- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
corner peel

New Middletown

4 bedroom, 4 bath


4 bedroom, 5 bath


3 bedroom, 2 bath

- Advertisement -

« Polls

Who will you vote for president in the March 4 Ohio Democratic primary?

Hillary Rodham Clinton51%
Barack Obama48%
1779 total votes


1Nonsocialist(710 comments)posted 8 years, 5 months ago

Does it really matter?

As long as Youngstown demands nothing for its loyalty to the Democratic Party, then Youngstown will be the same as it was after President Carter's term (during which occured Black Monday), and both of President Clinton's terms (during which NAFTA was signed).

Neither candidate can win Ohio without you. The nominee can't win Ohio without you, and thus can't win the general election without you.

Where is your pork, your "Bridge to nowhere", your "Big Dig"? Why can't your Mayor or your Party leadership demand funding for revitalization of Downtown and/or the Riverfront in exchange for an endorsement? If the candidate fails to deliver, then publicize it and they never should receive another vote from the Mahoning Valley.

Or the other option is to continue as you are, cheering at their rallies when you're supposed to like good little people, and getting forgotten about yet again. Your call.

Suggest removal:

2gneubeck(8 comments)posted 8 years, 5 months ago

The Austin debate. Unfortunately it's essential to follow-up on any Clinton speech with a hefty dose of truth serum. In the latest debate, Hillary regurgitated her familiar mantra that she would veto the Bush taxcuts which she says favor only the rich. That tired old populist ploy of "soak the rich". However , a brief review of IRS statistics related to post-Bush tax cut revenues reveals exactly the opposite. Specifically, the share of individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40% of American taxpayers, as a result of expanded child tax credits and earner income tax credits, was reduced from 0% to a -4%; and, took another ten million low income Americans completely off of the tax roles. That is, a very significant four(4) % decrease. On the other end of the scale, the tax burden on the top 20% of income earners, the so-called rich, increased to a full 85% of the total tax burden. One can summarize this quite simply by noting that if Hillary's Marxist philosophies of soaking the rich were valid, Communist societies throughout the world would be exorbitantly wealthy, in lieu of economic basket cases a' la Castro's Cuba. So Hillaryspeak would damage the poor more then any other group. The same can be said of her forced plan for Socialized Medicine. A program which is failing miserably in such Nations as Canada and the United Kingdom. Canada, as just one example, is now experiencing a dramatic shortfall in physicians.
The second noteworthy commentary was Hillary's closing comment, a subtle and exceedingly well choreographed re-play of the "victim card" which has thus far been so eminently successful for her. Hillary inferred that she was the most qualified to be Commander-In-Chief because she "had been tested" by the public humiliation that she was forced to endure with the forced admission of Bill's Monica caper. The unfortunate truth is that in the absence of the "blue dress", Hillary would have led the savaging-brigade against Monica precisely as she had done against Jennifer Flowers, Juanita Broderick, Paula Jones, Kathleen Wiley, etc., etc.. Of course, the by-invitation only audience took the bait hook, line and sinker.
The real question is do we want Hillary, the serial enabler, and Bill, the serial groper, to once again have the opportunity to scandalize the White House and the Presidency? Greg Neubeck

Suggest removal:

3hdrider(1 comment)posted 8 years, 5 months ago

Let's remember it is Hillary that is running, not Bill. Obama came out of the woodwork and obviously is fooling the majority of the people, especially the young adults. I have yet to hear him say anything different in solving our "problems" than what Hillary had previously outlined. And if Republicans are allowed to vote in these primaries, as in Texas, it's no wonder Obama is leading - he'll be easier to beat in November. This whole process leaves a sick feeling in my stomach but not as much as having a Commander-in-Chief that will not salute the American Flag nor recite the Pledge.

Suggest removal:

4tylersclark(182 comments)posted 8 years, 5 months ago

No need for slander, hdrider. A bit of research will set things straight. Here's Obama leading the Senate in the pledge of allegiance to the flag with hand over heart, since that's of concern to you:

If you're not hearing anything different from Hillary, you're not listening closely enough. Yes, the platforms are similar, but I've outlined differences between their recent speeches in a blog post here that I invite you to check out:

And please explain your logic in how Obama will be easier to beat than Clinton? Clinton vs. McCain will have conservatives fired up and running to the polls, whereas there are not now ready to back McCain, which is apparent in the continued strong showing for Huckabee. Obama vs. McCain is a better deal for the Dems and a real concern for the GOP in terms of turnout in the general election.

Suggest removal:

5Nonsocialist(710 comments)posted 8 years, 5 months ago

"For the first time in my adult life, I'm proud to be an American."
Michelle Obama

I think she meant what she said...Twice. Her language was clear. It's an American's right to feel however they wish about their country, but if your not proud of it (until your husbands about to be President), maybe you shouldn't be its first lady. Can anyone imagine Martha Washington, Abigail Adams, Jackie Kennedy saying these words?

I sure hope there's video of Barack Hussein Obama saying the Pledge of Allegiance, but its disturbing that there's also video of his refusal to say it or hold his hand over his heart while ALL of the other Democratic candidates were.

Why does he openly refuse to wear the flag of the nation he wishes to lead on his lapel? WHY?

Personally, I place higher regard on love of country over speaking skills when voting for the President of our country. Patriots have died for our flag all over the world, and Barrack Hussein Obama wont wear it on his lapel, or refuse to pledge allegiance to it?

Anyone else concerned?

Suggest removal:

6Cbarzak(110 comments)posted 8 years, 5 months ago

Love of country led many people to ruin in Japan and Germany. It would do us good to remember that that sort of love must be tempered with extreme criticism by the people, and an awareness that it can get out of hand. Flag-waving is proof of nothing. I witness many politicians, current and past, who wave flags while leading horrifying regimes and executing horrible crimes against humanity. Pride comes before a fall. I would rather be a humble and cautious country. Patriotism should be defined not by flag-waving and hand over heart empty gestures, but shown in action and speech that encourages us to be better than we are.

And funny that you think this is a liberal rag, GTX66. I'm liberal, and I consider it far too conservative. Guess that says something about both of us.

Suggest removal:

7OBAMAFORPRESIDENT(1 comment)posted 8 years, 5 months ago

As a resident of Youngstown, Ohio I have seen the Clintons come into Youngstown and do nothing for the people here. George Bush made many broken promises here in Youngstown as well. Sixteen years of broken promises and sixteen years of more job losses and decline in the Mahoning Valley.

I believe it's time for a new vision and time for the government to be accountable for their blunders and mistakes. Senators, Congressmen, and the President alike- if you can't get anything done after two terms, you no longer deserve to hold a government position. One who doesn't perform in the workplace outside of Washington can't keep their job, and neither should our politicians.

It's time for a change and it's time for new leadership. The war on Iraq should have never been waged and continued this long in the first place. With the money that has been spent in the war on Iraq we could have had every road, bridge, and school rebuilt and updated all across the United States.

The election is going to come down to a vote for war and a vote for non-war. Obama will win this battle with McCain everytime. Clinton is for status quo. She has panderd on this three times already. 1st She didn't have an exit strategy. 2nd She had an exit strategy, promising troop withdrawl within in one year. 3rd She now has an exit strategy of withdrawing our troops within 60 days of her as President. More and more here statements mirror Obama. She is now in desperate measure and will do/say anything to get the vote. The next thing you know, Clinton will be agreeing with Barack, his ideas, and views for America.

I've never had anything bad to say about Hillary. How she has not been the clear cut candidate is beyond me. Her campaign is very disorganized and disfunctional. It's more unbelievable since she has so much experience not to mention her husbands firsthand knowledge. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to run one of these campaigns or know how to use your supporters properly. Her campaign is one of the bigger blunders I've ever seen. She should have had no trouble getting to the ticket. Her inconsistencies will cost her a general election.

There is a good reason why Barack fills up 18,000 people at a rallies and Hillary has a hard time pulling 2,500 at an event. Unlike Hillary, Barack Obama has stayed on message and is like a broken record when it comes to his ideas and views. Hillary changes her views and waffles way too much. She still can't find her own voice and when she does its always changing. (Change, 35yrs Experience, 1st Day, and Solutions)

I look forward to hearing Barack speak as President and feel proud to be a citizen of the U.S. I voted for George Bush the past two elections and I'm sorry to say a third grader could speak and represent themselves better than our leader.

It's time to make a change. Please take a look at Barack Obama and all he has to offer our country and our people.

Suggest removal:

8valleyred(1103 comments)posted 8 years, 5 months ago

It's sickening to see the valley vote for the Democrat on the ballot even when they are the worse candidate. I'm sick of the broken lies and the corrupt politicians in our area with a D next to their names!

It's time for change. It's time for the Conservatives to take back the Valley.

Join us:

Suggest removal:

9steverino9(7 comments)posted 8 years, 5 months ago

When I hear the word "Clinton," I immediately think of NAFTA.

Guess who I'm voting for.

Suggest removal:

10RacerX(26 comments)posted 8 years, 5 months ago

When I see the user name "steverino9" I immediately think "oh great, more NAFTA propaganda"

Guess who I'm ignoring?

Suggest removal:

11Nonsocialist(710 comments)posted 8 years, 5 months ago

Barack is not an African name, but rather an Arabic name meaning, "blessed."

Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. is 50% Caucasian, 43.75% Arabic, and 6.25% Black. By U.S. government definitions for minority status, you must be 12.5% of the minority you claim to be. Therefore, Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. would not become the first African-American/Black President, but rather the first Arabic President.

Both his father and step-father were Muslim. His step-father and mother took him to Jakarta, Indonesia for years of his youth. Jakarta has the highest concentration of Muslims on the Earth.

I believe that the United States is overdue for a female or a minority President. I also believe in the truth.

Suggest removal:

12redvert(2240 comments)posted 8 years, 5 months ago

Do those of you that credit Clinton alone with the passing of NAFTA remember that every former president living at the time was in favor of the passing of NAFTA also? With both the left and the right in favor of it, you knew we were going to get the shaft!!!

Suggest removal:

13RacerX(26 comments)posted 8 years, 5 months ago

Nonsocialist, if you believe in truth, tell me how you can consider Kenyan to be Arabic? His father was African. Nice try, you and steverino9 should hook up. You can whisper sweet sweet lies to each other all through the night.

Suggest removal:

14Nonsocialist(710 comments)posted 8 years, 5 months ago

Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was 87.5% Arabic and 12.5% Black. By U.S. government standards, you must be 12.5% of a race in order to claim minority status of that race. Therefore, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. met the U.S. definition of a Black/African-American (barely), but his son, Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. does not. Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. does, however, meet the U.S. government defintion as an Arab-American.

Individuals of Arab ancestry live all over the world, including Kenya. A person who is 100% Oriental could live in Kansas, and a person who is 100% Hispanic could live in Liberia, and so on...

People have a right to know the background of the individuals that they entrust to the highest office in the land.

Suggest removal:

15RacerX(26 comments)posted 8 years, 5 months ago

From wikipedia:
Obama was born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. (born in Nyanza Province, Kenya, of Luo ethnicity)

The Luo are not Arabic. You fail again.

Suggest removal:

16Cbarzak(110 comments)posted 8 years, 5 months ago

It's a failed fight, RacerX, when this dude is still using the word "Oriental" to describe Asians.

Suggest removal:

17Nonsocialist(710 comments)posted 8 years, 5 months ago

Review the work of NY Times and Miami Herald reporter Kenneth Lamb, who has reviewed the Kenyan records.

Wikipedia can be edited by anybody, and is only as accurate as whomever last edited it.

Before voting for Obama as President, one should also review the stated positions of his church in Chicago and watch this video:


Suggest removal:

18tylersclark(182 comments)posted 8 years, 5 months ago

NY Times reporter Jodi Kantor did an in-depth look at Obama's beliefs and his church and pastor in this profile:

The hand-over-heart-during-the-national-anthem thing is played out already and dissected here by Snopes:

Suggest removal:

19RacerX(26 comments)posted 8 years, 5 months ago

Dear Nonsocialist:

"Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii. His father, also named Barack Obama, belonged to the Luo tribe of Kenya, where he grew up in a small village. He won a government scholarship to study abroad and was the first African student at the University of Hawaii. There he met Ann Dunham, a fellow student originally from Kansas. She had moved to Hawaii with her parents in 1959. The young interracial couple married in 1960, when miscegenation was still illegal in more than half of the United States."

-"Barack Obama," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2007

Strike three, your out. Try supporting your agenda with facts next time. Its one thing to disagree with someones platform, but to spew lies about their race in an effort to discredit them makes you look like a bigot and an ass. I'm guessing your a Republican, and if thats the case all I can say is get out of my party. We don't need people like you.

Suggest removal:

20Nonsocialist(710 comments)posted 8 years, 5 months ago

The work that I've seen from the NY Times and Miami Herald reporter who reviewed the records in Kenya suggest that Obama is of a mixed ethnicity, both Arab (43.75%) and Black (6.25%). If I'm a liar, than this research is a lie, and the Kenyan records are a lie. Everyone should review the information themselves and come to their own conclusions.

The NY Times piece cited above does not address fully the Afrocentric positions of the candidate's church. It does re-inforce, hoewever, the strong Muslim beliefs of his close relatives. In my opinion, they do not have an inclusive philosophy. Perhaps one should visit the church's own website and form their own opinions:


We all want different qualities in a candidate for President. There is much about Obama's personal history, his actions, and his wife's statements that concern me if he were to be our Commander-in-Chief.

All voters have the civic duty to educate themselves about the candidates backgrounds, beliefs and values, public record, and stated goals and positions. Reviewing and discussing a person's ethnicity or religion in a factual manner, particularly if it is relevant to their responsibilities as the President, is not rascist or bigoted.

Our Nation is fighting a Global War on Terror. Our enemy wants to kill you, me and our children. In my opinion, a candidate's ethnicity, his education in Jakarta, his family history of the Muslim faith, and his actions regarding the American Flag matter.

Suggest removal:

21RacerX(26 comments)posted 8 years, 5 months ago

Your comments on his race have been shown to be a lie. Your comments on his actions regarding the flag have been shown to be a lie. As for his education in Jakarta, he lived there from age 6 to age 10. His family history has NO bearing on his abilities and his race should be a non issue. Hell, even by your incorrect assessment of his racial background he is more Caucasian than anything else. 50% white isn't white enough for you? You are a liar, a bigot, and a racist. And when a conservative (such as myself) calls you those things, well, thats saying something.

Suggest removal:

22Nonsocialist(710 comments)posted 8 years, 5 months ago

People can disagree without calling each other names. We've both presented our opinions and we've both offered evidence supporting our positions. We have a First Ammendment right to do so. I appreciate your passion for your candidate and he is fortunate to have you on his side.

Long before this election and long after this election, Presidential candidates' backgrounds will be scrutinized. This will include religion, race, and family history. This will occur whether we approve of it or not. Whatever anybodies heritage is, they should embrace it and be proud of it.

Suggest removal:

23g2onice(17 comments)posted 8 years, 5 months ago


Suggest removal:

24RacerX(26 comments)posted 8 years, 5 months ago


It would be GREAT if you just presented your opinion. You didn't. You presented lies and slanders to discredit one candidate without ever stating your own beliefs. You offered no credible evidence and ignored every counterpoint made against your claims. You obviously failed reading comprehension in school as well, since you say "I appreciate your passion for your candidate and he is fortunate to have you on his side." when I stated in 2 posts that I was a Republican and conservative. I don't support Obama and I sure as hell don't support Clinton, but I will NOT lie about them in order to dissuade others from supporting them. If you can't stand on your own platform don't just run around trying to knock other people off theirs. And don't hide behind the "oh noes he called me names!" defense and ignore the facts. I almost think you must be a lib just trying to make conservatives look bad. I hope you are because your rhetoric is juvenile, base, and ignorant.

Suggest removal:

25Nonsocialist(710 comments)posted 8 years, 5 months ago

This is getting tiresome...one last attempt to provide information concerning the question that the Vindicator has posed. If you wish to submit another angry post, you have that right.

A NY Times and Miami Herald reporter named Kenneth Lamb has reviewed Kenyan records and has found that a candidate for the Presidency with an Arabic name has a partial Arabic geneology. It is not rascist to want to know a candidate for the Presidency's history. This information is available on the internet. It would be useful to see a detailed and definitive family history either re-affirming or refuting Lamb's research.

Multiple close family members of Obama's are believers in the Muslim faith. He himself spent several formative years in Jakarta, Indonesia, which has the highest concentration of Muslims in the world.

This same candidate has refused to wear the American Flag on his lapel and to hold his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance to our Flag. A reasonable person may conclude that he has unconventional behavior toward our flag for a candidate for the Presidency.


He belongs to an openly Afrocentric church that does not pursue universality or inclusiveness.


His wife has made statements on two occasions stating that, "For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud to be an American."

All of the above information is readily available for verification. All of it is germaine to both the Vindicator's question as well as the selection of our next President, who will be the Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces during the GWOT.

Again, trying to learn about the nationality, and the core values of our next President is not rascist or bigoted. It is, in fact, a voter's civic duty.

Geneologies of all of the other candidates have also been done and are available to the public, except that no surprises were found. Was it also rascist to review their ethnicities as well?

Voters should review the candidates in detail, and then vote their conscience.

Once again, public forums like this are great vehicles for public discussion of important issues. Emotional responses rife with name-calling and character attacks of those with different perspectives detract from informative and productive discourse.

Suggest removal:

26RacerX(26 comments)posted 8 years, 5 months ago

Kenneth Lamb is NOT currently a reporter for the NYT or the Miami Herald. He has written op-eds apparently but currently he is an AM radio host who's blog seems to do nothing be demand Obama is Arabic. I can find NO reference to these "reports" about Obama ever being published in a reputable paper. From his site:

"In reading this range of thought, I've come to believe the Big Scoop on this topic will come when someone grabs something with Mr. Obama's DNA smeared on it, then runs it to a lab for analysis.

