Colorado abuzz over Obama, Palin

Candidates stump for support in Centennial State

By Sara Burnett, Rocky Mountain News (Contact), David Montero, Rocky Mountain News (Contact), Lisa Ryckman, Rocky Mountain News (Contact), Bill Scanlon, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published September 15, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Updated September 16, 2008 at 11:36 a.m.

Text size  

• 270 Comments
• Email
• Print

Judy DeHaas © The Rocky

The crowd cheers Sen. Obama while he delivers his speech at the School of Mines.

Photo by Barry Gutierrez, Judy DeHaas © The Rocky

Composite photo of Barack Obama and Sarah Palin.

Photo by Javier Manzano © The Rocky

Palin talks Monday about lowering taxes, creating jobs and having the experience necessary to "shake things up" in Washington D.C.

Barack Obama this morning told a crowd of several thousand in Golden that America is facing "the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression."

Obama, dressed in a gray suit and blue striped tie, made his third appearance in 24 hours in Colorado, one of four swing states that analysts say may well decide the 2008 presidential election.

Obama drew cheers when he noted that on Monday, when the Dow Jones average suffered its steepest decline since 2001, his opponent GOP nominee John McCain repeated his contention that the fundamentals of the economy are sound.

"A few hours later, his campaign sent him back out to clean up his remarks, and he said he meant to say that the American workers are strong," Obama said.

"But we know Senator McCain meant what he said the first time, because he's said it at least 16 times," Obama said.

With the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers and the steep fall in stock prices, Obama jumped on the difference between he and McCain on economic policy.

"Look at how we responded to the crisis," Obama said, at the Colorado School of Mines campus.

"McCain's approach has been the same as Bush's: support ideological policies that make the crisis worse, then scramble as the whole thing unravels."

By contrast, Obama said, his approach was to "try to prevent this turmoil from occurring in the first place."

Obama told the Colorado crowd that in February of 2006 he introduced legislation to stop mortgage abuse, then a year later warned the Federal Reserve about impending foreclosures and urged its leaders to bring together all the stakeholders.

"Senator McCain did nothing," he said.

"John McCain is the same man who said we are going through a mental recession and that the United States is a nation of whiners."

Obama said he will offer three times the tax relief as McCain for middle-class Americans and any family earning less than $250,000 a year won't see a dollar of tax increase in his administration.

Hammering on what he said were the differences between him and McCain, Obama said, "John McCain refers to himself as "basically a deregulator," similar to George W. Bush.

"When regulators are chosen for their disdain of regulation, the interests of the American people aren't protected."

He said Bush and McCain are responsible for "an ideology that intentionally breeds incompetence in Washington and irresponsibility on Wall Street. It is time to put an end to it.

"Too often we've excused an ethic of greed and corner-cutting," Obama said.

Obama said he would put forth a $50 billion program to save one million jobs and create a 21st-century regulation structure.

One of his biggest cheers came when he noted that if an American owns one home, a bankruptcy judge isn't allowed to help the homeowner with any mortgage relief. "But if he owns two, three, four, five, six or seven homes," a judge can help lower the rate on those other homes, he said, referring to McCain's gaff when he couldn't remember how many homes he and his wife owned.

Obama said his plan would lower mortgage rates by about 10 percent for more than one million middle-class families.

"I will make sure our response will focus on middle-class Americans, not the people who created this mess," Obama said.

Obama's speech kept returning to a central theme: He will promote policies that benefit the many; McCain will promote polices that benefit the elite.

"If you want an economy that works for both Main Street and Wall Street ... I ask you to knock on some doors make phone calls, talk to neighbors ... and give me your vote. Together, we will change America."

Obama's speech follows his appearances Monday in Grand Junction and Pueblo. Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin on Monday spoke to a large gathering at the Jefferson County Fairgrounds.

It was a day when the news drove the candidates, instead of the other way around.

Obama and Palin took the political tug-of-war over swing-state Colorado to a new level.

The Democrats wanted to stay on message - to talk Western Slope issues of energy, environment and water - but Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy and the $50 billion sale of Merrill Lynch meant Obama had to pivot. Suddenly, it was about the economy and Wall Street bailouts in the shadow of a more than 500-point drop of the Dow Jones, the single largest plunge since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Speaking before a cheering, chanting crowd at the fairgrounds, Palin said she and McCain would add Wall Street to their to-do list of reforms.

"Our regulatory system is outdated and needs a complete overhaul," Palin said, as husband Todd looked on. "Washington is asleep at the switch and ineffective, and management on Wall Street has not run these institutions properly. It must be the market that the American people and investors everywhere can trust."

In her first solo campaign trip outside Alaska, the governor elaborated on her role as McCain's vice president, saying that she would focus on energy by pushing McCain's "all of the above strategy" to reduce national dependence on foreign oil. She also plans to make priorities out of government reform and families with special needs' children, and promised efforts to find new cures for diseases such as cancer and Alzheimer's.

In an introduction, former Gov. Bill Owens touted Palin and McCain's "Western values" of independence, self-reliance and patriotism, and praised her toughness as an outsider who challenged entrenched politicians in her state.

"We've done some shakin' up in Alaska," Palin said of her success at breaking up the "good-ol'-boys network of lobbyists and special interests. Whatever they're running now, it's not the state of Alaska."

• September 15, 2008

  4:44 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  LOUIE writes:

  Now we have a presidential candidate squaring off with the vice presidential candidate; and it's a dog fight over lipstick on pigs and pitbulls. With the serious issues facing America, this election is the worse group of candidates in my lifetime. Joe Biden is totally useless and no help to Mr. Obama; Mr. Obama is being forced to handle Ms. Palin, while Mc Cain gets to lay back and enjoy the ride. I could care less who dresses up the farm animals with lipstick and what they look like, America needs a leader, we are flying downhill and both parties are hammering each about lipstick. What a choice of idiots from both parties. Folks, I'll be honest, maybe it would be better just to not vote at all, why be part of the circus and assist with America's demise? Neither party is worthy of the office. I will vote only because there are ballot issues of grave importance; but as for president of the United States either choice puts an idiot in power. The choice is yours America, lipstick on a pitbull or lipstick on a pig, either way it's Looney Tunes for the next 4 years. Is our nations problems this insignificant to these two parties that Lipstick is the new issue to spend the last days leading up to the election on? And would someone please get the cardio paddles out and wake up Joe Biden; man is totally useless to Mr. Obama. Palin is keeping Obama pretty tied up all by herself, that lady is is everything I said she'd be the day she was chosen; I haven't lied to you yet. Sad day America, were are the ones wearing the lipstick and looking like clowns. I can't believe Biden told a disabled veteran, whose accolades of honor and service he eloquently spoke to an audience of, while the man sat in his wheelchair in the front row, to "Stand up Dan, everyone give Dan a big round of applause he deserves...", what kind of idiot is that dumb when you just finished telling everyone his history in combat leaving him paralized in a wheelchair? Biden, you are not only useless, but an idiot who ate out of too many aluminium pans.

• September 15, 2008

  5:06 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  LOUIE writes:

  Ms. Lindsay, I apologize for writting such a caustic response to your article, your a heck of a good person and your courtroom reporting is truly the best. I met you years ago at the Alan Berg assasination trial in front Richard Matsch; I have nothing but the upmost respect for you, please accept my apology, I should have looked at the author before commenting. After the Alan Berg assasination trial, you'd be suprised where some of those attorneys are today. One, Michael Bender, I still see today on occaision, the man really reached his potential today. Again, I am sorry Ms. Lindsay, I'll have better manners next time.

• September 15, 2008

  6:20 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  HumanBeans writes:

  Obama Tax Policy - Explained With Beer

  Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

  If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
  * The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
  * The fifth would pay $1.
  * The sixth would pay $3.
  * The seventh would pay $7.
  * The eighth would pay $12.
  * The ninth would pay $18.
  * The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

  So, that's what they decided to do.

  The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

  'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.'
  'Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.'

  The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

  They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

• September 15, 2008

  6:21 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  HumanBeans writes:

  And so:
  * The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
  * The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings) .
  * The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings) .
  * The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 ( 25% savings).
  * The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
  * The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

  Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

  'I only got a dollar out of the $20,' declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, 'but he got $10!'
  'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only Saved a dollar,too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'

  'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

  'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

  The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

  The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

  And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

  For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

  For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

• September 15, 2008

  6:51 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  HumanBeans writes:

  Barack Hussien Obama said: “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And it’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

  Anti-immigrant sentiment is totally wrong....no such thing....it's anti-illegal alien sentiment!

• September 15, 2008

  7:28 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  speakthetruth writes:

  Palin's a Monster. How can anyone with a conscience be for her???? Watch this and then decide...

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQobIU...

• September 15, 2008

  7:32 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  HumanBeans writes:

  The sad fact is that if John McCain is elected President he might not last another four more years. A sadder fact is that if Barack Hussien Obama is elected President then America might not last another four more years.

• September 15, 2008

  7:39 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  ChrisN67 writes:

  I'm an independent leaning toward John McCain for his record of service (has any other President been tortured for his country?) but more importantly because he's been able to go beyond party politics and work with Dems (like Leiberman and Feingold) to get things done.

  I think that John McCain has the right economic and energy policies to make the changes that we need.

  But I do hope that Senator Obama will provide more specifics on his tax plan (specifically taxes on small businesses). And Governor Palin should talk about the plan to shake things up in Washington. I'd like more specifics from both sides before I make my final decision.

• September 15, 2008

  7:52 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  speakthetruth writes:

  The economy is my #1 issue. Alan Greenspan discussed both tax plans on Sunday. He said McCain's tax plan is trouble. I trust him over all the other talking heads. I can't lose anymore retirement money. I know this entire election is about the Abortion issue, but my money is more important than that one issue.

• September 15, 2008

  7:58 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  HumanBeans writes:

  Obama first told of his early drug use in his 1995 memoir, "Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance."

  "Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it," wrote Obama about what he would later say were "bad decisions." "Junkie. Pothead. That's where I'd been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man."

• September 15, 2008

  7:59 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  chris33 writes:

  McCain lobbied for Charles Keating and took jet set vacations at Keatings expense. This is not in dispute.

  McCain cheated on his crippled wife when he came back from Vietnam. This is not in dispute.

  Oil money gushed for McCain in this campaign. You admit that yourself. This is not in dispute.

  Troopergate is going to result in indictments. The prosecutor has audio tapes, emails, phone records, and multiple witnesses. Palin herself admitted she lied to the publc. Todd Palin was subpoenaed on Friday.

  Cindy McCain forged prescriptions in the names of her employees and stole drugs from her own charity. This is not in dispute. When she was caught, she went on television and made a "tearful confession."

  McCain's medical record from the last 8 years is 1,200 pages long. He would only let a selected few reporters examine it for a few hours. If you go to youtube and type in McCain Dazed and Confused, you can see some of McCain's senior moments on the campaign trail.

  Cindy McCain's father was a convicted felon who was in business with a mob boss who had reporter Don Bolles blown up in 1976. Cindy financed John's Senate campaigns with her fathers mob money. Now she won't reveal her tax records from that period. What is she hiding?

• September 15, 2008

  8:29 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Coffee_Mug writes:

  It seems this campaign is between Palin and Obama. Is McCain off on vacation or something? Is Palin now the presidential candidate and McCain the VP. As mentioned previously, no good choice either way you vote. What a shame.

• September 15, 2008

  8:34 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  ML writes:

  Heckuva Job, Sarah
  via The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan by Andrew Sullivan on 9/13/08

  Palin really is Bush's true heir in so many ways:

  So when there was a vacancy at the top of the State Division of Agriculture, [Palin] appointed a high school classmate, Franci Havemeister, to the $95,000-a-year directorship. A former real estate agent, Ms. Havemeister cited her childhood love of cows as one of her qualifications for running the roughly $2 million agency.

  Does that not seem eerily reminiscent of George W. Bush's appointment of Michael Brown to FEMA? Cronyism, debt, lies, religious fanaticism, and utter ignorance about foreign policy. You want another four years of Bush? McCain-Palin is the ticket.

• September 15, 2008

  8:39 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Willy writes:

  Louie - we aren't ever going to get a real leader as long as the two corrupt parties continue sending us puppets. This country is in bad need of true political reform.

• September 15, 2008

  9:08 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Hambone writes:

  The Palin hysteria is as disturbing as the Obama hysteria.

• September 15, 2008

  9:13 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  LuvAmerica writes:

  "Who's to blame for the biggest financial catastrophe of our time? There are plenty of culprits, but one candidate for lead perp is former Sen. Phil Gramm. Eight years ago, as part of a decades-long anti-regulatory crusade, Gramm pulled a sly legislative maneuver that greased the way to the multibillion-dollar subprime meltdown. Yet has Gramm been banished from the corridors of power? Reviled as the villain who bankrupted Middle America? Hardly. Now a well-paid executive at a Swiss bank, Gramm cochairs Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign and advises the Republican candidate on economic matters. He's been mentioned as a possible Treasury secretary should McCain win. That's right: A guy who helped screw up the global financial system could end up in charge of US economic policy. Talk about a market failure."

  http://www.motherjones.com/news/featu...

• September 15, 2008

  9:20 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  LuvAmerica writes:

  HumanBeans writes:
  Obama first told of his early drug use in his 1995 memoir, "Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance."

  "Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it," wrote Obama about what he would later say were "bad decisions." "Junkie. Pothead. That's where I'd been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man."

  Beans, do you have some kind of point? Are you saying you are inspired by Obama's intelligence?

  By the way, did you see Alan Greenspan's comments that the McCain economic plan is an unworkable fantasy? That's weird, because I thought McCain got an economics degree while he was a POW.

• September 15, 2008

  9:20 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  dakar writes:

  McCain has been fighting for and creating change in Washington since he's been there. He's had to fight Bush and the Repub party as well as the Dem party, and he's been able to compromise with each. Bush hasn't compromised much. Obama talks change but he hasn't every really created much change. He's gone with his party on many issues and has had several shady "friends" - Bill Ayers, Detroit mayor Kwame, his neighbor who helped him with his house deal - Resko, his pastor Rev. Wright. etc. Obama hasn't stood up to any of these people and he won't stand up for the average US citizen either. In 2000 McCain and his policies were originally more liked than Bush, but McCain wasn't conservative enough for the Repub party and he lost out.

• September 15, 2008

  9:26 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Willy writes:

  Rick - somehow we have to break the stranglehold of the parties on our electoral system. I think it will take a constitutional ammendment to out law the party system - just as Washington. Adams and Jefferson envisioned. It is against my nature, but I am coming around to government funding of all campaigns.

  FYI - for those that have not been there Wasilla is pretty much to Anchorage as Castle Rock or Longmont is to Denver.

• September 15, 2008

  9:30 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  mytwosense writes:

  Louie, I agree that none of the candidates are exactly passing the character test with flying colors. But until the media allows third party candidates to take place in all of the presidential debates, we are stuck with this kind of election for the foreseeable future.

  I would love to write in Dennis Kucinich, but my pragmatic side reminds me that we're less likely to engage in WWIII if Obama is president instead of McCain. Obama's tax cuts will give thousands back to the average middle class citizen, while McCain's will only give something like $300 back. And, I do believe that Obama will make agencies tasked with oversight actually do their jobs again, which is our only hope for Wall Street. I have no confidence in McCain/Palin in this regard whatsoever when their mantra is "Get government out of the way of business."

  We tried that. And look what happened. We ended up having to nationalize the mortgage industry by taking over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

• September 15, 2008

  9:32 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  DenverDan writes:

  Obama rocks, cant wait to see him today!

• September 15, 2008

  9:42 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Cowboy63 writes:

  speakthetruth writes: "Palin's a Monster."

  speakthetruth is not alone. This is a textbook "meltdown" on the Left. It is this kind of incoherent ranting that is costing them an election that was all but "unlosable" a month ago. NO MATTER WHO WINS we are going to need some mature leadership that can work with (respect) the other party.

  Some free advice just to make it interesting. The more democrats freak out over Sarah Palin - the more incompetent democrats look. EXAMPLE: How much is the GOP freaking out over Joe Biden?

  HINT: The candidate running for President is JOHN MCCAIN.

• September 15, 2008

  9:47 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  cterryr2 writes:

  It's important to get the first GILF elected! Who needs experience?
  Who needs a Harvard education? We have a hot, soon to be grandma! She can care for her grand daughter with one hand and hit the red launch button with the other while breast feeding at the same time! She'll already be awake at 3:00 am to pick up that panic phone (when John declares war on Iran, Russia and N. Korea). God loves Sarah and hates freedom of choice!

• September 15, 2008

  10 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Cwillyrun1 writes:

  speakthetruth...... you don't want to lose more retirement money? Then I'd suggest you find out why Obama wants to place a windfall tax on retirement income if he becomes President, and how it can be prevented. Me, I just won't vote for Obama because of flawed plans like that.

• September 15, 2008

  10:05 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Cwillyrun1 writes:

  hey rickybear, what does the meth thing have to do with the Presidential race? Adams County is big on meth labs, and maybe it's no coincidence it's also high in numbers of illegals aliens in the metro area. Would you say that's Ritter's fault and his fault alone?

• September 15, 2008

  10:06 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Maurie writes:

  I am hoping that women who were Hillary supporters and are now going to McCain/Palen keep in mind that McCain will most likely have an opportunity, were he to win the election, to appoint more than one Supreme Court justice. If he appoints a strong conservative there is a reasonable chance that the Roe v Wade decision will be overruled and women will loose their right to choose. If they were for Hillary for Hillary’s principles they should now be for Obama. The last thing Hillary wants is for women to loose their right to choose. Don’t let her down.

• September 15, 2008

  10:07 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  mytwosense writes:

  Cwillyrun1 writes: "speakthetruth...... you don't want to lose more retirement money? Then I'd suggest you find out why Obama wants to place a windfall tax on retirement income if he becomes President, and how it can be prevented. Me, I just won't vote for Obama because of flawed plans like that."

  I asked you before what exactly this windfall tax on retirement income was, and you said you didn't know. Have you made the effort to find out yet?

• September 15, 2008

  10:08 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  gregu710 writes:

  Seems like a LOT of you McCain supporters (especially you HumanBeans) don't read the Wall Street Journal, which is always pretty favorable to GOP fiscal plans. Maybe before you run off to the alter with Sarah Palin, you should at least see what they think of him, that is unless you just want to keep voting the party ticket no matter what it does to the country! After all "Party First!", right! Here's a link to the article!

  http://online.wsj.com/public/article_...

  As for me, I'm pretty disgusted with the lack of energy and forcefulness (and the past 2 years of do-nothingness) of the Dems, and the bold-faced lying and scare-tactics of the GOP, so I think I’ve come up with a new plan to straighten out our government. I would think a one time clearing of the decks would be acceptable, and effective. Per Roman Army practice for Legions which failed in battle, order a Decimation of the Halls of Congress and of the Executive Branch, and then replace those 10% with new candidates. Then let it be known that there will be a 2 year period in which they can straighten out the mess, or another Decimation takes place. I’m pretty sure that would end ALL partisan bickering and usher in an era of cooperation the likes of which we’ve never seen! After all, since Decimation is completely arbitrary, it would be pointless to point fingers…
  (for those of you who don't know what Decimation is, the Romans used to kill every 10th man in a Legion where they were defeated in battle)

• September 15, 2008

  10:08 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  BJG writes:

  McCain and Palin two pinheads with their fan club and it's banner right up front, too funny and too true.

