2 WEEKS FREE!    Circulation Center    Submit News    Submit Letter to Editor    Courier NIE    Submit Classified    Purchase Photos    Print Ads    Advertise    RSS Feeds
Advanced Search
(older than 14 days)
High 83°F
Low 57°F
 Columnists » Clayson
Article rated a
3.7
by
3
users
~ADVERTISING~
Advertise  |   Marketplace  |   Classifieds  |   Cars  |   Homes  |   Jobs
Sunday, October 26, 2008 6:16 AM CDT
Campaign takes toll on electorate
By DENNIS CLAYSON
Are you as tired of this political campaign as I am? Do we really need three years to select a president for the next four? Will the next election in 2012 start on Nov. 5, 2008?

We need a new law. Presidential candidates can’t start campaigning until April of an election year. The candidates will, of course, find a way around the law, and the media will justify cheating for the candidate they like, but at least they will try to control the other candidate.

Our current election system does ensure that the next president will be physically fit. A candidate must be willing to visit at least three cities every day for over two years, eat almost anything and never admit to any physical defects.

The other consequences of the current election cycle are fairly negative. They guarantee that any candidate who will actually stand for something will be eliminated before the summer conventions.

They insure that if any hopeful can’t raise a lot of money, or be very rich, he or she will not have a chance. It requires that the candidates must get the media to cover them and cover up for them.

Our current procedure guarantees that the next president will

not be about change. We will not be electing Ron Paul for example; we will be electing John McCain or Barack Obama.

McCain is a Washington insider who will do about the same as the elitist insider Obama, except perhaps in the selection of judges.

If you don’t want to vote for a senator, then you can vote for a senator. If you don’t want to vote for a man, you can vote for a man.

If you don’t want to vote for a rich man, you can vote for a rich man.

If you don’t want to vote for a candidate the conservatives, libertarians and Joe the Plumber despise, you can vote for a candidate the conservatives, libertarians and Joe the Plumber despise.

If you don’t want to vote for a candidate who will take the nation to war, you can vote for a candidate who will take the nation to war.

If you don’t want to vote for a president who will oversee a corrupt administration, then you can vote for the president who will oversee a corrupt administration.

Other aspects of modern elections are even more disquieting.

The material in the media, the letters-to-the-editor, and other discussion make people waiting to be picked up by the mother-ship look rational. I don’t think I have ever seen it this illogical and hysterical.

Government and Wall Street take the economy to the cleaners, and Democrats get a boost in the polls! Sarah Palin is an insult and Obama is the Second Coming! McCain is a conservative and Obama is a moderate.

Good grief folks! What next?

Obama is found to have murdered someone. He claims he did it because he thought the other man was an alien from Saturn. The media makes him out to be a hero for defending the earth. We are then told that it doesn’t matter anyway because Obama loves us and will take care of us all.

McCain is found to be a Vietnam Manchurian Candidate programmed to destroy the United States. "I knew it all along," an Obama spokesperson says. "Gives McCain more foreign policy experience," says the Republican Party, then we are told that it doesn’t matter anyway because McCain loves us and will take care of us all.

If both men put off their campaign persona and told us the truth about what they believed, then we would once again have a real election.

I suspect that under the surface, Obama is an unreconstructed, American elitist liberal. He believes in socialism, ’60s revolutionary promises, central authority, the meanness of American history, and that he is really a very good person who can save the nation from its own worst tendencies.

I suspect that McCain is a moderate conservative, who believes in free markets as long as they are controlled, large government for the benefit of the people, and carrying a real big stick in foreign affairs and that he is really a good man who can save the nation.

If it were not for Congress and an entrenched, massive, self-contained bureaucracy, that would be the actual choice, so can we just get rid of the other 99 percent of this silly campaign?

     
 More Stories from Columnists » Clayson

cross1242 wrote on Oct 26, 2008 12:37 PM:

" As anyone who has read Prof. Clayson’s columns for any time at all can testify to, there is nothing in life that he approves of. (I'd hate to be Prof. Clayson and have to get up every morning into such a miserable world.) Consequently, it is no wonder that he finds nothing in the presidential campaign to approve. While it would be easy to join him and say that it goes on too long, it would also be trite to say so.

The fact that he disapproves of the entire campaign is not surprising. I suspect that the chief reason is that he doesn’t much like either Barack Obama or John McCain. (I am not sure what he finds wanting in Bob Barr. Perhaps Prof. Clayson not only wants someone he likes running but also expects that candidate to be among those who stand a chance of actually getting elected President.)

“We need a new law” says Prof. Clayson. Now, that is news. Prof. Clayson is usually the first to denounce government regulation of anything. So, that recommendation really seems out of his character. The new law he desires would say, “Presidential candidates can’t start campaigning until April of an election year.” Then, just as he announces the new law he says we need, but he torpedoes the idea saying, “The candidates will, of course, find a way around the law.”

Well, I should hope they do. There is such a thing as the 1st Amendment and having a law requiring that no one say, “I want to be president” until after April Fools Day of an election day has got a major problem. Prof. Clayson is also one who usually insists on Constitutional niceties. So I am shocked, shocked I say, that he proposes a solution with such an obvious Constitutional problem.

Prof. Clayson then goes through a litany of what we’re going to get no matter whether Obama or McCain is elected. It’s my belief that the litany is as unfair to McCain as it is to Obama. The list is not just cynical, it is mean-spirited.

He says that despite what both campaigns say, we’ll get not “change.” It’s my belief that with Obama we’ll get as much change as we got under FDR. And, even under McCain, we’d be relieved of at least some of the worst excesses of the Bush Administration.

He says that both McCain and Obama are insiders. (And, Obama being nothing less than an “elitist insider.”) With McCain trying to maintain his “maverick” status and Obama being regularly criticized and not having enough Washington experience, that seems doubtful.

He says that both McCain and Obama will “take the nation to war.” With Obama’s first promise to get us out of the wars we’re in and McCain, while it may take a bit to find the “victory” he craves, neither men seem likely to get us into a new war.

He says that with both McCain and Obama, we’ll get a “corrupt administration.” The Bush Administration has been a cleptocracy it may be possible to slide into a belief that that’s become the new SOP. But I sincerely doubt that either man would allow that to continue.
And, it keeps going. I’m not going to go through every line of his litany. But, suffice it to say that every last line of what he claims for the future seems wrong to me. In that, Prof. Clayson is selling depression to us all. And, we should all reject it. (And, I’d suggest, the Waterloo Courier should reject such sentiments as well.) "

Phil wrote on Oct 27, 2008 7:46 AM:

" A very cynical column - with some real contradictions as cross1242 points out.

What strikes me is how very little Mr. Clayson really knows about either candidate.

About Obama he says:

- "He believes in socialism" - since Mr. Clayson doesn't know what socialism is, I guess he can say this. But for a professor this is a utterly ridiculous statement and shows true ignorance.

- "’60s revolutionary promises" - I guess when you appeal to the positive side of people with messages of hope and change, this is what you get. Yet Mr. Clayson decries the negative campaign. Sorry, you can't have it both ways Mr. Clayson.

- "central authority" - In what way - like George Bush - spying on everyone, denying habeus corpus? What?

- "the meanness of American history" - What a joke - his campaign is all about putting that part of our history behind us. On the other hand, if you campaign on putting average people first - ahead of corporations and the wealthy - you are "mean".

About McCain he says:

- "I suspect that McCain is a moderate conservative" - other than tax breaks for the wealthy, immigration reform, and the intolerance of religious right, all positions he has now flipped-flopped on - where is his moderation?

- "who believes in free markets as long as they are controlled" - This statement is a total joke - Keating 5, Phil Gramm, etc.

- "large government for the benefit of the people" - Like his pathetic health industry reform?

- "and carrying a real big stick in foreign affairs" - Got that right - shoot first, ask questions later - just what we need, another cowboy leader.

- "that he is really a good man who can save the nation" - I now believe Mr. Clayson is being sarcastic about his beliefs about McCain, or else he has gone off his medications. "

wcf reader wrote on Oct 27, 2008 10:41 AM:

" seems like cross and phil have drunk too much of the obama kool-aid or have bought into the media hype.

do either of you know anything about obama and his intentions and beliefs?

phil...do you know what socialism is? you may want to check out wikipedia...regardless socialism is ultimately creating equality as they believe capitalism creates unequality and concentration of wealth...

obama is and has advocated for redistribution of wealth...taking one to give to another...you can't deny that. that is a socialist view that has an impact on everything.

we already live in a nation where a great many feel they are 'entitled' to whatever they want, deserving or not. thus the mortgage crisis, the nation in credit card debt, etc. and there is little if any accountablity or effort to earn anything.

why is it that in almost any situation where someone is compensated, the more productive you are, the more you are rewarded. so why is that tax codes are set up completely opposite? i'm not advocating to raise tax rates on the lower income groups, but i would advocate for flattening the rates more than they are.

todays tax codes punish the productive to give to the unproductive, which is completely backwards. there is no incentive for someone to make more when the more they make the more they take.

obama is advocating for real change alright, it a change from the american ideals the country was founded on. private property and capitalism........people want change, but fail to realize that not all change is good. obama pretends to be for the 'middle class' but in reality, his policies would again hurt the middle class and only benefit those at the bottom.... "

DoesAnyoneCare wrote on Oct 27, 2008 12:08 PM:

" First of all their should be a law outlawing any reference to wikipedia when trying to prove a point. Secondly I believe we need to reign in the presidential campaigns. They are a huge waste of money, time and resources. I would like to see limits on when campaigns can officially start, and how much can be spent on campaigns. They have tried to do that with the federal financing funds and that worked somewhat until Obama became the first to refuse this money (Being the only candidate in history to do so), and is able to waste money freely. There is no need for a person to receive two pieces of mail a day from one candidate.
Both candidates claim we are in hard economic times, but have no problem spending millions on adds, travel, clothes, campaign propaganda. Does a candidate really need to hold a $28,000 a plate fund raiser? I don't even make that much in a year, and this candidate says he understands me, BS. We have a broke system, and needs to be fixed fast as campaigns are heading downhill in a hurry. "

cross1242 wrote on Oct 27, 2008 12:42 PM:

" wcf reader @ Oct 27, 2008 10:41 AM comes up with a bunch of strange stuff:

wcf_reader says: "do either of you know anything about obama and his intentions and beliefs?"

Actually, I (and I'd bet Phil does too) know about everything there is to know about Obama. He's been in the field for 21 months. How wcf_reader could have such mistaken impressions with that much information available sounds like willful ignorance to me.

wcf_reader says: "obama is and has advocated for redistribution of wealth...taking one to give to another...you can't deny that. that is a socialist view."

I'll deny it. Just like the government "redistributing" revenue by a partial nationalization of the banks is just a helping hand and not a fundamental shift from capitalism, lending a helping hand to people who need help is NOT "socialism."

wcf_reader says: "we already live in a nation where a great many feel they are 'entitled' to whatever they want."

I'll deny that too. Just like wcf_reader, people want freedom and independence and not just a handout. They do expect help from their government in case of natural or economic disaster.

wcf_reader says: "would advocate for flattening the rates more than they are."

Brilliant! Make those least able to pay have to pay more taxes. It's the BURDEN of taxes that we want to flatten and not the absolute rate. Having a rich man pay the same rate as a poor man is theft by the rich man.

wcf_reader says: "there is no incentive for someone to make more when the more they make the more they take."

So you say. The federal tax rates are so close together today as to be almost a virtual flat rate. And, I've never heard of anyone who says, "I'm going on vacation for the rest of the year so I don't have to pay more tax." The whole flat-tax idea is a right-wing myth.

wcf_reader says: "obama is advocating for real change alright, it a change from the american ideals the country was founded on. private property and capitalism."

You haven't done much reading about the founding fathers, have you wcf_reader. They established a political government and not an economic system. The whole business that the founders were the first free-marketeers is another right-wing myth about history.

