Time for something else… I’m posting this in several forums. And will make updates from time to time as new information comes my way.

So McCain is going for character assassination of Obama!  Well then, the gloves are off.  This is the season of the witch!  The witch shall go ahunting!  Let’s see, how about starting with dickhead McCain’s first wife!  And how he left her after she had a disfiguring car accident for another cutsie chick, Cindy.  That’s loyalty for ya.  It’s one thing to fall out of love and divorce, but for guys who want to be politicians, messing around is deadly.

Two years younger than Ralph Nader, on his own health, check out this website:
http://therealmccain.com/doctors/

Joe Klein-Time magazine Sept. 17, 2008 tells us McCain’s claims skirt facts and his lies have ranged from the annoying to the sleazy, and the problem is in both degree and kind. His campaign has been a ceaseless assault on his opponent’s character and policies, featuring a consistent—and witting—disdain for the truth.  So we will publish these lies every day in every place possible. Even the New York Times editorial board is calling John McCain a liar.

Paraphrasing Klein’s words, John McCain raises serious questions about whether he has the character to lead the nation. He defaces his beloved military code of honor. He is running a dirty campaign.

Jon Stewart called him a shameless panderer. What could that mean?  He embraces all the things he used to condemn.  Bush being one of them, I saw that hug, then he turns around and is now again bashing Bush.  What the f**k??  Check out:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/TDS-Reformed-Maverick -090508.mov

By way of providing background, the article reprised the story of the Keating Five scandal that cost three Senators their jobs and nearly ended John McCain’s career. According to the Times, during McCain’s years in the House of Representatives, he became friendly with Charles Keating, Chairman of Lincoln Savings & Loan.

Vote Obama/Biden if you want change in the White House.

By Shenonymous, September 30 at 4:51 pm #

It’s hard to begin discussing economics when most of these numbers really don’t mean much. GDP has nothing to do with your life or mine. It was never intended to.

As far as unemployment numbers - falacious little critters they stop counting once your off unemployment compensation - hit some of its lowest marks during the Bush II years.

Most of Clinton’s “good times” was on the back of the DotCom bubble that burst along with the Enron fiasco that started in those glorious days you are recounting.

Clinton brought in NAFTA and gutted saftey nets for the poor (and we know how that turned out). In fact much of the financial disaster we see today has its seeds in the Clinton admin and the Republican Congress. Check out Robert Rubin and Larry Summers - free market die-hards and Clinton advisors (Treasury Secretaries!). They’re pushing Obama and this bailout bill which they would have passed as is when Paulson first offered it up!!

No, Shenonymous, Clinton with all his smooth talk, ran Reagan part II. He was no progressive and expanded on the premises of corporate globalization (which is predatory). He did do a much better job of running FEMA. And, yea, between him and the Rupublican Congress they did reduce the deficit. But the systemic and structural problems with the American economy are much deeper than a deficit or even our debt.

Frankly, I don’t think Presidents really have much to do with the economy during their years in office. They can sign in bills and put in place time-bombs which will go off in the future once they leave or they may be the beneficiary of what economists call a postive cycle.

To understand all this we’d have to probe free market capitalism and boom and bust markets; none of which a president has much to do with.

But it is curious that Obama critized Clinton’s administration as unimaginative, that you have to go back to Reagan to find some “good” ideas. Political talk?

Swinging between Parties and Presidents is not going to fix what’s wrong. The parties have been saying the same thing for decades.

A trend analysis provides a much better picture of the American economy and it has been on a downward spiral by all indicators since the mid-60s. It is an unsustainable economic system because its based on endless growth through the use of finite resources for endless consumption. And what did Clinton have to say about that? And Obama?

Try - we need to grow our way to prosperity!! That’s the answer they all give - Dem and Repubs. Pretty imaginative, huh.

President Clinton left the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years. Inflation declined to the lowest levels since the Kennedy Administration, and remained moderate in 2000 despite the run-up in energy prices. Productivity growth averaged 3.0 percent over previous five years - nearly double its average rate over 20 years before that. Real wages began finally to rise across the economic spectrum.
The simplest and most obvious way in which the fiscal landscape was revolutionized is the stunning change in the numbers:  In FY1992 - the year before the Clinton Administration took office - the unified deficit of the Federal government ran a record $290 billion, or 4.7 percent of GDP. By contrast, in FY2000 - the fiscal year just completed - the Federal government set a different and more enviable record, with a surplus of $237 billion, or 2.4 percent of GDP.
In 1992, the debt held by the public was nearly 50 percent as large as the GDP, and projected to increase to roughly 65 percent of GDP by the end of FY2000. In fact, the debt now is only 35 percent as large as the GDP, and is projected on prudent assumptions to be eliminated by 2012 - even taking account of the President’s spending and tax-cut proposals.
This turnaround in the numbers benefited in real dollars to individual Americans: The net interest payments of the Federal government in FY2000 alone were $125 billion lower than projected in early 1993. That amounts to more than $1700 for every American family.
Fiscal consolidation helped reduce mortgage interest costs: a typical American family with a mortgage of $100,000 would have expected to save about $2,000 annually in mortgage costs because of the new fiscal discipline. Low mortgage rates in turn helped to make housing more affordable; the homeownership rate increased from 64.2 percent in 1992 to 67.7 percent in the third quarter of 2000.
The swing in the Federal budget from deficit to surplus resulted in nearly a doubling of the net national saving rate, making more funds available for private investment. (And incidentally, the improvement in the Federal budget deficit – in 2000 a surplus - accounted for all of the improvement in national saving.) Surging investment, especially in equipment incorporating the latest advances in technology, contributed to a pickup in workers’ productivity growth - and ultimately, in their wages.
A second respect in which the fiscal landscape was transformed had more to do with the institutions of the budget process than with the performance of the budget itself.
Until the previous couple of years, the political debate about the budget focused on allocating unified surpluses; or, to be more precise about it - reducing unified deficits. A few insightful observers understood that balancing the unified budget should not be the ultimate goal, but believed that the more ambitious objective of balancing the on-budget account was so far out of reach that highlighting it as a potential objective might actually undermine the collective resolve rather than solidify it.
But in the summer of 1999, buoyed by the progress of the preceding six years, Clinton was able to shift the terms of the political conversation by putting forward a plan for allocating the projected on-budget surpluses over the succeeding ten years, and for setting aside all of the off-budget surpluses - the Social Security surpluses - for debt reduction.
The practical implication of that change was that the budgetary debate focused on how best to use $1.9 trillion in projected on-budget surpluses rather than $4.2 trillion in unified surpluses. The beneficial implications for national saving and the performance of the macroeconomy was hardly overstated.
In the last eight years the Republican policies not only frittered that surplus away but increased the debt by $9.8 trillion.
Sorry jackpine savage you are wrong. The Reagan and Bush have been the worst presidents in the history of this country.

Max Shields writes:

“Many of us strongly disagree and are looking for alternatives like McKinney and Nader to address the pressing American issues.”

~~~~~~

But, they aren’t (alternatives) and the can’t. (address the pressing American issues). Nader has been trying for the last 20 years, (every 4) and hasn’t been able to do diddly squat..not even to follow through with his own ideas, (many of them good) because he won’t bother to get into politics. (except every 4 years to run for president).

Cynthia could have done more as a Congresswoman, if she just wasn’t so loosely wrapped in the head, and emotionally undisciplined. Whacking Capitol Hill Police Officers with a cell phone isn’t cool, even if he deserved it. We’ve already got one hothead in the White House, and you see where that got us. McKinny is more intelligent than Puppet Bush, but she still couldn’t run an Administration. Her own Congressional District constituents FIRED her. She needs to cool out, and take some lessons. Then maybe she can run next time. That is IF there IS a ‘next time’ and I’m seriously beginning to doubt that.

Max, why don’t you drop the directional mode. It hasn’t served your interests at all, and it’s totally incompatible with where you’re trying to ‘cage’ Obama. He can’t be caged, and he can’t be labeled in your directional hierarchies. So give it up. Ask your special education team if there’s some why for you to learn a more Holistic approach. You could spend the rest of your life trying to fit Barack Obama into one of your ‘directions’ and it ain’t never gonna happen. You’re just too slow.

And btw, there really AREN’T that ‘many’ of you. By the time Nader finally made it to my section of the coast on Sunday, the audience barely reached 40 people, and they had to count the little ones twice to get to that.

By Folktruther, September 30 at 5:22 pm #

I pretty much agree with all your points but have one issue.

I’m less sure that a generation learning the lessons that you and I have learned will in fact be able to “split” the Dem party. If that was so, it would have happened long ago.

I do, however, agree that the system is [dysfunctional], and that it will take a movement, one stalled by progressive-washing Democrats that provide the illusion of a “workers” party, but are in reality enable corporate power.

This is why, the Dems are even more problematic than the Repubs. The latter are not standing directly in the way of a strong progressive movement - the Dems are as is the illusionary faux progressive Obama. These ARE the obsticles.

The “Michael Moores” have sucked the progressive movement of it’s oxygen. Not entirely, I do think that there is a re-alignment which may just capture the imagination of a true progressive movement.

Damn, I am tired of all this shit, I am going to vote for Alfred E Newman, Oh, that’s right he supposedly won last time.

I am willing to concede that Obama is extremely talented politically.  Hell, he got 82 thousand people, many of them young, to listen to his acceptance speech.  And he has mobilized and motivated many young people.  And apparently his talks arouse people, although not people like me.

But for whose benefit?  Obama is to the right of Clinton on the issues, largely because the Elite political consensus has gone to the right historicaly.  In so far as he is procipled, they are socially conservative principles.  He has shown no populist leanings at all, and HAS shown a bent toward militarism and spying on the American population.

The electoral system is broke and obsolete.  When one mobilizes people progressively and effectively, it is not to the voting booth, but to the streets and against power.  Obama is FOR American power, not only to get eleted, but he believes in it.  After all he made it, why can’t everyone else.

But I’ve thought of a third reason for voting for him.  If he is elected and goes to right, as he has so far, the young may become more sophisticated in being sold out, and pay closer attention to what their leaders are saying and doing, and who is financing and supporting them.  This might offer an oppurtunity to split the Dem party and form a real opposition party.

By Tony Wicher, September 30 at 11:18 am #
“What I’m saying is that Obama appears to be one of the most talented political organizers ever to come down the pike The organization and mobilization of millions of people against the abuse of power is precisely his greatest accomplishment to date. I’m just trying to help. Hell, I’m trying to mobilize you!”

Tony,

I think this is truly an exaggeration. No doubt people are fed up with Bush and that contributes much to the so-called mobilization. Secondly, using the internet to collect money is neither innovative (at this time) nor is it particularly “mobilizing”.

I’ll grant you that he has become (and even Sarah Palin has shown some capacity for) pulling in a crowd, and he has an oratory quality that is appealing in such settings. But I would not confuse that with any of the points you seem to be making.

I realize the change you’d like to see (at least as I’ve seen it expressed here) is really in line with what the Dems have offered for decades and Obama pretty much offers the same.

While he certainly is by far the more articulate candidate, that’s not saying a whole lot. Again, his foreign policy has shades of right of McCain. That you think or believe he’ll be different seems to be out of sync with say John Kennedy who did the same during his campaign (to the right of Nixon) and than stayed there for the 3 years he was in office.

Today we have an even stronger corporate power elite that owns the entire political system - McCain and Obama which makes moving away for their stated policies far less likely.

So, it seems you are first a partisan who is attracted to the more superficial talents of the Dem candidate. Since I think you are fine with much of what he has stated - healthcare, foreign policy, criminal system, free trade, nuke power, etc., you may feel that’s “real” change.

Many of us strongly disagree and are looking for alternatives like McKinney and Nader to address the pressing American issues.

What I’m saying is that Obama appears to be one of the most talented political organizers ever to come down the pike The organization and mobilization of millions of people against the abuse of power is precisely his greatest accomplishment to date. I’m just trying to help. Hell, I’m trying to mobilize you!

Re Folktruther.

How one votes is far less important than mobilizing the population against power.
----------------------------------------------------
In my view, the Obama has precisely succeeded in mobilizing the population, not against “power”, but against those who have been abusing power. Millions of new Democrats, especially young ones, have been registered to vote. THAT’S mobilizing the population. You know what the population does when it has been mobilized? It mobilizes down to the voting booth and votes.

Folktruther,

I believe otherwise. Obama will NOT continue Bush policies; McCain obviously will. There will be as significant a change in the direction of the country under Obama as compared with Bush as there was under FDR as compared with Harding-Coolidge-Hoover. You will also see a foreign policy which does not eschew military force but which will be primarily based on diplomacy aimed at conflict resolution, not on military force and belligerence. This Bush-McCain idea of not talking to people unless they already agree with you is too brain-dead for even Henry Kissinger to support. We will see something very different with Obama in office. I guess you can’t see this, but I can and I think most other people can. We will just have to see who is right over the next four years.

Tony Wicher-Among the thousands and thousands of good reasons not to vote for either of the Gop-Dem coalition, there are two good progressive reasons for voting for Abaden (Obama-Biden.)

1.  The Gop candidates are genuinely unfitted to occupy the White House.  McCain is an unstable militrist and Palen is clueless right winger, totally ignorant of foreign affairs.  She would be president if McCain dropped off the twig.  This would not be good.  Although they would work around them both, this conceivably disastrous as China rises to leading power.

2. Obama in the White House would genuinely go some way to legitimating minorites holding responsible positions, softening the traditional racism of the US.  The disadvantage is that it would put a black face on US military imperialism, such as occurs with Rice or with Powell lying to the UN to get the US into Iraq.

Since both candidates are going to continue Bush policies, it would depend on how much you value these progressive advantages to determine how one votes.  How one votes is far less important than mobilizing the population against power.

This is the culmination of MLK’s dream?
Goldman Sachs campaign contributions
Obama:  $583,000
McCain: $187,000
Total contributions from major corporations
Obama:  $25,000,000.
McCain: $22,000,000.

By Folktruther, September 29 at 8:20 am

Anti-imperialism and anti-racism are the essence of my political agenda and always have been. I regard the coming Obama victory as a triumph of the Civil Rights Movement and the culmination of Martin Luther King’s dream. You don’t seem to care about that. So I’m a racist?

Heath care

Right on,

“This system is a bureaucratic nightmare, wasting $350 billion—close to a third of all health care spending on things that have nothing to do with health care—overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing departments, huge profits and exorbitant executive pay.”

I have two plans plus the VA and still I have out of pocket expenses.  I find the VA the most effective of them all and the best to work with. My other two health plans keep sending me mail telling me what they will not cover.

Every time I go to the doctor they have to figure out which plan is my primary, secondary then the billing cycle can last for years.  What a bunch of crap.

If this country doesn’t start affirming life instead of destroying it we will not survive, life on this planet will not survive.  That’s why we like Nader and McKinney as well.  Someone here said it right - the debate last week was all about war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war
Enough.

Outraged,

Great selection of issues, it would be nice if Obama would even address one or two of them.  After looking at them again, I like all of them. 

If during a real debate, someone brought those real issues out like Gravel did during the first debate, when he called out the exorbitant power the Military complex welds, the reaction would be the same on Obama, the deer in the headlight look.

When I think about it Rus is right, real issues are ignored, except according to Rus, they are my issues.

Re: Max Shields

Thanks Max, that’s the link I was looking for… you must be “simple-minded” like troublesum and I.  But I have a question… Do you have a magic wand too or do you “go it alone”....

Re: cyrena

Some other positions you might be interested in which are different from Obama’s.

* Adopt a carbon pollution tax
* Adopt a Wall Street securities speculation tax
* Adopt single payer national health insurance
* Adopt the National Initiative
* Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare
* Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget
* Defend, Restore and Strengthen the Civil Justice System
* Impeach Bush/Cheney
* No to nuclear power, solar energy first
* Open up the Presidential debates
* Put an end to ballot access obstructionism
* Repeal the Taft-Hartley anti-union law
* Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East
* Work to end corporate personhood

http://www.votenader.org/issues/

Ralph Nader’s health care plan is simply single payer. There are bills in Congress which address it (HR 676) which address it. But for more specifics from Nader:
http://www.votenader.org/issues/social/healthcare/#19935

Health care plans take on great complexity when privatized insurance is injected, as is Obama’s plan. Single payer greaterly simplies health care payment and delivery - cradle to grave.

Yes, cyrena, it is not “free”. Instead of paying trillion for military expenditures and exploding financial markets, we prioritize human welfare. Health care is a natural monopoly, and monopolies are best managed for the public good when they are de-privatized and put into public oversight.

Obama doesn’t take us there, and as long as large protions of the system are in the hands of private insurance companies it never will.

Re: cyrena

Here it is

Single Payer
Nader/Gonzalez favors a Canadian-style, private delivery, free choice of hospital and doctor, public health insurance system.

Costs would also be controlled in part by the single payer negotiating fees and making bulk purchases.”

Nader’s site also carries this link, of course these must be simple minded people too, according to the perspective you’ve laid it out.
http://www.healthcare-now.org/index.html

I don’t remember that, Rus, and i was serious...so let ‘er rip. Though i still want phrases like “national security” defined. Furthermore, the last two presidents have been two of the worst in our history, so i’d prefer if you not defer to their authority.

Sorry Outraged, I can’t find Ralph’s plan. Looks like I’m gonna either have to wait on you and troublesum to get your magic wands repaired, or resign myself the reality of Obama’s hyper-pragmatism. It’s just as well, I don’t believe in fairy tales anyway. It just postpones the inevitable. Can you tell?

You guys can smoke all of the fairy dust you want, but reality still comes calling. There are no instantaneous fixes to the disaster that ignorant people have allowed over these past decades. The system has been f---ed up for years, and now all of a sudden, Obama isn’t coming up with the ‘simple’ plan that you and troublesum have long ago figured out, thanks to Nader, who can’t get elected if his (or your) lives depended on it. I don’t know why we didn’t ask you all to take care of this for us long ago.

“Ignorance is the most violent element of society.”

~Emma Goldman

Re: cyrena

Your comment: “NOTHING IS FREE! I don’t know why you don’t get that.

What makes you think I don’t get that.  Are you just making that up to fit your reality.  While it’s easy to understand that “nothing is free”, it is just as easy to understand that some things cost more than others, and herein lies the difference between ALL universal health care plans and single-payer. In addition, a single-payer plan would cover everyone.

Your comment: “You and troublesum have these magic wands that you think you can use to make anything happen. So, why the hell DON’T you? Where’s YOUR plan Outraged? Where is Nader’s plan? I’m still waiting.”

Actually, you either read one of the other posts too quickly and missed it, or you simply didn’t read them AT ALL.  It’s already there, go back and look.

Re: troublesum

Could I borrow your magic wand, mine appears to be broken...?  Must of been those gremlins that come in here at night, they always break something.

Re: ITW

My comment: “While it is obvious this hampers YOUR endorsement of Obama, your assertion HAS NO MERIT.  Really.... what makes YOU feel you have the RIGHT, to make this proclamation, and upon WHAT do you base it...?!

Make your flippin argument using the rules you endorse.”

THIS was my challenge to you.  I never claimed Kant, Aristotle or Locke were always RIGHT.  My premise was that your assertion, ”If you can’t make the argument yourself, you can’t make the argument.  Citations are good for facts, or amusing quotes like”

By saying this… you are saying facts and quotes mean nothing and NO ONE can use them anyway, SINCE according to YOU, “If you can’t make the argument yourself, you can’t make the argument”.

I say...people have a right to USE anything at their disposal, but you are claiming they don’t.  So I gave the example, of using someone else’s argument that I CAN use, if I so choose.  You have no claim to dictate otherwise.  So again:

“Make your flippin argument using the rules you endorse.” WHICH PROVES YOUR STATEMENT, “”If you can’t make the argument yourself, you can’t make the argument.”

Outraged, Troblesum--Could I ask why Nader rather than McKinney?

Outrageous:

Then MAKE Kant’s argument, in your own words and say “this is Kan’ts logic”.  Don’t cite him as “an authority”.  Just because Kant said it doesn’t make it true.  Aristotle said a stone 100x heavier than another stone must fall 100x faster.  He argued it brilliantly, but he was WRONG!

“Authority” is no substitute for facts and logic. It can ONLY be a short-hand if both parties know it, and agree with it: like “Einstein’s relativity shows us that time appears to slow down as we approach the speed of light” All in the discussion are familiar with it and accept it...UNLESS THEY ARE SPECIFICALLY CHALLENGING IT!

Kant, Locke and Aristotle were all brilliant.  But that does not mean they were inherently right.  I don’t accept “Authority” as meaningful.

Rus,

Sorry Rus, I am not your shrink.  My talking computer never tells me what I want to hear either, so there you have it, my issues are like hanging epiphanies, never to be seen again, lost forever in web land.

Re: ITW

Your comment: “If you can’t make the argument yourself, then you haven’t made the argument.”

>> you go on to say,

“If you can’t make the argument yourself, you can’t make the argument.  Citations are good for facts, or amusing quotes like”

>> I’m curious, as to what are claiming here?  It seems you are talking in circles.  What is your reasoning or premise which claims to DECIDE that if someone “can’t make the argument themselves, then they haven’t made the argument”.  Who are you to DECIDE this?  Are YOU asserting that if someone uses say… Locke, Kant or Aristole THEY CAN’T MAKE THAT ARGUMENT...?

The hell they can’t. Issuing orders is a dictatorial philosophy.  EVERYONE has the RIGHT to use the arguments, facts or knowledge at their disposal.

While it is obvious this hampers YOUR endorsement of Obama, your assertion HAS NO MERIT.  Really.... what makes YOU feel you have the RIGHT, to make this proclamation, and upon WHAT do you base it...?!

Make your flippin argument using the rules you endorse.

cyrena dear, unless you’ve been out of town for the last week or so you may have noticed that congress has been throwing trillions of dollars around here and there on things like bailouts for billionaires and about another trillion for defense.  Nobody stops to ask where it is coming from.  What many, many people have been suggesting is that instead of spending all that money for death and destruction we should start doing something for life.  The reason why most other western democracies have health care and many other benefits for their citizens is because they haven’t been sucked into the culture of death which defines us here in the US.  They don’t spend billions on a military machine designed to destroy the world. 
Single payer has been shown again and again to be more cost effective that what we have now.  The reason we don’t have it is because people like Obama have been bought by the corporate culture which controls every aspect of our lives here in the culture of death.
Our economy is based on debt and speculation - bubbles as they are called.  Someone said that the dollar is the only currency now backed by home mortgages and bad ones at that.
Maybe if we started thinking in terms of life enhancement istead of death and destruction our economy would improve as well.  Obama should forget about getting ready for the next war and think about doing something for LIFE.

Rus,

Well, I couldn’t say I thought so!

Maybe you could tell me what my opinions and arguments on those ignored issues are then maybe state your opinions or arguments on my ignored issues?  Discussion usually goes something like that. Actually would like to see what you come up with, since it is your point not mine.

Actually troublesum, it appears to be that YOU are one that is ‘quite simple’. Very dense, but still simple. Tell us what the federal employees have in the way of heath care, and how it’s paid for, keeping the word, ‘employee’ in mind. How will you ‘quite simply’ incorporate all citizens, (including ones that have no jobs, incomes, or other means of contributing to their own health care) into such a system? Should we use a model like the Veterans Administration? (that crashed shortly after Regan). Or should we use a model like the County Hospital in LA (formerly Martin Luther King Hospital) that also crashed last year? In fact, it was SHUT DOWN, because there were no funds to sustain it, and make the payrolls. It leaves the entire community (of mostly poverty stricken citizens) without ANY health care facility. The same has happened to the VA…SYSTEM WIDE. Is that how we’ll just ‘quite simply’ provide this ‘single payer’ coverage?

Do you even know what SINGLE PAYER is? Do you have any idea where the SINGLE PAYER gets the money to do the SINGLE PAY? Do you suppose that they just send a volunteer worker out every day to pluck money off of trees? How was your girlfriend Hillary gonna manage the health care problem? Let me answer that for you. The SAME way that Obama has come up with, but she would have used the insurance companies even more, by making it mandatory for every person to buy it, whether they could afford it or not.

You like to use Western European countries as examples of how Obama should administer to the needs of the US population. Would you be willing to give us some SPECIFIC examples of WHICH European countries you have in mind? Let me help you there as well. France has an excellent health care system. Do you think THEY just pluck money off of trees to pay for it? How many people does France have troublesum? How many people does the US have troublesum? Why do consistently compare other countries that are each the size (or smaller) of one state in the US with – well, THE US?

Tell us more about ‘most’ Western European countries and how they educate their citizens for free, ‘if they *qualify*”. How does one ‘qualify’? Who decides? And then, when they ‘qualify’ who pays for the expenses involved in operating an educational institution. How to the teachers get paid? How do the janitors get paid? Do the schools have running water, and heat in the winter time? Who pays for all of that?

Let me help you again Troublesum, the CITIZENS pay for it, and they pay for it via their taxes. Now find a way to do the same thing in the 50 states here, and we’ll make YOU the president. Then George won’t have to worry about being recorded as the dumbest president in US history.

Outraged,

Obama isn’t ATTEMPTING to come up with anything at this point. He already did, even before he began his run for President. In fact, it was the FIRST thing he did, just before announcing his candidacy. He arranged a for a conference/workshop of professionals from the health care industry AND the insurance industry, and probably the phamies as well. (I’d have to go back and look at the roster and the agenda). He also had experts from the current system, and probably some medical supply people too. They did a workup for him, examining the stuff from all angels, and included all of the consequences of each.

FROM THAT, he came up with what he came up with, and never claimed to be anything other than what it was: The best that could realistically be provided within a realistic budget, because NOTHING IS FREE! I don’t know why you don’t get that.

You and troublesum have these magic wands that you think you can use to make anything happen. So, why the hell DON’T you? Where’s YOUR plan Outraged? Where is Nader’s plan? I’m still waiting.

Max Shields, September 29 at 8:49 am #

Obama actually comes out to the right of McCain on some his foreign policy. Obama - the spineless one - VS McCain - the nutcase. Some choice the duopoly gives us, Inherit.

If you can’t make the argument yourself, then you haven’t made the argument.

I can’t tell you how many bible-thumpers, when I stump them, tell me I need to study the bible more, or start quoting from it.  Whooptie-do..you can read.  It still doesn’t tell me where Cain’s Wife came from.

I get it from right wingers, too “Oh, you need to listen to Rush (!) or Laura (!!) or Ann (YECH!!!!!)”

If you can’t make the argument yourself, you can’t make the argument.  Citations are good for facts, or amusing quotes like:

“I would never join any club that would have ME as a member” (Groucho Marx)
or
“The definition of a ‘gold mine’ is a hole in the ground--with a liar standing next to it “ (Mark Twain)
or
“Who your gonna believe? Me, or your own eyes?” (Chico Marx)

Re: Shenonymous

LOL… yes, but it only counts if you fit several of these...no.???  Please say YES, or I shall have to revert to point, “3”

Oh yes...my pig point:

“Amongst the most common animals, found almost everywhere in the world, are pigs. Though they are native to Eurasia, there is hardly any country of the world where you cannot find pigs roaming around the rubbish bins.”

http://lifestyle.iloveindia.com/lounge/facts-about-pig -1575.html

I will enjoy my insanity and Albert!  Let see troublesum, seems like 4, 6, and 7 fits your last two posts.  Looks like you are shadow boxing to me.

outraged, boy am I going to get mileage out of delusional disorder.  Made my day!

Obama got nervous at the debate when asked what he would have to cut to pay for the bailout.  It’s not that he doesn’t have plans to do a lot of cutting, but that he doesn’t want to get into it yet.  He’d rather wait until after the election to start announcing cuts in medicare, medicaid, veteran’s benefits, health care, you name it.  Everything but the military must be sacrificed for wall street.

Shenonymous
Nothing will change if democrats are elected.  If the past few days haven’t proven that to you, you are hopeless.  You meet Einstein’s definition of insanity.  People keep voting for democrats who are little more than errand boys for wall street, hoping that they will do something for main street.  The shape the country is in has as much to do with Clinton as it does with Bush.  The deregulation of wall street, the outsourcing of jobs, international trade agreements, the loss of manufaturing jobs, the decline of the middle class - all of that has Clinton’s name all over it.

Outraged you and George Bernard Shaw are delightfully insightful people.  He is one of my favorite authors.  Levity, most definitely needed in these most serious times.  I can certainly use that 10 point description of the delusional far and wide.  Can’t stop laughing.  Do you have any pig tales?

troublesum people do what they feel they need to do.  You and Nader too.  I am not so sure your assessment of Obama is correct.  I have a different view.  But differences are what makes the world interesting and I only hope it becomes a better one after the Republicans are no longer in power.  They have left an almost unfixable America.

No one has any illusions about Nader winning the election.  What we like about his being in the race is that we have a voice of truth speaking out amidst all the double talk and outright lies.  How can any intelligent, reasonably well informed person listen to Obama and McCain and not know that we are being talked down to and lied to.  We can’t have decent health care in this country like the Obama family has because it’s too late to change the system.  What kind of garbage is that?  If you swallow that stuff you’re to be pitied.  Your attitude is that if lies and corporate propaganda have corrupted the system and control what passes for public discourse then the truth had better shut its mouth.  I refuse.

Re: Shenonymous

What insightful people know,

“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
-George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman (1903)
“Maxims for Revolutionists”

Re: Rus7355

I hope this helps.  From Wiki:

Indicators of a delusion

1. The patient expresses an idea or belief with unusual persistence or force.
2. That idea appears to exert an undue influence on his or her life, and the way of life is often altered to an inexplicable extent.
3. Despite his/her profound conviction, there is often a quality of secretiveness or suspicion when the patient is questioned about it.
4. The individual tends to be humorless and oversensitive, especially about the belief.
5. There is a quality of centrality: no matter how unlikely it is that these strange things are happening to him, the patient accepts them relatively unquestioningly.
6. An attempt to contradict the belief is likely to arouse an inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility.
7. The belief is, at the least, unlikely.
8. The patient is emotionally over-invested in the idea and it overwhelms other elements of his psyche.
9. The delusion, if acted out, often leads to behaviors which are abnormal and/or out of character, although perhaps understandable in the light of the delusional beliefs.
10. Individuals who know the patient will observe that his belief and behavior are uncharacteristic and alien.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder

I sure several others could back me up on this, but it appears you suffer from symptoms, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,and 8,....since I don’t know you personally Rus7355, I can’t comment on points 9 and 10.  But the fact that 8 of these symptoms apply.... says something Rus… it really does.

Although as of late, it seems cyrena appears to be suffering from symptom 6, also.

Well, really glad to hear that it is only I who is ignored by the Left the center and the right.  Your point makes sense to you Russ, but amuses me.

You said referring to me and posters on TD? 

“Your issues, as I read them, are not important to the Left, the Center and the Right.”

Of course you are right Russ, they are not my issues.

As far as assimulating ideas and opinions, have you ever done that? For some reason I cannot recall any being posted by you?  Oh yes the bigots, your use of the word is out of context, another word you use excessively.

Do you have any opinions or arguments on my ignored issues?

It is so humorous to see the handful of Nader holdouts.  He is really a nonentity in this election. You all and he just cannot admit it.  He didn’t capture the imagination of enough voters to get anywhere all these years. But he keeps beating the dead horse to death instead of becoming constructive.  He could be a huge voice if he really cared about America, but I’m afraid Ralph is only stuck on Ralph.  He may have good ideas, but so do other people.  I was once one of his biggest supporters but the handwriting is on the wall and has been for decades, maybe he should learn to read.  At least Dennis Kucinich is still a voice in Congress, he is really smart.  Whereas Nader, well has never been in office, always had megalomaniacal perspectives.  Maybe you all and he can create a focus group?

Creating single payer health care is quite simple.  You just put all citizens under the same plan federal employees have.  Educating people is quite simple - you make education a right not a privledge by writing a “GI” bill for the whole country.  In most western Eupean countries, college education is free to anyone who qualifies.  Obama has come up with a very dubious excuse for not signing on to single payer health care.  He says he would do it if he were creating one from scratch.  What he really means is that he wants insurence companies to continue to control it.  If your house is a mess better leave it that way because you can’t go back and build it over.

Re: cyrena

Your comment: ”Since he IS NOT, and practically speaking, CANNOT” AND, “What exactly IS his single-payer health care plan Outraged, and tell me how he intends to implement it. It’s simply not enough to talk all of this vague shit about who ‘supports’ what”

>>Seriously cyrena, if you believe Obama in this regard, I have a bridge to sell ya.  Obama is “attempting” to come up with a plan that will pad the pockets of INSURANCE COMPANIES.

Nader’s plan will EXPAND programs ALREADY IN PLACE such as medicare and medicaid.  This is easier AND less costly.

Your comment: ”You have absolutely NOTHING to back such a claim that Obama is going to protect business interests over citizen’s interest.”

>> Yes, I do.  One would be his FISA vote, another would be his endorsement of “universal healthcare” which pads the pockets of insurance companies and another would be his choice of advisors.  Rubin is second ONLY to GRAMM regarding economic issues and both were instrumental in screwing the populous during the Clinton administration.

Your comment: ”COMMON SENSE tells ANYBODY with a measure of it, that he can’t change anything without doing the work within the body that makes these decisions.”

>> Nader has done this.  What has Obama accomplished?

Your comment: ”My ass; how arrogant and presumptuous is that? Do what I say and only what I say, and then maybe I’ll ‘help you out’. That’s bullshit, because Nader just said last week on the phone with Amy Goodman that he thought Obama should be supporting HIM!”

>> LOL.  Obama doesn’t have near the experience Nader has, why would Nader lower himself to Obama’s standard..?  In the post before this you claimed (I’m paraphrasing), that Obama asked Nader to join him, and Nader declined.  I’ve watched Obama “explain” this on Youtube.  The ARROGANCE of Obama to think someone with Nader’s skill, experience and knowledge could “have a place in Obama’s world”. Revolting.

Of course Nader thinks Obama should support him, doesn’t Obama think everyone should support Obama.  Where’s your logic?

Your comment: ” And anyone who wanted to, could go back over multiple posts and KNOW that I haven’t ‘smeared’ him. In fact, I’ve generally been both supportive and appreciative of much of his work.(I can almost hear the sneer in this last sentence)

>> Oh, this is how you’ve smeared Nader. (”he’s too egotistical and obstinate”) Everyone knows this is the “talking point” for smearing Nader, and you used it. BTW, many people such as myself do not want someone in the current “corporate crime wave loop”.

Your comment, “He’s out of the loop and without access to the information that he needs, because he’s too egotistical and obstinate to mingle with the masses that he wants to rule.

>> Additionally, in your latest post you’ve claimed ALL manner of things about me.  Your attacks and rhetoric reveal your thought processes.  Again this one takes the cake....LOL
”You talk a lot of shit here Outraged, and none of it puts forth anything progressive or positive in actually accomplishing anything. All that proves, is that you DON’T *understand* a damn thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4nIpvhlgpo

No Outraged, it is YOU whom I fear must be joking, except that nothing is the least bit funny here. YOU are full of unsupportable rhetoric, and this is all OPINION, (nothing supported here) Let’s begin with the one issue with Obama that concerns me as well.

• “This is just more rhetoric. Nader and Obama’s plans are strikingly different.  Obama supports MORE WAR, Nader does not.  Nader supports single-payer healthcare, Obama does not. “

Obama does not support your hysterical rhetoric of *MORE WAR* and I’m sick of hearing this stuff from you and Max. Be specific, since you claim that Obama should, and he has. Obama has obviously made it clear that he supports concerted efforts to eliminate an extremist element located in a specific area of the globe. Specifically the area of the northern border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. I share his concern about that, because of the proximity to Pakistan’s arsenal of nuclear weapons. If you can find some other reference where Obama ‘supports more war’ then cite it. If Ralph Nader has made any comments at all on the dangers of global terrorist extremism, AND HOW HE WOULD DEAL WITH IT, then CITE it. Or, maybe Ralph doesn’t have an issue with any of that, and doesn’t consider it important. So what if a bunch of non-state crazos are blowing up the world, and innocents along with it. Is that his/your solution? Let’s just ignore them, and they’ll go away? All of the daily bombings taking place in the Middle East and South Asia are just a sign of restlessness, and they’ll all calm down eventually? Please.

It’s the same with the health care issue. On this, your rhetoric that Obama does not support a single-payer healthcare plan is the same typically SLEAZY innuendo (false) that you’ve accused me of, and it pisses me off. Barack Obama has SPECIFICALLY stated that IF he were DESIGNING a healthcare program FROM SCRATCH, he would make it a single payer plan. Since he IS NOT, and practically speaking, CANNOT, he’s come up with something that can and will provide affordable health care to millions of Americans who are not currently insured.

MEANTIME, Ralph Nader has ONLY *just* started talking about such a concern in the past few years, and even I’ve done more work on such efforts than he has. What exactly IS his single-payer health care plan Outraged, and tell me how he intends to implement it. It’s simply not enough to talk all of this vague shit about who ‘supports’ what, without even a mention of the logistics involved in implementing such a plan, and Ralph Nader has NOT!

You don’t have anything other than more rhetoric to claim that Obama has taken up the ‘corporate agenda’. He has NOT decidedly endorsed the business interests over the citizens interest, and the FISA legislation TO WHICH HE WROTE AN ADDITIONAL PROVISION THAT WOULD *REMOVE* IMMUNITY FOR THE TELECOMS is one example. A few dozen more examples would be the debate on Friday. Did you even watch it?

You have absolutely NOTHING to back such a claim that Obama is going to protect business interests over citizen’s interest. ZERO. And if you aren’t smart enough to know that some business interests are the SAME as citizen’s interests, then you definitely DO NOT know what most American’s want. Because most Americans probably want housing, food, healthcare, etc. And if there is not an infrastructure to provide for that, they won’t get it.

2 of 2 outraged

Nader is out of the loop because he’s chosen to be. He has NEVER run for public office aside for every four years as president. COMMON SENSE tells ANYBODY with a measure of it, that he can’t change anything without doing the work within the body that makes these decisions. He’s chosen to remain ‘aloof’ and ‘above all of that’. Well, let me tell you something Outraged, NOTHING works that way. I’ve been on all sides of the spectrum, and no person is the island that Nader wants to be, and you cannot badger, blackmail, or coerce anybody into doing something. That’s why your comment suggesting that maybe if Obama just agrees with him on everything, he’ll ‘help him out’. My ass; how arrogant and presumptuous is that? Do what I say and only what I say, and then maybe I’ll ‘help you out’. That’s bullshit, because Nader just said last week on the phone with Amy Goodman that he thought Obama should be supporting HIM! In other words, let the minions get inside the motor and get their hands dirty to fix it, and then he’ll show up and decide if he might let them take the car out for a spin from time to time.

And when I talk about ‘the loop’, I’m talking about a traditional body of 535 people elected by the citizenry to get things done in the interests of the citizens. That’s called the CONGRESS, in case you’re unaware of that Outraged.  So yes, he IS out of the loop, and your insults to ME are uncalled for and over the top.

Nader has run for president 4 times. He’s lost each time. This is his 5th. If you choose to THROW AWAY your vote a 5th time, and leave us with McCain, then that is still your right. Bringing the rest of us down with you shows your individual ‘power’. It’s a really sick mentality that says, ‘If I can’t have what I want, then nobody else with have anything either”. It’s the murder suicide mentality that will waste a vote on somebody who can’t win. Besides that, Nader is 72 years old, and I know less about his running mate than I do about Palin.

If you have anything real to put on paper here, like how NADER is going to actually put more energy into households across the nation, for heating, and cooking, and lighting, and all the rest of the things that people need energy for, then lets hear it. If you know how NADER plans to get all citizens educated, then lets here it. If you know *HOW* Nader is going to provide single payer health care to all citizens, I wanna hear it. Don’t tell me he ‘supports’ it, because that’s bullshit. Tell me how he’s gonna DO it. I don’t need somebody, (a president or otherwise) to tell me wonderful things about how they ‘support’ all of the same things that I want, if they can’t make it happen any better than I can.

What I said about Nader was NOT a smear. You claim that I have ‘no basis’ for smears, but that I’ll smear him anyway. That’s rhetorical bullshit right there, because I haven’t smeared Nader. Not even close. And anyone who wanted to, could go back over multiple posts and KNOW that I haven’t ‘smeared’ him. In fact, I’ve generally been both supportive and appreciative of much of his work. But HE’S the one who’s chosen not to involve himself in the business of the people in the traditional sense, and that’s FACT, and hardly smears.

You talk a lot of shit here Outraged, and none of it puts forth anything progressive or positive in actually accomplishing anything. All that proves, is that you DON’T *understand* a damn thing.

By Outraged, September 29 at 11:47 am #

You’ve the patience of Job. The comments you’ve made have been made repeatedly by you, me and many other posters. cyrena is not interested in facts, she’s simply smearing to shout down an honest dialog.

She’s a waste of time Ouotraged and hardly worthy of your clearly stated and well documented post.

I want Nader on the stage, someone who understands this economy and the connection of it to the corporate driven imperialist foreign policy which creates endless war. It is that policy which is fully supported by Obama and frankly there’s no day light between his foreign policy and McCain’s.

Cyrena:

I’m guessing I’ve heard it all before anyway. In fact, I’ve already done the comparisons that you suggest, and Nader’s policy priorities and preferences are virtually the same as Obama’s with minor cosmetic differences. The huge difference is that Nader doesn’t have any plans on how he would make any of this stuff happen. He’s out of the loop and without access to the information that he needs, because he’s too egotistical and obstinate to mingle with the masses that he wants to rule.

For Ralphie it’s either his way or no way, and compromise or collaboration is totally out of the question. I say he’s got a right, and I guess that means, ‘no deal’. That’s why he didn’t get my ‘donation’ and why he won’t get my vote.

This is just more rhetoric. Nader and Obama’s plans are strikingly different.  Obama supports MORE WAR, Nader does not.  Nader supports single-payer healthcare, Obama does not.  Nader supports removing corporate “personhood”, Obama does not.  Nader supports all “green energy” and is against nuclear, while Obama supports nuclear power and “clean coal”.  Nader supports stronger enforcement of corporate crime, Obama does not. 

You claim Nader “doesn’t have any plans”, you’re joking right...?  I’ve posted several of them in the past.  If Obama hadn’t taken up the corporate agenda, possibly Nader could’ve helped him out.  But as it is Obama has decidedly endorsed business interests over citizen’s interests, the FISA legislation would be one example.

It is apparent by your comment, ”He’s out of the loop and without access to the information that he needs, because he’s too egotistical and obstinate to mingle with the masses that he wants to rule.” that it is YOU who is “out of the loop”.  Unless by “in the loop” you mean alignning yourself with big business over the citizenry.

I feel your assertion that Nader is “egotistical and obstinate” to be your personal opinion based upon rhetoric.  Calling Nader egotistical and obstinate is like calling Obama a muslim.  It seems that even though YOU’VE NO BASIS for your claims YOU’LL smear him anyway.  It is a debased right-wing mentality to use fiction as a smear tactic. Of course it is also common knowledge that this is the type of sleazy tactic employed by those whose facts do not support their argument.

I would not throw my vote away on someone who is not going to work in my best interests and chooses to protect big business over citizen rights.  In addition, there are several polls which show THE MAJORITY want out of the WAR, and choose single-payer healthcare over “univeral” healthcare.  So yes, I DO UNDERSTAND what the majority of people want, what the majority of Obama supporters are beginning to understand is that Obama, is NOT going to give them these things.

Vote Nader/Gonzales