|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
I thought so............ [2008-09-07]
x
You thought so....what....exactly....anything original? [2008-09-07]
.....I thought so......
I briefly thought something similar when I first heard of him, [2008-09-05]
and the 'funny name' became a total non-issue. And I'm voting for him specifically BECAUSE he's had less 'experience' (i.e., he's not corrupted like all them good ol' boys.)
Okay, that's what I thought lol [2008-09-05]
Two late nights in a row for me...thank GOD it's Friday! :)
BTDT. Just thought you might want to share [2008-09-05]
nm
Link please. It was moved to the top because U thought ... [2008-09-04]
it important to do so, so please move the link for this to the top too so we may see where the rebuttal facts are verified. Though, it is obvious that most of this is editorian/rhetoric/whatever you want to call it.
To that end, I am so tired of the he said this, she said that. They ALL say one thing but mean another. They and their teams are all spinners. It is always a mystery because you never know what you are going to get when they get in there, especially since they are not the ones calling all the shots - there is congress too.
I shudder at the thought of some pro-life bible thumpin' [2008-09-04]
that ancient old dude kicks the bucket before his term of office were to end.
And:
1. If you're in a 40% bracket, you're makin' a heckuva lot more money than most MTs. That's nice, but it's not the norm in this biz. I'm in a 30% bracket, & make about $19K/yr. doing MT and what's left over after taxes isn't enough to live on.
2. Most of the rich have so many loopholes they pay little to no taxes. I'm not talking about the people with 6-figure incomes. I'm talking about REALLY rich.
3. So, I got a $600 stimulus check, too. But in almost the same time frame, I get this letter from the IRS saying I actually earned LESS money than my W2 from my employer said I made, and according to THEIR fuzzy math, instead of the couple hundred refund I was supposed to get back, I got ZIP. I wonder how many people that had to happen to, in order for the Prez. to be able to pay for trying to buy our votes over to his party with this so-called 'gift from the government'? It was our money to begin with. Did I use it to stimulate his crappy economy? Certainly NOT! I put it aside for the inevitable rainy day that'll surely be coming if the citizens of the U.S. are DUMB enough to fall for all that bull**** and vote for 4 more years of the same policy.
Another thought about 'eminent domain - ' [2008-09-04]
Remember the Chinese man who stabbed the US Volleyball Coach's father to death in Beijing during the Olympics, then killed himself? The moment I heard that story, I wondered whether the killer happened to be one of the many people displaced by Beijing's razing of their homes to build the Olympic sports venues. Not that it excuses the act, not by a long shot. But maybe that's what drove the guy over the edge.
to clarify - the baby's safety is the first thing I thought of that was worrisome.. [2008-09-04]
it appeared tacky to me to use the baby in such a way. When I re-read my post I guess it could have been taken differently than it was meant. anywho - it is not a choice I would have made as a mother...
And they thought last night's speech was [2008-09-04]
Funny thing about the truth. It has a way of no staing buried for too long....in this case, less than 24 hours. Thank you so much for posting this.
I thought marvin gaye [2008-09-04]
said that - heard it through the grapevine.
So you're saying the left controls the media? I thought the media produced the story. [2008-09-02]
I haven't seen or heard one thing blaming Obama's crew for this. Where can I read about the right aligning to attack the left? Where did you find this information? Or is this just your observation and opinion of things?
No flames. I thought it was a great article. nm [2008-09-02]
x
Sorry, I mistakenly thought we were adult enough [2008-09-02]
It's very easy to prove or disprove what is stated there regarding this type of claim. I don't tend to believe something just because it's said on a well-constructed blog, and that is the point. Do your own research instead of parroting talking points and spewing venom. That doesn't constitute discussion of any sort.
The Hillary blog was where I first read that the IP addresses went were traced back to Fight the Smears. I didn't know if that was possible. I have since talked with people I know who told me, yes, that can be done and that they had recently done it while trying to determine who might be the running mates of the various candidates.
Anyway, then I researched it further and found more of the same by people I have confidence in. And my trust in them is because their opinions and judgment has been proven out many times, and they stake their livelihoods on it in some cases.
thought you would understand better [2008-09-02]
if I used single syllables. Also, I know how bad it is out there, you and your ilk (look that one up) are making themselves well-known.
i thought i'd find some intelligent discussion [2008-09-02]
here, but what a nasty post. or maybe you are hopelessly superficial. so sorry.
oh please like Bush EVER had an original thought [2008-09-01]
x
We were talking this board, I thought.... [2008-09-01]
I do not remember seeing any posts on this board likening Michelle Obama to Louis Farrakhan...the only posts I have seen link Farrakhan to the church they went to for 20 years. I have seen no posts about the half brother other than one posted by a dem.
All that being said...and the point that was attempting to be made is that the announcement might have been made in a different way, had the far radical left not hit the internet with that ridiculous story about Bristol having the child and passing it off as her brother. THat was mean, hurtful rumor, and several here posted it and defended it. There have some right fringe stuff about Obama that could have been printed here, but I for one do not carry that kind of ... for lack of a better word...personal rumor not proven crap back to this board. To quote your candidate...I think we are better than that...or maybe...I wish.
Fine. I just thought it was bad taste, and I am no Obama fan. [2008-08-31]
But whatever I guess.
Ok....I just thought it was in kinda bad taste. [2008-08-31]
But...whatever floats your boat. I did think I would never hear anything negative about the left leaning from him...and I never expected to hear him say that. Oh well...whatever floats your boat. Enjoy! :)
Geeeezzzzzzz. And I thought they had already found the bottom of the barrel... [2008-08-31]
I don't believe that, but if she did, what the heck difference would it make???
Geezzzzzz.
yep, I thought the RNC was a typo...LOL. [2008-08-31]
nm
I know it's not very PC, but I'm sure the thought has [2008-08-30]
x
Another Thought [2008-08-30]
If Sara Palin came on the scene as an Independent and ran against McCain Obama, think how that could
As a conservative, I Funny how the feminists want all this equal rights stuff, then shoot this lady down before they really know anything about her.
I wonder how upset Hillary Time will tell, not just polls.
It should be interesting what history reveals in the end. Either way, this race will go down in the books as a first. That in itself is interesting.
And past the theatrics, I thought he did a good job... [2008-08-29]
and I donchange speech. I guess in deference to the party. I don't know.
But, I admit it, I disagree with too many Democrat policies to vote for any Democrat when they are hard-liners. There is no give there, no willingness to work with the other side...and frankly, we will NEVER go forward no matter WHO is President until politicians are willing to put the COUNTRY first, not the PARTY. And I mean that for both sides. In spades!
McCain does not support our troops [2008-09-07]
by Phillip Butler, PhD
People often ask if I was a Prisoner of War with John McCain. My answer is always “No, John McCain was a POW with me.” The reason is I was there for 8 years and John got there 2 ˝ years later, so he was a POW for 5 ˝ years. And we have our own seniority system, based on time as a POW.
John’s treatment as a POW:
1) Was he tortured for 5 years? No. He was subjected to torture and maltreatment during his first 2 years, from September of 1967 to September of 1969. After September 1969, the Vietnamese stopped the torture and gave us increased food and rudimentary health care. Several hundred of us were captured much earlier. I got there April 20, 1965, so my bad treatment period lasted 4 1/2 years. President Ho Chi Minh died on September 9, 1969, and the new regime that replaced him and his policies was more pragmatic. They realized we were worth a lot as bargaining chips if we were alive. And they were right because eventually Americans gave up on the war and agreed to trade our POWs for their country. A dam good trade in my opinion! But my point here is that John allows the media to make him out to be THE hero POW, which he knows is absolutely not true, to further his political goals.
2) John was badly injured when he was shot down. Both arms were broken and he had other wounds from his ejection. Unfortunately, this was often the case; new POW’s arriving with broken bones and serious combat injuries. Many died from their wounds. Medical care was nonexistent to rudimentary. Relief from pain was almost never given and often the wounds were used as an available way to torture the POW. Because John’s father was the Naval Commander in the Pacific theater, he was exploited with TV interviews while wounded. These film clips have now been widely seen. But it must be known that many POW’s suffered similarly, not just John. And many were similarly exploited for political propaganda.
3) John was offered, and refused, “early release.” Many of us were given this offer. It meant speaking out against your country and lying about your treatment to the press. You had to “admit” that the U.S. was criminal and that our treatment was “lenient and humane.” So I, like numerous others, refused the offer. This was obviously something none of us could accept. Besides, we were bound by our service regulations, Geneva Conventions, and loyalties to refuse early release until all the POW’s were released, with the sick and wounded going first.
4) John was awarded a Silver Star and Purple Heart for heroism and wounds in combat. This heroism has been played up in the press and in his various political campaigns. But it should be known that there were approximately 660 military POW’s in Vietnam. Among all of us, decorations awarded have recently been totaled as follows: Medals of Honor – 8, Service Crosses – 42, Silver Stars – 590, Bronze Stars – 958 and Purple Hearts – 1,249. John certainly performed courageously and well. But it must be remembered that he was one hero among many - not uniquely so as his campaigns would have people believe. Among the POWs John wasn’t special. He was just one of the guys.
John McCain served his time as a POW with great courage, loyalty, and tenacity. More that 600 of us did the same. After our repatriation a census showed that 95% of us had been tortured at least once. The Vietnamese were quite democratic about it. There were many heroes in North Vietnam. I saw heroism every day there. And we motivated each other to endure and succeed far beyond what any of us thought we had in ourselves. Succeeding as a POW is a group sport, not an individual one. We all supported and encouraged each other to survive and succeed. John knows that. He was not an individual POW hero. He was a POW who surmounted the odds with the help of many comrades, as all of us did.
