# Political riddle GDG



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

What do Barak Hussein Obama and Osama Bin Ladin have in common???


































THEY BOTH HAVE FRIENDS WHO HAVE BOMBED THE PENTAGON


----------



## wonderover (Dec 22, 2005)

Must have missed something,when did Obama bomb the pentagon?


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

No but his buddy Bill Ayers did.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Someone is main lining Rush again.

Somehow it's terrible when liberals compare Bush to Hitler.

But it's OK to throw Obama in with Osama Bin Laden.


----------



## wonderover (Dec 22, 2005)

Now I am confused , first you said he did it and then you said he didn't.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

and no one wants to discuss McCain's cozzy relationship with Charles Keating and the Lincoln Savings and Loan scandal which cost US taxpayers an estimated 120 billion


----------



## Arturo (Jan 10, 2004)

wonderover said:


> Now I am confused , first you said he did it and then you said he didn't.


Ya gots to pay closer attention. This thread could end up being many pages long and you will be totally confused because you couldn't understand the first post.

Good Luck,


----------



## Hew (Jan 7, 2003)

EdA said:


> and no one wants to discuss McCain's cozzy relationship with Charles Keating and the *Lincoln Savings and Loan scandal which cost US taxpayers an estimated 120 billion*


Um, yeah. Not so much. The entire S&L bailout was $120 billion. Lincoln S&L's portion, according to wikipedia, came to $2 billion. Not chump change, but not $120 billion either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five


----------



## spaightlabs (Jul 15, 2005)

It's also scandalous to mention Mr. McCain's reputed affiliations with the mob which are no less spurious than Mr. Obama's affiliations with Ayers, who did his deed when Obama was 8 years old...

Double standard regards,


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Hew said:


> Um, yeah. Not so much. The entire S&L bailout was $120 billion. Lincoln S&L's portion, according to wikipedia, came to $2 billion. Not chump change, but not $120 billion either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five


ahhh, 

those pesky details, so a just a mere 2 billion, imagine what Rush would have to say if that had been Obama's crony?


http://www.nationalreview.com/contributors/levin040501.shtml

Equal Opportunity Regards,


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

Facts are a funny thing. Senator McCain wasn't even charged in the Keating mess. It seems to me that he was absolved of any wrongdoing after hearings in the Senate.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> Facts are a funny thing. Senator McCain wasn't even charged in the Keating mess. It seems to me that he was absolved of any wrongdoing after hearings in the Senate.


you're correct, but just for the heck of it clink the link, he accepted huge campaign contributions from Keating, even had the gratis use of his airplane but he was very contrite after he was caught with his hand in the cookie jar, returned the money, and paid for the use of the plane, this from an ethics crusader....


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

That is just Washington business as usual. I have a problem with it, but I have many more problems with one who associates with terrorists.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> That is just Washington business as usual.


or is it "Washington business as usual" as long it is a Republican, if it is a Democrat then it's "a criminal act"??


----------



## spaightlabs (Jul 15, 2005)

um, 'associates with terrorists' is a bit loose...

He recveived a walloping $200 campaign contribution and was on a board charitable fondation - you know, the non-terrorist kind...) with him that met 12 times...

How's that compare to McCain's mob ties??

Any thoughts on McCain's disclosures in 1973 about his communist/enemy collaboration or was that too long ago to really 'count'?


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

He, the 'messian' is an ally of terrorists. The political meeting which launched his Ill Senate career was held in Ayers living room. The Annenberg group isn't exactly a conservative think tank. Ayers doesn't regret planting the bombs, he thinks that he didn't do enough. http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/03...e-weather-underground-rezko-wright-farrakhan/

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gl...entary-counters-msm-claim-ayers-merely-benign

The 'messiah' is tightly associated with those who hate america, Rev Wright, Kalypso Louie Farrakhan, Fr Pfegler, Ayers & Dohrn. Why should anyone who bought into God D**M America now want to lead the country???????

Ed that stuff is politics as usual, not right nor ethical but par for the course for both sides.


----------



## Captain Mike D (Jan 1, 2006)

Bob,

You may as well save your breath/fingertips.

If A.C.O.R.N, Resko, Annenberg, Ayers, Farrakhan, Pflegler, Wright, and his ties to the Freddie/Fannie debauchal aren't enough to convince folks that we are dealing with a slick politician with true socialist/Marxist ties and aspirations nothing you or anyone else can say will change their minds.

Nothing matters but his speaches.

Nevermind that McCain was the media darling while crossing his Republican counterparts on many issues over the last 15 years. Nevermind that McCain introduced a bill in '06 to add regululations for Fannie and Freddie that was bottled up by Dodd in the senate. 
Nevermind that Clinton even laid much blame for the current financial mess on the Democrats during 2 different interviews in the last 2 weeks.
People should not look at Colbert's interview last night as to where the blame lies for the financial mess 

Nothing matters but the illusion 

Mike


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Captain Mike D said:


> Nothing matters but the illusion Mike


Captain Mike, 

Would that be the illusion that Obama has done nothing to inspire this political hysteria or the illusion that McCain is indelibly tied (perhaps not by his choice) to an expensive and unpopular war, a faltering economy, and a running mate who is fodder for Saturday Night Live parody....???????

And if you think that I am some wide eyed liberal, my parents were Southern Democrats (because of the influence of the civil war) and always conservative. In 1954 they supported Dwight Eisenhower for president and voted for the Republican nominee for the first time in their lives. My Father was an attorney and a Precinct Chairman in the 40's and 50's in the Democratic Party who became a Republican in the 60's as did many in the South. 

I was a Young Republican in 1964 and supported Barry Goldwater for President even though I was not old enough to vote. I have voted for every Republican Presidential nominee sine 1968, the first year that I was eligible to vote. I have only regretted that decision once, in 2004.

I have considered three options in this election

1. not voting at all

2. voting for Obama/Biden

3. voting for Ron Paul in protest

Still Undecided Regards


----------



## IowaBayDog (May 17, 2006)

EdA said:


> Captain Mike,
> 
> and a running mate who is fodder for Saturday Night Live parody....???????


Ford, Carter, Nixon, Reagan, Bush 41, Quayle, Clinton, Gore, Bush 43, Cheney, Hillary, Barack, McCain, Kerry, Edwards et al have been fodder for SNL Parodies so how does that dis-qualify someone for the job?

Its a Parody show. That's what they do.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

IowaBayDog said:


> so how does that dis-qualify someone for the job?
> 
> Its a Parody show. That's what they do.


If the obvious was not obvious to you then I could not possibly mount an argument to the contrary.

It is almost a joke that she was presented as a viable candidate to be a heartbeat away from being the Chief Executive Of The United States of America, by comparison Senator Quayle is a Phi Bet Kappa


----------



## Captain Mike D (Jan 1, 2006)

Ed,

Those questions and points are for ONLY you as an individual to decide when you step into the booth in the final analysis. 

I know which candidates, as imperfect as all humans are, most fits the principals I define my life by.

Good luck with your choice. It IS your choice only.


----------



## Eric Johnson (Dec 23, 2004)

Just to make the debate here interesting, John Glenn, the other Senator who was cleared, is acting as an Obama surrogate. Not an exact match-up but the whole Keating thing ought to be put to rest in view of both being cleared.

Eric


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Captain Mike D said:


> It IS your choice only.


Yes it is, and (for our country and our a future) a truly sad choice at best

Prepare yourself (if you are a diehard Republican) for the opposition party to be in power for at least the next 4 years.....


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Eric Johnson said:


> but the whole Keating thing ought to be put to rest in view of both being cleared.Eric


Indeed, as should the accusations of Obama consorting with terrorists which is ludicrous. The fact is that John McCain committed an ethics error of considerable magnitude while Barack Obama has made no such error. Yet those who choose to distort the dialog continue to make unfounded accusations.

I only wish for both sides to engage in useful dialog and spare us the vague aspersions of unfounded guilt.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

What's the old saw about judging a man by the company he keeps? Can America really afford a POTUS who keeps company with Ayers, Rezko and Wright?


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

This is a BS thread.


----------



## Eric Johnson (Dec 23, 2004)

EdA said:


> The fact is that John McCain committed an ethics error of considerable magnitude while Barack Obama has made no such error.


Well, I might make two points...

1. John McCain made no such ethics error as he did not know about Keating's activities in advance.

2. Barack Obama did take money from Freddie Mac during the same time that many, both within the Senate and without it, were saying that Freddie Mack had become a snake pit.

Thus, McCain broke off the relationship when the ethics issues arose whereas Obama did not. In fact, the relationship between Obama and the Freddie Mac prinicpals continues to this day. Two of the past CEO's of Freddie Mac are now economic advisors to Senator Obama, including the one who cooked the books to boost executive bonuses.

Eric


----------



## Henry V (Apr 7, 2004)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> What's the old saw about judging a man by the company he keeps? Can America really afford a POTUS who keeps company with Ayers, Rezko and Wright?


Why have the conservatives not learned that no matter how many times these supposed "character" issues are brought up over the past 12+ months that most folks find them irrelevant and the only folks that get excited about them are the conservative base.

The base has heard it, buys it, and keeps repeating this bs. Congrats you can keep yourself happy and diverted for another few weeks I guess.

This election can still go either way. Can we please just get it over with? How about we move up the date?


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

I don't know about you Henry, but I want a leader in the White House, not an apprentice political boss, and certailnly not one who travels with anti American types like Wright, Ayers and Dohrn.


----------



## Henry V (Apr 7, 2004)

The association with Ayers is weak and is not influential. 
The pastor is a crazy uncle type. Do you really think this guy wants to be president because he hates America?? Come on.
Rezco(sp?) could be more damaging.

Were you also so concerned about W's character or Cheney's or only Kerry's and Gore's in the last elections?. 

The VP selection appealed to the base and now all the character smears led by that nice Christian hockey mom are appealing to the base. I am not sure that this is a winning strategy. People seem tired of this stuff.


----------



## Bud Bass (Dec 22, 2007)

Bob, maybe you should just open your eyes and your mind instead of sounding like a broken 78 rpm record, repeating accusations that have been found to be unfactual and for the most part fiction, but by the sounds of it, that is what your mind thrives on. Bud


----------



## Hew (Jan 7, 2003)

EdA said:


> Indeed, as should the accusations of Obama consorting with terrorists which is ludicrous. The fact is that John McCain committed an ethics error of considerable magnitude while Barack Obama has made no such error. *Yet those who choose to distort the dialog continue to make unfounded accusations.*
> 
> *I only wish for both sides to engage in useful dialog and spare us the vague aspersions of unfounded guilt*.


With all due respect, I think being 6,000% wrong in your previous accusation should earn you a 24 hr. timeout from lectures on distorted dialog, unfounded guilt, et al. on this thread.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

I have seen and read enough about Ayers and the rest to think that there is more than enough truth in the allegations.. All of the 'messiah's' spin won't make them go away. Ayers and Dohrn caused a lot of misery in their radical heyday back in the late 60s and early70's with the bombs they made and planted. I was in college during those days and recall well the activities of the SDS and Weather Underground. If BHO is as astute as a Harvard education should have made him he should have been aware of the radical activities of these two. I don't believe his explaination on them anymore than I believe he never heard Rev Wright make inflammatory statements.


----------



## Henry V (Apr 7, 2004)

akbd, what's the word on the troopergate investigation?


----------



## Bud Bass (Dec 22, 2007)

it continues. the legislative investigation is surpose to be done this coming friday, however, palin has released the 7 who have been supenied (sp??) to go ahead and testify. I don't know if they will be able to tesify this week, if the investigation release will be delayed until after they testify or if this is just a delay tactic since the state superior court is surpose to rule on the validity of the supenas before friday. At this point i don't think it will matter much as far as the election. I really expect the good gov to get the royal cold shoulder when she returns with her tail betweed her legs in Nov. Bud


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Henry V said:


> The association with Ayers is weak and is not influential.
> The pastor is a crazy uncle type. Do you really think this guy wants to be president because he hates America?? Come on.
> Rezco(sp?) could be more damaging.
> 
> ...


With the Ayers attack, McCain foolishly opened the door to the Keating response, and possibly the Alaska Independence Party can of worms on Palin.

Attacking Obama on Wright will only bring attention to the Palin Pastor Thomas Muthee association.

Choosing Palin for VP makes the experience argument look silly.

McCain's decisions are gifts that just keep on giving.

I think I'm going to get a new t-shirt. It'll look something like this:


----------



## wonderover (Dec 22, 2005)

I am totally dismayed by this election. As I see it we(I) really have no choice. I do not like either one and it seems to me that both of their campaigns revolve around telling voters"vote for me because I'm not him".


----------



## Hew (Jan 7, 2003)

Buzz said:


> ...and possibly the Alaska Independence Party can of worms on Palin.


...thus proving Twain's maxim that a lie can travel around the world twice before the truth can even put its pants on. The AIP issued a statement that they made a mistake and Sarah Palin was never a member of the AIP. Broaden your horizons...the news world out there is a lot bigger than just the Daily Kos and Moveon.


----------



## K.Bullock (May 15, 2008)

Buzz said:


> Someone is main lining Rush again.
> 
> Somehow it's terrible when liberals compare Bush to Hitler.
> 
> But it's OK to throw Obama in with Osama Bin Laden.


 Well the first one requires a person to deny logic and actuality. 

The latter actually has feet, look at Obama's associations. Jeremiah Wright, Fr. Phleger, William Ayers who _*did *_bomb the Pentagon and said he could have done better. And would do it again. These are Obama's mentors and political allies. Michelle Obama had her picture taken with brother Farrakhan's wife. 

What am I missing here that this does not concern anyone?


I guess you could say that McCain hung out with the enemy during the Vietnam war ...but that was a different kind of association.


----------



## K.Bullock (May 15, 2008)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> I I don't believe his explaination on them anymore than I believe he never heard Rev Wright make inflammatory statements.


 This concerns me almost as much as anything else. He referred to Wright as like an uncle to him . Wright was his Pastor for twenty years and he drops him like a bad habit at the first sign of trouble. Selling your friends down the river at the first sign of adversity speaks volumes about his character.


----------



## Henry V (Apr 7, 2004)

Hew said:


> ...thus proving Twain's maxim that a lie can travel around the world twice before the truth can even put its pants on. The AIP issued a statement that they made a mistake and Sarah Palin was never a member of the AIP. Broaden your horizons...the news world out there is a lot bigger than just the Daily Kos and Moveon.


So, the fact that her husband was a member of the group for several years doesn't concern you. You know he's the average snowmachine racin' guy who sits in on some official meetings, gets copies of emails, and the guy who Alaskan republican leaders have called her chief of staff. Yeah, the fact that he has supported this party and that she only spoke supportively at the convention of an all Alaskan only for Alaska secessionist organization should not concern anyone either. 
In the words of the group's founder that appeared on their website until recently"


> I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America and her damned institutions."


Yes, I see that having an acquaintance with a guy who was a domestic terrorist when he was 8 years old is much more concerning than this.


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

I dont believe that McCain will be a great president but I think he will be ok untill a great one comes along.
Obama? I cant believe anyone would even consider voting for him. I cant believe he has gotten this far. The real sad part is the American people are listening to him. All people hear is CHANGE which is what they want. I have yet to hear Obama say what or how he's going to change things. I am really starting to worry that he just might win and that's not the real bad part. I don't think the president has all that much power. Again the real scary part is the American peoples way of thinking if they vote him in.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Hew said:


> ...thus proving Twain's maxim that a lie can travel around the world twice before the truth can even put its pants on. The AIP issued a statement that they made a mistake and Sarah Palin was never a member of the AIP. Broaden your horizons...the news world out there is a lot bigger than just the Daily Kos and Moveon.



She sorta hangs out with a member, her husband the first dude.

And she is on tape giving warm opening remarks:

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

According to Palin, Obama didn't need to be a member of the Weathermen, he just needs some nebulous connection. Well, I would say that Sara's connection to the Alaska Independence Party member is a little less nebulous.


