How will you feel if Obama loses?

[chefmike]

Never say never...

[JohnnyWalkerBlackLabel]

Same way I'd feel if he won.

[MrShow52]

like america dodged a bullet

[trish]

Like America drank the Polident and stepped under a towering avalanche of applesauce jars into a world where Iraq borders Pakistan and everyday is an Oil Holiday.

[chefmike]

Like America drank the Polident and stepped under a towering avalanche of applesauce jars into a world where Iraq borders Pakistan and everyday is an Oil Holiday.

HST couldn't have said it any better, trish! Man I wish he was still on the planet earth to cover this election...although Matt Taibbi is a worthy successor as far as politics are concerned, IMO...

[saifan]

(Shrugs)
We're fucked either way.

[JohnnyWalkerBlackLabel]

(Shrugs)
We're fucked either way.

Exactly

[johnb]

you want a bucket list candidate, or someone who actually has everyone's attention? personally, i think people do their best work with the weight on the balls of their feet. go obama

[JohnnyWalkerBlackLabel]

for the record I'm all for Obama taking office, but until the lobbyist are no longer an influence, the armed forces infrastructure is dismantled and rebuilt, and chicken & watermelon are served on every dinner table once a week things will never change.............

yes you can use that as a quote brotha haze ;)

JWBL

[SarahG]

rebuilt in what way?

[gummi baer]

like america dodged a bullet...and bought into a plane crash!

[callahac]

I'm all for Obama, however i am kind of scared to see whats going to happen in the months preceding the election, i have a bad feeling cuz i think that the powers that be are not ready to give up the white anglo-saxon power structure and would never allow a black president. I doubt that the people's votes really count anyway, im waiting to see someone get shot, or a fake terrorist attack to scare everyone into voting republican, or initiating a war with Iran to scare everyone into voting for the rich white guy, either way if the rich white guy somehow gets into office we're all fucked too because it would probably take any of those crazy scenarios to get him into office which as a result means oil prices will skyrocket way out of control so we'll be looking at 8$ a gallon this fall/winter,,,,

Why are you all for him? No one seems to be able to answer that question, except for "he's for change, man." Well that is great. Change could mean that he plans on leading the country down the tubes.

America is ready for a black president- it's time to get off the anti- WASP bang wagon, it is kind of first gradish. What America isn't ready for is a president that feels more like a citizen of the world, more than he feels like an American citizen. His little world tour, quite honestly is a joke. Since when do we need the approval of the Germans and the Brits to elect our next president? McCain is no better, pandering to the Mexicans and Canadians that he won't screw with NAFTA.

I think we are fucked- one guy that doesn't identify as an American and another guy that wants to sell us out to big business.

[daltx_m]

like america dodged a bullet

:claps

[Caff_Racer]

callahac, I don't think that Obama's "world tour" is aimed at getting the "approval" of Germans, British people or little green men from Mars for you to elect your next president. It's just a PR exercise aimed at showing that a possible future US administration is aware that there's a world beyond the borders of the territory it administrates.

In any case, I don't see what's wrong in considering oneself to be a citizen of the world; The United States isn't the only country on the face of the planet, however much that might displease you.

[underdog6]

GREAT! Thats how i'll feel!

[unctrld1]

I will feel the same way I felt when stinking Dinkins became mayor of NYC. I knew nothing will change, and I was right then.

An Obama presidency will be the equivalent of the Dinkins administration. And Obama will be a one-termer too. And, just like Guiliani the next republican to run for president in 2012 will use racial animosity to cruise to an easy victory.

For those in NYC who lived through Dinkins and Guiliani, I am afraid we are in for Round 2 - this time on a national scale.

[slinky]

Whoever is the next President will probably be a one term. No matter what the next Pres does, the chickens birthed over the last decade will come home to roost, and when the shit hits the fan, whoever is currently driving the bus will get blamed.

[slinky]

I will feel the same way I felt when stinking Dinkins became mayor of NYC. I knew nothing will change, and I was right then.

An Obama presidency will be the equivalent of the Dinkins administration. And Obama will be a one-termer too. And, just like Guiliani the next republican to run for president in 2012 will use racial animosity to cruise to an easy victory.

For those in NYC who lived through Dinkins and Guiliani, I am afraid we are in for Round 2 - this time on a national scale.

Curious what you think of this: Obama gets elected, economy tanks (not his fault; it just does), out of work rednecks need someone to blame, white supremacist groups emerge/re-emerge, Obama gets assassinated.

[dbev]

Beside the fact that the real rulers of this world are bankers through seigniorage:

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

eight years of neo-con is enough.

[PapaGrande]

Happy.

Can any Obama supporters articulate a logical case for voting for Obama?facts, logic, and reason required.

[muttley]

for the record I'm all for Obama taking office, but until the lobbyist are no longer an influence, the armed forces infrastructure is dismantled and rebuilt, and chicken & watermelon are served on every dinner table once a week things will never change.............

yes you can use that as a quote brotha haze ;)

JWBL

Funny you should say that.......... I actually found a recipie where you roast a chicken inside a watermelon. I'll let you know how it goes. Sounds quite nice tho.

[Caff_Racer]

Happy.

Can any Obama supporters articulate a logical case for voting for Obama?facts, logic, and reason required.

While you're at it, can any McCain supporters do likewise? As I'm not American, I'd really like to see both sides put forward the pros and cons of their chosen candidate. Like PapaGrande says, facts, logic and reason required.

[baileyandkc]

I prefer Teddy Roosevelt..now there was a dude who kicked ass and took names!

[Alyssa87]

uh i'll be bummed about my federal grants being taken away from me.

i may just have to start whore-ing it up.lol

look out cocksuckers.lol

[trish]

Can any Obama supporters articulate a logical case for voting for Obama?facts, logic, and reason required.

There are thousands of reasons.

Let's just start with Roe vs Wade.

Ron Paul is a libertarian. He's for individual rights and liberty. Libertarians believe that "persons are absolute owners of their lives and should be free to do whatever they wish with their own bodies." I've known some libertarians. Some are even friends of mine. Believe me, Ron Paul is no libertarian when it comes to the rights of women to control their own bodies. No libertarian should want to vote for Ron Paul.

McCain is a maverick conservative, right? Well maybe not. He's promised to stack the supreme court with judges who will overturn Roe vs. Wade. No woman who demands her full rights as an individual over her own body should want to vote for McCain. Hell, McCain isn't even for the right of Habeas Corpus.

Ralph Nader whines there's no difference between the democrats and the republicans. But on this issue, there is...

Obama supports Roe vs Wade. Obama supports individual freedoms and in particular the rights of women over their own bodies. The next president is likely to have the opportunity to appoint several supreme court judges. If you're for individual freedom, you'll vote to have Obama make those appointments.

[peggygee]

How will you feel if Obama loses?



Like I've been robbed, raped, and butt fucked by the Republicans
again, like they did in the last election with George Bush.

And y'all know how Peggy feels about butt fucking. :smh

[altarica]

~Ok here's how it looks to me from the other side of the pond.

I kind of agree with what some of the others said.

For starters,Hilary was never going to get nominated coz-1: She is a fucking uber-bitch and
2: A woman.

Obama will not get in I reckon because quite simply-he's black and America isn't ready for a black guy in charge.
If by some chance he does get in someone will assassinate him.
You can't tell me that all the right wing and redneck reactionaries are going to stand for having a black guy telling them what to do. Fuck me if it was still up to them you would still have slavery.

I may be wrong but that is how it looks from quaint cute olde worlde Britain.

[richbo]

Great! The only way it could be worse if he won was for Queen Hillary to win! I'll take McCain anyday!

[chefmike]

Can any Obama supporters articulate a logical case for voting for Obama?facts, logic, and reason required.

There are thousands of reasons.



Bingo, trish!

Here's another: Obama wouldn't have vetoed the stem cell research bill, which could one day save your life or a loved one's.

And another: an end to tax cuts and tax havens for the top few percent.

And another: a sane foreign policy, one that isn't controlled by a senile old fool like McCain who knows nothing but war. A man who graduated in the bottom 1 percent of his class at Annapolis, yet still managed to get the highly coveted assignment of carrier pilot. A man who touts his POW experiences to cover up his otherwise very mediocre military career as a naval aviator. A man who has shown that he is willing to flip-flop on any position in order to get elected...in other words, another war-mongering white man of privilege like our current chimp-in-chief.

