Posted by TomRosendale on August 7, 2008 at 12:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

John, I don't know if "naive" is the word for you. "Closed minded" might be better. And just what party do you think the popular race hustlers today belong to? You are race hustling yourself in your letter. What party do you belong to?

I don't think any of those church-goers in Rev. Jeremiah Wrights church were Republicans.

There are some bigots in both parties, but I think you called this one wrong.

Posted by dahl on August 7, 2008 at 1:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

McCain is avoiding discussions? I do believe that it is B.Hussein Obama who has turned down all debates except for the three pre-election debates. I'd call him a scaredy cat but you would probably call that a racist comment. If we called him a liberal democrat that would probably also qualify as a racist comment by you.

Posted by jodaddy on August 7, 2008 at 4:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Even Al Sharpton couldn’t have written a better race-baiting letter; “arrogant means uppity”.
No, with the things Obama has said about himself from “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for” to “this is the moment when the waters began to recede” the man thinks very highly of himself. Race has nothing to do with it except in the letter writer’s mind.

Posted by TruthDetector on August 7, 2008 at 4:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What John is really saying is that there is no criticism of Obama allowed since a race hustler would gleefully break the "code" of any adjective used to describe The One.

Obama's handlers are playing the only game available to him. They know he is extremely vulnerable to attacks on his qualifications, experience and judgment, so they are trying to punish anyone who tries in hopes of heading off additional attempts. Race baiting is their go-to defense.

It was Obama who bottom dealt the race card with his dollar bill comment.

Posted by Coco1 on August 7, 2008 at 6:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A guy I work with had a great observation. There are all kinds of people (dahl included) who believe that Obama is a Muslim. Anyone who has been checking the facts knows that isn't the case. My friend at work thinks people are calling him a Muslim because they can't talk about his color, then they would be racists. I think my friend is definitely on to something.

Posted by Rebel on August 7, 2008 at 7:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think the letter writer might he past head of the local Democrat's. If it is, I am sure there is more than a little Bias.

I have was channel surfing the other night, and seen the McCain add everyone is saying racist. I have to agree, it sure does make blonde's look bad. I hope all blonde's unite ! (lets get real ). It seems to me whenever the questions get hard, we see the "race" card. I could care less about someones color, if they are fiscally Conservative and responsible with money. Guess Bush failed miserably on the "fiscally conservative" part.

Posted by Zotz on August 7, 2008 at 7:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In Rovian speak, arrogant and similar terms associated with Obama are a "dog whistle".

Rs use them to get the "dogs'" attention so they don't have to actually use the N word or some other pejorative term. Thereby the Rs hope not to be directly associated with the Racists that comprise a significant portion of their base. In Nixon speak: "Plausible deniability."

Based on some of the posts above the "dogs" have definitely taken notice.

Posted by jlambrecht on August 7, 2008 at 8:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Charges and counter-charges of smear are prevalent in most every election cycle. The writer seems to place considerable emphasis on a racial subtext, an extremely sensitive issue. Bias is not racially exclusive. The question that some might legitimately pose is whether it is equally biased to vote for a candidate because of his or her race or religion as it is to vote against the candidate for the same reasons. The morally correct decision is to assign absolute irrelevancy to race and/or religion and vote for the candidate based on the voter's perception of his or her qualifications. The politically correct response is to endorse moral correctness while concealing bias, thereby leaving the impact of the race issue in this contest a matter of conjecture. It may be negligible and it may be somewhat significant and the signifigance may be attributable to racial bias at either end of the spectrum, for and against.

Posted by dardena on August 7, 2008 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I seems to me, the only one using race in this campaign is Obama. Can anyone quote one explicit race based comment from McCain? I'm not looking for your opinion, I want a quote.
“ My grandmother was a typical white person” Obama
“They hold onto their guns and religion” Obama
“ and oh, by the way, did we mention he’s black?” Obama

Thanks!
Terry

Posted by SemperParatus on August 7, 2008 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Carnard:

Actually townhalls are not an Obama strength since he becomes language challenged if off script. McCain was not the one that said anytime any place for a discussion. Wasn't there also something about a duel. Sounds similar to another politician that the libs hate. Of course there is only arrogance if the name ends in a (R).

Posted by KitsapVoter on August 7, 2008 at 9:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Partisan dribble from John Morgan former chairman of the Kitsap democrats.

Posted by littleroundtop on August 7, 2008 at 9:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

John Morgan ,

You use to be the chair of the democratic party ? This is the same layer who brought suit against a person who was slinging political mud against Tim Botkin , the same guy who defended the residency of Josh Brown ? You are obviously everything Barak Obama speaks to what is wrong in the old way of doing things . I can not think of too many people I know in political , work , or in friendly manner saying this kind of political hateful mud in the public square and not be embarrassed after they re read what they wrote .

These foks never ralize that after the election is over the real work begins .

Posted by dahl on August 7, 2008 at 9:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

coco1,

What color? I was taught that black and white are not colors. So, what color are you talking about?

Posted by dahl on August 7, 2008 at 9:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

canard,

You must be talking about those hand picked fainters that B.Hussein Obama had in his audience.

Posted by TomRosendale on August 7, 2008 at 10:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"John Morgan former chairman of the Kitsap democrats".

If that's true, his race baiting letter is like a circus clown criticizing a woman because she has too much make-up on.

Good for the Dems that the word 'former' is included.

Posted by TomRosendale on August 7, 2008 at 10:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

dahl,
You should probably take heed in what Coco1 was saying. Using a candidates name in that form may be just fine for making a point, but doing it incessantly without making that point shows a prejudice inconsistent with the topic at hand. The weight of your words lose significance.

Posted by Elliott on August 7, 2008 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Why is it that if Obama so much as mentions race, he's "playing the race card"? Is this some kind of perverted reverse political correctness? Why are you folks so afraid to talk about race?

Why is it that after attacking Obama for not going overseas, the conservatives are up in arms when he DOES go overseas?

Posted by TomRosendale on August 7, 2008 at 10:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with Elliott on this one. If he had a huge nose, nobody would have said squat if he mentioned a face like his on the dollar bill.

Posted by Coco1 on August 7, 2008 at 10:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Come on dahl, you know exactly what I'm talking about :)

Posted by TomRosendale on August 7, 2008 at 10:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I did not intend the nose comment to be a pun.

Posted by mryan on August 7, 2008 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

John, interesting that you would bring up substantive discussion when your candidate flip flops more than a freshly caught salmon, while never admitting either he was wrong or the good reasons he has changed his mind.

As for dealing the race cards, the latest wasn't a Republican, who first put on a fund raiser for Candidate Obama and then penned defamatory lyrics including "painting the White House black."

Does it concern you that your candidate is taking plays out of Venezuelan strongman Chavez’s play book when he called for “civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded” as the armed forces?

Take time to hear for yourself at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEhzvy...

Posted by dahl on August 7, 2008 at 12:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tom,

When B.Hussein Obama denounces the religion of Islam, as any Christian does, then and only then will I refrain from questioning whether he adheres to Islam beliefs.

Posted by Bob_Meadows on August 7, 2008 at 12:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"...resorting to personal attacks..." -- John Morgan's own words describe his own letter's contents quite well. Do Democrats need to believe that their political opposition consists of bad people? Apparently so.

Posted by TomRosendale on August 7, 2008 at 12:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

dahl,
On second thought, keep using the name. A flashing warning light will save others from running into an accident.

Do you realize how much your last post sounded like Joseph R. McCarthy?

Posted by dardena on August 7, 2008 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Elliott, I agree, but why is it that John McCain gets labeled "racist" by your ilk when he *doesn't* mention race?
Terry

Posted by jodaddy on August 7, 2008 at 12:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Elliott,

When Obama says that they are going to say “And did I mention he’s black”, that isn’t talking about race. That is bring it up and accusing people of doing something that they haven’t done. We all know that Obama is of mixed race and that McCain is an old white haired guy. So what?

Posted by jodaddy on August 7, 2008 at 1:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Canard,

I didn’t see it but I can imagine that Johnny McCain felt at home with all those bikers in Sturgis. Oh no, my imagination just put Obama and his teleprompter there too. I'll leave it to 'your' imagination. :)

Posted by nkroadcaptain on August 7, 2008 at 2:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Replace McCain with Gregoire, Republican with Democrat, and the letter still works.

Either Party's faithful are always good for "Profiles in Hypocrisy".

Posted by NSR on August 7, 2008 at 2:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

John Morgan is the former Democratic Party Chair for Kitsap County and a lawyer who specializes in Civil Rights, Family Law, Government, Labor and Employment.

John, you stated, "since racism has been a Republican party policy ever since the Nixon-years 'Southern Strategy'" that all Republicans are racist. Wow, so I am now a racist? Because you say I am? I think not. I have many friends whose skin is black and tan in color who are both Republicans and Democrats. Some of my Republican friends aren’t white!! Can you imagine! It is not the color of your skin that makes you a racist; it is the stupidity of your speech, belief and action. There are a lot of people who are racist and their skin color is not white.

The Democratic Party is one to talk about racisms. Shall we get into that statement you made about Nixon and his courtship with the “Southern Strategy.” Does the term “Dixiecrats?” come to mind? Oh, but that was 60 years ago that this splinter group of Southern “White Democrats” formed their own group because they were mad at their party. Sound familiar?

John, next time you want to point fingers, point one at yourself first. I bet deep down inside you are a racists and you just want to point the finger at someone else to hide the fact.

Oh, I will be voting for the old guy because he has the experience to run this country. I might not agree with everything he says, but then I would just be a puppet. If the young man had the experience, I might have considered him. Maybe next time? Time will tell….

Posted by Elliott on August 7, 2008 at 2:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dardena,
Don't ask me. I've never called McCain a racist.

Posted by dahl on August 7, 2008 at 3:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tom,

I am an admirer of Joe McCarthy. So what's your point?

Posted by littleroundtop on August 7, 2008 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Why is it that if Obama so much as mentions race, he's "playing the race card"? Is this some kind of perverted reverse political correctness? Why are you folks so afraid to talk about race?"

Elliot its part of the play book for the democratic party . Just like weak on defense for the left , just this is sinister . Its perverted to be accused of being a racist for political purposes . Ask the Clintons , especially Bill .
I know first hand what its like to be portrayed as a bigot on a small scale as a controversal committee appointee years ago . Still remember it , still bothers me . Clinton still talks about it , just watched an interview he gave about it .Also Ferrara the past VP candidate was loved by all the minority organizations .
She mis spoke and she was portrayed as a racist by the Morgan's . To be accused of being racist, as Morgan did here is about as low as you go . You can't see that ???? Gregoire has received the maxium on donations from the Tribes allowed under our PDC regulations . The democratic party has always been great beneficaries of tribal politcal donations . We are like ONE out of 23 states that receives nada for allowing casinos by the tribes , that is brought up about Gregoire in an attack ad , she calls republicans racists . When the dems brought up Haliburton and the Chenny connections , imagin if the republicans accused the dems of being white racists because the CEO was white . Sound stupid , yep it is .

Its vulgar when you use people who have had a history of being discriminated against as a shield . Obama did it , McCain has never brought up race till the dollare remark . Other right wing organizations had with the name thing and such . Not McCain .

Tell you what i have been doing , listening to both of them and not judging them on their race , religion or where they go to church .

Obama lost the first part of the character debate as far as I am concerned . Morgan is following up with the pathetic talking points .

Posted by dahl on August 7, 2008 at 3:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

canard,

You must have meant "Lyndon Johnson was insignificant."

Posted by dahl on August 7, 2008 at 4:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

littleroundtop,

The liberals believe that the race card is their ace in the hole. They rely on too much and it comes back to bite them.

Posted by gordonfowlds on August 7, 2008 at 5:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"John, interesting that you would bring up substantive discussion when your candidate flip flops more than a freshly caught salmon, while never admitting either he was wrong or the good reasons he has changed his mind."

I am euphoric that both these candidates are willing to flip flop. We actually have candidates that will change their views and their stance when they are wrong. I could care less if they admit they are wrong if they are willing to at least change. This is a big plus rather than a minus.

Now for a joke I heard on the ferry from this guy (at least I think it was a joke):

"I heard McCain has a new ad. It is vote for me. If elected and I serve eight years it is very unlikely you will have to pay much of a retirement once I leave office. Look at Obama, if he is elected you could be paying him a pension for the next fourty years."

Most of the people around the guy said, "Wow I never thought of that."

Well I guess my Obama vote could seriously impact our long term national debt.....LOL!

Posted by Elliott on August 7, 2008 at 6:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mick,
Although they aren't as bad as in the past, there are still race problems in this country. And we should be able to talk about them honestly. So I repeat: why is it that whenever Obama mentions race in any way at all, he's accused of doing something wrong and "playing the race card"? Do you think mentioning race should be forbidden? It really DOES sound to me like some sort of reverse political correctness, almost as though conservatives are petrified of the subject.

Fox News can scream that there's a "race war" in the Democratic Party. Apparently that's OK. But it's wrong for Obama to mention it? C'mon, Mick. That just doesn't make any sense at all.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,3...

The McCain campaign had a black reporter removed from one of McCain's campaign appearances. Apparently THAT'S OK, but it's a character flaw for Obama to mention race at all?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/st...

Posted by littleroundtop on August 7, 2008 at 7:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Elliot you are not dealing with the subject . I applauded Obama's speech on race after the wright affair . I think it should go into schools where they teach civics , if any still do . It was class One . He also has spoken elegantly in the past and in the future I am sure he will .

In this case he mis spoke , thats what you don't get . I can talk about race , and I can be quite thought full and elegant . And I am human enough , and live in a world that I know I can be wrong also . It took me a long time for instance to not act as though I tolerated racist jokes when I heard one . Perhaps I am not as principled or tolerant as some , but I know the difference , and Obama stepped over the line here .

He backed down and I am glad . Politics makes you do stupid things I agree , looks like John Morgan here wants to pile on with the old way .

Looking forward to a better world , I believe Obama or McCain can do that . But you seem not to know the difference here ? Or are you being defensive . No reason to be .

I was ticked off at Obama more because I believed in my heart he knew better .

Posted by jodaddy on August 7, 2008 at 7:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Elliott,

(I know you weren't talking to me but what the hey.)
I repeat, there is no problem talking about race. When Obama says “they will say, oh he’s black”, that is not talking about race but using race to complain about something that hasn’t happened.

Your link to Fox News that you claim is “screaming” looked like a transcript of the Hannity & Colmes show. What’s the point? Maybe we can have links to "screaming" on Hardball.

Your link to NPR’s “story” of McCain’s people removing a black reporter was junk. Why don’t they check into it and find out what the real reason was for removing him instead of stating “many are asking if race played a role in his removal”? Many are asking lots of things but that story was a lesson in lousy reporting. If that suits you, it’s okie-dokie with me.

Posted by Elliott on August 7, 2008 at 8:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mick,
The McCain campaign put Obama's face on the dollar bill. Obama responded very specifically to the McCain advertisement. How is that mis-speaking?

Jodaddy,
You're right, I wasn't responding to you. As I understand it, the only reason given was that the black reporter was in "the wrong place". But the black reporter happened to be standing in "the wrong place" together with some WHITE reporters, who were NOT asked to leave. So I suggest you take it up with the McCain campaign.

All,
I find it very, very disturbing that so many in here have no problem when white people accuse black people of racism (as some in here have), but raise howls of outrage if a black person would DARE to accuse white people of the same thing.

Posted by jodaddy on August 7, 2008 at 8:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Elliott,

I forget. Were you also outraged when Obama's team removed two Muslim women wearing head scarves so they wouldn't be pictured behind him?

In a perfect "Green World" we wouldn't have to worry about such things.

Posted by Elliott on August 7, 2008 at 8:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jodaddy,

If you were upset by the removal of those two women, are you also upset by the removal of the black reporter?

Posted by jodaddy on August 7, 2008 at 9:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Elliott,

It sounds like the McCain campaign apologized to the reporter and he accepted it. It also sounded like it had more to do with the Secret Service than the McCain people. Something tells me that you already know that so just forget I said anything and keep thinking it's some kind of racial thing.

Posted by dahl on August 7, 2008 at 11:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Elliot,

Don't be so disturbed about the racial thing. Everyone has their own opinion of what racism is. The liberals believe any negativity against their candidates is racism. That's why most of us conservatives don't give a hoot about charges of racism. After all, that is the only thing going for liberals. If they think they can get mileage out of it then they will use it to the hilt.

Posted by truthbtold on August 8, 2008 at 8:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama is the 1st black presumptive nominee. Race is an issue whether you want to admit it or not. This country and county has its band of racists. The GOP knows that and will use code words like muslim, arrogant (uppity), misspeak intentionally and call him Osama, or with our resident racist here mention his middle name. If the dem running was Hillary, they'd say she has hormonal issues, is "ragging" on McCain, those sort of messages that resonate with the 22% that still worship at the feet of Lord Bush.

The real issue is that the GOP has nothing to offer this country. They've effectively grounded it on a sandbar and want us to believe electing McBush will make it all better. In order to do this they can't run on their record, they instead must run down their opponent. Thank you KKKarl Rove. IF they ran on their record they'd have to tell you:

Reagan - Fiscal Conservative - 200 Billion deficit
Bush I - Fiscal Conservative - 300 Billion deficit "no new taxes"
Clinton - Tax and Spender - 200 Billion SURPLUS
Bush II - Fiscal Conservative 482 Billion deficit, plus another 250 billion in Iraq for a whopping 732 billion deficit. We're not safer, the economy stinks, unregulated oil trades which = $4.50 gallon gas, no health care reform, 15 trillion deficit for medicare drug plan, all, brought to you by the GOP.

We clear thinkers believe McCain will bring more of the same. The GOP will be back someday, but this time around, they've lost their turn

Posted by cornfedsmile on August 8, 2008 at 8:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow, I once thought John Morgan, Kitsap County's Number One Democrat, had some brains. Apparently not! Supporting Obama?

Apparently you feel so secure in your little law practice that when the US plunges down the toilet (if Obama unfortunately gets elected) with skyrocketing taxes, interest rates, terrorist attacks on our own soil, the new title "US of KKK" from his mentor, you will still be "sitting pretty." Think again. Just because you're a branded Democrat doesn't mean you need to support the "inexperienced, word-bumbling, teleprompter needing, I'm a victim mentality" loser of a candidate for the D-party.

AND WAIT, to head off the standard Elliot left-wing response (which other libs will jump on), this nation is NOT going down the toilet with President Bush, our military IS WINNING in the war on terror, our economy is STRONG, our interest rates are LOW, and we've not had a domestic terrorist act since 2001. If you believe the opposite, save us all from your "oppressed view."

Posted by TomRosendale on August 8, 2008 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Just when the Dems look foolish for having had someone like this for a leader, along come some Repubs to show that they are just as foolish.

Parties don't need to to be shot down by each other. They do quite well with their own members shooting themselves in the foot on its way to the mouth.

Posted by Coco1 on August 8, 2008 at 10:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

thanks for the facts truthbtold. that says it all!

Posted by rick57 on August 8, 2008 at 10:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Are you people watching this election campaign at all? Obama spends all his time talking about issues and responding to negative ads by the Republicans. McCain does these singular sound bites with little substance focusing on what Obama is doing or saying and not about what he stands for. Obama has no control of Rev. Wright's or Sharpton's comments ,just like McCain said he could not control the Republican party in N. Dakota from running a negative ad (as the Republican nominee). Does make you wonder how he could control the Executive branch, if he can't control his own party. McCain does not want to stand side by side with Obama in any venue if he can help it. He can't even pass mustard doing scripted ads. He look and sounds just like a little kid ( Oh yeah my daddy was in the army and .....) . I really don't dislike McCain. I just feel he is not up to the office and is way past his "peter principal" level. Those of you who think race is not a part of this election wait until the Republicans have their backs to the wall as the election nears and they "swift boat " the heck out of race.

Posted by Elliott on August 8, 2008 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Terry,

You're starting to sound like dannavy. And no, that isn't a compliment.

You called Obama "afraid" for not appearing in person on right wing talk shows? Well then, do you think McCain is "afraid" for not appearing on Keith Olbermann's show?

You called Obama "a race baiting extreme leftist socialist who will do anything and say anything to become President." I hope you're joking. I bet you'd get upset if someone called McCain "an altzheimer's-suffering fascist who flips more than a gymnast on steroids".

C'mon, knock off the name-calling.

Posted by dahl on August 8, 2008 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

rick557,

"Obama spends all his time talking about issues"

B.Hussein Obama is an issue and he certainly has issues. If you want a list of them I'll gladly provide them. We could begin by discussing his phony birth certificate but I believe Hillary will spring this on the masses soon enough.

Posted by jlambrecht on August 8, 2008 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Truthbtold: For the truth to be told, it would seem fair to point out the Clinton surplus was accumulated as a result of a massive tax hike in 1993 which if excised from the totals, would have left a huge deficit during his terms. Conversely, Bush II cut taxes by 500 billion during his terms (793 billion over l0 years). Under our system of government, the President can not spend any funds not appropriated by congress. I believe there is enough blame to go around for spending excesses creating deficits that will require tax increases to retire irrespective of which party controls government over the next 20 years.

Posted by Elliott on August 8, 2008 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

TerryB,

I didn't call McCain "AN ALTZHEIMER'S-SUFFERING FASCIST WHO FLIPS MORE THAN A GYMNAST ON STERIOIDS".

I said you'd probably get upset if SOMEONE called him "AN ALTZHEIMER'S-SUFFERING FASCIST WHO FLIPS MORE THAN A GYMNAST ON STERIOIDS".

I didn't acutally call McCain anything. The fact that you DID get upset proves my point - you think it's OK for YOU to call people names, but wrong if others do it. You have a double standard. Thanks for proving my point.

Posted by truthbtold on August 8, 2008 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dahl - take meds, adjust tinfoil hat.

Jambrect , It's the same old repug argument. Clinton had great economies because of the previous administrations. bla bla bla. With that anaology, I guess Reagan should have kissed Jimmy Carter's rear end. Clinton inherited a mess from Bush I. Under Clinton economic policies the DJIA from 3000 to 11000. As soon as Bush took over the market went into the gutter, until 2003 when it start to climb back.
Oh yeah, 793 billion in tax cuts, with over 75% going to the wealthy. You know, the "haves and the have mores?"

Your argument is specious. Let's see, 790 billion in tax cuts, and Bush has doubled the national debt. What about math doesn't the right get?

Posted by truthbtold on August 8, 2008 at 12:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

terry,,

"Obama is weak. Obama is sending a surrogate to speak to Shawn Hannity but he won't go himself. Hillary Clinton appeared on the The Factor with Bill O'Reilly. John McCain appeared on The Factor and on Hannity and Colmes."

Fox Programming currently has 4 shows dedicated soley to slamming Obama. Why would he want to go on?

"Obama is afraid of appearing on FoxNews because he is nothing without a teleprompter."

Obama won't go on FOXNoise because they are not a legitimate news org.

"Obama used sexism to defeat Hillary Clinton and he is attempting to use racism to defeat John McCain."

John McCain is a person of color?

"The Democratic Party should have nominated Hillary Clinton. There are at least 5 Democratic candidates who were better representatives than the sissy mermosa sipping Obama."

In your dreams. The GOP would have loved Billery

"Obama claims he would meet with Iranian President and Terrorism sponsor Ahmadinejad, but he is afraid of little old Shawn Hannity and Bill O'Reilly???"

Not afraid, just smart

"Obama is afraid to speak with anyone that does not belong to the liberal press."

Not so, just not speaking with FOX

"Even Hillary Clinton met with Bill O'Reilly, but Obama is afraid to stand up for himself. How shameful is that?"

Define shameful in the context of Bill Loofa O'Lielly.

"This does not make sense unless Obama is afraid that Fox News will expose him for what he is - a race baiting extreme leftist socialist who will do anything and say anything to become President."

They've already said that about Obama, daily, hourly. So once again, howz that negative stuff working for them. They will go 8 years and get nothing from the WH, heck maybe 16!

Posted by jodaddy on August 8, 2008 at 12:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Elliott,

I agree with you about name-calling and I promise never to call Sen. Obama an extreme left wing socialist with a Messiah complex.

Posted by dahl on August 8, 2008 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

truthuntold,

"So once again, howz that negative stuff working for them."

I believe it is working well.

"US election: Democrats fret about Obama's small lead in the polls"

Posted by jodaddy on August 8, 2008 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I found it interesting that Hillary had the guts to go on O’Reilly’s show. She was asked tough questions but she did very well and it actually made me respect her more. Too bad Obama doesn't have the same courage as Hillary.

Posted by jlambrecht on August 8, 2008 at 12:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

truthbtold. It seems you regard the opinions of anyone who disagrees or takes exceptions to your pontificating posts as specious. Perhaps you are inspired by the self-aggrandizing alias you post under and labor under the misapprehsnion it assigns credibility to your opinions when there is a lack of substance. The figures you put up like a billboard in a vain attempt to make a point reflect shallowness when exposed to analysis, but predictably, you took refuge in dismissive belittlement when they were challenged. I am neither intimidated or impressed by your literary flailings. The vanity inculcated in them, however, does provide a source of amusement. Thanks for the entertainment.

Posted by truthbtold on August 8, 2008 at 1:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

J-Brecht,

I misread your post, I do appologize. Although Bush I raised taxes significantly in 90' (He had to), and Clinton raised taxes 50% for the "top" brackets in 93', income tax revenue in 96' was 8.5% of the GDP vs. 8.6% under Reagan, a drop of 1 tenth of one precent. During the Reagan years, when tax rates were reduced twice, "inflation-adjusted" income-tax revenues rose an average of 2.2% per year. Since Reagan and after two tax-rate increases (Bush and Clinton), revenue growth slowed to 1.3 per cent annually. One could argue that cutting taxes could bring in more revenue IF and this is a big IF, you choose to ignore the huge deficits Reagan created. In other words, going into more debt to create more revenue makes zero sense. As taxpayers we have to pay for our costs. Bush II has created a mess by cutting taxes AND going crazy on spending.

AS far as who's mess this is, in my opinion it;s by far a GOP mess. They controlled congress and the WH for the past 6 years and could have done better. All Bush II did was cut taxes for the rich folks. Now, the GOP fillibusters (65) and Bush II threatens vetos (117).

times they are a changing

Posted by truthbtold on August 8, 2008 at 1:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

TB

"Fox News is the only legitimate news broacast on television with "Fair and Balanced" reporting - Obama just doesn't want to answer tough questions about his flip-flopping."

LOFLMAO!!!!!

Posted by jlambrecht on August 8, 2008 at 1:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jodaddy: Although I did not vote for her in the primary nor did I intend to in the general election should she be nominated, I share your observation in that Hillary also earned my rather grudging respect and admiration throughout the campaign. I think the lady did herself proud in taking on the boys and at times, in my weaker moments, I found myself feeling almost a fatherly protectiveness for her at some of the "hits" she was taking. Whatever her politics, she is a strong lady and I believe, would have made a better Commander in Chief than Barack had she been nominated and elected.

Posted by jlambrecht on August 8, 2008 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Truthbtold: We are generally on the same page. The enormity of the social security and medicare liabilities (remember the "lockbox") makes them unsustainable without payroll tax increases and the deficit can not be retired without an increase in taxes. The candidate(s) can say they will avoid tax increases and economists can proffer theories ad infinitum on whether tax cuts increase prosperity and thereby increase revenues through additional tax collections or whether tax increases suppress growth, etc. The reality remains that taxes are virtually the only revenue source for the government and if spending is not curtailed to a pay as we go level, simply servicing the interest payments to citizens and foreign governments on the national debt. will consume any increased revenue.

Posted by dahl on August 8, 2008 at 3:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

truthuntold,

"All Bush II did was cut taxes for the rich folks."

I got a tax cut and I am far from being rich. Matter of fact I'm closer to poverty than rich.
So, you were saying.....

Posted by mrstevemurray on August 8, 2008 at 3:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The idea that cutting taxes actually increases tax revenue is a cornerstone of Reaganomics; it wasn't true 25 years ago, and it isn't true now.
I'd rather have a "tax and spend" president than a "borrow and spend" one any day.
The GOP is morally bankrupt and completely out of ideas. It deserves to die. May November come soon.

Posted by rick57 on August 8, 2008 at 3:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Terryb - Not only are you not a Democrat your are a Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly speaking drone. It is so obvious that you do not have an original thought of your own, but are being spoon fed from the brilliant (you got to be kidding) Bill O'Reilly. You ever listen to Rush play sound bites on his show. He takes an Obama quote out of context and before it completes or starts to explain the reason for the comment. Rush tells his sound engineer to turn it off he can't stand it anymore. Are you people complete idiots and can not see what he is doing? Don't believe me? Listen to how he does his show. Terryb you are a sham and I reiterate what a joke you are claiming to be a Democrat. No one in there right mind could ever claim to be so and write and say what you have said on this blog. Please don't answer back that I don't know you because I don't want to know you or Dahl or Dannavy85. There are limits to acceptable behavior even when talking about things you are passionate about.

Posted by littleroundtop on August 8, 2008 at 3:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

mrstevemurray you are not only wrong , liberals have all conceded your wrong . Tax revenues increased with kennedy , they increased with reagan . You can have an opinion , not your own set of facts .

Spending increased with much greater levels with Reagan , Kennedy held the line on spending , " please bush is not even a conservative and I don't know if he knows what he did himself" at least the Congress did anyway , Which really dictates spending by the way .

Economics 101, the state makes no money . The people do . When their is more money going to the people , and they spend it on their busisneses , stocks , savings , building homes , buying things , more jobs are caused , more money is MADE , more people pay taxes . Thats why revenue goes up with a certain amount of economic growth . Now how much taxation is the point where it hurts growth , that is an intelligent debate . Liberals can debate that issue , why not join in and read some more about this ?

Your understanding of what caused the huge deficits may pass off with political rhetoric , but even the liberals here know it was the spending issues that got the GOP in trouble .

Their is a line of taxation that is needed , when it crosses the line that causes people to stop producing , where it is better for an individual to place their their money in a safe place with low interest and productivity then it is for them to take a little risk and buy say a share of an electric car company , that is what the deabte is about , or should be . Why risk your money in investing in risky stocks and such if the money you earn will be taxed like crazy .
That was Reagan's basic premise .

When is too much taxation hurtfull , how much of a role does government play in providing safety nets .

Read some books on economics and actually read what happened in the 80s and 60,s hence you may still feel we need to tax more , but at least you will not sound foolish .

And I would agree , no sense to cut taxes and increase the size of government that happened under Reagan , and especially Bush 2. That was a failure under their Administrations .

Posted by bremertonscott on August 8, 2008 at 4:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It is easy to call names but hard to show any truth behind them when all you can spew it bull

Posted by littleroundtop on August 8, 2008 at 5:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

P.S Realizing facts can be used to promote either side of many issues .

Tax cuts can stimulate an economy . Agreed if the money goes to build factories in China it does not help Americans. Obama has plans for targeted tax cuts and benefits . How Reagan of him !! I like that aspect of him . Of course allowing government to spend money on wars and such at the same time , or in Reagan's case a massive military build up will not be enough ,

the issue on cutting taxes in a free society can promote economic freedom and reduce poverty also .

Tax collection with Reagan Tax Cuts

Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue.3

As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), federal revenues declined only slightly from 18.9 percent in 1980 to 18 percent in 1990.4

Revenues from individual income taxes climbed from just over $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990.5 In inflation-adjusted dollars, this amounts to a 25 percent increase.

Posted by familien1 on August 8, 2008 at 7:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

First and foremost, shouldn't a American President of the United States be a patriot?

Do people believe Mr. Obama is a patriot?

Does anyone doubt that Mr. McCain is a patriot?

Mr. Obama took the painted American flag off the tail of his airplane before his European trip and replaced it with his own logo.

His wife stated that as an adult she has been proud of this country only once...when her husband was nominated to run for President.

I want a American patriot as President of my country...to accept less seems foolish...
In my opinion... Sharon O'Hara

Posted by tjallen398 on August 8, 2008 at 7:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To change the subject due to the breaking news...the story today is John Edwards coming forward to admit his affair to ABC.

Ghezz, does this mean he wont be considered for Obama's VP slot?

For those who still think that we have an unbiased media, you might want to pull your head out of the sand sometime.
The media giants would not touch this story with a ten-foot pole, why? They are in the tank with the Democratic party. But of course it was okay for the New York Times to run a front page "empty" story about McCains "alleged" affair from 20 years ago a few months ago. Why? Because he is a Republican.
Plain and simple.

If there can be no other proof that "Journalism" in this country is DEAD, it is in todays news in the form of their own obituary.

Oh, for those of you that attack Fox news and O'Rielly (and I'm sure never even watch) you might to check the Neilsen ratings from time to time to see where they stand. And yes I'm affraid it's true, there really is a whole other country out there besides the Left Coast.

Posted by mrstevemurray on August 8, 2008 at 8:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And John McSame said he never loved America until he became a POW. So what?
Why do you think Obama doesn't love America?

Posted by TomRosendale on August 8, 2008 at 9:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I feel safer that Edwards will no longer be in a position to be vice president. This revelation doesn't surprise me at all. What would one expect from a personal injuries attorney who knows what he has to do to become successful. Blatant lying seems to come natural to him when it suits him.

And this guy was actually on the ticket to be in a position to control our country if circumstances allowed it.

I'm not referring to his transgressions or mistakes, but a premeditated plan to tell outrageous lies and then do it. It doesn't say much for his wife either to have been a part of the deception against the electorate, which is a bit different than just 'the public'.

Posted by underachiever on August 8, 2008 at 10:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why Obama will not win:

My mom, a rabid Bush hater, would of voted for Hillary. I was shocked at her response to my Obama question. Her response was not "racist" but I think she will be voting for McCain. She may be "more experienced" but she is not "lacking in intelligence." I will try and forget the Bush thing.

Posted by dahl on August 9, 2008 at 12:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sharon,

Awesome! I agree with you

tjallen,

Did you see the article in the Kitsap Sun today titled "Man Held on Charge of Threatening Obama?" The man ALSO threatened President Bush but the only charge against the man was for his threat against Obama. It's not bias when one gets arrested for threatening Hillary or Obama but doesn't get arrested for threatening the current President. I mean, it isn't bias in the eyes of liberals.

Posted by dahl on August 9, 2008 at 12:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

mrstevemurray,

"Why do you think Obama doesn't love America?"

Because it's not Iran?

Posted by truthbtold on August 9, 2008 at 10:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Littleround

The one big factor you have to keep in mind is debt.

The way Bushco has run this country is the same if you went out and got a 10% raise in pay but double your expenses. At some point that VISA gets maxxed out. We're past that point with 10 trillion in debt, selling billion to the Chinese, and now outsourcing billions to the private sector. At some point the reds need to get paid. So what's the GOP plan? More of the same?

Posted by Elliott on August 9, 2008 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The story alleging that Obama painted over an American flag on the tail of his plane fails to mention that MCCAIN DID EXACTLY THE SAME THING WITH HIS PLANE. So, where's your outrage at McCain? Why aren't you questioning HIS patriotism?

"[Obama's] wife stated that as an adult she has been proud of this country only once...when her husband was nominated to run for President."
Oh good grief. How does a minor misstatement by Obama's wife disqualify Obama for President? Even Laura Bush came to Michelle Obama's defense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCcxCF...

Posted by jodaddy on August 9, 2008 at 11:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

TBT,

You may be right, we’re headed for serious trouble. I think the GOP wanted to grow the economy which increases revenue to pay down the debt. Unfortunately, the Democrats seem to want the economy to shrink by keeping oil prices high and by taxing job producers. Together with this the Democrats want to establish another huge never-ending entitlement program called gubament health care.

To pay down the debt, Democrats propose to tax the rich. To pay for health care the Democrats propose to tax the rich. To give everyone who wants it a college education the Democrats propose to tax the rich. They also are talking about another stimulus program and you guessed it, taxing the rich. At what point do the rich say heck with it?

To lower oil prices the Democrats propose to tax “Big Oil”. That oughta do it. Maybe at the same time they can lower food prices by taxing “Big Food”.

Posted by momuddog on August 9, 2008 at 12:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think Obama should use that old Goldwater phrase. In your heart you know he's Wright. Just an idea. Mike

Posted by littleroundtop on August 9, 2008 at 1:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Littleround

The one big factor you have to keep in mind is debt.

truthbtold stated

Oh I totally agree with you . I was just pointing out the tax cut premise of Reagan's policy indeeddid work , and helped the economy .
Spending indeed hurt us all . The present GOP does not appear to have a plan from what I see , appeared the dems were stepping up to the plate with the fact they would fund any programs they pass into law , pay as you go . But that appears to have been just political rhetoric also .

"For those who still think that we have an unbiased media, you might want to pull your head out of the sand sometime

Posted by tjallen398

At first I was going to argue your point that Edwards was not getting his share of negative media because of his affair , I have heard some reporting of late and quoting his campaign rhetoric to be moral leader , even his campaign advisor gave him a shot accross the bow for the fact he was cheating on his wife while running for President and sounding like he was Mr Morality .. He is not running anymore , so I do not expect that much coverage , but from all the publicity he got from liberal Christian organizations and such before , they sure have been quiet now , as the conservative web sites got quiet from whats his name who touched feet in the toilet . But the media did make that issue a big deal , lefties use to use it as showing conservative hypocracu ALL the time , and the media has this as a blimp I agree . Actually covering Edwards should be a blimp , its the way the media covered whats his name that was the real bias in my opinion .
Its really a sad story , so many people in power appear to fall into this trap in higher percentages .

Hope his wife is surrounded by good people and friends .

Posted by rick57 on August 9, 2008 at 3:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jodaddy - A better idea is to not pay off the debt at all. I'm tired of Democrats getting blamed because they have to raise taxes to pay off Republican debt. The Republicans don't tax they just spend so after the Dems clean up their mess their ready to win again running on the "tax and spend " anti Democrat slogan and repeat their "spend but don't pay" for it cycle.

Posted by jodaddy on August 9, 2008 at 5:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

rick57,

You may have a point. I just wish the Dems were as quick to cut spending as they are to raise taxes.

Posted by oidmike on August 9, 2008 at 8:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why don't Dems just think about REDUCING SPENDING? They seem to think that corporations pay taxes, they dont, the concumer does! Obama wants to lay a "windfall" tax on "big oil" to pay for another "stimulus" payment to the consumer, but where will "big oil" get this money? From raised prices! And Obama thinks this will REDUCE prices?!?

Don't be fooled, the Obama tax plans he has spoken of so far are a reprise of Pres. Cater's policies, so I think it reasonable to expeect a similar outcome, double digit inflation, double digit intrest rates, and near double digit unemployment.

For those worried about racism, remember, it is not the Republicans that try to deny school vouchers for the poor, and it was that fine Republican "Fritz" Hollings that raised the Confederate battle flag over the state house in South (or was it North?) Carolina in protest of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it was that fine Republican George Wallace that stood in the school-house door to deny Negros entrance.

Yes, it was the Democrtatic administration that brought forth the Civil Rights Act, but it was a majority of Democrats (in Congress) who refused to vote for it, it took the majority of Republicans (in Congress) to pass it.

Posted by dahl on August 9, 2008 at 11:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

rick57

Aw, are you getting tired? You'll really get tired when B.Hussein Obama loses and ANOTHER Republican gets the Presidency.

Posted by truthbtold on August 10, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It won't matter who wins. They're going to have to raise taxes and cut spending. Math is math,

Posted by janebedinger on August 10, 2008 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

But President Bush wants us to spend. Why would Dems reduce spending?

Posted by dahl on August 10, 2008 at 12:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

truthuntold

"It won't matter who wins. They're going to have to raise taxes and cut spending. Math is math,"

So you don't believe the government should run its finances like you run your household finances? Does that mean that when you see a deficit in your home budget you go to your employer or government and ask for more?

Posted by marklookingup on August 10, 2008 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sharon, take a look at this:

<http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/...

Posted by marklookingup on August 10, 2008 at 12:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sharon, sorry. Try this one:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/...

Posted by janebedinger on August 10, 2008 at 1:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dahl,

What part of debt don't you understand? Bush sold the farm to pay for his war and tax giveaways. Like in a family where the wife and kids have to get extra jobs in order to pay off dad's gambling debts, citizens might have to contribute more.

OOOooops. I forgot you are Republican. You mean like when the banks or corporations get into debt and the federal government bails them out? I guess asking for bailouts is okay. You mean that when the family hits a deficit we SHOULD ask the government to lower taxes, even though the country is in debt?

I guess, yeah, that's what you mean.

Posted by jodaddy on August 10, 2008 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well I don’t know about everyone else but when my spending exceeds my income I reduce spending. I suppose I could ask “the rich” to give me more money but why should they do that? If I can’t manage my finances what problem is that to the rich?

Even though I can’t stand the rich and wish the government would steal some money from them and give it to me, I’d never want to be rich because all they care about is themselves. I couldn't live that way. Well, I have to go now and buy a Lotto ticket. See ya.

Posted by janebedinger on August 10, 2008 at 2:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oidmike,

Sorry, but a majority of Democrats always supported the 1965 Civil Rights Act. All the Southern Republicans also voted against the act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Ri...

In any event, all those bad Democrats converted to Republican.

Both parties have a mixed record regarding civil rights.

Obama is like Carter; McCain is like Bush. Hurray.

Posted by dahl on August 10, 2008 at 5:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jane,

It is evident you don't have a clue as to what I mean.

Posted by janebedinger on August 11, 2008 at 8:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

JoDaddy,

I couldn't agree more that the government needs to reduce spending, especially on corporate subsidies and bailouts.

Unfortunately, I doubt that will be enough to recover from the financial incompetence of the Administration and Congress.

Like the Fed's policy of lowering interest, the current Republican strategy of lowering taxes has run out of rope because it wasn't matched with lowering costs.

I think the country has come to the point where cutting expenditures won't be enough, and like lots of families, and the wage earnings will need to pick up extra work to bring in more income -- like raising the fees considerably on protected offshore drilling leases. It's been done before.

Posted by jodaddy on August 11, 2008 at 11:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jane,

I agree with your ideas.

Posted by dahl on August 11, 2008 at 12:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jane,

" like raising the fees considerably on protected offshore drilling leases. It's been done before."

Just more of the same. Blame oil companies for everyone's problems.

Posted by janebedinger on August 11, 2008 at 1:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dahl,

How is it "blaming" the oil companies to expect them to pay a fair market rate for leases on public land? Don't we need to think about ways to increase revenues without raising taxes?

I don't "blame" farmers for agricultural subsidies; I just think that subsidies must be used wisely and should be cut back when the government can't afford them.

In fact, I thought I was espousing sound conservative ideas to trim the sails when the storm is coming.

And, given their current performance, I don't see anything wrong in pointing out the rotten job that American oil companies have done in supporting our nation's interests. However, it's not punitive to return to market pricing of leases; it's curative.

Posted by dahl on August 11, 2008 at 4:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jane,

You have a problem with economics. Do you for one minute believe that if subsidies for farmers and/or for oil companies was cut off that prices of produce and gas wouldn't rise to make up the difference?

If you had a choice which would it be? (1)cut off oil company subsidies and/or raise their taxes or (2)Want lower gas and fuel prices and lower prices on goods manufactured with oil products. Before you answer check out the following links.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/0...

http://www.soundmoneytips.com/article...

I do believe that the government got themselves into a mess with subsidies since they learned that subsidies buy votes. The government will never do away with subsidies since this is also campaign fodder.

Posted by janebedinger on August 11, 2008 at 5:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dahl,

I'm amazed to hear you espousing socialism over free markets! And supporting higher taxes to prop up businesses!

Apparently you are all in favor of government intervention in prices. Why is it better to pay oil companies with tax dollars than with prices at the pump? Doesn't the pump price give consumers more of a chance to vote with their feet -- as they are doing now by dropping demand and thus lowering the price?

We already subsidize oil companies AND are paying higher prices. That's what the current choices have brought us.

Why I should pay higher taxes to subsidize industries making record profits? Why should I pay higher taxes to subsidize your addiction to oil? Why should my taxes go to buying off YOUR party's supporters?

Posted by dahl on August 11, 2008 at 8:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jane,

Have a problem answering the question? I thought you would.

"We already subsidize oil companies AND are paying higher prices."

Higher prices than what? The market determines the price. So, you know best what should be the price of oil. I'm surprised the oil companies haven't contacted you so that you could tell them how to run their business. By the way, have you contacted USPS to tell them how they should run their business for less? Or how about contacting your local produce store and tell them that their price of bananas is too high and you have a solution to how they can provide bananas cheaper?

Why isn't there an outcry against the local cable companies because some believe their costs too high? Or how about the cost of electricity, that seems to always be going up? Are they getting "windfall" profits?

Did you complain to the government for providing rebate checks? If not, why not? After all these were "windfall" profits to consumers.

Posted by janebedinger on August 12, 2008 at 10:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dahl,

I didn't have any trouble making my choice -- although it wasn't really an either/or.

It was more like: which would you rather do -- (a)take actions to cut government spending and increase revenues or (b) continue to do what we've been doing for eight years, dishing out ruinous amounts of tax money to rich companies in the [vain] hope that they will be grateful and generous and for some reason lower prices for their customers.

I chose (a) take action.

You want to continue your socialist subsidizations of favored political supporters -- even when this policy has failed! Thanks for the great advice!!

No, I did not contact other companies about lowering their costs. I have a non-compete with Microsoft who pays me to tell them this.

And yes, I complained about the rebate check and applied it to this year's taxes.

Did you give your rebate check to China via Walmart? Or to Mexico via the gas pump and grocery?

Posted by noproblempablo on August 12, 2008 at 5:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The GAO is about to release a report that most US corporations pay zero taxes. That a problem for anybody?

Posted by Chief on August 14, 2008 at 12:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

John - What a MORON. Obama brought up the RACE CARD first.

Posted by mrstevemurray on August 16, 2008 at 9:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Why don't Dems just think about REDUCING SPENDING?"

Why don't the Republicans? LOL! You aren't following the news, are you?

"Obama brought up the RACE CARD first."

BS. McNuts ran a ad with Barack's face on a $100 bill, to show how "weird" it looked. Obama responded. Obama has never used his race to get ahead. When he applied to Harvard, he left the "ethnicity" part blank.

Posted by bremertongreg on August 17, 2008 at 4:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No problem pablo:
Big corporations and rich individuals pay no taxes...In the "queen of mean" (Leona Helmsly's) own words: Only the little people pay taxes!

Its funny that the republicans call the democrats "tax and spend"...The Republicans give tax breaks and spend more than ever in our history ...our country is bankrupt because of the republicans. If we werent so far in debt and the dollar worthless, gas wouldnt be $4 a gallon!!!! Wake up you republican idiots!!! Vote Democrat and save your own a**, vote republican and lose the rest of what you have!!!!

Posted by Punkinhead on August 19, 2008 at 12:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dahl,
YOU don't even know what you mean so how in the heck would anyone else know what you mean?

Chief,
And NO, Obama never uttered a word about race first...If memory serves, I believe it was the Clintons...Bill, to be more precise.

Posted by soopaj on August 19, 2008 at 6:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by dahl on August 7, 2008 at 1:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

McCain is avoiding discussions? I do believe that it is B.Hussein Obama who has turned down all debates except for the three pre-election debates. I'd ca

...

------------

who the heck is B.Hussein Obama?

Posted by dahl on August 20, 2008 at midnight (Suggest removal)

jane,

Oh, paying your taxes is so patriotic of you. I don't know many people who would do that. What's it to you where I spend my money? Is WalMart a legal corporation? If so, why demonize it? Since you want to also demonize gas stations I imagine you sit on your stationary bicycle and pretend you are a tourist.

soopaj,

B.Hussein Obama is that senator who got shot out of the saddle at the Saddleback Church debate. There was one winner and one loser and B.Hussein Obama (An investigation of Mr. Obama by political opponents within the Democratic Party has discovered that Mr. Obama was raised as a Muslim by his stepfather in Indonesia. Sources close to the background check, which has not yet been released, said Mr. Obama, 45, spent at least four years in a so-called Madrassa, or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia.)was the clear loser.

Posted by KDL on August 21, 2008 at 3:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dahl, you're hysterical. And I don't mean funny. I mean you're freaking out. B Hussein Obama isn't a terr'ist.

Settle down.