USA Elections Whole New Ballgame

[koolking1]

with

Ralph Nader deciding to run. He can only help McCain and hurt the Dem nominee. Ron Paul won't run outside the

Republican party so he chances now are about zero. Looks like more of the same for the next 4-8 years, what a

shame.

[idesign]

Yes it is KK, and a lot has

developed other than Nader.

I fully expected to have a clear Dem nominee by now. For the first time in decades

their race is actually exciting. They're essentially the same candidate, but with opposite

approaches/personalities. Of course if either were elected the result would be the same. I think Mar.4 will be the

day of reckoning (Tex/OH). They are very different but equally important States.

Agree that Nader would pull

from any Dem candidate, but I'm not sure that he'll be on the ballot. The Dems are fighting him with all they

have.

I've been thinking about Bel's comments about our choices, and your theory of a "dynasty". I don't know

what we can realistically expect from our current electoral system. The rules almost automatically disqualify third

parties, and even if someone like Nader or Perot or even Paul were to become viable, the established majority within

the system just will not allow their entrenched position to be compromised. Its almost more bureaucratic than

political. I don't see it as a conspiracy so much as a creeping decline in America's spirit of individualism, in

the largest sense of the word.

Today's individualism is self centered and narcissistic. Instead of demanding

opportunity, and freedom from intervention, we demand entitlements. "I want to be free" has been replaced with "I

want" because "I deserve".

To the extent that any gov't is involved in your life the less free you are. The

whole purpose of our form of Gov't is to deny or restrict restraints on freedom. The creeping socialism resulting

from an uninformed and selfish electorate is the conspiracy not of tyrants, but of a deteriorating ideal.

[tounge]

The whole damned reason the USA was

founded on, was freedom of Religious worship, as one's choice, and freedom from an oppressive government. A

government for the people, of the people, and by the people. Anyone who thinks that is still the case, is

crazy.:smite:

[belgareth]

Tounge and Idesign, you both

have it right. We lose another freedom every day and nobody seems to care about it any more, so long as they have

their toys and their rights to do whatever they want without consequences. What they don't get is that over time we

are becoming more and more what we claim to hate, an oppressive and overbearing government raping the working people

of the fruits of their labor to give it to others. Eventually, our lifestyle will suffer because we will become less

productive and less able to care for ourselves. We already are moving that direction and instead of trying to

improve matters we lower the bar on expectations so it looks like we are improving.

[koolking1]

you'll never

hear the President of the United States say:

"We're going to war with the evil country of xxxxxx and we'll

split the loot with all you good people who are so supportive of us"


what they do say is:

"We're

going to war and sacrifices will have to be made by you people who voted for me in the first place on my platform of

limited government, lower taxes, and no nation building", while secretly gloating about all the money they will make

for themselves and close associates.

I agree with all 3 of you. There's some hope I think as the WWII,

"greatest generation" folks are dying off or getting too old to go out and vote.

[idesign]

instead

of trying to improve matters we lower the bar on expectations so it looks like we are improving.

How can

I possibly express my agreement with this remark?

[belgareth]

If you were in public schools

recently you will probably use small words.

[idesign]

dude srsly wat make u tink

dat?

[koolking1]

that was good.

I remember when my son was about to graduate high school, he had to write a composition for English class and he

used a word processor with a decent thesaurus system, he asked me to read it for my opinion. I knew things were bad

at his school (50% dropout rate) but I didn't know it was that bad. Fortunately, he went in the Army then got out

and went to college and went back in the Army as a Lt (being in the military usually means doing a lot of reading

due to boredom).

Back to politics. Here's a great Ron Paul video that would have served RP's interest

much better than the crap ads they put out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pMYlyxI_44

So,

what do we have now?

Obama
Clinton
McCain
Huckabee
Paul
Nader

That's my ranking of

the likely winner, certainly not my choice though.

[idesign]

I know that we disagree on this

KK - which is really more fun - but here's my list of likely winners.

Switch 1 and 2 to 2 and 3 and move 3 to 1.

The rest don't matter.

As of today, I really do think that Clinton is out, and think that Obama will not be

able to stand up to scrutiny in a campaign where he has to talk about and defend actual policy. With all his

shortcomings, McCain is serious and experienced. Obama, when the day comes when he actually has to say something

substantial, will become less popular.

[DrSmellThis]

As a professional politician,

Obama is gifted but still kind of young. He will have to grow up fast against McCain for exactly the reason you

state.

I expect McCain to kick his butt a little at first, in terms of confidence about military issues,

especially. Obama has yet to fully demonstrate what he is made of. It should be interesting just on human level just

to see how he handles it. In some ways, McCain is the perfect foil for Obama, as well as the toughest. Dude has been

around the block. If McCain kicks his ass thoroughly, Obama doesn't deserve to be president.

Obama is

currently more popular than McCain, but that and a cup of coffee gets you, um ... Well, you know what I mean.



It's like in the NBA where you have to go through the Spurs in the playoffs to demonstrate you're somebody.

[DrSmellThis]

How can

I possibly express my agreement with this remark?
Having taught countless supposed high school graduates

who couldn't read and write adequately, I can only say Amen.

[idesign]

As a

professional politician, Obama is gifted but still kind of young. He will have to grow up fast against McCain for

exactly the reason you state.

I expect McCain to kick his butt a little at first, in terms of confidence about

military issues, especially. Obama has yet to fully demonstrate what he is made of. It should be interesting just on

human level just to see how he handles it. In some ways, McCain is the perfect foil for Obama, as well as the

toughest. Dude has been around the block. If McCain kicks his ass thoroughly, Obama doesn't deserve to be

president.

Obama is currently more popular than McCain, but that and a cup of coffee gets you, um ... Well, you

know what I mean.

It's like in the NBA where you have to go through the Spurs in the playoffs to demonstrate

you're somebody.

Wow Doc, very astute analysis, but somehow I'm not surprised. Welcome to the

fray.

Have to agree completely with your assessment of the dynamics in a potential race between Obama and McCain.

Political campaigns are not evangelical camp meetings, and you have to step up to a pretty high standard of

knowledge, experience and ability to be taken seriously. If Obama stops singing Kum-ba-ya to the faithful and

engages serious ideas he will have a chance. Somehow I don't think he's grown up enough, as you

alluded.

They're already starting to spar, leaving Hillary behind, and Obama is showing his talent of

resiliency, but not too much in the way of substance.

This will be a very interesting race to watch.

[koolking1]

numbers for Texas

courtesy of Zogby:

McCain: 53%
Huckabee: 27%
Paul: 11%
____

Obama: 48%
Clinton: 42%

[koolking1]

if you disregard party,

IDesign is right on the money with his predictions, I'm off a bit by predicting Obama the winner.

[idesign]

if you

disregard party, IDesign is right on the money with his predictions, I'm off a bit by predicting Obama the

winner.


Then again, the fat lady is still in the green room. This race is too interesting, and

watching it with you guys is fun.

What I wish for:

Candidates on BOTH sides who have:

- the inspiration of

Obama
- the experience of McCain
- the tenacity of Clinton
- the revolutionary spirit of Paul
- the management

style of Romney
- none of Nader's qualities, well, maybe focus or something :P

As for politics... Buckley of

course. :)

[idesign]

:wave:

Hey all of you

out there in Ohio and Texas!

Make sure you get to the polls and cast a vote for Hillary!

[koolking1]

so far, Hillary is getting

the Hispanic vote in Texas while Obama is getting the majority of the Black vote.

[idesign]

Will that have a canceling

effect? If so, that would leave it to the whites. Obama (amazingly) gets educated, Hillary gets less educated.

Should be an interesting night.

[idesign]

Well now, interesting day

yesterday. Looks like Obama's balloon has been deflated. His star rose so quickly he was bound for a fall.

What'll be interesting is how he handles himself now that he has to work for a living. Hillary will surely go for

the jugular, and Obama has to think about what kind of candidate he's going to become now that the free ride is

over.

On the Rep. side... yaawwwwnnnn. The only interest now is who McCain will choose for a running mate. Any

speculation?

[DrSmellThis]

Hillary's net delegate gain

from all of yesterday will probably be around 4 delegates, according to one analyst. That is far fewer than the

delegate margin Obama won from DC alone. So she did what she needed to do, but not enough to dislodge Obama as front

runner, in terms of votes and committed delegates. Mainly what she did was establish that this race will probably go

the distance. Hillary is all about the superdelegates (a strange concept).

What is really going to be a bit of

surreal melodrama is to watch the superdelegates whimsically decide who the nominee will be at the convention. Every

superdelegate will be analyzed to death. Many of them are Clinton cronies, of course.

Nonetheless, all this is

good for McCain, who has somewhat of a luxury to back off from attacking Obama and let Hillary do it. He can try to

be classy and take a bit of a high road. Hillary seems to have more of a stomach for attacking than McCain does,

anyway.

Just as Rush Limbaugh asked all his listeners to go vote for Hillary, I think it benefits the

Republicans to see a prolonged battle on the Dem side.

McCain can almost shoot to the tropics for a vacation at

this point.

The thing that "messed with my head" was Hillary publically acknowledging a Clinton/Obama ticket as

a possibility. What's up with that? Just struck me as strange, especially now. I wonder what Barack thinks of that

prospect. I'm betting he'd prefer Edwards. something about Vice President Hillary strikes me as spooky -- too much

like First Lady Hillary. Then you'd also have Bill Clinton participating in an Obama White House, if they won.



McCain's choice of running mate will say a lot about whether he wants to be perceived as a staunch conservative

or a moderate. It's too early for me to hazard a guess, but lately he has certainly been more concerned with

building credibility among the further right. That is why the Bush endorsement seems to have been welcomed.

[idesign]

Agree Doc, the Dem race is far

from over and is completely unpredictable at this point. Today's front runner is tomorrow's also-ran.

The

importance of Tex/Ohio is not only that Obama's mojo is hobbled, but that Hillary won in the Bible Belt and the

Rust Belt. She's won the big States, which have a greater cross-section of the electorate.

Super delegates are

strange indeed, and I think were created to keep the party from running away from itself, say with a fringe

candidate. The result is that the Democrat establishment has a lot of power in choosing the candidate, esp in a

situation like we have now. I think if the race continues to be as close as its been, the Supers will be in play

big time. They'll have to put their collective finger in the air and decide who's best to run against

McCain.

Its definitely strange about the Clinton/Obama ticket thing. It must be either a lapse in judgement or

some kind of balloon floated out there for reaction.

One downside for McCain is that the Dem race will get all

the media coverage. McCain needs to find a way to keep himself on TV.

McCain's running mate will indeed

determine how he intends to approach this race. I posted a while back that he could choose Lieberman. A lot of

conservatives like him, and talk about a "bridge" ticket! One wonders if Huckabee hung on as long as he did for a

VP nod.

[DrSmellThis]

Lieberman would be

interesting. A lot of people have talked about it. Dems tend to hate him for being a "turncoat", of course. It just

seems McCain would more likely choose someone further toward the right. But that's just based on recent trends from

him. How do you think Huckabee and he would get along?

Here's a thoroughly strange idea, just for fun:

Obama/Powell!

Powell has hinted at a possible party change anyway, or at least at considering it. That would

boost his military/defense/foreign policy/experience cred in an instant, be consistent with his "reach across the

aisle" thing; and provide the poetry of an all AA ticket.

[idesign]

:lol: VPs are votes!

Rounding out the ticket like a well constructed perfume.

Obama/Powell is brilliant, too brilliant for TV, much

like McCain/Lieberman. We could be wrong though. This race is unique in recent history.

One wonders... the

Clinton/Obama ticket, or vice-versa, could be a strategy floated to achieve much the same as you suggested in your

AA idea. First black and first woman. Might be irresistable.

McCain has a lot to overcome, both in conservative

circles and in broad popularity. His choice will be interesting. He doesn't have to get along with Huckabee, look

at Clinton/Gore, they never liked each other.

[nbnbtc]

Lieberman would be interesting. A lot of people have talked about it. Dems tend to hate

him for being a "turncoat", of course. It just seems McCain would more likely choose someone further toward the

right. But that's just based on recent trends from him. How do you think Huckabee and he would get along?



Here's a thoroughly strange idea, just for fun: Obama/Powell!

Powell has hinted at a possible party

change anyway, or at least at considering it. That would boost his military/defense/foreign policy/experience cred

in an instant, be consistent with his "reach across the aisle" thing; and provide the poetry of an all AA

ticket.

I'll take your Obama/Powell idea and go one step further...Hillary/Rice

[DrSmellThis]

Now we are officially getting

silly. How about McCain and Nancy Reagan, or Barbara Bush? Hillary has shown that former first ladies belong in the

White House, after all. :)

Hillary/Obama and McCain could become running mates, ensuring that both of them make

the White House no matter how we vote, calling attention to the absurdity of our political system.

Anyone, feel

free to rescue the thread from our tomfoolery.

[nbnbtc]

I like your McCain/much older

former first lady idea...it would make him look younger! As it is he appears ancient.

Is there any rule

saying that McCain couldn't pick the current Bush as his running mate? I should know this, but I don't.



I'm trying to think of something even sillier, but it can't be done. Unless...McCain picked Bush Sr., then

McCain wins and dies a day into office, and Bush Sr. picks Bush Jr. as his VP at that point.

[Mtnjim]

Is there any

rule saying that McCain couldn't pick the current Bush as his running mate? I should know this, but I don't.



I'm trying to think of something even sillier, but it can't be done. Unless...McCain picked Bush Sr., then

McCain wins and dies a day into office, and Bush Sr. picks Bush Jr. as his VP at that point.

I'm not

going to be able to sleep tonight----THANKS!!:thumbsup:

[koolking1]

how's about Hillary

picking Jeb Bush as her running mate, "to mend the fences" so to speak. Ron Paul has seemingly thrown in the towel,

just doesn't come right out and say it which is strange to me, oh well.

I think it's almost a given that

McCain will pick Lieberman as VP.

But, for the entrepeneur here's an idea. Set up one of those plate

printing factories that depict the Royal Family.

[tounge]

I

think it's almost a given that McCain will pick Lieberman as VP.






I don't understand why

this thought has legs. It is not going to happen. If McCain did that, he would no chance of getting Conservative

republican votes. He needs a good number of those to have any chance of winning.

[koolking1]

McCain isn't going to

get the real conservative vote and isn't going to be hurt much by it I don't think. He was also out of campaign

funds till the Vichy Dem Lieberman showed up. I really do not understand what Ron Paul is up to, seems to be saying

"hang in there, things will change" without offering up much hope to his supporters.

[koolking1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj7HbqwZwRM

[idesign]

Have to agree with KK about

McCain, but Tongue's point is valid.

The dynamics on the Rep side still have some playing out to do. It'll

be interesting to see how the far right develops as they're forced to accept McCain.

Just for more tomfoolery,

how about McCain/Rice? Not such a stretch is it?

[koolking1]

whoever is

pulling McCain's puppet strings will likely pick his VP for him. Rice has said over and over that she's not

interested in public office.

[tounge]

whoever is

pulling McCain's puppet strings will likely pick his VP for him. Rice has said over and over that she's not

interested in public office.



Now the above I agree with. I don't know how much of the

conservative vote McCain will get, but one thing is for sure. He will need a good percentage of them to have any

chance of being elected. Picking a democrat would finish him for sure. He has pissed of too many conservatives to

risk such a stupid move.

[tounge]

[quote=koolking1;207847]McCain

isn't going to get the real conservative vote and isn't going to be hurt much by it I don't think. [/qu


He

may not get the conservative vote, but he must get a large percentage of it to be elected.

[tounge]

It'll be

interesting to see how the far right develops as they're forced to accept McCain.





Who says

they are going to accept him?

Many coservatives would rather see the country contiue down the shitter with a

left wing democrat than another "RHINO".:frustrate

[DrSmellThis]

Who says

they are going to accept him?

Many coservatives would rather see the country contiue down the shitter with a

left wing democrat than another "RHINO".:frustrateI find it interesting that many Republicans view Hillary

as far left wing while many Democrats call her "Republican lite". Guess it's all perspective. At least the gap

between the two sides isn't quite as bad as it used to be a couple years back, when the divisivenesss of the

political situation peaked.

[belgareth]

I'd frankly rather see them

further apart most of the time. If the two sides are busy fighting with each other they have less time to steal from

us and take away more of our freedoms.

[idesign]

Who says

they are going to accept him?

Many coservatives would rather see the country contiue down the shitter with a

left wing democrat than another "RHINO".:frustrate

Well, they may not totally accept him, but a *real*

conservative will not pull the lever for either of our current democrats. They'll stay home first, which is only

half as bad. Like I said before... I do think the dynamics will change. Reps may just have to take the bitter

medicine of McCain and wait for the next great conservative leader. If I'm wrong, it could be real trouble for

the GOP going forward.

Edit: the more I think about it though, the more your comments make sense. I'm just

fighting current reality with pure irrational disbelief.


I find it interesting that

many Republicans view Hillary as far left wing while many Democrats call her "Republican lite". Guess it's all

perspective. At least the gap between the two sides isn't quite as bad as it used to be a couple years back, when

the divisivenesss of the political situation peaked.

I think you're right about it being perspective,

but not only in the Rep/Dem way. Many in the Dem. party are radicalized so far left that even Hillary can be seen

as moderate. Much the same as McCain being "Democrat lite".

Also, I think a lot of Dems view Hillary in the

light of her husband, who is far more centrist than Hillary.


I'd frankly rather see them

further apart most of the time. If the two sides are busy fighting with each other they have less time to steal from

us and take away more of our freedoms.

I'd prefer a clearer choice as well. You won't see any of your

suggestions come to pass until our electorate gets of their apathetic asses, and start playing a

role.


whoever is pulling McCain's puppet strings will likely pick his VP for him. Rice

has said over and over that she's not interested in public office.

Yes, Rice has said that, and I think

of all people she's one who actually means it. :)

Puppet strings, hmmm. I wonder about that. McCain is

pissing off the Rep. base while courting disaster in the general election. Who could be pulling that string? His

VP choice may tell.

[DrSmellThis]

I'd

frankly rather see them further apart most of the time. If the two sides are busy fighting with each other they have

less time to steal from us and take away more of our freedoms.Lol. Was waiting for you to comment on that

one.

If I understand correctly, you are basically saying that Congress wasting their time and our money in

bickering, and accomplishing nothing whatsoever; is better than them accomplishing something which would undoubtedly

be bad.

You therefore win the DST Award for Political Cynicism to the Point of Nihilism (adding to your recent

A+ and Gold Star from another thread). :drunk:

[belgareth]

Is it cynicism when direct

evidence seems to indicate that the basis is factual? You do not address the fact that they are taking away from us

more than they return.

Right now there are so many laws on the books that you cannot help but break them. They

are a mass of hodge podge contradictions that make little if any sense. And our fine government continues to make

more laws when we really need fewer. You know very well if it were in my power I would reduce the government by at

least 90%. Watch how much better off we all would be.

[DrSmellThis]

Is it

cynicism when direct evidence seems to indicate that the basis is factual? You do not address the fact that they are

taking away from us more than they return.

Right now there are so many laws on the books that you cannot help

but break them. They are a mass of hodge podge contradictions that make little if any sense. And our fine government

continues to make more laws when we really need fewer. You know very well if it were in my power I would reduce the

government by at least 90%. Watch how much better off we all would be.Just teasing. I'll leave it up to

you to define "cynical" however you want. It's just an unimportant word.

It's hard to argue the government has

been doing a lot of good, or that there aren't ridiculous amounts of laws, many of them silly, on the books.



Even if you pick one law in one area, say on a particular real estate issue, which I have done recently, the

various cross references, clauses, ambiguities and exceptions on that one issue can often be mind boggling.

You

might even have to toggle back and forth between multiple codes just to understand one sentence in one code. Laws

are often pasted together in piecemeal, haphazard ways, or even written by the interests they are intended to cover

or regulate. Though I'm no lawyer or lawmaker, I imagine most laws could be rewritten to all our benefit, with

entire portions of code simplified greatly.

In addition, congresspeople responsible for voting on those laws

often don't read the 1000 or so pages these codes contain. It is ridiculous. Indeed, when most congresspeople

didn't even read the National Intelligence Estimate before initially voting on authorizing the war, for example,

how do you expect them to read "more trivial" legal documents?

I really wish all politicians would dedicate

themselves minimizing bureaucracy, red-tape, and inefficiency. They should award PhD's left and right to people who

figure out how to simplify laws. Whether one is Democrat, Republican, or neither should be irrelevant. Whether it's

a "conservative,' or "libertarian," or some other kind of idea, matters little. It's common sense.

It's hard

to see all this accomplished in our current political system, though we might pull ourselves toward that via our

suspenders. You'd think the idea behind this kind of reform would have popular appeal over time. Unfortnately

lawmakers love to write laws, just like surgeons like to cut on us, too often unnecessarily. (I'm a mental health

counselor and often think everybody is crazy.)

But anyway, does that mean that people working together through

public means -- "government" broadly speaking, if you will -- can accomplish nothing constructive? To the extent I

believed we couldn't, I would consider myself "cynical" about govenment, at least. I would definitely describe

myself as "skeptical" about all government programs, statutes, and members; for many of the same reasons you have

stated. I wouldn't believe I can afford to be hopeless about it; since pragmatically we will be forced to

participate in, or deal with, governments of some kind for the forseeable future. But again, I'm not going to argue

your points when I agree with so many aspects of that kind of issue.

[belgareth]

Sorry, Doc. I was

teasing/baiting you with that first paragraph. My obscure humor can sometimes cause that kind of misunderstanding.



I can't disagree with anything you said there.

[tounge]

Is it

cynicism when direct evidence seems to indicate that the basis is factual? You do not address the fact that they are

taking away from us more than they return.

Right now there are so many laws on the books that you cannot help

but break them. They are a mass of hodge podge contradictions that make little if any sense. And our fine government

continues to make more laws when we really need fewer. You know very well if it were in my power I would reduce the

government by at least 90%. Watch how much better off we all would be.




You would get my vote

in a heartbeat. Isn't it funny though that no politician says anything close to what you're saying. You actually

propose real CHANGE.

[idesign]

The

thing that "messed with my head" was Hillary publically acknowledging a Clinton/Obama ticket as a possibility.

What's up with that? Just struck me as strange, especially now. I wonder what Barack thinks of that prospect. I'm

betting he'd prefer Edwards. something about Vice President Hillary strikes me as spooky -- too much like First

Lady Hillary. Then you'd also have Bill Clinton participating in an Obama White House, if they

won.


Looks like its messing with a lot of heads lately.

I completely missed this point at the

time, but Hillary/Bill floated the VP Obama scenario with Obama in the lead!

Some say it was the height of

arrogance in typical Clinton fashion. Others say a brilliant move which belittled Obama, ie "he's a nice boy, lets

see if he wants to play outfield". I think its probably a bit of both.

Of course Obama came out strutting like a

preacher shaming the devil.

The idea of Bill Clinton anywhere near the WH is creepy. But maybe he and Spitzer

can tag-team in the Lincoln bedroom.

On the Rep side, a lot of people are talking about the "M&M" ticket. Its

interesting to note though that its Lieberman who's traveling to the ME with McCain. That could be for other

reasons though.

[belgareth]

Thanks Tounge. My greatest

fear, were I idiot enough to even consider running for office, is that within months I'd get impeached and/or

lynched for the skyrocketing unemployment as I fired government time wasters. Do you realize that if you laid off

half the government employees you could clear the national debt but would triple unemployment?

If any politician

wanted real change and real government reduction he would never get into office. Every useless lump on the

government payroll would vote against him out of fear for their jobs. You can't have them out doing real work, now

can you?

[idesign]

I

really wish all politicians would dedicate themselves minimizing bureaucracy, red-tape, and inefficiency. They

should award PhD's left and right to people who figure out how to simplify laws. Whether one is Democrat,

Republican, or neither should be irrelevant. Whether it's a "conservative,' or "libertarian," or some other kind

of idea, matters little. It's common sense.



You know very well if it were in

my power I would reduce the government by at least 90%. Watch how much better off we all would

be.


You would get my vote in a heartbeat. Isn't it funny though that no politician

says anything close to what you're saying. You actually propose real CHANGE.


This stuff is great guys,

cheers all around.


It's hard to see all this accomplished in our current political

system, though we might pull ourselves toward that via our suspenders. You'd think the idea behind this kind of

reform would have popular appeal over time.

Definitely hard to see Doc, and though Bel was teasing, I

liked his remark about cynicism v. observation of reality. When I talk about politics with my g/f she says that

I'm "negative". Hrrmph! I'm just observing what I see. Definitions indeed. :lol:


One thought about the

popular appeal of reform. I do think there is a groundswell of opinion in that direction.
The fact that we're all

here talking about it, from different ideological perspectives, is evidence. I can only assume that its happening

in many places and circumstances.

My fear (skepticism, cynicism) is that the bureaucratic inertia is too great.

My optimism is that I'm just silly enough to be an optimist.

Ok, back to work and "produce" something!

[idesign]

If any

politician wanted real change and real government reduction he would never get into office. Every useless lump on

the government payroll would vote against him out of fear for their jobs. You can't have them out doing real work,

now can you?

Add to that the fact that the preponderance of gov't employees are Democrat, and have a

vested interest in not only voting their jobs into perpetuity, but in continuing their programs with increased

budgets. Not that today's Republicans are all that much better.

That's what makes me fear the bureaucracy as

much as any Senator or President. The leaders are not leading, they're following an entrenched and failed ideal

which has become a runaway train.

Note that any cut in *future budget increases* is always reported by the media

as "slashing budgets".

They've learned to market themselves well enough to make people think that any curb in

spending will "kill children and the elderly" or some such nonsense.

:rant: Rant off. :)

[DrSmellThis]

This

stuff is great guys, cheers all around.



Definitely hard to see Doc, and though Bel was teasing, I liked

his remark about cynicism v. observation of reality. When I talk about politics with my g/f she says that I'm

"negative". Hrrmph! I'm just observing what I see. Definitions indeed. :lol: Actually, and even though all

of us are just teasing, there is nothing about the word "cynical" in the formal definitions that implies one

is necessarily wrong in one's "negativity" about the the human intentions, sentiments, or propspects one has

in one's cynical mind. I could be cynical about some politician and be right in the negative beliefs behind my

cynicism.

The issues of factuality and cynicism are independent. "Cynicism" is not like the word "paranoia",

where the notion everyone is out to get you is by definition irrational, such that you couldn't use the word

if everyone really was after someone.

