Debate the debate
 

Come on guys.... you know you want to do it! Where are all those staunch McCain supporters this morning? Tell us again how Palin is going to save the ticket from the grasp of this bumbling fossil. I so MISS that "whooshing" sound that supposedly sounded Obama's defeat only a few weeks ago. :D

I heard (not sure if it's true) that Fox was too embarrassed to even run a poll on their website. :eek:

Do you still believe that the Palin phoenix can counter the Bush albatross around the neck of the McCain buzzard?

Keep it civil now! You know I'm still undecided..... and the right words could still sway my vote! ;)

This should go well... ;)

The Debate was a bore fest. I'm to the point where I could care less who wins. In fact I would kind of like to see Obama win. I think it might get exciting if he is elected.

I only caught bits and pieces and neither candidate impressed me. Biden and Palin were far better.

The election is far from over, too, and there is not much of a gap between Obama and McCain. I still say that without Palin, McCain would have been annihilated on election day. The fact that it's still close, tells me that Palin did indeed resurrect McCain's chances. Whether it will be enough to give him the White House, remains to be seen.

But you know, there's a small part of me that hopes Obama wins the election. It'll be nice to say "I told you so" a few months into '09.

They haven't pulled out the big guns yet.
Wait until the last week....Palin will wear a tight sweater with no bra...
and the race will be over.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRCBsFaUz_Y&feature=user
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiFm8cpzoiw&feature=user
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtJkTAS2z6Y&feature=user
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02zpXmFEUaY&feature=user
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXTUT-jMttc

Hobo...too bad you can't see these youtube links...they are hilarious. :D

'sokay, Hoggie. Every now and then I go over to my Dad's house and watch them there. He has RoadRunner. Next time I go, I'll take him a pair of speakers! :eek:

Oh, but thanks for a few words to explain your postion. Kept me from going OFF on ya! :D

And, don't count on the sweater tactic. I guess she's about a B. Nothing to cry about, but probably not enough to sway too many votes!

Twilight Flyer said:

Well, certainly more entertaining!.... wink, click, there ya go, JOE!

You think so? Obama has like 269 electoral votes in the bank, and leads in, I think, 4 or 5 battleground states by about 4 to 5% (or at least within the margin of error.) And, IIRC, that's even GIVING Florida to McCain.... which is NOT a given. Sure.... there is still a month to go. But, most analysts are calling it already unless something drastic happens.

Gee, I don't remember you saying that, but I give you credit for your accumen. No doubt Palin was chosen (as I said,) JUST as a way to sway votes from both independents and conservatives who were drifting the other way...(and women, of course)... with NO consideration to her abilities to fill the job, or to step in if needed.

Cynical are we? And what makes you think some couldn't say the same thing at the same time if McCain wins? But, more to the point... what will America be saying 4 years in? A question lost in all the debates lately is "are you better off today than you were in 2000?" I doubt many can claim they are (with the possible exception of Sarah Palin.) ;)

I don't know of any O/O's who can. Or any trucking companies who can. Or many Bank employees who can. And the list goes on.

But, this is not really a thread about the election. I just want to hear from someone who thinks McCain WON the "townhall" debate he has been crying for. And that it somehow built on the performance of sweet Sarah last Thursday. I want to hear how the Straight Talk (bumbling) Express is going to steamroll their way into the White House, especially on the shoulder (pads) of Palin.... as was promised by so many here a few weeks ago. ;)

Whatever trips your trigger. I watched the Palin/Biden debate and came away with the following:

1. I trust Biden more than I trust McCain or Obama
2. I trust Palin more than I trust any of the other three.
3. Palin and Biden were both infinitely more likeable and reachable than either McCain or Obama.
4. Biden and Palin should both dump their running mates and run a Biden/Palin ticket. I believe they'd win hands down because McCain Republicans that detest Obama can tolerate Biden and Obama democrats that detest McCain can tolerate Palin. And yes, that's a ticket I could get behind very easily, even with Biden at the POTUS.

After careful consideration and watching a replay of their debate, I called it a draw. I thought Biden edged Palin out on knowledge, but I gave the edge to Palin on presentability. She clearly had Biden against the ropes a couple of times and she maintained or composure throughout the whole thing.

Provide proof please. But let me help you out...no one has any electoral votes in the bank yet and all Rove was doing was postulating on what he thought was happening. He very well may be right, but that won't bear out until November.

Most of the analysts that are calling it for Obama have a vested interest in him winning and are hoping that it will deter McCain supporters from voting. How about this. When the final numbers come out, that's what I'll believe.

Point out to me where I said McCain was going to win before Palin was chosen. Find a post where I said I was voting for McCain before Palin was chosen. I'll save you the trouble. You can't.