I furthermore believe that having been a POW is no special qualification for being President of the United States. The two jobs are not the same, and POW experience is not, in my opinion, something I would look for in a presidential candidate.
Most of us who survived that experience are now in our late 60s and 70s. Sadly, we have died and are dying off at a greater rate than our non-POW contemporaries. We experienced injuries and malnutrition that are coming home to roost. So I believe John’s age (72) and survival expectation are not good for being elected to serve as our President for four or more years.
I can verify that John has an infamous reputation for being a hot head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have experienced first hand. Folks, quite honestly that is not the finger I want next to that red button.
It is also disappointing to see him take on and support Bush’s war in Iraq, even stating we might be there for another 100 years. For me, John represents the entrenched and bankrupt policies of Washington-as-usual. The past 7 years have proven to be disastrous for our country. And I believe John’s views on war, foreign policy, economics, environment, health care, education, national infrastructure and other important areas are much the same as those of the Bush administration.
I’m disappointed to see John represent himself politically in ways that are not accurate. He is not a moderate or maverick Republican. On some issues he is a maverick. But his voting record is far to the right. I fear for his nominations to our Supreme Court, and the consequent continuing loss of individual freedoms, especially regarding moral and religious issues. John is not a religious person, but he has taken every opportunity to ally himself with some really obnoxious and crazy fundamentalist minister. I was also disappointed to see him cozy up to Bush because I know he dislikes that man. He disingenuously and famously put his arm around the guy, even after Bush had intensely disrespected him with lies and slander. So on these and many other instances, I don’t see that John is the “straight talk express” he markets himself to be.
Senator John Sidney McCain III is a remarkable man who has made enormous personal achievements. And he is a man that I am proud to call a fellow POW who “Returned With Honor.” That’s our POW motto. But since many of you keep asking what I think of him, I’ve decided to write it out. In short, I think John Sidney McCain III is a good man, but not someone I will vote for in the upcoming election to be our President of the United States.
by Phillip Butler, PhD
Doctor Phillip Butler is a 1961 graduate of the United States Naval Academy and a former light-attack carrier pilot. In 1965 he was shot down over North Vietnam where he spent eight years as a prisoner of war. He is a highly decorated combat veteran who was awarded two Silver Stars, two Legion of Merits, two Bronze Stars and two Purple Heart medals. After his repatriation in 1973 he earned a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of California at San Diego and became a Navy Organizational Effectiveness consultant. He completed his Navy career in 1981 as a professor of management at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. He is now a peace and justice activist with Veterans for Peace.
http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/08/25/why-i-won%e2%80%99t-vote-for-john-mccain/
McCain does not support our troops [2008-09-07]
by Phillip Butler, PhD
People often ask if I was a Prisoner of War with John McCain. My answer is always “No, John McCain was a POW with me.” The reason is I was there for 8 years and John got there 2 ˝ years later, so he was a POW for 5 ˝ years. And we have our own seniority system, based on time as a POW.
John’s treatment as a POW:
1) Was he tortured for 5 years? No. He was subjected to torture and maltreatment during his first 2 years, from September of 1967 to September of 1969. After September 1969, the Vietnamese stopped the torture and gave us increased food and rudimentary health care. Several hundred of us were captured much earlier. I got there April 20, 1965, so my bad treatment period lasted 4 1/2 years. President Ho Chi Minh died on September 9, 1969, and the new regime that replaced him and his policies was more pragmatic. They realized we were worth a lot as bargaining chips if we were alive. And they were right because eventually Americans gave up on the war and agreed to trade our POWs for their country. A dam good trade in my opinion! But my point here is that John allows the media to make him out to be THE hero POW, which he knows is absolutely not true, to further his political goals.
2) John was badly injured when he was shot down. Both arms were broken and he had other wounds from his ejection. Unfortunately, this was often the case; new POW’s arriving with broken bones and serious combat injuries. Many died from their wounds. Medical care was nonexistent to rudimentary. Relief from pain was almost never given and often the wounds were used as an available way to torture the POW. Because John’s father was the Naval Commander in the Pacific theater, he was exploited with TV interviews while wounded. These film clips have now been widely seen. But it must be known that many POW’s suffered similarly, not just John. And many were similarly exploited for political propaganda.
3) John was offered, and refused, “early release.” Many of us were given this offer. It meant speaking out against your country and lying about your treatment to the press. You had to “admit” that the U.S. was criminal and that our treatment was “lenient and humane.” So I, like numerous others, refused the offer. This was obviously something none of us could accept. Besides, we were bound by our service regulations, Geneva Conventions, and loyalties to refuse early release until all the POW’s were released, with the sick and wounded going first.
4) John was awarded a Silver Star and Purple Heart for heroism and wounds in combat. This heroism has been played up in the press and in his various political campaigns. But it should be known that there were approximately 660 military POW’s in Vietnam. Among all of us, decorations awarded have recently been totaled as follows: Medals of Honor – 8, Service Crosses – 42, Silver Stars – 590, Bronze Stars – 958 and Purple Hearts – 1,249. John certainly performed courageously and well. But it must be remembered that he was one hero among many - not uniquely so as his campaigns would have people believe. Among the POWs John wasn’t special. He was just one of the guys.
John McCain served his time as a POW with great courage, loyalty, and tenacity. More that 600 of us did the same. After our repatriation a census showed that 95% of us had been tortured at least once. The Vietnamese were quite democratic about it. There were many heroes in North Vietnam. I saw heroism every day there. And we motivated each other to endure and succeed far beyond what any of us thought we had in ourselves. Succeeding as a POW is a group sport, not an individual one. We all supported and encouraged each other to survive and succeed. John knows that. He was not an individual POW hero. He was a POW who surmounted the odds with the help of many comrades, as all of us did.
I furthermore believe that having been a POW is no special qualification for being President of the United States. The two jobs are not the same, and POW experience is not, in my opinion, something I would look for in a presidential candidate.
Most of us who survived that experience are now in our late 60s and 70s. Sadly, we have died and are dying off at a greater rate than our non-POW contemporaries. We experienced injuries and malnutrition that are coming home to roost. So I believe John’s age (72) and survival expectation are not good for being elected to serve as our President for four or more years.
I can verify that John has an infamous reputation for being a hot head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have experienced first hand. Folks, quite honestly that is not the finger I want next to that red button.
It is also disappointing to see him take on and support Bush’s war in Iraq, even stating we might be there for another 100 years. For me, John represents the entrenched and bankrupt policies of Washington-as-usual. The past 7 years have proven to be disastrous for our country. And I believe John’s views on war, foreign policy, economics, environment, health care, education, national infrastructure and other important areas are much the same as those of the Bush administration.
I’m disappointed to see John represent himself politically in ways that are not accurate. He is not a moderate or maverick Republican. On some issues he is a maverick. But his voting record is far to the right. I fear for his nominations to our Supreme Court, and the consequent continuing loss of individual freedoms, especially regarding moral and religious issues. John is not a religious person, but he has taken every opportunity to ally himself with some really obnoxious and crazy fundamentalist minister. I was also disappointed to see him cozy up to Bush because I know he dislikes that man. He disingenuously and famously put his arm around the guy, even after Bush had intensely disrespected him with lies and slander. So on these and many other instances, I don’t see that John is the “straight talk express” he markets himself to be.
Senator John Sidney McCain III is a remarkable man who has made enormous personal achievements. And he is a man that I am proud to call a fellow POW who “Returned With Honor.” That’s our POW motto. But since many of you keep asking what I think of him, I’ve decided to write it out. In short, I think John Sidney McCain III is a good man, but not someone I will vote for in the upcoming election to be our President of the United States.
by Phillip Butler, PhD
Doctor Phillip Butler is a 1961 graduate of the United States Naval Academy and a former light-attack carrier pilot. In 1965 he was shot down over North Vietnam where he spent eight years as a prisoner of war. He is a highly decorated combat veteran who was awarded two Silver Stars, two Legion of Merits, two Bronze Stars and two Purple Heart medals. After his repatriation in 1973 he earned a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of California at San Diego and became a Navy Organizational Effectiveness consultant. He completed his Navy career in 1981 as a professor of management at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. He is now a peace and justice activist with Veterans for Peace.
http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/08/25/why-i-won%e2%80%99t-vote-for-john-mccain/
McCain does not support our troops [2008-09-07]
by Phillip Butler, PhD
People often ask if I was a Prisoner of War with John McCain. My answer is always “No, John McCain was a POW with me.” The reason is I was there for 8 years and John got there 2 ˝ years later, so he was a POW for 5 ˝ years. And we have our own seniority system, based on time as a POW.
John’s treatment as a POW:
1) Was he tortured for 5 years? No. He was subjected to torture and maltreatment during his first 2 years, from September of 1967 to September of 1969. After September 1969, the Vietnamese stopped the torture and gave us increased food and rudimentary health care. Several hundred of us were captured much earlier. I got there April 20, 1965, so my bad treatment period lasted 4 1/2 years. President Ho Chi Minh died on September 9, 1969, and the new regime that replaced him and his policies was more pragmatic. They realized we were worth a lot as bargaining chips if we were alive. And they were right because eventually Americans gave up on the war and agreed to trade our POWs for their country. A dam good trade in my opinion! But my point here is that John allows the media to make him out to be THE hero POW, which he knows is absolutely not true, to further his political goals.
2) John was badly injured when he was shot down. Both arms were broken and he had other wounds from his ejection. Unfortunately, this was often the case; new POW’s arriving with broken bones and serious combat injuries. Many died from their wounds. Medical care was nonexistent to rudimentary. Relief from pain was almost never given and often the wounds were used as an available way to torture the POW. Because John’s father was the Naval Commander in the Pacific theater, he was exploited with TV interviews while wounded. These film clips have now been widely seen. But it must be known that many POW’s suffered similarly, not just John. And many were similarly exploited for political propaganda.
