Why McCain is a bad choice.

[ki4kxq]

hm0504, I know that a lot of conservatives want a constitutional amendment to make marriage between a man and a woman a federal edict. I disagree with them and think their position is flawed if they are a true conservative. It should be up to each state what they want.

[MoonShadow]

Frankly, there should be no government interference at any level who gets married (.at the legal age)

[ki4kxq]

That would be rather hard to pull off since it is the state that issues the license. The good thing about the states making the decision, is it is easier for you as a voter to change the state law if it's not something you agree with.

[hm0504]

hm0504, I know that a lot of conservatives want a constitutional amendment to make marriage between a man and a woman a federal edict. I disagree with them and think their position is flawed if they are a true conservative. It should be up to each state what they want.

Why should it be up to either the State-level or Federal-level to decide on SSM? Again, the contradiction I see is not State vs. Federal, it is pushing for legislation (either State of Federal) to dictate human behaviour that is absolutely none of the government's business -- the level of government has nothing to do with it.

[Sanslines]

Why should it be up to either the State-level or Federal-level to decide on SSM? Again, the contradiction I see is not State vs. Federal, it is pushing for legislation (either State of Federal) to dictate human behaviour that is absolutely none of the government's business -- the level of government has nothing to do with it.

Marriage actually is more then just the joining of two people. There are a whole batch of legal and tax implications with 'marriage' as there are with 'divorce'.

The reason that there was a strong interest in referring to same sex marriage as a 'union' was to preserve the traditional understanding of marriage as a joining between a man and a woman. However, in terms of the law, a 'union' is not the same as a 'marriage' and hence those who join in a 'union' would not enjoy the same legal rights a those who join in 'marriage' unless an enormous number of laws were changed and created.

[ki4kxq]

The state government is very directly tied to the will of the people in that state. When we say the state of Texas does not allow gay marriage, we are not referring to some faceless entity. The people of the state of Texas voted to not allow gay marriage. That is the direct will of the people. At any time, the people of Texas can vote to allow gay marriage. That is the difference.

By allowing the state to decide, you allow the people to make that decision. By just making an edict that it should be legal, regardless of the will of the people, is just as bad as the christian right saying it should be illegal under any circumstances, whether the people want it or not.

[hm0504]

Marriage actually is more then just the joining of two people. There are a whole batch of legal and tax implications with 'marriage' as there are with 'divorce'.

The reason that there was a strong interest in referring to same sex marriage as a 'union' was to preserve the traditional understanding of marriage as a joining between a man and a woman. However, in terms of the law, a 'union' is not the same as a 'marriage' and hence those who join in a 'union' would not enjoy the same legal rights a those who join in 'marriage' unless an enormous number of laws were changed and created.

I understand that their are legal and tax implications of marriage -- none of these are relevant to denying homosexuals the right to marry each other. Several countries have ended discrimination against homosexuals and not had to rewrite any legal or tax codes beyond the simple definition of marriage as being between two adults.

It isn't complicated; it's just basic human rights.

[usmc1]

Is it too early to start a new thread entitled "McCain Stole The Election" or should we wait until after the election?
I guess not since you have a free pass to do whatever you want. But, I would think it would be a bit precipitous, since the event has not happened.

And if your purpose for posting such inflammatory baiting is to get a response, well there you go, you've got it. Nacktman was banned or warned for something similar.

If your purpose is to demean or belittle those of us who assert the the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen; Mark, Qikdraw and HM, and Fitz have covered that quite well in previous posts and threads--Mark especially, has laid out very, very good documentation for the argument.

If you doubt taht, use the search function, that's what its for!

[usmc1]

Ok USMC-1, I guess I'll have to explain it to you. The comment of not liking you much and ganging up on you was obviously done very tongue in cheek. Boreas obviously got that it was not a personal attack on you, just a humorous way to say that you and I do not agree on anything.

As far as childish gibberish, when you are called on something, you have responded with nothing more profound than the likes of yammer yammer flap jacks or whatever you posted. Not only to me, but to others.

Never said you were not a good Marine, I said that most Marines are of the right to center persuasion.

I am not the one that has the poor me attitude. I have made it very clear that people should take care of themselves instead of relying on the government. Pointing out that you are in my opinion wrong on just about every point does not make me a victim. I know you would like to portray me as that, but it just doesn't wash.

As far as derisive comments and a snarky tone, have you read your posts? Everyone but you and those that agree with your liberal drivel are wrong, uneducated, and just plain foolish. I guess you are the enlightened one with no biases or preconceived notions. Yeah, right. Just remember USMC-1, when you point a finger at someone, there are three times as many pointing back at you.

Same old, same old. "Didn't really mean it". "Can't you take a joke?". "Why you such a sorehead". You need to hook with that other fellow that pulls this stuff of crappy remarks, and then says it was just a joke and those not laughing are too sensitive. I called you on your crap, and now you're crayfishing. Get over it!

Yep, I serve you the dish you cooked, don't deny it a bit. Will continue to do so, so get over that too.

[ki4kxq]

I meant everything I said with the exception of what I stated was done tongue in cheek. I am not backing down one iota from the rest of it. I think maybe you should get over yourself as you are not all that clever.

I notice however that you did not address the gibberish. You did not explain how standing up for individual rights and responsibilities makes me a victim of your liberal ideology. You also did not address your own holier than thou attitude with little more than sarcasm and bully tactics to back it up. You did nothing to answer any of that, you just went on with your juvenile rant.

That is why liberal arguments do not stand in the long term. There is nothing to back them up.

[Sanslines]

I understand that their are legal and tax implications of marriage -- none of these are relevant to denying homosexuals the right to marry each other. Several countries have ended discrimination against homosexuals and not had to rewrite any legal or tax codes beyond the simple definition of marriage as being between two adults.

It isn't complicated; it's just basic human rights.

You don't have to convince me but you do have to convince the millions who wish to maintain the tradition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. Hence, why it has been suggested to call what is considered to be the equivalent of marriage between two adult members of the same sex as a 'union' which is effectively a 'marriage' for all intensive purposes.

I am not saying that this is right but I do consider the concerns and feelings of those who wish to maintain the traditions of marriage. Over time, the 'union' would become a 'marriage' but the period of time would extend consideration to those who entered into traditional marriage years ago. Their feelings also count........do they not?

[jon71]

Fifty years ago there were many Americans who had "concerns and feelings" about interracial marriage. Should interracial couple be denied the rights to marry and the legal benefits thereof because the "traditionalists" didn't like it? It's the same situation today. "Respecting the concerns and feelings" of traditionalists today is just code for denying legal rights to same sex couples. That is really the crux of the issue. Same sex couples should have legal rights in every state. The traditionalist are entitled to their opinions and have the right to not like that but we can't justify denying legal rights to people because of their race, gender, religion, party affiliation, or sexual orientation. To use the most extreme analogy possible think of the pre-civil war times when we had slave states and free states. Would that have been justified under the premise of "letting states decide for themselves"?

[ki4kxq]

The legal definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman. An interracial couple, whether people like it or not, fits that description.

To change that definition should involve the vote of the people. Gays and lesbians can enter into a legal union that gives them many of the legal protections of married couples. They can protect their assets purchased together, give each other medical power of attorney, etc. In this country you have the right to love and live with anyone you desire. However, there is no inherent right to change the meanings of words just because you want to.

Again, I am against the notion of a federal ban on gay marriage, I believe that is wrong. I am all for those who want same sex marriage to try to change the law in their state. However, there is no inherent right to a marriage license, just as there is no inherent right to a drivers license, business license, or any other license issued by the state. It is solely at their discretion.

[Qikdraw]

The legal definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

Which is unconstitutional.


To change that definition should involve the vote of the people. Gays and lesbians can enter into a legal union that gives them many of the legal protections of married couples. They can protect their assets purchased together, give each other medical power of attorney, etc. In this country you have the right to love and live with anyone you desire. However, there is no inherent right to change the meanings of words just because you want to.

Yes there is. You cannot just decide that certain people have rights, and other people do not. You cannot say that we have to have a vote to give people rights, they already have them. Its just the laws denying them are unconstitutional.


Again, I am against the notion of a federal ban on gay marriage, I believe that is wrong. I am all for those who want same sex marriage to try to change the law in their state. However, there is no inherent right to a marriage license, just as there is no inherent right to a drivers license, business license, or any other license issued by the state. It is solely at their discretion.

No it is guarenteed by the right of being an American citizen and the Constitution.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Its called the 14th Ammendment.

[Sanslines]

It's the same situation today. "Respecting the concerns and feelings" of traditionalists today is just code for denying legal rights to same sex couples. That is really the crux of the issue. Same sex couples should have legal rights in every state. The traditionalist are entitled to their opinions and have the right to not like that but we can't justify denying legal rights to people because of their race, gender, religion, party affiliation, or sexual orientation.

But I never mentioned anything about denying legal rights to anyone. The point is that same sex couples are entitled to exactly the same legal rights as traditionally married couples. The ONLY difference and concession to the traditional married couples is that the word 'marriage' will continue to be used for the joining of a man and a woman and 'union' will be used for same sex couples.

The difference is the use of two words instead of one and yet as far as the law is concerned both words will legally mean the same thing.

This is just one step towards eventually dropping the 'union' designation and using one word - marriage for both groups.

[ki4kxq]

Sorry, I cannot find any protection or reference to marriage in the constitution. States do indeed have the right to issue licenses as they see fit. Just as you have no "right" to a drivers license, you have no "right" to a marriage license. Not giving someone a marriage license does not take away their life, liberty, or property. Shall we also make states issue licenses to polygamists? What would be the difference? I am all for states issuing civil union licenses. Again, the constitution gives the states the right to decide.

Quikdraw, may I ask if you are as passionate about the 2nd Amendment as you are the 14th. The second amendment is specifically laid out in the constitution, yet states make laws about gun ownership all the time. Those laws are indeed unconstititional as Washington DC just found out. Marriage is not a constitutional right. It is a legal contract with parameters. How's that for taking the religion out of it.

[jon71]

In the Supreme court case Loving v. Virginia the Supreme court declared that marriage is a civil right.

[usmc1]

In the Supreme court case Loving v. Virginia the Supreme court declared that marriage is a civil right.

And ipso-facto, prima-facie, habeas corpus, semper fidelis, hinky-dinky parles-vouz, if it is a civil right, the feds have every right to intervene if a citizen of an individual state is being denied that right.

Were I to look for a constitutional reference, I'd sure take a long and serious gander at "pursuit of happiness", since we all know that wedded bliss is the way to go--as opposed to single-sorrow.

But, all you folks opposed to gay marriage, a bit of advice. Don't marry a gay person, don't go to the reception, don't send a toaster, and you'll be just fine.

You belong to a church that doesn't want to offer the marriage ceremony to gays, cool, don't...others will. But, you have no business dictating to the government or other churches who can and cannot be married to one another--and other churches and governments have no business dictating to you who you must provide marraige rites to.

Real simple stuff, other than that, it really is no one's business. Butt out, no one cares about your biases, and prejudices.

[usmc1]

The state government is very directly tied to the will of the people in that state. When we say the state of Texas does not allow gay marriage, we are not referring to some faceless entity. The people of the state of Texas voted to not allow gay marriage. That is the direct will of the people. At any time, the people of Texas can vote to allow gay marriage. That is the difference.

By allowing the state to decide, you allow the people to make that decision. By just making an edict that it should be legal, regardless of the will of the people, is just as bad as the christian right saying it should be illegal under any circumstances, whether the people want it or not.

But, in 1990, the people of Texas voted to lift restrictions on gay sex. Which leaves us in the obviously weird position of saying, it's ok for gays and lesbians to make love to another another, but we want it done out of wedlock...explain that one to a curious teenager you're trying to convince that sex is only permitted between married people.

Hah, you people are a danged old hoot! Just react, react, react, and never think anything through. That there's the reason you get called reactionaries!

And about that there anti-gay marriage deal. The way it was worded, it prohibited all marriage.

[Naturist Mark]

The legal definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman. An interracial couple, whether people like it or not, fits that description.

Who are not close relatives, who are of the legal age of consent - or alternately in some cases have parental consent, who are mentally competent to make the commitment, and who meet other criteria that may be established by the State. 50 years ago in many of the United States those criteria included racial considerations, and before that it included the consent of the owner of the persons being married. That was and in some particulars is the legal description. Like it or not.

Things change.

If gay marriage doesn't fit your definition, or is abhorrent to your sensibilities, you will not be required to enter into one.

Have a nice <strike>gay</strike> day.

[hm0504]

Sanslines asked whether we should be concerned about the feelings of those who oppose SSM. Yes, we should, we must be ready help them overcome those feelings.

ki4kxq stated, to the effect, that a marriage license is a privilege, like a driver's license, and the state is free to decide who gets those privileges. I disagee. First, it is not like a driver's license or almost any other form of government-issued license in that being married does not require (at least formally) a special kind of skill. More importantly, discriminating against who can get a marriage license (beyond the sensible requirements listed by Naturist Mark) for reasons of sexual orientation is like discriminating against who can get a driver's license based on race.

Re requiring a popular vote for basic human rights, why would anyone support that.

[Naturist Mark]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ek3jAkx9m10&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ek3jAkx9m10&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Sanslines]

Sanslines asked whether we should be concerned about the feelings of those who oppose SSM. Yes, we should, we must be ready help them overcome those feelings.


Yes and I think that a first good compromise to those who oppose SSM is to initially refer to it as a 'union' to distinguish it in 'verbage' only. All legal rights that are extended to married couples would also be extended to SSM unions. Eventually, people will get used to the idea of SSM as a real marriage rather then a union and start referring to it as a marriage. It just might take some time and some intermediate steps to accomplish the final goal as opposed to attempting to reach the final goal in one big step.

[ki4kxq]

Sorry Mark, but the number of homes John McCain owns has nothing to do with anybody else's mortgage woes. The majority of folks that are in foreclosure are there because they took risky loans on homes they could not afford. Everybody was caught up in the real estate boom, and thought they could turn a big profit in a couple of years. To buy bigger houses than they could afford on a reasonable fixed rate mortgage, they took out risky interest only loans and adjustable rate mortgages. In the end, the real estate market corrected, and these folks lost out. The woman in the video mentions at the time of foreclosure she was paying 15% interest on her mortgage.

There is only one way someone pays 15% interest. Their credit was not good enough to buy a house with a conventional mortgage. Instead of putting some money aside and building their credit up to get a decent rate, they opted for a sub prime loan. I agree with Mr. McCain on this point (and I don't agree with him on much), that the government has no business bailing out homeowners or lenders. The rest of us have waited to buy when we were financially ready, why should those who did not be bailed out?

[hm0504]

Yes and I think that a first good compromise to those who oppose SSM is to initially refer to it as a 'union' to distinguish it in 'verbage' only. All legal rights that are extended to married couples would also be extended to SSM unions. Eventually, people will get used to the idea of SSM as a real marriage rather then a union and start referring to it as a marriage. It just might take some time and some intermediate steps to accomplish the final goal as opposed to attempting to reach the final goal in one big step.

I don't like the misleading aspect, but if that would work, I'd live with it.

[Boreas]

That is why liberal arguments do not stand in the long term. There is nothing to back them up.

Oh brother. And you were being so agreeable there for awhile.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[Naturist Mark]

Sorry Mark, but the number of homes John McCain owns has nothing to do with anybody else's mortgage woes.

The fact that he doesn't even know how many homes he and his wife own, is clueless about the reality of the economic situation of the majority of Americans, much less those in extreme distress, yet feels entitled to pontificate dismissively on their plight, while also accusing a man who has made his career working with precisely those folk of being an 'elitist' tells us volumes about his character and fitness to lead.

But he spent 5 and 1/2 years as a POW! So he is excused (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/21/mccain-camp-plays-pow-car_n_120428.html).

Remember folks, those 5 and 1/2 years are his "little black dress", the answer that fits any occasion.

-Mark

[Naturist Mark]

There is only one way someone pays 15% interest. Their credit was not good enough to buy a house with a conventional mortgage. Instead of putting some money aside and building their credit up to get a decent rate, they opted for a sub prime loan. I agree with Mr. McCain on this point (and I don't agree with him on much), that the government has no business bailing out homeowners or lenders.
The banks are being bailed out for the bad loans they made, why not the homeowners?

answer: banks are owned by powerful people.

Why did people sign on for 15% interest loans they couldn't pay?

answer: they didn't - they were sold on relatively low interest loans that later were switched to high interest loans - usually without notice. This 'bait and switch' (http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3276/the_subprime_bait_and_switch/) was especially endemic among sub prime lenders.

It's their own fault for not reading all the fine print, and for not having degrees in law and accounting so that they could decipher and understand all the implications and possible pitfalls.

response: You got me there. By the way - have you read the EULA on the last piece of software you installed on your computer? Did you notice it was written by Rumplestiltskin? Your first borne now belongs to a coding firm in the Czech Republic.


The rest of us have waited to buy when we were financially ready, why should those who did not be bailed out?
Wrong! The USA is a debtor nation - we all owe more than we have saved. The majority of Americans have negative net worth. THAT is our 'financially ready'. Unless you have no long term debt, you are blowing smoke up my backside. Most Americans finance all of their major purchases - that is how we have all been indoctrinated to do things. You are just an accident, a layoff, a health emergency, or a sudden home devaluation away from a mortgage crisis yourself. The problem is NOT just sub prime lenders - it is the collapse of the housing bubble. In much of the USA home values are falling. The rising home equity that was keeping the middle class afloat has gone negative. By the way, have you looked at the fine print in YOUR mortgage? What does it say happens if your equity falls below what you still owe? Are you really sure that fixed interest rate remains fixed? Better go check, quick, good thing you got that combination law and accounting degree.

-Mark

[Qikdraw]

Sorry, I cannot find any protection or reference to marriage in the constitution. States do indeed have the right to issue licenses as they see fit. Just as you have no "right" to a drivers license, you have no "right" to a marriage license. Not giving someone a marriage license does not take away their life, liberty, or property. Shall we also make states issue licenses to polygamists? What would be the difference? I am all for states issuing civil union licenses. Again, the constitution gives the states the right to decide.

I agree that marriage is not a 'right' for anyone, but what is a 'right' is equal protection under the law. You cannot say one group of people have special rights and others do not. That is simply unconstitutional.


Quikdraw, may I ask if you are as passionate about the 2nd Amendment as you are the 14th. The second amendment is specifically laid out in the constitution, yet states make laws about gun ownership all the time. Those laws are indeed unconstititional as Washington DC just found out. Marriage is not a constitutional right. It is a legal contract with parameters. How's that for taking the religion out of it.

Well I understand that the 2nd ammendment has arguements on both sides, and hoenstly I have not thought a lot about it. For me I think everyone has a right to bear arms, with some restrictions. No prior criminal record, and basic things like that. I honestly don't think people need fully automatic weapons, but then thats just me. :)
Hell I'd like to own a gun, but my wife won't let me. lol

[Boreas]

I feel like we have stepped back into 1997 or so, when we were having this discussion about same sex marriage in Canada. The whole issue of calling it a union was shot down for a variety of reasons. The term marriage turned out to be the only acceptable term, since it means that a same sex couple enjoys equal rights in this society. I happen to agree.

Canada declared that same sex marriage is legal all across the country, after several provinces had already done so. It was a ferderal decision, based on the Charter of Rights. We have managed to stay a viable country. I am glad that I live in a country that recognizes same sex marriage.

Does your country not have a bill of rights? Does that bill of rights not ensure equality for all?

Why are we even having this discussion???? :confused:

[NudeAl]

I found it very telling that he did not even know how many homes he and his wife own. That is not going to play well with most Americans I know. I am glad to see that the Obama camp is all over this one good for them. We don't need anymore of the same old same old. We need someone who at the very least knows how many homes they own. I hope all those voters who are facing forclosure or other hard economic times take a good hard look at this guys response it is very telling he comes from another world than everyone I know.

[Qikdraw]

oes your country not have a bill of rights? Does that bill of rights not ensure equality for all?

There is the Constitution, and I have mentioned the 14th Ammendment which does ensure equal protection under the law.


Why are we even having this discussion???? :confused:

Because some people are basing their decisions on religion and not law.

[ki4kxq]

Mark, not blowing smoke up your backside at all. Faithful listener and follower of Dave Ramsey and being debt free. Owe no one. Semi tractor, paid for. RV, paid for. Dodge diesel dually, paid for. Suburban, paid for. No credit cards, loans, etc. I do practice what I preach. That leaves me money in the bank, and on a truckers pay too.

Almost bought a home about a year ago. Had the mortgage approved, yes 15 year fixed rate. Decided why do we need a house when we are never at home. A

As for the banks that made the loans, neither they nor the homeowners should be bailed out at taxpayer expense.

[Qikdraw]

ki4kxq

Do you ever sleep? LOL

You're posting at all hours it seems. :)

[Sanslines]

I don't like the misleading aspect, but if that would work, I'd live with it.

I don't think that it is misleading to initially avoid using a word, such as 'marriage', that is very emotionally charged and use another word, such as 'union', that is more pacifying. This is done all of the time. If the only objection to referring to SSM is as a 'marriage' as opposed to a 'union' then it is best to just refer to SSM as a 'union' and be done with it. As long as exactly the same rights are extended to both groups, then it should be immaterial what the relationship is called. Yet to some groups, the use of one word over the other makes all the difference in the world.

[Sanslines]

The fact that he doesn't even know how many homes he and his wife own, is clueless about the reality of the economic situation of the majority of Americans, much less those in extreme distress, yet feels entitled to pontificate dismissively on their plight, while also accusing a man who has made his career working with precisely those folk of being an 'elitist' tells us volumes about his character and fitness to lead.


The reason that he initially refused to say how many homes that he has is because he owns much more then just traditional 'homes'. He also owns apartments and condominiums. In San Diego alone, he owns a small townhouse in La Jolla and then a couple of small condos down on Coronado. By far most people in San Diego don't care what he owns. He pays property taxes just like everyone else and San Diego is happy to receive the taxes.
When most people think of a home, they think of either a house of a primary residence where a person spends the vast majority of their time. The word 'home' has different meanings to different people.

Making an issue out of this is just another excuse from McCain haters to find fault with McCain. Of course when McCain says something negative about Obama, McCain is still at fault for the Obama supporters think that Obama walks on water. Even Obama tries to avoid some of the political rhetoric from his militant supporters.

McCain is a wealthy and successful man. If people want to hate him for that, then so be it.

[Sanslines]

The USA is a debtor nation - we all owe more than we have saved. The majority of Americans have negative net worth. THAT is our 'financially ready'. Unless you have no long term debt, you are blowing smoke up my backside. Most Americans finance all of their major purchases - that is how we have all been indoctrinated to do things. You are just an accident, a layoff, a health emergency, or a sudden home devaluation away from a mortgage crisis yourself. The problem is NOT just sub prime lenders - it is the collapse of the housing bubble. In much of the USA home values are falling. The rising home equity that was keeping the middle class afloat has gone negative. By the way, have you looked at the fine print in YOUR mortgage? What does it say happens if your equity falls below what you still owe? Are you really sure that fixed interest rate remains fixed? Better go check, quick, good thing you got that combination law and accounting degree.

-Mark

The USA is a debtor nation because of tax policies severly penalizes anyone who saves their money. It is common knowledge among any elderly around here that if you have worked hard your entire life and saved for your retirement, then your savings will automatically disqualify you from a whole bunch of government assistance programs. The message that is being sent to people over and over again is just this: work hard, save your money - your money willl be taken from you in the form of taxes. Work hard, spend your money and when you get to old age with little or no savings or income - you will qualify for a whole bunch of government funded benefits.

[usmc1]

Sorry, I cannot find any protection or reference to marriage in the constitution. States do indeed have the right to issue licenses as they see fit. Just as you have no "right" to a drivers license, you have no "right" to a marriage license. Not giving someone a marriage license does not take away their life, liberty, or property. Shall we also make states issue licenses to polygamists? What would be the difference? I am all for states issuing civil union licenses. Again, the constitution gives the states the right to decide.

Quikdraw, may I ask if you are as passionate about the 2nd Amendment as you are the 14th. The second amendment is specifically laid out in the constitution, yet states make laws about gun ownership all the time. Those laws are indeed unconstititional as Washington DC just found out. Marriage is not a constitutional right. It is a legal contract with parameters. How's that for taking the religion out of it.

You have not read the "due process" and "equal protection" clauses of the 14th amendment as well as did the entire supreme court, when it wrote, without any dissent, "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man..."

Which, by the way, opens the door for federal intervention when state and local governments act to restrict those civil rights.

[ki4kxq]

Qikdraw, it's kind of deceiving because we have been home the last week. Leaving out today so for the next month I will only be able to be online for about 3 hours a day. And that's only if we have signal while rolling down the road.

[hm0504]

I find the argument that marriage is a "license" and not a "right" to be kind of bizarre. Marriage is the institution our society uses, to a large degree, to define and give support to a new family. It would seem to me that, whether licensed or not, this is a fundamental, self-evident human right whether written in law or not.

To go back to the driver's license analogy...one understands they exist to ensure that those who cannot demonstrate safe driving, or have demonstrated excessive unsafe driving, cannot drive. But if the government were to decide one day that it was not going to give driver's licenses to redheads because they were redheads, and tried to justify it saying "hey, driving is licensed, it's not a right!", we'd think they (the government) were morons.

[ki4kxq]

As to the 14th amendment, the word is marriage. The legal definition of marriage is one man and one woman. Unless you change the meaning of the word, the states can continue to not allow same sex marriages. Their protection is that no one is denied a marriage license as long as they meet the parameters of the definition of marriage.

I can go to city hall and marry Russ. I cannot however go to city hall and marry Ruth. Nor can I go to city hall and Marry Russ and Ruth. My rights to marriage therefore have not been violated, as long as I meet the legal parameters for marriage as they now stand.

If you want things to change, you must, through your state, change their legal definition of marriage. Until then, the federal government really doesn't have any standing.

[hm0504]

This kind of reminds me of how people in the old Soviet Union had freedom of speech -- they were free to say anything they wanted as long as it was within the Soviet government's parameters of what you could say.

If the government sets unjust parameters for denying a person a license, it is denying their rights.


As to the 14th amendment, the word is marriage. The legal definition of marriage is one man and one woman. Unless you change the meaning of the word, the states can continue to not allow same sex marriages. Their protection is that no one is denied a marriage license as long as they meet the parameters of the definition of marriage.

I can go to city hall and marry Russ. I cannot however go to city hall and marry Ruth. Nor can I go to city hall and Marry Russ and Ruth. My rights to marriage therefore have not been violated, as long as I meet the legal parameters for marriage as they now stand.

If you want things to change, you must, through your state, change their legal definition of marriage. Until then, the federal government really doesn't have any standing.

[Fitz1980]

I believe in the constitution which says that the federal government butts out and the states make the decision. States are more accountable to their voters, and as such, more closely follow the will of the people. If New York or California want to allow gay marriage, and that's what the people of that state want, great. By the same token, if the people of Texas or Indiana do not want gay marriage, that is ok too.

It should never be a federal issue, period.

You do have a point there but it's also been shown that violations of citizens rights are often done by the states. Segregation was only ended in the south as a result of the federal government, when the US Congress passed the Civil Rights Act.

Also if gay marriage is strictly a state issue how do you feel about the "full faith and credit" part of the constitution?

[usmc1]

As to the 14th amendment, the word is marriage. The legal definition of marriage is one man and one woman. Unless you change the meaning of the word, the states can continue to not allow same sex marriages. Their protection is that no one is denied a marriage license as long as they meet the parameters of the definition of marriage.

I can go to city hall and marry Russ. I cannot however go to city hall and marry Ruth. Nor can I go to city hall and Marry Russ and Ruth. My rights to marriage therefore have not been violated, as long as I meet the legal parameters for marriage as they now stand.

If you want things to change, you must, through your state, change their legal definition of marriage. Until then, the federal government really doesn't have any standing.

The only changing definition of marriage is that of conservatives and their fellow travelers, various religious whack-jobs, attempts to limit the definition of marriage to that between a male and female. But, it would be interesting to add polyamory to the mix, then you could go ahead and marry Russ and Ruth, and the three of you could bop on down the road in connubial bliss.

Wikipedia, and virtually all dictionaries define marriage more broadly:

Marriage is a personal union of individuals. This union may also be called matrimony, while the ceremony that marks its beginning is usually called a wedding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding) and the married status created is sometimes called wedlock.

Marriage is an institution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institution) in which interpersonal relationships (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpersonal_relationship) (usually intimate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimacy) and sexual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sexual_behavior)) are acknowledged by the state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State) or by religious (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion) authority. It is often viewed as a contract (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract). Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution, in accordance with marriage laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_law) of the jurisdiction. If recognized by the state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State), by the religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion)(s) to which the parties belong or by society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_status) in general, the act of marriage changes the personal and social status (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status) of the individuals who enter into it.

People marry for many reasons, but usually one or more of the following: legal, social, and economic stability; the formation of a family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family) unit; procreation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproduction) and the education and nurturing of children; legitimizing sexual relations; public declaration of love (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love); or to obtain citizenship.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-0>[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#cite_note-0)</SUP><SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-1>[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#cite_note-1)</SUP>
Marriage may take many forms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_marriages): for example, a union between one man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man) and one woman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman) as husband (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Husband) and wife (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wife) is a monogamous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamy) heterosexual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterosexuality) marriage; polygamy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy) — in which a person takes more than one spouse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spouse) — is common in many societies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society);<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-Murdoch_2-0>[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#cite_note-Murdoch-2)</SUP>. Recently, some jurisdictions <SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-3>[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#cite_note-3)</SUP> and denominations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_denomination) have begun to recognize same-sex marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage), uniting people of the same sex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality).

A marriage is often formalized during a marriage ceremony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding),<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-4>[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#cite_note-4)</SUP> which may be performed either by a religious officiant, by a secular (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularity) State authorised officiator, or (in weddings that have no church or state affiliation) by a trusted friend of the wedding participants. The act of marriage usually creates normative or legal obligations between the individuals involved and, in many societies, their extended families.

Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights) declares that "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses." The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Declaration_on_Human_Rights_in_Islam) gives men and women the "right to marriage" regardless of their race, colour or nationality, but not religion.

[Qikdraw]

Qikdraw, it's kind of deceiving because we have been home the last week. Leaving out today so for the next month I will only be able to be online for about 3 hours a day. And that's only if we have signal while rolling down the road.

LOL

Ok, was just wondering. :)

Well I hope to see you on as you can. While we don't agree on some things, I am having fun debating. :)

Drive safe!

[Qikdraw]

Props to McCain...

Labor leaders boo McCain on immigration, Iraq (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12155322/)


WASHINGTON - Sen. John McCain threatened Tuesday to cut short a speech to union leaders who booed his immigration views and later challenged his statements on organized labor and the Iraq war.

“If you like, I will leave,” McCain told the AFL-CIO’s Building and Construction Trades Department, pivoting briefly from the lectern. He returned to the microphone after the crowd quieted.

“OK, then please give me the courtesy I would give you.”

I don't agree with the crowd booing him like that, he does deserve to be heard, even if you do not like what he says. But I have to give him props for sticking with it, and actually having fun with it. The last remark of his speech is funny, he asked if anyone had any, 'questions, comments or insults'. LOL

He went before a crowd that he knew wasn't friendly and did pretty good, even if you don't agree with his proposals. This is more than Bush has ever done. So well done McCain.

[Qikdraw]

As to the 14th amendment, the word is marriage. The legal definition of marriage is one man and one woman. Unless you change the meaning of the word, the states can continue to not allow same sex marriages. Their protection is that no one is denied a marriage license as long as they meet the parameters of the definition of marriage.

You cannot make a law that goes against the Constitution, so the 'legal definition of marriage' as you say is unconstitutional.


If you want things to change, you must, through your state, change their legal definition of marriage. Until then, the federal government really doesn't have any standing.

Actually t does. States cannot decide it wants to go against the Constitution any more than the federal government can. This is not a state's rights issue, its a Constitutional issue to make sure every US citizen has the same rights and privileges as another. Its really that simple.

[Sanslines]

This kind of reminds me of how people in the old Soviet Union had freedom of speech -- they were free to say anything they wanted as long as it was within the Soviet government's parameters of what you could say.

If the government sets unjust parameters for denying a person a license, it is denying their rights.

Well, there is a SLIGHT difference in that the last time I checked, the USA federal and state governments did not send someone to the gulag for speaking out beyond the traditional marriage parameters.

[Sanslines]

You cannot make a law that goes against the Constitution, so the 'legal definition of marriage' as you say is unconstitutional.

Then what are admendments? Are some of then not laws which in effect do go against the Constitution but are carefully worded to appear as 'clarifications and enhancements' to the Constitution?

[usmc1]

Published on The Smirking Chimp (http://www.smirkingchimp.com (http://www.smirkingchimp.com/))
Heard Any Good "John McCain's Got a Lot of Houses" Jokes?
By RJ Eskow

Created Aug 22 2008 - 10:22am


Me neither. So I made up a few. Try some of your own -- and yes, I know he may have more than seven houses. Some say it's as many as twelve. He doesn't know. (http:////www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/08/21/politics/horserace/entry4369721.shtml&cid=1238925475&sig2=FYjLT3RGTs9SYdk2__egvQ&usg=AFQjCNFnIVS1ylTnCOkCibm4e3rWLQOg4A)

But don't you think seven's a funnier number? So here we go...

Boy, does that John McCain have a lot of houses. Lemme tell ya ... If they were all in one place he'd be Cleveland.

What? John McCain doesn't know how many houses he owns? Can't he ask Joe Lieberman?

Know what else? John McCain doesn't know if any of his houses share a border with Pakistan.

Now his campaign is saying Cindy does all the house-buying so he can't be expected to know. What a sexist! He makes his wife do all the shopping!

John McCain's dog isso fat that when it sits around the house, it sits around ... (Oh, wait, he has seven houses so this joke doesn't work. He'd have to have a whole pack of dogs. I'll get back to you on the dog joke.)

Don't blame McCain. He couldn't resist that "buy six mansions, get one free" sale at Countrywide.

Hey, didja hear? John McCain has so many houses they're giving him his own monopoly board!

