[Masthead] Overcast ~ 50°F  
High: 55°F ~ Low: 49°F
Monday, Dec. 22, 2014

Thoughts on the candidates

Posted Tuesday, February 12, 2008, at 9:27 AM

Rush Limbaugh says he simply will not vote for John McCain because he's supposedly not conservative enough.

Limbaugh, at least, has guts enough to stand up for himself, whether you agree or not with his stance. But are Republicans going to damage their chances by demanding their nominee pass a "litmus test?"

McCain will likely have guts enough to stand up for himself as well -- but will the party platform written for him rein him in?

It seems like some want to slap a label on everything political. Why can't candidates simply be themselves instead of representing a so-called "party platform?"

Why can't someone be, for example, "liberal" in some areas but "conservative" in others -- as, for example, pro-life yet liberal when it comes to the economy?

Meanwhile, my thoughts on the three leading candidates:

John McCain: His admittance that he knows little about economics is troubling. I've paid more attention to comments about his hot temper. Do we need a hothead in office? And is 71 too old? His vice-presidential choice will be extremely critical. Could the president-in-waiting end up being a powerful economic czar?

Hillary R. Clinton: Is it just me or does she come across as arrogant? She also seems like the exact opposite of the kind of woman Bill would be attracted to...but then, as they say, opposites attract. But I like some of her economic plans and they seem more realistic than the other candidates'.

Barack Obama: Great speaker, lots of big plans, few details about how those plans will be funded -- in other words, lots of talk but lack of substance? I like how he talks of the future instead of the past, though.

But I'm not really drawn to any of them. Be thankful our nation doesn't revolve around one leader.


Comments
Showing most recent comments first
[Show in chronological order instead]

AMEN!!!!!!

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Fri, Feb 15, 2008, at 8:32 PM

Most of these groups promote themselves according to the best possible virtues.

Most of their opponents play up the flaws of their worst members.

Before we bring in the demographic groups that apply to a candidate or what affiliations he or she has,let's focus on how that person acts.

In the secular arena,I'd prefer anyone who used and encouraged common sense and integrity (even if they were a green,tentacled,Socialist,fission-reproducing Pastafarian) over someone who alleged being a God-fearing supporter of democracy (and belonged to all the "correct" factions ) yet performed in a manner that was unkind and foolish.

I want to see candidates who offer more deeds than labels and I want those persons to be so noble and competent that all but the worst elements try to claim them as their own.

-- Posted by quantumcat on Fri, Feb 15, 2008, at 2:29 PM

Why on this earth would anyone including you darrick belong to a church that practiced things or supported groups that you did not believe in ..

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 11:33 PM

I've got family ties to slave owners, more than likely Nazi's, Indians, Irish, etc...

None of those ties single handedly define me.

FYI, I did vote for Ron Paul, which is a nice way to switch gears since you can't reply to anything else! But, obviously Ron's chances are seemingly dwindling. So, like I said before, if Ron Paul doesn't make the nomination it will be for a Democrat, b/c Republicans have had far too long to fix things, and all they can do is blame it all on the Dem's!

So let's end this quarreling, b/c you have to search far deeper into yourself, and figure out why YOU, the woman who used to be so open-minded, and considerate of all those in the community, have become another victim of circumstance. I have provided you so much evidence, provided you the debunking site, provided everything you need, and all you can ever do is resort back to the same b/s that will divide the party!

Btw the church you belong to doesn't define you either, my church is a Methodist Church, we preach "Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors", but we practice nearly the opposite. We even stopped giving apportionments b/c the church as a whole was supporting homosexuals who worship the lord. And MY church thinks that only perfect people should worship god.. You know me well enough to know, that just because my church has certain policies, doesn't mean I adhere to or agree with them. I still can't believe you have become Fox's new anchorwoman!

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 11:14 PM

What happen to the, Ron Paul for President. Vote Ron Paul cross over those party lines and vote for Republican Ron Paul. Now it's, got to stand behind the Democrats. Make up your mind which is it cross over or stand behind the Democrats.

I voted for Ron Paul as you said you did also so neither one of us helped put Hillary or Obama on the ticket. In fact if the truth be known I guess you could say I helped put Obama on the ticket because my vote would have went to Hillary.

And please do show me were I have EVER stated Obama was a Muslim I said he has family ties to the Muslims.Which he does. If his father, step father and grandparents aren't family ties then what the heck are they!

And if you think the Trinity Church of Christ is your normal Church of Christ please do think again. I do not know of any CHRISTIAN churches that supports Muslim ministers or even why they would. But Trinity Church of Christ does..and that my friend is FACT. Go to the Trinity Church of Christ website and read their trumpet magazine in reference to The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan,then read his OFFICIAL website http://www.noi.org/

But I guess that is all just part of the smear campaign isn't it?

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 10:58 PM

Well Diana, you have answerd my questions.. All of your arguments, including the false and misleading arguments about Obama, were OPINIONS!

Well I can rest easy, assuring myself that opinions are valuable, so long as they aren't presented as FACT!

-- Posted by nascarfanatic on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 10:17 PM

I don't need a CREDIBLE SOURCE for my opinion.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 10:04 PM

Then stop pretending him being Muslim is true!!!

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 10:11 PM

I don't need a CREDIBLE SOURCE for my opinion.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 10:04 PM

Do you work for FOX..oops I mean FAUX news? Because that sure does sound like them...

-- Posted by Disturbia on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 10:09 PM

Actually I was referring to BUSH not McCain and everything I said about him being a FREAKING BIBLE THUMPING STEALING LYING CHEATING REPUBLICAN GOOD OLE BOY! is the truth, not a lie and not a misrepresentation of that man, it's the plain simple truth. I am not a bigot, a bigot judges someone based on what they THINK they know about someone and their religion, race, etc, Bush himself said that God wanted him to be president so that in fact makes him a bible thumper. and he does lie, cheat and steal. So good try but no cookie for you....oh and he is definently a Republican, so no falsehoods or assumptions from me..ALL FACT unlike your assumptions of Obama based on his NAME and ancestory.

-- Posted by Disturbia on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 10:08 PM

I don't need a CREDIBLE SOURCE for my opinion.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 10:04 PM

Diana, what is your deal? Your excuses for not liking a Presidential candidate are based on fallacies and complete misrepresentations reported by biased news media...

I wouldn't so proud to have that be my only reason for not liking someone. I voted for Hillary, and I am a grown man. Now what if I campaigned against her, spread viscious, unproven, ridiculous lies about her, simply b/c I "don't think this country is ready for a woman"... what are your thoughts on that? It has the same DNA as your attempt to discredit a candidate based on pure non-sense...

How can we expect a Democrat to win, if Democrats themselves have become blinded by the recent uprising of right-wing b/s! If Bush were saying all this about Obama, would you even care? Well, the people who voted for him, and the uneducated electorate are who is responsible for the dumbing down of what America is truly supposed to resemble!

-- Posted by nascarfanatic on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 10:00 PM

Again, not a SINGLE CREDIBLE SOURCE!

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 9:54 PM

Don't put words in my mouth never once did I say I hated Obama nor do I have a grudge against him..

I do not like him period..the only thing I have ever heard him talk about is change all I want to know is what kind of change. I don't think he is right for America or the Presidential seat..not because he is Black either..

Have you ever even looked at the Trinity Church of Christ website?

I don't like McCain either but OMG he's white now I am racist against two races...

Me not liking Obama because of his Muslim roots is no different than you not liking McCain because of him being a FREAKING BIBLE THUMPING STEALING LYING CHEATING REPUBLICAN GOOD OLE BOY!(your words)

I guess that wouldn't be a bigot though would it?

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 9:48 PM

Lastly, I am not changing your mind, nor am I trying to.. But the HEART is where hatred starts.. The mind will never be changed if the heart is holding the grudge!

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 9:04 PM

WOW!! SO TRUE!!

-- Posted by Disturbia on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 9:06 PM

Lastly, I am not changing your mind, nor am I trying to.. But the HEART is where hatred starts.. The mind will never be changed if the heart is holding the grudge!

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 9:04 PM

Well according to the Obama camp it is Hillary who is spreading these "Falsehoods".

I am not trying to convince you or anyone else of anything except don't believe it just because Obama says it is the truth.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 8:44 PM

WAIT A MINUTE, YOU JUST TOLD ME THAT JUST BECAUSE OBAMA SAYS IT DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE [concerning his religion], how then do you use his campaign as a rebuttal to this ridiculous infiltration of pathetic news!

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 9:00 PM

And..IF and that's big IF, what in the world does him being MUSLIM have to do with anything...look where the "Christians" got us, is this country really any better now? I don't care if he is half orange, half yellow,gay, and an athiest...ANYTHING IS BETTER THAN A FREAKING BIBLE THUMPING STEALING LYING CHEATING REPUBLICAN GOOD OLE BOY!

-- Posted by Disturbia on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 8:59 PM

AMEN!

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 8:57 PM

Ever since Obama has been a front runner in this campaign, Diana has been no better than Fox when it comes to smear tactics. I recall in another blog where she said that "him being (supposedly) muslim" would affect the American way of life and I ask how and she has still yet to answer that question. If she truly looked deep into herself then I have no doubt this has to do with race and not him being a Muslim...WHICH HE ISN'T...she tells us over and over again to NOT believe things we read or are told is the truth, yet she can't follow her own advice because she is buying every piece of BS there is out about him.

I hope she sticks to a comment in a earlier blog that said she won't vote if it comes down to him and McCain and then she can stop complaining.

-- Posted by Disturbia on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 8:55 PM

The fact that you think Obama said the Hillary camp is producing this information is just as crazy as the Clinton campaign accusing the Obama staff of letting everyone know she's a woman!

I am saddended that you, of all people, have resorted to this political spin and choose to believe it, as though nobody has proved it inaccurate!

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 8:52 PM

DID YOU READ MY POST? www.snopes.com does NOT = Obama! And no it is not Hillary, it is the REPORTER from FOX who started this crap... And it is FOX and other Conservative sites/blogs/forums who engage in ludicrous slandering and libel! Why be a part of something like that?

You want change, well acting like a Republican won't get you that!

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 8:48 PM

Well according to the Obama camp it is Hillary who is spreading these "Falsehoods".

I am not trying to convince you or anyone else of anything except don't believe it just because Obama says it is the truth.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 8:44 PM

And admitting you are wrong couldn't start with an attitude that you are right.. such as "I wouldn't bet the farm"... I didn't vote for Hillary, and I didn't vote for Obama, nor am I attacking the other Republicans... I am simply standing up for a man, who has no ties with the Muslim community other than his MIDDLE and LAST NAME! Again, if the name makes the person, then we have become the country that has forgotten what matters.

This relentlessness of yours is NO different than some insane MALE CHAUVANIST griping about Hillary SOLEY based on her gender... In which I would defend her as well! The irony... we have had an excuse of a president for 8 YEARS, and when Democrats can't stand behind other Democrats and become part of the Republican slaughter. Gender, Race, Religion.. NONE of which are requirements to become president.. And our founding fathers were smart enough to know why.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 8:32 PM

"Free to believe".. there is a difference in believing something that is true and continuing to spread the lies that are unsubstantiated and perpetrated by the likes of people/media that you normally don't get your information from.

Can you list your sources, that would be a nice start.. And when you do list those sorces, search on www.snopes.com, right after that and if your thoughts are still withstanding, then there is nothing I or any other source can do.

Remember, the media you are listening to, is the same media that lied about WMDs.. What makes them so right, all of a sudden?

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 8:24 PM

Who are you trying to convince me or you? As I said before you are free to believe whatever you wish, as I am..I am not by any means trying to get you to change your mind about Obama. Just be open minded enough to believe everything out there is not an out and out lie. Believe me if he does get the nomination the smear or rumor or truth will come out you can be sure of that the Republicans will see to that..and then it will be too little too late, if indeed there is any truth to any of this and we will be left with the likes of McCain.

Again I hope I am wrong about Obama and if by some act of God he gets the Presidential seat he becomes the best President we have ever had, I will be the first to say I was wrong about him. It wouldn't be the first time I was wrong and certainly will not be the last.

But I wouldn't bet the farm on it, if I were you.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 8:12 PM

Very good Darrick. With a person like Obama there is bound to be a lot of misinformation circulated. Although I have voted Republican in the past, I might just vote for him if he is the Democratic nominee. If for no other reason than that he is so unconventional.

-- Posted by devan on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 6:49 PM

Sorry, I forgot I can't post pictures on here :( so that one I was referring to didn't show up

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 6:23 PM

I didn't vote for Bush either time he ran for office and have no intention of voting for McCain either. McCain is nothing more than Bush's sock puppet.

Quite honestly I hope you are right I hope Obama is exactly what he says he is..but there is just too many links to his past for me to feel comfortable about him being our Leader.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 1:50 PM

Remeber those nasty emails about Obama? I only got the second of these two:

One claims that Obama is "certainly a racist" by virtue of belonging to Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, which it says "will accept only black parishoners" and espouses a commitment to Africa. Actually, a white theology professor says he's been "welcomed enthusiastically" at the church, as have other non-blacks.

Another e-mail claims that Obama "is a Muslim," attended a "Wahabi" school in Indonesia, took his Senate oath on the Koran, refuses to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and is part of an Islamic plot to take over the U.S. Each of these statements is false.

These false appeals to bigotry and fear remind us of the infamous whispering campaign of eight years ago, when anonymous messages just before the South Carolina primary falsely accused Republican candidate John McCain of fathering an illegitimate child by a black woman.

As for the accusations against his church, this e-mail is not the first place they have come up. Nearly a year ago conservative blogger Erik Rush called the church "cultish" and "separatist" in a Feb. 2007 interview on FOX NEWS[u know the network that I hate, and presumably you don't like either] "Hannity and Colmes" and questioned whether its parishioners could consider themselves Americans or Christians.