Unfortunately, you being right does not in itself absolve

you from your girlfriend's criticism. :LOL: Having said that, and in light of your hopeful comments, that doesn't

mean your girlfriend would necessarily be right to call you cynical, either... :run:

For that matter, being

"right", in my experience, is of little use in the real world anyway, especially in relationships with certain

other genders. It's often easiest, or even more prudent, to just make yourself "wrong" and be done with it. How

cynical of me.

[DrSmellThis]

Looks

like its messing with a lot of heads lately.

I completely missed this point at the time, but Hillary/Bill

floated the VP Obama scenario with Obama in the lead!

Some say it was the height of arrogance in typical Clinton

fashion. Others say a brilliant move which belittled Obama, ie "he's a nice boy, lets see if he wants to play

outfield". I think its probably a bit of both.

Of course Obama came out strutting like a preacher shaming the

devil.

The idea of Bill Clinton anywhere near the WH is creepy. But maybe he and Spitzer can tag-team in the

Lincoln bedroom.

On the Rep side, a lot of people are talking about the "M&M" ticket. Its interesting to note

though that its Lieberman who's traveling to the ME with McCain. That could be for other reasons

though.I'm trying to get interested about the republican race. It is mildly interesting that Romney is

openly campaigning to be VP after having said, essentially, that no way in hell would he ever be McCain's VP, back

in January.

But for sheer drama, you can't beat the human drama machine that is Hillary. Hollywood ought to hire

her. Wait -- they already have. :)

How fun that one of her campaign finance officers, Geraldine Ferraro, comes

out like nineteen times and says Obama is only where he is because he is black. (I'm fantasizing about Obama coming

out with "Hillary's only where she is because she's a cold, calculating B!+ch". That would be hilarious.) How fun

that she patronizes frontrunner Obama and plays head games with the public by offering him the VP. I pretty much

expect her to run as an independent if she loses to Obama, just to hand the election to an aging one termer, so she

can run again in four years. I think hell would freeze over before she'd get the VP nod.

Hillary will say or do

anything to win, it seems. That makes her an exciting and fun competitor. Then again, I'm a sports fan.

[idesign]

Unfortunately, you being right does not in itself absolve you from your girlfriend's criticism. :LOL: Having

said that, and in light of your hopeful comments, that doesn't mean your girlfriend would necessarily be right to

call you cynical, either... :run:



:rofl:

I told her about our discussion over breakfast. She

commented very negatively about rearranging certain anatomical features in a way I've not heard before.

:whip:

I'd lay low for a couple of days.

j/k of course, she's a very patient woman, even when I think I'm

right. :)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34sMME0V6ZM&mode=related&search=

[idesign]

But

for sheer drama, you can't beat the human drama machine that is Hillary. Hollywood ought to hire her. Wait -- they

already have. :)

Every time I see her on TV I wonder which Hillary we'll see, or maybe (pant!) a new

one! There are so many already. Yer right, kind of a cross between a sitcom, a soap opera and a playoff game.




I pretty much expect her to run as an independent if she loses to Obama, just to hand

the election to an aging one termer, so she can run again in four years.

I'm still trying to get my

mind around this one. I wouldn't put it past her, for the motive you just named, but wow, is she really that

narcissistic? Don't anwser that. ;)

If she did such a thing, the Dem party would spontaneously combust. Could

be fun.


Hillary will say or do anything to win, it seems. That makes her an exciting

and fun competitor. Then again, I'm a sports fan.

Well, hold onto your season tickets, its about to get

more interesting.

Apparently Obama is coming out tomorrow with an "explanation" of his association with the Rev.

Wright. Now, this may seem uninteresting on its face, but this is the biggest "crisis" so far in his candidacy, and

he really does need to say something meaningful.

His greater challenge may be in not giving Hillary ammunition.

:)

[DrSmellThis]

We'll see. My dad told me

that Obama's minister was once supportive of Louis Farrakhan, and that he'd never in a million years vote for him

because of that. I'm not sure who he supports. Interestingly, my parents' parish priest was a chronic

pedophile.

I get amused talking to people about why they vote for particular people. You learn a lot about

humanity that way.

It's usually because they have poured through congressional records to see how they voted,

and have examined their positions on the issues, as compared to the other candidates.

Just kidding! :lol:

[koolking1]

I kinda like the Rev Wright

myself. It's too bad Obama has to distance himself from him but he's smart to do so and did it today rather well.

There's a move afoot within Republican conservative circles to vote for Obama, they don't like him that much but

he's far better in their minds than McCain or Clinton. Ron Paul's still in there and he may yet prevail the way

the economy is going. They are destroying the dollar to save the banks and Wall Street, small time currency traders

in Amsterdam will no longer accept your tourist dollars for exchange as the value drops too quickly these days for

them. What are we going to do if oil producing countries stop taking the dollar, have you got some Euros to pay for

your gas? I think that's the next dilemna coming, no gas at the station.

[DrSmellThis]

:think: So why do you think so

many conservatives dislike McCain so much, to the point of becoming turncoats?

It's not that strange, in that

most "progressives" -- people on the "left" who have more of an overarching political philosophy instead of just

seeing themselves as "Democrats" who vote for the Democrat -- would not have picked either Hillary or Barack as

their first choice. A lot of people on the left really detest Hillary, even though she definitely has her supporters

in certain demographics

It almost seems like, despite, say, Barack's rock star popularity in some circles, the

bigger majority of people with political interests aren't really happy with any of the candidates.

But I

really don't understand that level of rejection by the Right, since McCain seems to have voted with Bush the vast

majority of the time, even though he has a couple of very specific things he varies on. He still is going to come

down to the right of Obama on most eveything, is he not? In following his actual voting record over recent years, I

was of the opinion that a lot of Republicans were, when push comes to shove, much more moderate than McCain. I

don't get his reputation.

I don't quite get the angle these "consevative circles" are taking. I know Bush

really wasn't conservative in the traditional, old-school sense, or else he wouldn't have run up the defecit by so

many trillions. But Republicans were quite tenacious in their loyality to him for the longest time, until popular

opinion and continued Bush Administration screw ups forced their hands.

Frankly, I don't really understand what

conservatism means in 2008. That could be the problem. Neo-cons, or the Religious Right, have been much easier to

understand. But I don't really get it. Is there even such a thing as main stream conservatism any more? I'm not

even sure Republicans are more "conservative" than Democrats any more, in terms of traditional conservatism,

depending on the person. I don't know that being Democrat versus Republican is going to determine spending and

defecits any more; or, say, trade policy. It's hard to make sense of it, other than to throw your hands up.

For

a while I got so disgusted with politics I ceased to follow it in critical detail like I used to. So there's a lot

I feel I just don't know any more.

[idesign]

A note on Obama's

speech...

So, Obama trots out and proceeds to blame past bigotry for anger in the black community and Wright's

idiotic statements, effectively explaining it away and tossing a bone to the likes of Sharpton and Jackson.



This is "change"?

[koolking1]

http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/03/apparently-with.html

you should read the whole

thing but here's part of the above article:

"Today's Washington Post reports on a debate yesterday arranged

by United Jewish Committees in D.C. among Jewish advocates for Hillary, Obama, and McCain. The debate became a rout,

the Post columnist averred, in which the advocates for Hillary and McCain "used their time to raise doubts about

Obama's fealty to Israel."

Fealty to Israel? They portrayed Obama as a dangerous leftwinger, and when the

Illinois senator's surrogate defended Obama's statement that the U.S. does not have to cleave to Likud policies,

Ann Lewis, Hillary's advocate, responded:

"The role of the president of the United States is to support the

decisions that are made by the people of Israel. It is not up to us to pick and choose from among the political

parties.""

[Mtnjim]

Frankly,

I don't really understand what conservatism means in 2008. That could be the problem. Neo-cons, or the Religious

Right, have been much easier to understand. But I don't really get it. Is there even such a thing as main stream

conservatism any more? I'm not even sure Republicans are more "conservative" than Democrats any more, in terms of

traditional conservatism, depending on the person. I don't know that being Democrat versus Republican is going to

determine spending and defecits any more; or, say, trade policy. It's hard to make sense of it, other than to throw

your hands up.

For a while I got so disgusted with politics I ceased to follow it in critical detail like I used

to. So there's a lot I feel I just don't know any more.

An interesting view from "the other

side":


Oakton, Va. - Few dare to say it, but it's time we acknowledged a sad truth about American

politics: liberalism is dead – and it has been for 40 years.
Of course, America's

conservative talk-show hosts can't admit this without facing the embarrassing fact that they have been beating a

dead horse all this time. One can imagine their fervent prayer: "Dear God, we don't have Soviet Communists anymore.

Please keep a few liberals for us to kick around."


Rest of story

HERE! (http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0318/p09s03-coop.html)

[koolking1]

Making a

Recession Great
Posted March 19th, 2008 by manystrom
by Ron Paul | March 16, 2008

House Democrats

recently adopted a budget with massive tax hikes, many of which are directed at those Americans who can least afford

them. By allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010, this budget will raise income taxes not only on those in the

highest income brackets, but raises the lowest bracket from 10% to 15% as well. Estates would again be taxed at 55%.

The child tax credit would drop from $1000 to $500. Senior citizens relying on investment income would be hurt by

increases in dividend and capital gains taxes. It's not just that the Democrats want to raise taxes on the rich.

They want to raise taxes on everybody.

The problem is, policing the world is expensive, and if elected

officials insist upon continuing to fund our current foreign policy, the money has to come from somewhere. The wars

in Iraq and Afghanistan have already cost us over $1 trillion. The Democrats' budget gives the President all the

funding he needs for his foreign policy, so one wonders how serious they ever were about ending the war. While

Democrats propose to tax and spend, many Republicans aim to borrow and spend, which hurts the taxpayer just as much

in the long run.

Supporting a welfare state is expensive as well. Over half of our budget goes to mandatory

entitlements. The total cost of government now eats up over half of our national income, as calculated by Americans

for Tax Reform, and government is growing at an unprecedented rate. Our current financial situation is completely

untenable, and the worst part is, as government is becoming more and more voracious, the economy is shrinking.

[belgareth]

Sounds like a recipe for

collapse but I've been saying that for quite some time. Sooner or later our economy will not be able to support the

government. Then what happens?

[koolking1]

The US Government just gave

30 Billion dollars of your money to allow Bear-Stearns to be bought. They should have let BSC go bankrupt but

didn't as it would have meant that all the bonuses paid out to BSC employees last January would have to have been

paid back. They would rather destroy the dollar than let Wall Street suffer. Who pays: see the above

post.


For me, Conservative means that you operate a government for the sole benefit of your citizens and

you do not try to export your ideology to any other country. You have the strongest defensive military posture in

the world so that you never have to use your military. You trade with other nations to the benefit of

both.

Neo-Conservatisim means if you have the strongest military in the world, why not use it? It means if

you have a desirable ideology export it no matter the cost.

[belgareth]

For me,

Conservative means that you operate a government for the sole benefit of your citizens and you do not try to export

your ideology to any other country. You have the strongest defensive military posture in the world so that you never

have to use your military. You trade with other nations to the benefit of both.

That is a great

definition. I could live with that. It's a shame that nobody in power seems to understand the need for it.

[koolking1]

we'll have to start our own

country!!!

[belgareth]

Seeing the US fragment

wouldn't surprise me. Say, into maybe 4-5 individual countries? Be bloody but it would probably be better for the

entire world in the long run.

[koolking1]

about

what's happening. I suspect we'll be seeing interest rates in the mid to high teens soon enough and then taxes

enough to choke us all to near death.

http://www.infowars.com/?p=901

[belgareth]

Taxes are already choking us to

death, that's not news.

Interest rates in the teens will completely kill the housing market and put many

thousands out of work along with depressing wages across the board. With energy prices continuing to skyrocket food

and heat will become less affordable causing a lot more people to go hungry. Government programs to help them will

only depress the economy more making matters worse.

If the government doesn't figure it out soon violence will

follow. It is a worst case scenerio but so far the government has cheerfully followed that course.

[koolking1]

I remember in the late

80s/early 90s when every 3rd house in Tampa was up for sale. Crime went through the roof. We had over 100

carjackings a day and the cops were handcuffed ("no chase" rule) and so underfunded that they couldn't stop you for

a broken light cause their cars were in worse shape. We had a socialist mayor who loved Hillary. The carjackings

ended when ALL the insurance companies threatened to pull completely out of Tampa.

I'm not so sure we'll

break up like the Soviet Union though. Maybe. I could imagine Vermont, NH, and Maine going it alone but we'd have

to seal off the NY and Mass borders to keep those way way overtaxed folks out.

[belgareth]

The west coast could easily

break away as could the south. Both areas could easily become self supporting as could the great plains states. I'm

not sure if Alaska could be self supporting but they do have a lot of oil and a strong fishing industry.

What do

you forecast if the trends continue? I'm not sure the US will break up but it is a distinct possibility.

[DrSmellThis]

nm........

[DrSmellThis]

For

me, Conservative means that you operate a government for the sole benefit of your citizens and you do not try to

export your ideology to any other country. You have the strongest defensive military posture in the world so that

you never have to use your military. You trade with other nations to the benefit of both. Nothing here to

disagree with. Funny thing is, I always considered myself conservative in my younger days. As I said, I was a big WF

Buckley fan. There are still a lot of things about old-fashioned conservatism I agree with. Even Pat Buchanan says a

lot of things I like.

But now I'm supposed to be a left wing communist, I guess, because I believe in the

constitution, peaceful international relations, protecting the environment, and civil rights. I also think the

current administration was an unmitigated disaster, don't want a theocracy, am not fond of abstinence only AIDS

prevention; believe the government needs a warrant to tap my phone, and can't stand corporatism. I believe every

citizen must have their vote counted. I don't want corporations to be able write the bills that regulate

themselves, just because they bought all the gay hookers that the congress needs. Therefore I'm a godless

communist.

I agree with Jim's post. I don't think "liberalism" exists any more than "conservatism", at least

not in mainstream politics.

KK's posts also had some good, illustrative insights. You look at the so-called tax

and spend crowd. What are they supporting with their taxation? The war. They are increasingly taxing the poor, who

already bear so many of the real burdens of society. Some "liberals." They aren't liberals, they're politicians.



But what has happened with the obscenely, comically skyrocketing deficit in the past seven years? Ask all those

"staunch conservatives" who have been running things. If I want to pay as you go, I'm a commie liberal, right?



For me, it's not so much how much you tax -- obviously, you want to be judicious, frugal and efficient -- but

what you do with your X revenue dollars in terms of values and priorities.

I don't think it's establishing

strongholds of democracy (like Iraq!) everywhere, which is the stated neocon way. Gerald Ford said the same thing

right before he died, and no one in the past called him a left wing commie liberal.

I also don't think it's

hiring countless poor FBI schleps to pour through millions of American citizens' emails and cell phone calls. There

is not enough time in the milennium to do all that, much less available money. Is that being "conservative" with

our resources? To me it's conservative to NOT do that.

Is it "liberal" to not want to spend tax dollars

supporting lobbyists, or on corporate welfare?

Is it liberal to stop spending 3 out of every 4 dollars on fear?

(Bureaucracy can often be a kind of fear, literally, as you are accounting for and verifying your accounting and

verifications. It's not just war and monitoring your citizens)

The whole "tax and spend liberal" thing seems so

outdated, like something from the Johnson administration, or the "Great Society".

You don't want to tax and

spend just to support the excesses and stupidity of government, such as KK's example of Wall Street. This is just

common sense.

You have to get the act together together with the structure and process of government as your

fundamental priority, rather than focus primarily on "adding the icing to the cake" with expenditures. Who wants to

throw good money after bad? That can't happen magically, or overnight. So you have to do it piecemeal, as you go.

To me this is common sense, not liberal or conservative.

I voted for Reagan in part because I believed you want

a strong National defense, you know, as a deterrent. That doesn't mean I want to, in McCain's lyrics,

"Bomb, bomb, bomb; bomb bomb Iran". Spending trillions on wars is killing us. Unless this changes, we are going to

come crashing down surely as the alcoholic or gambling addict will come crashing down. It's just a matter of

time.

That makes me a liberal. Then again, black is white and up is down.

[Mtnjim]

Personally, I think we have gone

back to the corporatist Robber Barons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_%28industrialist%29) of

the 1880's-1920's where the government existed for the good of business and citizens were here to serve the

corporations. Except today they have even more advanced technologies to spy on and control the masses. Welcome to

the new Globalized Gilded Age.:frustrate

[idesign]

Wow, you guys have been busy.

:)

I think liberalism and conservatism still exist, in very meaningful ways, though conservatism is not what

we've known in the past.

From my view, conservatives have made the great mistake of trying to become popular,

both among liberals and the media. Compromising on principle is never honorable. Compromising with a Democrat is

always one-way.

An example would be Bush letting Ted Kennedy write a ridiculous education bill in his first term.

Or signing the Prescription Drug act. Both Democrat boondoggles, but what did Bush get in return for his "crossing

the aisle"? Nothing.

Bush is not a good example of a Conservative, but his actions illustrate the path taken by

conservatives towards some "middle" which will never be achieved. It simply cannot be as long as there are

fundamental differences in how to approach governance.

McCain is at the center of this, with his questionable

positions on illegal immigration, campaign finance, tax cuts, etc. Conservatives only "hate" McCain in contrast to

other conservatives which are, well, more conservative.

All the noise among conservatives about voting for

Obama/Hillary is nonsense, and I think its an angry reaction to the lack of a great conservative leader like Reagan.

Its a big disappointment to have only the unpredictable McCain. I really do think that Reps will swallow their

angst and pull the trigger, ooops, lever, for McCain.

I think Liberalism is alive and well and still pumping in

the hearts of Hillary and Obama. Taxing and spending is only the beginning of their unstated but very real agenda.

You won't hear too many details from either of them. Flowery language is like crack, feels good now but the

pushers won't talk about the logical conclusion.

For a liberal politician there is no social ill which cannot

be solved, controlled or squashed by a gov't program. There is no tyrant that can't be changed by counseling.

There is no parent which can't be improved upon by gov't school indoctrination. There is no way an individual can

manage their retirement investing better than a gov't bureaucracy. There is no law that can't be manipulated by

the right judge. No "right" to healthcare which can't be fleeced. All it takes is our money to fund it. Make no

mistake, its the Great Society on Barry Bond's drug of choice.

The size and scope of our current federal system

is a direct result of 60+ years of modern liberalism, and given the chance, there are certain current candidates

who would happily suck more life out of every citizen that's still moving, and regulate it if they're not

moving.

I guess that makes me a conservative, but I'm not sure where my "people" are headed.

PS I'm still

angry and frustrated with Obama. I'd never vote for him, but I'd hoped that he would use his remarkable skills

and obvious smarts to come out with a real message. Instead he spewed, in Harvard Law nuance, more race baiting. I

worry that so many are fooled by this guy, but its not surprising... "the medium is the message".

PPS

Corporations... I would NEVER excuse, but condemn, abuses like Enron et al. I would like to point out though that

public corporations are owned by stockholders, mostly in retirement accts of rank and file employees, widows,

orphans, etc etc. To the extent they can make a profit many, many wage earners prosper. As well, those same

corporations, and their wealthiest stockholders, among other wealthy individuals, pay some 80+% of all taxes

paid to the federal gov't. So, if a corp. gets a deal like, paying 5$million in taxes instead of $10million, so

they will open a plant that will provide 500 jobs as well as supporting a local economy... I just don't have a

problem with that. Its a tax break, not a subsidy.

PPPSThe $30million from the Fed to Bear-Stearns is

essentially a credit line. The firm was purchased by another firm (JP Morgan) and a huge cash infusion was pushed

into it. Any Fed funds borrowed will have to be paid back. Its not a gov't bail-out. I'm not even sure the Fed

funds will be needed after the buyout. I use lines of credit in my business when I have a cash flow shortage, its

the same thing. Propping up the financial markets with a credit line is not such a bad thing considering the

alternative. :) And yes, mismanagement deserves its due reward, like I would wish on most federal programs,

like the entire dept of education for starters.

[tounge]

Well said Idesign. However I don't

understand why you are angry with Obama. He is the most liberal Senator in the Senate. A leopard can't change his

spots. He lies like virtually every other politician. I believe I told you earlier that he is of a Marxist bent and

I also said he was pretty much unelectable. I've been rather prophetic when it comes to him.

The table is

clearly being set for Ms. Rodham to become the next president of the USA or what was once the USA. China, Europe and

the Mideast nations continue to devalue our dollar and lead us into what is realistically going to become a

depression. I also see violence and rioting on the horizon. It isn't a pretty picture, to see what is going to be a

fall that will parallel the fall of the Roman Empire.

[Mtnjim]

...PPS

Corporations... I would NEVER excuse, but condemn, abuses like Enron et al. I would like to point out though that

public corporations are owned by stockholders, mostly in retirement accts of rank and file employees, widows,

orphans, etc etc. To the extent they can make a profit many, many wage earners prosper. As well, those same

corporations, and their wealthiest stockholders, among other wealthy individuals, pay some 80+% of all taxes paid to

the federal gov't. So, if a corp. gets a deal like, paying 5$million in taxes instead of $10million, so they will

open a plant that will provide 500 jobs as well as supporting a local economy... I just don't have a problem with

that. Its a tax break, not a subsidy...

Good in theory, but over the past 20 years most corporations have

ceased paying dividends to their shareholders. Today most profits go to the "C" level employees and the only way the

shareholders can make a profit is if they are lucky enough to sell their stocks on an up tick. Consider the Bear

stockholders. They bought their shares at a premium. Never had a say in the running of the company, never received

any of the profits, and will get about $2.00 a share in the sale.

[idesign]

Well said

Idesign. However I don't understand why you are angry with Obama. He is the most liberal Senator in the Senate. A

leopard can't change his spots. He lies like virtually every other politician. I believe I told you earlier that he

is of a Marxist bent and I also said he was pretty much unelectable. I've been rather prophetic when it comes to

him.

The table is clearly being set for Ms. Rodham to become the next president of the USA or what was once the

USA. China, Europe and the Mideast nations continue to devalue our dollar and lead us into what is realistically

going to become a depression. I also see violence and rioting on the horizon. It isn't a pretty picture, to see

what is going to be a fall that will parallel the fall of the Roman Empire.

Of course you're right about

Obama's politics tongue, and I've known it to be correct. And I think your predictions are more and more likely

to come to pass.

Its just that I'm enough of a naive optimist that when I see someone as charismatic and capable

as Obama I envision a leader who can actually deliver an intelligent, reasoned and comprehensive set of positions

that, though fundamentally liberal, could transcend politics and bridge the gap at least to the point of being a

reasonable adversary.

I like Lieberman for these very reasons. He's no Obama, but there's no way Obama will

ever be a Lieberman, unless he grows up, a lot.

Obama's sealed the deal now, and must be a disappointment for

the Dems, even though the media was rhapsodic over his "major" race speech. As the race continues, the more he says

the deeper the hole.

[idesign]

Good in

theory, but over the past 20 years most corporations have ceased paying dividends to their shareholders. Today most

profits go to the "C" level employees and the only way the shareholders can make a profit is if they are lucky

enough to sell their stocks on an up tick. Consider the Bear stockholders. They bought their shares at a premium.

Never had a say in the running of the company, never received any of the profits, and will get about $2.00 a share

in the sale.

Correct to a point Jim, but a wise amateur investor (and good retirement accts) will not buy

and sell, they'll buy and hold. Even buying at $150 with current value at $2 can be a good investment if you hold

and weather the storm. It happens all the time.

The buyout will automatically raise the price, and I'd

predict shares to be at or near historical highs within a year.

The whole thing is unfortunate, mainly because

B-S was not really in trouble. Essentially there was an irrational run on liquidity creating a a short-term

situation. Volatility seems to be the rule these days.

Stockholders have a say in the company to the extent of

their ownership, makes sense.

Dividends are a liability on the books, and reduce value, take your pick.

[DrSmellThis]

Idesign, without being too

partisan, so I can directly understand the essence of your point better, could you expand on what exactly you

expected from Obama with the race speech compared to what he actually said?

I'm sort of half way knowledgeable

about the situation, as I reads lots of excerpts but not the whole speech. Further, I only know snippets about Rev

Wright and his pulpit statements. So I can't really wheel and deal on this issue with any kind of mastery. Please

be gentle with me if I am missing some set of facts and events.

From what I saw, it seemed like a normal mature

adult conversation about race, such as I might hear among my friends. It wasn't earth shattering from an academic

or sociological perspective. But it was way more honest, unguarded, and real than any other politician on race that

I've heard in a while. Again, this is just the part I know about.

For example, I thought he was making the point

that we all have people in our personal lives that say things we disagree with. Often the thing to do is to reject

the message without chopping them out of your life. He made the point that his white grandmother also says some

racially charged things, but he loves her just the same, even as he cringes sometimes. I'm sure his grandmother

would not be shocked to hear him say that. This is very true in the case of my own family. I also shudder to think

about being judged by all the things my own parish and high school priests have done or said. I think he also made

the poin that if you are a black politician who is active in the black community, that culturally you are going to

run into anger and resentment stemming from historical tendencies and traditions. You realistically have to both

accept and understand this if you are going to be involved with this community at all, just as you have to accept

you are going to run into people with substandard educations. It's just practical reality, and you can't be real

severe and "black and white" (no pun intended) when you are dealing with it, from within the middle of it. This

certainly "jives" with my own experience with black culture.

He made the point that rather than reject everything

about people with unresolved race issues, it is far more productive, whether you are dealing with a white person or

black person, to accept the feelings behind the statements as having understandable reasons for them. When you then

seek mutual understanding, followed by dialog, you have greater chances for success. This is an important idea for

politics in general.

This idea is directly applicable to foreign policy, for example. Instead of assuming you

can't negotiate or reason with those with whom we have big disagreements, you try for the deepest possible mutual

understanding of legitimate concerns of both sides, followed by communication and problem solving around these.



Were this the way we practiced normal diplomacy, it would represent a huge change from the way we have been

doing things. this is in stark contrast to the "either you're a friend or an enemy" approach; or the approach where

you simply lay out your demands and the related punishments for not meeting those demands. It's even a big contrast

with setting out things you're willing to give and compromise on, combined with a set of conditions both sides wish

to have granted. It requires a very significant degree of emotional maturity and IQ to do foreign policy likwe

this.

The world is too small, and we can no longer get away with relating that way, whether you are talking

between countries, between parties, or between races here. To be sure, in this country we all depend on one another

too much. It's not just an issue of whether you tolerate something or not, and assigning a "one" or a "zero" to the

two conditions.

