Sunday, October 26, 2008

My 2008 Political Post

These two short films, made eight years apart, pretty much say where we've been and where we are now.

They were created by movie maker (and animator) Charles Stone, and both have pretty much gone viral, but I put them up anyway because they plug nicely into the screed below ...

My first Presidential vote was cast for Richard Nixon. It was 1972. I was a Navy Swabbie. At the time, it seemed to me like the right thing to do.

This time around, my vote will be for Barack Obama.

Now I'm sure I'll get trolls who will call me a commie sympathizer and Muslim lover, a Librul, a Socialist, etc. etc. But let me explain anyway.

When a government has loused up as throughly as this one has, it's hard to get around the fact that all the damage will probably cause the general population to become ... I don't know ... pissed off. This is currently reflected in the poll numbers you find around the web*.

If Al Gore had become President, and versions of the disasters that have taken place under G.W. Bush had occurred with him, I've little doubt that the electorate would be on the cusp of riding Democrats out of town on a rail.

However, if we were in that alternate universe and the Democrats were about to become toast, I would not be one of the cooks burning them in the oven, because I'm not the man I was thirty-six years ago.

I am now middle-aged. A father and husband. A guy who has worked for a living for thirty-plus years, swimming against a rising tide of corporatism, where the top 1% earns the lion's share of wealth, where the government exists to protect and defend blue-chip companies and nobody else.

And I would still be voting the liberal, "spread the wealth around" line because I'm painfully aware that the United States has become -- in the words of novelist Gore Vidal -- a country devoted to "Socialism for the rich, and free enterprise for the poor," and I would like the equation to be redressed, at least a little.

Now I don't think Mr. Obama is the end-all and be-all as a Presidential nominee. And I don't believe John McCain is evil personified. But pushing income inequality to greater extremes -- as McCain's policies would do -- ends up making our problems worse. And sooner rather than later, more of us will end up like Dukie and his brethren: Out of a job, out of the house, and still in Iraq, being bled white to the tune of $10 billion per month.

There's not much time left before election day. Use it to make things better. And please vote.

* It's possible these poll numbers can change and Senator McCain might pull off a triumph. I doubt it, but it's possible.

81 comments:

Steve Hulett said...

I believe that the IATSE has endorsed, and it's PAC fund has given money to, Barack Obama. (It earlier backed Hillary Clinton.)

The Animation Guild has endorsed no one, given bucks to no one. It usually doesn't.

My endorsemen /recomendation is mine alone. (Note the caveat in the upper right hand corner.)

you said...

Here's hoping this becomes the biggest, most blazing, flame-throwing comment hellhole ever seen on the internet!!

I think it's really funny that we now live in a world where giving a tax cut to the middle class is actually considered "socialist." Keep it up, Republican morons.

Personally, I'm going to do my part by setting up a charitable fund to help out our sad, plutocrat overlords during the hard, dark times when their taxes are raised.

WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE PLUTOCRATS????

Anonymous said...

No matter who is in office, the same old thing will happen. Barack, for all his high hopes still can't wave a magic wand and have things happen. There are others involved.

Besides, I don't really think Barack can do what he proposes unless he raises taxes for everyone. Middle class included. There isn't enough money. Either more deficit or more taxes (for middle class too)

Anonymous said...

This election will be the first I get to vote in, and I too am voting for Mr. Obama, we've got signs everywhere here.

robiscus said...

I'm going to vote for McCain, but Steve I really enjoyed reading your opinion and the salient perspective you put on your decision in that post.

I simply don't think Obama has the experience and his foreign policy(and much of his domestic policy) is insanely naive. I don't hate him, I just think he should have run in four years. He would have had more experience at that point. Him running now after two years in the senate and promising the American people the moon the stars and everything in the shy without explaining how he is going to pay for any of it is a testament to his naked ambition.

Anonymous said...

Odd you bring up naked ambition. It seems like that's all McCain has left. To the point where many that would normally support the GOP candidate, regardless of who it is, are crossing party lines to support Obama. That includes fellow GOP senators, Governors, commentators, pundits and newspapers. Don't see that happen often - actually can't remeber that ever happening in such large numbers ever.
There's no use arguing with someone who uses nothing but McCain talking points to make their decision, but let's be clear about the job of President: There is no way anyone can have any job expererinece that will help them step into this position - whether you've been a senator for 100 years or a Governor of a state that doesn't want to secede.
It's about judgement and who can best help our country - in a non-erratic way, of course.

Lucky for you (and everyone) that it appears unlikely we will ever have to worry about what a presidency would be like with someone who's judegement is so broken he would choose someone dumber than W for his VP choice when he is unlikely to survive a first term.

Anonymous said...

I'll take young and ambitious over old and senile anyday.

And honestly, I'm all for raising taxes if they spend my taxes better.

Trade bombs for healthcare? Yes please, thank you!

Martin said...

To reiterate someone's earlier point, experience means nothing without good judgement.

To relate this in animation terms--I know any number of quite experienced folks in animation whose judgement, maturity, and conclusions often are very questionable, and sometimes flat-out wrong. Meanwhile, I've met some very young animators who are seriously impressive in their judgements, solutions, and who continually outshine those with many more years under their belt. Frankly, it comes down to individual abilities and temperments.

I have found Obama to be thoughtful, analytical, and studied in his approach to issues, very cool under pressure, and someone who understands how to diffuse conflicts rather than simply escalate them. He is not prone to snap judgements, erratic behavior, or taking wild gambles. And in the times we live in, this cool, disciplined approach would represent a very refreshing change, and I believe, the best course for our country.

It also doesn't hurt that Obama's eye seems to be on the ball regarding the best interests of the middle class, something that is clearly not the case with McCain.

Anonymous said...

Martin, I couldnt have said it better

Anonymous said...

There's no doubt in my mind that Obama will win. I'm still going to vote for McCain.

Frankly, both candidates suck and we have to choose the lesser of two evils. For me, Obama worries me more than McCain, so I can't vote for him in good conscience.

Both are full of talk and while Obama is clearly a better communicator, I have a feeling he won't be able to accomplish very much of what his platform is. There isn't the money, there are too many holes in his plans.

I see no reason to argue it here, like I said Obama will easily win this election. I just hope that he can do a decent job.


BTW, that video is pretty funny. Maybe I'm pessimistic, but I don't think Obama is going to be able to change much.

Anonymous said...

Wow...quite a reason to vote for someone or not to vote for someone: "I don't think he'll be able to do what he promises, so I'm voting for the guy who's not promising to do anything".
Good sound judgement on your part. I can see why McCain appeals to you.

Anonymous said...

I too look forward to voting this year. And even though there are many blinded folks in todays' America and can't see what is really happening, I'm hoping they are going to vote for who is the most qualified at such a time as this.

And since my person didn't make the final grade my decision had to be more sought out through the records available, facts not talk. I am voting for the experience as well.

Signed,
Joe the plumber

Steve Hulett said...

I simply don't think Obama has the experience and his foreign policy(and much of his domestic policy) is insanely naive. I don't hate him, I just think he should have run in four years.

Robiscus, I understand you're position. I don't think the "experience" thing's had any traction this year (didn't for Clinton, hasn't for McCain) because people have liked Obama's positions, demeanor, and message. And he's the guy who will replace the folks who've run the country into the ground, so he's got a leg up.

And personally, I think the experience thing doesn't hold much water anyway.

Lincoln had two years in the House of Representatives when he became President (and a handful of years in the Illinois state legislature. Does this sound familiar?)

Other Presidents have been slammed for inexperience, sometimes the inexperience IS a problem, other times not. And we've had a number of experienced politicians who have still been disasters. Historically, it's cut both ways.

McCain, for all his experience and time in Washington, has shown himself to be all over the map this election cycle. I won't go into his lurching around here, since most people know them by heart, except to give the most recent example:

He said he was going to freeze increases in all Federal spending except for Defense, Social Security, payment on the debt and other mandated entitlements. Fine, great. Then, two days ago, Sarah Palin, his Veep, says that they plan to increase spending on children with Special Needs.

Okay, so which is it? McCain is going to increase spending outside his stipulated areas or he's not. Can't have it both ways. But here (again) he's having it both ways.

It's not a big deal, but you do this kind of zig zagging often enough -- and McCain has done it a LOT -- and you sort of undercut your "Experience" and "Steadiness at the Helm" arguments. And the public starts to pick up on it.

