digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Obama's closing argument - One helluva speech

politico.com — To hell with my cynicism. I'm actually inspired.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • MouseyTung, on 12/28/2007, -195/+35Hmm, not bad. To bad his support for clean coal and corn ethanol shows hit to be a bought and paid for whore.
    • Ajajadude, on 12/28/2007, -3/+46Funny, someone was saying in another article how he was a whore of the nuclear power industry.
    • subliminalurge, on 12/28/2007, -5/+71Yeah, clean coal and ethanol. ***** that *****. Let's stick with dirty coal smokestacks and foreign oil.

      Great thinking there, dude.
      • guntario, on 12/28/2007, -18/+1Yeah, a technology that is purported to be coming about around 2020 or so.... Sounds like a great way to bull crap a situation to your benefit.
        • MWeather, on 12/28/2007, -1/+10Besides, solar is cheaper.
        • funkyjunk3, on 12/28/2007, -1/+6ever hear of Nanosolar? Solar is taking off, and it will be here before 2100 man. It's coming next year.
          • Tilon, on 12/28/2007, -8/+2EVER HEAR OF NANOSOLAR MAN? I READ IT AT 4 AM WHEN IT CAME OUT ON DIGG YESTERDAY

            Rofl. You bunch of ***** Armchair quarterbacks. Half of you are completely ***** blind to the world. It's cheaper NOW. It hasn't even started production yet and you morons think the price is always going to stay the same for it.

            I need to find another site. The intelligence has been sucked from this place like a vacuum.
          • Rhendal, on 12/28/2007, -1/+1And yours along with it?
        • Breepee, on 12/28/2007, -0/+4Because 12 years is incredibily long-term it just doesn't fit in your mind.
        • Muva, on 12/29/2007, -0/+1Firstly, the tech exists already. Second, if you cannot support legislation that helps to effect drastically needed progress within 12 years, then legislation affecting social security, energy, medical research, and other long-term goals should not be a consideration for your political affections. In fact, you ought to not even vot.
      • Ometoch, on 12/28/2007, -2/+1Sure. let's only talk about the things he can get done during his possible term in office. sure that'll be good. my god how can you be so short-sighted?
    • trotskyist, on 12/28/2007, -1/+21His public campaign finance reports would disagree with you.
      http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N ...
    • Dohko_Xar, on 12/28/2007, -8/+31Why the ***** hell must the first comment in a story be a dumb ***** comment?!
      ***** YOU!
    • known, on 12/28/2007, -1/+16Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.- Abraham Lincoln
      • Rhendal, on 12/28/2007, -3/+1Yes, he stood on the Mason Dixon line right when the war started with a mic that was dropped from the ceiling as he proclaimed, "LLLLLLLLET'S GET READY TO RUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMBLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!"
    • pintomp3, on 12/28/2007, -2/+7you do have a point, but you should consider explaining your position a bit more. the reason coal is so hard to get rid of is because of coal lobbies and unions. they cause us to lower mining standards and subsidize their industry. corn ethenol is a waste and the only reason we make ethanol from corn is because of the farm lobbies and subsidies. sugarcane based ethanol is much more efficient and sustainable. the only problem is we have to import sugarcane. this would be less of a problem if we ended our silly embargoes with cuba. while i see where you are coming from, but without explaining your position most people will bury you for trolling.
      • nihilite, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2Coal is hard to get rid of because it is a compelling solution to our energy problem and all of the technology needed to exploit it is available now. CTL technology means our coal could fulfill ever energy problem we have. The downside, of course, is that coal is horribly polluting.

        100% dead on with the corn ethanol though - especially when companies like Verenium have proven that cellulosic ethanol is a very real possibility in the next 5 years.

        That said, biodiesel, ethanol, and solar (PV and solar derived) need to be included in a realistic diversified energy policy. The days of relying on one energy source are over.
    • Tilon, on 12/28/2007, -14/+7Obama gave a 'Helluva' speech at AIPAC too!

      "As the U.S. redeploys from Iraq, we can recapture lost influence in the
      Middle East. We can refocus our efforts to critical, yet neglected
      priorities, such as combating international terrorism and winning the war
      in Afghanistan. And we can, then, more effectively deal with one of the
      greatest threats to the United States, Israel and world peace: Iran.

      Iran’s President Ahmadinejad’s regime is a threat to all of us. His
      words contain a chilling echo of some of the world’s most tragic
      history.

      Unfortunately, history has a terrible way of repeating itself. President
      Ahmadinejad has denied the Holocaust. He held a conference in his
      country, claiming it was a myth. But we know the Holocaust was as real as
      the 6 million who died in mass graves at Buchenwald, or the cattle cars to
      Dachau or whose ashes clouded the sky at Auschwitz. We have seen the
      pictures. We have walked the halls of the Holocaust museum in Washington
      and Yad Vashem. We have touched the tattoos on loved-ones arms. After 60
      years, it is time to deny the deniers.

      In the 21^st century, it is unacceptable that a member state of the United
      Nations would openly call for the elimination of another member state. But
      that is exactly what he has done. Neither Israel nor the United States has
      the luxury of dismissing these outrages as mere rhetoric.

      The world must work to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment program and
      prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to
      have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy. And while we
      should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained
      and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our
      primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.

      Iranian nuclear weapons would destabilize the region and could set off a
      new arms race. Some nations in the region, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia
      and Turkey, could fall away from restraint and rush into a nuclear contest
      that could fuel greater instability in the region—that’s not just bad
      for the Middle East, but bad for the world, making it a vastly more
      dangerous and unpredictable place. Other nations would feel great pressure
      to accommodate Iranian demands. Terrorist groups with Iran’s backing
      would feel emboldened to act even more brazenly under an Iranian nuclear
      umbrella. And as the A.Q. Kahn network in Pakistan demonstrated, Iran
      could spread this technology around the world."

      -Barack Obama

      Guess what? Obama is a ***** Establishment shill who knows how to say what's right to get himself elected!

      Imagine that.

      "In the 21^st century, it is unacceptable that a member state of the United
      Nations would openly call for the elimination of another member state. But
      that is exactly what he has done."

      Anyone who has researched the Ahmedinejad quote knows that it was falsely translated, and furthermore he's not the #1 person in charge of his own Country. This speech is fake propaganda.
  • Tangeuray, on 12/28/2007, -61/+44Can't get out of Iraq for 3 years. I'll be voting to end the "war"
    • thefirstenemy, on 12/28/2007, -21/+65His plan calls for us to be out within 16 months, with 1 to 2 brigade leaving each month. It's not like bringing out more 200,000, plus equipment, is any easy task. I doubt Ron Paul, who wants an instant withdrawal, rather than a phased one, can get them out much faster. His approach will most likely just end up being more careless.
      • dezmo, on 12/28/2007, -6/+11just so I'm clear, when did Ron Paul say he wanted an instant withdrawal? I know he opposes troops in Iraq but i don't think I've ever heard him specify a plan.
        • DAaaMan64, on 12/28/2007, -2/+10He just wants them out quickly as possible.
          • fileptr, on 12/28/2007, -3/+4... as quickly as possible
          • BearsDontStack, on 12/28/2007, -2/+2hell, as soon as I can get another flux capacitor, you'll wake up yesterday and the war will have never happened.
          • Tilon, on 12/28/2007, -6/+1"He just wants them out quickly as possible."

            So he can deal with the 'biggest threat' According to him and AIPAC, Iran!
      • voisine, on 12/28/2007, -5/+16nope, RP would simply tell his generals, "we're leaving" and tell them to implement their plan for orderly, deliberate withdrawal. we're not going to be throwing down weapons, abandoning machinery, and running like mad.
    • bethlagarrison, on 12/28/2007, -17/+43How dare you speak ill of anything Ron Paul suggests?!

      BURY PATROL, HOOOOO!!
      • DAaaMan64, on 12/28/2007, -9/+6Is that your technique for bitching about majority?
        • RedNote, on 12/28/2007, -7/+10"majority", in this case, referring to a bunch of borderline-autistic Digg users. let's not kid ourselves by implying he's polling outside of the margin or error or anything.

          oh wait, the SECRET SUPERMAJORITY will come to save the day. won't it? guys?
          • ShrimpCrackers, on 12/28/2007, -3/+8The margin of error in polls is 8-10% now? Wow... must be some ***** polls.
          • RedNote, on 12/28/2007, -5/+6Latest national polling (12/20) has Paul at 3.8%
            In fact, the highest poll I can find for him (Via pollster.com) has him at 6.1%
          • FredFredrickson, on 12/28/2007, -1/+2If it weren't for polls, you Ron Paul supporters would just be kickin' back in your lawn chairs and waiting for election time, under the erroneous assumption that he would win. We have no other way to measure public opinion, so stop pretending that they don't mean anything just because it feels good to put your head in the sand.
        • bethlagarrison, on 12/28/2007, -8/+10Look, I don't have anything against Ron Paul. But the supporters cramming their ***** into every single comment thread I read has driven me to dislike the guy.

          I don't care about stats, I don't care about his views, I don't care about any of that - I've already heard it in every single Ron Paul story that's been in the top 10 here. If I want to get away from the Ron Paul machine, just ***** let me be.

          You're driving away just as many potential supporters as you are bringing them in.
          • Tilon, on 12/28/2007, -3/+4Noone cares anymore. People are conditioned to not get what they want from the Political system, to the point where they fight to protect their stake in our new corrupt world.

            People are AFRAID of personal responsibility nowadays.

            They're scared of Ron Paul.
          • FredFredrickson, on 12/28/2007, -3/+1LOL... the day I'm scared of a 72 year old conservative man is the day he becomes president.
          • scubasteve377, on 12/28/2007, -0/+5Easy dude. I don't know if you realize this, but the first person to say the words 'Ron Paul' on this entire page was an Obama supporter.
          • DAaaMan64, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1Boy let me know how well this helped you miss the "brigade":
            "How dare you speak ill of anything Ron Paul suggests?!

            BURY PATROL, HOOOOO!!"

            Plus you sound so humble now, something change? ;)
          • brokencrystal, on 12/29/2007, -0/+2That is why our government is all screwed up now. Nobody cares. Everyone is too lazy and too afraid of change. Nobody is willing to leave their comfort zone. You said yourself... You are tired of hearing about it, so you reject it. If you are not willing to rock the boat a little, then just settle for whatever the government wants to give you. If you are willing to have your personal rights stomped on, then people are going to take advantage of that. The bad part is that since most of you are afraid and/or lazy, the innocent who want change have to suffer along with you. This revolution has been a long time coming. If another neo-con gets elected, next election there will be more of us. The longer this goes on, the stronger we become and the numbers will continue to grow because Americans are getting tired of it.
    • themastersb, on 12/28/2007, -3/+4tl;dr
      • Neiby, on 12/28/2007, -2/+2I read a lot of it. It's just another politician asking all the right questions but getting all the wrong answers.
    • ISIfunded911, on 12/28/2007, -16/+3Obama and Iraq? It is very tricky to be sure where he stands exactly.
      This is the best analysis of what we can expect from Obama about Iraq I read so far:
      "Never mind Obama’s “mush-mouthed” (Glen Ford and Peter Gamble, “Obama Mouths Mush on War,” Black Commentator, December 1, 2005) pronouncements on the illegal, racist, and imperialist invasion and occupation of Iraq. Obama’s handlers and supporters place considerable emphasis on the claim that the junior senator from Illinois has voiced a “consistent position against the war” and (by extension) the Middle East. The assertion has some technical accuracy; Obama has publicly questioned the Bush administration’s case for war since the fall of 2002. But serious scrutiny of his “antiwar position” shows that the supposedly “pragmatic” and “non-ideological” Obama speaks in deferential accord with the doctrine of empire. In Obama’s carefully crafted rhetoric, Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL) has been a “strategic blunder” on the part of an essentially benevolent nation state. Given his presidential ambitions, it is unthinkable for him to acknowledge the invasion’s status as a great international transgression that is consistent with the United States’ long record of imperial criminality. It is equally unimaginable for him to acknowledge that the war expressed Washington’s drive to deepen its control of strategic petroleum resources—an ambition in direct opposition to the alleged U.S. goals of encouraging Iraqi freedom and exporting democracy.

      In a recent address designed to display his foreign policy bona fides, Obama showed his continuing willingness to take seriously the claim that OIL was an effort to “impose democracy” on Iraq, even faulting the Bush administration for acting in Iraq on the basis of unrealistic “dreams of democracy and hopes for a perfect government” (Obama, “A Way Forward in Iraq,” speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs [CCGA], November 22, 2006).

      Consistent with his denial and embrace of Washington’s imperial ambitions, Obama has refused to join genuinely antiwar forces in calling for a rapid and thorough withdrawal of troops and an end to the occupation of Iraq. In a critical November 2005 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Obama rejected Rep. John Murtha’s (D-PA) call for a rapid redeployment and any notion of a timetable for withdrawal. Obama’s call for “a pragmatic solution to the real war we’re facing in Iraq” included repeated references to the need to “defeat” the “insurgency”—a goal that means continuation of the war. As commentators Ford and Gamble noted in a critical analysis of Obama’s CFR address: “In essence all Obama wants from the Bush regime is that it fess up to having launched the war based on false information and to henceforth come clean with the Senate on how it plans to proceed in the future. Those Democrats who want to dwell on the past—the actual genesis and rationale for the war and the real reasons for its continuation—should be quiet. Obama and many of his colleagues are more interested in consulting the Bush men on the best way to ‘win’ the war than in effecting an American withdrawal at any foreseeable time.”

      Obama’s November speech to the CCGA advocates a vaguely timed Iraq “scenario” in which “U.S. forces” might remain in the occupied state for an “extended period of time.” Obama advances a “reduced but active [U.S. military] presence” that “protect[s] logistical supply points” and “American enclaves like the Green Zone” (site of one of the largest and most heavily militarized imperial “embassies” in history) while “send[ing] a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player in the region.” U.S. troops “remaining in Iraq” will “act as rapid reaction forces to respond to emergencies and go after terrorists.” This is part of what Obama meant when he told a fawning David Brooks that (in Brooks’s approving language) “the U.S. may have no choice but to slog it out in Iraq” (David Brooks, “Run, Barack, Run,” New York Times, October 19, 2006). Never mind that the recent mid-term elections and a mountain of polling data show that the majority of Americans support rapid U.S. withdrawal, as do the vast majority of the Iraqi people—the purported beneficiaries of Cheney’s “dreams of democracy.”

      The only polling data that Obama referenced in his CCGA speech and in the foreign policy chapter of his recent book is meant to illustrate what he considers to be the real danger in the wake of the OIL fiasco: that Americans are leaning dangerously towards “isolationism” and thus turning their backs on the noble superpower’s global “responsibilities.”

      At one point in his CCGA oration, Obama had the audacity to say the following in support of his claim that U.S. citizens support “victory” in Iraq: “The American people have been extraordinarily resolved. They have seen their sons and daughters killed or wounded in the streets of Fallujah.”

      This was a spine-chilling selection of locales. Fallujah was the site for a colossal U.S. war atrocity. Crimes included the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the targeting of ambulances and hospitals, and the practical leveling of an entire city—in April and November 2004. The town was designated for destruction as an example of the awesome state terror promised to those who dared to resist U.S. power. Not surprisingly, Fallujah is a leading symbol of U.S. imperialism in the Arab and Muslim worlds. It is a deeply provocative and insulting place for Obama to choose to highlight American sacrifice and “resolve” in the occupation of Iraq.

      Likewise, Obama also praised U.S. occupation soldiers for “performing their duty with bravery, with brilliance, and without question” (CCGA speech). It’s hard to determine which is more disturbing in this comment: Obama’s blindness (intentional or not) to the important and welcome fact that many troops do in fact strongly question the war or his upholding of the unquestioning execution of frankly criminal military orders as a good thing. "
      From this very informative article about Obama: http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2007/street0207.html
      • darkzealot89, on 12/28/2007, -5/+2You wrote 8 paragraphs, excuse me copy pasta'd 8 paragraphs and still get dugg down into oblivion. In case you didn't get the hint, go troll elsewhere.
        • Tilon, on 12/28/2007, -6/+3In case you didn't get the hint, facts have nothing to do with a popularity contest, which is all Digg is.

          And since he bothered to write up a piece and you didn't even bother to refute any of his facts, what does that make you? An uninformed idiot?

          Thought so. Must be nice to be part of the problem, eh? So many are trying to wake up and exercise control over our government, only to have those who are still asleep fighting us tooth and nail.

          It's rather sad to see the hamsters still on the wheels crying. pleading, BEGGING us not to turn the hamster wheel power off, because then they'll have nowhere to run!

          Hahahaha
    • thegreathal, on 12/28/2007, -4/+7MY candidate didn't vote to RE-AUTHORIZE the Patriot Act. (Gravel, Paul, and Kucinich). My candidate believes gays should be allowed to marry. (Gravel & Kucinich) My candidate also isn't a pussy. (Gravel, Paul, and Kucinich)

      When the Senate voted to condemn MoveOn.org and Codepink, of all things, for criticizing the war, it was an easy 'no vote' for Clinton, Biden, and Dodd. Barack Obama hid in the bathroom instead of defending people.
      • PhantomBantam, on 12/28/2007, -3/+5Paul does believe gays should marry. He also thinks polygamists should marry. He just doesn't think the federal government should create a definition when he doesn't even think states should be defining them.
        Just clarifying.
      • scubasteve377, on 12/28/2007, -2/+3In July of 2006, Ron Paul voted Nay (http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_ ... ) on the Same Sex Marriage Resolution (an Amendment to the Constitution that would outlaw gay marriage and define marriage as being between a man and a woman only http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php ... ) and in his Canidates@Google video on youTube (http://youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg ), at approx. 12 min 15 sec, he says about gay marriage, "I'm supportive of all voluntary associations, and people can call it whatever they want." Paul does not oppose gay marriage.
      • thegreathal, on 12/28/2007, -2/+6Cool, guys. I've just had a hard time finding anything definitive. And yes, the point IS that government and personal opinions should not be involved in marriage either way--it's an artificial construct--, and I'm glad Paul's ideology carries over to that.

        So change that to P/G/K all across the board.
  • cashman57, on 12/28/2007, -113/+55 his speech at the CFR was troubling. He is critical of the Iraq use of force but voted to fund it.
    It doesn't matter what he says if he doesn't follow it up with action. He had the opportunity to vote against the use of force funding and chose not to. Instead of standing with the Constitution he stood with George Bush.
    • Ajajadude, on 12/28/2007, -14/+55It's not black-and-white. Yes, we need to get out of Iraq, but we can't just cut all funding to the operations there. Sure, it'd be a great political statement to Bush but the only people it would really hurt is the troops.
      • Akronos, on 12/28/2007, -19/+19No, if you stopped funding the troops they would have to pull out. It would NOT hurt the troops. It would save lives, both American and Iraqi. You're buying into Bush's agenda.
        • Ajajadude, on 12/28/2007, -5/+14Yeah, a withdrawal without an actual plan other than they get no more funding. That should end well for the country, that region and for us.
          • apocalyps333, on 12/28/2007, -2/+3It doesn't seem to be working that well with the current plan (no, the "surge" is not working.. we can't surge forever), so we might as well try something else.
          • elint6, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1The "surge" was initiated because of a newer U.S. strategy to use local help to identify insurgents. The "surge" is to maintain extra safety while U.S. troops build relationships. Talk to anyone with any training in psychology, marketing, economics, business, or even medicine (hell, talk to your mom), and they'll tell you there's nothing more powerful than building relationships for success.
      • MWeather, on 12/28/2007, -4/+6"Sure, it'd be a great political statement to Bush but the only people it would really hurt is the troops."
        They have plenty of funding to last a while. Worst case, in 6 months or do they'd start to feel the funding crunch.
        Any responsible leader would start withdrawing troops long before that happened.
        • Totalchaos02, on 12/28/2007, -1/+9To bad we lack a responsible leader.
          • CiXeL, on 12/28/2007, -2/+1And should we win the day, the 4th of July will no longer be known as an American holiday, but as the day when the world declared in one voice:

            We will not go quietly into the night!
            We will not vanish without a fight!
            We're going to live on!
            We're going to survive!
            Today, we celebrate our Independence Day!

            *roars of applause*
    • spaceman84, on 12/28/2007, -10/+21I think he recognizes the fact that if he were to vote against funding, everyone, from both sides of the political spectrum, would take that opportunity to say that he doesn't support the troops, that he's not a patriot, and that would kill his candidacy. Sad, but true.
      • Akronos, on 12/28/2007, -10/+10He doesn't have the courage to do it. A true patriot would be able to vote against funding the war, and be able to take criticism about his patriotism because he knows he's a real patriot. This is similar to people thinking that a certain candidate is a racist because he was the only one to vote against a bill that gave Rosa Parks a gold medal (Not going to mention who, but I'll let you figure it out). Of course, he is NOT a racist, but he voted against it because it is an unnecessary waste of tax payer money, and though he offered 100 dollars to pool in with other congressmen, they didn't want to spend their own money. "It's easy to be generous with other people's money". And even though he considers Rosa Parks a hero, he gets called a racist. But I bet he'd vote the same way if the bill came up again. Unfortunately, Obama fears that he might alienate voters if he takes a hard stance.
        • spaceman84, on 12/28/2007, -5/+6Look, I know you're talking about Ron Paul. I'm a registered Republican and I've donated to his campaign. But you obviously DON'T GET IT. If Obama were to vote against funding the war, it would accomplish NOTHING. The outcome of the legislation wouldn't change as a result of his single vote, and he'd kill his candidacy for the nomination and certainly in the general election where he has to get votes from citizens who aren't all staunch anti-war Democrats, but also independents. Nothing would change except his chances of becoming President and actually accomplishing something would be all but eliminated by attacks from the competition and the media onslaught that would occur as a result. Voting against funding the war would be a nice gesture, but it's completely symbolic. It would accomplish NOTHING.
        • Akronos, on 12/28/2007, -3/+8You're right. His one vote would not have made a difference. But in that sense, by voting for something he doesn't believe in, he's pandering for votes. I mean, I guess you're right that he would be losing votes but I think I want a politician who votes based on principle and takes a stance even if that means he's risking his campaign. Maybe I'm being unrealistic, but to me, if someone did that, they would truly have my respect. And right now, I'm going to support the candidate that voted against the war consistently from the beginning. If he loses, I'll vote for Obama. And yes, I do get it.
      • MWeather, on 12/28/2007, -1/+7"I think he recognizes the fact that if he were to vote against funding, everyone, from both sides of the political spectrum, would take that opportunity to say that he doesn't support the troops, that he's not a patriot, and that would kill his candidacy. Sad, but true."

        Yeah, it's a pity he doesn't have the integrity to stick by his convictions and do what is right.
        • ISIfunded911, on 12/28/2007, -1/+5He has no convictions. Kucinich has and voted against funding that bllody war every time. He voted against the Patriot Act. And to impeach Bush.
          Obama is well marketed member of the oligarchy. People who have illusions about him are victims of the powerful mass-media and marketing campaigns of the powers that be.
          I mean, come one, every four years it is the exact same thing that happens: every time people get fooled. The corporate media make some candidates well-known by inviting them all the time everywhere, by talking about them a lot, and then people believe that the candidates not taken seriously by the mass-media stand no chance, and they vote for the candidates chosen by the oligarchy.
          People who campaign for Kucinich and Paul are not victims of the marketing of the mass-media/oligarchy.
          • Tilon, on 12/28/2007, -2/+2But they're PAULTARDS! ALL OF THEM! They haven't been brainwashed by Father Television and they have different ideals that they seem to care about!

            Mommy, the Paul people make me scared! They FIGHT for things! =/
      • jaxontyler, on 12/28/2007, -2/+1"would take that opportunity to say that he doesn't support the troops, that he's not a patriot" Ron Paul it is exactly that kind of attitude that is leading us down the road to fascism very quickly. Albeit its not Nazi type fascism, but it is fascism when we cant disagree with what our troops are doing.
    • ajwinder, on 12/28/2007, -7/+2actually, what the plan is is that you have this over-inflated pentagon budget that already exists, and so the Bush administration said they'd fund the war out of the pentagon's non-iraq war budget. So how do you make room?

      Basically Bush was going to furlow a lot of the employees that worked in branches of the Pentagon that were doing important jobs, but werent exactly critical to keeping essential operations up. They wouldn't be fired, they'd just be put on hold due to budgetary restraints. The war would still be funded, you'd just put a lot of Americans out of a job. You could sit there and send a meaningless message to Bush, but its not worth it. If you're going to hurt your constituents over "taking the moral high ground", you've already lost your way. I hate to say it, but lets just absorb the facts, realize this war is going to keep going till Bush leaves office, and count the days. Then we can hopefully keep a democratic majority in the congress, elect a democrat for the presidency, and make steps to finally get the hell out.

      And my god, I'm probably reaching here, but maybe we can finally learn that in cases of guerilla warfare, we're never going to win, and the military shouldn't be used as a piece keeping force, ever. Then we wont have to repeat this for a third freaking time in recent history.
      • ISIfunded911, on 12/28/2007, -3/+2Iraqis are dying every day thanks to bloody US soldiers who are paid to kill to steal oil. So it is not about "taking the moral high ground". And no democrat president except Kucinich would give back Iraq to the Iraqis. Iraq has been totally privatized by the US military-industrial complex for its own benefit and the benefit of Wall Street mainly (and a few foreign corporations). This has been decided by the CFR, not by Bush the puppet. All the presidents in many decades were members of the CFR. As long as you elect one, your vote does not count. The elected CFR candidate will not do what you hope, but what the CFR decides.
        • Ometoch, on 12/28/2007, -2/+1Yes, you are correct. The American troops are paid a bonus for every Iraqi baby's guts they stomp out into the dirt. Get a ***** clue. Unfortunate thing about life.... Absolute Power Corrupts absolutely. The war in Iraq is FUBAR. been that way pretty much since the start, but that doesn't mean that every soldier is corrupt. Most of them are attempting to do THEIR JOB.
          • ISIfunded911, on 12/28/2007, -2/+1The nazis who were tried after the war had exactly the same defense most of the time: they only did their job.
            Killing for oil is not a job. It is a perversion.
      • sw33tsarin, on 12/28/2007, -1/+2Because the Democrats have done such a stellar job up to this point.
    • Ometoch, on 12/28/2007, -2/+4Ok.... so, you feel that he should be steadfast against "THE WAR", no matter what? Have you ever really looked into Politics? I'm talking world wide.... there is NO easy answer. every vote has so many add ons that either answer is muddied up to the point they are almost the same. Vote against funding, and you leave young men to rot in some place they never asked to be, and Put people out of jobs... vote for it, and you are labeled a warmonger. Damn tough to figure out which way to go. One of the biggest problems with American Politics and American government is all the armchair quarterbacking (and yes I am guilty of it too) that goes on. People make decisions based on what they read, and don't take the time to research the facts. Been a LONG time since stories and "The Facts" went along the same lines. Look, bottom line is this. Stop saying the icky war in Iraq is so awfuwwy baaaad, and accept that either way, America ***** up. But now we have to figure out a way to end this *****.... and end it a bit better than Vietnam. No we should have stayed the hell out in the first place, but we didn't. but we can't just pull everyone out immediately. Government moves SLOW, and it will take time to do it right. I don't like the fact he voted to fund the war anymore that anyone else, yet the war still needs funding to get the troops home.
    • FredFredrickson, on 12/28/2007, -1/+3Much as I hate the war going on now, I'm not going to let it sway me into voting for a candidate that on the whole, doesn't represent my values at all. Thus, I regret that Obama or Clinton may have voted in favor of any war, but I'm sure as hell not voting for any Republicans in 2008.
      • wr777, on 12/29/2007, -0/+0There is one Democrat and one Republican candidate that voted against going into Iraq and also these two have voted against funding the war every time. Take a moment to find these two honorable candidates and you'll see that your comment needs a revision. Voting for the lesser of the evils has led our country down a slippery slope to amnesty for all mediocre and misleading politicians. I suggest voting based on the issues and look to see if a candidates votes accordingly, not on who is kind of OK.
  • Tex, on 07/28/2008, -33/+315From the speech: "I’ve heard from seniors who were betrayed by CEOs who dumped their pensions while pocketing bonuses, and from those who still can’t afford their prescriptions because Congress refused to negotiate with the drug companies for the cheapest available price.

    I’ve met Maytag workers who labored all their lives only to see their jobs shipped overseas; who now compete with their teenagers for $7-an-hour jobs at Wal-Mart.

    I’ve spoken with teachers who are working at donut shops after school just to make ends meet; who are still digging into their own pockets to pay for school supplies.

    Just two weeks ago, I heard a young woman in Cedar Rapids who told me she only gets three hours of sleep because she works the night shift after a full day of college and still can’t afford health care for a sister with cerebral palsy."

    He's really hitting it home now.
    • epicstruggle, on 12/28/2007, -60/+16This is quite likely written by someone else. This is why I tend to weigh actions louder than words. Just about anyone with a checkbook can hire a writer to write an inspiring speech. Obama, right now is just someone with less experience than bush, but who can read his teleprompter 1000x better than bush. Im not sure that is enough for someone to win the presidency. I wish Biden, Richardson were doing better in the polls, I disagree with most of their views, but at least they have some accomplishments in their resume. (time for the bury brigade. :) )
      • felchdonkey, on 12/28/2007, -33/+9I agree with you wholeheartedly. I'm afraid he could be the Democrats' version of Bush - inspiring to the party faithful, but inexperienced and dangerous as Commander In Chief.
        • epicstruggle, on 12/28/2007, -8/+4Yep, at least he will sound better on tv then bush.
      • Van3ck, on 12/28/2007, -4/+18Have you tried reading any of his books? Obama is fully capable of expressing himself on his own.
        • Tilon, on 12/28/2007, -4/+8Yeah, he sure didn't have ANY help or proofreading at all!

          Need some rose tinted glasses for your innocent worldview?

          Obama is a member of the CFR and AIPAC. When he makes speeches to them, they're tailored to sound like a 'helluva' Israel speech when he's at AIPAC, or a 'helluva' middle east speech when he's at the CFR.

          He's a ***** shill. You people have fell for it again.
    • MrESaulved, on 12/28/2007, -30/+12So, describing how bad everything is financially, but not actually doing something about it is what impresses you?

      "Really hitting it home now" Hitting what home? That people are going broke and he isn't going to do a damned thing about it?
    • whatsupimphil, on 12/28/2007, -27/+9Also from the speech: "But you proved them wrong when we raised more small donations from more Americans than any other campaign in history. "

      He doesn't define 'small' but I tend to doubt this statement in comparison to Ron Paul's large number of small donations. Any insight?
      • LBobRife, on 12/28/2007, -7/+24I believe Ron Paul has the record for single-day donations but I wouldn't be surprised if Obama outpaces him day to day for a total higher than Paul's.
    • hsoj, on 12/28/2007, -17/+2I realize he's building a rhythm here, but honestly how many times have you gone out for donuts after school?
    • colincornaby, on 12/28/2007, -36/+172Just think, Ron Paul would do nothing for these people.
      • sinurgy, on 12/28/2007, -23/+12Well maybe you don't think it but I'd say giving them a %30 raise is helping!
        • RedNote, on 12/28/2007, -10/+19In addition to (first off) being completely untrue, one also has to factor in the whole "annihilate the economy via gold standard" thing.
          • Tilon, on 12/28/2007, -4/+9Yeah, let's just leave all the power to create money in the hands of the Corporate bigwigs who also own the banking system, and the media.

            Sounds like a BRILLIANT plan. DOWN with the Inflation tax. Do some research, moron.
      • adeptusliberus, on 12/28/2007, -15/+63that there is the brutal truth.
      • woofers07, on 12/28/2007, -13/+43Did you just say something negative about RP? Oh man, you're gonna get it now.
      • KampfGherkin, on 12/28/2007, -9/+39As a RP supporter from a liberal background I'd have to agree. It is worrying in a sense, but I personally see it like this: fiscal responsibility, overgrown government and foreign policy are the sword's edge in the coming years. If these things are not brought under control quickly, you will soon have no more America to be proud of as it sinks into the abyss of enormous debt and a military-industrial-complex hijacking your country and your freedoms. In a place like that, what will socialized health care do for you?
        It's a question of pressing priorities for 2008 in my opinion, as a nation it's do or die.
        • heypetray, on 12/28/2007, -2/+10Agreed completely. This got my attention, but RP is addressing far more urgent issues IMO. Obama would be great in 2016 after RP, he's just a little early.
      • betterth, on 12/28/2007, -31/+40THANK GOD!

        Jesus ***** Christ why should MY MONEY, my hard earned dollars go to support other people? If I want to give my money away to less fortunate people, I'll donate it. I don't need the government stealing from me to provide for others.

        Ron Paul is against jobs being moved over seas. So you're wrong, the Maytag workers would see their jobs, and people like them wouldn't watch their jobs disappear.

        Teachers would also feasibly be paid better when education was handled at the state level. Currently we're pumping billions into federalized education and the benefits are lackluster at best. Most would be surprised as the amount of waste the Department of Education really is. Besides retarded programs like No Child and of course the useless "Standardized testing", they just award money to districts. States would handle it better, and teachers would be paid better without the massive overhead.

        And for the naysayers who think that drastic cutting of spending and a libertarian economic policy wouldn't help people, you have to realize that it's not the governments job to make sure everyone can own a house, a camry and raise 2.4 kids. It's not the governments job. People aren't going to make it, ok? Some kids are going to be born ***** up. Some people are going to be impoverished. In fact, most people are going to be low class. For every rich celebrity, there has to be thousands of lower classes people toiling away to offset the difference in income.

        Welcome to capitalism, and it's by the far the best economic policy implemented yet.

        The sad truth is that many people are victim's of themselves. They're poor because of "the system", "the mexicans taking their jobs", "jobs going overseas". Notice how it's never "My skillset became outdated and I never bothered to diversify myself and stay educated on my industry, so I could adopt a more relevant role" or "My lackluster approach to work was uninspiring at best, and I was fired for an immigrant worker who truly appreciates the job".

        It's a tough cookie to swallow but it's true.

        Personal Responsibility!
        • thanakar, on 12/28/2007, -5/+26You say "Welcome to capitalism, and it's by the far the best economic policy implemented yet." but you also mention Ron Paul is against jobs being moved overseas. Jobs moving overseas is part of the capitalist maximizing their profits by using less costly overseas workers. How is Ron Paul going to convince corporations in the States to keep the jobs here, which will in turn cut into their profit margin becuase they have to pay American workers more than they pay the foreign workers?

          That's the problem I have with Ron Paul. He SAYS alot, but really never tells you HOW he's going to implement all these changes.
          • betterth, on 12/28/2007, -10/+4"Jobs moving overseas is part of the capitalist maximizing their profits by using less costly overseas workers. How is Ron Paul going to convince corporations in the States to keep the jobs here, which will in turn cut into their profit margin becuase they have to pay American workers more than they pay the foreign workers?"

            Simple. Companies operate globally, but we are just one nation. We are one nation and one of the roles of the federal government is to protect our countries interests domestically. Moving so much of our manufacturing, research and development overseas has a strong negative impact on our safety as a nation, regardless of the profit that the companies reap from it.

            Ron Paul and myself don't advocate a 100% cut-throat open market.

            We just absolutely hate the idea of a nanny state that takes care of individuals from the cradle to the grave. Not only is that not the role of government, its an impossible one.

            As for how do you implement those changes? Tariffs and taxes on goods entering the country would drive up the cost and make their return to America and hiring of Americans more profitable for them. The companies would bitch but in the end it's exactly like you say. The companies seek to make the most profit and right now, because of trade agreements, they make the most profit overseas.
          • Nosnevets02, on 12/28/2007, -2/+8The problem that people have with the jobs moving overseas is they don't think in broader terms. If people pay less because of jobs that move overseas, the consumers will in fact become richer themselves. Now, because they have more money overall to spend, it will increase demand for OTHER goods and services CREATING MORE jobs... You guys just aren't following the effects of cheaper prices/labor far enough.

            Something to think about.
          • betterth, on 12/28/2007, -1/+3See, you're also missing the point. A product may cost marginally more if produced in the united states, but since that money you paid is going to another american citizen, instead of a mexican or chinese citizen, that money will be turned around invested into the american economy either through investing, saving or further purchases. This strengthens the economy and everyone benefits through a most powerful currency.
          • Nosnevets02, on 12/28/2007, -0/+3Our currency that is sent overseas has to be reinvested into our own country because that is the only place where it is actually usable. So in effect it is still being reinvested into the U.S. economy and everyone benefits, other countries get revenue, we get cheaper products. They can either sell their U.S. dollars to someone else to use them for U.S. purchases (converting to Euros or something for example) or they themselves can turn around and buy U.S. goods/services.

            I dug you up, because I'm very interested in economics and enjoy debating it. It helps me understand both sides of an argument. However, obviously i'm still in the beginner stage of understanding it.

          • betterth, on 12/28/2007, -1/+2"Our currency that is sent overseas has to be reinvested into our own country because that is the only place where it is actually usable."

            I think I was vague. When I say the money leaves, I mean a company builds a factory in China, and pays its employees in Chinese currency. These are jobs and wages paid for by the sale of the product in America. But that money goes to China and then is turned around and invested in the Chinese economy and spent buying Chinese products. In contrast, if the wages are paid to Americans, the money stays in America.

            Its not the actual currency leaving our country that is a problem. The problem is the void of spending it creates, and the void of jobs. When jobs go overseas, that less employment for Americans. Less employment means less overall money being spent as less people are making money. In turn that hurts the economy.

            Businesses look for the best ways to benefit themselves, not the countries they happen to operate in. Overseas jobs helps the corporation and its shareholders, which is generally the point, but it does so at the cost of America's economy, which isn't right (for Americans, at least).
          • Nosnevets02, on 12/29/2007, -0/+2"The problem is the void of spending it creates, and the void of jobs."

            The way I see it, yes there would be a void for jobs in that market because they went to a different country. However, the void would be filled by increased jobs in other markets in our own economy.

            Just for a basic example, lets say that a consumer has $30 dollars to spend and U.S. soap costs $20 while China soap costs $15. The consumer needs both soap and a towel, but with U.S. soap, they cannot afford to buy a towel, thus demand for towels in the U.S. is lower. However, if they buy the China soap they can afford afford the towel, so the towel industry thrives. This effectively eliminates the void of lost jobs in the soap industry.

