One of my many debates elsewhere.....

MY RESPONSES TO YOUR RESPONSE......

First off, you may want to spell check your bulletins before posting....IDOIOT? Idiot is the correct spelling.


OPPS YOU GOT ME ON THAT ONE.
PROOF THAT IT WAS JUST MY OWN STUPIDITY THAT MADE ME VOTE FOR OBAMA!!

Obama was recorded at a rally about his view on clean coal and the coal industry...stating that they could build them if they wanted to, but he would tax them into bankruptcy.


"The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof.
" Psalms 24:1
ACTUALLY HIS COMMENT WAS MADE ABOUT COAL FIRED PLANTS... NOT CLEAN COAL. AND IT WAS NOT TAXATION THAT WOULD FORCE THEM INTO BANKRUPTCY, IT WOULD BE FINES IMPLEMENTED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY FOR GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. WHY SHOULD WE NOT WANT TO PROTECT OUR EARTH, ENSURING OUR CHILDREN HAVE A CLEAN WORLD TO GROW UP IN?? WHY IS THAT SUCH A ABOMINATION? Revelation 11:18. The nations were angry and your wrath has come. The time has come for rewarding your servants the prophets and your saints and those who reverence your name, both small and great - and for destroying those who destroy the earth.


Wingnuts? Is actually an Airforce term, McCain was in the Navy.
Is that a term used to bash people that support a WAR HERO/VETERAN?

I WAS SHOOTING FOR DEFINITION #3.2, THE RIGHT WING EXTENSION OF THE NOUN OBVIOUSLY. GUESS YOU COULD CALL ME A LEFT WINGNUT.

wingnut (plural wingnuts)
1.
A nut having wing-like projections so that it can be turned easily by hand
2.
A deciduous tree of the genus Pterocarya native to Asia
3.
(slang) a derogatory term for anyone perceived as odd, eccentric, and/or extreme
1.
often used among North American itinerant and street populations for a mentally ill homeless person
2.
a person who is politically very right-wing or left-wing
4.
(slang, rural US) Air Force personnel in towns that host a USAF installation


So are we suppose to be against Palin, because she has a teenager that is pregnant? Don't go there, my success today is because of a family supporting their pregnant teenage daughter. I've made money beyond any college degree because of my own experiences and who I am today.


I AM NOT SURE WHERE YOU GOT THAT I DON'T LIKE PALIN BECAUSE SHE HAS A PREGNANT TEENAGE DAUGHTER??? I TEND TO BASE MY JUDGMENTS IN THE POLITICAL ARENA ON MORE SUBSTANTIAL FACTS. I SIMPLY DID NOT FEEL AS IF SHE WAS AT ALL READY TO LEAD OUR NATION. THERE WERE OTHER WOMEN WITHIN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY THAT HAD GIVEN YEARS OF THEIR BLOOD, SWEAT AND TEARS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THEY WERE MORE EDUCATED TO THE WAYS OF WASHINGTON, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND FAR MORE QUALIFIED YET WERE PASSED OVER FOR SARAH PALIN. EVEN PEOPLE IN YOUR OWN PARTY HAVE VOICED THIS SAME CONCERN. MYSELF, BEING A STRONG INDEPENDENT WOMAN, AGREED. THERE WERE MANY WOMEN OUT THERE THAT COULD HAVE DONE A MUCH BETTER JOB AND HAVING A PREGNANT DAUGHTER HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH MY OPINION. IT WAS ALMOST AS IF HER LOOKS, HER CUTE LITTLE WINKS AND PIT BULL IN LIPSTICK COMMENTS WERE WHAT PUT HER AHEAD OF HER MORE EXPERIENCED COUNTERPARTS. SOME OF US ARE BEYOND LOOKERS GETTING ALL THE BREAKS. YOU WILL PROBABLY COME BACK WITH ALLEGATIONS ABOUT OBAMAS QUALIFICATIONS AND LACK OF EXPERIENCE, BUT AT LEAST HE RECEIVED A LAW DEGREE FROM HARVARD, SERVED AS A US SENATOR FOR TWO YEARS, AND WAS A PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW FOR 12 YEARS, WHICH SHOWS HE HAS AN ABOVE AVERAGE UNDERSTANDING OF THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF OUR GOVERNMENT.


The 150k is both parties (Democrat or Republican) agreed amount to spend on each candidate. The parties supplied the wardrobes.
Did you forget that each outfit worn by Sarah Palin was auctioned and proceeds were sent to charity?

