These people we call terrorists use fear to take the focus off the real agenda. While they gloat and glory over the obvious pain and suffering the real hostile take over begins. Islam or die. Little by little countries like the United Kingdom, France and so on, all gradually bend to the will of Islam and its laws and way of life until before you know it, there is definately a sympathizer if not a person who professes his Muslim faith publicly, in power. Once you raise your finger to Allah you can never denounce your beliefs. What these fanaticals could do with a sympathizer in the white house just defies description! What do we do? Is there anything we can do?

Listen, sport, my comments had nothing to do with a critique of accounting. Rather, they were stating a simple fact

You need to know the accounting to do the policy critique, unless of course your intent was to make an Obama policy which does not exist sounds worse than it would be if it did exist.

If elected, Senator Obama plans to increase the capital gains tax on private home sales
He’s talked about increasing the capital gains tax; he has not said he would eliminate the home sale exemption (which HE cannot do in the first place). If a gain is exempt, it isn’t taxed at all.

Is that what you think? Is this view backed by any kind of evidence? If you really believe that Barack won’t take away the exemption, then, in my opinion, you need to take a closer look

take a closer look at what? you made the assertion re the tax, you bear the burden of establishing it … that’s the way the game works

Getting back to the crack you made about, “Learning a touch of accounting”, I, good fellow, in all seriousness, suggest that you also sign up for an academic course; a basic course in high school grammar

When I was a tad older than I suspect you currently are, I edited a prestigious law review … think I’ll take a pass on that course; at this stage in my life, I get to make typos and minor grammatical errors … by personal fiat

The reason I cite these writing mistakes: Sloppy writing leads to sloppy thinking

so does unsloppy writing lead to unsloppy fact checks? your post does not seem to provide much evidence of it; wait a second .. is your writing that good?? I haven’t taken any time to evaluate it

Although I do admit that I fail to detect any sloppiness in your logic, better to be on the safe side, and not let some wiseass college girl give you a lesson in any of the three “R’s.”

hmmmm … maybe I can handle it … btw, that second comma should be omitted and you really kinda need a verb of some sort before the “better to be …” clause

Can we stand all of this civility here? … I will hope so. I’m not going go point for point on your post but will add a few observations that hopefully will be somewhere on point

What is SO troubling about political discourse is the rather obvious polarization, the “you’re with me or your agin me mentality” (where have we heard that lately?) Personally I have an extraordinarily difficult time with this; you’re labeling me a “progressive,” which I am in part (and of course I am responsible for that handle here) … but on a lot of issues I may well out-conserve the conservatives by a comfortable measure; in part because self-proclaimed conservatives are not all that conservative when all is said and done. Indulge me as I run through my positions and let’s see where we get:

(a) the United States must have the strongest and best equipped military we can muster
(b) the Iraq war was beyond question a mistake and we need to get out without leaving a mess nobody can clean up
(c) budgets must be balanced but we must recognize that one must at times be flexible and patient on the matter
(d) big government is dangerous to our health
(e) big business is dangerous to our health
(f) everyone must have health care and way to do it is to, once and for all, make certain that there is an actual functioning market for medical services (which employers play NO part in whatsoever)
(g) education must be improved significantly (too long a story for this post)
(h) government is not empowered under the constitution to set rules on abortion
(i) we need to do something to reduce the number of abortions but that does not imply that it’s the government’s job
(j) the US family, for a number of reasons, is in serious trouble and we (not the government) need to support it
(k) gay rights campaigns, affirmative action and rabid feminism are counteproductive
(l) the equal protection clause means what it says and it’s high time we “get over it” and make sure that women, gays and blacks are in no way second-class citizens
(m) parents who do not want their young children taught about homosexuality in school should not have to put up with such teaching
(n) religion and church are vitally important but think they have NO place in government
(o) the republic cannot survive without vigorous free speech in ALL of its forms
(p) all veterans should get the medical care and education they deserve for the service they have given
(q) we are at the tipping point on energy and we should invest heavily in all forms of domestic energy and conservation measures
(r) we cannot “drill our way out” of the “energy crisis” but we should drill OCS and ANWR
(s) our national drug policy has created an enormous illicit market for drugs and we need to reverse course on it immediately
(t) the death penalty is barbaric and too many innocent people have been and will be executed
(u) the American people that built the physical and social infrastructure which has enabled our largest corporations to become what they are and that, accordingly, they owe the American people/worker the “courtesy” of doing all in their power to assure that the inexorable march to “globalism” is the least painful it can be
(v) the nation must get to work in earnest on the repair of our roads, bridges, aqueducts, railroads
(w) this country must embrace again the value of a “sound mind in a sound body” and re-insinuate this simple, salutary principle back into our schools and all of our institutions; physical fitness and lifelong learning are essential to the national welfare
(x) the United States need not become embroiled in every foreign problem and controversy but we must, within reasonable bounds, continue to be good citizens of the world and help promote a dialogue of peaceful co-existence
(y) we must recognize that we have for a long time enjoyed our hearty consumption of a vastly disproportionate share of the earth’s resources and further recognize that we will not be able to continue on that path; we must summon our talents and best instincts to find new ways to sustain our way of life without provoking the emnity of the 6-7 billion other people with whom we share the planet
(z) we, and the people of all nations, must always respect the sovereignty of nations, of local political units, of the person and, ultimately, of nature, which ALWAYS has the final say.

