…and that’s the news from Ohio

October 16, 2008

I’m pretty sure none of the people being interviewed realized it was Al Jazeera News holding the microphone, or there might have been some bloodshed.


  1. I always find it interesting that is an individual does not support Barack Obama, other asssume it’s because they are backward fuck like these people. Lord knows, Obama, on a policy standpoint is 100% correct ALL OF THE TIME.

    Don’t really give a shit about what others perceive his religion, ethnicity, or color to be. On policy, I don’t agree. Period.

  2. Did they use the “n” word?

  3. 9/11? I forgot about that.

  4. I love McCain’s policy, but I can’t vote for a cracker. If he wins, whitey wins.

  5. Here’s the thing, Mr Nelson – what these clips are saying isn’t that ALL McCain voters share these sentiments, it’s that ANY McCain voters share these sentiments. In America. In 2008. I can promise you similar clips don’t exist at Obama rallies.

    The breadth & depth of ignorance and racial intolerance on the McCain supporter side is embarrassing for me to associate with, and I only share a nationality & racial history with these folks. You share their political beliefs. And, I suspect, slightly more. After all, you did first mention Obama on this blog by calling him B. HUSSEIN Obama, which is not the tactic of a man who claims “On policy, I don’t agree, Period.” What part of his policy governs his scary ethnic sounding middle name? And let’s not get into your (since deleted) comment that Obama looks like a monkey, nor your inability to understand what that comment was offensive.

    Truth be told, there are three categories of anti-Obama voters. Those who won’t vote for a black man and say so, those who won’t vote for a black man and can’t bring themselves to admit it, and those who disagree with his policy, Period. I suspect the ranks of that third group to be smaller than they think they are.

  6. That’s a straw man, Nelson. Obama is not correct 100% of the time; his vote on the PAA earlier this year was flat-out wrong, and an embarrassment considering the man taught constitutional law.

    What policies do you disagree with? Increasing taxes on incomes over $250,000 per year? Withdrawal from Iraq? His healthcare plan?

    I’m truly curious, because McCain’s plans seem downright foolish. Giving someone a $5,000 tax credit after they’ve had to purchase individual health insurance for an additional $12,000 isn’t a savings. Neither is it a good idea to treat health insurance as taxable income. Offshore drilling won’t lower prices appreciably any time soon, and nuclear reactors take ten years to build.

    I’m willing to accept that you don’t like Obama because he’s an uppety black man, or he has a terrorist-sounding name. I just doubt that’s your true rationale, monkey comments aside.

  7. Yes, I did say those things in jest. I do know that it is your belief that anyone who does not support Obama MUST be racist. If I remember correctly, I was insulted as a Christian in this blog on occasion, even heard comments insulting the religion of Mitt Romney. Those comments are totally acceptable, I assume?

    No, I think it is a poor idea to raise taxes on those making over 250k per year. In our difficult economic times, raising taxes on anyone is a poor idea. I believe that he and his party are knee deep in the collapse of the mortgage market. According to a NYT article in 2003, it was the Bush admin that tried to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; The democrats fought that regulation, saying all was fine. I find it amazing that Chris Dodd, Barack Obama, and John Kerry were the largest recipients of donations from Fannie/Freddie, and Barack was advised by Franklin Raines, former Fannie CEO, whose golden parachute was around 90 million dollars.

    I don’t know how you can reduce taxes on 95 % of Americans, when nearly 40% already pay no taxes! The only rationale must be some sort of welfare-type give away. “Spreading the wealth around” in this manner is socialism to me, and I don’t support it. Although I don’t 100% disagree with his healthcare plan, I don’t support socialized medicine. I believe what we have been told about how wonderful it is in communist and socialist nations around the world. I know a married couple in Vancouver BC, both physicians, and they have complained many times as to how patients are treated in Canada. I do thinks something needs to be done. Perhaps this would be effective with a blend of both policies.

    Even Obama has opened up to the idea of offshore drilling. The pride of the democratic party, the French, have already effectively developed nuclear energy. Yes, it may take ten years, so…we’d better get started. I don’t think that McCain has stated anything but his full support for alternative energy.

    If you want to learn a little about tax policy, stay off the candidates sites, and visit the site for the Tax Policy Center, non-partisan.

    The war? Time to come home…soon, but only with our heads held high. NOT trying to convince our military that the worked and sometimes died in vain.

    I don’t care about Obama’s name, race, etc. You can continue to make it up if you’d like; take tongue-in-cheek comments and twist them around and paint me with a racist brush. I know you all cannot believe that ANYONE could ever disagree with Obama. Apparently, he must be “the one”? I for one, believe he’s all hat, and no cattle.

