Jay Bookman

By James Winslo

July 6, 2008 1:09 PM | Link to this

Democrats been buying votes for years. It’s a well established part of American politics. The years under Mayor Daley and the political machine in Chicago is just one example.

By Taxpayer

July 6, 2008 1:28 PM | Link to this

Ah yes. The story of this 19-year old virgin does bring back memories. I remember my first time as though it were just yesterday. I was so young and inexperienced — some even said, naive. I had dreams, even visions, of what my first time would be like. I wanted it to be perfect and I wanted it to be with the right candidate — someone that I felt as though I could really connect with. Everything seemed to go so well. I thought we were meant to be. I thought it meant something. Then, I found out that I had just been used. Yes, I was indeed naive to think that my candidate cared for anything more than my money. My money and my vote, followed by more money. In fact, I’m still paying for that vote and each one after that first one. Taxes. Death and taxes. There’s no escape. After that first experience, it did not take me very long to figure out what business politicians are really in and ever since then it’s just been an argument over the price. Now, we just go through the motions.

By Freedom

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

Of course the liberals have been buying votes for years. Think about it, 50% of Americans pay NO income taxes. Then they promise to steal even more from those “evil rich” and redistribute to them. Of course Obama and the socialists are going to win this fall.

By James Winslo

July 6, 2008 1:36 PM | Link to this

To Freedom:

Excellent point. And what is it “called” when over 50% of Americans who pay no taxes can out vote those who do and continue to vote in all kinds of entitlements for themsleves via their representatives? It’s called “taxation without representation”. That’s what we went to war over in the first place!

By Abundant Pundit

July 6, 2008 1:45 PM | Link to this

….and just what is wrong with death and taxes and selling your vote, or spying for the chinese? This is America, hello, we can do what we want, I think it sez so in the bongstitution, you straight-niks.

By Taxpayer

July 6, 2008 1:49 PM | Link to this

And yet, James, there are people out there making millions and others worth billions and they are in favor of Obama over McCain. Why is that? What you got?

By Taxpayer

July 6, 2008 1:57 PM | Link to this

What this country needs is Representation without Taxation. Let the rich folk represent us without the use of our hard-earned money. I say let them use their own money if they want to represent us. After all, they volunteered.

By Abundant Pundit

July 6, 2008 2:14 PM | Link to this

Can anyone name one platform difference in any candidate who ran for dem or rep in the last 20 years?

no, you cant. THey are lobbied by the same foreign corps, is Y.

Americans know this. The media needs to sell soap and cola, that’s why we talk ad nauseum about politics.

Some of us are simply more entertaining than others when we blog, is all I’m saying.

By Anonymous

July 6, 2008 2:18 PM | Link to this

what this country NEEDS is revolt.

By girlyesbusyk

July 6, 2008 3:18 PM | Link to this

trust clean night mail boy speed trust ibm watch black

By Road Scholar

July 6, 2008 4:03 PM | Link to this

Where does it say in the constitution that to vote, one must pay a tax? The paying of a poll tax is unconstitutional. Also, if all peoples’ hourly wage were high enough so that all could pay income tax, you’d be paying more for services!! Remember most have income deductions …esp for that Hummer! The rich still have more means to take deductions and more income to be able to pay taxes.

The liberals aren’t the only ones who pay for votes. The repubs make faulty ballots (chads) and, in a more hideous way, program the electronic voting machines in favor of their candidates. I mean with all this voter fraud (no cases shown so far) we now have to have picture ID’s. (I am in favor of all having a picture ID by the way, not neccesaarily for voting!)

The Repubs are already revolting…very sick!

By James Winslo

July 6, 2008 4:13 PM | Link to this

To Taxpayer:

Most rich folks who will be voting for Obama will do so out of false guilt. They should just focus on how much of their money, investments, businesses, etc. give people jobs.

To Road Scholar:

Sorry, but very weak point on trying to pin voter fraud on Republicans. Historically, the Democrats have beat us bad on that one - not to mention they tried to keep the overseas military vote out last time. That’s not only wrong it’s dispicable and treasonous if you ask me.

By Abundant Pundit

July 6, 2008 4:35 PM | Link to this

McCain 08: Yeah, he renamed his fries. So what RU saying? He also pierced his McNuggets with a flagpin. You trying to make something out of that 2? Voodoo Patriotism is better than being a muslim al queda sleeper cell guy like Obama, you know. Or maybe you dont know, maybe you’re stupid. Did you ever think about that?

Well did you, punks?

By Abomi Nation

July 6, 2008 4:37 PM | Link to this

So now anti-American James wants to end our democracy and implement some sort of plutocracy where the only ones that vote are federal income tax payers.

Retired people, students, the disabled and people in the armed forces for the most part don’t pay federal income tax. James doesn’t think you people are worthy of a vote.

So much for democracy and that pesky “all men are created equal” cr@p.”

By Freedom

July 6, 2008 4:52 PM | Link to this

Ah Abomi, James’ point is that since those demographics you mentioned and you also conspicuously left out the underachieving class (i.e. working poor, welfare, etc) don’t pay any federal income taxes, they have no dog in the fight in the tax debate. Heck, since they won’t be affected negatively but only positively, why wouldn’t they elect those who will legally steal from the “rich” to turn around and give to them so long as they in turn vote to keep them in power. As for all men are created equal “cr@p”, they are for the most part “created” equal, what they do after their creation is entirely up to that individual. That’s the difference between communism and capitalism.

By Bud Wiser

July 6, 2008 5:04 PM | Link to this

Slow day today Jay, slooooow day.

By Taxpayer

July 6, 2008 5:05 PM | Link to this

James,

That was about as useful as de-hydrated water. The next thing you’ll tell me is that everyone should pay the same dollar amount in taxes because that would be fair. Further, I suppose that the rich folks that vote for McCain will be doing so out of true guilt. You know, that way they can focus on how much of their money, investments, businesses, etc., give people jobs.

By George Hussien Washington

July 6, 2008 5:11 PM | Link to this

WASHINGTON (AP) - John Kerry says Republican John McCain doesn’t have the judgment to be president. If that’s the case, then it’s probably a good thing McCain rejected overtures from Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004, to form a bipartisan ticket and run with Kerry as his candidate for vice president.

Kerry had no kind words his Senate colleague Sunday, accusing McCain of poor decision-making on everything from backing tax cuts for the wealthy to making support for continuing the U.S. military presence in Iraq the centerpiece of his presidential campaign.

“John McCain … has proven that he has been wrong about every judgment he’s made about the war. Wrong about the Iraqis paying for the reconstruction, wrong about whether or not the oil would pay for it, wrong about Sunni and Shia violence through the years, wrong about the willingness of the Iraqis to stand up for themselves,” Kerry, who supports Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

“If you like the Bush tax cut and what it’s done to our economy, making wealthier people wealthier and the average middle class struggle harder, then John McCain is going to give you a third term of George Bush and Karl Rove,” the Massachusetts senator added, echoing an Obama campaign talking point.

Kerry later said the McCain of 2008 isn’t the McCain he courted in 2004.

“John McCain has changed in profound and fundamental ways that I find personally really surprising, and frankly upsetting. It is not the John McCain as the senator who defined himself, quote, as a maverick, though questionable,” Kerry said. “This is want-to-be president John McCain. The result is that John McCain has flip-flopped on more issues than I was even ever accused possibly of thinking about.”

McCain adviser Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said McCain was the one who stood up to the administration and urged President Bush to send more U.S. troops to Iraq to help control violence. Obama did not support the addition of troops.

Violence in Iraq has dropped to its lowest level in more than four years as a result of the 2007 buildup of forces.

“We’re winning because John McCain understood Iraq better than anybody else,” Graham said. “The surge has worked. The political, economic and military progress in Iraq is undeniable.”

Not too long ago, Kerry might have described McCain, a fellow Vietnam veteran and former prisoner of war, as a bipartisan ally who could provide guidance on national security issues.

McCain came to Kerry’s aid in March 2004 after Bush and his campaign tried to paint the Democrat as weak on defense. He rejected the suggestion in broadcast interviews and chided both parties for waging such a “bitter and partisan” campaign.

The two senators also discussed the vice presidency several times before McCain finally rejected Kerry’s overtures to form a bipartisan ticket. Kerry ultimately selected then-Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., to join the ticket.

For the record, Kerry is not among those being mentioned as possible running mates for McCain.

By Taxpayer

July 6, 2008 5:12 PM | Link to this

So, Freedom, you want to be able to take away my vote even after I worked and paid taxes for thirty years before finally retiring just because I am no longer paying taxes. Of course, that’s assuming I ever really get to the point where I’m not paying taxes. Now, that’s a good one.

By George Hussien Washington

July 6, 2008 5:15 PM | Link to this

I agree fully with Mr. Kerry’s opinion that John McCain does not have the judgement to be president….The fool McCain wet started (allowed fuel to pool) his jet on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier in order to shoot a stream of flame out the tail pipe, just to scare the pilot behind him….that pilot was so starlted that he accidently fired a missle, setting off a string of explosions that killed dozens of American sailors. Gee, do ya think President McCain might try wet starting a nuclear war, just to scare other world leaders?

By Bud Wiser

July 6, 2008 5:21 PM | Link to this

I have some topical suggestions for future blogs about our future President, Barak Obama, and they are:

Just thought I’d toss those out, kind of like hors d’oeuvres before the big party, because it is certainly nothing one would ever see explored by main stream media. And to you Bush haters BTW, yappin your gums about the last 8 years is old news, try to think of something new.

For the record, I despise George W. Bush. Iraq aside, I think he has mismanaged this country worse than any President in history, except for Jimmy Carter. I, and many others, have lost my pension, my health plan, and a ton of money the last two years while GW sits on his butt in D.C. and applauds the Fed when they lower the interest rate again. Fortunately I get by, but with no reliance on the gov’t. Now this Obama clown comes along and I see Jimmy Carter/George Bush rolled up into one very sticky package, and it gives me cause for concern. Do any of you people out there remember the absolute disaster it was living under Carter’s (the no experience man) regime? I guess not. Hold on to your wallets then, there’s a storm a brewin’!!!

By Freedom

July 6, 2008 5:22 PM | Link to this

Taxpayer, you’re right, rich folk paying the same dollar amt would be unfair. But how about a flat tax rate for ALL people. That way you would be incentivized, if you work hard and make more, you keep more. For that to work, ALL of these ridiculous deductions for rich and poor need to be eliminated. All the money hiding schemes of the uber wealthy must go. But so must that hideous, scandelous law known as the “earned income tax credit”. Facts are facts, with every major tax cut enacted by the govt, tax revenues have increased accordingly. Unfortunately, the elected officials see that money as theirs to spend (both Dems and Repubs) and we as a nation go deeper into debt.

By Abundant Pundit

July 6, 2008 6:00 PM | Link to this

No, I’VE got some topics for the BLOG. I think we should BLOG on these TOPICS. I’ve been doin’ some thinkin’ and I think we could BLOG these TOPICS I got. Yeah, I think these TOPICS would advance the discussion. We could BLOG these TOPICS I got here. Yeah. We could BLOG.

BLOG TOPICS. I got. Yeah.

what a clod, honestly.

By Andy is a moron.

July 6, 2008 6:13 PM | Link to this

bwa

By Hillbilly Deluxe

July 6, 2008 7:02 PM | Link to this

Reminds me of the old man. On election day someone asked him if he sold his vote. “Yeah, twice” he replied.

By Bud Wiser

July 6, 2008 7:19 PM | Link to this

Typically the Pundit has no response other than his usual garbage. The liberal mantra leads his tiny mind again to change the subject when you don’t like the subject.

What’s the matter Pundit? Cat got your tongue? Have you no on to call to tell you what to say? Miss your NY Times, Huffington Post, or Daily Kos this weekend, so you cannot reply the spoonfed garbage you utter?

You are one weak minded tool. I laugh at your stupidity, but I at least realize that your vote in November counts the same as mine. The only difference is that I will be making up my own mind on who to vote for, as opposed to your weak, pathetic brain being told what to do by your elitist socialist force.

You are pitiful, man. Grow up.

By @@

July 6, 2008 7:42 PM | Link to this

You don’t offer to sell anybody your vote; you set up a fund to which your new “friends” can contribute if they wish. If people ply you with liquor or expensive meals and gifts, they aren’t bribing you, they’re “creating a relationship” with you.

That ^^^ sounds vaguely familiar Jay.

May I assume that you’re talking about Obama and Hillary?

The Hillary whose campaign was suspended in willful disbelief.

The Hillary who’s in need of financial welfare from Obama. He did ask his supporters to donate to help in eliminating her campaign debt. Hillary then asks her supporters to vote for Obama.

It’s a weird way of representing the people. Don’t need your popular vote to win the nomination.

Just need your money to suspend the popular vote so we can hang it out to dry.

Strange!

But then winner takes all is a concept foreign to liberals.

By James

July 6, 2008 10:01 PM | Link to this

To Taxpayer & Abomi Nation:

1) Yes, I think voting should be more limited than it is. One man one vote was never intended by our founding fathers in federal elections. Originally only land owners could vote. I could go for one man one vote if it was based on the amount of taxes you paid (i.e., zero taxes - 1 vote, $25,000 in taxes - 2 votes, etc., etc. With computers it could be done - a sliding scale. Kind of like the way your vote counts when you have stock in a company and are voting - hummmmmmm ………..

I wouldn’t lose a minutes sleep.

Also, you have to pass a driver’s test to drive how about a test on the Constitution, etc. to vote? And don’t give me that “anti-test” stuff as that meant a “political or religious” test. I could go on and on but our country was NEVER intended to be a pure democracy - a Constitutional Republic yes - a big difference.

By the way, do you think it is fair that Vermont has two senators but California only has two senators ? And what about the electoral college that was set up to give the smaller states an edge - heaven forbid !

There are a lot of things in the Constitution that are “not fair” and they were intended to be so.

By Abomi Nation

July 6, 2008 10:50 PM | Link to this

I’m just wondering James, in the little fantasy world of yours, would each of your sock puppets get to vote?

You know the different names that you use here to prop up your posts, do they each get a vote?

From what I have read from your multi personalities, I have to say I think that your instability should disqualify you from ever casting a vote. I don’t think you would pass the mental competency test. No vote for you.

By SL3

July 6, 2008 11:44 PM | Link to this

This point that we have reached with 50% of the folks not paying income tax needs to be addressed with an amendment. Something like that any tax would have to be calculated so that at least 60% of the people must have to pay some tax and a maximum tax anyone would have to pay regardless of income. With state taxes added and some cities that tax income we are close to 50% in some areas. I would say 40% should be the maximum federal tax and a 60% vote by the gov’t be required to raise it, but 50% to lower. We can’t have this situation developing with over 50% of the people not paying taxes. When the 16th amendment was passed I don’t think they ever envisioned Americans paying as much taxes as we do today or that the gov’t would have grown so large, bloated and intrusive.

By James Winslo

July 7, 2008 9:11 AM | Link to this

To Abmomi Nation:

You crack me up !

But ….. you choose not to debate what the Constitution says about voting, fairness, senators, apportionment, electoral college, etc., etc.

I guess, a little to complex for your “sock puppet” drivel.