Huh? What is he talking about here? Roosevelt didn't talk to Hitler, Mussolini, or Tojo. Truman didn't talk to Kim Sun either. Kennedy did talk to Khrushchev but that only emboldened the Soviet dictator.

Is that what Obama wants to do....embolden our enemies:confused:

Did you hear the part where my Mom stated that she steadfastly believes he's a secret Muslim and he's going to pull one over on us once he gets in the White House? Again, no exaggeration. My father wasn't willing to go that far...

OMG, yes, of course, that's what he wants, to embolden our enemies! It's all so clear now! That's exactly what he meant!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I'm no student of history, really. I don't know what he meant, what he was referring to. I admit that. Hell, sounds like a bungle to me. Doesn't mean I'm going to take the sentence to some silly conclusion.

Yeah, I called it silly. Gloves are off. :rolleyes: My eyes are going to roll right out of my head.

The ironic thing is, if President, Obama most likely will act extraaggresive towards Islamic terrorism just to prove he isn't a secret Muslim.

Wow...just wow. So even the "issues" are off limits as discussion points when it comes to Obama?

Why are you voting for him(don't mention character or issues since those seem to be off limits)???

Sounds like he might try diplomatic measures, the bastard!!!!:rolleyes:

Please, SJ- don't you have anything better than that?




(For the record- plenty of POTS's have engaged in diplomacy, and not just with interns.)

It's naive. I don't think Obama understands that negotiations and talks with people in other cultures mean the same things as negotiations and talks do to US citizens. There's a lot of cultural things involved, including posturing, that are just as important as the words spoken in any meeting.

Talking with Hamas (and yes, I do believe the Hamas endorsement means something since there was an Obama advisor who did talk to Hamas) or Ahmadinejad is not the same thing as talking to Merkel or Brown.

I believe that's what advisers are for, Scaeagles. Which might explain the mess we're in now.

Your accusation was ludicrous. You were postulating that a candidate for President willfully wants to help our enemies. Do you actually believe that? Do you really and truly believe his intent is to help our enemies? Really?

Sleepyjeff - She didn't say anything was off-limits; she said your conclusion was silly ... and it is. Dialog doesn't necessarily embolden enemies, no matter how much the right blogosphere keeps repeating it.

Oh, and according to this article, Roosevelt did engage in dialog with both Hitler and Mussolini.

From Time - Oct 10th, 1938

First, he's going to commit treason. Next, he's going to be overzealous in his persecution of Islamic persons and countries to try and hide his sympathies.Then, he's naive. You guys aren't getting any younger- take care you don't throw your backs out.:D

Reagan met with Gorbachev, Bush met with Putin- hell, his dad threw up on the Japanese Prime Minister, and at a time when we weren't getting along real well with them. Every president has met with world leaders and many of these were not close buddies of ours.

Point #1: I would read that quote as a reference to his administration and not just him personally. All the presidents you cite held talks and negotiations with the enemies of the day.

Roosevelt:

The negotiations to end the Russo-Japanese war

President Roosevelt to the Chancellor of Germany (Hitler)

Truman:

The Kaesong talks

etc....

Hey you guys: you are confusing the rhetoric with unnecessary and misleading facts: stop it at once!

Oh, I know. I'm just constantly amused that those on the right don't seem to get that anyone with even elementary Google skills can quickly disprove these silly talking points.

I think the issues are a little different than talking vs. not talking. At least where the Middle East is concerned, I think we know what the issues are. The larger question is whether there is a willingness to consider actually doing anything differently (not that we necessarily should).

And many of those can be questioned for being when there weren't actual overt conflicts in progress.

But in March 1940, after the invasion of Poland and Britain's declaration of war on Germany, Undersecretary of State Sumner Wells was sent by FDR and met with Mussolini in Rome and then Adolf Hitler in Berlin in an attempt to negotiate a halt to any expansion of the conflict.



You can see these meetings dramatized in the mini-series version of Herman Wouk's Winds of War. Pug Henry wasn't really there but the meetings really happened.

In regards to the treason...No, I never said nor do I believe that.

In regards to being overzealous....Yes, I think he might be....but that's actually a plus in my book.

Naive?........Well, I don't think he's a Daladeir but of the examples he gave for former Presidents the one who actually did personally meet with an enemy did embolden that enemy to put missiles in Cuba. Thankfully Kennedy stood tall in that crisis(but there wouldn't have even been a crisis if he didn't meet with the Premier)......but Kennedy, although considered by many to be too inexperienced for the Presidency with his mere 14 years in congress had much more experience than this Obama fellow;)

Reagan met with Gorbachev.....thus spelling the end to the Soviet empire(well, that worked out real well for Gorbachev;) )

Bush met with Putin..........Allies, hello:)

Bush met with the Japanese Prime Minister..........in 91' not 41' ;)

No I wasn't. I was pointing out that Obama doesn't know what he's talking about. My bad for not making that more clear.



Yes it does....maybe not always but it does.

Good thing too otherwise Hitler and Mussolini might have really done some damage.


I wonder why he did not meet with them personally.....clearly he might have stopped the war had he gone the extra mile;)

Personally I think continually proving we have our heads up our asses by basing our international policy on consistently faulty intelligence is doing plenty to embolden our enemies.

Like Libya?

Yeah Sleepyjeff, lets not talk to anyone we don't see eye-to-eye with; just go to war with them without provocation. Lets just show the World who the biggest, meanest, most macho country is. Diplomacy is for wimps and pansies!

Not what I am saying at all. It's just that if you state that you intend to conduct talks with any and all enemies you may find your list of enemies to grow rather than shrink.

Want something from the US.....go rogue and the US will "talk"(read, give you something).

But can't talk mean We'll put a boot in your ass as easily as you imply it means give you something

Obama is not a saint, nor is he very experienced politically. I'm sure he's going to make lots of mistakes and get some hige reality checks once he becomes President. However, I'm not sure that the mistakes he will make will be on the same dramatic level of fu<ked up that our current President has achieved.

I suppose, but there really is no need to deliver that kind of message in person..."talk" usually means "negotiate" which usually means both sides give in on something. If a bully says "meet me after school and we'll "talk" " he's probably not going to be giving anything up other than the behavior he is doing just to make you "talk" in the first place....and at that he will only give it up until he wants something else.

Where did Obama say he'd meet personally with the heads of adversarial governments???

"Talk to our Foes and Friends: Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe."

From http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fo...icy/#diplomacy

Ok, and then what's wrong with negotiating? You think we don't give something when we go to war? Lives of thousands of soldiers? The national treasury through 13 generations from now?


You don't think we can negotiate for something less costly than that?

When I think of a bully, I think of someone who has a noticeable physical advantage and uses that advantage to coerce through intimidation and force. But none of the groups that Obama would talk to even remotely resembles that definition. We would be negotiating from a position of power - and that's a little different from the scenario you describe. In fact, from an outside perspective, we could often be viewed as the bully, or at least as having the potential to be. The other side, not so much.

So, Reagan shouldn't have met with Gorby, then? (Going by your rather tortured logic a few posts back...)

Putin is as much an ally as the Saudis or their ilk.

Japan was in the middle of taunting us for being lazy-assed, uncultured people who deserved the economic ass kicking they were dealing when George Sr. made his deposit on the PM.

Face it- nothing Obama does will ever be right for you. I understand; I feel much the same way about McCain and I certainly feel that way about Dubya. Oh, and I wouldn't gloat too much about the Soviet Union. We're headed down that same path.

Why does it have to be one or the other?

No, no, no....Gorby should not have met with Reagan.

Yep, both are allies.....not enemies.

They were still our military and economic allies....surely you can see the difference between Japan in 91' and Iran today?

I wouldn't say "nothing" but you are not far off the mark. I am a conservative and see Obama as a threat to the direction I wish this country to go(to be frank, I think McCain is also a threat to conservatism, but at least he might meet my expectations halfway every once in a while).....so yeah, of course I am going to nitpick and point out every little thing he does that disturbs me...even if only a little. I try to stay on the issues and not pick on his bowling score, where he was educated or his name but instead focus on things I really think matter, again, if only a little. I expect that if I am being unfair or just plain wrong lots of people here will point that out to me. :D

Yep, nothing last forever and one day the US will go the way of the Roman Empire....but since predictions of our demise have been constant since 1776 you will have to excuse me if I don't stop my gloating over the end of an evil experiment in the bondage of the human soul we sometimes call the old Soviet Union:)

Perhaps our next pres should take a vow of silence? Listening to Clinton's victory speech on the way home tonight makes me think that might just be a good idea (should she get the job)

Yeah, I displayed a pretty poor analogy there. What I was basically saying is that if you reward bad behavior with "talks" don't expect the bad behavior to decrease.....maybe you can help me with an analogy for what I am trying to say(help me, not you;) )

Didn't Carter do something like that back in 79-80?

Well, I don't know that I can offer an analogy that helps you, my friend since I don't agree with your position.

I don't see negotiation as a reward, per se. It is an attempt to come to a mutually beneficial agreement. And if it is successful, both sides give something up and both sides benefit - which would indeed cause bad behavior to decrease.

The alternative is to take the stubborn, unmovable approach - which often leads to plenty of unnecessary violence and death, and/or a backlash against the country that was unwilling to negotiate. In the end, you retain the "toughest guy on the block" status, but you are still viewed as a pompous bully, rather than a nation attempting a solution that could have kept the peace.

I see negotiation at this point as having less to do with those involved with the meeting and more to do with world-wide perception. The US doesn't have the international backing it needs and playing the game perhaps will correct some of the damage done there.

When do we find out who gets the dem nom?

Maybe after Oregon. I'm just thrilled that all eyes are on us for once, usually it's all over before they even think about us. The candidates have been busy scouring the state, even getting close to us, but we haven't been able to make it to see them. I hear they'll be back this weekend, maybe Gary will try to get tickets to see Obama.

But therein lies the challange...to argue your opponents point better than your opponent:)

But what if one side is acting badly not out of a honest grievance but simply for the stuff the negotiating will get them(North Korea comes to mind)?

Once again I am not saying don't talk at all....I am just saying don't reward these despots for their nasty behavior by honoring them with face time with our President.

"Negotiations" with North Korea during the 90s made them a nuclear power.

"Negotiations" with Hitler during the 30s emboldened him because he swore he'd stop after the Sudetenland (sp?).

"Negotiations" between Isreal and Arafat led to 97% of the land the Palestinians were demanding being offered to them, but it wasn't good enough because land wasn't the goal of Arafat.

Diplomacy is fine. Diplomacy, however, when performed by the naive, makes things much, much worse. This is my fear.

I'm sorry but that's kind of an empty argument. First off successful negotiations often lead to nothing happening. How do you cite a war that never happened? Of course the failures stick out like a sore thumb.

Also why pick on just "negotiations" when ANY policy by a naive leader leads to trouble.

If you think Obama is naive then let's talk about that. At least there I can understand your fear, especially when you look at the damage done by perhaps the most naive president we have ever had.

So well put and me without mojo to give...

Though I feel that I see things from the SJ/SCA side, that negotiations don't always work and in some cases create a worse situation, I still prefer it to jumping right into some nonsense. I just don't know why we can't reside in the happy medium. I mean, it's medium, but happy for a reason.

Of course failures stand out more than success. Successful negotiations of a trade deal with Australia aren't much of a news story. Negotiations that lead to a rogue state becoming a nuclear power is. Trade deals with China that solved their problems with putting things in orbit is.

I think the difference is how one approaches these negotiations. Reagan met with Gorbachev in Iceland. Reagan had the cajones to walk out when he and Gorbachev couldn't agree on certain aspects. He took all sorts of heat, but he did the right thing. I do not see Obama doing that. I think Obama is a decent guy. Seriously. But I think he'd promise many things to leaders and countries who have no intention of keeping their end of the deal, such as happened with North Korea.

The reason I'm "picking" on negotiations is that was sort of where the currect conversation was. Of course there are other naive decisions. Thinking Iraq would fall into line easily after Saddam was gone was, indeed, naive. Thinking we will be able to pull out on a time table is more so.

Foreign policy is the biggest aspect of the Presidency (or so I would argue). I don't think any of the three will be any good at it.

He wasn't saying that you are picking on negotiations as opposed to other naive decisions, he was saying you are picking on bad negotiation examples. There are plenty of negotiation instances that led to good things.

How much foreign policy experience did our current President have before taking office?

Our current president thinks anything outside of Crawford is foreign.
:D

Edwards is endorsing Obama.

I'm the only person under 60 and making more than $20K annual in America who still wants Hillary.

Good job! He sat on the fence just long enough to make sure that when he finally jumped nobody would really care.

You make over $20K?!? That's just too much money for one person!

None. I would not say the Bush has done a good job in this area, and I'm sure you wouldn't either. Not meaning that you wouldn't do a good job, meaning that you wouldn't say he's done a good job. Would you do a good job?

He would be great at picking a beefy cabinet! And a Sexy Secretary of State!!

I'm no Obama fan, obviously, but Sean Penn is just...well....stupid.

Inhuman and unconsititional? What?

The theater chain? I suspect AMC may still go with Clinton

Ok, Edwards, it's gotta be over now.



It is over, right? Now? How about now?





















IS IT OVER YET???

It's over on January 20, 2009.

OMG you guys go on for far too long about this whole election campaign thing. If this was Australia, the candidates would be lynched by now for creating public disturbance !

:p

A novel and welcome suggestion :)

I'm moving to Australia! :D

Heh, CoasterMatt wants to see them use The Boot (tm)!

Considering Edwards makes my skin crawl more than any other candidate I hope it isn't over.

While I'm sure Obama is happy that Edwards finally took the fence pole out of his arse and bet on the horse that has already crossed the finish line, I don't think Edwards is a serious VP option for Obama.

What does Edwards bring to the table? No military experience, No foreign policy experience, a failed VP run. Meh. Obama can do better.

I would agree that Edwards is not a good candidate for VP. My guess is there was a promise of becoming the AG.

Edwards might help Obama with white southerners, but that would be about it. Moonliner is right in that he offers nothing.

Oh, goodie... I'm glad we're finally gonna get one of those.

Obama fired back today at Bush's Nazi comment. I thought his response was great.
:)

Bush pulled a Godwin? I missed that.




ETA: found one story on this - I am sure there are many more. From that story:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby (Post 211336) Bush pulled a Godwin? I missed that.

In Israel at an even celebrating 60 years of statehood.

Quote:

Speaking before the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's statehood, Bush said, "Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is –- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

Source

Stupid politicians.

The Senator Bush quoted was a conservative Republican. Nice research Georgie.

However, Obama was silly to go on the defense. He should have just chided Bush for insulting Jimmy Carter. He's the one having meetings with terrorists, y'know...

"I'll take the opposite of what Bush says and does for two hundred, Alex."



That's all the response B-HO needs.

Here's my "favorite" part: Hillary is really from Chicago, not New York. If she had run for the Illinois seat that Obama currently holds ...

I'm sorry but I had to quote that, I didn't think I'd ever see this in print:D

I hope Moonie enjoys this brief moment in time!


Now back to your regularly scheduled program.....

Contextually speaking, considering Bush was referring to Carter, I don't see pulling a Godwin was a problem. He was speaking to the Knesset about appeasement of people out to kill Jews.

Nope, sorry, sounds like a Godwin to me

Thanks! I would have added that quote to the quote-base myself but I aleady have an Scaegales in my collection:

#928

#636

#1009

and

#894

:evil:

That Mike Huckabee, he's a real cutup. Laugh a minute, that one.

Stop the presses, John McCain is a hypocrite!!!

Gosh, just 2 years ago, he seemed like he'd be willing to *gasp* talk with Hamas!! The horror!

Having to "deal with them, one way or another" is hardly sitting down to negotiations.

Another one of those "nontroversies" I think ;)

That's clearly exactly what he was referring to. "I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East." His response was specifically in opposition to the current doctrine of zero communication. "Deal with" was obviously meant in the sense of "engaging", not "obliterating."

Not that any of this is news, just another in a long list of reasons why many many people would have voted for McCain 8 years ago that he's completely flipped on.

I wish I could find out what comes in between "so" and "but" in that quote. Because the way I read it does not make it obvious at all. To me this could just as easily mean that ~now that Hamas has more power we are going to have to confront a new reality~ There's really nothing in there about more communication......at least not in that quote.

I will concede though that McCain is a big time flip-flopper.....all US Senators are(which is why I am totally shocked that the top 4 finishers in this years run were all US Senators......they generally don't win the Presidency in modern times due to the very fact that they can easily be painted flip-floppers---)

I haven't read the quote from McCain, but don't doubt it at all. McCain plays more sides of an issue than Kerrey does.

Here's why I think the Obama uproar is so ridiculous (on the part of Obama). Obama has said he would sit down and have face to face diplomacy with Ahmadinejad without conditions. Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism, and Ahmadinejad is the leader of Iran. So Obama has said he will sit down and have face to face talks with terroists. When called on it, that is an out of bounds issue?

Please realize I think McCain would be wrong to do so, and I don't doubt he said it. But drop the insane righteous indignation, Obama.

Pretty amazing pictures from Oregon, where an estimated 65,000 attended and another 15,000 were turned away.



I'm assuming that Sleepyjeff is somewhere in that picture. ;)

Why would a senator flip-flop more than any other elected official?

Give you a dollar if you can find me;)

Are you wearing a red and white striped cardigan and a wool cap??

I think it's a character issue more than anything else. I don't think it's an issue of office.

Obama is starting to wear really thin on me. He claims fear mongering when it comes to talking about terrorists, but he told a gathering of little old ladies that their social security is at risk if McCain gets elected. That's not fear mongering? He may genuinely believe that, but those who talk about Obama saying he will talk with terrorists (and he did, as noted in an earlier post) also believe it is a a genuine risk.

Several reasons that I can think of off the top of my head.

1) They are only up for re-election every 6 years....removing them from accountability(unless they plan to run for President).

2) Old boys(and girls) network.......many of them are Senators first and Democrats/Republicans second; often changing their votes to help out an old friend across the aisle. The Senate is far less partisan then the HoRep.

Most of all though...

3) Senators, with a few exceptions, have been around for a lot longer than most other national level politicians......you are just more likely to contradict yourself the longer you have been around; situations and even personal views change.

:snap:

No, but you would have to go back in time to find me there. I have not attended a stage event at the waterfront since Valerie Day was singing I can't wait for New Shoes:)

I'm frankly embarrassed for Obama supporters. He's becoming more craven and hypocritical with every passing day, and he hasn't even officially become the candidate yet. Ugh, by summer, he's not going to [i]remotely resemble the White Knight his fans picture him as.

If your claim is that running for election more often prevents flip-flops, I'd disagree with you there.
I see only assertions here, not facts - please explain.

Now that I can agree with.

Even with the massive turnouts in the dem primary, I think this general could be a very low turn out. Rabid Hillary supporters won't be excited about Obama, Obama cultists wouldn't be excited about Hillary, and McCain has no clue how to appeal to his base.

I have no facts to back up either of these two assertions....just my take. It does seem to me that if you flip flop today and you are up for re-election either this year or the next you are much more likely to be called out on it then if your next election is 5 years away.

One thing is true.... Kerry, Gore, and Dole were all painted, successfully I might add, as flip floppers.....they were all Senators.

One can also flip flop as a governor, particularly on issues like abortion, as Reagan, Clinton and Romney did.

It has nothing to do with the position. It has to do with character and the fact that they are politicians. Politicains make their living, really, getting votes, so trying to appeal to the crowd they are speaking to is their bread and butter.

There is a difference between a change of heart on an issue and a change for political expediency. The judgement of which it is is truly in the eye of the observer.

Lol- so McCain has a 'change of heart', and Obama's is politically expeditious, right? Just a WAG here......

McCain's playing of the (by now, very tired) Terrorist Card is using fear to get votes. Obama's merely trying to buy them.:D

(Actually, given the state of the market I think most people are glad it hasn't been privatized at this point in time).

Plus there is the assumption that casting a vote based on simply the fact that it is the more popular position of the constituency is somehow a bad thing.

Yes, we elect people so that they can use their own judgment but that doesn't necessarily make decision contrary to the preference of their constituency necessarily righter, though it may be politically braver.

There does come a point where personal conviction becomes obstinacy. Unfortunately it is an easy task to find countless examples of either outcome. So only in the rearview mirror can we be sure. So, it seems a slightly silly thing to fetishize (holding a position regardless of new information or the general feelings of your constituency).

And, either way, it is easy to spin depending on your feelings on the politician.

I know a new word.......can't wait to use it in a conversation tomorrow.

Now I just got to figure out how to slip it into a pitch for a new mattress.

Not what I'm saying at all. I believe a few posts ago I wrote "McCain flips more than Kerrey did", or some such thing.

I'm with Alex on how one votes while in office related to personal opinion vs. what the constituency wants. We are a representative republic, after all. What bugs me is being on the campaign trail saying X to group A in city 1 and -X to group B in city 2.

This point is exactly why I disagree with sleepyjeff. More public eye means more flip flopping.

That's a good point....but it brings to mind another. Congresspersons in the house only have to please a small area of their home state, usually either rural or urban, rarely both; Senators must please an entire state which will most certainly comprise both rural and urban....this will naturally lead to more flip-flopping.

The whole flag pin thing is a dinglecheese issue.
What a waste of time...

Is that still being discussed? Oy

I just read a Rowland Martin op/ed piece on CNN about it. People are trying to paint Obama and his wife as unpatriotic. It's silly.

:rolleyes:

Actually, I think that being a senator (or member of the House) does make one much more vulnerable to flip-flopping charges.

Legislators vote on a huge number of bills - I don't know how many exactly, but I would certainly think that there are thousands or tens of thousands in a single senatorial term. And many bills will have multiple versions, of which a senator might choose to support one version and vote against other stronger or weaker versions, thus opening himself up to charges of voting against something he is putatively in favor of. Additionally, many bills become huge monstrosities with dozens of clauses possibly unrelated to the original subject of the bill, so that in order to vote for a bill that you favor, you has to accept provisions that you would not support on their own. It is a common legislative maneuver to try to attach amendments to a bill that would make it politically embarrassing for your opponents to vote it up or down.

When one examines charges of flip-flopping made in recent elections, these are frequently where they come from.

Here's a top contender to be McCain's Mid East envoy if he's elected stating that "talking to an enemy is not, in my view, appeasement."

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/05/james-baker-tal.html

Good one, GD.:snap:


I find it interesting that simply leaving the potential for diplomatic options on the table can be twisted into 'appeasement', a la Neville Chamberlain. We need to look at our own actions at the outset of WWII- we didn't exactly come rushing to anyone's aid until we were drug into the war following the attack at PH. (Btw, we were engaged in talks with Japan hours before that attack).

Let's say a co-worker is giving you a hard time. You're angry, so you:

a). Go to Human Resources, or a supervisor, etc, and discuss solutions for the problem at hand, such as mediation or directly confronting the troublemaker.

b.) You ignore the asshat and hope the problem just goes away.

c). Load up the 9mm and go rabbit hunting at the workplace.

We've been very busy hunting rabbits, and I don't think our problems have been alleviated in the slightest. We've only hurt ourselves- maybe it's time to try a new tactic? At least try?

Here's a twist (just playing Devil's Advocate here):

Let's say that co-worker is certifiably crazy and is often seen reading gun magazines.

Even so, "A" is still the only option that can lead to a positive resolution. All "C" does is increase the odds that a bunch of innocent people will be killed in the crossfire.

Well, killing him/her first would certainly work out well for a person. I mean, you'd go to jail, lose everything you own and your life would be over, but you'd win because you hit first!

You don't sit back and wait to be killed- it's good to be proactive, but it's the degree that you operate on that's critical. A dangerous person or country is always going to be problematic- that's where creativity is really called for. Personally, I would try to work through all the legal channels, and pack my 9mm around just in case.

You make them your best friend.

Tell that to the kids at Columbine. One armed teacher? Who knows.

Bad example there, Scaeagles. Those kids were ignored, bullied and ostracized by the jocks and popular kids. Most school shootings are by loners, mentally ill and outcasts- one could argue that some form of intervention might have helped prevent many of these events. Before you go off on a tangent about libs just wanting to send terrorists into therapy, that is not my meaning or intent here. I think terrorists should be hunted down and neutralized before they harm anyone, but when dealing with states that sponsor or are suspected of supporting terrorism we first need to attempt to handle things diplomatically. At the very least, such attempts will cover our asses should we have to respond more forcefully later on, or should we happen to react violently and later discover our intelligence was faulty.:rolleyes:

Well, How about VA Tech?

My point involves the condition mentally of those that are a threat, but more than that.

I view the concept of the "gun free zone" as being rather optimistic that those who would violate it - for whatever reason - will be concerned that it is a gun free zone. Odds are the guy at VA Tech anyway wouldn't have listened to talk about it - he was mentally ill and had been released from mental care (if I recall this story correctly). No one was able to stop him because they were ill prepared and expected him to abide by the rules. No amount of talking would have stopped him....all that would have was physical restraint (or a bullet).

I regard terrorists (mean Ahmahdinejad as well) in that way. Reason plays no role with them. It is an issue of extremism that know no compromise, and going to the table with them without condition is a cultural sign of weakness.

What if you tell them at the table that they Do "X" or you're going to destroy their nation's "Y?"

Scaeagles,

Not that you had to, but I don't think you ever responded to my observation that you are not willing to live with the strictures--a greatly reduced speed limit--that would greatly reduce or eliminate traffic deaths, but you appear to be willing to live with the strictures--everyone armed to the teeth, the assumption that everyone is a potential threat--that you believe would reduce deaths at the hands of criminals.

Suppose the leader you are going to "sit down with" and chat has some pre-conditions before he will even do that much?

Using the above example about the lone deranged lunatic reading gun magazines......suppose he won't even talk unless we release some of his buddies from prison first?

Since post hoc ergo propter hoc seems to be the guiding view of the universe for that vast majority of people I think we now have evidence that supporting Obama causes brain cancer.

So I officially withdraw my support.

^It took me almost 10 minutes to figure out you were talking about Teddy....maybe I need a CAT scan.

Well, actually, I support law abiding and well trained citizens carrying. I see no problem with that.

I'm afraid I don't see the parallel. I don't see it problematic nor inconvenient for law abiding and well trained citized to carry. I see it as problematic having a 10 mph speed limit.

Interesting and little known fact.....there was a free 45 minute concert by a group called The Decemberists. Obama packs in the crowds, certainly, but I think this may have boosted the crowd.

Something telling to me, and others (I have no doubt) will say this is another thing that doesn't matter.....The Decemberists, according to Wikipedia, named themselves after a lesser known 1825 revolt against imperialist Russia. The thing I find most interesting - they begin their concerts with the National Anthem of the Soviet Union.

Now why the hell would a candidate want a group that plays the National Anthem of the Soviet Union on a regular basis to perform at a campaign rally? It is obviously a political statement on the behalf of the band. "He couldn't have known!" will be the cry, and that's probably true. But the people that work for him and set it up certainly did, and frankly, I find that disgusting. The Soviet Union was an oppressive, murderous place. I work with a Ukrainian immigrant and while he doesn't like to talk about it much, the stories I've heard him tell are damn scary.

I wonder how many people look at something like this and say "that's the straw that broke the camel's back - I'm switching sides and not voting for Obama." I think this every time I hear some other slight lob from one side or the other.

I'm having some major campaign fatigue. All these minor issues are bullsh.t. No one is changing their minds over these tiny "issues". Here is what matters:

a) The candidate's Iraq stance
b) The candidate's economy stance
c) The candidate's medical care stance
d) The candidate's race/gender/other character judgments that were made ages ago and will not change no matter what nontroversy is thrown around this week

I may have missed one or two other actual issues (which none of the candidates have changed positions on for a year at least). The rest of it is the prattling of dust mites living in our skin folds.

God, how I hate politics. It reveals the ultimate triviality of our minds. I find myself sucked in to the daily feedbag of supposed happenings that don't matter in the slightest. Human systems always seem to reveal the shortcomings of their creators.

Now that I've mucked around in it for this long, I'm already feeling dirty. I know that if my candidate doesn't win, I'll feel like crap, and if my candidate wins but doesn't perform to my expectation, I'll feel guilty. Here's hoping things turn out ok.

In the meanwhile, I'm beginning to roll my eyes at all of it. I have to admit though, there is one surface problem that I think merits attention - that of Hillary Clinton not dropping out. Even that is endemic of the system, and further pushes me towards simply turning my head from the carnage.

May I say - Blech.

It's rather like a woman I work with. She is husband shopping. So every first date she goes on the guy is measured by the "Is this the guy I want to spend my life with" yardstick.

Needless to say, she goes on a lot of first dates.

I don't see what the problem is with waiting the week-and-half for the last primary for her to drop out. Yeah, she can't win. At this point, so damn close, let everyone vote just for the hell of it.

Joe Biden says a mouthful

You want to talk about emboldening our enemies, 6 years of aggression without engagement has done more to embolden Iran and motivate them to become a real threat than anything else. It's a failed policy, it's time to freaking try another tack.

NOT, as McCain would like us to believe, with the goal of making Iran our bestest buddy, or of appeasing them, or of letting them have their way. With the goal of actually getting a handle on the situation, getting as much information as we possibly can on ALL of the factors involved. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Not talking to them does nothing but make it harder to really know what's going on. And that's reflected in the faulty intelligence that continues to pile up and (mis)guide our foreign policy decisions.

Not that talks will necessarily fix the intelligence, but it will provide another data point to refine what we know.

I don't buy that.

Terrorism is a means to an uncompromising end. Ahmadinejad supports terrorism because it helps him in his uncompromising goal of the elimination of Israel. As long as we are friends and defenders of Israel that will be directed at us as well.

I don't think Obama wants Iran as our best friends. Again, it comes down to being naive.

To think that iran would be straight forward at a negotiating table is as naive as when Clinton believed North Korea really wouldn't use the nuke plants we built them to assist in their nuclear programs, because, golly, they said they wouldn't do that.

See, to me, it seems naive to think that terrorism, a tactic, will ever be eliminated by the use of force alone. And that seems to be all that the conservatives can come up with - bomb em' - bomb em' some more. And all that appears to do is increase their recruiting numbers.

The real goal of terrorism - to instill fear in a society, disrupt lives, and cause people to implement stupid measures that don't make them any safer but make them feel safer, at the loss of freedom - seems to be going exactly as planned. And as an added bonus, we slowly bankrupt ourselves fighting a never-ending war. Meanwhile, the real terrorists such as those that actually committed the atrocities of 9/11 live out their days as heroes to their people for attacking the evil USA, all while we continue to fight a war against the only secular society in the middle east (at least it used to be) - the one that never attacked us. And the icing on the cake is that they are slowly turning into a theocracy, not a democracy.

Sorry, but I just don't see that we've done anything by the actions you suggest other than simply make things worse, create more enemies, and watch a few of our soldiers die needlessly each week.

I'm more than willing to try a different strategy, thank you very much, and by last report, so is about 80% of the population.

Whoever claimed that they'd expect them to be straight forward? That's not the point. Of COURSE they'll be dishonest. Of COURSE their goals will not match ours. Of COURSE they would be trying to get the most out of any negotiation, any way they can.

All of that is beside the point. Lies can be just as informative as the truth. And negotiations that end in absolutely nothing happening or no deal being made can be just as influential as a unilateral cease fire agreement. The whole point is that having a dialog is a means of learning something about the enemy. No one has ever made the ludicrous commitment that by agreeing to talks we are going to agree to demands. That's absurd and simply not going to happen.

By not talking, you are guaranteeing that you're shutting out a source of information. Whether what they actually say at the talks is truthful or not is entirely irrelevant. The more interface we have with them, the more we know them.

scaeagles is collectively pwned!

I could have told you that long before this thread was ever started. :evil:

I still maintain that negotiations with Iran and similar would be less about our relationship with Iran and more about our relationship with everyone else. I will try to make this clear when I am running for office.

But you are ignoring the fact that in the last example of poorly run and naive negotiations, North Korea ended up with nukes. Sorry, I'd rather not talk to a rogue state than have them end up a nuclear power. And they, in turn, were assisting Syria in building a nuke plant that Israel destroyed.

I do not consider myself to be pwned in the least.

Just don't pwn yourself. You'll grow hair on your palms.

Did you feel the same way when we armed "our friends" Saddam and Bin Laden? Or is it only Clinton that chaps your hide? I assume so since your avatar is a picture of the guy that helped make that happen. Was Reagan wrong?

And with the current example of poorly run and naive war, Iran has/is close to having nukes, and thousands of American soldiers are dead.

It's really too bad that engaging in discussion with the terrorists in Northern Ireland resulted in them gaining nuclear weapons.

Who knew that leprechauns pop like microwaved grapes when nuked? Sure, it made for funny YouTube videos but there was an underlying tinge of sadness.

Everyone knows leprechauns are extinct...

Yes, because the Brits talked to the terrorists!

And speaking of North Korea, weren't they engaging in a whole lot of saber rattling a couple years ago, looking altogether like they wanted to provoke an attack? Didn't we initiate talks with them, with multi national cooperation? And haven't they since calmed the fvck down without the need to kill anybody?

I've discussed this before.

International relationships change constantly. We gained our independence from the British and they are now our closest ally. We couldn't have won WWII without the Russians, but literally immediately after the end of the war they became out biggest adversary. Japan is one of our closest allies now afte being a part of the Axis powers. Biggest difference is that Clinton armed a current adversary with nukes.

So.....yes, Reagan did indeed help build Saddam up, but at the time that was necessary (primarily because of Carter's ineptitude regarding Iran). He also helped build up bin Laden in Afghanistan, but it was well necessary because of Soviet expansionism. Mistakes? Yes, of course, the most obvious being leaving a power vacuum in Afghanistan after the Soviets left (hmmm.....yet some want to do that in Iraq right now....hmm.....).

I have absolutely no problem looking at the world climate at a given point in time and making judgements about what was necessary to do at the time. Some things turn out horribly. Some things turn out wonderfully. Hind sight is, well, you know.

Who was it that was responsible for that? Well, that was China, as much as I hate to say that. They intervened because they did not want a nuclear exchange right next door. And that's what it would have become because of....you guessed it....naive negotiations by an administratin that wanted to appear to have success and therefore gave them a direct path to nuclear weapons. Should North Korea have used them, most likely on the South or Japan, there would have been a nuclear response.

I have no doubt that an equally naive Obama, wanting to appear to have a foreign policy success, would do something equally stupid sitting down with them.

Last thing the world needs is to allow Iran to get nukes, because Ahmahdinejad isn't nearly as reasonable as Kim Jong Il.

And while were at the whole Obama foreign policy, he is getting slimier by the day. McCain said that Obama wanted to have direct talks with Castro. In a debate last June, Obama answered a question and indeed said he would talk with them without condition. Well, in response to what McCain said, Obama became his usual self righteous...er...self and accused McCain of dirty politics because "I never said I wanted to normalize relations with Cuba". McCain didn't say that. He said the truth, and Obama is dodging it by changing what McCain said.

My hope is that whoever is President, doesn't take such a black and white stance on "negotiating" like people have argued here and treat each circumstance with consideration of the individual facts and act upon that instead.

Screw that... if they piss us off; nuke 'em!

Racking up the visual mojo- thanks for the laugh!:snap:


Oh, and Scaeagles- I'll take naive (is that your new word for the week?) over willfully ignorant any day.

I could use moronic, inexperienced, stupid, idiotic, dumb, foolish.....any number of words....but you know me. I want to make it sound as nice as possible. :)

Yesterday, before school, I had the pleasure of overhearing a kid in my daughter's class telling some of his friends that he had a gun in his backpack. I followed him around to confirm that I had heard what I had heard, and overheard a steady stream of conversation about guns, killing power, blow someone's head off, etc. I told the teacher, and she asked him to come to the door where she asked him about it. He basically copped to it but said there weren't any bullets in it. I later found out from the principal that it was a pellet gun. I don't know if it was loaded.

The boy is from a nice law abiding family as are the two kids he was bragging to. One of the dads is in law enforcement in some respect. The kid and the two kids he picked to brag to and converse with are nice kids, but they are the three that probably have the most trouble in class.

So, while I know this doesn't happen every day, I still question the premise of "law abiding citizens" going around armed saying "Morning, neighbor," and basically forgetting that they are armed until the unthinkable actually happens. Maybe--maybe--I could be convinced to feel differently in a real hunting community where men supposedly view guns no differently than they view any other tool that has its useful purpose. However, I think in the majority of places, guns, like jacked-up pickup trucks, are major cultural testosterone symbols of aggression, compensation, etc. I cannot see that multiplying their presence on the streets could ever be a good thing.

This is where we have a complete disconnect. I see guns as useful tools in situations that you do not.

That's not our disconnect. Of course, a gun is a useful tool in the appropriate situation. So is a defibrillator. So is a hammer to bust a back window to let a kid or a dog out of a hot car. No one's advocating we all walk around for the greater good with defibrillators or hammers.

Our disconnect is our respective articles of faith. You assume that the mass of people who advocate for concealed carry do so from entirely pure motives. I assume that they do so because they think that carrying a gun is an ego boost and that they, deep down, or maybe not so deep down, hope they get a chance to kill somebody. The truth is probably somewhere in between, but I still think it's closer to my view than yours.

Could Obama's choice of running mate affect your vote?

Not unless the choice falls so far outside the realm of what I consider appropriate that it causes me to reconsider my views of Obama's intentions or decision making capabilities.

Same for any other presidential candidate. Yes, it isn't an insignificant choice but generally an unimportant one. So unless they thoroughly screw it up I leave it to their discretion.

Of the likely candidates he'd choose, no.

Of course, should he defy conventional wisdom and choose, say, Rev. Wright. Or Karl Rove. I might then rethink my vote. But I'm guessing the odds are pretty slim.

Tell you what; if he chooses Karl Rove to be his VP I will drop my luke-warm support for McCain and with a full heart support B.H. Obama to be my next President.....I'll even send him $50.00:D

You scare me Jeff

You never know, maybe Rove's a closet Obamamaniac;)

Well, waddya know. Seems Bush likes to talk to The Enemy after all! Bush in talks with Sudan.


Hypocrite.

Except that the Sudan has been willing to offer us certain things - like say, Osama bin Laden during the Clinton administration. And before anyone yells "NO! IT ISN'T TRUE!", there is audio of Clinton saying it.

This has nothing to do with the Sudanese trying to undermine the US or a US ally...it has to do with brokering a cease fire to stop genocide, which by the way, the previous administration ignored while 800,000 people were being slaughtered.

Honestly, I see a genuine difference between brokering peace deals (which happens all the time in the middle east, though to no avail) for a civil war and talking with nations and terrorists who wish to bring direct harm to the US and our allies.

As far as the other countries mentioned - yeah, I have a problem if direct and inconditional talks were going on with Syria. With Cuba? Not so much - again that goes to what they are doing to support terrorism and undermine the US through that.

But I suppose this isn't hypocrisy:



Pretty much what Bush has been saying all along...:rolleyes:

No, it's not hypocrisy because "meeting with" is not the same as "negotiating with".

Although I'm not sure what you would hope to accomplish by meeting with someone "you can't" negotiate with.

You should probably point that out to Obama then:


http://www.nypost.com/seven/03042008...mas_100345.htm

I've already talked about this before. Information, engagement, knowledge. You will ALWAYS give yourself a better chance of acting intelligently if you have more lines of communication. You don't have to make a deal to gain something out of talks.

What doyu do with that information of course ultimately determines its value, and no amount of talking or information will mean jack-sh*t if you don't act intelligently on it. But to make the blanket statement that you're just going to close your eyes and plug your ears is, to my mind, a guarantee that you'll be working from an incomplete picture to make decisions.

No one has been suggesting that: clearly we do talk and meet with our foes on a lower level basis; but what Obama has suggested in the past(but is running away from now I think) is that He personally should meet with our enemies....and I think Hillary Clinton has the best response to that:

In other words, your very "meeting" with the bad guys, regardless whether you negotiate or give up anything at all, works to their advantage....they can show their people that they are legitimate since they got to meet with the President of the United States.

You don't think Sudan isn't playing this up to the hilt? They must be loving the fact that they got the Great Non-Negotiator to enter into talks with them. I love all the relativism being applied around here; it's not okay for one person to say that they would be open to talking with rogue nations, but when your own candidate actually does it then you practically snap in two trying to justify it away.

WB, you don't see a difference in acting as a mediator between sides in a civil war to prevent another million or so deaths and negotiating with a government that actively supports terrorism and is pursuing nukes? I do.

I don't even think its a stretch, much less a "snap in two" proposition. I did say I had a problem with the whole Syria thing, so I clearly draw a distinction.

I'd suggest you read up on the Sudanese government, Scaeagles. Precious little separates it from any of the others, aside from it's willingness to play reindeer games with us. Any assertions of noble intent on either our side or theirs is BS- we talk about wanting to help stop their civil war and prevent another Rwanda, but really we don't care. We are more concerned about our own interests in the area, not the ruling (Islamic) party. The Sudanese government is a well-known supporter of the Islamic jihad, btw. Here's an excerpt from the Council on Foreign Relations:

"
Does Sudan sponsor terrorism?

Despite increasing cooperation by Sudan, the U.S. State Department continues to formally designate it as a “state sponsor of terrorism.” The State Department first labeled Sudan a sponsor of terrorism on August 12, 1993. Since then, the United States has accused Sudan of harboring members of al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Abu Nidal Organization, Jamaat al-Islamiyya, and Egyptian Islamic Jihad, each classified as a terrorist organization. In 1996, the UN Security Council placed sanctions (PDF) on Sudan for harboring suspects wanted for the attempted assassination of President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. The same year, U.S. investigators linked two Sudanese diplomats to a terrorist cell planning to bomb the UN building in New York. In 1998, al-Qaeda operatives based in Sudan were allegedly involved in the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Throughout the 1990s, Sudan was also accused of supporting local insurgencies in Uganda, Tunisia, Kenya, Ethiopia, and Eritrea."



Yeah, they sound really nice.

So helping bring an end to state sponsored genocide in an internal civil war is a bad thing how? How does this help prop up the current government of the Sudan when they are the ones doing the killing? I have no illusions of them being great humanitarians. I just want to know how mediating a civil war between in the Sudan is the same as Presidential face to face unconditional talks with the leaders of Iran without condition.

I'm not the one who had a problem with it, Scaeagles. I just think the level of hypocrisy is interesting, that's all. You point out that talking to Iran's leadership is wrong in your estimation, and I believe that talking to the Sudanese is no different. If Iran get nukes, they'll do a hell of a lot more damage than the Islamicists have done in the Darfur region. You know, in Iran there are all sorts of human rights abuses going on right now, not just the potential for nuclear mischief. Maybe George can go and mediate an end to them as well. While he's on this humanitarian roll, he can stop by the Saudi kingdom and have a chat with them. I know, I know- they're our bestest buddies, not our enemies. China could use some talking to while he's at it. There's no end to places and people that could stand a little mediating with our prez. I just had no idea he was such a caring person, really. Someone should tell his former press secretary to stop saying bad things about him.

Hmmm....we have former Clinton officials and advisors who say bad things about him.....sort of par for the course.

I suppose the difference, WB, is that the Sudan wants some help in mediating their civial war. If Iran said to us "we want help stopping our blatant human rights abuses" or China said "we need help establishing freedom of speech", I'd say go for it.

Yes, Iran can do far more damage with nukes than the Islamofacists have done in Darfur, but think about that....the most recent Sudanese estimates are 2 million dead. That's a few nukes going off in major cities. So....I suppose that means you support an invasion of Iran to prevent that?

I had a dream last night that I was at a party, and Obama was there, sloshing drunk. I was worried that he'd try make a speech in his state, but he did not. He was working the crowd though...

Scaeagles, due to our attempt to rid the world of all the nasty weapons Saddam didn't have we no longer have the military strength to invade Monaco. North Korea was very publicly working on a nuclear program and we didn't invade them, but then the only resources they have are starving people and concrete.

So, CP- was he a happy drunk?

Yes, and very social, kept himself rather together even though he was tottering. I think he was putting his arms around various women....

I seem to recall a phenomenon of women who had dreams about Bill Clinton. I wonder if you are part of a similar happening.

Okay, this is just getting sad. Was she dodging sniper fire while collecting that poll data?

Possibly, though he didn't even talk to me in the dream. I'm hoping for a much more graphic vision next time ;)

When Bill Clinton first ran, I had two dreams about him. I ran into him at a roller rink and on the street, and both times he HATED me. Heh.

I am proud to say that no politician has ever made their way into my dreams.

Although from time to time David Spade haunts me in my sleep(usually making snide commets about how funny I look wearing nothing but boxer shorts to work) ;)

I found this to be a very interesting read. I had read about many of these Obama gaffes and quick reversals of positions after saying something in a speech, but this a good summary of most.

I like the observation that candidates' gaffes are reported, or not, based upon the media story the press participates in attaching to each one.


But really, most of those gaffes were completely insubstantial. And the pair of substantial ones should have had more press ... but really, 2 substantial gaffes in a 10-month campaign is a pretty good record.

As an interesting example of fitting things into a media outlets pre-determined narrative, see how the WSJ views the "meeting with leaders" stuff as a gaffe where Obama instead of acknowledging has dug in and embraced his error. To them this is a bad thing.

In this month's Atlantic there is an essay entirely on this "gaffe" and how it is a significant, important statement of position from Obama. That even if it spawned from something he hadn't intended to say, after examination he found it was what he meant to say even if he didn't know it and that he would stick by it.

But if nothing else, one hopes the Wall Street Journal editorial board will remember this piece the next time they find themselves supporting or explaining away some stupidity simply because they already support the person who committed it.

I just learned that, though otherwise in excellent health, Obama is a smoker. One who has tried to quit several times without success. ("Yes we can" has its limits.) This won't change my vote, but it strikes me as hard to take the moral high ground against corporations when you are in thrall to one of the more evil sectors.

On the other hand, I bet he looks, like, totally cool.

Have we had a smoking president since Nixon?

I don't think so, at least not cigarettes. I've heard that at least one recent president enjoyed a good cigar.

But I really don't care if Obama smokes. I've never smoked but don't find the habit distasteful in others and I doubt that he'll be advocating others take it up.

I also like the causal relationship implied between JFK's meeting Khruschev and the building of the Berlin Wall.

Are you saying you don't believe there was a correlation?

I've always believed there was. The Russians had lost 20 million soldiers in WWII and were in no way ready to fight another war in Europe. Khruschev was indeed feeling out Kennedy and sensed weakness and a lack of resolve. That also led directly to the Cuban Missile crisis, but thankfully JFK showed cajones there.

This is where face to face talks, when one is not prepared to stand up and is willing to make concessions easily, can lead to very negative consequences. Reagan was good at it and walked out on Gorbachev in Iceland. I don't see Obama doing that with Ahmadinejad. Of course, I see McCain beating Ahmadinejad to death with a blunt instrument, which wouldn't be a good thing either (well, maybe it would).

I'd like to see a Gaffe Graph, showing the reversals from all 3 both candidates.

I'm sure it would be very, very lengthy. Particularly with McCain, who is currently king in that area.

It's not illegal to carry a ball-peen hammer concealed under your coat.
If you can get close to an adversary, it makes a damn fine device for disabling (or worse).
Or so I've heard...

I thought this was a good response to Helmetgate 2008.


Source

Obama, I'm sorry, is an idiot. He is saying that proposals to drill for oil domesitically decrease our energy independence.

What Obama has to say


How does drilling for domestic oil decrease out energy independence?

If only we had drilled when Clinton sid the same thing about ANWR in 1995.

Even if only 3% of the oil, a number I doubt but would need to research, we can use it. And if you include currently restrict shale oil in the rockies, we have a lot more than that.

Instead, let's use windfall profits tax to discourage any investment! Brilliant!

I'm sorry - whether you agree with drilling domestically or not, to say that increasing domestic production decreases energy independence makes one a fool.

That count me in (as I'm sure you already have). Energy independence comes only from post-petroleum sources of energy.

Perhaps (and I didn't hear what he had to say) Obama is talking about true energy independence, and not the temporary and fleetingly effective "independence" of being slightly less reliant on foreign sources for a slight bit of time.

What iSm says. Anything that keeps us sucking the oil teet keeps us from being energy independent.

I disagree.

A recent discovery in North Dakota (which goes into South Dakota and Montana as well) called the Bakkan Formation could replace all of our imported oil for about 40 years.

It is estimated at between 175 and 500 billion barrels. At the low end, say 200 billion, that replaces the 14 million barrels of oil we import daily for 39 years. One oil field, all by itself. Let alone off shore and Alaskan oil.

That's one hell of a long time to continue developing other technologies, which I'm all for and no one of conscience is against.

So in 10 years, if nothing is done, and oil is running at $300/barrel, again, someone will say "we can't do that - it will be 10 years until we could even get oil from it", we have no one to blame but those who will not permit it to be done.

And yet if we called you an idiot for disagreeing with us...

It isn't a recent discovery. Oil in the area has been known for 50 years, the debate has been about how much is there.

True, only if currently unknown technology is dropped in our laps.

Again, true. There is a huge amount of oil. And per the very reports that gave the estimate of quantity you mention, only about 3.6 billion of it is in a form that is recoverable with currently known technology. So, now instead of 40 years of oil (by current usage) we are down to 257 days of oil.

It is kind of like saying we'll always have fresh water because there is a huge amount of it in the troposphere. Perhaps true, but we have no good way to get it.