Seven houses? That's one for every day of the week! What a coincidence! I've got a 'Friday' house, too. That's because Friday's payday ... and it takes my whole check just to keep it.

John McCain's getting an unfair rap for buying all those houses. Come
on, now! He needed SOMEPLACE to put all those swimming pools!

Hey, remember that horrible "joke" about putting Cindy in the topless
beauty contest? I hear he was really in the "dog houses" after that.
(Sorry ... still can't nail the dog joke.)

The McCains have a lovely needlepoint their realtor sent them. It says "Home Sweet Home Sweet Home Sweet Home Sweet Home Sweet Home Sweet Home."

As John McCain likes to say, there are no places like home.

Hey, I know it SOUNDS bad. But they needed someplace to put all those lobbyists!

They don't count the motor home because it's only got four bathrooms and there's nowhere for the gardeners to sleep.

I hear that the McCains are doing a vacation house-swap with the Romneys. Sure, it'll take seven trips, but then they won't be very busy next year anyway.

Knock knock knock knock knock knock knock. Who's there? John McCain's mansions.

If a man's home is his castle, then John McCain's got the whole chess set!
Seven houses? That barely fits the twenty thousand bikers he promised could "crash" at his "pads" if they cheered for him.

Dog joke: John McCain thinks every home should have a dog. So he bought the Iditarod dogsled team.

- and my final boy-does-that-John McCain-have-a-lot-of-houses joke:

Hey, John McCain can't remember how many houses he has! It's not his fault, though. He had the number written down but he left it in his other plane.

[usmc1]

Well, there is a SLIGHT difference in that the last time I checked, the USA federal and state governments did not send someone to the gulag for speaking out beyond the traditional marriage parameters.
Not yet, but if Mark's right and this election is stolen too, and McCain does Cheney's third term, there's always gitmo!

[Qikdraw]

Then what are admendments? Are some of then not laws which in effect do go against the Constitution but are carefully worded to appear as 'clarifications and enhancements' to the Constitution?

The definition of a marriage as being between a man and a woman is not an ammendment. Which is why some people are trying to add it, because they know that as these laws stand now, they go against the Constitution, and its ammendments.

Why are some people against equal rights for all citizens?

[Naturist Mark]

Not yet, but if Mark's right and this election is stolen too, and McCain does Cheney's third term, there's always gitmo!

Funny you should mention that ... Premier Election Solutions (Diebold's new name) just had to admit to a court (http://www.thirteen.org/newsandpublicaffairs/state-of-ohio-sues-voting-machine-manufacturer) that there are errors in the programming of some of their machines that cause votes to be dropped. Of course they claim that is minor and has never influenced an election.l

A study of the 2004 election (http://www.flcv.com/fraudpat.html) says otherwise.

-Mark

[hm0504]

Well, there is a SLIGHT difference in that the last time I checked, the USA federal and state governments did not send someone to the gulag for speaking out beyond the traditional marriage parameters.

You missed the point. ki4kxq was essentially saying that homosexuals are free to marry as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. So I said, that is like the Soviet government saying Soviet citizens have free speech as long as that speech promotes the Soviet party line. It was not a point comparing freedom of speech between the Soviet Union and the U.S.; it was a point emphasizing that one does NOT have freedom if one is denied critical alternatives due to the prejudice of others.

[Qikdraw]

Well, there is a SLIGHT difference in that the last time I checked, the USA federal and state governments did not send someone to the gulag for speaking out beyond the traditional marriage parameters.


Who needs the gulag when you have the 'Terrorist Watch List'.

Name on government watch list threatens pilot's career (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/08/22/pilot.watch.list/index.html)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- For Erich Scherfen, being on a government terror watch list isn't just a matter of inconvenience. It could end his career.

Scherfen served in the U.S. military for 13 years, as an Army infantryman in the first Gulf War and then as a helicopter pilot in the National Guard. After receiving an honorable discharge, he was hired as a pilot by Colgan Air Inc., a regional airline operating in the Northeast and Texas.

In April, Colgan informed Scherfen that he was on a government list and would be suspended from his job. He was told he faced termination on September 1 unless he was able to clear his name.

But Scherfen, of Schuylkill Haven, Pennsylvania, has been unable to do so and said he fears that it could mean he has no future as a pilot.

"My entire career depends on me getting off this list," he said. "I probably won't be able to get a job anywhere else in the world having this mark that I'm on this list."

Witold Walczak, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney representing Scherfen and his wife in a lawsuit, calls the government actions "unfair" and "unjust."

"It is quite clear when the government does something that takes away not just your job but your occupation, your career, they have to provide you with some means to clear your name," Walczak said.

The lawsuit, filed this week in federal court in Pennsylvania, asks the U.S. government to remove Scherfen and his wife, Rubina Tareen, from any watch lists or databases that inhibit their travel.

Scherfen is a convert to Islam. His wife emigrated from Pakistan when she was 17 and is now a U.S. citizen. She runs a small business selling books and DVDs about Islam, publications she describes as nonpolitical. Watch the couple speculate on why they're listed (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/08/22/pilot.watch.list/index.html#cnnSTCVideo)

Scherfen and Tareen have both been stopped when traveling and told by security personnel that they are on "a list." Scherfen calls it "embarrassing."

Tareen said she thinks they may be on a watch list because of their Muslim faith and her Pakistani heritage. The two said they are not terrorists and don't associate with people who are.

"I have no idea why I am on the list, and they're not telling officially that I'm even on the list," Scherfen said. iReport.com: Are you on the list?

In a statement, the U.S. Justice Department said it will not confirm or deny that the couple's names are on a watch list for national security and privacy reasons.

In May, Scherfen and his wife wrote to the Department of Homeland Security, asking for help with their case. The department referred them to the Transportation Security Administration's Traveler Redress Inquiry Program. This week, they received a number to track their case, but their complaint has not been addressed.

A TSA spokeswoman said the agency is seeking "a meaningful resolution" to the couple's case but said there is no timetable for doing so.

Meanwhile, a federal judge has the case under review. He asked that Colgan move Scherfen's termination date to October 1. The airline has done so, allowing more time for a possible resolution.

"Unfortunately, it is a problem that is shared by countless individuals who have no connection to terrorism, have no connection to crime and don't belong on this list," said Walczak, the ACLU lawyer.

Walczak acknowledged the need for the government to protect the country from threats with a watch list but said, "The problem with what the government is doing is that they really don't care about innocent casualties."

Scherfen said the pain of his situation is accentuated by the fact that he spent 13 years in uniform protecting the country.

"We served honorably," he said. "We served in a war. And they're thumbing their noses at us, basically, and that makes me feel ... really sad about this situation."

How about a reporter who critisized the TSA finds himself on a terrorist watch list (http://rawstory.com/news/2008/CNN_reporter_wants_off_terror_watch_0716.html).

It seems the 'terrorist Watch List' is quickly becoming the new McCarthy 'Communist List'. If the government doesn't like you, you get put on the list (for whatever reason they think of) and your very livelyhood may be in danger. There are now over one million names on that list.

[ki4kxq]

I looked up the legal definition of marriage. It still seems to me that you must either go through the proper channels and change the legal definition of marriage, or call a same sex union something different. Yes, each state does have a legal definition of marriage, go through the proper procedure and get it changed. Just like California and whatever other states have done it.

By everyone's logic here, there should be absolutely no gun laws. The second amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That is very clear. Yet look at all the gun laws that states enact. Those are most certainly unconstitional. However, just like I said that people would have to do with the marriage laws, all of us for gun rights keep having to beat these laws down. Little successes, one after another.

[jon71]

The second amendment DEMANDS regulation. It's the only amendment that does so. It would literally be unconstitutional to not have gun laws on the books,

[bullet]

As a proponent of states' right, McCain only supports a constitutional amendment if a federal court says one state must recognize a homosexual union that is legal in another state. For example, if a federal judge says VA must recognize a gay marriage such as Ellen and Portia who were married in CA. He supports the right for individual states to recognize civil unions, but not having one state forced to recognize another state's laws.

[hm0504]

The second amendment DEMANDS regulation. It's the only amendment that does so. It would literally be unconstitutional to not have gun laws on the books,

Let's remember that guns are not the only form of arms. The Second Amendment clearly guarantees Americans' rights to own grenades, bazookas, tanks, anti-aircraft missiles, ICBMs, etc. And yet Americans continue to let their government impose restrictions on the personal ownership of these items. Shocking!

[Qikdraw]

How low will the McCains go to win the election?

The Anatomy of a Deception: How The McCains Changed Their Baby Adoption Story Just Before 2008 Campaign Began (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-nickolas/the-anatomy-of-a-deceptio_b_120381.html)


As was pointed out yesterday by the Christian Science Monitor, the McCain campaign was called out for lying about the purported urging of Cindy McCain by Mother Teresa herself to adopt two children at her orphanage back in 1991. Turns out, McCain never met or even spoke with Mother Teresa on that trip.

Once confronted by the Monitor about the deception, the campaign quickly erased such claims from the website, as it did with Cindy's family recipes, which were proved to be lifted from the Food Network.

But after doing some research, this deception was no careless accident, but rather another shameless and deliberate attempt by the campaign to reinvent and embellish the McCain family history in time for his 2008 presidential bid.

McCain's 'cross in the sand', and the adoption of their child.

This is pretty sickening. How low will they go?

[ki4kxq]

jon71, the 2nd amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That means that no laws restricting gun ownership or rights are constitutional. I think you have it a little backwards. Maybe you need to look up the word infringed.

Now, I do not believe that felons should own guns. However, felons lose other rights like the right to vote, so that would make a ban on felons owning guns fit I believe.

That is the main reason I would never, never vote for Obama. He has made it very clear how he feels about guns and gun ownership.

[ki4kxq]

hm0504, what difference does it make what a law abiding citizen owns. If I own a bazooka, but I am a law abiding citizen, what harm does that do to you. We just bought a 2nd AR-15 assault weapon. If Obama gets elected, the assault on the 2nd amendment will begin.

The key words are law abiding citizen. Liberals want to enact gun bans because they think that will get guns off the street. Washington DC had a handgun ban for the last 30 years, yet they had the highest crime and murder rate of just about anybody. Why? Because criminals don't obey the law. Because they are criminals!! It has been proven over and over that states with few gun restrictions, have the lowest crime rates overall. Why? Because criminals don't want to go up against a population that can defend themselves.

[jon71]

ki4kxq why don't you look up what "well regulated" means.

[jon71]

hm0504, good catch. In Boone N.C. where my parents live a few years ago a guy faced charges because he had hand granades, land mines, canons, and several other arms, all live. He claimed he wanted to start a munitions museum and charge admission to tourists to see all his stuff. I don't know if he was a survivalist, a terrorist, or if he really was a guy who didn't see any problem with selling tickets to let people gawk at live, armed hand grenades, land mines, etc. I was just visiting when it hit the news so I never heard how it played out but I imagine it could only end with him being convicted of some illegalities even if he pleads it down from the top charges.

[Sanslines]

Funny you should mention that ... Premier Election Solutions (Diebold's new name) just had to admit to a court (http://www.thirteen.org/newsandpublicaffairs/state-of-ohio-sues-voting-machine-manufacturer) that there are errors in the programming of some of their machines that cause votes to be dropped. Of course they claim that is minor and has never influenced an election.l

A study of the 2004 election (http://www.flcv.com/fraudpat.html) says otherwise.

-Mark

That's right. The election will never be fair and honest. It's best to cancel the election and keep GWB around for a third term. That is the ultimate solution. Thanks for convincing us of this option.

[Sanslines]

You missed the point. ki4kxq was essentially saying that homosexuals are free to marry as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. So I said, that is like the Soviet government saying Soviet citizens have free speech as long as that speech promotes the Soviet party line. It was not a point comparing freedom of speech between the Soviet Union and the U.S.; it was a point emphasizing that one does NOT have freedom if one is denied critical alternatives due to the prejudice of others.

Based upon your definition of freedom (total or complete implied) we never have freedom for there are always constraints of some kind that will limit choices. Instead, we generally (but not always) have some form of limited freedom.

[Sanslines]

Let's remember that guns are not the only form of arms. The Second Amendment clearly guarantees Americans' rights to own grenades, bazookas, tanks, anti-aircraft missiles, ICBMs, etc. And yet Americans continue to let their government impose restrictions on the personal ownership of these items. Shocking!

Did you forget to include the 'right' to own nuclear weapons too?

[Sanslines]

October 06, 2006

The Smirking Chimp

<TABLE width=520 border=0><TBODY><TR align=left><TD colSpan=2>http://smirkingchimp.com/ (http://smirkingchimp.com/)</TD><TD align=middle>Left</TD></TR><TR align=left><TD width=130>Alexa rank:</TD><TD>35</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD>Feedster rank:</TD><TD>68 (388)</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=3 height=15></TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=3>A lefty group site headed up by Jeff Tiedrich, the Smirking Chimp pokes fun at the Bush administration, the GOP congress, and tries to keep their beloved Dems from moving too far to the right. It is nothing short of a right ring smear machine that is filled with distortions and outright lies.</TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=3 height=15></TD></TR><TR><TD>Blogger Profile</TD><TD colSpan=2>Jeff Tiedrich</TD></TR><TR><TD>Age:</TD><TD colSpan=2>49</TD></TR><TR><TD>Place of Birth: </TD><TD colSpan=2>Morristown, NJ</TD></TR><TR><TD>Current Residence:</TD><TD colSpan=2>Westchester County, NY</TD></TR><TR><TD>Education:</TD><TD colSpan=2>Art school dropout</TD></TR><TR><TD>Occupation:</TD><TD colSpan=2>Website designer</TD></TR><TR><TD>Blogging Since:</TD><TD colSpan=2>December 2000</TD></TR><TR><TD>Previous Work:</TD><TD colSpan=2>Graphic designer</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[Sanslines]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/01/cindy.html

John McCain's secret weapon against smears this time (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/01/cindy.html)

John McCain's campaign has aggressively reacted against negative attacks this year with its “truth squad” of state leaders. But the truth is, their secret weapon may actually be the Arizona senator's wife, Cindy. She's using a softer approach to prevent a repeat of the smears on her family from the 2000 South Carolina primary.
In the last few days leading up to today's voting, she told voters in Aiken and Columbia the story of how 15 years ago the couple adopted their daughter Bridget, who is now 16, from an orphanage in Bangladesh. Eight years ago, anonymous McCain foes used phone calls and fliers to insinuate the dark-skinned Bridget was really McCain’s illegitimate “black baby.” And McCain lost that election.
Cindy McCain, cutting an elegant figure in her charcoal suit, black turtleneck and pearl drop earrings, took the microphone from its stand in Aiken and walked from the stage into the crowd, telling the ....

audience in confidential tones that she was going to share a little something about McCain “the man.”
While working at Mother Teresa’s orphanage in Bangladesh in the early 1990s, McCain said, “I stumbled upon the most beautiful little girl I’d ever seen. She had a terrible cleft palate. She had problems with her feet. She had problems with her hands. She had all kinds of problems.”
“As only Mother Teresa can do," McCain continued, "she prevailed upon me to take this baby and another baby –- get them out of the country and take them to the United States for medical care.” On the flight from Bangkok to Los Angeles, McCain said she realized, “I couldn’t give this child up.... She had chosen me. That’s just as simple as it was.”
“Well, the kick in this was I hadn’t told my husband,” Cindy said, as the Aiken crowd chuckled appreciatively. “So when I stepped off the plane in Arizona, I was holding her, and John met me at the airport, and, of course, there were a lot of cameras there.... And he whispered down to me and said, 'Well, where’s she going to go?'
“I looked up at him and sort of thought ‘Well, our house – how about that?’ And that’s simply the way I introduced him to his new daughter. He has loved her the same way I have for 16 years,” Cindy McCain said.
“I’d like to leave you with this," McCain said. "To love a child and be handed a child, without any option in it, is one thing. But what John has done with our children is to instill in them the things that were most important to him ... that is, duty, honor and country. And he, by example, taught our children what was most important, and that is to put country ahead of self, and that makes me love him so much.”
Then, Cindy McCain handed the microphone to her “partner, friend and husband, John McCain.” And she took her seat.

-- Maeve Reston

Comments from American Citizens:

John McCain has more character, honesty, and willingness to address the truth of the issues, even when the truth is not popular, than all the other Republican and Democratic candidates put together. How would Mitt Romney have handled the Hanoi Hiliton?
Go John McCain!!

Posted by: David | January 19, 2008 at 01:42 PM (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/01/cindy.html#comment-97804334)

Hilary is only out for her own agenda. How can u have some one in office that can be bought so easily. At least Sen McCain has some gumpson, and yeah we do need to be in Iraq I would rather they take care of the majority of the problem now than we have to go back again and fix it again and waste all our resourses of a futur generation. Think less about the needs of the individual and more about the good of the whole.

Posted by: stephanie | January 20, 2008 at 07:13 AM (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/01/cindy.html#comment-97867996)

[usmc1]

As a proponent of states' right, McCain only supports a constitutional amendment if a federal court says one state must recognize a homosexual union that is legal in another state. For example, if a federal judge says VA must recognize a gay marriage such as Ellen and Portia who were married in CA. He supports the right for individual states to recognize civil unions, but not having one state forced to recognize another state's laws.
Which puts him in the position of ignoring the "full faith and credit" clause. Which is the primary problem conservatives have regarding the constitution. They want to pick some parts to support their uninformed and misguided beliefs, and then ignore any portion of it, which repudiates those beliefs.

The whacko religious fundamentalists do the same thing with the bible.

[Sanslines]

<TABLE class=body2 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=749 align=center border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=center height=22>
Posted at 5:08 PM on 8/18/2008 by Michael Goldfarb (http://www.johnmccain.com/McCainReport/Profile.aspx?ba=8fc86057-3d16-4085-832a-070d91caf340)
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Smears the Left Can Fight For

In the least credible and most vicious (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/17/122230/161/239/569299) corner of the internet, liberal bloggers at the Daily Kos are accusing John McCain of plagiarizing from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. The story Solzhenitsyn told was of a prisoner who drew a cross in the dirt in a Soviet Gulag. McCain's story is of a guard who drew a cross in the dirt in a Vietnamese prisoner of war camp.
The only similarity between the two stories is a cross in the dirt, but it is hardly an unlikely coincidence that there were practicing Christians in both Russia and Vietnam, or that in the prisons of those two Communist countries the only crosses to be found were etched in the dirt, as easily disappeared as the Christians who drew them.
But those desperate to discredit Senator McCain's record will have to impugn his fellow prisoners as well. Orson Swindle, who was held as a prisoner of war along with McCain, tells the McCain Report that he heard this particular story from McCain "when we first moved in together." That was in the summer of 1971, Swindle said, though "time blurred" and he couldn't be sure. He said it was some time around then that the Vietnamese moved all "36 troublemakers" into the same quarters, where they "talked about everything under the sun."
It may be typical of the pro-Obama Dungeons & Dragons crowd (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0808/Goldfarb_keeps_experience_points.html?showall) to disparage a fellow countryman's memory of war from the comfort of mom's basement, but most Americans have the humility and gratitude to respect and learn from the memories of men who suffered on behalf of others. John McCain has often said he witnessed a thousand acts of bravery while he was imprisoned, and though not every one has been submitted into the public record, they are remembered by the men who were there (one such only recently reported (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120951606847454685.html?mod=opinion_main_comment aries) by Karl Rove though it escaped mention in any of Senator McCain's books). But as Swindle said, this is a "desperate group of people trying to make something out of nothing."

[Sanslines]

From Wiki:

Prisoner of war

John McCain's capture and imprisonment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_and_military_career_of_John_McCain#Pris oner_of_war) began on October 26, 1967. He was flying his 23rd bombing mission over North Vietnam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Vietnam), when his A-4E Skyhawk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-4E_Skyhawk) was shot down by a missile over Hanoi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanoi). McCain fractured both arms and a leg, and then nearly drowned, when he parachuted into Truc Bach Lake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truc_Bach_Lake) in Hanoi<SUP>.</SUP> After he regained consciousness, a crowd attacked him, crushed his shoulder with a rifle butt, and bayoneted him. Lieutenant Commander McCain was then transported to Hanoi's main Hoa Lo Prison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoa_Lo_Prison), nicknamed the "Hanoi Hilton".

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3d/Vietcapturejm01.jpg/180px-Vietcapturejm01.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vietcapturejm01.jpg)
McCain being pulled from Truc Bach Lake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truc_Bach_Lake) in Hanoi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanoi) and becoming a POW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_of_war)<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-31>[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_mcain#cite_note-31)</SUP> on October 26, 1967



Although McCain was badly wounded, his captors refused to treat his injuries, instead beating and interrogating him to get information, and he was given medical care only when the North Vietnamese discovered that his father was a top admiral.<SUP> </SUP>His status as a prisoner of war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_of_war) (POW) made the front pages of major newspapers.
McCain spent six weeks in the hospital while receiving marginal care. Now having lost 50 pounds (23 kg), in a chest cast, and with his hair turned white, McCain was sent to a different camp on the outskirts of Hanoi in December 1967, into a cell with two other Americans who did not expect him to live a week. In March 1968, McCain was put into solitary confinement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solitary_confinement), where he would remain for two years.
In mid–1968, McCain's father was named commander of all U.S. forces in the Vietnam theater, and McCain was offered early release. The North Vietnamese made that offer because they wanted to appear merciful for propaganda purposes, and also wanted to show other POWs that elites like McCain were willing to be treated preferentially. McCain turned down the offer of repatriation; he would only accept the offer if every man taken in before him was released as well.
In August 1968, a program of severe torture began on McCain.<SUP> </SUP>He was subjected to rope bindings and repeated beatings every two hours, at the same time as he was suffering from dysentery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysentery). Further injuries led to the beginning of a suicide attempt, which was stopped by guards. After four days, McCain made an anti-American propaganda "confession". He has always felt that his statement was dishonorable, but as he would later write, "I had learned what we all learned over there: Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine." His injuries left him permanently incapable of raising his arms above his head. He subsequently received two to three beatings per week because of his continued refusal to sign additional statements. Other American POWs were similarly tortured and maltreated in order to extract "confessions" and propaganda statements.
<SUP></SUP>
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/John_McCain_interview_on_April_24%2C_1974.jpg/180px-John_McCain_interview_on_April_24%2C_1974.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:John_McCain_interview_on_April_24,_1974.jpg)
Interview with McCain on April 24, 1973, after his return home



McCain refused to meet with various anti-war groups seeking peace in Hanoi, wanting to give neither them nor the North Vietnamese a propaganda victory. From late 1969 onward, treatment of McCain and many of the other POWs became more tolerable, while McCain continued to be an active resister against the camp authorities. McCain and other prisoners cheered the B-52 Stratofortress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-52_Stratofortress)-led U.S. "Christmas Bombing" campaign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Linebacker_II) of December 1972, which they viewed as a forceful measure to push North Vietnam to terms.
Altogether, McCain was held as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam for five and a half years. He was finally released from captivity on March 14, 1973<SUP>.</SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
More on McCain:

In April 1979, McCain met Cindy Lou Hensley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_Hensley), a teacher from Phoenix, Arizona (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix,_Arizona), whose father had founded a large beer distributorship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hensley_%26_Co.). They began dating, and he urged his wife Carol to grant him a divorce, which she did in February 1980, with the uncontested divorce taking effect in April 1980. The settlement included two houses, and financial support for her ongoing medical treatments due to her 1969 car accident; they would remain on good terms. McCain and Hensley were married on May 17, 1980, with Senators William Cohen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Cohen) and Gary Hart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Hart) attending as groomsmen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participants_in_wedding_ceremonies#Groomsmen).<SUP></SUP>McCain’s children did not attend, and several years would pass before they reconciled. John and Cindy McCain entered into a prenuptial agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenuptial_agreement) that kept most of her family's assets under her name; they would always keep their finances apart and file separate income tax returns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_return_(United_States)).
<SUP></SUP>
McCain decided to leave the Navy. He was unlikely ever to be promoted to the rank of full admiral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiral_(United_States)), as he had poor annual physicals and had been given no major sea command. In early 1981, he was reportedly told that he would be promoted to rear admiral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rear_admiral_(United_States)#Rear_Admiral_.28lower _half.29) but declined the prospect, as he had already made plans to run for Congress and said he could "do more good there." McCain retired from the Navy on April 1, 198 as a captain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_(United_States)#United_States_Navy.2C_Coas t_Guard.2C_and_uniformed_services). He was designated as disabled and awarded a disability pension (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veteran%27s_pension). Upon leaving the military, he moved to Arizona. His 17 military awards and decorations include the Silver Star (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Star), Legion of Merit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legion_of_Merit), Distinguished Flying Cross (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinguished_Flying_Cross_(United_States)), Bronze Star (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Star_Medal) and Navy Commendation Medal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navy_Commendation_Medal), for actions before, during, and after his time as a POW.


<SUP></SUP>
<SUP>No doubt the militant leftist guerillas will continue to falsely besmirch and smear John McCain through distortions and outright lies all the while falsely claiming that they are the real victims.</SUP>

[Sanslines]

Communist fighter McCain: 'I understand Cuba' (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/communist_fighter_mccain_i_und.html)

Posted January 21, 2008 2:26 PM<!-- by Jill Zuckman-->
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/images/swampicon.gif (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/)
by Jill Zuckman

Miami, Fla. - With a trio of Cuban American congressmen flanking him, Sen. John McCain held himself out Monday as a warrior of the Cold War, who understands the importance of keeping up the fight against Communism in nearby Cuba.

Surrounded by a mob of press and voters of epic proportions, McCain visited the Versailles restaurant, a signature spot in the Cuban American community here, throwing back a cortadito (Cuban espresso) to the cheers of the crowd.

"I understand Cuba," said McCain. "I am proud to have sat on a flight deck of a United States Navy aircraft during the Cuban missile crisis."
McCain served on the USS Enterprise, which was the first aircraft carrier sent to Cuba to circle the island, because it was nuclear capable.

"I'm proud to have fought for and defended freedom for the people of Cuba, consistently calling for continuing the embargo until there are free elections, human right organizations and a free and independent media," he said. "Then and only then will the United States of America extend the aid and assistance because we don't want American tax dollars to go to a corrupt government headed either by Fidel or Raul Castro or anyone else who has denied freedom from the Cuban people."

Ros-Lehtinen said many Cuban Americans could relate to McCain, who spent five and a half years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam after being shot down over Hanoi.

"John has that kinship with so many of Castro's political prisoners," Ros-Lehtinen said.

In addition, McCain's communist captors tortured him and the other American prisoners of war, just as Castro's antagonists were tortured in his prisons.

"We had a couple Cubans come from Cuba to our prison camps to torture American prisoners," McCain noted. "Not me, not me, thank God."
Asked whether he would curtail funds for Radio Marti, the uncensored Spanish broadcast aimed at Cuba, McCain was adamant: "I'll spend anything necessary to win the cause of freedom."

McCain said he would rely on the three members of Congress to advise him on all matters related to Cuba, and they in turn offered enthusiastic praise for the Arizona senator.

"Some people erroneously call him Washington's inside man," said Ros-Lehtinen, referring to criticisms leveled by former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. "If there's ever been a Washington outsider it's the maverick John McCain."

Speaking in Spanish, Lincoln Diaz Balart called McCain "the most prepared to be the leader of the free world."

As he took questions from an aggressive pack of press, McCain took pains to stress his roots in the state. After graduating from the Naval Academy, McCain went to flight training school in Pensacola for one year. (It was there that he crashed his fighter jet into Pensacola Bay, surviving the first of several crashes during his career as a Navy fighter pilot.)

And when the North Vietnamese released him from prison after five and a half years, he returned to his family, living in Jacksonville and serving as the commanding officer of his squadron at Cecil Field.

"We come into Florida with some wind at our back and recognize we've got some hard campaigning to do in the next eight days or so," said McCain, who also made stops in Jacksonville and Pensacola, which are home to a heavy contingent of active military and retired veterans.

John McCain the Original Maverick speaks out against Communists. No wonder Communists hate him so much by spreading lies, distortions, propoganda, and misinformation all the while claiming to be victims themselves.

[Sanslines]

March 29, 2006
The Left's Attack on John McCain

By John McIntyre (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/author/john_mcintyre/)

John McCain has been the darling of the U.S. media since his 2000 slugfest with George W. Bush for the Republican nomination. McCain has studiously courted this media approval, but with the Senator's eyes set on 2008, McCain realizes the coziness with the press is a double-edged sword and an actual impediment to the GOP nomination.

It's amusing to watch the slow, yet inevitable shift in the media's attitude toward their favorite GOP politician these past six years. You always knew that if McCain were to get the Republican nomination in 2008, all of his liberal media pals who had been singing his praises for years as a backdoor way to criticize President Bush and the GOP would find creative ways to suddenly portray McCain as a danger to the Republic

What's interesting is that this shift is occurring now in 2006 and is, ironically, strengthening McCain's chances for the GOP nomination and actually lessening the chances of Democrats winning back the White House in 2008. It doesn't matter what the state of the Bush Presidency may be two years from now, McCain will beat the overwhelming Democrat favorite, Senator Hillary Clinton, in just about every scenario. It's possible a moderate like former Virginia Governor Mark Warner could beat McCain, but the bottom line is that any Democratic nominee is almost a certain loser to Senator McCain running as the GOP nominee. (A caveat to that rosy scenario for Republicans is a brutal nomination battle where McCain manages to capture the nomination but angers enough conservatives to give Democrats a window for victory)

Fully aware of McCain's stratospheric appeal to independents and swing voters the left has begun its assault on the McCain image. Two weeks ago The New York Times' leading partisan, Paul Krugman, accused McCain of being "The Right's Man." Over the weekend on The Chris Mathews Show one of the panelists, Julio Cesar Ortiz, opined "He's changed since I first met him in 2001 when I got to Arizona. So has the feeling of the people who have voted for him. He is not to be trusted." Translation: when McCain is not beating up on George Bush or taking cheap shots at Republicans he is not to be trusted. Yesterday in the Washington Post E.J. Dionne joined the chorus, lamenting "The New (Less Interesting) John McCain." (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/03/the_new_less_interesting_john.html)

What is revealing in the Ortiz comment is the line "since I first met him in 2001." McCain has been such a public figure since his presidential run in 2000 most Americans only know him from his public persona the last six years and his Vietnam POW history almost 40 years ago. His 18-year solidly conservative record in Congress from 1982-2000 was conveniently overlooked by fawning members of the media and is thus not part of the public's current impression of John McCain.

Krugman's salvo against McCain is a harbinger of more to come and is a blatant attempt to begin the process of changing that impression:

The bottom line is that Mr. McCain isn't a moderate; he's a man of the hard right. How far right? A statistical analysis of Mr. McCain's recent voting record, available at www.voteview.com, ranks him as the Senate's third most conservative member. .....

He isn't a moderate. Mr. McCain's policy positions and Senate votes don't just place him at the right end of America's political spectrum; they place him in the right wing of the Republican Party.

McCain and his 2008 strategists couldn't have asked for a better column if they had written it themselves.

The reality is the anti-Republican media have put themselves in a real box with John McCain. They've built up this straight-talking hero since 2000 and are going to find it very difficult to suddenly turn him into a mean, divisive, war-mongering Republican. The earlier they start the process of demonizing McCain in anticipation of the 2008 general election, the more they raise the likelihood that McCain is the eventual nominee, and, in turn, insure a Republican White House through 2012. If liberals have heartburn over the current direction of the federal bench and America's "unilateralist" approach to international affairs, a McCain foreign policy and 1 or 2 more Supreme Court appointments is not a comforting thought.

Frankly, I'm surprised the left is attacking McCain so soon. McCain has many advantages in the fight for the Republican nomination, but his major weakness is he lacks the trust of the party faithful and conservatives. That is a major problem that should not be underestimated. The single best thing the McCain 2008 campaign could do over these next 18 months would be to get the left and the MSM to begin a steady diet of attacking John McCain as too right wing.

It looks like the Krugman, Dionne and Kos crowd are only all too happy to comply. (Maybe they really do like John McCain.)

Expect the McCain demonization to get more nasty and personal as long as McCain remains the front-runner. If he does lock up the nomination, all of the media hand-wringing over how mean the Bush campaign was in South Carolina in 2000 will pale in comparison to the personal attacks that will be launched against McCain by Democrats in 2008. They will begin with whispers that McCain suffered some kind of mental damage when he was a POW in Vietnam and is an unstable, hothead who shouldn't be trusted as Commander in Chief. It will get ugly.