----------



## Bud Bass (Dec 22, 2007)

Henry, another update on the investigation. All 7 that were subpoenaed are due to testify this week either verbally or in writing answering questions submitted to them by the investigating panel. The head investigaator, Branchflower, still expects to have the report to deliver to the committee at 9 am Friday morning (thats 2 pm on the east coast). Not sure if it will be released to the news immediately, but am sure that the essential contents will leak out, those polititions can't seem to keep their mouth closed if they have something nobody else knows about. Bud


----------



## Hew (Jan 7, 2003)

Buzz said:


> She sorta hangs out with a member, her husband the first dude.
> 
> And she is on tape giving warm opening remarks:
> 
> ...


Please tell me there's more to your Palin/AIP "can of worms" than that. That's more like a thimble of worm. Her husband isn't a member. He was a member of the party until 2002. Let me know when AIP starts lobbing bombs or killing folks and I'm sure I'll match your feigned indignation with the real thing.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Hew said:


> Please tell me there's more to your Palin/AIP "can of worms" than that. That's more like a thimble of worm. Her husband isn't a member. He was a member of the party until 2002. Let me know when AIP starts lobbing bombs or killing folks and I'm sure I'll match your feigned indignation with the real thing.


Oh, he was a member until 2002. I guess that excuses him for belonging to an organization that hates America enough that they want to succeed from the union.


----------



## Henry V (Apr 7, 2004)

Hew said:


> Please tell me there's more to your Palin/AIP "can of worms" than that. That's more like a thimble of worm. Her husband isn't a member. He was a member of the party until 2002.....


So, if Joe Biden's wife was a multi-year member of a secessionist party whose founder was clearly anti-American, I am sure it would not be worthy of the news to you either. Yeah, right.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

There has been a secessionist movement where I live for several years. The Eastern Shore of Md is essentially a red state ruled by the rest of Md, a blue state. We shoremen could live a far far better life without the tax bills we pay to keep Bawlmer afloat, and the suburbs of Baghdad on the Potomac, so I have no problem with the first dude or any other Alaskan who wants independence, nor with those who believe in the Republic of Texas for that matter.


----------



## Hew (Jan 7, 2003)

Buzz said:


> Oh, he was a member until 2002. I guess that excuses him for belonging to an organization that hates America enough that they want to succeed from the union.


From the AIP website:



> The Alaskan Independence Party's goal is the vote we were entitled to in 1958, one choice from among the following four alternatives:
> 1) Remain a Territory.
> 2) Become a separate and Independent Nation.
> 3) Accept Commonwealth status.
> 4) Become a State.​


Oooh. All that read-hot, searing hatred. Look out! Don't get burned!


----------



## Captain Mike D (Jan 1, 2006)

Buzz said:


> Oh, he was a member until 2002. I guess that excuses him for belonging to an organization that hates America enough that they want to succeed from the union.


 
Hell Buzz,

Think it is probably a more worthy stance to decide you would rather succeed your allegience to a country because of its politicians than to BLOW IT UP!!


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Captain Mike D said:


> Hell Buzz,
> 
> Think it is probably a more worthy stance to decide you would rather succeed your allegience to a country because of its politicians than to BLOW IT UP!!


Is that how the Southern States felt?


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Buzz said:


> Oh, he was a member until 2002. I guess that excuses him for belonging to an organization that hates America enough that they want to succeed from the union.


I am amazed when seemingly intellegent folks continue to throw crap like this around. All the organization wants is a vote of the people that they never got.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

achiro said:


> I am amazed when seemingly intellegent folks continue to throw crap like this around. All the organization wants is a vote of the people that they never got.


Actually arguing about this is about as smart as trying to say that Obama is a terrorist and hangs around with terrorists because he once served on a board with him. Painting a presidential candidate as a terrorist and inciting hatred is a dangerous game to play. All we need is for some nut case that they whipped up into a fury to "off" Obama, and the race riots we saw in the 60's look like a picnic.

Country first...


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

If a GOP candidate had once served on come board or group with David Duke or Tim McVeigh does anyone really think that the liberal press would give that candidate a free pass? One is known by the company one keeps.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> a free pass? One is known by the company one keeps.


then can you spell Charles Keating???


----------



## Captain Mike D (Jan 1, 2006)

Buzz said:


> Is that how the Southern States felt?


 
If you want to change the subject OK.
No the people of the south had a vested interest in ensuring that they would be able to produce raw goods and ship them to market (overseas or domestic) without undo TAXATION levied by the northern states. 

Since the people of South Carolina had a vested interest in their property and markets that had been developed when Beauregard shelled Fort Sumpter it was due to the the Southern States' back being put up against the wall and they were going to do whatever was necessary to alleviate undo TAXATION by non Producing States(the North) being able to have their hands in the pie.

Only after the war had started was Lincoln able to convince the People of the Union that the war was over slavery.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Buzz said:


> Actually arguing about this is about as smart as trying to say that Obama is a terrorist and hangs around with terrorists because he once served on a board with him. Painting a presidential candidate as a terrorist and inciting hatred is a dangerous game to play. All we need is for some nut case that they whipped up into a fury to "off" Obama, and the race riots we saw in the 60's look like a picnic.
> 
> Country first...


Apples and oranges. Again, you had your facts screwed up with the Alaska group. 
I am in the camp though that wants answers about Obama. We've never gotten anything straight. Do you truly believe, as an example, that Obama went to that church for 20 years, considered Wright a mentor, etc, that at no point did Wright ever have a political conversation with a politician? I've got some ocean front here in Oklahoma for you if you do. Why did freddie/fannie donate so much to him? What are his connections to the "slum lord" exactly? 
So the bigger question for me is why do those folks hang with Obama? What is it about him that makes them comfortable? I don't have terrorists wanting to hold fund raisers for me? Do you? I don't have a pastor that spews hatred and supports Farakan, do you? I don't get sweetheart deals on real estate from a supporter, do you? 
Dude is anti gun, pro tax, pro government, has a lot of questionable "friends", and has never had to really answer for it. His tax policies would be a disaster in our current down turn. His health care system wll be based governemnt model, and we all know how well medicare is doing. His history on gun legislation is REALLY bad for us(with a dim senate, congress, and a couple of scotus nominations in the works I am really concerned here)
I still can't see how anyone, ESPECIALLY an outdoorsman can vote for the man.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Hew said:


> With all due respect, I think being 6,000% wrong in your previous accusation should earn you a 24 hr. timeout from lectures on distorted dialog, unfounded guilt, et al. on this thread.


OK, Hew, my sentence has almost been served, guess you could say I was paroled for good behavior

and BTW the Lincoln Savings and Loan portion (of the $120 billion total) was 3.4 billion, 20,000 people lost some or all of their savings, and Senator McCain was reprimanded by The Senate Ethics Committee


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

Senator McCain was never even charged criminally. A reprimand from a senate committee means about as much as a written traffic warning.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> Senator McCain was never even charged criminally. A reprimand from a senate committee means about as much as a written traffic warning.


he wasn't but his crony Charles Keating went to Federal prison.

and you are the one who posted this statement





Bob Gutermuth said:


> One is known by the company one keeps.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

EdA said:


> then can you spell Charles Keating???


Let's assume that McCain wasn't absolved by a Democratic prosecutor - he has now had his one mistake. Everyone is entitled to do something stupid when they are new. 

Does that excuse Ayers, Wright (huge), Raines, Johnson, Dohrn & Rezko by the Messiah? This is from a guy who has been running for this office since he started. What other reason would he have to vote "present"?


----------



## Captain Mike D (Jan 1, 2006)

Buzz said:


> Is that how the Southern States felt?


 
If you want to change the subject OK.
No the people of the south had a vested interest in ensuring that they would be able to produce raw goods and ship them to market (overseas or domestic) without undo TAXATION levied by the northern states. 

Since the people of South Carolina had a vested interest in their property and markets that had been developed when Beauregard shelled Fort Sumpter it was due to the the Southern States' back being put up against the wall and they were going to do whatever was necessary to alleviate undo TAXATION by non Producing States(the North) being able to have their hands in the pie.

Only after the war had started was Lincoln able to convince the People of the Union that the war was over slavery.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

That is correct. However I suggest that there is a quantative difference between a crook and a radical anti American bomber. I don't hear the drive by media trying to excuse McCain's past association with Keating, nor cover it up like they are with Ayers and the 'messiah'.


----------



## Captain Mike D (Jan 1, 2006)

Buzz said:


> Actually arguing about this is about as smart as trying to say that Obama is a terrorist and hangs around with terrorists because he once served on a board with him. Painting a presidential candidate as a terrorist and inciting hatred is a dangerous game to play. All we need is for some nut case that they whipped up into a fury to "off" Obama, and the race riots we saw in the 60's look like a picnic.
> 
> Country first...


 
"A man is known by the company he keeps" -be it McCain or Obama . You choose your poison.

I bet we'll see the race riots anyway if Obama is defeated in the election. Hell, Barney Frank has already said this week that Republicans who wanted to tighten up on Freddie and Fannie were racist.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> Does that excuse Ayers, Wright (huge), Raines, Johnson, Dohrn & Rezko by the Messiah? "?


Nope, just like to keep the discussion balanced and fair, to pretend that Obama is the Devil Incarnate because of his seedy associates and that McCain is an altar boy who has had his own seedy associates is simply an argument which is not balanced or fair. 

To suggest (as Bob has) that McCain's past association with Charles Keating was "just Washington politics as usual", but Obama's past associations brand him as a "terrorist" simply undermines the argument that one is worse than the other.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

James Carvell is already predicting some serious problems if the 'messiah' loses the election.


----------



## Hew (Jan 7, 2003)

EdA said:


> OK, Hew, my sentence has almost been served, guess you could say I was paroled for good behavior
> 
> and BTW the Lincoln Savings and Loan portion (of the $120 billion total) was 3.4 billion, 20,000 people lost some or all of their savings, and Senator McCain was reprimanded by The Senate Ethics Committee


With Buzz and Henry V working overtime trying to equate the AIP w/ domestic terrorists it's easy to see how you secured an early parole...thread timeout overcrowding. ;-)

I've never tried to excuse McCain's involvement with the Keating Five fiasco. Heck, I don't recall ever posting anything positive about McCain at all. He was way down my list of preferred GOP nominees (one spot above that unstable little squirrel Ron Paul). That said, he's an honorable man whose politics and positions, though I don't wholeheartily agree with them, are much preferable to Obama's. 

What I find curious, Ed, is you turning your back on McCain/Palin. I recall more than one post of your's where you said you were sick of the partisanship, sick of the bickering, sick of the far-right and far-left (paraphrase). Yet when given the chance to vote for a man who is certainly not an idealogue and who was turned his back on his party and his president on numerous occasions (much to my chagrin), you won't vote for him. When given a chance to cast a ballot for a lady who ran against incumbents from her own party and bucked a corrupt good ol boy system so much that she was a pariah in her own party, you won't do it. To add to the apparent inconsistency, whether you vote for Obama or a third party (also a de facto vote for Obama), you're paving the way for two fiercely partisan dandys whose near-totality of life experience consists of wallowing in the very political system you claim to dislike and/or shaking down said political system. In McCain it seems like you got _exactly_ the type of candidate you claimed you wanted and yet you won't vote for him. Unfortunately you're not alone.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

Ya know both sides are crooked and they are for themselves not the american public.
Its ovious that the media is incredably biased to the left thats a no brainer. Republicans are starting to sound paniced to me. They are starting to get mighty defensive and thats the sound of unreveling.
. They deserve to loose. They had there chance and were asleep or in bed sleeping either one.
Unfortunately liberals who lack the common sense gene will be running the show. So remember how good we have it now compared to the next 4 years.

Both sides are argueing that Obama did this or McCane did or didn't do that. Well neither of them belong in the white house.

But I love to listen to you guys duke it out


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Hew said:


> What I find curious, Ed, is you turning your back on McCain/Palin.


Perhaps I have become enlightened. 

I like John McCain, I admire his courage in wartime, and I believe that he is a decent and honest man, unfortunately his selection of Governor Palin (probably the least qualified available candidate) caused me to re-think what I considered his strengths, that is to be his own man and to be independent of the party big wigs. 

He simply pandered to the religious right wing of the party with her selection and that made me very angry. I find her religious stance and affiliations to be incompatible and in fact intolerable for me. I think that there is at least an average chance (given Senator McCain's age) that Governor Palin could become President Palin and that thought frightens me beyond comprehension.

So Hew, there you have it, a lifelong Republican voter defector, you might be surprised just how many people share my feelings.


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

EdA said:


> unfortunately his selection of Governor Palin (probably the least qualified available candidate) caused me to re-think what I considered his strengths, that is to be his own man and to be independent of the party big wigs.
> 
> He simply pandered to the religious right wing of the party with her selection and that made me very angry. I find her religious stance and affiliations to be incompatible and in fact intolerable for me. I think that there is at least an average chance (given Senator McCain's age) that Governor Palin could become President Palin and that thought frightens me beyond comprehension.
> 
> So Hew, there you have it, a lifelong Republican voter defector, you might be surprised just how many people share my feelings.


So you think she is less qualified than Obama? He is a community organizer and run for the president.....I have a seven year old dog that has more "work" experiance than Obama.


Ok...I think if Obama gets elected Biden is one ******* with a rifle away from the presiDunce...not that scare the $h*t out of me....lifelong republican and tired of being taxed to death.

Conservative Christian Regards


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

EdA said:


> He simply pandered to the religious right wing of the party with her selection and that made me very angry. I find her religious stance and affiliations to be incompatible and in fact intolerable for me. I think that there is at least an average chance (given Senator McCain's age) that Governor Palin could become President Palin and that thought frightens me beyond comprehension.


I believe as most that Gov Palin has a right to her personal beliefs - the SD legislature found that when they were unreasonable on abortion that the middle would not tolerate that. That's why I look at all the many good things Gov Palin brings to the table & will be very willing to cast a vote for John McCain. 

Now had he chosen the Huckster, it would have been a very hard sell to mark the ballot for POTUS, for any candidate. 

Those of us with children, grandchildren & younger relatives recognize the long term damage by appointments to the SCOTUS a Messiah POTUS could bring.

The absentee ballot should be arriving any day now & am looking forward to casting my vote.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Patrick Johndrow said:


> Conservative Christian Regards


Then you are probably angry that the Baptist preacher (wasn't Huckabee his name) from Texarkana wasn't nominated..;-)

One thing about a Democracy, everyone gets to vote their conviction and then live with what the majority decides. My life experience tells me that things are never as good nor as bad as people think. On the whole who has been the Chief Executive has not made a great deal of difference in the course of the country, what has made a difference is some bright people working together for the common good of the citizens of the country. Unfortunately the Republicans have managed to alienate some very bright people who would serve our country well (Colin Powell, Warren Rudman, and Jack Kemp just to name 3). 

Happy Voting Regards......


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> I believe as most that Gov Palin has a right to her personal beliefs -.


She certainly does and I also have the right to not agree with them

Creationism is a religious belief with no scientific foundation, teach it in churches and homes but not in publically funded schools(which she advocated).

http://www.thelangreport.com/religion-or-lack-of/sarah-palin-wants-creationism-taught-in-school/


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

EdA said:


> Then you are probably angry that the Baptist preacher (wasn't Huckabee his name) from Texarkana wasn't nominated..;-)



Huckabee is from Hope Arkansas....we have had enough Presidents from Hope Arkansas...hell Ed I wont even buy a dog from Arkansas.


----------



## twall (Jun 5, 2006)

EdA said:


> On the whole who has been the Chief Executive has not made a great deal of difference in the course of the country, what has made a difference is some bright people working together for the common good of the citizens of the country.


Ed,

I would agree with this statement except when it comes to the appointment of Justices to all courts. The types of justices nominated will impact our country much longer than who is elected POTUS of which party controls congress. Yes, all nominees need Senate approval but, regardless of the party in control they can only vote, if they ever get to it, on who is nominated.

Tom


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

achiro said:


> Do you truly believe, as an example, that Obama went to that church for 20 years, considered Wright a mentor, etc, that at no point did Wright ever have a political conversation with a politician?