So from what I understand, it all relates, and relates to a real proposed change in the general

way of doing things. It's just one kind of change, to be sure, but it is a real change.

That is not to say

everything about Obama is how I'd dial it up. It's not. But just from what I know about that particular issue --

which is not really enough -- I thought he did fine, like I would expect a normal intelligent adult to do. They were

real, genuine points that need to be made, and that are rarely made; and are applicable to the rest of a presidency,

from foreign relations to "across the aisle" communications; not just rhetoric.

[koolking1]

It

helps to get some perspective by not just watching the snippets that the network news provides and take a look at

the whole person that the Reverend is.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie"

value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QOdlnzkeoyQ&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed

src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QOdlnzkeoyQ&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"

width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[koolking1]

here's

a link to see the video:

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

[idesign]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie"

value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QOdlnzkeoyQ&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed

src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QOdlnzkeoyQ&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"

width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

"Shockwave flash movie"? Is that porn? Don't make me delete

your ass KK. :rofl:

object width="425" height="355" I'll take a pass, I like 'em taller than they are

wide. :)

[idesign]

here's

a link to see the video:

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

Isn't youtube great?

In the last few days I've watched dozens of videos of Wright and the commentary about him and Obama.

For a

number of years of my adult life I attended church very regularly, pretty much religiously (groooan, buh-dump-bump).

Beyond that I was involved in a couple of "lay leadership" groups which held retreats for those who sought deeper

meaning and experience in their faith. Studied the Bible pretty thoroughly, etc. Ok, those are my

"credentials".

As I listened to Rev.Wright I was engaged, enthralled, impressed and quite favorably taken by his

preaching. I can see why he has the great reputation he has in the theological community. I found myself liking

him quite a bit.

I would happily sit under Wright's teaching were it not for some of his particular views.



I don't need to repeat his controversial statements, suffice to say they are troublesome.

For perspective,

we have to look at theology, specifically one that accepts and espouses a prophetic view of our existence, filtered

through an understanding that God acts in a cause and effect manner. Prophetic not in foretelling the future, but

in interpreting events with a spiritual view.

Rev. Wright interpreted events in America in this light and, of

course, steeped in the experience of a black man who lived through the worst of modern America's civil rights

abuses.

All that to say... my only problem with Rev. Wright is that some of his views and remarks were way beyond

what is rational, or reasonably acceptable.

Beyond that, I think they are irresponsible in the light of race

relations. As long as the sins of the past are kept alive, bitterness and hatred continue to grow. The sooner a

spirit of forgiveness begins to take hold the sooner forward movement happens. Pumping up the past is not

helpful.

Forgiving is NOT forgetting. America will always be tainted by not only her treatment of blacks, but

others as well. However, the stains on our clothing should not be an embarrassment, but a mark of evidence that

people can overcome evil with good. Its just that it takes effort from all sides.

[idesign]

Long, intelligent, thoughtful, insightful post which requires thought to be replied to

as it deserves.


Doc, you and Bel are the most annoying people I've ever met! :lol:

Provoking

thought and all.... shite!

I joined this forum for a fun diversion and ended up with you guys. Sheesh

:think:

Jim, tongue, KK, don't EVEN crack a smile, you're as guilty as the rest.

May the polls of a

thousand politicians infest your decision making. What kind of a day will you have then? Huh? huh?

Talk to you

soon Doc. :)

[DrSmellThis]

...it's the curse of being a good listener! Most would just skim it and shoot from the hip. But you are obviously

still growing mentally and otherwise, and like to absorb things. I admire and applaud you for this. But I figure

this is one of those beneficial, substantive dialogs that are good for communities to have as current events

dictate.

***
The video was interesting, KK, as this is one the many kinds of things I've strived to understand

as I've aged and become more conscious of different ways of thinking; and deliberately more open minded.

His

point is that given all the terrorism we've propulgated on others, such as African Americans (slavery); Native

Americans (slaughter); and he also has in mind miscellaneous global abuses of other peoples, through military or

economic means; we shouldn't be suprised to see some violent energy make its way back in our direction.

I both

agree 100&#37; with that sentiment, but also see how some could interpret it as implying the 9-11 attacks were

somehow justified.

That is because some people's minds, especially when guided by various preconceptions, want

to file everything into a black and white category.

If the Reverend says we shouldn't be suprised, or implies

there's a sort of Karmic element; therefore he is justifying the attack, the bastard! It's so easy to think this

way, most do to some extent.

So many people think this way, where there is no room for grey, or mature adult

frankness, or non-political correctness; that Obama has no choice but to disavow the Reverend, agree with him or

not. I probably would too, if I was running for something, just because so few are going to "get it," without

feeling threatened.

But from what I believe is a mature adult perspective, where many shades of grey are seen as

normal and acceptable, challenging though they might be; he has a point.

The history white people tell is just

going to be different than the one AA or NA people are going to tell. Their story is not far-fetched from their

perspective, nor are their feelings.

So what is the straightest path to peace about it all?

Certainly there

is some validity to Idesign's point that at some point, forgiveness, and identity as fellow Americans, has to take

over; for peace to reign on the topic. You can't argue with that, as far as it goes.

But it is also true that

abusers and perpetrators typically can't be the ones to demand forgiveness or forgetting, especially before things

have been resolved emotionally, and behaviorally.

There is going to be a mountain of crap to deal with, and

those who have been wronged will forgive as the healing permits. It's like the recovering alcoholic who has to deal

with resentments and consequnces from his or her drunken behavior long after becoming sober.

In my experience,

in normal human healing processes, and in mental health; the in between (non-behavioral) step is just to let someone

vent and express their feelings, and to try to demonstrate a thorough understanding.

We don't do that by

dumping our own rage back at the wronged person or persons, demanding they get over it.

That is what I see

happening with the Reverend, via Obama.

As a mental health professional, I believe that, instead, in seeking

mutual understanding, the anger and resentment actually dissipates naturally that way, and dissipates the fastest.



It would be a psychological myth to suppose that showing understanding of such sentiments and historical

interpretations would be some kind of "rage indulgence" that merely makes it grow stronger, at least in the case of

normal, average, or healthy people.

I guarantee that if any white person demonstrated undertanding to Wright in

person, he or she would be warmly received, for example. We needn't fear the rage, or what have you. It is a

special courage that honors the rage, gives it permission to be, understands it, at the same time as it gives life

the strength to go on about its business. The reward for that courage is the shortest route to peace.

That for

sure is the way it works in normal human relationships, so I see no reason why it can't work on a cultural level.



Conversely, feeling a sense of healthy guilt ("we did wrong", rather than the "I am bad" of shame) is no sign of

weakness. Rather it is a kind of courage to carry that around while still loving oneself and being able to maintain

relationships with those who have been wronged.

Admittedly, it is a delicate balance.

But personally, I can

listen to Wright say all that without feeling defensive as an American.

It's just an idea, an understanding. I

can go there. I mean, this crap ain't happening in Denmark or Sweden.

The question is, "what do we do?" We

can't be paralyzed by our feelings. We have to live as cooperative neighbors. We need each other. Now.

That is

the sense in which we have to move "past" it, or more accurately, through it; no matter which side you are

on.

[belgareth]

Doc, you

and Bel are the most annoying people I've ever met! :lol:

Provoking thought and all.... shite!

I joined

this forum for a fun diversion and ended up with you guys. Sheesh :think:

Jim, tongue, KK, don't EVEN crack a

smile, you're as guilty as the rest.

May the polls of a thousand politicians infest your decision making. What

kind of a day will you have then? Huh? huh?

Talk to you soon Doc. :)

Why, thank you.

[koolking1]

smile out of IDesigns

post!!! Bruce deserves a big pat on the back for this well-designed forum and somehow knowing he'd be getting this

kind of discussion here.

Barack Obama is back on top after this weekend, 48% to HRC's 45. I haven't seen

them yet but have heard the garbage tabloids really laid it on thick to Obama but it may be backfiring as people see

them and find them ludicrous. Ron Paul's campaign manager made an appearance, think it was on Fox - don'r

remember, and says Paul is still in the race. I have to wonder what Romney's game plan is. McCain's going around

the world making gaffe after gaffe.

[koolking1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It6JN7ALF7Y

Today the HRC campaign issued an advisory that HRC

misspoke, but only once!!!

Apparently her staff uses a different dictionary than I do.

[idesign]

I've started this post around

50 times and am still not satisfied. I tried very hard to be factual with the facts and non-partisan. I still

don't know if I make any sense either.

Full text of speech

here.
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/obamas_speech_the_text.php
If you read the

text you'll see how well constructed it is.

What we might be seeing here re: Obama's speech, is people reading

from it pretty much what they want to, filtered through their own leanings. Chris Matthews (msnbc) gushed, and

compared Obama to Abraham Lincoln. Others say it was just more boilerplate Obama. I disagree with both of those.



I'm not sure what that means with respect to what Obama actually communicated, or what he was trying to

communicate. One thing for sure, he left a lot of doubt as to his position.

And that is the biggest problem I

have, Obama didn't even address the issue at hand. The issue was not race, it was how close Obama and Wright were,

and how Obama could closely tie himself to a man who said the kind of outrageous things Wright did. Just the fact

that he made it a speech on race obscures the issue and tacitly allows Wright a pass.

Wright's remarks in

question were vitriolic, hate-filled, paranoid at times and completely out of touch with what 99.9&#37; of us would

consider in touch with reality.

This is not insignificant. Someone who wants to be President counts as a major

influence on his life over 20 yrs a man who states that the AIDS virus was invented by the gov't to inject black

people for the purpose of genocide. That's just for starters. Wright's outlandish remarks are plentiful, making

it obvious that he had a pretty well developed ideology along these lines. These remarks were sold by the church on

DVDs titled "Best of Jeremiah Wright". If I ever was at a church and heard something like that it would be the last

time I went there.

Now, I will completely agree that Rev. Wright had many good things to say. That does not

excuse the irresponsible way he fueled race warfare and perpetuated the "victim" mentality. Not to mention the

crazy stuff.

Back to Obama, first he tells the NYTimes that he was never aware of these things. Three days later

he says he was sitting in church when some things were said. Ok, he's a politician. :)

What he should have

done in his speech was to quote specific statements and tell us exactly what he thought about them. Frankly, nobody

cared who was black or not, what mattered was what Obama *believed* about Wright's statements. All he could come

up with was "controversial" and "divisive". Did he ever confront his pastor about such statements?

What he did

do, was change the subject. Saying that you disagree with some unspecified ideas does not address the issue. Going

on to make race the issue, and dismiss Wright's remarks as a result of black victimhood not only serves to ignore

the question, but compounds the problem.

He says "We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice

in this country", then procedes to do just that, from slavery to the modern day. Summing up that history he says

"This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up." Fine,

understood, but does that excuse bad behavior?

Obama: "The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that

anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour

in American life occurs on Sunday morning."

I can understand anger, and accept it as unfortunate reality.

Vitriolic hatred is another matter. Churches "segregated"? I think its a matter of choice. :) The nuance is

rich, this guy's good, or rather his writer. He uses this device several times, making a point then immediately

distracting with another idea. Clever writer.

Also, I think its quite a stretch trying to draw a moral

equivalence between Ferraro and his Grandmother on the one hand, and the comments of Wright on the other. Not even

close.

Those are some specifics. In the end I think he used moral equivalence and white guilt over past offenses

to wiggle out of a problem.

In general I wish this speech would have been made 3 months from now, minus the

Wright problem. Because, it could have been a pretty good speech. The fact that he brought it out now and used

it as a cover is disappointing, and it taints his message.

I think the issue has a life of its own now and

won't go away. Obama really should have handled it differently. Now it'll haunt him.

I agree Doc, he talked

pretty openly and honestly. I also think it would've been buried on page 6 without the Wright angle.

I think he

should bring Bill Cosby onto his team as some sort of "domestic adviser".

[DrSmellThis]

Thanks for the thoughtful

post. My keyboard is on the blink right now, so I'm going to type a few things from a coffee shop, even though I'm

really ill prepared. Otherwise, who knows when I can get to it. I fully admit I'm being lame/totally inadequate, in

saying everything that follows.

I'm sure there is lots to agree with there. But you're making me feel like I

want to know more about Rev. Wright before feeling like I can comment in a way that does justice to what you've

given us in your post. One has to weave a lot of issues together to really address it.

I do seem to agree that

that shouldn't be the only thing he says about it. However, to me it looks like the stuff he did say in the speech

was appropriate, if inadequate, to what I know so far of Wright.

There were several paragraphs in a row in the

middle of the speech, in which he pretty severely rebuked him in "conceptual" detail, and seemed to address that

there was some outrageous stuff; though without itemizing the incendiary statements.

But it just looks like it

wasn't enough for you, and for a significant chunk of Americans. I probably will end up agreeing that it wasn't

enough, assuming that was the only thing he ever said about it, or ever will say. Maybe you're right that he tried

to accomplish too much in one speech.

I might agree he should have just defended himelf on Wright. But the

downside of that is you miss an opportunity to teach, inspire, and inform the public about your vision for the

country and go completely on the defensive. Ideally you try to do just what he did, if you can get away with it.

Maybe he didn't. It's a matter of debate how much he should have been on the defensive. If he tries to satisfy

everyone he ensures that he will be too much on the defensive.

So he picked a middle point, which ended up being

good anough for a lot of people, since he got such rave reviews. I sort of agree with you, so far, that we could

stand to hear a bit more.

For me to say anything more, I have to really wrap my head around Wright's stuff a lot

better.

For example, I wonder about the distinction between "hating America" and simply having profound distrust,

rage, and disgust with those running America. Where does Wright fall on that? At this moment I don't know enough to

present an opinion. For people who believe that the Bush Admin has essentially been a "crime family", they are going

to wonder about a lot of possible conspiracies and other stuff, out of mistrust; and are going to consider

themselves patriotic and rational to do so, even if the particular conspiracy theories turn out to be wrong. To me

those people might believe some controversial or stupid things, (A statement about AIDS being all about someone out

to get blacks is pretty ignorant regarding AIDS, for starters.). But for me to think they hate their country is

quite another thing. I generally assume most of the worst critics of government among our citizenry love their

country. But I have to learn more.

It may be that Obama is just going to have to be stained by this. He doesn't

seem to be willing to say he regrets being a part of the church. It looks like he got a lot spiritually from that

church over the years, starting when he was quite young and immature; and that he just stayed in the same church, as

most people do, just out of personal tradition (myself not included). He is not going to disown it, and is going to

take the consequences.

Idesign, I agree that I'd walk out the door of a church where the minister was saying

things like that on a regular basis. But I get really angry at most all religions to the point where no way am I

going to belong.

But I didn't grow up as an African-American.

I almost think strong minded and strong willed

black folk almost owed it to themselves to consider some more radical positions and thinking, from within their

worlds, just as most of them grow out of it. You have to go through a pissed off, even enraged, phase in your

development if you are a member of a persecuted minority. If I'd been a young, smart black male, I would have

entertained some radical stuff along the way, especially if I was getting spiritually inspired at the same

time.

It's hard when you are judged by the way you worship, or the food you choose for your soul. In some ways

that is the most private thing a person can do. Wright was probably a really great minister otherwise. If someone

turned you on to God, and helped you feel close to "the Divine", wouldn't most of us be willing to trade off some

things?

I think I agree with the few main ideas of your post to some extent. I just don't know to what extent

until I erase my own ignorance about it.

Maybe the Koolest King or someone else with better knowledge than me has

some more insights to share.

I like your Bill Cosby idea, in that he's great with avoiding the victim talk, and

getting people to take responsibility. But the Reverend apparently needed most of the help with that.

[idesign]

You're right Doc, he had a fine

line to walk and gave it his best shot. I guess for me, it was a matter of adding this speech to the cumulative

total of what I know about Obama, and leaving me a little cold. I think he left an open question mark about his

judgment.

If McCain had spent the last 20 yrs in a church with a preacher like, say David Duke, I wonder what

media reaction he would get.

As for Rev. Wright, I don't think he hates America, he's just over the edge of

reason, more than a little.

I'm following what you've been saying about the value of a mature dialogue, and

agree. I think the most important thing you said was allowing time to work out something that we can only

encourage, and not solve outright.

[koolking1]

was with

HRC on that trip. Here's what he had to say:

“The ‘scariest’ part of the trip was wondering where he’d eat

next. ‘I think the only ‘red-phone’ moment was: ‘Do we eat here or at the next place.’” He continued:

“I

never felt that I was in a dangerous position. I never felt being in a sense of peril, or ‘Oh, God, I hope I’m going

to be OK when I get out of this helicopter or when I get out of his tank.’”
In her Iowa stump speech, Clinton

also said, “We used to say in the White House that if a place is too dangerous, too small or too poor, send the

First Lady.”
Say what? As Sinbad put it: “What kind of president would say, ‘Hey, man, I can’t go ‘cause I might

get shot so I’m going to send my wife…oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.’”

I used to have

some measure of respect for her in the beginning of her Senate career, she was very strong on acting for veteran's

causes. But then she voted for the Iraq occupation and that ended it for me.

I know it might have ended

his chances for the presidency but I don't think Obama should have severed his relationship with the Reverend

Wright, why do we all have to be so damn politically correct all the time? The MSM more or less forced him to

become dishonest. Laughing here, as far as I know, most preachers are politicians of a sort, they all tell their

fibs. If Jesus ever comes back and takes a look at the opulence of The Vatican and the mega-churches here in the

USA I think he'd be saying something like "wtf"?

Politics and religion, we shouldn't be talking.



Go Ron Paul!!!!!!

[idesign]

Hillary sure is a spectacle!

What did Doc say... "human drama machine"? :)

That's funny KK, politics and religion are taboo for social

etiquette, but there's not too much else worth talking about. Certainly not as interesting.

I'm voting for

Kinky Friedman. :)

I don't think Obama has cut any ties to Rev. Wright. Apparently they discussed the

possibility of something like this happening a while back, around the time they decided Wright would not give the

invocation when Obama opened his campaign.

I would love to have heard Obama say something like: "I challenged

Rev. Wright on occaision about some of his remarks and think we had a productive dialogue", or "I contemplated

leaving the church but thought it best to remain as a moderating influence". Something like that.

Yep, Bruce is

great for allowing us to use his bandwidth so generously for our ranting.

And you're a great sport for letting

the rest of us step all over your thread. :)

[DrSmellThis]

Maybe KK meant we shouldn't

mix politics and religion; that we should discuss them separately?

If you want a good laugh read some of the

readers' comments after the Hillary video. They are dripping with hilarious sacrasm, like about when Chelsea got

her kneecaps blown off and asked the rest of the party to go on without her.

Sinbad also mentioned Bill sending

Chelsea because it was too dangerous for him to go.

I mean really, who could misremember being in a combat zone

under fire, unless it happened to you every day? Every detail of something like that would be burned into your

memory forever. Obviously, she intentionally made the whole fantasy up.

If she wins the nomination, McCain will

continually superimpose Hillary getting flowers from the little girl with McCain's own very real combat experience.



Obama has been on the beach consuming cocktails the past few days, and his numbers have nevertheless been

rising. Hillary really blew it with this one.

But damn, it was funny! I seriously had a belly laugh perusing the

sarcastic comments.

I mistrusted Hillary before she ever got into politics, when her hubbie was still in office.

Even the power of being a first Lady seemed intoxicating to her. My main quarrel with her has always been that she

is too much like the typical politician, like everything I hate about typical politicians.

Similarly, whatever I

most dislike about Obama relates to those qualities he shares with typical politicians; basically that he isn't

"changing enough" for my taste (see below). It's just that Hillary is almost a walking charicature of the

stereotype. Whether she is Democrat or Republican isn't that relevant to me.

Hillary is trying to "backroom

deal" her way into the White House, counting on schmoozing the superdelgates, and using tricks to force her party to

seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida.

Meanwhile, Obama has been giving rock concert-like speeches here in

Oregon to sold out, screaming basketball arena crowds. He is even getting reviewed by the film and music critics in

the papers, just for the quality of the show he put on. In terms of raw political/diplomatic/statesmanly gifts and

skills, he is clearly a force to be reckoned with.


I would love to have heard Obama say something like:

"I challenged Rev. Wright on occaision about some of his remarks and think we had a productive dialogue", or "I

contemplated leaving the church but thought it best to remain as a moderating influence". Something like that.

I agree. Lot of things like that would have been good to say and do. In all fairness, though, I think maybe

he did do some of that, such as confronting Wright, unless I'm mistaken, which is often the case.

Despite what

he says about the minister, I have no problem whatsoever believing that Obama comes from a very, very different

place than Wright politically. They really are opposites in their political mentalities and personalities. I think

it's obvious that BO is in many ways a bit of a centrist (at least mentally/emotionally, if his policies seem far

left to righties); who likes to mediate conflict, have lots of dialogue, and work compromises across the aisle. That

seems to be his comfort zone, as he has been expressing those tendencies before he was so famous, when he was just

entering national politics.

This isn't necessarily meant as a compliment. I might like him to be less like that,

since ending up on the middle of the road can lead to politics as usual.

But the Right can take consolation in

that, if they have to settle for an Obama, they will at least have a voice, despite the obvious policy differences;

due to Obama's style and tendencies as a person. IMHO, he really is going to listen to their points and try to find

something valid to take away frorn the conversation. He is about process as much as ideology (I wish he was about

changing even more processes). He has been talking about changing things in that direction for an awful long

time.

What would the Right get with a Hillary, if McCain lost? Other than whatever she accomplishes toward stated

policy goals, whatever is good for Hillary at the time. If I'm a Republican, that seems a bit scary.

[idesign]

You're right Doc, now that I

re-read KK's remark. I'm often more mistakener than you. :)

The whole Clinton show is just too funny. I

remember watching 60 Minutes in 1992 when Mike/Ed Whoever was interviewing the Clintons during the Dem primary.



In a scripted interview I watched Hillary field a question about Bill's infidelity. She was perfect as she

lied, as Bill just sat with his patented open-mouthed gape. Not too many years later Bill "smoked" an intern and

was still teflon... H honed her skills in the background.

Whitewater, Rose law firm, Travelgate, National

health care, all accomplishments. She's lied for years, and everyone has known it, but now its expedient to out

her. Why? Obama is now the darling of choice, the Clintons are history.

Obama's troubles are just

starting.

With all due respect Doc, and I truly mean respect (at the least), upon what do you base your

perceptions of Obama? His speeches? What has he done? Accomplished? What history of "crossing the aisle" and

"work compromises" does he have?

He's been a Senator for what, 2-3 years? If my memory serves me, he voted

"present" in some 130 votes. He's written no major legislation or been instrumental is the passage of such.

Before that he was a State legislator of no particular note.

His star began to rise after a speech at the 2004

(?) Dem convention. He's still giving speeches, but what has he actually done? Indeed, what has he actually said

in his speeches? Practically nothing.

I can understand how his approach to gov't would appeal to someone who

values analysis and discussion. Bill Clinton was such a person. The result was Gingrich and the Rep takeover of

Congress.

At the root of the debate there remains ideology, and I do think there is a big (but shrinking)

difference between Obama and McCain. Differences in defense, economic and social policies are still significant

enough to offer a real choice, IMHO.

What Obama says is practically nothing, what we know he stands for is

obvious as we read between his lines. What the Reps could possibly gain from his election I can't see.

Edit: I

think the "change" Obama would bring would be back to the 70s and Jimmy Carter style policies.

[DrSmellThis]

I'm not here as an apologist

for Obama, or previous Democratic presidents. I'm semi-retired from that kind of thing. :) Diss him, and them, to

your heart's content.

If I see a particular issue I want to offer an opinion on, I will.

I wasn't

comparing McCain and Obama, but rather Hillary and Obama.

My impression is that, other than being tougher to

beat than Hillary, Republicans would over time find him to be "the lesser of two evils"; from a conservative point

of view; if for some reason McCain couldn't win. I said precisely why.

Hillary and Obama are very, very similar

in terms of ideology. IMHO, the personal differences between them are most telling.

Obviously, anyone who buys

into Republican ideology, or simply hates "damned commie liberals," is going to back McCain over any Democrat who

has been in the running.

The opinion I expressed about him is nothing I've heard or read anywhere; but is

purely my own opinion from listening to him and watching him off and on; indeed one of my primary impressions of

him. It's based on myself as a judge of people just sharing what was a major impression of him, and his consistent

message. It's just my honest take on his personal qualities, and just an opinion I formed relatively long ago, when

I had little interest in him as a candidate. I have little emotional interest in being right about him. No matter

who I vote for, it won't be the most exciting choice I have ever made at a voting booth.

So called "right

wingers" paint him as the most liberal politician they have ever seen, as the most extreme leftist in Congress, just

as they did to Gore, Kerry, T. Kennedy, and every other Democratic presidential candidate. From a progressive point

of view, however, he is nowhere near far left, but is consistently seen as toward the middle with Hillary. This

country is extremely polarized right now.

I suspect I could find plenty of evidence to back my impressions, but

to what benefit? So people who disagree, who have already made up their minds, can have lots of "fun" arguing?



You should come to your own conclusions.

Obviously, there are going to be many who disagree with your

portrayal of him as having said and done nothing of substance (even though I predict no one will speak up

here to that effect). It would be a joke for me to spend time trying to demonstrate, "Look, here's something he

did!" How many examples would I need to count as "something"? "You just said he made a good speech on race", blah,

blah. What a boring non-discussion that would be.

At times in the past I've seen those Republican talking

points debated. I have to say, when I looked at Obama's record a little bit I was neither extremely impressed nor

of the opinion he did absolutely nothing and was worthless. If I was extremely impressed he'd be my favorite

candidate and he never was. But obviously, he's a young guy, and is by definition vulnerable to criticisms about

how much he is done, how many bills he's yet blah blah. But I'm not interested in stereotypical partisan banter,

about how everything one party has ever done is bad, etc. Been there, done that.

This website has never had a

balance of voices from both sides of the aisle, so to speak, so partisan banter is just not going to be interesting.

Whenever there was some kind of balance, it was because AKA and myself "heroically" took everyone on (no, I don't

really take myself that seriously), everyone for who the "L word" is roughly equivalent to the "N word", not that

either of us is a stereotypical liberal or Democrat. Others have declined to post for whatever reasons, or have just

remained extremely non-confrontive, which is typically wisest, I suppose. I apologize if I seem to have have

mischaracterized some person or persons, and am certainly not suggesting that there haven't been particular issues

about which people have had good discussions.

