Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 8:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

willful ignorance -- when someone insists they are trying to come up with something but they are clueless?

I think too much of conservative thinking is propelled by "willful ignorance".

1) First step for them in this effort is to secure power.(the "willful" part of willful ignorance)

2) Second step is to pretend doing the last thing they did is good enough. (WISHFUL THINKING)

3) Third step is to apply the simple wisdoms of Reaganomics. (OUTDATED IDEOLOGY THAT GOT US HERE)

If you don't nod and say "Yes that is EXACTLY what they are doing" then you probably won't like an Obama presidency. He will cut through the Bull, then hopefully will replace it with something better.

But his first step in exposing what is happening on the other side is good.

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhuh, I think this definition of willful ignorance reinforces what you said:

(noun)

The practice or act of intentional and blatant avoidance, disregard or disagreement with facts, empirical evidence and well-founded arguements because they oppose or contradict your own existing personal beliefs.

This practice is most commonly found in the political or religious ideologies of "conservative" Americans.

Many times it is practiced due to laziness--people not wanting to have to do the work to rethink their opinions, the fear of the unknown, the fear of being wrong, or sometimes simply close-mindedness.

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 10:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Susan Eisenhower stumps for Obama in Southwest Florida
By I.M. STACKEL (Contact)
Originally published 5:50 p.m., Sunday, October 19, 2008
Updated 12:19 p.m., Monday, October 20, 2008

NAPLES — America was amidst change during the Eisenhower years.

The United States had survived the Depression and World War II, guided by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Yes, there was the start of the Cold War with the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, as well as the Sen. Joseph McCarthy witch hunts and intervention in Korea, but the Vietnam era was not yet upon us.

So, generally speaking, many tend to view Dwight D. Eisenhower’s presidential years — 1953 to 1961 — with fairly pleasant memories: World War II veterans were moving their families to the suburbs on G.I. loans, there were cookouts in backyards during the summer, we drank Kool-Aid, ate Jell-O and watched “I Love Lucy.”

Now, the formerly-Republican granddaughter of President Eisenhower is stumping for Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, because it is time, again, for real change, Susan Eisenhower said Sunday afternoon.

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 10:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Susan Eisenhower has impressive credentials:

Biography of Susan Eisenhower
Granddaughter of Dwight D. Eisenhower
Susan Eisenhower is President of the Eisenhower Group, Inc, which provides strategic counsel on political, business and public affairs projects. Ms. Eisenhower has consulted for major companies doing business overseas such as IBM, American Express, Diebold Corporation and Loral Space Systems and she is a Senior Director of Stonebridge International, a Washington-based international consulting firm chaired by former National Security Advisor, Samuel "Sandy" Berger.

At the same time, she is a Distinguished Fellow of the Eisenhower Institute, where she served as both president and chairman. After more than twenty years in the foreign affairs field she is best known for her work in Russia and the former Soviet Union. During that time, Ms. Eisenhower has testified before the Senate Armed Services and Senate Budget Committees on policy toward that region. She has also been appointed to the National Academy of Sciences' standing Committee on International Security and Arms Control (CISAC) where she is now serving a fourth term. In 2000, a year before September 11, she co-edited a book, Islam and Central Asia, which carried the prescient subtitle, An Enduring Legacy or an Evolving Threat

Posted by emp (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The economy was fine until DEMOCRATS took control of the house and senate!!!!!!!!!

I'm sure everyone has made up their mind for whom they will vote so arguing now is pointless. We all know where the candidates stand on the issues that are important to us. We all have disagreements on how to fix the economy. We can all look at the history of the last 100 years and see what works and what doesn't in different situations. Some people (both black and white) will vote solely on the matter of race. Some vote only on the issue of abortion. Others vote the way they do for other reasons. Whoever your candidate, the important thing is to cast your vote.

I've voted already and I voted for McCain. But no matter who wins, I will support and respect the office of the president and pray for him every day as I do now for Bush. I think we should all commit to that.

Posted by Teach4Peace (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

emp, your post is willful ignorance because before you can make such a statement, researching when the Democrats took control would be the first thing to do. Since this mess has been 8 years in the making, then you can properly deduce that this mess didn't start with the Democratic controlled Congress. How long has the Congress been controlled by the Democrats during the Bush Administration?

You will at least support whomever wins, that's a if you can't beat 'em, join 'em stance and I actually applaud you for that one.

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Willful ignorance: The practice or act of intentional and blatant avoidance, disregard or disagreement with facts, empirical evidence and well-founded arguements because they oppose or contradict your own existing personal beliefs.

Example:

"The economy was fine until DEMOCRATS took control of the house and senate!!!!!!!!!"

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

That's right...the problems with the economy began when Clinton was in office and escalated when Democrats refused to acknowledge the problem existed in 2005.

If you want to point your finger...point it in the right direction... Frank and Dodd!

Posted by emp (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 11:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Teach4Peace and Southernwoman, you are viewing the economy through the lens of democratic liberalism. I view it through the lens of conservative capitalism. Everyone has a lens of some kind and all are different. But there is plenty of blame to go around. But no matter who you choose to blame, both candidates have plans to "fix" it. In my opinion, neither will work. But I don't have any better ideas. Maybe a commission of economist eggheads and owners of small businesses could figure something out. Maybe even put some of us "common folk" in there. Whatever the answer, I hope they figure it out soon.

I could make arguments about the "willful ignorance" but since we all display willful ignorance of our own there is no point in wasting my time.

And its not "if you can't beat them, join them". I supported Bill Clinton when I didn't agree with him on some things. I supported George H.W. Bush when I didn't agree with him, which was quite a bit. I even supported the office of the president with the idiot Jimmy Carter was there. That was the biggest challenge. Ronald Reagan was must easier but he had his moments too. As for George W. Bush, it was easy to support him at first but its been going downhill for a while. It could be that way with McCain or Obama also. But no matter who is president, we must support and respect the office of the president. And we must pray for him to have guidance from God and that he will follow that guidance.

Posted by emp (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I've heard rumors that police departments in some cities are gearing up for riots no matter who wins the election. That is so sad. Whatever happened to "peaceful transfer of power"?

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 11:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yep...it's going to be a good night to stay at home in your PJ's!

Posted by emp (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 12:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I never keep a loaded gun in the house but that night I may load at least one of them.

I'm still trying to see the logic of the riots. Is it that a McCain victory will cause black people to feel cheated? With the polls leaning toward Obama I could see some feeling that way. But that would be no reason to riot.

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 12:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

bunny, who entitled you to be "the decider"? I'm disappointed. Yesterday, I noticed you said "in my opinion" a couple of times. I see today you have returned to stating your opinion as irrefutable fact.

Some time ago, your response to one of my posts was "What do you know about SOX...Nothing".

Another example of willful ignorance....

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 12:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm praying, too. After reading the posts here, I have another prayer to add to my list: that we have no preemptive civil wars. I believe my ancient kin were suckered into fighting in one civil war - I do pray that we can contain our differences to civil verbal skirmishes.

Posted by emp (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 12:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Southernwoman, your latest posts sent shivers down my spine. I totally agree with you that civil war would be a terrible thing. We can disagree about everything but at the end of the day we are all Americans. We've shed enough of American blood by our own hands. I don't think my ancient kin were here at that time but they would have been caught up in it too. I'll be praying about that too.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 12:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Fact: Ronald Reagan lowered taxes, including lowering the top marginal rate from 70% to 28%. The Democrats screamed that this would throw us into a recession or even a depression. Instead, we began the longest period of peace time economic growth in the nations history, created 20 million new jobs, and in the process doubled tax revenues to the Treasury.

Fact: The Democrats, particularly during the Clinton administration, changed the underwriting standards for mortgage lenders so that more people who didn't qualify and who couldn't pay for a mortgage could get one anyway. An example of the changes is that people could include government welfare payments and other assistance as income on their applications. Also during this time, the Clinton Justice Department forced lenders to give loans to people who didn't qualify, with the threat of government raids and stiff fines for those who didn't comply. As a result, we had an increased demand for homes that created an artificial inflation in home values. Fannie and Freddie were the worst offenders in the mess. When George Bush took office, he tried to address the problems at Fannie and Freddie but was stopped by the Democrats. He and Congressional Republicans tried again in each year of his two terms, only to be rebuked by the Democrats each time. Even after Alan Greenspan predicted in 2005 the crisis we are in now, the Democrats blocked all efforts to address the problem.

So when home values started to plummet due to the large number of defaults and the resultant glut of houses on the market, the banks and investment firms were left holding the bag and the economy went into the tail spin we find ourselves in now.

So, thanks to the Democrats, we now find ourselves in the worst economic crisis since the Depression. Government interference in the private markets caused the mess, and now Obama and the other libs want to ride in and save us from a problem they created by injecting even more government. Brilliant.

Posted by emp (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 12:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

kmbjd40, my opinion is the same as yours but where do we go from here? McCain was part of the problem too.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 1 p.m. (Suggest removal)

McCain co-sponsored legislation in 2005 to address the problem, but the Democrats killed it, while at the same time they were raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars from Fannie and Freddie in campaign contributions.

We need to break up and privatize Fannie and Freddie for a start and let the market correct itself, just like it always does. The govenment needs to butt out. They are the problem.

Posted by emp (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 1:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree smaller federal government is needed. But McCain was a part of this huge bailout plan. Don't get me wrong, I think McCain is the best choice we have but he isn't exactly conservative.

We can do like Rush said and "drag McCain across the finish line" and then start putting things back together. But how can we do that if Obama wins? Has any country ever successfully come back from socialism?

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 1:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

southernwoman...give me a break, I was stating fact and not opinion.
What am I the "decider" of?

Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 1:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't think anyone has to worry. I truely believe Obama will win - don't want him to and won't vote for him. Generally speaking Republicans don't riot or get angry if they lose. They just gear up for next time.

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 1:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"southernwoman...give me a break, I was stating fact and not opinion.
What am I the "decider" of?"

All things, bunny, all things.

Posted by emp (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 1:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

freedom, I'm not so sure about Obama winning. The polls are close and I think the Bradley effect will have its way. Either way, its going to be close. We may not be sure of the winner on the night of the election.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well golly southernwomen, I wish I knew I had that kind of power, we wouldn't be in this mess because we'd be living in a free market society. Sorry I guess it's my fault for not deciding.

freedom, historically there have been a lot of Presidents elected regardless of what the polls say. I never expected W. to win 4 years ago but he did. We won't know until the 4th, or maybe several weeks after the lawsuits begin.

Posted by emp (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 1:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Can you imagine the tension of not knowing who won for months? Oh, wait. We did that in 2000.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 1:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah, try living in Florida at that time. It was horrible but they are already predicating problems. I'm sure there will be voters griping that they were disenfranchised because they had to wait in line..etc. etc. etc. blah blah blah

Posted by emp (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 1:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm disenfranchised too. Golda Ensminger only let me vote once. Some people in Ohio got to vote several times.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 1:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

LOL...I think there will be a lot of that going on...

Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 1:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I hate to say it, I don't want it but I'm afraid obama is going to win . He has too many liberals on his side,too many miniorities on his side,too many organizatons like Acorn and too many bankers and crooked insurance companies and crooked politicians and too much Hollywood money . We will have a European type goverment and we will loose so much of what we have enjoyed as Americans . Our days of the land of opportunity will be over . We will not be the land of the free and the brave for a long long time,if ever . We will be a socialist country with the haves and the have nots . We will have wars fought right in our own backyards . We will not be respected by other countries and we will not be able to help our fellow man in time of need . Yes my friends ,you really should be careful of what you want , you just might get it .

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Sorry I guess it's my fault for not deciding."

bunny, I'm just sayin' your power of persuasion would be enhanced if you did not presume to know more about what I know than my employer does.

And I'm just sayin', in my opinion, when you state, as a fact, that Frank & Dodd are totally responsible for this mess we're in, you've lost your credibility with me. Scapegoats are necessary when we are victims of willfull ignorance.

If we lived in a pure "free market society" I could be an insurance company, with no backup capital. I could hire one of those sweet-smelling AIG executives and we could make us some money.

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 2:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"I don't think anyone has to worry. I truely believe Obama will win - don't want him to and won't vote for him. Generally speaking Republicans don't riot or get angry if they lose. They just gear up for next time"

As far as gearing up for next time goes, I'll gear up after I see what happens during the next four years and decide then which party's nominee I believe, in my gut, would be the best man for the job.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

huh??? "bunny, I'm just sayin' your power of persuasion would be enhanced if you did not presume to know more about what I know than my employer does."

I did not say they were totally responsible, read my post.

Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't feel well ! I think it has something to do with election coming up real soon ! I will somehow make it up the stairs to vote for my man , McCain ! You are right southern woman We will just gear up for next time ! After all ,its not whether you get knocked down, it's whether you get up .

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well I am to young to have lived through it as an adult, but if Obama is elected, be prepared for double digit mortgage rates, heavy inflation, heavy unemployment, it's going to be bad.
The upside is that if we survive the worst economic disaster ever...we can blame it ALL on the democratic President and Congress.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 2:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Carter years...relived!

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 2:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"huh??? "bunny, I'm just sayin' your power of persuasion would be enhanced if you did not presume to know more about what I know than my employer does."

bunny, as stated earlier, this is my ref.:

Some time ago, your response to one of my posts was "What do you know about SOX?...Nothing".

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 2:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I still do not know what you mean? Who is your employer and what do they have anything to do with it?

Posted by rattlesnake (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 3:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barack Obama's Ten Point Plan To "Change" The Second Amendment

1) Ban use of firearms for home defense.
2) Pass Federal laws eliminating your Right-to -Carry.
3) Ban the manufacture,sale and possession of handguns.
4) Close down 90%of the gun shops in America.
5) Ban rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.
6) Increase federal taxes on guns and ammunition by 500 percent.
7) Restore voting rights for five million criminals including those who have been convicted of using a gun to commit a violent crime.
8) Expand the Clinton semi-auto ban to include millions more firearms.
9) Mandate a government-issued license to purchase a firearm.
10) Appoint judges to the U.S, Supreme Court and Federal judiciary who share his views on the Second Amendment.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 3:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

rattlesnake you have got to be one dumb fool whose children even look down on him.