You won't get me to defend him on Wright. The man is clearly off the charts a crazy racist fanatic, and Obama did sit in the pews for 20 years. In fact Obama's willingness to try and mix his religion with politics maces me extremely uncomfortable with him. I feel about as comfortable with Obama on religion as I do Palin. I'm not in favor of faith based initiatives funded with government money. But to imply that he's a terrorist because of some guy that he served on a board with? Sorry, I can't go there.


----------



## wayne anderson (Oct 16, 2007)

Ed, I was a young "liberal" in college in 1964, but had been thru military service and also voted for Barry because of LBJ deceptions (put mildly) and Viet Nam fisaco. Tired of voting against someone rather than for someone every since, still not decided this time around. Jesse Ventura??


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

I heard the Carvel sound bite on a radio broadcast today. It was made on a CNN show last nite after the debate. What he seemed to be saying was that there would be disorder in the streets if the 'messiah' lost. Carvel is a dimocrat operative who is backing the 'messiah'.....*DUMBKOPF!*


----------



## Henry V (Apr 7, 2004)

Bruce Loeffelholz said:


> Its the economy stupid........
> its the war stupid........
> its the 90% voting record stupid.....
> its the energy prices stupid.......
> ...


Thanks for this incredible summary.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

wayne anderson said:


> Ed, I was a young "liberal" in college in 1964, but had been thru military service and also voted for Barry because of LBJ deceptions (put mildly) and Viet Nam fisaco. Tired of voting against someone rather than for someone every since, still not decided this time around. Jesse Ventura??


Nice to find someone with a similar thought process (except for Jessie V)....;-) 

I have spent many more hours agonizing over this Presidential election than all of the others combined. I often wake up in the early hours, lay in bed wide awake, and consider all of the options. Anyone who thinks that this is not serious and potentially life altering is a fool.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> I heard the Carvel sound bite on a radio broadcast today. It was made on a CNN show last nite after the debate. What he seemed to be saying was that there would be disorder in the streets if the 'messiah' lost. Carvel is a dimocrat operative who is backing the 'messiah'.....*DUMBKOPF!*



I saw the comment. He wasn't talking about those kinds of problems. He was talking about if Obama was way ahead in the polls and lost there would be serious questions about counting irregularities and voter suppression. Seems like any comment can be taken however Rush wants to twist it.


----------



## bmontang (Feb 7, 2006)

spaightlabs said:


> It's also scandalous to mention Mr. McCain's reputed affiliations with the mob which are no less spurious than Mr. Obama's affiliations with Ayers, who did his deed when Obama was 8 years old...
> 
> Double standard regards,


Of course Ayers was photographed desecrating the flag on 9/11, but let me guess you will excuse Obama's association with him anyway.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

EdA said:


> She certainly does and I also have the right to not agree with them
> 
> Creationism is a religious belief with no scientific foundation, teach it in churches and homes but not in publically funded schools(which she advocated).
> 
> http://www.thelangreport.com/religion-or-lack-of/sarah-palin-wants-creationism-taught-in-school/


TO start with Ed, she has a record to look at in which she hasn't pushed her religous beliefs as far as I have ever been able to find. Second, you are wrong on this creationism thing Ed. Here is a decent discussion about it:
http://volokh.com/posts/1220821941.shtml


> In a subsequent interview with the Daily News, Palin said discussion of alternative views on the origins of life should be allowed in Alaska classrooms. "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum," she said.


 
If you can find anything that shows that she tried to legislate through religion, I would be happy to see it.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

Buzz if there is any trickery afoot in the McCain campaign, I have heard nor read nothing about it. It seems like every day there are reports of chicanery by the dems. One story indicates that the Acorn folks in Las Vegas had registered a bunch of folks using the names of the Dallas Cowboys. Remember too, that Cook County and the Daley machine are as infamous as Boss Tweed and the Tamney Hall boys when it comes to vote fraud for various dem candidates.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

EdA said:


> I often wake up in the early hours, lay in bed wide awake, and consider all of the options. .


So maybe instead of laying in bed, you should take some time to look up factual information to help you decide. hehehehe!


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

wayne anderson said:


> Ed, I was a young "liberal" in college in 1964, but had been thru military service and also voted for Barry because of LBJ deceptions (put mildly) and Viet Nam fisaco. Tired of voting against someone rather than for someone every since, still not decided this time around. Jesse Ventura??


I never voted for Goldwater. You guys are a lot older than I am. But to this day I still have an old Goldwater button pinned inside my briefcase. I don't think Barry would recognize today's Republican Party. He planned to collaborate with John Dean on "Conservatives Without Conscience," a book in which he rails against the influence of social conservatives and neoconservatives within the Republican Party.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

achiro said:


> So maybe instead of laying in bed, you should take some time to look up factual information to help you decide."hehehehe!


yeah Russ, weren't you the big Huckabee supporter ("my guy"), and you distanced yourself from anything factual about him so do not lecture me about facts, you have selective memory


----------



## Henry V (Apr 7, 2004)

Hew said:


> With Buzz and Henry V working overtime trying to equate the AIP w/ domestic terrorists it's easy to see how you secured an early parole...thread timeout overcrowding. ;-)


Not sure what line of work your in Hew but in my world spending 5 minutes at the keyboard and doing a google search to find some information on the web and reviewing it is not overtime, it's a minor diversion.;-) 
Spend a bit more time reading my posts and let me know where I "equated" the AIP to domestic terrorists. The point is that the media is not giving this known Palin connection any apparent investigation. The AIP website has been modified since Palin is the VP candidate. It used to quote the founder and said:


> I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions.


If any other candidate's spouse was a member of a similar organization there would be serious questions. The rock star Palin is apparently immune to any questions.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

CARVILLE: Now, let me be clear here. If Obama goes in this race with a five-point lead and loses this election, the consequences are -- oh, man. I mean I don't think that's going to happen, but I think David -- it's a point to bring up, but you stop and contemplate this country if Obama goes in and he has a consistent five-point lead and loses the election, it would be very, very, very traumatic out there.

This is the Carville quote.


----------



## Hew (Jan 7, 2003)

EdA said:


> Perhaps I have become enlightened.
> 
> I like John McCain, I admire his courage in wartime, and I believe that he is a decent and honest man, unfortunately his selection of Governor Palin (probably the least qualified available candidate) caused me to re-think what I considered his strengths, that is to be his own man and to be independent of the party big wigs.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the thoughtful answer. 

Given that every GOP presidential candidate since Ford has advocated the teaching of intelligent design or creationism in public schools (including Jimmah Carter), been pro-school prayer, and anti-abortion I find it hard to understand how it took you 28 years before deciding you couldn't be a Republican anymore. You truly have the patience of Job (oops, religious reference...bygones). ;-)


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> CARVILLE: Now, let me be clear here. If Obama goes in this race with a five-point lead and loses this election, the consequences are -- oh, man. I mean I don't think that's going to happen, but I think David -- it's a point to bring up, but you stop and contemplate this country if Obama goes in and he has a consistent five-point lead and loses the election, it would be very, very, very traumatic out there.
> 
> This is the Carville quote.


The first time you said:



> What he seemed to be saying was that there would be disorder in the streets if the 'messiah' lost.


Saying "if he lost" and if "he has a consistent five-point lead and loses" implies different things.


----------



## Hew (Jan 7, 2003)

> On the whole who has been the Chief Executive has not made a great deal of difference in the course of the country, what has made a difference is some bright people working together for the common good of the citizens of the country.





> I have spent many more hours agonizing over this Presidential election than all of the others combined. I often wake up in the early hours, lay in bed wide awake, and consider all of the options. Anyone who thinks that this is not serious and potentially life altering is a fool.


Say what?


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Hew said:


> Given that every GOP presidential candidate since Ford has advocated the teaching of intelligent design or creationism in public schools (including Jimmah Carter), been pro-school prayer, and anti-abortion I find it hard to understand how it took you 28 years before deciding you couldn't be a Republican anymore. You truly have the patience of Job (oops, religious reference...bygones). ;-)


Call me stupid Hew (oh you already did that) or call me uninformed, since I did not vote for Jimmy (for obvious reasons) and Gerald Ford was the right man for the time his view of religion was unimportant. 

Are you implying that Sarah Palin has the same qualifications to be President of the United States of America that Gerald Ford had??? If so that is a shocking endorsement of how truly uninformed you are.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

EdA said:


> yeah Russ, weren't you the big Huckabee supporter ("my guy"), and you distanced yourself from anything factual about him so do not lecture me about facts, you have selective memory


Talk about selective memory! Or maybe no memory. I posted "my guy" on a retriever board because I had a pic of him with a retreiver, thought it was cool.
http://www.retrievertalk.net/showthread.php?t=783

I didn't even end up voting for him. I did defend a few things that you posted that were incorrect just like I have here. BTW, I found the post of yours #84, interesting and have to wonder what you think of Obama saying the same thing?


EdA said:


> and if none of that bothers you check out his ideas on Pakistan foreign policy.........."pursue Al Queda into Pakistan"........
> 
> http://www.newsweek.com/id/84305


----------



## IowaBayDog (May 17, 2006)

EdA said:


> Are you implying that Sarah Palin has the same qualifications to be President of the United States of America that Gerald Ford had??? If so that is a shocking endorsement of how truly uninformed you are.


 
If Gerald Ford was much more "qualified", doesn't that kind of denegrate your definition of what "qualified" actually means? He was a disaster the created the Carter disaster.

You still didn't answer the question of how being a life long Republican you voted for Reagan (twice), Bush 41(twice), Dole, GWB (twice) all who are similarly religious to Palin but you can't vote for her because she is too religious? It doesn't add up.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

Obama and Ayers were serving on the same board when this pic was taken in 2001. It bothers me. Why wouldn't Obama separate himself from someone like this then?


----------



## Bud Bass (Dec 22, 2007)

"TO start with Ed, she has a record to look at in which she hasn't pushed her religous beliefs as far as I have ever been able to find. " Archiro

Correction here Archiro. When Palin was mayor of Wasilla, she instructed the Wasilla Police Chief not to pay for rape kits that were required for rape investigation out of city funds. This is verified by both the Police Chief at the time and Gov Knowles. Wasilla was the only community in the state that would not pay for the rape kits. Knowles and state senator Eric Croft got a bill passed to require cities to pay for rape kits at the time. 

This ties into Sarahs religous beliefs because one item that is normally supplied with the rape kits and would be paid for by public funds is a morning after birth control pill. This is the reason Sarah had the rape kit funding cut. Bud


----------



## Cody Covey (Jan 29, 2008)

is this what you believe bud or do you have something concrete that this is the reason? not advocating it but if thats the only religious based legislation i think i would be okay voting for her...

Also Ayres was the host for Obama's coming out party into the political arena. It was held in his house...living room to be exact. A few people that were at the party have come out to say Ayres did the inviting of people for the party...doesn't sound like they were just on a board a few years back that met a few times does it?


----------



## Hew (Jan 7, 2003)

> Call me stupid Hew (oh you already did that) or call me uninformed, since I did not vote for Jimmy (for obvious reasons) and Gerald Ford was the right man for the time his view of religion was unimportant.


I didn't call you stupid because obviously you're not. Uniformed? I dunno. Inconsistent? COMPLETELY. 



> Are you implying that Sarah Palin has the same qualifications to be President of the United States of America that Gerald Ford had??? If so that is a shocking endorsement of how truly uninformed you are.


Earlier you said it was Palin's religiousity that was a deal breaker. Now it's her experience? You didn't just raise the bar; you moved it to the other side of the track. 

I wasn't implying anything earlier...I simply stated that your standards for her seemed to be alot different from the standards you've applied to previous Republicans you have voted for. And now, since you've spun on a dime and decided it is her lack of experience that bothers you, I will note that Obama's resume is comparable and he's running for PRESIDENT. It appears that the experience standard you hold her to doesn't apply to him. There. _Now_ I have implied something... ;-)


----------



## bmontang (Feb 7, 2006)

akblackdawg said:


> Correction here Archiro. When Palin was mayor of Wasilla, she instructed the Wasilla Police Chief not to pay for rape kits that were required for rape investigation out of city funds. This is verified by both the Police Chief at the time and Gov Knowles. Wasilla was the only community in the state that would not pay for the rape kits. Knowles and state senator Eric Croft got a bill passed to require cities to pay for rape kits at the time.


That right there is an out and out LIE. Now either you are unaware and just repeating what you heard, or you are being dishonest. The rape kit policy was in place before Palin, I believe it was a state law. At the time that law or policy was in place there were something like 29 other states with similar policies. They would, when they could, charge the victim's insurance company. 

Horrible, horrible policy but not one Palin was even aware of.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

akblackdawg said:


> "TO start with Ed, she has a record to look at in which she hasn't pushed her religous beliefs as far as I have ever been able to find. " Archiro
> 
> Correction here Archiro. When Palin was mayor of Wasilla, she instructed the Wasilla Police Chief not to pay for rape kits that were required for rape investigation out of city funds. This is verified by both the Police Chief at the time and Gov Knowles. Wasilla was the only community in the state that would not pay for the rape kits. Knowles and state senator Eric Croft got a bill passed to require cities to pay for rape kits at the time.
> 
> This ties into Sarahs religous beliefs because one item that is normally supplied with the rape kits and would be paid for by public funds is a morning after birth control pill. This is the reason Sarah had the rape kit funding cut. Bud


You are wrong yet again. I am way to lazy to go back and read your posts but I wonder if you have EVER posted anything factual. Did I mention that whenever I read one of your posts my IQ drops?


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Hew said:


> What I find curious, Ed, is you turning your back on McCain/Palin. I recall more than one post of your's where you said you were sick of the partisanship, sick of the bickering, sick of the far-right and far-left (paraphrase). Yet when given the chance to vote for a man who is certainly not an idealogue and who was turned his back on his party and his president on numerous occasions (much to my chagrin), you won't vote for him. When given a chance to cast a ballot for a lady who ran against incumbents from her own party and bucked a corrupt good ol boy system so much that she was a pariah in her own party, you won't do it. To add to the apparent inconsistency, whether you vote for Obama or a third party (also a de facto vote for Obama), you're paving the way for two fiercely partisan dandys whose near-totality of life experience consists of wallowing in the very political system you claim to dislike and/or shaking down said political system. In McCain it seems like you got _exactly_ the type of candidate you claimed you wanted and yet you won't vote for him. Unfortunately you're not alone.


While I'm not Ed, I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express once...

John -

I've read this several times and I don't know how to answer it. I don't know if I can answer it.

What it boils down to for me is I am greatly concerned about getting four more years of the same. 

Iraq was a mistake. To hear Senator McCain say that basically we will be there as long as it takes causes me great concern. The logical part of my mind agrees with many that suggest "We broke it, we bought it." and should be honor bound, if for no other reason, to stay until they can stand on their own to mitigate/prevent the blood bath that would ensue in a vacuum. The Iranian influence must also be countered and we are having a difficult enough time doing that with boots on the ground, how would we do it if we didn't have them there? The emotional side of my brain says not one more American life or tax dollar should be squandered on a place we should have never been in in the first place...yeah...but we are and now what?

I agree with Ed that Senator McCain pandered to his base with the VP selection. There are SO many better qualified Republican Women out there: Kay Bailey, Wittman...while Kay Bailey is more conservative, I wouldn't be near as concerned about her sitting across the table from Vlad as I am Sahra. Wittman got tossed by President Bush because she spoke up and told the truth about what was going on at EPA. Why wasn't she Maverick enough?

If the Senator pandered to his base on his VP selection, what is he going to do with his SCOTUS nominations? Three of the four "liberal" Judges may resign over the next several years. Will President McCain bring in another Thomas or Scalia? Maintaining the current status of Row v. Wade, and keeping government out of the life of the citizen as much as possible, are important to me. With another Thomas or Scalia on the bench, it no longer matter what Justice Kennedy does from one vote to the next. The conservative based will own the court 5-4 on just about everything.

President Bush's administration has taken the theory of unitary executive to the next level. How does Senator McCain view this? Will he continue with this almost unchecked abuse of power? Our standing in the world gives us leverage to advocate our positions. Our standing is near nil. Will Senator McCain restore our standing in the community of nations or will he continue to try and force democracy down the throats of the unwilling at the point of a gun?

Am I punishing Senator McCain for what I see as the near-unpardonable sins of President Bush. Kind of seems that way but is it fair? 

We as a country as so fractured as "one Nation, indivisible" that we forget the words following that are "with liberty and justice for all" and that has to mean more than just the vocal minorites on the extreme ends of both sides of the political spectrum. Can Senator McCain lead from or towards the center more effectively than Senator Obama? Wish I knew.

One day it's McCain, the next day it's Obama. I have a friend (only one, to be sure!) that wants me to call them and "hold their hand" while they vote because they are every bit as conflicted about this election as I am. 
20 some days yet and I'm still not sure...

Introspective Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Hew (Jan 7, 2003)

Thanks for the response, Joe. I share your queasiness w/ McCain (but for largely opposite reasons). I trust and hope you'll cast the same critical eye toward Obama before voting.

One man's "pandering" is another man's "filling gaps." Was Obama pandering to those concerned with foreign policy when he picked his "foreign policy expert" <<cough, chortle, guffaw>> Joe Biden (Bosniacs aside)?


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

Joe S. said:


> What it boils down to for me is I am greatly concerned about getting four more years of the same.
> 
> Joe S.


Four more years just like the last eight years…that were just like the eight years before that? The only damned difference is going to be the people are for the guy in office and the people who don’t like the guy in office….common Joe…you are WAY smarter than to think one or the other is going to make an appreciable difference in either of our life’s. 

I would rather see McCain than Obama but at the end of the day I will be doing the same things I am doing now next year no matter what happens.


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

Joe S. said:


> We as a country as so fractured as "one Nation, indivisible" that we forget the words following that are "with liberty and justice for all" and that has to mean more than just the vocal minorites on the extreme ends of both sides of the political spectrum. Can Senator McCain lead from or towards the center more effectively than Senator Obama? Wish I knew.
> 
> Joe S.


I'm looking for information, what has Obama said or done that is considered centrist? Reporting and discussion tend to put him far left. Is that impression wrong?


----------



## Nor_Cal_Angler (Jul 3, 2008)

Buzz said:


> I saw the comment. He wasn't talking about those kinds of problems. He was talking about if Obama was way ahead in the polls and lost *there would be serious questions about counting irregularities and voter suppression. * Seems like any comment can be taken however Rush wants to twist it.



Kinda like ACORN.....LV, OH, Mich, FL, I think there are about 12 states now that are in question, seems like the shoe is on the other foot now.


Joe S. said:


> While I'm not Ed, I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express once...
> 
> John -
> 
> ...


Me thinks this is gonna get really intersting here in the last few days, 

NCA


----------



## brian breuer (Jul 12, 2003)

Patrick Johndrow said:


> Four more years just like the last eight years…that were just like the eight years before that?


The G. W. Bush years were exactly the same as the Clinton years.................... OK

What color is the sky in your world?


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Hew said:


> Thanks for the response, Joe. I share your queasiness w/ McCain (but for largely opposite reasons). I trust and hope you'll cast the same critical eye toward Obama before voting.
> 
> One man's "pandering" is another man's "filling gaps." Was Obama pandering to those concerned with foreign policy when he picked his "foreign policy expert" <<cough, chortle, guffaw>> Joe Biden (Bosniacs aside)?


Hew,

Oh, I do.

Senator Obama clearly pandered to those who he would like to become his base by picking Senator Biden. He picked someone more experienced in an area that he needed help in.

Clearly, Senator Obama isn't picking Judge Owens for the SCOTUS if he has the chance. He would pick some a bit more liberal (but that isn't difficult).

I don't know how Senator Obama feels about the unitary executive but I feel it has to different than President Bush.

What has Senator Obama done? He is a politician...rather see what does and not have to rely so much on what he says.

I don't think he is a Muslim as much as the right would like to scare people into believing that.

I don't think he is coming for my over and under shotgun. First, I don't think he wants it. Second, he doesn't have the votes in Congress. Third, he damn sure doesn't have the SCOTUS. Heller was 5-4 in support of the 2nd.

Senator Obama is new enough to NOT know what can't be done, so maybe he will try.

I'm not blinded by his words, that is exactly why it is such a difficult decision.

Take Care Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

gsc said:


> I'm looking for information, what has Obama said or done that is considered centrist? Reporting and discussion tend to put him far left. Is that impression wrong?


Far left of how far right the current administration is? That is correct.

I think the current administration is so very far right that they are off the charts, by putting in someone who is left of that, the country will have to come off that position and back towards the center. It won't get as far left as many on the right suggest, I think, because he will be more transparent in his administration than is currently done.

Twisted logic, perhaps, but that is what I think.

Anyway Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Nor_Cal_Angler (Jul 3, 2008)

Joe S. said:


> Hew,
> 
> Oh, I do.
> 
> ...



Joe, your right and that is the one that sends the CHILL'S up my spine...SOCIALISM 

so maybe he will try regards,

NCA


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Patrick Johndrow said:


> The only damned difference is going to be the people are for the guy in office and the people who don’t like the guy in office….common Joe…you are WAY smarter than to think one or the other is going to make an appreciable difference in either of our life’s.


No, My Brother, here we must part ways.

My entire life has been built on hope...the hope that if I work hard, study hard, do the right things, do the right thing...things will get better for me. While I haven't always worked as hard as I could have, studied has hard as I could have, done the right things, or even done the right thing, things have gotten better for me because I've had hope...and did what needed to be done while I was hoping. (Twisted, huh?)

I have to have hope that the one I vote for is going to make an appreciable difference in our lives OR do something to heal our fractured country.

It Is That Simple For Me Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

Then do this- walk up to the mirror and ask that guy staring back- "Will Obama do the right thing when the wolf is at the door?"

Only ONE person in this goat rope that fully UNDERSTANDS what it means to send our children into harms way.

Can't get there unless ya been there regards

Bubba


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

My own impression of Obama is that he is a pragmatist more than he is an ideologue and for me that is a welcome change. Bush promised to be a pragmatist and his experience in Texas suggested that he might be. Unfortunately he decided to turn his Presidency into an indeological crusade. While Obama's inclinations are more liberal than centrist, I expect that he will govern towards the center since that is the only way to obtain support in Congress and in the country. 

I would expect some of the policies that were implemented by GWB will be reversed by Presidential fiat just as they were created. Among these will be a reversal of the administrations prohibition, by Executive Order, of any foreign aid to organizations outside the U.S. that provide counseling concerning contraception or abortions. I would also expect to see a delicate effort to close Guantanamo and to backtrack on the Bush policies on torture and on some of the more extreme provisions of the so-called "Patriot Act".

I expect that Obama's election would prevent the Supreme Court from tilting any more towards the extreme right reflected in Bush's nominees. He will not be able to tilt the Court in a more liberal direction since the most likely justices to leave are the last remaining "liberals" (I think they would all qualify as centrists). I expect that the greater impact on the Court will come from decisions by the administration not to pursue cases that the current administration supports. I would also expect that an Obama administration will be as aggressive in appointing "liberal" judges to the Federal Courts as the Bush administration has been in appointing conservative judges. However, he will less successful that Bush since the Democrats never fought as hard to prevent Bush's nominees as the Republicans fought to prevent Clinton's As a result there are several hundred fewer vacancies than existed at the end of the Clinton administration.

If we get a major health insurance program, it will be tailored in a way that makes it easier for businesses to reduce their expenditures for health care to become more competitive with businesses in other countries and it will build on the existing private health insurance programs with minimal change.

I would expect estate taxes to be reestablished but with a higher exempt amount (probably around $5 million) and I would expect income taxes to increase for those earning over $250k.

I actually expect that we will see the smallest concrete differences in international relations although I would expect the tone of the rhetoric to be softer in an Obama administration. While McCain often talks like a neo-Con, the reality is that the neo-Con policies have failed completely and have left our military too stretched to support new fronts. Even the Bush administration has quietly backed off of its prior confrontational positions (leaving McCain out on his own) and I would expect McCain to follow suit the day after the election whether he wins of loses. International support for the U.S. will probably be better if Obama is elected but will improve almost immediately the day Bush leaves the White House.

Finally, I expect that an Obama presidency will get us closer to a balanced budget than a McCain administration because he will raise some taxes and there is no other way to begin closing the gap we now face. While that will be painful for some at the top of the heap, it will ultimatelty benefit all of us by helping to rebuild our economy, and will be less painful then the losses now faced by those at the bottom of the heap.

As an interesting thought, who do you think Bush will pardon on his way out the door?


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

We keep talking far right and far left, if I remember my poly sci, far left is total government control, or dictator, far right is no government control or anarchy. Neither Republican or Democrat fits either extreme. From current actions, it appears that government control is on both sides. So my question is what is the center as you see it and where are the candidates in comparison to that center.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

YardleyLabs said:


> My own impression of Obama is that he is a pragmatist more than he is an ideologue and for me that is a welcome change. Bush promised to be a pragmatist and his experience in Texas suggested that he might be. Unfortunately he decided to turn his Presidency into an indeological crusade. While Obama's inclinations are more liberal than centrist, I expect that he will govern towards the center since that is the only way to obtain support in Congress and in the country.
> 
> I would expect some of the policies that were implemented by GWB will be reversed by Presidential fiat just as they were created. Among these will be a reversal of the administrations prohibition, by Executive Order, of any foreign aid to organizations outside the U.S. that provide counseling concerning contraception or abortions. I would also expect to see a delicate effort to close Guantanamo and to backtrack on the Bush policies on torture and on some of the more extreme provisions of the so-called "Patriot Act".
> 
> ...


Wow, if I was so blind that I thought those things were true, I might think about voting for him myself! So I guess I have figured it out, Obama says "change" and you can come up with all the good things you think you want him to do and thats what it means. What on earth has Obama done in his career that makes you think ANY of that stuff is what he WANTS, let alone WILL do? Some of the things you think he will do are not even correct based on his own agenda(ie healthcare).


----------



## Bud Bass (Dec 22, 2007)

I for one is hoping that Stevens will be look for a pardon, but the way things are looking, he won't even get the required conviction. If he is convicted, I can't imagion him not being pardoned. Bud


----------



## Hew (Jan 7, 2003)

> Bush promised to be a pragmatist and his experience in Texas suggested that he might be. Unfortunately he decided to turn his Presidency into an indeological crusade.


I often type "LOL" when I really don't mean it. But after reading your notion that Bush is some sort of right wing ideologue I really did laugh out loud. Thanks for inserting that gem in the first part of your manifesto...it saved me from having to read the rest.


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

achiro said:


> Wow, if I was so blind that I thought those things were true, I might think about voting for him myself! So I guess I have figured it out, Obama says "change" and you can come up with all the good things you think you want him to do and thats what it means. What on earth has Obama done in his career that makes you think ANY of that stuff is what he WANTS, let alone WILL do? Some of the things you think he will do are not even correct based on his own agenda(ie healthcare).


For information on his health plan go to http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/. I believe my statements are very close to his plan.

On estate taxes, his plan currently calls for freezing taxes at 2009 levels which exempt the first $3.5 million of the estate value. I suspect that there will be some compromises on the exemption amount during bill mark-up. The difference between $3.5 million and $5 million is huge politically and trivial economically. My comments on income taxes come directly from his tax plan and the independent analysis by the tax policy institute (a non-partisan group).

With respect to the war in Iraq, my assessment is based on my belief that Obama will withdraw troops within 16 months as he has promised and that McCain will probably do the same under pressure from the Iraqi government and the economy whether he agrees to publicize a timeline or not.

I'm not sure what other parts of my assessment you are questioning.


----------



## Sundown49 aka Otey B (Jan 3, 2003)

http://www.caglepost.com/column.aspx?c=8100

This might be some food for thought for the Obama fans.........


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Hew said:


> I often type "LOL" when I really don't mean it. But after reading your notion that Bush is some sort of right wing ideologue I really did laugh out loud. Thanks for inserting that gem in the first part of your manifesto...it saved me from having to read the rest.


Hew -

Good Morning!

Are you suggesting that President Bush is not, himself, a right wing ideologue and merely allowed his Presidency to be co-opted by the extreme right wing of the republican party or what?

Interested Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

Sundown49 aka Otey B said:


> http://www.caglepost.com/column.aspx?c=8100
> 
> This might be some food for thought for the Obama fans.........


Interestingly this article attacks Obama for being the only state senator to speak in opposition to this bill, which would require two physcians to be in attendance -- one for the mother and one for the fetus -- at any abortion where there was any chance that the fetus would be clinically alive at the moment of expulsion. However, according to Illinois legislative records the bill was allowed to die without a vote at the end of the legislative session. It sounds like he was not the only opponent.


----------



## Hew (Jan 7, 2003)

Joe S. said:


> Hew -
> 
> Good Morning!
> 
> ...


Name three aspects of his presidency that you believe are "extreme right wing." And please don't bother listing Iraq unless you're going to also make the argument that FDR, Truman and JFK were extreme right wingers too...you know, "bear any burden" and all that.


----------



## Hew (Jan 7, 2003)

YardleyLabs said:


> ...at any abortion where there was any chance that the fetus would be clinically alive at the moment of expulsion.


Expulsion. Whew, for a minute there I thought that babies were being killed after their birth. I didn't realize it was only after their expulsion. 

Repulsive.


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Hew said:


> Name three aspects of his presidency that you believe are "extreme right wing." And please don't bother listing Iraq unless you're going to also make the argument that FDR, Truman and JFK were extreme right wingers too...you know, "bear any burden" and all that.


1. Warrentless domestic spying

2. Gitmo/torture

3. Unitary executive

Good Morning Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

Joe S. said:


> 1. Warrentless domestic spying
> 
> 2. Gitmo/torture
> 
> ...


In what way are they right wing positions?

They may be positions you disagree with, but that, in itself, doesn't make them right wing. I expect pro life, 2nd amendment freedoms are more associated with right wing, not every issue you disagree with. Although if you are a left wing ideologue, it may be all you need.


To further this, the Unitary Executive is a dispute between the branches of government not a republican/democrat-left/right argument.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

YardleyLabs said:


> For information on his health plan go to http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/. I believe my statements are very close to his plan.
> 
> On estate taxes, his plan currently calls for freezing taxes at 2009 levels which exempt the first $3.5 million of the estate value. I suspect that there will be some compromises on the exemption amount during bill mark-up. The difference between $3.5 million and $5 million is huge politically and trivial economically. My comments on income taxes come directly from his tax plan and the independent analysis by the tax policy institute (a non-partisan group).
> 
> ...


I've read the healthcare plan several times. It sounds great but won't be. I deal with medicare every day...it sucks. It is in trouble. It is failing and needs to be fixed, YET Obamas plan is to set up a program based on the medicare models. 

On the balanced budget? How? His proposed programs already outspend any type of tax increase he has proposed. To balance a budget you have to lower spending, he has no proposals large e nough to make a difference. A large part of his tax increase is already promised to be given to folks that don't pay income taxes in the form of a rebate. "welfare" and income redistribution has nothing to do with needing to increase taxes to balance the budget. This "it's only fair" thing that we keep hearing from the Obama clan is socialism. It might be different if the tax increases on "the rich" were actually going to be used to balance the budget, but THEY ARE NOT.
Obama talks a good game, you have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker. I ask again, what on earth has the man ever DONE, not just talked about, that makes you think any of those things will ever come true? Proof is in actions not good speaches.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

YardleyLabs said:


> Interestingly this article attacks Obama for being the only state senator to speak in opposition to this bill, which would require two physcians to be in attendance -- one for the mother and one for the fetus -- at any abortion where there was any chance that the fetus would be clinically alive at the moment of expulsion. However, according to Illinois legislative records the bill was allowed to die without a vote at the end of the legislative session. It sounds like he was not the only opponent.