• September 15, 2008

  10:13 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Buckwheat writes:

  I agree Louie, not looking too good either way. And like you, if it wasn't for the other issues, I'd be tempted to not vote at all.. But, like I tell everyone if you don't vote you, can't beoch plain and simple. Shame, I know these two parties could do better.

• September 15, 2008

  10:18 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Truth writes:

  Who Am I?

  I am under 45 years old,
  I love the outdoors,
  I hunt,
  I am a Republican reformer,
  I have taken on the Republican Party establishment,
  I have many children,
  I have a spot on the national ticket as vice president with less than two years in the governor's office.

  Who Am I? Answer is below.

• September 15, 2008

  10:19 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Truth writes:

  Who am I? Answer to the above:
  Theodore Roosevelt

• September 15, 2008

  10:23 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  richardboyd writes:

  Palin is awesome!!! Finally a woman in politics at the national level who is *gasp!* a conservative. I am so sick of the liberal democrat female model, ala Clinton and DeGette, their only issue is abortion; how narrow minded and boring is that? Can they talk about anything else for cryin' out loud? Sarah Palin is smart, she is tough, she is a common citizen, not a millionaire or a lawyer, she is one of us, the average common person! She has been a fighter and a success her whole life at whatever she's tried. McCain showed excellent judgement in choosing his VP. You go, girl!!

• September 15, 2008

  10:27 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  mytwosense writes:

  Theodore Roosevelt was once given the opportunity to shoot a bear tied to a tree. Appalled, he refused.

  Sarah Palin advocates for the shooting of bears and wolves from low-flying helicopters and airplanes.

  Theodore Roosevelt set aside land for our National Parks.

  Sarah Palin supports big-box "growth" and drilling in these pristine wildernesses.

  I believe Roosevelt subscribed to a completely different set of ethics.

• September 15, 2008

  10:28 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  bph writes:

  VOTE VOTE VOTE

• September 15, 2008

  10:29 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  dilligaf writes:

  When is America going to wake up. This McCain/Palin show is nothing but a circus or the preview of the next Disney movie. "Sarah goes to Washington" Good Americans should be irate at McCain for making a mockery of something that is so important to this countries future. He pick her for one reason and that was it would start a circus and attracted the attention a way from Obama. And the sad thing is it worked. (for now) Soon this honeymoon will be over (the polls are showing signs it is) People are starting to see and hear about this women and getting to know what a joke she and this ticket has become. I can see party loyalty but are the voters willing to do what they did not once but twice by electing the clown we have now.

• September 15, 2008

  10:31 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  spencerr writes:

  Who Am I?

  I am between 45 and 50 years old.

  At one time, I organize for a criminal group known as ACORN.

  I have two and a half years of non-executive experience showing up and not voting.

  I want to raise the capital gains tax, even though that means people will not invest as much in American jobs.

  Ideologically, I sound like Jimmy Carter, who failed miserably on just about every level during his time in office.

  I have a spot at the top of the Democrat presidential ticket despite only having two years of legislative experience and absolutely 0 experience managing at an executive level within the government

  I once attempted unsuccessfully to argue that we need Arab translators to be moved from Iraq to Afghanistan even though no one speaks Arabic in Afghanistan.

  I don't think you need help guessing who I am!

• September 15, 2008

  10:36 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  spencerr writes:

  dilligaf,

  It did work for now. The problem is, for the Dems, that the circus that is this election cycle will only last another seven weeks - A miniscule amount of time.

  Palin's circus show has taken center stage over Obama's very comparable circus show, and they can probably keep it up for a short seven-week period of time.

  You may not like it...but me and those like me are just a couple of inches from bouncing around on Oprah's couch.

  It isn't about experience. It is about ideology. In the case of McCain and Palin, the end justifies the means.

• September 15, 2008

  10:39 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  jay writes:

  it is very exciting for colorado to be in the mix this election cycle. the microfocused attention we're getting lets us observe how the campaigns are attempting to appeal to their respective targets.

  with that said, i see our far right wing regulars are still trying to make this election about anything but policy stances and track records.

  i'd be running from mccain/palin's policies and track records as well if i were politically blindered enough to support them too.

  remember kids...."executive" experience has nothing to do with discontinuing failed policies...just as mcsame.

• September 15, 2008

  10:41 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  zivo24 writes:

  To "Truth"..

  The republican party of Teddy Roosevelt bears absolutely no resemblance to the GOP of today...so what's your point?

  To Human Beans..

  There is a reason why McCain is catching a lot of heat over his ads claiming that Obama will raise taxes..especially from economists who overwhelmingly agree that Obama's plans will lower taxes for 80% of Americans.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fbxpM...

  So, you can make your silly little, partisan jokes substantiated by not a single fact, but when it comes to my hard-earned income I'm going to listen to people who actually know what they're talking about.

  Obama's plan will save me...and YOU (unless you're in the top 2% of earners in this country) a hell of a lot more money...and because he actually intends to do something about ending the war in Iraq so that we aren't hemoraging billions of dollars into it each month...all the better.

• September 15, 2008

  10:41 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  mytwosense writes:

  richardboyd: "I am so sick of the liberal democrat female model, ala Clinton and DeGette, their only issue is abortion; how narrow minded and boring is that?"

  It's not their only issue, if it was, I would have no sympathy for the feminist platform. They also advocate for equal pay, maternity leave, and other family-friendly policies that would actually reduce the amount of abortions. Many women have abortions because they think they can't afford to parent a child.

  richardboyd: "Sarah Palin is smart, she is tough, she is a common citizen, not a millionaire or a lawyer, she is one of us, the average common person!"

  While I want someone who is actually in touch with the people in the White House, I don't want that person to have the judgment and intelligence of the average common person. Call me an "elite," but I hold the bar quite a bit higher if you want to apply for the job of President of my country.

  That being said, I don't think the average common person would sign off on a budget for four straight years that pawns off the cost of rape kits to victims and their insurance companies.

  I don't think the average common person intimidates librarians with letters "testing" their loyalty by proposing the idea of book bans.

  And I certainly don't think the average common person would advocate for the shooting of wolves and bears from airplanes and the subsequent killing of their orphaned cubs.

  Now, I think there are some admirable qualities about Sarah Palin, I truly do. In fact, I defended her when she was first nominated, particularly regarding her dual roles as a politician and mom.

  Unfortunately, like many other people, I'm now discovering the first version we were given about her is more than a little fictionalized. And I am not going to let myself get so emotionally invested in a fantasy that I refuse to acknowledge the glaring contrast of reality.

• September 15, 2008

  10:45 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  richardboyd writes:

  ANWR is over 19 million acres. Drilling would require 2000 acres. This is one ten-thousandth of the total area, which could be developed in a responsible manner. If your mind's eye is envisioning oil derricks spread to the horizon, you are not correct. Drilling has come a long way and can be done in environmentally responsible fashion. This can bridge us over to renewables and get us off the Arab oil addiction. Palin knows more about this than anyone.
  About your helicopter comment, what do you really know about culling herds? This is nothing new. Palin cares more about preserving Alaska's pristine condition than any so-called environmentalists in the lower 48. To me she makes alot of sense and is a very well-thought-out person.

• September 15, 2008

  10:46 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  LoneTreeLady75 writes:

  Palin: The GOP's default VP candidate.

• September 15, 2008

  10:52 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Hambone writes:

  "and I said thanks but no thanks!"

• September 15, 2008

  10:55 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  mytwosense writes:

  richardboyd: "About your helicopter comment, what do you really know about culling herds? This is nothing new."

  Apparently, I know more than you. She's not culling herds, i.e., the prey. She's culling nature's predators that historically cull the sick and diseased from the herds. And she's doing so simply in order to artificially inflate the number of prey. Then, the tourists who will come to Alaska to bag themselves a trophy will try and bag the biggest, healthiest members from the herds. Which is the exact opposite of nature's tried and true plan.

  "Palin cares more about preserving Alaska's pristine condition than any so-called environmentalists in the lower 48."

  Nonsense. Look at Wasilla as an example. It was a quintessential Alaskan town before she became mayor. By the time she left, it was transformed into just another big-box town paved with parking lots.

  It never ceases to amaze me that the people who most want to identify themselves as a "rugged individual living off the wild frontier" are the very people who advocate for taming wilderness into a hyper-orderly world of subdivisions and chain stores.

• September 15, 2008

  10:57 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  mytwosense writes:

  Shaggy: "Why is it that Obama repeatedly refused McCains many suggestions to him that they have a series of open debates so the people could listen to their stances on policies?"

  Because Town Hall-style debates are typically unmoderated and usually deteriorate into the candidates talking over each other. The issues get drowned out, and voters are right back to where they started.

  That's why you gotta have a ref.

• September 15, 2008

  10:58 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  richardboyd writes:

  the GOP hasn't single handedly destroyed the economy. It was a joint effort.

• September 15, 2008

  11 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  zivo24 writes:

  Hey Shaggy..

  If you have seen Obama speak on the issues...and you have seen McCain speak on the issues..or at all for that matter..you should be wondering why McCain wants a head-to-head with Obama at all.

  McCain is a smart man but Obama is not only much more intelligent...just look at the difference in their educational bios..but when it comes to speak on the issues..Obama is going to blow McCain away.

  I'm looking at this from the perspective of who is going to come off as more confident, most knowledgable, and most beleivable.

  McCain is not a good public speaker. He doesn't present himself well. He reads, quite obviously, from teleprompters, and when asked questions..his answers tend to be extremely vague and rely mostly on rehearsed rhetoric.

• September 15, 2008

  11:01 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  richardboyd writes:

  Broomfield used to be a little dorf like Wasilla, but I don't think it's the mayor's fault that it's now HUGE.

• September 15, 2008

  11:04 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  mytwosense writes:

  richardboyd writes: "the GOP hasn't single handedly destroyed the economy. It was a joint effort."

  That I will definitely agree with!

  What concerns me about McCain is he has economic advisers that are refusing to acknowledge the problems that have led to where we are. Instead, they are pretending the problems are largely mental and Americans are "whiners."

  At least Obama's team seems willing to face the magnitude of the problems.

  Plus, I don't believe McCain when he says he will reform agency oversight of industry. Because his main economic platform, best I can tell, is he will "make government get out of the way of business."

  We tried that. And then we ended up having to nationalize the mortgage industry as a result.

  There is a difference between overly restrictive guidelines and basic common sense oversight. Unfortunately, I don't think McCain makes the distinction.

• September 15, 2008

  11:05 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  richardboyd writes:

  World view challenged by Palin? Try character assassination!

• September 15, 2008

  11:08 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  richardboyd writes:

  Agree the banks were greedy and deserve to go down, and the exectives of Fannie and Freddie, and the rest, should be put in jail. The taxpayers are going on the hook for the losses, while the execs pocketed the gains. This goes way beyond democrat or republican.

• September 15, 2008

  11:09 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  temurlan writes:

  Just got back from the rally. It was loud and packed. Everybody seemed pretty excited. Kind of odd though. There was no big screen with Bush giving a speech. Don't know where that came from.

  She started her remarks by addressing the finacial crisis. She has some new material. Not the same old stump speech.

• September 15, 2008

  11:13 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Billy writes:

  Palin= another George Bush puppet. Vote GOP, get what you deserve, another four years of Bushism.

• September 15, 2008

  11:14 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  JayBen writes:

  Lynn reports that Feylin reported the Bridge to Nowhere lie... again. Otherwise same excerpted stump speech. Tina Fey had more to offer Saturday night... http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thef...

• September 15, 2008

  11:16 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  GladysKravitz writes:

  is Sarah Palin-droning on again about firing the chef and upsetting her kids and selling that plane on ebay...which is a lie- it was sold by a broker at a loss to her state. Or is it Sarah STalin, who questioned loyalty of the Wasilla of librarian (who she fired) about banning books, and charging sexually abused women in her town for rape kits?

  Who is going to raise her he Down Syndrom child? As a gaurdian of a developmentally disabled family member, she seems to be putting her family behind her. What was that saying my parents taught me....hmm....oh yeah....FAMILY COMES FIRST. Pity her children.

• September 15, 2008

  11:17 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  zivo24 writes:

  I'm not saying that in the debates, that Obama is going to sway anyone who has already made up their minds to vote for McCain.

  But I absolutely believe that when they hear the difference between Obama and McCain in their grasp on the issues, their ablitity to relate their plans to ordinary people..and frankly, their ability to instill confidence in voters....the fence-sitters are going to start falling more heavily to Obama's side.

  As for Biden/Palin...Biden is a walking encyclopedia when it comes to foreign policy and other issues..so she better be better prepared than when she sat down with Charlie Gibson..and she better check the negativity that was the centerpiece of her GOP speech at the door...because she's becoming too defined by the negativity and attack...and while some in the choir may have embraced that..too many who care more about country than party are sick of it.

• September 15, 2008

  11:20 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  mytwosense writes:

  Shaggy writes: "Besides, I didn't mean it to sound like it would not be monitored by a neutral moderator, I meant that the PEOPLE could ask questions instead of the moderator."

  Ah, ok. Yes, those kinds of debates should be a part of the process. Although I still think a moderator should be on hand to serve as a ref if one candidate won't shut up and let the other respond, or continually talks over the other candidate.

  Another potential downside is someone asking a really inappropriate question. I remember watching a youtube video where some jerk asked McCain if he really called his wife a certain name.

  I was actually embarrassed for America when this guy asked such a sleazy question. And I'm not even a McCain supporter!

• September 15, 2008

  11:21 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Salsmom writes:

  wonder if the former gov. owens gave the crowd his own rousing version of family values?

• September 15, 2008

  11:24 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Cowboy63 writes:

  cterryr2 writes: "Who needs a Harvard education?"

  What exactly have "Harvard educated" politicians done for us lately?

  Was is William F Buckley who said something along the lines:

  "I would rather be governed by the first 1000 names in the phonebook, than the combined faculty of Harvard".

  Truer words never were spoken. We need to stop glorifying these elite schools for no reason whatsoever.

  Presidents who didn't go to Harvard: Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan.

• September 15, 2008

  11:25 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  SlouchingTowardBoulder writes:

  I see where Lisa Ryckmann (who covers health and fitness) gets in the obligatory digs at the Republicans. Do you people ever get embarassed by your own bias?

  I mean, really?

• September 15, 2008

  11:25 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  mytwosense writes:

  GladysKravitz writes: "Who is going to raise her he Down Syndrom child? As a gaurdian of a developmentally disabled family member, she seems to be putting her family behind her. What was that saying my parents taught me....hmm....oh yeah....FAMILY COMES FIRST. Pity her children."

  Now this is one line of attack that I will not support. My own mother put herself through school to become a well-paid professional and eventually, the owner of a thriving law practice. Yes, I would have liked to have had her around more during the busiest years it required of her, but she did what she did so we would have a better life. She also served as an incredible role model. I was and am proud of my mother for making something out of her life.

  And I imagine Sarah Palin's children feel exactly the same.

  That little baby is going to have a lot of love, too. The Palin family is certainly "colorful," but they are obviously tight-knit and fiercely loyal to each other. That I can respect.

  I just wish I could respect her economic and environmental policies.

• September 15, 2008

  11:30 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  mytwosense writes:

  Cowboy63, I'm with you on the elite education thing. I mean, look at Bush. A Yale degree obviously did nothing for his intellectual curiosity, or rather, lack thereof.

  I'm looking for good judgment and policy stances.

• September 15, 2008

  11:39 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  mytwosense writes:

  Shaggy: "Please tell me two major accomplishements of Obamas and being the journal reviewer(?) at Harvard, becoming a Senator and a community organizer are not major accomplishments.
  What has he actually done?
  He has never ran a business.
  He has never had any executive experience."

  John McCain has never run a business either, and I am not sure if his military career counts as executive experience. He was a POW for most of it, wasn't he?

  Anyway, being an executive is not the only form of being a leader. I count being a community organizer as a leader, I count teaching Constitutional Law as being a leader, and I certainly count representing your state as a Senator as being a leader.

  In all instances, you are instructing and managing other people, just in different ways than the typical rigidly hierarchal manner of a business.

  And that is important, because government is made up of three distinctly separate branches - the judicial, legislative, and executive. It is not simply a top-down structure like most companies are.

  At any rate, unless you live in a vacuum, we know that many executives often have dismal judgment. Ultimately, judgment and sound grasp on policy is what we need in a president. I think Obama has far more of the former than McCain. Both are probably a little shaky on the latter, but at least Obama is sharp and a quick study and willing to acknowledge it's going to take more than "letting government get out of the way" to get our economy out of this tailspin.

• September 15, 2008

  11:39 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  JayBen writes:

  How specifically did Feylin say she'd solve the worst financial crises in this country since the Great Depression?

• September 15, 2008

  11:39 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Cowboy63 writes:

  zivo24 writes: "Obama is not only much more intelligent...just look at the difference in their educational bios"

  Didn't Obama say there were 57 states (including "New Pennsylvania")?

  I'm sure they are posting that one up in the Harvard Hall of Fame.

• September 15, 2008

  11:41 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  zivo24 writes:

  Hey Cowboy63...

  It's not necessarily the school that Obama graduated from that impresses me.

  It's the fact that the child of a single mother, who grew up going to public schools and had no financial advantages....had the intelligence and paid the due dilligence to earn the scholarships to be accepted to that school.

  I'm a lot more impressed by someone who comes from a background with very little and applies themselves to achieve so much..then someone who comes from a background where they had so much given to them..whether they had earned it or not..and still didn't apply themselves.

  Barack Obama earned his scholarships, accolades and diplomas with nothing but his own hard work.

  John McCain went to the finest prep schools that money could buy because his family had it to spend. There's nothing wrong with that except for the fact that he didn't appreciate it enough to apply himself.

  Then he gets into the USNA...not on his own merits, but because his father and grandfather were alumni and both were admirals.

  Talk about "affirmative action". I wonder how the young man who did apply himself and got a rejection letter from the USNA because McCain took his spot..feels about it all.

  Again, he didn't apprpeciate these advantages enough to take advantage of it. He graduated 894th out of 899 students in his class.

  Someone had the stupid audicity to suggest that someone who graduates last in his class in medical school is still called "Dr.", just like the guy who graduated first in the class.

  But who would you take your kid to if he were sick?

  So, again..this isn't just about the schools...it's about the character of the candidates when they were young men and how they approached their educational opportunities.

  You wanna vote for someone who was handed every opportunity on a silver plate and didn't appreciate them..then go ahead..I'm gonna vote for the guy who put his nose to the grindstone and earned everything he got.

• September 15, 2008

  11:43 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  mytwosense writes:

  Good post, Zivo!

• September 15, 2008

  11:45 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  maw writes:

  is bin ladin and obamas pastor the same?

• September 15, 2008

  11:45 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  robbyr2 writes:

  "ANWR is over 19 million acres. Drilling would require 2000 acres. This is one ten-thousandth of the total area, which could be developed in a responsible manner. If your mind's eye is envisioning oil derricks spread to the horizon, you are not correct. Drilling has come a long way and can be done in environmentally responsible fashion. This can bridge us over to renewables and get us off the Arab oil addiction. Palin knows more about this than anyone."

  Even if true, which assumes no accidents and lots of regulation which no right-minded Republican would accept, the most extreme guesses as to how much oil ANWR has is 20 billion barrels. Seeing as how we use 7 billion barrels a year, and import 5 billion barrels a year, some bridge. And it won't even start "bridging" for at least a decade. Talk about a bridge to nowhere.

• September 15, 2008

  11:53 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  rg writes:

  Stop it! Bloggers referring to bloggers as stupid, moron, idiot must stop. Sarah Palin's (GOP) commercial and she claim she sabotaged the bridge to no-where after she'd received $millions. Publicity cancelled the bridge and she kept the $millions. This puts her in the category of lie and thief. She must return the money since it was not used as intended. McCain has a very low opinion of pork barrel and Palin is the pork barrel queen.

• September 15, 2008

  11:54 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  GladysKravitz writes:

  Zivo...may I share your post with others.... you really nail it!

• September 15, 2008

  11:55 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  jay writes:

  as usual shaggy, your questions are borne from your willful ignorance.

  mytwosense did a good job of setting you straight, but i'll add that obama has not refused to debate mccain, but rather refused to debate in an unmoderated format...thus taking away mccain's wiggle room.

  pretty intelligent when you consider that obama will be talking about discontinuing failed policies...whereas in a moderated debate, mccain will be forced to confess that he supports continuing failed policies.

  remember shaggy...it always comes back to The McSame Effect.

• September 15, 2008

  11:56 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Cwillyrun1 writes:

  mytwosense, it's on capital gains. Obama plans on raising it from 15% to a 20% tax rate.

  Check these two links out for some information on Obama and his tax and spend policies:
  http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinio...
  http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/...

• September 15, 2008

  11:57 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  GladysKravitz writes:

  to maw...is you intellygent?? Or were that deh way day taught you grammur is skool?

• September 15, 2008

  11:57 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  richardboyd writes:

  Debate is healthy and good, but what is NOT good is how appallingly slanted the mainstream media is in this country. It is glaringly obvious from watching ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN that they prefer the democrat candidates. Same with this paper. I've spent years in Europe, and lots of time in Singapore. The press and media here are an unfunny liberal joke, yet they pass themselves off as supposedly neutral. It's hard to learn the issues when all they feed us are sound bites and slanted interviews.

• September 15, 2008

  11:59 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  4gColoNative writes:

  re: 6:20 and 6:21 posts

  Lets' apply some context. Namely, sample incomes for these brackets. Because wise people use some perspective when evaluating these things. Because the analysis given is a red herring. If people want blind "fairness," then our government should create a flat tax.

  The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings) .
  If Mr. Six makes $29k per year, the annual cost of daily beer drinking is 2.5% of his income.

  The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings) .
  Making $77k annually, cost is 2.4% of income.

  The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 ( 25% savings).
  Making $160k annually, cost is 2.1% of income.

  The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
  Making $350k annually, cost is 1.5% of income.

  The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
  Making $1.5 Million annually, cost is 1.2% of income.

  So relatively speaking, this tenth man--who is supposedly getting the shaft--is still way ahead of the others when it comes to affording the cost [of whatever ... gasoline, heating & electricity, food, clothing ... beer].

  If you're in the bar with your friend the millionaire, and you're making $27k per year as a heating & cooling technician, who is buying the majority of rounds? Does he have a problem with this?

• September 15, 2008

  11:59 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  GladysKravitz writes:

  Excuse me maw...I meant to ask "is that they way they 'TEACHED' you in school?"

• September 15, 2008

  12:04 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Cwillyrun1 writes:

  Gladys, if your comments are true, then it's the education system that's failed someone, the same education system populated by Democratic supporters. Nice....... you cut down your own group and you didn't even know it.

• September 15, 2008

  12:05 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  GladysKravitz writes:

  HUMAN BEANS says: "Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier"...somehow I doubt that, many european countries have higher tax rates, and I don;t think china would be as homey.

• September 15, 2008

  12:05 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  fastnloose writes:

  There are several areas, that constitute the Bush Doctrine.Pompous, Charles Gibson, did not even ask the question properly.These high flying elitist are a joke.

• September 15, 2008

  12:08 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  richardboyd writes:

  robby
  you are correct, US Dept of Interior estimates recoverable oil at 9 to 16 billion barrels. That's several years consumption if ANWR were the sole source! That is HUGE!! It is beyond crazy to be dependent on the Arabs when we've got this kind of reserves of our own. And YES WE CAN be responsible and environmentally conscience when getting it out of the ground and into the market. And YES WE MUST develop ALL other alternative sources in parallel. Hey, have a good day, man.

• September 15, 2008

  12:12 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  mytwosense writes:

  Shaggy: "When D.C banned all hand guns and it was ruled Constitutional, Obama said he agreed with the decision.
  Then when it was over turned and ruled unconstitutional Obama said he agreed with that ruling."

  Well, I agreed with Obama on the latter. I honestly don't remember reading when he specifically endorsed the former. Do you have a credible link? Not saying it wouldn't be the first time he
  changed a policy position, which is why he wasn't my first choice.

  Cwillyrun1 writes: "mytwosense, it's on capital gains. Obama plans on raising it from 15% to a 20% tax rate."

  Yes, I suspected that is what you were referring to. Don't you think it's grossly misleading to refer to what is basically an income tax as a windfall tax on retirement funds?

  For one thing, a lot of people make their living as investors. This is who the tax increase would affect. And that's still a hell of a lower tax rate than most of us have to pay. Why on earth should an investor pay a smaller income tax rate than I do? For that matter, a smaller rate than a teacher, a cop, a nurse, a pilot, etc. does? It's one thing to tax people based on their income, I can see some merit in a progressive taxation system. But based on their career choice? Doesn't make sense at all.

  That being said, I've heard of a different tax structure proposal that might make more sense for investments. Tax people more for short-term investments, tax them less for long-term investments. This encourages investment in real, wealth-producing businesses, and discourages speculative investments in less tangible markets and entities. Which often results in price inflation, as we see in the energy markets.

• September 15, 2008

  12:13 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  GladysKravitz writes:

  Oh silly willy....we all know how successful home schooling has been that teaches how caveman rode dinosaurs to church on Sundays. And (with credit to SNL's Quiz Bowl skit) that Newton proved the theories for gremlins, angels, and fairies. Oh yes, and absitinance only (until chirstian marraige) will prevent teen girls from getting preggers. Maybe home schooling and Sunday Schools are doing such a crappy job that they need the public schools to teach so called "creationism" for them. Makes yah wonder what failures they are.

• September 15, 2008

  12:15 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  zivo24 writes:

  OMG...

  Cowboy and Shaggy..spinning, spinning, spinning..

  The "57 states" comment....Obama was JOKING about the primaries and caucuses.

  In case you weren't aware...there were a total of 57 primaries and/or caucuses.

  Shaggy...let's go ahead and compare their "life time experiences" towards their educations.

  McCain has never had to really work for anything in his life because he came from wealth and married wealth..twice.

  Obama has had to work for everything he has ever gotten.

  To borrow a line from The Daily Show..if being a POW is a qualification for president..then McCain should be telling people that Guatanamo Bay isn't a detention center..it's a leadership training camp.

• September 15, 2008

  12:16 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  BJG writes:

  Why doesn't someone ask Pinhead Palin what she would do to improve the economy of the US. And give specifics. We could ask the same of McShame. I want specifics, not a bunch of mumbo jumbo about holding wall streets feet to the fire.
  I am tired of listening to Pinhead go on about her family, and how she said no to the bridge, but took the $$$$. This woman is a joke. The Republicans need to get serious about their candidates and quit selecting them from the lowest common denominators of their party. McCain is too old and Pinhead is to stupid for us to give them the power to run this country. How many times will we make the same mistake and elect someone who can't walk and chew gum at the same time. Wake up people or we are doomed.

• September 15, 2008

  12:21 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  jay writes:

  very funny posts here today.

  the ol' right wing standards are just no longer working.

  good to see.

  shaggy...you're still sticking to the willful ignorance...and actually added hypocrisy with this statement...after refusing to acknowledge that your rushian talking point (lie) about obama refusing to debate mccain was debunked:

  "It is very easy to spot someone who is getting their misinformation from left talk show hosts"

  brilliant.

  you can't make this stuff up.

  http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/...

• September 15, 2008

  12:22 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  zivo24 writes:

  I LOVE these quotes:

  I'm gonna leave out who said them and who he said them about.

  You guess...

  "With all due respect again to Gov.. he's been a governor for three years, he's been able but undistinguished,"

  "I don't think people could really name a big, important thing that he's done. He was mayor of the 105th largest city in America."

  "So if he were to pick Governor....., it would be an intensely political choice where he said, `You know what? I'm really not, first and foremost, concerned with, is this person capable of being president of the United States?"

• September 15, 2008

  12:28 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  GladysKravitz writes:

  Zivo: was it KKKarl Rove???

• September 15, 2008

  12:33 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  spencerr writes:

  zivo24,

  What about the causes pre-government, that each championed?

  McCain almost perished and spent five years as a POW. Obama organized for a group called ACORN, which is currently dealing with countless ethics violations.

  What, no big deal? Okay, how about experience? 20+ years vs. 2 1/2 years.

  Who cares? How about the policies, then. One is a head-in-the-sand pacifist in the mold of Jimmy Carter who thinks further socializing our tax structure is going to actually help. His answer to energy issues is driving slower and checking your tire pressure.

  The other is a moderate republican (it's a bummer he isn't more conservative) whose biggest downfall is that he thinks he can cut taxes without cutting programs. He should just cut both. Otherwise, he is strong on defense, moderate on immigration, and at least he, between the two, understands that the market is what has made the American economy so great, not giving handouts to people who either made bad decisions or who would just rather not work.

  Policies pandering to the poor in our country are largely the cause of the credit crisis, and...you guessed it...supported by democrats. No government mandate on who can get loans = fewer defaults = no chrisis.

  Dems see a problem and fix it, regardless of whether or not that "fix" will actually succeed. Even if it does, more often than not the negative side effects make their policies lame-brained.

  Obama is the republican paradigm of pulling one's self up by his bootstraps. Unfortunately, he has somehow risen above hard work and joined the democrat party, which stands for making it so that people don't have to work hard.

  "Give'em handouts so they will vote for you, and scare the crap out of them, at the expense of the economy, about a global warming issue that may or may not be man-made." That is the depth of the democrat platform.

• September 15, 2008

  12:37 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Cwillyrun1 writes:

  mytwosense, since 401k's and the like are based upon investments, it dilutes the value of the return in retirement accounts.

• September 15, 2008

  12:38 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  sol writes:

  Can't we all just get along?! The answer: Apparently not. and that my friends is why we are on the slippery slope we are on. McPain is all about continuing that discontinuity, while Obama speaks of hope, and of doing the right thing and of care for his fellow citizens. That is why I will vote for Obama, thats the difference, and thats the choice, nuff said.

• September 15, 2008

  12:43 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  zivo24 writes:

  zivo24 writes:

  I LOVE these quotes:

  I'm gonna leave out who said them and who he said them about.

  You guess...

  "With all due respect again to Gov.. he's been a governor for three years, he's been able but undistinguished,"

  "I don't think people could really name a big, important thing that he's done. He was mayor of the 105th largest city in America."

  "So if he were to pick Governor....., it would be an intensely political choice where he said, `You know what? I'm really not, first and foremost, concerned with, is this person capable of being president of the United States?"
  *************************************************

  Give up?

  The Governor he was speaking of was Tim Kaine of Virginia and the man speaking...was Karl Rove...on Aug. 10th.

  What did he say about Palin once she was picked:

  He praised her experience.

  "She's a former mayor. She was the mayor of I think the second largest city in Alaska, before she ran for Governor."

  Wasilla's own estimate of it's population earlier this year (7,025) only makes it the sixth largest city in Alaska..and not even in the top 500 of cities in America.

  Hypocrisy and duplicity...thy names are Karl Rove - the devil if ever there was one.

• September 15, 2008

  12:43 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Cwillyrun1 writes:

  gladys........ way to avoid the problem by answering with gibberish. It seems too common of Democrat supporters that when they're confronted with the truth, they'll spin it however they can. I'd rather home school and know that, if I had kids, they'd receive a better education than what they receive in public schools. Consider the teacher at Overland High School that was teaching political science (ranting against Bush) in his geography class. What does politics in America have to do with geography?

• September 15, 2008

  12:45 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  GladysKravitz writes:

  Oh Spencer.....now let's not forget McCain was such a success in the Navy....he crashed 6 planes until he was a POW. And of course we know that being a belligerent Senate bully for 20 years, automatically qualifies you to we awarded the presidency as if it were an Oscar or Gold Watch.

  Naw..if he can fly right, I don't want him and the Patty Simcox clone (aka "Grease") from Alaska at the helm. He's libel to crash again...and at his age...I won't take that chance.

• September 15, 2008

  12:47 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  leatherneck writes:

  Big_D: your a joke!! What's next...... you going to tell us that 911 was a conspiracy......And GW and our government was invalved int killing thousands of our own citizens...
  Are you Michael Moore's kid?

• September 15, 2008

  12:48 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Cwillyrun1 writes:

  Charles_B, why do you have a problem with the facts you're being confronted with? Obviously you like to be led around by your government, and that's likely the biggest problem many of us have with Obama and Democrats, he wants to lead you all by the hands and you're all willing to go quietly.

  Sorry, but I'm not bothering with your link....... if you can't comment on the truth, I'm not looking at any cartoons you provide, in the name of seriousness on voting for President. No wonder why this country is in bad shape, too much faith in SNL and cartoons and not enough in the truth!

• September 15, 2008

  12:51 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Cwillyrun1 writes:

  Big_D, during the 9/11 attacks, Bush was actually in a school reading to children. It's made fun of enough by people that I can't believe you don't already know it.

• September 15, 2008

  12:51 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  spencerr writes:

  GladysKravitz,

  The only thing that will crash this country is for it to move further leftward. It was no coincidence that inflation flattened out and our economy became more robust with the ouster of Jimmy Carter.

  Decreased marginal tax rates for the rich mean a higher level of investment in our economy, which means more jobs for Americans. Obama would not only increase the marginal rate, he would increase capital gains tax, which would be even worse for our markets.

• September 15, 2008

  12:53 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  zivo24 writes:

  You know what cracks me up...

  When the RNC wrapped up in Minneapolis...somehow, some way..this campaign became about Obama vs Palin instead of McCain.

  And please don't blame that on the democrats - they didn't pick her.

  Why is the GOP ticket suddenly more about the VP candidate than the presidential candidate?

  Why is the media more focused on her than him?

  And lastly...wasn't it just a few weeks ago that McCain himself was insinuating that Obama was just a "celebrity" candidate...gee, I wonder why he's no longer saying that anymore.

• September 15, 2008

  12:53 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  me2 writes:

  Please remember that if McCain is under for surgery on his cancer, or out for a medical procedure, then Palin indeed is acting president.

  Charles B. the cartoon is truth, and you know truth has a liberal bias.

• September 15, 2008

  12:54 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  leatherneck writes:

  Cwillyrun1: that was a great comment...are you surprised? the lefties have been spewing this crap for months.

• September 15, 2008

  12:55 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  jay writes:

  "Change does not equal changing over to a socialist or marxist state."

  of course it doesnt, yiota, and any implication that the change obama is talking about equates to "socialism" or "marxism" is ignorant at best. i am pretty sure we've debunked the far right wing socialism boogeyman myths.

  do we need to go over it again?

  shaggy...are you still confused that mccain/palin represent a continuation of bush policies? it seems as if you're getting bogged down arguing about charles gibson's idea of what constitutes the "bush doctrine"...instead of acknowledging that the overall point holds true.

  of course palin supports continuing bush policies...or at least the official mccain/palin platform does.

  you're not still confused about that are you?

• September 15, 2008

  12:56 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  SlouchingTowardBoulder writes:

  Breaking news - it appears that Obama has violated the Logan Act. Wow, this is very bad news for him. Very bad.

• September 15, 2008

  12:58 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Cwillyrun1 writes:

  Big_D, you're failing at ranting with what you are in history and geography. My score in those subjects on SAT's was 98% of the highest possible score.

  The American Revolution is HISTORY, not geography....... you short bus owner.

  You must've went to the same geography class as Obama.......... those 57 states he's talked about.

• September 15, 2008

  12:59 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  spencerr writes:

  Obama’s theme and platform are hope.

  Hope - To wish for something with expectation of its fulfillment. www.thefreedictionary.com

  Sounds like a hybrid between faith and wishing. Just because you all sit on your couches wishing and having faith that Obama will make things better, does not make it so. You hope that he will make healthcare free for everyone at the expense of the taxpayers. You hope that tomorrow you will have a job that will provide for your family. You hope that terrorists won’t attack America. You just keep on hoping, making the rich the scapegoats for all your problems.

  Obama will do nothing but grow government, at the expense of our economy. And while he makes himself the most powerful man in the most powerful incarnation of the American government, the rest of us will go to work and keep our economy afloat, at least until we lose our jobs. Oh how warm and fuzzy…hope…when we are France Jr., we can all sit down together and hope that someone will invent a time machine.

  Obama’s hope, cultivated in the form of socialism, will make all American’s equally poor, not equally well-off.

  You know the old saying, “you can wish and one hand and crap in the other….”

• September 15, 2008

  1 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  LuvAmerica writes:

  Shaggy writes:
  "Wow, The V.P. nominee pitted against the President nominee."

  You said it brother! Hopefully the GOP will run a real presidential contender next time.

• September 15, 2008

  1:01 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Cwillyrun1 writes:

  I know leatherneck. I can't believe some of the stuff I read on these boards from the left. What's really sad is they actually believe a lot of it.

• September 15, 2008

  1:02 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  GladysKravitz writes:

  Ummmm Spencer...you may have just woken up..i know I was w bit tired after that thrilling Bronco(bama) game yesterday too..... But have you seen the stock market today....talk about crashes...whose watch is that on ....could it be the Republicans Oval office and McSame's admitted 90% with bush policy.

  Crash by tuchas! We're in for more of the same with McCain.

• September 15, 2008

  1:03 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  jay writes:

  spencer jr, do you really believe that giving opinions and facts and misrepresenting obama's policy stances is a credible position this election season?

• September 15, 2008

  1:04 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  mytwosense writes:

  Cwillyrun1 writes: "mytwosense, since 401k's and the like are based upon investments, it dilutes the value of the return in retirement accounts."

  Not really. There's no historical data that shows investment activities permanently declined when Reagan raised the capital gains rate. Perhaps in the very short term it does as some investors will sell off in order to pay the current lower tax rate, but the market soon picks back up. Again, trading in the market is the primary source of income for numerous people and financial institutions, and taxes are simply a cost of capital.

