nikobesti 8 years, 5 months ago on Debbie Knez: Daily Press coverage disrespected President-elect Barack Obama

lonelyone: These data are not from ballots. They're from exit polls, where people give all kinds of personal information. Google it. They've been around forever and are pretty accurate. Follow that link I posted. This is not a conspiracy. ;-)


nikobesti 8 years, 5 months ago on Debbie Knez: Daily Press coverage disrespected President-elect Barack Obama

Please note two things, mfbbf. First, not many more black Americans voted for Obama than usually vote for the Democratic candidate.

Percentage of black vote for Democratic presidential candidate:

1984: 90% 1988: 86% 1992: 83% 1996: 84% 2000: 90% 2004: 88% 2008: 95%

Secondly, more white Americans voted for Obama than we did for Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton (in 2000), Gore, or Kerry.

Percentage of white vote for Democratic presidential candidate:

1984: 36% 1988: 35% 1992: 40% 1996: 43% 2000: 42% 2004: 41% 2008: 43%

(I'm getting this info from here:

Obama won predominantly white states like Iowa, Colorado and Nevada (as well as the usual states that go Democrat that are predominantly white like Oregon and Maine). If you ask me, that's a pretty good example of "overcoming racial barriers".


nikobesti 8 years, 5 months ago on Karina Weiman: Shocked and amused

Patrick: no one is suggesting returning to extreme great depression tax rates for companies. How was our economy doing before Bush tax cuts in the 90s? Great, right? I acknowledge this isn't all because of the tax code, but it was quite apparent that our economy could function well without billions of dollars in giveaway to corporations. Reverting to pre-Bush tax rates is not returning to great depression tax rates.

First and foremost, Obama will help facilitate the end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. You all act like this is the second coming of Lenin when it's merely undoing a recent policy. If Obama does get Congress to pass some middle class tax cuts and forces more burden on the wealthy, then we discuss what might be new territory.


nikobesti 8 years, 5 months ago on Karina Weiman: Shocked and amused

Ms. Weiman, I understood your sensationalism. But writing that our president is related to filth that cut off innocent peoples' heads was still worth commenting on. You write that junk and guys like ebear, who believe everything they see/hear, eat it up as fact.

If some of you want to call bringing the tax code back to a reasonable balance from its current state as the most rich-friendly tax code in history "socialism" or "communism," feel free. A lot of good that philosophy as done this country in the last 8 years. I feel SO sorry for the billionaires who won't get any more tax breaks and loopholes.

50cal, you seem to forget that when everyone is poor and unemployed, your business goes under even if you don't have to pay a bit more in taxes. A middle class with money to spend is great for your business. Trickle down has been proven bunk, so now the consumer doesn't have anything to spend. The wealthy elite and our current administration get rich of their con games and America suffers. The wider the gap gets, the more our country starts to resemble Nigeria. I've seen that mess. No thanks. Give me some representation, accountability, fair taxation, oversight and yes, regulation. If that's "communism," that's cool with me.

I could care less if you don't have an ounce of sympathy for the poor. Just do what is apparently natural to you and think about only yourself. Did you know the average baby boomer couple only has around $55,000 to retire on? Isn't that nuts? That's partly because there are millions of very poor people out there with zero. Who's paying for these folks' hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical and other bills? You, me, and everyone else posting on this forum, that's who, via programs like social security and Medicare. The middle class and wealthy pick up the tab, and our tax burden is going to grow much more acute the next 10 years. Don't try to pretend that paying the poor's bills is some new communist concept in America. It's in all the middle class' interest that we shore up this gap and pull up a substantial amount of the lower class to the middle class so they can pay for themselves. I'm not sure what the best way to do this is, but I am quite sure that it is not the George Bush/John McCain economic plan.


nikobesti 8 years, 5 months ago on Karina Weiman: Shocked and amused

ebear: I never said you had to fall in line and support Obama. You don't. In this country we can descent. I would like if you stopped spreading lies and fear, but that's your right too. The new fear card is "socialism!" or "Marxism!" You might be older than I am but you obviously haven't studied history. We've had government run schools in this nation for a long time. Taxes have ALWAYS had some element of re-distribution. Social Security and Medicare are also programs that re-distribute money from the haves to the have-nots. If you wanted to sound the "socialist!!" alarm, you should have done it long ago.

Check out this quote by Teddy Roosevelt:

"Our aim is to recognize what Lincoln pointed out: The fact that there are some respects in which men are obviously not equal; but also to insist that there should be an equality of self-respect and of mutual respect, an equality of rights before the law, and at least an approximate equality in the conditions under which each man obtains the chance to show the stuff that is in him when compared to his fellows."

Notice the last sentence. What a socialist! Remember the real John McCain who opposed Bush's 2001 tax cut, saying it was unfairly tilted toward the rich? Socialist!!! Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, and Richard Nixon have pitched plans similar to Obama's. Marxists!

Let's talk in 2 years, then 4. You'll still have your guns and we'll still have a lot of good folks in Craig working at ColoWyo, Trapper and 20-mile. Then you'll look like a paranoid fool.

Regarding your news article about a power plant being denied by EPA in Utah, unless I missed something, Obama isn't president yet and didn't have a darn thing to do with that decision. This was denied under the Bush Administration. Does that make him a socialist environmentalist and enemy of rural Americans?


nikobesti 8 years, 5 months ago on Karina Weiman: Shocked and amused

Patrick and other Moffat County residents: I guarantee, yes I guarantee that you will be able to keep your guns. Gun laws are #100 out of 100 priorities on Obama's plate. His top priorities are the economy, energy, then heath care, education and the war in Iraq. He could care less about guns, because most Americans aren't that concerned either. Was it ever even mentioned in the campaign? Isn't that some indication of how this isn't an issue? Plus, if you guys have been watching the news, you know that about 6 months ago the Supreme Court found that it was unconstitutional to ban guns in Washington DC. This is America, folks, not Nigeria. We don't have a dictator, we have a president and two other branches of the government, not to mention a constitution. There are checks and balances in this nation. Even if he wanted to, a president can't just do anything he wants. We've been a nation for over 200 years and you think because of one election America is going to come to an end. Can you see how ridiculous that sounds?

The same goes for coal. You have to be really, I mean really paranoid to think Obama is going to shut down coal mines. Would he just leave people without electricity? That would be great PR! Come on people, put emotion aside and think logically. We need EVERY SINGLE FORM of energy at our fingertips if we are to become energy independent, which everyone agrees should be our goal. How in the world can we afford to shut down coal plants or stop drilling for oil and gas? I am willing to bet my life savings that we'll gave NEW coal plants and oil and gas wells under Obama's administration.

Please. Take it easy. This is America. No one is going to take away your guns or shut down coal mines or power plants. Take a deep breath and step out of the bomb shelter.


nikobesti 8 years, 5 months ago on Karina Weiman: Shocked and amused

Let me start by saying I do not agree with Ellen Johnson that the Craig Daily Press not putting Obama on the front page had something to do with race. It did not folks. Get over it.

Now, let me say a few things to these ignorant, paranoid commenters, including Karina Weiman. Karina, if you indeed wanted to "hole myself up in my home and wait for Obama's relatives (aka al-Qaida) to come to America," then you definitely hold some irrational bigotry towards Obama. Why would Obama be related to al-Qaeda? He's not Muslim. He's not Arab. (Even if he were, that in no way makes him sympathetic or related to al-Qaeda). You have to have made that statement out of biased ignorance, because no rational thought could have lead you to that conclusion. I hope you DO hole yourself up in your house and don't come out for a long, long time.

ebear did a great job regurgitating Rush Limbaugh talking points, spewing ridiculous statements about marxists and socialists. LOL! Blondi says it's wrong to not respect someone else's opinion and call names, but she seems to have no problem with Karina and other commenters berating and disrespecting Ellen Johnson and our president-elect. At least vic is willing to keep an open mind and judge Obama by his actions, not accusations from people who hate him.

You folks are the sheep. Sheep follow lies unquestionably. Sheep believe the fear peddling, smears, and scare tactics. I would kindly ask you to get some accurate information from or some other reputable source, but I know you don't want accurate information. You WANT to believe the hate and fear being spread.

So go right ahead. I have a lot of respect for any Republican or other American who want to work together to make our country better, even if their guy didn't win. But for those who continue to believe and spread ignorant lies and fear, I am quite happy that your hate and paranoia will fester in your hearts for the next 4+ years.


nikobesti 8 years, 6 months ago on Standing on energy

Both parties fully realize fossil fuels have to play a significant part of our energy future, and both parties support developing those resources responsibly in America. Both parties support off shore drilling. Both parties support coal and nuclear power. Both parties support developing oil and gas resources on-shore.

However, only one party seems to recognize that we can't live on oil forever. One party recognizes that development of alternative energy sources will lead our economy into the 21st century. Only one party recognizes that if we don't break our addition to fossil fuels, we will fall even farther behind the rest of the world. The other party yells "Drill Baby Drill," and pretends that a minuscule contribution to global supply will reduce gas prices for Americans. THAT's what I call a smoke screen.

Energy is the most important issue of this election to me. Yes, silentman, some folks are gullible; it's those who naively think we can solve our energy problems by drilling.

(By the way, there hasn't been any energy development going on in Vermillion Basin since the 1970s or 80s, so there is nothing for Udall to "shut down.")


nikobesti 8 years, 6 months ago on Lynne Herring: Vote yes to Amend. 48

Ha! Good one Patrick. Nah, I have no urge whatsoever to speak with this person. I was considering using the most powerful tool most American consumers have to make their voice heard: boycotting.

I'd be curious to know your proposed solution (as well as Lynne's) to limit unwanted pregnancies. Do you support sex education in schools that teaches kids about using condoms?

I'm also confused by this paragraph of Lynne's:

"Pregnancies after rape and incest are very rare, and no one would condemn any woman for getting an abortion because of violence done to her. Getting an abortion because the life of the mother is at risk - while it does happen - also is very rare, especially in our advanced medical world. Again, no one would condemn. We have abortions done for any reason, at any time during a woman's pregnancy."

It appears as though Lynne supports a woman's right to chose to have an abortion in cases of rape, incest, and where the life of the mother is at risk, like most Americans. But doesn't she know Amendment 48 does not allow for these exceptions? Amendment 48 goes too far, which is why even many pro-life folks aren't supporting it.