3) John was offered, and refused, “early release.” Many of us were given this offer. It meant speaking out against your country and lying about your treatment to the press. You had to “admit” that the U.S. was criminal and that our treatment was “lenient and humane.” So I, like numerous others, refused the offer. This was obviously something none of us could accept. Besides, we were bound by our service regulations, Geneva Conventions, and loyalties to refuse early release until all the POW’s were released, with the sick and wounded going first.
4) John was awarded a Silver Star and Purple Heart for heroism and wounds in combat. This heroism has been played up in the press and in his various political campaigns. But it should be known that there were approximately 660 military POW’s in Vietnam. Among all of us, decorations awarded have recently been totaled as follows: Medals of Honor – 8, Service Crosses – 42, Silver Stars – 590, Bronze Stars – 958 and Purple Hearts – 1,249. John certainly performed courageously and well. But it must be remembered that he was one hero among many - not uniquely so as his campaigns would have people believe. Among the POWs John wasn’t special. He was just one of the guys.
John McCain served his time as a POW with great courage, loyalty, and tenacity. More that 600 of us did the same. After our repatriation a census showed that 95% of us had been tortured at least once. The Vietnamese were quite democratic about it. There were many heroes in North Vietnam. I saw heroism every day there. And we motivated each other to endure and succeed far beyond what any of us thought we had in ourselves. Succeeding as a POW is a group sport, not an individual one. We all supported and encouraged each other to survive and succeed. John knows that. He was not an individual POW hero. He was a POW who surmounted the odds with the help of many comrades, as all of us did.
I furthermore believe that having been a POW is no special qualification for being President of the United States. The two jobs are not the same, and POW experience is not, in my opinion, something I would look for in a presidential candidate.
Most of us who survived that experience are now in our late 60s and 70s. Sadly, we have died and are dying off at a greater rate than our non-POW contemporaries. We experienced injuries and malnutrition that are coming home to roost. So I believe John’s age (72) and survival expectation are not good for being elected to serve as our President for four or more years.
I can verify that John has an infamous reputation for being a hot head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have experienced first hand. Folks, quite honestly that is not the finger I want next to that red button.
It is also disappointing to see him take on and support Bush’s war in Iraq, even stating we might be there for another 100 years. For me, John represents the entrenched and bankrupt policies of Washington-as-usual. The past 7 years have proven to be disastrous for our country. And I believe John’s views on war, foreign policy, economics, environment, health care, education, national infrastructure and other important areas are much the same as those of the Bush administration.
I’m disappointed to see John represent himself politically in ways that are not accurate. He is not a moderate or maverick Republican. On some issues he is a maverick. But his voting record is far to the right. I fear for his nominations to our Supreme Court, and the consequent continuing loss of individual freedoms, especially regarding moral and religious issues. John is not a religious person, but he has taken every opportunity to ally himself with some really obnoxious and crazy fundamentalist minister. I was also disappointed to see him cozy up to Bush because I know he dislikes that man. He disingenuously and famously put his arm around the guy, even after Bush had intensely disrespected him with lies and slander. So on these and many other instances, I don’t see that John is the “straight talk express” he markets himself to be.
Senator John Sidney McCain III is a remarkable man who has made enormous personal achievements. And he is a man that I am proud to call a fellow POW who “Returned With Honor.” That’s our POW motto. But since many of you keep asking what I think of him, I’ve decided to write it out. In short, I think John Sidney McCain III is a good man, but not someone I will vote for in the upcoming election to be our President of the United States.
by Phillip Butler, PhD
Doctor Phillip Butler is a 1961 graduate of the United States Naval Academy and a former light-attack carrier pilot. In 1965 he was shot down over North Vietnam where he spent eight years as a prisoner of war. He is a highly decorated combat veteran who was awarded two Silver Stars, two Legion of Merits, two Bronze Stars and two Purple Heart medals. After his repatriation in 1973 he earned a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of California at San Diego and became a Navy Organizational Effectiveness consultant. He completed his Navy career in 1981 as a professor of management at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. He is now a peace and justice activist with Veterans for Peace.
http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/08/25/why-i-won%e2%80%99t-vote-for-john-mccain/
There you go! [2008-09-07]
Since everyone is at least a bit familiar with John McCain’s record when it comes to strolling through a market in Baghdad with hundreds of his closest guards, or how he wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years (except when he flip flops on that).
But not that many really, truly know just how horrific his voting record is when it comes to the troops. And it is pretty consistent – whether it is for armor and equipment, for veteran’s health care, for adequate troop rest or anything that actually, you know, supports our troops.
This is chock full of links to the roll call votes, and the roll call votes have links to the actual underlying bills and amendments. I present this so that there is support and things that can be rattled off when saying that McCain is not a friend of the military. Feel free to use it as you want, but this can be tied into the Double Talk Express. But here is a very quick statement - John McCain skipped close to a dozen votes on Iraq, and on at least another 10 occasions, he voted against arming and equipping the troops, providing adequate rest for the troops between deployments and for health care or other benefits for veterans.
In mid 2007, Senator Reid noted that McCain missed 10 of the past 14 votes on Iraq. However, here is a summary of a dozen votes (two that he missed and ten that he voted against) with respect to Iraq, funding for veterans or for troops, including equipment and armor. I have also included other snippets related to the time period when the vote occurred.
September 2007: McCain voted against the Webb amendment calling for adequate troop rest between deployments. At the time, nearly 65% of people polled in a CNN poll indicted that things are going either moderately badly or very badly in Iraq.
July 2007: McCain voted against a plan to drawdown troop levels in Iraq. At the time, an ABC poll found that 63% thought the invasion was not worth it, and a CBS News poll found that 72% of respondents wanted troops out within 2 years.
March 2007: McCain was too busy to vote on a bill that would require the start of a drawdown in troop levels within 120 days with a goal of withdrawing nearly all combat troops within one year. Around this time, an NBC News poll found that 55% of respondents indicated that the US goal of achieving victory in Iraq is not possible. This number has not moved significantly since then.
February 2007: For such a strong supporter of the escalation, McCain didn’t even bother to show up and vote against a resolution condemning it. However, at the time a CNN poll found that only 16% of respondents wanted to send more troops to Iraq (that number has since declined to around 10%), while 60% said that some or all should be withdrawn. This number has since gone up to around 70%.
June 2006: McCain voted against a resolution that Bush start withdrawing troops but with no timeline to do so.
May 2006: McCain voted against an amendment that would provide $20 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for health care facilities.
April 2006: McCain was one of only 13 Senators to vote against $430,000,000 for the Department of Veteran Affairs for Medical Services for outpatient care and treatment for veterans.
March 2006: McCain voted against increasing Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion in FY 2007 to be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes.
March 2004: McCain once again voted for abusive tax loopholes over veterans when he voted against creating a reserve fund to allow for an increase in VeteransJeez, McCain really loves those tax loopholes for corporations, since he voted for them over our veterans' needs.
October 2003: McCain voted to table an amendment by Senator Dodd that called for an additional $322,000,000 for safety equipment for United States forces in Iraq and to reduce the amount provided for reconstruction in Iraq by $322,000,000.
April 2003: McCain urged other Senate members to table a vote (which never passed) to provide more than $1 billion for National Guard and Reserve equipment in Iraq related to a shortage of helmets, tents, bullet-proof inserts, and tactical vests.
August 2001: McCain voted against increasing the amount available for medical care for veterans by $650,000,000. To his credit, he also voted against the 2001 Bush tax cuts, which he now supports making permanent, despite the dire financial condition this country is in, and despite the fact that he indicated in 2001 that these tax cuts unfairly benefited the very wealthy at the expense of the middle class.
So there it is. John McCain is yet another republican former military veteran who likes to talk a big game when it comes to having the support of the military. Yet, time and time again, he has gone out of his way to vote against the needs of those who are serving in our military. If he can’t even see his way to actually doing what the troops want, or what the veterans need, and he doesn’t have the support of veterans, then how can he be a credible commander in chief?
You thought so....what....exactly....anything original? [2008-09-07]
.....I thought so......
Voting Record [2008-09-07]
Since everyone is at least a bit familiar with John McCain’s record when it comes to strolling through a market in Baghdad with hundreds of his closest guards, or how he wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years (except when he flip flops on that).
But not that many really, truly know just how horrific his voting record is when it comes to the troops. And it is pretty consistent – whether it is for armor and equipment, for veteran’s health care, for adequate troop rest or anything that actually, you know, supports our troops.
This is chock full of links to the roll call votes, and the roll call votes have links to the actual underlying bills and amendments. I present this so that there is support and things that can be rattled off when saying that McCain is not a friend of the military. Feel free to use it as you want, but this can be tied into the Double Talk Express. But here is a very quick statement - John McCain skipped close to a dozen votes on Iraq, and on at least another 10 occasions, he voted against arming and equipping the troops, providing adequate rest for the troops between deployments and for health care or other benefits for veterans.
In mid 2007, Senator Reid noted that McCain missed 10 of the past 14 votes on Iraq. However, here is a summary of a dozen votes (two that he missed and ten that he voted against) with respect to Iraq, funding for veterans or for troops, including equipment and armor. I have also included other snippets related to the time period when the vote occurred.
September 2007: McCain voted against the Webb amendment calling for adequate troop rest between deployments. At the time, nearly 65% of people polled in a CNN poll indicted that things are going either moderately badly or very badly in Iraq.
