Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Armstrong Williams :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Real Barack
by Armstrong Williams
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Who is the real Barack Obama?

No, this is not an analysis of the leading man’s patriotism, plagiarism, race, or religion, because the reality on those blogosphere topics is simple. He is as patriotic – if not more so – than you and me. He is not a plagiarizer; that was merely the weakling Hillary Clinton trying to find a dent in his armor. He is a different race than past Presidents, but who really cares in this day in age besides a few crazies out there? And he is Christian – not Muslim, nor supportive of terrorists – despite what a group of bloggers and wack jobs out there want you to think.

Now that those issues are eliminated from the discussion, let’s take a real look at the Senator from Illinois. By examining his voting record, analyzing his experiences, and evaluating his prior work, we can begin to determine if this is the man we want leading our country back to greatness.

Before I vetted him, Obama seemed like an ideal candidate. He is young, charismatic, optimistic, intelligent, and energetic. He exudes confidence, speaks well, debates finely, and listens just enough to be considerate but not indecisive, and can galvanize the public and unite people like nobody we have ever seen. But then there is the other side of him.

Obama was given an 8 out of 100 lifetime rating (meaning he is one of the most liberal lawmakers) by the American Conservative Union, a conservative group that issues a report card on the voting records of members of Congress. Likewise, the liberal group, Americans for Democratic Action, rated Obama’s voting record in the Senate at 97.5 percent, near perfection for liberal Democrats. The National Journal even named Obama the most liberal Senator in 2007. So what exactly was he voting on that made his rankings so liberal?

Obama never voted for the Iraq War because he never had to – he was not elected to the United States Senate until 2004. However, he consistently rails on the war, saying that it was a distraction that prevented America from focusing on Afghanistan, it was ill-advised, and that troops should be immediately, but gradually, be redeployed leaving only a small number in the country to conduct counterterrorism operations and protect diplomats. Obama has supported most measures that call for troop withdrawals and/or reductions.

Obama supported comprehensive immigration legislation that would give illegal immigrants a chance for citizenship. He missed the vote (but said he would have voted NO) about legislation that called on the Bush administration to reduce Iranian influence on Iraq and to designate the Iranian revolutionary guard as a terrorist organization. In other liberal moves he once called for ending the embargo with Cuba (he later altered this statement), decriminalizing marijuana (he admits to past drug use in his autobiography and claims to now oppose the idea), and using all public funding for campaigns.

While an Illinois State Senator for eight years, Obama voted “present” 130 times instead of taking a definitive stand on the issue at hand. Hillary Clinton said this earlier in the month about his propensity to duck certain issues: “You cannot achieve the kind of changes we want by voting 'present' on controversial issues.” Worse than his “present” votes however, was his vote in 2001 against a measure that would have expanded the penalties for some gang activity to include the death penalty?

Although he comes off as a clean lawmaker with little lobbyist influence, he has ties to indicted political fundraiser Tony Rezko, including a shady housing purchase by Obama and Rezko on adjacent properties. But let’s get back to the votes, where we can clearly see where Obama stands on the issues.

In 2007 he voted against banning partial birth abortions, for expanding research on stem cell lines, against declaring English as the official language of the US Government, for the minimum wage hike, against raising the estate-tax exemption to $5 million, and for the redeployment of troops out of Iraq by March of 2008. If these aren’t liberal votes, I don’t know what are.

Senator Barack Obama is a decent and honorable man and has the potential of being a tremendous leader someday. But before you get caught up in his charisma and optimism, make sure you clearly understand where he plans to take the world’s lone superpower. Experience especially in the area of foreign policy is increasingly important with the instability around the globe. Many rogue nations and world leaders would test the Senator early on in his administration making a determination about his leadership, wisdom, and judgment. A comprehensive examination of his quotes, votes, and experience, tells me that this man needs to be more vetted by the media and seriously challenged by Senator McCain on the issues that matters most to us as countrymen home and abroad.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Armstrong Williams is a widely-syndicated columnist, CEO of the Graham Williams Group, and hosts the Armstrong Williams Show. He is the author of Beyond Blame.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Armstrong Williams' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Just try it
I can hear the screaming from here. "YOUARACIST!" is the only answer that will ever be given to any attempt to query Mr. Obama's stance or decision on any subject of any kind, not to mention his associates, his wife's associates or any anonymous lobbyists who claim that once they thought he might be about to give the prurient busybodies the impression that maybe something he was doing could be misconstrued.

The real problem with Mr. Obama is that he cannot be criticized, he cannot be queried, and he can never be held responsible for anything he has done, is doing or will do in the future. Because to do so would mean YOUARACIST.

To avoid the whole war cry thing, I plan to vote for Mr. McCain.

G---Obama
White people in Alabama are not racist. Down here you can hear Obama being praised on any Saturday, in the stands at the University of Alabama; we have been doing it for years. Go Bama, Go Bama. I know that sounds different but it is there; no man can deny that. We praised him long before we knew him--I wonder what we can cheer now that we really know him? Oh well, no matter for me--War Eagle!

Obama
In other words, Obama does not support issues dear to the hearts of conservatives. Is this a surprise? If you don't like his positions, don't vote for him. We are a two-party nation, in spite of all attempts by the Right Wing to demonize and criminalize one of our parties. Those townhallers who advocate arresting and killing all Democrats may have to learn patience, just as Democrats have had to do in recent years. Turn about is fair play. If the voters want liberal policies, then that is what they will vote for.

Newt Gingrich once explained that the conservative movement was designed to protect American business. It seems to me that Barack Obama was designed to protect the American middle class. Time for a change. Go Obama.

Roll Tide!
War Eagle indeed. Hmmmph.

Credit to Armstron Williams
For trying to frame the discussion in terms of substantive issues.

If conservatives and liberals can stick to the facts and the policies (as this article attempts to do) we can get back to a civilized debate and get together to put this country back on its feet.

Armstrong
Here is what Obama said to the same charges made by Hillery.

MR. WILLIAMS: Senator Obama, a quick response.

SEN. OBAMA: Let me just follow up. My objections to the war in Iraq were simply -- not simply a speech. I was in the midst of a U.S. Senate campaign. It was a high-stakes campaign. I was one of the most vocal opponents of the war, and I was very specific as to why.

And so when I bring this up, it is not simply to say "I told you so," but it is to give you an insight in terms of how I would make decisions.

