By Lisa P

November 10, 2008 11:20 PM | Link to this

After the long weekend to hear the news who is won to the presidential election hear now comes the biggest deal if the promises of the Presidential candidates barrack Obama shall have the word of Honor to granted their promises through the uplifted of the economic state. The people have pointed America’s next President of the United States. “Change” is what the U.S. has chosen by electing Barack Obama. There is no doubt that change is in store for us. Whether this change is for the better or for the worse is yet to be seen. It’s obvious that Americans believe Obama will bring a positive change to our country. He spoke promising words to restore confidence in the hearts of the unsure with plans to lower taxes for the middle class, put a timeline on the war in Iraq, and cut the federal budget “line by line.” However, what many Americans fail to realize is the fact that Obama also supports the elimination of payday lending industries. He thinks demolishing the payday loan industry will protect low-income families from being victimized by predatory lenders. However, this will be a threat to our financial freedom. Maybe Obama will bring positive change to the United States, but taking away one of the most reliable resource many people have come to depend on during financial fallbacks is not only a risk to our rights to financial freedom, but it is clearly NOT a great start to create the positive change we all desperately need. Click to read more on Payday Loans

By Savanation

July 6, 2008 4:56 PM | Link to this

TRS, I haven’t time for you today. So, 1. show us where your figures come from (and do NOT try to use Fox News as a source)And 2. “taketh away out the back”(TRS) Can you think of anything that “taketh away out the back” more than the $3,000,000,000,000.00 that was taken away from the American taxpayer to give to God knows who to allow Bush to kill and maim out soldiers in Iraq? For some reason, and of course your numbers have no relation to reality, but I would rather pay for the health of billions of illegals ( that’s what Christ tells us to do) than waste my tax money on your killing President. Of course, Republicans have no idea what it means to be a Christian. But killing and wasting money is just fine with them. Give it up TRS, you’re beating a way dead horse.

By TRS

July 6, 2008 4:21 PM | Link to this

Healthcare - who are the 45 Million we hear about? Well, the 1st 10 million are illegal aliens, allow me to repeat the term illegal! You want the same middle class to whom you would give a tax cut to foot the medical bill for people who are in this country illegally. Then, there’s 15 Million who are eligible for Medicaid but just haven’t signed up. Perhaps they just don’t like Dr, but its their choice. Next - 15 Million with children who are eligible for SChip or some other form of insurance and don’t feel they need it for themselves. Finally, 10 Million childless adults - most likely young folks in good health. 3 out of the 4 groups have chosen on their own accord to opt out of health insurance and the 4th (illegal aliens) is a group for whom the Democrats are trying to purchase their votes. If Obama’s plan was truly a middle tax cut plan, it may have merit but it giveth in the front end and taketh away out the back. Unfortunately it taketh away much more than it giveth. It is not tax policy - it is income redistribution.

By Savanation

July 2, 2008 8:16 AM | Link to this

“65 Billion for Health Care, 15B for Energy, 85B in tax cuts”(TRS) Gee, that totals 165 Billion. Wouldn’t you know, that’s almost exactly the same number as the $162 Billion your fearless leader decided to waste this coming year in Iraq.(and that is just the cost he admits to, there are hundred’s of billions of hiden costs your pork barrel friends don’t want on paper) So, I don’t see you complaining about that waste of money. But you think spending for healthcare is outrageous. And you think lower taxes for the middleclass is a terrible idea. TRS you certainly have warped priorities. Lot’s of money to kill and nothing to save lives. Typical Republican logic. Well, not really logical, but good for the rich.

By TRS

July 2, 2008 1:44 AM | Link to this

As usual, Savagenation - as usual you are citing straight from the Obama webpage. 1st, of his list of credits/benefits for the lower and middle income folks go to many who currently do not pay taxes. He wants to send folks who pay no taxes up to $4000 in tax credits for college tuitions and the list goes on. His total economic package is a huge increase in spending, ie 65 Billion for Health Care, 15B for Energy, 85B in tax cuts while getting 50B back from “the rich” - the list goes on. Ending the war, closing loopholes - none of this comes close to offsetting his proposals which means an increase in government spending with no compensating revenue. Historically, guess where the Dems have gone to in the past - tax on the Middle Class. Savagenation - I realize thats this a tough concept for a socialist to understand but Tax cuts increase revenues. Surfice it to say, economic growth occurs and tax revenues flow. That happened when Kennedy, Reagan and Bush cut taxes. The problem has always been that the Congress couldn’t stop spending, and yes, that includes the Republicans. The reason they were voted out is that they acted like Democrats when it came to spending. The Dems can’t help themselves and soon their spending will get them in trouble. As for oil, people understand supply and demand. The Dems, beholden to the environmentalists, blocked all exploration thus decreasing the supply. 3% in today’s oil market is quite a bit. Our total reserves off shore and in shale is more than all the nations in the Middle East combined. Yes, we would still be importing, but from countries like Canda and Mexico, and not Saudi Arabia and Venezula. The Clinton Administration put little if any effort into alternative fuel solutions - it wasn’t until Bush brought the subject forward that it started to get attention. As usual, the Dems other answer was to legislate - lets raise the cafe standards, something that wasn’t technologically feasible to an already ailing auto industry. Heck, some of the biggest opponents to that were Dingel and Levin, both Dems from Michigan. So, yes - fuel prices rest squarely on the shoulders of the libs. By the way, using 80 acres out of the thousands available in Alaska would hardly ruin that pristine area. Tell you what - why don’t you spend your vacation there next year - I’ve seen pictures of the mosquitos as big as Eagles there. At the end of the day we have the classic argument whereby Democrats believe the only way the economy can work is through government intervention and that means big government spending. Obama’s economic plan is nothing more than the redistribution of wealth, which has nothing to do with economic growth. By the way, Ethel - don’t think your suggestion would work RE Savagenation becoming VP. Obama is tacking to the center now and probably only Hugo Chavez would be to the left of him, and then not by much. Sava just wouln’t help the ticket as most Americans aren’t out in “Daily Kos/Moveon” land with him.

By Savanation

July 1, 2008 10:23 PM | Link to this

OK, TRS’s post is sillier than usual but let’s have some fun with it. “His economic plan increases taxes a net of 150 Billion. Hardly confidence builders for the economy. Tax cuts and the economic policies have gotten us through 9/11 and some other tough times until recently when the environmental policies of the Dems have brought upon us the gas price increases which quite frankly are worse than any tax.(TRS) Would that $150Billion (increase?) happen to be the $150 billion Bush gave to the top 1% (his owners) of the taxpayers in the country? That is not a “tax increase”, that is putting things back the way they should be. Everyone making $200,000 a year or less would be paying less taxes than previously, and also less than under Sen. McCain’s plan(?). Would be nice if you got your facts correct, TRS. For 98% of the wage earners in this country taxes would go doown under Obama. So forget the “tax increase” silliness that Fox told you to say. “Tax cuts and the ecomonic policies(?) got us through 9/11 and some tought times until recently”. Yea, they sure did. Now all those tax cuts and “economic ploicies” have come home to roost and we find that the nation is so heavily in debt to China and Japan and Qatar and Dubai and anyone else you can think of, that it will be fifty years before America can recover from the damage Bush has done. “Enviornmental policies of the Dems have brought upon us gas price increases” Bullshit! If we drilled in Alaska or near offshore, and ruined the last pristine nature our great grandchildren could ever see, we would have gained maybe 2 cents a gallon ten years from now. Plus there is only enough oil in those areas to take care of 3% of America’s needs. That means we would still have to relie on foreign oil for the vast bulk of our needs. The Dems have tried for years to get more fuel efficient cars and alternative fuel technology and a lessening of reliance of fossil fuel, but have been thwarted every time by Republicans, bought and paid for by big oil and the car lobby. Don’t give us any of that s**t and gas prices being the fault of the Democrats. That’s another loser argument for you. “Is there a good chance that Iraq chance(sic) to become a working democracy” No. TRS, please join Ethel in a remedial history and economics and current events class. I will be happy to be your teacher. But please don’t waste our time until you do.

