What do you mean "what Obama disaster"

• McCain: " I Can't Promise to Endorse Sarah Palin" - sm
  • McCain must be recovering from his campaign hangover - ........
  • Ummm, think we should be concering ourselves - with the Obama disaster at the moment.nm
    • It'll only be a disaster (I HOPE!) for all the corrupt - CEO's on Wall St., and hopefully - sm
    • roll - cranberry
    • what "obama disaster" - geewhiz
      • What do you mean "what Obama disaster" - huh??????
        • What "Obama disaster"? - Gimme A Break
        • Haven't you noticed? - sm
          • So there has to be a discussion of posts for it to be relevant? - what an stupid comment....grow up.
            • If the real folks, with real hope, faith, and - concern for ourselves
              • So you can decide who's real folks and who's not? Geeshhh...... - !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
            • Lack of interest was the point. - sm
              • There was interest, as they were being read... - plenty of interest. in these topics.nm
                • Did you forget to finish your sentence? - sm
                  • It is a shame that all you have to do is - watch her posts being
                    • Never claimed to be more "intellectuant" than the next - sm
                      • Chose my words carefully, I knew you - would make me laugh

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

"What are we to do?"  How about drilling for our own oil?  Allowing us to use nuclear energy?

SMOKING (Or drinking?)"

Did I forget any of the personal insults directed at me?

All I said was "Don't count your chickens before they're hatched."

If January 20, 2009 comes and goes without a "terra attack" and if the new President is sworn in without incident, then all the chickens will be "hatched."

However, if none of the above happens, then there's one egg that hasn't hatched, and it's likely to be very ROTTEN. 

Regarding your personal insults, they weren't necessary, and they were just plain rude and totally inaccurate.  However, if you choose to think so wrongly about ME (someone you don't know and have never met), then that gives me a pretty good handle on your the accuracy expressed in your other posts. 

Have a great evening. 

to Know Best?

What Reason Do we Have to Trust the State to Know Best?

Christopher Hitchens

Although I am named in this suit in my own behalf, I am motivated to join it by concerns well beyond my own. I have been frankly appalled by the discrepant and contradictory positions taken by the Administration in this matter. First, the entire existence of the NSA's monitoring was a secret, and its very disclosure denounced as a threat to national security.

Then it was argued that Congress had already implicitly granted the power to conduct warrantless surveillance on the territory of the United States, which seemed to make the reason for the original secrecy more rather than less mysterious. (I think we may take it for granted that our deadly enemies understand that their communications may be intercepted.)

It now appears that Congress may have granted this authority, but without quite knowing that it had, and certainly without knowing the extent of it.

This makes it critically important that we establish an understood line, and test the cases in which it may or may not be crossed.

Let me give a very direct instance of what I mean. We have recently learned that the NSA used law enforcement agencies to track members of a pacifist organisation in Baltimore. This is, first of all, an appalling abuse of state power and an unjustified invasion of privacy, uncovered by any definition of national security however expansive. It is, no less importantly, a stupid diversion of scarce resources from the real target. It is a certainty that if all the facts were known we would become aware of many more such cases of misconduct and waste.

We are, in essence, being asked to trust the state to know best. What reason do we have for such confidence? The agencies entrusted with our protection have repeatedly been shown, before and after the fall of 2001, to be conspicuous for their incompetence and venality. No serious reform of these institutions has been undertaken or even proposed: Mr George Tenet (whose underlings have generated leaks designed to sabotage the Administration's own policy of regime-change in Iraq, and whose immense and unconstitutionally secret budget could not finance the infiltration of a group which John Walker Lindh could join with ease) was awarded a Presidential Medal of Freedom.

I believe the President when he says that this will be a very long war, and insofar as a mere civilian may say so, I consider myself enlisted in it. But this consideration in itself makes it imperative that we not take panic or emergency measures in the short term, and then permit them to become institutionalised. I need hardly add that wire-tapping is only one of the many areas in which this holds true.

The better the ostensible justification for an infringement upon domestic liberty, the more suspicious one ought to be of it. We are hardly likely to be told that the government would feel less encumbered if it could dispense with the Bill of Rights. But a power or a right, once relinquished to one administration for one reason, will unfailingly be exploited by successor administrations, for quite other reasons. It is therefore of the first importance that we demarcate, clearly and immediately, the areas in which our government may or may not treat us as potential enemies.