But frankly, it would be one guy from "the left" (where the

communists are, and their policies which have obviously 100&#37; failed.) against everyone else, as far as who posts

and speaks out vociferously. (AKA was an intelligent exception, but never posts any more, and I can guess why. Ron

Paul is about as far "left" as you get here; and that is not left at all, just different than "right" on some

things, like fighting wars.) This is boring, because there is no triangulation onto any higher truth, only

demonstrations of competing imbalances of power and partisan talking points.

When I felt I had a higher purpose

in doing so, when I felt that urgency, I posted on politics more passionately, and took as many beatings as I gave

out. It took a toll. For what it is worth, I don't like arguing or being "baited" into arguments. It was a

self-sacrifice. But I did it. No more.

With much respect, you seem to be speaking to people who merely hear the

words "Carter" or "Clinton" and would automatically cringe, because they share the assumption these were horrible

presidents in every way; just as a lot of people immediately vomit in their mouth a little when they hear "NIxon",

"Reagan", or "Bush."

To me, and I certainly could diss both Carter and Clinton if I wanted; either Dem was a

walk in the park wrapped in a supermodel; compared to what we've endured recently -- indeed what the whole world

has endured; and will be enduring in years to come regardless of who is elected, as a matter of brute historical

momentum. This country, and its relation to the world, is an absolute disastrous mess, a shadow of its former

problematic self. It accomplished nothing for me to say that. The only people on the right who might agree would say

either that it's the liberals' fault; or similarly, that Bush is too liberal (when they're not commies, they're

Nazis) and that this was the problem. Too boring to be funny. I'm so jaded by politics and political talk; so sick

of it. It's OK if you analyze it from a distance, while remaining outside it; but otherwise...

Anyway, there

will be plenty of time to focus on Obama in more detail, (or Hillary) as compared to McCain, when the general

election process gets rolling.

[idesign]

I was writing a response to your

post and saw this remark as I was reading.

"I'm so jaded by politics and political talk; so sick of it. It's OK

if you analyze it from a distance, while remaining outside it; but otherwise..."

Its too funny Doc. I was

writing that its too much work for too little accomplishment. I understand your unwillingness to get down in the

partisan trenches with the foaming opposition. In the end it does become a pissing contest most of the time.

However, there does come a time when you have to take a position and defend it. Perhaps we can find a higher road

than is typical.

Didn't mean to pounce on you of course.

[idesign]

I'm

voting for Kinky Friedman. :)

I saw him on TV tonight. Defining politics, he said,

"poli... more

than one, tics... blood sucking parasites".

[koolking1]

Politics and Religion,

well - we didn't mix them the media and the politicians did it for us. And, usually, what else is there to talk

about in social settings aside from sports, TV, music, and movies?

Obama, according to polls, has taken the

lead in Pennsylvania, a state considered a Clinton stronghold. It's definitely all over for HRC is she loses

there.

For all the ballyhooing about the Rev Wright in the media, I'm wondering how much of this is being

presented by the network news:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qNi7tPanUA

It's a short

video about the Rev Hagee and his endorsement of McCain, which McCain seems oh so happy to get. This will only make

sense if you watch the video: the Gay area of New Orleans suffered little damage during Katrina. He may have lost

the Catholic vote. And, I've heard that real conservatives will vote for Obama and not vote at all if it's HRC in

spite of Rush Limbaugh.

There's going to be an article published in Vanity Fair that's pretty damning

toward very high officials in the Bush regime regarding the torture they have authorized (and encouraged

apparently). It may very well provide the impetus to keep those folks confined to the USA or risk arrest if they

visit another country. Daniel Ellsberg is calling the Iraq war the "Supreme War Crime".

Ron Paul, now that

he's been marginalized, is getting good press now in the MSM. I can only hope but stranger things have happened,

Lincoln only had 22 delegates when he went into the convention.

[koolking1]

is already

out, sorry - thought it was coming out next week. It's lengthy, interesting, and a fairly easy

read:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/guantanamo200805

[belgareth]

Perhaps I am getting paranoid

in my old age but I am begining to wonder if fuel prices soaring and other economic issues are somehow intended to

take some of the heat off the government failures in Iraq. Any thoughts?

[belgareth]

This email comes in three parts:

Part 1
In just one year. Remember the

election in 2006?
Thought you might like to read the

following:

A little over one year ago:



1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;


2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;


3) The unemployment rate was 4.5&#37;.



Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have

seen:

1) Consumer confidence

plummet;
2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50

a gallon;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);


4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity

value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses);
5)

Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.

America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!

Remember it's Congress that makes law not the President. He has to work with what's handed to

him.

Quote of the

Day........'My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I

hope you'll join with me as we try to change it.' -- Barack Obama


Part 2:
Taxes...Whether Democrat or a Republican you will find these

statistics enlightening and

amazing.
www.tax

foundation.org/publications/show/151.html (http://www.tax%20foundation.org/publications/show/151.html)
Taxes under Clinton 1999
Single

making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000


Single making 75K - tax $23,250


Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married

making 125K - tax $38,750

Taxes under

Bush 2008
Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single

making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750


Married making 125K - tax $31,250




Both democratic candidates will return to the higher tax

rates
It is amazing how many people that fall into the categories

above think Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever. If Obama or Hillary are elected,

they both say they will repeal the Bush tax cuts and a good portion of the people that fall into the categories

above can't wait for it to happen. This is like the movie The Sting with Paul Newman; you scam somebody out of some

money and they don't even know what happened.


PART

3:
You think the war in Iraq is costing us too

much? Read this:
Boy, am I confused. I have been hammered with the

propaganda that itis the Iraq war and the war on terror that is bankrupting

us.I now find that to be RIDICULOUS.
I hope

the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and over againuntil they are read so many times

that the reader gets sick of reading them. I have included the URL's for verification of all the following

facts.

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to

illegal alienseach year by state governments.
Verify at: http://tinyurl.com/zob77 (http://tinyurl.com/zob77)

2.

$2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programssuch as food stamps, WIC, and

free school lunches for illegal aliens.
Verify at:

http://www.cis..org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html (http://www.cis..org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html)

3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal

aliens.
Verify at:

http://www.cis..org/articles/2004/fiscalexec

.html (http://www.cis..org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html)

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on

primary and secondary schooleducation for children here illegally

and they cannot speak a word of English!
Verify at:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP

TS/0604/01/ldt.0.html (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0.html)

5. $17 Billion dollars a

year is spent for education for the American-born children of

illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
Verify at

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRI

PTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html)

6. $3 Million Dollars a

DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.
Verify at:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRI

PTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html)

7. 30% percent of all

Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.
Verify at:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRI

PTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html)

8. $90 Billion Dollars a

year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare &social services by the American taxpayers.


Verify at:

http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html (http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html)



9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are

causedby the illegal aliens.
Verify at:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html)



10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime

ratethat's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens.

In particular,
their children, are going to make a huge

additional crime problem in the US
Verify at:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRI

PTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html)

11. During the year of

2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliensthat crossed our Southern Border also, as many as

19,500 illegal aliensfrom Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth,

heroinand marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern

border.
Verify at: Homeland Security Report:


http://tinyurl.com/t9sht (http://tinyurl.com/t9sht)

12. The National Policy Institute, 'estimated that the totalcost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an

average
cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five

year period.'
Verify at:

http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.

org/pdf/deportation.pdf (http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf)

13. In 2006 illegal

aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittancesback to their countries

of origin.
Verify at:

http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.ht14 (http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.ht14). 'The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One MillionSex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States.'
Verify at:

http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml (http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml)[/FON

T]

[FONT=Times New Roman]The total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR.



Are we THAT stupid?
If this doesn't bother you then just delete the message. If, on the

otherhand, it does raise the hair on the back of your neck, I hope you forward it to every

legal resident in the country including every representative inWashington,

D.C. - five times a week for as long as it takes to restoresome semblance

of intelligence in our policies and enforcement thereof.

[Mtnjim]

<SNIP>7. 30&#37; percent of all Federal Prison inmates

are illegal aliens.Verify at:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRI

PTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html)

<SNIP>


A lot of this sounds like "talk radio statistics". Consider

from the Department of Justice:
"Approximately 55% of the adults on probation were white, 29% were black, and 13%

were Hispanic. Forty-one percent of parolees were white, 39% black, and 18% were Hispanic."



http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pandp.htm (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pandp.htm)

n
Demographic trends in jail populations
Jail populations by race and ethnicity, 1990-2006

"2006---

336,600-White non-Hispanic--- 296,000-Black non-Hispanic---119,200-Hispanic of any race"

That must mean that a

lot of "illegal alien prisoners" (10%) were either Black or non Hispanic White.

[belgareth]

I neither vouch for nor

disagree with any of those statistics. They were posted as points of discussion and you are welcome to disprove any

of them.

Even if those numbers are double the actual, it is still an incredible problem that is hurting every

citizen of this country and every legal immigrant.

[koolking1]

Just makes Ron Paul look

all the much better. It's really too bad the general public can't seem to recognize the problems and act

accordingly by voting for him.

[idesign]

What the email did not mention

is that the threshold for those not paying any taxes at all has been raised, effectively giving tax relief to the

poorest.

[idesign]

How our Tax System works when

taxes are reduced: Is it only a tax cut
for the rich? Try to understand the real world economics of a tax

cut.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for all
comes to $100. If they paid their bill

the way we pay our taxes, it
would go something like this.

The first four men (the poorest) would pay

nothing.
&#216; The fifth would pay $1
&#216; The sixth would pay $3.
&#216; The seventh would pay $7.
&#216;

The eighth would pay $12
&#216; The ninth would pay $18.
&#216; The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So

that's what they decided to do.

The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant everyday and seemed quite
happy with

the arrangement, until one day the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said,

"I'm going to reduce
the cost of your daily meal by $20." Dinner for the ten now cost just
$80.

The group

still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so
the first four men were unaffected. They would still

eat for free. But
what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they
divide the $20 windfall so

that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they

subtracted
that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would
each end up being paid to eat

their meal. So, the restaurant owner
suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly

the
same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
&#216; The fifth man, like

the first four, now paid nothing (100&#37; savings).
&#216; The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%

savings).
&#216; The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
&#216; The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12

(25% savings).
&#216; The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
&#216; The tenth now paid $49 instead

of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four
continued to eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men
began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the

$20,"
declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the

fifth man. "I only saved a dollar
too; it's unfair that he got ten times more than me."
"That's true!" shouted

the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back
when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute"

yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men

surrounded the tenth and beat him up!

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine

sat
down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they
discovered something important. They

didn't have enough money between
all of them for even half of the bill.

And that, boys and girls, journalists

and college professors, is how
our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most
benefit

from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being
wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.

[belgareth]

Excellent simile! That was one

of the best clarifications I've seen of the way it really works.

[DrSmellThis]

What the

email did not mention is that the threshold for those not paying any taxes at all has been raised, effectively

giving tax relief to the poorest.I personally believe no one should be taxed out of that portion of their

incomes necessary for basic living expenses, in real dollars. And I don't mean barely not starving, but rather what

is reasonable and realistic. If you take that chunk out of the picture, it only then becomes possible to distribute

the "real" and necessary burdens of civilized society -- whatever we in our frugal, compassionate and responsible

wisdom decide those should be -- equally. I'm all for that. Losing an earned dollar means a lot more -- incalcuably

more -- when it comes out of your baby's milk fund than it does when it comes out of disposable income. "Individual

ownership rights" over that earned dollar also mean more in that case, given that humans make social contracts that

play necessarily against individual rights as competing public values. This matters little to politicians and

corporate big wigs, of course, and is considered a "radical" idea. It doesn't have to matter to them. To others it

must matter greatly.

After you do that, then you can start to talk about a simplified tax code without treading

in dangerous waters, IMHO.

[idesign]

Agree completely Doc, and

personally think the threshold should be still higher. Taxing the income of a family of 4 who makes 30K is

unconscionable.

[belgareth]

But, no matter where or who the

taxes are taken from, everybody is taxed. It ends up passed along in the cost of goods and is a more deceptive tax

because it is hidden. Wouldn't it be far more productive to remove much of the burden of taxation altogether

instead of allowing a government to suck up more than half our productivity?

We've discussed this before but

I'll beat on it again. Were my taxes reduced by 25&#37; I would be able to afford a sales rep or advertising that

would increase my business. That would require me to hire another person and several more as time went by. Each of

those people would buy goods and services from other businesses. It's a cumulative, snowballing effect and of far

greater magnitude than I am describing. An across the board tax cut would lower my cost of goods and materials

making it cheaper for the customer and increasing sales resulting increased jobs across the board.

Yes, of

course I would also make more money. So? I am taking the risks and working my ass off, why shouldn't I reap the

benefits? The bottom line would still be a better overall standard of living available to every person in this

country. Look at reality, folks. There is a direct correlation to a reducing standard of living and higher taxation.

You want to make matters better? Stop the pointless debate over who should be taxed and discuss how to improve the

economy through decreased government interference and taxation.

Before anybody else can bring it up, yes. There

will be abuse. As if there isn't now? Controlling abuse is and should be a government function but look at gas

prices/profits and tell me that they are controlling abuse.

[DrSmellThis]

I'm all for minimizing taxes,

given whatever our values for a safe, civilized society require in terms of public financing and public works.



Of course, any time you cut existing taxes, you have to figure out what services to cut, where else to get the

money, or what to do otherwise to avoid spending what you no longer have as a public resourse. Borrowing lot of

money, like we have been doing, doesn't work too well. I certainly do think a lot of things the government does are

unnecessary (like starting expensive wars, generating paperwork that will never be read, or collecting every email

and phone call our citizens make) and inefficiently carried out. Obviously, it ends up in a debate over exactly what

is necessary, and how best to accomplish things. If you get lucky you can elimenate waste without elimenating

necessary services.

I don't know about elimenating taxes altogether. It depends on where else the funds for

necessary public activities or services would come from. No reason to be close minded about such ideas, but that

seems like a challenging problem.

You are entitled to your opinion that our discussion was "pointless". But I'm

not entirely convinced that a dollar of taxes ultimately burdens everyone in society the same no matter who it

initially comes from.

At the very least, taking away a precious dollar of mom's milk money for her child is

taking away a dollar of mom's milk money, causing that mom to scramble, claw and scratch to survive, make

suboptimal or even costly life decisions, or take her malnourished child to the ER for various things, rather than

fulfill her potential to contribute to society. A dollar is worth much more than "a dollar" to her. It's the straw

that breaks the camel's back, and like Humpty Dumpty, that camel is costly to put back together. So meanwhile, for

instance, that hungry child also does poorly in school, drains extra educational resources, and gets off on the

wrong foot for contributing himself or herself some day. Those ER bills and crisis behaviors aren't cheap to

society either. Families in chaos seem quite expensive to me; costing way more than the "dollar" it takes to keep

them out of chaos in our example.

If I take the dollar from another's disposable income instead, will mom by

definition still lose a buck's worth of milk, enter a survival crisis with her family members which is also costly

to society in multitudinous ways, and cease to contribute optimally/meaningfully? The math that calculates that to

be the same burden on society is fuzzy to me.

Perhaps that wasn't what you were saying. Nevertheless, to me, we

have a very good point indeed unless something like all that holds true. A lot of assumptions would seem to have to

go into the other kind of theory; mathematical, behavioral, economic and otherwise. I'm not sure I have the energy

or ability to untangle it. But I am reading what you are writing and thinking about it, as always.

[belgareth]

I never said to eliminate taxes

altogether. The example I used was an across the board 25&#37; reduction. However, I do believe that government is

way too big and the cost to run the government far in excess, say 5-600%. You'll have to define an unnecessary war

for me to comment on it. However, in my opinion, we do not belong in any of the countries our military is currently

in. We can go back to the 9-11 debate if you like but I have never supported Iraq or Bosnia, etc.

Point after

point has been made about unreasonable government expense and everybody has their own opinion of what a proper

government expense is. Occupation armies in any country is an unreasonable expense. As a matter of fact, armed

forces greater than needed to protect our shores and borders are unreasonable. Welfare while a person sits at home

drinking or making babies is unreasonable. Even welfare that pays for a TV is unreasonable. Any support for illegal

aliens other than basic requirements for life while they are being deported is unreasonable, the same applies to

babies born here of illegal aliens. The lost drug war is unreasonable. The massive infrastructures to support and

promulgate all the above is unreasonable. Huge corporate subsidies are also unreasonable.

Where exactly do you

think tax dollars come from that pay for various government functions? Rich people? Businesses? Of every tax dollar

taken from rich people, middle class people and businesses more than 65% goes to support various government agencies

with no benefit to the people whatsoever. I doubt you believe that and you are welcome to prove me wrong but I'll

also make a sizable bet that you can't.

Where do you think the tax dollars come from that are paid by

businesses, rich people and so on? The cost of goods and services sold! The government has once again proven its

incompetence and inability to even slightly limit excessive profits, what makes you think that every dime of taxes

charged doesn't end up getting added to the cost of goods as well? I know very well that every businessperson I've

ever known added it to the cost of goods sold, including myself.

Ok, so we take money away from one group, pass

it through the government's black hole and hand it out to others, right? So, that dollar that gets taken away ends

up as $0.40 or less in the hands of the needy. We won't get into the inflation factor that depletes the value still

further. Then, they buy goods or services that are in turn re-taxed, further devaluing what was once upon a time

$1.00.

Alternatively, we can use tax reductions to increase jobs and increase the overall standard of living for

everybody.

[koolking1]

"Point after point has been

made about unreasonable government expense and everybody has their own opinion of what a proper government expense

is. Occupation armies in any country is an unreasonable expense. As a matter of fact, armed forces greater than

needed to protect our shores and borders are unreasonable. Welfare while a person sits at home drinking or making

babies is unreasonable. Even welfare that pays for a TV is unreasonable. Any support for illegal aliens other than

basic requirements for life while they are being deported is unreasonable, the same applies to babies born here of

illegal aliens. The lost drug war is unreasonable. The massive infrastructures to support and promulgate all the

above is unreasonable. Huge corporate subsidies are also unreasonable."

Spoken like a true Ron Paulian. RP

says that if we do all those thing above, we'd have no, that's zero, need for the income tax. Just think of all

the things you could do with that extra money. The Fed Govt collects all kinds of revenue aside from the income tax

and it's enough if we don't have those things Bel mentioned. We paid over 75K in income taxes in '06. Ah, the

things we could have done with that money, oh well, it's helping to pay for a war I don't believe in, how ironic

can it get.

[belgareth]

Funny part is that I believed

these things long before I ever heard of RP. He sounds like me, then? :)

[koolking1]

that's pretty much RP's

platform.

[belgareth]

Yeah, I know. If he stays on

the ballot, he'll get my vote. It's a shame he doesn't stand a chance. I hate the thought of the current leading

contenders becoming president.

[koolking1]

just did pretty good in

Pennsylvania, I think we'll have to see who wins on the Dem side and then get polling numbers, if McCain can't be

the Dem nominee, perhaps the Republicans will get smart and put up Paul, I know the RP delegates are vowing to go

into the convention with a vengeance.

[belgareth]

Well, we shall see what

happens. Of the big three candidates right now, I think I'd prefer Daffy Duck. At least you know he's phoney and

makes no claims to the contrary.

[idesign]

Blending taxes and the Koolest

King's purpose for this thread, here's a partial transcript from the Democrat debate in PA.

Full transcript

here: http://www.cfr.org/publication/16044/

MR. GIBSON: Senator Obama, you both have now just

taken this pledge on people under $250,000 and 200-and-what, 250,000.

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, it depends on how you

calculate it. But it would be between 200 and 250,000.

MR. GIBSON: All right.

You have however said you would

favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would

not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent."

It's now 15 percent. That's almost a

doubling if you went to 28 percent. But actually Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital

gains tax to 20 percent.

SENATOR OBAMA: Right.

MR. GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15

percent.

SENATOR OBAMA: Right.

MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax

increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the

revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own

stock and would be affected?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the

capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge

fund managers made $29 billion last year -- $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that

those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate

than their secretaries. That's not fair.

And what I want is not oppressive taxation. I want businesses to thrive

and I want people to be rewarded for their success. But what I also want to make sure is that our tax

system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don't have it and that

we're able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools.
[End of quote]

We're starting to get

some blurbs of actual policy from Obama, and this is a good one.

OK, he wants "people to be rewarded for their

success", but its "unfair" if people make more money than he thinks they should make. So he'll raise their taxes -

and reduce gov't revenue - for some concept of fairness which, of course, he would define, based on 50 people ("in

an article we saw"). How clear can a candidate be before you "Believe"?

I'll resist any further comment (the

wild horses are dragging hard). You know what they'd be anyway.

BTW, the beginning of this quote is the follow

up to both Obama and Hillary pledging to not raise taxes on anyone making less than 200-250K. We'll see about

that, if one of them is elected of course.

[idesign]

just did

pretty good in Pennsylvania, I think we'll have to see who wins on the Dem side and then get polling numbers, if

McCain can't be the Dem nominee, perhaps the Republicans will get smart and put up Paul, I know the RP delegates

are vowing to go into the convention with a vengeance.

KK, I hate to be a nattering nabob of negativity,

but RP hasn't a prayer. BUT, I wonder how the landscape might look in 2012?

With one of the 3 candidates

being elected there will either me more of the same (McCain), or more of the same but filled to capacity with "Hope"

(Obama).

The time for a candidate like Paul is not ripe. I would jump on his bandwagon the second I thought he

was viable.

[koolking1]

" I would

jump on his bandwagon the second I thought he was viable."

A lot of people have said the same thing, now only

if they would act on it.

At the moment it does look dismal for RP but there's a really long time left for

McCain to flame-out and it's possible he will, he's being pressured to release his medical records and is

stonewalling. I also suspect the DNC will be parading out some of his fellow POW's in the near future, that might

get very interesting, a bit of payback for the Kerry Swiftboating.

[belgareth]

That's has always been a

problem with the way people think. Instead of voting for the best person, the vote for a passable person they hope

can win. If everybody would vote for who they want instead of who they hope can win, it would greatly reduce the

business as usual routine. Both major parties would be in for a shock if 1/3 of their members voted for somebody

else for a change.

[idesign]

I look at it as voting for the

best possible candidate who I KNOW can win. A vote for someone who has no chance is in effect a vote for the enemy.

Sad reality.

I wish we had a free for all, where there were lots of candidates all talking about important

issues. Better choices give our votes more meaning.

[DrSmellThis]

No way would I vote for any of

the three remaining candidates if I had my druthers. I'm not saying every one of them is absolutely terrible,

but...

The essential problem for me is indeed a "business as usual" type of thing. I'm afraid that even my

favorite of the three would be mostly business as usual. And we know how that has worked out in Washington. The only

thing politicians have done, with some exceptions, is destroy stuff. The ones who say good things lack the integrity

(including courage) to implement their words.

But here in Oregon, the primary hasn't even happened yet, and all

the most interesting candidates have been elimenated, as far as my personal taste. So it's impossible for me to

vote my conscience, unless I want to write in someone. If I did, no one would notice or care but me.

The way the

system is there is no real correct answer to the dilemma of who to vote for, in terms of voting your conscience

instead of pragmatically. It's a question of how your vote can do the most good in this particular situation. The

correct answer or philosophy probably just depends on your opinions, not any objective criteria.

[belgareth]

I won't agree that voting for

who you want is giving your vote to the opposition because, of the likely candidates, there is nobody to vote for,

nobody that I want in office. They are all the opposition. Instead, I am taking my vote away from all of them and

giving it to who I believe deserves it. That the person has no chance of winning has no bearing on the matter. At

least I am voting my conscience rather than settling for less.

[idesign]

That works perfectly well if you

see no real difference between Obama/Hillary on the one side and McCain on the other.

Though I dislike all 3 for

the most part, I do see enough of a difference to make a reasonable choice. So, I end up voting against the worst

rather than for the best.

Do I like voting that way? Nope.

[belgareth]

No, I see almost no real

difference. And I don't like voting that way so I won't. My vote matters to me and none of them have in any way

earned it.

[DrSmellThis]

I have to sort of agree with

idesign on the difference thing. But that's just because of my individual perspective.

Although, with Bel's

political priorities being what they are, I can understand how he would find no difference among them. None of them

are going to do what Bel values; what he would want any minimally adequate (for him) politician to do. They're all

taking the country down the crapper, and what's the difference how you got there if you're in the crapper? Bel is

doing the right thing from his perspective. Part of those values I agree with, and partly for the same reasons Bel

has so often stated. This indeed makes it uncomfortable to think about voting this year. But Bel also has a

Libertarian candidate who shares some of his strongest views on many things (My guy is out of the running; not even

on the ballots.); and so it makes sense that he would vote for him. If enough people vote for Paul, it could send a

message. I think Paul's is a voice that should be heard, even though I'm not really a Libertarian, or anarchist.

He is having a necessary conversation about important things.

But in terms of certain other political

considerations, the candidates do apparently differ. For example, they differ on the war and on health care. They

differ on numerous policies promoted by the Bush administration. They differ on their philosophy of taxation, and on

how to spend a given dollar of revenues (guns versus butter, etc). They differ on constitutional issues, and on

human rights issues. They differ on foreigh relations and diplomacy. They state different philosophies. They have

different personalities.

They might be equally wrong about everything, from someone like Bel's perspective, but

maybe they are "wrong" in different ways, ways that are relevant to others, from their perspectives. Certainly their

stated philosophies and stated intentions differ.

Nonetheless, I do plan on voting, and hope everyone who reads

this does too. Any way you vote, it registers your voice in the public consciousness.

[idesign]

Nonetheless, I do plan on voting, and hope everyone who reads this does too. Any way

you vote, it registers your voice in the public consciousness.

Bravo Doc, every vote counts. Though its

hard to see it sometimes.

I can understand Bel and KK's motivation, and really admire it as an honest and

thoughtful position. Integrity if you will.

I kind of agree that, in the ultimate sense, it really doesn't

matter which of the current 3 get elected. But looking at the candidates, and the next 4-8 years, I see things I

sure want to vote directly against.

I could even make an argument that mine is a vote of conscience too. :)

[belgareth]

Doc's got the idea. What does

it matter how we end up in the crapper? I can honestly hold my head up and loudly proclaim that none of them were my

choice. If you were foolish enough to vote for the good old business as usual turds that have been driving us into

the hole for more than 50 years, then its your fault where we are.

They three major candidates are just

different sides of the same coin. However, it may be a consolation to some that the two dems are fighting a war that

may very well cost them the entire election.

[DrSmellThis]

MR.

GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more

money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. I think

Gibson was being a bit misleading here, almost asking a mischievous question to rattle Obama's cage and see how

he'd respond.

In financial terms, this paradoxical result was probably a purely technical or short term

effect, rather than a fundamental one.

Obviously, when you lower capital gains taxes, the market will initially

react by taking their gains at that time, reacting to the news of the rate change. People are going to say, "I

better take my profits now". Paradoxically, you will then see an immediate spike in revenues from that tax. Profit

taking.

Conversely, if you raise capital gains tax rates in March, nobody is going to choose that time to

liquidate, and will instead hold onto their investments, for the original fundamental reasons having to do with

predicting the company will be more successful down the road; or predicting their property will be in more demand in

the future. BTW, investment or savings isn't a bad thing for the economy. In fact, it's something we're extremely

short on at this time. No one saves anything any more. People in the middle classes downward are instead consuming,

and borrowing to consume at that.

Long term, however, capital gain tax revenues will go up if the rate goes up,

until you raise them so high as to choke off investment (That is why, all other things being equal, you want

reasonably low taxes on investments. We all seem to agree there. I just doubt the specific effect Gibson mentioned

was choke off.). But you might well have to wait a lot more than a decade to see the full revenues from any new

capital gains taxes, however. We're talking long term investments here. Even stocks are long term investments, in

general. So it's worth clarifying the point, rather than just engaging in partisan debates, which I'm not trying

to do.

Anyway, long term, making tax rates more fair is a good thing, rather than a bad thing; though I'm not

really arguing fairness here, as regards Obama's policies. But in general, I'm all for fair taxes.

But

clearly, if you need a short term boost in tax revenues, raising capital gains taxes is a classically poor way to do

that. Gibson would have a point there, if he had made it that way. If you need a quick, temporary boost to tax

revenues, and want a quick stimulus for consumer spending at the same time, lowering capital gains taxes indeed

could be one way, (because of technical market effects). So is borrowing, which we mostly have done for that

purpose. But there might be times when you want folks to take their capital gains immediately. I'm not sure this is

one of those times, because of the more basic need for increased savings in our economy, rather than more immediate

consumer spending. Stimulating today's shopping at Wal Mart has too often been the approach taken by politicians to

"help" the economy. Immediate results make politicians look good, after all. Let our kids worry about the long

term.

Obama's point should have been that the purpose for the hike would be fairness in the tax code, and

revenue over the long haul, not a temporary spike in revenue. He really didn't clarify that, and so his response

could have been better. He's not going to get immediate, short term funding for his health care plan with that

particular tax increase. Obama's problem in the debate, here, was in not being quick on his feet with investment

knowledge. Maybe being raised on food stamps by a low income single mother hurt him here. Who knows.

There are

lots of paradoxical short term effects in the investment world, due to homeostatic market forces and the like. If

P&G got some extremely bad news, like their CEO commmitted a murder/suicide or something, the price of their stock

could actually go up short term, due to technical or short term market specific effects. Market saavy professional

investors could possibly see it as an opportunity to buy cheap, like a fire sale. That wouldn't, of course, really

be good news for P&G, or their stock, in the long term.

[idesign]

I suppose my vote could be seen

as foolish from a certain perspective, but there's a socio/political reality that does exist now, and there are

distinctly different sides proposing very different policies that will certainly have an effect both in the short

term, and in the longer term health of our country.

Yes, I know this is the same BS you hear everywhere, but

there's an element of truth here, and is worth attention.

I think one can claim "sameness" among the the two

sides from a very, very broad, "macro" kind of scale. On that scale you won't find me disagreeing with you.

As

for the ruinous policies of the last 50 years, its directly attributable to the modern Liberal policies of economic

regulation, heavy taxation and failed social engineering. The result is a heavy bureaucracy which now has a life of

its own, is independent of elections, and will be difficult or impossible to dismantle. The perpetuation of this

cycle is exactly what I intend to vote against. In real time.

Taxes are a good example, not only for the direct

economic impact on all payers, but also the very reasons and justifications for those taxes. I rejoice at tax cuts

not only for myself and my business, but also hoping that there may be some wasteful, inefficient, intrusive,

ideologically driven program that may die a well deserved death for lack of funding.

When I hear someone like

Obama talk about increasing taxes for reasons of "fairness", I get scared. No mistake about it, it Marxist. I'll

certainly vote for the guy who has a chance of defeating that.

Of course there are other important issues, and

one has to search their conscience and asses their own priorities. Each one of us has something different driving

their motivation.

But, IMHO, a vote for Paul is a vote for Hillary/Obama. I wish it were otherwise.

[DrSmellThis]

You're either Marxist or

Fascist, depending on whether you're a Democrat or Republican. :) What's a brother to do? I love politics.

[idesign]

:rofl:Too funny.

However, if

Bush were a true Fascist we would not be having this conversation. :) Terms matter, its not just

name-calling.

For what its worth, I'd prefer a Marxist to a REAL Fascist, ie I'd prefer Obama to Mussolini or

Franco. ;)

I have to search for a good political sig line, probably start with Mark Twain, he's a guy you can

never disagree with!

[belgareth]

I suppose

my vote could be seen as foolish from a certain perspective, but there's a socio/political reality that does exist

now, and there are distinctly different sides proposing very different policies that will certainly have an effect

both in the short term, and in the longer term health of our country.

Yes, I know this is the same BS you hear

everywhere, but there's an element of truth here, and is worth attention.

I think one can claim "sameness"

among the the two sides from a very, very broad, "macro" kind of scale. On that scale you won't find me disagreeing

with you.

As for the ruinous policies of the last 50 years, its directly attributable to the modern Liberal

policies of economic regulation, heavy taxation and failed social engineering. The result is a heavy bureaucracy

which now has a life of its own, is independent of elections, and will be difficult or impossible to dismantle. The

perpetuation of this cycle is exactly what I intend to vote against. In real time.

Taxes are a good example, not

only for the direct economic impact on all payers, but also the very reasons and justifications for those taxes. I

rejoice at tax cuts not only for myself and my business, but also hoping that there may be some wasteful,

inefficient, intrusive, ideologically driven program that may die a well deserved death for lack of funding.



When I hear someone like Obama talk about increasing taxes for reasons of "fairness", I get scared. No mistake

about it, it Marxist. I'll certainly vote for the guy who has a chance of defeating that.

Of course there are

other important issues, and one has to search their conscience and asses their own priorities. Each one of us has

something different driving their motivation.

But, IMHO, a vote for Paul is a vote for Hillary/Obama. I wish it

were otherwise.
I hate to get metaphysical but your focus DOES determine your reality. In your reality

there is a good reason to vote for one lousy choice so as to avoid another equally lousy choice. My reality says

that there is no real differences between them in net effect on this country. Since I am not interested in blame I

do not worry too much about unravelling all the details to determine which group did what. Rather, I acknowledge

that the structure of government we have is failing the people it is supposed to serve. At heart, I am an engineer

and when something clearly is failing to function as desired, you replace it.

My major complaint against either

of the two dems would be universal healthcare and increasing taxes. Since I do not believe that either of them will

ever get universal healthcare off the ground for a variety of reasons, that point is moot. The increase in taxes, or

more accurately the repeal of tax cuts, is insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Income taxes are only a

small part of the overall tax burden and are more a talking point than a real issue for most people. It's the

plethora of other fees, taxes assessments and so on that add up to the big dollars and about half of those costs are

at least semi-hidden.

For the rest, what are the real issues? Increasing government size? The president has had

little to do with that issue and can't fix it anyway. Even if he/she could it wouldn't get fixed. As cynical as it

may sound, anybody running for president is power hungry. I do not believe that any person who has a chance of

obtaining that exalted office will willingly slice significant portions of his/her apostles and their supplicants

away. We've been promised less government many, many times and it has always been exactly the reverse. Government

and the burden of government continues to grow. Blaming it on any single party or expecting it to change under the

same power groups we keep voting into office is nonsensical to me. It has continued to happen no matter who was in

power. So, at worst a vote for Paul is a vote for the same old crap and maybe it is, hope and pray, a vote for

somebody who will at least make some effort to change what he can. Perhaps he cannot win but enough votes for him or

somebody like him can send a message.

In my eyes, in my reality, nothing would be accomplished by voting against

one major party and for another major party. Nor would I vote for somebody I feel is just another power-hungry,

egomaniac controlled by special interest groups. There is nothing to be gained by doing so and much to continue to

lose. It is a vote for the same old thing with no changes in sight.

Your statement assumes that I would vote for

McCain were I to vote for a lessor of evils. Why is that? Because I am conservative? Don't jump to conclusions

about what I might do next or about my leanings. Perhaps many feel that the democrats are the lessor of evils and

perhaps there is some validity to their point of view based on their priorities.

Let's back up a little here.

It has been implied or stated many times that I am a conservative, a republican, a libertarian and an anarchist.

Some have even considered me a liberal and/or a democrat. Every one of those descriptions are dead wrong. I am what

I think would best be called a patriot and 100&#37; loyal to the people, the nation and rational government but not

in the least loyal to the current government. That there is some use for some form of government seems obvious but I

think it is managed ass backwards. This country is ruled from the top down by an increasingly over-bearing and

oppressive government that has self propogated to an extremely excessive size because it is run by an elite, ruling

group who considers themselves next to royalty. The only function of a national government should be coordination

between smaller bodies that can be responsive to the needs of the local people. All other issues should be handled

at a local, or at worst a state, level.

I went off track a bit but felt it was needed to make my points. You can

go back to the topic now, if you'd like. :frustrate

[DrSmellThis]

Bel, I don 't mean to pidgeon

hole you as a Libertarian or anarchist, and apologise to the extent I did. But your stated policies seem essentially

identical to Libertarian's (e.g., Paul's), and once you told me you were perhaps closer to anarchist than

anything. So I was trying to get it right, and certainly not wanting to mislabel anybody.

I feel perhaps my own

politics would be a tad bit easier to characterize. But maybe not. I'm certainly not a Johnson Liberal, and not

conservative either. Yet I would like to see some of the changes that could improve all the tax code and remove

bloated government. I always liked the Federalism perspective you mention, which is transferring as much of the

burden as is reasonable to local levels.

I've been for that since I worked in Reagan's block grant program in

Washington in the mid 80's. That's what a block grant is -- a shift to the local level with only coordination,

technical assistance and evaluation (to make sure the money is being spent according to taxpayer wishes) remaining

at the Federal level.

I've always believed you could have progressive priorities, and that this doesn't

determine how much you spend or how efficient your government structure is. It's what you do with a given dollar of

revenue. Since some government is necessary, lets do the most good possible with whatever government we deem

necessary. One's priorities within that can certainly be more or less compassionate, holistic, and forward

thinking, depending on one's values.

Any notion that Republicans have borrowed and spent less than Democrats in

recent years, BTW, seems just plain false to me. We have an absolutely outrageous deficit and debt, and it has

gotten immeasurably worse with so called conservatives in office.

To me being efficient or not in government is

different that one's political priorities. It's mostly common sense, and who shouldn't want that?

I certainly

do find your politics interesting, Bel -- otherwise I wouldn't have spent so much time over the years conversing

with you on the topic of politics.

I'm not a big "conservative versus liberal" guy. That was really never the

fight I wanted to fight, as I stated on here when I first discussed politics.

In particular, though, I'd be

interested in learning the difference between your positions and what Libertarians believe. Have you ever thought of

that? You do seem very, very close to that kind of position from everything you've said here. So maybe that would

be the one clarification that would help me not to mischaracterize you. It's very hard to never attempt to

characterize anybody if you have lots of political conversations with them, after all.

[belgareth]

Sorry, Doc. That remark wasn't

pointed at you in particular. You are right in that I consider myself closer to being an anarchist than anything

else. That is misleading because I do realize government has some function but think that under the right conditions

it could be well under 5% the size it is now. Many things the libertarians say I agree with but there are some

beliefs in the other parties I like too. I even praised Bill Clinton for something once, as you may recall. But, one

of the things I stand very strongly on is that I do not believe in party politics and consider it to be one of the

worst, most dangerous facets of our 'system'.

The biggest point that the libertarians and I agree on is that

government needs to be downsized and get out of our private lives. However, the libertarians, like every other

political group, mostly want to reorganize the government with themselves at the top and making the rules. I really

do not believe we need any one person or group at the top and we certainly do not need somebody or some group making

up a bunch of rules we later will get charged for having them crammed down our throats. Suffice to say that I

believe government should be our servant rather than our master.

I believe that statement about the deficit is

very misleading because Mr. Bill's balanced budget was in large part a paper shuffle fed by increased taxes and an

artificially inflated stock market which was in turn due in large part to the artificial dotcom bubble. The whole

house of cards was already collapsing before Clinton left office. The seeds of that collapse had sprouted months

earlier. How much of today's deficit was a product of Clinton's presidency? It seems a little hard to believe that

we could go that far in the hole in such a short time unless there were many legacy issues involved. However, I

think the skyrocketing gas prices are also artificial and I strongly suspect government collusion is involved.

Remember that a percentage, not a fixed amount, of every dollar at the pumps goes to the government in the form of

taxes. There is also the question of pressuring the public with high gas prices. The government has never been above

abusing the public to achieve their goals.

Being compassionate is another interesting one. What you and I would

consider compassionate and how we would address it are two different things, in many cases. You've read some of my

thoughts on things like welfare and illegal aliens and may not wholly agree that they are compassionate but I

believe they are. I'm not even going to get started on the term progressive. That will start another entire thread

where we can disagree about a definition.

In any event, I apologize. I really wasn't trying to single you out.

You should hear some of the interesting things I get called here in good ol' Texas for my liberal views. \o/

[idesign]

I

think Gibson was being a bit misleading here, almost asking a mischievous question to rattle Obama's cage and see

how he'd respond.

Thats possible, but treating Obama like a Presidential candidate is a good idea.

Kind of a "welcome to the big leagues" kind of thing.


In financial terms, this

paradoxical result was probably a purely technical or short term effect, rather than a fundamental one.



Obviously, when you lower capital gains taxes, the market will initially react by taking their gains at that time,

reacting to the news of the rate change. People are going to say, "I better take my profits now". Paradoxically, you

will then see an immediate spike in revenues from that tax. Profit taking.

Conversely, if you raise capital

gains tax rates in March, nobody is going to choose that time to liquidate, and will instead hold onto their

investments, for the original fundamental reasons having to do with predicting the company will be more successful

down the road; or predicting their property will be in more demand in the future. BTW, investment or savings isn't

a bad thing for the economy. In fact, it's something we're extremely short on at this time. No one saves anything

any more. People in the middle classes downward are instead consuming, and borrowing to consume at that.

Long

term, however, capital gain tax revenues will go up if the rate goes up, until you raise them so high as to choke

off investment (That is why, all other things being equal, you want reasonably low taxes on investments. We all seem

to agree there. I just doubt the specific effect Gibson mentioned was choke off.). But you might well have to wait a

lot more than a decade to see the full revenues from any new capital gains taxes, however. We're talking long term

investments here. Even stocks are long term investments, in general. So it's worth clarifying the point, rather

than just engaging in partisan debates, which I'm not trying to do.

I think yes, and no. The

"paradoxical effect" you spoke of is certainly true historically, but there are many things influenced in the long

term by capital gains rate cuts, most of which positively effect revenue.

If you look beyond the "static pie"

analysis, such factors as increased asset value, increased investment and the general economic growth that usually

follows any tax cut, more than offsets "losses" due to lower rates.

In addition, high CG rates stifle the economy

by locking up profits which could be used for investment and growth. Lower rates would allow business greater

freedom to manage profit without gov't "interference".

To clarify my own position, I think -any- new or

increased tax stifles the economy and -any- tax cut is beneficial.


Anyway, long

term, making tax rates more fair is a good thing, rather than a bad thing; though I'm not really arguing fairness

here, as regards Obama's policies. But in general, I'm all for fair taxes.

But clearly, if you need a short

term boost in tax revenues, raising capital gains taxes is a classically poor way to do that. Gibson would have a

point there, if he had made it that way. If you need a quick, temporary boost to tax revenues, and want a quick

stimulus for consumer spending at the same time, lowering capital gains taxes indeed could be one way, (because of

technical market effects). So is borrowing, which we mostly have done for that purpose. But there might be times

when you want folks to take their capital gains immediately. I'm not sure this is one of those times, because of

the more basic need for increased savings in our economy, rather than more immediate consumer spending. Stimulating

today's shopping at Wal Mart has too often been the approach taken by politicians to "help" the economy. Immediate

results make politicians look good, after all. Let our kids worry about the long term.

Lower CG rates

have typically not been a "quick fix" for consumers, but today it might work in that way, with the changing

demographics of investment (see below).

Its interesting, I've seen a lot of polls lately which suggest that most

people receiving the tax rebate this year will either pay off debt or save it. A good thing.

Agree, borrowing is

bad, very bad.


Obama's point should have been that the purpose for the hike would be

fairness in the tax code, and revenue over the long haul, not a temporary spike in revenue. He really didn't

clarify that, and so his response could have been better. He's not going to get immediate, short term funding for

his health care plan with that particular tax increase. Obama's problem in the debate, here, was in not being quick

on his feet with investment knowledge. Maybe being raised on food stamps by a low income single mother hurt him

here. Who knows.

Surely his private Prep school and Columbia/Harvard experience could have come to his

aid. :)

Its the whole "fairness" thing which bothers me, for both ideological and technical reasons. To me

fairness means "equally distributed", and not "re-distributed".

Technically speaking, when you talk about

lowering CG rates, one (many?) may automatically think "tax break for the rich" or some such. Consider the

following:

> Stock ownership among Americans has doubled in the past seven years to 43 percent of the adult

population

> 47 percent of the investors are women;

> 55 percent are under the age of 50

> 50 percent are

not college graduates.

> 29 percent of mutual fund shareholders have household incomes below $40,000; 38 percent

have incomes between $40,000 and $75,000; and 33 percent have household incomes over $75,000

These demographics

should point out that its more than Exxon-Mobil who benefits from less gov't intrusion by way of taxes. Speaking

of whom, E-M has 52&#37; ownership by mutual and index funds, along with pension funds, owned by guess

who?

Which, BTW, makes an abuse of power like Enron all the more scandalous. But that's a whole separate

issue.

I won't get into ideology, but will say that that I agree with you that the distribution of existing (and

hopefully lower) tax revenue is critically important as well.

Ok, since you twisted my arm, I'd suggest

dismantling the Dept of Education and distributing its entire budget in the form of school vouchers which parents

can use as they choose, without restriction. Guess that would make me "pro-choice".

Better yet... dead

horse:hammer: ...tax cuts.

[idesign]

Your

statement assumes that I would vote for McCain were I to vote for a lessor of evils. Why is that? Because I am

conservative? Don't jump to conclusions about what I might do next or about my leanings. Perhaps many feel that the

democrats are the lessor of evils and perhaps there is some validity to their point of view based on their

priorities.

Let's back up a little here. It has been implied or stated many times that I am a conservative, a

republican, a libertarian and an anarchist. Some have even considered me a liberal and/or a democrat. Every one of

those descriptions are dead wrong. I am what I think would best be called a patriot and 100% loyal to the people,

the nation and rational government but not in the least loyal to the current government. That there is some use for

some form of government seems obvious but I think it is managed ass backwards. This country is ruled from the top

down by an increasingly over-bearing and oppressive government that has self propogated to an extremely excessive

size because it is run by an elite, ruling group who considers themselves next to royalty. The only function of a

national government should be coordination between smaller bodies that can be responsive to the needs of the local

people. All other issues should be handled at a local, or at worst a state, level.

I went off track a bit but

felt it was needed to make my points. You can go back to the topic now, if you'd like. :frustrate

Sorry

Bel, I didn't intend to sound like I was assuming anything about you or your thinking. I wouldn't presume of

course.

My remarks were intended as an explanation of my thinking in response to your saying I was "foolish" to

vote in such a way and that it would be "my fault" if (when?) the country tanked.

I've no conclusions whatsoever

about your thinking or your positions, nor do I seek any.

Of course I've thought a lot about what you say, and

for good reason. It would be "foolish" to not listen to all sides of a debate, especially when those involved are

bright and articulate, as they are here.

As for labels, I don't think I've ever "pegged" you, at least not on

purpose. Now that I think about it though, you would be "Unclassifiable", which should please you very much.

:)

I don't see Anarchist, you're too rationally composed.

You do have a Libertarian top note, diffusing

freely and brightly, with a touch of Liberal in the heart note, subtle but detectable, and a Conservative base

which is solid enough but doesn't muffle the other notes.

Labels are funny, they can help, or get in the way.

[belgareth]

The remark wasn't intended to

single you out either and I apologize to you as well. In large part I was trying to get across just what you said,

labels are funny and in my case they do not apply. And yes, being Unclassifiable is very pleasing but not my intent.

I'd like to believe that my approach is rational but it may just be my personal reality is full of my own

fantasies.

More than anything I want to prompt others to think out of the box. Just because we have a certain

method of doing something does not mean it is the best or even appropriate. This forum provides me with several good

minds to bounce thoughts off of and provoke their thoughts. Both fun and productive.

As a side note, I can't

even claim I am right, only that this is how I believe. Right and wrong are another pair of meaningless labels, when

you get right down to it.

[belgareth]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/campaign_divided_democrats

[DrSmellThis]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/campaign_divided_democratsInteresting

psychologically, since their policies don't differ all that much (although, as with anything, the closer you look

the more differences you find). People are going to vote for McCain out of spite. :lol:

In any case, good news

for McCain.

[belgareth]

I think I mentioned something

about this happening a few dozen posts back, didn't I?

[idesign]

Interesting indeed. You can

easily lay the blame for this circus at the feet of the Democratic Party organization, with their crazy system of

assigning delegates by district, and the really super-crazy super-delegate idea. Unintended consequences biting

collective (jack?) asses. Excuse the pun. :) (see: mascots; political; democrat)

Its interesting also to think

about all those early primaries which Obama won when he was skating on thicker ice. I wonder how many of those

groupies who voted for their Barack-Star would do the same now. The scales have fallen from many pairs of eyes, and

its got to really piss Hillary off when she thinks about the atmosphere surrounding Obama then and now.

But, this

is politics at it finest, and I challenge anyone to make a prediction as to how it will play out. :) I'm

clueless, and have mixed way too many metaphors to continue...

[DrSmellThis]

I

think I mentioned something about this happening a few dozen posts back, didn't I?Yes, you did. :)

[belgareth]

But,

this is politics at it finest, and I challenge anyone to make a prediction as to how it will play out. :) I'm

clueless, and have mixed way too many metaphors to continue...
For now I'll give you 2:1 that Obama and

Hillary are screwing themselves out of the presidency wih their bickering. One or the other should back out now if

they want the dems to have a chance at the white hhouse.

[idesign]

For now

I'll give you 2:1 that Obama and Hillary are screwing themselves out of the presidency wih their bickering. One or

the other should back out now if they want the dems to have a chance at the white hhouse.

Just a thought,

could the fight between H and O be a positive for the Dems? McCain is pretty much a milquetoast runner, could the

Dem winner eat him up after having won a tough nomination battle?

I don't see Obama as much of a ring fighter,

definitely lite beer. Even McCain could eat his lunch.

Hillary is smart and ruthless.

Will the Dems override

their process and choose their best fighter?

Of course these questions apply to the "middle", assuming that

kool-aid drinkers on both sides will vote for their party of choice.

Other ideas?

[belgareth]

I don't know but have my

doubts. They are seriously irritating a lot of dems right now.

Obama is doing pretty good for not being a ring

fighter. He has been holding Hillary off pretty well. But Hillary, despite her smarts, is people dumb. I imagine

that if the dems do override their process and choose one over the other for other than votes it will cause such a

huge uproar that the dems will lose by a landslide.

[koolking1]

Given that HRC has been

proven time and again to be an outright liar, I don't know how anyone could possibly vote for her.

[belgareth]

I don't either but they do.

Short attention span and memory loss? Gullible?

A definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over

while expecting different results. A vote for HRC is a sign of insanity?

[koolking1]

I think it's White,

middle-class women who are all voting for HRC, a lot of them are angry at Oprah Winfrey for her support of Obama,

she's losing viewers to Ellen DeGeneres.

I kinda got a bit of a shock today, just read that Ron Paul is

predicting an Obama win for the presidency.

I'll still be voting for Paul unless he drops out. If he

drops out, I'll vote for whatever candidate that promises to not only stop the torture policies of the current

regime but also vows to prosecute them. Probably nobody, huh?

[DrSmellThis]

Probably nobody, you're

right. Obama is too much of a bridge builder for that, even though he'd otherwise be closest. Dems aren't the most

courageous bunch, either.

Is Paul promising to prosecute the torture, treason (Admins outing a CIA agent and

Brewster-Jennings, the CIA "front" corporation), war crimes, or illegal wire tapping, etc? That would be news to

me.

[belgareth]

Nobody is promising that and it

will never happen even if somebody promises it. Were somebody to make that type of promise I'd be certain they had

completely lost their grip or that they were one of the worst liars in governemtn, or both.

[DrSmellThis]

Nobody

is promising that and it will never happen even if somebody promises it. Were somebody to make that type of promise

I'd be certain they had completely lost their grip or that they were one of the worst liars in governemtn, or

both.You might be right all the way around.

However, I personally wouldn't mind some more people in

government who had "lost their grip" in that way; who had that kind of integrity and courage to hold other

politicians to the same standards regular people are held to. Virtually none of the people running for president

(except one long out of the running guy, perhaps) have anything like that kind of testicular fortitude (Wow, that

didn't come out right, did it? :) ) . Maybe eventually they wouldn't have to be considered so far out of touch

with what can happen. Politicians pretty much can get away with whatever they want once they get powerful enough --

if they're smart in certain ways (unless they have oral sex with loose-lipped floosies). It would be, um, nice to

set an example for the future that politicians aren't above the law or the constitution. If that were to happen on

any large scale, and regardless of party affiliation I should add; a significant dent would be made in changing the

face of government.

I know, pipe dream. Power insulates.

[belgareth]

It is unfortunate but it isn't

new in any way. That particular double standard has been around as long as any form of government has been around.

Until something changes the basic concept of government the power hungry and corrupt will always find a way to get

into the scam of governing. Since I doubt that anything is going to change something so completely ingrained in our

society, I can't see those in government ever improving. The simple fact is that so long as we humans allow nations

to be run by those who seek power corruption will be one of the watchwords. It will always be there.

[DrSmellThis]

There is indeed a sense in

which it's more important to put better process in government than better policy.

