Pretty quiet here lately....

[Slider]

Anyone else thinking McCain and Palin are looking pretty pathetic? They turned to the Rovians once the polls started to turn against them, and then they really fell off the table. Nothing but smear left in their quiver, and the voters ain't buying it.

Bush seems to have permanently ended the idea of neo-conservative economics, and pretty much sent the Repubicans into the toilet for at least the next couple of election cycles. Wouldn't you think that McCain would read the writing on the wall and run the show his way? He's got nothing to lose at this point.

Slider

[Yeti_Ken]

I usually stay away from posting my views here. I'd hate to get in a debate and arguing with someone I'd rather be out riding with.

That being said, did anyone else see the story in the WSJ today mentioning that the polls show Obama's spread over McCain reaching double digits? It's amazing how the chart showed the spread between the two shifting right about the time McCain picked his running mate. I'm just saying....

[Enigma]

Neither party's nominee is qualified to head the executive branch of our government, nor does either one deserve to.

What is truly amazing though is that a man with less than 6 months experience, who has never served his country, who denies his heritage, and who may not have even been born in this country (or any of its possessions), is on the verge of hoodwinking a bunch of sheeple and becoming the most famous imposter since Rosie Ruiz. :(

[Mr_Cheeze]

Yea, hoodwinked is right. Hoodwinked by the same supposedly pro-"working family" Democrats who helped ram the decidedly pro-rich bailout package down our throats. Notice Slider stopped defending that piece of garbage legislation.

And people think that Obama signals some kind of change.

Oh, and you can be sure that Barney Frank gets easily reelected, even though a vast majority of his own constituents were against the bailout and now know he stands to benefit financially.

The American people have only themselves to blame for the crap we have and will put into office.

[Slappy]

http://www.bobbarr2008.com/splash/?s0820

[Mr_Cheeze]

Bob Barr is a terrible choice for the Libertarians. The party sold out this year to get a big name, probably after hoping that Ron Paul would ride the ticket. Barr supported the Federal bailout and is against decriminalizing marijuana.

That said, I may still vote for him if for no other reason than the possibility of getting a third party with 10% of the tally.

[Slider]

Neither party's nominee is qualified to head the executive branch of our government, nor does either one deserve to.

What is truly amazing though is that a man with less than 6 months experience, who has never served his country, who denies his heritage, and who may not have even been born in this country (or any of its possessions), is on the verge of hoodwinking a bunch of sheeple and becoming the most famous imposter since Rosie Ruiz. :(

Wow, some serious fabrication here. Ever check your own "facts"?
"less than 6 months experience: Lessee.... Three IL Senate terms, '97-'04. Elected to the US Senate in 2004, and here we are, 2008. The only 6 month span I see is the one where he kicked McCain's ass at every term as a fundraiser and campaigner.

"never served his country" - we making military experience a requirement for President now? That would rule out 14 of them, including all 6 from Taft through Roosevelt. Bush, of course, went AWOL. Not sure how to count that.

Obama was born in Honolulu, HI. That was the 50th US state to help with the geography issue. McCain, however, was born in Panama and, by strict interpretation of the constitution, is not eligible to become President. Seems like that point is about to become moot anyway.

Got any REAL facts to use, or just more idiotic babble?

Slider

[Slider]

Yea, hoodwinked is right. Hoodwinked by the same supposedly pro-"working family" Democrats who helped ram the decidedly pro-rich bailout package down our throats. Notice Slider stopped defending that piece of garbage legislation.

And people think that Obama signals some kind of change.

Oh, and you can be sure that Barney Frank gets easily reelected, even though a vast majority of his own constituents were against the bailout and now know he stands to benefit financially.

The American people have only themselves to blame for the crap we have and will put into office.

Without the bailout, most of us would be out of work now. And bailout is a bad description, since it is really more of an investment. Small print, sure, we could have done better. But that's the way it is when lot's of money changes hands. But it won't come near the screw job that the S and L bailout was, where money was simply handed to the connected, including a bunch of the Bush clan. This time around, we bought a stake that should pay off once the real estate thing starts to turn around.

Oh yeah - haven't heard much about self-guided investments as part of Social Security. Had we gone that way, it would be raining retirees from every tall building in the country right now.

Slider

[Enigma]

How characteristic.

[Enigma]

Without the bailout, most of us would be out of work now. And bailout is a bad description, since it is really more of an investment. Small print, sure, we could have done better. But that's the way it is when lot's of money changes hands. But it won't come near the screw job that the S and L bailout was, where money was simply handed to the connected, including a bunch of the Bush clan. This time around, we bought a stake that should pay off once the real estate thing starts to turn around.

Oh yeah - haven't heard much about self-guided investments as part of Social Security. Had we gone that way, it would be raining retirees from every tall building in the country right now.

Slider

:har::har::har:

[Enigma]

The American people have only themselves to blame for the crap we have and will put into office.

Unfortunately those who don't vote don't care to do anything beyond complain.

Who is more despicable the non-voter, or the lying slobs who get re-elected as a result of low turnout?

[Slider]

Enigma says idiotic response from me. How? Based on what contrary facts? He has none, so can do nothing but add more babble.

Idiocy is unsupported babble, and is pretty much all that comes in your posts.

Add some more smilies. I think 10 means you REALLY made your point.

Slider

[Slappy]

Bob Barr is a terrible choice for the Libertarians. The party sold out this year to get a big name, probably after hoping that Ron Paul would ride the ticket. Barr supported the Federal bailout and is against decriminalizing marijuana.

That said, I may still vote for him if for no other reason than the possibility of getting a third party with 10% of the tally.

Pretty much where I'm at.

[kernel crash]

Without the bailout, most of us would be out of work now.
Slider

Really. And where's your proof of that. All of a sudden your behind and agreeing with this administration that you've been bashing for 8 years! The market is down 2,000 points since the bailout was voted in. There were other options available but we were told it had to be done like yesterday to avoid disaster. Really. Do any of them really have a clue? You don't.

Isn't it interesting that we know more about Joe the plumber than we do about Obamas ties to incredibly shady characters who are known Socialists, Marxists and Communists sympathizers. Notice how the press sprung to action to cover for Obama when Joe got Obama to admit he wanted to spread the wealth around. They had to neutralize that sound bite by destroying a regular "Joe". Oh this is a wonderful freakin country.

This has been the pattern from day one. The same thing happened when Biden made his now famous comments about Obama being tested in the first 6 months. Did anyone ask Biden if he had some information he wanted to share? Did they ask him what he meant when he said that we would not be happy with Obamas response to this "tesing". That Obamas popularity would go down but we needed to keep the faith. You may not have heard all that because the press hasn't reported ALL of what came out of Bidens mouth. And remember Biden and Obama had received a briefing from the National Security Council days before he uttered that remark. If Palin had said that what do you suppose the press would have done?

Are we getting a fair shake here? No we aren't. Has anybody asked how much Obama spends on his clothes. I haven't heard that yet. Meanwhile Barney Frank and his ilk will get a free ride from the press and an easy road to re-election. Obama wants to grow this economy from the bottom up. What an idiot. The bottom up. How many at the bottom are creating jobs. He will give 12 million illegals aliens citizenship, drivers licenses, social security, free health care and free tuition credits. Meanwhile Slider and the rest of them will wipe the tears from their eyes when Obama gets sworn in. I'll be crying for a different reason.

[kernel crash]

Anyone else thinking McCain and Palin are looking pretty pathetic?
Slider

Actually No. I think there having a hard time cutting through the gauntlet the press has thrown up in front of them.

Pew Research Center found that voters, by a margin of almost eight to one, believe the media wants Barack Obama to win on Election Day instead of John McCain.

A new survey found that more Americans know who Joe the Plumber is than about Barack Obama's ties to the radical group ACORN.

http://people-press.org/report/463/media-wants-obama


A new study from the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that since the Republican National Convention, there have been three times more negative press reports about John McCain than positive ones. By contrast, during the same period, media coverage of Obama has been more positive than negative.

http://journalism.org/node/13307


But hey Slider this is not a big deal right. I mean it's your guy that is being dragged to the finish line by his ears. So what if freedom of the press gets left in the dust. I mean you would be protesting if the tables were turned, wouldn't you?

[Enigma]

But hey Slider this is not a big deal right. I mean it's your guy that is being dragged to the finish line by his ears. So what if freedom of the press gets left in the dust. I mean you would be protesting if the tables were turned, wouldn't you?