Until Palin was chosen, I was undecided. Obama will never ever get my vote, period. He's a slick talking sleazebag that stands against just about everything I believe in. So that was always a given that I would vote for anyone but Obama. However, my thoughts on McCain for the entire time was that he was given to us by the democrats who didn't want to see Romney or Gulianni on the ticket. True or not, the fact is that McCain isn't the strongest candidate that the Republicans could front and I believe fully that when McCain won it, he was going to be the sacrafial lamb for the Republicans getting back the White House in '12, which will certainly happen if Obama wins. But then something happened that people on both sides of the political fence didn't expect. McCain started picking up support and gaining strength. Instead of being written off, strategists went to work and adding Palin to the ticket was a stroke of genius. Adding Palin to the ticket was what got my vote. Why? Because she's not a Washington insider and she's more like you and me than anyone else put out there for us to vote for.

Is she lacking in some areas? Of course...she's not part of the Washington elite. She's a mayor turned governer with more executive experience than the other 3 candidates combined, but lacking the national and international knowledge to be an immediate shining star on stage. But I'm fine with that. She's running as VP and not as POTUS, but if McCain were to win and then die in office, I'd be fine with Palin as POTUS because that's what a cabinet is for.

But that's neither here nor there. What's happening here is you're trying to claim I said something I didn't, which is apparently par for the course for liberals these days.

Look. The election is a month away. Obama hasn't survived anything yet and he hasn't been hit with any of the big bombs yet, from McCain or the Clintons. He's going to take some nasty hits in the next few weeks and McCain won't. The reason for that is McCain's dirty laundry has long been out on the table, hashed and rehashed ad nauseum. With Obama, however, we're getting new things about his sleazy background every day and it's going to whittle away his support. Will it be enough to get McCain in the White House? I hope so. I do know this...he wouldn't even be an afterthought if he hadn't brought Palin onto the ticket.

Yes, I am. McCain and Obama both have a real chance of winning the election. If Obama wins, I already know what that's going to mean for our country. And yes, I'll take perverse satisfaction in saying "I told you so" to a hell of a lot of people and I make no apologies for it. You get what you vote for and it'll be a rude awakening for a lot of liberals and probably long overdue coming.

I am far more comfortable with what McCain is bringing to the table that Obama. But I'm not a socialist, either. :rolleyes:

I watched it and listened to it again this morning on the satalite radio. Complete and total bore. Most all polls are saying Obama Won but I don't see as there was a clear winner or looser.

I didn't find those funny at all. I guess I suck...

I forgive you, for I'm sure I laughed hard enough for both of us. (nod--wink--eh?)
But I am Joe six pack, and I'm easily amused, by golly geez, doncha know..eh? http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l2...nd10/shrug.gif
Boobage, and hockey, ummm things that America wants, John S. McCain he's a hero, Alaska...great State that Alaska...energy... and good-good people. http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l2...nd10/smile.gif

I really don't know whats wrong with Hobo. I think the choice is clear. Boobage. Now if you wanna cry about the size of Boobage, then that is sad really. I fear for Hobo if McCain is elected. I'm really concerned...but one might think Boobage would sooth and comfort those who can't cope with what is clearly a McCain victory.

McCain blew Obama away in that debate. He circled around that stage like a wolf studying his prey, and waited for the right moment to attack. Obama sat on a chair limp and unassuming like a dumb energizer bunny mouthing change-tax, change-tax, change-tax.....and you know Obama was thinking about Palins boobage.http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l2...10/s6vhaha.gif

With the more I hear about ACORN WHICH YOUR MESSIAH GHOBO OBAMA was an Atty for in Chicago along with Ayers gave them MILLIONS of bucks from a board that Ayers created Obama was the head of for years the more I am glad that the fraud that ACORN is being exposed and being ivestigated that Obama is being EXPOSED for the FRAUD AND THUG AND YES HE IS NOTHING BUT A CHICAGO THUG POLITICAN GOLFHOBO. He worked with a group that threatened to KIDNAP BANKERS FAMILIES AKA ACORN IF THEY WOULD NOT OPEN UP THEIR LENDING STANDARDS THEN ALSO TOOK THEM TO COURT TO MAKE THEM OPEN UP MORE AFTER THEY WERE FORCED VIA CORERCION TO DO THAT ALREADY.

No offense, golfhobo, but you are doing a hell of a job representing everything that is wrong with politics today, and you have been for quite some time now. Your "if you're not with me, you're against me" attitude is what is dividing this country down the middle, and is what causes things like your alleged "stolen election" of 2000. Rather than actually discussing real issues, it appears as if you'd sooner discuss why "your guy" beat "the other guy".