DO YOU REMEMBER THE HOOP LA THE REPUBLICAN PARTY CAUSED OVER JOHN EDWARDS $400 HAIR CUT??? SOUNDS LIKE THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK ON THIS ONE. ALSO THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THIS AUCTION HAS TAKEN PLACE. I BET IT WILL BREAK THE 7 YEAR OLDS HEART TO PART WITH HER LOUIS VUITTON PURSE.


What good deeds has Obama done? Community organizing???

(ACTUALLY, THESE ARE FROM SENATE. GOV, RATHER THAN BLEEDINGHEARTLIBERALS.
COM)

Lugar-Obama Nonproliferation Legislation Signed into Law by the President
Authored by U.S. Sens. Dick Lugar (R-IN) and Barack Obama (D-IL), the Lugar-Obama initiative expands U.S. cooperation to destroy conventional weapons. It also expands the State Department's ability to detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction.


He authored the Sheltering All Veterans Everywhere Act (SAVE Act) (S. 1180) to strengthen and expand federal homeless veteran programs that serve over 100,000 homeless veterans annually. During the debate on the Fiscal Year 2007 budget, Senator Obama passed an amendment to increase funding for homeless veterans programs by $40 million. These funds would benefit programs that provide food, clothing, mental health and substance abuse counseling, and employment and housing assistance to homeless veterans.


The Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act (S.
2261)
The bill would shed light on the almost 16,000 earmarks that were included in spending bills in 2005. Under the bill, all earmarks, including the name of the requestor and a justification for the earmark, would have to be disclosed 72 hours before they could be considered by the full Senate. Senators would be prohibited from advocating for an earmark if they have a financial interest in the project or earmark recipient. And, earmark recipients would have to disclose to an Office of Public Integrity the amount that they have spent on registered lobbyists and the names of those lobbyists.


The Curtailing Lobbyist Effectiveness through Advance Notification, Updates, and Posting Act (The CLEAN UP Act) (S.
2179)
The bill aims to improve public access to information about all legislation, including conference reports and appropriations legislation, in particular after hurried, end-of-session negotiations. Conference committee meetings and deliberations would have to be open to the public or televised, and conference reports would have to identify changes made to the bill from the House and Senate versions. Finally, no bill could be considered by the full Senate unless the measure has been made available to all Senators and the general public on the Internet for at least 72 hours.


In 2005, Senator Obama introduced the Lead Free Toys Act (S. 2048), requiring the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to ban any children's product containing lead.


n addition to protecting the quality of the air we breathe, Senator Obama believes the U.S. needs to do more to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. He is a cosponsor of the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act (S. 1151), which was introduced by Senators McCain and Lieberman.


Senator Obama cosponsored the Combat Meth Act (S. 103) which provides more money for fighting methamphetamines, tightens up control on the sale of meth ingredients, and provides assistance to children of meth abusers. The legislation would limit access to cold medicines containing pseudoephedrine, the primary ingredient used to make methamphetamine. This bill passed the Senate on September 15, 2005, and was signed into law.


Senator Obama cosponsored Dru's Law (S. 792) which creates a nationwide sex offender database and requires greater monitoring of sex offenders upon their release from prison. The bill passed the Senate on July 28, 2005.


He also cosponsored the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. This bill increases the penalties for sex crimes against children under the age of 12, and creates a national Internet site known as the National Sex Offender Public Registry. The bill will also provide grants to local law enforcement to assist in preventing and investigating sex crimes against minors.


Senator Obama cosponsored extension of Violence Against Women Act (S. 1197), which passed the Senate on October 4, 2005, and was signed into law. The Act provides increased funds to law enforcement to combat violence against women. It also establishes a sexual assault services program and provides grants for education programs to prevent domestic violence and encourage reporting of abuses.


Senator Obama drafted an amendment, which was included in the Safe Drinking Water Act, which passed the EPW Committee on July 20, 2005. The Obama amendment would provide $37.5 million over the next five years to protect the country's drinking water from a terrorist attack. It also instructs Environmental Protection Agency and the Centers for Disease Control to develop the tools needed by drinking water systems to detect and respond to the introduction of biological, chemical, and radiological contaminants by terrorists.


AND THIS DOESN'T EVEN BEGIN TO COVER THE GOOD DEEDS HE DID AS A COMMUNITY ORGANIZER. WHICH I MIGHT ADD BEGAN, AT THE DEVELOPING COMMUNITIES PROJECT, A CHURCH BASED COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION ORIGINALLY COMPRISED OF EIGHT CATHOLIC PARISHES IN CHICAGO.
SURPRISING THEY WOULD HIRE THE ANTI CHRIST, HUH?

Who did he beat in his first election?

THAT WOULD BE ALICE PALMER, WHO GAVE UP HER STATE SENATE SEAT TO RUN FOR CONGRESS. SHE WAS DEFEATED IN THAT ELECTION BID (FROM WIKIPEDIA....."After her defeat, Palmer broke her promise to Obama not to run for re-election to her State Senate seat and filed nominating petitions with 1,580 signatures on December 18, 1995—the last day to file nominating petitions. Obama challenged Palmer's hastily gathered nominating petitions and those of the three other prospective candidates. Nearly two-thirds of the signatures on Palmer's nominating petitions were found to be invalid, leaving her almost 200 signatures short of the required 757 signatures of registered voters residing in the Senate district; neither of the other three prospective candidates had the required number of valid signatures, leaving Obama, who had filed nominating petitions with over 3,000 signatures on the first filing day, as the only candidate to earn a place on the March 1996 Democratic primary ballot. By requesting the challenge, Obamas signatures were also verified.
"

SO IT WAS OK THAT GEORGE BUSH DEMANDED A RECOUNT IN HIS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, BUT FOR OBAMA TO DO SO IS JUST UNFORGIVABLE????


He registered homeless people in Chicago!

AND HOMELESS PEOPLE, EVEN HOMELESS VETERANS, ARE NOT WORTHY OF POLITICAL ACTION IN YOUR EYES? DO THEY NOT ALSO HAVE RIGHTS? IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, PROPERTY REQUIREMENTS FOR VOTING WERE DROPPED IN THE EARLY 1800S. IT IS NOT SURPRISING TO SEE THE HOMELESS IN CHICAGO COMING OUT IN SUPPORT OF OBAMA, CONSIDERING HE WAS A COMMUNITY ORGANIZER THERE AND WORKED ON THEIR BEHALF. THE CAMPAIGN SIMPLY OFFERED TRANSPORTATION FROM HOMELESS SHELTERS TO REGISTRATION SITES. THEY DID NOT FORCE THEM TO VOTE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. SO YOU WOULD CONDEMN HIM FOR HELPING THE POOR, THE MEEK, THE DOWNTRODDEN?? AFTER YOUR RECENT MISSION TRIP TO AFRICA, IT WOULD LOOK LIKE YOU WOULD GIVE A LITTLE MORE REVERENCE TO THOSE WITH LESS THAN YOU.


What ground is there really to stand on.


You may want to check your resources other than BLEEDINGHEARTLIBERALS. COM.




Sad thing is it's over and this is what we deal with the next 4 years.

HOW DO YOU TELL GOOD TURBANS FROM EVIL TURBANS????

Majority Rule!

Sorry I have been MIA for a bit if there's even anyone out there paying attention to my rants! The Obama campaign had me busy!! But I am back!!

Our government was created on the principle of majority rule. But now that the majority has shifted, you in the minority come out with these messages of doom and disaster in our path. If you are the "patriots" you have described yourselves as, then you should give some credence and reverence to the principles of this countries constitutional right to chose who will lead us by majority . Would you change it? Would you destroy our constitution and silence the majority just to get what you want?

We just spent 8 very long and devastating years in the "minority" of this countries politics. Does no one remember what this country was like economically before George Bush? You that complain you are losing everything you have "worked so hard for" weren't complaining that you were losing everything during the 1990s! You were just as well off then as you are today if not more so. Yet those of us in the minority have sat back and did with less and less, year to year. Lower pay increases, higher insurance costs, lower wage jobs, higher gas prices, higher heating bills, higher grocery costs.... how many times have you heard someone say... "everything is going up but our paychecks????"

Those of you that are whining now that you are going to lose everything, are being a bit over dramatic if you ask me. Some of us down on the bottom, the ones thats hard work apparently isn't worth the same as yours, have been making sacrifices for a good while now. You forget that it's our meager incomes buying your goods and services that keep you wealthy. It has nothing to do with working hard or not. Tax cuts for the middle class are not tax cuts for people that haven't been willing to "work hard" as you put it. We work very hard. Some of us work 48 hours a week or more and still barely make ends meet. Considering a person making minimum wage can work 40 hours a week and still be below the poverty line takes the whole lazy makes you poor statement off the table.

