Voter confidence endorses O. Can you answer this

• Oh Obama lovers....it just keeps getting - better.............sm
  • Obama would not be able to pass the FBI background check... - votinginde
    • He already has. Hello? He is running for president. All sm - oldtimer
    • So how he can still be Senator then. Don't they have to pass an FBI check? Guess not. - ss
      • Senators, etc, don't have the same security clearance as - votinginde
        • Well they should have the same security clearance - ss
    • You're right there....... FBI investigation - won't happen......sm
      • Wrong. Where the he!! do you get your information? nm - oldtimer
        • It won't happen........ - sm
          • What part of he has already been investigated don't - you understand? nm
  • How did he become a Senator then? Did no know look into his background then? - ss
    • background check - sosogohome
      • Yeah and guess what the Bush family has tight ties with the Bin Ladin family.... - Just Looking
    • Senator versus presidency - sm
  • Every hour you spend trashing O is one less hour - You have to address the economy. sm
    • Exactly, you don't equate future president with - the economy? not surprised....nm
      • Sheep with flock mentality. - This already has been responded to below.
    • So, you don't equate Obama with economy? - then what's your concern? nm
      • Let me break this down for you. - You seem pretty confused. sm
        • Please address the 4 key points raised in terms of - MCCAIN'S economic plan. Got it?
        • Obama's economic plan....... - tax, tax, tax, tax, tax,....what a plan!!!
          • Voter confidence endorses O. Can you answer this - question directly, or not? nm
            • Sure........ - sm
              • another dodge. The question is about - McCain's policies. sm
  • desperate smear tactics. nm - tired of it
  • the saudi prince - "Palin"
    • saudi prince - sosogohome
    • That's all you got? Glad you're not running - keeps getting better.....nm
      • that thingy on his neck - "Palin"
        • I thought poster had remarked about Obama - involvement with ACORN.....
          • hmmm - "Palin"
            • I mean if you really want to talk Palin, I can give - you Biden on a platter......nm
              • so quit talking and start doing -- what's holding you - back -- the fact that you've got nothing!
        • This is what happens when you have no facts - to back yourself......
          • You mean like Sarah in the - in the couric interview?
            • Want to talk Palin vs Biden......fine with me... - what you got?
              • 35 years, experience, strength, command of issues. - What you got, besides attack dog? nm
                • Biden is Obama's harshest critic from the - begining.............sm
                  • I love Joe - "Palin"

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Way to go Michael Savage - way to go!

“You may say, oh, who listens to that guy Savage? What does an endorsement from him mean?

“It means more than you may imagine.

Savage said his endorsement means more than the backing of a dozen newspapers he mentioned, including the Los Angeles Times, Newsday, Chicago Tribune and New York Post, because his “daily circulation is larger than any one of these newspapers.

“I have millions of listeners,” he continued, “most of whom, by the way, are independents. In case you don’t know it, they’re not all conservatives. Most of my audience are independents and they have been waiting for some kind of a signal…

“I have put my own ego aside and I have to say what’s best for America.

“I’ll take my chances with the old war horse and even with Sarah Palin, who I’m not really a big fan of, by the way, over this naked Marxist revolutionary, because I don’t want to see what the next Pol Pot’s liable to do to the world.”

Link below

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/savage_endorses_mccain/2008/10/28/144993.html

Bush made frequent use of "signing statements" in order to get what he wanted, and not all of them were publicized at the time.  He would sign the bill and then add a little "P.S." that basically nullified it if Bush so chose.

If this vehicle is available to Obama, as well, then we may not know it for a while.

Frankly I do not see much good coming from the policies of the last 8 years. An out of sight deficit, home foreclosures, terrible price hikes and job losses, I can;t see the pluses in these. Has Iraq made us safer? My gut tells me no. If there had, in fact been weapons of mass destruction than I would feel differently. I think what has matterd the most protecting the US have been more careful survellience domestically in the form of airline survelliences and the like.

I think Obama has the potential to make some positive changes, domestically and worldwide as well. While there is no guarantee of that I really don't feel that McCain will do to much except to continue more or less to promote the same policies as in the last eight years. We can do better than that. The post 9/11 politics of fear are eating the country alive economically.  While there is never a guarantee that another terrorist attack will not occur, as they do every so often world-wide,  I think it is foolish to sink your economy and play on the fears of its people on the remote chance that another one 'might occur someday.'

I like the message of hope and change that Obama speaks of, and if elected I hope that he is able to achieve some of his goals.

CNN just reported in Raleigh, NC-- people standing in line for 2 hours, and opps, all the sudden there are no ballots....there they are.....they are wet and will not go through the machine, so just put those to the side and we'll run them later. 

Flyers going out saying if you are a dem then voting day is Nov 5.

If you are in college your parents will get taxed if you vote at school.

There seems to be a HUGE list of this kind of stuff.  And who benefits from a lower voter turnout?  Hmmm. 

First, let me say this testimony by a Cal State professor of economics pertaining to the proposed "cap-and-trade" program isn't light reading, but it isn't very long or overly technical, either. It's only a little over 3 pages, double-spaced with generous margins, and takes less than 10 minutes to read, especially since the whole first page is taken up with the economist's credentials and background which you can skip if you wish.

Second, we have to bring a certain mental framework to things like this, which I compare to digging the meat out of a walnut shell.  People like this don't typically use the kind of sensational language that we're accustomed to hearing on the news, and they tend to be rather polite and very low-key in the way they say things, especially when they're addressing a Congressional committee.

So nothing here is "bolded" or "underlined" in the way it's expressed, and ordinary reader like ourselves can easily miss the significance of what this economist is trying to tell the committee, which - if you want to cut right to the chase - is that "cap-and-trade" will destroy our economy.  Now, the economist uses somewhat less drastic terms but only SLIGHTLY less so, and if you simply think about the consequences of his predictions (which he expects the committee members to do), his meaning is quite clear. 

Cap-and-trade is admittedly INTENDED to make energy costs higher, on the theory that higher prices will induce reductions in energy use, hence pollution, etc., etc.  While this might sound like a good theory (odd, though, that those who support it are the very same people who laugh at "trickle-down" economics, which is exactly what this is, in reverse), it actually hides new taxes that consumers will ultimately pay for either directly or in the form of higher prices for literally everything because every good and every service includes an energy cost of one sort or another (and that, in turn, will also mean another layer of increased tax because you pay a higher sales tax when the price of anything goes up - a double whammy, in other words). At 8%, something that costs you $10 today = $10.80.  If the price goes up to $15, you pay $16.20 - which is not only a 50% increase in the price, but also a 50% tax increase on that item.  (It's critical to learn to think in percentages, and also to learn how prices are related to taxes!)

Cap-and-trade may just be the most horrendous idea ever to come down the pike.  This economist thinks so, calling it the "most anti-consumer" idea proposed to any Congress in our history.  This has nothing whatsoever to do with any political party.  It's simply another example of the absolute madness that seems to grip Washington these days - and members of both parties are afflicted with this insanity.

So, as always, here's the link for those who wish to paste it into their browsers, and it's also in the clickable link below.  This is a PDF file and I can assure you that there's no virus risk.

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/robert-michaels-testimony-april-23-2009.pdf

.    

suburb up the road says farmer is an ignorant redneck who does not check facts.

I'm just a working stiff who relies on the government for certain things, one of which is to preserve my right to vote and for my vote be counted.  It's just wrong that Democratic delegates will not be seated in the state of Florida (for whatever reason).  It's obvious there needs to be some major reconstruction somewhere... gosh... where to start... Very, very upset about this.