Barack Obama

[freakscene]

seems one of his main objectives will be to help implement a global tax (not really shocking), so dictators and thugs around the world can have more US taxpayer dollars.

Is the American electorate solidly behind the idea of increasing foreign aid $845 billion over the next 13 years?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/02/obama_gets_down_to_specifics_a.html

"In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that (U.N.) declaration commits nations to banning 'small arms and light weapons' and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention of Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Convention of the Rights of the Child," he said.

Those U.N. protocols would make U.S. law on issues ranging from the 2nd Amendment to energy usage and parental rights all subservient to United Nations whims.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56405


scary stuff, but not really surprising

link to the bill

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-2433

(4) MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS- The term `Millennium Development Goals' means the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000).


it wont be hard to find reasons to aggressively campaign against this guy's policies.

thoughts?

:proud:

[freakscene]

no takers ? i know it must be difficult for those that support him to try and defend his actual policies, as opposed to his silver tongued speeches.

here. maybe this will get you fired up.

how can a communist from Chicago be competing for the US Presidency? read. learn.

http://www.amazon.com/Blacklisted-History-Senator-McCarthy-Americas/dp/140008105X

:)

[freakscene]

Obama bill would commit $845 billion to global poverty

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=67551

Cliff Kincaid, the leader of the watchdog group America's Survival, is urging the U.S. Senate to reject a bill introduced by Barak Obama that Kincaid says would subordinate U.S. foreign policy to the United Nations.

"Everybody knows it; they don't want to admit it -- but when they talk about innovative sources of financing for development, they're talking about a global tax on energy, carbon fossil fuels, and so forth," he argues. "That's how they intend to force us to pay."


dangerous stuff

[Patrick01]

Ahh, Good ol' socialism knocking on America's door, how nice. :thumpdown:

[bigzip]

Come on guys... he's the candidate of change! Just don't ask for specifics.

Look at the chosen few: Obama, Clinton, McCain

Fascism '08

[fredr142]

Wasn't the last candidate of change Jimmy Carter..........................:confused2:

[netwrangler]

This guy may be your new President.

So, forget about denial.
How do you want to position your portfolio for that event?

[freakscene]

I'll consider that later in time when/and if it appears he might actually win. Running against a weak McCain doesnt help matters.

In the mean time, I recommend everyone who loves our representative republic (and capitalism) to agressively campaign against this emtpy suit, and all the non-thinkers supporting his cliched candidacy.

[englishman26]

I hardly think Barak classes as an "empty suit". Certainly less so than John "1000 years of war" McCain albeit perhaps more so than Hilary "crazy bitch" Clinton!

[freakscene]

I hardly think Barak classes as an "empty suit". Certainly less so than John "1000 years of war" McCain albeit perhaps more so than Hilary "crazy bitch" Clinton!

he stands to be the least qualified person nominated in decades.

[netwrangler]

he stands to be the least qualified person nominated in decades.
Not counting the sitting President, of course.

[englishman26]

What are the qualifications necessary for the Presidency exactly? PhD in political science? Board membership of a few oil companies? Starred in some movies? Was a general in the US army? I'm just wondered which gauge you're planning on using to judge this.

As far I know the only real qualifications for the Presidency are as follows:

a) be born an American citizen.
b) get elected by the people of the US to be president.

Since we haven't determined "b" yet, are you suggesting therefore that Barak is not American enough?


Frankly I think the qualification of wanting to be a politician should automatically rule a person out but then we'd be a bit short of candidates!

[freakscene]

Not counting the sitting President, of course.

Of course not.

Bush, like it or not, was an executive of a State, among other things. And before the routine criticisms come regarding intelligence, I've never met a stupid pilot. ( I am also not very found of his presidency but he had a much better resume than the empty suit)

Barack Hussein ;) Obama, has never ran anything. His own web site sums it up nicely. Was born. Went to college. And now along with his communist ideals, is damn close to winning the "D" nomination.

http://www.barackobama.com/about/

[freakscene]

What are the qualifications necessary for the Presidency exactly? PhD in political science? Board membership of a few oil companies? Starred in some movies? Was a general in the US army? I'm just wondered which gauge you're planning on using to judge this.



his resume.

it consists of .......graduating college.......... and being elected locally in his home state as a member of the legislature for a brief 6 years. thats it, along with his current Senate term.

he has no experience running anything and just may well be responsible for running one of the Worlds super powers.

shivering when you think about it. (especially when you consider his policies)

[piggybank]

I don't underestimate Barak Obama. He looks like a cooly calculated person. Confident, doesn't need to cry to appeal. He knows how to proliferate himself, as a Black person naming Obama thats no easy thing in the USA, and yet look hows he's going. He looks like a person with a plan. Last time i saw that young ambitious look in a soon to be president was with Putin. Not to make Putin a hero, not at the rate he's strangling press puppy's. But i see a same sort of strenght and resolve in Barak Obama.

I find Barak quite appealing for a sense bringing new youth and life in American politics.

But it's mostly superficial. I don't know that much of american politics, especially the domestic part. I guess i know what Obama as democrats should stand for, but i guess he has his own distinct views to. Rather less religious i presume, more social economy orientated and outward more multilateral. And pro renewables? i guess...

I wouldn't mind Hilary though, neither Mcain i guess. Even Mcain is fairly progressive. But they are a bit "older generation" politicians to me. I did long back to the Clinton era as European, but i'm not sure if i want a carbon copy of Clinton policy's for the next 8 years.

Though IMO, it might be just better to let youre country be run by Scandinavians or Germans. Or the Governator. Strangly i like the Governator a lot. ;)

[freakscene]

I don't underestimate Barak Obama. .............

But it's mostly superficial. .................I don't know that much of american politics, especially the domestic part...............



I dont think anyone is underestimating him. He's got enormous support based on the color of his skin alone.

Superifical is correct. His accomplishments are few, having little legislative achievements. The bill i linked in the first post is Chirac-like complete with global tax.

[piggybank]

I dont think anyone is underestimating him. He's got enormous support based on the color of his skin alone.

Superifical is correct. His accomplishments are few, having little legislative achievements. The bill i linked in the first post is Chirac-like complete with global tax.

If you want me to denounce on Obama because of him seeking more corperation with the UN and trying to restore past broken treaty's like the Kyoto protocol, then ill have to dissapoint you. Multilateralism is exactly what i expect of a next US president and while there are more than several thing's to say about institutions like the UN or several different treaty's, the fact remains that we live in a globalized world and that the USA has a sort of moral duty to, not understanding that in the past has severely dammaged the wordly ties of the USA and has resulted in a hughe influence loss for the USA.

Understand that the current unnilateralism hasn't brought you much fruit. I understand youre concerns with the accountabilety of the people who are going to receive these funds. If the US goverment wants to increase the effeciancy of those funds be my guess. However may be something not perfect overall, the world perception of America is still affected by a lack of American involvement in resolving troublesome situations. Youre presidents lack of resolve in appropiatly mediating in the Israel situation is one of those example's of lack of meeting to those expectations. And while you might argue upon this that it's not America's job to police the world, when it comes to policing and arbitrating in one's particular favour the us goverment doesn't fail the expectations by far when it concerns it's own benifits to, while it's exatly lacking in the more peacefull, what other perceive maybe to be more constructive projects. If the USA would only put a tenth of the vast expenditure that it does put in warfare and maintaince of it's overstretched empire in actual constructive, heck maye "more effeciant" contructive projects against woorld overty, or other lofty goals, one would expect it could achieve quite a lot.

You know the E.U is an example of multilateralism in a globalizing world, were strugling to addapting to a new world but i feel it's done more rationally here, although you can hardly say afcourse that its done perfect. While it seems the US is playing poker with it's power and wealth, Europe is atleast working towards developing the poorer country's in it's backyard and modernizing economicly, socialy and politicly to meet global challenge's. Europe keeps to it's prommises and it's treaty's, and is gaining strongly in influence and respect trough the world. Politicly the EU is forming an entity that looks well addapted to meet the challenge's of a globalizing world. Though there are many old economy woes, Europe is a growth and win win story and has the political base to expand, further than it's current borders in time.

I don't want to paint a black/white picture, E.U vs USA, both have their problems and future challenges. But today the E.U is in a better shape than 8 years ago and the opposite is true for the USA. Bush has created a lot of trouble for America, and his political unilateralism is exactly one of those large factor's that contributed to the mess the USA is in now.

And we warned you to even years back for this!

[netwrangler]

Of course not.

Bush, like it or not, was an executive of a State, among other things. And before the routine criticisms come regarding intelligence, I've never met a stupid pilot. ( I am also not very found of his presidency but he had a much better resume than the empty suit)

Barack Hussein ;) Obama, has never ran anything. His own web site sums it up nicely. Was born. Went to college. And now along with his communist ideals, is damn close to winning the "D" nomination.

http://www.barackobama.com/about/You are right. Bush had a much better resumé than Obama has.

All that does, however, is make me wonder what 'resumé' has to do with it.
I mean, if Bush can have this wonderful resumé and perform as he did, well, maybe 'qualifications' — as set forth in a resumé — don't really matter that much.
Maybe voters have to make a judgment on the basis of what they think a candidate can actually do.

As for Obama, look at what he did with 'ethics' and 'health care' in Illinois.
He took a 'sh*t' assignment and turned it around to forge a bi-partisan coalition on these two tough issues that resulted in a change of the law.

Regardless of his views [and I certainly don't agree with all of them] this guy has talent.

[freakscene]

If you want me to denounce on Obama because of him seeking more corperation with the UN and trying to restore past broken treaty's like the Kyoto protocol, then ill have to dissapoint you. Multilateralism is exactly what i expect of a next US president and while there are more than several thing's to say about institutions like the UN or several different treaty's, the fact remains that we live in a globalized world and that the USA has a sort of moral duty to, not understanding that in the past has severely dammaged the wordly ties of the USA and has resulted in a hughe influence loss for the USA.

Understand that the current unnilateralism hasn't brought you much fruit. I understand youre concerns with the accountabilety of the people who are going to receive these funds. If the US goverment wants to increase the effeciancy of those funds be my guess. However may be something not perfect overall, the world perception of America is still affected by a lack of American involvement in resolving troublesome situations. Youre presidents lack of resolve in appropiatly mediating in the Israel situation is one of those example's of lack of meeting to those expectations. And while you might argue upon this that it's not America's job to police the world, when it comes to policing and arbitrating in one's particular favour the us goverment doesn't fail the expectations by far when it concerns it's own benifits to, while it's exatly lacking in the more peacefull, what other perceive maybe to be more constructive projects. If the USA would only put a tenth of the vast expenditure that it does put in warfare and maintaince of it's overstretched empire in actual constructive, heck maye "more effeciant" contructive projects against woorld overty, or other lofty goals, one would expect it could achieve quite a lot.

You know the E.U is an example of multilateralism in a globalizing world, were strugling to addapting to a new world but i feel it's done more rationally here, although you can hardly say afcourse that its done perfect. While it seems the US is playing poker with it's power and wealth, Europe is atleast working towards developing the poorer country's in it's backyard and modernizing economicly, socialy and politicly to meet global challenge's. Europe keeps to it's prommises and it's treaty's, and is gaining strongly in influence and respect trough the world. Politicly the EU is forming an entity that looks well addapted to meet the challenge's of a globalizing world. Though there are many old economy woes, Europe is a growth and win win story and has the political base to expand, further than it's current borders in time.

I don't want to paint a black/white picture, E.U vs USA, both have their problems and future challenges. But today the E.U is in a better shape than 8 years ago and the opposite is true for the USA. Bush has created a lot of trouble for America, and his political unilateralism is exactly one of those large factor's that contributed to the mess the USA is in now.

And we warned you to even years back for this!

a few points:

1) I would relish an opportunity to discuss the absolute corruption, ineffectiveness, and worthlessness that is the UN - in another thread ;). Kyoto is a sham, as is the entire mythical man-mad-global-warming debate. notice how they changed the argument recently to "climate change".

2) Obama seems to be suggesting protectionist trade policies ala Herbert Hoover. (thats if you can get him to say something specific) So I woudnt cozy up to him just yet on him not acting "unilateral", whatever that means on any given day.

[freakscene]

You are right. Bush had a much better resumé than Obama has.

All that does, however, is make me wonder what 'resumé' has to do with it.
I mean, if Bush can have this wonderful resumé and perform as he did, well, maybe 'qualifications' — as set forth in a resumé — don't really matter that much.
Maybe voters have to make a judgment on the basis of what they think a candidate can actually do.

As for Obama, look at what he did with 'ethics' and 'health care' in Illinois.
He took a 'sh*t' assignment and turned it around to forge a bi-partisan coalition on these two tough issues that resulted in a change of the law.

Regardless of his views [and I certainly don't agree with all of them] this guy has talent.

I didnt say Bush's resume was wonderful, just much more experienced that Obama, who really only meets the bare minimum of qualifications. As I said earlier, he might be the least qualified nominee in decades upon decades. And dont misinterpret that to mean I would not support a breath-of-fresh-air candidate who had the right ideas. I simply, fervently, disagree with the few ideas that he has.

As for Bush's performance, I will leave you with Harry Truman. He left office with one of the lowest approval ratings in history, comparable to the current executive. Yet today he is regarded as not only a successful president, but one of the better presidents in modern times.

I have no doubt that Bush's presidency will be viewed much differently in 10 to 20 years, for better or worse than the current opinions. Bill Clinton was considered a hero during his service, but historians are slowly judging his tenure to be fairly mediocre.

I agree Obama does have talent. He's as silver tongued as Clinton.

cheers

[microhedge]

An email I received, rather amusing I thought, have not delved into it's authenticity...

By Paul R. Hollrah
>>
>> Tuning in to C-Span recently, I found myself listening to a speech
>> by Senator Barrack Hussein Obama, Jr. He was standing in the pulpit of a
>> black church in Selma, Alabama, and as I studied the body language of the
>> dozen or so black ministers standing behind the senator, I couldn't help
>> but be reminded of the little head-bobbing dolls that people used to
>> place in the rear windows of their 1957 Chevrolets. If their reactions
>> are any indication, the new "Schlickmeister" of the Democrat Party is
>> actually a pretty accomplished public speaker.
>>
>> However, as he spoke, I found my b.s. alarm going off, repeatedly.
>> But I couldn't quite figure out why until I actually read excerpts of his
>> speech several days later. Here's part of what he said:
>>
>> "...something happened back here in Selma, Alabama. Something
>> happened in Birmingham that sent out what Bobby Kennedy called, "ripples
>> of hope all around the world." Something happened when a bunch of women
>> decided they were going to walk instead of ride the bus after a long day
>> of doing somebody else's laundry, looking after somebody else's children.
>>
>> "When (black) men who had PhD's decided 'that's enough' and 'we're
>> going to stand up for our dignity,' that sent a shout across oceans so
>> that my grandfather began to imagine something different for his son. His
>> son, who grew up herding goats in a small village in Africa could
>> suddenly set his sights a little higher and believe that maybe a black
>> man in this world had a chance.
>>
>> "So the Kennedy's decided we're going to do an airlift. We're
>> going to go to Africa and start bringing young Africans over to this
>> country and give them scholarships to study so they can learn what a
>> wonderful country America is.
>>
>> "This young man named Barack Obama got one of those tickets and
>> came over to this country. He met this woman whose great
>> great-great-great- grandfather had owned slaves; but she had a good idea
>> there was some craziness going on because they looked at each other and
>> they decided that we know that, (in) the world as it has been, it might
>> not be possible for us to get together and have a child. There was
>> something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma,
>> Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they
>> got together and Barack Obama Jr. Was born. So don't tell me I don't have
>> a claim on Selma, Alabama. Don't tell me I'm not coming home to Selma,
>> Alabama."
>>
>> Okay, so what's wrong with that? It all sounds good. But is it?
>>
>> Obama told his audience that, because some folks had the courage
>> to "march across a bridge" in Selma, Alabama, his mother, a white woman
>> from Kansas, and his father, a black Muslim from Africa, took heart. It
>> gave them the courage to get married and have a child. The problem with
>> that characterization is that Barrack Obama, Jr., was born on August 4,
>> 1961, while the first of three marches across that bridge in Selma didn't
>> occur until March 7, 1965, at least five years after Obama's parents met.
>>
>> Obama went on to tell his audience that the Kennedys, Jack and
>> Bobby, decided to do an airlift. They would bring some young Africans
>> over so that they could be educated and learn all about America. His
>> grandfather heard that call and sent his son, Barrack Obama, Sr., to
>> America.
>>
>> The problem with that scenario is that, having been born in August
>> 1961, the future senator was not conceived until sometime in November
>> 1960. So if this African grandfather heard words that ''sent a shout
>> across oceans,'' inspiring him to send his goat-herder son to America, it
>> was not a Democrat Jack Kennedy he heard, nor his brother Bobby, it was a
>> Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower.
>>
>> Obama's speech is reminiscent of Al Gore's claim of having
>> invented the Internet, Hillary Clinton's claim of having been named after
>> the first man to climb Mt. Everest, even though she was born five years
>> and seven months before Sir Edmund climbed the mountain, and John Kerry's
>> imaginary trip to Cambodia.
>>
>> As one of my black friends, Eddie Huff, has said, "We need to ask
>> some very serious questions of the senator from Illinois. It's not enough
>> to be black, it's not enough to be articulate, and it's not enough to be
>> eloquent and a media darling. The only question will be how deaf an ear,
>> or how blind an eye, will people turn in order to turn a frog into a
>> prince."
>>
>>
>>
>> ''Life's tough.....it's even tougher if you're stupid.''
>> ~ John Wayne

[cramerica1972]

I didnt say Bush's resume was wonderful, just much more experienced that Obama, who really only meets the bare minimum of qualifications. As I said earlier, he might be the least qualified nominee in decades upon decades. And dont misinterpret that to mean I would not support a breath-of-fresh-air candidate who had the right ideas. I simply, fervently, disagree with the few ideas that he has.

As for Bush's performance, I will leave you with Harry Truman. He left office with one of the lowest approval ratings in history, comparable to the current executive. Yet today he is regarded as not only a successful president, but one of the better presidents in modern times.

I have no doubt that Bush's presidency will be viewed much differently in 10 to 20 years, for better or worse than the current opinions. Bill Clinton was considered a hero during his service, but historians are slowly judging his tenure to be fairly mediocre.

I agree Obama does have talent. He's as silver tongued as Clinton.

cheerswhy is it that when a "blackman"like obama who has a good shot of being elected,ppl got to bring up the "experience"card?it seems like most white males have an entitlement mentality when it comes to the office of president.You all really think obama will get elected?it has more to do with stopping hillary than obama's electability.If it were up to some of you here,JFK would never have been president.

[freakscene]

[QUOTE=cramerica1972;95401]why is it that when a "blackman"like obama who has a good shot of being elected,ppl got to bring up the "experience"card?QUOTE]


?????????????????????

did you really just type that?

[cramerica1972]

[QUOTE=cramerica1972;95401]why is it that when a "blackman"like obama who has a good shot of being elected,ppl got to bring up the "experience"card?QUOTE]


?????????????????????

did you really just type that?YES i did,and alot of you know it is true,the ONLY reason hillary's got a chance is b/c of her last name......CLINTON she's a brand name.

[chacho]

[QUOTE=cramerica1972;95401]why is it that when a "blackman"like obama who has a good shot of being elected,ppl got to bring up the "experience"card?QUOTE]


?????????????????????

did you really just type that?

:confused2: :confused2: :laugh: :laugh:
I was thinking the same thing.

[cramerica1972]

[QUOTE=freakscene;95404]

:confused2: :confused2: :laugh: :laugh:
I was thinking the same thing.what"experience"does MCpain have that qualifies him to be president other than being a washington insider and having an affiair with a lobbyist?

[netwrangler]

[QUOTE=chacho;95622]what"experience"does MCpain have that qualifies him to be president other than being a washington insider and having an affiair with a lobbyist?The February 25 issue of The New Yorker [not exactly a bastion of conservative thought] has an interesting piece on McCain.
Check it out.

[freakscene]

[QUOTE=chacho;95622]what"experience"does MCpain have that qualifies him to be president other than being a washington insider and having an affiair with a lobbyist?

I havent mentioned support of McCain once. I am not voting for him. I dont just pull a party lever, which I'd be willing to bet you do. Although his military experience makes him more qualified than Obama.

But what McCain has or has not done, has zero impact on the lack of Obama's qualifications.

[netwrangler]

.... But what McCain has or has not done, has zero impact on the lack of Obama's qualifications.Unless, of course, you are trying to compare the two in preparation for voting. :biggrin:

[piggybank]

Kyoto is a sham, as is the entire mythical man-mad-global-warming debate. notice how they changed the argument recently to "climate change".

Well a lot of people do think "climate change" is real, in fact that atleast has been proven, ... by certain scientists. Mind you other say exactly the opposite. So are you maybe enough of a scientist to make the final decission?

I hate the fact that the whole scientific climate change debate has been corrupted by outside interrests, from various sides. Noone really knows how bad, or not so bad, it really is. But if my eyes are pointers, then there a few thing's i see that i don't like, and make the thought of climate change more plausible. Be it 100's of glaisjers dissapearing, retreating numbers of ski lanes in ski resorts, or increased numbers of floodings ... like in fact New Orleans becomming part of the Mexican Gulf. Milder winders, longer summers. I think i'm actually witnissing this climate change, it looks real enough. And enough country's believe in Kyoto, USA is rather an odd outsider.

2) Obama seems to be suggesting protectionist trade policies ala Herbert Hoover.

Ellaborate to as far as this protectionism is any worse as the current type of protectionism employed by the USA for ex. concerning in the NAFTA area. or concerning trade with Eruope and Asia. It's not like youre country isn't protectionist atm. Hey all the big boys do it, even we have to pay French farmers so that the French would get into line with the E.U. It's maybe what has made South American or African farming so uncompetitive on the western markets, wich has delayed their developments by decade's, though at current demand and price changes thing's might turn more to their favour.

Heck id say America is way more protectionist than so many more other western country's. The USA even puts political and millitary weight into the scale to defend the interrests of their company's abroad, sometimes in an all to overzealous way imo.

I didnt say Bush's resume was wonderful, just much more experienced that Obama, who really only meets the bare minimum of qualifications.

Why more experienced? He was a mediocre student, and lucky to have such a respected/wealthy background to nevertheless get the best out of him that they could, so it makes the mediocre quite unimpressive. He hardly ever flew his plane around when he was in the millitary, so he wasn't really quite experienced on those matters neither. He has been in oil bussiness, and was a fairly poppular governor, but it wasn't so that his policy's were so special either. And he probably, atleast imo, had much of it to thank to some kick ass advisors. No i don't see much in Bush his qualifications, Obama''s resume rather rather betray's more intellect.

Not that experience has had so much to do with politics in the last 50 years. Id rather see theodore roosevelt as one of the last real greatly intellectual/experienced presidents. And that was a while ago.

As for Bush's performance, I will leave you with Harry Truman. He left office with one of the lowest approval ratings in history, comparable to the current executive. Yet today he is regarded as not only a successful president, but one of the better presidents in modern times.

Who know .... who knows .... who knows you might find a person in American history, or even future of wich they said before the ellection that he greatly lacked political experience, however did turn out to be one of the best presidents ever. Pitty we can't see 20 years ahead into the future, so we could actually settle this argument on a quite rational argument. But ill add some fire to this argument by claiming that if you ellect Obama now, people in 50 years will say he was the best president of them all ... ever, and forever to come to. And washington will be named Obamaville.

[AJLightning]

2787

[freakscene]

Well a lot of people do think "climate change" is real, in fact that atleast has been proven, ... by certain scientists. Mind you other say exactly the opposite. So are you maybe enough of a scientist to make the final decission?

I hate the fact that the whole scientific climate change debate has been corrupted by outside interrests, from various sides. Noone really knows how bad, or not so bad, it really is. But if my eyes are pointers, then there a few thing's i see that i don't like, and make the thought of climate change more plausible. Be it 100's of glaisjers dissapearing, retreating numbers of ski lanes in ski resorts, or increased numbers of floodings ... like in fact New Orleans becomming part of the Mexican Gulf. Milder winders, longer summers. I think i'm actually witnissing this climate change, it looks real enough. And enough country's believe in Kyoto, USA is rather an odd outsider.

.

alot of people used to think the earth was flat too.

"climate change" is real by definition. Yesterday it snowed. Today it isnt. Tomorrow will be warmer than today, and by Monday it will be cold again.

They (the lying-man-made-global-warming-crowd) changed the argument so no matter the conditions, they can continue trying to cap the American economy and American capitalism, by spreading fear and alarmism. Hence the use of "Climate Change" from Global Warming.

I really wished this was in its own thread, and I'd like to address your entire post, but this particular issue is so staggeringly abused by the press and politicians, it just cant be ignored. They never report objectively.

100's of glaciers are disappearing?

well, hundreds more are growing. expanding. getting bigger. including the artic, but your press probably isnt telling you. neither is algore. its not hip to be honest.

here is a link. do your own research.

http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm

http://omega.utu.fi/glaciers.html

In a relatively small area, the eastern glaciers are retreating while the western glaciers are expanding.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_reprint_series/the_role_of_greenland_in_sea_level_rise_a_summary_ of_the_current_literature.html

The Greenland ice sheet would appear to have experienced no net loss of mass over the last decade for which data are available. Quite to the contrary, in fact, it was likely host to a net accumulation of ice, which Zwally et al. found to be producing a 0.03 ± 0.01 mm/year decline in sea-level.

New Orleans "becoming" part of the Gulf of Mexico?

Well, it is after all built BELOW sea level. It should be in the Gulf !

If I look out my window, where there is now grass, and trees, it was once an ocean. It was once a tropical rain forest too. It was also frozen solid in glacier ice after that. Now its a perfect environment for humans.

Those changes took place without any human intervention at all. None. Nada. Zilch. Exxon didnt exist.

Milder Winters?

GLOBAL WARMING? IT’S THE COLDEST WINTER IN DECADES

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/35266/Global-warming-It-s-the-coldest-winter-in-decades

NEW evidence has cast doubt on claims that the world’s ice-caps are melting, it emerged last night.

Satellite data shows that concerns over the levels of sea ice may have been premature.

It was feared that the polar caps were vanishing because of the effects of global warming.

But figures from the respected US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show that almost all the “lost” ice has come back.

Figures show that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than is usual for the time of year.

Weather agency: China experiences coldest winter in 2 decades

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-02/18/content_7626013.htm

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/185976,coldest-winter-in-three-decades-claims-nearly-1000-afghan-lives.html

The coldest winter in three decades has claimed the lives of nearly 1,000 Afghanis, while thousands of animals died and

Coldest February in a decade (India)

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Lucknow/Coldest_February_in_a_decade/articleshow/2781071.cms

I'll leave you with this from one of the above links

More than 100 villages were snowed-in on the island of Crete and temperatures in Athens dropped to -6 C before dawn, while the coldest temperatures were recorded in Kozani, Grevena, Kastoria and Florina, where they plunged to -12 C.

If global warming gets any worse we'll all freeze to death.

its a sham. kyoto is a sham. and barack obama is a charlatan.

Cheers

[piggybank]

alot of people used to think the earth was flat too.

Thats a bit under the belt. So what if i react by saying: A lot of certainly naive people thought Iraq had WMD to, you know by "clear" evidence.

well, hundreds more are growing. expanding. getting bigger. including the artic, but your press probably isnt telling you. neither is algore. its not hip to be honest.

here is a link. do your own research.

I did. Quite a few glaciars on that site are actually retreating!

Ill let Wikipedia to word. Sure it's not always tottaly trustworthy, but no source is i this discussion. Wikii though gives a fair overview.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850

However, since 1980 a significant global warming has led to glacier retreat becoming increasingly rapid and ubiquitous, so much so that some glaciers have disappeared altogether, and the existence of a great number of the remaining glaciers of the world is threatened. In locations such as the Andes of South America and Himalayas in Asia, the demise of glaciers in these regions will have potential impact on water supplies. The retreat of mountain glaciers, notably in western North America, Asia, the Alps, Indonesia and Africa, and tropical and subtropical regions of South America, has been used to provide qualitative evidence for the rise in global temperatures since the late 19th century.

Wiki has even a ice candlestick graph on the average of declining/expanding glaciers in the world.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/Glacier_Mass_Balance.png/280px-Glacier_Mass_Balance.png

Everythign above 0 means glaciers on average are thickenig, anything below is vice versa, and the more below the 0 the faster they are pulling back.

As to artic retreat, this is from another wiki page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_shrinkage

Leif Toudal Pedersen, with Danish National Space Center made a statement about Arctic sea ice, posted on the Center's website September 13, 2007:

We have seen the ice-covered area drop to just around three million square kilometres (1.158 million square miles), which is about one million square kilometres (386,000 sq. miles) less than the previous minima of 2005 and 2006. There has been a reduction of the ice cover over the last 10 years of about 100,000 sq. km. (38,600 sq. miles) per year on average, so a drop of one million sq. km. (386,000 sq. miles) in just one year is extreme. The strong reduction in just one year certainly raises flags that the ice (in summer) may disappear much sooner than expected and that we urgently need to understand better the processes involved.

The problem with any "climate change" discussion is that there are always conflicting interrests trying to put doubt on the scientific evidence by pulling up very specific or circumstancial cases that on the surface would prove their respective point. The majority of the scientific community however agree's that "climate change" has been for the majority human driven for the the last 2 decade's.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a2/Climate_Change_Attribution.png

They (the lying-man-made-global-warming-crowd) changed the argument so no matter the conditions, they can continue trying to cap the American economy and American capitalism, by spreading fear and alarmism. Hence the use of "Climate Change" from Global Warming.

And that comming from the person who feared Obaba might be too protectionistic. Oh youre poor humane, honest and unselfish (polluting) company's might get hurt to a few dolars of their gigantic profit's.

[freakscene]

I did. Quite a few glaciars on that site are actually retreating!

quite a few? thats not correct. some are. i provided the link. most are advancing and you would know that if you actually read it. i dont believe you did.

i am also objective enough to believe some glaciers melt. others expand. i believe this has happened since glaciers existed. please excuse me for not buying nonsensical theories that havent stood the test of time - which my theory does.

i also already explained that right from where i post, was once covered in glacial ice. mother earth didnt die when the glacier melted away. can you explain this, please?

thanks for the wiki. i wont waste my time.


The problem with any "climate change" discussion is that there are always conflicting interrests trying to put doubt on the scientific evidence by pulling up very specific or circumstancial cases that on the surface would prove their respective point. The majority of the scientific community however agree's that "climate change" has been for the majority human driven for the the last 2 decade's.


the conflict exists because there is no proof man has caused the globe to warm. none. nada. zilch. and the second statement about the "majority" of the "community" is nothing but a lie from the propoganda machine. its not true.

you can keep your head in the sand all you want. your indoctrination is complete.

[fredr142]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/the_globalwarming_debate_isnt.html

The debate isn't over, and it never was.

On another note anyone knows that raising taxes like Senator Obama would like to do is not a good thing when entering tougher times. Heck, I probably could have told you that when I was three years old. Anyhow, as well as just "taxing the rich" I don't think the rich have enough to pay for all these social programs. Heck making 50 grand a year will turn out to be rich. We ought to be able to keep our paychecks and make our own decisions.

Thats ok, it all sounds free and easy so lets all vote for Senator Obama, we need change. (that was sarcastic). He keeps saying change, so I don't even use the word anymore, because I am tired of it. I don't think he says how he's going to pay for change.

[piggybank]

quite a few? thats not correct. some are.

:D :) :biggrin: Now thats a funny, though quite contradicting, remark! Muahahaaa. Time to discuss symantics huh?

thanks for the wiki. i wont waste my time.

Comming from someone putting up a source for growing glaciers where "only some" glaciers are actually retreating. :) Real smooth.

i am also objective enough to believe some glaciers melt. others expand. i believe this has happened since glaciers existed.

Youre a real Sherlock Holmes.

please excuse me for not buying nonsensical theories that havent stood the test of time - which my theory does.

The graph i did put forward, of more glaciers declining than expanding, doesn't contradict youre "theory" (wasn't that a fact in youre oppinion?) they just put some numbers forward that were showing a certain trend in numbers of declining to increasing glaciers.

i also already explained that right from where i post, was once covered in glacial ice. mother earth didnt die when the glacier melted away. can you explain this, please?

I have to give details about the end of the ice age? Why? Didn't you learn that in school? Seems a silly argument.

the conflict exists because there is no proof man has caused the globe to warm. none. nada. zilch. and the second statement about the "majority" of the "community" is nothing but a lie from the propoganda machine. its not true.

you can keep your head in the sand all you want. your indoctrination is complete.

Meh typical, ignore all the good scientific study's done on the subject and throw some smut to the other side in order to discredit the person on personality.

I'm done with this discussion. If all you can do is just discredit good arguments and arrogantly call people ignorant or indoctrinated, then i don't see room for an rational debate here. No offense meant, i won't look down on you for this. Each his own oppinion. But i'm not willing to discuss a topic like this in this silly matter. You have the right of the last word on the matter, i won't comment.

[freakscene]

discredit good arguments?

let me know when you make one.

Meh typical, ignore all the good scientific study's done on the subject and throw some smut to the other side in order to discredit the person on personality.


thats classic.

[netwrangler]

I was skiing in the Sierras and stopped mid-run to rest and enjoy the view.
Another skier stopped just above me.

I was looking upslope when a bit of movement caught my eye.
"What's that?" I asked. "Up there near the top of the mountain."

"I don't see anything," the other skier replied, glancing over his shoulder.

"Hey, that could be the start of an avalanche!"

"I doubt it," the other skier said. "Besides, even if it is a so-called 'avalanche', they happen all the time. They are usually quite small."

Looking upslope, the movement was easier to see.
"I'll bet some skiers up there broke off the cornice, and that started it."

"Wait a minute!" he exclaimed, looking down at me. "There's no proof that man is involved here. There is no proof man has caused the [avalanche to form]. none. nada. zilch. and...."

I took off down slope, changed trails, and skied to safety. I never did hear the rest of what he was saying.

I wonder if he got his proof before the avalanche buried him.

[freakscene]

good grief

[Jelly]

This thread is great. Very informative but boring. Please add better insults and perhaps death threats.

The page hits will be extreme.

[piggybank]

Bon. Now we can get back to Barak Obama.

As said earlier, some claimed that Barak Obama was quite unexperienced. I would dare to argument rather that for a person of his age, he's quite experienced already, not only in politics but also the school of life.

Barak atleast lived in mutiple country's rough his childhood. His experience's in jakarta must have been a fairly special real life lesson. Indonesia in those times was hardly a boring country politicly. the death of both his parants must have had a big impression on the young lad, and look how far he's come nontheless.

Having graduated at Columbia and Harvard isn't to bad neither. Atleast he did well to there. (magna cum laude) His following career always had a pich of politics to it, be it community organizer or civil rights lawyer. His career in politics is still young if you count years on a position, but it's still enough years to make a smart man all to knowledgable about the proffesion IMO.

Besides, saying a person is unexperienced just because he isn't more than a decade or 2 in politics yet is aking to limit the meteoric rise of young intellectuals into politics. Do you really need an old coot to be sure he's able to the job? You know there is few progressive thing's happening in Vatican city, and their institution is crumbling under their feets due to it.

Barak Obama's policy's interrest me. Pulling back the troops, more dialogue, better domestic healtcare, and what i'm most interrested in: energy independance. I think what barak is propposing is what America really needs to get out of it's economic problems, and others.

Barak also wrote two bestsellers. One about his personal life, one about his political views. He wrote them as fairly unknown person to. It is deffinatly a sign of intellect IMO to be able to write bestsellers about different theme's while literature wasn't exactly the thing he study'd, especially to be able to write a bestseller about your own life.... . As a avid bookreader ill deffinatly read "The Audacity of Hope", and given the way he is emmerging to politics i think it's quite a good title for a bestseller to. But i was struck by wsomething he wrote in his personal biography:

The book describes his struggles as a young adult to reconcile social perceptions of his multiracial heritage. Reflecting later on his formative years in Honolulu, Obama wrote: "The opportunity that Hawaii offered—to experience a variety of cultures in a climate of mutual respect—became an integral part of my world view, and a basis for the values that I hold most dear."

Good value's IMO!

IMO Barak is just refreshing to the point of joy. Progressive, multi cultural, intellectual, motivated, dynamic, young. He radiate's confidence.

[freakscene]

I was skiing in the Sierras and stopped mid-run to rest and enjoy the view.
Another skier stopped just above me.

I was looking upslope when a bit of movement caught my eye.
"What's that?" I asked. "Up there near the top of the mountain."

"I don't see anything," the other skier replied, glancing over his shoulder.

"Hey, that could be the start of an avalanche!"

"I doubt it," the other skier said. "Besides, even if it is a so-called 'avalanche', they happen all the time. They are usually quite small."

Looking upslope, the movement was easier to see.
"I'll bet some skiers up there broke off the cornice, and that started it."

"Wait a minute!" he exclaimed, looking down at me. "There's no proof that man is involved here. There is no proof man has caused the [avalanche to form]. none. nada. zilch. and...."

I took off down slope, changed trails, and skied to safety. I never did hear the rest of what he was saying.

I wonder if he got his proof before the avalanche buried him.


I had to run and didnt have a chance to really respond Net, but this is the accurate way your story should have gone. :)

The other skier stopped just above me and warned of a pending avalanche caused no doubt by man. This skier warned me and my family to change our living habits for the better part of a decade, suggesting that we were to blame for this avalanche that was certain to destroy us. of course he never changed his life style, criss crossing the world in his private jet, preaching of doom, and collecting grant money.

For 10+ years this happened on that very ski slope but the avalanche never happened.

Imagine our surpise when the skier once stopped above us and warned that it wasnt going to be a man made avalanche at all, but a man made volcano at the top of the mountain that was to be our doom.

Without reason he and his kind again pleaded with us to change our lifestyle while they continued to not change theirs, criss crossing the globe in search of grant money.

For 10 years this happened with no volcano, destroying us or the ski slope.

We were less surprised after 20+ years of him and his kind being wrong, when he changed his story again and predicted that "he wasnt really sure what was on top of the mountain that was going to destroy us. But he was certain it was man made and we were all doomed unless we changed our lifestyle."

his grant money was running out because more and more people were tired of his alarming doom and gloom predictions since the 1970's.

we continued to snicker as we snowboarded away from him. my children learned to keep a distance from them as they grew older.

the end

:top:

[freakscene]

Barak Obama's policy's interrest me. .


shocking !

empower the UN
embrace a european style socialism for America
support a global tax

yeah. thats what America needs !!!

[englishman26]

Indeed (good post). For the sake of America's impression world wide, I think it'd be good to elect an intelligent, educated person with some multicultural experiences rather than another white guy with the appearance of a stupid and bigoted cowboy.

[fredr142]

Indeed (good post). For the sake of America's impression world wide, I think it'd be good to elect an intelligent, educated person with some multicultural experiences rather than another white guy with the appearance of a stupid and bigoted cowboy.

So you are calling a man who spent 5 years as a prisoner of war a stupid bigot. You have got to be kidding me. Senator McCain could have gotten out of there any moment he wanted, but he held his pride and stuck by his guys. I ask you remove your post englishman.

[freakscene]

So you are calling a man who spent 5 years as a prisoner of war a stupid bigot. You have got to be kidding me. Senator McCain could have gotten out of there any moment he wanted, but he held his pride and stuck by his guys. I ask you remove your post englishman.

Europeans cant help it.

theyre almost apopleptic over the thought of an American socialist becoming elected.

it shouldnt be surprising

[netwrangler]

I had to run and didnt have a chance to really respond Net, but this is the accurate way your story should have gone. :)

The other skier stopped just above me and warned of a pending avalanche caused no doubt by man. This skier warned me and my family to change our living habits for the better part of a decade, suggesting that we were to blame for this avalanche that was certain to destroy us. of course he never changed his life style, criss crossing the world in his private jet, preaching of doom, and collecting grant money.

For 10+ years this happened on that very ski slope but the avalanche never happened.

Imagine our surpise when the skier once stopped above us and warned that it wasnt going to be a man made avalanche at all, but a man made volcano at the top of the mountain that was to be our doom.

Without reason he and his kind again pleaded with us to change our lifestyle while they continued to not change theirs, criss crossing the globe in search of grant money.

For 10 years this happened with no volcano, destroying us or the ski slope.

We were less surprised after 20+ years of him and his kind being wrong, when he changed his story again and predicted that "he wasnt really sure what was on top of the mountain that was going to destroy us. But he was certain it was man made and we were all doomed unless we changed our lifestyle."

his grant money was running out because more and more people were tired of his alarming doom and gloom predictions since the 1970's.

we continued to snicker as we snowboarded away from him. my children learned to keep a distance from them as they grew older.

the end

:top:Certainly a possible variation, Eman, and one that has as a better chance of being correct than my first version.

It shouldn't surprise too you to learn that my position, as a moderate, is actually somewhere between the two versions.

I couldn't resist playing devil's advocate for the first version. I can't, for the life of me, understand the view of, "Well, nothing is proven, so let's ignore it."

On the other hand, I can't understand the view that says, "Something is seriously wrong, let's spend a lot of money."

A Dutch researcher was quoted a few weeks back saying essentially this:
Something is going on with greenhouse gases. We're not sure what. We should find out.

If the problem is our carbon footprint, the tools we have to deal with that are woefully inadequate. We should spend some time, and some seed money, developing better tools before we spend a lot of money using today's tools to no real effect.
This approach makes sense to me.
Yes, it involves some grants. But it should fall way short of an all out, Katy-bar-the-door, let-me-get-my-earmarks-in-there, government slush fund that could result from a carbon tax — one that generates large amounts of funds looking for a place to be spent.

This would involve, at least in part, investing in pure science. That is something business, keyed to short term results, doesn't do well without incentives. Some would be needed.

This effort seems likely to tie-in with one working toward achieving greater energy independence — a goal that makes both political and economic sense to me.

Also linked is the issue of who owns what up north. The manifestation of a NorthWest Passage of open water above Canada raises issues regarding sub-sea rights in the Arctic. We may want to do the necessary to secure what rights we may have, even if we can't 'prove' that things will warm up enough in the future to make those rights meaningful.

My point is, both extreme views here are counter-productive. But there's lots to be done in the center.
We should stop shouting at each other and concentrate on getting some of that done.

[freakscene]

nice to see the press actually question him in this, other than softballs thrown by russert.

eventually, he'll have to answer them, i would hope.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/03/obama_meltdown_at_presser_on_r.html

"Every question about Rezko was deflected by the candidate who seemed quite irritated at the Chicago reporters. He did not come off well at all and displayed a short fuse - something he better learn to control quickly. Press conferences from now on will be filled with questions about his relationship with Rezko who went on trial for fraud this week in Chicago. "

[cramerica1972]

nice to see the press actually question him in this, other than softballs thrown by russert.

eventually, he'll have to answer them, i would hope.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/03/obama_meltdown_at_presser_on_r.html

"Every question about Rezko was deflected by the candidate who seemed quite irritated at the Chicago reporters. He did not come off well at all and displayed a short fuse - something he better learn to control quickly. Press conferences from now on will be filled with questions about his relationship with Rezko who went on trial for fraud this week in Chicago. "what the heck does that guy going on trial have to do with obama?not a damn thing,that just goes to show that america is afraid to elect a "black"president.

[freakscene]

what the heck does that guy going on trial have to do with obama?not a damn thing,that just goes to show that america is afraid to elect a "black"president.



it doesnt ?

his campaign is all about ethics, judgement, and change right?

seems easy to use this story to suggest he's an agent of none of the above, and just another corrupt political hack from chicago. perhaps you should look into the story a bit more.

and stop the race card nonsense, it only makes you look foolish and bigoted. its possible to not agree with a black man/woman because what his/her ideas represent (in obamas case, socialism). if michael steele were nominated i'd be aggressively campaigning for him.

[piggybank]

nice to see the press actually question him in this, other than softballs thrown by russert.

eventually, he'll have to answer them, i would hope.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/03/obama_meltdown_at_presser_on_r.html

"Every question about Rezko was deflected by the candidate who seemed quite irritated at the Chicago reporters. He did not come off well at all and displayed a short fuse - something he better learn to control quickly. Press conferences from now on will be filled with questions about his relationship with Rezko who went on trial for fraud this week in Chicago. "

With all fairness, while criticism is a good thing and you are right in questioning Obama, i find this blog/article severly lacking in details to actualy understand much of what this is about and what Obama has to do with it.

No criticism towards you, but details about this would be appreciated. What's this exactly about?

[freakscene]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/obamas_iraqi_oil_for_food_conn.html

he appears very much like someone from the corrupt machine, than a fresh young person with ideals of ethics, integrity, and "change"

now the story is linked with the oil for food scandal.

"Obama has refused to sit down at length with the Chicago reporters who have worked this story for years. But as Milbank pointed out, "The questioning...has only just begun." With old-time Chicago corruption now going international-and Presidential--finding those answers is more urgent than ever."

[cramerica1972]

it doesnt ?

his campaign is all about ethics, judgement, and change right?

seems easy to use this story to suggest he's an agent of none of the above, and just another corrupt political hack from chicago. perhaps you should look into the story a bit more.

and stop the race card nonsense, it only makes you look foolish and bigoted. its possible to not agree with a black man/woman because what his/her ideas represent (in obamas case, socialism). if michael steele were nominated i'd be aggressively campaigning for him.and steele is"corrupt"as well.NO human is perfect.look at how many ppl on here play the ny version of las vegas.

[piggybank]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/obamas_iraqi_oil_for_food_conn.html

he appears very much like someone from the corrupt machine, than a fresh young person with ideals of ethics, integrity, and "change"

now the story is linked with the oil for food scandal.

"Obama has refused to sit down at length with the Chicago reporters who have worked this story for years. But as Milbank pointed out, "The questioning...has only just begun." With old-time Chicago corruption now going international-and Presidential--finding those answers is more urgent than ever."

Again i would ask to go into detail as to the connection between Rezko and Barak Obama, atleast beyond ellection funds support.

While i give you credit for being skeptical, something i aplaud for a citizin of a democratic country, recent years the US media has more and more been filled with mud throwing and unfair discrediting of political opponents depending the leaning of the reporting media. I make the constatation that youre source has so far been a very conservative site, though it's understandable that the ideological opposition of Obama is putting such issue's forward, they are aslo to be taken with some skepticism in the US political climate.

Thus my question to you if the Obama-Rezko relation goes beyond ellection funds. If not then it might be not a much of an big deal. Quite a few of ellection fund supporters of various presidential candidate's have a bad reek to it. One should just consider what sort of ellection supporters G.W. Bush had, not in the least a certain very large company that went bankrupt on fraud.

[freakscene]

you have the ability to do the research yourself, and i would hardly call the chicago press, conservative. theyve been on the tails of this story for quite some time.

you also neglect the real estate deal, which obama himself has called "bad juddgement". its quite very possible nothing illegal was done on obama's part.

but the reason for posting it is to help you see he is not the messiah he and his supporters claim to be. he is much more cut from the same mold as any politician, despite his sliver tongued speeches of "change, integrity, and ethics". rezko was well known to be dirty. obama didnt mind.

said best by the chi times:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/830209,CST-EDT-hunt07.article

"Obama is lucky the Rezko affair is a Chicago issue with which national reporters are unfamiliar. And, given what's known today, it's hard to see how the Rezko case could wound Obama's political ambitions. But for that reason, it's hard to understand his reluctance to answer questions from the Chicago investigative reporters who know the Rezko issues best."

covered all the way to the netherlands blog

http://poligazette.com/2008/03/06/obama-rezko-and-media-ignorance-of-the-chicago-way/

"Many of us familiar with Chicago politics have been wondering for months at the apparent disconnect of the media regarding Obama’s relationship to the Chicago political machine. Where did they think this guy came from?

The lack of curiosity by the press about Obama’s connections to one of the most corrupt city governments in the United States should be one of the big media stories of this campaign"

Obama still owes answers on house deal

http://www.suntimes.com/news/brown/828546,CST-NWS-brown06.article

its beginning to look like this is a non issue anyway, as the clinton machine possibly turned this around in time to save her nomination. she's a lock in PA.

[piggybank]

you also neglect the real estate deal, which obama himself has called "bad juddgement". its quite very possible nothing illegal was done on obama's part.

but the reason for posting it is to help you see he is not the messiah he and his supporters claim to be. he is much more cut from the same mold as any politician, despite his sliver tongued speeches of "change, integrity, and ethics". rezko was well known to be dirty. obama didnt mind.

Fair enough, it's nothing that is in his favour. Though i hardly see shokking scandal in this neither for obama.

As to messiah ... i don't like it when religion sips into politics in the first place. Neither did i nessecarily mark him as a purely ethical or integer politician. My liking to this person rather was for his more progressive attitude and apparent multiple skills.

But i grant you the point that obama probably does have some more shady facet's to him. That said i hardly see any USA politician become presdential candidate withought these sorts of shady sides.

[freakscene]

too bad you have to read it in a place called 'hot air', instead of the NYT, LAT, or anny of the major cable news outlets.

they woould never be so honest with a "democrat" running for office.

oh, and anyone else thoroughly enjoying the demise of the "democrat" party?eating each other alive, in a convoluted, confusing process, in a time when they should be a lock. i guess they deserve it running 4 socialist senators like gore, kerry, obama and clinton.

:)

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/14/obama-woes-continue-at-rezko-trial/

Barack Obama has already had a tough week, and it’s just about to get worse. With his campaign reeling from the videos of his pastor spewing race-baiting rhetoric, the Tony Rezko trial just produced a new nugget that makes Obama look more dishonest. For the second time, the amount of money Rezko raised for Obama has been significantly increased from Obama’s prior admissions:

Indicted Chicago businessman Antoin “Tony” Rezko was a more significant fundraiser for presidential candidate Barack Obama’s earlier political campaigns than previously known. Rezko raised as much as $250,000 for the first three offices Obama sought, the senator told the Tribune on Friday.
Obama also said for the first time that his private real estate transactions with Rezko involved repeated lapses of judgment. The mistake, Obama said, was not simply that Rezko was under grand jury investigation at the time of their 2005 and 2006 dealings. “The mistake was he had been a contributor and somebody involved in politics,” he said.
Obama said that when he questioned Rezko about news reports of his questionable political dealings, his friend

Are we starting to see a pattern here? When Obama has an associate who proves to be an embarrassment, he says he simply didn’t know anything about their activities. I never heard those sermons. I never asked him about the rumors of his legal troubles.

Well, did he ever think to check it out? After all, the Chicago papers hadn’t exactly shown reticence in covering Rezko’s financial and legal troubles. Before going into business with Rezko, we’re expected to believe that the president of the Harvard Law Review was so naive that he didn’t read the papers or ask around about his business associate, especially when going in on a real estate deal with a man who was also a major contributor.

Let’s also take a look at that. When Obama’s connection to Rezko first came to light, he initially told reporters that Rezko didn’t raise any more than $50,000. Chicago reporters then dug up almost $150,000 in fundraising last summer, and Obama was forced to admit that he underestimated Rezko’s contributions. Now he’s telling us that it’s over $250,000. How many more revisions on this story can he make? Will the figure get closer to a million dollars by the time November gets here?

In both situations, the best Obama can ask us to believe is that he is a benighted idiot. He managed to attend a church with a race-baiting, America-hating pastor for twenty years without noticing it. During that time, he did business with a corrupt politico without ever noticing that, too, and he blithely went from election to election without being able to tell the difference between $50,000 and $250,000.

:)

That’s the best case. And that is supposed to instill confidence in his ability to lead the nation?

These revelations reveal that the best for which we can hope about Barack Obama is that he’s an empty suit. And an empty suit won’t bring any kind of change to the Beltway — not for the better, anyway.

[BentleyVTech]

I hate that Clinton supporters always tend to bring up experience about Obama, when Hillary talks about her experience as the First Lady for 8 years.

I hate that Clinton/McCain supporters tend to use Barack's full name, just to make sure they try to show the connection between Barack Obama & Saddam Huissan....

I hate that Clinton/McCain supporters try to use Barack's excellent public speaking and speeches as a negative aspect. As to say, his lack of experience & his great speeches, MUST mean hes just full of hot air. What are some of the main things you remember about past Presidents? It isn't a favorite/famous quote is it? IMO, a quote sticks with people along time and can influence them greatly. Normally, good public speakers tend to bring people together right? Is that a bad thing?

I hate that McCain's whole campaign is centered around the War on Iraq & his war experience. I greatly appreciate his service in Vietnam and the War in the Middle East is a very important topic...but what do other nations think about McCain? If they already think the U.S. is aggressive and doesn't listen to other countries, what will their impression be of the U.S. when we elect a "hardass" like McCain?

Barack doesn't have the age & experience, and he hasn't served in the military. Those are all important, but they should not be the main reasons people do not even give the guy a second glance.

In ALL of the debates, Clinton brought up experience...tell me what Barack brings up against his competitors????? Barack doesn't talk about the intangibles, Barack goes against the issues they are proposing, exactly what a Presidential debate/race SHOULD be talking about.

There comes a time in every generation, that the majority of the elderly are narrow-minded and NOT up for change (just talk to the baby boomers aka my parents)...and its up to the younger generation to push for changes...and Barack is our first step to the success of the next generation.

[netwrangler]

There comes a time in every generation, that the majority of the elderly are narrow-minded and NOT up for change ...Well, BVT, at least you allowed for the possibility that some of us 'elderly' are up for change.

[Ya wanna watch that age bias, Sonny.] :tongue: :biggrin:

[freakscene]

The only "change" you will get with Obama, is whats left in your pocket after your taxes are raised through the roof paying for his marxist expansion of government.

[BentleyVTech]

Oh and freakscene...since you're the anti-Barack member on this thread...and since you brought up his racist preacher's words...listen to the speech he gave yesterday about that and the white/black racial divide. What are your thoughts on his speech?

[freakscene]

i dont know if i'm the only "anti-barack" poster, but my thoughts are, a person who finds himself up against the wall trying to save his political career will say anything.

the language was pretty, but the suit remains empty, as many objective critics are writing today.

to not completely distance himself from someone who believes the US government created AIDS to kill black people, isnt going to win him middle America.

well played by the Clintons who no doubt have their hands all over backing him into this corner

[BentleyVTech]

i dont know if i'm the only "anti-barack" poster, but my thoughts are, a person who finds himself up against the wall trying to save his political career will say anything.

Trying to save his political career?? Isn't your argument that Barack has no experience, therefore he has hardly any political career so far...

And you say that he's cornered with his back against the wall? How so? Doesn't he still have the lead?!?!?

And he will say anything?!?! You don't think that he believes what he just said?

I'm a young white male, so obviously I think the claims made by his minister are outrageous, but I think Barack handled the situation well. He stated the minister helped him become a devote Christian, and although they possess different views on certain topics, he won't completely neglect his minister, but he has made it very clear that he doesn't agree with the claims the minister recently made.

[BuyOnDips]

Obama would be a disaster as President. He's easily the least qualified candidate running for the Presidency in modern times. What's funny or sad is most of his followers don't even know what the guy stands for. In the clip below, not one Democrat could name a single accomplishment of Obama, yet they want to vote for him. Scary stuff indeed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzFOOcEQtP0


"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill

[BentleyVTech]

I wouldnt say "most" of his followers don't know what he stands for, because theres plenty of women voting for Hillary just because of gender, just like there are plenty of blacks voting for Obama because of race, and plenty of Republicans voting for McCain, just because they stick to 1 party regardless of candidates.

Obama's Issues that matter to me:

-Attempting to take no money from PAC's...read up on that, thats why President Bush's (and most other Presidents) term got off on a badfoot because he felt obligated to repay those who paid for him to get into office. You shouldn't be able to bribe/buy a President.

-Iraq - Hillary and McCain seem to be opposites, while Obama is still for pulling troops away, just not as quick as Hillary seems. For the most part, I think who ever gets into office is going to realize at that time that pulling troops out as quickly as they had planned is not an option...BUT McCain is just too much into military presence for me to like at this time.

-Foreign Policy - I LIKE the fact that Obama said he will meet with anyone that wants to talk to the U.S., even if they are on bad terms currently...it shows an open-mind for change.

-I gotta work haha, we could talk about this forever!

[Horsefish]

Putting all liberal vs consertative considerations aside.
What kind of person would you be willing to entrust your life to?

One who stays faithful and respectful of past friends and aquaintances or someone who immediately throws friends under the bus at the first sign of controversy.

Think of the person behind the politics for a moment.

I could go for either Obama or Mc. as being reliable but certainly not Clinton.

[madcowdisease]

I wouldnt say "most" of his followers don't know what he stands for, because theres plenty of women voting for Hillary just because of gender, just like there are plenty of blacks voting for Obama because of race, and plenty of Republicans voting for McCain, just because they stick to 1 party regardless of candidates.

Obama's Issues that matter to me:

-Attempting to take no money from PAC's...read up on that, thats why President Bush's (and most other Presidents) term got off on a badfoot because he felt obligated to repay those who paid for him to get into office. You shouldn't be able to bribe/buy a President.

-Iraq - Hillary and McCain seem to be opposites, while Obama is still for pulling troops away, just not as quick as Hillary seems. For the most part, I think who ever gets into office is going to realize at that time that pulling troops out as quickly as they had planned is not an option...BUT McCain is just too much into military presence for me to like at this time.

-Foreign Policy - I LIKE the fact that Obama said he will meet with anyone that wants to talk to the U.S., even if they are on bad terms currently...it shows an open-mind for change.

-I gotta work haha, we could talk about this forever!

Correct me if I am wrong, Bentley, but in reading your posts I am under the impression you are in college, correct? Might I ask you what your major is? Is it history? If not, please read up on the USSR's invasion and subsequent pullout of Afghanistan in the late 1980s.

I am not here to debate whether the US should have invaded Iraq. What I will posit, however, is that any pullout like the one Barack or Hillary are proposing will create a breeding ground for terrorists much in the manner that Afghanistan was prior to the US led invasion. Keep in mind this is where Osama made his base and launched numerous attacks against the West. If you'd like another pre-2003 Afghansitan then by all means vote for Obama or Hillary. I don't like all of McCain's positions but he is the only one that understands the importance of not pulling out of Iraq like the Soviets did in the 'Stan.

[netwrangler]

Correct me if I am wrong, Bentley, but in reading your posts I am under the impression you are in college, correct? Might I ask you what your major is? Is it history? If not, please read up on the USSR's invasion and subsequent pullout of Afghanistan in the late 1980s.

I am not here to debate whether the US should have invaded Iraq. What I will posit, however, is that any pullout like the one Barack or Hillary are proposing will create a breeding ground for terrorists much in the manner that Afghanistan was prior to the US led invasion. Keep in mind this is where Osama made his base and launched numerous attacks against the West. If you'd like another pre-2003 Afghansitan then by all means vote for Obama or Hillary. I don't like all of McCain's positions but he is the only one that understands the importance of not pulling out of Iraq like the Soviets did in the 'Stan.IMH[bc]O
'Pulling out' is a Democratic 'concept' rather than a 'tactical plan'.

In my view, none of the three candidates will act precipitously in Iraq. If that's what you are worried about, don't sweat it. All three of them will act appropriately. I mean, there aren't that many options.

Actions regarding the economy, however, are not so clear-cut. There are lots of options — many of them bad.

I believe we are lucky to have three qualified candidates running for President this year. I can tell you from past experience that, in several past election years, I would have been overjoyed to see any of the three leading candidates on the ballot.

That said, I wonder if any of them have a handle on the magnitude of the economic problems they will be facing. I certainly haven't heard anything from any of them to indicate that they do.

[freakscene]

IMH[bc]I believe we are lucky to have three qualified candidates running for President this year.

I believe the quality of the three demonstrates just how few people aspire to be president, and just how pathetic and uneducated the electorate have become.

an empty suit with pied piper qualities

one of the most corrupt people in politics

and john damn the first amendment, legalize everyone mccain

?


sad really

[BentleyVTech]

Madcow, I'm not in college, but I did graduate a year ago with a finance degree. Currently working for a utility company, hence why I had to end my post suddenly to actually do work.

I'm definitely not a history buff, but I do realize the consequences we would be facing if we "pull-out", but if you read all of my post...

For the most part, I think who ever gets into office is going to realize at that time that pulling troops out as quickly as they had planned is not an option...BUT McCain is just too much into military presence for me to like at this time.

I don't think the answer is to pull out immediately so that it is a haven for terrorist once again...but I don't think keeping a strong US presence there is a good idea either. Our economy has slipped and is continuing to slip, and we continue to "give" Iraq billions upon billions in money and resources. At some point, we have to start pulling out to actually let them do some work to rebuild their country...other than us controlling it. If we continue to protect them at the costs of our men, and our money...our economy will take forever to recover. And besides that, they are and will continue to depend heavily on the U.S.

But as my previous post states, and net also stated...all candidates just see the surface of Iraq. Once one becomes President, even Billary, will not "pull-out" within 60 days. She may pull-out quicker than the other candidates, but she will change her plan sooner or later.

I voted for Bush in the past election because I thought we needed someone that stuck by their values and wasn't afraid to go after the terrorists...and I share a lot of Republican views..so I'm not devoted to one party. In fact, I think the whole 2 party system is a crock-of-sh** and worked in the early years..but if you remember there were other parties that were created to compete and actually COULD compete when the nation was born. But thats a whole other topic.

I've also concluded that freakscene is a pessimist...you can find a negative in every situation. Maybe start looking at the positives in each candidate...Be happy you live in American and have the chance to vote.

[freakscene]

You've concluded wrongly. I am capable of succeeding even if a "democrat" does end up implementing their Marxist ideas.

but I wonder if you share the same view of the majority of Americans who will be on my side of the election and not voting for any of those 3? (either by staying home or in my case writing in someone else)

None of the above should be an option.

[BuyOnDips]

All 3 are weak candidates. I'll hold my nose and vote for McCain(like McCain's mother said). Maybe he'll cut spending. The other 2 won't. Maybe McCain will downsize the federal government. The other 2 won't. Plus McCain will try to end the war in Iraq by winning it. The other 2 won't.

Anyway, the next President will more than likely only serve 4 years. He/she will face many problems and they won't have the courage to do the right actions to solve those problems.

If Obama beats out Hillary, I think McCain will become President. I don't see any red states that Bush won in 2004 that Obama can win. McCain could beat Obama in blue states such as New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Minnesota.

If Hillary beats out Obama, I'd say she has a much easier chance of beating McCain. She could win Ohio and Arkansas. A match up of Hillary vs McCain would be a very close race again.

[netwrangler]

I believe the quality of the three demonstrates just how few people aspire to be president, and just how pathetic and uneducated the electorate have become.

an empty suit with pied piper qualities

one of the most corrupt people in politics

and john damn the first amendment, legalize everyone mccain

?


sad reallyIt's the best line-up we've had in decades.

You don't want to be evaluating politicians on an absolute scale. :wink:

[freakscene]

Maybe he'll cut spending. The other 2 won't. Maybe McCain will downsize the federal government. The other 2 won't. Plus McCain will try to end the war in Iraq by winning it. The other 2 won't.
.

Yup.

Here is a link for Bentley. Apparently its from another pessimist.

http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080320/OPINION01/803200346

..............Ferraro's remarks were rightly denounced by both campaigns, but she did raise a valid point that Democratic voters need to consider: a freshman senator, with only three years of involvement in national politics, no significant accomplishments, and a voting record that is both flimsy and very liberal, is not running on experience.................

hmmm, no record?

..........Obama's platform, the logical foundation of any presidential campaign, is shaky at best. His vacuous talks about "change we can believe in" are exciting the first few times, but he has so far failed to articulate any original or feasible plans to actualize this mysterious "change."..........

hmmm, ?

........His platform is nothing more than a laundry list of stereotypically liberal positions, and his voting record in the Senate supports this; he was recently named the most liberal senator by the National Journal. It is mystifying that voters eager for bipartisanship are passing over two very moderate senators for a man who may become the most polarizing president in recent memory.........

more liberal than self proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders ?????????????????? equals Marxist in my book

damn anyone for seriously critiquing the pied piper, and not jumping on the bandwagon of feelgoodism

[cramerica1972]

Yup.

Here is a link for Bentley. Apparently its from another pessimist.

http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080320/OPINION01/803200346

..............Ferraro's remarks were rightly denounced by both campaigns, but she did raise a valid point that Democratic voters need to consider: a freshman senator, with only three years of involvement in national politics, no significant accomplishments, and a voting record that is both flimsy and very liberal, is not running on experience.................

hmmm, no record?

..........Obama's platform, the logical foundation of any presidential campaign, is shaky at best. His vacuous talks about "change we can believe in" are exciting the first few times, but he has so far failed to articulate any original or feasible plans to actualize this mysterious "change."..........

hmmm, ?

........His platform is nothing more than a laundry list of stereotypically liberal positions, and his voting record in the Senate supports this; he was recently named the most liberal senator by the National Journal. It is mystifying that voters eager for bipartisanship are passing over two very moderate senators for a man who may become the most polarizing president in recent memory.........

more liberal than self proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders ?????????????????? equals Marxist in my book

damn anyone for seriously critiquing the pied piper, and not jumping on the bandwagon of feelgoodismwhat is happening to obama is nothing more than a hi-tech lynching by the mostly white liberal and conservative media,who wants to marginalize obama as just another black candidate.hillary by mentioning his race as caused a new willie horton moment,scaring white voters.who the hell cares if he's a freshman senator?if her lastname wasnt clinton,she wouldnt even be in the race at all.ppl like sean hannity say that obama could be a racist.....ummmmmm thomas jefferson was a slave owner as president of the USA.OH,and alot of wrights comments i do agree with.

[chacho]

alot of wrights comments i do agree with.

I thought you would.

[BentleyVTech]

I think youre going to far cramerica...

Back in TJ's days...slavery was widely accepted.

Nowadays...from what I know - racism is still present among some "elderly" lol or older generations who are opposed to change, but has decreased dramatically...and among the younger generation, I think most young americans could careless about the color of their friends, President, etc.

Some of Wrights' comments bring up interesting points...but hes just the mirror image of a white racist. For an educated adult to think America created AIDS to kill the blacks is absolutely outrageous....hes just the mirror opposite of some white racists that are opposed to change as well...

[Horsefish]

So you are calling a man who spent 5 years as a prisoner of war a stupid bigot. You have got to be kidding me. Senator McCain could have gotten out of there any moment he wanted, but he held his pride and stuck by his guys. I ask you remove your post englishman.

I believe English was refering to George Bush not John McCain and the post was dead on.

Come on folks!... Do you really believe that it is possible to " win " the war in Iraq?......If we stay another 4 or 5 years and get another 3000 soldiers killed and then achieve a victory by building a stable MUSLIM country with some modicum of democratic government with some form of free market economy that Iraq will end up being a friend of the US? It will still be a religious theocracy and not a friend in any sense of the word.

There is no win here. Better to elect a person that will rebuild our relationship with the part of the world that shares common values with us.

[BentleyVTech]

agreed horsefish, sometimes a "win" isnt defeating another country...its knowing when to end the war.

[freakscene]

nonsense, but expected from todays indoctrinated youths

[bigzip]

The $100 question is "What is victory?" in Iraq?

We have to stay until we win, but what does that mean?

Democracy? I thought they all had purple thumbs already.
Peace? They've fighting since the beginning of time.
All the terrosists are dead? Seems to me we're creating new ones on a daily basis.
Oil? OK, now maybe there's a goal we can all agree on. We stay until oil is being pumped at the prewar level - by our corporations at least.

Define a goal and achieve it using all available resources. That IMO is the major F-up with this operation.

People are foolish to believe any of the 3 major candidates will do anything to "change" our country in any positive way. Ron Paul is the only candidate whose record and principles don't blow in the direction of the prevailing winds, and whose ideas would have improved our country in 4 yrs time.

[freakscene]

The $100 question is "What is victory?" in Iraq?
.


very good question worth asking. i do not know or pretend to know the answer.

i do know that when people state "America cant win", its a non starter. especially those who admit to not being a student of history.

Thank God Washington, Lincoln, Patton, Macarthur, and Kennedy never thought like that, to name a few.

[Survivor]

Bush- politics,war,and one trillion dollars later. The US is in the war business, after 911 our mission was to go and get Bin laden and his cronies-not try to take over Iraq for the oil rights. I'm tired of the lies and deception and the loss of life. The US is just buying a victory. Bush,Cheney,Rumsfeld, weapons of mass deception.

[freakscene]

i felt like linking a dictionary definition to the word "cliche" for the above post, but decided it wasnt worth the effort.

Obama's church printed pro-Hamas manifesto?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=59456

and some of you think this guy is smart ???

turn out the lights, its over.

Obama is already responding, of course he didnt support it.

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ned=us&q=obama+hamas

[Hondaboy]

Ron Paul!

[aiki14]

I can't really generate any serious negative emotion about Senator Obama, he seems like a likable enough sort. I think the fact that we are, as a nation, at the point where an African American is a legitimate candidate for president is very encouraging. On the other hand I can't generate any serious negative emotion towards Senator McCain, he also seems like a likable sort.
I am always engaging in an internal battle, in that I am forced to vote for a candidate who is more in line with my social positions (Democrat) or with my economic interests (Republicans). At this point unless Senator McCain distances himself from the current administration in a way that seems very unlikely, I will vote for Senator Obama, assuming of course he is the nominee. I would be less sanguine about voting for Senator Clinton, but would at this point make the same choice for her over Senator McCain.

[BuyOnDips]

Obama probably is now unelectable. Staying in that church of hate for nearly 2 decades has probably ended any chance of him becoming president. His recent poll numbers are dropping faster than the price of gold. Plus he was a weak candidate to start out with. Unfortunately for the Democrats, it is probably too late for Hillary to win the most delegates or the popular vote. She does have lots of momentum though. Obama will get crushed in PA and is in danger of losing North Carolina where he was leading by more than double digits a few weeks ago. Obama really should have left that church of hate years ago. Ooops.

If the superdelegates vote for Hillary instead of Obama, many blacks will feel that victory was stolen from their guy. Damn Whitey! This could easily fracture the Democratic party. I think it will be very hard for strong Obama supporters to vote for Hillary when it looks to them like she stole his win. Voting for McCain wouldn't be that hard for them either. Many consider him to almost be a Democrat. But more than likely, the majority would stay home ensuring a Hillary defeat.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72B3tUAqpo4

[fredr142]

agreed horsefish, sometimes a "win" isnt defeating another country...its knowing when to end the war.

We aren't trying to defeat Iraq, we are defeating Al Queda and Islamic Extremists.

[netwrangler]

I can't really generate any serious negative emotion about Senator Obama, he seems like a likable enough sort. I think the fact that we are, as a nation, at the point where an African American is a legitimate candidate for president is very encouraging. On the other hand I can't generate any serious negative emotion towards Senator McCain, he also seems like a likable sort.
I am always engaging in an internal battle, in that I am forced to vote for a candidate who is more in line with my social positions (Democrat) or with my economic interests (Republicans). At this point unless Senator McCain distances himself from the current administration in a way that seems very unlikely, I will vote for Senator Obama, assuming of course he is the nominee. I would be less sanguine about voting for Senator Clinton, but would at this point make the same choice for her over Senator McCain.You have written an excellent summary of my own feelings, Aiki.

Let me add that, as a Moderate, I give both Senators Obama and McCain credit for their demonstrated ability to reach 'across the aisle' and generate bi-partisan support on issues.

Senator Clinton is, indeed, a fighter.
That quality might get her elected.
I don't think it will help her govern.

[cramerica1972]

Obama probably is now unelectable. Staying in that church of hate for nearly 2 decades has probably ended any chance of him becoming president. His recent poll numbers are dropping faster than the price of gold. Plus he was a weak candidate to start out with. Unfortunately for the Democrats, it is probably too late for Hillary to win the most delegates or the popular vote. She does have lots of momentum though. Obama will get crushed in PA and is in danger of losing North Carolina where he was leading by more than double digits a few weeks ago. Obama really should have left that church of hate years ago. Ooops.

If the superdelegates vote for Hillary instead of Obama, many blacks will feel that victory was stolen from their guy. Damn Whitey! This could easily fracture the Democratic party. I think it will be very hard for strong Obama supporters to vote for Hillary when it looks to them like she stole his win. Voting for McCain wouldn't be that hard for them either. Many consider him to almost be a Democrat. But more than likely, the majority would stay home ensuring a Hillary defeat.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72B3tUAqpo4i'll say this:if obama remains in the delegate lead heading to the convention and the superdelegates overule the ppl who voted for obama,i'll be voting independent.It was HILLARY who brought race in to the race.USA has had presidents who owned slaves,but obama"unelectable"b/c of what his pastor said?hypocracy.

[cramerica1972]

it doesnt ?

his campaign is all about ethics, judgement, and change right?

seems easy to use this story to suggest he's an agent of none of the above, and just another corrupt political hack from chicago. perhaps you should look into the story a bit more.

and stop the race card nonsense, it only makes you look foolish and bigoted. its possible to not agree with a black man/woman because what his/her ideas represent (in obamas case, socialism). if michael steele were nominated i'd be aggressively campaigning for him.LOLwow you ppl take the cake.so listening to a damn sermon determines if ur fit to be president?LOL

[cramerica1972]

I think youre going to far cramerica...

Back in TJ's days...slavery was widely accepted.

Nowadays...from what I know - racism is still present among some "elderly" lol or older generations who are opposed to change, but has decreased dramatically...and among the younger generation, I think most young americans could careless about the color of their friends, President, etc.

Some of Wrights' comments bring up interesting points...but hes just the mirror image of a white racist. For an educated adult to think America created AIDS to kill the blacks is absolutely outrageous....hes just the mirror opposite of some white racists that are opposed to change as well...bentley,just b/c it was accepted made it right? LOL the excuses ppl come up with.i am just tired of having no choice but to vote for a white person for high office.No blackperson will ever get a shot b/c frankly most white ppl are fearful of a black person with too much power.

[freakscene]

LOLwow you ppl take the cake.so listening to a damn sermon determines if ur fit to be president?LOL

listening to a sermon isnt a 20 year long relationship.

no one expects you to understand. the pied piper has you hypnotized.

"My grandmother was a typical white person...................."

didnt help him any either

[chacho]

listening to a sermon isnt a 20 year long relationship.

no one expects you to understand. the pied piper has you hypnotized.

"My grandmother was a typical white person...................."

didnt help him any either

Not only Wright, but his wife also. I'm sure Cramerica agrees with her senior thesis from Princeton.

[netwrangler]

listening to a sermon isnt a 20 year long relationship.

no one expects you to understand. the pied piper has you hypnotized.

"My grandmother was a typical white person...................."

didnt help him any eitheruhh, as I recall...

Before the Hamlin establishment stiffed him, the Pied Piper got rid of the rats in the town.

As for the young people following him later, was that hypnosis or charisma? Perhaps they were just fed up with an incompetent establishment that didn't live up to its word.
[Tell me again how long Cheney said it would take to 'win' in Iraq?
Something like six weeks, wasn't it?
Heck, that was five years ago.
Who can remember?]

[piggybank]

There won't be a solution to Iraq unless some sort of new political ideal can be found where the people of Iraq can unite behind. Good luck! The situation is utterly hopeless. Not so much in matters of average body count, but politicly/ethnicly/religously the country is tottaly devided. The Kurds up north just want a anatolian super kurdish state, and it's annoying the Turks because the kurds have armies and money. Iran doesn't like it either but maybe they can yield influence onto the Shia south, neither does Syria like the kurds but they can play friendly with the Sunni minority. Meanwhile the Suni and the Shia are fighting eachother, and the US army is camping in the middle. Defacto Iran almost own South iraq already, just not the oil bussiness, and you can be sure those kurds won't step an inch out of their positions around Kirkuk. And the Shia middle is just scared after having lost their Strong man Saddam that managed to bring order to this contraption of a country drawn all to indiscrimatly on the map by the brittish. the democratic goverment has no chance because iraq is made of a majority and minority's who don't want anything to do with that majority, afcourse the Iraqi will see the democratic goverment of Iraq as a Shia dominated body.

Iraq is simply in a civil war, and the nationality "iraqi" has lost all meaning by loosing it's enforcer Saddam. And there is no winning this civil war in favour of the unity of Iraq, because this sort of unity has lost all meaning to the people. it never had much meaning anyway, Iraq was just a badly drawn entity, bound to be ruled by tottalitarian regime's if ever stable, unless society could modernize to something that the people would identify with beyond ethnicity, religion or culture.

The consequences of pullout will be painfull. But there is no point delaying the inevitable. You simply cannot wish upon the people a goverment that they could all benifit from if this is not what they want. It's simply a situation in wich you wil loose anyway.

Afhanistan is another failure. It is rather dissapointing. Hamid karzai's goverment may have had a small chance of acceptance by the goverment if it had been able to enforce law and order, but the millitary force for it has never been available. Having been part of the Northern alliance in nessecity to fight the Taliban he had to watch and see Afhanistan for the majority been devided between northern alliance warlords after the Taliban was "largly" defeated, with the Afhani goverment having only control of Kabul and some of the area around it. Now the Warlords are fighting between eachother and the reemerging Taliban is picking up the corpses. The kabul goverment is powerless, it has virtually no army or actuall poppulation support and is largly dependant on some leftover European troops for protection. But graduatly, let this continue, and the taliban will take the country again.

And that is a pitty, because Afhanistan does have some sort of political/cultural base, a history of its own. Had the USA created enough power basis for Karzai some stable goverment might actually have come from it. Personally i would have thought that the return of the king, albeith into a constitutional monarchy, would have been a good idea, because there was king available, and a king is a national symbol. Karzai was not a bad choice as prime minister, Karzai has a afhan royal background himself and was a supporter of the king. This could have created a far better technical justification for the goverment, afterall the monarchy was the original goverment of Afhanistan.

Some newspaper had the cost total for the war on terror on it's frontpage recently. 3000 billion dollar ... 3 trillion ... omg thats a load of money into the drain, wasted on failure and brought a even more problematic political situation. I can't understand why US citicin's are utterly pissed about it .... it boggles the mind, what a waste, i would demand a refund, i would ask a frigging list of all expenditure's just to see if the didn't waste to much money on elbow grease. What a Scam! You'd really really wonder wich people benifit from all these millitary and related expenditure's.



In principle i'm never against spreading the word of freedom and democracy, and even to have peace sometimes you must fight. the world is full of dictatorships or just nutty regimes, in some youll find people willing for change in unity, in others you won't. Sollutions can always be found, with some good planning maybe. Being a realist helps maybe. But .... you don't have to argue that the US citizins had any bad intentions with the people of Iraq or Afhanistan (au contre) to claim that the Iraqi and Afhanistan sollutions have both been very bad ineptly construed contraptions made by substanderd advisors and an even more substandard president. Hawks who are that blind the crash right into the ground. The neocon revolution has been short, but man did it bite! They fooked it up for atleast 3 future presidency's, the irony of it being that the opposition now might start up to clean the mess and later they will be punished for having led trough the bad years.

The current lineup of presidents is good indeed. heck the could have been a fish, a emoe and a duck and it would have seemed much better options than the current goverment. i'm sure with the right advisors backing him i could be pursuaded to vote duck. fish smells, and emoe doesn't have a chance because it's a 2 party system.

[Survivor]

i felt like linking a dictionary definition to the word "cliche" for the above post, but decided it wasnt worth the effort.

Cliche, I felt like linking a dictionary definition to the words: neo maxxy zoomed webee. but decided it wasnt worth effort. Period.

[Jelly]

America is dying without a fight. The nurse has a toolbox full of morphine and prednisone but the doctor keeps pulling out more blood and organs.

Collateral Damage....................

[bigzip]

Cliche, I felt like linking a dictionary definition to the words: neo maxxy zoomed webee. but decided it wasnt worth effort. Period.

http://www.killerclips.com/clip.php?id=30&qid=75

[freakscene]

uhh, as I recall...

Before the Hamlin establishment stiffed him, the Pied Piper got rid of the rats in the town.


Now Net, as much as i dislike "democrats" even I wouldnt call them rats. ;)

Obama's marxist connections:

you shouldnt be surprised.

Is Barack Obama A Marxist Mole?

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2289

Well worth the few minutes it takes to read.

[freakscene]

OBAMA AND OIL

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/28/834887.aspx

.........In the ad, Obama says, "I'm Barack Obama, and I don't take money from oil companies or lobbyists, and I won't let them block change any more."

Obama has taken $213,884 from the oil and gas industry as of Feb. 29th, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.


Two of Obama's campaign bundlers are also CEOs for oil and gas companies, per a list released on his campaign Web site.


:y:

[freakscene]

anyone else enjoying the implosion as much as i am?

[AJLightning]

50 Lies and Counting: Posted on Political forum.com - Elections and Campaigns ...Share with friends

1.) Selma Got Me Born - LIAR, your parents felt safe enough to have you in 1961 - Selmahad no effect on your birth, as Selmawas in 1965.

2.) Father Was A Goat Herder - LIAR, he was a privileged, well educated youth, who went on to work with the Kenyan Government.

3.) Father Was A Proud Freedom Fighter - LIAR, he was part of one of the most corrupt and violent governments Kenyahas ever had

4.) My Family Has Strong Ties To African Freedom - LIAR, your cousin Raila Odinga has created mass violence in attempting to overturn a legitimate election in 2007, in Kenya. It is the first widespread violence in decades.

5.) My Grandmother Has Always Been A Christian - LIAR, she does her daily Salat prayers at 5am according to her own interviews. Not to mention, Christianity wouldnt allow her to have been one of 14 wives to 1 man.

6.) My Name is African Swahili - LIAR, your name is Arabic and Baraka (from which Barack came) means blessed in that language. Hussein is also Arabic and so is Obama.

7.) I Never Practiced Islam - LIAR, you practiced it daily at school, where you were registered as a Muslim and kept that faith for 31 years,until your wife made you change, so you could run for office.

8.) My School In Indonesia Was Christian - LIAR, you were registered as Muslim there and got in trouble in Koranic Studies for making faces (check your own book).

9.) I Was Fluent In Indonesian - LIAR, not one teacher says you could speak the language.

10.) Because I Lived In Indonesia, I Have More Foreign Experience - LIAR, you were there from the ages of 6 to 10, and couldnt even speak the language.. What did you learn, how to study the Koran and watch cartoons.

11.) I Am Stronger On Foreign Affairs - LIAR, except for Africa (surprise) and the Middle East(bigger surprise), you have never been anywhere else on the planet and thus have NO experience with our closest allies.

12.) I Blame My Early Drug Use On Ethnic Confusion - LIAR, you were quite content in high school to be Barry Obama, no mention of Kenya and no mention of struggle to identify - your classmates said you were just fine.

13.)An Ebony Article Moved Me To Run For Office - LIAR, Ebony has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesnt, and never did, exist.

14.) A Life Magazine Article Changed My Outlook On Life - LIAR, Life has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesnt, and never did, exist.

15.) I Wont Run On A National Ticket In 08 - LIAR, here you are, despite saying, live on TV, that you would not have enough experience by then, and you are all about having experience first.

16.) Present Votes Are Common In Illinois - LIAR, they are common for YOU, but not many others have 130 NO VOTES.

17.) Oops, I Misvoted - LIAR, only when caught by church groups and democrats, did you beg to change your misvote.

18.) I Was A Professor Of Law - LIAR, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.

19.) I Was A Constitutional Lawyer - LIAR, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.

20.) Without Me, There Would Be No Ethics Bill - LIAR, you didnt write it,introduce it, change it, or create it.

21.) The Ethics Bill Was Hard To Pass - LIAR, it took just 14 days from start to finish.

22.) I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill - LIAR, your bill was rejected by your own party for its pandering and lack of all regulation - mainly because of your Nuclear Donor, Exelon, from which David Axelrod came.

23.) I Have Released My State Records - LIAR, as of March, 2008, state bills you sponsored or voted for have yet to be released, exposing all the special interests pork hidden within.

24.) I Took On The Asbestos Altgeld Gardens Mess - LIAR, you were part of a large group of people who remedied AltgeldGardens. You failed to mention anyone else but yourself, in your books.

25.) My Economics Bill Will Help America - LIAR, your 111 economic policies were just combined into a proposal which lost 99-0, and even YOU voted against your own bill.

26.) I Have Been A Bold Leader In Illinois - LIAR, even your own supporters claim to have not seen BOLD action on your part.

27.) I Passed 26 Of My Own Bills In One Year - LIAR, they were not YOUR bills, but rather handed to you, after their creation by a fellow Senator, to assist you in a future bid for higher office.

28.) No One Contacted Canada About NAFTA - LIAR, the Candian Government issued the names and a memo of the conversation your campaign had with them.

29.) I Am Tough On Terrorism - LIAR, you missed the Iran Resolution vote on terrorism and your good friend Ali Abunimah supports the destruction of Israel.

30.) I Am Not Acting As President Yet - LIAR, after the NAFTA Memo, a dead terrorist in the FARC, in Colombia, was found with a letter stating how you and he were working together on getting FARC recognized officially.

31.) I Didnt Run Ads In Florida - LIAR, you allowed national ads to run 8-12 times per day for two weeks - and you still lost.

32.) I Won Michigan- LIAR, no you didnt.

33.) I won Nevada- LIAR, no you did not.

34.) I Want All Votes To Count - LIAR, you said let the delegates decide.

35.) I Want Americans To Decide - LIAR, you prefer caucuses that limit the vote, confuse the voters, force a public vote, and only operate during small windows of time.

36.) I passed 900 Bills in the State Senate - LIAR, you passed 26, most of which you didnt write yourself.

37.) My Campaign Was Extorted By A Friend - LIAR, that friend is threatening to sue if you do not stop saying this. Obama has stopped saying this.

38.) I Believe In Fairness, Not Tactics - LIAR, you used tactics to eliminate Alice Palmer from running against you.

39.) I Dont Take PAC Money - LIAR, you take loads of it.

40.) I dont Have Lobbysists - LIAR, you have over 47 lobbyists, and counting.

41.) My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Ad - LIAR, your own campaign worker made the ad on his Apple in one afternoon.

42.) My Campaign Never Took Over MySpace - LIAR, Tom, who started MySpace issued a warning about this advertising to MySpace clients.

43.) I Inspire People With My Words - LIAR, you inspire people with other peoples words.

44.) I Have Passed Bills In The U.S. Senate - LIAR, you have passed A BILL in the U.S. Senate - for Africa, which shows YOUR priorities.

45.) I Have Always Been Against Iraq - LIAR, you werent in office to vote against it AND you have voted to fund it every single time, unlike Kucinich, who seems to be out gutting you Obama. You also seem to be stepping back from your departure date - AGAIN.

46.) I Have Always Supported Universal Health Care - LIAR, your plan leaves us all to pay the 15,000,000 who dont have to buy it.

47.) I Only Found Out About My Investment Conflicts Via Mail - LIAR, both companies you site as having sent you letters about this conflict have no record of any such letter ever being created or sent.

48.) I Am As Patriotic As Anyone - LIAR, you wont wear a flag pin and you dont put your hand over your heart during the Anthem.

49.) My Wife Didnt Mean What She Said About Pride In Country - LIAR, your wifes words follow lock-step in the vain of Wright and Farrahkan, in relation to their contempt and hatred of America.

50.) Wal-Mart Is A Company I Wouldnt Support - LIAR, your wife has received nearly a quarter of a million dollars through Treehouse, which is connected to Wal-Mart.

[freakscene]

good one AJ :)


"We can't drive our SUVs and, you know, eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know, 72 degrees all the time, whether we're living in the desert or we're living in the tundra, and then just expect every other country is going to say OK."

Barack Hussein Karl Obama ;)

[BentleyVTech]

freakscene...since you said you didnt like any of the candidates, how about you make this a fair argument on your own part, and start a thread to bash McCain.

[BentleyVTech]

And AJ, although some of what you posted may be true...I wouldnt say using a forum as a reference is a good way to post accurate information.

Thats like someone using Gzapper's posts as a reference to stock trading!:lol:

[freakscene]

freakscene...since you said you didnt like any of the candidates, how about you make this a fair argument on your own part, and start a thread to bash McCain.

Maybe I will

But I still consider McCain someone who would represent America first, unlike Obama who is a global marxist (see first post in this thread). So the disdain I have for McCain is not on the same scale. I am not voting for either, for the record.

[BentleyVTech]

If you arent voting then why say anything? I dont understand people sometimes.

So you think McCain will stand for America first...and yet you wont even vote...the one thing America was founded upon. I dont understand your thinking...

[freakscene]

If you arent voting then why say anything? I dont understand people sometimes.

So you think McCain will stand for America first...and yet you wont even vote...the one thing America was founded upon. I dont understand your thinking...

ahhhhhh so many things to comment on. America's founders had an opportunity to choose socialism or marxism as the cornerstone of the country. Do you know why they didn't?

But I digress.

Perhaps you need to learn how to read first in order to understand "my thinking". You are fresh out of kolleje, right? I notice a trend with the dumbed down youth of America regarding civics/politics.

Never in this thread or any other did I suggest that I wasnt voting; quite the contrary. I have been participating in the process - both donating money and time to the Ron Paul campaign, of which I have posted on this very board. I believe in his policies. I may continue if a valid 3rd party candidate whom I can support arises. If not, he will more than likely get my write in vote for President.

But you see, I am not a lemming who believes one must vote for either the letter D or the letter R on the ticket in order to have their vote "count", especially if I do not support the policies of the person beside the D or R.

The votes i cast in the local elections will be very important. And I can assure you I will not be voting for a local socialist or marxist with a letter D by their name either. ;)

So, you want to know why I am speaking out against a marxist like obama for the President of the United States?

Contact a different kollege and hope they have better professors, if you honestly can not see the dangers. The information is also readily available on the internet.

cheers, and thanks for the opportunity.

:)

[Rich]

Perhaps this Hillary supporter has the truth about Obama.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KACQuZVAE3s

[netwrangler]

The politics of hate has an ugly family tree.

KKK
Nazis
Israel/Palestine [pick a side, both qualify]

IMO, Hate has no place in a Presidential election.
We should be addressing the issues:

Health care
The Economy
The War in Iraq
Energy policy
Border Security
Tax Policy
Fiscal Policy
Free Trade
I could go on...

So, before you tell me how much you hate a candidate, tell me first how you would address these issues.

Every President deserves our support as they take office.
No candidate deserves to be the object of hate.

I mean, do you just want to increase hate and discontent, or would you like to be part of the solution?

[BentleyVTech]

Contact a different kollege and hope they have better professors, if you honestly can not see the dangers. The information is also readily available on the internet.

cheers, and thanks for the opportunity.

:)

So many "Obama haters" (my Aunt expresses her self just as you do) talk down towards anyone that supports Obama, as if we are uneducated and completely stupid for even THINKING about such a candidate. So I guess my college education must have sucked because I'm not for the same presidential candidate as yourself...or that I'm for someone you are against. I guess that also means Warren Buffet himself needs to go back to "kollege".

I think Obama is great because he brings interest of a whole new generation to politics. Why shouldn't a President be motivational? I want a President that can motivate a country and get the country involved.

Its alright though, I understand that we can have differing opinions and that doesn't mean one of us is less smart/less educated than the other. :D

[Rich]

Sorry, I wont fall for this drivel, if your going to say these things start with Biden. Remember when he said to Bush Sr. 'Dont bother sending another supreme court justice to the Senate for reveiw because we will NOT approave it'. WOW, that is a person who really loves the heart of constitution, if he doesnt' get his way then stall it on the floor. The Senate has turned the approaval process of the SC into a liberal test strip.

I will NEVER EVER think Ted Kennedy, Bidden, Byrd, Pelosi and many many other liberals who say they are for the poor and live like kings are trustworthy, or even worth consideration of being a president. Ted Kennedy and Bidden have directly come out and violated the heart of the Constitution many times, I doubt if they ever read it. Case in point, what started the entire thing with Obama's church was a question by the press to the church, they asked how much Obama contributed, the church stated it was very little, not even close to the 10% they recommend. But Obama thinks I should pay more for the poor and programs while its He that makes the millions. Obaman two weeks ago suggested that WE should turn down our thermostats and start cutting back on what we eat so the 'rest' of the world lives on with better thoughts about us. Yep, thats a REAL solution!

I could go on for hours listing the differences of why I won't vote for him but its needless, the Democratic party itself is sick of their own party and is doing it amoung themselves.

Personally, I can't STAND Hillary, she's a liar and many other things, but I will vote for her over Obama and I agree with Coulter, I may vote for her over McCain .

Please, don't preach to me on how I should view the candidates, I have been trained to view them accurately by the actions of all the past ones, they are liars, murdereres, adulterers, money hungry, decietful, manipluators of truth, wishing to become statues in history, nothing more. Its my job to pick out the ones who will do the least amount of harm to my family.

Rich

[Rich]

http://www.onlinetradersforum.com/showpost.php?p=97985&postcount=87

A few things that strike me funny about that video.

1. I didn't hear those words, but he attended the church for 17 years.

2. Everyone had their hand over their heart when the Star Spangled Banner was playing EXCEPT Obama, Yep, a real patriot

3. FIRST TIME AS AN ADULT that i was proud to be an American! Yep, First lady material.

4. Everytime Obama's wife started to speak, he injected and took over, like' SHUT UP WOMAN!, YOUR GOING TO BLOW THIS INTERVIEW!"

Deny what you wish, I saw what I saw and its everywhere on video.

I don't trust this man OR his wife. I will not vote for him, I would vote for Hillary anyday over Barrack.

Once again, its my job to sort out who will damage and harm my family the LEAST when they become president. .

Rich

[aiki14]

Its my job to pick out the ones who will do the least amount of harm to my family.

Rich

At first glance it would appear I am diametrically opposed to Rich's and Freakscenes political positions. I wouldn't vote for the republicans if they held my family hostage. Folks here who have read my posts know I am extremely liberal on social issues, and have made the conscious decision to vote against my economic interests in favor of my social positions.
Here is where I agree with Rich, as evidenced by the statement I quote here, and presumably many of my friends on the other side. I am voting for the candidate I feel the least antipathy towards. While I think this particular choice will be the best we've had in a long time (Obama or McCain presumably), I still cannot get motivated by either one, and am forced to make my decision based upon "least bad vs. not least bad", more on party platforms than anything else.

Maybe in this age of complicated issues, and more complicated sets of individual circumstances, the two party system with its diametrical opposition and deep entrenchment thereof, has become an impediment to any real progress. I don't know if the solution is an increase in the number of parties participating (realistically participating, not relegated to the fringes), or a more parliamentary system.

I do urge the posters to not fall into the trap of thinking that folks of opposite position are inherently intellectually inferior, that is factually incorrect, and serves no purpose other than to deepen the rift. When confronted by an aggressively asserted opposite position, most people will retract into a more steadfast defense of their own position. In Aikido we say this is the linear defense to a linear attack, it is instinctual. I believe we need to step back and take a softer approach, state our positions in the manner of a slow dance, not the soundbite staccato of modern political intercourse, and allow for the concept of the honorable opponent, rather than the evil enemy, in our internecine affairs. We should rail against the Michael Moore's and the Ann Coulter's of of the world with equal vehemence since they represent an impediment to the type of discourse that will bring us toward mutual respect and progress.

I believe Rich, and Freakscence, as evidenced by their many posts to be both intelligent and patriotic, I feel the same about myself and many of those who have espoused my side on things. I allow that we can be both intelligent and patriotic, and yet differ on the issues at hand.

[freakscene]

So many "Obama haters" (my Aunt expresses her self just as you do) talk down towards anyone that supports Obama, as if we are uneducated and completely stupid for even THINKING about such a candidate. So I guess my college education must have sucked because I'm not for the same presidential candidate as yourself...or that I'm for someone you are against. I guess that also means Warren Buffet himself needs to go back to "kollege".

I think Obama is great because he brings interest of a whole new generation to politics. Why shouldn't a President be motivational? I want a President that can motivate a country and get the country involved.

Its alright though, I understand that we can have differing opinions and that doesn't mean one of us is less smart/less educated than the other. :D

It had nothing to do with who you support, or if you are a closet marxist.

You incorrectly assumed that because I wasn't a lemming supporting the D or R, that I wasn't voting.

[freakscene]

At first glance it would appear I am diametrically opposed to Rich's and Freakscenes political positions. I wouldn't vote for the republicans if they held my family hostage. Folks here who have read my posts know I am extremely liberal on social issues, and have made the conscious decision to vote against my economic interests in favor of my social positions.
Here is where I agree with Rich, as evidenced by the statement I quote here, and presumably many of my friends on the other side. I am voting for the candidate I feel the least antipathy towards. While I think this particular choice will be the best we've had in a long time (Obama or McCain presumably), I still cannot get motivated by either one, and am forced to make my decision based upon "least bad vs. not least bad", more on party platforms than anything else.

Maybe in this age of complicated issues, and more complicated sets of individual circumstances, the two party system with its diametrical opposition and deep entrenchment thereof, has become an impediment to any real progress. I don't know if the solution is an increase in the number of parties participating (realistically participating, not relegated to the fringes), or a more parliamentary system.

I do urge the posters to not fall into the trap of thinking that folks of opposite position are inherently intellectually inferior, that is factually incorrect, and serves no purpose other than to deepen the rift. When confronted by an aggressively asserted opposite position, most people will retract into a more steadfast defense of their own position. In Aikido we say this is the linear defense to a linear attack, it is instinctual. I believe we need to step back and take a softer approach, state our positions in the manner of a slow dance, not the soundbite staccato of modern political intercourse, and allow for the concept of the honorable opponent, rather than the evil enemy, in our internecine affairs. We should rail against the Michael Moore's and the Ann Coulter's of of the world with equal vehemence since they represent an impediment to the type of discourse that will bring us toward mutual respect and progress.

I believe Rich, and Freakscence, as evidenced by their many posts to be both intelligent and patriotic, I feel the same about myself and many of those who have espoused my side on things. I allow that we can be both intelligent and patriotic, and yet differ on the issues at hand.

very interesting post aiki.

May I challenge you on something? :)

I steadfastly agree that the two party system is part of the problem, as you post. But I disagree that people on the opposite side can not be considered intellectually inferior.

Do you know how many millions of people will vote for the letter D, no matter who is the nominee, no matter what their platform is? Castro himself could carry most of their votes if he had a letter D by his name. "Republicans are for the rich, and Democrats are for the working man" is about all they know. If you think I am joking, get out among the poorer areas of Philly and ask around.

Government run schools are doing a great job of dumbing down America (for decades and decades now) to the point where citizens don't even realize how close to a full blown socialist country we have become. The solution begins with education. I do not expect it to change.

The dumber the citizenry, the more the masses will rely on cradle to grave gubment to care for them, which empowers both major parties.

[BentleyVTech]

Maybe I will

But I still consider McCain someone who would represent America first, unlike Obama who is a global marxist (see first post in this thread). So the disdain I have for McCain is not on the same scale. I am not voting for either, for the record.

That is why I thought you weren't voting...me being caught up in the D vs. R I forgot about the whole 3rd party. My fault for not reading your post correctly...

Good post Aiki...

[freakscene]

That is why I thought you weren't voting...me being caught up in the D vs. R


Exactly my point.

I'll go out on a limb and suggest it doesn't really matter who has the letter D by their name, you would vote for them.

[BentleyVTech]

Thats a wrong assumption. I vote more on values and character rather party. I voted for Bush the last election.

I'm just like both of you when it comes to the two party system, thats the reason politics hasnt gotten anywhere. Theres too much money involved with one-side vs. the other to get anything resolved.

I'm not up on all my history, but werent there numerous parties back in the day??? That slowly transformed into the monsters that we now of republicans and democrats? More parties the marrier:cheers::cheers:

[cramerica1972]

That is why I thought you weren't voting...me being caught up in the D vs. R I forgot about the whole 3rd party. My fault for not reading your post correctly...

Good post Aiki...mccain will put america 1st?LOL what are you smoking?the DEMS & REPS are 2 buttocks on the same ass getting spanked by the SAME master,put down the glue ya sniffing,you'll be able to think more clearly.The funny part about the white priest who mocked billary is:he is correct when he says that she feels entitled b/c she's a woman and white.Alot of whites are mad at the priest b/c he brought up what alot of whites in america think privately,that alot of them feel entitled based on the fact that they are white.GOOGLE white privilege sometime.what experience does mccain have to be president?sitting in the white house next to bush eating breakfast doesnt count for experience LOL.If the nomination is taken from obama,this is 1 black american who willnot be voting.:cool2:

[freakscene]

Yes, to an extent he will.

obama will bend over and grab his ankles and give the UN everything for which they ask, including more tax payer dollars.

[cramerica1972]

Yes, to an extent he will.

obama will bend over and grab his ankles and give the UN everything for which they ask, including more tax payer dollars.mcold will put the war machine 1st b4 america.

[netwrangler]

This thread reminds me of why I don't listen to talk radio.

What an utter waste of time.

To paraphrase the lyric of the 'Walter Winchell Rumba', this is Net "signing off with notions of love."

[freakscene]

This thread reminds me of why I don't listen to talk radio.

What an utter waste of time.

To paraphrase the lyric of the 'Walter Winchell Rumba', this is Net "signing off with notions of love."

Why do you consider it a waste of time?

it is informative for those lurking I am sure. :)

Obama is a marxist, by his own words and policies of which you are free to defend.

So far, no one is defending them with anything more than the same old "He's a motivator" cliches.

Hitler was a great motivator of the youth too.

[Rich]

mccain will put america 1st?LOL what are you smoking?the DEMS & REPS are 2 buttocks on the same ass getting spanked by the SAME master


LOL !!! Too strong a visual aid Cramer!!! LOL

[freakscene]

hey look !

"democrats" found something else they can take "Federalize"

http://mobile2.wsj.com/device/html_article.php?id=&CALL_URL=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121219552595334557.html%3fmod=hps_us_pageone

WASHINGTON -- As hurricane season begins, Democrats in Congress want to nationalize a chunk of the insurance business that covers major storm-damage claims.......

"This bill makes it a little bit too easy for the state to go to the federal government for a bailout," said Eric Goldberg, associate general counsel at the American Insurance Association, an insurers' trade group.

The legislation passed the House with bipartisan support, 258-155, late last year, despite a presidential veto threat. Although a Senate vote is unlikely this year, proponents are trying to make it a litmus-test issue in the presidential race. The two Democratic contenders, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, in their recent visits to Florida -- a key swing state -- have both voiced support for the plan.


i'm not sure why they even typed the last sentence. The sky is blue kind of thing really....

and nahhhh Net, this country isnt rapidly moving left at all :p

[aiki14]

very interesting post aiki.

May I challenge you on something? :)

I steadfastly agree that the two party system is part of the problem, as you post. But I disagree that people on the opposite side can not be considered intellectually inferior.

Do you know how many millions of people will vote for the letter D, no matter who is the nominee, no matter what their platform is? Castro himself could carry most of their votes if he had a letter D by his name. "Republicans are for the rich, and Democrats are for the working man" is about all they know. If you think I am joking, get out among the poorer areas of Philly and ask around.

Government run schools are doing a great job of dumbing down America (for decades and decades now) to the point where citizens don't even realize how close to a full blown socialist country we have become. The solution begins with education. I do not expect it to change.

The dumber the citizenry, the more the masses will rely on cradle to grave gubment to care for them, which empowers both major parties.

Let's be clear on this point, are you saying that folks can be considered intellectually inferior merely because they are on the other side?

I agree our schools are lacking, but I see us leaning towards fascism as much as socialism, with our allowing our rights to be abrogated in the name of security.

I believe for every individual who would vote reflexively for a D, there is an individual doing the same for an R. If you don't believe me just come to the restaurant at my country club, Mussolini himself could get their votes if he had an R next to his name.

The dumber the citizenry the easier to scare them into giving the government power with nebulous security threats and scare mongering tactics.

I would not be all that surprised to see one skull and bones club "OZ" behind the curtain controlling both the wicked witch of the D's and the wicked witch of the R's, immune from any retribution as we in the general public tilt at the straw man windmills he has set up for us.
I won't be getting on either the D ship or the R ship for fear of someone on the dock yelling to me on the gangway "it's a cookbook".

[piggybank]

Government run schools are doing a great job of dumbing down America (for decades and decades now) to the point where citizens don't even realize how close to a full blown socialist country we have become.The solution begins with education. I do not expect it to change.

USa a full blown socialist country? Are you being serious? even Europe with all it's social programs is far from socialist but compared to us the USA is on the complete other side of that spectrum. One of the most important facets by wich US establishment define's freedom is market freedom. Other sorts of freedom seem to degrade, like Aiki mentioned. Civili liberty seems less important than the liberty to manage a company withought to much limitations.

I see USA more as an oliarchy or even a corperate republic. The influence of the economic elite in US politics is hughe. The connections between certain media moghul's and politics aint to good either. Candidate's are backed with increasing amounts of ellection funds and their political programs often are mainly orientated towards supporting certain industry's. G.W Bush made it is primary concern seemingly to do anything his financial supporters from mainly the oil and some other industry's wanted him to do. That most recent candidate's are members of a specific freemason guild is something of an indication for political elitism.

One of the most problematic parts of american political mentality IMO is the way people perceive market liberalism as an important part, if not most important part of freedom and democracy within society, while civil liberty's or the lack thereof is often a background issue. IMO this market liberalism goes truly that far that it endangers the civil liberty's of many, market liberalism has almost become the right to unethicly exploit withought limitation or work withought consideration of the needs and rights of others. IMO market liberalism is one of the least important overall facets of freedom and democracy, although with certain limitations in place it is still an important facet, withought limitations it can be truly dangerous for civil liberty.

You often see far more outcry in the USA if a proposal is made wich could limit US economic freedom to some extent than you would see if certain civil lberty's are beign limited. I truly find that remarkable. It seems that US society and politics have come to the agreement that democracy shouldn't be much more than simply economic liberty.

[freakscene]

USa a full blown socialist country? Are you being serious?


Yes, eventually, in baby steps. With every election, and every expansion of new cradle to grave government programs, I am being very serious.

A Federal takeover of the health industry appears to be next. You can not define it any other way as another step towards socialism.

And just last week, a senior "democrat" congresswoman from California let slip the true intentions of their party, and actually used the word "socialize" when describing what should be done to the oil industry - to the President of Shell Oil during a Congressional hearing !

I've always considered Maxine Waters a kook, but she keeps getting re-elected.

“And guess what this member* would be all about? This member would be all about socializing — er, uh. [Pauses for several moments] …. would be about … [pause] … basically … taking over, and the government running all of your companies.”


http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=296954404756799

One California Democrat, saying out loud what many on her side of the aisle have been thinking for some time, has threatened to seize the oil industry.

"This liberal will be all about socializing, uh, uh . . . would be about . . . basically taking over and the government running all of your companies," Rep. Maxine Waters told oil executives on May 22 during yet another show-trial congressional hearing.

Socializing, nationalizing — the term doesn't matter. But the result is the same. Oil industry takeovers are disastrous. Does Waters really want the U.S. to go the way of Venezuela, Iran, Bolivia or Mexico? Those nations that have nationalized their domestic oil operations and have suffered economically because of it.

And as wretched as their situations are now, their economic prospects are even poorer as long as their corrupt governments continue to control their oil industries.

Meanwhile, Waters' colleague from Pennsylvania's 11th district, Rep. Paul Kanjorski, is proposing a federal "Reasonable Profits Board." Its members would be charged with determining when oil and gas companies' "profits are in excess."




disagree if you want piggy.

i welcome more opportunities to point out the obvious

electing obama with a super majority in the senate and this country may as well remove the stars from the flag and replace them with a hammer and sickle.


but then again, maybe aiki is right and its fascist in nature. although according to the IBD, its not from the party you would expect, eh ?

It matters not, though, if Kanjorski is driven by ignorance or political opportunism. The outcome would be the same.

Kanjorski's plan sounds like an East German nightmare and Waters' as if it were taken from a fascist manifesto. But they're only a small taste of what we'll get if the Democrats keep both chambers of Congress and win the White House this fall.

By this time next year it will seem that Sen. Barack Obama's proposal to bully American businesses — through what's cynically called the Patriot Corporation Act — is the least harmful of all the economy- and spirit-crushing legislation being rammed through Washington.

[piggybank]

But social democracy does not equal socialism/communism.

We have extensive social programs in Europe, and i wouldn't know why we would be any less democratic than the USA is for it. It's hardly much of a limitation towards our company's, and even they benifit trough the consumer spending that employment in social programs generate.

Besides, IMO some goverment intervention in the economy is nessecary, even preferable.

I am of the oppinion that you have a to radical view on social programs and how much it leans towards the sort of soviet socialism that you wouldn't like, a oppinion that you seem to share though with a lot of youre fellow countrymen. But Europe for all it's social programs aint that much different on terms of freedom or capitalist economy than the USA.

[freakscene]

Besides, IMO some goverment intervention in the economy is nessecary, even preferable.

.

not according to this Country's founders who adopted a pretty thorough document LIMITING the role of the central, federal government.

we've drifted far far away from that, havent we ?

[piggybank]

18th century politics is not so up to date to the current times.

It's not that youre weapons laws still makes that much sense from the perspective of a Brittish invasions neither isn't it?

[freakscene]

18th century politics is not so up to date to the current times.

It's not that youre weapons laws still makes that much sense from the perspective of a Brittish invasions neither isn't it?

Piggy, I expect better from you.

They used successful historic models as a frame of reference for developing our Representative Republic. They just didn't pull something out of thin air.

[netwrangler]

18th century politics is not so up to date to the current times.

It's not that youre weapons laws still makes that much sense from the perspective of a Brittish invasions neither isn't it?

Piggy, I expect better from you.

They used successful historic models as a frame of reference for developing our Representative Republic. They just didn't pull something out of thin air.
Well, now...

PB, it's great to have your European perspective.
On weapons laws, however, the key is to take the 'right to keep and bear arms' in context with the rest of the Constitution.

As an NRA Sharpshooter (9th bar), and as an independent SOB, I fully understand that ceding guns to the government is a slippery slope.

But so is ceding freedom of speech and the right of [I]habeas corpus.
Here in the USA, I see conservatives as more than willing to support 'the right to keep and bear arms', but reluctant to support free speech and habeas corpus, especially if those rights conflict with their conservative beliefs.

As for FS's view of socialism, you have to understand that FS is looking at the world through a monitor with a limited color gamut. PB, he can't see the shades of color that you describe.

That said, FS is a intelligent guy. Maybe we can work together to bring him into reality.

[piggybank]

Piggy, I expect better from you.

They used successful historic models as a frame of reference for developing our Representative Republic. They just didn't pull something out of thin air.

Nevertheless, in the 18th century the ideoligy of socialism didn't even exist yet, they didn't have our historical models to compare, nor did they live in a timeframe where issue's that eventually resulted in the rise of socialism exist yet. Neither did they have the feeling that value's like liberty, democracy and equality (in rights etc) should nessecarily be the same for everyone. There was still a strong class system deviding elite from unimportant. The original democratic system was far from democratic in the sense that we understand it now, it was not like that everyone was allowed to vote for one. Even George Washington had some slaves, and while he treated them quite decently for the timeframe and set them free afterwards the early USA did have fundamentaly far different policy's and views on such subjects than our modern system has due to the mindset of that time.

Even more importantly, at the time of the founding fathers the industrial revolution didn't even start yet. In that sense i thought youre remark on the policy's of the foundain fathers was far beyond the context. There wern't any firms or big company's, let alone multinationals. The lack of goverment intervention in the period of the founding father's had more it's origin in the past tarrifs inposed on trade by the Brittish wich was one of the most fundamental reasons why the USA broke free, and one can understand that it was an economic elite that at that time formed the basis of the new nation.

Economy as we know it now simply didn't exist yet back then. It should not be surprizing neither that socialistic ideoligy was founded well into the industrial revolution. Economy was fundamentaly different in the times of the foundain fathers, hence the policy's of that time IMO should not be used as comparison against goverment intervention into economics in these modern times.

[Rich]

The dumber the citizenry the easier to scare them into giving the government power with nebulous security threats and scare mongering tactics.

I won't be getting on either the D ship or the R ship for fear of someone on the dock yelling to me on the gangway "it's a cookbook".

I agree 100% with this statement. I’m sure however this is where the agreement ends..

We have 'dumbed down' our country, believing the NEA is responsible for the education of our children, which I and many of my friends who are teachers believe is a socialist organization that could care less about the children.

We’ve turned politics into one huge TIT! Everybody climb on board and suck it dry, then complain and get the 5 o’clock news cameras out to televise the parasites swallowing the last drop! Those who are capable of providing for themselves but rather get it free continue their defense of their sorry life by complaining the system is 'unsympathetic' or 'conservative' or ‘racist’, lets throw in homophobic while were at it! These very same people who had the same chance to advance as everyone else but decided instead to just sit there and suck all day long; teaching as their kids that they can do the same thing even if they get pregnant, use drugs, join gangs, without a worry in the world, there are plenty taxpayers forced by illegal legislation to open their shirts and let everyone abuse and take advantage of them. Not much different than rape in my opinion! The new parasite are those here illegally, instead of getting colostrums we give them welfare, medical, drivers licenses and Bank of America gives them free credit cards that eventually raise interest rates for coverage of bad debts! THEN, with all these free loaders were forced to feed, were exhausted, being up all night feeding these creeps, were suppose to also take care of our own family! Sorry, but my tits are sore!
This is how I view the cookbook Aiki was refering too; everybody is eating the taxpayer’s dry, redistribution of wealth to stimulate the economy, and we don't even get to enjoy the space trip!

We have also dumbed down our moral expectations, which is a direct result of thinking that being free is the right to be irresponsible, which I believe is also a direct result of dumbing down the spiritual side, I'm sure Akai and others disagree with me on this, and that is ok.

As to our country turning socialist, let me share on how I currently view the USA. I'm often accused of being far right. In reality, the sway of the nation over the last 50 years has been to the left. We have as a nation moved so far to the left that I'm actually in the same place as those who were moderates were in the 50's.

Rich
3336

[madcowdisease]

Here is an email I received not too long ago:

Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job--I work, they pay me. I
pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In
order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with
which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the
distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.
Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check? I have to
pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with
helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a
problem with helping someone sitting on their but, doing drugs, while I
work. Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had
to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check? Pass this along if
you agree or simply delete if you don't. Hope you all will pass it along,
though. Something has to change in this country -- and soon!

Somehow seems fitting amongst the discussion at hand.

[Rich]

Madcows reasoning isn't so mad!!!

I loved that post, its out of the box thinking !!!

[Rich]

But social democracy does not equal socialism/communism.

Its a slippery slope that will continue forever if not reversed. When David Crockett was in the Senate there was a death of one of the officials, the liberals wanted to take from the governments treasury and give it to the widow. Crockett stated that it was NOT THEIRS TO GIVE AWAY. So, the senators took from their own pockets and helped her out. Can you imagine Ted Kennedy, Bidden, Clinton or OBAMA doing this? Obama doesn't even give to his church what he knew he was expected to give! His tax reports say his average for helping out the organizations for the poor is below average, but hes willing to steal from the treasury all the money he can illegally legislate and pass it out liike Santa, this my friend is a legalized theif!


We have extensive social programs in Europe, and i wouldn't know why we would be any less democratic than the USA is for it. It's hardly much of a limitation towards our company's, and even they benifit trough the consumer spending that employment in social programs generate.
I guess all I have to do is mention the riots in France and Spain this last year due to the government reversing itself on social programs..


Besides, IMO some goverment intervention in the economy is nessecary, even preferable.

I have an air conditing company, This governmnet took my taxes and gives welfare and unemployment to those who ELECT to be off in the winter time and draw unemployment, DURING witch time they install furnaces/ac units on the side. THis really helps my buisness!! This is true with any blue collar buisness. They also permitted with my taxes the training of people off the street to compete with me, you think thats fair? Steal my money so they can train others to fix hvac systems and hange a shingle next to mine? This actually happens every day, and you think this is something I should accept as 'preferable' actions from this government? It would be nice if they stayed out of my billfold and let ME spend the money on what will make MY buisness profitable. Your view here is definatly a liberal/socialistic value. Governments have NO right to play Robin Hood with my money.

I am of the oppinion that you have a to radical view on social programs and how much it leans towards the sort of soviet socialism that you wouldn't like, a oppinion that you seem to share though with a lot of youre fellow countrymen. But Europe for all it's social programs aint that much different on terms of freedom or capitalist economy than the USA.

I believe your confusing the recipe that has 1/4 cup of capitalism MIXED into socialism, that is not a democracy or a free society. Thats what China and Russia is all about, look at Russia, you think thats a free democracy because were told it is? Go againt Puttins boys and see how much democracy you'ld have. Spain and France IMO are one heartbeat from a dictatorship or the same 'social' system that Russia has. Its a mess over there. I don't want that for our country, and to prevent it we must fight to stop the theives from breaking into our bank accounts just because they made a law saying it is, it still is stealling from me.

Imagine raising your children and one child says she is going to take the toys away from her sister and give them to the neighbor because they don't have as many. You as a parent would say what? Think about it for a moment, don't think of the neighbors being as nice innocent little sweetheats, think about what is FAIR and HONEST. If your daughter out of her own free will wished to do this then thats fine, but any manipulation or force is THEIFT, this government is no different. The real image is probably this, the one daughter who would give up her sisters toys would NOT give up her own! Much like Kennedy's, Biddens, Gore, CLintons, Obama. They LOVE to give other peoples toys away AND THEN TAKE THE CREDIT THAT THEY ARE FOR THE POOR!!!

Historically (this is changing) the US fought for the right to have very little control of their lives from anyone outside of their families. Now the taxpayers are saying, "Heck, I can't fight them any more, theres too many of them, so I'll join them and get back my tax's that way", this happened in France.
In my view the ONLY purpose for government is the protection of citizens in Health, (sewage, water, safety etc), national and state defence, and thats it. I don't need them for anything else. We had a civil war over these very issues, our citizens came from Europe and they didn't want that form of government you think is wonderful. And no, it wasn't a war over slavery.......

Rich

[BuyOnDips]

I thought this short article by William Bennett(former Democrat) hit the nail on the head.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjY1ZWRhODA2NTViOTJhN2YyMDFjOWI3M2RkZjJjZmM=

"And thus the Democratic party is about to nominate a far left candidate in the tradition of George McGovern, albeit without McGovern’s military and political record. The Democratic party is about to nominate a far-left candidate in the tradition of Michael Dukakis, albeit without Dukakis’s executive experience as governor. The Democratic party is about to nominate a far left candidate in the tradition of John Kerry, albeit without Kerry’s record of years of service in the Senate. The Democratic party is about to nominate an unvetted candidate in the tradition of Jimmy Carter, albeit without Jimmy Carter’s religious integrity as he spoke about it in 1976. Questions about all these attributes (from foreign policy expertise to executive experience to senatorial experience to judgment about foreign leaders to the instructors he has had in his cultural values) surround Barack Obama. And the Democratic party has chosen him."


Personally, I don't think Obama has the qualifications to even be Vice President. He just might have the weakest resume ever to run for the Presidency of the USA. I don't like McCain, but I'll hold my nose and vote for him since the Democrats haven't given me a reasonable alternative. When in doubt, choose the candidate closest to the center. The good news is we'll probably have a new President in 4 years. Hopefully we'll have better choices.

[freakscene]

The good news is we'll probably have a new President in 4 years. Hopefully we'll have better choices.


Well said. Remember, all might not be lost if the uneducated masses elect Obama.

after all it took a dolt like Carter to get it the 8 years of Reagan.

[freakscene]

I see conservatives as more than willing to support 'the right to keep and bear arms', but reluctant to support free speech and habeas corpus, especially if those rights conflict with their conservative beliefs.


What?

I noticed the "Moderate" among us, perhaps unintentionally, forgot to mention what liberal "democrats" want do to free speech as it relates to talk radio through the Fairness Doctrine.

I guess it's OK to limit speech, as long as the speech being limited has the opposite political view point ?

:)

[netwrangler]

What?

I noticed the "Moderate" among us, perhaps unintentionally, forgot to mention what liberal "democrats" want do to free speech as it relates to talk radio through the Fairness Doctrine.

I guess it's OK to limit speech, as long as the speech being limited has the opposite political view point ?

:)
Ahh, the Fairness Doctrine....

Actually, FS, that's a good topic for future discussion. I figure I can poke holes in the arguments from either side.
IMO, the Fairness Doctrine is a classic example of political 'good intentions' being outstripped by technology.

The issue goes far beyond 'talk radio', which [as I have said previously] I consider an utter waste of time. It extends into the rationale for licensing frequency bands, and the restrictions that [can be/should be/ought not to be] built-in to those licenses. That's a veritable swamp of muddy issues.

As for talk radio, consider for a moment the threat to public safety that it constitutes.
I mean, if you are commuting on the Ventura Freeway, who do you want in the car next to you?
...Some joker getting all worked up because his talk radio jock is on a rant?
...Of course not, you'd much rather have someone mellowed out listening to bluegrass music.

At least that's my 'moderate' view. :biggrin:

[freakscene]

:) Good one Net.

Excitement about Obama spreads around the world

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D913BQ700&show_article=1

In Mexico City, hairdresser Susan Mendoza's eyes lit up when she learned Obama had clinched the nomination.

"Bush was for the elite. Obama is of the people," she said.

She's your typical "democrat", who probably hasn't crossed the border yet. ;)

[freakscene]

Jury Finds Tony Rezko Guilty On 16 Of 24 Charges

http://cbs2chicago.com/local/rezko.trial.verdict.2.740375.html

[Survivor]

Well said. Remember, all might not be lost if the uneducated masses elect Obama.

after all it took a dolt like Carter to get it the 8 years of Reagan.

Hello Freakscene, a peaceful insight,please don't jump all over me, just an observation,not everybody is uneducated as you may perceive,very naive.
Working in Detroit, most all African Americans believe that Barrack will NOT be President. No experience was a top concern.
All of them that we talk to at the shop hate Bush, Period.
Many also think Barracks own safety is a real concern,they also think the Republicans will do anything to keep the White House.
Clinton had a better chance to be elected. They also had enough of the war,cost of goods and Republicans.
It is also paying homage that he might have been the first African American President. Carter never was the President,someone else was,he was a figure head. So far, McCain might be the next President. I wouldn't worry about Obammer,Thanks for not killing me. 8)

[aiki14]

So here I am looking for who to support in the upcoming election. Here are the issues I have positions on:
I am in favor of Stem Cell Research
I believe in a womans right to choose to terminate a pregnancy prior to any possibility of viability of the fetus. I would rather supply contraception than foster care.
I support the legalization of marijuana.
I believe the "drug problem" should be a public health matter not a legal matter.
I believe in the death penalty, if applied in a fair manner, but worry the government is incapable of such application.
I support the right of any adult to love any other adult, and have that relationship recognized under the law.
I believe no American should have to decide between medicine and food.
I believe no American teacher should have to use their own savings to purchase the supplies necessary to give our children a good education.
I believe in the theory of Evolution, the theory of Gravity, and the theory of Relativity.
I do not believe in God, intelligent design, or any other idea that cannot be supported by or disproved by empirical data, and I do not believe any such idea should be taught in public schools.
I believe the Government should support basic research, and support education in the sciences, as a matter of national security, and as a means to advance our species.
I believe that every american should do national service. Military, public safety, environmental, or some other service to the national good. I believe there should be a draft to accomplish this, from which no deferment is allowed.
I believe that any person in a position of public trust, such as politicians, police officers, physicians, judges and the clergy, should be held to a higher standard and their transgressions should be subject to enhanced prosecution.
I believe this country was made the great nation it is by immigrants, and any person for whom there is work should be encouraged to immigrate, and become an american.
I believe the term Illegal immigrant implies a conduct that merits deportation.
I believe a job is better than a handout for the country and the individual.
I believe my tax money should be responsibly allocated, and the people responsible for that allocation to be held to very high standards.

I am sure I left out many things I care about.

Who would you vote for if you were me?

[Rich]

Your in the wrong country Aiki….. but heres a list of who you could vote for with the list you give, not all match all the criteria because you’re a ‘mut’ when it comes to beliefs.

Darwin, Stalin, Muhammad, Vladimir Putin, Mayo Zedong, Mother Teresa, Robert Casey, Mary Dennett, Fay Wattleton, Larry Flint, Satan, Hillary, Obama or McClain.

Like I’ve been saying pick the one who will do you the lest harm..


Rich

[Rich]

Oh, I forgot, after meeting her son Bill Murray, I'm sure that the best candidate for you would be his late mother, Madalyn Murray O'Hair. She believed in many of the things that you currently do. Bill however, changed his possition and is currently a firm icon in Christian communities. Strange that Bill while in elementary school was used by his mother to get Prayer out of school; now Bill is trying to get Prayer back in school.

Rich

[BuyOnDips]

Who would you vote for if you were me?

Aiki, you should vote for Ralph Nader. :)

[netwrangler]

Who would you vote for if you were me?
Frankly, I think you should run for Congress.

I know, that would be a burden for you to carry, but our country really needs the kind of talent you can provide.

Please think about it.
Ask your wife and kids to think about it too.

[aiki14]

Frankly, I think you should run for Congress.

I know, that would be a burden for you to carry, but our country really needs the kind of talent you can provide.

Please think about it.
Ask your wife and kids to think about it too.

Thanks for the compliment Net, but I would rather chew glass than enter into that arena. Also, in person, I tend to be a lot more unfiltered than I am in writing, and I would say something to get myself in trouble in the first ten minutes.

[freakscene]

Please do not be offended aiki, but as I read your list it sounded to me very much libertarian in nature, and something that I believe a majority of voting Americans would support if they were able to break away from the thought process that they MUST for for either the letter D or letter R.

[piggybank]

Your in the wrong country Aiki….. but heres a list of who you could vote for with the list you give, not all match all the criteria because you’re a ‘mut’ when it comes to beliefs.

Darwin, Stalin, Muhammad, Vladimir Putin, Mayo Zedong, Mother Teresa, Robert Casey, Mary Dennett, Fay Wattleton, Larry Flint, Satan, Hillary, Obama or McClain.

Like I’ve been saying pick the one who will do you the lest harm..


Rich

Thats uncalled for, atleast the reference's to communists and such. Aiki is clearly a liberal but he aint extreme left wing. Yes i know the average American would perceive this as extreme left wing but there is an extremely skewed perception IMO among conservatives in the USA about liberalism. From an European perspective the USA is clearly leaning more to extreme right wing.

Extreme left wing would be a person that is either marxist, leninist, trotskist, enviromental fanatic or anarchist. Virtually every point posted by Aiki falls under moderate liberal thought.

It's ironic that so many conservatives here emphasize the need for a limited goverment however wouldn't allow people such personal rights as abortion or others that inflict with their religious moralist views.

God isn't much present in our education, although usually it's 1 hour of the week that students can either follow a class "relligion" or a class called "morals and ethics". But atleast schools over here do teach evolution. The way religion is present in education and politics in the USA is aking towards non secular and when religion becomes a basis for policy making then youre quite near to becomming theorcratic. In any case, secularism is one of the most important parts of democratic idioligy and when you tech intelligent design in schools as truth then youre on,a very slippery slope indeed.

Heck Aiki should be considerd center left. His oppinion on such matters as Death penalty and draft lean more towards conservative views. His oppinions on religion aint one of national atheism either, rather his remark on God in the education system is clearly one of basic secularims.

Belgium aint a communist country. Though weve been ruled the past 8 years by a moderate liberal party. OTOH we do allow quite a lot in Aiki's list. Abortion, legalized marihuana, gay marriage, a liberal form of immigration etc.
We have an excelent healthcare system and it's all paid back. Belgium is one of the wealthiest country's per capita and people enjoy a high living standard.

Rich youre comment including such people as Mao zedong, Stalin, Muhammed (Satan) and Putin is just tottaly rediculous. Aiki's views are far away from their beliefs.

[aiki14]

Please do not be offended aiki, but as I read your list it sounded to me very much libertarian in nature, and something that I believe a majority of voting Americans would support if they were able to break away from the thought process that they MUST for for either the letter D or letter R.

I am actually registered as libertarian, but I see them as unviable, and I think they take the hands off policy further than I am comfortable with.
As I said elsewhere a move away from the 2 party system and it's inherent flaws seems like a good thing to me.

[aiki14]

Your in the wrong country Aiki….. but heres a list of who you could vote for with the list you give, not all match all the criteria because you’re a ‘mut’ when it comes to beliefs.

Darwin, Stalin, Muhammad, Vladimir Putin, Mayo Zedong, Mother Teresa, Robert Casey, Mary Dennett, Fay Wattleton, Larry Flint, Satan, Hillary, Obama or McClain.

Like I’ve been saying pick the one who will do you the lest harm..


Rich

I didn't see this post until Piggy quoted it above, and agree that it is uncalled for, and frankly offensive. When a religious conservative compares me to Stalin and Mao, who are responsible for millions of deaths, it brings up a little bile. Need I remind him that the Christians are responsible for more of this type of behaviour than any other group in history, with their Crusades, and Pogroms. When they ruled a big chunk of the world, there was a name for the period, The Dark Ages.

As to being in the wrong country, my initial reaction is to say "F*** You". I'll put my record of service to this country against anybodies, and I know what it means to be American, as put forth by old Tom and the boys from Philadelphia circa 1776.

[BentleyVTech]

Aiki, I'm a mutt too. Not devoted to one party, and actually think the two party system is what is destroying politics. To be honest, I share the same views as you except for a draft. Part of me thinks it will create patriotism throughout a new generation...but the other half would REALLY hate being over in Iraq and have someone fighting beside me that really doesnt want to be there.

I did read a good article comparing the economic views of McCain vs. Obama, and I have to admit, I'm on McCain's side for most economic issues. I think most investors would be though, as he is an advocate of free markets.

http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2008/05/30/obama-vs-mccain-who-has-the-better-economic-plan/

There is an article from the WSJ that compares a few issues of their economic plan. There was a better article on CNN that talked about it too, I just cant find it.

I'm Pro-Business, but one way to decrease the deficit is not by lowering corporate tax rates. So on that, I'm pro-Obama...but I'm not pro-Obama on raising capital gains taxes (as many of you probably agree:thumpdown:).

[freakscene]

Need I remind him that the Christians are responsible for more of this type of behaviour than any other group in history, with their Crusades, and Pogroms. .
.

That is inaccurate. No offense but the Crusades were a response to Muslim terrorism firstly, and if you check, I believe that Atheists are responsible for more deaths than either in the name of communism in modern times (hundred million easy).

Hell, the Muslim slaughter of Hindu Indians resulted in the death of an estimated 82 million people alone, so I don't even believe Christians come in second.

We should start another topic before this one gets hijacked about religious wars.

[freakscene]

. From an European perspective the USA is clearly leaning more to extreme right wing.


That's just utter nonsense.

Immigrants in America who are of Polish/Czech/Slavic/Ukrainian etc descent would completely disagree with you on the direction this country is moving.

I know some who worry we are moving in the direction that they left.

[freakscene]

I am actually registered as libertarian, but I see them as unviable, and I think they take the hands off policy further than I am comfortable with.
As I said elsewhere a move away from the 2 party system and it's inherent flaws seems like a good thing to me.


But how can "we" collectively move away from it, when so many people have it ingrained in their fiber that they must support the letter D or letter R even if they disagree with the person nominated?

You, yourself already suggested you do not really like either current nominee, but are going to vote "for the lesser" evil anyway. Why not support, campaign, and vote for a 3rd party and help move the cause?

[netwrangler]

But how can "we" collectively move away from it, when so many people have it ingrained in their fiber that they must support the letter D or letter R even if they disagree with the person nominated?

You, yourself already suggested you do not really like either current nominee, but are going to vote "for the lesser" evil anyway. Why not support, campaign, and vote for a 3rd party and help move the cause?
This looks like a job for a Moderate.

I suggest that polarization of the Ds and the Rs is the culprit here.
When the alternatives are 'us' or 'them', it is difficult to enter into a meaningful dialog about the issues.

To my amazement, I find that Arnold [The Governator of California] actually had a handle on a solution for this. Back in 2005, he backed proposition 77, which the UC's Institute of Governmental Studies described as follows:
The initiative on the Nov. 8 2005 special election ballot transfers authority to redraw congressional and legislative district boundaries from the legislature to a panel of retired judges, and requires new districts for the 2006 election.
Unfortunately, Arnold backed three other initiatives in the special election:

One took on the Government Employees Union
One took on the Teachers Union
One took on the Prison Guards Union

Sometimes Arnold displays worse political savvy than a Ver.-1.0 Cyborg in beta testing.

The three unions destroyed Arnold's credibility.
The redistricting initiative was collateral damage as all four initiatives went down to defeat.

Think about it. Political districts are defined by the people whose jobs depend on how political districts are defined. That is ludicrous! Talk about conflict of interest! But getting that changed runs into problems.

The current system makes it much easier for incumbents to be reelected. Thus changes to the current system are opposed by incumbents in a startling display of bi-partisan unity and strength.
The FUD-factor [Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt] pegs the meter when this subject is discussed. Paranoia is palpable. Both Ds and Rs are sure this is a plot by 'them' against 'us'.
There is no cohesive constituency that supports redistricting reform. There is no employee union involved. Most of the folks who might gravitate toward political activism have already been attracted to one pole or the other of our two-party system.

This last bullet, however, carries the seeds of a solution.

The current system works against 3rd parties. "Safe" districts mean that most elections [over 90% of House-seats prior to 2006] were decided in the primary. D-districts nominated a liberal Democrat, while R-districts nominated a conservative Republican. The 'safe' nominees went on the win.

But if an R-district was safe from the Ds [and vice-versa], these districts were absolutely safe from 3rd parties. If 3rd parties wanted to have a chance of winning, say, a house seat ... well, their chances would be much better in a district that had not been designed as a 'safe' district for one of the two 'major' parties.

So, you want a viable 3rd party? Support redistricting reform.

:y:

[Rich]

Oh man, please read this.

Aiki, this was all 100% fun and nothing else, and I truly apologize.
I honestly thought that since you believed in no god you would take no offence to kidding about satan or anything else, it was purely a 100% joke that went terribly wrong.

Please forgive me concerning this, I honestly did not have any idea that it would be taken so wrongly.

I do sincerely appologize for this

Rich

[Rich]

I only read Aikis at first, it seems that I also owe everyone an apology,

Please, this has turned so bad, and I truely am sorry for how this turned out. By me saying he's a 'mut' is back woods country talk, a mixture of many things. I meant NO disrespect and am honestly sorry...

If you all think its best I leave this forum I will do so, I will understand..... I wish no one here ill will or wish to offend them...

Rich

[freakscene]

I only read Aikis at first, it seems that I also owe everyone an apology,

Please, this has turned so bad, and I truely am sorry for how this turned out. By me saying he's a 'mut' is back woods country talk, a mixture of many things. I meant NO disrespect and am honestly sorry...

If you all think its best I leave this forum I will do so, I will understand..... I wish no one here ill will or wish to offend them...

Rich


Relax Rich.

First off, this is an anonymous message board. If anyone would become personally offended by a post where it affected them in R/L, then they have issues. (Just look at all the things Net has called me ;) and I shrug them off )

And I don't think aiki was that offended.

I actually found the humor in your post, and never thought you were serious.

Plus, I need help convincing readers what an absolute train wreck Obama/marxists/socialsts/democrats are, and you've made some good points. :)

cheers

[Horsefish]

Aiki: That is the list of a man with firm convictions who is actually in touch with the real world and all of it's parts. A state of mind that most of our members of the house and the senate have long since given up. LOL, You are going to vote for the lesser of evils....:?
After over a year of campaigning we will have a choice for president. The irony is that after the conventions, most people will take about 6 weeks to decide on who they will vote for in the house and the senate.
Which is where legislation starts. That is where we all need to do a fast and thorough evaluation of the quality of candidates.

[aiki14]

Oh man, please read this.

Aiki, this was all 100% fun and nothing else, and I truly apologize.
I honestly thought that since you believed in no god you would take no offence to kidding about satan or anything else, it was purely a 100% joke that went terribly wrong.

Please forgive me concerning this, I honestly did not have any idea that it would be taken so wrongly.

I do sincerely appologize for this

Rich

Accepted. Absolutely no hard feelings.

[netwrangler]

The Moderate is happy. :top:

[XOM]

So here I am looking for who to support in the upcoming election. Here are the issues I have positions on:
I am in favor of Stem Cell Research
I believe in a womans right to choose to terminate a pregnancy prior to any possibility of viability of the fetus. I would rather supply contraception than foster care.
I support the legalization of marijuana.
I believe the "drug problem" should be a public health matter not a legal matter.
I believe in the death penalty, if applied in a fair manner, but worry the government is incapable of such application.
I support the right of any adult to love any other adult, and have that relationship recognized under the law.
I believe no American should have to decide between medicine and food.
I believe no American teacher should have to use their own savings to purchase the supplies necessary to give our children a good education.
I believe in the theory of Evolution, the theory of Gravity, and the theory of Relativity.
I do not believe in God, intelligent design, or any other idea that cannot be supported by or disproved by empirical data, and I do not believe any such idea should be taught in public schools.
I believe the Government should support basic research, and support education in the sciences, as a matter of national security, and as a means to advance our species.
I believe that every american should do national service. Military, public safety, environmental, or some other service to the national good. I believe there should be a draft to accomplish this, from which no deferment is allowed.
I believe that any person in a position of public trust, such as politicians, police officers, physicians, judges and the clergy, should be held to a higher standard and their transgressions should be subject to enhanced prosecution.
I believe this country was made the great nation it is by immigrants, and any person for whom there is work should be encouraged to immigrate, and become an american.
I believe the term Illegal immigrant implies a conduct that merits deportation.
I believe a job is better than a handout for the country and the individual.
I believe my tax money should be responsibly allocated, and the people responsible for that allocation to be held to very high standards.

I am sure I left out many things I care about.

Who would you vote for if you were me?


:dito: (Big surprise eh?)

If I were you I'd vote for myself or me (XOM) however since neither of us is likely to be running for President, I'd have to go with a Libertarian no matter the odds; change has to start somewhere, why not with you?


Sorry to pop in unannounced, but I received a pm asking where I was (on two wheels or on the water) and then I saw this irresistable thread...


Happy trading guys.

[aiki14]

:dito: (Big surprise eh?)

If I were you I'd vote for myself or me (XOM) however since neither of us is likely to be running for President, I'd have to go with a Libertarian no matter the odds; change has to start somewhere, why not with you?


Sorry to pop in unannounced, but I received a pm asking where I was (on two wheels or on the water) and then I saw this irresistable thread...


Happy trading guys.

Miss you around here X, good to know you're looking in.

[Rich]

Thanks for responding here and also to my PM to you Aiki. I appreciate your maturity concerning the matter

Rich

[freakscene]

Test of new Aegis defense system a success

Thu, Jun. 5, 2008

http://www.philly.com/philly/business/breaking/20080605_Test_of_new_Aegis_defense_system_a_succes s.html


Military hits target for missile defense

Friday, June 6, 2008

http://starbulletin.com/2008/06/06/news/story02.html

Whats this have to do with the topic at hand you might ask?

Well, lets have a look at what potentially dangerous commander in chief Barack Hussein Obama would do.

Don't expect CNN etc to report this to you.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/articles/20080609.aspx

"I'm the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning; and as president, I will end it.



"Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems.

Barack Obama

In typical "democrat" fashion, "wasteful spending" equals military cuts.

And where will that money go?

Do some research

Caucus for Priorities aims to redirect 15% of the Pentagon's discretionary budget away from "obsolete Cold War weapons towards education, health care, job training, alternative energy development, world hunger and deficitreduction." On the chopping block: the F-22 Raptor, the V-22 Osprey, the Virginia-class sub, the DDG-1,000 destroyer and the Army's Future Combat System. Cutting allegedly "unproven" missile defense systems is music to Kim Jong Il's and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's ears, let alone all the PLA generals wishing our destruction. Yet Obama wants to kill a program that's yielding success after success, with both sea- and land-based systems. The military just this week intercepted a ballistic missile near Hawaii in a sea-based missile defense test.

Proposing "deep cuts in our nuclear arsenal" amounts to unilateral disarmament, and it's suicidal given China's and now Russia's aggressive military buildup.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/the_full_obama_video_caucus_fo.php

[Survivor]

Hey,Next time someone around here is at a Obammer fund raiser,[Just Kidding]
ask him how much the Government stole from Exxon/Mobil in taxes a year,isn't like 30 billion?

[cramerica1972]

Hey,Next time someone around here is at a Obammer fund raiser,[Just Kidding]
ask him how much the Government stole from Exxon/Mobil in taxes a year,isn't like 30 billion?companies dont pay taxes,their customers pay the taxes,why u think there are sooooooooo many looopholes they use to avoid taxes that ordinary ppl will never have.

[freakscene]

companies dont pay taxes,their customers pay the taxes,why u think there are sooooooooo many looopholes they use to avoid taxes that ordinary ppl will never have.

You are mostly right. So, when Obama and his fellow marxists today in the senate ignorantly debate how much of a windfall tax to punish the evil oil companies with, do you believe he is smart enough to know in the end his policy will cause the opposite of its stated intent.............bringing gas prices down?

A nice little read by the National Center for Policy Analysts on what we know happens with windfall taxes.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=3119

Experience with windfall taxes has not been positive, say H. Sterling Burnett and Christa Bieker of the National Center for Policy Analysis. In April 1980, Jimmy Carter signed the "Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax" to replace failed oil price controls. This was the largest tax ever imposed on an American industry and was designed to recover a portion of money politicians believed was unfairly received by oil companies. The money was earmarked to develop renewable energy, thus reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil, and to fund low-income energy assistance programs. But the tax failed to deliver either and the Reagan administration led its repeal in 1988.

According to the Congressional Research Service:

* The windfall profits tax raised a total of $40 billion, instead of the $227 billion initially projected, and generated no revenue after 1986, because oil prices fell and domestic production was lower than expected.

* The tax reduced domestic oil production 3 percent to 6 percent because it increased investment risk.

* Imports increased 8 percent to 16 percent because of the competitive advantage the tax gave to foreign oil companies

It is not surprising that a windfall profits tax fails to either increase domestic production or reduce prices. When profits are penalized, there are fewer incentives to increase capacity. Oil production is risky and requires heavy initial investment in infrastructure. Meanwhile, oil prices can fluctuate. New oil may or may not be discovered. Because of these uncertainties, investment in oil production requires the ability to forecast likely outcomes. A windfall tax complicates this task. When a company is unsure what the price of oil will be at a certain point in the future and consequently unsure whether it will be penalized by the government for making a profit that year, investment risk increases, explain Burnett and Bieker.


Obama says he would impose oil windfall profits tax

Mon Jun 9, 2008

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSWAT00963020080609

The choice is simple.

He is either aware of the implications of what he is proposing and actually wants us to pay 12 dollars per gallon (but wont say that on the campaign trail).

Or he is one dumb politician.

its a coin toss as far as i'm concerned

"I'll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we'll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills," the Illinois senator said.

staggeringly, and openly Marxist.............

[freakscene]

Is Obama's candidacy constitutional?

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66787

He then points out Ann Dunham, Obama's mother, was 18 when Obama was born "so she wouldn't have met the requirement of five years after the age of 16."

Geraghty continues: " (Interestingly, apparently there isn't much paperwork on Obama's parents' marriage. 'Obama: From Promise to Power,' page. 27: 'Obama later confessed that he never searched for the government documents on the marriage, although Madelyn (Obama's maternal grandmother) insisted they were legally married.' Also note that Obama's father apparently was not legally divorced from his first wife back in Kenya at the time, a point of contention that ultimately led to their separation.)"




for the sake of the argument, lets accept for a second in time that his candidacy is NOT constitutional.

my question for any of you who support him is:

would it matter to you?

if not, would you support Vladimir Putin running too?

[bigzip]

Is Obama's candidacy constitutional?

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66787

He then points out Ann Dunham, Obama's mother, was 18 when Obama was born "so she wouldn't have met the requirement of five years after the age of 16."

Geraghty continues: " (Interestingly, apparently there isn't much paperwork on Obama's parents' marriage. 'Obama: From Promise to Power,' page. 27: 'Obama later confessed that he never searched for the government documents on the marriage, although Madelyn (Obama's maternal grandmother) insisted they were legally married.' Also note that Obama's father apparently was not legally divorced from his first wife back in Kenya at the time, a point of contention that ultimately led to their separation.)"


for the sake of the argument, lets accept for a second in time that his candidacy is NOT constitutional.

my question for any of you who support him is:

would it matter to you?

if not, would you support Vladimir Putin running too?

The yin to your yang .... If I'm not mistaken McCain was born in Panama which may not be Constitutional either. I will not support either candidate and feel that we're out of luck either way.

I sometimes wonder why I even care and why I don't just bask in the bliss of ignorance the rest of our country seems to. It's tough to be an optimist when you're getting pimped on a daily basis. My guy Ron dropped out last night. I may write him in as I feel I don't really have any other choice.

[freakscene]

My guy Ron dropped out last night. I may write him in as I feel I don't really have any other choice.

I'm probably writing him in too unless a better alternative comes along. But dont be too disappointed by his dropping out. He's focusing on something very important which is energizing his grassroots support to help elect libertarian republicans at local and state levels. Its something to be excited about actually !

and for those of you who still believe the PR stunts and gimmicks that Barak Hussein Obama is not a Washington insider, but a *new* style of politician.........read on.

remember, muslims know Obama was raised a Muslim, despite his lying to you about it. (it makes the following funnier)


Muslims barred from picture at Obama event

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11168.html

The campaign has apologized to the women, all Obama supporters who said they felt betrayed by their treatment at the rally.


The next morning at Wayne State University, Obama posed for a picture with a student wearing a hijab.

thats just classy stuff there.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i9Fn1iX...hcPMUwD91CL8UO0


She was grateful that the group she was with at the rally, which included her brother, Sharif, as well as non-Muslim colleagues of his, declined the invitation to take seats behind Obama after she was refused.

Still, she said, it was difficult to hear Obama's message of unity among races.

"As he's saying it, I'm thinking, 'Well, wait a minute, I was obviously ... profiled and discriminated against an hour ago.'"

[freakscene]

"In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

Barak Hussein No-proposal-or-Plan-I-Make-Is-Worth-Spit-In-A-Bucket Obama

"We've made the decision not to participate in the public financing system for the general election," Obama says in the video, blaming it on the need to combat Republicans, saying "we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system. John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And we’ve already seen that he’s not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations."

In November 2007, Obama answered "Yes" to Common Cause when asked "If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?"

June 19, 2008

Today he said something similar, telling supporters, "Instead of forcing us to rely on millions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs, you’ve fueled this campaign with donations of $5, $10, $20, whatever you can afford. And because you did, we’ve built a grassroots movement of over 1.5 million Americans. ...You’ve already changed the way campaigns are funded because you know that’s the only way we can truly change how Washington works."

Obama said, "I’m asking you to try to do something that’s never been done before. Declare our independence from a broken system, and run the type of campaign that reflects the grassroots values that have already changed our politics and brought us this far."


hard to figure out which system he believes is broken ?

:top:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/06/obama-to-break.html

[freakscene]

even the dumbest readers by November should be able to understand this guy is nothing more than a better spoken algore, or prettier john kerry; not some "new" politician:

What's new: Obama's ties to 'ethanol interests'

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/06/whats-new-11.html

The New York Times -- Obama "closely linked" to ethanol interests: Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama "is running as a reformer who is seeking to reduce the influence of special interests. But like any other politician, he has powerful constituencies that help shape his views. And when it comes to domestic ethanol, almost all of which is made from corn, he also has advisers and prominent supporters with close ties to the industry at a time when energy policy is a point of sharp contrast between the parties and their presidential candidates."



i guess that explains why his "energy policy's" main agenda of taxing the hell out of oil companies. well, that and because it is his solution to everything.

[freakscene]

McCain Says Obama's Word `Cannot Be Trusted

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aMRbGWMknFKs


of course it cant. anyone pay attention to obama's position on the Supreme Court's 2nd amendment ruling last week?

he makes the clintons look like triangulating rookies

[XOM]

McCain Says Obama's Word `Cannot Be Trusted

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aMRbGWMknFKs


of course it cant. anyone pay attention to obama's position on the Supreme Court's 2nd amendment ruling last week?

he makes the clintons look like triangulating rookies

You betcha, I was a little disappointed that no one here seemed to be aware of or realize the historic importance of the DC handgun ban decision. And yes, Obama keeps proving himself to be a typical politician talking out of both sides of his mouth. There is nothing different about him, nothing special, just another far left liberal that happens to be black.

[freakscene]

You betcha, I was a little disappointed that no one here seemed to be aware of or realize the historic importance of the DC handgun ban decision. And yes, Obama keeps proving himself to be a typical politician talking out of both sides of his mouth. There is nothing different about him, nothing special, just another far left liberal that happens to be black.


you betchya

you have to give props to his campaign marketing though. they're doing a great job of duping the stupid into believing this guy is JFK revisited.

[XOM]

you betchya

you have to give props to his campaign marketing though. they're doing a great job of duping the stupid into believing this guy is JFK revisited.

I used to be amazed at the marketing prowess of elected politicians, but in reality it's an easy gig when dealing with the general american public.

[freakscene]

I used to be amazed at the marketing prowess of elected politicians, but in reality it's an easy gig when dealing with the general american public.

You are right.

The masses will get most of their research from headlines anyway.

May as well have some fun in the process. :)

"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man."


like, re-wording this quote from JFK, Obama-style

"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what you can do for your country, - ask what your country can do for you."


hehehe

[Rich]

You are right.

like, re-wording this quote from JFK, Obama-style

"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what you can do for your country, - ask what your country can do for you."


hehehe

Too bad I don't know how to make a poster of Bama with that caption and post it on the net, it says it all..........

[freakscene]

not to hijack the other FISA thread, but should Obama change his theme from "change" to "my word doesnt mean a damn thing" ??

:top:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/07/tracking-obamas.html

"To be clear," Sen. Barack Obama. D-Illinois, spox Bill Burton told Talking Points Memo last October about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, "Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."

Reaffirmed Obama's Senate office in December: “Senator Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies and has cosponsored Senator Dodd's efforts to remove that provision from the FISA bill. Granting such immunity undermines the constitutional protections Americans trust the Congress to protect. Senator Obama supports a filibuster of this bill, and strongly urges others to do the same...Senator Obama will not be among those voting to end the filibuster.”

In February Obama voted in favor of the an amendment from Sens. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Russ Feingold, D-Wisc., to repeal retroactive immunity for telecoms, saying, "I am proud to stand with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grassroots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty. There is no reason why telephone companies should be given blanket immunity to cover violations of the rights of the American people - we must reaffirm that no one in this country is above the law. We can give our intelligence and law enforcement community the powers they need to track down and take out terrorists without undermining our commitment to the rule of law, or our basic rights and liberties."




Free from the political pressures of the Democratic primaries, Obama now says he will vote for the FISA bill even if it doesn't include retroactive immunity for the telecoms.



this guy has zero credibility

[freakscene]

http://images.politico.com/global/080713_nyorkercover.jpg

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0708/Ya_cant_make_it_up.html

hehehehe

[tz51548]

It's pretty interesting how many people seem to think that the best way to display the qualifications of their preferred candidate is to trash the opposition.

That's unfortuntate because if we spent less time demonizing people with different political opinions and positions, a lot more might get done.

[madcowdisease]

You betcha, I was a little disappointed that no one here seemed to be aware of or realize the historic importance of the DC handgun ban decision. And yes, Obama keeps proving himself to be a typical politician talking out of both sides of his mouth. There is nothing different about him, nothing special, just another far left liberal that happens to be black.

The very definition of duplicitous. However, I'm not sure McCain is much better. I'm very displeased with our optiosn this election year. Oh well, I think it was Bill Maher or maybe George Carlin that described our government by saying we shouldnt be shocked - "shi'ite in, shi'ite out"

[freakscene]

you obama supporters just got to love this guys integrity !

when he says "Change you can believe in"; I am really wondering what exactly he means !

Barack Obama Scrubs His Website Of Surge Criticisms

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/257450


Barack Obama purges Web site critique of surge in Iraq

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2...=1&page=all

[Horsefish]

I have been following this thread for a while and have come to the conclusion that it has totally been taken over by the conservative panicking right that has no other choice but to fall down on character destruction for lack of any other way to promote their views.

The cover of the "New Yorker" posted above is a prime example. That was a spoof on the conservative radio talk show hosts fall back on character destruction attempts because they can't find any positive promotions of the policies of the Chaney/ Bush administration's policies over the last 8 years.

For the first 4 years of that administration Cheny/Bush couldn't find a spending bill that they didn't like. Initiated a war in Afganastan that was justified, initiated a war in Iraq that was unjustified. Spent $700 billion dollars on the unjustified war, cut taxes to insure that we couldn't pay for the wars and then complained that the democrats want to increase taxes so that we can pay for things to actually benefit the American people.

Then in the second term when congress is majority democrat, they want to blame the democrats for all of the problems the we are now suffering from. Go figure.

The best thing for all of us is that the republicans win the next election. That way all of the nasty things that the Chaney/Bush administration is trying to push down the road for the next administration will reside where it should be. Direct in the hands of those who are responsible for it.

Sombody had to jump in here and take a contrarian position. I have my crash helmet on.

Here comes the anger.

[Jelly]

Here comes the anger.

How 'bout a Budlite?

[Horsefish]

How 'bout a Budlite?

More like two martinis and then change my sign on.

[Jelly]

More like two martinis and then change my sign on.

Heh This weekend, a motel bartenderess poured my bitch a four shot Margarita. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. She filled a water glass to start. LOL

[freakscene]

It's pretty interesting how many people seem to think that the best way to display the qualifications of their preferred candidate is to trash the opposition.

That's unfortuntate because if we spent less time demonizing people with different political opinions and positions, a lot more might get done.

Thanks for the opportunity to again clarify a few things:

First, I am not "trashing" the "opposition". Had you read the thread you would have found out that I am not supporting McCain, and I currently have no idea when I vote if I will even select someone for the executive branch. Many of the people supporting my position are also not McCain supporters.

I am guilty of "trashing" the bolsheviks in Congresss (aka "democrats"), and their nominee for President.

Secondly, would you be so kind as to define "get more done" ?

Because if that means a Federal government take over of the Health Industry as the "democrats" are campaigning; no thanks.

Or if that means a Federal government take over of the oil industry, which some of the bolshevik members of Congress have opined during the last couple months; no thanks.

cheers

[aiki14]

Heh This weekend, a motel bartenderess poured my bitch a four shot Margarita. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. She filled a water glass to start. LOL

What I wouldn't give for a 4 shot Margarita. No salt of course. Under the Obama administration all Margarita's will be 4 shot.

[aiki14]

Under the McCain administration all Margaritas will be made housekeepers and maids and paid below minimum wage, and the wage taxes will be dodged.

[freakscene]

I have been following this thread for a while and have come to the conclusion that it has totally been taken over by the conservative panicking right that has no other choice but to fall down on character destruction for lack of any other way to promote their views.


Sombody had to jump in here and take a contrarian position. I have my crash helmet on.

Here comes the anger.


No anger Horsefish. :) Actually, I respect someone trying to defend Obama's positions. I can understand the difficulty you must have doing it, since he seems to "Change" his stance on everything from one day to the next.

Perhaps that is why you, like most Obama supporters I know, don't really defend his positions as much as you tell us what Bush has done wrong.

I have noticed this trend for almost a year now with Obama'ites.

I will concede two points for you.

I guess I am "conservative" in today's world, but what does that mean? JFK would probably be considered "conservative" today too, given his position on God, taxes, and the military.

Also, it is quite possible I am afraid of what will become of my country if a Marxist like Obama is elected, with a bolshevik controlled Congress.

Will there be a private sector left, when they are done? ;)
Will I be able to take home any of my paycheck or will it eventually all go to the common good?

cheers !

[Survivor]

Barrack is starting to make me nervous as far as the monotone of his voice
sounds like Idi Amin Da Da. Ayatolla Khomeni,some other kind of froot loop,
spelt wrong I'll bet...

[Horsefish]

No anger Horsefish. :) Actually, I respect someone trying to defend Obama's positions. I can understand the difficulty you must have doing it, since he seems to "Change" his stance on everything from one day to the next.

Perhaps that is why you, like most Obama supporters I know, don't really defend his positions as much as you tell us what Bush has done wrong.

I have noticed this trend for almost a year now with Obama'ites.

I will concede two points for you.

I guess I am "conservative" in today's world, but what does that mean? JFK would probably be considered "conservative" today too, given his position on God, taxes, and the military.

Also, it is quite possible I am afraid of what will become of my country if a Marxist like Obama is elected, with a bolshevik controlled Congress.

Will there be a private sector left, when they are done? ;)
Will I be able to take home any of my paycheck or will it eventually all go to the common good?

cheers !



When GW was elected to his first term his experience as Gov. of Texas did give him some administrative credibility. But he was an unknown player on the world stage. His choice of advisors has been proven to be dismal.
Colin Powell was the first to realize how bad it was going to get and managed to divorce himself from what came next.

It is true that Obama is an unknown and possibly risky quantity, but just like the stock market, it is sometimes good to over-react in the opposite direction in order to separate the wheat from the chaff, regroup and start over.

We are indeed both in the position of not being able to defend the positions of either candidate. Better to err on the side of possibly improving the lot of the American people and our relationships with the rest of the world, rather than continue with the current policies.

We can always change our minds in 4 years.

[freakscene]

It is true that Obama is an unknown and possibly risky quantity, but just like the stock market, it is sometimes good to over-react in the opposite direction in order to separate the wheat from the chaff, regroup and start over.

We are indeed both in the position of not being able to defend the positions of either candidate. Better to err on the side of possibly improving the lot of the American people and our relationships with the rest of the world, rather than continue with the current policies.

We can always change our minds in 4 years.


Well, I do not really understand your point. I thought you were going to defend Obama? Obama is known. He is openly stating his positions, even if they change from day to day. He is a pro big government liberal. He is telling you that much.

How do we "improve the lot of the American people" by electing someone with Obama's policies or decision making skills, along with a bolshevik controlled Congress?

How does anyone vote for a guy who appears to not even be able to admit when he was wrong? (see scrubbing web site link)

How does anyone vote for a guy who aggressively campaigns against FISA, but votes the exact opposite way, the moment his nomination is secured?

Please go back a few posts and read the links I posted about his positions on FISA.

That is one, of many examples of this guy not being a capable decision maker, or a fraud, take your pick.

He has no credibility for those who can separate themselves from the marketing campaign and look at who he is and what he says.

When the government officially takes over health care, in 4 years it will be too late.
When the government officially takes over the oil industry, in 4 years it will be too late.

That damage will have been done, and the American people will not get those liberties back.

cheers !

[Horsefish]

If you didn't have a car and you desperately need transportation, one solution is to go to a car lot and find one. Looking over 200 cars on the lot, you can find one that has everything that you want, but is the wrong color, another doesn't have the power locks that you wanted, another match doesn't have the sunroof that you wanted, etc, etc, at the end of the day, do you walk off the lot without the transport that you need or do you compromise?

Let's take just one major and critical stance that Obama has taken. He wants to end the war in Iraq. Yes he has recently taken a more "presidential stance" rather than a campaign stance on the timing. His comittment is still the same. End it as soon as possible. This is the only logical position to take.

There is no "Win" in Iraq. There may be the chance for a loose Shite/Suni coalition government that looks like it may survive at some point in the future. But, at no time in the future will a stable Iraq be an ally or a "friend" to the united states. They will always take direction from the political stance of the rest of the Arab nations. No amount of American treasure or loss of life will change that. And no additional amount of our tax money or soldiers' lives is worth the effort.

As a start, I would choose this policy stance over McCains' in a decision tree.

[freakscene]

There is no "Win" in Iraq. There may be the chance for a loose Shite/Suni coalition government that looks like it may survive at some point in the future. But, at no time in the future will a stable Iraq be an ally or a "friend" to the united states. They will always take direction from the political stance of the rest of the Arab nations. No amount of American treasure or loss of life will change that. And no additional amount of our tax money or soldiers' lives is worth the effort.

As a start, I would choose this policy stance over McCains' in a decision tree.

Thanks.

I understand fully well that many Obama supporters share this defeatist attitude and twisted sense of history.

The America I know is capable of doing anything. (if only we could rid ourselves of these pesky liberals ;) )

Winning in Iraq is hardly something that is unachievable. Kurdistan province is already vibrant and thriving.

As for "never being an ally", I'll give you two examples that prove your statement wrong on its face.

Japan
Germany


Cheers !

[Horsefish]

I agree that if we had gone in and totally crushed both Iraq, and Iran for that matter, with a real overwhelming force ( like Japan and Germany ) we would have a chance to do the same kind of nation building. Not going to happen now. Donald Rumsfeld proved that wars can't be managed like a corporation.

The kind of negociated settlement that is now left to us, is exactly what Obama envisions. And I agree that America is capable of that under the right leadership.

[freakscene]

page 2 ?

i think not :)

http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/

a very good source ;)

[freakscene]

Andrea on Obama Trip: 'What Some Would Call Fake Interviews'

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/07/21/andrea-obama-trip-what-some-would-call-fake-interviews

i am surprised someone like Mitchell would make these charges, but sooner or later, especially with the NYT thang yesterday, the press fawning all over this guy has to be criticized.

[haroons222]

He's all talk...the numbers he has so far are from the positive media coverage he gets and this nonsense of change and hope! He aint changing ****,hes not against war or calling troops back home,he just wantst o relocate(and increase) them.
I agree that he is not qualified watsoever...and im a visibile minority!!

He has no record watsoever and only his flowery speeches...
I do admit that they could have put someone half decent against him.

[freakscene]

He's all talk...the numbers he has so far are from the positive media coverage he gets and this nonsense of change and hope! He aint changing ****,hes not against war or calling troops back home,he just wantst o relocate(and increase) them.
I agree that he is not qualified watsoever...and im a visibile minority!!

He has no record watsoever and only his flowery speeches...
I do admit that they could have put someone half decent against him.

well said !

two links to support your post:

the first, despite the media's circle-jerking to obama's every step this last month +, the election is still a dead heat.

shouldnt he be up 20, 30 points or more?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109060/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Maintains-Slim-Advantage-Over-McCain.aspx

second link is quite entertaining, and similar to the swift boating of john kerry

http://www.bothwaysbarack.com/

both ways barack ! ya gotta love it !!

[haroons222]

One thing that i find disturbing is that he is using the republican failures to justify opening another front rather than a withdrawal.He wants the U.S. to attack Pakistan, rather than us resorting to diplomacy, getting the U.N. or even possibly the Arab League involved.
Pakistan is a nuclear state,which was an ally during the Soviet era,it would be silly to attack a nuclear country of 165 million ppl.
We have to move away from war and back to reconciliation.

[freakscene]

this might just be one of the better pieces of satirical journalism i have ever read

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article4392846.ece

try and get through the whole thing, but to start you off, here is a snippet:

He ventured forth to bring light to the world



The anointed one's pilgrimage to the Holy Land is a miracle in action - and a blessing to all his faithful followers

And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.

The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.

When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: “Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?”

In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary he smote the conniving Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of Working Class Whites.

And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the appointed year, the Child ventured forth - for the first time - to bring the light unto all the world.

He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media. He ventured first to the land of the Hindu Kush, where the

Taleban had harboured the viper of al-Qaeda in their bosom, raining terror on all the world.

And the Child spake and the tribes of Nato immediately loosed the Caveats that had previously bound them. And in the great battle that ensued the forces of the light were triumphant. For as long as the Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more.

From there he went forth to Mesopotamia where he was received by the great ruler al-Maliki, and al-Maliki spake unto him and blessed his Sixteen Month Troop Withdrawal Plan even as the imperial warrior Petraeus tried to destroy it.

And lo, in Mesopotamia, a miracle occurred. Even though the Great Surge of Armour that the evil Bush had ordered had been a terrible mistake, a waste of vital military resources and doomed to end in disaster, the Child's very presence suddenly brought forth a great victory for the forces of the light.

And the Persians, who saw all this and were greatly fearful, longed to speak with the Child and saw that the Child was the bringer of peace. At the mention of his name they quickly laid aside their intrigues and beat their uranium swords into civil nuclear energy ploughshares.

From there the Child went up to the city of Jerusalem, and entered through the gate seated on an ass. The crowds of network anchors who had followed him from afar cheered “Hosanna” and waved great palm fronds and strewed them at his feet.

In Jerusalem and in surrounding Palestine, the Child spake to the Hebrews and the Arabs, as the Scripture had foretold. And in an instant, the lion lay down with the lamb, and the Israelites and Ishmaelites ended their long enmity and lived for ever after in peace.

As word spread throughout the land about the Child's wondrous works, peoples from all over flocked to hear him; Hittites and Abbasids; Obamacons and McCainiacs; Cameroonians and Blairites.

And they told of strange and wondrous things that greeted the news of the Child's journey. Around the world, global temperatures began to decline, and the ocean levels fell and the great warming was over.

The Great Prophet Algore of Nobel and Oscar, who many had believed was the anointed one, smiled and told his followers that the Child was the one generations had been waiting for.

And there were other wonderful signs. In the city of the Street at the Wall, spreads on interbank interest rates dropped like manna from Heaven and rates on credit default swaps fell to the ground as dead birds from the almond tree, and the people who had lived in foreclosure were able to borrow again.

Black gold gushed from the ground at prices well below $140 per barrel. In hospitals across the land the sick were cured even though they were uninsured. And all because the Child had pronounced it. ......................



:top:

[netwrangler]

OK, Moderate that I am, I will state my position.

If I had to vote today, I would vote for Obama rather than McCain.

I really like McCain as a person.
Moreover, I am concerned that Obama may emerge as a total egotist.
[Well, anyone who aspires to be President has to have a certain level of ego, but my concern goes beyond that.]

But I like Obama as a person too. We really have a much better choice this year than we have had in some time. So why do I favor Obama?

Obama is talking about what he will do. McCain is talking about what Obama will do. So, which is the change you can believe in?
Obama is willing to flip-flop. Critics consider this a fault. Not me. I don't trust anyone who says that the tactics they would use today are [absolutely] the tactics they would use next year. The ability for Obama to 'flip-flop' is what causes me to discount the many 'view with alarm' statements about the terrible thing he would do as President. Frankly, I think he will temper his political views with a cogent assessment of 'the situation on the ground'.
Obama is smarter than McCain. I know that some regard this as a negative. Again, not me. You can call him an intellectual elitist. For my money, I'll take more IQ rather than less. If you want to see what mediocre IQ gives you, check out our current President.
Obama gives the USA the opportunity to regain its [rightful] role as a world leader. People in other countries really like this guy. Does this matter? Of course it does, and it matters in ways that are hard to tabulate. Want more troops here? Want better trade deals there? Nothing like a little international charisma to facilitate that.
If you look at Obama and McCain on TV, you have to see the difference in their energy level. John [God love you] you are older than I am. Obama can, literally, run rings around you. To me, this is the over-blanket that colors my decision.

So, there you have it.

FS, I know you will have all kinds of links that will indicate how bad Obama is.
What I would like to see, in contrast, are links on how good McCain is.

Looking forward to seeing that.

[freakscene]

OK, Moderate that I am, I will state my position.

If I had to vote today, I would vote for Obama rather than McCain.

I really like McCain as a person.
Moreover, I am concerned that Obama may emerge as a total egotist.
[Well, anyone who aspires to be President has to have a certain level of ego, but my concern goes beyond that.]

But I like Obama as a person too. We really have a much better choice this year than we have had in some time. So why do I favor Obama?

Obama is talking about what he will do. McCain is talking about what Obama will do. So, which is the change you can believe in?
Obama is willing to flip-flop. Critics consider this a fault. Not me. I don't trust anyone who says that the tactics they would use today are [absolutely] the tactics they would use next year. The ability for Obama to 'flip-flop' is what causes me to discount the many 'view with alarm' statements about the terrible thing he would do as President. Frankly, I think he will temper his political views with a cogent assessment of 'the situation on the ground'.
Obama is smarter than McCain. I know that some regard this as a negative. Again, not me. You can call him an intellectual elitist. For my money, I'll take more IQ rather than less. If you want to see what mediocre IQ gives you, check out our current President.
Obama gives the USA the opportunity to regain its [rightful] role as a world leader. People in other countries really like this guy. Does this matter? Of course it does, and it matters in ways that are hard to tabulate. Want more troops here? Want better trade deals there? Nothing like a little international charisma to facilitate that.
If you look at Obama and McCain on TV, you have to see the difference in their energy level. John [God love you] you are older than I am. Obama can, literally, run rings around you. To me, this is the over-blanket that colors my decision.

So, there you have it.

FS, I know you will have all kinds of links that will indicate how bad Obama is.
What I would like to see, in contrast, are links on how good McCain is.

Looking forward to seeing that.

Sorry net, you won't be getting those links from me. its not the reason for the thread.

And I have to question your "moderate" status.

A moderate wouldn't consider voting for someone as radical as Obama and would be able to see through the pretty language and choreography, and understand what he is prescribing for this country. he's one of the most radical, left politicians ever nominated.

Also, Obama is not a flip flopper.

A flip flopper only holds 1 position at a time.

Obama holds several positions on most topics. how in the world can you believe anything he says?

And sorry, but i couldnt care less who the people of Spain or Outer Mongolia want us to elect. Nor should that be a reason why anyone votes.

[netwrangler]

Sorry net, you won't be getting those links from me. its not the reason for the thread.

And I have to question your "moderate" status.

A moderate wouldn't consider voting for someone as radical as Obama and would be able to see through the pretty language and choreography, and understand what he is prescribing for this country. he's one of the most radical, left politicians ever nominated.

Also, Obama is not a flip flopper.

A flip flopper only holds 1 position at a time.

Obama holds several positions on most topics. how in the world can you believe anything he says?

And sorry, but i couldnt care less who the people of Spain or Outer Mongolia want us to elect. Nor should that be a reason why anyone votes.
A Moderate is one who can see and appreciate both sides of an issue. A Moderate understands nuance and works for a balance.

The Doctrinaires on either pole have problems with nuance. They often misread the Moderate as someone who holds several positions on a topic. Even the use of the word 'nuance' is regarded as 'elitist' by some.

My position is to the right of Mario Salvio's Free Speech Movement and to the left of the Orange County Chapter of the John Birch Society. Over the years I have learned that a strong union solves some labor problems and creates others. A 'free' market, likewise, solves some business problems and creates others. [On this latter point, anyone who thinks it is possible for the United States to create a 'free' market in energy really doesn't understand the economic and political forces involved.]

Note that my examples on the left and right are Doctrinaire, but only borderline Radical. As a Moderate, I can appreciate and respect the views of the Free Speech Movement and the John Birch Society of both groups and find areas of agreement with both. With both groups, however, my areas of disagreement are significant.

You have to get to folks like the Weather Underground and the NeoNazis to find the true Radicals. These are the folks that include violence in their tool-kit. I'll pass on that on either side of the spectrum.

And finally, while I agree with you that we voters must make up our own minds, I don't agree with you that the stature of our political leaders amongst our allies, or even our potential enemies, should be totally disregarded.
It's a factor.

There's that nuance again.

[freakscene]

fair enough

support him. help elect him.

and be partly responsible for removing the stars on the flag and replacing them with a hammer and sickle when his policies are implemented.

after all, its radical.............yet "moderate" at the same time ;)

[Jelly]

and be partly responsible for removing the stars on the flag and replacing them with a hammer and sickle when his policies are implemented.

You mean like what Shrub and Co. are doing now?

[freakscene]

You mean like what Shrub and Co. are doing now?

not even close

it will be much worse

[Jelly]

not even close

it will be much worse

I see. It's a matter of the degree of the crime, as opposed to following the law they made in the first place.

Makes sense to me.

[freakscene]

close.

i have no doubts that with one, you'll get socialism lite similar to what we've been experiencing for about 50 years now; a slow drip by drip process of moving towards absolute cradle to grave government involvement in our lives.

with the other, remove the slow drip and open up the spigot. the American experiment will be over.

Obama has no private sector solutions, and if you listen to his rhetoric, he openly uses terms like 'economic justice' regulalry.

thats scary.

Beware of Obama's 'economic justice'

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=224760&src=

[freakscene]

in continuing with his "I am a socialist theme" while appealing to non thinking voters..........

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12237.html


Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on Friday announced an “Emergency Economic Plan” that would give families a stimulus check of $1,000 each, funded in part by what his presidential campaign calls “windfall profits from Big Oil.”

hey net.

you'll need the extra thousand, when the "Big Oil" companies pass the tax along in the form of higher prices

[Survivor]

If you hate Obammer that much which candidate do you like?
I asked you before,maybe
Black Democrat? or just Democrats in general?
White boy can't run the country Bush is proof.
The last eight years of Republicans has been the best... ever? Bush? LOL, oil @ 125.00?
Prices have doubled and trippeld since Bush/Cheney have been in office, with the biggest deficit in history. I can just barley afford health insurance anymore.
Either way we all lose. Vote for sale, $500.00...cash...

[freakscene]

edit >>>. wrong thread

[freakscene]

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=302484020165482

Obamanomics Flunks The Test

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 8/1/2008

Barack Obama the lawyer-organizer could use a crash course in economics. His economic plan's assumptions, based on long-discredited Marxist theories, are wildly wrongheaded.

In arguing for a heavier mix of government, he assumes that capitalism unfairly favors the rich, almost exclusively so, and fails to spread prosperity.

"The rich in America have little to complain about," he carps. "The distribution of wealth is skewed, and levels of inequality are now higher than at any time since the Gilded Age."

Obama cites data showing a yawning gap between the income of the average worker and the wealthiest 1%. He thinks it's government's job to step in and close it — "for purposes of fairness" — by soaking the rich, among other leftist nostrums.

"Between 1971 and 2001," he complains, "while the median wage and salary income of the average worker showed literally no gain, the income of the top hundredth of a percent went up almost 500%."

But such a snapshot comparison would be meaningful only if America were a caste society, in which the people making up one income group remained static over time.

Of course that's not the case. The composition of the rich and poor in this country is in constant flux, as the income distribution changes dramatically over relatively short periods. Few are "stuck" in poverty, or have a "lock" on wealth.

Obama would discover this if only he'd put down his class-warfare manuals and look closely at the IRS' own data.

Take those megarich he vilifies — the top hundredth of a percent. According to a recent Treasury study, three-fourths of them in 1996 fell out of the group by 2005.

Meanwhile, more than half of those in the bottom income group in 1996 moved to a higher income group by 2005, with more than 5% leapfrogging to the richest quintile.

(It's no fluke: The same high degree of income mobility is seen in prior comparable periods, as well.)

Some poor moved up through personal effort, while many rode an expanding economy. Real median incomes of all taxpayers rose 24%, but the poor registered the biggest gains of all.

President Kennedy understood that a growing economy is like a rising tide that "lifts all boats." Obama, on the other hand, thinks some are lifted and others lowered, as if the economy were a system of locks operated by a cabal of evil capitalists.

He also fails to understand how taxes change behavior. He thinks raising taxes on the most productive members of society won't "curb incentives to work or invest." Even TV news anchor Charlie Gibson knows better.

During a primary debate, the ABC host took Obama to task for proposing a doubling in the capital gains tax. History shows, he pointed out, that raising the cap gains rate actually ends up costing the government revenues.

Obama just didn't get it. "Well, Charlie," he argued, "what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness."

Forget growth and revenues. Let's just punish those "greedy" investors. It's the same Marxist reasoning behind his plan to repeal the Bush tax cuts: The rich must be made to pay their "fair" share, Obama asserts.

Never mind that the top 1% of taxpayers already pay 38% of the total tax burden, according to recent IRS data, while the bottom 50% bear just 3% of the load.

Obama's economic plan also calls for mandating a "living wage." He plans to saddle retailers with a $10 minimum wage indexed to inflation, along with a mandate to provide seven days of paid sick leave to workers.

Obama assumes business owners will just eat the added costs.

But restaurants, the nation's second-largest private-sector employer, already operate on razor-thin profit margins. Faced with such mandatory paid benefits, they'll have no choice but to cut staff.

In fact, the last major minimum-wage increase cost the restaurant industry more than 146,000 jobs, the National Restaurant Association says, while restaurant owners put off plans to hire an additional 106,000 employees.

So Obama would get his wage-and-benefits mandate, but lose jobs in an industry that employs the very minorities Obama claims he's trying to help.

"If restaurateurs had their way, every lawmaker would run a small business before starting to legislate," the industry opined in a recent press release.

Lawmakers aren't the only ones. Leftist presidential candidates also could benefit from such a mandate.

[BuyOnDips]

You know if there was a similar candidate with Obama's resume in the Republican Party(4 year Senator with no major accomplishments), that person wouldn't even be considered to be on a list of potential Vice Presidential candidates for McCain.

When you're basically voting for the leader of the free world, you would expect that person to have at least a semi decent resume. As bad as McCain is(he sucks), he's still light years better than Obama.

If they were stocks, I would say McCain is RSH and Obama is CC.

[freakscene]

If they were stocks, I would say McCain is RSH and Obama is CC.

That could be a fun game ! i'm going to give it some thought. :)

Hey Net, even the LA Times sees it:

Barack Obama's energy speech draws attention -- to his changing stances

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/08/barack-obamas-e.html

Here were the leads from the big three dailies:

"With the politics of energy shifting as rapidly as gasoline prices, Democrats, led by presidential candidate Barack Obama, are retreating from long-held positions and scrambling to offer distressed voters more immediate relief from spiraling costs." (Los Angeles Times)

"Sen. Barack Obama altered his position on Monday to call for tapping the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve to lower gasoline prices as he outlined an energy plan that contrasts with Sen. John McCain’s greater emphasis on expanded offshore drilling and coal and nuclear technology." (New York Times)

"Sen. Barack Obama called Monday for using oil from the nation's strategic reserves to lower gasoline prices, the second time in less than a week that he has modified a position on energy issues, as he and Sen. John McCain seek to find solutions to a topic that is increasingly dominating the presidential race." (Washington Post) ....................

..........In terms of opinion pieces on Obama's plan, his aides won't bat an eye at a bashing from the conservative New York Post, which began an editorial today: "One more week, one more Barack Obama reversal on a key issue. Actually, make that two reversals."

But Obama aides may have noticed -- and become concerned about -- the San Francisco Chronicle's editorial take: "Sen. Barack Obama's energy policy is offering more flip-flops than a Lake Tahoe souvenir stand."

That's not quite the narrative the Obama camp was looking for from his speech.



ha !

[freakscene]

Well, the Investors Business Daily agrees with my Obama and Marxist comparison and now the Wall Street Journal agrees that his economic policies are something out of a Hugo Chavez plan.


I'd expect that we can at least all agree that these 2 institutions know a thing or two about economics.



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1217806362...=googlenews_wsj


Venezuelans protest Chavez's new socialist push

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080807/D92D4QGO0.html

One decree establishes a civilian militia that critics warn could emulate the citizen groups that control many aspects of community life in Cuba. Another gives Chavez the ability to designate regional authorities who critics say could undermine the power of locally elected officials.

Other decrees empower Chavez to expropriate goods from private businesses and increase state control over food, punishing business owners who fail to comply with price controls with fines, closure and even 10-year prison terms.


sounds a lot like Obama's 'civilian defense' intiative, and desire to punish oil profits, eh ?

the comparisons are beginning to become...............spooky.

[BuyOnDips]

From the Powerline Blog:

"Meaningless Statements"

Barack Obama has been criticized for acting as though he is already President. That's natural, since the actions in question have been presumptuous: the pseudo-Presidential seal, the speech in Germany, and so on. Today, one might say that John McCain is acting as though he is already President, but in a substantive and positive way. In his response to Russia's invasion of Georgia, McCain is giving us a preview of what sort of President he would be.

McCain has strongly and unequivocally come out in support of our ally Georgia, while placing the onus for the war squarely where it belongs, on Russia. In this, he has aligned himself with our most loyal European allies. Obama, on the other hand, issued the sort of vapid statement that would ingratiate him with the State Department while not requiring any distraction from his Hawaii vacation. An interesting point, by the way: McCain is supposed to be the old guy, but Obama is the one who needs a vacation.

Here is the latest from the McCain campaign:

This afternoon I spoke, for the second time since the crisis began, with Georgian President Saakashvili. It is clear the situation is dire. Russian aggression against Georgia continues, with attacks occurring far beyond the Georgian region of South Ossetia. As casualties continue to mount, the international community must do all it can to avert further escalations. Tensions and hostilities between Georgians and Ossetians are in no way justification for Russian troops crossing an internationally recognized border. I again call on the Government of Russia to immediately and unconditionally withdraw its forces from the territory of Georgia.

Given this threat to Euro-Atlantic security, I am pleased to see the United States, the European Union, and NATO acting together by sending a delegation to the region, in an effort to broker a cease fire. This is an important first step.

The United Nations has been prevented from taking any meaningful action by Russian objections. In view of this, I welcome the statements of democratic nations defending the sovereignty of Georgia and condemning Russian actions.

I strongly support the declaration issued by the Presidents of Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, and their commitment that 'aggression against a small country in Europe will not be passed over in silence or with meaningless statements equating the victims with the victimizers.'

I doubt that the Europeans were thinking of Obama when they wrote this, but who knows? Maybe they had seen this "meaningless statement equating the victims with the victimizers" from the Obama campaign:

It’s both sides’ fault — both have been somewhat provocative with each other.

McCain's statement continues:

I share their regret that NATO's decision to withhold from Georgia a Membership Action Plan may have been viewed as a green light for aggression in the region. As they propose, a new international peacekeeping force should be created, in light of -- as they observe -- the 'obvious bankruptcy of Russian "peacekeeping operations" in its immediate neighborhood.' In addition, Finnish Foreign Minister Stubb, the Chairman of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, has said there can be no return to the status quo in South Ossetia and that Russia cannot serve as a mediator in the South Ossetian conflict. Each of these leaders represents a country that has undergone what Georgia is now experiencing.

That last is a key point, but one that is no doubt lost on Obama and his advisers. It is often said that Obama is not ready to be President, but I don't think this is exactly right. It seems pretty obvious that Obama, given his temperament, his self-regard, his blithe ignorance of history and of the material conditions of life on this planet, will never be ready to be President. He is not unready, he is unsuited for, and inadequate to, the office.


http://www.powerlineblog.com/

[freakscene]

That last is a key point, but one that is no doubt lost on Obama and his advisers. It is often said that Obama is not ready to be President, but I don't think this is exactly right. It seems pretty obvious that Obama, given his temperament, his self-regard, his blithe ignorance of history and of the material conditions of life on this planet, will never be ready to be President. He is not unready, he is unsuited for, and inadequate to, the office.


http://www.powerlineblog.com/



sums it up pretty well

[Riddicks]

Oh lord, the Republicans. You guys just don't seem to get it, McCain is an old fool, who can't tell the difference between Shia and Sunni. Probably doesn't know the difference between a Pushtun and a Hazra either. He can't tell if its night or day even sometimes, he speaks out of his ass, like if you wanted another Bush, just go get his brother, actually he was a pretty good choice. Wait till you see how much damage has been done by Republicans already, its funny that only you two keep posting on here, nobody even gives a damn.

Cause they know, there is no point in saving a sinking ship yet that is what you two keep doing all day. I don't even vote, cause I am not American but I know how much they are hated, because of Bush around the world, so maybe you don't agree with Obama or he isn't experienced enough but a man, a human being that can bring this many people together and all these cultures together, must be doing something right. Give the other side a chance to right some of the wrongs your gov't has created or f'd up.

I think all this hatred and bashing comes from somewhere, I don't see anybody else trying to even stand up for this man, so I just thought I should speak up because I truly am starting to feel sorry for the state of this Nation, as it goes in to a leadership that has been consistently wrong, biased, greedy and uneducated. Its funny, coming from a developing country I thought all these things only happened in poor countries or places where people aren't educated enough but seeing this happen here, I see that when your leaders can't be counted on, especially when they know better, there can't be much expected out of the people either. So goes the state of this nation, unless something is done. Vote for a change, you tried one side and saw what happened, give someone else a chance.

[BuyOnDips]

Why Obama is in Trouble - Steven Warshawsky

"What has Obama accomplished to date? In truth, not very much -- except to master the art of self-promotion.

Obama has written two best-selling autobiographies: Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance (1995) and The Audacity of Hope (2006). Yet he has never served in an important leadership position in government, business, or the military. His ability to perform as a chief executive officer is completely untested.

Obama has prestigious degrees from Columbia University and Harvard Law School, but no significant professional achievements to his name. No businesses or organizations he has founded or managed. No law firm partnerships. No important cases he has tried. Not a single work of legal scholarship he has authored, despite having been Editor-in-Chief of the Harvard Law Review and a part-time law professor at the University of Chicago for twelve years. (This is unheard of in the elite ranks of the legal profession, and calls into question the bona fides of Obama's professorship.)

Obama's principal occupation before entering politics was as a "community organizer" in Chicago. By his own admission, these efforts achieved only "some success," and none worthy of highlighting on his campaign website. Obama then served eight unexceptional years in the Illinois Senate, and was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004, where he is not even considered one of the Democratic Party's legislative leaders.

And this man believes he is "the one we have been waiting for"?"


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/why_barack_obama_will_not_win.html


I just can't vote for a candidate that has such a weak resume as Obama. Even Dan Quayle, whom the Democrats made fun of as being too inexperienced, was a Congressman for 4 years and a Senator for 8 years. And Quayle worked on major legislation during his years in Congress. If Quayle wasn't good enough for the Democrats to be Vice President, I don't see how they could honestly vote for Obama to actually be President. Scary stuff indeed.

[freakscene]

good points. did you watch the CNN "forum" this weekend?

i am slowly starting to feel a bit more confident that the more obama is without a teleprompter and asked real questions, the less likely informed voters will side with the majority of the intellectually vapid supporters he has.

he looked incredibly amateurish and was spanked by mccain easily.


WASHINGTON -- It is now clear why Barack Obama has refused John McCain's offer of joint town hall appearances during the fall campaign. McCain is obviously better at them.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/small_hopes_and_large_upsets.html


Worlds Apart
McCain's Clarity vs. Obama's Nuance

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/17/AR2008081702080.html

[netwrangler]

McCain will undoubtedly be helped by Bush's program for mortgage relief:

Mortgage Relief Bill Provisions

President Bush signed a housing bill into law last week that is designed to assist borrowers facing foreclosure on their homes. What are some of the provisions of the bill?


Congress will set up a special fund to assist owners in purchasing "For Sale" signs

If a family already has everything set up the way they like it in their house, then they're okay to keep it

In the event of foreclosure, former owners maintain right to drive by and gaze longingly at their old homes

If you ultimately lose your house, Sen. Jim Webb has dibs on that coffee table

Two thousand families displaced by foreclosure will be supplied with federally owned trailers, pending the eviction of Katrina victims

Newly created "renting" provision enables those who are not financially prepared to own homes to have a place to live

Everyone who ****** up gets a thousand bucks and we all call it even

To ensure that this mess never happens again, the legislation requires all future home purchasers to make 100 percent down payments


[as reported in The Onion]

[freakscene]

i remember the onion before it had a web page !

but back to the topic:

Investors Business Daily

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=303952351194789

Election '08: Last weekend's McCain-Obama protodebate made it clear why Obama won't keep his promise to debate McCain "anywhere, anytime." McCain, with a robust resume and details at his fingertips, won big.

It was only in May that Sen. Barack Obama cockily proclaimed he would debate Sen. John McCain "anywhere, anytime." But in June, Obama said no to McCain's challenge to have 10 one-on-one town hall meetings.

After what happened at Lake Forest, Calif.'s evangelical Saddleback megachurch Saturday evening, we may have found that debating is Obama's Achilles' heel. Whether or not you like the idea of such events being held in religious venues, the plain-and-simple method of questioning used by Saddleback pastor and best-selling author Rick Warren revealed fundamental differences between these two men............................

To any honest observer, the differences between John McCain and Barack Obama have been evident all along. What we saw last weekend was Obama's shallowness juxtaposed with McCain's depth, the product of his extraordinary life experience.

It may not have been a debate, but it was one of the most lopsided political contests in memory. No wonder Obama wants to keep debate formats boring and predictable.



anyone that has not watched that yet, look for it.

a crystal clear example of an empty suit obama being exposed for you to see

[Riddicks]

[quote=freakscene;131904]i remember the onion before it had a web page !
but back to the topic:

I must admit that listening to McCain answer Pastor Rick Warren's questions so quickly and glibly Saturday night at the Saddleback Faith Forum made me wonder if he somehow knew them in advance. He was so confident, so concise. But I put the thought aside as unduly paranoid -- that is until Sunday afternoon. I was routinely checking my favorite election website fivethirtyeight.com (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/) and the webmaster, Nate Silver, referred to a piece in Daily Kos about the whereabouts of John McCain for the first thirty minutes of Senator Obama's interview with Rick Warren. Was he in a cone of silence? Apparently not.
Daily Kos blogger Furiousxxgeorge wrote at 3:27 pm Pacific time the following blog:
Pastor Warren, the host of last night's forum was just on CNN. In an interview with Rick Sanchez the pastor admitted McCain was not even at the Church for the first half hour of the event. This admission comes as a surprise to those of us who watched the event and were told many times that McCain was at the Church and in isolation.CNN says they talked to McCain's camp and they said no one in his camp was listening. The honor system, are you kidding me?I think it is pretty clear at this point McCain did indeed know the questions in advance.
Is this a big deal or not? It seems like someone ought to ask both McCain and Warren what really happened. The "truthiness" of this Forum is at stake. Warren will be on CNN Monday night, August 18 at 9 pm Eastern/6 pm Pacific. Tune in and comment!
Update 1: Pastor Warren states that McCain told him he did not "hear" the questions. He was in a motorcade from his hotel to the church, arriving about 30 minutes into the Obama interview hour. McCain did not say whether anyone else on his staff "heard" the questions, however. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/17/warren-mccain-did-not-violate-cone-of-silence/
Update 2: Warren has now given 2 or 3 different versions of which questions he told the candidates about prior to the event. First he said he told them about the orphan question and the abortion question. Then he said he told them about the "wise advisers" question and the "moral failure" question. That's four questions so far. Are there more?



I heard McCain said they should let him win the election and he should be the next president because he was a pow and is a veteran, is that true? He also said he doesn't lie because he was a POW, maybe we should ask his first wife that.

[freakscene]

your post is what has become expected of the intellectually vapid obama supporters who can not seem to grasp just how empty their candidate is, and need to deflect attention away from his piss poor performance by starting unsubstantiated rumors.

in fact, the pastor was interviewed just last night and said of the two, only obama was given a question in advance - regarding orphans because mccain was running late. both were given the topics that were going to be covered in advance. the orphan question was an extra.

he said the rest of the rumor mongering about mccain "cheating" is nothing more than hot air. mccain even answered questions obama didnt get to, becuase obama fumbled and stuttered wasting time trying to sound politically correct.

obama, even given the topics at hand, looked awful.

especially suggesting clarance thomas didnt have the "experience" to be a SCOTUS nominee.

hello.................. ?

[Riddicks]

Wait a minute, I thought you were going for nobody. Neither McCain nor Obama, so why get emotional? I just put up a story that I thought people would like to see, you know maybe both sides. Rather than just your bashing of one side and playing it off as you are for nobody. haha.

[freakscene]

Obama on Clarence Thomas
August 18, 2008; Page A14

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121901817146948231.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Barack Obama likes to portray himself as a centrist politician who wants to unite the country, but occasionally his postpartisan mask slips. That was the case at Saturday night's Saddleback Church forum, when Mr. Obama chose to demean Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.......


So let's see. By the time he was nominated, Clarence Thomas had worked in the Missouri Attorney General's office, served as an Assistant Secretary of Education, run the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and sat for a year on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation's second most prominent court. Since his "elevation" to the High Court in 1991, he has also shown himself to be a principled and scholarly jurist.

Meanwhile, as he bids to be America's Commander in Chief, Mr. Obama isn't yet four years out of the Illinois state Senate, has never held a hearing of note of his U.S. Senate subcommittee, and had an unremarkable record as both a "community organizer" and law school lecturer. Justice Thomas's judicial credentials compare favorably to Mr. Obama's Presidential résumé by any measure. And when it comes to rising from difficult circumstances, Justice Thomas's rural Georgian upbringing makes Mr. Obama's story look like easy street.



without a teleprompter

obama is a train wreck waiting to happen

Even more troubling is what the Illinois Democrat's answer betrays about his political habits of mind. Asked a question he didn't expect at a rare unscripted event, the rookie candidate didn't merely say he disagreed with Justice Thomas. Instead, he instinctively reverted to the leftwing cliché that the Court's black conservative isn't up to the job while his white conservative colleagues are.

So much for civility in politics and bringing people together. And no wonder Mr. Obama's advisers have refused invitations for more such open forums, preferring to keep him in front of a teleprompter, where he won't let slip what he really believes.

[freakscene]

Wait a minute, I thought you were going for nobody. Neither McCain nor Obama, so why get emotional? I just put up a story that I thought people would like to see, you know maybe both sides. Rather than just your bashing of one side and playing it off as you are for nobody. haha.

no, i am voting for ron paul who is somebody - which ive said all along.

you didnt "put up a story"

you posted an unsubstantiated rumor as if it were fact.

[Riddicks]

McCain's Mostly Ignored Gambling Problem
Aug/18/2008

Today the Internet is rife with speculation about whether John McCain heard the questions Rick Warren asked Barack Obama. McCain seems to have done predictably well answering the questions, whether he knew them or not. In fact anyone would think the man had a permanent pass. All he does is say how imperfect he is, engage in a Chaplinsque facial self-denigration, and all is well.

Even the polls seem to be with him. Three days tied in Gallup and a boost in Ohio.

This despite evidence that the man is a raving neocon, the admission that he will do what he can to wrest choice from the province of women and his fatuous notion that we can run a government on fumes.

But what most sticks in my craw is the plain proof that the man is close to being a compulsive gambler, certified as such by at least some of our mainstream media, and no one to my knowledge has directly confronted him on the subject.

McCain is a documented craps player. He has been known to play craps on impulse for 14 hours at a stretch.

Of the game of craps, Anthony Holden comments, "We poker players don't call poker gambling. It is a game of skill. Craps is an absurd game of luck. You may have thrilling short term wins but only madmen play craps."

Matthew Yglesias notes, "The McCains own eleven houses and spent over $200,000 on 'household staff' in 2007 so I suppose he can afford tens of thousands of dollars in gambling losses every year. At the same time, you wouldn't want someone to enjoy 'playing against the odds' with the country's public policy. The fact that McCain seems to think there's some kind of 'betting strategy' that can turn craps into a winning game also raises some questions about his math."

How serious is the gambling urge for McCain? What does the love of craps say about his "realism" regarding actual battles and conflicts? Would McCain be willing to gamble with human lives?

Connie Bruck puts it like this:

The moment the car stopped at McCain's hotel in downtown New Orleans, he set out at his usual fast clip for Harrah's, across the street. McCain is an avid gambler. Wes Gullett, a close friend who worked for McCain for years, told me that they used to play craps in Las Vegas in fourteen-hour stints, standing at the tables from 10 a.m. to midnight. 'Craps is addictive,' McCain remarked, and he headed for the fifteen-dollar-minimum-bet tables.

Image of McCain at The Tables

Michael Scherer and Michael Weisskopf says:

"Over time he (McCain) gave up the drinking bouts, but he never quite kicked the periodic yen for dice. In the past decade, he has played on Mississippi riverboats, on Indian land, in Caribbean craps pits and along the length of the Las Vegas Strip. Back in 2005 he joined a group of journalists at a magazine-industry conference in Puerto Rico, offering betting strategy on request. 'Enjoying craps opens up a window on a central thread constant in John's life,' says John Weaver, McCain's former chief strategist, who followed him to many a casino. 'Taking a chance, playing against the odds.' Aides say McCain tends to play for a few thousand dollars at a time and avoids taking markers, or loans, from the casinos, which he has helped regulate in Congress. 'He never, ever plays on the house,' says Mark Salter, a McCain adviser. The goal, say several people familiar with his habit, is never financial. He loves the thrill of winning and the camaraderie at the table.


"Only recently have McCain's aides urged him to pull back from the pastime. In the heat of the G.O.P. primary fight last spring, he announced on a visit to the Vegas Strip that he was going to the casino floor. When his aides stopped him, fearing a public relations disaster, McCain suggested that they ask the casino to take a craps table to a private room, a high-roller privilege McCain had indulged in before. His aides, with alarm bells ringing, refused again, according to two accounts of the discussion.

"He clearly knows that this is on the borderline of what is acceptable for him to be doing," says a Republican who has watched McCain play. 'And he just sort of revels in it.'"


Another Image of McCain Playing Craps -- In Las Vegas.

A survey of McCain's gambling with many links.

Does McCain have a record of wins and losses? If so, should these be shared with the public? McCain has said craps is addictive. Is he craps addict? Has his gambling led to any questionable conflicts of interest?

I have found that mention of McCain's gambling habit is a persuasive argument to people who are on the fence and wondering who to vote for. The association of gambling with the term neocon and observation of McCain's growing synchronicity with Bush positions is generally enough to convince an inquirer. But these days the teflon mantel seems to be moving to McCain. And to my knowledge no one has raised these questions directly.

This just shows you what kind of man you are defending, an old loser, I guess you want him gambling away your future. Keep at it.

[freakscene]

lol !

whats the matter riddicks ?

cant handle the truth about your savior, so you have to lower this thread with garbage from the huffington post?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-c-rose/mccains-mostly-ignored-ga_b_119535.html

post the link next time so the source can be revealed where you doorknobs get your information.

i'll take Investors Business Daily, the Wall Street Journal and company, over your blogger junkmail any day of the week

hey, is obama still a crack head doper?

:) !

[Riddicks]

I don't think this thread can go any lower freakscene, with you posting your garbage on here, its as bad as its gonna get.

[freakscene]

garbage ?

Investors Business Daily, The Wall Street Journal and links to Obama's own legislation ????????????????????????????? you call that garbage ?????

why did you post 2 huffington post blogs without the links then for all to see?

and all i am doing is trying to expose obama for the fraud he is with credible sources and examples.

i do not expect everyone to "get it"

that includes you.

it does appear though as if middle America is starting to wake up to yet another charlatan nominated by the DNC.

[Riddicks]

lol !

hey, is obama still a crack head doper?

:) !

Mon Aug 18, 9:18 PM Pacific
Why is McCain suddenly downplaying 'Cross in the dirt'?

McCain's ghost writer Mark Salter now claims CITD wasn't a pivotal moment for McCain:

As for assertions that the "cross in the dirt" story was a "pivotal" experience in McCain's time as a POW, Salter said, "That's just plain bulls—t. His pivotal experience was his refusal of early release and the three or four days of torture he took for it, his confession, and his attempted suicide. That was his pivotal experience. He's never represented [the "cross in the dirt" story] to be that."

But on Saturday McCain said:

I'll never forget that moment.

And in October 2007, according to the Christian Science Monitor, McCain said it was the most profound experience of his time as POW (emphasis added):

For McCain, there were other moments of grace in prison. While in solitary confinement, he would be left for the night with his arms tied back in a painful position. One night, a guard walked in and loosened the ropes, then came back five hours later and tightened up the ropes again, without saying a word. Two months later, on Christmas Day, McCain was allowed to stand outside for 10 minutes in a courtyard, and that same guard came up to him. The guard stood beside him for a minute, then drew a cross in the dirt with his sandal and stood there for a minute, looking at McCain silently. A few minutes later he rubbed it out and walked away.

"My friends, I will never forget that man," McCain recounts during a town-hall meeting with voters, his voice choked with emotion. "I will never forget that moment. And I will never forget the fact that no matter where you are, no matter how difficult things are, there's always going to be someone of your faith and your belief and your devotion to your fellow man who will pick you up and help you out and bring you through."

It was, he said later, the most transcendent and uplifting experience of his imprisonment.

It's obvious that Salter is trying to minimize a story that McCain himself was hyping just two days earlier.

What is he afraid of?

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/08/why-is-mccain-s.html

Here is the link if anybody wants it. Oh by the way, what's wrong with being a crack head doper? I am sure we all have had some experiences, that's what make us human.

[freakscene]

hysterical !

this is going to be fun, as obama becomes more and more exposed !!!!!

[Riddicks]

It sure is, Mr. perfect.

http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/7692/perfec11.gif

[BuyOnDips]

Obama was awful compared to McCain. I'm sure lots of Democrats are now having buyers remorse. The more they learn about Obama and how inexperienced he is(off script he is awful), the less they like him. All style and no substance at all. I'm sure Hillary is happy. She's ready to run in 2012. McCain was the only one that sounded like a leader at the saddleback forum. He was impressive. I still don't like him. But given the choice between those 2 candidates, I'm holding my nose and voting for McCain.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28063

[BentleyVTech]

I have previously normally been on the Republican side most of the time, but never devoted to just one party, because the 2-party system is the reason our politics have taken a downturn. I havent decided who I am voting for as of yet, but I am leaning towards Obama. I am sick of money being the primary interest of our politician's, and I'm not saying Barack is much different than most politician's, but his stand on PAC's is one I agree with. There needs to be some sort of change in politics - I know freakscene will say he's no different than other politician's - but McCain doesn't even speak of change! I believe having a change in power - Republican to Democrat - is necessary every few terms to bring the pendulum back to the middle.

One of the main reason's I am leaning Obama's way is just because he has brought interest into politics that other candidates do not. That could be worth a ton in the future, getting the younger generation interested in America's future early. Freakscene, say what you want, but 4 years ago, 8 year's ago, 12 years ago...I do not remember my friends or many people in the 18-25 age range, really even caring about it. This year, its something that my friends, 25ish, are actively keeping up with and interested in. That IS worth something...a politician that can gain interest in American politics.

I think the DNC has done well for the Democrats. I think Michelle Obama spoke well, and portrayed their family as one of the American Dream...and I think America has progressed so far to have an African American be this close to making it to the White House. And I think Joe Biden is an excellent complement to Obama. He brings experience and great foreign policy skills, which is what many of Obama's critic's were complaining about. I do not think the President has to be the most experienced person necessarily, as long as he brings the right people together to get the job done.

As far as McCain, I do like his economic policy better (just because its more $ in all of our pockets) but sometimes money isnt everything. I am grateful of McCain's service to our country, but I do not think that should be your key factor in the Presidential election. McCain is seems to be all about force in foreign affairs...and in my eyes, force should be the last straw. Especially when we have a struggling economy and record deficits, I think the main concern needs to be securing our borders and getting our country's economy back on track.

[freakscene]

I believe having a change in power - Republican to Democrat - is necessary every few terms to bring the pendulum back to the middle.

the pendulum is in the middle. electing a marxist like obama with the bolshevik controlled congress is not moving to the middle.

its replacing the stars on the flag with a hammer and freaking sickle for crying out loud.


One of the main reason's I am leaning Obama's way is just because he has brought interest into politics that other candidates do not

much like adolf hitler did ? :)

thats a solid reason for voting !!!

I think the main concern needs to be securing our borders and getting our country's economy back on track.

then why vote for a guy thats going to do what most economists suggest you DO NOT do during a contraction of the economy.............which is raise taxes ?

i dont believe you are a very informed voter. sorry.

and the buzz word "change" is nothing more than that. which direction will the "change" be?

if the DNC were honest, and clarify that they mean "Change towards socialism", my bet is more people would not gravitate towards it. not you, or your young friends who have been recently indoctrinated in public schools and probably believe that government has all the answers, but middle aged and elderly Americans certainly.

After Obama loses this election, the DNC needs to ask itself why it keeps nominating marxists like (Gore, Kerry, and Obama)

Its no wonder they've only nominated two White House winners since JFK

[BentleyVTech]

You say all that about the democrats, with not a single thing about republicans...but is it any different on the republican side? All talk, no walk? Its politics...

Even though Obama would raise taxes...hopefully we wouldnt have as many expenses (1 billion/day) on WAR...which would drastically help the deficit.

[freakscene]

You say all that about the democrats, with not a single thing about republicans...but is it any different on the republican side?

yes. a drastic difference as a matter of fact

while both major parties have serious problems, only one is anti-American, and trying to move the country away from its original design towards a model of european socialism.

theyre not even being secretive anymore about it.


Even though Obama would raise taxes...hopefully we wouldnt have as many expenses (1 billion/day) on WAR...which would drastically help the deficit.

again

you are not a very informed voter

his agenda has an enormous amount of new spending that dwarfs what is being spent on the "war".