  8. OK, so exactly what do you expect in return for your taxes then? If you don’t expect to pay for government-provided healthcare or social security, and I don’t want to pay for unnecessary wars enriching defense contractors and $700B bailouts of millionaires who made bad bets on derivatives, what SHOULD taxes be used for?

    We could shore-up Social Security and Medicare by removing the cap, and requiring the tax on all income levels, rather than the first $90,000 or so. We could balance our budget by decreasing the defense budget to 10% of where it stands now.

    You’re in the financial profession, how do you propose to eliminate this $10T to $12T national debt if we don’t raise taxes on higher incomes?

    I suppose you want to reduce or eliminate entitlements, but I want them, because they’re about the only thing I get in return for paying taxes. It’s obvious that Americans are not savvy enough to play the financial markets without taking a beating, either from lying financial statements or off balance sheet investments, so an insurance system like Social Security becomes essential in my view.

    During the Bush Administration, the wealthy have gotten much greater tax breaks (when you consider capital gains tax decreases) than the middle-class. So, when the economy tanks, why shouldn’t they be the first ones to pay more?

    Why shouldn’t we take the top tax rate back to 70% or 90% the way it was a few decades ago until we get this debt sorted out?

  9. I’m actually a believer in a consumption tax. That levels the playing field a bit more; or a hybrid of both an income tax and consumption tax. Those who spend more, will pay more. If a millionaire wants to purchase a Rolls-Royce, he can…his consumption rate goes up. I believe this would actually work on helping people to save. There would be more in it for them. Of course, food would be excluded, to a certain extent. Milk would not be included, but, fine Russian Caviar would be. Necessary pharmaceuticals would be excluded; Rogaine would not. Cancer treatments excluded, sadly, bood-jobs would not.

    Taking tax rates back to 70 to 90 % would cause MASSIVE unemployment. Say what you want about the “evil” rich, there aren’t a lot of poverty-stricken individuals providing jobs. If cap gains were lowered, then people could save for retirement with vehicles much more similar to ROTH IRA’s. Knowing that at retirement, people would be taxed at, for example, 7.5% of capital gains, provides more buying power than being taxed at your income bracket in your retirement years. Making saving more palatable now can stretch Social Security over a longer period of time. The goal is to get as many people out there to not rely on social security, thus, HOPEFULLY leaving a bigger pot for those who need to draw from it.

    Perhaps we could sell Guam and Puerto Rico to help pay off the debt.

    Okay…just kidding.

  10. For the record, I am 100% in favor of making fun of Mitt Romney’s “religion,” and anyone who isn’t must read Under the Banner of Heaven before I’ll even consider discussing the issue with them.

  11. Then I guess you too, can be a religious bigot. For the record, I am not Mormon, but they have a right to believe what they want, as does any Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh, Hindu…..Also, being an agnostic is okay. Whatever.

  12. Can we all agree that Scientologists are a bunch of wackos and shouldn’t be given the same respect?

    I’ve done my bi-partisan good deed for the day!

  13. You’ll have to talk to Tom, Katie and John. I believe they live up YOUR way.

  14. “Then I guess you too, can be a religious bigot.”

    That’s your way of saying you haven’t read Under the Banner of Heaven, isn’t it?

  15. That would be correct. Perhaps I will give it a read.

  16. to be clear, your lack of bigotry doesn’t extend to Jonestown or the Branch Davidians, does it? I mean, it’s still okay to recognize and point out complete insanity when we see it, yeah?

  17. extremist groups who operate under any circumstance in the name of “religion” are wacked. I don’t support the Davidians or similar groups.

  18. I was with a REAL religion: Heaven’s Gate.


  19. I’m assuming you’re kidding mac. Aren’t you? If not, that would be fascinating to hear about.

  20. Can you hook me up with a pair of those cool, black Nikes?

  21. I’ve been biting my tongue on this one, but I need to ask ONE question. Can someone please identify the dividing line between “wacked” relgions (which seem to include the Branch Davidians, Heavens Gate, uber-Mormons) and the non-“wacked” religions (presumably to include, for example, Catholics and their belief in transubstantiation )?

    The obvious (and easy) distinction is the violent or self-destructive actions of the former group, but can anyone explain why the latter group’s beliefs are somehow less kooky than the former?

  22. In all seriousness, my takeaway from Under the Banner of Heaven is that Mormonism = Branch Davidian + More Innocent Times + 100 Years. Every bit of it (the child raping, the messianic complex, the murder, the fear of the federal gov’t) is there in both religions. This comment will likely bar me from getting a job at some point down the line. In fact, in the interest of people here saying some things that later lead back to them, maybe it’s best to end this conversation.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: