Posted by mittet75 on August 14, 2008 at 3:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Senator Obama does not plan to raise taxes for any citizens if elected, he plans to not re-instate President Bush's tax breaks for the wealthy, they will simply be paying the taxes that they never should have had a break on in the first place.

Posted by TruthDetector on August 14, 2008 at 4:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

To the Kitsap Sun opinion page staff:

Interesting that yesterday you failed to post to this web page for comment the two published letters critical of Obama, but you somehow managed to immediately upload a quick turnaround defense of the Savior.

Good thing the Sun's opinion page is unbiased, otherwise one might wonder what you're up to. (snicker)

Posted by TruthDetector on August 14, 2008 at 5:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jaime,

The discussion of the Messiah is largely opinions on both sides. Mentioning the Civil Rights Act though allows one to actually consider historical facts, such as:

- The bill was filibustered in the Senate for weeks by DEMOCRATS, including none other than Sen. Robert "KKK" Byrd and Algore's father.

- Higher percentages of House and Senate Republicans voted for the bill than did Democrats. The Dims had a filibuster and veto proof senate majority in those days (67-33) but it still took months to get the bill through.

The Civil Rights Act was passed in spite of Democrats, not because of them.

Posted by Jason1 on August 14, 2008 at 6:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What is it with taxes? Are you envious of those making money? I'm not rich but did see my tax bill get lowered in 2002. I firmly believe that those who pa the taxes should be a reduction and not the reverse, shich the candidate seems to favor, raising the taxes even more and giving "credits" those those who pay little if any. Our tax system punishes those who succeed and rewards mediocrity as well a lazyness.

As far as the Messiah winning? Don't think thats really going to happen as more and more "world" issues come up. Look at his pathetic response to what the Russians are doing. His way of talking to the enemy is exactly what was being done with the Russians by Europe and look what that did. Nothing. We're heading for another cold war with China and Russia. Who do you want to lead us?

Posted by TruthDetector on August 14, 2008 at 7:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jaime,

You almost had me convinced to support Obama.

"Regarding his record, Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored hundreds of bills, including bills to clean up government to get it out of the hands of lobbyists and bills to support our troops."

Being an openminded type, I read that statement and excitedly began searching for a list of the laws originated in the mind of The One. Surely such a skilled and experienced legislator who pledges to bring the country together can point to many examples of working with both sides of the aisle to get His important legislation passed.

Alas, I now feel let down after finding that of the few dozen bills the Messiah has sponsored, only a handful got out of Congress. So what did the One We Have Been Waiting For achieve? The critical 109 S.RES. 291 which congratulated the ChiSox for winning the 2005 World Series and indispensible resolutions in 2006 and 2007 designating the National Summer Learning Day.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...)

Maybe we should all look at his record in the Illinois legislature to see what he was up to there.

Posted by jodaddy on August 14, 2008 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jamie,

Obama isn’t arrogant because he doesn’t have much experience. He’s arrogant because of what he says about his favorite subject, himself. You may not have heard those things. McCain has nothing to do with it.

Posted by jlambrecht on August 14, 2008 at 8:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jaime: Perhaps you could provide some description of the "hundreds of bills" this freshman senator sponsored or co-sponsored during his short tenure in the senate which was further abbreviated by one year on the campaign trail. While he may be "the one", his legislative record does not reflect that he originated any exceptional proposals and he will have to be accepted on his words, not his deeds, if he is to become president.. He basically voted along party lines and there is no record that suggests that he "reached across the aisle." If you are kind enough to respond with a list of his proposed legislation, identifying the bills which were enacted into law, we will, as you suggest, have "some facts" to make the comparison you demand.

Posted by jodaddy on August 14, 2008 at 8:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

canard,

"The eight presidents I saw before Bush 2 were choirboys at their very worst compared to the latest."

Did you sleep through Bill Clinton's administration? I do believe one of his scandals lead to impeachment.

Posted by SemperParatus on August 14, 2008 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm waiting for the statement concerning Kool aid drinkers from Canard. He is always so intellectual in his discussions.

Posted by JoeMama on August 14, 2008 at 9:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Terry,
Looks like you've been paying attention to all the drivel Faux News has been feeding you. Reading your post pretty much sums up all the talking points they've been pushing the past few days.

In 2004, 85% of Fox news viewers supported Bush. That percentage is higher that any other demographic, except for republicans. Conservatives, Christians, Gun owners, and anti-abortionists all supported Bush by lesser margins.

So tell me again why Obama should go on the GOP's propoganda channel, only to be asked 'tough questions' about his muslim background and cozy relationships with the black panthers?

As soon as Faux asks McCain why he dumped with disabled wife for a hot chick with money....

Posted by michael on August 14, 2008 at 9:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't care of Obama is arrogant or not. He was in the US Senate for a single year before he began running for President. He has sponsored no legislation of note, done nothing remarkable, yet there he is. Of course he is arrogant. But more importantly, the man is a far left wing socialist. He ran as a 'New Party' candidate in his Illinois senate election and has a history of hanging out with far left individuals: Wright, the GD America Black nationalist preacher, for example, and Ayers, the Weatherman who still says he 'didn't do enough' bombing during the Vietnam war. This is not trivial. Don't blow it off. He's hiding his past and you aren't paying attention.

Shows Barack as a New Party Candidate: http://www.freepress.org/Backup/UnixB...

