Obama hammers McCain, Bush on economy, gas prices

You dislike at least 19 million democrats? I think you are being unreasonable.

You mean you dislike "a majority of the democratic party base"? Thank you for your valuable insight on this subject.

garg: I guess so.

firstnameavailable: "A majority of the Democratic Party base," is still well less than 1/3 of everyone that voted. That is not enough to win the presidency. The "majority of the Democratic Party base" has been riding pretty high up until now. Your attitude will hurt pretty boy more than help him. Keep up the good work. Your style of insight may serve McCain more than Obama. And it is precisely that style of insight that makes Hillary supporters sick.

Your response reminds me of a driver who cuts you off and then gives you the finger after you honk at them before slamming on your brakes to avoid a collision.

And my boyfriend has a handgun under the front seat of his pickup.

I never liked Obama very much. I was a Hillary backer.

There is nothing particularly wrong with that. Most people who pick a side early on don't bother to learn about the other candidates beyond the talking points that their chosen campaign puts out. But you should consider setting aside that prejudice and take the time to review Obama's positions on all of the issues.

What I dislike most about Obama are the people who like him.

And I can assure you that you have a counterpart in the sea of Obama supporters. Someone who doesn't like you because of your support for Clinton. Clinton's campaign died in Iowa, most people on Obama's side saw that writing on the wall -- and then they couldn't understand why Clinton's team didn't. After Super Tuesday and the winning streak in Feb, it didn't matter if Clinton won the rest of the states, Obama was in a position to run out the clock - which is exactly what he did. All of the calls for her to drop out probably built up a lot of resentment in you. And I can understand that. But, it's unfortunate for the Democratic party that there will be people who are politically active and yes choose not to back the nominee.

It's natural to lump each other into groups of "us vs. them" -- even though we're all on the same side. The same goes for Democrats vs Republicans. We're all on the same side - we want America to be a stronger nation. There are obviously differences in how to achieve that. Obama has a progressive agenda, and I promise that he shares more of your views than McCain does.

Scipio Africanus: He is Lutheran. I don't think he owns a bible. His sister got the one that their mother had. He is a pretty happy guy. He is mild mannered and a well respected retired farmer in the mid west. He carries a gun under his seat because he believes that it is the right thing to do. He has never used it on anything larger than a 40 lb ground hog. I told him that he does not have enough cats.

"Jesus take the wheel" does occasionally play on the country station that we listen to. I don't particularly like the song but it is less irritating that other music that I overhear while driving. He is not unhappy with his life. He has worked hard and believes that people deserve protection when they need it regardless of if that protection comes from a police officer or from a neighbor. I personally have a marlin 12 ga. single shot leaning in the corner near the bed, two dogs to work my sheep, allot of cats, and no ground hogs. I have trap shot in the drawer because I prefer want a wide pattern when I fire because it may be dark when I use it. I anticipate that I will use it on a coyote in my sheep pen before I would have to use it on an intruder. But I will use it if I need to.

I have a bachelors degree from the University of Wisconsin in History. I also did course work in accounting and in medieval literature. I work for a University in the mid-west. I own rental property and a 30 acre farm. What do you have to say for yourself?

Ben Grimm: I am sorry but I have lost respect for many, many Obama backers. They just don't know when to shut up. They go on and on about really stupid subjects. They are very young as a group and would follow anything on a string that glitters.

You have a bachelor's degree, and yet you think "allot", as in "allot of cats", is a word.

Wow.

edit:

I personally have a marlin 12 ga. single shot leaning in the corner near the bed, two dogs to work my sheep, allot of cats, and no ground hogs. I have trap shot in the drawer because I prefer want a wide pattern when I fire because it may be dark when I use it.

That's illegal, by the way. You need to have your guns locked in a safe, and your ammunition locked in a separate safe according to Canadian and American law.

Also, there's no such thing as "trap shot". By "trap shot", I assume you mean a lead size of between 7.5-9, to a maximum of about 1 & 1/8th oz. of shot.

I worked at a shooting range for three years and routinely go sport shooting with my dad, so you can't impress me with your shotgun talk.

I want to know what's wrong with individuals who support Obama.

Obama's an aloof elitist who really doesn't represent the average working class American.

How do you figure?

What I dislike most about Obama are the people who like him.

Catlady,

Do you mean like...blackpeople?

I love this:

Obama took part of his speech from headlines across the nation, noting that the average price of gas just hit $4 a gallon for the first time. The news followed an unusually sharp spike in the unemployment rate on Friday.

Okay, what party is preventing drilling? What party is preventing exploration in the gulf? What party is preventing additional refineries? what party has, for the past thirty years, been generally responsible for the lack of nuke power and new nuke facilities?

And on and on and on. Seems to me that we have a party who has caused the $4.00 gas, now trying to blame the party that actually tried to gain new, real, true to life energy sources.

And I love the "alternative" fuel bit. What, ethanol? Okay, let's just let millions starve so we can drive, right BO?

Hey Cat Lady, All Cats are Grey in the Dark. That is all I have to say to you. Stop wasting our time without logic in your discussion. You might be a "Redneck if".....

Okay, what party is preventing drilling? What party is preventing exploration in the gulf?

Neither of those will lower the price of oil. Demand from China and India has long since eclipsed ours and will only increase. You have to realize that oil production is not peak capacity right now. The price is where it's at because billions of people are willing to pay for it at this price. You won't change the minds of billions of people by adding more drilling capacity in the US.

All of that aside, saving our domestic oil resources has strategic value that should be obvious.

What party is preventing additional refineries?

Pretty much everyone when it comes to the states where refineries actually have to be built. Nobody wants an oil refinery in their back yard.

what party has, for the past thirty years, been generally responsible for the lack of nuke power and new nuke facilities?

Obama is on pro-side of the nuclear debate. His only issue is waste disposal. But again, nobody wants a nuclear power plant in their back yard.

The solution will be renewables -- and those are in Obama's "green" plan.