But this isn't even Senator McCain's biggest problem. When the economy melts down, and the guy in the oval office has an (R) after his name, if you're a Presidential nominee who also has an (R) after his name, you got trouble, BIG trouble.

It's the way most democratic countries work. Failure is seldom rewarded by voters.

Anonymous said...

>>Okay, so which is it? McCain is going to increase spending outside his stipulated areas or he's not. Can't have it both ways. But here (again) he's having it both ways.<<

Aww come on. Obama is having his share of conflicting information too. They are all a bunch of two facers trying to appeal to everyone.

Anonymous said...

>>Wow...quite a reason to vote for someone or not to vote for someone: "I don't think he'll be able to do what he promises, so I'm voting for the guy who's not promising to do anything".<<

McCain is making promises too. Maybe you just refuse to listen.

Look, both candidates suck. I don't trust Obama, and I frankly don't trust McCain either. However, I have more faith in McCains experience.

Like I said, none of this matters. Obama will win. Four years from now when he hasn't made true on any of his promises or has raised our middle class taxes so much to pay for those promises, then we can go from there.

Steve Hulett said...

McCain won't solve the big deficits. Obama won't solve the big deficits.

We're going to have -- after our dance with deflation -- major inflation. All you have to do is look at the money supply, it's going straight up.

The socialism issue has been decided. Small government conservative George Walker Bush has nationalized the financial segment of the economy (one of the biggest segments) and that's that.

Now we're arguing over how many foreign wars we're willing to fight, and how the soon-to-be-inflated money supply is going to be spread around.

That's pretty much it. Am I missing something?

Buzz Potamkin said...

OT - but for Steve's next Dis history piece

Walt on "What's My Line?" November, 1956

Anonymous said...

Obama is another politician more of the same, granted more socialists than previous but still the same. Big government will take care of you.... blah blah blah. Keep the change.

martin said...

How is Obama socialist? Do you even know what that word means?

Anonymous said...

Marxist maybe?

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

Anonymous said...

Steve did you really just decry the sins of the past eight years AND laud Abraham Lincoln?

Hindsight must be getting in your way of viewing things objectively because Abraham Lincoln was hated much more than GW Bush. Every single newpaper in the nation wanted him to step down as president. He was labeled incompetent, shortsighted, antiu american and more. he suspended habeus corpus and oversaw a war that killed 100,000 US citizens. He was THE most upopular president of his era - and only history has shined a kinder light on him. So take that into consideration when you try to contrast him to Bush.

There is a lot of misinformation about McCain on this page too. He has crossed the aisle and worked with the other party more than Obama. Hw much more? He has done it with 55% of his lagislatie efforts. Obama - 13%.

Thats where experience matters. One candidate is willing to work with the other party(see: getting things done - like Clinton did), while the other has been fiercely partisan his entire career. McCain has served the country. He's actually gone out and done something. Obama, not so much.

Anonymous said...

The McCain of 2000 is not the McCain of 2008, unfortunately.

He's gotten old and senile, and I suspect thats what is probably going to lose him the election, simple as that. Sad truth...

dill said...

McCain was originally married to a beautiful woman named Carol, who had worked as a professional model. During the time McCain was captive for five years in the POW camp, Carol McCain was involved in a terrible car accident. Her hip was shattered, and suffered massive internal injuries. In order to save her legs, she had to have large sections of bone removed.

Confined to a wheelchair, and drastically disfigured, she had to re-learn how to walk.

When McCain returned from Vietnam, he was appalled by her now disfigured appearance, and soon began having affairs with other women. After he met Cindy, he divorced Carol and married Cindy a month later. Ron and Nancy Reagan were horrified by McCain's treatment of his former wife, and essentially never spoke to him again.

That's character!

Ed said...

Somebody please tell me what it says about a political party, and that parties platform in particular, when the leaders of that party find it so virtuous to break from it.

This "maverick" tag is nonsense.

Why also do the republican candidates keep hammering on this "loss of you secret ballot" issue when labor endorses democrats in the first place? More nonsense.

john locke said...

