It's only June - a lot can happen, including Obama's penchant for lying almost every day, not to mention his association with America-haters and his own cowardice.
It's only June - a lot can happen, including Obama's penchant for lying almost every day, not to mention his association with America-haters and his own cowardice.
What ? .....Obama beating McCain in a game of hoops...well..we all know white men can't jump.
I am sick of listening to the talking heads denounce Obama's bounce. I know this is about 24/7 campaign reporting but lets not forget where the people stand. We are tired of war that have sucked all our money into the toilet of not really gettng anywhere but depleting our finances. I like the rest of America, need money to take care of the real things that are in our face (gas, bills, college, food, taxes, etc.). We do not have time to give dumb comments by Rove or Black any real interest. People like Dobson is stupid and is not in touce with reality. What served in the 80''s and 90's have no place for the 21st century. We are not a country still trying to prove we are mighty, done that, proved that and it's time to move on. We need a so called elistist to set us straight. We are a participant in this world and need more talk concerning how we move on and re-establish our position as a world leader. This crap about roe v. Wade or having another terriost strike is stupid. God forbid if it did take place I would quit my job and stomp to have Obama elected based off a BS conspiracy that was conducted by republicans to keep us trapped in big corporate business (check out McCan's staff) gains.
You consider the call to readdress Roe vs Wade as "crap". I disagree!
Recently the Supreme Court decided to eliminate the death penalty for CONVICTED child rapists.
When will it decide to eliminate the death penalty (abortion) for the INNOCENT unborn or those in the process of being born (late term and partial birth abortions)?
Disregarding any actual ethical considerations and responsibilities, you seem to consider the number of aborted humans as insignificant - so what if the number of infants aborted DAILY vastly dwarfs the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan OVER THE PAST 6 YEARS.
Yes, the democrat party is obviously a values organization. The question is - What are its values?
I am with you on this one (below). If Obama gets in and starts messing with current Abortion law in place to allow Partial Birth Abortions it is enough to turn me Pro-Life.
OBAMA IS STRONGLY FOR LIFTING BAN ON PRO - PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION:
What is Partial Birth Abortion: http://www.whatispartialbirthabortion.org/
Hello comrade sharenews - I never thought that I would ever use that terminology - I just had to do that, especially since this site does seem to have more than it's fair share of socialist bloggers.
Now to get back to being myself - Hello, friend (if I do have your permission to call you that)!
If I don't, I sincerely apologize for my assumption and advance.
Thanks for your displayed support to my "rant" regarding the other blogger's use of the crappy word "crap" in referring to the issue of readdressing Roe vs Wade. I sincerely believe that any country (including mine) needs to address the issue of abortion itself, but especially late term or partial birth abortions, and most definitely the intentional act of killing a child who has somehow survived an abortion.
I honestly believe that any society can't rightfully or honestly call itself a caring society without acting to protect the rights of all humans. I regard abortion as blatant gross age discrimination.
I realize that sometimes the abortion option is not taken lightly by the mother, but other times it is merely used as a method of contraception.
And I do realize that any unwanted birth or abortion will be a traumatic experience for the mother, and probably her family if she is still living with any relatives.
Yes, I admit to being a religiously conscious individual. I don't regard myself as being a religious radical or fanatic, but I am willing to carry that derogatory label if other persons prefer to label me as one.
I regard the birth of a child as one of God's most generous unique gifts to mankind - the enabling of a mother and father to actually be directly involved in the creation of a human life, and the shared imprinting of their DNA on the infant.
And I wonder how God would view the act of an abortion. Would He consider it to be a direct confrontational display of defiance and independence, in a way saying to Him - no thanks, I can't be bothered, take back your unwanted gift - I didn't ask for it?
But I am sure that He would show mercy.
Hello again, sharenews:
I had to cut my comment into 2 parts to comply with the site requirement that any comment be restricted to 3000 characters or less.
Here is the balance of my comment to you.
Sharenews, I do appreciate the excellent internet research which you have done and posted regarding the partial-birth procedure. It is definitely thought provoking, and tragic.
I realize that there is a sizeable segment of the population throughout the world that regards abortion as a woman's right. I can understand that assertion. But how about the innocent human life that is to be destroyed by abortion - doesn't it, or rather shouldn't it, or he or she, in a so-called caring society, have any counterbalancing right? That is an issue to be decided individually and collectively by the members of any civilized nation.