There you have it, A-Z … my “platform” … how much disagreement is there among Americans on these ideas? Is this a “progressive” set of values? Liberal? Conservative? Libertarian? Republican? Hybrid? Does it matter?

Assuming that there is at least a modicum of consensus with regard to some set of values, there remains of course the ever-vexing question of HOW … personally, I think “bigness” is the greatest nemesis we face; the very size of our government and private institutions has left far too many people wholly alienated from the process of arranging our very own world; too many people lack the authority to even do the work for which they have been trained … through technology, we can (in theory) speak to the whole world but, collectively, too many of us are kept from making even the simplest decisions in our work, in our homes and where we play. I see too many people who do not really understand the nature of the work they do in any meaningful way. Only 100 years ago, a majority of people could say, honestly, that they were self-reliant. How many can make that claim now? It is a very dangerous disempowerment which results in an extraordinary level of frustration and anger … and hence the polarization that we see 24 hours each day if we so choose.

You might assume that I am making the case, perhaps inadvertantly, that the times call for a conservative candidate. It actually is of no import in those terms; people come before ideologies and the people are losing that match for the time being. Whatever your political stripe, it is time for all of us to reach that point in our political life where we recapture a workable measure of control over our own destinies. For some that may mean things like school vouchers, for others it may mean the capacity to prepare for and do useful work in a dignified environment … still others are more focused yet on basic survival: making sure their children are fed and clothed, being able to meet the mortgage payment and utility bills.

We can have whatever we want if we are only willing to stand up and demand it of those who present themselves as our prospective leaders … we can tell those who would “lead” that we are tired of hearing a lot of TALK about free markets and that we want ACTUAL FREE MARKETS … so that when you go to a doctors’ office or a pharmacy, when you get the bill, it’s a bill you can afford to pay without putting it “on the card” and postponing the inevitable … and when you go to the grocery store there is an adequate supply of healthful foods at another price that you can afford … and so too with the gasoline pump. What kind of economy is it that requires that both parents be in the workplace 40-50 hours a week? to hold two and three jobs? to borrow incessantly for basic needs? to go without basic needs entirely? It’s a dysfunctional economy, plain and simple. It’s not the only one, to be sure … but we’re supposed to be capable of better than that.

Choose your candidate as you will but remember that we have FAR more that unites us as a nation than divides us; politics and law being ultimately about the allocation of goods, I think the primary issue is now, and always, the economy. Some like to focus on what they call “cultural issues,” and I would not propose that such are of no import … that said, when people have the things they need and a reasonable measure of the things they want, they are far too busy, happy and content to make much of other people’s lifestyle choices and the like.

Either of the presidential candidates will “get the job done” … both have strengths and weaknesses .. and the reality is that the Presidency is unique: nobody knows how to do the job until they do it. The good news is that every president gets an amazing retinue of able people to prop him or her up .. to inform, advise, and to execute on policy.

