Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
Visit Bodhi1's column >>

BODHI1

Home Page
Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing.
Articles Posted: 117  Links Seeded: 1820
Member Since: 1/2006  Last Seen: 2/23/2012

What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Barack Obama's Doubletalk, Falsehoods and Outright Lies

Wed Mar 5, 2008 1:57 PM EST
politics, barack-obama, 2008-election, lies, mistakes, falsehoods
By Bodhi1
Advertise | AdChoices

Barack has been accused of running a campaign of words without substance. A close examination of those words reveal either a deliberate string of falsehoods or a loose grasp of the facts:

  • In his memoir, Barack says as a child he was reading Life magazine when he found an article about a "'black man who had tried to peel off his skin' in a failed effort to use chemicals to lighten it." He describes it as "an ambush attack."

    No such article exists.

    Barack said later, "It might have been an Ebony or it might have been ... who knows what it was?" I guess facts don't matter.

    The Chicago Tribune writes:

    "Several of his oft-recited stories may not have happened in the way he has recounted them. Some seem to make Obama look better in the retelling, others appear to exaggerate his outward struggles over issues of race, or simply skim over some of the most painful, private moments of his life."

  • In Barack's speech in Selma Alabama, he claimed that his parents were motivated to get married and have Barack "because some folks are willing to march across a bridge." The thing is, Barack was born four years before the incident at Selma occurred. Barack later said he was talking about the whole civil rights movement. Just because he mentioned Selma, while talking at Selma, apparently doesn't mean he meant Selma.
  • Barack also told people that his father came to America when Barack's grandfather heard John and Bobby Kennedy, who "sent a shout across oceans" for Africans to come to America and learn. Barack Sr. was then sent to America. There's a problem there also:

    ...having been born in August 1961, the future senator was not conceived until sometime in November 1960. So, if his African grandfather heard words that "sent a shout across oceans," inspiring him to send his goat-herder son to America, it was not Democrat Jack Kennedy he heard, or his brother Bobby, it was Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

    It would be easy to dismiss this as a simple mistake, if it were not for all the comparisons of Barack to John Kennedy.

  • Barack Obama in 2003, talking to the AFL/CIO:

    "I happen to be a proponent of single-payer universal healthcare coverage.

    "That's what I'd like to see,"

    Barack Obama on a nationally televised debate:

    "I never said that we should try to go ahead and get single-payer.

  • Barack pledged to use public funding for his campaign if the Republican candidate did also. McCain has pledged but now Barack is backing out:

    After all, when he made the promise, he didn't have a chance of raising more than the public's $85 million stipend. But now that he can raise $300 million, well, what's a little untruth between the waited-for one and his people? Yes, he can.

  • In a televised debate, Barack raised his hand when asked who would oppose legalizing marijuana. But Barack told another group "I think we need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws."
  • Barack said that he estimated Tony Rezko raised around $50,000 - $60,000 for his campaign's. The fact is:

    Obama has collected at least $168,308 from Rezko and his circle. Obama also has taken in an unknown amount of money from people who attended fund-raising events hosted by Rezko since the mid-1990s.

  • Barack claims to have passed legislation that "require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks." The fact is, it went to committee, was drastically rewritten, had the teeth taken out of it, and still didn't become a law.

These are not simple errors. Barack is answering these questions with statements that just are not true. I don't think it would be too hard to answer a question with, "I don't know. I'll find out." if he is ignorant of something.

Some of these instances, however, show that Barack has one position in front of one crowd, and an opposite position in front of another. That's isn't change. That's typical.

It seems that Barry isn't all that different from other politicians when it comes to facts.

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Bodhi1's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: 2008: Barack Obama, Heated Debate, Newsvine Election Coverage, Old viners, rightwingers, The Big 2008 Election
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (282)
Jump to discussion page: 1 2
Bodhi1

Can he get people to believe whatever he says? Yes, he can.

  • 30 votes
#1 - Wed Mar 5, 2008 2:01 PM EST
KEEPING IT REAL!Deleted
SteveHouse

Keeping, why don't you get a life and allow people to put forth their own opinions?

  • 24 votes
#1.2 - Wed Mar 5, 2008 4:58 PM EST
Bodhi1

Stop hating on Obama?

That's not really your argument, is it?

  • 27 votes
#1.3 - Wed Mar 5, 2008 5:10 PM EST
lisaed

keeping -1.1-I hardly think bodhi "hates" obama.....that's a strong word isn't it? There is nothing wrong with anyone pointing out as bodhi has done in this nice summary the instances where obama has seemingly had a problem with the truth.....speaks to character.

  • 23 votes
#1.4 - Wed Mar 5, 2008 5:14 PM EST
A. H. Min

Keeping, you may want to review newsvine's Code of Honor, in particular item #1:

Above all else, respect others. If you see disrespectful behavior, report it, rather than further inflaming the situation.

Hope this helps.

  • 23 votes
#1.5 - Wed Mar 5, 2008 5:16 PM EST
Cliff Potter

Well, other than a few sentences, I agree with the points in this article. The last one is particularly not true. I believe that Obama is prone constantly to make claims he knows full well are false. And that he would do this throughout his election run and presidency if allowed, as I have said.

But I think your article is exceptional from its fact research. And that you deserve kudos for writing it. In spite of the opposition that you will face.

Welcome to our growing crowd.

  • 16 votes
#1.6 - Wed Mar 5, 2008 6:01 PM EST
KEEPING IT REAL!Deleted
ChrisRonk

Keeping It Real... not trying to be argumentative but... Why don't you bring up some of those lies that Hillary states almost every time she speaks? You had mentioned responding forcefully to false charges earlier, now is your opportunity. The only way to really do this is to back up your statements with facts.

This is a challenge to you or anyone else out there. I just don't have time.

  • 10 votes
#1.8 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 12:13 AM EST
JUPPIECATDeleted
Mike Rupert

I'm going to enjoy Barack Obama as president :)

  • 11 votes
#1.10 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 3:22 AM EST
sirmonkey

about using public funding, why should he give McCain anything,he's the enemy

Because he said he would.

  • 5 votes
#1.11 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 6:50 AM EST
determined0a1

There is not "hate" for Obama. If he is the nominee of course that he will be criticized and scrutinized like having an X-ray of the bone density.
Get your own medicine.

  • 6 votes
#1.12 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 8:47 AM EST
tschreck

it's very amusing to me to see this outpouring of emotional hand wringing from the right regarding some these allegations leveled at Obama.. most of them are tenuous at best and others seem to be the result of the way human memory works ( and doesn't work) over time..

it's also VERY amusing to see this coming from people who give the bush / cheney team a pass at the drop of a hat.

but hey, if this stuff is all you've got, then it's pretty obvious to me that the swift boating of obama just isn't going to work as effectively as it has in the past for the right.

  • 8 votes
#1.13 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 9:24 AM EST
gpnavonod

determined0a1
There is not "hate" for Obama. If he is the nominee of course that he will be criticized and scrutinized like having an X-ray of the bone density.
Get your own medicine

"Leave Britney....I mean Barrack.... alone! [sob]
You're lucky he even preforms for you ba$tards! [sob]
Leave Barrack alone......P l e a s e!
[sob...sob] :-)

  • 8 votes
#1.14 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 10:43 AM EST
brianandrew

thanks for the article bodhi - it seems I manage to make it to one of your pages often and rather enjoy them or I am at least enlightened or challenged. I'm sure these aren't the only examples you could find to show how Obama contradicts himself... to be honest, some of them aren't that convincing or seem like that big of a deal. I only say that because people have made similar lists for Hillary Clinton, Mike Huckabee, John McCain and so on. Actually the only one who seems fairly clean is Ron Paul! go figure.

Alright... that last remark was just for fun.

So Bodhi, I think you could write a convincing (if not more convincing) article demonstrating the contradictions or lies of every other candidate that is running or has run during these elections. If I'm right, how does one pick a candidate based on always remaining truthful? At some point do you have to look at the contradictions and see whose are worse? Or do you have to accept this is all you have to choose from and then make your decision based on policy?

  • 5 votes
#1.15 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 1:13 PM EST
rbrazys

BREAKING NEWS!

politicians lie. at one point or another, all of them lie.

Well written and researched bodhi1

  • 6 votes
#1.16 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 4:21 PM EST
gpnavonod

JUPPIECAT
It has been my experience that when people are out to get you they will stop at nothing. While I can appreciate you pointing out Obama isn't always truthful. Take a look at around you all politicians lie. My question to you how do you know that this info is accurate. I haven't found one document,or one piece of legislature that remotely indicate that Hillary Clinton has any foreign policy experience at all.

Dear JUPPIECAT......The following is an excerpt from Karl Rove's Open Letter To Obama.
It seems you and he are in disagreement about Hillary's Foreign Policy experience.

But, with his [Rove's] lack of experience in politics and your [JUPPIECAT] obvious expertise...We should just disregard it.

Third, when you create controversies do not pick issues where you are playing the weaker hand. For example, you attacked her for lacking foreign policy experience. It is true she was first lady, not secretary of state, and nobody will ever mistake her for James Baker III. But your qualifications are even thinner; you were a state senator and lived in Indonesia when you were six. Big deal. Americans think she has more foreign policy experience than you - and she does.

JUPPIECAT....... .key words.... :"and she does"

  • 2 votes
#1.17 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 4:26 PM EST
Cat Lady

I have yet to swallow anything whole that either Democrat says. But without knowing the facts, and only knowing literary criticism, I think that the article above is somewhat inflated. It does not matter who else lies either. It seems as though the author is on a bit of a roll. It is dangerous to take statements out of context. I think that only one thing is clear in this election. We have three people who REALLY WANT TO WIN! That is the danger. It is doubly dangerous when the voters get involved! We are less biased than the candidates are. There is no higher ideal that guides anyone in the group. Hind sight will tell us who behaved themselves and who did not. We all see ourselves as far too personally vested to sit back and watch for the outcome, to pray for the best. If our candidate looses, we see ourselves as losers. It does not matter if the world comes to an end because we elect the wrong person: We did not get our 'right person' elected!

  • 1 vote
#1.18 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 4:27 PM EST
Cliff Potter

1.18 - Cat Lady - You are right that this election has become far too personal in many ways. It is this that is at the heart of any McCain win. For the fervor of the different Democratic Party camps is beyond anything seen in the past. And the facts that the wishes of the majority of Democrats and rules that disenfranchise voters are immaterial to this party are two of its biggest problems. Just wait. We have seen nothing yet. Obama plans to destroy this party, the one he did not even mention in victory speech after victory speech. His is some crazy quilt patchwork of various members of parties and independents. Could he hold this coalition together until November even if we assume that every Republican voting for him will stick with him through the general election? Some believe that this is true and great for the Democratic Party. I am still trying to figure that one out.

Incidentally, all age groups in Illinois did not favor Obama. Those over 65 were equally split in his own state. What do you think that means?

  • 3 votes
#1.19 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 5:16 PM EST
ultrajc

I can't believe that anyone cannot recall clearly the exact publication being read at age 9.

  • 3 votes
#1.20 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 5:43 PM EST
gpnavonod

What do you think that means?

It means Rove had a great idea.....When the enemy is overwhelming......destroy them from within. Sow the seeds of division....[promote the Obama Candidate]

Before you get to the battlefield .[November]......and who can say he wasn't successful?

  • 2 votes
#1.21 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 5:50 PM EST
PrezO

Incidentally, all age groups in Illinois did not favor Obama. Those over 65 were equally split in his own state. What do you think that means?

-----------

If it were true, it means that many old people would rather live in the past and have no interest in looking forward to the future. But, it's not true - it was not an equal split - it was 53-44 in Obama's favor. Also remember 60+ people are only 23% of the population.

And, you forgot how Hillary won only 62% of those over the age of 60 in her own state of New York where 60+ people are 30% of the population.

  • 3 votes
#1.22 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 5:51 PM EST
Cliff Potter

Unless you are looking at something I am not looking at, the split for 65 and older was what I said. Please look HERE. You are looking at the 60 and older. Look again at the category below that shows 65 and older.

Then decide what you are going to do about these constant claims that I am not telling the truth.

