Aug 14, 2008

The swift boating of Obama has begun

We knew it was coming, and it’s here: the swift boating of Sen. Barrack Obama.

Jerome Corsi, the author of the smear book against Democratic Presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry and every single veteran who ever earned a medial or citation, has just released a similar book targeting Obama. The smear merchant and principal in the smear boat veterans was the co-author with Kerry enemy John O'Neill of “Unfit for Command.” The book attacked Kerry’s service – as well as every single veteran - and his three Purple Hearts during the 2004 presidential election, and the lies helped Bush win a second term.

Corsi’s latest Unfit-style book was recently released. The book is little more than a rehash of the disgusting and false smears that have been floating around in cyberspace and have already been debunked by responsible news agencies and nonpartisan third parties.

Obama is taking the initiative and refuses to be swift-boated. He is already fighting back and correcting the record with what he is calling “The Obama Action Wire.”


Brett said...

Please point out the lies that the Swiftboat vets put out there that have been proven.

Please point out the false smears that are in the book that recently camee out.

You've claimed there were false statements made in both books, but you give no examples nor citations for the so-called lies.


Communications guru said...

Just off the top of my head, the smear boat hacks said Kerry shot an unarmed teen in the back, and they questioned his Purple Hearts.

I haven’t read the Obama smear book, nor will I waste my time to do so. The guy’s track record is pretty clear. These are from Obama’s web site. The hack claims Obama could claim to be a citizen of Kenya, as well as of the United States. Not true. He also claims Obama’s parents were never married in a church. Again, not true. Then three the rest of the BS about his religion and his associations. Since they are from his web site you don’t have to believe them; just prove their wrong.

Republican Michigander said...

The reason why the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's ads worked is because John Kerry ran his mouth at the Senate hearing in 1972. He either lied about the atrocities, or was guilty of derrelection of duty.

He isn't fit to be in the senate, let alone the presidency. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

As far as Obama goes, his senate record, state senate record, arrogance, elitism, associations, and the penchant of running his mouth is good enough for me to vote against him. I don't care if he was Muslim or not. His tie to terrorist Bill Ayers is much worse.

kaDargo said...

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's ads worked because Kerry chose to take the high road and not respond, and the media was complicit in not investigating the veracity of their claims.

Regarding Obama's senate and state senate records, what do you find disagreeable?

Regarding his supposed arrogance and elitism...give us some examples.

Running his mouth? Now, he's not allowed to speak?

Bill Ayers...Obama was 8 when Ayers did his crimes. He served on a board with what. That's your tie?

Go back to the 101st Fighting Keyboarders and get some new talking points.

Communications guru said...

The reason they worked is because they were so well-financed. They followed the GOP/Rove strategy that if you’re going to tell a lie, tell a big one. He told the truth in 1972, as did the other combat vets there. The troops never should have been out in that position, just like they should not have been put in the same position in the unnecessary Iraq fiasco.

The smear boat vets smeared every single vet who ever earned a medal or citation. If you ever served in the military you might understand that.

As far as I am concerned he’s an American hero. There’s no way you can call Grampy McSame a hero and not John Kerry.

What a crock; you would never vote for a Democrat and you know it. In the U.S. Senate alone, Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored more than 500 bills. Please explain to me how he is arrogant. If you want to see arrogant, look at Grampy.

Obama an elitist? Please. This is a man who was raised for much of his life in a single parent home, paid his own way through college and law school and earned everything on his own. That’s in sharp contrast to McSame/Bush who used his connections and name to get through.

Bill Ayers is a terrorist? What was he convicted of? How does serving on the same board him make them friends?

Brett said...

You still haven't proven the lie yet you keep claiming they are lies.

Kerry said in 72 that he witnessed atrocities. This was proven false. He also claimed that it was "seared in my memory" of being in Cambodia on Christmas eve 1968 on the orders of President Nixon. Nixon didn't become President until January of 69. He was caught in another lie and later admitted that he was incorrect.

One of his purple hearts was for a sliver. The doctor told him he'd look like a fool for requesting a purple heart over that. He didn't even need a bandaid.

Obama spent much of his life in a single parent home? Please tell me how much is "much of his life".

Obama claimed that Ayers was a friend of his. Ayers wasn't convicted of bombing the Pentagon. He got off on a technicality. However, on Sept. 11, 2001 he stated in a piece he wrote in the New York Times that he was sad that they should have done more than the bombing of the Pentagon.

Obama may have been 8 when the bombing happened. Ayers may not have been convicted, but he's admitted to what he did and said he's sorry he didn't do more. But Obama was not 8 when he became friends with Ayers and he was not 8 when he admitted that he was friends with a man that was a terrorist with the Weather Underground.

As for co-sponsoring bills, name them. He spent 143 days in the Senate since his election to the Senate.

I can't find one bill that Obama sponsored.

More bs from this site.


Brett said...

My mistake. I must have looked up the wrong reference for Obama's bills. He has had two passed. Both resolutions. The first was to congratulate the Chicago White Sox for winning the World Series.

The second was to recognize Juneteenth day.

A record to be proud of. He'll go down in history for his visionary bills. Sheesh.


Communications guru said...

I certainly have proved they are lies. Mistaken or confusing a date does not mean lying. Perhaps you could provide a link to back up your claim that “Kerry said in 72 that he witnessed atrocities. This was proven false” claim. The medal claim is a lie, and it’s a smear of all of us who served in the military. Perhaps if you served you might understand. Here’s a link to disprove your lie

Based on Sen. Obama’s bio, it’s about 11 years, and the rest of the time he lived with his grandparents. Regardless of how many years it was, there is no way he can be called an elitist, especially compared to the upbringing of Bush/McSame. I would love to hear what the right is basing the false elitist claim on.