Where these two candidates diverge is in terms of which groups of people will benefit more by their office. The November choice is who do you think should or must benefit more?

Listen, sport, my comments had nothing to do with a critique of accounting. Rather, they were stating a simple fact. If elected, Senator Obama plans to increase the capital gains tax on private home sales.

Barack doesn’t oppose the exemption?

Is that what you think? Is this view backed by any kind of evidence? If you really believe that Barack won’t take away the exemption, then, in my opinion, you need to take a closer look.

Getting back to the crack you made about, “Learning a touch of accounting”, I, good fellow, in all seriousness, suggest that you also sign up for an academic course; a basic course in high school grammar.

Rather than critique all your errors, from split infinitives to comma splices, to your annoying misuse of ellipses, permit me, for grammatical correctness, to examine your opening sentence. It’s the opening sentence in your message to “Bill G.

You write, ” Needless to day there is some truth in your comments, but who’s kidding who here”?

If you take the course I’m suggesting, you’ll learn that the phrase, “Needless to day” should get a comma.

What’s more, the correct way to say, “who’s kidding who” is to put your second “who” in the objective case. Thus, it becomes “whom.” Note, I’m simply ignoring your typo. Proofreading, I venture to say, is a lost art.

The reason I cite these writing mistakes: Sloppy writing leads to sloppy thinking.

Although I do admit that I fail to detect any sloppiness in your logic, better to be on the safe side, and not let some wiseass college girl give you a lesson in any of the three “R’s.”

One more thing, when I said, “Obama Nation” was on the N.Y. Times best seller list, I must have been dreaming. Because, you’re right. It’s not even close. Kind sir, I stand corrected.

Finally, I wouldn’t have gone to the trouble of trying to respond to your message if it wasn’t so nasty. When I showed it to my boyfriend, he laughed at me. Fact is, you hurt my feelings. I hate when that happens.

only if your basis in the home is $0 … please, Rachel, I know you’re only a college kid, but how about learning just a touch of accounting before you critique tax policy

BUT one more thing, there’s a $500,000 exemption on the proceeds of a home sale for married people ($250K for singles) that was signed into law by Bill Clinton …. Barack does not oppose the exemption; so, feel free to sell your $200,000 home .. the government gets nothing

and then there’s this:

To make it as clear as the nose on your blushing face, As I predicted, “Obama Nation” is now number 1 on the NY Times Best Seller list

did it make the list for one day? maybe it’s in the Fiction section?? because it’s not to be found anywhere today; I have no doubt that large numbers of the 22% of America who approve of the job Bush is doing will buy this book, though … and that ends up being a lot of books … but not enough voters for John McCain to be giving a whole hell of a lot of thought to forming a transition team

keep your eye on Amazon; you should be able to pick up a copy of this POS for $0.98 within a few weeks

Needless to day there is some truth in your comments, but who’s kidding who here? The context of my observations and presentation of some hard facts is the response to an insane and paranoid rant from Ms. Shiver about how progressives and Obama will ruin the country, if not the world, if not the solar system … For her sake, I hope she’s just a shill and doesn’t believe half of what she writes because if she does, she’s ripe for a civil commitment hearing.

There is little to be gained here from extensive parsing of the words “republican,” “conservative,” “liberal,” “progressive” etc etc. The thing people need to understand is that IF they go and vote Republican they are not insulating themselves from any of the real or perceived evils Shiver would have them think they are. Mr. Bush’s actions in the Medellin case prove the point conclusively.

If Barack Obama instead of George Bush had called for a reexamination of the Medellin case yesterday, it would have permanently decimated his chances of being elected to ANY office. Without a doubt, the Democratic convention would have replaced him as the nominee … and properly so since his chances of being elected would have been NILL. Yet … George Bush will get a pass on this not only from the press but also from Republicans, Conservatives and all other like-minded folk. Why is this so? People need to understand this issue. And people need to understand that phrases like “the progressive movement as a whole” or the “conservative movement as a whole” ultimately mean nothing. Our form of government is very well structured to accommodate the middle ground where real people actually live, provided that everyone understands that in real democracies NOBODY gets everything they want, and that in a well-functioning democracy you don’t need to get EVERYTHING you want to have a quite happy and productive life.