He messed up on this FISA bill, big time.
(link...)

he needs to be careful, he will loose more then he gains

If a shift to the center for electability explains Sen. Obama's recent actions I will be very disappointed. No, edit that...I am very disappointed no matter what the cause. My memory from the debates, of which I only missed one, is that he said he would filibuster the FISA bill if it had immunity. Whoops, maybe it is my memory. He is sounding different on the rapid return of our troops. In short he seems to a different person lately.
I have a US Senator that votes about 50/50 with the (R)'s so she can get re-elected. Well, she wont get my help or dollars because I was asked by a local progressive blogger would I rather have a Republican or a Democrat that had to vote with the other side now and then. I asked if there was any difference. I don't get to post there any more.

I supported Richardson because he genuinely seemed to be a little straighter and less a "tell you what you want to hear" politician.
I then supported Clinton for electability. I then went to Obama because he seemed to be in favor of doing the right thing.
After the FISA vote yesterday I am thinking about sitting out for the first time ever.

I really am feeling that I have no one to support.

knoxrunner, you're serious? A conspiracy whereby a leading black civil rights leader goes on TV and acts as though he doesn't know he's whispering into an open microphone. At an agreed upon point, he whispers about removing Ob-Mama's testicles so that Bill O'Reilly will pick it up and broadcast it which, in turn, will have the effect of calming white fears that a black guy might take their power? Hmmmm.........

Kudos to whoever is selling you that stuff you're smoking!

It took a lot of balls for Jesse to say that. :-)

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S. Thompson

I wondered that too, if Jesee knew what he was doing, at the same time Jesee may have just missed the cameras or maybe it really was an accident. George Steph. said it will probably be a 24 hr. story, we'll see.

Remember that episode on West Wing? Wether Rev.Jackson did it on purpose or not, it sure did remind me of that.

Heh.

knoxrunner, you're suggesting that because I don't subscribe to your loony Jesse Jackson conspiracy theory that I'm somehow denying that race is a factor with some folks? I do believe that there are white people who will not vote for Obama because he is black. I think a much, much larger percentage of blacks will vote for Obama because he is black. Racism cuts both ways.

I'm white and I will not vote for Obama either. It has nothing to do with race. I will not vote for Obama because I think he is a radical, Euro-style socialist and I am a Christian conservative. The only thing worse than a radical, Euro-style socialist is a radical, Euro-style socialist with no balls (thanks Jesse). Just look at his flip flopping -- that should tell you he's missing his manhood. How else do you explain going from filibustering the FISA bill to voting "yea" in 60 days? Now that's a flip flop and points to the need to grow some kahoonas!!

"We all know that being white in America means having power"

There's a lot of poor white folks what would disagree with this statement. I'm white, grew up with modest means and I disagree with it.

I'm not too stupid to acknowledge that race will have an impact in the Presidential race. Many African-Americans will vote for Obama just because he's part African-American. Some whites will vote against Obama because he's of a different race. But, most Americans will hopefully look a bit deeper.

Put the two candidates together and let them talk to the American people and debate issues. Last I heard, Obama didn't want to debate McCain in loosely organized town hall meetings with no moderator. Maybe I'm wrong. If not, I hope there's a change. I'd like to hear these two talk in more than scripted rally speeches and sound bites.

Right on, CBT.........

"Some people get a double whammy."

And some people work their tail off, get an education and make outstanding contributions to their world, even if it's just doing a good job and being a good mom or dad. And some sit around and try to figure out why something or someone is keeping them from being successful. Life's full of choices and opportunities.

Life's full of choices and opportunities.

But some have a lot more choices and opportunities than others.

"Poor whites are as beaten down by corporatism as any other group."

Metulj, what the hell is "corporatism?" How does it beat people down?

"And some sit around and try to figure out why something or someone is keeping them from being successful."

"Who are those people?"

