Is America Ready for Obama? Is America Ready for a Socialist?

[AURaptor 1,126]

With out knowing her views on..well, anything, I have no problem lookin' at Mrs Obama. She's easier on the eyes than Mrs Heinz-Kerry, Mrs Edwards or Mrs Tip-O'Neil-per Gore.

Mrs. Obama looks like she drank a great big cup of buck and it went straight to her teeth.

Already insulting the wife. Page 72 of the Republican playbook.

Let the record show that it was not I who insulted Mrs O. On the issue of looks, I'm down w/ the mahogany mamma.

Does that make me not a Republican ?

And what page is insulting women with breast cancer in the Lib play book? Seems to me that when Mrs Edwards was diagnosed with b.c., all manner of prayers and well wishes were sent to her by everyone on the Right. But can the same be said for Laura Ingraham?

From Democratic Underground - I don't pray for Nazis or other Totalitarian Scum ( You'll note these are the post which were NOT deleted. Makes ya wonder what even the folks at DU think is beyond the pale )

When the DUers started spewing their usual bile and wishing ill on Ingraham, Mrs. Edwards (a breast cancer survivor herself) tried to intervene:

I have been a Democrat for a long time, and part of the Democratic principles that attracted me as a young person and kept me a Democrat all these years is our compassion. Democrats are simply good and decent people. And good and decent people want everyone to do well -- those who agree with them and those who do not. We fight for the right of voices with which we disagree to speak out, for the right of people to say things we don't believe to be true, even for the right to be malicious and mean-spirited. If we fight for the right for LI to say what she says, how in the world can we use our disagreement with those words as an excuse not to be compassionate in her fight with cancer. Being willing to have her voice muted by illness is the same thing as not wanting her voice to be heard. It is not Democratic or democratic.

[DKW 86 7,441]

Democrats are simply good and decent people.

Yeah, when we get to heaven, we will have to remember to tell all those that were lynched that the were lynched by "simply good and decent people."

[au9596 0]

I SAY NO!!!!!

Is this what America needs to represent them?

_______

Probable U. S. presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama was born

in Honolulu , Hawaii , to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black Muslim from

Nyangoma-Kogel , Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white atheist from Wichita ,

Kansas . Obama's parents met at the University of Hawaii .

When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. His father

returned to Kenya . His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a radical

Muslim from Indonesia . When Obama was 6 years old, the family

relocated to Indonesia . Obama attended a Muslim school in Jakarta .

He also spent two years in a Catholic school.

Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim. He is

quick to point out that, "He was once a Muslim, but that he also

attended Catholic school."

Obama's political handlers are attempting to make it appear that

Obama's introduction to Islam came via his father, and that this

influence was temporary at best. In reality, the senior Obama

returned to Kenya soon after the divorce, and never again had any

direct influence over his son's education. Lolo Soetoro, the second

husband of Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, introduced his stepson to

Islam. Osama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta . Wahabism is

the radical teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are

now waging Jihad against the western world.

Since it is politically expedient to be a Christian when seeking major

public office in the United States , Barack Hussein Obama has joined

the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim

background.

Let us all remain alert concerning Obama's expected presidential

candidacy.

--

Thomas K. Moore

1600 N. Oak St. Apt 810

Arlington VA 22209-2754

USA

1-703-527-6623 (voice)

1-703-932-9647 (mobile)

tomkmoore@gmail.com

[AUloggerhead 2,253]

...LBJ was the last President before Clinton to balance the budget. Ike was the last Republican. Taxes were high under LBJ, but that was because we actually paid for the ill conceived, poorly implemented war we were in. Taxes were only slightly higher under Clinton and the economy produced millions more jobs that Bush’s.

FYI -- Presidents don't actually "balance the budget." All they can do is sign or veto the spending bills sent them by the Congress. All spending bills originate in the House of Representatives. The House & Senate haggle over how the money is ultimately spent in the final version of the bill sent to the President. U.S. Constitution 101 & stuff ... I know it's convenient to think of the President as balancing the budget because he's the single person out front, but it's a simplistic view and doesn't really reflect the true separation of powers in our government.

As for the last Republican president in office when a budget surplus occurred -- that would be Richard Nixon in 1969 (not Eisenhower.) Just trying to help you be accurate.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

...LBJ was the last President before Clinton to balance the budget. Ike was the last Republican. Taxes were high under LBJ, but that was because we actually paid for the ill conceived, poorly implemented war we were in. Taxes were only slightly higher under Clinton and the economy produced millions more jobs that Bush’s.

FYI -- Presidents don't actually "balance the budget." All they can do is sign or veto the spending bills sent them by the Congress. All spending bills originate in the House of Representatives. The House & Senate haggle over how the money is ultimately spent in the final version of the bill sent to the President. U.S. Constitution 101 & stuff ... I know it's convenient to think of the President as balancing the budget because he's the single person out front, but it's a simplistic view and doesn't really reflect the true separation of powers in our government.

As for the last Republican president in office when a budget surplus occurred -- that would be Richard Nixon in 1969 (not Eisenhower.) Just trying to help you be accurate.

All the arrogance in the world doesn't mean you aren't clueless. Presidents propose budgets. Bush has proposed budgets and his lackeys in Congress have stepped to. Clinton proposed a budget in 1993 that only Dems voted for. Republicans said the sky would fall. They were obviously wrong. Bush has largely gotten the budgets he has wanted and put forth. There has been no meaningful separation of powers for the last 4 years. Congress abdicated its responsibility. Any thing he didn't want, he could have vetoed. Nixon's first year in office we had the budget proposed by LBJ the year before. Things went south after that.

I'm assuming you have never accused Clinton of raising taxes since Presidents don't do that. I assume you've never said Bush has cut taxes since they don't do that either. I'm assuming you were indignant when the Repugs accused Clinton of the biggest tax increase in history when he ran for re-election, and will get upset when they make the same claim when Hillary runs. Just kidding-- I'm assuming you are a hopeless hypocrite who frames it however is serves your purpose at the time.

[AUloggerhead 2,253]

All the arrogance in the world doesn't mean you aren't clueless. Presidents propose budgets. Bush has proposed budgets and his lackeys in Congress have stepped to. Clinton proposed a budget in 1993 that only Dems voted for. Republicans said the sky would fall. They were obviously wrong. Bush has largely gotten the budgets he has wanted and put forth. There has been no meaningful separation of powers for the last 4 years. Congress abdicated its responsibility. Any thing he didn't want, he could have vetoed. Nixon's first year in office we had the budget proposed by LBJ the year before. Things went south after that.

I'm assuming you have never accused Clinton of raising taxes since Presidents don't do that. I assume you've never said Bush has cut taxes since they don't do that either. I'm assuming you were indignant when the Repugs accused Clinton of the biggest tax increase in history when he ran for re-election, and will get upset when they make the same claim when Hillary runs. Just kidding-- I'm assuming you are a hopeless hypocrite who frames it however is serves your purpose at the time.

You just can't stand it when someone proves you wrong, can you? Presidents can propose budgets all they want. Congress is under no mandate to ever abide by them. The most famous example of this is when Reagon proposed his budgets and Speaker Tip O'Neil would bombastically declare them DOA (dead on arrival) when they arrived in Congress. Flexing his political power, if you will. Another more recent example is Speaker Pelosi's threat to cut off funding for the war in Iraq & Afghanistan. You're fooling yourself into thinking Congress will ever give up the power to control the pursestrings. It hasn't happened in the past and it isn't going to happen in the future, at least not without a constitutional amendment. The true "budget balancers" are not presidents. They are the people in the congress at the time because they ultimately have the constitutional power to control taxing & spending. The president may have the bully pulpit but he doesn't have a line-item veto. President clinton happened to be in office at the time when some extraordinary people were in the Congress: Newt Gingrich, John Kasich, Dick Armey, J.C. Watts & Jennifer Dunn to name just a few. It was through the disciplined efforts of those people that the budget surpluses of 1998-2000 even happened.