I don't care about the other liberals of Illinois, they are not running for prez. It is sickening to me to think that anyone could think it was ok to allow a living breathing baby to lay there unattended and die. Horrible. Actually horrible isn't a strong enough word. Only a monster could sit there and watch a baby die without trying to help.


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

achiro said:


> I don't care about the other liberals of Illinois, they are not running for prez. It is sickening to me to think that anyone could think it was ok to allow a living breathing baby to lay there unattended and die. Horrible. Actually horrible isn't a strong enough word. Only a monster could sit there and watch a baby die without trying to help.


If a saline abortion is performed at 16 weeks, there is no chance of survival by the fetus. However, that does not mean that it will not show clinical signs of life for a brief period following the procedure. I have no problem understanding, and have a great deal of sympathy for those that believe that a fetus is a living being that should not be aborted. 

I am pro-choice (not pro abortion) despite that but understand those who believe differently. However, the purpose of the Illinois bill was not to save the lives of fetuses. That is protected by current laws. It was to create an obstacle that would make it more expensive and difficult to obtain an otherwise legal abortion. In my mind, if you believe abortions should be illegal then propose a different law that either conforms with current Constitutional limits or propose a Constitutional amendment. Opinion polls suggest that you will not have the support of the majority of the population but you may get the support of the majority of legislators fearful of backlash from opponents of choice. 

Obama is pro-choice while McCain is anti-choice. That is one of the clearest differences between them. For those for whom abortion rights are a central issue this may be a fair basis by itself to justify a vote for one candidate or the other since it is an area where the next President may actually make a significant difference on what happens.

By the way, my use of the word expulsion came from the actual bill in Illinois.


----------



## Henry V (Apr 7, 2004)

Come on right wingers, you are back a few pages on the topics.

Today's script is about voter fraud and ACORN, but you can still use the word Husein and also the Ayers connection is still relevant.

Oh, and by the way, the DOW is down over 200 points in the early going today, not that it is more relevant than these issues to this election.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

I am wondering if the continued slide in the market is from folks that are worried about the poll #s and are taking their money out. I know lots of folks that have frozen all capital expenditures until after the election and or things calm down. Currently my company is still busy and has a good back log of work and that we continue. I have also seen some of my vendors and customers start to suffer. To me its really interesting to see that both sides really do hate each others candidate. I further find it crazy to think that the house and senate continue the current path(s) with current approval ratings. I am thinking that Saddam and OBL may have higher ratings in this country. How far can this go ? How much worse can real folks take ?


----------



## Henry V (Apr 7, 2004)

Steve,
Lots of experts are saying that the global market slide now is a result of general panic. Hopefully, it will settle down soon. I am just glad I am not retiring soon.

I have no hate for McCain, far from it. I can certainly see how people could vote for him. Unfortunately, his time was 2000 IMHO. He has now surrounded himself with a bunch of Bush operatives, picked Sarah Palin as VP, and is seeming more and more grumpy and bitter. Not the kind of leadership we need. New leadership is needed in the house and Senate too.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

YardleyLabs said:


> If a saline abortion is performed at 16 weeks, there is no chance of survival by the fetus. However, that does not mean that it will not show clinical signs of life for a brief period following the procedure. I have no problem understanding, and have a great deal of sympathy for those that believe that a fetus is a living being that should not be aborted.
> 
> I am pro-choice (not pro abortion) despite that but understand those who believe differently. However, the purpose of the Illinois bill was not to save the lives of fetuses. That is protected by current laws. It was to create an obstacle that would make it more expensive and difficult to obtain an otherwise legal abortion. In my mind, if you believe abortions should be illegal then propose a different law that either conforms with current Constitutional limits or propose a Constitutional amendment. Opinion polls suggest that you will not have the support of the majority of the population but you may get the support of the majority of legislators fearful of backlash from opponents of choice.
> 
> ...


That issue isn't about abortion but way to change the subject and ignore my comments.


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

Joe S. said:


> I have to have hope that the one I vote for is going to make an appreciable difference in our lives OR do something to heal our fractured country.
> 
> It Is That Simple For Me Regards,
> 
> Joe S.



Every morning I look at the man in the mirror that will keep my ass out of a crack…that is where it starts…NOT a politician or any gooberment agency. I am responsible for myself and those that depend on me.


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

achiro said:


> That issue isn't about abortion but way to change the subject and ignore my comments.


Actually, I thought I was responding directly to the type of situation that the bill you referenced was designed to address rather than your dramatic rendition which has nothing to do with what the proposed bill was about. The fact is that current laws do not permit hospitals and doctors to stand by doing nothing while a viable baby lies dying on the table. To do so would be homicide.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

FWIW, the self-employed were always taxed on their health insurance benefits until recently. A gradual progression over the past several years has modified that.

First a %-age of the health insurance premiums were allowed to be put on Schedule A. That %-age gradually increased to 100% allowed on Schedule A. That meant, however, that you were still being taxed on most of your premium. 

I think it was two years ago that 100% of the premium was moved to the front of the 1040 form so that it actually became a deduction from earned income. Makes sense that people who are paying for their own health insurance are saving the taxpayers a whole lot of $ by being insured, but it took a whole lot of years for politicians to figure it out.

Over time, employer plans have shifted part of the cost of health insurance programs to the employee, i.e. the employer pays a base amount for the employee, and the employee pays for spouse & children. I believe that the employee can then take a deduction somewhere on his FIT form, but am not sure where.

Not sure where Obama comes from when he said in the debate that "children are cheap to insure." If you look at the group rates for a single employee v. employee with children, the amount for the addition of children to a plan is a pretty hefty number. It is cheap to get life insurance for children ... but it is not real cheap to get health insurance for children.

Has anyone read the AMA's proposal for reforming health care? I keep meaning to look it up.


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Patrick Johndrow said:


> Every morning I look at the man in the mirror that will keep my ass out of a crack…that is where it starts…NOT a politician or any gooberment agency. I am responsible for myself and those that depend on me.


Patrick -

Again, I think we find ourselves very close to the same position. I'm sure you read this portion of the same post you quoted:

_"My entire life has been built on hope...*the hope that if I work hard, study hard, do the right things, do the right thing*...things will get better for me. While I haven't always worked as hard as I could have, studied has hard as I could have, done the right things, or even done the right thing, things have gotten better for me because I've had hope...and did what needed to be done while I was hoping. (Twisted, huh?)"_

Where I think where we differ is that I see policy enacted by the government as having a direct, qualitative and quantative, impact on our lives. The individual I vote for has to provide at least the hope that things will get better.

Take Care Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Henry V (Apr 7, 2004)

Achiro,

This nation's health care system is a big issue for me in this election. I did a search on "cost of health care" and found the following site with lots of facts and figures.http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml. Some of the stats of interest are:


> - Health care spending is 4.3 times the amount spent on national defense.
> - Although nearly 47 million Americans are uninsured, the United States spends more on health care than other industrialized nations, and those countries provide health insurance to all their citizens.
> - The annual premium that a health insurer charges an employer for a health plan covering a family of four averaged $12,100 in 2007. Workers contributed nearly $3,300, or 10 percent more than they did in 2006.2 The annual premiums for family coverage significantly eclipsed the gross earnings for a full-time, minimum-wage worker ($10,712)
> - According to the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust, premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance in the United States have been rising four times faster on average than workers’ earnings since 2000
> ...


Ok, so given these facts and trends I would hope that you agree that the US health care system is broken and that the "market based" private insurance system has resulted in nothing but run away costs with no apparent health benefit. I want the system changed and I really don't see how McCain's plan of giving families a $5,000 credit will fix the health care system and contain costs. Since you are somehow affiliated with the medical industry, is McCain's plan the best solution?


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

YardleyLabs said:


> Actually, I thought I was responding directly to the type of situation that the bill you referenced was designed to address rather than your dramatic rendition which has nothing to do with what the proposed bill was about. The fact is that current laws do not permit hospitals and doctors to stand by doing nothing while a viable baby lies dying on the table. To do so would be homicide.


My dramatic rendition?!?!?! A nurse testified that she held a baby in her arms for over 45 minutes while it slowly died. There was no qualified ped doc available for that baby. The "current laws" as you state them make no provisions to have a qualified doc in the room in case this happens. Thats what the bill was for. It wasn't about abortion, it was about not letting a living breathing child lay there and suffer more than necessary whether "viable" or not. If you think it is ok to take any living being regardless of its outlook and let it lay there suffering and dying then I put you in that class of a *******monster. 
BTW, babies do survive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPF1FhCMPuQ


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Henry V said:


> Achiro,
> 
> This nation's health care system is a big issue for me in this election. I did a search on "cost of health care" and found the following site with lots of facts and figures.http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml. Some of the stats of interest are:
> Ok, so given these facts and trends I would hope that you agree that the US health care system is broken and that the "market based" private insurance system has resulted in nothing but run away costs with no apparent health benefit. I want the system changed and I really don't see how McCain's plan of giving families a $5,000 credit will fix the health care system and contain costs. Since you are somehow affiliated with the medical industry, is McCain's plan the best solution?


I would rather deal with ANY private insurance company than to deal with medicare. ANY! The costs of healthcare aren't about insurance and the insurance industry would like for the costs to stay down(hmo's anyone). I agree healthcare is broken in America but its not because of the private insurance companies.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

All I know as a employer providing insurance for our employee's the least our cost have gone up is 14% and the most has been 37% the problem come in that yearly raises come due the end of Jan. and then we have the increase of cost of ins. The guys are going to not be happy this year to get a smaller raise in the anticipation of higher ins. cost. Frankley I hope a few more drop our coverage and make us ineligable and drop us. 

As far as me or any other privatley held business absorbing the cost of increased taxes or higher premiums without a adverse reaction to our customers or employees need to put down the crack pipe. 

With McCains housing bailout or Obamas 95% tax cut better be buying stock in paper and ink for all the money they need to be printing.


----------



## Mistyriver (May 19, 2005)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> Not sure where Obama comes from when he said in the debate that "children are cheap to insure." If you look at the group rates for a single employee v. employee with children, the amount for the addition of children to a plan is a pretty hefty number. It is cheap to get life insurance for children ... but it is not real cheap to get health insurance for children.
> 
> Has anyone read the AMA's proposal for reforming health care? I keep meaning to look it up.


Children and young adults are much more cheaper to insure. My 23 yr old son can get a very good health care policy for 800.00 dollars a year. Let's see an adult do that. To add a child to a policy is usually no more than a 100.00 or so a month and some time much less.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

Joe other than a curing few social injustices and the GI bill can you or anyone give examples of a successful government program or policy in recent history ?









Joe S. said:


> Patrick -
> 
> Again, I think we find ourselves very close to the same position. I'm sure you read this portion of the same post you quoted:
> 
> ...


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

achiro said:


> My dramatic rendition?!?!?! A nurse testified that she held a baby in her arms for over 45 minutes while it slowly died. There was no qualified ped doc available for that baby. The "current laws" as you state them make no provisions to have a qualified doc in the room in case this happens. Thats what the bill was for. It wasn't about abortion, it was about not letting a living breathing child lay there and suffer more than necessary whether "viable" or not. If you think it is ok to take any living being regardless of its outlook and let it lay there suffering and dying then I put you in that class of a *******monster.
> BTW, babies do survive:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPF1FhCMPuQ


During a normal child birth, there is no requirement that a "qualified physician" be in attendance for the care of the baby. My own son was born with a mid-wife attending. If a nurse was standing around holding a dying but potentially viable baby in her arms for 45 minutes and did nothing to save it, she should be charged with criminal neglect as should anyone else complicit in the crime. 

However, what the bill itself did was to establish a requirement that there be two separate physicians present in any abortion where there was any possibility that the fetus might show signs of any form of life (not where the fetus was potentially viable). One physician was to be dedicated to care of the mother and the other was there for the sole purpose of treating the fetus if possible. If that is what's needed to protect babies, why don't we require the same thing for all child births? For that matter, why don't we make it a crime for a pregnant woman to fail to obtain appropriate pre-natal care or to engage in any activities that threaten the livelihood of the fetus such as smoking or drinking, or even eating fish too often?

I am constantly amazed by those who abhor almost all government action but are perfectly willing to see governments tell doctors how to treat their patients when those patients are pregnant women and to tell women that they must carry pregnancies to term regardless of their own circumstances or desires.


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

Steve Amrein said:


> Joe other than a curing few social injustices and the GI bill can you or anyone give examples of a successful government program or policy in recent history ?


How about the roads we all drive on each day, the wild life management areas where I train my dogs, or the Internet that we use for this forum (oringally developed through government programs). I also appreciate the fact that you can now eat some of the fish caught in the Delaware without fearing that parts of your body will fall off and I like the fact that you are now less likely to find medical debris and raw sewage washing up on the beaches of the Jersey shore. All of our jobs and all of our lives are completely intertwined with successful governmental programs The ultimate welfare mentality is believing that you should somehow be able to reap the benefits of all of those programs without having to pay for them.


----------



## K.Bullock (May 15, 2008)

achiro said:


> My dramatic rendition?!?!?! A nurse testified that she held a baby in her arms for over 45 minutes while it slowly died. There was no qualified ped doc available for that baby. The "current laws" as you state them make no provisions to have a qualified doc in the room in case this happens. Thats what the bill was for. It wasn't about abortion, it was about not letting a living breathing child lay there and suffer more than necessary whether "viable" or not. If you think it is ok to take any living being regardless of its outlook and let it lay there suffering and dying then I put you in that class of a *******monster.
> BTW, babies do survive:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPF1FhCMPuQ


Unfortunately this seems the way Americans are willing to go. When life is devalued and turned into an intellectual abstract with terms like fetus and anti-choice and so on. The truth of the situation is being denied and a new face is put on it. This is how holocausts are possible. Nazi propaganda dehumanized the Jews and made their murder not only acceptable but desirable in the name of the higher purpose of National Socialism and racial purity. 

The Liberal Fascists here in America use the exact same tactics. That is why they use terms like fetus and choice it reduces the human value of the baby plus choice is the higher purpose to lead people into believing it is not only acceptable but desirable to murder. Truth is denied reality is twisted. 

Just like this ...happy viewing--->http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUzzMAgeIzM


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

K.Bullock said:


> Unfortunately this seems the way Americans are willing to go. When life is devalued and turned into an intellectual abstract with terms like *fetus (medical term)* and anti-choice and so on. The truth of the situation is being denied and a new face is put on it. This is how holocausts are possible. Nazi propaganda dehumanized the Jews and made their murder not only acceptable but desirable in the name of the higher purpose of National Socialism and racial purity.
> 
> *The Liberal Fascists here in America use the exact same tactics.* *(So, Liberal Fascists = Nazi and this statement comes from a "Christian".)* That is why they use terms like fetus and choice it reduces the human value of the baby plus choice is the higher purpose to lead people into believing it is not only acceptable but desirable to murder. *Truth is denied reality is twisted.* *(Generally by both sides with equal RPMs.)*
> 
> Just like this ...happy viewing--->http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUzzMAgeIzM


Wow, and to think, you get to vote.

Glad I Am An American Too Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

YardleyLabs said:


> During a normal child birth, there is no requirement that a "qualified physician" be in attendance for the care of the baby. My own son was born with a mid-wife attending. If a nurse was standing around holding a dying but potentially viable baby in her arms for 45 minutes and did nothing to save it, she should be charged with criminal neglect as should anyone else complicit in the crime.
> 
> However, what the bill itself did was to establish a requirement that there be two separate physicians present in any abortion where there was any possibility that the fetus might show signs of any form of life (not where the fetus was potentially viable). One physician was to be dedicated to care of the mother and the other was there for the sole purpose of treating the fetus if possible. If that is what's needed to protect babies, why don't we require the same thing for all child births? For that matter, why don't we make it a crime for a pregnant woman to fail to obtain appropriate pre-natal care or to engage in any activities that threaten the livelihood of the fetus such as smoking or drinking, or even eating fish too often?


