How cheesy is that?

She probably realized what a loser she is. I guess she hates Wisconsin! Proven by her actions!

Well everyone hates Wisconsin. She probably had a disgusting meal at Culver's or its equivalent and had to hit the border for some Immodium.

If she doesn't win Wisconsin, Wisconsin will go down as the 24th 'insignificant' state in the United States. Another one Bill Clinton reduces to 'not needing a president'.

Funny how they're all important 'til she loses in them.

AU

Where have you been! I've missed you.

I'm sure Bill Clinton will just chalk it up to all the black voters in Milwaukee.

AU

You'll be happy to know that the more I hear Obama speak on the issues the more he makes sense and seems to be the better candidate compared to the other two choices. I like it that he is for fixing our infrastructure (highways, bridges, etc.) which is refreshing since Republicans hate to spend money on anything that doesn't make them a corporate profit. I also like it that he's against NAFTA.

Chris

Mom went to be with dad on January 31st.

Been a little busy.....

Mom went to be with dad on January 31st.


Very sorry to hear that AU.

Funny how they're all important 'til she loses in them.

Not the good kind of funny, of course.

And once she wins them they stop being important as well.

Mom went to be with dad on January 31st.

Been a little busy.....

So sorry to hear that, AU.

Condolences, thoughts and prayers.

In the midst of life we are in death...

Again, so, so sorry.

Be Well.

Thanks EBERLY and SPUD about mom. I appreciate that.

I'm glad she's not suffering anymore. She had a very long and full life. It was good she was here with my wife and I.

AU

AU

I can't tell you how very sorry I am to hear about your Mom. I just had a feeling that maybe something had happened when I couldn't get ahold of you. I knew how much you loved both your parents and were so grateful for the life they gave you. I remember about you getting that dream (?) about your Dad right at the same time he passed away. And the nice words you wrote about them in a post on here right around Christmas is one I especially remember. You gave much back to them too -- especially helping your Mom during her illness. Again, I'm so sorry.

CHRIS

Thanks. She's having a good time I"m sure - expecially seeing dad

Obama's coming on C-SPAN. I'll be back.....

AU

I'm reading Obama's 120 page plan right now. For some reason it's only 64 pages on my Adobe reader. Was AU lying?

Since AU seems to be the spokesperson, I'll refer any questions to him or anyone else that feels like answering.

Obama's plan says: Employers that do not offer or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of
quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan.

I have two questions about this. For one thing, how is this more specific than he is on tv? All he says is that he will require a "meaningful contribution" from employers. If a president claims to be getting specific, I want actual numbers. What percent is he going to start charging corporations for not providing for their employees' healthcare? Why is he afraid to give a number? How can this be called "specific?"

Second, how is this any different from Hillary's plan? Wasn't he ripping her for "penalizing" Americans for not buying into her system?

I've also noticed that about half of each page is completely blank. That cuts it down to about 32 pages.

I just had a feeling that maybe something had happened when I couldn't get ahold of you.

CALIFCHRIS

Did you email me? If you did I didn't see it, but surely would have responded if I'd seen it. Goatman has the personal email address I gave you if you need it again.

AU :-)

I've also noticed that about half of each page is completely blank. That cuts it down to about 32 pages.


Not surprising.

It's nothing more than the never-ending variations of the same failed theme:

No matter what, expand the role of centralized government in all issues economic.

AU - my deep and heartfelt condolences in your loss. I can certainly understand why you took time away. Be ever hopeful and grateful though that your Mum is now with your beloved dad and they are doing a great deal of catching up. *hugs* to you and yours.

Second, how is this any different from Hillary's plan? Wasn't he ripping her for "penalizing" Americans for not buying into her system

Hillarey's plan is a sop to the HMOs and Big Insurance both of whom have contributed heavily into the ClintCo coffers. It will mandate everybody to hafta pay into some sort of plan and penalise folks who don't even if they can't afford it by garnisheeing individuals wages.

Barack's plan allows individuals to opt out w/o penalty but will assess a penalty if people try to game the system by only buying into it when they need care and then stop making the payments.

Short and sweet Hillary's plan appeals to the corporations and Obama's plan appeals to individual citizens.

What yer talking about there is to make employers hafta pay into a healthcare plan for employees. Too many folks are working just under wot is considered "Full Time" and are in many cases their employers only pay partial healthcare benefits if they pay anything at all. Obama's plan as I understand it attempts to address that situation.

Just fer the sake of interest, where does Joe stand on the issue? Are you for healthcare for all, like in other industrialised countries (you know, like all of them) or are you more of a social Darwinist who thinks the weak should just die like nature intended?

Be Well.

just had a feeling that maybe something had happened when I couldn't get ahold of you.

CALIFCHRIS

Did you email me? If you did I didn't see it, but surely would have responded if I'd seen it. Goatman has the personal email address I gave you if you need it again.

AU :-)

Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2008-02-16 10:05

Yes I did -- back on 2/6. Just a short note asking if all was okay. I just had a feeling maybe something was wrong when you stopped showing up on here and I knew your Mom wasn't well but never heard back. I just figured you were busy with family stuff.

the same failed theme

No, it's the GOPhers who have that one sussed.

Redistribute the wealth so that those that need it don't get it and those that don't need it, do. Reward companies who outsource their manufacturing and in-source cheap labour with H1B visas. Provide Billions of dollars of Tax Breaks to industries making unprecedentewd Billions in profits. Fail to invest in much needed infrastructure because it's not "sexy" politically and the kickbacks aren't worth bothering about.

Spend money at a far faster clip than the fiscally responsible Democrats and get waaay less bang for your buck along the way.

GOPhers should not be allowed to use the words "Fiscal" and "responsible" in a sentence for the next twenty years at least, Jeff. It's a tired old talking point and it stopped making sense when shiat-fer-brains Zombie Raygun first started spending the country into a hole.