I'm serious about that. There is no better proof available in our time than a DNA test.


If the test came up as I researched, with a African Negro component less than the federal threshold of 12.5%, then Sen. Obama will have a major problem on his hands."

This is the only source you site. Despite multiple reports to the contrary you hold on to a racist radio show host as your best reference.

And again. Go to snopes and you can find multiple videos of Obama with his hand over his heart saying the pledge. Do you wear a US Flag on your shirt every day? I don't. Nobody I know does. You continue to lie and slander without ever stating your own political beliefs. You claim he belongs to an extremist Christian church while at the same time you try to link him to Islam.

And again as for "Emotional responses rife with name-calling and character attacks of those with different perspectives detract from informative and productive discourse." What name did I call you? How is it that I calling you a racist is any different than you calling Obama an Arab? I do agree with you on one thing. Voters SHOULD review the candidates carefully, and I can only hope that I help them do so by pointing out your untrue and misleading posts.

"This is getting tiresome...one last attempt to provide information concerning the question that the Vindicator has posed. " I hope you mean that because you don't seem to be able to come up with anything new and truthful. Feel free to keep making the same claims tho, I'll keep pointing out you're wrong.

Suggest removal:

27ltrane923(3 comments)posted 8 years, 4 months ago

Both Clinton and Obama are corporate candidates.
As far as donors, one is not more grass roots than the other.

Clinton and McCain have been battered by the corporate media.
Please realize the powerful impact the manipulation of coverage is having.
Obama has rarely been called out, or shown in an unfavorable light.

I am very impressed with Hillary.
I don't agree on every vote she has cast but she has a razor sharp mind
and I think will be very good for America.
She has made alot of promises for Ohio.
Let's give her the chance to deliver.

Don't fall for the marketing Ohio.
He has been marketed like a soft drink.
Powerful marketing creates an emotional reponse.

Obama has less than 3 years of political experience and is too busy campaigning to vote or do his job in D.C.
He has voted present over 200 times.

blackagendareport.com (holding obama accountable)

Suggest removal:

28LONGCOOLWOMAN(13 comments)posted 8 years, 4 months ago

I'm appalled that Caroline Kennedy is supporting Obama. Hillary is the only presidential candidate who has the experience and doesn't need on the job training. Obama would make a great vice, he could possibly win election as President after Hillary's term has expired. He needs to sit in the White House for a while and learn how to roll with the Big Boys on the Hill and brush up on international policy to deal with world leaders. It unfortunately takes more than hope, some change, and a dream. What is the DNC thinking? They could have the White house for 16 years if Hillary is nominated and elected. She's got the goods!
Our vote hires our CEO of America, would you hire someone unexperienced to run your corporation of America? We are the stockholders of our own demise if we don't "hire" the right CEO to run The United States. Ohioans should understand this concept, we've lost so many jobs because the wrong CEO sat and collected his oil profits for 2 terms! Intelligence has to win, dreams are just that - dreams! Americans can't afford to dream anymore, we have brains to understand the difference between dreams and experience. Vote accordingly. Dreamers - stay home - if you have one - dreaming that you can pay your mortgage doesn't work. Jobs were lost because of the "dreamy" voters last election. Get off the Ambien America!

Suggest removal:

29RacerX(26 comments)posted 8 years, 4 months ago

I think everyone that has been yelling about Bush being a divisive and polarizing leader should step back and look at Clinton again. If the DNC tosses her up against McCain it will bring out every Republican in the country to the polls. Personally, I would have liked to have seen Romney get the nod (Having lived in MA for 10 years I have seen his fiscal responsibility in action). As it stands now I would have a hard time choosing between McCain or Obama, mostly because I don't trust McCain. If Clinton makes it to the general election however, you can bet I'll pick the lesser of the two evils and vote Republican. Some times you have to put forth not the candidate you like best, but the candidate that can win and still be under your parties banner.

Suggest removal:

30Smiley(1 comment)posted 8 years, 4 months ago

A Bird in the hand is better than two in the bush. That is a saying I have heard and believe. With the economy the way it is now ,can we trust someone who is inexperienced. During the Clinton years we were more secure in our jobs and the inflation rate was not anything like they are now. I never imagined I'd be paying over $2.00 for a dozen eggs. We need to get our economy back on track and if Obama was Vice President,he could learn and take over after Hillery. That would ensure the Democratic party in control for at least the next 16 years,so the working class can have security for a long time.

Suggest removal:


HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2016 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes