Southern Discomfort

NEWSWEEK

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: doc2008 @ 08/06/2008 1:03:12 AM

    Dickey sems to say if you are white and from the South and you are not voting for Obama, then you must be racist. I take great offense to the notion that all Southerners vote based on race, not party affiliation or individual ideals such as those regarding war, education, healthcare, and a thousand other issues not relating to race.

    • Posted By: sharenews @ 08/06/2008 4:55:56 AM

      I agree. This might help. Do not play into the white guilty vote. Here is more info on that:

      http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2007/11/the_white_guilt.html

      • Posted By: rapidron @ 08/06/2008 11:18:23 AM

        So because you bring up this white guilty vote, you are pretty much saying that people should vote with that in mind instead of the issues.

        Nice propaganda... are you a plant. Are you a racist plant? A hypocritical, racist plant?

        It appeasr so, lameass.

        • Posted By: News and Notes @ 08/06/2008 12:55:51 PM

          There is an argument that because Obama is so underqualified, some white people must be supporting Obama becuase he is black. I don't believe that people who support that argument are racist, even though I personally do not support that argument.

          • Posted By: rapidron @ 08/06/2008 1:58:40 PM

            Th racism comes from bringing the undertones that white people who support Obama do so out of guilt--as if he didn't have some kind of skill or qualification that could be seen as invaluable.

            Were it a young white politician with great ideas, charisma, and potential to be honest and poweful as a leader (so much so relative to who we have nowadays), there would be no 'white guilt' notions at all. To add that garbage in IS racist, and tangibly so.

            But I digress; I simply wanted to address the gusto in which certain people were posting so ignorantly. You know that ignorance does not equate to stupidity, which is why I use this word instead. Ignorance is just not knowing. Then, it is readily apparent, I want to emphasize, that some of these comments show how ignorant people to their stupidity.

            • Posted By: News and Notes @ 08/06/2008 4:41:18 PM

              Were Obama a white 47 year old first term senator he would not have run for president, let alone be the presumptive nominee

              • Posted By: rapidron @ 08/06/2008 6:45:23 PM

                It's interesting that you can see through space and time to see a fabrication in which to prove your point that beyond a doubt Obama is not a candidate due to ANYTHING but his color--which is what you're saying.

                Do you see why this is a possibly prejudice and at the least a unsubstantiated and thoroughly fabricated type of comment to make? How would you know? How would you possibly know, except that your feelings tell you so? Has the man not moved people?

                On one hand you want to say that he's charismatic and moves people to 'hope' and this type of thing makes him a liar. On the other hand, you want to say that it's only because he's black. You might need to make up your mind before even making the initial biased assertion.

                • Posted By: News and Notes @ 08/07/2008 12:35:55 PM

                  You are twisting my words, again

                  • Posted By: rapidron @ 08/07/2008 7:57:31 PM

                    Why don't you or Jimbo challenge the assertions and not your anger at me making them.

                    I'm just saying, how do you know people aren't confident in Obama because of his ideas, integrity or past performance? How do you know for sure that if a 47 year-old white man of his caliber went for the presidency they could NEVER make it? You don't. Its a prejudiced way of thinking, because you CAN'T know this.

                    The question is, what would you be saying is a 47 year-old white man of his caliber were going for the white-house?

                    • Posted By: News and Notes @ 08/08/2008 9:47:10 AM

                      My initial remark may have been overly presumptuous in response to your wild accursations

                • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 08/06/2008 10:20:18 PM

                  Wow, you are the self-anointed all knowing, all seeing "racism detector". We are so lucky to have you here to detect racism in all of us dumb hick rubes.

                  You are a complete joke.

                  • Posted By: rapidron @ 08/07/2008 7:53:58 PM

                    Wow jimbo--you hurt me with your slack-jawed insults.

                    I never guessed you were from the south. You could be from the New York City and from your prose and inane ideas I would still call you a know-nothing because it very evident. Write something good and you'll get a good response. Write crap and yeah I'll flame you--why not?

              • Posted By: raddave @ 08/07/2008 1:51:45 AM

                Obama is half white News.

          • Posted By: raddave @ 08/07/2008 1:50:47 AM

            I am not voting for Obama because he is black. I am voting for him because I feel he is the best candidate to lead our country. You scream about Obama's underqualification, but yet you support HRC who has only seven years holding a public office. Obama has eleven years holding a public office. I am sorry but being a first lady is NOT experience.

            • Posted By: News and Notes @ 08/07/2008 3:49:52 PM

              Not everyone agrees with you about Hillary's experience as first lady

            • Posted By: News and Notes @ 08/07/2008 3:48:58 PM

              HRC has had seven years of national public office, and has been a prominent national figure for sixteen years.

    • Posted By: raddave @ 08/07/2008 1:44:19 AM

      Dickey did not imply that if you do not vote for Obama, you are racist.

  • Posted By: tomlinsonb @ 08/08/2008 9:13:30 AM

    Where is the cover picture from? It looks very familiar but I cannot place it.

  • Posted By: Spankster @ 08/05/2008 2:03:58 AM

    Sounds like someone needs to move to Paris.

    • Posted By: stephenprestwood @ 08/05/2008 2:30:36 AM

      No a real patriot is someone who is loyal to his country and fights for values and beliefs that transcend political borders, even when he knows his country is on the wrong path. For example, the world is a much better place because Nelson Mandela stayed in South Africa and brought about change rather than seeking exile in a more civilized Europe.

      I am just a humble middle-class American who would prefer to see this country aspire to something better. And I am capable of looking at the world around me and recognizing that the best ideas and the best systems are not always homegrown.

      • Posted By: jblackwell88 @ 08/05/2008 2:37:02 AM

        I guess its good that Mugabe's thugs butchered and terrorized the whites in Zimbabwe. Had that not happened, South Africa would not have feared starvation and postponed its own land redistribution program. Its not circulated in the MSM, but over 1% of the entire white population of South Africa has been murdered since the end of apartheid. If your aspirations for the USA is based on the outcome in S.A., then we're in a world of hurt.

        • Posted By: stephenprestwood @ 08/05/2008 3:00:31 AM

          JBlackwell do you ever use facts when you argue or do you just make sh*t up all the time. Like the MSM has any reason to supress the supposed murder of thousands of White South Africans. Like any dead White person isn't frontpage news for the the media. Got a blonde haired blue-eyed girl missing? Then, it's instant national news and media feeding frenzy. Got a missing black girl? Then she's just a silent statistic.

          And who was defending Mugabe? Not me. Stop changing the subject and trying to create strawmen.

          • Posted By: jblackwell88 @ 08/05/2008 3:28:03 AM

            I just thought your praise of South Africa was misguided. They are 2nd in the world for assault and murders per capita, and FIRST in rapes per capita. Do your research before you accuse me of manufacturing data. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_South_Africa

            • Posted By: stephenprestwood @ 08/05/2008 4:08:24 AM

              No, read what I write not what you want to see. I was praising Nelson Mandela, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, not setting up South Africa as a model for the US.

              Check into the disparity of wealth as a cause for crime. Want to find high crime rates? Then look at cities where there is a great disparity between the rich and the poor. This plays out at a national level as well. Countries that are mostly middle-calss or have a more equitable distribution of income usually have lower crime rates, i.e. Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, (....and most of the rest of western Europe), Australia, New Zealand, some small island nations in the Pacific, Canada, Japan....

              Countries that have the most disparity of wealth have relatively higher crime rates, i.e. Brazil, Russia, the Carribean, other Latin American countries, and the United States. Of course, there are some exceptions and outliers, but statistically it pretty much holds true. This is why when "liberals" want to distribute our tax dollars more equitably to pay for healthcare, education, and other social programs they aren't just trying to "take your hard earned money." The idea is to create a better country for all of us.

              I don't want my selfishness to help create uneducated morons who are angry about being poor and not having the opportunities I had. If they get desperate enough they might take a gun and kill me to take my stuff. Then how does that benefit me?

              Think we need to compensate CEOs with tens of millions of dollars? Think they earned it? Think it wouldn't be better spent on free day care and preschool for everyone? Check out the statistics from the First Five Program in California. What the US needs is a better way to allocate our wealth. It's a myth that rich people "earned" their money and poor people don't work hard. In my life, I've usually seen it the other way around.

              • Posted By: jblackwell88 @ 08/05/2008 4:45:16 AM

                From my reading it would seem that even the Swedes now have a problem with a constant influx of Iranians who are all too willing to take advantage of the Swedish welfare state. Socialist systems, while well meaning, are ultimately unsustainable, especially when you have an open system, i.e. irresponsible immigration policy. There is no perfect system, but the best thing you can offer a man is the freedom to succeed or fail. Subsidizing his failures is the wrong approach. Socialism punishes hard work and ingenuity. Cue the Soviet Union. I've been to Russia four times and I know what a state run economy does for a work ethic. I am not concerned that some CEO of some company made a million dollars. Good for them. I am not jealous, but rather inspired because I regard his success as something obtainable for myself. People must be motivated to perform and innovate. Surely I need not articulate a full case against socialism.

                As far as wealth disparities go, I often wonder how much money one REALLY needs to be comfortable and happy - and if its not much, why does this become an argument for seizing wealth from those who have more instead of being happy with what you have? Greed? Political expediency? Who is greedier, the rich man who has wealth or the poor man who covets it?

                • Posted By: rapidron @ 08/05/2008 4:56:48 AM

                  The rich man who has plenty of wealth and still wants more is easily the definition of greed. It is the circumstances in combination with the human condition that creates what we know as greed or need. I have to agree that obliterating the middle class and sinking the lower class to a social despondence will definitely raise crime rates and lower the quality of life for all. What is life without beauty and harmony? It is the state of nature men left long ago because it was unliveable; men created society as civilized life to be able to partake in the quality of life all men want. It's simply reasonable that if you want to live humanely and comfortably, you had best bestow that upon your surroundings as well.

