Democratic Convention Watch: Open Thread

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Open Thread

WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com

What is McCain's latest "senior moment", what does Obama need to do to win in November or whatever else is on your mind.

And please be excellent to one another. We do not accept name calling or any attacks on our commenters. Any objectionable comments will be deleted. Try to be civil.

Thanks!

New Open Thread here
This one is now closed for comments.

4188 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 800 of 4188 Newer› Newest»

apissedant said...: oh,
Mike in Maryland, if you were referring to Mike, then I apologize.

Mike,
Her own merit? I think we have a disagreement on what constitutes merit. Also, the bulk of her money will still be inherited, and her fame which currently makes her that money is based off her being wealthy in the first place. Not exactly a good argument on your part.
I feel I can easily say that every person in this thread, including myself, yourself, yam, stop, leah, dave, and everyone else have already contributed more to society than paris hilton will in her whole life.

Mike,
I would disagree on the insults. You have denigrated all poor people, and have gone out of your way, searching your head, to find the biggest words possible to belittle me. I have also read your personal insults to many before me... so don't try the high ground now. When you talk about how terrible poor people are, and how wonderful rich people are, you invite criticism on the wealthy.

Poor people have just as many morally bankrupt people amongst them as the wealthy. Neither is, "good" as a whole, or "evil" as a whole. There are those amongst them who are good, and those amongst them who are bad. You have proven from which stock you come.; June 15, 2008 10:18 PM
apissedant said...: mike in md,
I again apologize, I was working on multiple things and apparently missed that post.; June 15, 2008 10:21 PM
apissedant said...: mike in md,
mike was continually referring to you, or talking to himself about starting an uproar, so I mistakenly believed you were "with" him. Actually I do remember reading that post, but I apparently attributed it to beryl for some reason.; June 15, 2008 10:22 PM
Meg said...: Mike:

Part of the problem is that on a blog there is all kinds of room for misinterpretation. Only words. No faces. Your "gentle ribbing" was probably not taken that way.

You said: "No poor person has ever done anything nice for me." Do you honestly believe that? No door held for you? Nothing?

When I grew up I had to learn that, contrary to my father's teachings, there are some very nice rich people in the world. I had learned that all rich people are snobs. Anything that labels an entire group is inaccurate simply for that reason.; June 15, 2008 10:27 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: apissedant said...
oh,
Mike in Maryland, if you were referring to Mike, then I apologize.

Nice (though extremely late) realization, Einstein.

In the future, pay attention before opening your mouth. You really look stupid when you don't pay attention to what one person vs. another person says.

And if you can't keep track of who said what on a simple blog, I pity the poor professors who will try to teach you anything when you try to go further with your studies. Keeping track of things (such as knowledge) is vitally important for any advanced degree.

Mike; June 15, 2008 10:30 PM
apissedant said...: mike in maryland,
Again, I apologize for the misunderstanding. I agree with your statements, and I'm not sure how I got lost. I assume I was so infuriated by the idea of mike writing off an entire class of people that I got a little hot and went with a shotgun when a pistol would have worked just fine.; June 15, 2008 10:32 PM
Yamaka said...: Rodent:

Apiss apologized.

Then why the hell you go on and on blathering your dirty anger on him?

You are one piece of senile cow dropping (which you like the most!); June 15, 2008 10:33 PM
Independent Voter said...: emma,

Yes it was a rhetorical question. Yam has proven that he/she does not have the ability to think rationally. If you compare his/her writing with Stop, you will see that it is the same person that is posting. Split personality or just a Republican troll? My guess is both.; June 15, 2008 10:36 PM
Meg said...: Glad you worked that out guys. Gotta go. Sleep well.; June 15, 2008 10:36 PM
apissedant said...: Dave,
I now fully understand the ignore issue. Maybe I should have joined you earlier.; June 15, 2008 10:39 PM
Joshua said...: Apissedant, you said:

“You have denigrated all poor people, and have gone out of your way, searching your head, to find the biggest words possible to belittle me.”

I see a profound misunderstanding. Are you not the same poster who told me that you tutor medical students in organic chemistry? And you think I search my head for big words? BIG WORDS! Apissedant, I address you and most people with the words that I use in my every day parlance. And, I would never deign to talk down to you - a graduate student. I am very embarrassed that you would post this.

If you prefer that I talk down, say so. I accord you respect and address you as I would a peer. If you find that objectionable, I can adjust my language.; June 15, 2008 10:39 PM
Joshua said...: Emma,

You are entirely correct. This medium is lacking. Human communication is more than words. We observe body language, and it says far more than words. But in the internet, this is all we have. That is why we sometimes put things like LOL, ;-), etc, to make up for the lost human interaction.

I can tell you that his evening has been nothing for me other than jocular exercise. I am amazed that several posters are very riled. I must have no clue.

I am certain that “poor” people have shown me kindness. But we have to establish what a “poor” person is. To me, a rich person is a person in a position to advance my circumstances. It need not be material wealth. A poor person would then be defined as “not rich.”; June 15, 2008 10:48 PM
apissedant said...: mike,
Everyone knows exactly what you intended with this post,
"Interesting litany of workers engaging in remunerated employment. I hardly recognize any uncompensated selfless act among them."

We are not simple country folk that don't understand your big city boy slang. We are all well educated, whether country or not, and we know when someone is being a dick. I am using your royal "we", like it?; June 15, 2008 10:48 PM
Independent Voter said...: p'd ant - Dave,
I now fully understand the ignore issue. Maybe I should have joined you earlier.

--------

LOL! I totally understand.; June 15, 2008 10:51 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Open Thread Electoral Vote Contest

The closer the election is the easier to guess the winning number will be.
So we will have a cut off date for number submissions of July 13th 11:59pm.
Duplicate number guesses will be allowed since there are only so many combinations available.
The list reflects the number of EVs for Obama (vs. McCain).

Submissions so far:

Emma - 300
Richard - 304
tmess2 - 315
RobH - 317 (1)
apissedant - 317 (2)
JayW - 269
softspoken22 - 298
Oregon Dem - 332
Leah - 345
Emit R Detsaw - 429
Independent voter - 538

.
Anyone that submits an early guess will be allowed to add (but not change) a second guess October 1st - 3rd. The early guess will be our main contest. The second guess will be considered a separate contest.; June 15, 2008 10:55 PM
Independent Voter said...: P'd Ant - We are not simple country folk that don't understand your big city boy slang. We are all well educated, whether country or not, and we know when someone is being a dick. I am using your royal "we", like it?

--------

ROFLMAO! Go get 'em ant! I love it. I wonder how often he refers to himself in the plurality. Another split personality?; June 15, 2008 10:59 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Mike,

Your insistence on using the royal "we":

I think we have established that you are not a monarch, bishop, pope, or university rector. And your use of the royal "we" was not used in the sense that a newspaper editor might use that term.

That leaves us with the most probable reason you are using the royal "we". Mark Twain once said, "Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial 'we'."

Are you telling us that you have tapeworms? I'd quickly get to a doctor to discuss this problem if I were you. Since I'm not you, though, and you barely deign to speak to the non-rich, I suppose you wouldn't be inclined to take the advice of this non-rich person, would you?

Mike; June 15, 2008 11:02 PM
Independent Voter said...: Mike in MD, You and p'd ant are cracking me up tonight. I think nearly everyone on this thread now understand why I put him on ignore.; June 15, 2008 11:06 PM
Independent Voter said...: Oh My! Obama tells it like it is. LOL

"Any fool can have a child," Obama said. "That doesn't make you a father. It's the courage to raise a child that makes you a father."

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Vote2008/story?id=5172580&page=1; June 15, 2008 11:09 PM
Joshua said...: Apissedant, you said:
[Everyone knows exactly what you intended with this post,
"Interesting litany of workers engaging in remunerated employment. I hardly recognize any uncompensated selfless act among them."]

You honestly have me scratching my head. Are those the big words that upset you? Seriously, are any of those big words? I am serious.

What, remunerated? Remuneration? Pay for work done? Big word? Or employment? Work for pay? Uncompensated? I dare you to find a different word that means the same and is simpler than uncompensated.

Sorry, I simply cannot take you seriously. I do not think that a graduate student would have any difficulty with any of those words. Try again.; June 15, 2008 11:21 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Here's the link to Obama's Fathers Day speech:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Hj1hCDjwG6M

Btw... Happy Father's Day to all the fathers out there in the world.; June 15, 2008 11:28 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: The stupidity, denseness of thought process, and obvious lack of concern for the non-rich attitude that Mike, in his post at 11:21, displays is overpowering.

Word to you, Mike. What courtesy that used to be extended to you can be as quickly be replaced with scorn. And that would put you in the same class of people, at least in my mind, as the Yammerer; the son of who knows what; and the person who uses a Romantic Language-sounding name, but has no clue of how to read things in context (and I am DEFINITELY not speaking of Leah with that last reference).

Mike; June 15, 2008 11:35 PM
Joshua said...: And finally,

Poor people DO CHOOSE to be poor, especially in America. You would have to try very hard to be poor in America. It takes effort to be and remain poor in America. What with compulsory (forced) and free education till the age of majority (adult); several grants, loans, merit and sports scholarships available for higher education. Opportunity abounds to set up your own business or if you are not entrepreneurial (willing to risk health and capital for higher reward), then employment is available. If you are poor in America then you are lazy or deceitful.

Good evening.; June 15, 2008 11:41 PM
apissedant said...: mike,
Did I ever say I didn't understand anything? For all your schooling, you seem to have troubles with the English language. I have also never said I was a graduate student. I am not, in fact a graduate student. I am finishing up my final semester of undergraduate work, and will be starting graduate school in 2009. All those English classes and visits to the dictionary don't mean a hill of crap if you can't communicate.

"litany" "remunerated" - 774 hits

"account" "compensated" - 508,000 hits

No one speaks like that except the arrogant. The words are not necessary, they are used for the sheer purpose of making another person feel stupid and small. Again, those words did not set me off (another example of your problem with communication), your saying that poor people are the problem with society set me off.

Have you ever read Thomas Paine? I find him a great example for the simple folk. He was poor and uneducated. He was also smart, passionate, and could communicate with the best of them. He became famous throughout the entire world, circulating more copies of his work than anyone else of his era. He was more read than Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and Thomas Jefferson, despite all their money and education. His command of the English language was laughable, he used the word despot so many times in "Rights of Man", I wanted to go back in time and give the man a thesaurus.
It didn't matter, he communicated his message, and he convinced everyone else. They understood him, and they agreed with him. Their passion was ignited through his words. He helped birth a revolution, despite his lack of education. Using little known, complicated words, when smaller, more well known words would work... just makes you look like a dick. People tune out and ignore what you're saying, even if they know what the words mean. They think you're arrogant, because you are, and they write you off. That seems rather counterproductive.

English is a language, it was invented for the purpose of communication. If you spend all these years fine tuning your English, and can still not communicate, what is your problem?; June 15, 2008 11:43 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Mike = a Republican that is totally out of touch with ordinary everyday Americans.; June 15, 2008 11:44 PM
Independent Voter said...: mike, you may want to revisit your statement. Interesting litany? What the hell are you referring to as a litany?

In case you aren't aware of its REAL meaning you can look HERE

You really shouldn't use words that YOU don't understand their meaning.; June 15, 2008 11:44 PM
apissedant said...: Mike in Maryland,
I can't apologize enough for wrapping you up in his garbage. My mistake, seriously. We did argue once I think, but I don't remember about what. Oh yeah, I think it was about me arguing. Haha.; June 15, 2008 11:46 PM
Independent Voter said...: So how 'bout them Padres? They suck this year. LOL; June 15, 2008 11:54 PM
stopOBAMAnow said...: "Repigs have that attitude - poor people are poor because they want to be, or don't have enough initiative to become rich, or are just plain stupid."

Very wrong - is a view of a very angry disturbed individual.

Mostly, poor are poor because of the poor work skills and poor behavior (there may be exceptions of birth defect, accidents etc: these unfortunate people MUST be protected by the State).

Mostly, rich are rich because of high skills, hard work, good planning and good behavior (very few are rich with inherited wealth).

Republican Party has rich, middle class and poor people, as does the Democratic Party.

Quit throwing mud at everyone! Insanity has no limits.

_________________________________

Yamaka:

Thanks for your reply and comments.

Well, We are a family of engineers: I am in Nuclear Engineering, my wife is in Petroleum Engineering, my son is doing Chemical Engineering at UT Austin, and my daughter is a Med Student at TX Tech (after a degree from Columbia U); I am a year older than you.

Like you, I work very hard and having a good family and good life. Many of my friends and colleagues are like me working hard in all their lives. They also live well.

We both are fiscal conservatives, and politically centrists. We have philosophical agreements at most things.

I too invest in Capital Markets: mostly my 401 K retirement money.

What's your prediction for the Jobs situation? Are we in recession? What's your projection for GDP growth, SP500 Index, 10 Y T rate and the P/E multiple for the end of the year?

Keep writing.; June 15, 2008 11:56 PM
apissedant said...: Dave,
Baseball? I thought you boys like figure skating or something... ;)

(Don't press me on the who is a bigger man issue, because I'll just let you know now I can't name a single baseball, hockey, basketball, or hockey player... unless of course they're on the news for criminal activity.)

Oh wait, that's a lie, Mike Hart just got drafted, and Adrian Arrington, but I don't know what team.; June 16, 2008 12:04 AM
apissedant said...: stop,
What is the critical energy level for a fast neutron at which level it can trigger fission in a molecule uranium-235?; June 16, 2008 12:07 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: apissedant,

Let me state it this way -

It normally takes quite a bit of stupidity or of someone being a pissant to light my fuse. However, once that fuse is lit, it is extremely difficult for that lit fuse to be extinguished. And I'm not the only person to whom that applies.

Pay attention to who says what, especially when it is in a blog and you can go back to review what was stated by whom. You might find proper attribution very helpful for advancing any argument you might make in the future.

And arguing for argument's sake can get very old real quick for almost everyone. Its constant use serves absolutely no purpose except to antagonize people. Not something you want to happen while studying for an advanced educational degree of any type.

Mike; June 16, 2008 12:08 AM
stopOBAMAnow said...: "Any fool can have a child," Obama said. "That doesn't make you a father. It's the courage to raise a child that makes you a father."

Interesting.

BHO's father deserted the Junior when he was two. Her young mother was helpless and on food stamps for a while until Toot (his maternal Grandma) caught hold of the situation and worked her tail off to raise the grandson.

But, he titled his first book "Dreams from my Father". He knew his father barely one month when he was in school in HI.

He calls him a fool, now.

Interesting!; June 16, 2008 12:08 AM
stopOBAMAnow said...: "If you are poor in America then you are lazy or deceitful."

Yes, mostly.

But, you forget the few people with birth defects, wounded in war and accidents who cannot go to high skilled, high paying jobs! They may be dependent on the family, friends, relatives or the State. These unfortunate people deserve the full support of the State.

You have to allow some exceptions, IMO.; June 16, 2008 12:17 AM
Independent Voter said...: Leah, I am listening to it in its entirety right now as I type this, but I fear for the church at this point. Are they "allowed" to let him make that speech and keep their 501(c)3 status? I'm not clear on tax exempt status for churches. So far he had stated he was running for president once, but I don't know if that would disqualify the church of their tax exempt status.

Or does it simply apply to ministers who talk politics from the pulpit? I'm not real sure at this point as to what is classified as politicking in the church.

Does anyone else know?; June 16, 2008 12:18 AM
apissedant said...: mike in maryland,
LOL, I think we already argued enough about the merits of argument. I find that to be a dead issue. The original argument was actually the primary process and the status of "firsts", which you had assumed I was arguing for argument sake. I digress, it is again, a dead issue.

As far as the mike thing, all I can do is say sorry. You're both named mike, and he had wrote to you that, "we had...." something or other... I had forgotten about the royal "we" thing, and thought he was saying you and he. Simple mistake. Of course there is the ability to go back and read, but we're talking 200 posts a page, many quite wordy. I think you will find that nearly everyone here has confused words or mis-attributed a statement at least once on here. Stuff happens, as long as they admit their mistake and apologize for it.... I'd think we would all be able to be adults and accept apologies for mistakes when they are offered.

Again, on arguing... ('cause I am not great at letting a dead horse be) I made a name for myself in my school by being will to correct and argue with professors when they were wrong. Due to this and good grades, I was offered research and teaching jobs my second year of college while still managing a full class load. No other student was offered both of these items, despite more experience and better grades in several cases. My father is a lawyer, and makes a living by arguing. Arguing has served my family and myself well, and I plan to continue it. The only time arguing did not work in my benefit was in the military, which is why I left. A place where wrong is right because it was said by a supervisor is not the right place for me. My students argue with me, and I appreciate it, because sometimes they're right and I'm wrong... and because of them, I learn more. This is my end goal, and that is how I am best able to achieve it.

This post is entirely too long... not the first time, and probably not the last.; June 16, 2008 12:22 AM
apissedant said...: stop,
Did you actually read the book? Does he spend the book praising his father? Are you blindly lashing out?; June 16, 2008 12:23 AM
apissedant said...: Dave,
Funny you bring this up... it is discussed in, "The Appeal" by John Grisham that I just finished. He is a lawyer and former legislator, but it is a work of fiction. The way he makes it sound, the government basically turns the other cheek and ignores it.

Think of all the Neo-Nazi conservatives... they straight up endorse politicians, and preach of how terrible the liberals are all the time. I think the government is afraid to enforce it. I have no idea though.

Here is what the IRS says:
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=161131,00.html; June 16, 2008 12:26 AM
Independent Voter said...: p'd ant - Dave,
Baseball? I thought you boys like figure skating or something... ;)

(Don't press me on the who is a bigger man issue, because I'll just let you know now I can't name a single baseball, hockey, basketball, or hockey player... unless of course they're on the news for criminal activity.)

Oh wait, that's a lie, Mike Hart just got drafted, and Adrian Arrington, but I don't know what team.

--------

ROFLMAO! Had to get the kleenex for that one, because yes, I do like figure skating also...LOL

My favorite sport is gymnastics and especially Power Tumbling; June 16, 2008 12:27 AM
apissedant said...: In 1954, Congress approved an amendment by Sen. Lyndon Johnson to prohibit 501(c)(3) organizations, which includes charities and churches, from engaging in any political campaign activity. To the extent Congress has revisited the ban over the years, it has in fact strengthened the ban. The most recent change came in 1987 when Congress amended the language to clarify that the prohibition also applies to statements opposing candidates.

Currently, the law prohibits political campaign activity by charities and churches by defining a 501(c)(3) organization as one "which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."; June 16, 2008 12:29 AM
apissedant said...: Ok all, I must be with my favorite prego. GOODNIGHT!; June 16, 2008 12:32 AM
apissedant said...: that video is intense... they are talented...; June 16, 2008 12:33 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Well during Obama's Fathers Day speech he did not mention John McCain or Bush. He did not ask anyone to vote or to vote for him. He did not say 'why he would be a better candidate'. He did mention that he was running for president but that is just a fact - a personal fact regarding himself.

I didn't hear anything in the speech that would be a conflict.

I am sure he probably had some of his other lawyers proof the speech for conflict of interest prior to giving it. This issue has come up before when he gave a speech in a church and that speech didn't break any rules/laws.; June 16, 2008 12:39 AM
Independent Voter said...: p'd ant - thanks for the link. I'm not sure that it helped. LOL!; June 16, 2008 12:43 AM
Independent Voter said...: Goodnight p'd ant. Sleep good.; June 16, 2008 12:44 AM
Independent Voter said...: Leah -

Help me out. If they are not "asking" for someone's vote or "asking" them to not vote for another candidate, it is ok? If that is the case, then cool, hit them all up. You know they would eat that right up.; June 16, 2008 12:50 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: .

WHEN McCAIN DROPS OUT

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-rosenbaum/when-mccain-drops-out_b_107236.html

.; June 16, 2008 1:03 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Independent voter -

I think that everything Senator Obama did and everything he said in the speech was okay. You gotta remember he is a lawyer and he knows what the law allows and what it does not.

Obama/Sebelius '08; June 16, 2008 1:07 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: apissedant said...
My father is a lawyer, and makes a living by arguing. Arguing has served my family and myself well, and I plan to continue it.

Arguing for a purpose has ... well, a purpose.

Arguing for argument's sake serves no purpose except to make yourself a pain in the posterior of anyone and everyone around you when it is not the time or place to argue.

There is a time and place for most things. As an example, having mutually agreed-upon sex with your loved one in the privacy of your bedroom, your house, a Motel 6, etc., has a purpose - either enjoyment and/or for procreation. It normally does not bother anyone (except for when one or both partners are vocal, and you have a nosy neighbor - VBG).

Having ANY 'intimate' sex in public does nothing but set yourself up for scorn and disdain by the public who might see the act, even if it doesn't bring the attention of law enforcement personnel onto the act.

Please take your 'arguing for arguing's sake at any time' argument, and consider the consequences of arguing at the wrong time or with the wrong person. There is a time and place for that, but it is not all the time, and it is not in every place.

Mike; June 16, 2008 1:08 AM
Independent Voter said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; June 16, 2008 1:18 AM
Independent Voter said...: Mike in MD- Having ANY 'intimate' sex in public does nothing but set yourself up for scorn and disdain by the public who might see the act, even if it doesn't bring the attention of law enforcement personnel onto the act.

-------

:(

Hey now! Nuff with the personal attacks....VVVVVVBG!; June 16, 2008 1:19 AM
stopOBAMAnow said...: "Did you actually read the book? Does he spend the book praising his father? Are you blindly lashing out?"

Most of it, not all.

On page 261 BHO writes,

"Never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the Black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself".

To me, this is praising!

After reading this, I was terribly confused. His Toot and Stanley did most of the hard work of raising him to be what he is now (which he acknowledged on June 3rd 2008, very kind of him)

He did not name the book after his beloved Toot or them! Instead, he named it to his father whom he met only for ONE Month when he was in middle school!

BHO is an enigma for me and most of my friends.

What say you, Yamaka?; June 16, 2008 1:24 AM
stopOBAMAnow said...: "Having ANY 'intimate' sex in public does nothing but set yourself up for scorn and disdain by the public who might see the act, even if it doesn't bring the attention of law enforcement personnel onto the act."

Rodent:

Just STOP this nonsense. You have been crying and sobbing for hours now. For what? He already apologized. What more do you want?

Instead, throw yourself through your attic window! Save the world.; June 16, 2008 1:29 AM
Independent Voter said...: Wow, I just finished watching Obama's Father's Day address. And this jerk Rick Sanchez is criticizing it. He was asking is he going to get blow back from this for telling people to take responsibility. He and his "political analyst" - (Republican shrill) calling it pretty much nothing but political. It makes me sick to see how these tabloid journalists butcher things. The "guest" said that "supposedly he said it from his heart". What kind of crap is that? The man speaks from nowhere but from his heart.; June 16, 2008 1:32 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: stopO-

You are using an email smear - that uses a quote out of context!!!
-------

SMEAR EMAIL

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

FACT

FULL QUOTE From Dreams From My Father:

"All my life, I had carried a single image of my father, one that I had sometimes rebelled against but had never questioned, one that I had later tried to take as my own. The brilliant scholar, the generous friend, the upstanding leader--my father had been all those things. All those things and more, because except for that one brief visit in Hawaii, he had never been present to foil the image, because I hadn't seen what perhaps most men see at some point in their lives: their father's body shrinking, their father's best hopes dashed, their father's face lined with grief and regret.

"Yes, I'd seen weakness in other men--Gramps and his disappointments, Lolo and his compromise. But these men had become object lessons for me, men I might love but never emulate, white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela. And if later I saw that the black men I knew--Frank or Ray or Will or Rafiq--fell short of such lofty standards; if I had learned to respect these men for the struggles they went through, recognizing them as my own--my father's voice had nevertheless remained untainted, inspiring, rebuking, granting or withholding approval. You do not work hard enough, Barry. You must help in your people's struggle. Wake up, black man!

"Now, as I sat in the glow of a single light bulb, rocking slightly on a hard-backed chair, that image had suddenly vanished. Replaced by...what? A bitter drunk? An abusive husband? A defeated, lonely bureaucrat? To think that all my life I had been wrestling with nothing more than a ghost!" [Page 220]

www.FightTheSmears.Com

.; June 16, 2008 1:36 AM
Independent Voter said...: Yam wrote On page 261 BHO writes,

"Never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the Black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself".

To me, this is praising!

After reading this, I was terribly confused. His Toot and Stanley did most of the hard work of raising him to be what he is now (which he acknowledged on June 3rd 2008, very kind of him)

He did not name the book after his beloved Toot or them! Instead, he named it to his father whom he met only for ONE Month when he was in middle school!

BHO is an enigma for me and most of my friends.

What say you, Yamaka?

-----

Yak - enough with the BS! You are fooling NO ONE here.

We all know you are full of it. You are using the same Repuke talking point BS that you used a month ago, just under a different moniker.

Now go away, we don't care too much for Republican Shrills in here.

If you want us to believe that you have read most of the book, why not give us the FULL context of the quote. I can go to any riech-wing-nut-job website and find that exact same quote. So tell me, which website did you lift it from? Drudge? Faux News? Free Republic?; June 16, 2008 1:37 AM
stopOBAMAnow said...: "You are using an email smear - that uses a quote out of context!!!"

Am I?

Please tell me what else is there before and after THAT passage in p 261?

I am not talking about other stuff.

Is he praising his father whom he knew only for one MONTH in his entire life?

Or cursing him for deserting him helpless young family?

Remember, his father deserted the family when the Jr was age two (for the sake of partial money offered by Harvard - instead he could have taken another offer which paid full money to support his young family in NY!); June 16, 2008 1:44 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: All the quotes out of context that are used in email smears can be read here:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/therealquote

The smear is listed along with the ENTIRE correct quote!

.; June 16, 2008 1:44 AM
Independent Voter said...: Leah - LMAO! He claimed it was page 261 and directly from Obama's website it directly from 220. How Effing funny is that?

What a lying dolt. (I know it may not be fair to dolts comparing Yak/Stop to them, but I think it is applicable in this case.); June 16, 2008 1:47 AM
Independent Voter said...: The problem dolt is that YOU had the page number WRONG!; June 16, 2008 1:48 AM
stopOBAMAnow said...: "The smear is listed along with the ENTIRE correct quote!"

Please I urge you: Go to page 261 of the Book (get it from the Library or go to a Book Store) and check it.

I bet page 261 is correct.

The passage is a praise for the father who deserted the family!

You will know who is fooling who?!; June 16, 2008 1:56 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: YOU are on ignore.

Now please go away and take your out of context smears with you. Republican bashing of our Democratic nominee is not allowed on this website.; June 16, 2008 2:00 AM
stopOBAMAnow said...: Yamaka:

I have a curve ball for you:

Gay marriages are going to be solemnized in CA again.

Flocks of people go to SF starting next week.

What impact, if any, this will have in the GE this Fall?

Some suspect that the Religious Right will get energized and go full blast supporting McCain in the Fall! Now they have a very lukewarm support for McCain.

Talk about Unintended Consequences!

What say you Yamaka?; June 16, 2008 2:03 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Why Obama should pick Hillary Clinton as veep

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/06/16/hillary_yes/index.html

Why Obama should NOT pick Hillary Clinton as veep

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/06/16/hillary_no/index.html; June 16, 2008 2:11 AM
Vicki in Seattle said...: y'all are fun-NEEE tonight!

oh, btw - there is another Vicki here, I think she capitalizes her name (I don't). but we must not make many waves, we've never fought or anything.; June 16, 2008 2:12 AM
Vicki in Seattle said...: well, I'll be. my name shows up in caps. go figure. maybe I have a split personality - maybe the other one doens't cap her name.

I forget, my name is tad different on all my boards and blogs.; June 16, 2008 2:21 AM
Joshua said...: Obama does not think that you can blame poverty on the rich, uber rich and corporations.; June 16, 2008 2:48 AM
Independent Voter said...: Vicki - consider putting your city or state after your name so that you are identifiable in future posts. Just a thought :); June 16, 2008 2:49 AM
Independent Voter said...: Goodnight Vicki and Leah. Have a great night. See you tomorrow.; June 16, 2008 2:51 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: Troll who has the same first name as I do:

I stated that the Repigs protect the rich, uber rich, and corporations, instead of protecting ALL Americans. The Democratic Party candidates do a much better job of protecting ALL Americans. As I explained before, ALL is inclusive, meaning the poor, the middle class and the rich.

Now take your Repig 'talking points' and shove them where the sun does not shine. And then you follow your 'talking points' to that same destination.

Mike; June 16, 2008 5:20 AM
apissedant said...: leah,
Thanks for the quote. I haven't read any of Obama's books yet. I have his latest, but it is not at the top of my reading list as of yet.; June 16, 2008 9:40 AM
Vicki in Seattle said...: good idea, IV - I hereby become: Vicki in Seattle (if I can figure out how); June 16, 2008 10:14 AM
Vicki in Seattle said...: did it work?; June 16, 2008 10:16 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Good morning fellow democrats
it's hot as hell this morning in Houston. I know I know it's 74 and sunny in Calif. [Dave I hate you SA] LOL LOL. This is when I wish I was in Tenn.I know Softspoken22 it's hot there too been talking to a dear friend there but it's still better than Houston.

Leah about Carter he is a dipshit old man.Uses poor judgement and no one should take him seriously.

Everyone have a nice day until I get to email again take care.

Oh one more thing about Obama's speech at the church all he did was tell the truth there are a lot of mia's [both parents]and it does take more than having a child to be a parent.Jean; June 16, 2008 10:19 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Vicki in Seattle

Yes it worked. Jean; June 16, 2008 10:21 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Vicki in Seattle

I've never been to Seattle but have been to Washington around Spokane and toward the middle of the state. Washington has quite beauty it is very serene there. I really enjoyed exploring the countryside.I'm the type of person that likes to stay away from the big cities and explore the countryside of a state and enjoy the beauty and serenity of it. I had the opportunity to explore a lot of states and have nothing but fond memories of those times. Jean; June 16, 2008 10:34 AM
Vicki in Seattle said...: Aunt Jean, yes, I see it did work! thanks for noticing!

sorry it's hotter'n young love there. Our cool spring is finally turning around here and today is the second day of sun in a row.

I get it that there are a lot of MIA parents out there - not just both genders, but from different races, too. As usual, the reasons why are complicated. I don't know quite what the fixit is, but it's way harder than changing one's name on an open thread, I'm sure.

what I like about Obama is that he is willing to speak out some truths that are obvious. at least obvious to my eyes.; June 16, 2008 10:45 AM
Karen Anne said...: Mike,

Do you only count "opening doors" as being nice? What about trying to cheer you up when you are down? What about watching out for your kids when they are outside? What about smiling at you on the street? What about bringing over a casserole when you are sick?

As to "having one's hand out" "asking for jobs and pensions," as has been pointed out, corporations make a tidy profit off their workers.

Then the CEOs who are making millions cut the workers health benefits and reduce or do away with their pensions or lay them off, and ship their jobs off to India or China, where they can be done incompetently, with no environmental or worker safety regulations, at a pittance.

CEOs like McCain's buddy Carly Fiorina. Tried calling HP tech support(sic) lately? Good luck with a two hour wait for a technically clueless person in India to answer. How many of us remember when tech support people were actually competent, what a concept.; June 16, 2008 10:47 AM
Independent Voter said...: LOL Aunt Jean - It's 63 right now and yes you are right it will be 74 here today VBG. I just had to rub it in, LOL.

----

Thanks Vicki and good job on figuring it out.

----

As far as Obama's speech, yes it was a great speech, but after some thinking about it I was a little disappointed - ONLY a little.

I had and continue to have one of those MIA fathers, however I have a wonderful step-father. My only criticism of Obama's speech yesterday is that in my mind Father's Day is the day when praise is given to those fathers who take their responsibility of fatherhood seriously, not necessarily to knock those who don't.

Now please do NOT get me wrong, I totally agree with what he said, but I also think he chould have focused more on praising those who have done the great job in their role of fatherhood.

Does that make sense?

I'll check back later, I'm running out the door....UGH these early mornings are killin' me. 3 more weeks and then I don't have to wake up in the morning....LOL; June 16, 2008 10:56 AM
Karen Anne said...: "If you are poor in America then you are lazy or deceitful." - Mike

Or, you live in a place where the schools are crap and your Dad is MIA and your Mom is busy shooting herself up.

Or you are trying to keep a small farm going, working 16 hours a day, and your fields flood or it doesn't rain all summer.

Or, you are doing okay running a small business or working two jobs, but you can't afford health insurance, and then one of you gets cancer or another highly expensive disease.

Or, you are not the brightest bulb in the package and you work hard, but you can only get a minimum wage job.

Or you are 55 years old and your company lays you off, cancels your retiree health benefits, and redoes your pension so the balance is decimated.

Or any number of other things.; June 16, 2008 11:07 AM
ed iglehart said...: Pissant,

I'm glad to meet another fan of Tom Paine. I consider Common Sense to be nothing short of the best political pamphlet ever written!

Paine's language is simply brilliant.

"a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial

appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in

defence of custom. "

from the opening of Common Sense

and, slightly further in...

"SOME writers have so confounded society with government,

as to leave little or no distinction between them;

whereas they are not only different, but have different origins.

Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness;

the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections,

the latter negatively by restraining our vices.

The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions.

The first is a patron, the last a punisher....

Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence;

the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise.

For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed,

man would need no other lawgiver;"

-- Thomas Paine, On the Origins of Government...1776

AND God Bless Ben Franklin, for putting this dangerous radical English malcontent in charge of a printing press....

Franklin was probably the man most behind the Revolution - a real provocateur who stirred the young men around him. He was there at every turn, but let others take the credit as well as encouraging them to apply their talents.

The Congress delegated the writing of the Declaration to a subcommittee, Franklin, Adams and Jefferson. The committee met briefly and gave the task to Jefferson, then met again to approve it without alteration.

When it was offered to the Congress, Jefferson's polemic against slavery was deleted (at the insistence of Georgia and South Carolina). The original can be seen here

Salaam, etc.
ed; June 16, 2008 11:29 AM
Vicki in Seattle said...: "a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. "

Ed! you are gonna get me into book larnin' yet! I LOVE this quote - did I not just say that I love Obama's ability to speak a simple truth that seems obvious?

btw, ever since I finished grad school, it's been hard to just pick up a book and read it without a vague feeling of nausea and a sense that I needed to write a brief 1,500 word essay on something about it. I may just have to pick up some Paine, now, and skim through it. hopefully, without getting nauseous.; June 16, 2008 11:40 AM
apissedant said...: Dave,
I would not speak too much of your MIA father, or you will end up being part of a Republican statistic that explains your life, "choices". VBG; June 16, 2008 11:41 AM
apissedant said...: vicki,
Definitely choose Common Sense, not Rights of Man.

Ed,
You are obviously a well read, intelligent, and caring person. I truly enjoy your posts. I must admit my own shortcomings however. I have in fact read Rights of Man, but have not yet made it to Common Sense. I know that seems odd and backwards, and I cannot explain the logic I used to come to that decision.
I think Thomas Paine was a great man that did the world a wonderful service with his writing. Unfortunately, he was an idealist that was great at getting the troops riled up, but no where near as capable at helping set up a working institution after the broken institution was thrown out. This shows very well in Rights of Man. I can agree with most of his beliefs, but not in his ideas on the implementation of those beliefs. I own Common Sense, as well as too many other books, and hope to eventually make myself to it as well.

Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and George Washington are by far my favorite founders. Franklin was an idealist, as well as a pragmatist. Washington knew his own weaknesses, and could recognize the greatness of other men better than any other founder. This made the two of them the best for making something that actually worked. They brought warring fractions together and reached compromise like no other state leaders could.

Hamilton was a genius, but unfortunately had no ability to politic. He knew what was right and what should be done, but he was terrible at convincing others to follow him. After the departure of Franklin and Washington, his ideas no longer had a great speaker and consensus builder to advocate them. He quickly fell from power, taking many of his greatest ideas with him. (IMHO)

Jefferson was another idealist and another great author. I agree with almost everything he wrote, and almost nothing he did.; June 16, 2008 12:00 PM
apissedant said...: http://www.pfli.org/main.php?pfli=stupid

A story in the Washington Post just did a story about this website. It is disturbing.; June 16, 2008 12:01 PM
Vicki in Seattle said...: apissedant - if you have not read Common Sense, then why do you recommend it over Rights of Men? Is ROM exceptionally dense and hard to read?

Just looked at that website. still processing.; June 16, 2008 12:12 PM
apissedant said...: vicki,
Well I've read snippets and reviews. It is the book Paine is famous for. Rights of Man was written during the French Revolution, so part of the problem is that he was on the wrong side. He was arguing for the revolution that resulted in more devastation and death that what preceded it. He basically goes overboard, to an almost Bush like idea, where we bring Democracy and freedom to all the other nations of the world.

He also gets very very preachy and repetitive in that book. It isn't terrible, but it isn't great either. It, at least to me, came off clear that he didn't know what was right, so he just continually ranted about what was wrong. Circulation of Rights of Man was no where near circulation of Common Sense. Common Sense saturated the market, people loved it.
I have a collection of his writings, I just haven't finished reading them all yet. It just seems to me it would be a better idea to read the stuff he wrote when he was on the right side, then to start when he was wrong. That is probably why I haven't read Common Sense actually. I was rather turned off by Rights of Man, and needed a break. I just never got around to picking the rest of his writings up again.

I recommend Rights of Man, don't get me wrong. At the very least it shows how the train of thought can go wrong, and it is important to learn from the mistakes of others. But if you start with Rights of Man, there is a good chance you won't finish it or move on to his other readings. The other way around will probably work better.; June 16, 2008 12:25 PM
ed iglehart said...: Vikki and Pissant,

For one thing, Common Sense is the work of an afternoon, and ROM is a week's worth. Common Sense, as I said is the epitome of an effective political pamphlet. It convinced Jefferson and many others of the need for independence. Obama (or any candidate) would be strenthened by a Paine in the team.

Ant,
"Jefferson was another idealist and another great author. I agree with almost everything he wrote, and almost nothing he did."

Monticello and its gardens? The University of Virginia? He was also the only one who would even invite Paine to dinner after his return from France. Everyone else considered him an atheist and dismissed him after the Age of Reason. Paine did seem to have a habit of losing his welcome...

And it would need a more voluminous reader to agree with everything Jefferson wrote - it's MASSIVE!

One of my favourite bits

Paine in really good rant mode from the Rights of Man:

"Among the incivilities by which nations or individuals provoke and irritate each other, Mr. Burke's pamphlet on the French Revolution is an extraordinary instance. Neither the nnhvdaPeople of France, nor the National Assembly, were troubling themselves about the affairs of England, or the English Parliament; and that Mr. Burke should commence an unprovoked attack upon them, both in Parliament and in public, is a conduct that cannot be pardoned on the score of manners, nor justified on that of policy.

There is scarcely an epithet of abuse to be found in the English language, with which Mr. Burke has not loaded the French Nation and the National Assembly. Everything which rancour, prejudice, ignorance or knowledge could suggest, is poured forth in the copious fury of near four hundred pages. In the strain and on the plan Mr. Burke was writing, he might have written on to as many thousands. When the tongue or the pen is let loose in a frenzy of passion, it is the man, and not the subject, that becomes exhausted.

Hitherto Mr. Burke has been mistaken and disappointed in the opinions he had formed of the affairs of France; but such is the ingenuity of his hope, or the malignancy of his despair, that it furnishes him with new pretences to go on. There was a time when it was impossible to make Mr. Burke believe there would be any Revolution in France. His opinion then was, that the French had neither spirit to undertake it nor fortitude to support it; and now that there is one, he seeks an escape by condemning it.

Not sufficiently content with abusing the National Assembly, a great part of his work is taken up with abusing Dr. Price (one of the best-hearted men that lives)..........

"As Mr. Burke occasionally applies the poison drawn from his horrid principles, not only to the English nation, but to the French Revolution and the National Assembly, and charges that august, illuminated and illuminating body of men with the epithet of usurpers, I shall, sans ceremonie, place another system of principles in opposition to his.

The English Parliament of 1688 did a certain thing, which, for themselves and their constituents, they had a right to do, and which it appeared right should be done. But, in addition to this right, which they possessed by delegation, they set up another right by assumption, that of binding and controlling posterity to the end of time. The case, therefore, divides itself into two parts; the right which they possessed by delegation, and the right which they set up by assumption. The first is admitted; but with respect to the second, I reply --

There never did, there never will, and there never can, exist a Parliament, or any description of men, or any generation of men, in any country, possessed of the right or the power of binding and controlling posterity to the "end of time," or of commanding for ever how the world shall be governed, or who shall govern it; and therefore all such clauses, acts or declarations by which the makers of them attempt to do what they have neither the right nor the power to do, nor the power to execute, are in themselves null and void. Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself in all cases as the age and generations which preceded it. The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies. Man has no property in man; neither has any generation a property in the generations which are to follow. The Parliament or the people of 1688, or of any other period, had no more right to dispose of the people of the present day, or to bind or to control them in any shape whatever, than the parliament or the people of the present day have to dispose of, bind or control those who are to live a hundred or a thousand years hence. Every generation is, and must be, competent to all the purposes which its occasions require. It is the living, and not the dead, that are to be accommodated. When man ceases to be, his power and his wants cease with him; and having no longer any participation in the concerns of this world, he has no longer any authority in directing who shall be its governors, or how its government shall be organised, or how administered............."; June 16, 2008 12:36 PM
apissedant said...: Ed,
before I finish reading that, I will clarify. Of what I have read of his, which I will admit is much less than I have read of Franklin, Paine, or Hamilton... I agree with pretty much all of it.

You name three acts that would be considered by most to be good acts. There are thousands of other acts that were much less positive. I don't just speak of the slavery thing, but of his political ideals once he founded the Republican party, and many of his other personal decisions.

Now I'm going to continue reading.; June 16, 2008 12:44 PM
apissedant said...: ed,
Good quote, that second half was one of my favorite parts from the book. I actually quoted that part of the book when I wrote to a few of Virginia's state senators when they passed the gay marriage amendment a few years ago. One of the senators was quoted in the paper as saying he knew it was illegal for gays to get married, but he had to write the amendment to make sure no future generation would ever allow homosexuals to wed.; June 16, 2008 12:57 PM
ed iglehart said...: Vicki and Ant,

More vintage Paine:

"To prevent interrupting the argument in the preceding part of this work, or the narrative that follows it, I reserved some observations to be thrown together in a Miscellaneous Chapter; by which variety might not be censured for confusion. Mr. Burke's book is all Miscellany. His intention was to make an attack on the French Revolution; but instead of proceeding with an orderly arrangement, he has stormed it with a mob of ideas tumbling over and destroying one another.

But this confusion and contradiction in Mr. Burke's Book is easily accounted for. — When a man in a wrong cause attempts to steer his course by anything else than some polar truth or principle, he is sure to be lost. It is beyond the compass of his capacity to keep all the parts of an argument together, and make them unite in one issue, by any other means than having this guide always in view. Neither memory nor invention will supply the want of it. The former fails him, and the latter betrays him.

Notwithstanding the nonsense, for it deserves no better name, that Mr. Burke has asserted about hereditary rights, and hereditary succession, and that a Nation has not a right to form a Government of itself; it happened to fall in his way to give some account of what Government is. "Government," says he, "is a contrivance of human wisdom.

Admitting that government is a contrivance of human wisdom, it must necessarily follow, that hereditary succession, and hereditary rights (as they are called), can make no part of it, because it is impossible to make wisdom hereditary; and on the other hand, that cannot be a wise contrivance, which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. The ground which Mr. Burke now takes is fatal to every part of his cause......

Follow the link for more. It's well worth it.

And, from Common Sense, this related gem:

"One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of hereditary right in kings, is, that nature disapproves it, otherwise she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule by giving mankind an ass for a lion."

xxx
ed; June 16, 2008 2:00 PM
Joshua said...: I support Obama, not just by blogging, but with my wallet. As a donor, here is the email I just received from Al Gore:
Dear Mike,
A few hours from now I will step on stage in Detroit, Michigan to announce my support for Senator Barack Obama. From now through Election Day, I intend to do whatever I can to make sure he is elected President of the United States.
Over the next four years, we are going to face many difficult challenges -- including bringing our troops home from Iraq, fixing our economy, and solving the climate crisis. Barack Obama is clearly the candidate best able to solve these problems and bring change to America.
This moment and this election are too important to let pass without taking action.
That's why I am asking you to join me in showing your support by making a contribution to this campaign today:
https://donate.barackobama.com/gore
Over the past 18 months, Barack Obama has united a movement. He knows change does not come from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue or Capitol Hill. It begins when people stand up and take action.
With the help of millions of supporters like you, Barack Obama will bring the change we so desperately need in order to solve our country's most pressing problems.
If you've already contributed to this campaign, I ask that you consider making another contribution right now. If you haven't, please take the next step and own a piece of this campaign today:
https://donate.barackobama.com/gore
On the issues that matter most, Barack Obama is clearly the right choice to lead our nation.
We have a lot of work to do in the next few months to elect Barack Obama president, and it begins by making a contribution to this campaign today.
Thank you for joining me,
Al Gore
LIVE TONIGHT -- 8:30 p.m. EDT: Watch streaming video of Al Gore and Barack Obama at a rally in Detroit, Michigan:
http://www.BarackObama.com; June 16, 2008 3:39 PM
Vicki in Seattle said...: ed and apissedant - between the two of you, I'm liable to extend my boundaries and become ever more educated!

in a different vein, I see that Al will endorse Obama tonight at 8:30 pm ET, I believe.; June 16, 2008 4:32 PM
Emit R Detsaw said...: Sorry this might have a component that seems like a knock on Hillary, but that is not my intention. Just saw it on MSNBC this weekend and it struck me as a testiment as to the truth and honesty of Obama.

They were doing different bits from Tim and Meet the Press. They had a spot on Tim asking different people whether they were going to run for President for this upcoming election. McCain danced around the question and said he hadn't really thought about it, but would come back to Meet the Press to announce if he was going to. Didn't he announce on one of the late night talk shows? Hillary stated outright that she had no ambitions of being the President and wasn't considering running. That it wasn't in her future plans. When Tim asked Obama, Obama stated that he was considering it, but hadn't made up his mind yet.

A simple and honest answer. One of the attributes that I find refreshing in Obama.; June 16, 2008 4:50 PM
apissedant said...: vicki,
Thanks for the compliment, but I'm amateur hour compared to Ed. I hope someday to be as well read and versed on world history and politics as he is, but it looks like I've got some years before that may happen. I own most the books, it is just a matter of finding time to read them.

Oh, P.S., the absolute best part of reading OLD books... is that they are all dirt cheap. They have all exceeded any copyright laws, and you can pretty much buy them for what it costs to print them. If I remember correctly, I think the copyright ends 100 years after the author's death.; June 16, 2008 5:02 PM
apissedant said...: Emit,
I am not afraid to admit that I was timid about Obama running for President so early. I must say he has more than proven me wrong. He has earned this nomination and proven that he has more than enough intelligence, compassion, and experience to run this nation. His honesty and candor were the first qualities that attracted me, and over the past year he has shown many more admirable traits.

OBAMA 08!!!; June 16, 2008 5:07 PM
apissedant said...: P.S.
I am tired of constantly watching out for Hillary's toes. She and her supporters need to be less sensitive. Nothing 95% of us have said as been anywhere near as negative or mean as the things that they spouted, and I have never heard one apology.
The things we say now we say not to pick on Clinton, but either to joke, or to make an appropriate comparison. Why these are viewed as mean or negative I will never understand.

(that was not a royal "we", just so you know...); June 16, 2008 5:12 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: apissedant said...
(that was not a royal "we", just so you know...)

apissedant,

I'm glad that you don't have tapeworms. VBG

Mike; June 16, 2008 6:05 PM
JayW said...: Hey StopO...

Are you confident that what you say on here is true? Do you really believe Obama will not win the election?

If so... put your money where your mouth is.

I am willing to cover any bet you want to make. Let me know if you actually have a set and would be willing to bet and I will let you know how to contact me so we can finalize it.

No doubt you are smarter than you make yourself out to be and wount actually bet... but if you are really retarded then I am here and very willing to take your money.; June 16, 2008 6:09 PM
JayW said...: PS....

That offer is open to anyone that wants to bet that Obama wont win the election... not just StopO.; June 16, 2008 6:10 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: An example of the stupidity of the news business, or maybe a reflection of how they try to push propoganda:

On the CNN home page, there is a link that reads "Ticker: Obama makes slip on Iraq query". When you click the link, you are taken to the 'Political Ticker' page, which has the following headlines:
- Obama, McCain run neck and neck in important swing state
- Obama campaign rounds out general election staff
- Judge: White House office does not have to turn over records
- Obama camp: We can win without Ohio, Florida
- Poll: Majority believe Obama will win general election
- Roberts: The Nightmare Scenario
- GOP attacks Obama over Michigan primary
- Blitzer: Iraq will still have an 'enormous' impact at the polls
- Democrats eye Lieberman's criticism of Obama

and
- POLITICAL HOT TOPICS: Monday, June 16, 2008 with subheads of:
- LA Times: Women voters lining up behind Obama
- Washington Times: 'Maverick' McCain bedevils Democrats
- CNN: Analysis: Age an issue in the 2008 campaign?
- NY Times: Obama the Delegator Picks When to Take Reins

No where is there an obvious article on that page that discusses 'Obama makes slip on Iraq query' until you read the third paragraph of the first article, which states:

The Illinois senator misspoke when he argued that Zebari and “President Maliki” are concerned about Iraq’s sovereignty and are not seeking a long-term occupation by the United States. Jalal al-Talabani is the president of Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki is the prime minister.

BIG F-N DEAL! If CNN makes this much of a deal about that, you have to wonder why it didn't make any noise at all when Gee Dubya was so ignorant of the leaders of important nations back in the 2000 campaign.

I see that Wolf Blitzer has his hands in this, and how the discussion is framed - I absolutely dislike that idiot. And this is just another reason I do not turn on CNN on my TV.

Mike; June 16, 2008 6:35 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Read this somewhere regarding a TIE

Tie goes to Obama

A reader points out the prospect of a 269-269 electoral vote split -- which would happen if McCain holds Florida and Michigan, wins New Hampshire, but loses Colorado, Iowa, and New Mexico.

The tie, determined by state delegations to the House of Representatives, would go to Obama.

.; June 16, 2008 6:54 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: As starkly pointed out in a Baltimore Sun article, rising oil prices are not just an economic problem, but are a reason for increasing violence around the world.

"Rising oil cost finances turmoil"
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/world/bal-te.oilwar16jun16,0,1180870.story

One bit of info in the article:
About one-third of today's conflicts take place in oil-producing countries, up from one-fifth in 1992. . . .

Thank you, Gee Dubya, Darth Cheney and the rest of the Neo-Cons who gave us this new world of rising violence as a result of rising oil prices, primarily caused because you wanted to go to war in and on Iraq.

Mike; June 16, 2008 7:07 PM
apissedant said...: Mike,
agreed on oil. Food shortages due to ethanol production are causing tons of fighting too. It all feeds back to the economy and people lacking the basic necessities of life.

Also, I hate your stupid state. I lived therefor 1 year back in 2004 and I'm still fighting with them over taxes. I sent them all the paperwork twice now, but they keep losing it and sending me a giant bill. Boo to Maryland Comptroller.; June 16, 2008 7:54 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Obama rally in Michigan on live stream on www.CNN.com
Al Gore should be on there pretty soon.

Obama/Sebelius '08; June 16, 2008 8:52 PM
ed iglehart said...: Ant,

Thanks for the compliment, but I've just had more time, due to being older. ;-)

"It all feeds back to the economy and people lacking the basic necessities of life."

Actually, it all feeds back to there being too many people, and to one fifth of them (us) hogging four fifths of the resources.

Count your blessings, and care for your neighbours, and read some REALLY old books....

;-)
ed

Oh, and grow your own food and buy local.; June 16, 2008 8:55 PM
ed iglehart said...: Count your blessings

Drat!; June 16, 2008 8:58 PM
apissedant said...: leah,
I need to learn to read lips. I'm in class, and this really doesn't mean much without words. ;)

Ed,
Well I don't have a green thumb, so I'll have to start with just buying local.
Why are you in Ireland?
I had never heard of Wendell Berry before.; June 16, 2008 9:17 PM
RobH said...: WHAT A SPEECH!!

How will we know ??

When the youth get involved for the first time in a long time!!

Repubs and naysayers are saying "you can't count on the youth to turn out in November."

They are underestimating....again.; June 16, 2008 9:22 PM
RobH said...: apissedant:

Ed's in Scotland. I'd never heard of Wendell Berry either until Ed turned me on to him via his links.
What a background and portfolio he's got.

With due respect, Ed, and acknowlegement that their focii are slightly different, I find Berry not as easily digestible as some others, notably Kuntsler and Richard Heinberg. Just read Heinberg's "The Party's Over" and highly, highly recommend it; very readable and incisive. Right up there in breadth and consequence with Robert's "The End of Oil." (Also read Heinberg's "Powerdown", and will it's imaginative and insightful, I found it a little thin.) Have you read 'em?; June 16, 2008 9:30 PM
RobH said...: By the way, apissedant, the "what a background and portfolio he's got" comment was intended about Wendell Berry.

But after re-reading my post, and having consumed, and been consumed by, this thread since March, I realize it is equally applicable to Ed, as well.; June 16, 2008 9:45 PM
apissedant said...: robh,
Thanks. I was operating from memory, I knew it was Scotland or Ireland, and guessed wrong apparently. ;); June 16, 2008 10:16 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: WOW - both Gore and Obama gave great speeches!

I wish the TV would have shown the whole thing - they did the same thing when Edwards come out in Michigan - they cut off after Edwards and didn't show Obama talking ;(

I wonder if Carter will be on stage with Obama if Obama goes to Georgia ;)

Obama '08; June 16, 2008 10:16 PM
Richard said...: Wow, that was a great speech. I must admit, though, that I was thinking all through it about how different the world would be today but for an election stolen in Florida.

Afghanistan under control, the Taliban defeated, Osama bin Laden captured or dead. Iraq stable and its people much better off. No Al Quaeda in Iraq. The U.S. part of the Kyoto protocol. Emissions lower. Gas prices probably lower. No US torture camps, no 'rendering,' no warrantless wiretaps. Our worldwide reputation more secure. Something would have been done about Darfur. Fewer people would be dying of A.I.D.S. in sub-Saharan Africa because they would have better information about and access to prophylaxis. Stem cell research would be eight years more advanced and might already be providing therapies which would help tens of thousands. The Supreme Court would be 6-1-4; women would have a reasonable opportunity to sue their employers for pay discrimination, would have no fear about their access to abortions...

There are so many more things, but I haven't time to write them out. Anyone want to add to the list?; June 16, 2008 10:17 PM
Emit R Detsaw said...: Hey Leah, agree with the tv cut off thing, but I had the computer queued up and watched the whole hour+ along with over 14,000 folks on Obama's website.

;o); June 16, 2008 10:25 PM
ed iglehart said...: Richard,

A reprise

;-); June 16, 2008 10:27 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Emit R Detsaw-

I watched the whole thing on CNN online. I forgot that there was going to be a live link on the Obama site.

I am so used to watching everything on CNN live stream ;)

Anyway he said there was 22,000 people at the rally when he was telling the crowd they need to honor and respect Hillary - so that was a pretty good crowd!; June 16, 2008 11:10 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Apissedant

I don't understand this comment at all :

apissedant said...
P.S.
I am tired of constantly watching out for Hillary's toes. She and her supporters need to be less sensitive. Nothing 95% of us have said as been anywhere near as negative or mean as the things that they spouted, and I have never heard one apology.
The things we say now we say not to pick on Clinton, but either to joke, or to make an appropriate comparison. Why these are viewed as mean or negative I will never understand

To begin with there has been just as many nasty remarks from Obama supporters as Hillary supporters and you expect an apology. Why should they apologize if the Obama supporters don't apologize. You know it works both ways.The reason that Hillary supporters get upset with Obama supporters when they make a joke or make an appropriate comparison is what you deem appropriate is an insult most of the time. I'm not saying just you but Obama supporters as a whole. Just like you [obama supporters] don't like Hillary supporters saying anything that you deem unfavorable about Obama.In my eyes you couldn't pick a better woman [person] to be taking care of America while you might not agree that is how I see it. Am I wrong in that belief no are you wrong in your belief no. It's just how we see it. Jean; June 17, 2008 12:13 AM
Beryl said...: Aunt Jean,
(It is late so I hope this is a coherent comment.)

Apologies are not necessary between supporters. We are better served by stepping back and seeking to understand WHY people acted the way they did.

I completely understand why some Clinton supporters hate Obama supporters. They slammed their beloved heroine. I also understand why some Clinton supporters will never support Obama. Hillary did an excellent job convincing some folks that not only is Obama NOT qualified but SHE is the only person who has earned the right to be the POTUS at this time. How dare he rob her of her destiny and this moment in history for women?

It also didn't help when the MSM underscored the wealth and education of Obama's supporters. It made those who support Clinton feel minimized and undervalued.

I get it.

That said, please consider the flip side. Here is root of the disdain many Obama supporters have for Clinton.

Hillary on exactly 2 occasions said anything positive about Obama: at her concession speech and during ONE debate. Through out the campaign she was dismissive to Obama and marginalized him.

-- I'm ready, McCain's ready, & Obama made a speech in 2004.

-- The mockery about the heavens opening when he gave inspiring speeches.

(I can go on but it is time to let go.)

All the while Obama never punched back at her. It was like he took to heart the Christ's words - Love those who despitefully use you. (Luke 6:38) In fact, Barack consistently praised Hillary -- just as he does McCain today before he states his differing policy positions.

Even on his website, people were and are not allowed to slam Clinton. When someone goes negative, they get shut down quickly. (Very different from Clinton's website, BTW.)

That doesn't mean that his supporters got religion. Obama's behavior and his website's policies didn't stop his supporters from doing what is natural -- lash out at "the bully". This is why you've read and heard so many things about Hillary that you found hurtful.

Think about my comment for a bit. Once you understand motives, you might freely let go and forgive -- you might not even need an apology.; June 17, 2008 1:35 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Beryl I understand where you are coming from and even though I agree with you on a lot of things. I don't agree with everything you said but that's besides the point. I do agree that it's over and that it's time to move on. I don't expect an apology but I do believe that there is some Obama supporters that think we do [owe an apology]. Both sides have said neg. things about each others person and like you I believe that it's time to stop and get thru the next 5 months. Have I decided to vote for Obama not yet but I am listening to him now. To me that is a start in the right direction.Have a nice evening or should I say good morning LOL Jean; June 17, 2008 2:13 AM
ed iglehart said...: Well said, Beryl!

Salaam, etc.
ed; June 17, 2008 7:47 AM
apissedant said...: beryl,
agreed

Aunt Jean,
I specifically speak of the comment made a little bit ago about the comparison of what each prospective candidate said when asked if they were planning to run. This was not an attack on Hillary, and it was all truth, so why was he all worried about stepping on Hillary supporters' toes?

The other thing was the little joke I made about Obama giving all the concessions that Hillary wanted two months ago today (when it is too late to actually help her), and, "watching her head explode". This was also not meant as a personal insult or really anything mean.

There is also the recent news piece about him hiring her former staffer and all of the Clinton people getting ridiculously mad about that. Then there was the time when Richardson endorsed him, and all of her supporters and her herself got very mad about that.

What the heck!?!?! He is the candidate, he should be able to pick the people he thinks are best for the job. Richardson and anyone else should be able to support any candidate they like best, because they are intelligent and free people, and they don't "owe" Clinton their vote.
I should be able to make stupid jokes about her, just like I make stupid jokes about my friends, myself, my family members, my Senator, and anybody else I feel like making a joke about at any particular time. I don't care if you don't find it funny, all I expect is that you realize it isn't a personal attack, I'm just treating her like I treat everyone else.

Just like Beryl said, we're not upset about any honest analysis or honest comparisons of Obama. We were upset over a Democrat saying that the Republican was qualified, and Obama is not. We were upset about all the Hillary supporters on TV saying that he was a Muslim, a terrorist, only there because he's black, and was all talk and no substance. None of these were jokes, and none of them were analytical at all. They were all personal attacks with no supporting evidence. They were meant only to tear down a good, honorable Democrat, and they ended up boosting up a dirty dishonest Republican in the meantime.

I never said I wouldn't support Hillary if she was the eventual nominee, and I never said I wouldn't vote for Obama if Clinton was the VP. You yourself, and pretty much every other Clinton supporter said they would vote for McCain before Obama at one point. How destructive is that? How insulting is that?

I said Obama was the better candidate, you said Hillary was the only candidate.; June 17, 2008 7:53 AM
apissedant said...: Ed, why are you in the UK?; June 17, 2008 9:53 AM
Yamaka said...: Hi StopObamaNow:

You are awesome, your family is fabulous: full of Engineers and a Doctor!

My best wishes to you and your wonderful family. God bless you all.

I want my son to go for Engineering major at Stanford. He does not know what to major in as yet.

My daughter is majoring in Economics at Cornell U. She wants to work at Wall Street (She is with Goldman Sachs for this Summer).

On BHO's father and his "Dream" book title: I have already written about that enigma. He loves his father, who left him and his mother when he was two, and had contact only for a month when he was in middle school in HI.

Now he calls such fathers as fools!

On Gay Marriage and the G Election:

It could have a serious backlash, in favor of McCain. Wait and see.

On the Market:

I believe we will have slow growth in SP500 Earnings; GDP will grow at about 1% for the year.

SP500 may close 5% above 2007 close.

I will be very busy at my Clinic. I may not visit this site frequently fo a while! Too much work to do!!

Take care, all.
Cheers.; June 17, 2008 9:56 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Apissedant'

Aunt Jean,
I specifically speak of the comment made a little bit ago about the comparison of what each prospective candidate said when asked if they were planning to run. This was not an attack on Hillary, and it was all truth, so why was he all worried about stepping on Hillary supporters' toes? Obama is the one that said he wasn't planning on running for the WH. I have never heard Hillary say that . I'm not saying that she's never said I don't know.

There is also the recent news piece about him hiring her former staffer and all of the Clinton people getting ridiculously mad about that. Then there was the time when Richardson endorsed him, and all of her supporters and her herself got very mad about that.

I'm sorry I really believe that he told Bill that he wouldn't endorse Obama. I feel he lied because he got a better offer.He about one SOB.It's not about him endorsing Obama and yes they should be able to endorse who they want to. Just don't stab in the back when you do it. It has nothing to do with them being loyal to the Clintons.

As far as Hillary saying that she and McCain were the only two that was qualified I didn't hear the whole thing so I really can't comment on that other than to say that what Obama supporters thought she said might not be what we heard her say.

As far as the musslin thing I don't believe I call him a musslin I don't think he is. But you know yourself that sometimes even though wrong people believe certain things even if it's a lie. They might think that because he was raised by a musslin who knows. The point is when Hillary was asked if she thought Obama was a musslin she said not that she was aware of. What is wrong with that?

One more thing and then I will stop. The Obama supporters believe that Obama has never attacked or said rude remarks about Hillary in our eyes he has.

But I am mature enough to think that it's over you can't change the past so move on and make the best of it. I am above all a democrat I can't change the basic core of my belief. So will I vote democrat? I have only one time never voted in the GE and that is because I really disliked the democrat [more like hate but really a strong word] I don't hate Obama I just believed that Hillary was the better person to be the next POTUS.; June 17, 2008 10:39 AM
ed iglehart said...: Ant,

I got tired of marching against the illegal bombing of Laos and Cambodia, and the stupidity of the entire Vietnam adventure, so I walked.

I immediately felt at home in Scotland, perhaps due to the familiarity of the culture. I had spent five good years (age 6 to 12) growing up in Ontario, which, with the benefit of hindsight, was almost entirely Scottish - though at the time I thought they were "Canadians".

I had met and married a Welsh Girl, so that made UK residency an easy matter, and I've just stayed.

I've always been politically "interested", and am in mostly cordial contact with a number of elected folk here of many different party persuasions.

I've never really lost interest in US politics either, and constantly hope for the best. Jimmy Carter's election was probably the most hopeful sign, and I still hold him in high regard. I liked Clinton OK, but by then, my transplanted roots had become irretrievably deep.

I hated Nixon, and found Ford, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II deeply embarrassing most of the time.

Strangely, I didn't give Election 2000 all that much thought, and was probably complacent in the prospect of a Gore succession, which suited me fine. I read his Earth in the Balance (as an assigned text in Human Ecology) in Early 2000, and still reckon it's not a bad book to begin understanding the crisis we are facing.

I was surprised and devastated when the election was stolen, and have been very pissed off and depressed ever since. Self-diagnosis is dangerous, but I reckon "Eco-Despair" is a good descriptor. I know Despair is an Error to be avoided at all costs, but a Pilgrim's Progress is hard.

Why am I in the UK? I love Scotland, and hope to live to see it independent (on friendly terms) of the UK. The present prospects are far from bad. In the 'devolved' Scottish Parliament, we have a minority executive with the Scottish National Party in charge, and progress towards independence, issue-by-issue, on the cards within a decade.

There's a lot to be said for proportional representation, which has brought us a Parliament with a healthy spicing of minor parties from Trotskyites to Greens, and Independents. I have friends and contacts in all of these.

Of course, Scotland is more sensibly populated than England, but still a long way from sustainability. We do have "the best windpower resource in Europe", and big tides too (33 feet maximum)

RobH exaggerates my stature (for which thanks). I'm a cheerleader rather more than a player. I do like Kunstler, but have to admit I haven't yet read the others he mentions. I do find Berry resonates with me - perhaps it's the fact that I'm of mostly Virginian stock, and have always liked the sort of landscapes he paints in his fiction. He is sort of like a latter, softer Faulkner.

His essays blow me away, but I know what Rob means - sometimes he uses too many words and sounds like an English Professor (which he has been from time to time) He regards his poetry as his 'highest' work. If interested, there are several essays here, and plenty more to be found here
and here

I recomment "That Distant Land", which is a collection of the stories of the folk of "fictional" Port William, which strongly resembles Port Royal Kentucky. Look on Google Earth or similar.

Of the essays, "The Citizenship Papers" is a good recent collection, and this is simply the best post-9/11 response I've seen anywhere

James Howard Kunstler is here, and well worth investigation. As is Orion Magazine

Short question - long answer....

Happy browsing!
ed
in the trees; June 17, 2008 10:54 AM
ed iglehart said...: From Kunstler today:

[quote] Iowa in 2008 will be an even slower-motion disaster than Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Beyond the troubles of 25,000 people who have lost all their material possessions is a world whose grain reserves stand at record lows. The crop losses in Iowa will aggravate what is already a pretty dire situation. So far, the US Public has experienced the world grain situation mainly in higher supermarket prices. Cheap corn is behind the magic of the American processed food industry -- all those pizza pockets and juicy-juice boxes that frantic Americans resort to because they have no time between two jobs and family-chauffeur duties to actually cook (note: reheating is not cooking).
Behind that magic is an agribusiness model of farming cranked up on the steroids of cheap oil and cheap natural-gas-based fertilizer. Both of these "inputs" have recently entered the realm of the non-cheap. Oil-and-gas-based farming had already reached a crisis stage before the flood of Iowa. Diesel fuel is a dollar-a-gallon higher than gasoline. Natural gas prices have doubled over the past year, sending fertilizer prices way up. American farmers are poorly positioned to reform their practices. All that cheap fossil fuel masks a tremendous decay of skill in husbandry. The farming of the decades ahead will be a lot more complicated than just buying x-amount of "inputs" (on credit) to be dumped on a sterile soil growth medium and spread around with giant diesel-powered machines.
Like a lot of other activities in American life these days, agribusiness is unreformable along its current lines. It will take a convulsion to change it, and in that convulsion it will be dragged kicking-and-screaming into a new reality. As that occurs, the US public will have to contend with more than just higher taco chip prices. We're heading into the Vale of Malthus -- Thomas Robert Malthus, the British economist-philosopher who introduced the notion that eventually world population would overtake world food production capacity. Malthus has been scorned and ridiculed in recent decades, as fossil fuel-cranked farming allowed the global population to go vertical. Techno-triumphalist observers who should have known better attributed this to the "green revolution" of bio-engineering. Malthus is back now, along with his outriders: famine, pestilence, and war.
We're headed, it seems, toward a fall "crunch time," and that crunching sound will not be of cheez doodles and taco chips consumed on the sofas of America. I think we're heading into a season of hoarding. As the presidential campaign moves into its final round, Americans may be hard-up for both food and gasoline. On the oil scene, the next event on the horizon is not just higher prices but shortages. Chances are, they will occur first in the Southeast states because oil exports from Mexico and Venezuela feeding the Gulf of Mexico refineries are down more than 30 percent over 2007.
Perhaps more ominous is the discontent on the trucking scene. Truckers are going broke in droves, unable to carry on their business while getting paid $2000 for loads that cost them $3000 to deliver. In Europe last week, enraged truckers paralyzed the food distribution networks of Spain and Portugal. The passivity of US truckers so far has been a striking feature of the general zombification of American life. They might continue to just crawl off one-by-one and die. But it's also possible that, at some point, they'll mount a Night-of-the-Living-Dead offensive and take their vengeance out on "the system" that has brought them to ruin. America has only about a three-day supply of food in any of its supermarkets.
The yet-more-ominous thing here is that shortages of food and oil are two fiascos that are pretty clearly predictable for the second half of the year. That's bad enough without figuring in the "unknowns" that could kick up American hardship a few more notches.The hurricane season just got underway -- obscured for the moment by the bigger weather story in Iowa. The fate of the banks is a train wreck still waiting to happen. As it occurs -- also heading into the high political and hurricane seasons -- we could find ourselves not only a nation wet, hungry, and out-of-gas, but also completely broke. I'm sorry that Tim Russert will not be here to talk us through it all.[end quote]

Strong Stuff!

MIDWEST HIT WITH FLOODS
OF BIBLICAL PROPORTIONS

Bush promises to fly over region.

WORLD NEWS
U.S. Seeks 58 Bases, Immunity,
Indefinite Stay in Iraq
Iraqis seek water, electricity, food.
France Blocks Online Porn,
Terrorism, Racism
Haughty attitude OK.

CAMPAIGN '08
Obama Embarks on 50 State Strategy
McCain embarks on 5 judge strategy.

;-)
ed; June 17, 2008 11:32 AM
Beryl said...: "They might think that because he was raised by a musslin who knows."

How crazy is that? MANY people are raised by racists and KKK members but that doesn't make them racists. In fact, many people who were raised by racists (like Keith O. revealed) embrace diversity more than others.

As a PK (preacher's kid), I am MORE impressed when people confess to believe in Christ after having been raised by unbelievers. Rather than following family traditions, they've made a real personal decision for Christ. No real Christian would doubt someone like this, IMO.

I didn't care for the way Hillary responded and would have preferred that she had responded more like McCain did. Her response in isolation wasn't offensive to me -- I chalked it up to her style.

"I don't hate Obama I just believed that Hillary was the better person to be the next POTUS."

There is nothing at all with that position, Aunt Jean. Although I wasn't a "Democrat", I thought Howard Dean was far better than Kerry but voted for Kerry.

I think the more you listen to Obama and others **who don't spend time slamming the Clintons**, you may grow to really like Obama. That is what happened to me in November 2007. I really liked the way he has galvanized the PEOPLE to take our country back. Obama is only a conduit. I hope he has an administration that brings everyone together to solve problems -- Edward Kennedy style (negotiation excellence)

I'm the same age as Caroline Kennedy and feel so much like she expressed -- hopeful. I think that if Obama becomes our President, it will be all of the little people ($10-$100 donations) who made it happen.; June 17, 2008 12:50 PM
ed iglehart said...: And now for something completely different!

Baracknophobia!

;-)
ed; June 17, 2008 2:18 PM
Beryl said...: Ed,
That was great! I loved the plagiarism part: "Of To We"

LOL!; June 17, 2008 2:51 PM
Meg said...: I particularly love how cable media seems to hold itself up as some bastion of good journalism. It's all those crazy internet posters spreading the rumors. Give me a break.

Just by ASKING THE QUESTION, they are spreading falsehoods. Phrasing dirt as a question somehow makes them look like they are educating all of us idiots out here who want to know the truth. But don't get me started.......; June 17, 2008 3:26 PM
apissedant said...: Ed,
Thanks for the story. I understand a little more about you now. :)
No time for the links now though, sorry.

Aunt Jean,
She definitely said her and McCain had enough experience, and that Obama gave a speech in 2001. The thing about who said they were not interested is an issue you can take up with the person who said that she said no and he said maybe... they should have a proper source. Scroll up and take a look. As far as the Muslim thing, an appropriate answer would have been, "no," or, "that's ridiculous of course not." "Not that I know of" leaves the question hanging, and perpetuates the smear. This is not what an ally should do to their teammate. As to Richardson, add that to the list of unsubstantiated claims that Bill has made. There is no proof of this, so as far as I'm concerned, it never happened. If it had, it would not matter, because Richardson is allowed to change his mind. He has not been given the VP slot or anything else, so what he might have gotten in return I do not know.; June 17, 2008 4:00 PM
apissedant said...: Ed and beryl,
I love watching Stewart make nearly every journalist on tv look like the incompetent idiots that most of them are. The fact that people still watch FOX is beyond me.; June 17, 2008 4:02 PM
Vicki in Seattle said...: ed, thanks for sharing, that Kunstler is really eye popping! He makes a sensible case though, for a very very scary scenario.

love Jon Stewart! adore him. Colbert, too.; June 17, 2008 4:24 PM
RobH said...: Seconding Vicki's 'thanks for sharing'.

I'd been to Kuntsler's website before, had forgotten how dynamic he is.

1) For everybody - for a rippin' good time, go to that website and check out the feature called "Eyesore of the Month". Hilarious. If you like Jon Stewart, you'll love this. I kept clicking on "Previous Month" and found myself sixteen months back before I knew what hit me.

2) His feature called "The Clusterf**k National Chronicle" is stunning in its directness. He may be the only guy willing to actually give word to where trends lead in the short term - regardless of how scary. Really compelling.; June 17, 2008 4:58 PM
Karen Anne said...: We know this, right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5V7W5-m_ZCE

At least we Democrats know it. My hair stands on end when I see the Republicans posting the the NYTimes Caucus now, all they care about is preserving their personal wealth, the devil take everything else. I have to wonder if they have families.; June 17, 2008 5:05 PM
RobH said...: Karen Anne,

Thanks for the YouTube link.

Her speech was compelling, but it's extraordinarily disheartening to know that that speech was given in 1992! 1992!!! Sixteen years have gone by since her plea.

In 1992, Al Gore (the face of environmental sensibility today) became VP. But because of a split government (Democratic executive and Republican legislative) from 1994 on, any reasonable progress
in this arena was quashed.

This speech alone is enough to reinforce my belief me that we need a Democratic executive as well as legislative majority if we are to make any meaningful progress here. As the Repubs had a unified governemtn from 2000 to 2006, let us all rededicate ourselves to assuring the same on the left, to finally answer this childs charge.....and hope it's not too late.; June 17, 2008 7:16 PM
Independent Voter said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; June 17, 2008 7:35 PM
Independent Voter said...: Someone should have given Bush Senior the MEMO; June 17, 2008 7:36 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: McCain vs. Bush

McCain agrees with Bush on Iraq, Iran, health care, gay marriage, abortion

McCain used to disagree, now agrees on tax cuts, torture

McCain used to agree now disagrees on immigration

McCain always disagreed on climate change, limiting nuclear weapons

.; June 17, 2008 7:58 PM
apissedant said...: leah,
Actually Bush and McCain agree on climate change now. Bush used to believe it didn't exist and we needed more research. Now he agrees it exists but doesn't believe in using regulations or taxes to decrease it. That is exactly McCain's policy too. A little different, because Bush actually changed his policy to fit McCain's, instead of the other way around.; June 17, 2008 8:25 PM
Meg said...: Now I guess when McCain talks about alternative resources he's talking about drilling off the coast in Florida. Even better, our governor is apparently in agreement.

We'll never have to face the addiction as long as we can find a new "resource".; June 17, 2008 9:19 PM
Vicki in Seattle said...: Karen Ann - where is that 12 year old now? she'd be 26 (maybe 27) now, presumably still living in Vancouver. Not that far from me.

I wonder.; June 17, 2008 9:20 PM
RobH said...: I just watched a brief snippet of Fox News – Hannity and Colmes. (Like our candidate suggests, and many before him have suggested, I believe it is important to understand those whose viewpoints differ from our own, to learn about them, what motivates them, upon what bases and outlooks we differ.)

Having said that, I can’t even begin to rationalize the exchange I just witnessed. Had they not been apparently serious, I would have thought I was watching comedy,

Dig this:

Hannity: “If we could drill offshore, you know, and oil shale in Colorado, oil sands in Wyoming, and drill in ANWR, we’d have more oil reserves than all the Middle East combined, we wouldn’t need another drop of Middle East oil. Why won’t the left allow us to drill?”

George Will: “I think that what the left wants is a manufactured scarcity, so that they can resort to rationing, which will give the left what they really want, which is minute control over the specifics of our day-to-day lives.”

Are you kidding me? Honestly, how can they even take themselves seriously? Can someone identify for me who in the electorate subscribes to this line of BS?; June 17, 2008 9:40 PM
Independent Voter said...: RobH

The funniest thing about it is that they think "exploration" now is going to drop prices now. The fact is there wouldn't be ANY impact on oil prices for at the very least 5 years from those sources.; June 17, 2008 10:46 PM
Beryl said...: And the time, energy, and investment in exploration could be used to develop alternative fuel sources.

But that wouldn't help the oil companies.; June 17, 2008 10:52 PM
Independent Voter said...: Good point Beryl.

If they only realized that if they were to use the money that they want to use to "explore" and apply that towards alternative energy they would be benefiting from it. Granted it may not be as much as they benefit right now, but over the long run it would be extremely beneficial to them. What?!? Diversity?!?

I can hear them laughing their asses off right about now.; June 17, 2008 11:29 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: FEMA has to backtrack on the giveaway of some of the supplies they took out of Louisiana.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/17/fema.supplies/index.html

From the article: FEMA Administrator David Paulison on Sunday defended the agency's decision, telling CNN that Louisiana had been offered some of the stockpiles, but that state officials had declined the goods.

Let's see. The Governor is a Repig. That means the Directors of the various state agencies are mostly (if not all) Repigs.

From this, can you get a good idea of which political party cares about 'the bottom line', and which political party cares about the needs of the people?

Mike; June 18, 2008 12:28 AM
Vicki in Seattle said...: also, I wonder where they get the numbers to make these facts. The truth is, geologists have made estimates regarding how much oil is present in these different resources - they may be plus or minus, say, 30 to 50 percent.

So, did they take the maximum amount (plus 50 percent) the middle value, or (least likely) the lower (minus 50 percent) value?

and I feel best when I can see actual numbers, and know the sources - how much is being pumped from OPEC countries, how much is estimated to remain, etc.

finally, none of these resources is gonna last forever. just postponing the inevitable - best to start developing additional resources now.

also, anyone who has been through an airport lately, knows that the government is already controlling a fair bit of our lives. or at least scanning us for nail clippers.; June 18, 2008 12:32 AM
tmess2 said...: Gay marriage will not be an issue this fall because McCain's position on gay marraige is unacceptable to the evangelical wing of the party. Both McCain and Obama would leave it up to the states and oppose a federal constitutional amendment. Since most of the states in which evangelicals are a major voting block have already passed discriminatroy legislation banning gay marriage, there is nothing for them to push this election cycle.

While it might help Republican turnout a little bit in California, McCain does not have the money to make California competitive. As such, the pro-McCain posters on this website need to find another dream scenario.