Obama's an aloof elitist who really doesn't represent the average working class American.

How do you figure?

Still waiting for a response.

LOL, ouch. I like how my comment was collapsed, but has 4 votes.

Maybe there should be a system in which a certain number of votes received invalidates a collapse.

Or have a Digg-like feature where it's a cumulative tally of up- and down-votes.

Neither of those will lower the price of oil.

Wrong!

Had Bill Clinton approved drilling in ANWR in the 90s, we would now be pulling out over 1 million barrels a day. At about 10% of our daily oil imports, that would definitely ease U.S. demand on foreign oil. And that is just one of many oil fields we aren't tapping today due to Democrats consistently thwarting oil exploration and drilling.

What I dislike most about Obama are the people who like him.

I feel the same way about the Chicago Cubs.

Had Bill Clinton approved drilling in ANWR in the 90s, we would now be pulling out over 1 million barrels a day. At about 10% of our daily oil imports, that would definitely ease U.S. demand on foreign oil.

Yes, but it wouldn't have reduced the demand for oil -- again, oil is a commodity and the price is set on a global market. 10% of our imports would account for a fraction of world-wide usage. OPEC is not at peak capacity, so 10% more oil from us means they pump 10% less oil and the price stays the same. The Saudis are happy to sell their oil at $150/barrel and they're in no hurry to relieve themselves of it.

Mike Sifeldeen wrote:

That's illegal, by the way. You need to have your guns locked in a safe, and your ammunition locked in a separate safe according to Canadian and American law.

You are wrong, by the way. So, please do not give out erroneous legal information.

According to Canadian law, you do not have to keep you firearms and ammunition locked in separate safes.

The United States has over 200 Federal statues, over 9,000 State statutes, and even more local statutes; all governing firearms. So unless you can be specific, I suspect that like your claim about Canadian law (aren't you Canadian?), your claim about American law is hopelessly incorrect.

...the police ever decide to do a random check...

A random check is generally called an unreasonable search in the US, which makes any evidence collected during such a search inadmissible.

...someone who clearly knows more about everything you've been blathering on about...

You mean like firearm legislation and search and seizure law?

I don't dislike Clinton supporters, just as I don't dislike McCain supporters. I dislike ignorant or uneducated voters that repeat only the misinformation they hear within major media or campaigns without doing research. It's one thing to say, "Hey, I heard this. Is it true?" and it's another to repeatedly tout the misinformation and then deny the existence of facts when they're presented to show that their misinformed views are false.

Or folks that insult your intelligence to prove their point. When in fact, they are angered that you have proven them wrong and wish to "burn" you with personal insults. Most of the time they succeed considering that I will call them jerks or get upset. But at any rate - there's no need for vulgar language and I try to control myself.

It's irrational to state that you hate a certain candidate's support base - as they are not all one entity. Each human being is unique - and there are different levels of political education with each. One might be a hard working female that is supporting Obama because he has her best interests in mind. Another might be a man who is deeply rooted within the Christian religion and believe the government should ban the females right to choice because abortion - in his faith - is a sin, in which case McCain would be the best choice. There are voters who like little government involvement in Welfare issues and little government interference in foreign countries - that person would support Bob Barr.

So really, lets try to be logical and understanding in the different mind sets of people.

You didn't read my post very well. I said it would ease U.S. demand on foreign oil. Part of our problem is that we're so upside down in our exports vs. our imports that the value of the dollar is continually pressured downward as money flows out, but not into the country. So, while the price of a barrel of oil is set globally, it is set in U.S. dollars and as the dollar has weakened, the price has gone up. Thus, any contribution that we make to decreasing imports (or increasing exports), helps the value of the dollar, and would consequently, lower the price of a barrel of oil.

According to Canadian law, you do not have to keep you firearms and ammunition locked in separate safes.

Wrong.

(c) it is not readily accessible to ammunition, unless the ammunition is stored, together with or separately from the firearm, in a container or receptacle that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into.

I don't know what you think a safe is, but section c) clearly states that ammunition has to be kept in a locked container (i.e. a safe) which separates it from the firearm.

And keeping it in a drawer by the bed is 'readily accessible' and not in a locked container.

A random check is generally called an unreasonable search in the US, which makes any evidence collected during such a search inadmissible.

I guess you're not familiar with the Patriot Act.

You must actually try to be wrong, at least I hope so for your sake.

Did you actually read section (c), did you understand what you read?

Let's recap for you, don't worry I'll go slow.

(c) it is not readily accessible to ammunition, unless the ammunition is stored, together with or separately from the firearm, in a container or receptacle that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into.

In other words Mike, what all those big words mean, is that you can store your ammunition and your firearms in the same safe. Contrary to your erroneous claims. In fact, the only time you can legally store your ammunition and firearms in the same place, is when they are in the same safe.

Phew, that wasn't so hard now was it?

Are you @!$%#ing kidding me? LOOK at what you're reading:

in a container or receptacle

that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into.

Do you store a firearm in a "container", Roan? No, no you really don't.

You store your ammunition in a separate, locked container.

Sure, put them all in one big safe. Put that safe inside an even bigger one. But unless your ammunition is stored in a different locked container, you're breaking the law.

Oh, this is getting to be fun.

No, I kid you not my young friend. Apparently I need to go slower this time.

Do you store a firearm in a "container", Roan? No, no you really don't.

Really? I sure do hope that no one, and I mean no one, is taking any advice from you. What do you think section (b) (iii) is referring to when it states: stored in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into? It is referring to a firearm Mike, so to answer your question correctly (unlike you); yes you can store a firearm in a "container", Mike. At least according to current Canadian law.

You store your ammunition in a separate, locked container.

Incorrect. If you want the ammunition to be readily accessible to the firearm, it needs to be be stored in a secure locked container, not necessarily a separate one.

Sure, put them all in one big safe. Put that safe inside an even bigger one. But unless your ammunition is stored in a different locked container, you're breaking the law.

