How do you support a candidate whose been completely shredded by his/her own party leaders?

The one thing that most die-hard "fans" of the primary candidates fail to realize is that the American People have very short scandal memories. Also most don't see that while we "baby boomers" consider them heroes; to put it bluntly, Kennedy, Johnson and to some extent even King are just footnotes in history books to anyone under the age of forty in this country. By the same token, Eisenhower, Truman, and Roosevelt are just vague images to those of us in my generation, who didn't actually experience their actions and decisions.

Maybe, Jet, the voting age should be raised to 50 in America, so that people who can remember the country's history and the mistakes the previous idiots made, and who have mature judgment, can make the decisions, as opposed to the young whippersnappers who think they know it all.

Similarly, there should be a system of compulsory military reserve duty for all Americans under the age of 50 (except those who get mugged by Somalis delivering pizza). That way those retiring from military duty can feel rewarded with the franchise - "wise men and women recognized as they sit at the city gate"[take-off on Proverbs 31].

Whatcha think?

And how did the stents go?

Ruvy, as you always complain bitterly when non-Israelis offer up their opinions about events relevant to your adopted homeland, should you not by the same token cease to opine on matters non-Israeli? Or would that require too much logical consistency for a selective ideologue like you?

But, my good man, I was born in the United States, lived there a number of decades, and participated in its political system, a system which I understand at least as well as you do. I'm not a "foreigner" in my understanding of the country - and speak as a friend on an issue that relates not to America's relations with Israel, but the betterment of America. After all, Chris, I still have a rather large family there.

What I resent is not Americans expressing their opinions, but Americans (and other foreigners) who are mired in ignorance who presume to know what is best for this nation. I rarely opine on matters in Britain or Spain simply because no matter how much I may think I know about these two countries, am indeed a foreigner mired in ignorance of these two nations and the conditions there. Reading CNN or Google or Yahoo just does not do the trick. One needs to smell the grass, and sneeze at the dust to understand the place. I have done just this in America for most of my life - thus I've earned my right to speak.

He who has lived here for a number of years and who now lives overseas has a similar right to speak about Israel, as much as I may disagree with what he says.

On taxes and electioneering, maybe you guys should study John Howard. He took a new tax to an election, the GST. It was seen as such a ballsy thing to do and he got loads of press coverage for it.

The line was "not a new tax, a new tax system."

"Am I in danger of being labeled a racist if I like Clinton over Obama?"

In danger? Apparently you haven't stated out loud in the presence of Obama supporters that you support Clinton or you would already know that you HAVE been labelled a racist Jet. The same goes for Clinton.....many of her supporters will claim that the only reason anyone could ever oppose her is because they are sexist. That argument kind of rings hollow though when they attack women who do not support Hillary. Well it always rings hollow but it rings more hollow when applied to women. We also see it with John Mccain. I do not support him but I am always hearing from so called fellow republicans that I'm not allowed to say anything negative about himbecause he is a war hero. It's sad that we have so many Americans today that believe a candidate's race, sex, military service etc etc make them immune from any type of scrutiny from the American public. So many Americans that find it easier to attack those opposed to their views with baseless cries of racist or sexist than engage in real and rational debate about the problems of our nation and the merits of those we're considering to address those problems.



"It's no secret that I'm supporting Hillary this year. Why? Because I remember what it was like fifteen years ago when this country was becoming prosperous and had a budget surplus."

So you think if Hillary is elected we will have another period of economic boom times? Are you serious? The economy during the 1990's was driven by the .com/internet boom that was going on in the private sector. It was not due to some economic voodoo that slick willie cooked up in the white house. When the .com bubble did burst very late in Clinton's second term the economy started turning south. As with most economic trends it took some time to feel the strongest effects of the bubble bursting and Bush got blamed for it when in fact it was neither wholly the fault of Bush or Clinton. But if you want to believe that if Clinton were allowed to be president indefintely we never would have had the same economic problems in the early 2000's that we did have when Bush was president you're free to do so Jet.

Lastly...just because Billary was never found guilty on any charges in all of the scandals they've been involved in does not mean that they are innocent. The people that say this about the Clintons tend to be the same people that say Bush is guilty of all sorts of crimes that there is no proof of or that he's never been found guilty of and they're also the same people who lcaim that every CEO of a large company is corrupt, and illegally screwing over the average American despite a lack of proof.

All good points, Bing. But what do you think of making the franchise the property of people old enough to make mature judgments on events rather than merely old enough to get a girl pregnant....

I don't know about 50 because that would exclude me but I'd definitely support raising it to 21.

So much is made of the youth vote. I find it disturbing that so many 18 - 22 year olds in college living off of mommy and daddy who have never had to make a mortgage/rent payment, worry about the needs of a child/spouse or basically had even the smallest taste of what the real world is like are allowed to have any influence on the direction of the real world.

To be crass......they don't know dick about the real world. All they bring to the table at that point in their lives is empty, unrealistic, idealism.

Winston Churchill knew what he was talking about when he said "Any man who isn't a liberal at 20 has no heart and any man who isn't a conservative at forty has no brain."