...Because if it didn't appear in the news Slider has read to him, it can't be true. It is little wonder he can only respond with "You got nothin".

[Slider]

First, Enigma: I post what I think and can back any of it up. You post infantile drivel and think it says something.

Kernel: I'll walk through it with you since you, at least, offer some content.

1. The US without the bailout would have no credit available anywhere. Have you got any idea what that has already done and will continue to do regardless of what the response is? The markets, right now, are facing employment numbers that are purely by-products of the last 6 weeks. Employers know what no credit means, and they are all paring back. No credit means operating issues for all verticals, very slow sales for all product classes, no investment money to fuel startups, and pretty much the death fo Chrysler, and maybe Ford and GM to follow. Next start looking at GE, WalMart, and anyone else related to retail. You think THAT might have a ripple effect?

The Socialist crap: you've been drinking the Rovian KoolAid. If you want to talk about Bill Ayers, then make a point. He was a professor of education when Obama met him 26 years AFTER any involvement with the Weathermen. They were both working on the Annenberg Challenge in Chicago. Walter Annenberg was Nixon's Ambassador to Great Britain whose money funded the Chicago project. Was he a terrorist too? Six degrees of separation would tie you to Osama bin Laden - what are your terrorist leanings?

One more terrorist point: McCain bombed Cambodia illegally. Directly dropped thousands of tons of bombs on people with whom we were not at war, and in direct contradiction to US law. Tell me: Is HE a terrorist?

Now the press thing. The reason McCain looks like an idiot lost in a blizzard is because he is one. You seem to WANT a press that supports a slant, not to be against one. People think the press prefers McCain? They report what he says, and people make their own opinion. There are plenty of others, like you, that get sucked into the smear that McCain/Palin and the Rovians generate. In the end, what is the difference, other than the press, for the most part, substantiates what it prints. Well, outside of Fox and the Washington Post, at least.

Slider

[bikdav]

None of the candidates really impresss me. I'm sad to say that my vote may be just a guess.

[Enigma]

Ok ok so you post what you think (too bad you can't think for yourself). In typical knee jerk liberal fashion, you respond to posts you can't dispute with factual evidence by using your limited repertoire of "you got nothing" unless you happen to steal a phrase or two from a higher life form. Talk about "drinking the Kool-Aid"

[Slider]

Yet, you still got nothing, just another attack on me, as if to prove my point.

Let me help: You mentioned 6 months of experience for Obama. Tell us where that 'fact' came from. Or, pick any other point you made and defend it.

It is called discussion. It is the point of the forum. Try it.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Funny, Slider, how you suddenly buy into corporate welfare. I'm really scratching my head on this one. From where do you derive your opinion that the bailout was needed? Since it has already happened, it's pretty much impossible to predict what would have happened otherwise. What you say is nothing more than a guess and a means to support your guys who were all gung-ho behind this. Of course they were. They're all getting some kind of graft or favors or extra campaign support. It's already been proven that Barney Frank is benefiting from a cozy relationship with Fannie Mae. The American way? Sure, if you like the idea of business as usual. The rich staying rich. Is it any big coincidence that many of our wealthiest Senators are, in fact, Democrats? http://www.forbes.com/beltway/2006/11/17/senate-politics-washington-biz-wash_cx_jh_1120senate.html Slider is a big government proponent. Since they're all for the bailout, then it must have been needed! Corporate welfare is socialism, after all.

There is no way to know in any definitive way how the economy would have responded without the bailout. You would be hard pressed to show that it would do worse than it currently is. Seems to me the bailout did nothing but incite Wall Street and worldwide market panic. And as the Fed continues to lower the interest rate, making MORE money out of nothing, the hole gets deeper.

But hey, big government is still the answer, right? Yea, only as long as the Democrats are the one's ******* it up.

Oh, you know what will happen, right? The economy is bound to rebound. It has to. And Obama will be in office when it happens. And who do you think will get the credit? Now I think I understand Slider's reasoning.

[kernel crash]

Slider my point on the bailout was that there were other options that were not discussed. I never said we shouldn’t do anything.

Second your comments about Annenberg are just silly and is an obvious smokescreen. Yes he was a Republican who left that money but he’s been dead for many years. It doesn’t mean he would approve of how that money is being spent. It’s like saying that Senator John Heinz of Pennsylvania, who was a Republican, supports John Kerry because Kerry used Heinz wealth to finance his run for President in 2004.

As far as Ayers being a professor remember Ayers speaks openly of his desire to use America's public school classrooms to train a generation of revolutionaries who will overturn the U.S. social and economic regime. He teaches that America is oppressive and unjust, socialism is the solution, and wealth and resources should be redistributed. In Ayers' course called "On Urban Education," he calls for a "distribution of material and human resources." Ayers' political views are as radical now as they were in the 1970s. "Viva President Chavez!" he exclaimed in a speech in Venezuela in 2006, in which he also declared: "Education is the motor-force of revolution." Is this Obama next secretary of education?

Looking at Obamas shady past we find things like:

While a teenager, Obama spends considerable time with Frank Marshall Davis. Davis is a member of the Communist Party of the USA, poet, propagandist, “bitter opponent of capitalism,” and radical agitator; in 1948, Davis had fled Chicago after the FBI and the House Un-American Activities Committee investigated his subversive anti-American activities.

While attending Occidental College, Obama joins the Students for Economic Democracy (SED), which is a branch of the Campaign for Economic Democracy (CED), a group that was founded by radical, anti-American, Marxist activist Tom Hayden (former husband of actress Jane Fonda), who was also active with the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS).

Obama moves to Chicago, and hangs out with black militants and leftists. Obama works as a “community organizer” for the “Industrial Areas Foundation” (IAF), an organization founded by Marxist and radical agitator Saul Alinsky.

Obama sought and received the endorsement of the “New Party” (NP), a Marxist third party in Chicago, for his state senate run. The endorsement of the New Party requires that the candidate “…sign a contract with the NP. The contract mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP.” The Marxist New Party refers to Obama as one of its own party members in an October, 1996 “Running to Win: The Key Races” announcement, that reads, “Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary).”

Obama also receives the support of the Democrat Socialists of America (DSA); Obama was then an associate of the DSA’s Chicago branch.

Don't you think this raises questions about what he's really made of? I mean there is enough material here for a bunch of 20/20's, 60 minutes, and a whole lot of CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN investigative reports.

[Slider]

Funny, Slider, how you suddenly buy into corporate welfare. I'm really scratching my head on this one. From where do you derive your opinion that the bailout was needed? Since it has already happened, it's pretty much impossible to predict what would have happened otherwise. What you say is nothing more than a guess and a means to support your guys who were all gung-ho behind this. Of course they were. They're all getting some kind of graft or favors or extra campaign support. It's already been proven that Barney Frank is benefiting from a cozy relationship with Fannie Mae. The American way? Sure, if you like the idea of business as usual. The rich staying rich. Is it any big coincidence that many of our wealthiest Senators are, in fact, Democrats? http://www.forbes.com/beltway/2006/11/17/senate-politics-washington-biz-wash_cx_jh_1120senate.html Slider is a big government proponent. Since they're all for the bailout, then it must have been needed! Corporate welfare is socialism, after all.

There is no way to know in any definitive way how the economy would have responded without the bailout. You would be hard pressed to show that it would do worse than it currently is. Seems to me the bailout did nothing but incite Wall Street and worldwide market panic. And as the Fed continues to lower the interest rate, making MORE money out of nothing, the hole gets deeper.

But hey, big government is still the answer, right? Yea, only as long as the Democrats are the one's ******* it up.

Oh, you know what will happen, right? The economy is bound to rebound. It has to. And Obama will be in office when it happens. And who do you think will get the credit? Now I think I understand Slider's reasoning.

It isn't welfare or a handout. We bought assets and invested directly into the banks. Handouts are what happened when the S and L failures occured in the late 80's. This is a far better approach than handing off bags of cash to the connected. When the upturn does come, and it will, taxpayers will get at worst most of their money back, and at best more than what they invested.

Slider

[Slider]

Slider my point on the bailout was that there were other options that were not discussed. I never said we shouldn’t do anything.

Second your comments about Annenberg are just silly and is an obvious smokescreen. Yes he was a Republican who left that money but he’s been dead for many years. It doesn’t mean he would approve of how that money is being spent. It’s like saying that Senator John Heinz of Pennsylvania, who was a Republican, supports John Kerry because Kerry used Heinz wealth to finance his run for President in 2004.

Annenberg was very much alive when the Chicago project was in operation. He died in 2002, and Obama and Ayers worked together there through 2001. And the group accomplished a lot, long after Ayers SDS days.


As far as Ayers being a professor remember Ayers speaks openly of his desire to use America's public school classrooms to train a generation of revolutionaries who will overturn the U.S. social and economic regime. He teaches that America is oppressive and unjust, socialism is the solution, and wealth and resources should be redistributed. In Ayers' course called "On Urban Education," he calls for a "distribution of material and human resources." Ayers' political views are as radical now as they were in the 1970s. "Viva President Chavez!" he exclaimed in a speech in Venezuela in 2006, in which he also declared: "Education is the motor-force of revolution." Is this Obama next secretary of education?

A few points to make here. First, he can support any position he wants. This is America, right? Second, he has no role whatsover in Obama's campaign process. Personally, he sounds pretty interesting and I wouldn't mind hearing more of what he thinks, but he has no real ties to Obama other than the distant connection through the Annenberg thing, and the fact that they are both from Chicago.


Looking at Obamas shady past we find things like:

While a teenager, Obama spends considerable time with Frank Marshall Davis. Davis is a member of the Communist Party of the USA, poet, propagandist, “bitter opponent of capitalism,” and radical agitator; in 1948, Davis had fled Chicago after the FBI and the House Un-American Activities Committee investigated his subversive anti-American activities.

'Considerable time' - how much, doing what, and why would his teenage years mean anything about him as an adult? And you are really citing HUAC as a measure of character? You do remember the witch hunt during the cold war, right? Joe McCarthy killed himself as a result of that insane process gone wild. You need some better references.


While attending Occidental College, Obama joins the Students for Economic Democracy (SED), which is a branch of the Campaign for Economic Democracy (CED), a group that was founded by radical, anti-American, Marxist activist Tom Hayden (former husband of actress Jane Fonda), who was also active with the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS).

I guess you forget the opposition to the Vietanmese war, and the many groups founded to oppose it and the war machine in general. Joining a few groups that espouse the opposition to the standing order is: a. protected by the constitution, b. honorable, and c. something that any thinking person would also have done back in the day. Personally, I happen to admire Tom Hayden. Abbie Hoffman was among the best comedians of his day. Un-American? Hell no, they represent what America is all about - freedom of expression, and freedom to oppose corrupted institutions.

Having said all that, belonging to the SDS doens't make you a bomb thrower, just an idealistic youth, untempered by the wisdom that, say, several years of government service brings.


Obama moves to Chicago, and hangs out with black militants and leftists. Obama works as a “community organizer” for the “Industrial Areas Foundation” (IAF), an organization founded by Marxist and radical agitator Saul Alinsky.

Obama sought and received the endorsement of the “New Party” (NP), a Marxist third party in Chicago, for his state senate run. The endorsement of the New Party requires that the candidate “…sign a contract with the NP. The contract mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP.” The Marxist New Party refers to Obama as one of its own party members in an October, 1996 “Running to Win: The Key Races” announcement, that reads, “Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary).”

Obama also receives the support of the Democrat Socialists of America (DSA); Obama was then an associate of the DSA’s Chicago branch.

Don't you think this raises questions about what he's really made of? I mean there is enough material here for a bunch of 20/20's, 60 minutes, and a whole lot of CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN investigative reports.

Nope, I think it means nothing. We've had years to see his policy positions, voting record, and the fact that he is a mature, experienced politician who differed little from many of his peers while growing up. Under your standards, half the country would be ineligible to run for any office.

Guilt by association usually proves very little. Here, it shows someone active and involved in the issues of the day, and that is someone I want in a position of power. More so than someone who was illegally dropping thousands of tons of bombs on innocent people in Cambodia. That was the issue driving the radicalism you seem to think was misplaced. It wasn't, but would be now. Times change, people mature, and thinking people incorporate the lessons learned.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

It isn't welfare or a handout. We bought assets and invested directly into the banks. Handouts are what happened when the S and L failures occured in the late 80's. This is a far better approach than handing off bags of cash to the connected. When the upturn does come, and it will, taxpayers will get at worst most of their money back, and at best more than what they invested.

Slider

Dude, it's welfare. You've just drank the Kool-Aid. Or maybe you would like to explain how bailing out the National Association of Manufacturers of Wooden Arrows Designed For Use By Children or race track owners or rum importers will benefit me in the long run. Why not help the truly struggling small businesses that are suffering because of these huge corporations that cut costs by outsourcing jobs overseas? You don't think helping small business is more beneficial to our nation's economy?

Put any dressing you like on it, the bailout is corporate welfare. It's Reaganomics! Slider believes in trickle down economics. Wow. What strange times are these.

[Slider]

As I said before, like any large dollar legislation, there is pork. No denying that it's in the banking bill, too. But we are talking a small part of the larger funds, that will be invested directly in the banks themselves. I hope we also buy some of the mortgage securities, too, because I think that is where the real upside is.

I put a few $K in Bank of America, myself. Gotta admit that it hasn't exactly paid off yet, but I don't expect it to for a long time.

Slider

[kernel crash]

"Guilt by association usually proves very little. Here, it shows someone active and involved in the issues of the day, and that is someone I want in a position of power. More so than someone who was illegally dropping thousands of tons of bombs on innocent people in Cambodia. That was the issue driving the radicalism you seem to think was misplaced. It wasn't, but would be now. Times change, people mature, and thinking people incorporate the lessons learned.

Slider"

Actually its guilt by participation. But seeing how none of this is being investigated or even talked about on the MSM, I guess we'll never know will we. But we know Sarah husband was arrested for drunk driving 20 years ago. We know Joe the Plumber had a tax lien a couple of years back but we still don't really know about Obama do we. THAT'S MY WHOLE POINT!!!

Slider says "And the group accomplished a lot, long after Ayers SDS days."

They blew through over 100 million and had no improvements in test scores to show for it. If you believe otherwise, prove it!


"Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with "external partners," which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn)."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html#printMode

[Slider]

What do you mean that we don't know? Neither of us seems to have no trouble finding our sources. You think people haven't seen the Obama stuff? I mean, McCain/Palin talk about it every day. I really don't see that any of this is ignored.

You think the recipients mis-spent the funding? Prove it.

Slider

[kernel crash]

Look I know and you know a lot of dolts that pass themselves off as Democrats get their news from the main stream media. If Katie Couric ain't talking about it, then it ain't an issue. But if the main stream media were to dive in and really explore these issues and show their outrage like they do against the Republicans, then people would start to ask themselves some serious questions. But that takes us back to the media bias which is rampant this election cycle according to ALL the polls taken.

[kernel crash]

You think the recipients mis-spent the funding? Prove it.

Slider

"The Chicago Annenberg Challenge had over $140 million dollars in grant money. We know Obama and Ayers were deeply rooted in this board, just what did they accomplish with all that money? Did they do wonderful things with all that money and make a huge difference in the lives of many children?

You can judge yourself because they themselves paid for a team headquartered at the University of Chicago to assess the impact of the more than $140 million they spent in Chicago public schools over that six year period,1995-2001. Their conclusion in a 250 page 2003 report can be read here in its entirety.

We can save you some time though and cut to the final conclusion of the report:

"the money had no impact at all: test scores in schools that received money from Annenberg went up, but at the same rate as all other schools in Chicago." There was, in the words of the report, “no Annenberg effect.”

Hmmmmm get $140 Million dollars, spend it in 6 years and be classified at the end as having NO effect? Imagine what $140 million dollars could do in our schools if used effectively! Not only should Barack Obama be ashamed of his association with Ayers, he should be downright apologetic to the thousands of school children in Chicago during his tenure on the CAC board for failing them. Failing to use the $140 million dollars entrusted to him to make a difference in the lives of children instead he wasted it on programs, initiatives and funneled projects to benefit his future political career.

There is much sought after information wanted by the documents that make up the Chicago Annenberg Challenge but these documents which were at one time public record and then they became sealed."

http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/content/publications.php?pub_id=60

[Slider]

The only thing that would give any weight to the Journal's criticism would be comparative info, but there isn't any. So how well did the other cities in the program do? Bear in mind that the objective wasn't to satisfy the Journal's political leanings, but to "allow teachers, parents and communities to rethink and restructure public schools." Academic improvement wasn't the goal; community participation was. The Journal editorial misses the point completely.

