Posted by potatosup (anonymous) on August 29, 2008 at 2:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

YES! Thank you for this wonderful article. I hope many, republicans, democrats, and independent voters alike, read this, think hard, and do a bit of their own research to confirm all the mistakes made and laws broken by the Bush administration.

Posted by PatrioticToo (anonymous) on August 29, 2008 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Great comments. If only people in America would look at facts like this, instead of slogans, rumors, innuendo and outright propaganda. The GOP of today is based on 2 things. Ungratefulnes and Greed. It's neither conservative nor Christian. It's only about more for those that are already some of the most well off people in the history of mankind. It's sad to see so many who have blown way past the American Dream be so driven for more, more and more. No lie or half-truth or swift-boat is wrong to them, if the ultimate goal of more, more and more is achieved. I hope we can turn this around, but I think too much damage has been done, both economically and in our standing in the world.

Posted by betterworld (anonymous) on August 29, 2008 at 2:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This is a great editorial. As a registerd Republican, I can truly say that last night's Obama speech was the first such one in fifty years to move me to tears. How I wish we would become a nation of caring, kind individuals. John McCain uses silly phrases to capture his audience, like, "My friends". That's the oldest speakers trick in the book. Now he picks a woman VP, how insulting is that too us Republican women, as if we are dumb enough to vote for him on the basis of him picking a woman. No. We need a President Obama, not a President McBush.

Posted by Woodtick (anonymous) on August 29, 2008 at 6:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I just hope that all of YOU are ready to put your money where your mouth is if - heaven forbid - Obama gets elected in November. Listening to his speech last night nearly brought me to tears too, but for a totally different reason. I could practically hear the cash register going CHA-CHING! every time he opened his mouth. He continues to spout about all of the wonderful things that he will do if he is elected, but he neglects to offer up any credible plan for paying for it. What he is talking about will cost billions and billions of dollars. Do you have any idea who will bear the brunt of that? It will be you, me, and every average citizen out there. Don't be fooled into thinking that he is going to ride into town and take all of this money from the big, bad oil companies and top executives. They aren't stupid enough to let that happen. They will simply move offshore even more than they are now and leave you and I to foot the bill for all of this "change".

Posted by retiredteacher (anonymous) on August 29, 2008 at 9:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Woodtick, it's clear you are one of those people who expresses opinions without facts to support them. You couldn't have watched Obama's speech and failed to have heard specifics on the very subjects you say he will cost the middle class voters if elected: (1) he will cut the totally unjustified Bush tax cut to the richest, (2) he will close corporate loopholes (billions and billions of dollars by itself), (3) he will close off-shore tax havens amounting to a billion dollars a year, (4) he will stop oil company subsidies that McCain wants to increase by 4 BILLION dollars, (5) he will bring our troops home from Iraq as soon as possible, ending a 10 billion dollar a month drain that we are currently borrowing from the likes of Communist China, (6) he will increase the taxes of companies who continue to outsource jobs and could give a darn less about American workers, the most productive in the world, (7) he will suggest an estate tax that excludes farms, companies, etc. up to 2 million, but he will not stop taxing billionaire estates, which if done as McCain and Bush want would cost you and me even more taxes, (8) he will actually reduce taxes of people earning less than $250,000. It's time that we tell the oil companies enough already! It's time to get on with the business of making ourselves
independent of these greedy oil companies who have manipulated the supply and the speculators who have done the same. In fact, Woodtick, if McCain insists on staying in Iraq, expert economists claim his projected budget will be nearly twice what Obama's will be, and you can be absolutely certain, Woodtick, that it will be you and I who pay the largest share of those bills because McCain now insists on continuing the obscene Bush tax cut for the richest among us. He also is the recipient of over a million dollars in campaign funds from the oil companies. As the old saw goes, Woodtick, "The truth will set you free," but only if you allow your mind to open enough to allow its entrance.

Posted by mgdbottled (anonymous) on August 29, 2008 at 9:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ten Trillion dollars in debt. ($10,000,000,000,000.00) Why don't someone compute the interest on that debt each year. What's the going rate on a T-Bill? Five percent would be Five hundred Billion ($500,000,000,000.00). You'll are going to pay most of your tax money to the Chinese just to service that debt. Two trillion under Reagon. Four trillion under Bush, Jr. Someone explain to me how that makes America stronger? We had surpluses in the hundreds of billions under Clinton cause he taxed the wealthiest among us.

Posted by HotFergusMan (anonymous) on August 30, 2008 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I wonder how much time, in ones life, is wasted on examining, writing, and talking about politics.... as if there isnt better things to do. You and I both know that should we meet on the street, we'd find many things in common.

Posted by retiredteacher (anonymous) on August 30, 2008 at 2:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If a democracy means rule by the people, as Lincoln believed it to be, then it's the people's responsibility to make the best informed choices they can, which means "examining, writing, and talking about politics." I also like something else Lincoln claimed: "You can fool all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but never all of the people all of the time." Lincoln was a great, great Republican. Now we have the likes of Rove, whose disrespect for us makes him believe he and his propaganda can fool all of the people all of the time, at least enough to elect the likes of George W. Bush TWICE. Why? Just look at the post above and it will tell you.

I also like part of that same post very much. The idea that despite politics there is more to unite us than divide us. Obama made it clear that the brave soldiers fighting, being maimed and dying for us are not red or blue. They are from every color, creed, and, yes, sexual persuasion. The markers of the graves do not say democrat, republican or independent. They and we are all Americans, and the vast majority of us, despite the rants of Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter love this country with all our hearts.

Posted by mccain08 (anonymous) on August 30, 2008 at 4:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

you are all slaves to hedge fund owners. i like the guy complaining about all the new programs that will benefit him. dont you realize that you are now paying for them now and some hedge fund owner is profiting from it? here's an example: you are paying 150-200 a month for health insurance. a percentage of that money is going to the pockets of billionaires. you would pay significantly less per month with a universal healthcare program. there would be no wasted profits going to buy some investor a yacht. instead money would go to fight real diseases instead of going to fight impotence and hair loss. i hope you slaves vote for mccain because i'm starting to outgrow my old yacht i could really use a new one.

Posted by werty (anonymous) on August 30, 2008 at 4:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

90% of taxes are paid by the top 10%. In a capitalist society if you are smart enough to get rich you and your family deserve to stay rich (not every wealthy family has a Paris Hilton). BTW..the estate tax has been scooted around by the rich for years with trusts. I do agree though with getting some change in office and hope Obama can make a difference...if elected.

Posted by mccain08 (anonymous) on August 30, 2008 at 4:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Greg Van Hee is a member of The West Central Minnesota Ron Paul 2008 Meetup Group
http://ronpaul.meetup.com/954/members/11...
Did you forget that Ron is a Republican RetiredTeacher?

Posted by pilsnerurquel (anonymous) on August 30, 2008 at 10:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ITA with everything Mr.Van Hee just said. I'll even go a step further and suggest that Mr. McCain may be beginning to exhibit the symptoms of senility with his VP pick...Having lived in Alaska for 7 years I can honestly say Sarah Palin is a joke and just goes to show the amount of desperation the GOP must be feeling on the heels of Barack Obama's historical acceptance speech at the DNC. This decision is just more evidence of the poor judgement the Republicans have exhibited over the last 8 years.

Posted by Woodtick (anonymous) on August 31, 2008 at 9:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Retiredteacher - Contrary to your belief, I DID listen to Obama's speech the other night. What I heard is what you have written. HE will do this, and HE will do that. The last time I checked the president didn't have the authority to make sweeping changes on his own. It all sounds great but realistically is not likely to happen. Believe me, I am not against change. What I am against is change that will lead us towards being a socialist country rather than a capitalist country.

Posted by votedem (anonymous) on August 31, 2008 at 11:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It's time for someone with fresh ideas to get elected in the White House. McCain has no interest in pulling us out of Iraq, decreasing gas prices, or improving our economy. With Republicans, the rich stay rich. With Democrats, everyone is equal in the eyes of the government. We all deserve quality healthcare, we all deserve a college education....REGARDLESS of how much money we make! Elect Al Franken....and more importantly, elect Barack Obama. We owe it to ourselves and our children.

Posted by metasonics (anonymous) on August 31, 2008 at 6:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Massive Police Raids on Suspected Protestors in Minneapolis
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/08...

Posted by capitalist (anonymous) on August 31, 2008 at 10:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Did you notice the polls after the democrat convention? Not much of a boost, McCain announces a conservative vp, he gets bump that brings him even with Obama. I don't think the GOP convention is even needed for the upcoming McCain landslide victory.

Posted by thefireman (anonymous) on August 31, 2008 at 10:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ya, vote for Obama. I would like you to work your ass off so you can raise your children. So I don't have to finish school & I can live on welfair Or goverment assistance and have a new car & a new house. I just hope that, I don't have the baby killed that has the cure for cancer or any other disease that mite pop up.

Posted by Jerry (anonymous) on August 31, 2008 at 11:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The O-man, Barack Hussein Obama, is an eloquently tailored, empty suit. No resume, no accomplishments, no experience, no original ideas, no understanding of how the economy works, no understanding of how the world works, no balls, nothing but abstract empty rhetoric devoid of real substance.

He has no real identity. He is half-white, which he rejects. The rest of him is mostly Arab, which he hides, but is disclosed by his non-African Arabic surname and his Arabic first and middle names as a way to triply proclaim his Arabic parentage to people in Kenya. Only a small part of him is African Black from his Luo grandmother, which he pretends he is exclusively.

What he isn't, not a genetic drop of, is 'African-American,' the descendant of enslaved Africans brought to America chained in slave ships. He hasn't a single ancestor who was a slave. Instead, his Arab ancestors were slave owners. Slave-trading was the main Arab business in East Africa for centuries until the British ended it.

Let that sink in: Obama is not the descendant of slaves, he is the descendant of slave owners. Thus he makes the perfect Liberal Messiah.