Aaah, so do do realize you are wrong, because now you are changing your story. Yes, your ammunition needs to be in a locked container; however your firearm and your ammunition can be stored in the same safe, contrary to your initial claim. Here let me quote it for you since you appear to be conveniently forgetting:

You need to have your guns locked in a safe, and your ammunition locked in a separate safe according to Canadian and American law.

Do you get it now, or do we need to run through this once more?

Actually, I believe Roan is correct on this one. Mike was right about requiring a locked container, Roan is correct about the Canadian adaptation regarding if the gun and ammunition can be stored together or not.

In a nutshell, Canada allows the ammunition and gun to be stored in the same, locked safe. I'm not sure about America, though.

Either way, I'm pretty sure Cat Lady's boyfriend is in the wrong, regardless of the technical details of the "legally correct" way.

Listen to me very carefully, Roan.

The ammunition must

be stored so that it is readily accessible to the firearm.

If you store it in the SAME SAFE, it's readily accessible, isn't it?

That is why it can be stored "together with or separately from the firearm", except THAT AMMO has to be in a "container or receptacle that is kept securely locked".

Are you that @!$%#ing dense that you think it means they can be locked in the same receptacle?

I'm going to draw this out for you, because you are a obviously @!$%#ing moron who has never even owned a gun.

[1]

[2]

Imagine [1] is a box. It has ammunition in it.
[2] is a box, too. It has a firearm in it.

Notice how they're separate from each other?

They could be in the same biiiiiiiig box, but they're both locked up separately in their own little boxes. You can put a safe in a safe, you know.

You just need to make sure that your ammo is locked in a box, and your firearms are locked in a separate case. You're a @!$%#ing moron if you deny that.

Mike, I need not stoop to your level of childlike name-calling; the facts here are really simple.

You claimed that You need to have your guns locked in a safe, and your ammunition locked in a separate safe according to Canadian and American law.

You are incorrect.

As long as you ammunition is in a secure locked container, it can be in the same safe as your firearms.

You can twist and spin all you want, you can stamp your feet and call me names; but according to current Canadian firearms laws, you are wrong.

Sorry.

Subject: Just in case you missed it, you arrogant fool
Name: Mike Sifeldeen
Email: mike.sifeldeen@ualberta.ca

Why are you sending me unsolicited and insulting emails that are essentially copies of your error-filled comments, Mike?

safe

noun

a strong fireproof cabinet with a complex lock used for the storage of valuables

Learn what a safe is before you post again. The ammo and the firearm cannot be stored in the same compartment, safe, container, whatever the @!$%# else you want to call it.

Firearm goes in one box. Ammunition goes in another box. Both are locked. Both can be thrown into an even bigger safe, but they're not stored together loosely.

That's it. I own firearms and have been involved with various firearm safety courses. I know how to handle and store my firearms, you clearly don't.

edit: As the title says, just in case you missed it. Oh, and they're not "error-filled". I actually know what I'm talking about.

You don't even know what a safe is, LOL.

I think your little tantrum has cut blood to your head Mike. You don't get to dictate when I get to post. Sorry sonny, you're just not that important.

I see you are now attempting some revisionism. Perhaps I should remind you of your claim, again.

Mike Sifeldeen wrote:

You need to have your guns locked in a safe, and your ammunition locked in a separate safe according to Canadian and American law.

No distinction regarding ammunition stored in a secure locked container, just a flat claim that is wrong. Quite clearly, according to the now oft quoted legislation, one can legally store ammunition together with or separately from the firearm, provided that the ammunition is stored in a secure locked container.

Yes, that's it. Your claim that you have to store firearms and ammunition is separate safes is quite simply wrong.

Yes, of course you know what you are talking about Mike. I mean, except when you said that a firearm couldn't be stored in a container, or when you said that firearms and ammunition have to be stored in separate safes, or when you said that's the law in Canada and America, etc. Yes, we all get the picture Mike, you know what you are talking about.

I shudder to think that someone with your emotional control and legal knowledge has access to a firearm.

A safe is a container.

A firearm and ammunition cannot be stored in the same container.

You're an idiot.

But Mike, I thought that firearms couldn't be stored in containers? Now you say that they can, just not the same container as ammunition? Which is it Mike? Inquiring minds want to know.

See, your problem is that you are having trouble grasping that you are wrong. The evidence is right in front of you, I have pointed it out a few ways, someone has chimed in as well; yet you are incapable of seeing it. I posit that you do not want to see it. Unfortunately Mike, like the ostrich with it's head in the sand, just because you refuse to see something does not stop the rest of us from seeing it. It is a good thing that you are studying philosophy and not law, although it must be tough on your professors regardless.

A safe is always a type of a container; but a container is not always a safe. You see, firearms and ammunition can be stored in the same container (if it's large enough), as long as the ammunition is in a secure locked container.

You're an idiot.

I'm not sure what that says about you consider how our little exchange has progressed. :)

When I was saying a firearm couldn't be stored in a container, I mean the generally-held consensus of what image 'container' invokes.

If you knew anything whatsoever about firearm or sport shooting terminology, you'd know that a firearm 'container' is called a slip, hardshell, or case, and not a 'container'. And that ammunition storage bins are more often called 'containers', or flats, or boxes.

What I am telling you is that a safe is also a type of container. And you must have your ammunition locked in a separate container from your firearm.

If you have a firearm resting against a wall in a room, and right beside that firearm you have a box of shells, that is against the law. If you lock the door to that room, it's still against the law. What must happen is that you must take that box of shells, and lock it in it's own little container, and lock that firearm in it's own little 'container'. Then you lock the door to the room. Then it's legal.

This is not up for debate.

A safe is always a type of a container; but a container is not always a safe.

The type of container that is used to store ammunition is always a safe. Your definition is not correct.

When I was saying a firearm couldn't be stored in a container, I mean the generally-held consensus of what image 'container' invokes.

