Story Comments
Posted by: Goppy 1 year ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
64%
Goppy1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Look ... we all know that the Republicans only hope is to try to disenfranchise as many Americans from voting as they can.
Reply
That's because more and more Americans have been adversely affected by the Perverse Ideology that Republicanism has become.
When you Lie to launch a pre-emptive war .... when you FIGHT AGAINST Children getting health care.... when you attempt to Politicize our Judicial System ... well .... people begin to see a pattern of anti-Americanism.
The fact that Republican Policy has harmed our nation more than any Terrorist could dream of doing ... well that's it.
Here ... check out this video.
It appears that even McCain's fellow veterans think he's unfit to be president.
In fact, THEY MOCK HIM!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFM1xqqTX_g
If you support our troops ... support the candidate THEY support ... Barack Obama.
..-
redtomatoComment removed: Spammer46 Replies
-
35%
Wolfie20071 year ago
-
72%
HannibalBarca1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well if it is the illegals you have a problem with how come your Rep party did little to nothing to solve it.
Reply
Hell they (shrub and company) even decided to build a 12 lane highway to the inland port of Omaha so that your western ports could be bypassed for Mexican ones, and now you are using them as a defense for your thinking?
You deserve what you got with that attitude.-
71%
lfergie8121 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well gee HannibalBarca, don't you remember the money they allotted for the fence that was going to block farmers from the water of the Rio Grande?? Here's a video of Bush talking about the border security.will work. Note behind him.
Reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4VQnBQxCtM=related
-
-
81%
Sabretooth1 year ago
-
redtomatoComment removed: Spammer14 Replies
-
-
73%
mesodude1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
LOL...already getting your excuses ready for protesting Obama's win, huh? How many times must we play this game? This isn't going to be another 51/49 deal, cons. Obama will win decisively and no amount of alleged voter fraud will be able to change that. We won't be repeating 2000 so just let it go already. ;-(
Reply-
20%
amazed1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree that, at this point, it looks as if Obama will win handily - - but, if it's close, you have to admit that the democrats have a far more strident and eager to dispute election result track records than the Republicans.
Reply
Even NIXON didn't dispute Kennedy's election, although it was almost certainly fraudulent.
-
-
27%
linda48471 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree with Wolfie, the most important thing we have is our vote and if people cheat by doing what Acorn is doing and as you see it is only one sided Democrat, it takes away from our voice. One vote that is the rule. Play fair or is that the only way you all can win
Reply
linda-
75%
lfergie8121 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
linda4847 said "doing what Acorn is doing "
Reply
Just what is ACORN doing? They are taking applications for registrations and after checking them out, they separate them between valid and invalid applications and turn them in. It's not their fault if some Republican that is already registered fills one out with fake information and then calls the RNC to report is so a compliant can be made. I would wager any amount of money that the Republicans are responsible for a large percentage of bad applications. Can not be proven either way but just ask yourself who would have the most to gain by destroying the creditability of an organization that is trying to get more people to vote. -
-
-
-
-
74%
mark-stevens1 year ago
-
-
-
-
75%
lfergie8121 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your links are useless because they are incomplete and take you nowhere.
Reply
I can see that one is a blog and that proves nothing.
google "ACORN bailout bill" and there were about 489,000 hits.??
No joke. Now which ones points out the fact "it's that the bailout (at least at one point) was going to support (fund) ACORN." because I'm going to waste time on 489,000 hits that tell the same thing. You made the statement, so show the link from a reputable source where the bailout was going to support ACORN and not a right wing rag or blog site. -
80%
lfergie8121 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
OK, after researching and maybe finding the story you listed, I find that you did not give the whole story. Your claim was that the bailout money was earmarked for ACORN which was a Republican argument. But reading down further in the article you hear a comment from Barney Frank's spokesman.
Reply
"In the end, how much of the bailout's potential profits are earmarked for ACORN? "None. Absolutely none. All funds would go to state and local governments," said Steven Adamske, spokesman for Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee and a lead negotiator."
Now I see that you chose to believe the Republican but I don't because at the time they were all playing politics with the bill. So I see nothing here that hasn't already been going on and that a vendetta of the Republican party by the Republican appointed federal attorneys to stop ACORN from getting more voter registration by harassment.
-
-
33%
amazed1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
au contraire, fergie
Reply
blog.heritage.org/2008/09/26/text-of-the-acorn-rel...
google ACORN bailout bill for about 489,000 other hits.
that should be enough even for you.
(of course, had you been paying attention during the bailout arguments, you would have already heard about this).-
-
71%
lfergie8121 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yeah, he's serious. I should have said reputable sources.
Reply
The links are unusable because they aren't links but I can see that one is a blog site that I'm sure has unquestionable information. LMAO
"google ACORN bailout bill for about 489,000 other hits."
I asked for proof and he supplies nothing.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
69%
Goppy1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Nice try RIChris.
Reply
Barack Obama has received over $60,000 in donations from active duty troops overseas. (This information is all over the internet - if you choose to do a search.)
McCain? ... ... ... A little more than $10,000.
I guess our troops don't like the fact that McCain has been fighting them on everything from releasing classified information on MIAs to fighting against the GI BILL.
Our troops are funny that way.
They expect loyalty.
If any of you want to support the troops ... vote for the candidate THEY support ... Barack Obama.
..-
redtomatoComment removed: Spammer10 Replies
-
-
25%
lovemylibs1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Not only are they wrong, they are misleading.
Reply
All of my liberal brethren made great efforts a few months ago to create headlines to the effect of: "Troops Support Obama 6 to 1 over McCain."
In deference to Paul Harvey, here is the rest of the story.
This 6 to 1 figure is accurate when you consider the caveats of the data.
Caveat # 1 - These figures represent active, overseas military who made contributions of over $200.
Caveat # 2 - Donations of these type for Obama = 134 donations.
Caveat # 3 - Donations of these type for McCain = 26 donations.
Caveat # 4 - These donations are through June 2008.
Caveat # 5 - Since Palin was announced these numbers have changed.
Caveat # 6 - There are approximately 250,000 active military in overseas operations.
SO - using a handy calculator, these statistics show that the donors to Obama represent a sample size of less than (0.1%). That is statistically too small of a number to use to correlate into a liberal stance of "Troops support Obama 6 to 1."
It is not reliable to say these numbers can be extrapolated, as is standard polling practice, into a general statement of the same level of support in terms of overall numbers. Polling asks questions, donations represent monetary gifts.
One can not be used to represent the other. It is wrong.
Any headline at the time that read "Troops support Obama 6 to 1" was a lie. Howard Dean even made it a talking point for the base to use, as shills are prone to do-
-
mntnman444Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
-
-
-
29%
tatf1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
With so many questions concerning the sources of the donations that Obama has received, I have a problem believing that the donation from active duty GI's for Obama is not another of the Socialist left getting money into Obama's coffers illegally.
Reply -
43%
DeauxNut1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Great mis-leading story there "Goppy". Here, read this:
Reply
"The analysis of campaign records found Obama has raised more than $60,000 from 134 military service men and women who are deployed overseas. McCain has raised $10,665 from 26 donors."
Now you tell us how 134 + 26 represents "The Military" overseas. So don't go and tell us that troops overseas don't support McCain. They also don't support Obama, donation-wise. If the greater percentage of troops support Obama, fine, I can live with that but don't expect us to believe "out of context" figures that don't support the totals. -
33%
automan9091 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My son is in Iraq right now and says that everyone he knows is for McCain and that
Reply
they don't trust Obama. They still remember how Obama voted to not fund our troops during the war and how that vote had cost them unnecessary lives and injuries. They hate him.-
mntnman444Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
-
-
30%
amervtrn1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
GOPPY , I doubt you have ever served. From you choice of words and phrasing you sound like a 20's something who has no idea of life. The Troops are as diverse as the population of the USA, with the same diverse ideas. As for your ideas of change, I survived that once I really doubt you have any truthful idea of what you are spouting.WILL you make the same mistake?For those too young to know or remember. Change for the sake of change is seldom for the better. 1975-76 the U.S. was in turmoil, and people were demanding change. An obscure young man with good credentials(exceptional credentials compared to the aspirants today). 1977, President Carter inherited an economy that was slowly emerging from a recession. After four years of the Carter presidency, both inflation and unemployment were worse than at the time of his inauguration. The annual inflation rate rose from 4.8% in 1976 to 6.8% in 1977, 9% in 1978, 11% in 1979, and hovered around 12% at the time of the 1980 election. Carter had pledged to eliminate federal deficits, the deficit 1979 $27.7 billion, 1980 was nearly $59 billion. Inflation(11-12 percent), and skyrocketing interest rates(21.5 percent). July 1980, Carter received a favorable rating of only 21% in the Gallup Poll. That was the lowest rating any president, including Richard Nixon at the time of his resignation, had received since polling began in 1936.This not to mention the devastated military preparedness and income tax rates. Do we need to re-live this in 2008-2012?
Reply-
69%
klr601 year ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
mntnman444Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
-
-
80%
lfergie8121 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes the interest rates were high but were brought on by Nixon's Phase I, II, III, etc until the inflation could not be contained and while Ford was still in office, started coming down like an avalanche on the country. That's why he lost the election in 1976 by the way. And before you start blaming Carter for the interest rates, anyone with a little intelligent of our government knows that the president does not set the interest rates.
Reply
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,9...
Ah yes, the life and times of another Republican administration that nearly brought down the country and only by having a president like Carter was this able to be turned around. Wages were frozen for years, food, energy, and necessaries like toilet paper and coffee were allow to rise because of artificial "shortages created to circumvent the law of the Phases.
-
-
92%
skeek1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Firstly, you clearly have not comprehended the extreme dire predicament your country currently faces, but you will soon enough. What will happen to your country over the next 5 years will make the Carter years look like holidays in The Maldives.
Reply
Secondly, Carter was a one term president because he had no choice but to pick up the pieces from the devastating years prior to his presidency; a legacy left by other presidents and either their ineptitude, outright scandalous behaviour or both. He was further lumbered with the backlash of Iran, resentful of 25 years of US interventionism aka the Shah of Iran, Iran's subsequent revolution followed by a hostage crisis which played nicely into Reagan's hands.
But mine is just an outsider's point of view from somewhere out here in the world that you arrogantly dismiss, ignorantly seek to control and now unashamedly beg to save your arse.
-
-
-
82%
Ratskii1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
amervtrn, now you've got me confused.
Reply
I thought you'd said that George W Bush, a two term president, couldn't be blamed for the financial problems we're having right now. If that's so than how can you blame Carter, a one term president for the financial problems that developed while he was president. You seem to be speaking out of both sides of your mouth.-
29%
amervtrn1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ratskii you missed the point I was making. No Carter is not to blame for the current mess. What I was saying change for the sake of change is seldom for the better. The Media hype was almost word for word a match to Obama's hype, slogans,ect. If Carter with his experience could fail so badly what are Obama's chances as inexperienced as he is? Now do you understand?
Reply -
13%
amervtrn1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. Racism knows no color. There are White racist,Black racist,Brown racist, ECT. To some it is a hatred, to some it is distrust, and to others it is a tool of deceit. The last thing the USA needs at this time is an Amateur. There is no time for on the job training. More Socialist debt is definitely not what we need. Research what and who you vote for, check your resources, do not buy into the hype, think and reason for yourself. Being what one "guppy" called an old f*rt, I have already survived this type of situation, and really shiver at the thought of having to go through it again. Therefore the inexperience definitely concerns me. The Socialist leaning is a big red flag. His record shows nothing to recommend him. Pretty words and rhetoric may soothe the soul but do nothing to solve problems.
Reply-
100%
hyperbola1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well amer, perhaps you should ask yourself why this keeps happening over and over and over. And why it is the little people that suffer everytime. Maybe our system is not what it seems?
Reply
Bretton Woods was the system of global financial management set up at the end of the second World War to ensure the interests of capital did not smother wider social concerns in post-war democracies. It was hated by the US neoliberals - the very people who created the banking crisis.
...The immediate origins of the current meltdown lie in the collapse of the housing bubble supervised by Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, which sustained the struggling economy through the Bush years by debt-based consumer spending along with borrowing from abroad. But the roots are deeper. In part they lie in the triumph of financial liberalisation in the past 30 years - that is, freeing the markets as much as possible from government regulation.
...A study by international economists Winfried Ruigrok and Rob van Tulder 15 years ago found that at least 20 companies in the Fortune 100 would not have survived if they had not been saved by their respective governments, and that many of the rest gained substantially by demanding that governments "socialise their losses," as in today's taxpayer-financed bailout. Such government intervention "has been the rule rather than the exception over the past two centuries", they conclude.
... The financial market "underprices risk" and is "systematically inefficient", as economists John Eatwell and Lance Taylor wrote a decade ago, warning of the extreme dangers of financial liberalisation and reviewing the substantial costs already incurred - and proposing solutions, which have been ignored. One factor is failure to calculate the costs to those who do not participate in transactions. These "externalities" can be huge. Ignoring systemic risk leads to more risk-taking than would take place in an efficient economy, even by the narrowest measures.
In a functioning democratic society, a political campaign would address such fundamental issues, looking into root causes and cures, and proposing the means by which people suffering the consequences can take effective control.
http://www.propeller.com/story/2008/10/12/anti-dem...
Anti-democratic nature of US capitalism is being exposed
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
mntnman444Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
-
-
-
-
82%
Ratskii1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The conservative christian group have every right to go out and register voters. They don't have the right to preach in favor of a political candidate or party from the pulpit, at least not if they want to keep their tax free status.
Reply-
-
67%
Ratskii1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Can you show me where he said anything favoring a particular candidate or party while he was the minister? I know he said some things that you don't agree with, but in all the quotes that were put online about him, I never saw one like that.
Reply
My Church has an online site, and I've seen them warn people a number of times not to put that kind of political comment on the site as it could endanger their tax free status.-
100%
lovemylibs1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120511457633523621...
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
25%
memestryker1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Goppy,
Reply
Bush's anti-science views, entanglement of religion in extending "faith-based funding," and lack of support for birth control, which would help people at the bottom more than almost anything else we could do (look at what a difference it made to the Chinese) are clearly a travesty.
But I don't think McCain would continue those policies. He's just trying to get elected, which all politicians do. I just can't paint McCain with the "Bush" brush. Anyone who attacks Bush immediately finds himself kicked out of the kingdom, and McCain has had to carefully walk a fine line.
Everyone has enemies, but even most democrats have a positive view of McCain outside of the election season.
I'm not crazy about the idea of McCain as president, but I think he would be lightyears ahead of Bush.-
67%
tchef1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
McCain has voted lock step with Bush since 2000. He has supported all the policies of this administrations. Everything that he proposes is the same as Bush has proposed. He is nothing more than a continuation of this administration. And we can't afford that.
Reply-
50%
BB641 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Then you haven't done your studying. I was a part of the GOP that wanted to dump McCain because he stood with the Dems a little too often. McCain Finegold is little more than an incumbent protection act. It takes rights away from the electorate and gives more the the 527's, reducing their accountability.
Reply
As to my reasons for supporting McCain, that's easy. Of the two running, he's the more conservative Democrat in the race today.
-
-
-
73%
Blackacereturn1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't understand why people can't see through this freaking smokescreen. This is about scaring minorities out of the vote. It's as simple as this, ACORN register people to vote, the state voter registration department check them to see if they are eligible voters, if they are not they are not allowed to vote.
Reply
FOX and the pretentious right keep asking why the Feds haven't gotten involved...they haven't because there is no wrong doing here. If those people had voted then we could say there were wrong doings here, but since these forms were sent to the proper checkpoints none of this noise is valid!
There is also a thought process that this organization has been infiltrated by the republicans to make them seem as a bad voter registration group. There is a reason why the McCain group is not calling for the Feds to get involved...and this is mostly about the disenfranchisement of low income and minorities once again in this country.
But I think the GOP will be in for a Hugh shock, those who can vote will and they will be sooo ****** they will vote against you!-
-
Neutral
memestryker1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think you've got someone mixed up with Michael Bloomberg--but he's getting his rich buddy Lauder to fix the law temporarily so he can have a 3rd term because he doesn't want to leave--then change it back so no one else can have one. Ultimately same thing, just accomplished through a different abuse of power.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
memestryker1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
BAT, I think Obama will probably win, and I think ACORN has aggressively politically strong-armed anyone and everyone to push through their agenda, which is noble in its hope, but not always in step with reality.
Reply
If he wins, I hope Obama is a good president, and as an American, I support them all once the election is over. But he's presenting himself as a talker and persuader, and his experience doesn't suggest a much successful innovation.
I'm leaning towards writing in Ron Paul, anyway, since I'm less than enthusiastic about the major tickets. We know that's really a vote for Obama, but I live in an area where Obama is such a shoo-in that who I vote for doesn't matter, and my state is a winner-take-all state, which obviously is moving away from, rather than towards, a more representative democracy. Until we have a close race in the state (and it's pretty deep blue), it will not be challenged in the courts.
Most members of the GOP are not the very vocal goddy freaks who seek a theocracy, just as most democrats are not the very vocal leftists who seek a socialist dictatorship.
-
-
ClockworkorangeComment removed: Abusive
-
capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user4 Replies
-
loading ...
People Who Liked This Comment (36)
-
dirtyfratboy
-
bonaroo
-
Ratskii
-
chuck-the-canuck
-
engineer
-
somecommonsense
-
awongscreen
-
donald51
-
cushi
-
lfergie812
-
jordan11
-
Pupi
-
tchef
-
gamahuche
-
jovial
-
ind06
-
mntnman444
-
DoerNotASayer
-
dadesider
-
fsev41
-
Will1313
-
mesodude
-
ProudBlueTexan
-
skeek
-
Blackacereturn
-
dunkirk
-
GWHayduke
-
blowback
-
50Mhz
-
dissent
-
MacBookForMe
-
burntorange
-
hefaa1
-
SharonGless
-
9critters
-
db528
Patience
PinkyPie
Klarissa
Locky12
CactusAnnie
BB64
JoseMadre
normallysilent
automan909
y_soitenly
memestryker
lovemylibs
Wolfie2007
Nixie
FairNBalanced
redtomato
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.