EPIC FAIL.

Get some new talking points Jeff, the ones you Fightin' Righties got now are all old and broken.

Be Well.

What yer talking about there is to make employers hafta pay into a healthcare plan for employees.


That is NOT "without penalty".


The money still has to be coerced from somewhere - in this case it's those evil, greedy employers.

Ya know what? If this comes to pass we are going to see an awful lotta employees become independent contractors, not necessarily by choice.

The 'stick it to the "coporations" rhetoric' sounds great on a purely envious and emotional level, yet rarely (if ever) does it take into consideration unintended consequences.

"It's nothing more than the never-ending variations of the same failed theme:
No matter what, expand the role of centralized government in all issues economic."

Unfortunately, Jeff, it appears as though you are correct. I'm about 35 pages in, and most ideas are repeated twice and not fully expanded upon. Short one or two sentence paragraphs for everything. Half the paragraphs are complaints about the current state of affairs in the US. Finally, every single "idea" consists of the following:

"create" a program for this
"spend" more for that
"invest" in such and such technology
"regulate" this industry more stringently
"require" that so and so do this or that
"help" this gang of farmers afford that
"reimburse" this industry for that.


Nowhere in this plan is there information on where the money is going to come from.

Also from his plan:

"Obama will require that employers provide seven paid sick days per year to their employees."


What is the point of that? Why? What if someone doesn't get sick for a week every year? Why should they be paid for seven extra days per year by, for example, a small business owner who is struggling to make ends meet?

Get some new talking points Jeff, the ones you Fightin' Righties got now are all old and broken

The critical flaw in your analysis is that you conflate modern Conservatism with the modern Republican party.

Many of the criticisms you've levied against the Republican party I happen to agree with.

Everybody should have insurance. Clinton has the only plan to cover everyone.Obamas plan only covers children and costs almost as much as Clintons.

If you can't afford anything--you don't pay anything.

Clintons plan is for all Americans.

Clinton 08!!!

Yes we will!!!

"If you can't afford anything--you don't pay anything."

Where are they finding all these doctors and nurses to work for free? How will they survive to continue providing us with "Free" healthcare?

Dethspud-

Typically I don't respond to Canadian morons who rip on the dead wives of other posters on the site. But because you're on topic, I'll oblige just this one time.

"Short and sweet Hillary's plan appeals to the corporations and Obama's plan appeals to individual citizens."

I wasn't supporting Hillary's plan. Why you feel the need to talk about it so much isn't shocking given the lack of substance coming from Obama.

What yer talking about there is to make employers hafta pay into a healthcare plan for employees. Too many folks are working just under wot is considered "Full Time" and are in many cases their employers only pay partial healthcare benefits if they pay anything at all. Obama's plan as I understand it attempts to address that situation."

Why is it the job of an employer to pay for a part time employee's health care? More importantly, why is it the job of the government to make up the difference or penalize businesses for not doing so - being that businesses are the backbone of our economy?

"Just fer the sake of interest, where does Joe stand on the issue? Are you for healthcare for all, like in other industrialised countries (you know, like all of them) or are you more of a social Darwinist who thinks the weak should just die like nature intended?"

I know how easy it is to pretend that people you disagree with fit into some bogeyman Darwinist mold that is oh-so-easy to rip on. Try coming up with some more unique material next time. I believe Americans who work should have health care. I don't believe it's the job of the government to provide it, or to provide a mandate for it. Americans who work have money. They can buy it if they want it. Frankly when I look at your system, I'm happy with the way things are here.

"Clinton has the only plan to cover everyone"

Things are not always as black or white as Bob might have you believe. There does seem to be some difference of opinion on Clinton's claims...

"I've compared the two plans in detail. Both of them are big advances over what we have now. But in my view Obama's would insure more people, not fewer, than Clinton's. That's because Obama's puts more money up front and contains sufficient subsidies to insure everyone who's likely to need help including all children and young adults up to 25 years old ... In short: They're both advances, but Obama's is the better of the two. Clinton has no grounds for alleging that Obama's would leave out 15 million people." [Robert Reich, 12/3/07]

"It's a tough call, but because of the disagreements here, we find her claim to be based on too many hypotheticals to it rate more than a Half True." [Politifact, 11/15/07]

"What is the point of that? Why? What if someone doesn't get sick for a week every year? Why should they be paid for seven extra days per year by, for example, a small business owner who is struggling to make ends meet?" Posted by JOE

Does it say that the employees must be paid those days if they don't use them?

"Does it say that the employees must be paid those days if they don't use them?"

No. But why wouldn't you use them at the end of the year? Do you think small businesses can handle having half their employees gone during the Christmas season because they have 4 extra government-mandated sick days left that they can still take?

Sanantoniorogue

I don't believe what the Politifact story says. I believe what Clinton says. Universal Health care. If Obamas plan covered more people he would call his plan Universal Health care also. He doesn't It isn't.

Clinton is the only one talking Universal Health care. If her plan doesn't cover everyone, show me who it doesn't cover. Your post stated limitations to Obamas plan.

Clinton 08!!!

Yes we will!!!

Is anyone else reading Obama's "Blueprint for Change" that AU linked to? I'm curious as to anyone else's reactions. I had no idea this guy was so nutty.

The sheer volume of government programs he is planning on introducing, expanding or "doubling funding for" etc is unbelievable.

"I don't believe what the Politifact story says. I believe what Clinton says."

What a retard.

According to Buffalo Bob's logic, Bush's plan was called "No Child Left Behind," so that automatically meant that no child would be left behind. Period. End of story.

"Bros before Hoes"

Wow! and they thought the "Pimping" Chelsea line was horrible.