List of Leftist parties, including the New Party, listed as left socialist. http://www.broadleft.org/us.htm

New Party construed as a social democratic party: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Part...

The Democratoc Socialist Party endorsed Obama in the Illinois elections: http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html

Obama was an attorney for ACORN, one of the most radical groups in the country: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/gr...

Obama announced his entry into politics at William Ayer's home: http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.c...

Obama's ties with Tony Rezko, the slum lord: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Rezko

If you vote Obama into office, you are getting a left wing socialist who will raise your taxes to re-distribute wealth you have earned to people who did not. He will gut the military worse than Clinton did, embolden our enemies, put Israel at risk, and intentionally reduce American power in the world. The Democratic Party you and I voted for in the past has been co-opted by this left wing element. I think this country is at serious risk. I hope people will get past the Rock Star of empty words and check this guy out to see who he really is and what he really stands for before it is too late. Even our media is in on the act. Chris Matthews gets 'tingles up his legs' every time he hears Obama speak? Get over this silly infatuation and study the issues. Otherwise you are going to wake up one day and say,

"Oh, my God! What have I done?"

Posted by TruthDetector on August 14, 2008 at 9:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

JoeMama,

Interesting that you would assume that The One would have to go to Fox News for a tough question from an interviewer. It's fun to watch liberals swerve unwittingly into the truth.

He actually has run into a couple of tough questions (not from Fox), and the transgressors caught hell for for daring to challenge His Emminence. See the left-wing media's response to Charlie Gibson's capital gains taxes question during one of the spring debates. Obama sputtered incoherently and Gibson was austracized by his brethern.

Saint Barrack avoids tough questions because he is a blathering idiot off his telepromter. The source of the questions is irrelevent.

Posted by Elliott on August 14, 2008 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

God knows we wouldn't want a one-term Senator from Illinois as President. Last time that happened, we got someone named Lincoln, and we all know how badly that turned out.

Good grief. Those of you who claim Obama has no federal experience are conveniently forgetting that you voted for George W Bush, who had even less. What a bunch of Obama-haters.

Posted by retardedjeremiah on August 14, 2008 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I just want to trough in my two cents. I am very excited for the possibility of an Obama administration.

As a CPA I am have a strong understanding of the proposed tax implications. Most of which I agree upon. The largest part of the tax increase is not extending the bush tax cuts. The bush tax cuts are reduced rates on capital gains and qualified dividends. This is money that people earned because the all ready have money. I do not see why this needs to be tax at a lower rate than money that is earned from labor.

I am also excited about the possibility that our government will look more towards taking care of all Americans and not just their friends. Tax cuts for the rich is taking care of their friends. Supporting health insurance lobbyists, is taking care of their friends.

Not getting into wars, which increase the nations debt, which weakens the dollars, which makes imports cost more is hurting Americans. Not starting wars that kill Americans is taking care of Americans.

Wars do not solve problems. Iraq is more of a problem now then it was when we started the war. Who ever we start a war with next will be more of a problem once we are at war than they are now.

Posted by 2barkers on August 14, 2008 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Michael said "Oh, my God! What have I done?"
- I THINK WE ARE THERE NOW -

Posted by jodaddy on August 14, 2008 at 9:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

JoeMama,

I think it would be easy for Obama to answer questions about his Muslim background. Why would that worry you? But don’t you think that if it is ok to grill other candidates about their religion and backgrounds that its also ok to grill Obama? His association with a Black Panther seems to be a legitimate question for someone who wants to be president.

Hillary had the guts to go on Fox. She showed she was up to the task. If a candidate can’t handle an interview at Fox how can he handle being president?

Posted by TruthDetector on August 14, 2008 at 10:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Elliott,

Elliott: "Those of you who claim Obama has no federal experience are conveniently forgetting that you voted for George W Bush, who had even less."

Don't stop at executive experience. Obama has no private sector experience, no business experience, no executive experience, no foreign policy experience, no military experience, and on and on.

What he is amassing experience at is misjudging people. "That's not the Jeremiah Wright I knew" e.g.

When you get your ballot this fall, you will note that GW is not running. McCain is and for all his faults, name the qualification and he has the Messiah beat 10 times over.

Posted by dardena on August 14, 2008 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Come, get real. Take a true unfiltered look at Obama and think: "would I buy a used car from this guy"?

My gosh! He has the arrogance of "Slick Willy," and the politics of Jimmy Carter.

The man cannot speak without being scripted, because when he does it’s “my grandmother was a typical white person.,” or “(them rednecks) in middle America, clinging to their bibles and guns.” He states “out of Iraq in 16 months,” then backs down to “well, maybe,” then when the radical left upsurges he goes back to “yep, 16 month!”

The guy’s a slime ball. You heard it here first.

Terry

Posted by mrousnr on August 14, 2008 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Elliot,
Obama Lover,
McCain Hater.
Propaganda artist.
"independent"?
I don't think so...

Posted by retardedjeremiah on August 14, 2008 at 11:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hello Terry,

Theres is a lot of war and violence in out world. I am just saying that more war and violence does solve the problem. Iraq was run by a muderous tryannt and he killed his own people. The same thing is happening in Sudan. The same thing happened when Wast Timor voted for idependence from Indonesia.

Going to war does not solve that problem. It only causes more problems. Iraq is still a problem. I wish it was not. I wish we where greeted as liberators and that everyone was safe and happy.