I like your blog, Steve. Just wanted to get that out of the way. I love animation and enjoy your take on the business and I feel for the situations you describe in the debates between labor and management, but...

the top income earners paid 33% of all taxes in 2003, in 2007 they paid 40% even though their rates were cut. This was because they were allowed to invest and use their money for their own reasons. What they spend money on was taxed and therefore the money they made was subject to more tax. How much is enough? Do you want to the rich to pay for everyone? I worry about a nation that expects to have those that have worked hard and earned their money to give them a slice of it because of jealousy. I mean, the bottom 40% of tax payers pay no, NO TAX. If you don't pay tax, you're not part of the system and I don't feel that such a position is sustainable. I don't want the poor to pay an overly burdensome rate, but I think everyone needs to pay to be part of the process. I really, also don't want the rich to pay all or most of the taxes.

It disturbs me that I am starting to live in a country that hates those that are rich instead of looks to them as people to and become like...

We shouldn't hate people for having money, especially when they hare paying between a third or more of all the taxes.

I wish people would think about that before voting. Sigh.

Honor Hunter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

I don't care for either one of these politicians (Dems or Repubs) but I'm sure not a fan of the government getting even bigger. GW and the attacks of 2001 have opened the door and set the sad stage of events for the next President to take even more of our liberties and our money away, to grow and feed the ever expanding government nanny state.

Hand outs for everyone, all you have to do is screw up and the government will take it over and you'll still get a raise from our tax dollars. Genius.

optimus crime said...

My problem with Democrats can be summed up with a quote from Democratic Senator Paul Tsongas of Massachusetts:

"The problem with my party is they love employees, but they hate employers."

I'm a JFK Democrat. In 1968 my party left me, I didn't leave it.

Steve Hulett said...

Steve did you really just decry the sins of the past eight years AND laud Abraham Lincoln?


Uh ... no. I'm not really a fan of Abraham Lincoln's. I simply pointed out that he had two years in the House of Representatives (vs. Obama's four years in the Senate.)

Many think Abe was a great President. I'm not one of them. I just use him as an example regarding the "experience" thing.

Hindsight must be getting in your way of viewing things objectively because Abraham Lincoln was hated much more than GW Bush. Every single newpaper in the nation wanted him to step down as president.

Who said anything about hate? Who said anything about stepping down? All I said was Lincoln had less experience in elective office than Barack Obama.

One other thing about Abe. Despite all the hate of the newspapers and people wanting to step down, he did get himself elected to a second term.

Outside of that ... and those other points ... you're spot on.

There is a lot of misinformation about McCain on this page too. He has crossed the aisle and worked with the other party more than Obama. Hw much more? He has done it with 55% of his lagislatie efforts. Obama - 13%.

Unfortunately, John has run a bad campaign and has a disliked Republican in the White House weighting him down.

So he's will most likely lose.

Steve Hulett said...

the top income earners paid 33% of all taxes in 2003, in 2007 they paid 40% even though their rates were cut. This was because they were allowed to invest and use their money for their own reasons. What they spend money on was taxed and therefore the money they made was subject to more tax. How much is enough?

Your figures are off. Top income earners paid 40% of income taxes. Payroll taxes are something else again. High earners' tax burden dropped more than any other income group.

And yes, "the poor" pay no income taxes. But "the poor" pay through the nose (as a percentage of income) with sales taxes and payroll taxes. Example: FICA is 6.2% of income up to $102,000. Thereafter, nothing. So if you're one of the lucky duckies earning way over $102,000, you pay zero.

As to how high taxes should be, I'd say higher than they are until the deficits are eliminated. Then we can cut the top tax rates.

Maybe you didn't notice, but we're running a $400+ billion annual deficit. (Which will likely increase to $800 billion after the Bush nationalization of the banks).

G.W.B. and associates are spending like drunken sailors and putting a large part of it on a credit card.

This really means, if you're honest, that NO taxes are being cut. They are merely being shifted to somewhere else.

It's dumbfounding to me that "Reagan Republican" Bush can spend hundreds of billions in Iraq, double the total national debt, and enlarge government more than anybody this side of Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson, and yet he's a "low taxing, fiscal conservative."

Truly amazing.

Anonymous said...

the discussion lasted only until the 6th post and thena an Obama fan threw civil discourse out the window.

Steve Hulett said...

But hey, here's an idea. Since some here hate taxes ... and we're running big deficits anyway ...

Why not just have a flat 3% Federal tax for everybody? Sure, we'll run monster deficits, but those deficits are happening anyway!

We'll just print money to cover it!

Anonymous said...

I'm all for a flat tax. At least it would be fair (obviously not 3%).

Anonymous said...

Obama is such a leftwing commie extremist that those socialist liberals at the Financial Times endorsed him today.

By the way, my word verification was "anteumph"!!! Enjoy!!

Anonymous said...

G.W.B. and associates are spending like drunken sailors and putting a large part of it on a credit card."

Have you perused Obama's plans for the nation yet? Lemme fill you in, it isn't fiscally conservative. AT ALL. He's asking for more money and more big government projects than anyone previous to him, and unlike a military operation overseas, the projects he plans will run on perpetually.


"It's dumbfounding to me that "Reagan Republican" Bush can spend hundreds of billions in Iraq,..."

There is a very sound and historically ased argument that our efforts in Iraq will pay big dividends down the road. As our efforts rebuilding Germany and Japan did with half a century of trade with those nations. Iraq is an investment - and one that will clearly start paying off for the security of the region and future international economics.

Also keep in mind that Bush inherited a military that had to be used, in full, eight months after he took office. A military that was structured to fight a land war with the soviet union in eastern europe because the former president NEVER ONCE spent a dime restructuring our forces to match the changing world around us. That kind of an eight year oversight regarding our national security tends to run the bill up. Upkeep is a wise and necessary thing that got overlooked for almost a decade and we had to pay in spades.

When we went into Afghanistan, there wasn't a single operative of ours that could speak Pashtun.
Think about that.

A threat grew for eight years in Afghanistan and attacked the USS Cole, our forces in Somalia, and our embassies in Kenya and no one in the militey even knew how to speak the language of where the threat was located.

todd said...

Wow, an actual 22 percenter. You actually think the Iraq War was a good thing? An investment???

Sad.

Bush had eight months to find a pashtun-speaking soldier, but he didn't. You know why? Because he hadn't even heard of Al Qaeda before taking office.

He spent no time thinking about Al Qaeda during the eight months leading up to 9/11. He held no high-level meetings, despite being briefed repeatedly by the CIA that an attack was increasingly imminent. He demoted the only guy in the Administration who cared about counterterrorism, and kicked him out of the cabinet meetings. So don't talk to me about Bush meeting the challenges of the new world threats. He did nothing to prevent them.

And I'll even bother to point out the obvious fact that after seven years in Afghanistan, Bush still hasn't defeated the Taliban and Al Qaeda (which are resurgent), hasn't found Bin Laden, and all because he took his eye of the ball for a pointless, immoral war in Iraq, aborting countless innocent Iraqi babies as a result. Their blood is on your hands, Mr. Iraq Investor.

Anonymous said...

The last 8 years, many of which included republican control of congress and white house, have perpetrated the largest government in U.S. History--in size AND spending. Undoing the single largest growth in U.S. Business history under President Bill Clinton (who left office with a SURPLUS in place).

bush has "presided (or "slumbered")" through the worst presidency in U.S. History--AFTER he allowed terrorists to attack America on 9/11. Yes--it happened on his watch. And he had plenty of warnings. And he did NOTHING.

Except lie to get us into a quagmire in Iraq (while the REAL problem in Afghanistan advances), now requiring 16,000 "Stop Loss" orders of troops to be implemented so far this year, with a projected 28,000 more announced today.

All the while attempting to re-write the Constitution. Shame on bush. Shame on anyone who supports him. It's just so UnPatriotic to support such scum.

Anonymous said...

The last 8 years, many of which included republican control of congress and white house, have perpetrated the largest government in U.S. History--in size AND spending. Undoing the single largest growth in U.S. Business history under President Bill Clinton (who left office with a SURPLUS in place).

bush has "presided (or "slumbered")" through the worst presidency in U.S. History--AFTER he allowed terrorists to attack America on 9/11. Yes--it happened on his watch. And he had plenty of warnings. And he did NOTHING.

Except lie to get us into a quagmire in Iraq (while the REAL problem in Afghanistan advances), now requiring 16,000 "Stop Loss" orders of troops to be implemented so far this year, with a projected 28,000 more announced today.

All the while attempting to re-write the Constitution. Shame on bush. Shame on anyone who supports him. It's just so UnPatriotic to support such scum.

Anonymous said...

"Have you perused Obama's plans for the nation yet? Lemme fill you in, it isn't fiscally conservative. AT ALL. He's asking for more money and more big government projects than anyone previous to him, and unlike a military operation overseas, the projects he plans will run on perpetually."

bush has already done this beyond ANYONE'S wildest imagination. Obama just wants to do it WITH A BRAIN--and bring the cost down. You yammer on with ZERO proof.

Anonymous said...

"Confined to a wheelchair, and drastically disfigured, she had to re-learn how to walk. "

That's nothing. He called his sugar-daddy NEW wife, Cindy, a "Trolloping Whore."

To her face. In public.

Just what we want in a "President."

Not.

Thank goodness he's imploading.

Anonymous said...

Everyone knows the biggest socialists are republicans. But it's only socialism for big corporations. For all the talk about "free market capitalism" they whine for more and more tax breaks and subsidies as they ship U.S. jobs overseas. Everyone knows "reagun-omics" doesn't work--it didn't work when that idiot was in the White House, and it doesn't work now.

Anonymous said...

That's nothing. He called his sugar-daddy NEW wife, Cindy, a "Trolloping Whore."

Actually, to be fair, that's not what he said. His actual quote to his wife (in front of five people) was, "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c**t."

Classy!

Anonymous said...

I stand very much corrected. THANK you!!

Anonymous said...

that was McCain just getting all mavericky with his wife. He doesn't believe in regulating his name calling whern it comes to Cindy...

roar said...

We have never seen bigger socialists than Bush and these Republicans who have been in power. A $700 billion bailout, socialized to the rest of us, but without any taxpayer stake in the companies we've taken over? And, in fact, it's now MORE than $700 billion, in case you haven't followed the latest developments.

That's the largest redistribution of wealth in the history of the world. And it's coming out of YOUR pocket, to save extremely wealthy people. Congratulations!

This is the conclusion of the conservative trickle-down Reaganomics experiment of de-regulating the markets, and targeting tax cuts for the wealthy. The end result has been so disastrous that, apparently, even the conservatives admitted that only socialism could save our country and its economy. And McCain wants to continue doing the same things.

That sound you're hearing is the conservatives' heads exploding as they try to pin the "socialist" label on Obama (all for simply wanting to give the middle class a tax cut!), while at the same time realizing that their grand fiscal conservative philosophy imploded so badly that it had to be saved by socialism!

It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

Anonymous said...

I agree! All of this straw-clutching is frankly quite shocking to me.

I am amazed by some of the garbage people believe by the spin-doctors of the republican party in this election, the same people who told you Obama is an arab, muslim, and terrorist. How can you POSSIBLY believe anything that comes out of this campaign's mouth?

Pathetic! What has happened to the intelligence of this country?!

Anonymous said...

As an independent animator and voter in a battle ground state, I have a hard time voting for either one of these guys. Neither one should have been their party's person. That being said I am having a real hard time as an American capitalist voting for Obama because of the spread the wealth platform he has stated. Even though there is early voting in my state I'll decide on Nov 4 hopefully one of these two will tick me off more than the other. Right now I'm leaning.

Anonymous said...

I have a problem with Obama's previous relationships. Yeah, so they were in the past. But to me, it just says that he has a problem seeing people for who they are. Or is completely blind. One or the other.

Anonymous said...

The 'spread the wealth' criticism is ridiculous. The world economy is basically run by about 3000 very wealthy and powerful people who all know one other and spread the wealth between them, around and around and around. The current economic 'credit crunch' is one gigantic forgiving of the fact that their unregulated transnational global casino was unsound and corrupt. They feed off the trust of ordinary people, but consistently bet against ordinary people. They bet against your environment in favor of fossil fuels, they bet against social responsibility in favor of profit. They bet against your government in favor of the most profitable corporations. They bet that the most favorable places to create 'wealth' is where wages are low, education is scarce, and ordinary people don't know any better.

They believe that everyone will do what is in their own best interest, but only when it is in their best interest to make more profit. What a sad affair. We have to be about more than just profit. If it hasn't already killed us.

God said...

http://www.wallstats.com/zoom/

800 billion on military spending. How much is enough?