And the fact was, this was a big strategic blunder. It was not a matter of, well, here is the initial decision, but since then we've voted the same way. Once we had driven the bus into the ditch, there were only so many ways we could get out. The question is, who's making the decision initially to drive the bus into the ditch? And the fact is that Senator Clinton often says that she is ready on day one, but in fact she was ready to give in to George Bush on day one on this critical issue. So the same person that she criticizes for having terrible judgment, and we can't afford to have another one of those, in fact she facilitated and enabled this individual to make a decision that has been strategically damaging to the United States of America.

silly lilly
How do you protect the middle class without protecting business? Bigger welfare checks?

Lilly -
Oh, well, that did't last long.
How can you possibly - POSSIBLY - denigrate in the same voice the idea to protect American Business and then whine about jobs going to overseas?? Is it a particularly liberal ability to whimper about the conditions you yourself cause? This is juvenile to an extreme - who in your supposed classroom is the adult?

And I realize your supposed subject is language (as in "you want fries with that?") but you might look at a little history for a bit. Like in the mid 30's. There was a guy who promised Germany change as well, and he actually even practiced his delivery, prose and speach techniques. Hired a pro to coach him and write for him. Careful about asking for change - especially if you don't know what that change is.

lilly
"In other words, Obama does not support issues dear to the hearts of conservatives. Is this a surprise?"
-----------------------------

Well said.

I do appreciate a TH columnist actively dismissing much of the shallow criticism (Hussein, he's a Muslim, "he's not really black", etc.) that Mr. Obama receives from many conservatives on TH and instead focussing on the author's disagreement of real issues. I don't agree with the author's conservative ideology but I applaud his honest analysis of the candidate.

Small mistake
Mr. Williams states that we should determine if Obama is the person we want "leading our country back to greatness."
I was not aware that we had to be led "back" to greatness, for we are, as we have been, the greatest country in the world.

Barack "I have accomplished nothing,

I have led nowhere, so what?" Obama is a very glib flim flam man who, so far, has managed to convince a bunch of kids he knows what he is doing. Who knows what will happen when he has to make his case to the adults in the Republican Party.

Taft,

we are winning in Iraq. Al Qaeda is being decimated in Iraq. There have been no successful attacks in America since we invaded Iraq. The terrorist leader of Iraq is dead. Yeah, there may be some idiots who think defeating Hussein (Saddam not Barack) was a bad idea. The problem with that is that terrorism is on the run and America is safe and neither would have happened if we had let Hussein (Saddam not Barack) continue to export terrorism around the world.

So Taft, research and think before demonstrating such ignorance. Of course, you support a presidential candidate who has just as poor a command of the facts and reality as you have.

T
And I realize your supposed subject is language (as in "you want fries with that?") but you might look at a little history for a bit. Like in the mid 30's. There was a guy who promised Germany change as well, and he actually even practiced his delivery, prose and speach techniques. Hired a pro to coach him and write for him. Careful about asking for change - especially if you don't know what that change is.
-------------------------------------

So are we supposed to assume that anyone that is a good speaker and promises change will be a leader in the same vein as Hitler? Is this what you suggest? Ridiculous.

eddie
Don't let the RW tell you what to think.

His big achievements in congress. from Obsidian Wings blog

* Ethics Reform: Obama was the Senate's point person on ethics reform, and sponsored or co-sponsored the bills that made up what the Washington Post called "the strongest ethics legislation to emerge from Congress yet." I'm also a fan of this bill, which I think of as the Journalists, Bloggers, and Citizens' Muckraking Empowerment Act: it creates a searchable database of recipients of federal grants and contracts.

* The Lugar-Obama initiative to strengthen the Nunn-Luger framework for securing loose nukes, and to extend it to securing and destroying stockpiles of conventional arms. (For instance, shoulder-fired missiles that could be used against passenger airlines, fired at our forces, or used to make any number of ongoing conflicts more deadly.)

* Various bills concerning the response to Hurricane Katrina, including an amendment putting strict limits on the use of no-bid contracts after disasters, requiring planning for the evacuation of people with special needs and senior citizens, creating a National Emergency Family Locator System, etc.

There are also a lot of good bills he worked on that did not make it, including the compromise immigration bill and a proposal to create an independent Congressional Ethics Enforcement Commission, and some that are on the Senate calendar now, like a bill to criminalize various deceptive election tactics, like deceptive robocalls, providing misleading information about where to vote or what conditions you have to meet to be eligible to vote, etc.

There's a lot more.

Thanks Taft,

I did not know those things. I guess I will have to change it to, Barack "I have accomplished very little, so what?" Obama.

in other words
he will be excellent president.
We know..

Lilly, You Caught Us!
Lilly: "Those townhallers who advocate arresting and killing all Democrats may have to learn patience"

Ok, who's the mole that told you our deep secret?! Dang guys, it looks like Lilly is onto us, we have to come up with Plan B!

Oh and by the way, Lillikins, I know how liberals want to go after Big Business, but without those evil corporations, where would us Middle Class Folk work, earn a living, pay our mortgages, put food on our table, have a 401k and insurance?




eddie
yours is the most uninformed post i have seen in a long time.

exactly what are we winning in iraq.
most of the cities in the south are now being run by clerics who have installed sharia law.

we have armed the sunnis so that when the time is right they have a ready made army.

the kurds are fighting turkey.

the political progress is going backwards.
they have called off elections.

bagdad which was 65% sunni is now 65% shiite and is a completely walled off city.

there was no al-queda in iraq until we invaded.

so tell me again what a success it has been.

Robert E. Lee
What has Bush done for you? You got really low taxes? Maybe a couple of hundred? We now are going to have $4.00 a gallon gas. Kind of takes away that big tax break. He did squat about all the other things he promised, like hunting down OBL, or solving illegal immigration. Our countries in a sorry mess because of Republicans.

shells
hi young lady how are you doing.

i have heard and read some conservatives ( for example savage and beck) who have called for rounding up liberals and putting them in re-education camps.
i have been told on this web site multiple times that all liberals should be killed.

liberals do not want to go after big business we just feel they have a responsiblity to the country.

they make huge profits (especially the oil companies) while average americans slip further and further behind in buying power.

when ceo's retire or get fired for poor performance why do they get millions upon millions of severance pay.

is that a conservative value?
to get rewarded for bad job performance?

Eddie...
I admire your power of positive thinking, but...a few more facts:

-We haven`t been successfully attacked since Hillary was in the Senate either. What does Hillary or Iraq have to do with attacks on America?

-We have spent roughly one TRILLION dollars in Iraq. That is around $35,000 for every American citizen, $140,000 for a family of four...just in Iraq. Since you like this stupid war so much, could you cut a check for my share please?

-We have accomplished less than nothing there. At great cost of blood and treasure, we`ve killed some folks and pissed off a lot more. We are the bad guy there...get it? We invaded, killed, destroyed and they didn`t do a thing to us. Does even GWB believe that we can convert the world`s oldest civilization from their ancient tribal customs to a modern democracy at the point of a gun?

-Whenever we leave, whether it`s next week or a "hundred years", they will immediately revert to chaos and rule by the strongest tribal tyrant.

We are led by fools and charlatans and many of those who follow are just as foolish.

eddie
What has Bush accomplished, I mean that was good?

Taft writes
What has Bush done for you? You got really low taxes? Maybe a couple of hundred? We now are going to have $4.00 a gallon gas. Kind of takes away that big tax break

Theres a reason gas where you live is 4 bucks a gallon. It's called market forces. We have no control over it. Are you going to blame that on Bush to? Of course we wouldn't be in that position if we had been allowed to development other energy alternatives. And whose fault is that? Certainly not Bush (He's not my favorite president) It's those silly environmental wackos who believe that the live of a snail is more important than human well-being.


Sheepdog
Market forces can be manipulated can't it?

"But that's OK, according to their instruction. You see crude oil is categorized as "the global price of oil", meaning we should understand that the oil companies are innocents, having little or no influence over its skyrocketing levels. Picturing themselves more as victims of 'market forces' rather than the beneficiaries of a manipulated market (think OPEC and know that only this week Marathon Oil was added to the list of companies under investigation by the CFTC for alleged crude oil price manipulation), they have been the leading cheerleaders of this fiction and in the forefront of brainwashing consumers, and governments around the world."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/gas-prices-a t-record-leve_b_48216.html

religous lib re your post @13:55
I've always believed in the free market, and that people should get paid what their worth but if they fail to meet expectations, they should not be rewarded. There only cutting there own throats when they do that. Pro sports is a example of this. How many times has an athelete signed a big contract but failed to live up to expectations? So many times it isn't funny. And what happens? That team ends up having to eat that contract even after the player is gone.

So what happens to these profits that big oil makes? Should we take them away and redistribute it to people who are more deserving or should they take the profits and use them find better energy alternatives? I know you would prefer the former, but i'll take the latter. If we can find another alternative energy source, it will lessen our dependence on foreign oil. I have no problem with companies making big profits as long as the profits are put to good use that will benefit everyone.





sheepdog
i am not necessarily into re-distribution, (not all liberals think alike).

and i absoulutely agree with your solution.

after a certain amount of profit, the companies are heavily taxed and go to a fund for alternative energy sources.

and that was my point.

it used to be when you gave tax breaks to corporations they would invest in more facilites and labor,

now they take the extra money overseas.

the paradigmn has shifted and americans are suffeing because of it.

those companies would not be so profitable if it wasnt for american consumers and american innovations so they owe it back.

The Real O
Armstrong, as I have written you before; If Big O would like to be elected all he has to do is secure the borders. This would get him 8 years of elected office. It would also get continual raises for the working class, supposedly his people. Of course, his party would then lose big time as the new empowered middle class would then throw his party out the door because of the much higher taxes they would be paying.

Religiouslib Part 1
Howdy and thanks for referring to me as a young lady...I'll usurp that as long as I can!

"i have heard and read some conservatives ( for example savage and beck) who have called for rounding up liberals and putting them in re-education camps.i have been told on this web site multiple times that all liberals should be killed."

----First, you can't take Savage seriously, he is speaking metaphorically of course. The liberal mindset (and yes not all are alike^^) can be so one sided in their thinking that simple facts still couldn't sway their opinions. That's probably why he used the re-education camps lingo---I listen to him daily for amusement. And really, other than singular lunatics and they come in all styles, who would threaten you from this site? I've never seen them and you know I'm not blind to conservatives being dummies.

"when ceo's retire or get fired for poor performance why do they get millions upon millions of severance pay."

--It's in the contract they signed up for upon being hired. They negotiated a deal. Most CEO's entering any new company will always negotiate a deal. It's business, it's capitalism, it's America, and it's their right. Hey, if I had dozens of business degrees with a fabulous resume, I would be doing the same thing, so would you, so would anyone. The unattractive fact is, we didn't work our butts off to obtain dozens of business degrees, be an office jockey, and work our way to the top like they did.


Religiouslib Part 2
"is that a conservative value?to get rewarded for bad job performance?"

No, you're thinking of affirmative action, or welfare. We don't believe in hand outs or handing over.

It's an American value, it's the land of opportunity, and what you put into it is what you'll get out of it.

I am no CEO, I'm pretty lazy TBH, but I have been in the corporate world for over 20 years. In Illinois, they are planning on re-raising our taxes again. I work for a great corporation, but these taxes are killing those Big Bad Business's that keep me getting paycheck.

When they get overly taxed by Robinhood Liberals, who suffers? Me and my co-workers? Why? Because they need to cut our raises, our bonus's, our freebies, and even cut our jobs in order to remain affloat and keep production going without going bankrupt.

Williams on the right track
Williams is correct, first of all, about most of the Internet rumors about Barack Obama. He's not Muslim, he was not educated in a Wahabist madrassa, he did not swear in on a Koran.

He's also on the right track by examining Obama's voting record, which is as liberal as they come. But he hasn't quite gone far enough.

Barack Obama's birth, upbringing, early education, college education, career, and ongoing associations link him to the hard left. No, not the most liberal Democrats; I mean the radical Socialists who remain active in this country to this day, and who run the United Nations.

Obama has had two mentors in his life; both were Socialist activists. His mother was a socialist activist. His job before Congress, the community activism he brags about, was with a Liberation Theology religious group that mixed the Apostle Paul with Saul Alinsky.

I performed a fairly thorough analysis on my blog; it's not complete, and needs further research, but the underlying information is accurate and sound. It's completely possible that we're not just dealing with a very liberal Democrat, we're dealing with a Socialist activist in sheep's clothing.

Check it out and let me know what you think:

http://www.plumbbobblog.com/?p=215

Eddie
I imagine that it makes you feel better about the war to believe that Saddam was exporting terror around the world, when in fact every study made subject to the invasion found only the most tenuous links between Saddam and groups such as Al Queida. Neither the CIA nor the Special Study Group drew the conclusions that you've presented as if they are a given.

