Sarah Palin

[Ford Jellymoulds]

[xr7g428]

Edstock, Pioneer, I have been an Obama supporter up until I read this thread.

 

You have really opened my eyes. I cannot imagine sharing the view of anyone that is unable to comprehend just how inappropriate that painting is. Pioneer, I have read your words here for a long time and I think you are a better person than this. As you gaze at that image on you computer screen, I hope you will contemplate just what kind of person you have become.

 

Thanks for showing me how Obama supporters really think. Obama couldn't figure out when it was time to leave church, I can.

[Edstock]

Edstock, Pioneer, I have been an Obama supporter up until I read this thread.

 

You have really opened my eyes. I cannot imagine sharing the view of anyone that is unable to comprehend just how inappropriate that painting is. Pioneer, I have read your words here for a long time and I think you are a better person than this. As you gaze at that image on you computer screen, I hope you will contemplate just what kind of person you have become.

 

Thanks for showing me how Obama supporters really think. Obama couldn't figure out when it was time to leave church, I can.

You gotta think what you gotta think and believe what you gotta believe.

 

I believe that the party policy of the GOP is to overturn Roe vs. Wade. So does the woman who drew that illustration: she felt that her freedom of choice was threatened.

 

So you don't like it, and knee-jerk to beat up on Obama, as if he'd done it. Great thinking, gang. You just don't get it, do you? There are women, US citizens, voters, that are really afraid of the GOP and the Christian fundamentalists the GOP panders to, because they are a naked, truculent, purblind threat to their freedom of choice.

 

And these women are making their opinion known, and you don't like it. So, if you don't want more of the same, maybe it might be a good idea to get the GOP to publicly announce that right of choice will be respected.

 

But you know that's not going to happen, because the GOP Christifundies would freak. The GOP is the home of the militant fetus-fetishists, so the GOP is not going to change — they can't.

 

So, until that happens, that artist feels threatened, and has every constitutional right to express this fear.

 

Or do you want to take that freedom away?

 

As I gaze at that image on my computer screen, I am impressed by her line-control; technically, she's really good; her use of light/shadow is really good too, working with the lay-out and composition. Her illustration of Joe Lieberman for the SF Chronicle is also excellent.

 

What kind of person have I become? As time has passed, the kind of person who is more respectful of, and concerned about other people's rights and freedoms. Try it, yourself.

Edited September 21, 2008 by Edstock

[Len_A]

You gotta think what you gotta think and believe what you gotta believe.

 

I believe that the party policy of the GOP is to overturn Roe vs. Wade. So does the woman who drew that illustration: she felt that her freedom of choice was threatened.

 

So you don't like it, and knee-jerk to beat up on Obama, as if he'd done it. Great thinking, gang. You just don't get it, do you? There are women, US citizens, voters, that are really afraid of the GOP and the Christian fundamentalists the GOP panders to, because they are a naked, truculent, purblind threat to their freedom of choice.

 

And these women are making their opinion known, and you don't like it. So, if you don't want more of the same, maybe it might be a good idea to get the GOP to publicly announce that right of choice will be respected.

 

But you know that's not going to happen, because the GOP Christifundies would freak. The GOP is the home of the militant fetus-fetishists, so the GOP is not going to change — they can't.

 

So, until that happens, that artist feels threatened, and has every constitutional right to express this fear.

 

Or do you want to take that freedom away?

 

As I gaze at that image on my computer screen, I am impressed by her line-control; technically, she's really good; her use of light/shadow is really good too, working with the lay-out and composition. Her illustration of Joe Lieberman for the SF Chronicle is also excellent.

 

What kind of person have I become? As time has passed, the kind of person who is more respectful of, and concerned about other people's rights and freedoms. Try it, yourself.

Very well said.

[RangerM]

Very well said.

Even if Rowe v. Wade were overturned right now, abortion limits (or legality) would only become a matter for each State to decide.

 

I still don't understand why either side doesn't admit to this fact.

 

I don't believe that abortion will ever be totally illegal in this country.

 

Even Conservative States are unlikely to ban it outright without some sort of allowances for health of the mother.

[xr7g428]

I am pro choice. It is a real stretch to get to pro choice from that painting.

 

Read these words:

 

Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

 

Nice try on the abortion rights thing. Did you make all that up?

 

Here is what she actually had to say about it:

 

Posted by Zina Saunders at 12:58 pm on September 10th

Thanks all, and yup, Harry, that's why the airplane is in the picture -- she did a little aerial hunting of some really big game: our rights and liberty.

 

And thank you for absolutely confirming that you lack any sense of common decency.

 

Spare me the art critic routine, you would swoon over a pile of garbage if it would further your view.

 

It has nothing to do with her right to produce her art, it is about you choosing to post it.

 

Did you ever even ask yourself; is this appropriate?

 

Plastering images of aborted fetus remains on the side of a truck is equally as offensive.

 

Just because you might have the right to do something, does not make it the right thing to do.

 

But keep on posting. You are doing a great job of illustrating the true temperament of Obama's supporters.

 

It is as simple as this: I can not support a party where I am the only one who thinks this is inappropriate.

[BlackHorse]

I am pro choice. It is a real stretch to get to pro choice from that painting.

 

Read these words:

 

Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

 

Nice try on the abortion rights thing. Did you make all that up?

 

Here is what she actually had to say about it:

 

 

 

And thank you for absolutely confirming that you lack any sense of common decency.

 

Spare me the art critic routine, you would swoon over a pile of garbage if it would further your view.

 

It has nothing to do with her right to produce her art, it is about you choosing to post it.

 

Did you ever even ask yourself; is this appropriate?

 

Plastering images of aborted fetus remains on the side of a truck is equally as offensive.

 

Just because you might have the right to do something, does not make it the right thing to do.

 

But keep on posting. You are doing a great job of illustrating the true temperament of Obama's supporters.

 

It is as simple as this: I can not support a party where I am the only one who thinks this is inappropriate.

 

Don't worry xr7, they'll just tell that you never really were a democrat or a liberal or a progressive or whatever it is they call themselves. They'll tell you that you never really were one now that you've called them out on their warped views.

 

The aerial hunting that she is referring to does not target "big game". It's purpose in fact is to protect large game animals by hunting wolves or coyotes in areas where the big game population is threatened. Last I checked a dog is not considered big game. Additionally its not like anyone with an airplane can go out and aerial hunt. The practice is closely controlled by the state with specific permits issued for it to control the population. All of these weak ass people that get soooo upset about hunting have never seen what it's like for an animal to starve to death in the dead of winter because there are too many of them and not enough food. Trust me it's far more gut wrenching to see and a far more painful and slow way for the animal to die. That gal needs to stick to disgusting art and leave the comments about hunting to people who actually know something about it.

 

As for the abortion issue, it's a red herring the democrates toss out at every election cycle. When George Bush took office in 2000 we had a Repulican President and a Republican controlled Congress. A womans ability to get an abortion has not been taken away. In fact, in the last 28 years, the democrats have held the oval office for only 8 of them and still a woman can get an abortion in this country if she so chooses. Unlike the liberals with their recently overturned oppressive gun laws, conservatives recognize a womans right to choose even if they don't agree with it. We are not animals man. We are not going to force women into back alley abortions where their health or lives are placed in jeopardy by getting an abortion that has been outlawed by the government. We understand that women are going to make this decision anyway, even if we wish they wouldn't. Just as we understand the people have a right to firearms without some poltician dictating what kind of firearm or even "if" a firearm can be owned. We may not like abortion, but we aren't going to take that choice away from you. That's one of the big differences between libs and cosnervatives.

 

Finally, contraception is sooooo easy, come on. If you don't want to get pregnant girls there are a number of ways to prevent it.

[RangerM]

Finally, contraception is sooooo easy, come on. If you don't want to get pregnant girls there are a number of ways to prevent it.