"No. But why wouldn't you use them at the end of the year? Do you think small businesses can handle having half their employees gone during the Christmas season because they have 4 extra government-mandated sick days left that they can still take?"

Posted by JOE at 2008-02-16 10:48 PM


Well for one thing everyone isn't a thief. For another, a simple thing like a doctors excuse could be a requirement. The sick days are only given if you are sick. They aren't optional vacation days. Taking a sick day when you aren't really sick could be cause for termination.

Who ever heard of anyone, especially a union guy, say "they're my days, I'm taking them!"?
Certainly not BuffaloBob...He never heard such an entitlement phrase in his life...

Who ever heard of anyone, especially a union guy, say "they're my days, I'm taking them!"?
Certainly not BuffaloBob...He never heard such an entitlement phrase in his life...

"Does it say that the employees must be paid those days if they don't use them?"

Employment laws are hard to enforce. look at how long we've had overtime laws (1930's) and companies still get away without paying it most of the time. Try to get them to comply and it takes YEARS.

"a simple thing like a doctors excuse could be a requirement."

Obama's plan, his most specific according to AU, does not provide for such a requirement. Why would you imagine that he will impose one other than out of blind partisanship?

Joe,

Is anyone else reading Obama's "Blueprint for Change" that AU linked to? I'm curious as to anyone else's reactions. I had no idea this guy was so nutty.


Much of Obama's feel-good rhetoric is just that - rhetoric.

On issues of policy, he's virtually indistinguishable from Hillary - a fact that most reasonable Obama-fans admit to.

How does he affect change in Washington..more specifically, how does he build unity and bi-partisanship?

If his policy initiatives were centrist, I'd have more ability to buy into a little of the rhetoric.

So what then? Does he back down on his biggest initiatives in the spirit of 'unity'? What if he has a Dem-controlled congress? Does he ask those whom his policies profoundly offend to meekly accept them because he's BO?

Washington doesn't work that way. The world doesn't work that way.

Heck, if he wins the Dem nod, McCain has a much longer track record of successfully reaching accross the aisle to get things done.


I guess specificity and proven experience isn't important when the words, "Hope" and "change" will suffice.

Joe

I didn't say he would impose one. I was talking about employer requirement for a valid sick day. You seem to think that employees would have to take sick days or were entitled to sick days when the weren't sick.

BBob,


For another, a simple thing like a doctors excuse could be a requirement. The sick days are only given if you are sick. They aren't optional vacation days. Taking a sick day when you aren't really sick could be cause for termination.

First off, who defines what does and doesn't constitute 'sick'.

Secondly, a lot of people don't go to the doctor when they get sick. Lotsa sleep, chicken soup and clear fluids are often the remedy. If I get the stomach flu, the last thing I want to do is leave the house to go to the doctor's office. I went to sleep as much as possible and remain near a toilet.

The more I hear Barack Obama talk the more I think "Elmer Gantry."

Joe,
Coincidentally enough, your reaction to the stomach flu is the same remedy people have after reading a BuffaloBob post.

That crazy shit pretends as though the entitlement society will some how gain a conscience in the spirit of unity.

I wonder if Bob believes WalMart employees should cash in on their sick days or not?

Joe,


Obama strikes me as dangerously naive.

I would probably go through a gross of Kleenex boxes crying my eyes out if Hillary won the general. Nevertheless, if I had to choose between Hillary and BO, I'd choose Hillary.


Now, If Obama were to go back to the senate, perhaps become Biden's right-hand man on some of these Iraq study groups as well as further prove himself in the senate as a legislator, and gain valuable experience by becoming a member of any number of senate comittees - in 8-12 years I could see myself seriously regarding him as a candidate.

Given his politics, I could likely never vote for him, but I could at least take him seriously if he had real experience and generated at least a bare minimum of understanding as to just how cold and cruel this world really is.

"I didn't say he would impose one."

Correct. But in response to my criticism of Obama's idea, you said "a simple thing like a doctors excuse could be a requirement." Unless Obama is adding that to his plan I don't see it possible for an employer to do so on his own without violating Obama's new law. So either you think he's going to impose one or he isn't. Tell me which.

"I was talking about employer requirement for a valid sick day. You seem to think that employees would have to take sick days or were entitled to sick days when the weren't sick."

Everyone is entitled to sick days whether or not they are sick. If your employer gives you 7 sick days, you can call and say "I am sick today, I can't come in to work" and most of them will say "Okay. Take one of your sick days." Whatever argument you are trying to make avoids this basic reality. What a shocker. Bob is avoiding reality.

Jeff-

I've always thought Obama spoke in very vague terms and was looking forward to reading AU's link. Unfortunately it's more of the same, not much substance but somehow even more government entitlement and regulation than I expected.

101-

I stopped puking as a result of Bob's posts years ago. Now I just laugh and wonder how he types from the confines of a straight jacket.

Why is it the job of an employer to pay for a part time employee's health care? More importantly, why is it the job of the government to make up the difference or penalize businesses for not doing so - being that businesses are the backbone of our economy?

Umm, in order to prevent pandemics?

To preserve the social fabric?

Cos an ounce of prevention is cheaper than a pound of cure?

In order to let profitable businesses know that their little loopholes like hiring 40% plus of their employees for only 35.5 hours per week doesn't absolve them of their responsibilities?

Cos it's the right thing to do?

Because the social fabric is torn?

Cos health is important?

Cos "Promote the General Welfare" mean sommat?

Pick one.

You are correct that the POTUS can only have a limited effect on a nation despite all the best intentions. You are also correct to note that the system is generally farked and that Change, REAL Change will be an uphill fight all the way but at the end of the day it is wot has to get done and Obama is not an empty suit in that regard.

He's the only candidate who is not totally full of shiat.