I wish we could go into to Georgia and Russia would go home peacefully. I wish the peacekeepers in Sudan could stop the problems in Darfur. I wish the people of Zimbabwe did not have to give their lives to try for democratic elections.

These are all horrible events. Going to war does not solve these issues. I am willing for our government to try something different. Something different may not work, but it is not going to be worse.

I also am a big beliver in the golden rule. I do not want other countries threaten us with violence, so I believe we should not threaten them.

Jeremiah

Posted by truthbtold on August 14, 2008 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Terry you are a piece of work. From Rush's "Oxy's" mouth to your ears and out your mouth with nothing in between

Posted by TruthDetector on August 14, 2008 at 11:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

To the Kitsap Sun opinion page staff:

Well, you're making progress. I see you have added links to yesterday's letters. Perhaps now you can add titles that are a bit more descriptive of the content than "No headline - hamilton_cck."

Posted by mrousnr on August 14, 2008 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

mcolborn,
Kim Jong Il is that man for the North Koreans. They are unified, they have no divisive politics. This is what you want, a great utopia where we all get along.
Maybe Obama is that man for the US, he does promise “change” without definition. Communism would be a change.
So you are pro-life, and OK with killing innocent babies (Obama thinks that is OK, it is only a choice after all), but are upset at our killing of guilty terrorists. Great standard of morals, I sure don’t share those. I stand for the innocent FIRST.

Posted by jodaddy on August 14, 2008 at 11:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

canard,

I think that McCain should be excused. Who could resist a woman who owns a beer company?

Posted by mrousnr on August 14, 2008 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jeremiah,
Here is a scenario for you:
A violent street gang moves into your neighborhood.
By your standard, we should not threaten them, so they will leave you alone.
The police should keep their distance, and should not threaten, in fact they should dis-arm as a show of good faith.

Well, we just applied your version of the golden rule. I’m sure the violent street gang will change their ways and become your great friends and neighbors now...

Pretty ridiculous to anyone with a brain, but that in essence is your peace plan for foreign relations. Thugs DO NOT respect weakness, they ONLY stand down when faced with SUPERIOR FORCE. That means we threaten them, with the hopes they will remain peaceful.
Just like your local police. How effective would the police be without any firepower? “Stop or I’ll say Stop again” has been proven ineffective at keeping the peace.

Posted by jlambrecht on August 14, 2008 at 11:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Elliott: Good Grief. Are you trying to cost your guy the election. If he reads comments that suggest that he compares favorably to Lincoln, he may start believing them and this high octane boost to his already exaggerated self image might turn off even his most fervent admirers.

Posted by Tubes_HSN on August 14, 2008 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Elliott
Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think Abe was ever a senator. He did have more political experience than Obama.

I am ok if Obama makes it or McCain but these men are just men and not saviors.
Let us be honest, if Barrack is a unifier, where is the evidence. I can't find one thing that he has tried to unify. If he reached across the isle even once, I missed it.
I suppose the hope he offers the U.S. is the same hope the democratic party offers, but beyond that I see the same old politician. McCain may have been at it longer but these men are the same. I am going to sit this one out. May God bless America and have mercy on us all.

Posted by mrousnr on August 14, 2008 at 12:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Canard,
You don’t care about the rights of Women!
The Clinton case was about SEXUAL HARASSMENT, of women!!
He DID IT! He lied under oath about it, and directly to all of us!
It was not merely an immoral act of infidelity, it was a crime, and he lost his law license over this deal.
Trying to equate this to McCain, is more than a stretch, it is purely ridiculous, and makes you lose any credibility with anything else you say. A bit of advice: don’t defend the indefensible; don’t drink the cool aid; and don’t go out and make comparisons, where there are NO similarities.

Posted by Elliott on August 14, 2008 at 12:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

TerryB and TruthDetector,
Lincoln had little or no experience, and yet he was one of our greatest presidents. The current president also had little or no experience, and has been by many estimations one of the worst in our history. So experience is not a determining factor when deciding which candidate might be a better president.

Mrousnr,
I don't hate McCain, nor do I love Obama. Grow up.

Posted by 2barkers on August 14, 2008 at 12:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Iam with Tubes_HSN. I will sit this 1 out for lack of an inspiring leader who I can somewhat trust with my future.

Posted by Punkinhead on August 14, 2008 at 12:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually,
Terry is probably one of the most level headed debaters in all of these blogs. He generally doesn't resort to name calling and personal attacks like the rest of us...give the guy a break for being logical instead of just thinking with his heart...

Posted by BioProf on August 14, 2008 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Look at where "experience" has gotten us. The current administration is loaded with experience going all the way back to the Nixon White House.

Give me good judgement over this brand of experience any day. Ugh!

Posted by mrousnr on August 14, 2008 at 12:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Elliot,
Ever an elitist snob.
You call others “Obama haters” and expect the rest of us to accept your label, but you sure don’t like it being reflected back at you.
You are quite a propaganda machine, you pump out thousands of posts, with almost pure distortion or outright lies, then accuse everyone else of doing just that.
Then my favorite quote: “grow up”, OK, you are telling ME to grow up! That is so mature of you, O master propaganda guy!
I can go on and on with how I have done plenty of growing up, including various careers and leadership positions and qualifications, including Navy leadership. I’m quite confident it is not I that needs to “grow up”.
Oh, I almost forgot, I need to add: “it appears” to any line above that might appear “judgmental”. I don’t want to get you rolling on that path again!