Slider

[Slider]

Look I know and you know a lot of dolts that pass themselves off as Democrats get their news from the main stream media. If Katie Couric ain't talking about it, then it ain't an issue. But if the main stream media were to dive in and really explore these issues and show their outrage like they do against the Republicans, then people would start to ask themselves some serious questions. But that takes us back to the media bias which is rampant this election cycle according to ALL the polls taken.

First, lots of dolts buy what Fox says as if it was based in reality. There are dolts in both parties, and plenty of media outlets to sell them what they want to hear. There isn't some conspiracy to rig the stories, just businesses trying to make a buck. If there are more stories about Obama than McCain, it's because more people click on that link and it sells more advertising.

If you think a particular source is biased, go elsewhere. Better, figure out the bias and make the content infomative despite the BS it contains. Even biased journalism can tell you something.

No one is forced to watch CNN, or NewsMax or the NYTimes or whatever. If people choose not to read them, they'll go out of business. Conspiracy isn't profitable.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Conspiracy isn't profitable.



Unless you're uber-conspiracy theorist Alex Jones (http://www.infowars.com/)

[kernel crash]

Now what if this turns out to be true and we don't see the video till AFTER the election!

Confirmed: MSM Holds Video Of Barack Obama Attending Jew-Bash & Toasting a Former PLO Operative... Refuse to Release the Video!

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/10/confirmed-msm-holds-video-of-barack.html

[Slider]

I'd heard that Obama was a Satanist, and he performs ritual baby killings. PBS has a complete video, but they are supressing it, of course.

Slider

[kernel crash]

I'd heard that Obama was a Satanist, and he performs ritual baby killings. PBS has a complete video, but they are supressing it, of course.

Slider

Your closer to the truth than you realize. Socialist not Satanist. Obama doesn't perform the ritual baby killing but he supports others doing the killing. Also you might have a problem with reading comprehension. The writer for the LA Times does not deny the existence of the video. So one wonders what going on with this video.

"On Wednesday I talked with Peter Wallsten from the Los Angeles Times about the article on Obama and Khalidi: Wallston was one of the few mainstream media reporters to report on this radical Obama associate.

Wallston said that the article was written after he watched video taken at the Khalidi going away party. When I asked him about the video he said that as far as he was concerned he was through with the story. I asked him if he was planning on releasing this video of Obama toasting the radical Khalidi at this Jew-bash. He told me he was not releasing the video."

[Slider]

Let's talk when we've both seen the vid. Don't hold your breath, and not because it is being witheld.

Slider

[kernel crash]

Pretty interesting viewpoint from the far left. If McCain should pull off an upset all hell will break loose.

"It is time for this election to be over... It is time because we all know how it should turn out and because thinking about what could happen if it doesn't is too upsetting. It's not just that Barack Obama should win... It's what it will say if he doesn't. And what will happen if he doesn't. "

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_susan_estrich/the_final_days2

[Mr_Cheeze]

Yea, the left are pretty confident of victory, but they're already hedging their bets if McCain should pull off the upset by already paving the way towards another stream of built in excuses: they cheated, they stole another one, voter fraud, etc.

[Slappy]

So anyone that doesn't vote for Obama has no reason other than racism.
Typical frigging lefty know-it-all holier than thou BS.

[Mr_Cheeze]

It is true, of course, that anyone who did not vote for Hillary is a misogynist.

[kernel crash]

So anyone that doesn't vote for Obama has no reason other than racism.
Typical frigging lefty know-it-all holier than thou BS.

Think about it. If your white and you do not vote for Obama, you are tainted with the racism tag. But when over 90% of blacks are on record as supporting Obama, there is no racism involved. If you even bring up the double standard, you guess it, racism. I noticed gun sales are going up around the country. Seems people are feeling they may have to defend themselves.

[Mr_Cheeze]

But when over 90% of blacks are on record as supporting Obama, there is no racism involved.

Nah.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5p3OB6roAg

[Slider]

So anyone that doesn't vote for Obama has no reason other than racism.
Typical frigging lefty know-it-all holier than thou BS.

You are pretty clearly misreading this. It doesn't say ANYONE who doesn't...

It says, overall, with the polls going the way they are, there would be a message if his candidacy fails. And, there certainly would be a message.

There's a huge difference between that and the broad brush you want to use.

Slider

[Slider]

Think about it. If your white and you do not vote for Obama, you are tainted with the racism tag. But when over 90% of blacks are on record as supporting Obama, there is no racism involved. If you even bring up the double standard, you guess it, racism. I noticed gun sales are going up around the country. Seems people are feeling they may have to defend themselves.

That's crap too. There are lots of voters who are simply conservative, or for specific issues, and they'll vote Republican no matter what. No racism there.

But there are others, on both sides of the fence, who can't get past the skin color thing. I can't see how you can call them anything other than racists.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

I can't see how you can call them anything other than racists.

Slider

In Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, et. al, they call them rednecks.

Yea, you're right. What's the difference.

Then again, they might vote for his half-white side.. the optimistic, glass-half full, leeching off the government, welfare rednecks, that is.

[Unbreakable]

...If your white and you do not vote for Obama, you are tainted with the racism tag...

Slider votes for Obama. Afraid of the label.

[Unbreakable]

Or that Obama can't produce a verifiable birth certificate proving he is a natural born citizen. This issue, contrary to the gospel according to Slider, ain't over yet

[Slappy]

You are pretty clearly misreading this. It doesn't say ANYONE who doesn't...

It says, overall, with the polls going the way they are, there would be a message if his candidacy fails. And, there certainly would be a message.

There's a huge difference between that and the broad brush you want to use.

Slider

I don't think so. I take issue with 'overall' or even 'majority' as much as I do with 'anyone'. Maybe I travel in good company, but I'm confident that most of the people I know that aren't voting for Obama would vote for a non-white candidate who's views more closely reflected their own without qualm.
I'm thinking that the race-based numbers on either side may well cancel each other out; that knife definitely cuts both ways in this election dontcha think?

[Slider]

Sure, there are racists on both sides. I don't think that is the point.

If enough people felt compelled to lie to the pollsters to create the impression of a large margin for Obama, but vote the other way, you got to ask why. Closet racism would be a pretty good guess.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

As opposed to closet anti-socialistism?

[Slider]

Not enough people are falling for that Republican smear campaign for it to make that much of a difference. In fact, it seems to have hurt their caused more than helped.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Smear campaign? You mean to say that it's not true? Not even you can claim it.

I don't understand why some liberals find a pejorative in being called socialist. The negative connotation only works with those who are against socialism, which would be libertarians and the rich. I'm not sure why you would consider it a smear. You and Obama should embrace it, which I believe he has.

[Slider]

He's a capitalist, dude. Like you and me. The socialist thing comes from his wish to move more of the tax burden to the wealthy, who'd had a cheap ride for a long time. The tax burden shifts, literally, with every election cycle. There is no sea change here, just an adjustment, like every other time we transition to a new administration.

Why is no one crying about the 'socialist' policies that coddled the weathly over the last eight years?

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Health Care, education, redistribution of wealth: the big marks of a true socialist, and three areas where Obama has promised to spend... and tax so he can spend.

Their fair share, eh? Percentage wise, the wealthy already have a much heavier tax burden than the decidedly unwealthy. The numbers are everywhere that bear out this unfortunate fact for you. The difference is, the liberals (socialists) like you want to further increase the burden... as punishment? Because we can?

I guess we have to get the revenue from somewhere, right? Funny how the Democratic socialists never seem to seriously consider reducing spending. Do we really need universal healthcare? Let's start there. Do you realize that the United States is the ninth fattest country in the world? (Most of the first 8 are the historically obese south Pacific nations). Of all the other nations that are cited as examples of successful socialized health care, none come anywhere close to the US in fatness. And yet, we are on the cusp of what promises to be a giant boondoggle of universal healthcare that is going to have healthy people like me sharing the burden for those who live unhealthy lifestyles. You never hear this argument when health care is brought up because it's the dirty little secret that pols never want to face. Why do you think the cost of healthcare continues to skyrocket? No, not because of malpractice lawsuits. Because people are fat, lazy, and have the resulting diseases that come with being as such. And the governent want to take over the burden of the care? Obama does. Hell, so doesn't McCain. So I guess we're screwed either way. Point is, it's another social program doomed to failure even before it begins. Doomed to failure just like the lot of sub-prime mortgages that banks were just about forced to offer to unqualified recipients. More socialism, there.

It's not government's job to be social engineers.

[kernel crash]

He's a capitalist, dude. Like you and me. Slider

That's the funniest thing you have ever said on this forum. Actually that's being kind. Cheeze has a point. Why do we think that every citizen illegal or otherwise has a natural right to free health care. If you think the system is broken now you haven't seen anything yet. It can get worse and it will. Obama will suck the entrepreneurial spirit right out of this country with his wealth redistribution. This is not just another cycle of liberals getting their hands on the throttle after years of Republican rule. Look at Obama's background and his mentors. Leaves little to the imagination. And what do you make of this. Obama wants to create a citizens defense force that is every bit as competent as our present military. Why do you suppose he wants to do that. I wonder if they'll be wearing brown shirts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s

[Slider]

The right has had eight years to show how its policies can bring the country and the world to its knees. The debt was exploding long before the market meltdown. And you think equal access to medical treatment is something bad? The cost for the Iraq war alone would have insured anyone that isn't aready covered for years.

Obama's background? Ivy league schools, experience in both local and national politics, and the best run campaign this country has seen in years. Well, not counting the smear campaigns for Bush, which were effective. But that sort of thing only works for a limited amount of time, especially when someone has smart as Obama has a chance to learn from the Dems past mistakes. McCain's fallback to smear was pretty bad timing.

The McCain smear campaing I am talking about is the one you are obliquely referencing, where he's got anarchists and bomb throwers having breakfast at his house. It was a dud when McCain started tossing it around like some sort of Molotov cocktail and you look a little desperate heaving it around some more.

Kinda unreal that you're linking Brownshirts to Obama, when the Republicans have done more to undermine the Constitution than any administration in our lives, and well beyond that. Sounds like the kind of crap they post on the rightie blogs. Thankfully, the voters seem to recognize it.

Slider

[kernel crash]

Kinda unreal that you're linking Brownshirts to Obama, when the Republicans have done more to undermine the Constitution than any administration in our lives, and well beyond that. Slider

Really. Lets see. In the last few weeks several TV stations have been told by the Obama campaign that they'll no longer have access to Obama because of the tough questions that were given to Biden. To make room on his plane 3 reporters representing 3 different newspapers were told thy no longer have a seat on the plane. Interestingly enough all 3 were from newspapers that supported McCain. So is this what free speech looks like under an Obama presidency? He supports the fairness doctrine that could ultimately silence the opposition on talk radio. And now a "civilian" defense force under his rule. And that doesn't send a chill up your spine? I wonder if Louis Farrakhan will help train his civilian defense force. I mean Farrakhan does surround himself with his "para-military" looking bunch of goons and we know Obama has a soft spot for Farrakhan.

I think were in for a wild ride coming real soon. Stories are staring to leak from the press about Obama that under a normal election year, we would have heard months ago. For example his statement that he will impose so much regulation and fees on the coal industry that it would bankrupt them if they wanted to build a new plant. Funny that never came up in the debates. I think the honeymoon will be a short one for Obama as the press starts to swing in the other direction while trying to repair their credibility with the public. There's no more fluff to report on Obama. That's all we've been getting for a while now. With McCain and Palin out of the picture all the focus can now we shifted to Obama.

[Slider]

Really. Lets see. In the last few weeks several TV stations have been told by the Obama campaign that they'll no longer have access to Obama because of the tough questions that were given to Biden. To make room on his plane 3 reporters representing 3 different newspapers were told thy no longer have a seat on the plane. Interestingly enough all 3 were from newspapers that supported McCain. So is this what free speech looks like under an Obama presidency?

Free speech???? He's running a campaign, and doing a great job. He's so far out in front, he could stop talking to everyone and still win going away. He can talk, and not talk, with anyone he chooses. It's called proper management of candidate access.

You remember when McCain would take no questions for those many months? And when Palin was locked away for some retuning? Kinda like that, but loooong after he's already given open access to pretty much anyone.


He supports the fairness doctrine that could ultimately silence the opposition on talk radio.

So the bloggers seem to say, and the George Wills of the world. Obama has said he doesn't support it and I can't find anything on his site that says otherwise, so it seems to be yet another phantom issue raised by the right. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/


And now a "civilian" defense force under his rule. And that doesn't send a chill up your spine? I wonder if Louis Farrakhan will help train his civilian defense force. I mean Farrakhan does surround himself with his "para-military" looking bunch of goons and we know Obama has a soft spot for Farrakhan.

I think Farrakhan and him golf together. Nothing like some fresh air to get those revolutionary ideas flowing. They get Ayers and Khalidi to finish the foursome, and things get crazy around the 19th hole. We're talking some serious anarchy, here. They aleady have some of the groups lined up: Civilian Bomb Throwing Corps, Civilian Gun
Control Patrol, Civilian Nationalization of Exxon Committee. Those are just a start. The Convert All Christians to Muslims will be my favorite. Sound like fun times.

Slider

[kernel crash]

Amazing all that verbage and its all just spin, spin spin. You got your talking points down but most see through it. Obama and Biden have been sheltered from the press for quite a while now. Don't want to screw it up at this late hour. Pelosi and Reid and just itching to put a bill in front of Obama to bring back the fairness doctrine, citizenship for illegals etc. Obama will toe the line because that's what he does. As far as running a superior campaign, hey when you have hundreds of millions, coming in from who knows where, and you got the main stream media in your back pocket, you can get pretty far in this election cycle. Most of us see what's going on here pretty clearly. You may need to stock up on depends. You been drinking way to much kool-aid.

[Slider]

Amazing all that verbage and its all just spin, spin spin. You got your talking points down but most see through it. Obama and Biden have been sheltered from the press for quite a while now. Don't want to screw it up at this late hour. Pelosi and Reid and just itching to put a bill in front of Obama to bring back the fairness doctrine, citizenship for illegals etc. Obama will toe the line because that's what he does. As far as running a superior campaign, hey when you have hundreds of millions, coming in from who knows where, and you got the main stream media in your back pocket, you can get pretty far in this election cycle. Most of us see what's going on here pretty clearly. You may need to stock up on depends. You been drinking way to much kool-aid.

Just for the record, I don't use anyone's talking points but my own. The only time I read the blogs is when BS from them is posted here. On the other hand, most of what you post seems to be second hand, unsupported smear.

"Most of us" seem to be backing Obama, so I can't figure out who you are referring to.

Slider

[kernel crash]

Just for the record, I don't use anyone's talking points but my own. The only time I read the blogs is when BS from them is posted here. On the other hand, most of what you post seems to be second hand, unsupported smear.

"Most of us" seem to be backing Obama, so I can't figure out who you are referring to.

Slider

Most of us like say 51% support Obama. That means that 49% of the population want no part of him. That's a problem on November the 5th.

And as to my points they are not 2nd hand unsupported smears but actual facts. Prove me wrong! You know I get a kick when people bring up actual comments and or video of Obama saying these outrageous things and people like you recoil with comments about racism or smears etc. Hey its your guy saying these things. "Spread the wealth around", "Bankrupt the coal industry", "check your tire pressure", No drilling/Now Open to drilling, Out of Iraq/Situation on the ground will determine the withdrawal, New look on foreign Policy/Invade Pakistan to get Osama if necessary. And on and on. Face it. A slick talking empty suit. I'm an optimistic person so I'm trying to find the bright side. I'm still looking.

[Slider]

You say "Prove me wrong", which is, in itself, absurd. If you want to claim that something happened, you need to make the case. Poorly written editorials don't work. References to videos that no one has seen don't work. Rumors from the Republican war room don't work. It isn't even circumstantial, but something with no basis in fact whatsoever.

On the occasions when you do have something tangible, it is often presented out of context or completely misrepresented.

First of all, if you don't change your mind once in a while, something is wrong. Just look at McCain as he tries to distance himself from Bush. But drilling is something that may need a look, but not under the Bush 'give the oil boys everything' approach.

"Spread the wealth" - this is a reference to the change of tax burden that he is proposing, an alternative to the dramatic reduction that pretty much every Republican administration has give the wealthy. Great idea, we need the rich to carry more of the burden. Spreading the wealth is what taxes do, always. But you read the Republican pundits, and he's quoting Marx. Pure ********.

