Digging Dirt on Obama

respectable candidate

I believe the universe is currently collapsing in on itself.

Actually, it is still expanding. We will have to wait a few billion years for that.

So the atoms of my body will partake in the expanding and collapsing of the universe. Is the collapsing thing a theory or a scientific fact?

I think most things are theories, even most facts. I'd call that a theory leaning toward fact.

Actually I think the scientific consensus is turning more and more toward an infinitely expanding universe, ending not in sudden collapse but in an eternally slow heat death.

But I think the phrase "I believe the universe is currently fading into an eternally slow heat death" doesn't quite have the same chutzpah, and probably would have confused the hell out of me and everyone, so I digress.

Research the Resko-Obama connection. There was a good piece on the front page of the Chicago Sun Times a few weeks ago. Look it up you will be much more informed and probable shocked.

Summary of the fifteen months of Sun Times investigation including links right here.

I wanted to ignore you, but other readers need to be aware of you deceptions.

1. Don't mislead people by saying you're posting a Chicago Sun Times article and then post a blog post by a Clinton supporter who does things like blame's Clinton's screw ups with regard to injecting race into the contest on Obama. Yup, an objective journalist we all should let decide our vote for us.
2. Stop creating new Newsvine identities to (a) give the illusion that there are many people who believe your crap and to (b) cover up your tracks so no one can identify your heavily partisan agenda and propoganda. I'm very pro-Obama, but anyone can see my entire record on Newsvine. It's utterly obvious you are also Serena-237984. I'd put money down that you are not even female, and only use very feminine names as a psychological tactic.
3. Posting entire articles that you didn't write is in violation of copyright and fair use, and also in violation of Newsvine's Terms of Service.

If you continue, the Newsvine crew will be able to block you out, regardless of how many times you make new identities. All you do is hurt Clinton's cause, because you embody the dirty politics some people suspect will continue if she is elected.

I copied and pasted this article directly from chicagosuntimes.com

To the moderator of this site. I demand you contact vas and correct him of his assumption that I am Serena. I live in Woodstock Illinois and I read that article in the actual newspaper which I purchased from the newspaper machine in front of a local restaurant called "Three Brothers". I am not dishonest! I went to the site that vas has posted and was unable to find the article that I have read. I then went to chicagosuntimes.com and looked for the article. When I found it I highlighted it and copied it and pasted it here. This is my first experience blogging and already I am feeling disenfranchised. By the way, I found this website by searching in dogpile for 'dirt on obama'. I wonder if all bloggs are this unfriendly. Why would vas think I am not female?

Bravo, Celestina, we need a few more actions like this by various member. I can feel the creepy crawlies from all sides of our political issues using the vine for transport.

Celestina, you should probably delete my post too, because I went overboard, as well as jumped to conclusions with #2 without any proof. Then, on the other hand, you should leave it up as evidence (and reminder to me) that I am imperfect and need to work on myself :)

I went to Chicago Sun Times and sorted articles by date because that is the only way I could find my article. It didn't come up by regular search terms such as Obama Resko etc. I did find quite alot of articles. I have personally only read one Chicago Sun Times and that was the one I referred to initially. I am horrified by the amount of information and articles they did on this subject. I found everything I thought I saw plus some. I am so shocked. Now I question Obama more than ever. I don't know how to do the link thing so I will just give the date, title and author. Please, look these up and tell me again why it doesn't mean anything.
Please convince me its not as bad as it seems. I want to be convinced.

The articles and it does appear that I read two separate articles in the same paper on the same day are as follows:

Jan. 29, 2008 "Obama donating more than $70,000 in campaign funds tied to Resko" by Chris Fusco, Chicago Sun Tiimes Staff Reporter

Jan.29, 2008 "Big Loan Gets Resko Jailed" by Chris Fusco, Steve Warmbir adn steve Patterson, Chicago Sun Times Staff Reporters

Also read these. There are alot more but somethings are just repetitive.

Jan. 30, 2008 "Resko stain tars Gov. and Obama" by Carol Marin, Sun Times Columnist

Jan. 30, 2008 "Obama Cuts Resko Ties" by Chris Fusco and Tim Novak, Sun Times Staff Reporters.

Heather, all that information is good, but all it does is cast suspicion. There is no proof that Obama did anything illegal or unethical. But my gut says the Obama did do something that he shouldn't be proud of, which is to continue to deal with, albeit legally, Rezko even when he knew Rezko was under investigation. At best, this was Obama thinking "I'm just buying some more land for my house, and that has nothing to do with whatever it is Rezko did that is illegal" and at worst, with the facts that we know, it is Obama not caring at all about what is right and putting personal profit above ethics.

Given all the positive things I see in him, and given that in the one or two years this has been investigated nothing else related to Obama has come up, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. But I'll keep a watchful eye on him, as we all should toward those we entrust with power. It is a personal decision for you whether you want to extend to him that same withheld judgment.

It is possible that more facts will come out and that we find out that Obama is not as ethical as many of us believe he is.

I agree, those last two bullet points may not be so innocuous as Celestina lays them out. Still, this article gives me plenty of really good reasons to keep my eye on Obama.

Nice work Celestina.

Obama seems to me to have weight behind his good image.
He could probably tie up the non-white vote if he pushed at it.
And there will probably be a lot of rappers that come out in support of him.

JFK beat Nixon because JFK was a better looking man. TV debate polls, JFK was always ahead. Radio debate polls, Nixon was pegged as the winner.

It's a tough call. Mc Govern was the new politician in 72 when he ran against Nixon, he gathered a lot of steam, but it blew up in his face at the end when he chose his Vice president.

Obama shows promise. Same as JFK and same as Mc Govern.
I'm not suggesting Obama is as good as JFK, but he's on the right lines.

There's the minority vote, the new youth vote and the "middle america" vote are going to be crucial in this election.

You would only need 2 of the 3 to secure it.

I've just though... if there was no good republican to vote for, a lot of former republican supporters may have to vote for a black man, or a woman democrat.

My God this is going to get ugly, fast.
And I can't wait.

-Dave

This is pure speculation, but I believe Obama may have opted to support those two measures for the reasons he stated, but also because it was clear they were going to pass anyways. Those two votes (along with a select group of other votes not mentioned here) give him a modicum of respect with conservatives, and especially the black conservative community. You don't often hear about black conservatives, but they are out here, and their vote needs to be courted just like everybody else's. Obama's votes also help him with white conservatives, too, because he will come across as not just another raging liberal screaming at them, but someone who will listen to what they have to say and even admit they are correct once in a while. Isn't that why John McCain has some support among Democrats and independents? Because enough people trust him to say what is true, even when what is true doesn't jibe with the party line.

Excellent article, Celestina. Thumbs way up, as Roger Ebert would say if he were reviewing NewsVine articles, not major motion pictures.

Common sense tells me that if a state that usually goes red has 2/3 more democrats voting than republicans and obama is getting 2/3 more votes than Hillary that one of two things is happening. 1)he is getting republicans to vote for a black democrat that goes against all the republican core issues and most of their peripheral issues.
2)The republicans are voting for Obama in the Primary to sabbatoge Hillary and then will vote Republican in the Presidential.

What does common sense tell you?

In a Republican race as divided as this one, common sense tells me that Republicans are not voting in the Democratic primaries just to "sabotage" Clinton, who is far more beatable than Obama against a Republican this year. That makes no sense.

Most Republicans know McCain will be the front runner and they know that Hillary will be a more difficult opponent on substantive issues. But hey I could be wrong. I have been wrong before. Matter of fact I hope I am wrong. To be clear, I will vote for whoever is the democrat running at this point anyone or anything is a better choice than more republican rule threatening the rights of women , imposing religion in school and government and spending our nations resources on needless war. In all honesty I do lean towards Hillary. I have been a fan of hers for years. So I am aware that I have a tendency toward bias and I am trying to be rational and realistic.

Republicans know now that McCain is going to be the nominee. They didn't know that until Romney dropped out last week. Until then, it was very much up in the air, and it would be incredibly stupid for them to vote in the Democratic primaries. The Republican race was never like the Democratic race. With the Democrats it was always between 3 candidates, and then very quickly between 2 candidates. With the Republicans there were as may as 11 candidates at most of the debates, and there were at least 4 or 5 who most people considered to have a good chance at winning. Republicans were incredibly divided, and no candidate had a clear lead until near the end.