            Now I know you would say the economy would suffer do to the loss of $5 dollars of lost revenue ($15 towel vs $20 soap). But wouldn't the economy as a whole be richer because now the consumer has both commodities? (They have an extra $10 in merchandise that they otherwise wouldn't have been able to afford)
          • Nosnevets02, on 12/29/2007, -0/+2By the way, I'm not at all for moving jobs overseas, I just believe that most people blow the job/economic loss way out of proportion. I admit that it is terrible that people lose jobs when factories are moved overseas, but a business must stay competitive on a global scale in order to survive. Those people just have to find new jobs and try to be efficient at them so the company doesn't have to move them to another country.
        • jbsnyder, on 12/28/2007, -2/+14Hmm.. Classic conservatism. You're of course within your rights to express such opinions, and at least you accept the negative externalities of your ideology. The thing is, there are other problems with heading towards a free market economy, and I think Martin Whitman (look him up, the following are from a letter to shareholders for a fund he's associated with) has summed some of this issues up pretty well. I'm not going to delve into the arguments here, but you can look up the original letter these come from: 1. Very exorbitant levels of executive compensation. 2. Poorly financed businesses with strong prospects for money defaults on credit instruments. 3. Speculative bubbles. 4. Tendency for industry competition to evolve into monopolies and oligopolies. 5. Corruption.

          Capitalism may be "the best economic policy implemented yet." However, it's still terrible, and just slightly less terrible than all the other options on the table at the moment. It takes advantage of the fact that we're all self-interested, but it doesn't go any further than allowing those who are more motivated to advance themselves. That may be powerful in and of itself, but also tends to bring out the very worst of human nature. Government non-optimally tries to correct for some of these negative aspects, and forces the self-interested to consider others as well as themselves past the next quarterly earnings report.
          • betterth, on 12/28/2007, -5/+7The problem is that government is too strongly over correcting. Economy is something that we don't understand well. Read the daily show interview with Alan Greenspan -- it's actually a very good interview.

            Basically we don't understand this economy and having government place more and more and more control over it is a death sentence. Only the free market can react accordingly to every variable and not collapse. The more we try to control something we don't understand the worse we will make it.

            Greenspan: "I’ve been in the forecasting business for 50 years, and I’m no better than I ever was, and nobody else is either.”

            I'm not saying we need a no holds barred 100% free market, but what we certainly don't need is a socialist-style nanny state where government controls everything and removes all competition from the most integral aspects of our life. I want the ***** best health care money can buy. But that's a moot point if money can't buy health care and I get the same mediocre health care that citizens of Canada, France and Britain complain about. (Don't believe "Sicko", lol.)

            1. If shareholders feel that the levels of compensation are appropriate than they are. Let the companies internal voters handle the company. If it gets out of hand the company will have problems and possibly fail. It should be given the opportunity to do so.
            2. I don't understand this, can you explain it better?
            3. That's a moot point as the Fed already ensures that enormous bubbles are created. (See: Housing market circa 2007 meltdown)
            4. Again, no one's asking for anti-trust laws to be wiped from the books. Monopolies use unfair business practices and aren't welcome in a stable economy.
            5. When companies have power, there is corruption. When government has power over companies, there is corruption. Look at the lobbyists in Washington these days. Look at the jobs senators get weeks after leaving office. Look how many of the "social elite" are politicians in congress and are appointed to jobs in the executive branch or the boards of major corporations. Corruption is massive problem already.
          • jbsnyder, on 12/28/2007, -1/+2I will preface by saying that under no circumstances am I suggesting that I want a completely socialized economic/government model. I do believe that government has a purpose in regulating (either local or national depending on the issue being considered). I also would suggest that the standard models for a corporation are poorly suited for handling issues like health insurance. As we can see within the current market, the interests of plan owners are put at odds with those of shareholders and managers. I also have no problem with switching over to government health care, but I think we should at least have a model that does not put shareholder profit as the ultimatum for this type of organization. Insurance exists as a mechanism for pooling funds to cover exorbitant costs that come up unexpectedly for individuals. If someone has passed a screening to get a policy, that policy should cover these unexpected events. In the least, an insurer should be upfront about the potential cases that are not covered. Additionally, the pre-existing conditions are a mess, everyone has some sort of "pre-existing condition." Sicko, and the other Moore films are extreme, but I just don't see news in these other countries clambering for a new health care system. A prime example of the perception on this was when DeLay was speaking in the UK and said if a democrat made president in the US, the country would have a system similar to the NHS. The audience cheered. When he tried to claim that this was a terrible idea, he was met with derisive laughter. (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/09/delay-health-c ... yeah, the AP links aren't working anymore, I recall checking them out at the time though).

            Regarding the numbered points, first you can find a letter laying them out here:
            http://thirdavenuefunds.com/taf/documents/sharehol ...

            I'll also attempt to address your responses here:
            1. I would argue that there are already rather bloated levels of compensation. A corporation pulls in such large amounts of funds that executive compensation, even when bloated, may not affect the bottom line greatly. This doesn't change the fact that executives can be paid a great number of orders of magnitude more money than the average worker for the company. While the shareholder may vote on compensation, all they care about is increasing profit. If the current executive increases profit for the next quarter by cutting R&D, and uses rhetoric along the lines of making the company "leaner" or more "nimble," shareholders are happy and keep that executives pay elevated. If in 5-10 years, that screws the company that executive may have already left, or such actions may only be considered water under the bridge. Take the example of current US auto makers scrambling to get hybrids and other alternative fuel vehicles out where Japanese companies had working hybrids on the market years ago. This is just one of many examples where a quarterly earnings focus leads to short term considerations over long term ones.

            2. Whitman here cites a few examples: long-term capital management, retail chains and motion picture exhibition companies. I believe what he was getting at here was that these companies weren't terribly well financed and likely weren't well structured, but were able to secure credit that they could never repay.

            3. I'm not saying the government is doing a perfect job. I wouldn't count Greenspan as blameless in bringing this situation about.

            5. It's a problem in government and in corporations. It isn't going away ever, but it is manageable in both. I would argue that its worse for corporations to control government, however. At least, in principle, the government serves the people who elect officials. Companies serve their bottom line and their investors. Companies don't care about externalities that don't affect either of these in the short term. Regarding the context for what was intended in citing corruption this more refers to the huge cases like Enron & WorldCom. The linked letter details more.

            I'll take a look at the interview you mention, though I've read/seen a few he's done since his book was published. Government has been and can be overcorrecting SarBox is a good example. It can also serve corporations too extensively through legislation like the DMCA. The point is that by being a citizen in the US, you have a voice in how the government is run, by default. It may not be big, but you've got it. For a company one needs to be a shareholder or work through government. For systemic issues the government can act as a positive force. By positive I don't necessarily optimal or most efficient. If things were purely efficient, humans wouldn't be involved in the equation, period.

            (also, bizarrely, I could not reply to your comment, I had to reply to my own :P)
          • betterth, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1I would agree that neither totally socialized or completely unsocialized models are effective. I think we just differ on what level of "socialization" should be present. All i see from the federal government is scandal, inefficiency and failure. FEMA, DoD, DoE, Department of Education. In the past four years you could fill a book with AP stories about mismanaged money, corporations being awarded no-bid contracts, and officials with illegal business interests. I fail to see why MORE government is needed, when clearly government is what is polluting what otherwise would be competitive market.

            The same thing with government healthcare. I see how the government manages education. How it manages war, energy and disaster. I ***** do not want that government managing my healthcare. We will all die.

            It's not the concept of government run healthcare I hate, it's the concept of OUR government running healthcare that I have a problem with. It's too corrupt and too inefficient to handle the job. It would fail us, like it so constantly has been doing.

            Your response to #1 I feel perfectly falls under what I said where "companies should be allowed the chance to fail". If an executive cuts R&D, then the company will suffer. They will not be as competitive and if the shareholders allowed that abuse, than they deserve the failure. But, that market isn't going away. When Ford fails to attract sails, Toyota wins those sales. Without that competition Ford wouldn't be SCRAMBLING to build hybrid cars.

            I still don't quite get 2, but I feel if a bank offers credit without collateral, it's the banks fault and again, it deserves to fail. I don't feel that bailing out a business for making bad decisions is a fair use of tax payer money. Another bank will fill it's spot, and the growth experienced by the new bank will fill the decay of the old company.

            3. Of course Greenspan isn't blameless. But he's probably one of the most intelligent US Economists of our time. And the fact that he looks at the Fed and goes "I still don't ***** get it, and no else does either" is really saying something about our economy.

            Also, for a company you can voice your opinion through the use of your money. As a company wants your money more than anything, not buying their products is a very effective defense against their actions.

            As for not being able to reply, Digg has a limit to the level of replies you can make. When you first saw mine and posted, there was no reply link. When you come back, the reply link is there, but if you use it, it is "expired". Love the bugs, eh?
        • Y2Krieger, on 12/28/2007, -4/+2Well, hopefully your home will be wiped away in a flood. Or your loved one who makes the most income for your family will have a massive aneurysm, and your kids will have to give up their dream jobs and work at the diner for tips and flunk out of community college cause they can't take the pressure of both. Perhaps prostitution will make them more money, just so your sick mother can stay in a half-decent nursing home, but they'll probably be to deep into their heroin addiction for their mental escape from the world, and an ***** such as yourself. Better yet, maybe your children will be born mentally/physically retarded and you'll have to provide for all of them.

          And when you ask for assistance, I'll point to your thread and say, "Not my problem, it's YOUR responsibility," and give you the bird.

          God I hate worthless pricks like yourself who think because they have the world by the ass cause their mommy and daddy set them up good, they find that nothing else matters but them. Very compassionate, hmmm?

          This is coming from someone who has a great, fortunate life, but has enough empathy for those who weren't dealt such a great hand.
          • donte, on 12/28/2007, -0/+4First off not everyone who made it out well in life had mommy and daddy hand everything to them. Many of us put ourselves through college (either by working after school or taking student loans -- most of which were private). We worked hard to get to a place in our lives where we actually can live comfortably.

            And if all that horrible stuff happens, you know what? You're damn right it's our own responsibility. It sucks. And if you can't float the cost of everything, look to the charity world. There are thousands upon thousands of organizations set up to help those who really do need it: from child care to education to the simple act of making sure food gets on the table. All of these are paid for by the kindness and generosity of "assholes" like us who would rather let compassion be something you opt into when you can spare it. Nobody who is agreeing with the "personal responsibility" mantra is saying that if times get tough you're *****. But we are saying that we don't want government to provide the crutch.
          • betterth, on 12/28/2007, -0/+4You're an assumptious little bitch today aren't you? Let's go through this bit by bit.

            "Well, hopefully your home will be wiped away in a flood." I PAY for insurance that includes flood protection. ***** FEMA, the private sector handles my disaster relief just fine kthx.

            "Or your loved one who makes the most income for your family will have a massive aneurysm, and your kids will have to give up their dream jobs and work at the diner for tips and flunk out of community college cause they can't take the pressure of both" - I make sure that myself and those around me have health insurance, either through work or through an independent policy. And if they can't take the pressure of work and school, than they don't deserve success. I currently take a full course load of classes from a four year institution and work forty hours a week as a graphic designer. I have absolutely no publically granted assistance and either use my paycheck or private loans to cover tuition.

            "nd when you ask for assistance, I'll point to your thread and say, "Not my problem, it's YOUR responsibility," and give you the bird." That's fine, as I'm not stupid and have my bases covered with insurance, savings and planning, I won't ever get into these problems.

            "God I hate worthless pricks like yourself who think because they have the world by the ass cause their mommy and daddy set them up good, they find that nothing else matters but them. Very compassionate, hmmm?" My mommy and daddy did not set me up "good". My mommy left my daddy and our family when I was three. My dad raised my sister and me on thirty thousand a year until I got out of high school. He looked at me and said if you want to go to college, good on ya, but I ain't helping one cent. I can't. So i'm in my third year of self-funded college also making over fifty thousand a year on my own. So shut the ***** up. I work ***** hard to succeed, and I was never setup by anyone to do so. I know networking, I know how to deal with people and get the job that I want and how to keep it. Don't give me teh ***** about how I should feel bad for those that can't be bothered to put forth some effort and learn how to ***** deal with life. Personal responsibility.

            "This is coming from someone who has a great, fortunate life, bu has enough empathy for those who weren't dealt such a great hand" - So far I've had a wonderful life and have absolutely no desire to have my life renigged on by politicians who will take my money to "help others" but really waste my money on everything but helping them. I've seen no plans to combat the complex social and psychological conditions that lead to poverty and homelessness, only wishy-washy retarded "let's help everyone! the money will come from outer space!" *****.

            So stop your whining ***** and own up to the facts. Universal healthcare is not great, or even that good. There is absolutely no evidence on how it would work in a country larger than every other country that has it combined, population wise. We have a lot of people who due to their bad actions, will cost the system a fortune. Obesity is an epidemic and all universal healthcare will do is marginalize the problem. It will make it totally free for any stupid fatty to get all the quadruple bypasses that porky little bitch needs. ***** if that's on my healthy-eating, exercising regularly, self. Not my ***** problem if you can't make good decisions for yourself. Personal responsibility.
        • heypetray, on 12/28/2007, -0/+6That was a pretty good discussion. Diggs for all of you!
        • Sawta, on 12/28/2007, -3/+3One of the few things that I disagree with Ron Paul on is Universal Health Care. I don't feel that the government taking your money to help pay for others medical treatments is a form of "charity".

          I think that if you are sick, you should be taken care of irregardless of how much money you make. You SHOULD be taken care of because you are a human being, and because it is the job of the hospital staff to worry about your well being, NOT to concern them selves with how much you make an hour to be able to determine whether or not your going to be able to pony up the money for your stay.
        • Nosnevets02, on 12/28/2007, -1/+4Why is there no reply button on all these comments?

          To Sawta:
          Maybe I'm selfish, but I really don't want to be taxed and pay for all these people that eat 3 courses of fast food everyday, drink a gallon of soda, smoke a pack of cigarettes each day. Why should I have to pay a single cent to these guys in order to make sure that they don't take responsibility for their own god damn actions and accept the repercussions of their actions.

          Life is not fair. It is the person's responsibility to make sure that they are able to take care of themselves NOT the government's responsibility!
      • ronaldst, on 12/28/2007, -14/+22RP would do more than all the other "candidates" together. He'd stop the runaway federal gov. that's hurting the poor and the middle class.

        Obama would just continue with the status quo.
      • jake8689, on 12/28/2007, -3/+5your right it would be up to the states not washington
      • donte, on 12/28/2007, -5/+21It's simply an ideological difference. One line from the article:

        "She spoke not with self-pity but with determination, and wonders why the government isn’t doing more to help her afford the education that will allow her to live out her dreams"

        It's my personal belief that it's not the government's job to ensure that she can afford an education which will let her live out her dreams. I applaud the lady for working towards what she wants, but I just simply don't think it's right to assume that it's the government's responsibility to ensure that she can afford that.

        I just prefer personal responsibility over reliance on government. Yes, that means some people will come out in life less happy and wealthy than others, but it should be up to the individual to make their lot in life. So yeah, Ron Paul isn't going to tuck you in at night and tell you everything's okay. And that's fine.
        • diggduggjoe, on 12/28/2007, -2/+3Once the government gets out of education, I would expect the prices to drop. Most education sources are way over priced. Costs have been going up faster than inflation for decades? The reason for that is when states make fancy schools to compete with the Ivy League, you just have the Ivy League raise their prices. If, good and cheap education could be delivered, all the prices would drop. The same goes for health care. The flood of government money makes the prices go up. If, people really had to shop for medical care, prices would drop.

        • Sawta, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1I do believe that the governments control over the American public should be as limited as possible, but do you really believe that it would be better for Americans to choose to go immediately into the work force and ignore the importance of higher education simply because they don't want to deal with the huge debt that they will acquire as a result?
          I think it would be a great boost for our society if we had a public that was fully educated, or at least, had the chance to seek out higher education, should they desire it. Perhaps it's silly of me to think this, or maybe people would just start to take college for granted and not try as hard in school, but I hate the idea of people avoiding such institutions simply because they don't want to deal with the debt that they're going to acquire from going into it.
          • donte, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2I never suggested people should skip college. Yes, college is expensive. No, most people can't afford to just pay for the cost up front -- and it will always be that way. If people are avoiding college because of the fear of debt afterwards, that's just too bad. The opportunity is there. Pretty much any bank or Sallie Mae or any number of institutions handing out student loans make it possible. The opportunity for most people to go to college is there right now. I agree that some colleges are wayyyy too expensive but just about everyone who goes ends up able to cope with the debt. If you're not willing to invest in yourself, why should the American taxpayer?
        • Nosnevets02, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2I had this exact problem. I was accepted into Cal Poly and USC and I couldn't afford to attend those schools. However, I really wanted to go to college so I moved to Nevada where the schools where almost a 1/4 as expensive. Granted it might not be as good as those other schools, it is the fact that I had the option to go for competitive priced schools that allowed me to attend college in the first place. Now I assume if all colleges where private, there would be a lot of competition and it would drive the price down.
      • skipdog172, on 12/28/2007, -8/+18Not having to pay income tax would sure do a LOT for these families. That alone by itself would fuel small business expansion unlike anything else. I'm still not sure what you guys think Obama can do, to magically solve all of our economic woes. Sounds like the typical Democrat "The government can magically fix all of these problems for you! You don't need personal responsibility!". I don't see anybody's policies besides Ron Paul's having a huge effect on the economy. You all are way too happy to have the government come down and magically fix your problems(except it doesn't work that easily).
        • alexamillion, on 12/28/2007, -5/+9Not true. By eliminating income tax, by default the sales tax will have to be raised substantially. Because sales tax doesn't differentiate according to socio-economic status low income families will probably be hit harder financially in the long run. Basic everyday items will be more expensive, and it will be even harder for many families to sustain themselves.
        • Nosnevets02, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2How, by default would sales tax raise? If you cut spending along with eliminating the income tax, there would be no need for sales tax to increase because there are less government programs to operate.

          I don't understand your argument on how sales tax would hurt poorer people more than rich people. If anything, I would say it would hurt the rich, because they are much larger consumers than any of us. If it was a straight 10% sales tax, it'd be proportionally the same amount of tax on everyone, and people that bought the bigger houses, fancier cars, etc would be paying a higher dollar amount, but the same percentage.

          And I would say a sales tax is more fair because there are a thousand loopholes and deductions for the income tax that a wealthy person can manipulate to pay substantially less percentage than a poorer person.
          • betterth, on 12/28/2007, -0/+3A higher sales tax would hurt the poor more than the rich. Currently the poor are taxed, most of their money is returned and the vast majority of their expenditures are necessary items, not entertainment or luxury goods. If sales taxes are raised than they will pay more for their necessary items like food and clothes, and this is money they won't get back.

            But it's also a moot point because most sales tax programs, even the ones today, charge drastically less for food and what not than say cars.
          • Nosnevets02, on 12/29/2007, -0/+1I see what you are saying about sales tax hurting the poor more, because they generally get most of their money back at the end of the year and that would be impossible unless there were exemptions for basic necessities etc...

            However, wouldn't the sales tax theoretically collect more money overall because there are no loopholes for wealthy people to jump through. Therefore, the tax percentage could be reduced because more money would be collected from the wealthy population under a sales tax, than under the income tax.
          • wr777, on 12/29/2007, -0/+0I think the overall point is being missed here. If expenditures by the federal government were reduced then the income tax could be revoked without coming up with a shortfall.

            The point is that if one says that more of the welfare state is needed, they believe that the federal government can spend the money more wisely than the American public and that the American public is not charitable or able to solve their own problems locally. I not only find this thinking offensive, but also irrational. I don't think it takes much research to see how irresponsible and ineffective the federal government is when it comes to spending money wisely.

            Remember, if you rely on someone else to take care of you, then you are obligated to do what they say when they say it or your security is in jeopardy. Look at what's going on right now in New Orleans with the projects that are being torn down, and no matter how messed up that is and no matter how much the people that are losing their homes get sprayed by chemical weapons down at City Hall, those projects/people's homes, will be torn down because those people have no say over their residence. They were provided by a government that took their and other people's money, and then gave it back to them with strings attached.
      • ThePantsParty, on 12/28/2007, -6/+3If you're as magnanimous as you seem to be trying to imply, do you buy a hotel room for every homeless person you see? Do you buy them a week of food because it's your DUTY as a person with money to give it to those that don't have it?? If there was no income tax, and a poor person came up to you with a gun and stole a comparable amount of money from you, would you report it to the police, or would you just assume they deserved your money more than you did? Or are you only 'happy' doing things like this if the government takes the money for you and THEN gives it to them? Is that extra step really all it takes to pacify people like you???
      • janeuner, on 12/28/2007, -3/+6Don't forget: Barack Obama won't do anything for them either.
      • Nosnevets02, on 12/28/2007, -2/+4This is just a clash of ideals, people that believe in a welfare state vs people that believe in keeping the fruits of their labors.

        Here is an idea, how about all these social programs that people are for are optional. Everyone that wants to feel good about themselves for helping these people can apply FOR taxation to support these programs and if something should happen that they end up in a bad situation, they could benefit from those programs.

        However, the people that opt OUT of the support programs and are not taxed, are completely ineligible for these programs because they have not been supporting them.

        Or people could just not have any taxes and just donate independently to these charities/welfare programs with the money not paid in taxes...
        • logandurand, on 12/29/2007, -0/+3I'm fairly certain that a voluntary system like the one you speak of would fail on a national level. Why? Because people want to help others, but they want to do it with YOUR money, not theirs.
          Voluntary systems allready exist for health care, natural disasters, etc. It's called insurance, and it works wonders when left to it's own devices.
        • Nosnevets02, on 12/29/2007, -0/+2That's pretty much what I was getting at, look at how cheap car insurance is. Those are voluntary monthly payments that help people keep themselves safe in the case of an emergency. Why don't people just use the same sort of program (monthly payments) for welfare programs if they are so adamant about them?
    • blackjack75, on 12/28/2007, -12/+11Well he would give them the OPPORTUNITY to fight... alone against huge corporations freed from any government control.
    • ISIfunded911, on 12/28/2007, -6/+40All speeches are good and emotional. They are written by the best of the best. What really matters: the past votes of a candidate, his precise plans, and what his critics have to say about him. You need all those pieces to have a clear picture. A speech is the worst approach to a candidate, even though it feels good to listen to it.
      Read this if you really care about the health of seniors who cannot afford their prescriptions:
      “There isn’t one iota’s difference between the plans put forward by Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, and former Senator Edwards because they all keep the for-profit health insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies in control of the health care system,” Kucinich said. “The only thing ‘universal’ about their plans is that they universally fail to address the real reason 47 million Americans are uninsured and another 50 million are under-insured: for-profit insurance companies get rich by gouging people and by not paying for health care.”

      Kucinich is the co-author and co-sponsor of a bill (HR 676) that would establish a national, not-for-profit health insurance system that would guarantee coverage to all Americans, including medical, dental, vision, mental health, long term care, early child care, and preventative health services. Under the Kucinich plan, there would be no premiums, no deductibles, and no co-pays, and no denials of services. The legislation has been endorsed by the 14,000-member Physicians for a National Health Program, the California Nurses Association, labor union locals, and award-winning film-maker Michael Moore, whose “SiCKO” documentary is a scathing indictment of the for-profit health care industry in the U.S.

      “If you don’t have the courage to take on the insurance and pharmaceutical industries,” Kucinich said of the other Democratic candidates, “don’t try to fool the American people by pretending to offer real reform. The Clinton, Obama, and Edwards plans will ensure that for-profit companies remain in control, and they will be rewarded and enriched with federal subsidies to reduce the prices they charge. Instead of gouging the consumers, they’ll be gouging the taxpayers.”

      Kucinich also objected to the “mandates” proposed in the three plans. “These candidates want to force individual citizens and employers to buy health insurance, using the promise of tax credits to make the coercion more palatable. We shouldn’t be mandating that people buy private coverage, we should be guaranteeing coverage for our citizens like other enlightened industrialized nations do.”

      Kucinich noted that Americans spend more than $2 trillion a year on health care, and upwards of $600 billion covers costs that have nothing to do with care: profits, dividends, exorbitant salaries, executive compensation, stock options, advertising, paperwork, and coordination and duplication of services among the many private companies.

      “Take that money out of the pockets of the for-profit companies and put it into providing a national health care plan that covers everyone for everything,” Kucinich said. Comparing and contrasting the differences among the Cinton, Obama, and Edwards plans “is a phony debate,” he charged. “If they’re afraid of offending their campaign contributors from the for-profit health care industry, or they’re concerned about whatever personal investments they have in that industry, they should be honest about it and just say so.”

      He continued, “I can’t be bought, and I can’t be bossed, and that’s why I’m the only candidate willing and eager to challenge the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies. The sooner we get the profit out of the system, the sooner every American can have access to comprehensive health care. It’s a right, and this nation has a moral and social responsibility to provide it.”
      http://www.dennis4president.com/go/newsroom/clinto ...
      From: http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2007/street0207.html
      • ZenMojo, on 12/28/2007, -4/+5I love Kucinich, but this doesn't say anything about Obama.
        • ISIfunded911, on 12/28/2007, -2/+5Read this sentence one more time: "There isn’t one iota’s difference between the plans put forward by Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, and former Senator Edwards because they all keep the for-profit health insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies in control of the health care system."
          Health or profits. Obama does not want to choose. Watch Michael Moore's Sicko if you do not understand that health and profits are not compatible.
          http://www.mininova.org/tor/750590
          Obama does not care about the health of the American people. As all members of the CFR, he puts profits becore humans. But he is very good at making people believe he cares more about them. He is a very good professional. He makes people dream. Kucinich has the best track record in Congress. That weighs much more than words or the Washington track record of Obama, who each time funds the stealing of Iraq's oil reserves and the daily massacres of Iraqis by the Empire. He should be tried and executed, like all the war criminals who funded the killing of hundred of thousands of Iraqis for oil.
          • betterth, on 12/28/2007, -3/+2Sicko is a POOR representation of universal health care. Every problem we don't have, they do have. I have pissing contests with my British friends trying to figure out who's health care system is worse. We have saps who can't afford ours, and they have saps who don't have to afford it, but the quality of service is terrible. My friend got an appendectomy done by what must have been a monkey in scrubs. Four years later the scar still hurts when he stretches.
      • betterth, on 12/28/2007, -6/+4Profit can't be taken out of the system, it will ruin it.

        Think about it. What have we taken profit out of in our country?

        Mail? FedEx is better than USPS, even though USPS is a "socialized" mail system and cheaper.
        Police? Corporations hire private guards and individuals hire bodyguards for a reason.
        Internet/Phone? State sponsored monopolies have made cost of bandwidth skyrocket, and yet most companies like AT&T/Bellsouth have renigged on their commitment to deliver next-generation hardware like fios.
        Etc etc. There are more examples, if you want them.



        When competition leaves the market, everyone suffers.
        • ISIfunded911, on 12/28/2007, -2/+3Just watch how health-care works much better in France and Great Britain without profits in Sicko:
          http://www.mininova.org/tor/750590
          The health of many US Americans is a ruin because of profits. Many people die every year while HMOs make insane profits. HMOs deserve to go bankrupt. And worse!
          • betterth, on 12/28/2007, -4/+2Sicko is ***** *****. Don't try to quote it like it's fact. I've seen it, I watched with a British friend who was in hysterics basically the whole time.

            Sicko paints the most unrealsitic image of socialized medicene ever. It's not peaches and rosebuds, chief. Not at all.

            It's not even a ***** documentary, so don't quote it likes its some fact. The truth is, British doctors come to America because the pay is better. The truth is just like everyone has known for decades. The service there is subpar. If you need something done it'll get done.

            But jesus ***** christ try to get an elective surgery done in Britain and then come talk to me about how it's so much better.
        • MrSpontaneous, on 12/28/2007, -0/+3They compete with each other to turn a greater profit, not to help as many of their subscribers as possible. Their shareholders and bottom line are their concern.
          • betterth, on 12/28/2007, -2/+1What about Kaiser Permenente, the successful nonprofit health insurance company? Your narrow view of the industry doesn't allow for their existence, and yet there they are.
      • mustbepatient, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1I disagree with Kucinich's approach (I support Ron Paul), but I certainly appreciate the consistency in his thoughts/actions. Every candidate other than these two seems to be a walking contradiction.
    • RandoTheKing, on 12/28/2007, -18/+2"I’ve spoken with teachers who are working at donut shops after school just to make ends meet; who are still digging into their own pockets to pay for school supplies. "

      Horse ***** *****. Teachers get paid enough and only work 7 MONTHS out of the year. They get paid more than salary managers at my company and our managers do a hell of a lot more. Teachers are big cry babies. I remember back in high school, the gym teacher in our middle school district was the highest paid teacher in the entire district at $82k a year. TO TEACH GYM CLASS...the other teachers salaries were very close.
      • karmabandit, on 12/28/2007, -0/+4I of course agree with you. Anecdotal evidence is much more important than actual fact.
      • inajeep, on 12/28/2007, -0/+9You are either lying or in a unique environment. Your little slice of teacher's salaries does not reflect the rest of the country.
    • ryodoan, on 12/28/2007, -11/+5The fact remains that Barack Obama did not write that speech. It was designed just like a high grade bomb to have the greatest explosive power in the media and in the public. I think that we should go back to forcing candidates to write their own speeches.

      Look at the Gettysburg Address, it was written on a scrap of paper in a carriage while Lincoln was being transported to the battlefield. I don't believe a word any of the candidates say once they declare their intent to run for presidency, you have to look at what they did before that because every single thing they do and say after that declaration of intent is specifically designed to garner more public support and probably has barely an ounce of their true thoughts in it.

      All this speech shows is that Barack Obama is a great public speaker who can read off a piece of paper that some overpaid writer worked for hours on to craft a message that would tug at the heartstrings of the American people.
    • manixrock, on 12/28/2007, -7/+12"Beautiful words are not always truthful. Truthful words are not always beautiful."

      Nice words.. with which I agree. What I disagree with is with what has been omitted. Complete annihilation of the IRS (NOT replacement with a flat tax), private Central Bank restored to the people, immediate withdrawal from Irak, removal of special interests from Washington.

      Talking about people whom are hard hit by the current situation is appealing to you average Joe. But just giving them money doesn't solve the problem. It's a short term solution that in the long run solves little.

      The media doesn’t like Ron Paul because he speaks the truth. Obama is popular with the MSM. Anyone wondering why?

      Ron Paul gets his money from the people, yet Obama has more. It would be good to know where from.

      RP is the candidate that has consistently (10 terms in congress) upheld his oath of office and voted only for legislation that is consistent with the Constitutional “rule of Law” that the American Republic is governed by. Barack has yet to prove himself. But considering by the fact that he has voted FOR and only later against the PATRIOT Act is telling.
    • bcclist, on 06/11/2008, -0/+5though already posted below, here's a link to the vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPtg-gvgWhE
  • cashman57, on 12/28/2007, -177/+42So he wants to borrow more money to throw more money at a problem money has been unable to fix. He wants our health care to look like the UK dental plan and that's the last thing we need.
    • nikki23, on 12/28/2007, -7/+59You are completely distorting Obama's message and stances on the issues.
      • epicstruggle, on 12/28/2007, -16/+5He doesnt want to spend more money to solve these problems?
        • atezun, on 12/28/2007, -5/+12Well clearly throwing it to the free market to solve has worked wonders. The troops need to get out Iraq now, but clearly the HMOs need "just a little more time to make things right". Give me a break, socialized medicine is far from perfect but it is the best thing we've got. I think someone may have said something along the same lines about democracy once.
        • brad3378, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2The problem is that we want our cake and we want to eat it too. We want the best health care in the world and we want it to be cheap. Unfortunately, it costs big money to do the research necessary to bring a drug to market or to develop the latest MRI scanners. Somehow somebody needs to pay for this stuff. The big question is: Do you want to pay for it with cash and/or insurance, or do you want to pay the government via higher taxes and trust them to take care of the rest?
      • brad3378, on 12/28/2007, -1/+1He wants more government involvement in health care. How is his message being distorted?
    • Drogoganor, on 12/28/2007, -7/+58Funny, I haven't heard you complain about Bush's drunken sailor spending.

      Yes kids, investment in the future costs money!
      • epicstruggle, on 12/28/2007, -10/+4I have, and unfortunetly the fiscal republicans have taken a back seat to relgious conservatives. This is one reason I hope that we dont get Huckabee as our nominee, McCain/Paul for the win.
        • Ajajadude, on 12/28/2007, -4/+3Great, the senior citizens of Congress. Possibly the first presidents in our nation's history to die of old age. Although, really, it isn't that it's all about their age for me. It just seems to me that they, Ron Paul in particular, are clinging to the "old ways" and aren't too forward thinking.
        • ZenMojo, on 12/28/2007, -2/+5The fiscal Republicans who keep voting with the religious conservatives?
          • epicstruggle, on 12/28/2007, -3/+1On fiscal matter? Sorry go look at Coburn, DeMint both are great examples of fiscal conservatives.
      • Rahodeb, on 12/28/2007, -13/+7Sounds great when you say "investment in the future". That's exactly the kind of vague rhetoric that fleeces taxpayers and funds government pork barrell projects.

        The only think I've heard out of Obama is a bunch of poorly conceived, liberal ideas like universal health care, and some empty promises of uniting everyone on both sides of the political spectrum. The only thing he really committed to in the whole speach was health care reform.

        It might just be me, but I happen to think that the problem is that Democrats and Republicans are looking too much like each other, which is corrupt, greedy and in favor of growing an already bloated government, not that they are too divided.
        • heypetray, on 12/28/2007, -2/+2Then you're looking through cynical eyes. I don't think now is the best time to be cynical.
      • yaddayaddayoda, on 12/28/2007, -5/+1That's what I always say. If you see a man drowning, don't hand him a life jacket. Tie him to a heavy rock instead.
    • fmaxwell, on 12/28/2007, -6/+41Have you been complaining about Bush racking up the highest deficit spending numbers and the largest national debt that this country has ever seen? And for what? To kill people in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not to help hard-working Americans get the health care, good jobs, and retirements that they deserve.

      Obama doesn't need to borrow money to fix the problems. He can work to repeal the disastrous tax cuts for the wealthy that Bush pushed through (by the way, Bush promised that the economy would be invigorated by those same tax cuts and it's in the worst shape that it's been in decades). He can stop hemorrhaging money for the war in Iraq, putting such fine firms as Halliburton and Blackwater Security on notice that their services are no longer required.

      You right wing nut-jobs seem to think that money for wars is somehow "free" and need not be collected through taxes but that money for social programs to help Americans is some kind of different money, the spending of which should be avoided at all costs. Are you all really this deluded or is it better described as intellectually dishonest?
      • thanakar, on 12/28/2007, -1/+4Its not the tax credits that are damaging our economy, its the money being used in Iraq coupled with the rising cost of oil added with the lack of confidence the rest of the world has in the US.
        • fmaxwell, on 12/29/2007, -1/+1They aren't "tax credits." That's one of those ***** spin-terms created by Bush. They are tax cuts in that they cut taxes for the wealthy.

          And your understanding of economics is seriously flawed. Oil costs more for two reasons: 1. Increasing worldwide demand and 2. A weaker U.S. dollar brought about by Bush's deficit spending and our ever-worsening national debt. And just why do you think that the rest of the world has less confidence in the U.S. economy?

          Let's put it in a smaller scale that you can better understand. Two guys go to the bank to take out a loan. One has very little outstanding debt, paying off his credit card every month, having bought his car with cash he saved, and having paid off his student loans. The other fellow has been carrying massive debt and it has over doubled in the last 7 years. At the same time, he voluntarily took significant pay cuts at work, so he has less income. He's recently been on a spending binge on borrowed money. So who do you think the bank's loan officer will have more confidence in?
      • Pssdoff, on 12/28/2007, -1/+3How can you think raising taxes and massively increasing spending can be a viable answer? Obama has said himself that not only would the US not withdraw from Iraq, but that he would consider bombing Iran and sending troops to Pakistan.
        http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/ch ...

        Obama supports the Patriot Act and the Homegrown Terrorist Act
        http://www.indypendent.org/2007/12/10/obama-suppor ...

        It is astounding that a socialist CFR shill who promises more war and wants to "strengthen the war on drugs" can receive so much support from uninformed supporters.
        • fmaxwell, on 12/28/2007, -1/+1Trust me when I tell you that I am far more informed than you are and that I don't base my opinions on oversimplified views of his positions, whether put forward second-hand by newspapers seeking to create sensationalistic headlines or third-hand by people like you who have probably never read more than three sentences below the headlines. Also, you should know that socialist and CFR are not terms that intelligent people find offensive. Those only rile up right-wing nut jobs.

          Oh, and we need to raise taxes. Our national debt has grown to a staggering size that is crippling our economy and our deficit spending has weakened the dollar worldwide. Bush has spent money he doesn't have -- he's run up the country's credit card balance to the point were huge sums are being wasted on interest on the debt he accrued.
    • joepaterno, on 12/28/2007, -15/+3Making fun of british peoples' teeth will always get you dugg up by me.
      • Haecceity, on 12/28/2007, -0/+21 in 10 people in Kentucky has *no* teeth, according to a report in the NYT this week. I think the UK does just a *little* better than that.
        • brad3378, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1That's a worse record than Professional Hockey.
    • evan119, on 12/28/2007, -3/+11I actually grew up in the States but live in London now, and I'd never again go to an American dentist.
  • Tex, on 07/28/2008, -17/+107I sometimes wonder if Cashman ever gets tired of typing the exact same mantra over and over again.
    • nikki23, on 12/28/2007, -1/+27No kidding, cashman posts comments with no basis in reality.
    • bigdirtymoose, on 12/28/2007, -2/+3Cashman has shown true dedication. He might have given himself a spot of the old carpal tunnel, but the message was repeated endlessly.
  • dotmike1, on 12/28/2007, -38/+238Hands down, that was one of the best speeches of the political season. Obama is a pure intellectual
    • Minarchian, on 12/28/2007, -63/+10You really believe HE wrote that?

      Please
      • Tex, on 07/28/2008, -7/+68I have no doubt, given his education background, that he writes his own speeches.

        I don't care how much you support Ron Paul, Minarchian, you can't question the man's education.
      • ncairns, on 12/28/2007, -4/+109He graduated from Columbia University and then Harvard Law School magna cum laude, where he served as the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review in the publicat