If there is any Swiftboat lying going on, it is by Obama fans. You have disparaged me in every known way, from calling me names to claiming that everything I write is wrong. But you know what? I will not be silenced by lies. What I say is the truth, or my opinion. And when I make a mistake, I admit doing so. Perhaps you could be so bold as to say the same. Then again, perhaps not.

  • 1 vote
#1.23 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 8:58 PM EST
Sem0l1na

Since you're so objective than why don't we talk about all the lies that Hillary states almost every time she speaks!

Aren't there some Hillary bashing threads somewhere else on Newsvine for that? Why not talk about her lies over there?

  • 3 votes
#1.24 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 9:07 PM EST
Cletus Wilbury

Cliff, so the older crowd likes the older candidate?
Is that so new?

    #1.25 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 9:14 PM EST
    PrezO

    Ok, I misread 65 for 60. Actually even with the 48-48 split, thats only 15% of the population. That's even worse than the 23% that I thought.

    In your last paragraph, I guess you are referring to fans in general and not me since I dont' recall having called you names or claiming that everything you wrote was wrong.

    You are the one that's been constantly swiftboating Obama in the last few weeks. First you seemed to have succeeded - two of your articles got 600 odd responses (including a grand total of 1 from you) but then people wised up and saw it for what it is - flamebait and swiftboating mainly meant for the purpose of generating traffic. No wonder your last few articles have struggled to break double-digit comments. I'm done - I will not read any more of your swiftboating articles about Obama. And I guess others have decided so too.

    Go Obama!!

    • 1 vote
    #1.26 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 9:22 PM EST
    Cat Lady

    A split with the 65 or older may be hangovers from old racist ideas. But I think that it is that he lacks depth. When I listen to him talk, I still keep thinking, "You are very young and you REALLY want to be elected." I believe that his goals are sincere. He does have a great deal in common with what the people are looking for and need. But I still keep thinking, "You are very young." I think that the people in that age group are thinking that as well.

    • 4 votes
    #1.27 - Fri Mar 7, 2008 9:38 AM EST
    epiphany sorbet

    catlady,

    Of our recent "young" Presidents - JFK had the experience of being in the Navy and combat to temper and harden his character. Bill Clinton had a frivolous character and was rewarded with a Republican Congress two years into his Presidency.

    Americans do tend to try to keep their government as neutral as possible - i.e., the Republican congress, Democratic president (Clinton) and vice versa for Ronald Reagan. When the voters started cooling toward President Bush, they changed the mix of the Congress.

    The possible dangers of someone like Barack Obama, with such a rabid following and possibly two years of a Democratic Congress before the voters can correct the balance, cannot be understated. I think voters may take that into consideration one way or another in November, should he become the Democratic candidate.

    • 8 votes
    #1.28 - Fri Mar 7, 2008 11:18 AM EST
    gpnavonod

    The possible dangers of someone like Barack Obama, with such a rabid following and possibly two years of a Democratic Congress before the voters can correct the balance, cannot be understated. I think voters may take that into consideration one way or another in November, should he become the Democratic candidate.

    Epiphany.....We have to stop meeting [minds] like this......it's bad for our image's.
    I thought the only thing we'd ever agree on was.... "Dilbert"

    It seems Dr.Rove has unleashed the "Radical Left" on us moderate Democrats... and if that's what goes for the Democratic Party....so we have no choice .....but to come back to the more Conservative GOP. Once the Democrats of moderation cross to Republican....Obama's ship will sink. His Republocrats will desert him in November... and McCain will come out on top.
    I'm starting to think the Democrats are so lame....maybe they don't deserve to win anyway.

    • 5 votes
    #1.29 - Fri Mar 7, 2008 5:59 PM EST
    Megan To Pagan

    gpnavonod,

    I've sent you a friend request. I like the way you think. :)

    • 3 votes
    #1.30 - Sat Mar 8, 2008 1:05 AM EST
    anonymous jonesDeleted
    Kevin Dicks

    Oh, the irony.

    • 1 vote
    #1.32 - Tue Mar 11, 2008 5:23 PM EDT
    anonymous jonesDeleted
    determined0a1

    "American's are idiots."

    We have a tendency to forget easily and this is why Hillary gets millions of votes. Itoh, Arabs can't forget and wars of tribes and faith go on and on and on.

    • 5 votes
    #1.34 - Wed Mar 12, 2008 8:03 AM EDT
    sirmonkey

    Be cautious with your stereotype of Arabs. Many seek freedom from that claimed tendency (arguably a myth), and freedom from other tyrants who use it as a tool. Your dismissal of them as an inherently violent people is likely just an attempt to distance yourself, and break any sense of responsibility to your fellow man who seeks freedom.

    To be clear, I'm not talking about those that claim it is a Zionist tool, such as Iranian's seeking to "mend" Sunni Shia rift! By tyrants, I mean al Qaeda bombing a key mosque, and otherwise using it to create chaos for their advantage.

    • 3 votes
    #1.35 - Wed Mar 12, 2008 5:31 PM EDT
    determined0a1

    I am talking about the different kind of memories that we share with other nationalities. Therefore, no stereotyping. This was not a political thought, it was based in my observations.

    • 3 votes
    #1.36 - Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:45 PM EDT
    sirmonkey

    I don't mean to accuse you of a direct prejudice, but just be cautious that there is an implied message there that is often used for nefarious purposes.

    For me, growing up with constant negative news from the middle east has an effect too. It is hard not to just figure everything is hopeless. That it always has been, and always will be. That "those people" will never get along, especially compared to the relative peace that the US enjoys. I think given the predominance of negative news this is quite an understandable impression, and not due to any inherent malintent.

    I do contend that some use this perception to their advantage. A select few amplify it, and use it as justification for abandoning efforts in the region. I raise the issue in the hopes that people don't fall for that technique, and don't abandon people based on this sense.

    Personally, I think it is our responsibility to seek out the good news that does exist. Stories of people making genuine efforts at peace, or stories of people fighting for their own freedom. I know it's hard to find, but it exists. Maybe others here can offer some news sources that can help to highlight some of the oft buried positive stories in the region?

      #1.37 - Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:20 PM EDT
      determined0a1

      I doubt that there is another poster that understand the Arabs like I do, I lived among then and I cherish their friendship. I saw a country to grow and still keep in contact with my good friends. I was received with open arms, I share their table, attended their weddings and offer my condolences, this is why I meant.

      • 3 votes
      #1.38 - Sat Mar 15, 2008 7:37 AM EDT
      Cliff Potter

      1.34 - determined - What does this mean? Who are the millions who vote for Clinton? Idiots?

      • 1 vote
      #1.39 - Sat Mar 15, 2008 10:07 AM EDT
      determined0a1

      Obviously we have a short memory and we will have again the duo of the Clintons in the WH.

      • 4 votes
      #1.40 - Sat Mar 15, 2008 5:44 PM EDT
      determined0a1

      I'm going to enjoy Barack Obama as president :)

      Oh, boy, moi aussi. Reading about the Oops Oops candidate/President instead of Bush will be a draft of fresh air.

      • 2 votes
      #1.41 - Sat Mar 15, 2008 5:50 PM EDT
      Reply
      Picaso

      Barack pledged to use public funding for his campaign if the Republican candidate did also. McCain has pledge, but now Barack is backing out:

      After all, when he made the promise, he didn't have a chance of raising more than the public's $85 million stipend. But now that he can raise $300 million, well, what's a little untruth between the waited-for one and his people? Yes, he can

      He isn't nominated yet is he? So why jump the gun?

      In a televised debate, Barack raised his hand when asked who would oppose legalizing marijuana. But Barack told another group "I think we need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws."

      How is that a lie? More like "hmmm well there is an advantage now i think about it from this angle"

      Barack claims to have passed legislation that "require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks." The fact is, it went to committee, was drastically rewritten, had the teeth taken out of it, and still didn't become a law.

      And how is this relevant to your topic?

      • 13 votes
      Reply#2 - Wed Mar 5, 2008 3:12 PM EST
      ComSen

      And how is this relevant to your topic?

      Isn't it obvious? Maybe you should ask someone for help reading it.

      • 15 votes
      #2.1 - Wed Mar 5, 2008 3:48 PM EST
      A. H. Min

      Barack claims to have passed legislation that "require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks." The fact is, it went to committee, was drastically rewritten, had the teeth taken out of it, and still didn't become a law.

      And how is this relevant to your topic?

      Obama claims to have passed this law. He didn't.

      • 18 votes
      #2.2 - Wed Mar 5, 2008 5:16 PM EST
      Lazarus Long

      The subject legislation was in reaction to a valve leak that resulted in water ending up on the ground that was supposed to be discharging into the nearby river; i.e., it was completely harmless. I think if you google it you can still find the relevent information (try "Braidwood" and "tritium")

      He stampeded like any other opportunistic politician/lawyer. Cooler heads finally prevailed, however, which is unusual for Illinois.

      • 6 votes
      #2.3 - Wed Mar 5, 2008 5:20 PM EST
      StacyM

      Clipped to Newsvine Election Coverage.

      In a televised debate, Barack raised his hand when asked who would oppose legalizing marijuana. But Barack told another group "I think we need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws."

      Decriminalization and legalization are different things. Decriminalizing marijuana would not make it legal, it just shifts it's priority in the legal system.

      With legalization, we are saying that marijuana can be sold in stores, taxed, etc. With decriminalization, we are saying that if you have an ounce on your property with no intent to sell, that is your business and not the government's.

      Obama has stated that we need to look at the harsh punishments for possession, which is good thing. There is no reason to throw someone in prison for 10 years because they had a bag on their own property. He has not yet gone the route of claiming it should be sold in the supermarket.

      In short, there is no hypocrisy or flip-flopping here.

      • 8 votes
      #2.4 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 1:09 PM EST
      Adam Hobson

      Obama has stated that we need to look at the harsh punishments for possession, which is good thing. There is no reason to throw someone in prison for 10 years because they had a bag on their own property. He has not yet gone the route of claiming it should be sold in the supermarket.

      there is no hypocrisy or flip-flopping here.

      Maybe between the two statements you are right, because as you said decriminalization and legalization are two very different things. However, I still think it's a bit hypocritical to say that it's ok to be in possession of an ounce for yourself, but how dare a store legally sell it to you.

      • 5 votes
      #2.5 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 1:19 PM EST
      StacyM

      We can talk about the logic of the position he holds, but all the same, he has been consistant about that position.

      However, I still think it's a bit hypocritical to say that it's ok to be in possession of an ounce for yourself, but how dare a store legally sell it to you.

      And that's a fair argument - I would point out that wth the drug war zealots, small steps are required. I think decriminalization of marijuana is a very possible goal in the next decade or so, which would have a large effect on our current law enforcement status. Whereas if we shoot straight for legalization, we're not going to see as much ground gained, because there are many that still feel strongly about it being illegal (or pretend to because it helps push other agendas).

      I'm for full legalization myself, and I'd love a candidate that goes all in, but I can understand the tactic of getting a foot in the door first. At the very least, if we can't win the "culture" war just yet when it comes to drugs, we could at least start putting an end to the violations of civil liberties and privacy that has been allowed by the war on drugs, decriminalization will make a large impact on that.

      • 9 votes
      #2.6 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 1:31 PM EST
      Adam Hobson

      We can talk about the logic of the position he holds, but all the same, he has been consistant about that position.

      Fair enough. I can find fault with Obama elsewhere, but I can agree with him in regards to the war on drugs. I wish this was a bigger issue, but McCain and Hillary will more than likely continue the status quo, and despite Obama's position, he's not really pushed the position publicly (which may be the smart political move, though you never know...).

      • 5 votes
      #2.7 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 2:16 PM EST
      StacyM

      I wish this was a bigger issue, but McCain and Hillary will more than likely continue the status quo, and despite Obama's position, he's not really pushed the position publicly

      I'm fairly optimistic. Even with a safer "decriminalization" stance, it's pretty major that Obama is speaking out, if even just a little bit here and there. A decade ago no one would even dare.

      I think public opinion is changing as well. With modern photo and video technology allowing the average citizen to document police abuses (many of which are related to the drug war), the public is starting to be more informed about it's impacts, and unless they are completely authoritarian, they probably aren't going to like what they learn. It's not just the image of the scary guy that peddles crack to toddlers anymore, we are starting to see the reality, and realize that plenty of people "just like us" are getting their rights violated, and that our tax money is footing the bill.

      • 4 votes
      #2.8 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 2:39 PM EST
      gpnavonod

      Barack claims to have passed legislation that "require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks." The fact is, it went to committee, was drastically rewritten, had the teeth taken out of it, and still didn't become a law.

      And how is this relevant to your topic?

      Obama claims to have passed this law. He didn't.

      Maybe he just can't recognize it anymore as the one he started with.

      • 2 votes
      #2.9 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 3:51 PM EST
      DAWeb

      Maybe he just can't recognize it anymore as the one he started with.

      Hmmm, does this sound like the kind of person we would want as President? I can see it now.

      "Sorry, I just didn't recognize them as terrorists..."

      • 6 votes
      #2.10 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 4:30 PM EST
      PrezO

      Hey Douglas, what's up honey?!

      Would you prefer someone who doesn't even remember if he is conservative or liberal, ya know like John McCain? LOL!

      I can see it now:

      McCain: When I said Mission Accomplished, I meant it as a neocon, but now I speak as a liberal, oh wait, I meant conservative liberal,,, uh-huh, or was it liberal conservative...

      • 2 votes
      #2.11 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 4:44 PM EST
      Sem0l1na

      I can agree with him in regards to the war on drugs. I wish this was a bigger issue, but McCain and Hillary will more than likely continue the status quo,

      He'll continue the police state just like the other two. No question.

        #2.12 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 9:12 PM EST
        gpnavonod

        DAWeb
        Maybe he just can't recognize it anymore as the one he started with.

        Hmmm, does this sound like the kind of person we would want as President? I can see it now. "Sorry, I just didn't recognize them as terrorist

        LoL.....Another first!.....Agreed, DAWeb!.....The Democrats are not a party...
        they're a "Free for All. "

        At this rate.....I think I'm gonna have to rethink my Liberal licence. I can't defend against you guys anymore.

        I'm just a Prodigal "Son of a Pub".

        • 3 votes
        #2.13 - Fri Mar 7, 2008 6:24 PM EST
        Sem0l1na

        well, what's a little untruth between the waited-for one and his people? Yes, he can

        Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

        Thank you from MA. We have a Yes we Can governor here, who won after a similar culty campaign.

        Ends up this guy used to work for Ameriquest! Yes we can...get a subprime mortgage...foreclose the property...Bring state-sponsored casino gambling to MA...formerly one of the country's innovation and technology hubs, but under our new-age governor, the next aspiring Las Vegas.

        Bring on fat Elvis in the leather fringe jumpsuit!

        • 1 vote
        #2.14 - Sat Mar 8, 2008 4:00 AM EST
        Reply
        SuperUnspecial

        A great part of family lore that I've heard has been wrong. Rewritten by the human memory to be a bit more pleasing and to be consistent with one's life, achievements, goals and ambitions. That's just being human. Human memory isn't only imperfect, it's poor and unreliable, unlike documented events.

        • 6 votes
        Reply#3 - Wed Mar 5, 2008 3:46 PM EST
        Cliff Potter

        Great response. Except that Obama and his followers constantly defend based on this book. Including what happened in Indonesia. What are we to do then? Still accept everything as some want us to do?

        Besides, the point of the article appears to be that there are many issues with the truth, which taken cumulatively add up to dishonesty. You can say, as was said here, that this is what all politicians do. But this is not true in my view. It is particularly not true for lawyers.

        • 11 votes
        #3.1 - Wed Mar 5, 2008 6:08 PM EST
        sirmonkey

        Even the snopes debunking of emails uses his book quotes and campaign press releases as factual sources to debunk some accusations.

        Not saying that indicates conspiracy or falsehood. But it is "unseemly" to debunk a conspiracy theory with the words of the accused. I know they wouldn't use that tact for Bush! I do enjoy the Glass Houses email though though. ;)

        • 4 votes
        #3.2 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 7:02 AM EST
        Reply
        Donald Turnbull

        His name should be Barack 'Snake Oil Salesman' Obama.

        • 26 votes
        Reply#4 - Wed Mar 5, 2008 3:49 PM EST
        FestiveWarrior

        His name should be Barack 'Snake Oil Salesman' Obama.

        Dang it!
        They only let me vote for a comment once!
        I tried hitting that one like five times.
        Nope
        One was all I got.
        (frown)

        • 14 votes
        #4.1 - Wed Mar 5, 2008 10:08 PM EST
        SAYWHAT!!

        Why all the vitriol. One person, one vote. But it seems to me that this election has given white males the opportunity to vent all of their racial feelings. Continuing to smear this Senator while all the other candidates are political seniors who both have been involved in questionable activities is showing exactly what America is about.

        Just like the Canadian Officials had to issue an apology, and now an investigation, while the Clintons harped on it, all will be revealed about the integrity of this candidate.
        Americans are used to falling in line with a lie, much easier than pursuing the truth.
        This Senator has voted on over 4000 bills as an Illinois legislature, SO if these few are laws you have a problem with than I would say his record is pretty good. Show me what politician is going to make everyone happy all the time. Can not happen.

        • 4 votes
        #4.2 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 9:23 AM EST
        DAWeb

        One person, one vote

        except in the Dem Primary in Texas...

        • 8 votes
        #4.3 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 9:42 AM EST
        tschreck

        except in the Dem Primary in Texas...

        or if you are using diebold voting machines. in that case you can just program the outcome.

        :-)

        • 3 votes
        #4.4 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 9:45 AM EST
        Adam Hobson

        One person, one vote

        except in the Dem Primary in Texas...

        Or for Democrats in Florida and Michigan...

        • 7 votes
        #4.5 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 9:46 AM EST
        KEEPING IT REAL!Deleted
        A. H. Min

        You may want to review newsvine's Code of Honor, in particular item #1:

        Above all else, respect others. If you see disrespectful behavior, report it, rather than further inflaming the situation.

        Hope this helps.

        • 6 votes
        #4.7 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 11:50 AM EST
        PrezO

        The poster in 4.7 and 1.5:

        You the Republican enforcer of the CoH around here? Cos I didn't see you do that cut-n-paste in the comment right below - #5, like you did in 4.7 and 1.5.

        • 1 vote
        #4.8 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 12:30 PM EST
        A. H. Min

        Someone else had already addressed it.

        It may interest you to know that I reported comment 5 as Inflammatory, however.

        • 4 votes
        #4.9 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 3:41 PM EST
        gpnavonod

        Americans are used to falling in line with a lie, much easier than pursuing the truth. This Senator has voted on over 4000 bills as an Illinois legislature, SO if these few are laws you have a problem with than I would say his record is pretty good. Show me what politician is going to make everyone happy all the time. Can not happen.

        Obama's Voting History in Senate Foreign Relations Comittee...
        .This may be an improvement over his "Present" voting record in the ILL. State Senate....

        So Barack is "Lookin up!" ...I guess?....His latest job in the Senate F.R.C...may well be an improvement...but still not up to par.

        Statistic: Barack Obama missed 201 of 1121 votes (18%) since Jan 6, 2005 (Exceedingly Poor relative to peers).

        But he [Obama] promises... as President...he'll always be... "present"

        • 2 votes
        #4.10 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 4:59 PM EST
        tschreck

        promises... as President...he'll always be... "present"

        at least it will be a possibility for him.. with the current guy, it seems to be hit or miss if he is at all conscious.

        • 4 votes
        #4.11 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 5:14 PM EST
        gpnavonod

        promises... as President...he'll always be... "present"

        at least it will be a possibility for him.. with the current guy, it seems to be hit or miss if he is at all conscious.

        What a relief!....but how long do we have to wait for a "yes or no" decision?

        • 1 vote
        #4.12 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 5:57 PM EST
        Chasing

        except in the Dem Primary in Texas...

        AMEN!

        • 1 vote
        #4.13 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 7:37 PM EST
        Reply
        Bill HarrisonExpand Comment Comment collapsed by the community

        Heh. It looks like all the Obamaniacs are too busy scourging themselves in hopes of ushering in the new era of sweetness and light that St. Barack promises after last night's whuppin' to comment on this article. Has Kevin Dicks taken a vow of silence as a sign of fealty to His Barackness? Has Ms. Cyprah taken leave to join a convent? So many questions.

        • 19 votes
        #5 - Wed Mar 5, 2008 4:05 PM EST
        Arne

        Sometimes I'm really wondering what kind of discourse we want to have here at Newsvine and I think I'm not the only one who thinks that bashing fellow newsviners is not the way to go. Let's stick to the issues, shall we?

        • 11 votes
        #5.1 - Wed Mar 5, 2008 5:13 PM EST
        SteveHouse

        Amen to that.

        • 3 votes
        #5.2 - Wed Mar 5, 2008 5:19 PM EST
        TheJonesGirl

        Whuppin'? Last night was hardly that, though I understand the Repubs, now saddled with McCain, wanting to think so.

        • 3 votes
        #5.3 - Wed Mar 5, 2008 6:06 PM EST
        Cliff Potter

        I think that is a quote from Obama. And we should never be above a bit of humor. Nothing here that seems to be very inappropriate for Bill, knowing him. And certainly I would take that type of "abuse" any day. Although I admit that the convent reference may be too tilted unless Ms. C is a Catholic. Then again, it all began with Sir Obama, taking us back to yesteryear.

        Anyway, the decision as to Bill's post is up to Mr. B and anyone that wants to take issue. In the meantime, I finally got an LOL moment, which I never use unless I do laugh out loud.

        • 8 votes
        #5.4 - Wed Mar 5, 2008 6:14 PM EST
        PrezO

        To the poster in Comment #5, you don't know how to use teh Internetz, do you?

        Much as you'd like to think and mislead others as such, Ms. Cyprah ain't gone - she has another great article out today. Much better than this fluff piece targeted towards the likes of those who don't know how to use teh Internetz.

        Go Obama!!

        So many questions, so many answers, so many Internet-noobs.

        • 3 votes
        #5.5 - Wed Mar 5, 2008 6:29 PM EST
        Shawn Gordon

        hey... why collapse this? dont hate.

        • 8 votes
        #5.6 - Wed Mar 5, 2008 10:31 PM EST
        Aaron Still

        What is this, the Dems' Player Haters Ball? Bill got ya good and you silenced him like good little Nazis. . .

        • 4 votes
        #5.7 - Wed Mar 5, 2008 10:32 PM EST
        Bill Harrison

        So many of these people have so sense of humor it's amazing. It reinforces the cult of personality that surrounds Obama and causes many to distrust his candidacy (and that's a shame because he deserves better). And I'm sure that my friend Ms. Cyprah would know that I was making light in this comment -- a point seemingly lost on the Grandgrinds among us.

        • 9 votes
        #5.8 - Wed Mar 5, 2008 10:50 PM EST
        sirmonkey

        Probably. Nonetheless, always be aware things don't always "read" the way you "write" them! Throw in a smiley or something to help. May or may not have made a difference, I don't know.

        • 1 vote
        #5.9 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 7:07 AM EST
        PrezO

        Comment 5.8 - lame copout after the horse has bolted. Yeah, yeah, you were only kidding hahaha. You already knew that Ms. Cyprah had already written something but you were only kidding hahaha. /sarcasm

        I think I am more man than you are, even though I'm a gal. At least I stand by what I said instead of weaseling out of self-created situations.

        • 1 vote
        #5.10 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 12:23 PM EST
        rbrazys

        Can't pass on a rare occasion to agree with Mr. Bill Harrison.

        Though I like Senator Obama enough to vote for him, I don't for a second think he's going to be any different than Hillary (on most points) or even McCain.

        I am not mesmerized by his carisma, nor do I think that he is a saint. I think what's best about the man/politician is that he is drawing people into the race that would not have been listening otherwise.
        He's getting people off their asses a little more than we're used to and that's a good thing.

        But yeah, he's a politician and probably a liar.

          #5.11 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 4:39 PM EST
          gpnavonod

          Lol......Bill....your collapsed comments are a "must see"....

            #5.12 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 5:42 PM EST
            Kevin Dicks

            It's great to know that you're so in love with me and my comments, Bill, that when I don't comment you have to call me out by name and wonder where I am. Actually, I've just decided to back off politics for a while and not get into these discussions anymore. I have my own problems to deal with, and Obama has enough intelligent supporters to defend him. I am not so vain or self-absorbed that I feel I am the only one who can make his case.

            I have better things to do than argue with people who I know will never change their minds. The points will be rebutted by other very competent and capable Newsviners. If you notice our absence in articles like this, it's probably just because we are sick to death of them. I'm tired of arguing against minced words, fallible memories, mistakes, etc. Obama is not a messiah, and as many times as his detractors say that his supporters think he is, we still know he's not. He's a human being, and articles like this are trying to hold him to a higher standard.

            And at this point I'm beyond caring. I don't think very many people are basing their votes on what they read on Newsvine anyway.

            • 4 votes
            #5.13 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 6:34 PM EST
            gpnavonod

            Kevin.....I'm still considering voting for you....even though you don't have time for me...
            You're just.... so persistent...
            I would love to inflict you on the Republicans. :-)

            • 1 vote
            #5.14 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 6:55 PM EST
            Shawn Gordon

            Lol......Bill....your collapsed comments are a "must see"....

            I'm actually MORE prone to read and pay attention to a collapsed comment. curiosity gets me

            • 3 votes
            #5.15 - Fri Mar 7, 2008 1:01 PM EST
            Reply
            lisaed

            I think Hillary poked a nice big whole in the Obama bubble last night.......people are FINALLY beginning to realize post the whole Farrakhan-NAFTA-Ayers-Rezko-anti semite-questionable church bit that Obama is IS despite the conventional wisdom nothing but a politician ---and not just any politician---a kinda slimy lefty politician at that.

            • 18 votes
            Reply#6 - Wed Mar 5, 2008 4:12 PM EST
            TheJonesGirl

            Hillary's wins last night don't change much. I love Bush supporters calling Obama "slimy." Such irony.

            • 15 votes
            #6.1 - Wed Mar 5, 2008 4:25 PM EST
            lisaed

            TJG 6.1- If the shoe fits? Hillary's wins changes alot - it means barrack could not seal the deal and the dem primaries will continue for MANY more weeks to come.

            • 16 votes
            #6.2 - Wed Mar 5, 2008 4:29 PM EST
            A. H. Min

            TJG, OK, let's say that Bush is slimy (I don't think he is, but for arguments' sake we'll say he is). Should Obama be exempted because his predecessor is guilty of the same sin?

            • 17 votes
            #6.3 - Wed Mar 5, 2008 5:18 PM EST
            TheJonesGirl

            Hillary's wins don't change "a lot" Lisa. For her to win the nomination straight out, she'd have to win every last primary from now to the end. Not. Gonna. Happen.

            I like that the Dem primaries will continue, though. Keeps the Repubs out of the newscycle.

            • 11 votes
            #6.4 - Wed Mar 5, 2008 6:08 PM EST
            greck

            I think Hillary poked a nice big whole in the Obama bubble last night.......people are FINALLY beginning to

            finally beginning to drink the kool aid, isn't that what you really mean?

            • 3 votes
            #6.5 - Wed Mar 5, 2008 10:23 PM EST
            Shawn Gordon

            finally beginning to drink the kool aid, isn't that what you really mean?

            beginning? no, this is advanced stages of the disease. I'm sorry, she's (TJG) not gonna make it.

            • 8 votes
            #6.6 - Wed Mar 5, 2008 10:36 PM EST
            determined0a1

            Why the post of Bill was collapsed?

            We read worst about the President and Vice President and we stood still.

            And....this is just the starting because any candidate/nominee to the Presidency of the US is fair game and not to be under the sugary radar.

            • 6 votes
            #6.7 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 8:51 AM EST
            SAYWHAT!!

            Race in America will always trump common sense.

            • 1 vote
            #6.8 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 9:27 AM EST
            KEEPING IT REAL!Deleted
            Shawn Gordon

            Race in America will always trump common sense.

            especially if you think that way.

            • 2 votes
            #6.10 - Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:10 PM EDT
            sirmonkey

            Race in America will always trump common sense.

            Race is a tool used to garner votes, divide Americans, and distract from the real issues.

            • 3 votes
            #6.11 - Wed Mar 12, 2008 5:36 PM EDT
            Reply
            greck

            In a televised debate, Barack raised his hand when asked who would oppose legalizing marijuana. But Barack told another group "I think we need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws."

            there is a difference between decriminalization (ie: not locking up someone for carrying a joint) and legalization (ie: making it perfectly legal to grow weed and sell it) you know that don't you?

            Rezko and his circle.

            how far to we want to extend Rezko's circle? I mean, aren't we all brothers in the eyes of the lord? If Rezko's cousin donated $50 online but didn't identify himself as such, does that make Obama culpable? What about Rezko's podiatrist? Podiatrist's cousin who once rented from Rezko?

            Obama "I never said that we should try to go ahead and get single-payer. "

            He was right, he didn't. He clarified this further at the debate you mentioned, although you didn't seem to include that clarification in your writing. Probably a simple oversight on your part, given that you're most interested in truth and all...

            • 13 votes
            #7 - Wed Mar 5, 2008 4:53 PM EST
            SteveHouse

            there is a difference between decriminalization (ie: not locking up someone for carrying a joint) and legalization (ie: making it perfectly legal to grow weed and sell it)

            I was trying to figure out how to say that.

            • 4 votes
            #7.1 - Wed Mar 5, 2008 5:00 PM EST
            sirmonkey

            "I think we need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws"

            I agree, if the laws are criminal, decriminalize them. Laws are mean to be legal! ;)

            I suppose he meant "decriminalize marijuana possession", though.

            • 3 votes
            #7.2 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 8:30 AM EST
            determined0a1

            We want a transparent President and of course that Obama has to release the info from where he got millions and millions a month. Ironic the "candidates" for the poor have big pockets to spend in politics.

            • 6 votes
            #7.3 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 8:53 AM EST
            TheJonesGirl

            Obama released his tax info, det.

            • 1 vote
            #7.4 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 9:31 AM EST
            SAYWHAT!!

            He did it by building his support from the ground up. You know the little people, the many Americans nobodies. Many small donors are giving $10 or so monthly, which add up. More important, where is Senator Clinton's money coming from, she did not get that much from her advance book deal. Why are you not talking about how she is broke, staffers working for free, is this what we should look forward to?
            A republican nominee who tells you directly economy is not his strong point, a democratic nominee who did not/could not balance her campaign budget.

            WTF???

            What voter would select someone to run this Country with all our economic mess when she did not even manager her campaign budget, (loaning herself $5 M). You think that is a responsible vote.
            Just look to leadership, which candidate show superb leadership, superb management of his campaign finances just for two examples of the difference between Senator Clinton (35 years of experience) and Senator Obama.

            • 1 vote
            #7.5 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 9:33 AM EST
            Megan To Pagan

            I'm sorry but that is a silly argument. No offense. Obama raises tons of money, therefore, he must be a financial genius. See the gaping hole in logic? Obama must be a money magnet and will certainly bail our country out of crisis? Helk, maybe he can solve the crisis by asking everyone to send him $10. Oh, wait, he's gonna have to raise taxes to pay for all of his socialist programs so I guess that's about the sum of it, but more along the line of $100's of dollars but only from those Americans who have a job and are making money. How dare they when there are those who have nothing. Redistribution of wealth! Redistribution of wealth!
            But wait, how does that work? The Obama's make like $400,000 a year now. How dare they!

            • 2 votes
            #7.6 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 11:31 AM EST
            greck

            he's gonna have to raise taxes to pay for all of his socialist programs

            or just to pay off the debt our country has run up by not raising taxes to pay for our current antisocial programs.

            • 2 votes
            #7.7 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 11:34 AM EST
            TheJonesGirl

            Better to raise taxes and pay for it now, than to add it to the debt, Megan. And you might want to look at the spending policies of Bush's republican admin before carrying on.

            • 2 votes
            #7.8 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 12:08 PM EST
            Megan To Pagan

            greck - have you listened to his platform? my issue with him is that socialism has been tried and it doesn't work. it's part of my general issue with dems...

            also, my point was really about saywhat's argument for obama's economic qualifications.

            tjg - you love me and you know it! i'm your favorite rep - you taunt me with party rhetoric -

            i'm so your love nugget - feel the love!

            • 1 vote
            #7.9 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 12:24 PM EST
            greck

            Megan,

            I've been too busy chanting and swooning to listen to his platform, you know how us Obamanations are; all too willing to be brainwashed, interested solely in the destruction of capitalism and fetuses.

            socialist say you, progressive say I.

            (btw, I can't believe I'm the first person I've seen use the term "Obamanation!")

            • 2 votes
            #7.10 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 12:41 PM EST
            Megan To Pagan

            I knew it! It's a leftist conspiracy! I can die now that it's been confessed! You... you.... you....... haters! Always accusing us reps of being so hatey. You, with all your hatey hatiness!

            I'll leave Obamanation alone until I feel that he is either a great leader or an abomination. It's got such a useful double meaning.

            And socialized healthcare is a huge step toward socialization. Have you seen the dental work being churned out by Brittain's socialized health care system? I went to a few doctors while I was there. One told me I had developed asthma and prescribed me a tonic with alchohol and caffiene, an inhaler with steroids, and pain killers (which I had assumed were antibiotics). After three days I was shaking and way more sick. I went to our landlord who was a chemist and told him what was going on. He threw it all out and gave me some sudafed. I had a freakin' cold! Great health care. But at least it was free... The other doctors I saw were, in all fairness, very good. We just had to wait hours in a waiting room full of very sick people to see them. And one of my friends there told us about when he broke his ankle and how he got on the waiting list for an operation but it was going to take 3 months before he could get it fixed, by which time of course they'd have to re-break it before they could pin it together properly. Just a taste of the little sacrifices we'll all be making under socialized health care.

            I liked Romney's answers. Those were truly progressive.

            • 2 votes
            #7.11 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 1:21 PM EST
            greck

            I liked Romney's answers. Those were truly progressive.

            wait 10 minutes, they'll be conservative again soon. ;)

            • 5 votes
            #7.12 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 1:43 PM EST
            gpnavonod

            TheJonesGirl
            Better to raise taxes and pay for it now, than to add it to the debt, Megan. And you might want to look at the spending policies of Bush's republican admin before carrying on.

            Yes ....let's forget all this history.......it's just ink.....

            But let's fly to Neverland with Obama....he's promising a Lexus in every pot.....
            or is that pot... in every Lexus...
            Oh well!...whatever!

            He's the best!....Look at Ill.... and their economy!....Look at his house!...He's got 3 fireplaces!

            Today, President Clinton and Vice President Gore Release Their FY2000 Budget: After Years of Escalating Deficits, We Have Now Entered An Era of Surpluses -- With The Surplus This Year Projected To Be $79 Billion -- The Largest on Record: · Instead of $404 Billion Deficit, $79 Billion Budget Surplus This Year. When President Clinton and Vice President Gore took office, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected the deficit to be $404 billion this year and heading higher; now, the Administration projects the surplus to be $79 billion this year and growing bigger.
            · $79 Billion Surplus -- The Largest On Record. In 1992, the deficit was $290 billion -- the biggest dollar deficit in American history. This year, OMB projects the surplus to be $79 billion -- the biggest dollar surplus in American history. As a share of GDP, the budget surplus would be 0.9 percent this year -- the largest since 1957.
            · Seven Years in A Row of Fiscal Improvement -- The First Time in U.S. History. Reaching a $79 billion surplus in 1999 would mark the seventh consecutive year of improved fiscal balance -- the longest period in American history.
            · Surplus Estimated To Reach $187 Billion By 2002. President Clinton promised to balance the budget by 2002. The budget will be balanced this year -- for the second year in a row -- and the surplus is expected to hit $187 billion in 2002 -- part of what would be the longest and largest debt reduction in our history. And, instead of the $579 billion deficit projected by CBO for 2002, we now project a surplus of $187 billion -- a $766 billion swing.
            · President's Plan Will Result In Debt Being Cut By More than Two-Thirds And Lowest Debt-to-GDP Ratio Since 1917. As a share of the economy, the publicly held debt increased from 26 percent in 1981 to 50 percent in 1993. Since President Clinton took office, the publicly held debt as a share of GDP has dropped to 44 percent. And under the President's framework, the debt held by the public would be cut by more than two thirds and it would fall from 44 percent today, as a share of GDP, to 7.1 percent in 2014 -- its lowest level since 1917.

            Hey, but Bill is not Hillary...and he already said..."You're on your own, babe.".
            "Don't ask.. Don't tell". Remember?

            • 1 vote
            #7.13 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 6:32 PM EST
            determined0a1

            Better to raise taxes and pay for it now,

            I don't object that you even send your raised taxes to Obama or Hillaro 10 years in advance, be my guest.

            When the Dems stop spending like drunk sailors in the House and Congress another rooster will sing.

            • 3 votes
            #7.14 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 6:49 PM EST
            greck

            Det,
            IIRC we had a balanced budget the last time a Dem was in the white house. Now... not so much.

            Hey, how many spending bills has Bush vetoed?

            I can't believe how often people have to set you straight on this issue, the facts just don't bear your "drunk sailors" line out no matter how many times you say it.

            • 2 votes
            #7.15 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 7:07 PM EST
            determined0a1

            Obama's success is a cult to the personality.

            • 3 votes
            #7.16 - Wed Mar 12, 2008 8:09 AM EDT
            sirmonkey

            I am drawn by that sense as well, since people seem to exhibit some cultish behavior. But I now think the issue to be deeper, and it is not accurate to write apparent shallowness off as true shallowness.

            He is boxed in to platitudes or indirect reference to issues, not because he stands for nothing, but because he stands for something... something which it is our recent tradition to never face directly.

            Other than venues of comedy, where political correctness is irreverently addressed (Chapelle Show ;), we rarely hash out contentious issues directly or with much depth. We fear doing so, because our stances and beliefs leave us the most vulnerable, and also most likely to offend others, or to be ripped to shreds at the mere mention of a politically incorrect thought.

            I don't think Obama is shallow at all. I think America is shallow by not being able to face issues squarely.

            • 2 votes
            #7.17 - Wed Mar 12, 2008 5:48 PM EDT
            determined0a1

            What Obama did that is outstanding enough to remember besides that his speeches are great?

            • 2 votes
            #7.18 - Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:39 PM EDT
            lisaed

            determined----obama is running on the gift of oratory and his "jugdgement"---I've never seen such a weak proposition for the office of President in my life.

            • 4 votes
            #7.19 - Fri Mar 14, 2008 7:47 PM EDT
            Kevin Dicks

            obama is running on the gift of oratory

            No, he isn't. Just because Hillary says that's what he's running on doesn't make it true. Has anyone ever heard him say, "Elect me because I make good speeches!"? No. No, he's never said that. He's not running on his skills as a speaker, but since he happens to be a good speaker, he gets accused of running on that fact. He's not. He's running on his ideas. And, by the way, his judgment is sound.

            • 2 votes
            #7.20 - Fri Mar 14, 2008 8:52 PM EDT
            determined0a1

            Obama reminds me a lot of the oratory speeches skills of all the Dems. Most of the doers don't talk too much.

            Remember Greenspan when appeared in front of the Congress? Only he knew what the heck he was talking about.

            I like straight talk (the way that I write) w/o flowering the language.

            • 3 votes
            #7.21 - Sat Mar 15, 2008 7:42 AM EDT
            Cliff Potter

            Greenspan put us into what may prove to be a depression. Yes, he knew what he was doing. To me that means he is criminally liable. Anyone who promoted the mess we are in to favor the Republican president then sitting does not deserve any favorable mention. Nor does his one-sided newscaster wife.

            • 1 vote
            #7.22 - Sat Mar 15, 2008 10:09 AM EDT
            Reply
            A. H. Min

            Barack also told people that his father came to America when Barack's grandfather heard John and Bobby Kennedy, who "sent a shout across oceans" for Africans to come to America and learn. Barack Sr. was then sent to America. There's a problem there also:

            ...having been born in August 1961, the future senator was not conceived until sometime in November 1960. So, if his African grandfather heard words that "sent a shout across oceans," inspiring him to send his goat-herder son to America, it was not Democrat Jack Kennedy he heard, or his brother Bobby, it was Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

            ROTFL. I don't think Obama wants to admit being called by a Republican.

            • 10 votes
            Reply#8 - Wed Mar 5, 2008 5:14 PM EST
            determined0a1

            What a rotten baloney of rhetoric the camps of the candidates think to give us!

            Voices arrive to a tribe in Africa calling.

            Any African-American married into the family of the Kennedys?

            • 7 votes
            #8.1 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 8:55 AM EST
            Sem0l1na

            Well, he sure likes to talk about being related to Dick Cheney.

              #8.2 - Sat Mar 8, 2008 1:23 PM EST
              Reply
              chill

              personally I dislike all the candidates, both parties.

              Question though:

              I am confused about endless articles finding a historic quote that contradicts a current view.

              Are people never allowed to change or evolve their views once they open their mouth on a topic?

              One of the larger problems with US politics is that any smart and capable non-megolomaniac (sp?) understands that the private sector is a far better bet - not least because it avoids this endless distasteful scrutiny that's dominated the US media forever while the dollar crashes, the budgets bursts, and the housing market collapses.

              • 15 votes
              Reply#9 - Wed Mar 5, 2008 5:57 PM EST
              A. H. Min

              Here's the problem (for me anyway). Mitt Romney changed his view on abortion. He could have honestly changed his mind or changed it for political reasons. But what if he changes his mind again in office? What if he suddenly decides that universal health care is a great idea, socialism is the new hip thing, and we should all become a follower of the USSR? I doubt it would go to that extreme, but that's my problem.

              • 10 votes
              #9.1 - Wed Mar 5, 2008 8:23 PM EST
              Megan To Pagan

              Um, Mitt Romney is a Republican because he doesn't believe in those things. I doubt he'd change his economic values since that has been his life long specialty. I have no problem with him changing his views on abortion after touring an embryonic stem cell research plant and seeing the aborted fetus' they used. He hasn't spent his life in medicine and science so I don't have a problem with him changing his mind once he's gained further insight. There is a big difference there. And he was very honest about his change of mind. It irritates me so much that he is torn apart when he is the very kind of good guy we need in Washington that everyone always complains won't run. Then when he does, he gets torn apart.

              • 5 votes
              #9.2 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 12:39 AM EST
              determined0a1

              I wish that Mitt Romney could give us a Universal Dental Care Insurance.

              All in favor of the Universal Health Care get in line and take aspirins in the near satellite. The increase in taxes for spending that the Dems want will not compare our National Deficit.

              Spend, Spend, Spend that is the moto of the Dems.

              • 4 votes
              #9.3 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 9:00 AM EST
              Reply
              Chasing

              Thanks for the info.

              • 2 votes
              Reply#10 - Wed Mar 5, 2008 8:04 PM EST
              FestiveWarrior

              lol
              I was waiting for someone to notice Obama is all show and no ................
              voting for this one

              • 8 votes
              Reply#11 - Wed Mar 5, 2008 10:05 PM EST
              TheJonesGirl

              She came up with 4 (four) more delegates than Obama last night, Festive. Hardly exciting or what the Repubs are making of it.

              • 6 votes
              #11.1 - Wed Mar 5, 2008 10:17 PM EST
              Aaron Still

              4 (four)

              IV? vier? quattro? IIII? after 3 and before 5?

              • 7 votes
              #11.2 - Wed Mar 5, 2008 10:34 PM EST
              Shawn Gordon

              Hardly exciting or what the Repubs are making of it.

              but... it IS exciting... 2(two) or 9,000,000,000 (nine billion) - more is more

              • 8 votes
              #11.3 - Wed Mar 5, 2008 10:34 PM EST
              Aaron Still

              My lucky number is 4 billion. Doesn't help much in gambling though. Come on 4 billion! @!$%#, seven.

              • 6 votes
              #11.4 - Wed Mar 5, 2008 10:35 PM EST
              Bill Harrison

              Aaron, it would seem my lucky number is 12 which is the number of votes my collapsed comment (made in great jest and good spirit as I'm sure my friend Ms. Cyprah would attest) got before the apparatchiks of the Obamaburo showed up.

              • 9 votes
              #11.5 - Wed Mar 5, 2008 10:54 PM EST
              ChrisRonk

              Bill, I read your comment without realizing you and Ms. Cyprah were friends. It is very easy to see why someone would mistakenly take that as a personal attack.

              Now that I know, I can almost see the humor.

              • 3 votes
              #11.6 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 12:24 AM EST
              Shawn Gordon

              Obamaburo

              I've not heard that one. It sounds like some dollar store trinket. I'm partial to ObamaNation

              • 5 votes
              #11.7 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 1:01 AM EST
              Cliff Potter

              Bill - I still maintain your comment was funny, not mean-spirited, whatever its purpose was. But I can see some higher level of sensitivity here these days. That seems up to management, do you not agree?

              • 8 votes
              #11.8 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 2:07 AM EST
              TheJonesGirl

              I spelled it out to make sure it was plain and clear.

              • 1 vote
              #11.9 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 9:34 AM EST
              Aaron Still

              Aaron, it would seem my lucky number is 12

              LOL i hear ya. . .they sure are oppressive around here, for a bunch of people who claim to be oppressed

              • 2 votes
              #11.10 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 7:04 PM EST
              Kevin Dicks

              Aaron, it would seem my lucky number is 12 which is the number of votes my collapsed comment (made in great jest and good spirit as I'm sure my friend Ms. Cyprah would attest) got before the apparatchiks of the Obamaburo showed up.

              Your comment was collapsed long before I got here. I didn't even report it. I didn't even know about it, I had to uncollapse it to even read it, and I still didn't report it. I actually responded with my own bit of jest followed by an explanation of why I'm not going to do any serious commenting here.

              • 2 votes
              #11.11 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 7:36 PM EST
              Bill Harrison

              Don't worry about Kevin. Ain't no biggie. Some people just aren't blessed with our senses of humor. I mean when you can't laugh about politics all hope is lost I even seeded a hilarious satire y'day on how Bush Will Spend Rest of Term in Africa. People should lighten up a little. After all we're talking about politicians here, not saints.

              • 6 votes
              #11.12 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 9:17 PM EST
              epiphany sorbet

              Bill,

              If you remember, Bill Clinton had a triumphal tour of Africa in the final year of his Presidency. Americans tend to be rather hard on their two term Presidents, so they seek refuge on the dark continent where they are greeted with enthusiasm and warmth.

              • 4 votes
              #11.13 - Fri Mar 7, 2008 6:16 AM EST
              Shawn Gordon

              If you remember, Bill Clinton had a triumphal tour of Africa in the final year of his Presidency.

              I also seem remember that he didn't' really have Congressional approval for a place or two either.

              • 2 votes
              #11.14 - Sun Mar 9, 2008 3:34 AM EDT
              Reply
              Chello

              In his memoir, Barack says as a child he was reading Life magazine when he found an article about a "'black man who had tried to peel off his skin' in a failed effort to use chemicals to lighten it." He describes it as "an ambush attack."

              No such article exists.

              I guess everyone remembers exactly what magazine an article came out of 30 years ago. That has to mean the article didnt exist?

              Lets see.......

              John McCain stated that "Senator Obama had, according to the National Journal, the most liberal senator in the Senate. I have a very high ranking on the conservative side." In fact, according to the National Journal report that ranked Obama the "most liberal senator," McCain "did not vote frequently enough in 2007 to draw a composite score." Lie

              McCain has repeatedly asserted that Sen. Barack Obama "once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan." In fact, in an August 1, 2007, foreign policy speech, Obama stated: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and [Pakistani] President [Pervez] Musharraf won't act, we will." Contrary to McCain's assertion, Obama did not say he would take action against Pakistan -- he made any action against "high-value terrorist targets" inside Pakistan conditional -- and he did not specify what the action would be. Nor did he say that "Pakistan" itself would be the target of any action. Lie

              McCain claimed that he called for the resignation of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. In fact, while McCain expressed "no confidence" in Rumsfeld in 2004, the Associated Press reported at the time that McCain "said his comments were not a call for Rumsfeld's resignation." Further, when Fox News host Shepard Smith specifically asked McCain, "Does Donald Rumsfeld need to step down?" on November 8, 2006 -- hours before President Bush announced Rumsfeld's resignation -- McCain responded that it was "a decision to be made by the president." After The Washington Post uncritically reported McCain's claim that he called for Rumsfeld's resignation, a subsequent Post article noted that "McCain's false account has been unwittingly incorporated into the narrative he is selling by some news organizations, including The Washington Post." The article also stated, "A McCain spokesman acknowledged this week that that was not correct. 'He did not call for his resignation,' said the campaign's Brian Rogers. 'He always said that's the president's prerogative.' " Falsehood

              McCain has stark inconsistencies on numerous issues, including the Iraq war, immigration, and tax cuts.

              • 10 votes
              Reply#12 - Wed Mar 5, 2008 10:37 PM EST
              Megan To Pagan

              He's gonna get ripped apart in the generals. What are his inconsistencies on the Iraq war?

              • 5 votes
              #12.1 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 12:44 AM EST
              ChrisRonk

              Not sure Megan. What are his inconsistencies?

              From what I understand he was strongly against this war and is still strongly against this war. As a senator he has voted to fund this war only to support our troops because they are currently there and are in harms way.

              Here is an excerpt from a speech he gave in 2002... before we invaded Iraq. Maybe it will give you a clearer idea on his position and an insight of his 3 a.m. judgment.

              Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

              But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

              I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

              I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

              I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president.

              • 3 votes
              #12.2 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 1:32 AM EST
              Megan To Pagan

              Sweet.

              However, once we were there, he wasn't fighting to pull out, as I understand it, but was fighting to do it right. Basically, he disagreed with the handling of it and would have sent in the surge much much sooner. I have seen nothing to indicate that he is strongly against this war since we've gone in, just strongly against how it has been handled.

              What you say here gives me more faith in him than before. I know about all of the other inconsistencies. Just didn't realize he was against the war in 2002. Of course, I need more info than this to figure this guy out, but at least he may not be the war monger I was terrified that he was...

              • 7 votes
              #12.3 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 1:42 AM EST
              determined0a1

              Obama's scrutiny hasn't started yet.

              Our Presidency is not about skin color and if the kitchen is too hot, leave it. Don't make a race case because I am a supporter of good black leaders.

              • 7 votes
              #12.4 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 9:07 AM EST
              Adam Hobson

              So Chello, you're using the logic that because McCain lies, that make sit ok for Obama to lie too? I thought he was a different kind of candidate that would bring change. I guess his change is just more lies?

              • 7 votes
              #12.5 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 9:33 AM EST
              Chello

              Not at all. Are you saying that because Obama has lied that it invalidates McCain lies? Ive never said Obama lied. Changing a stance and lying are two different things. Lying is intentional. Believing in something and changing your mind because circumstances change is something else. Some of the "lies" are snippets without context. You can do this with almost anyone. It seems to me that when a conservative does it, it gets labeled as something else.

              For example, John McCain made a speech in which he said he was telling the audience about his Conservative values and misspoke and said Liberal and then corrected himself. Conservative talk show hosts have stated this was due to the grind of his campaigning. Barack Obama answers questions during a news conference, answers more after the news conference, and says look Ive already answered 8 questions and it is a big deal. Thats like asking a professional athlete to sign autographs for everyone in the stands. He cant do it. He has to leave at some point and people will be left unhappy.

              • 1 vote
              #12.6 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 4:19 PM EST
              gpnavonod

              As a senator he has voted to fund this war only to support our troops because they are currently there and are in harms way

              Bunch of crap....if the budget is cut... the pentagon will lay off the civilian workers at the bases in America before cutting off ammunition to the troops in the field.This is a strawman. And any one with common sense should see throught it.

              Barrack is voting as the others, Now that he's [Barrack] in Washington... and not the ILL. State Senate ....and is just as phony ....stop kidding yourself.

              • 4 votes
              #12.7 - Sat Mar 8, 2008 9:54 PM EST
              Reply
              Tom Bombadil

              As always, Bodhi, great work. I've clipped this to my own column.

              I have been very vocal against those who have unfairly smeared Obama (the whole Muslim campaign), but his policies or his record are definitely fair game, as is the veracity of some of his biography. I think a candidate who posseses the kind of amazing charisma that Obama does is worthy of extra-close scrutiny.

              • 15 votes
              Reply#13 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 1:42 AM EST
              TBK

              How about the Queen of double talk, falsehoods, and outright lies!

              You got it Hillary Clinton!

              Yea, I really feel safe knowing at three o'clock in the morning she will be answering the little red phone in the White House, when she voted for the war, jobs are going overseas because she supported NAFTA, her healthcare plan was scraped by her husband because it served the insurance companies and failed the people, her new plan would force someone paying $300 to purchase a $600 plan under her mandated plan again serving her biggest donors the Insurance lobbyist, and she has failed to release her 2006 tax returns.

              That Brooks Army hospital thing she cited at the first debate in Texas was disgusting, knowing she cast the voted to rush to war sending our young men and women off to distant shores, placing them in harms way deliberately. Then to smear them as she used them as a political football to maneuver her way down the field of sympathy votes was deplorable. Anyone who can do that with a smile on their face is just plain wicked.

              Indeed Hillary is one of the biggest liars and deceptive people on Capital Hill, which makes Barack look a good and wholesome little house on the 'Hill' kinda guy.

              • 10 votes
              Reply#14 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 2:53 AM EST
              A. H. Min

              Guess you ought a vote Republican then :-)

              • 6 votes
              #14.1 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 7:40 AM EST
              TBK

              Let's hope not...(:-o) but, ah man gotta do, what a man gotta do!

              • 7 votes
              #14.2 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 8:26 AM EST
              Megan To Pagan

              Yea, I really feel safe knowing at three o'clock in the morning she will be answering the little red phone in the White House

              Glenn Beck has a poll up at his website. Who do you want answering the red phone in the White House at 3 am? Clinton, Obama, or McCain... hilarious.

              • 3 votes
              #14.3 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 11:40 AM EST
              determined0a1

              Megan, if Obama gets the call @ 3:00 a.m. he starts reviewing the Constitution and call Ron Paul to read it while he forms a committee to find out what to do. By then.....it's too late.

              • 4 votes
              #14.4 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 6:58 PM EST
              PrezO

              16.4,

              'tis okay as long as he doesn't sit there and read "My Pet Goat"... LOL!!

              en.wikipedia. org/wiki/My_Pet_Goat

              (Remove the space before the .org)

                #14.5 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 7:17 PM EST
                ultrajc

                ChrisRonk, please include all of McCain's brilliant predictions about Iraq
                or haven't you heard these quotes:

                McCain on CNN on Sept. 24, 2002: "I believe that the success will be fairly easy."

                McCain on CNN on Sept. 29, 2002: "We're not going to get into house-to-house fighting in Baghdad. We may have to take out buildings, but we're not going to have a bloodletting of trading American bodies for Iraqi bodies."

                McCain on MSNBC on Jan. 22, 2003: "We will win this conflict. We will win it easily."

                McCain on NBC on March 20, 2003: "I believe, Katie, that the Iraqi people will greet us as liberators."

                Second, McCain was completely wrong during the early years of the war. (Again, quotes from two different links)

                McCain on ABC on Apr. 9, 2003: "It's clear that the end is very much in sight."

                McCain on MSNBC on Apr. 23, 2003: "There's not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shias. So I think they can probably get along."

                McCain on ABC on Dec. 14, 2003: "This is a mission accomplished. They know how much influence Saddam Hussein had on the Iraqi people, how much more difficult it made to get their cooperation."

                McCain on ABC on Mar. 7, 2004: "I'm confident we're on the right course."

                McCain to The Hill on Dec. 8, 2005: "I do think that progress is being made in a lot of Iraq. Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course. If I thought we weren't making progress, I'd be despondent."

                And finally, McCain said all we had to do was give Bush's so-called "surge" a chance, and we'd finally see political reconciliation in Iraq. Strike three.

                • 3 votes
                #14.6 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 7:54 PM EST
                sirmonkey

                Cute. Goat & 9-11 reference. Clever! I think wacko-jacko is more likely to be reading My Pet Goat to children in bed at 3 AM though. ;)

                What would Obama do at that key moment you reference?

                • 4 votes
                #14.7 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 7:56 PM EST
                ChrisRonk

                Great job ultrajc.

                I'm sure that if we were to really get down and scrutinize the candidates, we will see a very different view of these candidates. I just wish I was obsessed enough to spend my limited free time on that.

                Of course when someone in Obama's camp starts to scrutinize his opponents he gets called another Ken Starr.

                • 2 votes
                #14.8 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 10:06 PM EST
                Tom Bombadil

                If the phone rang at my house at 3 AM, I would probably be in the bathroom.

                By the way, is that too much information? :-O

                • 5 votes
                #14.9 - Fri Mar 7, 2008 2:39 AM EST
                TBK

                It matters not when the little red phone rings in the White House, when it comes to Hillary you will get George Bush results.

                Honestly, can we take another Clinton in the White House?, one who has displayed an uncontrollable sexual appetite in which Hillary, his wife was not on the menu. Then there's Hillary, with the seventeen personalities, which is one more than Sybil. That's the one who says the people have buyers remorse.

                Now I can really understand why she never admits any wrong doing and never apologizes for her mistakes. She has no clue who says or does what, be it Hillary, Billary or Doc.

                Thirty years is enough of these nuts in both families which has taken this country to hell and back. They share each others playbook with all the latest in scare tactics.

                OK...how about the shrill in her voice, 8 years of that alone and I can understand why Bill has become her business partner.

                Enough is enough already!

                • 4 votes
                #14.10 - Fri Mar 7, 2008 8:41 AM EST
                Sem0l1na

                Glenn Beck has a poll up at his website. Who do you want answering the red phone in the White House at 3 am? Clinton, Obama, or McCain... hilarious.

                Hope this isn't a duplicate on this thread but Dan Wasserman had a cartoon in today's Boston Globe related to the 3AM phone ad.

                • 1 vote
                #14.11 - Sat Mar 8, 2008 1:30 PM EST
                Megan To Pagan

                Oh! That's funny, Sem! Everyone should go see it!

                • 3 votes
                #14.12 - Sat Mar 8, 2008 1:58 PM EST
                Reply
                pixiequix

                Y'know, both Jack and Bobby Kennedy had political careers prior to their service in the White House. And indeed it was Senator Kennedy who received a petition from the Kenyan politician Tom Mboya in 1960, asking for financial assistance to help continue a scholarship program that he'd begun. Mboya turned to the Kennedys for funding after being turned down by the US government, which at that time was the Eisenhower administration. Because of the Kennedy's generous donation, 250 Kenyan students were given scholarships to schools in the US as a part of the "Tom Mboya airlift." One of those Kenyan students was Barack Obama Sr.

                Here's an article addressing the subject, and even documentation from an online JFK archive.

                • 3 votes
                Reply#15 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 3:23 AM EST
                determined0a1

                As usual the Dems are very caritative with the money of others. The whole Kennedys' scam is to get the black vote and later they forget about them.

                What any Dem President did for LA and Mississippi? Nothing, the poverty was shown during a disaster and they turned a hurricane 5 into a circus.

                • 5 votes
                #15.1 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 9:11 AM EST
                TheJonesGirl

                What any Dem President did for LA and Mississippi? Nothing, the poverty was shown during a disaster and they turned a hurricane 5 into a circus.

                We have had a Dem president since Katrina? LOL!

                • 4 votes
                #15.2 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 9:35 AM EST
                pixiequix

                As usual the Dems are very caritative with the money of others. The whole Kennedys' scam is to get the black vote and later they forget about them.

                What any Dem President did for LA and Mississippi? Nothing, the poverty was shown during a disaster and they turned a hurricane 5 into a circus.

                Okay.... um, I fail to see the relevance in your comment.
                But, I guess, who needs facts when you've got ad hom attacks? Oooh, that rhymes! :)

                • 2 votes
                #15.3 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 3:05 PM EST
                determined0a1

                We have had a Dem president since Katrina? LOL!

                And what about LBJ, Carter and Clinton, why they waited ?

                • 2 votes
                #15.4 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 7:29 PM EST
                TheJonesGirl

                Waited for what, det? It was Bush who was partying in San Diego as people in New Orleans were dying.

                • 3 votes
                #15.5 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 8:38 PM EST
                determined0a1

                The Dems were MIA not doing the right decisions, the President signed the Disaster State 4 days before Katrina hit NO.

                The ball was in Blanco's court and the Mayor.

                • 2 votes
                #15.6 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 9:35 PM EST
                pixiequix

                How is hurricane Katrina in any way relevant to the simple facts that I laid out above?

                It's not relevant. Your argument is an ad hom attack against the entire Democratic party that serves as a distraction from the initial point I was trying to make: One of the articles talking points is dead wrong.

                • 4 votes
                #15.7 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 10:37 PM EST
                TheJonesGirl

                Nope, Det, the federal level has to take the lead.

                Typical that you don't blame Bush...while complaining that Obama gets a pass.

                • 2 votes
                #15.8 - Fri Mar 7, 2008 9:53 AM EST
                Shawn Gordon

                Nope, Det, the federal level has to take the lead.

                They can't take the lead on that.

                The President didn't have the authority to intrude on a local and state matter. Nowhere in the Constitution does it give the President of the United States the authority to override the contemptible lack of response by an American mayor to this disaster. but, I understand why you'd think it is Bush's fault... Liberal lefts are generally all about big government micromanaging the lives of everyone.

                I don't have a problem with people blaming FEMA either... Brown is just as responsible on a federal level, but blaming Bush only serves to bash him cause its fun and easy. Sort of like if I follow you around and troll you.

                Aside from that, Nagin didn't even follow his own plan and I would've hoped that a Mayor FROM the town they're running would understand or better understand the importance of being prepared for a disaster given that NO was known to have declining safety measures.

                Here
                Even in their own emergency preparedness organization mission statement, it is stated that THEY are responsible for protection of the citizens in time of disaster.

                By whom?

                II. CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS

                Under the direction of the Mayor, the Office of Emergency Preparedness will
                coordinate activities in accordance with the Comprehensive Emergency
                Management Plan to assure the coordination of training programs for all
                planning, support, and response agencies. Departments, authorities,
                agencies, municipalities, and all private response organizations bear the
                responsibility of ensuring their personnel are sufficiently trained.

                - source

                I can't log into the NO site to actually get the older information, as it's no longer 'open access' (oddly), but the link also contains an email from Blanco requesting the declaration of a "State of Emergency" - which was fulfilled, and for federal aid. Bush is not directly involved with the mobilization of FEMA and again, there are certain protocols that a re required for FEMA to move out. You can't just say "hey, I need help" and not have an assesment done as to the level of help needed or without expecting that the level of help needed wouldn't require time to give. I understand that time wasn't something they really had and it greatly effected many people negatively. But, the NO leaders were majority responsible. Nagin and his buddies didn't have a problem finding ways to campaign right after Katrina did he?

                • 5 votes
                #15.9 - Fri Mar 7, 2008 12:46 PM EST
                Reply
                DAWeb

                Wow, reading through these comments the most prevalent theme seems to be that hey, Hillary lies just as bad so how wrong can this really be? LOL just makes me laugh when the biggest defenders of Obama have to rely on Hillary being a bigger lier for their defense.

                • 5 votes
                Reply#16 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 5:41 AM EST
                TBK

                Big LOL...Come on, do you really think anyone who is running for President, has ever run, or will run in the future are not all liars.

                That's why many are lawyers and why they are called Po-li-ticians, a person who practices the art of tricks and deception. (By the end of this Campaign season, Hillary will have rewritten the Handbook for Politicians because of her Special Talents)

                "Politics" is derived from the words "poly" meaning "many", and "tics" meaning "blood-sucking parasites," one who has perfected the art of lying and a highly paid yes-man/woman.

                So in anything dealing with government on the national or local levels you have to consider who is the biggest liar and vote for the lesser of the two.

                That being said, Barack Obama for President 2008.

                • 4 votes
                #16.1 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 9:28 AM EST
                DAWeb

                TBK, so you don't like politicians. So what. I personally wish to hold those that ask for my vote up to scrutiny and not let any of them off on such a flimsy statement as 'they all do it'. I just choose not to accept that. I strive for a higher standard. Just imagine what could happen if we all did...

                • 3 votes
                #16.2 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 9:45 AM EST
                TBK

                And as you wish upon your star, they have no care as to who you are, but to line their pockets and to become very rich, as they run this country into a ditch.

                Look, you don't even believe in the movement happening right in front of you, Barack is wanting to give the government back to the people. (He can't do it by himself, it's going to take the masses getting behind him) I guess the higher standard you speak of does not involve the people having a say and a seat at the table with our government.

                Of course Hillary is not running a campaign of inclusion as she surrounds herself with Clinton loyalist and John 'Straight Talk' McCain sure won't be pulling out any chairs for you at the White House, so just who's left to meet your high expectation..help me out here, as I'm trying to get my imagination juices flowing here.

                Let me help you out, the one who was opposed to the war, has a national healthcare plan while maintaining quality care, supports tax cuts for the poor and middle class, Obama help to introduced the BioFuels Security Act in 2007 and much more is the only one I will trust to end this war and do what it takes to revive this nation.

                Is he the perfect candidate, better yet, are you the perfect voter, I know I'm not by anyone measure, but I will sleep a whole lot easier knowing that Barack Obama is steering the ship than any of the others that are left on the deck.

                My guess is if Hillary is wearing her yellow jacket, no parrot required...is at the wheel, she would not request the help of anyone, she would simply look out through her telescope and declare at 3am in the morning, 'I' got this, beginning her crusade to rule the world.

                You asked me to imagine.......(;o)

                • 5 votes
                #16.3 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 11:43 AM EST
                DAWeb

                Barack is wanting to give the government back to the people.

                No, Barack wants to give the people to the government. via bigger government intruding on more and more of our lives.

                are you the perfect voter,

                Why Yes I am. thanks for noticing

                • 3 votes
                #16.4 - Fri Mar 7, 2008 10:57 AM EST
                TBK

                Why Yes I am. thanks for noticing

                And now I understand all to well why you embrace Hillary, she lives in a fantasy world as well.
                :-o)

                • 3 votes
                #16.5 - Fri Mar 7, 2008 3:55 PM EST
                DAWeb

                LOL, if you think I embrace Hillary, you really do not know me at all.

                • 2 votes
                #16.6 - Fri Mar 7, 2008 6:24 PM EST
                Reply
                KSF5

                I'm glad to see that some truths about Obama are finally coming out. I was starting to wonder when people would wake up and see this guy for what he really is: a foreign policy ignorant, race-touting, arrogant, pretentious, WANNA-BE!

                • 3 votes
                Reply#17 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 6:01 AM EST
                Rob Ballew

                Once again Bodhi great article and discussion thread. I find it funny how many people seem to go on the attack whenever we discuss Obama and some of his shortfalls. He is a human and a politician so he can't be as honest as everyone makes him out to be. I just wish more people would wake up and realize he is a politician and he is going to say what makes them all warm and fuzzy.

                I also appreciate the article and found it well researched. Thanks.

                Rob

                • 7 votes
                Reply#18 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 6:53 AM EST
                PrezO

                Mr. Ballew,

                I find it funny that you go about on one hand saying how you are sick of partisan politics and all the hate fest and then come here to add your voice to the anti-Obama crowd. (I read some of your articles after Angel_C pointed me to your column, but the more I see of you lately, the less inclined I am to go back.)

                Haven't seen you do that with McCain. Face it, inspite of your show of pretending to be above the political fray here, you are very much a Republican. Ya know, people can see through the facade.

                • 2 votes
                #18.1 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 12:29 PM EST
                greck

                he is a politician and he is going to say what makes them all warm and fuzzy.

                except, he inspires the kind of warm fuzzy that gets people active, doing things, participating in their government. he inspires the kind of warm fuzzy that makes Rush Limbaugh urge people to vote for Hillary.

                It's not hope for the sake of, it's hope and action.

                I find it funny how many people seem to go on the attack whenever we discuss Obama and some of his shortfalls.

                It's because they're largely contrived the way they're presented in an article like this one. It's a dishonest discussion aimed at smear to begin with. It's born out of unfairness with unfairness and division in mind. Not much of a shocker that it becomes a fight when that's the context.

                • 2 votes
                #18.2 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 12:50 PM EST
                Shawn Gordon

                @PrezO

                Face it, inspite of your show of pretending to be above the political fray here, you are very much a Republican. Ya know, people can see through the facade.

                Being above the political fray doesn't mean you don't have a partisan group you relate to. I'd be interested in hearing what it is that is wrong with the Republican ideology and what is sooooo right about the Democrat ideology (bear in mind, I could care less about the people in either party, I ask about ideology)

                I find it funny that you go about on one hand saying how you are sick of partisan politics and all the hate fest and then come here to add your voice to the anti-Obama crowd.

                Perhaps you'll find with equal humor that I too, generally do not like partisan diatribe since people debate the actions of a person or people instead of the motivation and reasons. Anyone can @!$%# up a slice of toast, so it becomes moot to debate particular people within a party. However, when you get a large group of people fawning over a guy who, really hasn't done much but vote against a war, talk about himself to no end, 'hope' about things, and 'want' to give everyone one of the worst healthcare systems any country has ever had, then it'sokay to make the opinion known...

                However, all Rob said was:

                He is a human and a politician so he can't be as honest as everyone makes him out to be. I just wish more people would wake up and realize he is a politician and he is going to say what makes them all warm and fuzzy.

                Which equates to nothing close to slamming Obama. He's saying that Obama is human, and like all humans, he lies about things. Then, as a politician he'll lie about things to get a vote. All politicians lie about something and with the ObamaNation running around polishing him up with fresh coats of Carnauba wax daily, it's not rocket surgery to figure out that the spread of 'hope' has caused people to overlook the reality of problems that are defiantly going to be addressed.

                I think it's GREAT Obama has all of these hopes, but hope isn't anything new. Hopes and Dreams are good to ahve becuase they give you a goal, but thre is a downside to both.

                Dreams are just that - a dream. The "American Dream" is a large number of things and different for everyone, but it's a dream. It's why it isn't called The "American Reality".

                Hopes are also just hopes. I've had hopes for 30 years and having some guy on a podium telling me what hopes are isn't news or exciting to me. I have become very discontent with listening to Obama talk about a rack of hopes, the same hopes in fact, for the past several months. I want to hear "wills". "I hope", is a weak statement to make in this country at this time. "I will" says at least there is conviction and the strength to do the best you can to pursue it. Hope is a start, yeah... but we've got enough @!$%# started that has never been finished that I really don't need 4 more years of a guy starting @!$%# so that I have to put him back in office for another 4 if I've got "hope" to get it finished.

                Obama gives me an image of a guy handing me an IOU that says "I hope I can pay this" and then goes off to rally a fund raiser so that he might be able to.

                Thanks,

                Shawn

                PS

                I am rather anxious to hear you Prez0, explain what it is you find right about the Dem ideology and wrong with the Rep ideology

                • 5 votes
                #18.3 - Sat Mar 8, 2008 7:16 PM EST
                Reply
                Nathaniel Smith

                These quotes and attempted analysis of them do present the writer's agenda cleverly concealed as being objective. Scrutiny? Maybe! It allows for the ignoring of message and discards context to give a destructive edge to the media and others opposed to Obama's candidacy.
                Rather clear the media is in jubilation over "The Come Back Kid #2". Thanks to Canadian questionable interference and a collusion(?) to link Obama with a past friend's court battle.
                Are we prepared to squander America's opportunity to regain its lost ground (economic,trade,moral standing) at home and abroad? The maths is in favour of a victory for America's resurgence. The media must ,however, stop taking oders from Hillary and Bill!
                This article is not helping to lift America out of the Bush quagmire.

                • 4 votes
                Reply#19 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 7:09 AM EST
                dugan49

                These quotes and attempted analysis of them do present the writer's agenda cleverly concealed as being objective. Scrutiny? Maybe! It allows for the ignoring of message and discards context to give a destructive edge to the media and others opposed to Obama's candidacy. Rather clear the media is in jubilation over "The Come Back Kid #2". Thanks to Canadian questionable interference and a collusion(?) to link Obama with a past friend's court battle. Are we prepared to squander America's opportunity to regain its lost ground (economic,trade,moral standing) at home and abroad? The maths is in favour of a victory for America's resurgence. The media must ,however, stop taking oders from Hillary and Bill!
                This article is not helping to lift America out of the Bush quagmire.

                Obama is not the only way out.

                • 2 votes
                #19.1 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 9:11 AM EST
                Reply
                dugan49

                In the Politico article that is linked to in the titile article, is the following passage -

                "As another example, consider Obama's stirring tale for the Selma audience about how he had been conceived by his parents, Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham, because they had been inspired by the fervor following the "Bloody Sunday" voting rights demonstration that was commemorated March 4. "There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Ala.," he said, "because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don't tell me I don't have a claim on Selma, Ala. Don't tell me I'm not coming home to Selma, Ala."

                Obama was born in 1961, and the Selma march occurred four years later, in 1965. The New York Times reported that when the senator was asked about the discrepancy later that day, he clarified: "I meant the whole civil rights movement." "

                ____________

                What we see is Barack Obama as 'every politician'. Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Richard Nixon, FDR, Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, etc., ALL tailor(ed) their anecdotes and stories to the audience of the moment and in the process fudge on accurate detail. Obama is not a political messiah. He is the same old wine in a new bottle. His 'lies' are neither earthshaking nor inexcusable. But neither is he someone who is above doing these things for his own aggrandizement.

                • 3 votes
                Reply#20 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 9:08 AM EST
                katiekat42

                I find the comments here a tad bit depressing. Why can't people accept that Obama is not the second coming of the Messiah. He is not perfect. He DOES lie. He does participate in propaganda and political posturing. He does sling mud. His wife slings mud and plays dirty too! He is a politician and nothing more.

                GET OVER IT AND QUIT ACTING LIKE OBAMA IS PERFECT OR ANYTHING NEW.

                Ugh. I have to laugh when I hear him compared to Kennedy. Thats not a compliment folks. Kennedy was one of the worst President's this nation has seen. The only thing he did well was speak. Yes, Obama is like JFK - but not in a good way.

                Obama needs to stop pretending to be something he is not. He needs to start doing his damned job and start voting. He needs to show the American public his political, cultural and moral beliefs by voting on bills in the Senate. Maybe after I know who he is, beyond the guy that screams "Change" repeatedly - I might be able to vote for him.

                • 4 votes
                Reply#21 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 9:11 AM EST
                Navyvet48

                Thank you Katie for your timely comments. I agree. Why has he got someone in the Rezko trial taking notes on jury selection when he can't even find the time to convene his subcommittee on Afghanistan?

                  #21.1 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 12:47 PM EST
                  JoulesBeef

                  LOL noone is saying he is
                  of course he lies
                  he is a politician
                  of course he postures
                  he is runnign for president
                  but this stuff is weak
                  it really makes him look like one of the most honest politicians out there.

                  and whats this swipe on aphghanistan.. has mccain, has hilary, please help me get smarter.. maybe you found some beef, but I suspect not.

                  • 2 votes
                  #21.2 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 1:06 PM EST
                  Chasing

                  Kennedy was one of the worst President's this nation has seen.

                  Thank god I'm not the only one who realizes that...

                  • 4 votes
                  #21.3 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 7:42 PM EST
                  sirmonkey

                  I thought the Afghanistan hearing thing came off as a contrived accusation. Was there anything to it? Probably he should have grandstanded with an early hearing or something, but isn't he just following a normal schedule and not neglecting anything?

                  • 2 votes
                  #21.4 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 8:05 PM EST
                  Navyvet48

                  Actually he is giving the Bush Administration carte blanche ... we need to know what is really happening in Afghanistan don't you think? Isn't that where OBL is rumored to be if he is (alive)? Aren't you curious? I am ... I have questions....

                  • 1 vote
                  #21.5 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 10:35 PM EST
                  Reply
                  determined0a1

                  Any one asked the Obamas about Maria Isabel, the notable Cuban communist?

                  It's notorious the pictures together, it's notorious the flag with the Che, it's notorious the "new friend founded" in Raul Castro and sitting w/leaders that are not pacific w/o pre-conditions..

                  • 3 votes
                  Reply#22 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 9:14 AM EST
                  TheJonesGirl

                  it's notorious the flag with the Che

                  LOL!

                  You mean the flag of a volunteer in an office that the Obama campaign had just begun to move into?

                  Ah, the smell of Republican desperation.

                  • 3 votes
                  #22.1 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 9:37 AM EST
                  DAWeb

                  Actually I think that is something else you are smelling...

                  • 4 votes
                  #22.2 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 9:47 AM EST
                  TheJonesGirl

                  Nope. Though there might be a touch of Republican envy, since they are now seemingly stuck with a boring candidate.

                  • 2 votes
                  #22.3 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 9:52 AM EST
                  DAWeb

                  Yup, certain it is something else you are smelling.

                  • 3 votes
                  #22.4 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 10:36 AM EST
                  JoulesBeef

                  we shouldn't have preconditions to sit with leaders.. that not how you have negociations with people that you are not at war with. That is how you have negociations with people you have defeated in battle.
                  But ou don't have negotiation where the other side has to give up points of the negotiation to you before comign to the table. That is arrogant BS that proves you have no intentions for diplomacy.

                  You can still blow them up if you don't like what they say.
                  The precondition thing is so that people like BUSH can claim that other countries are willing to negocaite and are being obstructionist when it is us that are being obstructionist.

                  You want to keep tnetions high?
                  you don't want to reduce terorism?
                  you prefer war?
                  you like countries hating america and calling us argogant.
                  you like to be the target of terror
                  than have a preconditional deplomacy is the sure way to make sure that happens.

                  • 2 votes
                  #22.5 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 1:04 PM EST
                  determined0a1

                  Not even the releasing of political prisoners in Cuba?

                  Come on, dictators aren't leaders, they opress the people and take away what others worked for it.

                  • 2 votes
                  #22.6 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 7:37 PM EST
                  sirmonkey

                  Freedom is passe. It's about unity, man. Avoiding confrontation. Get with the program. ;)

                  Besides, let's not bring up the "political prisoners in Cuba" thing right now ;)

                  • 3 votes
                  #22.7 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 8:13 PM EST
                  Reply
                  sirmonkey

                  This is not a direct accusation, just a general comment:

                  Usually the greatest people are also the most humble and quiet about themselves.

                  • 3 votes
                  Reply#23 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 9:14 AM EST
                  Shawn Gordon

                  And Obama is constantly telling us how great he is.

                  • 5 votes
                  #23.1 - Fri Mar 7, 2008 12:47 PM EST
                  Reply
                  Jcpas

                  Most of this is completely irrelevant to policy! Who cares why his parents got married and when is just as unimportant, we're voting for a PRESIDENT. What the hell does that have to do with anything? It totally overshadows any valid points that you might have because it's obvious you're just trying to make your list longer!

                  Obama said that he was for de-criminalizing marijuana and said that he didn't want to legalize it... that's ok! De-criminalizing doesn't mean it's not illegal.

                  You're digging way too deep into things. There is not a single point up there that actually has to do with his ability to be President. Language is not a static thing, and it is easy to misspeak (Bush illustrates that perfectly).

                  • 2 votes
                  Reply#24 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 11:42 AM EST
                  dugan49

                  "Language is not a static thing, and it is easy to misspeak (Bush illustrates that perfectly)."

                  ___

                  Some of this is not 'misspeak', it is fabrication for effect. Obama knows he was not conceived as a result of a Selma civil rights march, but it made a nice story in front of a Selma audience. That is not misspeak.

                    #24.1 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 11:57 AM EST
                    determined0a1

                    Oh boy, in the Obamamania anything goes. How accomodative and convenient.

                    • 5 votes
                    #24.2 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 7:41 PM EST
                    TheJonesGirl

                    Oh boy, in the Obamamania anything goes. How accomodative and convenient.

                    The irony of a Bush supporting typing that is rich.

                    • 3 votes
                    #24.3 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 7:46 PM EST
                    sirmonkey
                    Oh boy, in the Obamamania anything goes. How accomodative and convenient.

                    The irony of a Bush supporting typing that is rich.

                    I think that's normal since the anything-goes character-doesnt-matter approach is usually a Dem thing. The irony here is that this is going on between two Dems.

                    • 3 votes
                    #24.4 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 8:19 PM EST
                    TheJonesGirl

                    since the anything-goes character-doesnt-matter approach is usually a Dem thing

                    LOL, right. Republicans have yet to hold Bush accountable for anything.

                    • 3 votes
                    #24.5 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 8:39 PM EST
                    determined0a1

                    Do you mean to hold GWB for another 4 yrs?

                    • 3 votes
                    #24.6 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 9:39 PM EST
                    Shawn Gordon

                    I think that's normal since the anything-goes character-doesnt-matter approach is usually a Dem thing. The irony here is that this is going on between two Dems.

                    how is that ironic. It's happening on the main stage, why not here? It's like they're trying to figure out who is more left, and which left, then is right... anything left is right, but anything right is wrong. right?

                    The irony of a Bush supporting typing that is rich.

                    I don't even understand that. Is there punctuation missing... maybe a whole word just *poof* completely gone? Are there poor typings? and... what is a typing?

                    • 3 votes
                    #24.7 - Sun Mar 9, 2008 3:42 AM EDT
                    Megan To Pagan

                    English is not her native language.

                    • 3 votes
                    #24.8 - Sun Mar 9, 2008 5:59 PM EDT
                    Shawn Gordon

                    English is not her native language.

                    seriously?

                    LOL, right. Republicans have yet to hold Bush accountable for anything.

                    I've come to gain an understanding that you (TJG) tend to want to attack the republicans as people, not their ideologies or their position. How did I come to this conclusion? Every single time I turn around you bring Bush up in response to anything negatively said about Democrat actions (or inactions as the case sometimes is). Is Bush even completely relevant in the context of this article? The 'relevanciometer' is seriously in the red and declining.

                    So, maybe you'd like to explain how the Democrat ideology is grand and superior to the Republican ideology (with an attempt in comprehensible English and linked assertions to factual non-propaganda or agenda based sources)

                    • 4 votes
                    #24.9 - Sun Mar 9, 2008 6:08 PM EDT
                    Megan To Pagan

                    Haha! I thought that was det. Teehee. Sorry Jones Girl. And sorry det. You rock! You are seriously one of my favorite people on Newsvine!

                    In that case, Jonesy must have made a mistype or something. She's usually very clear.

                    Also, Jonesy, I do hold Bush accountable for some things. And I'm a Republican, as you well know. So I'm gonna exempt myself from all future sweeping Republican statements because, as we both know, I'm *special*. :) (And I don't mean that to be rude, just silly.)

                    Neener neener Shawn. :P

                    • 2 votes
                    #24.10 - Sun Mar 9, 2008 6:26 PM EDT
                    Shawn Gordon

                    In that case, Jonesy must have made a mistype or something.

                    I'll just assume you're right.

                    She's usually very clear.

                    ?!?!... I'll refrain from showing contrary examples in a chronologically ordered list, but hey... you're entitled to your opinion and I'll give up that she's at least determined and has full faith in her ways...

                    Neener neener Shawn. :P

                    lol... I guess it makes sense though... I knew Det doesn't have English as her native tongue so her typos I can understand.

                    • 4 votes
                    #24.11 - Sun Mar 9, 2008 6:55 PM EDT
                    Reply
                    greenpagan


                    It seems that Barry isn't all that different from other politicians when it comes to facts.

                    Sorry. Jesus Christ isn't running for President this year...

                    GOP Mess America

                    ====

                    • 2 votes
                    Reply#25 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 12:09 PM EST
                    gpnavonod

                    It seems that Barry isn't all that different from other politicians when it comes to facts.

                    Sorry. Jesus Christ isn't running for President this year...

                    Barrack is not the second coming?.....Hold everything!....isn't he the Messiah?....

                    Let me back in that booth! Outta my way!

                    Now!

                    • 2 votes
                    #25.1 - Thu Mar 6, 2008 7:04 PM EST
                    Reply
                    Jump to discussion page: 1 2
                    Leave a Comment:
                    You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                    You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                    (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                    Newsvine Privacy Statement
                    As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                    FUN STUFF:
                    • Leaderboard |
                    • E-Mail Alerts |
                    • Top of the Vine |
                    • Newsvine Live |
                    • Newsvine Archives |
                    • The Greenhouse |
                    COMPANY STUFF:
                    • Code of Honor |
                    • Company Info |
                    • Contact Us |
                    • Jobs |
                    • User Agreement |
                    • Privacy Policy |
                    • About our ads
                    LEGAL STUFF:
                    • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                    • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                    • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com