I can only imagine that you just have not been following the Republican race at all, because it is so far from what you are talking about that it's ridiculous. Republicans are not voting in Democratic primaries, and if they were then they would probably vote for Clinton, because that's who they want to run against. That's who they think they can beat. That's why they've been talking about her as if she is the nominee in debates for months now. They think that they can rally Republicans against her to get out the vote. The last thing they want is an Obama ticket to run against.

Heather,

2)The republicans are voting for Obama in the Primary to sabbatoge Hillary and then will vote Republican in the Presidential.

Yikes. How do you do that on a major scale like this? Is there an underground Republican network we don't know about, where Karl Rove appears in your mirror if you say his name 3 times in the dark, and then proceeds to tell you to vote for Obama?

All kidding aside, it would be a very hard tactic to pull off, and one that is very likely to backfire. Most of the crossover is the independent vote, not the republican vote. And anyone that wants to change their party affiliation (or vote for one election cycle), should be allowed.

Adam, I am glad that Newsviners are jumping in and providing guidance and knowledge for the benefit of Heather. Keeping current knowledge, good or bad, before the general public is our finest mission. BUT, Adam, you keep saying Republicans will not vote for Obama. I think you are badly mistaken because I know more than one who will. In the last few months I have been in touch with citizens of several northern states. I have discussed politics with them and thought this is anecdotal, I find that many of my Republican friends plan to vote for Obama all the way to the Presidency. You are probably right that there are a few Republicans who will vote Obama primary and the Republican in the general election. This is the devious kind of conduct that hard partisans use to subvert the good of the Nation. I will also point out that anyone who has followed both the polling and results of recent primaries and caucuses have been told by all the Television networks and many, many print publications that Republicans (I like to think of them as the true Republicans) are rejecting the party which has helped get this country to the point of chaos currently existing. My vote for Obama will not be the end of my activism. I will hold him to his promises to unite and to do the peoples bidding.

I read some interviews of conservative independents and Republicans voting in those Democratic caucuses that are open. The sense I get from many is that they are driven by the desire to have a healthy general election between two honorable and good candidates (e.g. McCain and Obama) rather one to game the election.

From the NY Times:

Don and Peggy Fredericksen, a retired couple, said they were Republicans but they cast ballots in the Democratic primary. "We voted for Mr. Obama, and we're Republican!" Mr. Fredericksen said. "Obama is the voice of hope and change. We like McCain too, but he doesn't need our help in this election."

From what I've read, many conservative independents and moderate Republicans are voting for Obama in those primaries and caucuses that are open because they'd like to see a general election between two honorable and good condidates (e.g. Obama and McCain).

From the NY Times:

Don and Peggy Fredericksen, a retired couple, said they were Republicans but they cast ballots in the Democratic primary. "We voted for Mr. Obama, and we're Republican!" Mr. Fredericksen said. "Obama is the voice of hope and change. We like McCain too, but he doesn't need our help in this election."

2)The republicans are voting for Obama in the Primary to sabbatoge Hillary and then will vote Republican in the Presidential.

What does common sense tell you?

That if you're right, republicans are REALLY easily corrupted and REALLY deceitful and should NEVER be allowed to govern.

Heather, you got it right and Republicans voted for Obama to defeat Hillary.

BUT, Adam, you keep saying Republicans will not vote for Obama.

I never said that. I said that Republicans would not vote for Obama just to "rig" the election. If they wanted to rig the election then they would vote for Clinton over Obama simply because hardcore Republicans think she is easier to beat (too much baggage). That's only if they wanted to "rig" the election, which I find ludicrous to begin with.

All of that does imply, though, that Republicans would prefer Obama over Clinton. That's the point, really. They think that Clinton is so bad that her nomination would galvanize Republicans against her.

Heather, you got it right and Republicans voted for Obama to defeat Hillary.

doesn't it bother you that large groups of Republicans are willing to be dishonest and corrupt democracy?

No, I don't want to have somebody that hasn't tested for President. In fact, if it's written that a Dem is President, I rather to have Hillary than Obama because Obama hasn't give any specific that I find satisfactory, so far, he has wet dreams and those wet dreams is going to cost me a lot of money while he is just talking and I had to work hard for the little that I have..

I am sorry if I made anyone believe that Republicans are voting for Obama for nefarious reasons. Its just that that is my fear. I only want everyone to keep an open mind and open eyes. Not to have blind faith in what anyone including myself has to say but to question everything all the time. Just to be safe. I want to believe that the Republicans won't screw us over. Everyone who knows me would agree that I am a huge worry wart about allot of stuff the least of which is politics. I am hoping that the Republicans who voted for Obama in the Primary didn't do it to take away our voices. I am hoping and I half believe that they are just coming over to our side. Please please please let them be coming over to our side!

No, I don't want to have somebody that hasn't tested for President. In fact, if it's written that a Dem is President, I rather to have Hillary than Obama because Obama hasn't give any specific that I find satisfactory, so far, he has wet dreams and those wet dreams is going to cost me a lot of money while he is just talking and I had to work hard for the little that I have..

Obama didn't have to work for what he has? No Democrat has to work for what they have? I'm currently and luckily in that top tier of taxpayers who pay most of the taxes, just within the last two years I have earned that honor. I have no problem with the amount of taxes I pay.

Last I checked, it was the republican congress and president that have guided us into our current national debt and recession.

Either way, you're ok with people lying and cheating if it benefits your ideology, You're ok with a perversion of democracy as long as it saves you a few bucks. Is that right?

greck,

The republicans that currently hold sway DO NOT represent true conservative ideals or those that still hold to those ideals. They serve global corporate interests, they send our children to die to protect those interests and pass it off as a fight for our freedom. They are the worst of humanity. Hold whatever opinion you like about republicans but don't delude yourself that what you are seeing today is a true representation of the ideals.

As far as Obama goes...there is not a single person who can accurately predict how he will govern. He has been grooming himself for the presidency for a long time. His rise to prominence was truly meteoric. He has said almost nothing of substance during this campaign. He is completely generic at this point and yet everyone believes he is the second coming.

Could someone please tell me how he plans to help the economy?
How is he paying for socialized medicine?
How does he plan an tackling the $55 trillion in unpaid commitments to medicare and social security?
How does he plan to attack the national debt?
How does he plan to extract troops from Iraq and when?
Does he have any other plans for military activity in the middle east?
Where does he stand on our excessive military spending of almost $1 trillion/year? Does he understand what "inflation tax" is? Will he address that issue?
Does he have any answers for the rapid devaluation of the US dollar?

I would ask about civil liberties but I know where he stands on that issue as he voted
to re-up the Patriot Act.

Does anyone here think any of these issues are important? Anyone?
Can anyone answer any of these questions on behalf of Mr. Obama?

Rhetoric about selfish rich people, poor people without insurance, right to life...all pretty much moot if the economy tanks. There is no military threat to this country but I promise you there is an economic threat from interests within and outside this country. You need to understand these issues, and you all are capable of understanding. Don't assume you will elect Obama and all will be well. If he truly is a decent man he is going to need help from his supporters because he is going to be thwarted in everything he attempts. If he is a corporate lapdog then we are all in alot of trouble because people are gonna follow him without question and anyone who speaks against him will find themselves standing alone against throngs of Obama zombies.

If you think I am wrong please post some rational, verifiable arguments. If you don't have any of those...find them. While you are looking you will more likely find support for my argument that we are in deep @!$%# economically. Time for the grown ups to step up and start asking some hard questions of their candidate of choice. I don't care if you are a democrat, republican, libertarian, or a member of the communist party. We are all gonna be brothers in a broke nation if things don't change rapidly.

I appreciate all the time you saved me by doing my "research"...have you done any research on The Federal Reserve? What is your understanding of how our economy works? How about the historical success of state medicine?

You actually seem pretty rational. I really would appreciate hearing your opinions on these subjects.

By the way, I am not opposed to social programs because I don't want to have any part in sharing what I have with others in need. My reasons are based on philisophical beliefs. I draw a distinction between charity and welfare. Also, since we have really never had a truly 'free market' system in this country, we don't know that there isn't a better alternative to 'socialized' mediciine. I call it socialized medicine because government subsidies will be provided for those who can afford it. Therefore, by definition, it is socialized medicine.

As far as whether Obama is a good man and will make a good president is not the issue. The problems we see in this country are related to the system we have in place, not the man running the system. I'm suprised that democrats who are about fairness and equality ignore the fact that the system we have in place dictates that the disparity in wealth will continue. Obama can not fix that...unless he works to alter the system. He can only temporarily mask the effects.

@rzich:

Do you know what the definition of socialism is?

It is state ownership of the means of production. The state helping someone pay their insurance premiums to for-profit, publicly-traded or privately held insurance companies is, most definitely, not socialized medicine.

There are many 'definitions' of socialism. You chose one. I will not argue that I may have used the word too broadly.

Why do you think that a health care system run by our government is going to work any better than any other program they run has? Or do you think our schools have improved due to a larger Federal Board of Education? Do you think our food and drugs are safer because of the FDA? Do you think our economy is better because we let The Fed banks manipulate it?

There very well may be gains and benefits from some social programs...but the tradeoff is not worth it. The kinds of people that are drawn to big, bureaucratic systems seldom end up as a group promoting any interests other than their own. Obama may or may not be of that ilk...but if he is surrounded by those who are, how much can he accomplish. And as I've said before...who do we get next. Will he be a good person? A wise person? Why are you so willing to stake your future on the whims of elected officials? The system should, and has been, more 'fool' proof. We have allowed it to get to the point it is now.

We have all grown up, as our parents have, under the system we have now. We have been fairly steadily declining as a country in the last 100 or so years. We have more violence globally and domestically, our standard of living is declining, our economy is near crisis, our education system has gotten more expensive but has yielded less (despite the quality of teachers having improved IMO), health care has gotten out of control. All of this is because of the system...not because of the person(s) in charge. But this is the only system we have ever known, so we keep searching for solutions within that known system and ignore the fact that there are alternatives.

I used to be a staunch democrat. My ideals have not changed much, but my belief in achieving those ends by employing more government programs has been eroded by the understanding that the philosophy of more and more dependence on a central government has been detrimental to this country and will continue to be regardless of who we elect president. My departure from Democratic methods for acheiving certain goals has come from understanding the root philosophies of those methods. Those philosophies are of a collectivist nature.

The definition of insanity (one of them anyway) is to do the exact same things but expect a different result. We have been doing the exact same things systemically speaking but expect a different result. THIS TIME it will get better, [insert fav candidate] will get us back on track.

Freedom, Peace, and Prosperity. Isn't that what we all want? Do you think we have gotten closer or farther away from that goal? Do you think Obama or any candidate can lead us there under the current system? I don't think I've seen any indication that he intends to change the system...he is just going to tweak what we already have, much like countless others before him.

There is a better way. But if you are content with how things are now, or believe that a good person in the Whitehouse will make everything better, then nothing will deter you from continuing with the status quo. If you choose to question how things are and explore the reasons, the causes for our current state, and you do that honestly, without bias, you will be very suprised at what you find. And you will find that you share a vision and hope with people of all different affiliations. You may find that you have a new outlook.

This is all very easy to type..but not so easy to achieve.

Brooks Travis, you have forced me to re-educate myself on the subject of socialism and marxism. Unless Celestina would be willing to do the research for me I imagine it will take some time ;) I was browsing the topic of socialism just now and realized that by definition we are even more socialistic than I thought, though not openly so.

If you look at the distribution of wealth, who holds that wealth, what they own and what thier sphere of influence is by way of The Federal Reserve and the intertwining of corporate interests and our federal governmentl...don't we live under a form of 'stealth' socialism?

Don't the people who really influence our foreign and domestic policy also own a great deal of our means of production and land? Don't those same people have direct influence on our economy via The Federal Reserve? Don't those same people also have direct control over our health via the FDA and international codex laws?

I also looked over Sen. Obama's website again and read more from his issues pages. I really like some of what he stands for. I feel some of his efforts to legislate or re-tool existing legislation regarding "fair pay" are already covered by the constitution. There are many laws that are supposed to promote equality that are already covered by the constitution...why don't we just enforce the existing law instead of writing new ones? There are also programs I agree with but think should be instituted at a state level. There are too many issues and I'm too tired to detail them one by one.

Glad I could help. The system you're describing in 3.25 sounds more like an oligarchy than socialism--a small group of influential/powerful people controlling both the government and the means of production for their own benefit. Sadly, it's precisely the type of system Marx predicted would arise in late-stage capitalism (unless I'm completely mis-remembering my long-ago readings from Capital). One thing people always miss when discussing Marx's work is that, at least in Capital, he never advocated for revolution. He simply mapped out what he believed was the natural economic evolution of mankind. Anyway, hasta luego.

Oligarchy...you are correct, thank you again. I have also mistaken some Marxist philosophies for Leninist...I'm re-learning on the fly here so go easy :)

Do you believe, as Marx, that capitalism will inevitably end in an oligarchy? Is it possible that collectivist attitudes in a capitalist system would help to enable that eventuality? Would the adherence to our Constitution have helped prevent this?

It is pretty obvious from my posts that I lean 'individualist'...I assume most people here, democrats in general lean 'collectivist'. May I ask where you fall on the scale?

While looking for more info on collectivism I found a site that was dedicated to comparing collectivism to individualism. It had this quote, which was from one of my favorite authors.
This quote best describes the point I have so ineffectively been trying to make in my various posts...

"Political tags -- such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth -- are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." -- Robert A Heinlein

Good ol' Lazarus Long.

As for where I fall on the "collectivism" vs. "individualism" spectrum, I'd say I'm on both ends, and neither (how very "Quantum" of me ;-). To be honest, I think that Heinlein quote still misses the mark. I think all people have a desire to control their world, and that includes the people around them. They also have an intense desire for freedom and self-determination. It is the conflict between these two, basic impulses that is played out across history. I see "collectivism" as the ultimate in selfish "individualism". When one is out only for themselves, they will seek to improve and preserve their own life at the expense of others, including the exploitation of groups to serve their own purposes. That is what leads to oligarchy.

According to Marx, the stage after Oligarchy is the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", basically a reversal of the roles from the Oligarchy. The "lower classes" take power and "force" equality on everyone until the last vestiges of class-based society and power structures are eliminated. Then, and only then will a truly "communist" system arise. I would go so far as to argue that only in an ideally communist system could true individualism exist. The communism of Marx is a utopian one, where no one wants for resources or opportunity. They can pursue whatever life course they so choose.

Many argue that such a utopian social/economic construction is not possible, that there will always be scarcity. I counter with the same argument that Marx made. That it is Capitalism itself that will make it possible. It will provide the technological and scientific basis for that utopia. That is what made Lenin and his followers so tragic. They tried to take a backwards, pre-industrial absolute monarchy and turn it directly into a communist state. Forget the fact that communism, as Marx saw it, will only be able to occur on a global/pan-societal scale; they tried to skip the very economic stage that would make it possible to begin with.

In many ways, we're already there, from a scientific and technological standpoint. The problem is the Oligarchy gets in the way. It is my belief, based on what I know about the technology and science we have at our disposal today, that we could easily provide for the material needs of every single man woman and child on the planet if we were allowed to do so, or we will within the next ten to twenty years.

Ultimately, to answer your question, no, I don't think "adherence to our Constitution have helped prevent this". However, not creating the artificial economic construct of the corporation probably would have slowed it down by preventing some of the wealth consolidation that characterizes our economy today. Ultimately, I agree with Marx that we are on an inevitable march towards an egalitarian communist utopia, either than or self-destruction. But, hey. I'm trying to be an optimist.

Any of that help, or did I just confuse you some more :-).

Rand did not invent these idealologies, she just popularized them. I have to say that you are an enigma. Most people have no idea what their political beliefs are based in. You seem to have a clear picture and choose to not choose a defining ideal. Rand helped clarify some things for me. But my individualistic instincts were there long before I was reading her books.

You have pointed out one of the key differences between the two idealologies in that as an individualist, I would not attempt to establish my ideals by using coercion. Establishment of collectivist ideals is usually done via coercion of one kind or another.

It would appear you hold that belief that as long as human beings are imperfect, as they are, that we are doomed. Because an egalitarian communnist utopia does not allow for human nature. A constitutionally based republic does. It may not be a perfect system, but I haven't found one better yet.

Have you ever read any of Daniel Quinn's books? Ishmael and the sequel, My Ishmael specifically?

I'm sorry...you were obviously refering to a Heinlein charactor. I happen to have a copy of "Atlas Shrugged" sitting in plain view and...well, in any case, I'm not deranged, just a bit overtired. I haven't read either author in about 10 years or more.

I could be wrong, but I think your Heinlein quote is from "Time Enough for Love", the main character in which is Lazarus Long.

I'm glad you brought up Rand, though. I was wondering if you were a "fan" of hers (I in no way mean that pejoratively). I think she was a very good writer and philosopher. I loved "The Fountainhead" (btw, I wish there was a good way to underline or italicize titles in comments that was in line with semantic html markup), and believe it was her most meaningful and important work, as it laid out, more clearly than "Atlas", what individualism meant. In the end, I would say I'm an individualist, because I believe that every person should be free to pursue whatever course they choose for their life, truly free. That means that the economic barriers built into the very underpinnings of our societal and economic systems have to come down, and I really see only two options to make that happen—by the active, free choice of all people, or via coercion.

A book I highly recommend to you is "The Dispossessed" by Ursula K. Le Guin. It describes a anarchist-communist society and one member of that society's efforts to maintain his individuality. It is a very critical look at the problems inherent in such a system, and offers, I think, an excellent counter-point/companion to Rand's works. Anyway, I've enjoyed this conversation. Feel free to contact me directly if you'd like to talk more about it, as I think we've moved beyond the initial scope of this discussion thread.

I've read "The Dispossesed" and I agree.

I think I moved beyond the scope of this discussion 20 posts ago.

I also enjoyed the discussion. It forced me to dig a little deeper into my own set of beliefs. That is what I had hoped to acheive when I came here, to engage in informed debate.

Oh well...

I think I read a transcript of that speech (or maybe another one about the same topic) and was equally impressed. He may have gotten my vote with that alone, and that was long before I thought he would actually run.

Did you know that Obama was raised by his mother and stepfather (an indonesian athiest). He was raised athiest. I think his religion is convenient way to pander to all parties.

It's really obvious that Heather-238607 and Serena-237984 are the same person. Don't bother responding.

I am not Serena and actually I think that my comments are more infactual and intelligent than hers but more importantly, what are you doing telling others who not to listen to. If the moderators of this site think that I am inappropriate and ask me to go away I will but I wonder if they would approve of some bloggers making that judgment for them. What have I done to offend you? Please tell me in as much of a respectful way as you can muster. I am a peaceful person I promise not to be offended. Lets have some open dialogue.

heather-

how's this..

with no seeds and no articles, it seems apparent that your appearance here coincides nicely with someone in the clinton campaign waking up to the fact that she is now having her ass handed to her and she is indeed in need of some serious help.

operatives work fine at lgf and other social news sites, but here we can smell um' a mile off..

you are welcome to stay but please don't be offended if you are ignored..

Hey, anybody with half a brain knows she is getting her ass handed to her. I don't need anyone to tell me that. You sound awfully paranoid. This place is so unfriendly! I was searching the internet tonight for an article that I read so I could print it for my mom. I was searching under 'dirt on obama' that is how I found this site. I thought to share some truths as I have not told any lies. I don't know what lgf means. I am a 36 yr old who is new to blogging. This site tonight is the first tiime for me. I am used to doing research when I make decisions and I have been doing research on both hillary and barack. I share what I learn every day as I talk to friends and family. I am misunderstanding that this is a place to share thoughts and concerns about this election. Is this a place to only worship obama. If so, I would hope the moderator of this site will please contact me and let me know. Although my experience with you all tonight has been so unpleasant that I probably will never return anyway and by the way I never really felt any serious dislike to obama but I am beginning to seriously dislike his supporters.

Your idea of "research" is to search on the internet for "dirt on Obama"? This is what's wrong with America...

Actually I was looking for an article that I have read. That is how I found this site and by the way NOONE has posted THE article that I read or perhaps there were more than one article in that same paper on the same day. I almost feel like I'm going crazy. I am going to go to the local library and see if I can find the paper that I read. I am not real good at finding specific articles online so if I did make an error about the article I posted, I don't know how. Maybe I have gone crazy. A couple of people have given links to what appears to be the article except there are some parts that I remember missing. Hey, if I find the article and it is not as I remember, I will post an apology.

As far as research, I in fact have gone to Obama's website and read up on him in Wikepedia. I have done the same for McCain, Romney, Kucinich, Edwards and Hillary. I was most familiar with Edwards from some of the legal cases he represented and I admit that is where I was leaning. Listen, I know that anyone questioning Barack is very unpopular and I do live in Illinois and I did vote for him for Senator and I do think he is better than a Republican. I just have some fears. Isn't that normal? Also, I do feel manipulated by the media and I am not one to think what I have been told to think. My husband is a strong Obama supporter. He and I are constantly helping each other to thoroughly digest all the information available. We live in a predominately Republican county and we hate it. All these years of Republican rule make me feel like I have been psychologically victimized. I want hope to. I will find out exactly which article in the Chicago Sun times that I have read and if I am wrong about what it said I promise I will post a correction before Feb. 16th. I don't want to be part of the problem. I just want to be part of the conversation.

My apologies, Heather. You came off to me as someone politically motivated to misinform others. You posted a blog entry from a fervent Obama-hater and Clinton supporter that only quote some of the Times Tribune article. It looks like I jumped to a conclusion that you did so intentionally. Let me apologize again.

Listen, I know that anyone questioning Barack is very unpopular and I do live in Illinois and I did vote for him for Senator and I do think he is better than a Republican.

Actually, I love people who raise honest questions. Celestina did so in her article above. It is absolutely a good idea for us all to pay attention to any further facts that come out about Rezko as it pertains to Obama, and when the facts are ambiguous or when they can be interpreted in multiple ways, then it is up to each individual to use their wisdom and intuition to decide for themselves, and even express there judgment to other people. Just as long as it is honest and open.

The nice thing about the Obama movement is that it isn't all about him. It is about the movement itself. And I and many others in that movement will hold Obama's feet to the fire if he betrays the trust we are putting in him, while at the same time recognizing that he can't please everyone and that he's human and will make a few wrong calls. Right now, I trust him.

Respect, Heather.

Ok, I went to the Library and I was so embarrassed that I couldn't figure out how to find what I was looking for and the librarians tried to help me search and finally I went to Chicago Sun Times and sorted articles by date because that is the only way I could find my article it didn't come up by regular search terms such as Obama Resko etc. I did find quite alot of articles. I have personally only read one Chicago Sun Times and that was the one I refereed to initially. I am horrified by the amount of information and articles they did on this subject. I found everything I thought I saw plus some. I am so shocked. Now I question Obama more than ever. I don't know how to do the link thing so I will just give the date, title and author. Please, look these up and tell me again why it doesn't mean anything please convince me its not as bad as it seems. I want to be convinced.

The articles and it does appear that I read two separate articles in the same paper on the same day are as follows:

Jan. 29, 2008 "Obama donating more than $70,000 in campaign funds tied to Resko" by Chris Fusco, Chicago Sun Tiimes Staff Reporter

Jan.29, 2008 "Big Loan Gets Resko Jailed" by Chris Fusco, Steve Warmbir adn steve Patterson, Chicago Sun Times Staff Reporters

Also read these. There are alot more but somethings are just repetitive.

Jan. 30, 2008 "Resko stain tars gov adn Obama" by Carol Marin, Sun Times Columnist

Jan. 30, 2008 "Obama Cuts Resko Ties" by Chris Fusco and Tim Novak, Sun Times Staff Reporters.

Awesome. I just saw the post on the Newsviners for Obama blog before I came back here. Glad I could help. :-)

He is like a minister preaching on the pulpit. Huckabee has the same magic.

I know what you mean. I am terrified of having a minister run our country and I do think that if for some reason Huckabee were to win all the rest of the elections and if Romneys delegates go for Huckabee our country would be in real peril. Honestly, If that were to happen we would need Obama's charisma to counter his. The Republicans would make it all about values whereas with McCain who is a uncharismatic and curmudgeonly as possible, they will have to make it about experience and knowlege with war and securing this country it will be all fear mongering. Not so with Huckabee, it will be all positive charisma and 'values'. I can't even imagine where the money for any social programs will come from if the IRS was closed down. That doesn't sound like fair tax to me.

Except for how Huckabee's message keeps making me want to throw things at him...

I would direct you to Vas's great column:

A Few Obama Supporters Don't Get It

Heather...you mentioned where all of our money for social services would come from without the IRS. They would come from the same place they come from now...the thousands of other taxes that AREN'T income tax. Most of the income tax goes to the interest on our national debt. and when you add in government waste almost NONE of the income tax money comes back to us as any kind of service.

Incidentally, the interest on our national debt goes to the Federal Reserve Banks which make the loans for us to fuel our economy. These banks are PRIVATELY held businesses and are about as Federal as Federal Express. They are overseen by a governmental entity known as the Federal Reserve Board. This board is appointed by the President. He selects board members from a list supplied to him the the Federal Reserve Banks. Do you see a problem with this or at least a major conflict of interest?

By the way, I do not endorse Huckabee. But facts are facts..even if they support someone that you don't like.

Ok, well if the items that the IRS does pay for are not funded by the IRS then the "other" taxes will have to pay them and what please tell me, do you think will pay for the social services then?

If we cut overall spending to the level it was at 10 years ago then we wouldn't need the IRS at all. You can't get that if you add new big-government programs like socialized medicine, though.

We still had the IRS 10 yrs ago. So I'm not sure what you are saying. If we cut spending to what it was 10 yrs ago we would still need the IRS. Are you aware that there are more people in this country to serve than there were ten years ago? By the way, alot of people in this country struggle with healthcare. Have you ever worked with a family that is having to file bankruptcy simply because someone got sick. Sixteen yrs ago when the Clintons were running for office, Hillary had the foresight to see that healthcare as it is in this country would not be sufficient to the growing needs of the people with insurance companies and drug companies only looking to make a profit of the health of our nation. We hated her then. I laughed at her then. I am ashamed to admit it. Well time shows what is true. Judged in the moment she was nuts but in hindsight she was almost psychic. All of the Democrats running know we need Universal Health Care. They have slightly different ways to go about it but they all know that for the good of the nation it must be done. I believe it will be done. I am sure it will be a painful process and alot of people will complain. I the end I think it will work. I think this country can accomplish it.

You are assuming that we spend the amount that we raise. We actually spend more than we raise. Clinton had actually gotten us to the point where we were not spending more than we raised, though. You are also assuming that the amount of income from sources other than the IRS has remained constant, which I don't believe is true.

There are serious problems with our health care system, but it is far too simplistic to say that if the government steps in and pays for people then it will solve those problems. The fact that health care is so unaffordable has a lot to do with too much government involvement and regulation, and not just the fact that many people are poor.

I have no doubt that if we create a universal health care system then it will end up in the same messy state that social security is in now. We will end up with ever-increasing costs that are not met by increasing revenue through taxes, which ultimately will drive the deficit up uncontrollably. This is yet another way that big government is hurting the poor by raising costs. Deficit spending creates inflation, and inflation means higher prices for everything, including health care and necessities like food and shelter.

Yes, I agree with you, but I think it is important to point out that the increasing cost of health care in the US today is primarily fueled by the tendency of our citizens to sue doctors, hospitals, and other medical providers at the drop of a hat. Which leads to doctors doing bunches more tests than they really need at all times, just to be covered in case they are sued; it also leads to doctors' insurance being so high that it is out of sight. In some places, so many pediatricians and other doctors have been sued because of natural problems that occurred during delivery or other treatment that they are no longer willing to step in and help people in an emergency. Also, since most medical doctors now work in professional associations with a lot of employees, the physicians' fees must go up to cover the cost of their medical association and all its help and their benefits, etc. Plus, there are the ever-increasing problems for state and local referral hospitals, where they treat more and more people who do not have insurance and cannot pay them, so they increase their markup on those who can pay to cover what they are losing on those who cannot. If the federal government could simply get some control over crazy lawsuits and limit what doctors and hospitals can charge (more than they do now), our health insurance would become reasonable again. But we also have to do something about those who have no insurance and stiff hospitals and doctors because they cannot pay.

I agree with that to some extent, but we have to be extremely careful in any restrictions on lawsuits. We cannot allow any kind of immunity for doctors who truly have hurt people due to negligence. It's tough to write a law on this issue without moving too far in that direction.

Please investigate the Federal Reserve Banking System and it's practices to help understand inflation and an artificially manipulated economy. They are a private sector, non-governmental conglomerate of banks. The system as it stands makes the US being in debt a "for profit" business for these bankers. It is the single greatest fraud ever perpetrated.

Understanding The Fed and it's role in our government will clarify alot of issues from our current economic state to our foriegn policy and government corruption. If you truly look into it, understand and accept what you learn, your perspective on our current system of government will be forever altered. It's something that everyone in this country needs to know and understand regardless of party affiliation.

I realize this is doing a bit of pandering since JFK was a Dem, but he truly did understand this issue and tried to do something about it. I'm hoping that if Dr. Paul's message doesn't get any credibility, that JFK's will. Google JFK and silver certificates. He attempted to put us back on a silver standard, as Paul is trying to put us back on a gold/silver standard. There are valid reasons for this.

I apologize for the redundency of this last post. I missed my earlier post that said essentially the same thing.

What the IRS currently funds is our national debt. There are two things that need to happen to free up funds currently soaking up IRS generated revenue. Eliminate the national debt and get rid of The Fed. Sounds simple enough, huh?

The national debt is fueled by excessive military spending, most of it overseas. We have a military presence in about 130 countries worldwide at a cost of about $1 trillion per year.
Do you think we could eliminate some of that expense? Can we still be strong militarly and defend our country without all of this foriegn intervention? If The Fed banks get rich from our national debt, is there a motivation to have excessive military spending?

Peace and prosperity solve alot of problems both social and obviously economic. That is why the economy and the root causes for our problems in that arena are formost on my list of concerns when it comes to the next president.

Heather,

Only if Hillary, her family and our Congress are ready to be in the socialized system.

I came from Cuba for not having any socialized anything, I don't have the money to travel to Switzerland and get fixed if something broken.

Instead of having cells, color TV, going to the theater, buying booze and eating out there is enough money to pay for health insurance.

Right now the ER are filled w/people w/o insurance that I help to pay. Leave the system like it's now.

Our government can't even put together a Tic Tac Toe game less to supervise a health care system.

And if Hillary wants her legacy.....find something else like cutting money in the Congress like she wanted to have an unnecessary Museum for Woodstock or something like that.

Having previously worked in the optical field and also having worked in social service I have a few ideas why health care is so expensive. First, did you know that once a doctor agrees to take insurance patients from an insurance company the company works out a deal. In the deal they work out the insurance company pays less-much less- than the service would normally have been billed. So yes some costs are covered but the insurance is not really picking up the whole tab. The doctor has to make a living so costs cannot go lower than he or she needs to keep the doors open. Part of the deal is that the doctor can no longer use a sliding scale because if they charge anyone less than to that degree the insurance will also pay less for its clients and forget about letting someone's bill drop. You cant do that without letting the insurance's clients' bills to drop as well. For this reason, even if an individual needs the care and cannot pay they cannot have their bill waived not in five yrs. not in ten not ever. The only way that bill goes away or gets smaller is if it is paid or filed bankruptcy against. Second, with pharmaceuticals mostly interested in profits, the drug companies spent a lot of money sending reps around giving free samples to doctors and offering commission to doctors for prescribing their medications even if those medications are more costly. The drug companies spend a lot of money advertising their meds on tv so that consumers can tell the doctor what to prescribe. All that marketing and advertising is the bulk of the cost of the drug that consumers pay for. With patients who are uninsured and can't afford health care a simple trip to the er can send them into bankruptcy. I had a client to was unable to find a job with insurance and even though I helped her to pay for computer classes so that she could look for a job, she was only able to find work with no benefits. She never goes to the doctor not even for her chronic illness. She caught pneumonia from exposure at her no benefit job. She could not afford doctors because she was working she didn't qualify for free health care. Even on a sliding scale she could not afford to keep her car, her apartment, food for her family, utilities and health care. She was sick for 2 and a half months. Finally, one night when she could not breath she went to the urgent care but it was past 8:00 p.m. so they were unavailable. She went to the ER and asked what the absolute cost would be to talk to a doctor and ask for a RX with no tests or anything else. She was told $91. She saw a Dr for 10 min or less and refused any tests. The Dr. wrote her an RX for antibiotics and sent her on her way. She received a $100 bill for use of ER, $200 bill for the Dr. and $150 for the nurse that took her information and listened to her heart, filled out her chart and clipped a device on her finger to check for oxygen. She was billed over $500 for a ten minute visit and a prescribtion. She was unable to fill her RX because it was a $80 rx. She called me crying on my cell phone which I normally don't answer after 6:00 told me she was ready to die. I felt so bad that I broke protocol and I went with her to the pharmacy at 10:00 p.m. and I personally bought her antibiotics and then I went home and cried myself to sleep that I felt so powerless to help my client and I knew she couldn't help herself. I knew she would most likely be evicted in time for Christmas because previous medical bills had started being garnished against her paycheck. I think that for her and for others like her we need universal health care and I don't care how uncomfortable the transition is.

heather

paragraphs PLEASE!

None of those problems are caused by lack of insurance. The insurance problems are caused by insurance companies forcing their will on doctors. Government-payed insurance will not fix that problem. It will exacerbate it by sustaining the business practices of insurance companies. We need to increase competition among insurance companies, and prevent them from forcing their will on doctors.

Heather.

Give universal health care to the illegals and the needed but not to the people like me that I don't want it. The government can't even put a tic tac toe game together less to supervise our medicals.

I have to agree with Adam. Free markets and genuine competition will improve services and drive down costs. This is not a new or unproven theory. But there are those that are making truckloads of money in the current system, so you aren't going to see it change unless we demand it. Asking for socialized medicine is going to make things worse in the long run...and once we are in it, it will be very difficult to dissolve it again.

Bloated central governments inevitably evolve a lobby system of one kind or another. Special interests dictate policy and that policy typically has to do with improving the bottom line for the special interest. People get left out of the equation. This is a timeless tradition. Ironically, the people who want most to relieve the suffering created by this system, are the very ones that help to promote the system by insisting on more and more governmental involvement.

This problem is systemic. Unless we all start looking at the bigger picture and having more faith in ourselves and in one another, and stop putting our faith in a out of control government that has proven again and again that corporate interests carry far more weight than the needs of the people it is supposed to serve, we will continue to get the same results. Yes, Obama will make improvements in some areas, he may error in others. The economy may spike if he brings home the troops from Iraq. But it will be nothing more than a new label on the same product. Then who do we get next?

The insurance companies are a big part of the reason that health care is so expensive. The health care being so expensive is why alot of people cannot afford to get healthcare. This is compounded when an individual has no access to or cannot afford insurance and then cannot afford the healthcare that is so expensive because of the insurance they can't afford. Its a conundrum. We as a society end up footing the bill for the individuals who cannot pay. Those who profit from our cost are the insurance and drug companies. If we provide universal healthcare it may cost less than the amount that society ends up paying as it is now. That of course would require a very well thought out plan. This would require thinking outside the box.

Just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean it can't be done. We need to get a group of qualified individuals from both parties to sit around the table with open minds and try to figure out how to make it work instead of spending all of their energy fighting change.

No Heather, the expensive health care is because we pay for those that use the medical services.

I was in the ICU where we were 5 patients, I was the only with insurance, the rest:
A battered wife, an illegal shot in his leg, two very old ladies. The ER are full in any small town w/kids w/bronchitis and I can go on and on.

Give the universal health care to those but let us alone. Hillary and Obama don't have to force me to have what they don't have.

Give the universal health care to those but let us alone. Hillary and Obama don't have to force me to have what they don't have.

I think you have an antecedent problem in this sentence, but either way, here you go:

1. Obama and Hillary have health insurance; they're on the same health plan as all other Senators and Representatives.

2. Neither candidate is trying to eliminate private health plans. They simply want to make those private plans more accessible/affordable.

3. Unlike Clinton's plan, Obama's has no "mandate". Rather, the goal of his plan is to make private insurance universally available and inexpensive enough that nobody will think twice about buying it. The idea being, nobody willingly go without health insurance, except when it's too expensive or they simply don't have access for whatever reason. I think that's a pretty sound assumption.

the goal of his plan is to make private insurance universally available and inexpensive enough that nobody will think twice about buying it. The idea being, nobody willingly go without health insurance

as a person who went without health insurance for a number of years, i can say honestly say that you don't know what you've got until it's gone. i took on a job that pays nearly nothing but health insurance and a tuition break to get through grad school without risking financial ruin from illness or accidents. it is a teaching job that takes up far more time than it pays for but now i can commute to school on my bike without the fear of bankruptcy when some @!$%# in a hummer decides to be yapping on his phone while driving and pushes me off the road.

his health plan that makes such insurance available to the people who can least afford NOT to have it is a primary reason i am casting my vote for Obama this fall.

Please, someone point me to a complete explanation of Obama's healthcare plan. Man, I hate that you can't put links in these posts.

I realize that we may be stuck forever in a semi-socialist state...I would just hope that it stays semi and not decline into a completely socialist state. It seems like this is the liberal wish. I just am not convinced that there is a very complete understanding of what that would mean. It seems like a very cynical view and it is essentially as follows; If you allow people to retain their resources and use them in their immediate environment they will selfishly horde those resources even to the detriment of that immediate environment. Therefore, we need to take those resources, give them to a central government and have them divvy them up as they see fit. If we don't, we as individuals will run this country into the dirt and let people starve on our doorsteps and heartlessly ignore those in need.

I don't personally know very many people who behave this way even when they have few resources...I can't imagine how innovative and generous they would be if they had more resources. Now couple that with a foreign policy that wasn't dictated by corporate interestes...billions of dollars flowing into our economy. Opportunities for all instead of handouts. That is what most underpriviledged people I know want...an opportunity to be independant. Now add a free market economy with geniune competition between banks, medical service providers, schools, colledges. Now stop allowing our government to peddle false environmental protection while what they really protect is corporate interest. Allow the judicial system to work. Allow those ill effected by irresponsible behavior to have legal recourse against the offenders. You think this is all crazy? It isn't. It's real and attainable. Only apathy, ignorance, and fear keep it from happening.

"Now stop allowing our government to peddle false environmental protection while what they really protect is corporate interest."

this is what you have to say? You just proved to me how you would selfishly condone destruction or lack of protection to the earth that all our children and their children will inherit. Why? So that regulations that are costly won't cost you or other businessmen or corporations. I will now assume that you don't want to be taxed because you don't like to share and if the government backs off you will selfishly keep what you have and leave others 'starving on the doorstep" So you probably think global warming is a hoax. Whatever. That is a convenient belief for someone who wants to argue that the government doesn't need to control us.

I'm one of those people who recycles and donates to environmental causes. I am not going to be coming back to this site because I don't want to have discussions about whether the scientists have it wrong. Are you a scientist? Good by.

Environmental protection by federal regulation is very ineffective because corporations find loopholes, create loopholes by buying legistlation that favors them, or simply ignoring the regulations. What I am saying is that this provides a false sense of security and protection. IF the judicial system was allowed to function as it was meant, we as citizens would be able to take legal action against those that damaged our environment.

This is too complicated to explain in detail here...but you can certainly find information to round out your understanding. A good place to start is by looking at what has happened in Montana under the watchful eye of our fine government. Companies did almost irrepairable damage and then just walked away...the federal rules and regulations did nothing to hold them accountable. It isn't an accident. It is part of how the system works.

You are either purposely missing my points or incapable of understanding them or too lazy to consider them. This results in unwarranted personal attacks which is always the last defense of the willfully ignorant. I don't like what you say...I'm gonna take my ball and go home.

While I'm glad her speech was effective -- I'm a little less impressed that you took credit for it -- even with the apology.

Wasnt trying to impress anyone. Just being honest. I feel like Obama when he admitting he used marijuana. I dont know many people who get in discussions and name sources. I pretty much go by what I have learned and remember. After it was over, I felt like I could have sent them to this article to see what they may have missed and "get smarter". But I didnt. But that doesnt mean I wont.

In 2004 the Democrats decided that John Kerry was the most "electable" and we see how well that went. The very fact that they went with the "most electable" candidate was used against them as the republicans gleefully pointed out Kerry didn't seem to really stand for anything.

Too often "electable" = "a mediocrity who's never taken enough of a stand on anything to offend much of anyone".

Frankly -- the -only- reason that would bother me is because it would be seized upon by his opponents and prove to be a distraction from more serious matters.

With that said, we've no reason to suspect he's anything but committed and faithful to his wife.

Any explanation about the fainting of the women when Obama is talking?

I want charisma in my hubby but not in a politician. Words are words and Obama has very little to show of his achievements.

Obama has very little to show of his achievements.

you mean apart from becoming the front runner in a race wherein there was a presumptive nominee?

Raising $32 million dollars in one month, 90% of which was donated in increments of less than $100, 40% of which less than $25? At this rate, we could just let him fundraise for another year and pay off the national debt.

Bringing out more voters than all the republicans combined in some states?

I hear he was editor of some journal in college or something too...

Richard, if you're trying to be satirical, you're doing a lousy job. My guess is that you are trying to be inflammatory for its own sake, which means satire it is not.

Made me laugh

No, he's trying to be inflammatory -- and he's been popping up all over the place to do so, lately.

Frankly, I suspect he'll negotiating the right to retain his Newsvine account in the near future. Here's hoping he decides he can abide by the Code of Honor. I have my doubts.

Seriously though...it was a joke! It's not like I posted a picture of the prophet Mohammad or something. I have said nothing inflammatory. If they choose to censor me for voicing my opinion, it just helps prove my point, and that point being...that the hypocrisy of the 'left' knows no bounds. I know this isn't a public forum but still, you would think with the amount of dissent in here they would be wanting people like me to stay.

Now...bash away in your self-rightous tone.

Seriously though...it was a joke!

Indeed. A racist joke. From a new user with a history of inflammatory commentary.

What was that I heard about how many chances you get to make a first impression?

Please...it was a play on words! You see, I took the 'B' and substituted it with an 'S'. Racism had nothing to do with that comment. My supervisor who happens to be 'black' and looking over my shoulder is laughing at you!

Explain to me the racist connotations...

All the spooble that pours onto my computer screen, it's hard to get a point across.

Still though, you explain nothing

spooble

LOL...can that be the word of the day?!?!

You need to watch the Muppet's my friend. Really enlightening stuff!

Obama can't be elected because he is black, say some. Well, all I can say is that there is a first time for everything.

I completely agree!! Using this logic gives in to racism. "Those other people" won't elect Obama because he's black, so I will not vote for him because he has no chance. What's more I'll go around saying "the time isn't right for it yet, America will reach that point in time"... in what time? In the time when all the well meaning racist fatalists like me have given up saying that.

Vote for what you want America to become or you will always be stuck with what it is.

Wouldn't it be funny if everybody, who was in the Confederacy, decided to vote for somebody other than Obama? Do you think that's what might happen? I know plenty of people, who vote for someone, but have little knowledge about their candidate. I mean, a lot of people don't agree with some policies, and agree with others from other candidates. It's like that one episode of South Park, where Stan has to choose between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich for their school mascot.

Celestina,
This is just a dig stolen from Rush Limbaugh. Maybe Richard threw out a flat joke; it happens. It could also be that he is trying to be inflammatory. This is my first memorable experience with him. All I can say for sure is that he lacks originality.

My supervisor who happens to be 'black' and looking over my shoulder is laughing at you!

False alert guys, Richard's cool. How could he possibly be inflammatory when he has a minority for a supervisor?

Ansab, your usually infallible perception has failed you this time. Richard said his supervisor is 'black' with quotes. Probably works for Vanilla Ice, who I heard is assistant line manager at a Burger King pickle processing plant somewhere. They have an Internet terminal line workers can use on breaks.

Who is racist and inflammatory now!? Hypocrites! Typical liberal trash. It's ok for you to do it when it suits your purposes but if someone else says something even remotely (and what a wrote wasn't even remotely racist) then you cry fowl. You people disgust me.

Fowl? As in chicken?

Not so easy to get everything perfect when I am sneaking in these posts on working 'ours'. Get over the grammar and debate an issue.

Danielle - you can certainly call me Dick, because I most certainly have more balls than the rest of you!!!!

zing

That's what she said.

/day late

I never said I could kick your ass. I am just saying that your defeatist, apologist, back stabbing, nay saying lacks any conviction.

I also never said big balls make any one smarter. That is an assumption on your part. It appears your argument has a large a gap as your 'logic' does with reality.

I can do this all day Danielle.

I would also pay cash money to watch a gorilla kick your ass!

Obama...the closest he is going to get to the White House is if the President invites him.

Who is fighting and not knowing what they are getting into?

Mob rule is democracy comrade.

I like how you didn't capitalize the last dick...usually you democrats do more to piss me off than anything else but that was funny!

It's all a matter of perception Danielle!

The man who instigates a fight and calls those who think it is unnecessary and foolish cowards - Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and their anti-war garbage

or the man who, inspite of the prevailing opinion of a mob rule mentality, stands up and for reason - President Bush and his cabinet after the democrat congressional victories.

I guess I would have to agree with you

ah so Richard, you can call Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi cowards, but they just beat your boy Bush like a red-headed stepchild. 246-182 in the House and tomorrow in the Senate. Accept defeat graciously dear boy, don't make us come whip you like an incontinent dog.

This thread is utterly worthless. Why don't you guys take your pissing match to a private thread or something?

Agreed, Adam.

Good mediating Celestina.

Second the motion.

Or third depending on whatever...

-Dave

Uhm, can you please stop calling him "Osama"? I think we've established that that joke wasn't funny.

Would it be funny if I said that Obama was living in a cave somewhere on the Afghanistan - Pakistan border?

No.

Again...I disagree.

Charleston Senator Robert Ford and Hopkins Senator Darrell Jackson told The Associated Press they think Clinton is the only Democrat who can win.

The opinions of two state legislators hardly makes much of a case. Drudge, as usual, is trying to make something out of very little. It is more remarkable that they are not supporting Edwards than Obama.

It is a fact, which would have been more telling for you to cite, that blacks are likely to split pretty evenly between Clinton and Obama, and maybe even tilt slightly toward Clinton -- they do love Bill, for sure.

That, however, is in the primary. Barring an amazing turnaround in Iraq, it won't matter whether Hillary or Barrack or Tickle-Me-Elmo is the Democratic nominee, they will win the general election.

Let's draft Tickle-Me-Elmo from the great Street of Sesame! Twice as cute as Bush and four times as smart. Mr. Elmo did not vote for the war in Iraq, and would probably advocate sitting down with President Assad of Syria and President Ahmadinijad of Iran to discuss the differences the United States has with those countries. Should those discussions be rebuffed, President Elmo would likely recommend tickling those august gentlemen until they were more amenable to talking.

On the other hand, Extreme Elmo as a running mate may not be as good a choice as his fellow Sesame Streeter Tickle-Me. We have seen what happens when gregarious leaders choose extremist running mates and frankly, it's not very pretty.

Just so you all know:

This week, Bill Clinton helped secure the backing of state Sens. Robert Ford and Darrell Jackson, who had supported Edwards in 2004. The Jackson endorsement was called into question after the Clinton campaign said it negotiated a $10,000 per month consulting contract with Jackson

AP article Sunday, February 18.

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660196639,00.html

Not to mention that he taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago for 10 years. Certainly not a newbie when it comes to issues like the Patriot Act.

I'm sincerely not trying to be inflamatory here...but if he taught constitutional law for 10 years how could he in good conscience have voted FOR the "patriot" act...it is an abomination to anyone who values our constitution. Perhaps I'm missing something.

John Kerry would have won if the Republicans had not swift boated him. Who could have expected that? I guess after what they did in 2000 to McCain in SC we should have known how evil the Republicans are. But as you can see John Kerry couldnt last one year under Republican fire. I think Hillary has a serious point that she has been under fire for sixteen years and is still standing. Even though there has been Clintons in the White house for 8 years. She is still standing and they have already thrown all the dirt they have. All they can do is rehash it.

That is true. One thing we do know is the the Republicans are going to try to destroy anyone who gets in their way. I still can't believe Bush was reelected a second term. I still don't understand the whole Swift boat thing but I suspect it does give evidence to the possibilities that Republicans will make mud when they can't find it.

I understand your distrust and disdain for Republicans such as they have become, but I ask you to make one exception for Ron Paul. Like him or not you cannot claim he isn't a decent, honest man with a long, verifiable history of voting his convictions. I'm not asking for you to agree with him...just acknowledge that he is NOT like any other Republicans.

He is not like other Republicans? You mean he thinks a woman should have a right to abortion. He thinks that a government is only as strong as its people and therefore has a duty to make sure the citizens of this country are not just safe but also that all citizens are provided the opportunity for education and health care. Does he understand that the reason the government has a role in the raising of families is because the children who cannot speak for themselves need an advocate in a country where they often become the victims of abuse or neglect. You mean he understands that it takes time for a group of socioeconomically challenaged individuals to break even and break the poverty cycle. I don't know if I believe that but I do think that I would believe it of any democrat. For this reason at least I think we need a democratic leader because the Republicans are to short sighted. I believe that if we really just let it be each man for himself and the rich who profit from this country, its resources and the hard work of those beneath them should just keep all of their wealth thus taking more from the country that they give back well, they weaken the country much like a farmer who takes more from the soil then he gives back depletes the soil. We are united are we not. I do think that we are all conected and I believe the democrats get that and the Republicans don't.

Heather, I am so glad you have joined us. You make your points so clearly. Welcome to Newsvine.

"You mean he thinks a woman should have a right to abortion."

He has delivered over 4000 babies. He is obviously biased in his belief that life begins at conception. However, I am also pro choice and struggled with Dr. Paul's strong pro life stance. One of the reasons I was pro-choice is because I didn't want the Federal Gov. dictating this kind of thing. Paul would simply have each state decide for itself. As it should be per the constitution. I believe that there would be a healthy mix of solutions to this complicated issue between the 50 states. I truly understand your stance that government should not be able to dictate what a woman does with her body, even if that includes a life inside it. We can as easily lobby our home states to get the legislation that we feel is right passed. Don't assume leaving this up to individual states means anti-abortion nationwide. The federal government having the right to force states to not ban abortion is as bad as the government forcing states to have enforced abortions. That is why the constitution was worded as it was. To protect us from a over reaching central government. In this case the federal government actions may align itself with our beliefs...next time it may not. Again, we are of like mind but have different opinions on how to acheive the end result.

"You mean he understands that it takes time for a group of socioeconomically challenaged individuals to break even and break the poverty cycle."

Do you then advocate taking money from me by force to distribute to others? Do you know better than I how best to use my money to help others? Does a politician who is thousands of miles away and has no intimate understanding of conditions in my immediate environment know better how to address my communities problems? Isn't it possible for States to have programs to help those in temporary need?

For me, it becomes about intimate knowledge of the problems and efficiency of resource use. A state level program will address the needs in that state. The state is most knowlegdgeable about it's own needs and knows best how to attack it's own problems. I live in Wisconsin...I would not even consider dictating how California used it's resources to deal with it's problems but the Federal Government does that kind of thing all the time.

There are people like you and I at all levels of government. Why can't we achieve the same results...no, better results by keeping problem solving resources in the hands of those best suited to solving the problems?

"For this reason at least I think we need a democratic leader because the Republicans are to short sighted. I believe that if we really just let it be each man for himself and the rich who profit from this country, its resources and the hard work of those beneath them should just keep all of their wealth thus taking more from the country that they give back well, they weaken the country much like a farmer who takes more from the soil then he gives back depletes the soil. We are united are we not. I do think that we are all connected and I believe the democrats get that and the Republicans don't. "

I agree that republicans, such as they are right now, have become very reactionary. Democrats tend to be more visionary. I would not lump Dr. Paul in with them...he does not agree with the direction the republican party has gone in AT ALL. I think you would find his heart is aligned with the Democratic ideals, the end result of peace, prosperity, equality... but that he would choose alternate means of achieving those ends. He is not willing to sacrifice the principal protections provided by the constitution to shortcut to a particular result.

If you truly want to address the issue of distribution of wealth, confront the issue of The Federal Reserve Bank and our tax system. JFK understood how The Fed and it's connection to the military industrial complex was infecting our country economically and attempted to wrest control of our money supply away from The Fed. It may have been one of the principal reasons he was assassinated. I am not the best person to debate this topic. I understand some of the key components to our economy on a conceptual level but do not have a thorough understanding.

Do you think that your deserved prejudice against Republicans has allowed you to really absorb what Dr. Paul is about? I know that if it weren't for a long time friend whose opinion I respect, I never would have given him a sniff because he was under the Republican flag.

I just think that he has some very valid ideas that could and should transcend party alliances.

He lost me at pro life. Sorry but If there were only one candidate arguing for pro choice I would canvas this country fighting for that person to make his or her way into office. That is simply a deal breaker for myself and many democrats. That is not the only deal breaker you see I absolutely disagree with the republican life philosophy. The disagreement is so strong that I could never support any republican ever ever ever! Ron Paul if he were elected and I'm quite confidant that he never will be, would elect conservative judges and that would most likely tip the balance. We have moved so close to overturning Roe vs. Wade. You cannot win me to see Ron Paul as more than a Republican. If he were he would run independent party not in the Republican party. Also, I am an atheist and I hate the thought of more religion in schools and government and the argument of using the bible to define marriage is laughable to me. For that reason also, I would never vote Republican. I hate the way Republicans define democrats as atheists and liberals as if that was so bad. Yes I am an atheist, and I am liberal and I'm very proud of it!

I would have to conclude that you either didn't bother to learn what Dr. Paul's views are or you didn't understand the ramifications. What you wrote doesn't reflect an understanding. He is against religion in government. His personal view is pro-life. His presidential stance is follow the rule of law and allow the states to decide for themselves. The idea is that athiest or catholic or any flavor in between has equal standing in a constitutionally based government. Dr. Paul adhers to a higher principle..as much as he abhors the thought of abortion, his belief in the rule of law in this country dictates that he follow that law regardless of his personal beliefs. You, however, seem willing to throw anyone and anything under the bus to promote your own views. Is there anything that is more important than your own needs and wants?

You will willingly empower a central government with unconstitutional powers as long as the view they promote aligns itself with yours. Don't delude yourself, there will be a time when your views won't align with what your government wants. Our government is at a very precarious stage and we owe China, Saudi, Brazil, Great Britain, Japan...all of them billions and billions of dollars. They already influence our government...I promise, the trend we are in right now will one day lead to your government holding views that you DO NOT think are a good idea. That is why it is important to stick to principle even when it doesn't alway suit your immediate needs and wants.

I'm just curious. What do you think would happen if all 50 states were allowed their constituional right to decide the abortion issue for themselves?

What you don't understand about what I am saying is that what Ron Paul stands for doesn't matter to me because he would elect conservative judges. Judges terms are much longer than that of the President. We are close to making abortion illegal. I believe women should have the right to choose. This is a deal breaker for me. I would not vote for someone who would elect conservative judges even if that person themselves had some good points. He may have some good points. I am not going to waste my time looking for them. I don't really care about him. It is a non-issue to me.

The reason I feel that a Republican is a Republican is a Republican is that they would elect conservative judges and that would move the country in a more conservative direction and I don't desire that at all.

We are close to making abortion illegal. I believe women should have the right to choose

It's easier to place an aspirin between the two legs and don't get pregnant if the lady don't want to have a baby. For example, we just helped a girl 18 years old that had a "hit and run", the coward of the father flew to Mexico and now we have to add the baby to the welfare payroll.

Your views are extremely narrow. You would allow our economy to crumble, innocent people to be killed by our irresponsible foreign policy...all so you don't have to risk losing the right to abort a baby.

So the ideals that reside in the Constitution are irrelevant and arbitrary? This isn't about Dr. Paul or any presidential candidate. It's about ideas. It's about what is good for everyone...not just you. You don't care about civil liberties, foreign policy, the economy, corruption in government...just the right to abort.

Obvoiusly you must think there is something wrong with abortion or you wouldn't be so worried about Roe v. Wade being overturned. I must also assume that you think the majority of peple would NOT want abortion legal in thier state since you didn't answer that question. I am not one of those people, by the way.

You would allow our economy to crumble, innocent people to be killed by our irresponsible foreign policy.

the current administration is doing a pretty good job in these areas so why change now..

is that what you are saying?

because if so, you might want to take a good hard look around you right now.

maybe life would be easier without the gop issue blinders, but i'm not so sure i'd like the view.

There are things that effect the economy that should transcend party affiliation. As I've noted several times in various posts...look at The Fed for a major source of our problems. Obama will be an improvement...but that is not the solution to the core problems. The problems are systemic with the major flaw being The Fed. Obama understands how it works but chooses to ignore that issue. He is either complicit or is staying away from it until he gets into office. I hope this isn't offensive...but have to investigated The Fed? Aaron Russo has an excellent documetary called "America: Freedom to Fascism". I hate the name because it puts people off, but the first half is historical and verifiable information about The Fed and the IRS...the second half is much more speculative though his views are compelling. I strongly suggest you watch it...you can find it on youtube as a 12 part series.

I agree that the so called republicans that have been in office for the last 8 years have done all they could to run this country into the ground. I can't even say for sure at this point that there isn't an agenda for doing so. The republicans in office and in congress do not represent conservative ideals...they are frauds.

Paul and his like are closer to the ideal...though they have libertarian leanings. True Libertarians support pro-choice however. Paul's departure from that was likely brought about by delivering babies for a living...not too hard to understand.

Get crackin'!
I smell a series of articles.

that's awfully nice of you. :-)

I am seriously looking to see what Obama or any presidential candidate has to say about health care. Edwards has a plan. Hillary had a plan. Others are trying to work around having one.

I can see if they are all wrong on how to move forward on Iraq. They cannot be more wrong than GW. But health care is a problem where they should have a decent plan if they are running for office.

I haven't gotten around to looking for his plan, but Obama did say in his recent speech that we would have universal health care by the end of his first term.