vatoloco,
many conservative news outlets began accusing Obama of referring to all Republicans as enemies shortly after the interview. Who is pitting people against each other is obviously up for debate. Here are just a few of the sites that ran with the story:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/...
-
http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/20...
-
http://antzinpantz.com/kns/?tag=obama-ca...

"So far you have, mostly conjecturer and slanted opinions mixed with twangs of erroneous beliefs of conspiracy claims."
-
A very good example of my point. One can say a lot of things. That is a concise summary of your opinion of my views, RAF. I'm pretty sure most of us posting were already aware.

vatoloco,
Obama admitted saying "enemies". He said he should have used the word "opponents". This is what the article you posted said. It never says that he denied using the word "enemies". What was that about feeble-minded?

Ok. I think its time for this blog to die. Obama Sucks. Most know it others deny the fact. Lets move on

" One can say a lot of things."
-
So far you have, mostly conjecturer and slanted opinions mixed with twangs of erroneous beliefs of conspiracy claims.

Yes, vatoloco, one can say that. And one can say the same for Sharonn Angle as well. One can say a lot of things.

RAF,
Go back and check out the links I posted about him. He's certainly been convicted in the court of public opinion. The Department of Homeland Security has taken him to task. I'm sure he won't escape the 2400 (I think that #'s right) lawsuits filed against him unscathed. He's as crooked as power-mongering, ego-maniacal, tyrannical monsters dressed as authority figures come.

"That doesn't change the fact that Arpaiso is as crooked as they come."
-
More conjecture. Crooked as who come? Who is they? Has he been convicted of anything?

RAF,
Guilty as charged. I certainly got too charged up about some numbers before looking at them closely enough. That doesn't change the fact that Arpaiso is as crooked as they come.

I agree. I most the time try to sit back and think of the both-sides view and to be objective. Some lack that skill

"Too much passion can sometimes cloud a point one is trying to make."
-
Like claiming conspiracies when none exist...

I know, and its not even you, its the ones that are collecting on these programs and defrauding those that actually need them that really frosts my butt. I enjoy a good sparing once in a while. It keeps me on my toes and gives me new perspective. I actually think about other points of veiw, however some of the complete closed minded Janesvillian, you know the ones that still believe the GM plant will reopen, the garbage that comes from some of these folks is just amazing. However we shall all see what happens tonight.

Redder,
"White flight" from urban centers following WWII left minorities and poor whites with no way to get out. As the American inner city industrial complex began to break down, these people were left with no job and no way to leave. The U.S. government, realizing they had had a hand in the "white flight", began offering the "life-line" of public assistance. Still, the minorities and poor whites had few options for transportation from the inner cities to jobs that existed elsewhere and even fewer options for moving out of the inner cities. People just began learning to live on the meager public assistance as it was more than they had been living on. A culture of reliance on public assistance grew from this and people grew up only knowing this life. Many don't even consider a life beyond it. You can blame the people on public assistance. You can blame the upper classes and/or government for not doing something about it sooner. Really, the problem transcends blame at this point. Education is truly the key to change the well entrenched culture of apathy in inner cities, and that is something Barack Obama has made a priority in his Presidency. Meanwhile, a significant number of Republicans are calling for the dissolution of the Department of Education.

Redder,
You're right passion is very good when focused properly. Too much passion can sometimes cloud a point one is trying to make.

Easy folks. Just havin' a laugh with the whole oil thing.
-
Redder,
First of all, nice to hear from you again. Secondly, I understand your frustration. I know that our sparring matches have frustrated you. When others challenge my ideas I get frustrated, too. You seem to show your frustration through anger. I show mine through hasty posts citing inaccurate information. RetiredAirForce has shown me the error of my ways in that regard. I think it's important to remember that we should just be sharing ideas. That's it. In many cases those ideas won't agree, but that's what discussion is. I don't want you to think that I was implying that you're an actual terrorist. I was pointing out similarities between certain ideas and certain terrorists' ideas that I believe exist.

These social programs were meant to be a life line. Why is this not adddressed? Why is it, that we just do not call things as they are. Yes he was a Democrat, yes he fathered quite a few social programs, but my point was simply this, he was a man who lived by limited means and died in the same situation. I am angry with washington, that is for sure...they do not heed this example and are self serving...that was my point, and still is. I do appologize if I get overzealous, and I do, one of my many character flaws, but at least I have the passion, that so many today do not, and I will not accept just anything to be rammed down my throat. I like a good debate and I enjoy others perspective, but our world is not a rasey picture right now, and either Dem or Pubby, OUR goverment needs to stop serving itself and start serveing its people, those of us that vote and elect these folks. Personally, I have gone the way of the Patriot, and sometimes strong language is needed to make your point heard. It looks as if I accomplished that, and maybe made a few people think.

Uwalum

Angry, I am yes, I like to call it passion but angry as well certainly. If what you believe is that I am a bad person for it, then I accept that. I do however get very tired of the Janesville mentality, I really see not one shred of open mindedness through out all of the posts that I have been involved in. I get called a terrorist, or a racist, or whatever the name of the day might be and yes then I get angered. I do take issue with your post however. First I am not ignorant to my own posting as well.

As for your argument that social programs are being used as a means of income/livelihood for people when it should just be a lifeline, I disagree. The amount of money that people can get through public assistance doesn't provide much of a livelihood as far as I'm concerned. Those that use it as their only means of income (some do abuse the system but a very small percentage) live a very meager existence. In fact many people wouldn't call it a life at all. It's not like they're living some posh lifestyle without a care in the world. You paint a very unrealistic picture.

REALLY...you just said that....REALLY, wow now its the republicans fault that BP had an oil spill...will yu people stop at nothing. Just goes to show the ignorance.

Yeah oil, or maybe its sheriff joe and another conspiracy theory.

RAF,
That tidal waves comes ashore from the Gulf of Mexico. I think all that red that takes over the nation is supposed to represent oil or maybe Republican policies that protect companies like BP.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jy9r6H-cz...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_X2Bemej...

Remember BUsh telling us that the economy was fine all the while it was crashing down around us. Yea right, vote Republican and everything will be fine. They have a bridge to sell you!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv8K3G9DT...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qf6MMSJm4...

The county numbers still indicate that a person still stands a greater chance of being murdered in Mariocopa county than falling victim to any other violent crime, but the difference isn't nearly as pronounced as my mistakenly cited numbers from the city of Maricopa.
http://www.clrsearch.com/Maricopa_Demogr...

RAF,
Definite oversight on my part, but I don't hang my hat anywhere. While I average those crime risk index numbers for every city, town and village in Maricopa county, you can chew on this one:
From 2002 through 2009, violent crime went down statewide in AZ by 12%. In Maricopa county, however, under tough-as-nails Sheriff Arpaiso, violent crime was up 58%. 911 response times have increased and arrest rates have decreased. Phoenix mayor Phil Gordon has accused Arpaiso of creating a "sanctuary county" for felons due to the Maricopa county Sheriff's Department's failure to serve thousands of felony warrants. Arpaio's immigrant sweeps end up causing his department to neglect their other duties. This is a very informative report:
http://americasvoiceonline.org/research/...

http://www.businessinsider.com/republica...

"Maricopa's numbers are obviously being tinkered with except for the murder numbers which can't be hidden like the rest. Take a closer look at that comparison and you will see the glaring difference. That's my conclusion."
-
Wow. Did you not even realize your own "data" was from the small city of maricopa az, not the county of az? If you are going to try to hang your hat on some conspiracy of of playing with numbers the least you could do is look at the right numbers yourself.

classyone,
He's not so popular anymore.
Check this out: http://www.brcpolls.com/10/RMP%202010-I-...
Document's title is "Sheriff Arpaio's Popularity Collapses".

The voters in Joe Arpaios county sure do love him. The govt has ALWAYS had him under investigation for one thing or another, but he always seems to come out the winner. We need more like him.

I didn't ask you about anything, and won't. With quotes like "I've got all I need from the journalists that were covering it at the time," and "I've come to appreciate the Obama administration that much more," I've got all I need.

Thanks anyway.

NoLefse,
No. The "sanctuary city" idea interferes with state AND federal law. I'm against that as well. What are you going to ask me about next, "anchor babies"?

"I'm now even more against state interference with federal immigration law than I was when we started." Except, of course, when states have 'sanctuary cities.' Then, no doubt, you'd be against it.

The Obama feds, by their own admission, don't pursue illegal immigrants unless they commit other crimes, and many times not even then.

Meanwhile California is pursuing restaurants for offering toys in kids' meals.

Luckily, we won't have to put up with this nonsense for more than about 36 more hours.

Another one just for fun:
Here's a story from Reason magazine.

A Maricopa deputy was caught on video stealing a document from a defense attorney and photo-copying it. When the judge demanded an apology...

[The deputy] refused to apologize and instead went to jail, where he is enjoying paid leave. Arpaio, who is under federal investigation for a variety of civil rights violations, called Stoddard a “political prisoner.” The day after Stoddard was locked up, 20 of his fellow deputies called in sick, resulting in delays in the county court system. The court building was evacuated after a bomb threat, at which point several police unions coincidentally held a “Free Stoddard” rally in front of the evacuated crowd. In subsequent days there were more bomb threats, as well as an evacuation due to a mysterious cloud of pepper spray. Deputies have held nightly “candlelight vigils” in Stoddard’s cause.

RAF,
I don't need any "first hand" information from you on Maricopa County. Thanks anyway. I've got all I need from the journalists that were covering it at the time. This debate with you has really opened my eyes. I'm now even more against state interference with federal immigration law than I was when we started. I've come to appreciate the Obama administration that much more.

RAF,
Thank you for proving my point for me. Milwaukee is obviously a high crime city. That's why the numbers are high across the board. Maricopa's numbers are obviously being tinkered with except for the murder numbers which can't be hidden like the rest. Take a closer look at that comparison and you will see the glaring difference. That's my conclusion.

RAF,
You're right. Police are free to ask anyone for anything anytime. However, if a person is not under arrest they have the right to refuse that officer's request. If they are then physically detained (Brown v. Texas) they have had their 4th amendment right violated. The Department of Homeland Security had to step in in Maricopa County in 2009 to stop the Sheriff's department from detaining people on the street to check their immigraton status. That, in part, led to the attempt by the AZ state government to take that power back under the guise of "supporting existing federal law".

Your crime stats on maricopa county are devastating.

This link compares that data to milwaukee during the same time period. So what now is your conclusion of that? http://www.clrsearch.com/Maricopa_Demogr...

Hmmm, not sure how this got tuned into a conversation about sheriff joe and maricopa county. If you would like some somewhat first hand information on him and the county, I lived there for 11 years during his tenor. Is there something in particular you would like to know?

Here's the article. My mistake.
-
http://azcapitoltimes.com/azpolicywonk/2...

RAF,
"False document, your words, and a suspect, this then proves what? In this country all people are innocent until proven otherwise..."
-
He openly circulated the document at press conferences. It was witnessed by many.
Here's a good article on Sheriff Araio and his dealings with the Dept. of Homeland Security. It's cowboys like him and his department that try to seize more power than they are quailified to wield that should make all Arizonans, scratch that, all Americans nervous.

Also interesting to look at the Crime Risk Index for Maricopa County under Sheriff Joe Arpaio: http://www.clrsearch.com/Maricopa_Demogr...
While he's busy trying to turn his office into an arm of ICE or CBP, he's having someone fudge the county's crime numbers. One thing about that is, you can't fudge murders. Pretty strange that you're 3 times MORE likely to be murdered in Maricopa county but 10 times LESS likely to be assaulted. I wonder if the citizens of AZ will stand behind this law once their overall safety is put in jeopardy because the local police are too busy chasing "dangerous" illegal farm workers, housekeepers, dishwashers, gardeners, etc.

False document, your words, and a suspect, this then proves what? In this country all people are innocent until proven otherwise...

"The Supreme Court cases are in reference to arrests made by Federal law enforcement from the INS."
-
False: ref INS v. delgado

The SCOTUS declared that interrogation by police to determine citizenship, without arrest, does not cross the boundaries of the 4th amendment.

RAF,
The Supreme Court cases are in reference to arrests made by Federal law enforcement from the INS. The decisions were not made with local police officers in mind. Here's a good reason why:
http://azcapitoltimes.com/wp-files/pdfs/...
This a false document circulated by Sheriff Joe Arpaio who claimed the document was actual federal law that already gave him all the power provided in SB 1070. Arpaio is currently the subject of FBI, United States Department of Justice, and Federal Grand Jury investigations for civil rights violations and abuse of power, and is the defendant in a federal class-action suit for racial profiling.

Mmmm! I love the smell of fresh flop-sweat in the morning!

RAF,
To assume that a citizen (Black, White, Latino or otherwise) will read or has read the entire law is ridiculous.
-
"To assume they would not is also ridiculous..."
-
Either way I agree. The wording in the question obviously allowed for the possibility that the responder had read the law itself. I really don't see your problem with the question.

Love the trip you take into John E land with capital letters, doesn't negate the point the law did not create any independent immigration policy, it created a means for existing local and state law enforcement agencies to support federal law. Exactly the same that is done with other federal laws that local support is provided from. That being said the Supreme Court since 1976 has recognized that states may enact laws to discourage illegal immigration without being pre-empted by federal law. As long as Congress hasn’t expressly forbidden the state law in question.

To your points on the on the press reports. The law also said all state ID's can be treated as determination, meaning nothing changed for any US citizen or legal immigrated person. As for the LA times slanted claim of arrest and detention. In 1984 the SCOTUS ruled that questing a person concerning their citizenship did not amount to a detention or seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

"To assume that a citizen (Black, White, Latino or otherwise) will read or has read the entire law is ridiculous."
-
To assume they would not is also ridiculous, it's only 10 pages. Interestingly those at the federal level making public statements on the law, to include holder, when asked had also not read the bill; yet this did not keep them from commenting (in many cases inaccurately) about it.

RAF,
To assume that a citizen (Black, White, Latino or otherwise) will read or has read the entire law is ridiculous. That's the reality of things. That is why the poll question uses the language "Based on what you have read or heard..." This language does include the possiblity that the person being polled has read the law. I see no problem with the question as it is unreasonable to believe that a vast number of average citizens have read the actual law in its entirety.

RAF,
I've stated this already. I don't know how much more clear I can be. THE CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS INDIVIDUAL STATES FROM CREATING INDEPENDENT IMMIGRATION POLICY. It does not prohibit them from creating independent policy for drugs, alcohol, transportation, etc.
-
From the Justice Departments lawsuit against AZ:
“The State of Arizona has crossed this constitutional line,” write Assistant Attorney General Tony West, United States Attorney Dennis K. Burke and others. “In acknowledged disagreement with the manner in which the federal government has regulated immigration and in contravention of these constitutional principles…The states are not permitted to set
their own independent immigration policies, with varying and potentially conflicting enforcement systems and priorities. Were a number of states to act as Arizona has and strike out on their own, federal immigration policy and enforcement efforts would be crippled.”
-
A report from AP on how the new law would overreach the current law:
The Associated Press reported on April 25: "Current law in Arizona and most states doesn't require police to ask about the immigration status of those they encounter, and many police departments prohibit officers from inquiring out of fear immigrants won't cooperate in other investigations." As The Arizona Republic noted, "Currently, immigration offenses are violations of federal law, something most local law-enforcement agencies cannot enforce."

New law requires police to "determine the immigration status" of individuals whom they have "reasonable suspicion" to be in the country illegally. SB 1070, which Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law on April 24, requires law enforcement officials to, "when practicable, to determine the immigration status" of individuals whom they have "reasonable suspicion" of being "an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States." The law states that suspicion cannot be "solely" based on "race, color or national origin." As the Los Angeles Times reported [accessed via Nexis], "Anyone who falls under suspicion and cannot provide an Arizona driver's license, tribal identification, passport or green card could be subject to arrest and detention."

Among other things, SB 1070 also allows individuals to sue an Arizona official or agency "that adopts or implements a policy or practice that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law."

" You sound presumptuous and a little elitist. You've already questioned the credibility of polls and the media. What's next, democracy?"
-
What was that about presumptuous?

As far as polls and the media, I do tend to question what is reported, since the reason for the reports are rarely just to report. Reports and stories are usually on current issues of the day, understanding the positions and the reports better define the reason for the details as reported. Like why does one story this year say 9.6 percent unemployment is good when two years ago 7.0 percent was bad; context is crucial.

Interestingly, and pointedly, because you mentioned the CNN poll, do you wonder why the question was worded the way it was? Why ask respondents based on what they have heard and read what they think of it? Why not ask the question did they read the law then ask what they thought of it? Do you think the answers would have been different if they did, or is that being elitist or shall we use some cute sports metaphor instead?

" You don't believe it oversteps federal bounds. I do."
-
Fine. Show which parts of the bill that aren't part of a federal law or statute already. In order to overreach, they must be breaking ground somewhere.

While your at it, please explain why it is perfectly fine for local and state authorities to support (by enforcement) other federal laws but not immigration.

"One thing I'd like to know is why you think the White Americans questioned in the CNN poll were more informed than the Latino Americans on SB 1070?"
-
Faulty assumption. I never said all were or were not informed. I expressed the media hype and the erroneous reporting of the time, combined with the wording of the question; that you used to support your position. You drew the conclusion one group over the other.

"Nevermind. You hit the hat trick."
-
Begs the question why ask questions if you don't care to debate them?

Employment visualization.

http://labs.slate.com/articles/slate-job...

RAF,
It seems you and I have a fundamental difference in how we interpret SB 1070. You don't believe it oversteps federal bounds. I do. That difference will cause us to debate in a circle. No point in continuing that.
One thing I'd like to know is why you think the White Americans questioned in the CNN poll were more informed than the Latino Americans on SB 1070? Also, haven't you formed your opinions of the law based on what you have read and heard? How do you know your sources are more reliable than those of the people in the poll? You sound presumptuous and a little elitist. You've already questioned the credibility of polls and the media. What's next, democracy?
-
"Easy, there is no voting blocks standing behind the other groups breaking existing federal laws...."
-
Nevermind. You hit the hat trick.

The problem with your position, bolton's and the fed, on this issue is many.

Why is it ok for local and state agencies to "enforce", through local and state laws, federal guidelines/laws on drugs, alcohol, transportation, corruption, harassment, kidnapping, and many others but not immigration?

Easy, there is no voting blocks standing behind the other groups breaking existing federal laws....

"One more question on the poll. Why is it that you assume the Latino Americans polled were not well informed about the law? Why wouldn't they have the "facts" you talk about?"
-
Simple. The media hype was about how hispanics in Az would have to carry papers and be stopped constantly, some media even claimed they would be intimidated. The question asked the respondents, based on what they read and heard of the law what they thought.

Since the law never went beyond previous and existing federal law, over 70 years old, how can this new enforcement be bad when the actual law for it has been in place this long and no one complained? The hype and spin from different groups and the media propelled the stigma beyond the reality of what it actually said (the law).

classyone,

Regardless of how the AZ state government felt regarding the quality of immigraton law enforcement by the federal government, they were never in a position to encact a law like SB1070 because the Constitution does not permit them to do so. It's as simple as that. I thought Republicans claim to be strict Constitutionalists anyway.

RAF,
One more question on the poll. Why is it that you assume the Latino Americans polled were not well informed about the law? Why wouldn't they have the "facts" you talk about? It seems like you believe the white people that were polled were informed and had all your "facts". Since the majority of them feel the way you do, they must be more informed on the law than Latino Americans. Is that it?
Or maybe CNN just carelessly released a poll to the press knowing full well that it was completely compromised because the people being polled had no idea what they were being asked about. That seems plausible, right?

RAF,
As things stand right now, a state is not constitiutionally permitted to preempt federal immigration law. It's as simple as that. Governor Brewer tried to dress it up, as you did, as an "enforcement mechanism to support existing federal law". Fortunately, Judge Bolton saw through it and stated,
“There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens.” By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose, a ‘distinct, unusual and extraordinary’ burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose.” It simply makes no sense to put the power normally in the hands of a federal judge into the hands of local police officers.

"Aside from margin of error, which is accounted for by the poll, what other "bias" can you credibly claim occurred with the poll?"
-
I never said the poll was biased, I said it was easy to bias the results of the poll. I am sure those that did answer the question as asked, answered honestly. Did you read the question they were asked? Do you think they knew what was in the law? Do you think they knew the law was no more strict than existing federal law? Perhaps if they were given the facts then read the question it would be more credible.

As it is, the question as asked has nothing to offer other than the choice of ~300 people. If you want to hang your hat as this then equates to most hispanics in the country also feel this way you can; hardly a credible stance.

"Arizona was attempting to create its own immigration law. "
-
Hardly. Arizona was only creating an enforcement mechanism to support existing federal law. Nothing they placed in their law reached beyond existing federal law. Since federal law is enforced by federal level, this new state law allowed state and local law enforcement to protect with jurisdiction not allowed by the federal law.

"I could argue that any poll showing a majority approval of SB1070 among any group (whites for example) is biased and therefore should not be trusted. "
-
The same poll you posted lists this...so I guess the whole poll is biased.

alum, your PC is comimg across as a little self rightous and holier than thou. Arizona would not have been put in a situation to enact a law like SB1070 if the federal govenment was enforcing their end of the border.

vatoloco,
Let me get this straight. You believe that legal "Americans of Hispanic descent" are not "filth" but anyone of Hispanic descent currently residing in this country that is not a legal citizen of the United States is "filth", correct?
-
As for the political ad: just because it may not be effective amongst American Latinos, that doesn't excuse the Angle campaign for being connected to it. A potential child molestor doesn't get a pass for trying to lure a child into their car if the child doesn't actually get in the car.
-
One final question: What percentage of illegal immigrants do you personally believe are "drug trafficking, hostage taking, police killing, and children murdering cowards"? I'd just like to know if I should start looking at some of my neighbors in a different light.

RAF,
That's just it. It has been Federal law. Arizona was attempting to create its own immigration law. The federal government should be the only entity making immigration policy otherwise there could be 50 different, possibly conflicting, immigration policies in place in this country. SB 1070 would require local police to check the federal immigration status of anyone that is arrested regardless of the offense. It would also allow local police to make determinations regarding probable cause for the arrest of suspected illegals. These determinations are usually made by an immigration judge. Not only does SB 1070 give local police too much authority, it adds to the workload of these officers to the point that their ability to carry out their current duties could feasibly be compromised.
-
As to your comments on a biased poll, I don't believe that you have any proof that that poll was biased in any way, shape or form. If you do please share. Otherwise, given your own logic, I could argue that any poll showing a majority approval of SB1070 among any group (whites for example) is biased and therefore should not be trusted. The poll does state:
"The margin of sampling error for results based on this sample of Hispanics is plus or minus 5.5 percentage points."
So the real number is somewhere between 65.5% and 76.5% opposition to SB 1070 among American Latinos. Aside from margin of error, which is accounted for by the poll, what other "bias" can you credibly claim occurred with the poll? Do propose the entire population of American Latinos be polled to reduce the margin of error to near zero?

Here was the great question asked by CNN in that poll; "As you may know, Arizona recently passed a law concerning illegal immigrants. Based on what you have read or heard about that law, do you favor or oppose it?" Sourced from July 16-21 when they asked 303 hispanics this question-----wonder what the remaining 49million would say?.

So, the people they asked that classified themselves as hispanic, based on what they think/thought might be in the bill they didn't like it.

When all the news was saying those in Az had to show their "papers", when the truth was this has been a federal law now for over 70 years (for resident aliens) and the legal residents of Az only have are required to show a drivers licence if ever pulled over---just like every other american.

Pretty easy to bias a sample size or group. Kind of like your over the top statements and generalizations on the person running against harry.

RAF,
According to a recent CNN poll, 71% of American Latinos oppose SB1070. I believe this is the best proof I can offer. It pretty much speaks for itself
http://www.hispanicallyspeakingnews.com/...
-
In regards to the Republican party and Sharonn Angle: The Republican party has endorsed Angle as the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Nevada. Unless they publicly denounce her, withdraw their endorsement, and encourage voters to vote for another candidate they are endorsing her platform, statements and political ads as well. She has described Latinos as illegal gang-bangers storming the borders of Nevada in a political ad. She then encouraged Latino Americans not to vote in another ad. She has advocated for "2nd amendment remedies" to the Obama administration. She has stated publicly that Social Security should be privatized. These statements all get a de facto endorsement from the Republican party through their endorsement of Sharonn Angle.

"It is now legal for a Chinese-army-owned corporation to give unlimited amounts of money to an American political campaign"
-
Looks like mccain hasn't read the existing law; ref federal election campaign law section 441E. "prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly. It is also unlawful to help foreign nationals violate that ban or to solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations from them. Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to fines and/or imprisonment."

Now in his defense, not that I ever want to defend him, I don't have the time to dig out what the law said at the time he made that comment. The reference I provided is from the 2008 version of the law; I suspect this same phrase was in the law at that time he made his comment.

Why the US needs the Disclose Act, which Republicans voted against. I couldn't have said it any better than John McCain did on Jan 7, 2000

"MCCAIN: I’ve always thought that what’s best for the country is best for the party. You are defending an illegal system. You are defending a system that has caused the debasement of every institution of government and it’s got to be stopped. It is now legal for a Chinese-army-owned corporation to give unlimited amounts of money to an American political campaign. We’re awash in it."

Apparently FECA doesn't cover all the bases. I guess if anyone knows about the influence of foreign money in our elections, John McCain would know better than most of us.

There are many reasons, the most of which during my correspondence with his office, this was always pushed as one of his achievements.

If you want to get picky about those involved. The bill started in the house of representatives, introduced by congressman shays HR 2356 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?...

The senate version was a companion bill, S.27, with only mccain as the sponsor. Feingold was one of 41 other cosponsors; http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?...

As I said, since his office always claimed this as his, so will I. http://feingold.senate.gov/issues_campai...

Then I don't know why you keep referring to it as the Feingold bill, when it was actually a bipartisan bill sponsored by both McCain and Feingold.

Yes. The bill you described was a response, by the congress and senate, to the supreme court ruling on the feingold bill.

RAF...Were you referring to the McCain-Feingold legislation?

There is existing law that forbids direct support already.

"The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly. It is also unlawful to help foreign nationals violate that ban or to solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations from them. Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to fines and/or imprisonment."

Then isn't it poor law that allows our Democracy to be influenced by foreign contributors? What right do they have influencing our elections?

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-urg...

Simple, your ability to vote is a personal choice; who you give too and how much should be a personal choice, to include business' and companies. Trying to declare one group can and the other can't, as the bill you complain about had in it, is a poor law.

What is it about campaign donations that you don't want amended?

The portion designed to circumvent existing law...from the supreme court ruling about campaign donations; the flawed law authored by feingold.

RAF...since you seem to be defending the Republican vote on this measure, what portions of it do you find so distasteful that it shouldn't have been passed?

Jimbo it just so happens that bills are voted on based on all the content...not just parts of it.

RAF...I did read the whole bill, it just happens I feel that was one of the most significant parts of the bill. Apparently the Republicans, don't see that as an issue though. Furthermore, the amendment would not have stated that in the opening line, if it wasn't meant to be the most important part of it.

Jimbo...that was only a portion of the bill, not the whole thing. Declaring it was voted down because people wanted foreign influence is disingenuous. Perhaps you should read the full bill and amendments.

"Read the articles attached to those posts. Not as inaccurate as you might think."
-
Hardly accurate, an uneducated assumption at best.

The hispanic population of the US is currently ~16%. Your assumptive position that more than 25 million agree is just a guess...do prove otherwise.

" Any candidate that spews ignorance, bigotry, hate or flat out lies should be ostracized by any political party."
-
Subjective assumptions most can agree with, yet this was not your original comment.

RAF...Interesting how you phrased it. Its purpose is to amend, not circumvent, thereby preventing foreign influence in our elections. Here's a synopsis.

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit foreign influence in Federal elections, to prohibit government contractors from making expenditures with respect to such elections, and to establish additional disclosure requirements with respect to spending in such elections, and for other purposes.

RAF,
Also, 100% YES! Any candidate that spews ignorance, bigotry, hate or flat out lies should be ostracized by any political party.

RAF,
Read the articles attached to those posts. Not as inaccurate as you might think.

"If the "blank" party does not share his/her views, they should denounce them and disassociate themselves from..."
-
Do you hold the same standards to all politicians?

Jimbo just to clarify, the bill was designed to circumvent existing law, as defined by the supreme court. Wonder why you only mentioned foreign money as a reason this was not approved?

"Most legal Latinos DO NOT agree with SB 1070 because..."
-
Still a wild generalization.

"The Republican party seems to support Sharonn Angle's views that Latinos are to be feared and shouldn't vote. "
-
You have just stepped off the deep end.

Just to clarify, those that voted against this measure, want to sell our Democracy to foreign contributors.

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit foreign influence in Federal elections, to prohibit government contractors from making expenditures with respect to such elections, and to establish additional disclosure requirements with respect to spending in such elections, and for other purposes.

Let's see who wants to sell our elections to foreign contributors and who doesn't. Surprise, surprise.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd...

RAF,
As for the Sharonn Angle ad being an out of state ad, technically that's true. However, NV and AZ share a border and ads get run across statelines because of cable companies operating in multiple states. I see Kirk/Gianoullias ads from IL all the time. It's because Charter operates in both WI and IL. The President was just letting them know that the Democratic party doesn't want to make the rest of the country live in fear of Latinos and that they want Latinos to vote. The Republican party seems to support Sharonn Angle's views that Latinos are to be feared and shouldn't vote. That's what the ads would lead me to believe if I were Latino. If the Republican party does not share her views, they should denounce here and disassociate themselves from her. They've done neither.

NoLeftist,
Harry Reid attempted to bring a bill to the Senate floor that would create tax penalties for companies that outsource jobs, but minority leader Mitch McConnell blocked it. This was just a few weeks ago.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010...

Most legal Latinos DO NOT agree with SB 1070 because it will lead to discrimination of ALL Latinos (legal or illegal)"
-
This statement is a generalization and not supported by any fact.
-
RAF: When you're right, you're right. What I should have said was:
Most legal Latinos DO NOT agree with SB 1070 because they feel that it could lead to excessive racial profiling that could then lead to the detention of legal U.S. citizens.
http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/repo...

"the President said what he did because Sharon Angle "
-
If the president comments require justification and the reason given is because he is responding to a person running for office in another state...your statement of support is pretty weak.

"Most legal Latinos DO NOT agree with SB 1070 because it will lead to discrimination of ALL Latinos (legal or illegal)"
-
This statement is a generalization and not supported by any fact.

What that McDonald's owner did was reprehensible. Any voter intimidation is not right and dems are guilty of it too. I lived in Chicago for many years and politics there was very interesting. It's an environment for thugs--it's just accepted as a way of life. Even if there is one incident of voter fraud or intimidation, that is one too many.

The GOP is so sure about winning in this election, they have to threaten workers to vote Republican.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/30/us/pol...

My apologies. My previous post was in response to vatoloco's post. Not classyone's.

classyone,
Dems do not tout the ills of society. They campaign against Republican policies (like the Bush tax cuts) that contribute to the income disparity problem in this country that helps perpetuate the "ills in our society". That is a problem that sees no color.

classyone,
Your statement seems to be a broad generalization. There are legal Latinos outside of the state of Arizona. Most legal Latinos DO NOT agree with SB 1070 because it will lead to discrimination of ALL Latinos (legal or illegal).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

classyone,
the President said what he did because Sharon Angle runs an ad that depicts white "American" families being scared of bandanna-wearing, tattooed, gang-supporting Latino immigrants. She is apparently unaware that Americans can also be Hispanics and Latinos. Classic race-bating.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIkNAA2y4...

Latinos for Reform, which is headed by a former director of Hispanic affairs at the Republican National Committee, ran an ad encouraging Latinos not to vote.

These are the enemies of Hispanics and Latinos.

Because the healthcare bill exempts firms under 50 employees from the $2,000 penalty for not providing insurance, firms with more than 50 employees who will pay the penalty won't be incented to move jobs overseas where they won't have to pay the penalty.

Got it. No wonder you people can't make it through life without government assistance.

The prez was definately being devisive, This was said in Arizona to the Latino community as a way to get even with the Governors ruling on illegals. However most legal latinos agreed with the governor. Do it the right way.

classyone,

I agree the words were divisive. Divisive means "tending to cause disagreement or hostility between people". Any candidate or politician uses divisive words quite frequently. However, the words were not intended to be divisive in a racist way or in a way that would pit illegals against U.S. citizens. The president's comments regarding Lations were aimed at legal citizens that were being targeted by a campaign ad. He was encouraging them to exercise their right to vote. You can read into the President's words, twist them anyway you want and then call them racist or whatever. It takes a lot less intelligence to take a quote completely out of its context to prove some off-the-wall point than it does to leave the words in context and do the same thing. Your statement about "true color" is divisive, and it could be construed as racist. Could it not? Or am I taking you out of context?

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/29/wa...

Lord O Speaks http://introvibe.com/wMULtx

It appears the subjective "divisive" words made by candidates and those campaigning for them are viewed in different ways by people of differing political leanings.

The presidents remarks were not devisive? Pitting illegals against US citizens?? The president is not racist? Ludicrist? I think Not.The man child is showing his true color.

President Obama's remarks were not divisive. One remark was a metaphor and the other was encouraging a miniority to stand up against those who would try to oppress them. The President was out campaigning for Democratic candidates when he said these things. When campaigning, for youself or another person, it's pretty commonplace to use strong words. To call them divisive or offensive is pretty silly. I guess what you've been wanting to say this whole time is that you think the President is racist. THAT is ludicrous. Now it's become pretty obvious what your REAL issue is with President Obama.

Again, I say he is the president, not a candidate. You didn't get my point. As PRESIDENT those were divisive remarks. And if someone who isn't black had said those words Sharpton or Jackson would have had a fit. It only works one way. Only white people can be racist. My only point is that is the president--not a candidate and to compare them is ludicrous.

Here's the link.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-se...

uwwalum...Here's another example. This clip from John Stewart exemplifies how Fox distorts things, and of course the GOP swallow it hook, line, and sinker. Skip ahead to 5:30 in the clip to see the distortion of the facts.

donnaw,
Let's be serious. Do you really think that using a tiny snippet of a much larger quote and then taking it completely out of context gives your argument more credibility? I hope you're smarter than that.
Here is Obama's quote:
"Finally we got this car up on level ground. And, yes, it's a little beat up. It needs to go to the body shop. It's got some dents; it needs a tune-up. But it's pointing in the right direction. And now we've got the Republicans tapping us on the shoulder, saying, we want the keys back.

You can't have the keys back. You don't know how to drive. You can ride with us if you want, but you got to sit in the backseat. We're going to put middle-class America in the front seat. We're looking out for them."

There is no mention of a bus at all anywhere in this quote or any other quote in which the President has used the "car" metaphor. He talks a about a car in a ditch as a metaphor for where he feels Republican policies put this country. He feels that the middle class was put into the "backseat" by the Republicans and that they should be forced to switch spots. That's it. Nothing more sinister or "divisive" than that.

On to President Obama's quote about Latinos:
“If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s gonna be harder and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2.”

This was in reference to political "enemies" of Latinos that would encourage them to not vote as a conservative campaign ad has done in the past few weeks.

Finally, in regards to Keith Olbermann's speciall comment, which was not posted exclusively on huffingtonpost.com but many other neutral sites as well: the majority of the piece was a compilation of extremely divisive and, to me, offensive quotes from Republican candidates as read by Mr. Olbermann. Call me crazy, donnaw, but I am very concered with the divisive words of the people that are actually running for offices that we will be voting for on Nov. 2nd, and I prefer to hear/read them in their entirety and in context.

uwwalum ...I realize many people are willing to believe what they've been mislead about rather than put some effort into it and try to find out the facts for themselves. They either don't want to know the truth or thier reading comprhension skills are at a level where they can't understandf what they are reading, so they let some one else tell them the way things are. I have a friend that thinks Glenn Beck is a "straight shooter" and factcheck.org is biased. How do you reason with that kind of logic?

noleftist.....regarding your 10:42 am post.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/... "McCain misstated Obama’s health care plan, claiming it would levy fines on “small businesses” that fail to provide health insurance. Actually, Obama’s plan exempts “small businesses.”

Germany invests in their own people by applying a tax on foreign made goods. If memory serves, I believe it is 26%. Might have been 13% sales tax and an additional 13% foreign made goods tax. This was a few years ago when we had a German contractor in the states for training, so I may be off on the exact numbers.

Keith Olbermann and Huffington Post? You've got to be kidding--two of the most left wing sources you could name. You have a fit when someone references Fox News, these two are the other extreme. Also, I am not referring to "candidates" but the "president". He is not a candidate. He is in another category; he's not running for office. He is supposed to be our leader. He is being divisive with those remarks.

More ignorance from the left: the English and Germans have proportionately just as many jobs overseas as we have. Have you ever been to India, let alone an Indian call center? There are tons of European companies that do business there just like American companies do.

The irony is that as loud as the Dems howl about those jobs going overseas, they pass bills that further encourage it. For example, a $2,000 PER EMPLOYEE penalty on all employers who don't provide health insurance is nothing but a $2,000 incentive to move that job overseas and not have to pay the penalty. Democrats are either terribly stupid or shameless hypocrites, and usually both.

"the most divisive thing a president has said"? You are joking, right?
*
In other news, Currently, Germany has one of the lowest unemployment rates of all time. Why? They invested their own people, and didn't farm out technical expertise and manufacturing to China and India. English being the universal business and technical language, has bit us in the backside.
*
You can bash Clinton all you want over NAFTA, but American business have a choice in investing in their fellow citizens, or going abroad for pennies on the dollar. Looks like they made their choice, and the Repubs are in lock step. Let's let them drive again, look how we all benefited.

If you want to hear some divisive language from Republican candidates, watch Keith Olbermann's special comment from last night. It was brilliant and devastating all at the same time.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/28...

This Just In!
Due to the large expected turn out in next weeks election Republicans will vote on Tuesday Nov 2nd and Democrats will vote on Wednesdy Nov. 3rd.

What's divisive is a President stating that HE is "The Decider". You call that "uniting"?

Obama's latest comments about Republicans being sent to the "back of the bus" and his comments about urging Latinos to "punish their enemies and reward their friends" in the upcoming election are the most devisive things a president has said. Where is his uniting leadership? His true colors are showing. No matter the party, he is still our president and should act more like a leader. He needs to rise above the fray.

The CBO analysis is fantasy: it presumes that the Democrats will really gash Medicare reimbursements as much as they promised to. That's ridiculous, as evidenced by the fact that they voted to override Medicare cuts to doctors that were ALREADY IN EFFECT this year, and were much less than what are proposed under the health care bill.

If you leftists were as enlightened as you proclaim to be, you wouldn't believe in such fairy tales.

onedayatatime,
You have to realize that a lot of the conservatives that post on here choose not to look at the big picture. It's all "what have you done for me lately?", "how does this benefit me?" and "to hell with everyone else!" The fear-mongering Republican/Tea Party/Conservative candidates and the Fox News terrorists fill their heads with a lot of hate and lies that they try to pass off as American values. It's a runaway train of right wing propaganda, and the next thing you know some poor girl is getting her head stomped into a curb.

imalegalcitizen..... The provisions in the health care bill that will effect how much insurance companies can raise your premiums does not go into affect until 2014. In the mean time it is the health insurance companies that are gouging you as much as they possibly can before health care takes efect and limits the raise..

CBO Report on premiums.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc1078...

Congressional Budget Office report on the deficit.
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11936

Congressional Budget Office report on health care
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collecti...
And for those too lazy to actually go there and read, here is a synopsis:

CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that enacting both pieces of legislation will produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion over the 2010-2019 period. About $124 billion of that savings stems from provisions dealing with health care and federal revenues; the other $19 billion results from the education provisions.

Just reading through Opinionsforfree's comments and I have to say this is my favorite quote so far, "...he was suppose to be the angel that was to save our country instead he turning out government into a form of dictatorship." This guy or gal makes conservatives look pretty silly.

future...That is quite a goal Opinions has set for himself, 200 comments. I wonder what his goal is for next year.

Opinionsforfree said, "Keep with your links. I'll keep intellect and my ability to think for myself." That just about sums up the mentality of conservatives these days. I don't even understand the meaning of "I'll keep intellect". Did you mean "I prefer intellect", or are you saying "I prefer to make up my own data"?

I am just using you little Obama elves to get this blog up to 200 comments

Keep with your links. I'll keep intellect and my ability to think for myself

It's funny how the GOP bashed the stimulus money going to GM, but being the hypocrites they are, they gladly accept political contributions from the same company they call Government Motors.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

The lefties are getting desperate..... spouting insults opposed to discussing issues. They want government to save them..... They need to look internally.... take care of themselevs and get off t he government doles.

Whoops...looks like Opinions is wrong again.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/143024/bush-t...

Opinions...since you're reading his posts, that must mean your IQ is equivalent to a rock!

NoLeftist. Most are Blaming Obama for his spending spree when he was suppose to be the angel that was to save our country instead he turning out government into a form of dictatorship.

Try again

soup2k10 you believe in censorship?

justsaynotomath your still spouting your idiotic rants? Most people with an IQ higher than a rock are not going to listen to you

Mmmmm. The fresh smell of leftist flop sweat, as evidenced by the three posts below. What a great way to start the day!

The comedy of the loons is getting better everyday.

If Republicans take congress there might be a depression and war-we will be at the mercy of global big buisness-much more poverty-many more stock market prisons with their mandatory minimums-you can go to prison for swearing-cultivate your anger and throw you in the rich man's toilet. King Obama-truest leader the world's ever had-support the path-vote democrat-have patience for regulated growth. Whitehouse.gov/video

@NoLeftist: Dissent isn't craziness. Some of the things said and portrayed of this president, truly a moderate to any balanced citizen, are off the chart. This guy tried to work with Republicans, to the anger of the people who supported him. Here is a good summary of President Obama's situation:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/opinio...

You lefties crack me up: "The Republican Tea party mistakenly continues to blame President Obama for any and everything based on their own flawed perception of reality. They fail to recognize their unpatriotic nature of their every-person-for-themselves ideology."

Jus a few months ago, dissent was the highest form of patriotism and patriotism was the last refuge of a scoundrel. Now dissent is unpatriotic and patriotism is the last refuge of lefties about to get led to the electoral gas chamber.

I think the time of allowing folks to publicly comment on these sites is at an end!

onedayatatime I don't get my "truth" from what a website states or what another person states, or even what the main stream media thinks I need to know. I form one myself by facts and actions or inaction.

Try again

Wow you got me. I had a typo. I am going to have to cry myself to sleep tonight

Wow you got me. I had a typo. I am going to have to cry myself to sleep tonight

Here's what Mark Zandi, economic policy advisor to John McCain during his 2008 presidential run, has to say about the stimulus.

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/opinion/...

Opinions...If you truly want to be informed, try these sights. 4 out of the 6 sites you listed are very partisan biased sites. The Obamameter from Politifact list 500 of President Obama's promises and the current status of each. Most helpful, if you really care to know the truth.
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/prom...
http://www.factcheck.org/
http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category...

justsaynotomath=Bleading liberal

Justsaynotomath=not good with numbers?

Road King...maybe you would feel better if it was Republicans talking about the lies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky-ts5bYB...

It's a good thing democratics have Bush to blame or they might have to face the truth. I didnt realize the "change we can believe in" was going from bad to worse.

Apparently Opinions was asleep during the entire BuSh Administration.

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

jimbo you know factcheck doesnt count since they are OBVIOUSLY a truth leaning website

andre,
I can't seem to find a study to confirm or deny your opinion. I have no data to post. I don't think UW-Whitewater is a bastion of conservatism or liberalism. What I can tell you is that it is an institute of higher learning, and I had a mixed bag of conservative, moderate and liberal professors. All I can relate is my own experience.

thekid3477,
Thank you for the kind words. I certainly would like to be there, but I will be working that day. Please keep me informed on any future events. I'll send you my email in a private message. I hope the rally and your speech will be smashing successes. Take care.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/...,

What's your source that states differently?

Obamas Lie list

http://frontpagemag.com/2010/01/21/lies-...

http://obamalies.net/

http://www.westernjournalism.com/obamas-...

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/12...

http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.sh...

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/3316...

The CIA is still looking for his birth certificate

uwwalum i enjoy reading your posts. you should come speak at the 'rally to restore sanity' this saturday!!

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=15...

Don't let facts get in the way, they confuse the issue.

Re: Krauthammer: When has regression not been a sign of fear? Or hating things? It doesn't take a well-loved president to create a philosophy.

Even if you don't like him as President...you have to like his sense of humor.

http://i.imgur.com/pqa6n.jpg

andre,
You do realize that you don't know the first thing about the political leanings of my professors while I was in college, right? You know the difference between making an assumption and knowing actual facts, right? My Socialism discussion offer stands. You might find that your assumptions and the actual facts don't quite match up.

I don't care what you guys say.I think it is imperative that we get behind all candidates who steadfastly look out for the well being of the top 2% of Americans. Happy ANDRE?

http://institute.ourfuture.org/blog-entr...

andre,
One more thing: I am a 2003 graduate of the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater. I majored in history and minored in political science. If you'd like to have a discussion on what Socialism really is, we can do that. I don't really care what value you think my education has. I know what it was worth and continues to be worth to me.

seriouslyfunny,
Democrats playing on the fears of minorities that Republicans hate them? Sinking to such low politics?

Have you seen the Republican ad supporting Sharron Angle in Nevada that encourages Latinos NOT to vote?! That's right, I said NOT to vote. It's not subtle either. At the end of the commercial the two words "Don't Vote" appear on the screen. The one sure way for the common person in this country to make their voice heard, and the Republicans don't want them to use it. It's ridiculous.

As for your civil rights reference, I guess I don't get your point. Those racist southern Democrats voted with the Republicans on many issues and ended up switching parties anyway. If that's the kind of bi-partisan cooperation you're talking about, I'm a little unclear on it's benefit for the greater good.

http://www.corporations.org/welfare/

Whay isn't anyone looking here to make cuts? And this is from 2000!

Did anyone happen to see 60 minutes tonight? They had a whole segment on workers called "too young to retire, too old to hire". The exact people I was referring to in my earlier post.

andre,
You're right. The lengthiness of my posts does not make them any more valid. It also does not make them any less valid. The brevity of others' posts does not make them any more or less valid either. The length of a post has nothing to do with the post's validity. It is the content of the post that makes it more valid or less valid.

Sarah...What? You mean you don't want Wall Street collecting fees on every investment you make and then when Wall Street decides enough people have invested their earnings and built up some wealth in the market, they can pull the plug again and drain that wealth from middle class American again, just like they did with the dot com bubble and the housing bubble. That's just absurd (sarcasm).

Andre...did you miss the part where I said that I was paying 20% into my 401K When I was employed? I have always contributed the maximum for my age bracket. I thought I would have 15 more years to work and contribute until my job was sent to India. I not only lost 38% of my 401K due to Wall Street I am no longer contributing, believe me if I could afford to I would still be contributing the max.

I believe that we are in a period of history much the same as moving from the agricultural age into the industrial age; we are now moving from the industrial age into the technological age. The problem is there is a whole segment of the population that is too old to re-educate themselves because by the time we are finished with school we will be at or near retirement age or no longer physically able to work. For anyone 45 and under there is hope, for those 45 and older I see no future. I am in that group. I went from 60K a year with benefits to $9/hr part time with no benefits. I was working and paying 20% into my 401K and buying health insurance through my employer. Now I am no longer contributing to a 401K, it takes everything I make just to make living expenses. My employer does offer health insurance, if I would sign up for it, my take home pay would be approximately $50/week. Forget about contributing anymore to my retirement. If I were to have a heart attack tomorrow, I don't dare go to the hospital, it would leave me bankrupt and destitute. What kind of life would that be, I would rather die. Now the republicans want to privatize SS and medicare, what little life line is out there for the poor elderly will be gone.

http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/is...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/us/pol...

Eman,

Truth is, it's just one more 1099. Big deal. You exaggerate the impact of this one measure.

Here is where I think we can agree. I'm not so much worried about the burden of one more report as I am with the entire, antiquated, technologically extinct methods employed.

Platitudes about job killing government regulations annoy me. Regulation, a referee, if you will, is necessary.

Football referees do not kill the game, rather they make it a better experience for everyone.

We can agree, I think, that oversight by someone in the market is necessary to the stability of those markets. I refuse to believe the whole pure market will self correct. There is no proof that the greater good was ever met by self correcting markets.

What needs to happen is that government agencies start being compatible with one another. Systems have been built to meet the immediate needs. No planning for the huge future need for technological excellence.

I don't want to leave the wrong impression. What I'm advocating is new technological infrastructure overhaul for the commons, much like the Interstate highway system. I didn't want to leave the idea hanging there that I want a government overhaul just so government get to get in your business.

To succeed, this country needs, among so many other things a technological infrastructure overhaul. Markets will never recover unless everyone feels like they're being treated fairly.

I know this is not a direct answer to your challenge, but it takes the superior mind to find common grounds, offer solutions instead of fight, realize that we are all in this together.

Do you a have superior mind?

Imagine that Fox News which has four Republican candidates on its payroll, touts itself as Fair and Balanced. They should change that last word to Biased. BTW...has Hannity, who claims water boarding is not torture, ever been water boarded like he said he would?

Yes, I'm aware of the demographics. As I'm sure you are aware of the point I was making. :0)

seriouslyfunny,
If you're talking about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 it's more important to look at the passage vote by region rather than party. Here it is:
The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7%–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%–15%)
The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–16%)

Note: "Southern" refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

uwwalum, It's easy to use a broad brush to paint that kind of picture of the poor 'white' masses in this country, though, I think you are doing a vast disservice to the caring, thinking, people who will go to the polls on November 2nd. I could easily use the same broad brush on the Democrats by saying they pander to the fears of the blacks and hispanics, and poor whites, too, and the uneducated of every stripe who may be on the government programs that we've been discussing. The Democrats play on their fears that the Republicans hate anyone "not like themselves." Although, historically--regardless of how inconvenient history may be for the Democrats--it is the Republicans who voted for and fought for civil rights. And the Democrats who stood against them.

-
Rather than sink to such low politics, I would rather believe that there are good people on both sides of the fence. Good people who see things from different perspectives, perhaps, but who, with respect for each other, and an abiding love for this country and her history, can bring about change that won't rape our Constitution, and still give all of us hope.

seriouslyfunny,
I agree with you completely on S.S., but given Redder's logic the money that we pay in now is going to pay for someone else who is not earning it. The money paid to us in the future will be someone else's money used to pay our way while we are not earning it. I think he finds it too easy to pass judgement on those being assisted by social programs. Few of us, myself included, know what it's like to have been born into and know nothing more than abject poverty. It is true that government has been notorious for raiding S.S. Most notably, Ronald Reagan did it with Alan Greenspan's help in covering it up. With a Republican majority in Congress, I think there's a good chance we'll see a push to privatize S.S. so that even more hands can get into it without any government interference.

As for my comments to SarahB1, I believe that the GOP looks out for big business (and foreign business) first and foremost. Whatever residual effects that come from policies geared toward benefitting the wealthy are then dressed up and sold to the large portion of the Republican voting base that happens to be white and under educated. What they don't disclose is that Republican economic policies have vastly widened the income disparity gap making the rich much richer and the poor even poorer over the past decade. Also, it's often the case that they pander to those same people on social issues like abortion or they push the 2nd amendment because they realize that many uninformed voters will vote based soley on those issues. How many Republican members of Congress really take up the fight against abortion or work to loosen gun restrictions when they get into office? It's an assault to my political sensibilities to watch such shameless pandering for votes when it seems to be done only to protect the plutarchy that has a firm grip on the power structure in this country.

Imagine that newsweek, which recently sold for one dollar, thinks republicans are bad.

http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle...

"A government which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the support of Paul" George Bernard Shaw, 1944

andre_linoge,
Here are your posts to this forum:

"'why dont you just come out and say it....'fear fear fear fear fear fear'"
+
"Ok, I will. fear,fear,fear is all the left has left to try. Their policies have failed. They will learn that lesson after Nov. 3rd. obama has hit a new low in the polls. What more proof do you need that the country is tired of his agenda?"

"'Don't vote for Ryan if you value your Social Security.'"
+
"Why don't you just come out an say it, 'vote only for democrats to continue the road to socialism'".

"Watching all these liberal democrats whine on November 3rd is really going to be fun to watch! Your socialist agenda is going to come to a halt!"

It seems you just quote other people and then throw out some vague political one-liner with no substance and no information to back it up. I do respect your right to express your opinion, but perhaps you can tell me what value it really has in this discussion or in your evaluation of me?

uwwalum, The difference between Social Security and the other "entitlement" programs is that the individuals receiving the benefits are receiving their own money back--money they paid into the system for decades while they worked with the expectation that the government was investing that money and had set it aside for them for their old age, as was promised. Instead, the government has, time and time again, robbed the SS fund to pay for other programs, bills, pet projects. SS is OUR money. We earned. We had it taken from our paychecks. And we have a right to expect that it will be returned to us, or at the very least, to our parents.

-
As for your comments to SarahB1, they are beneath contempt. For all your measured tones, you can be just as hurtful as others here.

SarahB1,
Voters reading? Come on. Did you know that most under-educated white people tend to vote Republican? The GOP targets that demographic because they're a large group, and the Republicans know how easy it is to manipulate them through fear and propaganda and are willing to do so.

Redder,
You're not a terrorist. I was making the point that there's no excuse for the inappropriate language you use in your posts. On that note I have read all of your posts in their entirety. If you want I can quote you calling people idiots or accusing people of being on drugs, and I can do it all in context. You have posted the words in anger. No one is doing it for you. I suggest you take seriouslyfunny's advice and tone it down.
As for your argument that social programs are being used as a means of income/livelihood for people when it should just be a lifeline, I disagree. The amount of money that people can get through public assistance doesn't provide much of a livelihood as far as I'm concerned. Those that use it as their only means of income (some do abuse the system but a very small percentage) live a very meager existence. In fact many people wouldn't call it a life at all. It's not like they're living some posh lifestyle without a care in the world. You paint a very unrealistic picture.
You seem to be very much against paying taxes towards social programs. You can be against it, but unless you're going to stop paying you're taxes, you might as well get used to it. Are you against paying into social security? Those people aren't working anymore. They're not paying their own way. Are you against paying for them? Do you have a parent or parents on social security/will be on S.S.? Do they share your sentiment? Are they willing to forfeit that money so people don't have to pay their way? Would you be willing to take that money from them if you had the authority? As for government run health care, do you have the same feelings about Medicare or Veterans healthcare?
You have said you are a veteran. To cut out of control government spending do you think deep cuts in military spending are necessary? During the current campaign, Republicans are very shy about targeting specific areas where they would try to cut government spending. Either they don't know or they don't want their honest answers to cost them votes. Entitlements and military spending have to be on the table. Wouldn't you agree?
In Britain the current Prime Minister put everything on the table and made massive cuts to military spending. Troops are losing their jobs, bases are being shut down, and carriers are being decommissioned all to cut spending. Would you be comfortable with similar cuts here?

seriouslyfunny:
I don't think there's a single thing wrong with admiring, respecting, or celebrating people across party lines. I'd be a fool to take issue with that. However, I believe that Redder knew very little more about Truman aside from the information he posted, so I provided him with a few facts. I think you would agree that some of the language he uses in his posts could lead a person to believe that he might need a few lessons in history and public policy. It appears you gave him some guidance as to coming across so angry. Good for you.
As for Obama's health care summit: One of the President's first statements at the outset of the meeting was about focusing on the things both sides agreed on as well as the things they disagreed on. Not long after, Lamar Alexander, the Republican Senator from Tennessee, spoke out saying the entire health care bill needed to be put on the shelf and redone from a "blank sheet of paper". He also admitted later in the meeting that Republicans agree that they "don't do comprehensive well". He should be applauded for his honesty. If the President seemed aggravated, it's because Republicans like Alexander, Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell, and Paul "Goldenboy" Ryan, were all calling for a complete scrapping of the proposed bill even though there happened to be a lot of agreement on costs, specifically fraud. There was also a lot outcry by the Republicans about the use of reconciliation. That summit was not the place for such a debate, but both Alexander and McCain were persistent in trying to force it onto the table. I believe that the Republican suggestion at the summit to scrap the entire bill and start over was really just another attempt to create political gridlock. I admire Obama for remaining as composed as he did through the summit that only turned into a sham because Republicans were, for the most part, unwilling to work on refining the parts of the bill that both sides were agreeing on.

Sorry, but these aren't times to just "hang in there"!! No signifigant change has ever even begun to occur without the coming together and courage of a small group of people who simply choose to do the right things regardless of the cost. Right is right. It's time to be proactive, not "reactive"!

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/opinio...

Hang in there, redder. We're all frustrated. Our insurance has become ridiculous, too. Now, after 16 years with the same doctors, we suddenly can't go to them anymore. Our insurance--same company all this time--has decided we have to use different ones up in Madison. We live in Brodhead. How convenient is that!?!! I don't think anyone of us is pleased with the current health care system, but to socialize medicine, when there are more appropriate ways we can address it, is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

-
I know it's not easy to respond to some of the posters without getting angry. I try really hard to NEVER respond when I am angry. Otherwise, I'm sure I would get myself in trouble, but beyond that, it is more important to me that my message is heard--not my anger. I know that the calmer my writing is, the more likely it will actually be read and processed, and the less likely it will be that someone will label me just another "right-wing nut job." Although, that happens, too. They just have a harder time justifying themselves for doing it. :0) Blessings!

http://imgur.com/ToZc1.jpg

http://failuremag.com/index.php/failure_...

Don't forget about Bush and the GOP wanting to hand over the management of our ports to United Arab Emirates

How about this? Vote for Republicans because they have proven to understand and appreciate capitalistic economics much better than Democrats.

I'll just come out and say it....vote for Republicans to get back on the road to prosperity!

Isn't this statement "Don't vote for Ryan if you value your Social Security" (aside from being an absurd canard) an emotional appeal to fear, too?

I remember, though it wasn't long ago, how the socialists in the United Soviet Socialist Republics began to realize that their workers paradise had a problem. Their workers didn't want to work for the Socialist greater good like the workers in the "decadent" capitalistic West wanted to work for their own individual good. The Socialist workers saw no advantage to putting in a lot of effort when the reward was almost the same whether you worked hard or not. Our President seems not to appreciate the lessons he should have learned from the failure of the U.S.S.R. He seems intent on making it less profitable to work hard enough to earn a lot of money. So he wants to impose his idea of social justice, not by making more opportunities available for all, but to limit opportunities for those he thinks already make enough. (Remember his statement saying something about the "rich" that was something like "How much money do they need to earn anyway?") He doesn't seem to get that when you threaten to take away their "excess' income, the "rich" won't want to buy more of the things that help them make more money, like employees.

To improve the budget, perpetual war must end and the far-too-often promoted anger and paranoia about our fellow human beings must be overcome. Paraphrasing a great American leader: FEAR fear!

"vote only for democrats to continue the road to socialism"

why dont you just come out and say it....'fear fear fear fear fear fear'

Obama had a slogan when running for office that said"change you can believe in". Now it is "change what you believe in". This election is a policy referendum on the 22 months he has been in office. He failed by his own standard with the stimulus not creating private sector jobs, lied about shovel ready jobs and the unemployment rate is well above 8%.

From the Center on Budget Policy and Priorities. Don't vote for Ryan if you value your Social Security.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=vie...

Here's another interesting read.

http://www.inlander.com/spokane/article-...

serious....thank you for your openmindedness....I guess I am stupid...I don't get it...what I see and hear is false and made up....I see the good in as much as I can because I look for it...others simply put the blinders on and are lead by the collar to the slaughter, i CHOOSE TO GO DOWN FIGHTING. I will not take Obamas word as gospel in fact the oposite because he has proven himself false, and done the exact oposite that he said he would do...he is not running a transparent administration, he is a liar and he is hideing behind healthcare

uw whatever...so now i am a terrorist...you guys are really streching here...funny...what i find appaulling is the fact that you folks can seriously take what you say seriously...again mud slingging, name calling, and resort to the spin at all costs do not budge from your perspective....yes I have been prone to useing some extreme language but if you were really concerned with what I said, you would have read all my posts processed them and then commented rather than skim it see what you want and attack....keep it in context, What I have always been reffering to is the fact that so many choose to use social programs as a means to survive. Rather than as they have always been intended for. The mindset of this country, and the sense of entitlement is staggering, and so is your means to defend them. These programs AGAIN were then created as a life line for those who where suffering....the programs today are a means of income, and /or livelyhood at the expence of others..even your shallow opion has proven my point with your defence of said programs. Health insurance is not a right nor is it goverment issue. Health care is. We could have looked into more effective and less costly forms of provideing medical coverage to the idugent, or the unemployed. Why do I need to pay for those who do not pay for themselves. I have many employees that CHOOSE not to have health care and know many other people in my circle that also CHOOSE, not to have coverage. Well I hate the amount I pay for coverage, it disgusts me, however non the less I pay it because I am responsible for my children and my family...NOT THE STATE...how many people I see on Badger Care milking the system, how many people on disability Milking the system, I run credit report after credit report and see the amount of medical collections, the amount of people who CHOOSE not to pay...and now you TELL ME..that I have to p[ay for them...I disagree

uww...the point is not the program the point is the fact that he was a modest man unlike that of Obama...and if we wish to go to the programs FDR and Truman never put the programs in place as a form of income but to help in a time of need...AGAIN not intended as a lifestyle but as a life line...nice attempt at spin however

uwwalum, The point that you appeared to be making in your previous post was that redder was less than intelligent (or hadn't done his research) because he used Truman as an example, when Truman was a Democrat. The point I was trying to make is, so what? We *should* be able to celebrate and respect one another across party lines, and find common ground. Wasn't that one of the planks what Mr. Obama ran on? That he would be transparent and work with everyone? Has that happened? I sure haven't seen it, if it has. Instead, I've been insulted, called ignorant, racist, less-than-honest, greedy, etc. by the Administration and its representatives.

-
Did you watch the ONE "bipartisan" meeting that was telecast and attended by Mr. Obama regarding ObamaCare? It was a farce. He was openly aggravated and belittled Paul Ryan's presentation that the numbers didn't add up, (though Mr. Ryan numbers have now proven to be absolutely dead-on). Mr. Obama was rude to John McCain, and several others who raised concerns. Then, Mr. Obama patted himself on the back for meeting with "the opposition." Gosh, thanks!

-
Is the Republican Party "the Party of No?" Yep. They sure have been. And I agree that there have been times they've dug their heels in just because they could. I don't think they were right in that. But, I also think if they hadn't dug their heels in on some issues, the current Administration, with their kid-in-a-candy-shop tax-and-spend euphoria would have driven us even further off the cliff than they already have. They seem to have no "off" button when it comes to spending "our" money.

Please accept my apology if you felt I was accusing you of ad hominem attacks. That wasn't the point I was trying to make. Only that we all need a place at the table and an opportunity for our voices to be heard with equal value given to each of our points-of-view. I've always felt that adults should be able to disagree without being disagreeable.

jimbofish:
A very interesting report. Feingold gets a "D". Not a shock really. Paul Ryan also gets a "D". That came as quite a surprise. The only "A" among the members of Congress from Wisconsin went to Steven Kagen, a Democrat. Very interesting. I'll have to do some more in-depth reading of that report. Thanks for the post.

seriouslyfunny:
First, I don't use ugly words like those that you referred to. Stooping to that level indicates a closed mind, ignorance, and lack of control. Redder, on the other hand, posted these words:
"GET OFF YOUR LAZY BUTTS GET A JOB AND PAY YOUR OWN WAY!!! QUIT ENFRINGING ON MY RIGHT TO SUCCEED! I HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF YOUR DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST CRAP!!!"
He claims he was using extremist tactics to make his point. The 9/11 hijackers claimed they were doing the same thing. That doesn't make it ok.
Secondly, my posts in no way discourage others from exercising their right to free speech. I never tell people that they should not post their opinions. They have every right to do so, and I'm glad they exercise that right. I am direct with people about my views and point out flaws in their logic or inconsisencies in the points they attempt to make. I expect other to do the same to me. That's what debate is. I don't think I discourage any aspect of it.
As for Republicans/Conservatives being "the enemy", no, they are not they enemy. They are not the enemy of Democrats/Liberals or to this great nation as a whole, but they are referred to as the "Party of No" for a reason. Their party line from the very beginning of this administration has been to obstruct any legislation that has the support of the Democrats including the creation of a deficit committee that had Republican co-sponsorship. Also, Republicans have jumped ship on a number of bills that they gave their full support to until President Obama decided to extend a bi-partisan olive branch. When the Democrats decided to push ahead with legislation without Republican support, filibuster became the GOP's favorite word during these past 2 years. Yes, even those scrappy underdog Republicans can be accused of not allowing others' ideas to be fully expressed as you so presumptuously accused me of doing.

Eman, please give just one example of unrealistic restrictions, and confiscatory tax policies. Just one.
Just because you use big words doesn't mean you're right.
I'd like to debate this point with you, but you need to tell us what you mean. My guess is you won't respond because you yourself know nothing beyond talking points.

uwwalum, One of the reasons many of us have such issue with the current administration is played out in your post: there doesn't seem to be any room to agree to disagree. I have tremendous respect for Mr. Truman's personal values as pointed out in redder's post. President Truman appears to have been "the salt of the earth." That doesn't mean I agree with all of his "social policies," yet, I can still respect him. Just as I can, I'm sure, find things that I respect in most people. However, in the current Administration--and the posts from many of their followers, there is no room for respect for anyone who doesn't toe the line of Progressivism/Socialism. Where does that leave us--the Conservatives, the Republicans, the right-leaning Independents? Are we now "the enemy?" No longer welcome in our own country to the same "freedom of speech" and the same right to the pursuit of happiness as endowed by our Creator and granted under the framework of our Founders?

-
You may remember Snazzy's comments a few days ago on another blog. I'm paraphrasing, but she said something to the effect, "I hate all republican nazis. They're all racist bigots." That kind of vitriolic rhetoric doesn't leave a lot of room for dialogue between us.

Who really supports the veterans?

http://media.iava.org/iava_action/IAVA_A...

