Posted by cawren (anonymous) on October 4, 2008 at 11:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

KEEP Knocking KEEP Walking KEEP Going

McCain will continue the same BUSH support for the wealthy.
BUT......
Brace yourself AMERICA It is going to get UGLY!

McCain + Desperate = NASTY

Posted by steel_herd (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 2:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT

Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 6:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I prefer a Palin/Hillary ticket over Obama and McCain any day. They both have more guts than either of the other two.

Posted by familyof6 (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 7:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Who wants a baby killer in office? Surely no Christian ! ! !

Posted by buildinghope (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I usually vote for who I beleive is the best person for the job. I have voted for members of both parties in the past, this year I am voting for Barack Obama. I think he is by far the best leader of the two candidates. He has the energy the American people are looking for to get us through this economic mess that Bush and Chaney is going to hand over. He also has a real plan to provide health care to America and it will take someone with his outlook to make it happen. Our country needs a leader, we have been lacking for almost eight years.

Posted by irontonnative (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 8:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

mccain!!!

Posted by sports23432 (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 9:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by familyof6 (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 7:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Who wants a baby killer in office? Surely no Christian ! ! !

I am also the mother in a family of 6. As a Christian, who wants a woman such as Palin as our VP ????

Posted by Vil (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Six people showed up for the grand opening. Sounds like a huge disappointment for the Democrats and a sign that there's not much support for Obama in our area.

Looks like the citizens of Lawrence County aren't going to suckered by the slick Chicago politician.

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 12:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

familyof6, who wants an adulterer as president?? When did the GOP begin applying the "color levels" (like terror alerts) to sin. When I was young and dragged to church I was always taught that sin is sin.

Besides, Obama supports "Pro Choice", as McBush did before he flipped for political reasons.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 1:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama supports letting babies that are born alive after an abortion lay in the trash and die.

Posted by Vil (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 1:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

^^^That is true. He voted supporting a bill that would allow just that.

Posted by jneill7854 (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The main issues this year economy, Iraq war and healthcare has not been addressed by McCain. He has no comprehension of how bad the economy has been for us middle class people in Ohio and has absolutely no plan if elected as how to fix it. His Iraq war policy is to stay until we win at any cost to USA and at any cost of lives of our troops. For what, bragging rights? Then there is healthcare. He wants to include it in taxable income both for the employer and employee. If employers have to pay a tax to offer it, healthcare will no longer be offered. He will then give us a $5000 tax credit to buy a $12000 policy for a family of four. We need to get him out of our state like Michigan did!

Posted by buildinghope (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 2:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sounds like we have a bunch of dummies here in Ironton, this is how the rich man gets richer and us common folk get poorer. With McCain as President don't look for any changes, you must like the way our country is headed. The abortion issues is just an issue the right wing will never do anything about because it gets them votes automatic. Lets see, we had eight years of W and six of those they had complete control of congress, not one bill passed concerning abortion. We need a leader like no other time in our recent history! Vote for Barack Obama or you'll be wishing you did a short time from now...

Posted by cashmere (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 2:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

promoting class warfare is always healthy, isn't it?
Is that your candidate's viewpoint when he espouses taxing "the rich"?

But we should make the poor richer. I know, let's force banks to give them loans for houses that they can't afford! they can be part of the middle class until foreclosure comes.

but of course, we can't blame these misguided souls making $40,000 a year, and maxxing their credit cards, or buying houses they can't afford, can we?Hmmm, who can we blame....George Bush, of course.

but Barack will take care of the middle class, you'll get a tax break...so buy more on credit....the government will take care of you and punish those bad, bad banks for making you take loans you can't afford.

ahh.. Obama will make our world heavenly tinted again, no personal responsibility.

Oh, and he will bring so much change....I'm sure no one in his administration will be from past Demo admins....no it will all be new exciting people with our best interest foremost in their heart, not their own personal power.

how refreshing to contemplate it all!!!

Posted by Vil (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 4:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I guess I must be tripping on drugs or something, because I could swear I've seen John McCain's plans on Iraq, healthcare, and the economy. He's addressed these issues many times, maybe the folks claiming he has no plan need to do a little research before making false claims.

And calling people dummies for not supporting your candidate isn't going to win over any votes. People telling me I'm stupid for not supporting a candidate push me further to the other side.

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 6:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

McCain has a plan for Iraq...to stay there with no timetable. He wants to keep our troops there until "ground conditions" allow us to pull out. He hasn't specified with certainty what the conditions must be and, as much as he might like to take it back, he said he wouldn't mind having our men and women over there for another hundred years.

McCain has a plan for healthcare. He'll offer a $5K credit for people to buy their own insurance, but he'll fund it by taxing the existing health-care programs of the currently employed. He will make corporations fund his health care plan. This will result in tens of thousands of employees getting reduced or eliminated health care benefits. The cost for a company-provided health plan is $12K. Just do the math. Obama, on the other hand, promotes Universal Health Care. This concept has been misleadingly described as some nebulous program where the government would be telling you when you can go to the doctor and what doctor to go to. Far from it. Medicare is the most popular government program, by far. If you don't believe it, try to start a movement to end it. There's no reason the same concepts behind medicare cannot be applied to all Americans without sufficient health care insurance. How do we fund it? How about by not staying in Iraq for 100 years.

And, yes, McCain has a plan for the economy. His plan is to continue with the Bush corporate welfare approach and by allowing the rich to keep the Bush tax cuts, which were never supposed to be permanent anyway. Obama, on the other hand, promotes larger tax cuts for the middle class, the working poor and the 99% of small businesses which make under $250K. Obama has a slate of policies directed at invigorating the middle class. What this really comes down to is a referendum on trickle down economics. The concept is that if you give the money to corporations and the super rich, they create jobs. Well, we've done that and we've had 9 consecutive months of increasing unemployment. I would say that it's fair to conclude that this money we've put into the hands of corporations and the rich have trickled down in the form of jobs in India, China, Mexico and other countries. I believe it's much more realistic to believe that if you invest in the middle class they will spend money and stimulate the economy (rich people, your stocks go up), they will pay their mortgages (US taxpayers, you might get more of that $700 Billion bailout back) and, however you want to slice it a great deal of any money invested in the middle class, working poor and small businesses will stimulate the economy and ultimately find its way back into the hands of corporations and the rich. In other words, my opinion is that it is time for the era of "trickle up" economics.

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 6:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As for class warfare, under Barack Obama's tax program the richest of the rich, and corporations, would pay no more taxes than they did when Ronald Reagan was President. The 1980s were very good to the rich and to corporations. I think they can handle the tax rate they had under Reagan who, I feel comfortable in saying, nobody would claim was an advocate of class warfare that benefitted the middle class or working poor over the rich and corporations.

Posted by Merchanna (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 7:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Six people at the Grand Opening? You have to be kidding. Why didn't any state officials come to the Headquarters' event? Were they invited?
Don't be deterred by the low turnout just make certain you vote and if possible tomorrow by 9 PM at the court house. Take a non driver with you if possible.

Posted by CommonSense (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 7:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Does anyone think maybe the loss of about 750,000 jobs in 2008 along could have had anything to do with the loss of a couple of those houses? All the "poor" people didn't lose their houses. There were quite a few middle and upper class people overspending and losing jobs too. There are a lot of factors other than poor people being able to buy houses. That may be a big one, but don't put it all off on that. If you don't have jobs, you can't pay bills.

Is this the kind of medical care you want?

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/McCain...

I know I don't want any part of it.

Our social security and medicare is quickly going down the drain,a lot of it to a war where they don't even want us there any more. Who is going to take care of those who depended upon that? When those people worked and paid into it, they believed, and were told, this would be enough to live on in their retirement.

Many of you say you have done well during the Bush administration. Congratualtions. There are many who haven't due to no fault of their own. Maybe everyone should take a look around at family members, down the street at neighbors, at what's happening in your town. Look beyond your own door and see what is happening to real people in the real world. Ask people how their lives have changed. Ask them how scared they are. Ask them what they're going to do if it gets any worse.

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 9 p.m. (Suggest removal)

McBush has a health plan. Problem is it bites. He's going to give us a $5000 tax credit so we can buy our own insurance. 2 problems there:

1) McBush is going to tax the benefit.
2) Try to find insurance for a family of four for ($5,000 - taxes)

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 9:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Four Pinocchios for Biden's Tax Fabrication

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-ch...

John McCain and Sarah Palin "are proposing the largest increase on middle class taxpayers in American history....It will cost the middle class over one trillion dollars in additional taxes. It is almost unbelievable." --Joe Biden campaign rally, Greensburg, PA. September 25, 2008.

The Facts
John McCain wants to drastically overhaul the health insurance system in order to encourage Americans to go out and buy their own health care plans rather than relying on employer-based plans. To achieve this, he plans to tax employer-provided health benefits and provide a $2,500 tax credit ($5,000 for families) toward the cost of health insurance.

By most independent calculations, the McCain plan will leave most taxpayers better off in strictly financial terms, at least until 2013. After 2013, the benefits will begin to diminish. By 2018, taxpayers in the top quintile will be slightly worse off, but middle-income taxpayers will either break even or be slightly ahead. According to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, the McCain proposals will result in a net benefit of $1,241 to the average tax payer in 2009, $895 in 2013, and $386 in 2018.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't you just hate those pesky facts MasterChef?

Posted by cowgoesmoo (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 9:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I say make people shop for and buy their own health insurance, maybe they will be more health conscience and not have to spend so much.

"America has the fattest poor people in the world!"

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 9:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What calculations are they using? Obama is shooting for universal AFFORDABLE insurance for all. It would start as soon as President Obama signs it into law, and would continue. What's so wrong with that?

Posted by keta (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 9:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think Terry Null should get back into county politics. I'd vote for him, if only because of his enthusiastic and public support for our Democratic presidential candidate. Unlike Mike Patterson, Doug Malone and others, he's a real Democrat.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 9:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

CommonSense... Please try using some. This crisis didn't happen because of lost jobs, it happened because democrats pushed banks to make loans to people who couldn't afford the house payments.

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht...

And then throw in ARMs:

Fannie Mae Offers New Standard 5/1 Adjustable-Rate Mortgage —ARM— Mortgage-Backed Security Pooling Option; Designed to Enhance Uniformity and Liquidity in the ARM Market
Business Wire, April 7, 2003
In support of its mission to increase efficiency in the secondary mortgage market and increase the affordability of homeownership for Americans, Fannie Mae (FNM/NYSE), the nation's largest source of financing for home mortgages, today announced a new standard mortgage backed security (MBS) pooling option for conventional hybrid adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs).

Now you had low income people with bad credit getting ARM's mortgages at low interst rates.

That was fine as long as the interest rates remained low. However, when the interest rates went up, so did their monthly payments. Up anywhere from 25 to 50%. Were there middleclass and even rich people who stupidly signed up for ARMs??? Sure but the majority of people who lost their houses were people who couldn't afford it in the first place.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 9:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 9:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What calculations are they using? Obama is shooting for universal AFFORDABLE insurance for all. It would start as soon as President Obama signs it into law, and would continue. What's so wrong with that?

-------------------------------------------------------------------

How would I know MasterChef, you go and ask them. Not that you would know what they are talking about anyway. All you have to know is that the calculations was done by a non-partisan group. And getting money back... McCain's sure sounds affordable to me.

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 10:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So if Clinton started the ball rolling with an ink pen, why couldn't Dumya do the same? He had a majority in Congress and he wanted it changed. What happened?