[unctrld1]

I will feel the same way I felt when stinking Dinkins became mayor of NYC. I knew nothing will change, and I was right then.

An Obama presidency will be the equivalent of the Dinkins administration. And Obama will be a one-termer too. And, just like Guiliani the next republican to run for president in 2012 will use racial animosity to cruise to an easy victory.

For those in NYC who lived through Dinkins and Guiliani, I am afraid we are in for Round 2 - this time on a national scale.

Curious what you think of this: Obama gets elected, economy tanks (not his fault; it just does), out of work rednecks need someone to blame, white supremacist groups emerge/re-emerge, Obama gets assassinated.

Your scenario is plausible, and I had thought of it. However, I think people are afraid of martyrs. Martyrs can't be stopped, their ideas fester and infect others.

Those who do evil have learned that lesson. Ever wonder why "Messy" Jesse Jackson, Rev. "tax evasion Al, and Farrakhan are still alive? Living leaders are fallible. Assassinated leaders are saints to be emulated. Better to let them live and destroy themselves.

[chefmike]

Those who do evil have learned that lesson. Ever wonder why "Messy" Jesse Jackson, Rev. "tax evasion Al, and Farrakhan are still alive?

If you are lumping Obama in with those clowns then you are very, very mistaken indeed.

[unctrld1]

I am not equating Obama with them. However, in the eyes of the white supremacists, militia members, racists, etc. they are equated. My point was, members of those groups, who might be bent on assassination, may have learned a lesson from history and will forgo killing.

To repeat, I do not equate them, but others do. Others with small minds,

[TomSelis]

Wow, this is a loaded question

[chefmike]

Wow, this is a loaded question

It's certainly a first for me, Tom. :wink:

[Lick UR Lovely]

NO OFFENSE :D :D

[chefmike]

NO OFFENSE :D :D

None taken. UR obviously a mental defective. Happy trails, zippy.

[Goldenguinea]

I keep hearing he's for change. i seem to recall that being the democrats battle cry during the mid term elections. Boy we sure got change after they took control of congress. Gas prices doubled. Economy in the shitter. Property values in free fall.

[TomSelis]

It's certainly a first for me, Tom. :wink:


Hehehehehe

[chefmike]

Gas prices doubled. Economy in the shitter. Property values in free fall.

You can thank the chimp-in-chief for that, pilgrim. If you want more of the same, then vote for McSame.

[muhmuh]

NO OFFENSE :D :D

None taken. UR obviously a mental defective. Happy trails, zippy.

he does have a point though with the kid... donkey vs elephant
its as if your entire political system is intended to be tongue in cheek but none of the voters is smart enough to figure it out

[flabbybody]

.

i may just have to start whore-ing it up.lol

look out cocksuckers.lol


in that case, I may have to start rooting for McCain

[hippifried]

Can any Obama supporters articulate a logical case for voting for Obama?facts, logic, and reason required.
The message is right. Other than that, there's never anything else to go on unless there's a sitting President running for reelection. There's no such thing as presidential experience when you're talking about someone who's never been President. You just take your best guess based on what the candidate tells you they believe in & hope they can handle the job once they get there.

So what do they believe? At face value, based on what they say?

Obama want's America to stop crybabying over lame ideological nonsense & spite, & start working together to solve the real problems that face us. That hasn't happened in a while. We've been so busy calling each other names that the country's fallen apart while nobody was paying attention.

I used to have an idea what Mccain believed, but I'm not sure anymore. The way he keeps changing his positions to appease the right wing of the republican party, one would think he didn't know he already won the nomination. He's always been a bag man for the pentagon & he's still milking his POW status, just like he has for the last 25 years, so I guess some things don't change.

I'm just sick of all the negativity. I'm tired of politics that's nothing more than a continuous attempt to drag somebody down. There's too many pressing problems in this country to spend all our time maliciously pointing fingers at each other. We can't solve anything if we can't hold a civil discussion. That's the promised change.

[qeuqheeg222]

whoever gets in has a huge mess to clean up but, if obama gets it the right wing and the military/industrial/oil/machine will fuck things up sooo bad that romney's lying ass can come in in 2012 like a reagan cowboy..remember i said it....they want obama to be the next carter admin(in the eyes of bad history-carter got stuck with nixons mess)...secondly,if obama cant get shit done due to "the man"(see the forementioned )the white supremacists in league with the far right will publicize the failure of a black man running things(see above giulianidinkns correalation),they will milk this to noend via rush limbaugh oxycodoned induced rants and thee bloggosphere to git 'r' done in 2012-romney..............

[will802]

and now its time for a jibjab break


http://sendables.jibjab.com/

[chefmike]

The folks at jibjab are brilliant.

[chefmike]

America loses no matter what if obama or mccain is elected the best person for the job is Ron Paul and Ralph Nadar together. Just look at Obama;s voting record over the last few years and it proves he is not out to help the people

Ron Paul is a batshit crazy right-winger. Ralph Nader is not qualified to run a 7-11, much less a nation.

[dbev]

I keep hearing he's for change. i seem to recall that being the democrats battle cry during the mid term elections. Boy we sure got change after they took control of congress. Gas prices doubled. Economy in the shitter. Property values in free fall.

It's amazing to see how, despite the wide presence of the Internet, people are completely unable to establish causal relationships between causes and results.

[Cuchulain]

I don't understand how anyone could vote for a Republican for President, Senator, Congressman or even dogcatcher after Reagan, Newt Gingrich's 'Republican Revolution' and 8 years of Bush/Cheney. Have you been paying attention? The Republicans are CONservatives. They think that the 'Market' can solve all our problems. They don't believe in government. Remember Reagan's famous line about the most frightening phrase in the english language being "I'm from the govt and I'm here to help"? Let's not forget his claim that trees cause more air pollution than cars or that ketchup is a vegetable, either. Heavyweight Republican policy maker Grover Norquist said that Conservatives wanted to shrink the size of govt until "we can drown it in a bathtub". Rush Limbaugh said "Roosevelt (President FDR) is dead. His policies live on but we're doing something about that." FDR's policies are what got us out of the Republican Great Depression and paved the way for the flourishing middle class which grew after WWII.

Republicans/CONservatives don't believe in govt oversight of business. All those pesky rules protecting workers rights and safety and the environment are bad for profits, don'cha know. They don't believe in Social Security, Medicare, Unions, free public education, govt sponsored student loans, federal housing assistance, unemployment compensation, worker's comp., minimum wage laws, fair wage laws, a progressive income tax or any policy which promotes the development of a strong middle class. They certainly don't believe in universal health care - God forbid that we should interfere with the insurance industry's profits!

Here's a few thoughts from the first great American Liberal Thomas Jefferson:
"Those seeking profits, were they given total freedom, would not be the ones to trust to keep government pure and our rights secure. Indeed, it has always been those seeking wealth who were the source of corruption in government."

"I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom. ... We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. ... [Otherwise], as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, ... and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow sufferers."

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise."

Jefferson also felt that a market ruled solely by corporations could change America "...until the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering. Then begins, indeed, the bellum omnium in omnia, which some philosophers observing to be so general in this world, have mistaken it for the natural, instead of the abusive state of man."

Get out there and vote Democratic, people. They're far from perfect, but they're the best we have atm.

[trish]

Can any Obama supporters articulate a logical case for voting for Obama?facts, logic, and reason required.

As I've remarked before, there not just one valid case to be made but thousands.

Today let’s look at the Surge.

General Petraeus and the troops have brought down the rate of violence in Baghdad, where the surge is primarily focused. This does not mean the violence is under control. It only means the rate of the death rate is, at for now, negative. The troops for the surge have been obtained largely by extending the tours of duty of those already in service. The troops are to be congratulated for their hard work and sacrifice. The real progress in Iraq, the success the administration is touting, is not in Baghdad but in Anbar Province. It’s rather odd, however, to ascribe the drop in violence there to the surge which has barely touched Anbar. What’s going on in Anbar is the Arab Awakening. This has more to do with Petraeus’s counterinsurgency tactics and the decision of Shiite and Sunni to cooperate and help each other oust foreign insurgents than it has to do with the extended tours of duty some call the surge.

Does McCain understand any of this? It’s doubtful. He doesn’t even know that Iraq doesn’t border Pakistan. McCain repeatedly confuses the distinction between Shiite and Sunni, a distinction crucial to understanding the political complexities of the Middle East and Iraq in particular. McCain was a C student in college and he remained a C student as a Senator. He’s proven repeatedly that he’s confused by the simplest distinctions. He claims to know how to win wars. But McCain has never won a war. Indeed he has never had a command unless you count the time near the end of his military career when he was in charge of a training squadron in Florida.

Obama needs no geography lessons or briefs on Middle East politics. He understands the basics and the subtleties. He is in essence already our leader by default via the vacuum of leadership in the current Whitehouse: Obama has urged time tables for the diminution of U.S. troops in Iraq. Now Maliki, Bush and McCain are talking time tables (oops time horizons…sorry). Obama has called for increased troop levels in Afghanistan. Now Bush and McCain see the light…a few short weeks after Obama, they too are calling for more troop presence in Afghanistan.

McCain has recently said that the ultimate humiliation for the U.S. would be a withdrawal of her troops from Iraq. Bush has already humiliated the U.S. by invading Iraq and citing for his justification intelligence reports that were transparently false. An Obama presidency would restore integrity once again to our great nation.

[jimbobw2]

Can any Obama supporters articulate a logical case for voting for Obama?facts, logic, and reason required.

There are thousands of reasons.



Bingo, trish!

Here's another: Obama wouldn't have vetoed the stem cell research bill, which could one day save your life or a loved one's.

And another: an end to tax cuts and tax havens for the top few percent.

And another: a sane foreign policy, one that isn't controlled by a senile old fool like McCain who knows nothing but war. A man who graduated in the bottom 1 percent of his class at Annapolis, yet still managed to get the highly coveted assignment of carrier pilot. A man who touts his POW experiences to cover up his otherwise very mediocre military career as a naval aviator. A man who has shown that he is willing to flip-flop on any position in order to get elected...in other words, another war-mongering white man of privilege like our current chimp-in-chief.

you are a Marxist, are you not

[jimbobw2]

Can any Obama supporters articulate a logical case for voting for Obama?facts, logic, and reason required.

As I've remarked before, there not just one valid case to be made but thousands.

Today let’s look at the Surge.

General Petraeus and the troops have brought down the rate of violence in Baghdad, where the surge is primarily focused. This does not mean the violence is under control. It only means the rate of the death rate is, at for now, negative. The troops for the surge have been obtained largely by extending the tours of duty of those already in service. The troops are to be congratulated for their hard work and sacrifice. The real progress in Iraq, the success the administration is touting, is not in Baghdad but in Anbar Province. It’s rather odd, however, to ascribe the drop in violence there to the surge which has barely touched Anbar. What’s going on in Anbar is the Arab Awakening. This has more to do with Petraeus’s counterinsurgency tactics and the decision of Shiite and Sunni to cooperate and help each other oust foreign insurgents than it has to do with the extended tours of duty some call the surge.

Does McCain understand any of this? It’s doubtful. He doesn’t even know that Iraq doesn’t border Pakistan. McCain repeatedly confuses the distinction between Shiite and Sunni, a distinction crucial to understanding the political complexities of the Middle East and Iraq in particular. McCain was a C student in college and he remained a C student as a Senator. He’s proven repeatedly that he’s confused by the simplest distinctions. He claims to know how to win wars. But McCain has never won a war. Indeed he has never had a command unless you count the time near the end of his military career when he was in charge of a training squadron in Florida.

Obama needs no geography lessons or briefs on Middle East politics. He understands the basics and the subtleties. He is in essence already our leader by default via the vacuum of leadership in the current Whitehouse: Obama has urged time tables for the diminution of U.S. troops in Iraq. Now Maliki, Bush and McCain are talking time tables (oops time horizons…sorry). Obama has called for increased troop levels in Afghanistan. Now Bush and McCain see the light…a few short weeks after Obama, they too are calling for more troop presence in Afghanistan.

McCain has recently said that the ultimate humiliation for the U.S. would be a withdrawal of her troops from Iraq. Bush has already humiliated the U.S. by invading Iraq and citing for his justification intelligence reports that were transparently false. An Obama presidency would restore integrity once again to our great nation.


So just what are Barack Hussein’s qualifications?

[BrendaQG]

I would be disappointed. But I have at least a little faith in the ability of John McCain. While someone his age may get a little foggy what he has is real wisdom. He's been a public servant for a long time and knows what war really is like. Unlike some presidents he didn't fly in no national guard. He was in Viet Nam. So he knows what these vets are going through (I know I know GI bill but still he knows more than GWB by far.)

I guess what I am saying is that McCain would at least be better than GWB.

Make no mistake I support Obama but if Mc Cain one I would not move to Canada. It wouldn't be that bad.

[trish]

Jimbob responds to my response to a question with another question:
So just what are Barack Hussein’s qualifications?

Thank you for asking. And thank you so much for quoting the entirety of my last post. That was very kind of you. You may have noticed that it, like my other posts, already lists not only some of Obama’s qualifications but also some of John Sidney McCain III’s disqualifications. By the way, have you noticed John Sidney McCain the Third (man of the people, not at all an elitist) is too tired to campaign on weekends? I expect as president he’ll be taking off on weekends as well. That’s all right though; he has eight different luxury homes in which he can kick back and relax.

So jimbob, just what do YOU think counts as a qualification? The constitutional qualifications are quite minimal. Even McCain and Bush qualify according to the constitution. Of course the electorate’s qualifications for the presidency are numerous and always in flux. Mine do not include, “would be a great guy or gal to have a drink with.” For people serving in public office, I look for integrity (unlike that shown by the members of the Keating five). I look for someone who respects and will protect the rights of individuals (I addressed this in part in my post on page 3 of this thread; McCain is against the right of women to control their own bodies). I look for a solid grasp of economic and political issues both domestic and foreign (This I already partially addressed in the post you quoted. McCain has no understanding of the distinction between the surge and counterinsurgency tactic. He has no understanding of the distinction between Sunni and Shiite). I could go on, and I will in future posts. In the meantime you might like to answer, if you're capable, some of the points already made instead of asking for more.

[chefmike]

Can any Obama supporters articulate a logical case for voting for Obama?facts, logic, and reason required.

There are thousands of reasons.



Bingo, trish!

Here's another: Obama wouldn't have vetoed the stem cell research bill, which could one day save your life or a loved one's.

And another: an end to tax cuts and tax havens for the top few percent.

And another: a sane foreign policy, one that isn't controlled by a senile old fool like McCain who knows nothing but war. A man who graduated in the bottom 1 percent of his class at Annapolis, yet still managed to get the highly coveted assignment of carrier pilot. A man who touts his POW experiences to cover up his otherwise very mediocre military career as a naval aviator. A man who has shown that he is willing to flip-flop on any position in order to get elected...in other words, another war-mongering white man of privilege like our current chimp-in-chief.

you are a Marxist, are you not

Negative, jimbob(how apropos)...but you are obviously a totally clueless neocon stooge and a bush apologist, are you not?

[Oli]

So just what are Barack Hussein’s qualifications?

Because no qualification is going to convince you that Obama is probably the better candidate, I'll steal what someone else has posted.




Obama was a State Legislator for 8 years, sponsoring over 800 pieces of legislation.

He spent much of his time in the Senate taking a high-profile position as spokesman for Democrats’ efforts to overhaul congressional ethics standards. As a member of the minority party, Obama also worked across the aisle with Republicans to push several measures that became law in 2006. including a law creating a single, searchable database of all federal contracts, grants and loans. He partnered with senior Indiana Republican Sen. Richard Lugar, the former chairman of the Foreign Relations panel, to sponsor legislation to strengthen international efforts to destroy conventional weapons,

He was lead sponsor of a bill to provide relief and promote democracy in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which was signed into law in December 2006.

He introduced legislation in 2005 to require federal preparations for an avian flu pandemic.

He backed the creation of an independent “Office of Public Integrity” that would investigate congressional ethics cases and receive and monitor financial disclosure reports required from members of Congress, officers and employees of Congress and lobbyists.

you can read more about his accomplishments in the Senate at this site:
http://obamasresume.org/

His educationsal accomplishments are equally impressive
Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA
Undergraduate, 1981-1983

Columbia University
B.A. Political Science with specialization in international relations
Thesis topic: Soviet nuclear disarmament
Graduate

Harvard Law School
J.D. magna cum laude 1988-1991

President, Harvard Law Review

That means he was one of the very best students at THE very best law school. But then he worked as a community organizer for a fraction what he could have made at a law firm. Later on, he did work as an associate attorney with a law firm specializing in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development, while also working as a Lecturer, in Constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School.

Compare that resume to W's who nearly managed to swallow the silver spoon in his mouth he was born with. Or with McCain. Who was 884th out of 889 students at the Navel Academy, where he was only admitted because his father and grandfather were Admirals. His record there was terrible by his own admission.

He crashed 4 planes while in the Navy.

He was only allowed to be a pilot because of his family connections. sound familiar??

Every job he ever got was through family connections. sound familiar??

He ditched his first wife when she became disabled and married a young heiress, whose money he used to enter politics.

He was one of the 5 infamous "Keating Five" who took $1.3 million from the subsequently jailed Keating that lead to the Savings and Loan debacle. The Senate Ethics Committee reprimanded McCain, called his judgment poor, and forced him to return thousands of dollars in illegal contributions. McCain has taken more money from lobbyists than any other politician.

Obama has a resume. McCain has a rap sheet.

[casca82]

happy, then do little dance :claps :D

[chefmike]

happy, then do little dance :claps :D

Ignorance is bliss.

[jimbobw2]

Can any Obama supporters articulate a logical case for voting for Obama?facts, logic, and reason required.

There are thousands of reasons.



Bingo, trish!

Here's another: Obama wouldn't have vetoed the stem cell research bill, which could one day save your life or a loved one's.

And another: an end to tax cuts and tax havens for the top few percent.

And another: a sane foreign policy, one that isn't controlled by a senile old fool like McCain who knows nothing but war. A man who graduated in the bottom 1 percent of his class at Annapolis, yet still managed to get the highly coveted assignment of carrier pilot. A man who touts his POW experiences to cover up his otherwise very mediocre military career as a naval aviator. A man who has shown that he is willing to flip-flop on any position in order to get elected...in other words, another war-mongering white man of privilege like our current chimp-in-chief.

you are a Marxist, are you not

Negative, jimbob(how apropos)...but you are obviously a totally clueless neocon stooge and a bush apologist, are you not?

I am off to air up my tires and get a tune-up :roll:

[trish]

jimbo will be in less pain if he gets a lube. :)

[JelenaCD]

i am not voting for obama , so i want him to lose , McCain is not a great canidate and he is old , he reminds me of Bob Dole , yet i have to vote McCain to prevent the democrats from running the show with veto proof majority in the senate , that would be truly scary ! Bush is horrible , he ruined the republican brand , actually not just him many republicans are slightly better then democrates yet still horrible , it's like the lesser evil and that's sad no doubt

[trish]

i am not voting for obama , so i want him to lose ,

That's kinda backwards isn't it. The reason you want him to lose is because you're not voting for him? :) The rest of your reasoning isn't much better: it would be "scary" if the dems had a veto proof majority. McCain won't be able to shit against a veto proof majority and neither will your vote for McCain. But more importantly, what's so scary about a democratic veto proof majority? It was the republicans who ruined this country over the last seven years, eroded our constitutional rights, turned a ten year budgetary surplus into trillions of dollars of debt and turned the whole world against us. We need a democratic veto proof majority to start repairing the damage done.

[JelenaCD]

i know the republicans are horrible yet Obama is the new Jimmy Carter , Bush is incompetent yet he has done 3 good things , reduced taxes , got 2 great supreme court people in Alito and Roberts , and Bush is the man that is protecting the USA constition from world government , Bush , lots of bad yet some good ,

[JelenaCD]

let me give you communists some hard cold facts !
the top 1% of americans in income pay 40 % of the taxes and half americans pay no taxes ! and Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich ? yes tax sucess to pay for the losers , it's backward theory , we never defeated communists , they still exist in the democrate party ,

[trish]

...
the top 1% of americans in income pay 40 % of the taxes and half americans pay no taxes ! and Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich ? yes tax sucess to pay for the losers , it's backward theory , we never defeated communists , they still exist in the democrate party ,

Spoken like a real American hating elitist. True patriots proudly pay their dues without complaint. True patriots look out for each other. True patriots spell "Americans" with a capital A, and they don't just mean the top 1% who have "acquired" 90% of the Nation's wealth and power.

[thx1138]

Under McCain this will only get worse http://conservativehq.com/blog/bush_white_house_hides_true_scope_of_federal_defic it/

[Cuchulain]

JelenaCD wrote:

let me give you communists some hard cold facts !
the top 1% of americans in income pay 40 % of the taxes and half americans pay no taxes ! and Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich ? yes tax sucess to pay for the losers , it's backward theory , we never defeated communists , they still exist in the democrate party ,

Considering that the wealthiest among us get most of their income from capital gains and dividends, which are taxed at 15% (far less than the rate wage earners pay), I'd say yes, it's time to raise their taxes.

Also,
"In a new sign of increasing inequality in the U.S., the richest 1% of Americans in 2006 garnered the highest share of the nation's adjusted gross income for two decades, and possibly the highest since 1929, according to Internal Revenue Service data."

" Meanwhile, the average tax rate of the wealthiest 1% fell to its lowest level in at least 18 years. The group's share of the tax burden has risen, though not as quickly as its share of income. "

"As the wealthiest Americans' share of income has risen, so has their share of the income-tax burden. The group paid 39.9% of all income taxes in 2006, compared with 27.6% in 1988. In the most recently reported five years, however, the share of income reported by the very wealthy has risen faster than the group's share of income taxes."
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/richest-americans-see-income-share/story.aspx?guid=%7B83E36877-222E-4718-9438-98DBEFEB5202%7D

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." - Thomas Jefferson

Here's one that should make your head explode:
"If the rich and super-rich don't pay their fair share, the middle class will get socked with the bill. But the middle class can't possibly pay it. America's middle class is under intense financial pressure. Median wages and benefits, adjusted for inflation, have been going nowhere for 30 years; health costs are soaring (employers are quickly shifting co-payments, deductibles and premiums to their employees), fuel costs are out of sight, the prices of the houses occupied by the middle class are in the doldrums.

What's fair? I'd say a 50 percent marginal tax rate on the very rich, meaning those earning over $500,000 per year. I'd also suggest an annual wealth tax of one-half of 1 percent on the net worth of people holding more than $5 million in total assets. Can't be done, you say? Well, the highest marginal tax rate under Republican Dwight Eisenhower was 91 percent. It dropped under John Kennedy to the 70 percent range." - http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/10/25/taxes/

As for your 'communist' remark - "from each, according to his abilites; to each, according to his needs" DOES sound pretty radical, almost like something Jesus would say.....

[Cuchulain]

got 2 great supreme court people in Alito and Roberts

Yeah, those two are a couple of gems:

SUPREME COURT
Courting Conservatives
Last year's "hyperpartisan" Supreme Court produced a "higher share of 5-4 decisions than any term in the last decade." Despite Chief Justice John Roberts's promise to seek greater consensus, 24 out of 68 decisions were resolved by a 5-4 margin. As The New York Times notes, "The Roberts bloc has not adhered to any principled theory of judging. The best predictor of how they will vote is to ask: What outcome would a conservative Republican favor as a matter of policy?" "It is not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much," said Justice Stephen Breyer in a high-profile dissent at the end of the last term. This year's term promises more of the same, with Justice Anthony Kennedy once again the pivotal swing vote. While this Court's docket contains cases that could potentially strike Kennedy's "individualistic, even slightly liberal chords," the four-person Roberts bloc will likely continue to go out of its way to issue activist conservative rulings.
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/progressreport/2007/10/court.html

"For the Supreme Court of the United States, this will be remembered as the year of intellectual dishonesty. In their Senate confirmation hearings, John Roberts and Samuel Alito cast themselves as first-rate lawyers, as masters of legal craftsmanship who are committed to the principle of stare decisis.

John Roberts assured the Senate Judiciary Committee that judges must "be bound down by rules and precedents." Invoking Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, he affirmed that "the founders appreciated the role of precedent in promoting evenhandedness, predictability, stability," and "integrity in the judicial process." Although acknowledging that it is sometimes necessary for judges to reconsider precedents, he stressed that this should be reserved for exceptional circumstances, where a decision has proved clearly "unworkable" over time. But in general, "a sound judicial philosophy should reflect recognition of the fact that the judge operates within a system of rules developed over the years by other judges equally striving to live up to the judicial oath."