 

Before somebody says it. Source

• Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.[9]

 

• Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy, 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had had unexpected sex and 1% had been forced to have sex.[9]

 

• Eight percent of women who have abortions have never used a method of birth control; nonuse is greatest among those who are young, poor, black, Hispanic or less educated.[9]

 

• About half of unintended pregnancies occur among the 11% of women who are at risk for unintended pregnancy but are not using contraceptives. Most of these women have practiced contraception in the past.[1,10]

[Mark B. Morrow]

Edstock, Pioneer, I have been an Obama supporter up until I read this thread.

 

You have really opened my eyes. I cannot imagine sharing the view of anyone that is unable to comprehend just how inappropriate that painting is. Pioneer, I have read your words here for a long time and I think you are a better person than this. As you gaze at that image on you computer screen, I hope you will contemplate just what kind of person you have become.

 

Thanks for showing me how Obama supporters really think. Obama couldn't figure out when it was time to leave church, I can.

 

 

Only you know what is in your heart xr7g428. However if your support for Barak Obama could be swayed by something one of his supporters posted that you found offensive it couldn't have been very strong support in the first place. Obama does not control his supporters' opinions. In addition he has been the first one to say that palin's family is off linits. Not so for the McCain campaign who have gone after Michelle Obama personally. If supporter's statements are enough to determine your vote then i suggest you look at some of the things McCain Supporters have been saying. Why not start with Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Malkin, The Georgia Congressman who called him "Uppity" or the one who referred to him as "Boy". Obama and McCain differ greatly on the issues and on the direction they plan for the country. They are not interchangable.

 

If you want what McCain is promising than Obama isn't your guy. More to the point if a President Palin would be acceptable to you Obama/Biden isn't your team. Certainly you are free to change your mind. That is the beauty of America. Just spare us the bullshit about the posting on BON being the determining factor for your vote.

[RangerM]

Only you know what is in your heart xr7g428. However if your support for Barak Obama could be swayed by something one of his supporters posted that you found offensive it couldn't have been very strong support in the first place. Obama does not control his supporters' opinions. In addition he has been the first one to say that palin's family is off linits. Not so for the McCain campaign who have gone after Michelle Obama personally. If supporter's statements are enough to determine your vote then i suggest you look at some of the things McCain Supporters have been saying. Why not start with Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Malkin, The Georgia Congressman who called him "Uppity" or the one who referred to him as "Boy".

 

While he's at it, perhaps he should visit: democraticunderground.com It's full of such warmth and positivity towards McCain.

 

Another suitable candidate might be: http://retardedbaby.net/

[BlackHorse]

If supporter's statements are enough to determine your vote then i suggest you look at some of the things McCain Supporters have been saying. Why not start with Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Malkin, The Georgia Congressman who called him "Uppity" or the one who referred to him as "Boy".

 

Oh brother, what the hell ever with that nonsense. The shit off that fan flings both ways Mark. Do I really have to remind you about comments like

"The United States of KKKA!"

"White folks greed runs a world in need."

"I don't look like the Presidents on our money."

"Did I mention he's black."

"I'm white! I'm entitled!!" What did they think, if they put a white guy up there to make racist comments about white people that it wouldn't be racist?

 

Now we got told that calling Barrack a Community Organizer is code word for calling him black. WTF?

If someone calls him "flashy", that's code word for black.

You got Ruben Navarrette who works for the San Diego Union Tribune out there saying that white people won't vote for Barrack because white people are racist? WT double F?

The only ones that keep throwing the race issue into this thing are the democrats because dividing the population along racial lines is a bedrock operating principal of liberalism.

 

Personally I'd vote for Condoleezza Rice and / or Colin Powell anytime and I dearly wish that McCain had been able to talk Condi into running with him. I'd vote for Condi or Powell for President, VP either one.

Edited September 22, 2008 by BlackHorse

[BlackHorse]

Just spare us the bullshit about the posting on BON being the determining factor for your vote.

 

Spare them nothing. They deserve as much bullshit as they dole out around here.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Spare them nothing. They deserve as much bullshit as they dole out around here.

 

 

Another witty reply.

 

The point was that the supporters do not reflect the candidates. Not Obama's not McCain's. I guess I should have explained that for the thinking impaired in my previous post.

[BlackHorse]

Another witty reply.

 

The point was that the supporters do not reflect the candidates. Not Obama's not McCain's. I guess I should have explained that for the thinking impaired in my previous post.

 

Don't take it up with me pal. You called the man a liar. I'm just pointing out that maybe he shouldn't take such an insult from you.

[xr7g428]

Mark, You are correct in that my support for Obama was reserved. One has to have a lot of faith that he actually means a few of the things he says. These are not my litmus test issues, just examples: He is sort of for increased nuclear power, and sort of for additional off shore drilling. There is a lot of wiggle room in those statements. My concern is that after getting elected he might really turn out to be for $5 a gallon gas and attempting to social engineer America into Europe. I am looking for balance, not revolution.

 

So my radar is cranked up to try to pick up the real direction that he will go based on the influence of his base. He is going to have a bunch of IOU's to pay back. (As would ANY candidate.) This makes the actions of his supporters very much a part of my decision process. I share the same disgust with the actions of the neo-con Republicans (that is what got me into the Obama camp in the first place). At this point I would have to say that I am undecided.

 

The painting in and of itself is not the problem. It is the expression of a single person. The problem, as I see it, is that rank and file supporters of Obama do not see it as being inappropriate in any way. Not a single one of you stood up and said: "this doesn't represent the way we think the campaign should be waged". I do object. If this is what it means to support Obama, If this is acceptable to Obama supporters, then I can't be a part of that.

 

This doesn't mean that I automatically fall into the McCain camp. I have heard McCain pander to the neo-cons, and I hope it is just that. I am now questioning whether Obama has just been pandering to the center in the same way. I would like to hear him chastise Pelosi and Reid in the same way that McCain chastised the entire Republican party in his acceptance speech. It is an uneasy choice, and for now, I am somewhere in the middle.

 

Blackhorse, I don't think Mark was really even speaking to me, to call me a liar. He NEEDS to believe that all real Obama supporters think the way he does, and he may well be right.

[RaZor]

Don't worry xr7, they'll just tell that you never really were a democrat or a liberal or a progressive or whatever it is they call themselves. They'll tell you that you never really were one now that you've called them out on their warped views.

 

The aerial hunting that she is referring to does not target "big game". It's purpose in fact is to protect large game animals by hunting wolves or coyotes in areas where the big game population is threatened. Last I checked a dog is not considered big game. Additionally its not like anyone with an airplane can go out and aerial hunt. The practice is closely controlled by the state with specific permits issued for it to control the population. All of these weak ass people that get soooo upset about hunting have never seen what it's like for an animal to starve to death in the dead of winter because there are too many of them and not enough food. Trust me it's far more gut wrenching to see and a far more painful and slow way for the animal to die. That gal needs to stick to disgusting art and leave the comments about hunting to people who actually know something about it.

 

As per your usual M.O. BlackHorse, you completely twist things around.

 

(who have repeatedly voted down using planes to hunt wolves and bears) - it's just that the Governor and Legislature turn around every two years and go against the will of the people.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Mark, You are correct in that my support for Obama was reserved. One has to have a lot of faith that he actually means a few of the things he says. These are not my litmus test issues, just examples: He is sort of for increased nuclear power, and sort of for additional off shore drilling. There is a lot of wiggle room in those statements. My concern is that after getting elected he might really turn out to be for $5 a gallon gas and attempting to social engineer America into Europe. I am looking for balance, not revolution.

 

So my radar is cranked up to try to pick up the real direction that he will go based on the influence of his base. He is going to have a bunch of IOU's to pay back. (As would ANY candidate.) This makes the actions of his supporters very much a part of my decision process. I share the same disgust with the actions of the neo-con Republicans (that is what got me into the Obama camp in the first place). At this point I would have to say that I am undecided.

 

The painting in and of itself is not the problem. It is the expression of a single person. The problem, as I see it, is that rank and file supporters of Obama do not see it as being inappropriate in any way. Not a single one of you stood up and said: "this doesn't represent the way we think the campaign should be waged". I do object. If this is what it means to support Obama, If this is acceptable to Obama supporters, then I can't be a part of that.

 

This doesn't mean that I automatically fall into the McCain camp. I have heard McCain pander to the neo-cons, and I hope it is just that. I am now questioning whether Obama has just been pandering to the center in the same way. I would like to hear him chastise Pelosi and Reid in the same way that McCain chastised the entire Republican party in his acceptance speech. It is an uneasy choice, and for now, I am somewhere in the middle.

 

Blackhorse, I don't think Mark was really even speaking to me, to call me a liar. He NEEDS to believe that all real Obama supporters think the way he does, and he may well be right.

 

xr7g428, upon reflection, my comment was overly harsh. I have had several conversations with 2 people who claim to be Hillary supporters who are now supporting McCain Palin. On the issues it simply makes no sense to me at all. McCain can call himself a Maverick all he wants the fact is that based on his voting record over the last 2 years he isn't anymore. During the primaries I had hoped McCain would get the nomination since he was the only Republican I would have considered supporting. I hoped he would bring the party back towards the middle like the fiscally conservative socially moderate wing that used to exist. People like Tom Ridge, John Heinz, Christie Whitman and Arnold Schwarzenegger who have all but been driven out by the far right wingers like Santorum and DeLay.

 

As I have stated here, I voted for Bush in 2000. I really wanted McCain. Eventhough I was disgusted by the campaign Bush ran against McCain questioning his adopted daughter's parentage and whether he was "Brainwashed' by the North Vietnamese, I decided to give Bush the benefit of the doubt that he was what he said he was, a reasonable refeomer who would work across party lines. Well fool me once...

 

McCain once took principled stands against the very kind of politicking he now embraces. In 2000 he rightly called Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell "Agents of Intolerence" He was right to criticize the Bush tax cuts as fiscally reckless. He was absolutely right and honorable in attacking the Swift Boat smears on John Kerry in 2004. After 2004 everything changed. McCain has hired the same Bush operatives who smeared him in 2000. McCain votes with Bush 90% of the time. He changed his position on the tax cuts, on torture, on drilling and his choice of Palin who he met once prior to offering her the VP spot was an obvious and cynical ploy to secure the neocon vote. McCain has flipped on nearly everything he once believed in.

 

McCain's ad campaign has been constantly based on lies and distortions. That is not to say Obama has been pristine either. But McCain doesn't even correct the ads after they have been shown to be false. He keeps repeating the lie that Palin didn't request earmarks as Alaska Governor, the halftruth on the Brigde to nowhere her foreign policy experience of being close to Russia and her commander in chief experience in 20 months as Alaska's Governor (she never gave an order). During the primary he mocked Rudy as a Mayor and Romney and Huckabee as Governors. He picked sonmeone with substantially less experience in either job as his VP.

 

His defense that he wouldn't be running these ads if only Obama would agree to tour with him and do "Town Hall Meetings" doesn't excuse him from running ads that are false and misleading. Look at FactCheck, Politifact or Joe Klein's article in Time.

 

In just the last week he was all over the place on how to deal with the Wall Street Crisis. Even George Will called his actions "Unpresidential". He called for firing the head of the SEC (eventhough the President can't fire a confirmed appointee), then he railed against CEO greed without getting the memo that Carly Fiorino, his chief economic advisor was fired from HP and got a 40 million dollar severence. His top campaign staff were all lobbyists. John McCain sold his soul and his honor to get the nomination and now he is doing the same to get elected President. He likes to talk about being a bi=partisan consensus builder but he doesn't even support his own immigration bill. After the schorched earth campaign who on the other side will even want to work with him on anything.

 

Obama won't be able to do many of the things he says he wants to do. The nature of politics is that the ground is constantly moving. He will have 2-3 Supreme Court appointments. McCain has already told us he would appoint people like Thomas and Scalia. As a practising lawyer, I can't support that. He can try to move incrementally on healthcare, he can repair the damaged ties with our allies all over the world by stressing diplomacy as the first option.

 

As for the picture, I find it harsh and disturbing. No more so than the not so subtle racism of putting Obama on a box of Aunt Jemima waffles dressed up like bin Ladin or passing out buttons at the Republicam conventions asking if we can still call it the White House If Obama wins. Supporters on both sides can be extreme. I even agree with BlackHorse that the website making fun of Palin's youngest child is disgusting. Some of the things I have heard from McCain supporters have made me very angry. So did some of the things I saw posted on the Pro-Hillary site Hillaryis44.

 

Your vote, either way will not mean that you agree with the outrageous extremes of the supporters of either candidate. There is much to dislike on both sides of this race where passions have been enflamed. I support Obama and I do not support these extreme views. I see no evidence that Obama does. On the contrary he has tried to control his message by dissuading independent groups from attacking McCain in his name.

 

You know where McCain will go. He has told you he supports the direction Bush has charted. He touted himself as a deregulator for his whole career. His economic policy was created by Phil Gramm who gave us the current mess we are in.

 

Who you vote for is your own personal choice. I would hope that you weigh the issues and the candidates in making your decision.

[xr7g428]

The people of Alaska? Hardly.

 

This is exactly the kind of BS that BOTH sides of this election keep trying to pull.

 

Defenders of Wildlife Fund

 

HOW DOES THE ACTION FUND DIFFER FROM DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE?

Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund is organized under Section 501©(4) of the tax code. As such, it can lobby and engage in unlimited work to influence legislative action. Because of this, the Action Fund is not a charitable organization,

 

FROM THE PRESIDENT

-Rodger Schlickeisen, CEO of Defenders of Wildlife

In this political era, the worst enemy of responsible environmental protection and conservation is the elected leadership in Washington. It is no longer enough for the environmental movement to focus primarily on persuading elected officials to be good stewards of our land, air, water and wildlife; it must replace the problem officials themselves. The opportunity appears right for the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund to help do just that.

 

-Rodger Schlickeisen, CEO

 

DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE ACTION FUND ENDORSES OBAMA-BIDEN

Group simultaneously releases first TV ad on Palin's environmental record

Help Us Run This TV Ad Take Action Watch our TV Ad

 

WASHINGTON - Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund today endorsed Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) for President and Vice President of the United States. Below is a statement from the organization's president, Rodger Schlickeisen.

[xr7g428]

Mark, I think you did an excellent job of summing up why I became an Obama supporter in the first place. I think that you and I are probably not very far apart where the issues are concerned.

 

Early on Obama promised to try to lift the process from the gutter. But who can say they have clean hands now? America is being destroyed from within. The campaign process is becoming so divisive that we are unable to reconnect. The Democrats don't win when Republicans fail. We all just fail.

 

If I were to look at the issues that are important to me, first would be energy. Sending $750 billion per year out of the country is in my mind, our single greatest problem. On this score I think we need to do EVERYTHING possible to stop the bleeding. More nuclear plants, more drilling where we are likely to find oil, more natural gas, these are all short term solutions. Then we need to develop the alternative technologies that will take our kids into the future: wind, solar, and other re-newables. In particular, I want to see an emphasis on bio diesel and synthetics that work with the existing infrastructure. No candidate embraces this position.

 

Jobs are my number two issue. I think that we need to keep those new energy jobs in the US. I think we need to use tax policy to keep those new energy jobs in the US. And I don't mean taxing the oil companies to pay for alternatives. What I mean is that we use USA based research, to build USA based facilities built by USA based labor, and then staffed by USA employees, and those companies better be USA corporations paying USA taxes. Free trade is a good thing, but not when it imperils national security. The price of oil has done more to injure the US auto manufacturers than NAFTA or any other trade agreement.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Mark, I think you did an excellent job of summing up why I became an Obama supporter in the first place. I think that you and I are probably not very far apart where the issues are concerned.

 

Early on Obama promised to try to lift the process from the gutter. But who can say they have clean hands now? America is being destroyed from within. The campaign process is becoming so divisive that we are unable to reconnect. The Democrats don't win when Republicans fail. We all just fail.

 

If I were to look at the issues that are important to me, first would be energy. Sending $750 billion per year out of the country is in my mind, our single greatest problem. On this score I think we need to do EVERYTHING possible to stop the bleeding. More nuclear plants, more drilling where we are likely to find oil, more natural gas, these are all short term solutions. Then we need to develop the alternative technologies that will take our kids into the future: wind, solar, and other re-newables. In particular, I want to see an emphasis on bio diesel and synthetics that work with the existing infrastructure. No candidate embraces this position.

 

Jobs are my number two issue. I think that we need to keep those new energy jobs in the US. I think we need to use tax policy to keep those new energy jobs in the US. And I don't mean taxing the oil companies to pay for alternatives. What I mean is that we use USA based research, to build USA based facilities built by USA based labor, and then staffed by USA employees, and those companies better be USA corporations paying USA taxes. Free trade is a good thing, but not when it imperils national security. The price of oil has done more to injure the US auto manufacturers than NAFTA or any other trade agreement.

 

xr7g428 I do agree with you on most of the above. The $750 Billion number isn't accurate eventhough it has been used in several of McCain's speeches. It is actually about $400 Bln. Our largest source of imported oil is Canada. Mexico and Saudi Arabia are about tied for second place. I have no problem with drilling in the USA. We currently have 68 million acres under lease to oil companies that they aren't drilling. I support a use it or lose it requirement on the leases. They shouldn't be able to tie up that oil and cheat the citizens out of the royalties that would be realized. The purpose is to keep prices high. In addition, we don't have the drilling capacity (lack of equipment) or the refining capacity for drilling to do anything to lower prices.

 

We do need to jump start research on alternatives. I believe Boone Pickins is on to something with using CNG to power cars. It needs to be encouraged as does wind and solar. McCain failed to show up for 8 votes to reauthorize tax incentives for wind and solar. These new technologies need to be nutrured. At the same time we continue to give subsidies to the big oil companies as they rake in record profits. It is the worst kind of corporate welfare. It doesn't create anything new.

 

We have historically used government to push technology when private enterprise couldn't fund the required infrastructure. We did it with the Railroads in the 1800s, with electrification in the South and West. The intervention of government opened the country. The same could be done now with alternative energy and building the required infrastructure for CNG and Hydrogen filling stations. I have no problem with nuclear power the first atomic plant is near pittsburgh. But there is a real issue of what to do with the waste. I note that France has been using nuclear for most of their electricty decades.

 

BioDiesel and even BioGasoline have great promise. If we just ran all of our school busses and mass transit on recycled vegetable oil we would save millions of gallons of petroleum. Obama is for this, McCain says he is but hasn't done anything when it comes to voting on it.

 

Jobs are created when the Middle Class is strong. The Middle Class buys the things that create jobs. The Bush tax cuts have hurt the middle to benefit the rich. Obama would try to remedy this.

 

Republicans don't win when Democrats fail either. That has been the lesson of the first 6 years of the GW Bush Presidency.

Edited September 22, 2008 by Mark B. Morrow

[BlackHorse]

Jobs are created when the Middle Class is strong. The Middle Class buys the things that create jobs. The Bush tax cuts have hurt the middle to benefit the rich. Obama would try to remedy this.

 

Obama will not remedy it. He will tell you that he is going to, and you may believe him, but he is not interested in putting more money back in the pockets of anyone except himself and his select group.

 

Note item point # 10 below Mark.

 

Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts—and the Facts

 

Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low.

Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.

 

Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.

Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.

 

Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.

Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.

 

Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.

Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.

 

Myth #5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.

Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases.

 

Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.

Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.

 

Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.

Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.

 

Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's pockets."

Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.

 

Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.

Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.

 

Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.

Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.

 

http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg2001.cfm

[Mark B. Morrow]

Obama will not remedy it. He will tell you that he is going to, and you may believe him, but he is not interested in putting more money back in the pockets of anyone except himself and his select group.

 

Note item point # 10 below Mark.

 

 

 

http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg2001.cfm

 

 

The Heritage Foundation is hardly an unbiased source. It is a right wing think tank. You can cherry pick statistics to fit nearly any pre-determined conclusion. The fact is that the Middle Class people earning under $250,000 will do better under Obama's tax plan that under McCain's continuation of the Bush Tax Cuts. BTW the Upper 5% will still do better under Obama's plan then they did under Regan/Bush 41.

 

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publication...l.cfm?ID=411750

 

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/th...goes_again.html

 

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/pr...deceptions.html

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/724/

[RangerM]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/724/

 

from the article:

The Tax Policy Center's analysis does not specifically look at the subset of tax filers who are "working families." But the center can make the following statements about Obama's tax proposal, said principal research associate Bob Williams:

 

• 95 percent of all tax filers (working and nonworking) will get a cut in their individual income taxes.

 

• 95 percent of all families with children (working and nonworking) will get a cut in their total federal taxes.

 

Major contradiction here. http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/1410.html.

 

During 2006, Tax Foundation economists estimate that roughly 43.4 million tax returns, representing 91 million individuals, will face a zero or negative tax liability. That's out of a total of 136 million federal tax returns that will be filed. Adding to this figure the 15 million households and individuals who file no tax return at all, roughly 121 million Americans—or 41 percent of the U.S. population—will be completely outside the federal income tax system in 2006. This total includes those who pay no tax, and those who pay some tax upfront and are later refunded the full amount of the tax paid or more.

 

You can't cut 95% of all tax filers' taxes, if only 60% are paying.

[Mark B. Morrow]

from the article:

 

 

Major contradiction here. http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/1410.html.

 

 

 

You can't cut 95% of all tax filers' taxes, if only 60% are paying.

 

 

Sure you can. Tax filers includes those on Social Security who are required to file as well as those who are eligible for Childcare tax credits and Earned Income Tax Credits and other programs available to the disabled or lower classes on the tax scale. Filers also include those who receive only capital gains income and thus pay nothing on earned income tax. In addition, all employed persons pay FICA on income below the minimum.

 

Not all those who file no return are poor. Some are just off the grid. There is a huge underground economy in this country. I see it in my practice all the time.

Edited September 22, 2008 by Mark B. Morrow

[RangerM]

Sure you can tax filers includes those on Social Security who are required to file as well as those who are eligible for Childcare tax credits and Earned Income Tax Credits.....

 

But those are already included in the 40% who don't pay as was mentioned in the article.

 

..... and other programs available to the disabled or lower classes on the tax scale. Filers also include those who receive only capital gains income

 

Which Obama has promised to raise for those making more than 250K, but not lower any others, so no reduction for anyone there.

 

and thus pay nothing on earned income tax. In addition, all employed persons pay FICA on income below the minimum.

 

So is that how Obama is going to lower taxes, by lowering the withholding on FICA? How is he going to make up the difference?

 

The 95 percentile is approximately 150K/year income so noone below that threshold can have their FICA withholding altered. There is a pretty wide gap between 150K and 250K.

 

Also, the cutoff for Social Security is 100K/year income, so he can't raise the upper limit on SS witholding without raising the taxes on people making above that, but below 250K.

 

Not all those who file no return are poor. Some are just off the grid. There is a huge underground economy in this country. I see it in my practice all the time.

 

Perhaps you share my enthusiasm for the FairTax?