I realize that it is probably impossible to satisfy "both sides" of the issue. But as a start, can there at least be a compromise? I believe that the US federal election in November, if the politicians would agree, could have a plebiscite asking the voters whether they would want their taxes to be proportionally directed toward funding abortions, or whether they would prefer that finances be allocated to pro-life programs.
And depending on the vote outcome, then the total sum which now funds abortions could be divided accordingly to each preference.
If I've offended anybody by being as forward as I now have been, I apologize.
It surely hasn't been my intention to antagonize anyone. I've been called an optimist on more than one occasion - I consider that to be a compliment. Maybe I'm dedicated - I am willing to strive to try to make a difference.
To all of you - you be my judge in this matter. I can live with any and all condemnation!
And thanks for bothering to read my submission.
Now let's "get on" to other considerations as they occur. And I will definitely continue to voice my opinions as forcefully and respectfully as I can when issues arise.
Now that Tim Russert is no longer with us, is there any reporter or commentator who has the integrity and competence to pose this question to Barack Obama -
How do you reconcile your professed Christian and moral belief and Senate voting record that it is perfectly acceptable to terminate a human life either 2 minutes before that child would be born, or else at birth by a partial birth abortion procedure, whereas it should be considered murder for that child to be killed 2 minutes after having been born?
Yes Barack Obama, the world's population assesses your supposed competence by the manner in which you answer the difficult questions?
Are you man enough to respond to this one?
Davole - I'm curious about your question and have a question for you. Is it moral to kill any human being? For example, all of the Iraqi citizens who have died due to the Bush lies, all of those on death row who have died in Texas (many of whom were probably wrongly convicted), etc.?
dreffein - Thanks for your contact and questions.
First off - beware - curiosity is rumoured to have killed the cat! But I will entertain or at least address your curiosity.
You ask - 'Is it moral to kill any human being?"
My answer - it depends on the circumstances, and the motivation of the person who is doing the killing.
If it is done in self defense, or to protect someone else (maybe even society), in my opinion - Yes.
Then you provide an example or qualifier - "For example, all of the Iraqi citizens who have died..."
I'll dissect that example into two parts.
Regarding the Iraqi citizens who have died - deaths are usually a natural consequence of any war or military action. Now, in this consideration, some of those deaths were a result of the military action itself, and others were directly attributable to the terrorists who are usually referred to as insurgents or freedom-fighters by the biased mainstream news (?) or press organizations.
Now, I definitely do contest your assertion that these deaths were due to "the Bush lies".
To which specific lies are you referring?
I believe that your President, George W. Bush, was hampered by the policies of Bill Clinton which forbade the CIA and FBI to share security and military information. As a direct result, the information collected was incomplete and probably unknowlingly deceptive, or maybe even falsely interpreted. But Saddam Hussein had previously used WMDs on his own people, and he maintained that he still had and would increase them. Bush, through the UN, gave him 17 opportunities to submit to inspection. He refused, and so began the invasion.
Then, as a second example, you refer to those persons convicted of serious felonies. I believe they have had their days, weeks, and possibly even months (due to adjournments) in court with defense lawyers pleading their cases. Some of those convicted might even still be granted a reprieve if warranted. Yes, some mistaken decisions might happen in a system conducted by humans, but at least the convicted have been tried by a justice-oriented system. With regard to the right or legality of the death sentence - I believe that Jesus Christ said - "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's. Those convicted generally knew that they were committing a serious crime against mankind via the state, and I believe that they themselves brought the death penalty upon themselves, since the government has made known the possible consequences of serious crimes.
I believe that I have provided an honest answer for your questions.
If you would care to dispute my response, please "feel free" to do so.
Again, thanks for your correspondence.
"Probably wrongly convicted"! You are a hoot. Prior to the 2000 election the left-wing media spent a ton of time and money trying to find an executed Texas convict that was wrongly convicted, in an attempt to discredit George W Bush. Guess how many they found? Exactly zero.
We???
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
|Obama: Decriminalize pot
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Last fall during a nationally televised presidential debate, Sen. Barack Obama hesitantly raised his hand and joined with most of his Democratic rivals to declare that he opposed decriminalizing marijuana.
But as a candidate for the U.S. Senate four (4) years ago, Mr. Obama told Illinois college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use or possession, according to a videotape of a little noticed debate that was obtained by The Washington Times.
I think we need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws, Mr. Obama told an audience during a debate at Northwestern University in 2004. But I am not somebody who believes in legalization of marijuana.