That should have read have any influence on the direction of our elections.....my brain skipped

Ruvy, as you are terminally mired in ignorance, fear and superstition, I don't really see why you should be allowed an unchallenged opinion about anything.

Your view that simply having one's feet on the ground somehow grants a person some kind of informed insight is just another example of the magical thinking you specialise in.

You're the ignorant one Christopher.

Reasonable people believe that actually living in a nation for a period of years makes one better qualified to speak intelligently and knowledgably about the affairs of that nation than another whose experience with those affairs consists entirely of reading about them or watching them on television from afar.

I think you deny this obvious concept because if you admitted it to be true you would not be able to sit on your high throne and lecture everyone else on your superior insight and understanding of every issue that arises.

Tell me when you come up with something new, Chris. By your own standards, (terminally mired in ignorance, etc) your last comment should not be allowed, but rank hath its privileges, eh?

Guess you have trouble with someone who actually takes his faith seriously and knows what he is talking about, eh?

You are like Dave Nalle - you cannot see forces that do not conform to your worldview at all as other than insanity. The main difference between the two of you is that Dave is a tad less confrontational about it all.... Less zealous is a good way to put it....

But, like with Nalle, Reality will kick your door open with all the politeness of a nasty cop making a bust, and you'll be surrounded with so much empirical proof of what you so vehemently deny that your sanity will be threatened.

I'd say I can't wait to see it all, but while you're dealing with all that, I'll have my own issues to deal with. What I just described to you is what Redemption is going to be like.

Thank you for the back-up, Bing. It's appreciated, and I owe you....

Nothing is owed Ruvy. It's common sense.

If living in a nation over a long period of time isn't the most valid experience one can claim when trying to speak about the affairs of that nation then what do you believe is Christopher?

Arch, but you know nothing about what reasonable people believe.

Furthermore, in any country there is a very broad range of opinions from the vaguely reasonable to the outright deranged. By your potty little theory, one country's extremist is more informed than another's reasonable person. You may choose to think your idea makes sense but I doubt many others would.

Ruvy, you still fail to grasp the difference between truth and insult but that is only to be expected from the dogmatically challenged. I don't accept that rank does or should have privileges and am very happy to accept the mores that prevail at BC.

As to your faith, hopefully you are still sufficiently connected to rational thinking to be well aware that nothing can rescue you from the delusion you have so enthusiastically embraced, but that is no reason at all that we should take you or your entirely unsubstantiated ideas seriously.

I haven't yet seen you make any points stack up so I will have to disagree that you know what you are talking about. I am however constantly amused by your weak attempts to depict my rejection of your hysteria as some kind of zealousness, as though this somehow justified your cant.

I am always more than happy to embrace reality and should any future events ever begin to resemble your fantasy, I will be sure to acknowledge that. On the other hand, should your imaginings fail to come to pass, will you then reject your creed or merely come up with yet another rationalisation to maintain the fiction?

Re 2-While that idea has it's merrits Ruvy, the youth of our country are our future, to not allow them to participate would only result in folly(sic)

re 2, the stents are working fine, but I still have one part of my heart that's inoperable. Also my left eye hemorraged again last night, which is why I'm so slow in responding... sorry.

I have to blow the text on my screen up to 200% just to read anything...

sigh

re#3-Yikes I'm staying out of that one...

Re 5-Unfortunately Jon the rich and powerful in this country have spent billions learning how to circumvent the tax system we already have, and any attempt to make them start over and pay their fair share would be squashed immediately.

alas

re#6 Ahhh Arch, you actually had me lull myself into complacancy and I began agreeing with you, but by the 2nd paragraph, you saved me and pulled the rug back out from under me.

I knew I could count on you.

When you elect a president, you elect his team of advisors more than the man/woman in the oval office.

Face it, during the 90s the Clintons and their team had it right, and I can only assume that Hillary would bring a lot of them back with her.

I love conservatives, if the economy is going great-they take the credit, if it's tanking they blame the Dems.

God you're getting boring in your old age Arch!!!!

"making the franchise the property of people old enough to make mature judgments on events"

We tried that with Reagan Ruvy, and wound up with Ronnie and alshimers (sic) and suddenly the administration was being run by Nancy's astrologer...

Chris,

Y-A-W-N........

Arch: I don't know about 50 because that would exclude me but I'd definitely support raising it to 21.

SHAME ON YOU Arch-that would exclude nearly every brave soldier that's fighting for this country. That's why the age was lowered in the 1960s-"if you old enough to fight for your country, you're old enough to vote"

"That should have read have any influence on the direction of our elections.....my brain skipped"

That's okay Bing, I didn't make it that far down in your sermon anyway...
As for the complaint about college-aged people voting, that because the more educated you are, the more liberal you are... and we can't have THEM voting!!! Yikes!!!

Ruvy, Chris and Arch... While having lived in this country Ruvy, that indeed does give you the right to have an opinion... Having left it, forfeits your right to steer its future.

sorry

I think I can sum it up by saying this: it relates to how I've come to feel about the Amish and the Pennsylvania Dutch.

They've chosen to live their lives in the past because of their religion. They live with out electicity and commute by horse and buggy. Their strong sense of moral values cause me to admire them deeply.

