-
Website
http://www.urbanconservative.com/ -
Original page
http://www.urbanconservative.com/2008/05/27/five-reasons-not-to-vote-for-obama/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
I'm voting against Obama because he supports US drug war efforts in Central and South America, and many of his policies seem hardly different from those of Bush/McCain/Clinton. I'll just vote for Ron Paul, and then McCain will be elected and we'll all go to Hell in a handbasket. Does that make you happy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dljboY5t2Dw
And the US has a history of talking to everyone... Is Bush appeasing Sudan? http://donklephant.com/2008/05/27/bush-to-appea...
3 - people are just excited at the possibility of having a president that can form sentences
4 - I don't recall the job of the president being to appease the public. GW Bush + torture + pre-emptive war based on false intel is poison to the heart of America. A constitutional professor is an excellent choice for getting us back on track.
5 - The campaign is the job interview for the spot. Obama's team runs circles around the others, while out-classing them (i.e. not sinking to their level). And unlike the current prez, Obama plans to listen to someone other than just 'yes' men (i.e. what he lacks in experience, he makes up for in intelligence and the quality of the team he's assembled so far).
Did you just learn how to use a computer?
Stick to blogging about UFO abductions or something because when it comes to politics you come off as some hillbilly.
Debunked on Youtube ... wow, I am impressed with your level of research capabilities. Did you just go to Youtube and search for "pro Obama" content? I am sure Heather Cat Lady is a reliable source for information. Ha.
@darkhorse23
I advise that you go back to high school and get your diploma; and then come back here and leave a more intelligent/articulate response -- one worthy of a response from me, idiot.
@Jason
"A constitutional professor is an excellent choice for getting us back on track"... you have got to be kidding me, right? And, name two people on his team? Yeah, that's what I thought. Go look it up on his site b/c the people on this campaign team WILL NOT be the same peeps in his cabinet, assuming he gets elected.
@Bison
I don't really understand your comments. What does my opinion of Obama have to do with computer literacy? Is the blog not functioning correctly? Please let me know so I can fix it. Hillbilly? Ha … I am laughing really hard right now.
Obviously, if ALL you libs read the entire post, you would know that I didn’t write this post. Marissa did; and she is a highly educated woman and I really don’t think she is a Hillbilly either.
This is a clear example of uninformed liberals changing the topic because you are ALL ignorant to the real issues; and it scares me to death that you have the right to vote. Go spend some time doing research and then come back here with some intelligent rebuttals.
“Stick to blogging about UFO abductions” … WTF?
I really do thank you for commenting on this blog. It gives me all the ammo I need when I write about the ignorance of the left. Thank you.
Sure when scripted. Why does Obama stutter repeatedly during interviews?
Obama makes things up as he goes along. He has spun so many lies he can not even keep up. Case in point the 'uncle Auschwitz' reference.
In a 2002 speech on Iraq it was his grandfather. In 2008 it was his 'uncle'.
Obama is a buffoon and a dangerous one at that.
continue unabaited here. how unfortunate that you- mr. urban conservative, you have elected to be so narrow minded you could probably view through a keyhole with both eyes. it does not take a great deal of brain power or computer knowledge to make absurd statements then seek out only those who will support your point of view while dismissing all others. perhaps you have lessons from michael savage? just what is it exactly that prompts you to constantly insert divisive rhetoric? where are your solutions? are logic and reasonable conversation so foreign to you that you are blinded when the opportunity for common ground presents itself? what exactly is the purpose for this constant negativity of yours? you continue to defend the failed policies of this administration...you continue to defend and promote the election of mcbush.
your nonsense set forth here regarding obama are not only absurd and debunked- your continued noise concerning obama's former paster indicates that you have no grasp whatsoever on the actual facts... just what is it that you are afraid of? perhaps you will share with us which of your personal insecurities feel threatened by obama?
Now if you could come up with 5 reasons TO vote for McCain that would be groundbreaking because you can't find 5. McCain is a one trick pony who doesn't do his one trick particularly well.
1. He paints himself black to win
2. He had sex with a gay man.
3. He is a crack whore
4. He is supported by that bitch the Obama Girl
5. Once, he killed a man with his penis.
1. He was born in Hawaii (that's not really America)
2. He was a smoker so he supports big tobacco. (No wait, that's a conservative trait, please disregard)
3. There was a rumor in South Carolina that he has two black children.
4. His middle name is "Millhouse"
5. Not only does he talk to his enemies, his enemies do fund raising events for him (I can't prove that 100% because there are no pictures)
"This is a clear example of uninformed liberals changing the topic because you are ALL ignorant to the real issues; and it scares me to death that you have the right to vote. Go spend some time doing research and then come back here with some intelligent rebuttals."
Lets make a few points here.
1. You never make intelligent rebuttals, and when we call you out, you're just a "guy presenting his opinion." "this isnt a news source" So, how about you follow that do onto others rule?
2. I am sorry, but it is really hard to make intelligent points to such garbage. Sometimes the best response is a satirical post.
3. We are all ignorant of the real issues? The only points that could even be considered real issues in this entire post are points 4 and 5. The first three? real issues? come on man......
H
7. One word: Arugula.
8. He just hates America so much. He said so. I can't remember where, and don't ask me to elaborate, but I know he did. He said if he could he would sell Americans to terrorists to make little terrorist sex babies who can suicide bomb all our buildings. It's true. He hates us.
†
1. He has big feet.
2. He lived in Indonesia, and was trained by Osama Bin Laden himself.
3. Two words : Grape Soda
4. He went to Harvard which means he is an ELITEST SONOFABITCH
5. He probably is a spy for somalia
9. He's gone on vacation to other countries. If he loved America, why wouldn't he just vacation here?
10. He's got big ears and probably likes koolaid.
11. He speaks in complete sentences and big words, which means he thinks he's better than us! Damn elitists.
12. He is skinny.
13. I'm sure he owns a pet, or has at some point, which means he's just like all those pro-animal rights nuts and he'll crack down on our hunting rights!
14. He's Muslim, so he's gotta go to Mecca, and what if he does it while he's president? We won't have a leader!
15. He's really bad at video games.
†
1. He wants to ship the flag pin manufacturing jobs oversees.
2. His church once had a bake sale and the cookies were not good.
3. Some of his supporters graduated from college.
4. He speaks so well that the president can't understand him.
5. He danced with a gay person on the "Ellen Show"
1) All politicians are liars; Obama is just a liar and a dreamer. Not the most pragmatic combination
2) 52% max tax bracket. Enough said.
3) He's a lawyer. There's no room for lawyers in the presidency.
4) He's from Chicago. Anyone hear of machine politics?
5) Something about being rooted for by Hamas is an instant turnoff.
nobama. not ever.
America is a country. Get used to it. "the Americas" are two (2) continents and a region.
That's not a serious response.
Liberty is right. Obama is socialist trash. You don't need 5 reasons to not vote for him. 1 suffices.
haha, yes I have been called a lunatic before; and even narrow minded. My solutions? I don’t know, but I am not running for office. So far, I haven’t heard any solutions from any of the camps (McCain too). My insecurities on Obama are quite simple; his approach to foreign policy scares me; and I really don’t want my taxes increased. Is that enough for you? Yes, indeed Michael Savage is quite the man…you see, most conservatives agree with just about everything he says, but he is really the only one who expresses himself; and yes, he is a bit extreme many times. Btw, I didn’t write the post. : )
@simonesdad2008
What’s the deal with you man? She presents some valid points and just because you have heard it all already, many have not! And, I am still trying to find a reason to vote for McCain. I can think of two reasons though … that is, he is not Obama and/or Hillary. Btw, I actually like Ellen.
You make constant remarks that I am some sort of Bush apologist. I am not. I just don’t bash him like all you pessimistic assholes. Yeah, he’s made a lot of mistakes while President; but I’ll tell you what … have we been hit by a terrorist attack since 9/11? Thought so. Do you know how many times the US (and our interests) were hit while your hero Clinton was in office? Terrorism is STILL an issue and there are still ISLAM fundamentalists that want to kill you, I and our children. They don’t care if you/we are conservatives and/or liberals. You just live your pathetic little life in the suburbs somewhere … bash me, this blog, Bush and whoever… and complain about the RIGHT WING AGENDA. You have no freaking clue.
@ Heathenhater
I don’t have time to respond to some of your bs. Sorry dude; but I will say this. I get a lot of comments on this blog and I wish I could respond to all but there is not enough time in the day. Btw, shouldn’t you and your little friends be in class? Go get an education man – it’s good for you.
@ Jonathon Nierengarten
Finally someone on my side. Thanks for the love. I’m sure if this were a liberal blog, it would be far more popular than Daily Kos and Huff Post….
The only statement I disagreed with was this: "Democrats can clean up his (Obama's) image and repackage him in 2012." Why bother to do that when reasons 1 through 4 are still valid? He might be able to change 2 & 4, but he is stuck with his past associations (No. 1) and he cannot control the fact that some of his followers are atheists (No. 3).
I will give you the biggest reason to not vote for Obamassiah. He is a Socialist and will destroy our economy. He is the Farthest to the LEft out of any Senator, that is if he even bothers to vote. He is a empty suit that transforms into anything the people that he is next to at the time want him to be.
Don;t ever trust the Liberals(Progressives).
Here is another good reason, he is a student of Saul ALinski tactics in politics.
First of all, he's only liberal on lame social issues, second of all, every political candidate has shady connections and questionable alliances, and most of all, I've never heard anything remotely racist come out of his mouth.
How about the best reason no to vote for Mccain or Obama? They're both establishment candidates.
Absolutely delusional...
The man clamors about "change" and "unification." Yet, he has the most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate. You liberals will believe anything, whether it's spurred on by your BDS or White Guilt. Or perhaps is it your elitist views that predicate your need to patronize those with whom you disagree.
Keep up the good work, Urban Conservative. Your points were SPOT ON.
http://whatsit2you.blogspot.com/2008/02/barack-...
# His 2006 rating by the Almanac of American Politics (2008) on Economic Policy is 87% liberal, 0% conservative. (2005: 87% liberal, 12% conservative.) ==The trend speaks for itself.==
# During an October 2004 debate, Obama stated that he opposed education vouchers for use at private schools because he believes they would undermine public schools. ==With the wide-spread failure of public schools having had billions of dollars poured into them, to date, why would anyone resist a chance to improve education? ==
# In a July 2007 address to the National Education Association, Obama also called for higher pay for teachers with a plan estimated to cost $18 billion annually and would be partially funded by cutting funding to NASA. The bulk of the cuts would be derived from delaying the Constellation program for five years. == So we will defund the leading scientific and technical operations of our country in order to give pay raises to teachers - most of whom work 9 months out of 12 - without any mention of requiring merit from them. This is called a smart plan? ==
# Obama spoke about his position on health care at Families USA, a health care advocacy group. Obama said, "The time has come for universal health care in America [...] I am absolutely determined that by the end of the first term of the next president, we should have universal health care in this country." == Sen. Obama, I am so absolutely determined not to to have my family fall under universal health care that I pledge to work as many jobs as I need to ensure I can purchase private insurance. THAT is how frightful I am of your proposal. ==
# Obama advocates responding to the "precarious budget situation" by eliminating "tax credits that have outlived their usefulness". == Why doesn't Sen. Obama believe that government spending programs that have outlived their usefulness should be eliminated? Perhaps because he doesn't think there are any? ==
# On April 20, 2007, Obama introduced in the Senate a bill (Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act - S. 1181) requiring public companies to give shareholders an annual nonbinding vote on executive compensation, popularly called "Say on Pay." Several corporations voluntarily have begun to give shareholders such a vote because of concerns about excessive CEO salaries. Some critics have said that the federal law would interfere with the traditional state oversight over corporate governance. == Federal meddling in a state issue? Has the senator ever read the 10th Amendment? ==
# In an address on national security on August 1, 2007, Obama stated that as President he would consider military action in Pakistan in order to attack al-Qaeda, even if the Pakistani government did not give approval. Obama said, "I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America." == So it's OK for a junior senator to speak of a unilateral invasion of a nation considered our ally, but it was not OK for a sitting president to attack a nation that had repeatedly violated the terms of a cease fire agreement (which is an act of war), repeatedly fired upon our aircraft (act of war), repeatedly violated over a dozen UN Resolutions, including Resolution #1441, and for that president to obtain overwhelming agreement of both houses of Congress (296-133 in the House; 77-23 in the Senate) and a coalition of allies to join in the battle. I wonder if the Senator has thought this position all the way through. ==
# On immigration, Obama has said that he "will not support any bill that does not provide [an] earned path to citizenship for the undocumented population." In January 2008 Obama campaigned on a policy to grant drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. == Why would you grant a legal document (license) to people who have already disregarded the law? And if an illegal alien is caught speeding, wouldn't he/she lie about having a driver's license just so the ticket wouldn't go on their record? And if you say "we'll add biometric data to them", why don't we just make them go through the process of legal immigration in the first place? Can you say amnesty? ==
# While many people have varying views on gun control, Sen. Obama has supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns. == I suppose it is easy to guess he has some strict issues with the 2nd Amendment. ==
# Obama supports embryonic stem cell research and was a co-sponsor of the 2005 Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act which was passed by both houses of Congress but vetoed by President George W. Bush. Obama condemned Bush's veto... He also voted in favor of the 2007 bill for embryonic stem cell research that was passed but was also vetoed by President Bush. == Now that there's proof adult stem cells can be reprogrammed to act like embryonic stem cells, and still no evidence that actual embryonic stem cells have produced even a single cure for anything, perhaps the senator will rethink his position. Is Sen. Obama even aware it was President Bush who authorized federal funding stem cell research in the first place?? ==
So me being a conservative and me not liking Socialism is wrong. How do you know what is on oroff base withme. I know Obama well, I am from Illinois and he has done nothing for illinois or the USA in his whole politcal career. He has been given bills from people that wantedhimto succeed and passingover people much senior than him when he was inthe Illinois Senate. And he has absolutely done nothing in the US Senate. That is if he caresto vote, mostof the time he says "present" which is a cop out. He was hiding his true liberal self toget elected President.
So having a racist preacher for 20 years doesn'tcount either. Why????? He hassaid he was a spititual mentor, and that just scares me. Anyone that follows anyof the Lineration Theologies is aainstallofwaht the USA is about. Liuneration Theology is a Marxist political machine and has nothing to do with religion. It is a political organization that dressesitself up asa Religion. So he listened to this for 20 years andit hasnot affected his thoughts and ideas. Please,give me a break.
He is a Alanski devotee alongwith Hillary. Alanski was a Marxist organizer in Chicago and both Obama and Hllary are good pupals to his form of political take over.
Obama is a veryf lawed candidate and itis just fun to watch the Democrats rip eachother apart over this. Identity Politics is tearing the Democrat Party apart.
Just get some popcorn and watch the show
I am for lowering my taxes and getting rid of all the pork that the Congresscritters are spending. And right now the Republicans arei n the doghouse, because they started to spend like the drunken sailors in the Democrat Party. That is why thelost in 2006, it was never about theWar in Iraq. And I am sure this year they are going to loose more because they just do not get it. They are talking about the Republican "brand". WTF Jst act like Republicans and what you used to stand for, smaller government, less taxes and getting out of everyone's lives. But "power corrupts" and they were corrupted into thinking that they were going to rule forthe next few decades, and started to act like Demcrats.
let me post this again, and maybe you could inform me of the "bs" in it.
More Seriously UC, you said this
"This is a clear example of uninformed liberals changing the topic because you are ALL ignorant to the real issues; and it scares me to death that you have the right to vote. Go spend some time doing research and then come back here with some intelligent rebuttals."
Lets make a few points here.
1. You never make intelligent rebuttals, and when we call you out, you're just a "guy presenting his opinion." "this isnt a news source" So, how about you follow that do onto others rule?
2. I am sorry, but it is really hard to make intelligent points to such garbage. Sometimes the best response is a satirical post.
3. We are all ignorant of the real issues? The only points that could even be considered real issues in this entire post are points 4 and 5. The first three? real issues? come on man......
H
"This guy is supposedly a "catalyst" for change? "
"He has the most liberal voting record in the senate."
Well, big guy, you just proved your point. Merriam-Websters defines liberalism as..... a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties
seems to me by being liberal, he is for change
"I am for lowering my taxes and getting rid of all the pork that the Congresscritters are spending."
Fair enough, but a few questions......
With the country going further and further into debt every year, where do you intend to get the money to balance the budget. And don't say pork. Do you even know what pork-barrel spending is or what an "earmark" is? They account for a very very very very small portion of the federal budget every year. And even if you do manage to cut the budget to a decent level. How do you intend to cut it further to keep your tax cuts from putting the US further in debt? We all know well and good that everyone wants lower taxes. But wake up, and smell the pollution. The US government is bogged down with mandatory spending that wont go away. I'm sorry, it just won't. Once you have something, you cant take it away or the group benefitted by the program will flip shit. Anyone who knows anything. We need the tax rate we have. Its a sad reality, really it is especially for those who think small government is better. But right now its not a reality.
So basically, how do you plan to implement your brilliant plan.
Another thing is decrease the size of the govnemnet and not have lifetime work for pelpel that do nothing. the beaucracy is aominable and wastes too much money by paying pelple to do nothing. Get unions out of the government wold be a good first start. Unions will beour downfall if we do not try and dtop their control over our society.
We can actually cut programs that are duplicate and inefficient. There are many that are useless and do no good for the betterment of the country.
that is just a few I came up with
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMQtOktv83g
for those of you who fancy themselves as having some degree of intelligence, you might actually look here to see where your hair-brained statements above lack any resemblance to actual facts.
this is in response to the above pronouncements that obama has never done anything, lacks experience, has no ability to work across party lines...etc...etc...etc...
Bills / Amendments Passed
S.AMDT.1041 to S.1082 To improve the safety and efficacy of genetic tests.
S.AMDT.3073 to H.R.1585 To provide for transparency and accountability in military and security contracting.
S.AMDT.3078 to H.R.1585 Relating to administrative separations of members of the Armed Forces for personality disorder.
S.AMDT.41 to S.1 To require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership PACs, or political parties for whom they collect or arrange contributions, and the aggregate amount of the contributions collected or arranged.
S.AMDT.524 to S.CON.RES.21 To provide $100 million for the Summer Term Education Program supporting summer learning opportunities for low-income students in the early grades to lessen summer learning losses that contribute to the achievement gaps separating low-income students from their middle-class peers.
S.AMDT.599 to S.CON.RES.21 To add $200 million for Function 270 (Energy) for the demonstration and monitoring of carbon capture and sequestration technology by the Department of Energy.
S.AMDT.905 to S.761 To require the Director of Mathematics, Science, and Engineering Education to establish a program to recruit and provide mentors for women and underrepresented minorities who are interested in careers in mathematics, science, and engineering.
S.AMDT.923 to S.761 To expand the pipeline of individuals entering the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields to support United States innovation and competitiveness.
S.AMDT.924 to S.761 To establish summer term education programs.
S.AMDT.2519 to H.R.2638 To provide that one of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5 million or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee certifies in writing to the agency awarding the contract or grant that the contractor or grantee owes no past due Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.2588 to H.R.976 To provide certain employment protections for family members who are caring for members of the Armed Forces recovering from illnesses and injuries incurred on active duty.
S.AMDT.2658 to H.R.2642 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.2692 to H.R.2764 To require a comprehensive nuclear threat reduction and security plan.
S.AMDT.2799 to H.R.3074 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.3137 to H.R.3222 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.3234 to H.R.3093 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.3331 to H.R.3043 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
Senate Resolutions Passed:
S.RES.133 : A resolution celebrating the life of Bishop Gilbert Earl Patterson.
S.RES.268 : A resolution designating July 12, 2007, as “National Summer Learning Day”.
Other Bills Introduced
S.J.RES.23: A joint resolution clarifying that the use of force against Iran is not authorized by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq, any resolution previously adopted, or any other provision of law.
S. 453: Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2007. The Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R.1281), (S.453), would establish criminal penalties for acts of voter deception. Those who knowingly disseminate false information with the intention of keeping others from voting would face up to five years in prison under the legislation. The Act was sponsored by Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) and 60 cosponsors in the House, and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and 15 cosponsors in the Senate. (20 Cosponsors)
S. 2030: A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require reporting relating to bundled contributions made by persons other than registered lobbyists. (1 Cosponsor)
S. 2111: Positive Behavior for Effective Schools Act. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to allow State educational agencies, local educational agencies, and schools to increase implementation of early intervention services, particularly school-wide positive behavior supports. (3 Cosponsors)
S. 2066: Back to School: Improving Standards for Nutrition and Physical Education in Schools Act of 2007. A bill to establish nutrition and physical education standards for schools.
S. Con. Res. 46: A concurrent resolution supporting the goals and ideals of Sickle Cell Disease Awareness Month
S. 2044: Independent Contractor Proper Classification Act of 2007. A bill to provide procedures for the proper classification of employees and independent contractors, and for other purposes. (6 Cosponsors)
S. 2519: Contracting and Tax Accountability Act of 2007. A bill to prohibit the awarding of a contract or grant in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold unless the prospective contractor or grantee certifies in writing to the agency awarding the contract or grant that the contractor or grantee has no seriously delinquent tax debts, and for other purposes.
S. 2433: Global Poverty Act of 2007. A bill to require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day. (9 Cosponsors)
S. 2330: Veterans Homelessness Prevention Act. A bill to authorize a pilot program within the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development with the goal of preventing at-risk veterans and veteran families from falling into homelessness, and for other purposes. (1 Cosponsor)
.........
for many of you, it seems that your dislike for obama has less to do with his positions- for i doubt that any number of you have absolutely no clue as to what they actually are... i rather suspect that your racial fears, lack of education, and inexperience with something called compassion fuel your acidic remarks. has no one explained to you that we all live on the same planet?
here is an extensive article covering this individual and career in scum and venom.
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/03...
clearly he was dropped on his head at some point along the way.
Micahel Savage is abiut as ignorant as Ron Paul
Please do nmot bring race into this. I could care less what color of skin he has. I do not like his politics, He is a Chicago Liberal that has gotten ahead on the backs of others. He was given many bills to author from Madigan over the senior Senators to pad his resume.
He is a follower of Alisnski and has gone to a Marxist Church for 20 years.
There is no frothing at the mouth, just facts. He is a Liberal and is to the left of Ted Kennedy, the only person farther left of him is Kucinic..
I agree Savage is an idiot and has no clue how the workd works. Him, Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Pat Buchanan should be shummed by conservatives.
Barack sees things differently and makes changes for the better. While McCain is going out of his way to get Bush to host fund raisers for him, Barack has raised a quarter billion dollars from millions of donors. That's right, billion with a "B". I thought you cons at least respected the dollar. Remember when the repubs were the ones with all of money? Bush had his ranger and pioneer donors. They raised a ton of money in 2000 and 2004. Very successful, right? Well Father Time adopted the same fund raising strategy relying on big donors. Hillary too. Barack has raised more money from more donors than anyone in the history of American politics. He used his best judgment to improve his standing instead of following the status quo. Father Time didn't bother with that new fangled "internets." Barack doesn't have to tell me every detail of everything he will ever do. He dismantled old school Hillary and he will push Father Time into retirement too. Meanwhile you cons will still be saying how scared you are of Barack and change. That alone is change I can embrace. Did Bush bother to tell us he would lead us into record oil and gas prices before he so masterfully did? Did he lay out the plans for his disastrous war and foreign policy before the fact? You cons are sort of sad to observe and listen to right now. You are like that old man who still thinks that rock and roll is just a fad or that old lady who is still wearing a beehive hairdo. You guys are old and tired and clinging to the past. I'll be so happy when Barack shuts you guys up for good. In the meantime keep whining about flag pins and middle names...
Plus Obama sucks at bowling.
of course I endorse it, idiot! I agree with everything she wrote! And, it's not racial at all ... that's your liberal talking points. I grew up in black culture and I still think Obama not fit for the job.
And, for anyone to vote for Obama JUST BECAUSE he is black is equally as racist as someone who won't vote for him JUST BECAUSE he is black. Dc you get it?
Let's take affirmative action for example. I don't think that 100% of people who oppose affirmative action are racists. I do think 100% of racists are against it though. 100% of people opposed to Barack aren't racist but 100% of the racists are not voting for Barack. Given a choice between Barack and McCain, who would you suspect the KKK would vote for? Or Barack and Bob Barr or Ron Paul or a ham sandwich (on white bread)? People vote for candidates for all sort of reasons including not wanting to vote for the other person. People say that on here all of the time. McCain will get votes "just because" he is the only white man in the race. I don't think that is necessarily racist. That is people voting in their own best interest in their minds. Even if it is racist everyone has the right to vote for whatever reason they think is important to them. You see Barack getting these huge numbers of black voters but in the last presidential election and every presidential election in the history of this country 99% of black voters voted for white men. That's a number Barack will never achieve. So while I think people's opposition to Barack in most cases is issues or ideologically based, we can never discount the racial divide.
From my perspective I can't see why anyone wants Father Time or any repub given the track record of the last 8 years. The trends in the 2006 elections and some recent special elections seem to indicate I'm not alone. Now we have Scott McClellan coming out and confirming some of our worst fears about this president and the repubs in general. I'm telling you this right now, if Barack can get Colin Powell, this race is over. Powell is everything McCain wishes he could be. Who could McCain get that you could say that about? Why won't anyone on here talk up McCain? The silence is hilarious.
You asked how we plan to implement our brilliant plan? Simple. Bring the troops home and save $3 Billion. Of course, if you are a war profiteer like KBR or McDonnel-Douglas, you'll have to find something productive to do.
CONSERVATIVES - UNITE UNDER THE BANNER OF FREEDOM GET RID OF THE UNINFORMED LIBSSS
(or you could use your head and vote for obama, who will hopefully change things for the better. It can't be any worse than now)
When simonesdad said that this is just more of the same, and you (UC) shot back that while he knows these arguments it doesn't mean everyone does, how is that justification of mudslinging? You don't get it. You are participating in the mudslinging that is rocketing American politics into the crapshoot. Everyone doesn't need to know about his bad bowling record! So what's the point in bringing this shit up?
You also said that "I haven’t heard any solutions from any of the camps (McCain too)" which means you don't like McCain either. So why aren't you voting independent? Or why are you voting at all? You're looking for weak excuses to derail Obama, but I could take just as many cheap shots at McCain, so why aren't there "5 reasons not to vote for McCain"?
Then we get Jonathon chiming in saying that you don't need 5 reasons not to vote Obama, that "1 suffices." Okay. Really. One reason? One reason, one little thing, is enough to say a candidate shouldn't be voted for. So the dozens of reasons we could come up with for McCain or for HillRod, those ones don't count? It's just for Obama. If there's one reason for OBAMA, then 1 reason's enough.
Then you got "Liberty" rocking the Deep South redneck comment about how America is a country, get used to it! Oh, sorry, Amurica. No, Amurica is not a country. It is not a continent either, technically, it's a landmass. But we Amuricans have been so convinced for so long that we are the world, that we can call ourselves Amuricans. You know what, though? We are the #1 power in the world still, somehow. I think everyone living in the United States should be called an "Earthling." No, not everyone. There are some illegal immigrants, they're not true Earthlings. Neither are blacks. In fact, all liberals, they don't count as real people, so they're not Earthlings. I like it.
†
You'll find the conservative posters here have their heads just as far up their asses as the liberals on Huffpost.
of your methodology: when you have nothing, call them names! if you had any understanding
at all of why obama has garnered the attention, interest, grass-roots funding, admiration, and votes you could possibly understand why you, mr. uc- are in the pathetically dismal political and intellectual minority in this country presently. people are fed up with the "us vs them" mentality... the red state vs blue state acidity, the corruption of this administration, special interests lining their pockets at the expense of the american people, the shrinking of the middle class, a president that turns a deaf ear to calls for rational thought in favor of his personal religious calling to impose democracy upon other cultures and nations whether by hook or by crook. voters are tired of mud-slinging and phony non issues of hair cuts and flag pins.
obama has it right- talking will always be better than fighting- never once has obama suggested
military action as a first choice. even you, mr. uc can understand the concept that once you have befriended someone your understanding of that individual's perception of YOU as well as your understanding of him/her is forever altered. this notion that we don't talk to our enemies is absurd - reasonable thinking people understand this.
one does not lead by their sexual organ or their bible... you lead by example. you gain respect by being respectful. is this concept so difficult to understand?
i have no idea what color you are - nor does it matter- your words (and your support of another's blog make them your words as well) indicate to me that you have issues that go beyond race-
these issues preclude your ability to gather any understanding of the basic and fundamental difference between conservative and liberal political thought. your interest , purpose and supreme focus of your entire blog is clearly "us (the good, patriotic, god fearing, bible-thumping, hardworking, pull-yourself-up-by-your-own-bootstraps, genuine amuricans) vs. the LIBERALS!!!
just what solutions do you have? i have asked this of you...which you side-stepped : "i am not running for office" was your reply. more bs. any fool can thump their chest and participate in mob mentality... what are you doing to FIX anything? what public office have you ever held? what have you accomplished?
what leadership do you have?
(and before you give me the "what about you" noise... i have held elective office ... where i worked to preserve conservation and agricultural lands on the zoning commission and worked to have emergency medical response facilities in place to serve rural areas to name a couple. )
1.His economic policies were written by Swiss banks, the most solid financial institution in the world (if you don't count the UBS and subprime mortgage thing)
2. Iraq war keeps our economy going, US citizens are building these tanks, bombs and planes.
3. His wife is hot for an old chick.
4. He lived in a cage, so he can completely relate to my roommate.
5. Actually you wouldn't vote for McCain or Obama if you really loved America. Join the Ron Paul Revolution.
Or we are decietful if we tell the truth, remember the Swift Boat Veterans.
the swift boat vet crappola was debunked. the obama flag pin, hand on heart, etc crappola was debunked.
you have nothing but a festering hate. this will eat you.
i doubt if you actually know what socialism is.
i doubt that you have ever actually listened to obama...i rather think that you have listened to rush's take on what obama represents. you really need to get out more.
And who debunked tha flag pin thing, he actually said it was false patriotism and then statred to wear on. And the hand over the heart its the correct protocol.
I do not hate anyone and think Obama is a nice guy, but he is a terrible candidate for President. I would love to talk to him.
And I guess the left had just loving things to say about President Bush the last 7years?? HaveI called Obama anything other than Obamassiah, because of the Messiah aura the MSM has given Obama?? Have I called him evil, Hitler, Chimp in Chef, or have I said i wanted him to die.
No it is the Left that is filled with hate and vitriol.
I have listened to his "Hope and Change" and it is not what I want for this country.
ps: &the like stars on the no moon skyes, away from city, (I'm male, "my" version:) where a hot ladyshepperd, no race "problems" waits for his lover ...(that would be me, in that case, a very patient&comprehensive tender guide hot she elf, then) scorted by fairies (so they, women, are always satisfied with, and causing them to treat you "geneticly set as "God made them from a rib to satisfy us") ...
I'm gathering that true conservatives are not energized by Father Time. You guys have been in attack Barack mode for a while now and that's fine. We've heard what you are against. What are you for? Who are you for and why?
I am for Conservative values and philosophies. Sen. McCain, while being a good man, does not embody many of these traits. However, the ones he does embrace make him, far and away, better than either Sen. Clinton or Obama.
Lesser of two evils is what I hear you saying. Not at all. Were I forced to pick ONLY between either Democrat candidate, THAT would be the lesser of two evils, in my book.
@OhHolyKnight
I never said that you can’t hold me accountable, I was merely stating a fact, that I DID NOT WRITE THIS POST … but I do agree with it. How is that hypocritical?
AND … if you didn’t know .. I am an Independent. I don’t vote for people just because they hide behind Republicanism. I am a conservative and I believe in conservative pronciples. McCain is not a conservative per se, but I feel he can lead this country much more effectively than the other two. Some of your arguments are really becoming petty.
@stegner
You really shouldn’t talk about a woman like that. Where are you manners boy!
@toe
You are right. I apologize; but the comments here are starting to piss me off. Attack the argument, not me. Well, you can if you want because it really doesn’t bother me. : ) What solutions do you want to hear from me? Unemployment? Iraq? Terrorism? Taxes? What? I’ll be glad to post my opinions about the topic.
What leadership do I have? I am not claiming to be a leader here; and I don’t really care to read your resume.
@simonesdad2008
You sure are full of insults aren’t you? You think I am severely outmatched? I would debate you on just about any topic, anytime anywhere. What are you doing in your life to add to the conversation other than coming here and trying to politely say, “UC, you are a fucking idiot?”
I'm gathering that true conservatives are not energized by Father Time. You guys have been in attack Barack mode for a while now and that's fine. We've heard what you are against. What are you for? Who are you for and why?
I am for Conservative values and philosophies. Sen. McCain, while being a good man, does not embody many of these traits. However, the ones he does embrace make him, far and away, better than either Sen. Clinton or Obama.
I am also a conservative, and while I would prefer a more conservative candidate for president, I think McCain is a much better choice than either Obama or Clinton. If only the Republicans could offer someone like Ronald Reagan, but alas, that is not realistic right now. Gov. Jindal certainly has potential in that regard, and so does Gov. Palin but they are still young. Maybe they'll be ready in 2012 or 2016 (Jindal/Palin) but today is 2008 and one must deal with reality. At this point, given Obama's high negatives and extreme liberalism, McCain will get my vote. McCain is strong on national defense, a war hero who has served his country and suffered for it; he has 22 years of government experience; he has reached across the aisle to Democrats for the good of the country and I respect that even though I did not always agree with the outcome; he is pro-life, a definite plus in my book; he has integrity and speaks his mind clearly and does not flip flop on issues just to get elected. These are the primary reasons why I will vote for McCain.
Let's get one thing straight. I don't use swear words on here and if you are putting quotes next to things you are attributing to me be accurate. I have never called you an idiot or an f***ing idiot. Go back and check everything I have ever posted here. Have I gone after you personally? Yes. You have yet to refute anything I have asserted about you too. I suspect I have hit close to the bone here. I don't like to get too personal on here but sometimes I'm not as disciplined as I should be. I do post here for the tension. I know I will never convert any of you cons but it's not just cons who read this and, quite frankly, I WANT everyone to know what is in the minds of the cons and you guys never disappoint. For any neutral observers who read these posts, the cons own words are more damaging than anything I could come up with on my own. I don't care about preaching to the choir. I want you cons to deliver converts with your own words. Also, I support Barack and I will say that any and everywhere I can. Apparently no one has that same passion about McCain which is encouraging to me.
So for the record, UC, I would love to debate you anytime (I thought that's what we were doing here). I don't think you are an idiot. I think politically you are way off base and, yes, I do hold you to a higher standard because this is YOUR blog. Stop running away from that fact. Stand your ground and offer up some of YOUR ideas and arguments. Don't take everything personally. I thought you cons were the stoic, agree with me or you are a hippie communist types, who haven't had anything new to offer to political thought in a 100 years. You guys have a play book, UC. I'm anxious to see how well you have studied it.
their lives stopped at the "beehive" hairdo, their music with ricky nelson, or their wardrobe with the polyester pantsuit. they are suspicious of change and fearful of the unknown. taking a risk might consist of trying a different toothpaste... but only because the one they have always used is no longer being made. i have seen many responses here from individuals who have simply stopped growing intellectually.
i had not visited this blog for well over a year. i found the premise overstated and filled with generalities. it's master started with a negative opinion of an entire people that held a view different from his own and proceeded to call them uninformed...sheep... blind followers of ideals rather than ideas.
i may be what this blogster would like to peg as one of his typical uninformed LIBERALS (eeeek!!!) but i do know one thing: you will never have people take you seriously or gather their attention or any constructive discussion by insulting those individuals with whom you wish to converse, convert , or (heaven forbid), understand.
my return here was to post on this particular topic regarding non-factual statements made regarding obama. you all are certainly welcome to your individual choices as to who will get your vote- i would only hope that you fancy yourself intelligent enough to seek multiple sources (both liberal and conservative) for the formulation of your thoughts.
and one parting note... not to gloat, but to have you take careful notice that many of us "uninformed liberals" were right ...right about iraq...and right about this current (and soon-to-be-gone) president. while you were busy buying this administration's hype and threats, they have picked your pocket clean, destroyed our military, raped our nation financially, destroyed our good name around the world, and eroded our constitution....just to name a few. don't take my word for it... after all, i am uninformed, remember? just look it up. read. inform yourself. at least try.
over and out.
aloha
So all you little liberals, get yourselves packed for your move to France this fall. john depp will be there to welcome you to your new home. We know you'll all leave this time...EIGHT MORE YEARS!!! EIGHT MORE YEARS!!!
obama is a muslim and this is a christian nation.
he's not even from america.
he doesn't care about america only about winning.
1. doesnt wear the pin that everyone wears
2. has a pastor that said lots of mean thing to people
3. talks condesending with his elite talk
4. not patriotic and wants to talk to iran,... apease iran.. like that other muslim condoleeza rice
5. doesnt have expereince like john mccain who is older than dirt.
you liberals are so stupid
all you liberals do is attack the person. you morons never even attack the arugment, you only say that bush is dumb bush is dumb. stupid liberals the usa would be better without your're lies.
Give me freedom or give me death... Ron Paul '08
And McCain does not inspire conservatives because he stabs them in the back all the time. Will I vote for him????? Hell yes. Over Obama or Hillary, any day.
Many conservatives realistic enough to know there will never be "another Reagan" nevertheless wish at least for another Barry Goldwater. They don't realize that we already have one. His name is John McCain.
AS WITH GOLDWATER, so with McCain. Irascible, iconoclastic, sometimes a bit profane, always his own man and nobody else's, McCain is a curmudgeon's curmudgeon -- but still with much to offer his country. We all know, of course,
why so many of us are so often so angry with McCain -- his sometimes bizarre heresies from conservatism, his insulting language and hair-trigger temper toward conservatives who disagree with him -- but we spend too little time acknowledging the man's strengths. On those issues on which Goldwater was strongest, about which he cared most deeply and on which he was most identifiably conservative, McCain is as strong or stronger than any national leader in the past 20 years.
Consider the fight against outrageous government spending. No major party nominee since Goldwater, Reagan included, has been as consistently and bravely dedicated to fiscal discipline as has McCain. Last week he both made a superb campaign speech and penned a hard-hitting column for the Chicago Tribune blasting the bloated, irresponsible Farm Bill for which 80 percent of his colleagues were cravenly voting. Likewise, McCain's longstanding record of opposing purely local pork barrel projects -- "earmarks" -- is well known, and utterly unmatched. McCain also consistently has opposed expansion of entitlement programs, which of course are the biggest long-term fiscal problems facing this nation. Indeed, entitlements collectively represent an absolutely deadly time bomb, and McCain might be the only man in American politics today with the will power, the moral standing, and the sheer cussedness needed to defuse it.
Similarly, McCain has proposed the most free-market-oriented health care reforms imaginable from a national party nominee during a contentious campaign. And on taxes, the fact remains that McCain has never, not once, supported an income-tax rate hike. He calls for corporate tax deductions and seems genuinely committed to fighting, really fighting, to make most of President Bush's tax cuts permanent.
Finally, nobody can doubt McCain's love of country, his dedication to a strong defense, his concern for our military personnel, or his bedrock belief in American exceptionalism and commitment to victory for the United States over its many dangerous enemies.
These conservative virtues of McCain are no mere projections of our own hopes. Instead, McCain has proved his embodiment of these virtues through a lifetime of service.
YES, WE ALL KNOW how when McCain does disagree with conservatives, he has seemed to take great delight in not just abandoning conservatives, but of rubbing our faces in it. We know that even when he tries to make amends, he does almost all the talking and very little listening. We know he can be an SOB. But we also know that on those occasions in which he is our SOB, he can be a tremendously effective one. And on most of the day-to-day issues that have defined conservatism for the past 60 years, he has indeed been our SOB.
John McCain is not a conservative champion. But he deeply believes, and strongly champions, many conservative principles, many Goldwaterite principles. We certainly could do worse than to be stuck with him as our own, infuriating, headstrong, bullying, honor-obsessed, indefatigable, and sometimes downright inspirational SOB.
How about real issues like the US not supporting the cluster bomb ban, or our stand on torture, or the abysmal health care system? These non-issues just convince me that it is the conservatives who are ignorant sheep.
†
Marketing That John McCain Doesn’t.
Hillary Clinton went from being the "inevitable" President to just another Senator. What happened?
Obama did a much better job of marketing. He sold what the left really wanted, which is stopping the war. He is doing a great job of keeping his message in front of the US people and in the press. He has built a powerful grassroots organization that is going to be a formidable competitor in the fall. I have put together a free report that shows you what those marketing strenghts are and what John McCain can do to counter them.
To get your free copy of the report title: Obama's Marketing Edge and What John McCain Can Do To Counter It
www.ObamasMarketingEdge.com
"Many conservatives realistic enough to know there will never be "another Reagan" nevertheless wish at least for another Barry Goldwater. They don't realize that we already have one. His name is John McCain.
AS WITH GOLDWATER, so with McCain. Irascible, iconoclastic, sometimes a bit profane, always his own man and nobody else's, McCain is a curmudgeon's curmudgeon -- but still with much to offer his country. We all know, of course,
why so many of us are so often so angry with McCain -- his sometimes bizarre heresies from conservatism, his insulting language and hair-trigger temper toward conservatives who disagree with him -- but we spend too little time acknowledging the man's strengths. On those issues on which Goldwater was strongest, about which he cared most deeply and on which he was most identifiably conservative, McCain is as strong or stronger than any national leader in the past 20 years.
Consider the fight against outrageous government spending. No major party nominee since Goldwater, Reagan included, has been as consistently and bravely dedicated to fiscal discipline as has McCain. Last week he both made a superb campaign speech and penned a hard-hitting column for the Chicago Tribune blasting the bloated, irresponsible Farm Bill for which 80 percent of his colleagues were cravenly voting. Likewise, McCain's longstanding record of opposing purely local pork barrel projects -- "earmarks" -- is well known, and utterly unmatched. McCain also consistently has opposed expansion of entitlement programs, which of course are the biggest long-term fiscal problems facing this nation. Indeed, entitlements collectively represent an absolutely deadly time bomb, and McCain might be the only man in American politics today with the will power, the moral standing, and the sheer cussedness needed to defuse it.
Similarly, McCain has proposed the most free-market-oriented health care reforms imaginable from a national party nominee during a contentious campaign. And on taxes, the fact remains that McCain has never, not once, supported an income-tax rate hike. He calls for corporate tax deductions and seems genuinely committed to fighting, really fighting, to make most of President Bush's tax cuts permanent.
Finally, nobody can doubt McCain's love of country, his dedication to a strong defense, his concern for our military personnel, or his bedrock belief in American exceptionalism and commitment to victory for the United States over its many dangerous enemies.
These conservative virtues of McCain are no mere projections of our own hopes. Instead, McCain has proved his embodiment of these virtues through a lifetime of service.
YES, WE ALL KNOW how when McCain does disagree with conservatives, he has seemed to take great delight in not just abandoning conservatives, but of rubbing our faces in it. We know that even when he tries to make amends, he does almost all the talking and very little listening. We know he can be an SOB. But we also know that on those occasions in which he is our SOB, he can be a tremendously effective one. And on most of the day-to-day issues that have defined conservatism for the past 60 years, he has indeed been our SOB.
John McCain is not a conservative champion. But he deeply believes, and strongly champions, many conservative principles, many Goldwaterite principles. We certainly could do worse than to be stuck with him as our own, infuriating, headstrong, bullying, honor-obsessed, indefatigable, and sometimes downright inspirational SOB."
Comments anyone?
Of course, only a liberal wussie would want to discuss weapons technology as a political topic. No soldier who has ever set foot on a battlefield worries about his weapons being too efficient at killing the enemy! Only a liberal would worry about killing our enemies too successfully! Just one more reason to ignore liberals...they're just unfit for anything but HANDWRINGING!
"No soldier who has ever set foot on a battlefield worries about his weapons being too efficient at killing the enemy!" No they worry about the body armor they DON'T have.
Efficient weaponry is fine until arms dealers get a hold of them and detonate your precious cluster bombs in downtown USA. "Enemies" aren't the only ones killed by the weapons you describe. A bullet has no name. Ask the Tillmans if you don't believe me.
It appears you have tied your own manhood to weapons. I bet you drive a muscle car too. We get it.
Oooh, you're so macho! When the revolution comes, as soon as you pig-fuckers reinstate the draft so you can attack Iran, you will be the first to die. Do you think beer-swilling sausage-eating rednecks from a Nascar race or a Lynyrd Skynyrd concert have what it takes to stand up to 'liberal wussies' who are fit and healthy?
When I was on the battlefield I was fighting for The United States of America, not liberals. Few liberals are man enough to fight, or to have fought for their country; liberals only believe in fighting against their country!
Few liberals would ever turn down the keys to my automobile...unless they owned a newer model of the same vehicle, but no, it's not a Prius, nor a made in Japan liberalmobile.
All of your liberal rantings will fall upon deaf ears now, I have no more time to waste addressing this liberal poppycock. It's time for a drive...mountain roads beckon...
I seriously doubt that the ban on cluster bombs is being vote on because it efficiently kills people in battle. The debate is that it is a faulty weapon that leaves many undetonated elements after the battle or war is done. Which in turn will detonate when the actual inhabitants of these war zones try to return to living. Much in the same way land mines have had a larger negative effect on citizens than a positive effects on people winning wars.
And if you want efficient weapons why not just drop A-bombs on everyone. One plane, one tank of gas, one bomb and victory. Doesn't get more efficient than that does it.
Vote Ron Paul, because he probably delivered you into this world. He slapped your Neocon ass once and he will do it again.
You brought a noticeable fact up. Cluster bombs are efficient and save American lives, but, much like land mines, they do have unintended effects to the civilians who will return. I appreciate the efficiency, but that ill effect does need to be remedied. Or they need not be used. Much like landmines, which would be fine if they had a foolproof fixed time expiration (will never happen, just trying to be idealistic about it). Also, though Ron Paul is a libertarian, I'd gladly have a libertarian who is pragmatic run this country. I love McCain, I love libertarians.
DemNoMore:
Very good analogy to Barry. I would not mind him being president one iota. In fact, I'd probably take him or Reagan equally. Both men shared great, consistent ideals. Much like McCain.
Not my words but very telling. I found this on "Right Wing News" and "Stop the ACLU" (find it yourself).
"Barr the Conservative Vote in '08"
No ma'am, you are the one without honor. Attack American patriots if you must, but never question their honor. Until you strap on a vest and hoist a weapon in her defense, you have no right to question the honor of one of us who have defended the rights that you exercise here. We have no further use for you, unless you have a gift for sniffing out IEDs...heck, even if you don't, put yourself out there.
Until you are willing to sacrifice for this country, you should shut up, eat some brie, get your fat ass in your Prius, and GTFOOH.
"Barr the Conservative Vote in '08"
"..."Barr the Vote in '08" It's the only real choice for conservatives in my mind."
Simonesdad: by what virtue or act of God have you been granted to suggest that what is right in your mind is right for all? Certainly. the open primary system in the early states let nare-do-well's influence the Republican nomination by promoting Sen. McCain over candidates whose Conservatism trumps his.
But did you notice that Rep Barr wasn't even running back then? Perhaps because he knew then he hadn't a chance to win at all?
Let's play out your scenario: would Rep. Barr get nominated, would he do at all well with anyone on the Left? Hardly. If for no reason, he's an unknown. Third party candidates are always spoilers (paging Ross Perot, Ralph Nader).
Sen. McCain would hardly be a Conservative in the likes of President Reagan, for example, but he's far better than the choices on the Left.
Now as to your sudden desire to see a third-party candidate run against Sen. McCain, and after your strident defense of Sen. Obama, would there be any chance you would reveal your real intentions as to the candidate you truly support?
Just asking.
I think you've noted a number of facts about Obama that promise a colorful term.
I'm still impressed with his oratorical skill: great, when rehearsed; "fall flat or offend" (or are downright hilarious) when not - as you pointed out.
I suspect that Obama will be the next president. The Associated Press ran an article today, stating that he had cinched the nomination. From the way Obama and his nomination were described, I get the impression that he's still the only one of the three major candidates able to walk on water. As far as the American press is concerned.
With that sort of backing, a Republican candidate will have a hard time winning.
I could be wrong.
The upcoming Warner-Lieberman Climate Security Act will decimate the economy and bring America's prosperity to an end. Read this article for a comprehensive analysis:
http://newt.org/EditNewt/NewtNewsandOpinionDB/t...
The Democratic Party is nothing more than a socialist regime, and the Republican party has sacrificed its principles to gain votes for the party's sake, and hence abandoned America. Either the Republican Party has to rurn its ship around, or a new leader must rise from the ashes: An American President.
out.
You know who should run for president???
Jesse Ventura.
How many times need I point out that the Media is not this liberal entity. They are pawns of the white house. Now, Im not going to even bother explaining, but if you need an explanation, let me know.
Perhaps I do need an explanation, since last I heard Chris Matthews had something crawling up his leg, not because of Sen. McCain, but because of Sen. Obama.
So yes, please do explain.
He has to be kidding as that was the most ludicrous statement ever posted.
More reasons not to vote Obama?
Chicago's ethics board ruled that there was nothing wrong with the 40th Ward's Alderman rezoning neighborhoods where his wife, a Realtor, just happened to be involved with selling $22M of the resulting condos/townhomes.
Just like there was nothing involved with Mrs. Obama somehow getting her salary tripled at the U of Chicago from $160K to $500K after Barry was elected Senator. Nope. Nothing to see there, move along, especially that $1M earmark for the U of C.
Now that's the politics of change. Spare change.
How about that?
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/05/29/jessic...
If the media is so liberal - why isnt this getting coverage?
http://articles.citypages.com/2008-05-21/news/m...
Why have all the attacks been on Barack and Hillary, and besides one or two small things that get like 0 coverage - we have heard nothing about McCain? The "liberal media" should be attacking McCain, not Obama, yet 90 years of coverage have been given to what? Obama's pastor. Liberal media? yeah right
Could it be that the Dems race for the nominee is the big story??? No way it is that Vast Right Wing News Conspiracy.
You have got to do better than that to convince me that the MSM is not in the bag of the Dems
Crooks and liars wrote about it, but the video was on CNN. Way to go big guy.
And way to address half of my points. That really shows me up.
please address the staged press conferences. and the moles.
You see, the media is clearly very liberal. Everyone says it, everyone KNOWS it, so it's gotta be true. So the very fact that you are trying to present some sort of "evidence" to the "contrary" points to your ignorance as an UNINFORMED lib. Please don't try to argue against facts that all conservatives hold as dear and true.
As for the serious side of my post, Jonathon has got to be one of the brightest guys here. Oh wait, I forgot I said serious. Okay, Jonathon: what the hell, man. You say heathenhater is "ludicrous" in saying the media events are staged (which is fact, by the way), and then you shove off and don't address how he's wrong or anything about the topic at all. You see, if I am accused of murder and I go to trial, and my only defense is "What? Seriously? Come on...." I don't have much of a shot do I.
You gotta actually say why he's wrong. But before you can do that, you gotta check out the video of the press conference of GWB when he calls on a reporter to ask him a question and the reporter can't remember what question she was assigned to ask him. He cracks a joke about the completely staged press conference. Wake up, dude. It's a farce. It's a facade of democracy.
†
How many times has Obama's face been on Newsweek and Time? Every other week? If I want to see Obama getting his dick sucked I'd Photoshop his face onto some porn. The media does whatever is in its best interest. They like war. It's a story they can talk about every night and people actually care (or pretend to). Besides the fact that Obama was deemed to be the winner by the MSM weeks before he actually received the nomination (which some would argue he still hasn't done).
The MSM helped start the war. How much positive coverage of it do they have? None. Good news is not something you find for some reason. It's not as fun to say "soldiers found a weapons cache and confiscated hundreds of weapons" as it is to say "an IED killed 3 soldiers today bringing the death toll to 2674 so far." Every time the news is on I hear, "Presidents approval rating at all time low." If the media was being controlled by the government or conservatives, why would they be giving news stories like this?
Who cares? Does that mean the press isn't free? No. Is the president REQUIRED to hold press conferences? No. Do any of us care? No.
How about the nice news piece above about Obama being a total crook. I noticed you ignored that tasty tidbit.
And you dont care?????? wow......thats pathetic. You are the exact type of person Hitler took advantage of. Well played.
Ass.
This video helps people understand how Barack's Foreign policies are not as dangerous to the US as people like to think.
out.
One can never lead, if one has never followed.
http://www.urbanconservative.com/2008/06/06/oba...
Catchy though, makes me wonder who you are talking about.
"One can never lead, if one has never followed."
Nice. So every president has to be a military general? Actually, though, I'm fairly positive that Obama has both served and followed. As an American lawyer, he follows the laws; as an American citizen, he serves the government and the people. As a church-goer, he follows the word of God and the official church doctrines and creeds; as a religious man, he serves the will of God and the will of the people. That sorta seems like serving and following to me. In fact, if you're part of any religion, you both serve and follow. That's the best damn example of serving and following! So how hasn't he done that exactly?
And Jonathon, you are priceless. How don't you care that the press conferences Bush holds to rally the people around a war or a cause are completely stages so that only the questions that would MOTIVATE, and not deter, are asked? Like HH said, you are the reason Hitler got so far. Yet now, people like you are complaining about Iran and how it's the next Hitler. There's a disconnect.
The press being required to submit their questions ahead of time is the definition of restraint. That's not free at all, Jonny. If the question is bad, it's rejected. Otherwise, there would be no reason for them to submit it ahead of time. A free press can get up and ask whenever and whatever it wants in a press conference. That's not happening at all.
BlackNationalist, I agree to an extent. The media is not liberal. In my opinion, it's not really either. In fact, you actually say that. You say that the press reports on what is interesting, on what will hold the people's attention, whether its conservative or liberal. But as for the Clinton thing, I agree. Pretty much any president in the last couple of decades would have done something similar. Will Obama? I can't be sure. At least to an extent, but not like this. Like I said, the press isn't free and we're on the wrong track.
†
You don't seem to be able to read in context. Maybe some professors in English can be of some assistance. No one said anything about Generals. You don't have to be an officer to serve. JUST SERVE. He hasn't, not in any sense of the word. Every now and again America gets all giddy and "girly like" in times of "apparent" peace and votes in a Bill Clinton.
Of course he let America down in terrible ways that have cost us many lives since.
Now, AMERICA is at WAR. We are not going to pull out, no matter who gets in. If you think Obama is going to reverse Iraq policy, I have some real estate I'd like you to look at. So, yes, in times of war, I would prefer someone who at least has SERVED the military and our country.
I'm willing to bet my bottom dollar that the rest of the country feels the same way.
Let's recap the Man's (OBAMA) qualifications shall we?
1.) He has served as a FEDERAL politician for THREE years, of which he has spent TWO of those campaigning to be President. He gained that seat through a vacancy.
2.) He has voted to the far left on every issue where he could be forced to actually take a stand and vote. He MISSES alot of votes. In hindsight he likes to tell the American public how he WOULD HAVE voted. Gosh, that's nice. I'm sure he's truthful.
3.) He is on NO serious committees. This makes sense since he has NO experience.
I'm at a loss to go much further. I mean there just isn't much to work with at all.
This guy is another JImmah Carter, plain and simple. And that's a shame. I was hoping for better. Much better.
So yes, In times of WAR, you do NOT elect Neville Chaimberlaine BOYZ!. Gosh, I mean just about everybody knows that except the liberals.
McCain will beat OBAMA handidly if he runs straight at him. This guy is a house of cards and it won't take much wind to knock it down.
As for the rest of your diatribe OHK. He is a lawyer so he follows laws? Your parents should demand their money back. I follow laws, does that make me a lawyer?
You don't see a difference between serving in the Military and going to Church? HOOBOY!!
He goes to church so he follows G*D'S laws? Follows church tenants? here's a cupie doll for yah son. His church believes that Jesus was black. OK kind of nutty , but OK. HIS church believes that the white man is the devil. His church believes the white man invented AIDS. Now we're into full NUTTY!
Nothing wrong with going to church. Of course one may be judged by the things one believes in. Obama is lookin a little nutty and dangerous.
He also has quite a temper. Ask Joe Lieberman.
The media is overwhemingly registered to the democratic party. Only an ostrich would think other. Or someone too lazy to look up the facts.
All questions are not sponaneous anywhere on TV. I don't care if it's on Sunday moring or at the White House or Congress. Name a federal politician that hasn't done this plz. Heck, JFK taped ppl ( the victim didn't know they were being taped) in the oval office so he and brother Bobby could look good for prosperity. Ppsst, that's how Nixon taped everybody. JFK put the secret system in.
You guys are just waking up to the fact that the questions for federal politicians are reviewed beforehand? Where have you been for the last 50 years? Wake up!! By the way the press AGREES to this. It's a dog and pony show. It takes two to do it.
out.
EXACTLY!!!!! If the press was so liberal, they would not AGREE!
"So yes, In times of WAR, you do NOT elect Neville Chaimberlaine BOYZ!. Gosh, I mean just about everybody knows that except the liberals."
please watch this video. I would rebutt, but this video does it so much better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyg8WlOqKGs&...
And actually listen to the arguments. Don't write it off as "liberal bullshit"
out.
the reason this bothers me is that if you dislike obama and you want people to take you seriously, you shouldn't make claims that aren't true otherwise they will just call you an idiot and not take you seriously. we want people to take us seriously so they won't just get made, but maybe they'll see our side and not vote for him!
Obama turned election campaign in a comedy. The day of voting I have two options.
Vote for John McCain, or
Go Fishing.
You guys are just waking up to the fact that the questions for federal politicians are reviewed beforehand? Where have you been for the last 50 years? Wake up!! By the way the press AGREES to this. It's a dog and pony show. It takes two to do it."
Liberal; read above. Everyone's comments have been screened. Once again, who cares?
Yeah, Obama turned it into a comedy. Good call. If you have seen or heard about any election in the 1900s, then you would be very familiar with a term called "mud-slinging." It's not new. It's decades old. Mud-slinging is what turned our nation's politics into a laughing stock, you dink. Not Obama. People like HillRod the McCaininator are the ones perpetuating that bullshit, not Obama. So think again.
Mr. H, I've gotta say, bravo in proving my point. By your logic, a), we can't give any credit to any lawyers in any part of the country for knowing or abiding by the law, and b) we can completely disregard everything that any church-goer or Christian has to say about anything. Fantastic! I didn't even have to suggest that one! I'm not saying that anyone who follows the laws is a lawyer, you stupid monkey. I'm saying a lawyer follows laws. Have you ever heard of a saying like A must be B, but B doesn't necessarily have to be A? The rectangle and the square, for instance. Not everyone who abides by the law is a lawyer, but lawyers, by definition, and shady or not, use laws to prove their points. Think your arguments through next time.
And oh my god! They thought Jesus was black?!?! Fuckin psychos! Why can't they wake up and acknowledge that Jesus was white? Oh wait, he wasn't. Yet every church--every correct one, anyway, right H?--KNOWS Jesus was white. Or maybe they just wanted him to be.
And in any case, that is a belief. Who cares if it's mainstream. Does that discredit him? No. But I like how you say he believes in black Jesus, and not black Muhammad, cus here I thought he was Muslim. Excellent point though, H. Anyone who believes anything other than mainstream should be labeled NUTTY and disallowed to do anything important. I'm liking the thought process
†
it is not that they think that Jesus was Black. It is thatBlack Liberation Theology is a Marxist political theory that is using religion as asmoke screen. Look up "Black Liberation Theology" andalso look up "Lineration Theology". It has nothing to do with religion or Christianity in any way.
And the reason the country is all messed up is because the lawyers are ruling. Mymom is lawyerand believes that. They make the laws so ambigious that the couts have to figure out what it all means. That is why we need Sepreme Court Justices that look at the Constitution and not European Law.
When I said the word "SERVE", it was quite easy to see I was referring to MILTARY service. For some reason you need to go off on tangents that are not relevant to the subject at hand to make your points(?). Church? Lawyer?
I mean I can take that whole thing apart for you and grind it up better than homemade sausage, but .. ............. (read below)
My time is valuable and I may have to reconsider responding to you in the future.
1.) I'm not sure you are capable of following a thought to its fruition.
2.) Hence, I'm not sure you could ever think effectively enough to be conservative.
There is a thread on this blog about "Imagine a world without liberals". I'm not sure thats possible. Not everybody has the same mental acuity of a conservative. In the same sense that while the United States Constitution protects everyone EQUALLY under the law, not everyone is BORN equal.
You may be a victim of the latter axiom. I'm sorry for that.
.............................
It's not mudslinging if it's true. Just to correct you, .. again.
.............................
I notice you argue the one point of which I let slide. Yah know, the "black jesus" bit. Notice you didn't respond to the more serious facts of which I did not even scratch the surface. I could really go on and on about it, but no need, it'll all come out again and again until barack is sitting in the corner wondering what the heck happened. His associations will do him in.
He's a NEWB POLITICIAN who is just getting started for Pete's sake.
His associations will do him in already?
Make that a NOOB POLITICIAN.
The "OBAMA MAN" is another JIMMAH CARTER in a better suit. Yes, he dresses nicer. I'll admit that.
........................................
Honestly, I cannot say I am at all happy about any of our last 5 elections. It is quite apparent that the most qualified people are NOT in politics. That was not what the founding fathers intended. I'll say more about it later.
out.
http://www.urbanconservative.com/2008/06/11/bri...
If conservatives have such a higher thought process, why are most members of the academia liberal? Are they dumb and the 10% of academia people who are conservatives the only smart ones? I hope not. We'd better revise all those knowledge tests. Clearly have some liberal bias, right?
Have you seen this video of Obama admitting he is not qualified to run on a national ticket?
http://conservativepolitics.today.com/2008/06/1...
Actually I did see it earlier tonight on your blog! Thank you for spreading the word!
Tell me a thought, hoboboh, and I will watch it come to fruition. i will watch the shit out of that thing. go ahead, try me. we'll see where this goes.
you want me to reply to substance? first of all, quit giving me crap to filter through. second of all, how about your bit about the press NOT being affiliated with the Q&A. why would a super liberal media, as everyone claims it is, sit there and take it when these press conferences are so obviously rigged? you mean to sit there and keep telling me that the media is super liberal? no way man. there is a bias in those press conferences. true, that will be for anyone in office. but there's a bias nonetheless. more nitpicking, i know, but it's just cause its fun to nitpick.
also, you said "NEWB" and then "NOOB." sounds to me like YOU are the noob, you newb. seriously, though, are we still saying "noob," of either spelling, in actual political discussions? oh wait, this is con v. lib, which isn't an actual debate because libs don't matter. stupid libs. they're such noobs.
And I like how your biggest paragraph is about how you're not going to respond to me. nice cohesiveness.
†
"Meanwhile, Governor David Paterson (D., N.Y.) last month scuttled an offshore terminal for offloading low-carbon liquefied natural gas. Paterson spurned “industrializing” Long Island Sound, even though 17,000 vessels already carry 47 million tons of cargo annually through Bridgeport, New Haven, and New London, Connecticut.
The Cape Wind project similarly has stalled off Cape Cod as Massachusetts’s Democratic Senators Ted Kennedy and John Kerry and other eco-yachtsmen want their ocean views unencumbered by clean, renewable windmills.
Back on shore, green activists mothballed a 500-megawatt, 20,000-acre wind farm in Valley County, Montana. They complained last fall that 400-foot turbines would disturb a nearby wilderness area. GreenHunter Energy offered to whittle the facility back to 170 megawatts, but no go. So, no wind power.
Wind power also is threatened in Shelby, Montana, where a wind farm’s 300 megawatts would run via the Montana Albert Tie Line, an electrical wire stretching into Canada. Eco-freaks fret that it also might carry wattage from coal-fired power plants."
Energy Independence! Without doing anything!
Conservative Nimrods. Attention. If ya wanna derail Obama, you have to go after him on the same points that you like to champion. Hard for you to do, but the only way you'll disaffect liberal voters: pandering to big business, support for a continued military presence in Iraq, associations with Wal-Mart advisers, associations with Sub-Prime loan developers (Penny Pritzker) that kind of stuff. America will go to hell really fast with McCain, so let's all bring that on, so we can truly rebuild America. From the ground up.
Ya, change. What does it mean? Will we get real change with an Obama presidency? I seriously doubt it. Consider this from Naomi Klein, and also visit revbilly.com to see the Church of Stop Shopping's take on how wonderful Wal-Mart is! Also www.nlcnet.org/article.php
to see Charlie Kernagan's expose of the "real" China work force
Obama's Chicago Boys
by Naomi Klein
Barack Obama waited just three days after Hillary Clinton pulled out of
the race to declare, on CNBC, "Look. I am a pro-growth, free-market guy.
I love the market."
Demonstrating that this is no mere spring fling, he has appointed
37-year-old Jason Furman to head his economic policy team. Furman is one
of Wal-Mart's most prominent defenders, anointing the company a
"progressive success story." On the campaign trail, Obama blasted
Clinton for sitting on the Wal-Mart board and pledged, "I won't shop
there." For Furman, however, it's Wal-Mart's critics who are the real
threat: the "efforts to get Wal-Mart to raise its wages and benefits"
are creating "collateral damage" that is "way too enormous and damaging
to working people and the economy more broadly for me to sit by idly and
sing 'Kum-Ba-Ya' in the interests of progressive harmony."
Obama's love of markets and his desire for "change" are not inherently
incompatible. "The market has gotten out of balance," he says, and it
most certainly has. Many trace this profound imbalance back to the ideas
of Milton Friedman, who launched a counterrevolution against the New
Deal from his perch at the University of Chicago economics department.
And here there are more problems, because Obama--who taught law at the
University of Chicago for a decade--is thoroughly embedded in the
mind-set known as the Chicago School.
He chose as his chief economic adviser Austan Goolsbee, a University of
Chicago economist on the left side of a spectrum that stops at the
center-right. Goolsbee, unlike his more Friedmanite colleagues, sees
inequality as a problem. His primary solution, however, is more
education--a line you can also get from Alan Greenspan. In their
hometown, Goolsbee has been eager to link Obama to the Chicago School.
"If you look at his platform, at his advisers, at his temperament, the
guy's got a healthy respect for markets," he told Chicago
magazine. "It's in the ethos of the [University of Chicago], which is
something different from saying he is laissez-faire."
Another of Obama's Chicago fans is 39-year-old billionaire Kenneth
Griffin, CEO of the hedge fund Citadel Investment Group. Griffin, who
gave the maximum allowable donation to Obama, is something of a poster
boy for an unbalanced economy. He got married at Versailles and had the
after-party at Marie Antoinette's vacation spot (Cirque du Soleil
performed)--and he is one of the staunchest opponents of closing the
hedge-fund tax loophole. While Obama talks about toughening trade rules
with China, Griffin has been bending the few barriers that do exist.
Despite sanctions prohibiting the sale of police equipment to China,
Citadel has been pouring money into controversial China-based security
companies that are putting the local population under unprecedented
levels of surveillance.
Now is the time to worry about Obama's Chicago Boys and their commitment
to fending off serious attempts at regulation. It was in the two and a
half months between winning the 1992 election and being sworn into
office that Bill Clinton did a U-turn on the economy. He had campaigned
promising to revise NAFTA, adding labor and environmental provisions and
to invest in social programs. But two weeks before his inauguration, he
met with then-Goldman Sachs chief Robert Rubin, who convinced him of the
urgency of embracing austerity and more liberalization. Rubin told PBS,
"President Clinton actually made the decision before he stepped into the
Oval Office, during the transition, on what was a dramatic change in
economic policy."
Furman, a leading disciple of Rubin, was chosen to head the Brookings
Institution's Hamilton Project, the think tank Rubin helped found to
argue for reforming, rather than abandoning, the free-trade agenda. Add
to that Goolsbee's February meeting with Canadian consulate officials,
who left with the distinct impression that they had been instructed not
to take Obama's anti-NAFTA campaigning seriously, and there is every
reason for concern about a replay of 1993.
The irony is that there is absolutely no reason for this backsliding.
The movement launched by Friedman, introduced by Ronald Reagan and
entrenched under Clinton, faces a profound legitimacy crisis around the
world. Nowhere is this more evident than at the University of Chicago
itself. In mid-May, when university president Robert Zimmer announced
the creation of a $200 million Milton Friedman Institute, an economic
research center devoted to continuing and augmenting the Friedman
legacy, a controversy erupted. More than 100 faculty members signed a
letter of protest. "The effects of the neoliberal global order that has
been put in place in recent decades, strongly buttressed by the Chicago
School of Economics, have by no means been unequivocally positive," the
letter states. "Many would argue that they have been negative for much
of the world's population."
When Friedman died in 2006, such bold critiques of his legacy were
largely absent. The adoring memorials spoke only of grand achievement,
with one of the more prominent appreciations appearing in the New
York Times--written by Austan Goolsbee. Yet now, just two years
later, Friedman's name is seen as a liability even at his own alma
mater. So why has Obama chosen this moment, when all illusions of a
consensus have dropped away, to go Chicago retro?
The news is not all bad. Furman claims he will be drawing on the
expertise of two Keynesian economists: Jared Bernstein of the Economic
Policy Institute and James Galbraith, son of Friedman's nemesis John
Kenneth Galbraith. Our "current economic crisis," Obama recently said,
did not come from nowhere. It is "the logical conclusion of a tired and
misguided philosophy that has dominated Washington for far too long."
True enough. But before Obama can purge Washington of the scourge of
Friedmanism, he has some ideological housecleaning of his own to do.
This article can be found on the web at:
www.thenation.com/doc/20080630/klein
Your blog is wack. Next time you come here and comment, bring your own voice instead of quoting others.
heatherhater,
Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.
100% correct. Same reason Liberal politicos are politicos for life, and *most* conservatives get into politics as a reaction to perceived/real issues
Did you really pull that one out?
Do a little research,
http://nospeedbumps.com/?p=1135
Professors have the highest IQ.
SO save your trite sayings to make yourselves feel superior to yourself.
Assholes
Political Science profs were all very liberal. But they weren't involved in politics in any way shape or form. Not too successful at that profession I'd say.
And the history professors, whose opinion I may hold slightly more dear? All conservative. Because they read and understood history, and how it's NEVER different this time (aka Barry Hussein is no different than Lyndon B., Jimmy C., or any other presidential failures).
But I'm glad that English professors are liberal and smart.. that's great, cuz English and politics are the same thing. It's important too that my African Studies prof was very liberal; he knows tons about economics I'm sure!
-- performs low-brow attacks on his adversary
-- Supports the so-called "successful" counterinsurgency plan (since when have ANY American imperialistic wars been "successful?")
-- is "willing to THINK" about improving healthcare
And that's just the beginning.
Now, let's look at the alternative. Barack Obama will do the following:
-- secure our borders
-- focus on domestic issues such as healthcare, the economy, ethics, the American family, etc.
Lastly, has anyone here looked at the McCain and Barack websites?
http://www.johnmccain.com/
http://www.barackobama.com/learn/meet_barack.php
McCain's language on his website is even more militant. He wants to deploy military air personnel to protect our border with Mexico. Barack wants to secure the border with infrastructure and technology, while working WITH Mexico to make sure that the problem improves. The LAST thing that this country needs is involve our military on yet another unnecessary front. And, believe me, I want immigration problems to be solved as much as anyone else. Barack is a more intelligent, safe, and politically savvy candidate, despite his lack of delineated experience. Just because a politician has been on the public scene for half a century does not mean that he will be the best candidate. If anything, what we need is something entirely NEW.
also is gas prices.. so they go up a little where i live (Dallas/ft worth area) its at about 3.29 per gallon last i checked. i guarentee you that you spend more money stuffing your face per week than you pay on gas. *munches on bigmac while complaining about gas price and war*. th author of this blog is 100% right when he says "do not vote for obama" because in the unlikely chance he is elected, the first black president will be the first black president to get impeached.
The real reason that more professors are liberal is simple association. The Universities do have a Liberal litmus test for the most part. Conservatives simply cant get hired at most colleges precisely because they dont follow the Liberal/Socialist mantra.
The real crime is that they (Libs) are the real thought police and actively suppress non-liberal thinking. My daughter would send me example after example from professors she had to put up with. (Valedictorian and 3.8/4.0 in college so no dummy)
For a great place to get informed about the reality of universities try this website. www.thefire.org The abuses are largely from liberals but the site has taken on all abuses and has even gotten the ACLU (highly liberal organization) to back them on some of there fights.
Like only a woman who comes from the Democratic party should be supported. Stuff like that. makes a liberal proud to be so open minded.
OHK,
Ready to apologize to everyone and admit to the media bias? Or have you been sleeping in a cave lately?
out.
I thought she should have left some of this (what I considered) offensive fingerpointing at Obama followers out- That is until I read your comments which support exactly what she says.
I say why stop at 5? Keep going until you run out of reasons not to vote for Obama, which I'm sure will take until well after the election!
No I don't think Obama is a messiah (& I'm offended when RepubliCONs call him that)...but I do think he cares a lot more for the REAL everyday people than John (I don't know how many houses I own) McCain. People who worry about how they're going to afford getting back & forth to work this week with gas prices so high. Who have to buy generic more than name brands because their grocery bills have doubled in the last 8 years. The kind of people who buy their socks at Wal-mart and can't REMOTELY imagine spending $300 G's on an outfit!
Sorry, but I don't want a reactionary, hot-tempered, war-hardened old man with 1 foot in the grave (who was caught singing "Bomb, bomb, Iran" on youtube) to have his finger on that red button at 3am. He'd probably push it just to go back to sleep! I want a man whose nature it is to intelligently think through a problem and approach it from all angles. Obama has the brains. Lets not forget that this man graduated from Harvard Law having been head of the Law Review. THE most prestigious position there is. AND he was the 1st black man to do it. McCain, by his own admission graduated 5th from the BOTTOM of his class in the Naval Academy. Not a candidate for Mensa to be sure. With all due respect, being a "POW" might have developed his character but it didn't earn him a degree. And lets not overlook the fact that McCain has a well-known reputation of being nasty when he's not agreed with. (again check out YouTube if you don't believe me) No wonder Bill O'Reilly worships at his altar...He sees himself in McCain.
And you think that graduated from Harvard is going to have him closer to average everyday people. Man thatis a stretch, even inhis days asapolitical agitator (Community Organisor).
Man, sorry I do not drink the Obama Cool aid. he hasgotno experience and has gotten elected with dubious tactics in Illinois. He is a yes man for the farLeft in this country, and his change is not whast most Americans want, and if they do, that is a sad day I think. I neverwant a Socialist running ourcountry. We have already gone toofarto the Leftin my opinion.
Just to set the record straight, the cost of fuel has skyrocketed - and as such all goods and services that rely on delivery trucks that run on fuel - by that huge increase didn't happen over 8 years.
It happened in the last 2 years, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi was in charge of the House of Representatives, and Majority Leader Harry Reid in the Senate. And both of these two Congresspeople are backing Sen. Obama, so don't think for a moment they aren't looking forward to someone in the Executive office to further their legislative plans.
Sen. Obama cares so much for everyday people, he was not upset at the increase in gas prices, other than to say he wished it would have happened more slowly. Gee, what a guy!
President Bush was certainly not a Conservative (although he had a lot of Conservative positions), and Sen. McCain is no President Bush, but his legislative experience outshines Sen. Obama, and his positions make more sense than anything Obama has put forth to date!
I thought the President is the leader of our nation, not the speaker of the house. Remember it was our illustrious VP who chaired the national energy policy in early 2000. Shouldn't all those intelligent oil barons have foreseen this problem 8 yrs. ago? Why the hell does Exxon/Mobil's CEO get $60million+/yr.?
You are correct in actually knowing that the President is the leader of the country and not the Speaker. Well done.
out.
You know, I agree that talent should be paid for, and I wonder why the oil companies didn't see this oil shortfall coming? Perhaps these ceo's should pay a "failure tax" to help the rest of us transcend this spike in oil prices that the SHOULD have foreseen!
As I recall, the Energy plan VP Cheney chaired was roundly dismissed by the opposition party.
As for Speaker Pelosi, in April of 2006 she stated that Democrats had a commonsense plan to lower fuel prices. No plan has ever been spoken of by her or any in the Democrat controlled congress. Ms. Pelosi shut-down all debate on domestic drilling in order to go on vacation, while Republicans held debate and discussion in a darkened chamber.
The average cost of a gallon of gas was $2.10 when Speaker Pelosi took over the gavel; today I paid $3.50.
President Bush has repeatedly tried to increase domestic drilling, which will naturally offset the cost of fuel in the normal supply vs. demand model (to a degree, however, since we're at full refining capacity, as no new refineries have been built in 30 years).
As the 2nd in line for the office of President, as ranking member of the House of Representatives, what has Speaker Pelosi done to deliver on her now 28 month old promise to lower gas prices?
What have both houses of Congress delivered, at all, in the last 2 years?
-True, and as I recall, the companies did very well on the balance sheet, but the best interests of our nation do not seem to be served by the profitability of this company.
Yes, Dick Cheney's so-called energy plan was was roundly dismissed by the opposition party. (But not by our "maverick", John McCain).....and this was because it was a SECRET meeting. No one knew what was going on behind closed doors.
So, it is so disingenuous to blame congress for our present energy problem when it clearly is the fault of the present administration......gas was $1.50/gal when Bush took office. Secret Energy Plan? Yeah to boost oil companies profitability at the expense of the American people. And "maverick" McCain, with his 26 yrs. of congressional experience has fought the oil industry tooth and nail, huh? The only thing McCain has delivered is help for special interests & Lobbys,Charles.
By what criteria have you reached this criteria? What of the shareholders who have invested in this company? Haven't they been served well? What of the tax revenues generated from all the profits and dividends paid? What of the tens of thousands of small businesses who have served as vendors to this company? You are demonizing one industry on the cost of a commodity that is controlled (and thus priced) by the laws of supply and demand, as if that industry has any ability to increase the supply (due in no small part to government regulators).
Yes, Dick Cheney's so-called energy plan was was roundly dismissed by the opposition party. (But not by our "maverick", John McCain).....and this was because it was a SECRET meeting. No one knew what was going on behind closed doors.
Name me one President who did not have closed-door meetings under executive privileges, and we'll find some point to agree upon.
So, it is so disingenuous to blame congress for our present energy problem when it clearly is the fault of the present administration.
You're wrong. President Bush called for more drilling; Democrats in Congress yelled no. Speaker Pelosi said she had an answer to $2./gal gas... where is it?
One side of the aisle is talking market solutions to alter the balance of supply-vs.-demand. The other side is promising answers without proposing anything (well, there is that idea about tune-ups ... heh).
I'll ask again: What have the Democrats delivered?
It's the presidents job to lead, and by ALL accounts drilling will not solve the energy problems of our nation. We should have included alternative energy solutions to the mix of solutions in 2000.....but our esteemed leader and his "energy point man" Cheney had other ideas, and now WE THE PEOPLE suffer from there lack of leadership. Jimmy Carter saw this coming 30 yrs. ago, but plans that include conservation were laughed at. Just think where we'd be now had we taken his plan to heart.
I have no problem with a company making a profit, but it seems to me that the only ones who suffer are the consumers at the pump. We have no other choice, except this oil based economy which is getting more profitable by the year. point is, we are at the mercy of these oil companies and they act as if the citizens of this country owe them a very expensive living. I served to defend the constitution, not to enrich some corporation. To think that "drill here, drill now" is the only solution is simply pandering to the interests of the oil industry. Lets pave the way for new solutions, which John McCain claims to support but his record denies.
out.
crown goes to Boy George Bush.
"There you go again"..........
it is the mentality of People like landon that gets our sons and daughters killed in stupid wars, wars that cost $10BILLION/month. " kicking ass in the middle east in the 70's, 9-11 might not have happened". Perhaps if the United States had not backed the Shah of Iran Komaeni would not have come to power. Do you have any concept of "BLOW BACK"? Do you think the world fears the United States, or do they laugh at us?
Krugman????? Really Krugman?????? I just have got to laugh at that one.
Carter has and will always be the worst Presidnet ever, unless Obama gets into the White House. Weare still trying to getout of Carter's administrations bungles and idiotic foreign policy. We would not have Iran to deal with if Carter wouldhave grew a pair and stood up tot he Mullahs. And we wouldnot bein the oil crisis we are in now, if the Environmentalist Wackos did not take over the Demcrat Party in the 60s and 70s.
The worst president ever is GEORGE BUSH JR. and his $10BILLION/month war! And his $4/gal. gas. (Maybe god sent Ike to Texas to show his displeasure with Bush's policies)
Had we taken Carter's advice from 30 yrs. ago, we'd not have the energy crisis we have today. John McCain's touted experience sure didn't help either did it?
As for being a liar, looks as if Sarah Palin has all the experience in that department.......
It's ok to pay for a war David, as long as you win it. Paying for a losing war (OBAMA & BIDEN) is not tolerable to any true thinking American. "Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser". Dem's were wrong about iraq, and they are still wrong today. Wrong about the surge and wrong to not be able to admit it today as well. History has judges Carter, and he rightfully falls to the very bottom of incompetence and naivete.
As for the $4/gal gas comment, sigh, let me spell it out for you simply, .. again.
Gas is not applicable to Bush, but to Congress. Get ur facts straight sir. Oil companies are NOT price MAKERS, they are price TAKERS (meaning David, EXXON does not set the price of oil). 85% of the worlds oil reserves are not in the private domain, so quit harping at big oil. It's wrong and misguided. Bush presented an energy plan in 2003 and it was rejected by CONGRESS. The entire plan would have spared us this demand/supply fiasco we endure today. It's not about speculators, it's not about profit margins, it's about supply & demand. Thankfully I say this because it is fixable with the correct leadership. Problem is only ONE of the candidates possesses the gumption to put us BACK on the right path. Oil will be needed for the next 50 years, alternative energy irregardless. That's not wishful thinking, that's just the reality. Please deal with it, sir.
As for Palin, cheap shots don't become you. Stick with her resume and she beats BOTH candidates on the Democratic ticket. that is what has the top Dem's in a true panic right now. Believe me, they are panicking. If we start to dig into everybody's personal life, how do you think OBAMA will smell? Certainly, not like a rose, sir.
So you are left with the only mantra that can remain intact under logical examination, and that is CHANGE. You want CHANGE. Of course on the surface, it seems a ridiculous platform, but it seems to suit OBAMA well. Non-specifics and plenty of feelings. There is a problem once you scratch the surface though. OBAMA does not represent change at all! He has towed the party line from day 1. So what change does he mean? Perhaps he is the LIAR?!
And I am being kind in giving him the benefit of the doubt.
HILLARY should have been the nomination for the democratic party. She certainly would have if she had run as a Republican (much more democratic primaries there). HILLARY won all the big states, all the diversified states, all the populous states (cal., tex, ohio, penn, new york, etc.). In the republican party she would be a SLAM DUNK!!!
No, HILLARY was beaten in the smokey back rooms of beltway Washington. That's who runs your party sir. She won the people, but that's not good enuf for the Dem elitists. Their vote trumps the PEOPLE. Nice political party. "Party of the people", isn't that what they say? What a sad mean joke that is.
OBAMA has peaked and his shine is fading, and rightfully so. He's as qualified as Paris Hilton. Glamour and no substance. Not a rock star, just a falling star.
out.
As for Carter's advice .. what was it? Please illuminate this fantastically orgasmic energy fix to me. Be specific. I want to know, really I do.
and everyone left.
-a pit bull
what do you call a dog with no arms and no legs?
-doesn't matter- he won't come anyway.
now run along, g landon, the big people are talking.
The Progressive Majority:
Why a Conservative America is a Myth
This report demonstrates the inaccuracy of that picture of America. Media perceptions and past Republican electoral successes notwithstanding, Americans are progressive across a wide range of controversial issues, and they're growing more progressive all the time.
And before you neo-cons get your undies in a wad- media matters did not manufacture the report- they merely reported the results of an independent, nonpartisan research center.
I dare you to read it.
http://mediamatters.org/progmaj/report
uh, i don't drink artificially flavored, sugary drinks? Yet still i'm a progressive.
I feel that citizens, as well as corporations each have responsibilities beyond paying taxes. Why must corporations be exempt from responsibility, when the people of this nation along with the government provide an environment for these companies to prosper?
Is that marxist?
Corporations give more oney to charities than the government ever will. If you tax anymore, they will move offshore to avoid taxes. And do not say it is unpatriotic, companies can not be Patriotic, they are out to make money and give dividneds to their stiockholders.
I see no reason to enact laws penalizing companies with a tariff that shirk their responsibility to our nation by "going offshore". Then i becomes part of their "bottom line".
I see no reason NOT to enact laws.......Then IT becomes part of their bottom line.
i guess you didn't actually READ the article- and the sources given ...and the extreme precautions taken to use non-biased, non-partisan, unrelated sources.
all of that aside, my point in drawing this report to your attention, and to those here who insist that this is a "conservative" country at it's core and always will be- that the progressive school of thought is some anomaly rather than the norm.
this report covers a wide range of social and economic issues, people's opinions and what role the government should (or should not) play in these areas. i found it rather interesting.
let me ask you, g landon, why is it that you folks always resort to the name calling? i mean really- if it's not marxist, it's socialists, or communists, or america-haters, or perverts, or godless somethingorothers, or (eeeeek!)-liberals!!! why do you do this? are you entirely unable to have a cerebral conversation?
For industrialized nations, the top 5 highest taxes for corporations are:
1) Japan
2) United States
3) Germany
4) Canada
5) France
The lowest corporate taxes are in Ireland, Iceland and Slovak Republic.
the "cool aid" i drink is water-
you might be thinking of "kool aid" - it's a phrase used by many when the facts and logic are not in their favor...it's also very "yesterday" and quite tiresome.
but, if you keep trying, you are bound to stumble upon something any day now.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx
http://www.fdrs.org/banking_history.html
oh and by the way you might want to see what your precious republican is really all about. http://kskirby.net/mccain.html
please educate yourself. for once.
De-regulation had no affect on this. It was sub-prime loans, especially the ones ACORN and other Commmunity organizing groups forced banks into.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o
Dave doesn't know what he's talking about.
out.
Here is the reason for the crisis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o
Let see if this one works. Last comment did not go thru. Probably 2 videos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
and trys to pass them off as facts.
Kinda like Bush......We'll just "Declare" Victory just by saying so!
Fanny Mae & Freddy Mac are the symptoms, not the cause........Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act is the cause. To solve a problem, you have to get at the root cause.
And why is ACORN still around, this is the buiggest crime organization out there. Every year they get caught in voter fraud schemes, but there arestill there. WHY??????? Thousand upon thousand illegal registrations,but they arestill around. This has been going on for years
Could it be that they are in bed with the Democrats and the Democrats give them cover????? Maybe.
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/09/did-the-gramm-l.html
You are hoping that the light of day will not shine on the mechanism that allowed investors to make short term profits off of these bundled loans due to:
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act!
Again, you have to go after the underlying cause, and not treat the symptom.
http://www.fdrs.org/money_creation.html
Phil Gramm's masterpiece......
the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act abolished rules put in place at the time of the Great Depression designed to prevent a repeat.
"The law enabled Swiss Bank UBS to acquire brokerage house Paine Webber in 2000. Two years later, Gramm settled in as a vice chairman of UBS’s new investment banking arm.
UBS has written down more than $42 billion worth of investments linked to the credit crisis over the past year. At least one institutional investor is suing the bank, alleging that it lied about the safety of its auction-rate securities."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13652...