Of course you did Mike, because you know what you are talking about. Except that you were attempting to use the fact that the word container was used in the relevant legislation in order to recuse the wording from being applicable to firearms as well as ammunition. However, as I handily pointed out, you were still wrong. Too funny.

If you knew anything whatsoever about firearm or sport shooting terminology, you'd know that a firearm 'container' is called a slip, hardshell, or case, and not a 'container'. And that ammunition storage bins are more often called 'containers', or flats, or boxes.

Now that's a big if, Mike. You know, what would I know about firearms or sport shooting terminology? I'm just a dumb old fella from Africa, who has probably spent more years shooting than you have been alive. I'm just glad to have a young know-it-all like you to show me the ropes.

What I am telling you is that a safe is also a type of container. And you must have your ammunition locked in a separate container from your firearm.

Well, I'm glad you cleared that up because I would have never guess that a safe is also a type of container. Let me ask you Mike, if a container also a type of a safe? (Hint: The answer is in my previous post.) When you are looking for the answer, please be sure the read the following: Firearms and ammunition can be stored in the same container (if it's large enough), as long as the ammunition is in a secure locked container.

If you have a firearm resting against a wall in a room, and right beside that firearm you have a box of shells, that is against the law. If you lock the door to that room, it's still against the law. What must happen is that you must take that box of shells, and lock it in it's own little container, and lock that firearm in it's own little 'container'. Then you lock the door to the room. Then it's legal.

Wrong, you do not need to lock the door of the room. Regardless, that does not make your original claim correct.

Now since you are seemingly intent on proving that you do indeed know what you are talking about, what US laws made it illegal to store your firearms and ammunition in the same safe?

A safe is always a type of a container; but a container is not always a safe.

The type of container that is used to store ammunition is always a safe. Your definition is not correct.

Hilarious. You really need to step back at take a look at what you are attempting to say.

Quite obviously you are not disagreeing that a safe is always a type of a container. So you are are saying that the part of my definition (it's not a definition by the way) which is not correct is a container is not always a safe.

So Mike, you think that a container is always a safe? Really? A pencil case is a container. Right? Is a pencil case always a safe? No?

This really is too much fun.

If you have a firearm resting against a wall in a room, and right beside that firearm you have a box of shells, that is against the law. If you lock the door to that room, it's still against the law. What must happen is that you must take that box of shells, and lock it in it's own little container, and lock that firearm in it's own little 'container'. Then you lock the door to the room. Then it's legal.

^Facts.

End of story :-D

I'll even print it again in bold:

If you have a firearm resting against a wall in a room, and right beside that firearm you have a box of shells, that is against the law. If you lock the door to that room, it's still against the law. What must happen is that you must take that box of shells, and lock it in it's own little container, and lock that firearm in it's own little 'container'. Then you lock the door to the room. Then it's legal.

A locking container for firearm ammunition is always a safe. Nothing else will suffice.

Goodnight.

/sleeps happily knowing he is correct.

Don't run away Mike, we're just having a little fun here.

We can play the fact game if you really want to?

Fact: Contrary to your claim, you do not need to store your firearm and ammunition in separate safes according to Canadian law, as long as the ammunition is in a secured locked container.

Fact: You have no legal basis for your claim that according to American law you need to store your firearm and ammunition in separate safes.

Fact: Contrary to your claim, you can legally store a firearm in a "container", according to Canadian law.

Fact: Your little example above does not make you initial claim correct. You are still wrong in that regard.

Fact: In your little example above, you do not need to lock the door to the room.

Fact: A container is not always a safe.

Sweet dreams Mike.

Manchurian-McCain

As a prisoner of war in Vietnam John McCain was captured, tortured and brainwashed to be a Manchurian candidate. Sense he's been in the senate he's relentlessly run for President Of The United States to take the office as programmed to, and once he's reached the Presidency the joint Red-Chinese and North Vietnamese will control the U.S. .As the Red Chinese worked with the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam War, they believe in the thousand year war. Every one should watch Frank Sinatra in the Manchurian candidate before it's to late.

...so by your line of thinking since Barack was sitting in those pues for 3 times the length of time Mc Cain was in the Hanoi Hilton...I ask you who would be more more inclined to be as you say a brainwashed Manchurian candidate.....where in the world do you guys come up with this crap...the brown acid making a come back....it was bad in the 60`s and its obvious it ain't gotten any better.....McCain08..Change you can trust....ok that wasn`t called for...so shoot me it made me feel better.............

I have no intention of putting that shotgun in a case. The shells are in the dresser drawer near the bed. I have the gun to use it. I don't have any children and only my boyfriend, who has a gun under the seat of his truck (remember him?) has access to the house. Guns are not safe. Guns were designed to blow a hole in something with the intention of stopping it or killing it. Life has become so homogenized. People have had guns, without interruption, for generations. It is only the group of people who chose to disarm themselves who have lost the common knowledge of how a gun operates, how to store it, how to teach your children, how to supervise your children (I might add) and how to live with the gun.

By the way. I have been in contact with that gun all of my life. It was my fathers gun, it stood in his closet, shells on the shelf in the closet. Nobody told anyone it was there and nobody ever got hurt. I had it in my closet the whole time my kids were growing up. I raised 5 kids - same scenario. This all reminds me of turkey hunting. They put turkeys on the endangered species list while they reintroduced them. Two generations laps between the time when they were commonly hunted and then reintroduced. It was very hard to find someone with first hand knowledge of how to hunt them.

...so by your line of thinking since Barack was sitting in those pues for 3 times the length of time McCain was in the Hanoi Hilton...

At the risk of continuing an absurd argument... church is an hour a week-- maybe two at the most. So 2 hours x 52 Sundays x 20 years = 2040 hours in church. That's basically a work year. Far less time than McCain spent in the camp.

..and one was willing and the other was not....but that aside...is Barack going to man-up and do the town halls...mmm should be very interesting....frankly I don't think he has the nerve..but I hope I'm wrong...

Who wouldn't have the nerve to debate McCain in an unscripted session?? An untrained monkey could walk circles around his oratory skills, with both hands behind his back and a banana in his mouth!!

What substantive presidential experience does McCain have?? None. Neither of the candidates have that experience. But if it is Legislative experience you are basing it on, I would much rather have Obama's 'limited' experience compared to McCain's. It doesn't matter how many years you have been doing something if you've been doing it wrong. Bush had experience and sub par oratory skills, and we see how far that got us. How about intelligence as a quality? Once again, an untrained monkey rises above McCain...

..well man-up then Barack you are being refered to as a untrained monkey surly you arnt going to let that stand..Barack show us the un-washed you can go toe to toe with the old man......cut the crap if you are man enough bring it son...step up,the old man has called you out...

Rob, putting aside your horrible grammar, nonsensical rantings, and apparent inability to create a sentence, where do you ever get the assertion that I am referring to Obama as an untrained monkey? In neither of my posts do I even mention his name, and for you to reference him as such is blatantly ignorant and borderline racist.

What insight. You support Hillary because you don't like Obama supporters. I would like to know what has Hillary done or voted on for you to support her.

You shouldn't judge people just because of their political choice- saying that we are all unlikeable or drones of Obama is a rude stereotype. Get to know and understand some of them and find out why they believe what they do- don't simply make judgments.

Eff that N. Yeah, if I didn't think this post would be deleted I would say it outright. Obama needs lessons in foreign policy as well as public speaking. Sure, he looks great giving a speech, but only if he is reading from a teleprompter. How many times does Obama say "um" during an unscripted interview? He has no clue what he is talking about unless he has someone tell him what is going on ahead of time. Mike, you need to learn to read. Roan, thank you for remaining civil.

Thank you mike, I have said it over and over again, people here lack logic, it's amazing, at-least i can for once see firsthand how an "empire" can collapse by its people lack of logic. Amazing.

Barack Obama proposes that the cap on Social Security taxes be raised or eliminated to make Social Security solvent. He says so on his own website:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/socialsecurity/

If you're self-employed (like myself) this represents a significant tax increase as not only will you pay on a larger chunk (and potentially all) of your income, but you have to pay both sides of that increase. He also supports the rollback of the cuts made to the Estate Tax, Capital Gains and the highest income brackets.

Essentially, if you want to see higher taxes, vote for Obama. He'll see to it.

Actually Tim, eliminating the cap on SS is only an increase if you make more than $102,000/ year. As it stands now, one is only taxed on the first $102,000, anything after that is left untaxed. So, eliminating the cap means that wealthy, non middle class will have more of their earnings taxed, thereby providing for those who are not wealthy. Like it should be.
And please, please explain to me how rolling back tax cuts for the wealthy would hurt the middle class, or those that really need tax cuts? And don't give me any of your republican trickle down bull@!$%#, because we have 8 years of @!$%# stacked high as proof that doesn't work.

@BAjunkie:

So, eliminating the cap means that wealthy, non middle class will have more of their earnings taxed

Making $102,000 a year is nowhere close to wealthy. I live in the Bay Area where you will be hard-pressed to even own a home making 100k a year.

Like it should be.

Commie.

And please, please explain to me how rolling back tax cuts for the wealthy would hurt the middle class

The tax cuts Bush pushed through Congress in 2003 included the following:

When you look at the percentages, middle income families benefitted the most. Under the 2003 tax cuts:

So, go ahead, believe all the rhetoric, vote for Obama – you'll get real change alright. And it will come in the form of a higher tax bill.

First off, for the rest of America that doesn't live in the Bay area(98.25% of us), $102,000 is a damn good income. Just because you choose to live in an uber expensive section of the country, doesn't mean that the whole country is like your neighborhood. You have to look at the median income of the classes as a whole. Secondly, SS is inherently socialistic. Not communistic. Learn a little before you throw terms around.
Thirdly, just because there were tax breaks for the middle class pushed through by Bush doesn't negate the fact that there were also tax breaks for the wealthy. Obama plans to keep the tax cuts for middle income, but nix those for income earners over $250,000/year. Rolling back these breaks will hurt no one but the wealthy. Obama plans to offset the payroll tax 100% for middle income earners. How, pray tell, does that result in higher taxes?

BAjunkie: I live in the mid-west and 102K is not all that high. You clearly make less than that. You don't look at the average income unless you are a student. You look at how it affects YOUR income. Democrats raise taxes, that is always the case. They create huge governmental administrations but generally take better care of the poor and the very rich (because they and their friends are). They are no different than the Republicans. They just do it differently. Both parties make the middle class pay for their vacation homes. The Democrats through taxes. The Republicans through cost of living increases through controlled shortages.

Just because you choose to live in an uber expensive section of the country, doesn't mean that the whole country is like your neighborhood

And just because you choose to live somewhere that doesn't pay decent enough salaries to enable you to pay your bills doesn't mean you get to come and take from whomever it is you deem "wealthy" to make up the difference.

You have to look at the median income of the classes as a whole.

This is actually the core problem of our current taxation scheme. Until we start to recognize that incomes do not mean the same thing in all parts of the country, we're always going to have trouble coming up with a balanced progressive tax table.

Secondly, SS is inherently socialistic. Not communistic. Learn a little before you throw terms around.

If you go back and look a little more closely you'll see I was referring to your statement that the wealthy should be more heavily taxed to provide for those with less, not Social Security. But of course you're right, even in that context, your position doesn't equate to full-blown Communism. However, I only tossed that in there to inject a little humor into the debate. Sorry if you took that too seriously.

Thirdly, just because there were tax breaks for the middle class pushed through by Bush doesn't negate the fact that there were also tax breaks for the wealthy.

I never asserted that they did. However, unlike you, I don't have a problem with the "wealthy" receiving tax breaks along with the rest of us. Generally speaking, I feel that taxes are too high across the board for every class of income. So I welcome any relief that comes.

Obama plans to offset the payroll tax 100% for middle income earners.

Only if you're making less than $75,000 a year. Which isn't going to help those people making over 100k who are going to get socked with this payroll tax increase if Obama gets his way.

You clearly make less than that. You don't look at the average income unless you are a student.

Really? BA stands for Business Analyst. That's what I do, my career, for a $4 Billion company no less. Haven't been a student for a while now. One looks at the average income if they are an economist studying the big picture, you know, macro economics(which, while I was a student, obtained a 104 average in that class). I do agree with the latter part of your comment however. But I believe that Obama is not running his taxation reform plan with only Democratic interests in hand but with the interest of the majority of the American people. Or, at least, that's my hope.

This is actually the core problem of our current taxation scheme. Until we start to recognize that incomes do not mean the same thing in all parts of the country, we're always going to have trouble coming up with a balanced progressive tax table.

Exactly, I completely agree.

However, I only tossed that in there to inject a little humor into the debate. Sorry if you took that too seriously.

I like a good commie joke as much as the next guy! Just hard to sense the feel of a conversation in this darn internet.

However, unlike you, I don't have a problem with the "wealthy" receiving tax breaks along with the rest of us.

It's not that I have a problem with them getting tax breaks, but I think it should be to a lesser degree. And, by wealthy, I mean those that have $250,000+ income(or equivalent based on location).

Only if you're making less than $75,000 a year. Which isn't going to help those people making over 100k who are going to get socked with this payroll tax increase if Obama gets his way.

That is very true. And I think taking care of the core issue you stated earlier would mitigate those losses, putting those making ~75k-200k a year in higher COL areas in the lower brackets.
These are complicated issues with even more complicated solutions, and taxation wasn't my major, but it interests me still. Always love hearing other's perspectives, that's how we learn and grow.

It is hard to have conversations on the Internet, you're right! I'm sure we would all be so much more cordial and productive sitting around a table at the local coffee shop. And we'd probably find out we agree on many more things than we disagree on.

Except supply is not low at this point in time. And as the price to drill oil drops, the oil companies are making higher profits. That indicates that there is an artificial demand being made by the oil companies themselves.

That indicates that there is an artificial demand being made by the oil companies themselves.

Are the various oil producing countries owned by the oil companies? I thought the oil companies were kicked out of a lot of the oil producing countries.

My impression is that oil speculation on the global market was driving up the price and the oil companies were benefiting just because they're selling oil in the same market.

Socializing the oil industry reminds me of the shortages during the Carter administration when price controls made gas hard to come by at times. Reagan eliminated price controls which eliminated the shortages, but let the price go way up.

Are the various oil producing countries owned by the oil companies?

Well, the U.S. sure seems to be.

The price of oil is linked to the strength of the U.S. dollar. As our dollar plummets, oil per barrel goes up.

The strength of the U.S. dollar is controlled by the amount of it in circulation, which is directly controlled by the Federal Reserve.

Your dollar isn't plummeting. The Federal Reserve is keeping circulation stagnant for some reason, even in light of current oil-related events.

Actually, our dollar is plummeting. And while the amount in circulation does have an effect on the strength, is not by any means the only contributing factor. High interest, low inflation rates, strength of the economy, and many more all come into play. A major factor is how it is doing on the Forex market, because, like most major currencies, it is traded as a commodity. The link below explains in more detail.Strong Dollar v. Weak Dollar

I guess it depends on your definition of plummet. Here's two links I read this morning about the state of our currency. One is from 2007, the other from a few days ago. Dollar link 1 U.S Dollar plummets as jobless rate spikes

So an average decrease of over 6% in the value of a dollar in 2007 alone is not plummeting? Since 2001 it has lost 34%. Maybe it hasn't 'plummeted' since yesterday, but if you look at the trend, it is falling sharply over the long run. And that is the very definition of 'plummet'.

The Federal Reserve is keeping circulation stagnant for some reason, even in light of current oil-related events.

I don't suppose you have any proof to validate your claim?

Obama has had a victory over Hillary Clinton and just barely! Now he enters the real world. I want to see the first debate with McCain! That old war horse is going to chew him up! I wonder if Obama is going to run from those like he ran from debating Hillary. He has been very clever in his campaign so far. But clever will not work as president.

Color has nothing to do with being too young and inexperienced for the job! Remember - he is half white! Obama has not changed anything with politics. It has all been done before!

Excuse you? "... ran from debating Hillary?" Obama nearly made Hillary cry because of how thoroughly he destroyed her in a debate on numerous occasions.

McCain is a tired, slow old man, not to mention a terrible speaker, and Obama will run circles around his feeble, backwards mind.

Obama doesn't want universal mandatory health care provided for by the government.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/#coverage-for-all

Which is a great idea, imo. Giving people the freedom to choose, while providing health care for the children who cannot choose. As long as it really offers what is promised.

Yes, adults can opt out. Because they're adults. In fact, that is sign of how not socialist he is. Adults can choose for themselves, children cannot, thus they are covered automatically.

But he still provides the option for adults.

Obama has had a victory over Hillary Clinton and just barely!

So? To beat Clinton handily he would have had to destroy her image. What good comes from that? As I said above, he won the nomination in Iowa, the spreadsheet leaked by the campaign proves that. They did the math and found that they didn't need to do any more than go through the motions to secure the nomination. What I find more telling is that Clinton couldn't shut down Obama after the bitter comments and Rev. Wright rearing his head twice.

Thank you Mike Sifeldeen, Ben Grimm, Peter Damoah-Afari. I agree and thank you, I have to ignore ignorance.

Yes, adults can opt out.

Then it's not mandatory, is it?

Right. What are we even arguing about?

At least Obama is giving everybody the option. People don't need to, but it's there if they want it.

Which is exactly how it should be.

Romney kicked McCain's ass soundly in every one of the Republican debates.

Then why did McCain win the primaries he did?

Ben, I doubt that you watched all of the Republican debates. I only watched a few. And I did not see the one where Hillary cried. Oh boy, now that is tough, he made her cry. You must be a man without a girlfriend because she would kick your butt for that stupid comment. So what if she cried. I cry whenever I feel like it.

Because the GOP is holding Romney in reserve for 2012 after the anti-bush/gop wave has subsided. Romney chose to drop out and in doing so cleared the field for McCain. He had a very good path to a delegate lead, but the calendar was stacked in such a way that his position looked worse than it actually was.

The GOP strategy in this cycle is simple: introduce Romney to the country, let the maverick McCain take the fall, then run Romney again as a Reagan-esque conservative reformer to recover from the "damage" that either McCain or Obama will have done to the country.

Regardless of who wins this election, he will be attacked by the GOP for having led this country in the wrong direction for 4 years. The next President is the GOP's buffer between themselves and Bush's failed policies.

I doubt that you watched all of the Republican debates.

I watched a few -- and saw clips of the rest -- and it may just be my opinion, but McCain is a terrible debater.

I only watched a few. And I did not see the one where Hillary cried

That's because it never happened. She never cried in public until New Hampshire, and I watched all of the debates after the New Year.. no tears were shed.

I doubt anyone would touch Romney with a 10 foot poll after the way he caved and with that scandal in Texas.

I have always liked McCain. He works well with the Democrats. I want someone with experience and guts. I don't think that Obama has either. What he wants for America is not within his power to accomplish. That makes him sound very foolish to me.

C'mon Mike -- lets not get personal.

I totally wouldn't have if our resident Cat Lady hadn't started with the patronizing.

I know, it's just a verbose way of saying "WELL SHE STARTED IT", but what can I say, I'm irrational like that.

Guts, eh? What does that even mean, you ridiculous hick?

Guts, eh! What does that mean? You [are a] ridiculous hick!

Nanny, nanny - boo hoo!

Uhm. Okay.

...

What?

Thank you Yellow Dog 1 for sharing and I too supported Hillary at first and went to Obama when statistically it was clear that she would not quite make it. I just sent her 50 dollars to help with debt after watching her last unification speech. She is "Awesome" and has cracked the glass ceiling significantly for women, and its ok Mike as I had to hold myself back from doing the same.

My thoughts: Cat Lady was never really a Democrat, despite claims of Hillary backing. Why back someone that was so similar to Obama, only to turn to McCain when Hillary lost the primaries? I smell Republican misleading tactics.

That being said, I've also never met anyone so immature on the internet. Come on guys, this is a news site! Be reasonable. "Nanny, nanny - boo hoo", Cat Lady? Really? Like.. really really?

I have always liked McCain. He works well with the Democrats. I want someone with experience and guts. I don't think that Obama has either. What he wants for America is not within his power to accomplish. That makes him sound very foolish to me.

Cat Lady you logic reeks. Read: If you really want to understand what this race is about, look at the two candidates' fathers

If you really want to understand what this race is about, look at the two candidates' fathers

Do you still want tuff and all fluff boy McCain?

I also dislike Obama but I was going to vote for him in the beginning until he started playing the race card and I do believe he is a racist.

He never played the race card. Bill and Hillary did. One of his main visions is to bridge the gap between races and unite the country.

Why don't our government get up and start producing the oil we have in this country, instead of depending on the Mid-East.

This would be only a short term fix. We don't have enough oil in the entire world to sustain us much past my generation, much less enough in our country. We need investments in alternative energies, not a Reagan/Bush era doubling down on oil again.

Obama will not be able to handle the job and he also want amnesty for the illegal in our country, Clinton also want amnesty for illegal but knows more about the office than McCain or Obama.

"Obama supports a system that allows undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens." From his website, under his immigration issues plan.

jdl-28: We don't want to drill for oil in areas that should be protected as natural. There is more money to be earned from tourism than from oil. We are starting to see that clearly in the US. We need to instead cultivate renewable resources. Had our government subsidized solar electricity like they bailed out the auto manufactuers or oil companies, we would not be in this mess. The feds should offer $10,000 to anyone who purchases a battery powered vehicle. It should put money and jobs into the solar and wind electricity generating industries. It should let the people in the middle east kill each other and if they point a gun at us, then strike hard and once.

And you young brats stop acting like middle class whites. You can sure criticize someone for not having the education that your moms and dads paid for. You make me sick! You people are classic whites: You were born on third base and think you got there by hitting a triple!

Cat lady, was that directed at me? Because I sure wasn't born on third base. Shoot, I would have been lucky to have been born under the bleachers.

And you young brats stop acting like middle class whites. You can sure criticize someone for not having the education that your moms and dads paid for. You make me sick!

Intelligence envy.

And I'm not white. But I am smarter than you.

Why don't our government get up and start producing the oil we have in this country, instead of depending on the Mid-East. Our prices would come down and it would help everyone including businesses, but they do not care after all they are not paying for their own gas we are.

That's a red herring. Oil is a commodity sold on the world market -- doesn't matter where it's pulled out from, the price is the same. You probably haven't put gas in your car that was refined from a barrel of Mid-East oil in 20 years. Most of our oil comes from Canada, Venezuela and Africa. And no oil company is going to drill in ANWR and then sell the oil to US consumers at a discount when they can sell it overseas at full price.

Mike: Hey kid. Settle down! This is just life. It is just a test. If it were a real life, this message would be followed with instructions.

I have not seen anything yet that convinces me that you are smarter than I am.

Hey Cat. Respond to the complete and merciless verbal @!$%#kicking I delivered to you here, and here before you tell me to settle down.

this is a good logical thought.

Manchurian-McCain

As a prisoner of war in Vietnam John McCain was captured, tortured and brainwashed to be a Manchurian candidate. Sense he's been in the senate he's relentlessly run for President Of The United States to take the office as programmed to, and once he's reached the Presidency the joint Red-Chinese and North Vietnamese will control the U.S. .As the Red Chinese worked with the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam War, they believe in the thousand year war. Every one should watch Frank Sinatra in the Manchurian candidate before it's to late.

..here we go again....please get a new line,that one is soooo lame...

