Posted by goingfishing (anonymous) on October 20, 2008 at 12:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Amen capitalist. If Obama gets elected, we are going to see a socialist state this country has never seen before. Combine him with Pelosi and Reed and we are in deep, deep trouble as a nation.
Let's not forget, the Democrats have actually been in charge the last 2 years. They made so many promises 2 years ago, had a list of ten things they were going to accomplish in the first 30 days, and have failed in all of them. Not because there was a republican President either. They simply failed. But, had they succeeded we'd be in even worse condition economically right now.

Don't forget, when the Democrats came into power two years ago, we were paying $2 for gas. Their economic policies have failed and now they want to turn this country into a socialist state and have more regulations to tell us what we can and can't do? No thank you.

Posted by mgdbottled (anonymous) on October 20, 2008 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh, I see; McCain has a new name for Obama this week, huh! McCain and Palin remind me of a bunch of second graders yelling names at the new nerd in school. I thought McCain voted for the $700 billion dollar socialist bailout of the banking system? Isn't Bush's treasury department, supported by McCain, busy buying up the stock in all the banks in America? What's that called? Oh yeah, that's socialism. Wow, this week, Obama's plan to give tax breaks to the middle class is called socialism according to McCain and Palin. Apparently they think all voters are stupid when only a small percentage are. Maybe Obama should hold McCain responsible for signing that confession that he was a war criminal when in Hanoi? That would be no more far fetched. Nah, Obama is too grown up for such childish tactics. I wonder what McCain and Palin are going to come up with next week?

Posted by goingfishing (anonymous) on October 20, 2008 at 12:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

mgd.......you've been into the MGD too much. You hero Obama voted for and pushed the bailout. He may have done it to further the socialism he wants to rule us with.
And Obama wants to give lower taxes to 95% of us. That includes the 30% that pay NO taxes. He'd better take 5th grad math again.

Posted by betterworld (anonymous) on October 20, 2008 at 12:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It is wrong to use the word "Socialism" in this context, we all know that it is a flag word being used by McCain as a catch-phrase. None of what is on the plate could be called true "Socialism".

Seems to me that every comment written defending John McCain in the editorials turns another one of my Republican neighbors against him and Palin. I am ebarrassed that I voted for George Bush the first time around...

Posted by AmyO (anonymous) on October 20, 2008 at 12:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The slogan of the new "Conservative" movement...

"Socialize the country's losses, but keep the gains private."

Why is it that you are all just fine with "socializing" (yes, that's what we're doing) the losses this country is seeing day after day after day on Wall Street, but the second someone mentions "spreading the wealth around" you all have a hissy fit? Apparently it's okay to spread the losses around, but not the wealth. Sounds like a great system if you're filthy rich. If you're making hundreds of millions of dollars, it's all staying in the safety of your own pocket. But if you're loosing hundreds of millions of dollars, don't worry, us taxpayers will bail you out.

Posted by FungusAmugus (anonymous) on October 20, 2008 at 1:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Would one of you BRILLIANT Republicans please explain how you can be supportive of Palin and be against your so called Socialism or redistribution of wealth?
What is it then when Palin RAISES taxes on the Oil companies in Alaska, so she can distribute the money collected from those taxes to the citizens there, cutting each man woman AND child a check for over $3000 each year!
By the way that is the number one reason she so liked in that state!

Posted by bigkahunaburger (anonymous) on October 20, 2008 at 1:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's funny how quickly some people forgot that Sen. McCain suspended his campaign to fight for this bailout package. It's also funny how he blames 100% of the 700 billion to banks on Obama. Good grief. Turn off the TV and read some books.

Posted by sametoyou (anonymous) on October 20, 2008 at 1:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

goingfishing, the dems do not have a voting majority!!!! The repubs have just enough votes to keep the dems from getting anything accomplished!!! That is why they have not been able to stop this repub slide were in. A question for you, goingfishing, why in 6 years of voting control, didn't the repubs do anything about abortion? Do you really think the top dogs of the repubs want Roe vs Wade reversed? I'll answer it for you. NO! How would they ever get the religous right to vote for them if the only thing they have to offer them has been settled? They need the religous fanatics vote, so they con them into it each election without any intention of letting that ever get reversed! Religous fanatics are the most gullible people there are, next to all pure party voters, repub or dem!!!! Although this year will be my first time ever(10th presidential election) I will be voting staight dem. I concider myself independant, but we need to get the dems a voting majority, so they can start to fix this mess the repubs have put us in.

Posted by mgdbottled (anonymous) on October 20, 2008 at 2:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Good point on Palin there Fungus. Obama's tax plan would cut a typical middle class working family's tax burden three times more than McCain's plan. Corporations, sixty six percent of which, pay zero income tax now, would be taxed their fair share and loopholes would be closed. Those making over $250,000 would find their taxes back at the level they were under Clinton. If we can get sixty votes in the Senate and a majority in the house, that late term abortion practice, currently supported by the Republicans via inaction, would be eliminated, with the constitutional requirements of exceptions for the "health and life" of the mother intact, as required by Roe v Wade. I suspect we'd end up with universal health care, where everyone can get care at no cost to the individual, which would leave the medical providers' private, and which is something that should have been enacted years ago and would be virtually revenue neutral as working folks and employers would pay through payroll deduction and matching funds which would reduce costs by as much as half and take the profit out of the payor system which currently exists, meaning your medical needs would actually be paid. Many good things which are long over due would finally happen. Just to mention a few goods things that'd come about.

Posted by watermelon (anonymous) on October 20, 2008 at 5:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Our system doesn't work. It never did-whenever something goes wrong, our government just plucks from the money tree and puts a band-aid on it, but at the expense of smaller localized economies who have to scrape up money and fend for themselves. I just love the big media circus that ensues every four years. I guess it gives people something to talk about, since they don't actually think about anything. It makes them feel warm inside to believe that politicians are actually working for them. Those that have anything of merit to say or could do us any good are quashed or kept out of the mainstream media.

A fine example are all the previous comments-nothing but shuffling blame from one side to another. Another 40 years from now, nothing will have changed. Our country is teetering on imperialism. Negative ads, "plans" that once the individual is in office, are scrapped and abundant lies. Yet people still go out like dutiful robots and (never switching sides) will always vote for whomever is running, just so long as they are republicrat or democran.

Posted by 89Heritage (anonymous) on October 20, 2008 at 8:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Typical liberal headline. Sounds bias until you read it. No ties to Ayers huh. Your pied piper Obama endorsed a book for him in 1997. Guilt by association is when you have known that person for years and known what they have done & could still do because of there views and you still hang with them. To me, that makes Obama a terrorist. And that is alot different than a board meeting association were most of those people probably know nothing about him. And how is secession an act of treason? It is eventually going to happen in the lower 48s. We are becoming a very divide country. More so every year. There will come a time when one party or movement, will have enough people & states to say we don't need them. lets do our own thing. It has happened on every continent on this planet at least once. I'm still trying to figure out why this Ayers guy is still alive let alone a Proffessor. A note for FungusUmungus : Every man ,woman & child in Alaska were getting those checks when I was working there 20 years ago. Way before Palin. Read her record. 15-20 years ago, she would have been a democrates dream canidate. But she is definitely not liberal.

Posted by FungusAmugus (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 5:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

89Heritage ah yes the checks may have been distributed years ago but how much were they and where was the money coming from, Palin has dramatically increased the taxes on a specific industry (oil) to pay for these checks?
and even if they were being distributed years ago if she is so against socialism why does she not even make an ATTEMPT to cut this SOCIALIST program!!!! why, because that is why she got elected period!
PS;I am still waiting for you so called ANTI SOCIALISTS to denounce her for this and I want to hear you say it (PALIN IS A SOCIALIST) or to explain how this is (different) and is not socialism!!!

Posted by 89Heritage (anonymous) on October 21, 2008 at 7:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Those checks were from big oil back then. Big oil is getting something in return. Its OIL. Thats business as usual. all states do it in some form I believe. Most of them keep the money for the state. Here is the difference. That is still basically between two people making a bussiness deal, both with an option to choose to do it or not. Its not forced on them. Its called freedom. Thats the difference. By your logic or lack of, You are calling all the farmers and ranchers out west that own land with oil socialist. They are doing the same deals, but getting way more per person.

