Secession, Sarah and the State
Secession, Sarah and the State by Andrew Murphy One of the more egregious attacks on Republican VP candidate, Sarah Palin is her affiliation and her husbands with the Alaska Independence Party (AKIP). The left-wing bloggers like the Huffington Post, Daily Kos and several in the media including MSNBC have tried to make hay with this. One wag at the Washington Monthly went so far as to say the idea of secession is un-American. Why? The truth is secession is as American as apple pie. So, the nerve of Mrs. Palin to advocate a long-lost American doctrine like secession, let’s bring her down they must be thinking. However, just as a sidebar to set the record straight, Sarah Palin was actually never a member of AKIP. Lynette Clark, Chairmen of the AKIP issued a press release September 3, 2008 to correct any misunderstandings. Clark wrote, What was correct was that Todd Palin was a member, that Sarah as a candidate for Governor appeared at the AIP Convention in 2006, and sent a welcoming DVD to the membership at the 2008 AIP statewide convention. Perhaps the Kossocks and the Huffingtonites need to brush up on their American history. For starters, The Declaration of Independence in the final paragraph states pretty clearly: That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE and INDEPENDENT STATES……….and that, as free and independent states, they have the full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other things which independent states may of right do. Thomas Jefferson, America’s first libertarian president, in his first inaugural address declared, If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it Jefferson several years before in 1798 with James Madison wrote the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions which stated, Where the powers were assumed by the national government which had not been granted to the states, nullification is the rightful remedy. During the War of 1812, several states in the northeast USA threatened to secede because they did not want a war with England. The Connecticut state assembly went so far as to draw up a letter of protest; the opening sentence starts off, But it must not be forgotten, that the State of Connecticut is a FREE SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT State; that the United States are a confederacy of States; that we are a confederated and not a consolidated Republic. I will avoid mentioning the Confederacy of the United States simply to avoid being accused of being a neo-confederate which is the smear word for anybody who mentions secession in liberal circles. I will mention that many northern newspapers in 1860–1861 saw secession for the South as a perfectly constitutional thing to do. The New York Daily Tribune wrote they saw no reason why the South shouldn’t have the right to leave the Union (December 17, 1860). The Wisconsin Democrat, on January 11, 1861 wrote in their editorial that the right of secession inheres to the people of every sovereign state. More ironic, the left forgets that one of the most liberal states in the Union has one of the largest secession movements in the USA, Vermont. The state that gave us socialist Bernie Sanders and politically correct ice cream (Ben and Jerry’s), has a huge secession movement. One of the strongest supporters for the secession movement in Vermont is Nation magazine contributor, Kirkpatrick Sale. Therefore, whether you are a secessionist or not, it is impossible to deny that it has a rich tradition in American history. It is an idea that unites both libertarians and some decentralized leftists. If the media and the leftist bloggers want to continue to try and make an issue out of this perfectly respectable American idea, I say, Sarah and Todd Palin shouldn’t back down. If it was good enough for Thomas Jefferson, it ought to be good enough for the rest of us. Right? http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/murphy-a1.html --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Palin described the building of a $30 billion natural gas pipeline in Alaska as God's will, which she would work to carry out as governor.
oh poor baby i guess you didn't like her speech calling the pipeline Gods will and asking for prayers . here is a liitle a tip for you because you don't like something and it gets your panties in a wad doesn't mean it isn't true it just means your judgement is flawed ! and if you can disput any of my sources just do it and stop whining . On Sep 10, 2:40 pm, Cold Water [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: WTF are you talking about??? Your words: In her actions concerning gays and her tinkering with a Supreme Court ruling. Please give a link (a real link to a real source and not one of Mike's BS sources) to her actions concerning gays and her tinkering with a Supreme Court ruling or are these like the four heart attacks you claim John McCain had (HE DID NOT) I REALLY hope you aren't as stupid as you appear to be. You certainly don't believe EVERYTHING you read on the Internet do you? Mike's posts are like the British tabloids - they are full of garbage. BTW - Most Americans are AGAINST same-sex marriage. Palin's position is NOT extreme at all and as governor she had every right to do as she did. You know absolutely NOTHING about government in the US. - Original Message - From: creusa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PoliticalForum PoliticalForum@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 9:06 AM Subject: Re: Palin described the building of a $30 billion natural gas pipeline in Alaska as God's will, which she would work to carry out as governor. She is truly a bigoted recidivist who may also be a closet white supremacist (they think like this too) who believes in the Voice of God telling her things...she is now handling truckloads of money because she hears voices!! I cannot believe that she is taken seriously...she needs locking up!! In her actions concerning gays and her tinkering with a Supreme Court ruling, she WOULD be locked up in Europe for hate crimes. And quite rightly too. It is bigotry pure and simple, born of stupidity and closed-mindedness. I'll bet she doesn't care for Muslims taking their Q'ran litetrally...what hypocrisy!! Creusa On Sep 10, 8:24 am, mike532 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sarah Palin: A Gidget for God's Truthhttp://www.truthout.org/article/sarah-palin-a-gidget-gods-truth The Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation, declared John McCain back in September 2007. With his vice-presidential pick of Governor Sarah Palin, he has found a winsome soul mate who is even more of a Christian nationalist, eager to use government to impose her religious views on the rest of us. Palin's stance on abortion illustrates her approach. As she proudly declares, she sees the Bible as literally true, which leads her to believe that aborting a fetus is murder. That position contradicts our long history of common and statutory law. She then goes on to conclude that government should severely punish anyone who has an abortion or performs one, even in the case of rape or incest. She also opposes stem cell research. McCain hears God less extremely, but the Republican platform echoes Palin, and if she ever became president, she would feel completely justified in making her religious belief a litmus test for appointees to the Supreme Court. Her attitude toward gays and lesbians is similar, though observers in both the gay press and corporate media have misrepresented the firmness of her convictions. The confusion stems from a legal suit that some same-sex couples filed in 1999, arguing that Alaska had no right to deny domestic partners of state employees the same health and pension benefits that the state gave to married spouses. The case made its way to Alaska's Supreme Court, which ruled in 2005 that the state could not discriminate against the domestic partners. In the political firestorm that followed, the Alaska legislature passed a bill forbidding state officials to pay the benefits. Alaska's attorney general then declared the bill unconstitutional, and the newly inaugurated Governor Palin felt legally obliged to veto it. But, she loudly proclaimed her opposition to spousal benefits for domestic partners and signed a separate bill calling for a state referendum, which she said would lay the groundwork for overturning the state Supreme Court ruling. She also declared her long-time opposition to same-sex marriage, a position she had displayed as early as 1998 when she enthusiastically backed a constitutional amendment to ban the practice in Alaska. I believe that honoring the family structure is that important, she told the Anchorage Daily News in 2006. She was not out to judge anyone and has good friends who are gay. But, she explained, her opposition grew out of her strong religious views. Palin's religious convictions, and her willingness to use the power of government to force them on others, has won strong backing from
Re: Dems trash U.S. flags at DNC convention
bingo ! On Sep 10, 2:14 pm, doctoroe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Republicans tried to set that up. They put flags in the trash then tried to 'leak ' it to the media. It didn't work. On Sep 9, 9:08 am, mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't murky, but you sure as hell do. so you are saying the nyt spreads lies? On Sep 9, 8:55 am, mike532 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: he has written a book, ''Fugitive Days'' (Beacon Press, September). Mr. Ayers, who is 56, calls it a memoir, somewhat coyly perhaps, since he also says some of it is fiction you do seem to have a problem seperating fact from fiction don't you ? On Sep 9, 7:55 am, mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: how does your liberal rag the nyt suit ya ''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough.'' Mr. Ayers, who spent the 1970's as a fugitive in the Weather Underground, was sitting in the kitchen of his big turn-of- the-19th-century stone house in the Hyde Park district of Chicago.http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E1DE1438F932A2575A... On Sep 9, 7:49 am, mike532 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: please provide the source of your information ! On Sep 9, 7:46 am, mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: murky murky murky. so naive, so child like, do dense. ayers not only has admitted his part in bombings carried out in the 60's, but has also said he wished he could have done more. On Sep 9, 3:24 am, mike532 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i know who ayers is ! i also know trying to link ayers who was never charged or admited to any crime and obamam is just as dishonest as trying to say that because flags were stored in plastic bags they were in the trash . On Sep 8, 4:19 pm, BlueFlorida [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A.nowwouldyouadmitseeingitorcontinueto dismiss the subject? I'm shocked you do not know who Ayers is. On Sep 8, 4:10 pm, mike532 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i already saw the picture ofg the flags stored in plastic bags . there is no picture of any flags thrown in the trash as you claim but nice try sparky ! On Sep 8, 12:31 pm, mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: murky, go herehttp://www.moonbattery.com/, scroll down until you see the picture. can't miss it. it's the one with all the flags in garbage bags thrown out by the dems. and right below it is a picture of nobama;s friend and colleague, ayers, standing on an American flag. On Sep 8, 12:00 pm, mike532 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what in the world are you talking about ? On Sep 8, 11:44 am, BlueFlorida [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd love to know your remarks about Ayers in an alley stomping the flag. You sure Obama wasn't in the background? On Sep 8, 3:57 am, mike532 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: please show where it says the flags were being thrown out in this propoganda piece . and you are the one who said it was wrong to burn the flag . to which i showed you how stupid that statement was you are missing the poing here sgt. the dems have so little respect for this country and it's flag that not only do they have no problem burning it, On Sep 7, 8:19 am, mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: these were not worn out flags, murky, they were brand new flags that they did not use. so they threw them out. real nice respect for our flag and our country. actions speak louder than words murky, and this action speaks volumes. On Sep 7, 7:59 am, mike532 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jesus what do you think happens to worn out flags ?http://www.ehow.com/how_4457633_dispose-united-state-flag.html Take the United States flag down, and replace it with a new one when you see signs of wear. It needs to be disposed of in a fitting way that shows respect. Do not just throw it in the garbage. Step2Contact your local VFW (Veterans of Foreign Wars), Girl Scout or Boy Scout Troop, Knights of Columbus or Local Elks club to see if they offer the disposal service and ceremony for worn-out United States flags. Retired flags are
Re: Surprise! Palin Investigators Are Obamatrons
The investigation began before she was nominated, try again, do a little research before posting such BS. This Lie was so superficial I could use it for a window pane. On Sep 10, 8:58 pm, mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In yet another indication of their desperation, Democrats are trying to concoct a scandal out of Sarah Palin's having fired Walt Monegan, who used his office to protect a deranged State Trooper best known for blasting a 10-year-old with a Taser. you need to go to the website to see the picture referred to The man overseeing the investigation, Sen. Hollis French, is the bald guy near the back (fifth from left, by the Obama '08 posters). Any doubts about this hack's objectivity yet? Well, it gets better. Last week, for obvious reasons, Rep. John Coghill asked the Alaska Legislative Council to remove French from the probe. Coghill's request was rejected: On Monday, the head of the Legislative Council turned down his request. Democratic Sen. Kim Elton responded that he is sure that partisan politics can be kept out of the probe. You know what's coming, right? Senator Elton is also in the picture. He's the tall bearded guy on the far left (ahem) of the photo. Thankfully, it looks like Obama's campaign will go down like the Hindenburg. But The One can console himself with the knowledge that even so, he has left his mark on America, by spreading Chicago-style politics all the way to Alaska. http://www.moonbattery.com/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Sarah Palin
Sir when you have come to understand European history, the enlightenment and its subsequest effects properly, I will discuss this with you gain. I am not here to give you a history lesson and clarly you have been educated by a system which is not only biased but incorrect. I suggest a three year stay in Europe so that you will stop making such silly remarks. creusa On Sep 10, 7:03 pm, jgg1000a [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The enlightenment was rational...it was the supremacy of reason. Not something you have maintained. Go read the Scotiish Enlightenment writers (Locke, Hume, Berkley) ... You will find that they advocated human rights were inalienable precisely because those rights came from a higher and unknowable power than rational man... Don't be silly...France was Roman Catholic. The French Enlightenment spawned Karl Marx and his like... It saw rationalism as self defining truth separate from faith... The English Enlightenment was quite the opposite... Nonsense. WE have our problems but we don't HATE them as I have seen expressed here...in fact wehave a far greatertolerance for muslims than it seems Ameicans have for their black citizens since it is this which is making Obama's victory so difficult. Hatred? You have only had Civil /Human Rights here for 45 years. What BS... It is clear you believe in the myths MSM force fed you... Would France serious consider a North Africa for President??? After all the Moslem population in France is roughly that of AA in the US... Would Germany consider a Turk for PM??? Would Britian consider a Black Indian Brit for PM??? Until Europeans are willing to give a member of a 14% minority the highest office in the land, then tell me about America's human rights... That is why Europe is so keen to see Obama elected...we know he is more in tune with the way the rest of the world thinks. AMERICA IS NOT EUROPE While European settlers dominated from 1700 to today, we have quite a different culture understanding -- one that allows for multi-culturalism within a relate civil polity... Europe is still rift with the problems of ethnic based nationalities and a mere 50 years ended a 40 year world-wide European Civil War that showed the European underbelly of totalitarianism that one still sees in conflicts in Kosovo and Georgia... Thank god European can not vote in the US... I suspect Germans fell the same way about Turks not being able to vote in German elections, I suspect Germans favor governments that center on German needs rather than Turkish ones... Not what I read here a couple of years ago. How do you know it was a myth? Please post documented proof that it was a myth. Just look at what we did after 1991 in Kuwait... Or are doing in Iraq... Those countries own their own oil and are in control of their own oil fields... On Sep 10, 3:52 am, creusa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 9, 5:40 pm, jgg1000a [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: he is running for the possible top job in a supposedly enlightened, balanced and rational country. I understand YOUR position is that this means all leaders should believe in Science as I understand it... Part of the difference between Europe and the US is that the US is grounded by the English and Scotish Enlighenment which was Deistic. The enlightenment was rational...it was the supremacy of reason. Not something you have maintained. Europe settled for the French atheistic version... Don't be silly...France was Roman Catholic. In those days it mattered. We have become more secular as we have had to absorb so many other faiths and cultures. Now in OUR enlightened, balanced and rational country we allow for different opinions and not insist on only the Truth as seen be Evolutionists... So you rationalists deny science? Do you then deny the study of genetics and do you, for example, never wonder why it is possible to modify animals and crops for yield, looks and performance? Are you just stubbornly blind? What I am suggesting here is maybe it is Europe which is not the enlightened, balanced and rational ones when it comes to philosophy and theology... You wouldn't know, not living here. Your assessment of Europe is not the one I llive in but a product of your media...not known for its balance. As for the US being more tolerant of other religions than ...(you mentioned Europe) , it isn't Europe which has spewed such hatred for Muslims as I have seen in this list. There is less anti-Moslem violence in the US than there is in Europe... Holland, Francs, Spain, Germany, Sweden, Denmark among others have story after story affirming the ghettoization of Moslems (either by general society or self imposed)... The news is full of Moslem violence and rioting and anti-Moslem violence and rioting... I will suggest that there is LESS toleration in Europe
Glitz, hype lies and war. A little hard reality and the US election campaign.
Glitz, hype lies and war. A little hard reality and the US election campaign. The US primaries leading up to the election have had no more substance than “American Idol”. Glitz and carefully stage managed hype vaunting a handful of multimillionaire political mediocrities and scoundrels, financed by the wealthiest sections of Corporate America. In the current political climate, the ruling elites cannot abide any opposition to their policies of war and attacks on the working-class. All political dissent has been crushed during the farcical nomination ceremonies, with charges having being laid invoking anti-terrorism provisions within the patriot act. Both the Democrat and Republican presidential nominees failed to condemn the brutal police state repression used to curb the freedom of speech of political protestors and the arrest members of the media so as to prevent them filming these attacks. America is not a functioning Democracy; it is a police-state Plutocracy of Burgher and surf where the ruling elites enjoy the privileges of obscene wealth, while 40% of the population share just 0.2% of the nations wealth—the richest nation in the world that ranks number 42 in life expectancy. The extreme gulf in wealth and privilege between the candidates and their corporate backers and the hardships, insecurities, house repossessions and job lay-offs facing 10’s of millions of the community will continue to increase unless Americans move to rid themselves of these most reprehensible exploiters, war criminals and thugs and take matters into their own hands. You cannot vote for progressive change, a vote for either party is a vote for war and the destruction of the living standards of hard working honest people everywhere. This is an objective fact. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Glitz, hype lies and war. A little hard reality and the US election campaign.
