VOTE tomorrow!

[Tammer in Philly]

I voted the first day of early voting here in Texas. I still had to wait in line for 45 minutes.

In a related note, Palin flew from the Midwest to Wasilla to cast her vote, then is turning around and flying to Arizona. I just assumed she would vote absentee. The reporter in Wasilla for MSNBC stated that Palin commented that it would be a good photo op for her to be in Wasilla. Seems like a waste of time and money, but who knows?

So those of you waiting 3-4 hours today, thanks, but at least you aren't spending 10-12 hours on a plane just to vote.

It's okay, they can just drill for more oil so people can just make more useless trips.

-tammer (trying really hard to keep my own political views out of this thread)

[JoshInAtlanta]

I arrived a few minutes early (6:45 am). Almost completely full lot at an elementary school... snaked around the halls in the building. At 8:45 I was walking back out the door... grabbed my Chik-fil-A and made it to work on time.

[twin55]

In line at 5:45am, voted at 7:17am.

[stuartinmn]

Big crowds at my polling place. I normally can get there a little before 7am and be out by 7:20, but today I wasn't finished until 8:40. The line of people stretched out the door and down the street for two full city blocks. At least we're having nice weather today so it was a pleasant morning to be outside.

[dolomiti]

I voted the first day of early voting here in Texas. I still had to wait in line for 45 minutes.

In a related note, Palin flew from the Midwest to Wasilla to cast her vote, then is turning around and flying to Arizona. I just assumed she would vote absentee. The reporter in Wasilla for MSNBC stated that Palin commented that it would be a good photo op for her to be in Wasilla. Seems like a waste of time and money, but who knows?

So those of you waiting 3-4 hours today, thanks, but at least you aren't spending 10-12 hours on a plane just to vote.

It's okay, they can just drill for more oil so people can just make more useless trips.

-tammer (trying really hard to keep my own political views out of this thread)

To be fair, I think it is silly for Biden to fly to DE and then to Illinois. If absentee is good enough for our service members (and ex-pats) it should be good enough for candidates.

[rlomba8204]

We voted absentee.

This is not politically correct, but I will say it anyway: There are many people voting this year because they believe they will have greater ability to get things for free, things that they have not earned but things to which they feel they are entitled nevertheless. I hope those people stay home.

Oh, and like there aren't certain other famous politicians who burn prodigious amounts of jet fuel flying all about? There are no winners on that argument -- most of these folks are full of BS on that score.

[dolomiti]

"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich."

"There is an inverse relationship between reliance on the state and self-reliance.”

I think Mr. Buckley would be saddened by both choices this year. I think he would also be saddened with the anti-intellectual movement that is so pervasive in the party that he did so much to create.

[rlomba8204]

"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich."

"There is an inverse relationship between reliance on the state and self-reliance.”

I think Mr. Buckley would be saddened by both choices this year. I think he would also be saddened with the anti-intellectual movement that is so pervasive in the party that he did so much to create.

It all depends upon what you mean by "anti-intellectual." I'll leave it at that.

[Tammer in Philly]

We voted absentee.

This is not politically correct, but I will say it anyway: There are many people voting this year because they believe they will have greater ability to get things for free, things that they have not earned but things to which they feel they are entitled nevertheless. I hope those people stay home.

Oh, and like there aren't certain other famous politicians who burn prodigious amounts of jet fuel flying all about? There are no winners on that argument -- most of these folks are full of BS on that score.

I see what you're insinuating, and I'll only respond that Obama is carrying more of the white vote as of last night's polls than Clinton did.

-tammer

[rlomba8204]

I am not insinuating anything Tammer. With all due respect, it is the left that sees nothing but race, as illustrated by your comment. Moreover, the desire to seek freebies extends across all racial groupings, unfortunately, and for most African American voters is probably a far less relevant consideration than the fact that they are excited by the prospect of a black man becoming president. Given this country's history (and progress), I can't blame them, although I disagree with the judgment.

Why is it that substantive political criticisms must always be cast as "racist"? I understand that my views are not in fashion this electoral season, but I think people who know me well enough know that they are not motivated by prejudices regarding race. My views are motivated by reasoning, observation, knowledge, and an understanding of the world as it is, not as one hopes it would be.

[Shawn D.]

This is not politically correct, but I will say it anyway: There are many people voting this year because they believe they will have greater ability to get things for free, things that they have not earned but things to which they feel they are entitled nevertheless. I hope those people stay home.

I see what you're insinuating, and I'll only respond that Obama is carrying more of the white vote as of last night's polls than Clinton did.

I don't think he's insinuating. To wit: "I won't have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage."

[dolomiti]

"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich."

"There is an inverse relationship between reliance on the state and self-reliance.”

I think Mr. Buckley would be saddened by both choices this year. I think he would also be saddened with the anti-intellectual movement that is so pervasive in the party that he did so much to create.

It all depends upon what you mean by "anti-intellectual." I'll leave it at that.

Well what do you mean by anti-intellectual? I think that if someone like Buckley came along, who inexplicably spoke with the Queen's accent, summered in France, and used words like he read a thesaurus in his free time, wouldn't fit the "guy I want to have a beer with" or "joe the plumber" or even the "i grew up in Scranton and spend a lot of free time in Home Depot in Dover (WTF?)" mold. If you are a Buckley (or Adlai Stevenson) you are suddenly an out of touch elitist.

I am sorry, but there is a reason why Thomas Jefferson should be president and not Joe the sharecropper.

[Tammer in Philly]

This is not politically correct, but I will say it anyway: There are many people voting this year because they believe they will have greater ability to get things for free, things that they have not earned but things to which they feel they are entitled nevertheless. I hope those people stay home.

I see what you're insinuating, and I'll only respond that Obama is carrying more of the white vote as of last night's polls than Clinton did.

I don't think he's insinuating. To wit: "I won't have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage."

Well, there are certainly idiots all around. I think the turnout for this campaign is because there is a truly substantive difference in the candidates' messages and policies on everything from the economy to the war to education to health care. For once, it's not just two rich spoiled kids who got mediocre grades at Ivy Leagues they were legacied into. Also, the sour economy tends to make people more politically aware in general ... it's easier to sit at home and let things lie when you're doing very well personally. Unfortunately, many people in this country only consider it a duty to vote if they are personally hurting. However, I'm certainly not casting a ballot for Obama because I think I'll somehow be rich of someone else's money.

Anyone who thinks Obama is a socialist should think that Reagan was, too. The last democratic President was the one that pushed through a meaningful welfare reform, and marginal tax rates under Reagan were higher than Obama is proposing. As I recall, it was Bush I who raised taxes as well. Too bad he got pilloried for it, because it was the right thing to do at the time ... unlike his moronic son, he realized that you shouldn't fund a war by going even deeper into debt. He also realized that war shouldn't be preemptory, and that occuptions cost more in life, currency, and reputation than they're worth. Too bad that first apple fell very far from the tree; Bush I wasn't a bad President. Most people are coming out to voice their dissatisfaction with Republican leadership, not to line their pockets.

I'd argue that anyone in the top 0.5% income bracket who votes for McCain is doing the same thing but to a larger degree, since they stand to gain much more on an individual basis than the bottom 40% of taxpayers who will see an extra $300-400/year under Obama's plan vs. McCain's.

-tammer

[rlomba8204]

Well what do you mean by anti-intellectual? I think that if someone like Buckley came along, who spoke inexplicably spoke with the Queen's accent, summered in France, and used words like he read a thesaurus in his free time, he wouldn't fit the "guy I want to have a beer with" or "joe the plumber" or even "i grew up in Scranton and spend a lot of free time in Home Depot in Dover (WTF?)." If you are a Buckley (or Adlai Stevenson) you are suddenly an out of touch elitist.

I am sorry, but there is a reason why Thomas Jefferson should be president and not Joe the sharecropper.

Dolomiti:

I am a bit confused by your quote structure, but hopefully I have deciphered it correctly.