Similarly, Samuel Alito testified to the Senate that the doctrine of stare decisis is "a fundamental part of our legal system." This principle, he explained, "limits the power of the judiciary" and "reflects the view that courts should respect the judgments and the wisdom that are embodied in prior judicial decisions." Stare decisis, he added, it is "not an inexorable command," but there must be a strong "presumption that courts are going to follow prior precedents."

Disturbingly, John Roberts's and Samuel Alito's actions on the Court now speak much louder than their words to Congress. During the past year, Roberts and Alito have repeatedly abandoned the principle of stare decisis, and they have done so in a particularly insidious manner. In a series of very important decisions, they have cynically pretended to honor precedent while actually jettisoning those precedents one after another.

The tactic, in short, is to purport to respect a precedent while in fact interpreting it into oblivion. Every first-year law student understands the technique. It works like this: "Appellant argues that Smith v. Jones governs the case before us. But Smith v. Jones arose out of an accident that occurred on a Tuesday. The accident in this case occurred on a Thursday. We do not overrule Smith v. Jones, but we limit it to accidents that occurr on Tuesdays." This illustration is, of course, a parody of the technique. But it captures the Roberts/Alito style of judicial craftsmanship. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/roberts-alito-and-the-ru_b_54273.html

[chefmike]

i know the republicans are horrible yet Obama is the new Jimmy Carter , Bush is incompetent yet he has done 3 good things , reduced taxes , got 2 great supreme court people in Alito and Roberts , and Bush is the man that is protecting the USA constition from world government , Bush , lots of bad yet some good ,

SMDH...what a heaping crock of shit. That goes for both your post, and the repug party and it's chickenhawk leaders that you so shamelessly shill for... you really need to lay off the Limbaugh, lady! It's rotted your brain!

[JelenaCD]

Nice little editorial from this weekend , Part 4 of 'The Audacity of Socialst '
Obamanomics Flunks The Test
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, August 01, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Election '08: Barack Obama the lawyer-organizer could use a crash course in economics. His economic plan's assumptions, based on long-discredited Marxist theories, are wildly wrongheaded.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IBD Series: The Audacity Of Socialism


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In arguing for a heavier mix of government, he assumes that capitalism unfairly favors the rich, almost exclusively so, and fails to spread prosperity.

"The rich in America have little to complain about," he carps. "The distribution of wealth is skewed, and levels of inequality are now higher than at any time since the Gilded Age."

Obama cites data showing a yawning gap between the income of the average worker and the wealthiest 1%. He thinks it's government's job to step in and close it — "for purposes of fairness" — by soaking the rich, among other leftist nostrums.

"Between 1971 and 2001," he complains, "while the median wage and salary income of the average worker showed literally no gain, the income of the top hundredth of a percent went up almost 500%."

But such a snapshot comparison would be meaningful only if America were a caste society, in which the people making up one income group remained static over time.

Of course that's not the case. The composition of the rich and poor in this country is in constant flux, as the income distribution changes dramatically over relatively short periods. Few are "stuck" in poverty, or have a "lock" on wealth.

Obama would discover this if only he'd put down his class-warfare manuals and look closely at the IRS' own data.

Take those megarich he vilifies — the top hundredth of a percent. According to a recent Treasury study, three-fourths of them in 1996 fell out of the group by 2005.

Meanwhile, more than half of those in the bottom income group in 1996 moved to a higher income group by 2005, with more than 5% leapfrogging to the richest quintile.

(It's no fluke: The same high degree of income mobility is seen in prior comparable periods, as well.)

Some poor moved up through personal effort, while many rode an expanding economy. Real median incomes of all taxpayers rose 24%, but the poor registered the biggest gains of all.

President Kennedy understood that a growing economy is like a rising tide that "lifts all boats." Obama, on the other hand, thinks some are lifted and others lowered, as if the economy were a system of locks operated by a cabal of evil capitalists.

He also fails to understand how taxes change behavior. He thinks raising taxes on the most productive members of society won't "curb incentives to work or invest." Even TV news anchor Charlie Gibson knows better.

During a primary debate, the ABC host took Obama to task for proposing a doubling in the capital gains tax. History shows, he pointed out, that raising the cap gains rate actually ends up costing the government revenues.

Obama just didn't get it. "Well, Charlie," he argued, "what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness."

Forget growth and revenues. Let's just punish those "greedy" investors. It's the same Marxist reasoning behind his plan to repeal the Bush tax cuts: The rich must be made to pay their "fair" share, Obama asserts.

Never mind that the top 1% of taxpayers already pay 38% of the total tax burden, according to recent IRS data, while the bottom 50% bear just 3% of the load.

Obama's economic plan also calls for mandating a "living wage." He plans to saddle retailers with a $10 minimum wage indexed to inflation, along with a mandate to provide seven days of paid sick leave to workers.

Obama assumes business owners will just eat the added costs.

But restaurants, the nation's second-largest private-sector employer, already operate on razor-thin profit margins. Faced with such mandatory paid benefits, they'll have no choice but to cut staff.

In fact, the last major minimum-wage increase cost the restaurant industry more than 146,000 jobs, the National Restaurant Association says, while restaurant owners put off plans to hire an additional 106,000 employees.

So Obama would get his wage-and-benefits mandate, but lose jobs in an industry that employs the very minorities Obama claims he's trying to help.

"If restaurateurs had their way, every lawmaker would run a small business before starting to legislate," the industry opined in a recent press release.

Lawmakers aren't the only ones. Leftist presidential candidates also could benefit from such a mandate.

[trish]

"Between 1971 and 2001," he complains, "while the median wage and salary income of the average worker showed literally no gain, the income of the top hundredth of a percent went up almost 500%."

But such a snapshot comparison would be meaningful only if America were a caste society, in which the people making up one income group remained static over time.

Yeah, haven't you noticed all those detroit car workers and Pittsburgh steel workers and all those Wallmart checkers climbing up the corporate ladder and moving into hundred acre mansions?

[tsafficianado]

so Trish, what is your preference.
promote a Walmart clerk who is not particularly brght, not particularly skilled and not particularly motivated to a corporate board seat, or do you just want to pay that same dull, unmotivated Walmart clerk the same wage that you pay a CEO?

[trish]

You missed the point tsafficianado. Jelena's article claims the Walmart clerk IS moving up; i.e. income groups are not statistically static over time. I'm just pointing out that they are indeed static over most people's lifetimes...in spite of the fact that most of those Walmart workers aren't as dull as you are.

[yodajazz]

so Trish, what is your preference.
promote a Walmart clerk who is not particularly brght, not particularly skilled and not particularly motivated to a corporate board seat, or do you just want to pay that same dull, unmotivated Walmart clerk the same wage that you pay a CEO?

I think that you are missing Trish’s point, about this so called, upward mobility. She is questioning as to how many Walmart employees are moving from there into the top fifth income bracket. I personally the statistic about those five percent, reported as moving from the bottom fifth to top the fifth. I believe there was some reason why these people moved up. They may have been in college, when they were in the bottom fifth, for example.

I believe that the current housing crisis shows that there is serious lack of income from the middle and lower classes. The political climate since Reagan, has been for the deregulation of business. However lack of regulation has allowed business to take and end run around labor rights and use labor from places like China. However, people in China are not buying American houses and cars, and are not spending their money in US communities.

I think most economists fail to see the value of money circulating up from a community level. It benefits more people, and still gets to the top.

And speaking of CEO’s, I heard a tidbit of about one who was fired after only 9 months from AT&T and received a 26 million dollar severance package. To me this is a sign that there is something wrong with our system. But maybe he was one of those promoted Walmart clerks.

[Cuchulain]

BILL MOYERS: I read just the other day that a couple with two children has to work approximately three full-time minimum wage jobs just to make ends meet.

HOLLY SKLAR: That's right. So, people don't make ends meet. So what they do is, they're constantly trading off. You know, they're going to food banks to feed their children, you know. We've been living the American dream in reverse.

BILL MOYERS: Reverse?

HOLLY SKLAR: In reverse.

BILL MOYERS: What do you mean?

HOLLY SKLAR: Our wages now adjusting for inflation, average wages are lower than they were in the 1970s. Our minimum wage, adjusting for inflation, is lower than it was in the 1950s, and why is it? One of the things going on is that income and wealth inequality have gone back to the 1920s. We are back at levels that we saw right before the Great Depression.

BILL MOYERS: But, during this time, the economy's been growing. Why aren't workers sharing in the prosperity that they've helped create?

HOLLY SKLAR: Well, that's exactly the problem. It used to be that when productivity went up, wages went up. Worker--

BILL MOYERS: You work harder, you got more of the results.

HOLLY SKLAR: You got the fair day's pay for the fair day's work, you got more results. You shared in the rise and work of productivity. Now, almost all the rise and work of productivity is going not just to the upper class, but to the very top of the upper class. So, we have had a great redistribution of income and wealth in this country in the last three decades. The problem is that redistribution of wealth and income has been going up to the very top. And most people have even been treading water, or going behind. And often working for many, many longer hours to keep up with the living standards.

BILL MOYERS: Is it true that about 80 percent of our workforce in this country make their living from hourly wages?

HOLLY SKLAR: They do. And that's when we refer to average workers, that's usually what we mean. We mean people who are, you know, in production non-supervisory workers and they're, when I say average workers are making less, in real terms-in what they can buy, than they were able to in the 1970s. It's just shocking. And we are told often that we have to do this in order to make our country more competitive in the global economy. You know-
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/06132008/transcript2.html

[Cuchulain]

Democracy - Not "The Free Market" - Will Save America's Middle Class
by Thom Hartmann

Here are a couple of headlines for those who haven't had the time to study both economics and history:

1. There is no such thing as a "free market."

2. The "middle class" is the creation of government intervention in the marketplace, and won't exist without it (as millions of Americans and Europeans are discovering).

The conservative belief in "free markets" is a bit like the Catholic Church's insistence that the Earth was at the center of the Solar System in the Twelfth Century. It's widely believed by those in power, those who challenge it are branded heretics and ridiculed, and it is wrong.

In actual fact, there is no such thing as a "free market." Markets are the creation of government.

Governments provide a stable currency to make markets possible. They provide a legal infrastructure and court systems to enforce the contracts that make markets possible. They provide educated workforces through public education, and those workers show up at their places of business after traveling on public roads, rails, or airways provided by government. Businesses that use the "free market" are protected by police and fire departments provided by government, and send their communications - from phone to fax to internet - over lines that follow public rights-of-way maintained and protected by government.

And, most important, the rules of the game of business are defined by government. Any sports fan can tell you that football, baseball, or hockey without rules and referees would be a mess. Similarly, business without rules won't work.

Which explains why conservative economics wiped out the middle class during the period from 1880 to 1932, and why, when Reagan again began applying conservative economics, the middle class again began to vanish in America in the 1980s - a process that has dramatically picked up steam under George W. Bush.

The conservative mantra is "let the market decide." But there is no market independent of government, so what they're really saying is, "Stop corporations from defending workers and building a middle class, and let the corporations decide how much to pay for labor and how to trade." This is, at best, destructive to national and international economies, and, at worst, destructive to democracy itself.

Markets are a creation of government, just as corporations exist only by authorization of government. Governments set the rules of the market. And, since our government is of, by, and for We The People, those rules have historically been set to first maximize the public good resulting from people doing business.

If you want to play the game of business, we've said in the US since 1784 (when Tench Coxe got the first tariffs passed "to protect domestic industries") then you have to play in a way that both makes you money AND serves the public interest.

Which requires us to puncture the second balloon of popular belief. The "middle class" is not the natural result of freeing business to do whatever it wants, of "free and open markets," or of "free trade." The "middle class" is not a normal result of "free markets." Those policies will produce a small but powerful wealthy class, a small "middle" mercantilist class, and a huge and terrified worker class which have traditionally been called "serfs."

The middle class is a new invention of liberal democracies, the direct result of governments defining the rules of the game of business. It is, quite simply, an artifact of government regulation of markets and tax laws.

When government sets the rules of the game of business in such a way that working people must receive a living wage, labor has the power to organize into unions just as capital can organize into corporations, and domestic industries are protected from overseas competition, a middle class will emerge. When government gives up these functions, the middle class vanishes and we return to the Dickens-era "normal" form of totally free market conservative economics where the rich get richer while the working poor are kept in a constant state of fear and anxiety so the cost of their labor will always be cheap.

When conservatives rail in the media of the dangers of "returning to Smoot Hawley, which created the Great Depression," all they do is reveal their ignorance of economics and history. The Smoot-Hawley tariff legislation, which increased taxes on some imported goods by a third to two-thirds to protect American industries, was signed into law on June 17, 1930, well into the Great Depression. In the following two years, international trade dropped from 6 percent of GNP to roughly 2 percent of GNP (between 1930 and 1932), but most of that was the result of the depression going worldwide, not Smoot-Hawley. The main result of Smoot-Hawley was that American businesses now had strong financial incentives to do business with other American companies, rather than bring in products made with cheaper foreign labor: Americans started trading with other Americans.

Smoot-Hawley "protectionist" legislation did not cause the Great Depression, and while it may have had a slight short-term negative effect on the economy ("1.4 percent at most" according to many historians) its long-term effect was to bring American jobs back to America.

The fact that the "marketplace" was an artifact of government activity was well known to our Founders. As Thomas Jefferson said in an 1803 letter to David Williams, "The greatest evils of populous society have ever appeared to me to spring from the vicious distribution of its members among the occupations... But when, by a blind concourse, particular occupations are ruinously overcharged and others left in want of hands, the national authorities can do much towards restoring the equilibrium."

And the "national authorities," in Jefferson's mind, should be the Congress, as he wrote in a series of answers to the French politician de Meusnier in 1786: "The commerce of the States cannot be regulated to the best advantage but by a single body, and no body so proper as Congress."

Of course, there were conservatives (like Hamilton and Adams) in Jefferson's time, too, who took exception, thinking that the trickle-down theory that had dominated feudal Europe for ten centuries was a stable and healthy form of governance. Jefferson took exception, in an 1809 letter to members of his Democratic Republican Party (now called the Democratic Party): "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."

But, conservatives say, government is the problem, not the solution.

Of course, they can't explain how it was that the repeated series of huge tax cuts for the wealthy by the Herbert Hoover administration brought us the Great Depression, while raising taxes to provide for an active and interventionist government to protect the rights of labor to organize throughout the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s led us to the Golden Age of the American Middle Class. (The top tax rate in 1930 under Hoover was 25 percent, and even that was only paid by about a fifth of wealthy Americans. Thirty years later, the top tax rate was 91 percent, and held at 70 percent until Reagan began dismantling the middle class. As the top rate dropped, so did the middle class it helped create.)

Thomas Jefferson pointed out, in an 1816 letter to William H. Crawford, "Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association." He also pointed out in that letter that some people - and businesses - would prefer that government not play referee to the game of business, not fix rules that protect labor or provide for the protection of the commons and the public good.

We must, Jefferson wrote to Crawford, "...say to all [such] individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens [like corporations], on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease."

Most of the Founders advocated - and all ultimately passed - tariffs to protect domestic industries and workers. Seventy years later, Abraham Lincoln actively stood up for the right for labor to organize, intervening in several strikes to stop corporations and local governments from using hired goon squads to beat and murder strikers.

But conservative economics - the return of ancient feudalism - rose up after Lincoln's death and reigned through the Gilded Age, creating both great wealth and a huge population of what today we call the "working poor." American reaction to these disparities gave birth to the Populist, Progressive, and modern Labor movements. Two generations later, Franklin Roosevelt brought us out of Herbert Hoover's conservative-economics-produced Great Depression and bequeathed us with more than a half-century of prosperity.

But now the conservatives are back in the driver's seat, and heading us back toward feudalism and serfdom (and possibly another Great Depression).

Only a return to liberal economic policies - a return to We The People again setting and enforcing the rules of the game of business - will reverse this dangerous trend. We've done it before, with tariffs, anti-trust legislation, and worker protections ranging from enforcing the rights of organized labor to restricting American companies' access to cheap foreign labor through visas and tariffs. The result was the production of something never before seen in history: a strong and vibrant middle class.

If the remnants of that modern middle class are to survive - and grow - we must learn the lessons of the past and return to the policies that in the 1780s and the late 1930s brought this nation back from the brink of economic disaster. http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0312-08.htm

[chefmike]

Kudos to trish, yodajazz, and Cuchulain for telling it like it really is.

[Tomfurbs]

Wow. A magazine called 'Investor's Business Monthly' attempts to claim capitalism favours the little man. Who'da thunk it!


As someone who works in the banking sector myself (in a treasury dept...I'm just as poor as everyone else!), I can tell you that your average stock broker/ trader/ Investment Banker could not give two shits about the little man, and the capitalist system they employ will never benefit the poor unless there is a lot of govt supervision.

[tsafficianado]

the usual liberal whine

Trish says Yeah, haven't you noticed all those........all those Wallmart checkers climbing up the corporate ladder and moving into hundred acre mansions?

truth is, Trish, there is upward mobility WITHIN Walmart, promotions in store and to regional positions. Please cite any evidence that you have that demonstrates that ANYONE was ever FORCED to work at a Walmart. Walmart is the largest employer in America and I imagine there are several tens of thousands of Walmart employees who would prefer to have their job than to not have one. Tell us Trish, how many jobs have YOU created in America? No one is compelled to work at a minimum wage job, they CHOOSE to work for minimum wage because they might be short on intelligence or they might not be motivated to pursue skills or education that would provide them with more opportunities. You would prefer to jack the minimum wage up to reward people for having low motivation and poor job discipline....how does that advance the American culture or economy. Who would provide leadership in eduction or healthcare or build companies that provide employment if everyone was lacking in inspiration and motivation? You don't think it is beneficial to the country as a whole to encourage those who want to build and create?

I worked for a manufacturing company for fifteen years making a reasonable living wage but nothing spectacular and I was satisfied with that moderate level of comfort. In my early thirties i became motivated internally to improve my situation so I found an opportunity to take on a second full time job and for 4 years I worked an average of 90 hours per week, never less than 80, in 4 years there were TWO days that I did not go to work at one job or the other or both, and for most of that period I went to University 2 nights a week to finish my Bachelor's degree and graduated FIRST in a class of almost 5000. I didn't relish working 90 hours a week and spending 20 hours a week going to school and doing papers and studying but I wanted more. At the end of those four years I had a degree, $40,000 for a down payment on a home and $40,000 to invest for appreciation and those gains provided the capital to start a business. I didn't ask for any handouts, I took out no loans, I asked for no support from my family, I did it on my own because I was motivated to improve my lot in life.

My best friend's wife began her career as a seasonal employee crunching returns for the IRS for barely more than minimum wage. She did a good job, she was dependable and demonstrated her willingness to go the extra mile and in time she became a full time employee with better benefits, the IRS paid for her to go to school to study IT and that led to an IT position with the IRS, and after a few years she found a better opportunity with a private company and today she makes 6 figures. She is not a genius but she is reasonably bright and very motivated and she made her own path with minimal assistance.

I know a young lady who actually worked at a Walmart for several years. She began to provide planning and decorations for weddings in her spare time and today has a small busines (that provides employment to 4 other people) and her business is flourishing. She is well on her way to a much higher level of financial security.

Stop apologizing for the Walmart checkers. They have made a CHOICE. Do you want to take away their jobs? Are you going to take care of them, or do you expect ME to take care of them? America is truly the land of opportunity and it is open to EVERYONE but it is force fed to NO ONE. Sure, some people are born with a silver spoon in their maw, tough. Some people are confused by the adage we all hear early in life that you can be whatever you want to be.....it doesn't happen as a matter of default, you have to make it happen. If someone CHOOSES to live on minimum wage and in the lower income strata that is their RIGHT.

[trish]

I can see, tsaff...., that you haven't read any of the posts that preceded your tired little diatribe peppered with three personal anecdotes that supposedly trump all the analysis and argument presented by the contributors to this thread. One of your stories doesn't even support your point (after all, your best friend's wife's advanced training was funded by a government agency).

Whose "apologizing for the Walmart checkers" (your words not mine)? I certainly didn't. They didn't do anything that requires them to apologize or for anyone to be so presumptuous as to apologize for them. You're the one who insinuated they were not particularly bright. Perhaps you should apologize TO them.

[chefmike]

the usual liberal whine


The usual Limbaugh lies..thank you for reminding us that FDR was indeed a Marxist! Let's abolish minimum wage hikes, continue to ignore creating real jobs in this country while also ignoring the USA's declining infrastructure, continue shipping American jobs overseas, continue increasing the deficit while giving tax cuts to the ultra-rich, continue to ignore the housing and health crisis, the erosion of the middle class at the expense of the top few percent....stay the course...mission accomplished...let's play some golf...

[JelenaCD]

Frank Marshall Davis , you may want to find out who this person is ? Obama's links to this man will be news soon . Like i mentioned a few days before the democratic party and specifically Obama has links to Communists .

[trish]

I see you guys are back to your fascist habit of condemning your opponents for their associations instead of their substance. But really, Frank M. Davis is old news.

[Cuchulain]

"MARTHA, MARTHA, GET MY GUN. THERE'S A COMMUNIST UNDER THE BED!" Amazing how Reichwingers start channeling their hero Joe McCarthy when they have nothing else to say.

Frank Davis was a noted African-American poet and journalist who sacrificed much in life by supporting the rights of Labor and minorities. At the tender age of 5, a group of white kids tried to lynch him in Kansas.
The fact that he was investigated by McCarthy and his Un-American Activities thugs is a mark in his favor, imo.

"Those books ( Black Man's Verse and I Am the American Negro ) made Davis's reputation and cemented his relationships with Langston Hughes, Richard Wright, and other leading black writers whom he met while participating in the federal Works Progress Administration Writers' Project and other organizations. In 1937 Davis received a Julius Rosenwald Fellowship, and through World War II he continued to earn a living as a journalist and editor with the Associated Negro Press. His poetry involved itself with various subjects and sources; two series of poems set in a graveyard and describing its occupants (one in each of his first two books) seemed influenced by a parallel section of Edgar Lee Masters's Spoon River Anthology. He depicted urban scenes and wrote occasional lyric poems of great beauty. "Peddling/From door to door/Night sells/Black bags of peppermint stars/Heaping cones of vanilla moon," he wrote in one poem.

Most often, though, Davis was identified with militant poems. His works dealt with lynching, poverty, and the other grinding conditions under which African Americans live, and he indicted the hypocrisy of white America repeatedly. Several poems, including "'On-ward Christian Soldiers,'" took direct aim at white violence on a global scale; "Day by day // Black folk learn // Rather than with // A heathen spear // 'Tis holier to die // By a Christian gun." These works made a strong impression, but some critics shied away from them; Hughes (as quoted by Davis biographer John Edgar Tidwell) offered the even-handed but cautionary assessment that "when [Davis's] poems are poetry, they are powerful."

Davis broadened his activities into many areas of black culture and society in the 1930s and 1940s. He used his newspaper platform to call for integration of the sports world, and he began to engage himself with community organizing efforts, starting a Chicago labor newspaper (the Star) toward the end of World War II. In 1945 he taught one of the first jazz history courses in the United States at the Abraham Lincoln School in Chicago. He briefly joined the Communist Party, although he had disparaged the efforts of Communist organizers while living in the South in the 1930s and later downplayed the extent of his involvement."
http://biography.jrank.org/pages/2342/Davis-Frank-Marshall.html

I seem to remember from my studies of Labor History that a great many working people and Labor activists were associated with the communist party in the late 1800s through the early part of the 20th century because it had a philosophy of power for workers instead of 'rich-white-boy-takes all'. That was before frightened Reichwingers ( with the unwitting help of communist-in-name-only asshats like Stalin ) succeeded in demonizing the term.

[hippifried]

Frank Marshall Davis , you may want to find out who this person is ? Obama's links to this man will be news soon . Like i mentioned a few days before the democratic party and specifically Obama has links to Communists .
That's already been all over the blogosphere for months now. It hasn't gone anywhere because it's a non-issue. I've met lots of people but they aren't me. I sat down & talked to Kurt Rambis one evening, but I still can't get both feet off the ground at the same time let alone grab a rebound. What a bunch of crap.

[joedizzle563]

Just my opinion but I am not totally sure that Obama is the best qualified to be President. SO I guess to answer the question of the post, If Obama loses, I believe the country and especially the military will be better off. I dont think Obama has the knowledge or qualifications to lead the military at this time. If we were having this election during a time of peace, I would feel exactly the opposite. Just my opinion though.

[trish]

Fair enough, except Obama was right about every aspect of this war while McCain continues to play catch-up. McCain doesn't seem to know anything about the Middle East. He repeatedly confuses Shiite and Sunni and he is even perplexed by geography, thinking Iraq shares a border with Pakistan. McCain is unaware of the Arabic Awakening and Patraeus's counter-insurgency tactics that together are responsible for the turnaround in Anbar Province, a turnaround which McCain attributes instead to the extended tours of duty (concentrated in far away Baghdad) which some call the surge.

[hippifried]

There's a whole lot more to being President than "leading the military". The President can't micromanage anything, & nobody in their right mind would want him to. Their leadership heirarchy is already in place. All you need to do is give them a clear objective. They'll follow orders. The problem all along is that nobody knows what they're trying to accomplish. We're just in a permanent holding pattern trying to contain the various crises as they occur.

The "surge" was just a surge in money. They paid off the local militias. It's tribute. We already surrendered.

[El Nino]

You people seem to be hunting down the wrong path here. The founding fathers had different ideas then these establishment hacks. In terms of foreign policy, civil liberties, monetary policy etc... McCain and Obama don't seem to value or even possess these core presidential traits. They are both really pathetic excuses for a presidential role of the USA. Do your homework

[trish]

The founding fathers all disagreed with each other on foreign policy, civil liberties and monetary policy; even the one's that were presidents and presumably had "presidential traits". You do realize, El Nino, that there's a category distinction between a "trait" and a policy endorsement. You seem to be confusing the two. So which do you mean? McCain and Obama don't have the core presidential traits that our early presidents had, or that they don't endorse the same set of conflicting policies which the founding fathers feuded over? Think carefully and try to say what you really mean this time.

[NYBURBS]

Just my opinion but I am not totally sure that Obama is the best qualified to be President. SO I guess to answer the question of the post, If Obama loses, I believe the country and especially the military will be better off. I dont think Obama has the knowledge or qualifications to lead the military at this time. If we were having this election during a time of peace, I would feel exactly the opposite. Just my opinion though.

Bro, this whole concept that someone is better in war time than in peace time is really over done. Honestly, unless perhaps the guy running was a General or an Admiral, they are all equally clueless about military planning. Elect someone because their over all vision is in alignment with yours, or because you think they are the better candidate (if you don't happen to agree with either overall).

Most Presidents are not economists, or military leaders, or energy experts. They appoint experts (or so we hope) to advise them on the particulars of these issues. We are electing someone for their overall vision, along with their ability to carry out that vision.

Oh and what Trish said is true. There was quite a bit of disagreement early on as to the path that should be taken in various policy areas. The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers being the prime embodiment of these disagreements. The idea of a Central Bank was also quite contentious early in our history.

[El Nino]

Trish, you really need to get a life and quit knit-picking trivialities. You seem to chronically be trying to defend Obama by hook or by crook. Face it, the guy is a trainwreck and his values are not even his own, when it comes down to it. Why this Obama is the savior tone with you? You know what Trish, I bet if he wasn't partially black you wouldn't be so supportive of him, would you? If he was just some middle-aged white guy you would be much less likely to give him your misinformed and mindless support. You sympathize with his color of skin Trish... there I said it. Its been long overdue here.

Now, does Obama continuously vote to fund the illegal occupation in Iraq? Yes he does. Did he vote to re-enact the Patriot act? Yes he did. Is he really for freedom of the people, true liberty and limiting taxation? no he's not. Is he pleasing his political lords and masters by voting this way? YES HE IS!! I am not going to continue here about Obombya' He is bad news for the Republic. End of discussion. Don't waste your energy defending this clown. Go Bill of Rights!

[chefmike]

Trish, you really need to get a life and quit knit-picking trivialities. You seem to chronically be trying to defend Obama by hook or by crook. Face it, the guy is a trainwreck and his values are not even his own, when it comes down to it. Why this Obama is the savior tone with you? You know what Trish, I bet if he wasn't partially black you wouldn't be so supportive of him, would you? If he was just some middle-aged white guy you would be much less likely to give him your misinformed and mindless support. You sympathize with his color of skin Trish... there I said it. Its been long overdue here.

Ridiculous and pathetic statements, Nino. Now you're really showing your desperation.


Now, does Obama continuously vote to fund the illegal occupation in Iraq? Yes he does. Did he vote to re-enact the Patriot act? Yes he did. Is he really for freedom of the people, true liberty and limiting taxation? no he's not. Is he pleasing his political lords and masters by voting this way? YES HE IS!! I am not going to continue here about Obombya' He is bad news for the Republic. End of discussion. Don't waste your energy defending this clown. Go Bill of Rights!

I can't recall trish or any other Obama supporters here saying that they agree with each and every vote or position that Obama has taken. So what? Does that mean we should turn to a right-wing lunatic like Dr. Ron Paul, Nino? That kind of misguided thinking is for hysterics like yourself.

[trish]

El Nino...you had absolutely no point. In fact your post of Sun Aug 10, 2008 12:07 pm said nothing coherent. I was just asking you to clarify what you meant. You might notice my request was on behalf of both McCain and Obama. I take your response to mean that YES both McCain and Obama DO have the core presidential TRAITS but that you have issues with Obama's record, he's not Federalist enough for you.


You sympathize with his color of skin Trish... there I said it. Its been long overdue here.

Why would I "sympathize" with his color?? That's a very odd locution now isn't it? What's your mind trying to say that your head doesn't know about, El Nino? :D


End of discussion.

Why do all assholes end their arguments like this, and then continue to persistently troll on the same topic?

[Tomfurbs]

I willl feel like we are all fucked.

[El Nino]

You sympathize with his color of skin Trish... there I said it. Its been long overdue here.

Why would I "sympathize" with his color?? That's a very odd locution now isn't it? What's your mind trying to say that your head doesn't know about, El Nino? :D


I stand corrected, I meant to say "empathize" not "sympathize"... But the point still rings true!!!

[El Nino]

The founding fathers all disagreed with each other on foreign policy, civil liberties and monetary policy; even the one's that were presidents and presumably had "presidential traits". You do realize, El Nino, that there's a category distinction between a "trait" and a policy endorsement. You seem to be confusing the two. So which do you mean? McCain and Obama don't have the core presidential traits that our early presidents had, or that they don't endorse the same set of conflicting policies which the founding fathers feuded over? Think carefully and try to say what you really mean this time.

What I meant was, even though the founders certainly had differences of opinion, they put those personal disagreements aside and derived altruistic ideals and common values for the betterment and equality of all citizens. Neither Obama or McCain can be identified with those ideals and quite frankly, are indifferent to their importance. Like I said before, either one of them might make good candidates for clown school, but for the Presidency?

[trish]

2: the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner;



Naw, that's not what you mean either.

[El Nino]

It is exactly what I meant, thanks for the technical corroboration!

[trish]

Well, if that's what you meant :roll: , the answer is no, I don't empathize with Obama.

[El Nino]

Sureeee ya don't

[trish]

That's absolutely correct: I definitely do not EMPATHIZE with Obama. You would do well to learn English.

[El Nino]

Now you're just babbling...

Sorry if you take offense to my intuitive observations. The fact remains however that if Obama was 100% Caucasian, not just 50%, your "Obamamania" fervor would in all probability be significantly reduced. Of course I can't prove this but there is a strong hunch. Anybody for lunch?

[trish]

I don't take offense. I simply do not EMPATHIZE with Obama. Try another word.

[trish]

The fact remains however that if Obama was 100% Caucasian, not just 50%, your "Obamamania" fervor would in all probability be significantly reduced.

That's not a fact. It's a falsehood. [Edit: That which does not exist, cannot be reduced.] It's apparently what you need to believe.

[Edit:You know, I always suspected libertarians and social conservatives were incapable of experiencing "empathy"; but I never dreamed they were incapable of understanding the word.]

[strokeitnow]

I will feel like I just won the lottery....

[trish]

Because
But having said that I could still do pretty much anything I wanted to do at anytime... ?

Just guessing. Or maybe because you don't understand that you can't reduce something that doesn't exist.

[strokeitnow]

Trish, keep guessing... It amuses me

[trish]

No thank you

[ToyBoy6669]

the thing I like about him is he speaks like he went to school...its....refreshing, not that I'm set on whom to vote for