It's something Hillary doesn't understand - how some complete neophyte came out of the blue and stole the Dem nomination from her. Obamamania is beyond politics and reason. It is a true religious cult, whose adherents reject Christianity yet still believe in Original Sin, transferring it from the evil of being human to the evil of being white.

Thus Obama has become the white liberals' Christ, offering absolution from the Sin of Being White. There is no reason or logic behind it, no faults or flaws of his can diminish it, no arguments Hillary could make of any kind can be effective against it. The absurdity of Hypocrisy Clothed In Human Flesh being their Savior is all the more cause for liberals to worship him: Credo quia absurdum; I believe it, because it is absurd.

Thank heavens that the voting majority of Americans remain Christian and are in no desperate need of a phony savior.

His candidacy is ridiculous and should not be taken seriously by any thinking (intelligent) American.

Posted by metasonics (anonymous) on September 1, 2008 at 12:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Christian you say?
you support subjection of women, mass murder, blatant lies from your "fellow Christians", and you dare call yourselves Christians?
I don't know what Bible you've been reading?
I can't see anything in common between the Republican party and anything Jesus ever said.

Posted by capitalist (anonymous) on September 1, 2008 at 1:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The republican party freed slaves.
The republican party passed the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution granting blacks freedom, citizenship, and the right to vote?
The founding fathers of the NAACP were white republicans.

I won't bother going into the democrat party politics of the time.

Posted by apinion (anonymous) on September 1, 2008 at 1:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

WOW!!!

Lets tax Paris Hilton because she stands to inherit a lot of money. Sure her parents or their parents before them probably busted their butts off to create the Hilton hotel chain. Not to mention they paid MILLIONS in taxes while creating that wealth. But just because someone dies that means that the Hilton fortune should be taxed again!!! Why because it's more money than one person should have! What other rational reason do you have for taxing someone's income twice???

Lets raise the taxes on businesses that way we can fund more subsidies for those who are lazy and would prefer to work the system and not even try to make a living. That might work for a little while till businesses figure out its cheaper to sell off all their American assets and incorporate in CHINA!!!

Well atleast we could close those tax loopholes so businesses could not move factories overseas where labor is cheaper right? What I say to that is what's stoping those corporations from abandoning America completely??? Can't tax a corporation that doesn't have anything on American soil.

But with all the extra tax revenue we will be able to provide wonderful unemployment benefits! But, eventually when their are no companies left in America who will provide the jobs that the employees are supposely looking for? Oh that's right the government, because we all know how cost effective THOSE government employees are (Anyone ever heard of Sonia Pitt?)!!!

Social Security is successful??? LOL, you must have flunked economics... The only way the current system works is because there are more people paying into the system then are receiving benefits... Here's an example of how the current system works. Let's assume someone just out of college pays into the system $30,000 during their lifetime (paid over a number of years). At the same time a retiree receives as benefits $30,000 (paid over a number of years). Granted their is some interest that is probably earned on that money, but then we add in the cost of paying government employees to administer the program, shipping checks, and all the other costs of the program and what is left of the interest is NEARLY ZERO!!! So if you don't have more people paying into the program then are receiving benefits the current system DOES NOT WORK!!! So unless you plan on KILLING a bunch of baby boomers before they receive their Social Security checks, or having another baby boom the Social Security system as you know it is DEAD!!!

Posted by apinion (anonymous) on September 1, 2008 at 1:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

WOW PART 2:

If Clinton wouldn't have been so busy schmoozing the interns Binladen would have been dead years before the 911 terrist attacks ever occured!!! The CIA told Clinton they had located Binladen in the mountains of Pakistan, but Clinton failed to act, and he got away. So then why is it fair to blame the war on terrorism and it's cost on the Republicans??? Also, I seem to recall that it was Congress, not Mr. Bush that authorized the Iraq war. If they authorized it, the intelligence that they had must have been pretty compelling. But yet Mr Bush get's blamed for it.

Then you blame the housing crisis on the Republicans. Since when did it become the government's job to BABY SIT GROWN INDIVIDUALS??? If lending insitutions don't give you a loan because of your income it's DISCRIMINATION! If they don't give you a loan because of your credit history it's DISCRIMINATION! Think about it everything in life is based on risk. Would you loan money to someone who has a history of not paying their bills for the same price as someone who has never missed a payment in their LIFE??? I know I wouldn't. It's all based on risk... If you can't manage your money while living in an apartment, why on earth would you think you could handle a house??? Is the government really suppose to inforce that???

Mccain defines "Rich" as someone who earns more than 5 million. He has received a lot of flack for not knowing how many houses they own, but in reality how many of those houses do you think "HE" purchased? It is his wife who has the money not him!!! Obama makes over a MILLION dollars a year, and McCain less than HALF that!!!!! If it were not for McCain's wife it would not have even come up!!!

"How in the world can this be considered a land of equal opportunity"! Easy because you have the same chance to make just as much money as the next guy!!! If you don't have the intelligence to do it, well that's not the governments fault!!!

Posted by Kitty (anonymous) on September 1, 2008 at 11:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Let's examine McCain's treatment of / attitudes about women over his lifetime. Pathetic, cynical. Missy 'yup yup' is as qualified to be vp or pres as Harriet Myers, who is her
sister in spirit. The Bush-Cheney-Rove-Palin ideology never seeks wide ranging facts, but instead to further their soft fascist regime. Are we all so dumb to eat this??

Posted by mgdbottled (anonymous) on September 1, 2008 at 1:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Woodtick says: "What I am against is change that will lead us towards being a socialist country rather than a capitalist country".

The USA is a mixed economy. Part capitalist, part socialist. Capitalism does not work without social controls. Socialism does not work without capitalism. Both ideologies are necessary. The highways are a perfect example of socialism. The public schools are another example. Deregulate the markets like the republicans have done and well; you see what's happened lately. Our failure to institute universal healthcare leaves half the population without decent health care. The US is the only industrialized nation without socialized medicine and ranks almost at the bottom of that list for quality health care. The ideal economy is the right mix of capitalism and socialism. The US needs much more socialism. The Europeans are much closer to a utopian type society than the US. Obviously, because their people are more moral and more intelligent than the people in the US. The fact that most of their schools through the university level are free could have something to do with the fact their populations are smarter than the population in the US.

Posted by capitalist (anonymous) on September 1, 2008 at 1:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The socialist utopias of Europe just threw two socialist out of office due to severly high unemployment. Gerhard Shroeder and Jaques Chirac. Germany's unemployment rate went from 12% to 8.8% after getting rid of the socialist. France unemployment went from 9% to 7.2% after getting rid of the socialist.
I can't see how socialists benefit wage earners. I think they may good intentions, but they do not understand free market economics.

Posted by mgdbottled (anonymous) on September 1, 2008 at 1:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In Europe a conservative politican is equivalent to a conservative democrat here in the US. The likes of Bush, Cheney and McCain with their ultra right wing ideology doesn't even exist in Europe. These type people are laughed at. Not since the Nazi's were defeated has a right wing politican, the likes of which we have in the US, been even considered for public office in Europe. In many European countries, there exists no "at will employees". Meaning once you obtain employment, you're guaranteed that job or its equivalent, for as long as you want it. Employed today, laid off tomorrow without pay, just doesn't happen in Europe. Their tax dollars actually go to help their people in the form of social benefits. Not line the pockets of some no-bid contractor or some bomb and bullet factory. The unemployment rate in the US is about double what you see reported since they quit counting under the Reagon Administration the job seekers who aren't registered as unemployed.

Posted by Timray18 (anonymous) on September 1, 2008 at 2:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Remember the golden rule....if you are going to rob Peter to pay Timray....you can always count on Timray!!! What you people fail to see is that they are not Repulsicans or Democraps they are politicians first!!! and what you dumtrucks don't get is....you keep electing them!!!

Posted by capitalist (anonymous) on September 1, 2008 at 3:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

mgdbottled, the Nazi's were socialists (Nazi is an acronym for National Socialist Worker's Party). Hitler was elected during a time of high unemployment, part of his plan was guaranteed jobs. You would have voted for him.

Posted by retiredteacher (anonymous) on September 1, 2008 at 3:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm Greg Van Hee and have received meet up invitations from Ron Paul, Democrats and Republicans. I've gone to none, so don't tell me to which organizations I do or do not belong. Besides, my personal life is none of your business anyhow.
Warren Buffet answers most of these arguments made against my argument best: "The class war has already been fought and we (the very rich) have already won." To another of the absurd arguments about discrimination against the poor, pitiful group to which Paris Hilton and the like belong, Warren Buffet recently claimed that it was entirely inequitable that his secretary pay a larger percentage of her income each year than he does. Look at the legislation Bush and Cheney pushed through a Republican Congress from 2000-2006 and try persuade anyone that this bunch had any priorities except those that richly benefitted the richest among us. We of the middle class just want the facsimile of a fair playing field, but this bunch with whom McCain voted more than 90% of the time could care less if we went back to the days of sweat shops. Then we have the frightening threat that some of these companies will leave America altogether. THINK! If they pay their people in Third World countries a dollar an hour, who exactly is it that will buy their products? One of the major reasons we're in a recession right now, though it's rarely if ever mentioned, is wages have stagnated so long, benefits have been lost, and retirements are in question, SO middle class consumers have stopped the whirlwind of consumption. DUH! If almost all of the wealth ends up in 10% of the people's hands, it does something to the flow of wealth and, of course, the economy upon which it depends. READ, THINK, DISCUSS: stay away from the obvious propagandists who want you not to do these things and just to listen to their empty messages. For instance, a name is just that, nothing more. Such was the case with Nazis Germany which called itself a Democratic Socialistic society but was, of course, Fascist.

I'm not a socialist, and I do agree very much with mgdbottled version of what a government needs to look like. You have to give back something if you want decent roads, police departments, schools, fire departments. Grownups in a democracy should not be like infants with an insatiable appetite for more, more, and more for less, less, and less. This goes two ways: both with businesses like Wal-Mart and laborers. Lately it's been all one-way.