"Bankrupt the coal industry" Assuming the transcript below is accurate, the idea is about the clear need to clean up out energy production. You can burn coal if it is clean. If not, we need to do something else anyway.

The transcript from Newsbusters follows. I can't vouch for its truthfulness. Quoting Obama:
-----
"Let me sort of describe my overall policy.

What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else’s out there.

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.

The only thing I’ve said with respect to coal, I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a (sic) ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them."
-----
Iraq: Whatever he says is better than more of the same. There is no conflict in saying it is time to leave, within constraints of the particular situation at any given moment. That is rational, so I don't get your point, other than that it had no context at all when you presented it.

Not sure what your complaint about Pakistan means. You wouldn't chase bin Laden there?

You don't like the guy, that's clear. Your reasons why are poorly substantiated.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

And you think equal access to medical treatment is something bad?

Slider

Equal access. Is that one of those Democrat politic terms like "working families"? Who deserves equal access, by your definition? I'll give you the mentally retarded and those born handicapped or diseased. Not their fault. So that leaves us with... children, because, as Hillary told us way back when, "it takes a village", even if the village is filled with unwed mothers who are too stupid to use contraceptives and too poor to get abortions and the 5 kids they have each have different sperm donors. Have to make sure they have equal access. Here's my wallet. Take what you need, Shaniqua. And then we have the immigrants. Get a green card, get "equal access". Hell, don't get a green card. Wait for Obama to legitimize all of you, then get on the government nipple. Plenty of "equal access" for all of you. And then the fatties and the smokers and the drinkers and the lot of people with avoidable coronary disease, diabetes, lung cancer, respiratory illness, artherosclerosis, yadda, yadda. Just keep on living those unhealthy lives. Don't worry about it. You'll have "equal access" to my tax dollars to keep your heart ticking.

Equal access. That's some term.

[Slider]

You already pay for anyone who has no health insurance, several times over, starting with those who die slowly in any hospital.

Cost control is the biggest issue, and universal health care is the best way to have strength when negotiating.

Slider

[kernel crash]

You don't like the guy, that's clear. Your reasons why are poorly substantiated.

Slider

Poorly substantiated? What a joke. Man its like you can't even accept that maybe someone has an opinion, based on facts, that might contradict your opinions. Like a scab you have to keep picking away at it, determined to have the last word while toeing the liberal talking points. I don't like the guy? Correct. Poorly substantiated? Bull$hit!!!

8 years in the Illinois senate with an un-remarkable record.

Ran for President before he was even half way through his first term in the Senate and managed to be the 2nd highest receipt of bribes er contributions from Fannie Mae.

His associations with ACORN, Rezko, Ayers, Farrakhan ("Hitler was a very great man"), Frank Marshall Davis (member of the Communist Party of the USA) tell me more about his character than all the words coming out of his mouth.

The most liberal member of the Senate. Number 1 baby.

Way too extreme on abortion. Voted to terminate the life of a baby that survived an abortion attempt.

A Fake, Fraud and Boldface liar. He claims he never heard his mentor of 20 plus years talk in such an ugly divisive way. The guy that married him and baptized his children. Do you believe that? I don't. If you believe that your an idiot. It became politically correct to throw Wright under the bus and that's what he did.

Obama has proposed effective tax increases of 20% or more in the two top income-tax rates, phasing out the personal exemptions and all itemized deductions for top earners, as well as raising their tax rates. And this will create jobs how???

He wants a 33% increase in the tax rates on capital gains and dividends, an increase of 16% to 32% in the top payroll tax rate, reinstatement of the death tax with a 45% top rate, and a new payroll tax on employers estimated at 7% to help finance his health insurance plan. Now that's money out of my pocket.

He would increase corporate taxes by 25%, though American businesses already face the second-highest marginal tax rates in the industrialized world, thus directly harming manufacturing and job creation while weakening demand for the dollar. I'll be lucky if my company doesn't pack it up and head to India.

Supports fast track to millions of illegals to gain citizenship with free health care and of course those tax credits. You know the ones that you get at tax time. People who pay no income tax will now get a rebate check in the mail. Sounds like a kickback to me. Vote for me and I'll cut you a check. Oh and that's our tax dollars being spent there. But not to worry, he won't be raising my taxes. He said so.

Talks out of both sides of his mouth regarding the coal issue as we've seen in the last few days. Would have like to have heard him try to defend that during the debates but the liberal media was too bust dragging his carcass over the finish line.

Wants to increase foreign aid to the worlds poor. Sorry but charity begins at home especially in these times. Let somebody else pony up for a change. We are already the most generous nation on earth.

Has made statements indicating he wants to "obsolete Cold War weapons", to Russian and Chinese glee, include the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the F/A-22 Raptor to replace our aging F-15s, the wings of which are literally falling off. Would also eliminate two Air Force fighter wings. Our already depleted Navy would eliminate an aircraft carrier group as both China and Russia are building them. Gone too would be the Virginia-class attack submarine and the DDG 1000 Zumwalt Class destroyer.

So that's a quick snapshot why I don't like the guy. There's really nothing here for you to debate. My biggest problem with him is I think he's a FLAWED, FRAUD candidate. Remarkable isn't it.

[Slider]

And you say I use talking points. Reads like a list right from GOP.com.

You can have all the opinions you want. I never said otherwise. I said you need more than an opinion because everyone has one, like you know whats.

Example - unremarkable record. You want me to believe that you actually parsed it, then compared to ANYONE else's? We both know that didn't happen.

"bribes" from FNMA. You don't like political contributions from a specific source, to effing bad. It wasn't and isn't a crime and has no weight whatsoever unless you are prepared to compare it to ANY other candidates record. Again, we both know that didn't happen, and you only took some crap from a blog site and ran with it.

The best one is about his 'associations.' You don't have a clue about the depth of them, what transpired between him and anyone you name. You prefer to ignore that six degrees of separation can connect YOU to Farrakhan or anyone else, and some biased moron can plant that on a web site. You don't seem to understand the mechanism of smear doesn't need to have any basis in fact, and again you run with whatever crap you can find, completely regardless of any sort of critical perspective of the source.

The liberal thing does come from the GOP, but, if course, you haven't done any sort of analysis to back up their statement. Got some stats, or just more GOP opinions? What you really missing, though, is that "liberal" is an asset these days. "Conservative" got us where we are.

Tax policy - the Republicans have had a lot of opportunities to employ trickle down theory, deregulation, and breaks for the wealthy, all components of Vodoo Economics that Bush senior referred to back in the Reagan era. Times up, it failed.

Foreign aid - ever wonder why the third world hates us? Where terrorists are bred? I'll use the phrase "spread the wealth around" because if we don't, the world will become, as it already is, a much more hostile place. Look past your nose on that one.

Defense spending - The US spends almost as much on its military as the rest of the countries in the world combined. You think it might need some reining in? And taking any single military weapon or sytem and criticizing the budget is just plain stupid, and a classic smear tactic. It means nothing without a lot more complex budget analysis. So your claims mean absolutely nothing, presented in a vacuum as they were, the same vacuum they were presented in on whatever blog site you lifted them from.

Opinions are fine. They don't persuade anyone if you can't support them.

Slider

[kernel crash]

There you go again. Like a college professor that feels a need to correct his "students" papers. Or to get the last word in. Everything I listed above are facts. Indisputable. I didn't lift them off of any web site. If I had gone to such a web site I would have had 4 times as much information to list. I think 99% of people looking at this would have to agree. They may not agree with my points or why I feel strongly about them but they would feel that I am entitled to feel the way I do for the reasons listed above. But you have to keep peeling away at it like your performing an exorcism. Get off your high horse man, the altitude is making you dizzy.

"ever wonder why the third world hates us?"

No. Actually I don't give a crap about what anybody outside this country except for our closest allies (Canada, Briton, Austrailia) think about us. Nobody is going to defend this nation but us. We have to do what is in our best interest for our own survival. What now we should bribe the rest of the world to love us. Haven't we shelled out enough money over the years doing that.

[Slider]

You offer no proof, just a load of opinions, but you mistake them for facts. Your term paper gets an F for a complete lack of effort.

Slider

[kernel crash]

You offer no proof, just a load of opinions, but you mistake them for facts. Your term paper gets an F for a complete lack of effort.

Slider

Slider I'm going to make this as simple as I can make it. Obama lied when he told us that in 20 plus years he never heard Reverend Wright speak with such hatred and bigotry. I'd have an easier time in believing in Santa Claus. So right there I don't trust his explanations for his past associations. He's a liar and a fraud. Case closed. Its a matter of common sense and listening to what your gut tells you. The rest of my points can all be confirmed on the net. Peace to you in these trouble times.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Troubles times indeed.
http://voices.kansascity.com/node/2670
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU&eurl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCeD1RcJjAg&eurl (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCeD1RcJjAg&eurl=http://www.sternfannetwork.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=408600)

[Slider]

That guy with the nightstick in PA must have been scary. Obama won by 600,000 votes there. I'm glad Fox was on top of it.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

More scary was the implicit threat of largescale riots should Obama have lost. I'm sure you believe this was nothing more than media created paranoia, but the media had nothing to do with the prost-Rodney King riots, except that they were there to record much of it. Either way, such a reaction is unjustified. Then again, what do I know. I'm one of the evil white people, but not a self-hating evil white person like some.

[DVRider]

Troubles times indeed.
http://voices.kansascity.com/node/2670
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU&eurl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCeD1RcJjAg&eurl

What are you talkin about? Things are going to just swell... and free!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6ikOxi9yYk

[kernel crash]

What are you talkin about? Things are going to just swell... and free!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6ikOxi9yYk

Good example of the dumbing down of Amerika. Of course she is only one person but I bet there are thousands who think like her. Hmmm. Let me change that to many, many thousands. Boy are they in for a rude awakening. It's actually going to be entertaining to watch this play out. Falling behind on your car payment? Yo Obama. Spread a little of that wealth over here will ya.

[Mr_Cheeze]

What's going to happen is that in four years, all of those newly registered black voters are going to be bitter at things for not having changed enough for them, and they won't be so eager to enter the polls in 2012.

[Slider]

America can't get any more dumbed down than it was when it voted in Bush, especially for a second term. Google any of those morons who thought that Iraq had something to do with terrorism, even long after the invasion, for support on that one.

Climbing out the disaster he created will surely take a long time, but at least there will be some sanity at the controls.

Slider

[kernel crash]

It isn't welfare or a handout. We bought assets and invested directly into the banks. Handouts are what happened when the S and L failures occured in the late 80's. This is a far better approach than handing off bags of cash to the connected. When the upturn does come, and it will, taxpayers will get at worst most of their money back, and at best more than what they invested.

Slider

Seems the rules have changed a bit. Still think we'll see our ROI when the real estate market comes back?

I say let the auto makers lie in the holes they dug. Stronger auto companies will move in and pick up the pieces. The results will be more viable auto companies to take us into the next decade. And the unions contract that bankrupt the auto industry will now be null and void. Newer companies will now be able to move forward without the shackles of those contracts. Will the Democrats let that happen? They owe the unions don't they. I see more spreading in the weeks to come. Of course the taxpayers will be ask to bend over and spread them.

[Slider]

I invested in BOA recently myself. I think the banks will come back. If I could, I'd have bought the mortgage securities directly, but Bernanke thinks that won't get credit flowing fast enough for a bailout. I wouldn't mind waiting, but the country can't.

I don't think the car manufacturers have the same upside as the banks. I'd let the auto companies go bankrupt, but the fear is that we'll lose several million jobs and deepen the recession. I've heard a 3 million estimate if they all folded. If that happens, the debt shift is then to all the suppliers instead of the taxpayer. I don't have a problem with that, but it would mean we'll be in this mess a lot longer.

Slider

[Slider]

So much for Ayers and Obama plotting together to... we'll I never was too clear on exactly what the grand plan is supposed to be. Palin is still spouting **** about it.

Watch. Here come a slew of reasons why Ayers would lie. Tune to Fox for rationalization du jour.

Slider

Ayers says 'secret link' with Obama is a 'myth'
Story Highlights
Anti-Vietnam War activist William Ayers spoke to ABC on Friday

Ayers is a founder of the radical Weather Underground group

He says "a secret link" between him and Obama is a "myth"

McCain-Palin ticket used Ayers to criticize Obama during the campaign

(CNN) -- Anti-Vietnam War activist William Ayers spoke out for the first time Friday, calling the Republican effort to tie him to President-elect Barack Obama during the election campaign a "dishonest narrative" with the intent of "demonizing" Ayers.

Republicans pushed Democrat Obama's "association" with Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground, which bombed the Pentagon, the U.S. Capitol and other targets in the early 1970s.

Former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin repeatedly accused Obama, who met Ayers in 1995 when the former 1960s radical was a professor at the University of Chicago, of "palling around with terrorists." Sen. John McCain frequently called on Obama to "come clean" about his relationship with the "unrepentant terrorist."

But in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America," Ayers told anchor Chris Cuomo that he doesn't know Obama any better than "thousands of other Chicagoans" and that "a secret link" between the two men is a "myth."

"I became an issue unwittingly and unwillingly in the campaign, and I decided that I didn't want to answer any of it at that moment because it was such a profoundly dishonest narrative," Ayers said.

Asked about the issue in his final debate with McCain, Obama, who was 8 years old at the time of the Weather Underground bombings, said he has "roundly condemned those acts."

"Mr. Ayers is not involved in my campaign, he has never been involved in this campaign, and he will not advise me in the White House," he said.

During the campaign, Republicans zeroed in on Ayers' 2001 quote, "I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough" to stop the Vietnam War, and accused Obama of launching his political career in Ayers' living room -- at a 1995 coffee gathering as he began his campaign for the Illinois state Senate.

"We had him in our home, and I think he was probably in 20 homes that day," Ayers said, also refusing to back down from his previous comments. Watch Ayers discuss his relationship with Obama »

"I don't think we did enough," he added, "just as today, I don't think we've done enough to stop these wars, and I think we must all recognize the injustice of it and do more."

Since the coffee meeting, Ayers and Obama served together on the boards of the Woods Fund of Chicago and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Ayers said the relationship was never more than civic-minded and professional.

"This idea that we need to know more, like there's a dark hidden secret, a secret link, is just a myth," Ayers said. "And it's a myth thrown up by people who kind of wanted to exploit the politics of fear, and I think it's a great credit to the American people that those politics were rejected."

On Wednesday, Palin told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that Obama's relationship with Ayers is "an association that still bothers me."

"I still am concerned about that association with Bill Ayers," Palin said. "And if anybody still wants to talk about it, I will, because this is an unrepentant domestic terrorist who had campaigned to blow up, to destroy our Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol."

"I don't buy the idea that guilt by association should be any part of our politics," Ayers said Friday. "And the interesting thing is ,as much as this was created as an issue in the campaign, it appears for most people it was -- it had no traction; it had no meaning."

Ayers turned himself in to federal authorities in 1980 to face charges of inciting to riot and conspiring to bomb government buildings, but charges against him were dropped.

The Weather Underground bomb at the Pentagon went off in a women's restroom on the Air Force wing, causing extensive flooding that destroyed some classified computer tapes. The Capitol bomb was set in a men's restroom and caused about $100,000 in damage.

Both bombs were preceded by warnings that they would take place and caused no injuries or deaths, as was the case with about 20 other bombings for which the group claimed responsibility.

Three Weather Underground members were killed in 1970, however, when the bomb they were building exploded prematurely.

[Slider]

Just in case there are any head-in-the-sand holdouts who STILL maintain that a few rogue servicemen and women managed the torture at Guantanamo, this bi-partisan report takes it right back to Bush. It will be a real relief to watch the scumbag walk out the door.

Slider

Report blames officials for abuse of detainees
Says Rumsfeld, others at fault for offenses
By Joby Warrick, Washington Post | December 12, 2008

WASHINGTON - A bipartisan Senate report released yesterday says that former Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other top Bush administration officials are directly responsible for abuses of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and charges that decisions by those officials led to serious offenses against prisoners in Iraq and elsewhere.

The Senate Armed Services Committee report accuses Rumsfeld and his deputies of being the principal architects of the plan to use harsh interrogation techniques on captured fighters and terrorism suspects, rejecting the Bush administration's contention that the policies originated lower down the command chain.

"The abuse of detainees in US custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of 'a few bad apples' acting on their own," the panel concludes. "The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees."

The report, released by Senators Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, and Republican John McCain of Arizona, and based on a nearly two-year investigation, said that both the policies and resulting controversies tarnished the reputation of the United States and undermined national security. "Those efforts damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority," it said.

The panel's investigation focused on the Defense Department's use of controversial interrogation practices, including forced nudity, painful stress positions, sleep deprivation, extreme temperatures, and use of dogs. The practices, some of which had already been adopted by the CIA at its secret prisons, were adapted for interrogations at Guantanamo Bay and later migrated to US detention camps in Afghanistan and Iraq, including the infamous Abu Ghraib prison.

"The committee's report details the inexcusable link between abusive interrogation techniques used by our enemies who ignored the Geneva Conventions and interrogation policy for detainees in US custody," McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, said in a statement. "These policies are wrong and must never be repeated."

White House officials have maintained the measures were approved in response to demands from field officers who complained that traditional interrogation methods weren't working on some of the more hardened captives. But Senate investigators, relying on documents and hours of hearing testimony, had a different conclusion.

The true genesis of the decision to use coercive techniques, the report said, was a memo signed by President Bush on Feb. 7, 2002, declaring that the Geneva Conventions' standards for humane treatment did not apply to captured Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters. As early as that spring, the panel said, top administration officials, including National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, participated in meetings in which the use of coercive measures was discussed.

The panel drew on a written statement by Rice earlier this year.

[kernel crash]

"the report said, was a memo signed by President Bush on Feb. 7, 2002, declaring that the Geneva Conventions' standards for humane treatment did not apply to captured Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters."

And he's right. So what's the problem? Lets see how fast BO closes down Guantanamo. And speaking of BO, I have to agree with Dennis miller on this one.

"Miller: "It’s just nice to know that my President-elect went through that entire system – all of these guys – Ayers, Blagojevich, Rezko, the Reverend Wright – and he didn’t notice any of them. At his worst, he is oblivious. At his absolute worst, he is disingenuous. He had to know something about some of these guys. ... We’re told that he’s the smartest guy on the planet on one hand. In the other hand, he never noticed any of this stuff. Come on, get the antenna up there, Barack. You got to wake up.""

You can't make this stuff up.

[Slider]

Great source, a comedian. Glad you search for high authority on these things. He's as cluless as you are regarding what Obama had to do with any of those guys.

The US has its own laws governing the use of torture, and it isn't for the President to ignore selectively ANY law, and it sure isn't for him to lie to Congress about it.

Slider

[Slider]

This pretty much covers it all. We need to air this out in hearings and trials. We can't let scumbags like Bush and Rumsfeld pervert our laws long term, and the only way to ensure the rule of law on things like this is to openly investigate.

Slider

December 18, 2008
Editorial, NY Times
The Torture Report
Most Americans have long known that the horrors of Abu Ghraib were not the work of a few low-ranking sociopaths. All but President Bush’s most unquestioning supporters recognized the chain of unprincipled decisions that led to the abuse, torture and death in prisons run by the American military and intelligence services.

Now, a bipartisan report by the Senate Armed Services Committee has made what amounts to a strong case for bringing criminal charges against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld; his legal counsel, William J. Haynes; and potentially other top officials, including the former White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff.

The report shows how actions by these men “led directly” to what happened at Abu Ghraib, in Afghanistan, in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and in secret C.I.A. prisons.

It said these top officials, charged with defending the Constitution and America’s standing in the world, methodically introduced interrogation practices based on illegal tortures devised by Chinese agents during the Korean War. Until the Bush administration, their only use in the United States was to train soldiers to resist what might be done to them if they were captured by a lawless enemy.

The officials then issued legally and morally bankrupt documents to justify their actions, starting with a presidential order saying that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to prisoners of the “war on terror” — the first time any democratic nation had unilaterally reinterpreted the conventions.

•

That order set the stage for the infamous redefinition of torture at the Justice Department, and then Mr. Rumsfeld’s authorization of “aggressive” interrogation methods. Some of those methods were torture by any rational definition and many of them violate laws and treaties against abusive and degrading treatment.

These top officials ignored warnings from lawyers in every branch of the armed forces that they were breaking the law, subjecting uniformed soldiers to possible criminal charges and authorizing abuses that were not only considered by experts to be ineffective, but were actually counterproductive.

One page of the report lists the repeated objections that President Bush and his aides so blithely and arrogantly ignored: The Air Force had “serious concerns regarding the legality of many of the proposed techniques”; the chief legal adviser to the military’s criminal investigative task force said they were of dubious value and may subject soldiers to prosecution; one of the Army’s top lawyers said some techniques that stopped well short of the horrifying practice of waterboarding “may violate the torture statute.” The Marines said they “arguably violate federal law.” The Navy pleaded for a real review.

The legal counsel to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time started that review but told the Senate committee that her boss, Gen. Richard Myers, ordered her to stop on the instructions of Mr. Rumsfeld’s legal counsel, Mr. Haynes.

The report indicates that Mr. Haynes was an early proponent of the idea of using the agency that trains soldiers to withstand torture to devise plans for the interrogation of prisoners held by the American military. These trainers — who are not interrogators but experts only on how physical and mental pain is inflicted and may be endured — were sent to work with interrogators in Afghanistan, in Guantánamo and in Iraq.

On Dec. 2, 2002, Mr. Rumsfeld authorized the interrogators at Guantánamo to use a range of abusive techniques that were already widespread in Afghanistan, enshrining them as official policy. Instead of a painstaking legal review, Mr. Rumsfeld based that authorization on a one-page memo from Mr. Haynes. The Senate panel noted that senior military lawyers considered the memo “ ‘legally insufficient’ and ‘woefully inadequate.’ ”

Mr. Rumsfeld rescinded his order a month later, and narrowed the number of “aggressive techniques” that could be used at Guantánamo. But he did so only after the Navy’s chief lawyer threatened to formally protest the illegal treatment of prisoners. By then, at least one prisoner, Mohammed al-Qahtani, had been threatened with military dogs, deprived of sleep for weeks, stripped naked and made to wear a leash and perform dog tricks. This year, a military tribunal at Guantánamo dismissed the charges against Mr. Qahtani.

The abuse and torture of prisoners continued at prisons run by the C.I.A. and specialists from the torture-resistance program remained involved in the military detention system until 2004. Some of the practices Mr. Rumsfeld left in place seem illegal, like prolonged sleep deprivation.

•

These policies have deeply harmed America’s image as a nation of laws and may make it impossible to bring dangerous men to real justice. The report said the interrogation techniques were ineffective, despite the administration’s repeated claims to the contrary.

Alberto Mora, the former Navy general counsel who protested the abuses, told the Senate committee that “there are serving U.S. flag-rank officers who maintain that the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq — as judged by their effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat — are, respectively, the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo.”

We can understand that Americans may be eager to put these dark chapters behind them, but it would be irresponsible for the nation and a new administration to ignore what has happened — and may still be happening in secret C.I.A. prisons that are not covered by the military’s current ban on activities like waterboarding.

A prosecutor should be appointed to consider criminal charges against top officials at the Pentagon and others involved in planning the abuse.

•

Given his other problems — and how far he has moved from the powerful stands he took on these issues early in the campaign — we do not hold out real hope that Barack Obama, as president, will take such a politically fraught step.

At the least, Mr. Obama should, as the organization Human Rights First suggested, order his attorney general to review more than two dozen prisoner-abuse cases that reportedly were referred to the Justice Department by the Pentagon and the C.I.A. — and declined by Mr. Bush’s lawyers.

Mr. Obama should consider proposals from groups like Human Rights Watch and the Brennan Center for Justice to appoint an independent panel to look into these and other egregious violations of the law. Like the 9/11 commission, it would examine in depth the decisions on prisoner treatment, as well as warrantless wiretapping, that eroded the rule of law and violated Americans’ most basic rights. Unless the nation and its leaders know precisely what went wrong in the last seven years, it will be impossible to fix it and make sure those terrible mistakes are not repeated.

We expect Mr. Obama to keep the promise he made over and over in the campaign — to cheering crowds at campaign rallies and in other places, including our office in New York. He said one of his first acts as president would be to order a review of all of Mr. Bush’s executive orders and reverse those that eroded civil liberties and the rule of law.

That job will fall to Eric Holder, a veteran prosecutor who has been chosen as attorney general, and Gregory Craig, a lawyer with extensive national security experience who has been selected as Mr. Obama’s White House counsel.

A good place for them to start would be to reverse Mr. Bush’s disastrous order of Feb. 7, 2002, declaring that the United States was no longer legally committed to comply with the Geneva Conventions.