No Country for Old Men

The following is my answer to another poster on a message board which follows the stock of a small wind turbine company. The posters are a long time established group, familiar with each other, and occasionally they get into political discussions. One of the posters told me that I should write as a commentator. Well, that’s not going to happen, but I thought I would post this on a political discussion board, where it might create some interest.

The exchange started when I said I might move to Iceland or Croatia if Obama gets elected. OK, I was half joking. But, who knows?

I have embellished my original post to make a fuller case, and I am known as a very lengthy writer. So, read this if you have the wherewithal to get through a long post.


RICHIE:

Anchorcheck, get a grip. It would take a massive switch to get McCain elected, now.

You need to quit watching FIX news. Could you repeat your claim that you would move to Iceland if Obama gets elected, for the record?


ANCHORCHECK:

Richie, it may look grim for McCain this past week, but I just read an article pointing out that there has already been a couple of massive swings in the polls over the past many weeks.

Remember the "Bradley Effect", too. Try running those interactive electoral maps I posted by adding in 3 to 5 points for McCain in the battleground states. I have. McCain wins. Maybe even big.

And then there is the potential movement back to McCain. Americans just might still be having some considerable misgivings about Obama, as he still remains hopelessly vague and quite a mystery man, with little accomplishment.

Is Obama the most hard left candidate to ever run for the presidency? I think the answer is easily yes. This is why the democrats are insisting that looking into Obama’s past is “not fair”, or dirty politics. But, they sent a few score of lawyers up to Alaska to try to uncover dirt on Palin, yet her past has been pretty much an open book. Obama’s past is filled with radical activist and socialist associations. And that is what is being hidden. And the media has simply ignored this glaring issue.

The democrat’s mantra is "No more Bush!". We have heard that stupid mantra from the Bush haters for years and years. It is quite tiresome and silly, and maybe, just maybe, voters are not capitulating into lockstep with these democrat’s delusions that Bush is the devil. Some of the democrats even want to try Bush for war crimes! Thus, it appears that many of the hard left democrats, even Pelosi, suffer from ABDS (Anti-Bush Dysfunction Syndrome).

Voters may simply not believe that McCain and Bush are linked, or that there is anything really relevant about hating Bush. As Sarah Palin pointed out in her debate, trying to link McCain to hatred of Bush is just looking backwards. We need to move on. This election is about the future. The country faces big issues, and needs sober leadership.

Iraq is not really an issue anymore. Essentially, we have won, you know. The “Surge” accomplished this, which McCain bravely pushed, while the democrats brayed that Iraq was an American defeat, and put it front and center as the issue which they would use to win the coming presidential election.

Well, that scenario didn’t work the way the democrats thought it would.

Now, with Iraq, we just need to ensure that we don’t snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, and withdraw abruptly and give the terrorists a chance to undue what our soldiers sacrificed for. That would be a travesty for those brave young men and women who fought and some who died.

Then there is the factor of the voter’s tradition of not giving one party both the presidency AND the legislative branch. And you do recall that the Congress has a favorable rating close to that of Hitler during the battle of Berlin, don't you? Is it in the single digits yet? Pelosi is a dried up Wicked Witch of the West compared to our perky Sarah Palin. Sarah could be wearing ruby slippers, maybe, and just needs to click her heels together to make things better.

Pelosi actually turned out the lights in Congress on those republican congressmen who wanted to debate the issue of drilling for oil and gas right here in America! She did this even knowing that, clearly, the vast majority of Americans want to “drill baby drill!”. I think the democrats are so enamored of politically correct ideology, that they actually want oil prices to remain high, just to make their pet alternative energy projects more competitive with oil and gas produced right here in America! And, unlike Palin and McCain, the democrats just don’t want nuclear energy revived. The democrats were the ones who killed the nuclear energy industry 30 years ago. Now here we are with no nuclear pants being built in the past 30 years, and France gets 80% of their energy from nuclear! That’s what aligning yourself with the environmental extremists got them…...and, unfortunately, us too!

Everyone is for SANE alternative energy. But the logical response to our energy crisis is to use true science to find the best methods to transition to them, not politically correct ideology which seeks to jettison oil, gas, coal and nuclear energy. That is just insane.

I am hoping that some type of "Swift Boat" campaign will soon be launched to bring out the exceedingly strange background of your hero, Obama. The media certainly is not doing their job in examining Obama’s past. You do realize that he has actually had very little experience in governance, quite a bit less than Palin, who the democrats decry as being woefully unqualified…..for the VICE presidency!

Go look up and compare Palin’s political career and Obama’s on Wikipedia. Palin started her governmental career in 1992 on the Wasila City counsel board. Obama was a leftist political activist in Chicago at that time. Palin then became mayor of Wasila for two terms, while it wasn’t until 1997 that Obama became a state legislator in Springfield, the Illinois capital. Obama served as a state legislator to 2004, then ran for US senator. He won that race when his campaign successfully got the divorce records of his opponent released publicly, and it was revealed that his opponent had asked his wife to accompany him to a sex club. Obama’s opponent had to withdraw from the race over the embarrassment, and Obama won easily in the disarray of his opponent’s candidacy.

Obama began his senate term in January 2005. In February of 2007 he began his campaign for the presidency.

Palin’s record is pretty well known, by now, with all the scrutiny. Her record has been quite transparent, I think. When she won her campaign for governor of Alaska on a reform ticket, she beat the incumbent republican governor in the primary, and then went on to beat a former democratic governor of Alaska, even though she was greatly outspent by him. Early in her governorship, her favorable ratings were polled as high as 93%, and she still remains the most popular governor in the US, by far.

Here is a question for you. Has there ever been a less qualified candidate for president as Obama? Has there ever been a candidate which even remotely approaches Obama's apparent extreme radical background?

You democrats are trying to sabotage Governor Palin across the internet and the media as being a stupid hick from Alaska. But, she clearly has more practical, as well as executive experience, than Obama.

Obama's main experience appears to be a very fluid familiarity with all things radical, leftist, politically correct, and blackly militant. Somehow, I don't view that type of background as being useful or relevant. In fact, I, and I am sure most Americans, view that type of a background as being a DISQUALIFICATION to be president.

That 20 year dalliance in the Black Liberation, "hate whitey" church fits very neatly within Obama's history. I am looking for the "swift boat" to properly "out" this arrogant leftist in sheep's clothing. Then lets do the polls.

The media has simply had a “hands off” approach to reporting Obama’s disturbing background. But, you can find plenty about it on the internet. Here’s two links:

An "Obama Timeline" at:
http://[colony14.net]/id41.html

A sobering list of "What Obama would do..." at:
http://[colony14.net]/id35.html


There has been very little of an expose of Obama which has not been "swiftly" minimalized by the Obama fawning media. Take Obama’s association with the former Weatherman terrorist, Bill Ayers. The media has just dismissed Obama’s quite extensive history with this man. From my reading, Obama was heavily involved with Bill Ayers in giving tens of millions of dollars to schools through a foundation which had been set up to improve education for kids in Chicago. I’m sure it was never the donor’s intent to do this, but Obama and Ayers and their colleagues set it up so that all that money was channeled to schools ONLY through a filter of radical leftist organizations, which the schools were forced to associate with, and programs were set up to use the funds to teach kids about leftist community organizing tactics, and America’s supposed racial and social injustices. Requests for funds by schools to this foundation to teach math and science were ignored by Obama and Ayers and the foundation they ran together.

Go look this up on the internet yourself. Maybe I got some of the details wrong, but this was the gist of what I recall. It was called the Annenberg Foundation, I believe.

Another point is that we have just had the worst run of economic news since the depression, and its conceivable that things will quiet down for a few weeks before more shoes drop. But, make no mistake that we are facing big challenges in the economic system.

Putting a radical like Obama in the presidency combined with Pelosi in control of the Congress, and Biden in control of the Senate, could just give them a once in a hundred year opportunity to use the country’s worrisome economic straights to permanently change the free enterprise system to a hard left socialist system, which is what Russia, China, and Eastern Europe only recently rejected. Socialism and communism just doesn’t work, and the Chinese, Russians and Poles know this through bitter experience, and finally kicked socialism to the curb.

How Ironic if Reagan and Thatcher finally gave the knock out blow to communism, only to have a new drive towards socialism emerge here a few decades later! It is said that the only place where one can still find Marxists is on the campuses of America and Europe. Most of them are sporting grey pony tails.

I admit, it looks grim for McCain at present, but it ain't over yet. I am very worried, though.

It does look as though Obama will breeze through the election, with essentially no serious background check having been done on him by the media. And, it is amazing that the media is doing such a hatchet job on Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin, while giving a total pass to Obama on even glancing at his strange past.

Eventually, you won't like what you get with an Obama presidency, if Obama breezes to his victory, and gets to have his personalized presidential seal painted on air force one. (Frankly, I find this just as disturbing as Obama’s radical past, that he would take the time to design his own, personalized, presidential seal. This smacks of some kind of extreme egotism or arrogance).

Finally, Obama has one other factor going against him. The democrats have a bunch of little lunatic bloggers and activists who are constantly being mobilized to haunt the call in shows, or to literally SHOUT DOWN the opposition. This happened to the Milt Rosenberg radio show in Chicago when he interviewed an author who has carefully researched Obama’s past. And Milt Rosenberg is a gracious, extraordinarily gifted intellect, and is regarded as one of the smartest men living on the planet today. I have listened to him for a few decades. He is a retired University of Chicago professor of sociology, and a true gift to our country. He has interviewed the likes of Henry Kissenger, Margaret Thatcher, and a myriad of noted authors and intellectuals, and other people of note over the past 30 years he has been on the radio. He even had Obama on his program a few years ago.

Obama’s operatives were instructed to shut down Milt’s interview with this author, and they literally flooded the Tribune’s radio station, WGN, with demands to not carry the interview, and then flooded this call in show with callers when WGN went ahead with it anyway. You can go to wgnradio.com, and click on the Milt Rosenberg show, and look up the archived program where this occurred. Milt archives most of his shows. They are very good.

Milt was aghast at the activity which was swirling around his broadcast, and the episode made the national news. But, Milt didn’t cave in to the Obamabots, as some have nicknamed them.

People see through these type of stalinist tactics. It is not attractive, and people get fed up quickly with it. Who would want to be governed by these pests, anyway? Legions of them would infest our government in an Obama presidency.

Maybe Obama was one of these agitators when he started out his career as a ‘community organizer’, using the tactics invented by the communist activist Saul Alinsky. I think this was the case if you dig into Obama’s past on the internet.

If McCain wins yet, there will be a massive sigh of relief across this nation. You simply do not realize how people purposefully hide their more traditionalist views from public view. They have been conditioned to hide, and only whisper their true views to people that they feel are safe to expose themselves to. Things may be becoming somewhat like living in East Germany when people were careful not to reveal themselves to potential Stassi informants. I think it could get worse; much, much worse under an Obama presidency combined with the democrat party in control of most other institutions.

Remember, when Obama takes the presidency, the hard left democrats will also control the following:

Congress
Senate
Judiciary
TV Media
Most "Talking Head" commentators
Newspapers and magazines
Environmental Cause Organizations
Women's Lib Organizations
Gay Rights Organizations
ACLU
Other Activist Organizations
Hollywood
Kindergarten schools
Grade Schools
High Schools
Universities
Teachers Unions
Government Workers Unions
General Unions
Some Liberal Churches
National Public Radio
Public TV
Most Charitable Organizations
The United Nations
Many European National Governments
The European Union
Most Actors, Comics, and Musician Celebrities
etc.....add your own…


The only institution that the conservatives have is talk radio, and Nancy Pelosi has vowed to shut that down once Obama takes the presidency.

If there is some type of modern day "Bradley Effect", I suspect it will have more to do with an aversion to political correctness than it does with not being willing to vote for a black candidate.

Finally, regarding my saying I would move to Iceland if Obama is elected, that will not be easily accomplished. So, no promises. But, if I were a young man, and Obama were elected, I would absolutely be making every effort to leave this country. You democrats have simply destroyed it. Your party leaders and a large contingent of its voters are simply viscous, malcontent zealots, who will stop at NOTHING to get your way of transforming this country into your foggy notion of a socialist nirvana.

A young man can build a new life in some other country where sanity prevails, and political zealots don't patrol the airwaves, streets, and halls of government power.

If by some miracle, Americans wake up before they elect this charlatan Obama to the presidency, I am sure that there will be epithets of racism hissed through clenched teeth, and a massive screaming wail of protest from the democrats, like a spoiled brat, red faced, jumping up and down, who didn't get her way, despite using her wiliest schemes and tactics. Eight years of vilifying Bush, wishing for the worst in Iraq, bashing the USA, etc, etc.......and all for naught!!

Then, the nightmare beast of the democratic party and the political correctness goons will soon gear up for the next political Armageddon, plotting more voter fraud, and enfranchising more voters from the ranks of the felons, illegal aliens and what not. They NEVER stop. They are indefatigable. They are like a hideous pink bunny, constantly on the march. They keep going, and going, and going…….

One very key difference between the republicans and the democrats is that republicans are just a political party, and if they win an election, they step into govern the country. The democrats, on the other hand, are a true political movement and machine. They view themselves as a PROFESSIONAL governing class and a mighty, unstoppable cause that is destined, by right, to govern the country, and to impose their vision of a perfected state of governance.

This is a deadly serious cause for democrats, and few democratic party operatives have any desire for anything other than a political career. They are apparatchiks, and have no desire for a life outside of political governance. This is the reason that the democrats behave the way they do, and will literally stop at nothing to achieve power. And once they are in power, they will use every lever of government to retain power, to cement their rule. This is why voter fraud, which I think most Americans look upon as anathema, is viewed as simply a necessary tactic by democrats. It is one means to what they regard as an absolutely critical end; their ascension to power.

Republicans, if they lose an election, just go home and go back to their families and the private sector. It is not the end of the world for them, at all.

This country has been transformed by the democrats and the massive political correctness mania which has ensnared every institution I listed above.

The movie "No Country for Old Men" said it all. The main character in the movie, an old Texas lawman nearing the end of his career, finds that he can barely recognize the country he knew as a young man. The movie focused on the drug trade along the Texas-Mexican border as the evil he confronted, along with the broader degradation of society.

But, to me, beyond the obvious disintegration of civic society in all manner which has occurred , another evil which has transformed the nation is the ruthless drive to political power which the democrats have exhibited over the past few decades, increasing in its ferocity with each election cycle. It seems that the democrats will literally stop at nothing to gain power. Whether it is a war in Iraq which they seemed to have taken a “see I told you so” glee when they assumed that we would lose, or the current economic dire circumstances we face, some of which can reasonably be laid at their feet, they never miss the chance to turn events into propaganda for their cause. It is truly despicable.


I have only one conclusion:

An Obama presidency will be a launching pad to cement the democratic party into a virtual monopoly on political power over the American nation which might likely last for generations. And, such a monopoly could likely, permanently change the nature of the American nation, overturning it’s traditions which transformed a wilderness continent into the strongest, most vibrant nation on earth, and the saving grace of the world for the past two centuries.

Truly, it will be “No Country for Old Men”. Or young men, either.

Lionheart:

It's not timing for the great economy under Clinton.
His plan was to increase wages, to get a robust economy, and it worked quite well.
I'm sorry you missed it.

Bush has lowered wages and the economy cannot succeed if you're foolish enough to think that doing so is any kind of a good idea.

Reagan raised wages too, and wow, another good economy.
Bush 41 lowered wages, and he had to extend unemployment benefits.

Go figure.

Some day?????? you will figure out that tax breaks for the rich aren't the key to a good economy.
It's just BS.
Obama will give the USA a good economy, and McCain won't.
I'm glad the polls are showing that most people get that.

ECONOMY
The economy is definitely the main focus in this election. I think both Sarah Palin & Joe Baden response to the $7000 bailout was fair enough. However, Joe Biden made an excellent point by emphasizing on how people can possibly make money of the rescue plan. The point is that by offering a bailout opportunity to corporations when they fail placed a lesser penalty on the consequence of failure which thereby causes them to be financially careless. That is to say if every time I missed out on my mortgage payments because of my failure to budget properly my uncle is there to dish out the remaining balance, depending on him all the time can cause me not to budget at all. It is this way of thinking that causes people to ponder on the failure of AIG specially when it’s the tax payer’s money that must be use to rescue them.

Joe Biden said “the middle class is the economic engine” and his 100% right. Those of you who know my reputation on this forum knows that this is something I’ve been stressing all alone. When the middle class of a country began to fall, it signifies the beginning of the failure of that country’s economy structure. Joe Biden & Obama are right; the reconstruction of the economy from the bottom up is by far the best plan. If you think about it elites establish wealth from the work of other people which mean that elites can only exist as long as people have jobs. To build a strong economy those jobs must be fundamentally stable unable to be outsourced. The challenge that Barack Obama & Joe Biden face is how do you create jobs that can’t be outsource under globalization. Now Sarah Palin clam that the middle class families are those who make $42,000 a year. I believed that clam is debatable because in regard to inflation, if $ 42,000 is considered middle class than our monitory system has not been affected by inflation. Or perhaps I’m wrong because since I’ve been a New Yorker most of my life, my living expanse is different than most of the other states it causes me to think that $ 42,000 is little money.

Now Gov. Palin & McCain are dissatisfied with the way the Federal Government has been running things and I’m certain a lots of citizens are too but do they make the law that governs them or is it congress. That’s what Palin should have thought about before running her mouth initiating blame. The Fed proposed the $7000 bailout plan as an attempt to help rescue the economy, it may not have been the best plan but an a shot time like that what other option could they have thought about. As it is now if anyone had a better option they would have proposed it. It seemed to me that the only option we’re left with is to let the economy roll and what ever happen …happened.

PARTISANSHIP/ FOREIGN POLICY/ WAR
I believed that Palin made an excellent point when she mentioned that Barack Obama voted in favor of his party 96% of the time. She said we should put partisanship behind if we auth to focus our interest in the benefit of this country. Well I guest this is why Obama chose Joe Biden as his running mate. Unlike Obama, Joe Biden voted for the war before voting against it and they are nothing wrong with that. Palin criticized Joe Biden for flip flapping but what she hasn’t realized is that this is a man who learns from his mistakes. Whereas McCain still think we winning the war in Iraq while we’re still spending $10 billion a month of tax payer’s money that contributed in directing our economy into a down turn. This war has to end because abviously it offers no benefit to the American people. Under Barack Obama & Joe Biden administration they will be a time line to end this war by shifting responsibilities to the Iraqis government. Obama’s plan is to focus his attention on Afghanistan where the Taliban originated. Under McCain administration you have one option and that is to leave Iraq only when the Iraqi government can secure its people. And how will the American people know when that has happened, when our general informs us. Talking about white flag Palin your proposition triggered a red flag to the American people. Now we all know that nuclear weapon is dangerous to all human life. Therefore, a nuclear Iran or North Korea is as dangerous as a nuclear America. The world sees no justification when Sarah Palin justifies us using nuclear weapon as a deterrent, that my friend is lack of diplomacy. If you know your S_H_I_T stink you don’t lay it out there for people to smell. She should not have mentioned that part period. People will tell you that you should do as you say. I guest that gave us a hint about her experience in foreign policy.

CLIMENT CHANGE
In this part of the debate we all saw clearly that Sarah Palin has no understanding about the cause of global climent change. She specifically said that “I don’t want to argue about the cause”. Biden quickly bites her behind by responding “if you don’t understand what the causes are, it is virtually impossible to come up with a solution”. There, it’s obvious that Sarah Palin is farting higher than her nose can smell. Now, I’m a boiler mechanic and those of us who works in the mechanical field understands that you can’t troubleshoot a control if you don’t have the proper tools and the understanding of it’s operation and functions. Folks it’s exactly the same thing, by her saying that she doesn’t want to talk about the cause showed that she’s incompetent about the issue.

SUBPRIME MORTGAGES
Sarah Palin gave a compelling argument in regard to sub prime mortgages. She argues that predatory lending is mostly the cause of the mortgage failure. She specifically stated that it’s mainly because of corporate greed and deception and she’s 100% right. You can not have me believed that those who laid the foundation for the cause of this mortgage failure are not partly to blame for it. Some will argue that if I say to jump from the empire state building would you jump? As if to say the borrowers new about the risk involved why did they jump when they should not, that is not true. Those who were financially incline perhaps suspected a clap but not most. I new about the claps to occur through WBAI but no one would listen to me, I’m no financial analyst. Nonetheless, most people who entered the mortgage market entered it blindly because they thought by jumping off the empire state building they’ll be able to fly. Obama also predicted it in fact made some effort to stop it but was unsuccessful. To stop it would require the involvement of many congressmen which was not possible. The mortgage crisis gave ways to the redistribution of wealth in America. If they is any time to transfer wealth to those that are already super rich is at a time when a regression is at the edge.

GAY MARRIAGE
It is obvious that the definition of marriage that both parties base their opinions on if from a Christian view. The problem with that is that not all of us are Christians, some of us are Muslim, and others are not religious. Therefore, basing decisions of marital values on the concept of Christianity is bound to be unfair. Religion is a touchy subject which I don’t like to talk about but Sarah Palin invoked people to talk on the issue. When you’re a candidate of this magnitude anything you say publicly will bring attention, attention that may be a disservice to another group. She does not support constitutional benefit for gay couples. Under McCain & Palin administrator no gay couples should have visiting right, property or the right to have joint life insurance policies. Whereas under Obama & McCain administration those rights will be insuring, you heard Joe Biden, he said this is what our constitution call for. It makes a significant difference to gay couples; having those rights is one step away from getting married. Now, the question that arises is why is it so important for gay people to want to get married. Having those rights is significant enough the only different is that the state doesn’t recognize gay marriage. Would it be right to think of it in that manner or shall we say it’s unacceptable because if heterosexual have that right so should gay people. The problem with this logic is that it offers a discriminatory view to the issue by given preference to one group while bashing another. The other advantage that comes with gay marriage as my brother indicated is that it offers them the same benefit as heterosexuals when visiting other countries. As long as America remains the main focus of attraction, foreigners will always want to come here. And none married heterosexual can always get laid by offering women the opportunity to come to America. Now, ask yourself this question ….why wouldn’t gay people want that opportunity doesn’t men also want to come to America?

I know enough to know that I don't know.

Mike Z., you brought up a very important point. Important enough where I should offer this.

Back in 1869, and all are free to check on this, the Vatican issued an edict stating that "life is en-souled at the moment of conception." This has also been THE major rallying point for all those who believe in or who are Pro-Life.

A very good point, Mike Z., so good that in relation to the point you made and this actual fact from the Vatican, it makes me wonder. Anyone else?

“Master Debater”, A Haiku



Smart Sarah Stumbles,

Beehive Bimbo Blathers Bull,

Right, Rednecks Rave.

boredofitall Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think I'm a genius, but you certainly
> aren't showing any stellar IQ either.
>
> Let's make this as simple as possible.
>
> If you think life is important, then life is
> important. Let's say I accept that.
> If you think life begins at conception then
> logically, the unborn fetus is sacrosanct. Let's
> say I accept that.
> Then the fetus gets born. It's life is still
> valuable, right? Nothing's changed.
> The child grows up into an adult. Still a valuable
> life. Then, the adult kills someone.
> Let's say in cold blood. A murder.
>
> Suddenly, that adult's life isn't worth anything,
> and we can kill them? How arbitrary is that? It's
> "punishment." That makes it okay to kill? That
> makes it not murder? How is vengeance, justice,
> and murder are just names for death, aren't they?
>
> It makes a difference if the life was taken in
> self defense? What about wartime?
>
> According to your logic, we should turn my
> argument on its head and kill all unborn babies
> before they become potential murderers. Nonsense.
>
>
> And here's a wonky one, since you seem to want to
> twist my words around. Let's say a woman dies in
> childbirth with no one else around. Didn't the
> baby, by being born, kill the mother, and
> shouldn't it be immediately put to death for
> murder?
>
> These are all rhetorical questions. (That means
> I'll ignore you and anyone else who tries to
> answer them.)
>
> We can both come up with absurd logic experiments
> that don't solve anyone's problems. All you seem
> to have is anger that people kill unborn babies. I
> don't know enough about the Scott Peterson
> situation, but I'm pretty sure that Lacey Peterson
> was far into her pregnancy, where there was no
> argument about the viability of the fetus. I
> believe that it would have been illegal for Lacey
> to get an abortion at eight months or whatever it
> was. Perhaps you should temper your righteousness
> with a bit more education. The conception issue
> wouldn't have come into play. I'm not any kind of
> judicial expert, and I'm not actually advocating
> killing or not killing babies, fetuses, embryos,
> or unimplanted sperm&egg combinations.
>
> In fact, if you look carefully at this and my
> original message, I'm not taking a stand on this
> issue at all. That's not my point.
>
> My point is -- and was -- that rarely do people
> think through the consequences of any of their
> actions. Few look for long term fixes, and still
> fewer look beyond themselves. Barely anyone even
> tries, and when they do, no one else really wants
> to give them a chance.
>
> Case in point: Your attitude towards my argument.
> Did you even consider whether I was right, or did
> you just assume I was wrong based on your beliefs
> and work things out from there?
>
>
> Mike Z Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > boredofitall Wrote:
> >
> > Bored, you set up the weakest arguments it's
> > pathetic.
> >
> >
> > > "Life begins at conception. Save all babies."
>
> > > "Kill murderers to stop them from killing
> > people."
> > >
> > >
> > > Again, two mutually incompatible demands.
> >
> > Why are they mutually incompatible demands?
> Just
> > because you say they are?
> >
> > "You
> > > either respect life from beginning to end, or
> > you
> > > end up imposing some arbitrary sub-criteria."
> >
> > Uh, how is the sub-criteria that someone killed
> > someone else and deserves a punishment
> arbitrary?
> > Arbitrary is a random reasonless demarcation.
> > You don't get the death penalty for not paying
> > your taxes or for speeding on the highway, you
> get
> > it for killing a human being, that's not
> > arbitrary. And, the fact that one thinks a life
> > for a life is just, may simply underline that
> they
> > very much do respect life from beginning to a
> > natural end, so much so that if someone else
> kills
> > someone, they must pay for that crime with
> their
> > life. So you tell me genius, let's turn your
> > argument around:
> >
> >
> > > "Don't kill murderers to stop them from
> killing
> > people."
> > > "Life does not begin at conception. Kill
> unborn
> > babies if you want to ."
> >
> > And finally,
> >
> > Life does begin at conception, which the states
> > clearly acknowledge, but a mother can kill a
> baby
> > by exemption, if you do it, you will be
> convicted
> > of murder of an unborn fetus and put on death
> row.
> > Don't believe me? Just ask Scott Peterson who
> is
> > on death row today. Scott was convicted of the
> > MURDER OF AN UNBORN fetus and sentenced to
> death
> > on that specific charge. If Lacy had walked
> that
> > very day to the abortion clinic and killed the
> > fetus, there would nothing done to her. So now
> > who is the hypocrite assface?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Y'know, I wasn't going to give you the
> benefit
> > of
> > > the doubt.
> > >
> > > There's a difference being someone who can
> > relate
> > > to you, and someone who can translate your
> > needs
> > > into acceptable, actionable government
> tactics.
> >
> > >
> > > Regardless of whether you support an
> ideology,
> > an
> > > issue, or a party, if you can't distinguish
> > > between saying what you want, getting what
> you
> > > need, and the implications and consequences
> of
> > > your actions, you're in trouble, and you will
> > > constantly make wrong decisions, whether it
> be
> > as
> > > a senator, a governor, or a voter.
> > >
> > > "I want lower taxes."
> > > "We need more troops to go in and win the
> war."
> >
> > >
> > > These two are mutually incompatible demands.
> > > Lowering taxes reduces government coffers,
> > which
> > > makes it harder to supply, transport, and
> > recruit
> > > troops. If you want to lower taxes, what
> > federal
> > > services to you want to preserve? What about
> > all
> > > the people who disagree with you? No one
> > bothers
> > > to put themselves in anyone else's shoes.
> > >
> > > "Life begins at conception. Save all babies."
>
> > > "Kill murderers to stop them from killing
> > people."
> > >
> > >
> > > Again, two mutually incompatible demands. You
> > > either respect life from beginning to end, or
> > you
> > > end up imposing some arbitrary sub-criteria.
> I
> > > understand emotion, the maternal/paternal
> > > instinct, and the need for revenge. These are
> > > visceral, undeniable things.
> > >
> > > But people want their politicians to make
> > promises
> > > they can't possibly keep, to avoid all
> > > compromises, to treat their opponents as
> polar
> > > opposites, as something beyond or less than
> > human.
> > >
> > >
> > > It really doesn't matter who becomes
> President.
> > > Barring another catastrophe that everyone can
> > > rally around, and perhaps even regardless of
> > that,
> > > the public will find a way to vilify them
> > during
> > > their time in office.
> > >
> > > Life goes on.
> > >
> > > Matth Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > No I'm not a parodist. I'm speaking as
> > someone
> > > > who knows small town folks and can
> understand
> > > the
> > > > type of debate that they watched last night.
>
> > > No,
> > > > not everyone from the street is running for
> > > > President. But someone that they can
> RELATE
> > to
> > > > who has real-world issues.
> > > >
> > > > Obviously, votes shape our lives; that's
> > basic.
> > >
> > > > The point is that most people don't even
> know
> > > > about these votes other than how it affects
> > > their
> > > > healthcare, checks, and taxes; so
> continually
> > > > referencing budget sub-committees etc is
> not
> > > > effective because people don't talk about
> > their
> > > > lives like that.
> > > >

Actually ,very easy to be pro life and pro death penalty,In fact rational. To stop life without opportunity should be repugnant. To stop life for taking life is rational and a benefit to the community,as you have the choice to act rationally or not. When you chose to take a life in the community, the community has the right to protect itself,in the best way it sees fit.

Posted by: Tib

"""I want to make sure I've got Gov. Palin's position correct:

In the 1990s, Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy and the US experiences the greatest economic boom in its history. 22 million jobs were created, incomes rose, etc.

George Bush cut taxes for the very wealthy, insisting that doing so would result in great investment and a healthy and robust economy, yet credit is frozen, bank runs are causing flashbacks to the 1930s job creation was anemic under Bush and unemployment is rising at this point...

but Palin insists that more tax cuts for the wealthy are what is needed.

What is the definition of insanity again? Something about doing the same thing over and over with the same results??"""

Wrong!!!!!!!!

You must be a liberal Dem cause you have no common sense!

The success of the 90s wasn’t Clinton it was timing for him. The reason the 90s did well was mainly because of the home computer and internet craze as well as other techs. But not just that, Clinton’s taxes would have hurt that if it wasn’t for Newt and the contract with America coming along. One main part of that was welfare reform. Clinton gets credit for going with the polls and signing most of the contract into law. Clinton was in many ways by going with the polls a great conservative president. If it wasn’t for Newt and the fact that the GOP swept into power it would have been a very different 90s.

The 00s have 9/11 and were still pretty good for most of up to now. The Bush tax cuts have brought in record revenues and if there hadn’t been 9/11 all would be well even with the housing bubble.

So the right way to go from here is to keep taxes down which will keep the record revenues coming but we need another Newt to keep spending down. The only ones I here saying that at this time is McCain/Palin and the minority in congress.

If you don't believe Tax cuts bring in more revenue, which also does help create jobs, you need to stop drinking the coolaid so you can see. The Dems don't acknowledge that tax cuts bring in more but it can't be denied without lying, so why do they want to raise taxes? It can only be to control us not help us.

Matth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm sick of these types that sit here and complain
> that she can't name world leaders or got her facts
> wrong with this or that.

If the fact that Palin got facts wrong sickens you, you should indeed vote for her

> Sarah Palin did what she could in this debate.
> Yes, she lacked substance.

Sounds like you like that erring nature in a position vying for the second most important job in the world.


> But she clearly made
> up for it by showing America that she's her own
> person with her own charm. She looked us in the
> eye when she talked to us, smiled, and showed us
> she could relate.

Clearly.

What should be most important is not whether you have any competence, but whether you have your own charm, and whether you can convince people that you are looking at them, personally, through a TV screen.

Say, W had that quality, didn't he?

"Millions of Americans DO NOT believe in Global Warming and DO BELIEVE in Creationism!!! It's called "Critical Thinking" Rob! "

No, it's called ignorance--or religious fervor

Robert Shrum is an extremely intolerant person! He would not recognize RATIONAL if it sat on his face!

Millions of Americans DO NOT believe in Global Warming and DO BELIEVE in Creationism!!! It's called "Critical Thinking" Rob!

It is obvious you did not even watch the debate! Your opinion was already written in stone! It makes perfect sense why you write for the Huffington Post! Shame on you!

Joe Biden was great, I never really paid attention to him because I decided only recently that I will vote for Obama. Palin did a very good debate, she (almost) erased some doubts about her ability to understand what the issues are but overall, I thought Joe Biden was just the way I see (and like) a VP, skilled, thorough, courteous and he has real class.
I am so excited about their team.
God bless you Joe, God bless you Obama...(and your familes).

NB: Personaly, I have nothing against being educated and having intellectual skills. I hope my kids will be able to go to college when they grow up and accomplish their dream. I will make sure that Obama's personal story in this election, whatever the outcome is, will inspire them to always reach for the best and higher standards.

boredofitall Wrote:

Bored, you set up the weakest arguments it's pathetic.


> "Life begins at conception. Save all babies."
> "Kill murderers to stop them from killing people."
>
>
> Again, two mutually incompatible demands.

Why are they mutually incompatible demands? Just because you say they are?

"You
> either respect life from beginning to end, or you
> end up imposing some arbitrary sub-criteria."

Uh, how is the sub-criteria that someone killed someone else and deserves a punishment arbitrary? Arbitrary is a random reasonless demarcation. You don't get the death penalty for not paying your taxes or for speeding on the highway, you get it for killing a human being, that's not arbitrary. And, the fact that one thinks a life for a life is just, may simply underline that they very much do respect life from beginning to a natural end, so much so that if someone else kills someone, they must pay for that crime with their life. So you tell me genius, let's turn your argument around:


> "Don't kill murderers to stop them from killing people."
> "Life does not begin at conception. Kill unborn babies if you want to ."

And finally,

Life does begin at conception, which the states clearly acknowledge, but a mother can kill a baby by exemption, if you do it, you will be convicted of murder of an unborn fetus and put on death row. Don't believe me? Just ask Scott Peterson who is on death row today. Scott was convicted of the MURDER OF AN UNBORN fetus and sentenced to death on that specific charge. If Lacy had walked that very day to the abortion clinic and killed the fetus, there would nothing done to her. So now who is the hypocrite assface?






-------------------------------------------------------
> Y'know, I wasn't going to give you the benefit of
> the doubt.
>
> There's a difference being someone who can relate
> to you, and someone who can translate your needs
> into acceptable, actionable government tactics.
>
> Regardless of whether you support an ideology, an
> issue, or a party, if you can't distinguish
> between saying what you want, getting what you
> need, and the implications and consequences of
> your