Redder:
No twisting needed. It's obvious you post comments without full background knowledge of what you are talking about. You used Truman as an example to back up your claim, but you don't seem to know that he served as vice-president under one of the most progressive Presidents, not just of his time but in history, in FDR. President Roosevelt created many of the social programs that you have been very critical of on this very forum. Truman went on to become president and continued to fight for FDR's progressive policy ideas but was constantly obstructed in his attempts. If you admire Truman as much as your post would lead us to assume, perhaps you're a little more liberal than you think.

Thank you...my Mom is everything to me.. my kids and my wife...family is the most important thing we have...we can all agree to disagree..thats what makes this nation great..or one of them...this is the reason I want to see this nation return to its former greatness...not the laughing stock of the world

and yes many more orf you will also try to twist it to your likeing as well

So dear Sarah...maybe its parenting...maybe its social attitude...maybe its the society that we have created...but again to quote your MEsiah....if this is the "CHANGE" we are all to come to know...I SAY "WHO NEEDS IT"...lets get back to hard work and earning our way..not the goverment providing our way

Redder:
Nice post.
Harry Truman, one of the many great presidents that happened to be a Democrat. Truman did a number of things while in office that were very unpopular, but history has shown they were the right thing to do. For example, Executive Order 9981 began the process of desegregating the armed forces. He also proposed a national health insurance fund to be run by the federal government. This idea, or course was thoroughly shot down by the Republican majority in Congress. Thanks again Redder. You've opened my eyes about the situation even more. I now see a little bit of Truman in Obama.

I certainly can...i was useing extremist tactics to prove a point...socialist programs were never meant to bea way of life and were not permanent(or intended to be) I take issue with social programs and had you kept my comment in the context it was intended it would make a bit more sense. I shall cite examples....we are a notion of doers we always have been we are an idustrialized nation or WERE. Our people have overcome adverssary since our inception, yet now we have become a nation of followers, we have become a nation of entitlement(or at least thats the attitude from what I see daily) our people have accepted goverment intervention in their lives "if i can not get a job i hve 2 years of unemployment" or " let the goverment pay for it" attitude...what thought I was trying to envoke is what happened to the attitude of "WE CAN DO IT" or better yet "you can achieve it if you work for it" my mother was a divorced woman in the early 70s, who had 3 boys and zero education. We moved in with my grandparents and she went to colledge (jr colledge at first) became an RN work 2 sometimes 3 jobs and raised uus boys. She then went on to improve her education and strive to become successful, which she did, and with all the respect and admiration I can muster, she never took a dime from goverment, worked her ass off and achieved and made a good life for us. NOW...where has that gone?...that is what I am reffering to...got it?

HHHHMMMM no whitty retort SARAH...is that a good enough example for you?

Harry Truman
was a different kind of President. He
probably made as many, or more important
decisions regarding our nation's history as
any of the other 32 Presidents preceding him.
However, a measure of his greatness may rest on
what he did after he left the White
House.

The only asset he had when he died
was the house he lived in, which was
in Independence Missouri .
His wife had inherited the house from her
mother and father and other than their
years in the White House, they lived their
entire lives there.

When he retired
from office in 1952, his income was
a U.S. Army pension reported to have
been $13,507.72 a year. Congress, noting
that he was paying for his stamps and personally
licking them, granted him
an 'allowance' and, later, a
retroactive pension of $25,000
per year.

After President Eisenhower
was inaugurated, Harry and Bess drove home
to Missouri by themselves. There
was no Secret Service following
them.

When offered corporate
positions at large salaries, he declined,
stating, "You don't want me. You want the
office of the President, and that doesn't
belong to me. It belongs to the American
people and it's not for sale."

Even
later, on May 6, 1971, when Congress was
preparing to award him the Medal of Honor
on his 87th birthday, he refused to accept
it, writing, "I don't consider that I have
done anything which should be the
r eason for any award, Congressional or
otherwise."

As president he paid for all
of his own travel expenses and
food.

Modern politicians have found a new
level of success in cashing in on the
Presidency, resulting in untold wealth.
Today, many in Congress also have found a way
to become quite wealthy while enjoying the
fruits of their offices. Political offices
are now for sale

Good old
Harry Truman was correct when he observed,
"My choices in life were either to be a piano
player in a whore house or a politician.
And to tell the truth, there's hardly any
difference!

I say dig him up and clone
him!!

This is not sent
for discussion.

If you agree, forward it. If you
don't, delete it. I don't want to know one way
or the other. By me forwarding it,
you know how I
feel.

Sarah I always love it when your neck throws up....when did I ever say that? More importantly, I believe I refer to our citizens as Americans not Pubbies or Dems, I believe that we all need a better system but your UNHOLY MESIAH KING OBAMA..is not the answer nor are his henchmen (and woman) we need to put this to the people, ask them what they want. AGAIN I stated that I agree with some of the prtions of the health care bill, WHAT I DON"T agree with is socialism and the masking of how how it is being paid for nor the rise in taxes that it has and will contiinue to do so. I believe in the populous vote and quite honestly by not allowing proper time and the imput of ideas by the conservatives as well as the American people it goes from democracy to socialism. This is not something that I fight for nor believe in. So spin elsewhere my liberal adversary, because your BS is toxic and quite honestly dribble

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/dont-blam...

And I forgot one thing. Since we're taxpayers, and we elect them, they work for us and we PAY their salaries, I do believe a major salary reduction needs to be in order. Let them pay our insurance premiums,work on our salary for a year or two and see how quickly they start getting things done. If you want your pay...EARN IT...like the rest of us!

The things people will reduce themselves to when they fear losing something they want is pretty scarey. Even scarier, is the reality that ALL these politicians are more concerned about battling each other to gain control, than to actually take into consideration the REAL needs of the millions of Americans they are toying with in the process. ENOUGH ALREADY! Stop the fighting, the mud slinging and the blame game and just spend that time doing something productive for a change!

Most of us had hopes that Obama would be a transormational leader. Those hopes lie in ruin. His primary quality seems to be narcissism. Never before has one person used the words I and my to describe everything. Increasingly we are seeing the true extent of liberal intolerence. Liberalism once meant tolerence. Now it has completely turned the other way.

"God help us if the elephants get any seats! We will be dead before 2012 if the republicans take over!!!"
-
I love reading comments like this...

" If there wasn't any interference (republicans), there would be no INSURANCE COMPANIES. Therefore, no payments."
-
Wow. Where do you start with comments like this one? ummm, who do you think pays for Medicare now?

How do you really think that would be different with no insurance companies? Govt money is really taxpayer money, collected from taxpayers; not some magic stash.

Charles suffered a terrible diving accident while in an Ivy league school.He is paralyzed from the waist down. At times I think it might be from the neck up. He should thank his lucky stars that he had a family that could afford his treatment or he may be whistling a different toon in regards to health care.Pompous,arrogant hair dying jerk!

redcloud...certainly and my mother not my family, but my mother does...of course her 8 years of hard work and education as an RN certainly played a part in that not Obama, nor the VA

okay snaz now we are on the same page but this is not a Dem or a PUBBY issue its an American issue, and if the system is corupt, and hard working people are not getting the medical care they deserve then we need to change the system but I do not believe that a complete overhaul, nor a goverment run system is the answer. I had a vendor actually tell me that he offered his hispanic employees health coverage and they told him NO. They want a raise because and I quote "everyone knows that you dont pay for medical in America, its free" now I dont know if these people are even legal, could not tell you the answer there, however I certainly have my suspisions, I do not use the vendor anymore because of it, and if this is the mentality of people out there then we need to look at a free enterprise system that works, regulate...I like the idea of coverage for my children till 26, I like the idea of not being able to deny coverage for people with illness(esspecially kids) I like the idea of no refusal of pre exsisting medical conditions, I like the idea of not being able to deny coverage to people who need coverage but I HATE the idea that goverment is going to be insureing people when goverment is run so poorly they can not police up themselves, and I hate the idea that we are being limited the freedom of choice. This current program does that and will continue to do that, and I like the word freedom...it is what I believe in

Do you, or anyone one in your family use Medicare? God help you and yours if you ever can't work and need help.

And tell your family elders that you wish to take it away? You'll have a fight on your hands.

I'll help you pack if you promise to move to Texas.

And let's be clear. Your family has benefited because your Mother works at the VA. Good pay, and benefits. A pension. Health care. You and your family are involved in Government health care, like it or not.

My experience with VA care is very positive. No complaints.

I agree the system is flawed but through regulation, we can controle it, not through a goverment run program

NVgrf, While that was a clever rejoinder, I rarely watch FoxNews. I do apologize for mis-applying the term Islamics if I should have used Muslims.

I generally don't have problems expressing extemperaneous thought, but if I am in error, I don't mind being corrected, as long as it is presented in a respectful manner.

Typical Democrat...cannt fight with fact so we hide behind rehtoric and name calling...do they send you guys to school for this crap or what...you people crack me up! Your like lambs to the slaghter..thats fine, do what your hearst tell you but when your there in your house and your in trouble, call Obama and that Whtch Pelosy and see if they really care...me and my family, well we will be just fine but it certainly wont be because of any Democratic program. I like the idea of moveing to Texas and starting outr own country, it has merit...you can have the illegals, and the socialized medical, I will keep the Flag, the "IN GOD WE TRUST" and the national anthem, you can have CALI, and socialism, I will keep Freedom, and Texas

really...well my mother has worked at the VA for over 30 years the quality of health care is appauling and the way they rape the vets for services (mental health esspecially) is ridiculous...this is first hand fact..not a news report

Okay SNAZ here is your honesty....our insurance company just folded...WATDA...why because if they stayed in business, they would under the new OBAMACARE guide lines be forced to raise premiums to the levels that you could not afford to insure your employees, leaveing them to fend for themselves. The penalty in a business that has 50 or fewer employees is less than it costs us to offer insurance and then again allows us to save 10s of thousands by simply paying the penalty. There by putting people in the federal system and again costing the tax payers...so we switched to another company United Health Care...good company...however in our efforts to shop health care...we hve been told by more than one company that with the new regulations most of the choices available today will not even be in business in the next year let alone a couple years...Blue Cross Blue shield being mentioned as one who will probably end up failing, now of course some of this is sales BS, understandable, however more than one company told us flat out that rates this year we can lock in but come renewal (after first year) we will need to either cut back on the policy offered, raise deductable to a higher level, or raise the preimiums in excess of 20%, now I have children who need health care, I WILL NEVER, allow my family to go on any goverment run plan, this is a serious problem that we are all going to face in the next year or so....yes some parts of the plan I agree with, however, the over all lack of concern for the American people and in general the middle class, and the fact that we have to give more of our income to support those who simply will not support themselves is an outrage to those of us that do, do what it takes to survive. Yes you will pay capital gains again, yes your taxes will go up 3% if your above poverty levels, yes you will have the death tax again and yes your personal exemptions are going to go down in dollar value all of which will effect you ability to spend and all of which will effect the economy...dont talk stupidity, about a stock market that you dont understand and get off the Obama kool-aide...those of us that earn are going to be penalized for those who do not...its that simple and you cannt change that unless your vote for real change come the election

"An adjudication of the question will be rendered Nov. 2. For the day, the American peasantry will be presiding."
-
Charles is certainly correct on that point. The dictionary defines a peasant as; "A member of the class constituted by small farmers and tenants, sharecroppers, and laborers on the land where they form the main labor force in agriculture."
That's where we are all headed if the Republicans gain control. The trend continued from 2000 to 2008 as the rich became richer and the rest of us, as Charles so aptly claims, have become peasants. The unraveling of the economy was due, in large part, to greed on Wall Street, and strangely (or not) enough, that's exactly who received the initial Republican bailout. If the general population stages a nationwide revolt in the near future it sure as heck won't be over a "liberal agenda" being foisted upon them but more likely the result of the top 5-15% continuing to influence policies which allow them to hold 80% of the wealth. How many Plutocracy's or Plutarchy's still exist? None! I think there is a reason for that.
-
In my view, every person elected to lead this country tries their very best to augment and advance the attributes that make this country great. Each possess different views and employ various means to accomplish their goals but the goal remains the same; keep America strong. As many of us know, sometimes giving our best isn’t enough and anticipated results fall short, no matter how hard we try. Does that mean our intentions are disingenuous? Not everyone agrees with either the policies or manner in which any President leads this nation. However, to believe that a sitting President lacks the passion to do what is right for this country is irrational and lacks in discerning just how difficult it is to lead a nation.

i think part of the problem is americas historical arrogance. i love this country but bowing is a sign of respect in other countries, if we cant show respect in someone elses house thats pretty sad.

Redder, the vets are hurting because of the meat grinders in Iraq and Afganistan. Repeated deployments,etc.
Bush's wars, both.

Check the record. The Dem congress approved billions for the VA. I go there for my health care. I see firsthand the improvements.

You don't want facts, though. They get in the way of the narrative running through your head.

Redder, you're an idiot. None of what you just said is true, or convincing, except to those more under informed than you

Grandy, you're just wrong. Prices rising in health care is due to more than one reason. These bumper sticker answers to complicated problems are absurd.

Prices have risen for years, many years at double digit rates. Before Obama. Year after year. You're employer is aware of that, even if you are not.

NOW I AM A BIGGOT....your killin me here this is getting to easy...just because your president is black does not entitle you to call people a biggot, just like just because your ignorant does not entitle me to have you locked up in a phsyc ward. ( a good thought) Obama takes care of soldiers...do you have a clue what your talking about...then why do we have so many vets in need of mental health care and waiting for payments and medical help. Why do we have a waiting period for benefits, why are our veterans hurting both mentally physically and emotionally....WHY...answer that...I AM A VET YOU IDIOT. He is spending nothing on Vets he barely even ackowledges Vets...yes those who served, unlike yourself. He is putting all his eggs in one basket, he has cut benefits for the elderly, then cut payments to Docs who will certainly not serve the elderly if they are not going to get paid...let alone at the rate the goverment wants to pay them....I can keep going but honestly I am working and this is boreing me

Go snaz! These people spouting the Beck junk at us can't provide examples. There are none. All they have is assertions, and they think that's enough.

Seriouslyfully....It's Muslim Americans, not Islamic Americans. Islam is submission to the will of God. Muslims are those who submit. Please do some research other than watching Fox News.
"There are three specific examples right off the top of my head."
There is seldom much accurate thought that comes off the top of heads.

redder, I'm curious to hear your thoughts about the current state of the economy. I love learning about economics from folks with military backgrounds. Note that Ron Johnson probably thinks you don't know squat since the military is just a government job. snazzy brings up a good point about the stock market, as that's a pretty good indicator...or isn't it redder?

RedCloud, 1)Mr. Obama's bowing and scraping before foreign leaders diminishes our standing. 2)His disrespect to long-time allies, Israel and Great Britain, while he cozies up to the Chavez's of the world. 3)His talking down of American accomplishments by anyone other than Islamic Americans. Have you heard him say anything nice about anyone else? There are three specific examples right off the top of my head.

Now, here's why those examples jump to the front:

-
America, in her 200-plus year history, has not bowed down to others, nor have we expected any other country to bow down to us. In fact, instead, we have even done our dead-level best to rebuild the countries that we've defeated in war.

Great Britain and Israel have staunchly stood as our allies for decades. And we as theirs. Mr. Obama's disrespect reflects badly on us, and must give other countries pause as to what they can expect from this obviously inexperienced statesman if he would so openly and defiantly spurn his closest allies.

I think we should celebrate the accomplishments of our Islamic Americans, and our Jewish Americans, our Buddhist Americans, our Christian Americans, our agnostic Americans and our athiest Americans. I'm concerned that this president rarely offers a crumb of praise for anyone outside of his rarified circle. And yet, he is the first to cry, "diversity." Does his vision of diversity actually include us? The middle class? Middle America? Even us conservatives? Those who might--just might--hold views that don't mesh with the "Chicago Way?" RedCloud, do you feel included? I wish I did.

snazzy you need to stop right now....because I am about to crush your arguement (not even hard) you dont understand economics...your mother in law? how many employees and does she pay for health insurance? Come on snazzy..the economy is picking up....okay snaz here we go. I will give you a chance to reconsider your thought ( or lack there of) before I make you look ridiculous.

OH and I am not a one trick pony...I dont scew to any party...just AMERICAN

oh snazzy dont be so thin skinned, youll get your check on the 1st and I will still pay for it I am sure...VILE..yup whaen it comes to supporting lazy Americans that wont get off their fat asses to support their families and make this a great nation once again...YUP THEN I AM VILE

ARE YOU ON DRUGS...the fact is that the DEMS have spent more in 2 years that the PUBBIES did in 8...maybe your hard working but I can certainly say you are not paying your own way.....WELL I DO! I have never taken a cent from any social policy nor will I...my family has always been self supportive, my parents, my grand parents, we all served in the military we are all huge flag wavers...I love this country..I fought for it! I have earned the right to speak my peace...and that is this...GET OFF YOUR LAZY BUTTS GET A JOB AND PAY YOUR OWN WAY!!! QUIT ENFRINGING ON MY RIGHT TO SUCCEED! I HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF YOUR DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST CRAP!!!

let me guess old snaz your a goverment employee or lets see maybe a teacher or you dont have health care at all, probably sucking unemployment or SSI am I close....HMMMMMMM those of us who have, or manage small business we are feeling it....if you have an employer why dont you go ask him/her how they feel...or are you afraid of "the man"...your arguement9 or lack there of) is of no substance

snazzy you wont be missed trust me

you know people...the mess BUSH made...are you really that ignorant to think the President of the United States sets economic policy...NO...it was the DEMS in congress that controled the debacle we have now and with a puppet president to sign off on their weak economic packages..we are now were we are now...JOBLESS AND BROKE! People you can try to blame Bush all you want, and he was certainly not our strongest president, but the mess we are in now is not his fault, its the fault of out of controle spending controled by congress. Vote these people out of office and see what happens then. Say NO MORE to these dingbats, put people in who listen to us, not to there loyalties to get elected. We need people of service, not those who line their own pockets and march to their own drum. Quit being Lemmings people. Bush is not the evil dooer, its those that are supposed to serve US, they are the ones who have failed US

Boohooo the Obama supports I.E liberals finely come out to support their god. Gusss you guys have been two busy enjoy his hand outs while the working tax paying people are paying for all this out of control spending

Rawhide....REALLY....OBAMA....SPEARHEADING...its more like cover his tracks, WHAT ABOUT HIS TRANSPARANCEY...there is none he is more secretive than Bushy, even though he campained against it, and what about the problems his new OBAMACARE have created thus far...cannt wait till 2014..that ought to be rich...or what about the fact, and the pictures of this bafoon. All I can say is I have certainly asked my circle of influence what their thoughts are, and we all agree...DEMS GOTTA GO...be a proud American VOTE!!!!! LETS SEE SOME REAL CHANGE....FOR THE PEOPLE....NOT TO THE PEOPLE!

Obama is simply trying to spear head the cleanup of a mess he inherited, despite having to battle republicans at every turn. Why? Because it's simply a game to both parties. It's not about doing what's right, fair, and just for the people, it's simply about winning elections and exerting power, by any means necessary.

One example,please, of this president not "loving" America. Just one.

And please,be more specific than "not liking the direction the country is going."

The irony is that the folks in Europe are blaming deregulation and dependence on financial markets for their current financial woes. Krauthammer doesn't dare mention that.

I do believe that Mr. Obama is grasping at straws now!

SarahB1, The better part of a week. Have you read it, yet?

-
I sincerely hope you are right about Mr. Obama. I've seen little evidence that he has any love for this country. Contempt and derision, I've seen, however. And I'm ashamed of the way he speaks of people like my parents and grandparents: those precious folks who raised us and have fought for this country tenaciously while they still "clung to their guns and their religion." And both my husband and I served in the Army, we believe in the 2nd Amendment and are devout Christians, so I guess that was aimed at us, too. And the level of our educations seems not to matter, either. If we disagree with any point he makes, we all are painted with a broad brush of "ignorance;" that we just don't "get it." Well, there are a whole bunch of us out here: well educated; professionals; working people; authors; lawyers; doctors; blue collar; white collar; retired; conservatives; independents; even a few Democrats, who are insulted by that kind of divisive rhetorical generalization. In all the years I've been voting, I've never felt as separated from the presidency as I do now. Never. I haven't moved away from the man in the White House. He's the one refusing to muddy his shoes with the likes of We, the People.

RedCloud, you are always respectful of others on the blogs, and I try to be respectful, as well. I expect the same of my President. I may not have always agreed with President Bush, but I truly appreciated the fact that he loved this country. I can't say that I feel the same passion for America from Mr. Obama (or Mrs. Obama, either, for that matter). I'm very concerned about the direction in which he is steering this nation.

That just Krautwhatever being hyperbolic. If you can't understand that, you really need to think over whatever else you think you know. Obama is not a doctor.

Why is Obama have "Dr." up there in front of his name? Now hes a doctor?

Jewels, where were you during the Bush regime? I hate to break it to you, but Bush had czars, too.

Are you one of those recently awakened to federal issues? Is your discomfort to do with Obama?

Seriously, were you a Bush supporter? If you were, I've got lots of news for you.

Well said and I second that emotion !!!

As usual, Dr. Krauthammer is brilliant. He gets it. Whereas Mr. Obama stares down his nose at America and condescends to us as if we have the IQ of rhubarb. He said yesterday ObamaCare just hasn't been explained well enough yet. Yes, Mr. Obama, it has--ad nauseum. In fact, more of us have read the stinking bill than have our elected legislators who voted for it. We do understand it. We're not impressed by it and 70% of us don't want it. We want real health care reform that includes: tort reform, insurance purchasing across state lines, pooled purchasing for small businesses--you know things that actually make sense. Oh, and for the government to keep their mitts out of it as much as humanly possible--because they've done such a fine job of running the DMV, the Post Office and the fraud-burdened Medicare/Medicaid programs.

-
We also would appreciate a president who isn't so full of himself and his ideology that he doesn't recognize a fellow American unless they are in absolute, lock-step agreement with him. Maybe it is he who needs things explained to him: NO, Mr. President. We do not like your policies or your spend, spend, tax, spend, bow, spend, tax, spend, bow, ideology. And we don't need you to explain them to us. We read you loud and clear.

The people are not befuddeled, they are angry. Expanding govt, out of control spending, no trasparency, czars not elected, Nancy Pelosi, bribery for votes, earmarks and on and on.