And, I'd note that what we're all about is "live, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and NOT "life, liberty, and property." That's just one of the indicators that Jefferson an the founders didn't much give a rip about maintaining the property of the rich. "

Phil wrote on Oct 27, 2008 1:23 PM:

" wcf reader - Yes I know what socialism is. Our society is filled with examples of it - public education, police and fire protection, roads and bridges, etc. It is everywhere in various forms. And capitalism does create unequality and concentration of wealth. Currently 1% of Americans control 21% of the wealth. I would say that is pretty unequal.

I know Sen. Obama wants to restore the upper income tax bracket back to what is was in the 1990's. You know - the good old days. That is not socialism.

Actually, our government has been in the business of redistributing wealth for a long time now. Sen. Obama is merely looking at adjusting the formula - not starting a new system.

Now how this would hurt the middle class escapes me - at least any more than the past 8 years have hurt it. And it certainly is no threat to capitalism. Finally, if it helps those at the bottom then great - cause they spend their income and it will be like fuel to the nation's economic engine. "

xdfred wrote on Oct 27, 2008 1:37 PM:

" wcf reader wrote on Oct 27, 2008 10:41 AM:

"i'm not advocating to raise tax rates on the lower income groups, but i would advocate for flattening the rates more than they are."
Why not? Why are lower income groups exempt from paying a lot of these taxes? What's wrong with a flat rate of 10% of every dollar earned? If that's too much for some, then it's too much for all, and the rate should be dropped. For everyone. Don't we all benefit from government protections? And a flat rate is the very definition of fair. No, we have allowed politicians to buy more and more votes by exempting more and more people from paying taxes. "

cross1242 wrote on Oct 27, 2008 2:12 PM:

" DoesAnyoneCare @ Oct 27, 2008 12:08 PM adds misinformation to the discussion. He says: "Obama became the first to refuse this money [federal campaign funds] (Being the only candidate in history to do so)"

That is absolutely NOT true. Here's the real scoop:

"From the inception of this program in 1976 through 1992, almost all candidates who could qualify accepted matching funds in the primary. However, in 1996 Republican Steve Forbes opted out of the program. In 2000, Forbes and George W. Bush opted out. In 2004 Bush and Democrats John Kerry and Howard Dean chose not to take matching funds in the primary."

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States

Also "DoesAnyoneCare" says: "I would like to see limits on when campaigns can officially start, and how much can be spent on campaigns."

That would be against the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It's a limit on free speech. (You do believe in free speech, don't you?) Just as you can't restrict what people say, you can't restrict it to so much of a calendar year. "

cross1242 wrote on Oct 27, 2008 2:19 PM:

" xdfred @ Oct 27, 2008 1:37 PM asks, "Why are lower income groups exempt from paying a lot of these taxes?"

You're kidding, right? They can't pay more in taxes because they might not be able to eat.

I'm all for a flat tax that makes the BURDEN of taxes flat on all people. But a tax that is flat only in its absolute rate, in fact, is making the BURDEN regressive. (That is, the greatest burden of paying is on the poor.)

Proposals on a flat tax are invariably really proposals to cut the ability of the government to respond adequately to needs. "

Phil wrote on Oct 27, 2008 3:40 PM:

" wcf reader said:

"todays tax codes punish the productive to give to the unproductive, which is completely backwards. there is no incentive for someone to make more when the more they make the more they take."

I don't believe that.

First, some of those people are competitive and greedy. We have had higher tax brackets before and it never stopped them.

Second, if that is true for some people, then that means their is more opportunity for someone else to offer the product or service - in which case that person can make more money which they might not of otherwise. So somebody else wins anyway.

Finally, if that were the case, then there must not be any wealthy people in those countries with much higher tax rates (and more social programs) than the USA. But there are, so how do you explain that? "

xdfred wrote on Oct 27, 2008 3:55 PM:

" cross1242 wrote on Oct 27, 2008 2:12 PM:

"..That would be against the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It's a limit on free speech. (You do believe in free speech, don't you?) Just as you can't restrict what people say, you can't restrict it to so much of a calendar year..." No it wouldn't. For a person to run for something, they have to be established as a candidate. There can be limits on when candidates for office can officially be recognized.

cross1242 wrote on Oct 27, 2008 2:19 PM:

" xdfred @ Oct 27, 2008 1:37 PM asks, "Why are lower income groups exempt from paying a lot of these taxes?"

You're kidding, right? They can't pay more in taxes because they might not be able to eat..." That's a heck of a genralization to make, isn't it?

"..I'm all for a flat tax that makes the BURDEN of taxes flat on all people...." What does that even mean?
"But a tax that is flat only in its absolute rate, in fact, is making the BURDEN regressive. (That is, the greatest burden of paying is on the poor.)..." What math are you using? Someone earns $100,000 a year pays $10,000 in taxes. Someone earns $20,000 pays $2000. Who shoulders the bigger burden? If it's too much for some, it's too much for all. "

xdfred wrote on Oct 27, 2008 4:02 PM:

" Phil wrote on Oct 27, 2008 1:23 PM:

" wcf reader - Yes I know what socialism is. Our society is filled with examples of it - public education, police and fire protection, roads and bridges, etc...." That's not socialism. Try again. Hint- socialism is government control of all aspects of life. Setting prices, wages, production levels, etc.
"...It is everywhere in various forms...." Sounds like a disease.
"..And capitalism does create unequality and concentration of wealth...." and socialism doesn't? The only difference is in a capitalistic economy, the wealthy earned it. In a socialist economy, the wealthy stole it. Remeber the saying about the old failed soviet union? In the soviet union, all are equal, just some are more equal than others.
"...Currently 1% of Americans control 21% of the wealth...." And this is bad because.... Did you think for a moment that that 1% that controls the wealth do so because they know how? And you left of the part about that 1% paying over 80% of the taxes.
"..I would say that is pretty unequal..." So? When did equality, whatever that means, become a goal?
In capitalism, not everyone shares in the wealth, in socialism, everyone shares in the poverty. Again, remember the old soviet union. How equal were the people there? And how prosperous? "

xdfred wrote on Oct 27, 2008 4:04 PM:

" cross1242 wrote on Oct 27, 2008 2:19 PM:

"..Proposals on a flat tax are invariably really proposals to cut the ability of the government to respond adequately to needs...." What a crock. Has it ever occured to you that governments biggest problem is doing too much? We went way past needs a long time ago. "

DoesAnyoneCare wrote on Oct 27, 2008 4:16 PM:

" Cross...Please see the following from the Washington Times, June 19th 2008...

"Presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama announced Thursday morning he will not take public financing for the general election, making him the first major presidential candidate from either party to completely back away from the federal campaign finance system since its creation in 1974."

This would be from a PUBLICATION that requires it's writers to have a degree, and are activly involved in politics and the election. This article was written by Christina Bellantoni, a national political report who covered the 2008 Democratic campaign. This was not from a web site where my 5 year old could go on and write anything he wanted. Please if you are going to copy and paste, make sure it is from a ligitimate source. "

Leo46 wrote on Oct 27, 2008 4:22 PM:

" I noticed Cross and Phil don't deny Obama wants to “redistribute the wealth” in this country. Only that the “redistribution of the wealth” is socialism.
See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck "

Phil wrote on Oct 27, 2008 5:17 PM:

" OK xdfred - show me where Sen. Obama wants to control all aspects of life and set up a society based on socialism? He doesn't - case closed.

And if it is controlling all aspects and sharing the wealth - then how is it concentrating it? It isn't - case closed.

You are OK with the unequality of wealth created by capitalism, yet you complain about the unfairness of progressive tax brackets and want a flat tax? Is life fair or isn't it - you can't have it both ways - case closed. "

Phil wrote on Oct 27, 2008 5:28 PM:

" Leo46 - nice audio - does a great job of attempting to make those comments into something more than what they are.

Meanwhile, every day the government redistributes wealth - and it has for many, many years. All of a sudden now its socialism? Or paranoia for the campaign?

Free market systems, without a goverment that regulates them and does some wealth redistribution, become two tiered societies. The very rich and the very poor. The erosion of the middle class over the past eight years and the greater concentration of wealth in the hands of a small percentage of people show this is happening. Maybe you think that is good - so be it. But if it continues very bad things will happen.

When did the middle class in this country really take off? After the regulations and programs of the New Deal were put into place. Now WWII put the economy into high gear, but the New Deal foundation was still there. And BOOM went the growth of the middle class.

Why do you think Wall Street and the economy does better under Democratic presidents than Republican ones? Cause when you grow the middle class the economic engine takes off. "

hetfield wrote on Oct 27, 2008 7:48 PM:

" i hate missing a couple days on these blogs as I cant stand going back and reading the liberal jibberish of phil, cross and cf. So i refuse too.

I did however read that phil think he knows what socialism is. barack husssein obama is a marxist socialist and was on teh socialist ticket(under a acorn name) in the 90's. why isnt this top news? because the meddiah is in bed with the liberal media.

phil, 'spreading it around' IS socialism. taking my money and giving it to you is socialism, making me go to a rotten Dr, and stealing my 401k is socialism, demanding i give up my guns is socialism.

if you dont get it, maybe go back to school(liberal unis of course) or better yet, swim cuba and hang out with the commies.

everyday the govt redistributes wealth! yea this is scoialism even today! why do we need more. why dont you hypocrits get a job! make your own way, stop feeding at the teet of democrats! get out there and do something, earn it.

but no, that would be hard..
if BHO is elected he will destroy our middle class, but not elevate our poor. he will simply bring us down to that level.

the great man barack hussein obama promises not to raise my taxes!!! that defines election year lies. he WILL raise my taxes, and yours, if you are working.

barack hussein obama, running for the first (or clsoe second to fdr) as socialist premier of the US...what a joke. him, his party, and his followers.

END of story. "

hillbillytea wrote on Oct 27, 2008 9:03 PM:

" first of all the statement about redistributing the wealth is a misstatement.you people make it sound like obama is taking your hard earned money and giving it directly to some worthless crackhead living on the streets of harlem.what he is talking about is rolling back the bush tax cuts and re applying them to essential services like healthcare ,education ,energy efficancy programs,and improvements to our general transportation infrastructure using our money rather than borrowing from outside the country.it is also made in reference to the fact that the trickle down effect of reaganomics has not been happening and all to often the recipiant takes that extra money and moves their factory overseas. as far as the election process,I thought is was rather ammusing that hillery started her bush bashing campain as early as january of 95.I also found it ammusing that even the news show Democrecy Now called for election reform based on the spending of the obama campain.at election time the only real winner is the mainstream media.CA-CHING! "

wcf reader wrote on Oct 27, 2008 9:48 PM:

" so phil, how does one become wealthy and how does one become poor in your two-tier society that is the result of capitalism?

if it is that simple, you are either productive or you are not. and if it is that simple, the more productive you are the more you are compensated. thus, the productive are wealthy, the unproductive are poor. if you are unproductive, you provide no value and thus compensated accordingly, sorry.

solutions to the problem.

conservative ideals: you want to make more money, increase your value and be compensated accordingly.

liberal ideals: you want to make more money, blame someone for your shortcomings and demand some of what they have....

here's a secret, anyone can increase their 'value' if they want to.

as for the flat tax...all i have to say is that if it is 'unfair' to have a regressive tax, what makes a progressive tax code 'fair'? the argument is laughable and stupid. your argument comes down to the fact that you think govt. has the authority and ability to decide how much people need...that is socialism!

as stated earlier, if a tax is a burden to one group, its a burden to all groups. the difference is, those making more are more PREPARED to pay the burden....and shouldn't be punished for it. a progressive tax rate is an unfair burden to the top incomes...you can't argue that...its fact! you can try twisting it anyway you want, but it doesn't change the fact that 35 percent is more than 22percent.

another point of contention. so apparently, a person who earns a high wage is greedy and a person who earns a moderate wage is somehow a better and more honest person for doing so. from what i can read from phil, cross and the like, middle class is the goal for america. why?

why wouldn't someone who advocates for a progressive tax code want people to ultimately settle for median income jobs and not higher paying jobs that translate into more revenue through higher taxes? i can understand the desire to end poverty, but lets be honest, its not going to happen unless all decision making abilities are removed from individuals.

i guess its not worth arguing. we have fundamental differences. i believe that people make choices for a reason. i believe that people should be held accountable for those decisions. i believe people should be educated to understand that the best thing about a capitalist society is that anyone can 'make it'...that is the message of hope that should be spread.

if obama was presenting real solutions to problems, i'd maybe believe in the change he is advocating for. but he isn't, and its that simple. "

chester11 wrote on Oct 27, 2008 11:12 PM:

" Man, I was enjoying a pretty civil, and fairly intelligent discussion between Cross, Phil, and Xdfred until...
that 10/27, 7:48pm post. "

cross1242 wrote on Oct 28, 2008 12:07 AM:

" DoesAnyoneCare @ Oct 27, 2008 4:16 PM rejects any proof from Wikipedia as violating his sensibilities for what is valid evidence.