It's weird becase in

academics no one wants to be chair of the department -- too much responsibiity for too much bull.

Plato's

"solution" was that there are three kinds of people, and only one of them cut out to lead, so called lovers of truth

and wisdom.

Where can I find me some of them? :think:

[belgareth]

Or to reverse the situation and

make government the servant rather than the master. Redefine government to serve the people instead of the people

serving the government.

It's true in business too. The real operaters, the players avoid the hassle and ethical

compromise of upper management so they can be effective at what they do. I personally believe that any person who

desires to be in charge should automatically be eliminated from contention. Once you have that in place, almost any

reliable and reasonably intelligent person could do the job.

[DrSmellThis]

I don't see the two

approaches as incompatible, not that I'm endorsing Plato.

But in trying to get a grain of truth to chew on:

Folks who pursue their thing to do that thing well; and to understand that thing, and its place in the world, are

like your small businessmen. They are also like Plato's "philosophers" who do likewise.

I'm imagining someone

being called to serve in the same way a draft or jury duty happens. Or, "Tag, you're president!"

More people

than not would be claiming they were gay, secretly dreamed of becoming terrorists; needed to stay home to cook up a

pot full of meth; or developing some other excuse to get out of it.

If somebody was crazy enough to pick me,

I'd take bets on how long I'd last. Couldn't they impeach you somehow for being generally disrespectful to the

office? "I'm President Rick James, b****!"

[koolking1]

"Is Paul promising to

prosecute the torture, treason (Admins outing a CIA agent and Brewster-Jennings, the CIA "front" corporation), war

crimes, or illegal wire tapping, etc? That would be news to me."

It would also be news to me. He has kinda

sorta maybe perhaps said he would be willing to take a look at 911 again.

I've been reading one blog that

encourages comments and they are discussing what would be the ideal penalty for those who got us into the torture

business - death, life imprisonment, amnesty. I told them their discussion is moot as they won't be prosecuted by

any future government.

Bush and Cheney may have to avoid Vermont though.

[idesign]

But

in trying to get a grain of truth to chew on: Folks who pursue their thing to do that thing well; and to understand

that thing, and its place in the world, are like your small businessmen. They are also like Plato's "philosophers"

who do likewise.

I'm imagining someone being called to serve in the same way a draft or jury duty happens. Or,

"Tag, you're president!"

If somebody was crazy enough to pick me, I'd take bets on how long I'd last.

Couldn't they impeach you somehow for being generally disrespectful to the office? "I'm President Rick James,

b****!"

I've often thought about just such a thing. Institute a lottery for perhaps marginally

qualified but honest candidates and forcing them to serve. They get paroled for good behavior.

Doc, just

having you in the office would be disrespectful. :lol:

Same would be true for me though. :o I'd

present detailed plans for an artificial beach in the Rose Garden and a not-so-artificial Tiki Bar with plenty of

room for the Cabinet.

Where's Hunter Thompson when you need him? Poor guy had it worse than we do.

[belgareth]

They'd have to chain me to the

office to keep me there! At that point I would then begin dismantling the government. Want to bet that a tribe of

wild politicains would lynch me?

[idesign]

They'd

have to chain me to the office to keep me there! At that point I would then begin dismantling the government.



Clank, clank, clank....

Hope you slept well sir, would you be needing your demolition tools again

today?

[belgareth]

No way, no how are you getting

me to even consider a job like that! You can't draft me, I'm a foreign citizen and just as soon as I can generate

a passport to prove it, I will!

Gods! What a revolting thought.

[idesign]

That's just the sentiment we

need from potential office holders. :)

[koolking1]

The Queen is

Dead.

Good Riddance HRC

[belgareth]

About time! Now, cremate the

remains and dump the ashes down a storm drain someplace.

[idesign]

The

Queen is Dead.

Good Riddance HRC

:lol: I agree.

But in her mind she's still Queen. It'll be

interesting how this will play out from now until the convention. I doubt that she'll give up unless something in

the neighborhood of ALL the super-delegates throw in for Obama.

Or maybe someone will find a tape recording of

Obama on a phone sex line talking to a performer named Loose Change. No wonder he's all about "Change".

[koolking1]

give it up now,

has cancelled all TV shows planned for today. She's broke too. Obama will offer her and Bill something but not

the VP slot (my opinion), perhaps senate majority leader for her and the UN for him.

Obama got a lot of

money from lawyers. Lawyers, but not just any kind of lawyers. Lawyers that are beholden to lobbyists that lobby

on behalf of Wall Street and Mortgage Lenders, expect a huge bailout of those groups under an Obama presidency.



Taxpayers screwed again.

[DrSmellThis]

give

it up now, has cancelled all TV shows planned for today. She's broke too. Obama will offer her and Bill something

but not the VP slot (my opinion), perhaps senate majority leader for her and the UN for him.

Obama got a lot of

money from lawyers. Lawyers, but not just any kind of lawyers. Lawyers that are beholden to lobbyists that lobby on

behalf of Wall Street and Mortgage Lenders, expect a huge bailout of those groups under an Obama presidency.



Taxpayers screwed again.Yep, this is exactly the kind of thing I don't like about Obama. He's too much

like McCain and Hillary in these kinds of ways. The fact that he's no worse than anyone else, and maybe a little

better in that respect, judging by his words (which are almost the opposite of what we fear he'll do; so I'm

perhaps foolishly hoping he isn't completely lying, and really is for changing some things he says he wants to

change.) and, say, the number of lobbyists actually with high positions in the respective campaigns, doesn't make

me feel any better; since there are more similarities than real differences.

Problem with Obama = not enough

damn change, ironically.

Admittedly, that would take serious balls to turn down all that money when they are

throwing it at you "for free". But we need a candidate who is a true alpha, and still has that tremendous charisma

to motivate and uplift people. What really pisses me off is that Obama has some natural gifts. I think he's a tad

too young, and not quite alpha enough. You need to be mature enough, hopefully, to not give a shit what the

lobbyists think of you; and courageous enough to not be deterred. Again, the idea of "integrity" hits the nail on

the head, IMHO.

Maybe there was a candidate or three involved who would have been different, other than the main

three; but there is no way somebody like that gets in until financing rules get reformed. This is such an obvious

need which is apparent to anyone with common sense, my mind boggles. Seems very few normal citizens wouldn't

support it.

What are the chances that either Obama or McCain will push for that? They certainly both talk like

it's on the table, but that doesn't exactly fill me with trust.

Yes, you can accuse me of being naive here.

But we can't give up, and we can't quit asking for what we need.

[DrSmellThis]

The

Queen is Dead.

Good Riddance HRCI'm not going to cry when she gets out.

[DrSmellThis]

Oops. Looks like she's not

dead yet. True to form, Hillary is going to give up her key to the White House only when somebody pries it from her

cold, dead hands.

Gotta hand it to her, she's fiesty and tenacious; and doesn't seem to care what anybody

wants her to do where her "will to power" is concerned. Were humans only about an ego's will to power, it would be

integrity.

How much you wanna bet Hillary still does have all her White House keys? Maybe she'll stalk the

eventual winner. That would be fun.

[idesign]

Its a feminist nightmare.



Hillary worked to pay Bill's bills in the early days, suffered through his indiscretions, played second string

as first lady, suffered through more indiscretions, got elected to the Senate and fought her way to Pres candidate.

She may have even ironed a few shirts along the way, but its doubtful.

Now comes Obama, GQ quality male, a bright

shining object appealing to a political base perfectly happy with creamed peas and applesauce. No credentials other

than he causes DIHLs by his rapturous rhetoric.

So, we have an unqualified male star rising above a more

experienced and suffering woman. The irony is rich, especially among Dems.

How could she give up to this guy?

[belgareth]

If she values her party instead

of her ego she could give it up for the good of the party. However, her ego is the more important so she is not

going to give it up.

[Holmes]

Yep, this is exactly the kind of thing I don't like about Obama. He's too much like

McCain and Hillary in these kinds of ways. The fact that he's no worse than anyone else, and maybe a little better

in that respect, judging by his words (which are almost the opposite of what we fear he'll do; so I'm perhaps

foolishly hoping he isn't completely lying, and really is for changing some things he says he wants to change.)

and, say, the number of lobbyists actually with high positions in the respective campaigns, doesn't make me feel

any better; since there are more similarities than real differences.

Problem with Obama = not enough damn

change, ironically.

The problem with Obama is that he is either a complete bullshit artist (and

don't get me started on his wife, who, for all her time at Harvard, still can't seem to complete a full sentence

without committing some kind of grievous grammatical sin) or, given the benefit of the doubt, delusionally

overconfident. The man is nothing but a walking NLP dispenser with a megawatt smile, which is apparently - sadly -

enough to win the confidence and adulation of the multitudes who want to pat themselves on the back for being part

of a "revolution." It's downright harrowing that so many people (especially those who really should know better)

have been taken in by his vacuous, JFK-style speeches, which are nothing more than linked platitudes,

expertly-placed trance words, and insulting cliches. But then, most of his supporters seem more interested in a

"symbol of hope" with a cocky swagger and a knack for one-liners than a living, breathing candidate who will

actually (know the first thing about how to) make anything better - or care enough to do thus. It's a dangerous

thing when that many voters are so desperate that they'll put their trust in the first (most charming?) a-hole who

shouts "change" loudly enough. Heinrich Himmler would be proud.

The great thing about the choice of candidates

this time around, though (I'm really looking for the silver lining here), is that, either way, I'll have an excuse

to move to another country!

On another note, do you think McCain will pick Ed McMahon as his sidekick?

[koolking1]

laughing here, I sure hope so, is he dead too?

I think

he'll go with Lieberman, another useless (but scary) war monger. What country are you thinking about Holmes?

[DrSmellThis]

The

problem with Obama is that he is either a complete bullshit artist (and don't get me started on his wife,

who, for all her time at Harvard, still can't seem to complete a full sentence without committing some kind of

grievous grammatical sin) or, given the benefit of the doubt, delusionally overconfident. The man is nothing but a

walking NLP dispenser with a megawatt smile, which is apparently - sadly - enough to win the confidence and

adulation of the multitudes who want to pat themselves on the back for being part of a "revolution." It's downright

harrowing that so many people (expecially those who really should know better) have been taken in by his vacuous,

JFK-style speeches, which are nothing more than linked platitudes, expertly-placed trance words, and insulting

cliches. But then, most of his supporters seem more interested in a "symbol of hope" with a cocky swagger and a

knack for one-liners than a living, breathing candidate who will actually (know the first thing about how to) make

anything better - or care enough to do thus. It's a dangerous thing when that many voters are so desperate that

they'll put their trust in the first (most charming?) a-hole who shouts "change" loudly enough. Heinrich Himmler

would be proud.

The great thing about the choice of candidates this time around, though (I'm really looking for

the silver lining here), is that, either way, I'll have an excuse to move to another country!

On another note,

do you think McCain will pick Ed McMahon as his sidekick?Thanks for your strong, articulate input, Holmes. I

hope to see more.

Honestly, I don't know what to conclude about Barack. The guy I liked best is long out if it,

and certainly couldn't be criticised for lack of substance.

Obama's speeches are definitely too vague for my

taste, not that I've been that motivated to follow them. Having watched him in some debates and read some

positions, I won't go so far as to call him "vacuous" as a politician; but I reserve the right to be wrong. I

don't know how much of that is by necessity in the political and media climate. He is in fact winning, and his

speeches are in fact working to get a big chunk of people to feel hopeful and passionate about various ideas of

change, especially change from the present administration's criminal ways. Maybe there is something to be said for

a groundswell of tens of millions of people who are all wanting change, or who might demand it. Maybe all those

people will be a force themselves, maybe rivaling the force of politicians; and some good will come of it? Maybe

even if Obama is bullshitting everyone, and I don't know how much he is, other than to say that all politicians are

full of it; the people will hold him to some things?

I really believe that the basis of change is the

individual consciousness of people; and that, if we know this awareness of the need for change is happening, we

needn't dismiss it out of hand. Honestly, with Obama, I think people are voting for something that isn't concrete,

since his policies are close to Hillary's; basically middle of the road democrat. Obama also seems to be a skilled

politician in specific ways that should come in handy in international relations, where we are currently damaged to

the extreme. People who like Obama seem to feel that Hillary's relative advantage in experience is not all that

large, compared to the difference in personalities, and stated philosophies of the process of government.



Similar things can be said for Ron Paul's candidacy. I really am glad many of his ideas are getting into the

public consciousness (earlier racist writings out of his office not included); though I'm not sure I want to

swallow the highly defined ideology of civil libertarianism lock, stock and barrell.

But as people are more and

more aware, they can become a force for doing government differently, and maybe vote more candidates in who would be

better than anyone running this time around.

Yeah, I know. Same old blind optimism. I wish I could be excited

about one of the candidates, but I can't. So I certainly won't go so far as to really defend Obama, or any of

them.

One good thing for Obama haters and doubters is that if he is vacuous when facing McCain, McCain will eat

him for breakfast. He will be humiliated, and will lose. McCain has been around forever in politics, and knows quite

a bit. If Obama gets his ass kicked in that way, he deserves to lose, and will lose. Then we will get four to eight

more years of Republicans and neocons, and our country will continue down the course we are on, for better or for

worse.

One thing I almost like about Hillary is that I know she would fight McCain like a rabid pit bull, which

would be amusing for a while, since McCain would for sure lose his temper at some points. Maybe that would even give

Hillary a certain kind of advantage over Obama. But I don't know whether our country needs someone more aggressive

in office, like talking about blowing up other countries aggressive. Not sure that's the vibe we need to go for at

this particular historic moment. Assertive and courageous is fine, but...

[DrSmellThis]

laughing here, I sure hope so, is he dead too?

I think he'll go with Lieberman,

another useless (but scary) war monger. What country are you thinking about Holmes?If it's Spain or

Ireland, count me in. Otherwise, I'll have to think for a second.

How bout that little old guy on Benny Hill?

He could reach over and pat his head every once in a while.

[belgareth]

I'd rather consider one of the

south seas islands. Sell my assets and spend the rest of my days sailing, fishing and chasing pretty girls.

[koolking1]

Phuket Thailand,

we're considering it but can't do anything for 2-5 years.

There's some small amount of speculation that

Obama would do really well if he picked Ron Paul to be his VP, I'd be happy with that. Ron Paul recently praised

Obama's vision of foreign policy (talking rather than bombing). Both candidates have rabid youthful supporters and

both have raised money fairly handily.

[idesign]

Holmes... "insulting

cliches". So right since Obama is a made-by-media candidate, and he seems quite comfortable to be there. He

reminds me of The Backstreet Boys.

Michelle is a Hillary-in-the-making, if only given her chance.

[idesign]

So, Hillary is said to be out of

it.

What happens with the votes and delegates in MI and FL? If they're included Hillary could be ahead in

popular vote, which the Dems chant as a mantra (remember 2000?).

How can they discard two important swing states

in their primary and even hope to count on them in the general election?

Any ideas on how this will play out?

Will the Dems figure out a way to save face while being fair to both candidates?

What a mess they've created!

As with their super delegates, they're trying to centrally micro manage a process which should be free and open to

the states. Could this be an indicator of their overall philosophy as it applies to how they wish to govern?

[koolking1]

mention

Michelle, this guy says the Republicans have a very damning video of her speaking at the Rev Wright's

church:

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05/15/will-barack-throw-mama-from-the-train/

[belgareth]

But, no other

comments on it.





HOW

LONG DOES THE USA

HAVE?



[

COLOR=#004040]This is the most interesting thing I've read in a long time. The sad

thing about it, you can see it coming. I have always heard about this democracy countdown. It is interesting to see

it in print. God help us, not that we deserve

it.[/COLOR]



[CO

LOR=#004040]How Long Do We

Have?[/COLOR]



[

COLOR=#f25f00]About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new

constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say

about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years

earlier:[/COLOR]



'A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist

as a permanent form of

government.'



[

SIZE=6]'A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that

voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public

treasury.'[/SIZE]



[SI

ZE=6]'From that moment on, the majority always vote for the

candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally

collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a

dictatorship.'[/SIZE]



'The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has

been about 200

years'



'During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following

sequence:





1. From bondage to spiritual

faith;





2. From spiritual faith to great

courage;



[

B]3. From courage to

liberty;[/B]



[

B]4. From liberty to

abundance;[/B]



5. From abundance to

complacency;



6. From complacency to

apathy;



7. From apathy to

dependence;



8. From dependence back into

bondage'




Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota,

points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential

election:



Number of States won

by:

Gore:

19

Bush:

29



[FON

T=Tahoma]Square miles of land won

by:[/FONT]

Gore:

580,000

Bush:

2,427,000



Population of counties won

by:

Gore: 127

million

Bush: 143

million



Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won

by:

Gore:

13.2

Bush:

2.1



[CO

LOR=#307e00]Professor Olson adds: 'In aggregate, the map of the territory

[/COLOR]Bush[/COLO

R] won was mostly the land owned by the

taxpaying citizens of this great

country.



[COLOR=#002EFF]Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements

and living off various forms of government welfare...' Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between

the 'complacency and apathy' phase of

Professor Tyler's

definition of

democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the 'governmental

dependency'

phase.





If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal and

they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five

years.





If you are in favor of this then delete this message if you are not then Pass this along to help everyone realize

just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our

freedom.




Thanks for reading.

[koolking1]

and likely why Ron

Paul is posturing himself as a revolutionary.

People will vote for John McCain as he'll extend Bush's tax

cuts and won't much consider the war that is ruining us financially. The Reps are for the war and support funding

it, the Dems are against the war but support funding it. We live in a one party state.

I don't think we're

quite in the apathy stage just yet. If we are, it's forced apathy. I mean, we can't just drop what we're doing

and all go out and protest, we'd get fired, harassed, and ostracized for doing so.

[belgareth]

The war is contributing but

there are other factors as well. While I am opposed to us having gone there I do not see a graceful way out at this

time. At the same time, there are a lot of domsetic isues eating our economy alive too...illegal aliens comes to

mind as one but there are others as well.

If you'll look back, I said much the same thing about the country

falling apart a couple years ago but didn't saying nearly so well.

[koolking1]

given that upwards of 70% of Iraqis want us to leave, and 80% of USA'ers want us out.

Leaving now would be graceful.

[belgareth]

Where did you get those

stats?

[koolking1]

just

my general idea from my readings. Not too far off the mark

though:

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

[belgareth]

A better breakdown of who was

called, the demographics would lend more credence to the stats. For all I know, they interviewed female 19 year old

students who have never mensturated and read poetry. I do note that this is a very liberal school doing the polling

thus have to conclude some bias.

Looks to me like the majority of those asked favor a timetable rather than an

immediate pullout. It seems the most reasonable approach to me as well but I know so little of the strategic

situation there that I cannot say how to make a timetable work. No graceful exit that I can see.

Where did you

get the number for the Iraqi people?

[koolking1]

Iraqis are so

much worse off now than under Saddam it's almost insane. I read the stat someplace, will try to half-heartedly

find it and will post it.

[belgareth]

You quoted stats and made a

generalized statement. I am asking for clarification because I really do not know the state of the Iraqi people. The

stats you quoted did come from a very liberal source and should be filtered with that in mind, just the same as they

should be filtered if they had come from a very conservative source. The demographics would be a big help in

determining the real value of their numbers. Otherwise, they really aren't worth much. The same applies to the

statement about the condition of the Iraqi people. At the very least it is completely subjective.

[koolking1]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001708.html

Who has

benefited from the Iraq War:

Contractors - such as KBR, Halliburton, Blackwater - all have strong connections

to the Bush regime

Israel - who's always been fearful of a united and strong Iraq, prefers it in this

state, much like it is in Palestinian areas.

Iran - is now the regional ME leader, a failure of the Bush

policies in the ME

Oil Companies - record profits due to high oil prices

And, who hasn't:

The

Iraqi people

Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and Lebanon: forced to provide for 2 million Iraqi refugees

The US

Army and Marine Corps - 4300+ dead and thousands seriously injured, equipment rendered useless due to environments

of Iraq and Afghanistan, now having to recruit replacements from folks with felonies on their records and from 3rd

World countries

USA Middle and Lower Class - going broke with high gas prices and the associated increases in

food prices, soon to be faced with large increases in income taxes on top of that

[belgareth]

That's a year old article

based on two year old information.

In short, I partially agree with the lists but note the failures in the

middle east have been ongoing for longer than I've been alive and can only partially be blamed on Bush.

As of

May 20, 2008, according to this article

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080521/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_us_deaths_3 Iraq war deaths were at 4080 with

3327 as a result of hostile action.

With the age of the data in the article you list and the varying reports

from others I cannot accept the statements about the Iraqi people. Not that I doubt it but I don't believe it

either. Just another claim.

As for the US middle and poor classes, I suggest that the Iraqi war is a small piece

of what is killing them and still believe domestic issues, such as 75,000,000 illegal aliens, would be better

addressed to a greater savings. We would all benefit by our congress making an effort to address fuel price gouging

in this country but they have sat on their hands as expertly as Bush has and they do have the power that Bush does

not have.

I do strongly believe that were you to pull all the troops out of Iraq right now the human toll in

death and suffering would be many times worse than it is now. Iraq is just another example of ongoing failed policy.

Israel, Bosnia, Afganistan and several others are further examples of our failures. But to pull out now without

helping the new government establish some form of internally secure condition would be tantamount to mass murder on

an even larger scale than we have already seen and would lead to worse issues later.

[koolking1]

"I do strongly believe that

were you to pull all the troops out of Iraq right now the human toll in death and suffering would be many times

worse than it is now. Iraq is just another example of ongoing failed policy. Israel, Bosnia, Afganistan and several

others are further examples of our failures. But to pull out now without helping the new government establish some

form of internally secure condition would be tantamount to mass murder on an even larger scale than we have already

seen and would lead to worse issues later."

It's just not worth another American life, I say leave. It's

their country, let them deal with it.

[belgareth]

Nice idea and on the face of it

I would love to agree with you. many of these are people that we as a nation have made a commitment too, don't you

think you have some obligation to fulfll that commitment? Don't leave out the fact that these are men, women and,

worst of all, children who will suffer and die. Do we not have an obligation to finish what we started or at least

to replace what we have destroyed?

Is your issue with the war or with Iraq in general or the Bush

administration? How do you feel about our involvement in Bosnia and Afganistan? Is the issue the cost in dollars and

lives? How do you feel about the belief that losses today will save far more lives tomorrow?

[koolking1]

I don't like the Bush

administration one bit. I don't support the wars, or occupations - if we want to be concise, in Bosnia, Iraq or

Afghanistan. I didn't vote for Clinton or Bush in either of the two's 2 elections.

There are 2 million

Iraqi refugees in Jordan, Egypt, and Lebanon. Those countries can hardly afford them so they aren't faring very

well at all. There are one million dead Iraqis since we arrived. The average Iraqi did not ask us to invade their

country.

"many of these are people that we as a nation have made a commitment too, don't you think you

have some obligation to fulfll that commitment?"

Can you tell me what that commitment was?

"How do you

feel about the belief that losses today will save far more lives tomorrow?"

Doesn't make any sense to me at

all, how so? Who's lives would be saved?

Think back to Cambodia and Pol Pot, 2 years after we left

Vietnam the North Vietnamese triumphed and Vietnam was once again united. Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge in Cambodia

came to prominence and proceeded to kill somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 million people, about 1/3 of Cambodia's

entire population.

[belgareth]

I don't like Bush but he was

better than Gore, who frankly scares the hell out of me. And I certainly didn't like Clinton but with each

president there are good and bad points. Each did some things right but are still a part of a machine I detest. In

my own opinion, the last decent president we had was Reagan.

Yeah, the commitment was to help (re)establish a

functioning government and help them get their country under some sort of control.

You answered your own

question. Think back to Vietnem, we played some pretty stupid games there and never really fought to win. When we

abandon our alleged friends the items you mention happened. Wouldn't it be better to finish what we started instead

of setting the stage for another Pol Pot and the insuing massacres? Especially when you consider that the Vietnamese

didn't really have any desire to go elsewhere to kill where the extremists we are trying to control have

demonstrated multiple times the willingness to go elsewhere.

I have a funny philosophy on violence. I do not

ever start a fight but will interfere if I think it is appropriate. And if I am attacked I will fight until there is

no chance that my opponent will get back up or ever consider coming after me again. If that entails breaking both

his legs and arms, so be it. It prevents him from coming after me again and makes others less likely to bother me so

I have a better chance to live in peace. I do not believe Saddam was the threat our government made him to be. But,

after the world trade center event I certainly would have been after somebody's hide. Who it would be I don't know

because I do not believe much of anything our government says.

[koolking1]

"Yeah, the commitment was

to help (re)establish a functioning government and help them get their country under some sort of

control."

Well, their country was under control ala Saddam Hussein and, in spite of the sanctions and

bombings, was functioning fairly well. Hussein was not in cahoots with Al Queda in the past nor the then present.



I don't recall ever hearing about a commitment to establish a functioning government. What I do remember

hearing was that Saddam had some nasty WMDs and we were going to destroy them and him. That was the "sell" to us,

the people of the USA and the rest of the world. We would be welcomed by USA flag waving Iraqis proferring flowers

to our troops. No one in the government ever said that the commitment was to quickly get a prison going, torture

folks - including women and children, disbanding any sort of semblance of order, inciting sectarian violence,

permitting looting, letting the brunt of the country descend into chaos, insuring that Iran would be the main

beneficiary of our attack, damage the reputation of the USA throughout the world, making our troops serve 3-4 tours

(unheard of previously), draining our treasury (wasn't oil supposed to pay for it all), hell - we couldn't even

muster up a "coalition of the willing" except from a very few staunch allies who are by now totally fed up with it,

on and on.

"where the extremists we are trying to control have demonstrated multiple times the willingness

to go elsewhere."

These folks, and there really aren't that many of them any more, were "hatched" by us

during the Soviet occupation of Afgahnistan. We trained them, armed them, advised them on how to kill Russians,

applauded them profusely, and they did the job well. They turned on us when we opened an airbase in Saudia Arabia

(it's not there anymore, the mistake was realized and corrected). That was akin to the USA government letting

China put an airbase just outside of DC - the Saudi Monarchs had some small problem with that but the citizens there

had a huge huge problem with it. It's their Holy Land and is not to be defiled. Where's Osama?

I'll make

a prediction here on Iraq: The current government there is our creation, our toadies. We'll be staying there a

good long while but one day there will be a coup d'etat and we'll be told to pack up and leave. And, we'll

leave.