Everytime I see a Lib get on TV and start spewing the class warfare venom, they are feeding this issue. You can grow wealth in this country or you can re-distribute it (Euro-style socialism). I'm for growth - that requires hard work and not sitting around with one's thumb up one's ass worrying about how someone else may have had it easier. And it really ticks me off to hear Libs like Hillary or Barack or Nancy or Harry tell me that I don't deserve or need to keep more of the money I worked hard to earn.

Why don't we stop punishing success in this country? Knoxrunner, sure we have to reach out and help the downtrodden and those who can't help themselves - Is re-distribution and punishing success the way? And I believe it's possible to work for a mean, ugly corporation and still be a fine contributor to this society.

Rachel, we'll have to find a separate chat room to answer your questions.

Now you can all do your thing and tell me how I'm simply repeating what I'm hearing on Rush or Fox News.

And it really ticks me off to hear Libs like Hillary or Barack or Nancy or Harry tell me that I don't deserve or need to keep more of the money I worked hard to earn.

Funny I don't recall ever hearing anything like that. Care to give one example?

Sure sounds like you're just regurgitating Rush's same old angry white male stuff. Do you really think anybody but his dittobrains buy any of it anymore?

Check the facts, Factchecker - these are their exact words - "no more tax cuts for people who don't need it or deserve it." This has been the centerpiece statement for the class warfare crowd for years. I left out the Left's leftover war hero, John Kerry. He's said it more than anyone. (Now there's a dynamo!)

When I hear this I do get angry. I'd say anybody who works hard, pays taxes and doesn't think it "takes a village" buys it whether or not they're a Rush dittobrain or white or male.

What you said then:

...like Hillary or Barack or Nancy or Harry tell me that I don't deserve or need to keep more of the money I worked hard to earn.

What you say now:

"no more tax cuts for people who don't need it or deserve it."

How do you wingers equate no more tax cuts with new, higher taxes? Only in your world are all of your taxes an unjust fleecing, at least while a Democratic president is not constantly lowering them.

Are any of you capable of logical reasoning?

You're way too smart and logical for me, FC'er. Under W, my taxes were reduced. Under Ob-Mama, we says I don't deserve or need the cuts W provided. He promises to take them away. He further says that - based on my income level - I need to be paying a higher rate. Plus, capital gains taxes are going up. Oh, let's not forget the FICA TAX! There will be other tax increases as well - there have to be based on the "tax credits" he's promising to all of the groups who don't pay taxes. (That one always amuses me.)

The attitude is to punish success and hard work and redistribute wealth.

I keep less of what I earn....much less. That's a pretty logical conclusion for me.

I'm curious. Would you prefer to pay no taxes at all? Or if you are willing to pay taxes, how much and for what?

Class warfare, blah, blah, blah....

Ever heard of projection?

20% or, better yet, a consumption tax only. That will never fly because it will remove the power from congress. I'll give $1 for every $5 that I earn.

Rachel, enough with the big words until you know where Kahoona's are located. (At least I've stopped calling you Rach!)

Corporations don't pay taxes, Metulj. Economics 101.

An analysis of both candidates' economic plans aired yesterday on NPR (sorry it wasn't Fair and Balanced--ha ha). In the $40-70k/yr. income range, Obama's plan would net an average reduction for each person's taxes by $2100. For McSame's plan, the reduction would average only $1400.

If you make over $70k/yr, you should have no problem "putting food on your family," as your hero W has put it. I have no sympathy for such whining from upper incomes.

Metulj, most corporations book taxes on their P&L below "Income (Loss) from Operations" (i.e., below the EBIT line). That then rolls into a Net Income (Loss). Corporations must pass on expenses it incurs (regardless of where on the P&L). That results in higher prices making them less competitive with foreign companies. They lose business (kills business) even though they didn't "pay" taxes - they passed them along to the consumer. The poor guy in the plant running the machine gets laid off because sales are down and the company doesn't need to run 3 shifts.

Most Liberals (er, Progressives) will look at this scenario and come to one conclusion. The CEO's pay is outlandish.

This was free.