Source for above: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jan/31/obama-decriminalize-pot/
Other Related article: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/15/1641/60593
June 25, 2008
Gallup Daily: Obama, McCain Tied at 45%
Obama had held at least a slim advantage for most of June
PRINCETON, NJ -- The latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking update on the presidential election finds John McCain and Barack Obama exactly tied at 45% among registered voters nationwide.
.
Gallup Daily Election Polling Results for the Presidential General Election
Obama vs. McCain, trend since May 28 - June 2, 2008
View chart: http://www.gallup.com/poll/108376/Gallup-Daily-Obama-McCain-Tied-45.aspx
GALLUP
June 25, 2008
McCain vs. Obama as Commander in ChiefMcCain gets high marks, but Obama passes 50% threshold
by Lydia Saad
PRINCETON, NJ -- John McCain's life experience has earned him a solid national reputation as someone who can serve as the nation's commander in chief, with 80% saying he can handle the responsibilities of this important role. Barack Obama lags well behind on the same measure, but does pass the 50% public confidence threshold.
Full article: http://www.gallup.com/poll/108373/McCain-vs-Obama-Commander-Chief.aspx
Newsweak had Walter Mondale defeating Ronald Reagan in 1984. The only poll in the nation to make that stellar prediction.
They are the kings of wishful thinking; and always with a leftist result, of course...
President Dukakis was ahead by 19 points at this point. President Kerry was also ahead at this point. Gallup has the race EVEN today.
And President Gore was up by 15 pts prior to the debates with GWB in 2000
President Dukakis was ahead by 19 points at this point. President Kerry was also ahead in the Summer. Gallup has it EVEN today.
Oh Happy Days!!!!!!!!!!
Obama leading in ALL polls, including Electoral College Map...............Gallup, Rasmussen, AP, Newsweek, LA Times........
Oh, nevermind..............you get the point...... LMAO!!!!!
of course it is a Newsweek poll...
Guys check out these great article:
"The Country I Lie To"
Obama LIES on his first general election ad! Also, a short background check on Obama's VP adviser; Eric Holder.
http://savagepolitics.com/?p=800
"Tyrants or Children"
Kim Jong Il and his North Korean murderers endorse Barack Obama. Also, a short profile of Cindy McCain and her charity work.
http://savagepolitics.com/?p=805
I wouldn't believe any polling done by Newsweek which is a liberal periodical. This only shows how dishonest the polling really is. A poll of 1000 random people is a waste of time. The polling needs to be done among specific groups based on demographics. I just read in an article on racial prejudice that McCain leads Obama by 1 point among likely voters. Does anyone remember the article done by Newsweek where they were actually coaching Obama on how to deal with white voters, a majority of whom (according to Newsweek) were not happy with Obama? And the good news is that McCain is catching up to Obama in terms of campaign contributions. Last month he was only $400K in total contributions.
You obviously haven`t studied statistics. Polls of random people are the ONLY accurate polls. Polling companies work VERY hard to make their samples random yet representative. that`s why the AOL on-line straw poll is always wrong. It`s NOT a random group of people, but a self-selected sub-group consisting of people who like to look at AOL.
You're quibbling about a word. All polls start off as random. A true random poll could result in a 75% Democratic result. What good is that? Then you go on to say random yet representative. I'm talking about a representative poll not a poll which has 52% Democratic sample like this one probably did.
The only worthwhile polls are those which get a representative national sample based or race, gender, region, religion, etc. Most of these polls don't do that and that is why you end up with whacky reults like this one which gives Obama a 15 point lead.
In most national polls, McCain tends to get at least 40% of the vote and a little higher. Obama tends to always do better than McCain by a few percentage points. That's most probably the reality.
Good post - but I think you are wasting you time. People just like to whine about Newsweek - yet they come to blog week after week. It's all just noise.
Here's another example regarding our 'fair' unbiased, (oops, after saying that, I have a little vomit in my mouth..), buring another story that goes against their 'Reich' Friends in the Democrat party..
BMI???s Menefee: Countrywide Story ???Has Everything,??? but Networks Ignore It
The network news outlets - ABC, CBS and NBC - have missed a great opportunity to cover actual political news in the last week by failing to report on the loan scandal surrounding two Democratic senators, Business & Media Institute Managing Editor Amy Menefee told "Fox & Friends Weekend" June 21.