Okay, here's essentially the same thing from Time Magazine:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1819288,00.html

I'd also point out to you the faulting reading of your own evidence. You cite a reporter as saying, "making him the first major presidential candidate from either party to completely back away from the federal campaign finance system."

Do you notice the word "completely" in your quotation?

What this refers to is that there can be federal funding for: (1) the primary; and (2) the general election. There is a long list of candidates who have rejected one or the other. Obama has rejected both".

But DoesAnyoneCare said, "hey have tried to do that with the federal financing funds and that worked somewhat until Obama became the first to refuse this money." That statement is NOT TRUE. There is a list of candidates who have rejected federal money -- as I said when I cited Wikipedia. DoesAnyoneCare was playing games with the evidence and citing it for a position that the evidence did not support.

DoesAnyoneCare would do better to read his own quotations carefully and not get all high-and-mighty about where someone cites as evidence. "

Leo46 wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:27 AM:

" hillbillytea. Nice try, but Obama's radio interview on redistributing wealth was in 2001, before the Bush tax cuts. "

cross1242 wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:12 AM:

" For those who think that accusations of "socialism" against Obama pack a real wallop, here's an article to read:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/11/03/081103taco_talk_hertzberg

It's "Like, Socialism" by Hendrik Hertzberg from the current electronic edition of the New Yorker. It's the best explanation I've seen on where the accusation of "socialism" comes from and what it really means. "

Phil wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:13 AM:

" wcf reader - while I understand what you are trying to say I disagree with it and some of the assertions you make.

First, I think we need to understand what you mean when you say anyone can "make it". Let's face it, that isn't completely true. We all know people who will never really make it - because of various reasons. Now I'm not saying the government should "hand" them an easy life so they have it "made", but that there are things they should be able to acquire/afford - clean housing, safe food, clothing, health care or insurance, and affordable educational opportunities.

Certainly these things cannot just be "given" to everyone or anyone, but in those areas where someone cannot obtain them through their own efforts, reasonable assistance should be available. The "market" does not provide for these things because the market is profit driven.

Regarding your comments on the two-tiered society - there is not enough space here to give a complete discourse on the merits and pitfalls of a capitalist economy. I will merely say that I recommend you take some classes in economics if you haven't already. I have taken many and it is a fascinating area of study. It is neither a liberal nor conservative science - but how we choose to affect the market through our government is.

You said this: "conservative ideals: you want to make more money, increase your value and be compensated accordingly." - Sorry that is neither liberal nor conservative ideal, simply a reality of the marketplace. Anyone, liberal or conservative, who understands economics knows that.

You also said: "liberal ideals: you want to make more money, blame someone for your shortcomings and demand some of what they have...." - Sorry again, I don't know anyone who believes this. No true liberal wants this - they want to create access and affordable opportunity so that people can do what you said before - increase their value.

Finally you said: "here's a secret, anyone can increase their 'value' if they want to." - While I agree in theory, reality is not always so kind. Certainly you have seen or met people whose value would be very difficult, if not impossible, to increase. Should they be "given" an easy life? No. Should they receive assistance and opportunity to live a life of dignity? I believe the answer is Yes. And if someone who has already "made it" has to pay a little more to make that happen - then that is their responsibilty for living in a country and society that gives them the opportunity to "make it" so successfully. "

DoesAnyoneCare wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:14 AM:

" I here by apologize to Cross for insulting him for using that reliable source wikapedia. I am so high and mighty I forgot how many times wikipedia enteries are used in legitamate publications. And how both candidates use that information in their campaigns.

Fact is Part Time Senator Barrack Obama had previously indicated to not only his opponents but his supporters that he would in fact take the federal campaign dollars after the primaries, only to go back on that promise. "

cf1981 wrote on Oct 28, 2008 9:15 AM:

" We all can agree that this election is over. McCain has run out of time to make any impact on ALL the polling that has Obama ahead big in Iowa and ahead nationwide. Obama is so far ahead in enough states to give him over 300 electoral votes that there is NOTHING McCain can do at this point to win this thing. It's over.

But keep hoping for an 11/4 surprise, conservatives! I'd love for your misguided hopes to be kept alive so they can be crushed on election day! "

Whyonearth wrote on Oct 28, 2008 9:20 AM:

" Obama is running on a campaign of change. I put forth that "change" can be either positive or negative. Change for the sake of change is no necissarily change for the better. Obama's speeches are long on rhetoric and short on specifics. But if he continues to hammer home the phrase "change", then people that are hurting today feel thay have no choice but to support his extremely thin experience and "hope" for the "change" that this country so desparately needs.

We have 1 week before election day. All I ask is that if you can imagine and expect that Obama's "change" will be an improvement, then you must also acknowledge this same "change" can also devastate this great country. And that is not a chance I'm willing to take. "

wcf reader wrote on Oct 28, 2008 9:49 AM:

" the new yorker? you are going to use the new yorker to refute a claim against obama? good try...why would a magazine with a liberal slant and an endorsement for obama say anthing critical of him...good one...

phil, i get it. but lets look at the issue. your claim is that unbridled capitalism creates a two-tiered class structure of the haves and the have-nots. the solution you and the left provide is not a solution to the problem, its solution to the effect capitalism has. redistribution plans 'correct' the outcome of the haven's and have nots, but does nothing to solve the problem.

the problem needs to be defined to an inequality of opportunity or an inequality of outcome, according to Roger Terry. he asserts, and i agree, that acheiving equal outcome is impossible without removing all freedoms as people have different levels of intelligence, motivation, talent, etc.

providing equal opportunity is what we should strive for. unfortunately, neither party really hits the nail on the head. terry also asserts that the liberal approach of altering the effects of capitalism, by spreading the wealth, is like painting a zebra stripes on a baboon and expecting it to act like a zebra....

neither candidate has proposed anything new... obama wants to change the effects of capitalism on the have nots, and mccain wants the haves to keep what they earned.....neither is gong to do anything particularly well for the middle class...thats the fact.. "

unigrad99 wrote on Oct 28, 2008 10:46 AM:

" DoesAnyone, maybe you should see how many votes people have missed before you call them part-time. According to the Washington Post's U.S. Congress votes database, Senator Obama missed the third most number of votes at 46.3%, you wanna guess who was first...that's right, John McCain at 64.1%. If partisanship plays out though, I'm guessing you'll say that Mr. McCain missed for valid reasons while Mr. Obama did not. "

cross1242 wrote on Oct 28, 2008 10:55 AM:

" Whyonearth @ Oct 28, 2008 9:20 AM said, "Obama's speeches are long on rhetoric and short on specifics."

Gee, do you think that he might feel that if he starts getting into the specifics that he's going to have everyone going to sleep in short order

If you want specifics, go to his website. It's at: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/. At that site, you can read and download his "Blueprint for Change" and read white papers on about 30 issues and the changes he wants to accomplish.

You can't find the specifics of the changes Obama wants because you don't want to find the specifics. "

cross1242 wrote on Oct 28, 2008 11:00 AM:

" wcf reader @ Oct 28, 2008 9:49 AM wrote, "the new yorker? you are going to use the new yorker to refute a claim against obama? good try...why would a magazine with a liberal slant and an endorsement for obama say anthing critical of him...good one..."

I expected that. It's SOP for those on the hard right to reject the source of any information that disagrees with their own narrowly preconceived view of the world.

In this case, however, it's not a pro-Obama piece. It merely discusses the source and nature of bringing up the issue of "socialism." It's informational more than anything else.

In any case, reading something from a source that has journalistic standards and is not in the tank already for one candidate or another (like Faux News) might be an interesting experience for you. "

Oboy wrote on Oct 28, 2008 11:32 AM:

" hetfield, if you must compare Obama to FDR, should we compare McCain to Hoover? Will we continue toward the 2nd Great Depression with MaCain (or) turn the economy around with Obama? "

wcf reader wrote on Oct 28, 2008 12:18 PM:

" your assumptions are assinine....

i'm not hard right nor do i have a narrowly preconceived view of the world. for you to suggest that, then go on to refute my claim by claiming that fox news doesn't have any journalstic standards proves you to be not only hypocritical, but guilty of what charge of me....

to single out fox news is ludicrous. dan rather, the new republic, cnn...the list is long sport. sorry, they support your demonstrated narrow minded views of the world...

lastly, your New Yorker was already in the tank for obama when your informational peice was written. the new yorker endorsed obama for president on Oct. 13th....so good theory.. "

DoesAnyoneCare wrote on Oct 28, 2008 1:11 PM:

" cross1242 wrote on Oct 28, 2008 11:00 AM:
In any case, reading something from a source that has journalistic standards and is not in the tank already for one candidate or another (like Faux News) might be an interesting experience for you. "

Like Wikipedia "

xdfred wrote on Oct 28, 2008 1:42 PM:

" cf1981 wrote on Oct 28, 2008 9:15 AM:

" We all can agree that this election is over...." This is getting old. No we can't. "

xdfred wrote on Oct 28, 2008 1:44 PM:

" unigrad99 wrote on Oct 28, 2008 10:46 AM:

" DoesAnyone, maybe you should see how many votes people have missed before you call them part-time. According to the Washington Post's U.S. Congress votes database, Senator Obama missed the third most number of votes at 46.3%, you wanna guess who was first...that's right, John McCain at 64.1%. If partisanship plays out though, I'm guessing you'll say that Mr. McCain missed for valid reasons while Mr. Obama did not. " Over what time period? And how much legislation has Barack Hussein Obama authored? Can he fly kite, much less an airplane? Has he actually been in charge of anything ever? "

xdfred wrote on Oct 28, 2008 1:45 PM:

" cross1242 wrote on Oct 28, 2008 10:55 AM:

" Whyonearth @ Oct 28, 2008 9:20 AM said, "Obama's speeches are long on rhetoric and short on specifics."

Gee, do you think that he might feel that if he starts getting into the specifics that he's going to have everyone...." Voting for McCain. "

hetfield wrote on Oct 28, 2008 2:15 PM:

" cross, socialism is not what this country was borne of. killing babies and the redistribution of wealth is not what this country should be. barack hussein obama and ayers are not the do-nothings that this country wants.

sorry. but the check will be in the mail either way. "

DoesAnyoneCare wrote on Oct 28, 2008 3:09 PM:

" unigrad99 wrote on Oct 28, 2008 10:46 AM:

" DoesAnyone, maybe you should see how many votes people have missed before you call them part-time. According to the Washington Post's U.S. Congress votes database, Senator Obama missed the third most number of votes at 46.3%, you wanna guess who was first...that's right, John McCain at 64.1%. If partisanship plays out though, I'm guessing you'll say that Mr. McCain missed for valid reasons while Mr. Obama did not. "

First off, you or anybody on this board has never heard anything from me that is overly partisian. While a republican, I am no where near the conservative that many people are, and I have no problem voting democrate if I believe and resect the candidate. I have taken McCain to task many times for the negativity of his campaign, and other issues I believe he has handled wrong. Secondly, Do you really want to compare the careers of McCain and Obama????? McCain has a record of serving his constituents in congress. Your numbers are for the current session, where 4 of the top 5 Senators in votes missed were running for president, the other suffered a major medical condition preventing him from voting. I have reffered to the Wash. Post site many times. So that stat does not surprise me. But from the end of the 2000 presidential campaign to the start of 2007 McCain missed a little over 100 votes, which is about 1/3 the amount that Obama has missed his ENTIRE Senate career, so the term Part-Time Senator in my opinion is valid.
Obama has placed himself before his constituents. The man used his election to the Senate as a stepping stone to the presidential nomination, and has not represented his constituents, while in the Illinois Senate his "present" votes were for issues that may have come back and hurt him politicly or at the direction of the party. This is the major reason I do not support Obama, and why I do not respect him. I could care less about his relations with Bill Ayers, I didn't care about his relationship with ACORN until he flat out lied about it, it's when you look at his record where he puts Obama first, the democratic party second and his constituents third. This is wrong, as this should be the opposite. "

cf1981 wrote on Oct 28, 2008 4:14 PM:

" McCain's campaign is based on nothing more than lies and hypocrisy. His "supporters" will be humiliated when McCain is crushed next Tuesday!

Americans everywhere will rejoice when Obama is sworn into office and begins to right the many wrongs of the Bush presidency. Americans will finally have a REAL president they can be proud of! "

hetfield wrote on Oct 28, 2008 4:38 PM:

" Oboy wrote on Oct 28, 2008 11:32 AM:

" hetfield, if you must compare Obama to FDR, should we compare McCain to Hoover? Will we continue toward the 2nd Great Depression with MaCain (or) turn the economy around with Obama? "

one thing they will both have in common(mccain and hoover) is there luck at taking over a country ruined by the previous congresses. Democrats have cuased the mortgage crisis in this country. they have not one republican who they can pin that on, and that is why they are to blame. Bottom line is thsoe who could never afford to own a home, were coxed into bad loans by democratic promises.

no one can dispute that. "

a362966 wrote on Oct 28, 2008 5:39 PM:

" How can this election have any hope when the only thing that every commentator to this article can spout off about is the McCain/Obama fight.
That is not CHANGE, HOPE, nor COUNTRY FIRST.

ALL of you entirely missed Clayson's point. Reread the article. What he is saying is that there is no big difference between candidates-you pick-NEO-CON or NEO-LIB.

There needs to be a History/Government/Current Events test before every election. Only those with passing grades would be allowed to vote. Every commentator here would obviously be banned. "

chester11 wrote on Oct 28, 2008 5:44 PM:

" wcf reader wrote on Oct 28, 2008 12:18 PM:
" your assumptions are assinine....

i'm not hard right nor do i have a narrowly preconceived view of the world. for you to suggest that, then go on to refute my claim by claiming that fox news doesn't have any journalstic standards proves you to be not only hypocritical, but guilty of what charge of me....

When are you not hard right? I've never seen a post of yours that's not the definition of it. "

thinkaboutit wrote on Oct 28, 2008 5:54 PM:

" What is wrong with our country/ media that most cannot wait until this election is over?!? I think people forget that life will go on after Tuesday. We still will be One country, under God. Not a divided nation of repubs vs. dems. (Even though our Congress doesn't realize this.) Decency and respect went out the window long ago. Heaven help us! "

wcf reader wrote on Oct 28, 2008 6:23 PM:

" cf1981...clearly you don't know much about the mccain campaign...and not to mention the obama campaign if you hold your last post to be true.


as for me being hard right...i'd say not.

i do believe that people deserve what they earn and have the opportunity to change their economic status if they chose to.

i also believe that to take from one to give to another is futile and is not a solution to end the problem. if the problem is the ever-widening gap between haves and have nots, why aren't we looking to figure out what is creating the problem, rather than fixing the outcome through wealth redistribution...same can be said about health care and same can be said about education.

obama isn't proposing anything new, he's just proposing more a more radical liberal agenda than we have seen in some time....thats not change, thats unfortunate. lastly, obama won't help the middle class, look at independent sources rather than his website. his tax plan isn't going to help anyone except those at the bottom, thus becoming even less contributors to society. "

Oboy wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:27 PM:

" hetfield, "coxed into bad loans by "democratic" promises"?? Will you dispute that the banks did not make any money during this spree? And Bush came to the rescue of who, with the bailout, with your TAX DOLLARS? "

Berts wrote on Oct 29, 2008 12:49 AM:

" I am a frequent reader of these comments and have finally been compelled to add my 2 cents. I am curious if anyone else feels that there are some commenters on this site that do not adhere to commonly accepted principles of friendly debate such as 1)treating people with respect and 2)supporting your statements with reputable sources. My personal pet peeve: making inflammatory, hateful comments (Hetfield). It doesn't prove your point, it simply pushes others to disregard any and all statements you make. If you really want to sway people, post legitimate facts and sources, not hateful rants.... "

Phil wrote on Oct 29, 2008 8:00 AM:

" First, for all who keep repeating "socialist" when talking about Sen. Obama - go look Gov. Palin's record in Alaska. She basically admits they practice socialism there. Funny, a highly Republican state that can't live without the free handouts from the government. Now Gov. Palin didn't start this, but being the "maverick" she claims to be, and how she rails against Sen. Obama about it, it would sure seem like she would want to stop it in her own state first wouldn't it?

Second, it was said in an earlier post:

"Democrats have cuased the mortgage crisis in this country. they have not one republican who they can pin that on, and that is why they are to blame. Bottom line is thsoe who could never afford to own a home, were coxed into bad loans by democratic promises.

no one can dispute that"

Well the truth, which some who post here just absolutely never want to acknowledge, is that Wall Street caused a great deal of the meltdown via the creation of Credit Derivative Swaps. 60 minutes had a great segment on this, you can watch it online. And Phil Gramm, McCain's buddy and advisor drafted the legislation that allowed them.

The other big piece of the crisis was the subprime lending done by those institutions NOT RESTRICTED by the government rules in place for subprime lenders - in other words, freelancers. They loaned to anyone and everyone they could without following the rules for sound lending practices.

These facts have been reported over and over - economists and those who REALLY know what is going on know this.

So yes, it can be disputed - in fact it can and should be completely disregarded, just like an urban legend. It is false - it is fraudulent - it is repeating a lie. "

xdfred wrote on Oct 29, 2008 8:41 AM:

" Excellent source of quotes, votes, and attempts to squash free speech. Welcome to the socialist society formerly known as the United States.

http://www.gunbanobama.com/ "

xdfred wrote on Oct 29, 2008 8:43 AM:

" Phil wrote on Oct 29, 2008 8:00 AM:

"...just like an urban legend. It is false - it is fraudulent - it is repeating a lie...." Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Obama's top advisors, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Andrew Cuomo setting racial quotas for loans under Clinton. No sir. Try again. "

xdfred wrote on Oct 29, 2008 8:55 AM:

" Some of Barack Hussein Obama's less flattering associates:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1225036822047&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

For the worn out electorate. "

cross1242 wrote on Oct 29, 2008 9:15 AM:

" I'd like to continue the discussion of whether the charge of "socialism" is valid. In particular, those on the hard right seem to think we live in a purely capitalist society now and any shift towards "socialism" represents a shift to the Brave New World of socialism.

In fact, we already have substantial elements of collective action if not socialism in our society now.

“Socialism,” in the form of common services provided by government to all the people and paid for from tax funds are widely available. All these services are socialism. That is, they could be provided by individuals for themselves if we were as rugged individualists as conservative and neocons think we already are. Or, they could be provided by collective groups of individual organizing themselves to provide and pay for the service. (That is: utilities.)

The point is that when we talk about health care or other services being “socialistic,” the answer is, “Sure it is. But we’re already saturated with socialistic services when doing it that way seems to be the most efficient way. If we really did follow the philosophy of “Carry the mail, defend the shores, and get the hell out of my life,” none of these services would be provided.

And, even if the service is provided by a utility rather that government directly, the government regulates the utility to prevent it from exploiting its monopolistic status.

It might be argued that these are “socialism” but just the ordinary services provided by governments at various levels. And, that’s right. They are the “ordinary socialistic services provided by a government of a society.” And the services have not always been there. Rather, they have developed over time.

So, new services, such as healthcare can be just another new service that is provided by a government.

* Armed Forces (It’s referred to in the Constitution as the “common defense.” And state “militia” can be federalized.)
* Building roads (nobody goes “overland” anymore)
* Police (nobody depends on self-help anymore)
* Fire (nobody has to contract for fire services anymore)
* Ambulance (nobody is on their own to get to a hospital in an emergency)
* Schools & universities (nobody has to educate their own children)
* Heat (Some cities maintain a system to take steam from private electrical plants and circulate it to heat nearby homes and businesses)
* Inspections (if there’s a general risk then the government checks for everyone)
+construction
+homes for sale
+elevators
+amusement rides
+restaurants
+packing houses
+trucks
+airplanes
+etc
* Old age assistance (Social Security and Medicare to maintain quality of life and not to depend on kids)
* Health
+Veterans and the elderly, at least, have mostly full coverage
+Investment in medical research
+Public health – fighting infections and communicable diseases
+Health & safety standards for many consumer products
+Public hospitals (places of last resort for destitute poor)
* Common transport (bus and light rail in cities)
* Recreation & Public Parks (Public parks made available with complete facilities including such things as life guards for safety)
* Regulation of business (to provide a level playing field for all). No business has to fight the concentration of business power alone.
* Water purification plants & piping (nobody has to boil their own)
* Sewage disposal plants & sanitary sewers pipes (nobody goes to an outhouse anymore and a septic tank is used only when beyond sewer lines)
* Garbage pick-up service (nobody disposes of their own garbage anymore)
* Snow removal (You only have to dig out to the street)
* Tourism Support (To create more business for tourism businesses)
* Levees and other flood control (you’re not on your own)
* Interceptor sewers and the like for rain (Everyone’s yard gets drained)
* Street Lights (You’re not home-bound at night)
* Electrical Power (in some areas)
* Disaster Preparedness and Post-disaster aid (most run competently)
* Business development loans (help for those in business)
* Mail (Part of the Libertarian anthem exempted from “get the hell out of my life.”)
* Family Services (All kinds of aid to struggling families.)
* Cemetery maintenance (Most cemeteries are public or become public when private management fails over time.)
* Emergency Services (In case of flood, hurricane, cyclone, or other mass disaster, who are you gonna call?) Use of the National Guard in emergencies.
* The Weather Bureau (Nobody does their own predictions.)
* Warning sirens and broadcasts for bad weather
* Bike Trails (Yes, it’s a form of recreation or transportation but the cost of creating cross-country bike trails is so large that it deserves its own mention.)

There are probably a lot more services that government provides in common to all of us. That is, socialism. "

cf1981 wrote on Oct 29, 2008 9:19 AM:

" It is amazing reading the lengthly comments by the desparate, angry McCain supporters. You guys clearly have no grasp on reality. Your candidate WILL NOT WIN. Admit it!

If you do not admit it to yourself, then you will be thoroughly shamed on Election Day. "

think wrote on Oct 29, 2008 11:10 AM:

" cf1981 then why are you so afraid and trying to push poll here. Your man is dropping in the polls, even the ABC poll. Now Biden's own words are being heard. BHO is in almost the same place Kerry was four years ago. Cross half the crap you named we can do without. In my almost 60 years I've needed few of your items listed. I pay for roads but frankly let a church take care of the "poor". Lazy and good for nothing is another term for them. Social Security is the biggest scam ever pulled of. That even beats the Gulf of Tonkin scam LBJ pulled off. "

xdfred wrote on Oct 29, 2008 12:25 PM:

" cross1242 wrote on Oct 29, 2008 9:15 AM:

"..There are probably a lot more services that government provides in common to all of us. That is, socialism...." Two problems. Many of the services you list we cannot provide for ourselves. Our government is supposed to follow the Constitution. It says matters not exlicitly called for should be left to the states or more local governments. You left wing types always claim the sensible among us advocate for no taxes and no government services. Nope. Just do what the Constitution says and stay out of the rest of it. "

hetfield wrote on Oct 29, 2008 12:54 PM:

" Oboy wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:27 PM:

" hetfield, "coxed into bad loans by "democratic" promises"?? Will you dispute that the banks did not make any money during this spree? And Bush came to the rescue of who, with the bailout, with your TAX DOLLARS? "

No i dont dispute that. When clinton tells you, you better make this loan to this yahoo with no income, and you can charge whatever you like. then yes, they will make the loan and make money.

and I am very peeved that bush fell into the trap of the democrats by pushing for this bailout. He should have never have done it. let those banks fail, and those who invest in them lose. That is the market.

It's just too bad liberals created this fiasco and then fought Bush's effort to regulate further. But this is what leftsits and socialists do. FAIL!


Berts wrote on Oct 29, 2008 12:49 AM:

" I am a frequent reader of these comments and have finally been compelled to add my 2 cents. I am curious if anyone else feels that there are some commenters on this site that do not adhere to commonly accepted principles of friendly debate such as 1)treating people with respect and 2)supporting your statements with reputable sources. My personal pet peeve: making inflammatory, hateful comments (Hetfield). It doesn't prove your point, it simply pushes others to disregard any and all statements you make. If you really want to sway people, post legitimate facts and sources, not hateful rants.... "

nice post. now go out and make a difference instead of being upset by my opinions.

the cedar rapids courier reviews my posts as well as yours prior to listing them.

perhaps barack hussein obama will make posting on boards illegal!? yes, that will be one way to quell the masses. overtaxation, stealing 401ks, taking our guns, creating a useless mass of minions not motivated to achieve, to earn to create and develop. socialism at its best!

No way barack hussein obama. not now, not ever. "

hetfield wrote on Oct 29, 2008 12:55 PM:

" cf1981 wrote on Oct 29, 2008 9:19 AM:

" It is amazing reading the lengthly comments by the desparate, angry McCain supporters. You guys clearly have no grasp on reality. Your candidate WILL NOT WIN. Admit it!

If you do not admit it to yourself, then you will be thoroughly shamed on Election Day. "

then go out and do what barack hussein obama commands! vote early and vote often! lie, cheat, steal, comingle with bandits, hoods, thieves and terrorists.

nice little society you liberals want. "

hetfield wrote on Oct 29, 2008 1:02 PM:

" cross posts a saved document that he resorts to when explaining why socialism is good now, and why it should continue and grow ad naeseum. truth is we pay for these services with fess, taxes, or higher prices.

Alot of these industries would not be in service if people didnt have the income to support them; airplanes, amusement parks, etc.. hile the others are federal responsibilities made possible by the constitution.

where cross stops short of is how much socialism will drain our country. there is not one socialist economy that can compete with the US> the US is the most wealthy(still) most creative and has the most possibilities for its people. you can become exactly what you want in the US, or you can choose to be a welfare recipient.

Dont let your choices drain our country however. SOcialism has never worked or will ever work. "

xdfred wrote on Oct 29, 2008 1:08 PM:

" cf1981 wrote on Oct 29, 2008 9:19 AM:

" It is amazing reading the lengthly comments by the desparate, angry McCain supporters. You guys clearly have no grasp on reality. Your candidate WILL NOT WIN. Admit it!..." How UN-realistic of you. Angry? Desperate?

"....If you do not admit it to yourself, then you will be thoroughly shamed on Election Day. " Says the great swarma. "

cross1242 wrote on Oct 29, 2008 1:25 PM:

" think @ Oct 29, 2008 11:10 AM said, "Your man is dropping in the polls, even the ABC poll. Now Biden's own words are being heard."

Where are you getting that from? Go to: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/. It shows Obama leading wall-to-wall on ALL of the polls -- and they are NOT getting closer.

think also said, "BHO is in almost the same place Kerry was four years ago."

Baloney!

Four years ago, I was where you are now only it was less obvious then. Kerry was behind by a couple of points in the week or two leading up to the election and his polls stayed there. I hoped that he had a couple extra percent that wasn't showing up that would carry the day. But no such luck. Don't make up facts to prove your point.

think also said, "half the crap you named we can do without. In my almost 60 years I've needed few of your items listed."

NAME THEM! Don't be shy. Tell us all, on an item-by-item basis, what not only you would like to do without but expect everyone else to do without too. I expect your bravado will disappear and if you dare to name them, everyone else here will know that you're full of baloney.

think also said, "Lazy and good for nothing is another term for them."

Wow! I judge you're not a Christian. BTW, does it just happen that those in that class are identifiable by the color of their skins? I suspect that we have some racism concealed under a hard-right political ideology.

Perhaps you should consider adopting a different screen name. "

think wrote on Oct 29, 2008 2:07 PM:

" Actually Cross I am a Wiccan who is also an isolationist. Where do you get off thinking I have to adapt your ideology and take care of the poor and the old? That’s the family’s job, not mine. There are far too many things to name I don’t need. This is not church and I don’t care if you believe in a lake of fire. I’ll ride off on my broom now. LBJ and his great society have destroyed this Country. Free rides and free loaders ever since. As far as racism, tell the people in Harlem that are voting on race they’re wrong. I don’t care what color Obama is, the man has spent almost two of the last four years asking to be President. This is a Democrat strong hold. Where are all the Obama signs? Even my next door neighbor who is a hard core Democrat is voting for JM. "

cross1242 wrote on Oct 29, 2008 2:39 PM:

" think @ Oct 29, 2008 2:07 PM, said, "Actually Cross I am a Wiccan."

For real? Or are you just trying to pull our chain?

He also said, "Where do you get off thinking I have to adapt your ideology and take care of the poor and the old?"

Well, you don't. Excuse me for assuming that you were guided by Christian principles. But, tell me, is the "I've got mine, Jack" view a central point to being a Wiccan?

Fortunately for you, our society does not require that you believe in our society in order to benefit from it. (Thus, you receive all the benefits I listed earlier even though you reject them.) "

berts wrote on Oct 29, 2008 3:19 PM:

" Hetfield said "nice post. now go out and make a difference instead of being upset by my opinions. the cedar rapids courier reviews my posts as well as yours prior to listing them."

Thanks for the compliment on the post; any implied sarcasm is being ignored. As far as being upset by your opinions, I am not. Saddened at your ignorance, absolutely. In making a difference, I have face-to-face political debates that I conduct with courtesy and supporting facts, not flammatory remarks. I have donated my time to the campaign of the political candidate of my choice, however I urge EVERYONE I encounter to vote regardless of the candidate they support. In regards to posters comments being reviewed prior to approval for posting, I know. I am disappointed in whomever on the WCF Courier staff has been tasked with this as a number of your posts are not civil but rather derogatory, inflammatory and inappropriate and yet they appear anyway.... "

Phil wrote on Oct 29, 2008 3:26 PM:

" hetfield wrote on Oct 29, 2008 1:02 PM:

Dont let your choices drain our country however. SOcialism has never worked or will ever work.

Gee, that's not what Gov. Palin and the (mostly) Republican citizens of Alaska say. They love their redistribution of wealth up there. "

think wrote on Oct 29, 2008 3:56 PM:

" "For real? Or are you just trying to pull our chain?". For real and as a Wiccan
We believe in live and let live and let nature run our lives. I’m not here to convert or preach on the craft but yes I am a candle burning (white candles) Wiccan who does indeed practice the craft. Also, I have gone well out of my way to help people but I don’t need government to force me to do it. Just in case you don’t know we do not worship the devil or even accept the concept of one. My freedom of religion. "

hetfield wrote on Oct 29, 2008 7:20 PM:

" berts wrote on Oct 29, 2008 3:19 PM:

" Hetfield said "nice post. now go out and make a difference instead of being upset by my opinions. the cedar rapids courier reviews my posts as well as yours prior to listing them."

Thanks for the compliment on the post; any implied sarcasm is being ignored. As far as being upset by your opinions, I am not. Saddened at your ignorance, absolutely. In making a difference, I have face-to-face political debates that I conduct with courtesy and supporting facts, not flammatory remarks. I have donated my time to the campaign of the political candidate of my choice, however I urge EVERYONE I encounter to vote regardless of the candidate they support. In regards to posters comments being reviewed prior to approval for posting, I know. I am disappointed in whomever on the WCF Courier staff has been tasked with this as a number of your posts are not civil but rather derogatory, inflammatory and inappropriate and yet they appear anyway.... "

thanks berts. i will try to change my posts to make the great messiah barack hussein obama seem less like a false prophet and more like a confused socialist who happens to be the biggest flim flam flip flop man of hyde park and the most liberal senator and presidential candidate in the history of the US.

in 1995 barack hussein obama was doing an intereview where he comes right out and says what a socialist he is. he says the largest fault of our country is that the supreme court hasnt yet interpreted the right of government to spread the wealth around.

he did another interview where he says what a great man rev wright is and who he believes should speak for all black people in the US.

berts, you should question why the cedarapids courier doesnt post the truth about this hypocrit instead of what they allow me to post.

why hasnt the crcourier reported what barack hussein obama has done for acorn? why hasnt the cr courier posted the extent of the relationship between wm ayers and BHO? why hasnt the courier done an article on bho's lack of experience, his lack of doing anything in DC, his liberal socialist stands, on why he voted for infanticide, on why he refused to take election campaign funds, when he agreed to, and he becomes the first candidate in historty to refuse funds, and spend millions. why hasnt he released the names of all large donators? could they be terrorists? hamas? extreme islamists?

No, the real questions the minions refuse to answer are what people should be concerned about. instead they dont want to read my posts? sorry, but while i disagree with your points I would fight to death for your right to make them...bottom line however, is I could care less what you think of my opinions.

now, hang on, i am trying to count how many times barack hussein obama lies in his propaganda commercial. i see he already lowered the supposed no new tax guidlines to 200k. biden even said 150k the other day. "

hetfield wrote on Oct 29, 2008 7:26 PM:

" Phil wrote on Oct 29, 2008 3:26 PM:

" hetfield wrote on Oct 29, 2008 1:02 PM:

Dont let your choices drain our country however. SOcialism has never worked or will ever work.

Gee, that's not what Gov. Palin and the (mostly) Republican citizens of Alaska say. They love their redistribution of wealth up there. "


hey, the gov. negotiated with the oil companies. now who has barack hussein obama ever negotiated with? he wanst to negotiate with the hamas and teorrists. but he cant even cross thre aisle and negotiate on tax relief! it is true that palin is more experienced and much more real world decision making than the messiah!

why hasnt barack hussein obama shared his wealth with the poor in chicago instead of swindling with rezko? "

momofthree wrote on Oct 29, 2008 7:47 PM:

" XFred-
Just two posts today on this thread?

IN WHAT RESPECT CHARLIE "

thinkaboutit wrote on Oct 29, 2008 8:12 PM:

" Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed.

Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference--and I had an interesting idea.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.
OR IS IT.........REDISTRIBUTION OF SOMEONE ELSE'S WEALTH IS A GREAT IDEA............. "

waverly wrote on Oct 29, 2008 8:18 PM:

" What in gods name is McCain doing by having his mom, who is like OLD...90 I am guessing, going out on the trail for him, making like 4 stops.

HOLY COW is that like not desperation in at its finest. C'mon Johnny, get off the denial and stop your mom before she goes out and something happens to her...Sympathy votes will get you no where, its over John...its over....

And whats the deal with Palin having Joe the plumber with her at some of her stops.....Funny how O'Joe never had any intention of buying this business he was so concerned about having to pay more taxes on....Also funny how he lived in Alaska for a time.....

Why isn't he appearing with the maverick? Starting to think O'Joe was planted there to ask Obama that question.

Maybe Palin is the Plumbers Helper! "

MAC wrote on Oct 30, 2008 5:56 AM:

" A newspaper has to worry about slander...and anonymous poster on a blog can say anything and not have to worry about repercussions.

Perhaps the voters of this country have had enough of the Republicans and their oligarchic rule.

Tuesdays will tell the tale. "

hetfield wrote on Oct 30, 2008 6:43 AM:

" thinkabouit. what an oustanding story about socialism. i would have bought you dinner that day had i been there to witness that! socialists! go figure.

waverly, you've got us! joe was planted. mccain new barack hussein obama was going to be in that neighborhood. so he bought ol joe a house, and made him stand there just hoping BHO walked by.

Joe is the only one in this election who has caught obama saying exactly what he thinks. spread it around.

there are A lot of liberals on these boards spreading it around as well. "

gmaro wrote on Oct 30, 2008 7:28 AM:

" thinkaboutit: you just gave me my first smile of the day, thanks. I've always said things look good on paper but they hardly ever work in actuality. I argued with my employer about things like that for years whenever they tried to cut more jobs by replacing people with machines-it always looked good on paper but in reality it was a nightmare. "

Newswatcher wrote on Oct 30, 2008 8:28 AM:

" cf1981 writes about a REAL President?
HaHaHaHaHa!
What does THAT mean?
LOL!
Watching Obama last night with his Slick Infomercial made me want to puke.
He is an Actor who deserves an Oscar for making you all believe his farce is truth "

waverly wrote on Oct 30, 2008 8:39 AM:

" The only one winning out of this deal is Joe the plumber......he used McCain and they didn't even see it coming.

O'joe may get a record deal....already has a publicist, and is scheduled to make public appearances.

Johnny boy has lost this race...thanks to the no brains of Sarah Palin....Nice pick Johnny. "

Steady wrote on Oct 30, 2008 8:45 AM:

" I guess waverly doesn't believe the elderly should be part of the election process? The elderly doesn't matter? The elderly cannot function or get out?

What point is being made of McCain's mom - I don't know. Just another angle to try to slam someone I guess. Like for sure. "

Oboy wrote on Oct 30, 2008 9:05 AM:

" thinkaboutit, wow how far behind are you on your E-mails? I read "your post" at least a week ago, maybe even two weeks ago, on my E-mail. Were you waiting for "The Great Pumpkin" with Linus? "

waverly wrote on Oct 30, 2008 9:22 AM:

" The point about McCains mom, it was reported that she is going to be out there on the trail for him making 4 stops....I would think o'johnny would be telling her not to at her old age......

C'mon johnny.....desperate measures like that definitely show signs of your final desperation campaign measures.

Its bad enough johnny is old...but his mom out on the trail.....I thought I seen it all. "

xdfred wrote on Oct 30, 2008 10:18 AM:

" Steady wrote on Oct 30, 2008 8:45 AM:

" I guess waverly doesn't believe the elderly should be part of the election process? The elderly doesn't matter? The elderly cannot function or get out?

What point is being made of McCain's mom - I don't know. Just another angle to try to slam someone I guess. Like for sure. "

It's typical liberal mentality. The elderly can't get by without a government program. "

Phil wrote on Oct 30, 2008 10:18 AM:

" What a cute little urban legend posted for us here by thinkaboutit.

Now let's look at redistribution of wealth since 1980.

Ronald Reagan started it with the Earned Income Credit for low income families.

But Reagan, like Bush II, wanted to make sure the wealthy got wealthier, so they got their tax cuts. And our deficit grew. And the inequality of wealth in this nation began its steep climb. CEO pay jumped. Golden parachutes flourished. Remember all the LBO's of the 1980's? The movie Wall Street?

Meanwhile Reagan took us off Carter's energy program, that had we continued to follow would have by now freed us from dependence on Middle Eastern oil and in the long run, kept Detroit more competitive - saving good paying American jobs. Plus Reagan began the build up of our military - a huge waste of money - and who is one of the largest users of oil and gas? The Pentagon.

If not for the Iranian hostage crisis we might have been spared the Reagan-Bush I-Bush II years. While all of us would have had to make sacrifices there is no doubt we as a nation would be better off today.

At the time Reagan took office our federal deficit was $1 Trillion. Now it is nearing $11 Trillion. Only Bill Clinton - the only Democrat in that time - kept it from growing during his time in office.

Meanwhile the rich have gotten much richer - the Arab countries have drained off much of our wealth - and China makes money off our debt so it can fuel its economic boom.

We can only hope that next Tuesday marks the end of the Reagan revolution that has crippled our country economically and bankrupted our treasury. That has turned social issues into wedges that are used to divide us instead of having us work for reasonable solutions.

It is past time for the 21st Century version of the New Deal as well as a return to the realities Eisenhower had about our military and the industrial complex that now drives it.

It will be hard, sacrifices will be necessary, but let's hope we can begin anew. "

xdfred wrote on Oct 30, 2008 10:21 AM:

" momofthree wrote on Oct 29, 2008 7:47 PM:

" XFred-
Just two posts today on this thread?

IN WHAT RESPECT CHARLIE ....."

Can anybody here read and understand liberal rantings? And who is XFred? CHARLIE? "

hetfield wrote on Oct 30, 2008 10:21 AM:

" waverly wrote on Oct 30, 2008 8:39 AM:

" The only one winning out of this deal is Joe the plumber......he used McCain and they didn't even see it coming.

O'joe may get a record deal....already has a publicist, and is scheduled to make public appearances.

Johnny boy has lost this race...thanks to the no brains of Sarah Palin....Nice pick Johnny. "

it's funny wavey makes fun of mccains mom, when barack hussein obamagrandmamma and her fake serious illness stole the show last week.

hmm, serious illness, not hospitalized, broken hip? and he waits 5 days to go? maybe alot of free pub that makes him look like he cares for his white gramma?

also, wavey, sarah palin is smarter than you are(by a landslide) and will always be a better person than you! this much I know.

minnions for b.hussein..go figure! "

waverly wrote on Oct 30, 2008 11:27 AM:

" hetfield.....oh thats funny...johnny suspends his campaign, to rush back to washington to save the day....but a week earlier the countries economical situation was strong....talk about pathetic.

McCain tried to be the Maverick and hero and save the day, but it looked to me like he just sat there with his trap
closed...

Heck by the time McCain's mom makes them four stops...President Obama will have been in office for 4 months.

McCain has been out performed all around in this campaign. The Maverick has been beaten down....He tried to shake Bush from his campaign shadows, but couldn't, even if he would have....he just needed to turn around and there was Palin....

Boy she sure is smart isn't she..Funny here intelligence doesn't match that 150,000 dollar wardrobe.....without her little script cards she's nothing, she is so far out of her league.

And the funny thing is you guys think she's better then anyone else McBush had to choose from....if he makes them kind of decisions, I can see why is his getting beat down in this election....

Someone turn up his hearing aid and maybe he will hear this........
JOHNNY ITS OVER...STOP DENYING IT....YOU LOST MAVERICK.....GO FIND YOUR MOM AND BRING HER HOME.....TELL PALIN SHE CAN STOP CAMPAIGNING FOR 2012, AND TELL JOE THE PLUMBER TO GO GET A JOB! ITS OVER JOHNNY...ITS OVER!!! "

cf1981 wrote on Oct 30, 2008 12:29 PM:

" xfred, no need to get flustered by other people's comments about you, they're simply trying to educate you. thank them, and take time to read what they have to say to you. otherwise you will be in the same boat as hetfield next tuesday, crying with your head in your hands, wondering how mccain let you down............. "

waverly wrote on Oct 30, 2008 12:56 PM:

" Hetfield, Just because Mcbush is losing, Don't Hate!

Whats the matter, are you mad....does it bother you that when Mcbush suspended his campaign to rush back to Washington to save the day and make himself look like a hero, he ended up looking like a fool.

What did he when he rushed back to Washington, I mean after stopping to do an interview with Couric, he didn't do jack, he sat there and thought this ... move was going to make him look like a savior, back in his face it went.

For a man who said that this country was economically strong, why did he need to go back....

And then to have his mother at 92 or however OLD she is, out there trying to get some sympathy votes....by the time she makes them 4 stops, President Obama will have been in office for at least 3 months.

He's tried so hard to get out of the shadow of Bush, that even if he did all he had to do was turn around and there was Palin.... nice choice, johnny. Heck shes spent more time lately with Joe the plumber....maybe in 2012 you will see signs...PALIN/PLUMBER..

Johnny is in denial.....someone turn up his hearing aid so he can here this:
ITS OVER JOHNNY, ITS OVER.....STOP THE DENIAL...GO FIND YOUR MOM, AND BRING HER HOME....GET PALIN AND PLUMBER AND TELL THEM THEY CAN STOP CAMPAIGNING FOR 2012...ITS OVER... "

xdfred wrote on Oct 30, 2008 1:15 PM:

" Phil wrote on Oct 30, 2008 10:18 AM:

" What a cute little urban legend posted for us here by thinkaboutit.

Now let's look at redistribution of wealth since 1980.

Ronald Reagan started it with the Earned Income Credit for low income families....." And Obama's plan for all this is?????? "

xdfred wrote on Oct 30, 2008 1:19 PM:

" cf1981 wrote on Oct 30, 2008 12:29 PM:

" xfred, no need to get flustered by other people's comments about you....", Flustered? Why would anybody get flustered on these blogs?

".....they're simply trying to educate you..." On the evils of liberalism? On how to rewrite history? On how great a president Carter was? How great his energy policy was? His economic policy? Hardly. "

xdfred wrote on Oct 30, 2008 1:23 PM:

" waverly wrote on Oct 30, 2008 11:27 AM:

"...Boy she sure is smart isn't she...." Smart enough to be governor of a state, and smarter than you.
"...Funny here intelligence doesn't match that 150,000 dollar wardrobe....." Hillary has an expensive wardrobe to. She's proven that it's not the clothes.
".....without her little script cards she's nothing, she is so far out of her league...." Compared to Biden? Please.

"....And the funny thing is you guys think she's better then anyone else McBush had to choose from...." I don't think that. But she is a good choice. Why did Mr change pick old insider Biden? "

hetfield wrote on Oct 30, 2008 1:23 PM:

" ...

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5042571.ece

and you liberals thinks he is going to take care of you too?

please. this is the messiah, the man you claim to be GOD. "

waverly wrote on Oct 30, 2008 3:00 PM:

" Well I can bet that when people go to listen to Biden , they listen. And I bet when thy go listen to Palin speak, their just looking at the eye candy, cause she doesn't have anything else going for her.

She was a worthless pick and you guys are in denial.....will see how much we here about her on November 5th......Her and the plumber will probably run off together. Or she'll be the spread in some magazine titled MAVERICK "

xdfred wrote on Oct 30, 2008 4:13 PM:

" From Ken Blackwell:
"...Ali Larijani is the Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, and was Iran’s representative to the United Nations who kept that international body from taking action regarding Iran’s program to expand its nuclear capabilities. On October 22, Speaker Larijani said that the regime in Iran would like to see Mr. Obama elected president...."
"...There’s more. The L.A. Times has video of Barack Obama toasting an anti-Israel activist associated with the Palestinians, and standing by as an anti-Semitic poem was read. We don’t know the details, because the L.A. Times—which has endorsed Mr. Obama—refuses to allow anyone to see the video...."
"....Terrorist leaders never endorsed Bill Clinton, or Al Gore, or John Kerry..." "

hetfield wrote on Oct 30, 2008 4:14 PM:

" wavey, (repeat) Biden?! biden was run out of this election last january in iowa! HE IS ON RECORD FOR saying barack hussein obama is not qualified and that john mccain is!

next! "

xdfred wrote on Oct 30, 2008 4:17 PM:

" waverly wrote on Oct 30, 2008 3:00 PM:

" Well I can bet that when people go to listen to Biden , they listen. And I bet when thy go listen to Palin speak, their just looking at the eye candy, cause she doesn't have anything else going for her...." You'd loose your shirt. Twice. Didn't he say Roosevelt talked to the public on T.V. in 1929? He wasn't president yet, and tv wasn't available to the public yet.

"...She was a worthless pick and you guys are in denial.....will see how much we here about her on November 5th......" You're scared down to your socks that his picking her energized more people to support the ticket.
"...Her and the plumber will probably run off together...." Jealous? Don't worry. Her family life is stronger than your IQ.
".... Or she'll be the spread in some magazine titled MAVERICK " Liberal trash talk at it's best. "

hetfield wrote on Oct 30, 2008 4:20 PM:

" waverly wrote on Oct 30, 2008 3:00 PM:

" Well I can bet that when people go to listen to Biden , they listen. And I bet when thy go listen to Palin speak, their just looking at the eye candy, cause she doesn't have anything else going for her.

She was a worthless pick and you guys are in denial.....will see how much we here about her on November 5th......Her and the plumber will probably run off together. Or she'll be the spread in some magazine titled MAVERICK "


just because you are a paid obamamite and are they typicla non-attractive liberal, doesnt mean you can denegrade the gov. of alaska. "

waverly wrote on Oct 30, 2008 5:29 PM:

" Shes a Governor? She acts like someone they pulled off the street, dressed her up and are trying to make look intelligent.

If you look hard enough I bet you'll see blonde roots under that wig.

McCain picked her for one reason only, to try to score female votes...and what a joke that turned out to be....because if she was the only one with the Maverick drive.....God help the republican party....I am thinking that alot of Republicans are ashamed of his choice......but hey mavericks stick together.....tooo funny. "

hillbillytea wrote on Oct 30, 2008 6:03 PM:

" well I must admit,this artical is appropratly named.what realy takes the toll on the electerates is having to hold back the truth.we still don't hear much about Mcains endorsement from Rev john Hagee.his sermons are a unique blend of the christian/zionist faith and Isreali militerism.the man is not much better than rev wright and yes Mcain did attend some of his cermains.and his campain adviser on foreign polocy is no prince charming either.the man is a hard nose Neo-con who on C span book tv squacked about the algerian election crises.he thought it was perfectly fine that the algerian military would block a newly elected pro islamist goverment from taking power in algerai dispite the fact that control of parliment was won is A fair election back in 1992.in that incident we took sides in a mess we knew nothing about..but Mr kagan seems to think interveining in another countrys' election process is perfectly fine.and what about the comment Mcain made about vladimere putain? the one where he looked into his eyes and said he saw the letters KGB.then we also have the desire for pre emptive bombing of Iran as well as indefinate stay in Iraq.this on top of giving money to the weak central goverment of pakistan who I dought is sending the money where it's supposed to go.this man is flirting with ww111 and the story is being badly surpressed "

thinkaboutit wrote on Oct 30, 2008 6:07 PM:

" Oboy- Does the truth of the email strike a nerve that this makes you so angry? Why would you care if there wasn't a real thread of truth running through it?!? "

hetfield wrote on Oct 30, 2008 7:26 PM:

" This just in! barack hussein obama claims he is his brothers keeper. he maintains this to this date, and it was very good theater for the liberals during the pop stars fake columns and nomination propaganda commercial.

now he has a brother who lives in a hut in africa, and his aunt lives in a slum in boston.

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5042571.ece

how is barack hussein obama going to help you when he hasnt helped his family?

dont be fooled. "

hetfield wrote on Oct 30, 2008 9:40 PM:

" waverly wrote on Oct 30, 2008 5:29 PM:

" Shes a Governor? She acts like someone they pulled off the street, dressed her up and are trying to make look intelligent.

If you look hard enough I bet you'll see blonde roots under that wig.

McCain picked her for one reason only, to try to score female votes...and what a joke that turned out to be....because if she was the only one with the Maverick drive.....God help the republican party....I am thinking that alot of Republicans are ashamed of his choice......but hey mavericks stick together.....tooo funny. "

oh repeat, you are a silly little paid obamamite! barack hussein obama has ZERO qualifications for prez. his running mate agrees. mccain has far more experience and qualifications for this post. For some reason you liberal minions think sarah is running for pres. I wish she were! however, sarah palin has more experience than barack hussein obama on any level.

i have often posed this question, and I know you are a new appointed rear sniffer for bho, repeat, so I will repost it. In what area does BHO have more experience or qualifications to serve as pres over McCain?

now i know alot of the minions out there will post that love fest, oh he graduated from the liberal land mine known as harvard. oh he made law review..big deal!! this is nothing!

that being said, it is time for you minions to answer the question. do so from fact not ridiculous, oh but he is mcbush...whine whine whine.

does anyone have an answer that qualifies barack hussein obama? "

Newswatcher wrote on Oct 31, 2008 7:29 AM:

" Obama's current lie:
That he, will give a tax cut to ANY American.
He will not be able to afford it. In a roundabout way, he admitted this yesterday.
Raising taxes will create job losses, therefore he will be unable to raise the taxes on the rich and unable to give tax cuts or rebates to the middle class.
Oops! He wouldn't tell you this until after the election.
Then he'll blame it on someone else.
He will not be able to perform his campaign promise miracles.
No way!
No how!
Not even CLOSE!
He's lying to you all still and you should get your head straight and think this through before you vote:
IN A DOWN ECONOMY, OBAMA WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DELIVER ON HIS UNATAINABLE CAMPAIGN PROMISES WITHOUT!
Ever heard of a politician making promises he can't keep? There's Obama for you. Just like he said he wouldn't be, he's just a politician like the rest of them.
Pitiful you all fall for it.
Pitiful. "

Oboy wrote on Oct 31, 2008 8:15 AM:

" thinkaboutit, angry?? no thats what you will be Wednesday Morning. I use the current Bush Plan, in this scenario don't tip the waitress, you give the $10.00 to the CEO of the restaurant and see if it will trickle down. "

thinkaboutit wrote on Oct 31, 2008 8:41 AM:

" oboy- I won't be angry Wednesday. BHO frightens me a little because he has so many in his pocket, even though he claims to be 'new' and all about changing gov't. Neither BHO or McCain impress me. Neither of them have a plan to help our current economy that I agree with. Stela from the rich and give to the poor.... I'm sorry, but the rich are not our enemy. McCain also has plans to 'grow' our gov't. Just not at the same rapid pace that BHO will. So, I won't be mad on Wed. I will be sad. Actually I am already sad. This country is headed south and neither of these candidates seem to get that we HAVE to cut spending, not enhance it!!! "

xdfred wrote on Oct 31, 2008 8:53 AM:

" Oboy wrote on Oct 31, 2008 8:15 AM:

" thinkaboutit, angry?? no thats what you will be Wednesday Morning. I use the current Bush Plan, in this scenario don't tip the waitress, you give the $10.00 to the CEO of the restaurant and see if it will trickle down. " Another genius. Nobody gives money to CEO's for nothing. You get something in return. "

cross1242 wrote on Oct 31, 2008 8:59 AM:

" For those who imitate the daily talking points of the McCain campaign and are charging Obama with "socialism," here is something they ought to read:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/10/31/socialism/

It provides a good rebuttal to that claim. The final paragraph says:

"If this is the tactic, then it might be working. The polls are tightening in the final days of the campaign. Should McCain surprise the pundits and pull off a victory, historians may judge that it was because of his desperate insinuation that white people would be taxed to pay for welfare for Latinos and blacks. And if he should lose, conservative operatives planning for the next cycle may decide that this was the right tactic, pursued too late. Whether he wins or loses, by using "socialist" and "redistributionist" in an environment in which they were likely to be interpreted as racially-charged smears, John McCain may have damaged not only his reputation but our society." "

Oboy wrote on Oct 31, 2008 9:44 AM:

" thinkaboutit, AMEN "

xdfred wrote on Oct 31, 2008 10:04 AM:

" cross1242 wrote on Oct 31, 2008 8:59 AM:

"If this is the tactic, then it might be working. The polls are tightening in the final days of the campaign. Should McCain surprise the pundits and pull off a victory, historians may judge that it was because of his desperate insinuation that white people would be taxed to pay for welfare for Latinos and blacks...." Wow. Salon plays the race card. Big time. Maybe those loosers don't realize that it's not welfare, but direct transfer of funds through the tax system that sane people in this country consider wrong and want to avoid. We already have welfare. Or are they just being clever and counting on large lollipops like Cross to push their socialist agenda? "

thinkaboutit wrote on Oct 31, 2008 10:18 AM:

" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck Here is BHO's radio address on redistrabution of wealth. No one made this up. It is unedited in his own words. So, please don't tell he is not pushing a socialist agenda. Yes, blame Mac all you want, but it isn't his fault BHO made this radio address and talked openly about it! "

think wrote on Oct 31, 2008 10:19 AM:

" So the new polls have Obama ahead by three points. I watched as Dick Morris explained why Obama is going to lose and what they did wrong at the end. They have made many females angry by attacking Saraha. Not very smart. "

cf1981 wrote on Oct 31, 2008 11:36 AM:

" At this late stage in the campaign, we all can agree that McCain has already lost. He trails badly in state and national polling, his celebrity VP pick is dragging him down, his image as a "maverick" and "straight talker" have been completely discredited by his lame debate performances, and his numerous shameful smears and lies in his negative ads have turned his few diehard supporters away and towards Obama for President.

The writing is on the wall. Those who cannot see it need to put their bifocals on and take a closer look. "

Newswatcher wrote on Oct 31, 2008 12:44 PM:

" cross, there you go again, crying for the blakcs and latino's.
I don't care WHAT your skin color is, if you're poor, if your great great gpa was a slave, or if you can't speak English clearly.
IF YOU CAN WORK, take care of yourself! "

xdfred wrote on Oct 31, 2008 12:44 PM:

" This is getting interesting. And it helps explain the early voting push.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79519 "

hetfield wrote on Oct 31, 2008 12:48 PM:

" Cross, you honestly are linking to a liberal op/ed? you would be better off linking to your own liberal trash than this trash. at least yours is entertaining.

barack hussein obama will destroy capitalism in our country. he will act in complete disregard of the constitution, which now he wants to rewrite, or have a 2nd one, to steal monies from our most productive citizens. I'm not talking about fair taxation but illegal robbery of ealth. maybe barack hussein obama should just help his aunt who lives in a slum in boston first. or his brother in a hut in africa. what a hypocrit. the guy is a multi millionaire and he wont help his own.

Do you know what pelosi and liberal coconspirators are doing right now? making plans to steal your 401k allowing you a pittence 3% interest rate, and stealing the rest for large government financing! this is illegal!

Do you know what teddie K (chappaquidick murderer) is doing from his death bed? ted is almost brain dead but he is writing a sweeping socialist national health care system. this will leave you wanting for what Dr to go to, and force you to wait for months for care. of course, the left will keep your premiums to finance their program.

barack hussein obama and the left will destroy capitalism! they will carve the supreme court to visit the issue of state socialism(spreading it around) and reconfigure our economic system. socialism does not nor will it ever work! it funnels trickles welfare up, and no one is better off. NO ONE! he is rewriting our constitution to help him do that.

what audacity, but unfortunately, audacity of an idiot. For some reason the messiah thinks he knows more about government and our economic system than even our founding fathers who wrote the constitution.

This man and his record prove that he has never helped anyone!

the left in this country are blind. "

xdfred wrote on Oct 31, 2008 1:50 PM:

" cf1981 wrote on Oct 31, 2008 11:36 AM:

" At this late stage in the campaign, we all can agree that McCain has already lost. He trails badly in state and national polling..." At least no one will say you're original. Or accurate. "

xdfred wrote on Oct 31, 2008 2:08 PM:

" Imagine the government taking over, say, Appleby's. And saying you get to eat here for free, but your taxes go up. You figure why buy food, I'll just eat there all the time. Everytbody will have the same idea. What do you think will happen. The place will be mobbed. The chefs will be replaced by political cronies. There will be no profit motive to serve good food, or produce more to meet increased demand. And why build a bigger facility? Or keep the existing one clean? Long lines. Shortages. Lousy food. Filth. High taxes.
That's socialism. And before the brain dead among us try to blast me for bismurching Appleby's, that's not what I'm doing at all. I like Appleby's. So I really hope this never happens. Or let me rename the restaurant to Obama's Choke and Puke. There. "

hetfield wrote on Oct 31, 2008 2:20 PM:

" cf1981 wrote on Oct 31, 2008 11:36 AM:

" At this late stage in the campaign, we all can agree that McCain has already lost. He trails badly in state and national polling, his celebrity VP pick is dragging him down, his image as a "maverick" and "straight talker" have been completely discredited by his lame debate performances, and his numerous shameful smears and lies in his negative ads have turned his few diehard supporters away and towards Obama for President.

The writing is on the wall. Those who cannot see it need to put their bifocals on and take a closer look. "

LOL, you cf our a classic! a classic liberal with unquestioning minnionism towards abortionists, socialists, liberals and activists.

so why is barack hussein obama out spending millions on self-love dramas(did you see those losers he used the other night? now that was shameful. a lady who has to thrift her kids snacks, and an obese family who cant manage to eat. uh yea.)

he is out there because he is losing. so are you buddy. so are you. "

Newswatcher wrote on Oct 31, 2008 3:33 PM:

" xdfred, worse yet than a restaurant, here's one I read (in my summary):

Imagine you're on a jet, flying out for vacation or the holidays to see family.
Nice! Relaxing, a bit nervous, but you trust the Pilot knows what he's doing, or he/she wouldn't be in the cockpit.
Then you hear the Pilot over the speaker. He speaks great, what charisma! He sounds like a super guy! He's informative about the plans for the flight, giving you the details that have been given to him from someone you don't even know exists. He tells you the temperature where you are, the temperature where you're going, the altitude you'll reach and tells you to have a great flight!! Awesome! We are PUMPED!
BUT!:
Then, he tells you one last asterisk detail: He's never flown a jet before. In fact, he's never flown any airplane before. But, he's been in a plane a few times and people like him. He HOPES he can fly, he always wanted to fly a plane. He even wrote a book about it a few years ago. If he runs into trouble (and you KNOW he will) during the flight, maybe he'll just deliver a nice speech to settle you down while he tries to radio for experienced help from people who actually have a pilots license.

All of the sudden, you realize you have put your life in the hands of an inexperienced pilot.
Want to get off the jet yet? Well, until Tuesday, the jet hasn't left the tarmac.
By Tuesday night, you'll be in flight. So, how about you don't vote for an Non-Pilot to fly our USA jet? How about you give him a few more years of learning how to fly, let him obtain his Pilot's license first, before he gets into the cockpit!?!?

Obama is a speech specialist, he's deceived you into believing everything he says, even his proven lies are OK with you. There something gravely wrong with this senario.

Obama has some serious growing up to do before he should take on the Presidency, people.
He's not ready yet. Maybe in a few years he would be, but he is ill-prepared for the roll, as was GWBush.

Vote McCain, he'll get us where we need to go. He's been a 'pilot' for years and he doesn't lie. Maybe he won't swoon you with speeches, but he'll get the job done, he'll get you there, he'll get our country turned around. He's got a far better plan for our economy than Obama, just ask small business owners!

Trust the experienced honest man.

Question the deceiving liar for a few more years, there's much more to learn about this little known Obama.

Anybody can make the promises Obama's made, but he has no history of delivering on promises, or getting anything substantial done. Just talking and writing books about how wonderful he is, all while nurturing some very concerning relationships with people who have horrific things to say about America and Israel.

The jet's on the runway, use your head people. "

hillbillytea wrote on Oct 31, 2008 5:15 PM:

" so Mcain squawks about redistrubution of wealth. what about the basic republican principal of lower taxes which is a good thing but then we have smaller goverment which means less civil services and less oversite,and less regulations which also adds up to less oversite but then they call for increased spending for the military which already accounts for the bulk of our tax spending.when it come to complaining about the redistribution of the wealth John Mcain is a case of the pot calling the kettle black "

Oboy wrote on Oct 31, 2008 6:01 PM:

" Newswatcher,tell us about McCain's landing in Hanoi. The jet is on the carrier, use your head people. "

chester11 wrote on Oct 31, 2008 7:15 PM:

" Newswatcher - why are you still talking?

http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2008/10/26/news/politics/10704673.txt "

Independent wrote on Oct 31, 2008 11:34 PM:

" I predict that Prof. Clayson will get a new pet cat on Nov. 5th. "

Newswatcher wrote on Nov 1, 2008 1:44 AM:

" chester, because there are still people out there who are finding out Obama's full of bologna.
Don't be too cocky, your false Savior has warned you about that.

Obama kicked off his plane, 3 newsreporters and replaced them with people from MTV, BET and some rag. The 3 reporters kicked off were professional and just happened to work for the 3 Newspapers whose Editor's have endorsed McCain.

The Media will be State Run under an Obama Administration. You people have no idea what you're getting us into.
Spending and reporting us straight into Socialism. "

chester11 wrote on Nov 1, 2008 7:49 AM:

" Independent wrote on Oct 31, 2008 11:34 PM:
" I predict that Prof. Clayson will get a new pet cat on Nov. 5th. "

HAHAAA!! "

chester11 wrote on Nov 1, 2008 11:05 AM:

" Newswatcher wrote on Nov 1, 2008 1:44 AM:
" chester, because there are still people out there who are finding out Obama's full of bologna.
Don't be too cocky, your false Savior has warned you about that.

But dude, you are not helping your stated cause. You obviously don't want Obama elected as President, right? But every time you post your insipid non sequitars another reader is galvanized even more to vote for him.
Also, a puppy dies. "

Phil wrote on Nov 1, 2008 5:52 PM:

" Notice how the conservative posters don't talk about how good their canditate is or the wisdom of his policies and positions, but spend virtually all their time tearing down Obama, especially his character.

They know their ideas have failed, their ideology is bankrupt and all they have left is character - which their candidate is weak on.

It is disgusting - McCain has run a sickening, disgusting campaign - just like Bush did in 2004. We all saw how well that worked the past 4 years - the great "mandate" he said he had.

McCain has proved one thing - he is NOT a leader and he is NOT deserving of the presidency. "

hillbillytea wrote on Nov 1, 2008 9:01 PM:

" in the words of Bill orielley.... gotcha..... the spin stops here! "

Independent wrote on Nov 1, 2008 9:09 PM:

" I just found out that all cats are socilists. This is bad news for me, my Clayson cat prediction is doomed. However, I will take comfort in the fact that Prof. Clayson will not have his wealth redistributed for cat food and medical expense.

Obama on Tuesday! "

Independent wrote on Nov 1, 2008 9:13 PM:

" The Prof. could gain my respect if he would just admit his failures. And start writing about solutions instead of campaigning 52 weeks a year about hard-right talking points. I mean reasonable solutions, ok? "

Newswatcher wrote on Nov 2, 2008 8:52 AM:

" Independent:
Newsflash for you!
Professor Clayson's article is to counter the Liberal Columnists article.
You think we should just have Liberals writing columns for the paper, correct?
Duh! "

Independent wrote on Nov 2, 2008 9:37 AM:

" I know Clayson is attempting to counter the liberal mainstream bias, that only exsits in the hard-right world.

He just does a pathetic job of it. "

cf1981 wrote on Nov 2, 2008 10:54 AM:

" two days before the election, conservatives, better get in your rants now before you're proven incorrect by the American people! "

hetfield wrote on Nov 2, 2008 11:05 AM:

" cf1981 wrote on Nov 2, 2008 10:54 AM:

" two days before the election, conservatives, better get in your rants now before you're proven incorrect by the American people! "

i know you hate conservatives cf, but your stance on abortion and infanticide is immoral. i can think of no other issue which seperates us from you when it comes to respecting life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You and phil hide behind ' oh it's a womens right' my rear! your candidate, your ideology, your ideals, your lack of morals is displayed in your equally immoral, unpatriotic candidate barack hussein obama.

hey has he gotten his dear auntie out of the US yet? or did he just pay her more money to disappear? she is probably voting early and often in several key states today. "

Newswatcher wrote on Nov 2, 2008 11:08 AM:

" independent: And let me guess, you think the Liberal Columnist does a fantastic job?
What a surprise.
cf1981, you think those of us that do not share obama's views are not American people?
What a surprise.
You two should get together and have yourself a good ol' time hammering out how great the USA will be with a weaker military, socialized medicine, more govt handouts than ever before and a POTUS that doesn't know what the blank he's doing.
Go ahead and vote, but I don't believe it's going to be the landslide you two are predicting.
ps, cf1981, I am a full-blooded 4th generation American who will be voting for John McCain on Tuesday. You can disagree with me on politics, but don't ever say I'm not American. Obama is 1/2 African and 1/2 American, so I wouldn't go there if I were you. "

cf1981 wrote on Nov 2, 2008 7:04 PM:

" newswatcher, when I said "the American people", I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to the REAL Americans who will be voting for change and respect for the law and the Constitution on November 4th! Just so you know..................... "

Independent wrote on Nov 2, 2008 8:30 PM:

" Newschanger, I think you need to start living in reality. "

Newswatcher wrote on Nov 3, 2008 7:45 AM:

" cf1981 and Independent,
Just reading your 2 entries, of Nov 2 proves who's living in Reality (me) and who's living in a Reality Show with Obama as Director (you two).
Show's about over.
Grab the remote! "

timbrackett wrote on Nov 4, 2008 9:39 AM:

" hetfield, i would counter that your stance on the war in iraq and the death penalty is immoral as well. both have resulted in the deaths of innocent people. not only is one-issue (abortion) voting irresponsible, but pro-lifers are making in-roads in the democratic party. it is time for the pro-lifers to change their strategy, because roe v. wade still has not been overturned. all that has happened with their current strategy is that they have been used as political pawns to drive a wedge right down the middle of america, dividing us into silly red v. blue states while distracting us from issues that matter. "

If you would like to comment on this story, please log in with the form below. If you are not a registered user, please CLICK HERE to sign up.
Due to the amount of spam and negative comments received, the Courier implement a registered-user system for participation in the comment portion of our site. In doing so, the Courier reserves the right to ban any user(s) at any time without notice if we feel they are not following the terms of agreement.
*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login?
(requires cookies)
 
If you are not a registered user, please CLICK HERE to sign up.
DISCLAIMER: The Courier provides our story commenting feature in order to solicit feedback, debate and discussion on topics of local interest. Please keep in mind that civility is a necessary component of productive conversation. All blatantly inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments (i.e. vulgarity, marketing, etc.) are subject to rejection and/or removal. Comments will appear if and when they are approved. For a more in-depth explanation of our policy, please see our Rules of the Road. Thanks for reading, and thanks for participating.
NEWS | SPORTS | COMMUNITY | BUSINESS | ENTERTAINMENT | FEATURES | OPINIONS | OBITUARIES | CLASSIFIEDS | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | CARRIER PAGES
© 2008, Courier Communications, Waterloo, IA,
A subsidiary of Lee Enterprises