Obama and Ayers are not friends. They served on the same board. It didn’t take me much to find Obama sponsored 129 bill and resolutions in the current legislative session alone. Here’s a link:

You just have to select his name.

Brett said...

For Kerry's words that he claimed to have witnessed atrocities you only need look at his testimony before Congress. There is video. So much for that "false claim".

Obama admitted that not only are he and Ayers friends but that they serve together on a board and I believe that they are neighbors as well. Or I could have Ayers confused as the neighbor with Rezko who has been indicted (another friend of Obama), not to mention the sweetheart deal on the house.

Obama didn't sponsor 129 bills. He co-sponsored those bills. That is to say he attached his name to the bills. Not that he was directly involved in them.

I will give him credit though. The two resolutions he sponsored for the White Sox and Juneteenth is two more than Hillary. So I guess Obama is more qualified than Hillary.


Communications guru said...

Again, give me a reference to your claim about John Kerry.

No, Obama did not admit he and Mr. Ayers were friends. This is what amazes me though, so who even cares if that was true. I don’t believe Mr. Ayers has been convicted of anything. Plus, he is an upstanding, respected citizen and college professor. I just read his bio on Wikipedia, and I don’t see what all the fuss was about. But regardless of that, he and Obama are not friends. But so what if they are?

I don’t know if they are neighbors or not, nor do I care. I didn’t choose my home for who lived next door, nor do I have any control of who moves out or in. As for this “sweetheart deal on the house,” that’s a new charge. You already tried the sweetheart mortgage deal lie and I debunked that one.

Obama sponsored or co-sponsored 129 bills in the current legislative session. That is not in dispute. Do I need to give you the link again?

Brett said...

Obama to raise taxes


Kerry and Cambodia

Kerry’s 1971 testimony

But don't let facts get in the way of your lies.


Communications guru said...

Making everyone pay Social Security taxes doesn’t equate to a tax increase. Funny, the article heavily quotes the same guy you called a racist yesterday.

I stand corrected, they are neighbors, but that means nothing. Like I said before, I can’t choose who moves in our out next to me, and neither can Obama. Other than that, the opinion column is from some misgauged guy who does not like liberals.

I’m not even going to bother to comment on the right wing blog post you supplied.

What is the point of the testimony? I know he testified. In fact, that’s when I really became an admirer of Sen. Kerry.

No lies from me, and again you are short on facts.

Brett said...

Get back to me when you learn to read and comprehend (that means to understand what you read).


The truth hurts said...



Oh and by the way with every surrogate of Comrade Obama's saying he word "old" three times in each sentence that is not dirty right?

Brett said...

With apologies to Jeff Foxworthy, you just might be a liberal if...

* You're sure the Constitution explicitly guarantees the right to abortion and gay marriage, but not the right to own a handgun.

* You think Dan Quayle is the dumbest Vice-President we ever had because he believed a flash card that misspelled "potato," but think Obama is a genius despite the fact he believes we have more than 57 states.

* You'd be more upset about your favorite candidate being endorsed by the NRA than the Communist Party.

* You think the same criminals who use guns in the commission of a crime will just hand them over to comply with the law if guns are made illegal.

* You know that 86% of all income taxes are paid by the top 25% of income earners and you still feel that the rich "aren't paying their fair share of the taxes."

* You put a higher priority on oil pipelines possibly inconveniencing a few caribou than you do on lowering the price of gas for everyone in the country by drilling ANWR.

* You're worried that Osama Bin Laden might not get a fair trial if we capture him, but want George Bush thrown in prison for being too zealous in protecting us from Al-Qaeda.

* You get infuriated when you hear about the CEO of a Fortune 500 company making tens of millions of dollars, but don't see a problem with an actor, basketball player, or trial lawyer making the same amount. [And speaking of trial lawyers you believe the National Enquirer should have left John Edwards alone but applaud New York Times (and other massiveinfoentertainment media) pillorying dalliances by Republicans.]

* You're constantly seeing subtle, coded racism in campaign ads, but see nothing racist about blacks being promoted [hired, admitted to schools, etc.] over more qualified white applicants because of Affirmative Action. [You believe any criticism of Obama is racist but criticism of McCain is not age discrimination even when it is so clearly just that.]

* You think it's obscene that oil companies are allowed to make 8.3 cents per gallon in profit with gas prices this high, but would never suggest cutting the 13 cents per gallon they pay on taxes to reduce the price of gas.

* You think George Bush is a chickenhawk because he wanted to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan despite the fact that he only served in the National Guard, but you don't think the same about Barack Obama, who has never served in the military and probably couldn't find either country on a map without help.

* You think protesting outside of abortion clinics is extremism and should be illegal, but carrying around giant puppet heads while wearing a t-shirt that compares Bush to Hitler is just exercising your First Amendment rights.

* You think the case for global warming is proven without a shadow of a doubt, but that we need another century or two worth of evidence to figure out if capitalism and free markets work better than socialism.

* You believe the best way to fix the government screwing something up in the market is with...drumroll, please...more government intervention.

* You think the first thing we should have done when Russia invaded Georgia was to take the matter to the United Nations, where Russia sits on the UN Security Council.

* You spend your days criticizing the use of private jets, SUVS, and luxurious houses that consume enormous amounts of resources and then ride in an SUV to the airport, get on your private plane, and fly home to your luxurious house [or 100' house boat that I know for sure as a former house boat owner is the least fuel efficient vehicle and most polluting device ever invented by humankind].

* You have more nice things to say about countries like Cuba and France than you do about your own country.

* You think the war in Iraq is unwinnable, but victory in the war on poverty is going to happen any day now if we can just get the Democrats back in charge.

* You won't even support English as our national language, but can't seem to understand why people worry about tens of millions of illegal aliens changing our culture.

* You think censorship is absolutely wrong; except when it's applied to conservatives on college campuses or on talk radio via the fairness doctrine.

* You get more upset about an American soldier accidentally killing a civilian than you do about a terrorist deliberately blowing up a school bus full of kids.

* You think Fox News is hopelessly biased to the right, but MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, and CBS call it right down the middle.

* You think the real hero of the Cold War was Mikhail Gorbachev [or as I heard only yesterday on one of those so "unbiased" media as listed above, Pope John Paul, not Ronald Reagan].

* You couldn't care less about what Americans in states like Kansas or Virginia think of you, but you would be greatly upset if a Frenchman gave you a dirty look because you're an American.

* You think kids in public schools should have to watch Earth in the Balance and read Heather Has Two Mommies [and learn Islam even to the point of dressing in typical Muslim attire] , but no piece of literature with the word "Jesus" on it should be allowed within a hundred yards of a school.

You believe a political campaign based on promise of change, vaguely stated at best and shifting frequently in any details offered, refusal to appear on FoxNews (or in any other hard interviews), a whirlwind tour of Afghanistan, Iraq and some European countries, proclaiming oneself a "citizen of the world" while avoiding a visit with wounded U.S. soldiers, although a long history of questionable associations with such as Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrahkan, Tony Rezko and William Ayers, criticism of the U.S. National Anthem as too warlike and tortorous explanations for not wearing a U.S. Flag lapel pin or saluting the National Anthem and raising of the U.S. Flag by covering one's heart, and saying "If the political situation turns bad I will side with the Muslims" offers the best candidate for the next President of the U.S. over a bonafide war hero, retired military officer with 26 years in the U.S. Senate compared to less than 180 days of Senate service with the most Liberal voting record when voting at all.

Communications guru said...

I answered it once, but I’ll answer it again, both. I’m sure I’m going to get the rightwing talking point of taxing corporations is just taxing people because it will be passed on to consumers. I don’t agree. If they benefit from what government provides and are a part of society they should pay their fair share.

Wow, I have been elevated to a surrogate of Sen. Obama? Thanks for the compliment, but I am just one of the millions of supporters who will put him over the top in November. However, I make no apologies for saying I think McCain is too old for the job. I believe he is too old for the most stressful job in the world. The senior moments he has had recently demonstrated that.

Communications guru said...

You might just be a liberal if you love your country and am willing to s put your money where your mouth is, and I am. Isn’t sad that you plagiarized somebody else’s false smear because you‘re not smart enough to think of one yourself.

The truth hurts said...

So if you and others ATTACK McCain about his age then shut your and stop whining about others attacking the young inexperienced one.

The truth hurts said...

Tell me one tax that a corpation pays that a consumer does not comrade.

You must be happy what your close friends in Russia are doing to the poor defenseless free country.

ka_Dargo said...

...GAO 72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005.

The truth hurts, doesn't it?

ka_Dargo said...

Regarding Corsi, he has no credibility, except among our
more hateful brethren.

the truth hurts said...


You should do your own research and not believe everthing the media tells you.

An outside tax expert, Chris Edwards of the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, said increasing numbers of limited liability corporations and so-called "S" corporations pay taxes under individual tax codes.

"Half of all business income in the United States now ends up going through the individual tax code," Edwards said

So yes the report said that but you need to look at the details of the report. Most corporation in the US are "S" corp. so all of the taxes they pay are under their personal tax submission.

Second corporation do not pay taxes, PEOPLE pay taxes, corprations remit taxes to the "STATE" or "Mom and Dad" to liberals. Give me one tax that Mr. or Mrs Corporation pays that they do not pass along to the people who buy their products or services. So in reality it is better for the people who do not work and are given money by us that work and for people who make less that corporation are taxed less.

Study up

Brett said...

Two quotes from your posts on this topic:

"In the U.S. Senate alone, Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored more than 500 bills."

"Obama sponsored or co-sponsored 129 bills in the current legislative session."

I'll bet you're great at fish stories too. Here are the facts and I gave the links earlier to back them up.

Obama sponsored two bills, both resolutions. One was to congratulate the White Sox on their World Series victory, the other was regarding Juneteenth. He's attached his name to 131 other bills.

Once again, you've been caught in lies. Your zealousness for the extremist liberal is inspiring, but not factual.


ka_Dargo said...

What part of Government Accountability Office did you not understand?

You study up.

Anonymous said...


Please do not show your stupidity, did you not read what I wrote and what experts say? I agreed that the study said that, maybe that is the problem you have a problem with understanding what you read.

Who pays taxes ka_dargo: businesses, people or both?

Study up son, before you show your ignorance

ka_Dargo said...

nonymouse...72% of all foreign companies and 57% of US companies paid no taxes for at least one year between '98 and '05.

Now, in response to your stupid question of "who pays taxes", they both do. A better question would have been who pays the larger share and is it fair given the resources they consume?

Study up son, before you show your ignorance.

Communications guru said...

The difference here is Sen. Obama does have the experience. In fact, he has more experience than the last president to come out of Illinois.

Communications guru said...

My quote, "Obama sponsored or co-sponsored 129 bills in the current legislative session” is accurate, true and correct. I provided you a link: do you want it again?
Who is an “ extremist liberal?”

The truth hurts said...


Please tell me a tax that a Mr or Mrs businesses pays and the consumer does not.

Man can you read or not,

Now really, I mean it, do a little research and think before you blog. Otherwise you end up writing dribble like this guys blog

Communications guru said...

If I write “dribble” like you claim then why do you keep coming back to read and post lame arguments? It’s certainly much better than the drivel you post here.

ka_Dargo said...

Your original post was...

I answered that question. I told you it was a stupid question and added...A better question would have been who pays the larger share and is it fair given the resources they consume?

Now, you want me to answer another question...Please tell me a tax that a Mr or Mrs businesses pays and the consumer does not.

I don't know anyone by the name of Mr, nor Mrs businesses. Are they friends of yours?

Perhaps a better structured sentence would assist my reading ability.

Brett said...

Interesting that you ignored your quote that he sponsored 500 bills in the US Senate.

As for taxes, the consumer pays all taxes. The businesses just write the checks.

Barack Hussein Obama wants a winfall profit tax on oil companies so that he can provide $1,000 to everyone. If oil companies have to pay more in taxes, windfall or other, they will pass the tax on to the consumer through higher gas prices.

Obama's plan will only do one thing. Increase the price at the pump. Once everyone has gotten the $1,000 do you think the oil companies will not have to pay the windfall profit tax? Of course they will. And where will they get that money from? You and me. So any tax that Obama puts on the oil companies will only be higher taxes to the consumer.


Communications guru said...

In the 109th Congress, Sen. Barack Obama sponsored or co-sponsored 579 bills. In the current year, he sponsored 129 bills in the current legislative session. Here’s a link to that:

As for taxes, those who benefit from what government provides and who are part of the society pay, or should, pay taxes.

I don’t know a lot about the windfall profits tax, but Grampy McSame has said he may favor one, just like Sen. Obama. Instead of raising the price of gas, oil companies will take some of that record profit and invest it in alternative energy sources so they will not have windgall profit on gas alone, and it will expand them into a field that is growing when fossil fuels run out.

ka_Dargo said...

In response to Brett, do you really think Big Oil needs an excuse to raise the price of gas?

Brett said...

Wrong. GOVERNMENT wants to take the windfall profit tax. That's what a tax is. GOVERNMENT taking money that they haven't earned from people or businesses that do earn it. This will only take money away from the oil companies which can only reduce the investment in alternative energy sources. But fear not. The oil companies will not take the hit. We will. At the gas pump.

To Ka_Dargo, who is also Comm Guru:

There has been one case of price gouging. Just one. And that wasn't by the oil companies. It was by one service station owner in Macomb County (I believe) about two years ago.

Oil companies make less than 9 cents per gallon. That's their profit. Yet, the feds get 18.4 cents per gallon. So if Oil companies are getting $40 billion in profit in a quarter, why isn't the government complaining about themselves receiving twice as much?


Brett said...

By the way, you don't further your argument by lying about McCain in an attempt to make Obama look the same.

McCain did not propose a windfall profit tax. He has said he'd look at it, but never proposed that it is needed.

He did propose something almost as silly when he suggested the gas tax holiday, but to say he proposed a windfall profit tax is another of your lies.


ka_Dargo said...

To Ka_Dargo, who is also Comm Guru:
I didn't realize.

*looks around for Comm Guru in apartment*

*looks in mirror*

Nope, no Comm Guru here, just ka_Dargo. For the record, Comm Guru is the guy that authors this blog, I believe. Me, I'm just an ordinary joe who's sick and tired of Republicans screwing up our country.

Yes, those big oil tax breaks are nice for them, aren't they.

The truth hurts said...

To read a real blog go to

ka_dargo you are as stupid as a rock

Also to learn something you should listen to the Live with Renk Show on WBCK 95.3 FM at 9:00 am

Communications guru said...

This is just one more of your word games. I guess I’ll play, too. If I’m lying then so are you. Sen. Obama has not proposed a windfall tax either, at least in his energy plan, and apparently, his position is the same as Grampy McSame’s. I don’t know if Obama has made a concrete proposal for a windfall profit tax or he is just “looking at it” like Grampy.

Here is the two energy plans:

ka_Dargo_Hussein said...

In response to "the truth hurts..."

Did you have a valid point to make, or you were just making a schoolyard taunt?

Communications guru said...

I understand what a tax is, thank you. However, to avoid that windfall profit tax, oil companies would take some of that huge, windfall profit and invest it in alternative energy. They sure are not doing that now, so your argument that it will take “money away from the oil companies which can only reduce the investment in alternative energy sources” does not wash.

No case of gouging? Did you see the oil company’s profits?

Are you seriously accusing me of posting as someone else? You are losing it. Why would I do that on my own blog?

Communications guru said...

Wow, “the truth hurts” is really brett. How sad, and you just falsely accused me of commenting as someone else. Go ahead and read that thing you call a blog. It’s only updated, what, once a month with inferior writing. Plus, no one ever comments, so you can’t have these childish name-calling rants you love so much.

I guess if I listen to this rink show I’ll get your false talking points as quick as you. Thanks, but no thanks.

the truth hurts said...


You are as dumb as they get, the truth hurts is not Brett.

I am a person who looks only at the facts and forms my decisions from them.

I do not take my marching orders from the far left loonies like you do.

CG, you can not even think for yourself, others do that for you and you throw them up on these pages.

CG, Mom's calling you

ka_Dargo_Hussein said...

I actually commented on it and he didn't respond. Instead he put a post titled "Should we Apologize to Black Americans?" All of his posts have a little nugget of fact in them, though they are so mixed in with the fiction it all ends up one big mess.

I knew he wasn't concerned with the issues as soon as he started calling Barack Obama "Barack Hussein Obama." Granted, it's his given name, but you don't see folks going around calling McCain "John Sidney McCain." Just more childish stuff to try and point out how different Obama is for the rest of us 'mericans.

Communications guru said...

I guess when the facts are not on your side you have to stoop to name-calling. No problem, but since you both post anonymously, he accused me of being ka_Dargo_Hussein and you’re here pushing his blog and his favorite rightwing radio show it was a natural connection for me to make to make.

I’ll be the first to admit there are a heck of a lot of peole in this country who are smarter than me, but if I’m so dumb why is that you can’t beat me in a debate? I also form my own opinions. It seems very ironic that your party is so on message it actually drafts letters-to-the-editor and just has the party hacks sign their names to them and send them in telling me I get my marching orders from someone else. Sorry, It has taken me a lifetime of living and traveling all over the country and world, talking to people from all walks of life and reading extensively to form my opinions.

Brett said...

Profits don't amount to gouging. If so, then you must believe that every company that earns money (notice I said earn and not welfare where other people's money is handed out to those that didn't earn it) is gouging people.

Isn't that the definition of socialism?


Brett said...


I put my blog together with my thoughts and allow others to offer their opinions. I don't feel the need to respond to everyone that writes. I don't need to have the last word each time. My words stand for themselves. I rarely answer those that put their comments on my blog and I rarely respond when they choose to send me an E-mail instead of commenting on the blog.

But thank you for visiting my blog and contributing to it.


Communications guru said...

Profits don't amount to gouging? I think they do. If you charger $100 for a bag of ice in a disaster and make $98 in profit, that’s gouging. If you benefit from outrageous gas prices, that’s gouging.

Brett said...

Oil companies are not making $98 in profit for each gallon. Again, they make less than 9 cents per gallon.

The Feds make twice what the oil companies make on the oil companies work and product. The state makes four times what the oil companies make on the oil companies work and product.

I can only think that you're in favor of Maxine Waters desires that the government take over the oil companies.

The government is so good, I'm sure that they'll lower the price of gas at the pump (I'm sure the sarcasm is lost on you).


ka_Dargo_Hussein said...

The 9 cents per gallon as profits makes it look like Big Oil is just barely getting by, doesn't it?

He simply forgot to let you know how many gallons are sold.

Poor Big Oil...those mean ol' Democrats and that arrogant Obama will not give us more land to not drill on. Just because we have a gazillion acres we're not drilling on now doesn't mean you shouldn't give us more.

What was that you were saying about welfare, Brett?

What word is defined when we just give land away to large corporations not unlike a land grab? Not socialism...something close though...Brett...can you help one of your fellow 'mericans out on this one?

Communications guru said...

I never said the oil companies are making $98 in profit for each gallon. That a ridiculous statement to make, and it cannot be true.

Your breakdown on oil company profit doesn’t ring true. Now, if you’re taking about the gas station owner I would beliieve they are only making “less than 9 cents per gallon.” ABC’s Good Morning America did a story on where the money for a gallon of gas goes way back when gas was a mere $2.88 a gallon, and $1.56 goes to crude oil.

I am not in favor of the government taking over the oil companies, but nationalizing certain industries in times of emergencies is not unheard of or unwise.

ka_Dargo_Hussein said...

From what I've researched, he's not to far off with the 9 cents/gallon number.

It's just that he left out the other side of the picture...the number of gallons sold, and uses it to plead poormouth for Big Oil.

Communications guru said...

I have to disagree. The most expensive part of a gallon of gas is still the crude. Here’s a good explanation from CNN Money.

ka_Dargo said...

Are we talking profits or costs? There's a difference.

Communications guru said...

If I am reading the articles correctly it says where the money - and profit - from gasoline goes. For instances, it says “7 and 10 cents” per gallon goes to the station owner. I am assuming that means profit, as well as the $2.07 that goes to the oil company is profit. I agree cost and profit are different, but I am assuming – and you know what they say abut assuming – it’s profit. But I may be wrong in assuming that.

Brett said...

Oil companies are not "given" land to drill on. They must lease the land.

Less than 9 cents per gallon profit "doesn't ring true" to you?

Do you think that there is no process to the oil when they bring it out of the ground? It doesn't go from the ground to the gas pump. It must be refined. Those refineries must be paid for, maintained and the land they are on leased. There is research and development and a myriad of other things that must be paid for just to get the oil from the ground to the gas pumps.

Let's break this down a bit further. The oil companies hire workers to bring the oil out of the ground. How much do they make? $50,000 per year? Times how many workers? Then there are health care costs. Workman's comp costs. Not to mention buying the electricity to run the equipment. What about the costs of the material to get the equipment to pull the oil from the ground? It's not like they run to Home Depot, pick up a Black and Decker Drill and starting going for oil.

Then they have to get the oil, once discovered, channeled to the transportation to get it to the refineries, not to mention the cost of the refineries, maintaining them, paying for the workers to do the transportation, as well as the workers at the refinery, the secretaries, bookkeepers, and so on.

None of this is cheap. All of these costs and much more that I haven't mentioned, plus what I don't know that is involved in the oil business all must come from the sale of the gas at the pumps and the oil that is sold.

Businesses break these costs into units. The oil company units for gasoline is by the gallon. The unit for oil is by the barrel.

It would be nice if this stuff would just appear out of the earth because God made it happen and there were no costs involved in getting that to the gas pumps. We'd all be paying about .25 cents per gallon if that were the case.

You compared a $2.00 bag of ice charged at $100 per bag to the cost of oil. Oil companies do not have that large of a profit.

I believe the problem here with your argument is that you don't believe in the free market system. That's sad, because the market system is the best system ever devised.

I urge you to read a more simplified version by looking at what Governor Bradford did in the earliest days of this country when we were known as the New World. You might understand more about incentives, free enterprise and how it works where socialism doesn't.


Communications guru said...

I understand oil companies lease the land, and I never said anything different. In fact, with leases on 68 million acres it makes you wonder why they have to have more, in environment sensitive areas at that.

Yes, “Less than 9 cents per gallon profit doesn’t ring true to me.” Perhaps if you had a reference to back that claim up. Yes, I am well aware of how oil gets to the gas pump. In fact, the links to the two articles I provided explains that.

The price for a bag of ice was an arbitrary number, and it could have been $25 for a $2 bag of ice. I was not using that profit margin to compare it to an oil company. What I was illustrating to you the record profits the oil companies just reported is a form of price gouging.

I do believe in the free market system. Since when is a monopoly and manipulating supply and demand part of a free market system?

Brett said...

You probably ought to look up the definition of monopoly.

Now for Obama's tax proposals. You said that he hadn't proposed increasing taxes. Here's some interesting information.


Proposed changes in taxes after the 2008 General election:

0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). McCain does not propose
any change in existing home sales income tax.
28% on profit from ALL home sales
How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you
will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and
would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28%
of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will
adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their
homes as part of their retirement income.

MCCAIN 15% (no change)
OBAMA 39.6%
How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock market,
IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or
anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly
40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama becomes president. The experts
predict that 'Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash
the stock market, yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.'

MCCAIN (no changes)
Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - ta x $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $31,250
OBAMA (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts)
Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
M arried making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750
Under Obama, your taxes could almost double!

MCCAIN 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax)
OBAMA Restore the inheritance tax
Many families have lost businesses, farms, ranches, and homes that have
been in their families for generations because they could not afford the
inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will only lose
them to these taxes.

New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet.
New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already)
New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity)
New taxes on retirement accounts, and last but not least....
New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level
of medical care as other third-world countries!!!
You can verify the above at the following web sites:

Communications guru said...

I know what the word monopoly means, thank you.

I also got the same false tax email too, and it has long been debunked. It’s sad that’s all you have.

Check this out.

ka_Dargo_Hussein said...


But, but, what about the 101st Fighting Keyboarder's email...are you sayin' it's a lie?!?

Say it ain't so!!!


Here's what he said to me on HIS blog...
Your position was not furthered with your attacking, but it does show the lack of substance from the liberal position.

What about that conservative position, Mr. High & Mighty?

Are you over your delusions of grandeur yet?


Stop it...I'm about to wet myself.

ka_Dargo_Hussein said...

He calls his blog The Conservative Lifestyle, yet really doesn't espouse on that topic. He claims it's origin is due to the "current election season as well as things that are happening in Michigan today."

As an aside, he throws a bone to a radio show in Battle Creek "that got him thinking again."

CG...I'm thinkin' you put a burr under his blanket with a much earlier post and he decided to respond.

I don't know and don't have the inclination to research it further, but it appears to me he's nothing more than a troll.

Here's another one of his profound statements that he ignores with most every post to your blog...Please be civil. Namecalling doesn't further a discussion, it only shows the lack of tolerance which can only take away from your position.

I have yet to see a post of your where he doesn't call you names.

Truly, the sign of a hypocrite.

And a douchebag.

Brett said...

I did check this out through Snopes after receiving it. The interesting thing is that snopes says things like 'while this isn't true it is if you put in this exception to the statement'.

We have tax cuts in place. The choice is simple. Make the tax cuts permanent or let them expire. If they expire, our taxes will increase. That is a tax INCREASE.

Spin it anyway you like, but if we're paying more taxes in 2011 as Obama suggests, it's a tax increase.

Nice try at semantics though.


Communications guru said...

Unbelievable. Even when your manufactured smear email is debunked you try to spin it. What part of the five paragraphs of lies are you even trying to spin? If the tax cuts expire our taxes will not go up. I don’t make $250,000 a year. Unbelievable. You got caught trying to pass off debunked smear material and you still try to spin it. Amazing.

I guess you subscribe to the Grand Oil Party philosophy of, “if you tell a lie often enough…”

Brett said...

Even snopes says, "Whether allowing a portion of already scheduled expiration of tax cuts to take place constitutes new taxes is a matter of semantics. "

Interesting that the last line in snopes is exactly what I said.


Communications guru said...

That’s one small sentence in a smear job with complete lies about capitol gains tax, dividend tax, inheritance tax and new taxes proposed. I love the old stand by lie about the inheritance tax: “Many families have lost businesses, farms, ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax.” This has been debunked time after time, yet you still trot it out. It has never, ever happened, and the only people it affects are people like the Hiltons. I guess that’s why Paris will be Grampy McSame’s running mate.

Again, if you tell a lie often enough.

Letting a tax cut expire for the rich hardly equates to “raising taxes.”

Nice try at another lie though.

Communications guru said...

Ka_Dargo_Hussein sure summed up your shtick pretty good last night. He hit the nail right on the head. I guess that’s why you’re ignoring it.

Brett said...

You said, "It has never, ever happened, and the only people it affects are people like the Hiltons."

If it's "never ever happened" how can you then say "the only people it affects"?

I'm reminded of the 1992 election year. Bill Clinton promised on numerous occasions that he would give a middle class tax cut to save us from the worst economy in 50 years (an economy that grew at 4.6% that last quarter).

Then in February 1993 not even a month after his election, he went on national television and said "I've never worked this hard in my life, but I just can't give that middle class tax cut."

In other words, if a liberal says it, it's not true.

Glad to see that you hold true to that.


Communications guru said...

You sure love word games. Too bad you’re not very good at it. I’ll make it very clear: You said, “Many families have lost businesses, farms, ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax.” That is simply not true, and it has never happened. The inheritance tax will only affect the top 1 percent of Americans. Is that clear enough?

I don’t know about your Bill Clinton claim because, as usual, you failed to provide a reference or proof. I know this; the entire country would sure like to go back to the economy of the Clinton years. I know I would.

To back up your false claim that “if a liberal says it, it's not true” you would have to prove a lie. You have, time and time again, failed to do that. My friend ka_Dargo_Hussein sure nailed you.

Brett said...

Two things about the ka dargo post.

1. I believe that he is you. You asked earlier what purpose there would be to you responding under another name on your blog. I can't answer that. While I know that liberals are socialists, I don't pretend to understand how the atrophied mind works.

2. What's to respond to? You (or he/she) really didn't say anything regarding the topic you wrote about nor what we've been going back and forth on here. If he/she (or you) feel the need to attempt to show your manhood by name calling or analyzing things that you know nothing about, then who am I to enter into the schizophrenia of you,him/her?

You (one or both) seem to be upset about something. I can only think that it's the news of the Obama tax increase proposals, or that he's now trailing McCain by 5 points, or that it's been announced that Carter/Gore/Kerry are all going to speak at the convention and if it's to be on the same night, that it could be billed as the past losers night.

Whatever the two of you, whether it's really two or if you're into Cybill mode, is/are upset about, it doesn't concern me. It might concern me if I cared but the fact is, I don't care. As I've told you (both) before, you're comic relief for me. I miss George Carlin. He was great. So now I'm hoping the two of you take your act on the road.


Brett said...

ACtually, I didn't say anything about families losing farms. It was only part of that list that I copied for you.

However, there have been families that have lost farms and businesses due to the estate tax.

I won't get into this with you because this is part of what I do for a living and I'm just not really interested in getting into a spitting contest with you over something you know nothing about.


Communications guru said...

Again, I am not ka_Dargo_Hussein. You can’t answer the question why I would post on my own blog as someone else because I have no reason to. If I want to call you an idiot and a lying rightwing tool I will. I don’t have to do that because your comments here prove that. When I post here and on other blogs you can click on my name and see my profile.

You keep going on about how entertaining I am and such, but I continue to kick your sorry ass in debate. I only wish that if I was going to be annoyed by a rightwing tool, it would be one with some brains and skill at persuasive writing. Someone who will make an attempt at trying to disprove or debate the points I make instead of ignoring most of them and just stoop to name calling. I am wasting my time with a person who can’t make a reasoned argument or recognize one. I have to respond because I will not let your lies stand unchallenged. Talk about a catch-22.

Liberal are not socialists. They are what made this country great. Again, I guarantee a relative or friend, if you have any, have a better life because of a liberal program.

He’s not responding to the topic I write about? Neither are you. I am far from upset about a one day poll. Negative ads may work in the short term, but not in the long run. Obama will not be swift boated with lies like Kerry was. And that is all you have. When the so-called liberal media begins covering grampy, things will change. Obama will win in November. I am pleased that Carter/Gore/Kerry are going to speak. They are great men.

You need to remember: you came here insulting me and calling me names. I sure as hell did not seek you out. He has you nailed, and it really bothers you. Why don’t you go post another ridiculous, racist post on your blog?

Communications guru said...

You certainly did say families lost farms because of the inheritance tax. Are you saying you post lies you don’t believe in? Then why post it?

Again, it has never, ever happened. If you believe that, show me the proof of just one. You can’t because you are lying.

Brett said...

CG said, "Again, I am not ka_Dargo_Hussein. You can’t answer the question why "I would post on my own blog as someone else because I have no reason to. If I want to call you an idiot and a lying rightwing tool I will. I don’t have to do that because your comments here prove that. When I post here and on other blogs you can click on my name and see my profile."

I believe you two are one and the same. You say you're not, that's fine. I believe you are. It doesn't matter if I can click on your name here or on other blogs. Anyone can be anything online that they want to be. I believe the two of you are one and the same. Enough said.

CG said "You keep going on about how entertaining I am and such, but I continue to kick your sorry ass in debate. I only wish that if I was going to be annoyed by a rightwing tool, it would be one with some brains and skill at persuasive writing. Someone who will make an attempt at trying to disprove or debate the points I make instead of ignoring most of them and just stoop to name calling. I am wasting my time with a person who can’t make a reasoned argument or recognize one. I have to respond because I will not let your lies stand unchallenged. Talk about a catch-22.

You think you've kicked by backside. Maybe it makes you feel good to think so. I'm not here to kick butt. I give my opinion on here in response to the whining you put on your blog. I don't expect to change your mind and you definitely won't change mine. It's pretty sad that you feel you have to attempt to kick someone's backside. Sounds more like you have too much time on your hands. If you look back to this post I'm answering (and that I've copied above) it is you with the namecalling but telling me that I'm doing it. It's easy enough to read. I see three people reading this. You, the truth hurts and me. If it makes you feel better to try to further your position with namecalling, have at it.

CG said, "Liberal are not socialists. They are what made this country great. Again, I guarantee a relative or friend, if you have any, have a better life because of a liberal program. "

Liberals are socialists and they have held the country back from being greater.

CG said, "He’s not responding to the topic I write about? Neither are you. I am far from upset about a one day poll. Negative ads may work in the short term, but not in the long run. Obama will not be swift boated with lies like Kerry was. And that is all you have. When the so-called liberal media begins covering grampy, things will change. Obama will win in November. I am pleased that Carter/Gore/Kerry are going to speak. They are great men. "

In one line you say that negative ads don't work and then you blame Kerry's loss on being "swiftboated". I believe that would be considered negative advertising. Liberals whine about the swiftboat soldiers, Willie Horton and blame their losses on these. Yet they whine about negative advertising and then say they won't work over time. I can only think that you must be in a small room to be bouncing off of one wall and then the other so quickly.

CG said, "You need to remember: you came here insulting me and calling me names. I sure as hell did not seek you out. He has you nailed, and it really bothers you. Why don’t you go post another ridiculous, racist post on your blog?"

Actually, I came here refuted something you had written and then you started the name calling. You can look back if you have archives and find where I even told you that since you've started namecalling because I disagreed with you on issues that it must be okay for me to respond in kind. You got what you gave.

You've called me a racist several times, but you have yet to show one instance of my racism. You are the one that brought up race, not me. You're the one that can't let go of color, or gender. My only comment has been that we're all Americans. Not hyphenated Americans.

Liberals preach that racism is out there, which tells me their programs failed because they haven't ended racism.

Ok, I'm done. You may now begin your name calling, whining and inconsistencies.


Communications guru said...

Again, you are wrong. It’s not the first, and it won’t be the last time. You are wrong. You have to register to post on Google, and you cannot hide your screen name. Again, answer the question: why would I post as someone else on my own blog?

There’s no doubt I kicked your “backside.” Anyone who can read can figure that out. I see no whining. I am expressing my opinions, expressing my opinion on the news, and reporting the news. Again, you started with the attacks and name-calling. Again, I didn’t come looking for you, you came looking for me. If you see just three peoples reading this, then you are not paying attention. There are even more than four people commenting. I’m not sure what your point is in pointing out that lie. I can guarantee you this: more people read my blog than read that thing you call a blog. If my writing is so bad, and so few people read what I write, then why are you wasting your time reading and posting here?

Liberals are not socialist, and they have helped make this country great. Conservatives, by their very nature, hold the country back. That’s your platform. Again, I guarantee a relative or friend, if you have any, have a better life because of a liberal program.

You are correct, that seems like a contradiction. However, I believe that if you push back on negative ads right away, you win. Kerry did not; Obama is. “In a small room to be bouncing off of one wall and then the other so quickly.” What the hell does that mean?

Wrong again. You have never refuted anything here. You have expressed your opinion. Again, you started the name calling. I don’t recall the specific instances of calling you a racist, but I stand by them.

The majority of name-calling came from you, and you have not seen any whining or inconsistencies from me.

ka_Dargo said...

Brett, you're a little paranoid. I'm a resident of Howell. Currently, I'm working in New Mexico.

CG...Can you get with your blog the IP addresses that you are visiting the blog from and the IP Address I am visiting the blog from. You can then find out which state the address block is allocated to and find out for sure. the same. I've hit your blog...see if it's a MI IP address. I can GUARANTEE it will not will be a NM address.

However, I will be back home on Saturday for 8 days and at that point I'll have a MI IP.

It's easy to find out.

ka_Dargo said...

CG...FYI...I post with the name/url option, which doesn't require registration.

Brett said...

CG, Well that was informative (do you recognize sarcasm?).

I understand that they found Barack Hussein Obama's brother today. His name is George Hussein Obama and he's living in Kenya on a dollar a month.

Obama claims his favorite bible quote is from Matthew. whatever you do to the least of ... I wonder what he's done for his brother.

Nahhh, I really don't wonder.


Brett said...

Ka dargo,

What makes you think that I really care where you are or who you are?

It's my belief that you two are the same person. But it doesn't matter to me. It's your game, with your reasons and that would make your problem....or his problem...or both of yours problem.

Nice to see that you're so concerned about what I think. Have a great day down there in New Mexico.

Brett from Grant's Pass, Washington.

ka_Dargo said...

I informed you of a way to determine who is who on a blog.

If you still want to believe that I am the same person as CG, then, so be it. Believe what you want to believe. It adds greatly to your credibility.

ka_Dargo said...

CG...He's wants to be ignorant, one of those folks I call the purposefully ignorant.

Kinda like a little kid, who sticks his head under the bed and thinks since he can't see you, then you can't see him. *eye roll*

Stop wasting your breath arguing with him. He chooses not to argue, but rant.

Classic troll symptoms.

Communications guru said...

Yes, I recognize sarcasm. I didn’t know his half brother was lost. Again, perhaps a link. I find it hard to believe. How can an elitist brother like Obama have a poor relative? I didn’t depend on you, I looked it up myself. It appears he did not want to be found. By the way, his name is George Hussein Onyango Obama.

I was also wondering if you were going to answer any of the questions in my last post. That’s called debate.

liberalshateusa said...

C.G.If you had a brother would you not want to keep in touch. He most likely would not want to keep in touch with you though. But back to Omama, it is odd that such a wealthy and religious man as him would not help his own flesh and blood.
Did Omama not say when Asked to name figures he would rely on for advice, Obama gave the stock answer of family members. Does this mean his lost brother will live in a cardboard box on the White House grounds in case Omama has the 3AM phone call

ka_Dargo said...

Looks like the well is running dry. Now, we have this clever fellow commenting.
*eye roll*

Brett said...

The questions you asked in your last post at 1:15pm. Hmm, let's see.

1. why would I post as someone else on my own blog?

Do you really expect me to have an answer as to why you would do something? I'm not a therapist, so I don't pretend to tell people why they would do something.

2. then why are you wasting your time reading and posting here?

This question has nothing to do with the topic either. What and why I do things or don't do things are my business. If it bothers you, feel free to block me.

3. What the hell does that mean?

I believe the small room and bouncing off of each wall is self explanatory.


Communications guru said...

You’re seriously going to use this to attack him? The Grand Oil Party is really desperate. He has met him twice, and from the article, it appears the half-brother did not want to be found. Now, crawl back under your rock, hate America.

ka_Dargo said...

2 posts after the infamous 1:15pm post and now you respond?

I'm thinkin' you're kinda lonely over there on your blog.

Maybe I should visit more.

Communications guru said...

Wow. Again, you ducked every single question. Why am I not surprised. Again, I never censor, and you do more for my side with your comments anyway.

ka_Dargo said...

We need a little fun in our lives.

Here's my post about music over at the Livingston Press & Argus.

Brett said...

You asked if I was going to answer the questions from your last post. I copied those questions and gave you my answers to them.

It might help you if you didn't try to anticipate my answer before asking the question. However, your questions were not ducked. If you want to know personal things about me, you'd better get a sex change operation, get younger, get blonde hair, get a halfway decent figure, but it's still a very very slim chance you'll get personal answers. Otherwise, you might want to stick to political questions if you're going to ask me anything.


Communications guru said...

What I anticipated was a real answer, but past experience should have told me you would ignore them or duck them. You didn’t disappoint. I don’t consider them personal questions.

ka_Dargo said...

Brett, Please be civil. Namecalling doesn't further a discussion, it only shows the lack of tolerance which can only take away from your position.