                  Yet, people want to state in some holier than thou method that 'each man should take care of themselves' and anything less is some kind of pathetic farce. It's a laughable assertion that people use to either make themselves feel better, or to manipulate others by the similar sentiment.

                  In a state of nature I would do just fine because I'm aggressie and resouceful. However, it would be a life of far less value overall.

                  • Posted By: jblackwell88 @ 08/05/2008 5:28:24 AM

                    The irony of course is that every major technological innovation we've had, back through antiquity, has been the product of competition and drive. Money motivates, and as such capitalism is the best system we have - as inhumane as it may seem at times - when it comes to producing results. Case in point, the Soviets had to steal the plans for the H-bomb and then coerce their scientists to build one under duress. When the Soviet Union collapsed, they were still manufacturing the same cars that Brehznev approved in the 50's. Socialism stifles innovation, and that may be fine I guess if you're prepared to steal your innovations from capitalists. I just can't imagine this having worked for humanity if we were socialists from day one. Don't misread me btw. I am not for inducing starvation upon the masses. I'm just of the opinion that if everyone is guaranteed by the system a minimum standard of living, the far majority would live not only as a burden to those who work, but there would be no natural controls on their number. As Ron Paul might say, whatever you subsidize, you get more of. The great thing about capitalism is it doesn't create an artificial relationship between man and the ability of the economy/environment to sustain him. Socialism on the other hand, tethers us all together so that we all hit the ditch simultaneously, as opposed to responding to smaller economic corrections as we go.

                    • Posted By: rapidron @ 08/05/2008 6:02:32 AM

                      I agree with your assessments of what does, could or might happen in regards to capitalism and socialism. The difference is that I probably don't agree to the point that a candidate like Obama is going to take socialism in the US. Let's face it, the checks that are of the kind exerted by some of the more 'hateful' rhetoric alone on this page would balance any kind of foolish move into socialism.

                      However, what is alarming is that the argument that any candidate can take our country away from capitalism, or the merit based society, is not only laughable, but also kind of scary in the kind of manipulation being practiced. Taxing the richest people ($200,00+ I believe it was) and creating social programs to eliminate some other problems caused by not providing of our very poor (a potentially costly and problematic part of the population if unchecked???even if just ethically) does not equate to a socialist state. As you stated yourself, I also believe that in any good society it is the merit, intelligence and hard work that place people deservingly at the top, while there will always be a lower class for a host of reasons. I simply don???t believe that taking care of people equates to propping them up above those that work to achieve more; those with drive and resourcefulness will always climb their way up. The largest obstacles to this (I have friends who have graduated from universities, but are less fortunate than I) has been instilled within the last 8 years of ???conservative??? government. Bad economy, no jobs, expensive schooling, no healthcare, and a general feel of a downward slide.

                      If anything, my reasoning is that it is more cost effective to fully fix the problems of the lower class, creating a larger middle-class as we had before the last 8 years. This means less crime, loss of life, better quality of life, and generally the most efficient and productive system. I???m a pragmatist, which makes it ironic as well as kind of sick that my thinking would have me thrown into the camp of ???left-leaning??? socialist.

                      To close, my biggest concern is simply the mindset that has come into play. I think you???re a very intelligent person and I???ve enjoyed reading your posts, however that thy are not totally aligned to my views. The mindset I???m speaking of is that socialism is such a buzzword that is so quickly embraced when there is no way that any candidate is close to truly socialist. The presidency has become a sham of buzzwords and spin, and none are safe from the influence. In the end, I almost simply can???t vote for McCain because it is really pretty noticeable that he is taking the low road with the negativity and some of the ads and hate that is coming forth.

                      • Posted By: rapidron @ 08/05/2008 6:06:19 AM

                        I DID respect the man during the primaries. Now, it???s sick for me to see what seems to be a repeat of similar tactics used on him that he had condemned. It makes me think of another Bush/Rove frankly, and perhaps this is my prejudice. Had he stayed, ???straight-talking??? instead of trying to appeal to the sentiments of hate or the ignorance of many (see ???drilling! And it???s efficacy for oil production in 20 years???) , I would have voted for him.

                        • Posted By: Davole @ 08/05/2008 10:46:37 AM

                          rapidron -

                          You infer that the Republican party "appeal(s) to the sentiments of hate or the ignorance of many" who believe that oil drilling is part of the answer to the energy crisis.

                          Does valid criticism of an opposing party's candidate for president, and that campaign's platform and constant reversals of it constitute hate?

                          How about the numerous blogs which refer to your President, George W. Bush, as "idiot, moron, imbecile, etc. - I believe that those would be truer indications of hate.

                          Also, the democrat propensity to unrealistically target big oil (whichpays half of its earnings as taxes), the financial industry, the pharmaceutical industry, and anyone earning over $200,000 annually demonstrates to me the existence of hatred in practice.

                          With regard to your denunciation of the possibility and probability that drilling for oil would alleviate some of the energy crisis, I notice that you are floating the 20 year delay in achieving any tangable results, whereas most other democrats have stated 10 years.

                          Do you have any faith in the ability of American ingenuity to produce significant results in a much shorter timeframe if only given the opportunity? And would the creation of an increased number of well-paying jobs in the oil and transportation industries help to stimulate the economy?

                          At least the oil drilling option does have a tangable timeframe, whereas the alternative forms of energy are much less defined in that regard.

                          Should we all just sit and stare at the heavens in anticipation of the great magic elixir being bestowed upon us by the likes of Al Gore?

                          • Posted By: rapidron @ 08/05/2008 1:12:59 PM

                            You infer a great many things from my post that doesn't even say half of what you are subtly trying to belittle. You are creating strawmen to suit your needs when it is more respectable to actually address what a person says. I'll still address you even though I should also be spitting words of propagandist, self-aggrandizement and insults as you are.

                            Simply put: the sentiment of hate is given off by the negative and somewhat childish campaign that McCain is running. Attack everything constantly about the other candidate, twisting words and appealing to the more emotionally negative sentiments of all, instead of, say, people???s intelligence. Buzzwords like, ???I want to make a change for the better??? I receive much better than, ???is he muslim??? and a whole host of more baseless insults.

                            The ignorance is that he is stating--no he is actually soap-boxing loudly, how much we should drill and how anyone who stands against him is against America, plain and simple, without noting the simple fact that drilling's efficacy as a cure for our troubles is mainly nothing but a farce when taken with the fact that drilling would take decades to yield results. These aren???t my results but those of the department of energy, so go and read up on that. To yell falsities loudly and with condemnation loses respect in my view, so forgive me if that is what you look for in a president.

                            On hate: websites that condemn Bush will often have hundreds if not thousands of unpopular policies and practices the sitting president of 8 years has already undertaken. Whereas with Obama, much of the hate and rhetoric is fear-mongering as the man has yet to lead and run the office. Indeed it is the seething and passionate nature of the hate already directed at this man who has run a pretty clean and thorough campaign that brings to light a tangible hate. Read these boards (as I know you have by finding my posts) and tell me you do not see this. You might not simply to suit your own baseless contradictions, but if for any other reasons I would say you have a major problem of reading comprehension or blind bias.

                            Then to question my faith in American ingenuity is quite a desperate attempt at argument as you don???t know me or my values. Obviously as you???ve seen from my posts, I do love this country and believe in it, which is why I would take the time to post anyway???without sinking to the level of simply trying to belittle other posters with made-up accusations and attempts at patronzing???something I???m seeing from your posts all too ready. Indeed, I could come out and insult you a hundred times over, but I???m here to talk reason.

                            • Posted By: Davole @ 08/08/2008 3:41:56 AM

                              rapidron -

                              First, can we agree to avoid your inclusion of red herring statements such as your inferences, references to strawmen, and your ego massaging perception regarding ???words of propagandist, self-aggrandizement and insults????
                              Otherwise, substantiate your argument if you want to level those accusations!

                              You attempt to dismiss as displaying ignorance the many who ???believe that oil drilling is part of the answer to the energy crisis.??? Would that possibly be an ignorant, naive, and unfounded comment of yours, because that option has not been tried, and therefore has been neither proven nor refuted. So, in reality, you don???t positively know whether oil drilling is or is not a part of the answer to the energy crisis! Besides, by your definition, you are labeling as ignorant the 70% of Americans who indicate a desire to allow drilling for oil.

                              With regard to your fixation about hate, have Bush, McCain, any other Republican politicians, or any right wing supportive news reporters and commentators called Obama any names which demonstrate hate, or have any of them called Obama a Muslim? Sure, a few radical bloggers on this Newsweek website have stated that, but where has the actual McCain camp ever stated that?

                              On the other side, how many democrat politicians, and left wing biased reporters and commentators have called Bush or McCain ???idiot, moron, imbecile, senile, etc???? Now, in contrast, those are not just a few unbridled bloggers - those are many professional people who should know better!

                              Also, you ignore the radical left???s politicians and media who patronizingly attempt to demonize big oil, the financial industry, the pharmaceutical industry, and the wealthy. Why?
                              Don???t you recognize those futile attacks against a scapegoat as being hate inspired?

                            • Posted By: Davole @ 08/08/2008 3:38:26 AM

                              rapidron - Continued

                              And you???re offended that McCain???s campaign is providing negative criticism of Obama.
                              What do you expect? As far as I???m concerned, that???s the nature of politics, and I support those negative criticisms AS LONG AS THEY???RE FACTUAL. If you disagree, state any negative criticisms of Obama which you feel are false, and substantiate your contention.