Shrillary and McInsane are cynical old school pols who use focus groups and Mad Ave logic to grasp power and then do wotever they feel like once they have it.

Obama is different.

Democracy is a ground up thing when done properly.

The MSM have continually lied to the American people longer than anybody on this board has been alive. The real hard truths about the country you live in has been verbotten for time uncounted.

Americans are largely under-informed children on the substantive issues of the day.

Obama comes to change that as best he can.

Yes, we can.

08ama.

Be Well.

During speech today in Wisconsin Bill Clinton referred to career military servicemen and women as "Military Servants"

Again the truth will surface if you watch long enough

Spud,


Obama is different.


How so?


Any politician can employ feel-good rhetoric.

Any poltician can promise this or propose that.


Yet you, nor anyone else, has yet to lay out for me how Obama is different; how he's going to unify a polarized country; how he's going to effectively affect change, all by his lonesome, when so many other like-minded (unity-driven) leaders have failed in the past.


To listen to some of you talk about the guy, this is what I surmise:

There's average - there's goodness - there's exceptional - there's greatness - there's perfection - and then there's Obama.

Earlier, I saw you trash the notion that Obama's followers are cultists - and I agree. If Obama started preaching about a master-race, or some shit like that, he'd lose his following. Nevertheless, his followers do exhibit some cult-like characteristics.

Everyone is entitled to sick days whether or not they are sick. If your employer gives you 7 sick days, you can call and say "I am sick today, I can't come in to work" and most of them will say "Okay. Take one of your sick days." Whatever argument you are trying to make avoids this basic reality. What a shocker. Bob is avoiding reality.

Posted by JOE at 2008-02-16 11:13 PM


That is one scenario. Other employers are not so lenient. What you described are not sick days at all. They are floating vacation days. Being sick has nothing to do with your description. How typical that you can only conceive of one scenario. What a limited world you live in.

where is corky and Phoenix to bury this information????

"where is corky and Phoenix to bury this information????"

Phoenix is feeding her cats and Corky is picking up Hillary's yellow pantsuit from the dry cleaners.

Rogue,


If Hillary becomes prez does Corky get to be her intern?

Its his wet dream Jeff. When he thinks about it he makes a gurgling noise like Homer Simpson thinking of food.

BBob,


That is one scenario. Other employers are not so lenient. What you described are not sick days at all. They are floating vacation days. Being sick has nothing to do with your description. How typical that you can only conceive of one scenario. What a limited world you live in.


Since I graduated from college in '93 I have worked for 6 different companies in 3 different industries. All of them allowed for a varying number of sick days and not one of them went through any effort to determine if an employee was genuinely "sick" when they took a sick day. What you are suggesting in regards to stringency just doesn't happen much.


That said, I'll add my own anecdotal evidence to this:

"No. But why wouldn't you use them at the end of the year? Do you think small businesses can handle having half their employees gone during the Christmas season because they have 4 extra government-mandated sick days left that they can still take?"

Posted by JOE at 2008-02-16 10:48 PM


Well for one thing everyone isn't a thief. For another, a simple thing like a doctors excuse could be a requirement. The sick days are only given if you are sick. They aren't optional vacation days. Taking a sick day when you aren't really sick could be cause for termination.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Joe and JEFFJ

I assumed the downloadable booklet was the same size as the printed version I got. Guess it's not. But, believe me he gets into real specifics in the booklet.

Hillary already tried passing Universal Healthcare with her husband as POTUS and a Democratic Congress and it didn't get done because of the way she went about it - ala Dick Cheney's secret energy policy meetings.

Obama, on the other hand got his healthcare plan passed in am at-the-time Republican controlled Illinois State Legislature.

You're not planning on voting for him or any other Democrat anyway, so I won't take any more time to explain it to you. I'm not looking for an argument tonight.

Nite
-----------
CALIFCHRIS

I didn't see your email. You send it to my personal email account? Might have gone in the spam folder, but I had you in my address book so that shouldn't have happened.

Thanks for the thought though. Probably a boo boo on my end.

__________

LITTLEBRITDFRNT

Thank you for your kind words.

Joe and JEFFJ

Can you share McCain's health care plan with me? I'd like to know

AU,

On the surface, Hillary's current plan and Obama's current plan are quite similar.

I will eventually bother with the minutia once I know which one of them is the Dem nominee - whomever gets the nod, gets their plan scrutinized in detail.

Spud,

Obama is different.

How so?

S'rsly?

Do you want the whole list or just the top ten?

How long have ya got?

Spud could write a 10,000 word essay right now w/o even stopping for a snack and Spud still wouldn't have scratched the surface of that question.

In a word. Trust.

Spud actually trusts Barack Obama to attempt the things he's talkin about doing. Spud also "trusts" Hil and John-boy, but only to lie and pander and flip flop and service coirporate agenda while declaring they are working on behalf of the people and the country's long term best interests.

Spud is a deeply cynical li'l tater who views global politics and America's influence on a macro and meta level. The planet is essentially farked as we sit here discussing this question. America is going broke. Within fifty years the globe will have gone hungry because of over-population and the effects of climate change on our ability to feed ourselves. Populations will go up, food supplies go down. There will be no fourth "green revolution" in that regard. This is reality. One you won't hear being talked about on yer nightly news until it's too late to do anything about it.

Given that reality plus the reality that America cannot afford to spend the way it has traditionally on the ever hungry and rapacious MIC it becomes readily apparent that only a truth teller with good intentions, a sound understanding of policy, people, history and science will fit the bill in the time we have left.

Barack Obama is that man.

Any politician can employ feel-good rhetoric.

Any poltician can promise this or propose that.

And they do, the question is do you believe them? Do you believe John McCain when he says that he will veto any earmarks that cross his desk as POTUS? Spud doesn't. Do you trust Hillary when she talks about reforming healthcare in such a way as to bring affordable healthcare within reach of all those who need it? Spud doesn't. Do you trust McCain when he says Iraq is about defeating AQ? Spud knows he's full of shiat. Do you trust Hillary when she says she will work to empower people over corporate interests when she is the bigget recipient of PAC money in the race? When her husband has made ten times what he earned as POTUS on the lecture circuit talking to Corporate World? If you don't trust a pol to do what they say then what they say ceases to be important.

TBC

Be Well.

Can you share McCain's health care plan with me? I'd like to know


Until the last few weeks, McCain looked to be out of the picture.


As he's moderately conservative my thought is that he's in favor of keeping things to be more status quo.

As of yet, I haven't taken the time to scrutinize his plan. Nevertheless, I will do so before November.

Yet you, nor anyone else, has yet to lay out for me how Obama is different; how he's going to unify a polarized country; how he's going to effectively affect change, all by his lonesome, when so many other like-minded (unity-driven) leaders have failed in the past.

Name a single Unity driven leader other than JFK that America has seen? Don't say Reagan. Reagan talked the talk and then walked backwards. The blood on his hands was enuff to drown an army of elephants. He was one of the worst leaders the country has ever seen, although his cult of personality continues to this very day.

Obama will unite the country by working on the issues that are in everyone's best interests and stop wasting time on those that divide. He will use his public support to get voters to inform their employees ie. The congress and the senate that they had better stop pissing around and support the people will on issues and stop farking around or they will soon be looking for other work.

Cos that's wot democracy is supposed to be.

To listen to some of you talk about the guy, this is what I surmise:

There's average - there's goodness - there's exceptional - there's greatness - there's perfection - and then there's Obama.

Don't be ridiculous, Jeff. Obama is a man not a god. Silly absolutist arguments are useless. The sad reality is the people's business is not getting done in America. Corporations give hundreds of thousands to well placed pols in order to secure multi million dollar tax breaks and then the people pay for it. Time after time after time. You think that Obama promises a utopia that he can't delive on. You are wrong to do so. Obama promises to stop the slide towards facism and a horrific dystopic future that is inevitable if things continue the way they are going.

Earlier, I saw you trash the notion that Obama's followers are cultists - and I agree. If Obama started preaching about a master-race, or some shit like that, he'd lose his following. Nevertheless, his followers do exhibit some cult-like characteristics

No more cult like than BushCo's true believers or Reagans adoring legions. The difference being that Reagan and Bush were/are bullshitters who didn't/don't follow through on their promises and who's policies have proven disastrous.

Obama isn't a perfect candidate but out of the three folks left in the race he stands out as being clearly the best candidate. prolly the best option the country has seen since JFK and the only one capable of injecting much needed reality, sanity and hope into the proceedings.

Spud doesn't have to make the case why Obama is perfect. Just that Obama is better and Spud can do that while standing on his head and juggling kittens at the same time.

The case against Hillary and McCain is strong and in it's own way makes the case for Obama almost better than the positives the man brings into the equation.

America needs change.
America wants change.

Obama brings that change.

Nobody else even comes close.

Got a counter argument to that?

G'head and try.

08ama '08.

Yes, we can.

Be Well.

Obama will unite the country by working on the issues that are in everyone's best interests and stop wasting time on those that divide.

Such as? Oh, and who decides what's everyone's best interest?


He will use his public support to get voters to inform their employees ie. The congress and the senate that they had better stop pissing around and support the people will on issues and stop farking around or they will soon be looking for other work.

Is that like Bush's self-proposed mandate of the '04 elections?


You think that Obama promises a utopia that he can't delive on. You are wrong to do so. Obama promises to stop

Well, since we live in a Democratic Republic with checks and balances, Obama's 'promises' aren't really promises, as he's not a dictator. Also, class envy rhetoric is just that, unless you are suggesting the the economy is a zero-sum game.


Obama isn't a perfect candidate but out of the three folks left in the race he stands out as being clearly the best candidate.

That's your opinion, not mine.


America needs change.
America wants change.

Obama brings that change.


Yet, you have still not articulated how he brings that change. You certainly can't point to his track-record as proof, given that he pretty much doesn't have a track record. So, at best you are pinning your hopes on faith.

Shit!


Tater's reply was a two-fer.


Please be patient while I read the first post and respond....

Within fifty years the globe will have gone hungry because of over-population and the effects of climate change on our ability to feed ourselves. Populations will go up, food supplies go down. There will be no fourth "green revolution" in that regard. This is reality.


That is 'reality'?

Based on what?

We've been hearing those very doom and gloom predictions for how long now and the very opposite of those predictions has manifested.

Starvation is much less of a per capita problem today, than it was 500-1000 years ago when the globe was far less sparsely populated.



the question is do you believe them?

I take any politician's words with a healthy grain of salt.

2 genuine 'candidates for change' threw their hats into the ring for '08 - Paul and Kucinich.

Obama lacks a proven track record to be lumped in with either of those 2.
The only deficiency with food production is a lack of effective distribution system - in short, human beings are able to produce plenty of food - effective transportation and shitty localized politics are the primary reason for starvation today - a 'reality' that wasn't true a few hundred years ago when human population was far-less dense, yet genuine, unpreventable starvation existed


.

Jeff, already signed off on another thread.

Will adress some of your concerns tommorow but here's a clue or two fer now afore I snooZe out.

S: Obama will unite the country by working on the issues that are in everyone's best interests and stop wasting time on those that divide.

J: Such as? Oh, and who decides what's everyone's best interest?

He will stop working on trying to ammend the constitution to make gay folk official second class citizens and overturning Roe v. Wade. fer a start.

He will work on restoring the Constitution (That's kinda the POTUS's job ya know) as opposed to undermining it as Cheney and his pet Chimp have done/are doing.

He will bring accountability and transparency to the process as opposed to the veil of secrecy BushCo have gone for. He does have a track record on this point.

Who decides wot's in everybody's best interest? Theoretically everybody does on a given level. It's called feedback.

You still haven't tried to make a case for either McCain or Hillary. Is that because you know you can't or do you just hate looking foolish?

Here's a crumb Kucinich and Paul were the two obvious candidates for change in this election cycle. On a policy by policy basis Kucinich is almost the last bit of left left in hte US an dSpud is support his idears strongly.

Spud would vote fer Kucinich for POTUS if he stood half a chance of getting in.

Also Spud would also Vote Elizabeth Kucinich for Naked!

Be Well.

/Paul is a wingnut but on the GOPher side of the aisle he WAS the one eyed King in the land of the blind.

//ie. Paul's half Crazy. All the rest of them GOPhers were full on farkin' nutZ!!

Whatever crap you Republicans and zealous Hillary supporters put here and elsewhere about Obama, THIS is the reason he is winning:

He is an authentic and believable alternative to

Hillary.


That is all people need to think about, if they are voting Democrats or Independents, or Republicans who find McCain intolerable.

The move suggests the campaign does not think it can overtake rival Barack Obama here. Obama has already campaigned in the state Tuesday night, Wednesday, Friday, and today. He also has single events planned for Sunday (Kaukauna) and Monday (Beloit).
* * * *

Maybe. It might also be that her resources are best devoted elsewhere. With the idiotic way the Democratic party allocates delegates, all she has to do is have a good showing in Wisconsin to pick up nearly half the delegates. So why bother, when Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Texas beckon?

You still haven't tried to make a case for either McCain or Hillary. Is that because you know you can't or do you just hate looking foolish?


I can't make much of a case for Hillary because I strongly oppose her politics. I think she would be more effective than Obama on foreign relations because she is anything but naive. She's tough, mean-spirited and ruthless; which makes her a better choice to have negotiating our country's interests than a Pollyana like Obama.

On foreign relations, McCain smokes both of them. His 83% conservative rating in the Senate also makes him far more attractive than Hillary.

So, on a few issues (illegal immigration) McCain is pretty much awful, but no worse than Clinton or Obama.

On most other issues he's at least a bit, if not a lot, better.

On National security and foreign relations, he's heads and shoulders above either Hillary or, especially Obama.

You cite unity as an important factor? McCain has a long and proven track record of reaching accross the aisle and achieving comprimise in order to get things done.

Judicial nominees is another key area. McCain is a big fan of Scalia and looks to nominate Originalist judges.

Clinton and Obama would likely nominate Earl Warren wannabe's.

McCain wins the judicial nominee contest hand's down.

McCain is a moderate Republican who's well-respected within the Democratic party. After 8 years of Bush divisiveness, McCain will go much further than Hillary, and even your boy Obama toward building unity because his agenda/policy is more moderate and has broader appeal. Obama's voting record has him as the most liberal senator in the senate. Given that, and what he's revealed of his plans and ambitions, his agenda will pretty much only appeal to liberals. That fact will trump the fact that he's likeable and charismatic. Seriously, what's he gonna say:
"I know my policies mortally offend all of you who are right of center. But, I am BO! I am for hope and change. Let's all have a group hug while I push an agenda that you can't stand."

Obama's naive Pollyana-ism clearly rubs off on his supporters.

jeff j maybe you need to understand that this country wants to turn left and nothing you say or do will stop the movement.

Messiah,


jeff j maybe you need to understand that this country wants to turn left and nothing you say or do will stop the movement.


You may very well be correct. Nevertheless, I am going to do whatever I can to convince anyone willing to listen why turning left is a bad idea.

Messy,
You're right, nothing JeffJ says or does can stop it. That's why we'll let what Hill and Hussien do and say things that will stop it.

Face it, only you leftwing turds could fuck up the gift of George Bush and not capitalize on the past 8 years.

Obama's naive Pollyana-ism clearly rubs off on his supporters.

Posted by JeffJ at 2008-02-17 01:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

jeff j maybe you need to understand that this country wants to turn left and nothing you say or do will stop the movement.

Posted by messiah at 2008-02-17 01:11 PM
* * * *

That didn't take long. Why do you guys trip over yourselves to make our points for us? Do you have anything of substance to dispute his laundry list of reasons McCain is preferable? Or just, it doesn't matter--the country is pulling Left?

I actually look forward to one thing (and only one thing) out of an Obama presidency: he will find that going from rhetoric to reality is a long trip indeed. And it's easy to go in promising "change". But when you start to mess around with the things that really need changing, and the things Americans are concerned about (Social Security and Medicare reform, entitlement spending, immigration, government growth, tax policy, jihadism, energy policy) he won't really be changing much at all. His naivete when he promises to bring change to Washington, while uniting Americans, is endearing, but also mutually exclusive.

My prediction? An Obama presidency will look like a Bill Clinton one, though hopefully unblemished by scandal: nothing really got done, America just gassed up our SUV's and headed to the mall, leaving the heavy lifting to future presidents.

RIR the Clinton years were some of the best in the history of America. seems to me we had plenty of peace and prosperity. Maybe we need to get back to that as soon as possible.

JJ: I can't make much of a case for Hillary because I strongly oppose her politics. I think she would be more effective than Obama on foreign relations because she is anything but naive. She's tough, mean-spirited and ruthless; which makes her a better choice to have negotiating our country's interests than a Pollyana like Obama.

"Anything but naive?"

