and electrical infrastructure. After phased withdrawal begins they want assistance and our know how on rebuilding their cities, (engineering know how). Other than that they plan to start using their own money to rebuild and put their own people back to work.; June 08, 2008 8:06 PM
Independent Voter said...: stop - You missed my question to Indepen:

Was there a legislation passed and signed into law as to the removal of US forces from Iraq?

-------

I never claimed that they passed legislation. My claim was "You forget that the majority of Iraqi's legislators WANT US OUT! As do the majority of IRAQI citizens. They don't want us there, in ANY capacity."

Hence that is NOT equal to the Iraqi government passing legislation. So your question is one of your failure to comprehend the statement I made.

Nonetheless, p'd ant's LINK will suffice for your inquiry.; June 08, 2008 8:12 PM
apissedant said...: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/02/AR2006010200370.html; June 08, 2008 8:12 PM
apissedant said...: Best quote from that article:
The Americans, said Zaid Saleem, 26, who works at a market in Baghdad, "are the best in destroying things but they are the worst in rebuilding."; June 08, 2008 8:16 PM
Hippolytus said...: Hi, everybody. My computer problems continue, and I'm borrowing my wife's laptop for a few minutes to send this post.
I have not been able to find an updated delegate count through Saturday. Leah has proposed an informed guess of 2265, and I'm inclined to use that in the absence of any better information or better ideas. Anybody that has either should post them tonight. Otherwise, tomorrow I will announce that 2265 is the winning number; November Poliitcs is our "presumptive winner," but I'll refrain from extending my congrats until this process comes to a grinding halt.
Good bye and good night, for now.
~ Hippolytus; June 08, 2008 8:18 PM
Independent Voter said...: p'd ant - excerpt from your WaPo link: Since the reconstruction effort began in 2003, midcourse changes by U.S. officials have shifted at least $2.5 billion from the rebuilding of Iraq's decrepit electrical, education, water, sewage, sanitation and oil networks to build new security forces for Iraq and to construct a nationwide system of medium- and maximum-security prisons and detention centers that meet international standards, according to reconstruction officials and documents.

-------

"The rebuilding of Iraq's decrepit electrical, education, water, sewage, sanitation and oil networks?" - I think they should restate this to "The rebuilding of the electrical, education, water, sewage, sanitation, and oil networks which were in perfect working order prior to the illegal invasion of US and allied forces.; June 08, 2008 8:20 PM
apissedant said...: Dave,
agreed. They weren't perfect, but they were leaps and bounds better than they are now.; June 08, 2008 8:30 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Majority Of Iraqi Legislators Call For Timetable For U.S. Withdrawal
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/05/majority-of-iraqi-legisla_n_105427.html

----

And be sure to look at the front page HEADLINE of HuffPost regarding McCain!!!

www.huffingtonpost.com

Obama/Sebelius '08/'12; June 08, 2008 8:35 PM
apissedant said...: The invasion was in March. Bush declared mission accomplished on May 1st.
We gave them the first dollar in January of the next year. What were the Iraqis supposed to do for 8 months in between the start of rebuilding and the end of the war?; June 08, 2008 8:36 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: So what can the Republicans do now?

There was a poll on TV this morning that said 44% of the republicans want a different candidate other than McCain.

Is it possible that the Republicans will toss him out at their convention and put someone else in his place?

Has that ever been done before in a case like this where they have picked their presumptive nominee too soon and no one likes him?

I think that this is going to be VERY interesting!!!; June 08, 2008 8:45 PM
apissedant said...: Leah,
There is no way to get Republicans to agree on a candidate this year. Republicans are boned, that's why they got McCain in the first place. He won most of the competitions with what, 30%? We had 3 guys consistently getting over 5%, they had, what, 7? They are divided, because all of the things that united them before didn't work like they were all convinced it would have done. Now they have to change something, they just can't agree one what.

We just want to go back to tried and true policies that have worked in the past, this is much easier. We realize our government wasn't completely screwed 10 years ago, so all we have to do is undo what has been done. That's way easier to agree on.; June 08, 2008 8:51 PM
Kujo said...: Aunt Jean,

Sorry, did not see the comment at 4:07 until now.

The Jesse comment was made after Obama won S. Carolina. Bill then stated something like

yes that was a good win by Obama just. Jesse Jackson had a good win here too.

Now the quote is not exact but it represents the same thing.

The problem with this quote is why bring up Jesse Jackson. Why did he not pick another presidential candidate that won S. Carolina. Why did not say the same thing in Iowa about another presidential candidate.

Obama never align himself with Jesse Jackson, never mentioned him, there was no legitimate reason to bring up Jesse Jackson.

So why did he bring it up. Because he wanted to make the inference that Obama won in this state because of the large amount of Black Vote and that anyone Black has a chance of winning in S. Carolina like Jesse Jackson.

It was an obvious tactic used by Bill. Get his point acrossed without actually saying anything so he can deny it later.

Now this inference is not just how I read it, not just how the Obama camp read it, it is how all the news comendators read into to even before the Obama camp responded to it.

The Obama camp properly addressed this issue to stop the Clinton camp from doing these "small" tactics.; June 08, 2008 9:07 PM
Meg said...: From the Huffpost:

"Arch-conservative Bay Buchanan suggested that it may not matter what McCain does. Writing in Human Events on June 4, she declared:

In reality there is only one candidate. Barack Obama. In November he will win or he will lose. John McCain is relevant only in so far as he is not Barack Obama. The Senator from Arizona is incapable of energizing his party, brings no new people to the polls, and has a personality that is best kept under wraps."

I predict very entertaining debates. Obama is a master at thinking on his feet and taking the time to get the answer right. McCain (without Lieberman to help) is not going to look good. And what's with that smile?; June 08, 2008 9:15 PM
Kujo said...: stopobnow

I again must say I am sorry for my earlier post. You mentioned that you were formerly in the military> I know many people in the military and I can understand the strong view points of miltary force is the only way we can solve international conflicts. (Maybe they don't think thats the only way but it does come across that way).

But this is a view point I so adamently disagree with. In order for us to truely "win" in Iraq, we need to surpress the hatred that exists for us, not only in Iraq but also in other Middle Eastern countries.

If we learn how to surpress one type of attack, they will continue down another style of attack. If we have a large military build up, then the will wait until we think it is safe and start a whole different type of attack.

If you are worried about another 911 attack here, just wait. If we have someone like McCain, who I believe will cause them to hate us even more, they can easily create more deaths in the US with 16 - 20 suicide people just like in 911 and there is nothing we can do about it. I don't want to give some easily details as I hate to think it would spur ideas.

As long as we don't start building friendly relationships with all Middle Eastern Countries, we will continue to have problems and these problems will become larger as time goes on.; June 08, 2008 9:22 PM
apissedant said...: kujo,
Agreed.; June 08, 2008 9:32 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: A bit more context to the Bill Clinton comment about South Carolina:

Said Bill Clinton today in Columbia, SC: "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here."

This was in response to a question from ABC News' David Wright about it taking "two Clintons to beat" Obama. Jackson had not been mentioned.

Why did Bill Clinton bring up Jesse Jackson in his reply when Jesse Jackson was not mentioned in the question? Subliminal mention of race?

And then there's this:
"You got to really go some to play the race card with me," Clinton spewed on WHYY. "My office is in Harlem. And Harlem voted for Hillary, by the way."

More mention of race?

And lest we forget Hillary's, "He's not a Muslim as far as I know" [the last part in a sotto voce voice].

Was it racial or religious bigotry here? Either way, it was an extremely JUVENILE comment. So sad that a 60 year-old, "ready from day one," woman would stoop so low.

Mike; June 08, 2008 9:33 PM
Beryl said...: And let's not forget the MLK & LBJ comparison in the mist of her belittling Obama's inspiring speeches:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3173652.ece

"Mrs Clinton, trying to make a point about presidential leadership and Mr Obama’s constant references to Dr King, the civil rights icon, said: “Dr King’s dream began to be realised when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took a president to get it done.”"

In isolation, their comments were innocuous. However, the additive effect was off-putting for many of us.

This is also happening with McBush. Hopefully, his gaffes, lies, and flip-flops will become clear to voters in the next few months.; June 08, 2008 9:43 PM
tmess2 said...: I think holding weekly town hall meetings for the next 10 weeks favors Obama.

Obama is in the same position now that Kennedy was in 1960 and Reagan was in 1980. While both Kennedy and Reagan had significant support, swing voters had a lot of unanswered questions (in Kennedy's case about experience and in Reagan's case about being a little too extreme). In both cases, being on the stage with the candidate of the other party made the "challenger" seem as presidential as the "incumbent."

I think Obama would get the same benefit. I also think that voters think that McCain is more moderate than his actual record. The more times he has to defend his votes, the more swing voters are going to decide that McCain is not that different from Bush. Likewise, Republicans keep trying to pretend that Obama is an uber-Liberal. The more that Obama gets to talk about his record, the less that charge will stick.

Finally, I can't see McCain going toe to toe for 10 weeks with Obama at length without losing his cool.; June 08, 2008 9:57 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Emma said: "And what's with that smile?"
-----
Yeah Tuesday night when McCain gave his speech and he'd smile and go 'hehehehe' he looked like a CREEPY old man!

tmess2- I can't wait until the first time McCain loses his cool and blows up in front of the cameras. Maybe we should start a new contest and everyone guess when it will be ;); June 08, 2008 10:17 PM
magia said...: Leah,

My daughter wanted me to check for your comment on Big Brown; she will be disappointed.

Non potete trovare un commento
'glib' :)

Too bad.
Buona notte.; June 08, 2008 10:20 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: UPDATED VERSION!

Video about the race for the democratic nomination wrapped up in eight minutes:

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid271557392?bctid=1593347006

Pretty cool ;)

.; June 08, 2008 10:40 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: magia-

Mi dispiace. Non c'e un messagio da me di Big Brown.

Buonanotte a te e alla sua figlia ;)

.; June 08, 2008 10:48 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Leah I've never went to either of those sites you mentioned until tonight. Why do you go there to have something to complain about. That's my take on it. Those things are not said on this site so why do you feel the need to trash Hillary.Sounds like you are bitter you need to get over it. I told you that Hillary supporters are mad as hell the best thing to do is leave them alone and let the anger die or all you and people like you, is feed that anger. So let it be and just stay away from those sites if they make you that mad.Are you feeling guilty because you know Obama and the media did something wrong? Maybe deep down you feel that way and just don't want to admit it to yourself. There is no valid reason to go to a Hillary site unless you want to keep the anger going. Jean; June 08, 2008 10:55 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Leah Texas4Obama said...
magia-

Mi dispiace . . . .

Hey! No talking behind our backs, please!

Did you just insult all of us? Not all of us speak Italian!

Mike; June 08, 2008 10:57 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Oh wow - this is pretty cool too:

Obama wins: Newspaper Frontpages around the World

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6VfZ4h0uZ4

.; June 08, 2008 11:01 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Aunt Jean,

How about YOU responding to a question that has been asked over and over and over and over?

Spell out all the 'disparaging comments' that you keep stating Senator Obama made against Senator Clinton.

Over and over and over, you've made that claim. Not once have you come up with even one.

Now is the time for you to put up, or shut up.

And 'the finger' does not count, as it has been shown that he did not do that at a debate with Senator Clinton present, but rather it was two fingers, at a town hall meeting, proven by looking at multiple camera angles.

Now, put up, or shut up. Please.

Mike; June 08, 2008 11:03 PM
Vicki in Seattle said...: but, we all have access to babelfish! (translation software, you too can find it using google)

I'm guessing that McSame will have his first blow up at Obama within two weeks.

and Leah: thanks for the 8 minutes video, it was cool! I was pleased to see that it mentioned Steven Colbert's brief entry in SC.

:-); June 08, 2008 11:11 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Mike in Maryland-

Sorry I should have put in an English translation. Here ya go...

magia-

Mi dispiace. Non c'e un messagio da me di Big Brown.

(I am sorry. There isn't a comment from me about Big Brown.)

Buonanotte a te e alla sua figlia ;)

(Goodnight to you and your daughter.)

.

See I was not insulting anyone ;)

.; June 08, 2008 11:13 PM

«Oldest ‹Older 1801 – 2000 of 2132 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

2132 comments:

Tags