Finally, Social Security is not doomed. This is another Republican myth spread for the sake of Wall Street. Steps can be taken to save and make it viable. The first two should be cut the trillions of dollars in the Bush tax cut. The second should be to get out of Iraq and save 120 billion a year.
Iraq has a 79 billion dollar surplus for crying out loud!

Posted by mgdbottled (anonymous) on September 1, 2008 at 3:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Nazi's were Fascists. They adopted Musolini's Fascism. Right wing nuts jobs. Nothing to do with socialism. Kinda like a republican using the phrase "compassionate conservative". Doesn't exist. An oxymoron.

Posted by mgdbottled (anonymous) on September 1, 2008 at 4:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Capitalist says: "The republican party freed slaves.
The republican party passed the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution granting blacks freedom, citizenship, and the right to vote?
The founding fathers of the NAACP were white republicans.
I won't bother going into the democrat party politics of the time".

Lincoln was the first Republican President. True. The civil war was a "STATES RIGHT" issue. Had little to nothing to do with slavery. Lincoln had a "Karl Rove" ancestor in his white house that advised Lincoln to make the war about slavery so it could be sold to the public as the public wasn't all that crazy about forcing the South to rejoin the Union by force. Lincoln was also told by his generals that the war would be over in a matter of months. Well, when things didn't go to well, the issue of "Slavery" was the fall back position for Lincoln. Geez; sound familar today? Course, at the cost of 650,000 US lives, the war did accomplish the abolition of slavery. Not a bad outcome. To bad that wasn't the goal from the start. The civil war was another unnecessary war. The rebellion could have been ended with diplomacy. Slavery would have ended without the loss of so many lives. Just would have taken a little longer to accomplish. Technology was advancing fairly rapidly at the time. The need for slave labor was coming to an end. The unanswered question is was the war worth so many lives. It also left so many southerners so bitter that it took another hundred years for the blacks to achieve their civil rights under another President named Johnson who was also a Democrat.

The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the US Constitution required the ratification of 38 States. Nothing to do with political parties. Johnson, Lincoln's VP was a democrat. Nevertheless, at least something decent came out of the civil war. It ended slavery.

Posted by retiredteacher (anonymous) on September 1, 2008 at 4:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow, you seem to have no time for Europeans but they do have economic safety nets in place that work very well. They've left behind the Feudalistic system that perpetuates wealth in the hands of a few generation after generation after generation. Please explain to me in a so-called competitive society how even the playing field is, when as someone starting my own business, I start from a place miles and miles behind someone who has inherited billions. Maybe it's you who have flunked economics. If we all have equal opportunity, what's happened to so many small businesses and why has the small farmer almost disappeared? Why has the big been able to so rapaciously swallow the little in this country? You're not talking about capitalism with any social conscience at all, are you? You're talking about Darwinian capitalism: survival of the fittest or, in the long run to the future, the richest. So we'll be right back to that place that made so many people escape Europe to come to a land where they would have a chance, an "equal opportunity" to realize their dreams.
Finally, there are some references to abortion or killing babies in some of the arguments. I'm against all abortions, except in the cases of rape, incest, or the endangerment of the mother's life. I've voted for Republicans in the past because I felt they might do something about what I do consider as irresponsible, horrifying killings. What have the Republicans actually done about it? Bush sat with a Republican Congress and Supreme Court for six years and did squat about it. It's a POLITICAL issue with them, a wedge they can drive between us at election times. Why should they get rid of it when it's so convenient to pull off the shelf every 2, 4, and 6 years? To me, the right to a decent life does begin at inception BUT it continues for the rest of that life until death and then God will do the judging. That's what a democracy should be.

It's like gun control. I've never been against people's right to have guns in their homes, to hunt, to, if needed, protect themselves. I certainly am against the irresponsible and criminal behavior some people (those grownups who are supposed to regulate their own lives) show when, for example, there are six loaded guns left in unlocked places around a Minnesota home and a 10 year old girl finds one, points it at the back of her little brother's head, pulls the trigger and instantly kills him. I'm glad that gun control is no longer a handy-dandy political wedge like abortion. The Supreme Court took care or that issue. I'm not so certain that God will judge the same way they did, however, in regard to the wasted life of that little boy and the mess that incident will probably leave in the girl's head for the rest of her life.

Posted by Jerry (anonymous) on September 1, 2008 at 4:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Retired Teacher. You do realize that Warren Buffet is a very strongly committed wealthy Democrat don't you? I know that to be a fact.

Posted by mgdbottled (anonymous) on September 1, 2008 at 5:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are leaving the vast majority of their fortunes to Charity. Passing only a small portion off to their relatives. Both are men of high character.

Posted by pilsnerurquel (anonymous) on September 1, 2008 at 6 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jerry, please adjust your tin foil hat.