Most of all the deep respect I have for them is because they aren't out on street corners trying to force their way of life onto others, nor do they punnish those who leave to become "modern" harshly.

but I'd never vote for one in an election, or ask them their opinion of everyday events.

Why

Because while they're absolute Americans, they've chose a different culture than us.

As for immagrants,
When the Europeans came to our shores, they had the decency to learn our language and adopt our customs and BECAME Americans.

I cringe everytime I see some woman in a burka at Wal-Mart babbling in Arabic to her children, or some Mexican yelling in Spanish at his wife.

IF you come to America to live, you should do your best to BE an american, not start your own little piece of your own homeland and ignore the rest of us who made it possible for you to come here in the first place...

what were we talking about?
Time for my Cymbalta... and now!

The difference between you and me Arch is that I blatantly and plainly label my opinons AS opinions and nothing more.

You try to convince everyone that your opinions are facts, and deride everyone who disagrees with you...

Well... it seems no one wants to take on the failure of the "No new Taxes" portion of my little opinion piece.

I feel kind of bad for California right now, and can feel for Arnold. By following the GOP bible, He's in one hell of a mess.

Jet, California isn't in a mess because of anything Schwarzenneger did. It's in a mess because of years of entrenched bureaucracy and corrupt leftist administrations. He's doing what has to be done to clean things up, and when it comes out of the crisis it's currently in he's going to deserve the credit it earns him.

Dave

Sorry if you got the impression I was blaming Arnold, I was blaming "No new Taxes" for his stages huge deficit

Actually we've all pretty much figured out that that means "No new taxes"...... for the rich.

Ruvy, wake up, you're having a nightmare. Oh wait, it's your life!

Face it, during the 90s the Clintons and their team had it right, and I can only assume that Hillary would bring a lot of them back with her.

So Clinton and his cabinet were the only driving force behind the 90's economy. It had absolutely nothing at all to do with the .com boom going on in the private sector and an artifically inflated stock market? IS that really what happened Jet?

You claim I make things up but it is a FACT that the economy turned sour while CLinton was still in office and many of the tech jobs disappeared Jet. I will admit that to his credit Bubba knew a good thing when he saw it and had the good sense to sit back and let the .com boom do it's thing.

And you didn't answer my question Jet. Do you believe that if Clinton was in office from the time he left until now instead of Bush that we would still be enjoying the same type of economy that we had during the 1990's?

Sorry if you got the impression I was blaming Arnold, I was blaming "No new Taxes" for his stages huge deficit

Spending is the cause of the huge deficit. Raising taxes is only one way to deal with that, and likely the most harmful.

Actually we've all pretty much figured out that that means "No new taxes"...... for the rich.

Well, the poor don't pay any taxes already, and by the definition of the tax raisers everyone who's not poor must be 'rich' at least until they manage to tax them into poverty.

Dave

While having lived in this country Ruvy, that indeed does give you the right to have an opinion... Having left it, forfeits your right to steer its future.

Agreed 100%, Jet. I understood that when I left. Now tell your president the same rule applies to him as well, with respect to us.

Oh well Arch, if we're going to use your convoluted logic, then the economy was just fine until the Republicans took over Congress.

"you didn't answer my question Jet. Do you believe that if Clinton was in office from the time he left until now instead of Bush that we would still be enjoying the same type of economy that we had during the 1990's?"

Yes, because we never would have diverted billions of dollars towards an unwarranted war in Iraq. Had the events of 911 still happened, Clinton wouldn't have confined it to Afghanistan and the search for Bin Laden.

Thank you Ruvy, however our president only listens to his imaginary friend-God, for whom he thinks he's speaking.

Bush does not believe in G-d - not at least the one Who revealed the Law at Sinai. This is because Bush got as close as he could to Sinai and basically blasphemed the G-d of Israel, by demanding that we violate the prohibition of giving away Land that is not ours to give. Then the bastard came here and demanded the same thing.

I suggest that one of the reasons you are all in the mess you are in is that you are paying for Bush's blasphemy.

And there is more payment for you all to undergo.

Read Exodus, Chapters 10 and 11. It'll give you an idea of what is in store for you.....

You may be right Ruvy, but right now all I can see is the tangable world.

"...the rich and powerful in this country have spent billions learning how to circumvent the tax system we already have, and any attempt to make them start over and pay their fair share would be squashed immediately."

That's just plain bullshit.

According to IRS figures in a report dated October 5, 2007 by the Tax Foundation, in Tax Year 2005 (the most recent year available):

"The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns. (emphasis added)

The rich, contrary to popular opinion, are already paying much more than their "fair share."

Another point not made here, but true nonetheless, is that the much of the income of wealthy taxpayers, which is in the form of dividends, is taxed twice; first as corporate profits, and then again when distributed as dividends to the individual stockholders.

I'm tired of hearing that bullshit lie about the the wealthy not paying their fair share of taxes.

It's a shibboleth promulgated by those bent on fomenting class warfare in this country, and it is all too eagerly swallowed by the envious.

By the same token you could say that you're the victim of propaganda too Clavos.

Regardless of either argument either pro or con, it is a FACT that unless something is done soon, more bridges are going to fall from neglect and this nation's infrastruction is in desparate need of updating or replacement before 100-year-old water systems, sewage systems, and power grids fail on a massive scale.

Where will the money come from...
Taxes.

Like it or not, someone is going to have to pay for it, and to keep passing the buck to the next generation is folly and unfair.

"By the same token you could say that you're the victim of propaganda too Clavos."

Again, I call bullshit. The gist of my comment is fact, not "propaganda."

As to the rest of your comment; I don't necessarily disagree with it, but it has zero to do with whether or not the wealthy are paying their fair share.

Jet - Amish, yes. Pennsylvania Dutch, no.

Ruvy - You're right, and Christopher is wrong. Your summary of Chris's style was amazing. He writes like a strident Nalle. (Nalle is a strident Nalle, too.) I find that foreigners can provide valid perspective, maybe more than you think. But there's a type of error they're more likely to make. You just have to watch for it and filter it out.

Baronius, I'm not sure what that means, but I stand corrected anyway. Glad you liked the editorial... I think

BTW, Jet, re your #40:

Point taken in regard to the infrastructure, except for the power grid.

It's neither owned nor operated by the government, but rather by private enterprise. Consequently, it's in good shape and not likely to fail, except by sabotage or natural catastrophe, and then only temporarily, as it does here in Florida with each and every hurricane.

Jet - Ask Biden if America has a short political memory, and he'll reply with something plagarized.

You'd think in the long run, those lines would be burried underground to solve the problem of downed lines.

Like the sign I used to have over my desk at work

"If it makes sense-it's against company policy!"

Baronius, I didn't know Biden's father was Milton Berle???

Jet, re comments #42 & 44: The Amish live as Germans in another century would. The Mennonites are a slightly modernized version of the Amish. Pennsylvania Dutch are drinking, swearing, public-school-attending regular people with regular jobs and a funny pseudo-German accent.

Okay Baronius, I stand corrected. I didn't see a lot of them where I grew up in Pittsburgh, there are a few communities in Ohio though.

I was wrong-thanks for the correction and info...

Baronius, if you're amazed by such blether, you really need to get out more. And if you can't tell the difference between a rebuttal of entirely unfounded fantasy coupled with blatantly self-indulgent wish fulfilment and stridency, well, I can only assume that you're prone to a bit of fantasy living as well. Go on, indulge yourself - but don't offend anybody with some respect for honesty by pretending it's more than that.

"You'd think in the long run, those lines would be burried underground to solve the problem of downed lines."

You would think so, wouldn't you?

But the power company says it's too expensive; that it's cheaper just to repair it after each storm.

It's a big controversy each hurricane season, and probably will be upgraded one day.

Meanwhile, we all just buy generators (those who can afford them) and keep lots of battery-operated stuff around (and lots of batteries too!).

One blessing: Publix, our principal supermarket chain, has almost completed putting generators in all their stores, so at least now we don't have to stockpile as much food any more. Publix can now get more than half their stores back online within a few hours after a storm passes through.

Also, the state has added new regulations in the building codes requiring new builds of gas stations to be generator equipped.

Those two upgrades alone make it a LOT easier to cope with the 'canes.

I wonder which is worse, hurricane season in Florida or toonado season in Ohio

We've been undergrounding utility lines around here (Palo Alto) for about 30 years now. Reduces maintenance costs and improves property values, so eventually property tax rises to pay for it.

Pretty neat , eh?

I love it when one of my articles swerves in a completely different direction, but yeah that is neat.

I've always maintained it'd be better for the utility companies to bury their lines.

For one it'd cut down on downed lines causing fires. It would also pay for itself by cutting off the costs of labor and material to repeatedly fix them, expecially here in stormy Ohio

While having lived in this country Ruvy, that indeed does give you the right to have an opinion... Having left it, forfeits your right to steer its future.

I disagree strenuously in general terms, although knowing Ruvy's outlook I do agree, as does he, in his particular case. Ruvy no longer regards himself as an American and its politics are no longer his direct concern.

As a British citizen living in America I have the legal right to vote in British elections. I do still care deeply about the country of my birth and consider that this for damn sure gives me the right to a voice on its political direction.

BTW, Jet, I'm kinda disappointed. Not a single mention of your new desk.

ALL RIGHT-OKAY DAMMIT, THE NIXT ARTICLE I WRITE ABOUT WILL BE ON MY NEW DESK-YOU ASKED FOR IT!

Out of curiosity, I know it'd be a product review, but under what catagory?

Wow, that's a head scratcher. I could've sworn we had a section for product review? Unfortunately I put it together to good and it doesn't slant to the left or the right, so it wouldn't go in Politics.

It's listed as a computer desk, so I guess it might go in sci/tech... nah

Though I bought it at Wal-Mart, it is listed (believe it or not) on Amazon.com.

If it had termites, I could list it in the Tastes section.

It doesn't play music

I can watch my favorite DVD on my computer, but nah that doesn't fit either.

I wonder if the editors would create a product review section just for me?

Nahhhhhhh

Yep, that's a real head scratcher...

Gee...it didnt take long for Obama to pull the race card! How pathetic! I thought he would at least wait to use it on the Republicans!

I guess it makes sense...a guy with no credibility, no platform and no real ideas except.."Im for change". He is a pathetic human being..next hell be demanding 40 acres and a mule..what a low life..


JOM

"Obama...hey being black got me into college ahead of more qualified whites so why not the white house"

Dear god, JOM's a racist too?

Dear god, JOM's a racist too?

Heavens to moigatroid! A racist! Eeeeeek!!!!!

Sylvester is Jewish?

I'd like to invite everyone to speak you mind a BC forum"s Presidential Poll. >Click here

Dear god, JOM's a racist too?

Pretty much any kind of -ist or -phobe you can think of, JOM is it.

Strapped for cash as you are, Jet, you could make a very comfortable living just supplying Band-Aids for his knuckles.

To be truthful Doc, I don't think he's any of those, just a spoiled brat "Arch Conservative" wannabe who'll say any thing it takes to get attention...

(:^p~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I wonder if the editors would create a product review section just for me?

No need, Jet... there's already a perfect place for you to publish your review. Right there, under the list of BC sections at the top left of every page, about 11 buttons down:

'Deskicritics'!

Pretty much any kind of -ist or -phobe you can think of, JOM is it.

He's a proctologist?

God forbid.

Maybe he's a social-ist...

To be truthful Doc, I don't think he's any of those, just a spoiled brat "Arch Conservative" wannabe who'll say any thing it takes to get attention...

Who are all these wannbe mes?

Also, I don't have shit on JOM when it comes to making remarks just to get attention.

What have I said since I've been back? Oh yeah I said that the internet boom had more to do with the 1990's economy than Clinton being in office...........That is pretty extreme huh Jet......no reasonable person on earth has ever expressed that same sentiment and I should be ridiculed for making such an absurd statement .....

what kind of -ist or -phobe do I deserve to be called for insulting slick willie, the greatest economic mind in the history of mankind Jet?

Hit me with it!

'Deskicritics'!... I saw it coming a mile away, but still I hoped it'd miss me... alas

He's a proctologist? God, I was wondering who that was last night!

Calm down Bing-I was saying that you're the real thing (warts and all) and he's just a inferior wannabe.

sheesh, he's getting touchy in his old age!

Arch, I'd LOVE to watch you take on my sister sometime... she's a die-hard Kucinich supporter.

oy vay!!

Well if our paths happen to cross before she has to board the mothership I'm game.

I'm in the process of trying to get her to resend a rather long e-mail about him, if she does I'll post it as an article...

Christopher, one of the great things about this site is that our Comments Editor doesn't appreciate the difference between structured argument and personal insults. The result is a greater leniency when we get testy (as happens sometimes). We only get deleted when we really deserve it. I like it here.

I agree, Christopher is sort of like an underpaid babysitter. I don't always agree with him, but I respect his decisions and integrity

Racists....lol...I aint even a Dumbocrat the real party of racists

Among white voters, Clinton leads 41% to 27%. Among African-American voters, Obama leads 66% to 16...


Gee how could that possibly be? Ya bunch of jerks and idiots!

JOM

Jet, I respect Christopher too, as an editor. God knows he had to deal with a really bad situation on this site, and has seen it through to a reasonable recovery.

It's funny that he prefers an ad hominem response to a formal argument. Like this gem: "Ruvy, you still fail to grasp the difference between truth and insult but that is only to be expected from the dogmatically challenged." It's amusing for any number of reasons. But it is classically an ad hominem statement, addressing the person rather than the person's argument. Any fair editor would allow such a statement; it's unusual that an editor would think to make a statement such as this.

Jet you really are a sick person...you'd "LOVE to watch" Arch "take on" your sister...

Your sickness never ceases to a amaze me!

JOM
Obama - hes for er...um...oh yea...Hope and Change...or is it wishful thinking and luck?

There are two types of people...racists and those that deny that they are racists...

JOM

Obama...For change..whatever that means!

JOM, I note that we have yet to hear from you as to which candidate you are backing and what they stand for.

I dunno, perhaps we have. But it's hard to understand you through all that drool.

Baronius, you seem not to have grokked that my statement is not an ad hominem because of its truthfulness. It is defined as "fallacious argumentation" and the remark is not.

On the other hand, this "Any fair editor would allow such a statement; it's unusual that an editor would think to make a statement such as this" is fallacious argumentation, although not an ad hominem, in the sense that I don't see why editors should be accorded any different treatment to anybody else. As the most interactive editor on the site (as opposed to the most prolific), I don't think it at all unusual.

I am fiercely committed to the idea that this site, and the others that I am involved in, should be as tolerant of diversity as possible, without falling into the PC trap of failing to respond to the clearly unacceptable. It's a continuous balancing act - and a constant learning process.

As usual JOMmy didn't understand-like I'm sure everyone else on this planet, that I meant intellectually and conversationaly

Just another example of limited intellect I guess.

Baropmius. you're beginning to sound like a bitter ex-wife always remembering everything in detail that her husband has said in the past, and able to through it up in his face at will.

As ususal this place is filled with a bunch of left wing dim bulbs...they just dont get it and must resort to name calling...

JOM

Obama..."Dis is a racial inflamamamation against my peoples...da Clintons am be playin da race card!"

JOM:

As ususal this place is filled with a bunch of left wing dim bulbs...they just dont get it and must resort to name calling...

JOM

Are you such a fool that you don't realize that you just threw yourself on your own hypocritical sward?

Like I said....a bunch of left wing dim bulbs...they just dont get it!

JOM

I rest my case

Christopher, it may be time to delete this entire discussion thread on the basis of arrant idiocy. The last 5 or 6 posts and just about every one from JoM make my brain hurt. I got stupider just by reading them.

Dave

indeed

Jet, you are a master of saying a great deal with the least words...!

Ahh shucks, it warnt nothin'
(:^)

This place is getting pathetic...its like some sort of circle jerk....same 5 people posting the same inane comments over and over again....


In addition GOD forbid anyome disagree or challenge the viewss of the editorial staff...

JOM

JoM, this thread is what you made it.

Dave

Unfortunately...

Gee, I wonder if we can get back on subject?

Dave...
Christopher...

I have learned what not to waste my time on, and will in the future let him proceed in making a fool out of himself without responding...

...and thank you for your support :-)

My sister Charlene in Oregon-an avid Kucinish supporter-has chimed in on the suubject.

I don't agree with her, but here's what she said...

I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but from everything I've heard and read; Obama writes his own speeches!

As for Hillary, she's a corporatist and has gotten most of her money from special interests that she will be obligated to reward if she is elected.

The best candidate for all of us peons is Dennis Kucinich, who would implement healthcare for all of us without co-pays (Hillary's plan doesn't really do that for you and me). Dennis openly supports gays and knows what it is like to be poor (his family lived in their car for a time). He is for getting our good paying jobs back by getting rid of NAFTA and GAT, which the Clintons got us into! These treaties are responsible for our jobs going overseas and for our illegal immigration problem, which has grown exponentially since we became members of these treaties!

The Bush administration has created a labor board committee that is crushing the unions and refusing compensation to unfairly injured workers even when a judge approves it. One gal was awarded several hundred thousand by a judge and this committee reduced it to $2400. The Clintons are way too close to the Bush's for my palate.

Barrack is offering a message of hope to the American people, who desperately need it! His money is coming from the people mostly, not from corporations who will obligate him in the future. He speaks from the heart.

Hillary is the one who looks to be the one who would say whatever she thinks we want to hear to get elected! Her message keeps changing.

Edwards also speaks from the heart and yes, he's angry! Aren't you? He has a history of taking on the corporations and fighting for the people, so I don't know why he isn't the front runner. Seems most people tend to fall for the media hype and vote against their own best interests!

Dennis is for peace, both domestically and abroad, and would work to heal our relationship with the rest of the world. But, the General Electric war machine (they are invested in military equipment and profit from this bloody war) who owns NBC is also denying Dennis the opportunity to be a part of the Nevada debate!

Our country is in major decline and no longer belongs to the people when people who meet the criteria can be denied the right to run for President and get their message out. Our media no longer belongs to the people, it has been hijacked by a few corporations who abuse their ownership by making our news broadcast infomercials.

Dennis Kucinich is the best candidate for the people, but they may never know because he would crush the corporate power over this country and they are far too powerful to allow that to happen. Edwards would probably be the next best, but I think that the Republican machine wants Hillary because they fully believe that they can beat her, because so many people hate her! I don't know why they hate her; seems irrational to me. I would hate to see her be the frontrunner because I believe that she would be 4 more years of Bush.

She is pro war and will not say that she'd get us out of Iraq. And, as far as that great Clinton economy; I believe that if he was still in office, we would be right where we are now; because he's the one who got us into this mess with trade agreements that are not good for the people, only for the top 1% who keep getting richer and don't want healthcare for all because it would give the power back to the doctors as opposed to the HMO's who are really owned by the pharmaceutical companies who are poisoning us! I could go on and on.

I hope this doesn't offend you, but I am passionate about re-instating our constitution and making our country free again, because right now it is of, by and for the corporations; not the people. And, Hillary is a corporatist!
This is my opinion, for what it's worth.

Jet,

I'm not going to spend time on the candidates your sister mentioned because in my opinion, your elections do not mean that much. But notice these telling lines that your sister writes....

Our country is in major decline and no longer belongs to the people when people who meet the criteria can be denied the right to run for President and get their message out. Our media no longer belongs to the people, it has been hijacked by a few corporations who abuse their ownership by making our news broadcast infomercials.
.....
I am passionate about re-instating our constitution and making our country free again, because right now it is of, by and for the corporations; not the people.

Now, tell me, Jet, is that sense of despair and decline common in those whom you are in contact with? You'd know better than I - you live in America - I don't and there are some things I can only guess at.

Ruvy, in terms of her statement as a whole I disagree.

However...

She's got a point that unless you're a millionaire (or are being backed by several) only the rich can become president. In a way that's a filter because the rich are usually the more educated in our population. But that brings up the problem with "Class warfare"

Id like to see a system where a candidate would qualify by getting a large following in sort of a pre-Primary primary. Once he's been bonafide, that the Federal Government would require TV stateion, print media, radio etc. to give him/her a set amount of time to state why their qualified for the job.

After the conventions, an allotment of media time would be given to each party's candidate, then we'd all vote on a National Voter's Holiday, where everyone had the day off to vote.

I don't think a common man off the street without an expensive education "butcher, baker, candlestick maker, adult bookstore clerk" would ever be able to handle the job, especially in the fields of economics and foreign affairs.

The "American Dream" that anyone can become president, is dead... alas

On her point two that you quoted, I agree that the huge amounts of money required to buy an election campaign (TV commercials, travel, etc) require the backing of huge corporations. Unfortunately that requires a quid pro quo for their money.

You don't really think Cheney's connections to Haliburton, and that corporation's landing contracts to fix Bush's damage in Iraq were a co-incodence did you?

However I disagree with most of my sister's opinions concerning the candidates. There was a time when a man like Kucinich might have made it to the white house, but those are long past.

My personal opinion is that they're using Dennis as a "big mouth-loose cannon" to say what the Democratic Party in general is really thinking, but doesn't dare say it out loud in public.

...Just like the Republicans let Bush spout off about God's chosen candidate to comfort the likes of Falwell... Unfortunately he got elected President (though he seems to think he was elected Pope of the American Church)

alas

On her point two that you quoted, I agree that the huge amounts of money required to buy an election campaign (TV commercials, travel, etc) require the backing of huge corporations. Unfortunately that requires a quid pro quo for their money.

This, at least, is not true. Ron Paul has ably demonstrated that you can raise enough money to run effectively solely from small contributors.

As for being a millionaire to run, I'd submit that unless you're financially successful you're not really qualified to be president. If you can't handle your own money and advance your own career how well equipped are you to handle the nation's money and advance its interests?

Dave

"Ron Paul has ably demonstrated that you can raise enough money to run effectively solely from small contributors."

The key word there being "effectively."

With single-digit poll numbers (mostly, but not more than very low double digits), how "effectively" is he running?

All good points Dave, We may drag this conversation kicking and screaming back on subject yet!

Excellent point Clavos. He may have raised enough to get name recognition and word of mouth, but not nearly enough to get himself elected.

It's a shame, because there are some people who'd make great Presidents that'll never get their chance without shadowy corporate sponsers.

I don't know who I'm quoting, but it's said, "In politics-never use your own money."

With single-digit poll numbers (mostly, but not more than very low double digits), how "effectively" is he running?

The sad truth is that someone other than Ron Paul, without his personality, with a more moderate version of his platform and with his level of grassroots support would be winning the primary right now, even if he had less money to spend than Romney.

Dave

Oddly enough Ron Paul is tied with Hillary Clinton in the presidential poll over at BC Forum, then again only 9 people have bothered to vote though...

It is noticeable that since the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries the Paul supporters here on BC (with the exception of Irene) have been deafeningly quiet...

Probably because they've come to realize that Paul has about the same chance of being elected as Kucinich right now and they don't want to back a losing horse.

Probably about as quiet as I'll be if Hillary screws up somehow.

It's really sad, isn't it? Young people or first-time activists get so excited about a particular candidate, then if he doesn't pan out, people lose interest in the process. I hope it's just the sting of heartbreak that's keeping them away, not an abandonment of political hope.

It takes at least a decade to build a movement within a party. Think of the civil rights movement of the 1950's, or the religious right finally coalescing seven years after Roe v. Wade. There's an old Hollywood line, that it takes ten years to become an overnight success. It's true in politics as well. Even if Ron Paul is the future of the Republican Party, there's not going to be a sign of it for a long while.

I don't know, I think the 'religious right' is finally realizing that backing the GOP is getting them next to nowhere, and a bunch of empty promises.

The radical right has fulled themselves into thinking they have real power to steer elections, and it's true they're the only rabid dedicated voters nowadays, but I think this is the year they decide to teach the GOP a lesson.

So long as that lesson ends up with them in a different party then I'm just fine with losing this one election. Though I'd rather see a honest leftist like Obama in office than a hypocritical socialist stooge like Hillary.

Dave

JUST when I though we might actually agree on something, you yanked it back just in time. Good save Dave!

Just when I thought I could provide an example to illustrate a point, you two guys have to demonstrate your commitment to repitition by trashing the religious right, AGAIN. I get it. You hate them. But maybe that's not the moral of every story.

Baronius, there is a big difference.

There are those who believe deeply in God and the bible and want to see the world move towards those ideals.

and

there are those who would use the common man's fear of God, as an advantage towards power by convince those ignorant inocents that they speak for the almighty (Bush, Falwell, etc.)

Unfortunately they're both using the title of "The religious right" so that it is often hard to tell them apart.

Like a good box of facial tissue, there is the good quality brand and the cheap brand, but they both call themselves Kleenex.

Jet, that wasn't my point. That wasn't even the subject. I was commenting about how hard it must be to be a Paul supporter, that a political movement takes time. I cited two examples: one fairly controversial one, that the baby boom got credit for the civil rights movement, when most of the heavy lifting was already done by their parents' generation. The second example pointed out the ineffectiveness of the anti-abortion movement in the first years after Roe.

But I used the words "religious right", and you and Dave promptly wetted yourselves. Any reference to them must be greeted with hostility, and a discussion of how evil they are. Pavlov would be impressed. I'm not.

Then again Baronius, you haven't spent your life being labeled a pervert and evil. I cringe when I hear "Religious Right" I bristle...

Jet, my religion teaches that I'm a pervert and evil. I wouldn't believe a religion that said otherwise. But whatever you believe, your political critique becomes more accurate when it's driven by analysis rather than feelings.

Baronius: political critique becomes more accurate when it's driven by analysis rather than feelings

How many times did I point out in the artiticle that this was an editorial/opinion Piece?

my religion teaches that I'm a pervert and evil. I wouldn't believe a religion that said otherwise.

Do you really understand what you have just written up there, Baronius? Are you honestly that arrogant to think that you are a pervert and evil? Is this what Christianity is based on: the arrogant assumption that everyone is a pervert and evil?

Think about that for a minute. In fact, think about that for a lot longer than a minute. Don't condemn yourself without good reason. The Guy Upstairs might just choose to believe you.

Jet...there is a big difference...


there are those who would use the sheild of political correctness, to force people to accept their personal sexual perversions, while shouting down anyone whose opinion or religious beliefs differ from theirs...(MILITANT -Gays, Transexuals,Lesbians, etc.)

JOM

Do u mean sexual perversions like trying to force your version of sexuality on others. That's sort of like mind rape.

Please clear up who you were talking to Lumpy. I've never tried to force my sexual preferences on anyone...

Not u jet. I was taking to the little christofacist.

Ah... Well...thanks... Me to neither... i think (:p). I'm a little oever sensitive today, spent all day at my shrink's...

Thats right Lumpy...trying to force people to accept the abnormal as normal...gee lump does that make you a jewofacists, fagofacists, queerofacists, pedophileofacists or something else???


Jet...Its obvious you are getting ripped off by your shrink...get your money back or seek help for another doc!



JOM

Well, it's always nice to find myself on the same side of an argument as JOM...

Ruvy, you of all people should understand that humans are mired in sin. Or are you blameless in God's eyes? Have you fulfulled the Law at all times? If so, then why do you remain under the punishment of Adam?

Never mind that. Look around you. Do you notice many good people? Last I read, there were occasionally bad actions committed in the Middle East. Look inside you. What crime are you not capable of? There's a few things that are easier for me to picture myself doing, a few less so, but I wouldn't trust me as far as I can throw me.

The two big ideas in Christianity are that man is fallen, and that man is savable. That second idea is the tough one.

quote-Well, it's always nice to find myself on the same side of an argument as JOM...

Use two tablespoons of epson salts
That usually does it...

I seem to remember a lot of denials that the economy was going sour. I seem to remember a lot of put-downs for saying it too.

Now that even Bush has finally seen reality and has admitted it, what now?

Anyone with any poitical sense can see that the media is creating economic issues as we enter the presidential election cycle...the best is that it is back firing on the DumboCrats..the only economic plan they have is increase taxes and screw the middle class...

JOM

What... Who... Lou Dobbs????? Quick get his autograph!!!!

I love a good political joke, even when it's on Hillary. David Letterman just did one in tonight's monologue...

Hillary Clinton on a campaign flight earlier today decided to pretend to be a stewardess on the P.A. system.

Apparently she was so convincing, Bill hit on her!

Great, after everyone acknoledges the screwed up economy, Bush admits the economy is in trouble and steps up like he's going to fix it.

Well, he broke it with the war causing oil prices to go through the roof.

You'll note his big concern is that major corporations keep their tax cuts!

geez

Jet...the economy is fucked up because we have a Dumbocratic controlled congress that is hell bent on destroying the American ecomomy so we all have to collect unemployment and food stamps...

JOM

JOM, your economic analysis, like all your comments, is stupefying.

That's the sole reason for the state of the economy, is it? Nothing to do with a certain war the US is involved in? Nothing to do with the weak dollar? Nothing to do with irresponsible lenders selling folks mortgages they couldn't afford?

'Course not. Everything from the recession to your acne is the Democrats' fault.

"Nothing to do with irresponsible lenders selling irresponsible folks mortgages they didn't bother to read and so didn't realize couldn't afford?"

There.

Fixed it for ya, Doc.

Er... thanks, Clav (...?).

How much d'you wanna bet JOM is one of those folks?

:-D

There's a moral to all that... I'm just not sure what it is. He probably is maintaining that our economy is tanking because of Bill Clinton...

sigh

Can anyone really vote for someone whose middle name is Husein? It'd be like voting for someone whose first name was adolf, Saddam or a last name like...

dear god...

Bush?

speaking of which, whatever happened to Jebb running? He probably borrowed the family braid for a moment, and realized that wasn't a good idea??