July 2007: McCain voted against a plan to drawdown troop levels in Iraq. At the time, an ABC poll found that 63% thought the invasion was not worth it, and a CBS News poll found that 72% of respondents wanted troops out within 2 years.
March 2007: McCain was too busy to vote on a bill that would require the start of a drawdown in troop levels within 120 days with a goal of withdrawing nearly all combat troops within one year. Around this time, an NBC News poll found that 55% of respondents indicated that the US goal of achieving victory in Iraq is not possible. This number has not moved significantly since then.
February 2007: For such a strong supporter of the escalation, McCain didn’t even bother to show up and vote against a resolution condemning it. However, at the time a CNN poll found that only 16% of respondents wanted to send more troops to Iraq (that number has since declined to around 10%), while 60% said that some or all should be withdrawn. This number has since gone up to around 70%.
June 2006: McCain voted against a resolution that Bush start withdrawing troops but with no timeline to do so.
May 2006: McCain voted against an amendment that would provide $20 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for health care facilities.
April 2006: McCain was one of only 13 Senators to vote against $430,000,000 for the Department of Veteran Affairs for Medical Services for outpatient care and treatment for veterans.
March 2006: McCain voted against increasing Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion in FY 2007 to be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes.
March 2004: McCain once again voted for abusive tax loopholes over veterans when he voted against creating a reserve fund to allow for an increase in VeteransJeez, McCain really loves those tax loopholes for corporations, since he voted for them over our veterans' needs.
October 2003: McCain voted to table an amendment by Senator Dodd that called for an additional $322,000,000 for safety equipment for United States forces in Iraq and to reduce the amount provided for reconstruction in Iraq by $322,000,000.
April 2003: McCain urged other Senate members to table a vote (which never passed) to provide more than $1 billion for National Guard and Reserve equipment in Iraq related to a shortage of helmets, tents, bullet-proof inserts, and tactical vests.
August 2001: McCain voted against increasing the amount available for medical care for veterans by $650,000,000. To his credit, he also voted against the 2001 Bush tax cuts, which he now supports making permanent, despite the dire financial condition this country is in, and despite the fact that he indicated in 2001 that these tax cuts unfairly benefited the very wealthy at the expense of the middle class.
So there it is. John McCain is yet another republican former military veteran who likes to talk a big game when it comes to having the support of the military. Yet, time and time again, he has gone out of his way to vote against the needs of those who are serving in our military. If he can’t even see his way to actually doing what the troops want, or what the veterans need, and he doesn’t have the support of veterans, then how can he be a credible commander in chief?
McCain and National Security [2008-09-07]
McCain Lobbyist Scandal Continues: Government Warned Senator That Campaign Manager Was Undermining National Interests
The lobbying firm of McCain campaign manager Rick Davis acted in direct opposition to American foreign interests, which prompted a warning to McCain's Senate office from the United States government, according to a recent New York Times article.
Much has been reported about Rick Davis, top McCain adviser and lobbyist whose company, Davis Manafort, made its fortune in part by accepting jobs that didn Davis arranged for one of Putin's allies to meet with McCain during the time.
However, the New York Times has managed to take that already embarrassing story and make it even worse:
Mr. McCain may have first become aware of Davis Manafort's activities in Ukraine as far back as 2005. At that time, a staff member at the National Security Council called Mr. McCain's Senate office to complain that Mr. Davis's lobbying firm was undercutting American foreign policy in Ukraine, said a person with direct knowledge of the phone call who spoke on condition of anonymity.
A campaign spokesman, when asked whether such a call had occurred, referred a reporter to Mr. McCain's office. The spokesman there, Robert Fischer, did not respond to repeated inquiries.
Such a call might mean that Mr. McCain has been long aware of Mr. Davis's foreign clients. Mr. Davis took a leave from his firm at the end of 2006.
This isn't the only time when Davis' business interests have appeared counter to those of the United States: Davis' Ukranian contacts shared several business ties with Iran.
McCain suffered from a perception problem last month when the extent of his lobbying connection caused his campaign to fire several key staffers, as well as institute a new conflict-of-interest policy. The McCain camp has said that Davis is unaffected by the policy, as its implementation is not retroactive. Davis is no longer registered as a lobbyist.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/12/mccain-lobbyist-scandal-c_n_106832.html
var stats_project_image_src = http://entry-stats.huffingtonpost.com/?106832 + Math.random().toString(16).replace(
if (document.referrer != '')
{
stats_project_image_src += escape(document.referrer);
}
document.write( style=height:1px; line-height: 1px; overflow:hidden>
document.write(
Wow, what a crude rebuttal! [2008-09-07]
I thought this site was for discussions, not crystal ball fortune-telling and sleezy name-calling. But, like you said, differing opinions.
yep - black humor [2008-09-07]
Actually, I thought it was hilarious when he said it.......but I'm a pretty easy going, laid back person. I saw the comedy in it.
Book banning VP? [2008-09-06]
IfSP tried to ban library books as mayor, what will she do if she becomes president, which is very likely since JM is not healthy. Isn I am a book lover and this really makes me angry.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1837918,00.html
Former Mayor John] Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. She asked the library how she could go about banning books, he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. The librarian was aghast. That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldnfull support to the mayor.
Total lack of compassion [2008-09-06]
I wanted to like this woman, and I did for approximately the first 48 hours after she was named as Sen. McCain's running mate. Then I heard from a close friend whose sister teaches high school Spanish in the small Alaskan town SP was mayor of. SP's son, the one who is about to be deployed overseas, was her student a few years ago and allegedly not a high-achieving one. My friend's sister said he was disrespectful and acted like he thought he was better than everyone else, and when it came time for the parent-teacher conference SP blamed his failing grades on her.
Okay, so this is one personhunting, and I have to tell you this is a deal breaker for me.
What is so incredible to me is that she appears extremely caring and passionate regarding issues related to motherhood, family, child welfare and the right to life, yet she is completely void of emotion or sensitivity towards lesser forms of life. I don't care that she's a lifetime member of the NRA or even that she's a hunter, but she has a frightening and callous history in terms of wielding her legal power to exploit, maim and destroy wildlife and their natural habitats.
I'm so disgusted and disillusioned by all the political BS and hype coming from every direction that I can honestly say I don't plan to vote in the coming election.
Wow....even Germany and canada want O.... [2008-09-06]
now THERE is an endorsement.
The voting jews? Redneck fundamentalist? Geez...BIGOTED much??
Another graduate of the Saul Alinsky Marxist-socialist (DNC) school of thought. This is ugly, ugly, and yet another wonderful reason to NOT vote for the big O and give this kind of bigotry power.
"voters were concerned about the [2008-09-06]
language in some of them (books) and felt it inappropriate for their children. This was to help keep bad language away from their children. Not to get rid of them because a certain race, nationality, etc. wrote them. The Nazis burned books written by Jews. This is entirely different. Your words. This is not different at all, and the statement is absurd. Once you take even one book off the shelf, you have invited pure anarchy/tyrrany. This would elimintatemy and my children Secondly, you want to take away my responsibility as a parent for my children. Thirdly, this kind of govan extremely dangerous slope. For the love of freedom, please don
Thrown Away Flags Story False [2008-09-06]
Days before the anniversary of September 11, on the same morning that John McCain and Barack Obama released a joint statement pledging to avoid politics in light of the anniversary of the terrorist attacks, McCain's campaign accused Democrats of throwing away 12,000 American flags.
The campaign says the flags were recovered from Invesco Field after the Democrats concluded their convention there, Fox News reported, and they are going to be used as part of the warm-up ceremonies before McCain takes the stage for a rally in Colorado Springs, Col.
But according to a senior official involved in organizing the Democratic convention, the McCain camp is simply lying about the flags.
All of the flags at Invesco were picked up and put in bags and into storage, along with the unused flags and campaign signs. The flags were going to be donated, and the signs were going to be sent out to be used elsewhere, the official said, speaking anonymously since he was not authorized to talk to the press.
Fox Newsbeen told that a vendor at Invesco Field found the flags, which were going to be thrown out, and turned them over to the McCain campaign.
The Democratic convention official says that's not true.
It he said. Someone made an assumption, took the flags, and essentially lied about what was going to happen to them. I mean, c
Emails to three McCain spokespersons inquiring where the flags were found and how the McCain campaign obtained them were not returned.
UPDATE: DNC spokeswoman Karen Finney issues a statement: American flags were proudly waved by the 75,000 people who joined Barack Obama at the Democratic Convention. John McCain should applaud that, but instead his supporters wrongfully took leftover bundles of our flags from the stadium to play a cheap political stunt calling into question our patriotism. On the same day he agrees to join Barack Obama at Ground Zero on September 11, John McCain attacks the patriotism of Obama supporters who so proudly waved the American flag at our historic event in Denver just days ago.
var stats_project_image_src = http://entry-stats.huffingtonpost.com/?124499 + Math.random().toString(16).replace(
if (document.referrer != '')
{
stats_project_image_src += escape(document.referrer);
}
document.write( style=height:1px; line-height: 1px; overflow:hidden>
document.write(
McCain does not support our troops [2008-09-06]
Since everyone is at least a bit familiar with John McCain’s record when it comes to strolling through a market in Baghdad with hundreds of his closest guards, or how he wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years (except when he flip flops on that).
But not that many really, truly know just how horrific his voting record is when it comes to the troops. And it is pretty consistent – whether it is for armor and equipment, for veteran’s health care, for adequate troop rest or anything that actually, you know, supports our troops.