The 2008 primary season is still a long way off, and the animus many conservatives feel towards McCain is real and deep enough he is in no way a lock for the nomination. This week's immigration debate highlights another example of where McCain is out of sync with some in the conservative base who don't look fondly on his immigration bill co-sponsored with Senator Kennedy. At the end of the day McCain's fortunes will probably rise and fall with how much Republicans feel they need him to win. But on the whole McCain has gotten off to a good start this year pre-positioning himself for 2008. If the left continues to ratchet up their attacks it will only help him with the voters he needs to become President.
John McIntyre is the President and co-founder of RealClearPolitics. Email: john@realclearpolitics.com ( john@realclearpolitics.com)

[Sanslines]

Finding The Right Attack On McCain (http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=0A10C871CC54004B48AB54136F DF1303?diaryId=7331)

by: Chris Bowers (http://www.openleft.com/userDiary.do;jsessionid=0A10C871CC54004B48AB54136F DF1303?personId=9)

Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 09:48


Obama has released his second attack ad on McCain in two days. Like the first one (http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7311), this is still probably inadequate when it comes to driving the debate and establishing the elite narrative. Unlike the first one, it has a promising new avenue that could do just that, if used more boldly:


The part I find intriguing is the very first line: "John McCain: he's been in Washington for 26 years." The rest of the piece is pretty much the same litany of small-bore policies listed over rising music that we have come to expect from Democratic campaign ads over the past decade or two. While the latter won't do anything to change the debate or the narrative, which is really what a successful attack does, the first bit has potential. Here's why:

It's not entirely rational: In order to grab pundit and media attention, sometimes the straightforward, deductive arguments need to be left behind in favor of something more vague, more emotional, and more identity-based. The "been in Washington for 26 years" line attacks McCain as a long-term Washington insider, and hints, but does not state, a wide range of other attacks. These include cynicism, connection to special interests, connection to Bush and the Republican Party, and even possibly to McCain's age.
It will probably piss McCain off: In order to change the narrative, you need to get your opponent to personally respond to your attack. Given that McCain has been itching for Obama to attack him based on age (http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5768), this line of attack his probably implies that just enough, without actually saying anything, in order to get an age-based identity backlash from McCain. If played correctly, such a backlash has the potential to change the narrative by creating a discussion about whether McCain has been in Washington, D.C., too long in order to make any significant changes. And, as I noted above, having this debate would bring along implications about McCain's cynicism, connection to special interests, connection to Bush and Republicans, and even to his age.
It is specific to McCain: While the attack connects to long-standing Democratic attacks on Republicans, like connections to large corporations, it is also specific to McCain. He has been in Washington too long, he is too old, etc. This is why it is a superior attack to "they" will try to scare you about me. It connects to regular anti-Republican narratives, but it is specific to McCain's identity.
Overall, I don't think that this attack is exploited well enough in this ad, but it has potential. If used with the proper level of rhetoric, the "McCain has been in D.C." for too long, could change the narrative, and start directing the balance of attacks toward McCain. It is also probably something that Obama personally believes about McCain, so I imagine we will see more of it. It is better than the "McCain is a flip-flopper" attack, which doesn't make any sense if you want to tie McCain to Bush. It is better than "McCain is a rich dude with $500 shoes and eight homes" attack, which is basically a responsive attack to the charge that Obama is elitist and doesn't change the narrative. It is more in the vein of "McCain is too tied to large corporations" attack, but it takes a less rational, more emotional, more identity-based approach. And that is what you need to do if you want to change the narrative.

[Sanslines]

The Attacks on John McCain by the Left Political Fringe

By Lance Winslow (http://ezinearticles.com/?expert=Lance_Winslow)

When you read the blogs and newspaper opinions, it's obvious that the personal character attacks on John McCain have reached an all time high. Where is all this coming from? Well, perhaps it is the left political fringe, but why? Senator John McCain is a war hero and loves our country, why would you attack such a man unless you hate our nation?

Listen to all this sound and fury, controversy and chaos, as it really is much to do about nothing. One political analyst I talked with stated; "What a bunch of sniveling comments from the persnickety fringe of America." You see, there is nothing wrong with John McCain, he is an honorable guy, he may not be the best person for President of this nation, but he does care very much. Trashing this man's good name is just disgusting and those who do ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Ever wonder why more great Americans do not run for office? It's because the fringe on either side trashes folks' character, that is they attack anyone who comes along who cares and puts their name on a ballot.

There is nothing wrong with John McCain, in fact my dad flew A-4s in Vietnam too (250 missions) and when he got back some war protestor spit on him at the airport? What I cannot understand is how the Democrats can put up someone like Obama and tell us he is the one; the best possible candidate out of all the 303 million people in this nation? That's just absurd.

It is my contention that, one in 50 Americans is more qualified, more intelligent and has more integrity than he. Additionally, Obama is a media made man. He just is not good enough. So instead of putting up someone better then try to trash McCain down to his level so he can compete after he is found out. Politics suck, it's no way to pick the best President for such a great nation. These personal attacks are childish and pathetic and that folks is my opinion, I've already heard theirs.

[Sanslines]

Battle Hardened Communists and Other Assorted Leftist Sympathizers Attack McCain:

The Candidates' Communist Connections
By Cliff Kincaid

May 26, 2008

Senator McCain's communist connections consist of bombing the communists during the Vietnam War and then being shot down, badly injured, captured, and tortured by them. On the other hand, Senator Barack Obama was mentored by an identified Communist Party member in Hawaii who had functioned as a Stalinist agent. That was before Obama developed cordial relationships with communist terrorists who openly supported the communist regime that tortured McCain and killed 58,000 of our fellow Americans.

Can we have some coverage of the contrast between the two candidates on Memorial Day? It's not just a matter of McCain serving in the military and Obama not doing so. It's a matter of which side they were on.
McCain was on the American side during the Vietnam War. He personally risked his life and carried out the U.S. policy of resisting the communist military conquest of South Vietnam. Obama had friendly associations with those who had been on the other side and they helped launch his political career in Chicago. Obama can't solve this problem by occasionally wearing an American flag lapel pin.

Keep in mind that we are not talking about associating with those who simply opposed U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Obama's friends, such as Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, cheered for a communist victory and visited Havana, Cuba and Hanoi, North Vietnam to bring that about. Like his comrades in the communist Students for a Democratic Society, Tom Hayden of "Progressives for Obama" wrote a letter urging a communist military victory over the U.S. These were people who actually supported the enemy.

In the case of Frank Marshall Davis, Obama's childhood mentor, we are dealing with someone who was on the communist side long before the Vietnam War. Davis supported Stalinist Russia even after the Hitler-Stalin pact. This relationship may help explain why Obama would leave Hawaii, associate with Marxist professors and attend socialist conferences in college (as he admits in his book, Dreams From My Father), and then associate with terrorists, communists, and socialists in Chicago, where he would launch his political career. Davis was a key influence over the young Obama, filling his head with anti-American thoughts.

Thanks to Joseph Farah's WorldNetDaily and his excellent reporter, Jerome R. Corsi, many people are learning the basic facts about these relationships. Corsi covered the release of two reports on the subject through my America's Survival, Inc. organization.

At our event, an audience member wondered what the media reaction would be if it were discovered that a Republican presidential candidate had been mentored by a Nazi or fascist during his growing-up years. You and I know that it would be enough of a story that the candidate would be forced from the race. The candidate would be peppered with questions about this relationship at every turn. Reporters would be scrambling to dig up more details about this relationship.

But rather than focus on Davis, some in the liberal media are making fun of McCain's war injuries. Brent Baker reveals (web site) (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/05/23/cbs-substance-abuse-people-think-mccains-war-injuries-funny) that, during a report on the release of McCain's medical records, Dr. Jon LaPook asserted on CBS News that "people" notice that McCain is "not able to raise his arm" and think "doesn't that look funny?" Baker asked, "Who thinks McCain's limitation, caused by an attack on him after his plane crashed in North Vietnam and he was denied medical care, looks funny? In what circles does CBS's doctor travel?" The answer, of course, is the circle of Obama's friends, where veteran correspondent Linda Douglass has now ended up. She has taken a job as a press secretary and adviser to Obama and previously worked for CBS News, ABC News, and National Journal.

Significantly, the basic facts of the Obama-Davis relationship were originally disclosed by Professor Gerald Horne, a contributing editor of the Communist Party journal Political Affairs, who talked about Obama coming under the influence of Davis during a speech at the reception of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) archives at the Tamiment Library at New York University.

Horne, a history professor at the University of Houston, noted that Davis, who had moved to Honolulu from Kansas in 1948 "at the suggestion of his good friend [and secret CPUSA member] Paul Robeson," came into contact with Obama and his family. As Horne describes it, Davis "befriended" a "Euro-American family" that had "migrated to Honolulu from Kansas and a young woman from this family eventually had a child with a young student from Kenya East Africa who goes by the name of Barack Obama, who retracing the steps of Davis eventually decamped to Chicago."
However, in Obama's 1995 book, Dreams from My Father, Frank Marshall Davis was identified only as "Frank." Among other things, according to Obama's own account, "Frank" told him that blacks had a reason to hate and that he should not believe all of that (expletive deleted) about the American way of life.

When one of Senator Hillary Clinton's supporters brought up the issue of Davis's influence over Obama, by circulating an article (web site) (http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-communist-mentor/) I had written for AIM about Davis playing the role of Obama's mentor, he was pilloried by the left-wing blogs. The reaction suggests awareness that the role of Davis in the formation of Obama's political views could sink the candidate. They are desperate to keep this information suppressed.
Horne is not the only significant figure to talk about the influence of "Frank" on Obama. Dr. Kathryn Takara of the University of Hawaii, who knew and interviewed Davis and wrote a dissertation on his life and career, confirmed to me that the "Frank" is, in fact, Frank Marshall Davis.
Takara, an Obama supporter, confirmed that Davis was a significant influence over Obama during the three or four years that he attended the Punahou prep school. These would have been the years 1975-1979. She said Obama had been introduced to Davis by his grandfather, Stanley Dunham, who considered Davis a "strong black male figure" and thought he exerted a "positive" influence over the young man in his high-school years.
Asked why she thought Obama didn't identify Davis in his book by his full name, she replied, "Maybe he didn't want people delving into it." She said that this could have had something to do with Davis's lifestyle, rather than his politics. "Frank's was a place where you could have drinks," she said.
Yet, Obama has been open about some things- such as his past drug use. It is difficult to understand why he would not name "Frank" as Frank Marshall Davis simply because "Frank" drank or hosted people who did. It is apparent that Obama covered up his full name because of the notoriety surrounding Davis's political views. Remember this was a black communist who stayed with the CPUSA even while others, such as Richard Wright and Langston Hughes, broke with it.

So how long will Obama's cover-up persist?

There are many in the liberal and conservative media who want desperately to avoid this subject. The liberals want to protect Obama. The "conservatives" avoiding the subject don't want to be accused of "McCarthyism" if they mention it. But thanks to Farah's WorldNetDaily and other new media outlets, the story is coming out and won't be ignored.

---
Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org (cliff.kincaid@aim.org).

[Sanslines]

Attacks continue on houses and celebrity


August 23, 2008

Fighting back, McCain launched a TV ad of his own, the latest in a series of ads that seeks to use Obama's fame against him.

"Celebrities don't have to worry about family budgets, but we sure do," the announcer says. "We're paying more for food and gas, making it harder to save for college, retirement. Obama's solution? Higher taxes, called 'a recipe for economic disaster.' "

"He's ready to raise your taxes, but not ready to lead," the announcer concludes in the spot.

Individual state Democratic parties are gleefully piling on McCain, too. But a video in Florida goes over the line, McCain's campaign said yesterday.
The video not only talks about the houses, but also McCain's pricey shoes and expensive tastes. It shows Cindy McCain talking about needing to travel by small private plane in their home state of Arizona - juxtaposed with an image of McCain lounging in a well-appointed corporate jet.

"It is profoundly disappointing to see surrogates for Barack Obama attacking Cindy McCain, particularly after Obama himself claimed that 'families are off limits' and pledged to 'speak out against' attacks on spouses in this campaign," McCain communications director Jill Hazelbaker said in a statement.

FOON RHEE

Most national polls show Obama with a slight lead, but the two statistically tied. But a memo yesterday from Sarah Simmons, McCain's strategy director, says that Obama should get a post-convention "bounce" similar to Bill Clinton in 1992, whose numbers rose by 16 percentage points.


The memo says that Obama should gain from announcing his running mate, should pick up more support from Hillary Clinton loyalists, and should benefit from coverage of his acceptance speech on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" address.

Obama senior strategist Robert Gibbs responded in a statement: "Presidential races are close, and we expect this one to be no different. But they should figure out how to spin the fact that John McCain owns a dozen houses and thinks the fundamentals of our economy are strong before trying to spin our convention."

FOON RHEE

McCain plans to run Spanish-language ad

The Republican National Committee unveiled a Spanish-language radio ad yesterday that it plans to run during next week's Democratic convention that promotes John McCain's support for comprehensive immigration reform, while deriding Barack Obama as all talk and no action.
McCain reached across the aisle to Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts on the reform, which has President Bush's support. But the proposal died in Congress last year after opposition from those who said the path to citizenship amounted to amnesty.

During the Republican primaries, McCain backed away from the plan, declaring that he would not push it again until the borders were made secure. Both he and Obama are courting Hispanic voters.
"How do you know someone is a friend? You know because they stand up and defend you when it is hard.

"When Hispanics needed a friend in Congress during the immigration debate, who stood up? Who spoke out? John McCain," the announcer says, according to a translation by CNN.
"And Barack Obama? Obama did not stand up. Obama did not speak out. And when the time came for him to do the right thing, he did not. . . . If Obama didn't even have the courage to stand up for immigrants, how can he claim to have the strength to change the way Washington works? John McCain is ready to lead. Barack Obama is not."

FOON RHEE

[Sanslines]

"John McCain is ready to lead. Barack Obama is not."

Foon Rhee

[hm0504]

Based upon your definition of freedom (total or complete implied) we never have freedom for there are always constraints of some kind that will limit choices. Instead, we generally (but not always) have some form of limited freedom.

Sorry, but I think you are still missing the point. Yes, there can be sensible limits to freedom (e.g. doing 100 in a school zone); but there can also be unnecessary limits -- such as limiting marriage to opposite sex couples.

[hm0504]

Originally Posted by hm0504 View Post
Let's remember that guns are not the only form of arms. The Second Amendment clearly guarantees Americans' rights to own grenades, bazookas, tanks, anti-aircraft missiles, ICBMs, etc. And yet Americans continue to let their government impose restrictions on the personal ownership of these items. Shocking!


Did you forget to include the 'right' to own nuclear weapons too?

No, they are included implicitly in ICBMs.

Do you believe that the Constitution requires that law-abiding Americans have the right to be able to own anti-aircraft missiles?

[Fitz1980]

Repeating something in large print (the internet equivalent of yelling) is how to prove a point.


March 29, 2006
The Left's Attack on John McCain

By John McIntyre (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/author/john_mcintyre/)

John McCain has been the darling of the U.S. media since his 2000 slugfest with George W. Bush for the Republican nomination. McCain has studiously courted this media approval, but with the Senator's eyes set on 2008, McCain realizes the coziness with the press is a double-edged sword and an actual impediment to the GOP nomination.

It's amusing to watch the slow, yet inevitable shift in the media's attitude toward their favorite GOP politician these past six years. You always knew that if McCain were to get the Republican nomination in 2008, all of his liberal media pals who had been singing his praises for years as a backdoor way to criticize President Bush and the GOP would find creative ways to suddenly portray McCain as a danger to the Republic

Of course it's all the liberal media conspiracy. It couldn't possibly be the fact that when the media reported the facts of John McCain back in 2000 (before Bush took office, yet according to this guy just to be anti-Bush) he looked better because the facts were on his side. Now that McCain has reversed almost every position that made him attractive to thinking people, and aligned himself with the very same forces that have done so much harm to our nation these last 8 years he looks worse.

[usmc1]

Repeating something in large print (the internet equivalent of yelling) is how to prove a point.
I think it's adrenalin pumping from fear of Cubans, since he did that interminable cut and paste about how McCain will save us from them danged old Cubans.

Danged old Cubans, what a menace! Ohhhhhh wait, that Obama fellow. If you look at him real careful like, dang if he don't look like one of them there Cubans that's menacing us.

McCain! Front and center, lad! Be a trooper and draw us an ichthius in the sand on South Beach to repel any invading Cubans. There's a good man.

Keep it up, you'll go places, we've got our eye on you. You'll make admiral yet!

Cubans?

[usmc1]

Danged old battle hardened communists and leftist sympathizers are ganging up on McCain.


<table class="body2" align="center" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="749"><tbody><tr><td height="22" valign="center">
Posted at 5:08 PM on 8/18/2008 by Michael Goldfarb (http://www.johnmccain.com/McCainReport/Profile.aspx?ba=8fc86057-3d16-4085-832a-070d91caf340)
</td></tr></tbody></table>

"Smears the Left Can Fight For"

"In the least credible and most vicious (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/17/122230/161/239/569299) corner of the internet, liberal bloggers at the Daily Kos"

"But those desperate to discredit Senator McCain's"

"pro-Obama Dungeons & Dragons crowd (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0808/Goldfarb_keeps_experience_points.html?showall) to disparage a fellow countryman's memory of war from the comfort of mom's basement,"

"desperate group of people trying to make something out of nothing."




Hmmmm, the pot (Wing-nut editor from the Weekly Standard, on loan to McCain campaign as a right-wing blogger/apologist) is calling the kettle black bemoaning smears while rolling up his sleeves and smearing the left with volatile, disparaging, and belittling modifiers and code words.

The only distinguishing thing in John McCain's life is that he had the misfortune to be shot down and imprisoned. He has parlayed that singular event into marriage into wealth and a life in the Senate.

That cross story has been around for eons in the apocryphal tales from the early years taught to wide-eyed young ones at summer bible school. But, it was a fish, rather than a cross, that the guard drew with his spear in the sand just before he led a Christian out to his date with a lion.

From which was derived the ubiquitous ichthius seen on cars here and there.

John McCain has repeated the parable so many times, he must actually believe it. I wish he'd come around Labor Day and help us feed the masses with some fish and loaves, and maybe let us sell some fund-raising tickets to his "Walking-On-Water" show, just before "Only Child" Cindy's wet t-shirt deal.

Hmmm, I wonder if one of his homes is an Airstream, we could auction that off.

Ooops, this was one of those danged old leftist smear deals. Well never mind then, got to go play Dungeons and Dragons and think up some more leftist smears.

[Sanslines]

Sorry, but I think you are still missing the point. Yes, there can be sensible limits to freedom (e.g. doing 100 in a school zone); but there can also be unnecessary limits -- such as limiting marriage to opposite sex couples.

Personally I think that we agree to extend the same rights and benefits to SSC (same sex couples) and OSC (opposite sex couples). The only difference is that I would extend referring to SSC as a 'union' as a precursor to 'marriage'. You might wish to bypass this designation and just refer to both SSC and OSC as joined in marriage.

The point that I was also trying to make is that everyone has a different definition of 'sensible limits' and 'unecessary limits'. What is sensible and necessary to one person is definitely unecessary to another.

[Sanslines]

No, they are included implicitly in ICBMs.

Do you believe that the Constitution requires that law-abiding Americans have the right to be able to own anti-aircraft missiles?

Lol...lol.......no I do not. Then again, I personally have no love affair with guns either so perhaps I am the wrong person to ask.

[Sanslines]

Democrat Tries To Poison McCain?

White powder in letter to McCain not anthrax

Suspicious letter was sent to Colorado campaign office Thursday

http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Sources/Art/APTRANS.gif
updated 4:11 p.m. ET, Fri., Aug. 22, 2008

WASHINGTON - The suspicious white powder found in a letter sent to a Colorado campaign office for Republican presidential candidate John McCain is not anthrax or another lethal substance, officials determined Friday.
The Colorado National Guard Civil Support Team completed its testing of the powder around 2 a.m. EDT (1800 GMT) Friday, Guard spokesman Rick Breitenfeldt said. Officials do not know what the powder is, but they determined it was not lethal.
Thursday's scare had sent at least 19 people to hospitals for testing.
Officials said the threatening letter was sent by an inmate at the Arapahoe Detention Center. Arapahoe County Sheriff's officials identified the inmate suspected of sending the letter as 39-year-old Marc Harold Ramsey, who has been incarcerated since September 2007 on investigation of felony menacing, harassment and second-degree assault on a peace officer. Ramsey may face federal felony charges for Thursday's incident, sheriff's officials said.
There are 55 National Guard teams across the country that respond to such sorts of incidents. Three of these teams will be in Denver next week for the Democratic convention to respond and walk the floor of the Pepsi Center to diffuse situations and reduce false alarms such as Thursday's.
The Secret Service — which provides protection to the candidates — said a separate letter scare in a New Hampshire campaign office was a false alarm. When the New Hampshire office received a letter with a Denver postmark, officials became concerned after hearing about the letter with white powder in Colorado.
Both the Colorado and New Hampshire offices were evacuated.
Anthrax has been in the news recently because the FBI announced it had a suspect in the 2001 deadly anthrax attacks. The suspect, Army microbiologist Bruce Ivins, killed himself July 29.

[Sanslines]

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Fitz1980 http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?p=206452#post206452)
Repeating something in large print (the internet equivalent of yelling) is how to prove a point.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Yes, and the point is............that BOTH the militant left and militant right are engaged in a bitter war of hate and nonsense. It is not just the right picking on the poor old left or the left picking on the poor old right - it is BOTH sides maneuvering to claim the high ground while both engaging in different versions of the same old tactics.

From the middle ground, it was pure nonsense for the McCain camp to attempt to make an issue about Obama's loyalty based upon having or not having a flag on the tail of his plane. It is also pure nonsense for Obama to try an make an issue about how many houses McCain owns. The only thing that SHOULD matter are where each candidate stands on the issues and yet the mudslinging and nonsense does work and does influence the voting habits of so many! That's too bad and since BOTH sides want to wint this election, BOTH sides are certainly not above slinging mud. Only the party die hard loyalists won't see or admit to this. This is exactly what we need Independents and moderate Democrats and Republicans for they are the only ones who are truly objective. Just wait....the worst mud has yet to be slung.

[Sanslines]

Speaking of leftist smears......

Perlstein Brings “Nixonland” to Nixon Library

Author Rick Perlstein will discuss history of the Nixon era

September 24 at 7:30 p.m.

June 9, Yorba Linda, CA—The Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum, a nonpartisan federal institution, announced today that journalist and historian Rick Perlstein will discuss his new New York Times bestselling book Nixonland at the Nixon Library’s Yorba Linda, California, location on September 24 at 7:30 p.m. This event is free and open to the public, who may call (714) 983 9120 for reservations. More information is available on the Nixon Library’s Web site at www.nixonlibrary.gov (http://www.nixonlibrary.gov/).
Nixonland, a history of the United States during the turbulent 1960s and early 1970s, chronicles the political controversies and movements of those times and how they affected Richard Nixon’s political career—and how President Nixon’s career, in turn, changed American history. Perlstein’s book was the subject of a cover story in the New York Times Book Review, in which George F. Will said that “Perlstein’s sprawling, rollicking book” was a “compulsively readable chronicle” of U.S. history.

"This is a terrific read. What a delight it is to discover the new generation of historians like Rick Perlstein not only getting history correct but giving us all fresh insights and understanding of it."
—John W. Dean, Nixon's White House counsel

“Rick Perlstein's Nixonland digs deep into a decisive period of our history and brings back a past that is all the scarier for its intense humanity. With a firm grasp on the larger meaning of countless events and personalities, many of them long forgotten, Perlstein superbly shows how paranoia and innuendo flowed into the mainstream of American politics after 1968, creating divisive passions that have survived for decades."
—Sean Wilentz Princeton University, author of The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974-2008

Perlstein, a senior fellow at the Campaign for America’s Future, is a former columnist for The New Republic Online and political correspondent for The Village Voice. His 2001 book Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus won the Los Angeles Times Book Award.

“Part of the Nixon Library’s mission is to encourage a free spirit of inquiry into all aspects of the Nixon administration and American history,” Library director Tim Naftali said. “Inviting Rick Perlstein continues our tradition of bringing serious and diverse points of view about the Nixon administration and American history to Orange County.”

Pervious speakers at the Library include journalist Carl Bernstein of the Woodward and Bernstein investigative team, former deputy attorney general William Ruckelshaus (who resigned during the “Saturday Night Massacre” in October 1973), Ed Gray (who co-wrote the posthumously published memoirs of his father, former FBI director L. Patrick Gray III) and Egil “Bud” Krogh, head of the so-called “Plumbers” unit. Fox News correspondent James Rosen and Nixon administration veteran Geoffrey Shepard will appear at the Library later this month.

About the Nixon Library: The Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum, a nonpartisan federal institution, is a part of the National Archives and Records Administration. For more information, contact (714) 983-9120 or visit http://www.nixonlibrary.gov (http://www.nixonlibrary.gov/).

[Naturist Mark]

Democrat Tries To Poison McCain?

White powder in letter to McCain not anthrax

Suspicious letter was sent to Colorado campaign office Thursday

http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Sources/Art/APTRANS.gif
updated 4:11 p.m. ET, Fri., Aug. 22, 2008

WASHINGTON - The suspicious white powder found in a letter sent to a Colorado campaign office for Republican presidential candidate John McCain is not anthrax or another lethal substance, officials determined Friday ... [snip] ... Officials said the threatening letter was sent by an inmate at the Arapahoe Detention Center ... [snip] ... 39-year-old Marc Harold Ramsey

Democrat? Where in the story did that headline come from?

-Mark

[Sanslines]

McCain staff in white powder threat

From correspondents in Washington
August 22, 2008 09:58am

A SECOND campaign office for Republican White House hopeful John McCain has been evacuated after receiving a threatening letter containing a white powder.

The first office to receive the letter threat was McCain campaign headquarters near Denver, Colorado, and the second was at a McCain office in Manchester, New Hampshire.

"We have put all of our offices on highest alert. They're looking for anything suspicious and all staff has been quarantined as of right now," said McCain spokesman Jeff Sadofky on FOXNews television, after the New Hampshire letter was found.

"Immediately upon learning of this, federal and local law enforcement officials were notified," Mr Sadofky said.

"Staff were immediately transported to a local hospital. Hazmat is on the scene and is looking for more information," he added, referring to a team trained to check for hazardous materials.

"Our staff has evacuated as a precaution."
Asked about the content of the letters, Mr Sadofky said: "The best I can tell you is that the letters contained a threat to those who have read it. We have turned everything over to law enforcement."

Secret Service spokesman Eric Zahren said the envelope in teh Colorado incident "also contained a generic warning regarding the contents".
Hazardous material experts, Secret Service and FBI joint terrorism task force agents were on the scene.

FOXnews said that between five and 25 staff and volunteers were at the McCain office in the Denver suburb of Centennial when the letter arrived in the mail, and that those people had been taken to hospital.
There were no immediate reports of what the letter said or what the powder might be.

A spokeswoman for Senator McCain's rival Barack Obama said they were unaware of any similar incidents at the Democrat's offices.

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, threatening letters containing anthrax were sent to prominent politicians and journalists, and five people died after coming in contact with the substance.

A US government scientist who was suspected to be responsible for those attacks committed suicide last month.

[Sanslines]

June 13, 2008



Left of McGovern versus right of Nixon:

I just read a report (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080612/D918GD8G1.html) that not all Democrats are endorsing Barack Obama, and I was reminded of an interesting topic I heard discussed on Hugh Hewitt's radio show -- is Obama to the left of McGovern? The consensus was that he is, and by any objective standard I think that is so, as Obama is more of a socialist (and more of a pacifist) than McGovern.
Now, you could say that times have changed, and I'm sure a lot of people think the entire spectrum has shifted leftward -- especially considering that some conservative Republicans are refusing to endorse McCain (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/new-gang-of-14-wont-back-mccain-2008-06-11.html).
Still, the Obama-McGovern contrast forced me to ask an analogous question -- is McCain to the right of Nixon?

Anyone remember Richard Nixon's wage and price controls? (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory89.html)

Of Richard Nixon's vast repertoire of domestic assaults on liberty and the free market, price controls on oil were among his most evil and destructive. In the midst of economic stagnation surely related to his guns and butter, inflationism, devaluation of the dollar and his closing of the gold window, the Republican called down from on high and decreed that the laws of supply and demand be repealed. The feds were unleashed to regiment prices and wages throughout the land, with no more respect for economic freedom and reality than was displayed by FDR's National Recovery Administrators. Most of Tricky Dick's price and wage controls were scrapped within a few years, after the shortages and other chaos they caused became too obvious to ignore, but central planning of oil and natural gas prices continued, failing to solve the problem and even inspiring schemes for rationing, until 1981 when President Reagan, in an act of sensibility anomalous for his administration, expedited the decontrol of oil prices as planned by President Carter. Prices fell dramatically for several years, and the economy boomed accordingly.
Nixon had spoken as though he understood the nonsense and evil of price controls, up until the point he imposed them. For years conservatives have distanced themselves from much of Nixon's economic policy, which in retrospect appears more collectivist than any Democratic president's since. That the right is seriously considering government-administered controls as a solution to rising gas prices should help to make a few things perfectly clear.
I'd say McCain is to the right of Nixon economically.

As to the environment, Nixon started the EPA (http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/epa/15c.htm) (long hated by many libertarians and conservatives).

While a supporter of the "war on drugs," he nonetheless instituted a legal Methadone program (http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=504):

whatever his other faults, Nixon put the drug money he got for his war in the right places: treatment and methadone maintenance. Addicts who had been unable to secure treatment started having their needs met. Heroin was decoupled from crime by methadone, which doesn't get you high but keeps you from needing heroin. Suddenly the drug problem was going into remission.
And while he said he was against "abortion on demand," he appointed Harry Blackmun (the author of Roe v. Wade) to the Supreme Court, along with Lewis Powell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Franklin_Powell%2C_Jr.) (a moderate).


As to race relations, Nixon won 32% of the black vote in 1960 (http://www.nationalreview.com/george/george071200.html), and while the numbers went down because of the Southern strategy, he still did better than any Republican since. Pat Buchanan reflects (http://buchanan.org/blog/?p=512):

Nixon led America out of a dismal decade and was rewarded with a 49-state landslide. By one estimate, he carried 18 percent of the black vote in 1972 and 25 percent in the South. No Republican has since matched that. To see Kristol colluding with the Times to rewrite that history to make liberals heroes and Republicans villains tells us more about him than about the era.
In office, Nixon also championed "black capitalism," and he was probably the most popular Republican president with the black community that I have seen in my lifetime.

Oh, and of course he ended the draft (http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=619) (which caused attendance at demonstrations to dry up to nearly nothing), started the all-volunteer Army, ended the hated Vietnam War, and made overtures to Red China which led directly to our huge current relationship.
This is not meant to be a comprehensive political essay; just a few irony-based observations that people who think the entire country has necessarily shifted leftward might want to ponder....

posted by Eric on 06.13.08 at 07:19 AM

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2008/06/left_of_mcgover.html

[usmc1]

Gee, since the thread has become cut & paste mania on Sabado Gigante, I'll just join in the fun.





The Many Houses of John McCain

by DarkSyde (http://darksyde.dailykos.com/)

Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:30:15 AM PDT

Through the wee hours as the news of Obama's VP leaked, on air guests asked -- some in thinly veiled accusatory tones -- why wait five whole days, til the very last second like this? Well, elementary rule of politics: don't interfere when your opponent is busy hanging himself. The McCain campaign has been dancing like a cattle rustler wearing their own custom made noose for the last several days. Susan G blogged on the latest surrogate (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/22/141832/909/774/572816) to come to the defense of America's most infamous kept candidate and the Mystery of his many Houses. In case you missed it, that would be Robin Leach (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/08/robin-leach-on.html), one time host of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous:

... Leach told The Times that he isn’t really surprised at McCain's odd memory lapse given the complex lives that the super-rich lead. "He probably was confused as to which homes are in his name, his wife's name, or corporate names," Leach explained" ...
See, unlike you retired simpletons trying to decipher (http://www.tcoa.org/ChartforMedicarepartD.htm) Medicare Part D; or you base single parents handily juggling fuel costs, health care, mortgage payments, and groceries, working two ****ty jobs hoping to make it to the next paycheck still employed with a roof over your kid's healthy head; and even you simple caveman students working full time, already tens of thousands in debt to Sallie Mae, while cramming a full load of upper level classes into a 12 week summer session: all that damn dirty money makes John McCain's life complicated and confusing. How confusing?

Leach said McCain "tends to answer questions very rapidly without thinking of the correct answers. ... I would call it honest confusion."
Wildly firing off incorrect answers when under moderate pressure. Hodamn Robin, that's just what voters should look for: a guy with his glib, jittery fingers wrapped around the nuclear trigger who is easily -- yet honestly! -- confused.


In fairness, even Leach criticized this particular choice of focus, pointing out, correctly, there are far more important issues to be talking about than how many McMansions or McCondos Cindy bought for John-John over the years. Agreed. Let's briefly review some of McDaddy's more alarming lapses.
McCain is the guy who confused Shiites with Sunnis, repeatedly, in the midst of a war in Iraq while campaigning on his Jedi-like mastery of foreign policy. Mentat McCain confused Iranians with Al Qaeda in the middle of a global war on terror and had to be corrected by Holy Joe on camera, in the midst of an economic meltdown he thinks people who make less than 5 million a year are middle class. He partied down with Bush while New Orleans drowned, and then seemed to forget that inconvenient fact later when griping off the cuff about BushCo's response to Katrina.



On and on, the beat don't stop til the break of dawn, McCain has racked up a list of flip-flops, gaffes, and textbook examples of borderline senile dementia -- or just plain old fashioned whoppers -- about the most critical issues of the day so lengthy, so legendary, so broad in scope it takes a virtual army of bloggers and fact checkers (http://www.bi30.org/wordpress/flipflopper.htm) just to keep up with them all. Good lord, the man half-jokingly offered up his wife for a topless biker beauty contest to get in a photo-op applause line. The media didn't even flinch.


We're all relieved the tradmed finally copped to the multimillionaire wife-cheating doddering old hypocrite formerly known as the anti-elite, regular guy, straight talk'n Maverick who avoids talking up his experience as a POW. And if it was his first majorly dumbass quip, or merely the second startling blunder, maybe it would make more sense. But at the risk of jeopardizing a long, long overdue media awakening and subsequent pile-on, given the material the press has had to work with it's just a little weird that the number of houses, ******* houses, is what it took to even begin to reverse the ongoing media cranial-rectal inversion on all matters McCain.
The right was scared and they should be.



For one fleeting instant, the media reacted with a show of objectivity laced with deadly accuracy, and the McCain mythos unraveled faster than a cheap ball of yarn in a room full of hyperactive kittens. No doubt the press will soon revert to their old, comfortable pattern where all news is good news for the McCain campaign. But odds are we'll revisit this mystery again, because the right just can't resist opening the door for us. After all, Biden is gaffe prone.

[usmc1]

MORE CUT & PASTE MANIA - GOT MY SCISSORS AND GLUE POT AT THE READY, BRING IT ON!

A Noun, A Verb and POW
By Cenk Uygur
Created Aug 22 2008 - 11:18am

McCain has jumped the POW shark. As Rudy Giuliani is to 9/11, John McCain is to POW. To paraphrase Joe Biden, "There's only three things he mentions in a sentence: a noun, and a verb and POW."


As Sam Stein has already pointed on Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/21/mccain-camp-plays-pow-car_n_120428.html) [1], McCain has gone to the POW well over and over. His healthcare plan is challenged -- POW! Cheated at Saddleback Forum -- POW! Woodstock Museum -- POW! Can't remember how many houses he has -- POW!


