yeah, CLINTON QUITS

I don't often say this about things Felicia writes but....

Co-Fucking-sign!

This myth that Hillary has somehow been cheated has to be nipped in the bud. Obama has had racism and really irrational Islamophobia to deal with. (25% of Anti-Obama Dems think Obama is a muslim!!!) Even in light of all the controversy around his Christian Church!

Their was a contest, the contest had rules, the rules were changed to favor Hillary Clinton, and OBAMA STILL WON!!

Now can we all just get along...and move on to making sure that another Regan/Bush style republican does not get into office?

Hilary didn't conceived or even acknowledge that we should focus on the general election it just seemed like the same rhetoric.

I would have to agree with I think needsum, i would like to see a Republican candidate who was fiscally strong yet socially liberal. There are a lot of issues that people get very emotional over, in some cases rightly so, (gay marriage, abortion, religion, the flag) but are not the pressing issues which will destroy our country and economy. I wish that somebody would stand up adn have the courage to really go into the issues, everyone said Ross Perot was crazy, I think he scared the piss out of both parties. He wasn't beholden to a party or a bunch of pacs, and he spoke the hard truth about many issues. But the media and the right and left tried to make him out to be a kook. I still remember his debate with Al Gore about NAFTA, which now even democrats are saying was a bad idea. I wish somebody would ask Gore what the global warming contribution of NAFTA has been, a lot of manufacturing has been moved to places with less stringent environmental standards, plus all the extra transportation. The American public also has to take responsibility for being pretty dumb and lazy, too lazy to learn about the issues, too lazy to really get out and voice an opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Felicia Katt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KellyShore

Hilary still has the popular vote with over 17 million voting for her. If we are going to talk facts at least get them straight. And she still has the popular VOTE. Which says a lot.

---

Kelly, Hillary doesn't have the popular vote, unless you do the math her rosy lensed way. She only counts 35 states, discounting all the States where they held Caucuses and not primaries, she also gives herself all the voters in Michigan, where Obama wasn't even on the ballot, and virtually all the voters in Florida, where he never campaigned.

By every legitmate metric, representative popular vote, pledged delegates, superdelagates and number of primaries or caucuses prevailed in, Obama is the winner.

I used to be a huge Hillary supporter, but you learn more about a person by how they lose then how they win, and she has shown herself to be a very poor loser. She was the presumptive nominee, with the best Democratic brandname, and all the funding and support, and in this paranoid, post 9-11 fearscsape, she got beat by someone wtih dark skin and a Muslim surname. And she did so in the most ungracious and selfish fashion, without regard to needs or ideals of the party. That she has you, a smart, informed young woman parroting her specious talking points to sabotage Obama, so she can wait out McCain and run again in 2012, rather than rallying you to elect a Democrat now and try to erase the last 8 years of Bush league leadership, shows her true character.

FK

---

A cogent argument in favor of Obama if ever there was one. Don't get me wrong, the guy definitely has some significant shortcomings, but I'll take him over Clinton or McCain, both of whom have clearly demonstrated that they know fuck all about economics.

-Quinn

...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PapiQueRico

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeGPzk8Oca8

http://www.livesteez.com/videos/watch/nvYkHm9

---

There is an old Sicilian proverb: a fish rots from the head down. Hillarys supporters are so violently and vocally racist and ignorant because Hillary wants them to be.

When Hillary Clinton was asked on “60 Minutes” if she believed that Barack Obama was a Muslim this was her reply:

“Well of course not, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says, and you know, there isn’t any reason to doubt that.”

The reporter then pressed her on her answer asking her again if she believed that Obama was a Muslim, she replied:

“No, no, why would I — there’s nothing to base that on — as far as I know,”

She knows full well he is a Christian. She is one of the smarter, more articulate politcians out there and a lawyer as well, trained and practiced at precise speech. It was not a hard question, but the simple honest answer didn't help her, so she answered in a dissembling way that did.

Her campaign also leaked a photo of Obama in traditional Somalian dress that a lot of people ignorantly thought was Muslim and then denied it suggesting he had something to hide by complaining about it. Bill Clinton dismissed his primary win in South Carolina by claiming Jesse Jackson won there too. Hillary famously said her campaign was for "working, hard-working Americans, white Americans" Subtle, but insidious racism. A certain percentage of people will always wrongly think Obama is a Muslim, no matter the facts. A certain percentage would never vote for an African American, no matter the candidate. Hillary held her nose and sought out those voters, despite the rotting fish stench of their views.. Its no wonder that her surrogates and her supporters sound just like them.