Who cares who won the debate? Does who the talking heads found to be more likable during a debate solve any of the crisis that we find ourselves in today?

I'd like to see you actually discuss the issues of the debate, rather than parrot what the talking heads said in the recaps about who won what. I'm not holding my breath that you are capable of doing it, however.

No offense taken, Rev. I guess you didn't understand the title of the thread. ;)

If I wanted to discuss the issues, I'd have titled it "debate the issues."

I have, actually, thought about that, but I'm not sure it would do any good. No one here is going to change their minds probably. I just remembered all the "whooping it up" a few weeks ago when Palin was selected, and how everyone was so sure that Obama was toast. Thought I might see if they all still felt that way. I just found it interesting that no one was saying anything about Tuesday's debate.

I think you're giving me way too much credit for the situation in our country today. Personally, I don't feel that I have a "with me or against me" attitude. That is a Conservative mantra. Ann Coulter is the queen of it.

"I" am not the one who comes on here with all the hate about the other side's candidate. Obama has been skewered on this board nearly on a daily basis. So has anyone who supports him or doesn't join in the hate.

Prolifers have called anyone who believes in choice a murderer. ProWar opinions paint anyone who is against it as a coward or traitor. Capitalists have called anyone who thinks the middle class is being exploited or at least abused a liberal pinko socialist or worse. The list goes on.

Sure, I have said some derogatory things about Conservatives here. But, I have never called them anti-American. I have never said they should be shot for holding the opinions they have. (Well, maybe Dubya...in jest.) Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, as well as Coulter, are the ones saying "with us or against us," and it seems to have infected many here.

I am only trying to say that we have a RIGHT to disagree with their oppressive and dogmatic views that this is somehow THEIR country and it should be run THEIR way. It is, in fact, THEIR rhetoric that has divided the country to the point it is. I have said many times that I hold certain conservative views, but when I feel my party is being labeled as anti-American, I fight back by attacking this agenda of domination.

To be honest, it really surprises me that this country IS so evenly split. Figure the odds of that. But, I believe our "representative" form of government is mostly to blame...not ME. Not saying we could have done differently, but what we've been doing doesn't seem to work too well.

I know it wouldn't work in this country, but I would love to see something more like a government by committee (a form of politbureau if you will.) Can you imagine a "co presidency" headed by the top choice of BOTH parties? Might things be more fair in this country if two guys (or gals) had to sit down and hash out an agenda that would satisfy us all? Or maybe it would just be easier if Presidents didn't feel the need to advance their OWN agenda over the objection of nearly half the citizens.

You want an issue? How about this one. Why is it even the power or responsibility of a President.... beholding to a party and an agenda..... to appoint the justices to the Supreme Court? How can that so-called "equal" branch of the government be impartial under such a selection process? If I'm not mistaken, MOST lower court judges have to run for and win an election. But, somewhere up the line, their decisions are subject to the "opinions" of politically appointed justices.

And, if you think of the logic of it, it frees them up from worrying about re-elections. They are appointed, so they do not have to worry about popular opinion when they hand down their decisions. They can work strictly off the issues as they see them, and look at the evidence objectively. But, it also leaves you with no recourse if their decisions are erronious. There's good and bad either way. Our founding fathers thought this was the best way to do it, and that's what we're stuck with, like it or not.

Windwalker

P. S. You are invited to put your two cents in on my thread as well. That should be a very good discussion.;):rolleyes::cool:

Okay, that is a good point.... freedom from the electoral process and all the baggage that goes with THAT! But, they are still confirmed by Congress, and "they" ARE subject to re-election. It's a vicious cycle.

Our country has long since lost the feeling of standing up for what one believes and winning or losing on one's own merits. I will say, to their credit, that most Supreme Court candidates DO stand in the box under their own merits and accept their fate accordingly. But, there is just no process whereby a justice would be there UNLESS he conforms to SOME degree to the agenda of the sitting president.

Our forefathers ALSO felt that a representative form of government was best, and that the electoral college would CLEARLY discern that. But, all of THAT has been corrupted, too!

I'm in no way dissing our forefathers. I think they did a remarkable job under the circumstances. But, never forget that they also said that the Constitution should be a "living document," one that could change as the country grew. And, of course.... it has, through ammendments.

I wish it were true. But, most recent cases have been decided by numbers that clearly represent their political views, or those of the president who appointed them. Surely, you haven't missed all the discussion about when and how many might be appointed under which administration? There is clearly a national concern over this.

Here's another of Hobo's wacky ideas..... instead of having an ODD number of justices, where a majority vote is at least "easier" to come up with, how about an EVEN number? Rationale behind that would be similar to the committee reference above. "Assuming" that they were impartial, or at least evenly distributed between the two parties, in order to make ANY decision, more than likely someone would have to be persuaded to vote their conscience, or to vote for the common good. Probably wouldn't work..... it's just an idea I've toyed with.

But you're not even debating the debate. You're debating the debaters.

You have assumed (on several occasions) that because I do not like Obama, and feel he is a poor choice for a candidate for the POTUS, that McCain was "my man". You've used that exact phrase, several times. Frankly, I believe McCain is as lousy a Presidential choice as Obama is, and stand behind neither of them. So I believe I am correct in stating that you are guilty of that same "profiling" that you are pointing the finger at others for doing.

There is a completely valid reason for that. Our forefathers did not want our representatives to be appointed for life. They saw our government as fluid, and changing hands over and over. Unfortunately, most of that has been lost over the years as those in power spent more and more money to keep themselves in power. Our forefathers are likely spinning in their graves, seeing what our Democracy has become.

You are absolutely right. This is why SC judges are, and should be, a lifetime appointment. That way, a POTUS appoints a justice, and then another POTUS appoints another one, and so on and so forth. No one President is capable of "packing the bench".

Rev.Vassago said:

Well.... I have barely had a chance to debate much of anything until the last few posts. If you'll note, in my opening post, I COULD have given my opinion on the debate, but I chose to just put the question out there to see what responses were offered. So far, it seems to have worked.

You are partially correct, Rev. I don't recall using the term you quoted concerning you, but if I did, it MAY have been before I actually got some understanding of your position. Your one or two word answers don't give one much to go on, ya know. But, I DO recall you standing up for Obama when others slammed him, IIRC. And, I'll admit... that impressed me. If I have offended you by lumping you in with others, I apologize. However, you have made posts that indicate a position somewhat opposite of mine on many political issues. Does that mean you are "against us" on all issues? No. But, I contend that it is the result of the Conservative mantra against anyone who isn't ONE of them, that has made me respond at times in the same manner. Your point, though, is taken. I will make an increased effort to isolate you from the others. ;)

I certainly agree with this, and stated as much. My point to W/W was that popular opinion (AND presidential agenda) STILL had much to do with who got appointed to the Court.

I agree with the lifetime tenure part. I believe it is the only sensible thing about it. As for "packing the bench," your point is valid, and in principle, I don't disagree. However, that doesn't change my concern about the POTUS even having anything to DO with the process. I am just saying, and wishing, that there was a more impartial way to appoint/select our top judges. Not to gratuitously slam Bush.... but, a president with such a low approval rating should have NO input into the makeup of the Supreme Court. I don't claim to have an answer to the problem. It's just an issue for debate.... though not one even related to the elections.

You know, I debated for a while posting this, but after the last post, I'm laying out my cards.

This country is divided because half the country has forsaken God or morality or basic common sense and human decency. Now it's all about "if it feels good, it's A-OK." I don't nor will I ever subscribe to that tenet. So, because we don't believe in same-sex marriage or abortion or coddling criminals and murderers or propping up a nation of welfare cheats, we are automatically the problem or anti-American.

And that's bullspit.

I guarantee you...go back in history and see how and what this country was founded on and you'll see that today's liberal mindset isn't even in the same ballpark. Even if you want to keep God out of the equation, you still aren't even close.

But I don't worry about it. I continue to vote the issues and the person that most agrees with my philosophy in life. And it damn sure isn't Obama. You talk about getting angry when Obama is skewered? What has he done NOT to deserve it?!? You seem to think it's fine to take your own shots at Bush and McCain and Palin, but Lord have mercry if someone talks bad about your own personal Messiah.

Makes me sick.

I hope and pray that McCain wins in November. But if Obama wins, I won't sweat it. I'm already well prepared to deal with the fallout and I'll enjoy seeing liberals "get what's coming to them" because I promise you that it's coming and it's coming in spades. Right or wrong, that's exactly how I feel. I've grown so weary and sick of the garbage that gets spewed out every day by the liberal and far left talking heads and then have to hear it again parrotted by their followers and then told I'm stupid or intolerant because I happen to be old fashioned and practice and believe in conservative values, in this country's founding fathers visions, and in God. I don't have anything against anyone in particular that believes differently, but I'll not apologize for saying that I believe that your liberal ideology, if that is your system, is completely screwed up.

You, however, like most liberals, cannot do the same thing. You cannot seperate the mindset from the person and everyone that believes differently than you is automatically the enemy, stupid, clueless, racist, homophobic, and any other number of hate tags you can slap on us. Right there is your division and it's being led by your Messiah, Barak Obama.