"This story has everything," Menefee said. "It has a former presidential candidate, Chris Dodd. It has two senators who are getting, like you said, sweetheart loans. It has Kent Conrad, another senator, who called the CEO of the lender to get his loan, which is not what we normally do, and then said, ???Oh, I didn't get any preferential treatment and I didn't do anything wrong, but I'm going to give a charitable donation to remedy the fact that I didn't do anything wrong.'"
Menefee said it was "very sad" that the networks failed to report the scandal - not just because they refused to go after two Democrats, but because they missed an opportunity to expose the bailout plan Dodd has been defending.
Newsweek is too busy adjusting their Democrat party armbands to pay any attention to these type of stories. But let's dig up some stories regarding Republicans. Guess the next thing you guys at Newsweek will be doing is start shouting, "Heil Democrats!'.
Funny, I had a little vomit in my mouth after reading your post. All you right wing morons with your conspiracy theories about the media. Why don't you go back to watching the X Files. Or at least take the tin foil off your head.
Zig Zag - if you concentrated on intelligently discussing issues, instead of hurling immature invectives, we probably wouldn't see many posts from you!
That's where you are wrong - if bloggers post intelligent and articulate comments - they will get an intelligent and articulate reply. Ask sharenews - I don't agree with a lot of what she says, but her posts are always good and she has my respect.
In this particular case - this idiot is talking about Nazi propaganda and all sorts of other nonesense. When people do that, I am not going to make the effort to provide a rational repy, I'm just going to call them an idiot, because that's what they are.
Does that help?
Zig Zag - Thanks for your reply.
You ask whether it helps - in my humble opinion - Yes and No.
It helps that you took the time to post a civil response to my comment, and that you stated your reasons for your initially posted reply to the blogger.
It doesn't help by calling the other person a moron - he has expressed an opinion which does not meet your approval. Why demean yourself by resorting to derogatory name calling?
Most of the opinion expressed by the other blogger was decently articulated., although his use of Nazi imagery was not to his advantage. But I do appreciate why he phrased his comment in that manner.
I'll try to explain. Close to half a year ago, a particular Republican politician (I can't remember his name) was described by over 10 "so called" news commentators on various mainstream networks as "lacking gravitas". Up until that day, I had never heard that expression used anywhere. Now what are the odds that 10 different individuals would choose to use the exact same words on the same day to describe the same person? By them having done so, would it be unwarranted to describe their conduct as "marching in lock-step fashion" to a particular cause or objective?
My own personal philosophy is to consider another person's comment, and to put more importance on whether there is any truth in that comment, and if need be, overlook the particular manner or tone with which it is delivered. I admit that sometimes it is tempting to respond in kind to an offensive or insulting remark, but doing so would only belittle myself in my estimation.
I have noticed that the tone of your comments to other bloggers have been much more respectful since I have posted my comment. Please - even though we disagree on several issues - keep up the good work, despite occasionally what may be said to you by other individuals. We all have different experiences, histories, perceptions, and vocabulary.
If I may suggest, since you do spend a lot of time on this website, please take the time to request that other bloggers who tend to resort to derogatory name-calling, consider ending that practice. I believe that would help to foster a more respectful, informative, and productive community.
Well, based on your screen name, I would say you are new to the Newsweek blogs. Tell you what, why don't you spend the next couple of weeks blogging, and then we'll have this conversation again.
Trust me, you'll have a different perspective.
Hello again, Zig Zag:
Thanks again for your second prompt reply to my comment, and your welcoming me to this website.
Since you're, let's call it, my conduit to this site, I'll also use this reply to you to thank your cohorts, marksgershenson and sharenews for their greeting and welcoming comments.
While sharenews suspected that I am a new blogger, you were more precise in qualifying your suspicion that I am a new blogger to this particular website. I have recently posted a comment to 2 other bloggers here, but it looks as though somehow I have managed to tap into the "motherload" with respect to you and your 2 affiliates. Over the past 7 or 8 years, I have also blogged on a few other American and Canadian religious and political sites, so I am not quite a neophyte.
Here's some introduction background information about myself.
I'm a Canadian - I know, I can hear the murmers now - there goes the neighbourhood! I guess I got my hazing here a few days ago when I read several not quite veiled rants from a few other bloggers in response to a comment from another individual (I think his screen name was Concerned Canadian). It may come as a surprise to some Americans, but all Canadians do not think or rant in unison. We, like Americans, do have our individual characteristics and personalities. Do you get the "drift" - eh?
Some of your readers and bloggers may rightly wonder why I am bothering to post on your American website - look at it this way - I am what you get in return for Michael Moore, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and the pack of Hollywood glitterati who invade Canada to preach to us supposedly ignorant Canadians about our own politics.
I think I speak for most of the people on this blog when I say we would love to have a reasoned and articulate Canadian on here.
It's sort of an inside joke - once you've seen some of the post from CONCERNED CANADIAN - you'll understand :-)
Zig Zag - So, you have indicated your opinion that most of the bloggers on this website would love to have a reasoned and articulate Canadian on here. Great - I'll start searching for one now.
In response to your comment that CONCERNED CANADIAN's posts are an inside joke - I have to differ with you there - no, they're not inside, they're faaaaaaaaaar out, at least the one which he tends to repeat.
But I do look forward to see what else (if anything) he has to say. Hopefully his future posts might have some merit and redeeming qualities.
You are such an optimist! Hope these blogs don't beat that out of you!
But since you're so nice, you get a big hug!
*HUG*
Zig Zag - Yes, I definitely am an optimist - most if not all of us Conservatives are. And like Mt. Rushmore, that will pervail irrespective of any obstacles which we tend to view as opportunities.
Thanks for the big hug. Through previous volunteer work helping to facilitate a Coping with Divorce Program, I have learned to appreciate the healing and consoling factor of a hug.
But I have already exceeded my quota of hugs for this week. Instead, would you please redirect this hug to any blogger on this site who, even though somewhat deservingly, was rebuked as being an idiot or moron because of having posted a comment which was deemed as objectionable or inappropriate? Through self analysis, I don't know how to categorize myself - as a fighter or a lover. Maybe I'm entrenched in both camps. But I do honestly believe that it is a worthwhile challenge to reach out to the marginalized in order to respect them as fellow individuals who are troubled. Thanks for your generous support!
Hello again Zig Zag & associates:
I had to cut my comment into 2 parts to comply with the site requirement that any comment be restricted to 3000 characters or less.
Here is the balance of my comment.
Oh, and another possibly self-incriminating bit of information - my political allegiance is Conservative,
somewhat akin to your Republican (aka Regan) party.
Also, many moons ago, I studied Psychology at a Canadian university, and am indebted to a uniquely talented American professor who had graduated from the University of Hawaii, and swam and trekked to The Great White North to teach. His whole objective was to challenge and enable the students to think "off the wall" or "out of the box" for themselves - no easy task. In retrospect, maybe he tapped into and expanded my own personality, since I have always been an individual who asks questions, considers and analyzes answers, and then usually asks more questions.
So, on this site, I intend to continue this preoccupation. And I am more concerned with my questions and statements being correct, as opposed to being "politically correct' (what a contradiction of reality}.
So, like it or not, you may be "saddled" with me for a while, maybe even a long while. And occasionally - no, let's make that frequently - I may lob a few topical grenades into the arena for discussion.
Well, I do apologize for taking up so much of your time and attention. And as you suggested, I look forward to conversing with you in a few weeks to discuss whether my opinions and approach will have changed. But to be totally honest - I doubt it, since I do value my principles and beliefs, and they have served me well for decades.
As they say in the arena - Let the games begin!
Davole, welcome if you are a new blogger. ZZ is right, that you might want to wait a few weeks blogging on this site. When I first started posting I was a Hillary supporter and coming out of the primaries I survived but I had to develop a Rhino hide and wear a brown hat to get thru it. Now we are in round two, the race to the general election. People can get emotional at times and some make blurt a name calling calling rant once in awhile; but there are many on the site that do conduct good intellectual dialog. Hang in there and see how it goes until then. : - )
sharenews - Thanks for providing some background information about yourself - that's what prompted me to follow suite.
Now let me get this straight - you admitted that you started out blogging on this site as a Hillary supporter, and then developed a rhino hide. Are you suggesting and conceding that you are presently a RINO? If so, congratulations on your transformation. But the journey may not be finished for you yet. You sound as though you are a fairly open-minded individual. I'm confident that, after being exposed to some more substantive republican viewpoint, you have the opportunity to progress further to the right, and even become a full-fledged Conservative Republican. You've got my support!
. . . . scratch the brown hat above. You need a BROWN HELMET . LMAO.
Yep, this is true of both ZZ and Mark whom I also respect them and their views. : - )
Thanks!
thanks ;-)
Hi Davole...welcome to the insane and inane family of the bloggers that post here. I think most people are reasonable in responses to whatever is posted. All of us have agreed to disagree without any doubt, and with total respect if the posting is reasonable, and a discussion can ensue...
I think what happens is that there are postings that are unreasonable, that do not use conventional wisdom and proper research, which creates friction. I have been personally accused of being overzealous in my comments. Why would somebody say that? It is because I monitor for racism, bigotry, anti-semitism, anti-muslim, etc. I call people out on their bs in a moments notice...and why I do that is because if nobody does, the same rants and raves are posted over and over again. And believe me, it can get tiresome...
For me, working along with many reasonable people here, I have learned lots, and ask lots of questions. I like to ask qustions to entertain disucssion so to help me grow, and potentially let someone else see another side to an opinion and grow too....have fun....Mark
I was holding my hand in the shape of an L to my forhead the whole time mark was typing that!
Must have been a interesting change from were your hand normally is.
Don't remove your tin foil its a liberal trick they will infiltrate our brains!!!! Those big ears of Obamas are actually transmitters.
Hussein's limo ridin' partner's NOT GOING AWAY......................see truth about Larry Sinclair and Hussein.
.......over 1,500,000 hits and growing rapidly........arrest only adds fuel to the wildfire...........Hussein can't stop the story..........going mainstream...............get the facts...............violations of constitutional rights alleged..........
............................http://larrysinclair0926.wordpress.com/....................................
NOBAMA!!!
And don't forget Holly, Larry has a warrant for his arrest in CO and he is asking people to give him more money. The F.B.I. is also looking to speak to Sinclair for another scam he was in. Limo driver can't be found, and he can't remember the hotel he stayed at. Larry and Holly and Lieberman and McCain.....The biggest joke in America.
If you wanna know how effective Obama will be as President, just look at Congress. It has been under Democratic control now for two years and they haven't been able to do anything. What happened? I'll give Obama alittle more credit then Congress, because they're really useless these days. Just look at our nation's infrastructure (which by the way, is one of the Federal governments main responsibilities to the tax payers) it's in shambles.
Yes and no to Dem control...the dems do not have enough to override a veto by themselves. Now in November as an example where they have the majority of seats to override a veto if McCain was president, that would be a horse of a different color. In the senate, it helped a lot to have gained a majority of one, no doubt....Mark
CNN News
June 23, 2008:
Jack Cafferty stated today:
Charlie Black, advisor to John McCain made a mistake today saying that McCain would have a political advantage should there be another terrorist attack in the months to come.
. . . And in the twisted logic of politics, as Jack Cafferty says, Black is probably right because (at least as of today), McCain gets 52% and Obama gets 33% on the subject of national security against terrorism.
Does everybody remember Bin Laden coming out of nowhere creating a new threat tape which the media ran over and over in 2004 prior to the GE? That had to have contributed to fear with some people staying with the current president Bush. Seemed too coincidental for a tape to come out just before the Presidential election.
OTHER:
Agency Says 7,000 Sites at HIGH RISK of Terrorist Attack
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/20/terror.risk/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
I was listening to CNN earlier...it almost seems like so far the McCain camp continuously shoots themselves in the foot and are struggling to get the campaign upright...and seemingly instead of improving, the McCain campaign keeps spiraling downard...
What seems funny to me, that a person with all this "campaigning experience" from the 2000 election and now, that conventional wisdom would point to the Obama camp and say that they would be making all the newbie mistakes because this is his first run for POTUS. Instead, it seems like the shoe is on the other foot....Mark
I will give you that, Obamas guy Axlerod and Obama have been running a great campaign focused on change and hope. Could be all the experience Obama has in him from being a community organizer 15+ years ago is coming in handy for keeping his campaign running smoothly.. . : - )
I have to give Charlie credit for speaking the truth, even if it is politically incorrect.
What I can't understand is why so many people think McCain would be better on National Security. He was a Navy pilot and a POW - I give him credit for his military service - but how does that correlate with the idea he would be better on National Security?
I think, if anything, it would make him jump more quickly to a military solution - and we've all seen how well that's worked out for us in Iraq.
But given how people currently feel, Charlie is right, a terrorist attack between now and November would definitely help McCain.