But this isn't the first campaign that McCain has played the POW card (http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/may/30/mccains-military-service-a-shield-and-weapon/) [2]. He used it masterfully when he was accused of carpetbagging in his first run for Congress in Arizona (he's not originally from Arizona, he moved there to run for Congress in his new wife's hometown). When his opponent asked him what was the longest he ever stayed in one place, he said (http://cbs2.com/politics/john.mccain.pow.2.786606.html) [3], "The place I lived longest in my life was Hanoi." If he had left it there, it would have been perfect.


But the man who claims to be humble about his service in Vietnam has gone on to exploit his war record for the rest of his career. A Washington Post reporter (http://www.theyoungturks.com/story/2008/7/31/153842/931/Diary/David-Ignatius-Presents-the-Fable-of-John-McCain) [4] once wrote that John McCain is so gracious in that he never mentions his service in the war, as he was quoting John McCain's book which revolves around his service in the war. Even the press didn't get the irony of all this -- until now (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/21/fineman-mccain-is-trivial_n_120511.html) [5].


Now, he's jumped the shark (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieZcsHWb_Q4) [6] and played the POW card one too many times. People are beginning to see through the false modesty and see how he uses this as an excuse whenever he gets into trouble. If you don't have an answer for something, just pull it out. If you're caught doing something wrong, pull it out. Well, this could only go on for so long. The media can't let McCain keep using this as a crutch anymore to avoid any topic he doesn't like.


Being a POW is a tough thing and it requires heroic perseverance. But it is not a substitute for having the right answers on all other issues. Just because you were a POW doesn't make you an expert on healthcare or beyond reproach on energy policy. Not every POW has a spotless record on ethics (as McCain's involvement in the Keating Five clearly demonstrates). And, as General Clark pointed out, not every POW is even an expert on war and national security. Some POWs are just average guys who happened to be captured by the enemy. They might be decent folks but they weren't all qualified to be president just because they were taken prisoner.


These things are logically easy to understand. But it's hard to get beyond the emotional pull of the POW status. You know logically that McCain being a POW has nothing to do with his nine houses (or whatever the number is today). But every time he pulls out that card, you can't help but back away a little bit. It's time to get beyond that. And McCain has helped to get past this issue with the way he has overused this play to our emotions. Now, instead of seeming poignant, it feels cheap and exploitive.
Watch The Young Turks Here (http://www.theyoungturks.com/) [7]

[Sanslines]

New Break!

Joe Biden attacks his long time friend! Yes, he is attacking John McCain, the very same John McCain that WAS his friend and the very same McCain that he sided with on many issues. Just goes to show what kind of loyal friend Joe Biden is.

He might as well join in with the rest of the domestic leftist guerillas that are out to get McCain! Now that they don't have Nixon to kick around any more they are after McCain! How utterly dastardly!!

[usmc1]

New Break!

Joe Biden attacks his long time friend! Yes, he is attacking John McCain, the very same John McCain that WAS his friend and the very same McCain that he sided with on many issues. Just goes to show what kind of loyal friend Joe Biden is.

He might as well join in with the rest of the domestic leftist guerillas that are out to get McCain! Now that they don't have Nixon to kick around any more they are after McCain! How utterly dastardly!!

Funny your signature should mention chicken, since your misleading and uninformed post is one of those which came first deals, the chicken or the egg. In this case the chicken (McCain) laid the egg (negative attack ad) virtually the hour that the Biden selection was made public by Obama.

For one so wrought up about negative attack ads and blogs one thinks it behooves you to get your facts straight. McCain's been negative for weeks now. He bashed Biden first.

Same old, same old. Conservatives love to go negative, but when the blow back comes, they cry foul! Bunch of danged old bullies, being picked on by leftist guerrillas. That's pronounced gay-ree-lahs by the way, not go-ri-lahs.

Too bad, so sad. Get over it!

[Sanslines]

Biden Attacks His Old Friend McCain:

"Sen. John McCain would have to “figure out which of the seven kitchen tables to sit at” when considering his own economic future, said Biden, jabbing at the man he called his personal friend.

It was a reference to McCain’s recent inartful admission — in a time of economic uncertainty — that he was not sure how many homes he owns."

Biden offered parts praise for Obama and criticism of McCain.

“You can’t change America and make things better for our senior citizens when you signed on to Bush’s scheme of privatizing Social Security,” he said.

“You can’t change America and end this war in Iraq when you declare — and again these are John’s words — ’No one has supported President Bush in Iraq more than I have,’ end of quote. ladies and gentlemen, you can’t change America, you can’t change America when you know your first four years as president will look exactly like the last eight years of George Bush’s presidency.”

McCain called Biden, his longtime Senate colleague and friend, to congratulate him, McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds said. "It was a brief conversation. They've known each other for years," he said.

It quickly produced a television ad featuring Biden's previous praise for McCain and comments critical of Obama. In an ABC News television interview last year, Biden had said he stood by an earlier statement that Obama was not yet ready to be president and "the presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training."

"There has been no harsher critic of Barack Obama's lack of experience than Joe Biden," McCain campaign spokesman Ben Porritt said in a statement. "Biden has denounced Barack Obama's poor foreign policy judgment and has strongly argued in his own words what Americans are quickly realizing — that Barack Obama is not ready to be president."

[Sanslines]

Poll: McCain has big lead in the South

BY RODDIE BURRIS

<!-- begin /production/story/credit_line_format.comp -->McClatchy News Service

<!-- end /production/story/credit_line_format.comp -->COLUMBIA, S.C. -- Republican Sen. John McCain enjoys a 16-point lead -- 51 percent to 35 percent -- among Southern voters over rival Democrat Sen. Barack Obama, a new poll by Winthrop University and ETV shows.
And, the further into the South you go, the larger McCain's lead grows, the poll of likely voters in 11 Southern states shows.
Likely voters in the Deep South -- those in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and South Carolina -- preferred McCain by a 25-point margin, 56 percent to 31 percent.
Southern voters said what they want most in a president is honesty, experience and shared values. Southern voters rated McCain ahead of Obama in each of those categories.
McCain's strongest support comes from white working-class Southerners -- who favor him by a 34-point margin -- and white evangelicals -- who favor the Arizonan by 54 percentage points.
The poll, which was conducted Aug. 1-17, has a margin of error of (plus or minus) 2.97 percentage points.
While political pundits have made much of Obama and Democrats trying to win over a Southern state or two from the Republicans in November, the Winthrop/ETV poll shows that will prove difficult.
''It's about keeping John McCain from sweeping the South. That's the key,'' said Scott Huffmon, associate professor of political science at Winthrop and director of the Winthrop/ETV Poll.
Rather than attempting to contest the presidential race across the South, a wiser strategy for Obama would be to concentrate on the closely contested Southern states, Huffmon said. ``You cannot fight a regional battle anymore.''
Individual state-by-state polls have shown Obama within striking distance of McCain in Virginia, North Carolina, Florida and Georgia.
Those states account for 70 votes that are up for grabs. The 11 Southern states in this poll will award 161 electoral votes, and 270 electoral votes are needed to win the presidency.
On the issues, McCain trumped Obama nearly across the board in the poll.
The economy easily was the most important issue to Southern voters in the upcoming presidential election. McCain bested Obama on which candidate would handle energy and gas prices better, and who would do the better job on taxes.
McCain also far out-distanced Obama on who would do a better job of handling the Iraq war and terrorism.
None of that surprised Jeanette Smith of Chapin, S.C., who described McCain as honest and decisive, strong on national security and unlikely to be manipulated by a foreign government.
''The economy and national security are neck-and-neck for me,'' said Smith, a 54-year-old bookkeeper and mother of four. ``In fact, I'm not even sure they are separate issues.''
On illegal immigration, sometimes an Achilles' heel for McCain, and moral values, the four-term senior senator from Arizona again stood taller with Southern voters than Obama.
''Illegal immigration needs to be controlled,'' said 76-year-old Evelyn Perry of Fort Mill, S.C., who was among those surveyed. ``I just haven't really understood what [McCain's position] is on that -- but it needs to be controlled.''
Even without those specifics, Perry said she trusts McCain more. ``Overall, I just think McCain understands better.''
However, in a glimmer of hope for the Democratic nominee-to-be, more likely Southern voters polled said Obama ''understands the problems Americans face in their daily lives'' better than McCain does.
However, Deep South and working-class white voters disagreed, saying McCain understands them best.
''Senator Obama has a great deal of work to do if he plans to turn the Southern states in his favor,'' said Adolphus Belk Jr., who helped design the poll and teaches political science and African-American Studies at Winthrop.
Belk said Obama has to do a better job at defining himself for voters, moving beyond simply being a new face on the national stage. Obama also has to overcome religious and ethnic misinformation that continues to plague his candidacy, Belk said.
That's no short order in the South, either, said Obama supporter John Hines Jr. of Effingham, S.C. ''For older Americans, I think color is still an issue,'' said the 53-year-old paper maker.
Of those polled, 86 percent said race would not be an important factor in how they choose to vote. However, a quarter of all likely Southern voters surveyed said that if a candidate had a Muslim parent, it would impact their votes. Obama, who is a Christian, had a Muslim father.
Hines said he thinks race matters despite the poll results.
''I hate to knock on the color thing, I really do,'' said Hines, a native South Carolinian. ``But I think it's a factor.''
Still, Hines also had kind words for McCain. ''I really think whoever is elected, it will be good for America,'' he said.
Obama supporter Willie Greene, 50, of Patrick, S.C., said the Democrat has to focus on pocketbook issues, and be more assertive and less contemplative in responding to questions.
''Right now, they're seeing color,'' said Greene, a treatment plant operator. ``It's a big hurdle he would have to overcome, and I hate to say it, but he is at a big disadvantage in the South.''
STATE BY STATE POLLING
Republican U.S. Sen. John McCain leads Democratic U.S. Sen. Barack Obama across the South, according to the Winthrop/ETV poll. But the two are close in four Southern states that Democrats hope to win in November, according to Real Clear Politics, which compiles individual state polls and then produces an average from the various polls. A look at those states:
Virginia: McCain 46 percent -- Obama 45 percent
North Carolina: McCain 47 percent -- Obama 43 percent
Georgia: McCain 50 percent -- Obama 43 percent
Florida: McCain 47 percent -- Obama 44 percent

Source: Realclearpolitics.com

http://www.miamiherald.com/979/story/653374.html

[Sanslines]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" align=center bgColor=#ffffff border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top><!-- <headline>Slander is just fine when the left does it</headline> <source>Boston Globe</source> <teasetext>You're watching ''The O'Reilly Factor,'' FOX News Channel's popular interview show. The host is commenting acidly on the presidential campaign. To illustrate a point, he airs some video of Al Gore addressing the Democratic convention in Los Angeles. And as you watch, amazed, the words ''snipers wanted'' appear on the screen as Gore speaks.</teasetext> <byline>Jeff Jacoby</byline> <date> 12/28/2000</date> -->http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/File-Based_Image_Resource/from_provider_globe.gif (http://www.boston.com/globe) JEFF JACOBY
Slander is just fine when the left does it

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist, 12/28/2000

You're watching ''The O'Reilly Factor,'' FOX News Channel's popular interview show. The host is commenting acidly on the presidential campaign. To illustrate a point, he airs some video of Al Gore addressing the Democratic convention in Los Angeles. And as you watch, amazed, the words ''snipers wanted'' appear on the screen as Gore speaks.
It never happened, of course. But imagine the reaction if it had.
If O'Reilly ever pulled such a stunt, he would be pilloried from coast to coast. Editorials would sear him for joking about murder. Democrats would blast the "sick right-wing mentality" that thinks killing the vice president is humorous. Talk shows would seethe. The Federal Communications Commission would investigate. And Fox News, flooded with petitions demanding O'Reilly's head, would be forced to take him off the air.
That's the script, more or less, when well-known conservatives aim vicious insults and hateful slurs at liberals. But when the venom moves in the other direction - when it's a conservative getting smeared - the indignation meter barely flutters.
Which is why there was no explosion over "Snipers Wanted."
The truth is, it did happen - but not on Fox News and not with an image of Al Gore. It was Craig Kilborn, host of CBS's "Late Late Show," who put out the call for snipers while showing footage of George W. Bush at the GOP convention. Eventually, CBS apologized, mumbling something about the joke being "inappropriate and regrettable" - and that was the end of it. No seething, no petitions, nobody taken off the air.
As each year draws to a close, I take a look at this persistent double standard. Each year, sad to say, there is no shortage of illustrations. Y2K was no exception.
Bush didn't realize the microphone was live when he described New York Times reporter Adam Clymer as a "major league *** hole," and got pummelled for his crudity. Dan Rather, for instance, scolded him for "meanness," "nastiness," and using "gutter language." But when Jesse Jackson accused Bush of using "Nazi tactics" to win the election, neither Rather nor any of his colleagues lifted an eyebrow.
Granted, it's not nice to use the A-word. But it's not nearly as vile as comparing your political opponents to acolytes of Adolf Hitler. Yet liberals routinely liken Republicans and conservatives to mass-murdering totalitarians, and no one objects.
The platform of the Texas Republican Party, Bill Clinton sneered in June, "was so bad that you could get rid of every fascist tract in your library if you just had a copy" of it. Joe Gellar, the Democratic Party chairman in Miami-Dade County, fumed that out-of-town Republicans protesting the ballot recounts were engaging in "brownshirt tactics."
And for those too dense to grasp the point - conservatives are the moral equals of the men who ran Auschwitz - filmmaker Michael Moore spelled it out.
"There are tens of thousands of people who lived through [the Holocaust], escaped the ovens, and are now living out their final years in South Florida," he wrote in demanding a new vote in Palm Beach County. "Sixty-two years ago tonight, the . . . German government sent goon squads throughout the country to trash and burn the homes, stores, and temples of its Jewish citizens. Seven years and six million slaughtered lives later, the Jewish people of Europe were virtually extinct. A few survived. I will not allow those who survived to . . . be abused again."
Anticonservative hate speech was plentiful in 2000. None of it provoked an outcry from the national media. Some lowlights:
Gay activist Dan Savage boasted on Salon.com of his efforts to infect Gary Bauer with flu. In his New York Press column, Alexander Cockburn suggested "dropping a tactical nuclear weapon on the Cuban section of Miami." A sickening TV spot by the NAACP showed a pickup truck dragging a chain and accused Bush of having "killed" James Byrd "all over again" when he opposed a change in the Texas hate crimes law.
But for pure vitriol, nothing matched the eruption of former Clinton aide Paul Begala, who wrote on MSNBC.com about the map with color-coded election returns that showed a sea of red for Bush with small blotches of blue for Gore.
"But if you look closely at that map you see a more complex picture. You see the state where James Byrd was lynched-dragged behind a pickup truck until his body came apart - it's red. You see the state where Matthew Shepard was crucified . . . for the crime of being gay - it's red. You see the state where right-wing extremists blew up a federal office building and murdered scores of federal employees: red. The state where an Army private thought to be gay was bludgeoned to death with a baseball bat . . . and the state where Bob Jones University spews its anti-Catholic bigotry: they're all red, too."
Ugly, nasty stuff. A conservative who talked this way about liberals would be lacerated. When will liberals stop talking this way about conservatives?

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2000/12/28/slander_is_just_fine_when_the_left_does_it?mode=PF


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[Sanslines]

Obama picks Biden to stop McCain gains

The Associated Press
Published: August 24, 2008


DENVER (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/08/24/america/NA-POL-US-Elections.php#): Democrat Barack Obama reached out to Senate colleague Joe Biden, the hard-charging foreign policy dean with working-class roots, clearly looking over his shoulder at Republican John McCain, who was drawing virtually even by attacking the Illinois senator as an inexperienced elitist not ready for the White House.

Obama praised his newly named running mate as a man "ready to step in and be president" and "what many others pretend to be — a statesman with sound judgment who doesn't have to hide behind bluster to keep America strong," a clear shot at McCain.

Thousands gathered on the grounds at the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois, as Obama introduced Biden in the place where the 47-year-old son of a Kenyan father and white American mother announced his improbable run for the presidency a year and a half ago.

Even though most polls predict Democrats making notable gains this year in Congress — given the unpopularity of President George W. Bush and Republican scandals — Obama has been unable, so far, to open a significant lead in polls leading up the Democratic National Convention that opens here Monday.

Biden was clearly chosen over lesser-known Democrats to plug holes in Obama's relatively thin resume on the national political scene and to blunt McCain's relentless attacks on his lack of experience at a time when the United States is fighting two wars.

While polls show voters are most concerned about the country's wobbly economy — home mortgage foreclosures, high fuel costs and growing unemployment — McCain's appeal appears to be growing out of the lingering shock to Americans' sense of security nearly seven years ago when terrorists killed thousands in attacks in New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001.

Biden is a 35-year Senate veteran from Delaware, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and an unabashed political battler who showed straight away that he was keen to take on McCain.

Diving straight into the fray, Biden recalled McCain's recent inability to say how many homes he owns even as Americans are struggling not to lose theirs to mortgage bankers.

"Ladies and gentlemen, your kitchen table is like mine. You sit there at night ... after you put the kids to bed and you talk, you talk about what you need. You talk about how much you are worried about being able to pay the bills. Well, ladies and gentlemen, that's not a worry John McCain has to worry about. ... He'll have to figure out which of the seven kitchen tables to sit at," Biden said.

As Democrats quickly coalesced around the 47-year-old Obama's selection of Biden, Republicans recycled the Delaware senator's less-than-favorable past descriptions of Obama during the Democratic primary campaign when he, too, was seeking the party's nomination.

"There has been no harsher critic of Barack Obama's lack of experience than Joe Biden," McCain campaign spokesman Ben Porritt said in a statement.

McCain telephoned Biden, his longtime Senate colleague, to congratulate him, McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said.

But McCain's campaign wasted no time trying to turn the selection to Obama's disadvantage.

It quickly produced a television ad featuring Biden's previous praise for McCain and comments critical of Obama. In an ABC News television interview last year, Biden had said he stood by an earlier statement that Obama was not yet ready to be president and "the presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training."

But some of Biden's Republican colleagues in the Senate praised him. Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska called Biden "the right partner for Barack Obama" and the decision "good news for Obama and America."

The newly named running mate moved center stage in downtown Springfield in shirt-sleeves at a brisk trot that belied his 65 years. He embraced Obama and said: "I'm glad to be here."

Obama's remarks were carefully crafted to emphasize Biden's accomplishments in the Senate, his working-class Catholic roots in Scranton, Pennsylvania, and — above all — his experience on foreign policy. Obama expects Biden to help him appeal to middle- and working-class voters in battleground states like Ohio and Pennsylvania who favored Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who nearly upended Obama in the primaries.
Obama recounted the personal tragedy that struck Biden in 1972, within days of his election to the Senate at age 29, when his first wife and their infant daughter were killed in an automobile accident.

He said Biden raised his surviving children as a single parent, commuting between the Capitol and Delaware daily on the train.

"For decades, he has brought change to Washington, but Washington hasn't changed him," Obama said, attempting to blunt an emerging Republican line of attack that notes Biden's 30-plus years in the polished corridors of the Capitol.

"He's an expert on foreign policy whose heart and values are rooted firmly in the middle class."

Biden picked up on Obama's pledge to bring change to the nation, criticizing McCain as offering a continuation of Bush's unpopular policies.
"You can't change America when you know your first four years as president will look exactly like the last eight years of George Bush's presidency," Biden said.

Biden has established a generally liberal voting record and a reputation as a long-winded orator. As a member of the Judiciary Committee — he was its chairman from 1987 to 1995 — he has played a key role in considering anti-crime legislation, Supreme Court nominees and constitutional issues.
While the war in Iraq has been supplanted as the campaign's top issues by the economy in recent months, the recent Russian invasion of Georgia has returned foreign policy to the forefront.

Last weekend, Biden visited Georgia in his capacity as Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman at the request of Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili.

Biden voted to authorize the Iraq war, but long ago became one of the Senate's surest critics of the conflict. He won praise for a plan for peace in Iraq that would divide the country into federal districts along ethnic and sectarian lines. His son, Beau, attorney general of Delaware, is due to spend a tour of duty in Iraq beginning this fall with his National Guard unit.
Biden dropped out of the 2008 presidential race after a poor finish in the leadoff Iowa caucuses. It was Biden's second try for the White House. The first ended badly in 1988 when he was caught lifting lines from a British speech.

The Obama campaign sent a text message announcing his choice to supporters' phones and e-mail addresses about 3 a.m. EDT (0700 GMT) on Saturday, the latest innovation by a tech-savvy operation that has deftly used the Web as a fundraising and organizing tool. But the planned rollout was pre-empted when word of Obama's choice was reported on Friday night.

Bill Burton, a spokesman for the campaign, said Obama had called Biden on Thursday to offer him the vice presidential spot on the ticket.

After the Springfield rally, Biden returned to Delaware to prepare for the fall campaign. Obama was returning to Chicago before heading out on a trip across swing states en route to the convention.

On the Republican side, several party officials said that McCain had not settled on a running mate, although former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty were under serious consideration.

McCain was expected to announce his choice before the Republican convention which begins Sept. 1 in St. Paul, Minnesota.
<!-- pagination -->
<!-- pagination --><!-- sidebar -->

[jon71]

Yes McCain leads in the south but thankfully by less that Republicans typically do. N. Carolina was close in 1992 and I think it was 1964 the last time that Virginia was in play. The counterbalance to that is that McCain has already conceded New England and the West Coast. With expected pick ups of Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio, and possibilities like Missouri, Virginia, Florida, N. Carolina and maybe one or two others the map looks really good. Thankfully the state by state looks better for Senator Obama than the national polls even. I'm very optimistic.

[Naturist Mark]

Slander is just fine when the left does it

The right and men who live off their second wives' inherited wealth

Rush Limbaugh: "He's basically a skirt-chaser, folks. He's a gigolo. Well, there aren't too many of these companies that have little heiresses running around that are single, have 500 million that some guy can marry into."

by Glenn Greenwald (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/22/gigolo/index.html)

Aug. 22, 2008 | What's most notable about John McCain's confusion over the number of homes he owns isn't merely that it demonstrates that, after running his campaign based on depicting Barack Obama as an out-of-touch elitist and himself as the all-American Everyman, McCain lives a life that is about as far removed from the Average American as one can get, and has done so for decades. What's notable is how McCain was able to live that way. McCain himself isn't actually rich. He just lives off the inherited wealth of his much younger former mistress and now-second-wife -- for whom he dumped his older and disfigured first wife -- and who then used her family's money to fund McCain's political career and keep him living in extreme luxury (after insisting that he sign a prenuptial agreement, which would make McCain the first U.S. President to have one (http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/04/18/flaunting-your-assets.aspx)).

In 2004, numerous leading right-wing pundits had many things to say about men who do that:

Joseph Farah, World Net Daily, "President Gigolo?" (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38677):

But if there is one characteristic of Kerry's life that should disqualify him absolutely as a candidate for president, it is the fact that he has sought out millionaire wives to take care of him. Not to put too fine a point on it, he's a serial gigolo.

Let me ask you this: How many single women do you know worth a hundred million dollars or more? . . . After raising children with her, Kerry sought and received an annulment of that long-term marriage. Then he married Teresa Heinz Kerry, the widow of a Senate colleague five years his senior. She is worth approximately $500 million.

Is marrying well good preparation for serving as the president of the United States? . . . . He's always had a net underneath him throughout his political career -- in his case, a net woven of homespun 24K gold.

And, once again, as Boteach points out, his second wife, Teresa made him sign a prenuptial agreement when they were wed: "Which begs the question: If his own wife doesn't trust him with her money, why should we trust him with ours?"

Teresa Heinz Kerry is not sure about her husband's character. Are you?

Rush Limbaugh, throughout 2004 (http://mediamatters.org/items/200405020008):

I mean, [Kerry]'s been there, but he's basically a skirt-chaser, folks. He's a gigolo. . . .Kerry is cheap. Most gigolos are. I mean -- I think it -- I think it goes with the, with the definition. . . .[W]hat do you consider a fair wage? John Kerry considers a fair wage a wife with 500 million. So, he had to find a company that had one. Well, there aren't too many of these companies that have little heiresses running around that are single, have 500 million that some guy can marry into. . . .Because see, Al Gore's daddy was a senator and Al Gore's daddy worked his way up from wealth and power to wealth and power. I mean, he got more of it than anybody ever dreamed of for having as little to go on. I mean, he's one of those old boys. You know how that worked back then. Then John Kerry's daddy is his wives. (laughter) I mean, he's a gigolo. Everybody knows this. There's nobody in our party really has much respect for this guy and you can see it last night, but I can't say that. I mean, you got sugar daddy wife back then. You got sugar daddy wife now. He worked his way up from a blue blood to a platinum American Express card, and it doesn't have his name on it.

Knight Ridder, October 30, 2004:

In Kissimmee, Fla., when Cheney brought up Kerry's name, a listener shouted, "He's a gigolo!" Cheney's response: "Ahhh, I'm not sure. I got to concentrate here on my work."

Hannity & Colmes, Jan. 24, 2004:

ANN COULTER: John Kerry can't really speak to the middle class tax cuts, inasmuch as he is ...

SEAN HANNITY: Yes.

ANN COULTER: ... a kept man. He lives off the money made by other men and left to their daughters or wives.

Good Morning America, October 5, 2004:

CHARLES GIBSON: In going, in going through the book, John Kerry. You refer to him as a gigolo, the male Anna Nicole Smith . . . . What does that achieve, Ann?

ANN COULTER: Well, okay, then I don't want to hear him talk about a middle class tax cut when he has made his living living off rich women. I mean, it is simply a fact that he has married two heiresses. His specialty in life, I mean, if he has an economic plan, I think the one I'd like to hear about is how to snooker millionairesses into marrying me and living off them. I mean, that is not an, a, a trivial point.

New York Times, March 14, 2004 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE7DB1E3EF937A25750C0A9629C8B 63):

Comedians have tried the Rich Guy persona along with a variation of the Gold Digger, which Jay Leno used in explaining how Mr. Kerry would eliminate the federal deficit: "He said all we have to do is find a really rich country like Switzerland and marry it."

Rush Limbaugh Online, "John Kerry's Resume" (http://rushonline.com/kerry/resume.htm):

[Kerry] has lived the life of a millionaire living off the inherited wealth of his two wives. As an Ivy League educated millionaire who did not have to work for his fortune, Mr. Kerry never had to worry about the money he earned, the taxes he paid, or the programs he and Ted Kennedy forced the rest of us to pay for. . . . Mr. Kerry Heinz is not effected (sic) when these neighborhoods are destroyed and working class families lose the largest asset in their retirement plans -- their home's value.

Rabbi Smuley Boteach, World Net Daily, May 25, 2004 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38643):

Now, having a wife who provides you with a private jet and eight multimillion-dollar vacation homes provides for a comfortable life. But is this the right preparation for becoming president? . . .

To be sure, that does not mean Kerry never did an honest day's work in his life. On the contrary, he was a successful prosecutor, lieutenant governor and distinguished senator. But even while he did these jobs, his wives' wealth always gave him a safety net. He was going to be taken care of whether he succeeded professionally or not. . . .

Whether Kerry wins or loses the presidency, he will still be living like a king. For most people, that would be a blessing. But for someone who wants to be the president of the United States, having such a significant fallback position is actually a curse.

Alas, there is yet one other important consideration that should get us all thinking. Before they married, Teresa Heinz made John Kerry sign a prenuptial agreement. Which begs the question: If his own wife doesn't trust him with her money, why should we trust him with ours?

Taki Theodoracopulos, American Conservative, May 24, 2004 (http://www.amconmag.com/article/2004/may/24/00031/):

If John Kerry wins in November, he will be the premiere president of this great country of ours to be also a gigolo. The dictionary defines "gigolo" as a man supported by a woman in return for his sexual attentions and companionship. It might sound rough for John Kerry, but it's right to the point. Let’s face it. The 44th president (maybe) is as close to a gigolo as I can think of, and I have known many.

John F. Cullinan, National Review, July 15, 2004 (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/cullinan200407150801.asp):

To the mayor's ill-considered suggestion that commuters simply work from home, take vacation (on Menino's schedule) or just lighten up, the Boston Herald tartly responded with an editorial aptly headlined DNC to commuters: shut up, stay home. Howie Carr, the most irreverent local political columnist [who routinely referred to Kerry as "Gigolo John" and "Senator Gigolo"], greeted last week's addition of Sen. John Edwards to the Democratic ticket with this puzzler: "For this dynamic duo" — helpfully identified as "the gigolo and the ambulance chaser" — "all of Boston is to be placed under house arrest for four days later this month?

Michelle Malkin, "Limericks for John Kerry," July 24, 2007 (http://michellemalkin.com/2007/07/24/limericks-for-john-kerry/):

Lucianne’s rhyming readers have responded with their own verses. A sample:

There once was a phony named Jawn

Who almost sailed in on a con

He thought he was shifty

But got beached by the Swifty

Now lives as the Gigolo Mon

Somehow, the deep stupidity of our political discourse actually manages to escalate during presidential campaigns, becoming even more vapid and idiotic than normal. But, as I argued continuously when I did my book tour in April and May for Great American Hypocrites, this is the kind of campaign the GOP runs every election and in which they specialize, and there are only two options for Democrats in response: (1) purport to "rise above it" and thus ensure that they get slaughtered in a one-sided, one-way War of Personality Demonization which renders issues irrelevant (hence: the all-American Everyman War Hero versus the rich, out-of-touch, effete elitist), or (2) attack the GOP candidate using the same lowly character themes in order to neutralize the attacks and prevent the election from being decided on these grounds. It's good to see the Obama campaign, finally, engaging these issues aggressively. As I wrote in my book:

The reason why this has worked is that there are almost never any attacks on these myths, no aggressive examination of the real lives of these leaders. Critics of Republicans shy away from these themes. There is a squeamishness to use their own weapons against them. . . . It needs to be shoved into the media's faces and into our public discourse how false and deceitful and artificial are these "Republican Values" and personality attributes that they concoct for themselves. To do that, the most prominent right-wing political leaders need to be put under a microscope -- their actual lives and beliefs -- to show how lacking they really are in the virtues they claim to exude and revere.

There needs to be a lot more focus of this sort on John McCain's "character," given that, from now until November, no matter what Obama does, the Rovian disciples managing John McCain's candidacy will ensure his campaign is about little other than these sorts of slimy, personality-based, Freak Show attacks on Obama. It's what the GOP does and it's what the media is capable of disseminating.

-- Glenn Greenwald (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/22/gigolo/index.html)

[NakedGary]

1. http://www.obamacrimes.com/index.php/component/content/article/1-philip-j-berg-esq-files-federal-lawsuit-requesting-obama-be-removed-as-a-candidate-as-he-does-not-meet-the-qualifications-for-president

2. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2066207/posts

[Qikdraw]

Lawsuit filed - Obama not qualified for Office

And here I thought it was McCain who wasn't born on US soil...

[Fitz1980]

Free Republic is a site populated with liers, frauds and hate; basically everything that the right accuses Daily Kos of being, except in the case of Free Republic it's actually true and not hyperbole.

As for Obama not being eligible, he was born in Hawaii 2 years after it became a state, what more need be said? People are trying to make other claims but any of that has as much validity as sightings of Bigfoot so if you have any of them feel free to post them.

[Qikdraw]

Slander is just fine when the left does it

Its not slander if articles cite sources and quotes, such as Cindy McCain's changing 'Mother Teresa' story, or John McCain's changing votes or statements. When you back it up with numerous articles or even video to prove a point, its not slander.

It IS slander when articles continue to be written about something that has already been debunked, shown to be wrong, or flat out lies.

[Sanslines]

Its not slander if articles cite sources and quotes, such as Cindy McCain's changing 'Mother Teresa' story, or John McCain's changing votes or statements. When you back it up with numerous articles or even video to prove a point, its not slander.

It IS slander when articles continue to be written about something that has already been debunked, shown to be wrong, or flat out lies.

Would you not agree that BOTH the LEFT and the RIGHT are capable of slander??

[Sanslines]

The right and men who live off their second wives' inherited wealth..........



For the sake of completeness, how about a detailed list of slander that the left has lodged against the right. This assumes that you agree that BOTH the Left and the Right are capable of slander. You do agree with this statement without qualifiers, do you not???

[Sanslines]

Free Republic is a site populated with liers, frauds and hate; basically everything that the right accuses Daily Kos of being, except in the case of Free Republic it's actually true and not hyperbole.


Gee you make it sound like some kind of "Smirking Chimp".

If you read what Philip J. Berg wrote in the first link that Gary posted, you would have read this:


1. Where was Obama born? Hawaii; an island off of Hawaii; Kenya; Canada; or ?
2. Was he a citizen of Kenya, Indonesia and/or Canada?
3. What was the early childhood of Obama in Hawaii; in Kenya; in Indonesia when he was adopted; and later, back to Hawaii?
4. An explanation as to the various names utilized by Obama that include: Barack Hussein Obama; Barry Soetoro; Barry Obama; Barack Dunham; and Barry Dunham.
5. Illinois Bar Application – Obama fails to acknowledge use of names other than Barack Hussein Obama, a blatant lie.


"If Obama can prove U.S. citizenship, we still have the issue of muti-citizenship with responsibilities owed to and allegance to other countries." (McCain does not have multiple citizenships.)


"Berg filed this suit for the best interests of the Democratic Party and the citizens of the United States". Berg stated: “I filed this action at this time to avoid the obvious problems that will occur when the Republican Party raises these issues after Obama is nominated."


This is going to be a tremedous mess for Obama. If this lawsuit disqualifies Obama, then he is finished in politics. If this lawsuit is dismissed, even the allegations of having multiple names and loyalties with scare away some voters and this will cost him support from Independents who might have been inclined to vote for him. Only the party loyalists will ignore or reject all of this.


If Berg is proven to be a fanatic Hillary supporter, then this will backfire on Hillary and she will suffer. What a mess!

[usmc1]

The Change Obama Needed
VP candidate Joe Biden's foreign-policy experience is helpful, but what's more important is his scrappy instincts and ability to connect with Hillary Clinton's supporters.