FK

http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=9225

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-t...e_size_of.html

http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=9405

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/olmert-...int=9678912121

I voted for Clinton in the NY primary. But she's run a dumb, ungraceful campaign, and it's convinced me that Obama has the better organizational and leadership skills.

What I said tonight: "I would have preferred Clinton to be President. But having a black President will piss off the right-wingers nearly as much, so that should be entertaining, too."

(Largely co-sign Trish & Felicia.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Nino

http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=9225

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-t...e_size_of.html

http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=9405

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/olmert-...int=9678912121

---

Haha, fucking nutbar. Better get your tinfoil hat before the reverse vampires eliminate the meal of dinner forever.

Call me whatever you want, but the facts remain

Obama's Money Cartel:

http://www.counterpunch.org/martens05052008.html

antiasskisser you have serious issues, I am not racist. Still believing the chatroom fun Haze and Johnny were having? Pathetic.


Oh wait this is like that dirty tactic Obama did with Hil's health plan. Sending out flyers lying to them. Is that what you mean Felicia by playing dirty?

He wasn't exactly a saint.

So stop acting like it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Legend

Hilary didn't conceived or even acknowledge that we should focus on the general election it just seemed like the same rhetoric.

---

(Guffaw!!!) ... You can't make this stuff up. You just can't. Oh my god. LOL!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Realgirls4me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Legend

Hilary didn't conceived or even acknowledge that we should focus on the general election it just seemed like the same rhetoric.

---

(Guffaw!!!) ... You can't make this stuff up. You just can't. Oh my god. LOL!!!

---

http://i30.tinypic.com/20jg68m.jpg

Whomever gets elected hopefully they are strong on border control.

For the record, let Legend's latest slop of a post confirm that he is not only stupid and ignorant, but a bigot too -- the most basic form of ignorance one can be saddled with. That's two shots he's taken at me via Mexican-Americans. Where did race factor in? What's the matter, Legend, can't stick to the facts and issues at hand? You been hit so hard you're grasping at anything you can such as the race low road?

... Like a college professor once warned us about bigots: "Be wary of anyone who differentiates another person by his/her race or ethnicity ... they usually don't stop differentiating at one."

Why not reveal your stereotypes and generalizations of Jews, Muslims, Puerto-Ricans, African-Americans, Cubans, et all, Legend? ...Show us, you redneck cartoon!

Kelly, a health plan is a legitimate campaign issue. Suggesting your opponent is a Muslim is not. Reminding voters he is not white is not.

You are an intelligent person, and I'm glad to see you show it in these discussions. But you are misinformed on the heatlh care flyer, which said that Clinton's plan requires all Americans to buy insurance. Brooks Jackson, director of factcheck.org says the claim is "out of context" and "strains the facts," but that to call it false is "an exaggeration in itself."

Clinton and Obama have been exaggerating the differences between their two health care plans. Jackson says the plans are quite similar. The main difference is that Clinton has what she calls a "personal mandate," a requirement that every individual obtain health care coverage — Obama does not.

Hilllary claims her "mandate" is not mandatory by not specifying the penalties, means of enforcement, or whether there would be any exemption for hardship cases. But by any reasonable definition, to mandate is to require, which is more than pretty much what the flyer said.

While she cried wolf about Obama's flyer, Clinton was no innocent Red Riding Hood with her own. Her campaign sent out a mailer that twisted Obama's words and gave a false picture of his proposals on Social Security, home foreclosures and energy, accusing Obama of favoring a $1 trillion tax increase on Social Security. Factcheck.org's Jackson called her flyer a "big distortion."

This is all water under the bridge. Obama is the nominee. Hillary is not. The question is whether we cross that bridge with Obama, or stay stuck in the muck and mire and mud left underneath it by Bush, by voting for McCain. For me, the choice is as clear now as the poltics may have been dirty then.

Obama wins, we win.

Peace

FK

Not true in the least, he is backed by the same as Mccain. Thats how he got all those big profits for his election. As El Nino said.

He will do their bidding. He is bought.

Kelly, I think you meant to reply in the other thread, but its all good.

Don't take my word for it. Google it. Obama has raised record amounts for his campaign from primarily small donors. He has so many that the FEC computer's spreadsheets couldn't handle it. He couldn't outraise McCain if they had the same donors.

Politicians may seem more alike than different, but Obama is very different than McCain who is just the same as Bush. The difference couldn't be more clear than it is on gay/transgender rights and marriage. Obama is for us, and McCain is agin us. As an activist, that issue alone should resonate with you and is why I keep trying to reason with you :)

FK

With gas over 4 dollars a gallon and a never ending pointless war that's costing Billions.....trillions even, with food going up, with jobs being lost,

Even with obvious obstacles (racial), I truly believe this is Obama's race to lose at this point.

It's pretty much 1992 all over again.

As cosmetic as it may sound, I believe it's Hillary's grating voice that sunk her boat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by melissacarter

As cosmetic as it may sound, I believe it's Hillary's grating voice that sunk her boat.

---

no matter what i say ... i will be looked at as silly ...
i really don't know too much about either campaigns and i would vote fo Hillary solely on the belief that Obama would be killed because of some of the real racist people in this country...
i will however say that this thread has taught me alot about the up coming election .
Thanks guys ... it was alot of pages to read and i think that Wenndy had some ver valid points along with every one else :)
~mimi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tonkatoy

I would have to agree with I think needsum, i would like to see a Republican candidate who was fiscally strong yet socially liberal. There are a lot of issues that people get very emotional over, in some cases rightly so, (gay marriage, abortion, religion, the flag) but are not the pressing issues which will destroy our country and economy. I wish that somebody would stand up adn have the courage to really go into the issues, everyone said Ross Perot was crazy, I think he scared the piss out of both parties. He wasn't beholden to a party or a bunch of pacs, and he spoke the hard truth about many issues. But the media and the right and left tried to make him out to be a kook. I still remember his debate with Al Gore about NAFTA, which now even democrats are saying was a bad idea. I wish somebody would ask Gore what the global warming contribution of NAFTA has been, a lot of manufacturing has been moved to places with less stringent environmental standards, plus all the extra transportation. The American public also has to take responsibility for being pretty dumb and lazy, too lazy to learn about the issues, too lazy to really get out and voice an opinion.

---

I agree--I voted for Ross Perot for that very reason. He was NOT a career politician, he was a staunch, tough businessman, and the way things have been going in this country we need it to be run by a no-holds-barred, don't-fuck-with-my-business type of businessman. He had the goods to stir up some shit, thats for sure.

I've often thought I should go into politics, but its such a shitty business. Hmm, I wonder how my acceptance speech would go on the white house lawn . . .

"My fellow Americans, I am humbled by your acceptance of me as your new leader. I vow to keep my campaign promises: No new taxes, full rights for gay couples, legalize prostitution, a universal healthcare system that ACTUALLY WORKS, a retirment system to replace the struggling SS system we have in place. And I owe a big debt of gratitude to hungangels.com for their years of support!"

Wanna solve the Social Security problem? Simple. Take away the pension that the congress gets (they get full pension until they die, and they make a damn good salary while in office). Make them look forward to SS earnings when it's their time to retire, and I fucking guarantee you that the mess will be resolved.


You should be informed before you make statements

Here are the basics:

Members of Congress (House and Senate) take part in a defined benefit plan (once retired, they receive a specific monthly benefit based on years of service). They do not retire at full pay and their pension is a contributory plan — that is, they have a significant amount deducted from their salary each month to help defray the cost of their pension benefits. This defined benefit plan is comparable to pensions offered by big companies like General Motors except that in some instances the companies underwrite the entire cost of the plan.

Members of Congress are eligible for one of two plans, depending on when they were first elected. Members elected before 1983 take part in the CSRS plan which has more generous defined benefits. Members elected after 1983 take part in the FERS plan available to all federal employees. It has a smaller defined benefit but a more generous 401(k) (described more fully below).

RelatedColumn Archive
Congressional Pensions ExplainedCongressional Redistricting, the Ultimate Political PrizeForty Years Later, Fraternity Bonds Still StrongRomney's Challenge: Reader Emails Reveal Reservations About MormonismMyths About Congress ExposedFull-page Martin Frost Archive
Members under the old CSRS plan receive a pension equal to 2.5 percent of their highest salary for each year of service. Thus, a member who serves 10 years would receive a pension equal to 25 percent of his salary. Members under the new FERS plan receive pension equal to 1.5 percent of their highest salary for each year of service. Thus a Member serving 10 years would receive a pension equal to 15 percent of his salary.

In addition, all members, starting in 1983, now pay into Social Security and receive Social Security benefits. For members under the old CSRS plan, their Social Security benefits are offset (subtracted from) their pension. For members under the new FERS plan, there is no Social Security offset. It is not unusual for retired workers to receive a pension from their private employer and to also receive Social Security. Somehow, many people think members of Congress should not be eligible for the exact same treatment that employees in private industry receive.

Members under the old more generous CSRS plan are eligible for participation in a separate 401(k) plan under which a certain amount is deducted from their salary each month and is not taxed until after they retire. This 401(k) deduction is not matched by their employer, the federal government. Members under the new FERS plan also can take part in a 401(k) plan and they receive a partial match from their employer.

Generally, members are not eligible to receive their pension until age 60 and their pensions vest after five years of service.

I know this is a lot of information but don’t be afraid of being armed with the facts. The misconceptions that float around on the internet — retirement at full pay after one term and no payment into Social Security — are false and unfair to public servants who devote a significant amount of their lives to making this a better country.

Having said all this, I realize that some people will resent the fact that members of the House and Senate receive any pension at all. I can’t do anything for people who take this view.

I can, however, give you information about what is true and what is false. You can then at least make a rational judgment on whether or not you approve of the Congressional pension system. Improvements can be made. Convicted criminals like former Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-Calif.) should forfeit their pensions when they are convicted of felonies like taking a bribe.

Also, it is legitimate to question whether or not these pensions should be indexed for inflation each year. Many private pensions are not indexed though military pensions and Social Security are.

I hope this answers your questions.

Congressional Pensions Explained
Monday, December 03, 2007

By Martin Frost

Wanna solve the Social Security problem? Simple. Take away the pension that the congress gets (they get full pension until they die, and they make a damn good salary while in office). Make them look forward to SS earnings when it's their time to retire, and I fucking guarantee you that the mess will be resolved.


You should be informed before you make statements

Here are the basics:

Members of Congress (House and Senate) take part in a defined benefit plan (once retired, they receive a specific monthly benefit based on years of service). They do not retire at full pay and their pension is a contributory plan — that is, they have a significant amount deducted from their salary each month to help defray the cost of their pension benefits. This defined benefit plan is comparable to pensions offered by big companies like General Motors except that in some instances the companies underwrite the entire cost of the plan.

Members of Congress are eligible for one of two plans, depending on when they were first elected. Members elected before 1983 take part in the CSRS plan which has more generous defined benefits. Members elected after 1983 take part in the FERS plan available to all federal employees. It has a smaller defined benefit but a more generous 401(k) (described more fully below).

RelatedColumn Archive
Congressional Pensions ExplainedCongressional Redistricting, the Ultimate Political PrizeForty Years Later, Fraternity Bonds Still StrongRomney's Challenge: Reader Emails Reveal Reservations About MormonismMyths About Congress ExposedFull-page Martin Frost Archive
Members under the old CSRS plan receive a pension equal to 2.5 percent of their highest salary for each year of service. Thus, a member who serves 10 years would receive a pension equal to 25 percent of his salary. Members under the new FERS plan receive pension equal to 1.5 percent of their highest salary for each year of service. Thus a Member serving 10 years would receive a pension equal to 15 percent of his salary.

In addition, all members, starting in 1983, now pay into Social Security and receive Social Security benefits. For members under the old CSRS plan, their Social Security benefits are offset (subtracted from) their pension. For members under the new FERS plan, there is no Social Security offset. It is not unusual for retired workers to receive a pension from their private employer and to also receive Social Security. Somehow, many people think members of Congress should not be eligible for the exact same treatment that employees in private industry receive.

Members under the old more generous CSRS plan are eligible for participation in a separate 401(k) plan under which a certain amount is deducted from their salary each month and is not taxed until after they retire. This 401(k) deduction is not matched by their employer, the federal government. Members under the new FERS plan also can take part in a 401(k) plan and they receive a partial match from their employer.

Generally, members are not eligible to receive their pension until age 60 and their pensions vest after five years of service.

I know this is a lot of information but don’t be afraid of being armed with the facts. The misconceptions that float around on the internet — retirement at full pay after one term and no payment into Social Security — are false and unfair to public servants who devote a significant amount of their lives to making this a better country.

Having said all this, I realize that some people will resent the fact that members of the House and Senate receive any pension at all. I can’t do anything for people who take this view.

I can, however, give you information about what is true and what is false. You can then at least make a rational judgment on whether or not you approve of the Congressional pension system. Improvements can be made. Convicted criminals like former Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-Calif.) should forfeit their pensions when they are convicted of felonies like taking a bribe.

Also, it is legitimate to question whether or not these pensions should be indexed for inflation each year. Many private pensions are not indexed though military pensions and Social Security are.

I hope this answers your questions.

Congressional Pensions Explained
Monday, December 03, 2007

By Martin Frost

So yes it is more generous than the average corparate plan , but this is a federal employess plan so its not just congress that gets this but all federal employees. Social Security was never meant to be an indivuduals only source of income after they retire, so while I am VERY CONCERNED I amay not get what my fair share even though I have been paying in like everyone else I would be a fool to count on it as my only source of income post work. You should be more concerned with why most large private institutions have done away with pension plans, and left employees with 401k instead. A GM worker of today does not have the same security as one from 25 years ago. The whole system is flawed but all are to blame not just Congress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WendyWilliams

If thats the case then I will be voting Republican for the first time EVER.

---

Why would you do that? There is more at stake than just who is in the white house. Wars, the next supreme court justice, etc. You would be helping set the country back even farther.

It amazes me how Hillary supporters are acting like babies because she didn't get the nomination. She lost now do what's best for the country, don't act like a spoiled kid on the playground and take your ball and go home.

Don't get me wrong, I am and Independent so I vote based on issue not on party. But, at this point I have to say it just makes my stomach turn that anyone would vote to continue what hes led this country into a very dark hour in our history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KellyShore

antiasskisser you have serious issues, I am not racist. Still believing the chatroom fun Haze and Johnny were having? Pathetic.


Oh wait this is like that dirty tactic Obama did with Hil's health plan. Sending out flyers lying to them. Is that what you mean Felicia by playing dirty?

He wasn't exactly a saint.

So stop acting like it.

---

Neither is Hillary who played just as dirty if now worse. Stop acting like she was above the fray.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by melissacarter

As cosmetic as it may sound, I believe it's Hillary's grating voice that sunk her boat.

---

I think it was Hillary's crappy attitude acting like it the nomination was hers before the campaign even started is what sunk her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tonkatoy

I would have to agree with I think needsum, i would like to see a Republican candidate who was fiscally strong yet socially liberal.

---

There is no such thing. Instead of looking for a party to do that you need to look for individuals to do that. The sooner we get rid of the two party system and the electoral college the better. Let's be a true democracy and let the winner of the popular vote be our president.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AllanahStarrNYC

If Obama would just pick Hillary as his VP-he would have absolutely no trouble winning.

In any case- they have achieved such huge milestones in American political history as a woman and a black man, that I am very proud of them both.

---

I just can't wrap my head around the logic to vote for McCain, it just makes no sense at all.

The problem with having her as a VP is her and Bill's egos have become so big they would want to control way too much. I used to have great respect and admiration for Bill Clinton but no longer after the way this campaign was run.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Felicia Katt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KellyShore

Hilary still has the popular vote with over 17 million voting for her. If we are going to talk facts at least get them straight. And she still has the popular VOTE. Which says a lot.

---

Kelly, Hillary doesn't have the popular vote, unless you do the math her rosy lensed way. She only counts 35 states, discounting all the States where they held Caucuses and not primaries, she also gives herself all the voters in Michigan, where Obama wasn't even on the ballot, and virtually all the voters in Florida, where he never campaigned.

By every legitmate metric, representative popular vote, pledged delegates, superdelagates and number of primaries or caucuses prevailed in, Obama is the winner.

I used to be a huge Hillary supporter, but you learn more about a person by how they lose then how they win, and she has shown herself to be a very poor loser. She was the presumptive nominee, with the best Democratic brandname, and all the funding and support, and in this paranoid, post 9-11 fearscsape, she got beat by someone wtih dark skin and a Muslim surname. And she did so in the most ungracious and selfish fashion, without regard to needs or ideals of the party. That she has you, a smart, informed young woman parroting her specious talking points to sabotage Obama, so she can wait out McCain and run again in 2012, rather than rallying you to elect a Democrat now and try to erase the last 8 years of Bush league leadership, shows her true character.

FK

---

:claps

This is of the standing ovation variety!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KellyShore

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quinn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KellyShore

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quinn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KellyShore

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quinn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KellyShore

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WendyWilliams

Why becuase I can and will. I dont think Barack is ready to be President at this point nor do I agree with alot of his views. Hillary was and is the strongest person to be President. My options then are to do the following: not vote, Vote for Barack, Vote for McCain, or write in...........At this point I feel McCain is the stronger on International affairs and has more experience. Therefore my vote is for McCain.

---

I totally agree with this, Obama wasn't good at being a senator he was in charge of the iraq peace group and hardly attended any meetings, he is just not ready. How is he going to handle being President if he can't handle being a Senator?????????????????????????????? However I would not vote for Mccain.

---

What exactly is the "iraq peace group," and how was Obama in charge of it?

As for handling being a senator, you should look into Hillary's failure to keep her promise to Upstate New York. What happened to her detailed plan to create 200,000 jobs for Upstate New York during her six-year term? Oh, that’s right, not only were no new jobs created whatsoever – the region actually lost 32,000 jobs. The greatest irony is that Clinton herself bragged about bringing Tata Consulting Services to Buffalo. For the record, that’s a company that helped companies in Upstate New York outsource many of those lost jobs to places like India.

I can’t say this comes as a surprise. Clinton has a childlike grasp of even the most fundamental, basic economic issues (and, yes, it’s even worse than McCain’s, and that’s saying something). Maybe she can impress us all with more economically ruinous ideas about a 5-year interest rate freeze.

-Quinn

---

Hmm strange Quinn, everyone is always talking about how great Hilary is in New York? And how well its doing. Can you give these news articles so I can read them.


He and a group of other men and women were supposed to find ways and ideas to show Iraqis how to cope with life after their freedom, get more on our side to want freedom, etc.

---

Before asking me a question, would it not be proper to first answer my own previously asked question? Now, once again, I ask you what the “iraq peace group” is and how Obama was in charge of it?

As for an article addressing Hillary’s promise to Upstate New York, here is one of many:

http://albany.bizjournals.com/albany...ditorial1.html

I don’t know if you watched it, but Tim Russert asked her about this specific issue during the debate he moderated between Clinton and Obama. Here’s an article that addresses when the promise was first made:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLI...ate/index.html

Now, how about answering my question?

-Quinn

---

Umm I did Quinn???????????????????? look at what you quoted. And they asked Obama about changing the bill that he had passed basically after being bought out.

---

I'm not trying to be difficult, but that doesn't really answer the question. Could you provide a link to an article about the "iraq peace group" – or maybe even a link to this group's website, so that I can look into it? Seriously, I'm curious because I've never heard of this group, and no searches turn up anything regarding Obama’s association with such a group.

-Quinn

---

Yeah Hilary Clinton is part of the same group, the first New York Senator to be part of it. Senate Armed Services Committee and he hardly showed up for meetings, when he was the chairman. They also make sure our troops are properly armed and have the right intelligence to fight enemies.

---

Kelly are you ever going to answer this question or is this one of those things that will never get an answer because you are regurgitating something you hear from some random source?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KellyShore

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quinn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KellyShore

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WendyWilliams

Why becuase I can and will. I dont think Barack is ready to be President at this point nor do I agree with alot of his views. Hillary was and is the strongest person to be President. My options then are to do the following: not vote, Vote for Barack, Vote for McCain, or write in...........At this point I feel McCain is the stronger on International affairs and has more experience. Therefore my vote is for McCain.

---

I totally agree with this, Obama wasn't good at being a senator he was in charge of the iraq peace group and hardly attended any meetings, he is just not ready. How is he going to handle being President if he can't handle being a Senator?????????????????????????????? However I would not vote for Mccain.

---

What exactly is the "iraq peace group," and how was Obama in charge of it?

As for handling being a senator, you should look into Hillary's failure to keep her promise to Upstate New York. What happened to her detailed plan to create 200,000 jobs for Upstate New York during her six-year term? Oh, that’s right, not only were no new jobs created whatsoever – the region actually lost 32,000 jobs. The greatest irony is that Clinton herself bragged about bringing Tata Consulting Services to Buffalo. For the record, that’s a company that helped companies in Upstate New York outsource many of those lost jobs to places like India.

I can’t say this comes as a surprise. Clinton has a childlike grasp of even the most fundamental, basic economic issues (and, yes, it’s even worse than McCain’s, and that’s saying something). Maybe she can impress us all with more economically ruinous ideas about a 5-year interest rate freeze.

-Quinn

---

Hmm strange Quinn, everyone is always talking about how great Hilary is in New York? And how well its doing. Can you give these news articles so I can read them.


He and a group of other men and women were supposed to find ways and ideas to show Iraqis how to cope with life after their freedom, get more on our side to want freedom, etc.

---

Since Hillary is not the governor of New York she has very little or nothing to do with how good or bad the state is doing. Some people need to learn the functions of positions in government before opening their yaps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by needsum

quote]No dear the delegates have spoken. Hilary still has the popular vote with over 17 million voting for her. If we are going to talk facts at least get them straight. And she still has the popular VOTE. Which says a lot.

---

Yes it does--it says a lot about how screwed up our political system really is. We can have a popular vote, but it counts for nothing compared with the electoral vote. So in other words, the people have not necessarily chosen their elected leaders. Such a great system we have here. Time to get out the broom for a clean sweep.[/quote]

Yes lets talk facts. If you count every vote including the caucus states she does not have the popular vote.

Not to mention that in her scenario she is including Michigan where Obama was not even on the ballot. Saying things like this is one reason I have lost respect for her. It is dishonest and exactly why she lost her bid for the nomination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KellyShore

Brenda read what else I typed, I decided to add to it. Not to mention clearly AP is a Obama supporter. So I wouldnt believe a word of it. I know that many factory workers in Illinois lost their jobs because of Senator Obama.

---

Kelly, please cite sources when you make these charges. You seem to be just pulling facts out of the air.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goldensamba

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AllanahStarrNYC

If Obama would just pick Hillary as his VP-he would have absolutely no trouble winning.

In any case- they have achieved such huge milestones in American political history as a woman and a black man, that I am very proud of them both.

---

I just can't wrap my head around the logic to vote for McCain, it just makes no sense at all.

The problem with having her as a VP is her and Bill's egos have become so big they would want to control way too much. I used to have great respect and admiration for Bill Clinton but no longer after the way this campaign was run.

---

Not to mention the fact that Bill would be knockin' boots with Ms. Obama pretty damn quick. Bubba is known to have a taste for brown sugar and Barack knows it. Obama also knows that Bill Clinton is a silver-tongued devil who could sell sand to the dang A-rabs. He won't risk the humiliation of being a cuckolded president.... :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goldensamba

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tonkatoy

I would have to agree with I think needsum, i would like to see a Republican candidate who was fiscally strong yet socially liberal.

---

There is no such thing. Instead of looking for a party to do that you need to look for individuals to do that. The sooner we get rid of the two party system and the electoral college the better. Let's be a true democracy and let the winner of the popular vote be our president.

---

That was exactly my point in the post that tonkatoy was referring to. I was denouncing the two party system and expressing a desire for someone more like myself, who is physcally conservative but socially liberal.

And I agree whole heartedly with you goldensamba, and will say it again-we need to dismantle the two-party system, get rid of the special interest groups, and let the people decide who we want in office.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glenntinnyc

Wanna solve the Social Security problem? Simple. Take away the pension that the congress gets (they get full pension until they die, and they make a damn good salary while in office). Make them look forward to SS earnings when it's their time to retire, and I fucking guarantee you that the mess will be resolved.


You should be informed before you make statements

Here are the basics:

Members of Congress (House and Senate) take part in a defined benefit plan (once retired, they receive a specific monthly benefit based on years of service). They do not retire at full pay and their pension is a contributory plan — that is, they have a significant amount deducted from their salary each month to help defray the cost of their pension benefits. This defined benefit plan is comparable to pensions offered by big companies like General Motors except that in some instances the companies underwrite the entire cost of the plan.

Members of Congress are eligible for one of two plans, depending on when they were first elected. Members elected before 1983 take part in the CSRS plan which has more generous defined benefits. Members elected after 1983 take part in the FERS plan available to all federal employees. It has a smaller defined benefit but a more generous 401(k) (described more fully below).

RelatedColumn Archive
Congressional Pensions ExplainedCongressional Redistricting, the Ultimate Political PrizeForty Years Later, Fraternity Bonds Still StrongRomney's Challenge: Reader Emails Reveal Reservations About MormonismMyths About Congress ExposedFull-page Martin Frost Archive
Members under the old CSRS plan receive a pension equal to 2.5 percent of their highest salary for each year of service. Thus, a member who serves 10 years would receive a pension equal to 25 percent of his salary. Members under the new FERS plan receive pension equal to 1.5 percent of their highest salary for each year of service. Thus a Member serving 10 years would receive a pension equal to 15 percent of his salary.

In addition, all members, starting in 1983, now pay into Social Security and receive Social Security benefits. For members under the old CSRS plan, their Social Security benefits are offset (subtracted from) their pension. For members under the new FERS plan, there is no Social Security offset. It is not unusual for retired workers to receive a pension from their private employer and to also receive Social Security. Somehow, many people think members of Congress should not be eligible for the exact same treatment that employees in private industry receive.

Members under the old more generous CSRS plan are eligible for participation in a separate 401(k) plan under which a certain amount is deducted from their salary each month and is not taxed until after they retire. This 401(k) deduction is not matched by their employer, the federal government. Members under the new FERS plan also can take part in a 401(k) plan and they receive a partial match from their employer.

Generally, members are not eligible to receive their pension until age 60 and their pensions vest after five years of service.

I know this is a lot of information but don’t be afraid of being armed with the facts. The misconceptions that float around on the internet — retirement at full pay after one term and no payment into Social Security — are false and unfair to public servants who devote a significant amount of their lives to making this a better country.

Having said all this, I realize that some people will resent the fact that members of the House and Senate receive any pension at all. I can’t do anything for people who take this view.

I can, however, give you information about what is true and what is false. You can then at least make a rational judgment on whether or not you approve of the Congressional pension system. Improvements can be made. Convicted criminals like former Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-Calif.) should forfeit their pensions when they are convicted of felonies like taking a bribe.

Also, it is legitimate to question whether or not these pensions should be indexed for inflation each year. Many private pensions are not indexed though military pensions and Social Security are.

I hope this answers your questions.

Congressional Pensions Explained
Monday, December 03, 2007

By Martin Frost

---

Well put, my friend. It is amazing to have a retort from someone who has actual facts to back up his argument. In my defense, I didn't get this information from the internet. I had heard this many many years ago on some political talk show and had come to take it for fact.

thank you for the facts--of course now you just ruined my main argument on why I hate politicians so much . . . . lol

It seems to be the case that in multi-party systems, the parties become narrowly focused on single issues. Had we a multi-party system in the U.S. there would be an anti-abortion party, an anti-immigration party, an anti-gay-marriage party, an anti-gun control party etc. We see these kinds of extreme party identifications in Israel. In such a system a candidate may win by capturing way less than fifty percent of the electorate. At least in the two party system, both parties are big tents and the electorate is forced out of the single issue mindset and consider comprises.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

It seems to be the case that in multi-party systems, the parties become narrowly focused on single issues. Had we a multi-party system in the U.S. there would be an anti-abortion party, an anti-immigration party, an anti-gay-marriage party, an anti-gun control party etc. We see these kinds of extreme party identifications in Israel. In such a system a candidate may win by capturing way less than fifty percent of the electorate. At least in the two party system, both parties are big tents and the electorate is forced out of the single issue mindset and consider comprises.

---

problem is, these compromises tend to polarize the nation, and for people like me, it really sucks because you have to either throw your vote away on the third party guy who you know is going to lose, not vote at all, or pick the lesser of the two assholes according to which one has more things you like. It's horrible.

Has anyone mentioned what a lame-ass speech Hillary gave last night? It was a total dis to Obama and it makes her look like a sore loser. Even Pat Buchanan that human waste was more gracious than her.

I'll bet she kissed her VP goodbye last night.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by melissacarter

Has anyone mentioned what a lame-ass speech Hillary gave last night? It was a total dis to Obama and it makes her look like a sore loser. Even Pat Buchanan that human waste was more gracious than her.

I'll bet she kissed her VP goodbye last night.

---

That speech indicated that she is still going to fight on and if obama wanted her as his VP he really would have to kiss her ass.