Posted by capitalist (anonymous) on September 1, 2008 at 9:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

mgdbottled, democrat president Johnson fought the passage of civil rights to blacks. He called the republican Martin Luther King a racial epithet to his face during a meeting with King and others because King was threatening civil rights marches. Republicans forced Johnson's hand, and after signing the amendment Johnson stated, "We have lost the South." He was right.

By the way, slavery was on the downturn at the beginning of our country, then Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin. Farmers began the slave boom that we think of today due to the demand of cotton. The states that banned slavery saw in improvement in their economies due to higher productivity of paid laborers than slave laborers.
Slavery may have ended, eventually, but most men have too much respect for human dignity to wait.

Posted by capitalist (anonymous) on September 1, 2008 at 9:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

retiredteacher, I grew up on a small farm. It is a lot of hard work. Most small farms disappeared due to the ease of earning a steady income by having an employer, and not relying on rainfall, or having your crop destroyed by hail, or Carter's grain embargo (I have personal experience with all 3). It is much easier for 20 farmers to diversify thier products than it is for 1. The farmer that hires the others is taking the biggest risk, and earns the greatest reward.

Posted by apinion (anonymous) on September 1, 2008 at 10:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

May be we should have a Socialist society. That way everyone who does the same job gets paid the same wage. So those that are lazy can earn as much as those who are self motivated!

retiredteacher - You say if companies moved overseas who would buy their products??? They would of course. I don't suppose you have noticed what is happening in China. They are litterlly gobbling up all kinds of consumer goods and the demand is growing at a feverish pace... Of course they are not demanding a whole lot of American goods because they are way over priced!

Also wages have stagnated for ONE SIMPLE REASON! There has been little to NO PRODUCTIVITY gains lately. As the working class retires, they are unfortunatly being replaced with a new generation of Americans that are LAZY and believe they shouldn't have to DO ANYTHING TO EARN THEIR KEEP!!!

Also retiredteacher I fail to see your logic on Social Security. How is repealing a tax cut or getting out of Iraq going to help Social Security? The Social Security system is SUPPOSE to be an ENTIRELY SEPARATE FUND. So although repealing a tax cut or getting out of Iraq may help the General fund, it will do little to NOTHING TO HELP SOCIAL SECURITY!!!!!!

No big deal who gets elected anyway. Within 50 years the United States as we know it WILL NOT EXIST!!! Unfortunatly we will follow in the foot steps of the USSR. Throughout history every single supper power has always failed eventually. It seems they get TOO SUCESSFULL and their citizens FAIL TO INNOVATE and their citizens feel they are entitled to EVERYTHING, and feel they should not have to DO ANYTHING just because of the place that they live!!!

Good luck to you all!!!

Posted by retiredteacher (anonymous) on September 1, 2008 at 10:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My father was a small farmer and his father. I've had tons of relatives who are or have been farmers-some small and some very, very big. Why couldn't the small farmer make it? I don't know the answer for every case, but I do know it was a matter of having the means to compete with the big and even corporate farmers. Why are so many shops gone from towns like Fergus, Wadena, D.L., etc. Don't tell me it has nothing to do with Wal-Mart and in other places huge chains across the land. As for the part politics play and played in this Darwinian onslaught of the big getting bigger and the small gradually disappearing, I'm sure mistakes on the part of both parties have played some role. I can recall there used to be legislation against monopolies in America. Some of it may still be on the books, but at least from my perspective, that's the only place it is. I don't like to think we came from apes but in the world of no-bars capitalism, there is some ugly evidence that survival of the fittest is the law of the jungle. It's pretty certain that the teachings of Christ don't control very much of it. Maybe I'm getting too old but I miss much about the times when so many people were their own bosses and at least for awhile controlled a large part of their own destinies. I can't accept that people forfeited it all because it was easier to work for others, but I may be wrong. It's not the first, nor will it be the last time that happens.

Posted by retiredteacher (anonymous) on September 1, 2008 at 11:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, Jerry, I do realize that Warren Buffet is a committed Democrat. Why do you think he made the comment about the injustice of his secretary's paying a larger percentage of her income per year than he does? Not all democrats are liars and neither are all Republicans, only in a Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity world, and if Bill O'Reilly makes indecent proposals to a co-worker over the phone, it's okay because he's Bill O'Reilly and everything that comes out of his mouth must be "fair and balanced." A skunk is a skunk whatever he calls himself, but God is much more forgiving of us than some Republicans I know. Now I'm contributing to the divisiveness. I'm sorry, but I don't like incessant, unremitting hypocrisy. Christ recognized it and whipped it out of the Temple. If a political philosophy intentionally teaches hatred or ill-will to other human beings simply because they don't agree with it, then it deserves some whipping. Maybe then we'll again see people like Eisenhower, Goldwater, even Arne Carlson coming back and making the Grand Old Party, grand again. Now we see the likes of Chuck Hegel, Jim Ramstad and other moderate Republicans who can listen to others and get some things done through compromise leaving the party. Putting aside all of the "messiah" gibberish, I'm sorry, but Obama is right. We're all in this together and if we don't start pulling together again we'll eventually be like the other great civilizations that were destroyed from within, not from outside threats. Personally, I like "yes, we can" very much. I prefer optimism to self-realizing pessimism. But when the day arrives that we actually believe we are a nation and people without fault, without areas in which we can and must improve, that day will mark the start of the end for us, and calling such self-aggrandizement "patriotism" defiles the real meaning of the word. Just as an individual who cannot accept criticism and move forward to improve is doomed to a stagnant lack of growth, so is a nation.