Don't even try that crap about how the dems were against it, so Dumya and Congressional Leaders decided to let it drop. They managed to get Dumya's tax cuts for the rich through.

Posted by nottellin (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 10:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

familyof6... you'd rather have the killer of full grown men and women in office? Oh wait!! once they're born they don't matter any more... that's the repugnicon way...

Posted by Vil (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 2:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 9 p.m. (Suggest removal)

McBush has a health plan. Problem is it bites. He's going to give us a $5000 tax credit so we can buy our own insurance.
2 problems there:

1) McBush is going to tax the benefit.
2) Try to find insurance for a family of four for ($5,000 - taxes)

______________________________________________________

I pay $480 a month for my families health insurance, a family of four. Multiply that by 12 and you get $5760. With McCain's tax credit, that means I'd be paying only $760 a year for health insurance out of my pocket. That's a deal, and I get to pick the plan I want. You can't beat that.

The only way you can say McCain's $5000 tax credit is bad is if you want a free ride.

nottellin, babies can't fend for themselves. Are you telling me that a baby that lives through an abortion, is thrown in a trash can ALIVE, then is picked out of the garbage can by a nurse and rocked for 40 minutes should not get any medical treatment. That baby would have lived with medical treatment, but that monster Obama voted for legislation that would just throw this living human being back into that trash can to die. If a person can vote for a man that disregards life in that way, then you must have no soul.

War is a necessary evil, we all hate seeing it happen . Wars will still happen even if Obama gets elected. Wars will happen even if the U.S. never goes to war again. It's a part of our world's culture that will never go away, so we have to learn to deal with it. But wars are fought between grown human beings, they have the chance to survive.

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

War is a necessary evil? Really?? The one in Iraq wasn't Consider this:

"100,000 Civilian Deaths Estimated in Iraq"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/art...

This figure was from three years ago. 100,000 lives. Innocent civilians. Do you not feel the same compassion for these human souls as you do for the unborn? I feel the same emotions as anyone would about the comment made about abortion above. Barack Obama is not in favor of that and he stated, at the Saddleback Forum with Rick Warren, that he would support legislation against late term abortions with provision for exceptions when the life of the mother was at risk. I don't know where the commenter above comes up with the statement about Obama's position, but he is wrong about Barack Obama.

To nitpick through legislative records in order to find something that can be distorted to smear a candidate for the highest office in the land is regrettable. There are virtually always multiple elements in a bill, like the bailout with all the pork John McCain voted for last week, that can be taken out of context and used like the commenter above did.

Obama told us, the American people...in front of a live audience...to one of the most respected pastors and authors in the country...on live national television that he would support legislation against late term abortions. Period.

The efforts of the commenter above can really be taken no other way than as a statement on his behalf that he believes Barack Obama is a liar. Furthermore, he is willing to hedge his bet so much...he is so sure that he's right...that he would make the bombastic claim that anyone supporting Obama "must have no soul." I'll let the commenter defend that comment to God.

Back to the point, though. What the commenter is really saying is that Obama is a liar. Now if you have followed this campaign even remotely...if you have listened to, read or watched any coverage of the campaign....if you have paid any attention to the respected national media sources' analysis of, for example, the campaign ads...McCain is the one who has lied over and over again. So, my friend, I have to say that your point against Obama is unfounded and your statement about his supporters is shameful.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 10:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So if Clinton started the ball rolling with an ink pen, why couldn't Dumya do the same? He had a majority in Congress and he wanted it changed. What happened?

Don't even try that crap about how the dems were against it, so Dumya and Congressional Leaders decided to let it drop. They managed to get Dumya's tax cuts for the rich through.
___________________________________________________

The difference is MC that EVERY democrat voted against reforming Freddie and Fannie. At least the republicans and John McCain attempted fixing this mess that the democrats made.

Now you want to elect people who's policies brought us this fiasco???? Unbelievable!!!!

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by nottellin (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 10:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

familyof6... you'd rather have the killer of full grown men and women in office?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I seem to remember that John Kerry shot and killed a V.C. in the back. Oh wait, that doesn't count, he was a democrat so that's OK.

Posted by intelligent (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

For those of you who support Obama and his health care program, where do you think he will get the money to support his "pre-existing conditions" coverage and his "well-visit" coverage that he will mandate the insurance companies to offer? He will get the money from us, by raising our taxes. When will people learn that the redistribution of wealth often espoused by the Democratic party does not work? Let capitalism and the free market alone and it will benefit everyone, from the poor to the rich. Why should someone who worked hard their whole life, went to college, got an education, opened their own business, and created jobs for people be expected to give half of their income to the government when others who have not worked a day in their life can sit at home and collect welfare checks and food stamps and be taken care of? Where's the fairness and equality in that? Please think about the issues and where your candidate stands before you vote. What does Obama stand for? Hope and change? What does that mean and how will he accomplish that? By bringing more government into our lives. Is that change we really need?

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 11:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Intelligent, good post but what also needs to be mentioned is that Obama wants an European style economic system. High taxes and a large welfare system.

The only problem with that is, if you look at all the European nations, they have high unemployment, low economic growth and so much money goes to welfare, they can't even support national defense.

Like Clinton, Obama will probably gut our military just to pay for social programs.

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

intelligent, first I doubt there are very many in Lawrence County who make more than $250K, but the ones that do, they can afford it. The republicans think the more they bring up tax cuts the more independents will believe them.

At least Obama isn't talking about reinstating the draft.

Posted by Vil (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 4:05 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by gametime (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 4:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bickering gets us no where! Look there are problems with both sides, and I am tired of hearing people get on their high horse about their candidate. People, no one is going to save the world. We just need to pick the lesser of the two evils.

I read earlier about abortion. Look this is an issue that will go unresoved for propably the next hundred years. I am tired of people using this as a platform. There will be no legislation passed in the next presidential term, let me repeat myself, NO LEGISLATION, that will effectively change anything about this issue. PERIOD!

I have spent the last four years watching very closely who would be running for president and agreeing to take over the mess Bush has left behind. I decided to vote for Obama. I'm not saying that Obama is the beat all end all, and he will have struggles just like any president. But I feel like Obama can restore some of our respect in the world, that we lost during the W years. Let me give you some of my reasons that I have decided to vote for Obama. First I won't bad mouth McCain. He is a respectable man. I even wanted to vote for McCain in 2000, but the republicans nominated W.

McCain worries me now though. Listening to his statements in the past year about the economy and the war in Iraq, he seems to be out of touch. We can't get by in today's global economy without some change. I feel like McaCain doesn't understand what it is like for those of us that live paycheck to paycheck.

We have also seen what has happened without the Government regulating our financial institutions(much like McCain wants). The worst economic downfall ever. I didn't say in the past hundred years, I said EVER!!

I'm not saying that how I feel is absolute. But people need to be more open and not use slander to get their point across. Most of the things I read were good, thoughful points. Just remeber there is two sides to each story, much like there are two nominees on both sides, a president and a Vice-president. Just remember that Gov. Palin would be one breath away from being the next Prsident of the United States.....Scary, huh?

Posted by intelligent (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 5:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As for the current economic conditions, you can thank Bill Clinton and the Democrats for passing the legislation to open up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the subprime lenders. There is an excellent NY Times article written in 1999 that explains the situation we are in today. As for people in Lawrence Co. that make $250K or more, look at every small business owner in the county, and you will see someone who is at that level or close to it. Can Lawrence Co. afford to lose more jobs because those small business owners had to downsize or close because of the higher taxes imposed? It is naive to think that taxing the rich will have any other effect than causing a greater loss of jobs and more of a downturn in our economy. Why does everyone think that more government in our lives is a good thing? I don't have an agenda or am in support of one candidate over the other. Frankly I dislike both of them. But, you do have to look at which one will make our country a better place for not only us, but our children and grandchildren to live in. Which one will be the best for the national security. The economy won't mean anything if we have another attack like 9/11 or worse. Which one has served his country and which one's wife was not proud to be an American until her husband was nominated for the presidency. Which one counts as friends terrorists against the US and pastors who preach God D*** America from his pulpit. You have to look at the people they call their friends and their actions to gain a true measure of their character. We really do have to vote for the "Lesser of two evils".

Posted by cashmere (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 6:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

everyone can debate Obama's proposed programs all they want, but the reality is that we can't afford them. Health care? Ask Hillary about that, how Bill's economic advisors told her and him flatout that we couldn't afford it til the deficit was reduced. Same thing will happen if he is elected. He can't solve the economic crisis...one of his primo econ advisors is Rubin, who lobbied for the 1999 bill that contributed to all this! All these legislators(including Obama, Dodd and Frank) have loaded up their pockets in campaign contributions from Wall Street to do nothing, so when we need them...they cash out...and do nothing.

No I predict that either administration will be pretty bland, and cost cutting. Taxing the "rich" will not fill the hole we are in.

I do think that it's interesting that oil prices are going down.

oh, and on the hot button of abortion, I'm against it, but finally have mellowed to the point of saying that if you want to kill your baby, and can live with the consequences, go for it. Just don't ask me to pay for it. Don't ask me to make you feel better about it.

Posted by LocalBoy (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 6:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I would certainly rather have what is described above as a killer of grown men and women as President than Obama. That comment was atrocious. I am also a combat veteran. No one asked me if I wanted to go. Nor did I have a choice in what confronted me while there. I doubt it was any different for John McCain. The man is a hero.

There was a time when leading democrats could be heroes too. They have only forgotten how to be patriotic in recent decades. They forget most things though that involve real sacrifice or commitment. Hillary Clinton is the most macho candidate they have put forward for Presidential nomination in decades. I know she didn't enjoy the four months John Kerry spent in Vietnam or the five months that Al Gore spent there, but I would take her over them any day of the week. At least she has enough courage to take a stand and stick with it.

If she were on the ballot - I might be tempted to vote for her. The liberal academic actually nominated by the democrats is another matter. He is not qualifed to run a convenience store - let alone this country. He is a naive, inexperienced elitist who will bring this country to ruin. The man has never made an executive decision in his life.

I don't agree with George W. Bush on everything either. I think there were better fights to undertake than Iraq. However, once there we need to see it through and leave on our hind legs - not slink away because it got tough.

I agree that we need to rehabilitate our world image but we don't need to do it from a position of weakness.

I also agree that we need to rebuild our economy but we don't need to model it after that of France.

I also agree that we need change but not at the risk of electing someone grossly underqualified for the position he seeks to hold.

Vote McCain.

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 7:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

All I am going to say is that there are rock-solid republicans who will vote their party's ticket no matter what.

And, the same is true with democrats.

Independents - well you're kinda on your own. And there are a lot of you still trying to decide.

Just remember, there have been LOTS of distortions from BOTH camps. All you can responsibilly do is to check the facts and vote your conscience. Good Luck!

Posted by LocalBoy (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 7:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just for the record, I am currently a registered Democrat with a history of voting independent.

Go McCain!

Posted by Publius (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 11:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Vil,

The two problems you fail to notice:
1) McCain's increase in the tax credit is indexed to inflation (2-3% per year), whereas healthcare has been increasing much faster, typically in the double digits.
2) McCain's plan would drive healthier members to the private market away from employer sponsored plans, which would then leave the employer plan covering the least healthy members. Take a look at what Lawrence County pays in increasing health insurance premiums for its employees to see what a bad insurance pool does to you.