Remember that oft-forwarded e-mail falsely claiming that Obama is a Muslim and suggesting that he is part of an Islamic plot to take over the U.S. "from the inside out" with "one of their own." ?? This screed reads like the outline of a bad remake of the 1962 movie The Manchurian Candidate, in which Frank Sinatra unravels a Communist plot to make "one of their own" the president.

There is little excuse for those who continue to circulate this one. The most audacious falsehood it contains (of several) is a claim near the top: "We checked this out on 'snopes.com'. It is factual. Check for yourself." Anyone who actually does that would quickly find that Snopes.com, the respected debunker of urban myths, judges the message to be "false." And yet there continues to be examples by others who either don't take the time to check, or who don't care that they are repeating false and damaging statements.

An article, citing anonymous sources, claimed that "Mr. Obama, 45, spent at least four years in a so-called madrassa, or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia." But this allegation was quickly shown to be false. Days after the article appeared, CNN sent reporter John Vause to Jakarta, Indonesia, to visit the school. He reported:

CNN interviewed the school's deputy headmaster, Hardi Priyono, who said: "This is a public school. We don't focus on religion."

That same day, Obama's Senate office issued a press release saying the claims in the magazine story were false and citing CNN and other reports. Subsequent news stories in The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times and The Chicago Tribune found no merit in the madrassa claim. Obama's childhood in Indonesia, a country with the world's largest Muslim population, is not something he has attempted to hide. He dedicates pages in his best-selling book "Dreams from My Father" to his life overseas.

Swore on Koran? The e-mail says "when he was sworn into office he DID NOT use the Holy Bible, but instead the Koran" -- bunk yet again. Obama did not place his hand on the Koran when he was sworn into the U.S. Senate. This claim confuses Obama with the first and only Muslim member of Congress, Democratic House member Keith Ellison of Minnesota. Obama was sworn in using his own Bible, as widely reported in newspaper accounts and pictured above. That's his wife holding the Bible with Vice President Dick Cheney swearing him in. (Under the Constitution, the vice president serves as president of the Senate.)

Pledge of Allegiance? The slime doesn't stop there. The e-mail also claims Obama "will NOT recite the Pledge of Allegiance nor will he show any reverence for our flag" and that "while others place their hands over their hearts, Obama turns his back to the flag and slouches."

A point not raised in this e-mail: Some have complained that Obama should have placed his hand over his heart during the singing of the anthem, as pictured in the Time photo. It is true that the U.S. Code states that "all present except those in uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart." But the word "should" rather than "shall" makes that a recommendation and not a legal requirement. To confirm, we spoke with Anne Garside, director of communication for the Maryland Historical Society -- home of the original manuscript of "The Star-Spangled Banner," and asked if anyone could be punished for not placing their hands over their hearts during the national anthem. She quickly replied, "Oh, of course not," adding that "there is no obligation to put your hand over your heart." Garside told us she has been asked numerous times about this rumor and finds the controversy to have "gotten a little bit ridiculous."

Some videos: http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/in...

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/in...

Sorry for the lengthy response, but I got more accomplished in this blog than Bush has in all of his "State of the Union" addresses combined!

ANY MORE QUESTIONS???

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 6:10 PM

Yes, that's what they say espoontoon. Most African-Americans "Blacks" are of "African race and Caucasian race".

Here is some things about Barack Obama.

http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/Barack...

Also

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

-- Posted by Momof3&3step&1gran on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 2:05 PM

I didn't vote for Bush either time he ran for office and have no intention of voting for McCain either. McCain is nothing more than Bush's sock puppet.

Quite honestly I hope you are right I hope Obama is exactly what he says he is..but there is just too many links to his past for me to feel comfortable about him being our Leader.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 1:50 PM

YOU CANNOT base someone on what their family was. My family owned slaves and fought proudly (in their eyes) in the civil war. DOESN'T MAKE ME A SLAVE OWNER, my family roots are buried deep in the Baptist religion, doesn't make me a baptist. In fact, I am agnostic, the complete opposite. We, as adults, have the will to be who we choose to be. Take a look back at your family tree and see if you would like to be compared to some of your family members I am sure Charles Mansons family weren't murderers, etc etc. You cannot judge one person based on his or her family. I was NEVER once gung ho on Bush, I did my research and knew he was a weasel from the very beginning.

You are basing this on his name and what his ancestors were and that's not fair to him.

"I certainly wouldn't want a Right Wing Christian Bible thumper "

Well you got that with BUSH...

I have watched EVERY thing on the candidates and NOT ONE TIME have I seen one Muslim leader come out in support of Obama.

Either way, it's coming down to him and McCain and if you choose not to vote then don't complain and if you choose to vote for McCain and he wins then let me thank you in advance for 4 more years of the complete Hades that we have now and 4 more years of horrible health care, higher taxes, more recession and higer gas prices.....because that will all be on those of you that are too blinded by what a man's family is and not what the man HIMSELF is.

Once again, ask yourself, would you like to be judged on what your ANCESTORS were or were not?

-- Posted by Disturbia on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 1:43 PM

Just because you say he isn't a Muslim does not make it a fact.

Look at history just 8 short years ago everybody was so gun-ho Bush. Saying the things that people said about Bush were false, even going so far as to publish transcripts to prove they were lies...and hey guess what? Now we find out all those so called lies weren't lies at all.

I never once said Obama was a practicing Muslim in fact I stated quite the opposite. I stated his father, his step father, his grandmother, his grandfather were all Muslims. That he has strong family ties to the Muslim culture. I even went as far as to say Trinity Church of Christ was not your normal Church of Christ…that they also supported Muslim ministers. And I did not like the idea of having someone with such strong Family ties to a culture that I do not believe in becoming President of the United States. It is also a fact that Muslims are born into their religion and culture, regardless of whether Obama sees himself as a Muslim or not, they will always see him as one of them. There are many different cultures I would not want in the White House, just not Muslims. I certainly wouldn't want a Right Wing Christian Bible thumper nor would I want a complete and utterly profound atheist either. If that makes me a Bigot then, Oh well!!!!

Yes there is SUPPOSE to be a separation of church and state but we both know that is not the case…a President is human and they will bring with them their beliefs and their history whether you agree with it or not.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 1:29 PM

Then why can't you come up with any other reason NOT to like him than his "supposed" religion? Which isn't even true...

-- Posted by Disturbia on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 12:45 PM

>>I am confused, I sincerly think you are against him because he is black and you are just using the muslim thing to mask your racism. <<

You sincerely have no idea what you are talking about.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 12:40 PM

So I told him that I don't believe him.....guess what? I still don't believe him. I'm still searching for the big deal......

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 12:35 PM

I am not on here calling names like kids on a playground. K, thanx

-- Posted by Disturbia on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 12:31 PM

Wow Laurasft needs to take a chill pill on this subject. I do believe it was between Nathan and Dianatn. He called her a bigot (and you got all defensive) and you just called him a liar, which makes YOU no better. Name calling is name calling no matter what!