Why don't you start by explaining yourself. How is it the same old politics? What would you like elaboration on? If it is the issues, why don't you investigate his stance, as I am sure you have done no investigating thus far, or you would have not posted your comment. His website even has a section devoted to explaining his stance AND solution to many issues.

has anyone noticed that it wasn't until we had a democratic majority in congress before we started having fuel and economy issues? I believe that congress is hurting the American people on purpose to jockey for position in the next election. Really we should be trying them in a criminal court for the damage they are doing to our country.

clo.. again, correlation does not equal causation. We have been leading up to economic and fuel crises for years before the current Congress came in. By your logic, I could say we never had a 9/11 type terrorist attack until Bush came in. But that's not true is it.

one thing that I am positive of is this. anything that our government gets involved in, they screw it up. We need less government, not more. Obama is more socialist than anything else. I am not a real McCain fan, but he is the lesser of the two evils.

well, I'd be more worried about it if his opponent would actually do the things he talks about. Seriously, McCain has the highest absenteeism in the senate. Even if I did support his policies, I'd be worried about his record and whether he'd show up to work. I wish I had a job where I could miss more days than anyone else at work and still get paid for it.

No-one is saying that we're going to leave Iraq immediately. Frankly I think all but the most daft individuals would agree we have to leave systematically and in a way that ensures that they're going to be able to stand on their feet. I hope we can do it in a few years and reduce our troop and monetary demands.

However, It's not about the Oil. We're over there for many reasons but we're not getting the oil out of Iraq. (Don't have the links handy, but a little research will dig them up)

The difference I've seen between Carter and Obama is that Carter was a dyed in the wool optimist and Obama happens to be pragmatic. We'll see how it pans out. It's just obvious to me that what we've been doing hasn't worked as well as anyone had hoped and the fiscal policies that this current administration have led to a weak dollar which in turn has helped raise the prices of gas.

I'd rather not see this continued.

BAjunkie wrote: Why don't you start by explaining yourself. How is it the same old politics? What would you like elaboration on? If it is the issues, why don't you investigate his stance, as I am sure you have done no investigating thus far, or you would have not posted your comment. His website even has a section devoted to explaining his stance AND solution to many issues.

You are assuming that I did not or do not research prior to commenting. I have read through key points both candidates are offering the voters. It is a good read but I don't hear it when I watch interviews with the candidates. The answers, from either candidate, are generic "old politics" roundabout responses. Many people,still,do not access the Internet and should not have to in order to learn the core policy points of someone who wants their vote. That, sir or ma'am equals "old politics". Personally, I find Sen.Obama is the finest political orator since Robert Kennnedy and definitely an intelligent person.

Many people,still,do not access the Internet and should not have to in order to learn the core policy points of someone who wants their vote.

Actually, over 70% of Americans access the internet daily. If you have learned anything from the vine, it is not to trust MSM to give you the candidates real positions. I mean.. Flag pin..case in point.
The only 'old politics' that I have seen Obama stick to so far is his stance on Israel and his speech at AIPAC. While I believe that a people have a right to their own country, this has been an issue for a few thousand years, so I hardly believe that we can really change the situation much. If you haven't seen an interview in which Obama actually talks about issues, then you haven't looked hard enough. YouTube is a pretty good starting point.

if it were any other job, we would fire them on the spot, not wait until their term is up. Our congress is doing a terrible job and are not serving their people.

Don't forget that Congress doesn't have a veto-proof majority and has been hamstrung by Bush and the Republicans in Congress.

I sense empty accusations flying about.

Torabu is your spidey sense tingling?

Because I have a strange feeling you're right.

Barack Obama 47 percent

John McCain 43 percent

And Ralph Nader 6 percent.

I've been maintaining all along that Obama would lose if Nader were factored in but, this AP poll proves otherwise unless Nader can drain enough of Obama's support to propel Mc
Cain in. I have to grudgingly admit that. Ooouuuccchhh!!!

Hatuxka: Well said!

Agreed! But you forget one thing, Hatuxka: this is the internet. On the internet, EVERYTHING is a BFD. ;)

He said he would place a windfall profits tax on oil companies

Which would only serve to increase the price of gasoline, as the oil companies will simply pass on the cost to the consumer. Brilliant, and this genius wants to be the next President?

LOL, right. Like you're in any position to criticize a top senator on economic issues, who has been dealing with economic issues on a far greater level and for far longer than yourself. Do you honestly believe he and his advisors haven't taken all these things into account and made provisions for them? Sheer uninformed arrogance on your part.

Like you're in any position to criticize a top senator on economic issues, who has been dealing with economic issues on a far greater level and for far longer than yourself.

I'm in an excellent position to smell bull@!$%# when it emanates from politicians. What economic issues has he dealt with? What Senate committees has he served on that dealt with these alleged economic issues? What legislation has he sponsored that has passed into law which dealt with these alleged economic issues?

Do you honestly believe he and his advisors haven't taken all these things into account and made provisions for them?

Prove how they would even be able to, and I will then consider that they may have done so.

Sheer uninformed arrogance on your part.

I'm not the guy blathering on about things he knows nothing about.

It costs the oil companies 100 million dollars in one single search for oil at the ocean floor. Russia is giving their oil companies tax cuts because they know the companies will have more money to spend looking for new oil fields. Tax cuts = Productivity.

The oil companies don't need tax breaks to subsidize their search for more oil. Their record breaking profits will more than cover those costs; it is the cost of doing business, after all. When it comes to big business, the government should not be plying favorites. As so many conservatives are wont to say, let the market do it's thing.

Russia subsidizes gas exploration because the Russian government holds a monopoly over natural gas and oil pipelines there. Who else would pay for exploration?

..it`s not rocket science...but whatever,Barack knows for now we need oil...so the only real solution.

....is simple.......my friends..

Let's hope so.

All the public monies (if spent) will provide enough oil to mow our lawns, in 20 years................

Shut up!

...?

What's with the playa hatin'?