There is no comparison but good try. For one, a qualified midwife is trained to understand risks and know when to get a qualified medical doctor/facility involved.



YardleyLabs said:


> I am constantly amazed by those who abhor almost all government action but are perfectly willing to see governments tell doctors how to treat their patients when those patients are pregnant women and to tell women that they must carry pregnancies to term regardless of their own circumstances or desires.


I am constantly amazed that anyone can forget the rights of the baby at all cost.


----------



## K.Bullock (May 15, 2008)

Joe S. said:


> Wow, and to think, you get to vote.
> 
> Glad I Am An American Too Regards,
> 
> Joe S.


 Hey Joe, do me a favor and separate your quotes from mine. So no one is confused. ...thanks. Oh and uh you have obviously gone through my posts and profile for ammo ...try to keep things in perspective ..OK??


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

YardleyLabs said:


> How about the roads we all drive on each day, the wild life management areas where I train my dogs, or the Internet that we use for this forum (oringally developed through government programs). I also appreciate the fact that you can now eat some of the fish caught in the Delaware without fearing that parts of your body will fall off and I like the fact that you are now less likely to find medical debris and raw sewage washing up on the beaches of the Jersey shore. All of our jobs and all of our lives are completely intertwined with successful governmental programs The ultimate welfare mentality is believing that you should somehow be able to reap the benefits of all of those programs without having to pay for them.





I should have been more specific and talk about federal programs. While I wil give you the Fed highway system that was started in the 30's which are in fair to poor condition and the state roads are generally worse. The state land that I am getting ready to go pick out grounds with my Co judge were given to the state 50 plus years ago are in worse shape and have more restrictions than when turned over. I would not consider that a success. The sewage program prolly started out as a government program that failed and had to be fixed. 


I will also agree that the goverment is the largest employer by far It is hard to find bright spots that they have actually improved upon something.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

We have had a myriad of governenment programs that have failed miserably over the last 70 years. All that new deal stuff that FDR instituted, the NRA, NRO, WPA et al. The only things FDR instituted that worked was the CCCand maybe the TVA/REA. Then we flip forward to the 1960s with the war on poverty, the medicade,foodstamps and all the socialist boondoggles LBJ cooked up. The US taxpayers have been getting boarhogged, and we still have the poor. 

Three great lies: I won't get you pregnant, The Check is in the maail, and I'm from the Federal Govt and I'm here to help.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

Mistyriver said:


> Children and young adults are much more cheaper to insure. My 23 yr old son can get a very good health care policy for 800.00 dollars a year. Let's see an adult do that. To add a child to a policy is usually no more than a 100.00 or so a month and some time much less.


It must depend on the state you're in. I have a "decent" individual coverage for $300/month & am considerably older than your son 

My son has a spouse and 2 children. His health insurance was partially paid for by his employer (a car dealership) and still left him paying out about $400/mo. He went to work for "corporate" where the entire health insurance bill was paid for the family.

This also can demonstrate how increased taxes or health insurance costs for companies will ultimately filter down to customers and employees. If my son's employer needs to cut expenses, they might revert to a plan where the employees pay part of the health insurance costs ... or change to a less comprehensive coverage? 

From what I've heard, government-run health care is not a walk in the park. Older people do not always get care needed simply because they are older & not expected to live much longer and contribute to the country's economy. Waiting for care & doctor appointments is also another factor. I've heard this from Canadians as well as Europeans.

Having dealt with Medicare paperwork for my elderly mother, it's no surprise that the abuses there are phenomenal. I particularly recall daily invoices for a doctor visit each day she was hospitalized. I never heard a word from that doctor. My mother didn't ever remember seeing him in her room. The daily charges for this "phantom" doctor were substantial, and no "care" seem to have resulted from those visits as specialists were attending to her needs specific to her hospitalization.


----------



## Hew (Jan 7, 2003)

Joe S. said:


> 1. Warrentless domestic spying
> 
> 2. Gitmo/torture
> 
> ...


Subroc answered the above quite nicely. If I might add to his cogent opinion:

NONE of those three items are exclusive to the right wing or conservatism. With regards to a unitary executive, you'd have a tough time arguing that Bush adheres to that more than the most preeminent liberal president in the last hundred years, FDR. As an aside, who was the last president to have a claim of executive privilege overturned in Federal Court? Hint...it wasn't George Bush. 

Sorry, but the notion of Bush as a right wing idealogue is laughable to all but those who wish not to see (or somehow missed him signing off on the socialization of our economy last week). Hell, even uber-lefty columnist Richard Cohen admits it. Read 'em and weep: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/28/AR2007052801053.html


----------



## Mistyriver (May 19, 2005)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> It must depend on the state you're in. I have a "decent" individual coverage for $300/month & am considerably older than your son
> 
> My son has a spouse and 2 children. His health insurance was partially paid for by his employer (a car dealership) and still left him paying out about $400/mo. He went to work for "corporate" where the entire health insurance bill was paid for the family.
> 
> ...



Won't disagree that you can find cheap insurance. But 3600.00 a year is a far cry from 800.00. He could have gotten a less premium amount if he wanted a higher deductible. I was strictly talking about insuring a child. Once you bring a whole family in then the cost will go up. Heck ours was 12000 a year when my son was included with myself and the wife. Of course this also included dental as his current individual policy he has also does.

I am not saying we should go to a government sponsored program. I read too many stories about how bad it is to even get in to see a doctor or schedule surgery. I don't think either candidate is talking about a government run program as some may lead us to believe.

All I know is that if things don't change no one will be able to afford health insurance.


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> ...
> From what I've heard, government-run health care is not a walk in the park. Older people do not always get care needed simply because they are older & not expected to live much longer and contribute to the country's economy. Waiting for care & doctor appointments is also another factor. I've heard this from Canadians as well as Europeans.
> 
> Having dealt with Medicare paperwork for my elderly mother, it's no surprise that the abuses there are phenomenal. I particularly recall daily invoices for a doctor visit each day she was hospitalized. I never heard a word from that doctor. My mother didn't ever remember seeing him in her room. The daily charges for this "phantom" doctor were substantial, and no "care" seem to have resulted from those visits as specialists were attending to her needs specific to her hospitalization.


I don't think these problems are specific to Medicare. I've unfortunately spent more time in hospitals over the last few years than I would have preferred. In every visit I have afterward received multiple bills from physicians I never met while often being treated primarily by physicians that never billed. This has a lot to do with the organization of medical staff in hospitals and is affected by the structure of each insurance carrier's contract with the various providers. 

The system we have now is broken and one part of that breakage is the large and growing number of people with no health insurance. As the system operates now, it works well for the pharmaceutical companies, health management organizations, and for profit hospitals (all major contributors to the Republican party). It works poorly for patients, employers, physicians, and patients.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

> For that matter, why don't we make it a crime for a pregnant woman to fail to obtain appropriate pre-natal care or to engage in any activities that threaten the livelihood of the fetus such as smoking or drinking, or even eating fish too often?


Actually, I do recall a court case where they did charge a pregnant woman for using drugs during her pregnancy.

It puzzled me at the time how you could have it both ways, either pregnant women can control their own bodies, or they can't. Whichever may be your belief, it would be inconsistent.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

> But 3600.00 a year is a far cry from 800.00.


Apology due to you Mistyriver ... I misread $800 per month.


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Hew said:


> NONE of those three items are exclusive to the right wing or conservatism. With regards to a unitary executive, you'd have a tough time arguing that Bush adheres to that more than the most preeminent liberal president in the last hundred years, FDR. As an aside, who was the last president to have a claim of executive privilege overturned in Federal Court? Hint...it wasn't George Bush.
> 
> Sorry, but the notion of Bush as a right wing idealogue is laughable to all but those who wish not to see (or somehow missed him signing off on the socialization of our economy last week). Hell, even uber-lefty columnist Richard Cohen admits it. Read 'em and weep: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/28/AR2007052801053.html


Just figured since he is Republican, the leader of the party, and the party has gone so far to the right, they had to be right wing principles.

Not sure about the FDR comment...but you could be right, I mean, correct. ;-)

As far as the socialization of our economy goes, he had to do something...what would you suggest?

Down A Peg Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> I'm from the Federal Govt and I'm here to help.


Remember that:

The next time you use GPS. (Military development.)
The next time you fly on an airplane. (Military development.)
The next time you visit your Doctor. (NIH has come up with a lot of good treatments for many illnesses.)

God knows the Fed doesn't get it right all the time but I notice you aren't selling your house and moving to another country.

Kind Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

Joe, there are two reasons I'm not selling and emigrating. 1 my home is paid for and 2 I'd have to leave much of my arms collection if not all of it here in the states.


----------



## IowaBayDog (May 17, 2006)

Joe S. said:


> Remember that:
> 
> The next time you use GPS. (Military development.)
> The next time you fly on an airplane. (Military development.)
> ...


Ahem, GPS may have used Gov't Dollars but it was developed and perfected by my current employer. Though the funds were gov't it was a free enterprise competition between three different contractors to see who could get it done first. We won and currently build 90% of the GPS units in Commercial and Military aircraft. It was the free enterprise portion that made it the success it is today.

Airplane development was also done by free enterprise partly funded by Gov't some not at all. Nearly all of the advancements in Flight Technology were developed by free enterprise, a good number by my 19,000 co-workers. Our company spends 100s of millions on R&D a year that ends up in both commercial and military aviation. One of the most noted advancements in Military aviation was/is the airborne radio that was developed in the garage of our founder, Arthur Collins, during WWII all on his own dime.

Most medical advancement were done on the free enterprise side as well, though gov't research grants certainly have successes in that area. The gov't has done more to destroy our system than it has to help though.

Avionics Engineer Regards,

Dan C.


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

IowaBayDog said:


> Ahem, GPS may have used Gov't Dollars but it was developed and perfected by my current employer. Though the funds were gov't it was a free enterprise competition between three different contractors to see who could get it done first. We won and currently build 90% of the GPS units in Commercial and Military aircraft. It was the free enterprise portion that made it the success it is today.
> 
> Airplane development was also done by free enterprise partly funded by Gov't some not at all. Nearly all of the advancements in Flight Technology were developed by free enterprise, a good number by my 19,000 co-workers. Our company spends 100s of millions on R&D a year that ends up in both commercial and military aviation. One of the most noted advancements in Military aviation was/is the airborne radio that was developed in the garage of our founder, Arthur Collins, during WWII all on his own dime.
> 
> ...


So are you telling me the Gooberment is not a REAL business full of intelligent and motivated people? NO FREAKING WAY!!!!


Next thing you will be trying to get me to believe is the Gooberment has no means of income other than milking the citizens of this country dry via income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, licensing, etc.


----------



## Charlie Lesser (Mar 31, 2004)

Some of yous guys are really scary--but ignorance is bliss!!!


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

Charlie Lesser said:


> Some of yous guys are really scary--but ignorance is bliss!!!


Scary and ignorant.

Do you have a position on anything or do you just resort to name calling?


----------



## dixidawg (Jan 5, 2003)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> Joe, there are two reasons I'm not selling and emigrating. 1 my home is paid for and 2 I'd have to leave much of my arms collection if not all of it here in the states.



You may have to give up that arms collection even if you stay here.....


http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-a...ond-amendment/

Talk about a smoking gun...
October 6, 2008 - by David T. Hardy

Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama must demonstrate executive experience, but he remains strangely silent about his eight years (1994-2002) as a director of the Joyce Foundation, a billion dollar tax-exempt organization. He has one obvious reason: during his time as director, Joyce Foundation spent millions creating and supporting anti-gun organizations.

There is another, less known, reason.

During Obama’s tenure, the Joyce Foundation board planned and implemented a program targeting the Supreme Court. The work began five years into Obama’s directorship, when the Foundation had experience in turning its millions into anti-gun “grassroots” organizations, but none at converting cash into legal scholarship.

The plan’s objective was bold: the judicial obliteration of the Second Amendment.

Joyce’s directors found a vulnerable point. When judges cannot rely upon past decisions, they sometimes turn to law review articles. Law reviews are impartial, and famed for meticulous cite-checking. They are also produced on a shoestring. Authors of articles receive no compensation; editors are law students who work for a tiny stipend.

In 1999, midway through Obama’s tenure, the Joyce board voted to grant the Chicago-Kent Law Review $84,000, a staggering sum by law review standards. The Review promptly published an issue in which all articles attacked the individual right view of the Second Amendment.

In a breach of law review custom, Chicago-Kent let an “outsider” serve as editor; he was Carl Bogus, a faculty member of a different law school. Bogus had a unique distinction: he had been a director of Handgun Control Inc. (today’s Brady Campaign), and was on the advisory board of the Joyce-funded Violence Policy Center.

Bogus solicited only articles hostile to the individual right view of the Second Amendment, offering authors $5,000 each. But word leaked out, and Prof. Randy Barnett of Boston University volunteered to write in defense of the individual right to arms. Bogus refused to allow him to write for the review, later explaining that “sometimes a more balanced debate is best served by an unbalanced symposium.” Prof. James Lindgren, a former Chicago-Kent faculty member, remembers that when Barnett sought an explanation he “was given conflicting reasons, but the opposition of the Joyce Foundation was one that surfaced at some time.” Joyce had bought a veto power over the review’s content.

Joyce Foundation apparently believed it held this power over the entire university. Glenn Reynolds later recalled that when he and two other professors were scheduled to discuss the Second Amendment on campus, Joyce’s staffers “objected strenuously” to their being allowed to speak, protesting that Joyce Foundation was being cheated by an “‘agenda of balance’ that was inconsistent with the Symposium’s purpose.” Joyce next bought up an issue of Fordham Law Review.

The plan worked smoothly. One court, in the course of ruling that there was no individual right to arms, cited the Chicago-Kent articles eight times. Then, in 2001, a federal Court of Appeals in Texas determined that the Second Amendment was an individual right.

The Joyce Foundation board (which still included Obama) responded by expanding its attack on the Second Amendment. Its next move came when Ohio State University announced it was establishing the “Second Amendment Research Center” as a thinktank headed by anti-individual-right historian Saul Cornell. Joyce put up no less than $400,000 to bankroll its creation. The grant was awarded at the board’s December 2002 meeting, Obama’s last function as a Joyce director. In reporting the grant, the OSU magazine Making History made clear that the purpose was to influence a future Supreme Court case:

“The effort is timely: a series of test cases - based on a new wave of scholarship, a recent decision by a federal Court of Appeals in Texas, and a revised Justice Department policy-are working their way through the courts. The litigants challenge the courts’ traditional reading of the Second Amendment as a protection of the states’ right to organize militia, asserting that the Amendment confers a much broader right for individuals to own guns. The United States Supreme Court is likely to resolve the debate within the next three to five years.”

(45:17-18; online link; slow).

The Center proceeded to generate articles denying the individual right to arms. The OSU connection also gave Joyce an academic money laundry. When it decided to buy an issue of the Stanford Law and Policy Review, it had a cover. Joyce handed OSU $125,000 for that purpose; all the law review editors knew was that OSU’s Foundation granted them that breathtaking sum, and a helpful Prof. Cornell volunteered to organize the issue. (The review was later sufficiently embarassed to publish an open letter on the affair).

The Joyce directorate’s plan almost succeeded. The individual rights view won out in the Heller Supreme Court appeal, but only by 5-4. The four dissenters were persuaded in part by Joyce-funded writings, down to relying on an article which misled them on critical historical documents.

Having lost that fight, Obama now claims he always held the individual rights view of the Second Amendment, and that he “respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms.” But as a Joyce director, Obama was involved in a wealthy foundation’s attempt to manipulate the Supreme Court, buy legal scholarship, and obliterate the individual right to arms.

Voters who value the Constitution should ask whether someone who was party to that plan should be nominating future Supreme Court justices.

David T. Hardy has practiced law since 1975. He has five books and thirteen law review articles in print, and blogs at Of Arms and the Law. He's also the producer of the documentary In Search of the Second Amendment.


----------



## dixidawg (Jan 5, 2003)

And yet more...

Compare Obama's and McCain's actions and positions supporting RKBA. See who you agree with more -


“I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry” - Sen. Barack Obama
--- Mendell, David, "From Promise to Power" (2007), p. 251. 

“I am not in favor of concealed weapons. I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.” - Sen. Barack Obama
--- Pittsburg Tribune-Review (April 2, 2008). 



NRA-ILA: On the Second Amendment, Don’t Believe Obama! 

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Fe...d.aspx?id=3991

The presidential primary season is finally over, and it is now time for gun owners to take a careful look at just where apparent nominee Barack Obama stands on issues related to the Second Amendment. During the primaries, Obama tried to hide behind vague statements of support for “sportsmen” or unfounded claims of general support for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

But his real record, based on votes taken, political associations, and long standing positions, shows that Barack Obama is a serious threat to Second Amendment liberties. Don’t listen to his campaign rhetoric! Look instead to what he has said and done during his entire political career.

FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.

FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.

FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.

FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.

FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.

FACT: Barack Obama supports requiring law-abiding gun owners to register their firearms.

FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.

FACT: Barack Obama wants to eliminate your Right to Carry.

FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”

FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.

FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.

FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.

FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.

FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.

FACT: Barack Obama supports “one-gun-a-month” sales restrictions.

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment. 

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.



Here's what McCain's official campaign website says:

John McCain believes that the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, individual Constitutional right that we have a sacred duty to protect. We have a responsibility to ensure that criminals who violate the law are prosecuted to the fullest, rather than restricting the rights of law abiding citizens. Gun control is a proven failure in fighting crime. Law abiding citizens should not be asked to give up their rights because of criminals - criminals who ignore gun control laws anyway. 

Gun Manufacturer Liability 
John McCain opposes backdoor attempts to restrict Second Amendment rights by holding gun manufacturers liable for crimes committed by third parties using a firearm, and has voted to protect gun manufacturers from such inappropriate liability aimed at bankrupting the entire gun industry. 

Assault Weapons 
John McCain opposes restrictions on so-called "assault rifles" and voted consistently against such bans. Most recently he opposed an amendment to extend a ban on 19 specific firearms, and others with similar characteristics. 

Importation of High Capacity Magazines 
John McCain opposes bans on the importation of certain types of ammunition magazines and has voted against such limitations. 

Gun Locks 
John McCain believes that every firearms owner has a responsibility to learn how to safely use and store the firearm they have chosen, whether for target shooting, hunting, or personal protection. He has supported legislation requiring gun manufacturers to include gun safety devices such as trigger locks in product packaging. 

Banning Ammunition 
John McCain believes that banning ammunition is just another way to undermine Second Amendment rights. He voted against an amendment that would have banned many of the most commonly used hunting cartridges on the spurious grounds that they were "armor-piercing." 

DC Personal Protection 
As part of John McCain's defense of Second Amendment rights, he cosponsored legislation to lift a ban on the law abiding citizens of the District of Columbia from exercising their Constitutional right to bear arms. 


Criminal Background Checks 
John McCain supports instant criminal background checks to help prohibit criminals from buying firearms and has voted to ensure they are conducted thoroughly, efficiently, and without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens. 

Background Checks at Gun Shows 
At a time when some were trying to shut down gun shows in the name of fighting crime, John McCain tried to preserve gun shows by standardizing sales procedures. Federal law requires licensed firearm sellers at gun shows to do an instant criminal background check on purchasers while private firearm sellers at gun shows do not have to conduct such a check. John McCain introduced legislation that would require an instant criminal background check for all sales at gun shows and believes that such checks must be conducted quickly to ensure that unnecessary delays do not effectively block transactions. 

The Firearm Purchase Waiting Period 
John McCain has opposed "waiting periods" for law abiding citizen's purchase of firearms. 

The confiscation of firearms after an emergency 
John McCain opposes the confiscation of firearms from private citizens, particularly during times of crisis or emergency. He voted in favor of an amendment sponsored by Senator David Vitter prohibiting such confiscation. 

Stiffer Penalties for Criminals who use a Firearm in the Commission of a Crime 
John McCain believes in strict, mandatory penalties for criminals who use a firearm in the commission of a crime or illegally possess a firearm. Enforcing the current laws on the books is the best way to deter crime. 
__________________

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the biggest reasons I want Senator McCain elected.

From my cold dead fingers regards:


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

IowaBayDog said:


> Ahem, GPS may have used Gov't Dollars but it was developed and perfected by my current employer. Though the funds were gov't it was a free enterprise competition between three different contractors to see who could get it done first. We won and currently build 90% of the GPS units in Commercial and Military aircraft. It was the free enterprise portion that made it the success it is today.
> 
> Airplane development was also done by free enterprise partly funded by Gov't some not at all. Nearly all of the advancements in Flight Technology were developed by free enterprise, a good number by my 19,000 co-workers. Our company spends 100s of millions on R&D a year that ends up in both commercial and military aviation. One of the most noted advancements in Military aviation was/is the airborne radio that was developed in the garage of our founder, Arthur Collins, during WWII all on his own dime.
> 
> ...


Oh, an avionics engineer, then let me make this easier for you to understand, Danny:

If it is government funded, it is a government program.

GPS = Government Program

Flight = Government Program

NIH = Government Program

Regarding flight, my actual thought was was back to Wright Brothers. It is just plain stupid to suggest that had the government not gotten involved in furthering the development and application of the flight that we would be where we are today. This doesn't even take into account the various "spin-offs" that have been developed.

Here is an interesting tid-bit: In about 1908 during a test flight for the Army, the Wright's airplane crashed killing Lt. Thomas Selfridge and destroying the airplane. Of course, the Army wanted another airplane. The Wright's built another airplane that came back exceeding the contract requirements, ahead of schedule and under budget...marking the first and only time that a defense contractor has been able to accomplish this. (Now, the requirements/ahead of schedule/under budget part is true...the first and only time part is a joke, I think...but you strike me as the kind of person that has a lot of jokes in their life, Danny, so I'm sure you can understand this one.)

Kind Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## IowaBayDog (May 17, 2006)

Joe S. said:


> Oh, an avionics engineer, then let me make this easier for you to understand, Danny:
> 
> If it is government funded, it is a government program.
> 
> ...


You are original, never heard anyone imply Avionics Engineers were dumb before. I hope that haunts you every time you step on airplane. I would gladly put the cumulative IQ of my colleauges up against yours anyday.

Your view of Gov't programs does not surprise me. It is a little absurd that you have been going around on these forums professing to "not have made up your mind" on the election yet. Yet all your opinions are dyed in the wool liberal. I guess it is easier that way so you can bash one side and not have to defend the other or your beliefs. Nice tactic, unfortunetly no one is buying it.

It always baffles me when people think the gov't is the solution to everything yet they have a deep hate for the current gov't. 

What have you invented regards?


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

IowaBayDog said:


> You are original, never heard anyone imply Avionics Engineers were dumb before. I hope that haunts you every time you step on airplane. I would gladly put the cumulative IQ of my colleauges up against yours anyday.
> 
> Your view of Gov't programs does not surprise me. It is a little absurd that you have been going around on these forums professing to "not have made up your mind" on the election yet. Yet all your opinions are dyed in the wool liberal. I guess it is easier that way so you can bash one side and not have to defend the other or your beliefs. Nice tactic, unfortunetly no one is buying it.
> 
> ...


What you find absurd about my life could not mean less to me, Danny.

Again, let me make it easier for you to understand, being an engineer and all...Senator Obama concerns me. Senator McCain concerns me. A friend of mine sent me an e-mail and suggested that McCain has "stuck a knife in the back of his party' everytime he has felt they were not acting in the best interest of the country and the same can't be said for Senator Obama. I find that to be true no matter if I agree with Senator McCain's reasoning or not. That really resonated with me...so I remain conflicted.

As to you being baffled, I don't find that an absurd concept at all.

Have a nice day, Danny.

Kind Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Joe S. said:


> If it is government funded, it is a government program.
> 
> GPS = Government Program
> 
> ...


I think the point/and difference Joe is that what you are describing as a gov program is what most of us would consider free enterprise. Various companies make bids on a project. It is still a competitive venture which generally brings about the best/cost effective way to handle something. Medicare is more gov run and is a mess. It concerns me greatly to think of gov run healthcare system. I don't have near the problem with a gov FUNDED program that allows competition between companies. Helps pay for it but allows the individual to find the best company for them. One of the things I like about McCains plan with the tax credit is that it isn't a bigger welfare type healthcare program because the credit is given to those that are already contributing to the system. Those are the folks that have the biggest need for aid. The truly poor that aren't working already have programs set up in most/if not all states.


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

IowaBayDog said:


> What have you invented regards?


Joe invented the world's largerst beer bong...thank you very much.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpalvKJOK1o


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

I received this in an email locally:
SEAN HANNITY (OF HANNITY & COLMES ~ FOX NEWS) is going to air an important documentary on Barack Obama. He stated on the air last night that no one in the news media was willing to do this.

Hannity is going back to Obama's earlier days, showing his ties to radical professors, friends, spiritual advisors, etc. He stated he will show in detail Obama's ties to Rev. Wright for 20+ years, how he was participating with him.


Hannity says he is determined that this information be put out because Americans still do not know about Obama.
--------------
I wonder if he will touch on the Joyce Foundation? Hannity is certainly right wing, but it does seem that the media has done very little to show the past affiliations that have shaped Obama's perspectives. Since he has had such a short tenure in DC, there is not nearly as much to go by.


----------



## DSemple (Feb 16, 2008)

Instead of don't vote for him because of {_you fill in the blank_} bull shi+.

I'd sure like to see both them come up with a solid economic plan and how they are going to implement it and then lay them out on the table for discussion.

....Don _(a McCain guy)_


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

I'm far more interested in how they are going to protect America from foreign enemies, eg the islamofacists. I have heard not a word from the dems on national security. One has to be alive to worry about $$$$


----------



## IowaBayDog (May 17, 2006)

Joe S. said:


> What you find absurd about my life could not mean less to me, Danny.
> 
> Again, let me make it easier for you to understand, being an engineer and all...Senator Obama concerns me. Senator McCain concerns me. A friend of mine sent me an e-mail and suggested that McCain has "stuck a knife in the back of his party' everytime he has felt they were not acting in the best interest of the country and the same can't be said for Senator Obama. I find that to be true no matter if I agree with Senator McCain's reasoning or not. That really resonated with me...so I remain conflicted.
> 
> ...


 
After all your professed research it took an email from a friend to figure out that McCain has bucked his party? Yet I'm the slow one 

Since you've resorted to belittling my profession and name I'd hate to see what you do to those that their opinions do mean something to you. I didn't even have to break out the Air Force jokes.

I've already had a nice day chasing Iowa bucks around with the string and stick while scouting out an awesome spot for the Duck opener next weekend . I've lived in Virginia, I sympathize with your bitterness.


----------



## K.Bullock (May 15, 2008)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> I'm far more interested in how they are going to protect America from foreign enemies, eg the islamofacists. I have heard not a word from the dems on national security. One has to be alive to worry about $$$$


 Whatever you do Bob...do not follow this link --->http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdtirp4XdGs


----------



## K.Bullock (May 15, 2008)

IowaBayDog said:


> After all your professed research it took an email from a friend to figure out that McCain has bucked his party? Yet I'm the slow one
> 
> Since you've resorted to belittling my profession and name I'd hate to see what you do to those that their opinions do mean something to you. I didn't even have to break out the Air Force jokes.
> 
> I've already had a nice day chasing Iowa bucks around with the string and stick while scouting out an awesome spot for the Duck opener next weekend . I've lived in Virginia, I sympathize with your bitterness.


 Ah don't sweat sweat it ...according to Joe I am a bad Christian that should not have the right to vote... I think that passes for communication with him. Either that or there just isn't anything of substance to be said ..who knows? 

But do try to keep in mind on these boards that if you run trials and tests ....you may come face to face with someone on here. 

I doubt these comments would be made in person. Joe's probably a good guy in a non political season.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

K.Bullock said:


> --->http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdtirp4XdGs


Now that's SCARY!!!!!!!!


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

Scary? that is a huge understatement.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> Scary? that is a huge understatement.


Bob - I was SHOUTING!!!!!


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

IowaBayDog said:


> I would gladly put the cumulative IQ of my colleauges up against yours anyday.


That right there is funny, I don't care who ya are.

Ganging up regards...


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> I received this in an email locally:
> SEAN HANNITY (OF HANNITY & COLMES ~ FOX NEWS) is going to air an important documentary on Barack Obama. He stated on the air last night that no one in the news media was willing to do this.
> 
> Hannity is going back to Obama's earlier days, showing his ties to radical professors, friends, spiritual advisors, etc. He stated he will show in detail Obama's ties to Rev. Wright for 20+ years, how he was participating with him.
> ...


Hannity is a useless waste of the food and oxygen. I can listen to Rush and O'Reilly, but Hannity is impossible for me to stomach. And as for Colmes, could the FOX Network have found wimpier Liberal to put on against him? Good Lord, the guy reminds me of Alfred E. Neuman.


----------



## IowaBayDog (May 17, 2006)

Buzz said:


> _I would gladly put the cumulative IQ of my colleauges up against yours anyday.
> _
> 
> 
> ...


Not worded very well ! It was 5:16am pre-coffee with bow hunting on my mind! But then again so is this reply.

Should have been:
"I would gladly put the average IQ of my colleauges up against that of your colleauges anyday."


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

Hew said:


> ...thus proving Twain's maxim that a lie can travel around the world twice before the truth can even put its pants on. The AIP issued a statement that they made a mistake and Sarah Palin was never a member of the AIP. Broaden your horizons...the news world out there is a lot bigger than just the Daily Kos and Moveon.


I assumed that the reference was to the confirmed fact that Todd Palin was (is?) a member of the AIP. Sarah Palin only spoke at their convention. 

It's pretty clear that Todd comes as part of a package with Sarah given his propensity to sit in the governor's office while demanding action from state employees in her name. I think husband and partner is a little closer relationship than disavowed minister or a neighbor and well-known Chicago philanthropist (as Ayers is routinely described by others outside the Obama camp in Chicago) who once hosted one of many neighborhood fund raisers for a city council hopeful. 

With respect to Keating and McCain, Keating's reputation and position were well known at the time of McCain's involvement. McCain certainly gave Keating access and intervened on his behalf as well as accepting favors from him. His actions were not as egregious as those of the Senators that were censored by the ethics committee and for that reason he was only cited for bad judgment -- still a serious rebuke. McCain clearly admitted his own boneheadedness in his memoirs _as did Obama _concerning Obama's own purchase, at fair market value, of 10 feet of property from his new next door neighbor who is now negotiating a plea bargain. Keating's crimes cost the public billions of dollars and were enabled in part by his Senate friends, the Keating Five. 

Personally, I think the boneheaded mistakes of both men are fair game in the election. I don't think either is decisive, but McCain's involvement with Keating is certainly the more serious.


----------



## Hew (Jan 7, 2003)

> I assumed that the reference was to the confirmed fact that Todd Palin was (is?) a member of the AIP. Sarah Palin only spoke at their convention.


I'm curious about the "is?" in your above sentence. I gather you have some evidence that suggests both Todd Palin and AIP are lying when they say that he's no longer a member of the AIP?



> I think husband and partner is a little closer relationship than disavowed minister or a neighbor and well-known Chicago philanthropist (as Ayers is routinely described by others outside the Obama camp in Chicago) who once hosted one of many neighborhood fund raisers for a city council hopeful.


Come now. Even the Obama campaign has abandoned the silly notion that Ayers was "just some guy who lived in my neighborhood" meme. While I don't think that Obama danced on American flags on Saturday nights with Ayers, the facts indicate that domestic terrorist Ayers and Obama were _way_ more entwined with each other than you're trying to contend. A Wall Street Journal op-ed spells it out: http://www.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html

Kudos on an even-handed account of McCain/Keating.


----------



## Ron Beck (Jan 14, 2003)

Anybody who likes guns, gun dogs, hunting, hunt testing, trialing, etc. and would vote for Obama is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.

rb


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

I'm still trying to figure out how a young man of modest means take some time off from college, goes on a multi-country overseas junket, then goes to Columbia U, then Harvard Law (I heard no mention of a scholarship for those schools). Goes to work as at $12,000 a year to start out. I can understand that his intelligence led him to a big law firm. Can't live on $12,000/year for very long  Runs a couple of multi-million dollar "foundations", heads into government, and within 20 years (or so) can purchase a $1.65 million mansion. Even with 20% down, the mortgage payments on such a home have to be pretty stunning. 

I can understand that John McCain's wife had considerable wealth from her family's business. I don't know whether his net worth is a result of that or his own personal wealth accumulation. 



> Personally, I think the boneheaded mistakes of both men are fair game in the election.


Yup, I'm sure that all of us (including Presidential candidates) do some boneheaded things in our lives. The rest of us are very fortunate that those errors in judgment don't end up as headlines  Clinton does have to hold the record though  He continued to make the same mistakes even after he knew that they could become headlines. Since Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, maybe we shouldn't place IQ so high on the list of criteria for a POTUS? Some old-fashioned common sense might have served him better. 

Why does no Presidential candidate EVER bring up how much money would be saved by revamping the retirement program for those who serve in Congress? Or incorporating those people into the same Social Security program that everyone else is compelled to belong to?

Federal congress-people do not participate in Social Security. They have no personal, vested interest in "fixing" it since they don't have to depend on it. Further, both state and other municipal governments can opt out of Social Security by providing an alternative plan for their employees. I understand that the health insurance plan for PA state congress-people is even more luxurious than that of the Federal one, so most PA congress-people retain their PA plan instead of going into the Fed health plan. Most other citizens could not afford to purchase the benefits of such upscale plans.

I really appreciate many of the thoughtful comments made in these political discussions (bonehead comments notwithstanding). It does make one wonder how we continue to elect so many people at all government levels that ultimately become the components of such a "detached" and, in many instances, downright corrupt group. What are we missing here? We keep ending up with the tail wagging the dog.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Ron Beck said:


> Anybody who likes guns, gun dogs, hunting, hunt testing, trialing, etc. and would vote for Obama is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.
> 
> rb


I've been preaching this forever but it's easier to stick their heads in the sand and pretend that our gun rights will never be threatened.


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

Hew said:


> I'm curious about the "is?" in your above sentence. I gather you have some evidence that suggests both Todd Palin and AIP are lying when they say that he's no longer a member of the AIP?
> 
> 
> Come now. Even the Obama campaign has abandoned the silly notion that Ayers was "just some guy who lived in my neighborhood" meme. While I don't think that Obama danced on American flags on Saturday nights with Ayers, the facts indicate that domestic terrorist Ayers and Obama were _way_ more entwined with each other than you're trying to contend. A Wall Street Journal op-ed spells it out: http://www.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html
> ...


Actually my question mark on the word "is" was just that. I know that the AIP had announced that he joined the organization but was never particularly active. I did not know if he had ever actually quit the AIP.

With respect to Ayers, I believe it would be hard for a person involved in community based philanthropic activities in Chicago over the last many years to have not had some relationship with Ayers. He has been very active there and is well respected, not because of his past but in spite of it. Note that the work mentioned in the editorial piece from the WSJ relates to Obama's involvement with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge with which both Ayers and Obama were involved. The Challenge was one of several experimental projects to improve urban education that was funded by the Annenberg Foundation following a review of proposals from throughout the nation. Ayers was one of the authors of the Chicago proposal and remained active in the program during its five year life. Following the award of a grant for $49 million, Barack Obama was a member of the original Board of Directors and was appointed as the original Chairman of the Board until he resigned to run for office in 1999. 2-3 years later the Challenge project was closed when analyses found that it had not succeeded in having a significant positive effect on educational outcomes.


----------



## Hew (Jan 7, 2003)

> Actually my question mark on the word "is" was just that. I know that the AIP had announced that he joined the organization but was never particularly active. I did not know if he had ever actually quit the AIP.


Not that I think you (or anyone) hang on my every word, but I presumed you had seen where I wrote the years of Todd Palin's membership, and were questioning the veracity of that. My bad.



> With respect to Ayers, I believe it would be hard for a person involved in community based philanthropic activities in Chicago over the last many years to have not had some relationship with Ayers. He has been very active there and is well respected, not because of his past but in spite of it. Note that the work mentioned in the editorial piece from the WSJ relates to Obama's involvement with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge with which both Ayers and Obama were involved. The Challenge was one of several experimental projects to improve urban education that was funded by the Annenberg Foundation following a review of proposals from throughout the nation. Ayers was one of the authors of the Chicago proposal and remained active in the program during its five year life. Following the award of a grant for $49 million, Barack Obama was a member of the original Board of Directors and was appointed as the original Chairman of the Board until he resigned to run for office in 1999. 2-3 years later the Challenge project was closed when analyses found that it had not succeeded in having a significant positive effect on educational outcomes.


OK. Now we're getting somewhere. Glad to see you agree that their relationship was much more than casual, and they were both involved in trying to improve Chicago schools with leftist social engineering hoohaw. This failed effort represents the totality of Obama's executive, the-buck-stops-on-my-desk experience, does it not?

BTW...the same Annenberg folks who saw fit to give money to an unrepentent terrorist are also behind FactCheck.org...the supposed Holy Grail of parsing political BS. To borrow from Capt. Renault, I'm shocked, SHOCKED I say, that FactCheck fails to see much of an Ayers/Obama connection.


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

Hew said:


> Not that I think you (or anyone) hang on my every word, but I presumed you had seen where I wrote the years of Todd Palin's membership, and were questioning the veracity of that. My bad.
> 
> 
> OK. Now we're getting somewhere. Glad to see you agree that their relationship was much more than casual, and they were both involved in trying to improve Chicago schools with leftist social engineering hoohaw. This failed effort represents the totality of Obama's executive, the-buck-stops-on-my-desk experience, does it not?
> ...


And i assume you know that the Annenberg Foudation is controlled by Mrs Annenberg who is a _*McCain *_supporter.


----------



## brian breuer (Jul 12, 2003)

Ron Beck said:


> Anybody who likes guns, gun dogs, hunting, hunt testing, trialing, etc. and would vote for Obama is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.
> 
> rb


Personally, I am more concerned that there won't be any places left to hunt long before any regulations take my guns away. You should see what the oil industry is doing to the western Dakota prairie. The NEPA process doesn't seem to apply to oil companies. CRP is also fading fast. 

Gun control is a hot button topic and the NRA is masterful at spreading fear. The loss of habitat has certainly taken a back seat to $4.00 / gallon gas. 

There is a constitutional amendment standing in the way of my guns, our wide open spaces aren't as well protected. 

Brian


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

No need to spread fear, its palpable. Between the members of the Jobama ticket they voted no on each member of SCOTUS who voted to uphold Heller v DC. The most improtant SCOTUS case on point in my lifetime won by one vote. I don't like the odds of that case not being overturned if the Jobama ticket wins next month.


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

IowaBayDog said:


> I've already had a nice day chasing Iowa bucks around with the string and stick while scouting out an awesome spot for the Duck opener next weekend . I've lived in Virginia, I sympathize with your bitterness.


Don't cry for me, Argentina. ;-)

Woodduck hunt in the morning in the swamps east of Richmond, then putting up tree stands for deer season and generally get ready for the fun stuff.

I've heard they have nice deer in Iowa, hope you bag a big one.

Be Safe In Your Stand Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## brian breuer (Jul 12, 2003)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> No need to spread fear, its palpable. Between the members of the Jobama ticket they voted no on each member of SCOTUS who voted to uphold Heller v DC. The most improtant SCOTUS case on point in my lifetime won by one vote. I don't like the odds of that case not being overturned if the Jobama ticket wins next month.


And either way it didn't affect my right (or anyone else's) to shoot a buck or a rooster one iota. However, no CRP and oil wells every mile on the mile are. Either way that "most important SCOTUS case" didn't affect my ability to train a dog or shoot a flier as so many on here would like the rest of us to believe.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

brian breuer said:


> And either way it didn't affect my right (or anyone else's) to shoot a buck or a rooster one iota. However, no CRP and oil wells every mile on the mile are. Either way that "most important SCOTUS case" didn't affect my ability to train a dog or shoot a flier as so many on here would like the rest of us to believe.


The hell it didn't. If the SCOTUS had determined that the right was not intended for individuals and only for the malitia, how long do you think it would have been before the laws and lawsuits would have been flying through? 
As far as the oil wells and CRP. It only affects it for a while then the CRP is either back(as a result of the farmers enrollment) or its not. The laws that affect the CRP program are important if thats your issue, NOT the oil rigs. 
On a side note, if you don't like oil wells(which in my experience do not affect wildlife at all) then wait until the windmill farms start up.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

Among other effects, Heller made it legal in DC for law abiding citizens to keep firearms in the home for self defense. Any decision tht effects the rights of a fellow law abiding citizen effects me. If they decide that your 1100 is an assault weapon some day down the road do you not want those of us who shoot O/Us to stand up for your rights?

What part of 'Shall not be infringed' do some folks not understand?


----------



## dixidawg (Jan 5, 2003)

I didn't know the 2nd amendment was only for hunting shotguns. So as long as it doesn't directly affect you, it's ok to trash the constitution?


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

My quarter century as a street cop convinced me that no gun control scheme will ever reduce crime. If you want to disarm dangerous criminals, lock em up and throw away the keys instead of giving them probation and parole and then letting them vote.

If Hussein gets in the white House and Pelosei and Reid continue to control what will become the Democratic Reichstag, you may be assured that Boxer, Feinstein Schumer and Clinton will try to resurrect Brady and every other crazy gun grabbing idea they can think of. They can take mine when I run out of ammo.

Does anyone really think we will be able to hunt or run dog games when the dimocrats treehugging buddies start demanding the passage of their legislative adgenda? OR actually own a pruebred dog for that matter?


----------



## FoggMoore (Oct 28, 2007)

Bob,

While I was certainly personally gratified by the Heller decision, I suspect that strict control of handguns would lower the number of homicides. Apparently the police chiefs of most large urban cities think so. In regard to incarcerating dangerous criminals and throwing away the key, it sounds good but most people don't want the tax increase that it would take to do it. 

Lanier Fogg


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

Bruce Loeffelholz said:


> The first "pry my cold dead fingers.........." bumper sticker I ever saw was in a T.G. & Y. sporting goods department in 1964. That was 44 years ago. I feel no threat that hunting shotguns are ever going to be taken away. I support gun control legislation.
> 
> Bruce


 
I support taking your shotgun but not my handgun. Handguns are needed for personal protection.

Why do you need a hunting shotgun? Why should you be allowed to kill animal? Hunting shotguns should be the next fireams earmarked for control.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

Lanier, the cities with the strictest control of firearms tend to be murder capitols. eg DC, Chicago,Philly & NY. Contrast their FBI uniform crime reports with, say, Kennesaw GA where the law abiding are encouraged to own firearms. Many of those Police Chiefs serve at the pleasure of anti gun mayors. Bloomberg in NY, Dayley in Chi., and the mayor of Philly whose name eludes me.

Incarceration need not be expensive. Back in the 1960's Arkansas had two prison farms, Tucker and Cummins, where inmates actually raised much of the food that was served in the dining hall. At that time it was the only American prison system operating in the black.


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

subroc said:


> I support taking your shotgun but not my handgun. Handguns are needed for personal protection.
> 
> Why do you need a hunting shotgun? Why should you be allowed to kill animal? Hunting shotguns should be the next fireams earmarked for control.


Anyone who believes other than what subroc has stated is either ill informed or lying to get their legislation passed.

We now have the FOUR big lies

1) Of course I love you, baby!
2) We're from the government and we're here to help you.
3) The check is in the mail.
4) We only want to have gun control for handguns…your guns for hunting will never be touched….B.S.!!!


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQalRPQ8stI

After viewing this video, and seeing how the kool aid crowd(I think a few from this board) view the 1st Amendment, I really feer for our rights under the 1st and 2nd if the looney left gets control of our government.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> [/QUOTEthink the current administration is so very far right that they are off the charts, by putting in someone who is left of that, the country will have to come off that position and back towards the center. It won't get as far left as many on the right suggest, I think, because he will be more transparent in his administration than is currently done
> 
> 
> Thats funny
> ...


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

Actually Patrick, I expect scoped hunting rifles will be targeted next. The left has an uncanny way of vilifying. In the same way they created a hysteria against handguns by adding the moniker Saturday Night Special, I wouldn’t be surprised if scoped hunting rifles are identified as a “Sniper Rifles” and that moniker will be used to ask the question why would anyone need a Sniper Rifle. 


Either way, divide and conquer...


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

Either way, divide and conquer... Exactly. I don't bow hunt nor have a muzzleloader, but I fully support the rights of those who do.


----------



## FoggMoore (Oct 28, 2007)

Bob,

I do not like the idea that my right to have a firearm may be impaired because they are misused by others. However, looking at the situation objectively, draconian handgun control laws would probably have the effect of reducing homicides.

I don't think that strict gun control laws are what increased the homicide rate in those cities that you mentioned and comparing the homicide rate of Kennesaw, GA to the large urban cities is apples to oranges.

Regardless of the fact that Cummings and Tucker operated in the black in the 1960s for a period of time, incarceration at this time is very expensive.

Lanier Fogg


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

Strict firearms laws didn't increase the crime rate? I can believe that, but the rationale behind many gun laws, esp those controling handguns has been to DECREASE crime, by supposedly keeping crooks from getting guns. NY's Sullivan law(state wide) has been in effect for about a century. It has done NOTHING to stop gun crime.


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

FoggMoore said:


> Bob,
> 
> I do not like the idea that my right to have a firearm may be impaired because they are misused by others. However, looking at the situation objectively, draconian handgun control laws would probably have the effect of reducing homicides.
> 
> ...




Using whose objectivity?

My objectivity tells me that draconian handgun control:
Will not reduce gun crime in urban areas. Criminals will just use long guns.
Will give gun control activist as toehold to attack the second amendment.
Will only hurt law-abiding citizen in their ability to protect themselves with a weapon of choice.

When I was in school, I did a paper on mandatory jail term laws. One study I cited was, if I remember correctly, in Detroit. They had a mandatory 2-year sentence for using a gun in a crime. Sounded great. 2 years on top of the sentence you receive for the crime you commit, just great. Well, reality differs appreciably from theory. Most cases get plea-bargained. So, prosecutors had set points for crimes. An example would be prior to the law, they would plea, 5 years for an armed robbery, but after the mandatory 2 year gun law, a plea would be 2 years for the mandatory gun, and 3 for the armed robbery, still 5 years.

Draconian only hurts honest, law abiding folks, not criminals.


----------



## John Kelder (Mar 10, 2006)

liberals care more about criminals than good citizens.


----------



## brian breuer (Jul 12, 2003)

achiro said:


> The hell it didn't. If the SCOTUS had determined that the right was not intended for individuals and only for the malitia, how long do you think it would have been before the laws and lawsuits would have been flying through?
> As far as the oil wells and CRP. It only affects it for a while then the CRP is either back(as a result of the farmers enrollment) or its not. The laws that affect the CRP program are important if thats your issue, NOT the oil rigs.
> On a side note, if you don't like oil wells(which in my experience do not affect wildlife at all) then wait until the windmill farms start up.


No it didn't. I shot bucks, ducks and pheasants before the ruling and after. I am sure you did too. So no, that ruling had not one iota of affect on the ability to hunt. 

The oil rigs and CRP are separate issues. Sorry if I made it sound like it was one issue. Millions of acres of CRP are being lost due to high commodity prices. That means very few pheasant, ducks, geese, or prairie grouse. And out here it means a lot fewer deer. 

If you think oil rigs don't affect wildlife please come take a look at our National Grasslands. Mule deer do not Ask the residents of Wyoming what natural gas exploration did to the Red Desert herd of antelope.


----------