                              Since when is the statement ???I want to make a change for the better??? a buzzword?
                              And when has McCain ever asked whether Obama is Muslim?
                              Provide proof that he has ever asked that!

                              In regard to the expected timeframe for oil drilling to produce results, you conveniently and falsely adopt as the conclusive opinion that oil drilling cannot produce oil and reduce the cost of oil for 20 years. How ridiculous! Sure, you state the department of energy as your lone supportive authority. But you neglect the numerous oil companies which would be more than willing to begin drilling, and which offer a more immediate timeframe. Do you think that they would be willing to invest heavily in drilling if actual results could not be achieved for 20 years? If so, then you do not have much of an appreciation of economics, corporate responsibility, and shareholder expectation.

                              Do you not realize that the regions where oil abounds - the oceanic and gulf coasts, ANWR, the Rockies, and North and South Dakota - would each present their own obstacles and opportunities. What leads you to believe that, if oil drilling were to be approved, all of these regions would be productive on your exact 20 year timeframe? Do you not realize the ridiculousness of your argument?

                              Also, I challenge you to substantiate your allegation that McCain has ever stated that anyone who opposes his policy to approve drilling for oil ???is against America.??? Where???s your proof?

                            • Posted By: Davole @ 08/08/2008 3:34:00 AM

                              rapidron - Continued

                              You state that ???websites that condemn Bush will often have hundreds if not thousands of unpopular policies and practices the sitting president of 8 years has already undertaken.??? Sure, and how many of them are baseless fabrications, such as the stated belief of some democrat politicians expressed shortly before the previous election that George Bush had Osama bin Laden in captivity, and would parade him before the press shortly before the election? Then there is the one that the president was willingly sacrificing over 4,000 soldiers to satiate his lust for oil.
                              Now where???s the oil?

                              And in your naivety, do you really think that there would be ???thousands of unpopular policies and practices???? Step into the real world for a change!

                              I appreciate that people who oppose President Bush???s accomplishments have a right to disagree with him, but that does not give them a right to hate him. That hatred has been festering since Bush won the election 8 years ago, even before he began acting as president.

                              You say that I ???have a major problem of reading comprehension or blind bias.???
                              How judgmental of you, and what is your educational level of competence to even attempt to make such an incompetent immature appraisal? Do you even have a degree in psychology, or have you even taken an introductory course in that discipline? I doubt it! I would suspect that you???re merely a 20 year old could be student with an inflated ego, and an intolerance toward anyone who holds a differing opinion - one based on fact.

                              That is a visible and pronounced difference between Conservatives and Republicans versus Liberals and Democrats - the former are much more interested and concerned with fact, ideas, and opinion, whereas the latter are merely reactionaries controlled by their feelings and emotions.
                              To address your allegation that I am ???emotionally charged??? - were you looking in the mirror when you made that accusation? It is obvious where you lie in this regard.

                            • Posted By: Davole @ 08/08/2008 3:29:25 AM

                              rapidron - Continued

                              Lastly, when I merely ask you whether you have any faith in American ingenuity, you resort to wrapping yourself in the cloak of indignation. That won???t protect you here - your lack of faith is evident by your refusal to believe that Americans drilling for oil can be a major part of the energy crisis solution. I don???t need to know you or your values to recognize that lack of faith.

                              Also, John McCain???s decision to permit drilling for oil can have somewhat immediate results in reducing the cost of oil, as was evidenced by your President George W. Bush???s decision to eliminate the presidential opposition. If you will recall, that announcement resulted in a significant reduced barrel price on the same day that his decision was enacted and announced.

                              Besides, I do regard McCain???s energy policy encompassing drilling for oil, building more nuclear plants, and utilizing solar and wind power to be much more realistic and practical than Obama???s. The inexperienced junior senator has stated that inflating (what may already be properly inflated) tires will save as much oil as drilling would accomplish. Where is Obama???s forward looking policy - the AAA has stated 20 years ago that proper tire pressure should be maintained.
                              And Obama is just learning that now, and offering it as his answer to overcoming the oil crisis.
                              Besides, that won???t result in the production of even one additional drop of oil!

                              But Obama seems to believe that the US should spend 700 billion dollars for each of the next 10 years to foreign and possibly some hostile nations, instead of paying that amount to American oil companies which are taxed at a rate of 50% of their profits, and which would provide well-paying jobs to American workers, and thereby stimulate the economy.

                              Oh, and by the way, Obama is also proposing that 15 billion dollars of taxpayers??? money for each of the next 10 years be spent to develop alternate forms of energy. Supposedly that would take at least 10 years to produce practical results. What if it doesn???t? At least drilling for oil would be readily funded by the oil companies, at one heck of a savings to the taxpayer.
                              So, as they say - do the math!

                              Rapidron, it might actually help you to mature in wisdom if you decide to replace your
                              rapid response with a more researched and objectively considered informed comment!

                            • Posted By: rapidron @ 08/05/2008 1:14:27 PM

                              To close, you again assume that I would ???look to the heaven??? for a miracle elixir for these problems, and I can see that your posts are emotionally charged. Dialogue is fine with me, but it???s very evident that your emotions make you far less of any kind of respectable partner for sparring on the issues. Read carefully and answer calmly, and have a nice day.

                              • Posted By: Davole @ 08/07/2008 9:32:37 AM

                                rapidron -

                                Sorry for my delay ir replying to your reply - I do work for a living, and sometimes work related activities trump my activity on this website.
                                I plan to respond to your lengthy but welcomed reply either later tonight or else early tomorrow morning.

                                You accuse me of posting comments which are "emotionally charged."
                                Do you have any supportive evidence in that regard?
                                Rapidron, maybe you have been reacting too rapidly in making that unqualified assumption!

                                Are you assuming that since there is a possibility that your own post might be emotionally charged, therefore you ascribe that feeling to others? I believe that reaction is termed projection in psychological observation and assessment.

                                I post according to my facts, beliefs, and opinions, not any mis-perceived thoughts of other bloggers.

                                Have a great day!

                              • Posted By: AskPlus @ 08/05/2008 7:14:23 PM

                                Beautiful.

                    • Posted By: raddave @ 08/05/2008 2:23:31 PM

                      You are mistaking Socialism with Communism. The Soviet Union was a communist country. Everyone being guaranteed a minimum standard of living by the system is the principle of Socialism. Germany who has a social market economy, best described as a mixture of Socialims and Capitalism has the worlds 5th largest GDP, and is the worlds largest exporter. The automobile was invented in Germany and their innovations have made German autos arguably the class of the world.

                  • Posted By: Davole @ 08/06/2008 1:26:09 AM

                    rapidron -

                    Quite often, the rich choose to share their wealth, as they see fit.
                    Case in point - Bill Gates.

                    Why should a major portion of their wealth be confiscated by the government in order to prostitute the dependents so that they continue to owe blind allegiance to the party in power?

                    • Posted By: sharenews @ 08/06/2008 2:54:17 AM

                      Hi Davole, Good way of putting it. I swear that Obama is a liberal socialist in sheep clothes (actually not even that, he is more obvious than most will accept as they are blind to it). I just saw in one of your posts that you are from Canada? I was up there with my husband, parents, brother a good 15 years ago and it was a great experience. We went to Niagra Falls, Toronto, and aother city I cant remember. Lots of fun.

                      • Posted By: Davole @ 08/06/2008 11:11:11 AM

                        Share -

                        Nice hearing from you, again!

                        As you can see, I've been busy on several of the Newsweek boards, and have attracted, well, for lack of a better expression, somewhat of a following.

                        Your trip 15 years ago was through "my hood," as seems to be the common terminology in parts of the US.

                        I must admit - from viewing the numerous obamabot rants against your posts, you must be the "Teflon Don(na)"!

                        It has sure been a learning experience for me on this website - I never realized how the democrat party could be comprised of the generally respectful and intelligent Hillary camp, and also the relatively obnoxious and uninformed Obama mob.

                        The Hillary supporters tend to try to educate and learn, whereas a more than significant sector of the Obama cadre definitely attempt to intimidate, insult, and falsely discredit.

                        I admit that I have directed several insults when warranted, especially to the blogger who had posted what he regarded as so-called mother jokes. I considered them to be deplorable, but I did notice that only one obamabot acknowledged and tried to deflect my criticism in that regard. I guess that if the Obama camp had its way, political discourse in the US would have to be relocated from the C-SPAN channel to one of the numerous pornography channels.

                        My best wishes to you and your family!

                        Always looking forward to your informative and controversial comments!

                  • Posted By: jblackwell88 @ 08/05/2008 5:36:35 AM

                    The downside of course to capitalism, is that people must work. And contrary to the popular American delusion that all men are created equal, it just ain't so. Some people have natural gifts, and likewise some have natural detractors. The latter will always end up on the bottom of the economic ladder.

                    It doesn't matter if you have a socialist system or a capitalistic one - there will always be a need for someone to to clean up ****. Its just that capitalism is a bit better at figuring out who should be doing what, because it rewards in proportion, usually, to ones competence. I'm not sure we should reject such a system.

                • Posted By: jnakhoul @ 08/05/2008 4:40:30 PM

                  don't forget the rich men who exploit the poor to get richer. trickle down economics at its finest

              • Posted By: jnakhoul @ 08/05/2008 4:39:15 PM

                oh dang knowledge smackdown

              • Posted By: rapidron @ 08/05/2008 4:57:17 AM

                Nice post Stephen.

  • Posted By: Hidden06x3 @ 08/04/2008 11:23:11 PM

    Southern people are racist, and ignorant. I don't care what school they graduated from. It's their roots, and racist upbringing. I say I enjoyed your article, and it is so close, to the heart of southern people, and that is whyy you have this negative view, from vimsan. They just don't get it. It still boils down to the North against the Sout. And blacks to the southerns. are still considered slaves. I live rural, I still hear the N word for blacks. I was not at all impressed with that ignorance. Americans, that is what we are, not color. So I am ashamed we have idiots still down south, with inbreed thoughts. This country is in bad trouble, and we do need change. And McCain is not it. The white folks can't stand the thought of a Black family living in the White House. Plain and simple. I get hateful, almost hate crime emails, about Obama. And I thought this country was going forward. Bush has put us back into the slave century. We are Americans, we are all different, and quit trying to make everyone, think and believe like you do. Because, GOD didn't make mistakes, we did, because we can't except all of his created creaturs. Thanx for a good article. sis

    • Posted By: tiredofobama @ 08/04/2008 11:48:02 PM

      Hidden06. You have to be one of the most ignorant, narrow minded bigots who have posted on here. To pretend that only Southerners are ignorant and racists only exposes your stupidity. I don't know if you ever heard of D.C. Stephenson, but he headed the Ku Klux Klan in INDIANA in the 1920s. In 1974, in BOSTON, whites rioted in the streets over court ordered busing to desegregate the schools in that "enlightened" beacon of hope. Whenever you post something, do something like read before you post. I realize that might unsettle your prejudiced way of thinking. Also, some whites may not vote for Obama because they just don't like his policies. But I guess that wouldn't occur to you.

      • Posted By: jnakhoul @ 08/06/2008 4:22:24 PM

        atleast we people in boston don't shy away from the fact that there are stil racist issues to this day. Its not that their aren't racist left right and center, but atleast in my home town theres some dialogue to face it

        • Posted By: tiredofobama @ 08/07/2008 11:39:22 PM

          Did I say that people in the South shy away from discussion on this topic? My point was that Southerners ,alone, do not have a monopoly on race.

    • Posted By: faminchin @ 08/04/2008 11:34:45 PM

      I also heard a rumor, that them there southerners drink white milk, they just refuse to drink chocolate milk........and they only buy white bread. They all put cream in their coffee because they just can't bring themselves to drink it black.

    • Posted By: jblackwell88 @ 08/04/2008 11:32:22 PM

      You do realize your comments place you in an equally bigoted light? I also have difficulty accepting thoughtful criticism from someone who cannot spell.

  • Posted By: Kingcreole @ 08/05/2008 1:20:47 PM

    I think it's very sad that most of what I hear and see from most voters is about the need for world approval of America and the feelings of warm fuzziness here at home to make us feel better about ourselves. The truth is that the government is not responsible for your well being you are. You have (if the good Lord is willing) the same 24 hours in a day that I have - what are you going to do with yours that I'm not doing with mine that at the end of the day you are just a little bit ahead of where I am so that you can gain from this life what you desire. The sad thing is so many people in America need the president of the United States to make them feel good about themselves and so the president has to be a hollywood style candidate that is a good communicator and looks good etc. in order to pacify the masses. It's supposed to be substance over style people not the other way around.

    Grow up people and make your own decisions about your own lives. The only people who have forgotten the American dream are the Americans. There is a reason why foreigners are beating down the doors to get into this country - it is by far the best thing on the 3rd rock from the sun. I'm sure however somewhere down the road someone will be apologizing for that too (being the best) to the rest of the world for the world's coveted approval. God help us.

    • Posted By: rapidron @ 08/05/2008 1:40:52 PM

      People aren't really saying that approval is needed for a warm fuzzy feeling as much as the disapproval is YET another observation in a system that is ruining the country. If all was well at home, you can bet that 99% of people would not give an S about what people outside say.

      Things are simply so crummy that oustside judgements are juts yet another thing to think about among the hundred things that have gone downward over the last 8 years.

      • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 08/05/2008 9:11:31 PM

        It must be terrible to live under a dark cloud like you do! The above poster is right on the money; life is what you make it. Blaming the government or GWB or whoever is ultimately just a poor excuse.

        • Posted By: rapidron @ 08/07/2008 7:59:17 PM

          If your saying the last 8 years have been gleaming, you either need to lower the dosage on your meds or you're full of it.

  • Posted By: Shelley37860 @ 08/06/2008 4:29:42 PM

    The civil war ended 164 years ago. Everyone, blacks included, needs to get over it. The people that bash the South have obviously never lived here. We have fresh air, space to breathe in, we are polite to everyone, and the weather is the best. We also don't worry about problems with gangs. Yankees who move here are hypocrits in that they love our lifestyle but they diss us behind our backs.

    Obama and McCain need to realize that the South generally votes as a block and campaign "nicely" here. As an Obama supporter I believe that he has a chance,

    • Posted By: SPIRITED AWAY @ 08/06/2008 8:52:27 PM

      RE: "We also don't worry about problems with gangs."
      I live in GA and I disagree with your statement about gan activity. We have a bigger problem than most realize. For instance ALL of the major cities and outlying areas have major issues with gang violence. Gangs are all over this country not just the North.

      • Posted By: Shelley37860 @ 08/06/2008 10:35:54 PM

        Compared to the rest of the country, we don't have a problem with gangs. I can see Atlanta, Birmingham, all of Florida and maybe Myrtle Beach having problems with gangs, but a LOT of the South is rural and a LOT of these people have guns and aren't afraid to use them. I know we don't have a real diverse population outside of a few major cities.

        • Posted By: SPIRITED AWAY @ 08/06/2008 11:46:27 PM

          I still disagree. How about Gainsville, Athens, Warner Robins, Commerce or Jefferson (All in GA). And the rural areas might not have typical gang activity; but don't forget all the crazy a$$ meth addicts running around whilst stealing and killing. Crime is EVERYWHERE.

          • Posted By: Shelley37860 @ 08/07/2008 2:53:11 AM

            I agree about meth since it's easy to make in the mountains. However, I was TDY to Warner-Robbins AFB and while there, I did not see the gang activity you talk about. Course I didn't live there, but I didn't see it. I have been to 42 states including Alaska and Hawaii and about 8 foreign countries while in the Air Force. I have also been to Mexico on vacation. I have literally seen the country and nothing is as bad as what's out West and what's up North. We may have problems, but it is nothing like everyone elses.

            • Posted By: SPIRITED AWAY @ 08/07/2008 12:09:53 PM

              I grew up in Warner Robins from 73-90. The gang activity was ruthless in my junior high years. One of my friends was nearly beaten to death walking home from school. Things have changed a lot since I left. For instance the population has went from 50,000 to 150,000+. And the Mexican cartel gangs have entered the mix. The meth in GA as a whole is more or less the "real deal". When I say "real deal" I mean ICE-not bathtub crank. ATL is the main distribution hub for the east coast. I lived up North for awhile and the gang activity was about the same to me. One thing was different though-the media's reporting of said gangs. Things tend to be more covered up down here. Take Athens for instance. There's a huge gang war going on right now between two major factions. There wasn't ONE article about it until a college kid from TN got shot and killed in front of one of the local clubs. Then there were BIG headlines and the Athens chief of police was finally called out to address what he'd been trying so desperately to cover up. Can we just agree that gangs are a HUGE problem on the national level?

              P.S. My dad goes on business to Alaska every three months or so. He's invited me to go with him on his next trip. I can hardly wait. :o)

              • Posted By: Shelley37860 @ 08/07/2008 4:43:32 PM

                I live in a sleepy little town in East Tennesee, population about 3000. I guess that my town and those around us are microcosms of innocence in the United States. I am glad about this because my child isn't afraid to go to school and she still has a Christmas party at school, not a Winter party. I am sorry for anyone who has to endure everything else, but where I live it is not a problem.

                • Posted By: SPIRITED AWAY @ 08/07/2008 6:51:11 PM

                  Sorry for the double posting-the server kept giving me an error screen. ;O)

                • Posted By: SPIRITED AWAY @ 08/07/2008 6:41:15 PM

                  My family (Mom's side) is from Woodbury. We still have quite bit of folks in the area. It's really beautiful. I agree with you about living in a rural area. I moved out of the city almost ten years ago. My daughter's life is so different than mine was. It's more simple and peaceful out here. Not to mention all of the wildlife. (We even have a raccoon named Piper) Plus I'm only 25 min. from Athens-GO DAWGS! ;o)

                • Posted By: SPIRITED AWAY @ 08/07/2008 6:32:12 PM

                  That's why I moved ten years ago. I, too, live in a rural area. My children's lives are totally different than mine was. Plus I'm only 25 miles from Athens. Go DAWGS! :o)

    • Posted By: News and Notes @ 08/06/2008 4:37:24 PM

      You had me until you generalized the yankees who move there. Many so called "yankees" who move South are wonderful neighbors and friends, and they adapt to the lifestyle easily and readily.

  • Posted By: Kingcreole @ 08/05/2008 10:01:16 PM

    For those of us raised in and still living in the south we are doing just fine thank you very much (no southern discomfort here). We have great weather most of the year, the best food on the planet, the prettiest women, and the best sense of God, Family, Country anywhere in the nation.

    I will support the president of the United States regardless of who he is - that's the country part of that God, Family, Country thing we here in the South live by. I do however find it insulting and quite shallow that most of the Obama supporters find it difficult to believe that those of us who won't be supporting him in his bid for the presidency will not be doing so because of the color of his skin. Could it be we just might not like him, like what he says, like what he stands for, like what he envisions Americas' role being in the world etc. Could it be we just disagree with his politics as opposed to thinking that we could never vote for or support a man (or woman) of color? (When J.C. Watts decides to run for the big house he will certainly have my ear and support)
    I hate to be the one to break it to you but if Hillary had won the nomination I wouldn't be supporting her either. Would you still be as adamant about my refusal to support her as a woman as you are Obama as a man of color with total disregard for their political views and my right to vote the way I choose based on those views?

    • Posted By: News and Notes @ 08/06/2008 10:38:35 AM

      Many Hillary supporters don't support Obama either, because he is arrogant and under experienced. A black president would be wonderful, but an Obama presidency would be unpredictable. The article is insulting.

      • Posted By: raddave @ 08/07/2008 2:03:51 AM

        Any presidency would be unpredictable until it actually happens.

        • Posted By: sjpersonal @ 08/07/2008 5:44:56 PM

          Definitely, I am voting for Obama and I can only hope that he doesn't mess up. There is absolutely no way that I can be sure of this until he becomes president. In my opinion that goes for anyone who is running for president. All we can do is Hope!

      • Posted By: rapidron @ 08/06/2008 11:08:12 AM

        Blah blah blah.

        • Posted By: News and Notes @ 08/06/2008 12:47:55 PM

          A dismissive Obama supporter? What a novelty

          • Posted By: rapidron @ 08/06/2008 2:00:31 PM

            I knew you'd like that =)...

            I became tired of typing to deaf, um, eyes...

  • Posted By: paulte @ 08/05/2008 11:53:58 AM

    The un-Obama will clearly sweep the South. I doubt that even VA & FL are really a question for him. The real Obama needs a reality check! Yes there will be increased black voter turnout but the white turnout is likely to come close to 100% this election in the Southland.

    • Posted By: News and Notes @ 08/05/2008 12:15:04 PM

      Obama won't get Florida. Too many are still (and rightfully so) about his wanting to count votes only if it works to his advantage. (no votes, some votes, now all votes).

      • Posted By: raddave @ 08/05/2008 1:23:36 PM

        Hillary only wanted the votes of Fl and Mi counted after it became apparent that she was going to lose the primary. Clinton said before these elections that she knew that they would not count and agreed with it.

        • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 08/05/2008 3:11:35 PM

          Let's not resurrect those arguments. Neither HRC nor Obama said the votes shouldn't count and HRC did not agree with it. The disparity in treatment between the way states that Obama had a chance to win, and states he had no chance to win, that HRC was expected to win, and which would have given her a definitive lead that could have swayed superdelegates and voters in the rest of the states in her favor are relevant only to the extent that you believe it was an intentional, staged and planned effort to prevent HRC from obtaining the nomination and/or give it to BHO.

          • Posted By: raddave @ 08/05/2008 11:49:16 PM

            Here is what Sen. Clinton said about the Michigan Priamry. "It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything," Clinton said Thursday during an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio's call-in program, The Exchange. "But I just personally did not want to set up a situation where the Republicans are going to be campaigning between now and whenever, and then after the nomination, we have to go in and repair the damage to be ready to win Michigan in November 2008." So do not say that she didn't think it shouldn't count. Besides it was TWO out of FIFTY states.

            • Posted By: News and Notes @ 08/06/2008 10:43:23 AM

              Do you want to go there ? Do Obama supporters EVER want to bring Hillary supporters into the fold? I don't understand this line of thinking.

              • Posted By: raddave @ 08/07/2008 3:02:45 AM

                I had to go there because pearsoncrz said that neither candidate said the votes should not count and that Clinton did not agree with it, when in fact she actually did agree.

                • Posted By: News and Notes @ 08/07/2008 1:35:05 PM

                  If you vote was kicked around, played with, and in the end only half counted, you;d be mad too

                  • Posted By: raddave @ 08/07/2008 5:43:18 PM

                    I agree with you. It was a HUGE mess and could have and should have been handled differently.

              • Posted By: raddave @ 08/07/2008 2:49:01 AM

                First of all I am not only an Obama supporter, I am a Democratic supporter. My choice on who to vote for came down to Clinton and Obama, I sided with Obama in the end, but if Clinton had won, I would be supporting her now. I would hope that Clinton suppoters would realize that the policy proposals of Clinton and Obama are very close to each other and would choose to support Obama because of this. I do have a problem with Clinton supporters who try to bring down Obama because she was not the nominee.

                • Posted By: News and Notes @ 08/07/2008 1:33:45 PM

                  If Obama wants the remaining Hillary supporters to vote for him, he should try to convince us that he has the ability to carry out his stated policies. He needs us

            • Posted By: News and Notes @ 08/06/2008 10:42:39 AM

              Two out of Fifty states, but almost TEN percent of the delegates !!! Who won more states is not a measurable criteria

              • Posted By: raddave @ 08/07/2008 3:08:10 AM

                it is actually closer to 8%, 4% after penalty. Remember the RNC also punished these two states by taking away 50% of their deligates.

                • Posted By: News and Notes @ 08/07/2008 4:09:23 PM

                  Its the voters who were unfairly penalized.

              • Posted By: sharenews @ 08/06/2008 10:53:30 PM

                I was just about to post that. You beat me to it. : - )

            • Posted By: raddave @ 08/05/2008 11:56:27 PM

              This is a quote from Patti Solis Doyle, then campaign chairmperson of the clinton campaign "We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process.... We believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar" In spite of this pledge, Clinton held three fundraising events in Fl two days before the Florida election

              • Posted By: News and Notes @ 08/06/2008 10:44:11 AM

                Patty Solis Doyle now has a prominent position in the Obama campaign. Makes me question if her loyalty ever was to Hillary

                • Posted By: raddave @ 08/07/2008 2:51:37 AM

                  She said this in Dec 07 when it looked like Clinton would have a cake walk through the primaries.

                  • Posted By: News and Notes @ 08/07/2008 1:35:46 PM

                    I still wonder.

          • Posted By: raddave @ 08/06/2008 12:01:39 AM

            The DNC rule that allowed only Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina to hold their primary/caucus before Feb 5 was adoped in Aug. 2006. So it was too early to be a plan to rob Hillary of the nomination, since neither she nor Obama entered the campaign until more than six months after this.

        • Posted By: News and Notes @ 08/05/2008 4:32:55 PM

          Obama wants to count them now becuase they would have no impact.

          • Posted By: raddave @ 08/05/2008 11:36:47 PM

            They had no impact on the final count during the primaries.

            • Posted By: News and Notes @ 08/06/2008 10:40:21 AM

              Why do you think MI and FL democrats are still angry at the DNC and Obama ?

              • Posted By: raddave @ 08/07/2008 2:39:39 AM

                MI and FL should be angry at their republican controlled legislatures for violating DNC rules. they should be angry at the DNC for screwing up the primaries in these states. But you have to cut the DNC some slack because the warned if that any state violated the rules that were established in Aug 2006 they would lose their deligates. Obama did not screw MI and FL. their legislatures and the DNC screwed them

                • Posted By: News and Notes @ 08/07/2008 1:29:25 PM

                  Obama worked tirelessly to ensure FL and MI did not impact the election. With the DNC's help, he was successful

            • Posted By: News and Notes @ 08/06/2008 10:41:04 AM

              Of course they did. They gave the superdelegates an excuse to blindly support Obama. The superdelegates behave irresponsibly

        • Posted By: News and Notes @ 08/05/2008 4:33:32 PM

          Obama wanting to count FL and MI now opens up what had been a wound that was starting to heal

    • Posted By: News and Notes @ 08/05/2008 12:17:08 PM

      Now FL, OH, PA, and MI could go Republican. What a mess !

  • Posted By: News and Notes @ 08/05/2008 12:13:52 PM

    Why did the Democratic party elites and the DNC push Obama through to the nomination? Obama is a brilliant orator, savvy politician, and a persuasive manipulator. He has little experience, and he is black. Most of those who don't support Obama do so becuase of the former, but are frequently accused of the latter. It becomes more apparent almost daily that Hillary would have been the better nominee. It would be an awesome milestone once we have a black president, but like Obama says, "not this time, not this year". Now we are stuck with two dismal nominees

    • Posted By: raddave @ 08/05/2008 1:16:25 PM

      Get over it News and Notes, HIllary LOST the primary elections. She had the lessor nuber of pledged deligates. Hillary was caught looking ahead to the General election and was overconfident. It happens is sports all the time.

      • Posted By: News and Notes @ 08/05/2008 4:31:09 PM

        Pledged delegates are not the only ones who nominate the Democratic candidate. Most Hillary supporters were starting to get over it in early June, but Obama's arrogance has further alienated moderate Hillary supporters.

        • Posted By: raddave @ 08/05/2008 11:35:45 PM

          You are correct, but they do and should carry the most weight because it shows the will of the people. The super-deligates have only decided to side with the people.

          • Posted By: News and Notes @ 08/06/2008 12:50:11 PM

            The superdelegates are not obligated to side with the people, and even if they were, more people voted for Hillary than Obama. They are expected to use independent judgement.

            • Posted By: raddave @ 08/07/2008 2:30:53 AM

              Even though there is no accurate way to count the popular votes in the democratic primaries and there are only estimates. The only estimate that showed Hillary had more popular votes was by her campaign. All of the other ones showed Obama had slightly more, icluding Michigan and Florida. Clinton's campaigns disregarded the caucuses that she lost.

              • Posted By: News and Notes @ 08/07/2008 12:44:13 PM

                Your original point was Obama won becuase he had the most pledged delegates. I;ve accepted the fact he won, but he couldn't have won without superdelegates support

                • Posted By: raddave @ 08/07/2008 5:40:05 PM

                  Niether one of the could have, that is why I think the super-deligate system is retatarded.

          • Posted By: News and Notes @ 08/06/2008 12:50:42 PM

            The superdelegates sided with Dean, Pelosi, the DNC, and party elites

            • Posted By: raddave @ 08/07/2008 2:33:16 AM

              Most of the Super-deligates sided with Obama either after it became apparent that he would end up with the majority of the pledged deligates or After he had secured this milestone. How can you say that the super-deligates sided with the party elites, when the Clintons are part of the party elites?

              • Posted By: News and Notes @ 08/07/2008 12:40:13 PM

                The primary showed the Clintons aren't party elites anymore

      • Posted By: raddave @ 08/05/2008 1:17:57 PM

        Sorry, that would be number, not nuber.

    • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 08/05/2008 3:02:45 PM

      Wasn't the democrats, Obama invited the republicans to cross over and defeat he in the primaries with his "democrat for a day" campaign.

      What's really bad is that Pelosi and Dean didn't care because they wanted to be the first to nominate a black candidate in the modern era,wanted to make sure they had the African American voting block tied to the DNC for the foreseeable future because they had been losing ground to the Republicans, what with Collin Powell and JC Watts and Condoleeza Rice gaining such popularity, which is why they scheduled the convention for the anniversary of MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech and pushed Obama's nomination through the rules committee decisions taking away votes from HRC

      So they got their way, not I'm going to be a republican for a day and vote McCain. I do not trust Obama, and would not want him in the white house with the democrats controlling congress.

    • Posted By: Jackerella @ 08/05/2008 12:28:36 PM

      I believe we need to get our Government back under control. We put these representives in there and we sure as hell can take them back out. It should be WE THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE not WE THE CONGRESS FOR THE CONGRESS. It's REVOLUTION TIME. Neither Presidential Candidate is worth my vote, and I'm not about voting for the ultimatum they are trying to push upon me. This Bitch is writing in Ron Paul or voting for Bob Barr. Things need changing, and we as Americans need to stop letting the Government Scare Us Into What Is Best For Them.

  • Posted By: bluebloodedLV @ 08/07/2008 3:12:57 PM

    OnlyCureJGK: I know of what you speak - the history on Prescott Bush is astounding, but for some reason it never came out in the "liberal" media. You have to search to find the truth. It's really scary. In the begining of the primaries I watched the Zeitgeist movie and was really disturbed. I was initially for Ron Paul, until I was inspired by Obama and knew the republicans wouldn't go for RP.

    This is why I go insane when the republicans ignore the facts about this corrupt government and all of the crimes they have committed. They'd rather see the country go down in flames than admit they're wrong or voted wrong in the past. The president and his entire cabinet, those who have come and gone as well, should all be tried for treason. What a discrace they are to the presidency and the constition. But, so many republicans just ignore it all and so does the media, of course, because they are owned by neocons who are just as corrupt. It's sickening. This is why the Democrats are pissed off!!!

    EVIL HAPPENS WHEN GOOD MEN DO NOTHING.

    http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

    • Posted By: notroubleatall1963 @ 08/07/2008 4:34:41 PM

      Excellent post - my sentiments exactly!

  • Posted By: News and Notes @ 08/07/2008 3:56:17 PM

    You have to give the article some credit. It is still promting comments and discussion five days later.

    • Posted By: rapidron @ 08/07/2008 3:58:23 PM

      Most intelligent post in 5 days.

  • Posted By: notroubleatall1963 @ 08/05/2008 11:24:02 AM

    This article is about the Southern culture. Those ladies in the picture look awful! How funny... It's one journalist's thoughts (he's a Southerner himself) about his experiences, his road trip and the culture he grew up in. It's one person's view, not the Bible for all.... But he points out the historic connections to today's attitudes and small-town flavor. Why should any of you take offense? Unless you all have guilty consciences as part of the Southern inheritance of racial baiting, segregation, KKK and other White Bigot atrocities?

    Forget about race in this election - focus on electing the most INTELLIGENT, WELL EDUCATED, SAVVY AND POLITICALLY & INTERNATIONALLY ASTUTE PERSON TO BE OUR REPRESENTATIVE AND OUR LEADER. We want someone with energy, intellectual capacity, passion for a vision, with new ideas and the charm and manners to make them happen. Diplomatic skills, international appeal and great communications skills are icing on the cake.

    It's OBAMA, stupid, not McCain! Go ahead and vote for McCain if you prefer, but most of us will be voting for the TRUE leader in this race: OBAMA.

    • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 08/05/2008 3:15:41 PM

      I want someone i can trust. I can't trust Obama because I have done the research. He talks a good game, but plays Chicago style pay to play politics. He has taken money and greased the wheels for his supporters. He has requested earmarks for his supporters and political cronies and even for his wife's employer after they gave her a big raise.

      No thanks. I don't want a president who admits using cocaine for years like he was some movie star or rock star and it doesn't matter because the only thing they do is act and their acting doesn't affect my safety and security.

      • Posted By: elizabethpaige @ 08/05/2008 4:10:15 PM

        What years did Sen. Obama admit to using cocaine? And when and where did he admit it?

        • Posted By: News and Notes @ 08/05/2008 5:05:26 PM

          Obama discussed his drug use (including cocaine) in his book. He admitted he was "on the road to becoming a junkie"

          • Posted By: elizabethpaige @ 08/05/2008 6:04:44 PM

            Sen. Obama didn't become a junkie, did he? He graduated from Columbia and Harvard,. He was elected as a US Senator. He's a terrific presidential candidate.. You though prefer to focus on 'cocaine' .
            By the way, Geo. W. is an alcoholic. Bother you? Nah.

            • Posted By: sharenews @ 08/05/2008 9:24:35 PM

              I am missing something. I thought John McCain is running for President, not George W.? LOL.

              • Posted By: elizabethpaige @ 08/06/2008 4:20:08 AM

                I agree, you are missing something. Wm. Ayers isn't running for president either but you often cite Ayers as a reason to not vote for Sen. Obama. As if Sen. Obama bears responsibility for what Ayers did 40 years ago. No one of sound mind thinks Sen. Obama can't serve on a board if Ayers is on the board. Ayers is a respected professor in Chicago but you told us this week that you're going to 'update' your Ayers file. Your Ayers file, indeed. Pompous nonsense.

                Voters willingly voted for an admitted alcoholic (Geo W. twice) so who can logically argue that Sen. Obama shouldn't be president because he experimented with drugs in his youth? It's too remote in time and context to detract from his ability to be president in 2008.

                • Posted By: News and Notes @ 08/06/2008 10:46:22 AM

                  He more than experimented. He admitted on being on the road to becoming a junkie. That is a factor people can consider, especially when the candidate is a relative unknown

                  • Posted By: sjpersonal @ 08/06/2008 4:51:08 PM

                    In which book?

                    • Posted By: News and Notes @ 08/06/2008 5:09:21 PM

                      Dreams From My Father.
                      Quote:
                      "Junkie. Pothead. That's where I'd been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man. . . . I got high [to] push questions of who I was out of my mind."

                      • Posted By: sjpersonal @ 08/07/2008 2:23:47 PM

                        Thank you, I have the book so I can read the entire paragraph.

                • Posted By: sjpersonal @ 08/06/2008 4:49:49 PM

                  Great Reply elizabeth,

                  But they do not care, soon they will be posting about something that Obama did when he was 2 (while he was training to become the radical muslim terrorst sympathizer or plant, depends on who's post you are reading).

                  I really wish that THEY would just not vote for him instead on all of this BS but I also accept that this is what keeps people like share going, Their anger and spite.

                  • Posted By: sharenews @ 08/06/2008 11:12:23 PM

                    I post the truth. Notice how you have never seen me call him his middle name or say that he is a Muslim. I present background information in a presentable manner and leave it up to the reader to take in or not. You Obama supporters just do not want to see who the real Obama is. A typical slick politition who will associate with anyone and anything all for the sake of political gains. Period. Sorry, but that is the truth.

                    • Posted By: sjpersonal @ 08/07/2008 2:22:39 PM

                      No Sharenews,

                      THAT IS YOUR TRUTH. It is the only type of TRUTH that YOU would ever be willing to accept regardless of what Obama does. If the man found a cure for cancer, you would post that he was trying to poison white people! In your opinion, AS YOU HAVE POSTED, white supporters of Obama are only doing so out of some sort of White Guilt!

                      I REALLY HOPE THAT YOUR HATE AND SPITEFULLNESS KEEPS YOU WARM!

                • Posted By: sharenews @ 08/06/2008 11:05:59 PM

                  You are obviously clueless. Do you hae any idea what kind of man this is? Just a well known professor?
                  Right after 911 he was in an article saying:


                  I DO NOT REGRET SETTING BOMBS. I feel we did not do enough, AYERS TOLD the New York Times in 2001. http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/August-2001/No-Regrets/

                  Ayers was a terrorist. His wife Bernardine Dohrn was a terrorist. (She knows and worked in the same law firm with Michelle Obama). Ayers has never offered one word of apology. He glories in it, thinks it is terrific. And that to me is not what I would call acceptable or mainstream behavior, said Dan Polsby, a former law professor at Northwestern who is now Dean of George Mason University Law School. If Obama takes a different view on that - well, OK, that is data about Obama.

                  These are not good people to have hung out with over the years given their mindset of still being rebelious and wishing they had done more with the bombing they had done.

                  SOURCE: http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/03/obamas-problematic-directorship-woods.html

                  By the way, I do not say do not vote for Obama. I basically tell people these are people that have been part of Obamas life in one way or another (close friends, work buddies, dine together,eetc.) Then let the reader be the judge whether to vote for him or not. Sounds like I am due to post a few new friends I have been researching. I think Ive posted maybe 4 or 5 in the blogs last week or so. There are more than that on his list of friends and advisors.

            • Posted By: News and Notes @ 08/05/2008 6:12:09 PM

              My reference to cocaine was in answer to a specific question. Whether he became a junkie or not, he probably didn't.
              W is one of the worst presidents we have ever had. People who don't believe Obama has adequate experience on the national front do not necessarily like George W. Bush.
              There is a fundamental, all be it trivial difference, however. Alcohol consumption is legal.

          • Posted By: catspaw @ 08/05/2008 5:58:30 PM

            But he did not and realized the error of his ways. Sounds like a leader to me.

            • Posted By: sharenews @ 08/06/2008 11:20:36 PM

              Hey, W. Bush quit drinking years before getting into the White house. Quitting cocaine, drinking or other vices does not make one qualified to lead. Crazy talk. LOL

            • Posted By: News and Notes @ 08/05/2008 6:08:08 PM

              Leader maybe. President? remains to be seen

      • Posted By: sharenews @ 08/06/2008 4:52:02 AM

        I have done alot of research on Obama also without resorting to SMEAR sites extracted info. Obama Supporters think that people like you and I and others that post info about Obama that reflects not in the light that they want to be the case with their candidate cannot accept it and just accuse us of posting smear stuff. If we really wanted to post SMEAR STUFF we have a ton of places we non Obama supporters could go to if we wanted to. But I, like you, are focused on retrieving and posting info from what we feel are not smear sites.

      • Posted By: paulte @ 08/05/2008 3:48:11 PM

        Hopefully, most of us will be voting for the un-Obama, McCain! The real Obama is a snake oil salesman!

        • Posted By: rapidron @ 08/05/2008 6:10:57 PM

          Snake Oil? That stuff is delicious! (I'm asian)

          Seriously though, where did you just come out of? The 1920's or something?? 'Snake-oil'?? LOL!

        • Posted By: jnakhoul @ 08/05/2008 4:16:40 PM

          then mccain must be the snake

  • Posted By: OnlyCureJGK @ 08/07/2008 1:17:42 PM

    Primary Elites whatever. Stop reading the newpapers and wathing the TV that is controled by the Elites the rockefellers and the bilderberg group. Read something else because they control the media in general they buy up newpapers and NBC ABC and the like. There is plenty of news thats not controlled by them but they discredit anything they dont monitarily support. Be informed follow the money right back to the Elite who run the world via the Bilderberg group via the Council on Foriegn Relations. Theses are Private organizations that are run by the Elite for the Elite. The federal reserve known as the FED is a private institution run by the Elite. Be informed do the research. Prescott Bush the grandad to President Bush was a banker an Oil man.
    Look up Prescott Bush on Wikipedia. Look up Nelson Aldrich on Wikipedia then follow the money.
    -----------It will blow you away...................

    • Posted By: OnlyCureJGK @ 08/07/2008 1:45:53 PM

      People you have a choice step off the train dont go along for the ride. Make a stand and speak out or you become part of the problem. Money can buy loyality, Morality is fading more and more until one day it will be completely gone. People are good but those people do not become powerful because they are not greedy of dishonest gain. Those who are greedy of dishonest gain will continue at there greed forever, the only way to stop it is not to participate in the cycle of greed. Stand up, Speak out while you still can peacefully.
      Look up what President Andrew Jackson had to say about if ever the Bankers took over the world. While your at it look up what President Woodrow Wilson had to say after the Federal Reserve was setup about being tricked. It is out there just look for the signs and dont be afraid of the power that is part of the control over you. The only peaceful means you have is information. So once you have it use it. The first amendment to the constitution of the US state we have the right to speak out against tyranny. How else could it be stopped peacefully.

  • Posted By: notroubleatall1963 @ 08/05/2008 10:48:11 PM



    I think more people who took offense at this article probably did so for the photos publicizing it!

    The southerners shouldn't be so defensive - this is one guy's "diary" and his own viewpoing. In reality, the south is pretty diverse as is most of our country. They are just die-hard conservatives, probably dating back to the 1960s when they all shifted from the Democratic party to the Republic party in retaliation for Civil Rights being passed (even LBJ was a southerner who despised Civil Rights - he just did it because his party expected it of him, but his constituents in Texas absolutely hated it)...

    I don't think we "look down" on Southerners because they are prejudiced or bigoted, though that is the stereotype, probably dating back through the earlier decades of the 20th C, but there is a distinctly different flavor of attitude that prevails here in the south - compared to states above the Mason-Dixon. It's noticeable, and tangible, and it's kind of awkward in this election when the number of blacks in the South will vote one way, and the majority of whites in the south will vote another. But I speak not so much for urban southerners as I do for the rural areas....at least in large part, that's the common wisdom.

    So good luck in the Fall and may the best candidate win - the one with the greater World view and the more intelligent, articulate communications skills (because I believe most of the rest of the country is just a WEE BIT TIRED OF TEXANS running the White House)...

    • Posted By: News and Notes @ 08/06/2008 10:35:03 AM

      Defensive? Please! That's like saying blacks shouldn't be so defensive. Besides, there are plenty of Southern Democrats, but in general they are more moderate. They supported Hillary, but they are struggling with Obama;s minimal experience, not his race.

      • Posted By: raddave @ 08/07/2008 2:00:19 AM

        The supported Clinton? Obama won South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Louisiana, Virginia, and North Carolina. And one could argue that he won Texas because he ended up with more deligates than HRC. Hillary only won West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennasee, Arkansas, and Florida.

        • Posted By: News and Notes @ 08/07/2008 12:51:18 PM

          You're right, I was thinking of moderate rather than southern democrats.

  • Posted By: jblackwell88 @ 08/05/2008 3:08:33 PM

    I was ambivalent about voting for McCain, but you self-righteous Northern bigots who want to paint all Southerners with one broad derogatory brush have just about convinced me. If I vote for McCain, it will only be as a protest vote against you all. Besides, McCain will bring "change" too. Immediately after his election, the blacks will probably torch Los Angeles.

    • Posted By: News and Notes @ 08/05/2008 4:38:21 PM

      Most Northeastern liberals find this article derogatory towards the South. Also, in the primary season Hillary won all of the NE states by an overwhelming margin (except for CT). Your comment suggests that Obama supporters may ave widened the divide amongst Democrats, and that suggestion may have some merit.

      • Posted By: raddave @ 08/07/2008 2:17:12 AM

        Not true News. Obama won Delaware, Maine, Vermont, and Maine

        • Posted By: News and Notes @ 08/07/2008 12:38:55 PM

          You are right. However the voter count in the NE went overwhelmingly for Hillary

    • Posted By: rapidron @ 08/05/2008 3:42:13 PM

      You'll just have to vote what your mind and heart tells you. My vote will be dictated by more than simple anger and misplaced bitterness.

      • Posted By: jblackwell88 @ 08/05/2008 3:56:17 PM

        Note to self : rapidron doesn't think I'm casting a vote based on any educated criteria. :D

        I have three or four issues that aren't addressed properly by either candidate ( foreign policy, sound money, immigration, privacy ). You are fortunate to have a choice that you LIKE. For my part, I might as well flip a coin or not vote at all.

        • Posted By: rapidron @ 08/05/2008 4:32:31 PM

          Hehe sorry jblack... I know where you are coming from, as I am really only going with who I think is the least of all evils. That is to say, I'm cynical enough about politics in the US that I couldn't believe it until I see this or any candidate stand up for America (no political figure really has for awhile).

          I was just addressing the prior post:
          "I was ambivalent about voting for McCain, but you self-righteous Northern bigots who want to paint all Southerners with one broad derogatory brush have just about convinced me. If I vote for McCain, it will only be as a protest vote against you all. Besides, McCain will bring "change" too. Immediately after his election, the blacks will probably torch Los Angeles."

          I don't blame you for bein emotionally charged if that is the case (sorry if I misread), but it seems that now is a time where people are thinking with their heads or their hearts, and seldom in between. The last 2 elections saw a spate of negative, extremely propagandist attacks. This increased division and lowered actual logical and reasonable thought. It probably doesn't matter to you, but despite the outburst, I still think highly of your posts. I say this to add that I did not want to insult you, but just to point out emotion, versus the logic that you had shown in other examples.

          Anyway about it, peace and hope you have a good one. It's time for very late lunch (job is busy--note, I don't take handouts :)

  • Posted By: cbeard1019 @ 08/05/2008 5:27:59 PM

    Wow. Maybe what we need is a good ethnic, or should I say geographical, cleansing. Just wipe the current South out & you won't have to worry about us ignorant, racist folk anymore. You can start fresh, begin anew. You can bring colonies in from other regions. Everyone else must be better than us.

    I'm Southern. If I don't support Obama it must be because I'm racist & ignorant. If I do support McCain I must be corrupt & ignorant. (I don't like either one of them.)

    • Posted By: News and Notes @ 08/05/2008 6:02:45 PM

      It's not just Southerners. Hillary supporters all over the country were branded as racist, ignorant, uneducated, hillbilly, white trailer park trash by some Obama supporters all throughout the primary season. The arrogance, dismissiveness, and elitism continues. Neither candidate is worth their weight in compost

      • Posted By: AskPlus @ 08/05/2008 7:07:53 PM

        I'm not sure, but I think the point is not to erase diversion, but not to support separatism and discrimination either. Politics and church emotional ties to community make us all a little loopy too. There are those who display intolerance across the board and it's not a competition. Probably, according to registry, 65% of the population would rather jump to conclusion than research fact. Lazy makes us stupid. Judgment by majority makes us lazy. Simple - negative emotions create preference.

        • Posted By: News and Notes @ 08/06/2008 10:30:16 AM

          Nothing simple about this election. Experience is the best teacher

          • Posted By: raddave @ 08/07/2008 2:05:40 AM

            Dodging sniper fire is a pretty good teacher as well. Oh wait Hillary didn't dodge bullets.

            • Posted By: News and Notes @ 08/07/2008 12:38:06 PM

              What value is there to keep bringing up that embellishment? Obama told his fair share of partial and non-truths

      • Posted By: cobalt6 @ 08/05/2008 7:21:06 PM

        Well Said, I could not agree with you more!

  • Posted By: James Mabry @ 08/04/2008 4:35:37 PM

    The notion that not voting for Obama is racist is insulting. When someone says this, you can bet they are a progressive, leftist, hate America first, liberal with absolutely no clue about reality. Here's reality: It is politics, not pigment. Obama is a progressive, leftist, America's full of faults, we will fix gas prices with a tire gauge, i am a citizen of the world, too close to marxism, Democrat for me to even think of voting for him.

    • Posted By: raddave @ 08/04/2008 4:56:01 PM

      Can you look back over the past 8 years and say that America has no faults?

      • Posted By: James Mabry @ 08/04/2008 5:11:25 PM

        Yes. America has faults. We don't get the culture war btwn us and Islamo-whackos. We allow Pelosi to thwart basic sense about drilling. We act like Obama is actually a worthy candidate. We tolerate Move On and Code Pink and other whacked out nut jobs as if they were worthy of anything but scorn. We don't have a border. Our public schools indoctrinate a nanny state mentality. We are full of faults.

        • Posted By: raddave @ 08/05/2008 12:13:13 AM

          More drilling for oil is not basic sense, economists have agreed, hell even John McCain has agreed that it will not lower gas prices. We also tolerate hate groups like the Swift boaters, people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'reilly. Who is to blame about the border mess? Ronald Regan, the darling of the Republicans granted amnisty, not a democrat. What exactly is a nanny state mentality?

          • Posted By: James Mabry @ 08/07/2008 3:52:16 AM

            An Obama voter is a study in a nanny state mentality. Suck suck suck the govt teat. Bow bow bow at the entitlement alter. Answer only to the govt, not to God.

            It's very simple. Either God is your boss and govt is subservient or Govt is your boss and God is lost. Obama supporters prefer govt to God.

            I don't know why you name a list of people from Hannity to Oreilly as if I have anything to do with those people. Call them haters if you want. I call them who?

            The border is open. Period. Put blame wherever you want. Start with Bush.

            JUST TALKING ABOUT DRILLING HAS LOWERED OIL PRICES. Jesus on a drill bit, you are a clueless tool if you don't get that more oil changes supply and demand. Let me repeat that: Tell me how MORE oil does NOT change supply and demand?

    • Posted By: bluebloodedLV @ 08/04/2008 4:49:58 PM

      You're right. It's not about race. But, you can bet when someone says that liberals hate America, they get their news from Fox and Limbaugh. It's not about McCain being TOO DAMN OLD. McCain is a small minded - fascist - big-oil loving - corporation loving - votes with Bush 98% of the time - I am proud to have graduated at the bottom of my class - it's OK to be ignorant - right wing - womanizing - anti-Christian - Republican for me to even think of voting for him!!

      • Posted By: James Mabry @ 08/04/2008 5:06:56 PM

        Did I say anything about voting for McCain?
        And, FWIW, I never watch TV news and I have not listened to Rush in 15 years. It is nice to see you've got the Democrat talking points down well.

        • Posted By: bluebloodedLV @ 08/04/2008 5:14:47 PM

          Well you didn't get your right wing talking points down by listening to anything other than biased news or hate radio - let me guess, Savage?

          So then you're either going to vote Independent or throw away your vote?

          • Posted By: James Mabry @ 08/04/2008 6:37:32 PM

            Blue Blood, I love America first. I believe in limited government, free enterprise, private property and individual responsibility. I believe the Founders were brilliant and that America is better. And you are saying, because I don???t agree with the progressive, big government, big taxes, control the individual, enumerate America???s faults mindset that I must listen to hate radio? Ah, there???s nothing quite like a leftist full of his perverted reasoning against one that doesn???t suckle the government teat and bow at the alter of nanny.

            • Posted By: bluebloodedLV @ 08/04/2008 6:54:16 PM

              Comment: Blue Blood, I love America first. I believe in limited government, free enterprise, private property and individual responsibility. I believe the Founders were brilliant and that America is better. And you are saying, because I don???t agree with the progressive, big government, big taxes, control the individual, enumerate America???s faults mindset that I must listen to hate radio? Ah, there???s nothing quite like a leftist full of his perverted reasoning against one that doesn???t suckle the government teat and bow at the alter of nanny.

              _____________________________________________________________________________
              James - I am a gun owning, college educated, liberal female, born and raised in Las Vegas, Nevada. My parents are Catholic and Mormon. I love America. I believe in small government too and most definately individual responsibility. I've never even been on welfare - neither has anyone I have ever known or am related to. No government teet for me - my father has worked hard to support his family and put me through college by saving his monry. But what my parents did when they were younger, I cannot do. I cannot stay home to raise my children, but my mother could because my father's income paid the bills. That is the American dream that is going down the tubes, and it's because CORPORATIONS are taking over and are being allowed to do so with the support of the Republican party.

              Don't put words into my mouth - I am responding to your initial comments. You spewed a bunch of reasons why you wouldn't vote for Obama which are not true. I responded in your same tone with reasons why I wouldn't vote for McCain. So you're believing some lies someone has told you. Whether it's spew radio or faux news. There are no liberal versions of what Limbaugh and Savage do - don't even try it with Air America Radio - they back up everything with facts, where as the neo-con hate radio spew hate inspiring lies.

              I believe ultimately that we liberals and conservatives have more things in common than not, but that the media like to see us scrap. Just don't tell me I hate America because I am liberal and I won't say your ignorant because you're conservative.

              • Posted By: James Mabry @ 08/07/2008 3:47:22 AM

                Blueblood, you sound like the typical blame somebody else liberal to me. At least you are honest about being a liberal.

                Please enumerate "the lies i believe" so I can counter your drivel.

                Deal with the us against them reality. Did you want us all to get along? Ha. The world doesn't work that way. Obama is openly hostile to all I hold dear. McCain is openly hostile to 90% of all I hold dear. I ain't gonna play nice. We are way past that.

                You are wrong in thinking liberals and conservatives have more in commmon than not. That is high heaven stinking BS that only a kumbaya singing leftie would ever think, much less say. One side loves the govt and asks, "Where's nanny?". The other side loves the individual, family and community and says, "We will gladly deal with it.".

                That ain't common ground.

              • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 08/04/2008 10:43:23 PM

                "Air America backs everything up with facts"? You have got to be kidding! It's nothing but a liberal hate-fest full of ranting and raving.

                This comment tells us everything we need to know about you...

                • Posted By: bluebloodedLV @ 08/05/2008 2:20:17 PM

                  And your comments about you. If you listened to Air America you would know. They don't go on the air and say things like "Clinton is a rapist" a quote from Limbaugh during the Lewinksy blow up. You wont here the same spew of lies coming from Air America jockeys. Both Limbaugh and Savage say things that have been proven to be untrue and yet they continue to spew the hate. And you ditto heads just eat it up. I guess it's easier to have someone tell you what to think than to actually think things through yourself.

                  • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 08/06/2008 10:26:31 PM

                    You must be one of the 17 or so listeners to Air-head America. As info, I don't listen to Savage and I rarely listen to Rush (unlike you leftists, I actually have a job during the day). I have no problem thinking for myself. And I thought about it and have concluded that you are a brain-washed dolt.

                • Posted By: raddave @ 08/05/2008 12:14:08 AM

                  Kinda like Fox News with it's pro NEOCON ranting and ravings?

          • Posted By: jh35180 @ 08/04/2008 5:52:01 PM

            Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are biased. But so is MSNBC, Newsweek, the New York Times, et al. But left wing narrow minded dems always talk about Fox like they are facists. However, they cannot and will not admit that most publications are left biased.

            • Posted By: raddave @ 08/05/2008 12:14:49 AM

              Because they aren't?

    • Posted By: southern-sweettea @ 08/04/2008 4:38:42 PM

      Way to go James!! I agree totally!

  • Posted By: OnlyCureJGK @ 08/07/2008 3:43:22 AM

    One lie begets another. Please inform yourself on the Bilderberg group, Rockefellers and the council on foriegn relations, Sept 11 building 7 collaps, Prescott Bush grandpa to President Bush be informed while you still can .. Follow the money.

  • Posted By: OnlyCureJGK @ 08/07/2008 3:40:47 AM

    One lie begets another please look up the Bilderberg group, the rockefellers, Cheney, 911 building 7 collaps, Prescott Bush, it is all related. Find out now before you can no longer.......... Follow the money.

  • Posted By: sharenews @ 08/07/2008 12:43:54 AM



    Now on Bestseller Lists:

    THE OBAMA NATION by Dr. Jerome Corsi

    AMAZON
    Bestseller list at NO. 9

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books/ref=amb_link_5989612_1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=auto-sparkle&pf_rd_r=1E63D4A1CRK45D4H4XYX&pf_rd_t=301&pf_rd_p=336095101&pf_rd_i=best%20sellers


    BARNES AND NOBLE
    Bestseller list at NO. 14.

    http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/results.asp?WRD=The+Obama+Nation


    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    INTERVIEW with Author of The Obama Nation, Dr. Jerome Corsi, Ph.d

    Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdFs6hjPnyw

    Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgaGFITnTAQ


Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse