A rebuttal regarding Obama

[The original comment I took exception to:]

C - "I too want our president to suceed.
The national pride we all should share in a color blind election where the most capable and competent person just happens to be black or a woman... is the epitomy of democracy.
And no, McCain was not that person. Maybe no republican could have been this year.
No it was Hillary's year but race and style trumped ability and everyone-even the fanatical gleam in the eye white hypocrites whose lack of self awarness to this fact does not excuse the reprehensible origins of their loyalty to Hussien-knows this and that's what makes it inexcusable."

[My comment in response]

E - What a load of hooey.

 

McCain would have beaten Hillary.  It was never her year as it will never be.  She would have won the Dem nomination, but she had too many people who hated her to win.  Males would have left the Dems, even after all this, in droves.  McCain would have never nominated a fluff like Palin and would have taken the White House.  You want to trivialize Obama's win or write it off with trite explanations, but it was simple: Best man for the job.  He was inspirational when the nation needed to be inspired, charismatic and an obviously driven leader when we were tired of what the ass in the Oval Office was trying to sell us.  He is intelligent and educated, and we wanted that after finding out Texas hokum doesn't work when running anything larger than a BBQ.  And while the problems we face seem like it would condemn an inexperienced man to failure in the election, America didn't want a 30 year Senator who helped get us where we are or a close connection to the past administration, tainted and full of scandal that it was.  He lost votes because he was black (as is evidenced by Dem areas in the south that voted for McCain) but won because he was young, intelligent, hard working, well spoken, committed, and basically the anti-Bush.  

 

Will he do as well as everyone hopes?  How could he possibly?  Will some of his plans be disliked?  Sure, as no one is ever pleased by everything.  What I may like, you may dislike (and vice versa).  But I think he has earned the right - through his own well run campaign and hard work as well as through the failures of the past administration - to give it a shot and have the support of the people.

 

The simple fact so many people now have hope in this country should tell you something about his ability to inspire and how desperate the populace is for the country to go in a different direction in many areas.  And his ability to inspire and bring 'hope' back to the people will do more for this troubled economy than any program he initiates or vetoes.

The Caucus System and Delegates

Below is an excerpt from an e-mail debate:

BA - Do anyone of you believe in the party system?
EE - Yes. It has its flaws but I do think it works better than any others. I think the partys do need to change though, to become the COnservative and Liberal Parties rather than cloak them behind Democrat and Republican labels.

BA - Do you actually know what the dem or rep platform is?

If you say yes then tell me how how they don't put it together until the convention
EE - The problem is that the party should let the nominee set the platform as he/she is who the public wants. Instead the party sets the platform and supposedly the nominee is to work for that goal.


BA - No one has the balls to rock the system. The party system should be over same with the electoral college.
EE - Again, it has its flaws but has worked better than any other. It needs some changes, but I do not think it should be tossed. As far as the electoral college, I think the whole country should have primaries on the same day. The system where a candidate gets knocked out because he didn't do well in Utah and New Hampshire when they might win in Ohio and Pennsylvania is ridiculous. Barring that, we need a system where delegates vote on the public behalf. For example: Joe, Jim, and Fred are running for office and Fred and Jim are very, very similar in views. Joe is very different. Joe wins 40% of the vote. Jim wins 39% of the vote, and Fred wins only 21%. If all votes go to the winner of the state, 60% are unhappy. If Fred drops out and it comes to a fight, his delegates should be able to support Jim. We need a system that addresses that... one where you are locked in for your candidate as long as they are in, but can switch if they drop out or are voted out.

Just one man's opinion.
K - You are not alone my good man.

Social Security facts -- Very interesting

'Your' Social Security :

Just in case some of you didn't know this, it's easy to check out if you don't believe it. It doesn't matter whether you are Democrat of Republican... Facts are Facts!!! 

Our Social Security   

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social  
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:  

1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary, 

E - He broke his promise.

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program, 

E - yes, well we know how that turned out.

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year, 

 E- Hmmm... Kind of like another voluntary retirement savings program I can think of...

4.) That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and, 

E - Yes, but we know how that goes.  Once they get your money...

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

E - Ah, well...

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of  the money we paid to the Federal government to "put away" -- you may be interested in the following:  

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

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent "Trust Fund " and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?  
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate. 

E - Is anyone really surprised?

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

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?  
A: The Democratic Party. 

E - Yet they bill themselves the party of the Elderly and Retirees.  A good con job.

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

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?  

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the  US 

E - Nice to know Wanna-Be-Prez Ali G. had the interests of the elderly at heart, huh?

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

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants who haven't paid in, pushing an already overloaded and taxed system over the brink, jeopardizing your payments and any cost of living raises?  

A: That's right!    Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.  Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The  Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!  You paid in your whole life but they collect just as you do.

E - I'm all for compassion and helping the elderly out that never paid in, but shouldn't that be some other type of program?  One that doesn't penalize the American seniors that paid in their whole lives?

Just As Bill Did , So Does Ted...

Well, Bill got actively involved with Hillary's campaign and seems to have derailed it, helping her finish well behind Obama in South Carolina.

So now Ted Kennedy, who normally stays neutral in the primaries, comes out in favor of Obama... There's obviously more to that story then we will ever hear.  Whether he dislikes Hillary or Bill, it is a public slap in the face to the Senator from NY that he will have to work with (whether in the White House or Senate).  

The questions are, a) while the endorsement helps Obama with the Far Left, did Obama really need any endorsement to get the most Liberal voters?  And b), for those of us who are considering him who are not on the Far Left, does an endorsement from Teddy K. help or hurt?

It was good while it lasted...

Well, this might completely derail the Obama campaign...  Think Hillary paid Kerry to do this?

-EE

John Kerry To Endorse Obama

The 2004 Democratic presidential nominee is expected to announce his endorsement of Obama during a rally today at the College of Charleston in South Carolina.

Liberal or Conservative?

Speaking to friends about the Presidential Race, I was asked to describe my political views... "Are you liberal or conservative?" "Are you right or left?", "Are you red or blue?"... I would say I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative.  

"How can that be? Shouldn't it be one or another?" I don't think so as I believe they go hand-in-hand.  

I am socially liberal as I want the government to stay out of people's lives whenever possible. 

I believe in God and while no longer a Catholic, I am Christian. Yet I don't think I have the right to force others to live by the doctrines of the church. Theirs or anyone's. Should religion be totally removed from gov.? No. Should it be forced? No. Should laws be based on a religions dogma? No.  

I am fiscally conservative as I believe, again, the government should stay out of people's pockets whenever possible.  

We need taxes in some form, be they income, property, sales, or flat. The government needs to protect us from criminals (police), from fire (fire departments), from other militaries (armed services). I do not think I need to be protected from myself or need health laws.  

It needs to build roads and make sure no one does not have options. It does not need to reallocate large portions of our incomes to make us all 'equal' and the same. We don't work the same, aren't born to parent's who worked the same, don't sacrifice or delay gratification the same... We are guaranteed the PURSUIT of happiness, not happiness. And taking away the desire to run faster and harder in that 'pursuit' does no one any good. Where we end up in life and how are kids fare should be a testament to how our families have sacrificed, how hard we have worked and studied, how we have spent our lives.  

Working harder and smarter not only should help the individual and their family but would benefit the country. That is why Capitalism, while flawed, is still the best system in the world in comparison to any other.