Plus, they are already ramping up production of drilling in that region (therw it isn't particularly controversial) since high prices make it worth their while. So if these drills alone can provide all of our needs for 40 years, then obviously drilling offshore in the gulf and in ANWR can't possible do anything to reduce energy dependence since we've already solved that problem.

Except that, to get the benefit you see claim for that field we will have to wait for the benefit of other technology, which a lot of people aren't for and many of conscience are against.

OK....that's fair. I'll even apologize. I do not consider anyone here to be an idiot and was typing out of disgust for Obama.

I will say that I do not understand why tapping into our own natural resources, which are abundant, is not considered a good solution, particularly with the high price of oil, unrest in the middle east, and increasing demand for oil in massive and emerging middle class nations uch as India and China. Even if a temporary solution, there is nothing wroing with a temporary solution while permanent solutions are developed.

Obama, as a politician, is making speeches that do make him sound like an idiot. From windfall profits to environmental fears to saying allowing drilling only makes the oil companies richer, he is making no sense whatsoever.

Again, I should have been more clear. Recent developments I have read about horizontal drilling techniques have made the oil there come into play recently. It has been known about for a long time.

I've read about the new drilling tech specially developed to tap those fields, and I've also read that the oil reserves are quite a bit larger than first thought. As oil prices have risen, it's motivated companies to put capital into such ventures, and there has definitely been serious interest in developing alternatives as well. We will never be independent until we are able to wean ourselves of of oil, and things have to get pretty bad before companies and people are willing to look for viable alternatives. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what Obama means and yet again, much ado about nada here.

Geeze, Scaeagles- where have you been these past eight years with Dubya at the helm? You can't understand anything that Obama has to say, but you seemed to have no problem with George? I certainly can't recall you ever going after him like you do Obama, and the man can't string together a complete sentence.

And, so far as I can tell the latest drilling abilities are taken into account for the 3.6 billion barrel figure. The reports were just issues a month ago.

3.6 billion barrels is enough to take care of my needs for the next 40 or so years. I don't know what the rest of y'all are gonna do.

It isn't about putting a sentence together or making a mistake, WB. I haven't brought up Obama saying he's been to 57 states during his campaign - or at least I don't think I have - as that's simply a misstatement. This is policy. I think his policies are bad. I think some of GWB's policies are bad and have stated so as well.

Yes, and there is a difference between people reaching different policy conclusions (and therefore one person thinking the other's are bad) and jumping to the conclusion that the one who reached a different position is an idiot.

I've said it before, I support Obama and expect I will oppose many of his policy initiatives. If I can do that without being treated by the majority opposing me as an idiot or evil (or, somewhat paradoxically an evil idiot) then I'll be satisfied.

I did apologize for that. And I meant it.

I thought you were apologizing for the implication that anybody on this board who would say the same thing is an idiot. Not for saying that Obama is an idiot (not that you need to apologize).

But I don't think calling him an idiot for reaching different conclusions is any different than calling people here idiots (though it would certainly be more personally targeted).

Sure seems like Obama is turning out to be like any other politician.

Break your word, blame someone else.

While I don't think that this is Obama's fault, I have no doubt that if McCain's campaign deliberately told two Muslim women they couldn't be in a picture with their head scarves on there might be a bit more criticism in general.

And while I don't like Michelle Obama in the least, Cindy McCain scares the hell out of me.

You're reading this wrong. He WON'T take public funds.

ETA - I didn't realize he had committed to TAKING public funds and therefore limiting himself to that amount. Personally, I have never had a problem with campaign spending and have a huge problem with public funds being used for someone's campaign....so I'm actually happier this way. Yes, he has changed his position, but I agree with it, so I'm fine.

Yeah, i hate to quibble ... but saying "we've made the decision to" is clearly an opening to make another and different decision later. It's not the same as "We will not."


BUT .... I've always contended Obama will look and act and feel more and more like every other slimy politician to closer he gets to winning the election.

He's got to leave the door open to combat the filthy 529s McCain has pretty much committed himself to having help him.

I might suggest that George Soros has some mighty filthy 529s (I thought they were 527s, but I'm not sure) that will be working on behalf of Obama.

Obama has said that the Republicans will try to use his youth, inexperience, his "funny name", and that "by the way, he's black" as scare tactics.

Excuse me?

I find this offensive in a variety of ways. First, it seems as if he is equating youth and inexperience with race. This is an attempt to deflect the legitimate issues of youth and inexperience by equating them with non-existant criticism on his race. Secondly, I have no heard one republican use race as an issue - the Clintons did, certainly - and any that did would be instantaneously and correctly crucified.

Just because they haven't yet, doesn't mean they won't. And it won't come (officially) from the McCain campaign or the party. It will be some group - Swift Boat Veterans, or the like.

I agree it may come. The truly reprehensible part is Obama positioning that stupidity as equivalent to the legitimate issues of youth and inexperience.

For some reason we don't get those ads in Oregon. We only seem to get "endorsed by....candidate" ads. It's always interesting to see other states ads and you get them from all kinds of groups and this "Swift" thing that I don't get. Oh well, sorry for the interruption.

Those ads are typically focused in battleground states or districts.

May? Will! David Fredosso's already got one on the the way.

You remember him, right? That staunch truth teller who gave us "Unfit For Command".

And Obama wishes to equate outrageousness with legitimate issues.

Not to mention a small little 527 named moveon.org that just might be producing some ads on behalf of Obama. But wait. I suppose they are completely truthful.

God, I don't have time for this.

MoveOn shut down it's 527. Obama requested they use no funds to campaign for him. According to MoveOn organizers, they had all but dismantled the 527 by 2004. They wanted to concentrate on small donor work.

Pardon me. Indeed that is the case.

Soros still makes huge contributions to other 527s, including 2.5 million to one called the "Fund for America". Moveon.org isn't done with their political campaigning, though, and has partered with some Pennsylvania Labor Unions to run ads critical of McCain.

Whether it is moveon or some other 527, there will certainly be 527 groups attacking McCain, the same as there will be 527 groups attacking Obama.

Yeah, but McCain can't complain about them, can he? He invented them and at the same time made it illegal for an official campaign to overtly try to control them. It could be viewed as illegal for any 527, on either side, to run a blatantly false add and for the benefiting campaign to say "Don't run that any more" and then have them stop. Coordination between 527s and campaigns is not allowed and that includes decisions on what not to run.

Yes, there will be plenty of despicable ads from various 527s over the next five months from all sides of the spectrum. But I won't hold them against either candidate.



I must admit I'm not seeing the logic behind your upsettedness in post 1211. But then I've not seen the original remarks to know if they say anything beyond the simple list of ways that he expects to be undermined in the campaign.

How is saying "here's a list of things they're going to say about me" infer he's equating them? They're all things that have been and will be said. Don't even try to say that no one has said "don't vote for him because he's black and his name is Muslim". Hell, my mom has already said that.

He is expecting (or at least hoping) that the legitimate youth and inexperience cries are equated to those that are not legitimate by lumping them into the same statement.

It is smart politics, no doubt, but I find it despicable to draw a line through all of those as the same type of criticism.

And Alex, you are exactly right. I hate McCain Feingold and it is one of the primary reasons I vomit at the thought of voting for the man.

You have not posted a link so I don't know what he actually said. But according to you, all he's claiming is that these are all things that people will say about him, trying to scare people away. Which is totally true. Your complaint seems like a massive stretch to me.




"Um....he's black. He is too young. He doesn't have enough experience to protect us from terrorism. He is a secret Muslim - look at his name....."
"THINGS PEOPLE SAY ABOUT OBAMA TO SCARE AWAY VOTERS?"
"RIGHT!"
Dick Clark: "You win the $20,000 Pyramid!"

My problem is that he is attempting, by listing them together, to say that people who say he is young or inexperienced are as stupid as those who say he's black or a muslim, and that his youth and inexperience are as invalid as the other two.

You've asserted that before, scaeagles. But I wish you had the wherewithal to admit that's how you perceive it, but it's not necessarily (nor necessarily not) the way it was intended by Obama.

CP's $20,000 Pyramid analogy is just as likely as not. This time, I think it's the ear of the behearlder.

Oh, indeed, it is how I percieve it. And I think I also said he's a smart politician for doing it.

Only to the extent potential voters are dumb enough to assume everything on a given list has equal value.

I think the vast majority of voters - on both sides - are dumb.

I feel that way about most of the candidates.

I don't think there was a single candidate running this year that is dumb. There were a whole lot that I disagree with strongly on many and perhaps even most issues.

But that doesn't make them dumb.

I don't think most politicians are dumb. I think most are slimey and would sell their mother to get elected. But not dumb.

Now, now, scaeagles, no fair singling out Senator Clinton ;)

Every time I see Scaeagles avatar, I think he's switched to Obama - I know it's a twist on the "hope" poster, but I see it as still promoting the image and strengthening the iconic imagery.

I just thought it was funny. I also saw one with "Dope", but thought this was was better - no naming calling, but a clever twist on his campaign.

I still think in the campaign of the subconscious he is winning because you have already adopted his symbology

Except that there's no way in hell I'll vote for the man, and nothing I do or say or have in an avater here will stop anyone from voting for the man.

But it does get me thinking.....if this starts getting plastered everywhere, does it promote him because it is so close to his campaign stuff, or does it adversely affect his campaign stuff because people will think of the parody version of it when they see the real thing?

I think he wins becasue he controls the image, and it makes people think of him in the role of president, and any parody message invokes the original message subliminally. In other words it will do nothing to change anyone who's mind is already made up, but it reinforces his message for those still on the fence.

It's only June, and I'm already stuck in the "lesser of two evils" choice for President. Can't vote for Nader, I loathe Barr's politics, McCain is pushing a conservative (moral) agenda with his comments about the Supreme Court, and Obama is turning out to be the politician I hoped he wouldn't be. Yuck.

From todays NY Times: Muslim Voters Detect A Snub From Obama

It's all about image, baby.

Maybe if Leo drew a mustache on him...

This is a real shame. He needs to keep to his mantra of rising above politics as usual. Too bad he isn't using this as a teachable moment for America. :(

Horns. Not a mustache, horns.

He isn't going to go near a Mosque.

Color me not at all suprised that Obama's becoming a hypocritical dickhead. I just didn't expect it so soon.


It's one thing to go back on his pledge about public financing. But now he's repudiating his stance on the new FISA legislation, and suddenly supports this drastic curtailment of our 14th Amendment privacy rights. It's a shameless and disgusting attack on the Constitution, one Obama said he'd never support ... before he was the leading candidate for President.

Pfft, it's only June. I can hardly wait to see how disgusting he'll get by November ... and what a disgraceful president he will turn out to be ... LIKE ALL THE OTHERS.

I found this website that takes Dobson to task for his comments about Obama and the Bible.
Click here
I think there needs to be more people speaking up when this fool presumes to talk for all Christians.

Dobson is a bad man, but I don't think there was anything out of the ordinary about what he said. It basically boils down to, "We're powerful constituents, and we get to try to muscle politicians to do what we want because we want it. We don't have to convince anyone it's for the common good."

There are limits to teachable moments. When Thurgood Marshall was litigating Brown and its predecessors, he ran like hell from all involvement with the American Communist party, even though they supposedly had the black man's interest at heart.

If I were a demonized American Muslim, I would vote for Obama in a heartbeat because I would feel safer (domestically) with him as president. Of course, for him to get to be president, he probably has to win Florida.

It's like when Sharpton or Jackson is presumed to speak for the black constituency, or some spokesperson from NOW is presumed to speak for all women, or someone from CAIR is presumed to speak for all Muslims.

By the way, you may not like Dobson, and that's cool, but his book about raising boys is freakin' right on the money.

Every time I read scaeagles posts next to that avatar, I hear it in Obama's distinctive voice. Heehee.

Ok - that just ruins my day. I just read the post above in his voice. Blech.

Nope. The man has absolutely no credibility in my book. The guy is a hate monger.

Now that the US Supremes have (thankfully) ruled that the 2nd amedment does indeed gaurantee rights to the individual citizen to keep and bear arms, I wonder how Obama will address this. He has been in favor of gun control in Illinois and in the US Senate, and the majority of Americans are indeed in favor of gun rights (no - no specific link to a poll, but I have read them, and even Gore in 2000 recognized this and campaigned accordingly).

Hell, this liberal gal is in favor of gun rights. But I'm also in favor of background checks, waiting periods no guns for convicted felons or people with restraining orders. I cannot think of a good reason where you absolutely have to have your gun right this second. Well I can, but it involves a restraining order and the police should be involved at that point in time.

Hopefully he'll support (at least mildly) a constitutional amendment updating the second amendment to something more sensible for modern society.

While I begrudgingly agree with the Supreme Court's decision on Heller, I support a constitutional amendment banning handguns (though a realistic amendment would probably just open guns up to local regulation).

So much for the early talk that this session was ushering in a new age of SC solidarity. They just held all of the 5-4 decisions for the end.

While it's sort of important to have a working understanding of what the Constitution means, it's regrettable that so much of the debate about basic, pragmatic rights gets warped by the "pornographic" extremes.

We see this in First Amendment discussions of artistic expression and campaign finance reform. In the Second Amendment arena, the NRA (spokespeople) and the assault weapons folks are the pornographic extreme.

Hold on a moment. I have more to say about this comment.
Dobson believes in Conversion Therapy, that through counseling or prayer someone can switch from being gay to straight. The man was a psychologist, yet a majority in the mental health field disagree with his thinking.
In "Bringing Up Boys" he says:
I'm sorry, but I would not want my son being misinformed by Dobson.

The Dobson run Focus on the Family website has a store where you can buy books on Conversion Therapy called "Leaving the Lifestyle". I was forced to go through a Conversion Therapy process as a teen. Since this is what my parents wanted, I decided to willingly give it a shot. It doesn't work.

Was it anything like But, I'm a Cheerleader?

Committing felonies certainly does affect our Constitutional rights - like voting - and I have no problem with screening for things like that when it comes to gun ownership.

I am not for an amendment altering basic gun rights.

But what do you have to say about Dobson and GCs comments about Conversion Therapy?

Do you think being gay can be fixed by therapy? I'm truly curious.

And, yeah, I'm wondering if that's what you thought was freakin' right on the money about raising boys ... i.e., if they look to be sissy girly boys, just get them magically converted into boyish boys in two weeks and $78,000.

This pretty much says it all:

I was speaking specifically about discipline and methodologies for it with boys.

I have never been one who has believed in conversion therapy.

Then you will go with me to the prom, Leo?
:blush:

:D

Sorry, GC...I'm not gay.

However, for a toaster.....

I'm voting for Obama
 

Awesome.

And in other news, McCain met with Billy Graham.

But is it still his personal view that marriage should be between one man and one woman (he has always said he wouldn't oppose state efforts but that he personally does not support gay marriage)? Or is he officially changing his stance on gay marriage?

He wants both sides of the issue. Or so it would seem. Knowing that the LGBT will never vote for a Republican (en masse), he'll give it lip service to the group but I'm doubting he'll make it a campaign issue.

Not sure.
But his statement is something that would never come from McCain. Lesser of two evils...

If that letter is authentic, I appreciate the Olive Branch. I also appreciate that he believes he can't strategically simply support Gay Marriage Rights ... but I hate his hypocricy of asserting that separate is equal when it comes to extending "fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law."

See my above post.

Two boll weevils grew up in South Carolina. One went to Hollywood and became a famous actor. The other stayed behind in the cotton fields and never amounted to much

The second one, naturally, became known as the lesser of two weevils.

Uh, why would it not be authentic. The Advocate isn't some tabloid...
No one lol. He'll just keep going with the bad jokes.
:D

Maybe so. But I'd be willing to take my chances with Obama.

Well, for me anyway, if that is his personal belief then that is the kind of "having it both ways" I wish we saw more of in politicians.

Saying "I personally don't agree with this policy but will not stand in the way because it is simply my personal view and that is not sufficient reason for imposing it on others" is a very powerful form in integrity.

I wish I could remember where it was so I might find the video of it, but I did once see him at a debate or town hall type thing answer the question of whether he supported gay marriage very bluntly in the no. And then he went on and explained himself and what that meant in such a way that I was left thinking "well...short of simply saying yes that was the best answer to the question I've ever heard."

This one, Alex?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73oZ_pe1MZ8

Can't watch YouTube at work. Will confirm tonight.

It could be that one or this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlY9HFRNUHs

I think it's the former. I have to see where I read that.

Which is fine. He can think a marriage should be between one man and one woman all he wants. He doesn't have to marry multiple people or marry a man.

But he's not going to try to tell the rest of the country they have to think the same way he does.

Or at least that is how I read it.

Why should same-sex marriage be an 'issue' in the campaign anyway? We have so many serious concerns to address, and this habit of developing issues (like choice, etc) to throw people off the trail of what really should be on the table is annoying. Same-sex marriage rights are being affirmed by more and more courts, and like any other civil rights issue they will prevail, because it is just and right and when it comes down to it we have a pretty good track record of (eventually) doing the right thing in this country.

In which case, I want him to marry me ... that's how in love with him I am.


I think that's the best example for leadership this country needs right now ... along the lines of my personal views do not need to be imposed on everyone else.

It shouldn't be an issue. It's used as a divisive tool by fundies. That then fires up the gays to fight back. Lots of wasted money being thrown at this non-issue.

Including mine. Don't think that doesn't piss me off when my finances are so tight.


The fundies owe me a living. :)

If it is a non issue then why fight about it on either side? Seriously. Couldn't it be said as well that it's a divise tool used by the LGBT? I'm not sure why saying you are against something is more devisive than saying you are for something.

It is a non-issue if it weren't embraced by religious wingnuts as a divisive tool. But since it is, then we should fight back. How is marriage equality being used as a divisive issue by the LGBT community?

I'm not saying it is. I'm just wondering why it isn't seen as a divisive tool on both sides.

Understanding I am not speaking of this in terms of right and wrong (I am libertarian on theis issue and think government should stay out of the marriage issue all together), if the majority of Americans are not for gay marriage (which I believe the numbers say), then why is it divisive to be on that side of the issue? It would seem like those being divisive are the minority who begins to demand something that hasn't been there before and most people oppose.

By that logic, blacks shouldn't have gotten "uppity" in the 60's, and demanded equal rights.

Interesting Article in the Washtington Post...

"An Attack That Came Out Of the Ether"

It's an intesting read, althought I did laugh at one part:

Followed by:
Yup! She used Google to find something on the Internet. Bloody brilliant!

No, no, no, no, no......I didn't say diviseness is wrong. Not at all. Sometimes it is necessary to achieve what is right.

All I'm saying is it isn't just one side of the same sex marriage issue being divisive. That's all.

I would say that the issue is divisive, not the sides.

Well, GC said the fundies use it as a divisive tool. I'm saying that both sides use it as a divisive tool.

The entire concept of the rights of a minority being decided by the majority is worthy of Thru the Looking Glass, and anathema to the principals of the U.S. Constitution.

But homosexuals did not put that issue on the ballot in California (and other states) to be decided by a tyranical majority. Don't pretend that gays made this a political issue by pleading for justice in courts of law, or that blacks made a political issue by demanding equal rights under the law, or that women made it an issue by struggling for the right to vote.

In all cases, it was their oppressors who made it a political issue ... and it's a shame that such things had to be fought for, tooth and nail, and that such things still need to be fought for ... when they have been enshrined in the introduction of our American Constitution since our nation was formed.


It's disgusting.




But in no sense are gays using their quest to be equal with everyone else as a divisive tool. Nor did blacks yearning to be equal seek to divide. Nor did woman fighting for equality want to divide. In each case, the oppressed have sought to unite all Americans, all humanity, in the enjoyment of inalienable rights.

Why am I being disgusting?

All I said was that making something divisive by challanging the status quo is how change is made. I said being divisive isn't always a bad thing. I didn't say blacks were wrong, but it was damn divisive when Rosa Parks took the seat on the bus. That doesn't mean it was wrong. Wrong is often times moving dutifully to the back of the bus.

That isn't disgusting. It's fact. To say that being divisive itself is wrong is disgusting.

True.

scaeagles ~ The couples that sued CA are saying, "Hey, our relationships are just as valid and as important as straight ones. We deserve marriage equality." At that point, it's between those couples and the court. The Supreme Court of CA agreed. Now, the anti-gay marriage groups are up in arms saying that the state's constitution should be amended. The misinformed anti-marriage backers are forcing a choice on the issue, taking it to the masses and saying make a choice. Pro-gay marriage organizations (like Love Honor Cherish for example) are surfacing as a defensive move because of the misinformation anti-marriage orgs are spreading. When decisions were being made about interracial couples in the courts, they stood and that was that.
I see the wingnuts using it as a divisive issue because they are disagreeing with the courts and brought the issue forward. It was not the gay community that brought it to the people first and said 'You gotta listen to us and agree with us and choose sides'.

Ok - I can see that point, GC.

But I do stand by what I said that being divisive in and of itself is not wrong.

To clarify, i was not saying you are disgusting, scaeagles (though I'll have to think about that ;) ), just that having to fight for the rights we and others were promised over two centuries ago, and which are ours regardless of the constitution in any event, is disgusting.


To which I will add we are not using the same English language. It is NOT divisive to try and JOIN with everyone else. It IS devisive to try and prevent that joining. Look it up.

Maybe, but what's the point on being divisive about issues that there is an impas on? Just so the issue can be played out nationally and on TV? Also, I don't understand what the Mormon church has to gain by stepping into this ruckus. Increased membership? More donations to their organization under the guise of "protecting traditional marriage"?

But getting back to the topic... I applaud Obama for saying what he said. It ain't perfect, but it's closer than McCain will ever get.

Oh yeah, Obama.


Hmmm, maybe he'll accept my thanks in trade. Then I can find out if it's twue.

That was my first thought- things were just hunky dory in America until those darned blacks started stirring the **** with 'Brown VS the Board of Education'. I'm very grateful for that decision on a personal level, as it opened the door for kids like mine (hearing disability) to attend the same schools as their peers. An unintended consequence, but certainly a positive one. Who knows what peripheral positives might occur when we stop denying a very large segment of our citizenry the same rights afforded to the majority?

public mojo - OH how that one made me laugh!

As I see it, when we speak of divisiveness, distractions, etc., we are talking about appealing to people's prejudices to trick them into voting against their true self-interest and/or for the common good. We saw a bit of that in the Democratic primary when race and gender appeals were too common.

But . . . unless you want to say that there are no right and wrong positions on particular issues, you can't say that gays, like blacks of the fifties and sixties, use civil rights issues as divisive issues.

It certainly makes no sense to say that blacks were tricked into voting for pro-civil rights politicians when they should have voted the other way (assuming they could vote at at all).

With gays, conceivably an argument could be made that the "rich gays" with all the disposible income should be voting for lower taxing Republicans, not being distracted by gay marriage. This would only make sense if the overwhelming majority of gays didn't care about gay marriage and hadn't thought about it until a few anti-Republican gay activists with a larger agenda started pulling strings. I just don't think that's the case. This is a deeply felt civil rights issue. Thus, being against it is divisive. Being for it is not.

I'm curious, an as long as we're on the subject, I'm wondering why it is (I really have no opinion on it myself) that a large portion of the black does not equate their civil rights issues with gay marriage?

First of all, and ya know, not speaking from the black perspective ... because, oh yeah, there's NONE of that on the LoT btw ... two things:

1) Some blacks are very pissed off that the gays "equate" their civil rights struggle with that of the famed black variety in the 60's ... not realizing we're not equating the dollar value or other "best"ness ... but rather just the type of struggle. Sheesh.

2) A great many blacks are virulently, violently, backwardly homophobic. Those who were oppressed are, without enough ironic sense, imo, hardly immune to feeling prejudice and bigotry and hatred. Pfft, witness Israel.

You see, I often wonder if it is the same type of struggle.....and not being gay....... because, oh yeah, there's NONE of that on the LoT btw ......(hahahaha), economically, educationally, jobwise....I don't see the same type of discrimination. However, I am perfectly willing to admit since I'm not gay I just may not know.

I'm not black, but I can only imagine what kind of crap they have to deal with on a daily basis. Just because I don't experience what they do doesn't make what happens any less valid- and anyone who thinks gay people don't face discrimination, hostility and the like are living in a bubble. I don't see many churches looking to hire gay persons, and in quite a few communities across this land they are routinely denied employment, admittance to social groups, etc. It's not easy for an openly gay person to win public office, and do I even need to to mention the military?

I would posit three contributing factors (among many I'm sure):

1. I'm sure plenty feel like their still fighting their own fight and would prefer society focus on them until it is done. A form of "hey, I'm walking here, wait your turn."

2. The center of "black civil culture" and the power structure within it is heavily dominated by somewhat fundamentalist evangelical Christian religions. And just as with the predominantly white versions of these churches aren't sympathetic to the homosexuality as an acceptable state of being, the black churches aren't really any friendlier. They may recognize that the struggle is similar in form but that doesn't mean you have to think it is similar in justification.

3. You aren't being exposed to a wide enough cross section of black intellectuals, leaders, and communities to be aware of the communities that do support gay rights.

Coretta Scott King was a strong supporter of gay rights.

I don't really think it makes much sense to try to rank quality of oppression. Oppression is oppression, just because it manifests in different ways doesn't mean they aren't born of the same thing.

Speaking as a lesbian of color, it's my view that one's own oppression does not necessarily give one perspective or empathy.

I disagree. I think there are certainly levels of oppression which certainly rank worse than others. I do think slavery is worse and more offensive than denying someone a state sanctioned marriage and am not ashamed to say so. I can think of 100s of forms of oppression that would fall in the same category of being worse than that.

However, the ideals that lead to the end of any form of oppression remain the same. And the methods necessary to get our from under it remain the same. And the passion that engenders from those within it is the same. If you truly believe that you are unfairly being denied equal status as a human being, you're not going to take it well when someone says, "Get over it, my plight was way worse." The relative degree of oppression does not make it any less valid, nor does it negate the "worse" case from being a fair analogy.

I think it does to the masses, though. To equate slaery or the holocaust with denial of state sanctioned marriages doesn't play well to Joe on the corner.

Oh, I don't deny that, I fully understand WHY the perception is what it is. I just think it's wrong.

And perhaps that's why we DID have to wait (and I'm not complaining) until women were given the vote, and stopped being so blatently discriminated against in employment (though they still don't make dollar for dollar with men), and had to wait until blacks were freed from slavery, freed from Jim Crow, given fair housing, employment and voting rights under the law.

That's just under the law, of course. Hearts and minds will take centuries, perhaps, to catch up to that. Because people of color are still taking dehumanizing sh!t every day of their lives.


But, ok, so now let the law catch up to gays, and let the clock on centuries of waiting for hearts and minds and TRUE equality start ticking.


And ya know what, our oppression may be a little less than that of blacks ... but it sucks hard being the last remaining minority it's ok to openly hate. Like we are the lowest of the low, the dregs of every society. You can't come out against any other racial or ethnic group ... but in too many parts of our society, it's still alright to hate faggots.


And yeah, marriage rights might seem trifling. We wouldn't bother if we hadn't already tackled housing and employment rights ... in the law, if not in practice. Enough. Time for the full and totally equality guaranteed us by the Constitution and ours as inalienable by virture of our humanity.

Moreso, it's not about where we live this time, or how we work ... but about who we love, the essence of our gayness. We WILL have that legitimized by society ... because it IS LEGITIMATE TO BE GAY.

Visible iSm mojo.:snap:


I can't imagine how horrible it would be to love someone absolutely and be denied the same rights that other couples are afforded- you have to remember, this goes above and beyond simply pledging oneself to another. Heterosexual spouses have rights under the law that supersede parental; in other words, the family of one spouse can't deny you the right to see your loved one in the hospital, or take away material possessions should they pass, or .........the list goes on and on. Then there is the basic human dignity aspect which iSm addresses- it's absolute bull**** in this day and age that gay people have to hide their orientation or face serious persecution. I think this is just a sliver of the pile of merde they have to deal with in life, and I think it's flat out wrong. Not just from my own ethical standpoint, but legally as well. I really do believe this is the last frontier of civil rights and one who's time has finally come.

Average Joe on the corner may be right, and, like many, he may profess not to give a sh*t one way or the other.

One would think, however, that Lunatic Joe, who feels that [i]his[i] precious marital rights are being trampled upon by the prospect of gay marriage might be able to pause for a moment and think about how the other side feels.

I didn't say Joe was anti gay marriage. I said Joe has a hard time equating slavery et al to marriage issues.

And I agreed that average Joe may not care one way or the other, but that plenty of lunatic Joes approach the "assault on traditional marriage" with the passion appropriate to a civil rights issue.

Though I may disagree with the goals, that kind of passion seems appropriate to the anti abortion movement. The anti-gay marriage folks just look like a bunch of unreconstructed racists.

I misread your earlier post and was equating your Average Joe with your Lunatic Joe. What can I say? It was 4:30 in the morning.:)

I hate to go all George Bush ... but I'm beginning to feel you're either with us or you're against us, and I've got no patience for Average Joe if his don't give a sh!t attitude leads to Status-Quo Is OK By Me at the voting booth in November.*


I'm afraid I'll have to trust that Average Cal is a little more enlightened than Average Joe, but I'm nervous about that.












* Actually, the current status-quo is Gay Marriage Is Legal ... but I don't think that's the status-quo that Average Joe is used to yet.

I think every person in the USA should list 10 issues they have with the universe from Women's rights to Gay Marriage to trash on Thursdays to the exicution of the cast of THat's So Raven - anything. Compile the list and the top 10 is what we go with. Then everyone should shut the hell up and move on...

And conversely, McCain Endorses the marriage ban amendment.

Not to say this is my decision (because I have not made one yet), but what if I agree with you on this one issue (that Gay Marriage should not be illegal) yet chose a candidate that opposed it? This is a possibility when weighing ALL the issues and deciding which candidate agrees with more of my concerns (making the assumption that I will not agree with all positions of any one candidate).

Am I "with you" or "against you?" *







* And I am not picking a personal fight, just using the verbiage.

This is a common issue in the anti abortion crowd. If there is a candidate that is with then on every issue but not in agreement with them in every aspect of abortion, that candidate becomes someone they cannot vote for.

Everyone has their thing, and as someone in the anti abortion crowd who does not make it the overriding issue in who I vote for, i can tell you on that front there are certainly people who would say I am against them.

Not trying to speak for ISM, but I think in general there are those who make issue A the most important thing and if you don't agree with them on this you are indeed against them.

For anti-abortionists, it's about killing babies, so it's not surprising this would be a make-or-break. Same goes for certain civil rights issues for some people.

I keep asking myself what Obama would have to come out as pro/con in order to actually stop me from voting for him. It would take a lot...

It's not a matter of which candidate you choose, Kevy. No candidate is deciding this issue. YOU are. Every Californian is. That's why you must make a choice to be with me* or against me, because you will be casting your vote on this question. You, and not your elected representative.





* "me" meaning every gay man, woman, and child and every human and American standing for truth, freedom, justice, life, liberty and happiness. Are you with "me," or against me?? :p

Since the conversation was drifting in the direction of individual candidates views on particular issues, I was extending the conversation in that direction.

scaeagles touched on the gist of my query: single issue voters. I have seen people vote for a given candidate simply because of a single issue (besides abortion) despite the fact that they don't like the candidate's views on many other issues.

Well, since the president presents Supreme Court judges for appointment, his or her views on abortion might be tangentially important. His or her views on equal marriage rights even less so, but that, too, will eventually come to the Supreme Court.


But as for this question, here and now, and the presidential candidates' positions ... it amounts to less than a hill of beans. Would many of Obama's supporters vote to revoke equal marriage rights? Would many of McCain's supporters hesitate to do so?

Am I the only one thinking, "Oh good, Jesse Jackson's gone and shown that he and Obama aren't on the same page."

Um, yes, you are.









(Only 'cause I don't know what that is all about)

That's because Jesse is pandering to his perceived constituency, and were I a member I would be insulted by his comments. He's just jealous because Obama might actually win the spot he coveted, and he's doing so by reaching out to all people, not just a particular demographic. I'll bet Obama has a cleaner personal record as well.

My, my! What horrible fantasies this reverend has!
:D

I find this fascinating on so many fronts.

My first thought is that it was staged. The unbreakable and first rule of wearing a mic is that it is ALWAYS on and Jackson knows this. I am almost going conspiratorial on this and thinking it was staged. Obama is in the midst of a HUGE attempt to appear as if he is in the center (which has moved him to flip flop even more than McCain is at present - a hard thing to do indeed), so why not set it up to have people like Jackson talk badly about him?

Then I think that I'm wrong. It could simply be petty jealousy. Or even legit disagreement that Jackson vented in an unfortunate way (for him - no matter the reason, this is beneficial to Obama).

Then I think if this was a white person he would be crucified. Jackson is getting off easy.

Very interesting indeed.

I kind of doubt that Jackson would go along with a conspiracy that required him to purposefully make himself the bad guy. On the other hand, he has frequently volunteered to be a phobic dumbass all on his own.

I just love that his apology for this contains a mention of "I wasn't speaking on record," as if that diminishes the offensiveness of the remark. (It's like when you get this from some so-called friend - "Gosh, I'm sorry you overheard me calling you an asshole. I didn't mean for you to hear it. Honestly. So, we're cool, right?") He gave the exact same lame non-justification when he referred to NYC's Jewish constituency as "hymietown." He apologized and immediately indicated that it was a private remark. Hell, that makes it even worse, doesn't it?

Okay, I've rolled my eyes enough for today.

Rolling Stone has a great article on Obama, how he put his campaign crew together and some of their inner workings.

So Jackson thinks Obama is talking down to "black people" because he speaks like the educated man he is and he doesn't speak to them like they are stupid?

I'm confused.

Well, I agree with Jackson's sentiment. Obama's recent rant about black dads abandoning their kids was, although identifying a true problem, way off the mark and very insulting in insisting it was the root of all problems for blacks in America.


Not to excuse either Jackson's stupidity with a microphone or assholery with personal sentiment.

Clinton votes "no" on FISA - McCain sits it out - Obama votes "yes".

I'm not loving Obama today.

FISA?

Sh*t, really? F*cker.

Obama is doing everything he can to move to the center. This is just one of many things recently that he has changed his position on to do so.

He and 94 Democrats.

Of course, I'll reiterate that my support for Obama has always had little to do with the specifics of his stances and whether they've been consistent and has had almost everything to do with the fact that he has demonstrated a level of decorum which has allowed him to disagree with people without resorting to vitriol towards those he disagrees with. That has not changed and that alone continues to distinguish him from a great many of his colleagues.

He'll probably hear from me about this, not that I expect that will make much of an impact.

Though, truth be told, I'm not entirely sure I'm against the bill. On the one hand I'm not comfortable with the access the government has to the data. On the other hand, this bill doesn't do as much to change that access as people would like you to believe. Remember, the whole wire tapping flap stemmed not from the government wire tapping in ways that were not legal. They just didn't go through the correct channels to get authorization to use methods that, once authorized, would be legal. So I'm not totally convinced that altering the authorization method is quite the end-of-the-world move that it might seem on the surface.

That said, the lack of the kind of authorization method that Bush wants is NOT the massive hindrance he'd like us to believe either and voting against this bill would have been a powerful message that should have been sent. And definitely should not have been compromised for dumb pork barrel reasons.

I already ranted about it in C.P.'s FISA thread.

Not a fan of FISA (but that fight was lost 30+ years ago), but I don't really have a problem with the telecom exemption in it.

And I've yet to see Obama say that the role of fathers is the root of all black problems. In fact, if you watch more than the 8 second clips on the news he's very clear that they're not.

The America already has a Dr. Phil clip.

Okay, I'm an Obama fan. I think he has a point in this sound byte. And I'm glad he gave a good response to Gramm's comment. But he does something in it that bugs me. And it bugs me because Bushy does it so much. It's that little laugh thing while they're trying to make a point. It bugs. It makes him appear snide. But then again, it's a small gripe...

Oh, and he said "Ho". Hope that doesn't piss anyone off.
:D

I don't think I'd have even noticed it without the point out, but I think a key difference between Obama there and Bush's quirk is that Obama was actually amused by something. Bush's little chuckle is generally in the vein "oh my god, this is so obvious, I can't believe you're actually making me say it out loud."

That's true! Never thought of it that way.

That's funny because given the choice between Bush's, Obama's and McCain's post point demeanor I'd take Obama's.....I don't mind Bush's all that much either but Mcain......I hate the way he carries himself right after he's made a good point(to me, it kinda almost cancels out the point). Still going to vote for him, but if he loses the election I will take small comfort in the fact that I won't have to suffer his cheshire grin for 4+ years.

Hmmm.

This picture is going to appear on the 7/21/08 issue of The New Yorker:
(It's safe for work, but I'll spoilerize it because it's big.)

I don't know what the corresponding story has to say about the Obamas, but this picture is going to cause a stir... It made me stop in my tracks...

Damn. I might have to subscribe to the New Yorker, just so I can cancel it in protest.

Wow.

Being that I am somewhat conspiratorial, my first impulse what that this is a set up so once again Obama can play the victim and talk about how ridiculous and racist it is. Gain some sympathy.

Haven't read it yet, but here is the article that goes with the cover.

Artist on piece

If the artist has to explain it, it's not a very good joke.

Looking at the comments section below this piece, it's pretty clear that this fails as satire for a lot of people. It's provocative without delivering a clear intent. (One comment summed it up well. If this image had appeared on The National Review, there would be outrage. On the New Yorker, it's perplexing.)

On the other hand, I thought the Ahmedinejab cover was funny.

Knowing the New Yorker I immediately knew it was intended as satirical. I wouldn't have been bothered. Being on The National Review I would know the intent was not satirical (or that if such was claimed it was more likely to be a sham).

Intent matters. The problem is that when it is sitting on the shelf at Barnes & Noble, the majority of people walking by who see it won't have any idea of that context.

So it was probably more appropriate as an accompaniment inside the magazine than as the cover. Or the cover needed something to make it more explicit (though New Yorker covers don't really use headlines so can't really explain the artwork).

But I guess the cover is doing its job. People are talking about it and most likely are buying the mag now...

I am aggressively not buying it in protest.

Dragging this back up since I was out of touch while this news broke.

As Alex says, knowing where the New Yorker stands, I know it's obviously satire. But I think it's still a questionable decision as for the majority of people, all they see is the image and do not grasp the context, and as an image with no context it just reinforces the ridiculous notion that does exist in many voters' minds that Obama is indeed a closet terrorist. Poor judgment on the part of the New Yorker editorial folks, imo.

I realized I didn't say this - I think the piece was poorly done and doesn't make the point he was trying to make.

Maybe it wouldn't have happened if Obama's right turn doesn't look now like it's his Swift Boat moment and turning point.

Yes, every democratic nominee does it. But Obama seeming like every other democratic nominee kinda takes the wind out of the sails that blew him to the nomination.


I think the cover art is a symptom of a failing campaign. Obama's looking like just another pol ... which, to those who've bothered to study his campaign history, is exactly what he is.


But he better start wearing the Hope Candidate disguise again, or he can expect much worse treatment from the press, from his base and from voters in the Fall.

I just do not know how Jesse Jackson has had any credibility for the last, oh, couple decades or so, and now that it was revealed he dropped the "N" bomb in his didn't-know-the-mic-was-on moment (in case you haven't heard, he accused Obama of talking down to "N"s).

I'm tempted to go into a racial discussion of acceptable racism vs. unacceptable racism, but this isn't the place for it, I suppose.

Why isn't this the place for it?


Personally, while I have a problem with any one claiming they didn't know they could be heard while they're wearing a microphone in any state of presumed operational status ... I have no problem with any person of color using the N word casually.

In case you didn't notice, they get a pass on that. And i think that's a great development in the use of language.

Well, I do suppose that there have been enough derails in this thread.....

They certainly do get a pass. I suppose I get that, but I think it goes beyond that. Do you think Clarence Thomas or Condoleeza Rice would get a pass from anyone for using the "N" word? Yet Robert Byrd seemed to. Jackson demanded the firing of Don Imus for his comments. Jackson is still treated as the go to guy on racial equality even though he is a racist himself, or at least by what I would figure to be "racially insensitive" by his own standards, using terms like "hymie town". Trent Lott got destroyed for praise of Strom Thurmond at the guy's birthday party (I think it was his birthday party).

Isn't racism racism regardless of who spews it forth?

Yes, it is. And while i think public figures would be foolish to express any kind of racism, the stuff directed at your own race or group is considered self-depricating, and thus allowed.


That doesn't include the use of nigher, which is not used as a racial epithet when bandied about among blacks.



But yeah, depending upon each individual statment, racism is racism is racism.

All well and good, except that Jackson didn't say THAT "N word." What he said was:

"Barack been talkin' down to black people. I wanna tear his nuts off."

Edited to add: Oh, now I read the news. Okay, so he used THAT N word. I still think the castration comment trumps that down to the ground.

Sorry for posting without knowing what the f I was talking about - DP

What are you talking about?

Robert Byrd was interviewed a few years ago and referred to knowing many "N"s. It was washed over and aides said "oh, he was just tired".

Jackson is a racist and an anti-semite. I have zero respect for the man and hate that he has any clout at all.

Well, in Jesse's defense, the middle aged, middle class Jews in my New York neighborhood in the late 60s/early 70s seemed to have little affinity for black causes or for the black children who were bused to my school, none of whom found their way into the gifted classes that were full of Jewish kids.

I don't think anyone denies that there is racism from any one race to another. Would the same defense be considered with some white kid growing up in a primarily minority neighborhood who was abused by that minority? Would it be acceptable to defensible if later in life that kid was a racist or uttered racial hatred because of his experiences?

Wow, i'm agreeing with scaeagles. Someone fetch me my blood pressure medicine.

Sure. Does anyone have problems with people who were abused by clergy suggesting that priests are perverts and that priestly celibacy is not a good idea. Raising the question of exactly what racism/sexism/antisemitism/fill-in-the-blank-ism is. In many areas of life, I don't think it's racism to make a personal judgment based on information, experience and apparent probabilities. Political judgments require greater sensitivity to root causes.

Yes, racism is racism. I would just argue with the suggestion that all uses of that word, regardless of speaker and context, is actually racism.

Jews were a very large proportion of the non-blacks who marched for civil rights causes in the 60s. There are going to be instances back and forth for all sides.

Racism is racism. Jackson is nothing but a detriment to the whole process.

Is it just me or is the media having an Obasm about Obama going to Afghanistan and Iraq? McCain went in March and I don't recall all three network anchors going along. Perhaps I'm not recalling correctly.

Yes they are.

According to this, McCain chose not to take reporters with him on his trip in March.

It isn't simply the reporters - of course Obama will have reporters with him wherever he goes, but the three anchors don't even go with the President when he goes somewhere. They are like starry eyed groupies.

They certainly would if he gave each of them a one-on-one sit down while he was over there.

If Bush said "I'm going to be in place X, Katie Couric, would you like a 20 minute sitdown with me exclusive for next Tuesday?" her answer would be "yes sir, I would."

Then if Bush said "I"m going to be in place Y, Brian Williams, would you like a 20 minute sitdown with me exclusive for next Wednesday?" his answer would be "Absolutely I would, what color M&Ms would you like in the green room?"

Then if Bush said "I'm going to be in placy Z, Charlie Gibson, would you like a 20 minute sitdown with me exclusive for next Thursay?" his answer would be "Sloppy thirds are good enough for me, Mr. President!"

And that is exactly what Obama has done. To get them to come along he is giving each of them their own daily exclusive and that is all the currency you need to get a network anchor to do a lapdance for you (I'm guessing Gibson gives the best ones).

Plus, McCain suffered from bad timing on his trip, coming as it did after he had locked up the nomination but the Democrat primary campaign was still going strong.

Yes, the press is drooling over Obama but a fair portion of that has to be credited to him having a much better press strategy than McCain has evidenced so far. Back in his two campaigns that is exactly what Reagan succeeded in doing and you could hardly say that the press was starry-eyed with optimism for his victory.

This is becoming comical.

The NY Times publishes an Op Ed from Obama, yet rejects one from McCain.

Investors Business Daily has published information about the donations from media to political candidates -

Including Paul and Guiliani, the ratio is actually only 14 or 15 to 1. Journalists can and should be allowed to contribute, so I have no problem with that. I just don't think most can keep their bias out of their reporting, as is partially evidenced by this -

Chris Matthews seems to think how he feels is actually news rather than opinion. I don't care if he wants to tell how he feels, but don't call it journalism. On Leno, when defending the "Obama makes a tingle go up my leg" comment, he said

That scares me actually, as it is a redefinition of what journalism is. How the journalist feels is not part of the story, it is opinion.

I will credit the three anchors. They have actually asked Obama some tough questions.

All that said, though, this made me laugh.

"Media" are companies. Companies can donate to whomever they want. They like Obama. SURPRISE! (er, I mean, duh.)

Journalists have reported "feelings" before. It's just that the feelings this man inspires are 10x more powerful than any politician has inspired in the last 40 years. I feel the same way. I can't explain it, and yeah, it has little to do with specific policy. I totally admit that. However, as I've said a few billion times, I hated politicians, and politics, and the government, and I felt completely disenfranchised and hopeless. I have not voted for a true candidate in 10 years. But this guy....this guy is something else, something I can't explain.

There's some great stuff in there :D

Oh - of course. I even said that the donations in and of itself that isn't a problem. The issue is that I think it clearly comes out in their reporting and the bias is evident. This is fine for pundits and those who offer opinions for a living. For those who try to pass themselves off as journalists, though, like in the Matthews example, this is problematic.

But McCain made a big fat gaffe when he whined about it so publically that Obama's getting all the press. Awww, poor Johnny. Big Bad War Hero Cwies that TV Doesn's Wike Him.


Not as big as his gaffe that started the whole thing, though. What did he think Obama was going to do when he said the senator hadn't been to Iraq lately. Um, d'uh, set up a trip to Iraq and other hot spots pronto, and have the press slathering for it the whole way. Thanks for the tip, Johnny! Now please keep losing the election by yourself, so's I have less work to do!

Yes, indeed, McCain isn't playing it well at all in terms of handling the media bas.

I heard that McCain admitted he has no idea about modern technology, how the Internet works, etc. I can't say this is a huge deal for me because I really don't expect someone of his generation to be into all that, but I wonder, is this a big deal for some of you guys? My only problem with it is that there are going to be some big decisions made regarding net neutrality in the next 4-8 years (not that I'd trust a Republican in general with such decisions [/broad brush])

Welcome to 8 years ago. May your journey through the dark years be easier than mine, and bring much less loss of life.

That is hilarious!

Oops
 

I was going to post this in the WTF story thread, but chose here instead. It does not affect my political views at all, I was just amused by the error.

Oops! Wrong Larry shown on campaign gear
Republican Sen. Larry Craig shown on button alongside Obama
The whole story.

The picture:

That is funny!

Radley Balko: A Few Questions for Barack Obama

Previously, he had some questions for John McCain.

That's OK, he's admitted he has no clue about the domestic economy, either.

But gosh darnit, he knows about them commies!

PS: But yeah... one of the politiblogs I read mentioned the fact that he doesn't even read email.

Or where the border of Pakistan is, for that matter. At least he understands the importance of the sanctity of marriage though, between one man and one woman - or at least no more than a couple of women.

He doesn't seem to have been informed that Czechoslovkia is no longer a country. Poor man. Oh, I hope he wins. What fun that would be.

It's the White House or the Nursing House for him.

Obama visited 57 states.

Hahahaha, did he SAY that? OMG, where?


I think I'm only a slightly bigger Dem Obama fan than scaeagles is a Pub McCain fan.

He did say it....He was at a campaign stop in Oregon.

Holy Cow...Google Obama and "57 states" and you'll find video links, quotes, even campaign buttons saying Obama wants to be President of all 57 states.

And you're right, ISM.....McCain is going to be very, very hard for me to vote for.

He has big plans for this country. What do you suppose the new states will be Iraq? Iran? Maybe something local like Canada?

We need new stars on our flag - we've had this one for decades

With McCain the Iraq-Pakistan border thing doesn't really bother me. Nor does the 57 states thing. I don't really think that McCain believed there is such a border or that he wasn't aware of the splitting of Czechoslovakia than I think Obama isn't aware of how many states we have.

When you speak in public for several hours a day all kinds of stupid things are going to fall out of your mouth.

I'm a little more put out by McCain's misstatement of timelines around the surge simply because he was using the correctness of the misstatement (if that is what it was) as a building block of a case.

Visible mojo for Alex. I made nearly the very same statement to my sis today; as Alex said, it's got to be hard to be under that sort of microscope for that long without screwing up along the way. I couldn't do it- that's for sure.

Point well taken. Although it does raise a question in my mind as to whether McCain's frequent slips are a result of the normal stress of the campaign trail, or if age is also a factor. I'm not trying to accuse him of anything but it seems a valid concern.

I'm also finding it interesting that on three occasions this week, McCain's staff has had to jump in and make a statement saying that something McCain just said somewhere doesn't reflect his actual views. I often wonder if he has any idea what his actual positions are, for he often seems very confused. When asked about contraception, for example, he literally had no idea where he stood.

Oh, I hadn't heard about this.

Good thing there's an entry at Snopes about it!

Thanks, Tenigma, for the Snopes link.

Hahaha, love the Modified-for-Obama flag lapel pin.

Wooo YES WE CAN IN ALL 57 STATES!!

Why is Obama making race an issue? From this article-

Neither the republicans nor McCain are making race an issue. You are, Senator Obama.