  Also, keep in mind the maxim "buy low, sell high." A short-term decline gives a new round of investors to buy in at a lower price, which offsets any previous decline.

• September 15, 2008

  1:05 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  leatherneck writes:

  SlouchingTowardBoulder: I had to look that up....this is what I found, released today

  WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.
  Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

  He is finished

• September 15, 2008

  1:06 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  spencerr writes:

  By the way,

  McCain, the least bad of the two candidates, put Palin on his ticket simply to negate the Obama celebrity factor. That is it. It was a brilliant political move meant to give the media another celebrity. He would have much rather ran with his good buddy Lieberman.

  The implication is that we may have a hyper-conservative incumbant woman VP, with eight years as a VP and two as a governor as the GOP's next candidate. You are all pooping your pants because a conservative Christian republican may be the best-qualified candidate the next time a major election cycle comes around.

• September 15, 2008

  1:10 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  mytwosense writes:

  Shaggy: "People also see the Democrats not doing a damn thing about the high gas prices, in fact they are blocking the way to off shore drilling and drilling in ANWR.

  The higher the gas prices go, the bigger the landslide."

  Did you know that there are currently two drilling rigs adrift somewhere in the Gulf because of Hurricane Ike? Do you know that their dragging anchors could damage underwater gaslines? Do you know that there is a waiting line for years at shipyards that build offshore rigs?

  Our energy crisis is precisely because we primarily rely on one source of energy for our transportation. Your solution is that we keep feeding this system, even though world conflicts can affect prices - and conflicts are increasing; hurricanes can affect prices - and hurricanes are increasing; and even though many experts believe we've reached peak world production - and thus, supply is decreasing.

• September 15, 2008

  1:12 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  zivo24 writes:

  The chicken littles who keep crying that Obama "will grow government" have obviously been hiding under a rock for the last 8 years.

  No one has grown government more than George Bush.

  No one has dug us deeper into debt than George Bush.

  And guess who was there voting with what Bush wanted 90% of the time?

  John McCain.

  Every record deficit that has occured in American history has happened under a republican president.

  If we didn't have presidents who insisted on spending money that we don't have..then we wouldn't need to keep raising taxes to try to pay it back..so as not to leave our children and grandchildren burdened in our debt.

• September 15, 2008

  1:13 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  spencerr writes:

  Gladys,

  First of all, I realize that McCain said that he voted with Bush 90% of the time...we all saw the commercial. However, you are dense if you actually believe it. Bush has NO VOTING RECORD. He has never legislated anything. He simply signs and vetoes and occasionally submits a budget. That argument is shallow at best.

  Second, not everything that happens on a president's watch can be attributed to that president. For instance, there are two major reasons that our stock market is struggling, energy and credit.

  Regarding the latter, the Clinton era is responsible for passing legislation requiring banks to lend equally in low-income and ethnic minority neighborhoods. Americans are defaulting on loans because banks were forced to give them to the poor by dems.

  Regarding the former, dems have been anti-energy for the last thirty years. They have caused the shelving of nuke plants and oil refineries locally, so they are at least part of the reason energy supply has not kept up with energy demand (speculation and increased demand from the far east being the other main reasons). Bush has little to do with this economy and nothing to do with the credit crisis.

• September 15, 2008

  1:15 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  jay writes:

  "McCain is not the same as Bush and the majority of people see that"

  another falsehood, shaggy.

  nearly 2 out of 3 americans are concerned that mccain will continue bush policies.

  it is laughable although predictable that you refuse to acknowledge that politically inconvenient fact.

  yiota...it is also laughable...although again not surprising...that you whine about clinton...and yet fail to mention that the republicans in washington obstructed his efforts to fight terrorism.

• September 15, 2008

  1:16 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  spencerr writes:

  Gladys,

  I don't know what Obama supposedly has to do with the Broncos.

  The game ended early, so I went to bed early.

  Why don't you stop trying to lob insults at me and actually provide facts to back up your Obama-hysteria? Something happening on someone's watch is not enough. You need to provide facts. If you think Bush had anything to do with the current economic problems, give me some cause and effect, not "look who was in office at the time."

  That is lazy and ignorant.

• September 15, 2008

  1:25 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  mytwosense writes:

  spencerr, if you don't think presidents have any say on economic policy, than why are you so convinced McCain will have a better handle on it than Barack Obama?

  The only one who is being lazy here is you. I'm sorry, but it's the truth. I only see from you vague statements along the lines of "the market works."

  Please give an example of how Bush has allowed the "markets to work" and how this has helped our economy.

  Also, if you are so sure Clinton is to blame for credit issues because he allowed legislation to pass that expanded credit, then why didn't Bush push for legislation that curbed this expansion?

  If you are going to say because Dems blocked him, I would like to remind you that Clinton worked with a majority Republican Congress.

• September 15, 2008

  1:26 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  me2 writes:

  McCain said today that Obama is insulting him and Palin. Not so.

  He claims Obama is saying pretty nasty, insulting things, which he didn't, so he can refute them? No, so he can look the victim.

  The financial troubles came from deregulation. Republicans pushed deregulation of a number of industries. So far, we the taxpayer are bailing them out.

  Next, we the poor taxpayers who can't afford Merril Lynch. Will use our money to bail them out. No, No, No.

  Enough is enough. Just say no to privatize profits, socalize losses.

  Our economy is falling, all McCain says is he won't let it happen again. Even HE knows the Republicans are killing this country.

• September 15, 2008

  1:28 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  jvb writes:

  Spooky from the wacky world of Assemblies of God: Sarah Palin believes in talking snakes, donkeys, witches, wizards, evil creatures, and Iraq is a "task from God." Would you vote for someone who hears the voice of god? The bulk of Americans voted that way in 2000 and 2004. If McCain wins and dies, once again the President will not only hear the voice of god but she will be endowed with prophecy; she will, like Joe Mormon, be singled out for revelation.

  Her pastor, who along with hubby Todd ("my guy" she says) say: "The storm clouds are gathering" while another of her pastors says, "Sarah is a great woman. A religious woman." Pentecostals don't want peace on earth--they want the violent biblical prophecies to be fulfilled so they can get to heaven and be rewarded with eternal life. Pentecostals (Sarah Palin) share Hitler's sentiment about Jews as "Christ killers. How can a human kill a god? In the case of Christ, it was assisted suicide with Romans chosen to hammer in the nails. Were it not for this, there would be no resurrection and no god named J.C.

  I suppose Christians will be voting for Sarah pursuant to the Hitler sentiment while the "bubba" i.e. Obama haters will do the same. Vote for Palin so that her God will be at the helm steering the ship of state.

• September 15, 2008

  1:28 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  zivo24 writes:

  People ask me why I DECIDED to support Obama....and I am an educated man who did put some thought behind my decision..but it was this that ultimately swayed me..

  John McCain is a good guy but he has a closet full of skeletons that most political candidates..especially in this Rovian dog-eat-dog era that we live in..would have already drug out and used to denigrate him with:

  1. His less than mediocre education history

  2. The favoritism he was shown in getting into USNA and being kept in both it and the Navy despite his discipline and performance issues prior to his being shot down in Viet Nam.

  3. The adultery issue - dumping his first wife who went through so much for him..in favor of the younger, richer woman that would be our first lady.

  4. The Keating Five scandal - officially wristslapped by his colleagues in the senate for "poor judgment".

  These are just the juiciest of the FACTS that a smarmy candidate could use to attack McCain with..and still be truthful.

  Obama hasn't touched one of them - not once, not even close.

  I used to have a great deal of respect for John McCain and would have voted for him in 2004 over Bush or Kerry if he had run as an independent.

  But McCain has sold out his "maverick" image...he lost his integrity so he could win the White House.

  Obama still hasn't touched those issues because he has said time and again that he wants to change the discourse to be about issues rather than personal attacks. He's walking the talk.

  If he does start using those issues to attack McCain, then I will have to rethink my support..but frankly, I don't believe that he will.

• September 15, 2008

  1:28 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  jay writes:

  spencer jr...conservatives were in control of all three branches of gov't for the majority of the last 8 years.

  why are you so afraid of admitting that their track record has been less than stellar? it's like watching you push a piano upstairs.

  the only thing you really have to worry about is if the candidate you vote for supports a continuation of the policies that have produced said Track Record.

  wait a minute...surely that's not the case is it?

• September 15, 2008

  1:28 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  leatherneck writes:

  jay: "nearly 2 out of 3 americans are concerned that mccain will continue bush policies"
  where did you read that?????
  Did you mean 2 out of 3 democrats are concerned that McCain will continue Bush policies?

• September 15, 2008

  1:29 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  spencerr writes:

  Mytwosense,

  I mis-spoke. That legislation took place during the Carter administration, and he was most definitely working with democrats.

  McCain will have a better handle on it than Obama simply because he will stay out of it and let hard-working and risk-taking Americans keep the money that they earned.

  Anyway, my confused little watermelon (enviro-socialist), I have a meeting to attend to. I will talk to you later.

• September 15, 2008

  1:35 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  leatherneck writes:

  zivo24: Some people have ask me why I am voteing for a Democrat..............

  I'm voting Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.
  
  I'm voting Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.
  
  I'm voting Democrat because when we pull out of Iraq I trust that the bad guys will stop what they're doing because they now think we're good people.
  
  I'm voting Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday CAN tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.
  
  I'm voting Democrat because I'm not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies, so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.
  
  I'm voting Democrat because I believe that business should not be
  allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even, and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the GOVERNMENT sees fit.
  
  I'm voting Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days, to suit some fringe kooks who would NEVER get their agendas past the voters.
  
  I'm voting Democrat because I believe that open borders and government giveaways to foreigners is a great way to grow a nation.
  
  I'm voting Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.
  
  I'm voting Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry
  whatever I want. I've decided to marry my horse.
  
  I'm voting Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.

• September 15, 2008

  1:37 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  jay writes:

  "he will stay out of it and let hard-working and risk-taking Americans keep the money that they earned"

  simply inaccurate. the debt that mccain's platform places on future taxpayers isn't "staying out of it"...it's spend and tax...just like bush.

  "Alan Greenspan says the country can't afford tax cuts of the magnitude proposed by Republican presidential contender John McCain"

  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26689925/

  leatherneck, google gallup and mccain and bush policies.

  this isn't exactly breaking news.

• September 15, 2008

  1:37 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  gregu710 writes:

  "Charles_B writes:

  You really think people are dumb enough to fall for your transparent misdirection?"

  Sadly Charles, judging by the 2000/2004 elections and the current direction of this one, YES!! I wish it were not the case, but seeing what I see of the ongoing love affair with Sarah Palin DESPITE the OBVIOUS issues and LIES, the American public truly deserves what they get!

• September 15, 2008

  1:40 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  LOUIE writes:

  Folks, truth be, neither party is putting up anything of substance in articulating policy for the next 4 years; it's scary as hell. I see more policy being touted here by both sides of the aisle on this blog, than I've seen of either candidate. Debates better be good, substance over sound bytes, policy over dolled up pigs and pitbulls. I want to see the meat hit the table, I'm tired of salad served up 100 ways. Main course, it's now or never. Both partys need to put up. Business needs direction, not a never ending soap opera of "whose on first?".

• September 15, 2008

  1:43 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  mytwosense writes:

  spencerr, that is your answer for real? My God, and you people claim to be economic experts over the rest of us!

  Please tell me how McCain's plan to make the Bush tax cuts permanent will pull the looming economic crisis out of a tailspin? Now, I'm serious! We're talking a measly 5% reduction in tax rates, both income and capital gains.

  And please tell me how McCain's tax cuts will give more money back to hardworking Americans than Obama's tax cuts. You do realize that Obama's tax cuts are for the 95% majority of this country, don't you? And that McCain's are not?

  Is there a self-described conservative on this forum who has some grasp on the specifics of these candidates' campaigns??

• September 15, 2008

  1:44 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  spencerr writes:

  MTS,

  Of all the things a president does, the only thing that he really has the ability to affect quickly and directly is military action. Just about everything else comes through in the form of legislation, so anything that can happen during someone's time in office is directly affected by not only the preceding presidents but by the congress he is working with. The Carter era (as opposed to just Carter) is largely responsible for the current credit crisis. And what is Bush going to do, retract legislation that was passed twenty years ago? Outside his power. Government does not help markets. It hurts them...and sometimes that is justified (but not usually).

  The best way for a president to help a market is to stay out of it. Bush has done fine with regard to this.

  Anyway, you are focused on the wrong Republican president. Reagan's cooperation with a democrat congress was responsible for getting us out of the dismal seventies. Lowering the marginal tax rate to approximately its current level from like 75% has a lot to do with the abundance of the last twenty-eight years.

  Cause and effect. Rich keep most of their money. More capital, for production, more jobs. On the other hand, Obama raises tax rates, government uses funds to administer program, less production, less net jobs.

  Cause and effect.

  It's crazy how you try to turn the tables on me, but all I ever hear you ranting about is environmental damage caused by oil and robbing from the rich to give to the poor. You are all full of emotion and compassion, but the consequences, were you president, would lead us to some sort of dysfunctional socialist wannabe utopia where everyone never worked and we all spend our non-existant paychecks on energy and organic food. See where the logic fails?

  Yours is pure ideology based on what you think the world should be. Mine is pure ideology based and practicality and fairness to those who do the work and take the risks.

• September 15, 2008

  1:46 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  gregu710 writes:

  "zivo24 writes:

  The chicken littles who keep crying that Obama "will grow government" have obviously been hiding under a rock for the last 8 years.

  No one has grown government more than George Bush.

  No one has dug us deeper into debt than George Bush.

  And guess who was there voting with what Bush wanted 90% of the time?

  John McCain."

  You know, it's funny, but Al Gore should have chosen a different name for his book, because "An Inconvenient Truth" is SO fitting here. Not that the GOP really cares much about truth getting in the way of things...

• September 15, 2008

  1:48 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  spencerr writes:

  mytwosense,

  Your memory is about as short as my temper with you.

  Have I not explained to you about where our capital comes from?

  Mostly the rich and business investments in capital. Tax the rich. Tax the corporations. Watch net job destruction. We are currently in the trough of a business cycle. No reaction necessary beyond making sure our banking system does not fail.

  You go ahead and lean on your brand of socialism, and as I've said before, we will all witness the waning of America as a country.

• September 15, 2008

  1:49 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  jay writes:

  "truth be, neither party is putting up anything of substance in articulating policy"

  louie, once again, we're running into some willful ignorance with you.

  www.johnmccain.com

  www.barackobama.com

  it really comes down to whether or not you feel we should continue the policies that have brought us The Track Record.

  considering the numbers...it's hard to argue that an effective third bush term is advisable.

  or do you disagree?

• September 15, 2008

  1:52 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Cwillyrun1 writes:

  Hey Big_D......... I could care less whether anyone believes me or not. I don't need to prove myself, especially to someone who believes American History is Geography. Here's one I'll let you explain......... how is George Washington being the first President, and for the United States gaining it's independence from England, and the Constitution as well, about geography and not American History?

• September 15, 2008

  1:56 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  jay writes:

  i honestly can't believe spencer jr is still trying to defend trickle down economics.

  you have to give him credit...he's entertaining to watch flail around like that.

• September 15, 2008

  2 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  trinidad writes:

  The only "change",worth a nickel,nobama has made as a senator is changing his mind to not go on SNL.

• September 15, 2008

  2 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Cwillyrun1 writes:

  So Charles_B, you can't deny the truth of where Bush was at during the 9/11 attacks..... and it was actually Bush reading to them and the children reading from the book as well.

  I have a thought for you Charles...... take the opinion of a former Republican and prop it up so you'll have something to fit your attitude and beliefs, and then run with it. I'm curious, what do you think of Joe Lieberman dissing on the Democratic party? Will it fit if it's against the Republican party but any criticism of the Democratic party isn't valid?

• September 15, 2008

  2:02 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  gregu710 writes:

  spencerr, where do you get your info from, because last I'd heard, consumerism was what drove this economy? If people are struggling to pay for gasoline, heat, food, health care, etc..., and spend less on consuming, then companies will no longer receive orders needed to keep their production lines going. Therefore, they will cut back on personnel (or more likely ship it overseas so that they can still make a healthy profit on it), which will further erode consumerism. Rich people investing in stocks is NOT what drives our economy, nor provides it's capital. It's people working, paying taxes, buying things, paying taxes on that stuff, etc... that provides capital to companies and to the government. Further, other than homes, most really rich people do not consume large quantities of American products, so the only people that they help are other people on Wall Street, not American companies and American workers. When not doing that, they are looking for more offshore accounts and loopholes to avoid paying a fair share of taxes in the first place. You don't get rich by spending or paying your fair share! Stuff the rich!

• September 15, 2008

  2:04 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  RufusTFirefly writes:

  I rally behind you spencerr. I wish I had time to whip out some FACTS. I have been around for a long time, I've seen and researched a lot. I look forward in reading more of your blogs.

• September 15, 2008

  2:04 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  mytwosense writes:

  spencerr: "Have I not explained to you about where our capital comes from? Mostly the rich and business investments in capital."

  Where do you think the rich get their capital? Do you think it just drops down from the sky into their hands?

  I bet if one was to take a hard look at the top 1% in this country, we would see much of their wealth was gained through leveraged investments. In other words, they took very little risk for a lot of gain....and that gain was created by people who actually worked and produced.

  In fact, our whole economy is increasingly based on debt creation.

• September 15, 2008

  2:08 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  cterryr2 writes:

  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/...
  
  Largest political protest in Alaska history! Where is CNN? Fox?

• September 15, 2008

  2:12 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  mytwosense writes:

  spencerr: "Tax the rich. Tax the corporations. Watch net job destruction."

  I have yet to see any conservative prove a direct correlation between taxation and job creation. If anything, your theory has been disproven under Bush. He lowered taxes across the board, yet there has been far less job creation under Bush than Clinton.

  This is what happens when you rigidly subscribe to abstract theories of economics dependent on "all other variables remaining constant." That last part is the kicker which neocons depend on. At least with paleocons, they have some grasp of the actual complexities of our economy.

• September 15, 2008

  2:13 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  rightwingnut writes:

  GladysKravitz writes:

  Oh silly willy....we all know how successful home schooling has been that teaches how caveman rode dinosaurs to church on Sundays
  GK, who is "we"? Do you have any figures to back up your "Know"ing? I think not. Actually studies have shown that homeschooling is highly effective, and not just done by Christians/ Keep your mouth shut about things you "Know" nothing about.

• September 15, 2008

  2:14 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  chris33 writes:

  Republicans want to make Obama the issue because they have no issues of their own.

  Obama's priorities are getting out of Iraq, universal healthcare, and American energy independence. These happen to be the three greatest priorities for America right now.

  Getting out of Iraq will save us $200 billion dollars a year and bring our brave troops home to their families. American troops should not be sent in harm's way unless their is a COMPELLING NATIONAL INTEREST. Which was not the case with Iraq.

  Every other Western democracy has universal healthcare except the United States, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare, and they cover everyone. Why? Because a single payer system has inherent cost savings.

  America's dependence on foreign oil is the most important security issue America faces. Clean energy technology is already available and only requires the political will to develop it.

  Making these three issues his top priorities shows the wisdom and judgement that Obama has.

• September 15, 2008

  2:16 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  spencerr writes:

  gregu710,

  Where did you take your economics courses, the law building or the English building?

  GDP (One of the main measuring sticks of our economy) is a function of both consumption and capital. To people like you, that means GDP is affected by both consumption and capital. You cannot produce without capital. Let me say that again. Capital is required for production. Investment = Capital. Investment happens directly, via interaction in stock markets or indirectly...the bank invests your money when you put it in a CD or a savings account. Let me repeat...it is a required part of our economy. The rich (and businesses) save and invest much more than do the poor and middle class. The investment of the rich is as important to our economy as is the consumption of the middle class and poor.

  And it serves a double-purpose. Not only does investment provide the ability to produce, thus creating jobs, but it contributes to consumerism via the purchase from the firm that produced the capital in the first place.

  Consumerism is a lot of our economy, but without the ability to supply the good, supply stagnates or shrinks, and there is not enough product for consumers to consume.

  It is not as simple as "consumers make our economy work."

  There is a dynamic involved. The money of the rich is a much bigger part of that than you think.

• September 15, 2008

  2:17 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  jay writes:

  "I rally behind you spencerr. I wish I had time to whip out some FACTS"

  we do too, rufus as we don't see any from spencer jr. it would be nice for a change if someone from the conservative point of view would provide some credible facts.

  come back when you have time.

  shaggy...no...the fact that 2 out of 3 americans are worried that mccain will be mcsame isn't discredited by mccain still clinging to what is left of his post convention bounce.

  nice try though.

  go back to your blocks.

• September 15, 2008

  2:18 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  jvb writes:

  Stop it! Bloggers referring to bloggers as stupid, moron, idiot must stop. Sarah Palin's (GOP) commercial and she claim she sabotaged the bridge to no-where after she'd received $millions. Publicity cancelled the bridge and she kept the $millions. This puts her in the category of lie and thief. She must return the money since it was not used as intended. McCain has a very low opinion of pork barrel and Palin is the pork barrel queen.

• September 15, 2008

  2:19 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  mytwosense writes:

  jay writes:

  "I rally behind you spencerr. I wish I had time to whip out some FACTS"

  we do too, rufus as we don't see any from spencer jr. it would be nice for a change if someone from the conservative point of view would provide some credible facts.

  come back when you have time."

  --laughs--

• September 15, 2008

  2:22 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  GladysKravitz writes:

  Oh spenser...poor ranting angry spenser. Many of us here know that this is about the economy. Unless you enjoy seeing your retirement dwindle, higher gas prices, unemployment at a 5 year high of 6.1%, smaller paychecks, credits to biz that off-shore our jobs.

  You went to bed early...you missed a great Bronco(bama) game. But not everyone is a sports fan. I get that. And not everyone understand a statirical jab either. I get that too.

  I also realize how tough it is to accept reality that our country is worse off than it was 8 years ago... that is of course if you have not stepped foot outside your home since 9/11. Maybe you haven't bought your own groceries lately, or filled your tank since ...well,.. whenever, or seen your medical bill skyrocket.

  You want facts...it's more than being mezmorized by watching DayStar TV, or Fox news, which thinking people know is the RNC's b!tch. At least you read the RMN online...maybe there is hope; not that they are always right either.

• September 15, 2008

  2:23 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  BrandiWine_84 writes:

  I am posting this on a couple of threads because I really need to know what's going on in some peoples' heads . . . .

  Okay, for all of those Palin enthusiasts who jump at any chance to spew out some more of the same crap about the VP candidate, I present a challenge. I need your help. I have been racking my brain trying to figure out why anybody would want Palin as VP. It is a very important job! Have the Palin supporters really thought about the repercussions of having such a person hold power in this country as a VP (or goodness forbid, the Prez)? I am baffled how anybody with any sense could support such a close-minded, unidimensional candidate, and I know there is a lot of support for her out there, but none of the arguments in her favor touch on her policies or anything of importance when it comes to running a nation, especially the U.S.
  I really want to hear a legitimate explanation. All I can find is either asinine arguments that have Nada to do with Palin, or sarcastic remarks from people like myself who see this pick for what it is . . . .
  . . . . and hope to goodness that the American voting population is not DUMB enough to fall for it! The next four + years of our lives are at stake here, and people are obsessed with lipstick-wearing pitbulls - Huh?
  Support for Palin has little to do with government and policies, instead it relies on attacks on Obama, which is very non-sequitor since they're running for separate offices. Can you supporters please be specific, instead of saying the same things I've already heard?

  The best explanation I have received so far was "because she reaches them as a person. She looks, acts and talks like the other car pool moms, she doesn't think she is smarter or better than you." I understand that, but personally I am surprised that car pool moms think they could (or should) handle the VP job. And I think I would want a VP that was smarter than the average car pool mom. I'm not trying to knock or slam anyone, I'm simply trying to say that the best arguments for supporting Palin for VP are very weak criteria for what could potentially be our President! And I'm not saying that because McCain is old as hell and statistically there is about 1 in 3 chance that he will die naturally before his term is over, but because any VP could potentially become prez in the blink of an eye.

• September 15, 2008

  2:26 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  spencerr writes:

  MTS,

  Okay, if you want to talk about cause and effect of economic growth under Bill, let's do that.

  We had a great eight years. The Nasdaq grew exponentially. The DOW grew more moderately.

  Americans were getting rich quick by building up internet and other technology-driven businesses. Throughout '97 and '98, we were warned that there was a technological bubble that could not sustain itself any longer. It would burst.

  We ignored it and kept building it up. It burst, just like the recent housing bubble.

  We saw a very minor recession around 2000/2001, the direct result of the collapse of the Nasdaq.

  If you think Bush was so bad that he could cause something to collapse so quickly, you are having delusions.

  Not to mention, Obama is no Bill. Obama is more like Carter. I can live with another Bill because he was very pragmatic as far as liberals go. He was wishy-washy, governing by polling, because he wanted to keep his job. I can live with a liberal like that. If Obama were to similarly govern by taking polls, I could probably live with it.

  Anyway, I also gave you evidence. Reagan turned around a truly desperate situation with his trickle down economics.

• September 15, 2008

  2:30 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  spencerr writes:

  Gladys, unemployment was actually higher in the Bill Clinton years on average, so why don't you do yourself a favor and go dig up some real evidence rather than sticking to your "While Bush was president, this happened but I have no proof argument".

  http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/200....

• September 15, 2008

  2:33 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  spencerr writes:

  What did we talk before about jay, MTS? You have no credibility. All he does is give leftist talking points.

  I, on the other hand, have given you plenty of real information to digest, and your only answer is, "conservatives sukk, and jay actually knows what he is talking about."

• September 15, 2008

  2:35 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  mytwosense writes:

  spencerr, actually a lot of corporate fraud occurred in the nineties, which falsely inflated stock prices for a time, too. Clinton failed in reigning that in. He wasn't wishy-washy, he was just far more of a "free" marketeer than you realize. And he had a lot of help from certain legislators on both sides of the aisle.

  Anyway, you have not provided a direct correlation between taxes and job creation, which is what I'm asking for. Your last statement about Reagan is just more of your usual vague assertions.

  You want to know what I really think? I think in your heart you could care less about the economic policies of a particular candidate. I think you are a hardline *social* conservative, and that is what is truly motivating you in this election.

  I could be wrong, but that is my personal guess about where you stand. Because I really don't think you know much about actual policies of previous administrations and the current one.

• September 15, 2008

  2:39 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  spencerr writes:

  mytwosense,

  you focus on the wrong parts, hun. All you care about is rich and poor. "The rich got it on the backs of the poor."

  It does not matter where they got it. What matters is that it is necessary for investment, which is necessary for economic growth, which helps everyone. It is not mutually exclusive...it is not either the rich get rich or the poor get rich. Both can happen, but not if you take the money from the rich.

  If poor people created jobs and worked them, that would be wonderful. It is not the dynamic of our or anyone's economy.

• September 15, 2008

  2:43 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  GladysKravitz writes:

  Spencer...cause and effect growth under Clinton....the USA had a surplus..... Cause and effect under Bush....trillions of dollars of debt. Clinton=Dem Prez=better USA economy. Bush=Rep Prez= bad USA economy.

  Easy to understand for the middle class.

  Maybe not so much for GOP zombies.

  PS: Reagan did cut a lot. Funding for the mentally ill, who were thrown to the streets to beg at freeway exits and intersections, if not to be left for dead. Didn't utter the word AIDS until someone HE KNEW had HIV (Rock Hudson). And I am not ashamed to say, I didn't shed a tear when he succumbed. Though in my heart I wished his family comfort.

• September 15, 2008

  2:45 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  spencerr writes:

  mytwosense, I care nothing for anything but economics. Net growth of the economy and not re-distribution of wealth based on class envy. You cannot do both. The Europeans have proven it.

  I am willing to vote for McCain even though he was soft on abortion, and I could give a crap if gay people get married.

• September 15, 2008

  2:47 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  spencerr writes:

  Gladys, so now you've gone from a "on my watch" argument to a because I said so argument. Lovely.

  Who's the zombie?

• September 15, 2008

  2:47 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  mytwosense writes:

  spencerr writes: "What did we talk before about jay, MTS? You have no credibility. All he does is give leftist talking points.

  I, on the other hand, have given you plenty of real information to digest, and your only answer is, "conservatives sukk, and jay actually knows what he is talking about.""

  Oh come on! I told you why I think jay is funny: he doesn't necessarily come on here to earnestly debate policy, he just likes to annoy the hell out of the repubs. We all have our different roles here...

  Anyway, I don't necessarily think all conservatives "sukk." I do think that what passes for modern conservatism is hardly fiscally conservative, and depends on ignoring actual history. What it most definitely has become is a scary brand of hardcore American empire building, a secret desire to return to a feudal system of lord and master, and a Talibanesque interpretation of Christianity.

  I do not want you people in charge. You frighten me, seriously. I have a one year old son, and I do not want him trapped in the Orwellian world you people are going to create if you are not stopped.

• September 15, 2008

  2:48 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  spencerr writes:

  MTS,

  Here is some theory. Before you ignore it, at least read the first page. It will give you a little better understanding of the economy. Common sense, but I have found that common sense in economics escapes most people until they have a little training.

  http://economics.about.com/cs/taxpoli...

• September 15, 2008

  2:50 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  spencerr writes:

  MTS, here is an entire study for you. Go crazy on it.

  http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/sho...

• September 15, 2008

  2:50 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  mytwosense writes:

  spencerr writes: "mytwosense, you focus on the wrong parts, hun. All you care about is rich and poor. "The rich got it on the backs of the poor." It does not matter where they got it."

  Why doesn't it matter? Morally, it does. As a Christian, would you not agree?

• September 15, 2008

  2:51 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  jay writes:

  "re-distribution of wealth"

  you mean like shifting a portion of the tax burden from the upper to the middle class, spencer jr?

  you simply can't justify your vote based on policy.

  one of these days you're going to have to start confessing about your feelings for the wedge issues....

  in the meantime, you asked for numbers:

  "unemployment was actually higher in the Bill Clinton years on average, so why don't you do yourself a favor and go dig up some real evidence rather than sticking to your "While Bush was president, this happened but I have no proof argument"."

  let's go over them one more time:

  REAL GDP GROWTH1
  4.09% Over Prior 8 Years
  2.65% Over Prior 7 Years

  NATIONAL DEBT
  $5.7 Trillion
  $9.2 Trillion

  BUDGET DEFICIT/SURPLUS
  $431 Billion Surplus over the Previous Three Budget Years
  $734 Billion Deficit over the Previous Three Budget Years

  JOBS CREATED
  1.76 Million Jobs Per Year
  369,000 Jobs Per Year

  AMERICANS IN POVERTY
  31.6 Million
  36.5 Million

  AMERICANS UNINSURED & CHANGE IN UNINSURED LEVEL
  38 Million Uninsured
  47 Million Uninsured

  4.5 Million Less in 2 Years
  8.5 Million More in 6 Years

  ANNUAL TOTAL PREMIUM COST
  $6,230 for Family Premium
  $12,106 for Family Premium

  MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME & CHANGE IN MEDIAN INCOME
  $49,163
  $48,023

  $6,000 Increase in 8 Years
  $1,100 Decrease in 7 Years

  PRICE OF GAS
  $1.39/Gallon
  $4.07/Gallon

  COST OF COLLEGE
  $3,164 per year
  $5,192 per year

  PERSONAL SAVINGS RATE
  +2.3%
  -0.5%

  CONSUMER CREDIT DEBT
  $7.65 Trillion
  $12.8 Trillion

  U.S. TRADE DEFICIT
  $380 Billion
  $759 Billion

  STRENGTH OF U.S. DOLLAR
  1.07 Euros per Dollar
  0.68 Euros Per Dollar

  COMBAT READINESS
  All Active Duty Army Divisions Were Rated At The Highest Readiness Levels
  Not A Single Active Duty Or Reserve Brigade In The U.S. Considered “Fully Combat Ready.”

  FOREIGN OIL DEPENDENCY
  52.75% of U.S. Liquid Fuel Consumption is Imported
  60.38% of U.S. Liquid Fuel Consumption is Imported

  VIEW OF AMERICA ABROAD

  PEW POLL OF TEN NATIONS
  58.3% Viewed America Favorably
  39.2% Viewed America Favorably

  GREAT BRITAIN’S VIEW OF U.S.
  83% Favorable
  56% Favorable

  INDONESIA’S VIEW OF U.S.
  75% Favorable
  30% Favorable

  TURKEY’S VIEW OF U.S.
  52% Favorable
  12% Favorable

  GERMANY’S VIEW OF U.S.
  78% Favorable
  37% Favorable

  again...you can't make your case with facts...and we're not longer accepting your baseless opinions.

  you might as well come clean about your wedge issue stances...at least we could respect you for being intellectually honest about why you're a blindered footsoldier for the far right.

• September 15, 2008

  2:54 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  spencerr writes:

  MTS and Gladys,

  I have been regurgitating material from 500-level economics classes and texts, not making it up.

  The "I'm a democrat and always have been so can't listen to anything else" frame of mind will eventually go away. You may never call yourselves republicans, but one day your liberal arts brainwashing and your class envy will wear off when you realize there is a fine line between what can be and what is ideal.

  You have to be realistic about what can be accomplished. You can't have it all, and sometimes you can get behind someone who has an answer to at least some of it. Unfortunately, when it is a democrat, it is the wrong answer.

  I will give them one thing though; it is impossible to win on the "leave things alone" agenda. That is the sole reason that democrats are so successful.

• September 15, 2008

  2:58 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  ou8one2 writes:

  The democraps think Barry will be great at running the country, the economy, the military and foreign policy, when the only thing he has run in his entire life is his mouth.

• September 15, 2008

  2:59 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  mytwosense writes:

  spencerr, I have to go. But before I leave, I just want to put something out here for you to consider.

  The old way of acquiring capital was through a bold vision, persistence, lots of failures before success, working hard to save money, and yes, additionally through the sweat and effort of workers to produce quality goods.

  The new way of acquiring capital is to literally create it out of nothing, i.e., through loans. And then paying those loans back with the wealth created above.

  Case in point. A group of investors wants to acquire a high performance company with strong revenue flows, and a healthy employee pension fund. That group of investors very often only pay a small percentage of their own money down. They get the rest of the money needed through a loan, which they secure through their connections with large lending institutions.

  How do they pay off that loan? They start selling off the assets of the company that actually produced real wealth. And very often, they raid the employee pension fund, too.

  This is hardly an uncommon scenario, by the way.

  You want people who do that for a living to pay a lower tax rate than the employee who just lost his or her pension??

  Interesting priorities, but, at heart, is the economic policy of today's Republican.

• September 15, 2008

  3 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  spencerr writes:

  MTS, no I don't agree.

  The stars of the bible weren't a bunch of winers who cried about government needing to give them and the poor handouts. They were a bunch of people who found God.

  They weren't some sort of hardworking commune interested in saving the environment at the expense of the population, and they didn't make sure that everyone was exactly economically equal.

  They were concerned with things like personal salvation, spiritual health, compassion...and not forced compassion.

  I've said it before. I do volunteer work. That is the kind of compassion that is important.

  It is so easy to give someone else's money away.

  The more rewarding brand of compassion, for me, is when I make a sacrifice that hurts my own well-being, of my own volition. when I go to a soup kitchen. When I walk dogs at the pound. Not when someone decides to take a bigger cut of Bill Gates' money, which he both re-invests and donates of his own volition anyway.

• September 15, 2008

  3:02 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  JustSayin writes:

  jay - I like seeing the numbers - can you reference where you got them? Thanks!

• September 15, 2008

  3:03 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  spencerr writes:

  MTS, I too have to go.

  My answer to everything you say is that you are still focused on the wrong part of the equation. It is not about rich and poor. It is about growing wealth. Pensions are a joke, and businesses have proven that. Lesson learned. 401Ks and similar programs are the answer.

• September 15, 2008

  3:04 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  4gColoNative writes:

  Was undecided before Palin pick. Now have to go with O.

  Above all, so thankful that Bush & crew will be gone!!! So very relieved. Like the rest of the free world. Bush is just such a dunce and his cronies villians. Anyone who voted for Bush and his administration a *second time* should just keep their mouths shut and their fingers off the keyboard. They've proven themselves to be poor judges of character and ability.
  Admittedly, the opponents in 2004 weren't terribly appealing. The lesser evils.

  I wouldn't be distraught if it becomes McCain for four years, as long as he retains his faculties the whole time.

• September 15, 2008

  3:04 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  GladysKravitz writes:

  you see spenser here are my facts: based on actual real life.

  when clinton was president I made 4 more income than today.
  when Bush was Prez, i make less.

  When Clinton was prez. my job was secure
  When Bush was Prez my job was outsourced not once, but twice.

  When Clinton was Prez I had affordable health insurance.
  When Bush was Prez, I can't even afford it.

  When Clinton was Pres. I could take a sick day from work and not have to lose a day's pay.
  When Bush was Prez. I have to spread germs to my coworkers if I do not want to lose a days wages.

  When Clinton was Prez, I had a nest egg for retirement
  When Bush was prez, It is worth half as much than before I was laid off...BTW: laid off twice.

  Yes I have job, and no I am not asking for a hand out. In fact I work 2 jobs, and possibly may need a 3rd.

  Those are MY FACTS. Thats my reality. Everyday real life. I don't need your skewed graphs, and stats, and mishagas to know reality between Clinton and Bush. I do know when I am being screwed by a Republican President and their co-horts, that gives more to the wealthy and trickles down crumbs to less affluent.