By TRS

July 1, 2008 9:07 PM | Link to this

OK Alice - I checked out your website. Ques #1 - is Saddam gone or not? Is there a good chance that Iraq chance to become a working democracy rather than under the tyranny of Saddam? Did you appreciate Saddam’s sons pulling women of the street then raping and killing them? Are they there to do that? Somes like liberation to me. #2 Roe Vs Wade - constitutionalists call it bad law. It is something that should be decided by the legislative brance and not judicial #3 The recent ruling by the Supreme court establishes the right to bear arms. #4 - Obama is a lawyer, a community organizater and has no economic background. When asked about the Capital Gains tax increasing revenue when it is cut, he said it needed raised because it wasn’t fair to have it that low. His economic plan increases taxes a net of 150 Billion. Hardly confidence builders for the economy. Tax cuts and the economic policies have gotten us through 9/11 and some other tough times until recently when the environmental policies of the Dems have brought upon us the gas price increases which quite frankly are worse than any tax. Mr. Obama favored the prices going up - just didn’t want it to happen so fast. I’m not so sure Mr. Obama is really up to speed on economics. #5- remember the circumstances of 2000? Every Dem was out to get the President they hated him from day one. Hard to reach across the isle when all they wanted to do is bit his hand and head off. This was really not a serious comparison - just a partisan one.

By Ethel S.

July 1, 2008 6:29 PM | Link to this

Your last blog convinced me Savanation. You are more qualified than Sen. Obama to be President. As an alternative,Sen. Obama is looking for a VP. If Sen. Obama is willing to put you on the ticket, that would be a “dream” ticket. Who can pass that up?

By Savanation

July 1, 2008 5:57 PM | Link to this

Uh, Ethel, McCain has voted with Bush 95% of the time, even after Bush screwed him im 2000. He still intends to continue the same failed policies in Iraq, has no policy about Iran, other than bomb them. Like all the rest of McCain’s flip-flops, now he wants Bush’s torture to continue, he now loves tax giveaways to the rich. He will say anything, usually in direct opposition to what he has said in the past, to gain the few votes people like you will give him. BTW from 2001 to 2007 the congress and the Presidency was controlled by the Republicans (not the last 8 years as you say. During those years nothing RIGHT was done because everytime the Democrats wanted to do what was right, the Republicans refused. For the last 1 1/2 years(not 8) the Democrats are stiffled by Republicans who refuse to do what is right once again and by a President who vetoes anything that would help our country. Ethel, you really ought to learn more about wehat you talk about. You wouldn’t sound so silly. McCain’s war record? Yes, he was a POW. I don’t think that entitles him to be President. I had a car accident one time. Does that entitle me to be President of General Motors? 21 years of Senate experience? Voting wrong on all most every issue, voting 95% of the time with the biggest loser ever in the White House. Did he stop the clown from starting a stupid, immoral war? Years in the Senate does not equate to being smart. It just shows the stupidity of the voters who keep people like that in office. People like you, Ethel.

By Alice

July 1, 2008 5:53 PM | Link to this

Can you tell them apart? http://www.bush-mccainchallenge.com/

By Ethel S.

July 1, 2008 1:07 PM | Link to this

It appears that the Sen. Obama supporters call Sen. McCain, the same as President Bush. Although Sen. McCain is a GOP, there is a vast difference between the two. And Sen. McCain has stood up against GWB on many occasions when Sen. McCain felt GWB was wrong including getting rid of Donald Rumsfeld, global warming, the end torture, twice against the tax breaks to name some. And what did the Do Nothing Dems Congress do during these last 8 years of GWB? Sen. McCain has been to Iraq at least 6 times and Sen. Obama has not been there since 2006 and has not talked to Gen. Petraeus since the Senate hearings. Are Sen. Obama’s plans to bring all the troops home safely in 16 months realistic? Sen. McCain is honest enough to say that we will have a presence in Iraq for years to come as long as US soldiers are not being killed. Sen. McCain has the military training and 21 years of Senate experience to work with both the GOP and Dem parties to balance the necessary military options with our need for national security. I am also very impressed with Sen. McCain”s energy security plans and is willing to look at all the options including off shore drilling, nuclear power, and offer incentives to build a better battery operated car. Sen. McCain should have been the GOP candidate in 2000, but he was “messed up” by the dirty tricks of the GWB campaign. Sen. McCain would make an excellent President.

By Savanation

July 1, 2008 11:53 AM | Link to this

Of course you are more concerned about how they will handle Iran. Your “leaders” have already mishandled Iraq, with your OK, about as badly as is possible.I have absolutely total confidence in President Obama to do what has to be done to assure our country’s safety and needs in the Middle East and across the world. I have absolutely no confidence in Sen. McCain at all. You are the company you keep. Sen. McCain has chosen to fall in with, because of his need to be President, the very same crowd who didn’t know what they were doing 7 years ago and still don’t. According to Sen. McCain, 100 years of our soldiers being killed is perfectly alright with him, as long as we leave “with honor”. I, personally, would rather leave (a place we should never have been) with a whole bunch more soldiers alive than does Sen. McCain. “Running like a dog with our tail between our legs”. (TRS) Running from what? Our hideous blunder? Bush’s idiotic quest to show himself as a bigger man than his father? Just what are you and Bush trying to prove by continuing this outrage? There is no honor in recklessly destroying a whole country on a whim! If you want to talk about “dogs”, why don’t you talk about the cowardly yellow dogs, Bush and Cheney, who wouldn’t fight in Vietnam, but just love to send our mens’ sons (and not any of their friend’s sons)to die for their greed and vanity. TRS, I hate to be repetitive, but you just keep rehashing every right wing talking point that they give you. What you don’t quite get, is that, they have lied to you all alon, and are still doing it, and you are still buying it. Talk about “naive”!

By TRS

July 1, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this

Oh, you have kept up so little since ‘06. Again - the time warp. You simply must learn to read more of a variety rather than the leftie blog rants. The Iraqis have taken control of Sadr City, Basrha and much of Iraq. They are currently working on Mosul, the last stronghold of the insurgents and Al Quada (yes, AlQuada - you know - Bin Ladin, Terrorists). The surge, which helped regain control and quell the sectarian violence, coupled with the training of the Iraqis has worked. As far as infrastructure, there really wasn’t much in Iraq to begin with. All in all, much to your chagrin, good things are happening there and that will allow us to leave, which is the goal. Both candidates plan on keeping residual troops in place for support, training, etc in coordination with the Iraqis. I realize that good news for the United States means bad news for lefties and it is hard for you to take, but if things continue as they are we can plan an exit strategy based on a successful rather than running like a dog with our tail between our legs like you advocate. In truth, at the end of the day, there probably won’t be a dime’s worth of difference between the way Obama handles Iraq or McCain. Neither will want to throw away the successes you deny and both with draw down troops based on the recommendation of their Generals. Frankly, I’m more concerned with how they will handle Iran. You’ve already advocated Neville Chamberlian type appeasement with “ah, go ahead and let them have the nuke”. Think the world is dangerous now? Think Israel will let that happen? Think Iran won’t try to wipe Israel off the face of the earth as they have said. If you do, boy are you naive.

By Savanation

July 1, 2008 8:51 AM | Link to this

TRS, it is truly amazing that a person who can put two words together (usually in a wrong opinion or a skewed fact) could actually believe the lies your thought masters have been telling you. TRS, if you would get your mind out of the gutter and stop watching Fox or listening to Limbaugh or whatever other crackhead feeds you information you would be a much better adversary in debating. But considering your basic flawed view of the world and history and current events you would still have a pretty hard time of it. I believe we just wasted ANOTHER $162BILLION dollars to keep this folly going. Just where in that $162BILLION dollars is the item item budget for the flights home for our soldiers? The surge is “working”, duh!, because there are more troops. The idea, flawed that it was, was that more troops could train the Iraqi’s to control themselves. They don’t want to control themselves, they want US out of there. They don’t give a s**t what you or Bush wants. They want what they want. US out of their lives and their country back to them for them to do whatever the hell they want to happen. It is none of our business. It was none of our business when your idiot President decided , whitout cause, to blow the place to pieces and ruin their infrastructure with no idea of how to rebuild it or care if we did. TRS< get your Cheney-like mind out of the closet and actually see what is happening to the world and to our country because of lame brained attitudes such as yours. There is a wealth of information out there. Find it.

By TRS

July 1, 2008 12:05 AM | Link to this

Savagenation - Since you live in a time warp and apparently haven’t received any news since 2005-06 other then your ventures into the left wing blogs, let me bring you up to speed. The surge is working, Al Quada has been hurt badly in Iraq and that means there are alot of dead radical Islamists - they call them terrorists in case you didn’t know. I realize the left is upset that Iraq is going well now. Even some of the Democrats have had to grudgingly admit that Iraq is a different place, the military we trained is taking control and there is political progress; but, when you send America’s finest to do a job, fortunately they ignore defeatists such as yourself and just do there job and do it well. Also, just so you know, there has been no terrorist attacks here since 9/11 thanks in large part to the terrorists being tied up in Iraq and the President’s emphasis on securing this country. Perhaps it ruined your vacation knowing that your safe travels were brought to you by a man you hate. Even worse, perhaps you could not travel as you might because your environmental leftie buddies have precluded the pursuit of energy in this county and thanks to them we now have 4.00+ gas. I do hope it didn’t ruin your vacation; however, sadly it appears your vacation hasn’t changed your demeanor. I hope you get some rest!

By Ohio Vet

June 30, 2008 11:15 PM | Link to this

I don’t vote for anyone without doing my own research on both the candidates. America is only as strong as its middleclass workers. Obama plans to make the middleclass stronger while McCain is against unions, a supporter of “NAFTA”, and voted against the GI bill for veterans. Bush’s tax cuts have not worked in the 7 years he has been in office and McCain wants to make them permanent after opposing them in 2002? Over half of the so called rich people who have got Bush’s tax cuts have gone broke. Look at the corporations in Ohio who have gone bankrupt and left Ohio. I don’t really care what Glenn and Ted are doing. I can’t feed my kids, I have no gas, and I need help. Giving more tax breaks to the rich is not going to help me. GO OBAMA!!!!

By Alice

June 30, 2008 11:12 PM | Link to this

This is a case where someone doesn’t have enough to do and needs to create a story where there is none. This isn’t the first time Obama has been to Ohio, he came during the primary and came here a couple of weeks ago after he became the presumptive nominee. Why question why Strickland and Glenn will not be with him now? I am sure Obama will be here again between now and November. BIG DEAL!

By Savanation

June 30, 2008 9:12 PM | Link to this

Ah, TRS, once again you speak without knowing what you are talking about. See, the folks who are killing Americans and themselves in Iraq are not Osama’s folks. The “terrorist’s” as you call them in Iraq who are doing the killing are Iraqi’s who hate other Iraqi’s and even more hate Bush and America because of what Bush did to their country. Nothing to do with Osama. Just everday hate. I know that is not what your goofy Fox friends are telling you, but what the hell, they also told you that Bush is good and the moon is made of green cheese. They and you probably have a better chance at the green cheese thing. On, by the way, there is an “abundance” because they use their hatred of America and Bush to convince idiots to kill themselves. That is very effective in keeping their numbers right up there. Something like the way the Republican party gets all the naive, non-thinking people to vote for their clowns. Oh, one more silliness; Iraq did not just “come along”. A certain moron and those who voted for him caused Iraq to happen. Thanks a lot TRS. Thanks from 4000 dead American soldiers - not so much.

By rocket

June 30, 2008 8:58 PM | Link to this

hip hip horay i’m glad to see strickland and glenn not by obama i voted for both and hillary but i will be voting for mcaincome this election obama all mouth no subsance

By TRS

June 30, 2008 7:26 PM | Link to this

Always love this “created terrorist” theory. All those fine young men who graduated from Mendrausa U. were going to blend into society, get married and get a white collar job, raise their kids, plant a few bombs here and there, eh? Perhaps Osama would place them somewhere around the world, say the US. But then along came Iraq and he had to deploy them there. The good thing - many of those “created” terrorists are no longer living. If there was such an abundance, why would they need to wire up and send mentally handicapped women in as suicide bombers? This not only shows how evil these radical Islamists are, but how dumb this “created terrorist” arguement is.

By JohnF

June 30, 2008 7:05 PM | Link to this

There is no way I will vote for a Republicant. They are all scum, and definitely anti-America.

By KP

June 30, 2008 6:43 PM | Link to this

Well Chris and Tom, if McSame and the Mental Midget are so great, why did the largest terrorist attack in our history occur on their watch? Seems like you both have voted for terrorism - TWICE - and about to make the third time the charm. Go ahead, you deserve each other.

By Savanation

June 30, 2008 6:12 PM | Link to this

“I’ll vote McCain in November, how about you?”. Nah, I don’t think so. I would rather my vote count for something. Tom and Chris wasted their votes the last two times. After 8 years of a fool, we don’t need a flip flopping fool who will just do more of the same crap. No, I don’t think I will vote for McBush. Our country couldn’t stand it. BTW, if you clowns would have voted for President Gore, you wouldn’t have to worry about terrorism. Only reason you do now is because of Bush. President Obama will get the country back in shape and deal with that pesky terrorist who organized 9/11 and all the terrorists Bush has created in the last 8 years. Just think how wonderful this world could have been if it hadn’t been for Bush and people like McCain and Chris and Tom.

By Chris

June 30, 2008 5:18 PM | Link to this

Even Gov. Ted Strickland and former U.S. Sen. John Glenn can’t stand to be near Obama, just like me. I’ll vote McCain in November, how about you?

By Tom

June 30, 2008 5:15 PM | Link to this

A vote for Obama is a vote for terrorism. Maybe that’s why Glenn and Strickland are not active in his campaign.

By MMS

June 30, 2008 4:58 PM | Link to this

For what it’s worth, Ace, it’s difficult to get Glenn to campaign for anyone, let alone the presumptive Democratic nominee for president. I can count on one hand the number of times Glenn daned to campaign for Kerry/Edwards. As for Strickland, I’m with Ben; the Governor’s probably been booked into a couple clutches down in Florida well before Barry clinched the nomination.

By Ben

June 30, 2008 3:54 PM | Link to this

Give Gov. Strickland a break. He’s in FL and that event was probably scheduled long before Obama’s. He can’t be in two places and the same time. I’m sure he’ll be out campaigning for Obama soon enough. As for why Glenn won’t be there, was he even invited?

By Quiet

June 30, 2008 3:50 PM | Link to this

Read the whole article. Governor Strickland is in Florida raising money for Obama’s campaign.

By Ethel S.

June 30, 2008 3:50 PM | Link to this

Sen. Obama himself said he does not need the Clinton supporters. Maybe Sen. Obama can get Howard Dean and Rep. Pelosi to go with him to Zanesville.

By Paul

June 30, 2008 3:37 PM | Link to this

Strickland and Glenn should be ashamed for not supporting the Democratic Party candidate for president. Hillary asked that her supporters support Obama, and they should. A Democrat in the white house is the goal and I find it sad Strickland can’t be bothered to help. I voted for Strickland but and am becoming less happy with him as a governor. This is yet another example of why.

By Ace

June 30, 2008 3:32 PM | Link to this

Just like Billy, Ted and Glenn don’t like Obama. It will be a cold day in Hell before any of the three do any serious campaigning for Obama.