We will go back to the tax tables of the late 1990's. The only thing you are going to lose is your precious tax cut that Bush gave you. The same one that paired with the war helped dig the big hole we call our deficit. The middle class didn't get that break. We sat here and paid relatively the same amount of taxes we did in the 90s the past 8 years. But now that someone wants to give US the break... you guys just can't stand it. Well you had your turn, and now it's ours. Thank goodness you are in the minority!!! Greed is a very ugly thing.

"Sharing the Wealth"

I guess I will start with fully explaining my stand on the “rich”. First, I am not talking about someone who makes $500,000 a year... they are not the “rich” I am against. I am speaking of the 1% that owns more wealth than the bottom 90% of the population. The same 1% that earns more income annually than the bottom 50% of us. We have the greatest income inequality of any other industrialized country. Wall Street salaries have went from a 20/1 CEO to class worker ration to a 250/1 ratio in the last 8 years. You speak of the horrors of wealth redistribution, yet it has been going on in the United States since the Great Depression... just the other direction. UP. The rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer. And it has led us to where we are today.
“As mass production has to be accompanied by mass consumption, mass
consumption, in turn, implies a distribution of wealth -- not of
existing wealth, but of wealth as it is currently produced -- to
provide men with buying power equal to the amount of goods and
services offered by the nation's economic machinery. Instead of
achieving that kind of distribution, a giant suction pump had drawn into a few hands an increasing portion of currently produced wealth. This served them as capital accumulations. But by taking purchasing power out of the hands of mass consumers, the savers denied to themselves the kind of effective demand for their products
that would justify a reinvestment of their capital accumulations in
new plants. In consequence, as in a poker game where the chips were
concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could stay in
the game only by borrowing. When their credit ran out, the game
stopped."
Sound familiar?? This was stated in 1941 after the Great Depression by Marriner Stoddard Eccles who was the Chairman of the Federal Reserve under FDR. We learn very little from our past. And here we are again. Foreclosures are hitting record highs; Americans are declaring bankruptcy at rates ten times that during the great Depression; more college students drop out because of debts than due to poor grades. We now have one of the highest rates of childhood poverty in the world even though we also have the highest number of billionaires. Our dollars worth is declining daily. Our deficit is the highest in the history of our country. And it is all due to the concentration of wealth into the hands of a few.
The republicans have successfully convinced the upper middle class that they are rich and that a democratic controlled government is going to reach into their pockets and take their money. This is absurd. The American dream is a fantasy they use to control their constituents. The average upper middle class American will never find themselves in that 1% of the population that I feel is destroying our country from the inside out. The same 1% that the republican party so strongly protects. It is an illusion. They plant this seed of fear of losing your money just to keep you from demanding what is rightly yours. The democrats are not going to take your riches because they only exist in your fantasy world.
And speaking of wealth redistribution and “sharing the wealth”, what would you call the $700 billion dollar bailout? Taking money from who.... the middle class tax payer.... and giving it to wall street? Using our taxpayer dollars to buy banks?? Doesn't this sound like evil socialism?? At least in true Socialist states, the government buys up PROFITABLE industries instead of failing ones. I would describe myself as a Democratic Socialist. The right wing has wrongly equated democratic socialism to communism and totalitarianism, which is completely incorrect. To me, Democratic Socialism is the belief that all people are entitled to the basic rights of health care, college educations and workers benefits. We do not want the government to own everything, but for it to ensure that all citizens are provided for equally and in a fair manner within the structure of a democratic society. Many countries in Europe would be described as Democratic Socialist states. Their governments and countries have not collapsed around them either. These same Europeans are the ones that have made the greatest strides in saving us from our current economic crisis. These same European countries have higher currency rates, higher life expectancies and far more efficient infrastructures. Why? Because their wealth is not disproportionately concentrated.
I am not saying every aspect of socialism is acceptable. But I do not understand why our democracy can't evolve? Why can't every American be guaranteed health insurance? Why is that such a bad thing? Why can't every child be guaranteed a college education? Why can't every American worker be entitled to paid vacations? Oh, forgive me, I forgot... it's because we have to protect that 1% of our citizenship that holds all our capital. Their ability to accumulate wealth is far more important than the health and well being of the other 99% of us. And to think that 1% is concerned about us.... and is using all that capital they have hoarded up to create nice cushy jobs with great benefits so we can all live happily ever after is naive to say the least. They already sent those jobs to India or China.

Joe The Plumber?????

As I watched the debate last night, it made me realize just how much John McCain is out of touch with middle class America.

First off, can he even say the words MIDDLE CLASS, because I never heard him mention us once. Second is this Joe the Plumber crap! Middle class America is not Joe the Plumber. I work a decent job, 48 hours a week, but as a single parent trying to make it on my own, at times I have to worry about how many groceries I buy when I'm shopping. I have to budget every aspect of my finances just to make it. So forgive me if I can't muster up any sympathy for Joe the friggin plumber for not being able to buy a BUSINESS! Poor Joe. What will he do??? McCain is so clueless to our plight. He has no idea what it's like to struggle.

His health care plan is a joke too. Anyone that has ever had to go out and purchase their own health insurance between jobs knows how far $5,000 is going to go. No where. Without any kind of reform to the system, for most of us that have had any kind of pre existing condition, we might as well just wipe our asses with his $5,000. And you may call me unpatriotic, but I would LOVE to have health insurance like Canada and England. To not live in fear of cancer or a heart attack making us bankrupt would be nice!

He consistently wants to point fingers at Obama... Bill Ayers, Acorn... just to keep everyone from seeing the real deal. He keeps attacking Obama on a personal level. Who he "pals around with" or who he used to "work for". Obama attacks McCain's PLANS and POLICIES. Big difference if you want to talk about negative campaigns. And furthermore, who is to say that the ACORN thing wasn't a bunch of republicans incognito trying to stir things up. They go in, volunteer to register voters and make up registrations just so they can turn around and point the finger at Obama. I wouldn't put it past them. They come across as that desperate at this point. I mean you pay someone $8 an hour to register voters, you are going to have some losers that just make up stuff to get the money. Not to mention that Obama isn't even linked to the group beyond representing them in a motor voter initiative. I won't go into detail, but there are a whole host of GOOD things that ACORN has done for the under privileged and lower class, but who cares about those that don't have capital and can't buy a plumbing business?

I got a phone call AT WORK today... one of those pre recorded deals from McCain talking about Obama and Ayers. It made my skin crawl. Stick to the issues. If Ayers was such a huge national security threat why is he free? It insults my intelligence for McCain's campaign to try to cram this nonsense down my throat. I research these allegations and make my own decisions. I have checked it out on factcheck.org among other places, and they are making a mountain out of a molehill. McCain doesn't want us to link him to President Bush even though he basically spent 8 years up his ass, but it's ok to link Obama to someone he merely served on an educational panel with in Chicago. Makes perfect sense!

The lesser of two evils...

I had an inspirational Political Science professor in college that did so much to mold my political identity. He used to always say that choosing the lesser of two evils was no choice and not the right thing to do. That idea stuck with me. So back in 2000 who did I vote for? Nader. I thought my reasons were valid. I wanted a third party to get some attention. I knew he couldn't possibly win, but if he would have captured just 10% of the popular vote, his party would have gotten federally matched campaign funds during the next election and we could have had another choice, another voice being heard in the political arena. Now as I look back on that I wonder.... if all those Nader votes had of been Gore votes where would this country be right now? Would we have ended up in Iraq for no reason? Would we have lost all our credibility on the international stage? Would we be bankrupt? I knew things were going to be bad with Bush. I remember the two things I kept telling people were that gas prices would go up and that he would not be able to handle foreign affairs. Boy did I hit the nail on the head with that one. I never dreamed we would end up where we are today though. The absence of real leadership can really take the ship down fast. And now we are there again. I keep hearing so many people say they aren't going to vote because they don't like Barrack or McCain. I can understand where they are coming from. I don't consider myself a republican or a Democrat. But I tend to lean toward a little more liberal views on some things. But I can tell you this much, I'll be choosing the lesser of two evils this time! I honestly feel McCain will take us farther down the path Bush started us on. Middle class America can't take much more. It may be too late for us already. So Barrack will be getting my vote. I just wish I had more choices!

My first entry!

Well here we go!! I'd like to welcome myself to the blogosphere! I am new to this so bare with me. I just woke up today and decided I needed an outlet for my pent up political frustrations. Like many Americans, I feel as if I have lost my voice, my vote, my representation. I mean honestly, in the mixing pot we call America, how can just two parties adequately represent our vast array of beliefs and concerns? It seems a bit ridiculous when you think about it. Two parties? Like all 300 million of us can be neatly categorized into two groups!! So I will come here and voice my concerns, atop my little cyber soap box in hopes someone out there may want to listen!