And Palin wants to cut the science budget...she should put that fictional book called 'The Bible' down and read one, at least one book on the subject of the fossil record.

god.

Anonymous said...

So sad to see so many lost and uninformed people.

Lost and uninformed said...

How can anyone still be a supply-side apologist after Alan Greenspan's testimony in Congress last week? Get your head out of your ass and spit out the kool-aid. It's time to finally wipe the lipstick off that pig before he eats us all. The pig is greed. The lipstick is disguising it as some high-minded crypto-religious political philosophy. Be careful, though, if you call the pig out he'll point fingers at you and call you names. Ayn Rand is dead. It's time she was buried.

Anonymous said...

--Ayn Rand is dead. It's time she was buried.

Yes, yes, and YES. Talk about American tragedies. Objectivism has driven us to poverty.

Anonymous said...

Its a good time to invest, but I will mostly wait like the rest of the world till after the election and see what road were going down.

Anonymous said...

The predictable part of all of this is that todays DC lawyers and insiders are currently pouring over the new legislation and intentionally or unintentionally discovering the latest weaknesses to exploit for the next eight years. How are we supposed to keep those from writing the laws from breaking them? And round and round we go....

Anonymous said...

Republican David Gergen sez:

Teddy Roosevelt was both a Republican and one of the greatest advocates of progressive taxation in the years immediately preceding the enactment of the current income tax.

Gergen also noted that the Reagan administration was responsible for enacting the Earned Income Tax Credit, an extremely successful redistribution of wealth program which returns money to the working poor.

"Sometimes they get so carried away that they don't realize the realities of what we've been going through," Gergen added. Apparently referring to McCain's promises to "create more wealth," he explained that "the wealth over the last 30 years has been redistributed -- it's been redistributed upwards. As we grow, the top one percent's getting a disproportionate share."

Anonymous said...

"So sad to see so many lost and uninformed people."

Ahhh, yes. Thankfully, they won't be voting for our next President, Barack Obama.

Benjamin Franklin said...

'We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.'

to anon 9:34, what makes you so sure and informed?

BF.

Anonymous said...

With the type of groups that range from the most unsavory places (like Hamas and Iranian President Coo Coo Bird) endorsing Obama for America, its hard for that not to give someone pause for concern. I wish they didn't, but they did.

Anonymous said...

What I find most revealing... This country is in a complete economic meltdown and the current president seems to be a complete moron. All the blame is being placed on him. Obama should be running away with this election. but somehow, McCain is still there. When Obama should be ahead by huge percentages. Much more than he is.

When Bush and friends have pretty much cursed McCain and he picks that wacked out choice Palin as a running mate.. Obama should be winning by a landslide. Gives you pause... Obama would be creamed in any other scenario.

Anonymous said...

Despite the nonsense of the last two posts Obama IS running away with the election. especially for a fairly unknown Black senator that still has to convince peopel he's not a Muslim terrorist.
He is probably going to win the Electoral college by a landslide - somewhere above 325 compared to McCain's inability to win even if he were to get all those leaning his way and ALL the 'too close to call' states. Obama has put into play states that should have been easy wins for McCain and is chanf=ging the map.

The polls? The pollsters have not figured out how to poll non-landline users. If they are taken into account then the majority of them would poll in favor of Obama and you would see a completely different result - closer to your landslide that you dread to see.

Anonymous said...

>>The polls? The pollsters have not figured out how to poll non-landline users. If they are taken into account then the majority of them would poll in favor of Obama and you would see a completely different result - closer to your landslide that you dread to see.<<

Oh, I didn't realize we had an expert on polling or perhaps a psychic that can know what the polls would be in a "what-if" situation.

Give me a break. There is no way in hell you can know what would be in that scenario. Get real. Typical..

Anonymous said...

"Bill Ayers is a proud American. While I disagree with tactics in his past, I share his want to shake up the status quo. But he has been forgiven by many, including myself, and he's dedicated his life to making America a better place for us all."

john mcSame
April 2, 2002

Anonymous said...

>>>Oh, I didn't realize we had an expert on polling or perhaps a psychic that can know what the polls would be in a "what-if" situation.<<<

The pollsters have freely admitted that they have no way of polling cell phone users. Get real and learn how to get other info than from Fox News and Rush.

Anonymous said...