Posted by Jerry (anonymous) on September 1, 2008 at 11:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

pilsnerurquel even a bartender can do better than tin foil hat one liners. Just wait a few months and when the liberals are in office you will be able to share in the vast amount of wealth that will be taken from the productive citizens and given to the non-productive. Ah, the good life!

Posted by retiredteacher (anonymous) on September 1, 2008 at 11:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

apinion, you're simply making stuff up to satisfy your own prejudices. If Social Security is a "seperate" fund, then why has Congress after Congress raided it for one purpose or another? Remember Gore's "lockbox" proposal? Well, if you can rob it for this and that, why can't you put back for the majority of Americans, who are proven the most PRODUCTIVE work force in the world.
I taught up until 1999, and you do young people today an absolute injustice to call all of them "lazy." I know that, in fact, that they're largely smarter than I certainly was when I graduated from a private Catholic school in 1958. I know that the vast majority of them want to do what's right and to do a good job at what they do. You are given to a perspective of self-defeating pessimism, and in many cases you will get from people, as most of us will, what you expect. If you were a teacher and talked down to a group of high schoolers in this fashion, you would get little or nothing from them and deserve it because it's what you expect.

You're actually telling us that you would trade democracy and what we can have if we believe in ourselves and one another for what's in China today?
You're another person who has not listened to Obama. He has been a hard worker during his adult life and insists Americans will have to work harder than ever to get us out of the hole dug during the last 8 years. He says this again and again to all of us. He also says it's not wrong to expect a good and decent life and life style if we do work hard. I see nothing decadent or socialistic in this message.
Finally, I come from a worker's background. It really upsets me that you carte blanche accuse American workers of a lack of productivity, and it makes no difference at all whether you've capitalized the charge. Show me the factual statistics that over the last decade American workers have been unproductive, and I'll show you so much manufactured baloney. IT'S JUST NOT SO.

Posted by jolly77c (anonymous) on September 2, 2008 at 4:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Can anyone remember the last time a politician kept their promise? They will say, do or promise anything to get elected, in other words, hoodwink voters with a lot of BS. The president does not control America's purse strings, Congress does. If Congress approves it, it gets done. If they don't, the president is powerless, unless Congress lacks the votes to over ride a veto. So just take campaign promises with a grain of salt, they're worthless.

Posted by mccain08 (anonymous) on September 2, 2008 at 8:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

here's a quote for all the pundits who keep bringing up lincoln and the 15th amendment:

Because the region voted so reliably Democratic, it was known as the 'Solid South'. Eventually, the party grew again. Support spread into the mid-Atlantic states. In 1884, progressive New Yorker Grover Cleveland became the first Democrat to be elected President since the war. The Democrats often held the House of Representatives near the turn of the century. At around this time, the major parties experienced a switch in platforms: the Democrats became increasingly liberal, while the Republicans became more conservative.

before 1884 the Repulicans were the liberals. and the liberals frees the slaves.

Posted by capitalist (anonymous) on September 2, 2008 at 12:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Liberal in its earliest definition that I have read refers to liberty, in the sense of laissez-faire government. Capitalists have referred to this since Adam Smith's "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" was written in 1759. Capitalists believe in liberalism, socialists do not. That is why capitalist leaning parties in every english speaking country other than the US refer to themselves as "liberal", and the collectivist parties call themselves socialists.

A capitalist understands the mutual benefit to paying one's employees, a socialist believes people are subjects that must be controlled.

Posted by bigkahunaburger (anonymous) on September 2, 2008 at 1:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Don't you dare take credit for freeing the slaves. Yes Abraham Lincoln was a republican. In this day and age, he would not be. Perhaps the idea that things change over centuries is too "open-minded" for you.

Posted by capitalist (anonymous) on September 2, 2008 at 1:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Liberalism was first referred to in "The Theory of Moral Sentiments", but you are correct, it did not delve into laissez faire government the way "The Wealth of Nations" did.
I believe it was democrats who labelled themselves "liberal", when in fact they are socialists. I believe most Americans would consider a liberal to be a socialist becaust they do not know the classical meaning of the term "liberal". Ted Kennedy calls himself a liberal.

Posted by retiredteacher (anonymous) on September 2, 2008 at 4:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Capitalist, I suspect that you're a pretty intelligent person, but you might try ridding your mind of the common tendency to stereotype, rather than see people as individuals. I know I don't fit many of your handy dandy tags for Democrats and don't appreciate having them applied as if they did. A name is just a name. I know propagandists want us to respond to labels as if they entirely summed up everything there is to know about a person, but they don't. Chuck Hegel certainly isn't George Bush and Amy Klobuchar is not Ted Kennedy, but the propagandist wants us to think people with a given name are all identical. Remember what the Nazis did with the name "Jew." It's all an attempt to simplify the richness and complexity of reality for the sake of often over-simplified solutions to not so simple problems, and it hurts our ability to even see reality accurately, to say nothing about seeing it well enough to make pragmatic, intelligent judgments about it.