This is chock full of links to the roll call votes, and the roll call votes have links to the actual underlying bills and amendments. I present this so that there is support and things that can be rattled off when saying that McCain is not a friend of the military. Feel free to use it as you want, but this can be tied into the Double Talk Express. But here is a very quick statement - John McCain skipped close to a dozen votes on Iraq, and on at least another 10 occasions, he voted against arming and equipping the troops, providing adequate rest for the troops between deployments and for health care or other benefits for veterans.
In mid 2007, Senator Reid noted that McCain missed 10 of the past 14 votes on Iraq. However, here is a summary of a dozen votes (two that he missed and ten that he voted against) with respect to Iraq, funding for veterans or for troops, including equipment and armor. I have also included other snippets related to the time period when the vote occurred.
September 2007: McCain voted against the Webb amendment calling for adequate troop rest between deployments. At the time, nearly 65% of people polled in a CNN poll indicted that things are going either moderately badly or very badly in Iraq.
July 2007: McCain voted against a plan to drawdown troop levels in Iraq. At the time, an ABC poll found that 63% thought the invasion was not worth it, and a CBS News poll found that 72% of respondents wanted troops out within 2 years.
March 2007: McCain was too busy to vote on a bill that would require the start of a drawdown in troop levels within 120 days with a goal of withdrawing nearly all combat troops within one year. Around this time, an NBC News poll found that 55% of respondents indicated that the US goal of achieving victory in Iraq is not possible. This number has not moved significantly since then.
February 2007: For such a strong supporter of the escalation, McCain didn’t even bother to show up and vote against a resolution condemning it. However, at the time a CNN poll found that only 16% of respondents wanted to send more troops to Iraq (that number has since declined to around 10%), while 60% said that some or all should be withdrawn. This number has since gone up to around 70%.
June 2006: McCain voted against a resolution that Bush start withdrawing troops but with no timeline to do so.
May 2006: McCain voted against an amendment that would provide $20 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for health care facilities.
April 2006: McCain was one of only 13 Senators to vote against $430,000,000 for the Department of Veteran Affairs for Medical Services for outpatient care and treatment for veterans.
March 2006: McCain voted against increasing Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion in FY 2007 to be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes.
March 2004: McCain once again voted for abusive tax loopholes over veterans when he voted against creating a reserve fund to allow for an increase in VeteransJeez, McCain really loves those tax loopholes for corporations, since he voted for them over our veterans' needs.
October 2003: McCain voted to table an amendment by Senator Dodd that called for an additional $322,000,000 for safety equipment for United States forces in Iraq and to reduce the amount provided for reconstruction in Iraq by $322,000,000.
April 2003: McCain urged other Senate members to table a vote (which never passed) to provide more than $1 billion for National Guard and Reserve equipment in Iraq related to a shortage of helmets, tents, bullet-proof inserts, and tactical vests.
August 2001: McCain voted against increasing the amount available for medical care for veterans by $650,000,000. To his credit, he also voted against the 2001 Bush tax cuts, which he now supports making permanent, despite the dire financial condition this country is in, and despite the fact that he indicated in 2001 that these tax cuts unfairly benefited the very wealthy at the expense of the middle class.
So there it is. John McCain is yet another republican former military veteran who likes to talk a big game when it comes to having the support of the military. Yet, time and time again, he has gone out of his way to vote against the needs of those who are serving in our military. If he can’t even see his way to actually doing what the troops want, or what the veterans need, and he doesn’t have the support of veterans, then how can he be a credible commander in chief?
Palin - racist? [2008-09-06]
Alaskans Speak (In A Frightened Whisper): Palin Is “Racist, Sexist, Vindictive, And Mean”
September 5, 2008
by Charley James –
“So Sambo beat the btch!”
This is how Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin described Barack Obama’s win over Hillary Clinton to political colleagues in a restaurant a few days after Obama locked up the Democratic Party presidential nomination.
According to Lucille, the waitress serving her table at the time and who asked that her last name not be used, Gov. Palin was eating lunch with five or six people when the subject of the Democrat’s primary battle came up. The governor, seemingly not caring that people at nearby tables would likely hear her, uttered the slur and then laughed loudly as her meal mates joined in appreciatively.
“It was kind of disgusting,” Lucille, who is part Aboriginal, said in a phone interview after admitting that she is frightened of being discovered telling folks in the “lower 48” about life near the North Pole.
Then, almost with a sigh, she added, “But that’s just Alaska.”
Racial and ethnic slurs may be “just Alaska” and, clearly, they are common, everyday chatter for Palin.
Besides insulting Obama with a Step-N’-Fetch-It, “darkie musical” swipe, people who know her say she refers regularly to Alaska’s Aboriginal people as “Arctic Arabs” – how efficient, lumping two apparently undesirable groups into one ugly description – as well as the more colourful “mukluks” along with the totally unimaginative “f**king Eskimo’s,” according to a number of Alaskans and Wasillians interviewed for this article.
But being openly racist is only the tip of the Palin iceberg. According to Alaskans interviewed for this article, she is also vindictive and mean. We’re talking Rove mean and Nixon vindictive.
No wonder the vast sea of white, cheering faces at the Republican Convention went wild for Sarah: They adore the type, it’s in their genetic code. So much for McCain’s pledge of a “high road” campaign; Palin is incapable of being part of one.
Tough Getting People Who Know Her to TalkIt’s not easy getting people in the 49th state to speak critically about Palin – especially people in Wasilla, where she was mayor. For one thing, with every journalist in the world calling, phone lines into Alaska have been mostly jammed since Friday; as often as not, a recording told me that “all circuits are busy” or numbers just wouldn’t ring. I should think a state that’s been made richer than God by oil could afford telephone lines and cell towers for everyone.
On a more practical level, many people in Alaska, and particularly Wasilla, are reluctant to speak or be quoted by name because they’re afraid of her as well as the state Republican Party machine. Apparently, the power elite are as mean as the winters.
“The GOP is kind of like organized crime up here,” an insurance agent in Anchorage who knows the Palin family, explained. “It’s corrupt and arrogant. They’re all rich because they do private sweetheart deals with the oil companies, and they can destroy anyone. And they will, if they have to.”
“Once Palin became mayor,” he continued, “She became part of that inner circle.”
Like most other people interviewed, he didn’t want his name used out of fear of retribution. Maybe it’s the long winter nights where you don’t see the sun for months that makes people feel as if they’re under constant danger from “the authorities.” As I interviewed residents it began sounding as if living in Alaska controlled by the state Republican Party is like living in the old Soviet Union: See nothing that’s happening, say nothing offensive, and the political commissars leave you alone. But speak out and you get disappeared into a gulag north of the Arctic Circle for who-knows-how-long.
Alright, that’s an exaggeration brought on by my getting too little sleep and building too much anger as I worked this article. But there’s ample evidence of Palin’s vindictive willingness to destroy people she sees as opponents. Just ask the Wasilla town administrator she hired before firing him because he rebelled against the way Palin demanded he do his job, or the town librarian who refused to hold the book burning Walpurgisnach Mayor Palin demanded.
Ironically, Palin was pushed into hiring the administrator by the party poobahs who helped get her elected after she got herself into trouble over a number of precipitous firings which gave rise to a recall campaign.
“People who fought her attempt to oust the librarian are on her enemies list to this day,” states Anne Kilkenny, a Wasilla resident and one of the few Alaskans willing to speak on-the-record, for attribution, about Palin. In fact, Kilkenny actually circulated an e-mail letter about Palin that was verified and printed by The Nation.
For good measure, Palin booted the Wasilla police chief from office because, she told a local newspaper, he “intimidated” her.
Running on Extreme Fringe Evangelical ViewsSarah Palin drew early attention from state GOP apparatchiks when, during her first mayoral campaign, she ran on an anti-abortion platform. Normally, political parties do not get involved in Alaskan municipal elections because they are nonpartisan. But once word of her extreme fringe evangelical views made its way to Juneau, the state capitol, state Republicans tossed some money behind her campaign.
Once in office, Palin set out to build a machine that chewed up anyone who got in her way. The good, Godly Christian turns out to be anything but.
“She’s doesn’t like different opinions and she refuses to compromise,” Kilkenny notes. “When she was mayor, she fought ideas that weren’t hers. Worse, ideas weren’t evaluated on their merits but on the basis of who proposed them.”
Sound familiar? Palin may well be Dik Cheney’s reincarnate.
Something else has a familiar Republican ring to it: Her tax policies, and a “refund surpluses but borrow for the future” attitude.
According to Kilkenny and others in Wasilla as well as Juneau, Palin reduced progressive property taxes for businesses while mayor and increased a regressive sales tax which even hits necessities such as food. The tax cuts she promoted in her St. Paul speech actually benefited large corporate property owners far more than they benefited residents. Indeed, Kilkenny insists that many Wasilla home owners actually saw their tax bill skyrocket to make up for the shortfall. Two other Wasillian’s with whom I spoke said property taxes on their modest, three bedroom homes rose during the Palin regime.
To an outsider, it would seem hard to do, but an oil-rich town with zero debt on the day she was inaugurated mayor was left saddled with $22 million of debt by the time she moved away to become governor – especially since nothing was spent on things such as improving the city’s infrastructure or building a much-needed sewage treatment plant. So what did Mayor Palin spend the taxpayer’s money on, if not fixing streets and scrubbing sewage?
For starters, she remodelled her office. Several times over, as a matter of fact.
Then Palin spent $1 million on an unnecessary, new park that no one other than the contractors and Palin seemed to want. Next, Sarah doled out more than $15 million of taxpayer money for a sports complex that she shoved through even though the city did not own clear title to the land; now, seven years later, the matter is still in litigation and lawyer fees are said to be close to at least half of the original estimated price of the facility.