A Vote for John McCain is a vote to continue sending our bravest and finest young women and men to their deaths in Iraq. McCain has agreed to do just that in his quest to realize his ambition. Without the backing of the mouth-breathing right wing of his out of touch party he cannot win as a Republican. Who could vote for him knowing this? Character? Integrity? He lacks both!
what a screen name..............bass pro.............didn't know they had lakes in Syria.
NOBAMA!!!
Remember the golden rule Holly, if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all...where are your manners? Would you like your name challenged Holly? I didn't think so....take a chill pill and keep breathing....good, be a good little girl and go to bed and I will make sure you have a lollipop b4 you go to bed....
There is such an incredible bias on the part of the news media in support of Obama. It concerns me greatly that when legitimate concerns are raised about Obama's colleagues and others in his network, and his amazing lack of experience and accomplishments in the jobs he has held, that it causes such an uproar and often called racist and biggoted. All presidential candidates are scrutinized and have been throuhout history. This election will not and should not be any different.
Maybe it is because there is nothing to report ... I know that is an unusual concept for Republicans, because your candidates always have something to report on.
Now you know why Obama is going to win.
No experience, no plan, no resume
nothing to report.
No lies, no corruption, no good ole boy network
You're right, nothing to report.
. . . Umm, let me. It probably doesnt hurt to have this billionaire Media mogul supporting Obama for President; what d you think, my friends?
Media Mogul Murdoch Praises Obama . . and more
EXCERPT:
The worlds most powerful media mogul and owner of *Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, the hard-line conservative Rupert Murdoch last night admitted he had told one of his publications to back Democratic candidate Barack Obama. Could this be the start of a home run for Obama?
A political communication analyst tells us why he should be wary.
CEO and chairman of News Corporation, Rupert Murdoch has a HUGE STAKE in the WORLD PRESS, including dozens of newspapers, magazines, television channels and websites.
He has been criticized for a biased and overbearing influence, especially coming from his American news channel *Fox News. In the UK, he owns almost all of the conservative written press and is thought by many to be the reason behind Tony Blair???s landslide victory in 1997. Last night, speaking at a technology conference supported by the Wall Street Journal, the media tycoon praised Barack Obama, calling him a STAR.
*SHARENEWS COMMENT: Fox News is the one news media that was chosen by Murdoch to not be as biased in support of Obama. Thus, the reason why Obama supporters flipping out when they see Fox News referenced anywhere in these blogs.
More: http://observers.france24.com/en/content/20080530-murdoch-praises-obama
I am hopeful that with more than 4 months to go, Obama will show more substance, and will convince voters that he has the ability to carry out his policies. He has some work to do in that regard
Hitler had Joseph Goebbels and his control of the media. Democrats have our current MSM, who are in the TANK for Obama. That is why I call our media, the Joseph Goebbels-like propaganda wing of the Democrat party. At one time, our media was the 4th establishment of our country. To keep tabs on the three wings of government. But now? They have become the sole voice of the Democrat party.
Newweek, you sirs, are not Tim Russert. You might as well get your Democrat armbands on, as the definition of Fascism according to Websters, hits the mark.
Webster's definition of Fascism
: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
This is what you are creating, an autocratic governement, let by a zealous speaker that sends his crowds into thralls of ectasy, with the goal of social regimentation and supression of the opposition.
Fits to a T!
Yep, that's right, it is the new world order. And when Obama is elected, we are going to round up all of you red neck hill billies and make you take a bath and read a book. It's going to horrible. Time to kiss your hunting dogs goodbye.
Right, and make sure that the new Health care coverage includes Dental cuz ya'll know we need would really love a set of choppers to eat with! You jokesters, you.
Nice! Very nice!
you and ZZ are on a roll....LMAO...thanks! :-) Mark
As you know, and I am sure Davole will agree as time goes on Ya gotta have fun in here once in awhile. . . glad you are enjoying the dialogue. LOL. : - D
ROTFLMAO!!! :-)
There is always Fox news....LOL...your points are valid.up to a point...I wouldn't go to the extreme of fascist....my parents grew up in the 20's and 30's....it was an awful time...I think we are still going through an adjustment having instant news, a more liberal press, and yes it does show no doubt....Mark
Wait Holy was gone for teh EXACT ammount of time sinclair was, adveritses the web site, Holy is SINCLAIR...OMG!...Joke!
I think you and I may have scared her off, because normally within minutes of her post and one of us replies, she repeats the same posting over and over again....Mark
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
Discuss