• September 15, 2008

  3:14 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  jay writes:

  spencer jr, you're leaving once again without justifying a vote for conservatives based on evaluation of facts and policy stances.

  the only thing you have is criticism pointed directly at dems for things both rubs and dems do.

  this makes you a bit of a political hack...but only because you won't be honest that you vote republican because of your feelings on things like abortion.

  the truth will set you free....

  js...the dems compiled those numbers (isn't it nice to be able to brag about your track record rather than run from it?)

  they used data from:

  Bureau of Economic Analysis
  Department of Treasury
  Congressional Budget Office
  Bureau of Labor Statistics
  United States Census Bureau

  i used to post the link but for some reason it no longer posts correctly here.

• September 15, 2008

  3:14 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  zivo24 writes:

  Spencerr...

  Are you suggesting that there aren't people who vote republican because they've always voted that way and won't listen to anything else?

  Cause if you believe that I've got a WHOLE bunch of people you should meet.

  If you knew anything about psychology you would know that most people who vote democrat in today's political climate...do so not because they won't consider anything else..but because they have considered the other options.

  Perhaps you should be reminded of the term..."Reagan democrats". These were the socially liberal, fiscally conservative people that helped Reagan win office twice.

  But where were the 'Clinton republicans'?

  There weren't any..not as a voting bloc...because psychologically and statistically speaking..people who consider themselves
  'conservative' are much less likely to consider voting across party lines than a person who considers themselves 'liberal'.

  I've gone through and re-read many of your posts..and putting up "blogs" as proof of your statements is like to quote another old colloquialism..like peeing on someone's leg and telling them its raining.

• September 15, 2008

  3:37 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  jay writes:

  yiota...were you not aware that the bush administration has made the decision that troops won't come home on their watch but will rather pass the quagmire of iraq on to the next administration?

  you need to lay off the rush my friend.

• September 15, 2008

  4:15 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Norseman writes:

  Caribou Barbie (palin) has certainly demonstrated that she'll say ANYTHING (e.g. bridge to nowhere) to get elected.
  That she didn't even have the humility to take some time to consider whether she was qualified to be on the ticket ("I didn't blink"), shows that she'll rush to a decision, just like mccain did in selecting her.
  Did she even understand the question?
  Who in their right mind would accept a new job, without understanding the job description, and expectations?

• September 15, 2008

  4:25 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  4gColoNative writes:

  Re:
  According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

  "He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

  - - - so how does a question turn into a "demand?"
  Good example of *spin*

• September 15, 2008

  4:32 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  BrandiWine_84 writes:

  Shaggy - your response to my question evidences my point. Nobody, including you, has told me much of anything about why Palin is right for the VP job. All I get is anti-Obama rhetoric. That's not good enough! Please don't tell me what I should be asking people. That's not a question that I'm looking to be answered.

  So I will ask yet again, why do people believe that Palin would be a good VP?

• September 15, 2008

  4:36 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Ahab337 writes:

  If the Republicans win the presidency this November, it won't be because of John McCain.

  The Republicans critisized Obama for his "lack of experience" and his "celebrity" status.

  The next thing they did was snatched up a VP candidate with even less experience than Obama who has subsequently become more famous than Obama. They even decided to copy his theme of "change."

  Rediculous.

  Obama '08

• September 15, 2008

  4:37 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  HopiMedicineMan writes:

  Anyone who studies Elliot Wave Theory or Joseph Schumpeter knows how much trouble we're in. There's no escape. The economy is turning immediately illiquid. This isn't a mere repeat of the 1930s, this is the real thing, the big cigar, the holy moly, the dark night, the inside of the cow, the end of civilization as we
  know it (You call this civilization?). I am self-scalping.

• September 15, 2008

  4:54 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  chickenlittle1234 writes:

  Hopi -

  Wait, I'm the one who is supposed to be screaming "We're all DOOMED! THE SKY IS FALLING!"

• September 15, 2008

  5:01 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  bblessings writes:

  BrandiWine, I feel your "question" is just a disguise for an already biased opinion. There's a reason we're not justifying our decision or opinions to you because you have so clearly already made up your own mind. Why would anyone want to fall on that "double-edged" sword?

  " . . and hope to goodness that the American voting population is not DUMB enough to fall for it! The next four + years of our lives are at stake here, and people are obsessed with lipstick-wearing pitbulls - Huh?"

  I've said it on these posts before and I'll say it again, I'm indignant of being told that I am stupid, mis-informed, or "voting for the sake of the party" because I'm voting for McCain and Palin. I was originally going to vote for Obama but quickly changed my mind after conducting my own research and coming to my own conclusions.

  But I'm not going to share those with you, simply because you've already decided that "...I am baffled how anybody with any sense could support such a close-minded, unidimensional candidate..." Really? And that's having an open mind, is it? No thanks.

• September 15, 2008

  5:12 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Newenergycommie writes:

  ahab,

  You can keep saying it but very few people including Sarah Palin have less experience than Obama. Unless of course if you count voting "Present". Then he is far and away the most experieince canidate at not taking a stand and doing nothing. He has done far less than anyone else in congress. Hillary would be kicking a$$ and taking names by now.

• September 15, 2008

  5:20 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  chickenlittle1234 writes:

  Sure, CheapEnergy, whatever. Alaska's proximity to Russia as foreign policy experience? Sure, why not? Here's what really amazes me - the number of apparent conservatives all saying in unison that Hillary would be tough to beat, and yet before the nomination, who'd y'all all want to have as the Democratic candidate? Why, Hillary, of course, because she has as much of a negative rating as a positive, and therefore would be easier to run against. Well, whatever, CheapEnergy, whatever. I personally believe people will make up their own mind, like bblessings has. And if you actually talk issues, maybe you'll win more fence-sitters over. But that wouldn't be as much fun, would it?

• September 15, 2008

  5:22 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  chickenlittle1234 writes:

  oh, and by the way, W has nearly 8 years of experience as chief executive, and we see how well that's served him.

• September 15, 2008

  5:38 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  mytwosense writes:

  spencerr writes: "My answer to everything you say is that you are still focused on the wrong part of the equation. It is not about rich and poor. It is about growing wealth."

  Yes. I addressed that in my last post. To recap: how wealth is often "created" or "grown" today does not necessarily create new jobs. Again, more and more we see capital being "created" out of loans, i.e., nothing.

  And in fact, this can lead to transferring legitimately created wealth to investors who actually took no part whatsoever in creating it.

  Yet, you feel these people should pay a lower tax rate than others.

  Since my last example of the middle class worker losing his pension left you cold, here is another, based on an article I recently read. The article featured an Exxon gas station operator of several stations. Over two or three years, he had put an additional $800,000 into his stations, but had yet to turn a profit.

  He ruefully mentioned in the article he would have been better off if he'd just put that $800K towards buying Exxon stock.

  Now, the person who did invest such an amount in Exxon stock actually paid a lower tax rate on his or return than the man who invested sweat and his own money into real, producing retail outlets.

  This isn't a matter of "rich or poor," spencerr...it's a matter of people who actually produce getting shafted with a higher tax rate than those who just gamble in the markets.

• September 15, 2008

  5:39 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Lemmingsfollowidiots writes:

  spencerr save your breath the Lunatics/Lemmings can not be reasoned with as they march to their own insane drummer. You can do nothing to save a fool from his own destiny. They don't even comprehend how the government works and what roll the President actually has. They say the Republicans held the House and Senate along with the White House. Yep, they sure did, but most of Republicans forgot that they were Republicans and Not Pork Addicted Democrats. They were a DISGRACE spending like drunken Democrats do daily. Those Republicans were Republican in name only, Snow, Chaffey and the like were NOT conservatives and should never have been considered Republicans!

  President Bush also did us no favors by trying to cross over to work with the Democrat’s like Kennedy. Every time a Republican has actually done what he said he would do and cross over to work with the other side they were used and dumped to the side. You can not expect to work in an honest manner for the benefit of the country when working with dishonest Democrats that lie, cheat and steal every chance they get!

  Keep up the good work spencerr, just realize that you are trying to convince fools that they are not foolish! It will never happen! Lemmings are following their leader over the cliff of arogance!

• September 15, 2008

  5:40 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  HopiMedicineMan writes:

  chickenlittle
  The sky isn't falling. The sky is warming. The Dow is falling. FIVE HUNDRED points today and that's no little chicken.

• September 15, 2008

  5:43 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  mytwosense writes:

  MrCrush: "She's a no-nonsense leader that has taken on the establishment many times and won."

  Can you give a specific example? Because the only one that comes to my mind is that she levied a state tax on the oil industry. Now, I have no issue with that myself, but I thought you neocons were deadset against such "wealth re-distribution" and "punishing" business.

  I also heard she stated today that she and McCain were going to put an end to golden parachutes for incompetent CEOs. If Obama or Biden said such a thing, you people would be crying government interference at the top of your lungs.

• September 15, 2008

  5:48 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Ahab337 writes:

  Milf? Yup. VP? Nope.

• September 15, 2008

  6:01 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  SteveC writes:

  OK I'm not even gonna read the article. How stupid does he look with a cowboy hat. Talk about $ucking up. By the way a vacuum cleaner doesn't $uck it s ucks

• September 15, 2008

  6:16 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  LuvAmerica writes:

  Dow has 500-point drop, worst since 9/11.

  McCain: "Fundamentals of Economy Strong"

  I would think this is hilarious if we weren't a heatbeat away from standing in soup lines.

  Shaggy's right "Libs are scared!" So are real conservatives, and Democrats and Republicans and middle and lower class America, and the rest of the world, and probably when our TV signals reach deep space, they'll be scared too.

  How patriotic is it when you can't put aside your Rovian talking points long enough to do what is right for America? To talk about real issues affecting real people? Too busy stealing flags I guess.

• September 15, 2008

  6:18 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Ahab337 writes:

  McCrush

  Do you really think calling Obama by his middle name, "Hussein," is really going to dissuade voters? It's as rediculous as pointing out that his name rhymes with "Osama." Give it up, already.

  You failed to mention how Palin is under investigation for corruption in Alaska. Another convenient little fact the Republicans always choose to ignore. Anybody notice how she sticks to a script and doesn't answer any questions?

  America is already in trouble, but heaven help us if McCain/Palin win this November. Does anybody care about health care? The economy? Any of the issues?

• September 15, 2008

  6:23 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  LOUIE writes:

  McCrush, I don't think Obama is finished by a longshot; it may be a very close election. He needs to pull up and Joe Biden needs to step up. Biden was a poor choice, his inability to position himself on Palin in the media, is forcing Obama to address her, when it should be Mc Cain. Great republican stategy, it's forcing Obama to lead a fight against the second in command while Mc Cain coasts unchallenged. Problem is I agree with Obama in that it's the people being shortchanged as no issues of substance are being discussed in detail except pigs, pitbulls, and lipstick. I want to hear concrete policy planning for the future. I don't favor either candidate as I feel issues that really concern America are being sidestepped by both singing thier accolades, and condemning each other, but offering no real plan for America. We are coming up the losers. Business needs direction, not two pat on the back candidates caught up with themselves and degrading the opponent. Maybe in the debates we'll get some meat on the table instead of salad served 100 ways. So far it's been nothing but window dressing on both sides of this campaign, and lipstick that is hopefully being worn by only one candidate, unless John or Joe has a "wide stance" I haven't heard about yet.

• September 15, 2008

  6:25 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  LuvAmerica writes:

  Cwillyrun1 writes:
  "Consider the teacher at Overland High School that was teaching political science (ranting against Bush) in his geography class. What does politics in America have to do with geography?"

  Everything.

  Geography- "The science dealing with the areal differentiation of the earth's surface, as shown in the character, arrangement, and interrelations over the world of such elements as climate, elevation, soil, vegetation, population, land use, industries, or states, and of the unit areas formed by the complex of these individual elements."

  About the only thing politics DOESN'T impact on the above list is elevation. And a nuke war could alter some of that.

• September 15, 2008

  6:33 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  angryrepublican writes:

  Enough is enough!!! So much partisan crap. Some of you are mini - Rove's. No thoughts on the issues, just tit for tat that does nothing to move this country forward. Yes McPain has more experience if that is what you are voting for. Obama brings this country hope that we can put the crap aside and work together to get things done. We don't need the media to tell us which animal is wearing lipstick. We need honest answers about taxes, health care, and education. We need to know how each candidate is going to get us out of the international mess that has been created by Bush. As for me I have checked the independent web sites and have found that under Obama my taxes will go down by 1100.00 a year while they will increase under McCain by over 2800.00 a year. I remember Mccain as a member of the Keating Five because my grandparents were the result of Mccain and his cohorts stealing millions of dollars from our senior citizens. So get back to facts and leave the name calling for the playground (osama/Obama).

• September 15, 2008

  6:36 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  LuvAmerica writes:

  Cowboy63 writes:
  "Presidents who didn't go to Harvard: Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan." Lots of presidents didn't go to Harvard. What is your point? Or are you saying "ivy league educated"? Either way, holding up Reagan as some sort of example of modestly-educated brilliance perhaps doesn't quite make the point I think you are trying to make.

  The sad part is how denigrating the best educational institutions on the planet has turned into some sort of right-winger sport. "Let's celebrate mediocrity and stupidity!" Hope America's race to the bottom makes you feel good.

• September 15, 2008

  6:38 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  chris33 writes:

  Palin will be indicted next month for abuse of power and lying to the public about the investigation.

  Palin = Pinocchio

• September 15, 2008

  7:03 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  BrandiWine_84 writes:

  bblessing - you are totally right when you say that I have already formed an opinion on Palin. I definitely have. I am asking why Others Feel That She Will Be a Good VP. Congratulations to you for forming your own opinion, but guess what? That's what you're supposed to do! Do you really need a freakin pat on the back for doing your own research and forming an opinion?

  So you have some really good reasons for supporting McCain-Palin, but you're not going to share them with me because I'm baffled and looking for help in understanding? I'm getting nowhere here and I'm not really surprised. Just disappointed. Please enlighten me instead of saying that I don't have an open mind. I am here looking for something that makes sense to me. I just want to understand where the support comes from, I am very very open.

  To MrCrush - thanks for taking time to respond, but I have a couple issues - I get what you're saying, but these statements are so vague! I haven't been very successful in finding these examples of her taking on the establishment many times and winning. I haven't found what she has done for the people of Alaska, and again, I don't see why this has anything to do with what Obama has or has not done. And what is this crap about domestic terrorists? I guess it's better to have foreign terrorist buddies? You said that Palin has lengthy records of legislation "that has actually created change", can you help me find those lengthy records?
  Since when does being a "regular" person qualify one to be one of the most influential governmental leaders in the world? And I would argue that this candidate is as ego-driven as they come, but that can bleed into another post. I'm not even going to respond to your further points individually, because from there you just seem to spit out sound bites that you caught on whatever right media outlets you've been into.

  Please, I am begging you, convince me that I shouldn't be scared. I am serious in my plea.

• September 15, 2008

  7:08 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  BrandiWine_84 writes:

  . . . and when Karl Rove says you've gone too far with the misleading campaigning, shouldn't some little light bulbs illuminate over our heads?

  Just sayin'

• September 15, 2008

  7:50 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  HopiMedicineMan writes:

  Bush is horrid, worst president ever, aside from LBJ, and Jimmy Carter. Our problems began with something called de-industrialization. That began around 1965. If you're into blaming presidents, and most are, that would be Johnson. But most of you posting here were not born yet, let alone reading the news. By 1973 we'd destroyed our domestic oil production. We did that with a 1972 reduction in the depletion allowance. The bill was Ted Kennedy's. Overnight we went from producing oil to importing it. This wasn't about the platitudes of Camelot, but about two different US power bases.
  Comes now Ronald Reagan pushing for the privatization of programs you don't privatize, like prisons for chrisake, and he pushed for Gramm-Rudman, banks can sell securities. Really bad ideas. Where we are now is identical to Europe, but not the Middle East. Bush, the idiot, the fool and the drugstore cowboy he is, does not manage the economy of the EU. Most of you just want to justify your hatred and not dedicate yourselves to re-industrializing the country your children will have as an Indian hard scrabble existence.
  I know Eliot Wave theorists who sold out and moved to Dubai seeing years ago what we're experiencing now. We're up Shyt Creek, no question. We've forgotten Black Elk. We inherit this land from our parents, but we borrow it from our children.

• September 15, 2008

  8:08 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  allelsefollows writes:

  Between speeches, do you suppose Barack was backstage with the Iraqi higher-ups, making more secret diplomatic negotiations with them that he's not cleared to make? http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/...

• September 15, 2008

  8:14 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  chris33 writes:

  Rising unemployment, rising gas prices, record foreclosures, record trade deficit, the Big Three on the verge of bankrupcy, $700 billion dollars wasted on Iraq, a $500 billion dollar budget deficit, and a stock market crash. Now the Republicans want us to elect Herbert Hoover. I'll go with Franklin Roosevelt, thank you.

• September 15, 2008

  8:16 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  FatherRusty writes:

  Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin won't speak with an investigator! Remind you of Cheney? Same ol same ol......

• September 15, 2008

  9:04 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  TruthPlease writes:

  When are people going to wake up and take a closer look at Obama? I know it’s difficult because the news media is supporting and protecting him.

  But, it is criminal that after 21 months we still do not know the TRUTH about his past associations with William Ayers, Tony Rezko, the John and Richard Daley political machine in Chicago, Rev. Wright, Mike Klonsky, and Iraqi billionaire Nadhmi Auchi.

  How can people elect as president a first term junior senator. He has not authored any major legislation. He has been flying around the country campaigning for president two out of the three years he has been a senator. He has zero executive or management experience. He has only been on the senate floor 150 times in three years. He votes PRESENT in the senate to avoid taking a position or making a decision.

  I do not understand how he has gotten this far. It has to be the news media. Every day we are bombarded with good stories about Obama.

  This is the most effective brainwashing of a country since Hitler mesmerized Germany.

• September 15, 2008

  9:12 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  icmountainpeaks writes:

  The people of Adk Alaska need help now! Officials to black out power and ask citizens to leave the Aleutian community. http://www.adn.com/aleutians/story/52...
  They are almost out of fule! It gets Cold in the winter up here. We produce Fule up here and can’t get at a decent rate.

• September 15, 2008

  9:18 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  icmountainpeaks writes:

  As mayor of Wasilla, from 96- 02 and 2 prior terms as counsel woman Sara Palin charged victims of rape for the forensic testing and collection of evidence, rape kit. The troopers and most muni agencies covered the cost. Not the city of Wasilla, They didn’t have to charge victims But under Sara’s watch the police dept charged for rape victims for rape kit and testing. Governor Tony Knowles an man put a stop to this in 2000. Sara appointed police Chief Charlie Fannon he disagreed with the law. “The law will require the city and communities to come up with more funds to cover the costs of the forensic exams.” Knowles signs sexual assault bill frontiersman 5/23/2000
  http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/... http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arch... It is important to take note that the article says they charged victims insurance companies assuming they all had insurance, this left them with the co pays. Recently she replaced the police commissioner with Chuck Kopp. He has a prior work record of sexual harassment that he was reprimanded for. Sara is obviously for abstinence only education, No abortion even in the case of rape, and incest Alaska is 1 in the country for rape and incest. While its great she went back to work 3 days after having her child, what message does that send to bonding families, healing mothers and employers not happy with maternity leave. Sara has signed up with a man who has consistently voted against equal pay for women. Kinda of makes you wander if she will take a lower VP pay because she is a woman. On censorship no she didn’t ask for any specific books to be banded “Palin said she asked Emmons how she would respond to censorship.” Palin used the library topic as an example of discussions with her department heads about understanding and following administration agendas
  Then tried to fire her here it the original article from 12.18.96 http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/...
  Sara is all about regression, not progress. As a woman I am offended she calls herself a woman.
  This Alaskan and thousands of other Alaskan Women are saying Sara Thanks but no Thanks, we want women’s rights not a far right woman, and that’s no flip flop.

• September 15, 2008

  9:46 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Mike846 writes:

  Bottom line, Obama is going to tax YOU if you're relatively successful, he's going to tax YOUR EMPLOYER more, especially if the business is successful, and he 's going to redistribute the wealth to pet socialization projects designed to allow government to take more and more control of your lives. How you feel about illegal aliens doesn't matter, the Government will take care of everybody. How you feel about health care doesn't matter, the Government will provide for all. What words you want to use in your speech or writing doesn't matter; the Government will tell you what is "free speech" and what is "hate speech". And your kids? Well, starting at age 3, the Government will take them for 8 hours a day and start their indoctrination into the politically correct way of thinking, equal outcomes and absolutely no God allowed. After all, its a Government-run "public" school. And we all know about that "wall of separation", don't we, children? I'm not crazy about McCain-Palin, but it sure as hell beats the alternative. Mike

• September 15, 2008

  9:48 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  commoncents writes:

  The "reformer" wont participate in her ethics investigation. Got to clean up your own mess before you go to DC. And McCain supports the decision. This is more evidence that those two will be a continuation of the Bush administration. Dictating laws but can't follow them.

• September 15, 2008

  10:05 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Purpolhayes writes:

  Two constrasting differences in the approaches to the Lehman Bros and other current financial issues:

  Obama: It's Bush's fault. It's McCain's fault.

  McCain/Palin: Here's what's wrong. We're going to fix it...........

  One points fingers while the other actively steps up to find a solution. Which one would you rather have leading our country?

• September 15, 2008

  10:16 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Purpolhayes writes:

  "commoncents writes:

  The "reformer" wont participate in her ethics investigation. Got to clean up your own mess before you go to DC. And McCain supports the decision. This is more evidence that those two will be a continuation of the Bush administration. Dictating laws but can't follow them."

  IF YOU WERE THE SUBJECT OF A WITCH HUNT BY THE OPPOSING PARTY, YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO COOPERATE, EITHER. FIRST, THE STATE HOUSE HAS NO JURISDICTION IN THIS MATTER YET. SECOND, ONCE THE FACTS ARE "ON THE TABLE," AND BEING HANDLED BY THE PROPER JURISDICTION (THE PERSONNEL BOARD), THIS WILL ALL BLOW OVER. WHETHER WOOTEN HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH MONEGAN'S DISMISSAL OR NOT, SHE WAS WELL WITHIN HER RIGHTS TO FIRE MONEGAN.

  I have heard accusations of "lies," but I have yet to see irrefutable arguments to support these accusations. Before you continue attacking Gov. Palin, try doing something out of the ordinary for most liberals: THINK!

• September 15, 2008

  10:19 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Purpolhayes writes:

  What do Barack Obama and Jane Fonda have in common?

  (So far), Both are getting away with committing treason.

  * read the NYPost article linked earlier in this thread, then look up and read the Logan Act (1799)

• September 15, 2008

  10:26 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  commoncents writes:

  Purpolhayes, you must be on some of it to come out with that nonsense. You can't deny that the woman has something to hide, unless she stops hiding behind made up witch hunts. The state legislature is not all out to get her. Go tell the truth and be done with it is all she has to do, if nothing is there it will be clear at that point. She said she would face the music, until it started playing. I am not attacking her, just pointing out the lies they keep telling about her fine character.

• September 15, 2008

  11:18 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  ManginoTorreta writes:

  "Please, I am begging you, convince me that I shouldn't be scared. I am serious in my plea."

  Why should anyone try to convince you to not be scared? You're an adult and it's not the job of anyone else to try and soothe your imagined terrors.

  You want others to convince you? How about you convince me why I should vote for a Chicago ward heeler who is tied to an organization that specializes in voter fraud, whose campaign is promising "change" yet picks a running mate that's been in the Beltway for over 30 years, who loved community organizing so much he went to law school and never returned, who was so undesirable as a lawyer that he couldn't even get his own practice started up, whose entire record of political success is owed not to anything he's actually accomplished, but to what the media and his supporters want him to be?

  Why should I support a candidate who says he can fix the economy, but whose campaign has been burning through money like napalm in a Vietnamese jungle, and who burned through 100 million dollars in the Annenberg challenge without it having any discernable effect on Chicago schools?

  How exactly is that any more logical than voting for McCain/Palin?

• September 15, 2008

  11:24 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  RonInWestminster writes:

  Latest poll results, Sarah Palin leads John McCain by 11 points!

  Upon the examination of the candidates' actual positions on the issues rather than the ads and 30 second sound bites, Barack Obama/Joe Biden lead John McCain/Sarah Palin 99 to 1 (Johnnie's mom will vote for him and Sarah no matter what)

  Let's get real, go to www.JohnMcain.com and try to find a dime's worth of difference between his policies and George Bush's and then go to www.BarackObama.com and see the difference between Obama's position and McCain's.

  One of these represents real change and the change our nation needs but be sure to look fast at McCain's page because he his flip-flopping like an Alaskan salmon out of water.

  If you are happy with the U.S. economy and the standing of our country in the world then go ahead and vote for McCain.

  If you think that domesticlly and in world affairs the U.S. is heading in the wrong direction then the only logical choice is Barack Obama.

  It is just that simple.

  Need a good example of how important JUDGEMENT is over EXPERIENCE look at George Bush, he had 4 years to practice at being POTUS and now in his final months of his Presidency he is finally just begining to come around (barely) to the sort of foreign policy plan that Barack Obama has stated we needed all along.

  McCain on the other hand is stil trumpeting the policies of Bush's first term, foreign and domestic.

• September 15, 2008

  11:24 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Purpolhayes writes:

  commoncents writes:

  "Purpolhayes, you must be on some of it to come out with that nonsense. You can't deny that the woman has something to hide, unless she stops hiding behind made up witch hunts. The state legislature is not all out to get her. Go tell the truth and be done with it is all she has to do, if nothing is there it will be clear at that point. She said she would face the music, until it started playing. I am not attacking her, just pointing out the lies they keep telling about her fine character."

  TELL THE TRUTH? SHE ALREADY HAS. WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT? WHAT LIES? AGAIN, NO IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE TO BACK UP THESE ACCUSATIONS.

• September 15, 2008

  11:26 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  ManginoTorreta writes:

  And for the record, I'm not voting for either of these candidates. This is an election between a big government liberal and a big government conservative, and that is really no choice at all.

  It says volumes about our celebrity-driven culture that two individuals of such little accomplishment as Obama and Palin can be set up as the saviors of their respective parties.

• September 15, 2008

  11:42 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  ManginoTorreta writes:

  "If you are happy with the U.S. economy and the standing of our country in the world then go ahead and vote for McCain."

  See my previous post as far as the economy is concerned. If Obama's current campaign cash-bleeding is any indication of how he's going to run the economy, Americans should not vote for him for that reason alone. Going back to Annenberg, it's not surprising when politicians on a national scale can't control their spending habits, but for a low-level bureaucrat to burn through NINE FIGURES with no tangible results is astonishing to say the least. It even spilled over into his personal life--Michelle admitted that the only reason they could began to make a living was based off of his book sales, and that was when his political career arc was just beginning to take off. What exactly makes this man's economic plans so great when he can't even properly manage his own finances?

  This the top of the Democratic ticket, supposedly the best their party has to offer, and he's accomplished nothing more than memoirs and speeches. He is getting a pass because he is basically little more than symbol to his supporters, not because of anything substantive.

• September 16, 2008

  12:01 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  chris33 writes:

  Sarah Palin made rape victims pay for their own forensic exams.

  Watch the video at this link.....

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPTVyb...

• September 16, 2008

  3:06 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  BenchBoss writes:

  Just to re-iterate what angryrepublican said earlier. It was dead-on and kinda got lost in the silliness:

  angryrepublican wrote:
  "Enough is enough!!! So much partisan crap. Some of you are mini - Rove's. No thoughts on the issues, just tit for tat that does nothing to move this country forward. Yes McPain has more experience if that is what you are voting for. Obama brings this country hope that we can put the crap aside and work together to get things done. We don't need the media to tell us which animal is wearing lipstick. We need honest answers about taxes, health care, and education. We need to know how each candidate is going to get us out of the international mess that has been created by Bush. As for me I have checked the independent web sites and have found that under Obama my taxes will go down by 1100.00 a year while they will increase under McCain by over 2800.00 a year. I remember Mccain as a member of the Keating Five because my grandparents were the result of Mccain and his cohorts stealing millions of dollars from our senior citizens. So get back to facts and leave the name calling for the playground (osama/Obama)."

  ^----- What he/she said.

• September 16, 2008

  6:22 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  LuvAmerica writes:

  allelsefollows writes:
  "Between speeches, do you suppose Barack was backstage with the Iraqi higher-ups, making more secret diplomatic negotiations with them that he's not cleared to make? http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/...

  Reminds me of the time the GOP negotiated behind the scenes to keep the Iranian embassy hostages held until after Reagan took office. Only that was driven by evil.

• September 16, 2008

  7:59 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Biff writes:

  I think its funny that all these multiple bloggers on this thread are all the bleading heart Obama dems.....pretty typical of the standard liberal dem.....they're lazy, they're mad and, by god, they'er voting for Obama....thank god I monitor my employees use of the internet....

• September 16, 2008

  7:59 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  chris33 writes:

  Four more years of Republican "leadership" and America will be a third world country. $200 billion dollars a year to set up a Shia government in Iraq allied with Iran? No thanks! Bring the troops home and save that $200 billion dollars for America. Go Obama!

• September 16, 2008

  8:09 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  RufusTFirefly writes:

  chris33
  do you have proof that Obama will pull out our troops?

• September 16, 2008

  9:47 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  jay writes:

  palin was nothing more than a dog whistle for the american taliban and a distraction to take attetion away from republican failures.

  the question every voter should be asking themselves as they walk to the polls this fall is do they trust that the republicans' plans of more of the same will fix the mess they created.

  considering that they've done as much damage to the country as the folks who hit us on 9/11...that's a tough sell.

  maybe that's why we're talking about palin instead of policy.

• September 16, 2008

  10:01 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  ML writes:

  Why is it that repubs think they are the only ones who can fix the mess that their own party has gotten us into?

• September 16, 2008

  10:58 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  LOUIE writes:

  Mayor Hinkenlooper and ex-mayor Pena showed up together to support Mr. Obama. One employed illegals, the other supported them at the rally for illegals at the DNC. Democrats used to be the party of labor and support unions, not anymore. I had to explain this in the Detroit Freepress prior to the democratic convention that the western democrat supports illegal labor. Pissed a lot of staunch democrats off when I told of these democratic magpies from Colorado, and this sanctuary city and the democrats helped create here in Colorado. Detroit is losing everything, it was quite shocking in a pro-union, pro-labor town like Detroit to hear about Colorado's democrats supporting illegals. See historically, democrats were pro-labor, pro-union, they even forced union concessions prior to and for the DNC. Then you tell them about the western democrats like Ritter, Pena, Hinkenlooper, the people there were caught quite off guard, pissed quite a few democratic voters off to put up the facts on Colorado's democrats! See the readers rate posts in the Detroit Freepress, I received very high marks on my commentary by the people of Detroit on this issue. Wish the RMN had a public rating system, gives people a chance to vote on your opinion and improves quality. Difference between Gannett and Scripps is night and day. Thousands post In the Detroit Freepress, so you really need a fast computer to keep up!

• September 16, 2008

  11:04 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  LOUIE writes:

  Oh, and Gannett is more intrested in the opinions than censoring those that don't tote the party line. RMN could take a cue there also. If you have a computer read and interact with the world. Many in Detroit were totally unaware of the democrats supporting illegal labor here in Colorado. Hinckenlooper employed them, Pena rallied for them, Ritter plea bargained them, if that's not support of illegals and an anti-labor stance, I don't know what is!

• September 16, 2008

  11:14 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Achilles writes:

  "We tried that. And look what happened. We ended up having to nationalize the mortgage industry by taking over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." - mytwosense

  MTS,

  I suggest you research Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It was always a socialist endeavor. In fact, those GSE's (government sponsored enterprises) are largely responsible for the current housing bubble burst.

  Comments like your are extremely frustrating yet typical of those on the left. The left inserts government into the market and then when it fails, as conservatives predicted, the left says, see, see, capitalism does not work. They do this with health care, housing, and corporate taxation.

• September 16, 2008

  11:21 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  jay writes:

  john, maybe you missed it in 2005 when the congress in a show of bipartisan unity attempted to stave off this disaster.

  the bill to finally increase oversight of the housing market was vetoed by the sitting republica president...a republican president whose policies will be continued under mccain.

  Comments like your are extremely frustrating yet typical of those on the right. The right inserts deregulation into the market and then when it fails, as democrats predicted, the right says, see, see, unregulated free market capitalism does not work. They do this with health care, housing, and corporate taxation.

• September 16, 2008

  11:25 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  LOUIE writes:

  Today Mr. Obama promised 5 billion dollars to clean up the Great Lakes, how's he going to keep all these promises without raising taxes?

• September 16, 2008

  11:30 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  LOUIE writes:

  This Mr. Obama is making huge money promises throughout the country, to everyone he meets. Where is all this money going to come from when he telling the people he's going to cut taxes? 5 billion today he promised the people up north for the Great Lakes. What's he selling, borrowing, or doing to come up with all this cash he's promising voters everywhere he goes?

• September 16, 2008

  11:34 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  dilligaf writes:

  LOUIE
  Well maybe the same way Bush is funding a 8 billion dollar a month war and saying he wants to cut taxes. (The war McSame wants to continue) He will throw it on your kids credit card. MORON

• September 16, 2008

  11:35 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  ou8one2 writes:

  The only difference between oBama and oSama is a little BS.

  Notice how the MSM is not talking about Chicago having the highest murder rate in the country the last two years? With the largest rate being in Obama's district!
  
  The local press has dubbed "Chicago "Beirut by the Lake." "

  Another quote: "It's fair to say that violent crime in Chicago is out of control," Mr. Blagojevich said recently. "In certain communities in the city of Chicago, it is reaching epidemic proportions."

  Way to to Obama, bring more of that to the entire US.

  Link to the story: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2...

• September 16, 2008

  11:40 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  jay writes:

  louie...say it with me.

  we are going to have to raise taxes because of the conservative policies of the last 8 years.

  try not to forget it.

• September 16, 2008

  11:47 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  DenverDan writes:

  How is it that people on the right time after time, turn a blind eye on what is going on? Why is it party first country second with these people? The facts are in front of you, just look at them. We need to pick the best person for this job, even if he does not have a (R) next to his name. It is as if they take no responsibly for anything. Lie after lie.

• September 16, 2008

  11:59 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  jay writes:

  yiota, say it with me...

  we will have to raise taxes at some point to pay for the republican policies of the last eight years.

  there's no way to get around that.

  obama wants the middle class to pay a smaller share of the bill...bush/mccain wants them to pay a larger share.

  you may continue to vote against your own best interests...but i'm gonna pass.

• September 16, 2008

  noon

  Suggest removal

  dilligaf writes:

  ou8one2
  Chicago Has had the highest crime rate for years and years. You ever heard of the mob you blowhole.

• September 16, 2008

  12:01 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  LOUIE writes:

  I hope we through with the pigs, pitbulls, and lipstick. I can't wait for the debates and I hope they map out a plan for America's future. Both partys need to focus on the issues that face America, not the insignificant sound byte attacks. When is the first debate folks? Where Joe Biden, on a sabbatical? I hate seeing Mr. Obama having to carry the whole fight; especially with the second in charge. Mc Cain needs to be challenged more, he's getting off lightly. Issues not tissues; more meat, less salad.

• September 16, 2008

  12:05 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  LOUIE writes:

  Yeah Dilligaf, a gangster named Sam from Chicago got a democrat named Jack elected to the president. Probably recinded the deal when the democrat turned on him too. You saying Mr. Obama has the support of the criminal underworld of Chicago or what?

• September 16, 2008

  12:14 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  danirobi writes:

  We are in the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression and Obama is having a $31,000 fundraiser? What a confused, hypocritical Presidential Candidate the Democrats have. I guess Obama is still more concerned with how many houses John, I mean Cindy McCain owns.

• September 16, 2008

  12:23 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  LOUIE writes:

  Now that you brought up Cindy Mc Cain's houses, I must say with politicians like Kerry married to Hienz, John Mc Cain married to Cindy, Edwards and his ole girl, and the list from both parties goes on and on; that today's politicians are looking more like gigalos than leaders?

• September 16, 2008

  12:24 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  ou8one2 writes:

  danirobi writes:

  We are in the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression and Obama is having a $31,000 fundraiser? What a confused, hypocritical Presidential Candidate the Democrats have. I guess Obama is still more concerned with how many houses John, I mean Cindy McCain owns.

  You are correct, but you forgot to mention it is $31,000 a plate. Glad to see he relates to us 'little people.'

  Here is Obama's quote from that fund raiser: "Sen. McCain, what economy are you talking about?" smiled Obama.

• September 16, 2008

  12:25 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  leatherneck writes:

  I check this board almost every day at lunch. I see the same Liberals with the same BS. We Republicans know exactly what we want and what we are doing, we are well informed. The Democrats think they have all the right answers and tell us how to think, feel and most importantly how to vote. It’s the Democrats that are constantly trying to get everyone to believe the way they do. They honestly think that Obama is going to fix everything that is wrong with the country and do it without raising taxes. What a joke…….
  Tell me something: why is Obama trying to stop the withdrawal of troops out of Iraq? Could it be that he wants to take credit for it? Oh yea, that's only if he becomes president, so I am not too worried about it.

• September 16, 2008

  12:31 p.m.

  bronco writes:

  (This comment was removed by the site staff.)

• September 16, 2008

  12:35 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  danirobi writes:

  it's actually $28,500 a plate, $2,500 for the concert by BS.

• September 16, 2008

  12:43 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  leatherneck writes:

  bronco: CALL ME SICK THEN... I'm real hurt.....what will I dooo...
  NOBAMA

  McCAIN / PALIN 08

• September 16, 2008

  12:53 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  danirobi writes:

  Really Big-D- McCain didn't break his promise on public finanicing of campaigns. McCain raised $5 million in Chicago last week. McCain's fundraiser do not cost $31,000 to attend.

• September 16, 2008

  12:56 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  danirobi writes:

  Uemployment:
  Today: 6.1%
  1934: 21.7%

  Top Tax Rate:
  Today: 35%
  1945: 88% (thats not even the highest)

  It just doesnt add up...

• September 16, 2008

  1:26 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  jay writes:

  "Jay, then add to that the trillion dollar plans of BO. So when does BO actually cut taxes? His plans include extreme amounts of spending without underpinning the financing."

  yiota, i'm glad you're paying attention.

  i'm going to have you repeat after me again.

  mccain's platform adds more debt to the country but doesn't provide the middle class tax cuts that obama's does.

  say it twice if you think it won't sink in. kind of invalidates your point about the tax and debt issue.

  "How can you liberals keep screaming about President Bush stealing your rights re-writing the constitution and invading your privacy with the patriot act. Then proclaim that government run health care and government run programs to make sure everyone gets a equal opportunity or share of the pie is a good thing."

  this is a misrepresentation of the argumet in favor of healthcare reform....and therefore not a valid question.

  communist conspiracy theories about the "pie" aside, can you tell me why you believe our country incapable of adopting some of the best practices of those countries doing healthcare better and cheaper than we are?

  "How do you think the goverment will determine who gets a helping hand and who needs to give a helping hand?"

  most likely the same way they do now.

  "All of BO's government plans require huge government intervention into your lives"

  like what? telling folks that they can't marry the one they love? forcing their kids to get ignorant, counterproductive sex ed at school? shifting a portion of the tax burden from the upper to the middle class?

  that kind of intervention or did you have actual examples of the stuff you're talking about?

  ou8....why do you care what folks spend their money on? would you rather that be monitored by the gov't?

  "They honestly think that Obama is going to fix everything that is wrong with the country and do it without raising taxes."

  no they don't, leatherneck...this is yet another strawman.

  we are going to have to raise taxes to pay for the last 8 years of conservative policies.

  furthermore, no one expects the next president to be able to "fix everything" during the next term. that's just silly talk. we'll be repairing the damage done by the last near decade of republican rule for decades to come.

  the real question is whether or not you believe the rhetoric about continuing the same policies in order to fix the mess they themselves created.

  doesn't quite pass the smell test does it.

  finally....we've already debunked the "iraq withdrawal" myth. the bush admin has admitted that the troops won't come home on their watch...and will therefore pass this unnecessary quagmire onto the next administration.

  between the war, the debt and the worst economy greenspan has ever seen....you're handing off a baton made of melting crap.

• September 16, 2008

  2:09 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  jay writes:

  "However BO's plan to increase the taxes on the top 5% and change the tax structure for companies operation overseas has huge negative impact on the economic picture."

  i gave you facts and you reply with unsubstantiated opinion, yiota.

  that pretty much sums up the right wing argument that we should continue the policies that have created the mess we're in.

• September 16, 2008

  2:12 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  freemarketworks writes:

  In the end, it’s “Give Me” vs. “Let Me.” As a republican, I believe in the American People; government should be limited and focused on maintaining a safe and nurturing environment that encourages industry and self determination.
  
  In general, I believe that free markets will self correct and that American citizens are smart and should be trusted to make individual decisions of self determination. Of course, we are a nation of laws and the government has the obligation to enforce those laws in order to maintain a fair and just society; however, I believe in state’s rights over centralized government. I can tolerate most social conservatives as long as those issues are being presented and answered at the state and local level.

  On the other side, Democrats tend to be collectivists; which is the belief that government is the ultimate answer to the needs of a collective citizenship. I’ve heard Obama underline this philosophy many times when he states that "I am my brother's keeper. I am my sister's keeper."
  
  Overall, the Democrats could be labeled as the ‘Give me’ party; while, I would label the Republicans as the ‘Let Me’ party. For those focused on the issues, please keep in mind that issues will come and go; however, it’s the philosophy and reason applied to solving those issues that matters most.

  I would say that if you want big government, increased taxes, decreased national defense, socialized institutions and wealth redistribution, than Obama/Biden is a great choice. On the other hand, if you want smaller government, more jobs, strong national defense and security, while being trusted to make your own decisions, than McCain/Palin would be a much better choice.

• September 16, 2008

  2:24 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  jay writes:

  "if you want smaller government, more jobs, strong national defense and security, while being trusted to make your own decisions, than McCain/Palin would be a much better choice."

  we saw exactly the opposite under bush.

  mccain's policies are nearly strategically identical to bush's.

  why in the world would you expect different results, freemarket?

• September 16, 2008

  2:40 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  jay writes:

  "He has no record ON ANYTHING"

  actually that's blatantly false, mcrush.

  by the way...the first person to reference the nazis loses the debate.

  "I don't want to pay for your mistakes over the next two decades"

  lol...you're already going to pay for the mistakes of the last 8 years for decades to come....there's no need to continue to increase the bill by continuing failed policies, don't you think?

• September 16, 2008

  2:59 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  freemarketworks writes:

  Jay,

  In response to "McCain's policies are nearly strategically identical to Bush's.
  why in the world would you expect different results, freemarket?"

  I realize that McCain is not necessarily a fiscal conservative; however, I think that he is interested in ending the Iraq conflict in a strong and decisive manner. On the opposite end, Obama is prepared to destabilize the region and withdraw at all costs. Likewise, Obama's plans are aimed directly at my income, capital gains and will directly decrease the number of jobs that I am able to offer. The message from Obama to me is “don’t strive to be a ‘ten percenter’, because I am going to take your money…” The sad part of this message is that most ‘ten percenters’ that I know are fully prepared to relocate off-shore or sell their assets to foreign companies in order to survive.

• September 16, 2008

  4:14 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  jay writes:

  "Obama is prepared to destabilize the region and withdraw at all costs"

  actually that's inaccurate as well.

  our own intelligence agencies have concluded that our presence in iraq actually contributes to the regions' instability.

  a reasoned, timely withdrawal to positions of regional support is a much more supported plan both in america and in iraq.

  "Obama's plans are aimed directly at my income, capital gains and will directly decrease the number of jobs that I am able to offer."

  actually obama's policies have a better economic track record, including job creation than bush/mccain's...making that statement false as well.

  "The sad part of this message is that most ‘ten percenters’ that I know are fully prepared to relocate off-shore or sell their assets to foreign companies in order to survive"

  if you're just now thinking about dumping dollars and american stock because of the economic mess borne from republican policies, i find it hard to believe that you know what you're talking about in regards to money management or business ownership.

• September 16, 2008

  4:46 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  BrandiWine_84 writes:

  Mangino - thanks for more support for what I was saying. Nobody is telling me $h!t about Palin. All they can do is bash Obama. I never said I was voting for Obama, or voting at all, but everytime anyone questions the legitimacy of Palin for VP, the argument turns to Obama. If you don't want to answer my questions, Fine, but do not tell me not to be scared, or to be an adult. I thought that was what I Was doing, seeking answers to my questions.

  I think I'm giving up on the RMN threads. I have made no progress in the search for a good reason why Palin should be our VP.

  "saying the same things over again, we're repeating the same songs cuz we don't know where we've been"

• September 16, 2008

  4:50 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  BrandiWine_84 writes:

  To me, this is not a matter of Palin versus Obama. They're not going for the same job! It is an issue of Palin, plain and simple. If you cannot shed some light on Palin, without any mention of Obama or McCain, then please respond to somebody else's post.

• September 16, 2008

  5 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  LOUIE writes:

  Charles-B, we never got along or saw eye to eye, I am sorry to see this happen. I am a firm believer of free speech, especially those like yourself critical of my views. Any consulation, they wiped out all the comments on the article about the 35 schools on probation from this morning. They pulled up comments I made 7 months ago, leaving the rest from that date erased, and put them under an article that appeared yesterday; it disappeared yesterday as well also. Go figure. As someone who most bitterly opposed me and my opinion, I want you to know no matter what I thought of your opinion, I believe in your right to voice it. I'm sorry to see anyone get banned. I think maybe it's time for me to limit my comments also on the RMN, soon I'll be banned probably also. It's a shame there is a wall in China were the comments are still free; but here it is still restricted. It's the RMN's right, but it doesn't make it right. Sorry to see your voice, no matter how caustic, silenced...

• September 16, 2008

  5:19 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Achilles writes:

  "It's a shame there is a wall in China were the comments are still free; but here it is still restricted." - Louie

  What does that mean? No one's freedom of speech was violated. CB can still shout, insult, complain, and lie all he wants. But RMN is not obligated to print his acerbic words.

  Frankly, I am glad he is gone. Not because I disagreed with his views but because his caustic and slanderous style brought this forum down.

  But I think he was banned not just for his comments on this forum. He was constantly emailing the editors and harassing them. I'm sure he managed to insult them. Why should they have to put up with that? On this forum, CB was able to insult anyone without worry. He tried that style with the editors and they canned him. Perhaps he learned a valuable lesson. Probably not. He'll go post at some liberal blog and brag about he how was kicked off of a supposedly right-wing newspaper because he attacked Bush.

• September 16, 2008

  5:35 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  fntsymtn writes:

  Jay, please explain how you went from what freemarketworks said:

  "Obama's plans are aimed directly at my income, capital gains and will directly decrease the number of jobs that I am able to offer."

  to:

  actually obama's policies have a better economic track record, including job creation than bush/mccain's...making that statement false as well.

  How is the OP's statement false? The OP is specifically relating to his/her personal situation. I don't see how the OP can be false about anything personal. Do you know something about freemarketworks personal finances or business that he/she doesn't?

• September 16, 2008

  6:12 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  jay writes:

  from his rhetoric, fstnman, it is highly dubious that he has employees or an income above 300k.

  doesn't pass the smell test.

  furthermore, obama's policy platform's track record on job creation is far superior to mccain's...thus invalidating his point.

  glad to see you're paying attention.

  now please tell us if you think continuing failed policies is the best way to fix the mess those policies have made.

• September 16, 2008

  6:23 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  LOUIE writes:

  John II, today there was an article on DPS placing 35 schools on probation, I commented along with Vudumom, and others, the article is still there in my archieves, but they wiped out all the comments, none were caustic or defamed anyone, they were quite constructive. Then they wiped out the blog from Febuary 16th, left my comments and one other, and brought our comments up yesterday concerning the girl who slapped her kid on the plane. They removed everyones comments from Febuary 16th, kept mine and placed them like they were written yesterday. Like I said, I don't know whats going on at the RMN, really don't care. I laugh and call Mr. Boogert for an explanation which I think is fair, and hopefully he can help me understand. I don't write my thoughts to anger anyone, but even my thoughts are perhaps boarderline to the censors. My family on occaision kicks out several thousands for full page ads as well as our regular ad in the RMN. I would prefer to remain on good terms with the RMN, thus I think it's wise just to back off and let these forums slide. I'll still read them, just refrain comments or if I do comment be more sparring in doing so. I read papers nationwide and I love to speak out on issues, but this paper is too restrictive. I'll still be reading the Rocky, but it's better not anger them. So I will enjoy the many other nationwide forums that I already enjoy and render my thoughts there, avoid this one as far as comments. My apology to Charles is a personal one, because like you he hit me with some real beauties too. Yet I do believe every voice should be heard. It's thier paper, thier right. Doesn't mean I won't still enjoy the comments.

• September 16, 2008

  6:46 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Achilles writes:

  Well, Louie, I have not posted on this forum as much as I used to. So, perhaps you are right and RMN has decided to crack down on comments. Oh well...

  This forum, in terms of posters, has changed for the worst. The website has been getting better. Actually, it is a lot better than it used to be. But, the posters are ruining the discussions here. There are way too many crazy liberals on this forum. They post the most inane nonsense I have ever heard. And they seem to be endless in supply. There are so many that I often start to write a comment, then erase it and move on because it hardly seems worth debating all of these idiots. Folks like CB, jay, and SheikYurBooty are ruining this forum. I'm glad at least one of them is gone.

  But, if you say that other comments are also being deleted, that is interesting. It seems like some kind of reorganization is going on. Either way, I think it was right to ban CB.

  This forum could really be a great thing for Coloradans to meet and discuss the issues. It has always been my belief that forums like this are the new calling for local newspapers. Folks do not come here to read the latest distant news from the AP. They want to discuss and debate issues with their compatriots in a way they could never do face-to-face. In order to achieve this vision, folks like CB and jay need to be given the boot.

  Once this forum is cleansed of the obnoxious, the stupid, and the acerbic, then the next step is to merge these online comments with the tangible form of this newspaper. Entire discussions on these forums should be printed in the actual newspaper. People will buy the paper to read these discussions. This is the future of local newspapers.

• September 16, 2008

  6:50 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  fntsymtn writes:

  I see (sadly) that you cannot have peaceful discourse without resorting to name calling, jay.

  I understand. You presume to know more about freemarketworks personal situation than he/she does. Got it.

  I've never suggested that either presidential candidate proposes a "best way" to fix the mess, nor will I. Obama's tax and spend burgeoning government will do nothing but punish present and future generations of Americans, and McCain's borrow and spend burgeoning government will do nothing but punish present and future generations of Americans.

  You are free to disagree with me all you want on those points, but regardless of how you choose to paint it, neither candidate will do anything to reduce the national debt or deficit spending, and those two burdens will be passed on to future generations of Americans.

  Blame past governments for the state of the national debt and the current deficit all you want, but neither candidate plans to do ANYTHING about either of them, according to their own platforms.

  Immediate personal gain can never offset my children and grand children’s futures. I want my descendants to live in a free society where personal freedom and liberty is paramount. Obama does not, as I see it, agree with my views and he could approve long term legislation (such as National Health Care) that could adversely impact my descendants or appoint judges who do not believe in the Constitution and wish to change it from the bench.

  My conscience and concern for my descendants prohibits me from voting for Obama.

  The only difference, as I see it, between McCain and Obama are their positions on Supreme Court Justices and while I favor McCain's view on who should sit on the court, I cannot jeopardize my descendants futures on the chance that a seat may be vacated.

  I will not be voting Democrat or Republican for the first time in my voting life this presidential election. Perhaps my vote, when I cast it, will be a symbol of real change that may one day come for this great country.

• September 16, 2008

  7:08 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Achilles writes:

  Well said, fntsymtn. I usually try to ignore jay. I've been interacting with him for two years now. It has been a fruitless exchange. It is one thing to disagree. But jay is intellectually immature. He likes to repeat himself and ignore counterpoints. I know it is hard to ignore the nonsense he posts. I think he is paid to post this nonsense. He certainly is not here for any real mature discussions.

  As for your voting (or not voting) for a Democrat or Republican, I understand your feeling there. I am not crazy about McCain either. But the alternative is the most left-wing socialist since FDR; and we are still paying for his programs. Voting for some third-party candidate (or staying home) will only help to elect an empty-suit socialist into the presidency; jay wins.

  For the sake of our descendants, I beg you to reconsider voting for McCain this election. He is not perfect but the alternative is much worse. A vote for a third candidate, who may be more in line with our values, is a wasted vote that will only help a man who represents the complete opposite of our values.

  We must vote in a manner that will bring us closer, not farther, to our values. McCain/Palin, despite both of our concerns, represents a step forward towards our values; Obama/Biden represents a step backwards. A vote for a third party candidate, now matter how intellectually satisfying, will only serve to hurt our cause. Please reconsider.

• September 16, 2008

  10:20 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  jay writes:

  john, don't pout. you've been weighed, you've been measured, and your arguments were found wanting.

  and you've consistently whined about being cornered on a number of issues. i don't blame you for not taking me on in debate...i wouldn't want to continue losing arguments either.

  that said, if you don't like taking an intellectual beating...don't post crap here to see if it sticks.

  i've noticed that you don't post under the john name that often any more before your credibility suffered such losses everytime you did.

  oh well...intellectual darwinism at the ol' rmn.

  oh...and fstnsmn, as i said before, lying isn't going to help your cause.

  you've called me numerous names, while i haven't reciprocated.

  let's not pretend otherwise.

  as john has shown...pouting and lying isn't going to help you avoid thrashings when you can't back up your positions with facts.

  my suggestion is either to get an education that will help you keep up...or seek the psychological help you apparently need to deal with your feelings of inadequacy.

• September 17, 2008

  8:43 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  mytwosense writes:

  John II: "MTS, I suggest you research Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It was always a socialist endeavor. In fact, those GSE's (government sponsored enterprises) are largely responsible for the current housing bubble burst."

  I am familiar with the evolution of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They were originally government-run entities. Then, they were privatized, although exempted from a few key regulations. It is the lack of enforcement on those regulations that greatly contributed to their downfall. Along with knowing their loans would implicitly be backed by the Feds.

  Now, one could say that this implicit understanding caused them to be reckless. I agree. However, that just proves that left to their own unregulated devices, the financial markets aren't "efficient" by any stretch of the imagination. If they can gamble with their investors money, they will.

  Lack of oversight, exemptions that could have prevented fraud, and the implicit understanding that Big Government would bail them out is what led to this mess.

  I am sure you are under the mistaken impression that "mandates" and "government interference" are to blame. The truth is, a glaring lack of mandates and interference is a big culprit here.

• September 17, 2008

  8:48 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  mytwosense writes:

  John II: "But I think he was banned not just for his comments on this forum. He was constantly emailing the editors and harassing them. I'm sure he managed to insult them. Why should they have to put up with that? On this forum, CB was able to insult anyone without worry. He tried that style with the editors and they canned him. Perhaps he learned a valuable lesson. Probably not. He'll go post at some liberal blog and brag about he how was kicked off of a supposedly right-wing newspaper because he attacked Bush."

  Oh come on! I've seen so many posts from you bashing the RMN editors, complaining you could do a better job, complaining they are running the paper into the ground.

  AND you've posted that you got kicked off the Daily Kos because you pissed off the liberals.

  I enjoy *some* of our discussions John II, but at times you can be really hypocritical.

• September 17, 2008

  9:59 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  jay writes:

  the palin bounce has officially eroded.

  i guess appealing to the american taliban base with the nomination of a fundie for vp didn't work any better than swiftboat politics and ignorant boogeyman stories about socialism.

  oh the lengths folks will go to when they can't run their policy stances and The Track Record.

  better learn a new song before november.

• September 17, 2008

  2:50 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  fntsymtn writes:

  jay writes:

  oh...and fstnsmn, as i said before, lying isn't going to help your cause.

  you've called me numerous names, while i haven't reciprocated.

  let's not pretend otherwise.

  Have you EVER referred to me by my login name? Not some childish attempt at slurring my name toward your homophobic tendencies or an intentional translation because you know that I am offended by it? You know full well, that your intentional, and sophomoric, mistyping of my login name is offensive to me, yet you still do it.

  I attempt to address you by the name you use on these boards out of courtesy and respect, you have never afforded the same.

  Question for you, even though I know that you will dodge it by either not answering it, insulting my login name, insulting my intelligence, or asking a question, but here goes:

  Do you think that running a government at a deficit and continuing to increase the national debt is a good plan for this country?

Featured

• DNC in Denver

  

  Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

• The Crevasse

  

  A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.

• Deadly denial

  

  Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.

• Final Salute

  

  The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.

• 'Colorado's burning'

  

  Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.

• Columbine shootings

  

  Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.

• The Crossing

  

  Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.

• Osveli's journey

  

  Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.

• Wake for an Indian warrior

  

  Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.