If gay marriage becomes an issue, it will be to lead evangelicals out of the Republican Party to one of the third parties, probably Libertarian though Constitution would be a better fit.; June 18, 2008 12:37 AM
Independent Voter said...: tmess - I somewhat agree with you. I know it won't make any difference here in CA, but I do think the initiative will pass.....I hate to say that, but I do think it will.

With that said, if it does pass, I'm going to work to get my own Constitutional Amendment initiative put on the ballot.

Most of those who oppose same-sex marriage oppose it due to religious beliefs. Right? Fine. Then those same religious beliefs should be challenged by another initiative.It would be called the Protect Marriage Amendment. What would this do? Ban divorce in the state of California. There would be one and ONLY one exception, domestic violence and the victim of that domestic violence would be required to press charges against their perpetrator. Otherwise divorce would not be an option. You are stuck. You don't want to extend the same rights to ALL tax-paying citizens by allowing them to enter into the equivalent of the contract that extends you benefits on MY tax dollars, then fine, you are stuck with that spouse for life.

I'm sure those same religious extremists would vote overwhelmingly for it don't you think? Ya me neither.; June 18, 2008 2:04 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: I guess there isn't going to be an updated General Election Tracker tonight - so I'm heading to bed. See everyone tomorrow ;)

Obama '08; June 18, 2008 2:48 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: Dave,

An even better way to make the point is to make the couple prove that they can conceive, and sign a legally binding contract to have children. If they don't have children within, oh say, five years, their tax obligation automatically doubles, they owe for the reduced taxes from the five prior years (since their marriage) plus interest and penalties on those unpaid taxes.

It also would stop the couples in their 50s and up from marrying - how many women in their 50s are NOT post-menopausal?

Now how could the 'Biblical' opponents of gay marriage, who constantly are throwing out the propaganda that 'marriage is for procreation', oppose that initiative?

Mike; June 18, 2008 2:51 AM
Dr. in Ann Arbor said...: Independent voter said...
tmess - I somewhat agree with you. I know it won't make any difference here in CA, but I do think the initiative will pass.....I hate to say that, but I do think it will.

With that said, if it does pass, I'm going to work to get my own Constitutional Amendment initiative put on the ballot.
***********************************

Voter - make sure you add in the preamble portion of your amendment that since religious beliefs are a widely held reason for opposing gay marriage, and since (last I checked anyway) we still have FREEDOM OF RELIGION in this country, that the illegality of gay marriage should be enforced only against those who subscribe to that religious belief. The rest of us, in our own beliefs, can rest easy knowing we are well within the law.; June 18, 2008 6:59 AM
Meg said...: Finally, someone does a poll in Florida!!! Obama up 4.0!; June 18, 2008 7:28 AM
ed iglehart said...: Emma,

Obama ahead in all three "swing states"

[quote]* Florida: Obama edges McCain 47 - 43 percent;
* Ohio: Obama tops McCain 48 - 42 percent;
* Pennsylvania: Obama leads McCain 52 - 40 percent.

In the three states, Obama leads McCain 10 to 23 percentage points among women, while men are too close to call. The Democrat trails among white voters in Florida and Ohio, but gets more than 90 percent of black voters in each state. He also has double-digit leads among young voters in each state.[end quote]

Wheeeee! But the biggest danger may be complacency.

Also a new profile of Michelle

;-)
ed; June 18, 2008 10:02 AM
Richard said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; June 18, 2008 10:32 AM
Richard said...: Aunt Jean said "...I really can't comment on that other than to say that what Obama supporters thought she said might not be what we heard her say."

Aunt Jean, what exactly do you hear her say? Hillary Clinton's Comments; June 18, 2008 10:39 AM
apissedant said...: richard,
Great video. Until the Republicans start running it all over the swing states.; June 18, 2008 10:46 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Richard To be honest I really don't like making a comment on this for the simple fact I would be called a racist and other terrible things. But I will say this I look at Obama and Hillary as americans I also know that there are people on here that says you liar. This race was about him being a AA and her being a woman not because they so much made it an issue but because the media made it an issue. I believe that they took everything that Hillary are anyone assoc. with her and made a moutain out of a mole hill. I still think that there is a lot of things that are unknown about Obama, will it keep me from voting for him if that is what I decide no because first and foremost I'm a democrat. I guess what got me the most that even though I said some bad things about Obama at first it wasn't because of him being an aa it was him period and the fact that obama supporters was bashing her so much and it frankly pissed me off.. I really don't look at it as him being an AA and hillary being a woman as to who I choose. I know that some Obama supporters think I'm a racist and you are probable right but just not in the way you think. I have seen so many people sit on their butts and do nothing to help themselves and expect or demand someone help them. In every race that is, not just AA. Obama got a frre pass with the media there is no doubt about that. I believe he got one not only because he was AA but because he was a man. So yes it makes me madder than hell because men still think that woman are not quite good enough. Do I believe that there are AAs that have enough smarts to run this country you darn right there is. I also know that when people say things that some times it is taken out of context. Maybe they should have worded it differently or added words who knows but I also believe that people can deliberately take words and twist them to make a person look bad. The man I don't know his name but he came on the next video that I watched and you asked what I heard well I would love and get so much pleasure from slapping that sorry stupid SOB. Talk about sexist that piece of sh## needs to be fired. I believe and I will keep believing that Obama took advantage of the medias support which I can't blame him for that. There was things said on BOTH PARTIES that wasn't very nice but it was a race. Do I believe in honestly yes that is why I would never make a good polltician. LOL LOL I would like to read what you heard so please let me know. Sorry I ran my mouth so much. Jean; June 18, 2008 11:32 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Richard believe it or not I did put spaces between paragrafts but I don't know why it went back probably the typer LOL LOL Jean; June 18, 2008 11:34 AM
Richard said...: Aunt Jean,

I am not at all sure why you are talking about race; I didn't bring race up at all. Perhaps you are responding to my earlier comments about your racist tirades; if so, sadly, you did nothing but confirm my opinions of your subtle and insidious racism. That you leap to race in what was a simple posting about Clinton's comments is the surest sign that race is at the root of your opinions. Yours is the same kind of racism as those who say things like "I'm not racist! Some of my best friends are black."

Although you didn't tell me what you hear, I will answer your question about what I hear in Clinton's words. I hear a candidate who is so desperate to win at any cost that she is willing to tear down a member of her own party and exalt a Republican to do so. Put simply, I see the very height of selfishness and betrayal.; June 18, 2008 12:02 PM
Aunt Jean said...: To everyone The one thing that really gripes my butt is everyone keeps shoving slavery down peoples thoats was it wrong YES and what happened to some was terrible but how about the Indians they were stripped of everything they owned do you hear anyone talking about that no It happened to both AA's and Indians it is a shameful time in history. It needs to be put where it belongs. Everyone tries to make up for past deeds to AAs it can't be done. When they realize that all it does is keep the problem first and foremost and start treating everyone as Americans will be the day there will not be racism. Or at least there will be so little that it won't matter.

This is what pisses people off. When I was living in Tenn. They have a program that helps people in framing. It's a low interest loan. Do you know how they give it out. 1st AAs, Then Indians, woman, then white males. It's not based on needed it's based on what race you are. Do you think that is right because I sure in the hell don't think so. It should be based on need and need ONLY!!!!!I could tell you several stories about things that happened just because I was a white female. That is what keeps racism going.Every American should be treated as an American. Being AAs and getting treated badly there is gov. help to defend you. Do you know that they will not help a white female with the same problem...... That is what is NOT FAIR with todays world and why racism is still here doesn't matter if you believe that or not. Jean; June 18, 2008 12:05 PM
Vicki in Seattle said...: aunt jean, people who say stupid stuff, get more air time, it's true. I didn't watch to see what the stupid item was this time, but it must have been classic.

as a professional woman, I understand very well the subtle ways that *some* men try to keep women from succeeding. It may not be a conscious effort - it may merely be their own blind ambition.

"you do your (lesser) job too well, I can't let you advance" is a common reason for a male supervisor to not advance a woman, when a lesser-qualified man will be promoted instead. I thoroughly understand this anger. trust me. I have personally let the anger guide me to a different job.

(trust me when I also say that revenge truly is a dish best eaten cold)

however, I did not see this happening this time. I personally weighed the two, and found one to be clearly better.

you must understand that many of us here (not all, necessarily) did something similar tp ,e. I understand that not everyone weighed the two on their merits, instead relying on the simple-mindedness of "black" versus "woman" to weigh the "lesser of two evils". I don't agree with that sort of anysis.

And I find any sort of attempt to group me with that bunch, insulting.

take care, be careful of your words. they are a commodity to be valued.; June 18, 2008 12:06 PM
Vicki in Seattle said...: my word, typos:

"tp ,e" was "to me."

and I think a couple of others that are easier to figure out.; June 18, 2008 12:08 PM
ed iglehart said...: An interesting journalistic dilemma?

It's further discussed here.

;-)
ed

Watch for the uncensored version at a Youtube near you....
( do not follow this link if you have sensitive tendencies...)

;-)
ed; June 18, 2008 12:08 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Richard frankly I don't care if you think I'm a racist.

I know what I am . I hear in your typing a sexist. Someone that thinks that they are so right more so when it comes to a woman saying something, get a life everything a person types is not about putting that race down as a whole and frankly I'm getting pretty tired of people like you calling me a racist. How can I be racist when I say that they are Americans just like me and need to be treated as an American. You have very big Ba##s you sit there and accuse me of being a racist. Jean; June 18, 2008 12:13 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Vicki in Seattle

I'm not saying every Obama supporter is unreasonably. Just that there is a few on here that won't let things go. Frankly I'm getting sick and tired of being called a racist. I've never been mean to a AA, or as far as that goes I'm not a mean person. I've had work done by AAs and was very pleased with their work. I've got friends and family that is AA.

So yes I'm tired and some jerks on here that keep calling me a racist. It is WRONG!!!!!!!

Frankly I really don't know what words that you might have taken offence to. It's a shame that I have to tiptoe around Obama supporters and you [obama supporters] can say what you want to and expect me to turn the other cheek. I'm sorry if you don't like what I have to say but right noe I'm pissed and sick of the BS.If you haven said anything offence to me I wasn't talking about you. I'm sorry if you took it that way.Jean; June 18, 2008 12:26 PM
Vicki in Seattle said...: Aunt Jean - since there are trolls here, perhaps someone was masquerading as you when the racist tirade was posted a couple of weeks ago.

my apologies if that was not you, but the name attached to that post was "Aunt Jean". that post was quickly deleted by the moderators, btw.

it might explain why some people have an untoward attitude about you.

again - words are precious. weigh what you want to say, carefully.; June 18, 2008 12:31 PM
Richard said...: "How can I be racist when I say that they are Americans just like me and need to be treated as an American."

There you go again with your "some of my best friends are black" arguments. You are racist precisely because you just wrote that.; June 18, 2008 12:33 PM
Emit R Detsaw said...: Although I don't put a lot of stock in poll's, nice to see the shift in Florida. I didn't have FLA in my count when I said 400+ EC for Obama. LOL

On McCain, starting to feel sorry for the dude. He talked about a surge in Iraq, Bush decides to do a surge. McCain changes his stance on Off-Shore Drilling and Bush changes his stance. Dude either is Bush's leader, or very unlucky. If he has been feeding Bush policies to follow the last few years, the country really can't stand electing him.

Good thing that won't be an issue come November.

Obama Landslide in 2008 (it will be worse than a Laker defeat in Boston) ;o); June 18, 2008 12:35 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Richard do you know what these letters stand for K.M.A. You are really a strange person.Unlike you I don't have ultramotives when I say something I just say how I feel. Jean; June 18, 2008 12:36 PM
Aunt Jean said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; June 18, 2008 12:40 PM
Aunt Jean said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; June 18, 2008 12:43 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: What a beautiful morning - looking at the new poll numbers.

It looks like if all goes well that it will be a landslide for Obama in November.

I am just praying that the republicans vote for McCain at their convention and that they don't pull a fast one by picking a different candidate!

Obama '08; June 18, 2008 12:45 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Vicki in Seattle I don't remember a post of mine in the last week or two being deleted. Now I've deleted some because of typo and reposted.. I had a couple here about a month ago before the race was over be deleted this was before the race was over. Jean; June 18, 2008 12:47 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Open Thread Electoral Vote Contest

The closer the election is the easier to guess the winning number will be.
So we will have a cut off date for number submissions of July 13th 11:59pm.
Duplicate number guesses will be allowed since there are only so many combinations available.
The list reflects the number of EVs for Obama (vs. McCain).

Submissions so far:

Emma - 300
Richard - 304
tmess2 - 315
RobH - 317 (1)
apissedant - 317 (2)
JayW - 269
softspoken22 - 298
Oregon Dem - 332
Leah - 345
Emit R Detsaw - 429
Independent voter - 538

Anyone that submits an early guess will be allowed to add (but not change) a second guess October 1st - 3rd. The early guess will be our main contest. The second guess will be considered a separate contest.; June 18, 2008 12:47 PM
stopOBAMAnow said...: Hello There:

Thanks Yamaka for your reply.

__________________________________

BHO will NOT get anything more than what Kerry got in 2004:

He will get far less than
59 million popular votes and 251 EV. Cindy and John McCain will be dancing in the Inaugural Ball!

Unless, he very quickly moves to the Center by talking about:

1. Shrinking the Govt to the size of Clinton Govt as in 1992-2000.
2. Not increasing tax on anybody during the recession.
3. Not getting total tax revenue more than 18% of GDP (as in Clinton Era).
4. Balancing the budget and creating Surplus to pay off the Debt (as in Clinton Era)
5. Planning for new Energy supply including drilling Offshore for oil and gas.

These things will label him as a bona-fide Centrist and a frugal Administrator. Then he CAN win the GE, if he sounds authentic.

Otherwise, the Vocal Minority can't win, period.

-as per Silent Majority.; June 18, 2008 2:43 PM
Meg said...: Memorial service for Tim Russert 4:00 EST MSNBC.; June 18, 2008 3:18 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Regarding McCain and his flip-flopping - I copied a big list off the web and I will post it here. I do not know if everything on the list is true but I thought I'd post it and then everyone can analyze it and state if there are any errors.
_____________________

McCain Flip Flopping list

* McCain pledged in February 2008 that he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Specifically, McCain was asked if he is a ‘read my lips’ candidate, no new taxes, no matter what?" referring to George H.W. Bush’s 1988 pledge. "No new taxes," McCain responded. Two weeks later, McCain said, "I’m not making a ‘read my lips’ statement, in that I will not raise taxes."

* McCain is both for and against a "rogue state rollback" as a focus of his foreign policy vision.

* McCain considered and did not consider joining John Kerry’s Democratic ticket in 2004.

* In 1998, he championed raising cigarette taxes to fund programs to cut underage smoking, insisting that it would prevent illnesses and provide resources for public health programs. Now, McCain opposes a $0.61-per-pack tax increase, won’t commit to supporting a regulation bill he’s co-sponsoring, and has hired Philip Morris’ former lobbyist as his senior campaign adviser.

* On a related note, he said 2005 that he opposed the tax cuts because they were "too tilted to the wealthy." By 2007, he denied ever having said this, and insisted he opposed the cuts because of increased government spending.

* In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending "dirty money" to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.

* McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June 2007, he abandoned his own legislation.

* McCain opposed a holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr., before he supported it.

* McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.

* McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.

* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.

* McCain decided in 2000 that he didn’t want anything to do with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, believing he "would taint the image of the ‘Straight Talk Express.’" Kissinger is now the Honorary Co-Chair for his presidential campaign in New York.

continued in next post...; June 18, 2008 3:21 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: continued...

More McCain flip flops

* McCain has changed his economic world-view on multiple occasions.

* McCain has changed his mind about a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq on multiple occasions.

* McCain is both for and against attacking Barack Obama over his former pastor at his former church.

* McCain believes Americans are both better and worse off than they were before Bush took office.

* McCain is both for and against earmarks for Arizona.

* McCain believes his endorsement from radical televangelist John Hagee was both a good and bad idea.

* McCain’s first mortgage plan was premised on the notion that homeowners facing foreclosure shouldn’t be "rewarded" for acting "irresponsibly." His second mortgage plan took largely the opposite position.

* McCain vowed, if elected, to balance the federal budget by the end of his first term. Soon after, he decided he would no longer even try to reach that goal.

* McCain’s campaign unveiled a Social Security policy that the senator would implement if elected, which did not include a Bush-like privatization scheme. In March 2008, McCain denounced his own campaign’s policy.

* In February 2008, McCain reversed course on prohibiting waterboarding.

* McCain used to champion the Law of the Sea convention, even volunteering to testify on the treaty’s behalf before a Senate committee. Now he opposes it.

* McCain was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants’ kids who graduate from high school. Now he’s against it.

* McCain said he was the "greatest critic" of Rumsfeld’s failed Iraq policy. In December 2003, McCain praised the same strategy as "a mission accomplished." In March 2004, he said, "I’m confident we’re on the right course." In December 2005, he said, "Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course."

* McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade to saying the exact opposite.

* McCain went from saying gay marriage should be allowed, to saying gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed.

* McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as "an agent of intolerance" in 2002, but then decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans "deserved" the 9/11 attacks.

* McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.

* On immigration policy in general, McCain announced in February 2008 that he would vote against his own legislation.

* In 2006, McCain sponsored legislation to require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. In 2007, after receiving "feedback" on the proposal, McCain told far-right activist groups that he opposes his own measure.

* McCain said before the war in Iraq, "We will win this conflict. We will win it easily." Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was "probably going to be long and hard and tough".; June 18, 2008 3:22 PM
apissedant said...: Leah,
I don't know why you're still posting stuff.... we were just shown the light. All we have to do is become "centrists," by adopting all Republican principles, and being Democrats only in name. It is so simple, I don't know why you don't understand.; June 18, 2008 5:59 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: apissedant -

I have no idea what you are talking about. The Democratic principles have nothing to do with the idiotic ideas of the Republicans.; June 18, 2008 6:08 PM
apissedant said...: leah,
Stop just told Obama to effectively embrace all of the Republican ideas in order to market himself as a centrist. This includes reducing taxes while magically balancing the budget, decreasing the government while not reducing services, and off-shore drilling. It is a genius plan, I don't know why you can't see it. All you need is Bush's magic wand.; June 18, 2008 6:29 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Leah,

Ignore him. apissedant is back to his 'arguing for argument's sake' type of posting.

In other words, posting for no good reason, contributing nothing to the discussion, and being nothing but a pissant, with a juvenile attitude.

You would think that someone who is going to be a father in the near future, and who is going to grad school within just a few more months would grow up. I guess that's too much to expect from some people, though.

Mike; June 18, 2008 6:32 PM
apissedant said...: Oh Mike, you have gravitated to personal insults, while at the same time calling others immature. Isn't it ironic? Don't ya think?

I wasn't arguing at all you imbecile. They call it sarcasm. I know it is difficult to hear a tone of voice in a blog, but I would think that any idiot that has read at least one of my posts would realize that I would not advocate for a decrease in taxes or more drilling. I think using the word, "magically" and referring to "Bush's magical wand" would give away the tone of the post.

I realize the level of thinking sarcasm requires may be slightly above you.

Read the second post again, and you'll see me specifically speak of StopObamaNow's latest post, which informs Obama to become a centrist by adopting Republican policies. Apparently Republicans are now in the center.

I would also note, that to my knowledge, I have only disagreed with Leah once. Your ability to not move beyond a month old conversation is unfortunate. Especially since you were wrong then, and are wrong again now. You complain about my ability to read and follow a conversation, and then quickly show your inability to do the same. AMAZING.; June 18, 2008 7:02 PM
Independent Voter said...: * Florida: Obama edges McCain 47 - 43 percent;
* Ohio: Obama tops McCain 48 - 42 percent;
* Pennsylvania: Obama leads McCain 52 - 40 percent.

---------

As MOST of us Obama supporters already knew that Yam's "big state" and EV theories that he/she tried to assert during the primary race gets thrown out the window.

It goes to PROVE that you CANNOT apply primary results to the general election.; June 18, 2008 8:10 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: apissedant -

I don't read 99.9% of stop's posts so that is why I didn't know what you were referring to.; June 18, 2008 8:14 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA '08; June 18, 2008 8:15 PM
Independent Voter said...: LOL leah - you just had to do that didn't you! LOL; June 18, 2008 8:34 PM
Beryl said...: Was anyone as impressed with Michelle O. on "The View" as I was? I think she was so elegant.

It does bother me that some are claiming that she is having a "makeover". I think that people are just getting to know her remarkable story. I love the fact that she was raised with loving, yet humble parents who worked hard to help their children obtain a better formal education than they did. This reminds me of Tim Russert's family.; June 18, 2008 8:42 PM
Meg said...: I watched Tim's memorial service this afternoon and got a bit teary. I will miss him, especially in Nov.

Wolf reports seeing Obama and McCain seated next to each other at Tim's funeral, deep in discussion for 15-20 minutes. I imagine McCain was trying to talk him into doing a road tour together.; June 18, 2008 8:55 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: apissedant,

When using sarcasm on a PRINTED blog or other web site, you don't word your message with NO indication of the sarcasm. When there is no indication of it, then when someone reads your posts, do NOT become indignant if/when someone misreads (intentionally or not) the message.

When using sarcasm, you need to include a VBG, an LOL, a reference to the message you are parodying or mocking, or some other indication [such as (:-) , (:') , etc.] of the sarcasm.

Since you didn't use one of those indications, it made it very apparent to many that you were trying to use the "arguing for argument's sake" style of writing - something which you continually remind us that you LOVE to do, that your father does it, that the students around you do.

If and when you decide to become an adult, and make it a little clearer if/when you are arguing for argument's sake, or being sarcastic, or (HORRORS!) serious, you'll find that your posts are a bit more understandable, and therefore welcome.

A blog is supposed to be for communication. The definition of communication is the imparting or interchange of thoughts, opinions, or information by speech, writing, or signs'.

In my opinion, many times you are not trying communicate with the people who read the posts here - nay, you are just pushing out words. To communicate, you need not only to write words, but also try to impart the sense of how someone is to read what you wrote, something you apparently lack the ability to accomplish.

And to help clarify the above, it is a mocking of you, a critique and criticism of your attitude and writing style, and hopefully, a message to you to make an attempt to better communicate.

Mike; June 18, 2008 9:04 PM
Richard said...: Mike in MD, as one who makes liberal use of sarcasm himself and who was sorely tempted to make an almost identical post earlier, I would cut apissedant a little slack. He was not really being obnoxious, IMO.; June 18, 2008 9:05 PM
Richard said...: On another note, I think the map at 270towin.com is beautiful right now. Plus, it confirms what I've been saying all along: Obama can win this without OH, FL, or MO (and this exactly how I predicted it could be done). I would also like to point out that, if you put the two toss-ups, OH and MO, into the Obama column, you have my prediction for the electoral vote pool.; June 18, 2008 9:12 PM
stopOBAMAnow said...: Hello There:

As per the AOL Straw Poll

55% of the people favor McCain
45% favor Obama

352 K all across the country have voted..

This poll is clean strait forward and simple, in spite of mischief from the Obama Gang.

We know McCain supporters ARE NOT internet savvy unlike Obama's here and Ron Paul's.

________________________________

On the new politics of drilling in the offshore of FL and other States:

McCain has the winning argument.

If Dems are NOT smart on this, this will be their Achilles Heel, beware. In Nov, the gas price is going to be $5-6 a gallon. Voters will remember who comes up with solutions.

Obama is quite vulnerable with his big Govt programs, high tax ambitions and anti-drilling for gas and oil rhetoric.

Stay tuned.; June 18, 2008 9:41 PM
stopOBAMAnow said...: "it is a mocking of you, a critique and criticism of your attitude and writing style, and hopefully, a message to you to"

What's your problem? Why are you in a fighting mood?

Still the fuse is on! Let it blow open your bony head!; June 18, 2008 9:44 PM
ed iglehart said...: Kunstler on Colbert Report
;-)
ed; June 18, 2008 9:47 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: I also watched the Tim Russert memorial on MSNBC today.

All I can say is that the one thing that people will be talking about for a long time is the RAINBOWS!

How strange it was!

The songs they played in the auditorium before and after were from Russert's IPOD.
The last song they played in the auditorium was (IZ) Israel Kamakawiwo'ole's Over the Rainbow/What a Wonderful World with him singing the version with just his ukulele. I ran outside to look up the song on the computer and then a bit later came inside to start dinner. Then I heard Chris Matthews mention the DOUBLE RAINBOW in the sky there over D.C. and they showed a photo of the rainbows. It wasn't until Keith Olberman's Countdown that he mentioned that the song was playing at the end of the event and then the rainbows were noticed when they came outside from the Kennedy Center!!!

How awesome is that!

Here is a video of the song:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=PL-uL2M3xvM

IZ died in 1997 when he was only 38 years old.; June 18, 2008 10:03 PM
apissedant said...: mike,
Yes, you do have to give indication. Hence the reference to Stop, "magical," and reference to, "Bush's magical wand." With the original post, I had mentioned, "you were just informed," since the post above from Stop. She has already explained that her lack of understanding was due to ignoring his post. You must have missed... well... a lot.
Again, I have not ever reminded the argument for argument's sake. That would again be you continually reminding me and everyone else. I'm not sure if you get myself and yourself confused, if you are, well that's an issue. To my knowledge, you don't have a second account on here. That means that everything that says, "mike in maryland" is you, and everything that says, "apissedant" is me. Just to help you out a bit. The reference to my father was about arguing, not about arguing for arguing's sake. Again, your inability to read is quite astounding. You must practice.

Unlike you, I have the ability to read. I even have the ability to read between the lines, so your last paragraph was not necessary. As previously stated, YOU are having issues understanding the posts of others. I am having no trouble in that area today. I would again, remind you, that you are, "mike in maryland," and I, in fact, am "apissedant."

I have quite clearly communicated with everyone here but you and mike. Apparently mikes have trouble with communication. I would point out, that for the second time... people are complaining about YOUR attitude, YOU arguing, and YOUR inability to communicate. The one time I made a mistake, I admitted it. Why are you so proud that you cannot admit your own mistakes? That is a serious sign of weakness and arrogance.

I would like to finish with two very basic points: Insulting someone by calling them their screen name is really rather silly. I chose the screen name, so calling me it obviously doesn't offend me.

Lastly, insulting someone's ability to raise their child is completely without class and merit based solely on a disagreement over sarcasm. That is not a very "mature" way to argue.; June 18, 2008 10:10 PM

«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 800 of 4188 Newer› Newest»

Welcome to Democratic Convention Watch

Blog Archive

Democratic Convention 2008

Democratic National Convention History

Denver & Colorado Democrats

DCW in the News

Friends of DCW

2008 Republican National Convention

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Open Thread

4188 comments:

Tags