She also worked hard to get voters approval of a $5.5 million bond proposal for roads that could have been built without borrowing. Anchorage may not be the center of the financial universe but, like good Republicans everywhere, Sarah Palin knows how to please Alaskan bankers and bond dealers.
For good measure, she turned Wasilla into a wasteland of big box stores and disconnected parking lots.
Sarah BarracudaEn route to the governor’s igloo, Palin managed to land what Anne Kilkenny says is the plumb political appointment in the state: Chair of Alaska’s Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (OGCC), a $122,400 per year patronage slot with no real authority to do anything other than hold meetings. She took the job despite having no background in energy issues and, as it turned out, not liking the work.
“She hated the job,” an OGCC staff member who is not authorized to speak with the news media told me. “She hated the hours and she hated what little work there was to do. But she couldn’t figure out a way to get out of the thing without offending Gov. Murkowski” and the state Republican Party regulars, some of whom were pssed off they didn’t get appointed.
But ever the opportunist, Palin quickly concocted a way. First, she waged a campaign with the local news media claiming that the position was overpaid and should be abolished – despite the fact that she lobbied Murkowski hard to get it. Then, mounting what she saw as a white horse, Palin raised a cloud of dust by resigning from the OGCC and riding away with an undeserved reputation as a “reformer.”
But when a local reporter dared to suggest that the reformer Empress has no clothes, Palin tried to get her fired.
“She came at me like I was trying to steal her kids,” said the targeted reporter, who now works for an oil company in Anchorage. “I heard she had a wild temper and vicious mean streak but it’s nothing like you can imagine until she turns it on you.”
Not surprising since some of her high school classmates still openly call her “Sarah Barracuda,” Kilkenny insists.
Still, as a Republican Party hack Palin managed to get herself elected running under the false flag of a “reformer.”
And what did she bring to the job? No legislative experience other than a city council of a village of 5,000 people, which is smaller than some high schools in Chicago. Little hands-on supervisory or managerial experience; after all, she needed to hire a city administrator to run Wasilla. No executive experience, except for almost being recalled as mayor. A philosophy of setting public policy based on one word: No.
And what has she done since winning the job?
According to Kilkenny, nothing. Well, nothing other than suggesting the state’s multi-multi-million dollar, oil-generated surplus be distributed to residents and finance future state needs by borrowing money. Gee, doesn’t that sound precisely what George Bush did with the surplus he inherited from Bill Clinton in 2001 and we all know in what great shape Bush’s economic policies left the nation.
It may explain why, when asked by reporters, including me, what she thought about Palin being picked to be McCain’s running mate, her mother-in-law replied with a sardonic, “What has Sarah done to qualify her to be vice president?” Of course, when the woman – said by many I spoke with to be well-respected in Wasilla – was running to succeed Palin as mayor, Sarah refused to endorse her, so that may explain the family tension.
As Governor, Palin gave the legislature no direction and budget guidelines, according to the chair of a legislative committee. But then she staged a huge grandstand play of line-item vetoing countless projects, calling them pork. “They were restored because of public outcry and legislative action,” the aide said. “She vetoed them mostly because she had no idea what they were or why they were important.”
But it was enough to get the McCain, who is mostly unobservant of the world around him anyway, to think Palin has a reputation as being “anti-pork”.
In fact, Juneau observers note that Palin kept her hand stuck out as far as anyone for pork ladled out by indicted Sen. Ted Stevens. She only opposed the “bridge to nowhere” after it became clear that it would be politically unwise to keep supporting it, these same insiders assert. Then, Palin fell back on her old habits and publicly humiliated him for pork-barrel politics.
As for being “ready on day one” to be commander in chief, despite the repeated public claims she’s made, the Alaska National Guard commander said that, “she has made no command decisions, other than sending some troops to help fight a few brush fires and march in parades at county fairs.”
“Sambo Beat the Btch”“Palin is a conniving, manipulative, a**hole,” someone who thinks these are positive traits in a governor told me, summing up Palin’s tenure in Alaska state and local politics.
“She’s a bigot, a racist, and a liar,” is the more blunt assessment of Arnold Gerstheimer who lived in Alaska until two years ago and is now a businessman in Idaho.
Juneau is a small town; everybody knows everyone else,” he adds. “These stories about what she calls blacks and Eskimos, well, anyone not white and good looking actually, were around long before she became a glint in John McCain’s rheumy eyes. Why do I know they’re true? Because everyone who isn’t aboriginal or Indian in Alaska talks that way.”
“Sambo beat the btch” may be everyday language up in the bush. Whether it – and the outlook, politics and worldview Palin reflects when she says such things in public – should be part of a presidential campaign is another thing altogether. The comment says as much about McCain as it does about Palin, and it says a lot of things about Americans who overlook such statements (as well as her record) and vote anyway for McCain.
by Charley James
POW w/McCain won't vote for him [2008-09-06]
by Phillip Butler, PhD
People often ask if I was a Prisoner of War with John McCain. My answer is always “No, John McCain was a POW with me.” The reason is I was there for 8 years and John got there 2 ˝ years later, so he was a POW for 5 ˝ years. And we have our own seniority system, based on time as a POW.
John’s treatment as a POW:
1) Was he tortured for 5 years? No. He was subjected to torture and maltreatment during his first 2 years, from September of 1967 to September of 1969. After September 1969, the Vietnamese stopped the torture and gave us increased food and rudimentary health care. Several hundred of us were captured much earlier. I got there April 20, 1965, so my bad treatment period lasted 4 1/2 years. President Ho Chi Minh died on September 9, 1969, and the new regime that replaced him and his policies was more pragmatic. They realized we were worth a lot as bargaining chips if we were alive. And they were right because eventually Americans gave up on the war and agreed to trade our POWs for their country. A damn good trade in my opinion! But my point here is that John allows the media to make him out to be THE hero POW, which he knows is absolutely not true, to further his political goals.
2) John was badly injured when he was shot down. Both arms were broken and he had other wounds from his ejection. Unfortunately, this was often the case; new POW’s arriving with broken bones and serious combat injuries. Many died from their wounds. Medical care was nonexistent to rudimentary. Relief from pain was almost never given and often the wounds were used as an available way to torture the POW. Because John’s father was the Naval Commander in the Pacific theater, he was exploited with TV interviews while wounded. These film clips have now been widely seen. But it must be known that many POW’s suffered similarly, not just John. And many were similarly exploited for political propaganda.
3) John was offered, and refused, “early release.” Many of us were given this offer. It meant speaking out against your country and lying about your treatment to the press. You had to “admit” that the U.S. was criminal and that our treatment was “lenient and humane.” So I, like numerous others, refused the offer. This was obviously something none of us could accept. Besides, we were bound by our service regulations, Geneva Conventions, and loyalties to refuse early release until all the POW’s were released, with the sick and wounded going first.
4) John was awarded a Silver Star and Purple Heart for heroism and wounds in combat. This heroism has been played up in the press and in his various political campaigns. But it should be known that there were approximately 660 military POW’s in Vietnam. Among all of us, decorations awarded have recently been totaled as follows: Medals of Honor – 8, Service Crosses – 42, Silver Stars – 590, Bronze Stars – 958 and Purple Hearts – 1,249. John certainly performed courageously and well. But it must be remembered that he was one hero among many - not uniquely so as his campaigns would have people believe. Among the POWs John wasn’t special. He was just one of the guys.
John McCain served his time as a POW with great courage, loyalty, and tenacity. More that 600 of us did the same. After our repatriation a census showed that 95% of us had been tortured at least once. The Vietnamese were quite democratic about it. There were many heroes in North Vietnam. I saw heroism every day there. And we motivated each other to endure and succeed far beyond what any of us thought we had in ourselves. Succeeding as a POW is a group sport, not an individual one. We all supported and encouraged each other to survive and succeed. John knows that. He was not an individual POW hero. He was a POW who surmounted the odds with the help of many comrades, as all of us did.
I furthermore believe that having been a POW is no special qualification for being President of the United States. The two jobs are not the same, and POW experience is not, in my opinion, something I would look for in a presidential candidate.
Most of us who survived that experience are now in our late 60s and 70s. Sadly, we have died and are dying off at a greater rate than our non-POW contemporaries. We experienced injuries and malnutrition that are coming home to roost. So I believe John’s age (72) and survival expectation are not good for being elected to serve as our President for four or more years.
I can verify that John has an infamous reputation for being a hot head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have experienced first hand. Folks, quite honestly that is not the finger I want next to that red button.
It is also disappointing to see him take on and support Bush’s war in Iraq, even stating we might be there for another 100 years. For me, John represents the entrenched and bankrupt policies of Washington-as-usual. The past 7 years have proven to be disastrous for our country. And I believe John’s views on war, foreign policy, economics, environment, health care, education, national infrastructure and other important areas are much the same as those of the Bush administration.
I’m disappointed to see John represent himself politically in ways that are not accurate. He is not a moderate or maverick Republican. On some issues he is a maverick. But his voting record is far to the right. I fear for his nominations to our Supreme Court, and the consequent continuing loss of individual freedoms, especially regarding moral and religious issues. John is not a religious person, but he has taken every opportunity to ally himself with some really obnoxious and crazy fundamentalist minister. I was also disappointed to see him cozy up to Bush because I know he dislikes that man. He disingenuously and famously put his arm around the guy, even after Bush had intensely disrespected him with lies and slander. So on these and many other instances, I don’t see that John is the “straight talk express” he markets himself to be.