Saddam's version of terror was his combination of secret police and his republican guard, and he visited in on his own people. The terrorism that arose in Iraq transpired after the invasion, and happened solely because we did not put sufficient forces on the ground to maintain security.

Religious lib:
I would contrast these two statements of yours:
"i am not necessarily into re-distribution, (not all liberals think alike)."

and

"after a certain amount of profit, the companies are heavily taxed and go to a fund for alternative energy sources."

How, exactly, is your tax on profits not "re-distribution"?

You also seem to misunderstand something (and I apologize to those who understand economics even a little bit for the elementary explanation). Profits are due to the investors (stockholders) of the company in question. It is their payment for the use of their money and risk they endure in entrusting it to the company. When the money is plowed back into the company (increasing its value) investors can sell their shares for a greater price than they paid. Otherwise profits are paid in the form of dividends.

If your plan is to reduce profits, you're taking money out of the investors' pockets and putting it into someone else's. More...

Religious Lib, where to start?
With all due respect, you don't have any appreciation for the notion of private ownership of businesses. I didn't either when I was an idealistic teenager. Perhaps you'll come to your senses over time. Meanwhile, it doesn't pay to try to bother explaining this to you on this ridiculous forum.

As far as tax breaks for corporations- our so-called leaders love the tax code. You know why? For the same reason they love regulations. It enables them to wield financial power over donors/constituents. "I'll get you a tax break if you line up on the right side of my campaign." Trust me, businesses would love to see a pared down tax system. Corporate America spends a fortune on the beancounters and the lawyers they need to navigate the labyrinth of our great government revenue generating institutions.

Remember, it's the pols, not private enterprise who benefit the most from the present system. They're the ones who built it.

kudos
Armstrong deserves credit for an honest article in an area where they are real. He mentions the misleading National Journal study, but does not give it prominance and correctly places Obama as a liberal rather than the silly charge that he is the most liberal. Citing Senate votes can often be misleading because they are usually on omnibus bills so someone could oppose a particular measure but support the bill on balance. But none of Armstrong's examples seem misleading.

Overall Armstrong has given a fair account of why some people should want to vote against Obama, and why other people should want to vote for him. There should be more articles like this.

Taft--BDS
Taft wrote:
"What has Bush done for you? ....We are now going to have $4.00 a gallon gas...."

What about your beloved Pelosi? She "promised" the Democrats if put in power, would bring down those gas prices. Well, they're now in power...

Let's see, the day before she became Speaker, gas was $2.32 on average. Now it's over $3.00. Guess the Dems "ain't" doin' so well, huh?

Here are you facts:
http://www.newsbusters.org/node/14013

Taft, better take your meds for that Bush Derangement Syndrom (BDS).

religious lib (continued, I think)
But -- we already take profits out of investors pockets (through capital gains taxes and tax on dividend income).

But, I know, you want to tax the corporations. Here's the deal. If you tell a corporate executive that profits over a certain dollar amount will be taxed, he/she will wisely tell the company to hold profits to below the threshold by making capital purchases, improving corporate benefits and/or salaries to attract better workers -- in short, adding value to the company while escaping the tax. Your plan will never accomplish what it sets out to do.

One last thing: record profits in $, does not mean that the gain for investors is necessarily great. Something I read here (F1etch would know) put oil company profits at around 5%, vs 8-10% for the average company.

Too much exaggeration
"he can galvanize the public and unite people like nobody we have ever seen."

Walter Williams just falls into the same "exaggeration syndrome." Much of the adulations and praise on Obama is nothing but pure exaggeration. The fact of the matter is there is a strong grassroot movement on the left and far left to support the candidate they like, because he is a far left guy. And don't forget, many of the far-left machines are supported by the far-left financiers such as Soros who backs Obama. In a capitalistic society, combined with the acute Bush syndrome, and the desperate wish for power, is all about money.

Obama would be something we have never seen before if he were able to get the votes without the hundreds of millions money contributed to his campaign.

Another thing is, you are against Hillary Clinton. While the left often praised Bill and Hillary Clinton, a significant portion of them do not like the pair. With the third candidate was phony (Edwards), who do you think the left will support?

Again, to say that Obama can unite people is presumptuous. The media make it so.



inkling_revival
I'll take a look at what you've got, but a lot of this "hard left" nonsense appears pretty shaky. One RWer accused him of being a commie just because he had a friend named Frank, I kid you not. I do look forward to Obama and McCain debating and all charges can be settled with facts..


Cold Hard Truth,

Pelosi has found that the Republicans will stop at nothing to stop any positive propaganda that she was successful. For anything to pass in congress the dems need a certain level of support form Reps.

religious lib (last)
The answer is of course, with a nod to badboy, to get government out of the equation entirely.

Generally less harmful, but still corrupting, are tax breaks, but all tax manipulation impedes market forces.

I recommend that you spend an afternoon reading Walter Williams -- you can get a full archive of his syndicated columns on his website. Read and absorb 20 of his essays and you will receive a great economics education and be completely converted from your socialist leanings.

Buck
Quoted from "The Guardian" January 7, 2006

The real cost to the US of the Iraq war is likely to be between $1 trillion and $2 trillion (£1.1 trillion), up to 10 times more than previously thought, according to a report written by a Nobel prize-winning economist and a Harvard budget expert.

The study, which expanded on traditional estimates by including such costs as lifetime disability and healthcare for troops injured in the conflict as well as the impact on the American economy, concluded that the US government is continuing to underestimate the cost of the war.

Relgious Lib writes
"i am not necessarily into re-distribution, (not all liberals think alike)."

You are absolutly right that not all liberals think alike. I sterotyped you and I was wrong.

Don't Blame Us

“it used to be when you gave tax breaks to corporations they would invest in more facilites and labor, “ … religiouslib

How can they re-invest into facilities when liberals block it by voting against legislation that would allow us to build more refineries, drill for oil in ANWR or off our coasts, build nuclear plants, wind farms off shore, etc?

Do not blame conservatives for the issues you are creating yourselves.


The real Obama
With those kind of votes I question his Christianity and his patriotism.

TopGun
Sounds like you want the nuclear waste disposal plant in your neighborhood. Yucca Flats in your neighborhood?

What legislation have liberals blocked that would allow additional refineries?

Who is the real Obama
The real Obama is the husband of Michelle Obama who is the product of the Chicago ghetto where blacks hate their "white opressors", Hispanics, Jews, Asians and virtually everyone else; believe in every hateful word of their so-called leaders and dream of the Unites States becoming another South Africa.