Posted by apinion (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 12:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

All I can say is if you elect Obama and you loose your job don't come a bitchin! What do expect is going to happen when you take 50% of businesses profits??? May be you should move to China so you can get your job back at 10% of the wage you would have earned here!!!

Posted by FungusAmugus (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 10:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

89Heritage You talk like these checks are cut by the oil companies out of the goodness of thier hearts, a business transaction or something.
The farmers with oil on their land get Royalties FROM THE OIL COMPANIES!!!! a business transaction.
The state of Alaska TAXES oil companies on thier profits and redistribute SOME of that money to it's residents!
Up till 2007 the citizens of Alaska would get a check for $2100 for each man, woman and child.
On Sept 4th 2007 PALIN proposed an increase to the "ALASKAS CLEAR AND EQUITABLE SHARE" tax which was previously 22.5 % exclusively on profits made by oil companies, she raised that tax to 25 % which incresed the revunue made by this TAX from 6 Billion a year to 11 billion! She signed and passed that tax increase Dec 19th 2007 !!!
Therefore with the extra revenues she then raised the amount of the rebate checks to the citizens to $ 3300 apiece!!!!!
That is why she is so popular in Alaska!! That is how she got elected!!!!! she did as she promised.
This act enraged the oil companies because the state had a BUDGET SURPLUS! and they feel it was a political move so she would get elected.
So EXPLAIN AGAIN how this is not Socialism!!!
and a FREE business transaction.

Posted by otterfan (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama supporters angry! mean! scary!

Posted by metasonics (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 2:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Republicans angry! mean! scary! making death threats against political candidates.

Posted by FungusAmugus (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 3:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

otterfan I am truely sorry for scaring you! I know this whole FACTS thing must be making your head sore, I understand that trying to comprehend Facts must be a very scary new thing for you, try to ease your way into it, that might help, oh yea, in an attempt to help I am writing this slowly cause I know you can't read very fast.

Posted by retiredteacher (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 11:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

89Heritage. Have you heard of the Civil War? An AMERICAN Sec. of State bought Alaska from Russia with good American tax payer money. As for Ayers, go to Snopes and you will get the truth, but I'm afraid "the truth won't set you free" because your mind rebels against facts that don't fit nicely into your pattern of biases. You strike me as an extremist. Sorry if my judgment is wrong but you seem so comfortable judging others I thought you wouldn't mind a little of the same tawdry treatment. I don't much appreciate extremists, whether Democrat of Republican. They're entirely too self-righteous to do any useful pragmatic problem solving, which is exactly what we'll need to work our way out of the mess we're in right now. I don't like Nancy Pelosi any more than I like Dick Cheney. Well, maybe a little, but I certainly would probably vote for Chuck Hagel or Jim Ramstad before I would her. But all of the sensible, rational moderate Republicans are leaving Congress en masse, 28 of them. They are being driven out by the extremist branch of the party because they will and do reach across the aisle. We're going to need a diversity of points of view to dig ourselves out of the hole in which we currently find ourselves. I suspect we will see Chuck Hagel somewhere in the Obama administration, and that, in my opinion, will be a good thing.

Posted by retiredteacher (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 11:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Don't talk about "redistribution of wealth," 89 and capitalist. The frickin' wealth has been redistributed over the last 8 years and 60% of it has ended up in the hands of fat cats. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates both say so. All of the Republican agenda works toward IS a redistribution of wealth called "trickle down economics." It's what pushed us into the Great Depression and it's what pushed into the present-day recession. Our economy is stagnant because too many working people are too strapped to buy much of anything beyond the bare necessities. 800,000 of them are out of work, and they're not expecting any golden parachutes. What's "free" about an economy in which the richest among us called CEOs get paid whether they do their job well or whether they fail entirely? When average Americans don't do their job, they often get pay cuts or fired, but not the fat cats. Republicans often harp at teachers about "accountability," but they don't include their own screw ups anywhere in that word's definition. Hypocrisy.

Posted by retiredteacher (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 11:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

89Heritage: For your information:

"Today, the Supreme Court frowns on states conducting their own foreign policy and even ardent members of states' rights groups agree that the states have no right to withdraw from the Union."

Isn't the web great! Try it some time. You just might find yourself on the factual side of arguments for a change.

Posted by FungusAmugus (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 4:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

STOP CONFUSING HIM WITH FACTS!