I will amplify my comments by saying this: Yes, Buckley was certainly an intellectual. But one needn't be an intellectual to have intelligence and be able to exercise sound judgment. And while a degree or certain other academic / professional "credentials" can be an indicia of intelligence, they are not a prerequisite. I have dealt with many idiots within what is allegedly a "learned" profession and have met many intuitively intelligent people outside of it. Deciding on someone's "merits" is best made on a person by person basis. Such is the case when you treat people as individuals.

Tammer: I am not going to argue substantive policy with you. This is not the place, generally speaking. I find it interesting that you are defending preemptively what has not been attacked, at least not here. Again, I'll leave it at that.

Ray

[Tammer in Philly]

Well what do you mean by anti-intellectual? I think that if someone like Buckley came along, who inexplicably spoke with the Queen's accent, summered in France, and used words like he read a thesaurus in his free time, wouldn't fit the "guy I want to have a beer with" or "joe the plumber" or even the "i grew up in Scranton and spend a lot of free time in Home Depot in Dover (WTF?)" mold. If you are a Buckley (or Adlai Stevenson) you are suddenly an out of touch elitist.

I am sorry, but there is a reason why Thomas Jefferson should be president and not Joe the sharecropper.

I want to give a HUGE PLUS ONE to this. This is my primary reason for voting against the republican party in this election. I cannot bear the attacks on intellectualism, basically damning anyone who busts ass for a good education as "too good" to lead. It is the most damaging, most asinine, most discouraging drumbeat I've heard in my life. And it is the most hypocritically-applied argument, as well.

Bush II, the Dim Son, was legacied into Yale as the son of a Senator, where he would have failed if it weren't for the standard Ivy grade inflation. He was admitted was by his name to Harvard, and with an MBA from that prestigious institution, was only marginally successful (being kind here) in the business world. So this guy with two Ivy League degrees, this guy who was born into privilege in Connecticut, moves to Texas, develops a drawl, and all of a sudden he's just a-one of us good-ole-boys. McCain, the son and grandson of Navy Admirals, goes to the Academy where he is a famous fuck-up, loses three planes of which one is considered an at-fault loss and one is dubious, and enters Congress. He ditches his first wife after she's disfigured in a car wreck and marries into money. He's just a good-ole-boy too. But Obama, that guy who was raised by a single mom for most of his life, attended public schools, went to college on loans, got decent--not great--grades, but did well enough on the LSAT to get into Harvard Law and does well enough there to win numerous awards, he's an intellectual elitist who is out of touch.

The way I see it being used by Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, Rove, and other bottom-feeding scum is this: if you provide an argument to them that they cannot rationally respond to, you are an intellectual elitist. That's it. It's a huge cop-out, and it gets millions of rabid, irrational people fired up about voting against those east-coast liberals who want to take away your guns and money. Absolutely ridiculous.

I think the President should be someone of exceptional intellect, above-average speaking skills, great political and historical knowledge, and familiarity with how his constituency lives and works. Joe the Plumber can fix my toilet and earn his $80/hour, that's fine with me and he'll probably make more than I will teaching at a small college. But I'll be damned if he's going to be setting policy on my watch.

-tammer

[alijonny]

I like you guys and I like this country. I like to be American. I plead the 5th. now about BMW's...

[Ken H.]

Suburban Denver. In 2004 the media had an armpit worked up over the low voter turnout. The election officials were grumpy because no one was there.
Fast Forward to 2008. The media are having a shit-fit because there are 2+ hour lines and the election workers are grumpy because they are "overworked."
Go figure.

[rlomba8204]

So much for restraint.

The way I see it being used by Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, Rove, and other bottom-feeding scum is this: if you provide an argument to them that they cannot rationally respond to, you are an intellectual elitist. That's it. It's a huge cop-out, and it gets millions of rabid, irrational people fired up about voting against those east-coast liberals who want to take away your guns and money. Absolutely ridiculous.

This is simply a breathtaking generalization. Your partisan zeal is getting the best of your considerable intellect. I assure you that I can respond comprehensively to any argument that you can make. I just choose not to do so here.

I like you guys and I like this country. I like to be American. I plead the 5th. now about BMW's...

Yes, let's get back to the cars.

[stuartinmn]

I'll be glad when tomorrow comes and all you guys will stop arguing about this stuff for the next four years....

[w0014170]

Well what do you mean by anti-intellectual? I think that if someone like Buckley came along, who inexplicably spoke with the Queen's accent, summered in France, and used words like he read a thesaurus in his free time, wouldn't fit the "guy I want to have a beer with" or "joe the plumber" or even the "i grew up in Scranton and spend a lot of free time in Home Depot in Dover (WTF?)" mold. If you are a Buckley (or Adlai Stevenson) you are suddenly an out of touch elitist.

I am sorry, but there is a reason why Thomas Jefferson should be president and not Joe the sharecropper.

I want to give a HUGE PLUS ONE to this. This is my primary reason for voting against the republican party in this election. I cannot bear the attacks on intellectualism, basically damning anyone who busts ass for a good education as "too good" to lead. It is the most damaging, most asinine, most discouraging drumbeat I've heard in my life. And it is the most hypocritically-applied argument, as well.

Bush II, the Dim Son, was legacied into Yale as the son of a Senator, where he would have failed if it weren't for the standard Ivy grade inflation. He was admitted was by his name to Harvard, and with an MBA from that prestigious institution, was only marginally successful (being kind here) in the business world. So this guy with two Ivy League degrees, this guy who was born into privilege in Connecticut, moves to Texas, develops a drawl, and all of a sudden he's just a-one of us good-ole-boys. McCain, the son and grandson of Navy Admirals, goes to the Academy where he is a famous fuck-up, loses three planes of which one is considered an at-fault loss and one is dubious, and enters Congress. He ditches his first wife after she's disfigured in a car wreck and marries into money. He's just a good-ole-boy too. But Obama, that guy who was raised by a single mom for most of his life, attended public schools, went to college on loans, got decent--not great--grades, but did well enough on the LSAT to get into Harvard Law and does well enough there to win numerous awards, he's an intellectual elitist who is out of touch.

The way I see it being used by Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, Rove, and other bottom-feeding scum is this: if you provide an argument to them that they cannot rationally respond to, you are an intellectual elitist. That's it. It's a huge cop-out, and it gets millions of rabid, irrational people fired up about voting against those east-coast liberals who want to take away your guns and money. Absolutely ridiculous.

I think the President should be someone of exceptional intellect, above-average speaking skills, great political and historical knowledge, and familiarity with how his constituency lives and works. Joe the Plumber can fix my toilet and earn his $80/hour, that's fine with me and he'll probably make more than I will teaching at a small college. But I'll be damned if he's going to be setting policy on my watch.

-tammer

Normally I agree with your post's but this is non-sense.

The Presidency and other high offices are begging for what is an overused term, a "minority" candidate. And I agree, but not this guy, he is tainted by radical associations and beliefs, does not tell the truth about his associations with those that would see this country destroyed, or in his and his wifes statement "change for the better the way WE envision America."

As stated earlier, the "turn-out" for this vote is more about "our man" than any real knowledge of the issues and candidates. I asked a couple guys why and was told "cause he is one of us and it's our time". Yea, that's knowledge at it's best.

I agree with your assessment that a change from the past is a necessity. It should be about substance and not sizzle.

Name calling I would think is below your level of education & intelligence; you can understand why I'm surprised you indulged in the practice. What kills me about this political belief, is you and others believe that within the Democratic party, you've had enough of the Clintons (fallen from grace?) and wanted no more of that, yet you pick a known radical, gifted as a scripted speech giver, married to a true racist with an "elitist" education and somehow rationalize the choice with logic. I'm surprised Tammer by your choice, there were better qualified Democrats capable of the nomination than this guy.

I'm pleased I've amassed enough income in the last 30 years to sit out the potential disaster that might occur if he is elected and runs unchecked in the office, through ignorance or bliss.