Winston829
How did you become so knowledgeable on the Chicago ghetto and black people?

LazyKingDave -- well done!
I was about to expound along similar lines in response to "SheepDog" and "ReligiousLib", but ..

.. you beat me to it!

Well done!

Lilly and Co
You may want to think about "cause and effect".

As others have pointed out: when you punish business, don't be surprised if

* businesses go off-shore
* jobs are lost
* the tax base shrinks
* there is less money for welfare - an outcome that most Leftists don't like

So, when Leftist icon Barack Obama punishes corporate America, he is actually punishing Middle-class and Low-income America along with the so-called Elites.

Similar logic can be applied to those who advocate limits on corporate profits.

question
What good does the embargo on Cuba do?

None

Since the day it was put in place it has given castro - fidel or raoul - an ongoing excuse for Cuba's ongoing miseries - they can ALWAYS blame the Yanquis to the north.

End the embargo and let the economic chips fall where they will.

But that would take cojones

market forces ?
Opec, a cartel, controls production
Exxon, Conoco, etal,monopolies buy up and close refineries controlling distribution
Speculators bidding up the price on whims

Hardly a free market

Buckaroo...
You`re blustering buddy. Take a breath.

The projection was made over two years ago (January 06...read carefully, saves embarrassment) and has now come true. 500 billion HAS been spent on arms, bases, payroll,etc. Another 500 bill went into rebuilding what we tore down and we`re still spending at the rate of 8 billion per month for what, another 100 years according to one prominent pol?

Whether it is 1/2 trill,1 trill, or 2 trill...it is still huge money...THAT WE DON`T HAVE.

Quote
This is a quote from one of Obama's fellow African American democrat legislature in Springfield Il.Ricky Hendon.
“I took all the beatings and insults and endured all the racist comments over the years from nasty Republican committee chairmen,” says Hendon. “Barack didn’t have to endure any of it, yet, in the end, he got all the credit. […]

“I didn’t get swept up in any movement,” says Lou Jones. “A ‘movement’ didn’t even exist until a week before the election, when the media played it that way.”

Hendon agrees, saying, “There was no real movement. Barack’s no Dr. King or Harold Washington.”

Armstrong's right much like his U.S. Senate record he also did little in Springfield.








Buckaroo/salty
"...Whether it is 1/2 trill,1 trill, or 2 trill...it is still huge money...THAT WE DON`T HAVE. "

That is the conservative -- spending money they don't have. keeping ringing up that credit card and pay nada. They truly are deadbeats

top gun
both parties are responsible for free trade.

american corporations have gone overseas to make money because it is cheaper and they can use their tax break money to get a bigger bang for their buck and it has nothing to do with politics.

you are so partisan you can't think logically.


my conservative friends
let us start with the truth that economics which claims to be a science is simply guesstimates.

whenever we talk taxes and corporations i get a lecture on how business works.

well first of all i own my own small business and an successful at it

the one thing i have learned as a business owner is that economic theories are, at best, not really applicable to most business.

economic conservatives are obsessed with taxes and tax breaks but to maintain that more taxes means less profit is not true.

clinton raised taxes in 93 and the economy did just fine thank you and against all conservative rhetoric to the opposite, revenues went up.

that went against the common conservative economic dogma but was never theless true.

the idea that corporations who benefit from taxpayer funded transportation systems and other infrastructure owe nothing to the country is simply nonsensical.

yes they have a right to profits and owe something to the stockholders but when it gets excessive there is a problem

of course you ask, who decided what is excessive, i say its common sense.

at any rate any one who claims economics is a science or that they understand how the economy works is simply not being intellectually honest.

as socrates said,
the more i know the more i know i don't know.




Jondo & Kush
You two boobs could write what you know about energy markets on the head of a pin. I TRADE in the energy markets for a living. The enviro nuts have pushed so much regulation through congres through their lobbying efforts that it is near impossible to build a new refinery in this country, or drill in ANWR, we might kill a carabou! OH! The humanity! Henceforth there has not been a new refinery built in this country for over 30 YEARS! We now have to import about %13 of our refined gasoline! Do you know that there are over 50 differnt blends of gasoline? Gas in CA is not the same as gas in IL as gas in NY. All the different blends chew up refining capacity, which lowers supplies, which increases prices. Shall I go on, or have you realized that you know JACKSQUAT about what you are talking about when it comes to energy.

Q: Who makes more money (profit) on a gallon of gas, the US gov or the oil company?

A: The US Gov! For doing nothing except getting in the effin' way!

Buck...
You got one thing right Buck. You are sorry.

Hal,
You're delusional.

lily
You poor dear. I see after all this time of you staying alive and well, well enough to make your inane comments,you are still worried all dems are going to be rounded up and killed. I hope you get some meds for your paranoia and soon.

love to you, Peppermint

Obama Will Loose the Election
Obama will loose in November. Listen to his own words on our national defense:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs

Not complicated if not delusional
Let's see, the government is choking off energy supplies (no ANWR or offshore drilling, no new refineries in 30 years, crippled nuclear power, hamstrung coal mining, taxing gas at 9 times the rate of oil company profits, mandating "ethanol" and other fuel blends, etc.) at a time when world demand for energy is exploding. Like anyone else, the oil companies cannot sell their oil for any more than the prevailing world market price. Their recent high profits are almost entirely due to the price increase of their inventories due to skyrocketing world demand and simultaneous onerous government restrictions and taxation on energy supply.

Try reading any introductory economics text if you're having trouble following the logic.

Blaming the oil companies for the price rise and demanding government take more control is analogous to crippling the firefighters and supporting the arsonist.

AW left off two things
Although this was a good column which centered in on issues. We are all shaped by our experiences and B.O. experiences speak of a multicultured man whose identity is multicultural and not distinctly american. Is he a patriot? Well it depends on whether or not you think America first is patriotic or not? Now understand me, a lot of his policies are rooted in trying to show himself distinctly protective of America but is he? A lot of his policies are also distinctly non-american and aimed at punishing the percieved evil doers in liberal thinking-big oil. But have you noticed that B.O. doesn't go after the big corporations who are big liberal donors like Gooldman Sachs, GE, Disney, the media giants all whose profit margins dwarf the oil companies who already pay the highest taxes. His tax is on oil company efficiency and the fact of peak oil which is driving up prices. He flows with the prevailing winds so is he a leader or a weather vane. Is Barack so well rounded he rolls whichever way the crowd pushes him? Do you want such an individudal to lead this nation?

Issues
It's nice to see Armstrong write an article here about issues and policies, which is what the election will be decided on.

To me it'll be nice to see this sort of mature discussion start to evolve, moving beyond middle-names, race, religion, and other non-issues. I'd really love to see a mature, issue-oriented, classy election in America this year.

One candidate is going to end up being the leader of the free-world; so it deserves to be approached with dignity and respect, in my opinion.

Liberal's comments
Interesting how the Liberal site trolls are now so concerned about civility. When they spend most of their time throwing bombs why would you even read their comments praising a conservative? You all know it simply their way of feeling superior. And it is as fake as their compassion for those they are always helping.

Lilly
You talk more and say less than anyone I have ever read.

My Observations
I love the discussions on tax revenues. The talk of a Billion here or a Trillion there. I never sense any understanding of how the collection system used in the US is imposing a Billion or a Trillion dollars worth of sacrifice on the people who have to do without that money that they worked so hard for. I always think of the things those people could have done with that money before considering the government spending it on whatever. After that the whatever never seems quite important. Just once I'l like to see a news report lead off with "After seriously debating the financial burden their decision will impose on millions of citizens the House passed..."

Oh, and I was born in the ghetto in Chicago, I am Black, and I understand that a lot of people that support Obama are as racist as the people that cheered Bull Connors in the sixties. They just don't know it, because they only get the information the media supplies. But they are Racists just the same.

lilly writes:
We are a two-party nation, in spite of all attempts by the Right Wing to demonize and criminalize one of our parties.


Have you been eating paint chips? It isn't the right wing who wants to use the "Fairness Doctrine" to shut down opposition. It isn't the right wing who makes movies and writes books fantisizing about killing the president. It isn't the right wing who shows up on college campuses and shouts down speakers who disagree with then. Tollerance to liberals is agree with me or shut up. If the lillys in this country had their way this web site would be shut down. If you want to see liberal tolerance look no further than Berkley CA.

The Real Barak
Barak Obama is a wolf in sheep's clothing! As bad as Hillary and Bill were and are, Obama is worse. Gullible people sre being deceived by both candidates. Woe unto America should either of these candidates become President of these United States!

Fair Article
Mr. Williams,

I commend you on your very fair article about Barack Obama. I believe Obama & McCain to both be fine men. Let's have a race between them based on the issues.

Obama is clearly libersl and McCain is conservative (but the distinction is a little less clear with him). They have very different ideas about how to proceed in Iraq and on other foreign policy issues. Obama has much less experience than McCain in foreign policy and so is at a disadvantage there. Obama has the clear advantage in his ability to motivate people.

This election is ideal in the sense that we have clear choices to make and each candidate appears to be an essentially good person.

Let's do this thing. This is how it should be.

Best Regards

impeachbush
See my previous remarks on energy. The President has absolutely nothing to do with the price of gas at the pump. It's the liberals in congress that pinheads like you keep voting for that have the greatest effect. Learn about the subject matter that you want to discuss before you are exposed as the obtuse blooter you are.

WHO IS OBAMA?

.....He is Harold Hill in River City ...(Robert Preston in the Music Man) .....COLOSSUS

This is Obama!
In February 2004, U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama's wife, Michelle, sent a fund-raising letter with the "alarming news" that "right-wing politicians" had passed a law stopping doctors from stabbing half-born babies in the neck with scissors, suctioning out their brains and crushing their skulls.

Read More of this article:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=370 80

religioiuslib writes:
"well first of all i own my own small business and an successful at it

the one thing i have learned as a business owner is that economic theories are, at best, not really applicable to most business."

I'm happy that you are successful in your business but that in no way qualifies you as an expert in macroeconomic theory. I'll trust Thomas Sowell, Walter William, and Milton Friedman on that topic, thank you.

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

religiouslib wrote:

"clinton raised taxes in 93 and the economy did just fine thank you and against all conservative rhetoric to the opposite, revenues went up.

that went against the common conservative economic dogma but was never theless true."

The economy had been expanding since March 1991, almost two full years before Clinton took office. It went into a recession a few weeks after he handed it off to Bush. You may be correct in saying the revenues went up after he raised taxes, but in the end, his policies had a deleterious effect on the overall economy.

Here's the link:
http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

religious lib
Did you forget Clinton's stock market crash?


Seems so.

impeachbush
Apparently you did not read my previous post, so for the conspiracy minded slow learners who refuse to do ANY of their own real research and are getting their "facts" form daily kos and huff&puff, here we go.

The enviro lobbies refuse to let the left leaning congress people, aka democrats, pass any legislation easing the abilty of oil companies build any new refineries in this country. They will cut off their donations and quite possibly actively campaign against them if an up vote is cast. Therefor no new refineries have been built in this country in 30 years, decreasing the amount of oil that can be turned into gasoline, less supply plus higher demand equals higher prices at the pump. Moreover we now need to import 13% of our refined gasoline. Not to mention all of the ridiculous different blends of enviro gas (over 50 kinds).

Thats the first problem. The second is that no new drilling is allowed either. No offshore, where our enemies are drilling (Cuba & China in a joint venture), where we could be getting that oil. No ANWR, we might kill a carabou. Joe Biden (D - Del) has vote against drilling there 16 times , once every year he has served in congress. His staying in power is more important than cheaper energy. And I don't know about you, but my 2 sons future and the future of America is more important than a few carabou and Joe Biden staying in congress.

Shall I continue? I think so.

The third, no nukes. Hanoi Jane Fonda made a movie, a MOVIE, about a disaster, so no nuclear energy. Europe kicks our @$$ when it comes to this kind of energy. So we burn oil & coal to make up for this.

Presumptions of decency and honor...
--
...are not supported in former constitutional law professor Barack Hussein Obama's case, Mr. Williams.

His published position on Second Amendment issues - the private citizen's right to keep and bear arms not merely for hunting but for self defense ("against all enemies, foreign or domestic," for is not the private citizen the source of all sovereignity in this Republic, and is the protection of his rights to life, liberty, and property not the sole purpose for the existence of government at any level?) - is evidentiary of Senator Obama's fundamental indecency and abject dishonor.

From the average "Liberal" schmuck, it might be reasonable to expect a diminished capacity defense on the matter of RTKBA issues. From a former professor of constitutional laws - especially from a mulatto who emphasizes his "African-American" half-heritage - it is inexcusable for Senator Obama to selectively ignore the history of the 14th Amendment and the precedent legislative clauses in the Freedmen's Bureau Act (1866) with regard to provisions enacted specifically to protect "the constitutional right to bear arms...without respect to race or color, or previous condition of slavery."

Senator Obama claims the "politically correct" privileges of negritude while explicitly and contemptibly betraying the very concept of civil rights.

And he goddamn well knows it.

And you say that he "...has the potential of being a tremendous leader someday," eh?

Leading whom, Mr. Williams?

Into what abyss of tyranny, slavery, and horror?

--


lolo1
hi lolo, hope you are doing well.

if clinton is to blame for the dot.com bust is bush responsible for the housing crash?

second whenever someone tries to give clinton credit for something, some conservatives (as the poster above you does) claim that that it was the bush1 economy that was the success, which leads to another question.

does that make clinton responsible for any economic success bush had?

in other words you can't have it both ways.

impeachbush
Obviously you have not read my posting on energy. So here we go.

First the enviro lobbies refuse to let liberals pass any legislation to let oil companies build new refineries. So, no new refineries built in over 30 years. That means less supply. We also have increased demand. put those two together and that equals higher prices at the pump. We now also have to import 13% of our refined gas. Not to mention the over 50 blends of "enviro gsa" that has to be made, by law, for the summer driving season.

Two. No new drilling. Anywhere. Our enemies, Cuba & China, in a joint venture are drilling off the coast of Florida where we are not allowed to. No ANWR, we might kill a carabou. Joe Biden (D-Del) has voted 16 times against it. He want the enviro $ to fund his campaigns. If he were to vote yes, no money and the possiblity that he is actively campaigned against by these same people.

Three. No nukes. Hanoi Jane Fonda made a movie, A MOVIE, about a nuke disaster, so no nuclear energy. We burn oil and coal to make up for this. That we are not allowed to drill for or mine.

Shall I continue?



Cont.

Fourth, can't have coal, it's DIRTY!

Five, can't build a pipeline from Canada for cheap natural gas, because of rats and slugs and other bugs. They are obviously more important than our country continuing to grow and be a beacon to the rest of the world.

Six. Geopolitical unrest in oil producing nations. FYI the current spike in crude oil prices is due to unrest in Nigeria the #7 oil exporter in the world, also where we get alot of our oil from.

Seven. If the President has so much control over gas prices why was it expensive under Carter?

Now do you have ANY grasp of what is going on? Or are you so blinded by your hatred of the President that you cannot see the facts as they are put before you?

OOPS
Sorry about the close to dupe. I thought it gotten "eaten" and had to recreate.

religious lib
I hope you are doing well also. Are you recovering from the fires okay?

I never tried to have it both ways...ever. Nor have I ever said Clinton was the worst president ever because he wasn't, despite all of his scandals and lack of honesty.

Yes, I do think Bush and the Congress have some responsibility in the current housing crisis but I think mostly that those that tried to cheat the ladder of success by starting in the middle have the most responsibility. They made bad deals and need to except the consequences of those bad decisions. I advised two couples against those mortgages. One listened, one did not. The one that didn't filed bankruptcy.

religiouslib
I'm sorry, you seem to have a reading comprehension problem. I'll try to make it simple.

Clinton took an economy that had been expanding for almost two years and handed one off that promptly went into recession, long before Bush had time to even implement any policies that could have had any impact. It took eight months, which included 9/11, for the economy to recover from the mess Clinton handed off(reminiscent, I might add, of the economic mess Carter handed off that Reagan had to fix).

Your ridiculous "does that make clinton responsible for any economic success bush had ... can't have it both ways" comments are too illogical and stupid to even merit a serious response.

Much like love means
never having to say you're sorry, liberalism means never having to face reality.

Obama
A liberal is a liberal is a liberal. His record is that of a liberal, but I understand he resents being called a liberal.
It is a trivial point, but I though "War Eagle" referred to Auburn and not the University of Alabama (Bama).
Bush is not running.
We are in World War IV with radical Islamists. September 11 was the Pearl Harbor of this war.
The radical Islamists showed that they could attack our homeland, they can do it again, and they will do it again no matter who is President.
Will Obama be good for national defense?


christheprofessor
i will not stoop to personal insults as you seem to need to do but that is a fine re-writing of history there.

as far as your comments about liberals.
there are millions and millions of liberals and like conservatives, there are many types of liberals.

does it seem logical to you to stereotype all of them as thinking and acting alike?

of course i am the stupid and illogical one so maybe it is true that all liberals are exactly the same and none of them ever face reality.

but then again....

SEN. B.O.'s VOW
The Beardless Prophet of the left has made some mighty tall claims about what he expects from the American tax payer should he become POTUS. I really do not want to be impoverished, insecure and feel as if my life were in jeopardy in order to please the whims of a politician and his cronies.

Therefore let me strongly suggest the man of change and hope, his wife and his followers all take a vow of poverty for as long as he retains the office, even the ofice he holds now would be a swell thing to do. Here we are about to be told that we are going to be asked to save ourselves and the rest of the world by turning to more socialism and major increases in entitlements and none of the lib politicians have said they would vow to be impoverished in order to set upon the path they want us to follow.

Is this do as I say or leadership by example? Let's all keep asking them so they understand what it meand to live by your word. Methinks B.O. has a smell about him.
AMERICA, WE HAVE A PROBLEM!

christheprofessor
You are absolutely right in saying that the economy Clinton inherited was recovering and the one that he handed off began to contract before Bush II had the opportunity to implement any strategies of his own. However, even if you take away the entire first year of the Clinton and Bush admins, GDP growth under Clinton was almost a full .5% greater than under Bush, on average. Both deserve (some) credit for the highs and the lows during their administrations.

religous lib
I responded to you as I did because you didn't have the grapes or decency to respond directly to me but rather in a snide commentary hidden in your post at 10:54 AM, probably hoping I wouldn't see it.

If you want respect, you have to earn it.

And I see your reading comprehension problem continues unabated. I commented about "liberalism" not "liberals."

Seek help.

Amazing anyone praises Bush and GOP
On their economic policies. Are people here aware that the national debt has TRIPLED under GOP leadership?

LeftRudyRight
No disagreeement. Frankly, I think presidents have far less influence on overall economic performance than they are given credit for.

With respect to the .5% GDP increase advantage of Clinton over Bush, I'd chalk that up to advances in productivity stemming from investments in technology, particulary heavy information technology adoption in the late 80s and the 90s (Al Gore's having created the internet notwithstanding).

bryce3
The national debt is a function of federal spending outpacing revenues and only indirectly related to overall economic performance (which is largely a function of private -- not federal -- enterprise in our captitalist system).

Frankly, I'd like to see the federal government cut both spending and taxes.

Stop with the Obama talk already
I want the Dems to run him against McCain already. I want the total meltdown of Hillary. We are getting to the point where if we keep shining the light on Obama we are helping Hillary.

Look, I want a Rep to win I just don't think McCain has a prayer against either and I certainly don't want the Clinton's anywhere near the White House. (Is the RNC sending money to Nader yet?) They can leave politics, become multi-billionaires, which they will, and stay away from government, the courts and the rest. Heck, they can buy Cuba and hang with the Castro's.

Obama not my choice, but....
If I could make my own list of people I wanted to be President, Obama would not be at the top of it-- or even the bottom. However, when I look at Obama, I do not feel the kind of paralyzing, bedwetting terror that Republican loyalists want me to feel so that I will hold my nose and vote for the otherwise unacceptable McCain.

On at least one issue-- Iraq-- I think Obama is right, or closer to being right than McCain. Invading Iraq was a mistake. Making an open-ended commitment to stay there "for the next hundred years" would be a further mistake. Maybe, as McCain insists, we are "winning". Or maybe not. But even if it's true, there is such a thing as a Pyrrhic victory that does as much damage as a defeat. And I'm worried McCain will go around looking for still more disastrous pre-emptive wars and "nation-building" projects.

As a free-market libertarian I don't like Obama's left-wing economic policies. But I'm not convinced McCain is that much better. Big-gopvernment conservatism, with all the decisions made in Washington, DC in ursuit of McCain's notions of "national greatness," is as bad as big-government liberalism.

And in any case, I think the Democrats are likely to win this time regardless. I don't want to disregard my principles by voting for McCain, forgo the chance to send a message about what I *really* want-- and then find I've backed a loser anyway. I expect to vote Libertaian or other third party. I might even conceivably vote for Obama as the lesser of two evils. Obama will have to look a lot worse than he does now for me to be certain that McCain is the lesser evil.

Religious DimLib
Ok you want the government to control what businesses pay there corporate officers. I think you need to move to Cuba, it is just as you described. You will love it there, they don't even have poor performing CEO's. Viva Raul & Lilly

religious Dimwit
I seriously doubt you run a successful business, exempt from the common laws of economics. What was it? A lemonade stand?

Falsely Characterize
Political commentor Armstrong Williams in his February 28,2008 article "The Real Barack" claims Barack Obama is in reality a liberal and he is wrong. Although we can agree he is an educated man, who is intelligent and carismatic. But what it seems to be the problem is saying how Barack gives his opinion on topics that he not even voted, but he is giving his point of view about this topics. He only says what he thinks is best for this country, and what the best decisions will make this a great country. But is not correct by trying to portray Barack Obama as a confused democrat. The fact that he is only looking for the future of our country does not make him unsure of his political values, but rather shows his patriotism.

Falsely Characterize
Political commentor Armstrong Williams in his February 29,2008 article "The Real Barack" claims Barack Obama is in reality a liberal and he is wrong. Although we agree that he is an educated man, who is intelligent and carismatic. But what it seems to be the problem is saying how Barack gives his opinion on topics that he not even voted, but he is giving his point of view about this topics. He only says what he thinks is best for this country, and what the best decisions will make this a great country. But is not correct by trying to portray Barack Obama as a confused democrat. The fact that he is only looking for the future of our country does not make him unsure of his political values, but rather shows his patriotism.

Thoughts on Obama
I am going to vote for Hillary. No question about it. I am going to vote for Hillary even
if I have to write in her name.

But, I could live with Obama as president quite
easily IF he doesn't bring Jessie Jackson or
Farrakhan into his cabinet. I think we are
pretty safe about Farrakhan. He won't get in there. But Jessie Jackson is just such an
embarrassment and I fear that Obama will have to
put him somewhere. This makes me very nervous.

As for Obama being a socialist, that's OK with
me. I have just spent 7 1/2 years watching
our money go to a war no one wants and the
rest going to the very rich guys. I am more
than ready for the government to push a little
of that money our way.

It had always been my assumption that our
government was FOR the people BY the people.
Or at least that is what it should be. But I
am becoming increasingly aware that indeed
the business of government is business. And it
is more than time for a change. Maybe once
upon time the profit of pampering business
filtered down to the rest of us. If it ever
did, it does no more.

chris the professor
just to set the record straight.

although being on opposite sides on most issues, lolo and i have communicated many times in a friendly and civilized manner. i have a tendancy to want to debate those i know will be respectful and civil.

my reference to you was not meant to be hidden, i have never encountered you here before even though i have posted here for years.

i was simply responding to someone i knew not showing disrespect to you.

when i did have something to say to you i directed it at you.


religious lib
Please go and see my post to you on Burt's thread towards the end.


Have a Nice Day!

charleton heston
although i don't normally reveal information to posters i don't know, i will tell you this much.
i own a successful commercial garage door business.

i am only 30 miles from the manufacturer so i save money on warehouse costs.
i bought two semis and pick-up my orders directly from them.

in the garage door business, installers are independent contractors so i can adjust labor costs depending on demand and it insulates me from bad economic times like we are having now in the construction industry.

now does that sound like someone who doesn't understand the basic lasw of economics?

on the other hand i never said i wanted to dictate what corporations pay their ceo's i simply aske what conservative values are in play when a failed ceo is paid millions for his failure.
please explain that to me.

as far as economics, anyone with any knowledge of economics knows most economic theories are just that---theories.

this week we have been treated to a President who doesn't know the price of gas, and a raging argument about whether there is a recession or if we are in a stagflation cycle.

doesn't sound to me like anyone really knows.
so much for economics as a proven science.

thanks lolo
i did and i confess to not following the thread more closely.

thanks for the clarification and being a good enough person to care.


religious lib
Your welcome very much!


I think you will be surprised to know how much I do care about decent people like you.

Have a Great Weekend!

religiouslib
That's fine. You will note, though, that I was polite and respectful in my first post to you, though I disagreed with you on two points, the second for which I provided a link to back up my position. It was only when you alluded to me (is a manner which I considered snide, though from your response it appears you didn't intend it to be) to a third poster that my gander got up.

No harm, no foul.

Typical Republican BS!!!
Republicans are thugs who use fear and intimidation to obtain thier objectives. As usual, they slander the democratic candidate but have yet to forward any solid reasoning why McCain will be great for the Oval Office.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.