Obama’s dirty-money Hawaii connection

Hawai`i Free Press | 01/02/07 | Andrew Walden

[zimdog]

If it's not a lie, it should be easy for you to prove.

But the fact that you use "Mau Mau" as a personal noun and misspelled Kenyatta's first name earlier indicates that you probably don't know what you're talking about.

[Eva]

I used the same spelling that BBC used in their article, Jomo. I have seen it spelled phonetically, though.

But don't get too upset because I'm sure that Hillary will get it right.

[zimdog]

I used the same spelling that BBC used in their article, Jomo.

Post #89

But don't get too upset because I'm sure that Hillary will get it right.

Interesting that you are her "fellow traveler"...

[Candor7]

He is a disaster from every point of view.>>>>>>>>>>>>

I disagree. When Tom DeLay was ousted by the backroom machinations of our RINOs along with their compadres across the senatorial aisle, you will notice that there was no longer a functional party whip from then on. The conservative agenda was traduced in the Senate. Tom DeLays absence hurt the Party. He was and is a good politician, disliked by many because he plays political hard ball. He is just the sort of man we need as a president.

NOw maybe we can go and find such a man, properly couched in clothing which our earnest Democrat friends and puny minded Rinos can stomach according to their false bipartisan pork barreling lights.

I would vote for DeLay as president in a heart beat, a hard man he is, but a hard man maltreated by his own party, and abandoned by the soft cheeses who now run the RNC, who worry more about image than substance.

So we will disagree on Tom Delay, and I guess that is what makes your cookie crumble, and there is nothing I can or will do about that.

Suture yourself!

[Hildy]

WAKE UP...more liberals voted than conservatives sat out. there is NO evidence that Republicans voted for the Democrats this time out. I will bet you my life savings (and it's considerable) that there will not be a Consevative President in our lifetime, if ever. IT'S A DIFFERENT WORLD OUT THERE, and you people better wake up.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Tom Delay was "ousted" by himself not the almight "RINO".

Delay had NOTHING to do with the "Senate".

Then the idiotic actions he took in the Primary ensured a Republican loss of a seat when he later cravenly backed out of the race. Why did he do this AFTER the primary instead of BEFORE?

No one is complaining about "hardball" tactics or his actions prior to 2006 (well except for the Schiavo nonsense) but his totally egotistic actions last year.

He allowed himself to get caught up in these legal issues with NO other Republican responsible for them but himself.

[spinestein]

[That is some serious dreaming there. Conservatives have NO leader capable of winning the nomination. In fact, there none that could even get close. Much of the best conservative voices were eliminated from the Congress.]


What I posted is nothing more or less than an outline of the current OPPORTUNITY that exists for conservative Republicans. I made no mention of anybody's dreams or desires, nor of what I think of the chances of the opportunity being seized. For the record, I'm not too optimistic.

[Very few votes will be won on a plank of reducing the size of government. Although it is an ancient claim of almost all politicians since the very beginning that doesn't change the fact that government grows because the voters WANT it to grow and because society grows more complex.]

It happened in 1980 and again in 1884 with Reagan, and the country prospered under his deregulation of industry and significant tax cuts, and it happened yet again in 1994 with the contract with America resulting in more tax cuts, welfare reform (and reduction) and federal spending caps. They were elected on this platform, which can only be described as "smaller government". It's a winning issue to run on as long as the politicians follow through with their promises.

[spinestein]

[WAKE UP...more liberals voted than conservatives sat out. there is NO evidence that Republicans voted for the Democrats this time out.]


I don't know whose post you were reading, but nothing I said even suggested that I thought any Republicans voted for Democrats. I'm well aware that the moderates and independents voted overwhelmingly for Democrats instead of Republicans and that made all the difference in the election.

[I will bet you my life savings (and it's considerable) that there will not be a Consevative President in our lifetime, if ever. IT'S A DIFFERENT WORLD OUT THERE, and you people better wake up.]

Whoa! hold on there buddy. I don't know how many years you've got left in your lifetime, but I plan to be around for quite a few more decades and these things go in cycles; one side runs the show for awhile until they become complacent and screws up, then the other side wins by default and it's their turn to run the country until THEY screw up. That's the nature of a government accountable to the people. Consider that leftists ran the show during the sixties and seventies, raising taxes through the roof and over-regulating businesses until under a Democrat congress and president (Carter) the economy bottomed out. Then Reagan took over and DE-regulated business and lowered taxes and the economy boomed. H.W. Bush moved to the left and the public abandoned Republicans and Democrats took over by default. Clinton and his party tried to take the country back to the days of Carter and the result was the Gingrich conservative Republicans and the Contract with America in '94. Too bad they pooped out and the MODERATE "compassionate conservative" W. Bush and his soft and squishy colleagues in congress have not earned the support of the conservative right so now we're back to the Democrats taking another turn.

The conservatives I know aren't just going to go away and sulk for the next 40 years, so you would probably be wise NOT to bet everything on perpetually losing.

[Hildy]

The conservatives I know aren't just going to go away and sulk for the next 40 years,

I hope you know a helluva lot of Conservatives to make up for the hoards of liberals voting now.

[spinestein]

[I hope you know a helluva lot of Conservatives to make up for the hoards of liberals voting now.]


It was the moderates who made the difference in the last election because they all gravitated toward the left after seeing the lack of enthusiasm on the right.

But the funny thing about moderates is they're FICKLE, and if the Democrats don't live up to their campaign promises* in the next year and a half, the moderates can just as easily all break for the Republicans in '08, provided they can scrounge up a few decent candidates who don't come off as Democrat Lite.



*The Democrats had better start pulling some magic wands out of their butts it they intend to keep all the promises they made during the last campaign. For starters, they promised their constituents they would:

-- come up with a "smarter" solution to the war in Iraq
-- stop using our troops to fight terrorism and rely on the U.N. and international courts to keep us safe from militant Islamists, and also implement a plan of peace with the terrorists through negotiation, diplomacy and apology for the crimes of America past and present.
-- dramatically increase entitlements to everyone in need without increasing the budget deficit
-- repeal the tax cuts without hurting taxpayers or businesses
-- come up with a solution to keep both social security and Medicare solvent without changing the programs in any way or raising taxes to make up for future shortfalls
-- make sure all workers earn a "living wage" without causing a rise in inflation or unemployment or hurting business or the savings of retirees
-- enact significant environmental regulations without negatively affecting the economy and come up with a plan to reverse global warming
-- impeach Bush and try him and everyone in his cabinet for crimes against humanity

While the above list may sound satirical, in fact the Democrats have promised all of these things to their various constituents in exchange for their enthusiastic votes this past November and those voters are going to be mighty pissed off if the Democrats can't deliver.

[justshutupandtakeit]

"It happened in 1980 and again in 1884 with Reagan, and the country prospered under his deregulation of industry and significant tax cuts, and it happened yet again in 1994 with the contract with America resulting in more tax cuts, welfare reform (and reduction) and federal spending caps." None of the above reduced the size of government. In fact, the irony is that reducing tax RATES can (and has) increased tax REVENUES hence giving the government MORE funds to use. It is also a fact that since about 1920 or so the share of the GNP devoted to government hovers around 20%. The variance is about 2% one way or the other.

Translating Rhetoric into Fact is much more difficult than one would think.

[atlaw]

This foul rant must have been penned by the supporters of Barack Obama, not his opponents. It is perfectly designed to make Obama's opponents look like sheet-wearing morons.

[spinestein]

I always think of the "size of government" as the sum of two separate components. 1) The amount of money it takes out of the economy 2) The amount of intrusive regulations and laws that affect private citizens and private business

You are absolutely correct that historically the federal take of GNP is always around 20% +/- 2% and I'm glad that someone else recognizes its significance; the actual dollar amount can increase from year to year, and that's fine as long as the percentage taken out of the economy doesn't go up. Federal spending caps in the 90's moved the figure down to the low end of the range, but since they've expired, federal spending as a percentage of GNP is going back up, and if it gets into the 21-22% territory it will stifle the economy, as it always does.

As far as intrusive laws and regulations, there was an improvement during the Reagan years but, since then, it's been all downhill. The two areas that the government has been most intrusive are free speech (CFR) and eminent domain (eg. Kelo v. New London).

[justshutupandtakeit]

CFR is one of the most useless laws ever passed and has not limited the free speech of anyone except outright idiots. And it is fully within the explicit Constitutional authority of Congress to regulate federal elections.

Kelo merely recognized no federal interest in a local action. It also has produced considerable good as states were forced to act to reign in excessive condemnations. Some have put protections within their constitutions.
This needs to be attacked at the local and state levels.

One thing we should fear is that the RATS wise up one day and see that lowering tax rates can increase tax revenues. Then look out for a free for all of spending.