Posted by Vil (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 2:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 9 p.m. (Suggest removal)

McBush has a health plan. Problem is it bites. He's going to give us a $5000 tax credit so we can buy our own insurance.
2 problems there:

1) McBush is going to tax the benefit.
2) Try to find insurance for a family of four for ($5,000 - taxes)

______________________________________________________

I pay $480 a month for my families health insurance, a family of four. Multiply that by 12 and you get $5760. With McCain's tax credit, that means I'd be paying only $760 a year for health insurance out of my pocket. That's a deal, and I get to pick the plan I want. You can't beat that.

The only way you can say McCain's $5000 tax credit is bad is if you want a free ride.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on October 7, 2008 at midnight (Suggest removal)

Posted by gametime: ... We have also seen what has happened without the Government regulating our financial institutions(much like McCain wants).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The problem with that statement GT is that McCain co-sponsored legislation written in 2005 that would have heavily regulated Freddie and Fannie and may have prevented this mess. It never got out of the Banking Committee. Every democrat voted against it.

Here is how this mess started:

The CRA was passed by the 95th United States Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in 1977 as a result of national grassroots pressure for affordable housing, and despite considerable opposition from the mainstream banking community.

The CRA MANDATES that each banking institution be evaluated to determine if it has met the credit needs of its entire community. That record is taken into account when the federal government considers an institution's application for deposit facilities, including mergers and acquisitions.

In early 1993 President Bill Clinton ordered new regulations for the CRA which would increase access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities. The new rules went into effect on January 31, 1995 and featured: requiring strictly numerical assessments to get a satisfactory CRA rating

The new rules, during a time when many banks were merging and needed to pass the CRA review process to do so, substantially increased the number and aggregate amount of loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans, some of which were "risky mortgages"

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on October 7, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'll post this for noesis. He has trouble realizing when the republicans have Congress AND the whitehouse.

I think this needs repeating, since the REPUBLICANS are the ones who benefited most from fannie/freddie. The quote:

Since the 1990 election cycle, Freddie Mac and Frannie Mae's employees and political action committee have given $19.5 million to federal candidates and committees, 53 percent of which has gone to Republicans. -
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/............

Granted, lately most giving has been to the dems. Could Fannie/Freddie be as sick of a republican budget as the rest of the country.

Posted by gametime (anonymous) on October 7, 2008 at 8:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It is not about who introduced the fannie mae and freddie mac. It worked for a long time. The problem is who is regulating it now. People with money believe that we should let the economy be, and let the trickle down effect work. Well let's just let the economy completely collapse, much like it is now, then what?
Being in a different tax bracket must really cloud your judgement. Both sides will tax. Republican and democrat. I don't think that just because you own a business means you should receive all of these tax breaks and loops holes. You think that if your profit margin takes a small hit that it is the end of the world. Well I have news for you not all of us have much profit. I have worked my whole life, sometimes two jobs at a time, while going to school. I can't afford a tax. I am tired of hearing wealthy people tell me what is good for me. There are people in this country that a taking advantage of the system. That is why we need stricter regulation on welfare. But there is also people out there that are struggling, paycheck to paycheck without feeling like they are getting ahead. So your saying that we should tax the middle class instead of the rich? There are far more middle and lower class people in this counrty than there are the rich. It is just the rich have a bigger voice!

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on October 7, 2008 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And I'll post this for MC. It was Obambi who got $190,000 from Freddie and Fannie in just three years.

Also it was republicans who voted for regulating Freddie and Fannie.

Every SINGLE democrat on the Banking Committee voted AGAINST regulating Freddie and Fannie.

I guess Freddie and Fannie wasted their money trying to bribe the republicans. They should have stuck with something that works...

Bribing democrats

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on October 7, 2008 at 2:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This is getting WAY childish. The repubs had a majority and failed to take advantage of their position. Lets stop playing the "Blame Game".