Obama supporters! - A positive place to talk about his campaign

Status
Not open for further replies.
On a happier, and funnier, note, did you see Reverend Wright say this weekend that Sean Hannity and his Faux News friends were "stuck on stupid"? :lmao:

"Sean Hannity's stupid fantasy will keep him forever stuck on stupid when it comes to comprehending how you can love a brother who does not believe what you believe."

Thought that was kind of a nice little motto for Sean. :thumbsup2 I can just hear the voiceover now "Sean Hannity...He's conservative...He's the voice of the right....He's....stuck on stupid!"

:teeth:

He's got Hannity pegged. :lmao:
 
CNN is reporting that the Allentown Morning Call has endorsed Obama

"The first is the quality of his campaign. It has surprised the experts by moving him close to the finish line against bigger, more established political machines and it has communicated his basic ideas well.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, has focused their criticism on Sen. Obama's relatively short resume. But there is nothing naive or amateurish about the campaign he has assembled. We wish he (and Sen. Clinton) had paid more attention to the Lehigh Valley, of course. It is Pennsylvania's third-biggest metropolitan area and it deserves better than one visit by him and zero by Sen. Clinton this deep into the campaign.

But, he has done a good job of building a Pennsylvania organization. It has had to climb a steep hill, given that Sen. Clinton has the biggest share of high-profile Democratic officials' endorsements. Using the Internet, e-mail and old-fashioned storefront headquarters, he continues to build a corps of supporters here. And, at least so far, his has done a better job than the Clinton campaign of keeping the campaign positive.

The second is his message of hope and change. It conveys a vision of the nation's future that is in tune with the tenor and consensus of most Americans.

hile both candidates are members of the same U.S. Senate, Sen. Obama is the one who has distinguished himself as the better agent for changing Washington. Remember, on the issues, the differences between the Obama and Clinton platforms are thin or non-existent. He has set himself apart by enunciating a vision of a different America, one that people recognize as resting on the nation's founding principles. His vision calls upon ''the better angels of our nature'' just as Abraham Lincoln did in 1861.

Sen. Obama offers that vision to a nation that, like President Lincoln's, is divided. It is not about to set out on a literal civil war, but Republican and Democrat, young and old, conservative and liberal have much to fight about and are at each other's throats with little provocation. Finding common ground is the key, and Sen. Obama is better able to do that than Sen. Clinton. She has become a polarizing figure, an image that stems in part from the bitter partisanship of Washington during President Bill Clinton's administration. It was not for nothing that the journalist James B. Stewart called his book about the politics of those years ''Blood Sport.'' That rancor was not primarily Hillary Clinton's fault, but it is real, it persists, and her campaign so far has not dealt effectively with quelling it.

And third, and most important for the Democratic Party at this moment in history, there is Sen. Obama's ability to inspire."

It starts with his unmatched oratorical skills. His speech in Philadelphia on March 18 about race in America will join the greatest speeches in this nation's history in future textbooks on that topic. The combination of his scholarship, career experience and personal style leaves listeners at first rapt and then inspired. His oratory soars because he has a desire to listen to and represent all Americans -- the ''vision thing'' as President George H.W. Bush once called it. Sen. Clinton, by contrast, too often just sounds like a partisan, and that isn't change.

Sen. Clinton has made much of her ''ability to lead'' on day one in the Oval Office. Past experience like hers is one thing, but leadership also depends on having a vision, plans to pursue that vision, and an ability to inspire others to follow. On those grounds, Sen. Barack Obama is well-suited to lead, and The Morning Call recommends his nomination in the Democratic primary.
 
Bill Clinton in 1991: "All these economically insecure white people are scared to death!" :lmao:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/13/bill-clinton-flashback-al_n_96433.html

More and more evidence of the hypocrisy of the Clintons.

(Oh, and one funny note...the "Hillary" thread is now talking about how Obama is such a baby for turning Hillary's "shame on you" line back at her. :rotfl2: )

Hypocrisy :scared:

A baby :grouphug: Go get 'em tiger

Honestly, what else could they say? Clinton jumped on a bandwagon she never should have...

MSNBC was reporting that Obama picked up an endorsement from the Scranton Times newspaper.... Scranton, isn't that where Hillary is from?

http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19480144&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=418218&rfi=6
 

I guess the Hillary people are just bitter because their candidate will not win. I have ventured there once or twice but yesterday I just couldn't understand the things they were saying about this thread. Just didn't ring true to me.

I am surprised at how I view some of these posters now. Even on the non political threads I just think of them as mean spirited, close-minded, word twisting individuals. IMO if they will twist things that Obama said to suit their own views how do I know they aren't doing that with other things they post.

We should be able to disagree without being disagreeable. Although anyone who could not agree that Hannity is "stuck on stupid" is just uninformed. :laughing:
 
You are one of the few that I've always respected what you had to say, and I appreciated that you didn't engage in the berating of those with differing POVs. What happened? :confused:

I understand being disappointed over the state of things, but the things we've said here haven't caused it. Just because I don't like Hillary, doesn't mean I don't like you. :hippie:
Don't get the wrong idea! Some have argued that it's best to keep both the Obama and Hillary threads free of the bickering and I agree. Note that I said "both". Do you really want to argue with Hillary supporters HERE?

That's all I meant. Of course I don't pretend to speak for everyone so look at it as just a suggestion made to a fellow Hillary supporter who may or may not choose to agree.

Now I am definitely leaving!
 
To Planogirl - You should know that you are more than welcome to post over here. One thing you'll notice about the posts on this thread...yeah, we beat Hillary up pretty badly when we believe she deserves it, but we do NOT attack the people supporting her. At least, I haven't seen it, and I would have said something if I had. In my opinion, that is the biggest difference between the two threads. Over there, we're referred to by derogatory names and laughed at for not knowing anything about politics. If you want to know why there is some hostility here towards certain posters on that thread, look no further than the posts telling jme to get lost.
Oops, I didn't leave. ;)

I admit that I got angry when someone came over to the Hillary thread to discuss things and then that turned south. I got angry at no one in particular and yet everyone because the whole mess is all so petty and foolish. I mean both sides when I say that. I think that the bickering has accomplished nothing with voters and has likely hurt both candidates.

If I said anything nasty, I apologize. I've just had enough and I should just stay away or at least try that sabbatical I've heard about.
 
Oops, I didn't leave. ;)

I admit that I got angry when someone came over to the Hillary thread to discuss things and then that turned south. I got angry at no one in particular and yet everyone because the whole mess is all so petty and foolish. I mean both sides when I say that. I think that the bickering has accomplished nothing with voters and has likely hurt both candidates.

If I said anything nasty, I apologize. I've just had enough and I should just stay away or at least try that sabbatical I've heard about.

I have strong feelings about the future-others do to, I'm sure. I wake up every day and while the news shows pick sound bite after sound bite with little giggles about this or that-they do love "bickering"-heck, they can fill up hours of time with this stuff...while hardly three seconds are given to our war dead and wounded.
It's not hard for me to stay focused when I read articles like this that talks about the totals in Iraq and Afghanistan, wounded and dead:
"As of April 5, a total of 36,082 members of the U.S. military have been wounded in action and killed in Iraq, since the beginning of the war in March 2003, and in Afghanistan, where the war there began in October 2001. The 36,082 number breaks down to 4,492 deaths and 31,590 wounded. According to the same DoD "casualty" counts, an additional 38,631 U.S. military personnel have also been removed from the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan for "non-hostile-related medical air transports."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/14/cbsnews_investigates/main4012249.shtml
 
I have strong feelings about the future-others do to, I'm sure. I wake up every day and while the news shows pick sound bite after sound bite with little giggles about this or that-they do love "bickering"-heck, they can fill up hours of time with this stuff...while hardly three seconds are given to our war dead and wounded.
It's not hard for me to stay focused when I read articles like this that talks about the totals in Iraq and Afghanistan, wounded and dead:
"As of April 5, a total of 36,082 members of the U.S. military have been wounded in action and killed in Iraq, since the beginning of the war in March 2003, and in Afghanistan, where the war there began in October 2001. The 36,082 number breaks down to 4,492 deaths and 31,590 wounded. According to the same DoD "casualty" counts, an additional 38,631 U.S. military personnel have also been removed from the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan for "non-hostile-related medical air transports."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/14/cbsnews_investigates/main4012249.shtml
That is really what it's all about isn't it? We can argue for days about who is responsible but the important point is who will fix it. We know for a fact that the other side won't.
 
That is really what it's all about isn't it? We can argue for days about who is responsible but the important point is who will fix it. We know for a fact that the other side won't.
Exactly.
How may more is my question? I sure don't see the Republicans eager to do anything to stem the losses.
 
That is really what it's all about isn't it? We can argue for days about who is responsible but the important point is who will fix it. We know for a fact that the other side won't.

Absolutely. That's why I'm for Obama but would still happily support Hillary.
 
CNN is reporting that the Allentown Morning Call has endorsed Obama

Yeah, I saw that the Scranton (whatever the paper there is called :rotfl: ) and another paper had endorsed us yesterday. :thumbsup2

They had some great things to say RE: small town PA.
 
Posting this as a new thread will only cause the same old debate about gay rights that turns into Joe quoting Bible passages so I figured I'd just post it here:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/personal/04/14/gay.taxes.ap/index.html

MOUNT LAUREL, New Jersey (AP) -- For gay couples, the April 15 tax filing deadline can be a reminder of the disparities they face, even in a nation that is becoming more accepting of same-sex couples.


Beth Asaro and Joanne Schailey at their civil union ceremony in 2007.

Gay couples often pay higher taxes because they don't get the federal tax benefits that go with marriage. And for couples in state-sanctioned domestic partnerships, civil unions or same-sex marriages, filing federal income taxes can involve doing three sets of paperwork instead of one.

"It's a significant financial disability," said Beth Asaro, who last year entered into one of New Jersey's first legally recognized civil unions.

While the debate over government recognition of gay marriage is a political hot-button with arguments about morality, civil rights and tradition, the tax issue is a mostly practical one for hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples.

Most states ban gay marriage and don't recognize same-sex unions in any way. Only in Massachusetts can gay couples legally marry. Since 1997, nine other states and Washington D.C. started offering civil unions or domestic partnerships that give some or all the legal protections of marriage.

Those protections include allowing gay couples to file state taxes jointly -- and potentially save them money. But they can also make tax filing more complicated for the couples.

That's because the state protections do not help with federal taxes. Under the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, the government defines marriage as being allowed only between a man and a woman.

Don't Miss
In Depth: Right On Your Money
"You're running one household," said John Traier, a partner in the Butler, New Jersey, accounting firm Hammond & Traier. "But the federal government and a lot of states treat them as two households."

The same is true for straight unmarried straight couples who are living together.

There are two main effects of the different treatment under federal law.

One is the tax rate. Take two couples where one partner has a taxable income of $20,000 and the other makes $40,000. If they can file their federal taxes jointly, the tax bill would be $8,217.50. Filing separately, the combined bill would be $9,032.50 -- more than $800 higher.

Another disparity comes with the federal government's treatment of employer-provided health insurance, which also affects unmarried heterosexual couples.

For example, Dan Jessup is a project manager at JPMorgan Chase in Indiana. His partner, Bob Chenoweth, is self-employed, running two businesses out of the couple's Mooresville, Indiana, home. So Chenoweth gets health insurance through Chase.

But Jessup is required to count the company's cost of his partner's benefits as additional income for tax purposes.

State and federal taxes on those benefits cost about $1,800 per year, Jessup said.

"I certainly think about it every payday," when the extra withholding is taken from his paycheck, he said. "If you think about 10 years, $18,000 is a lot of money. That could buy me a pretty nice car."

The tax on benefits for domestic partners also applies to employers. Companies including Chase are endorsing the Human Rights Campaign's push for a bill that would end the tax on health plan benefits for people who are neither the spouse nor legal dependent of the employee. Versions of the bill have been introduced in Congress in the last three sessions, but have never moved out of committee.

A government analysis estimated the bill would cost about $10 billion in lost federal tax revenue over 10 years. Advocates for the bill say it would create savings elsewhere, including reducing the Medicaid rolls.

Ryan Ellis, the tax policy director for Americans for Tax Reform, said his group supports the concept, but not the specific language of the bill, because it does not propose increasing how much domestic partners could put into health savings accounts.

It's not just the higher bills that can be frustrating for same-sex taxpayers; it's also the process of filing taxes, particularly in states that offer some joint benefits to gay couples.

"I don't want to say it's chaotic, but it's very difficult for a lot of reasons," said Traier, the accountant who is in a civil union partnership himself.

In New Jersey and the other states where same-sex unions are formally recognized, couples can file their state taxes jointly, but they must file their federal tax returns as individuals.

That means doing income calculations twice. Many tax programs such as Intuit's TurboTax are set up to deal with that extra math.

But there are other issues where even up-to-date software might not solve.

These issues also affect unmarried straight couples.

For instance, couples with children must decide which partner gets to claim them as dependents for tax purposes on federal returns and returns in states that don't recognize same-sex unions. Similarly, couples who own homes together have to sort out how much of the mortgage interest payments each partner gets to use as a deduction, said Lara Schwartz, the Human Rights Campaign legal director.

"If you are not a different sex," from your partner, Schwartz said, "you are strangers, basically, under federal law." E-mail to a friend

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

What I don't understand is why two citizens' relationship is any of the government's business when affording civil rights. It just really pisses me off. :headache:
 
What I don't understand is why two citizens' relationship is any of the government's business when affording civil rights. It just really pisses me off. :headache:

I have no idea, I thought Civil Liberties were to apply to all in this country, but not quite yet, it's supremely unfair.
 
Posting this as a new thread will only cause the same old debate about gay rights that turns into Joe quoting Bible passages so I figured I'd just post it here:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/personal/04/14/gay.taxes.ap/index.html



What I don't understand is why two citizens' relationship is any of the government's business when affording civil rights. It just really pisses me off. :headache:

:lmao: Love your reasoning....

I don't understand it either, Tim. I really hope that we can get past this in our society. I have great hope for your generation and my DN's. We had a conversation while she was home from break that I thought summed up the wisdom of our youth.

A good friend of hers came out to her. She made a special "appointment" to talk to DN about it, and according to DN, seemed really stressed out over doing it. DN said she wanted to respond that she really didn't care one way or the other, but she felt badly because her friend had clearly put a lot of effort into making this decision to tell her. So, she just told her friend that she still loved her just the same no matter what her sexual orientation and that "we'll know when we've really matured as a culture because nobody will feel the need to announce what orientation they are"

Have I mentioned that I love this kid???
 
:lmao: Love your reasoning....

I don't understand it either, Tim. I really hope that we can get past this in our society. I have great hope for your generation and my DN's. We had a conversation while she was home from break that I thought summed up the wisdom of our youth.

A good friend of hers came out to her. She made a special "appointment" to talk to DN about it, and according to DN, seemed really stressed out over doing it. DN said she wanted to respond that she really didn't care one way or the other, but she felt badly because her friend had clearly put a lot of effort into making this decision to tell her. So, she just told her friend that she still loved her just the same no matter what her sexual orientation and that "we'll know when we've really matured as a culture because nobody will feel the need to announce what orientation they are"
Have I mentioned that I love this kid???

You've got a great niece. :thumbsup2 I bolded what really resonated with me - I think the most important thing someone can hear when they come is that the person still loves them and doesn't look at them any differently. It's a big relief to hear that. I remember during my senior year of HS coming out to two of my girl friends and I had told them during the day I had something really important to talk about that night - they assumed I was dating a new girl or something. So when I did it, I was crying and they had this look on their face like "Who cares? You are still the same person." My generation's view on homosexuality (and many other things) is totally different than my parents generation - its something that we see should be accepted, tolerated, and normal. It's comforting to know as I get older, the rights afforded to homosexuals will be the same as heterosexuals.

Sorry for the OT! :)
 
Carl Bernstein has joined the "vast right wing conspiracy".

What will a Hillary Clinton presidency look like?
The answer by now seems obvious: It will look like her presidential campaign, which in turn looks increasingly like the first Clinton presidency.
Which is to say, high-minded ideals, lowered execution, half truths, outright lies (and imaginary flights), take-no prisoners politics, some very good policy ideas, a presidential spouse given to wallowing in anger and self-pity, and a succession of aides and surrogates pushed under the bus when things don’t go right. Which is to say, often.

for all her claims of “experience” and leadership abilities, Hillary Clinton has now presided over two disastrous national enterprises, the most important professional undertakings of her adult life, both of which she began with ample wind at her back: the healthcare reform of her husband’s presidency, and now her own campaign for the White House. These two failures -– and the demonizing of her opponents in both instances –- may be the best indication of the kind of President she would be, especially when confronted (inevitably) by unanticipated difficulty and/or entrenched opposition to her ideas and programs.
And, yes, a sense of entitlement that veritably shouts, “Look, because I believe in good things, and because of all I’ve been through, I deserve to win this.”
The 2008 Clinton campaign, in fact, has been an exercise in devolution, back to the angry, demonizing, accusatory Hillary Clinton of the worst days of the Clinton presidency, flailing, and furtive, and disingenuous; and, as in the White House years, putting forth programs and ideas worthy of respect and deserving of the kind of substantive debate she claims she wants her race against Barrack Obama to be based upon.

Bill, meanwhile, has taken up Hillary’s old role as defender and apologist, with disinformation and misinformation, but (far less effectively than she defended him). Also with near-apoplectic tirades that have left their friends worried and wondering.

In the process of their search-and-destroy mission against Barack Obama, the Clintons have pursued a strategy that at times seems deliberately aimed at undermining Obama’s credibility if he becomes John McCain’s opponent — heresy in the view of an increasing number of the Clintons’ former suppporters and aides, a suprising number of whom now back Obama.

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/12/carl-bernstein-what-a-hillary-clinton-presidency-look-like/
 

Fantastic article! I particularly liked this part:

"...for all her claims of “experience” and leadership abilities, Hillary Clinton has now presided over two disastrous national enterprises, the most important professional undertakings of her adult life, both of which she began with ample wind at her back: the healthcare reform of her husband’s presidency, and now her own campaign for the White House. These two failures -– and the demonizing of her opponents in both instances –- may be the best indication of the kind of President she would be, especially when confronted (inevitably) by unanticipated difficulty and/or entrenched opposition to her ideas and programs."

That needs to be said over and over and over again! The two biggest tasks Hillary has taken on in her career - health care reform in her role as first lady and her presidential candidacy - Hillary has failed miserably. Her antics surrounding health care set that movement back 20 years (which is why we're only now getting back into it). This is someone who "knows how to get things done"? :rolleyes:

And her candidacy has been a disaster. She was a 25 or 30 point favorite across the board before this really got started. Nobody had any real shot against her unless she just screwed up. That's what led her to say late last year that this would all be wrapped up by super-Tuesday. She was apparently expecting to be greeted with flowers and song, and didn't know what to do until it was too late when she was greeted with a fight, instead. Now, gee...who does that sound like to you?

Her nomination was all but a given, and everyone else was likely running for second place. Now? The only way she wins is if the party insiders decide to hand it to her. Is that gross mismanagement somehow supposed to impress anyone with how she would run this country?

Barack Obama - the black guy with the funny name and the big ol' ears - dismantled the most powerful Democratic power structure in recent memory, and he did it without making character assassination the central theme of his campaign. How anyone can look at how far he's come and think that he's going to lose to John Freaking McCain is just beyond my understanding.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.















Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE













DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter DIS Bluesky

Back
Top