Posted by bitty41:

Bippity,

First off you stated one major inaccuracy in your post. And I think this goes to the heart of the matter why you are off base in some of your assumptions.

The United States is not ranked the highest in the Standard of living and I'll do you one better the UN's Human Development Index which measures a country's literacy knowledge education, life expectancy, and standard of living ranked the United States as number 13 hell we aren't even number one on our continent because Canada is.

So lets take a further look at our economy: one percent of the richest households in America control 38% of the wealth and the top 20 percent control 80%. Our distribution of wealth is the WORST among developed nations. An even more disturbing trend the things that the middle class rely on for wealth CDs, homeownership, savings accounts, money markets; 85% of all outstanding stocks and financial securities are controlled by the 10% richest families, as well as 90% of business assets. So I challenge you to find a reputable economist (I am not proclaiming to be one) that would say this model will promote positive economic growth and stability for a nation.

You also stated that your French, British, and Middle Eastern business associates complain that they live in a financial system that allows no growth from one class to the next. I think this a generic statement not really based on anything of substance other then a couple of guys talking. Thats not to say you or they are off base but I seriously doubt that their systems are that regimented. Hell the richest women in GB right now who I believe is worth more then the Queen of England J.K. Rowling started writing the Harry Potter series while she was on Welfare. This is just a random sample off the top of my head. The Middle East why you would group them together considering that the Middle East includes a vast number of countries with very diverse societies I don't know. But I also admit that I am not well versed of the intricacies of the French, British, and all the Middle Eastern countries economic systems.

You will get agreement with me on improving our educational system but again this deals with regulation. Various lending companies have been allowed to completely gouge college students on loans. The average college tuition at a private school is around 32,000 so please tell me how an average kid is going to come up with 128,000? Winning the lottery, becoming a big budget action star, signing a multi-million dollar pro sports contract? Now add that the student loan debt, to inflation that exists almost everywhere in this society (except of course our salaries)? Yet we wonder why so many kids opt to not goto college and this hurts the middle class the most. At least if you are poor it's easier to obtain financial aid but if you have both parents in the household and they make 50 grand a piece you can kiss most of financial aid good-bye.


Finally this country' stability is based on checks and balances. Thats why we have a Supreme Court, Congress, Senate, and President. Everyone (at least in theory) in this society has to answer for their actions. Thats what separates us from anarchy or on the opposite spectrum dictatorships. So when you complain that business men such as yourself are suffering under the oppressive rules of the American government remember that these checks and balances protect you and your family as well. Guess what the middle class that includes you to. Unless of course your net income falls in the bracket of top 10% (which I'm assuming it doesn't but I could be wrong). Stop believing the Reaganomics myth. That businesses and a country's economic growth will suffer tremendously if there is too much government oversight. You would be very hard pressed to find any actual facts or models to back-up this claim. But if you can I'm absolutely open to hearing it. I know we've all heard this saying before but your only as strong as your weakest link. Most countries in the world you can find filthy rich people but what truly separates the bad from, the good, to the best is their middle class and poor. What kind of opportunities if any they have to seek a better life. Because right now that rubber band is being stretched, stretched, and stretched until it snaps and the economy totally collapses. And would you feel it was worth it because you got to save a few extra tax dollars?

Posted by Markji:

Getting back to the title of the thread - Obama picking Hillary as running mate;

Wow! watching the convention and reading the news reports, there is no doubt in my mind that NOT picking Hillary was the right thing to do. She is disrupting the unification of the Dem Party and convention.

Outwardly she says (finally) that her supporters should now support Obama, but behind the scenes she has been holding on to "her people", flexing her political muscle, and showing everyone how powerful she is. And she is! But she should have fully supported Obama, especially much earlier than now. An been stronger with her chief people at the state levels.

Hillary is still vying for power and not giving it up for Obama. If she were the VP candidate, she would be in an even more prominant position to do this. She should just be wholeheartedly supporting Obama, and her party, but she really isn't. She still is supporting, first and foremost, Hllary!

P.S. I was never before against Hillary. She was my second choice, behind Obama, for the nomination. But now, she has fallen a lot in my eyes. I don't trust her at all.

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by Markji:

Getting back to the title of the thread - Obama picking Hillary as running mate;

Wow! watching the convention and reading the news reports, there is no doubt in my mind that NOT picking Hillary was the right thing to do. She is disrupting the unification of the Dem Party and convention.

Outwardly she says (finally) that her supporters should now support Obama, but behind the scenes she has been holding on to "her people", flexing her political muscle, and showing everyone how powerful she is. And she is! But she should have fully supported Obama, especially much earlier than now. An been stronger with her chief people at the state levels.

Hillary is still vying for power and not giving it up for Obama. If she were the VP candidate, she would be in an even more prominant position to do this. She should just be wholeheartedly supporting Obama, and her party, but she really isn't. She still is supporting, first and foremost, Hllary!

P.S. I was never before against Hillary. She was my second choice, behind Obama, for the nomination. But now, she has fallen a lot in my eyes. I don't trust her at all.

I think when you garner all the votes that she did and realize that her strategy literally cost her an easy victory--she probably has some venting issues on top of which apparently she was not even considered for VP[which is an absolute dis for someone who just packed in the 18mm votes] This is no different than any walk of life. People with great power are usually self-indulgent with huge egos. No matter--right now what we need is a President who will
a. Stop this bellicose cycle that has suddenly kicked into a much higher gear
b. Pay down American debt
c. Pay serious issue to the environment for future generations with emphasis on better energy technology

If we can just start with these 3 at the macro level--it will have a tremendous effect on everyone long term. But some of these vicious little cycles have to end now. I'm disappointed that Hillary is not part of the ticket but as I think about it more--that cant sway my personal feelings that we need a change in power at the top.

Hillary took herself out of consideration for the VP with her over the top criticism of Obama. I've never before seen a Dem refer to his/her challenger in the primaries as inferior to the Republican opponent, as Clinton did many times on national security issues. If she ever thought she wanted to be VP (or if she even just wanted to be a loyal Democrat), she should have been more careful with her words.

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 08-26-2008 12:58 PM]

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by Markji:

Getting back to the title of the thread - Obama picking Hillary as running mate;

Wow! watching the convention and reading the news reports, there is no doubt in my mind that NOT picking Hillary was the right thing to do. She is disrupting the unification of the Dem Party and convention.

Outwardly she says (finally) that her supporters should now support Obama, but behind the scenes she has been holding on to "her people", flexing her political muscle, and showing everyone how powerful she is. And she is! But she should have fully supported Obama, especially much earlier than now. An been stronger with her chief people at the state levels.

Hillary is still vying for power and not giving it up for Obama. If she were the VP candidate, she would be in an even more prominant position to do this. She should just be wholeheartedly supporting Obama, and her party, but she really isn't. She still is supporting, first and foremost, Hllary!

P.S. I was never before against Hillary. She was my second choice, behind Obama, for the nomination. But now, she has fallen a lot in my eyes. I don't trust her at all.

I think when you garner all the votes that she did and realize that her strategy literally cost her an easy victory--she probably has some venting issues on top of which apparently she was not even considered for VP[which is an absolute dis for someone who just packed in the 18mm votes] This is no different than any walk of life. People with great power are usually self-indulgent with huge egos. No matter--right now what we need is a President who will
a. Stop this bellicose cycle that has suddenly kicked into a much higher gear
b. Pay down American debt
c. Pay serious issue to the environment for future generations with emphasis on better energy technology

If we can just start with these 3 at the macro level--it will have a tremendous effect on everyone long term. But some of these vicious little cycles have to end now. I'm disappointed that Hillary is not part of the ticket but as I think about it more--that cant sway my personal feelings that we need a change in power at the top.

Hillary took herself out of consideration for the VP with her over the top criticism of Obama. I've never before seen a Dem refer to his/her challenger in the primaries as inferior to the Republican opponent, as Clinton did many times on national security issues. If she ever thought she wanted to be VP (or if she even just wanted to be a loyal Democrat), she should have been more careful with her words.

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by 4949:

Who are the Obama supporters? Hell if I know! But 18 plus million voters voted for him and they came from all' walks. A combined coalition of folks, all white, black, hispanic, etc. etc. etc. , young and old, rich, poor, middle class, of different religions, of both genders, reluctantly or committed, of different cultures, both traditional and modern, some people who were born in other countries, and many more voted for him.

Now combined that' with what Clinton got. Maybe the question needed to be asked. What did Clinton bring to the table vs. the other candidates. What does Biden bring to the table that out weighs what Clinton brought in? Remember, according the a major news report, 53% of Clinton's supporters aren't behind Obama at this time.

Well, I'm not clear whether your a Obama supporter or not, but if you are and if your not making the peace, then who else is going to step up to the plate?

Obama supporters (yes even little ol posters like us) can make the difference.

The number one thing you guys should be selling to the public is the negative policies of McCain. The last thing you's should be doing is 'bashing the Clinton's anymore'.

In other words, there is no one officially in the Obama camp who isn't trying to make peace. The 53% number is wrong. It's what the media is using to try to keep a non-story going. It's 47% of Clinton supporters are ceratain they'll vote for Obama and another 23% are leaning toward him. The right figure to look at is 70% for and 30% undecided/against Obama.

Posted by Elite:

Posted by BRIGGS:


You don't know women if you think Hillary would have been a clean female sweep. There are a ton of women that DETEST Hillary Clinton.


Im sure a ton of women hate beautiful movie stars or fashion modesl Rosie Odonell and down the line--there will always be haters. But the BOTTOM line fact is the polls showed that a huge majority of women voted for hillary over barack. MILLIONS of women. I dont have to be a women to understand numbers dont lie. You are simply not looking at the numbers. You think that women prefer Biden over Hillary--I have real estate in the swamp Im selling if you are interested.

To suggest that most women would prefer Hillary over Biden may not be crazy... But to suggest that those same women would rather vote for MCCAIN than Obama/Biden is absolutely insane

Who said they were voting for McCain. Staying home and not' voting for Obama is just as strong as voting for McCain. Does anyone here know what it is I'm talking about?

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by Markji:

Getting back to the title of the thread - Obama picking Hillary as running mate;

Wow! watching the convention and reading the news reports, there is no doubt in my mind that NOT picking Hillary was the right thing to do. She is disrupting the unification of the Dem Party and convention.

Outwardly she says (finally) that her supporters should now support Obama, but behind the scenes she has been holding on to "her people", flexing her political muscle, and showing everyone how powerful she is. And she is! But she should have fully supported Obama, especially much earlier than now. An been stronger with her chief people at the state levels.

Hillary is still vying for power and not giving it up for Obama. If she were the VP candidate, she would be in an even more prominant position to do this. She should just be wholeheartedly supporting Obama, and her party, but she really isn't. She still is supporting, first and foremost, Hllary!

P.S. I was never before against Hillary. She was my second choice, behind Obama, for the nomination. But now, she has fallen a lot in my eyes. I don't trust her at all.

I think when you garner all the votes that she did and realize that her strategy literally cost her an easy victory--she probably has some venting issues on top of which apparently she was not even considered for VP[which is an absolute dis for someone who just packed in the 18mm votes] This is no different than any walk of life. People with great power are usually self-indulgent with huge egos. No matter--right now what we need is a President who will
a. Stop this bellicose cycle that has suddenly kicked into a much higher gear
b. Pay down American debt
c. Pay serious issue to the environment for future generations with emphasis on better energy technology

If we can just start with these 3 at the macro level--it will have a tremendous effect on everyone long term. But some of these vicious little cycles have to end now. I'm disappointed that Hillary is not part of the ticket but as I think about it more--that cant sway my personal feelings that we need a change in power at the top.

Hillary took herself out of consideration for the VP with her over the top criticism of Obama. I've never before seen a Dem refer to his/her challenger in the primaries as inferior to the Republican opponent, as Clinton did many times on national security issues. If she ever thought she wanted to be VP (or if she even just wanted to be a loyal Democrat), she should have been more careful with her words.

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 08-26-2008 12:58 PM]

Posted by sebstar:

Posted by 4949:

Posted by sebstar:

Hillary has too many negatives, and there are obviously harsh feelings from the Democratic Primary on both ends.

Hilary being his VP wouldnt change the fact that he is Black. The Obama Black tax which is roughly about 15 to 20 percent is the only reason why this is even a contest.

In McCain you have a rapidly aging man who has proven to be clueless on the very issues that are affecting this country the most --- the economy (has stated he knows nothing about the economy) and our foreign policy (several blunders the least of which being that he cant differentiate between sunni and shiite).

But he looks like every other president we have ever had. Sad. If he is elected other countries are going to look at us like a complete joke. Not that they dont do that now, but it will be forever confirmed.

I can understand Hillary's people being upset about the Dem election, but why is Obama's people still pissed? That's what I don't understand here. Obama's people should be making peace with HIllary's people, to convince them to come back and vote Democratic, but from what I'm seeing, it doesn't appear that way. There's still all this hatred towards Hillary and I never understood it.

As far as McCain is concerned, I have always had respect for him. But I cannot vote for a man who's few policies I disagree with. For me, drilling for more oil is a mistake and building more nuclear power plants is an even bigger mistake. And I think it's terrible that people attack him because of his age. That's just down right cowardly.

Do facts matter at all?

What exactly did Barack do to the Clinton Empire except for win the Demo primary fair and square and effectively crash their "coronation party"

The Clintons were overtly negative.
They continually distorted.
Were consistent with their race-baiting.
They pandered to the lowest denominator.
Painted Obama out to be incompetent and unworthy.
Now they've successfully poisoned the Dem party, sowing division and making it easier for a throughly inferior candidate who has ties and is tethered to the policies that have put this country in a position it hasnt seen since the Great Depression.

I think most rational people have moved on, but if Clinton-ites want to be vindictive then the blood and shame will literally be on their hands. I'm hoping that America does whats right.