I didn't mention the Vietnam War stuff to make your point of how us leaving that war led to a

bloodbath in Cambodia. I made it to show you the folly of interfering in any specific region's affairs. There's

going to be a bloodbath whether or not we interfere. So, we interfere and thousands of us get killed and millions

of them get killed. But, there still has to be that bloodbath before anything is resolved and peace breaks out. We

only add to the misery and bring it upon ourselves when we do these kinds of things. Funny how it was the

Vietnamese who ended the "killing fields" in Cambodia. I suspect eventually it will be the Iranians who will end

the bloodbath in Iraq.

Of course, there's that other aspect of profiting from war. Bush is an oil man so

they say. Cheney is the former CEO and a huge stockholder of Halliburton. Do Ya think that has anything to do with

why we are there?

[belgareth]

http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/nws/p/ap_logo_106.png
Iraqi army: 6 teens

trained as suicide bombers

By KIM GAMEL, Associated Press WriterMon May 26, 3:17 PM ET


The

Iraqi military on Monday displayed a group of weeping teenagers who said they had been forced into training for

suicide bombings by a Saudi militant in the last urban stronghold of al-Qaida in Iraq.
Four of the six boys were

lined up for the media at police headquarters in the northern city of Mosul, where they said they had been training

for a month to start suicide operations in early June.
The United Nations and the Iraqi and U.S. militaries say

they fear that al-Qaida in Iraq is increasingly trying to use youths in attacks to avoid the heightened security

measures that have dislodged the group from Baghdad and surrounding areas.
The youths, three wearing track suits

and one with a torn white T-shirt, began crying as they were led into the police station.
"The Saudi insurgent

threatened to rape our mothers and sisters, destroy our houses and kill our fathers if we did not cooperate with

him," one of the youths, who were not identified, told reporters in Mosul, where security forces are cracking down

on al-Qaida in Iraq and other Sunni insurgents.
Iraqi soldiers acting on tips found the youths, who ranged in age

from 14 to 18, in the basement of an abandoned house on Monday after the Saudi militant who was training them was

killed in military operations last week, deputy Interior Minister Kamal Ali Hussein said.
In April, the U.N. said

rising numbers of Iraqi youths have been recruited into militias and insurgent groups, including some serving as

suicide bombers. It called them "silent victims of the continued violence." There have also been several recent

suicide bombings by women.
The U.S. military released several videos in February seized from suspected al-Qaida in

Iraq hideouts that showed militants training children who appeared as young as 10 to kidnap and kill. The U.S.

military said at the time that al-Qaida in Iraq was teaching teenage boys how to build car bombs and go on suicide

missions.
Children have also been used as decoys in Iraq.
Mosul is believed to be al-Qaida in Iraq's last urban

base of operations. U.S. and Iraqi forces launched a crackdown this month in the city of nearly 2 million people 225

miles northwest of Baghdad.
The boys were found during a raid in the insurgent stronghold of Sumar, one of the

poorest and most dangerous neighborhoods in southeastern Mosul. Police declined to say what charges they could face

pending a final investigation.
Kamal said they came from different social backgrounds, one the son of a female

physician, another the son of a college professor and four who are member of poor vendors' families.
"They were

trained how to carry out suicide attacks with explosive belts and a date was fixed for each one of them," Kamal

said.
The U.S. military in northern Iraq said American forces were not involved and had no information about the

arrests.
The Iraqi government is trying to assert control over the country with the Mosul offensive and two

operations against Shiite extremists, in Baghdad's Sadr City district and the southern city of Basra.
A U.S.

soldier was killed and two others were wounded Monday in a roadside bombing in Salahuddin province north of Baghdad.

The military announced that another soldier in Baghdad died due to non-combat related causes on Saturday. It did not

elaborate.
The deaths raise to at least 4,082 the number of American service members who have died in Iraq since

the war started in March 2003.

Despite a cease-fire by militia fighters loyal to anti-American cleric Muqtada

al-Sadr, a roadside bomb struck a U.S. mine-resistant armored vehicle on the southern edge of Sadr City, engulfing

it in flames and smoke. The U.S. military said there were no casualties.
A suicide bomber on a motorcycle targeted

the house of the local leader of a U.S.-allied Sunni group that has turned against al-Qaida in Iraq, killing four

people, including a policeman, two guards and a civilian, and wounding four others, police officials said.
There

was a rare roadside bombing near an Iraqi army checkpoint on the heavily guarded road that leads to the Baghdad

International Airport. An Iraqi soldier and four civilians were wounded, police said.
___ Associated Press writers

Bushra Juhi and Hamid Ahmed contributed to this report.

[Holmes]

Okay, folks.

Picks yer

choice:

Duplicitous, Moribund Wackjob or Clueless, Cocksure, Closet Mafia Puppet.

Jet White vs. Jet

Mocha - Rock The Vote!

[idesign]

Okay,

folks.

Picks yer choice:

Duplicitous, Moribund Wackjob or Clueless, Cocksure, Closet Mafia Puppet.

Jet

White vs. Jet Mocha - Rock The Vote!

The buffet looks pretty dried out... can I order from the menu?

[idesign]

KK, you have to be the Koolest

of Kings, winning the award for the thread that contains more topics than Democrats have primary rules.

It seems

that Obama has won the primary, and Hillary will be jockeying for some sort of position. Can anyone imagine an

Obama/Clinton ticket? I'd move back to DC just to hear the catfights with Michelle. Maybe Barack would be too

busy managing restraining orders that he'd keep his hands off policy.

I picture the Obamas, the Clintons,

Achminijad and Kim Sung-il around the coffee table working out their problems. Medvedev could tape the session and

sell it to the Chinese, tapping Bill Moyers for the narration. An administration fit for Oprah, and just as

engaging and intelligent. Good Morning America could easily be Press Secretary. There'd be enough sap to fuel 20

million cars. Barackohol.

"Its our hope for the future, and with change, we will not have a future left

unchanged by hope, if we only hope for change, and a future changed by hope".

I'm sorry, but I'm listening to

Obama's victory speech even as I write this. Its very difficult for me to believe that a large part of our

population voted for this guy to be a candidate to lead our country.

McCain has his serious problems, but Obama

is dangerous. He's the most arrogant, self-serving, duplicitous (thanks Holmes), unthinking, knee-jerk,

platitudinous, empty, disingenuous, false leader I think I have ever seen.

In love with his own voice and the

impact of his rhetoric, he knows that his disastrous ideas will pass as important and useful, even though they're

the same boilerplate liberalism that has failed for decades.

I don't mean any of this as a "name-calling"

diatribe, I use my words very carefully, even in sarcasm.

In the end, I cannot see a Rep voting for Obama, and I

can see a lot of Dems voting for McCain, who is wishy-washy enough to be acceptable to some Dems. Obama is too far

out there, McCain floats around enough for a more popular appeal, and he will definitely get the anti-Obama vote,

which I think will build. Both parties have chosen their poorer candidates.

Why don't we have a Kucinich/Paul

debate going on? Now that would be fun... "Give me issues Martha, without them my brain atrophies and I loose

interest and just get mad!"

[koolking1]

Hillary still hasn't given

up. Her supporters are screaming that they will vote for McCain rather than Obama, (but, ahem, depends on your

state's rules - you may be stuck with voting Dem).

Obama is a real pain for Bush as he's sorta infringed

on their trademark boogieman Osama. Who's who asks the Geritol generation? John "bomb bomb Iran" McCain keeps

getting his facts wrong but does it matter? An acquaintance of mine says, "it's slipping out that McCain is quite

crazy but I'm going to vote for him anyway", I've never ever met one Obama supporter". New Hampshire is 94%

white, the other 6% are Hispanic, Asian, and Black.

The real knives will be coming out now, should be

interesting, might take your mind off the wars and the price of gas.

The Republicans will be fools to

nominate McCain, Obama will decimate him in the debates. Ron Paul militants will be demanding a voice at the

convention and won't get it. The Republican party will be toast, and burnt badly.

[idesign]

It will definitely be

interesting. Hillary is a loaded gun and like you said won't get off the stage. I really really don't see an

Obama/Clinton ticket. I'm amazed that she would even be interested in the #2 spot, and Obama would be setting

himself up for disaster. The Clintons like to talk about themselves more than anything, and I don't see her

getting behind Obama with any sort of enthusiasm.

Not sure about McCain vs Obama. Obama is great with a set

speech, but I see him bumbling when he's trying to explain himself. He's a showpiece, and is not that articulate

when it comes to nuts and bolts. McCain at least has well developed ideas that he can articulate at the drop of a

hat. He may get some facts wrong, but at least he's honestly wrong and not equivocating. People can forgive

mistakes, but have no tolerance for BS.

[koolking1]

I'm seeing these headlines

today:

"Bush congratulates Obama"

"World happy that Obama has won"

"Obama "I am the

nominee""

"McCain/Obama Campaigns in full swing"

"Dems leaders say "not so fast, let's give it till

Friday""

"Hillary, "I'm not quitting""

Aye yai yai.

"People can forgive mistakes, but have

no tolerance for BS."

That's right and cost HRC the election, at least in everyone else's mind but her's.

Gore Vidal thinks Obama is pretty shrewd, "10 times better than JFK, but that boy is going to get himself killed".



I too don't think an Obama/Clinton ticket is in the works although HRC said she'd be up for it. Obama

would be much better off with Gov Richardson, NM, an Hispanic and quite good on foreign affairs. But, I have to

disagree with you ID on one point, I really fell Obama will trounce McCain in any/all debates they may have. It's

one thing to make a gaffe in public and quite another in a debate where the opponent can jump all over it

immediately.

This I think too will be a factor:

What's your name air pirate? XXXX

XXXXXX

What's your rank imperialist running dog? Lt Commander

What's your serial number murderer?

XXXXXXXX

What's your unit? F You!!!

What's your specialty: F You!!!

What's your wife's

name: Silence

What's your father's business: Silence

Under the Geneva Conventions that's

considered the legal responses necessary. Under the US Uniform Code of Military Justice, that is what is demanded

of US Service personnel and they have all sworn an oath to it.

Then, there's this:



http://cryptome.org/cia-mccain-pow/cia-mccain-pow.htm

[idesign]

I really can't take the reports

on that site seriously. Written by VC propagandists and published in Granma c.1970? Please. Some of it is quite

ludicrous. It only servers to prove that Hanoi and Havana were kissing cousins, as we knew.

I do have serious

problems with McCain's character though. The OJC site lists some things that I know to be true, like his personal

behavior with some people he should have genuflected to.

McCain has a whole host of other issues, primarily

stemming from his lack of ideological consistency.

It'll be fun to watch Mac and O go after each other. One

thing's for sure, it'll be no Lincoln/Douglass debate. :)

[koolking1]

whew!!! Hillary finally

threw in the towel. Wonder where she'll wind up? I'll hope that she's made Homeland Security Chief with the

intention of dismantling it.

[belgareth]

Perhaps ambassador to some

small, out of the way country where she can do no harm? They could ship Bill off to another one half way around the

world from her as a reward for helping her lose the primaries.

I see where the bookmakers are giving Obama a

61&#37; chance of beating McCain. Any speculation as to whether it will really happen?

[koolking1]

I figure Obama will beat

McCain handily.

[idesign]

I figure

Obama will beat McCain handily.

Kool enough Mr. King, what say we come up with some kind of friendly

wager?

We both dislike both candidates, but we do seem to have a few things that make our outlook a little

different, so it could be interesting to follow with few bucks on the line. Maybe Bruce could provide a $25 gift

certificate to the winner, at the loser's expense.

Could this be illegal, gambling to win a product that makes

women vulnerable? Works for me.

You gonna give me any points? :)

[koolking1]

ID, I wouldn't be willing

to make that bet but I would be willing to bet you that McCain won't be the next President. So, it that's ok,

we're on for $25.in product here. Cheers

[belgareth]

I don't know of all of it is true or not but it deserves posting.

Subject: John McCain's Sons

Some

things you haven't seen from the media.....
Talk about putting your most valuable where your mouth is! Apparently

this was not 'newsworthy' enough for the media to comment about. Can either of the other presidential candidates

truthfully come close to this? ... Just a question for each of us to seek an answer, and not a statement.

You

see...character is what's shown when the public is not looking. There were no cameras or press invited to what you

are about to read about, and the story comes from one person in New Hampshire.

One evening last July, Senator

John McCain of Arizona arrived at the New Hampshire home of Erin Flanagan for sandwiches, chocolate-chip cookies and

a heartfelt talk about Iraq. They had met at a presidential debate, when she asked the candidates what they would do

to bring home American soldiers - - soldiers like her brother, who had been killed in action a few months

earlier.

Mr. McCain did not bring cameras or press. Instead, he brought his youngest son, James McCain, 19, then

a private first class in the Marine Corps about to leave for Iraq. Father and son sat down to hear more about Ms.

Flanagan's brother Michael Cleary, a 24-year-old Army First Lieutenant killed by an ambush ... a roadside

bomb.

No one mentioned the obvious: In just days, Jimmy McCain could face similar perils. 'I can't imagine

what it must have been like for them as they were coming to meet with a family that ......' Ms. Flanagan recalled,

choking up. 'We lost a dear one,' she finished.

Mr. McCain, now the presumptive Republican nominee, has staked

his candidacy on the promise that American troops can bring stability to Iraq. What he almost never says is that one

of them is his own son, who spent seven months patrolling Anbar Province and learned of his father's New Hampshire

victory in January while he was digging a stuck military vehicle out of the mud.

Two of Jimmy's three older

brothers went into the military. Doug McCain, 48, was a Navy pilot. Jack McCain, 21, is to graduate from the Naval

Academy next year, raising the chances that his father, if elected, could become the first president since Dwight D.

Eisenhower with a son at war.

I chose to share this with those who I believe will pass it on, to others who will

pass it on. We hear so much inflated trash out there. How about a simple act of kindness ... and dedication to

others placed above oneself?

Has anybody heard if Barack Hussein Obama has served in The American Armed

Services?

This is for all Barack voters.

From Barack's book, Audacity of Hope:

'I will stand with the

Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'
HE DID NOT SAY STAND WITH AMERICANS!!!!!

[koolking1]

sounds kinda murky to me.

There's no one named Cleary, nor Flanagan for that matter, on the NH Iraq war death

list:

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/gallery/ne_war_dead/new_hampshire/

This

site claims the McCain part of the story is true but there's another inconsistency, your email says "sister" but

this debunking website says "mother". It also states the Obama quote is a falsehood.



http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/m/mccain-son.htm

Although it could be true, I find it

difficult to believe and sickening that the McCains let a 17 year old son enlist in the Marines, you would think

that folks with that kind of money would have talked him into at least getting his degree and going into service as

an officer. Note that when I went to Vietnam my plane ride over consisted of myself and 80 Marines, many of whom

were just 17 - way too young to go into combat if you ask me.

My judgement is that your friend's email is

propaganda.

[koolking1]

now your email is really

sounding totally bogus:

it mentions she met McCain after a debate in Jul 2007, there were two debates in NH,

one in Sep 2007 at UNH (I was there) and then a later one I believe just before the primary election in Jan 2008.



Not buying it.

The big knives are coming out and they are bloody already.

[belgareth]

To be more accurate,

"According to the New York Times, this story about John McCain's sons and his visit with

Erin Flanagan is true." While newspapers have been known to twist and exagerate stories all too often

they can usually be counted on when making a flat statement of this sort.

Perhaps somebody should check further with the Times? Are you using the philosophy with this debunking site that

because you read it on the web it is true? Personally, I still do not know the truth in this case. Perhaps some of

the details are wrong? Obviously, some are correct. Does that change the context, that he is

acting on his beliefs and that his children are acting on theirs?





Your approval or disapproval (Or mine, for that matter) of allowing the 17

year old kid to make his own decision about military service is irrelevent. Going back to an old argument, he IS

their kid! And in less than a year would have been able to make the decision himself whether his parents liked it or

not. There is nothing wrong or dishonorable about a person wishing to serve. There is plenty wrong with demeaning

them for that wish. What is wrong with allowing him to choose when and how he will serve?





One of my daughters made the same decision. She could have gone to college

and even did for a semester before deciding to serve in the military. That was her choice to make and I am very

proud of her courage. I am also glad she is back from overseas and hope she does not deploy again but support her

100&#37;, as John McCain apparently does his own.

I can

tell you now that I will not ever vote for Obama and the reasons are pretty much the same ones that would stop me

from ever voting for Hillary or any other democrat. I might consider a republican like Ron Paul but I will not vote

for John McCain either, despite my belief that he his many times the better candidate than Obama. If those are my

only choices I may not vote for any presidential candidate.

Yes, the big

knives are coming out and they'll be bloodier still. Why can't anybody run a campaign based on truth and intent

instead of lies?

[koolking1]

"Why can't anybody run a

campaign based on truth and intent instead of lies? "

Ron Paul does just that which makes me think most of

our country prefers the deceit.

"There is plenty wrong with demeaning them for that wish",
I beg to

differ. I'm not at all demeaning the kid (I'm saluting him), the parents - yes. My son wanted a motorcycle and I

forbade it and told him "over my dead body, till you are 18". At 18, all bets are off. That's the age. I would

never let my son join up till they were at least 18, did McCain's kid even graduate HS, to me - that's deplorable.

My son went into the Army after he graduated and I was and am still proud of him, he too is in Iraq and because he

graduated and then went on to college, he's commanding two platoons and in a postion of leadership.

I

suspect we'll never know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth regarding the McCain & son visit.

Newspapers accidentally and intentionally shade the truth all the time. I find it unacceptable though that this

particular soldier is not listed in NH's Iraq War Dead. And, the complete misquote on Obama is despicable, it's

bad enough that his name rhymes with Osama (and, didn't Fox news take advantage of that mixing it up constantly).

All my opinion and I'm entitled to it as are you Bel. We're both looking for the same thing.

As an

aside, about 15 years ago a friend of mine who owned a store catering to stamp collectors was approached in his

store by a man wanting to sell a fairly valuable collection. Ken recognized the collection as the collector who put

it together had bought the stamps from Ken over the years. This man had called Ken when the collection was stolen

from his home so Ken was prepared for it when the thief showed up. He told the theif that he would buy it for xxxx

and the thief agreed. Ken told him that he'd go back into his office and write him a check. He called the cops

who showed up in minutes and arrested the thief. In the paper the next day the story read something like this:

"Thief arrested while local merchant attempts to buy stolen property". Ken demanded an apology and retraction, he

never got it.

[idesign]

Whether the details of the

story, or even the story itself is true or not (like you both said, who knows?) what matters to me is believability.

I would be predisposed to believe that McCain would do something like this. The fact that he does it from a

position of having made a personal sacrifice himself strengthens the believability.

Whether it happened or not,

I think it fits within what's believable about McCain's character. Not that his character is all that stellar,

but on this point there is a lot to be said for someone who not only made personal sacrifices, but has children on

the front lines.

Obama? Maybe he could visit a group of downtrodden gov't functionaries and promise them

another 10&#37; of OPM (other people's money) ensuring their programs into the next election cycle when, of course,

we need more "change".

[idesign]

ID, I

wouldn't be willing to make that bet but I would be willing to bet you that McCain won't be the next President.

So, it that's ok, we're on for $25.in product here. Cheers

Now hold on a second! :lol:

Let's get

this straight, you're saying it may not be Obama/McCain???

[belgareth]

"Why

can't anybody run a campaign based on truth and intent instead of lies? "

Ron Paul does just that which makes

me think most of our country prefers the deceit.
Possibly Ron Paul does stand for that. I believe he does

but reserve the right to be wrong. :think:

I think it is more the country is so well trained to not think but

to respond to emotional hype. It goes along with the dumbing down of the educational system. A well informed and

thinking populace is less likely to settle for what we have been settling for.


"There

is plenty wrong with demeaning them for that wish",
I beg to differ. I'm not at all demeaning the kid (I'm

saluting him), the parents - yes. My son wanted a motorcycle and I forbade it and told him "over my dead body, till

you are 18". At 18, all bets are off. That's the age. I would never let my son join up till they were at least 18,

did McCain's kid even graduate HS, to me - that's deplorable. My son went into the Army after he graduated and I

was and am still proud of him, he too is in Iraq and because he graduated and then went on to college, he's

commanding two platoons and in a postion of leadership.
My heart felt congratulations to your son. You

should be very proud of him. However, that does not make his decision the right one for everybody. It makes it the

right one for him.

You and I dealt with raising children differently. I rarely flatly forbade anything

preferring instead to address it with discussion and allowing the child to make decisions based on good judgment and

guidance. I felt and still do feel it was a matter of teaching them to think things through before acting rather

than teaching them to look to a higher authority to make their decisions for them. I also felt that an arbitrary age

was no measure of a child's ability to make a decision. I'd be willing to bet that your son is making many

decisions now better than people twice his age.

Did he finish high school? I don't know and it isn't my

business though I assume he did based on the fact that the Marines are not accepting high school dropouts. I, and

two of my daughters, graduated early from high school so were 17. My youngest, who is 17 now, is soon to be leaving

for Germany where she will attend her senior year as an exchange student. She worked her butt off to have enough

credits to graduate early so she would not have to worry about credits from Germany counting towards her graduation.

I fully supported her in that as well. Give them the room and help them make the right decisions but let them

stumble some too. It's how they grow and learn.



I suspect we'll never know the

truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth regarding the McCain & son visit. Newspapers accidentally and

intentionally shade the truth all the time. I find it unacceptable though that this particular soldier is not listed

in NH's Iraq War Dead. And, the complete misquote on Obama is despicable, it's bad enough that his name rhymes

with Osama (and, didn't Fox news take advantage of that mixing it up constantly). All my opinion and I'm entitled

to it as are you Bel. We're both looking for the same thing.
All true and in complete agreement. But I

did manage to get some worthwhile remarks out of you. :cheers:

As an aside, about 15 years

ago a friend of mine who owned a store catering to stamp collectors was approached in his store by a man wanting to

sell a fairly valuable collection. Ken recognized the collection as the collector who put it together had bought the

stamps from Ken over the years. This man had called Ken when the collection was stolen from his home so Ken was

prepared for it when the thief showed up. He told the theif that he would buy it for xxxx and the thief agreed. Ken

told him that he'd go back into his office and write him a check. He called the cops who showed up in minutes and

arrested the thief. In the paper the next day the story read something like this: "Thief arrested while local

merchant attempts to buy stolen property". Ken demanded an apology and retraction, he never got it.
I've

heard various versions of that story. Is yours the original? I am sure you have read my remarks about my trust in

anything in the news. I do not take anything the news media say at face value, for the obvious reasons.

[koolking1]

you have a good memory Bel, yes - I posted this once before on LS, probably regarding the same topic of

the Press stretching, coloring, or lying by omission - all things they tend to do well.

[koolking1]

"You and I dealt with

raising children differently. I rarely flatly forbade anything preferring instead to address it with discussion and

allowing the child to make decisions based on good judgment and guidance."

Not really, we did it about the

same I think. Just for the sake of brevity did I put it that way, I discussed the motorcycle issue with him,

pointed out the accident rates for youthful motorcycle drivers, and the serious injury rate in motorcycle rates

versus auto accidents. He wound up buying both a car and a truck which he converted to off-road use with the big

tires, etc.. I grew up in a very controlled environment and vowed to never be that way as a parent and likely wound

up more liberal than most parents and had really very few problems unlike my parents who had severe problems with

me, I'm just rebellious by nature and could not be constrained. I had to leave when I was 15, it was that bad for

me.

ID: I don't quite want to make that bet just yet as I'm worried that Obama will pick Clinton for VP

and then I would certainly lose the bet, both are ok on their own (for others that is, not me) but put together

would be disaster, as Jimmy Carter warns, "there's too many negatives if you combine the pair".

[belgareth]

Actually, I was 16 when I left

home. You may notice that I have never mentioned my mother on the forum. I didn't attend her funeral a few years

ago either. By the time I left home her and my dad had already divorced and, over the years, he and I became very

close. For the record, he was my stepdad and one of the finest people you could know.

Rebellious? Not me! I

can't imagine me ever being rebellious or defiant. :POKE: You've seen on this forum what happens when somebody

tries to confront or push me. A lot of people have learned about that over the years and I've accepted that my

children are much like me. In my personal opinion, a very good and respectable trait if combined with generousity

and caring for others. It seems very likely that you are much like me and I'd bet that, like me, it has a lot to do

with both your success and your failures in life.

My effort was to raise my kids to think for themselves and to

accept the consequences of their actions. I think that they are doing a good job of it. It sounds like you see

things roughly the same way. I'd like to see more of the world or this country, at least, acting in that manner.

Most seem to want everything free and no responsibility. While a nice dream, reality doesn't work that way. Sooner

or later the bread and circuses have to be paid for somehow. The longer payment is delayed, the steeper the payment

for it, in my opinion.

[koolking1]

Bel, I can't complain. My

3 kids are all doing very well for themselves.

[koolking1]

ID, Rather than Obama

picking Clinton as his VP, McCain should pick her. There's a rumor that Obama might consider Caroline Kennedy, now

- that would be earth shattering.

[idesign]

ID: I

don't quite want to make that bet just yet as I'm worried that Obama will pick Clinton for VP and then I would

certainly lose the bet, both are ok on their own (for others that is, not me) but put together would be disaster, as

Jimmy Carter warns, "there's too many negatives if you combine the pair".

No problem KK, I understand

fully. An O/C ticket would be a disaster and O knows that, along with everyone else but C. Mac's choice is

irrelevant.

Let's see what happens. :cheers:


BTW, good discussion you and Bel are having. I never had

kids of my own but raised a couple, and am in the midst of trying to teach some critical thinking these days.

:frustrate Sigh...

[belgareth]

This is pathetically true and no matter who gets in the White House, it

will still be business as usual.



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





How many zeros in a billion? This is too true to be funny.



The next time you hear

a politician use the
word 'billion' in a casual manner, think about


whether you want the 'politicians' spending


YOUR tax money.
A

billion is a difficult number to comprehend,
but one advertising agency

did a good job of
putting that figure into some perspective in


one of its releases.




A.
A billion seconds ago it was 1959.

B.
A

billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.



C.
A billion hours ago

our ancestors were
living in the Stone Age.



D.
A billion days ago no-one walked on the earth on two feet.



E.
A billion dollars ago was

only
8 hours and 20 minutes,
at the rate our government
is spending

it.

While this thought

is still fresh in our brain, let's take a look at New Orleans It's amazing what you can learn with some simple

division

Louisiana

Senator,
Mary Landrieu (D),
is presently asking the Congress f or
$250

BILLION
to rebuild New Orleans . Interesting

number,
what does it mean?

A.
Well,

if you are one of
484,674 residents

of
New Orleans
(every man,

woman, child),
you each get $516,528.

B.
Or, if

you have one of the 188,251 homes in
New Orleans , your home gets

$1,329,787.

C.
Or, if you are a family of four, your family

gets
$2,066,012.




Washington, D.

C

< HELLO!

>
Are all your calculators broken??


Accounts

Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL License Tax
Cigarette Tax


Corporate Income Tax
Dog

License Tax
Federal Income Tax < BR>Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)


Fishing License Tax
Food

Lice nse Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax
Hunting License Tax


Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax),


IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax),
Liquor Tax,
Luxury Tax,
Marriage License Tax,
Medicare Tax,


Property Tax,
Real

Estate Tax,
Service charge tax es,
Social Security Tax,
Road Usage Tax (Truckers),&n

bsp;
Sales Taxes,
Recreational Vehicle Tax,
School Tax,


State Income Tax,
State

Unemployment Tax (SUTA),
Telephone Federal Excise Tax,


Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax,


Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Tax,


Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge

Tax,
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax, < BR>Telephone

State and Local Tax,
Telephone Usage Charge Tax,


Utility Tax,
Vehicle

License Registration Tax,
Vehicle Sales Tax,


Watercraft Registration Tax,
Well Permit Tax,
Workers Compensation Tax.



STILL THINK THIS IS

FUNNY?
Not on e of these taxes existed 100 years

ago,
and our nation was the most prosperous in the world.


We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle cl ass in

the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.



What happened?
Can you

spell 'politicians!'

And I still have to
'press

1'
for English.



I hope this goes around the

USA



at least 100 times



What the heck happened?????

[idesign]

Is this the same New Orleans, LA

whose Mayor and Governor refused Bush's offer of Fed evacuation help, days before the storm hit? Just checking.

[belgareth]

Once again, I do not vouch for

the validity of any of the following statements. There is probably some truth to them but there is probably a few

lies too.
Belgareth

BIG

OIL

Bill

Phillips spent nearly 50 years in the US oil and gas

industry; most of his career was with the Phillips Petroleum Company. Bill is a descendant of Frank Phillips. Frank

Phillips, along with his brother Lee Eldas (L.E.) Phillips, Sr., founded the original Phillips Petroleum Company in

1917 in Bartlesville, OK. Do you remember Phillips 66 gas stations? Phillips Petroleum Company merged with Conoco,

Inc. in 2002 to form the current ConocoPhillips oil company.

So, when Bill talks about oil and gas issues, I tend to listen - closely.

I think that you will find Bill's thoughts and facts very revealing, very compelling and very difficult to argue

with.

As you prepare to cast your crucial

ballots this Fall, please think long and hard about the far-reaching, cumulative effects of the US political

philosophies, policies and legislation that have contributed to the current and future US oil supply

situation.


May 28,

2008



"Big Oil"
Did you know that the United

States does NOT have any big oil companies. It's true: the largest American oil company, Exxon Mobil, is only the

14th largest in the world, and is dwarfed by the really big oil companies--all owned by foreign governments or

government-sponsored monopolies--that dominate the world's oil supply.



This graph below tells the story; you can barely see the American oil companies as minor

players on the right side of the chart in gray. The chart was presented to the House committee last week by

Chevron.

With 94&#37; of the world's oil supply locked up by foreign

governments, most of which are hostile to the United States, the relatively puny American oil companies do not have

access to enough crude oil to significantly affect the market and help bring prices down. Thus, ExxonMobil, a

"small" oil company, buys 90% of the crude oil that it refines for the U.S. market from the big players, i.e,

mostly-hostile foreign governments. The price at the U.S. pump is rising because the price the big oil companies

charge ExxonMobil and the other small American companies for crude oil is going up as the value of the American

dollar goes down. They will eventually bleed this country into printing even more money and we will go into runway

inflation once again as we did under the Carter Democratic reign.

This

is obviously a tough situation for the American consumer. The irony is that it doesn't have to be that way. The

United States--unlike, say, France--actually has vast petroleum reserves. It would be possible for American oil

companies to develop those reserves, play a far bigger role in international markets, and deliver gas at the pump to

American consumers at a much lower price, while creating many thousands of jobs for Americans. This would be

infinitely preferable to shipping endless billions of dollars to Saudi Arabia, Russia and Venezuela to be used in

propping up their economies.

So, why doesn't it happen? Because the

Democrat Party--aided, sadly, by a handful of Republicans--deliberately keeps gas prices high and our domestic oil

companies small by putting most of our reserves off limits to development. China is now drilling in the Caribbean,

off Cuba but our own companies are barred by law from developing large oil fields off the coasts of Florida and

California. Enormous oil-shale deposits in the Rocky Mountain states could go a long way toward supplying American

consumers' needs, but the Democratic Congress won't allow those resources to be developed. ANWR contains vast

petroleum reserves, but we don't know how vast, because Congress, not wanting the American people to know how badly

its policies are hurting our economy, has made it illegal to explore and map those reserves, let alone develop

them.

In short, all Americans are paying a terrible price for the

Democratic Party's perverse energy policies. I own some small interests in tiny, 4 barrel-per-day oil wells in

Wyoming. We have 14 agencies that have iron-hand jurisdiction over us. If we drop any oil on the ground when the

refinery truck comes to pick up oil from our holding tanks, we are fined. Yet down the road the state will spray

thousands of gallons of used oil on a dirt road to control dirt. When it rains that oil runs into rivers and creeks.

Yet a cup of oil on the ground at our wellhead is a $50,000 EPA fine plus additional fines from state regulating

agencies. They treat oil as if it were plutonium that has the potential to leak into the environment. We are fined

if our dirt burms are not high enough around a holding tank, yet the truck that picks up our oil runs down the road

at 60 mph with no burm around it. People wonder why there is no more exploration in this country. It's because of

the regulators; people who have lived their whole lives doing nothing but imposing fines on small operators like us

for doing mostly nothing.

So, America enjoy your $4.00 per gallon

gasoline. Your dollar is now worth 0.62 Euro-Cents. The lack of American production of GNP, the massive trade

deficit (as labor markets have moved overseas to fight insanely high union imposed labor costs in America) and the

run away printing of money (backed by nothing of value here in America) has caused the dollar to become more

worthless on the international market. And that's where our oil comes from. It's paid for with dollars that become

more worthless everyday. If we had just kept par with the Euro we'd be paying $62 dollars per barrel for oil (42

gallons) or about $1.50 instead of $2.50 a gallon for crude oil.

What

the US government also does not tell you is that it is the leaseholder and royalty recipient of most oil production

and receives 25% of the gross oil sales before we pay for electricity to lift the oil, propane to keep the oil-water

separators from freezing in the winters. We pay a pumper to visit each well everyday plus we have equipment failures

all the time. We pay for that out of our 75% of gross sales. The government does not share in any expenses to run

any production well. So, if the Big Oil Companies are making record profits, then so is the federal government from

it's 25% tax on every molecule of oil sold to a refinery in this country. Why isn't the government on the stand

for "Record" profits? What you don't see is this 25% of the sales price of crude oil being siphoned away by the

government. That money plus the road taxes, state taxes, etc. amounts to over $1 per gallon of gasoline you are

buying while the governments only admit to about 50 cents per gallon.



To all you Democrats, when you go vote for your candidate, a blazing liberal like

Barrack Hussein Obama or Hillary Clinton, just keep in mind that their liberal spending habits will further decrease

the value of the American dollar on the world market and your gasoline costs will hike even higher. As they

introduce more give-away programs, raise taxes on everyone to pay people not to produce or work, your dollar will

continue to dwindle on the world market and you will be paying $10.00 per gallon at the next election. Cheap

hydrocarbon fuel is all over. Enjoy! Enjoy the fruits of your decision to elect these folks when you are there in

that voting booth and you stab your pin through a Democrat's name.



William "Bill" Phillips

[belgareth]

Thank you for sharing "Social Security, How It Got Stolen" with




Our Social Security





GOOD TO HERE

!




Our Social

Security

Franklin Delano. Roosevelt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt) (Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945), a

Democrat, introduced the Social Security

(FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary,



2.) That the participants would only

have to pay 1&#37; of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,

3.) That the money the participants elected to put Into the Program would

be deductible from Their income for tax purposes each year,

4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund'

rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would Only be used to fund the Social Security

Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as

income.

Since many of us have paid

into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security

check every month -- and then finding that we are getting

taxed on 85% of the money we

paid to the Fe deral government to 'Put

Away' -- you may be interested in the following:





----------THEN----------------------------------------------

-----





If I recall

correctly, 1958 is the first year that Congress

voted to remove funds from Social Security and put it into the General

Fund for Congress to

spend.

If

I recall correctly, it was a democratically Controlled

Congress.

From what I understand,

Congress logic at that time was that there was so much money in Social

Security Fund that it would never run out / be used up for the purpose it was intended / set aside

for.




-------------WORSE

STILL------------------------------------------------





Question: Which Political Party took Social Security from the

Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the

General Fund so that Congress could spend

it?

Answer: It was

Lyndon B.

Johnson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson) (Democrat, Term Of Office: November 22,

1963 to January 20, 1969) and the democratically Controlled

House and Senate.





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




Question: Which Political

Partyeliminated the income tax Deduction for Social

Security (FICA) withholding?


Answer: The Democratic

Party.


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



Question: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security

annuities?

Answer: The Democratic

Party, with Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.

(Al Gore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore))

[Vice President Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001]

casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was

Vice President of the US .




------------------THE STRAW THAT BROKE THE CAMEL'S BACK

!!-------------------------------------------------






Question: Which Political Party decided to start giving Annuity

payments to immigrants?

AND MY FAVORITE:
Answer: That's

right! James Earl Carter, Jr.

(Jimmy Carter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter))

(Democrat, Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981) and the

Democratic Party.

Immigrants moved

into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security

payments! The Democratic Party gave these

payments to them, even though they never paid a

dime into it!




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



Then, after violating the original contract

(FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the

Republicans want to take your Social Security away!



And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!



If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of

Awareness will be planted and maybe changes will Evolve. Maybe not, some

Democrats are awfully Sure of what isn't so.



But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?



Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.



AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES

100%RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE

TERM!!!




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





Thomas

Jefferson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson)

3rd. President,

Democrat

Term of Office:

January 20, 1777 to January 20, 1781





"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you

have."

-Thomas

Jefferson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson)


















Have a great Day and keep in touch!

[belgareth]

Well worth 5 minutes of your

time
<http://www.bercasio.com/movies/

dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv> (http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv)

[idesign]

Duplicity walks hand in hand

with greed.

Bel's video illustrates very clearly how certain politicians are willing to speak quite boldly

before an action, but cringe when the results of their words require unpopular action. Greed for power allows them

to lie to themselves, and their consciences to lie dormant.

[belgareth]

And people wonder why

politicians, some more than others, disgust me so.

[stuttgart-man]

hallo,

I`ve recently seen a report about the American election system and it was reportet, that every state

within the USA gets a number of people who elect the president directly! This number is proportional to the number

of electors in this state!

as far is it ok.....

but furthermore it was reporteted that only the presidental

candidat gets the people who elect the president directly, who gets the majority of votes even if the majority is

very small!

So for example if a state has 20 president-direct-electors and McCain gets 50.01&#37; and Obama gets

49.99% of the voters, McCain would get all 20 president-direct-electors!

This leads me to the thought that (only

theoretical) the USA could get a president who was elected by only 26% of the people wheras the opponent who has

loose the election got 74%!

An example:
The people of the states (which is allocated 51% of the

president-direct-electors) elect McCain with 50.1% each and Obama with 49.9% each wheras the people of the other

states (which is allocated 49% of the president-direct-electors) elect only Obama!

This would mean, that Obama

gets about 74% of all electos and McCain only 26%. Despite McCain would be the next president because he has more

president-direct-electors!

I must confess, that in real such a extreme situation is utterly out of the question,

but I think it could be that the candidate with 45% of the voters will be the next president wheras the canditate

with 55% has losses!

Is this not against the thinking of the demogracy?

[koolking1]

In 2000 Al Gore

received more popular votes than Bush and still lost the election.

My prediction: on Jan 21st 2009 Bush

will still be president or in prison.

[stuttgart-man]

Yes this is unfairly, but

Bush is not responsible for the US-election-system!

[belgareth]

In 2000

Al Gore received more popular votes than Bush and still lost the election.

My prediction: on Jan 21st 2009 Bush

will still be president or in prison.
You taking bets? I'll bet neither happens.

[koolking1]

"You taking bets? I'll bet

neither happens."

lol, that would be a crazy bet on my part, though, I do admit my prediction sounds crazy.

[belgareth]

Personally I think we need to

do away with both the electoral college and parties. Simply vote for both the president and the vice president on a

popular vote and majority wins each office.

[belgareth]

As an aside, I have been out of

the country for a week and was shocked at the sudden dip in gas prices while I was gone. It's still far higher than

it should be but I am glad to see people getting some relief.

One of the things we need to look at this election

is how the various candidates intend to address the long standing energy issues. Are the solutions offered

sustainable and do they look at the long and short term issues? Can the candidate be counted on to actually keep

their word and act towards real solutions without bowing to special interest pressure? What is the candidate's

record on energy issues?

There are, of course, secondary issues as well. Will the candidate be able to work with

congress and are congressional members willing to work with them? Does the candidate have the political capital and

force of will to get things done despite an uncooperative congress? Will the candidate realistically address the

related environmental issues or bend over for special interest groups?

In all, over the last 50 years

politicians have done an exceedingly poor job of dealing with the energy issues resulting in our being held in a

death grip by countries that really don't much like us. Making friends for now may help the short term but it does

not address the many billions of dollars leaving our country in the form of petroleum imports or the vulnerability

of having our country's energy needs provided by other nations. In the middle to long term we cannot afford to

continue the way we are going.

While conservation is an important part of the overall soluton, it is only a

small piece of the solution. People are going to keep being born faster than they die off and each person is going

to continue to use more energy as technology continues to grow. Sources of energy are needed to fuel our nation

because people are not willingly going to accept a drastically lower standard of living and they shouldn't have

too. Nor should it be rammed down their throats when energy sources are available. Realistic and honest discussion

needs to be opened to address our middle to long term energy needs and the presidential candidtes need to be both

willing and able to do so.

[koolking1]

every

single President since Kennedy has stated in their acceptance speech that we need to become less dependent on

foreign energy, all lip service.

[belgareth]

That is called business as

usual and is part of why I am so negative about both parties and their candidates. Did you know that candidates are

not legally bound by their campiagn promises? Shouldn't they be? We deserve better than what we have been getting

for the last 50 years.

[stuttgart-man]

even the best politics can

not prevent that oil availabilities are running low in long term! Perhaps the high oil-price is an opportunity to

change our energy-polic basicly! So we could displace oil by solar and hydrogen! Furthermore the high oil-prices

could stimulate for example the automobile-industry to develope cars which needs only few amounts of fuel! And

lastly the environment would be disburdened!
This all would lead to that we are less dependent on

oil-exporting-countries too!

[belgareth]

There are a large number of

issues here. The US has an abundance of both oil and natural gas. There is not a real shortage of either, only of

foresight. Had presidents started moving things in the right direction thirty years ago we would not be in this

situation today. The recent jump in petroleum prices is not really a supply and demand issue so much as a

speculation and greed issue.

Nuclear power is another good option had we decided to move in that direction but

once again things were put off. Hydrogen cars and fuel cells are both excellent choices even though both produce

water vapor which is considered a greenhouse gas and is supposed to contribute to alleged global warming. Solar is

ok as a low level energy source and is becoming more efficient but still has a long way to go and has certain

limitations in respect to limited energy gathering capabilities and weather considerations.

We have dug our hole

and now we need to get out of it somehow.

[stuttgart-man]

Yes, in the press it is

often reportet, that speculants are responsible for the high energy prices, but I am a little bit sceptically!



If a share become popular on the stock exchange then more and more will buy this share wheras never will sell it!

this leads to higher prices because the market will find a balance between demand and bidding!

But if a

speculant will earn money with raw materials like oil, he will buy a future! In opposite to shares a future is not a

physical ownership about the good! A future is a contract about a good which have to buy/ to sold in future to a

agreed price and a agreed date!

For example the oil-price-future for december is quotes at $120 a barrel and a

speculant buy this future because he expect rising prices!
Now he is justified and commited to buy this oil in

december for $120!

Supposed the oil-prices rises to $140 in december! Now the speculant can (must) buy the oil

for $120! But this would mean the he gets the oil (physically) in form of barrels delivered to his home! As no

speculant want to get such a huge amount of oil he would sell the future on the last trading day! As now the future

quotes at $140 he earns the different of $20!But this offer will lead to lower prices! Shares can be hold for a long

time wheras an oil-future has only a short age and must be sold (if you are a speculant) at the last trading

day!
And as speculants do not create real demand I believe that he should not have a big influence to the price!



But I think that counties like China, India and other emerging markets do create a huge demand! Five years ago in

china most people drive by bike and nowadays more and more people posses a car which needs fuel! And industrial

needs in this counties rises too!

Even if the availabilities of oil in the world is big, the oil (and other raw

materials) needs machines with gets the material/oil from the ground into the earth surface! Perhaps there is not

balance between this machines and needs!

[belgareth]

I understand how speculation

works and it has been the driving force behind high prices. There was no shortage. Even Saudi Oil ministers were

saying the prices were to high and were not justified by demand and available supplies. Increases in supply did

nothing to lower prices. It was a false bubble created by speculation and some speculators are going to take a

financial hit with the drop below $117 a barrel.

Of course machines are needed to produce petroleum. None of the

oil producing countrie were running at capacity, they could have produced more oil had they choosen to do so. It

would not have made any difference as reserves were high. My point is that we should have opened available fields in

the US a long time ago. We would not be in this situation had we done so. We could be utterly independent of OPEC.

Had we begun developing alternative energy at the same time we would be consuming far less oil than we are today. It

is no more than politics and special interest groups getting in the way of dealing with energy issues and the

general citizenry losing out because of it.

[Mtnjim]

My point is

that we should have opened available fields in the US a long time ago. We would not be in this situation had we done

so...


Why bother opening more areas when areas containing about 82% of natural gas and 79% of the oil

available are already open to drilling. Not to mention the 68 million acres of existing permits that go unused?

[belgareth]

I did not say to open more

areas, I said open more available fields, though I suspect your numbers are not correct. However, I refer you to the

following article poted earlier in this thread.






Bill Phillips spent nearly

50 years in the US oil and gas industry; most of his career was with the Phillips Petroleum Company. Bill is a

descendant of Frank Phillips. Frank Phillips, along with his brother Lee Eldas (L.E.) Phillips, Sr., founded the

original Phillips Petroleum Company in 1917 in Bartlesville, OK. Do you remember Phillips 66 gas stations? Phillips

Petroleum Company merged with Conoco, Inc. in 2002 to form the current ConocoPhillips oil

company.

So, when Bill

talks about oil and gas issues, I tend to listen - closely. I think that you will find Bill's thoughts and facts

very revealing, very compelling and very difficult to argue with.



As you prepare to cast your crucial ballots this Fall, please think long and hard

about the far-reaching, cumulative effects of the US political philosophies, policies and legislation that have

contributed to the current and future US oil supply situation.


May 28, 2008



"Big Oil"
Did you know that the United

States does NOT have any big oil companies. It's true: the largest American oil company, Exxon Mobil, is only the

14th largest in the world, and is dwarfed by the really big oil companies--all owned by foreign governments or

government-sponsored monopolies--that dominate the world's oil supply.



This graph below tells the story; you can barely see the American oil companies as minor

players on the right side of the chart in gray. The chart was presented to the House committee last week by

Chevron.

With 94&#37; of the world's oil supply locked up by foreign

governments, most of which are hostile to the United States, the relatively puny American oil companies do not have

access to enough crude oil to significantly affect the market and help bring prices down. Thus, ExxonMobil, a

"small" oil company, buys 90% of the crude oil that it refines for the U.S. market from the big players, i.e,

mostly-hostile foreign governments. The price at the U.S. pump is rising because the price the big oil companies

charge ExxonMobil and the other small American companies for crude oil is going up as the value of the American

dollar goes down. They will eventually bleed this country into printing even more money and we will go into runway

inflation once again as we did under the Carter Democratic reign.

This

is obviously a tough situation for the American consumer. The irony is that it doesn't have to be that way. The

United States--unlike, say, France--actually has vast petroleum reserves. It would be possible for American oil

companies to develop those reserves, play a far bigger role in international markets, and deliver gas at the pump to

American consumers at a much lower price, while creating many thousands of jobs for Americans. This would be

infinitely preferable to shipping endless billions of dollars to Saudi Arabia, Russia and Venezuela to be used in

propping up their economies.

So, why doesn't it happen? Because the

Democrat Party--aided, sadly, by a handful of Republicans--deliberately keeps gas prices high and our domestic oil

companies small by putting most of our reserves off limits to development. China is now drilling in the Caribbean,

off Cuba but our own companies are barred by law from developing large oil fields off the coasts of Florida and

California. Enormous oil-shale deposits in the Rocky Mountain states could go a long way toward supplying American

consumers' needs, but the Democratic Congress won't allow those resources to be developed. ANWR contains vast

petroleum reserves, but we don't know how vast, because Congress, not wanting the American people to know how badly

its policies are hurting our economy, has made it illegal to explore and map those reserves, let alone develop

them.

In short, all Americans are paying a terrible price for the

Democratic Party's perverse energy policies. I own some small interests in tiny, 4 barrel-per-day oil wells in

Wyoming. We have 14 agencies that have iron-hand jurisdiction over us. If we drop any oil on the ground when the

refinery truck comes to pick up oil from our holding tanks, we are fined. Yet down the road the state will spray

thousands of gallons of used oil on a dirt road to control dirt. When it rains that oil runs into rivers and creeks.

Yet a cup of oil on the ground at our wellhead is a $50,000 EPA fine plus additional fines from state regulating

agencies. They treat oil as if it were plutonium that has the potential to leak into the environment. We are fined

if our dirt burms are not high enough around a holding tank, yet the truck that picks up our oil runs down the road

at 60 mph with no burm around it. People wonder why there is no more exploration in this country. It's because of

the regulators; people who have lived their whole lives doing nothing but imposing fines on small operators like us

for doing mostly nothing.

So, America enjoy your $4.00 per gallon

gasoline. Your dollar is now worth 0.62 Euro-Cents. The lack of American production of GNP, the massive trade

deficit (as labor markets have moved overseas to fight insanely high union imposed labor costs in America) and the

run away printing of money (backed by nothing of value here in America) has caused the dollar to become more

worthless on the international market. And that's where our oil comes from. It's paid for with dollars that become

more worthless everyday. If we had just kept par with the Euro we'd be paying $62 dollars per barrel for oil (42

gallons) or about $1.50 instead of $2.50 a gallon for crude oil.

What

the US government also does not tell you is that it is the leaseholder and royalty recipient of most oil production

and receives 25% of the gross oil sales before we pay for electricity to lift the oil, propane to keep the oil-water

separators from freezing in the winters. We pay a pumper to visit each well everyday plus we have equipment failures

all the time. We pay for that out of our 75% of gross sales. The government does not share in any expenses to run

any production well. So, if the Big Oil Companies are making record profits, then so is the federal government from

it's 25% tax on every molecule of oil sold to a refinery in this country. Why isn't the government on the stand

for "Record" profits? What you don't see is this 25% of the sales price of crude oil being siphoned away by the

government. That money plus the road taxes, state taxes, etc. amounts to over $1 per gallon of gasoline you are

buying while the governments only admit to about 50 cents per gallon.



To all you Democrats, when you go vote for your candidate, a blazing liberal like

Barrack Hussein Obama or Hillary Clinton, just keep in mind that their liberal spending habits will further decrease

the value of the American dollar on the world market and your gasoline costs will hike even higher. As they

introduce more give-away programs, raise taxes on everyone to pay people not to produce or work, your dollar will

continue to dwindle on the world market and you will be paying $10.00 per gallon at the next election. Cheap

hydrocarbon fuel is all over. Enjoy! Enjoy the fruits of your decision to elect these folks when you are there in

that voting booth and you stab your pin through a Democrat's name.



William "Bill" Phillips

[Mtnjim]

... I refer

you to the following article poted earlier in this thread.

[b]

Ya, I saw that original post. Don't

you think he might be a smidge biased?

[belgareth]

Certainly, aren't we all? Does

that make all his claims wrong? Should we accept the alternate claim that you quoted?

[Mtnjim]

...Should

we accept the alternate claim that you quoted?

I don't know, how about:



MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5111184)



WASHINGTON - Nearly three-fourths of the 40

million acres of public land currently leased for oil and gas development in the continental United States outside

Alaska isn’t producing any oil or gas, federal records show, even as the Bush administration pushes to open

more environmentally sensitive public lands for oil and gas development.
An Associated Press computer analysis of

Bureau of Land Management records found that 80 percent of federal lands leased for oil and gas production in

Wyoming are producing no oil or gas. Neither are 83 percent of the leased acres in Montana, 77 percent in Utah, 71

percent in Colorado, 36 percent in New Mexico and 99 percent in Nevada


Or this:



Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/11/us-oil-reserves-sought-for-relief/)





But Democratic leaders said allowing drilling in ANWR and other environmentally sensitive areas is

unnecessary because oil companies already are sitting on leases to drill on 68 million acres of federal land in the

contiguous 48 states, and about another 20 million in areas of Alaska outside of ANWR


Then

there's:


The Wall Street Journal (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/06/24/obama-suggests-charging-oil-companies-for-unused-leases/)



Instead of opening more lands to drillers, Obama said he supported a

bill in Congress that would levy a fee on oil companies that have rights to exploit federal property but

don’t. Current law requires oil companies to develop a lease within 10 years or lose it. There are millions of

acres of unexploited, leased lands in the federal inventory; Obama said these lands carry the potential to double

U.S. oil output. “If that compels them to drill, we’ll get more oil,’’ Obama said. “If

it doesn’t, the fees will go toward more investment in renewable sources of energy.’’




Or how about

Congress

itself (http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/images/stories/Documents/truth_about_americas_energy.pdf)?





In the last four years, the Bureau of Land

Management has issued
28,776 permits to drill on public land; yet, in that same time,

18,954 wells were
actually drilled. That means that companies have stockpiled nearly

10,000
extra permits to drill that they are not using to increase domestic

production.