The President's picks have to make their way through Congress. The whole "checks and balances" thing at work. The only other option would be to have Congress pick the judges, and the President approve of them. Either way, he has a hand in it. That's how our government system works, and for good reason. If a President picks someone, and Congress approves of that person, then Congress is as much to blame as the President. If Congress were to be given the choice, no judges would ever get picked, let alone approved.

Don't worry. It'll still be all Bush's fault, and the whole "stole the election" will never go away.;)

Now hold on there mister. As an Agnostic, I have to take issue with you putting that whole "not believing in God" thing on the shoulders of the liberals. That is the same stereotyping that I'm accusing golfhobo of being guilty of.

To be honest, it comes from both sides. You're guilty of doing it right here in your post. Just sayin'.:D


Rev; is so happy he no longer considers himself a Republican or a Democrat. Still voting for Ross Perot, too.:cool:

I could not have said this yesterday, because I didn't know about it. However, it seems that before Obama is a Democrat, he's a "NEW PARTY". He "signed a contract with them" in about 1995. First time I've ever heard of signing a contract with a political party. Sounds more like some kind of "POLITICAL MAFIA". And, even though he's not listed as a member in good standing, how far do you think he would have gotten if it became known that he was affiliated with them?

Last thing I heard on CNN was Obama claiming McCain is taking "CHEAP SHOTS" by bringing it up. But, the proof is there. Obama is about change, all right. I don't think they'll make it legal to bomb the Pentagon, but I shudder to think what direction that change will take.

Hobo, you did browse the thread I posted, didn't you? Did you read the articles? I did not make them up. It seems that the major news media has been GAGGED about that. WHY? For the first time in my life, I"M LOOKING AT A CANDIDATE AS AN ENEMY... For the very first time in my entire life. I can not believe he's gotten this far with that background. I do not know what his "REAL AGENDA" is, but I'm very sure we have not heard it yet. They're DOING exactly what I said WE have to do, quite some years ago. They're playing the game by the established rules, but they're PLAYING TO WIN.

When NJ voted in casino gambling in Atlantic City, I was living in Philadelphia. I was not connected to anyone where there were any records to show it. I was offered $12 million to buy a hotel and put in a casino. Guess who would have put up the money. It was illegal for anyone connected to the Mafia to have any part of it. And, if I had gone along with it, I would most likely be dead, buried, and forgotten by now.


They, themselves, can not try for office. Their record will come up very quickly. So, they've "SCRUBBED" all reference to Obama from their site. But, the records are available from another site that has "ARCHIVED" the information. Go to the thread I started and use the links. Round out your education. Get a degree in your candidate's background. If that's your idea of "LIBERAL", GOD help us all.

I will agree that there are far too many skeletons in Obama's closet, and far too many unanswered questions about his past. A candidate for the highest office in the land should not have to disavow his relationships just to make people feel better about him. If he has relationships like that, then he should be judged accordingly. The fact that it takes radical right wing news sources to bring them up sickens me.

I take it all back, Rev! I LIKE your one or two word posts!! :D:D

Twilight Flyer said:

I thought my last couple of posts were pretty tame. Ahhh... but, I see it was the one three posts back that irked you. Okay.... You've laid out your cards. I will discuss it in a rational manner.... NOT with the same attitude you are showing (we've played that game before, remember?)

See.... this is not a good way to start. Not if you want someone to respect your opinions. So, if it is a given that the division here is between Conservatives and Liberals... or even Republicans and Democrats... you are calling my entire party (and half the citizens of this country) amoral, atheistic, stupid and indecent. All the while pointing a finger at me for "profiling" those of your party. Wow! I think you just proved my point! :rolleyes:

For your information, I don't believe in same-sex marriage either, but I am against "favored tax status" for those who conform to religious tenets.

I'm not happy about abortion (and condemn late term abortions) but I believe it is the woman's choice... not YOURS.... and not our government's! You say you want smaller government and less intrusion, but you want them to have THAT much say, because it is YOUR "religious" belief.

I don't believe in coddling criminals either, but I DO have some doubts about the death penalty in any case where the missing DNA evidence "might" someday be exculpatory. I don't want to kill an innocent man.... so SUE me!

And I don't believe in welfare without "regulation." I supported the welfare to work program.

I never called those who believe as you do "anti-American." You read that wrong in your frenzy. I was saying that Ann Coulter, and HER type, have labeled those of US who disagree with the Conservative agenda as being so. I may be (by association) a lowlife, stupid, atheistic and immoral slug of a citizen.... but, I served under the flag of my country, and I will NOT let anyone call ME "anti-American" without a fight.

But, if I say (the collective) you are the problem, it is because you believe you have the right to force YOUR beliefs on us in the form of laws. Roe v. Wade does not FORCE your daughter to have an abortion, but it relieves MY daughter from being FORCED to do otherwise. What is next? Are you going to FORCE her (or me) to attend Church? To profess a belief in God? I believe they TRIED that during the Inquisition! :rolleyes:

Really? Let's see.... our most basic foundation was relief from RELIGIOUS persecution. It makes no difference that many of them were Christians or Quakers or whatever. The point was the freedom to worship as they chose, and to be free FROM laws that discriminated against those who didn't subscribe to the "religion of the land."

Next, I would say, would be rebellion against taxation without representation. The colonists had little or no representation in the courts of England, yet they were being taxed into poverty to support the crown. The "landed" Gentry were not so troubled.... they were getting "theirs," but the common man was being abused almost to the point of slavery or servitude. They SAW this inequity between themselves and the "rich and favored" class, and rebelled against it.

Another might actually BE the right of land ownership. This was a big sticky in England. So, we came here with the promise that any man could own land. Somewhere along the line, that became less possible for the average man. I'm not sure where, but I think it had to do with the fact that the crown GAVE large tracts of land to the wealthy and privileged, and the commoner had to somehow meet the price if he wanted an acre or two of his own. Of course... then he was taxed right back into the slums of town.

Another was a more equitable rule of LAW. Instead of being accused in back rooms of heretics and all forms of crimes, and judged by the Royal court (instead of their peers) our forefathers wanted a chance to defend themselves against libel and slander. And, if they couldn't AFFORD a lawyer for this purpose, our forefathers agreed they still had a RIGHT to one. But, this had to be paid for by the taxes on our citizens. Just another worthless "entitlement" to some, I suppose.

And, although I could discuss others, let's end with... and never forget.... the freedom of SPEECH! The right to speak out for what one believes EVEN if it is against the government..... or inflames the sensibilities of the privileged class.

[[continued in next post. I KNEW they were going to get me for being too wordy! :D ]]

Actually, Rev, I made sure that my post was all-encompassing. I fully understand that there are agnostic conservatives out there and I count you as one of them. My conservative nature is based on my upbringing and my spiritual beliefs. I'm not sure what yours is based on, but your conservative nature is very similiar to mine. So, whether you believe in God is irrelevant. The fact that your beliefs are rooted in a conservative nature is what is important. In other words, because you are conservative, you're just as much a hateful bastard as I am.

CONTINUED......

Then, by definition or extrapolation, it seems you are FOR the privileged classes, AGAINST the middle class getting a break, and FOR the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war and nation building, religious "litmus tests" for our judges and our laws, and a global economy that sucks out our jobs with cheap labor, and gives little back? Surely not. I'm only kidding! :D

Well, for one... he is an American. But, you wouldn't KNOW it from the vicious attacks on him here and in the press....by those of YOUR party. Why does anyone from my party, running for President, HAVE to do anything to NOT deserve the type of slander he has endured?

I take shots at Bush because he has damn near ruined this country and represents the antithesis of all those freedoms and founding tenets I discussed. I don't recall taking any shots at McCain other than to defray any notion that he "deserves" to be President because he got shot down in a war. Bush 1, JFK, Eisenhower and others were vets and heros in their own right. I just don't believe this is substance enough to warrant my vote. Palin... I was pretty clear on. I have nothing against her as a citizen. I clearly don't believe she is ready for the position, and my "problem" was with those who would have cast their votes THAT DAY if possible for the obvious and INTENDED reasons for which she was selected.... without regard to any substance or lack thereof.

p.s: Obama is not my messiah. I have my doubts about him, too. I just don't like the "tone" of the attacks being made against him. I haven't heard anyone actually discuss any of his proposals in any way that I didn't recognize as being straight out talking points by the GOP. When I stop hearing "soundbites" and instead hear "substance," I may engage on a more rational and intellectual level.

"Don't drive angry!" (my favorite line from Groundhog Day.)

Perhaps, you should stop watching CNN, and I should stop watching FOX!

Um.... excuse me.... did you READ your first paragraph? And are those the same founding fathers that made it abundantly clear in the Constitution, that the legislative body of this great country (or its courts) would make NO laws that respected ONE religion over another, or over none? The same ones that considered only WHITE men were of any importance in this country? And the ones that felt that ALL citizens had the right to a certain pursuit of happiness (i.e: the American dream?)

Hard to tell from your posts, but I'll take you at your word. I don't have anything against YOU either, or my parents who share SOME of your beliefs.... as "I" do. It IS the "ideology" that we both detest, I believe. And it's a shame that our political climate has changed to the point that one's individual beliefs are lost in the 3 letters that follow their names.

My only "enemy" is someone who would try to deny me the rights I believe I have under the Constitution. If those people happen to be stupid, clueless, racist or homophobic.... that is on them. I am not saying, nor do I believe I ever HAVE said, that you are such.

You MAY be close on what DOES divide our country, but we disagree on who's at fault. And, your claim that Obama is "leading" such a division is just pure Bullchit! I really haven't heard EITHER candidate for president say anything of the sort about each other OR the citizens of this country. That's Sarah Palin's job! :D

BTW, Hobo, I never laid the problems of the country at the feet of the democrats. I laid it at the feet of LIBERALS and every party has its share. It's not my fault that your party has a whole lot more of them.

Regarding abortion, I'm not going down that road again. I believe it to be an absolutely barbaric practice, but I also believe it to be a person's choice. I've never been about curtailing people's choices about anything. I just get sick and damn tired of being told I'm intolerant or stupid or hateful because I don't agree with those choices.

We're done here, Hobo. You can continue to drink your Kool-aid and feel good about it. You can do and believe and say whatever the hell you want. I really don't care. You aren't going to change my mind and I'm not even attempting to change yours. I will always stick by my assertion that liberals are and will be the downfall of this country. In time, my words will be proven out. I only have to wait and probably not very long at that.

Nope - you are still being a hypocrite......

And I have seen no proof that "half the citizens of this country" are Democrat. Not unless you are counting the dead voters....

Thanks. I try.:D

I fail to see how. Sure, I tend to lump all Conservatives together when discussing their agenda or need to oppress others, but I give credit where due to those with more open minds. I can't name each and every one of them by name! I have seen LITTLE separation on this board. Almost to the number, they have all said things about Obama, or liberals, or Dems, that are right out of their weekly "devotions."

Quote:

---

And I have seen no proof that "half the citizens of this country" are Democrat. Not unless you are counting the dead voters....

---

Well, the last two elections have been pretty close to 50/50. But, you're right. In 2000, the popular vote indicated MORE than 50% were Dems. :D

I'll stop counting dead voters when the GOP stops cooking the voting machines! ;)

But, just for grins.... since you have the faster computer and love to find stats..... how about finding the "exact" or believed number of voters registered nationwide as GOP vs. DEM? I'm sure it's easy to find.

Wrong again. Only a very small percentage of the US population votes, so your claim holds no water.

Agreed, but that is all we have to go on. Show me some statistic other than (or including) voter registration that would support your claim. If you CAN..... then my contentions about the inefficiency of the electoral college is even stronger.

http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turno..._Primaries.htm

Get out your calculator.:eek:

My claim is that the party affiliation of the percentage of citizens that vote are not an absolute guarantee of the leanings of the population as a whole. I'd love for you to explain how I am supposed to prove a negative.

The lack of proof is not proof.:rolleyes:

Twilight Flyer said:

And I don't recall blaming all Republicans... or even Conservatives. I believe "your" party has been co-opted" by the Moral Majority that is as dangerous to my civil liberties as the Taliban is to women in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the terms have become entrenched in political discussion, and both parties seem to vote a straight ticket these days, making them culpable for the radicals. I can't say that I know exactly what term YOU object to, but many of us Dems object to the perjorative label of "liberal."

I guess, then, we can agree on this. I certainly have never blamed anyone for their own choice or belief concerning when life begins. In fact, I am still giving it consideration. But, I couldn't help noticing over the years that more abortion clinics than maternity wards were bombed. I don't believe I have ever called you stupid or hateful for your beliefs. But, intolerance IS something that is associated with those who WOULD deny another citizen his own beliefs and rights. If I've used that term on you, without basis, I apologize.

Well..... I think that was unnecessary, but o.k. You DO know where that phrase comes from, right? A RELIGIOUS sect. Just sayin' ;)

No offense, but it was not the Liberals that brought about the downfall of Nazi Germany. In fact, I believe many European countries do quite well with a more Liberal constitution or government. But, that's another thread.

I stifled my impulse to say that your warning sounded just like the story of Soddom and Gomarrah. But, of course, there is no scientific proof that that ever happened. ;) Ooops! :eek:

In all seriousness, it is a shame that people feel so threatened by those who don't agree with them. Rather than sitting back and waiting for a "prophesied" downfall of the country due to our divisions.... I wish we could actually come together and find a way to "tolerate" each other. There's plenty of room here in this huge and wonderful country. But, perhaps that WOULD take some type of a Messiah. And, I don't delude myself by believing that either candidate IS such.

Well, if it is not, then there is something fundamentally wrong with our form of representative government and our forefathers' decision to set one up.

Oh, BTW.... that would not be a negative.... that would be an unknown. ;)

True. And it must really suck to make a claim that you cannot prove due to lack of proof. :D

I didn't make a claim. I stated a belief. It's clear you don't understand the difference.

Golfhobo, it would seem you did absolutely no reading of the material I suggested. If you had, you would realize that the "so-called attacks" have a basis in fact.
Would you like me to list them here for you and make it far more convenient?


http://townhall.com/columnists/Thoma...the_real_obama

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gla...list-new-party

http://web.archive.org/web/200103060...rg/up9610.html

http://www.populist.com/11.96.Edit.html

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-no...kes-connection

And, there's far more.


Barack Obama signed a contract with the "New Party" in 1995. Who holds that contract? Bill Ayers. Who is Bill Ayers? Weathermen Underground. Bomb the Pentagon. Set off some 24 bombs. By today's standards, Bill Ayers is a TERRORIST. Which means Barack Obama has SIGNED A CONTRACT WITH A TERRORIST. Please tell me that what you hear the man say in public and on debates, and to the press has anything at all to do with "THEIR AGENDA"? Are you willing to do the reading and answer my question? Or are you able to? You are one of the main ones that has been speaking so greatly in his favor. Now, please address MY comment.

Golfhobo - just one more thing. The financial mess we're in did not start with Bush. He did use very poor judgement in dealing with it, and did too little too late. But he did NOT start this ball rolling. Neither did Obama, for that matter. But, I have a real problem seeing that Obama really has anything close to a real solution in mind. There is little doubt in my mind that you haven't got the slightest idea just what the agenda is.

I almost fell for it, Rev. I almost quoted you from a few posts ago, where you said "my claim is that..." but I didn't. ;)

I may have been born at night.... but, it wasn't LAST night! :D

Yeah. I used your terminology. Sue me.

My original statement was this:

I do not believe that your claim is true. That is a belief, and is clearly something you do not comprehend.

So there.:)

Wind, I have read all your posts on several threads. I HAVE checked many if not all of your links, and even gone further on those BLOG sites including the bios of the author. But, I don't base my opinions on blogs, and rarely give much credence to them.

We won't go into what I think of BLOG SITES right now. Suffice it to say, I don't believe half of what I hear, and even less of what you say... WHEN you base your claims on what you read in blogsites.

I HAVE given some thought to what you have said, and I was close to a response. But, the MORE you flood this site with your vitriol, and innuendo, the less I feel compelled to answer.... and the harder it is to focus on one aspect of your concerns.

I figure, if I wait long enough, you will somehow tie Obama and the Weather Underground to a conspiracy to keep you from saving the World from the energy crisis with your Hydrogen thingie! At which point, I am off the hook! :D

I agree with you that Bush did not start this mess. But, his insistence, even as the sky was falling, that our economy was still strong...and McCain's lockstep agreement, shows me that BOTH of them are totally clueless, and unconcerned about the middle class. And, at least ONE of them was probably LYING through his teeth! :eek:

I don't know about you, but I don't want ANYONE in the White House who can't see or admit when a train is about to crash into the terminal!

I believe that Obama HAS a plan. I believe I've heard him explain it. I don't know if it will work.... but, I know what we HAVE is NOT working! And, I don't want more of the same!

I'm not saying McCain doesn't want to change things. I just don't believe he can. He still has at least ONE foot stuck on his side of the aisle. (and the other in the grave!) I just know that America was richer, stronger and more solvent under Clinton, and I want to see some policies that return us to that era. I believe that, if Clinton were in office POST 9-11, he would be more aggressive, as any president should. But, he would have taken a different tack to bring UBL to justice. It would have cost less money, fewer lives, and been more successful.

I don't know of any Presidential candidate who, at the last moment, had to withdraw from the race because his party OR the other suddenly found out something substantial about his character or associations. There IS a "vetting" process used in every campaign I've ever heard of.... until McCain and his veep pick!

The "blogoshere" that you rely on is full of lies, half-truths, innuendo and ego. The bar for investigative reporting was set by Woodward and Bernstein. Pretty much everything after that is trash. Heck, I could quadruple the number of links you gave for sites that would swear up and down that the Pentagon was hit by an American missile on 9-11! And it appears you might believe it! But, you could never explain to me where the missing passengers from that flight disappeared to! :rolleyes:

You go ahead and keep posting "breaking news" from your blogsites. Believe everything you read there, if that is what you are destined to do. But, don't expect me to get caught up in your hysteria. IF and when I choose to address the issue of Obama's radical past, it may be worth your wait. It might not. But, no amount of taunting or begging will change my timeline.