Senator John Sidney McCain III is a remarkable man who has made enormous personal achievements. And he is a man that I am proud to call a fellow POW who “Returned With Honor.” That’s our POW motto. But since many of you keep asking what I think of him, I’ve decided to write it out. In short, I think John Sidney McCain III is a good man, but not someone I will vote for in the upcoming election to be our President of the United States.
by Phillip Butler, PhD
Doctor Phillip Butler is a 1961 graduate of the United States Naval Academy and a former light-attack carrier pilot. In 1965 he was shot down over North Vietnam where he spent eight years as a prisoner of war. He is a highly decorated combat veteran who was awarded two Silver Stars, two Legion of Merits, two Bronze Stars and two Purple Heart medals. After his repatriation in 1973 he earned a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of California at San Diego and became a Navy Organizational Effectiveness consultant. He completed his Navy career in 1981 as a professor of management at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. He is now a peace and justice activist with Veterans for Peace.
POW w/McCain won't vote for him [2008-09-06]
by Phillip Butler, PhD
People often ask if I was a Prisoner of War with John McCain. My answer is always “No, John McCain was a POW with me.” The reason is I was there for 8 years and John got there 2 ˝ years later, so he was a POW for 5 ˝ years. And we have our own seniority system, based on time as a POW.
John’s treatment as a POW:
1) Was he tortured for 5 years? No. He was subjected to torture and maltreatment during his first 2 years, from September of 1967 to September of 1969. After September 1969, the Vietnamese stopped the torture and gave us increased food and rudimentary health care. Several hundred of us were captured much earlier. I got there April 20, 1965, so my bad treatment period lasted 4 1/2 years. President Ho Chi Minh died on September 9, 1969, and the new regime that replaced him and his policies was more pragmatic. They realized we were worth a lot as bargaining chips if we were alive. And they were right because eventually Americans gave up on the war and agreed to trade our POWs for their country. A damn good trade in my opinion! But my point here is that John allows the media to make him out to be THE hero POW, which he knows is absolutely not true, to further his political goals.
2) John was badly injured when he was shot down. Both arms were broken and he had other wounds from his ejection. Unfortunately, this was often the case; new POW’s arriving with broken bones and serious combat injuries. Many died from their wounds. Medical care was nonexistent to rudimentary. Relief from pain was almost never given and often the wounds were used as an available way to torture the POW. Because John’s father was the Naval Commander in the Pacific theater, he was exploited with TV interviews while wounded. These film clips have now been widely seen. But it must be known that many POW’s suffered similarly, not just John. And many were similarly exploited for political propaganda.
3) John was offered, and refused, “early release.” Many of us were given this offer. It meant speaking out against your country and lying about your treatment to the press. You had to “admit” that the U.S. was criminal and that our treatment was “lenient and humane.” So I, like numerous others, refused the offer. This was obviously something none of us could accept. Besides, we were bound by our service regulations, Geneva Conventions, and loyalties to refuse early release until all the POW’s were released, with the sick and wounded going first.
4) John was awarded a Silver Star and Purple Heart for heroism and wounds in combat. This heroism has been played up in the press and in his various political campaigns. But it should be known that there were approximately 660 military POW’s in Vietnam. Among all of us, decorations awarded have recently been totaled as follows: Medals of Honor – 8, Service Crosses – 42, Silver Stars – 590, Bronze Stars – 958 and Purple Hearts – 1,249. John certainly performed courageously and well. But it must be remembered that he was one hero among many - not uniquely so as his campaigns would have people believe. Among the POWs John wasn’t special. He was just one of the guys.
John McCain served his time as a POW with great courage, loyalty, and tenacity. More that 600 of us did the same. After our repatriation a census showed that 95% of us had been tortured at least once. The Vietnamese were quite democratic about it. There were many heroes in North Vietnam. I saw heroism every day there. And we motivated each other to endure and succeed far beyond what any of us thought we had in ourselves. Succeeding as a POW is a group sport, not an individual one. We all supported and encouraged each other to survive and succeed. John knows that. He was not an individual POW hero. He was a POW who surmounted the odds with the help of many comrades, as all of us did.
I furthermore believe that having been a POW is no special qualification for being President of the United States. The two jobs are not the same, and POW experience is not, in my opinion, something I would look for in a presidential candidate.
Most of us who survived that experience are now in our late 60s and 70s. Sadly, we have died and are dying off at a greater rate than our non-POW contemporaries. We experienced injuries and malnutrition that are coming home to roost. So I believe John’s age (72) and survival expectation are not good for being elected to serve as our President for four or more years.
I can verify that John has an infamous reputation for being a hot head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have experienced first hand. Folks, quite honestly that is not the finger I want next to that red button.
It is also disappointing to see him take on and support Bush’s war in Iraq, even stating we might be there for another 100 years. For me, John represents the entrenched and bankrupt policies of Washington-as-usual. The past 7 years have proven to be disastrous for our country. And I believe John’s views on war, foreign policy, economics, environment, health care, education, national infrastructure and other important areas are much the same as those of the Bush administration.
I’m disappointed to see John represent himself politically in ways that are not accurate. He is not a moderate or maverick Republican. On some issues he is a maverick. But his voting record is far to the right. I fear for his nominations to our Supreme Court, and the consequent continuing loss of individual freedoms, especially regarding moral and religious issues. John is not a religious person, but he has taken every opportunity to ally himself with some really obnoxious and crazy fundamentalist minister. I was also disappointed to see him cozy up to Bush because I know he dislikes that man. He disingenuously and famously put his arm around the guy, even after Bush had intensely disrespected him with lies and slander. So on these and many other instances, I don’t see that John is the “straight talk express” he markets himself to be.
Senator John Sidney McCain III is a remarkable man who has made enormous personal achievements. And he is a man that I am proud to call a fellow POW who “Returned With Honor.” That’s our POW motto. But since many of you keep asking what I think of him, I’ve decided to write it out. In short, I think John Sidney McCain III is a good man, but not someone I will vote for in the upcoming election to be our President of the United States.
by Phillip Butler, PhD
Doctor Phillip Butler is a 1961 graduate of the United States Naval Academy and a former light-attack carrier pilot. In 1965 he was shot down over North Vietnam where he spent eight years as a prisoner of war. He is a highly decorated combat veteran who was awarded two Silver Stars, two Legion of Merits, two Bronze Stars and two Purple Heart medals. After his repatriation in 1973 he earned a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of California at San Diego and became a Navy Organizational Effectiveness consultant. He completed his Navy career in 1981 as a professor of management at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. He is now a peace and justice activist with Veterans for Peace.
The Bubble of Obama Supremacy [2008-09-06]
July 24, 2008
The Bubble of Obama SupremacyBy Kyle-Anne Shiver
‘Well done, my good and faithful servant. Since you were faithful in small matters, I will give you great responsibilities.--The Gospel of Matthew 25:23 (New American Bible) Parable of the Talents
America is a unique country. We are the new world, not the old. We elect leaders in a reasonable step-by-step fashion, honoring lifetimes of experience and wisdom, proven abilities to do the job, much in keeping with Jesus Once a person proves capable at the small job, we give him a whack at a bigger one.
It
Our Founders were wise to dump European monarchy in favor of government of the people, by the people and for the people. And because of our Founders
Hero worship of politicians just reeks of old-world kingdoms, and thus produces visceral disgust among Americans.
As Herbert Spencer so wisely noted, Hero worship is greatest where there is least regard for freedom.
And that We revere freedom too much to indulge in hero worship of our leaders
As Americans, we honor reasoned discourse, and spurn emotionalism in our elections.
As Americans, we honor accomplishment, not birthright.
As Americans, we listen, consider and carefully elect.
We don We don And we don't coronate.
So, how has it come to pass that we now have a mere candidate for the Presidency of our United States of America, who is being received upon foreign shores as though he were not only already our President, but also our king?
Barack Obama is an American anomaly. An enigma. An aberration.
Never in American history has a man with so pitifully little on his resume received such adoration.
Never in American history has a candidate had the temerity to mimic our Presidential seal the place it upon his podium.
Never in American history has a mere interviewee deigned to write the rules for our interview.
Never in American history has a mere candidate had the gall to travel abroad with a press corps and secret service in tow to give fake press interviews for manipulated news coverage.
Never in American history has so little respect been given to our electoral process.
The whole disgusting spectacle just smacks of old-world Europe, those folks so quick to hail a Bonaparte or a Hitler.
And sadly, oh-so-sadly, the comparisons don't stop with the fawning masses surrounding our audacious whippersnapper, Obama.
Two Dealers in Hope
A leader is a dealer in hope.-- Napoleon Bonaparte
Napoleon Bonaparte is not one of my personal favorites, as historical leaders go, and it's really quite interesting that a guy, who seized power through a military coup d'etat put so much stock in the old diabolical lure of souls, hope, when one might presume that he could have just as easily relied on bully force alone to motivate his people.
And, of course, Napoleon Napoleon wanted to conquer the world for France. Obama wants to take American sovereignty and submit it to the whims of the global community. Opposite ends, employing the same old tacky lure.
What if, says an Obama ad, there was hope instead of fear? Obama
In Obamachange to fix our broken souls, to fill up that hole in our lives.
What do Americans want, according to our new sage, Barack Obama?
They want a sense of purpose, a narrative arc to their lives, something that will relieve a chronic loneliness or lift them above the exhausting, relentless toll of daily life. They need an assurance that somebody out there cares about them, is listening to them -- that they are not just destined to travel down a long highway toward nothingness.
I'm not sure which to reach for here, my hanky or my Pepto Bismol.
Ah, but we should not fear, little ones, for Barack is here. And he brings on his starlit wings and with his rising sun...hope.
And for generations to come, we shall remember Barackmoment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal...
Who does this man think he is?
If I were going to put my hope in a mere mortal, I certainly would not invest such a precious commodity in a man who took taxpayer money for a state senatorpresent 130 times, any more than I would give the title valedictorian to the student with the worst attendance record.