Posted by KDL on August 14, 2008 at 12:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

WORST.
PRESIDENT.
EVER.

Chapter II

Goodbye super power status.

Hello cold war!

Posted by smoga on August 14, 2008 at 1:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Terry -

Since you seem to have a lot of time on your hands could write a couple of paragraphs about your "democrat" credentials? - say, the last time you actually voted for a Democrat candidate.

Your reasons for backing McCain seem to boil down to: He won't touch my pocketbook and he will continue and expand the gung-ho, in-your-face, American interventionist policies that got us into the quagmire in Iraq.

My only question is: Who is going to pay for this "world stabilization"? We are not paying for it now.

Certainly you do not want to, I am sure you would prefer that my children, and their children pay the bill. It is McCain's avowal to continue the deficit policies of the Bush. It is precisely for this reason, that I could not vote for McCain.

Posted by Punkinhead on August 14, 2008 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Terry,
I am leaning towards McCain...but, it will all depend on how he carries himself here on out. I DO like Obama though...unfortunately, we need more than just "Change"...HOW are we going to change? That's what I want to know.

Posted by KDL on August 14, 2008 at 2:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Terry, you do have the responsibility of covering the checks that this country writes. But you're not. We are not. Who's going to pay for this "war on terror" if it's not you and me? (don't get me started on "war on terror." The terrorists, for the most part, were Saudi nationals, and they are now hiding in AFGHANISTAN while Bin Laden runs free).

And by the way, I pay taxes that support schools, also, and I don't have any kids. That's the way this socitety is set up. We are investing in the country as a whole, not individual children.

KDL
Republican voting for Obama

Posted by KDL on August 14, 2008 at 2:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't have any love for the tax structure of this country either. It's too complicated and convoluted. It's filled with loopholes and invitations to work the system or just plain cheat. But that's an entirely different discussion. The point here is that we either spend less or tax more. It can't be spend more and tax less. That's as basic as math gets and I'm quite sure you understand the numbers.

Terry, I do believe that you're a good guy, no need to defend yourself. I just ask that you look around. Do you like the path that this country is on? Are we in a better position now than 8 years ago? I don't think there's any serious argument to be made that we are. I don't believe we can stay on this course for another 4 years, so I do not care if Obama's entire energy policy is based on the fact that keeping your tires properly inflated will help you get better gas mileage. That would be more of an energy policy than the current administrtion has, and I believe that McCain will keep us on that same path.

Peace.

Posted by smoga on August 14, 2008 at 2:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Terry -

You cannot and do not answer how McCain is going to pay for his "Stronger American Stance" all you have to offer is more Republican fear mongering.

Yeah, elect McCain, he's going to stop those terrorist from attacking Central Kitsap Junior High. It's really high up there on the list of targets.

I am not the one moaning about their taxes, (you have time and time again) Obliviously YOU are only interested in paying taxes toward what directly affects you.

The bulk of the current deficit is from the Bush tax cuts and not from the joke that is the "war on terror"

Posted by janebedinger on August 14, 2008 at 3 p.m. (Suggest removal)

TerryB,

What is McCain planning to do about the exploding budget deficit, if he doesn't have plans to increase revenues in some way?

You mention "stronger American military stance" without mentioning how your candidate plans to pay for this, especially since we are already dangerously in debt. How much wider a stance are you talking about? More pre-emptive aggression? You also make the assumption that this "stance" will prevent the need for further interventions. My cursory glance at history says that the more militarized a country is, the more likely it will intervene and also attract aggressors.

Since his military and foreign policy is twin to Bush's [since he was deeply involved in making the Iraq foreign policy], and since most Americans think Iraq was a mistake, why do you think Americans should vote to continue that failed policy?

What is McCain's plan to fund Social Security? Nice of him to collect his share -- with his rich wife, I'm sure he needs it. In 2003, McCain voted to use Social Security funds to pay off federal debt. Is he going to keep this up? He has said "no new taxes" but he's also said repeatedly that "everything include rate hikes" is on the table.

The idea that the Bush/McCain war on terror has the capacity to keep my kids safe at school is laughable. A top-notch education is going to protect them a lot more than imaginary body guards. In other words, I'm much more afraid of the dangers of a plummeting economy than a dirty bomb.

Posted by retardedjeremiah on August 14, 2008 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am little late responding to mrousnr. If a violent gang moved into my neighbor hood. Put I reserve the right to arm myself and for the police to do there job. I would not go out and threaten a violent gang and I would not attack them.

None of this really matters because foriegn policy has nothing to do with how to deal with gangs. They are different things. As you can see by our current situations, superior force does not make thugs stand down. They continue to fight.

Posted by Elliott on August 14, 2008 at 3:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

TerryB,

When John McCain sings "bomb bomb Iran" in response to questions about that country, one can see why the Iranians might feel the need to arm themselves.

Posted by dahl on August 14, 2008 at 4:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

canard,

"At least he made an effort to make some INTELLIGENT comments."

Which were, "ah", "ah". Could that be short for allah?

Posted by BioProf on August 14, 2008 at 4:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Terry
I appreciate your reasons for supporting John McCain. I voted for him too the first time he ran, and I believe him to be an honorable decent man.