The chick who told Putin he didn't have a soul the day before Orthodox Christmas? The one who won't take nukes off the table as regards Iran? The one who is happy to go with the "we don't talk to our enemies" school of diplomacy? She's the very height of naivete and out-dated conventional wisdom. She's a corporate whore who is better suited at working towarsd securing the interests of the multi nationals who's dollars dictate American agenda much moreso than the people's will or the ntion best long term interests. She still talks to teh electorate like they are tertarded children while Obama actually speaks truth. Basically, you've got it all wrong again, Jeff.

So, on a few issues (illegal immigration) McCain is pretty much awful, but no worse than Clinton or Obama

A Humane solution to the problem of illegal Mexican immigration is the only real solution no matter how loudly ignorant righty tighty audiences cheer and clap when idiots like Mitt Romney say crazy shiat like he's gonna not only deport all the illegals but they are gonna make their way back to the border on their own dime as well.

Secure the borders. Deport the criminals. Naturalise the rest. Wot's so awful about that?

On National security and foreign relations, he's heads and shoulders above either Hillary or, especially Obama

Neeeeep. Wrong answer, thanx for playing.

McCain is an unabashed shill for this war who is still trying to make it be about the AQ rather than recognise the fact that the resistance in Iraq consists mostly of Iraqis who naturally enuff want the hated foreign invaders/occupiers offa their land. His rhetoric reveals to Spud the fact that McCain is totally comfortable about lying to the American people over and over again. He's got a bad case of the PTSD and he is a very dangerous man to let near the nuclear button. Basically the six years he spent being tortured by "gooks" have scrambled his brain. He missed out on 'Nam and now wants a do-over in Iraq and he also wants to extend the madness into Iran. America can't afford his delusions.

Do. Not. Want.

TBC.

Be Well.

You cite unity as an important factor? McCain has a long and proven track record of reaching accross the aisle and achieving comprimise in order to get things done

Spud approves of his work on Immigration and campaign finance reform with Feingold. This was fine for him while in the Senate but as a GOPher candidate he's talking tougher daily against his old positions because the GOP base hates his stance on immigration and campaign finance reform and reproductive rights as well. His compromises to the GOP have turned him into a lying, disingenuous, say anything typa pol that is exactly the opposite of his "straight talk express" engineered image.

Judicial nominees is another key area. McCain is a big fan of Scalia and looks to nominate Originalist judges.

Clinton and Obama would likely nominate Earl Warren wannabe's.

McCain wins the judicial nominee contest hand's down

You've got BushCo approved judges now saying that Torture is as American as apple pie.

The two prime reasons John McCain should not be POTUS are precisely his stand on the War and the fact that America is a victim of creeping fascism due to a farked up SCOTUS.

John McCain is only a moderate republican on a select few issues but in the main the Republicans havbe turned into an anti-Constitutional, anti-American, pro-Fascist, Anti-Freedom extremist party and it's time America rejected the politics of hate and extremism and moved back to the center and away from the extreme right.

Nice chatting with you.

Be Well.

On National security and foreign relations, he's heads and shoulders above either Hillary or, especially Obama.

Bomb bomb bomb...bomb bomb Iran.

Yeah, a guy like George W. McCain who sings about bombing Iran is someone who should have his hand on the button.

The one who won't take nukes off the table as regards Iran?

Good for her. When dealing with a hostile nation who, if nothing else, respects power and might; never, EVER tip your hand. You want them to think that we consider nukes an option, even if privately (behind the scenes) she were to say that are NOT an option. Obama's blunder came when he announced they were off the table.


A Humane solution to the problem of illegal Mexican immigration is the only real solution no matter how loudly ignorant righty tighty audiences cheer and clap

I hate to break it to you, but liberals are just as incsenced about illegals than "righty tighties". Liberals see the flood of illegals as further eroding wages.


Secure the borders. Deport the criminals. Naturalise the rest. Wot's so awful about that?

On the surface - nothing. It's the common sense thing to do. The problem being that's exactly what we were promised in '86. The naturalization occurred, but the problem of hordes flowing in illegally has never been handled. So, do we naturalize the non-criminals (again) and in the process bitch-slap each and every immigrant who followed the rules and STILL not secure the border in any meaningful way and STILL not take reasonable steps to disincentivize entering illegally, like hefty fines for employers utilizing laborers who have entered illegally???



McCain is an unabashed shill for this war

Actually, he's been quite critical of how this war has been conducted.


Basically the six years he spent being tortured by "gooks" have scrambled his brain.

That comment sinks to the level (even below the level) of those who insist that Obama is a Muslim with hidden ties to terrorism and a desire for Sharia law. The fact that your comment is the underlying premise for this:

He missed out on 'Nam and now wants a do-over in Iraq and he also wants to extend the madness into Iran.

Kinda negates your point.


TBC

The one who won't take nukes off the table as regards Iran?

Obama hasn't taken "nukes off the table."

His compromises to the GOP have turned him into a lying, disingenuous, say anything typa pol that is exactly the opposite of his "straight talk express" engineered image.

So, he's a politician. He panders as do all other politicians. He's still far more ingenuous than Hillary and while the arguement can be made that he's not so much as Obama, said argument is mitigated by Obama's extremely brief tenure in the Senate. Nevertheless, I acknowledge your point on this.


You've got BushCo approved judges now saying that Torture is as American as apple pie.

No. What is being said is that the 8th Ammendment doesn't address interrogation, only punishment. It's a limited (and reasonable) interpretation of the Constitution and leaves the issue where it belongs - in the Legislative branch.


John McCain is only a moderate republican on a select few issues but in the main the Republicans havbe turned into an anti-Constitutional, anti-American, pro-Fascist, Anti-Freedom extremist party

Rhetoric without substantiation.


and it's time America rejected the politics of hate and extremism and moved back to the center and away from the extreme right.

Back to the center? McCain's politics are closer to the center than Obama's. Did you just unconsciously plug for McCain? ;-)


Nice chatting with you.

Back at you.

Obama hasn't taken "nukes off the table."


That's exactly what he said.

Even his clarification of that comment didn't refute it, unless we are taken to a Clintonian torturing of the English language to make his words seem like whatever we want them to seem.

he said it, quite clearly.

BTW - I have no problem with it as a policy as long as it isn't announced.

Bill do you have a link to that video of McCain's wild singing gig? That has to be on the mind of every ad exec looking to be hired by the DEMs this year.

BillO,

It was a fairly recent thread on Drudge and it covered his actual words, not a summarized prediction of what he's going to say - which is what your source is providing.


Give me a few minutes and I'll have it for you.

"During his 2004 Senate campaign, Obama stated that he had not ruled out military action against Iran. In a meeting with the Chicago Tribune editorial board, Obama stated: "The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to take military action, if any?" Obama stressed that he would only use force as a last resort.[51] Obama has not declared a change in this stance since the 2004 campaign. In 2006, he called on Iran to "take some ownership for creating some stability" in Iraq.[52]

In an interview with Tim Russert on October 22, 2006 Obama said, "I think that military options have to be on the table when you're dealing with rogue states that have shown constant hostility towards the United States. The point that I would make, though, is that we have not explored all of our options...We have not explored any kind of dialogue with either Iran or North Korea, and I think that has been a mistake. As a consequence, we have almost no leverage over them."[53]

Speaking to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee on 2 March 2007, Obama stated that he regards Iran's government as "a threat to all of us," stating that the US "should take no option, including military action, off the table. "

There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table...."There's been no discussion of using nuclear weapons and that's not a hypothetical that I'm going to discuss,"

You'll have to do better than that, Jeff. There's no attribution, no context. That statement is ambiguous (sounds like he is saying that a discussion is not on the table because it's hypothetical). There's nothing ambiguous about the quotes I posted above.

RIR the Clinton years were some of the best in the history of America. seems to me we had plenty of peace and prosperity. Maybe we need to get back to that as soon as possible.

Posted by messiah
* * * *

Maybe. Of course, that was true of the 1950's too, but don't see a lot of liberals clamoring for those days. Same for the 1980's. Now I was in the Army during the 1990's, and had more friends die during those years than these. Granted, I've been fortunate in that regard vis a vis Iraq and Afghanistan. Somalia, Yemen, Saudi Arabia--it would be a surprise to many of us to learn there was "plenty of peace" during those days, although Clinton did inherit a world that was free of Soviet Communism for the first time. Plus, his own worst impulses were muted by a hostile Congress, and by his own ethical and moral lapses.

I wish Clinton had been more aggressive on the jihadists then, and we might not have to contend with them today. But he compromised that away, so here we are. Overall, I give the Clinton administration a B, maybe a B-minus. But in the areas in which he was a failure, his failures were comprehensive.

"Joe and JEFFJ

Can you share McCain's health care plan with me? I'd like to know"

LOL. Of course, if I disagree with AmericanUnity and Barack Obama, I must be a McCain supporter. What a simple-minded group we have here.

"Overall, I give the Clinton administration a B, maybe a B-minus."

I'm curious...what would you give the two administrations bookending Clinton?

Hey JeffJ Hillary Clinton declared that She would not use Nukes in Iran Do You call Her Naive and wrong by Your standards??

Larry Mohr

I am going to do whatever I can to convince anyone willing to listen why turning left is a bad idea.


Posted by JeffJ at 2008-02-17 01:14 PM | Reply

Like turning right has done this Country a lick of good. Rolls Eyes rolls tongue and rolls anything else that can be rolled.

Larry Mohr

I am going to do whatever I can to convince anyone willing to listen why turning left is a bad idea.


Posted by JeffJ at 2008-02-17 01:14 PM | Reply

Be sure to tell them who you voted for in 2000 and 2004. It will add to your credibility on the subject of bad choices.

"I am going to do whatever I can to convince anyone willing to listen why turning left is a bad idea."

I'm sure Rcade will find you a thread here, but you must listen as well. Hear a little common sense about how turning right in 2000 (which only a minority did) got us where we are.

Voting Obama as president and a huge Democratic majority in congress is not turning left. It is common sense. herm.

"Face it, only you leftwing turds could fuck up the gift of George Bush and not capitalize on the past 8 years."

And then the bogus paratrooper is heard from, after a Sunday off, surely not to adore his deity.

I'd love to hear the world's last Nazi, no doubt taking a break from his office chores in honor of Washington and Lincoln, explain the "gift" of George W. Bush. I tingle in anticipation. herm

"Face it, only you leftwing turds could fuck up the gift of George Bush and not capitalize on the past 8 years."

And then the bogus paratrooper is heard from, after a Sunday off, surely not to adore his deity.

I'd love to hear the world's last Nazi, no doubt taking a break from his office chores in honor of Washington and Lincoln, explain the "gift" of George W. Bush. I tingle in anticipation. herm

"Face it, only you leftwing turds could fuck up the gift of George Bush and not capitalize on the past 8 years."

And then the bogus paratrooper is heard from, after a Sunday off, surely not to adore his deity.

I'd love to hear the world's last Nazi, no doubt taking a break from his office chores in honor of Washington and Lincoln, explain the "gift" of George W. Bush. I tingle in anticipation. herm

I HATE this mac. But it does bear saying three times. herm

"Joe and JEFFJ

Can you share McCain's health care plan with me? I'd like to know"

AU

LOL. Of course, if I disagree with AmericanUnity and Barack Obama, I must be a McCain supporter. What a simple-minded group we have here.

Joe

Fair request. McCain also says he's 'not too good' on economics. What IS he good at? National Security? NIE's say Iraq made us LESS safe.

I don't know what McCain is good at. Probably nothing. I'd never vote for him.