I think Barrack's biggest problem is that people don't know him, and typically when you don't know someone or they don't have enough experience for the job, people tend to not have trust in that person. That's what it looks like. He should have been able to run away with this thing and I agree with the post a few up. Why can't he?

Arlo said...

This thread wouldn't have been complete without an Obama fanboy posting a fake quote of John McCain about Ayers.
Its hard to muster any respect for a fanbase that lies.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately for you, it's true. Like when mcSame donated money and spoke as keynote speaker for Acorn. How would you know anyway? If you supported bush or mcSame, you're obviously an ignorant, uninformed yahoo.

Anonymous said...

"He should have been able to run away with this thing and I agree with the post a few up. Why can't he?"

Honestly, I think it has to do with racism, the uneducated, and zealously religious population in America.

Also known as, Palin's base.

Anonymous said...

oh my gosh, I can't believe the previous anonymous could actually think that. Crazy man, that is crazy thinking.

Anonymous said...

Go see Religulous...

Anonymous said...

>>The pollsters have freely admitted that they have no way of polling cell phone users. Get real and learn how to get other info than from Fox News and Rush.<<

You are an idiot. How does this prove your point? It only says that they don't know how to poll these people, not who they are going to vote for. The point is, unless you are a psychic, you can't predict who someone is going to vote for if they haven't been polled.

Anonymous said...

>>How would you know anyway? If you supported bush or mcSame, you're obviously an ignorant, uninformed yahoo.<<

Love the elitism attitude. That's the problem with guys like you. If they don't agree with you, they must be ignorant. lame.

Anonymous said...

>>>You are an idiot. How does this prove your point? It only says that they don't know how to poll these people, not who they are going to vote for. The point is, unless you are a psychic, you can't predict who someone is going to vote for if they haven't been polled<<<

Gee...anger about something, eh? I can see why you're backing McCain...you have a lot in common. Next time you guys should find someone worthwhile to vote for and not this foolish erratic old man with anger issues and no clue about the real issues.

Anonymous said...

The good news is that even most of those who aren't voting for Obama will benefit from his policies unlike the last 2 electios where most of those not voting for W suffered. (actually most of those that did vote for W suffered as well)

Anonymous said...

Both of these guys have problems for me, but I have to vote for the lesser of the two evils. Choose between a freshman senator who's a lawyer with very questionable relationships that would have disqualified him from any national security job or a senior, who is a veteran American hero but tends to the unexpected with his party and causes a stir many times with his decisions and positions? In this global climate I have to lean towards experience.

Anonymous said...

with very questionable relationships

How can people STILL be talking about this when it has been refuted time and time and time and time again (by reputable third parties)!?

Go to factcheck.org for crying out loud.

Anonymous said...

morons are morons and they will grasp at any straw to justify their vote. Even though the closest experience any person vn under go for the presidency is running a 2 year long campaign.
WHY would you trust a man who can't run a campaign to run the country. WHY would you trust a man who can't choose an exceptable running mate to make decisions about who to put in other positions.

Anonymous said...

I may not care for these candidates but if you think running a campaign to be President, is the same as BEING President, your insane or 15 years old.

Anonymous said...

You'e insane (notice I used the correct 'you're')or a 10 year old if you think anything anyone can do prepares them to be POTUS - even being a Gov or a senator. At least from their campaign you can see how they deal with a lot of people, how they deal with foreign entities, how they deal with a large some of money and what they will behave like in many different circumstances. Especially this election.
Who has remained steady and calm and who has behaved erractic and directionless?
WHo has had many of the opposite party cross the line to support him?
Who has had more criticism leveled at him by his own party and campaign workers?

thankfully we will never know what a presidency under someone so stupid as to choose a moron for a running mate would be like.

arlo said...

"WHY would you trust a man who can't choose an exceptable running mate"


Why would anyone invest in the opinions of someone who can't even spell. Give it up junior. You were a beaten man twelve posts ago.

Anonymous said...

>>Gee...anger about something, eh? I can see why you're backing McCain...you have a lot in common. Next time you guys should find someone worthwhile to vote for and not this foolish erratic old man with anger issues and no clue about the real issues.<<

Who's angry? I love how you skirt around the question by throwing insults. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Dodging the original question seems to be a specialty with you people.

Site Meter