-- Posted by Disturbia on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 10:34 AM

Yea well, I didn't see anyone ask for your 2 cents either, so take your own advice, k?

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 12:26 PM

Obama was simply named after his father, this in no way makes him a muslim, you are just simply assuming that he is. and you ask what he did for Illinois..here are just a few..

As a state legislator, Obama gained bipartisan support for legislation reforming ethics and health care laws. He sponsored a law enhancing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for childcare. Obama also led the passage of legislation mandating videotaping of homicide interrogations, and a law to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they stopped. During his 2004 general election campaign for U.S. Senate, he won the endorsement of the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police, whose president credited Obama for his active engagement with police organizations in enacting death penalty reforms.

He is a member of Trinity United Church of Christ is a megachurch, the largest congregation of the United Church of Christ, with 10,000 members. It is also one of the largest African-American churches in Chicago, Illinois

IT IS AN AFRICAN AMERICAN CHURCH...does that make it muslim? I am confused, I sincerly think you are against him because he is black and you are just using the muslim thing to mask your racism.

And your name is Diana...doesn't make you the Princess of Wales now does it?

-- Posted by Disturbia on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 12:21 PM

Geez guys...

How about something different...

Is Obama really a 'black' candidate?

That is all the press talks about.

First black president yadayadayada

I thought he was half caucasian...

-- Posted by espoontoon on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 11:01 AM

Me not voting for Obama based on his Muslim roots is my preference as an American. My family is just as multi-cultural as the next persons. It has nothing to do with Obama being black actually I could care less if he were green so do not even bring the race card into this. I am concerned that Obama would favor the Muslims over other cultures. Obama screams about change but never really speaks of the changes he wants. What has he done for Chicago or Illinois for that matter?

Sure Obama says he is not Muslim, he would be crazy to say he was, when trying to be elected President of the United States and one thing Obama isn't, is crazy.

It is just not a chance I am willing to take maybe you have no problem with that chance but I do and that is my right. This, my friend, is one thing I can honestly say, I truly hope that if Obama is elected President I am not able to come back here and say " I told you so"

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 10:44 AM

Wow Laurasft needs to take a chill pill on this subject. I do believe it was between Nathan and Dianatn. He called her a bigot (and you got all defensive) and you just called him a liar, which makes YOU no better. Name calling is name calling no matter what!

and WHO CARES what religion he is, I personally have had ENOUGH of the so-called "Christian" good ole boys running the country. Anybody with half a brain can see their 7.5 years have done nothing but destroy us and that man was voted in because "he was a good christian boy with a strong faith" ON PLEASE.....I don't see Obama trying to push his religion on anybody. (if in fact that is his true religion) Decisions need to be made with your conscience and your brain..NOT THE BIBLE.

and like Darrick said, he can't help what name he was given. He had no choice in it.

-- Posted by Disturbia on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 10:34 AM

I gave you an honest answer.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 9:36 AM

And yada yada yada, blah blah blah, I don't believe you! From conversations we have had before it is clear to me now that you, my friend, are lying!

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 9:26 AM

Regardless whether anyone wants to admit it or not we all have different views on what we would like to see happen in America. There are people who would not vote for a Christian Bible thumper just because of his beliefs there are those who would not vote for a homosexual just because of their lifestyle. Maybe we all have a little bit of a bigot in us...don't we?

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 9:24 AM

I don't think that I would pass judgment on a person sight unseen simply because they were homosexual. If you remember our discussion on homosexuals then you remember that in the end I conceded that if science proves that a person is born gay then homosexuality would have to be accepted by the majority and also that Darrick changed my opinion about gays being allowed to serve openly in the military.

BTW... Thank you for reminding me about that discussion. You may remember Dianatn's comments about black slaves. It all makes sense now.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 9:23 AM

You're avoiding! I asked you nicely the first time and I don't believe that anyone who spouts off and calls someone else a bigot for having different beliefs from their own deserves to be asked anything nicely! We all know what the answer is....if the candidate was gay you would not be in favor of him/her.

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 9:14 AM

Ask me nicely and I might.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 9:12 AM

I wasn't aware that you had forgotten so quickly...you remeber the diseased homosexual debate we had going ended up with something over 200 comments it seems....either way, ANSWER THE QUESTION!

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 9:05 AM

Wait! Lemme take that back considering I KNOW Nathan.....let's say that candidate was homosexual....now what?

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 8:44 AM

And for the record I have no idea who you are and we have never met. You do not know me.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 8:58 AM

Hmmm, that sounds like an odd way of saying that the same shoe fits on YOUR foot, just in a different style!

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 8:47 AM

Sounds like I answered your first question before refreshing and seeing your homosexual question.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 8:55 AM

Hmmm, that sounds like an odd way of saying that the same shoe fits on YOUR foot, just in a different style!

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 8:47 AM

Barack Obama is not a Muslim extremist or any other type of religious extremist. Barack Obama isn't even a Muslim. Neither question you asked is relevant.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 8:45 AM

Wait! Lemme take that back considering I KNOW Nathan.....let's say that candidate was homosexual....now what?

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 8:44 AM

Ok Nathan, Diana may not mind you but to me you're more than a little annoying.....#1 If there were a candidate running that was a known extremely conservative Christian and he made no bones about it, would you not be concerned he would lead from his Bible and not from his head? #2 How is that any different from what Diana is expressing about concerns she has with Mr. Obama?

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 8:36 AM

If indeed it makes me a bigot not to want a President who has Muslim family ties then so be it.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 8:26 AM

Thank you for proving my point.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 8:29 AM

Don't worry about it Laura when someone like Nathan Evans calls me a bigot because of what I feel is right, it doesn't bother me in the least. Because I would rather be a bigot than to be like him.

If indeed it makes me a bigot not to want a President who has Muslim family ties then so be it.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 8:26 AM

Woah! I don't think that makes her a bigot.

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 8:20 AM

That's just a bunch of nonsense Dianatn. Do you really think that Barack Obama lied about his father being a Muslim? How can he hide his Muslim ties with a name like Barack Obama? That's just dumb! No self respecting person would ever feel the need to lie about their or their parents' heritage in order to gain acceptance from bigots like you.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 8:13 AM

When Barack Hussein Obama was born he was given a Muslim name, identical to that of his father and grandfather. His mother married two (2) Muslims, Baracks's father and a second Muslim who brought her and Barack to Indonesia. In Indonesia, Obama's parents identified him as a Muslim, and he studied Islam. All of these are facts on which no one disagrees and everyone agrees.

The only "hoax" in all of this has been the way the "mainstream media" have been trying to tamp down any coverage of Obama's religion

The Post was incorrect in stating, "Mr. Obama has never tried to hide his past or his family name." That's a real hoax and a real media lie by the Post itself. Obama has done everything he can to craft a fictional reality for himself on national television. Never in recent American politics has there been such a spurious, self-invented candidate who literally conjured up most of his family history.

Obama told the story of his father being a sheep herder and a Christian. Nothing is further from the truth.

Step back just a minute and use your brain "Why is he lying to America about his Muslim past?"

According to Muslim law, Islamic law, the penalty for leaving the faith is death. Today, Barack Obama proclaims his adherence to the Christian faith, he's a member of a church in Chicago -- they say he's not a regular churchgoer, but he's a member -- but will this make him a potential death target? Renouncing Islam and taking another faith is subject to the death penalty under Islamic law. Free choice has nothing to do with it. It doesn't work that way. To them, you are what you are, and if you were born the child of a Muslim father, you are a Muslim for life, whether you like it or not. And the penalty for trying to break away is death.

So again I say Believe what you will but just stop and think for a moment maybe just maybe YOU are the one being fed the propaganda. I've done my research, now do yours.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 2:59 AM

Exactly... Nobody has a choice over the name their parents give them. And not everyone believes just as their parents do. You can't blame a man for being given a name, for it worth nothing.

We could build a geneology tree all day and link our names back to horrific and wonderful people in history, but Obama is an individual who has defied all odds in his life. He is not a terrorist, and until we get out of this fear of someone's name simply having an Islamic tone, then we will never as a people progress. It's these kind of tactics which I despise, I received the lovely email from a bunch of Christian folks spreading around lies about him.

The only thing Muslim about him is his name, that's no different than my last name being German. I sure can't stand the thought of being possibly linked to Hitler, for the man was a disgrace to humankind. See what I mean. I, you, nor any of us have a choice over our birth names. If so, probably 70% of us would be called something else.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Feb 14, 2008, at 12:07 AM

Darrick it is not just what I am being fed. There are many reasons I believe he is or even was a Muslim. I strongly believe he has Muslim roots or his parents would not have named him a Muslim name. If indeed his family were Christian they would have never named their child Hussein.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Wed, Feb 13, 2008, at 12:19 PM

No, darrick is right. You are being fed propaganda. If you did any research, you would know where his name came from. He was named after his father, also named Barack Hussein Obama. His father was raised a muslim, but divorced his mother when he was two years old, and moved away. His mother was an atheist.

-- Posted by Richard on Wed, Feb 13, 2008, at 11:47 PM

Harvard, Yale, Princeton.. all those schools from which this administration is derived [I should add]

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Wed, Feb 13, 2008, at 7:16 PM

What happened to all those anti socialists fanatics who were once so rampant on this blog? Maybe they are digging through that pile of crap they've been fed by the Bush administration that has gotten so deep it blinded their view of reality...Bush and his administration are the opitome of a socialist regime, if only they knew how to fund it...In America, math is a fundamental subject that all students are taught, to some degree.

I guess even when you attend Harvard you can be dumb as a rock... INCREASING SPENDING, while CUTTING TAXES does NOT = a balanced budget... It's easy for a president to say "American's have to live on balanced checkbooks so they should expect the same from their government"... Mr. President, it's quite easy for you to say that, since the only thing you've been doing is running in the red, and IF it is truly going to balanced, it will be FOUR YEARS after you are out of office... What a lofty goal? And we wonder why American's have horrible spending habits, just look at our current President... I think the BIGGEST theme that this administration can carry with them will be "DO AS WE SAY, NOT AS WE DO!"

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Wed, Feb 13, 2008, at 7:14 PM

I agree we do need change but we need change for the better. Never be so naive to believe, all change is good. I certainly hope Hillary gets the nomination, it is way too close right now to call and that, my friend, makes me very nervous about the type of change Obama screams so loudly about. I am all for change as long as it benefits all Americans, not just special interest groups.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Wed, Feb 13, 2008, at 12:53 PM

I think before the Bush administration vacates the White House, we should reflect on its wonderful achievements: A $300 billion deficit that erased a surplus left by the Clinton administration. An increase in the number of Americans without health care, while Congress lines up every year to pick what health plan they want, and we pay for 75 percent of that with our taxes.

Korea sold 700,000 vehicles to the United States in 2006, while the United States was only allowed to ship 5,000 vehicles to Korea. Then in 2007, the Bush administration negotiated a free trade agreement with Korea that eliminated U.S. tariffs on imported Korean autos. We can thank President Bush for putting another nail in the coffin of the U.S. auto industry.

I also want to thank President Bush for the three Republican members of the National Labor Relations Board that he appointed who gutted workers' NLRB rights in a series of bad, anti-worker decisions.

A great big thanks for vetoing a bill that would have provided $35 billion in increased funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). And I also want to thank the Republicans in Congress that supported him.

How insulting to the families of the United States does a political party have to get before we ride them out of office? I have had enough of this attack on working families. I want the American workers to come first in any trade agreement. I want our elderly, children and veterans taken care of and our jobs protected, not sent to other countries for cheap labor, while the upper 10 percent in this country reap the harvest of this so-called "family values" administration.

With a president who has an approval rating slightly higher than 25 percent, a recession and a lingering war based on lies, it's time for Democrats to control the executive branch, the Senate and the House.

We can't allow ourselves to fall for the same rhetoric about taxes. No one likes paying them, but they certainly are not our affliction. They are our protection by the services we all may need and our empowerment that let us travel on the roads of this great nation. They also let the big CEOs, who pay less, move their products, for the most part in containers from overseas.

While Congress gets the best health care on us, the Republicans cry "socialism" when universal health care is brought up. No American should be without quality, affordable health care.

In November, we need to get out and vote. We need a new leader. We need the Democrats to take the Presidency and begin to turn this Country around. We have two great choices with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. I'm casting my vote for Hillary.

As president, Hillary will lower taxes for middle class families by extending the middle class tax cuts including child tax credit and marriage penalty relief, offering new tax cuts for healthcare, college and retirement, and expanding the EITC and the child care tax credit.

She will harness the power of innovation to create high wage jobs of the 21st Century. Investments in alternative energy can create new jobs for the 21st century; expanded access to broadband will bring opportunities to underserved and disadvantaged communities; the manufacturing base can be re-energized through creative partnerships; and increased government support for research will stimulate the development of new technologies and life-saving medicines. Hillary will restore integrity to science policy, reversing Bush administration policies that are holding our nation back.

She will empower our workers and ensure that all Americans contribute their fair share. Hillary will ensure that unions, which have played an important role in forming and sustaining the middle class, are strong. She will also ensure that trade policies work for average Americans. Trade policy must raise our standard of living, and they must have strong protections for workers and the environment.

Hillary will restore the basic bargain that if Americans work hard and take responsibility, government will do its part to make sure they have the tools to get ahead.

She will return to fiscal responsibility. After six and a half year of President Bush's fiscal irresponsibility, Hillary wants America to regain control of its destiny. She will move back toward a balanced budget and surpluses. Hillary believes that we should develop a set of budget rules similar to those we had in the 90s which required us to fund new expenditures with new revenues or cuts in other areas.

Even if you're not casting your vote for Hillary, please get out there and vote. We desperately need change, and it will take the Democrats to make such change. Whether it be Clinton or Obama.... please get out and vote.

-- Posted by Disturbia on Wed, Feb 13, 2008, at 12:38 PM

If indeed his family were Christian they would have never named their child Hussein.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Wed, Feb 13, 2008, at 12:19 PM

I'm not implying that he came from Christian roots b/c I don't believe it either but I do know a few who DID come from Christian roots yet named there children Damien. Just throwing that out there.

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Wed, Feb 13, 2008, at 12:24 PM

Darrick it is not just what I am being fed. There are many reasons I believe he is or even was a Muslim. I strongly believe he has Muslim roots or his parents would not have named him a Muslim name. If indeed his family were Christian they would have never named their child Hussein. I also have a very big problem with the church he is supposedly connected with..these are my views of what this church represents and who they support, not from fed propaganda. I can read just fine and they have a website , that I totally do not agree with. For me this is the same as you saying you would not vote for Huckabee because he is a religious nutt.. Why would a Christian church support Muslim ministers? It is not all propaganda, some of it, I am sure has been blown way out of proportion but there is still a truth there we are not being informed of and I do not want another leader who is elected on lies.

I could honestly care less what religion or even what color he is but I have a problem with the culture the Muslims are bringing into the United States. Thank God it is still my right to think and believe whatever I feel is right, for now anyway. And personally I would not vote for Obama, if he was the only person running.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Wed, Feb 13, 2008, at 12:19 PM

Actually the NAACP isn't endorsing either Clinton or Obama, and IF those votes are seated, Clinton will win the majority.. By those votes not counting, it essentially means millions of Floridians and couple hundred thousand people in Michigan had no part in the democratic process...

He's not Muslim, if he were don't you think his wife would be dressed as Muslim women are. What about his children? We need to get over this religious mentality that somehow he is going to ruin our country. [I think the only direction it can go is up from here, hopefully]

And Diana, I just hate to see someone like you be so anti Obama, when the propaganda you've been fed comes from the very people you despise.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Wed, Feb 13, 2008, at 12:00 PM

Actually if it does come down to Obama and McCain I will not vote at all..if that is the best we can offer personally I could not be party to putting either one in the Presidential seat. I realize my one vote will not stop either one from being elected but at least I will know I did not have anything to do with putting them there.

And I have yet to understand why the popular vote does not count as much as the Delegate votes.

In my humble opinion the NAACP needs to stay out of it completely. If we allow them to call the shots before Obama is even elected, what on earth are they going to do if he is elected?

-- Posted by Dianatn on Wed, Feb 13, 2008, at 9:54 AM

Well, if it comes down to those two I will vote for Obama, but it is far from over, I can't stand the media trying to dictate who we are going to elect.

If they would stop projecting winners, perhaps people will realize there are other choices... Clinton will probably wrap up the big three that are left, Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The problem I have with the Democratic party is the stupid system of Superdelegates. It completely compromisies democracy and a select few can really decide the election.

Also, the NAACP are asking for Florida's and Michigan's delegates to be seated. Which Hillary won. So it should get interesting. The Republican Contest will come down to a brokered convention, if Huckabee could take a few major states from Mccain... [neither of which I care for]

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Wed, Feb 13, 2008, at 9:12 AM

Is it looking to you like our choices for President will be Obama and McCain? Not much of a choice from where I am sitting.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Tue, Feb 12, 2008, at 11:24 PM

No problem nathan. I hope to read some thought provoking blogs from yourself soon. I always love to read your responses, and usually choose not to respond because you, darrick_04, and a couple of others take the words right out from under my fingers...

Can't wait to hear more from your point of view soon! :)

-- Posted by nascarfanatic on Tue, Feb 12, 2008, at 10:01 PM

Interesting info on the SSA plan there nascarfanatic. Thanks.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Tue, Feb 12, 2008, at 9:57 PM

I love how Disturbia and Darrick actually DO their research before commenting on a blog. It's nice to see people with their ducks in a row! I'll admit, I don't read the blogs as much as I'd like to......but, it's because of stuff like this. It's ok to disagree........but, at least have some facts to back your statements up!

As for the talk of the candidates at the beginning of the blog.....I'll admit......I had to laugh a little when David spoke of Hillary being arrogant! (That's what I've said from the get-go!) BUT, I'm beginning to see that she might be what we need to fix the "mess" we're in right now! (Just go take another look at the list Darrick provided that "Mr. Bush and company" has done!)

I just simply wish more people would research the candidates a little more thoughouly. It's nobody else's business who you vote for, unless you make it be! I get so frustrated when I see someone basing their opinions off others because they can't make their brains function properly enough to make one decision for themselves! Does anyone else feel that way???????

It's not hard at all to look at these candidates and see their strong points and their weaknessess!

I know I'm rambling....and a bit off topic.....so, I'll stop! I just felt like putting my 2 cents in! :)

-- Posted by Krysi on Tue, Feb 12, 2008, at 7:57 PM

At present, every worker in the U.S.A has 6.4 percent deducted from his or her wages to fund their SSA pension, with the employer paying a matching amount. Under the Bush plan, 2 percent of this money would be given to private banks instead. Young workers today would be given the 'option' of opening a 401k-like pension account that would be chained to the stock market. At a time when millions of workers have already seen their employer-provided 401k accounts shrink into oblivion this is not a rosy picture! As well as dumping the SSA pension system down the Wall Street toilet, future SSA benefits received would be tied to inflation, not to wage growth as they are now. The plan would also force physically and mentally disabled recipients to re-apply every two years, a scheme to deny these people their rightful pension and put them onto the labor market. The Bush plan would almost immediately create a $2 trillion shortfall.

The Bush Social Security plan is mostly based on the scheme created by the Cato Institute Project, a Wall Street 'think-tank'. The Cato Institute is financed by American Express, the brokerage firm of Alex Brown & Co. and the finance giant American International Group. Bush's plan would largely dismantle the Social Security Administration and transfer millions of pensions to these same Wall Street vultures, to the tune of $940 billion over 75 years in "management fees" alone.

The Republican Party and the Bush Administration is without a doubt one of the most reactionary bourgeois political machines in U.S. history. During its first term, this Administration turned a blind eye while billionaire capitalists looted the private pensions of thousands of workers in a series of scandals. It left millions of unemployed workers stranded by refusing to extend benefits despite the recession. It has already brought about the worst fiscal crisis in U.S. history with its war spending and tax cuts for the wealthy. It has taken us to war by a whole collection of lies, while the Vice-President's own company makes millions off of the war. George W. Bush is the most perfect representative of modern imperialism: ignorant, arrogant, and short-sighted.

Hmm... Apparenlty puppydinks and company have spent too much time blaming Democrats for the future that he has forgotten the horrific and chaotic past and present created by those lovely "anti social" Republicans!

-- Posted by nascarfanatic on Tue, Feb 12, 2008, at 6:32 PM

And lastly, the reason Bush and the accomoanying NEOcons started this war, is b/c they knew they would never finish it...

It's easy to make a big ol mess, as long as an entirely different person has to clean it up!

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Tue, Feb 12, 2008, at 6:11 PM

You know puppydinks, for you to have a phobia of SOCIALISM, you sure do ignore everything the Bush administration has done....

-Patriot Act

-Ilegal Wire tapping

-No checks and balances

-No Child Left Behind

-Welfare has SWELLED under his administration

-Tax cuts, that STEAL from people who SAVE, in order to LEND to those who borrow

-Government control of marriage

-A bill making it's way through Congress requiring everyone to have "PAPERS", just like the Nazi Germany era

-Amnesty to illegals

-Government control of medical research

-Trying to implement government control on abortion, while being an advocate for the death penalty

-WAR-which is funded by taxes [whether you realize it or not]

-The ONLY reason Republicans don't raise taxes, is because they know once the bank is broken, a Democrat will have no other choice! It's like the younger sibling leaving a mess in the living room, and the older one is forced to clean it up!

You see what I mean... You can NOT be ANTI socialism and turn a blind eye to the biggest advocate of it, Mr. Bush and company!

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Tue, Feb 12, 2008, at 6:05 PM

Hmmm..under the last democratic presidency we had longest period of peace-time economic expansion in American history, which included a balanced budget and a reported federal surplus. Clinton reported a surplus of $559 billion at the end of his presidency, based on Congressional accounting rules.

Clinton left office with a 65% approval rating, the highest end-of-presidency rating of any President who came into office after World War II. BUSH WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SAY THE SAME...

More than 22 million new jobs

Highest homeownership in American history

Lowest unemployment in 30 years

Raised education standards, increased school choice, and doubled education and training investment

Connected 95 percent of schools to the Internet

Lowest crime rate in 26 years

100,000 more police for our streets

Enacted most sweeping gun safety legislation in a generation

Family and Medical Leave Act for 20 million Americans

Smallest welfare rolls in 32 years

Higher incomes at all levels

Lowest poverty rate in 20 years

Lowest teen birth rate in 60 years

Lowest infant mortality rate in American history

Paid off $360 billion of the national debt

Converted the largest budget deficit in American history to the largest surplus

Lowest government spending in three decades

Lowest federal income tax burden in 35 years

Most diverse cabinet in American history

OH YEAH IT WAS SO HORRIBLE UNDER A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT...

-- Posted by Disturbia on Tue, Feb 12, 2008, at 6:00 PM

I also disgree with your propaganda statement regarding the insurance and drug companies. I know people who live in Canada and they have told me about the problems with their so-called "medical care".

--THERE ARE MILLIONS, try 50,000,000 in THIS country who have told you about how horrible their medical care is, but why don't you listen to them?

Unfortunately, money is a driving force, that's just the way it is. Just look at your World Leaders, EVEN THOSE IN SOCIALIST COUNTRIES - they are all wealthy and you can bet your bottom dollar they're not waiting months & months for treatment!

--And Hillary's point, she wants to give American's the SAME healthcare she gets... It's only fair, right?

Have you considered moving to Canada?

--That's a great line, b/c it shows that when someone doesn't agree with you, your solution is to just entice them to leave. It's really ok to admit that America isn't perfect, and NOT EVERY PROBLEM HAS AN AMERICAN SOLUTION!

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Tue, Feb 12, 2008, at 5:51 PM

But remember, once the Democrats agenda (socialism) is in place, there will be no turning back.

Once it's done, it's done.....

-- Posted by puppydinks on Tue, Feb 12, 2008, at 12:01 PM

Ah yes, and it's be so wonderful under the REPUBLICAN REGIME hasn't it..I will take the Democrats agenda over the good ole boy mentality any day of the week!!

-- Posted by Disturbia on Tue, Feb 12, 2008, at 5:42 PM

Have you considered moving to Canada?

-- Posted by puppydinks on Tue, Feb 12, 2008, at 4:10 PM

ROFL!

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Tue, Feb 12, 2008, at 4:51 PM

Re: Nazi Germany: Hitler forced everyone to register their firearms, then when it was known who had a firearm and where to find it, all were confiscated. That was the beginning of the end for the Jews. THAT WAS A GOVERNMENT CONTROL NIGHTMARE!!

Yes, you are correct about capitalism being our economic system and our government being a republic and not a "true" democracy in the literal sense. However, capitalism is the driving force of innovation and discovery. Without monetary reward, much of that innovation would disappear.

Socialism would change much of our economic system.

I also disgree with your propaganda statement regarding the insurance and drug companies. I know people who live in Canada and they have told me about the problems with their so-called "medical care".

Unfortunately, money is a driving force, that's just the way it is. Just look at your World Leaders, EVEN THOSE IN SOCIALIST COUNTRIES - they are all wealthy and you can bet your bottom dollar they're not waiting months & months for treatment!

Have you considered moving to Canada?

-- Posted by puppydinks on Tue, Feb 12, 2008, at 4:10 PM

I think that the stories you are referring to are extreme cases being used as propaganda by the insurance and drug companies to deter Americans from supporting change that would hurt their bottom lines.

You also need to note that capitalism is our economic system not our form of government. The United States' form of government is a constitutional republic. Whether our economic system was capitalist, socialist, or communist we would still be a constitutional republic and we would still elect leaders at the same intervals and we would still have the same inalienable rights granted by our constitution. Your Nazi Germany government control nightmare brought on by the rise of socialism is unfounded.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Tue, Feb 12, 2008, at 2:30 PM

But many Canadians come here for medical treatment/surgery because of the months and months of waiting and in many cases, refusals for that treatment/surgery (because the GOVERNMENT says their particular treatment or surgery is too expensive!). Plus in many cases, it's the GOVERNMENT that decides IF the surgery or treatment is necessary. Is this what you want here?

They come here because the treatment/surgery is available when they need it. When your life is at stake you have to have that treatment or surgery ASAP!

In any case, we've both made some good points. Either way, I'm glad we have that opportunity, aren't you?

-- Posted by puppydinks on Tue, Feb 12, 2008, at 2:18 PM

I don't see Canadians coming to America in herds. Why is that? Let us compare horses to horses and cows to cows puppydinks. Just because those living south of the border and other poor citizens from corrupt third world nations are coming here is not an argument for or against socialism, capitalism, or communism. It is an argument against corrupt government and an argument for our method of representative government.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Tue, Feb 12, 2008, at 1:56 PM

Makes no difference how they get elected, because once elected they serve everyone. Reelected for a second term is a different story, but if a person does a truly good job then they will be picked to serve a second term regardless of how they got elected the first time.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Tue, Feb 12, 2008, at 1:46 PM

I'm not saying there shouldn't be any government involvment such as police etc., just keep it limited and don't EXPAND it.

As for Capitalism, sure it has its faults, but I don't see people beating the doors down to LEAVE - Quite the opposite - they're coming here in droves because America is the land of opportunity! Where else can someone like Bill Clinton, who came from a lower middle class upbringing, become the leader of the free world?!

THAT my friend is what makes America so wonderful - the OPPORTUNITIES that are out there for everyone!

Ben Carson, one of the greatest Neurosurgeons on Earth, (who just happens to be African American) came from very humble beginnings and was in lots of trouble as a teen, but he had the DESIRE and AMBITION to turn his life around!

This is available for everyone!!

If you like socialism, then so be it - lets just agree to disagree.

You can't change my opinion and I can't change yours but that's what makes this country so great - that we have a forum such as this to voice our opinions without worrying about GOVERNMENT taking control of what we can or cannot say!

-- Posted by puppydinks on Tue, Feb 12, 2008, at 1:45 PM

Let me throw something else into this mix I just saw on the T-G's AP wire.

Speaking of Hillary Clinton's tight race against Obama, her chief strategist Mark Penn said that she holds appeal for women voters and Hispanics.

"Hillary Clinton has a coalition of voters well-suited to winning the general election," he said.

What's best for America: Someone elected by a cross-section or someone beholden to particular "coalitions"?

-- Posted by David Melson on Tue, Feb 12, 2008, at 1:38 PM

The current health care system in America is broken. John McCain will not fix it, because he advocates more of the same that got us here to begin with. Hillary Clinton wants socialized medicine. You know as well as I do that she will not get that. What will happen though is serious discussion on how to fix this problem that we have. It is disappointing that hard working middle class Americans cannot afford health care. It is disappointing that people who spend their entire lives trying to build a little wealth and own their own homes have to give it all to a rich, greedy and highly profitable corporation that already has more than they need, because they cannot afford an operation or medicine. The greed must stop and that includs those that profit from medical malpractice lawsuits. A little government control is necessary. You would have to agree with that puppydinks. I bet you are the type that gets irritated when someone zips by you doing 50mph in a 30mph zone. We need some government control to maintain the balance and to protect everyones best interests. Honestly, I think that we should be more like Japan when it comes to individual earnings. It just makes sense to me that the highest paid individual should not make more than eight times the lowest paid individual in a company. Gotta keep things balanced you know, some how control those who abuse the system. That may make me a socialist, but I don't really care. I would rather be a socialist and live in a world where everyone that works gets a decent slice of the pie and can pass something on to their children instead of a greedy capitalist that only cares about himself and cares not about the rest.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Tue, Feb 12, 2008, at 1:15 PM

puppydinks,

Do we currently have control over our own lives as it stands right now? I don't believe Democrats were the ones that passed the patriot act, nor did they agree to going to war. So please how do you really stand?

Our own local government is trying to do the same thing with the "revised" SSA. I don't see you standing against that? I remember Nazi Germany, and they were scared into conforming, just like the current administration did to the american public and the media just ate right into it.

-- Posted by Evil Monkey on Tue, Feb 12, 2008, at 1:09 PM

So you favor Socialism rather than Capitalism?

I'm not happy with the way our money is being spent either, but believe me, Socialism is not the answer nor is it the panacea you think it is...

Socialism will entail considerable more Government spending for "social" programs. Also, Socialism takes away almost all incentive for people to take control of their own lives - they'd have GUBBMENT to take care of them!!

Be careful for what you wish for, because it may actually come true!

Again, I don't want the U.S. to become the Socialist States of America- But unfortunately, with more and more people wanting more and more government control, I am concerned about our future as the greatest form of Government in the history of the World.

Do you realize that THE mantra of Socialism is Government control in our lives, not just medical care, but just about everything else and Capitalism be damned!

History is a great teacher - remember Nazi Germany - don't say it can't happen here because it can!

-- Posted by puppydinks on Tue, Feb 12, 2008, at 12:53 PM

In my opinion a lot of things need to change and soon, no matter who wins. I like McCain because he fought and killed for his country (not to mention his time spent as a POW) and I have no doubt that he will do his best to make America strong regardless of what is popular. I believe that he will say whatever he has to say to get elected, but when he is actually elected he will do what is best for America regardless of what the oil companies, drug companies, and banks think is right. He will not get elected though because he supports the war.

If Hillary is elected she will without a doubt raise taxes (somebody is going to have to eventually considering our current national debt), but she will probably control spending at the same time (something so called conservative Republicans just can not do) and at the very least she will stop spending money on a ridiculous war in Iraq that does more harm to America than good and start spending money on America. And if she creates socialized medical care then that is good too, because the current state of medical care in this country is not something to be proud of and needs to be addressed soon. As for Obama, I don't know what to think about him. He talks a good game, but I think he is out of his league. If he truly does bring change to our country then he will be good also.

To people like puppydinks that just don't understand what a 400 billion budget deficit means, you really need to get a clue. Big deal, George Bush and the Republicans don't raise taxes. They sure do spend the money like they have raised taxes, which in the long run does more harm than raising taxes. Where is that 400 billion dollars going to come from to pay back what we don't already have? Answer: Taxes, because the government does not earn money. How much more money will 400 billion cost us over time? Answer: A heck of a lot more than 400 billion dollars that is for sure. You really need to research what percent of every tax dollar goes to paying just the interest on our 9 trillion dollar national debt.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Tue, Feb 12, 2008, at 12:33 PM

But remember, once the Democrats agenda (socialism) is in place, there will be no turning back.

Once it's done, it's done.....

-- Posted by puppydinks on Tue, Feb 12, 2008, at 12:01 PM

I tend to agree with jaxspike on this one. McCain is no more than a Republican version of Hillary. He's not going to accomplish anything major in his term since the Democrats are in control of Congress. If they were to take the Presidency and screw it up totally, then in two years the Republicans will most likely be able to take back control of at least one of the houses of Congress. Not that I think the Republicans can do much better, but until we can get a decent conservative third party (or get people that can think for themselves in Congress) then we're stuck with the two options overall.

-- Posted by Thom on Tue, Feb 12, 2008, at 11:37 AM

I say let the Democrats have it all and if they can fix the current problems then great, but if they can not or do worse than the current administration then they have no reason to complain or criticize what is being done now. Pretty much it is "put up or shut up."

I don't think they could really do much worse than Bush has but then I have been surprised before and I am definitely not fond of either Clinton or Obama.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Tue, Feb 12, 2008, at 10:21 AM

I completely agree! In fact here's something to think about:

To my fellow Republicans:

If you want the U.S. to pull out of Iraq and give the Terrorists a "safe haven" to plan and train for their next attack, then don't vote for McCain,

-If you want SOCIALIZED medicine, then don't vote for McCain,

-If you want much HIGHER TAXES then don't vote for McCain,

-If you want more government that will lead us down the path to Socialism, then don't vote for McCain,

-If you want the Democrats to have complete control, i.e. the Presidency and Congress, then don't vote for McCain.

In other words, by acting like spoiled stinking rotten brats who aren't getting their way, you are ensuring the Democrats a huge victory in November!

-- Posted by puppydinks on Tue, Feb 12, 2008, at 10:06 AM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


David Melson is a copy editor and staff writer for the Times-Gazette.