Obama lacks the leadership needed in this Country now. Wrong guy for a wartime President.

"Why is it that democrats have to tell us they love this country?"
.
The don't...it just seems that Republicans have a skewed sense of what "patriotism" is.

This man has to tell people he is patriotic. What is that? Why is it that democrats have to tell us they love this country?

I won't vote for him because he wants to raise the capital gains tax again. He also wants to enact the marriage penalty tax and raise income taxes.

"I for one don't want Obama as President with his Heritage."
.
Nothing closed (small) minded about that statement, eh?

I for one don't want Obama as President with his Heritage. I know a lot of Muslims and they are wonderful but Obama isn't one of them I have seen him on TV and he just isn't the one who should be President my vote is going for Mcain

Why can't we have a person who does what they say they are going to do. Stands by their position from day one. Someone who doesn't waver in the political wind. Someone who means what the say and isn't going to change their positions by what poll numbers are. Neither one of these clowns can do that. They are both career politicians and aren't going to do this country one bit of good.

The better question isn’t which holy book Obama swears by, but whether an oath means anything to him at all in light of his recent flip flops such as when he gave his unequivocal word that he would take public financing in the general election some time ago, but now, when it is clearly to his advantage, he has reneged on that oath. This is change we can believe in? I guess he meant change that jingle jangle jingles which, apparently is the kind that real politicians such as Obama believe in.

shutupandfish:
Here are a few URL’s that may or may not help you in your quest for the truth. Keep looking for reputable sources of information, find the facts as best you can and then make your decision. Good luck.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/ant...
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/sta...
http://www.factcheck.org/

Is it true that if he gets elected he will take the oath of office on the Koran? I have seen pictures of him at events where he doesn't put his had over his heart during the pledge of alligence. Why?

You two need to calm down take a deep breath and find a hobby to cool off for a few days. How about disco dancing? Ake Blomqvist could show you how!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=VakjZqso8Ik

Now you can be the hippest kid on the block! Dynomite!!!

P.S. skip to about 2:18 to see some real moves!

Whatdidyousay: You really amuse me. I gave you the benefit of the doubt for awhile but you are neither a debater nor an objective person. You spout negativity and exhibit a totally close minded way of thinking. I am a History buff and I know that there is always more than one way of looking at things. You, Sir or Ma’am, are so set in your ways that you can’t even take a moment to examine another’s point of view or even examine the facts. Your revisionist view of History has not been proven, and spouting things like, (regarding Joe McCarthy) “The majority of what he had to say turned out to be 100% correct. Read the papers released by the former Soviet Union and you may be surprised to find that ole Joe was right on the money about the people he said were working for the KGB and were employed by the democrats in their administration during his time.”
As usual, a total distortion by a close minded person. Please try reading some books other than those written by Ann Coulter and others like Evans, etc. Being objective is something that you need to learn. One has to have an open mind in order to discern what is true and what is not. I’m not trying to change your vote; you have your mind made up and that is fine, I’m just asking that you THINK. Truly THINK how you deal with people. Channel your anger and move toward the positive.
Regarding your request to post all your ‘quotes”, that’s just plain silly. The things I posted were quoted from what you have “said” were they not? Anybody can click on your username or my username and read everything we have ever posted, if they are interested in researching them. My point was that you are an angry, negative, name calling person.
With all that baloney in mind, I choose to not deal with you anymore. God Bless you.

johndoe- nobody ever said that your name qualifies you or not for President.

Calm down Whatdidyousay before you pop a vein. And to think, you accused me of ranting. That is very funny coming from someone who is the rant King/Queen of this blog. (sorry, I’m not sure of your gender.) You have no qualms about calling people names and belittling them in your ridiculous posts, i.e.
“fools”
“obimbo”
“What a snot nosed little troll you are”
My favorite, and it speaks volumes about your personality, is:
“I am going to enjoy it very much calling him names, demeaning him, berating him, and touting his failures”.
I won’t even mention the comments that you have made but were removed because of their inappropriate content. Hmmm!
These are traits of a delusional disorder and I feel sorry for you. Your constant references to, and fear of Communism and Socialism reminds me of another Wisconsin Republican who expressed many of the same “fears”; Senator Joe McCarthy. For those of you who aren’t familiar with this gem of a politician, please look him up. You may be surprised by the similarities.
You really need to lighten up.
Have a nice day Whatdidyousay and God Bless America.

What about Hyman Burstin?!

"The ignorance was to think or insinuate that a persons given name would have any bearing on their QUALIFICATIONS to be president."
.

ELECTABILITY.....Now that's a different story.

"You have to give Barack Obama credit, he's overcome a great deal. Not just he's an African-American. Barack Hussein Obama is his name. His middle name is the last name of Iraq's former tyrant. His last name rhymes with Osama. That's not easy to overcome. I think we all remember the ill-fated 1944 presidential campaign of Gaydolf Titler. It's just a shame, Titler had so many good ideas. We just couldn't get past the name. And the moustache." -Jon Stewart

Do you think Obama would accept a V.P. running mate named Ben Laden?

I wonder what the chances are of Rudolf Hitler being elected to anything.

The ignorance was to think or insinuate that a persons given name would have any bearing on their qualifications to be president.

John Doe your showing your ignorances by just name calling. You could comeback with why you think whybesad is wrong and state your case. It would make you look more intelligent. Just my opinion call me ignorant if you want.

JohnDoe: I got the SNL reference and I also applaud you for changing the S*** word to "fool". I wonder how many people here remember the Dan Aykroyd/Jane Curtin banter.

JohnDoe: That was a nice, what I consider reconciliation, post regarding your "ignorant fool" statement. Good job. There are lots of names that we would love to, and sometimes do, call people but sometimes people don't admit that it was a little much. Kudos to you.
Be careful about the LOL thing though. Evidently, Whatdidyousay doesn’t like it when people laugh. LOL LOL LOL LOL
By the way, your post about what a child is named is right on.

IE: Jane on SNL
.
LOL

We all are ignorant on many subjects (myself included) and we are all fools at any given time (myself included).Some just need it to be pointed out more frequently than others, (present company excluded).
.
LOL

That was a nice comment. While I agree with you in principle about the significance of a name (that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet), calling someone else an ignorant fool and clueless is not very sweet. You do not elevate your position by dragging another person down. Let fools prove themselves. They seldom need to be pointed out. Now you can direct your venomous tirade to me if you wish.

whybesad...you ignorant fool...why would any parents name their male child David? Maybe because they just happen to like the sound of it? Even though David is a "Jewish" name.
The same can be said about any given name.
Again...be sad...because you are clueless.

killing "in the name of (insert the name of your god here)"... is just a weak excuse to play (insert the name of your god here)".

Extremely ANYTHING is never a good thing. Whether you are extremely right, extremely left or extremely dead.

ummm...I get that. But the "extreme" Christians picket abortion clinics and harrass women who are entering and leaving the building, whether going there for an aboortion or not...they don't "just" blow them up.

I plan on voting for someone who will protect women's rights, regardless of his or her last name. I can see past a name and vote for the candidate who has my country's best interests in mind.

By the way, it is not proper to judge a man by the "sins" of his father. Or mother. Who, afterall, chooses their birth name?

ms_sassy_wi an extreme Muslim is a terrorist who blows up buildings, airplanes etc in the name of ali. An extreme Christan is a person who blows up abortion clinics and kills doctors that perform abortions in the name of Christianity. An extreme leftist is a person who attacks fishing boats or oil rigs in the name of saving the environment. Greenpeace is an extreme leftist group. Hopefully that helps you.

sorry, but I can't help but ask the next question: an "extreme Christian" can't also be an "extreme leftist"? Some people would call me an "extreme Christian" (or at least I "used" to be called one)...what, exactly is the definition or qualifying traits to be "extreme"?

And, to clarify: I WOULD NOT BE A GOOD POLITCIAN! Just ask a few posters here...LOL

You TOTALLY missed my point in all of this and I will give up on my attempt to show you what I meant by all of this name business. Why would his parents name him Barack Hussein Obama if he wasn't raised a Muslim? Why not name him Dwayne Edward Obama? If he was raised a Muslim I could care less but, don't try and hide it. Not all Muslims are bad just the extreme Muslims. Just like the extreme Christians and Extreme leftists.

thekid..., simmer down!

i am SERIOUSLY kickin around the idea of writing in ms_sassy for prez.

ms_sassy...you are correct. whybesad resorts to meaningless drivel as a means to bring an air of perceived negativity because he is clueless concerning substantive issues.

*LOL*

yeah. my last name is french. does that mean I am unwilling to assist anyone in need? nope. what's the point of "what" his name is? A person can be a Christian regardless of his/her family heritage. I think these are ridiculous statements and are lame attempts at ruining someone's name. a politician of any party has the ability to do that on his/her own "merits"-it doesn't take deciphering a name to tell if a person's a "good witch or a bad witch".

In my opinion, there's not a politician in D.C. who does a very good job of claiming to be a Christian and then acts on that premise.

Your website stated that Obama isn't a radical Muslim. I never said he was a radical Muslim. He has a Muslim name. That was my point. He is who he is. Not all Muslims are bad I'm not saying that Obama is a bad person.I never said that he was a bad person I believe his policies are bad but, he as a person might be a really nice guy. The point is he should be proud of where he came from and how he was raised. He has been very successful in his life. Went to Ivy league schools and became a United States Senator that's great.

Who cares if it's a "Christian" name?

Obama is who he is. So get over it. As for trying to insult me, whybesad, nice try. I have seen what you've posted. Still not impressed.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/mus...

Johndoe- well is it a Christan name? Instead of name calling like a typical liberal debate me on it. Is it that hard?

Irish_Mafia78 you may want to read the posts that I have written. I never said it was a bad thing to be a Muslim. I stated that Obama is running away from who he really is as a person. Barack Obama is not a Christan name that is my point. Look it up. I know it may be difficult since your obviously intellectually challenged but, give it a shot. You may actually learn something.

MY THOUGHTS ON POLITICS

In politics
everyone carries a sign saying
hurray for our side.

It wasn't our fault
it was the other guys.

Don't believe my opponent...

He lies.

Copyright © 2004 T. J. Daniels

I'm glad that Whatdidyousay got a chuckle out of something. Read, "I get a chuckle out of everything a liberal democrat says, and the fools that fall for their hot air rhetoric."
His or her remarks are usually so negative, grumpy and disparaging; it’s nice to know that there may be a sense of humor buried there somewhere. *lol*

whybesad wrote...."Is Barrack Hussein Obama an American name? No it's a muslim name. Say what you want but his name is muslim."
.
I was trying to give whybesad the benefit of the doubt concerning his username but he just keeps giving us too much ammunition.
.
Be sad because you're clueless.

you did not simply point out that i violate the law. it should be obvious to anyone that reads ANY of these threads that i will be the FIRST to admit i violate this ignorant law. you suggested that because i didnt see your point the 'hemp must be getting in the way'. hypocrisy is hypocrisy whether i smoke pot or not.

i dont understand where yer goin billnewbie. my 'opponents'?? anti-obamaers you mean?? we all have our views and they obviously dont coincide with everyone elses views, that does not make me a hypocrite or mean that i am ignoring facts. i dont care if either of them associated or had 'dealings' with a terrorist. i would naively;) assume they would seperate from that relationship as leader of the united states of america. im knowledgable enough on most of the issues that i can have a conversation, but i really could care less. not a politician alive at the federal level who TRULY cares about us way down here in middle america. they just dont. and my life WILL NOT be affected dramatically one way or another. its about how can they advance themselves, or their party, or their beliefs. im not ignorant enough to believe that president obama is any different. 3 reasons president obama is going to get my vote. A)although it may backfire, he DOES offer a better chance for change than mccain. 2)although he is a pol and he could flip flop, hes on record stating the war on drugs is an 'utter failure' and that he would stop spending federal money arresting LEGAL medical users of marijuana. and d) hes black. its just plain time to show the world we as a country are not as ignorant as we once were....

Is Barrack Hussein Obama an American name? No it's a muslim name. Say what you want but his name is muslim.

Isn't that what your opponents would say?

good point. but im not ignoring any facts. and i notice how even you refer to them as facts:)

Hypocrisy, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. The way you state it, yes that's hypocrisy. But not everyone agrees with those facts. You may say that those who defend GW are ignoring the facts while they may claim that you are. Thus the hamster wheel analogy.

i actually am a fan. you write well thought out posts with some humor, pretty much all the time;), and i do believe at one time you said my meds probably arent as bad as alcohol:) but im rite arent i?? that is hypocrisy.

I didn't realize that I impressed you so. I'll add your name to the membership list of my fan club.

i said nothing in defense of my guy being a hypocrite. quite honestly i dont know if hes associated with terrorists or not. nor do i care. i really dont care that gw did. they are their own people and would i take a loan from someone who knew oil to make myself a millionaire?? absolutely. thats the way the system works. all i was doing was pointing out that whatdidyousay said one of the reasons hes against president obama is because he's associated with known terrorists. thats ok if thats a reason you dont want to vote for president obama, but if you voted for gw, especially the second time, then you can use whatever big fancy words you know billnewbie to try and impress people, but thats hypocrisy. in fact, i think that may be pretty much the definition of hypocrisy.

Reading the arguments that your guy is a hypocrite so it's O.K. that my guy is a hypocrite while berating each other for defending a hypocrite is like watching a hamster running in his wheel. Even he must see that he's not getting anywhere, but it seems he just can't resist the urge.

thats funny that youll start judging me rite away cuz of my personal lifestyle, thats not a typical right winger move;), i dont see the diff between 'dealing with someone, as opposed to associating with a person on a personal level' did you get that clarification from fox news?? so gw/baths 'dealings' with the bin laden WERENt personal?? nothing to do with oil?? i dont think hes dealt with the bin ladens since he was in office, other than chasing him around afghanistan and using him as one of the excuses to go to iraq. which means it wasnt politcal dealings, so it must have been business, but im sure gw didnt profit off ANY of the dealings, so yer rite i guess it wasnt personal. omfg. and gw isnt running so i could give a s**t about him, you made the point that one of the reasons you wont vote for president obama is cuz hes dealt with known terrorists. you obviously have the rite in this county to vote for whoever you want for whatever reasons you want, i simply was pointing out the HYPOCRISY coming from your post by blasting president obama for it, when the current president you voted for did the same thing.

whybesad...just wondering if you read the link provide by theguyonthecouch concerning your claim that Obama was raised a Muslim? Just curious.

Bush isn't running again so that is pretty much a non issue.

so gw and james bath had NO ties to the bin ladens?? ever?? i am by no means far left. my only real political concern is to free hemp, but if you, whatdidyousay, can deny that connection then you are as far to the right and blinded by your beliefs as the far lefters you chuckle at.

thekid3477; No apology necessary. I got a chuckle out of it. Thanks.

It's gonna be a long four years no matter who gets in.

He can't be the person he is that is wrong. He throws his clergy of 20 years under the bus. He throws his close friends under the bus if they hurt his campaign efforts he shuns away from Muslim woman because it would look bad. But, he's the uniter.

Check it out. http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/...

Obama has designed his own presidential seal. What's next? Barrack on a cross?

sry, thats for whatdidyousay not bostonbill, all apologies;)

i assume bostonbill you didnt vote for GW since he has associated with known terrorists for decades??

paranoia, paranoia everyones out ta get me:) say it with me peeps. PRESIDENT OBAMA!!

JohnDoe said, "It's only the beginning.
Republicans demand truth and clarity only when it serves their cause.
Come to think of it, the Democrats often do the same."
Ain't it the truth! That is why I hate politics. It's like the people who "suck up to the boss." I try to educate myself regarding who is the best candidate; someone who can do the best for the USA; who can help us get out of the mess we are in; who really cares about us citizens, and then I vote for the one I believe in the most.

Whatdidyousay:
I asked, “Do you know what Communism is? Can you express your definition and why you feel this way?”
You replied, “Do I know what communism is? Are you serious? How many countries in this world are already under communism? Do you think I can't see what goes on in them?”
Again, I will ask, “Do you know what Communism is? Can you express your definition and why you feel this way?”
I am looking for your definition and how you link Mr. Obama to Communism.
You seem very passionate about your opinions and that is a good thing, however, by your own admission; (“I did say it in anger and frustration.”), I would like to know if you could be calm and objective and tell us what REALLY bothers you about Mr. Obama.
I respect peoples’ opinions but I like clarity. Thank you.

It's only the beginning.
Republicans demand truth and clarity only when it serves their cause.
Come to think of it, the Democrats often do the same.
Only four and a half months to go.

Not true. Typical bull.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/polit...

A problem I have with Obama is that he was raised a muslim. Good or bad that's who he is. Why denounce that? Why can't a person/canidate run on who they really are. If he is such a good canidate then he should be proud of his roots and how he was raised. Democrat or republican doesn't matter. He's been honest with his drug use in the past. People like honesty and without honesty you don't have respect. Why be scared of who you are. If you can't be yourself who can you be?

Obama's appeal to women may have lost a little of it's sheen after his difficulty with those Islamic women in their headscarves. It seems he didn't want the ladies visible behind him at a rally as he was concerned about being associated with Islam. Of course the whole thing was blamed on those evil republicans who are looking for smear material, as if to say "the devil made me do it".

Very good points here.

"Whatdidyousay" said, "Obama could be president women want him to be? obimbo will say anything he thinks you want to hear to get you to vote for him. Communism is on its way."
I think this is a strange thing to say and I wonder if it was said in anger or frustration. By referring to Mr. Obama as "obimbo" says a lot by itself. Are you degrading women; Mr. Obama; politicians in general, or who? Mr. or Ms. Whatdidyousay, please explain why you feel this way. Do you know what Communism is? Can you express your definition and why you feel this way?

I am so lacking in academic (4 syllables) acuity (4 more syllables) and intelligence (I can't stop myself) that such analogies (HELP ME) eluded my cogitation (arghhhhh). (I'm gonna go lie down for a while till my syllablitis subsides.)

Louis XVI is who Imeant to say, not the XV.

billnewbie, I have just one small point to make regarding your Robin Hood statement. The government is incapable of acting like Robin Hood because Robin stole from the government and gave it back to the people. I suggest a different person/entity, such as Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, New York State, King George III or Louis XV. All would be much better examples than Robin Hood.

LOL- Give up NVGRF, you are getting destroyed. Billy makes intelligent arguments and you spout the same far left drivel.

NVgrf:
Did you run into Javon Walker the other day? You may have had the opportunity (4 syllables) since you have said that you are in Nevada.
I know you’re in favor of redistributing (5 syllables) the wealth of the rich and there aren’t many that are richer than Walker.
Of course I realize that it probably was not you as people of your persuasion prefer to let the I.R.S. do the strong-arm work for you since you want the government to act like Robin Hood. Rolling football stars is dangerous work. After all, people like you have to lay claim to virtues such as bravery, fairness and patriotism (5 syllables) as your actions and words do not lead the casual observer to believe you actually possess them.

I realize there are a lot of big words here but I know you have access to a dictionary (yep, 4 syllables). If I thought it would help your comprehension (oops, another 4 syllable word) I’d limit myself to 4 letter words (which I'm sure is your preferred range of vocabulary (5 syllables)) but alas, the inflexibility (a 6 syllable word) of your opinions are immune to reason no matter the form in which it is given.
Does it make you feel better about yourself to denigrate my level of education (I just love these 4 syllable words)?
Do you feel good imagining (I think I’m getting 4 syllablitis (5 syllables)) me as a dim witted brute fit only to polish shoes in a railroad station?
Do you see me as the bell ringer of Notre Dame?
Does it reassure your lofty opinion of yourself to project such an image of me in your mind?
I wonder if you are surprised that I know what a syllable is and that I can actually (one more 4 syllable word (I’m totally out of control)) count them. Are you impressed enough now that I’ve thrown in a few 5 and 6 syllable words as well, or do I need 7 or 8 to impress you?
You ought to know better than to reprint excerpts from a dictionary without attribution (2 more 4 syllable words).

The following is reprinted from this link and attributed accordingly below:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/a...
au•dac•i•ty Audio Help ɔˈdæs ɪ ti - Show Spelled Pronunciation[aw-das-i-tee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ties.
1. boldness or daring, esp. with confident or arrogant disregard for personal safety, conventional thought, or other restrictions.
2. effrontery or insolence; shameless boldness: His questioner's audacity shocked the lecturer.
3. Usually, audacities. audacious acts or statements.

[Origin: 1400–50; late ME audacite < L audāc-, s. of audāx daring (adj.) + -ite -ITY ]

—Synonyms 1. nerve, spunk, grit, temerity, foolhardiness. 2. impudence, impertinence, brashness.
—Antonyms 1, 2. discretion, prudence.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

billy....
"those who have the audacity to see things differently than you"
I love pompous right-wingers whose mission in life is to string as many four syllable words as they can together in sentences in order to attempt to impress. And you are true to form...not having a clue how to use the language properly. You might want to consider pursuing that GED. It might add a bit to your credibility.

au·dac·i·ty 1. boldness or daring, esp. with confident or arrogant disregard for personal safety, conventional thought, or other restrictions.
2. effrontery or insolence; shameless boldness: His questioner's audacity shocked the lecturer.

No, but I do find it curious that we will do anything in his power to impeed the rights of homosexuals because he believes it is a sin but when his soldiers are sodomizing prisoners you don't hear 'boo' from him.

Oh, and if it meant getting the information he wanted, GW would OK sodomizing.

You can say anything you like, on your own forum. On someone else's forum, they get to set the rules. If you can't afford your own forum, try a soap box on a busy public street corner. But even there, you have to watch your language.

lol. so much for freedom of speech:)

Excellent points on terms limits in congress. This would certainly be a step in the right direction.

You are free to add anything that you think I overlooked. (You don't really believe the President is in favor of sodomizing prisoners, do you?)

billnewbie

if you are going to list dem v rep positions please attempt to be fair. don't just list the extreme of the dems while forgetting about some of the extreme positions of thr reps.

the abortion example is the most blantant...
why don't you mention extreme rep positions aboout how the republicans believe torture if fine. Did you hear the medical report? some of the captives were sodimized before dying as american prisoners.

Both sides have their issues, both have extremists, don't forget that.

Amen Bill!!! How true!!

Well said. The congress used to be occupied by statesmen and patriots. Now they are full of professional politicians and crooks. Term limits would be a start

In the 1960’s there was a war on but we refused to do what had to be done to win it as many in our country were sympathetic with the goals of the enemy and others were afraid of what our enemy’s allies would do. In 1968 a change was demanded and a Republican, Nixon, was elected.
4 years later, Nixon forgot why he was elected president and set about getting re-elected even if that meant breaking the law, and then tried to cover up what was done until he was driven from office in mid-term in 1974. The new President Ford then pardoned Nixon and again a change was demanded. In 1976 a man who was deemed good and capable , Carter, was elected who turned out not to be capable after all between the Iranian mess which we still are dealing with and an economic mess driven by high and rising fuel prices, and again a change was demanded. (There seems to be a pattern here)
Through all these Presidential changes, the leadership in Congress in both parties and both houses were continually re-elected with few exceptions, most through retirement or poor health.
In1980 Reagan was elected in a landslide with much angst on the left. Congress resisted much of what he wanted to do, but being more concerned with re-election, they reluctantly allowed the tax cuts and increased military spending that he asked for, while ridiculing the basis of Reagan’s requests. His agenda was so successful that he gained re-election in another landslide and in 1988 his VP was elected rather easily as well.
In1992, with a brief recession underway and the first Iraqi war considered to be less than successful, a change was demanded and Clinton was elected promising to right the wrongs of the Reagan legacy which enriched too few and trickled down too little. But his own party leadership in the Congress had their own ideas and 2 years later a different change was demanded and both houses of Congress changed hands, but only into the long entrenched hands of the other party as their leadership had also been in congress for decades.
Many of those same people who have been running Congress for decades are still there now, adding their earmarks and taking special loans from Mortgage companies while blocking any attempt to investigate those deals, all the while condemning those Mortgage companies for the Home Mortgage mess they helped to create either by inaction or complicity while investigating the other party endlessly. Only they know what other kinds of special deals they get.
The President is term limited and almost everyone thinks that is a good thing. Until we term limit Congress, and remove the need for endless campaigning, there will be little or no change because Congress has to pass the laws and they like things just the way they are.

kiowamohican: a) i hate how the system works, and if i thought ron paul stood a cubbies chance in h311 of getting elected i would vote for him. 2) watch this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQr9ezr8U...

its president obama stating we need to rethink the current marijuana laws because the drug war has been an 'utter failure'.
or this video from last september he talks about not spending federal money arresting legal medical marijuana users.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUze-oYss...

SAY IT WITH ME EVERYONE!! PRESIDENT OBAMA!! :)

I think the concerns about splitting votes on a three party system are good ones. However, with some campaign finance reform and limits to the nomination process, there would be room both financially and in length of time for a three party run off. All three parties would run for a vote, the top two would be the two nominated parties. As a result, there could be democrat/independent, republican/independent, or the old fashioned republican/democrat to compete in the general election. The way our system is set up now, the extremist in either party seem to control the house, senate, and presidency.

And the band played on...

All I can say is Jimmy Doyle isn't running around trying to convince GM to stay. It was his tax hikes that chased GM and others out of here. Obama and his socialist agenda will issue "windfall Taxes" on big business...like GM. They won't help keep jobs in your house and food on your table. But we'll pay taxes. It won't lower gas and food prices..But we'll pay taxes..China is drilling oil 50 miles off of Key West, but we can't because of the liberal agenda...Ask a gas staion operator what they make per gallon..About 8 cents..ask Jimmy how much taxes we pay on the gas..Ask Obama and his buddy Al Gore how much taxes we pay on a gallon?? Way more than the business operators..But we pay taxes.. WE should substitute the word TAXES for CHANGE and I think we'll get a better idea of what is coming...hmmm..not thinking Obama is a good idea..

No one can be all things to all people.

Kid:
Even your man Obama is not for ending the ridiculous ban on marijuana. A ban which is one of the biggest wastes of law enforcement resources, and strain on the criminal justice system, all in the name of accomplishing nothing of any value.
You should have come aboard the Ron Paul train!

END MARIJUANA PROHIBITION!! write in thekid3477 for president!! FREE HEMP!!

One of the biggest reasons a third party is not close to parity with the big two is because most voters who want a third option are not yet confident enough to take a chance that their vote would not be wasted.
He who hesitates is lost.

Also, they are taking their information from "participating" women. There are more women that are going to be at the polls then have contributed their two cents this far, I can guarentee it!!

Guess what! I am a woman, and I am not voting for Obama! I take offense to that generalization! Let's not count chickens until the eggs hatch! This is the time things get super ugly between the canidates, and I don't see Obama keeping up the "faith". (pun intended)

The Two party system isn’t perfect. But one big advantage is we usually get fairly close to a majority decision even if we are almost dead even. In some other countries where they have an unlimited number of folks on the ballot no one gets enough votes to have the political capitol to run the country. When you only get 25% of the votes but you are the winner, then 75% of the folks are unhappy. How can anyone govern under these conditions.

Yes, I agree for a third party. But we know how that has failed in the past because everyone wants to vote Democratic or Republican and the third party nominee never gets enough votes. And you are absolutely right that we cannot generalize each candidate because of what party he/she belongs to. Like I said before, I am a conservative Democrat.

Wow someone stoked the fire here LOL. I try to be objective in politics. Generally, I'm fiscally conservative since it has a history of being successful. I may add that Bill Clinton was very fiscally conservative, so you can't always attach fiscally conservative with conservative republicans as we've seen with Bush. Social issues and religion are when I tend to vary my opinion and avoid picking candidates on those issues if possible. For the most part I think Bush has been a failure. Not solely because I think all of his policies are bad (obviously some are), but because he is a horrid orator. As a result, Bush could have the best intentions and policies ever conceived and nobody would understand or agree. Overall I tend to push for moderation or third party. Our county has big problems and only if we work together (whatever party affiliation) will they get solved. I think Obama talks a great game, but his voting record and policy suggestions seem to favor the far left. I don’t think going from one extreme to the next is the right kind of change. Does this mean I support McCain? Actually, no it doesn’t. With McCain I fear that we will end up in more confrontations abroad. Not that I think Obama’s open negotiation policy is good either, but I think McCain needs to tone down the rhetoric in regards to Iran. I think the war on terror is important, but it can’t always be the most important issue. Right now we have domestic issues that are equally important and McCain has been behind the curve. That is another area where I differ from McCain. When you look past the ideology, the bottom line is this in our modern history: The republicans use the fear of terrorism and the democrats use the fear of recession. The democrats used the fear of recession for Bush senior even though our growth rate was 3.5% at the time, which helped get Bill Clinton elected. Bush used the fear of terrorism to get re-elected. Fortunately for the democrats it looks like they might get what they’ve been talking about for the past seven and a half years of Bushes term. A recession or near recession will certainly favor the democrats in the fall. However, one big terrorist attack against the U.S. or our allies and the pendulum will swing. It’s unfortunate that this is how politicians operate and that most people don’t see past it, but it’s the truth. There are a large block of independents and people who don’t follow every detail of politics that will vote based on fear.

NVgrf:
I would never let a narrow-minded, intolerant, ignoramus such as you tell me to do anything. I will always be ready to obstruct a bigot such as yourself in your attempt to silence and discredit those who have the audacity to see things differently than you. Between your hostility to conservatives in general and republicans in particular, and your contempt for those who have religious beliefs as well as all those on whom you look down your nose, you are in a very small minority indeed. Your favorite candidate may indeed win the next election, but it won’t be due to your endearing statements.
Furthermore, it is unlikely that your favorite party will open gulags or cultural re-education camps for those such as me should they win, much to your disappointment, I’m sure. Therefore I will not be getting out of the way and I will certainly not follow you.
I rather enjoy reading your belittling and self-aggrandizing statements. They are most ineffective as I am not an impressionable youngster, and your condescension does not impress me.

willie.......Your narrow-minded, intolerant, ignorant positions continue to amaze. I would certainly think that anyone who has the amount of time on their hands that you do in writing these entries might be better served out in society attempting to help make the lives of others better, instead of putting down those whose values and lifestyles are different than yours. The good news is that Americans who have lived through, and now see through the lies and false promises of the last eight years, want dramatic change. The Robber Baron policies of George W. Bush are on the way out my friend. I suggest you take up one of three expedient positions as the steam roller begins to roll in November....follow, lead or get out of the way.

thank you, billnewbie for your statement: "Not All Democrats and Republicans support each of those attributed positions".

I tend to lean more toward being a Democrat; however, there are many issues that I am much more moderate, and even possibly conservative, in my belief system and how I want OUR government to operate. After all, it is supposed to be a government BY the people FOR the people.

Your post was actually quite straightforward and didn't attempt to sway a person's views in one way or another, even though I think I know where you stand on most, if not all, of the mentioned issues.

Thanks, again. I appreciated your well worded post.

There’s been a lot of discussion below about what’s right and wrong for America with a lot of disagreement. Some argue that higher taxes are a good thing and some argue they are not, among other disagreements.
It comes down to deciding between alternatives such as the following when choosing a candidate for national state and local office:
If you think the tax code should be used to promote social justice then vote for the Democrat, or if you think the tax code should be used to promote economic development then vote for the Republican.
If you think the war is hopeless then vote for the Democrat, or if you think seeing the war through until the Iraqis can stand on their own then vote for the Republican.
If you think that the government takeover of the healthcare industry will fix what’s wrong with it then vote for the Democrat, or if you think that the government takeover of the healthcare industry will only make things worse then vote for the Republican.
If you think that social programs such as those from “the Great Society” and “ the New Deal” are just what we need to do again then vote for the Democrat, or if you think that programs such as those are very expensive with poor results that are loaded with unintended consequences then vote for the Republican.
If you think that environmental issues such as global warming and controlling the release of greenhouse gases are critical then vote for the Democrat, or if you think that global warming is exaggerated and that the costs would be prohibitive to try to control what is uncontrollable then vote for the Republican.
If you think that homosexual rights include the right to marry as the heterosexuals do now then vote for the Democrat, or if you think that marriage is between a man and a woman then vote for the Republican.
If you think that judges should be able to modify the law according to what they think is right then vote for the Democrat, or if you think that judges should leave lawmaking to the legislatures and Congress then vote for the Republican.
If you think that abortion should be legal all the way up to the time the baby draws its first breath and have the government pay for those abortions then vote for the Democrat, or if you think that there should be restrictions on abortion and that tax money should not be used to pay for them then vote for the Republican.
Not All Democrats and Republicans support each of those attributed positions, but mostly they do. And of course there are other issues that I did not list.

A lot of average people are invested in these evil big corporations. There are a ton of people who now have 401K's at work or some other type of investments. If the corporation does well the average Joe will do well. It's funny how these politicians are so darn mad at losing these manufacturing jobs in America but, they do nothing to help the environment to which a business and/or corporation can compete in the global market. GM is closing because of high gas prices in which is caused by politicians ignoring that demand for oil has risen significantly over the past ten years worldwide. They refuse to explore for oil in our own country and make it dam near impossible to build a refinery to handle the extra demand. Some politicians figure that a few hearings with the Oil ceo's will look like they are doing something. Well those meetings haven't lowered the cost of gasoline one bit. Those meetings have not put anymore oil on the market. Some politicians think by taxing the oil companies that this will help lower the cost of gasoline. And you want these people to run our health care? Come on.

If taxes are raised on corporations they will simply move overseas. Again, I mentioned earlier that America is behind only Japan for the highest corporate taxes. As for taxing the rich, again the top 5% pay a majority of the taxes in America. This is not to say I don't think there needs to be a redistribution of wealth. However, class warfare is not going to accomplish anything. Government spending, earmarks, and the war in Iraq should be dealt with first. The deficit is one of our biggest problems and dealing with the above three issues will help get the deficit under control. Once the deficit is under control, then the government can start looking at ways to redistribute wealth WITHOUT causing those with money to move elsewhere or spend their money elsewhere. Our economy is not as simple as "Tax the rich," anymore. With the global economy it is so easy for companies and "The rich," to move someplace cheaper. CEO’s are paid what companies feel they should be paid. Granted, I believe they are overpaid, but I don't think corporations deliberately over pay. CEO's are much like a commodity, where they get paid based on experience and demand. I can't imagine a board of directors saying or upper management saying, "Hey lets pay this guy/gal way too much." The shareholders understand that good CEO's can make or break a company. A CEO has to manage, in some cases, tens of thousands of people. On the other hand, a basketball player manages no one but himself. However, people will pay hundreds of dollars to watch a sporting event (football, basketball, baseball), which only supports overpaid athletes. Moreover, people will buy pay for view or high end satellite and cable packages to watch these games at the same time they complain about CEO’s. It reminds me of the people who complain about high gas prices on their way to buy a four dollar latte at Starbucks. Granted, I believe a CEO’s pay should be based on his or her success, but I don’t think they ALL make too much money.

by giving tax cuts to corporations and the filthy rich... the rich get richer and the rest of us get screwed.

think if the same amount of dollars were given un tax cuts but the filthy rich didn't get any... would somed of us middle class workers have used that $ to re-educate ourselves or invest in our own future.

Maybe instead of all the forclosures middle class americans would have been able to afford safe home loans. Maybe I would be able to pay for my continuing education instead of adding to my student loans.

So it isn't the tax cuts it is the way the tax cuts were set-up. Obama says his plan will give every middle class american an additional $1000 tax cut.

Just 2 years ago I argued with a friend of my against this. I strongly believed that if I got a cut, Trump and Gates deserved one too. They may deserve one, but can we afford to give them one when the middle class is disappearing because of the changes to our workforce that many aren't prepared for. I believe that lack of preparation is as much because of an unwillingness as an inability because of affordability.

Hope that helps clarify my point.

This is what is destroying the middle class:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25106423/

From the article:

"Rick Wagoner, chief executive of General Motors Corp., announced earlier this month the company had to close four plants that make trucks and SUVs because of lagging demand as fuel prices soar. That followed the posting a $39 billion loss in 2007, a year when its stock price fell by about 19 percent, without adjusting for dividends.

And Wagoner? His pay rose 64 percent, to $15.7 million."

Somehow, I just don't see this "trickling down" to the working class.

This is why the middle class is disappearing. I wonder what Wagoner paid in taxes?

whythink, please explain to me how tax cuts are destroying the middle class. That makes about as much sense as saying "giving people food will cause them to starve".

Quintin66, I think lovetoscrap totally discredited herself by claiming to have read Barack Obama’s book(s) and then posting the distorted and untruthful “quotes” that she attributed to them. She obviously gets her information from sources that lack credibility and the sad part is that she believes it without verification. Notice that she has made no mention of the falsehoods and fabrications that she posted in this blog. She seems to be in a state of denial regarding what is fact and what is fiction and probably thinks that no one read her ridiculous diatribe. Such a shame.

Unidentified

I completely agree with your point about education and that is one BIG reason I support Obama for President. He hasn't talked about it yet, but his other policies would indicate he would have a positive impact on Education.

How so, you ask... If he applies his policies about health care to education it would make a dramtically positive impact to our current issues. Personally I don't believe it is the amount of $ spent on education I believe it is how the money is distributed. For example, the education system is currently just as segregated (financially and racially) today as in the 1950's. Teachers pick and choose what districts they want to work in based on income potential. The problem is the lower income districts can't afford the best teachers...not as good of an educational outcome. In NY there are districts just miles apart and the amount spent per pupil is almost double.

Our education system is very unfair. I believe the middle class shrinking is directly cooralated to this.

Like health care, education should be EQUALLY available to everyone. I believe strongly if we socialize education and health care many of those so called hand-outs can be eliminated.

Distribute the money equally...Brookfield students should not receive a better education than Superior, WI students just because of property values.

I probably didn't explain that as well as I could have so check out this book...
Shame of the Nation by Jonathan Kozol.

Actually quintin, I do own one of his books, as I posted earlier, maybe you did not read that far back. I did not like what I read. I am not sorry I spent the money on the book, because now I know first hand what he stands for, or maybe I should say what he doesn't stand for.

The candidate (Obama) may or may not be a good choice, but your reasoning is wrong. McCain originally voted against the Bush tax cuts, because they weren’t accompanied by spending cuts. The only reason he supports keeping the tax cuts in place now is because eliminating them would essentially be a tax hike. Granted, it may become necessary to raise taxes in the future, but to raise taxes during an economic down turn is bad economics. Moreover, Obama wants to implement programs we can’t afford, considering our deficit. Ending the war in Iraq alone will not balance the budget. However, McCain admits himself that the economy is not his strong point, which does nothing to impress me either. Now to answer the middle class shrinking problem, this has nothing to do with taxes. The top 5% of income earners pay a majority of the taxes in the United States; feel free to check my information. The middle class is shrinking due to a growing global economy and our inability to educate our workforce to adapt to these changes. We are transitioning away from manufacturing in the traditional sense (GM for example). As a result, many middle class workers have been affected by jobs moving to other countries or imported companies paying lower wages (Toyota). There are plenty of good paying jobs in the health care and technology industry, but in many cases we have to import (mainly in technology) workers from other countries, because there isn’t enough qualified workers in the United States The shortage in health care is due mainly to a lack of qualified teachers who can teach the various medical programs in colleges. Both candidates haven’t done enough to impress me with their knowledge of economics nor how bad the education system is in the U.S. Education is our key to success in all walks of life, yet it has been put on the back burner to make room for typical pilfering. I hear the same lines year after year, “Save the middle class,” “Tax the rich,” “Feed the poor,” yet nobody wants the hard truth. The truth is if you get an education you have a chance to move from poor, to middle class, and possibly the rich. Without an education all the money in the world won’t help, because you won’t know what to do with that money. I would think Obama with his good Harvard education would understand this more than anyone. If he’s going to play Robin Hood and tax the rich to give to the poor, than he better spend the money on education. Give people the education they need and stop government handouts, which do zilch, but encourage more status quo and do nothing to inspire people. Obama may talk a good game, but his actual politics are as divisive as Bushes. Essentially, we’ll be going from one extreme to the next. I’m in favor of a three party system, because the far right and far left are ruining this country. We need moderation.

tit and tat

Yes, both candidates will make mistakes and have what they said taken out of context and be misrepresented by "media" types who disagree with them.

We do know this...

McCain is good with 100 more years in Iraq
McCain wants to extend tax cuts for the richest 1%
McCain is against drilling for oil in Alaska
McCain want the "private sector" to fix health care
McCain doesn't like the decision by the supreme court that allows those being held captive at guantamino bay a hearing.
McCain believe his foreign policy will mean we will NEVER have to go to WAR over OIL AGAIN!

Obama wants to raise taxes - ended the bush tax cuts and essentially redistribute some of the wealth from the richest 1% to working and lower middle class people
Obama want to end the war in Iraq
Obama wants to nationalize health care
Obama is willing to talk to foreign enemy leaders
Obama is ok with those being held at guantamino bay to have a hearing

Obama is a currently one of the most liberal US senators
McCain is one of the most independent US Senators (well he was until he won the nomination, ie. Bush tax cuts)

I tried to be objective. The question is to we want to "stay the course" or have this country go in a very liberal - at times socialistic way (health care, taxes)?

For me, the current direction isn't working and although I supported both the war and tax cuts I now see them not working. The war was executed horribly and the tax cuts are destroying the middle class.

OBAMA IN 2008!

I use the rule of thumb that if I don't see the candidates say it themselves or read it quoted in a reputable news organization, I don't believe it. I’ve seen a few bogus emails floating around about Obama. Generally speaking, it is fairly easy to tell what is real and what is phony. The phony stuff is so far out in left or right field that it seems unbelievable and most often isn’t true. I’m sure the real or fake mud will be slung heavily as election nears. I’m in complete favor of campaign finance reform. I think there are quite a few people who would make great presidents that don’t have a chance due to lack of money or organization.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/own...

lovetoscrap obviously has never read the books he claims to have read, instead is spouting mis-quotes circulated in a false e-mail. Like the way most right wing nut-jobs get their news, besides fox of course.

Just my opinion:
I really think politics stinks; however, we are so lucky in the good old U S of A to have the right to vote for whomever we want to vote for even if it seems like a divisive process. I am a bit discouraged by how many millions of dollars are spent on campaigns in order to get elected. Money that could be spent helping those truly in need; for education and healthcare and other things upfront before one runs for office. But that is the nature of the politics beast. I believe it was Winston Churchill who said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
Please find out as much as you are able to about your choice for the next President and make your best decision. Please don’t rely on tainted E-mails. Get the facts.

If this is the best the Obama camp is going to do in order to convince people he's better on foreign affairs, then I McCain should feel pretty confident. Nearly everyone knows that is McCain's strong point, regardless of that one comment. Not much different that that battle is "Uncle" fought, which ended up being incorrect both in direct relation and location. Like I said tit for tat. Obama needs to concentrate on domestic issues. With the economy slipping, he'll be better served if he stays with that topic.

The 57 states sentence was clearly a misspeak as he went on to say he was visiting the "other two" with Hawaii not being included. He simply meant 47. McCain, on the other hand, had no idea what the difference was. This from a guy who is strong on defense?

Obama makes Gw's speeches look good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eI5Eo9OMS...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=237PLLQ0m...

BeloitGuy: This is tit for tat. Remember Obama mentioning he had been to 57 states?? At the end of the day both candidates will make mistakes considering how tired and stressed out campaigns can be. Although I'm not in McCain's Camp, I believe he will do well in debates against Obama just as Hillary did. Obama's strong point is speaking publicly with pre-written speeches and avoiding questions. Not to say that's a bad thing, but its his strong suit. When Obama can get a big crowd and get the momentum going, he's amazing to listen to. Inspiration and optimism is important and Obama definitely has that going for him. However, things can get worse in the future and have been worse in the past. Consequently, I think people shouldn't automatically pick a candidate based on optimism alone. My car salesman always sounds optimistic about the car he's selling me, but I wouldn't want him for president. Granted, Obama's got more going for him then my car salesman (I'm not trying to disrespect Obama), but I think you can see my point. I think everyone should wait until the general election heats up and a few debates pass before making up their minds. I'm still in strong favor of a three party system.

I am conservative and against abortion, but I will NEVER vote Republican! Bush and Cheney should go down as the worst President and Vice-President.

whythink thanks for the suggestion and your a little late. I have tried to listen to progressive left of center talk radio and I can't sit there and handle how they radio personalities make it seem so gloom and doom constantly. They have nothing positive to say about anything. They really brought me down. I do look at both sides and I don't like Macain or Obama. But, Macain to me is going to help my personal life better than Obama will. Obama wants to raise the capital gains taxes which is going to hurt a lot of people. Not just the so called rich people. His policies may sound good but, you need to dig deeper and really see what they mean. Most people don't and when it's to late they complain. The economy always seems to tank in a presidents last year in office just as it did in Clinton's last year. It's going to be up to the next guy to straighten it out and raising taxes isn't going to help anything. What's Obama's plan to control the high costs of oil? Tax the oil companies. Is that really a solution? He doesn't think the oil companies may pass on the extra costs to the consumer? Obama and Macain have both voted against drilling for oil in our own country. And to think we went to Iraq for oil is just plan idiotic and so wrong. I think we should get some oil from them in exchange for helping them with their democracy and freedom.

Obama isn't speaking to McCain's age but his ability to function based on some questionable comments (not knowing the difference between a sunni and a shiite, 100 years of war, "It doesn't matter when we get our of Iraq". I have a bad feeling that debates betweem the two could turn out really bad for McBush. He will certainly have some "Reagan moments"!

If some are counting on the younger generation to elect their favorite candidate, they may be disappointed. Historically, the youngsters find something better to do on election day, failing to recognize the importance of casting a vote. Perhaps things will be different this time, but older people consistently show up to vote and younger people don't. That's why Obama is playing with fire with his strategy of calling attention to his and McCain's age difference. It may work, but he may get burned instead.

good post unidentified. you forgot to mention one other thing obama has done in the last couple years. right or wrong. informed or uninformed. he has truly inspired a majority of the 'younger' generation to care and believe.....we will vote on that alone. and he can and will win on that alone. we may regret that in 2 years, but theres also a chance in 8 years that we recognize one of the greatest presidents in american history. say it with me everyone....PRESIDENT OBAMA....

In his few short years in the political limelight Obama has managed to show us a few things. For example, he can lie about his knowledge of anti American and racist comments coming from three different reverends at his church for various parts of 20 years. He can associate with shady characters in land deals with Tony Rezko. In addition, there is the radical Bill Ayers. This is the politics of change? This sounds more like a politician to the core, who puts himself on a pedestal above being wrong for keeping bad company or making stupid decisions. Obama is one of the best orators we’ve seen in America in decades. However, the guts of his policies get very little attention, because his core voting group (younger) doesn’t ask the questions and the media is in love this him. From the little I gather, he wants to raise capital gains, which will hurt us all when we sell our homes. In addition, he wants to raise corporate taxes, which will send our businesses packing for overseas even faster. America already has one of the highest corporate taxes behind only Japan. These are the same type of anti growth policies that hurt Carter in the seventies. This is not to say I support Bush, because we all know he is a failure. In addition, John McCain isn’t lighting a match under anyone enthusiasm fire either. Honestly, I still feel Hillary would have been the best choice of the three candidates this year. Granted, she swayed to the left during the campaign, but her husband governed with moderation and that is what this country needs right now. Just because Bush is a radical right wing failure, doesn’t mean we need a Jimmy Carter type left wing failure in office this time around. What this country needs is either a proven center moderate (which doesn’t exist) or a third party. I think the media’s love affair with Obama and his message of hope will carry him through his first year with some success. However, once he gets to the core of his policy and the media realizes they no longer have Bush to bash, they’ll start actually covering Obama with the same scrutiny they do for every president. Then comes the anti growth, high inflation, high unemployment, and high interest rates we saw in the seventies. If people are unhappy with this economy, wait until they get a seventies style unemployment rate near double digits and mortgage rates around 12%. Maybe hope and optimism will be enough to get America back on track, but I’m guessing good policy might have to creep in there somewhere.

Boston, I agree may he rest in peace.

I know it has nothing directly related to do with this particular blog but I just want to say that the passing away today of Tim Russert is very sad. May God bless his family.

Whybesad

Would you do me a favor and for 1 week stop listening to Rush, Fox News, Hannity, etc...

Try for 1 week to watch Keith Oberman and listen to am 820 out of Chicago or 92.1 FM out of Madison.

Try to educate yourself. Hannity, Rush, Fox all push the Republican points you consistantly make within these discussions.

What is your thought regarding the FACT that McCain STATED his foreign policy will mean the US WILL NEVER HAVE TO GO TO WAR OVER OIL AGAIN?

Do you really blindly believe McCain is some saint and Barack is some madman. Madmen don't get nominated for president (current president GW excluded :))

Come back in 1 week after listening to some PROGRESSIVE TALK and let me know your thoughts.

I DOUBLE DARE YOU!

BTW, I am not some far left nut, I voted for Clinton x2 and GW x2. I am a moderate who attempts to educate himself by listening to Hannity, Rush, Fox, Air America and MSNBC.

Whybesad, you forgot to be outraged about John Sidney (because now we are saying peoples middle names) McCain's economic advisor, Phil Gramm who had a direct hand in the housing bubble and subsequent bust and a lobbyist for a massive bank. Not to mention a few other scumsuckers he is tied with.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/28/mcca...

whybesad i read it that he resigned because of favorable PERSONAL loans he recieved. not for his part in the subprime debacle. maybe im wrong....

slainte how misinformed are we about Barrack Hussein Obama? He has only been in the US senate for 2 years. And one of those years he has been running for President. We know he sat in a pew at a church for 20 years and had a Pastor who spoke of hate for this country and who is a racist. We do know that he is good friends with Bill Ayres a know domestic terrorist. We now also know that his campaign person in charge of finding a vice president candidate resigned due to an investigation with nationwide mortgages and the sub prime debacle. The very same sub prime mortgage crisis that Obama denounced. He's a good speaker when he has a speech written for him and the aide of a teleprompter. Hitler was good at speeches to. Does that make Hitler a great leader. Actions speech loader than words and from Obama's actions he has shown he isn't a leader.

I just thought of 1 more thing. Why is it, then, that when a pregnant women is killed, murdered, why is the perp charged with double homocide if it's "only a fetus?" But yet, women can walk into an abortion clinic and legally murder their child, excuse me, fetus?

bill..you sound like a wonderful person. You may as well forget convincing evansville & gaz they are wrong. As far as life insurance goes..whatever. It's usually for covering the burial ( which in the case of a miscarriage, depending on how far along, is very inexpensive) or to ensure that the dependents are financially taken care of after a death. Most of the people that insure children do it for the fact that when they turn 18 they can recieve cash value for it. I hate the term fetus, the heart is heard in the first trimester, God knew us while we were in the womb...that proves that it is a human right there. Pro-choice can call it what they want, someday their eyes will be opened.....

evansville..I think you totally misunderstood what I said. I'm not agaist birth control...I'm against abortion. I'm talking about those that don't know how to prevent pregnancy at a young age, they know how to make babies, correct? Then they know that not having sex prevents babies. God created men and women to enjoy sex in a marriage relationship, not only to procreate. And, the serpent was the devil and God was upset with them for eating from the tree when He specifically told them not to. The Devil tricked them and said if they ate from it they would be all knowing like God.

It's not a straw man argument. It's a valid consideration, and common in countries where abortion is illegal. You consider me ill-informed because I refuse to grant the fetus personhood, yet you, a pro-lifer, still refuse to claim a fetus is a person that warrants protection.
It's common among pro-lifers- they say the fetus is a person, a human life, yet balk at actually TREATING that human life as an equal person. They know it involves the very distasteful truth of subjecting women to treatment that is no less than totalitarian.

Would a death investigation occur for a person with a heart attack or cancer? Yes, and yes! If I came upon a body and called 911, you better believe an investigation would occur. Again- I repeat- if a fetus is human, than have the moxie to call it as such, and accept your viewpoint causes women to be subject to invasive scrutiny.
You can call me ill-informed because I just can't accept your truth that a fetus-is-a-human-but-not-really-a-human. I call you ill-informed because you will never know what it means to be able to get pregnant or give birth.
Your non sequitur about death row is a wild tangent. First off, life insurance policies have that issue covered in their fine print. Second, if they didn't, the policy would pay up, given they had a term insurance that was in effect at the time of death. Third, you can insure a baby at the moment it leaves the uterus. If life begins BEFORE birth, why not insure fetuses? I know plenty of families that have had the sad occasion to bury stillborn infants, and ate the cost.

The problem is my word "misfit". But all beings born of humans that do not fit the description in my first sentence are humans by virture of being born.

Born but not fully developed with a sense of self in relation to others would cover infants. Misfit is not a good word. I'll try to think of another.

Nor does it describe an infant, not that I accept your proposition.

A human is a being who has a sense of self in relation to other human beings while not functioning on instinct alone. (Save for the usual number of misfits of one type or another who have survived the birth process and must be dealt with in one way or another.)

My first sentence does not describe a fetus.

As I said, I’m not looking for platitudes.
I contend that killing the unwanted is the wrong solution.
Is a place where a heart attack victim dies a crime scene? A cancer victim? “Investigating women having a miscarriage” is called a straw man argument. It’s not a very effective debating tool among the well informed which describes most of those who comment on a newspaper comment forum. It works much better on a T.V. show, where those who hear it are likely to accept it because it fits what they want to believe.
Ditto the life insurance proposition. One could argue that we don’t insure death row inmates either, and for similar reasons. But death row inmates are less likely to be killed than the unborn as they have courts of law to appeal to, and governors to request clemency from. But that argument would be nonsense.

Bill, that's great . Really, I am glad you have had the support of a loving partner, a home to raise children in, and a strong moral ground that your children actually followed. But just as many were raised in just as strong environments, and had sex, planned, unplanned, or forced.
Even in the most restricted of societies, illicit sex has been going on. Even by the most chaste individuals (Catholic priests, nuns) sex has occurred. Where you will find sex, you find unwanted babies.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on the point that there is a home for every child. I've seen too many people in the jails and too many lost foster children.
Again, if you truly believe fetuses are people, why do you scoff at the idea of investigating women having a miscarriage? If you believe it is truly a person, shouldn't she be held responsible for the safety of said tiny person?
And why not life insurance? I mean, if you believe it is alive and a person, then why not insure financially the life of said person? Life insurance for children is a sound financial tool. I know you can insure a child at birth. Why not in the womb?

Whythink said “Women deserve the choice because men are pigs.”
There is a third party to consider. What do unborn babies deserve? By no fault of their own they are often procreated under less than ideal conditions. Why must they die due to the irresponsibility of others? If you become a burden on society, will you accept the verdict of another that you are beneath consideration and that your life can be dispatched for the greater good? If not, I suspect that you would object and appeal to higher authority. To whom do the unborn appeal?
All these arguments about the shortcomings of men and the unequal burdens on women, while having some merit, target the wrong person to pay the price of relieving those burdens and delivers retribution to the wrong party for abandonment. At one time a father who abandoned his child would have his own conscience to deal with as well as the condemnation of family and friends. But now, with legal abortion and birth control, and the degeneration of morality, many of these cretins feel no need to support a child that in their view should have been aborted. So the very existence of legal abortion contributes to the problem of child abandonment that abortion supporters claim the procedure alleviates. This is what’s called an unintended consequence.
By the way, confer on yourself the label “pig” if you like, but I, and a great many others of like mind reject it as we have not succumbed to the idea that we cannot control our urges.
I don’t like to submit personal information on these comments but I feel it necessary to head off the claim that I don’t practice what I preach. I’m not trying to beat my own drum, I seek no platitudes or credit, or as one protagonist has stated that I’m on an “ill thought-out ego trip”, but I don’t just advocate in favor of life. I have adopted 2 cocaine affected, unloved and abandoned children, and have raised and supported every child I fathered. I would advise and encourage my daughters to have an unwanted child, just as I advised them, and my sons to be chaste. Due to the later, the former never came up, but rest assured that if it had, she would have heard the same from me as you have read in these comments. I would also insist that my sons support their children both monetarily and emotionally. Through all this I have had a faithful and loyal partner, my wife, who believes even more strongly about abortion than I.

The "men are pigs" comment comes from a lecture a Sociology Professor of mine gave. It was meant to be somewhat humorous but it was a very interesting theory as to why men are pigs.

ms_sassy the voice of reason as always. and finally a YIPPEE FOR gazzettefan!! if you truly are for personal responsibility as you claim, shouldnt that include which intoxicants a person responsibly choses to put in their body??

I just have to say awesome point on that one. The last thing we need is more neglected children. On top of that, we don't need more people in the world in general.

Whythink- I don't think men are pigs for having a sex drive. I DO think men are low in moral character when they abandon a child.
But I do agree that men will lie and manipulate women to get sex, and women feel pressured to give in. (you only need to look at Junior fashions these days to see what 13 year olds value as their asset... it's not their mind)

Also, there are a great deal of children that were born and their mothers decided to not change their lifestyle. These are the kids that end up in dead or in foster care. What's more selfish... a woman who faces the fact that she can't raise a child in a good environment and has an abortion, or a woman who has the child, neglects it, leaves it to foster care and the legal system?
If you can't trust a woman with a choice, how can you trust them to raise a child?

Upnorth- I know that miscarriage is a natural event. However, if you want abortion to be made illegal, then you have to prosecute those who perform or have them. How will law enforcement decide which women caused an abortion vs women who had a natural miscarriage? (You can induce an abortion of a healthy fetus using common herbs)
If you don't think women who induce a miscarriage should be questioned, why not? You state that a fetus is a person, a human. if a fetus is a human life than why are they not entitled to life insurance? If it dies, why not a death investigation? After all, if a woman were to bring a 5 year old into a hospital dead, I would certainly want the staff to ask questions. If you believe a fetus is a human life, then by your reasoning, every miscarriage should be treated with an investigation.
Also, I find your solution of "don;t have sex" laughable, upnorth. How many men marry a woman with the notion of having limited sex in mind? How many men do YOU know would be thrilled with the prospect of having sex ONLY when they want a child?

billnewbie

Men (yes, I am one) are pigs.

I am pro-choice because I understand the fact that men, many men, manipulate women, sleep with them, they get pregnant and then the men run leaving the women to raise the child alone.

Look up the number of "dead beat dads" once. There is an amazing number of them and they leave the women with a very difficult decision, abortion or raise a child alone, in proverty.

Yes, I would love for every pregnant women to have that child and see abortion eliminated but as a man I cannot judge the women for making the decision to terminate the pregnancy that she did not create alone.

Yes, some women are irresponsible and put themselves in danger of having multiple abortions because of their lifestyle and I find that disgusting. However, women are forced to live with their consequences (abortion or a child) while pigs like Shawn Kemp have multiple babies that they simply send a monthly check to or worse, don't even bother to do that.

Women deserve the choice because men are pigs.

I think it is very scary how misinformed the public actually is on Barack Obama. He is an amazing man and he is going to win. Thank God! As a Christian and a liberal, I am happy for a choice like Barack Obama.
As for his stance on abortion, NO ONE thinks abortion is a good idea. The pro-life people need to bend on birth control and their ridiculous abstinence only lunacy. If we prevent the pregnancies, then this issue goes away. People have been doing 'it' outside of marriage since the beginning of time- do you really believe the 'snake' in Genesis was really a reptile bearing an apple? Come on!!! Why would God be so mad about Eve eating a fruit???? Get real!

lovetoscrap, I'm so sorry. I forgot to address this silly question. "BTW...are you one of those GM employees who are afraid of change? Since you seem so eager to take quotes out of context and use them else where, I couldn't help but ask."
No, I have never worked for GM, although I did sign a 5 year contract with them a few years ago....I bought a Chevy. (apologies to Mr. Rodney Dangerfield).
I care about people. That's me.

Dear lovetoscrap:
And to anyone else who needs to know the real truth. Please check this site to see how distorted things have become.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/di...

As "Joe Friday" always said, "Just the facts, m'am." *s*

Carry on pseudo pundits and have a better day tomorrow. *s*

Freedom of speech still rules.

The ignorance in question is not ignorance about how babies are produced. The ignorance has to do with what a profound thing it is to bring new life into the world.

Too many times it is just an ill thought-out ego trip.

And, since a 12 yr. old knows where a baby comes from, gee, NOT having sex PREVENTS it.
No brainer to me also.

A. I never said abortion is funny, it was bill observing gaz. choice of words
B. I agree $$ is short, but you have to budget and use it wisely
C. Even at 12, most kids know where babies come from. Parents need to be involved and if you're going to go into the whole "being poor"
thing, cycles can be broken so the same family history thing does not repeat itself.
I will always be pro-life.

A. nothing about abortion is "funny"...

B. shortage of food? maybe not. shortage of cash to pay for food? DEFINATELY.

C. yes, EDUCATED people know where babies come from. Ask a 12 year old who doesn't have a parent to turn to-to ask questions of. See if she will be able to accurately tell you how to PREVENT a baby. Chances are good that she will not. Why is she having sex, you might ask yourself...not being educated in sexuality might explain that one...and heck, her boyfriend sure wants it. She wants to "keep" her boyfriend. Said boyfriend takes off when he learns the "news" of a pregnancy. Gee, what does she do now?

I am curious about so many things in life, but to me, this is a no-brainer.

One more point, the United States has more food than anywhere else, since when was/is there a shortage? Besides, look at how many obese people we have!

lol!!

And they say politics make strange bedfellows!
gazettefan must have bought all those encyclopedias since they worked so well for her.

Well said upnorth and billnewbie! It's funny how people justify things to make themselves "feel" better when they know what they are doing is wrong.

billnewbie: I totally get what you are saying. And for evansville- I think the comment about life insurance for an unborn child and the uterus a crime scene after a miscarriage is so rediculous I can't believe you even wrote it. A miscarriage occurs when the fetus is not "normal" or if the body can't maintain it. It is a natural occurrence that happens every day. And I don't think Bill emplied that those babies conceived from the "ignorant" are worth less than those who are not. I'm pro-life, and I don't know how those that are pro-choice can say they are agaist abortion for themselves but it's ok for others, either you are pro- life or not. EVERYONE knows how babies are made, there is free birth control out there, I don't want to hear that it's too expensive or unavailable to the poor. Furtheremore, there are PLENTY of couples out there that want to adopt children. Plus, there are many hospitals that woman can drop their babies off at with no questions asked. There are alternatives to murdering your child.

bravo, evansvillehousewife!

and billnewbie, I am NOT a feminist, I am a female. I don't burn my bra and I wear lipstick. I am concerned, as I should be, about the issues that women face. I'm really sorry (sarcasm), but you don't get to control the decisions I make for ME.

e-wife, your two responses here are perfect.

This anti-abortion stance (anti-choice?) is a desperate ruse for the purpose of shoring up the faltering ideology of religion. It is an obvious attempt at emotional blackmail.

Bill wrote:Furthermore, a great many, probably most, abortions are done for the benefit of women who are not living in poverty or ignorant, though ignorant of what particularly is unclear, unless what was meant is uneducated.

Um, Bill, with all due respect, are you advocating that is a greater loss when educated women have abortions as opposed to uneducated women?
What about the simple fact that many women are UNABLE to attain education due to unplanned childbearing? no one wants to pay for single parent's daycare or college loans, but no one wants them to get abortion either. It seems you just want women to be stuck with the $200 weekly daycare bill, a $100 weekly gas bill, and a $400 weekly paycheck.
Also, many women that have abortions already HAVE children, so that blows your "fun" theory out of the water. More women are concerned about feeding their walking talking children than they are about having fun.

Well, if a fertilized egg is a baby, then they should start selling life insurance for fetuses when they are conceived. Funny, not even Christian insurance companies will sell a policy like that.
If a fetus is a baby, then a uterus is a crime scene after a miscarriage has occurred. Bill, do you want women berated and questioned after a miscarriage.. eg, 'Did you fall? Did you smoke? Did you have sex?'
I wonder what shape the world would be in if abortion WASN'T legal...food and energy is tight as it is... what if every family had three more kids to feed? Sometimes you just can't "make it work", and kids go to bed hungry.
Besides, Bill, for every woman who has an abortion, there is a man urging it or abandoning the pregnant woman. If more men would stand up and support the children they fathered, perhaps it wouldn't be so common... maybe you should concentrate less on women having fun and more about men taking responsibility for their actions.

Let me see now, if I hold a crack baby from Chicago I’ll see the wisdom in knowing that child should have been killed? Strange that doesn’t happen when I hold those crack babies from Milwaukee. I reject the proposition that abortion is an acceptable escape from poverty and ignorance as abortions have been legal for 35 years and over 1 million a year have been performed yet poverty and ignorance abound in greater numbers than before. For a procedure that supposedly has such redeeming social value its effect has been non-existent. But even if abortion were great for society in general it is still killing the innocent for the convenience of society and a sad testimony of the moral relativity that so many have fallen into. Many of those who support abortion are aware of the precipice on which they perch as they claim that they would never have, or advocate for an abortion themselves. Furthermore, a great many, probably most, abortions are done for the benefit of women who are not living in poverty or ignorant, though ignorant of what particularly is unclear, unless what was meant is uneducated.
ms_sassy_wi says that she would be brazen to believe that her way is the only way, and yet she does as she condemns some men for being “closed-minded, conservative, judgemental” and by implication disqualified to have an opinion, as she exhibits her own judgmentalism. Apparently judgmentalism is good if you have the “right” judgment. Funny how feminists object so stringently to being judged due to their sex yet judging by sex comes so easily to them.
By the way, the only birth control I’m opposed to is abortion.

That is a typical liberal democrat response. To blame George W. Bush for it. Macain is far from being George Bush he is a centrist more than anything. Obama is a far leftist he says he's for change but, what does that mean? We are going to have "change" no matter who wins. That is a very vague word and has no substance what so ever. It's catchy and sounds good but, if you look at the "change" Obama wants to do you may think twice. He considers a person making $2000,000 a year rich. This could be a small business owner who runs his/her business as an s corporation and files personal income taxes as well as business taxes. He wants to raise those taxes on those small business owners who are the backbone of this economy. Small business owner employs 20 people but when the taxes are raised on him he will need to let go some employees. It's going to hurt this economy that is already seeing record energy and food prices we don't need higher taxes. He also wants to raise capital gains taxes. So, if you sell your home you will pay much more to the government instead of keeping it for your self or children/grandchildren. Obama believes he knows how to spend your hard earned money better than you. Vote for the person not just a word.

BostonBill...positive change is always good. It's the negative change, like a good father becoming an alcoholic or an excessive gambler that produces no good fruit for his family, just heartache. That is what kind of change Obama will bring to this country. "S" As far as being a hardcore republican goes, it does suit me better than being a liberal democrat. I'm glad that people like my dad, who always vote democrat, have seen what Obama is and are refusing to vote for him, no matter what the union tells them to do. As for "taking things out of context", please do explain why Obama refuses to put his hand over his heart and sing the national anthem? And why does he refuse to wear a flag lapel and offend other countries? And exactly why would he stand with the Muslims, the very people who destroyed innocent lives on 9/11, if things get ugly? So, exactly how am I taking this out of context? Did he not really mean what he said? Please! These are direct quotes from the man himself. So instead of backing up your argument in favor Obama, you choose to instead insult our current president. Sounds like a common democratic tatic to me. Ignore the topic at hand and twist it to degrade something or someone else. If I remember correctly, and I do,this topic is about Obama being the president women want him to be. Well, again I say, not this woman! BTW...are you one of those GM employees who are afraid of change? Since you seem so eager to take quotes out of context and use them else where, I couldn't help but ask.

Dear lovetoscrap:
You certainly seem to be a hardcore Republican, based on your many comments in the various blogs. I'm not saying that is a bad thing, if that is your true belief but I do take exception regarding your taking things out of context; that is such a typical Republican dirty trick. Your "love to scrap" seems to be overwhelming you. God bless you. I believe Mr. Obama will bring the positive changes that our country needs. We need a change from the current administration’s spend, spend, spend ways. It’s like a first time credit card person who has no idea how to pay the bill. Mr. –stand by Bush- McCain will not give us the change we need. By the way, who posted this? "Embrace change! Don't say it's sad to see change. Change is what makes us grow and not become stagnant. If we are willing to embrace change...we are willing to become better people."
Yes, it was you. Out of context? *s*
By the way, being a bit provocative in order to stimulate discussion is different from just loving to scrap for no productive reason. That said, you still have my respect. Have a wonderful day.

thanks gazettefan!

And neanderthal, oops, I mean BillNewbie, I beg to differ about your misinformed logic about "pro-abortion". I personally would not seek an abortion regardless of the situation I might find myself in. One reason I would make that choice is that I know I am a good mother, have good moral values and character that I can (and have) instill in my children and can (and have) pass on genes that will enhance productive members of society.

The fact that I would not choose abortion does not mean I condemn women who decide that this is the best option for them, given their PERSONAL circumstances. That, in effect, is the difference between pro-abortion and pro-choice.

However, I would have to be quite brazen to believe that my way is the only way. Yeah, I think it's great to empower (and yes, even encourage!) women to take care of her own body. Doesn't that start as soon as a girl becomes a woman? So why are schools FORBIDDING discussions about sexuality and pregnancy protection in health classes? Why does everyone get in such a turmoil when a young unmarried woman seeks birth control? It appears the double standard is alive and well...and as long as closed-minded, conservative, judgemental men are making these decisions for the women that live in this country, we will have these same issues year after year. And the blame game continues.

Why not try a PRO-ACTIVE approach?!

billnewbie, I'm all for personal responsibility and so is ms_sassy, but given the exceptional nature of the sex drive and given the fact that unwanted pregnancy is largely a product of poverty and ignorance, abortion is an acceptable choice.

Unwanted pregnancies like war is a fact of life. War results in the loss of life, abortion results in the loss of potential life. Offsetting these tragic and sad facts is that there is no shortage of human life on this planet.

Let's care for what's here. Go to Chicago and hold a crack baby.

I have a science lesson of the day as well. The cause of unwanted pregnancies is well known. Pregnancy is not a result of an unanticipated accident such as one might have with an automobile or an icy sidewalk (oops, I fell down and I’m knocked up). A woman deciding what is best for her body is a decision that can be made before procreation as well, and no one need be killed. While her life is important, it will not be sacrificed for the sake of the child if she sees the pregnancy through unlike the alternative (which is kind of like sacrificing the child on the altar of the god of self-fulfillment).
Being pro-choice really is being pro-abortion. Those in favor of “choice” are in favor of choosing abortion, so the difference drawn is an exercise in semantics. Everyone is in favor of some kind of choice such as pizza or fried chicken for dinner, but pro-choice advocates aren’t talking about restaurants.
The argument that there are many children in need of help is well made, but I cannot accept that as justification for abortion. There are worthy programs that could use more support, however government programs alone do not solve these problems and in fact can exacerbate the problems they seek to alleviate.
Maybe if we demand personal responsibility, from both sexes, with some kind of enforcement mechanism, then we can concentrate limited government resources on the truly needy while cutting down on the irresponsibly needy.

Well said, sassy.

I'm not suggesting abortion. I'm suggesting that the social programs you HATE and complain about are the very ones that provide food, clothing and shelter to the children that you want to be born, regardless of how well a woman can provide for her child.

I've had this debate on other threads, and I'm not going to be able to convince anyone to think differently on a gazettextra webpage, so I will close by saying that I am definitely a supporter of pro-choice NOT pro-abortion. Please try to comprehend that there is a huge difference between the two. The choice I make for myself would, perhaps, not be the same choice that the woman across town or across the nation might make, and for valid reasons that I can't pretend to empathize with. I can't presume to know that being a mother would be in the best interest of that child.

The last I heard, we are in a large need of foster parents, child protective service workers and affordable housing.

Perhaps there are other things to consider as well, such as a woman's right to decide what is best for HER body and HER life. Yes, I agree that a woman should consider the consequences of her actions; but if you take away the woman's right to decide, you better make sure that the men who oppose birth control, child support or support or "just" participate in woman/wife beating are in some logical way disposed of as well...because, as has been stated, approximately 50% of the people involved in unwanted pregnancies happen to be males (your science lesson of the day...) :)

dkush21:
I wonder what other contradictions are in your life. Are you totally against being dirty yet you still bathe in the mud? I can see that you’re totally against rich people but are you still trying to be rich?
We have tried wealth redistribution a few times before and it has failed every time. It stagnates the economy and the poor receive little of the redistribution as government costs devour most of the money allocated for the poor. Yet we do know that lower taxes stimulate the economy and create jobs. While some think that lower taxes are “giving to the rich” it is in fact not confiscating as much of their money as every taxpayer knows who has written a check to pay a tax. It’s not the government’s money it’s the taxpayer’s money and paying less of it is not a gift as it is the taxpayer’s money to begin with.
Someone on one of these GazetteXtra comment boards said ( I can’t remember who and I can’t find it so I can’t properly attribute it so I have to paraphrase) that both democrats and republicans are big spenders but that democrats want to raise taxes and republicans want the debt to rise to pay for it. In my mind this means that both parties offer free lunches for a lot of people and the republicans want to charge it while the democrats want to send the bill to the uninvited. Neither of these parties seem to have all the right answers, especially when it comes to money.

dkush21- That taxing the big oil companies is a horrible idea. Do you really think this would drive down the cost of filling up your car? Do you think a company any company is just going to absorb the extra tax? It most likely will be past on to you the consumer. The democratic run congress promised by Ms. Pelosi in 2006 that they would do something to stop the rise in oil prices. They haven't when they took control of the congress gas was $2.50 a gallon. They want to block us from drilling for oil in our own country. They want to make it darn near impossible to build a refinery. We are using more fuel and refuse to put more fuel on the market. How is taxing oil companies going to put more fuel on the market. Jimmy Carter tried that with the Sadis and it totally backfired we had gas lines and an energy crisis because they didn't produce enough to keep up with our usage.

Boston Bill, I too am scared of this man becoming our commander in chief. I have purchased one of his books because I wanted to read in his own words what he stands for and what kind of man he is. I didn't want to take anyone's word for it. Even though I am a republican by values, I thought I'd hear the guy out, so to speak. I didn't like what I was reading in chapter one, let alone the rest of the book. Here are some quotes from both books. I'm not scared because of ignorance, I'm scared because the people of America will vote for this man even though he has been very forthright about his stance on all the subjects, mainly his attitude toward the white man, our flag and his unwillingness to make others think he is taking sides (what's all that about? I thought it was the job of the President of the United States of America to take a very firm position on which side he stands) and his refusal to take part in the national anthem. Even all this is not as bad as the last quote in this line of quotes from his books. So yes, I am scared that Americans out of laziness will listen to a bunch of words on change and vote. No, I am not the one who is not digging and learning. I am the one fearing others are not digging and learning, for if they truly were, this man would not be where he is today.

In Obama's own words .from his books

From Dreams of My Father: 'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the
age of 12 or 13, when I began
to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense
of grievance and animosity
against my mothers race.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'There was something about him that made me
wary, a little too sure of himself,
maybe. And white.'

From Dreams of My Father: ; 'It remained necessary to prove which side
you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and
name names.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'I never emulate white men and brown men whose
fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man,
son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the
attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'

From Audacity of Hope: 'I will stand with the Muslims should the
political winds shift in an ugly direction.'

I appreciate all the comments in here, even if I may disagree with some of them. It is so wonderful that we have this freedom of expression. Sometimes, however, I wonder about the anger, prejudice and absolute ignorance of some of the posts. THAT is what worries me. One person said, “This man scares me, he really really scares me. We really do not know much about who he really is...”.
I ask, what research have you done?
I have listened to him and read two of his books including this one:
THE AUDACITY OF HOPE
Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream
By Barack Obama

Being scared is because you are uninformed.
Let’s get informed.
Just my opinion.

I am totally against abortion, but I will still vote Democrat!

I can tell you one thing, if it's between giving to the rich(REPUBLICAN) or giving to the poor(DEMOCRAT) which do you think I would choose??? Oh and by the way, when the Democrats tried to pass the recent bill on taxing the oil companies and putting more money to investing in windmills, etc, guess who voted against it? Big Oil(republicans)! Who cares about the people now!

"Just for the record", I know a woman who had 3 abortions, and 3 who each had one abortion all because it wasn't the right time.....convenience......I don't get it, never will. I have 5 children, all were not convenient at times,( I don't consider them "mistakes" either) but I MADE it work. If you choose the activity, then you have to be responsible. I love all of my children and I cannot imagine my life without them.

Knuckle dragging Neanderthal here.
So only women can articulate a point of view about abortion? Geez!
I realize that women have no problem choosing what’s best for themselves. I was speaking for the voiceless and choice-less tissue masses that many women consider too inconvenient and therefore choose not to allow to live, roughly half of whom are female and half of whom are male making abortions a bisexual issue. Since I am not undertaking a sex change any time soon I will have to refuse to stop offering my point of view regardless of those who request that I shut up due to my lack of femininity. The urge that many on the left have to silence opposing opinions must be a reflex action similar to the gag reflex one has when taking a powerfully effective medicine. They refuse to realize that their reflex may prevent their enlightenment. All they know is that it tastes bad.
I am in favor of more prisons and jails for men who beat women and don’t support their children as I believe that vigorous enforcement of the law results in greater respect for the law which results in reduced criminality and smaller prison populations. Those who complain that too many are incarcerated neglect to notice that as the prisons filled, the crime rate has dropped. Do we really want to empty the prisons and double or triple the crime rate? I for one prefer to fill more prisons and cut the crime rate even more, but then I’m just a knuckle dragging Neanderthal after all.

Democrats are for tax and spend,
Republicans are for borrow and spend.
Both parties love to spend, fiscal conservatism is dead to both parties.

No stinky, you have it backwards. Taxes always go up when democrats are in office. It's these social programs that they insist upon having that cost us. You know, the ones who don't want to work and everyone gets a free handout...at our expense!

Sassy...then why do the democrats want all the social programs when killing children is all good with them? Talk about having it both ways! So, you want abortion legal and you want all the programs that use up all our money.

They're going to tax us to death to pay for these idiotic tax breaks for the ultra wealthy and this stupid war

and paying for their good "time". oh yeah, and skipping out on child support...which, in turn, causes all of those "wanted" babies mother's to turn to social service programs to pay for these children's food, housing and medical care since the wages of women and men are NOT equal and the men making so many of these babies are criminals.

All of these are programs that the conservatives want to eliminate. You don't get both. If you insist on reversing Roe v. Wade, you can't eliminate programs to support the children. That should go without saying. Not everyone can have the high moral standards of the conservatives. I don't know what to tell you other than, don't cry in your milk. The world is going to hell in a handbasket, but eliminating programs to help those in need is not the answer. There are many in need who do the best they can with the cards they were dealt.

hey, knuckle dragging Neanderthal, have you stopped beating your wife yet? geez! When you are a woman, you can decide what is best for a woman. Until then, why not take your manly man attitude and try to fix a man's problem...like how to keep so many men out of prisons and jails. I'm kind of tired of men beating women cuz they are manly.

Hold on to your wallets for the next four years no matter who gets elected. They are going to tax us to death.

No, not every woman wants Obama. Me, I know Hillary would of been the best choice!

Obama is a marxist

Blah, blah, blah! I've never read so much negative BS as in this forum today. Lighten up!

Wow worst two candidates for President in recent history. We screwed no matter who gets elected it's going to be four years of tax tax and more tax.

I just hope his foreign policy, like John McCain's means, "we will never have to go to war for oil again." - John McCain

Still, I rather enjoy the barbs. When their scribbles degenerate, they inadvertently concede the points they so deliberately ignore.

Bill:
That's how it always works with the far left. You don't agree with their position, then your just an uneducated, backwards hick. Notice how these debates always get away from substantive debate, and turn to personal attacks on the other posters grammar, spelling, ext.
.
I find it rather curious all those blaming Ryan, and Bush for the high gas. When Palosi and the Democrats swept into power in Nov 06, their two big issues were a:) The war in Iraq. b.) high gas prices. Gas was around $3.00 a gallon then. They really did a great job bringing it down, didn't they?
.
Of course most who follow commodities know that the real reason for higher prices is mainly due to a declining US dollar, and increasing world demand amidst leveling supply. The speculators have very little to do with it. Speculators can only drive prices so far until market principals take over.

Bill, just thought I should offer you some back up.

Actually, abortion is murder. Plain and simple. And I don't base my understanding of the word on any man made definition. So, to add more fuel to the already burning bright fire...if you have had an abortion, you have committed murder. No matter the reason a woman justifies abortion in her head, it is 99% of the time for convenience. If you can't afford a baby, don't get pregnant. There are very few cases where the life of the mother is actually at stake, and usually the woman knows of this danger BEFORE she gets pregnant. If you don't want a baby...the answer is simple, don't get pregnant. It's a very simple concept.

To paraphrase Mark Twain I would have to say "I am opposed to royalty, but it would be dangerous to offer me the position."

Congress is controlled by what party? Paul Ryan is one person. And yes the oil price is driven by all of what you wrote DUH? I guess you missed the point I was trying to make.

I think we should anoint bill as "The King of All Women's Bodies." Sounds like he would relish that title.

billnewbie, No one is right if they do not agree with JSM, just ask him

How many people are employed at the Gazette to remove posts from these blogs? It must be quite a team! I will be looking for a job in a year or so........

Dictionaries are great reference books meant to offer the meaning of words, but they have no value in the debate of when life begins.
Are you sure that I'm clueless? No woman gets an abortion for convenience? Ever? Really?
You’re still offering the argument that if I don't agree with you that there's something wrong with me. Don't you see that casting aspersions on my intellect is just an excuse so that you don't need to re-examine your own positions? You raise these obstacles first in an attempt to stifle my opinion, but mainly to discredit me within your own mind so that you do not have to consider my argument.

yeah right kiowa
You could never pay me enough to take a political job!
Talk about a no win game. Man, I hear people talk like Bush is as evil as Hitler, and they really believe it! Then I hear guys like you, still going nuts about Clinton. Maybe people should cut some of these guys a little slack, even if you don't agree with them all the time. Bush was supose to be a "uniter" when he ran in 2000. What a joke that was. He's poloarized people more then ever. I fear Obama will be the same way, if he gets elected. AT least McCain has worked with some of the Democrtas to try and get thigs done in the senate.

You really have no clue if you think women have abortions for convenience and so that they can have more fun. Girlz just wanna have fun!!! No, I don't find it paradoxical because it is a fetus in the later stages of development in the womb, until it is born at full term. Then it is a baby. Look it up in a dictionary.

I made it clear that everyone loves babies. But you can love babies and still support privacy rights and freedom. Because as, described above, there are differences between and among an embryo, a fetus, and a baby.

I think Hedberg offers reading comprehension skills. You might benefit.

You said what you said. So you neither love nor hate babies? I suppose the nuance is in the rationalization.
I think women get abortions because they are convenient and because they don't want a baby to interfere with their fun. So you could say that women have abortions for fun, not that the abortion itself is fun. How’s that for nuance? Don’t you find it a bit paradoxical that when a woman wants to be pregnant, she calls it a baby, but when she doesn’t she calls it something else. That’s relativism in all its nuanced glory.
Dense? I still prefer "knuckle dragging Neanderthal". I realize it's a bit threadbare, but much more colorful than terms like "dense". Keep trying though. I wouldn’t want to stifle your creativity.

Precious little babies wasn't used in a derisive fashion. I was merely using it to show you that these same precious little babies are just as precious when they are older and still require services like health care, child care, education and the like. Are you that dense that you think that there are people out there who hate babies? Do you think women get abortions because it is fun? Have you ever had an abortion and dealt with the physical pain? Your problem, billnewbie, is that you cannot appreciate or even understand nuances. To you it is either you love babies or you hate babies. Unfortunately things don't fall that neatly into two categories. You can love babies and still resent legislation that the Republicans (cleverly, I grant them that) market as "Born Alive" but is essentially is a back-door attempt to gradually overturn Roe v. Wade. But you clearly cannot grasp that.

The term "precious little babies" says it all. Every baby is precious, and your derisive use of that phrase shows your turpitude on this subject.
Posing that nonsensical question is a poor debating technique. It’s an attempt to impose an assumption for which there is no basis in fact, such as “Have you stopped beating your wife?”.

Really? The oil prices aren't from new markets like China and India coming online or from market speculators driving up the price tax-free? The oil prices aren't affected at all by the sinking dollar? They aren't affected by Bush's skillful handling of Hugo Chavez and all the oil Chavez controls? I didn't know that such a complex situation could have just a single source. You should really let Paulie Ryan know -- I bet he could fix the problem. Oh wait, he has been in Congress for how many terms now and the price of gas has gone up on his watch. Never mind.

JSM the current oil prices are due to the congress ignoring that demand is up from the last time we built a refinery. The congress will not allow us to drill for oil in our own country because we will possibly harm a caribou. Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold have absolutely no plans for helping with this. We have enough oil in our country to run this country the way it is for 200 years. But, we have our hands tied because of the congress and the tree huggers.

Billnewbie: So if a woman miscarries, is she complicit in infanticide? According to your logic, she is at least partially responsible for killing this 'person' who is 10 weeks old in her womb. And then what about the father's role? Time to make room in the jails.

And it isn't changing the topic to raise the logical extension of your support of all these precious little babies. I just want to make sure you are consistent when all these precious little babies get older.

Again, I've challenged a left wing doctrine and get called defective for it. When will these compassionate intellectuals change their ineffective tactics?
If lefties have such a superior position, they should be able to defend it without the aspersions and invectives, and without attempting to change subjects by interjecting leftist boilerplate issues such as “child care, equal wages for working women, health care, good schools and subsidies for student loans” as if those who promote the “sanctity of human life” must therefore acquiesce to such programs to be taken seriously. The fact that they stoop to such tactics is proof of the vacuity of their positions.
Pro-abortionists have been using phrases like "chunks of tissue" and "product of conception" to re-name the life within the womb for the purpose of de-humanizing it so that they can think of that "mass" as little more than a tumor instead of the living baby that it is, avoiding the guilt that killing a baby would reap. Just as they prefer terms such as “progressive” instead of liberal, as most people recognize liberalism for the failure it is, so they re-name it and reject the old label while embracing its substance.
Obama's purpose was clear in his opposition to that act, to defend abortion, he just re-defined his position in an attempt to gain votes.

http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/28971...

Its about time...thank GOD for Obama.

Billnewbie: Again, you need to sharpen your reading comprehension skills. The fact pattern was: A woman's uterus *naturally* discharges a chunk of tissue (defined as a person under the Born Alive act) act week 10. Also essentially known as a miscarriage. This is extremely common during the first trimester. I know that you are not terribly familiar with females or female issues given your incredibly sexist comments regarding "what women want" when it comes to a President. But I digress. Under Born Alive, a doctor would be required to keep that "person" alive. What, in a petri dish? Even though the body has rejected the "person". This makes absolutely no sense. Obama recognized that this is a rather sophisticated attempt by Republicans to gradually strip away the privacy rights recognized by Roe v. Wade.

On a similar note, I'm sure that you also support funding for child care, equal wages for working women (since they are the primary supporters of children), health care, good schools and subsidies for student loans. Because respecting the sanctity of human life doesn't end at 9 mos.

Achey: You are publicly admitting that you voted for Dubya in the last election? You are crazier than I thought. You must be so proud, given the current state of... everything. He can't even get the long-time Bush allies, the Saudis, to increase oil production. What a useless, incompetent President. Nice rubber-glue comeback. Very sophisticated analysis.

Obama will be any kind of President you want him to be just ask him.

Well, it's official and the race is on! Once again I will be forced to vote for myself.

lovetoescrap:
I hear you on that one. McCain is way to moderate-liberal for my taste, but he's nowhere near the extreme left which Obama represents. The one good thing I find in McCain is that he really has stood against this endless wasteful spending/earmarks in congress. Both parties are spending $$$ out of control as our national debt builds higher, and our dollar sinks in value (which is the biggest reason behind exploding food-gas-commodity prices). The good news for McCain is that he really got the much easier candidate to defeat in Obama. The Democrats seem to screw this up every 4 years and choose the furthest left, and most un-electable candidate.

Optimism...he isn't in office yet...thank the Lord! I guess this means all of us who actually see the danger of this man being in office need to actively support the opposite. I wasn't sure I would be voting for McCain as he is definately not as conservative as I would like, but I think I may have to. I just can't imagine Obama as my president.

I say we write in vote coast2coast!!
He can't shoot from outside 10 feet, but other then that he can flat out BALL, and that's what this country needs! Hey, and if anyone disagrees with him, he can sure intimidate them (he goes about 6'8"!). Good post TJ!

coasttocoast.....How relieving to hear you state your feeling upon facts and not race. That is truely wonderful to see. Thank you for being a true american.

This is probably going to come across wrong to some, and narrow minded to others. With that said, I must state my concern for this man taking office. As much as our nation wants to avoid the big pink elephant in the room, we are still a racist nation, whether it be blacks against whites or vice versa. So, my concern is that this could go bad in a couple of directions. The white sepremists will make it their mission to eliminate Obama, or the blacks of the nation without tact with become the "black power players". I do realize that this might sound racist, which it isn't by no means, I am just truely concerned and wonder if our nation is truely ready for this change? I also have concerns for a woman as well. I find it enlightening that time has evolved, but I also find it hard to believe that our nation will just except the "different president". Does anyone else see what I am saying??

I want Hillary Clinton to be elected by "write in" votes!

Sorry JSM Kerry and his Heinz 57 were in the last presidential election, I praise the Lord every night that he did not make it. As for tin foil hats in a shed, you must be looking in a mirror, and by the way, I don't play with action figures, I prefer the real thing.

JSM has a great argument in favor of freedom of choice. In fact, we should extend the right to abort until age 18. That way, if the living chunks of tissue become too great a burden, or they join a gang, or they can't maintain a 2.0 GPA, then abort the little inconveniences. After all, they're not viable in that they're unable to care and provide for themselves, and their mothers' happiness and well being are of primary import, as we are frequently reminded by pro-abortionists.

billnewbie...have you seen Bush's ranch in Texas vs. Al Gore's mansion in Tennessee? I really don't see how people can think this man is really for our environment. And how in the world does this comparison make him better than Bush? Obama and Clinton fit right in with saying whatever the heck they think will get people to vote for them. Clinton talking about her faith makes me sick! Yeah right! Obama seems to have the faith of the convenient as well. Lets disassociate ourselves with our pastor and oh...his pastor friend (even though he's been our mentor for years) so the gullible public will believe we don't agree with the man. Ok...so my ranting is now over.

fldplan, the Born Alive Act is just an attempt to strip away a woman's right to chose. It is an oblique attempt to define a fetus as a person and confer those rights on the fetus. So, essentially a doctor would be required to try to 'keep alive' a chunk of tissue that is naturally discharged by a woman's body at week 10. Apparently, Fox News is spoonfeeding you images of bouncing babies being slaughtered. By your logic then, Bush must really hate children because he vetoed a bill providing insurance to poor children. And McCain must really hate soldiers because he did not vote for a bill providing greater GI benefits.

There are crazy preachers supporting McCain as well (e.g. Hagee). As far as idiotic wife, you can't touch her intellectually. Blackhawk Tech's janitorial program does not match up with Harvard Law.

Whybesad, what about McCain's role in the Keating 5? How about the money he accepted from Charles Keating? If he doesn't actually do time, it doesn't really count against him, right? Is that o.k.? Also, what about his campaign consultants who have profited from contracting jobs with oppressive regimes in Myanmar and other third-world countries. Is it o.k. if he accepts money from those sources? As long as US citizens aren't suffering, and the countries are far away, it is o.k., right? Just want to be clear.

Obama has to pander to the moveon.org crowd. He gets truck loads of money from the far left loonies.

How will I sleep tonight knowing that you couldn't find any value in my posts?

Achey: Just a heads' up -- there are also 57 varieties of Heinz. So, every time you use a Heinz product, you are secretly supporting Al-Qaeda. I bet you didn't know that. Time to paste up some more newsclippings in your shed and adjust your aluminum hat.

No, billnewbie, I shall detract those points because they are qualitative. I am taking away from the value of my assessment of R1234's otherwise incisive commentary. I'm sorry if you are bitter because I couldn't find any nuggets of wisdom in your posts today.

I'm in that 5% of blacks who don't support Obama. He's all part of the Jackson/Sharpton/Faracon crowd that have have been the problem with inter-city racial issues. These guys preach hate and divide, so they can keep their own personal power. Rev Write is the same story. Obama is no differnt. He tries to paint himself as a unifier, but just look who all his friends are.

Rather than detract those points maybe you should subtract them instead.

I love Achey's John Mc Cain (sic) true American Hero. I have to get myself one of those action figures.

Also, some great material from R1234. I do have to detract some points because, Ellen Goodman wrote it, not Obama. But I do love: "high mucky-mucks", "silkily" and my personal favorite , "oratorical speeches". Good stuff!

As I told one other detractor, I prefer the term "knuckle dragging Neanderthal". I have hair from head to foot, and I like to braid my chest hairs, one on each side. Then I take the braid ends in each hand and I lean backwards while pulling straight up so that I can almost levitate. My strength has waned of late as I do not eat enough raw meat. After I adjust my diet, if you see a floating hair ball, introduce yourself, and don't forget to use your GazextteXtra user name so I'll know who you are.

The crypt door opened slightly with a nerve wracking creak. A puff of dank dusty air escaped as a weak almost inaudible voice croaked from the depths saying "billnewbie is an IDIOT !".

I'm thinking Billnewbie is kinda smart :)

NVgrf:
Yet again practicing medicine without a license? I wrote this in response to one of your earlier diagnoses, just in case you missed it. “You know, when a person accuses everyone around him of being insane, the insanity may lie within rather than without. That is just the observation of a layman and not to be construed as medical advice, although you may benefit from, and therefore you might consider seeking same.”
Calling people names doesn’t change the fact that some on the far left claimed we deserved what was done on 9/11, and therefore did not care that Americans died. I know you would like to toss that fact down the memory hole along with a great many more, but you and your kind will never have that kind of power.

bill, you've hit a new low. You are indeed an angry, pathetic individual to make the following statement.
"No, the far left wingers do not want their families caught in the next 9/11, but some won’t mind if yours or mine are."
I am not sure if anyone who would make such a statement deserves pity or institutionalization.

Obama may well appeal to many women as he is anti-war, pro-universal health care, and for less confrontational politics, at least until he needs to go negative. Also many women, but not all will be attracted to his pro-choice stance as well as other feminist issues which the democrats have supported for a long time. And he’s better looking than McCain, which unfortunately will be a deciding factor among some women and some men too.
Women, for the most part, hate war and find it difficult to see any value in it. And everyone wants peace. But history shows that peace is expensive. Its price is war or tribute. Some say we’ve had enough of war, but our enemies anticipate a time when we agree to pay tribute for the peace we seek, and they will not settle for a little.
Lovetoscrap:
No, the far left wingers do not want their families caught in the next 9/11, but some won’t mind if yours or mine are. Didn’t some say that we brought it on ourselves? Just as with reducing carbon emissions, Al Gore, John Edwards, et al advocate that we, the little people, walk to work, set our thermostats to 55 in winter and no a/c in summer, keep our lights off at night and otherwise modify our lifestyles as they advise. All while they live in huge mansions and fly around the world in private jets to awaiting fleets of limousines to carry them and their entourage to important, world saving events. If you read Animal Farm, then you know why the pigs took all the apples.

I never was for going into Iraq, but cutting and running now presents all sorts of problems. Clinton and Obama BOTH know this, and yet they still need to pander to this huge anti-war base, so they have to campaign on these ridiculously flawed platforms on the war.

Over the Hill and others who think the same...maybe you would prefer your family to be in the next 9/11...I wouldn't. So as far as I am concerned, our soldiers including my family members are there protecting me and you. Be grateful! Terrorism has been halted because of what our soldiers are doing. There are many things that happen that you and I will never fully know about. I for one am glad. As far as Obama goes, this is one woman who will not be voting for him, Clinton either for that matter. I have no idea who I will vote for, maybe McCain, maybe third party. It certainly won't be liars and slimey politicians like those two!

There have been more than 100,000 people killed in Iraq since 2003; no one knows for sure how many. Many of those were innocent bystanders who had futures and hope. I have been in the region recently, and I know the loss of life - American and Iraqi - will not suddenly be worth more if we exit all at once. Viet Nam (should have) taught us that much. I fully and whole heartedly agree that we should never have gone in to make war, but I also do not think we can just leave. We are not common criminals who ransack the house, then walk away. Even if the war was wrong, we are now looked towards as the builders. While I applaud the sentiment, I have yet to see anything really concrete from Obama about a plan.

"Conspiracy Theory"? No not me, I have very little time for TV.

Overthehill, hopefully if you really study Obama, you will find out just how bad he would be for our Country.

John Mc Cain is a true American Hero, he knows of what he speaks.

It seems a shame that the Democrats couldn't let thier primary process run its natural course...will we count them, we won't we count them, I know, let's count half, but them give some extra to Obama...politics, you can have them.

Obama will get us out of this illegal ill-advised war where over 4,000 of our precious young people have been slaughtered and FOR WHAT. Are we any better off today than we were when Bush took us into the war? Worse. McSame will only keep at it and keep at it and slay more of our young. The choice is going to be: Obama or McSame so you had better get studying the choices and learn as much as you can in the next six months so you can feel comfortable voting for Obama. The republicans have made a bloody mess of our country lately. I have been a republican all my life, for the most part, but I have been studying politics for many months now and I am an OBAMICAN.

OK, I read it and Obama is pandering again. This week it is the Jews and women. Next, week is anyone's guess. It depends on how the next two primaries go and which demographic appears to dislike him.

Now, another interesting story is that the Dems don't have enough money to cover their convention. Their financial support has withered as loyal Party members have been disenfranchised and alienated in favor a slick talker who has nothing to offer, not even integrity. Could it be that most of their Party faithful are miffed at having a candidate pre selected for them by the high mucky-mucks? Are they also miffed at the treatment of the Florida and Michigan voters and are not contributing? I'm not even going to mention those who feel that the Dems have a gender-bias and are screaming to initiate a write-in campaign as well as start a new party.

Obama is not a uniter, he has a track record of changing his spots and silkily delivering a message tailored to reel in the audience at hand and his candidacy has shown me that there is, indeed, racism in this country of the worst kind and it is being taught in the urban black churches as religion and the Gospel; the DNC has closed their eyes and dismissed it. I am offended that the same principles don't apply to all. I am not a racist. I believe in equality for all. I wasn't born yesterday and have voted in more elections in the past than I will probably vote in the future but my vote will be based on issues, not oratorical speeches which promise everything to all knowing that delivery of said promises is impossible.

Achey,
Just wondering if you spent last weekend watching "Conspiracy Theory"?

I don't think that any of these are Barack Obama's words except for the last sentence. Is that why there is only a beginning quotation mark on each previous sentence? Maybe Ellen Goodman is hoping to get picked up by the Obama team as a speech writer.

He was just confusing himself with the previous Democratic presidential nominee and the famous Heinz slogan. There was probably a bottle of ketchup in front of him and he was pandering to it.

You are aware, probably, that Barack Obama lost his bearings recently and said that he was going to campaign in all 57 states. You heard this? And everybody chalked it up to, "Well, he's tired."
Barack Obama says he's gonna go out and campaign in 57 states, he was just tired, you know, it's been such a long campaign, he's been so many places, he probably thinks there are 57 states. Well, I have here a printout from a website called the International Humanist and Ethical Union. And here is how the second paragraph of an article on that website begins. "Every year from 1999 to 2005 the organization of the Islamic conference representing the 57 Islamic states presented a resolution to the United Nations commission on human rights called combating." And the title of the piece here is, "How the Islamic states dominate the UN human rights council," and there are 57 of them.
Obama said he's going to campaign in 57 states, and it turns out that there are 57 Islamic states. There are 57 Islamic states. So did Obama just lose his bearings, or was this a more telling slip, ladies and gentlemen?

Well we do know that Obama attended a racist american hating church for 20 years until someone came out and showed the world what this man was preaching. He would still be going there if someone wouldn't have came out. He claims he didn't know this about Rev. Wright and never heard that. Makes you wonder about his truthfulness. He thought enough of the Reverend to marry him and baptize his children. He also embraced him to have him as his spiritual adviser for his campaign. But, he didn't know what the Reverend was all about. He has had some relationships with very sleazy people and that needs to be looked at and it is an issue since we don't know much about this guy.

I may be unclear on this, but I think these are NOT Obama's words, these are words the columnist is "channeling", or saying she hopes Obama will say. Am I wrong on that - is this a real Obama speech?

I wish he would show me how to get a sweet deal on a mansion.

bellnewbie:
Great 1st post on this thread! SO TRUE!
.

This is total pandering at it's BEST. Obama was getting SMOKED in almost every primary to white woman. Lets face the real TRUTH here folks. This campaign has become racially polarized as ever. Obama is taking 95% of the black vote, and Hillary is getting in the 60-70% neighborhood of white woman, and Hispanics. The exit polls are showing a large %age of Clinton voters saying they would never vote for Obama. Obama has all sorts of problems getting the Clinton supporters on board, and this speech is just the START of him trying to reach out.

Heartfelt convictions or pandering to the largest demographic in the voting public? I will reserve my judgment until the candidates have been confirmed and the general debate ensues. You may be shocked to learn that I am not anti-Obama. He just hasn't shown me anything substantial up to this point that would convince me to vote for him this early in the process. Neither has McCain. I hope to see some substance and some realistic plans from both candidates when the main event unfolds. We need some real plans for this country and we need them now.

The most frightening thing about Obama, to me, is his lack of experience and knowledge about international affairs. His desire to meet with dictators is not itself a bad idea, but he must understand the need for linkage - a Kissinger idea - and preparation. Chamberlain went to Germany to bring back "peace for our times" only to find everything fell apart - he had no preparation to meet with the dictators, and made no effort to coordinate with allies. If Obama does the same, it will only legitimize those dictators, giving them credibility on the world stage. Yes, we need to talk (it is better than war), but we also need linkage - our cooperation comes at a cost to them, and we expect real negotiations, not some sham. It is dangerously naive to make presidential level negotiations a campaign platform. He must realize the need to send in lower level advisors first, to prep the ground.

The gross domestic product grew in the first quarter of this year so as of yet, there is no recession.

Do you think it is in any way related to the recession we're in?

Actually, I never had much use for grammar myself. I wasn't trying to assess the correctness of de-emphasizing grammar, just pointing out that de-emphasis is occurring.

The same could be said for any other area of education. For example, poor arithmetic skills do not disqualify a student from taking the easiest math class out there. As long as they can calculate bowling scores at least 60% correctly, then they pass. Minimums are set for a reason, but there is high potential for students interested in all areas. The standards, which are what we should be talking about, focus more on English than any other subject. Naturally, there are certain exceptions that are made, but those exceptions are case by case.

Thank you. As I pointed out, teachers have been de-emphasizing strict grammatical form in favor of subjective intellectual development. They have been graduating seniors who are grammatically challenged for many years. Apparrently, poor grammar skills do not result in disqualification for english credits.

billnewbie,

Is that why four "english" credits are required in order to graduate from high school in Wisconsin? Clearly, with a requirement of three arithmetic credits, math is considered more important. Additionally, you need three credits of social studies. Well, you're also required to have two science credits. It is very clear that grammar indeed is not important at all to the educators of Wisconsin.
You make a strong point, billnewbie!

This man scares me, he really really scares me. We really do not know much about who he really is...

Quite right NVgrf, Obama was most ineffective in his time in the Illinois legislature. Glad to see that you’re coming around to the truth of his lack of qualifications.
Of course, the Illinois teacher's union, much like their Wisconsin counterparts, would have fought such a measure as teaching extra grammar classes as it would detract from the more important mission of indoctrination. Teachers have been telling us for years that the substance of a student's thoughts is more important than the form they are presented in. They prefer not to waste much time on things such as grammar and spelling.

More political pandering.

The only thing I regret about Obama's political time in Illinois is that he didn't push for a law requiring Republicans take remedial grammar classes.

sure if you are a Crypt or a Blood look into this guy he is a maniac NO WAY I would rather vote for Dole that jerk