Glitz, hype lies and war. A little hard reality and the US election campaign. The US primaries leading up to the election have had no more substance than “American Idol”. Glitz and carefully stage managed hype vaunting a handful of multimillionaire political mediocrities and scoundrels, financed by the wealthiest sections of Corporate America. In the current political climate, the ruling elites cannot abide any opposition to their policies of war and social regressive policies. All political dissent has been crushed during the farcical nomination ceremonies, with charges having being laid invoking anti-terrorism provisions within the patriot act. Both the Democrat and Republican presidential nominees failed to condemn the brutal police state repression used to curb the freedom of speech of political protestors and the arrest members of the media so as to prevent them filming these attacks. America is not a functioning Democracy; it is a police-state Plutocracy of Burgher and surf where the ruling elites enjoy the privileges of obscene wealth, while 40% of the population share just 0.2% of the nations wealth—the richest nation in the world that ranks number 42 in life expectancy. The extreme gulf in wealth and privilege between the candidates and their corporate backers and the hardships, insecurities, house repossessions and job lay-offs facing 10’s of millions of the community will continue to increase unless Americans move to rid themselves of these most reprehensible exploiters, war criminals and thugs and take matters into their own hands and bring those responsible for crimes against humanity to face justice. The Democrats won’t do it; they are as dishonest and responsible as the GOP You cannot vote for progressive change, a vote for either party is a vote for war and the destruction of the living standards of hard working honest people everywhere. This is an objective fact. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Lehman looks into the abyss
Lehman looks into the abyss September 11, 2008 - 3:34PM Commentary by Michael Lewis To see the mental state of financial markets at the moment you need only to sit at a computer with an Internet connection and watch investors respond to journalism. On Tuesday morning Bloomberg News quoted an unidentified person inside Lehman Brothers saying his firm had tried and failed to raise capital from the Korean Development Bank. This report came on the heels of an earlier one by Dow Jones in which a named person who regulated the Korean Development Bank denied such a thing had happened -- but no matter. A few minutes after Bloomberg News posted the piece, it was the most- read news of the day, and Lehman's shares went into a free fall. Fifteen minutes later they had lost almost half their value. What's interesting, among other things, is the total lack of reflection in the markets. Who had heard of the Korean Development Bank? Who knew what it did, or whether the people inside it were shrewd assessors of subprime-mortgage portfolios? Basically no one, I'd guess. And yet a single report from an unnamed person inside Lehman that some Koreans had considered, and then passed on, investing in the firm was enough to cause the shares to crash. And all that had really happened was that KBD proved it may have finally grasped what should be for Asians a cardinal investment principle: Never buy anything an American investment banker is selling. Lehman doomed What one can see from this event is that Lehman Brothers is doomed. It's doomed, in part, because it still owns all sorts of crappy assets at inflated prices. It holds tens of billions of dollars in subprime-related assets of the sort Merrill Lynch Co. just disgorged at 22 cents on the dollar. But that's probably just the beginning. There's no happy reason they haven't explained in detail their exposure to credit-default swaps. No one -- not its big investors, not the analysts and journalists who cover it, not even, perhaps, the Korean Development Bank -- has had a clear view of its assets and liabilities. This opacity was once a huge advantage: the people outside assumed the best. It's now an even bigger disadvantage: people outside assume the worst. But Lehman is doomed for another reason: People are enjoying its failure. The pleasure and interest the markets now take in seeing it fail now exceeds their pleasure and interest in seeing it survive. Interest in failure This is one of the many unintended little side effects of the government bailout of Bear Stearns: to greatly reduce the interest of the people who do business with Lehman Brothers in the survival of Lehman Brothers. All those people whose affairs are intertwined with Lehman might have pressured them to handle their problems more briskly and intelligently -- and might also be trying to keep it afloat. The US government has made it possible for them to instead stand back and watch with some detachment and even pleasure as Lehman collapses. After all, the Federal Reserve will give them their money back, re- insure their credit defaults, take another pile of these distressed assets out of the market. And when the dust settles they can go in and poach Lehman's business and its smarter employees. The Bear Stearns bailout was supposed to prevent the crisis from rippling through Wall Street. Obviously it hasn't done that. It's merely thrown the crisis into slow motion and prolonged the agony. And it's given the Korean Development Bank whole new powers. (Michael Lewis is a Bloomberg News columnist and the author, most recently, of ``The Blind Side.'' The opinions expressed are his own.) --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
McCain's Integrity
McCain's Integrity http://www.truthout.org/article/mccains-integrity Editor's Note: Historically a John McCain supporter, conservative journalist and blogger Andrew Sullivan takes on the issue of John McCain's integrity as he strives to win the presidency. - vh/TO For me, this surreal moment - like the entire surrealism of the past ten days - is not really about Sarah Palin or Barack Obama or pigs or fish or lipstick. It's about John McCain. The one thing I always thought I knew about him is that he is a decent and honest person. When he knows, as every sane person must, that Obama did not in any conceivable sense mean that Sarah Palin is a pig, what did he do? Did he come out and say so and end this charade? Or did he acquiesce in and thereby enable the mindless Rovianism that is now the core feature of his campaign? So far, he has let us all down. My guess is he will continue to do so. And that decision, for my part, ends whatever respect I once had for him. On core moral issues, where this man knew what the right thing was, and had to pick between good and evil, he chose evil. When he knew that George W. Bush's war in Iraq was a fiasco and catastrophe, and before Donald Rumsfeld quit, McCain endorsed George W. Bush against his fellow Vietnam vet, John Kerry in 2004. By that decision, McCain lost any credibility that he can ever put country first. He put party first and his own career first ahead of what he knew was best for the country. And when the Senate and House voted overwhelmingly to condemn and end the torture regime of Bush and Cheney in 2006, McCain again had a clear choice between good and evil, and chose evil. He capitulated and enshrined torture as the policy of the United States, by allowing the CIA to use techniques as bad as and worse than the torture inflicted on him in Vietnam. He gave the war criminals in the White House retroactive immunity against the prosecution they so richly deserve. The enormity of this moral betrayal, this betrayal of his country's honor, has yet to sink in. But for my part, it now makes much more sense. He is not the man I thought he was. And when he had the chance to engage in a real and substantive debate against the most talented politician of the next generation in a fall campaign where vital issues are at stake, what did McCain do? He began his general campaign with a series of grotesque, trivial and absurd MTV-style attacks on Obama's virtues and implied disgusting things about his opponent's patriotism. And then, because he could see he was going to lose, ten days ago, he threw caution to the wind and with no vetting whatsoever, picked a woman who, by her decision to endure her own eight-month pregnancy of a Down Syndrome child in public, that he was going to reignite the culture war as a last stand against Obama. That's all that is happening right now: a massive bump in the enthusiasm of the Christianist base. This is pure Rove. Yes, McCain made a decision that revealed many appalling things about him. In the end, his final concern is not national security. No one who cares about national security would pick as vice-president someone who knows nothing about it as his replacement. No one who cares about this country's safety would gamble the security of the world on a total unknown because she polled well with the Christianist base. No person who truly believed that the surge was integral to this country's national security would pick as his veep candidate a woman who, so far as we can tell anything, opposed it at the time. McCain has demonstrated in the last two months that he does not have the character to be president of the United States. And that is why it is more important than ever to ensure that Barack Obama is the next president. The alternative is now unthinkable. And McCain - no one else - has proved it. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Paul Begala rips MSM, Republican operative for flat-out lying about Palin’s record
Paul Begala rips MSM, Republican operative for flat-out lying about Palin’s record Paul Begala goes to town on GOP media consultant Alex Castellanos for peddling blatant falsehoods about Sarah Palin’s “reformer” record, specifically her phantom opposition to the “Bridge to Nowhere,” which she not only supported, but for which hired a Abramoff crony to secure the earmark. http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/09/paul-begala-rips-msm-republican-operative-for-flat-out-lying-about-palins-record/ Download | Play Download | Play ALEX CASTELLANOS: The amazing thing about Sarah Palin is when she became governor she actually stood up and said no. BEGALA: That’s not true. CASTELLANOS: She took a strong stand. That is rare and that never happened. BEGALA: That’s just not true. You know, John, the facts matter. There’s lots of things that are debatable who is more qualified or less experienced or more this or more passionate, whatever. It is a fact that she campaigned and supported that bridge to nowhere. It is a fact that she hired lobbyists to get earmarks. It is a fact that as governor she lobbies for earmarks. Her state is essentially a welfare state taking money from the federal government… This is the problem. We have this false debate when we ought to have at least agreed upon facts. Begala couldn’t be more spot on here: Facts are facts. Opinions can be debated, but facts are concrete and can’t simply be spun away. It seems to me that this is the crux of the McCain strategy: take an unknown hockey mom from Alaska, tell everyone she’s a reformer, lie about her record in order to convince people of it, then keep her sequestered from the press when they start asking questions. Are the American people really dumb enough to fall for it? Full transcript below the fold: ROBERTS: Paul, there’s a lot of controversy about whether or not she supported the bridge to nowhere. We pulled some sound from a 2006 debate in which she appears to at least give tacit approval to it. Let’s listen to what she said. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOV. SARAH PALIN, VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I’m not going to stand in the way of progress that our congressional delegation and the position of strength that they have right now. They’re making those efforts for the state of Alaska to build up our infrastructure. I would not get in the way of progress — this project or other projects that they are working so hard on. (END VIDEO CLIP) ROBERTS: That would appear, Paul, to end any argument over whether or not she supported the bridge initially. But why can’t Barack Obama make that point stick? PAUL BEGALA, CNN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: Because the press won’t do its job, John. I criticized Barack Obama when he hasn’t been tough enough. Barack’s job is to run against John McCain, right. Don’t shoot the monkey when you can shoot for the organ grinder. His job is not to focus on number two but number one. But it is the media’s job when a politician flat out lies like she’s doing on this bridge to nowhere so call her on it. Or this matter of earmarks where she’s attacking Barack Obama for having earmarks, when she was the mayor of little Wasilla, Alaska, 6,000 people, she hired a lobbyist who was connected to Jack Abramoff, who is a criminal and they brought home $27 million in earmarks. She carried so much pork home she got trichinosis. But we in the media are letting her tell lies about her record. ROBERTS: Hey, OK. We got to let Alex respond to that. Flat out lies, Alex? ALEX CASTELLANOS, CNN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: Let’s be a little gentle. Look, every elected official in this country works under the system we have, which is you try to get a little bit of your tax money back. You just don’t want to leave it all in Washington. The amazing thing about Sarah Palin is when she became governor she actually stood up and said no. And she made it - BEGALA: That’s not true. CASTELLANOS: She took a strong stand. That is rare and that never happened. ROBERTS: All right. BEGALA: That’s just not true. You know, John, the facts matter. There’s lots of things that are debatable who is more qualified or less experienced or more this or more passionate, whatever. It is a fact that she campaigned and supported that bridge to nowhere. It is a fact that she hired lobbyists to get earmarks. It is a fact that as governor she lobbies for earmarks. Her state is essentially a welfare state taking money from the federal government. ROBERTS: We still have 56 days to talk about this back and forth. BEGALA: This is the problem. We have this false debate when we ought to have at least agreed upon facts. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register
One year of the Democratic 110th Congress: A record of duplicity, cowardice and political reaction
One year of the Democratic 110th Congress: A record of duplicity, cowardice and political reaction By Patrick Martin 21 December 2007 The Democratic-controlled US Congress ended its first year in office Wednesday with a record of capitulation to the policies of the Bush administration all down the line. In the main areas where voters expected a change when they brought the Democrats to power in November 2006—the war in Iraq, the deterioration of working class living standards and social services, the mounting attacks on democratic rights—the Democrats have proven to be Bush’s collaborators, not his opponents. The last major action of this congressional session was the passage of budget and tax legislation that demonstrates the gaping class divide in American society—and underscores the role of the Democrats, no less than the Republicans, as defenders of the financial aristocracy. The $555 billion spending bill funds the budgets of 11 of the 12 federal departments through the end of the fiscal year, next September 30. The Senate approved the bill Tuesday by 76-17, with a large majority of the Democrats joining all the Republicans to back legislation that conformed exactly to White House specifications. Funding the war in Iraq The Senate voted by 70-25 to add $40 billion in emergency funding for the war in Iraq to the overall spending bill, acting on an amendment introduced by Democrat Carl Levin of Michigan, chairman of the Armed Services Committee. The Senate rejected, by a 71 to 24 vote, an amendment to set a date for troop withdrawals from Iraq. Five fewer senators voted for the measure than backed a similar amendment last May. The resulting bill, funding the war through the first several months of 2008, was approved by the House of Representatives Wednesday by a margin of 272 to 142. Nearly all the Republicans voted for the bill, while a majority of Democrats voted “no” in order to sustain their pretense of being “antiwar.” The support of a large minority of House Democrats, a total of 78, guaranteed final passage of the bill—the outcome desired by the Democratic leadership. This week’s voting is at least the third such collapse of the supposed Democratic opposition to the war since the current Congress took office. The House and Senate passed an emergency funding bill pumping $150 billion into the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq last May, after months of empty protest were answered by Bush with a steady escalation of US military operations in Iraq (the “surge”). The funding bill set a September deadline for a report back to Congress on the surge by top US military and foreign policy officials. Following the testimony of General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, Senate Democrats held a handful of test votes on antiwar amendments to the defense appropriations bill, lost each vote, and then abandoned the effort. Attacks on democratic rights The Democrats’ record is no better on the other major political issues that have dominated this year’s congressional session. On democratic rights, the principal concern of the congressional Democratic leadership was that they might be branded as “soft on terrorism” if they opposed the Bush administration’s shredding of the Constitution. There was no action to repeal the Patriot Act or to compel the Bush administration to shut down its concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Congress approved interim legislation last August granting the National Security Agency and other intelligence groups vastly wider powers to conduct wiretapping and other forms of domestic electronic surveillance, and the Democrats have promised to take up legislation in January to extend these powers indefinitely. The Democrats did nothing to ban the use of torture by US intelligence agencies or to reverse the grossly unconstitutional legislation adopted one year ago that eliminates the right of habeas corpus for prisoners at Guantanamo and at secret US prisons in other overseas locations. The Democratic congressional leadership also caved in to the racist anti-immigrant campaign whipped up through right-wing talk radio, scuttling legislation that, while loaded with reactionary repressive measures, would have provided a path to legalization for some of the millions of undocumented workers now living in the US. The Democrats moved aggressively only in their effort to oust Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, brought down by the scandal over the firing of US attorneys who failed to join in his efforts to target Democratic Party officeholders and candidates. But once Gonzales resigned, the congressional Democrats dutifully confirmed Michael Mukasey as his successor, despite Mukasey’s refusal to characterize water-boarding as torture and illegal under US and international law. The only legislative “achievement” in the sphere of democratic rights was a retrogression—passage of legislation to enact several of the recommendations of the 9/11 commission which had been opposed by
Alaska Republican senator renominated despite indictment
Alaska Republican senator renominated despite indictment By Patrick Martin 2 September 2008 Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author One of the most powerful Republicans in the US Senate, Ted Stevens of Alaska, won renomination in the state Republican primary August 26, four weeks after he was indicted on charges of concealing lavish gifts from an oil services company when he filed disclosure reports with the Senate required under the Ethics in Government Act. Stevens, 84, has been a US Senator since he was appointed to fill a vacancy in 1968. He won renomination by 63 percent, but trails in the polls against his Democratic opponent, Mark Begich, the mayor of Anchorage. The likely ouster of Stevens brings to at least five the number of US Senate seats that the Democratic Party is expected to gain in the November elections. Democratic candidates are heavily favored to win three seats where Republican senators are retiring, in Virginia, New Mexico and Colorado, while Democratic challengers are leading in the polls against incumbent Republican senators in Alaska and New Hampshire, and competitive in Oregon, Minnesota, Mississippi and North Carolina. Only one Democratic seat, in Louisiana, is considered at risk. The case against Stevens is part of a broad corruption probe that has targeted much of the Republican Party establishment in Alaska. Governor Sarah Palin—now selected as the vice-presidential running mate of John McCain—defeated the incumbent governor, Frank Murkowski, in the Republican primary two years ago in large measure because of Murkowski’s ties to the scandal. Palin was previously a political unknown, the part-time mayor of the town of Wasilla, before Murkowski appointed her to a position on the state’s powerful oil industry regulatory authority. The gifts received by Stevens included improvements worth several hundred thousand dollars to his home in Girdwood, Alaska, kitchen appliances and other furnishings as well as a new Land Rover. The company, VECO Corp., repeatedly sent employees to Stevens’s house to carry out repairs and construction, including jacking up the entire house so that a new ground floor could be built. The company also hired one of Stevens’s sons for a management position. In return for these payoffs, Stevens was an ardent advocate of VECO’s interests, both within Alaska and internationally. In 1999, he earmarked $2.5 million in Labor Department funds to bring Russian oilfield workers to Alaska for training, an effort to assist VECO build up its oil and gas exploration work on Sakhalin Island in Russia’s Far East. He also put pressure on the government of Pakistan, which was in dispute with VECO over payments for oil pipeline work in that country. He has responded to the indictment by seeking to have the charges suppressed, claiming that they violated the “speech and debate” clause of the Constitution, which makes congressmen and senators immune from executive branch prosecution for their legislative actions. The indictment, however, does not relate to legislative acts, such as the earmark for VECO, but to Stevens using his influence with the Bush administration and the Alaska state government to further the company’s interests. During the period in question Ben Stevens, the senator’s oldest son, was the Republican leader of the Alaska state senate. VECO chairman Bill Allen pleaded guilty early this year on charges of bribing state and local officials, including $250,000 in cash bribes to Ben Stevens. He is expected to be a star witness against Ted Stevens as well, although the senator is not actually charged with bribery, but with failure to disclose (similar to the famous prosecution of mobster Al Capone, on charges not of racketeering, but for failure to pay income taxes on his illegal earnings). Senator Stevens demanded an early trial and sought to have it held in Alaska, in a transparent effort to rig the outcome, since every sitting federal judge in Alaska owes his appointment to the senator. A federal judge in the District of Columbia ruled against him, however, and the trial is now set to begin in Washington September 24. A second long-serving legislator, Congressman Don Young, was locked in a tight primary contest, as he led his main challenger, Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell, by barely 100 votes out of more than 80,000 cast. Young has also been linked to the VECO scandal, which has embroiled much of the state’s Republican establishment, but he has not yet been indicted. Several thousand absentee ballots remain to be counted and the second-place candidate will undoubtedly seek a recount. A VECO executive who pleaded guilty to bribery charges testified that part of his job was to arrange annual fundraisers for Young. The Democratic-controlled Congress also approved a resolution this year asking the Justice Department to investigate a $10 million earmark Young put into a 2005 highway appropriations bill, funding the
A judge repeatedly told Palin and family not to badmouth her sister's ex
A judge repeatedly told Palin and family not to badmouth her sister's ex http://www.newsweek.com/id/158140 An Anchorage judge three years ago warned Sarah Palin and members of her family to stop disparaging the reputation of Alaska State Trooper Michael Wooten, who at the time was undergoing a bitter separation and divorce from Palin's sister Molly. Allegations that Palin, her husband Todd, and at least one top gubernatorial aide continued to vilify Wooten—after Palin became Alaska's governor and pressured state police officials to take action against him—are at the center of Troopergate, a political and ethical controversy which has embroiled Palin's administration and is currently the subject of an official inquiry by a special investigator hired by the state legislature. Court records obtained by NEWSWEEK show that during the course of divorce hearings three years ago, Judge John Suddock heard testimony from an official of the Alaska State Troopers' union about how Sarah Palin—then a private citizen—and members of her family, including her father and daughter, lodged up to a dozen complaints against Wooten with the state police. The union official told the judge that he had never before been asked to appear as a divorce-case witness, that the union believed family complaints against Wooten were not job- related, and that Wooten was being harassed by Palin and other family members. Court documents show that Judge Suddock was disturbed by the alleged attacks by Palin and her family members on Wooten's behavior and character. Disparaging will not be tolerated—it is a form of child abuse, the judge told a settlement hearing in October 2005, according to typed notes of the proceedings. The judge added: Relatives cannot disparage either. If occurs [sic] the parent needs to set boundaries for their relatives. A spokesperson for the law firm that represented Palin's sister, now known as Molly Hackett, said Hackett's lawyer would have no comment because custody issues are still in litigation. Other lawyers representing Sarah Palin in connection with the state legislative investigation—which is examining whether she abused her powers as governor in trying to have Wooten fired or disciplined—had no immediate comment. Palin's official gubernatorial spokeswoman did not respond to e-mails and a phone message requesting comment. Wooten's lawyer also did not respond to messages requesting comment. John Cyr, executive director of the State Troopers union, who testified at the divorce hearing and is acting as Wooten's spokesman, said Wooten has avoided giving media interviews because he wants to avoid criticizing his former relatives (to date, Wooten has granted just one interview, to CNN). As the divorce case dragged on, the judge's concern about family disparagement appeared to deepen. In an order signed Jan. 31, 2006, which granted Palin's sister and Wooten a final divorce decree, Judge Suddock continued to express concern about attacks by Palin's family on Wooten. The judge even threatened to curb Palin's sister's child custody rights if family criticism of Wooten continued. In monitoring how a joint-custody arrangement worked out, the judge said in his order that he would pay particular attention to problems noted by a custody investigator, specifically the disparagement of the father [Wooten] by the mother [Molly Hackett, Sarah Palin's sister] and her family members. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Iraq Cancels Six No-Bid Oil Contracts
Iraq Cancels Six No-Bid Oil Contracts http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/world/middleeast/11iraq.html?_r=1themc=thoref=slogin A Bush plan to award six no-bid contracts to Western oil companies, which came under sharp criticism from several United States senators this summer, has been withdrawn, participants in the negotiations said on Wednesday. »Iraq’s oil minister, Hussain al-Shahristani, told reporters at an OPEC summit meeting in Vienna on Tuesday that talks with Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Shell, Total, BP and several smaller companies for one-year deals, which were announced in June and subsequently delayed, had dragged on for so long that the companies could not now fulfill the work within that time frame. The companies confirmed on Wednesday that the deals had been canceled. While not particularly lucrative by industry standards, the contracts were valued for providing a foothold in Iraq at a time when oil companies are being shut out of energy-rich countries around the world. The companies will still be eligible to compete in open bidding in Iraq. The six no-bid deals were for work to increase Iraqi oil production from existing oil fields by half a million barrels a day — the same amount by which OPEC countries agreed Tuesday to reduce output. After its cancellation of the deals, Iraq reduced by 200,000 barrels per day its goal of producing 2.9 million barrels per day by the end of the year. The deals would have been the first major oil contracts with the central government since the toppling of Saddam Hussein in 2003, though the Kurdistan region has separately signed more than 20 contracts. Since that time, however, Iraq’s central government has moved on with other energy deals. The Oil Ministry last month signed its first major post-Hussein contract with the China National Petroleum Corporation. On Sunday, the Iraqi cabinet approved a deal with Shell to process natural gas in southern Iraq. The ministry informed the oil companies of the cancellation on Sept. 3, according to a statement from Shell. In Vienna, Mr. Shahristani said the ministry would now invite bids on the contracts. Shell said the Iraqi side had broken off negotiations. “Shell can confirm that we received a letter from Iraqi Ministry of Oil on September 3rd informing us of their decision to cease further discussions,” the company said in a statement. Earlier this summer, a group of Democratic senators led by Charles E. Schumer of New York had appealed to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to block the deals, contending that they could undermine the efforts of Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites to reach agreement on a hydrocarbon law and a revenue-sharing agreement. This criticism was conveyed to Mr. Shahristani by the American Embassy in Baghdad in late June, and after that the deals were delayed. “I’m glad the Iraqis heard our plea that to do this now would be bad for Iraq and bad for Iraqi-American relations,” Senator Schumer said in a telephone interview on Wednesday. “It’s a good first step. Now let’s make progress on the long-term” goal of passing a hydrocarbon law, he said. The State Department had responded that the contracts were an Iraqi affair, though American advisers had helped draft them. Meanwhile, the ministry has said it intends to proceed with new oil deals whether or not the Iraqi Parliament passes a hydrocarbon law. Senator Schumer said Wednesday that he would propose an amendment to the defense appropriation bill in Congress that would specify that should Iraq sign any petroleum contracts before passing the law, profits from those deals would go to defray United States reconstruction spending in Iraq. Andrew E. Kramer reported from Moscow, and Campbell Robertson from Baghdad. James Glanz contributed reporting from New York. More Articles in World » A version of this article appeared in print on September 11, 2008, on page A6 of the New York edition. Bush Lied, Soldiers Keep Dying. 4,155 U.S. Military Fatalities in Iraq 584 U.S. Military Fatalities in Afghanistan 30,683 U.S. Military Maimed in Iraq (source: DoD Update as of August 26, 2008) 94,990 Iraqis Reported Killed (source: Iraq Body Count) 1,255,026 Iraqis Reported Killed (source: justforeignpolicy.org) [ bush / mccain supporters have to ask themselves was it worth it ? ] --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Why Feminists Fear Strong Women (THE BIG LIE)
Why Feminists Fear Strong Women By James Lewis I assume John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential partner in a fit of pique because the Republican money men refused to let him have the stuffed male shirt he really wanted. She added nothing to the ticket that the Republicans didn't already have sewn up, the white trash vote, the demographic that sullies America's name ... yet has such a curious appeal for the right. That delicious tidbit comes from a Canadian feminist named Heather Mallick, who writes for the tax-funded Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Mallick is a career journalist for the CBC and other major Canadian media. She has decided to blame Governor Sarah Palin on the white trash vote -- because it's obvious that trash attracts trash. This just another little tribute from sneering, caterwauling, traditional-woman-hating feminists all over the Western world. (With the wonderful exception of Camille Paglia.) Aye, 'tis a grand sight to behold. Governor Sarah Palin is Everywoman -- she is your mother, your sister or your wife; even your grandmothers and great-grandmothers, going back generations. She is a normal strong, healthy woman. Just as in Lake Woebegon, in reality all normal women are strong. For decades we've been told that half the human population -- the female half -- are somehow weak, oppressed victims, who cannot handle the normal challenges of life. Those are not the women you or I know. Normal women are incredibly strong; that's how evolution, or if you prefer God, made them; they are hardly pushovers or pitiable weaklings. Weaklings perish over the generations. The strong survive. All too often modern women have been suckered and bamboozled by a lifetime of Leftist agitprop, which has turned their strengths into weaknesses. But it's 100% hogwash. Hillary Clinton has based her whole political career on the Myth of the Victimized Woman. Feminists who run our schools and colleges are always trying to push that story to naive students, just like the young Hillary of forty years ago, who was indoctrinated at Wellesley College. Even perfectly normal women have come to believe it. But ask yourself: How many weakling women have you ever known? I've known very few, and I suspect those few learned to behave that way for sympathy. Just put them on a jungle island and soon they'd be swinging through the trees like Jane of the Jungle. Weak women are a figment of the Left, just like weak black people or weak poor people. Those folks never used to be weaklings, until the media made them think they were. With the unanimous help of mainstream radio and TV you can talk yourself into feeling you're a victim of circumstances, just as under better influences you can talk yourself into feeling strong. But the media don't celebrate winners in life. (Wonder why?) Comes along Sarah Palin, a strong, joyous, normal woman, who doesn't mind it if the world knows who she is, and shatters the weakling stereotype just by being herself. What a blast! And the voters, who know from personal experience exactly how strong women really are, are just recognizing their mothers and sisters and aunts in Governor Palin. That's not white trash. It's not lipstick on a pig, as Obama wittily told his adoring audience a few days ago. It's normal, healthy behavior --- in fact, it's pretty much like Michelle Obama, who is also a strong woman (but bitterly angry, for some unfathomable reason). So why do Leftist feminists fear Sarah Palin? Because their personal ego-trips and their political power depend upon The Big Lie. Like all Leftists, feminists desperately need to feel superior to the rest of us. That makes them feel good about themselves. For some Lesbian feminists I've known there is another, even more personal feeling: An intense sense of sexual competition with men. If you believe that all men are evil abusers, Lesbians are the logical refuge for women. The edge of manic rage that marks a lot of feminism seems to owe quite a lot to sexual jealousy, one of the most destructive of human emotions. So there's a lot riding on the Myth of Female Weakness, from ego, to sexual passions, to deliberately cultivated group rage, to money and career ambitions. Without the Myth a rage-driven feminist like Heather Mallick would not have a high-paid career with the government-own broadcaster in socialist Canada. All the feminist professors who were hired to create gender balance in our schools and colleges, all the Ms. Magazine writers, all the media ladies, the affirmative action bureaucrats and victimology peddlers would lose the only career they know. A huge amount of money, prestige, snobbery, influence, ego, rage and sexual passion rides on the feminist myth. Sarah Palin shatters their reasons for being. Once a majority of normal women decide they are not victims at all, Leftist feminism is a goner. Which would be
Is McCain's on the edge of dementia ?
Is McCain's on the edge of dementia ? Facts: http://current.com/items/89175202_mccain_s_on_the_edge_of_dementia (1) McCain is nearly 72 (2) His recently released medical records say nothing about his mental condition (3) Almost all men of his age show significant slowing of their mental faculties (4) He's showing apparently diagnostically significant signs of dementia or some similar condition - see after the fold (5) The MSM and the establishment seem to be happy to push a guy into the WH who probably isn't fit on mental health grounds to complete one term And I didn't even mention the fact that most forms of dementia are accompanied by a tendency toward irascibility and loss of emotional self-control --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
McCain owes America Answers
McCain owes America Answers http://www.democrats.com/node/17569 There is no way I could support McCain for president unless he is willing to 1) prove has the mental capacity to fulfill the term as president. The inexperienced VP candidate Palin does not have the experience to step in as president. McCain seems to already be showing signs of dementia. McCain does not seem to be in complete control of his mental facilities, he can not remember what he says from one day to the next. McCain either has dementia or is an outright liar. 2) McCain also needs to declassify all his records from the Viet Nam War era. I have a problem supporting a man who violated the military code of conduct and made 32 anti-American propaganda tapes for his captors.3) McCain needs to explain why he abandoned his disabled first wife for a younger, richer drug abusing woman. Can we trust McCain would not abandon our country's citizens needs to improve his own wealth and power. 4) McCain owes America a complete financial disclosure of his and Cindy's finances. What is he hiding keeping his war records classified and family finances secret? McCain's age is no joke. He is now 72 and would be halfway to 73 if elected and sworn in on January 20, 2009. That would make him the oldest first-term President ever, two years older than Ronald Reagan. Reagan developed dementia during his first term and was unable to function as president most days during his second term, with his condition kept secret from the public. McCain has survived four skin cancers (melanomas), including one in 2000 that was classified as Stage IIa. McCain is two years older than his father was when he died suddenly of a heart attack at 70. He is 11 years older than his grandfather was when he died suddenly of a heart attack at age 61. Now with his choice of the most inexperienced Vice Presidential candidate in history. Ms Palin a first term governor of the least populous state in the union, less residents than any of the100 largest cities in the nation. Her previous experience was one term as mayor of a city with less than 9,000 population! Can you imagine this inexperienced woman being taken serious in a crisis, negotiating with experienced leaders of Iran, Russia, Pakistan or North Korea? Ms. Palin can not even manage her own family, her 17 year old daughter is pregnant and unmarried. The United States cannot afford the risk that McCain would die suddenly or not have the mental capacity to govern in the middle of an international crisis. God help us if Ms. Palin, who is not qualified or experienced, has to step up to divert a crisis. Nor can we afford the risk of dementia. 22% of Americans over 70 are affected by mild cognitive impairment, while 13% of Americans over 65 have Alzheimer's. Ronald Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimer's at age 83, but early signs were evident during his first term. Britain's Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher developed dementia at age 75. McCain has never had an Alzheimer's test, even though he has 6 of the 10 warning signs, including his inability to remember recent facts like the number of homes he owns, the $1M lawsuit he filed in 1990, the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, not reimbursing contributors for illegal trips or that Iraq is still a dangerous war zone. John McCain owes America the release of his Viet Nam War records and a thorough test for Alzheimer's and cognitive impairment long before Election Day. . America deserves answers and explanations to the 4 items questioned. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: McCain's Integrity
putting McCain and integrity in the same sentence just doesn't seem right ! kind of like putting fox and news or repulican and patriotic in the same sentence . they just don't go together ! On Sep 11, 4:45 am, mike532 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: McCain's Integrityhttp://www.truthout.org/article/mccains-integrity Editor's Note: Historically a John McCain supporter, conservative journalist and blogger Andrew Sullivan takes on the issue of John McCain's integrity as he strives to win the presidency. - vh/TO For me, this surreal moment - like the entire surrealism of the past ten days - is not really about Sarah Palin or Barack Obama or pigs or fish or lipstick. It's about John McCain. The one thing I always thought I knew about him is that he is a decent and honest person. When he knows, as every sane person must, that Obama did not in any conceivable sense mean that Sarah Palin is a pig, what did he do? Did he come out and say so and end this charade? Or did he acquiesce in and thereby enable the mindless Rovianism that is now the core feature of his campaign? So far, he has let us all down. My guess is he will continue to do so. And that decision, for my part, ends whatever respect I once had for him. On core moral issues, where this man knew what the right thing was, and had to pick between good and evil, he chose evil. When he knew that George W. Bush's war in Iraq was a fiasco and catastrophe, and before Donald Rumsfeld quit, McCain endorsed George W. Bush against his fellow Vietnam vet, John Kerry in 2004. By that decision, McCain lost any credibility that he can ever put country first. He put party first and his own career first ahead of what he knew was best for the country. And when the Senate and House voted overwhelmingly to condemn and end the torture regime of Bush and Cheney in 2006, McCain again had a clear choice between good and evil, and chose evil. He capitulated and enshrined torture as the policy of the United States, by allowing the CIA to use techniques as bad as and worse than the torture inflicted on him in Vietnam. He gave the war criminals in the White House retroactive immunity against the prosecution they so richly deserve. The enormity of this moral betrayal, this betrayal of his country's honor, has yet to sink in. But for my part, it now makes much more sense. He is not the man I thought he was. And when he had the chance to engage in a real and substantive debate against the most talented politician of the next generation in a fall campaign where vital issues are at stake, what did McCain do? He began his general campaign with a series of grotesque, trivial and absurd MTV-style attacks on Obama's virtues and implied disgusting things about his opponent's patriotism. And then, because he could see he was going to lose, ten days ago, he threw caution to the wind and with no vetting whatsoever, picked a woman who, by her decision to endure her own eight-month pregnancy of a Down Syndrome child in public, that he was going to reignite the culture war as a last stand against Obama. That's all that is happening right now: a massive bump in the enthusiasm of the Christianist base. This is pure Rove. Yes, McCain made a decision that revealed many appalling things about him. In the end, his final concern is not national security. No one who cares about national security would pick as vice-president someone who knows nothing about it as his replacement. No one who cares about this country's safety would gamble the security of the world on a total unknown because she polled well with the Christianist base. No person who truly believed that the surge was integral to this country's national security would pick as his veep candidate a woman who, so far as we can tell anything, opposed it at the time. McCain has demonstrated in the last two months that he does not have the character to be president of the United States. And that is why it is more important than ever to ensure that Barack Obama is the next president. The alternative is now unthinkable. And McCain - no one else - has proved it. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: McCain owes America Answers
bwahahahahahahahahaha another load of crap. funny though. always start the day with a good laugh On Sep 11, 6:31 am, mike532 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: McCain owes America Answershttp://www.democrats.com/node/17569 There is no way I could support McCain for president unless he is willing to 1) prove has the mental capacity to fulfill the term as president. The inexperienced VP candidate Palin does not have the experience to step in as president. McCain seems to already be showing signs of dementia. McCain does not seem to be in complete control of his mental facilities, he can not remember what he says from one day to the next. McCain either has dementia or is an outright liar. 2) McCain also needs to declassify all his records from the Viet Nam War era. I have a problem supporting a man who violated the military code of conduct and made 32 anti-American propaganda tapes for his captors.3) McCain needs to explain why he abandoned his disabled first wife for a younger, richer drug abusing woman. Can we trust McCain would not abandon our country's citizens needs to improve his own wealth and power. 4) McCain owes America a complete financial disclosure of his and Cindy's finances. What is he hiding keeping his war records classified and family finances secret? McCain's age is no joke. He is now 72 and would be halfway to 73 if elected and sworn in on January 20, 2009. That would make him the oldest first-term President ever, two years older than Ronald Reagan. Reagan developed dementia during his first term and was unable to function as president most days during his second term, with his condition kept secret from the public. McCain has survived four skin cancers (melanomas), including one in 2000 that was classified as Stage IIa. McCain is two years older than his father was when he died suddenly of a heart attack at 70. He is 11 years older than his grandfather was when he died suddenly of a heart attack at age 61. Now with his choice of the most inexperienced Vice Presidential candidate in history. Ms Palin a first term governor of the least populous state in the union, less residents than any of the100 largest cities in the nation. Her previous experience was one term as mayor of a city with less than 9,000 population! Can you imagine this inexperienced woman being taken serious in a crisis, negotiating with experienced leaders of Iran, Russia, Pakistan or North Korea? Ms. Palin can not even manage her own family, her 17 year old daughter is pregnant and unmarried. The United States cannot afford the risk that McCain would die suddenly or not have the mental capacity to govern in the middle of an international crisis. God help us if Ms. Palin, who is not qualified or experienced, has to step up to divert a crisis. Nor can we afford the risk of dementia. 22% of Americans over 70 are affected by mild cognitive impairment, while 13% of Americans over 65 have Alzheimer's. Ronald Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimer's at age 83, but early signs were evident during his first term. Britain's Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher developed dementia at age 75. McCain has never had an Alzheimer's test, even though he has 6 of the 10 warning signs, including his inability to remember recent facts like the number of homes he owns, the $1M lawsuit he filed in 1990, the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, not reimbursing contributors for illegal trips or that Iraq is still a dangerous war zone. John McCain owes America the release of his Viet Nam War records and a thorough test for Alzheimer's and cognitive impairment long before Election Day. . America deserves answers and explanations to the 4 items questioned. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Judges endorse coed restrooms Court says challenge to 'discrimination' ban failed because dead voters not represented
Maryland's highest court has endorsed Montgomery County's plans for coed restrooms and showers, concluding that a challenge to the new law had to fail because there were not enough signatures on the referendum petitions to represent dead voters. The organization has been fighting the law since it was adopted by the county board in 2007 in its campaign for nondiscrimination against individuals with gender identity issues. In that effort, the county failed to provide an exemption from the nondiscrimination law for locations of shared nudity, such as restaurant restrooms, community swimming pool shower rooms, and the like. Nor are there exemptions for religious organizations. The organization has been fighting the law since it was adopted by the county board in 2007 in its campaign for nondiscrimination against individuals with gender identity issues. In that effort, the county failed to provide an exemption from the nondiscrimination law for locations of shared nudity, such as restaurant restrooms, community swimming pool shower rooms, and the like. Nor are there exemptions for religious organizations. The opinion from the state Court of Appeals overturned a decision by a judge who found that voters should be allowed to determine the future of the discrimination ban. The reasoning by the high court was available only through comments made during the hearing, since the actual court order is a terse two-paragraph demand that the circuit court order be overturned and the reasons would be stated in an opinion later to be filed. Circuit Judge Robert A. Greenberg earlier had concluded that Bill 23-07, which was approved by the county board and signed into law by county executive Isiah Leggett, should be on the November ballot for voters, despite the wishes of Equality Maryland, an activist group for homosexuals, which did not want voters to have their say. But the higher court's ruling left its opponents stunned. The court ruled … that the [Board of Elections] should have included 'inactive voters' when calculating the number of signatures that were required to place the issue on the ballot. Months after the deadline for turning in signatures, the court increased the number of valid signatures required from 25,001 signatures to over 27,000, the organization said, including the emphasis in its prepared statement. Inactive voters are those who have failed to vote in two elections and have not responded to two letters from the government. Most are either dead or have moved out of state. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Why Feminists Fear Strong Women (THE BIG LIE)
the liberal women are obviously showing their dementia. Sarah is everything they have been screaming about for decades. a mother, with a successful career. a successful woman in a male dominated profession. oh wait I forgot, she is a conservative. that disqualifies her. silly me. my bad. On Sep 11, 6:50 am, mike532 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Goebbels and Prescott Bush's friend Hitler would have been proud of you for posting this rather obvious propoganda piece On Sep 11, 6:04 am, Cold Water [EMAIL PROTECTED] wro Why Feminists Fear Strong Women By James Lewis I assume John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential partner in a fit of pique because the Republican money men refused to let him have the stuffed male shirt he really wanted. She added nothing to the ticket that the Republicans didn't already have sewn up, the white trash vote, the demographic that sullies America's name ... yet has such a curious appeal for the right. That delicious tidbit comes from a Canadian feminist named Heather Mallick, who writes for the tax-funded Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Mallick is a career journalist for the CBC and other major Canadian media. She has decided to blame Governor Sarah Palin on the white trash vote -- because it's obvious that trash attracts trash. This just another little tribute from sneering, caterwauling, traditional-woman-hating feminists all over the Western world. (With the wonderful exception of Camille Paglia.) Aye, 'tis a grand sight to behold. Governor Sarah Palin is Everywoman -- she is your mother, your sister or your wife; even your grandmothers and great-grandmothers, going back generations. She is a normal strong, healthy woman. Just as in Lake Woebegon, in reality all normal women are strong. For decades we've been told that half the human population -- the female half -- are somehow weak, oppressed victims, who cannot handle the normal challenges of life. Those are not the women you or I know. Normal women are incredibly strong; that's how evolution, or if you prefer God, made them; they are hardly pushovers or pitiable weaklings. Weaklings perish over the generations. The strong survive. All too often modern women have been suckered and bamboozled by a lifetime of Leftist agitprop, which has turned their strengths into weaknesses. But it's 100% hogwash. Hillary Clinton has based her whole political career on the Myth of the Victimized Woman. Feminists who run our schools and colleges are always trying to push that story to naive students, just like the young Hillary of forty years ago, who was indoctrinated at Wellesley College. Even perfectly normal women have come to believe it. But ask yourself: How many weakling women have you ever known? I've known very few, and I suspect those few learned to behave that way for sympathy. Just put them on a jungle island and soon they'd be swinging through the trees like Jane of the Jungle. Weak women are a figment of the Left, just like weak black people or weak poor people. Those folks never used to be weaklings, until the media made them think they were. With the unanimous help of mainstream radio and TV you can talk yourself into feeling you're a victim of circumstances, just as under better influences you can talk yourself into feeling strong. But the media don't celebrate winners in life. (Wonder why?) Comes along Sarah Palin, a strong, joyous, normal woman, who doesn't mind it if the world knows who she is, and shatters the weakling stereotype just by being herself. What a blast! And the voters, who know from personal experience exactly how strong women really are, are just recognizing their mothers and sisters and aunts in Governor Palin. That's not white trash. It's not lipstick on a pig, as Obama wittily told his adoring audience a few days ago. It's normal, healthy behavior --- in fact, it's pretty much like Michelle Obama, who is also a strong woman (but bitterly angry, for some unfathomable reason). So why do Leftist feminists fear Sarah Palin? Because their personal ego-trips and their political power depend upon The Big Lie. Like all Leftists, feminists desperately need to feel superior to the rest of us. That makes them feel good about themselves. For some Lesbian feminists I've known there is another, even more personal feeling: An intense sense of sexual competition with men. If you believe that all men are evil abusers, Lesbians are the logical refuge for women. The edge of manic rage that marks a lot of feminism seems to owe quite a lot to sexual jealousy, one of the most destructive of human emotions. So there's a lot riding on the Myth of Female Weakness, from ego, to sexual passions, to deliberately cultivated group rage, to money and career ambitions. Without the Myth a rage-driven feminist like
On this anniversary of 9-11....
Let us remember: It has been 7 years, 2,557 days, since Osama bin Ladin launched attacks on the United States. And it has been 2551 days since George W. Bush said he'd catch Osama bin Ladin 'Dead or alive.' Bush said this September 17, 2001. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: McCain's Integrity
who writes this crap? looks like a bunch of monkeys pounding on a keyboard. obviously there is no intelligence behind this crap. On Sep 11, 6:54 am, mike532 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: putting McCain and integrity in the same sentence just doesn't seem right ! kind of like putting fox and news or repulican and patriotic in the same sentence . they just don't go together ! On Sep 11, 4:45 am, mike532 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: McCain's Integrityhttp://www.truthout.org/article/mccains-integrity Editor's Note: Historically a John McCain supporter, conservative journalist and blogger Andrew Sullivan takes on the issue of John McCain's integrity as he strives to win the presidency. - vh/TO For me, this surreal moment - like the entire surrealism of the past ten days - is not really about Sarah Palin or Barack Obama or pigs or fish or lipstick. It's about John McCain. The one thing I always thought I knew about him is that he is a decent and honest person. When he knows, as every sane person must, that Obama did not in any conceivable sense mean that Sarah Palin is a pig, what did he do? Did he come out and say so and end this charade? Or did he acquiesce in and thereby enable the mindless Rovianism that is now the core feature of his campaign? So far, he has let us all down. My guess is he will continue to do so. And that decision, for my part, ends whatever respect I once had for him. On core moral issues, where this man knew what the right thing was, and had to pick between good and evil, he chose evil. When he knew that George W. Bush's war in Iraq was a fiasco and catastrophe, and before Donald Rumsfeld quit, McCain endorsed George W. Bush against his fellow Vietnam vet, John Kerry in 2004. By that decision, McCain lost any credibility that he can ever put country first. He put party first and his own career first ahead of what he knew was best for the country. And when the Senate and House voted overwhelmingly to condemn and end the torture regime of Bush and Cheney in 2006, McCain again had a clear choice between good and evil, and chose evil. He capitulated and enshrined torture as the policy of the United States, by allowing the CIA to use techniques as bad as and worse than the torture inflicted on him in Vietnam. He gave the war criminals in the White House retroactive immunity against the prosecution they so richly deserve. The enormity of this moral betrayal, this betrayal of his country's honor, has yet to sink in. But for my part, it now makes much more sense. He is not the man I thought he was. And when he had the chance to engage in a real and substantive debate against the most talented politician of the next generation in a fall campaign where vital issues are at stake, what did McCain do? He began his general campaign with a series of grotesque, trivial and absurd MTV-style attacks on Obama's virtues and implied disgusting things about his opponent's patriotism. And then, because he could see he was going to lose, ten days ago, he threw caution to the wind and with no vetting whatsoever, picked a woman who, by her decision to endure her own eight-month pregnancy of a Down Syndrome child in public, that he was going to reignite the culture war as a last stand against Obama. That's all that is happening right now: a massive bump in the enthusiasm of the Christianist base. This is pure Rove. Yes, McCain made a decision that revealed many appalling things about him. In the end, his final concern is not national security. No one who cares about national security would pick as vice-president someone who knows nothing about it as his replacement. No one who cares about this country's safety would gamble the security of the world on a total unknown because she polled well with the Christianist base. No person who truly believed that the surge was integral to this country's national security would pick as his veep candidate a woman who, so far as we can tell anything, opposed it at the time. McCain has demonstrated in the last two months that he does not have the character to be president of the United States. And that is why it is more important than ever to ensure that Barack Obama is the next president. The alternative is now unthinkable. And McCain - no one else - has proved it. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Is McCain's on the edge of dementia ?
McCain is just fine, but you murky, and your lib idiots are suffering from severe mental deficiency. seek help. On Sep 11, 6:22 am, mike532 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is McCain's on the edge of dementia ? Facts:http://current.com/items/89175202_mccain_s_on_the_edge_of_dementia (1) McCain is nearly 72 (2) His recently released medical records say nothing about his mental condition (3) Almost all men of his age show significant slowing of their mental faculties (4) He's showing apparently diagnostically significant signs of dementia or some similar condition - see after the fold (5) The MSM and the establishment seem to be happy to push a guy into the WH who probably isn't fit on mental health grounds to complete one term And I didn't even mention the fact that most forms of dementia are accompanied by a tendency toward irascibility and loss of emotional self-control --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: McCain's Integrity
if you can dispute anything sulivan said go ahead and do it . On Sep 11, 7:34 am, mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: who writes this crap? looks like a bunch of monkeys pounding on a keyboard. obviously there is no intelligence behind this crap. On Sep 11, 6:54 am, mike532 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: putting McCain and integrity in the same sentence just doesn't seem right ! kind of like putting fox and news or repulican and patriotic in the same sentence . they just don't go together ! On Sep 11, 4:45 am, mike532 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: McCain's Integrityhttp://www.truthout.org/article/mccains-integrity Editor's Note: Historically a John McCain supporter, conservative journalist and blogger Andrew Sullivan takes on the issue of John McCain's integrity as he strives to win the presidency. - vh/TO For me, this surreal moment - like the entire surrealism of the past ten days - is not really about Sarah Palin or Barack Obama or pigs or fish or lipstick. It's about John McCain. The one thing I always thought I knew about him is that he is a decent and honest person. When he knows, as every sane person must, that Obama did not in any conceivable sense mean that Sarah Palin is a pig, what did he do? Did he come out and say so and end this charade? Or did he acquiesce in and thereby enable the mindless Rovianism that is now the core feature of his campaign? So far, he has let us all down. My guess is he will continue to do so. And that decision, for my part, ends whatever respect I once had for him. On core moral issues, where this man knew what the right thing was, and had to pick between good and evil, he chose evil. When he knew that George W. Bush's war in Iraq was a fiasco and catastrophe, and before Donald Rumsfeld quit, McCain endorsed George W. Bush against his fellow Vietnam vet, John Kerry in 2004. By that decision, McCain lost any credibility that he can ever put country first. He put party first and his own career first ahead of what he knew was best for the country. And when the Senate and House voted overwhelmingly to condemn and end the torture regime of Bush and Cheney in 2006, McCain again had a clear choice between good and evil, and chose evil. He capitulated and enshrined torture as the policy of the United States, by allowing the CIA to use techniques as bad as and worse than the torture inflicted on him in Vietnam. He gave the war criminals in the White House retroactive immunity against the prosecution they so richly deserve. The enormity of this moral betrayal, this betrayal of his country's honor, has yet to sink in. But for my part, it now makes much more sense. He is not the man I thought he was. And when he had the chance to engage in a real and substantive debate against the most talented politician of the next generation in a fall campaign where vital issues are at stake, what did McCain do? He began his general campaign with a series of grotesque, trivial and absurd MTV-style attacks on Obama's virtues and implied disgusting things about his opponent's patriotism. And then, because he could see he was going to lose, ten days ago, he threw caution to the wind and with no vetting whatsoever, picked a woman who, by her decision to endure her own eight-month pregnancy of a Down Syndrome child in public, that he was going to reignite the culture war as a last stand against Obama. That's all that is happening right now: a massive bump in the enthusiasm of the Christianist base. This is pure Rove. Yes, McCain made a decision that revealed many appalling things about him. In the end, his final concern is not national security. No one who cares about national security would pick as vice-president someone who knows nothing about it as his replacement. No one who cares about this country's safety would gamble the security of the world on a total unknown because she polled well with the Christianist base. No person who truly believed that the surge was integral to this country's national security would pick as his veep candidate a woman who, so far as we can tell anything, opposed it at the time. McCain has demonstrated in the last two months that he does not have the character to be president of the United States. And that is why it is more important than ever to ensure that Barack Obama is the next president. The alternative is now unthinkable. And McCain - no one else - has proved it.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news,
Re: Surprise! Palin Investigators Are Obamatrons
what speaks volumes is plain trying to block this investigation . On Sep 11, 7:21 am, mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: so what. when the 2 top investigators are nobama boys, and refuse to step down. it speaks volumes about the impartiality of them. we all know the outcome of this witch hunt. kinda like the trials in the old south with a negro being tried by a jury of white men. the lynching is inevitable. On Sep 11, 4:49 am, mike532 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sean you are wasting your time the three stooges never let facts get in the way of a good lie . On Sep 11, 3:21 am, VT Sean Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The investigation began before she was nominated, try again, do a little research before posting such BS. This Lie was so superficial I could use it for a window pane. On Sep 10, 8:58 pm, mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In yet another indication of their desperation, Democrats are trying to concoct a scandal out of Sarah Palin's having fired Walt Monegan, who used his office to protect a deranged State Trooper best known for blasting a 10-year-old with a Taser. you need to go to the website to see the picture referred to The man overseeing the investigation, Sen. Hollis French, is the bald guy near the back (fifth from left, by the Obama '08 posters). Any doubts about this hack's objectivity yet? Well, it gets better. Last week, for obvious reasons, Rep. John Coghill asked the Alaska Legislative Council to remove French from the probe. Coghill's request was rejected: On Monday, the head of the Legislative Council turned down his request. Democratic Sen. Kim Elton responded that he is sure that partisan politics can be kept out of the probe. You know what's coming, right? Senator Elton is also in the picture. He's the tall bearded guy on the far left (ahem) of the photo. Thankfully, it looks like Obama's campaign will go down like the Hindenburg. But The One can console himself with the knowledge that even so, he has left his mark on America, by spreading Chicago-style politics all the way to Alaska. http://www.moonbattery.com/-Hidequoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
girlie men libs are afraid of Sarah
these neutered so called men are scared of her because she is tougher than they are. and the masculine lib women hate her because she is more of a woman than they are. poor little libbers just can't win. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: On this anniversary of 9-11....
and it has been 7 tears without another attack on our soil from the muslim animals. pretty damn good, eh? On Sep 11, 6:54 am, doctoroe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let us remember: It has been 7 years, 2,557 days, since Osama bin Ladin launched attacks on the United States. And it has been 2551 days since George W. Bush said he'd catch Osama bin Ladin 'Dead or alive.' Bush said this September 17, 2001. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Is McCain's on the edge of dementia ?
look at his videos during the debates and look at him today . he is a sick man ! On Sep 11, 7:40 am, mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: McCain is just fine, but you murky, and your lib idiots are suffering from severe mental deficiency. seek help. On Sep 11, 6:22 am, mike532 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is McCain's on the edge of dementia ? Facts:http://current.com/items/89175202_mccain_s_on_the_edge_of_dementia (1) McCain is nearly 72 (2) His recently released medical records say nothing about his mental condition (3) Almost all men of his age show significant slowing of their mental faculties (4) He's showing apparently diagnostically significant signs of dementia or some similar condition - see after the fold (5) The MSM and the establishment seem to be happy to push a guy into the WH who probably isn't fit on mental health grounds to complete one term And I didn't even mention the fact that most forms of dementia are accompanied by a tendency toward irascibility and loss of emotional self-control- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Obama's museum earmarks draw fire
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama tried to direct more than $3 million in taxpayer funds to a Chicago museum whose chairman is one of the Illinois senator's largest campaign fundraisers. Mr. Obama has twice since fiscal 2006 sought to have taxpayers foot the bill for a new theater projector and other equipment at the Adler Planetarium on the Lake Michigan waterfront. Neither of the requests, which totaled $3.3 million, was approved by Congress, the museum said. The planetarium's chairman, then and still, is Frank Clark, chief executive of ComEd, a unit of Chicago-based Exelon Energy. He has pledged to raise more than $200,000 for Mr. Obama's run for the White House. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Is McCain's on the edge of dementia ?
seek help murky. put the bottle down, and seek help before you hurt some one. On Sep 11, 8:34 am, mike532 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: there are none so blind as those who will not see ! On Sep 11, 8:23 am, mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: seek help murky On Sep 11, 7:54 am, mike532 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: look at his videos during the debates and look at him today . he is a sick man ! On Sep 11, 7:40 am, mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: McCain is just fine, but you murky, and your lib idiots are suffering from severe mental deficiency. seek help. On Sep 11, 6:22 am, mike532 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is McCain's on the edge of dementia ? Facts:http://current.com/items/89175202_mccain_s_on_the_edge_of_dementia (1) McCain is nearly 72 (2) His recently released medical records say nothing about his mental condition (3) Almost all men of his age show significant slowing of their mental faculties (4) He's showing apparently diagnostically significant signs of dementia or some similar condition - see after the fold (5) The MSM and the establishment seem to be happy to push a guy into the WH who probably isn't fit on mental health grounds to complete one term And I didn't even mention the fact that most forms of dementia are accompanied by a tendency toward irascibility and loss of emotional self-control- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
London Times: What Sarah Palin Tells Us About Obama
[Q] - The character question it raises is not that he is a sexist or that he lacks courtesy. It is that he folds under pressure. Obama has looked amazingly uncomfortable under the pressure that Palin has put him under. He relies on his cool - it is a core part of his appeal. So he looks bad when he loses it. During the Hillary contest he rarely came under any pressure from the media. When he did he reacted badly. - http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2008/09/here-are-a-few.html --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: McCain's Integrity
mark be careful you are talking the founder of the log cabin republicans and long time supporter of bush Andrew Sullivan ! On Sep 11, 8:37 am, mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: how many times must I tell you murky, it is a waste of time to dispute the ravings of a demented, warped, sick mind. these posts of yours were written by the sick, and demented mind of a seck person in need of serious help. On Sep 11, 7:41 am, mike532 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: if you can dispute anything sulivan said go ahead and do it . On Sep 11, 7:34 am, mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: who writes this crap? looks like a bunch of monkeys pounding on a keyboard. obviously there is no intelligence behind this crap. On Sep 11, 6:54 am, mike532 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: putting McCain and integrity in the same sentence just doesn't seem right ! kind of like putting fox and news or repulican and patriotic in the same sentence . they just don't go together ! On Sep 11, 4:45 am, mike532 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: McCain's Integrityhttp://www.truthout.org/article/mccains-integrity Editor's Note: Historically a John McCain supporter, conservative journalist and blogger Andrew Sullivan takes on the issue of John McCain's integrity as he strives to win the presidency. - vh/TO For me, this surreal moment - like the entire surrealism of the past ten days - is not really about Sarah Palin or Barack Obama or pigs or fish or lipstick. It's about John McCain. The one thing I always thought I knew about him is that he is a decent and honest person. When he knows, as every sane person must, that Obama did not in any conceivable sense mean that Sarah Palin is a pig, what did he do? Did he come out and say so and end this charade? Or did he acquiesce in and thereby enable the mindless Rovianism that is now the core feature of his campaign? So far, he has let us all down. My guess is he will continue to do so. And that decision, for my part, ends whatever respect I once had for him. On core moral issues, where this man knew what the right thing was, and had to pick between good and evil, he chose evil. When he knew that George W. Bush's war in Iraq was a fiasco and catastrophe, and before Donald Rumsfeld quit, McCain endorsed George W. Bush against his fellow Vietnam vet, John Kerry in 2004. By that decision, McCain lost any credibility that he can ever put country first. He put party first and his own career first ahead of what he knew was best for the country. And when the Senate and House voted overwhelmingly to condemn and end the torture regime of Bush and Cheney in 2006, McCain again had a clear choice between good and evil, and chose evil. He capitulated and enshrined torture as the policy of the United States, by allowing the CIA to use techniques as bad as and worse than the torture inflicted on him in Vietnam. He gave the war criminals in the White House retroactive immunity against the prosecution they so richly deserve. The enormity of this moral betrayal, this betrayal of his country's honor, has yet to sink in. But for my part, it now makes much more sense. He is not the man I thought he was. And when he had the chance to engage in a real and substantive debate against the most talented politician of the next generation in a fall campaign where vital issues are at stake, what did McCain do? He began his general campaign with a series of grotesque, trivial and absurd MTV-style attacks on Obama's virtues and implied disgusting things about his opponent's patriotism. And then, because he could see he was going to lose, ten days ago, he threw caution to the wind and with no vetting whatsoever, picked a woman who, by her decision to endure her own eight-month pregnancy of a Down Syndrome child in public, that he was going to reignite the culture war as a last stand against Obama. That's all that is happening right now: a massive bump in the enthusiasm of the Christianist base. This is pure Rove. Yes, McCain made a decision that revealed many appalling things about him. In the end, his final concern is not national security. No one who cares about national security would pick as vice-president someone who knows nothing about it as his replacement. No one who cares about this country's safety would gamble the security of the world on a total unknown because she polled well with the Christianist base. No person who truly believed that the surge was integral to this country's national security would pick as his veep candidate a woman who, so far as we can tell anything, opposed it at the time. McCain has demonstrated in the last two months that he does not have the character to be
Re: A judge repeatedly told Palin and family not to badmouth her sister's ex
when did false accusations and slander become free speech ? On Sep 11, 9:31 am, Gaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So the Judge attempted to subvert their Right's to Free Speech, and you are proud of that? On Sep 11, 2:57 am, mike532 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A judge repeatedly told Palin and family not to badmouth her sister's exhttp://www.newsweek.com/id/158140 An Anchorage judge three years ago warned Sarah Palin and members of her family to stop disparaging the reputation of Alaska State Trooper Michael Wooten, who at the time was undergoing a bitter separation and divorce from Palin's sister Molly. Allegations that Palin, her husband Todd, and at least one top gubernatorial aide continued to vilify Wooten—after Palin became Alaska's governor and pressured state police officials to take action against him—are at the center of Troopergate, a political and ethical controversy which has embroiled Palin's administration and is currently the subject of an official inquiry by a special investigator hired by the state legislature. Court records obtained by NEWSWEEK show that during the course of divorce hearings three years ago, Judge John Suddock heard testimony from an official of the Alaska State Troopers' union about how Sarah Palin—then a private citizen—and members of her family, including her father and daughter, lodged up to a dozen complaints against Wooten with the state police. The union official told the judge that he had never before been asked to appear as a divorce-case witness, that the union believed family complaints against Wooten were not job- related, and that Wooten was being harassed by Palin and other family members. Court documents show that Judge Suddock was disturbed by the alleged attacks by Palin and her family members on Wooten's behavior and character. Disparaging will not be tolerated—it is a form of child abuse, the judge told a settlement hearing in October 2005, according to typed notes of the proceedings. The judge added: Relatives cannot disparage either. If occurs [sic] the parent needs to set boundaries for their relatives. A spokesperson for the law firm that represented Palin's sister, now known as Molly Hackett, said Hackett's lawyer would have no comment because custody issues are still in litigation. Other lawyers representing Sarah Palin in connection with the state legislative investigation—which is examining whether she abused her powers as governor in trying to have Wooten fired or disciplined—had no immediate comment. Palin's official gubernatorial spokeswoman did not respond to e-mails and a phone message requesting comment. Wooten's lawyer also did not respond to messages requesting comment. John Cyr, executive director of the State Troopers union, who testified at the divorce hearing and is acting as Wooten's spokesman, said Wooten has avoided giving media interviews because he wants to avoid criticizing his former relatives (to date, Wooten has granted just one interview, to CNN). As the divorce case dragged on, the judge's concern about family disparagement appeared to deepen. In an order signed Jan. 31, 2006, which granted Palin's sister and Wooten a final divorce decree, Judge Suddock continued to express concern about attacks by Palin's family on Wooten. The judge even threatened to curb Palin's sister's child custody rights if family criticism of Wooten continued. In monitoring how a joint-custody arrangement worked out, the judge said in his order that he would pay particular attention to problems noted by a custody investigator, specifically the disparagement of the father [Wooten] by the mother [Molly Hackett, Sarah Palin's sister] and her family members.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: New Editon of NATIONAL ENQUIRER is LOADED with new Palin information!
PA, candidates' family are not political ammunition. It is you leading the demand here for the failed old ways of politics of personal destruction...Are you proof the Obama is really about POLITICS AS USUAL??? On Sep 10, 4:15 pm, PoliticalAmazon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: LOL. What's wrong? Have nothing to say about your Sarah and her drug- abusing kids? Attacking the poster and not the contents of the post is a sure sign of an impotent poster. Palin's claim that running her family makes the case for her being VP falls flat on its face, because if she ran the counrty like she's ran her family, she would run it straight into the ground. --- On Sep 10, 1:07 pm, jgg1000a [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PA is one of these angry extremeist religious nutcases Hollywood talks about... Smear like a duck, Quack like a duck, drive-by-smears like a duck... Opps my bad, the LW CAN NOT BE EXTREMEIST They are always reasoned and logical and never would be sexist, right??? On Sep 10, 3:41 pm, mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: yawn On Sep 10, 3:33 pm, PoliticalAmazon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.nationalenquirer.com/_palin_family_shockers_what_sarahs_re... *OH MY! National Enquirer's teaser sheet on this week's publication: *OxyContin addiction of Track for 2 years...snorting, eating, smoking and injecting it. *Other drugs used by Track. *Palin banished Bristol from the house when she was found to be pregnat. *Bristol's history of heavy partying and drug use, reported to be as bad as Track's. *Levi isn't so happy about the shotgun wedding, and for good cause: He and Bristol have broken up several times and she has been with many other guys. *New details about the red-hot affair scandal! Look at how she has botched her family. And the GOP wants to put this loon within a breath of the Oval Office? (BEGIN QUOTE) PALIN FAMILY SHOCKERS: WHAT SARAH'S REALLY HIDING! The NATIONAL ENQUIRER’S exclusive ongoing investigation of GOP VP Nom Sarah 'Barracuda' Palin’s goes far beyond a mere teen pregnancy crisis this week! The Enquirer’s team of reporters has combed the Alaskan wilderness to discover the hidden truth about Gov. Palin’s family, which has become a central part of political identity. The ENQUIRER has learned exclusively that Sarah's oldest son, Track, was addicted to the power drug OxyContin for nearly the past two years, snorting it, eating it, smoking it and even injecting it. And as Track, 19, heads to Iraq as part of the U.S. armed forces, Sarah and her husband Todd were powerless to stop his wild antics, detailed in the new issue of The ENQUIRER, which goes on sale today. THE ENQUIRER also has exclusive details about Track's use of other drugs, including cocaine, and his involvement in a notorious local vandalism incident. “I’ve partied with him (Track) for years,” a source disclosed. “I’ve seen him snort cocaine, snort and smoke OxyContin, drink booze and smoke weed.” The source also divulged the girls would do anything for Track and he’d use his local celebrity to manipulate other guys “to get them to steal things he wanted.” “He finally did what a lot of troubled kids here do,” the source divulged. “You join the military.” And as Gov. Palin has billed the state of Alaska for various expenses related to her children, as reported by The Washington Post, The ENQUIRER's investigation reveals that she was so incensed by 17-year- old Bristol's pregnancy that she banished her daughter from the house. Another family friend revealed pre-prego Bristol was as much of a hard partier as Track was. “Bristol was a huge stoner and drinker. I’ve seen her smoke pot and get drunk and make out with so many guys. All the guys would brag that the just made out with Bristol.” When Sarah found out the teen was pregnant by high schooler Levi Johnston, she was actually banished from the house. As part of the cover-up, Palin quickly transferred Bristol to another high school and made her move in with Sarah’s sister Heather 25 miles away! And the ENQUIRER also learned that Levi Johnston, the baby mamma’s future wedded dada, who was glad handed by John McCain at the GOP Convention, isn’t too happy about his impending shotgun nups either. “Levi got dragged out of the house to go to Minnesota,” Levi’s friend told The ENQUIRER. “Levi realizes he’s stuck being with Bristol because her mom is running for Vice President.” The friend also confided that both Bristol and Levi “broke up a few times and they definitely messed around with other people.” Meanwhile, as members of the Palin family’s war viciously over “Trooper-Gate” and claims of Sarah’s extramarital affair have turned the political race into a chaotic
Re: Sarah Palin
Can you even tell me the difference between the English/Scotish Enlightenment and the Continental Enlightenment??? Please get a clue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Reason Although misleading in many ways, this simplification has continued to be used to this day, especially when writing about the 17th and 18th centuries. The three main Rationalists are normally taken to have been Descartes, Baruch Spinoza, and Gottfried Leibniz. Building upon their English predecessors Francis Bacon and Thomas Hobbes, the three main Empiricists were John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume. The former were distinguished by the belief that, in principle (though not in practice), all knowledge can be gained by the power of our reason alone; the latter rejected this, believing that all knowledge has to come through the senses, from experience. Thus the Rationalists took mathematics as their model for knowledge, and the Empiricists took the physical sciences. Locke, Hume, and Berkeley were grounded in Deism and that root was a foundation that ONLY IN PRINCIPLE could all knowledge be discerned by reason... This allowed for assumption as inalienable rights not subject to man or government... Read the French version, in it it is government the decides what the rights are and then enforces them or not... The American version assumes they come from a higher place which man nor government can alter... In the French version, the ultimate protector of the people is the government -- In America it is the people themselves... These are two very different assumption that have profound consequences... Until you can comprehend this, you will see America as a Europe gone astray...To be honest many Americans see Europe as betraying their own ideas... They are in fact related civilizations, while born from the same pre Reformation heritage, our divergence in paths have create two distinct civilizations... Moslems can understand America better the Europe precisely because we have retained our religious roots... The US in the 60's saw it only mass European Radical movement (Europe has has many since 1789)... That European Radicalism has largely failed here in the US (just as European style labor unions failed to take root either in the 19th or 20th centuries)... It is that failure that our Democratic Left does not understand today... On Sep 11, 3:55 am, creusa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sir when you have come to understand European history, the enlightenment and its subsequest effects properly, I will discuss this with you gain. I am not here to give you a history lesson and clarly you have been educated by a system which is not only biased but incorrect. I suggest a three year stay in Europe so that you will stop making such silly remarks. creusa On Sep 10, 7:03 pm, jgg1000a [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The enlightenment was rational...it was the supremacy of reason. Not something you have maintained. Go read the Scotiish Enlightenment writers (Locke, Hume, Berkley) ... You will find that they advocated human rights were inalienable precisely because those rights came from a higher and unknowable power than rational man... Don't be silly...France was Roman Catholic. The French Enlightenment spawned Karl Marx and his like... It saw rationalism as self defining truth separate from faith... The English Enlightenment was quite the opposite... Nonsense. WE have our problems but we don't HATE them as I have seen expressed here...in fact wehave a far greatertolerance for muslims than it seems Ameicans have for their black citizens since it is this which is making Obama's victory so difficult. Hatred? You have only had Civil /Human Rights here for 45 years. What BS... It is clear you believe in the myths MSM force fed you... Would France serious consider a North Africa for President??? After all the Moslem population in France is roughly that of AA in the US... Would Germany consider a Turk for PM??? Would Britian consider a Black Indian Brit for PM??? Until Europeans are willing to give a member of a 14% minority the highest office in the land, then tell me about America's human rights... That is why Europe is so keen to see Obama elected...we know he is more in tune with the way the rest of the world thinks. AMERICA IS NOT EUROPE While European settlers dominated from 1700 to today, we have quite a different culture understanding -- one that allows for multi-culturalism within a relate civil polity... Europe is still rift with the problems of ethnic based nationalities and a mere 50 years ended a 40 year world-wide European Civil War that showed the European underbelly of totalitarianism that one still sees in conflicts in Kosovo and Georgia... Thank god European can not vote in the US... I suspect Germans fell the same way about Turks not being able to vote in German elections, I
Re: NEWSWEEK's article on TROOPERGATE: Palin and family violated court order!
The Report was release with Wooten's approval... Unless you can show why it should not be trusted, I will go with it... On Sep 10, 6:51 pm, PoliticalAmazon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can't speak to that. I can only speak to what te judge said. Since Palin and her family violated the court's order and continued to harass Wooten, maybe the moosie thing happened after the judge's statement? Or the judge, being an Alaskan himself, knows that if they kept custody rights out of the hands of everyone who shot an animal using someone else's tag, there'd be no custody rights granted in the state? It is a fairly common practice, from what I understand. Just guessing. --- On Sep 10, 2:08 pm, jgg1000a [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So the State Trooper report lied, right??? As Wooten admitted he Tasered his step-son and Wooten being suspended for shooting the moose, it seems atleast 2 of the findings in the Troopers were true -- NOT ONE AS YOU CLAIM... You have lost it PA when you label Palin as a child abuser... On Sep 10, 4:13 pm, PoliticalAmazon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The judge found only ONE of Sarah Palins and her family's accusations against Wooten to be of merit. ONE. Sarah Palin herself was convicted of POACHING by illegally using a drift-net while fishing. Sorry, poaching is much more serious than using one's spouse's tag to bag a moose. You will note that Wooten didn't harrass Sarah Palin and her family for Palins' kids being huge drug users, including injecting drugs, and Track's participation an attempt to kill school children by participating in vandalism of buses by cutting their brake lines. The Palins and her family should not be allowed to be around children. Who knows what Track or Bristol would do in their drug- induced frenzies? Who knows what the kids would witness with Sarah and her multiple boyfrieds? By the judge's definiion, Sarah Palin is a child abuser. SHE should not be around children, that's for sure. - On Sep 10, 1:01 pm, jgg1000a [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please get your facts straight, even if Newsweek does sloppy reporting.. The State Troopers did in fact find Wooten Tasared his step-son, did drive while Drinking Beer while on duty, and did shoot that Moose... So when Newsweek says The Palins later raised allegations about Wooten They are misreporting the facts and lying... Who says so??? The Alaska State Troopers investigation... http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24325497-5012748,00.html http://www.adn.com/politics/story/476430.html Wooten recently gave his union permission to release the entire investigative file, all 482 pages and hours of recorded interviews. The record clearly indicates a serious and concentrated pattern of unacceptable and at times, illegal activity occurring over a lengthy period, which establishes a course of conduct totally at odds with the ethics of our profession, Col. Julia Grimes, then head of Alaska State Troopers, wrote in March 1, 2006, letter suspending Wooten for 10 days. After the union protested it, the suspension was reduced to five days. She warned that if he messed up again, he'd be fired. This discipline is meant to be a last chance to take corrective action, Grimes wrote. You are hereby given notice that any further occurrences of these types of behaviors or incidents will not be tolerated and will result in your termination. It's nearly impossible to know whether other complaints have come in about Wooten in the last two years. His personnel file is confidential. But the fact he remains on the force is an indication that he hasn't had the sort of trouble that Grimes warned against. Grimes declined to comment, as did various troopers involved in the investigation. '... NOT WITHOUT A BLEMISH' As the investigation got under way in 2005, Wooten was in the midst of a bitter divorce from Palin's sister, Molly McCann. The couple was fighting over custody of their two young children. Accusations flew from both sides. Troopers eventually investigated 13 issues and found four in which Wooten violated policy or broke the law or both: • Wooten used a Taser on his stepson. • He illegally shot a moose. • He drank beer in his patrol car on one occasion. • He told others his father-in-law would eat a f'ing lead bullet if he helped his daughter get an attorney for the divorce. Beyond the investigation sparked by the family, trooper commanders saw cause to discipline or give written instructions to correct Wooten seven times since he joined the force, according to Grimes' letter to Wooten. Those incidents included: a reprimand in January 2004 for negligent damage to a state vehicle; a January 2005 instruction after being
Re: A judge repeatedly told Palin and family not to badmouth her sister's ex
Except the State Troopers found these claim to be TRUE... On Sep 11, 9:47 am, mike532 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: when did false accusations and slander become free speech ? On Sep 11, 9:31 am, Gaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So the Judge attempted to subvert their Right's to Free Speech, and you are proud of that? On Sep 11, 2:57 am, mike532 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A judge repeatedly told Palin and family not to badmouth her sister's exhttp://www.newsweek.com/id/158140 An Anchorage judge three years ago warned Sarah Palin and members of her family to stop disparaging the reputation of Alaska State Trooper Michael Wooten, who at the time was undergoing a bitter separation and divorce from Palin's sister Molly. Allegations that Palin, her husband Todd, and at least one top gubernatorial aide continued to vilify Wooten—after Palin became Alaska's governor and pressured state police officials to take action against him—are at the center of Troopergate, a political and ethical controversy which has embroiled Palin's administration and is currently the subject of an official inquiry by a special investigator hired by the state legislature. Court records obtained by NEWSWEEK show that during the course of divorce hearings three years ago, Judge John Suddock heard testimony from an official of the Alaska State Troopers' union about how Sarah Palin—then a private citizen—and members of her family, including her father and daughter, lodged up to a dozen complaints against Wooten with the state police. The union official told the judge that he had never before been asked to appear as a divorce-case witness, that the union believed family complaints against Wooten were not job- related, and that Wooten was being harassed by Palin and other family members. Court documents show that Judge Suddock was disturbed by the alleged attacks by Palin and her family members on Wooten's behavior and character. Disparaging will not be tolerated—it is a form of child abuse, the judge told a settlement hearing in October 2005, according to typed notes of the proceedings. The judge added: Relatives cannot disparage either. If occurs [sic] the parent needs to set boundaries for their relatives. A spokesperson for the law firm that represented Palin's sister, now known as Molly Hackett, said Hackett's lawyer would have no comment because custody issues are still in litigation. Other lawyers representing Sarah Palin in connection with the state legislative investigation—which is examining whether she abused her powers as governor in trying to have Wooten fired or disciplined—had no immediate comment. Palin's official gubernatorial spokeswoman did not respond to e-mails and a phone message requesting comment. Wooten's lawyer also did not respond to messages requesting comment. John Cyr, executive director of the State Troopers union, who testified at the divorce hearing and is acting as Wooten's spokesman, said Wooten has avoided giving media interviews because he wants to avoid criticizing his former relatives (to date, Wooten has granted just one interview, to CNN). As the divorce case dragged on, the judge's concern about family disparagement appeared to deepen. In an order signed Jan. 31, 2006, which granted Palin's sister and Wooten a final divorce decree, Judge Suddock continued to express concern about attacks by Palin's family on Wooten. The judge even threatened to curb Palin's sister's child custody rights if family criticism of Wooten continued. In monitoring how a joint-custody arrangement worked out, the judge said in his order that he would pay particular attention to problems noted by a custody investigator, specifically the disparagement of the father [Wooten] by the mother [Molly Hackett, Sarah Palin's sister] and her family members.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Swift fires 100 Muslim workers
THIS COUNTRY HAS LOST IT'S MARBLES How about all Roman Catholics decide to take each morning off to go to Mass for a couple of hours All Jews Can Take off Fridays to prepare for the Sabbath The whole country shuts down on Sundays so they can attend church Why are we bending over for the Muslims When is Sharia Law going to take effect Screw our Justice citizens If I am a Muslim and want to have sex with a Nine year old If I want to kill my daughter for wearing makeup if I want to have Four wives Who the fu*k are you to tell me otherwise On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 9:19 AM, d.b.baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Q] - More than 100 Muslim workers were fired from a Greeley slaughterhouse today after refusing to report for work a day earlier in protest of the company's refusal to allow a prayer break during the work shift. Another 120 workers — most of them Somalis — broke ranks with the protesters, went back to work Tuesday and kept their jobs, JBS Swift Co. officials said in a statement. - http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_10431487 -- May the SCHWARTZ be with you --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Defeating AQ is more important than killing OBL
But many will demand OBL death rather than defeating AQ http://townhall.com/columnists/AustinBay/2008/09/10/bin_ladens_slow_rot?page=2 On Oct. 1, 2006, StrategyPage.com argued that dead Iraqis were killing al-Qaida. ... Westerners, unless they observe Arab media closely, and have contacts inside the Arab world, will not have noted this sharp drop in al-Qaida's fortunes. Al-Qaida's malignant message still dupes some young Muslim men. Nineteenth and early 20th century militant anarchist tracts still appeal to violent killers like the Unabomber. Rock music critics and late-night TV cable talk show hosts toy with anarchist tropes. Bin Laden still has gangsta appeal, but mere survival was not his goal. If bin Laden had been killed in Afghanistan in 2001, the United States would be combating a myth and a legend. Instead of caliphate, bin Laden has produced his own catastrophe. The bin Laden icon is seriously fractured, if not quite shattered. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: On this anniversary of 9-11....
mark, Why do you people seem to think that if George Bush argueably has done ONE thing right that it is unfair, wrong or even unpatriotic to point out any fuck-ups? Why is that? On Sep 11, 6:47 am, mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: and it has been 7 tears without another attack on our soil from the muslim animals. pretty damn good, eh? On Sep 11, 6:54 am, doctoroe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let us remember: It has been 7 years, 2,557 days, since Osama bin Ladin launched attacks on the United States. And it has been 2551 days since George W. Bush said he'd catch Osama bin Ladin 'Dead or alive.' Bush said this September 17, 2001.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Defeating AQ is more important than killing OBL
jgg, How about defeating AQ AND killing or capturing OBL? Anyone here suggest it's an either/or situation? On Sep 11, 9:21 am, jgg1000a [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But many will demand OBL death rather than defeating AQ http://townhall.com/columnists/AustinBay/2008/09/10/bin_ladens_slow_r... On Oct. 1, 2006, StrategyPage.com argued that dead Iraqis were killing al-Qaida. ... Westerners, unless they observe Arab media closely, and have contacts inside the Arab world, will not have noted this sharp drop in al-Qaida's fortunes. Al-Qaida's malignant message still dupes some young Muslim men. Nineteenth and early 20th century militant anarchist tracts still appeal to violent killers like the Unabomber. Rock music critics and late-night TV cable talk show hosts toy with anarchist tropes. Bin Laden still has gangsta appeal, but mere survival was not his goal. If bin Laden had been killed in Afghanistan in 2001, the United States would be combating a myth and a legend. Instead of caliphate, bin Laden has produced his own catastrophe. The bin Laden icon is seriously fractured, if not quite shattered. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Swift fires 100 Muslim workers
Magna, Dude, they were fired for not showing up for work, what more do you want? Relax. On Sep 11, 9:18 am, Magna Verse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: THIS COUNTRY HAS LOST IT'S MARBLES How about all Roman Catholics decide to take each morning off to go to Mass for a couple of hours All Jews Can Take off Fridays to prepare for the Sabbath The whole country shuts down on Sundays so they can attend church Why are we bending over for the Muslims When is Sharia Law going to take effect Screw our Justice citizens If I am a Muslim and want to have sex with a Nine year old If I want to kill my daughter for wearing makeup if I want to have Four wives Who the fu*k are you to tell me otherwise On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 9:19 AM, d.b.baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Q] - More than 100 Muslim workers were fired from a Greeley slaughterhouse today after refusing to report for work a day earlier in protest of the company's refusal to allow a prayer break during the work shift. Another 120 workers — most of them Somalis — broke ranks with the protesters, went back to work Tuesday and kept their jobs, JBS Swift Co. officials said in a statement. - http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_10431487 -- May the SCHWARTZ be with you --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Hillary supporter: “I have no good words for that half-breed Muslin”
Let's go to the videotape: http://williamamos.wordpress.com/2008/09/10/hillary-supporter-i-have-no-good-words-for-that-half-breed-muslin/#respond Isn't there someone who can talk the Dems in from the ledge? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: girlie men libs are afraid of Sarah
mark, Political opposition is not the same as fear bright-boy. On Sep 11, 6:45 am, mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: these neutered so called men are scared of her because she is tougher than they are. and the masculine lib women hate her because she is more of a woman than they are. poor little libbers just can't win. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: NYT Leaks State Secrets: Bush authorizes commando raids in Pakistan
Reciprocity? On Sep 11, 8:02 am, Hollywood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: d.b. Quick, whip out a dictionary and tell me what it is when a country sends it's armed forces into the territory of another sovereign country without the knowledge or permission of that country. On Sep 11, 12:32 am, d.b.baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush secretly approved orders in July that for the first time allow U.S. special forces to carry out ground assaults inside Pakistan without the approval of the Pakistani government, The New York Times reported on Thursday. The new orders reflect concern about safe havens for Al Qaeda and the Taliban inside Pakistan, as well as an American view that Pakistan lacks the will and ability to combat militants, the paper said. The situation in the tribal areas is not tolerable, said a senior U.S. official who spoke to the Times on condition of anonymity. We have to be more assertive. Orders have been issued. The newspaper said the orders also illustrated lingering distrust of the Pakistani military and intelligence agencies and a belief some U.S. operations had been compromised once Pakistanis were advised of the details. -http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N10491207.htm- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Defeating AQ is more important than killing OBL
One issue here underlining the capturing of OBL is the Afghan/Paki/ Iranian border tribal areas... As one Pushan OBL is a new comer to our centuries old fight... The problem is there is no easy or clean way to reduce this Radical Islamic seedbed whose population WANTS to return back to the 6th century when they were a key link in the trade routes... Another issue is assumed Paki sovereignty in an area where Pakistan HAS NEVER fully controlled... The point the article was making, and one which most Liberal refuse to admit, is that AQ's popularity in the 90's to 2005 was built on the assumptions that 1) America would only back corrupt autocratic governments that oppressed ordinary Moslems, 2) AQ was a Holy movement built on Islamic principles 3) AQ was the only one attacking America and Europe thus the only one seeking to liberate Islam from Christianity... AQ fall was built precisely on the rejection of this branding within the Moslem world... As a movement AQ has discredited Radical Islam in the eyes of the majority of Moslems... Why??? 1) Iraqis are telling their fellow Moslems America is the principle country will to spend its own blood and treasure to FREE IRAQ from oppressive elite rulers, 2) AQ own tactics revealed AQ as unIslam in principle and deed, now they are seen as a death cult 3) AQ focus on the easy targets in Iraq -- that is ordinary innocent Iraqi Moslems... It is THIS defeat which is of vastly greater importance than to capture or kill OBL... OBL is but a symbol --- better to transform the symbol into an evil one in the minds of ordinary Moslems than to kill or capture OBL better than transformation...This central point is NOT understand by Obama nor many Democrats... On Sep 11, 10:45 am, Hollywood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: jgg, How about defeating AQ AND killing or capturing OBL? Anyone here suggest it's an either/or situation? On Sep 11, 9:21 am, jgg1000a [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But many will demand OBL death rather than defeating AQ http://townhall.com/columnists/AustinBay/2008/09/10/bin_ladens_slow_r... On Oct. 1, 2006, StrategyPage.com argued that dead Iraqis were killing al-Qaida. ... Westerners, unless they observe Arab media closely, and have contacts inside the Arab world, will not have noted this sharp drop in al-Qaida's fortunes. Al-Qaida's malignant message still dupes some young Muslim men. Nineteenth and early 20th century militant anarchist tracts still appeal to violent killers like the Unabomber. Rock music critics and late-night TV cable talk show hosts toy with anarchist tropes. Bin Laden still has gangsta appeal, but mere survival was not his goal. If bin Laden had been killed in Afghanistan in 2001, the United States would be combating a myth and a legend. Instead of caliphate, bin Laden has produced his own catastrophe. The bin Laden icon is seriously fractured, if not quite shattered. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
The Russian Echo Chamber
When you start to believe your own propaganda, you usually have problems http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/russia/articles/20080910.aspx If Russia believed its Georgian operation would discourage its neighbors from joining NATO (to gain protection from Russian aggression), it didn't work. But Russia is not discouraged, especially since the Georgian operation is enormously popular inside Russia. The events in Georgia are interpreted quite differently inside Russia, where some politicians see this as an opportunity for the rest of Europe to join with Russia in an anti-U.S. coalition. Russians really believe this stuff, partly because the government has, in the last few years, taken control of most mass media in the country. Russia also has a new set of satellite states (Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan) who all expressed approval of the peacekeeping operation in Georgia. These Russian allies are all nations that were formerly part of the Soviet Union, and are still dependent on Russia for economic or political aid. Meanwhile, the U.S. has provided Georgia with a billion dollars of economic and military aid. This includes NATO sending technicians and equipment to link Georgia's air defense radars with the NATO system. That means anything the Russian Air Force does over Georgia, will immediately show up in NATO air defense command centers. The U.S. is also believed sending new anti-aircraft weapons (most likely Stingers.) This aggressiveness is partly in response to Russian sales of air defense systems to Syria and Iran. The new Cold War is heating up. The pressure from Western Europe, UN and the U.S. has resulted in Russia saying it will pull all of its troops out of Georgia before the end of the month, and never turn off the natural gas supplies for Western Europe. These troops are mainly manning roadblocks (where even UN aid trucks are being halted) and teams of troops who go around destroying Georgian military equipment. Russia also announced that it would station permanent garrisons (of nearly 8,000 troops) in Abkhazia and South Ossetia (which Russia now recognizes as independent of Georgia, and sort-of part of Russia). Russia is also looking to build more natural gas pipelines, so that it has other customers for all that gas (all of it goes to Western Europe now, which is why Russia can promise to not cut off the supply to the only customer for the stuff.) --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Republicans praise McCain for supporting the Surge, I don't get it. Here is why.
Republicans praise McCain for supporting the Surge, I don't get it. Here is why. September 11, 2008 Sean Lewis. The surge has worked, for the moment, I still remember the premature celebrations of the 'mission accomplished' speech. My problem with Republicans celebrating the success of the surge and bragging about it being such a great idea is this How do you celebrate the guy who organized the bucket brigade, when he was the one who set the barn on fire? Had we not invaded Iraq there would never have been a need for the surge. Just a thought. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
So Sambo (Obama) Beat The Bitch (Hillary)! - Sarah Palin Laughed
She's a bigot, a racist, and a liar, Arnold Gerstheimer, who lived in Alaska until two years ago and now is a businessman in Idaho, said of Sarah Palin. Palin is a conniving, manipulative, (expletive deleted) said another Alaska resident. Even Sarah Palin's own mother- in-law, who plans to vote for Barack Obama, said this about her: What has Sarah done to qualify her to be vice president? Wasilla, Alaska had no debt when Sarah took over as mayor, but she left it with $22 million of debt. One reporter was threatened by Palin, and said she had heard of her wild temper and vicious mean streak, and found it to be true. After hearing of Barack Obama beating Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, a waitress overheard Palin exclaim with a laugh, So Sambo beat the bitch. And she is known to commonly call the Eskimos by such racial slurs as Arctic Arabs. See http://www.squidoo.com/the-democratic-party --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Defeating AQ is more important than killing OBL
How about kill OBL, demoralize and then defeat AQ? On Sep 11, 10:21 am, jgg1000a [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But many will demand OBL death rather than defeating AQ http://townhall.com/columnists/AustinBay/2008/09/10/bin_ladens_slow_r... On Oct. 1, 2006, StrategyPage.com argued that dead Iraqis were killing al-Qaida. ... Westerners, unless they observe Arab media closely, and have contacts inside the Arab world, will not have noted this sharp drop in al-Qaida's fortunes. Al-Qaida's malignant message still dupes some young Muslim men. Nineteenth and early 20th century militant anarchist tracts still appeal to violent killers like the Unabomber. Rock music critics and late-night TV cable talk show hosts toy with anarchist tropes. Bin Laden still has gangsta appeal, but mere survival was not his goal. If bin Laden had been killed in Afghanistan in 2001, the United States would be combating a myth and a legend. Instead of caliphate, bin Laden has produced his own catastrophe. The bin Laden icon is seriously fractured, if not quite shattered. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Defeating AQ is more important than killing OBL
It would have been nice if the only promise Bush had kept to the American people was the one he made at the shine of Americans vowing he would get OBL dead or alive. I guess it was just another photo op with empty words. All chances of getting OBL went out the door when Bush agreed to give AQ a safe haven in Pakistan. On Sep 11, 10:21 am, jgg1000a [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But many will demand OBL death rather than defeating AQ http://townhall.com/columnists/AustinBay/2008/09/10/bin_ladens_slow_r... On Oct. 1, 2006, StrategyPage.com argued that dead Iraqis were killing al-Qaida. ... Westerners, unless they observe Arab media closely, and have contacts inside the Arab world, will not have noted this sharp drop in al-Qaida's fortunes. Al-Qaida's malignant message still dupes some young Muslim men. Nineteenth and early 20th century militant anarchist tracts still appeal to violent killers like the Unabomber. Rock music critics and late-night TV cable talk show hosts toy with anarchist tropes. Bin Laden still has gangsta appeal, but mere survival was not his goal. If bin Laden had been killed in Afghanistan in 2001, the United States would be combating a myth and a legend. Instead of caliphate, bin Laden has produced his own catastrophe. The bin Laden icon is seriously fractured, if not quite shattered. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: So Sambo (Obama) Beat The Bitch (Hillary)! - Sarah Palin Laughed
This needs to be FACT CHECKED! On Sep 11, 11:49 am, RW [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: She's a bigot, a racist, and a liar, Arnold Gerstheimer, who lived in Alaska until two years ago and now is a businessman in Idaho, said of Sarah Palin. Palin is a conniving, manipulative, (expletive deleted) said another Alaska resident. Even Sarah Palin's own mother- in-law, who plans to vote for Barack Obama, said this about her: What has Sarah done to qualify her to be vice president? Wasilla, Alaska had no debt when Sarah took over as mayor, but she left it with $22 million of debt. One reporter was threatened by Palin, and said she had heard of her wild temper and vicious mean streak, and found it to be true. After hearing of Barack Obama beating Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, a waitress overheard Palin exclaim with a laugh, So Sambo beat the bitch. And she is known to commonly call the Eskimos by such racial slurs as Arctic Arabs. Seehttp://www.squidoo.com/the-democratic-party --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Defeating AQ is more important than killing OBL
On Sep 11, 10:21 am, jgg1000a [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But many will demand OBL death rather than defeating AQ Am I mistaken or is Bin Laden the head of AQ? As long as the head lives, the body will remain functional. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: girlie men libs are afraid of Sarah
Gaar, Just keep telling yourself that. On Sep 11, 10:13 am, Gaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: holy, Political opposition is not the same as Personal attacks either. The smell of Fear coming from many on the Left is quite clear. On Sep 11, 7:54 am, Hollywood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: mark, Political opposition is not the same as fear bright-boy. On Sep 11, 6:45 am, mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: these neutered so called men are scared of her because she is tougher than they are. and the masculine lib women hate her because she is more of a woman than they are. poor little libbers just can't win.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: US stocks plunged overnight and the Standard Poor's 500 came within 10 points of its bear-market closing low.
Gaar, Oh c'mon, give it a try. When have you ever been at a loss for words and a willingness to post forever? A good sign for specifically WHO and WHY? On Sep 9, 11:35 pm, Gaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: holly, You have a hard enough time with Politics... I am not going to start explaining Investing to you. On Sep 9, 8:24 pm, Hollywood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gaar, How? On Sep 9, 7:27 pm, Gaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good, a double Bottom... That is a good sign. On Sep 9, 4:44 pm, Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: US stocks plunged overnight and the Standard Poor's 500 came within 10 points of its bear-market closing low. Capital-shortage worries shifted from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to financial firms without government guarantees, such as Washington Mutual and Lehman Brothers, the latter falling to its lowest closing price in nearly a decade. At the same time, commodities prices continued to decline. One trader dubbed Monday's action on Wall Street “a great bull trap” because the bounce may have seduced buyers. The broad Standard Poor's 500 plunged 43.28 points, or 3.41 per cent, to 1224.51, its lowest close since the 1215-finish on July 15 and its biggest percentage drop since February 27 last year. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 280.01 points (2.43 per cent) to 11230.73, giving back all but nine points of its Monday gains. The technology-oriented Nasdaq Composite fell 59.95 (2.64 per cent) to 2209.81. Since computer giant Dell raised concerns about technology spending in parts of Europe and Asia about two weeks ago, tech stocks have felt the claw of a bear market. Lehman Brothers dropped 45 per cent to its lowest close since October 14, 1998, its biggest percentage drop ever. The plunge reflected fears about its ability to raise capital. Standard Poor's placed Lehman's credit, including short-term counterparty ratings, on “CreditWatch with negative implications”. Nevertheless, SP views the firm's short-term liquidity as “satisfactory”.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: NYT Leaks State Secrets: Bush authorizes commando raids in Pakistan
What would you want America's response to be if Mexico's president authorized commando raids in America? Bush Jr does not have the support of the people. He must be stopped from his attempts to start a third World War. --- On Sep 10, 10:32 pm, d.b.baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush secretly approved orders in July that for the first time allow U.S. special forces to carry out ground assaults inside Pakistan without the approval of the Pakistani government, The New York Times reported on Thursday. The new orders reflect concern about safe havens for Al Qaeda and the Taliban inside Pakistan, as well as an American view that Pakistan lacks the will and ability to combat militants, the paper said. The situation in the tribal areas is not tolerable, said a senior U.S. official who spoke to the Times on condition of anonymity. We have to be more assertive. Orders have been issued. The newspaper said the orders also illustrated lingering distrust of the Pakistani military and intelligence agencies and a belief some U.S. operations had been compromised once Pakistanis were advised of the details. -http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N10491207.htm --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: girlie men libs are afraid of Sarah
Palin's refusal to have real interaction with the press is, however, fear...and cowardice. --- On Sep 11, 7:54 am, Hollywood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: mark, Political opposition is not the same as fear bright-boy. On Sep 11, 6:45 am, mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: these neutered so called men are scared of her because she is tougher than they are. and the masculine lib women hate her because she is more of a woman than they are. poor little libbers just can't win.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: He must think we are stupid
One line attack response do not address the major flip-flops or the major sitting on the fence positions by Obama... Specifically on guns... Pretending Obama to be a strong leader with clear positions is folly... And that is the problem, Obama wants to be seen as a strong leader WITHOUT taking strong position pro or against... This is in part why Obama has refuse up to now to point to his experience in education reform from 1995-2000 in the CAC... Then he worked with Bill Ayers and others to recentralize the power of the school board in Chicago after the decentralization of power in the 70's and 80's (which were reforms put in place by the LW of the Democratic party)... The CAC efforts were not very sucessful (some call them failures)... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/06/AR2008040601652.html That leaves Obama unrevealed on the D.C. law. In response to my inquiry about his specific position, Obama's campaign e-mailed me a one-paragraph answer: Obama believes that while the Second Amendment creates an individual right, . . . he also believes that the Constitution permits federal, state and local government to adopt reasonable and common sense gun safety measures. Though the paragraph is titled Obama on the D.C. Court case, that specific gun ban is never mentioned. I tried again last week, without success, to learn Obama's position before writing this column. Obama's dance on gun rights is part of his evolution from the radical young Illinois state legislator he once was. He was recorded in a 1996 questionnaire as advocating a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns (a position he has since disavowed). He was on the board of the Chicago-based Joyce Foundation, which takes an aggressive gun control position, and in 2000 considered becoming its full-time president. In 2006, he voted with an 84 to 16 majority (and against Clinton) to prohibit confiscation of firearms during an emergency, but that is his only pro-gun vote in Springfield or Washington. The National Rifle Association grades his voting record (and Clinton's) an F. There is no anti-gun litmus test for Democrats. In 2006, Ted Strickland was elected governor of Ohio and Bob Casey U.S. senator from Pennsylvania with NRA grades of A. Following their model, Obama talks about the rights of Americans to protect their families. He has not yet stated whether that right should exist in Washington. On Sep 11, 11:54 am, VT Sean Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know you are stupid. Obama has stated he is against illegal handguns or hand guns in the possession of criminals. Law abiding citizens can keep their guns. WHY do you list these dumb opinion pieces? On Sep 11, 11:38 am, jgg1000a [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/words_obama_will_re... --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: He must think we are stupid
LMAO, you have a problem with the fact that Obama has stances not made in concrete like Bush? That Obama allows room for compromise and his positions are in the middle of the road, NOT as you say on the fence. That is the problem with the GOP, you are either with them or against them and if you are against them then you are the enemy. Absolute positions that allow for only confrontation. Maybe you haven't noticed, this policy hasn't worked for the last 8 years? On Sep 11, 12:21 pm, jgg1000a [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One line attack response do not address the major flip-flops or the major sitting on the fence positions by Obama... Specifically on guns... Pretending Obama to be a strong leader with clear positions is folly... And that is the problem, Obama wants to be seen as a strong leader WITHOUT taking strong position pro or against... This is in part why Obama has refuse up to now to point to his experience in education reform from 1995-2000 in the CAC... Then he worked with Bill Ayers and others to recentralize the power of the school board in Chicago after the decentralization of power in the 70's and 80's (which were reforms put in place by the LW of the Democratic party)... The CAC efforts were not very sucessful (some call them failures)... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/06/AR200... That leaves Obama unrevealed on the D.C. law. In response to my inquiry about his specific position, Obama's campaign e-mailed me a one-paragraph answer: Obama believes that while the Second Amendment creates an individual right, . . . he also believes that the Constitution permits federal, state and local government to adopt reasonable and common sense gun safety measures. Though the paragraph is titled Obama on the D.C. Court case, that specific gun ban is never mentioned. I tried again last week, without success, to learn Obama's position before writing this column. Obama's dance on gun rights is part of his evolution from the radical young Illinois state legislator he once was. He was recorded in a 1996 questionnaire as advocating a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns (a position he has since disavowed). He was on the board of the Chicago-based Joyce Foundation, which takes an aggressive gun control position, and in 2000 considered becoming its full-time president. In 2006, he voted with an 84 to 16 majority (and against Clinton) to prohibit confiscation of firearms during an emergency, but that is his only pro-gun vote in Springfield or Washington. The National Rifle Association grades his voting record (and Clinton's) an F. There is no anti-gun litmus test for Democrats. In 2006, Ted Strickland was elected governor of Ohio and Bob Casey U.S. senator from Pennsylvania with NRA grades of A. Following their model, Obama talks about the rights of Americans to protect their families. He has not yet stated whether that right should exist in Washington. On Sep 11, 11:54 am, VT Sean Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know you are stupid. Obama has stated he is against illegal handguns or hand guns in the possession of criminals. Law abiding citizens can keep their guns. WHY do you list these dumb opinion pieces? On Sep 11, 11:38 am, jgg1000a [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/words_obama_will_re...- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: NYT Leaks State Secrets: Bush authorizes commando raids in Pakistan
first we need to arrest all those responsible for leaking state secrets and hang em for treason second we need to congratulate the President for doing what needs to be done to stop these muslim animals. On Sep 11, 12:19 pm, PoliticalAmazon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What would you want America's response to be if Mexico's president authorized commando raids in America? Bush Jr does not have the support of the people. He must be stopped from his attempts to start a third World War. --- On Sep 10, 10:32 pm, d.b.baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush secretly approved orders in July that for the first time allow U.S. special forces to carry out ground assaults inside Pakistan without the approval of the Pakistani government, The New York Times reported on Thursday. The new orders reflect concern about safe havens for Al Qaeda and the Taliban inside Pakistan, as well as an American view that Pakistan lacks the will and ability to combat militants, the paper said. The situation in the tribal areas is not tolerable, said a senior U.S. official who spoke to the Times on condition of anonymity. We have to be more assertive. Orders have been issued. The newspaper said the orders also illustrated lingering distrust of the Pakistani military and intelligence agencies and a belief some U.S. operations had been compromised once Pakistanis were advised of the details. -http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N10491207.htm --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: He must think we are stupid
LMAO, I guess you are OK for inner city thugs to buy these guns to commit crimes. Tell me if an individual has never hunted, has no hunting license is not a member of a gun club or affiliated with the military of police organization, why would they have a need for an assault rifle? If the NRA was REALLY about gun control and safety, then NRA would craft a bill that correctly addressed the illegal use of guns that would PROTECT the legitimate gun owners. This however is yet another example of the all or nothing mentality of the far right extremists. On Sep 11, 12:36 pm, mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fairfax, Va. - At a rally in Lebanon, Virginia in front of a crowd of rural voters, Barack Obama made another one of his empty election-year promises not to take away shotguns, rifles or handguns if elected President. However, Obama's words on the campaign trail do not match his long record of opposing lawful gun ownership. NRA will not allow Barack Obama to revise history. That is why we will be sending this fact sheet of Obama votes to wherever hunters and gun owners congregate and to 4 million NRA members to share with their friends and neighbors. said Chris W. Cox, NRA's chief lobbyist. He has supported bans on handguns and semi-automatic firearms, and he has voted to ban possession of many shotguns and rifles commonly used by hunters and sportsmen across America. And we will remind voters every single time he lies. In 2003 while serving in the Illinois State Legislature, Obama voted in favor of a bill in the Judiciary Committee that would have made it illegal to knowingly manufacture, deliver or possess a so-called semi-automatic assault weapons. Under this bill, a firearm did not actually have to be semi-automatic to be banned. According to definitions in the bill, all single-shot and double-barreled shotguns 28-gauge or larger, and many semi-automatic shotguns of the same size, would be banned as assault weapons. This definition would have banned a large percentage of the shotguns used for hunting, target shooting and self-defense in the United States. The bill also would have banned hundreds of models of rifles and handguns. Any Illinois resident who possessed one of these commonly used guns 90 days after the effective date would have had to destroy the weapon or device, render it permanently inoperable, relinquish it to a law enforcement agency, or remove it from the state. Anyone who still possessed a banned gun would have been subject to a felony sentence. Obama may argue the bill was poorly drafted, said Cox. But Barack Obama - who brags about being a constitutional law professor and the former president of the Harvard Law Review - voted for it. That's pathetic. On Sep 11, 12:34 pm, VT Sean Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: LMAO, you have a problem with the fact that Obama has stances not made in concrete like Bush? That Obama allows room for compromise and his positions are in the middle of the road, NOT as you say on the fence. That is the problem with the GOP, you are either with them or against them and if you are against them then you are the enemy. Absolute positions that allow for only confrontation. Maybe you haven't noticed, this policy hasn't worked for the last 8 years? On Sep 11, 12:21 pm, jgg1000a [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One line attack response do not address the major flip-flops or the major sitting on the fence positions by Obama... Specifically on guns... Pretending Obama to be a strong leader with clear positions is folly... And that is the problem, Obama wants to be seen as a strong leader WITHOUT taking strong position pro or against... This is in part why Obama has refuse up to now to point to his experience in education reform from 1995-2000 in the CAC... Then he worked with Bill Ayers and others to recentralize the power of the school board in Chicago after the decentralization of power in the 70's and 80's (which were reforms put in place by the LW of the Democratic party)... The CAC efforts were not very sucessful (some call them failures)... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/06/AR200... That leaves Obama unrevealed on the D.C. law. In response to my inquiry about his specific position, Obama's campaign e-mailed me a one-paragraph answer: Obama believes that while the Second Amendment creates an individual right, . . . he also believes that the Constitution permits federal, state and local government to adopt reasonable and common sense gun safety measures. Though the paragraph is titled Obama on the D.C. Court case, that specific gun ban is never mentioned. I tried again last week, without success, to learn Obama's position before writing this column. Obama's dance on gun rights is part of his evolution from the radical young Illinois state legislator he once was. He was recorded
Re: He must think we are stupid
Spin baby spin... Soft stances = more of the same Reformers on the whole bring strong stands on key issues as it is that passion which drive them... On Sep 11, 12:34 pm, VT Sean Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: LMAO, you have a problem with the fact that Obama has stances not made in concrete like Bush? That Obama allows room for compromise and his positions are in the middle of the road, NOT as you say on the fence. That is the problem with the GOP, you are either with them or against them and if you are against them then you are the enemy. Absolute positions that allow for only confrontation. Maybe you haven't noticed, this policy hasn't worked for the last 8 years? On Sep 11, 12:21 pm, jgg1000a [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One line attack response do not address the major flip-flops or the major sitting on the fence positions by Obama... Specifically on guns... Pretending Obama to be a strong leader with clear positions is folly... And that is the problem, Obama wants to be seen as a strong leader WITHOUT taking strong position pro or against... This is in part why Obama has refuse up to now to point to his experience in education reform from 1995-2000 in the CAC... Then he worked with Bill Ayers and others to recentralize the power of the school board in Chicago after the decentralization of power in the 70's and 80's (which were reforms put in place by the LW of the Democratic party)... The CAC efforts were not very sucessful (some call them failures)... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/06/AR200... That leaves Obama unrevealed on the D.C. law. In response to my inquiry about his specific position, Obama's campaign e-mailed me a one-paragraph answer: Obama believes that while the Second Amendment creates an individual right, . . . he also believes that the Constitution permits federal, state and local government to adopt reasonable and common sense gun safety measures. Though the paragraph is titled Obama on the D.C. Court case, that specific gun ban is never mentioned. I tried again last week, without success, to learn Obama's position before writing this column. Obama's dance on gun rights is part of his evolution from the radical young Illinois state legislator he once was. He was recorded in a 1996 questionnaire as advocating a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns (a position he has since disavowed). He was on the board of the Chicago-based Joyce Foundation, which takes an aggressive gun control position, and in 2000 considered becoming its full-time president. In 2006, he voted with an 84 to 16 majority (and against Clinton) to prohibit confiscation of firearms during an emergency, but that is his only pro-gun vote in Springfield or Washington. The National Rifle Association grades his voting record (and Clinton's) an F. There is no anti-gun litmus test for Democrats. In 2006, Ted Strickland was elected governor of Ohio and Bob Casey U.S. senator from Pennsylvania with NRA grades of A. Following their model, Obama talks about the rights of Americans to protect their families. He has not yet stated whether that right should exist in Washington. On Sep 11, 11:54 am, VT Sean Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know you are stupid. Obama has stated he is against illegal handguns or hand guns in the possession of criminals. Law abiding citizens can keep their guns. WHY do you list these dumb opinion pieces? On Sep 11, 11:38 am, jgg1000a [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/words_obama_will_re...Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: He must think we are stupid
Fairfax, Va. - At a rally in Lebanon, Virginia in front of a crowd of rural voters, Barack Obama made another one of his empty election-year promises not to take away shotguns, rifles or handguns if elected President. However, Obama's words on the campaign trail do not match his long record of opposing lawful gun ownership. NRA will not allow Barack Obama to revise history. That is why we will be sending this fact sheet of Obama votes to wherever hunters and gun owners congregate and to 4 million NRA members to share with their friends and neighbors. said Chris W. Cox, NRA's chief lobbyist. He has supported bans on handguns and semi-automatic firearms, and he has voted to ban possession of many shotguns and rifles commonly used by hunters and sportsmen across America. And we will remind voters every single time he lies. In 2003 while serving in the Illinois State Legislature, Obama voted in favor of a bill in the Judiciary Committee that would have made it illegal to knowingly manufacture, deliver or possess a so-called semi-automatic assault weapons. Under this bill, a firearm did not actually have to be semi-automatic to be banned. According to definitions in the bill, all single-shot and double-barreled shotguns 28-gauge or larger, and many semi-automatic shotguns of the same size, would be banned as assault weapons. This definition would have banned a large percentage of the shotguns used for hunting, target shooting and self-defense in the United States. The bill also would have banned hundreds of models of rifles and handguns. Any Illinois resident who possessed one of these commonly used guns 90 days after the effective date would have had to destroy the weapon or device, render it permanently inoperable, relinquish it to a law enforcement agency, or remove it from the state. Anyone who still possessed a banned gun would have been subject to a felony sentence. Obama may argue the bill was poorly drafted, said Cox. But Barack Obama - who brags about being a constitutional law professor and the former president of the Harvard Law Review - voted for it. That's pathetic. On Sep 11, 12:34 pm, VT Sean Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: LMAO, you have a problem with the fact that Obama has stances not made in concrete like Bush? That Obama allows room for compromise and his positions are in the middle of the road, NOT as you say on the fence. That is the problem with the GOP, you are either with them or against them and if you are against them then you are the enemy. Absolute positions that allow for only confrontation. Maybe you haven't noticed, this policy hasn't worked for the last 8 years? On Sep 11, 12:21 pm, jgg1000a [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One line attack response do not address the major flip-flops or the major sitting on the fence positions by Obama... Specifically on guns... Pretending Obama to be a strong leader with clear positions is folly... And that is the problem, Obama wants to be seen as a strong leader WITHOUT taking strong position pro or against... This is in part why Obama has refuse up to now to point to his experience in education reform from 1995-2000 in the CAC... Then he worked with Bill Ayers and others to recentralize the power of the school board in Chicago after the decentralization of power in the 70's and 80's (which were reforms put in place by the LW of the Democratic party)... The CAC efforts were not very sucessful (some call them failures)... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/06/AR200... That leaves Obama unrevealed on the D.C. law. In response to my inquiry about his specific position, Obama's campaign e-mailed me a one-paragraph answer: Obama believes that while the Second Amendment creates an individual right, . . . he also believes that the Constitution permits federal, state and local government to adopt reasonable and common sense gun safety measures. Though the paragraph is titled Obama on the D.C. Court case, that specific gun ban is never mentioned. I tried again last week, without success, to learn Obama's position before writing this column. Obama's dance on gun rights is part of his evolution from the radical young Illinois state legislator he once was. He was recorded in a 1996 questionnaire as advocating a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns (a position he has since disavowed). He was on the board of the Chicago-based Joyce Foundation, which takes an aggressive gun control position, and in 2000 considered becoming its full-time president. In 2006, he voted with an 84 to 16 majority (and against Clinton) to prohibit confiscation of firearms during an emergency, but that is his only pro-gun vote in Springfield or Washington. The National Rifle Association grades his voting record (and Clinton's) an F. There is no anti-gun litmus test for Democrats. In 2006, Ted Strickland was elected governor
Re: Republicans praise McCain for supporting the Surge, I don't get it. Here is why.
what's the matter lib, lose some good terrorist friends who we killed in the surge? sorry to see you raghead terrorist buds losing to the mighty satan? hate to admit you libs were wrong, again? On Sep 11, 11:42 am, VT Sean Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Republicans praise McCain for supporting the Surge, I don't get it. Here is why. September 11, 2008 Sean Lewis. The surge has worked, for the moment, I still remember the premature celebrations of the 'mission accomplished' speech. My problem with Republicans celebrating the success of the surge and bragging about it being such a great idea is this How do you celebrate the guy who organized the bucket brigade, when he was the one who set the barn on fire? Had we not invaded Iraq there would never have been a need for the surge. Just a thought. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: 9/11 seven yrs on never forget
my bad, I should have said, the people who were murdered. On Sep 11, 8:29 am, mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: never forget. never forget the people who died. never forget the families of those who died. and never ever forget those who attacked us, and killed our people, for they have vowed to never stop their demented desire to destroy all that are not like them. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: So Sambo (Obama) Beat The Bitch (Hillary)! - Sarah Palin Laughed
more lies from the left. On Sep 11, 11:59 am, VT Sean Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This needs to be FACT CHECKED! On Sep 11, 11:49 am, RW [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: She's a bigot, a racist, and a liar, Arnold Gerstheimer, who lived in Alaska until two years ago and now is a businessman in Idaho, said of Sarah Palin. Palin is a conniving, manipulative, (expletive deleted) said another Alaska resident. Even Sarah Palin's own mother- in-law, who plans to vote for Barack Obama, said this about her: What has Sarah done to qualify her to be vice president? Wasilla, Alaska had no debt when Sarah took over as mayor, but she left it with $22 million of debt. One reporter was threatened by Palin, and said she had heard of her wild temper and vicious mean streak, and found it to be true. After hearing of Barack Obama beating Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, a waitress overheard Palin exclaim with a laugh, So Sambo beat the bitch. And she is known to commonly call the Eskimos by such racial slurs as Arctic Arabs. Seehttp://www.squidoo.com/the-democratic-party --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: girlie men libs are afraid of Sarah
too bad you spend all your time sitting on your liberal brain. On Sep 11, 12:54 pm, VT Sean Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: LMAO, I am not attracted to a pitbull with lipstick, glad you are. But don't think that because I want to see if she knows more than one trick, reading from a telepromter and repeating the same speech like a trained parrot, doesn't mean she intimidates mean. It just means I am not as gullible as the same idiots who bought the lies, Iraq has WMD's, Schiavo wasn't brain dead, the US doesn't torture, and all the other lies the Bush White House was caught repeating. I am an independent, not only do I have a Brain but I know how to use it! On Sep 11, 12:42 pm, mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: so did it hurt when you libs were castrated? and how does it feel to be less a man that Sarah is? yep just nothing but a bunch of liberal girlie men. sorry ass, no nuts, panty wearing girlie men. On Sep 11, 12:27 pm, VT Sean Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Point set and match! On Sep 11, 12:21 pm, PoliticalAmazon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Palin's refusal to have real interaction with the press is, however, fear...and cowardice. --- On Sep 11, 7:54 am, Hollywood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: mark, Political opposition is not the same as fear bright-boy. On Sep 11, 6:45 am, mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: these neutered so called men are scared of her because she is tougher than they are. and the masculine lib women hate her because she is more of a woman than they are. poor little libbers just can't win.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Political activists charged with terrorism. The real purpose of the Patriot act
The asshole that wrote this article seems to have forgotten that these fuck wads also had plans to kidnap delegates to the convention. On Sep 11, 12:49 am, Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Political dissent as terrorism: “Minnesota Patriot Act” charges filed against RNC Eight By Tom Eley 11 September 2008 The charges of terrorism leveled against the eight youth who had sought to organize protests and civil disobedience against the Republican National Convention (RNC) in Minnesota last week sound an alarm that political opposition in the US is on its way toward being criminalized. In what may be the first case of its kind, American citizens have been arrested and charged as terrorists for no other act than planning to protest and obstruct a political event. In this case the occasion was the nominating convention of a party chiefly responsible for policies detested by the majority of Americans, including the war in Iraq and the enrichment of a tiny layer of the enormously wealthy. Even a casual review of the case reveals that the charges are a baseless frame-up, carried out in the name of constitutionally dubious “anti-terrorist” legislation enacted since 2002. More alarming than the case itself, however, is the fact that it has gone virtually unnoted by the national news media. This reporter could also find no mention of the case on the web sites of left-liberal publications such as the Nation, the Progressive, or In These Times. No major politician from either party has commented on the case, including Minnesota’s Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar. Attempts to contact the campaign and Senate office of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama revealed that the nominee has no media contact phone number and that he had not released a statement on the arrests. This silence on the case is no indication of its lack of importance. In essence, the terrorism charges against the RNC 8 show what the World Socialist Web Site has long warned: that anti-terrorism laws like the Patriot Act—enthusiastically supported by both major parties— have never been about protecting the American people from terrorism. They were put into place to create the legal framework for the suppression of basic constitutional and democratic rights of the population. The eight members of the anarchist group Republican National Convention Welcoming Committee (RNCWC) were arrested the weekend before the RNC began and charged with the felony “conspiracy to commit riot in the second degree in furtherance of terrorism.” They have since been released on $10,000 bail. If convicted at trial, the RNC Eight could each face five years in prison plus a $10,000 fine. A ninth individual has been named in the police complaint, but has yet to be charged. Bruce Nestor, president of the Minnesota chapter of the National Lawyers Guild and attorney for Monica Bicking, one of the eight defendants, told the World Socialist Web Site that the authorities have shown no indication that the charges will be dropped. The charges are predicated on an a priori assumption of guilt; not on what actually happened, but what might have happened had no arrest been made. Furthermore, the charges are almost entirely based upon the evidence of two confidential paid informants. Nestor pointed out in an earlier interview with the Minnesota Independent that “the most outrageous allegations made by the authorities are not supported by any evidence other than the statement of the confidential informants. They’re not supported by the evidence seized.” The physical evidence gathered by law enforcement was even more threadbare than the purchased testimony of informants. “We have the sheriff displaying a single plastic item that he claims was a shield,” Nestor said, “as if one shield was going to protect demonstrators from 3,500 armed riot police who have projectile-tear-gas weapons.” In addition, police seized a rusty hatchet, nails, lighters and other common household items as evidence, and rather ludicrously reported discovering “weaponized urine.” This is the same method the Federal Bureau of Investigation has used in its attacks on Muslim organizations and other “terrorism” suspects. In such scenarios, anonymous police infiltrators enter an organization, create a provocation or even a crime itself, and then turn over uncorroborated testimony, thereby implicating an entire group of people Lawyers for the RNCWC members have also pointed to the climate of fear created surrounding their clients by the very charge of terrorism. “All they do is they label people as terrorists and anarchists, and at that point what people are actually saying and the content of their views has no meaning anymore,” said attorney Jordan Kushner. Nestor told the WSWS that the arrests are “part of an overall law enforcement strategy to intimidate people from exercising political rights in the streets and to intimidate
Re: Democratic Anger
Here is another slant on this point... Not unlike the RW crazies during the McCarthy years... Are rabid LW Democrats the new McCarthyites??? http://rightcoast.typepad.com/rightcoast/2008/09/last-week-may-h.html Last week may have been a turning point in one way, almost regardless of who wins the election, but certainly if McCain actually wins. The week brought into the open - in a way that almost no one in the country could ignore - some of the craziness that has taken over among many liberals and Democrats in the past eight to ten years. Not necessarily crazy policies so much as a crazy spirit: a kind of extremist temper, a John-Birch-Society-of-the-left atmosphere. It's an atmosphere rightly associated with college and university campuses, where a hectoringly intolerant political orthodoxy took over, in many cases, years ago. (See above.) Most of the mainstream media share it as well - in diluted form certainly, compared to the full nuttiness on campus. The media have been important in promoting it: directly by telling only one side of the story (the leftist narrative, to put it in leftist jargon); and indirectly by covering for the growing craziness - almost never mentioning what's going on at Kos or Democratic Underground or Harper's or even in the ordinary conversation of a growing number of ever-more-wildly-talking ordinary liberals across the country. The frenzy about Sarah Palin has changed things, maybe permanently. It was (and is) a reflex spasm of hatred, coming from people - obviously including lots and lots of the media - who had never heard of Sarah Palin until McCain announced her. (Just a week ago Friday: it seems longer ago than that, doesn't it?) It almost instantly went far beyond an inquiry into her qualifications and fitness for the vice presidency - about which reasonable people can certainly differ. The unhinged animus (good word; nothing to do with pigs) is too obvious for anyone to miss. And instead of carefully ignoring it or smoothing it over with public-relations cover, as the media usually do with anything ugly on the left, this time the media openly joined in and led the crazy charge. For once, there seems to be a price to be paid. Suddenly the political race is tied, or Obama is even falling behind. Ballistic left-liberalism hasn't been politely ignored this time. It's as though the country is suddenly asking Do we really want to be ruled by armies of people with this outlook, whom Obama would bring in, all up and down the federal government? If the fallout - dangerous, if not fatal, to their political hopes - helps bring mainstream liberalism back to a less paranoid, less angry and sneering, and generally less crazed way of talking and feeling, it will be a very good thing for the country and for all concerned. Crazy political talk, after all, can start out as just a fashion, a way of talking that nobody necessarily means very seriously. But words, and ways of talking, take on a life of their own: after a while you start believing what you say, and even acting on it. It's all much more in the open now than it was a week and a half ago. That's a good thing. On Sep 11, 1:08 pm, jgg1000a [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: despite being built on myths as stolen election of 2000 and swiftboating will be a very destruction emotion within the Democratic Party if Obama loses... Responsible Democrats will have to reassert authority to stay competitive in years to come... It took Democrats 2 election cycles after 1968... It took Republicans 5 election cycles after 1932... It took Democrats 4 election cycles after 1896... It took Democrats 6 election cycles after 1860... It took the Whigs 4 election cycles after 1824... For a political party to learn that their anger is due to THEIR failures of governing and then accept the absolute requirement of altering their basic philosophy and POV takes time... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI200... --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: girlie men libs are afraid of Sarah
Point set and match! On Sep 11, 12:21 pm, PoliticalAmazon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Palin's refusal to have real interaction with the press is, however, fear...and cowardice. --- On Sep 11, 7:54 am, Hollywood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: mark, Political opposition is not the same as fear bright-boy. On Sep 11, 6:45 am, mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: these neutered so called men are scared of her because she is tougher than they are. and the masculine lib women hate her because she is more of a woman than they are. poor little libbers just can't win.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Democratic Anger
despite being built on myths as stolen election of 2000 and swiftboating will be a very destruction emotion within the Democratic Party if Obama loses... Responsible Democrats will have to reassert authority to stay competitive in years to come... It took Democrats 2 election cycles after 1968... It took Republicans 5 election cycles after 1932... It took Democrats 4 election cycles after 1896... It took Democrats 6 election cycles after 1860... It took the Whigs 4 election cycles after 1824... For a political party to learn that their anger is due to THEIR failures of governing and then accept the absolute requirement of altering their basic philosophy and POV takes time... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Just what does Charge mean???
Congress is disfunctional because of the obstructionist Republican Senators of which McCain is now one of them. Republicans refuse to compromise, EVEN when it is the will of the people. On Sep 11, 12:56 pm, jgg1000a [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To Obama it means changing the occupant in the WH while retaining the disfunctional Congress -- regardless of who leads it Democrat or Republican... Note the Democrats control Congressional agenda making and therefore ARE ONE OF THE PARTIES IN POWER... To McCain it means changing the dyfunctionality of the relationship between the WH and Congress... We have had 14 years of slim Congressional margins, the last time we had a decade or more of slim Congressional margins was from 1942 to 1958... LBJ and Dirkson learned how to make Congress functional in a bi-partisan fashion... The result of the historic CR legislation of 1964... Today, neither party has Congressional leaders who know how to work across the isle... The era since 1994 has been one of strong-arm one Party rule built on slender majorities... This reminds one of the Congressional stalemates from 1875 to 1896... --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: girlie men libs are afraid of Sarah
I will let the Election say all it needs to... I just hope you and your Liberal friends listen this time. I won't be holding my breath. On Sep 11, 9:04 am, Hollywood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gaar, Just keep telling yourself that. On Sep 11, 10:13 am, Gaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: holy, Political opposition is not the same as Personal attacks either. The smell of Fear coming from many on the Left is quite clear. On Sep 11, 7:54 am, Hollywood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: mark, Political opposition is not the same as fear bright-boy. On Sep 11, 6:45 am, mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: these neutered so called men are scared of her because she is tougher than they are. and the masculine lib women hate her because she is more of a woman than they are. poor little libbers just can't win.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: girlie men libs are afraid of Sarah
On Sep 11, 9:27 am, VT Sean Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Point set and match! Ahhh, just like a Loony Liberal. The Debate has only just begun, and he is already claiming Victory, as if it is his to claim one way or the other. Idiots like this obviously forget why we have Elections. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: girlie men libs are afraid of Sarah
You mean like reading Change from a Telepromper for 18 months, and when talking off a Teleprompter you stumble through your answers, like Barack Obama has?!?!?!?!? On Sep 11, 9:54 am, VT Sean Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: LMAO, I am not attracted to a pitbull with lipstick, glad you are. But don't think that because I want to see if she knows more than one trick, reading from a telepromter and repeating the same speech like a trained parrot, doesn't mean she intimidates mean. It just means I am not as gullible as the same idiots who bought the lies, Iraq has WMD's, Schiavo wasn't brain dead, the US doesn't torture, and all the other lies the Bush White House was caught repeating. I am an independent, not only do I have a Brain but I know how to use it! On Sep 11, 12:42 pm, mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: so did it hurt when you libs were castrated? and how does it feel to be less a man that Sarah is? yep just nothing but a bunch of liberal girlie men. sorry ass, no nuts, panty wearing girlie men. On Sep 11, 12:27 pm, VT Sean Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Point set and match! On Sep 11, 12:21 pm, PoliticalAmazon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Palin's refusal to have real interaction with the press is, however, fear...and cowardice. --- On Sep 11, 7:54 am, Hollywood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: mark, Political opposition is not the same as fear bright-boy. On Sep 11, 6:45 am, mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: these neutered so called men are scared of her because she is tougher than they are. and the masculine lib women hate her because she is more of a woman than they are. poor little libbers just can't win.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: girlie men libs are afraid of Sarah
Oh I didn't realize this insignificant thread represented the National Election. I thought it was the undefendable rantings of a deranged Useless Bush Idiot Apologist? I stand corrected. On Sep 11, 1:22 pm, Gaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 11, 9:27 am, VT Sean Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Point set and match! Ahhh, just like a Loony Liberal. The Debate has only just begun, and he is already claiming Victory, as if it is his to claim one way or the other. Idiots like this obviously forget why we have Elections. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Democratic Anger
Wrong, yet again... Take a look at the damage the Democrats did to our Constitution under FDR. That damage is unprecedented in our History, and we have yet to address that damage in any significant way. It seems we are going to allow it to come close to creating our demise before we do... On Sep 11, 10:21 am, VT Sean Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Never in history has a political party done the amount of damage to a nation as the Republican dominated rule has wrought on this nation. Americans, not just Democrats are angry about this. On Sep 11, 1:08 pm, jgg1000a [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: despite being built on myths as stolen election of 2000 and swiftboating will be a very destruction emotion within the Democratic Party if Obama loses... Responsible Democrats will have to reassert authority to stay competitive in years to come... It took Democrats 2 election cycles after 1968... It took Republicans 5 election cycles after 1932... It took Democrats 4 election cycles after 1896... It took Democrats 6 election cycles after 1860... It took the Whigs 4 election cycles after 1824... For a political party to learn that their anger is due to THEIR failures of governing and then accept the absolute requirement of altering their basic philosophy and POV takes time... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI200...- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: He must think we are stupid
Passion not reason equals the 'Terri Schiavo' laws! On Sep 11, 12:46 pm, jgg1000a [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Spin baby spin... Soft stances = more of the same Reformers on the whole bring strong stands on key issues as it is that passion which drive them... On Sep 11, 12:34 pm, VT Sean Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: LMAO, you have a problem with the fact that Obama has stances not made in concrete like Bush? That Obama allows room for compromise and his positions are in the middle of the road, NOT as you say on the fence. That is the problem with the GOP, you are either with them or against them and if you are against them then you are the enemy. Absolute positions that allow for only confrontation. Maybe you haven't noticed, this policy hasn't worked for the last 8 years? On Sep 11, 12:21 pm, jgg1000a [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One line attack response do not address the major flip-flops or the major sitting on the fence positions by Obama... Specifically on guns... Pretending Obama to be a strong leader with clear positions is folly... And that is the problem, Obama wants to be seen as a strong leader WITHOUT taking strong position pro or against... This is in part why Obama has refuse up to now to point to his experience in education reform from 1995-2000 in the CAC... Then he worked with Bill Ayers and others to recentralize the power of the school board in Chicago after the decentralization of power in the 70's and 80's (which were reforms put in place by the LW of the Democratic party)... The CAC efforts were not very sucessful (some call them failures)... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/06/AR200... That leaves Obama unrevealed on the D.C. law. In response to my inquiry about his specific position, Obama's campaign e-mailed me a one-paragraph answer: Obama believes that while the Second Amendment creates an individual right, . . . he also believes that the Constitution permits federal, state and local government to adopt reasonable and common sense gun safety measures. Though the paragraph is titled Obama on the D.C. Court case, that specific gun ban is never mentioned. I tried again last week, without success, to learn Obama's position before writing this column. Obama's dance on gun rights is part of his evolution from the radical young Illinois state legislator he once was. He was recorded in a 1996 questionnaire as advocating a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns (a position he has since disavowed). He was on the board of the Chicago-based Joyce Foundation, which takes an aggressive gun control position, and in 2000 considered becoming its full-time president. In 2006, he voted with an 84 to 16 majority (and against Clinton) to prohibit confiscation of firearms during an emergency, but that is his only pro-gun vote in Springfield or Washington. The National Rifle Association grades his voting record (and Clinton's) an F. There is no anti-gun litmus test for Democrats. In 2006, Ted Strickland was elected governor of Ohio and Bob Casey U.S. senator from Pennsylvania with NRA grades of A. Following their model, Obama talks about the rights of Americans to protect their families. He has not yet stated whether that right should exist in Washington. On Sep 11, 11:54 am, VT Sean Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know you are stupid. Obama has stated he is against illegal handguns or hand guns in the possession of criminals. Law abiding citizens can keep their guns. WHY do you list these dumb opinion pieces? On Sep 11, 11:38 am, jgg1000a [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/words_obama_will_re...quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Democratic Anger
Gaar please, reality is that this country has been gutted by the Republicans constitutionally, ethically, financially, morally, politically, militarily and US world preeminence has been greatly diminished. That is the REALITY! On Sep 11, 1:26 pm, Gaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wrong, yet again... Take a look at the damage the Democrats did to our Constitution under FDR. That damage is unprecedented in our History, and we have yet to address that damage in any significant way. It seems we are going to allow it to come close to creating our demise before we do... On Sep 11, 10:21 am, VT Sean Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Never in history has a political party done the amount of damage to a nation as the Republican dominated rule has wrought on this nation. Americans, not just Democrats are angry about this. On Sep 11, 1:08 pm, jgg1000a [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: despite being built on myths as stolen election of 2000 and swiftboating will be a very destruction emotion within the Democratic Party if Obama loses... Responsible Democrats will have to reassert authority to stay competitive in years to come... It took Democrats 2 election cycles after 1968... It took Republicans 5 election cycles after 1932... It took Democrats 4 election cycles after 1896... It took Democrats 6 election cycles after 1860... It took the Whigs 4 election cycles after 1824... For a political party to learn that their anger is due to THEIR failures of governing and then accept the absolute requirement of altering their basic philosophy and POV takes time... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI200...Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: girlie men libs are afraid of Sarah
Are we reading the same post? The one I am responding to is this one... girlie men libs are afraid of Sarah Someone is making the claim Dems are somehow intimidated by Palin. It is a clumsy way of trying to stop honest critism of the flawed VP candidate. On Sep 11, 1:29 pm, Gaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 11, 10:25 am, VT Sean Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh I didn't realize this insignificant thread represented the National Election. You understand who Sarah is, right? You realize that she is actually running for Office in this National Election, right? Yes, you do indeed stand corrected. Nice of you to admit it. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: girlie men libs are afraid of Sarah
I think it is a honest criticism of the people who need to attack Sarah Palin personally, rather than have a REAL discussion based on the merits. On Sep 11, 10:35 am, VT Sean Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are we reading the same post? The one I am responding to is this one... girlie men libs are afraid of Sarah Someone is making the claim Dems are somehow intimidated by Palin. It is a clumsy way of trying to stop honest critism of the flawed VP candidate. On Sep 11, 1:29 pm, Gaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 11, 10:25 am, VT Sean Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh I didn't realize this insignificant thread represented the National Election. You understand who Sarah is, right? You realize that she is actually running for Office in this National Election, right? Yes, you do indeed stand corrected. Nice of you to admit it.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Democratic Anger
Merrits? You are talking of only one issue, Constitutional I am speaking across a much larger spectrum. This is not comparing oranges to apples, to is comparing the island of Guam to the solar system. This is the whole sale sell out of American values. On Sep 11, 1:34 pm, Gaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So you say... If you like, I can cite specifics. Care to discuss this on the merits? On Sep 11, 10:31 am, VT Sean Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gaar please, reality is that this country has been gutted by the Republicans constitutionally, ethically, financially, morally, politically, militarily and US world preeminence has been greatly diminished. That is the REALITY! On Sep 11, 1:26 pm, Gaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wrong, yet again... Take a look at the damage the Democrats did to our Constitution under FDR. That damage is unprecedented in our History, and we have yet to address that damage in any significant way. It seems we are going to allow it to come close to creating our demise before we do... On Sep 11, 10:21 am, VT Sean Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Never in history has a political party done the amount of damage to a nation as the Republican dominated rule has wrought on this nation. Americans, not just Democrats are angry about this. On Sep 11, 1:08 pm, jgg1000a [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: despite being built on myths as stolen election of 2000 and swiftboating will be a very destruction emotion within the Democratic Party if Obama loses... Responsible Democrats will have to reassert authority to stay competitive in years to come... It took Democrats 2 election cycles after 1968... It took Republicans 5 election cycles after 1932... It took Democrats 4 election cycles after 1896... It took Democrats 6 election cycles after 1860... It took the Whigs 4 election cycles after 1824... For a political party to learn that their anger is due to THEIR failures of governing and then accept the absolute requirement of altering their basic philosophy and POV takes time... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI200...text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: girlie men libs are afraid of Sarah
Gaar I have posted nothing but the facts, and bozo here can only post this in rebuttal? I think that sums it up, don't you? On Sep 11, 1:39 pm, Gaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think it is a honest criticism of the people who need to attack Sarah Palin personally, rather than have a REAL discussion based on the merits. On Sep 11, 10:35 am, VT Sean Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are we reading the same post? The one I am responding to is this one... girlie men libs are afraid of Sarah Someone is making the claim Dems are somehow intimidated by Palin. It is a clumsy way of trying to stop honest critism of the flawed VP candidate. On Sep 11, 1:29 pm, Gaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 11, 10:25 am, VT Sean Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh I didn't realize this insignificant thread represented the National Election. You understand who Sarah is, right? You realize that she is actually running for Office in this National Election, right? Yes, you do indeed stand corrected. Nice of you to admit it.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: girlie men libs are afraid of Sarah
Mark this again? That is the problem with the GOP, nothing original. You bring out Bush in a Dress and expect the world not to notice once again it is all image and no substance. Bush in a Dress get it, he he he. On Sep 11, 7:45 am, mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: these neutered so called men are scared of her because she is tougher than they are. and the masculine lib women hate her because she is more of a woman than they are. poor little libbers just can't win. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Democratic Anger
Gaar I not interested in this circular argument, you got a point make it. The 2006 election results speaks for America's atitude toward the Republicans. On Sep 11, 1:40 pm, Gaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am talking about many things as well... Again, care to be specific, or just continue on with your ranting? On Sep 11, 10:39 am, VT Sean Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Merrits? You are talking of only one issue, Constitutional I am speaking across a much larger spectrum. This is not comparing oranges to apples, to is comparing the island of Guam to the solar system. This is the whole sale sell out of American values. On Sep 11, 1:34 pm, Gaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So you say... If you like, I can cite specifics. Care to discuss this on the merits? On Sep 11, 10:31 am, VT Sean Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gaar please, reality is that this country has been gutted by the Republicans constitutionally, ethically, financially, morally, politically, militarily and US world preeminence has been greatly diminished. That is the REALITY! On Sep 11, 1:26 pm, Gaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wrong, yet again... Take a look at the damage the Democrats did to our Constitution under FDR. That damage is unprecedented in our History, and we have yet to address that damage in any significant way. It seems we are going to allow it to come close to creating our demise before we do... On Sep 11, 10:21 am, VT Sean Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Never in history has a political party done the amount of damage to a nation as the Republican dominated rule has wrought on this nation. Americans, not just Democrats are angry about this. On Sep 11, 1:08 pm, jgg1000a [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: despite being built on myths as stolen election of 2000 and swiftboating will be a very destruction emotion within the Democratic Party if Obama loses... Responsible Democrats will have to reassert authority to stay competitive in years to come... It took Democrats 2 election cycles after 1968... It took Republicans 5 election cycles after 1932... It took Democrats 4 election cycles after 1896... It took Democrats 6 election cycles after 1860... It took the Whigs 4 election cycles after 1824... For a political party to learn that their anger is due to THEIR failures of governing and then accept the absolute requirement of altering their basic philosophy and POV takes time... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI200... - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: He must think we are stupid
VT, Exactly HOW do you craft a bill that allows these weapons in the hands of law abiding citizens yet keeps it out of the hands of criminals? It's not like criminals abide by the laws and follow the legal process to purchase them. That's why the gun control crowd wants to make the weapons illegal, so law enforcement can shut down sales and confiscate any that they find. No one wants a crook to have a gun, but you can't pass laws that say it's OK to own one of these weapons unless you're a criminal. So what do you think Obama would propose in the way of legislation? On Sep 11, 12:45 pm, VT Sean Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: LMAO, I guess you are OK for inner city thugs to buy these guns to commit crimes. Tell me if an individual has never hunted, has no hunting license is not a member of a gun club or affiliated with the military of police organization, why would they have a need for an assault rifle? If the NRA was REALLY about gun control and safety, then NRA would craft a bill that correctly addressed the illegal use of guns that would PROTECT the legitimate gun owners. This however is yet another example of the all or nothing mentality of the far right extremists. On Sep 11, 12:36 pm, mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fairfax, Va. - At a rally in Lebanon, Virginia in front of a crowd of rural voters, Barack Obama made another one of his empty election-year promises not to take away shotguns, rifles or handguns if elected President. However, Obama's words on the campaign trail do not match his long record of opposing lawful gun ownership. NRA will not allow Barack Obama to revise history. That is why we will be sending this fact sheet of Obama votes to wherever hunters and gun owners congregate and to 4 million NRA members to share with their friends and neighbors. said Chris W. Cox, NRA's chief lobbyist. He has supported bans on handguns and semi-automatic firearms, and he has voted to ban possession of many shotguns and rifles commonly used by hunters and sportsmen across America. And we will remind voters every single time he lies. In 2003 while serving in the Illinois State Legislature, Obama voted in favor of a bill in the Judiciary Committee that would have made it illegal to knowingly manufacture, deliver or possess a so-called semi-automatic assault weapons. Under this bill, a firearm did not actually have to be semi-automatic to be banned. According to definitions in the bill, all single-shot and double-barreled shotguns 28-gauge or larger, and many semi-automatic shotguns of the same size, would be banned as assault weapons. This definition would have banned a large percentage of the shotguns used for hunting, target shooting and self-defense in the United States. The bill also would have banned hundreds of models of rifles and handguns. Any Illinois resident who possessed one of these commonly used guns 90 days after the effective date would have had to destroy the weapon or device, render it permanently inoperable, relinquish it to a law enforcement agency, or remove it from the state. Anyone who still possessed a banned gun would have been subject to a felony sentence. Obama may argue the bill was poorly drafted, said Cox. But Barack Obama - who brags about being a constitutional law professor and the former president of the Harvard Law Review - voted for it. That's pathetic. On Sep 11, 12:34 pm, VT Sean Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: LMAO, you have a problem with the fact that Obama has stances not made in concrete like Bush? That Obama allows room for compromise and his positions are in the middle of the road, NOT as you say on the fence. That is the problem with the GOP, you are either with them or against them and if you are against them then you are the enemy. Absolute positions that allow for only confrontation. Maybe you haven't noticed, this policy hasn't worked for the last 8 years? On Sep 11, 12:21 pm, jgg1000a [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One line attack response do not address the major flip-flops or the major sitting on the fence positions by Obama... Specifically on guns... Pretending Obama to be a strong leader with clear positions is folly... And that is the problem, Obama wants to be seen as a strong leader WITHOUT taking strong position pro or against... This is in part why Obama has refuse up to now to point to his experience in education reform from 1995-2000 in the CAC... Then he worked with Bill Ayers and others to recentralize the power of the school board in Chicago after the decentralization of power in the 70's and 80's (which were reforms put in place by the LW of the Democratic party)... The CAC efforts were not very sucessful (some call them failures)... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/06/AR200... That leaves Obama unrevealed on the D.C. law.
Re: girlie men libs are afraid of Sarah
On Sep 11, 9:27 am, VT Sean Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Point set and match! Is this another one of those facts VT?!?!?!?!?!?!? [EMAIL PROTECTED] --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Democratic Anger
On Sep 11, 10:43 am, VT Sean Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The 2006 election results speaks for America's atitude toward the Republicans. And the 2008 Election will speak to what they feel towards Democrats, and their choice of Barack Obama... --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Democratic Anger
OK not for nothing but the last line is pure BS. If we were under a terror attack why did Bush continue to the school? Why didn't he put into action anti terrorist actions? Why did he continue to read for several minutes after the SECOND plan crashed? If he already knew we were under attack, and did nothing then he was criminally negligent in his duties as commander in chief. No the truth is Bush is a moron and this was a clear indication he was well above his pay scale. To remind you: Approximately around 9/11: 9:14 AM 1st flight hit the trade tower. President Bush was vacationing but he released a statement with in 9:31 AM saying that that was an apparent terrorist attack. The President of United States must be alert 24x7 and he is expected to prove the same during the campaign. -MP On Sep 11, 2:06 pm, MANOJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sen. Hillary Clinton tried to convince their Super delegates that she has got the right kind of experience to face an experience candidate like John McCain. Her 3 AM wake up call in White House proved her capability as a strategist. American people will prefer a person with accomplishments and records because of the better probability of delivering results. During Georgia crisis, which was not a Hypothetical, Senator Obama's inexperience exposed. During DNC conventions, he didn't use the straight talk term Islamic radicals and remained politically correct. I have great respect for Senator Obama and believe that in case he can't make it to white house this time, he will revisit his mistakes ( ungracious to Clintons and not locking up the battle ground states by choosing Senator Hillary Clinton as VP) ; this time his campaign was not ready to expect the unexpected 'Palin factor'. The President of United States is expected to prepared for the worst and must have plans to counter the same. The Iran, Russia, Pakistan, Afganistan are great National Security issues and in this dangerous world of Russia and Islamic state sponsored terrorism - American people can't take chances.By the time senator Obama's 300 odd advisers reach white house, damage would have done. To remind you: Approximately around 9/11: 9:14 AM 1st flight hit the trade tower. President Bush was vacationing but he released a statement with in 9:31 AM saying that that was an apparent terrorist attack. The President of United States must be alert 24x7 and he is expected to prove the same during the campaign. -MP On Sep 11, 12:08 pm, jgg1000a [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: despite being built on myths as stolen election of 2000 and swiftboating will be a very destruction emotion within the Democratic Party if Obama loses... Responsible Democrats will have to reassert authority to stay competitive in years to come... It took Democrats 2 election cycles after 1968... It took Republicans 5 election cycles after 1932... It took Democrats 4 election cycles after 1896... It took Democrats 6 election cycles after 1860... It took the Whigs 4 election cycles after 1824... For a political party to learn that their anger is due to THEIR failures of governing and then accept the absolute requirement of altering their basic philosophy and POV takes time... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI200...- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
BREAKING: NY Times
From: Travis
Subject: BREAKING: NY Times
Date: Thursday, September 11, 2008,
--
*~@):~{
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups.
For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Mexican Makes NY Times Investment No American Will Do
From: travis
Date: Thu, Sep 11, 2008
Subject: Mexican Makes NY Times Investment No American Will Do
Mexican Makes NY Times Investment No American Will
Dohttp://clicks.aweber.com/y/ct/?l=I6lXOm=1gwz0gJ3lSzOAvb=U4OpYaFLHnEH7gCD5MIM2g
by Scott Ott for ScrappleFace
(2008-09-11) -- Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim Helú has stepped up
to do a job that most American's are no longer willing to do, buying a 6.4
percent stake in The New York Times Co., the newspaper which has struggled
for several years with declining readership, ad revenue and stock price.
READ THE REST AT...
http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=3106http://clicks.aweber.com/y/ct/?l=I6lXOm=1gwz0gJ3lSzOAvb=U4OpYaFLHnEH7gCD5MIM2g
7572 Sigmund Road, Zionsville, PA 18092, USA
To unsubscribe or change subscriber options visit:
http://www.aweber.com/z/r/?rEyMzAwctMzsrEzMzGzMtEa0zOyc7GzMDA==
--
*~@):~{
--
*~@):~{
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups.
For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
montana-democrat-governor-schweitzer-claims-to-have-rigged-2006-election/
From: travis
Date: Thu, Sep 11, 2008
Subject:
montana-democrat-governor-schweitzer-claims-to-have-rigged-2006-election/
http://stuckon-stupid.com/2008/09/11/montana-democrat-governor-schweitzer-claims-to-have-rigged-2006-election/
--
*~@):~{
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups.
For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: girlie men libs are afraid of Sarah
LMAO, NO one including yourself has posted any facts. Feel free to keep throwing those stones. The original post wasn't based on fact, or even opinion, it was a hominid attack. On Sep 11, 1:44 pm, Gaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 11, 9:26 am, VT Sean Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You bring out Bush in a Dress and expect the world not to notice once again it is all image and no substance. Bush in a Dress get it, he he he. Is that one of those facts you say you have posted? I see NO facts posted by you in this Thread. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: girlie men libs are afraid of Sarah
We did! Because the White House finally admitted there were none. So please educate us all. Oh so you understand, I am not taking about unuseable shells, secured material from the post Iraq 1991 war or non weaponized dual use components. Now GO give us the FACTS! On Sep 11, 1:46 pm, Gaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 11, 9:54 am, VT Sean Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It just means I am not as gullible as the same idiots who bought the lies, Iraq has WMD's, Well, since we actually FOUND SOME... Is this another fact?!?!?!?!?!? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: girlie men libs are afraid of Sarah
I didn't say he did... I SAID we found WMD's there. Some of the one's that Inspectors had been looking for for well over a Decade. On Sep 11, 11:25 am, VT Sean Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For the record IAEA found “no evidence or plausible indication” that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons program. Edit On March 17, UNMOVIC Executive Chairman Hans Blix and IAEA Director- General Mohamed ElBaradei presented their last pre-war briefings to the Security Council. On March 19, Blix and ElBaradei submitted draft work programs to the Security Council outlining remaining disarmament tasks for Iraq. The work programs are required under Security Council Resolution 1284. (See ACT, April 2003.) Since beginning work November 27, the inspectors have found no concrete evidence indicating that Iraq has reconstituted its WMD programs. ElBaradei stated in a March 7 report to the Security Council that the IAEA found “no evidence or plausible indication” that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons program. The UNMOVIC work program states that “no proscribed activities, or the result of such activities from the period of 1998-2002 have…been detected through inspections.” On Sep 11, 1:46 pm, Gaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 11, 9:54 am, VT Sean Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It just means I am not as gullible as the same idiots who bought the lies, Iraq has WMD's, Well, since we actually FOUND SOME... Is this another fact?!?!?!?!?!?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: girlie men libs are afraid of Sarah
http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/m-n/mariani/2004/mariani052804.htm The Sound of Silence: Iraq's WMDs Found May 28, 2004 by Joe Mariani After spending more than a year attacking the Bush administration daily for their supposed failure to produce the WMDs that everyone -- including the United Nations, as well as most leading Democrats -- believed Saddam had hidden, the Left has suddenly gone strangely silent on the subject. The mainstream media has been tiptoeing around the discovery of a 155-mm mortar shell containing Sarin gas in Iraq, the contents of which have been confirmed. The shell was used as part of an improvised explosive device (IED) on a road near the Baghdad International Airport, and exploded as it was being disarmed. The shell contained three liters of Sarin -- nearly a gallon. It was a type of shell designed to mix chemical components during flight, which was why the explosion didn't kill anyone (though two soldiers were treated for exposure). Three liters of Sarin is enough, if the components are mixed properly, to realistically kill hundreds, and potentially thousands. A concentration of 100 milligrams of Sarin per cubic meter of air is enough to constitute a lethal dose for half the people breathing it within one minute. This type of chemical warfare shell had never been declared by Iraq -- it was not even known that Iraq had ever made them. The 1999 UNSCOM report on Iraq reported that thirty binary/Sarin shells were known to exist, and stated that all had been accounted for. According to UNSCOM, Iraq developed a crude type of binary munition, whereby the final mixing of the two precursors to the agent was done inside the munition just before delivery. Someone actually had to physically pour the components of the Sarin (or other type of G-series nerve agent) into the shells before they could be fired. At least, that's how the ones we knew about worked. So, a previously-unknown type of artillery shell is found in Iraq, containing an actual, verifiable chemical weapon. This is front page news, right? Should we expect apologies from formerly doubting Liberals? Newspapers filled with retractions from prominent Democrats? Conciliatory visits to President Bush from Jaques Chirac and Gerhardt Schroeder? Not so fast. Remember: it's an election year. Liberals, Democrats, terrorists and appeasers all want President Bush to lose the election so everyone can get back to business as usual. Terrorists want to get back to their implacable war against Western civilisation, and the others want to get back to trying to placate them. The media, as long as we let them get away with it, will only run stories that attack President Bush and undermine support for him. In fact, Liberals already have their spin on this Sarin find ready to go. The vast majority of them -- when you can get them to admit that the Sarin and the shell are real -- argue that it doesn't matter for one of four reasons. A. The shell is old, from before the 1991 Gulf War, so it's not what we were looking for. Since the cease-fire that suspended the Gulf War depended on Saddam's handing over to the UN [a]ll chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities, this shell is precisely what we were looking for, especially if it predates 1991. This shell and others like it is why the UN passed 17 resolutions demanding that Saddam disarm. No matter how old it was, it was still lethal. There is no statute of limitations on weapons of mass destruction. B. There is only one shell, not a stockpile, so it doesn't mean anything. This one shell contained enough WMD material to potentially kill as many people as died on 9/11, all by itself. Is it logical to assume that this is the only one in existence -- or just wishful thinking? The fact is that we still don't know how much Sarin Iraq actually produced. At first, Iraq told UNSCOM that it had produced an estimated 250 tons of tabun and 812 tons of sarin. In 1995, Iraq changed its estimates and reported it had produced only 210 tons of tabun and 790 tons of sarin. (Yes, that's tons.) At the very least, it tells us that we haven't nearly finished looking for the WMDs that Saddam was supposed to surrender, and didn't. Besides... a shell containing mustard gas was also found. Well, maybe there were only two WMD shells in all of Iraq. C. Just because Saddam had WMDs after all, it doesn't mean Bush didn't lie about them. As ridiculous as it sounds, this appears to be the instinctive, defensive reaction of many Liberals to this news. They so badly need to believe that President Bush lied in order to legitimise their hatred of him that they're capable of this sort of twisted reasoning. The rationale seems to be that WMDs
BIDEN : TRAIL OF MONEY
EARMARKSTRAVEL AND PARTIESLIST OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Biden, Sen. Joseph Jr (-DE) 12/10/05-12/11/05 ABC Washington, DC Appearance on This Week $10,785. Biden, Sen. Joseph Jr (-DE) 11/26/05-11/27/05 NBC Washington, DC Appearance on Meet the Press $1,595 Biden, Sen. Joseph Jr (-DE) 10/22/05-10/22/05 Kentucky Democratic Party Cincinnati, OH Speech to the Kentucky Democratic Party $1,198 Biden, Sen. Joseph Jr (-DE) 09/01/05-09/03/05 European House Cernobbio, Italy Participation in and speech to the Ambroseti forum titled Business Strategies: The Scenario for Toda... more $2,922.00 Biden, Sen. Joseph Jr (-DE) 06/12/05-06/12/05 NBC Miami, FL Appearance on Meet the Press $115.00 Biden, Sen. Joseph Jr (-DE) 05/21/05-05/22/05 Suffolk University Boston, MA Suffolk law commencement speech $1,881.69 Biden, Sen. Joseph Jr (-DE) 04/22/05-04/23/05 Democratic Party of South Carolina Columbia, SC Speech to the South Carolina Democratic Party Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner $1,388.90 Biden, Sen. Joseph Jr (-DE) 02/27/05-02/27/05 NBC Washington, DC Appearance on Meet the Press $1,450.00 Biden, Sen. Joseph Jr (-DE) 02/16/05-02/19/05 HBO Los Angeles, CA Appearance on Real Time with Bill Maher $6,585.45 Biden, Sen. Joseph Jr (-DE) 02/05/05-02/05/05 Democratic Party of Virginia Richmond, VA Speech to Virginia Democratic Party Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner $1,880.28 Biden, Sen. Joseph Jr (-DE) 10/19/04-10/19/04 United Nations Foundation Boston, MA Participation in The People Speak, an election forum sponsored by the United Nations Foundation $314.00 Biden, Sen. Joseph Jr (-DE) 09/30/04-10/03/04 Forstmann Little and Co. Aspen, CO Senator's participation in Forstmann Little, and Co. conference; foreign policy discussion on Americ... more $17,554.98 Biden, Sen. Joseph Jr (-DE) 09/18/04-09/19/04 ABC Chicago, IL Appearance on This Week $374.83 Biden, Sen. Joseph Jr (-DE) 09/02/04-09/06/04 Ambrosetti Lake Como, Italy Ambrosetti's conference titled Intelligence 2004 on the World, on Europe, on Italy $12,239.00 Biden, Sen. Joseph Jr (-DE) 08/01/04-08/01/04 NBC Washington, DC Appearance on Meet the Press $1,074.45 Biden, Sen. Joseph Jr (-DE) 06/23/04-06/23/04 Pennsylvania Democratic Party Harrisburg, PA Speech to the Pennsylvania Democratic Party's Legislative Caucus and the Pennsylvania Democratic Par... more $3,119.17 Biden, Sen. Joseph Jr (-DE) 05/21/04-05/21/04 NAACP Columbia, SC Speech to the South Carolina State conference of the NAACP $1,300.00 Biden, Sen. Joseph Jr (-DE) 05/16/04-05/17/04 Northwestern University Chicago, IL Commencement speech at Northwestern University School of Law $1,416.59 Biden, Sen. Joseph Jr (-DE) 05/16/04-05/16/04 NBC Chicago, IL One-way air fare from Washington, DC to Chicago, Ill. for an event subsequent to an appearance on M... more $765.00 Biden, Sen. Joseph Jr (-DE) 05/08/04-05/08/04 Jackson Country Democratic Committee Wilmington, DE Speech to the Jackson County Democratic Committee 17th Annual Truman Days Banquet $676.00 Biden, Sen. Joseph Jr (-DE) 04/25/04-04/25/04 ABC Washington, DC Appearance on This Week $647.29 Biden, Sen. Joseph Jr (-DE) 04/11/04-04/11/04 CBS Fort Myers, FL Auto service in Fort Myers area for appearance on Face the Nation $330.75 Biden, Sen. Joseph Jr (-DE) 03/24/04-03/24/04 CNN Wilmington, DE Travel from Washington to Wilmington following appearance on Larry King Live $638.06 Biden, Sen. Joseph Jr (-DE) 03/20/04-03/21/04 ABC Washington, DC Appearance on This Week $1,594.58 Biden, Sen. Joseph Jr (-DE) 03/17/04-03/18/04 Hibernian Society of Charleston Charleston, SC Speech to the Hibernian Society of Charleston's annual banquet $1,542.80 Biden, Sen. Joseph Jr (-DE) 02/13/04-02/15/04 Association of Trial Lawyers of America Orlando, FL Speech to the Association of Trial Lawyers of America winter conference $3,830.02 Biden, Sen. Joseph Jr (-DE) 02/05/04-02/08/04 U.S. Spain Council Inc. Miami, FL Speech to U.S.-Spain Council forum $3,366.40 Biden, Sen. Joseph Jr (-DE) 01/22/04-01/26/04 World Economic Forum Davos, Switzerland Attendance at the World Economic Forum annual meeting $2,058.58 Biden, Sen. Joseph Jr (-DE) 11/07/03-11/08/03 Syracuse University Syracuse, NY Speech to the Syracuse College of Law Alumni Association's annual Distinguished Service Award dinner $2,148.93 Biden, Sen. Joseph Jr (-DE) 10/11/03-10/12/03 NBC Washington, DC Appearance on Meet the Press $6,983.90 Biden, Sen. Joseph Jr (-DE) 08/29/03-08/29/03 HBO Los Angeles, CA Appearance on Real Time with Bill Maher $8,410.75 Biden, Sen. Joseph Jr (-DE) 08/28/03-08/31/03 National Foundation for Women Legislators Las Vegas, NV Speech to annual conference of the National Foundation for Women Legislators $2,927.50 Biden, Sen. Joseph Jr (-DE) 08/23/03-08/24/03 NBC Washington, DC Appearance on Meet the Press $2,979.50 Biden, Sen. Joseph Jr (-DE) 07/20/03-07/20/03 NBC Washington, DC Appearance on Meet the Press $1,438.20 Biden, Sen. Joseph Jr (-DE) 05/25/03-05/25/03 NBC Washington,
Re: NYT Leaks State Secrets: Bush authorizes commando raids in Pakistan
On Sep 11, 11:02 am, Hollywood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: d.b. Quick, whip out a dictionary and tell me what it is when a country sends it's armed forces into the territory of another sovereign country without the knowledge or permission of that country. War. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: girlie men libs are afraid of Sarah
LMAO! I said these type of shells do not count! This is from your Proof! They even say IT IS NOT PROOF!! A. The shell is old, from before the 1991 Gulf War, so it's not what we were looking for. On Sep 11, 2:43 pm, Gaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/m-n/mariani/2004/mariani052804.htm The Sound of Silence: Iraq's WMDs Found May 28, 2004 ---- by Joe Mariani ---- After spending more than a year attacking the Bush administration daily for their supposed failure to produce the WMDs that everyone -- including the United Nations, as well as most leading Democrats -- believed Saddam had hidden, the Left has suddenly gone strangely silent on the subject. The mainstream media has been tiptoeing around the discovery of a 155-mm mortar shell containing Sarin gas in Iraq, the contents of which have been confirmed. The shell was used as part of an improvised explosive device (IED) on a road near the Baghdad International Airport, and exploded as it was being disarmed. The shell contained three liters of Sarin -- nearly a gallon. It was a type of shell designed to mix chemical components during flight, which was why the explosion didn't kill anyone (though two soldiers were treated for exposure). Three liters of Sarin is enough, if the components are mixed properly, to realistically kill hundreds, and potentially thousands. A concentration of 100 milligrams of Sarin per cubic meter of air is enough to constitute a lethal dose for half the people breathing it within one minute. This type of chemical warfare shell had never been declared by Iraq -- it was not even known that Iraq had ever made them. The 1999 UNSCOM report on Iraq reported that thirty binary/Sarin shells were known to exist, and stated that all had been accounted for. According to UNSCOM, Iraq developed a crude type of binary munition, whereby the final mixing of the two precursors to the agent was done inside the munition just before delivery. Someone actually had to physically pour the components of the Sarin (or other type of G-series nerve agent) into the shells before they could be fired. At least, that's how the ones we knew about worked. So, a previously-unknown type of artillery shell is found in Iraq, containing an actual, verifiable chemical weapon. This is front page news, right? Should we expect apologies from formerly doubting Liberals? Newspapers filled with retractions from prominent Democrats? Conciliatory visits to President Bush from Jaques Chirac and Gerhardt Schroeder? Not so fast. Remember: it's an election year. Liberals, Democrats, terrorists and appeasers all want President Bush to lose the election so everyone can get back to business as usual. Terrorists want to get back to their implacable war against Western civilisation, and the others want to get back to trying to placate them. The media, as long as we let them get away with it, will only run stories that attack President Bush and undermine support for him. In fact, Liberals already have their spin on this Sarin find ready to go. The vast majority of them -- when you can get them to admit that the Sarin and the shell are real -- argue that it doesn't matter for one of four reasons. A. The shell is old, from before the 1991 Gulf War, so it's not what we were looking for. Since the cease-fire that suspended the Gulf War depended on Saddam's handing over to the UN [a]ll chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities, this shell is precisely what we were looking for, especially if it predates 1991. This shell and others like it is why the UN passed 17 resolutions demanding that Saddam disarm. No matter how old it was, it was still lethal. There is no statute of limitations on weapons of mass destruction. B. There is only one shell, not a stockpile, so it doesn't mean anything. This one shell contained enough WMD material to potentially kill as many people as died on 9/11, all by itself. Is it logical to assume that this is the only one in existence -- or just wishful thinking? The fact is that we still don't know how much Sarin Iraq actually produced. At first, Iraq told UNSCOM that it had produced an estimated 250 tons of tabun and 812 tons of sarin. In 1995, Iraq changed its estimates and reported it had produced only 210 tons of tabun and 790 tons of sarin. (Yes, that's tons.) At the very least, it tells us that we haven't nearly finished looking for the WMDs that Saddam was supposed to surrender, and didn't. Besides... a shell containing mustard gas was also found. Well, maybe there were only two WMD shells in all of Iraq. C. Just because Saddam had WMDs after all, it doesn't mean