Do you lie about everything to get your way or is this exception for you?

OH wait a minute -- if you did lie you would say you didn't, and if you didn't lie you would say you didn't -- so by producing a list of lies we would be stupid to believe anything you said.

Further, it looks like you might need a gun to do business with folks.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Generally speaking Republicans don't riot or get angry if they lose."

That is bull. Republicans STAY mad all the time at folks if they do not control them and constantly blame others when they do something wrong.

Yes, also, conservative extremists do tend to assassinate leaders they don't like, both at home an abroad. It is not without reason that so many mention casually the possibility Obama could be assassinated. The people that hate him have a history of violent reaction. I think we should have had Hillary for VP.

That way it would be Obama, Hillary, and Nancy Pelosi, and they all might be safe.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 3:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

southernwoman -- notice how bunny feels entitled to pronounce you know nothing about SOX despite not knowing anything about you?

Conservative ENTITLEMENT. She feels entitled to act that way. She is a conservative -- they own everything including knowledge. For many of them, that's why they picked being conservative, because they certainly didn't work their way to wisdom.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 3:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't think Obama needs to start picking paint colors for the White House just yet. The AP poll has the race at 1%, 44-43, the IBD poll has it at 3%, the Battleground poll has is at 2%, and the state polls are all tightening. McCain has pulled back into the lead in Florida, is tied or ahead in Ohio and Nevada, cut Obama's lead in Virginia from 8% to 2%, and according to Obama's own internal poll, has pulled to within 2% in Pennsylvania, which many considered a sure Obama state.

Keep in mind that in every Presidential election since 1976, the polls have overestimated the Democrat nominees support by anywhere from 6-15%.

As to the gun issue, Obama supported a bill in the Illinois legislature in 2003 that would have criminalized any homeowner who used a firearm in their own home to defend themself against an intruder.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 3:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh yeah, and he also supported the DC handgun ban that the supreme court struck down. Can't forget that one.

But I suppose I'm lying, even though this is all part of the public record.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 3:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Southerwoman YOU ROCK! your definition of willful ignorance:

"The practice or act of intentional and blatant avoidance, disregard or disagreement with facts, empirical evidence and well-founded arguements because they oppose or contradict your own existing personal beliefs.

This practice is most commonly found in the political or religious ideologies of "conservative" Americans.

Many times it is practiced due to laziness--people not wanting to have to do the work to rethink their opinions, the fear of the unknown, the fear of being wrong, or sometimes simply close-mindedness."

The reason I was once a conservative but now am not -- I got tired of pretending to respect the views of people -- friends -- who could not re-examine an issue in light of new facts.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 3:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No k3342 that one is history. But some of the rest of what you say is lies -- like that one I corrected you on about abortion.

You keep it in mind you are prone to lie and you can lick the habit! He,he!

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhuh, I'm sorry but I didn't lie about the abortion issue and the Freedom of Choice Act, and you most certainly didn't correct anything. I wrote a post after reading yours to point out where you were wrong. Guess you missed it.

And I would love to know what else you think I've lied about. You like to throw that term around but very seldom do you back it up. Whenever I post on this site my information is factually correct. In fact, when I do point out the facts, you seem to lose control of yourself and start with the insults. It's almost as if you are 'willfully ignorant.' Kinda like Obama today when he lied and said that Biden meant that "whoever" is elected President will face a crisis in their first six months, even though Biden is on tape at two separate events saying OBAMA will "be tested" with an international crisis.

Posted by rattlesnake (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 3:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

yeanono I have read a lot of your comments and I have never stooped so low as to call you names even if you have been so rude,crude and incredably stupid you tiny little piece of crap. My information came from the N.R.A. While you set in your dream world and spew your crap.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 4:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, sport if you print lies you get from someone else I will call you names. Better vett what you read.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 4:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

kmbjd -- OK let's have a reprint then -- I believe you said something to link Obama and the bill you mentioned to a 37 week abortion being legal. You are saying that a fetus at 9 months and a week would be subject to abortion.

And I cited a passage from the text of the bill that limited the right to abortion to viability which is much lower than 37 weeks.

Fire away.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 4:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhuh, again, please tell me specifically what I've lied about. If I've been incorrect about anything, I would most certainly like the opportunity to correct it.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 4:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The bill states prior to viability in all cases, and after the viability date in cases where the mothers life or health are at risk. That includes anything up to 40 weeks.

Unfortunately for the poor babies, liberals have a very loose definition of a "threat to the life or health of the mother."

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And keep in mind that this bill came about because the Supreme Court upheld the ban on partial-birth abortion, a procedure used after the date of viability. If not for the Supreme Court ruling, the bill would be unneccessary.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 4:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Check this link if you want more information:

www.nrlc.org/FOCA/index.html

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 4:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

kmbjd -- Yes the Obama spin on the Biden comment is the equivalent to a correction from the boss -- it is true what Biden said, and it is true what Obama said about McCain the blustering POW being just as likely to be tested. But technically that was not what Biden was saying at the moment, even though if asked he would probably have just as easily said McCain also would be tested. That runs counter to the McCain lie that Biden's statement was an admittance that McCain is stronger and a that Biden was calling up an attack.

Luckily VP candidates honesty has been brought to a new low by Sarah Palin. We will have to accept Biden's honest comment and have to accept that when it was spun by McCain as something it wasn't that the Obama camp corrected that even further. Looking for a lie in that is a bit stupid don't you think?

Remember we don't accept like you do that everyone lies so you can say what you want. We recognize who lies the most and who lies because they HAVE to to win as condemning factors. All politicians lie. But the weak ones HAVE to.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 4:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SEC. 4. INTERFERENCE WITH REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH PROHIBITED.

(a) Statement of Policy- It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.

________________

What that means is that your paraphrase of a 37 week mutilation being OK with Obama or any of the signatories is an untruth.

Why is it every time I request a source from you stooges that on the very page you cited is proof that you don't watch your mouth when you guys speak?

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 4:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Your last post is exactly why libs have no credibility. Even when their is indisputable proof that one of your candidates has lied, you deny it anyway. Why can't you just admit it? People would have more respect for you.

I've heard both of Biden's comments and it is clear that he was stating that Obama would be tested, because he's young and unknown, like Kennedy.

And you keep saying McCain and Palin are lying. What are they lying about? Please point out these lies for all of us.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 4:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhuh, do you know what a partial-birth abortion is? Do you know exactly what that procedure entails? It's exactly as I described it. It's gruesome, I know. It must be sobering to you that your candidate supports the wholesale murder of unborn infants in such a heinous way, but the facts are the facts. The example I used of a mother at 37 weeks gestation is a real one. But lets say the baby was at 30 weeks of development. Does that make the procedure any less gruesome and disturbing? I think not.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 4:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Look up "intact dilation and extraction." This is what your vaunted libs want to protect. And keep in mind that there is NEVER a circumstance where this procedure protects the life or health of a woman.

Posted by harjedalen (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 4:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Palin currently supervises a huge socialist program , with Alaska taxing the big oil companies and sending the checks out to the residents of Alaska who 'collectively' own the resources whether they work to earn them or not. And she has never took a stand against it even though she is excellently positioned to do so, as Governor.
Republicans live in an ideological dream world!!!

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 5:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Have any of you seen the column that states that socialist is code for black. So now calling Obama a socialist is racist.

Just so you are all in line with the PC police, I'll list all the other words that liberals consider code for black, and therefore racist: Hussein, tax increase, Marxist, it, they, you, me, sure, lose, win (if used in reference to an Obama opponent), the, up, down, polls...

Oh forget it, there's just too many to list.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 5:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Unless I am mistaken, you have blurred subjects, kmbjd.

The elective abortion rights espoused in H. R. 1964 was one of the things you mentioned. It is the essential act that is being sought by pro-choice advocates. You should really read it.

Under prohibition of interference note that only in cases of the health of the mother is later term abortion reserved as a woman's right. You are wrong on your statement that Intact d+e is NEVER protective of a woman's life, although the only reason your statement might be partially true is that the fetus is killed by injection or laceration BEFORE the removal. However humane that is. I do not deign to argue for the procedure's medical benefits but I will say that your use of it to define the legal desires of those who support HR 1964 is disingenuous.

Regarding a vote by Senator Obama on a partial birth bill that reserved rights to treatment of infants, Obama explained his vote against the bill was to kill a bill that was essentially only a posturing to anti-choice advocates -- a political posturing -- that the rights to treatment were already reserved under existing law for the children who might survive that procedure. That entire issue is a non-issue trumped up by nuts to slur Obama.

Although an extreme procedure, there are some states that prohibited that procedure but allowed the fetus to be killed by injection at even later dates -- the only difference being whether the fetus child is killed before the removal or in the process of removal.

If the HR 1964 bill were passed it contains a tacit limitation to the term of viability of the infant -- generally considered sometimes around 24 weeks. Actually this bill could provide the framework for making illegal all optional abortions after that period -- which is far more humane than what is allowed in some states at present. Perhaps you might consider supporting the bill in an effort to protect infants in late term if that is your real aim.

SEC. 4. INTERFERENCE WITH REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH PROHIBITED.

(a) Statement of Policy- It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.

(b) Prohibition of Interference- A government may not--
(1) deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose--
(A) to bear a child;
(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or
(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman;

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 5:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

kmbdj3122 -- PC jokes don't work on us. We know how blacks morphed into "bussing" then "welfare" then "socialism" and we know perfectly well who the welfare queens are that you guys are talking about when the word "Cadillac" is in a sentence with "welfare".

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 6:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhuh, since you keep referencing section 4c, perhaps you should read it. That is the critical language. A threat to a woman's health can be defined any way they want to define it.

You still don't get it. This bill was written solely because of the partial-birth abortion ban. In other words, the intact dilation and evacuation procedure. That was the reason the libs proposed it, to strike down the ban.

And let me reiterate, this procedure is never, under any circumstance, an appropriate procedure to protect the health or life of a mother. Let me just say that my professional background gives me unique insight into this matter, so you might want to reconsider debating me on this point.

Why don't you go back and read the articles in my link.

As to the bill in Illinois, Obama is lying. He stated at the time that he would vote for the bill in question if it contained the same language as the Federal bill. It did. He voted against it anyway. Obama's explanation for the vote is complete BS. The only one doing any posturing was him. If the bill didn't matter because the law was on the books, it wouldn't have mattered if he voted yes or no. However, it is good to see that he voted yes or no on SOMETHING in Illinois, instead of present.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 6:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And I have never used the phrase "welfare queens" in any context. Race is irrellevent as far as I'm concerned. The only people who keep bringing race up are you libs, the Obama campaign, and the media.

I'm voting against Obama because he is a closet socialist, most likely a Marxist judging by the people he associates with, extremely liberal at the very least, and completely unqualified for the job he's trying to win. If he were white it wouldn't change a thing.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 7:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If anybody wants to get some real insight into what an Obama presidency would be like, and the tremedous media bias in this campaign, you should read the article in the New York Post by Kirsten Powers. You can find the link at www.realclearpolitics.com

Keep in mind as you read it that Powers is a Democrat and Obama supporter. The article is titled Biden's Bungles.

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 7:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

On abortion: if we have laws on the books against abortion, how will they be enforced?

Coathangers and butchers were used in the past, before abortion became legal, by those who did not have the money and/or know the right "good" doctor to see for an abortion.

I believe there were many illegal abortions performed by "good" doctors in the name of necessary d&cs when a woman spoke the right code and had the right kind of money.

Oddly, I don't see as many of the Downs Syndrome children or deformed children today as I have in the past. Are they being aborted? By whom? Only women who belong to the Democratic party?

I think not.

Posted by Dilbert (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 7:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I wonder if it is "willful ignorance" that as of this morning there have been 4 lawsuits filled to dispute Obama's being a US Citizen. He was asked to provide a certified copy of his birth certificate, he said No. He has been asked to provide college papers, he said No. He is under a court order to provide them and he still says No. Why? Why won't he provide a copy of his birth certificate? If he was born in Hawaii like he said, what is the big deal? What is he hiding?

The Certificate of Live Birth that he provided has been called phony
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBgkDSw-w...
and even the Democratic spokeswoman who is for Obama and from Hawaii has said the COLB that Obama provided can't be determined to be real or not.

I wonder if it is "willful ignorance" that Obama is going to visit his sick grandmother on Thursday which just so happens to be the day the Court in Hawaii will hold a hearing to determine weather or not to release his records.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 7:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

kmbjd40...Obama isn't a "closet socialist"...he IS a socialist...he admitted to "Joe the Plumber" that he wanted to, "...spread the wealth...". He admitted that as a younger man he was intrigued with Marxism and went to functions that featured Marxist and Socialist speakers. He associates with the self-proclaimed communist/anarchist William Ayers and considers Stokely Carmichael as a role model...he says he wants to increase taxes on anyone who is successful enough to make $250,000.00/yr so that he can give it away to people who don't work...he wants to nationalize healthcare...there are so many other examples that he has given himself.

No, Obama IS a socialist and it's one of the few things that he and his minions haven't lied about. I still don't understand why you still argue with small, insignificant, buzzing insects like gnats...it's a waste of your time and considerable talents....bzzz, SWAT!

Posted by harjedalen (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 4:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If you are making less than $250,000 a year now, vote for Obama. His tax relief will help you to save up to buy a business and then when you make $250,000 a year after however many more years, then go vote for a Mccain type candidate. I think us making less than $250,000 a year taxable income have the votes and thats what counts in a democratic election!
MMMMMMMMMM, I can't wait for my big fat Wealth spread sandwich!!!!!

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 8:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

kndjb -- we are at the point where you have no substance to your abortion debate.

If you insist that the bill you referenced was written entirely over the partial-birth procedure then you have got to be one lame twit. And the rest of what you say is too conveniently twisted to one side of politics and you have no operatives there except the ones that have shown themselves to be totally untrustworthy. The country, watching your choice, is condemning him for the same reasons I do.

I have watched for a great many years as Republican stooges have lied on one "patriotic" topic after another to seize power and run this country into the ground. It doesn't matter what you say anymore. People like you have created people like me -- and my side is going to take the country back.

The degree of intransigence I see in you will determine the regard I have for your positions. Right now that equals total disregard for your position. You need to be taught not to lie to yourself or to people with whom you profess to cooperate. Perhaps the first step is to recognize that the politicians you trust are untrustworthy, even if you had a point that could prevail on it's own merits.

Like most conservative types you are not ENTITLED to what you demand. So if I was once a person who thought 2 parties checking and balancing one another was best, I now have come because of people like you to see that stomping the guts out of the other side is probably best right now. You have convinced me of that. Congratulations.

NO MORE REPUBLICANS. Period.

Posted by allsmiles (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 8:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I have a question. I'm registered a Democrat, but right now am confused on who I want to vote for. Everyone says that Mcain is the lesser of two evils, I really would like to vote for Obama but the only thing holding me back is his Muslim background. I keep getting these emails about the anti-christ and Bible scripture saying it will be a man of Muslim descent and he will be a smooth talker and everyone will flock to him. Does anyone have any thing to say about Obama's Muslim background and where he stands? I know he professes to be a Christian. I'm just not sure.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 8:23 a.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 8:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

allsmiles, Obama is a christian, if you call Rev. Wright's preaching christianity that is. He did attend Muslim churchs and schools sporadically as a child but he is not technically a Muslim. Also, Hussein is a name given only to Muslims.

What you should concern yourself with are the folks he associates with and the scary groups that support him. You should also look at the numerous lies he has told.

Posted by aak1972 (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama is the anti-christ!!

Posted by allsmiles (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 8:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you happybunny, that is something to consider.

Posted by inocentbystandr (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 8:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

For you allsmiles
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0408/pi...

Posted by allsmiles (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 8:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This paragraph taken from the website from www.jewishworldreview.com

"Obama's having been born and raised a Muslim and having left the faith to become a Christian make him neither more nor less qualified to become president of the United States. But if he was born and raised a Muslim and is now hiding that fact, this points to a major deceit, a fundamental misrepresentation about himself that has profound implications about his character and his suitability as president."

WOW, that's scary

Posted by allsmiles (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 8:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I do not in anyway believe Rev. Wright's preaching to be christianity. He obviously does not preach from God's Holy Word, the Bible.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 8:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Exactly, he lies and when he gets caught he spins it. You cannot believe a word he says.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with you allsmiles. It's scary that he and his family attended that church of hatred for 20 years.

Posted by 2008 (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dear Allsmiles

Please do your homework and don't rely on this website to give you the answers, Obama is not a Muslim, nor is he the antichrist. Too many people are still accepting of ridiculous rhetoric based on ½ truths, misconceptions and downright lies spread by ignorance. Even when able to prove these allegations incorrect the few right wing fringe fanatics will still argue their point into oblivion.

Please accept these smear tactics for what they are...The McCain campaign is desparate...and the complete ignorance and unsubstantiated ridicule from their supporters shows just how dangerous these people are by trying to scare voters. I mean really, accusing Obama of being the antichrist that is so over the top I can't believe any educated "think for yourself person" would even consider that opinion. Please get off this blog and do your reserch on the issues. Maybe your first intuition was correct.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 9:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am a McCain supporter and I stated that he was not technically a Muslim.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

2008 I like allsmiles are offended by Reverand Wright and his hatemongering gospel. I am also offended by Bill Ayers and his anti-American views and past actions. I am offended by ACORN and the fact the Obama gave them $800K. I am offended by the fact that Obama ruined Joe the plumber's life because he asked him a question. I am offended by Obama's arrogance. I am terrified by his lack of foreign policy experience, and the fact that he wants to demilitarize the US just at the time when Biden promises he will be tested. I am offended that he wants to spread the wealth. I am terrified that he will put this economy spiralling downward to depression. The list is neverending.

Posted by aak1972 (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 9:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

2008 can you prove he is not the anti-christ?

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 9:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10202008/new...

This is despicable!

Posted by allsmiles (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

2008, I like getting everyones opinions on this matter, so I will do my research where I please. If you would not be so rude and ask me to get off this blog. Have I offended?

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

aak1972 Good question, I do not think he can.

And allsmiles, just ignore 2008. It's refreshing to see someone doing their research this late in the game.

Posted by CoolChief (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I remember shooting a lotta spitballs in jr high civics. During this fun I remember learning about our govt with all its checks and balances in place to produce a balanced govt. This is there to minimize the chance of having one type of idiology or group of people from taking over the whole govt. If one group or parties takes over most of the govt what does the country get? A Gen-u-ine screwing. Bush Jr proved that an all republican govt (president, house, senate)can sure stir up some trouble for us and others.
We still dont understood that yet cause we forgot about the ole civics lesson. Now everyones excited about a democratic president coming in with a democratic sentate and house.
A blank check for the new democratic pres to do as he pleases. Sounds to me like another gen-u-ine screwing, just in another way. How about some common sense and balance in govt. Im not democrat or republican, those titles are there to confuse people. Its like saying im a chevy man and my chevy vega is the best car ever made.
Im AMERICAN. Hows that?
When your govt gets taken over by one or the other and falls outta balance, get ready for a gen-u-ine.

Posted by allsmiles (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 9:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

These are the emails I've been getting. Not saying I believe everything here, but this is what's circulating.

CAN MUSLIMS BE GOOD AMERICANS?

This is very interesting and we all need to read it from Start to Finish and send it on to anyone who will read it. Maybe this is why our American Muslims are so quiet and not speaking out about any atrocities. Can a good Muslim be a good American? This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years. The following is his reply:

Theologically - no. .. . . Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon God of Arabia .

Religiously - no. . . Because no other religion is accepted by His Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)(Koran)

Scripturally - no. .. . Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.

Geographically - no .. Because his allegiance is to Mecca , to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

Socially - no. . . Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews .

Politically - no. . .. Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America , the great Satan.

Domestically - no. .. . Because he is instructed to marry four Women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34)

Intellectually - no. . Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.

Philosophically - no. . . . Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran does not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Spiritually - no. . .. Because when we declare 'one nation under God,' the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.

Therefore, after much study and deliberation....

Perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. - - - They obviously cannot be both 'good' Muslims and good Americans.

Call it what you wish it's still the truth. You had better believe it. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future. The religious war is bigger than we know or understand . . ..

And Barack Hussein Obama, a Muslim, wants to be our President? You have GOT to be kidding! Wake up America !

Obama even says if he wins the election, he will be sworn in on the Quran---not a Bible!

Footnote: He was sworn in on the Quran for his current office and he refuses to pledge allegiance to the United States or put his hand over his heart when the National Anthem is played! The Muslims have said they will destroy us from within. Hello! Having a Muslim president would seem to fit the bill! Will you trust this man with our national secrets?

SO FREEDOM IS NOT FREE.

THE MARINES WANT THIS TO ROLL ALL OVER THE U.S.

Posted by Dilbert (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 9:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In 2002 Ayers stated he was a Marxist and believed in Anarchy. This is the time when Obama was working with the Woods Group with Ayers. Obama was not 8 years old at this time. His "he is just some guy in the neighborhood" is totally false, a lie if you will.

In the debate with Hilary Clinton, Hilary called him out about Rezko. Obama gave some spin off that he was working at some organization that did a couple hours legal work for this person (he would not state his name) and that was all it was to that. This is also totally false, a lie if you will. Google it, it will show you Rezko was one of his largest donor's. Rezko thru him fundraisers. Rezko helped with his house. Rezko bought the property next to his house and then later sold it to Obama. Obama also lied about this relationship.

Ever heard of Raila Odinga? The radical Socialist from Kenya that ran for President of Kenya, lost and started a war in the streets. Obama was in Kenya supporting his bid to be President. He was still supporting him in 2007.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8QcpdUtx...

Ever heard of Khalid Al-Mansour? Google him. Extreme radical. Tied to people all over the Middle East. Google it, find out about him and how he is tied to Obama.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8npeYfKI_...

If John McCain had been tied to someone who bombed abortion clinics, his political life would be over. Obama is getting a pass from most of the press with Ayers. If McCain had been tied to people like Khalid, Odinga, Farakhan, Wright and so many more, his political career would be over, Obama gets a pass.

Now the whole thing with his birth certificate. He is under a court order to produce his long form BC and he has flat said No. He claims the person requesting it, doesn't have the right to see it. Shouldn't anyone running for POTUS have to prove before he can even run for POTUS that he is eligible for that office?

There are just wayyyyy too many questions about Obama that he refuses to answer, or if he answers he flat lies about it. He acts like nobody surf's the internet. Thank goodness Al Gore invented it.

Posted by RobinBrownHayes (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am so amazed at the level of ignorance of some of the posts on here. I am a better person than to call names just because someone doesn't agree with my opinion, or sees a FACT differently than I do. I am so glad that I can be a better person than that. Unfortunately all of the hatefulness is coming from who I see as being democrats. I am a registered democrat, always have been, always will be but my choice of which candidate I vote for shouldn't call me to the bottom of the barrel in my actions. And just because the democrats made a mistake on their nomination doesn't mean we won't wise up a few years into the term. Whichever person gets the job will be going into what I would consider HELL. A good job cannot be done. Grow Up people. Don't get so stressed about something you really can't control. Do what you can and drop it. Democrats for McCain-Palin. (Doesn't make me a bad, stupid, dumb, ignorant, etc. person)

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 9:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Have you listened to ALL of any of Rev. Wright's sermons, allsmiles?

I once thought his quotes were scary, then I listened to his sermons and they in context are just fine. I realized that the people who took the quotes out of context were actually MORE scary.

The site you mentioned and I visited certainly seems to have a stake in Muslim-baiting. They remind me of so many of the rednecks I have known who considered Jews and their defenders in the Anti-Defamation League to be the murderers of Christ, and the hopeless spawn of the Devil. Not my opinion but a popular one worldwide.

Too many Jews hate Muslims and too many Muslims hate Jews -- taking sides with either group should not be necessary, but in today's world if anyone wants peace -- well there are 2,100,000,000 Christians, 1,500,000,000 Muslims, and only 14,000,000 Jews -- Judaism and it's political causes are in decline in this country and I am afraid they are outvoted if they don't develop the ability to get along with the rest of the world.

We would be better suited to have a president that specialized in getting along with Muslims than with Jews if our security is a real concern and we MUST make a choice.

You seem to want us to make that choice -- Obama says we should not have to. I'm with him on this.

Posted by RobinBrownHayes (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 9:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Great Post CoolChief!!!!!!!! I agree 100%!!
Seems I remember some spitballs flying in my classes too.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree Robin, CoolChief has an excellent point. So many people fail to realize how important the Congressional candidates are.

Posted by CoolChief (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 10:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

They were not democratic spitballs
They were not republican spitballs
Just plain ole AMERICAN spitballs

Posted by whiterabbit (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually, the constitutional checks and balances have nothing to do with political parties since the Constitution does not mention political parties. The first parties, in fact, were considered factions rather than a loyal opposition. Checks and balances were created to prevent any one branch--executive, legislative, or judicial--from gaining a tyranny over the others. As James Madison put it: "ambition must be made to counteract ambition." To the extent that parties do act as checks upon each other, that seems to have been a deliberate and fairly recent decision by the voters to split their tickets and vote for members of different parties for the excutive and and legislature. That practice may be far more prevalent now than earlier in the history of the republic.

Posted by allsmiles (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You all have very good points. Thanks for all your insight, but I'm still as confused as I was before. I've never been this conused about who I would vote for. I would have voted for Hilary, and she supports Obama hands down.

Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 10:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Allsmiles--Hillary supports Obama because she has to. She still wants to be president. She doesn't want to be seen as a distraction or a traitor to her Party.

It has been argued that she would like Obama to lose so that she can make a run at the White House in 2012.

Posted by CoolChief (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hilary supports obama because they are both members of the ford pinto club, or is it the chevy vega club? Anyhoo, If she didnt support him, she would be out of the club and would have to drive a piece of crap.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 10:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hillary supports Obama with her jaw clenched and fingers crossed behind her back. She wants to run in 2012 and must save face with her party. Unlike Lieberman, who was railroaded out of the Democratic party because he supported McCain.
allsmiles, another consideration is that McCain is an extremely liberal Republican vs. Obama who is as far left as they come.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

allsmiles if you would have voted for Hillary you should feel OK about Obama. Their policies are essentially identical and Obama is actually a bit less extreme in some ways.

There will be no Muslim takeover of this country, and we would do better to get along with them than fight them constantly.

As long as we have to kill any of them to get our way we will be fueling their enrollment into radical groups.

I once liked McCain but he has changed too much. He seems to only value conflict and to have nothing to offer for either peace or economic security but the last things his party used.

I am curious though about how you got on so many Muslim-baiting email lists.

Posted by naturegirl (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you CoolChief and whiterabbit. Your posts made excellent points in the midst of this name calling free-for-all. Keep thinking and learning.
McCain/Palin in '08

Posted by 2008 (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Allsmiles: My intent was to try and direct you to think for yourself, with an open mind and do research on unbiased websites that will give you correct information about your questions. I am an Independent, not registered Democrat or Republican. I have spent months researching both candidates and their stand on the issues. Each of us has our personal reasons for voting our own conscious, whether I agree or not with your reasons I respect them. Who ever becomes President, he will be taking on more problems than we can even imagine, and yes we will all have to suck it up and move forward... Good luck on your research. That being said, we should all be voting on the issues.

As far as aak47 and his statement about Obama being the antichrist, well I will just have to ask you to prove it to me. Show me an unbiased source that unequivocally has PROOF that this statement is true, show me documentation that Obama by name is the antichrist. And don’t say the Bible because Obama’s name is nowhere in the Bible as the antichrist.

Posted by allsmiles (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

naturegirl, I don't see why your saying "name calling free-for-all" would you care to elaborate?

Yeahuhuh, I'm not on any email list, just friends forwarding emails they get about Obama and McCain.

I've watched the last few debates between these two, and clearly Obama comes out the winner as far as I'm concerned. I just hope and pray he stands by what he says. I know all politicians will lie and say what they have to say to get your vote. I guess that's a chance we take.

Posted by RobinBrownHayes (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh and by the way is anyone going to the event in Chicago, election night? It's a 6 million dollar event. Should be interesting. Share the wealth!!!!!! My husband is working in Chicago right now and from all I've heard on the news up there it's gonna be a big one. I wonder where the funds came from. LOL!

Posted by allsmiles (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I appreciate your post 2008. I probably will not make up my mind until I get to the polls, have the ballot in front of me.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama is a very elequent speaker and McCain is not, however I don't think that qualifies him to be President.

Posted by RobinBrownHayes (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

allsmiles, I think naturegirl was responding to my post. If you read all (or as much as you can stand) of the posts you'll see what we are talking about.

Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah huh , if you don't like conflict,what in heavens name are you doing being an obama supporter ? He and his canpaign has done nothing but sent up red flags that are extremely conflicting . As far as an Americans choice of religion goes ,isn't that one of the things this country was founded upon ? I have no problem with another persons religious beliefs . I have a bigger problem with obamas stance on abortion ,gun contol , higher and more taxes ,more government spending,socialism, communism,and downright lies to get where he is today . I question his character . I question his wife. I question his friends and so called acquaintances . I don't want such a questionable character with so much control over our country . I can't and I will not vote for him ! McCain/Palin 2008'

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think the sentiment that Hillary supports Obama because she has to is simply wrong, even though she does have to and feels that she could do just as well being president.

Her policies are almost identical to Obama's -- he is simply more respected than she is -- as crazy as that might sound. I personally could listen to him a lot longer than I could listen to Hillary.

Every Republican I have listened to about Hillary deals with what they see as her personality flaws and not her policies. Yet she did not get to where she is without paying attention to policies.

So it's not surprising when a Republican supporter casts her motives as trite -- it is a put-down based on their own feeling more than it is on Hillary's feelings.

I once told a group of fat old men who were dissing on Hillary before she was a senator that they were all just jealous because by every yardstick we could apply except one that she was a better man than they were and had made more of her life.

They looked at me like I was a communist except one, who after a moment of everyone's silence said, "Well I guess he's actually right about that!"

Posted by aak1972 (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

2008, the antichrist is not named in the Bible. But you have you not read Revelations, Daniel, or Ezekial. Im just sayn there are more similarities in what the Bible says the antichrist will be and Obama than I have time to get into. Read for yourself. There is no way you can be a Christian and read these books of the Bible and not have concerns. This is gonna happen the antichrist will appear and will be full of deception. The Bible says the generation that sees Israel become a nation will not pass before the rise of the antichrist. The Bible gives a man 70 years. Israel became a nation in 1948. That means the generation that saw Israel become a nation will pass by 2018. This is gonna happen,like it or not.

Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 11:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I believe you ,aak1972

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

southernbelle, your postion has always seemed to rest on a supposition that Obama is dishonest, scary, shady and untrustworthy. But your desires in policy are out of the mainstream and would predispose you to feel that way even if Obama were a 100% honest saint.

Much if not most of the country already disagrees with you. Most people are offended at what Republicans have done for years, and are now even more offended at McCain's choice of VP.

I don't think discourse between us will prove fruitful. Vote how you will.

Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 11:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Whether or not obama is the anti-christ we should all treat everybody as if it will be the last time we will see them . With kindness and love . We never know when it will be our last day on earth or theirs! I always taught my children if someone treats you unkind or you see something in them that just doesn't sit right,then as hard as it may be, try to use that as a lesson not to do those offensive things . Sometimes I fail at following my own advice . The name calling gets us nowhere .

Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I assume nothing !

Posted by CoolChief (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 11:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A person doesnt get to be president without having a lot of important-rich unknowns pulling stings spending money and putting them up on the podium. Who are the faces that are behind be face? What are their motives?

I remembering asking myself questions when the jena controversy was going on, "Why here, why now, whats going on for this to get so outta hand? I remember it later came to me when i thought "This has nothing to do with those high school students, Whats the deal? Is Jessie Jackson running for president again?" Barak WHo? Wow, turns out i was pretty close in figuring it out.
Who is really pulling these guys strings( obama or mccain), who is the real face behind the face we see on television? Is it good or bad, is it American ? Think about it. You cant raise all that money and get there these days without owing some sort of payback to someone.
What motivates you?

Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 12:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Good questions,CoolChief. We had better pay attention BEFORE Nov.4th !

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama's campaign financing has been another mystery shrouded in questionable contributions.
Remember all the contributions he received from the middle East?

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barack has some of my money. What motivates me?

I do not excuse the Republican Party for their betrayal of everyone for the last 8 years, nor do I accept their constant blame laying elsewhere.

It is time for them to sit out a while.

As far as their warnings about socialism and muslim threats? Calling Democrats socialists has been standard Republican practice since Nixon. Trent Lott did it at the Neshoba County Fair against Kerry, and it is standard practice. Throwing up last minute stories about Democrats' unAmerican motives is what they use to win elections. History shows they will use it on heroes -- anyone who gets in their way.

I am tired of it. I don't think they deserve a place in government at all -- for a while. They are not yet repentant.

Posted by 2008 (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 12:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Please DO NOT assume I have not read the Bible or Revelations aak1972. I have been a student of Metaphysics for over 30+ years. However, I do agree with you we are fast approaching the end days.....But as I stated do not quote the Bible as your reference, we each in our own way can interpret the Bible as we EACH see fit. Show me the written verifiable proof of your accusation.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 12:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well I cannot afford to spread the wealth. We have a democratically controlled congress and the potential to elect a left wing President. This is the recipe for disaster!

What Obama fails to mention is that he will let the Bush tax cuts expire, essentially raising taxes, he will have to to pay for all his welfare aka tax cuts aka socialism.

I value my way of life to much to vote for Obama.

Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 12:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

NObama ! He is scarey or his administration in the White House is because he is the effect of a cause that will do away with everything this country has stood for.

Posted by Krogers (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 12:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

typical

the only ignorant, are those that are foolish enough to fall for Obama's socialistic madness

typical liberal- you run out of facts you go to mudslinging insults and churning up emotional ignorant masses

Posted by Krogers (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 12:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

the truth has slowly been uncovered about Obama

we all know the truth and goodness of McCain

but the dishonesty and UnAmerican past of Obama has been upuntilnow hidden by the media

those of us that are honest and will have an open mind about the truth

will vote McCain/Palin

Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 12:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The way I see it is, you've got the obama 's of the world on one side,the david dukes on the other and then you have people that are somewhere in the middle with McCain . I m in the middle . McCain/Palin2008'

Posted by Krogers (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 1 p.m. (Suggest removal)

McCain has been open and honest and about reform, against corruption for 40 yrs

we know him

I'm still trying to figure out Obama, but what I do know, I don't like

Have you heard of the NEW WORLD ORDER???

Obama and Biden have a secret agenda and that is part of it

Posted by aak1972 (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 1:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

2008, I dont have the time or energy to argue with a non-christian. The truth of the Bible and Metophysics arent in the same catergory.

Posted by naturegirl (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 1:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks Robin. Allsmiles needs to go back and look at all the remarks about the election for the past few weeks. That is one reason I don't post on here much. People go crazy, feelings run deep, and things are said that should be left unsaid. Coolchief check in with Enkinkur on the secret agenda and stuff. He knows more than anyone else about that.

Posted by Dilbert (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhuh posted: "Most people are offended at what Republicans have done for years, and are now even more offended at McCain's choice of VP"

How so? It has been well documented that she is more qualified to be President than Obama is. Palin has executive experience as a mayor and as a governor who oversees 24,000 state employees, 14 statewide cabinet agencies and a $10 billion budget to Barack Obama’s experience as a one-term junior senator. Explain to me please, how Obama is more qualified.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ybd7MUixx...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjGhy8LVw...

As far as choices for VP, have you heard the things Joe Biden has said? He even admitted at one time that Hilary would have been a better pick than he is. Or are you like the press and just give him a pass on the dumb things he says, because he is running with Obama?

Joe Biden said that when Obama was elected, he would be tested within 6 months. Twist it how you will, but go listen to it. He said Obama's name directly at least twice. It was not a general reference that the next POTUS would face trouble, but a direct point that if Obama wins, he would be tested. "Mark my words" NBC refuses to even show the full clip because it is negative to Obama. Good thing the media is so fair. Obama complained that if it were not for Fox news he would be up by 5 more points. I wonder how many he would be down by if CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC and all the other sources actually reported the all of the news instead of just the parts they want people to see. In an interview with Palin, she mentioned that if she were to have said that about McCain, it would be all over the news and the news person agreed with her.

Joe Biden makes up places he eats at. It would not surprise me that the guy he talked to at the gas station that couldn't fill up his tank, is someone he hasn't seen in 50 years or even if he is a real person. Joe Biden makes gaffes at EVERY event he is at. What do they call them? Bidenism's? But the media and you just brush them off and say that is old Joe for ya. Listening to his speeches it is like he is running for VP of Fantasy Island. But yet nobody goes after ol Joe, they continue to go after the Governor of the largest state in America who just by chance has the highest approval rating in of any Governor in America. Believe it or not, there is a reason Biden got so few votes during the primaries.

The news anchor that interviewed Newt couldn't do it; the State Senator of Texas who supports Obama couldn't do it, why don't you give it a try.

Posted by RobinBrownHayes (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 1:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

naturegirl, I have to say, back in the day when I was younger, (lol) I might would have hung with them. But "growing up" and realizing that worrying about things I have no control of only hurts me. I follow my Papa's thoughts on life; "Don't struggle, Just Float". He told me that on more than one occasion. And for those of you with a "?" in the bubble above your head, it means - If you struggle then you will drown in whatever it is that you're struggling with but if you float then it will take care of itself, you will eventually get to shore.

We all have a right to vote for the candidate that represents our thoughts and values. What we don't have the right to do is encroach on someone in a personal attack. Bottom Line!!!!! There are a few posters on here that cross that line way too far.

Democrats for McCain/Palin

Posted by RobinBrownHayes (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 1:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dilbert,
You are so right about Palin being more qualified because obama has spent his stint as jr senator running for President. He has no experience whatsoever in managing or running anything.

Posted by Krogers (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 1:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Truthfully, that might be a stretch, but that is a fear that many people have in the back of their minds

That left wing socialists around the world, here, in Europe, and Latin America want to do away with the peso, the dollar, and the euro, and create a more common currency, and decrease the sovereignty of nations..........

I'm hoping that USA will continue to maintain it's sovereignty. I'm glad to see the dollar strengthening slightly, but we have to STOP the giveaway of the dollar.

We must attempt to revert to more free market, allow bad management to suffer , good management to benefit.

In other words, vote conservative

vote McCain/Palin

your right southernbelle

McCain isn't a far right winger, he's more moderate conservative, he did compromise with Obama and the Dems on the bailout as an example.....

that's what really irks me about this article -- Obama and McCain both voted FOR the Bailout.... now Obama says McCain is ignorant about economics???

Seems to me that Obama is just disrespectful and arrogant
pencil necked shyster lawyer is what he was trained for at Harvard, that's what he wants to be, that's what he will be if elected, a liar that wants to advance his career and will say whatever you want to hear, promise you the world - healthcare, money, job, education , everything - to buy your vote and keep you enslaved to the GOVERNMENT living the life of a socialist

I'm not buying it

On education this bugs me- my daughter just got a Pell Grant for about $5000 a semester, but Obama promises he'll do better by giving students $4000 if they join the Peace Corp. HUH!! Am I missing something? We have better than that already!! It's the people so emotionally/racially/whatever charged to vote for him that are ignorant, because they have not done their homework and looked at the real specifics of what he is saying.

Posted by allsmiles (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 1:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

naturegirl, I probably don't need to go back two weeks, todays postings are enough for me.

Kroger, I have not heard of "The New World Order"

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 2:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have a question...exactly what would Obama have to do for people to question his character? Murder, Rape, Terrorism?
I don't understand how people do not question his past associations, his ties to ACORN, his illegal campaign donations...etc. etc. etc.

Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 2:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Did Yeahuhuh call Kerry a HERO?

Now...we all know just how dillusional he is!!!

Posted by RobinBrownHayes (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 2:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You hit the nail on the head happybunny. But unfortunately, I think you'll come under fire from the people who think everything that is said IS A LIE!!! Sound Familiar?

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

hmmm....I think I recall being called stupid, dumb, ignorant, a liar a few times.

Posted by Krogers (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 2:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

yeahuhuhuhuhuh, uh, huhuhuhuh

we all know Obama is for ALL types of Abortion- even partial birth murder of a developed infant, even POST birth murder of infants

he has NEVER voted against any abortion legislation, but he will talk a lof of wishywashy bull about women's rights blah, blah, blah, but he is FOR ABORTION. ALL TYPES, there is no question to that issue. McCain is against all types of abortion . That issue is crystal clear.

Obama is for all types of gun control- that issue is crystal clear, I'm sure if questioned in public Obama will talk all around the issue and do his best to come off like he is for victim's rights, is for second amendment rights, blah blah blah - but he is a Chicago lawyer that has done his best to take guns away from good citizens and leave them defenseless against criminals in Chicago. Crime is rampant in Chicago, the gun control of Chicago has done nothing but invigorate the criminals. This is an old story, we good people in Mississippi have good gun laws that allow us to have and bear arms in our homes, businesses, and vehicles. We don't want to loose those RIGHTS.

You show your ignorance by trying to talk all that nonsense and be so insulting to the good people here about these issues. Shut up and do your homework, and try just being honest and telling the truth -- your obviously a racist and voting for Obama cause he's black and that is the only reason. Am I wrong??

On the issues McCain is a better American. To me that is crystal clear. McCain is a real hero, served valiantly, persevered with integrity throught vigorous torture and humiliation as a POW, severed at least 20 years as a Congressman and has endured many personal libelous, slanderous attacks to remain unscathed , his story is an open book for all to read

We have yet to know Obama , but there are many negatives attached to his story- Ayers and Ayers wife, he served as a lawyer with them in his first employment, Acorn, Wright, Rezco, the terrorist in UK,

What good has the man- Obama that is- what good has he done yet??? In Chicago his community development FAILED, he made no difference at all. ]

He has been successful in suing Citibank back in 1999 setting in motion the financial crisis we have now - the lending of money for mortgages that low income people CANNOT pay back, which leads to foreclosures, which leads to depreciation of value,

This is all historical fact - you vote for the man you think that will put his COUNTRY FIRST

Obama or McCain

the record shows McCain puts his COUNTRY FIRST

Obama puts his career first. Pencil-necked socialist shyster lawyer, and to him that's not even an insult, just the plain truth, a truthful description of his charactor and biography.

Posted by Krogers (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 2:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

keep up the good work happybunny

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 2:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/1...

This is an entertaining article. Enjoy!

Posted by Krogers (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dilbert

tell us more about Obama's records in Hawaii please

that is very interesting

are you thinking there might be some charges there, like possession of cocaine or something?

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks Krogers.

Posted by Krogers (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 2:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Allsmiles

I don't know much about it - The New World Order

and would rather just have faith that our country will survive

But there is thought that the future will bring about change in which all borders and governments dissolve and the strongest countries coalesce into One World Order with One World Currency in an effort to have total control over economics, military, and everything else- even who lives and who dies, - population control.

Many believe this is predicted in the Bible and by Nostradamus as a prelude to the End Times

I believe God loves us all and that He will protect us, based upon our own good decisions and using the blessings He has given us.

We better make good decisions, our future depends on it. Thing is- some people don't care about what is good for our country in the long run, only what they can grab right now.

Posted by straightshooter1 (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 2:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To answer your question happy, he would have to admit on nbc, cbs, cnn, msnbc and abc that he doesn't know s... from shinola about what it takes to be president. He is a greenhorn jr. senator who has done nothing since being elected to congress except run for president. I guess some folks think that's all the experience he needs, even though he actually said four years ago that he wouldn't run for the office because he wouldn't have enough experience by then. And one other thing, yeahuhuh calls people liars and stupid on here constantly and expects them to listen to his side of this debate we're in, yet he never considers just how many people are turned off by his self-serving, high-browed opinion of himself. Just how much sense does that take.

Posted by RobinBrownHayes (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

AMEN Straightshooter!!!! That is what I posted about earlier. I am so tired of the name calling. I don't do it so why should anyone else.

I reiterate;
Posted by RobinBrownHayes (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 1:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

naturegirl, I have to say, back in the day when I was younger, (lol) I might would have hung with them. But "growing up" and realizing that worrying about things I have no control of only hurts me. I follow my Papa's thoughts on life; "Don't struggle, Just Float". He told me that on more than one occasion. And for those of you with a "?" in the bubble above your head, it means - If you struggle then you will drown in whatever it is that you're struggling with but if you float then it will take care of itself, you will eventually get to shore.

We all have a right to vote for the candidate that represents our thoughts and values. What we don't have the right to do is encroach on someone in a personal attack. Bottom Line!!!!! There are a few posters on here that cross that line way too far.

Democrats for McCain/Palin

Posted by naturegirl (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 2:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

New World Order - a very scary and old idea about a complete one world government. I really don't know alot about it. You can google Agenda 21, which is really EnKinKurs favorite topic and learn more.
Dilbert - I knew you were'nt really as dumb as the comics portray you! LOL Very good and informative post, thanks.

Posted by straightshooter1 (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 3:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Where is our Libertarian friend Enk? I guess he is tired of all the name calling on here.

Posted by Krogers (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 3:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think enk is off at work, he works a week or two and then is off a week or so

oh, and Reaganomics did NOT get us where we are today, I guess that is referring to the economic "crisis"

Clinton's repeal of the Glass/Steagal ACt of 1939, opened Pandora's Box, then Democrats pushing lending institutions to loan money to low income people, and thus the foreclosures, that has been repeated over and over and drummed into us, it is historical fact.

FDR was slow to respond to the Depression, it was WWII that saved our economy, and we became the world's supplier of arms. We should have responded to Hitler's aggressions in Europe much sooner, history shows that.

yeahuhuhuh and southerwoman, at least get your facts straight and quit trying to rewrite history to suit your petty personal pursuits and attempts at putting Obama up on a pedestal. It just makes you look stupid

Posted by Dilbert (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 4:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Krogers,
The case against Obama in Hawaii was thrown out today. It was nothing to do with drug charges. A motion had been filed to gain access to Obama's birth certificate. I didn't read the entire paper, but you can find it here:

http://www.state.hi.us/jud/opinions/...8...

Posted by allsmiles (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If this New World Order is as you say Kroger, isn't that what the anti christ is all about?

I believe the Bible is being fulfilled, everything it says has come true so far. We are in the end times. Can we really stop this guy from being elected. Obama I mean??

Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 4:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That's exactly what I have been saying allsmiles. I believe we are nearing the end times and Obama will be elected because he needs to be to fulfill God's plans for the world. The New World Order is believed to be the one world government alluded to in the Bible prophecies. I don't think Obama is the anti-christ, but he sure is a front man for him. But, depending on the version of the end times you adhere to, we won't be here long to "enjoy" him. We'll either be leaving very soon, or no longer than 7 years from now -IF it is indeed the end. Personally I'm more than ready for it.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 5:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You guys slay me. Kroger you may have a point -- there is no need to converse with you -- your world is full of all the facts it can hold.

With those incredible powers of prediction and cognition, you guys ought to share some stock tips on here, or you should certainly have some success stories about how you parlayed $20 into a fortune since the market has been beaten so low.

Last time I heard folks talking about it being the end time was when ol Ronald Wilson Reagan -- count the number of the letter of his name -- 666-- was put into power. Now we suffer under the spawn of the hand-servant of the beast as he wishes to pass his legacy along to one of his own. Gimme a break.

You guys prepare for the end time. We will run the world while you get ready.

The only end time I think we are witnessing is those 35% to 40% diehards of the people who are most gullible are being led down a path to destruction by McCain/Palin. The same 35% that never saw anything President Bush did that looked wrong to them. The only destruction will be their credibility and their ability to be trusted to run the country.

But go ahead, converse some more about the end times. It is really amazing to read. I would like Sam's opinion on that, too, and Enkik's.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 5:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What about me, yeahuhuh? Not interested in my opinion? I must say I'm crushed.

If there are any undecided's reading this, you should check out this article linked below:

http://boortz.com/nuze/undecided.html

It's lengthy, but worth the time. You libs should read it too. It may open your eyes.

Posted by brod (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 6:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I feel these times are really scary. You don't hear anything good anymore. In my opinion, no one that has never served in one of the armed forces, including border patrol, coast guard,etc. really knows what it means to SERVE the country. I don't think they are truly qualified to serve as president. Obama may be very intelligent and charismatic. He has won many over to his side with his smooth talk. Oh, he calls it straight talk. But never think that if he wins he will just be handed the presidency. There are to many illegally registered voters and too many hands on the books to let anything go unchecked. It will be the same if McCain wins. The Democrats will want a recount. Please, for the sake of the country and our children vote McCain/Palin.

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 6:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Many Methodists opposed the establishment of the GWB presidential library at SMU.

The Methodist Church opposed the Iraq war.

Kirbyjon Caldwell, the Methodist minister who performed Jenna Bush's wedding, and prayed at both of George Bush's inaugurations, is supporting Barack Obama.

George Bush professes to be a Methodist, although I don't think he's mentioned it recently.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 6:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I suppose that might matter to some voters if George Bush was running for office.

Bin Laden also endorsed Obama.

Posted by frogprincenessntz (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 6:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Interesting video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHwxk7ljJ...

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 6:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just a word about this anti-christ business. Let's not get carried away with Obama. He's just another liberal hack politician. In spite of every advantage in this election (money, an economy that a large number of voters wrongly blame on Republicans, and the majority of the press completely in the tank for him) he is still barely ahead. And his lead has eroded significantly over the past several days. The IBD poll has the race at 1% today. And the state by state polls are narrowing as well.

Keep in mind that the only reason he's even the Democrat nominee is liberal guilt. If you had a white liberal with Obama's record, he would have been laughed off the national stage if he announced he was running for President. Historically, a nominee must have at least SOME record of accomplishment and experience to be seriously considered for the nomination. But he's cruised through with no scrutiny whatsoever by the so-called main stream media.

Unfortunately, he does have a chance to win. I still doubt it very seriously, but with such a large number of voters who have absolutely no idea who this guy is or have any idea what the implications of an Obama presidency would be, but support him anyway, it's possible. If it happens, it will be an unmitigated disaster for the country. But if he loses, he will fade from the public memory, as he clearly should.

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 6:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

km, those facts matter to me. I would not presume to influence your vote. Methodists tend to be an inclusive group, so I hear.

Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 7:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There are different branches of the Methodist church, within the denomination. Just as all Baptist Chruchs are not Southern Baptist, all Presbyterian Churchs are not PCUSA, not all Methodist churchs are the same sect. I don't know what the beliefs of each group in the Methodist church are. I do know that the PCUSA (Presbyterian Church in the U.S.) is more liberal than PCA (Presbyterian Chruch in America), but even those groups change somewhat as you move around the country. So to say the Methodist church as a whole supports Obama would be an error.

Posted by Idefinitelymight (Tom Scarborough) on October 23, 2008 at 7:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

For crying out loud, it's not the end times. Obama is not the antichrist. And no one on either side is out to subvert the Constitution or undermine the Republic. It's an election, folks. Not an apocalyptic reckoning. Put down the Bibles and go vote for your chosen political party. We will lurch onward through the next four years, and then the shrieking can begin anew. You right-wingers are an alarming bunch when you become frightened.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 7:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Bin Laden also endorsed Obama."

When did that happen, kmbjd? Source? Was it this one? he,he!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N13lqsIu6...

No I didn't ask for your opinion on endtimes -- I tier the opinions on here based on apparent literacy, insight and entertainment value.

Sammoron is the lead arrogant sound-biter. He is intelligent enough to have become wise but the bone in his head that controls wisdom and humility evidently never grew. His writing is macabrely fascinating, and he probably considers himself divinely entitled to pontificate on the subject.

Enkikur is the closest thing to genius on this board but he gets a bit lost in uberconcepts, and his take on the End times would be good to hear since he spent 30 years meditating with the Maharishi. His spiritual conspiracy ideas are very impressive but I think he is one of the very few smart enough to launch the conspiracies he exposes. His writing would be among the most interesting and qualified on such an ubersubject, and I mean that as a compliment.

You are among the smarter conservatives here -- with good grammar and syntax, but your points are a bit drab and full of holes -- no offense. You think a lot like I did about 20 years ago before I realized how to understand both the right and the left of politics.

If you think you have a unique vision by all means volunteer something. I'm trying to be nicer ;-)

Posted by iameubu (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 7:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Please read the words of President Washington, a truly GREAT man. Exact polar opposite of Obama in my opinion.

"This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy. "

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty. "

"Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it."

My view of what many of those behind Obama think of our Republic.

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff79/...

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 7:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Bin Laden also endorsed Obama."

km, could you explain why you think Bin Laden did that, if he did.

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 8:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"So to say the Methodist church as a whole supports Obama would be an error."

Freedom, please re-read my post. I said Kirbyjon Caldwell supports Senator Obama for the presidency.

The United Methodist Church opposed the Iraq war.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 8:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My apologies. When I typed Bin Laden, I meant terrorists generally. But to be specific, the terrorist group Hamas endorsed Obama. Go to FactCheck.org to verify it.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 9 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhuh, I did offer my opinion on the Antichrist postings at 6:54p.m. The idea is ridiculous, of course. What do you know, something we actually agree on. Now that might be one of the signs of the apocalypse.

Posted by redusmfan (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 9:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama Bin Laden....kinda has a nice ring to it.

Posted by naturegirl (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 9:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Caldwell has a ministry to help gays overcome their homosexuality, he has preached against abortion, he sits on the boards of 3 large corporations, so why would he endorse Obama? Since I don't want to be called racist, I will leave that to you all.

Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 9:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry sw, my mistake. I've been doing too much on the computer today and can't even read straight. I just know that my denomination forbids any political endorsements from the pulpit. I believe that holds true for most mainline denominations.

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 10:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No problem, freedom. Been there.

I don't know that Kirbyjon Caldwell endorsed Senator Obama from the pulpit. Rev. Caldwell is pastor of a United Methodist Church.

Likewise, I have no knowledge that numerous other endorsements of candidates by mainline denomination clergy were made from the pulpit.

I did hear George Bush speaking from the pulpit, at the invitation of the pastor, at a large, mainline denomination church at the 11 am Sunday morning service. If my memory serves, George Bush was not "technically" a presidential candidate then - only a governor with presidential aspirations.

Posted by frogprincenessntz (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 12:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Another video to check out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHwxk7ljJ...

Posted by Dilbert (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 6:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

southernwoman (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 8:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"The United Methodist Church opposed the Iraq war"

I'm not Methodist so please forgive my question. Does the United Methodist Church also oppose abortion? Just curious, because as I stated I am not Methodist.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 7:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

kmdjb -- Sorry I didn't notice your Antichrist opinion. Seemed like that post was mostly drab denouncement of Obama, liberals and Democrats. You seem to need that voting block that is worried about Obama being the Antichrist, maybe you shouldn't dismiss them so.

One thing true in your post seems to be your prediction of a politician being laughed off the stage if they sought the presidency with lackings in experience. Seems like Sarah Palin, who lacks the grasp of issues that Obama has and lacks the sophistication of thought AND speech, IS being laughed off the political stage due to her inexperience with relating to the masses. Her negatives are astronomical.

You act like it is the president that drives the tank and shoots his way to national security -- a lot of people think a president thinks and talks his way to national security. I suggest that is the difference between your opinion of Obama and Colin Powell's opinion of Obama. I'm with Colin and Scott McClellan -- they know the guys on the other side intimately and choose Obama as the one to trust.

Posted by Dilbert (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 9:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhuh said in his post:
"Seems like Sarah Palin, who lacks the grasp of issues that Obama has and lacks the sophistication of thought AND speech, IS being laughed off the political stage due to her inexperience with relating to the masses. Her negatives are astronomical"

Her negatives are astronomical? Are you kidding?

I’m sure her negative press has nothing to do with CNN deliberately misquoting facts from articles. MSNBC, NBC & ABC who are all in the tank for Obama constantly go after her with such facts as “She spent a lot of money on clothes!” journalism at its finest. Please answer my earlier post and explain to me how Obama is more qualified than Palin. Everyone else please take in mind that Yeahuhuh continues to compare Obama to Palin. Obama isn’t running against Palin.

Then Yeahuhuh.. please answer how can you honestly say that her negatives are "astronomical" and then overlook all the “astronomical” negatives of Barack Obama?

Let’s talk negatives.
Obama has ties to Raila Odinga, Google him. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8QcpdUtx...

Obama has ties to Khalid Al-Mansour, Google him. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8npeYfKI_...

Obama has ties to Bill Ayers. Google for stories of him and Obama, he is clearly not just "some guy in my neighborhood"

Obama has ties to Tony Rezko. You know the guy going to federal prison?

Obama has ties to Rev. Wright. How can you be to believe that after sitting in a church for 20 years you have no idea what the person is preaching. Notice that Yeahuhuh is the only person on these boards so far to defend what a great sermon Rev Wright throws out there. Even Barack Obama is not doing that.

Anyone else see a pattern?

There are more, but I have a space constraint. So please compare what you consider to be negatives of Sarah Palin to these of Obama.

Posted by Dilbert (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 9:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In his extremely short time in the Senate, Obama has done NOTHING. Prove me wrong on this, please. Give me the link to some legislation that he has sponsored. Don't just tell he how great he is, show me. He gives a fine speech, I’ll give him that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ybd7MUixx...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjGhy8LVw...

Tell me the difference in the campaign he is running now, compared to the campaign he ran in Illinois. He also promised there to reduce taxes and then voted to increase taxes, not once EVER to reduce them.

He said that 95% of American working family’s taxes would go down. This is flat false, if you believe this that means that only 5% of American working family’s taxes are going up. With Obama’s raise in capital gains taxes alone, over 30% of American’s taxes are going to go up and there are many of them that do not make $250,000 a year. Not to mention 40% of American’s paid no federal income tax to start with. How again do you lower someone’s taxes past 0?

One more question for Yeahuhuh, why do you continue to go back to Sarah Palin? Not sure what race you are watching, but Barack Obama is running against John McCain for President, not Sarah Palin. If you want to talk about bad VP choices, let’s talk Joe Biden. You keep bringing up that she got the question wrong about the job of VP, but as most Obama supporters you failed to point out that Joe Biden after being in the Senate for over 30 years, also got the question wrong.

Posted by drawpaintsing (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 9:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

To the ones who are saying that Obama is the antichrist, he will be our next president, because the Bible said that he is coming. So stop arguing, because the election is getting closer and closer by the day. When the "antichrist" wins, start preparing your souls.

.......just an observation, I notice a lot of people are saying that.

Posted by j_bravo (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The antichrist?
I don't know if I believe all that or not.
I do believe what Dilbert said that people that want to compare Obama to Palin are maybe watching the wrong race.

Colin Powell and McClellan did endorse Obama, but what did the poll done with the US troops show? 68% to 23% for McCain.

How many Sec of State have endorsed McCain? Four that I know of. Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig, Lawrence Eagleburger and George Shultz. But that isn't much news. Wonder why? Colin Powell endorses Obama and it is everywhere, 4 former Sec of State endorse McCain and if you don't have the internet you wouldn't know it. Wonder why? Bias in the media maybe? Just guessing. What about the well over 100 retired Generals and Admirals that have backed McCain? Once again, not in the news. Wonder why?

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dilbert - Let me tell you something about being a conservative. Other people use language and thought differently. Here is what I said and meant.

When I cite Sarah Palin's "negatives" I am referring to her ratings in all the polls taken about actual voter sentiment. Voter sentiment from polls is the closest thing we can get right now to election results and popular approval. Since we live in a democratic republic I express her legitimacy in those terms relative to the "poll" that is coming Nov 4.

You assume I mean something more subjective and arbitrary, because Sarah and John have no leg to stand on until you get subjective and arbitrary -- that sort of talking appeals more to conservatives.

While Sarah Palin has a unique ability to appeal to that 35 to 40% of the population who would vote for her policies as stated, she is a dismal failure at bringing folks from the other side or in the independent middle as Obama has done. Most of us think she is shallow and scary. She is even bad at communication across ideologies -- an essential for anyone who can be a good leader.

Notice how she talks in broad sweeping generalities that sound great and pluck conservative heart strings, but don't do much else. She uses buzz words and not very impressively.

The reason Sarah is important is that John is the oldest first termer ever if he is elected -- and he could pop a gasket any time. Colin Powell recognized that as a strategic factor but the same 35 to 40% of the population mentioned above do not seem to understand it. So those of us who appreciate "country first" are not willing to put the country into her inexperienced, impulsive hands just to get McCain into office.

As far as Wrights sermons, have you listened to any of them in their entirety? And your statement:

"Notice that Yeahuhuh is the only person on these boards so far to defend what a great sermon Rev Wright throws out there."

You are incorrect. But you should research it to find the others.

And not only did Palin get the VP duties answer wrong -- not the question -- she repeated the wrong answer days later showing what a poor learner she is under pressure. She will not control the legislature, or any house of it. Even many Republicans think she is daft.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

j bravo -- What is the significance of Colin Powell supporting Obama versus 4 former Secretaries of State supporting McCain?

The Secretaries of State you cited were all Republican career Washington personalities. They would be expected to support any Republican, while Colin Powell and Scott McClellan came across the aisle to support Obama.

McClellan and Powell are also very familiar with current events from an insider's perspective, and are very familiar with today's Republican Party.

Henry Kissinger was Sec of State of the corrupt and shamed Nixon regime, who presided over our defeat in Vietnam and criminal charges for political dirty tricks.

Alexander Haig was Reagan's Secretary of State, serving well less than a year due to clashing with more moderate members of the cabinet and with Reagan himself. He was a respected military hawk. He was criticized for suggesting shooting a nuclear "warning shot" over Europe to get the Soviets attention and was viewed even by Reagan as too extreme. He later accused Bush's father of being too soft and weak and faded into political disuse.

Lawerence Eagleburger only served less than 2 months as Secretary of State for GHW Bush, after serving under Nixon. Carter appointed him ambassador to Yugoslavia.

George Schultz served as various Secretaries during Nixon, Reagan and Bush 1 and is the father of the "Bush Doctrine" of pre-emptive warfare. Nuf said? If it's not, he was a major adviser to George W. Bush on military affairs and sided with the group popularly known as "neo-cons", but did once oppose the funding of the contra terrorists and weapons for the Iranian government that the Regan Administration insisted upon. He has recommended the legalization of recreational drugs, and dropping of the Cuba embargo, and is among the most respected of the 4 secretaries McCain mentions. He is an economist by training and a career Washington diplomat.

But Powell has greater relevance to today and greater respect in this country right now. McClellan knows what the guys in there now are capable of from personal experience -- during that time when McCain voted 90% with the president.

Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 11:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Charlie Brown's teacher is in full force today.

Wuah wuah...wuah wuah wuah

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I hear that alot from the other side.

School must have been boring for you guys. Maybe you shouldn't store your gum in your ears, He,he!

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Did you hear what Rush Limbaugh said about the Powell endorsement?

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 12:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, yeahuhuh, he said Powell made his endorsement entirely based on race. And he is correct. Rush asked a relevant question that puts the Powell endorsement in its proper perspective: "What white inexperienced liberals has Powell endorsed?"

Powell is clearly pandering. It's pathetic, really, how easily he's turned on the party that's gotten him where he is today. If not for Republican's we wouldn't know who Powell is.

Posted by j_bravo (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 12:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhuh.
I guess I found it significant to point out that McCain has 4 former Sec of State and over 100 Admirals & Generals backing him up because for some reason you, Yeahuhuh, found it significant to point out that Powell and McClellan have endorsed Obama. If McClellan has endorsed him, why don't his troops?

To me, it is like you believe just with this one endorsement all doubts about Obama's foreign policy have been eliminated. Powell may have great relevance to you but it doesn't take much looking to bring up how many times Powell has flipped flopped on tons of issues. There are many reasons; many people think Powell backed Obama. I highly doubt it is because Powell thinks Obama is the best man for the job. But that is just my opinion.

I did read what Rush Limbaugh said about Powell. I also find it interesting that Powell's son is out campaigning for John McCain.

Posted by Dilbert (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 12:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhuh - Let me tell you something about Liberals. Never, ever will they answer a direct question, especially if it is negative in any way shape or form to their ideals or to their beliefs. You proved that. I asked you several direct questions, not one of which you even remotely tried to answer.

I appreciate you clearing up that other people use thought and words different. Please allow me to try and explain to you that when someone says:

"Seems like Sarah Palin, who lacks the grasp of issues that Obama has and lacks the sophistication of thought AND speech, IS being laughed off the political stage due to her inexperience with relating to the masses. Her negatives are astronomical"

That most people, will not and can not be expected to understand that Yeahuhuh means "negatives in the polls" especially when Yeahuhuh goes so far out of his way to point out DIRECT negatives about her as a person, such as: lacks sophistication of thought and speech, inexperienced and so on. How you expect anyone to gather that you meant negative in the polls from that statement is just ridiculous.
Excuse me for misunderstanding your DIRECT statement.

Also from Yeahuhuh:
"Most of us think she is shallow and scary"

But yet you don't think that Obama's relationships with the people that I have listed above are scary? I mean Odinga is a helluva a good guy, he only committed genocide in his own country and Obama was there supporting him in 2006 & again in 2007. I guess it is a stretch for me to compare Obama and this guy being friends, to Sarah Palin not spouting off what magazines she reads. How unfair and biased of me.

I am fairly new to these boards, I have seen two different posts where you and you alone stated that you liked the sermons. I have seen nobody else state that they did, if they did, I apologize for leaving them out of my earlier post. I have seen most of the sermons, but I don’t have to sit there for 20 years before I can decide that is not my beliefs. Since it is not my beliefs, I will take you at your word that others on these boards agree with Rev Wright’s sermons, but it is not that important to me to go dig thru a bunch of old posts.

Lets see, I pointed out that Joe Biden also got the question wrong about the job of the VP and you once again, like all other Obama supporters just totally over looked that. Joe Biden has served in the Senate for over 30 years, with 7 President’s and 7 Vice Presidents and he got the answer wrong. Of course he can’t clarify his answer because after his latest gaffe, where he flat stated that with Obama as President, we would face a generated international crisis, team Obama won’t let him conduct interviews. Don’t even try to state he meant “any” President. He called Obama by name and even his age. He meant Obama, not anyone elected President.

Posted by Dilbert (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 12:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh, just one more question about Biden since you always seem to bring Palin up. I know you won’t answer because that is what liberals do, but I will ask anyway. If Obama is there to “change” Washington, why did he pick one of the longest standing Senators in Washington to be his running mate? What type of change is that? Change is something new, change is going a different direction, not going the same way that things have been going on for 30 plus years. That’s not change, that’s the same old BS.

Oh, and you never not once to any of my posts have answered why you think Barack is more qualified that Palin. You have also never, not once, mentioned why you continue to compare Barack to Palin. Where are you voting exactly? My ballot has McCain versus Obama.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 1:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dilbert, your wasting you time with yeahuhuh. You are completely right about him, of course, and liberals generally. They can't debate conservatives on specific points because if they reveal their true positions they wouldn't win anything. Instead, they try to destroy those they perceive as a threat on a personal level.

That's what I think most people fail to understand about liberals and liberalism. Liberals are only interested in political power. They will say and do ANYTHING to get it. In their minds, the ends most certainly justify the means. There's no position they won't pretend to take, no lie they won't tell, no person they won't destroy. Palin is their current target because they see her as a threat, both now and in the future.

Liberalism is the current home of the communist movement. They hate religion and those who are religious, instead following a neo-Darwinist philosophy that seeks to devalue the individual. Why do you think they oppose any restriction on abortion? Because the individual doesn't matter. A human life, to them, has no more value than an earthworms.

Look at global warming. They make the incredible statement that the debate is over, that man-made warming is a fact, despite the mountain of evidence that shows otherwise. It's all about the acquisition of power. To address this phony "crisis" would require a massive expansion of government.

Those are but two examples. Their solution to everything is an ever larger government, because they, at least in their minds, are smarter than the rest of us. They have the answers. This despite the fact that liberalism in all its forms and functions has been an utter failure. Just look at the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe prior to 1990. Utter failures. But that's exactly what the liberals and Democrats want for this country. You see, they'll do it better, don't you know. Their arrogance blinds them to reality.

Their interference in the private sector has caused the biggest financial crisis in our lifetimes. And what's their proposed solution? More government. In other words, let's use fire to put out the fire.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 1:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"you're wasting your"

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 2:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Excuse me Dilbert I know how hard it is facing a defeat. Sorry if I pissed you off.

Let me see if I can address your accusation about liberals never answering a question in a way that will prove even that statement of yours not so well-crafted. As I frequently point out, "never" is a very big word.

Obama obviously picked Biden for two reasons:

1) experience to help him govern.

2) to provide someone of experience if he is shot or croaks.

So you have the best of both worlds -- experience with what is there, from a party that has been held back and is poised to change what happened in the last 8 years anyway, and someone fresh enough and smart enough to have some vision and be able to communicate new plans -- win, win, win.

Barack Obama has pretty much proved his mettle. He is outdoing McCain at campaigning. We can hope his presidency is as well done, but that is what a campaign is all about -- showing how you will do in the nip and tuck of moving around and making the voters feel represented.

I would prefer someone who had another few years, but evidently they are not available in such a way they can be elected in the primary process -- go figure -- don't blame me for that. That doesn't equate to McCain being a good choice. Colin Powell as Secretary of Defense trumps everything McCain offers us in military smarts -- he probably just wants to be Commander in Chief as part of his family legacy to his Dad but I don't think he will do it through popular election.

Presidents are supposed to be able to organize people and talk well, they hardly ever have to fume and spout off and cuss someone -- it ain't presidential. That makes Obama more presidential by itself, and it's obvious on the campaign trail. And someone whose main emphasis is riding around spouting half-truths about others is a loser -- if they feel they have to it does not make it much better, except to their friends who want to give them a pass.

Why do I think he is more qualified than Palin? Because his speech and his demeanor and his knowledge of what he talks about and is asked about is far superior. Because he has mobilized a much larger block of the population, and because the country needs someone with a different set of priorities and instincts than Palin has -- especially at this time.

Compare that to the McCain saying that being a governor is qualification enough -- with that other idiot sitting in the White House as he speaks -- geez McCain looks dumb doing that and he must figure the rest of us can't remember that Bush was a governor and look a him.

Obama's freshness is that he is capable of change through cooperation and vision -- he doesn't claim himself a maverick to sound cute or sound like a fighter -- that's McCain's thing and it sells well to his base but doesn't sell well to a majority of voters.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 2:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And no, the other politicians Obama has been linked with are not threats to his character nearly as much as McCain and the entire Republican Party has been soiled by Nixon, Bushes, Iran/Contra, bank crises, having sex with boys, supporting Saddam Hussein, Karl Rove, Alberto Gonzales, the cast of Iran/Contra (aka Bush's cabinet), Dick Cheney and the vast majority of folks McCain has and will have to deal with as his party on Capitol Hill.

You can stack up Obama's associations any day against McCain voting 90% of the time with that gang of thieves I mentioned above. That is the way most people see it -- I know Republicans are prone to give those guys above a pass -- fatal flaw -- you guys are clueless.

I will tell you something about conservatives -- they think everyone is dumb enough to fall for that association slur tactic but mostly they shoot for one type of dupe they KNOW will go that way. Then they pick up another special interest group or two to win the elections -- and McCain hasn't even done that very well.

I hope I answered your questions. :-) Oh, where am I voting? Natchez.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 2:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Biden is a clown. What happens if Obama is elected and gets assassinated, Biden will be our commander in chief. Can you even fathom his speaking to foreign nations? What might he say to offend them?

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 2:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How ridiculous that the dems are bashing Palin on her wardrobe. They don't have any issues of substance with her so they turn to fluff. What about Obama's custome suit and his greek temple.
I hear Obama is already spending $2MM on his victory celebration. Arrogant a$$!

Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 2:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Campaigning has nothing to do with being qualified to be president.

Posted by allsmiles (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 2:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read 'Vote Obama, I need the money.' I laughed.
Once in the restaurant my server had on a 'Obama 08' tie, and again I laughed as he had given away his political preference -- just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need -- the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient 'deserved' money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Great post, allsmiles.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 2:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah bunny I heard Ed Rollins -- Reagan's election wizard -- talking about how it flew counter to the soccer mom proletariat image -- what did he say -- nobody in the campaign with a political antenna worked on this.

It didn't bother me they dropped that kind on money on miss girl -- she is the show horse after all and they are workin her. And everyone in my house thinks she is a good dresser. Politically though, she is nutty enough by herself, the clothes don't matter, and campaigns breathe money just standing still.

The media does seem to be paying your guys back for all the times during Bush that he got better coverage his way and more silence otherwise than he deserved. Part of it, too is that when that camera zooms in people see a different thing than the Republicans want them to, and Democrats just look better at what they are doing even if Joe is a bit goofy.

But now we have a station that DOES have a real liberal bias -- MSNBC -- not too bad during the day but nighttime is really something -- Geez gosh I can hardly watch an hour of Olberman he makes my butt want to take a dip of snuff. I hate sensationalism in the news unless it is purely humor. For that, the Colbert Repor.

Thanks to FOX for being a pioneer in news designed for a narrow audience -- great idea. I heard that now Olberman gets more views than his counterparts on FOX.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 2:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Great story allsmiles. I bet it didn't quite happen that way, though.

Sort of like Joe the Plumber saying he was thinking of buying the boss's business.

But the rest of the story would have the waiter spitting -- next time -- or worse -- in your soup in the back for being a smartass.

And you could have just settled for wearing a McCain pin, but noooo you had to be aggressive. Then you would have to be beholdin to a liberal to tell you what you just ate. He,he!

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

allsmiles...that was fabulous!

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 3:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhuh, remember my post about the psychiatrist who has diagnosed liberalism as a mental disorder. I think you should go back and read it again.

You think Biden was a great choice? Yes, I agree. He was a great choice if you're a Republican. Obama's campaign won't even let him talk to reporters because they're afraid he'll stick his foot in his mouth, which seems to be his hobby.

Obama has proven his mettle by campaigning? I hope this statement was just some failed attempt at humor. The very idea is so obtuse I can't believe that an adult would even make the claim, no matter what candidate they were backing.

So you think Powell would be a good Secretary of Defense? But isn't he the one who made the case for the much hated Iraq war before the U.N.?

A President's job is to organize people and "talk well?" What? I thought his job was to be the nations Chief Executive and Commander in Chief of the Armed forces. I missed the parts about Speaker in Chief and Organizer in Chief.

Obama's more qualified than Palin because of his speech, demeanor and knowledge about what he talks about? Sorry, but that doesn't make him more qualified to be President, it makes him more qualified to be an instructor in a Public Speaking course for college freshmen. The guy's never run anything in his entire life, but you think he's qualified to run the world's only super power. Wow.

Cooperation? Obama's voted with the Democrat's 96% of the time.

And then there's his past associates. We can't forget them. Don't you find it at least a LITTLE unnerving that all of Obama's friends seem to be communists and America-haters? That doesn't give you pause at all?

Posted by Dilbert (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 4:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhuh, I am not pissed. Not even a little bit. I also would like to point out that the polls didn't exactly show Bush winning either. How did that work out?

You’re kidding about Biden right? Maybe me, you and Biden can go down to Katie's in his hometown and eat some lunch and talk about it. OH!!! Right, there is no such place. The thing is, if the media went after Biden for just half of his mess up's they would have to dedicate an entire channel just to cover it.

Make you feel represented? If you feel you are represented if you are represented by someone who has yet to tell the truth, yes I guess you feel represented by Obama. He hasn't told the truth about Ayers, Rezko, Wright, his tax plan, his voting record, his birth certificate, his college records, his medical records I could go on and on. Good representation.

So next, if I understand correctly, you feel Obama is more "qualified" because "he is a better speaker and has a better demeanor and his knowledge?" Well first his knowledge is there are 57 states and he has been to all but 3, and he was born because he father marched across a bridge, bad thing is there are not 57 States and his father marched across that bridge about 4 years AFTER he was born. He has a ton of gaffes himself, but the liberal biased media will not show them. As far as a better speaker and demeanor, not sure who you are hire to work at your place, but I have never seen anyone say that just because you were good at making speeches gave you experience in anything other than making speeches. You are not experienced to do a job, without actual experience doing that job.

Posted by Dilbert (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 4:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

For the week of (10/6/08-10/12/08)
According to Nielsen Media Research, Fox News averaged 3.4 million viewers in prime time last week, beating out TBS (3.3 million), USA (2.8 million), and ESPN (2.6 million) for the top spot. CNN placed fifth, averaging 2.4 million viewers in prime time, while MSNBC placed ninth, averaging 1.6 million viewers in prime time.

Fox News placed second only to Nickelodeon in total-day ratings, averaging 1.5 million viewers to Nickelodeon's 2.1 million viewers. CNN placed ninth in total day ratings, averaging 1.0 million viewers, while MSNBC came in 15th, averaging 685 million viewers.

There ya go Yeahuhuh seems like your MSNBC really put it to Fox News. I just emailed O'Riely and I put your name in for Pinhead & Patriots. Oh, I didn't put you in for Patriot by the way.

Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 7:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah...did you just call Allsmiles a liar?

Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 7:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah--did you know that allsmiles was an undecided democrat?

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 8:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Judging from the number of people who claim to have stiffed the waiter and given the homeless guy 10 bucks, I'm thinking of sitting outside a restaurant all week-end with a McCain button on my bag lady shirt. At the end of the week-end the waiter wearing the Obama button and I could compare our tips.

_____________
Most homeless people are mentally ill!

Mental illness is as real as any other disease.

What happened to compassionate conservatism - or did it ever exist?
_____________

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 11:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I heard that some of the republicans that donated to the RNC are asking for a refund after hearing how much they paid to makeover Palin.

Southernwoman, what happened to compassion period?

Posted by harjedalen (anonymous) on October 25, 2008 at 4:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In response to those of you(me included) who want America to keep her sovereignity, remember that as Senator, Mccain has been enemy number one of America's cabotage laws. He wants to open up point to point shipping within America to vessels which are foreign registered, foreign crewed, and foreign built. That's why the Merchant Mariners are backing Obama. Keep old glory flying on the high seas!!!!
http://blog.aflcio.org/2008/08/12/mccain...

Posted by ITSME (anonymous) on October 25, 2008 at 8:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Does this mean I can sit on my porch all day 2 and get food stamps and welfare? What i be talking bout homie g! Maybe we can be like Kenya thats the stuff right there.

Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 25, 2008 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Joe Biden reminds me of Dan Quayle.It's a good thing his boss can think and speak for him . Maybe obama should have chosen Joe the Plumber instead. He does have a lot of horse sense and can speak well . Oh that's right ,he has more sense that obama about politics. he he! If ya'll, and I know some of ya'll are as hardheaded as I am, are still thinking obama is going to spread the wealth amongst the poor, then you are going to be even more angry in the future if obama gets into The White House . Here's something else we will have....obama national holidays, obama streets and blvds.,etc..obama schools and universities,maybe even the obama version of the Bible . His constituents will not allow him only being an American leader . I think they will go worldwide . And believe me ,it's not so they can spread the wealth amongst the poor . Think people think, before you vote and it's too late .

Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 25, 2008 at 10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

happybunny, it's 6 million on the victory party and Sarah is donating all her clothing that was GIVEN to her to charity when this is all over . Her wardrobe did not cost taxpayers,whereas obamas jet ride to Hawaii did . All you obama fans out there, do you honestly believe obama will share his wealth with you if you have a loved one that's very ill and you need a jet to see about them . If you do, then you must live in fantasy land !

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 25, 2008 at 12:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh, I think the taxpayers paid for Sarah's duds from Neiman's, all right.

The money for Sarah's new wardrobe likely came from one of those banking execs who collected half a billion or so from the US TREASURY and decided to spend a few pennies (to him) to make Sarah look good.

The Bush administration has been spreading manure for too many years and McCain voted for his proposals 90 percent of the time.

I not only touched the Obama button when I voted - I pounded it with my fist!

Posted by toosweetlej (anonymous) on October 25, 2008 at 1:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Leave Obama alone!! He WILL be the next president, no doubt. I am going to vote for him and so are a lot of others. My God, you all talk about welfare, babies having babies, getting on welfare. If Obama believes in abortion, maybe that is a good thing. Why bring innocent babies into this world and not want them. Obama is nopt anti-christ, Bush is. I thought I disliked Bush, but McCain, I can't stand. He is a weird looking short armed jerk without a plan. I really don't trust either one of them. Let's get Bill Clinton back into office.

Posted by rattlesnake (anonymous) on October 25, 2008 at 1:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

southernwoman I am glad you pounded the odamy button with your fist. If we are lucky it will not work any more just like his plans will never work. VoteMcCain/Palin!

Posted by rattlesnake (anonymous) on October 25, 2008 at 1:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

toosweetlej McCains arms are messed up because he was tortured as a POW. odamy has never been in the military at all. odamy does believe in the murdering of babies though.

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 25, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I pounded the Barack Obama button - you know, the button for the United States Senator from the Great State of Illinois - the Land of Lincoln and home of Senator Everett Dirksen, located in the Heartland of America.

America, where we're headed back to the gilded age where only a few were entitled to education and health care.

The odamy button only exists in your head.

Posted by Dilbert (anonymous) on October 25, 2008 at 2:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

toosweetlej
"He is a weird looking short armed jerk without a plan"

Did you eat paint chips as a child? Live under high voltage power lines? His arms are like that because almost every bone in his body has been broken while he served this country. He was a POW for longer than Obama has served in the US Senate.

No plan? Go to an independent, non-partisan site and get a clue. They all say the same thing, Obama's tax plan that he sprouts off with 95% of people getting their taxes lowered is a joke. It is not even remotely true. Not even just a little bit. The only "plan" he has sprouted off so far is increase taxes and increase spending. Fantastic plan.

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 25, 2008 at 2:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, and after the torture, Senator McCain chased women, divorced his crippled wife, and married a Baptist who controls a 150+million beer fortune. Oh, and he is an unbaptized Baptist now.

HIs short arms may be a consequence of his own doing - he admitted his arrogance as a POW increased the torture he endured.

Posted by Dilbert (anonymous) on October 25, 2008 at 4:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

southernwoman..
What do you have against Baptists? Much less Baptists that have a 150+ million beer fortune? I don't even almost understand your point.

Religion may not be the aurgement you want to go with to compare Obama & McCain.

Although you can argue any way you want. You just leave out any and all facts that are negative to Obama. Makes sense to me.

Posted by redusmfan (anonymous) on October 25, 2008 at 5:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The pot calling the kettle black.....Obama calling McCain willfully ignorant...lol....shameless democrats....

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 25, 2008 at 5:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dilbert,

My point was that Senator McCain has not shown commitment to marriage, family values or his faith.

Do Baptists now encourage their flock to go into the beer distributorship business? Or do they exclude only those who haven't gotten really rich at it? I don't know - you tell me.

I have no problem with Senator Obama's religion - whether you mean muslim (I don't happen to think Senator Obama is of the muslim faith but I'm supposing that you might - but there are muslims all over the place in this United States of America, even serving and dying in the U. S. military)...

or whether you mean Reverend Jeremiah Wright's religious views....I believe Reverend Wright's famous sermon was about our country taking responsibity for its actions just as any other country should....

just as I believe, as individuals, we are called upon to take responsibility for our actions....

John McCain included.

When the old woman said to McCain that Senator Obama scares her because he is an Arab...

McCain replied, "No ma'am. He is a fine, family man" or something to that effect.

Do you believe an Arab cannot be a fine family man?

Or is that a label reserved for WASPs only?

Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 25, 2008 at 6:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

southernwoman you should be ashamed of yourself. The scary thing for you is the karma that surrounds you . What goes around comes around . And why do you have this thing about Baptist ? They are good people ,too. I believe McCain has shown a lot more loyalty than obama . obama can't stand by his association with his minister of choice for twenty years,because it would ruin his chance to be president . He can't stand by the friends he has in his past for the same reason and he has never finished a job he was elected to or chosen. You poor poor woman.McCain went through a lot of pain because he believes in the very United States of America that has given you so many freedoms all of your life . But you don't want that anymore,do you ? You would rather live on somebody elses sweat from hard work and loyalties.You live in a dream world because that is not going to happen . obama just may become our next president and I shutter to think what our decendants will have to go through . At least I can say,"Baby ,I tried. I didn't vote for that dictator."Like I said ,I am ashamed of you!

Posted by Dilbert (anonymous) on October 25, 2008 at 7:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

southernwoman,
I'm not Baptist so I can't tell you what they encourage. I do happen to know many Baptist's and I know that most of them have problems with abortion, while Obama doesn't, in any way shape or form. Even allowing children to have them without letting their parents know. There are some strong family values for you.

I don't pretend to know what faith Obama is. I don't personally know him, I'm not nearly radical enough, haven't bombed any US sites (Ayers), brought about genocide (Odinga), preached hate (Wright) or anything else that would draw him to me. Once again strong family values.

But a man who marries a woman, who inherited a fortune, doesn't have strong family values in your opinion? I guess since you have such strong family values, if you inherited $150,000,000 you wouldn't take it and if you did take it, that should automatically rule out any chance of a man wanting to marry you, because if he does marry you, that means he doesn’t have strong family values either? If you say you wouldn't take the money, I will be forced to call you a liar, so I hope you don't say you wouldn't.

A label reserved for WASPs only? Unreal..

At least when the person called Obama that, McCain stopped his speech and made a statement about it, even though he was Boooooo'd by his own supporters.

What did Obama do when his supporters came to his rally with T-shirts that read: 'Bros Before Hos' when he was going against Hilary? Nothing.

What did Obama do when his supporters showed up at his rally with t-shirts that read "Sarah Palin is a C***"? Nothing.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 26, 2008 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There is nothing wrong with Baptists as a group. I know because I was raised as one.

But being Baptist -- with the emphasis on a personal relationship with God -- does give one significant latitude for hypocrisy with the assurance one will be saved. Feeling they are padded from sin, many do not even examine their own actions like others -- including liberals -- often do.

So I do know that Baptists -- some of them -- have a significant capacity for sin as well as goodness. And I don't think southernwoman was judging McCain against HER values but against his own. The difference is telling. And it is amazing how conservative types miss the distinction so frequently and atttack the speaker as though HER values are in question-- in a childish tit for tat desperation to obsure the point. You could be a stinking drunk and still make a point about a Baptist's drinking hypocrisy and be dead on.

McCain profiting off of a gigantic beer fortune wouldn't be very questionable except if he was of a religion that happened to be anti-alcohol.

McCain's devoutness as a Baptist might reasonably be questioned if his faith -- with THAT name -- has not even moved him to the stage of being BAPTISED.

McCain's injuries would be a pure mark of courage unless he brought them upon himself for trying to irritate his captors instead of simply fulfilling his mission. Irritating his captors could reasonably be looked upon as a selfish act that damaged US property.

McCain would look more like a family man if when he wrote about meeting his present wife he did not record it in his memoirs that he did not court her until he left his previous wife -- something that he has also admitted is wrong.

And McCain might look a lot more sincere if he paid a little more attention to what it means to bear false witness against another. For many voters THAT is the topic of the day and what has turned them off to McCain.

The problem with being a conservative -- applying such a simplistic yardstick of good and bad -- leaves you guys clueless about the distinctions I mentioned. Too often you miss the point entirely on matters of good and evil because yu start defending or attacking before you examine what others are saying.

These are reasonable questions for BAPTISTS to ask themselves about a leader. Far more reasonable in fact than claims that Obama is a terrorist sympathizer because of a peripheral association with Ayers or a marxist. But Like I said Baptist are often confused by their assumed entitlement to judge others -- feeling they themselves are more immune to punishment through the salvation of Christ.

The one thing I got out of being raised Baptist was that THAT entitlement was probably NOT what Jesus wanted from us when we accepted his peaceful grace.

Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on October 26, 2008 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Owhampy just wants to be Caucasian, but he can never be! It just breaks his little Heart!? In fact, he has not yet found out what he really wants to be! Sounds like an old George Mcgovern or a Jimmy Carter? Vote McCain/Palin for America to survive! And not become a 3rd World Country?

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 26, 2008 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

rushing, do you sit and type with your sheet and hood on, or do you take it off around the house?

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 26, 2008 at 1:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BUSH STABS McCAIN IN BACK ON OHIO VOTER SUPRESSION

http://www.rollcall.com/news/29533-1.htm...

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 26, 2008 at 2:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think rushing is just making sure the democrats don't forget to vote.

And making sure that some voters who drive to the polls with McCain stickers on their vehicles will vote for Senator Obama.

Posted by harjedalen (anonymous) on October 26, 2008 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Rushing, Obama knows what he wants to be. PRESIDENT OF THE USA!!! And he is almost there, quite remarkable considering he wasnt born some Admirals son. Why does he want to be just Caucasian when us multiracials can have it two, three or more different ways.
Why am I evening reacting to this guy?

Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 26, 2008 at 8:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What is really remarkable is the fact that he wouldn't even be qualified to fill the shoes of the secret service men that protect him and he might become president of the United States . Only in todays America could that happen . Oh,you Democrats,you!

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 26, 2008 at 8:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

southernbelle, how's that?

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 26, 2008 at 9:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

rushinghjr...that was out of line! I don't care what most of the liberal socialist fanatics say, your comment about race was out of line.

Now I dare any liberal Democrat to cite an example of these local blogs where one of their own has tried to rein in the vitriol.

It is disgraceful to America that some would lose sight of their country's best interests to do and say things so reprehensible and so divisive as to make what should be temporary differences of opinion permanent.

I'm not excoriating one side or the other, but both. If I wanted to make friends here or cared about losing them here I wouldn't post under my real name. I'm condemning both sides...IT IS OUT OF CONTROL PEOPLE.

We don't have anything to fear...the terrorists, the economy, the energy crisis or anything else more than we have to fear ourselves! Grow up, act like responsible adults. Take responsibility for your lives. Treat your neighbors with respect even if they don't agree.

Posted by EnKiKur (Marty Ellerbe) on October 26, 2008 at 10:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There you go preaching radical conservatism again Sam. You right wingnuts are all alike. Back during the time when I was a liberal it was very clear to me how divisive your kind are.

Have you considered that if we treat each other with respect that would mean that we actually give some credence to the argument of the other side? That would destroy the two party system! Is that what you are up to Sam? I think you are a very dangerous character.

Posted by EnKiKur (Marty Ellerbe) on October 26, 2008 at 10:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sam, I had this dream about two weeks ago I'd like your help in understanding, even though you are a radical. I understand some parts of it, but other parts I don't.

I was walking north on South Canal coming by the Oleander bushes on the outside of the wall around Rosalie. The streets were full of people and noise, and there were a lot of blue vans parked helter skelter on Canal. These vans were the same shade of blue as the darker blue writing that says "Imagine" on the Obama "Hope" t-shirts. On the rear of each vehicle, up at the top in the lighter blue background of the Obama t-shirts were the words "Treasury Security"; there were lots of Treasury agents pouring out of these vans with guns. In the dream I understood that "Treasury Security" was a pun in dream language- the agents were Treasury Security agents, but the phrase also meant the people were Treasury Security as well as some people were being put into the Treasury vans that had no windows-the people were the Treasury's security. The other vans that had windows had no people in them. There was some message there about transparency but I didn't get it all.

As I walked up the street people were lined up on the Rosalie side of the street facing the center of the street, just standing still, three or four rows deep beginning across from where Fat Mama's is now. On the other side of the street a group of black men and children were being harrassed by Treasury Agents with bullhorns shouting "what are you people doing just standing around, get to work!", and that harrassed group was being surrounded by the agents and driven up the street, as if to go off and work in the fields.

Coming down the middle of the street were the various high school bands playing marching and playing patriotic songs, and between the bands were long lines of soldiers with guns. Then, the people on my side of the street were commanded to turn and they all turned to the north and started shuffling up Canal toward the old railroad siding on the bluff.

I crossed the street and went into the green house that sits on the end of Washington St. (right by that new restaurant) and there was a commission meeting inside. The commission, headed by a woman, was accusing me of something which I denied; upon my denial a man sitting at the side of the woman jumped up and harshly rebuked me. I told him to sit down and shut the (deleted) up; he was in the act of sitting but jumped back up and said "My Name IS JOE BIDEN AND I DON'T SIT DOWN AND SHUT THE (deleted) UP!"

I took Joe Biden to be some part of my subconscious telling me it was planning on giving me some trouble, but what do you make of the rest of this dream from a radical conservative perspective? It was filled with ominous overtones but wasn't quite a nightmare.

Posted by Omega (anonymous) on October 26, 2008 at 10:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Over the years the Democratic Party has been taken over by the loons and has become the National Democratic Socialist Party. A lot of what has the economy broken started under Clinton. Obama is a socialist. Take from the working class and give to the lazy bums. Democrats are involved in vote buying. “Vote for me and I’ll give you more” Obama is a fool and anyone that is voting for him is either voting because of race or because they are an incompetent nincompoop. I’m no big fan of McCain but the number of idiots that say they are going to vote for Obama is scary. If Obama is elected the U.S.A. will start its death spiral. God help us all!

Posted by EnKiKur (Marty Ellerbe) on October 26, 2008 at 11:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Do you mean something like this might happen Omega? Nah, not in America.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxJ7t3U3T...

Posted by EnKiKur (Marty Ellerbe) on October 26, 2008 at 11:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It could turn out more like this:

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=ro...

That's the beautiful thing about hope and unspecified change, it can be anything you want it to be.

Posted by EnKiKur (Marty Ellerbe) on October 26, 2008 at 11:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You see Omega, 2+2 doesn't have to be 4. It can be 3, or 5, and sometimes it can be all three at once. Don't you see?

The only important thing about reality is not to question it once it has been defined for you. That is just foolish.

Posted by Omega (anonymous) on October 26, 2008 at 11:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Taking a nation that our founding fathers set up to be a constitutional republic and turning it into a mob rule democracy is crazy. Of course the democrats have been on this road for years by trying to convince everyone that the U.S. is a democracy. Something that it was never intended to be. Go ahead a flush the U.S.A. and everything it stands for down the toilet. The democrats started its socialist policies with welfare and we are now on 6th and 7th generation welfare families. They have proven you can’t solve poverty by giving people money. Now all these people want are their entitlements at the tax payers expense. I guess if Obama gets is I can quit my job, get my Obama insurance and entitlements. Where does it end. We will have a nation of bums.
Taxing businesses during these economic times will drive businesses over seas or out of business. Jobs will be lost and since no one will be paying for the Obama programs the economy will collapse and it will be the great depression all over again. The American dream is about having the opportunity to make something of yourself, not squandering it away waiting for someone like Obama to hit the Power Ball for you. Look at the top ten worst cities in this country (just do a google search) and you will see where the Democrats have run things into the ground. The democrats have been fighting the republicans and doing things backwards for 30 to 50 years. Turn and face the light, it’s OK.

Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on October 27, 2008 at 8:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Enk, I watched the first one, and the only thing I kept thinking was, don't these kids know they can already take responsibility for their lives and aspire to be anything they want? That is what America is about, the ability of anyone of any race and finanical background to become, THROUGH HARD WORK, whatever they want to be. I guess those are the key words though.