Richard Wolffe
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 5:51 PM ET Aug 23, 2008

When Barack Obama announced his presidential campaign in Springfield, Ill., on a frigid winter's day 19 months ago, he admitted that he was short on Washington experience. "I know I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington," he said. "But I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change."

On Saturday he returned to the same spot in front of the old statehouse—this time in a cauldron of a summer afternoon—to announce a vice-presidential pick who has spent half a life immersed in the ways of Washington.

To Obama's aides, Joe Biden's selection as the veep candidate represents less of a turnaround than a complement to the candidate—both in the presidential election and beyond. "One of things we know is that you've got to have people who can bring about change," said one senior Obama aide. "Unfortunately change is going to have to go through Capitol Hill, and you've got to have somebody who is knowledgeable about Capitol Hill. The difference between John McCain and Joe Biden is that one is on the side of change, and one isn't."

Obama's inner circle started the VP process convinced that they would be looking for someone who would reinforce the candidate's brand, underscoring the theme of change and post-partisan politics. Instead, they ended up with someone who seemingly fills the gaps in the candidate's skill set.

The shortlist, according to senior aides, narrowed down rapidly, several weeks ago to a half-dozen names. Contrary to several reports, Obama did not make his final decision while on vacation in Hawaii, but was still considering his options earlier this week. And contrary to much of the post-game analysis, the conflict between Russia and Georgia played no role in Obama's decision, his staff said.

It wasn't until Thursday, as he traveled through Virginia on a bus tour, that Obama called Evan Bayh, the Indiana senator, and Tim Kaine, the Virginia governor, to tell them he had gone in another direction. Several other unnamed candidates learned the news at the same time, when Biden too learned of his new role. When Obama called Biden, his veep pick was at the dentist with his wife who was having root canal work. Obama's aides say they were impressed that loquacious Biden kept the news secret for more than 24 hours.

In public, Obama's aides argue there are two main factors that make Biden attractive: his foreign policy experience, and his image as a humble family man from Wilmington, Del. While Biden has decades of experience on Capitol Hill, he commutes to Wilmington each day, and has maintained what sounds like an unscripted voice.

But in private, they point to a much more immediate and strategic reason for his elevation to veep nominee: his killer instincts as a campaigner and his cultural reach.

Obama's aides admire Biden's skills as a debater and chief surrogate who can fillet the Republican ticket in speeches and media interviews. For all his problems as a verbose questioner in the Senate, he proved he could turn a one-liner and land a zinger better than almost anyone campaigning for president this year. Biden's abilities to play the role of attack dog was a winning argument for his selection, allowing Obama himself to remain above the fray.

"He'll have a fist in the face of John McCain every day and I think he has this level of gravitas as well," said one senior adviser to Obama. "We're lucky to have both. It showcases Obama's judgment that he chose somebody like this—a good pick not just for August or October, but a good pick in the event that something happens when he's president of the United States."

Team Obama also points to Biden's demographic and geographic reach. As a Roman Catholic who was born in Scranton, Pa., Biden can campaign effectively in the Rust Belt states that proved so immune to Obama's charms during the primary contests against Hillary Clinton. "He's ready to get out," said another senior aide, who added that Biden will travel extensively across the country. "He really wants to do this."

The Obama campaign believes the recent tightening of the polls is the result of one main factor: Republicans coming back into the fold for McCain. Their goal with Biden is to bring home the Democratic holdouts—especially the ones who voted for Clinton in the primaries. Those voters want more than reassurance about Obama's foreign policy credentials, in the campaign's assessment. They want someone who looks and sounds more like them and can connect with them on their own terms about the economy. On that basis, the campaign points to Biden's record of working to put 100,000 new cops on the streets, to his ability to talk freely and easily in union halls, and to his limitless supply of stories about his humble Irish-American roots.

Those were some of the key characteristics that Obama cited as he introduced Biden on Saturday. "For months, I've searched for a leader to finish this journey alongside me, and to join in me in making Washington work for the American people," he said. "I searched for a leader who understands the rising costs confronting working people, and who will always put their dreams first."

Obama told Biden's story—his birth in Scranton to a working family of very modest means, with two core commitments: "to the Catholic faith and to the belief that in America, you can make it if you try." He cited Biden's record of putting more cops on the streets well before he talked about his foreign-policy experience.

"I can tell you that Joe Biden gets it. He's that unique public servant who is at home in a bar in Cedar Rapids and the corridors of the Capitol; in the VFW hall in Concord, and at the center of an international crisis," Obama said. "That's because he is still that scrappy kid from Scranton who beat the odds; the dedicated family man and committed Catholic who knows every conductor on that Amtrak train to Wilmington (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/08/23/the-amtrak-candidate.aspx). That's the kind of fighter who I want by my side in the months and years to come."

Within minutes of taking to the podium, Biden was showing his scrappiness and his folksy style. "Ladies and gentlemen, your kitchen table is like mine," he said. "You sit there at night … after you put the kids to bed and you talk, you talk about what you need. You talk about how much you are worried about being able to pay the bills. Well, ladies and gentlemen, that's not a worry John McCain has to worry about. It's a pretty hard experience. He'll have to figure out which of the seven kitchen tables to sit at."

Locked in a tight election, Obama needs a fighter who can campaign in the bars and VFW halls that still seem foreign to him. Someone who can end his speech saying this: "I'm here for the cops and the firefighters, the teachers and the line workers, the folks who live—the folks whose lives are the measure of whether the American dream endures." In that sense, Biden is the change the Obama campaign has been searching for.

[usmc1]

"These Times Require More Than A Good Soldier,
They Require A Wise Leader" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/23/obama-biden-rally-in-illi_n_120798.html)

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/35572/thumbs/r-NEW-BIDEN-TOP-huge.jpg (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/23/obama-biden-rally-in-illi_n_120798.html)
WATCH: OBAMA AND BIDEN SPEECHES
Biden: "This Is No Ordinary Time, This Is No Ordinary Election"... (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/23/obama-biden-rally-in-illi_n_120798.html)Obama: "Biden Has Brought Change To Washington, But Washington Hasn't Changed Him"... (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/23/obama-vp-speech-introduci_n_120840.html)Read Obama's Speech... (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/23/obama-vp-speech-introduci_n_120840.html)McCain: Biden A "Formidable" But "Wise" Choice... (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/23/mccain-biden-a-formidable_n_120889.html)Clinton: "Biden Will Be A Purposeful And Dynamic Vice President"... (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/23/gop-senators-cheer-biden_n_120810.html)WATCH: McCain Camp Responds With Attack Ad (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/28/joe-biden-obamas-vice-pre_n_115457.html)

[usmc1]

Its not slander if articles cite sources and quotes, such as Cindy McCain's changing 'Mother Teresa' story, or John McCain's changing votes or statements. When you back it up with numerous articles or even video to prove a point, its not slander.

It IS slander when articles continue to be written about something that has already been debunked, shown to be wrong, or flat out lies.

Correct, especially since "I'm an only child" Cindy McCain is a proven liar.

[usmc1]

Yes McCain leads in the south but thankfully by less that Republicans typically do. N. Carolina was close in 1992 and I think it was 1964 the last time that Virginia was in play. The counterbalance to that is that McCain has already conceded New England and the West Coast. With expected pick ups of Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio, and possibilities like Missouri, Virginia, Florida, N. Carolina and maybe one or two others the map looks really good. Thankfully the state by state looks better for Senator Obama than the national polls even. I'm very optimistic.

As you should be. Also, realize that this election is almost as much about 2010 as it is 2008.

[usmc1]

For the sake of completeness, how about a detailed list of slander that the left has lodged against the right. This assumes that you agree that BOTH the Left and the Right are capable of slander. You do agree with this statement without qualifiers, do you not???
Looked, and looked, and looked, and found there was no such list as you requested. But, I did find this outstanding bit of work.

http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?t=11729&page=2

Scroll down to: My Snake Fist Kung Fu is greater than your Eagle's Claw Kung Fu

[usmc1]

Would you not agree that BOTH the LEFT and the RIGHT are capable of slander??

Sure both are capable, but the right does it extensively, using untruths and half-truths! The defense for slander is truth. When one asserts that ("I'm an only child") Cindy McCain is a blatant liar (slanderous statement), one can prove it, making it defensible slander. The slander remains, but is defended and offers no tort.

Politicians generally have little to no protection against slander or libel because of "fair comment". And few right-wing politicians would want to test slanderous charges in court as they would have to be under oath. One thing to jack their jaws in the mosh pit of politics and quite another to have to speak the truth.

Which is why I am safe slandering your boy Bush as a dry-drunk sociopath. I have truth on my side, and the last thing that particular rakehell wants is to be on the witness stand under oath!

All this is to help you better understand slander, since you obviously have no concept of how it applies to politics.

[Naturist Mark]

Would you not agree that BOTH the LEFT and the RIGHT are capable of slander??

Capable? Sure.

But who is actually employing it as a standard tactic?

-Mark

[Sanslines]

Capable? Sure.

But who is actually employing it as a standard tactic?

-Mark

I am assuming that you firmly believe that Republicans almost exclusively resort to smear as a standard tactic. Is this a correct assumption?

If the answer is yes, then ask youself why?

Is it because it works?

If it does not work, then why would anyone want to use it?

If the ultimate goal is to win elections and smear works to win elections, then why would anyone not want to use it to get into office and then once in office promote one's agenda which is of utmost importance?

If you honestly believe that Obama's policies and agenda are of utmost importance and will save this nation from further disaster, then if I were you, I would be extremely angry that Obama does not use any and all means at his disposal to win this election. Elections are dirty and nasty business. That's the way it is and will be and it is up to each and every party to find what works best for them in terms of winning elections and then go about the business of winning them.

Btw, BOTH parties can and do use smear. It just might be that the Republicans are more effective at using it.

I would also hope that you will agree that militant loyalists from BOTH parties are hardly qualified to be objective. One side always blames the other side for everything and never admits to anything that their side does. They either ignore it, deny it, or continue to attack the opposition party. The moderate Democrats, Republicans, and Independents can be (and are for the most part are) fair and objective, are not consumed by hatred of the opposite party, and are the real hope of this nation. Hate is hate and is wrong regardless of where it is coming from. One side can not use the other side's hate as justification to hate back. Yet this is exactly what the militants from BOTH sides do. Perhaps at some level you will agree to this.

[usmc1]

Btw, BOTH parties can and do use smear. it just might be that the Republicans are more effective at using it.

Yeah, and way less effective at actually governing.

[Sanslines]

Mark,

What do you have to say about the allegations from Philip J. Berg?
Is this a hoax or is it real?
What do you believe that this means for Obama?

[Naturist Mark]

Mark,

What do you have to say about the allegations from Philip J. Berg?
Is this a hoax or is it real?
What do you believe that this means for Obama?

It is a smear, so far off the mark, and so easily dismissed (http://www.barackobama.com/images/fts/BO_birthcert.jpg) that even the "liberal media" won't run with it.

Berg is a die-hard Hillary supporter. He clearly hoped his filing would create enough fog that the Democratic superdelegates would jump to Hillary. Didn't work. His lawsuit is going nowhere.

-Mark

[Naturist Mark]

Now here is beauty of a hit piece from non other than the Associated Press' Washington Bureau Chief:

Analysis: Biden pick shows lack of confidence (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080823/ap_on_el_ge/veepstakes_analysis;_ylt=AngbiOFvE317nj8Hp3EB.hSs0 NUE)

As one commenter summed it up "the gist of this piece seems to be that Obama proved his weakness by picking a VP candidate that would actually help him. now if he would have picked a loser..that would show true character."

Gotta love that Liburl Media!

[Sanslines]

It is a smear, so far off the mark, and so easily dismissed (http://www.barackobama.com/images/fts/BO_birthcert.jpg) that even the "liberal media" won't run with it.

Berg is a die-hard Hillary supporter. He clearly hoped his filing would create enough fog that the Democratic superdelegates would jump to Hillary. Didn't work. His lawsuit is going nowhere.

-Mark

As I had mentioned before, there are MANY die hard Hillary supporters who will not give up Hillary without a fight and are fully capable of causing all sorts of problems. Berg's lawsuit may go nowhere in court, but it certainly will be used to raise doubts in the minds of people who may be inclined to vote for Obama. The end result is that it may cause Obama votes.

[Sanslines]

Now here is beauty of a hit piece from non other than the Associated Press' Washington Bureau Chief:

Analysis: Biden pick shows lack of confidence (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080823/ap_on_el_ge/veepstakes_analysis;_ylt=AngbiOFvE317nj8Hp3EB.hSs0 NUE)

As one commenter summed it up "the gist of this piece seems to be that Obama proved his weakness by picking a VP candidate that would actually help him. now if he would have picked a loser..that would show true character."

Gotta love that Liburl Media!

It appears that you don't agree with my above comments about hate and distortions from militants from BOTH sides of the political spectrum. Oh well.

[usmc1]

As I had mentioned before, there are MANY die hard Hillary supporters who will not give up Hillary without a fight and are fully capable of causing all sorts of problems. Berg's lawsuit may go nowhere in court, but it certainly will be used to raise doubts in the minds of people who may be inclined to vote for Obama. The end result is that it may cause Obama votes.
Conservative wishful thinking does not make it so!

[Qikdraw]

Would you not agree that BOTH the LEFT and the RIGHT are capable of slander??

Of course both sides are capable of it, and you're going to see some idiotic radical left wing bloggers do it, and you're going to see some mainstream right wing media do it. And that is one of the differences.

[Qikdraw]

As I had mentioned before, there are MANY die hard Hillary supporters who will not give up Hillary without a fight and are fully capable of causing all sorts of problems. Berg's lawsuit may go nowhere in court, but it certainly will be used to raise doubts in the minds of people who may be inclined to vote for Obama. The end result is that it may cause Obama votes.


My mother-in-law had a big church gathering at our house last night, and I met one of those upset Clinton voters. He kept saying the choices now are a lesser of two evils, and if I pointed out some good things Obama talks about he just said that politicians will say anything. My stock answer to this kind of thinking is that I know exactly where John McCain stands, and that scares me, its more of the same but more of it. With Obama, he may not have the 'experience', but he's been right more than he's been wrong, and while its true politicians say pretty much anything, I am more willing to give him a chance. If he messes it up, I'll be after him for that as I am after Bush for messing the country up.

[Boreas]

New Break!

Joe Biden attacks his long time friend! Yes, he is attacking John McCain, the very same John McCain that WAS his friend and the very same McCain that he sided with on many issues. Just goes to show what kind of loyal friend Joe Biden is.

He might as well join in with the rest of the domestic leftist guerillas that are out to get McCain! Now that they don't have Nixon to kick around any more they are after McCain! How utterly dastardly!!

I step away for 24 hours, and come back to a cut and paste war. I also note that poor John McCain is being attacked unmercifully. Poor man. :rolleyes: It must be based on falsehoods and twists from the left. :sneaky: Ho does he stand it???? :confused:

Now back to catching up.

[usmc1]

I step away for 24 hours, and come back to a cut and paste war. .

Yeah, I got there late, but held up my end well, I should say. What a rip! Not sure what the point was, sort of like a snowball fight, hell if they're flying, might as well sling a few. One of those Pavlovian response deals, I reckon.:laugh:shocked:rolleyes:

[Boreas]

Yeah, I got there late, but held up my end well, I should say. What a rip! Not sure what the point was, sort of like a snowball fight, hell if they're flying, might as well sling a few. One of those Pavlovian response deals, I reckon.:laugh:shocked:rolleyes:

Well, you have been known to sling a few snowballs in your time, that is for sure!

I am just in the mood to duck. I frankly do not know those intricate details of the US system, so do not feel qualified to sling. :sneaky:

[Qikdraw]

I am just in the mood to duck. I frankly do not know those intricate details of the US system, so do not feel qualified to sling. :sneaky:

Oh sure. Rub it in! :p

But you have wondered about a Bill of Rights, etc... Here is the US Constitution online. http://www.usconstitution.net/ Its where I go to look up stuff. My wife tells me that the first 10 Ammendments are called the Bill of Rights here in the US. Not quite like the Cdn Bill of Rights, but sorta kinda can be considered the same.

So if you have questions you can check that out. Its a handy resource.

[Boreas]

Oh sure. Rub it in! :p

Anytime! :D

Thanks for the link. I will check it out.

[Naturist Mark]

It appears that you don't agree with my above comments about hate and distortions from militants from BOTH sides of the political spectrum. Oh well.

If you go back, you'll see I agree. But noted that there is not an even distribution (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showpost.php?p=206531&postcount=616). What is the exception for one side is SOP for the other. Why is that?

-Mark

[usmc1]

Their nominee for the "just a heart beat" away from leadership of the free world position, is a former beauty-queen, mayor of 5400 population Dogsquat, Alaska and then Governor of Alaska, population 670,000. Hell guys, there's twenty cities in the U.S., including Charlotte (even on the days the cars ain't racing), with larger populations than the entire state of Alaska.

Her claim to fame is she challenged Alaska Republicans on ethics. Dang, talk about a no-brainer. Alaska, Ted Stevens, Bridge To Nowhere. Now, c'mon, that's some low hanging fruit just waiting to be plucked...not exactly Profiles in Courage stuff! Big whoop!

The VP debates should be fun.

Biden: Well based on my thirty years experience in foreign polcity and domestic affairs...

Palin: Well my former brother-in-law and I once shooed a polar bear out of Skagway... That shoudl count for something.

Do they really think this will move women? Not unless she comes out for equal pay, and equal rights, and right to choose. But, that would have her debating McCain, and McCain's already doing that quiet well. Debating himself.

I wonder if she knows he was a POW?

Is this the best standard bearer the conservatives have to buff up McCain's credentials? They just have to believe that it will help them with disaffected Hillary supporters---damn, you don't think they've started to believe their own propaganda, do you? And are now acting on it. Tres bizarre!

Pinch me, and tell me I'm dreaming. I'll tell you what, strawberry blintzes washed down with Wild Turkey will do that to you. Could have been the jalepeno poppers and Dos Equis, too.

[jon71]

She was so concerned about the ethics violations of others while hoping no one calls her on her own ethical shortcomings. She leaned on the state government to fire her brother-in-law after he and her sister had a nasty divorce. I'll bet you'll see more mention of that over the next two months. I seem to remember something about people helping someone with a mote in the eye while they have a beam in their own eye.

[brazhunter]

I was wondering how long it would take before the dems start bawling about Palin not having enough experience when the candidate THEY chose to sit in the White House, not one a heart-beat away, has even less experience and NO, NONE, ZERO, executive experience.

Whadda hoot! The irony is so sweet though probably completely lost on the blind followers of the Chosen One!

[Qikdraw]

I was wondering how long it would take before the dems start bawling about Palin not having enough experience when the candidate THEY chose to sit in the White House, not one a heart-beat away, has even less experience and NO, NONE, ZERO, executive experience.

Whadda hoot! The irony is so sweet though probably completely lost on the blind followers of the Chosen One!

What executive experience does McCain have? Was he secretly president at some point?

Palin is an interesting choice for McCain, she is very popular in what has become a swing state, she believes in more drilling, she is anti-choice, she has stomped on corruption, and she is a good speaker.
Her problems are she vetoed a same sex marriage ban bill as governor (bad for republican's base), she has supported Obama's energy plan, she doesn't know what a VP does, she has her own scandal ongoing, and she's an unknown. (all these can be easily looked up)

I really do not think she is going to take many female or Hillary voters away. One thing I have read in a number of articles is that 'she's no Hillary'. I don't think picking a female for VP is going to help McCain's anti woman stances on many issues. Obama would be smart to keep on McCain during debates with that. He can't just point to his VP and ignore his voting record. Typically having an unknown as a VP choice has not done well. This will also bring into play McCain's age and health, if he were to no longer be able to continue as president would you feel comfortable with Palin as CinC? McCain can no longer use one of his most powerful attacks against Obama, his inexperience, as his VP choice has less than he does. She's been governor less time than he has been running for president.

All in all its an interesting choice, but I don't think it will work out for him. She's a good speaker, and that may make up for a lot though. We will see.

[jon71]

One big difference Braz is that your candidate is 72 and has had 4 bouts of cancer. Let's be honest, McCain already has one foot in the grave. There is an elevated chance that if he won Palin would be Pres. Obama is 47 and in perfect health. The biggest problems with Palin is how obscenely conservative she is. She is as anit-choice as anyone could be. Her attack on gay rights as govt. was basically a hate crime. Her environmental record is literally as bad as it could be. She tried to sue the Bush administration for putting polar bears on the endangered species list, even though they're obviously endangered. Add to that the ethics violation for firing a commissioner because he wouldn't fire her brother-in-law and the fact that the same people who are going to jail for buying Ted. Stevens bought her too, it's not a pretty picture.

[usmc1]

I was wondering how long it would take before the dems start bawling about Palin not having enough experience when the candidate THEY chose to sit in the White House, not one a heart-beat away, has even less experience and NO, NONE, ZERO, executive experience.

Whadda hoot! The irony is so sweet though probably completely lost on the blind followers of the Chosen One!

Dang it you all conservative boys are a hoot. Last week, yo daddy, Karl (evilmf) Rove was badgering Dems that if Kaine was selected to be VEEP, he would have only three years of experience as a governor. And Obama, etc, etc. When that ploy didn't work, it got cashed in and off the table. Obviously experience doesn't mean the same to conservatives as it did last week.

But, y'awl just squeel real good when we'uns cram the same argument up your old wazzoo!

But, let's put that aside and talk about McCain's sex fantasies. What is this thing about beauty queens. Dumps his beauty queen first wife, for a younger beauty queen. Poor Kay Bailey Hutchison, she just got bumped aside by a younger beauty queen. Bless her pointed little nose, did the best she could in defending someone she'd never heard of.

Y'know, I think there's a website already up. VPILF

Are you ready for the one-liners about her and he alone on the campaign trail. VPILF. gag! It's going be nasty.

Aside from the disgustingly piggish sexism of such a thing, what is on McCain's mind to expose himself to such ridicule. It won't be nice, it won't be fair, but VPILF will be there throughout. Why expose himself to it?

The part time mayor of WHERE? The five-month governor of a state that is smaller in population than at least 20-US cities? As one breath away from the presidency...why expose himself to such questions?

And, yes her administration is under investigation for abuse of power, and she has already had to retract statements and issues clarifications and get others to fall on their swords. This investigation is live, right now, and will be ongoing while she's running for VEEP...dang, why would he want to take that on? "Sorry, sara won't be here for our rally tonight, she's back in Saskootch giving a deposition about her brother-in-law's threats against her father."

The charges are serious enough that the Republican legislature has brought in an indepeendent legal scholar to oversee the investigation.

But that's ok, she's anti-abortion, and likes to shoot moose, so she'll be just swell running the Senate...

No doubt she's a laudable woman, she chose to carry to term rather than aborting a Down's Syndrome child. That says a lot about her courage and convictions, but it is damned shame that she doesn't wish to allow other women the same opportunity to choose.

McCain's health and age is an issue. A man, with his history, in his 70s, is an underwriting hazard. At that age, health changes occur quickly--sometimes very literally overnight, and, while he is vital and healthy today, that could change quicker than a cocaine heartbeat. Yes, that is true for all of us, but, in the 70s those changes are more likely and more pronounced and more debilitating.

It is the height of arrogance for him not to choose a qualified successor.

But, that's fine, it will be fun watching you guys try to defend this one as it unravels.:laugh:

[brazhunter]

What executive experience does McCain have? Was he secretly president at some point?

Ummm... it's the dems who are bawling that Palin isn't sufficiently experienced though their 1 year senator is sufficiently worldly and wise. Maybe there's more to being a community organizer (what is that, anyway?) than I know about.

Bottom line, not matter how you swing it, she has at least as much leadership experience as Obama who would be learning on the job if elected as opposed to sitting in the 'maybe' chair in the unfortunate event something would happen to the POTUS.

[Qikdraw]

Ummm... it's the dems who are bawling that Palin isn't sufficiently experienced though their 1 year senator is sufficiently worldly and wise. Maybe there's more to being a community organizer (what is that, anyway?) than I know about.

Bottom line, not matter how you swing it, she has at least as much leadership experience as Obama who would be learning on the job if elected as opposed to sitting in the 'maybe' chair in the unfortunate event something would happen to the POTUS.


Actually you were the one asking how much 'executive experience' Obama has, which is why I quoted you.

As for Obama's experince you can point out that he has been right more than he has been wrong on issues.
He was right on the mortgage crisis when he warned of it over a year before it happened.
He was right in targeted attacks against terrorist targets are a good way to go.
He was right on talking with Iran.
He was right in 16 months being a good timetable.

As quick examples, the last 3 the Bush administration and McCain have jumped on board Obama's train.

Obama is not talking about his 'experience', but his judgement, and as he pointed out last night, how can you trust someone who agreed with Bush's judgement 90% of the time?

[tinhfwv]

Since Palin has more experience in government than Obama, as well as a more significant list of governing accomplishments, Obama's supporters cannot throw the "not enough experience" mud at Palin without hitting Obama.

[Naturist Mark]

LOL

I'm really really really tempted to have our Liberal fuehrer, Markos Moulitsas Zúñiga of Daily Kos, issue one of his secret directives to to all Democratic politicians and progressive bloggers to pretend to be awed and discouraged by John McCain's masterstroke in choosing Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. For God's sake, don't let on how delighted we are, or they might yet exchange her for a qualified candidate.

But this is just too good to not have fun from the very start.

Where to begin ... where to begin ...

How about - She's a extreme rightwing evangelical wackadoodle end-timer. Against abortion even in the case of rape. Opposes women's access to family planning services. She is a creationist.

Governor Palin on Creationism and Evolution:
"Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information....Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides."


I present to you the Governor Palin Education Plan:

<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ItUwv0TEwX4/SLhZzy4r6pI/AAAAAAAAAC4/QufhTuxDOrs/s1600-h/both-sides-lg.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ItUwv0TEwX4/SLhZzy4r6pI/AAAAAAAAAC4/QufhTuxDOrs/s400/both-sides-lg.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5240036912813304466" border="0" /></a>

Oh boy Oh boy Oh BOY! I vote that we hold 10 or 20 Vice presidential debates between Gov. Palin and Sen. Biden.

-Mark

[Qikdraw]

How good was Obama's speech? Pat Buchanan had to be cut off from gushing about it because of time (http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Play/32291/1/MSNBC-Buchanan-Gushing-082808.wmv/) (video)

'Experienced' Palin doesn't know what a VP does (http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Play/32313/1/Kudlow-Palin-VP.wmv/). (video)

[Naturist Mark]

Since Palin has more experience in government than Obama, as well as a more significant list of governing accomplishments, Obama's supporters cannot throw the "not enough experience" mud at Palin without hitting Obama.

ROTFLMAO!

Her "experience" before her 1.5 years as governor of a tiny (by population) state was as the part time mayor of a flyspeck village of 5500 people. I know several high school principals with better experience. Obama has had a stellar career by comparison.

<a href="http://mudflats.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/wasilla.jpg"><img class="size-large wp-image-1087" src="http://mudflats.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/wasilla.jpg?w=509&amp;h=382" alt="" width="509" height="382"></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Lovely Downtown Wasilla, Alaska</p>

As governor she started out well - utterly unqualified, but in a state with a thoroughly corrupt political culture she was the exception with relatively clean hands. But not for long. From the Alaskan blog Mudflats (http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/08/29/what-is-mccain-thinking-one-alaskans-perspective/): Here it is…what we in Alaska call “TrooperGate”.

Sarah Palin’s sister Molly married a guy named Mike Wooten who is an Alaska State Trooper. Mike and Molly had a rocky marriage. When the marriage broke up, there was a bitter custody fight that is still ongoing. During the custody investigation, all sorts of things were brought up about Wooten including the fact that he had illegally shot a moose (yes folks this is Alaska), driven drunk, and used a taser (on the test setting, he reminds us) on his 11-year old stepson, who supposedly had asked to see what it felt like. While Wooten has turned out to be a less than stellar figure, the fact that Palin’s father accompanied him on the infamous moose hunt, and that many of the dozens of charges brought up by the Palin family happened long before they were ever reported smacked of desperate custody fight. Wooten’s story is that he was basically stalked by the family.

After all this, Wooten was investigated and disciplined on two counts and allowed to kept his position with the troopers. Enter Walt Monegan, Palin’s appointed new chief of the Department of Public Safety and head of the troopers. Monegan was beloved by the troopers, did a bang-up job with minimal funding and suddenly got axed. Palin was out of town and Monegan got “offered another job” (aka fired) with no explanation to Alaskans. Pressure was put on the governor to give details, because rumors started to swirl around the fact that the highly respected Monegan was fired because he refused to fire the aforementioned Mike Wooten. Palin vehemently denied ever talking to Monegan or pressuring Monegan in any way to fire Wooten, or that anyone on her staff did. Over the weeks it has come out that not only was pressure applied, there were literally dozens of conversations in which pressure was applied to fire him. Monegan has testified to this fact, spurring an ongoing investigation by the Alaska state legislature. But, before this investigation got underway, Palin sent the Alaska State Attorney General out to do some investigative work of his own so she could find out in advance what the real investigation was going to find. (No, I’m not making this up). The AG interviewed several people, unbeknownst to the actual appointed investigator or the Legislature! Palin’s investigation of herself uncovered a recorded phone call retained by the Alaska State Troopers from Frank Bailey, a Palin underling, putting pressure on a trooper about the Wooten non-firing. Todd Palin (governor’s husband) even talked to Monegan himself in Palin’s office while she was away. Bailey is now on paid administrative leave.

As if this weren’t enough, Monegan’s appointed replacement Chuck Kopp, turns out to have been the center of his own little scandal. He received a letter of reprimand and was reassigned after sexual harrassment allegations by a former coworker who didn’t like all the unwanted kissing and hugging in the office. Was he vetted? Obviously not. When he was questioned about all this, his comment was that no one had asked him and he thought they all knew. Kopp, defiant, still claimed to have done nothing wrong and said to the press that there was no way he was stepping down from his new position. Twenty four hours later, he stepped down. Later it was uncovered that he received a $10,000 severance package for his two weeks on the job from Palin. Monegan got nothing.

Have I mentioned how much fun I'm having?

-Mark

[tinhfwv]

ROTFLMAO!

Obama has had a stellar career by comparison.



His campaign should reveal the details.

[Qikdraw]

His campaign should reveal the details.

It already has, however some people refuse to look at it and then claim he doesn't have one.

[tinhfwv]

It already has.

I was afraid you'd say that.

[Naturist Mark]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/13LRTrxC_fU&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/13LRTrxC_fU&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

(insert 'surge' joke here)

-Mark

[Boreas]

Ew. That is creepy on so many levels. :eye::eye: :surprised:

[nakedstudent]

1. I don't think the McCain ticket needs any more foreign policy experience.

2. I don't think the McCain ticket needs any more experience in washington.

3. I do think that any candidate pushing for fiscal responsibility is a good thing.

She has demonstrated this with the bridge to nowhere and pork spending.

4. I think her foreign policy view is real... considering the fact that her eldest son is headed to Iraq.

5. She beat out an incumbent governor in the primary and also a former governor in the general election. I think that speaks to the Alaskan people's view of her as a politician.

6. I will give you the fact that it is an obvious manipulation of voters by McCain. Not only did he wait until Obama made his selection, he also took advantage of the fact that the selection was not Hillary. I think if you analyze the world though, Russia's invasion of Georgia probably triggered the entire chain of events as Biden is seen as more of a foreign relations type than Clinton or any other possible running mate.

Take care all,

Tom

[nakedstudent]

Her "experience" before her 1.5 years as governor of a tiny (by population) state was as the part time mayor of a flyspeck village of 5500 people. I know several high school principals with better experience. Obama has had a stellar career by comparison.



She definitely has much more executive experience than Obama. Also consider that Obama has been running for president for 18 months. This means that out of the 46 months he has been "serving" he has been either absent or distracted for almost half of his commitments. Furthermore, Obama has never held a seat of power in his own party. He is the chair person for a grand total of 0 committees (except for the European relations committee since Jan 07) and hasn't introduced any bill of significance.

Call me racist if you want too (even though I'm not)... I just don't see any leadership in Obama worth following. After saying that, I'm still not sure if I can vote for McCain... so I don't know what I'm gonna do in NOV...

[Naturist Mark]

She definitely has much more executive experience than Obama.

Technically Sarah Palin has more 'executive' experience than John McCain or Joe Biden too. But on the (admittedly highly subjective) real world scale of leadership experience she is a meerkat among lions when compared to McCain, Obama or Biden. Sure, meerkats are cute (hakuna matata), but McCain could have gone to a solid choice to pander to women, one that wouldn't have actually insulted them, like Liddy Dole, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins - all of whom would have been formidable candidates and clearly ready to step up to the presidency should tragedy strike.


Also consider that Obama has been running for president for 18 months. This means that out of the 46 months he has been "serving" he has been either absent or distracted for almost half of his commitments. Furthermore, Obama has never held a seat of power in his own party. He is the chair person for a grand total of 0 committees (except for the European relations committee since Jan 07) and hasn't introduced any bill of significance.

Just because you heard Rush, or Sean, or Glenn say it, it doesn't mean it is true.

Andrew Sullivan did a nice summary (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/02/dear-chris-matt.html):

<p>I think it's only a Rorschach test for people who don't bother to find whether or not Obama actually has any actual legislative achievements. If he does, then of course this just shows that this one supporter didn't know what they are. If he doesn't, it might show something more, e.g. that Obama is a lightweight. As it happens, Obama does have substantive legislative achievements. I have written more about them <a href="http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/obama-actually.html">here</a>. A few highlights, all of which became law:</p><p>* Ethics Reform: Obama was the Senate's point person on ethics reform, and sponsored or co-sponsored the bills that made up what the Washington Post <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/19/AR2007011901456.html">called</a> "the strongest ethics legislation to emerge from Congress yet." I'm also a fan of <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:s.2590.es:">this bill</a>, which I think of as the Journalists, Bloggers, and Citizens' Muckraking Empowerment Act: it creates a searchable database of recipients of federal grants and contracts.</p><p>* The <a href="http://obama.senate.gov/press/070111-lugar-obama_non/">Lugar-Obama initiative</a> to strengthen the Nunn-Luger framework for securing loose nukes, and to extend it to securing and destroying stockpiles of conventional arms. (For instance, shoulder-fired missiles that could be used against passenger airlines, fired at our forces, or used to make any number of ongoing conflicts more deadly.) </p><p>* Various bills concerning the response to Hurricane Katrina, including an <a href="http://obama.senate.gov/press/060929-congress_to_pas/">amendment</a> putting strict limits on the use of no-bid contracts after disasters, <a href="http://obama.senate.gov/press/050922-obama_amendment/">requiring</a> planning for the evacuation of people with special needs and senior citizens, <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:s.1630:">creating</a> a National Emergency Family Locator System, <a href="http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/08/29/when-the-cameras-are-off-barack-obamas-hurricane-katrina-record/">etc</a>.</p><p>There are also a lot of good bills he worked on that did not make it, including the compromise immigration bill and a proposal to <a href="http://obama.senate.gov/press/060216-senator_obamas_1/">create</a> an independent Congressional Ethics Enforcement Commission, and some that are on the Senate calendar now, like a <a href="http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s453/show">bill</a> to criminalize various deceptive election tactics, like deceptive robocalls, providing misleading information about where to vote or what conditions you have to meet to be eligible to vote, etc. </p><p>There's a lot more. Honestly, there is. I wrote a summary <a href="http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/obama-actually.html">here</a> (and an earlier one <a href="http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/10/barack_obama.html">here</a>), and provided lists (<a href="http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/solutions-adden.html">1</a>, <a href="http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/but-wait-theres.html">2</a>, <a href="http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/all-the-rest.html">3</a>) of all the bills and amendments sponsored or co-sponsored by Clinton and Obama in the 109th and 110th Congresses, just so it would be as easy as possible for people to see for themselves. (Fun fact about each side's legislative records: during the 109th and 110th Congresses (which is to say, the time that both Obama and Clinton have been in the Senate), only one sponsored a substantive bill that became law. Guess who it was? Hint: the bill concerns the ongoing conflict in the Congo.)</p>

That is a pretty substantial legislative resume for a first term Senator only working 'part-time', eh?

-Mark

[usmc1]

She definitely has much more executive experience than Obama. Also consider that Obama has been running for president for 18 months. This means that out of the 46 months he has been "serving" he has been either absent or distracted for almost half of his commitments. Furthermore, Obama has never held a seat of power in his own party. He is the chair person for a grand total of 0 committees (except for the European relations committee since Jan 07) and hasn't introduced any bill of significance.

Call me racist if you want too (even though I'm not)... I just don't see any leadership in Obama worth following. After saying that, I'm still not sure if I can vote for McCain... so I don't know what I'm gonna do in NOV...

Why would anyone call you racist? Why even bring it up?

Sorry student you've been misinformed and led astray. Were I you, I'd check into the reasons your "sources" are lying to you, particularly as regards committees. And, I shan't patronize you by iterating how each of these accomplishments apply to experience, executive or otherwise. But, here, the facts...


A partial list of Obama’s achievements, his partial C.V., as it were:

But, first, we will gladly stipulate that he has never been a beauty queen, mayor of Dogsquat, Alaska, or shot a moose!

<o></o>Obama directed Illinois Project Vote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Vote) from April to October 1992, a voter registration drive with a staff of 10 and 700 volunteers that achieved its goal of registering 150,000 of 400,000 unregistered African Americans in the state, leading Crain's Chicago Business to name Obama to its 1993 list of "40 under Forty" powers to be.

Obama taught constitutional law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_law) at the University of Chicago Law School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Chicago_Law_School) for twelve years, as a Lecturer for four years (1992–1996), and as a Senior Lecturer for eight years (1996–2004).

In 1993 Obama joined Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, a 12-attorney law firm specializing in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development, where he was an associate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associate_%28business_rank%29) for three years from 1993 to 1996, then of counsel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_counsel) from 1996 to 2004, with his law license becoming inactive in 2002.

Obama was a founding member of the board of directors of Public Allies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Allies) in 1992, resigning before his wife, Michelle, became the founding executive director of Public Allies Chicago in early 1993. He served on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woods_Fund_of_Chicago), which in 1985 had been the first foundation to fund Obama's DCP, from 1993–2002, and served on the board of directors of The Joyce Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce_Foundation) from 1994–2002.

Obama served on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Annenberg_Challenge) from 1995–2002, as founding president and chairman of the board of directors from 1995–1999.^{[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#cite_note-Who.27s_Who_2008-10)} He also served on the board of directors of the Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Center for Neighborhood Technology, and the Lugenia Burns Hope Center.

The Illinois Senate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_Senate) career of Barack Obama stretched from 1996 to 2004, when Barack Obama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama) was elected to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_career_of_Barack_Obama) the United States Senate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate). Starting in 1993 and throughout his state senate career, Obama also taught constitutional law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_constitutional_law) part-time at the University of Chicago Law School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Chicago_Law_School), as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996 and as a Senior Lecturer from 1996-2004, when he was elected to the U.S. Senate
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o></o>
Obama successfully passed a sweeping law that banned most gifts from lobbyists and personal use of campaign funds by state legislators as one of his most prominent bills in the state Senate.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o></o>
As a state legislator, Obama gained bipartisan support for legislation reforming ethics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_corruption) and health care (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_reform) laws. He sponsored a law enhancing tax credits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_credit) for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_reform), and promoted increased subsidies for childcare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childcare).
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o></o>
When Democrats took control of the state Senate in the 2002 elections, Obama became chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee in January 2003
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o></o>
Obama was willing to negotiate compromises to get laws passed
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o></o>
In 2001, as co-chairman of the bipartisan Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, Obama supported Republican Governor Ryan's payday loan regulations and predatory mortgage lending regulations aimed at averting home foreclosures, and in 2003, Obama sponsored and led unanimous, bipartisan passage of legislation to monitor racial profiling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_profiling) by requiring police to record the race of drivers they detained and legislation making Illinois the first state to mandate videotaping of homicide interrogations
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o></o>
He earned a reputation as a pragmatist able to work with various sides of an issue!

Obama voted in favor of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005) and cosponsored the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_America_and_Orderly_Immigration_Act). In September 2006, Obama supported a related bill, the Secure Fence Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Fence_Act_of_2006).Obama introduced two initiatives bearing his name: "Lugar–Obama," which expanded the Nunn–Lugar cooperative threat reduction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunn%E2%80%93Lugar_Cooperative_Threat_Reduction) concept to conventional weapons, and the "Coburn–Obama Transparency Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Funding_Accountability_and_Transparency_Ac t_of_2006)," which authorized the establishment of www.USAspending.gov (http://www.usaspending.gov/), a web search engine.

Obama sponsored legislation requiring nuclear plant owners to notify state and local authorities of radioactive leaks.^{[58] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#cite_note-57)} In December 2006, President Bush signed into law the "Democratic Republic of the Congo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo) Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act," marking the first federal legislation to be enacted with Obama as its primary sponsor. In January 2007, Obama co-sponsored the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honest_Leadership_and_Open_Government_Act), which was signed into law in September 2007. He introduced S. 453 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceptive_Practices_and_Voter_Intimidation_Prevent ion_Act), a bill to criminalize deceptive practices in federal elections.

Obama also introduced the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_De-Escalation_Act_of_2007). 
Later in 2007, Obama sponsored an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act adding safeguards for personality disorder military discharges. He sponsored the "Iran Sanctions Enabling Act" supporting divestment of state pension funds from Iran's oil and gas industry, and co-sponsored legislation to reduce risks of nuclear terrorism. Obama also sponsored a Senate amendment to the State Children's Health Insurance Program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Children%27s_Health_Insurance_Program) providing one year of job protection for family members caring for soldiers with combat-related injuries.

Committees

Obama held assignments on the Senate Committees for Foreign Relations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Committee_on_Foreign_Relation s), Environment and Public Works (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Committee_on_Environment_and_ Public_Works) and Veterans' Affairs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Committee_on_Veterans%27_Affa irs) through December 2006.

In January 2007, he left the Environment and Public Works committee and took additional assignments with Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Committee_on_Health,_Educatio n,_Labor,_and_Pensions) and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Committee_on_Homeland_Securit y_and_Governmental_Affairs). He also became Chairman of the Senate's subcommittee on European Affairs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Foreign_Relations_Subcommitte e_on_European_Affairs). As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Obama has made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa.

While these things were happening MCCain was regaling fawning supporters with tales of being a POW and drawing crosses in the sand, and Palin was plucking low-hanging fruit by challenging her party's corrupt practices in Alaska, and involving her office in a tawdry child custody fight on behalf of her sister.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o></o>

[ki4kxq]

Let's see, on the one side I can vote for the "community organizer" and part time senator along with his running mate the cranky angry guy that so eagerly pointed out to us all that Nobama's foreign policy ideas were weak and inept.

Or, I can vote for the other sometimes cranky guy, that actually has some foreign policy experience, had the strength in leadership to stay in that hole when the captors wanted to release him but not his men. A man that understands that we have got to stop spending tax dollars like drunken sailors to prosper as a nation. He has running with him a woman, go ahead and laugh if you want, that has shown a penchant for going against wasteful government spending, even bucking her own party to do it. I believe Sarah Palin will do well and very well could be the next VP. We can only hope.

Oh, as far as the list for Obama's achievements in his "vast" career. Let's not forget the born alive act that he supported. You know the one, where if a child is born alive from an abortion, the doctors will push it aside and treat a living, breathing, human like garbage. Yep, that is indeed a great achievement. Even most pro choice folks find that horrific.

[ki4kxq]

As for Obama's senatorial experience, no, it is not anywhere near what a governor does. A governor has to make decisions everyday on a wide variety of issues. Decisions that must be made immediately that effect the lives of those in their state. They also command the National Guard for their state. They must oversee budgets in the millions and billions.

A Senator or Congressman has the luxury of dealing with a couple of specific issues. Even on a committee, the scope of what they deal with is on a very limited basis, with time to do all the research. Sorry guys, that pales greatly in comparison with a governors duties and responsibilities.

Make fun if you want, have a field day. Liberals do understand that this choice is a huge threat to the Nobama ticket. I for one can't wait till Ms Palin debates Joe Biden. I believe she will hold her own just fine.

[ki4kxq]

Oh yeah, remind me again, who was Nobama holding high tea with to launch his presidential bid. Oh yeah, it was William Ayers, the terrorist that bombed the capital. Yeah, it was when Nobama was 8 years old, but, he recently said that he not only doesn't regret it, but would consider doing it again if he thought it was necessary to do so.

I understand that most people who get this far don't get here squeaky clean. But, I would rather have someone that got into a trooper gate, (although nothing has been proven at all yet), than someone who courts a known terrorist. Obama also has that church thing going, you know, the one he went to for 20 years yet somehow didn't hear a thing. That is indeed selective hearing. Good grief, even Oprah knew that being there wasn't a good thing. It's a judgement thing, he obviously has none.

[Croydon]

Oh yeah, remind me again, who was Nobama holding high tea with to launch his presidential bid. Oh yeah, it was William Ayers, the terrorist that bombed the capital. Yeah, it was when Nobama was 8 years old, but, he recently said that he not only doesn't regret it, but would consider doing it again if he thought it was necessary to do so.

I understand that most people who get this far don't get here squeaky clean. But, I would rather have someone that got into a trooper gate, (although nothing has been proven at all yet), than someone who courts a known terrorist. Obama also has that church thing going, you know, the one he went to for 20 years yet somehow didn't hear a thing. That is indeed selective hearing. Good grief, even Oprah knew that being there wasn't a good thing. It's a judgement thing, he obviously has none.

Just reading your above two posts, I have to laugh hysterically. I took your two posts and sent it to a few friends on email to give them a chuckle too.

[Sanslines]

It appears the niether McCain or Obama will balance the budget. Both plan to deficit spend. It is funny how so many who were so abusive towards Bush for deficit spending (and McCain's plan to deficit spend) remain so silent when the Obama plan calls for just that.

It also appears that neither McCain or Obama will create a basic national health plan. Each has sold out to the insurance companies. It is also funny how those who condemn McCain for selling out to insurance companies remain silent when Obama plans to do the same, although at a reduced level.

Nothing short of creating a basic national health policy where basic coverage is provided for all citizens (free from insurance companies) will work. Both candidates should be held to the same standards and yet the party loyalists seem to be giving Obama a free pass for selling out.

[ki4kxq]

Really, that's sad Croydon. I don't find anything funny about William Ayers or Obama's relationship with him. Terrorism just doesn't strike me as something to laugh about.

[Boreas]

Nothing short of creating a basic national health policy where basic coverage is provided for all citizens (free from insurance companies) will work.

So true. How do we do that? I am thinking that it will involve chasing the horse (insurance companies) that has been let out of the barn. The barn doors should have been closed ages ago. Now the horse is a monster and is running free. It will be hard to contain now.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[Boreas]

Really, that's sad Croydon. I don't find anything funny about William Ayers or Obama's relationship with him. Terrorism just doesn't strike me as something to laugh about.

Something tells me that is not what Croydon thought was funny. :rolleyes:

[tinhfwv]

Something tells me that is not what Croydon thought was funny. :rolleyes:

I agree. I assumed it was a childish expression of contempt for someone who had a different point of view.

[jon71]

For that matter the "born alive act" is just a scam by anti-choice nut jobs. I will be PROUD to have a president with the strength of character to vote against such a dishonest bill. It had NOTHING to do with "protecting children" in any way shape or form, it was a sneak attack on all abortion rights. Much like "partial birth abortions" the very name itself is dishonest and the lies just pile on from there. As for Ayers he committed his crimes in the 60's when Obama was in grade school. He did his time in jail (as he should) and has completely renounced violence and criminality. I know the conservatives will still try and make hay out of that so let me toss out a few examples. How about the apostle Paul. As Saul he made it his mission to imprison or kill every Christian in the world. GOD struck him down and he changed. How about (I forget the name) the guy who wrote Amazing Grace. Before that he was a slaver and about as nasty a person as you could imagine before GOD got a hold of him. Here's a modern one the conservatives will like, Chuck Colson. While I freely admit there is FAR too much recidivism there are also all kinds of people who come out of prison, get an honest job and become producive tax-paying, law-abiding citizens and we should applaud those who make that transition instead of perpetually giving them a hard time over the past. Reform doesn't happen enough so we should be elated when it does happen. Ayers has been productive tax-paying law-abiding citizen since he came out of prison. Good for him. We need to see more of that.

[Agde]

Luckily for McCain, French women can't vote in American elections. They are used to women politicians. After agreeing on the correct French pronunciation for Palin -- rhymes with "malin" (malicious) and "calin" (cuddly) -- they've pretty much universally dismissed her, without gender angst, as a dangerous crackpot. French video-gamers, meanwhile, thought McCain had nominated the animated character from "Gurumin : Une Aventure Monstrueuse (http://www.jeuxactu.com/article-13671-gurumin-debarque-sur-psp.html)" ("A Monsterous Adventure") who fights monsters in a snow kingdom and whose name they often pronounce wrongly as "Palin". Without a focused PR effort, these first impressions are likely to linger... :)

[usmc1]

I agree. I assumed it was a childish expression of contempt for someone who had a different point of view.

Actually it was a different expression of contempt for someone with a childish point of view.

[usmc1]

<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
So true. How do we do that? I am thinking that it will involve chasing the horse (insurance companies) that has been let out of the barn. The barn doors should have been closed ages ago. Now the horse is a monster and is running free. It will be hard to contain now.

Will not happen in this country at this time. Insurance companies will be seated at the negotiating table. Obama has said so, Hillary said so, and it is an unavoidable reality.

The key words have become "affordable" & "accessible", not free, not government provided, but affordable and accessible.

[Qikdraw]

<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

Will not happen in this country at this time. Insurance companies will be seated at the negotiating table. Obama has said so, Hillary said so, and it is an unavoidable reality.

The key words have become "affordable" & "accessible", not free, not government provided, but affordable and accessible.


Which is another problem I have with Obama, we need a national healthcare program. However its much better than McCain's idea of 'redefining' what 'coverage' means and ignoring the problem.

[Sanslines]

So true. How do we do that? I am thinking that it will involve chasing the horse (insurance companies) that has been let out of the barn. The barn doors should have been closed ages ago. Now the horse is a monster and is running free. It will be hard to contain now.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->


It will involve a strong armed president who will make this one issue priority number one. The president has to be willing to risk everything in order to accomplish this one goal as the medical and insurance company industries will stop at absolutely nothing to prevent this issue from becoming a reality. Insurance company lobbyists will hound Congressmen and Congresswomen day and night and threaten them will all sorts of terrible consequences if they vote for any bill that leads to national health so the first step will be offering 'protection' for Congress from the lobbyists.

I do not think that Obama is going to do this as he has other important issues to deal with and so he will no doubt 'compromise' with insurance and medical industries to achieve what little (if anything) that he can. Using a term such as 'affordable' is very nebulous (on purpose) as what really is the definition of affordable? Who defines this word? As it stands now insurance companies will tell you that their rates are 'very affordable'. As for 'accessible', which is another nebulous word that Obama is tossing around, according to the insurance companies, health care is presently 'accessible' so long as you pay their rates.

It's all smoke and mirrors that is being used to dupe the gullible and tell others what they wish to believe. The fact is that the only way to achieve 'affordable and accessible' health care is to remove the insurance companies from the equation. Nothing short of this will work as the insurance companies will do whatever is necessary to continue to increase their profits at society's expense.

The answer in a nutshell is to extend medicare to every American and then allow the government to use it's size to negotiate or legislate fair prices as they now do with many procedures. The answer is also to extend the negotiations to prescription drugs. This has worked in the past and can work for each and every American and at a substantial savings to what is presently being paid.

[Boreas]

Will not happen in this country at this time. Insurance companies will be seated at the negotiating table. Obama has said so, Hillary said so, and it is an unavoidable reality.

The key words have become "affordable" & "accessible", not free, not government provided, but affordable and accessible.

Actually accessible and free are fine. It is much better than what you have now. It is what we have here mostly. We have to pay a premium for our provincial health insurance. Ours is $98 per month for two people. Quite affordable in my opinion. Often employers will cover the cost, and there is something in place for those who cannot afford it. This health insurance ensures that we have decent or good health care with very few user fees. For instance, I will be visiting my podiatrist in the next month. I will have to pay a nominal fee for the privilege. If I get orthotics, I will have to pay for them since I do not have supplementary insurance. No problem. If they make my feet happy, I can deal with it.

[Boreas]

It will involve a strong armed president who will make this one issue priority number one. The president has to be willing to risk everything in order to accomplish this one goal as the medical and insurance company industries will stop at absolutely nothing to prevent this issue from becoming a reality. Insurance company lobbyists will hound Congressmen and Congresswomen day and night and threaten them will all sorts of terrible consequences if they vote for any bill that leads to national health so the first step will be offering 'protection' for Congress from the lobbyists.

I do not think that Obama is going to do this as he has other important issues to deal with and so he will no doubt 'compromise' with insurance and medical industries to achieve what little (if anything) that he can.

Our universal heathcare was brought in during the 60's with great opposition from the doctors and others. The Premiere of Saskatchewan did just what you said. There was a doctor's strike and Tommy Douglas held out, and even imported other doctors in order to stand firm. Saskatchewan was the first province to have universal healthcare. It wasn't long before it was across the country.

So, I agree, it will be a battle, and one worth fighting.


It's all smoke and mirrors that is being used to dupe the gullible and tell others what they wish to believe. The fact is that the only way to achieve 'affordable and accessible' health care is to remove the insurance companies from the equation. Nothing short of this will work as the insurance companies will do whatever is necessary to continue to increase their profits at society's expense.

That is what I am afraid of. The insurance companies, and the pharmaceutical companies are big players in healthcare, and their pockets are well-lined. That is why I think the horse is out of the barn and it has become a monster since it left the barn.

[Qikdraw]

It appears the niether McCain or Obama will balance the budget. Both plan to deficit spend. It is funny how so many who were so abusive towards Bush for deficit spending (and McCain's plan to deficit spend) remain so silent when the Obama plan calls for just that.

McCain's current economic plan will add trillions to the national debt, Obama's won't. I don't think anyone has said Obama is the saviour and mana will fall from the heavens and there will be no more hunger. Its always the right wing idiots who put that on us. All McCain's followers have been doing for a while now is attack Obama or people who support him, because McCain is offering nothing new. His policies are wrong, his ideas will not work, and he has nothing to run on, so its just attack after attack.


It also appears that neither McCain or Obama will create a basic national health plan. Each has sold out to the insurance companies. It is also funny how those who condemn McCain for selling out to insurance companies remain silent when Obama plans to do the same, although at a reduced level.

And in my last post I just said I disagreed with Obama's plan, and I have said so from day one, so your categorization is completely off. We do need a national healthcare plan, and dealing with criminal insurance companies is not the way to go.

However as you say Obama's plan is better than McCain's plan.


Nothing short of creating a basic national health policy where basic coverage is provided for all citizens (free from insurance companies) will work. Both candidates should be held to the same standards and yet the party loyalists seem to be giving Obama a free pass for selling out.

No they are not, they are supporting Obama's plan over McCain's to completely ignore the problem.

[Sanslines]

.

However as you say Obama's plan is better than McCain's plan.



No they are not, they are supporting Obama's plan over McCain's to completely ignore the problem.

Obama's plan is a bit better then McCain's plan but it still does not solve the medical care problem in this nation. The way to solve the problem is to bypass the insurance companies and let medicare do their thing. I believe that Obama is selling out to the insurance companies and will use taxpayer money to enrich them further. I think that Obama is smart enough to know that he does not have the power to bypass insurance companies and he can not solve this problem. He learned from Hillary's attempts to create national health back in '92 and knows when to not rock the boat.

[Sanslines]

McCain's current economic plan will add trillions to the national debt, Obama's won't.

Both McCain and Obama will add enormously to the national debt. It is presently estimated that McCain will add more to the national debt with his plan then Obama, but these are only estimates based upon current policiy ideas.

Obama has several choices:

1) Obama can cut eliminate programs or reduce spending (which he will either not do or do so in a token fashion)

2) Obama can increase the national debt to pay for his programs (which he will do)

3) Obama can increase taxes across the board to pay for his programs (which he said that he will not do for he proposes to decrease taxes for 95 percent of taxpayers and only raise taxes on the upper 5 percent).

We have been down this road so many times ......... It is simple math. If a person increases spending, they either deficit spend or they raise income. They raise income by either growing the economy, they raise taxes, or they do a combination of both.

[usmc1]

Actually accessible and free are fine. It is much better than what you have now. It is what we have here mostly. We have to pay a premium for our provincial health insurance. Ours is $98 per month for two people. Quite affordable in my opinion. Often employers will cover the cost, and there is something in place for those who cannot afford it. This health insurance ensures that we have decent or good health care with very few user fees. For instance, I will be visiting my podiatrist in the next month. I will have to pay a nominal fee for the privilege. If I get orthotics, I will have to pay for them since I do not have supplementary insurance. No problem. If they make my feet happy, I can deal with it.
Orthotics won't be covered in the US, they aren't now, except for rare, very,very, rare cases.

Years in the toolies, running the hills, fast roping and letting go about ten feet too high, and etc, as a marine, and the years as an idiot kid that liked to jump from roofs and theater balconies to show off, I know from orthotics.

I've found the best for me are those Dr. Schoals, horseshoe shaped OTC jobbies, are the best. That and well made shoes with a good arch and heel cup.

[Sanslines]

Actually accessible and free are fine. It is much better than what you have now. It is what we have here mostly. We have to pay a premium for our provincial health insurance. Ours is $98 per month for two people. Quite affordable in my opinion. Often employers will cover the cost, and there is something in place for those who cannot afford it. This health insurance ensures that we have decent or good health care with very few user fees. For instance, I will be visiting my podiatrist in the next month. I will have to pay a nominal fee for the privilege. If I get orthotics, I will have to pay for them since I do not have supplementary insurance. No problem. If they make my feet happy, I can deal with it.

You have a national health system that can not be compared to the Obama plan. The Obama plan involves insurance companies. What would you say to those individuals who have paid their 'affordable' premiums year after year and then when they became ill their coverage was denied and terminated due to a whole range of insurance company games. Regardless of what Obama says, the only way to eliminate this is to eliminate the insurance companies from the process. Words such as 'affordable and accessible' are meaningless words to those who pay for insurance but are denied coverage and the insurance companies will not change their stance towards insurance due to Obama anymore the the Russians will change their stance towards Georgia due to Bush.

[Boreas]

Orthotics won't be covered in the US, they aren't now, except for rare, very,very, rare cases.

Years in the toolies, running the hills, fast roping and letting go about ten feet too high, and etc, as a marine, and the years as an idiot kid that liked to jump from roofs and theater balconies to show off, I know from orthotics.

I've found the best for me are those Dr. Schoals, horseshoe shaped OTC jobbies, are the best. That and well made shoes with a good arch and heel cup.

It is lousy genetics for me. My feet are like my mother's and grandmother's not good. Dr. Scholls is not enough. I need the hi-test prescription variety. I am sure the ones I have now are fine. Wearing them more often is the ticket. Summer sandals apparently are evil. :o As for shoes, Merrells are wonderful!

[Boreas]

What would you say to those individuals who have paid their 'affordable' premiums year after year and then when they became ill their coverage was denied and terminated due to a whole range of insurance company games.

That is what is shameful about the American system.

[Sanslines]

That is what is shameful about the American system.

That is what the Obama plan will not solve unless he takes the insurance companies out of the loop.

[jon71]

Don't forget that by ending the Iraq war our spending will drop by a gargantuan amount.

[nakedstudent]

Just because you heard Rush, or Sean, or Glenn say it, it doesn't mean it is true.


I don't care what Andrew said... he's probably just a surrogate of the campaign and in my opinion, no better than what you think of Rush, Sean, or Glen.

It's a statement of fact. Obama has been running for a seat since he first held one in Illinois.

I just see a **** ton of questions that haven't been answered. I think that in some ways, an Obama presidency could be a good thing. I can't vote for him unless the following are addressed by him:

1. Tony Rezco... Why did the shady property transaction occur between the two? What benefit was there for Rezco?

2. William Ayres... Why did he call Ayres and (by extension) weather underground "mainstream" and "respectable" when the man said the only bad thing about the organization's bombings of the 90's was that they didn't do enough?

3. Jeremiah Wright... How can you sit in a church for decades and listen to someone say "God Damn America." and then run for the presidency of the country that your church disagrees with?

4. Saying Iran is a "small country" and "doesn't pose a serious threat." We heard about Iranian enrichment programs on a daily basis a few years ago... how is that not serious?

5. Saying that if we inflated our tires we would save more gas than drilling. No **** dumbass... that's why 70% of Americans do it.

I feel that Obama has far too many connections that he refuses to explain and an EXTREMELY soft foreign policy. Number 5 above demonstrates just how far out of touch he is with the American people and the current view of energy policy.

Furthermore, I never know what to believe because he comes out with conflicting statements all the time...

e.g.

2nd ammendment. Pennsylvanians are bitter souls clinging to their guns and religion...

Then the supreme court says Philly's gun ban is unconstitutional and he praises it???

I don't know which view is true so how can I agree with him?

McCain appears to have held the same position on a few key issues for me... I don't know if that will be enough to keep me from voting for Bob Barr though...

I have a lot of soul searching to do before Nov.

[nakedstudent]

Don't forget that by ending the Iraq war our spending will drop by a gargantuan amount.

The Iraqis appear to be pushing for a time line for withdrawal. I don't think Iraq will be a major issue in the next 2 year... regardless of who is president. I look for McCain to be defensive. I'm not exactly sure what Obama's plan is... If it's anything like Clinton's, we'll be attacked as soon as he shrinks the military.

[Naturist Mark]

I don't care what Andrew said... he's probably just a surrogate of the campaign and in my opinion, no better than what you think of Rush, Sean, or Glen. LOL, Andrew Sullivan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Sullivan) is the LAST person the Obama Campaign would use as a surrogate.


It's a statement of fact. Obama has been running for a seat since he first held one in Illinois.

I just see a **** ton of questions that haven't been answered. I think that in some ways, an Obama presidency could be a good thing. I can't vote for him unless the following are addressed by him:

1. Tony Rezco... Why did the shady property transaction occur between the two? What benefit was there for Rezco? The Obama's bought their house with the royalties from Barack's book. The sellers (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a_9sOMpy91Js&refer=us) said they sold to the Obama's because the Obama's offered the most money.

Rita Rezko (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/rezko_reality.html) bought the vacant lot next door. The Obama's home had a small yard, and they had two young daughters. The Obama's made an offer to buy a portion of Rita's property to enlarge their backyard - they paid full market value for 1/6th of the lot. Rita Rezko sold the remainder of the property to another buyer, making a $55k profit off of the two sales.

So the only person who really got a "sweet deal" was Rezko's wife.


2. William Ayres... Why did he call Ayres and (by extension) weather underground "mainstream" and "respectable" when the man said the only bad thing about the organization's bombings of the 90's was that they didn't do enough?

Because the Bill Ayres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers) Obama knew was not the 60s radical who co-founded the Weather Underground. He was the 90s Chicago community activist heavily involved in education reform and who served on the board of a charitable foundation that Mayor Daley appointed Obama to serve on. The 90s Ayres was known to promote local politicians and sometimes help raise money for them. He contributed $200 to Obama.

Barack never knew the 'terrorist' Ayres of the 60s and early 70s (when Obama was still a child in Hawaii and Indonesia).

To be sure, Ayres WAS a criminal, and the only reason he isn't a convict is because of gross prosecutorial misconduct by the government.

As for the quote from Ayres about "not doing enough", he has always insisted that he was quoted out of context - apparently deliberately so:Much of the controversy about Ayers during the decade since the year 2000 stems from an interview he gave to the New York Times on the occasion of the memoir's publication.[18] The reporter quoted him as saying "I don't regret setting bombs" and "I feel we didn't do enough", and, when asked if he would "do it all again" as saying "I don't want to discount the possibility."[13] Ayers has not denied the quotes, but he protested the interviewer's characterizations in a Letter to the Editor published September 15, 2001: "This is not a question of being misunderstood or 'taken out of context', but of deliberate distortion."[19] In the ensuing years, Ayers has repeatedly avowed that when he said he had "no regrets" and that "we didn't do enough" he was speaking only in reference to his efforts to stop the United States from waging the Vietnam War, efforts which he has described as ". . . inadequate [as] the war dragged on for a decade."[20] Ayers has maintained that the two statements were not intended to imply a wish they had set more bombs.[20][21] The interviewer also quoted some of Ayers' own criticism of Weatherman in the foreword to the memoir, whereby Ayers reacts to having watched Emile de Antonio's 1976 documentary film about Weatherman, Underground: "[Ayers] was 'embarrassed by the arrogance, the solipsism, the absolute certainty that we and we alone knew the way. The rigidity and the narcissism.' "


3. Jeremiah Wright... How can you sit in a church for decades and listen to someone say "God Damn America." and then run for the presidency of the country that your church disagrees with? Because the Obama's did NOT sit and listen to someone say "God Damn America" for decades.

ABC had a bunch of researchers listen to over 2000 hours of recorded sermons by Rev. Wright, they found *4* soundbites in all those hours that taken out of context made people upset. I've listened to the entire sermons those came from, and IN CONTEXT I found them to be very good, positive messages. But don't take my word for it - listen to them yourself:

<li><a href="http://youtube.com/user/TRINITYCHGO" class="external text" title="http://youtube.com/user/TRINITYCHGO" rel="nofollow">Wright sermons</a> at the official channel of Trinity United Church of Christ on YouTube</li>
<li><a href="http://odeo.com/audio/17889043/view" class="external text" title="http://odeo.com/audio/17889043/view" rel="nofollow">Audio of complete sermon by Wright from which the soundbite on 9/11 was excerpted.</a></li>
<li><a href="http://odeo.com/audio/17890793/view" class="external text" title="http://odeo.com/audio/17890793/view" rel="nofollow">Audio of complete sermon by Wright from which soundbite "God damn America" was excerpted.</a></li>
<li><a href="http://resources.christianity.com/details/cht/19000101/07B1BF53-5CC6-44CC-A7E5-5D9B9B7DEFF7.aspx" class="external text" title="http://resources.christianity.com/details/cht/19000101/07B1BF53-5CC6-44CC-A7E5-5D9B9B7DEFF7.aspx" rel="nofollow"><i>The Audacity to Hope</i></a> sermon from which the title of Barack Obama's book, <i>The Audacity of Hope</i>, is derived.</li>
<li><a href="http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=4808fe74-023d-417b-8537-33763c33e399" class="external text" title="http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=4808fe74-023d-417b-8537-33763c33e399" rel="nofollow">Transcript Of A Jeremiah Wright Sermon given on January 27, 2008</a> <small><a href="http://www.webcitation.org/5XKzzIo3m" class="external text" title="http://www.webcitation.org/5XKzzIo3m" rel="nofollow">Archived.</a></small></li>

Unfortunately the Obama's never heard those sermons, apparently they missed a few 'highlights' over the years. Obama's schedule shows that he was in Miami on the Sunday that the "God Damn America" sermon was made - too bad, he missed a good sermon.


4. Saying Iran is a "small country" and "doesn't pose a serious threat." We heard about Iranian enrichment programs on a daily basis a few years ago... how is that not serious?

Obama's view is the view of all 16 US intelligence agencies. NIA on Iran (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/world/middleeast/03cnd-iran.html?ref=us)


5. Saying that if we inflated our tires we would save more gas than drilling. No **** dumbass... that's why 70% of Americans do it.

Wouldn't the dumbass comment be the ridicule of that fact by McCain? The simple fact is true that by properly inflating tires we could immediately save 4 times as much oil per year as McCain's "drill drill drill" proposal could produce - 10 years from now. What a dumbass! ... of course 3 days later McCain agreed with Obama.


I feel that Obama has far too many connections that he refuses to explain and an EXTREMELY soft foreign policy. Number 5 above demonstrates just how far out of touch he is with the American people and the current view of energy policy.

Furthermore, I never know what to believe because he comes out with conflicting statements all the time...

Which is the "he" (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/flipflops) of the conflicting statements?

e.g.

2nd ammendment. Pennsylvanians are bitter souls clinging to their guns and religion...

Then the supreme court says Philly's gun ban is unconstitutional and he praises it???

I don't know which view is true so how can I agree with him?

Ok ... it was Washington D.C.'s gun ban the supreme court ruled on ... the first comment about "clinging to guns and religion" was a soundbite taken out of context. He was NOT talking about gun control, he was talking about how people who become disenchanted by politics because BOTH parties let them down just give up on it and focus instead on wedge issues like guns and religion. Two completely unrelated things.


McCain appears to have held the same position on a few key issues for me... I don't know if that will be enough to keep me from voting for Bob Barr though...

I have a lot of soul searching to do before Nov.

I would have a harder decision if McCain 2000 running. I miss that guy.

The Official John McCain Flip-Flop List (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/flipflops)

A "student" should know how to do a little bit of research, the truth is readily available. The trick of course is cutting through the chaff. I hope some of these links will prove useful.

There are vast differences in ideology and viewpoint between the candidates, so there are plenty of grounds to make a decision of one over the other. All the lies and red herrings are hardly necessary. To make an informed choice I suggest avoiding Fox news and wingnut radio ... and the networks ... and most cable. BBC and the Daily Show are your best bets.

[Naturist Mark]

The Iraqis appear to be pushing for a time line for withdrawal. I don't think Iraq will be a major issue in the next 2 year... regardless of who is president. I look for McCain to be defensive. I'm not exactly sure what Obama's plan is... If it's anything like Clinton's, we'll be attacked as soon as he shrinks the military.

LOL

We couldn't be in a more vulnerable position than we are right now.

Bush has broken our military so badly that it will take a decade to rebuild it.

-Mark

[jon71]

Thankfully rebuilding our military and getting serious about Afghanistan are priorities 1 and 2 for Barack Obama.

[nakedstudent]

Mark you use the "taken out of context" line a lot. Do you honestly believe that each of those cases was taken out of context?

Right in the wiki link you provided about Sullivan it says he endorsed Barack Obama for president.

I found myself laughing while looking at the carpetbagger link... every time they said "before he voted against it" I found myself remembering John Kerry and the SNL character saying "I can't believe I'm loosing to this idiot."

I apologize about the city mixup. It was a rough night.

To be honest, I don't care what context "God damn America" was put in. That type of attitude is not appropriate in any context. Furthermore, if it was really a good church as you say, why didn't Obama stand up for it and use his media bias to expose the truth?

As for the Rezco deal, he was a convicted felon. I still see it as shady.

[nakedstudent]

Thankfully rebuilding our military and getting serious about Afghanistan are priorities 1 and 2 for Barack Obama.

Right after nationalized health care and diplomacy without preconditions.

[Croydon]

I don't care what Andrew said... he's probably just a surrogate of the campaign and in my opinion, no better than what you think of Rush, Sean, or Glen.

It's a statement of fact. Obama has been running for a seat since he first held one in Illinois.

I just see a **** ton of questions that haven't been answered. I think that in some ways, an Obama presidency could be a good thing. I can't vote for him unless the following are addressed by him:

1. Tony Rezco... Why did the shady property transaction occur between the two? What benefit was there for Rezco?

2. William Ayres... Why did he call Ayres and (by extension) weather underground "mainstream" and "respectable" when the man said the only bad thing about the organization's bombings of the 90's was that they didn't do enough?

3. Jeremiah Wright... How can you sit in a church for decades and listen to someone say "God Damn America." and then run for the presidency of the country that your church disagrees with?

4. Saying Iran is a "small country" and "doesn't pose a serious threat." We heard about Iranian enrichment programs on a daily basis a few years ago... how is that not serious?

5. Saying that if we inflated our tires we would save more gas than drilling. No **** dumbass... that's why 70% of Americans do it.

I feel that Obama has far too many connections that he refuses to explain and an EXTREMELY soft foreign policy. Number 5 above demonstrates just how far out of touch he is with the American people and the current view of energy policy.

Furthermore, I never know what to believe because he comes out with conflicting statements all the time...

e.g.

2nd ammendment. Pennsylvanians are bitter souls clinging to their guns and religion...

Then the supreme court says Philly's gun ban is unconstitutional and he praises it???

I don't know which view is true so how can I agree with him?

McCain appears to have held the same position on a few key issues for me... I don't know if that will be enough to keep me from voting for Bob Barr though...

I have a lot of soul searching to do before Nov.
When you first posted, I immediately dismissed you as an uninformed voter who is just talking out of his ***. Reading your post above, you just confirmed that.

You watch a lot of fox news and like sound bites, don't you? This is what is wrong with so many Americans: lazy and dumb. American voters are the most ill informed as they are too lazy to pick up a paper and read about candidates. Instead, they seek out news from sound bites and cable networks that do a half *** job in reporting unbiased news. I am sure you watch Fox news and the headline is "Obama says xyz" and that is ALL you need to know. Rather than investigate the context in which Obama made a statement, you took the most controversial line of something he said and ran with it (ex: statement # 4, 5 and your 2nd amendment statement).

You pose a lot of questions but it is quite clear you have done nothing to get answers.

I can respect people's differences in opinion but what I don't respect is when people have a different opinion and it is based all on RUMORS and LIES.

1) Tony Rezko is a major political fundraiser for both DEMOCRATS & REPUBLICANS. The fiasco b.w Obama & Rezko has to do with Rezko shady business practices. Due to Rezko's problems it appears people are finding Obama guilty by association. It was rumored that Rezko was able to sell Obama his home under market value. Reality: Obama purchased his home NOT from Rezko and he purchased it above market value from the proceeds of his book.

2) William Ayers: Again, assessing guilt by association. William Ayers was quite a nut case in his young days. Republicans are making a big deal about the relationship b/w Obama and Ayers. The two served on the board of a non profit organization/charity. Oh yes, we should definitely see Obama as a bad man for being on a charity board. How dare he be a good citizen. This whole thing is absurd. We are going to condemn Obama b/c he served on the board with Ayers. I don't excuse what Ayers did in his young years but Obama was a CHILD at the time.

3) Jeremiah Wright: Til this day, I have no idea what the big hoopla was about Wright's sermon. I heard the whole sermon and I thought it was wonderful. The media took one sentence out of that sermon and blew it up. Everyone quickly condemned this man without even hearing the sermon or understanding his life and what he has done. Wright has served his country in the military and as a man of god he has done so much: bringing issues of AIDS & HIV to the community, helping the poor, ex-cons, single moms, people who lost their job in plant closure, and gay rights. This guy has done a lot but no one cares. Everyone cares about the 1 or 2 lines of his sermon and judged him based on that.

4) Obama's views on Iran is that we should be talking to Iran under no preconceived notions. This led to republicans and Bush calling Obama an appeaser and naive. But guess what recently happened: After ignoring Iran, the Bush administration is now talking to Iran. What is also funny is that Obama had been saying for a long time that we are focusing too much resources on Iraq and forgetting about Afghanistan, where the Talibans and Al Qaeda are regrouping. He states we need more troops there, not Iraq. Guess what happened soon afterwards: Bush sent some troops to Afghanistan.

5) Yes, Obama is SUCH A DUMB *** for saying that if we inflated our tires more, we would rely less on gas. Yes, he is so stupid for saying that and after mocking him for several days, McCain had to back track as it was found to be true. Inflating tires reduces need on oil....if you don't believe it, call AAA. Mr. Obama was NOT saying that inflating our tires would solve gas problems. The point he was making is that we as citizens have a responsibility in reducing dependency on oil and one thing we can do is inflating tires.

6) The supreme court ruling on 2nd Amendment was not regarding Philly, it was Washington DC.

Obama agreed with the court's ruling but where he disagrees is the lack of control on guns used in violent crimes in inner cities

The comment regarding "clinging to gun & religion" had nothing to do with the supreme court ruling. That comment was made MONTH before that. The comment Obama made was taken out of context. He states that the government, both parties, has failed Americans (esp. the working class). Politicians have failed them that they have essentially given up and have become bitter (rightfully so) and therefore cling to other issues like gun control and religion.

John McCain and flip flopping. You sure that McCain hasn't changed some of his positions? Are you sure of that? Throughout the campaign McCain has changed his stance on aborition, social security, immigration, and foreign policy. If you wish for me to cite example, I can do so...just let me know.

[usmc1]

Right after nationalized health care and diplomacy without preconditions.

Watta hoot! Guys like you come in here under some innocuous screen name pretending to be what you're not, "Oh me, oh my, I just don't know who I will vote for", and then vomit forth all the filth, lies, canards and shibboleths from the right-wing noise machine of screeching-monkeys hurling fetid little handfuls of offal, flap-doodle, and yammer-yammer at decent folk from their narrow, dark little closed-mind cages of hate and insecurity.

Quit the pretense, and step forth and be who you are! You have friends and fellow travelers here. People whose depth and breadth of knowledge extend all the way from Limbaugh to Lieberman. People who think shooting a moose, and sleeping with a commercial fisherman, and selling an airplane on eBay qualifies one to be president of the United States. They are eager to embrace you as one of their own, or is it that you are already one of them?

For some reason, you are permitted to post lies as if they were truths, and we are not permitted to identify you as to the name given people who lie. It is the same old game, post the lies, and get some attention while better people, people with more understanding and knowledge rebut and refute those lies.

For you to state or infer that Senator Obama has put forth a "nationalized" health plan is to perpetuate a lie promulgated by the ridiculous, reactionary right-wing. He has put forth a framework, a starting point of ideas and suggestions, for discussion and negotiation which is hoped will lead us to a system of healthcare that is affordable and accessible to all. You're against that? Shame, shame on you!

You are repeating a proven, bald-faced lie when you write that Senator Obama espouses "diplomacy without preconditions". If you have sufficient intellect and ability to make your way to this forum, you also have sufficient intellect to know that this is not what he said within the context of the moment from which the assertion comes.

You ask questions. So do I. Why do you come among us repeating lies and pretending to be what you're not?:mad:

[Naturist Mark]

Mark you use the "taken out of context" line a lot. Do you honestly believe that each of those cases was taken out of context?Yes. I also posted links to back that up.


Right in the wiki link you provided about Sullivan it says he endorsed Barack Obama for president.Doesn't make him a 'surrogate'. Sullivan also supported George W. Bush. He is a libertarian leaning conservative who often sides with the neo-cons.


I found myself laughing while looking at the carpetbagger link... every time they said "before he voted against it" I found myself remembering John Kerry and the SNL character saying "I can't believe I'm loosing to this idiot." Yep, it is a deliberate echo of the job the Rove media did on Kerry. McCain is the "flip-flop" champion of the universe. But with a difference. Most of Kerry's so-called "flip-flops" were not really changes of position, they were gross exaggerations and often outright lies about his real positions - for example his voting on the Iraq war - where Bush said he was "for it before he was against it". In fact Kerry was consistantly against it - he voted for the original Authorization of force because that was supposed to be used to force Saddam to allow UN weapons inspectors back into Iraq. And it worked - the UN inspectors WERE allowed back in. However, the authorization had several limitations built into it requiring further authorization and the seeking of a second UN security council resolution before actual US military action in the case of non compliance. Kerry made a speech (http://www.c-span.org/vote2004/kerryspeech.asp) on the floor of the Senate saying this, and warning the administration not go to war without fulfilling the requirements laid out in the Authorization. Bush did anyhow. He broke that law - which is why it is an 'illegal war'. But all that is too "nuanced", long and convoluted to fit in a soundbite, so they got away with calling it a flip flop.



I apologize about the city mixup. It was a rough night.

To be honest, I don't care what context "God damn America" was put in. That type of attitude is not appropriate in any context. How do you feel about this rewriting of God Bless America (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X77R_prkCkg) sung at the religious right sponsored "Value Voters Presidential Debate" attended by McCain? Why didn't he ever denounce it? Why didn't ANY of the Republicans denounce it?

Furthermore, if it was really a good church as you say, why didn't Obama stand up for it and use his media bias to expose the truth?You mean like making a speech (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrp-v2tHaDo) about it that many consider to be the greatest political speech since Martin Luther King's "I have a Dream"?



As for the Rezco deal, he was a convicted felon. I still see it as shady.Don't care that the facts don't support your gut? Hmmm...

-Mark

[NudeAl]

Did anyone else catch the 90 minute profile on CNN last night? They profiled each of the candidates. I know 90 minutes is hard to fill in a persons entire life however I thought they did a fine job. I was impressed with both candidtates life experiences. In a way it felt like McCains life was a history lesson, he served in some very interesteing times. But it felt like we were looking backward and when they profiled Obama it was like and now here is the new America. I was really impressed with the fact that after graduating first in his class at Harvard law school he could have signed on with any large law firm in the nation but he turned them all down including the 6 figure salary that went with them to work in Chicago registering low income voters and eventually becoming a state senator. Both candidates have a history of service to the nation but it seems to me John McCain has lost his way he is not the same guy who ran against Bush in 2000.

Finally, my overall impression is McCains' profile represents the past Obamas' profile represents the future.

[Qikdraw]

McCains getting in trouble from Van Halen now by using their song 'Right Now', for Palin's speech the other night. He did not have the band's permission to use the song.

How many times has he illegally used songs now? Six or seven? This doesn't even fall into 'fair use' as he is using it for personal gain.

This just goes to show how McCain will do whatever he can to become president. The ironic thing is that McCain has come out in favour of intelectual property, but now he is violating the very things he supports.

Not that this is shocking, this is par for the course for him.

[nakedstudent]

When you first posted, I immediately dismissed you as an uninformed voter who is just talking out of his ***. Reading your post above, you just confirmed that.

You watch a lot of fox news and like sound bites, don't you? This is what is wrong with so many Americans: lazy and dumb. American voters are the most ill informed as they are too lazy to pick up a paper and read about candidates. Instead, they seek out news from sound bites and cable networks that do a half *** job in reporting unbiased news. I am sure you watch Fox news and the headline is "Obama says xyz" and that is ALL you need to know. Rather than investigate the context in which Obama made a statement, you took the most controversial line of something he said and ran with it (ex: statement # 4, 5 and your 2nd amendment statement).

You pose a lot of questions but it is quite clear you have done nothing to get answers.

I can respect people's differences in opinion but what I don't respect is when people have a different opinion and it is based all on RUMORS and LIES.

1) Tony Rezko is a major political fundraiser for both DEMOCRATS & REPUBLICANS. The fiasco b.w Obama & Rezko has to do with Rezko shady business practices. Due to Rezko's problems it appears people are finding Obama guilty by association. It was rumored that Rezko was able to sell Obama his home under market value. Reality: Obama purchased his home NOT from Rezko and he purchased it above market value from the proceeds of his book.

2) William Ayers: Again, assessing guilt by association. William Ayers was quite a nut case in his young days. Republicans are making a big deal about the relationship b/w Obama and Ayers. The two served on the board of a non profit organization/charity. Oh yes, we should definitely see Obama as a bad man for being on a charity board. How dare he be a good citizen. This whole thing is absurd. We are going to condemn Obama b/c he served on the board with Ayers. I don't excuse what Ayers did in his young years but Obama was a CHILD at the time.

3) Jeremiah Wright: Til this day, I have no idea what the big hoopla was about Wright's sermon. I heard the whole sermon and I thought it was wonderful. The media took one sentence out of that sermon and blew it up. Everyone quickly condemned this man without even hearing the sermon or understanding his life and what he has done. Wright has served his country in the military and as a man of god he has done so much: bringing issues of AIDS & HIV to the community, helping the poor, ex-cons, single moms, people who lost their job in plant closure, and gay rights. This guy has done a lot but no one cares. Everyone cares about the 1 or 2 lines of his sermon and judged him based on that.

4) Obama's views on Iran is that we should be talking to Iran under no preconceived notions. This led to republicans and Bush calling Obama an appeaser and naive. But guess what recently happened: After ignoring Iran, the Bush administration is now talking to Iran. What is also funny is that Obama had been saying for a long time that we are focusing too much resources on Iraq and forgetting about Afghanistan, where the Talibans and Al Qaeda are regrouping. He states we need more troops there, not Iraq. Guess what happened soon afterwards: Bush sent some troops to Afghanistan.

5) Yes, Obama is SUCH A DUMB *** for saying that if we inflated our tires more, we would rely less on gas. Yes, he is so stupid for saying that and after mocking him for several days, McCain had to back track as it was found to be true. Inflating tires reduces need on oil....if you don't believe it, call AAA. Mr. Obama was NOT saying that inflating our tires would solve gas problems. The point he was making is that we as citizens have a responsibility in reducing dependency on oil and one thing we can do is inflating tires.

6) The supreme court ruling on 2nd Amendment was not regarding Philly, it was Washington DC.

Obama agreed with the court's ruling but where he disagrees is the lack of control on guns used in violent crimes in inner cities

The comment regarding "clinging to gun & religion" had nothing to do with the supreme court ruling. That comment was made MONTH before that. The comment Obama made was taken out of context. He states that the government, both parties, has failed Americans (esp. the working class). Politicians have failed them that they have essentially given up and have become bitter (rightfully so) and therefore cling to other issues like gun control and religion.

John McCain and flip flopping. You sure that McCain hasn't changed some of his positions? Are you sure of that? Throughout the campaign McCain has changed his stance on aborition, social security, immigration, and foreign policy. If you wish for me to cite example, I can do so...just let me know.

You're uninformed about Rezko. First he is a convicted felon. Second he didn't sell Obama his home and I never claimed it. He sold him a piece of ajoining property. Now if Obama wanted that property, why didn't he just buy it from the original seller and re-sell what he didn't want? I don't understand why the middle man was necessary. Especially a felon as a middle man. Doing such business with a felon speaks to his character.

2. Bill Ayres. Why am I the one who has to go find all the evidence about this case? If the Obama campaign wants me to consider him for presidency, why doesn't he address the issue? Why is there no truth in journalism? Why should I have to go to wikipedia to get all sides of the argument? I don't think it makes me uninformed to see what I see on NBC and CBS and an occasional conservative talk show host.

3. I'm in the process of watching the full vids that mark posted. I will reply when I am more informed about Wright.

4. Iran is aligning with Russia as we speak. I think most of the tension is because of conflicts in the far past. It will be interesting to see what Iran's course of action would be if Obama wins the presidency.

5. I have no argument against inflating tires. All I'm saying is that it is not an excuse to keep ignoring the fact that we have natural resources at our disposal which we have refused to use for the past 20+ years.... Especially considering the fact that right down the road from ANWR, we're drilling on the same plain just out of federal land... and that foreign sponsored oil rigs are sitting within either 50 or 100 miles of Key West.

6. I already apologized for that error. I had a rough day at work and my mind was on another topic at the moment.

For the record, I don't have cable TV... which means I don't have Fox News at my disposal unless I go to the gym. I listen to Fox Radio news updates but those are politically neutral.

[Naturist Mark]

McCains getting in trouble from Van Halen now by using their song 'Right Now', for Palin's speech the other night. He did not have the band's permission to use the song.

How many times has he illegally used songs now? Six or seven? This doesn't even fall into 'fair use' as he is using it for personal gain.

This just goes to show how McCain will do whatever he can to become president. The ironic thing is that McCain has come out in favour of intelectual property, but now he is violating the very things he supports.

Not that this is shocking, this is par for the course for him.

He doesn't really have to get permission, McCain can use most commercial music under compulsory licensing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_licensing) - but he'll have to pay the royalties. Most likely the campaign contracted via ASCAP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASCAP) or BMI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_Music_Incorporated). It is usual for people seeking rights to contact the artists or copyright owners directly - and this usually results in lower royalty fees. In the case of Van Halen this was not done, nor was it done in an earlier case where a McCain commercial used a Jackson Browne song - in that case it used an actual recording of a performance by Browne - which goes too far if done without express permission because courts have ruled that the use of a person's voice in a political ad implies endorsement.

It will be interesting to see how this sorts out.

-Mark

[nakedstudent]

How do you feel about this rewriting of God Bless America (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X77R_prkCkg) sung at the religious right sponsored "Value Voters Presidential Debate" attended by McCain? Why didn't he ever denounce it? Why didn't ANY of the Republicans denounce it?

-Mark

I had never heard of that arrangement before.

The huge glaring difference between the two different instances is that Wright is talking about an issue that most Americans don't believe exists anymore.

Look at Elizabeth Hasselbeck on The View with Whoppie a few weeks ago....

I think that people who continue to spread hateful speech like saying what Wright (appears to have) said or it's ok for a black person to say the N-word but not a white person only perpetuate the fringe of society that carries racist views. Look at Hip-hop and rap music if you need another example.

The link you provided talks about issues that I think are much more alive. It's that whole "Freedom of religion" vs "Freedom from religion" debate.

Now I would say (as a teacher) that there are plenty of opportunities for prayer in school. I do not think that they need to be organized. I think religion in school should be a personal matter because children haven't learned how to respect other's views yet or how to formulate their own.

About the abortion stanza, I think the end said a lot about how society and its morals have decayed. There isn't much that is wrong anymore. Drug use, bad behavior, irresponsible sex, etc, etc... I think that this trend is very troubling. We have removed almost all punishment or consequence for bad behavior and even gone as far as saying that there is no society holds no view of the "correctness" of one's views.

I don't think the song was saying "God doesn't bless America." or even "God shouldn't bless America." It said to me that we have responsibilities to ourselves, each other, and our God (whether or not you believe he exists) to act in a certain way. From the rightist view, the country isn't acting that way and hasn't been for quite some time now. Take the song "I kissed a girl" for example if you want to... It blatantly glorifies lesbianism and when I work at the pool I run during the summer, I have to hear 5 and 6 year old running around singing it without even knowing what it really means.

When I listened to it, it felt like a rally cry for me to think about my actions and if they are really worthy of God's grace or if I was taking the gift of freewill he gave me for granted.

[Qikdraw]

I just don't see any leadership in Obama worth following. After saying that, I'm still not sure if I can vote for McCain... so I don't know what I'm gonna do in NOV...

From reading your posts I really do not believe you do not know who you are voting for. From your following posts all you have done is go after Obama and not go after McCain in any way at all. Your following posts also show many of the 'core' republican 'values' of their base, which means you already know who you are voting for.

My question is why the charade? If you're voting for McCain vote for McCain, don't hide behind a lie. If you are going to vote for McCain I don't think anyone will say you can't, vote your beliefs, and if you believe that McCain is the best choice then follow that belief.

I've seen a few other members try and act 'moderate' as well, but 90% of the time they only attack Obama, or their only defence goes back to a republican talking point. Very much like the republican pundits who were 'saddened' by Obama's pick of Biden, and acting all 'concerned' for the fate of the democratic party.

I've seen McCain's policies and they head in the same direction the country is heading in now, which the vast majority of Americans think is the wrong direction. He has a sea of lobbyists behind him who have shaped his policies, which has nothing to do with helping Americans but corporations. He's lied about his policies, frequently makes policy blunders, and promised to run a clean campaign, but instead has turned out all attack ads.

I much prefer Obama as I like his policies a lot better than McCain's. Are they perfect? No, I think some of them have a lot of work to do to make them how I would like them, but they are still far better than John McCain's. Obama has also been right more often than McCain on foriegn policy issues in the last couple years than McCain has. Will he do everything he says? I don't know, but I am willing to give him that chance.

[Naturist Mark]

I don't think the song was saying "God doesn't bless America." or even "God shouldn't bless America." It said to me that we have responsibilities to ourselves, each other, and our God (whether or not you believe he exists) to act in a certain way. From the rightist view, the country isn't acting that way and hasn't been for quite some time now.

Ta Daa! You DO get it! That is exactly what Rev. Wright was saying.

-Mark

[usmc1]

From reading your posts I really do not believe you do not know who you are voting for. From your following posts all you have done is go after Obama and not go after McCain in any way at all. Your following posts also show many of the 'core' republican 'values' of their base, which means you already know who you are voting for.

My question is why the charade? .

Don't expect an answer to this anymore than I got to my similar, but less diplomatic, query. When confronted with fact, these guys never respond and just move on to some otehr recycled right-wing trash mouthing.

[nakedstudent]

From reading your posts I really do not believe you do not know who you are voting for. From your following posts all you have done is go after Obama and not go after McCain in any way at all. Your following posts also show many of the 'core' republican 'values' of their base, which means you already know who you are voting for.

My question is why the charade? If you're voting for McCain vote for McCain, don't hide behind a lie. If you are going to vote for McCain I don't think anyone will say you can't, vote your beliefs, and if you believe that McCain is the best choice then follow that belief.

I've seen a few other members try and act 'moderate' as well, but 90% of the time they only attack Obama, or their only defence goes back to a republican talking point. Very much like the republican pundits who were 'saddened' by Obama's pick of Biden, and acting all 'concerned' for the fate of the democratic party.

I've seen McCain's policies and they head in the same direction the country is heading in now, which the vast majority of Americans think is the wrong direction. He has a sea of lobbyists behind him who have shaped his policies, which has nothing to do with helping Americans but corporations. He's lied about his policies, frequently makes policy blunders, and promised to run a clean campaign, but instead has turned out all attack ads.

I much prefer Obama as I like his policies a lot better than McCain's. Are they perfect? No, I think some of them have a lot of work to do to make them how I would like them, but they are still far better than John McCain's. Obama has also been right more often than McCain on foriegn policy issues in the last couple years than McCain has. Will he do everything he says? I don't know, but I am willing to give him that chance.


I see McCain as a sell out in many ways and don't believe he represents true conservatism or even fiscal conservatism. I like him on some issues but I don't like most of his stances. I didn't cover them because you all know them. I just see this huge segment of the population blindly following Obama when they have never even been exposed to Rezco, Wright, Ayres, or any of the things Obama says or does on a near daily basis that shows he has poor judgment.

About the only thing that is really pushing me to vote for McCain right now is the fact that 2 or 3 supreme court justices will be appointed under the next president. Besides that, I find myself shifting more and more from conservatism to libertarianism on a daily basis and find Bob Barr as a really attractive choice in the fall. The 2 party system is indeed broken. Look at congressional and presidential approval ratings if you need evidence. I just don't know if right now is the right time for me to jump ship and go 3rd party... even though I really want to...(this should excite you because a vote for Barr is really a vote for Obama)

But I have looked at Obama's policies and character issues (not to mention the times he's blatantly lied in his political adds P.L. 110-181) and have decided that I don't think the policies are what's right for the country and that the character and judgment issues are too overwhelming for me to vote for him.

[ki4kxq]

Watta hoot! Guys like you come in here under some innocuous screen name pretending to be what you're not, "Oh me, oh my, I just don't know who I will vote for", and then vomit forth all the filth, lies, canards and shibboleths from the right-wing noise machine of screeching-monkeys hurling fetid little handfuls of offal, flap-doodle, and yammer-yammer at decent folk from their narrow, dark little closed-mind cages of hate and insecurity.

Quit the pretense, and step forth and be who you are! You have friends and fellow travelers here. People whose depth and breadth of knowledge extend all the way from Limbaugh to Lieberman. People who think shooting a moose, and sleeping with a commercial fisherman, and selling an airplane on eBay qualifies one to be president of the United States. They are eager to embrace you as one of their own, or is it that you are already one of them?

For some reason, you are permitted to post lies as if they were truths, and we are not permitted to identify you as to the name given people who lie. It is the same old game, post the lies, and get some attention while better people, people with more understanding and knowledge rebut and refute those lies.

For you to state or infer that Senator Obama has put forth a "nationalized" health plan is to perpetuate a lie promulgated by the ridiculous, reactionary right-wing. He has put forth a framework, a starting point of ideas and suggestions, for discussion and negotiation which is hoped will lead us to a system of healthcare that is affordable and accessible to all. You're against that? Shame, shame on you!

You are repeating a proven, bald-faced lie when you write that Senator Obama espouses "diplomacy without preconditions". If you have sufficient intellect and ability to make your way to this forum, you also have sufficient intellect to know that this is not what he said within the context of the moment from which the assertion comes.

You ask questions. So do I. Why do you come among us repeating lies and pretending to be what you're not?:mad:


Here's the thing, as far as we are concerned, those of us whom you call misinformed and dishonest, see YOU as exactly that. The same things that you accuse us of, getting our information from shady sources and partisan hacks, is the same thing you all are doing. Everything you post is nothing more than sound bites and half truths from the leftist media and extremist left wing blogs.

For anybody that can listen to what Obama said, he did say he would sit down with the leaders of Iran and North Korea without any preconditions. So you calling someone a liar for repeating what Obama said, is nothing but a lie in and of itself.

I thought no one was supposed to call someone else a liar on this forum, I have restrained myself many times where you are concerned. However, I am sick and tired of you bullying people on this forum and calling them liars. If you don't like someone's opinion, that is fine and dandy, but you sir are nothing but a hate mongering bully and I for one will not stand for it any longer, as I am calling you on it right here and right now. There are many people on this forum that have the same opinions you do about McCain and Obama, yet they somehow manage to not call people liars with every post they put up, they don't feel the need to bully folks.

I have learned one important thing from this forum. This country is divided into two very distinct groups. These two groups not only don't see things eye to eye, we are not in the same zip code. We are so far apart on what we see as the truth, nothing I believe will bring us together.

As far as arguing with you anymore, I am going to defer to the advice one of my commanders gave me long ago. "Never go toe to toe with an idiot, a stranger could walk by and not know who the idiot is." That is good advice and I think I will heed it.

[nakedstudent]

Ta Daa! You DO get it! That is exactly what Rev. Wright was saying.

-Mark

If you notice the post you responded to, I said basically that I don't feel racism exists the way it used to in this country anymore which is what the sermon appeared to be about. The issues in the song are more present than racism today. Now if you give me the chance to watch the sermon in its entirety, my views may change. I won't dismiss the song though because of what I've already said.

[usmc1]

Here's the thing, as far as we are concerned, those of us whom you call misinformed and dishonest, see YOU as exactly that. The same things that you accuse us of, getting our information from shady sources and partisan hacks, is the same thing you all are doing. Everything you post is nothing more than sound bites and half truths from the leftist media and extremist left wing blogs.

For anybody that can listen to what Obama said, he did say he would sit down with the leaders of Iran and North Korea without any preconditions. So you calling someone a liar for repeating what Obama said, is nothing but a liar in and of itself.

I thought no one was supposed to call someone else a liar on this forum, I have restrained myself many times where you are concerned. However, I am sick and tired of you bullying people on this forum and calling them liars. If you don't like someone's opinion, that is fine and dandy, but you sir are nothing but a hate mongering bully and I for one will not stand for it any longer.

Quivering in my Dingos!

But, you, in fact, are doing precisely what I asserted the other correspondent was doing. Lifting a few words, utterly out of context, without the qualifying modifiers, and attacking that "straw man". It was a lie on the first occasion when the right-wing noise machine did it, and it was well rebutted and refuted, successfully, in the media and in threads here. To perpetuate and repeat a proven lie invites criticism.

Get over it!

You accuse me of lying, put up or shut up! Where have I lied?

You accuse me of being a hate-mongering bully because I stand up to right-wing lies and bullying!

Get over it!

[usmc1]

WORRIED ABOUT PALIN'S NATIONAL SECURITY CREDENTIALS? DON'T CINDY'S GOT IT COVERED FOR HER!

Alaska is close to Russia and there's this Bering Strait Osmosis effect.. And, after all, she paid her dues at all those PTA meetings, "I said cupcakes, not brownies! I want cupcakes, with frosting, Got It!"


When a Fox News morning host, Steve Doocy, testified to Sarah Palin's national security experience on Friday by saying that her state, Alaska, was so close to Russia, it drew hoots across the media and blogosphere (and even, no doubt, from a few Fox viewers).
<o:p></o:p>
This morning, on ABC in an interview with George Stephanopoulos, Cindy McCain endorsed this very view.
<o:p></o:p>
<!-- End of Brightcove Player --> Asked about Palin's national security experience, Cindy McCain could not come up with anything beyond the fact that, after all, her state is right next to Russia. "You know, the experience that she comes from is, what she has done in government -- and remember that Alaska is the closest part of our continent to Russia."
<o:p></o:p>
She added that Palin has "way more experience than...." but Stephanopoulos cut her off before she could say, for example, "Barack Obama" or maybe "others give her credit for."
<o:p></o:p>
Earlier in the interview, she said that Palin was "heavily experienced" in general, citing her going from the PTA to mayor to governor -- and having a son headed for Iraq. She actually said that she started her political career at the PTA "like everybody else."

[tinhfwv]

Ta Daa! You DO get it! That is exactly what Rev. Wright was saying.

-Mark

Exactly???

[nakedstudent]

WORRIED ABOUT PALIN'S NATIONAL SECURITY CREDENTIALS? DON'T CINDY'S GOT IT COVERED FOR HER!

Alaska is close to Russia and there's this Bering Strait Osmosis effect.. And, after all, she paid her dues at all those PTA meetings, "I said cupcakes, not brownies! I want cupcakes, with frosting, Got It!"


When a Fox News morning host, Steve Doocy, testified to Sarah Palin's national security experience on Friday by saying that her state, Alaska, was so close to Russia, it drew hoots across the media and blogosphere (and even, no doubt, from a few Fox viewers).
<o:p></o:p>
This morning, on ABC in an interview with George Stephanopoulos, Cindy McCain endorsed this very view.
<o:p></o:p>
<!-- End of Brightcove Player --> Asked about Palin's national security experience, Cindy McCain could not come up with anything beyond the fact that, after all, her state is right next to Russia. "You know, the experience that she comes from is, what she has done in government -- and remember that Alaska is the closest part of our continent to Russia."
<o:p></o:p>
She added that Palin has "way more experience than...." but Stephanopoulos cut her off before she could say, for example, "Barack Obama" or maybe "others give her credit for."
<o:p></o:p>
Earlier in the interview, she said that Palin was "heavily experienced" in general, citing her going from the PTA to mayor to governor -- and having a son headed for Iraq. She actually said that she started her political career at the PTA "like everybody else."

My position is that Obama's lack of experience is so evident that he picked Joe Bidden to run with him. John McCain does have foreign policy experience. He doesn't need a vice president who has foreign policy experience for that simple fact. Both tickets now have foreign policy experience. Do I think Obama will listen to Bidden on everything? No... probably not... But McCain indisputably has much more experience than Obama...

[ki4kxq]

Quivering in my Dingos!

But, you, in fact, are doing precisely what I asserted the other correspondent was doing. Lifting a few words, utterly out of context, without the qualifying modifiers, and attacking that "straw man". It was a lie on the first occasion when the right-wing noise machine did it, and it was well rebutted and refuted, successfully, in the media and in threads here. To perpetuate and repeat a proven lie invites criticism.

Get over it!

You accuse me of lying, put up or shut up! Where have I lied?

You accuse me of being a hate-mongering bully because I stand up to right-wing lies and bullying!

Get over it!


Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.


This is directly from Barack Obama's website. I don't know if you will understand what it says, but it states he is the only candidate that would speak with Iran without preconditions. It looks like Nadedstudent is not the liar afterall.

[nakedstudent]

I think Iran should be able to use nuclear energy for the purpose of energy. I'm not sure what the correct course of action would be to ensure that nuclear capabilities were not connected to weaponry. I don't think there is a big conspiracy that the US government wants to keep Iran in the 3rd world. The very thought of that is absolutely appalling.

[Boreas]

If you notice the post you responded to, I said basically that I don't feel racism exists the way it used to in this country anymore which is what the sermon appeared to be about. The issues in the song are more present than racism today. Now if you give me the chance to watch the sermon in its entirety, my views may change. I won't dismiss the song though because of what I've already said.

Oh racism may have improved, but I do believe it is alive and well today. I am currently listening to a program on CBC about the Lower Ninth Ward. That seems to me to be one example of racism.

[Naturist Mark]

By now we all know that Gov. Sarah Palin is a strict pro-lifer, opposing abortion even in the case of rape or incest, but like many in the religious right she is also opposed to taking those steps that are proven to reduce unplanned pregnancies, she is on record as supporting Abstinence Only sex education (which I characterize as "Ignorance Only" education) despite its proven poor results, and is even against allowing access to family planning services (meaning contraceptive information and supplies) to poor women and sexually active teens.

Well, her 'chickens have come home to roost', the Palin family has announced that unmarried 17 year old Bristol Palin is 5 months pregnant. The McCain campaign says they knew about the pregnancy when Gov. Palin was chosen as their VP candidate.

The Palin's say their announcement was intended to squelch rumors (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/29/17933/7330/417/579267) that 5 month old Trig Palin was actually Bristol's child, but was claimed by her parents to prevent scandal.

The Palin family says that young Bristol and her boyfriend will be married.

-Mark

[jon71]

Actually ki4kxq the Bush admin, McCain, and many others are slowly moving towards Obama's positions that we actually have to deal with our enemies, not ignore them. Not only is he right but experts in foriegn policy are near unanimous in endorsing his approach. I can't think of anything more dangerous than ignoring and turning a blind eye to Iran like McCain originally suggested.

[hm0504]

...

The Palin family says that young Bristol and her boyfriend will be married.

-Mark

I'm sure that had they not had an unexpected baby on the way, they would no doubt have chosen to marry anyway -- NOT! Should be interesting, will the young beau (I assume he's young) be moving to Washington DC to maintain the relationship? Will his family?

Obviously, I don't know the specifics of this particular relationship but given that the daughter is under the age of majority, is she really able to legally decide on marriage?

[Home Nudist]

Senator John Edwards plans on holding a press conference to announce that he IS NOT the father ! :rotflmao:

[Qikdraw]

The Palin family says that young Bristol and her boyfriend will be married.

Well personally I don't view the daughter being pregnant as anything major really. Yes Palin is an abstinance only supporter, but many other mothers who are abstinance only get daughters who get pregnant, its part of life. It happens. The daughter is lucky her parents make good money and that her and the baby will be taken care of.

The marriage thing, I can only guess at, but I think that the marriage was probably forced on the two because of their religious views. Will they make a good couple? I don't know, time will tell, but considering the Bible belt is the largest area of divorces, I don't hold out much hope on that they will stay together. (I know alaska is not in the bible belt, but people getting married because they want to have sex, or because they are having a baby, because of religion ties it together)

I hope for the best for these two children and their baby to be though.

[usmc1]

Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.


This is directly from Barack Obama's website. I don't know if you will understand what it says, but it states he is the only candidate that would speak with Iran without preconditions. It looks like Nadedstudent is not the liar afterall.


<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Shane/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msoclip1/01/clip_filelist.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style> The lie, “diplomacy without preconditions”.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o>:p></o>:p>
The truth, "Barack Obama has always said that he is willing to meet with appropriate Iranian leaders at the appropriate time after due preparation and advance work by US diplomats. That's what he said last summer, and that's what he's said throughout the campaign. Preparation is not a precondition it is absolutely necessary to the success of any diplomatic effort. You need to build an agenda and open lines of communication, just as we would do with any country, But Barack Obama believes we must be willing to lead, just like Kennedy did, and just like Reagan did. And that's what he will do as president."

It is as I have said all along. When you lift a few words out of context and attack those words it is a lie--a form of the old straw man fallacy. This particular lie has been so put to rest that even the lick spit sycophants at Fox don't even bother with it any more.

There was no purpose to repeating and perpetuating the lie other than to repeat and perpetuate a lie.

But just to take it a tad further, the desire on the part of the right-wing to dictate to other countries the conditions under which we will practice diplomacy is an essential misunderstanding of the spheres of influence as they exist in the post cold-war world.

But, back to the point of contention. Yes, if someone has access to the truth and they chose to repeat and perpetuate disproved lies, then yeah, they're going to catch some severe criticism.

It is regrettable that you regard that honest criticism as bullying. Truth always has a liberal bias!

[Qikdraw]

I see McCain as a sell out in many ways and don't believe he represents true conservatism or even fiscal conservatism. I like him on some issues but I don't like most of his stances. I didn't cover them because you all know them. I just see this huge segment of the population blindly following Obama when they have never even been exposed to Rezco, Wright, Ayres, or any of the things Obama says or does on a near daily basis that shows he has poor judgment.

Rezco, Wright, and Ayres has been explained to you. As you have said you've already made up your mind, your distrust of what you have been told about these is understandable. I distrust McCain on many things, the Keating Five scandal for one, and his poor judgement on many other issues as well.


About the only thing that is really pushing me to vote for McCain right now is the fact that 2 or 3 supreme court justices will be appointed under the next president.

Well this is troubling to me because I want Justices to rule based on rule of law, not political or idealogical beliefs. This is a democracy founded on the rule of law, not a theocracy, which is what will end up happening if we put Justices in that do not rule based on law.


Besides that, I find myself shifting more and more from conservatism to libertarianism on a daily basis and find Bob Barr as a really attractive choice in the fall. The 2 party system is indeed broken. Look at congressional and presidential approval ratings if you need evidence. I just don't know if right now is the right time for me to jump ship and go 3rd party... even though I really want to...(this should excite you because a vote for Barr is really a vote for Obama)

Actually I don't believe it is. I don't know how many of my posts you have read before, but I'm Canadian by birth, and am a Permanent Resident (green card) of the US now. I come from a multi party system, and I believe the two party system of the US is a flawed system, that it only allows two choices where the majority of Americans would be better served in a multi party system.

The only way 3rd partys are going to get anywhere is if people vote for them. I don't think people should be afraid to vote for them at all. I don't think its a throw away vote. Barr is a good Libertarian choice. He stood up for his convictions and left the Republican party when he felt it had become too bad to support. I fully respect his choice in doing so, it shows he has character and moral fibre. I'm not a huge fan of Libertarian policies, which is why I would never vote Libertarian, but I believe they hold value to a democracy. The more viewpoints allowed at the table the better the people are represented.


But I have looked at Obama's policies and character issues (not to mention the times he's blatantly lied in his political adds P.L. 110-181) and have decided that I don't think the policies are what's right for the country and that the character and judgment issues are too overwhelming for me to vote for him.

Fair enough. I obviously believe different, but that is what is great about Democracy, we can disagree, but still have fun debating. :D


My position is that Obama's lack of experience is so evident that he picked Joe Bidden to run with him. John McCain does have foreign policy experience. He doesn't need a vice president who has foreign policy experience for that simple fact. Both tickets now have foreign policy experience. Do I think Obama will listen to Bidden on everything? No... probably not... But McCain indisputably has much more experience than Obama...

Well I look at it this way... Obama has been right on foreign policy a lot over the past few years, in fact the things that Bush and McCain used to put scorn on, are the things Bush is doing now, and McCain is getting behind it now.

Precision strikes into Pakistan.
More troops in Afganistan.
Talking with Iran.
Timetable with Iraq.

Those are just the quick ones that pop into my head. Those are thing he was laughed at and called 'naive' over, yet the Bush admin is now doing it all.

McCain has shown he doesn't know the difference between Shiite and Sunni, has mentioned Chekloslovakia a few times, even though it hsn't been a country in a while now, has said that Iraq and Pakistan share a border, and has said he wants to bomb Iran.

While you may view McCain as having foreign policy experience how do you feel he is on domestic issues? He doesn't even have a VP with domestic experience. This is the number one issue voters are concentrating on, and McCain's domestic policy is written by a guy who called America a 'nation of whiners'. His drilling for oil offshore will have no benefit for 20 years (government numbers) and there is no guarentee that that oil will be used soley for teh American market. We ship out 1.8 million barrels of oil a day to be sold on the open market, yet it was drilled here in the US. McCain not guarenteeing oil drilled offshore to be sold in America simply means its a handout to the oil companies.

Eight years ago I would have been happy with McCain, but he has reversed position on so many of his issues I have no idea where he stands anymore. There is a rumour that the campaign has not allowed him his cel phone before he goes out and speaks because he'll beleive the last thing he is told. WHich is why he has had so many policy blunders so far.

Another thing that has bothered me is his 'hands off' approach to the party platform, he has stayed well away from that, and appears to be having no input. This is not the mark of someone who is decicive and a leader. It appears to me that he will just do what other people tell him to do. That is not someone I want as president.


I think Iran should be able to use nuclear energy for the purpose of energy. I'm not sure what the correct course of action would be to ensure that nuclear capabilities were not connected to weaponry. I don't think there is a big conspiracy that the US government wants to keep Iran in the 3rd world. The very thought of that is absolutely appalling.

I'm glad you said that! :) Iran, in seeking nuclear power plants, is not violating any international treaty at all. They are allowed to progress with nuclear power if they want to. What the Bush administration has been saying from day one is that this is a front for a weapons program, yet they have said this with no proof. Considering their lack of credibility in these situations, (Iraq) I'm not going to believe them. Besides from what I understand Iran is allowing inspectors to come in and look things over.

All we hear on tv is that Iran is acting in bad faith by proceeding with a nuke plant, yet they have every legal right to do so.

(sorry for the long post, but I thought I would just put 3 of your posts into one. :) )

[Naturist Mark]

It's looking less and less like the McCain campaign actually vetted Gov. Palin.

Turns out that "troopergate" isn't the first time she has fired subordinates for not following through on illegal orders. When she was mayor of the tiny hamlet of Wasilla, she fired the police chief and Library Director (http://www.washingtonindependent.com/3671/the-reform-candidate) for not supporting her in the 1996 election, and nearly faced recall in 1997 over the scandal. A court later ruled that the firing of the police chief was legal, not because the reasons were ethical, but because in Alaska a mayor does not need a reason to fire a police chief.

She lied about rejecting funding for the "bridge to nowhere" (http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/511471.html) during her introduction in Dayton, in fact she lobbied extensively in favor of it and was bitterly opposed to the ending of the project.

And although she describes her husband as a "commercial fisherman", his actual employment is as a supervisor for oil giant BP. Todd Palin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Palin) took a leave from that job in 2007 while Gov. Palin was negotiating a gas pipeline project involving BP, but returned 7 months later. He did not take any leave while his wife was a member of the Alaska Oil and Gas Consevation Commission. As first gentleman of Alaska Todd Palin often sits in on cabinet meetings involving the oil industry.

Meanwhile the Palin administration is claiming executive privilege to prevent emails sent to Todd Palin (http://www.andrewhalcro.com/shadow_governor) from being released that are related to the Gas Pipeline project.

And then there is yet another public employee who was fired without official reason, but who had gotten on the bad side of Todd Palin for dating the soon to be ex-wife of a buddy of the first gentleman.

Oh ... and she doesn't know much about history:Question: Are you offended by the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?

Palin: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I'll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.

Maybe she learned her history from "creation history" experts.

Every day two new Palin scandals surface. I don't think it is possible there was any real vetting process in the McCain VP selection.

-Mark

[Naturist Mark]

The only way 3rd partys are going to get anywhere is if people vote for them. I don't think people should be afraid to vote for them at all. I don't think its a throw away vote. Barr is a good Libertarian choice. He stood up for his convictions and left the Republican party when he felt it had become too bad to support. I fully respect his choice in doing so, it shows he has character and moral fibre. I'm not a huge fan of Libertarian policies, which is why I would never vote Libertarian, but I believe they hold value to a democracy. The more viewpoints allowed at the table the better the people are represented.

I agree about getting more people at the table, but I don't agree that a vote for a third party is thrown away. In fact, it is usually worse than thrown away - it ends up promoting the candidate most opposed to those of the third party candidate.

When I was a wee poly-sci student back in the days when John McCain was still cheating on his first wife, we were taught that third parties promoted democracy by being incubators for new policies that are then co-opted by the major parties as they become popular. That may still be true - for instance much of the Green agenda is being adopted by the Democratic Party, but in the mean time Green votes may have prevented their policies from being implemented - a case in point being Ralph Nader's role in peeling away Gore votes (although as we all know, Al won that election anyway - until it was overturned by the Supreme Court).

The problem is our plurality vote system. Winner takes all pretty much enforces a two party system and relegates third parties to the role of spoilers rather than promoters of democracy. The solution is to use a proportional voting system or one that ranks candidates or provides a runoff system so that the outcome of the election more closely confirms to the overall wishes of the voters.

Americans are not likely to embrace a proportional representation system where they vote for a party and the legislative body is filled with members from each party in proportion to their overall vote. They want to actually vote for a specific person who lives in their district. Probably the simplest way to achieve this is to use a Single Transferable Vote in a Single Winner election - which is basically an instant runoff system.

The problem with non-plurality voting systems that give third parties a useful role is that the majority parties would have to willingly give up their monopoly on power to allow the change, and they aren't going to allow that.

Voting Systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_systems)
Single Transferable Vote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Transferable_Vote)

-Mark

[hm0504]

I agree with Qikdraw about a multi-party system (not that the U.S. disallows more parties but it has become a de facto two party system, which is at least a bit better than a one party system). Nonetheless, it is important to note a key difference: in Parliamentary systems where one can have a minority leader whereas in the U.S., the Presidency is going to be single party whether he/she received a majority or not.

Also agree with Mark about McCain not vetting Palin. As much as I like McCain (but agree with NudeAl's perspective), picking Palin was certainly not a safe choice (but McCain felt the gamble was justified).

[Qikdraw]

McCain Sells His Soul: Hires Man Who Sunk His 2000 Campaign (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/mccain-hires-go.html/)


Former officials of Sen. John McCain's 2000 campaign expressed shock and disbelief Monday to learn than the GOP presidential nominee had hired South Carolina political consultant Tucker Eskew.

Eskew, along with Warren Tompkins and Neal Rhodes, were key members of then-Gov. George W. Bush's South Carolina team during the 2000 primaries. McCain and his team long held Bush, Tompkins, Rhodes and Eskew responsible for the various smears against McCain and his family in the Palmetto state during that contentious contest.

-snip-

Eight years later, with a tough fight of his own, McCain has turned to one of the same men. Asked if the McCain campaign would have a comment about hiring one of the South Carolina strategists the senator and his 2000 campaign team once held responsible for smears against him, McCain 2008 spokesman Brian Rogers emailed, "No."

Wasn't this one of the guys McCain said there was a 'special place in hell' (http://www.dadmag.com/archive/060400jmccain.php) for people like those? No he goes and hires him. What does that say about McCain's judgement?

[jon71]

I have to step off track for a minute. If Iran had "peaceful" nuclear energy it would just be used as a disguise to try and make nuclear weapons. Let's make sure they don't get there. Btw before any conservatives lie Obama's position is "no nukes for Iran".

[tinhfwv]

Oh ... and she doesn't know much about history:Question: Are you offended by the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?

Palin: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I'll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.

Your conclusion ("she doesn't know much about history"), is based upon how you chose to interpret the example you gave. The founding fathers frequently embraced God in their speech and writing.

[usmc1]

Gallup Daily: Obama Hits 50% for First Time

Leads McCain by eight percentage points, 50% to 42%
PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup Poll Daily tracking (http://www.gallup.com/tag/Gallup%2bDaily.aspx) from Aug. 30 through Sept. 1, finds Barack Obama leading the race for president with his highest share of support to date. Fully half of national registered voters now favor Obama for president, while 42% back John McCain.

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080902DailyUpdateGraph1_cnwprms.gif

[Naturist Mark]

Your conclusion ("she doesn't know much about history"), is based upon how you chose to interpret the example you gave. The founding fathers frequently embraced God in their speech and writing.

No, my conclusion that "she doesn't know much about history" rests on the fact that "under God" was added to the pledge in the 1950's, a fact she clearly didn't know.

-Mark

[brazhunter]

No, my conclusion that "she doesn't know much about history" rests on the fact that "under God" was added to the pledge in the 1950's, a fact she clearly didn't know.

-Mark
Yep, that's a deal breaker. :rolleyes:

[Sanslines]

No, my conclusion that "she doesn't know much about history" rests on the fact that "under God" was added to the pledge in the 1950's, a fact she clearly didn't know.

-Mark

So we take one specific phrase that may or may not be indicative of anything as it is taken out of context and make a broad and sweeping generalization about this woman that is clearly misleading. This is one of the oldest tricks in the book and fools no one. The only thing that this example demonstrates is that some people clearly do not like this woman and will do almost anything to discredit her.

I would have thought that McCain would have picked someone such as Lieberman as a running mate but he did not and will have to live with his choice.

[usmc1]

Yep, that's a deal breaker. :rolleyes:

Nope, the deal-breaker, as it were, is that she is unmitigatedly unqualified for the job that she has dragged her 17-year old child-having-a-child out on the world stage, reveling to all that unfortuante child's most precious and private secrets, in order to get. Any mother willing to make such a pawn of her teenage daughter lacks the character to lead.

The fact that the founding fathers had naught to do with the pledge of allegience (created in about 1850, if I recall correctly) is merely demonstrates her pandering stupidity.

[brazhunter]

Nope, the deal-breaker, as it were, is that she is unmitigatedly unqualified for the job that she has dragged her 17-year old child-having-a-child out on the world stage, reveling to all that unfortuante child's most precious and private secrets, in order to get.


She didn't drag her daughter into it, the POS liberal press/bloggers and dem dirty tricks squad did. Your accusation is despicable and unfounded but since you're clearly a democrat campaign activist (per your own comments), quite possibly on the dems payroll, I supposed your comments are to be expected.

Now matter how you get down to it, she's still far more qualified than the 1 year senator (unless you're counting the last couple years where he was campaigning as opposed to legislating), former community organizer (whatever that is), who is the opposing presidential candidate.

[tinhfwv]

No, my conclusion that "she doesn't know much about history" rests on the fact that "under God" was added to the pledge in the 1950's, a fact she clearly didn't know.

-Mark

That fact is well known. However, in your example you apparently assume that her answer specifically referred to the text of the pledge, rather than generally referring to the founding fathers affinity for inserting God in their speech and writing.

[Qikdraw]

The fact that the founding fathers had naught to do with the pledge of allegience (created in about 1850, if I recall correctly)

Sorry to correct you. 1892

1942 was when it was formaly accepted and 1954 when 'under God' was added.

What has the world come to when a Canadian knows more about American history than Americans? :D

*poke*

*poke*

Eh? usmc1. :D

[Qikdraw]

I have to step off track for a minute. If Iran had "peaceful" nuclear energy it would just be used as a disguise to try and make nuclear weapons. Let's make sure they don't get there. Btw before any conservatives lie Obama's position is "no nukes for Iran".

There is still no treaty that Iran is breaking by going to nuclear power. I believe Iran has said inspectors will be able to have access as well.

This is just a push by neo-cons to go to war again.

[brazhunter]

I believe Iran has said inspectors will be able to have access as well.
Iran has been less that forthcoming about their nuclear program. On one hand, they almost daily threaten total annihilation of Isreal while at the same time declaring that their top secret nuclear research is strictly for peaceful purposes.

[Qikdraw]

She didn't drag her daughter into it, the POS liberal press/bloggers and dem dirty tricks squad did.

Actually wasn't it her campaign that released it? Because there was allegations that her youngest son was in fact her daughters. I think that this was damage control as it is better to release information yourself than have someone else do it for you.

I don't think this damages her in any way it actually makes her family more 'normal'. Even with staunch conservative values they still have to face what many Americans do.

Plus I don't think its a POS liberal press/bloggers that are a problem. You know as well as I that any hint of scandal and all press goes nuts. If Obama had a 17 year old daughter and it turned out she was pregnant that would be as plastered over the news as this is. Just look at how long the Anna Nicole Smith baby thing was kept in the media. It really is a sign our news media would rather focus on fluff than proper news.

If you'll pardon the pun, they need to put this baby to rest and cover real issues.

[Qikdraw]

Iran has been less that forthcoming about their nuclear program. On one hand, they almost daily threaten total annihilation of Isreal while at the same time declaring that their top secret nuclear research is strictly for peaceful purposes.

True, but don't we do the same thing? With the whole 'axis of evil' we put Iran and North Korea on high alert. We essentially threatened them. And while I think this was more of Bush just pandering to his base, don't you think that the Iranian president does the same?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Iran is all sweetness and light, but threatening them for doing something allowed by international law and treaties is idiotic. There are far better ways to deal with people rather than threatening them. I think the best resolution is allowing them the plants, but having international monitoring so weapons grade plutonium is not made.

[usmc1]

She didn't drag her daughter into it, the POS liberal press/bloggers and dem dirty tricks squad did. Your accusation is despicable and unfounded but since you're clearly a democrat campaign activist (per your own comments), quite possibly on the dems payroll, I supposed your comments are to be expected.

Now matter how you get down to it, she's still far more qualified than the 1 year senator (unless you're counting the last couple years where he was campaigning as opposed to legislating), former community organizer (whatever that is), who is the opposing presidential candidate.

Nope, you're playing the McCain game, of blaming the media and democrats. The media did not drag the girl out on the world stage full-well knowing she was pregnant.

1. The girl was five months pregnant, the mother knew it. She knew wthe "baby bump" was showing and that given her extremist views on contraception that it would become an issue, and she forged ahead with it.
2. The mother put her up on the world stage as part of a "pretty picture of a perfect Christian conservative" family absolutely knowing that she would be under scrutiny. The media nor the democrats did that, encouraged that nor did they make her do that. You want to stand for the office, you're going to get scrutinzed, as stupid as Palin is, she knew that.
3. Even today she's dragging the kid and her boyfriend to parade around the RNC.
4. No truly caring mother should put a 17-year old child through such a process. It is a black-hearted and reprehensible thing to to do to that girl.
5. Palin had a choice, "Our daughter will not be with us in our campaign pictures or part of the campaign process, she is sorting out some personal issues, and we request that you give her the privacy to do so, in the same way you gave the Bush's and Clinton's that level of privacy."
6. She chose instead to put her out there and use it as a symbol. Obviously its working for some, but not all.

Get over it, she's a reprehensible clown.

[usmc1]

Sorry to correct you. 1892

1942 was when it was formaly accepted and 1954 when 'under God' was added.

What has the world come to when a Canadian knows more about American history than Americans? :D

*poke*

*poke*

Eh? usmc1. :D

Well after all this time someone hdd to eventually find me in an error. Glad it was you instead of one the nanner-nanner gang, but I did qualify it, about faulty recall. And, I know, you just had that date right there on top of mind awareness, right. Mr. Google played no part?:sneaky:

[jon71]

Actually you made some good points USMC1. I've kind of looked at the pregnancy thing as not that big a deal. I'd rather hit Palin over trooper-gate, accepting tons of pork while trying to pass herself off as fiscally conservative, accepting $4500 in bribes from the people going to prison for bribing Stevens, etc. The thing is she could have said "my daughter is in school and didn't join us this week" or "her stomach's upset and she didn't feel like traveling". It would still have come out but it would have been delayed and maybe they could have managed a bit better. I'd love for the debate to go to abstinence only "education" but I hope it's a policy debate rather than a personal one. Also it should be pointed out that Alaska just got $295 dollars in earmarked pork per person. The national average is $34. So this is who conservatives think will reign in out of control spending? Btw. Illinois is about middle of the pack, Alaska is the biggest porker by a huge margin. As gov. Palin was routinely going to Stevens and "requesting" this project and that project to line up at the trough and Stevens obliged.

[Qikdraw]

Well after all this time someone hdd to eventually find me in an error. Glad it was you instead of one the nanner-nanner gang, but I did qualify it, about faulty recall. And, I know, you just had that date right there on top of mind awareness, right. Mr. Google played no part?:sneaky:

Actually no it didn't. I will admit that I had looked it up last week because of Palin's remarks, so I dug a little deeper to find out more info about it. Lets just say the info was 'fresh' in my memory. :D

Uh huh... The whole 'qualifier' thing... Now you're starting to sound like my wife. lol

[Boreas]

Well after all this time someone hdd to eventually find me in an error. Glad it was you instead of one the nanner-nanner gang, but I did qualify it, about faulty recall. And, I know, you just had that date right there on top of mind awareness, right. Mr. Google played no part?:sneaky:

Oh my! :eek: usmc1 admitting error! Who knew???? :sneaky:

[Naturist Mark]

That fact is well known. However, in your example you apparently assume that her answer specifically referred to the text of the pledge, rather than generally referring to the founding fathers affinity for inserting God in their speech and writing.

Nice spin, but that is not what she wrote.

At least she didn't answer a question about language education by saying "if English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it is good enough for me", although her answer did immediately remind me of that wonderful line (http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/texas/entry/if_english_was_good_enough_for_jesus_its_good_enou gh_for_texas/) allegedly uttered by a Texas governor 80 some years ago.

But lets not lose hope, she still has plenty of time.

Have I mentioned that Democrats consider Palin's selection as a gift from God?

-Mark

[Naturist Mark]

ABC's Brian Ross reports (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5702697&page=1) that the McCain campaign is using stall tactics to prevent Alaska state Senate from issuing its report on the "Troopergate" investigation until after the election.

[Skinview]

Nope, the deal-breaker, as it were, is that she is unmitigatedly unqualified for the jobShe is far more qualified than Obama is.


that she has dragged her 17-year old child-having-a-child out on the world stage, reveling to all that unfortuante child's most precious and private secrets, in order to get. Any mother willing to make such a pawn of her teenage daughter lacks the character to lead.Ah, usmc1 will leave no straw ungrasped to denigrate any Republican politician. A 17 year old is not a "child". Seventeen year olds join the Army and kill people. The pregnancy could not be a secret for long. Its hardly a "precious and private" secret. The '50s are long gone. Teenagers and single women get pregnant all the time, and its hardly a scandal. Or are you going to start bashing Murphy Brown? And what would you have Palin do? Hide her daughter away as if she was ashamed of her? No doubt if she did, you would be denigrating her for that. And EVERY politician parades their family out for these conventions. You don't think Obama was using his family to help get himself elected? Oh please...

[Skinview]

ABC's Brian Ross reports (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5702697&page=1) that the McCain campaign is using stall tactics to prevent Alaska state Senate from issuing its report on the "Troopergate" investigation until after the election.

Ah yes, "troopergate" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Jones). I'm sure some Democrats would like to give that word new meaning. :)

[usmc1]

She is far more qualified than Obama is.

Ah, usmc1 will leave no straw ungrasped to denigrate any Republican politician. A 17 year old is not a "child". Seventeen year olds join the Army and kill people. The pregnancy could not be a secret for long. Its hardly a "precious and private" secret. The '50s are long gone. Teenagers and single women get pregnant all the time, and its hardly a scandal. Or are you going to start bashing Murphy Brown? And what would you have Palin do? Hide her daughter away as if she was ashamed of her? No doubt if she did, you would be denigrating her for that. And EVERY politician parades their family out for these conventions. You don't think Obama was using his family to help get himself elected? Oh please...

Ah conservatives, will leave no stone unturned in order to stir up nasty little confused distortions.

A girl of 17 entering her senior year of high school is a child. In fact a minor child, unable to drink alcohol, unable to vote, unable to enter into contracts without parental consent. And, I do doubt that 17 years olds legally join the army without parental consent or other majority gaining process.

On the other hand, zygotes and fetuses are not children or babies. Conservatives are so confused; they think zygotes are babies and teenagers are not children.

And AGAIN THE PREGNANCY IS NOT THE ISSUE! The issue is that the McCain campaign is demanding "privacy" while at the same time parading this unfortunate child before the world as a symbol or icon of family values.

And yes, 50s or at any time in history, a young girl's sexuality is a very private, precious and secret thing and should not be used for political gain. Unless you're asserting that impregnation came about in a non sexual manner?

Yes politicians put their families up on stage, that is fine. And, as I've said, no family is without a few dysfunctions here and there. But, the situation here is that this particular family poses as a perfect picture of Christian conservatism while the girl has a "baby bump"--Palin knew it would be noticed and questioned, and still put the child-having-a-child out there. She knew what the kid would be exposed to, and went ahead and did it and is using it as a symbol of her own tortured religious outlook. That is not the behavior of a loving,caring mother. It is the behavior of a nitwit!

I and others have suggested several very decent, approaches which would have been respectful of the kid's privacy, ways of handling this. None of us have suggested hiding the pregnancy, so don't distort things by saying that is the issue.

The issue is that the mother is callously exploiting the situation for political symbolism while at the same time saying, don't comment on what I'm doing. BS!

As to my picking on Republicans or conservatives only, please give me a similar situation involving a green, libertarian, democrat, socialist or independent and I will heartily join you in berating the idiot.

[Naturist Mark]

Yet more proof that the best available news source in the American mass media is the Daily Show:

<embed FlashVars='videoId=184086' src='http://www.thedailyshow.com/sitewide/video_player/view/default/swf.jhtml' quality='high' bgcolor='#cccccc' width='332' height='316' name='comedy_central_player' align='middle' allowScriptAccess='always' allownetworking='external' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer'></embed>

-Mark

[Sanslines]

Iran has been less that forthcoming about their nuclear program. On one hand, they almost daily threaten total annihilation of Isreal while at the same time declaring that their top secret nuclear research is strictly for peaceful purposes.

Well, as was demanded by some in the Reagan days, we can always send flowers to Tehran and hope for the best.

[usmc1]

Well, as was demanded by some in the Reagan days, we can always send flowers to Tehran and hope for the best.

Yep, those are our options bomb 'em or send flowers! Watta load.

There are plenty of other effective approaches to international problems other than the extremes of waging war or engaging in appeasement.

The problem is that the dementors and death-eaters of the right regard anything other than war as appeasement!

[brazhunter]

Well, as was demanded by some in the Reagan days, we can always send flowers to Tehran and hope for the best.

That's what Jimmy Carter did... well, I'm not sure about sending flowers but his action regarding the Iranian hostages was to simply do nothing. Reagan was very active against the Iranians in the Persian Gulf when they were attempting to disrupt shipping in the Gulf.

Which is exactly what Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed are doing about the US energy crisis: NOTHING. Well Nancy closed the house session so she could go promote her book so I guess that's something.

[usmc1]

That's what Jimmy Carter did... well, I'm not sure about sending flowers but his action regarding the Iranian hostages was to simply do nothing. Reagan was very active against the Iranians in the Persian Gulf when they were attempting to disrupt shipping in the Gulf.

Why would you make such a false assertion that Carter did nothing? History and common knowlege belie that false claim.

Carter - Desert One, Military blew it! Carter took the blame, but, the military clearly blew it on the ground.

Cripes, just because you can get online and type doesn't mean you should!

[brazhunter]

Why would you make such a false assertion that Carter did nothing? History and common knowlege belie that false claim.

Carter - Desert One, Military blew it! Carter took the blame, but, the military clearly blew it on the ground.
The mission was ridiculous and should have never been authorized by the White House. Regardless, the President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed forces and it was his responsibility to ensure the military was in good working order. Dems hit Bush regularly with charges like that. Why is it you think YOUR standard shouldn't apply to Jimmy Carter?

[Sanslines]

That's what Jimmy Carter did... well, I'm not sure about sending flowers but his action regarding the Iranian hostages was to simply do nothing. Reagan was very active against the Iranians in the Persian Gulf when they were attempting to disrupt shipping in the Gulf.

Which is exactly what Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed are doing about the US energy crisis: NOTHING. Well Nancy closed the house session so she could go promote her book so I guess that's something.

Back in the 1980's, when Reagan was busy building up the capacity of our military to unprecidented levels so that he could negotiate an end to the cold war from a position of strength, many of his critics and detractors seemed to prefer negotiating from a position of weakness. The phrase 'send flowers to Moscow and hope for the best' was a popular phrase that was used to illustrate the 'negotiate from weakness' strategy.

As for Nancy Pelosi, well Ms Pelosi is on continuous vacation and can not be bothered with Congressional affairs until at least after the November elections. She certainly would not want to do anything beneficial for the country at the present time for it might reflect positively on Bush and McCain and we can't have that now can we. Remember the motto of the die hard party loyalists: " Put the good of the party before the good of the country!". BTW, this motto applies to both the extreme right and left die hards.

[usmc1]

The mission was ridiculous and should have never been authorized by the White House. Regardless, the President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed forces and it was his responsibility to ensure the military was in good working order. Dems hit Bush regularly with charges like that. Why is it you think YOUR standard shouldn't apply to Jimmy Carter?

No. You claimed Carter did nothing. That was a falsehood.

You now claim that Carter should not have authorized an attempt at a military rescue, labeling it ridiculous.

Which is it? Carter did nothing, or authorized a ridiculous military plan..careful...the history is written on that one.

And do you really want to explore that dry-drunk socipath's misuse of our military to advance the goals of international oil companies in comparison to Carter's attempt to rescue our hostages from Iran?

Is that what you seek, because if it is, I'm setting on ready to oblige you on all counts.