What can you do for smoga's kids and my kid? You can agree to help pay the bills the Iraq War has run up, and if that means higher taxes so be it. The "Pottery Barn" Rule applies. We broke it; we pay for it. We have no business passing this cost to future generations.

Iran wouldn't be as much of a problem if we were in a position to deal with them effectively. Iraq policy has weakened us financially and morally. Want to fight a war on terror? Me too. Should have gone full bore after the people who attacked us on 9/11.

Had we done the smart thing and elected John McCain when he could have done us the most good: 9/11 might not have been prevented. If not, it would have been Osama bin Laden swinging at the end of a rope instead of Saddam Hussein. I doubt the deficit would be as crippling as it is now. But if my aunt had wheels she'd be a tea-cart, you know what I'm saying?

Right now, the Bush administration seems to be following a lot of the policies Obama proposed and which they had previously ridiculed. We're negotiating with terrorists and talking about withdrawing from Iraq. Which all goes to show, it probably doesn't matter a tinker's dam who gets elected. As a wise man once said: "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss."

Cheers
- Bio

Posted by janebedinger on August 14, 2008 at 4:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

TerryB,

I did not say terrorism is laughable; I said our "war on terror" has been laughable. Perhaps you could read more closely before launching another self-serving rant. But that's so much easier than answering my questions.

Do you really believe that you are something special because you still get angry about 9/11? Lots of people are still angry that the terrorists were Saudis, and Bush did nothing to his Saudi pals, and bin Laden is still free after SEVEN wasted years! Oh yeah, I'm pretty mad at Bush and McCain for their ill-considered, money-wasting, life-wasting attack on Iraq. Funny, New Yorkers support Obama by a wide margin.

If we were soooooo worried about Iran, why did we destabilize the country that was holding them in check? McCain's threats to bomb Iran were very helpful, very presidential.

It's hard to beat an unprovoked invasion of a major oil country by the world's largest oil consumer as the biggest threat to world oil and world war. Resulting in over 4000 dead and tens of thousands injured, all with the planning and blessings of dear loving Papa McCain.

Israel? Oh, you mean in addition to arming them to the teeth, providing billions in aid, and allowing them a completely free hand with Lebanon, I'm supposed to send my son to Iran to save them? No, I won't. How many Israelis fought on our side in Iraq? Zip, nada.

But regardless of all that, remind me again how McCain is going to pay for his programs and "military stance?"

Posted by rick57 on August 14, 2008 at 4:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow I thought the one thing we all agreed on is that our Government is broken and needs a complete overhaul. I have seen numerous blogs by both sides stating that fact. So excuse me for not understanding why the fact that Obama is not a product of the system we all say needs fixing is a negative thing. On the other hand McCain is the poster child of the system we all say is broken and now you neocons are changing your views. God forbid we elect someone who may reflect on what responses and action would be the best for the American people instead of a knee jerk bully who cares only for those who helped him into office. TerryB how about McCain arranging an online debate on Moveon.com, think he would go for that? Another thing I don't get is that Obama can not speak unless it written down, which is totally absurd although a tactic that McCain should use to prevent his campaign staff having to correct his misstatements on the fly.

Posted by dcr4ever on August 14, 2008 at 4:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This CPA has carefully read Obama's & the Congressional Democrat's tax plan. While Obama may not directly advocate a tax hike on those lower income folks, the Dems in Congress DO. They advocate a full repeal of the Bush tax cuts which affect anyone in the 25% bracket or higher (as proposed by the tax bill proposed by House Dem Charlie Wrangle, a bill that is widely regarded as the likely Dem tax plan if having no veto obstacles by the President (ie. Obama is elected)). Obama's tax plan would be IN ADDITION to the Congressional Dems desires from what I can tell (I've seen nothing to counter this by either group).

Yes, it's a real snooze to read, but you can bet on tax hikes for an overwhelming majority of americans, young and old, rich or "poor".... If you are married filing joint, and your taxable income is over about $63,000, you will be facing a minimum tax hike of about 15% based on their proposed legislation. So ask yourself who's in control of the tax hike- Congress or the Prez? I dare say the Dems in Congress will move forward like a freight train out of control....

Posted by rick57 on August 14, 2008 at 5:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So we just ignore the national debt? Whos fault is it we've done so poorly the last 2 terms. So now we are not worried about taken care of our business instead of leaving it for our kids and their kids? So lets worry about what the Dems may do and reelect the Repubs so they can continue with the fine job they have done .

Posted by mryan on August 14, 2008 at 5:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jaime, thanks for writing your letter, even though it is a font of disinformation as has been well written about by others before me. If you believe that an administration that’s voted in with a mandate to spend over $500 Billion per year on new pork programs is going to get all its lucre from the rich, you are relying on the same source that fed you the idea of the candidate’s rigorous legislative participation.

This Democrat candidate reminds me of Peron and I am concerned that he will take this nation down a similar path. The most disturbing utterance was July second speech when Barack Obama said, "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded." Hear it for yourself at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEhzvy... .

For what purpose would any President need a force of this nature other than to enforce his dictats on the people? It was for fear of such actions that Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act to limit military actions against civilians. Think Ceasar Chavez. Think Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Think Brown Shirts. I don’t believe this is the kind of change most people, including the ACLU, had in mind.

Anyone who believes that the mere acceptance of a paycheck should require them to give up their rights is wrong should not vote for Obama because he has already sold his soul to Big Labor with a promise that he will sign legislation that will deny you the right to a secret ballot on organizing elections.

Be safe. Vote for John McCain.

Posted by 2barkers on August 14, 2008 at 5:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

TOUCHE' - janebedinger well said!

Posted by janebedinger on August 14, 2008 at 5:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dcr,
Can you please point me to the specific tax plan that you are referencing?

Your comments don't reflect the analysis done by other people: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...
and http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics...
Which has the lion's share of McCain going to... wait for it... rich people like himself!!

Unlike Bush, who was ignorant of Congress and left it to Cheney to watch the henhouse, Obama [and McCain] know how Congress works.

Unlike Bush, who signed EVERYTHING given to him by his Republican legislature, Obama has said that he will require PAYGO, no new expenditures without explaining how it would be paid for.

I can only assume that you are referring not to Obama's plan but to various plans put forth by Charlie Rangle. You seem to assume that his plan would trump Obama's and that Obama would, Bush-like, rubber-stamp everything.

By this same logic, McCain's plan amounts to nothing unless there is a Republican sweep of Congress, so a vote for him is probably, in terms of taxes, a vote for continuing stalemate.

Yes, the vision of Congress like a freight train out of control is quite vivid... given the Bush years. But it's not clear how McCain is the answer.

Posted by BainbridgeClearCut on August 14, 2008 at 5:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How dare anyone from KCRP or Kitsap or the Universe speak ill of the Annointed One. Don't you know that Dalai Princess Di-bomber is the One. Curse on you and your tribe for even mentioning the One's name. All Heil to the One.

Posted by mrousnr on August 14, 2008 at 5:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jeremiah,
I guess you missed the point. If you arm yourself for defense, that is threatening the violent gang. This is similar to us being armed nationally. How do we threaten other countries? It is with our ARMED FORCES, their very existence.
Thugs, be it dictators or violent gangs and criminals have much in common.
Your plan to let the police do their job is parallel to our action against terrorists, like in Afghanistan and Iraq.
So which is it, should we fight the terrorists or not?
At first you sounded pacifist, but you actions locally are not pacifist.
The fight between good and evil will NEVER end. As long as people are imperfect there will be fights. We should at least support the good guys and allow them to dominate. There will never be utopia on earth, it would require perfect people and that is NOT possible.

Posted by dardena on August 14, 2008 at 5:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

janebedinger, you ask: "What is McCain planning to do about the exploding budget deficit, if he doesn't have plans to increase revenues in some way?"

Wouldn’t it be easier on the economy to just cut federal spending?

Gee, even if that failed, he could cut taxes and increase federal tax revenues the same way Kennedy, Bush I and Clinton did.

Just a thought.
Terry

Posted by R_Perish on August 14, 2008 at 5:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah Obama is the Man!! He has my vote!!

Posted by Elliott on August 14, 2008 at 6:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

TerryB,
You said “As usual you take the stance that the evil Republicans want to kill everybody.” -- Oh, really? Please show where I said anything of the kind. You’re just making that up, aren’t you?

You said “As usual, you alway cite the CIA efforts in Iran before the overthrow of the Shah. Guess what a lot of nations do this - the Soviets with GRU, Britian with MI6, etc - its the way the game is played.” -- Oh great. Now you’re trotting out the “all the other kids are doing it” excuse. C’mon, that’s so lame I quit letting my son get away with when he was eight years old. Are you eight years old? No? Then with all due respect, grow up.

You said “I guess Iran's attack on the United States and hostage (an embassy is sovereign soil) was just a college prank when the Farsi version of "Animal House" was released.” -- Your guess is wrong. If the taking of hostages was so bad and Iran is so evil, then why did your hero Ronald Reagan sell them arms just a few years later?

You said “I guess we should allow Iran to carry out its threat to wipe one of our allies off the face of the Earth” -- Once again, you guess wrong. The fact is that Iran can’t wipe anyone off the face of the earth. And in case you hadn’t noticed, the Israelis are perfectly capable of defending themselves.

You asked “Did you know John McCain has children serving in Iraq and Afghanistan?” -- No I didn’t, because his children are no longer there.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/f...

Posted by jodaddy on August 14, 2008 at 7 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Elliott,

Isn't "with all due respect, grow up" a contradiction?

Posted by rick57 on August 14, 2008 at 7:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

TerryB - The only thing "imaginary" is our efforts in Iraq are protecting us from terrorism. What you should be angry about is risking all those quality young lives for no good reason at all. Since the onset of this war the US had made untold thousands additional enemies who wish us harm. It is too funny for Bush to express outrage over Russia's recent action , but feels there is absolutely no comparison to our invasion of Iraq. We are just the "good guys" right?

Posted by IRONHORSE on August 14, 2008 at 7:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I wasn't going to weigh in on any of this as it's more of the same as it always is. Dog run over? Bush's fault. Salmonilla (sp) in your Corn Flakes? Bush's fault. Vote Obama and he alone will cure the world. But, with all but a few, you have started to convince me we're all wrong here. Who gives a damn about Israel? They don't send us oil or food. Iran with nukes? I don't care any more. They're not aimed at us. Terrorists? Why they haven't hit us since the towers. I don't think they're a threat to us any more. I'm tired of Bush spending money trying to protect us from an imaginary foe. It just doesn't make sense. Lets get out of Iraq. Who care if a few million Arabs bite the bullet, gas, or torture. They're just a bunch of nobodies and they don't live here anyway. Bring home the troops, take all our medicine, food, aide, and let them return to the way it was. It's their land, not ours.
I don't expect but a few to see my point and I certainly don't expect any shame. I don't think you have it in you. Nothing but the promise of the "messiah" for president stirs anything in you. Anyone else is wrong and that's that. I doubt if many of you have ever fought for anything in your life. God help us all if we ever really need to depend on you for a true committment. You blame Bush for everything that's you see as wrong. Who do we blame you on? Yep... some folks to be real proud of out there.

Posted by Elliott on August 14, 2008 at 7:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

TerryB,

Sorry, but you seem to be getting worked up again.

You said “your childish taunts” -- Another insult. I’ve told you several times before that I won’t get into an insult contest with you.

You said “you will diverge with more of the same liberal extremist dogma.” -- Another insult. See my previous comment.

You asked if it’s OK for Iran to “Threaten innocent nations with destruction?” -- I dunno. Why don’t you ask George Bush?

You asked if it’s OK for Iran to “Attack embasssies(ie nations) and take hostages?”. -- No. Does that justify an attack on Iran? No; if it didn’t justify an attack on Iran when it happened twenty-nine ago, it doesn’t justify one now. Reagan thought Iran was so dangerous that he sold them arms. Didn’t you claim he was one of our greatest president? Do you think he was wrong about Iran?

You asked if it’s OK for Iran to “Sponsor state terrorism and kill innocents through surogates?” -- No. And neither do the victims of Reagan’s pet terrorists the Contras in Central America.

You said “You've reached a plain of desperate thought and opinion that goes beyond reasonable comprehension. Enjoy the very strange trip your on. Please heed the warnings of Woodstock and "Don't eat the brown acid."” -- Gee, another insult. Why am I not surprised? You appear once again to be getting quite worked up, Terry. I’d be “astonished” if you didn’t need a nice, long vacation.

Posted by ColleenS on August 14, 2008 at 11:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Isn't it amazing that those who espouse "peace, tolerance, inclusiveness, openess" exhibit it the least? Usually an angry response. Name calling. Labeling. When angry and defensive, they're diatribes have substance. When pontificating their pie in the sky secular progressive mumbo jumbo, it's all symbolism over substance.

More than enough is known about Obama to give any thinking objective person all they need to easily discern that he exercises very poor judgement, and is transparently dishonest.

It takes a small mind to engage in the mob mentality of the Bush haters. It is amusing to watch their hypocrisy, but only briefly. More would be torture.

Posted by IRONHORSE on August 14, 2008 at 11:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

From a different LTE on littering:

"I undersatnd reporting dumpers of large loads of trash or drunk drivers, but seriously, reporting folks for littering? sounds like Bush has succeeded in creating a stasi like gestapo state."

I rest my case. Yep, blame Bush.

Posted by Elliott on August 15, 2008 at 7:54 a.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by retardedjeremiah on August 15, 2008 at 8:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If you guys want to talk about extremist dribble, you should look at your own comments. The comments aganst Obama are vague insults. The only people calling him the One and the Savior are angry coservatives. The people complaing about taxes do not know who is going to affected by them. The people calling him a leftist socialist extremist are obliously from the right. I am a socialist and Obama is much more conservative than I am.

If you want to talk about deifnitions of ideology. There is a ideaology that attacked liberalism. That is supportive of military intervention. That is upportive our greater state authority (patriot act, un warranted wire tapping). Do you want to know what that is called. It is called Facism. Look it up.

Posted by rick57 on August 15, 2008 at 9:47 a.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by janebedinger on August 15, 2008 at 10:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

TerryB,
Boy you REALLY don't like to answer questions directly, do you?

Instead of picking out a single word and twirling it into an off-topic hairball, why don't you explain to me how McCain plans to implement and fund his "wide stance," and how increased militarism is better than diplomatically working with allies?

After that, you can explain McCain's plan for social security.

I guess you simply could not parse my sentence about Israel. No, I do not think it is appropriate for US soldiers to act as agents for Israel. P.S. I have lots of family in the services. P.S., they think McCain is a bad coach.

Our military is not imaginary and their sacrifices are not imaginary, but they aren't doing anything to prevent a dirty bomb in a local school. I feel much less safe now than I did AFTER 9/11. I want our military to defend THIS democracy and OUR freedom first and foremost.

You want to suck up military glory like a drug. I want my candidate to actually govern THIS country for a change.

Posted by Elliott on August 15, 2008 at 11:10 a.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by janebedinger on August 15, 2008 at 11:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dardena,

Well, sure both candidates are going to have to cut somewhere -- but where?

That's the big problem.

Posted by cburrow on August 15, 2008 at 1:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

mryan, Obama’s reference to a “civilian national security force” was in the context of his call for expanding the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps and other peaceful public service programs, not to establishing paramilitary organizations as you suggest.

Listen to Obama’s full statement on national service at: http://www.volokh.com/posts/121645185...

The snippet cited in your alarmist post begins at about 16:40.

Posted by pcat on August 16, 2008 at 5:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

obama might win.I already have ski tickets for hell,cause it is going to freeze over,too.lololol

Posted by Olallapalooza on August 17, 2008 at 7:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh Puhhlease! I am so very tired of the righties saying that the lefties are the party of socialism, etc. Also, that they are the party of tax and spend, and the party of high taxes.

These are a continuation of the 80s version of "branding" that Newt Gingrich purposed direct from good old fashioned NLP. Think used car salesman techniques. (yeah, wikipedia NLP, if you really are interested in honesty- how does it feel to have been politically, and post-hypnotically influenced?)

Let's not even go to the place that the righties are the party of law and order- from their law, there is a strong nasty odor. How much corruption are we prepared to accept from our guys? No, we will just blame it on the dems- that way we don't really have to be about law now, do we?
What a joke!

Republicans (or should I say, modern republicans or whatever they are) have put this country into the highest debt with the largest government ever existing. On top of that, they continue to spend money in giveaways to multi-national corporations. How do they pay for that? Well, they cook the books and put it off on our kids, and grandkids, and great grandkids, to deal with.

Then, the folks in charge will use more propaganda to distract us. Obviously we have lost the white house this year, and we deserve to have lost it. Let's rebuild our party to what it is supposed to be. It is not like we are going to have any more taxes- we are so in the red it is ridiculous.

The word socialism, in the righties sense, has only to do with education, welfare, and small projects. It has nothing to do with the socialist ideas behind roads, utilities, law and order, and defense. The current give-away of our oil leases to sit and make the oil companies paper value larger is a huge one. How about the current lack of pro-basketball in our state?

If all of the "liberal" projects and programs that are hated were eliminated, it would only end 1/10 of the national debt, the rest would be rubber stamped approved by the "right wing" which has twisted our ideas. That is: giveaways to every ultra-rich corporation on the planet. (only a mild exaggeration) Oh,let's not forget the interest payments on the money our government has spent. (mostly on the multi-nationals)

My family has traditionally been republicans- for generations. The party has sickened me completely. It is nothing like it was- and dumping these stupid labels and techniques would be the first thing we would need to take the party back. Maybe then we can clean up some of the damage and maybe then get back to a smaller efficient government for our kids- or, maybe it will be great-grandkids by the time we clean it up.

And, our guys, should be the first to go to jail, and it should be us that puts them there. That is the only way we can be proud republicans again.

Posted by ColleenS on August 18, 2008 at 6:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I see my points have been clearly demonstrated. (surprised? not at all) It would be offensive if it wasn't so entertaining.

Yes, I made observations, and formed opinions, and shared them. Sounds like someone has a different opinion (that's all it is right?) and "reacted" to my expressing one differing from theirs. Again, isn't it amazing that those who espouse tolerance and inclusiveness demonstrate it the least?

I didn't vote for Bush. I would never vote for Obama.

Posted by mrousnr on August 19, 2008 at 12:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jeremiah,
I respect your honesty at admitting you are a socialist. Most on the left are not honest enough to tell us what they really think, since it is largely unpopular.
With that said, you might want to take a closer look at history. The Fascists, like Hitler were also Socialists. It was called the National Socialist Party. They became known as NAZIs. He led a Socialist government.
Virtually all forms of tyranny come on the political ideology that abolishes individual rights granted by a God, and institutes only group rights granted by a government, consisting of Men. The left almost completely falls in this category (Abortion is a perfect example). Pick your friends carefully, they won’t be honest like you to reveal their true intentions until they have a monopoly on power and you have no ability to stop them.

Posted by mrousnr on August 19, 2008 at 12:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama followers:

News flash, any decision that requires judgment and character is “Above his paygrade”.
I would like him to answer the question of when human life deserves protection, and how he can quote the bible about the “least amongst us” then think it is also OK to KILL the least amongst us. You can listen to his own pathetic words from his visit to the Church widely reported in the media. I’m no McCain fan, but he did a FAR superior job in that interview.

Posted by JimH on August 20, 2008 at 1:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

don't usually toss my 2 cents in on political stuff.. but got this in mail and thought it was .. well.. funny and sad at the same time.. as always, you're free to make up your own mind and do your own investigating on whether it's true or not..
*************************
*************************
FW: Best quote of the year so far...
From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate. That's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working. After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World, and fill the shoes of Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK and Ronald Reagan. 143 days. I keep leftovers in my refrigerator longer than that."

--Cindy McCain
************************************ …
From another source, some simple, but true numbers:

I know that some of you don't like to read long drawn out missives, so here's the executive summary.........
Congress Military

John McCain 9,490 days 22 years

Barack Obama 143 days 0

Posted by ColleenS on August 20, 2008 at 11:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

JimH....good illustrations! We have symbolism over substance vs substance over symbolism.

Apply the same criteria to your surgeon, your accountant, your lawyer....etc...etc.... hmmm.

Posted by Mars on August 23, 2008 at 9:35 a.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by Coco1 on August 23, 2008 at 2 p.m. (Suggest removal)

boy micheal, I think this country already woke up saying "Oh, my God! What have I done?" after electing Bush to a second term!

Posted by Chief on August 26, 2008 at 1:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jaime - Ignorance is bliss. Like most politicians, BHO (and spouse), is saying exactly what he has to do to get elected. Trying to smooth over previous retoric. The truth will be in the pudding if he gets elected and projects his socialist agenda. Good thing we have a democrat congress to help him along - right...