Toooooooooooo easy.

We've had another BUSH-Admin (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/10/AR2008011004055.html?hpid=topnews)!!!!!!!!!!!

*

"As the presidential campaign got underway a year ago, the candidates faced a volatile political environment dominated by the Iraq war, illegal immigration and terrorism. A year later, the campaigns are rewriting their playbooks as it appears that the race may actually be shaped by the economy.

The virtual halt in job growth, the climb of oil prices above $100 a barrel, the New Year's stock market tumble and the continuing mortgage crisis have fueled fears of recession and crystallized the nation's growing economic anxiety (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_1980s_recession). Nowhere was that clearer this week than in New Hampshire, where exit polls showed that the economy has overtaken all other issues as the top concern for Democrats and Republicans alike."

*

So.......where're Obama's credentials (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/index.html)?

So.......where're Obama's credentials (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/index.html)?

Right here. (http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a/Obama2002War.htm)

:thumbs:

Right here. (http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a/Obama2002War.htm)

:thumbs:
Yeah.....those speeches really pay-the-bills. :rolleyes:

Yeah.....those speeches really pay-the-bills.

The words of the candidate himself mean a lot more to me than the supposed accomplishments of the candidate's spouse.

:thumbs:

The words of the candidate himself mean a lot more to me than the supposed accomplishments of the candidate's spouse.

:thumbs:
Words vs. a proven-quantity.

Sorry.....I've gotta go with what works.

Words vs. a proven-quantity.


Nothing proven about your candidate.
Only your candidate's spouse.

Personally, I do not want the person responsible for NAFTA back in power.

The words of the candidate himself mean a lot more to me than the supposed accomplishments of the candidate's spouse.

:thumbs:
Supposed, huh?

I suppose The Wall Street Journal was (merely) having an eight-year hallucination (http://www.kellysite.net/taxes.html), huh? :rolleyes:

Nothing proven about your candidate.
Only your candidate's spouse.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.....and, she's (magically) gonna do a 180, policy-wise, and avoid making another Bush look like a know-nothing economist???

Yeah....THAT'S gonna happen. :rolleyes:

The words of the candidate himself mean a lot more to me than.........

For me, the words coming out of their mouths (at least the mouths of the candidates of either wing of the Corporate Party) mean absolutely nothing.

_________________________

In the long and harrowing national nightmare we presently find ourselves trapped in, a filthy brand of governance has emerged, entrenching itself deep into our society with its claws of violence and destruction. It is a government devoid of honor or integrity; living, breathing and spewing lies and deceits, exploiting fear and insecurity to achieve its goals and manipulating an entire nation suffering through its post 9/11 insecurity and slumber into blindly following its evil dictates.------Manuel Valenzuela

"Some of the damage done can never be rectified. There are, however, some steps that this country urgently needs to take. These include reversing Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for the wealthy, beginning to liquidate our global empire of over 800 military bases, cutting from the defense budget all projects that bear no relationship to the national security of the United States, and ceasing to use the defense budget as a Keynesian jobs program. If we do these things we have a chance of squeaking by. If we don't, we face probable national insolvency and a long depression (http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174884)."

*

Fortunately, for us, we've got EXPERIENCE waiting-in-the-wings (http://news4florida.tripod.com/indexfraud.html)!!!!

Toooooooooooo easy.

We've had another BUSH-Admin (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/10/AR2008011004055.html?hpid=topnews)!!!!!!!!!!!

And look how freakin' well that went, huh? I think that's an argument against another Clinton pres.

And look how freakin' well that went, huh? I think that's an argument against another Clinton pres.
What........you wanna roll-the-dice & cross-your-fingers and HOPE Obama can do as well as Team Clinton (http://www.kellysite.net/taxes.html)???? :rolleyes:

"Not only was the entire national deficit eliminated after raising taxes on the wealthy in 1993, but the economy grew so fast for the remainder of the decade that many conservative economists thought that the Fed should raise the prime interest rate in order to slow it down."

*

Trouble for Obama: 36 Percent Undecided in South Carolina (http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/index.php/2008/01/24/36-percent-undecided-in-south-carolina/)

"Some of the damage done can never be rectified. There are, however, some steps that this country urgently needs to take. These include reversing Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for the wealthy, beginning to liquidate our global empire of over 800 military bases, cutting from the defense budget all projects that bear no relationship to the national security of the United States, and ceasing to use the defense budget as a Keynesian jobs program.

Absolutely correct.

From Chalmers Johnson, author of Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic, writing at the http://www.tomdispatch.com/ website -----

On November 7, 2007, the U.S. Treasury announced that the national debt had breached $9 trillion for the first time ever. This was just five weeks after Congress raised the so-called debt ceiling to $9.815 trillion. If you begin in 1789, at the moment the Constitution became the supreme law of the land, the debt accumulated by the federal government did not top $1 trillion until 1981. When George Bush became president in January 2001, it stood at approximately $5.7 trillion. Since then, it has increased by 45%. This huge debt can be largely explained by our defense expenditures in comparison with the rest of the world.

The world's top 10 military spenders and the approximate amounts each country currently budgets for its military establishment are:

1. United States, $623 billion
2. China, $65 billion
3. Russia, $50 billion
4. France, $45 billion
5. United Kingdom, $42.8 billion
6. Japan, $41.75 billion
7. Germany, $35.1 billion
8. Italy, $28.2 billion
9. South Korea, $21.1 billion
10. India, $19 billion

World total military expenditures (2004 est.), $1,100 billion
World total (minus the United States), $500 billion

Our excessive military expenditures did not occur over just a few short years or simply because of the Bush administration's policies. They have been going on for a very long time in accordance with a superficially plausible ideology and have now become entrenched in our democratic political system where they are starting to wreak havoc. This ideology I call "military Keynesianism" -- the mistaken belief that public policies focused on frequent wars, huge expenditures on weapons and munitions, and large standing armies can indefinitely sustain a wealthy capitalist economy.

The opposite is actually true.

[QUOTE=Mr. Shaman]What........you wanna roll-the-dice & cross-your-fingers and HOPE Obama can do as well as Team Clinton (http://www.kellysite.net/taxes.html)???? :rolleyes:

I think it's a damn shame that these two blowhards is the best the DINO's have to offer. More bullshit served up to the pleasure of corporate America.:hitout:
Kucinich has bowed out and I feel sick. Dodd also would've been a good alternate.
You can keep your Clinton dynasty. I want no part of it.
Obama can't keep his stories straight any better than Romney. Gimme a fukin break.
And I don't want no stinkin' republican lite.
Gimme a New Castle or a Yuengling.. Something with substance..

excuse the rant..I'm mad Kucinich went home..:rant:

If you begin in 1789, at the moment the Constitution became the supreme law of the land, the debt accumulated by the federal government did not top $1 trillion until 1981.
Whatta $hocker (http://www.lafn.org/politics/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html), huh?? :rolleyes:

excuse the rant..I'm mad Kucinich went home..:rant:
I'm sure he'll find something to keep himself occupied......


http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/nm_Kucinich_070524_ms.jpg