He is the wrong choice for America

Doug

[dolomiti]

I'm surprised Tammer by your choice, there were better qualified Democrats capable of the nomination than this guy.

I agree with that...let's start with Jim Webb.

Can't you agree that some moderate republicans were turned off by the choice of Palin? I was firmly in McCain's camp and was just waiting for McCain to go with a running mate like Graham, Hagel, Crist, or Pawlenty. If he wanted to pander to women he could have went with someone deserving like Hutchison or Rice. African American? How about J.C. Watts or Colin Powell. Hell, he could have picked Joe Scarborough and I would still have been on board.

[wkohler]

I voted the first day of early voting here in Texas. I still had to wait in line for 45 minutes.

In a related note, Palin flew from the Midwest to Wasilla to cast her vote, then is turning around and flying to Arizona. I just assumed she would vote absentee. The reporter in Wasilla for MSNBC stated that Palin commented that it would be a good photo op for her to be in Wasilla. Seems like a waste of time and money, but who knows?

So those of you waiting 3-4 hours today, thanks, but at least you aren't spending 10-12 hours on a plane just to vote.

It's okay, they can just drill for more oil so people can just make more useless trips.

-tammer (trying really hard to keep my own political views out of this thread)

Yeah, like taking a trip to Europe to tour as "Acting President."

I voted by absentee ballot. I received one completely in Spanish, but fortunately I knew what everything was.

I don't think I can take anyone's advice on anything seriously if they cast their ballot for a certain candidate who will remain nameless. If their logic is that flawed to not see how certain things he says don't add up and how talking points keep changing, especially considering his obvious disdain for the United States, How can I tell your reasoning isn't flawed elsewhere?

That's all I'm going to say, as I'm sitting in a grocery store right now, since I have no internet at home.

[mosportgreen66]

Voted... and it feels good!

[twin55]

Well what do you mean by anti-intellectual? I think that if someone like Buckley came along, who inexplicably spoke with the Queen's accent, summered in France, and used words like he read a thesaurus in his free time, wouldn't fit the "guy I want to have a beer with" or "joe the plumber" or even the "i grew up in Scranton and spend a lot of free time in Home Depot in Dover (WTF?)" mold. If you are a Buckley (or Adlai Stevenson) you are suddenly an out of touch elitist.

I am sorry, but there is a reason why Thomas Jefferson should be president and not Joe the sharecropper.

I want to give a HUGE PLUS ONE to this. This is my primary reason for voting against the republican party in this election. I cannot bear the attacks on intellectualism, basically damning anyone who busts ass for a good education as "too good" to lead. It is the most damaging, most asinine, most discouraging drumbeat I've heard in my life. And it is the most hypocritically-applied argument, as well.

Bush II, the Dim Son, was legacied into Yale as the son of a Senator, where he would have failed if it weren't for the standard Ivy grade inflation. He was admitted was by his name to Harvard, and with an MBA from that prestigious institution, was only marginally successful (being kind here) in the business world. So this guy with two Ivy League degrees, this guy who was born into privilege in Connecticut, moves to Texas, develops a drawl, and all of a sudden he's just a-one of us good-ole-boys. McCain, the son and grandson of Navy Admirals, goes to the Academy where he is a famous fuck-up, loses three planes of which one is considered an at-fault loss and one is dubious, and enters Congress. He ditches his first wife after she's disfigured in a car wreck and marries into money. He's just a good-ole-boy too. But Obama, that guy who was raised by a single mom for most of his life, attended public schools, went to college on loans, got decent--not great--grades, but did well enough on the LSAT to get into Harvard Law and does well enough there to win numerous awards, he's an intellectual elitist who is out of touch.

The way I see it being used by Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, Rove, and other bottom-feeding scum is this: if you provide an argument to them that they cannot rationally respond to, you are an intellectual elitist. That's it. It's a huge cop-out, and it gets millions of rabid, irrational people fired up about voting against those east-coast liberals who want to take away your guns and money. Absolutely ridiculous.

I think the President should be someone of exceptional intellect, above-average speaking skills, great political and historical knowledge, and familiarity with how his constituency lives and works. Joe the Plumber can fix my toilet and earn his $80/hour, that's fine with me and he'll probably make more than I will teaching at a small college. But I'll be damned if he's going to be setting policy on my watch.

-tammer

Normally I agree with your post's but this is non-sense.

The Presidency and other high offices are begging for what is an overused term, a "minority" candidate. And I agree, but not this guy, he is tainted by radical associations and beliefs, does not tell the truth about his associations with those that would see this country destroyed, or in his and his wifes statement "change for the better the way WE envision America."

As stated earlier, the "turn-out" for this vote is more about "our man" than any real knowledge of the issues and candidates. I asked a couple guys why and was told "cause he is one of us and it's our time". Yea, that's knowledge at it's best.

I agree with your assessment that a change from the past is a necessity. It should be about substance and not sizzle.

Name calling I would think is below your level of education & intelligence; you can understand why I'm surprised you indulged in the practice. What kills me about this political belief, is you and others believe that within the Democratic party, you've had enough of the Clintons (fallen from grace?) and wanted no more of that, yet you pick a known radical, gifted as a scripted speech giver, married to a true racist with an "elitist" education and somehow rationalize the choice with logic. I'm surprised Tammer by your choice, there were better qualified Democrats capable of the nomination than this guy.

I'm pleased I've amassed enough income in the last 30 years to sit out the potential disaster that might occur if he is elected and runs unchecked in the office, through ignorance or bliss.

He is the wrong choice for America
Doug

and the other one is the right choice?

[Karl Grau]

Line wasn't too long this morning (but is was raining).

I don't think I can take anyone's advice on anything seriously if they cast their ballot for a certain candidate who will remain nameless. If their logic is that flawed to not see how certain things he says don't add up and how talking points keep changing,

Remain nameless? C'mon Chris, it's obvious you're talking about McCain

[BDK]

The Presidency and other high offices are begging for what is an overused term, a "minority" candidate. And I agree, but not this guy, he is tainted by radical associations and beliefs, does not tell the truth about his associations with those that would see this country destroyed, or in his and his wifes statement "change for the better the way WE envision America."

Name calling I would think is below your level of education & intelligence; you can understand why I'm surprised you indulged in the practice. What kills me about this political belief, is you and others believe that within the Democratic party, you've had enough of the Clintons (fallen from grace?) and wanted no more of that, yet you pick a known radical, gifted as a scripted speech giver, married to a true racist with an "elitist" education and somehow rationalize the choice with logic. I'm surprised Tammer by your choice, there were better qualified Democrats capable of the nomination than this guy.

step away from FOX NEWS Doug, step away...

everything that you have said is straight from FOX NEWS...
none of it has any foundation,
it is all someone at FOX News (which is really McCain TV) opinion, or spin on the matter...or straight out lies...
that's how the Repubs work, and FOX NEWS,
they formulate a lie and then they repeat it until their less educated base recognizes it as fact...
They are still saying as of just a few minutes ago...
"Under Obama's plan every American down to $42K a year will see a tax increase"
when anyone who has turned the channel to any station besides FOX,
or who is smart enough to research it on their own, knows that the real tax increases start at $250K not $42k...
but still FOX and McCain still shout that everyday....
jsut because you say something over and over does not make it fact...

The America, we all know and want IS Broken and just because he wants to fix it doesn't make him a bad man...

If it's not broke don't fix it,
but if it is broke,
then fix it right and fix it once.....

[Blue Shadow]

"I still like Ike"
was the campaign button on the voter in line in front of me. On a Corvette sweatshirt.

So I voted, and voting is what this thread started out being about, not the political crap stuffed into it by folks that couldn't hold it and put it into a different thread so folks could avoid it if they wanted.

[Cory]

This whole thing reminds me of 1933 Germany. I was a Warsaw Ghetto Fighter in a past life so I know what I'm talking about.
Drinks are on me at "The Inn" in 5-ish hours.

[turbodan]

Well, there are certainly idiots all around. I think the turnout for this campaign is because there is a truly substantive difference in the candidates' messages and policies on everything from the economy to the war to education to health care. For once, it's not just two rich spoiled kids who got mediocre grades at Ivy Leagues they were legacied into. Also, the sour economy tends to make people more politically aware in general ... it's easier to sit at home and let things lie when you're doing very well personally. Unfortunately, many people in this country only consider it a duty to vote if they are personally hurting. However, I'm certainly not casting a ballot for Obama because I think I'll somehow be rich of someone else's money.

Anyone who thinks Obama is a socialist should think that Reagan was, too. The last democratic President was the one that pushed through a meaningful welfare reform, and marginal tax rates under Reagan were higher than Obama is proposing. As I recall, it was Bush I who raised taxes as well. Too bad he got pilloried for it, because it was the right thing to do at the time ... unlike his moronic son, he realized that you shouldn't fund a war by going even deeper into debt. He also realized that war shouldn't be preemptory, and that occuptions cost more in life, currency, and reputation than they're worth. Too bad that first apple fell very far from the tree; Bush I wasn't a bad President. Most people are coming out to voice their dissatisfaction with Republican leadership, not to line their pockets.

I'd argue that anyone in the top 0.5% income bracket who votes for McCain is doing the same thing but to a larger degree, since they stand to gain much more on an individual basis than the bottom 40% of taxpayers who will see an extra $300-400/year under Obama's plan vs. McCain's.

-tammer

I was hoping this thread wasn't going to degenerate into this kind of bullshit.

I disagree, and some of the statements and claims you've made against McCain are completely wrong. I'll leave it at that.

[w0014170]

The Presidency and other high offices are begging for what is an overused term, a "minority" candidate. And I agree, but not this guy, he is tainted by radical associations and beliefs, does not tell the truth about his associations with those that would see this country destroyed, or in his and his wifes statement "change for the better the way WE envision America."

Name calling I would think is below your level of education & intelligence; you can understand why I'm surprised you indulged in the practice. What kills me about this political belief, is you and others believe that within the Democratic party, you've had enough of the Clintons (fallen from grace?) and wanted no more of that, yet you pick a known radical, gifted as a scripted speech giver, married to a true racist with an "elitist" education and somehow rationalize the choice with logic. I'm surprised Tammer by your choice, there were better qualified Democrats capable of the nomination than this guy.

step away from FOX NEWS Doug, step away...

everything that you have said is straight from FOX NEWS...
none of it has any foundation,
it is all someone at FOX News (which is really McCain TV) opinion, or spin on the matter...or straight out lies...
that's how the Repubs work, and FOX NEWS,
they formulate a lie and then they repeat it until their less educated base recognizes it as fact...
They are still saying as of just a few minutes ago...
"Under Obama's plan every American down to $42K a year will see a tax increase"
when anyone who has turned the channel to any station besides FOX,
or who is smart enough to research it on their own, knows that the real tax increases start at $250K not $42k...
but still FOX and McCain still shout that everyday....
jsut because you say something over and over does not make it fact...

The America, we all know and want IS Broken and just because he wants to fix it doesn't make him a bad man...

If it's not broke don't fix it,
but if it is broke,
then fix it right and fix it once.....

I do not care for nor watch the news and have not for some years as they are all slanted one way or the other. That said, my thoughts are in fact mine, not a news agency. I am one of those disappearing individuals that tend to think for myself based on what I reasearch and not what the various "sheep" put out.

You have pointed out once again, that which I have said several times on this forum, that comments based on blind belief and necessity to belong to a group, not on your own research of the information available, or your own belief system, be it popular or not makes you another easy target for glib thought processes.

Now, based upon your statement concerning taxes, had you researched the information, the tax line has declined in the last couple weeks as follows: those below $250k, below $200k, below $150k, do you understand where this is going?

My America is not broken, it is in effect undergoing yet another assualt by those that prey upon the inability of individuals that can not think for themselves or make their own way because it's too hard & somebody has more than they have.

Regards


Doug