Posted by capitalist (anonymous) on September 2, 2008 at 4:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am a Christian, and a capitalist. I am not afraid to be labelled as such. I don't believe liberty can exist without Christian priciples, and free markets cannot exist where liberty does not exist. Slavery is not compatible with Christian principles I have learned, unless a debt is involved.

Posted by capitalist (anonymous) on September 2, 2008 at 6:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Van Hee (retiredteacher), I reread your article.
14 of the 18 paragraphs I recognized as containing democrat talking points. Most of the 14 also had variants of democrat catch phrases, such as "Bush and cronies", "bogus war", "Mr. and Mrs. Ordinary American at risk".

"Feudal favoritism" was original, however (as far as I know).

If you aren't a democrat propagandist, you may want to find a few alternate sources of information and form your own opinions.

Posted by mgdbottled (anonymous) on September 2, 2008 at 7:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My Democrat philosophy: We're all just tenants on the land here in this country. None of us own anything. We're just borrowing it for a short while. Without the country and the opportunities it brings, and our fellow citizens, we'd have nothing. We all owe a great deal to the country and those who came before us. Every opportunity anyone has is because of this country. Every dime anyone earns is because of this country. Be good tenants. Pay your fair share of taxes. Leave the country in better shape than when you arrived. Don't wreck the country or the planet for the next generation. No one person is anymore important than any other person. You don't agree, feel free to get out of my country. It's doubtful you deserve it.

Posted by anamerican (anonymous) on September 4, 2008 at 6:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So.... "we are all just tenants on the land...", "none of us OWN anything."...BUT "if you don't agree..get out of MY country." WOW, that made sense.
I disagree with your tenent of 'opportunity'; some are lazy some are not, some make their future, some let others make it for them, and if we had it your way, all my dimes would go into the collective pot of social programs. I would love to be able to sit around the fire and sing Kumbya (or have a sit-in), but as a realist, I will continue to pay my 'fair share' and then some.

Posted by retiredteacher (anonymous) on September 4, 2008 at 8:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Capitalist, I guess I'm wrong about your intelligence. I apologize. Did I ever deny that I was a Democrat and believed in the principles of my party? Personally, I don't think you have a clue about what is propaganda and what is factual. If you've been listening to the RNC, all you've heard IS propaganda with the exception of McCain's POW story, which was repeated over and over again. I honor it, but it doesn't change my mind that McCain has close to the capacity for making cool-headed, thoughtful, pragmatic judgments that Barack has. It is a fact that Barack graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School (Please save us your stereotypes about lawyers.) It is a fact that McCain graduated 5th from last in the bottom 1 % of his class at the Naval Academy. According to people who know him well, including Republicans, he has a hair-trigger temper, not a great recommendation for someone in control of the red button. Didn't the Republicans cut taxes for the immensely rich? Didn't they try to kill the Estate Tax? Haven't workers' salaries stagnated under Bush? Haven't they lost benefits and retirement plans? How are these so-called talking points propaganda if they're true. I haven't heard any FACTS from you to call their verity into question. Forget it. I think this discussion has gone beyond its usefulness.

Posted by metasonics (anonymous) on September 4, 2008 at 10:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

it will be the republican party that will provide the justification for the American proletarian revolution.
and thus the last true vestige of capitalism will fall,exactly as predicted by Karl Marx.

the middle class is no more, there are only the rich ruling class (bourgeoisie) and the exploited working class (Proletarian).
the obvious conclusion of inflating our national debt can only be one of two outcomes.
either we somehow pay off the debts or a new form of government will take over and deny the debts of the previous aristocracy, just like after every other proletarian revolution.

We can stop it by voting for change now!
WE can salvage and repair the damage the republicans have caused.
We can't take legal actions Bush or his cabinet because he already wrote his own pardon.
but we can elect leaders who will help people move from poverty into middle class, the rich should no longer be allowed to exploit the labor of the working class.
how have we allowed our nation to become ran by people who have never done any real work in their entire lives?
Vote for change!

Jamie Cooper

Posted by metasonics (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 4:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Che...,
well I guess I'm going to co=opt Mr. Chenneys response this November!

thank you Republicans for establishing that using four letter curse words are now acceptable and apparently OK with Christians.
thank you for giving us a president who has publicly threatened WW3.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqDy6H1bE...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gk9_5OUWy...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vACtnZIoA...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTNVSPto3...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ek5G6337...
the children suffering from this war have names, and had no hand in the 911 attacks!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAOY1URRX...

Posted by freda (anonymous) on September 7, 2008 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

McCain and Palin have the right stuff to win this election. Obama and Biden are just more of the same old Washington big spending pork barrel, cronyism politics.