I would not put my hope in a man who promised his district color=#0033cc size=3>slumlord, a man who used taxpayer funds to produce rat-infested, uninhabitable dwellings instead.
I would never, ever put my hope for the whole country, much less for the entire planet, in the hands of a man who could not even change one racist preacher size=3> or convince a single Chicago neighborhood to forego gang warfare for honest work.
Barack Obama is riding within the biggest fantasy bubble this side of Oz.
Another Inconvenient Truth
The cry of change has been used by demagogues and revolutionaries throughout history, as they fan discontent. The worst of the lot was a European who brought his political party to power using the same ephemeral change mantra as Obama's.
Adolf Hitler plastered early 1930s Germany with posters declaring his noble democratic socialist intentions:
Peace and equal rights.
All must be different.
However, Adolf Hitler And his quaint, little slogan, All must be different, certainly produced different results, but they weren't exactly pleasing to all the Jews, nor to the Christians, who learned sadly after the fact, that for Hitler, different meant replacing Christ with himself.
Of course nobody is accusing Obama of being another Hitler here. But I have always looked askance at those who sell dreams of change. So, when Obama emblazons everything within his grasp, including his super jet:
Change you can believe in
he seems to be calling out to those mortal-worshiping Europeans in a voice to which they can certainly relate, but in America those open-ended declarations from power-seekers tend to fall upon deaf ears. Americans traditionally are extremely skeptical of such messianic claims.
So, what to make of Obama Imperial Berlin, to be renmed Germania.
Poor planning perhaps.Horrible judgment, certainly, at least in the eyes of most Americans.
Nevertheless, while the Europeans fawn and faint for Obama this week, Americans sit on the other side of the Pond, wondering when someone will have the guts to call attention to the fact that the Emperor might not be all we've been told to believe.
A European Mindset Inflating Obama George Soros
After spending 25 million dollars in his life or death mission to defeat President Bush in 2004, and coming up with nothing but a souvenir Kerry t-shirt, George Soros is apparently pulling out all the stops this year. And Barack Obama is his man.
Soros, a Hungarian-born naturalized American citizen, prides himself in being able to speculate on currencies and reap astronomical profits. Since the early 90s, he has become increasingly involved in global politics, especially in his adopted country, our U.S. of A. He bought Obama stock early on, by contributing heftily to Obama's 2004 Senate campaign, then as a personal presidential backer.
And when Soros talks, Democrats listen. He has become their number one financier, and his pockets are 7-billion-dollars deep.
Soros, however, does not seem to believe in the nation-state concept and has been pushing with all his monetary might for a system of global governance, with global taxation powers, in which he and his power-broker comrades could better do their good deeds, without the hindrance of those pesky things like borders, national constitutions, and individual defense interests.
Soros also owns more than 250 global publishing outlets, which are fed storylines from his Open Society Institute. Soros' political presence is shadowy, but if one looks closely, one cannot miss the emanations and penumbras of his backing of Obama's campaign.
When the Jeremiah Wright affair was exploding in his candidate color=#0033cc size=3>interview with Wright to let him explain himself. Moyers is a former trustee of the Open Society Institute, and one of Sorosclosest confidants and political collaborators. (David Horowitz and Richard Poe; Shadow Party; p. 240)
Moyers is also infamous for his remark on the Charlie Rose show, 2004 election night:
I think if Kerry were to win this in a tight race, I think there
When asked by Rose to explain what he meant by coup, Moyers replied,
I mean that the right wing is not going to accept it.
Americans get disappointed; Europeans mount coups.
When Wesley Clark, the Democrats color=#0033cc size=3>attacked John McCainqualifications for the Presidency, especially his military credentials, our watchdog mainstream media seems not to have thought it relevant to point out that Wesley Clark currently sits on the board of another of Soros The International Crisis Group. Soros, in addition to heavily funding the group, also sits on the Board with Clark, as do some other Obama people, Samantha Power and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Richard Armitage, the leaker of Valerie Plame's name, is also a member, as is Kofi Annan.
Barack Obama may be an upstart with a flimsy resume, but he travels in some very fancy circles, especially among those who adore Europe and truly wish America were much more like her.
Unfortunately, for Soros, his European mindset and his European-style game plan for Obama, his candidate, Americans tend to think of Europe as a nice place to visit, but not many of us really want to live there.
Soros has done all in his power to burst what he calls the Bubble of American Supremacy, but so far, our economy has proved too resilient and our people too attached to our way of life, our freedom and our sovereignty.
Soros is betting on this Obama bubble of inevitability, the inflation of which has been helped so much by Soros
I'm betting on America.
Yes, last night was party night. [2008-09-06]
I was actually very disappointed in the Obama party. I thought we were going to discuss issues and where Obama stood on the issues, but the lady from the Democratic Headquarters that came to give that information only passed out papers that were printed directly off of his website - already read that. The other thing I was disappointed in was that it seemed everyone there was a Hillary supporter and talked endlessly about her rather than Obama (no, I didn't get snarky and remind them that she was not running=). Unfortunately, I don't really feel like I learned more than what I did off of his website. It was nice to chat with my friends and meet some new people, but other political-wise, it was a waste of time. That's not to say that all Obama parties would be that way and I do encourage anyone who gets invited to one, whether you're Republican or Democrat, to attend - the person in charge of that one might be more knowledgable than the one from the party I was at. Thanks again to all who sent me websites to check out beforehand!!!
extreme? [2008-09-05]
BECK: Let me go now to Jonah on the senate record. Anything in his senate record, anything, that shows any kind of ending the party politics, ending the divisions, reaching out, trying to stop corruption, trying to -- that`s what people, people don`t want change for change. They don`t want to become Marxists.What they want is people to stop being dirty, scumbag robots in Washington, and be like them. People are screaming at the television all the time, going, this is what you`re doing now? They want an end to the typical politics in Washington. JONAH GOLDBERG, NATIONAL REVIEW: Right.BECK: Any evidence?GOLDBERG: And that`s the great contrast between Palin and him. Palin is basically a law and order marshal. And in terms of the senate there`s absolutely no record whatsoever.He keeps talking about how he`s post partisan, he reaches across the aisle. He worked on a very tepid easy ethics bill. That`s the only thing that there is any bipartisanship. Beyond that, he votes 97 percent of the time party line Democrat.He criticizes McCain for voting 90 percent with Bush. McCain`s record is better.And one other point to be made here, is that to show you how left-wing he is, he`s the number one most liberal senator in the senate, according to the National Journal which is a completely nonpartisan respected journal. And he goes out to prove that he`s this bipartisan guy by picking the third most liberal senator.The fourth most liberal senator is an avowed socialist from Vermont, Bernie Sanders.MOORE: But you know, it goes beyond that because he keeps talking about getting rid of the corporate elitists in Washington but think about two bills he just recently supported. One was the Farm Bill which was a complete abomination. And how can he in good conscience, in a year when farmers are doing better than ever before food prices give money to some of the richest farmers. And then he also supported the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in big bank bailout.I mean his actions and his votes in no way match this rhetoric of reform.BECK: I have heard in the last few days every time they talk about Sarah Palin, it`s oh, she`s in bed with all those crazy conservatives. She`s just -- she`s just so pro-life, she`s forcing her daughter to have the baby.Give me, David, the Illinois state voting record, the truth on how Barack Obama votes on abortion, and is he extreme at all?FREDDOSO: Yes, I would say he`s a bit extreme. And perhaps a story that illustrates it best is his vote on the Infants Born-Alive Act.There was a hospital in the southwest suburbs of Chicago that was taking small premature abortion survivors, tiny babies that had been born and were alive and simply leaving them to die without any thought of medical care. The fact that this was happening was indisputable.The fact is that the attorney general of Illinois simply refused to do anything about it and Senator Obama was one of the people to prevent them from passing this bill. He tried anyway, to prevent them from passing this bill when they tried to do something about it by passing a new law.And he voted -- I`m sorry. He was the only Illinois senator to speak against it in 2001 when it first came out. In 2003, he sat on the committee that voted on a version identical, word for word, with the exception of the State of Illinois and the federal government -- it was an identical bill to the one that the senate had passed.Barbara Boxer went to the floor of the United States senate and said everyone should vote for this bill. This should pass unanimously. Everyone deserves the protections of this bill. Obama didn`t agree with that. He`s actually the person who I think cares least about, you know, preserving and protecting human life in its smallest stages.GOLDBERG: Obama is to the left of Nero (ph).MOORE: He`s essentially the extremist. They keep saying that Sarah Palin is an extremist. The truth is, as you were just saying, Barack Obama never saw an abortion he didn`t want.FREDDOSO: For four years, he has misled people about this vote. He just had to recently admit that he was wrong. He had been smearing everybody who had been telling the truth and calling them liars, and he has still hasn`t apologized for that, by the way, which is the new politics.
If the govt. truly wanted to "cross party lines" [2008-09-05]
why don So, for example, this year it would be Obama/Palin and McCain/Biden. Not that the Pres. candidate would have to choose those 2 particular but Obama would have to have Rep. and McCain would have to have a Dem.
I am sure this will never happen in my lifetime but I have always thought that.
I wasn't trying to change the subject [2008-09-05]
just stating something that I thought I had observed. I'm sorry for being so stupid and uninformed and I will go crawl back in my hole now. Good luck to you, Sam. My heart can't handle being talked to this way, especially when I didn't respond in a manner deserving of such a tone.
oh yea - good point - bringing our medical records back from overseas [2008-09-05]
Never thought of that one.
YES THEY ARE, SAM! [2008-09-05]
I thought the tolerant ones threw you under the bus.
You must love the abuse, girl.
|
|
|