DELTA DISASTER: HANG TOGETHER By JOHN PODHORETZ FOR the second time in four years, the United States has been changed utterly by a previously unthinkable event. And just as was the case after 9/11, how this nation responds to the deluge that is sweeping New Orleans away will help define the nature of its character for decades. Just as Rudy Giuliani said that the death toll from 9/11 would be more than any of us can bear, the same is already true of Katrina. Who can begin to take in the notion that in the United States in the 21st century, a storm could kill in staggering numbers? At the beginning of the 20th century, something like 8,000 people perished when Galveston, Texas — unprotected from storm swells at the time — was hit by a hurricane. But when Hurricane Andrew leveled the entire town of Homestead, Fla., 13 years ago and became the most financially deadly storm in American history, it took only 15 lives. Now we're talking about several hundred times that number in the literal swamping of one of the world's great cities. There can be no doubt that the immediate response will be one of breathtaking generosity — financial, spiritual and personal. That's what we saw in the wake of 9/11, it's what happened after the tsunami in December, and it's what we will begin to see as the next few days pass. But what we don't yet know is this: Are we going to try to look forward, to figure out how to save New Orleans and prevent another calamity of this sort there and elsewhere? Or are we going to begin finger-pointing, searching for villains among the debris? Some of that villain-hunting has already begun, in the typically vulgar, unwisely speedy efforts made by overly assured ideologues certain that they can connect a cataclysm to a pet issue — whether it be the American failure to pass the Kyoto global warming treaty or making the claim that spending on the war in Iraq squeezed out the possibility of shoring up the New Orleans levees. Here we see the stirrings of a spiritual divisiveness taking hold — in the form of a know-nothing populism that sweeps everything in its wake and brings everything into the courtroom. What happened here was a natural disaster. But there will be the temptation to turn it into a human conspiracy of greed and selfishness on the part of oil companies, concrete companies, politicians, insurers, re-insurers, goonish cops and the like. If the recriminations become the story of the next months, everybody will simply go to the usual battle stations. The tort reformers will take on the trial lawyers. The global-warming crowd will face off against American business. The politicians will scream at each other, scoff at each other, and try to find some cheap advantage that will turn the tide against one party or the other. The good that will be done —person by person, donation by donation, community by community — will be in danger of getting swamped by the bitterness and divisiveness that characterizes contemporary elite politics. Rather than finding common ground, there will be ugly partisanship and a cold standoff. The horror of a flood is literally, very nearly the oldest story in the Book. There have always been times that the water will rise higher than the walls men can build to contain it. The New Orleans system survived the battering of nature for more than 200 years — but it met its match and was overwhelmed by it. The best we can do is comfort the afflicted, mourn the lost, and try to rebuild. The worst we can do is turn on each other. So what shall it be? E-mail: podhoretz@nypost.com

Obama has shown great judgment in the people who surround him.  He picked a great VP choice, and his wife is impeccable as a helpmate and is a fantastic role model for the American children.   

I believe Obama has an awesome political future.  He sure is a bright light, and he would be someone I would seriously consider voting for.

Someone I like even better is Rep. Harold Ford from Tennessee.  Every time I hear this man speak, I like him more and more and more.

I think there are lots of good candidates out there who don't fit the profiles you outlined, which I also believe to be true, and I think we're well overdue in considering those candidates because, in my opinion, what we've been offered in the last several elections -- on BOTH sides -- has been pretty pitiful.  The "box" isn't working, and it's time to look outside of it.

If we get Obama or any of the other candidates we will get more of the same. War and taxes. Empire building. If you like that kind of stuff, vote for any of the candidates EXCEPT.......... RON PAUL. The only candidate for peace, limited government and minding our own business.

Haven't seen any posts here for awhile.  Very excited about the outcome of tonight's election.  I am so glad to see that people are not buying the "gimmicks" Hillary proposed.  Gas tax holiday?...give me a break!  Someone needed to ask her, "So what happens when the holiday is over", you charge back up the gas price! 

The big joke is that Bill Clinton raised the gas tax in his first year in office.  It was included in a package of tax increases that amounted to the biggest tax increase in history.  It was raised by 4.3 cents.  Not only did he raise the gas tax, but he wanted to raise it even higher.

So you should all get this straight...Hillary is "claiming" she would give drivers 3 whole months (wow - imagine that) 18 cent a gallon cut after her husband forced drivers to pay an extra 5 cents for 15 years.

Unfortunately there were some people who bought into her pandering (which by the way is another word for lying), but thank goodness enough people with an education and most important most of the with common sense could see right through her lies.

Way to go North Carolina - I'm so pleased.  And Indiana too.  It was a close race thank goodness.

Now she needs to step down.  Why?  Because its the right thing to do.  Do the numbers.  There is no way she can win and anyone who believes so needs to wake up.  What we need is for her to support Barack Obama (that is if she's telling the truth about the most important thing is nominating a democrat for president).  Somehow though I do not believe she has the best interest of the party or the american people in mind.  Her goal is to serve herself.  She needs to graciously bow out and put all her efforts into getting a democrat in the office.

P.S. - Note to the "ditto heads".  Maybe we should rename Limbaugh followers "dumbo heads".  Not only did your little plan fail Mr. Limbo, but it failed badly.  In a poll taken (and yes I know polls can be misleading), but not only did the republicans change parties to vote for a democrat but the majority of them voted for Obama.  Then on top of that over 75% of republicans that voted as democrats said that Obama could be McCain (or as I am hearing him being referred to as McBush), but only around 25% said they believed Hillary could win.  So not only does Hillary need to do the math, so does Mr. Limbo.