ObaMessiah v McCain

[rictic]

The United States is, arguably, the most powerful nation in the World, with some of the finest, most intelligent minds in the World. So how the hell did we end up with ObaMessiah and McCain running for President ????
I don't think there's a brain cell between them....

[PTravel]

Hmmm. a political discussion. Okay, I'll bite:

1. I doubt if you've ever heard Obama speak (beyond sound bites on television news), and certainly haven't read his speeches. Whatever you may think of the man, stupid he is not.

2. The problem with McCain is not that he is unintelligent, but simply that he is wrong. Whether that is due to being misinformed or simply being lazy with respect to educating himself about the issues, I can not say.

3. I haven't heard enough from Joe Biden to form an opinion.

4. Sarah Palin may or may not be intelligent -- her community college career suggests the latter. However, it doesn't matter because she is insane -- delusional and a classic sociopath. She is also appallingly ignorant.

The mean IQ is 100, meaning there are just as many people with IQs above 100 as below. I'm not suggesting that supporting the Republican ticket means someone is below the mean -- that is obviously not the case. However, it is quite clear that the Republicans have adopted as a specific campaign strategy targeting the sub-100s.

[norml jack]

Hmmm. a political discussion. Okay, I'll bite:

1. I doubt if you've ever heard Obama speak (beyond sound bites on television news), and certainly haven't read his speeches. Whatever you may think of the man, stupid he is not.

2. The problem with McCain is not that he is unintelligent, but simply that he is wrong. Whether that is due to being misinformed or simply being lazy with respect to educating himself about the issues, I can not say.

3. I haven't heard enough from Joe Biden to form an opinion.

4. Sarah Palin may or may not be intelligent -- her community college career suggests the former. However, it doesn't matter because she is insane -- delusional and a classic sociopath. She is also appallingly ignorant.

The mean IQ is 100, meaning there are just as many people with IQs above 100 as below. I'm not suggesting that supporting the Republican ticket means someone is below the mean -- that is obviously not the case. However, it is quite clear that the Republicans have adopted as a specific campaign strategy targeting the sub-100s.

What? Hitler wasn't stupid either.

[PTravel]

No, but he, like Palin, was insane -- delusional and sociopathic. High intelligence doesn't guarantee a good president. However, low intelligence almost certainly ensures a bad one.

[laserjobs]

You are all voting for the same party you just think they are different. US politics is just like the WWE.

[PTravel]

You are all voting for the same party you just think they are different. US politics is just like the WWE.

I don't disagree in the least. My wife is Chinese and we often discuss differences between China and the U.S. We each have just as little influence over our respective governments. In China, there is a single party that must be at least reasonably responsive to the people to avoid revolution (a rather frequent occurrence there) -- there is no one else to blame. . In the U.S., there are two parties, and when the people are dissatisfied the parties just point fingers at each other. Either way, both countries are essentially totalitarian -- if you think not, you've haven't flown commercially lately.

When my wife first came here from China she asked me, "Are we Democrats or Republicans"?

I told her, "The Republicans will take our money and give it to the rich. The Democrats will take our money and give it to the poor. Who do you want to give our money to?"

She said, "I don't want to give our money to anyone. Won't anyone let us keep our money?"

I said, "Nope."

[rictic]

PT, the question wasn't really posed to "bait" anyone. It was posed as a honest felt question. I really would not trust either of them. The "brain-cell" remark was a rather flippant off the cuff remark. They both obviously have some intelligence to be where they are, though whether they still use any of that intelligence may be debatable. I heard a number of Obamessiah speeches prior to the Democratic spin-team working their magic on him to turn him into a very accomplished public speaker and he did not come across as particularly bright. I did like Mc a few years ago however he now appears to have been taken over by the GOP spin team. Who knows perhaps all politicians surrender the intelligence they have to the power of the spin....
You are spot on, it's always the same where you have a 2 party system (the UK, my country of origin, is just the same perhaps even worse), one party rapes & pillages the country for a number of years, the people get sick of it, vote the other party into office, who then turn round and rape & pillage the country. A never ending circle.
Maybe one day the country will be run by the people for the people... There's an idea...

[PTravel]

Maybe one day the country will be run by the people for the people... There's an idea...

Why, comrade, you're starting to sound like my wife!

[rictic]

Maybe one day the country will be run by the people for the people... There's an idea...

Why, comrade, you're starting to sound like my wife!

Your wife is a fan of Abe Lincoln then ? Four score and seven years ago.......

[PGPfan]

Hmmm. a political discussion. Okay, I'll bite:

1. I doubt if you've ever heard Obama speak (beyond sound bites on television news), and certainly haven't read his speeches. Whatever you may think of the man, stupid he is not.

Sorry, I have to point out that just because Obama can deliver a good speech says nothing about him as a man, or candidate. He didn't write the speeches (none of the politicians do) so at best we can infer that the speech writers are intelligent.

2. The problem with McCain is not that he is unintelligent, but simply that he is wrong. Whether that is due to being misinformed or simply being lazy with respect to educating himself about the issues, I can not say.

Sad thing is that I've heard little in the form of real 'action' on Obama's part that has led me to believe that he has any more significant a record of accomplishments than McCain - not that McCain is anything great either.

3. I haven't heard enough from Joe Biden to form an opinion..

I know little of Biden either, HOWEVER (emphasis intended) I'm positive he's a scumbag. Why? Take notice of my forum username (PGPfan) which is derived from my strong belief in the use of PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) which is argueably the best encryption software yet published for secure communication. The author of PGP (Phil Zimmerman) is a staunch liberal Democrat (a viewpoint he and I do NOT share). He felt compelled to create PGP due to several HUGELY anti-privacy pieces of legislation drafted specifically by Joe Biden (according to Zimmerman's bio on his website). I doubt that Mr. Biden has anybodies best interests at heart.

4. Sarah Palin may or may not be intelligent -- her community college career suggests the latter. However, it doesn't matter because she is insane -- delusional and a classic sociopath. She is also appallingly ignorant..

Not sure where your ability to determine insanity comes from, but lets just say it lessens your ability to be percieved with a straight face.

The mean IQ is 100, meaning there are just as many people with IQs above 100 as below. I'm not suggesting that supporting the Republican ticket means someone is below the mean -- that is obviously not the case. However, it is quite clear that the Republicans have adopted as a specific campaign strategy targeting the sub-100s.

And this has what to do with anything? History is riddled with average IQ'ers that have made many significant contributions to society, and is riddled with hi IQ'ers that can't function within a 'normal' society. The ONLY thing that matters is how well you apply what you've been born with.

-PGPfan

FWIW, the ONLY candidate with a real, proven track record - not to mention the only one with demonstrated integrity, is Ron Paul. Yet due to our controlled media, people outside of the internet haven't hardly heard of him.

[PTravel]

FWIW, the ONLY candidate with a real, proven track record - not to mention the only one with demonstrated integrity, is Ron Paul. Yet due to our controlled media, people outside of the internet haven't hardly heard of him.

[/quote]On the contrary -- I've heard from Paul quite a lot. I agree with you -- he has considerable integrity. However, as with McCain, I believe he is simply very wrong.

[PTravel]

Well, I just wrote a long response and managed to accidentally delete it. I'll try again later.

[PTravel]

Okay, I'm back. I'll try again and be a little more careful with my typing.

Hmmm. a political discussion. Okay, I'll bite:

1. I doubt if you've ever heard Obama speak (beyond sound bites on television news), and certainly haven't read his speeches. Whatever you may think of the man, stupid he is not.

Sorry, I have to point out that just because Obama can deliver a good speech says nothing about him as a man, or candidate. He didn't write the speeches (none of the politicians do) so at best we can infer that the speech writers are intelligent.

Well, sorry, but you're wrong. Obama writes his own speeches:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/artic ... 68,00.html

2. The problem with McCain is not that he is unintelligent, but simply that he is wrong. Whether that is due to being misinformed or simply being lazy with respect to educating himself about the issues, I can not say.

Sad thing is that I've heard little in the form of real 'action' on Obama's part that has led me to believe that he has any more significant a record of accomplishments than McCain - not that McCain is anything great either.

Literally, up until today, I had considerable respect for McCain, and believed him to be a man of honesty and integrity. I still respect him for service, both as soldier and senator, and believe that he, like Obama, are running for office for the right reason, i.e. they both want to serve the country to the best of their abilities.

As for Obama's accomplishments, I'd recommend you spend some time at his website. His biography recites his accomplishments and his record has considerably more depth and breadth than the McCain/Palin campaign would like to believe.

3. I haven't heard enough from Joe Biden to form an opinion..

I know little of Biden either, HOWEVER (emphasis intended) I'm positive he's a scumbag. Why? Take notice of my forum username (PGPfan) which is derived from my strong belief in the use of PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) which is argueably the best encryption software yet published for secure communication. The author of PGP (Phil Zimmerman) is a staunch liberal Democrat (a viewpoint he and I do NOT share). He felt compelled to create PGP due to several HUGELY anti-privacy pieces of legislation drafted specifically by Joe Biden (according to Zimmerman's bio on his website). I doubt that Mr. Biden has anybodies best interests at heart.

I'm a strong privacy advocate. I'll have to investigate Biden's voting record in this regard.

4. Sarah Palin may or may not be intelligent -- her community college career suggests the latter. However, it doesn't matter because she is insane -- delusional and a classic sociopath. She is also appallingly ignorant..

Not sure where your ability to determine insanity comes from, but lets just say it lessens your ability to be percieved with a straight face.

Okay, I'll explain why I think Sarah Palin is insane. Please note, too, that I'm not a doctor or mental health professional. My analysis and reference to psychological disorders are solely those of a lay person.

As I said, I think Palin is insane because she is delusional and sociopathic. Here's why I think she is delusional:

1. She believes the Bible records literal fact. She believes the world was created 6,000 years ago and evolution is wrong. In my book, anyone who believes this is delusional because, in order to believe it, it requires the denial of reality.

2. She believes that God mandated the invasion of Iraq. In my view, anyone who believes that God directs foreign policy of the U.S. is delusional. For that matter, anyone who, like Bush, believes that God speaks directly to him and tells him what to do is delusional.

3. Because she believes in the literal truth of the Bible, she thinks that the End Times are upon us and Jesus will return to earth in her lifetime. Not only is this delusional but, in someone who is, literally, a heartbeat (or metastatic cancer cell) away from the presidency, it is beyond dangerous.

As for her being sociopathic:

1. Sarah Palin lies. She doesn't exaggerate, she doesn't spin. She tells huge whoppers. And when she's called out on her lies, she doesn't retract or explain -- she keeps on lying. She did not refuse earmarks. Alaska got more earmarks under her governance than it ever did. She did not reject the Bridge to Nowhere. She campaigned for it until it was rejected by Congress. Then she opposed it . . . and took the money anyway. This isn't politics, this is pathological lying.

2. Sarah Palin wants power for self-aggrandizement. As mayor of Wasilla, she demanded the resignation of all mangement-level employees of the city as a demonstration of loyalty to her. It appears that she used her power as governor to fire employees as part of a family grudge. We won't know, of course, because the Alaska Republicans are doing everything in their power to block the investigation that was approved by a bi-partisan committee.

3. Sarah Plain can't accept her own incompetence. As mayor, she inherited a town with no debt and left it, a few years later, more than $20 million in the hole. She thinks two short trips to four countries is sufficient grounding in foreign affairs to qualify her to act as president. I travel a lot -- I've visited between 30 and 40 countries and have spent a total of more than a year outside of the U.S. That is not, in any way, qualification as a foreign policy strategist.

4. Sarah Palin wants to impose her will on others. When her daughter got pregnant, she praised her for making the "choice" to keep the baby. However, she does not want to allow any other woman in the U.S. to exercise choice.

In my book, this renders her sociopathic. Delusional sociopaths are insane.

The mean IQ is 100, meaning there are just as many people with IQs above 100 as below. I'm not suggesting that supporting the Republican ticket means someone is below the mean -- that is obviously not the case. However, it is quite clear that the Republicans have adopted as a specific campaign strategy targeting the sub-100s.

And this has what to do with anything? History is riddled with average IQ'ers that have made many significant contributions to society, and is riddled with hi IQ'ers that can't function within a 'normal' society. The ONLY thing that matters is how well you apply what you've been born with.

High intelligence doesn't guarantee a good president. Low intelligence, however, ensures failure. The current administration is a perfect example.

-PGPfan

FWIW, the ONLY candidate with a real, proven track record - not to mention the only one with demonstrated integrity, is Ron Paul. Yet due to our controlled media, people outside of the internet haven't hardly heard of him.

Actually, I've heard quite a bit from Ron Paul, including, of all places, on the Daily Show where he has been a guest a number of times. I agree with you to this extent -- I am convinced of Paul's integrity, no question. However, as with McCain, I think he is simply wrong, and very, very wrong at that.

[VaHam]

I have big problems with Obama's experience. His experience is best compared to Sarah Palin's. And she actually has more experience as an executive than Obama.

If you compare Obama to McCain it is like night and day.

The crisis we are in today in the housing market was started by Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae. Now go look to see who gets money from them.

Out of 100 Senators Obama ranks #2 in money received from Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae. McCain received about 1/5 as much even though he has been in the Senate over 5 times longer than Obama and all of McCain's contributions came from employees. McCain ranks about #62 on the list.

Follow the money folks!

Go read what McCain said about Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac two years ago.

Besides that!



Who would you rather have lead our military???

[gooney]

Besides that!



Who would you rather have lead our military???

There is a story behind those pictures...do you know the story behind those pictures? or you just posting it because of the image? please post the story if you do know... they look like nice pictures to me but the truth behind those pictures would mean alot... yes?

[VaHam]

Besides that!



Who would you rather have lead our military???

There is a story behind those pictures...do you know the story behind those pictures? or you just posting it because of the image? please post the story if you do know... they look like nice pictures to me but the truth behind those pictures would mean alot... yes?

Frankly I care not the "story behind those pictures" they speak a thousand words all by themselves.

Would you care to discuss which one has the military experience and is more qualified to lead our forces?

See my tag line!!!!!!!

[PTravel]

I have big problems with Obama's experience. His experience is best compared to Sarah Palin's. And she actually has more experience as an executive than Obama.

First of all, this is just wrong, though it's something being pounded by the Republicans. I don't know what you think being an "executive" means, but in my book it means the ability to manage, organize and motivate people. Obama did that, successfully, as a community organizer, as a state legislator and as a U.S. Senator. By your standards, John F. Kennedy would have been unqualified to run for the presidency.

Sarah Palin's tenure as mayor and governor demonstrate her absolute inability to manage, organize and motivate people. She left Wasilla deeply in debt. She alienated most who worked with her. She made astounding and very basic mistakes, such as failing to do due diligence before building a sports stadium on land the city didn't own. These mistakes cost Wasilla millions.

If you compare Obama to McCain it is like night and day.

It is indeed.

The crisis we are in today in the housing market was started by Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae. Now go look to see who gets money from them.

Yesterday morning McCain was claiming, as he has throughout his 20+ year senatorial career, that regulation and government oversight of the financial sector was to be avoided at all costs. Four hours later, he did a complete 180 and said what Obama has been saying right along: oversight and regulation of the financial sector is a priority.

Please think through your points -- I don't know where you get your figures, but I'm not going to bother debating them. The point, though, is what each of these men has done. McCain has consistently blocked attempts at oversight and regulation of the financial sector. Obama has done the opposite. The financial mess this country is in is not the result of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac giving money to politicians, but to the clearly fallacious and Republican belief that the financial sector will police and regulate itself.

Besides that!



Who would you rather have lead our military???

This is racist, despicable and a simple lie. You should apologize to this forum for offering this garbage as having any bearing on anything (or any truth).

[VaHam]

First of all, this is just wrong, though it's something being pounded by the Republicans. I don't know what you think being an "executive" means, but in my book it means the ability to manage, organize and motivate people. Obama did that, successfully, as a community organizer, as a state legislator and as a U.S. Senator. By your standards, John F. Kennedy would have been unqualified to run for the presidency.

Source: Wikipedia

"In political science and constitutional law, the executive is the branch of government responsible for the day-to-day management of the state. In many countries, it is referred to simply as the government, but this usage can be confusing in an international context. The executive branch contains the head of government, who is the head of this branch. Under the doctrine of the separation of powers, the executive is not supposed to make laws (role of the legislature), nor to interpret them (role of the judiciary); rather, their purpose is to enforce them."

Sarah Palin's tenure as mayor and governor demonstrate her absolute inability to manage, organize and motivate people. She left Wasilla deeply in debt. She alienated most who worked with her. She made astounding and very basic mistakes, such as failing to do due diligence before building a sports stadium on land the city didn't own. These mistakes cost Wasilla millions.

That may be your opinion but it is not apparently shared by her constituants. Her approval rating there in Alaska is still near 80%. See: Palin's record breaking popularity If she was doing such a bad job I don't believe they would rate her so highly. Did she step on some toes including the "good 'ole boy" Alaska State Troopers in her efforts to rein them in and reduce budgets? Absolutely. True reformers are always gonna make enemies but the people she represents love her as evidenced by her approval rating. Care to compare it with Obama's?

The crisis we are in today in the housing market was started by Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae. Now go look to see who gets money from them.
Out of 100 Senators Obama ranks #2 in money received from Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae. McCain received about 1/5 as much even though he has been in the Senate over 5 times longer than Obama and all of McCain's contributions came from employees. McCain ranks about #62 on the list.

Please think through your points -- I don't know where you get your figures, but I'm not going to bother debating them.

I am sure you do not want to debate them since you know they are fact!
Regarding the ranking of hogs at the trough please see: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Invest in Democrats

The point, though, is what each of these men has done. McCain has consistently blocked attempts at oversight and regulation of the financial sector. Obama has done the opposite. The financial mess this country is in is not the result of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac giving money to politicians, but to the clearly fallacious and Republican belief that the financial sector will police and regulate itself.

Wrong! Please read the quotes from the Congressional record in 2006 they are included in the following article which show McCain sponsored a bill to attempt to regulate FM/FM. Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae profits 'illusions' - McCain, May 25, 2006

One of the biggest problems with FM/FM came about due to the pressure of Bill Clinton's administration to provide affordable housing to low income families. This led to no documentation etc. loans. For background on this please see: Clinton Pressure on FM/FM

Besides that!



Who would you rather have lead our military???

This is racist, despicable and a simple lie. You should apologize to this forum for offering this garbage as having any bearing on anything (or any truth).

Please feel free to provide a photo of Obama in uniform if you like. Perhaps that is what upsets you.

Also please state exactly what is "racist" or a "lie" in any thing I posted.

I believe there is an apology needed here but it is not one that should come from me.

[gooney]

Frankly I care not the "story behind those pictures" they speak a thousand words all by themselves.

Exactly what i meant... you care not because it is only a picture with no story... i am the same way...thanks!

Would you care to discuss which one has the military experience and is more qualified to lead our forces?

See my tag line!!!!!!!

Still no story but just a picure... i could careless till i have a story...thanks!

[VaHam]

Frankly I care not the "story behind those pictures" they speak a thousand words all by themselves.

Exactly what i meant... you care not because it is only a picture with no story... i am the same way...thanks!

Would you care to discuss which one has the military experience and is more qualified to lead our forces?

See my tag line!!!!!!!

Still no story but just a picure... i could careless till i have a story...thanks!

Ok perhaps you didn't understand my answer to your question when I said see my tag line.

I think the photos are representative of the following fact:

"THERE IS ONLY ONE CANDIDATE IN THIS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION THAT HAS EVER REALLY FOUGHT FOR YOU, IN A FIGHT WHERE VICTORY MEANT FREEDOM AND FAILURE MEANT DEATH."

I thought most folks would have understood that. As far as background on the photos themselves I believe that is irrelevant to the question of which one you would rather be Commander and Chief of our Military. One defiantly has military experience.

[gooney]

Ok perhaps you didn't understand my answer to your question when I said see my tag line.

I think the photos are representative of the following fact:

"THERE IS ONLY ONE CANDIDATE IN THIS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION THAT HAS EVER REALLY FOUGHT FOR YOU, IN A FIGHT WHERE VICTORY MEANT FREEDOM AND FAILURE MEANT DEATH."

I thought most folks would have understood that. As far as background on the photos themselves I believe that is irrelevant to the question of which one you would rather be Commander and Chief of our Military. One defiantly has military experience.

Ok so what was his military experience? what war? did he have a mission? did he kill someone? and for what reasons? any military achievements? was he a P.O.W? did he betray his country by collaborating with the North Vietnamese? has he been trying to cover up that fact ever since? was the vietnam war fought for our countries freedom or for someones elses country? did men and woman who fought in vietnam died in vain? was our country at war at the time? i just want a story.

[VaHam]

Ok perhaps you didn't understand my answer to your question when I said see my tag line.

I think the photos are representative of the following fact:

"THERE IS ONLY ONE CANDIDATE IN THIS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION THAT HAS EVER REALLY FOUGHT FOR YOU, IN A FIGHT WHERE VICTORY MEANT FREEDOM AND FAILURE MEANT DEATH."

I thought most folks would have understood that. As far as background on the photos themselves I believe that is irrelevant to the question of which one you would rather be Commander and Chief of our Military. One defiantly has military experience.

Ok so what was his military experience? what war? did he have a mission? did he kill someone? and for what reasons? any military achievements? was he a P.O.W? did he betray his country by collaborating with the North Vietnamese? has he been trying to cover up that fact ever since? was the vietnam war fought for our countries freedom or for someones elses country? did men and woman who fought in vietnam died in vain? was our country at war at the time? i just want a story.

Ok now I understand your nic. Please provide evidence of the disrespectful insinuations you just made against this man. Where is your story?

Source: Wikipedia

McCain graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1958. He became a naval aviator, flying ground-attack aircraft from aircraft carriers. During the Vietnam War, he nearly lost his life in the 1967 USS Forrestal fire. Later that year while on a bombing mission over North Vietnam, he was shot down, badly injured, and captured as a prisoner of war by the North Vietnamese. He was held from 1967 to 1973, experiencing episodes of torture and refusing an out-of-sequence early repatriation offer; his war wounds would leave him with lifelong physical limitations.

Our men and women fought in Viet Nam because their Commander and Chief ordered them to do so. McCain like so many others answered their call to duty. You can debate all you like the merits of Viet Nam but when McCain served our country he was not making those kinds of decisions. Having been through the ordeals he faced his is uniquely qualified IMHO to now be responsible for making them, for others, much more than his opponent.

When the Vietnam conflict started, John F. Kennedy(D) was president. Lyndon B. Johnson(D) was president when it became full scale and Richard M. Nixon(R) was the president responsible for bringing our troops home.

[gooney]

Ok now I understand your nic. Please provide evidence of the disrespectful insinuations you just made against this man. Where is your story?

But if you read carefully i asked a question and didnt make disrespectful insinuations towards anyone... see...ive seen it else where but dont know if it is true or false so i asked the question okie dokie... yes my handle is gooney and its ok what you think of my name...only he and the pow's that was with him knows the facts maybe... i have no idea... but it really dont matter.

When i listen to both parties speeches about whats to happend if they become president, obama draws me to him more than mccain... read each ones past history... obama still on top in my book... i vote for change and a new government because the current one just dont cut it for me.

I respect whomever you vote for and also respect your opinions but it will not change what ive learned about each party and whom ive chosen to vote for...thanks for reading...much respect.

[VaHam]

Ok now I understand your nic. Please provide evidence of the disrespectful insinuations you just made against this man. Where is your story?

But if you read carefully i asked a question and didnt make disrespectful insinuations towards anyone... see...ive seen it else where but dont know if it is true or false so i asked the question okie dokie... yes my handle is gooney and its ok what you think of my name...only he and the pow's that was with him knows the facts maybe... i have no idea... but it really dont matter.

Note I did not say accusations I said insinuations and asking the following:

did he betray his country by collaborating with the North Vietnamese? has he been trying to cover up that fact ever since?

Could hardly be interpreted to be any thing else.

I am sorry you dodged the request to support your insinuations because I have plenty of links to statements from fellow prisoners of McCain's who all say he was honorable.

When i listen to both parties speeches about whats to happend if they become president, obama draws me to him more than mccain... read each ones past history... obama still on top in my book... i vote for change and a new government because the current one just dont cut it for me.

I am familiar with their past histories. And past history is important because it is the best predictor of future actions. McCain has a long history and voting record for us to examine. Obama's is pale in comparison but even that which he does have often shows his two faced nature.

For instance Obama has had a long history of being anti-gun ownership. He now says he is in favor of the 2nd amendment (since there are 90 million gun owner votes at stake) but fails to join his colleges in voting to strike down the DC gun laws which the SCOTUS ruled unconstitutional.

I respect whomever you vote for and also respect your opinions but it will not change what ive learned about each party and whom ive chosen to vote for...thanks for reading...much respect.

Every one is certainly open to form their own opinions; I just like to make mine based on facts and not feelings of hope from an empty suit who can read well from a tele-prompter.

[gooney]

Every one is certainly open to form their own opinions; I just like to make mine based on facts and not feelings of hope from an empty suit who can read well from a tele-prompter.

plenty of negative and positive on both sides all over the internet... is it facts? i have no idea... like you called obama 2 faced, yes ive seen on the internet and yes ive seen mcains 2 faced stories as well... no need to posts backups... just google, read and visit both parties sites is all... one captures me more than the other.

[PGPfan]

Hmmm. a political discussion. Okay, I'll bite:

1. I doubt if you've ever heard Obama speak (beyond sound bites on television news), and certainly haven't read his speeches. Whatever you may think of the man, stupid he is not.

Sorry, I have to point out that just because Obama can deliver a good speech says nothing about him as a man, or candidate. He didn't write the speeches (none of the politicians do) so at best we can infer that the speech writers are intelligent.

Well, sorry, but you're wrong. Obama writes his own speeches:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/artic ... 68,00.html

Thanks for that link. Looks like he just may write all his own stuff (at least the accetptance speech that the article specifically references), but that still does NOT indicate anything about him as a person/leader.

I call your attention to http://sweetness-light.com/archive/did- ... eet-career wherein you will see many first hand accounts of Obama supporters claiming that he either lied, or grossly exagerated many parts of his pre-political work history. That gives us a more proper perspective to view his speeches from. Realistically, what he SAYS means NOTHING - what he does means everything! Again, he has almost no track record of accomplishments - something American voters should give thought to - but alas, most voters would rather not think that deeply and research the facts themselves. I don't blame them, after all it's easier to just listen to somebody speak and tell you what you want to hear rather than demonstrate how it needs to be fixed.

As for Obama's accomplishments, I'd recommend you spend some time at his website. His biography recites his accomplishments and his record has considerably more depth and breadth than the McCain/Palin campaign would like to believe.

Why should I or anybody for that matter spend time on a candidates website and believe what they say? That is a guaranteed place to go to see everything spun into the most positive/least truthful light. Name anybody who posts negatives on their own website. Thats like hiring someone off of their resume without fact checking! Come on - give me a break! Heck, prisons are full of people who commited no crimes, just ask them! For that matter, lets just parole all of them when they are first eligible, after all they say they won't recommit right? Surely what they say means more than their actions. (See the pattern here?) ACTION IS THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS!

3. I haven't heard enough from Joe Biden to form an opinion..

I know little of Biden either, HOWEVER (emphasis intended) I'm positive he's a scumbag. Why? Take notice of my forum username (PGPfan) which is derived from my strong belief in the use of PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) which is argueably the best encryption software yet published for secure communication. The author of PGP (Phil Zimmerman) is a staunch liberal Democrat (a viewpoint he and I do NOT share). He felt compelled to create PGP due to several HUGELY anti-privacy pieces of legislation drafted specifically by Joe Biden (according to Zimmerman's bio on his website). I doubt that Mr. Biden has anybodies best interests at heart.

I'm a strong privacy advocate. I'll have to investigate Biden's voting record in this regard.

4. Sarah Palin may or may not be intelligent -- her community college career suggests the latter. However, it doesn't matter because she is insane -- delusional and a classic sociopath. She is also appallingly ignorant..

Not sure where your ability to determine insanity comes from, but lets just say it lessens your ability to be percieved with a straight face.

Okay, I'll explain why I think Sarah Palin is insane. Please note, too, that I'm not a doctor or mental health professional. My analysis and reference to psychological disorders are solely those of a lay person.

As I said, I think Palin is insane because she is delusional and sociopathic. Here's why I think she is delusional:

1. She believes the Bible records literal fact. She believes the world was created 6,000 years ago and evolution is wrong. In my book, anyone who believes this is delusional because, in order to believe it, it requires the denial of reality.

Evolution may well be wrong, after all it IS only a theory (albeit often taught as fact, regardless of the lack of science to back it up), I don't know the answer myself - but I assure you the Constitution allows her to have the viewpoints that she has, as do you.

2. She believes that God mandated the invasion of Iraq. In my view, anyone who believes that God directs foreign policy of the U.S. is delusional. For that matter, anyone who, like Bush, believes that God speaks directly to him and tells him what to do is delusional.

Can't speak to that, haven't seen the quotes and the contexts with which the statement was alleged to have been made.

3. Because she believes in the literal truth of the Bible, she thinks that the End Times are upon us and Jesus will return to earth in her lifetime. Not only is this delusional but, in someone who is, literally, a heartbeat (or metastatic cancer cell) away from the presidency, it is beyond dangerous.

To be honest, I find your lack of tolerance for a different viewpoint in this matter to be "beyond dangerous".

The mean IQ is 100, meaning there are just as many people with IQs above 100 as below. I'm not suggesting that supporting the Republican ticket means someone is below the mean -- that is obviously not the case. However, it is quite clear that the Republicans have adopted as a specific campaign strategy targeting the sub-100s.

And this has what to do with anything? History is riddled with average IQ'ers that have made many significant contributions to society, and is riddled with hi IQ'ers that can't function within a 'normal' society. The ONLY thing that matters is how well you apply what you've been born with.

High intelligence doesn't guarantee a good president. Low intelligence, however, ensures failure. The current administration is a perfect example.

Again, IQ has NOTHING to do with success or failure. Only the application of a persons given intelligence is the proof, obviously regardless of IQ. The current administration didn't apply it well - if at all.

-PGPfan

FWIW, the ONLY candidate with a real, proven track record - not to mention the only one with demonstrated integrity, is Ron Paul. Yet due to our controlled media, people outside of the internet haven't hardly heard of him.

Actually, I've heard quite a bit from Ron Paul, including, of all places, on the Daily Show where he has been a guest a number of times. I agree with you to this extent -- I am convinced of Paul's integrity, no question. However, as with McCain, I think he is simply wrong, and very, very wrong at that.[/quote]

Gotta disagree entirely. Just on economics alone, Paul understands that you can't spend your way out of a deficit, which is something neither McCain nor Obama understand. Ever wonder why none of the 'corrections' that the Fed is making to correct the economy is working?

-PGPfan

[PGPfan]

This is racist, despicable and a simple lie. You should apologize to this forum for offering this garbage as having any bearing on anything (or any truth).

This isn't the slightest bit "racist"! PTravel, you need to lighten up, you seem so sensitive that merely communicating causes you to play the 'racist card'.

-PGPfan

[PTravel]

First of all, this is just wrong, though it's something being pounded by the Republicans. I don't know what you think being an "executive" means, but in my book it means the ability to manage, organize and motivate people. Obama did that, successfully, as a community organizer, as a state legislator and as a U.S. Senator. By your standards, John F. Kennedy would have been unqualified to run for the presidency.

Source: Wikipedia

"In political science and constitutional law, the executive is the branch of government responsible for the day-to-day management of the state. In many countries, it is referred to simply as the government, but this usage can be confusing in an international context. The executive branch contains the head of government, who is the head of this branch. Under the doctrine of the separation of powers, the executive is not supposed to make laws (role of the legislature), nor to interpret them (role of the judiciary); rather, their purpose is to enforce them."

That's the definition of the executive branch. What was John McCain's executive branch experience?

Sarah Palin's tenure as mayor and governor demonstrate her absolute inability to manage, organize and motivate people. She left Wasilla deeply in debt. She alienated most who worked with her. She made astounding and very basic mistakes, such as failing to do due diligence before building a sports stadium on land the city didn't own. These mistakes cost Wasilla millions.

That may be your opinion but it is not apparently shared by her constituants. Her approval rating there in Alaska is still near 80%.

Alaska is an overwhelmingly Republican state. It is only in the last year or two that Bush's popularity finally started to drop with Republicans. Even so, with this presidency almost universally viewed as an abject failure, there is still a hard-core 20-25% with whom he is popular.

See: Palin's record breaking popularity If she was doing such a bad job I don't believe they would rate her so highly.

The objective facts of her tenure support the conclusion that she did a bad job. As I said, 20-25% still think George Bush has been just terrific.

The crisis we are in today in the housing market was started by Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae. Now go look to see who gets money from them.
Out of 100 Senators Obama ranks #2 in money received from Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae. McCain received about 1/5 as much even though he has been in the Senate over 5 times longer than Obama and all of McCain's contributions came from employees. McCain ranks about #62 on the list.

Please think through your points -- I don't know where you get your figures, but I'm not going to bother debating them.

I am sure you do not want to debate them since you know they are fact!
Regarding the ranking of hogs at the trough please see: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Invest in Democrats

The point, though, is what each of these men has done. McCain has consistently blocked attempts at oversight and regulation of the financial sector. Obama has done the opposite. The financial mess this country is in is not the result of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac giving money to politicians, but to the clearly fallacious and Republican belief that the financial sector will police and regulate itself.

Wrong! Please read the quotes from the Congressional record in 2006 they are included in the following article which show McCain sponsored a bill to attempt to regulate FM/FM. Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae profits 'illusions' - McCain, May 25, 2006

One of the biggest problems with FM/FM came about due to the pressure of Bill Clinton's administration to provide affordable housing to low income families. This led to no documentation etc. loans. For background on this please see: Clinton Pressure on FM/FM

McCain Embraces Regulation After Many Years of Opposition

By Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 17, 2008; Page A01

A decade ago, Sen. John McCain embraced legislation to broadly deregulate the banking and insurance industries, helping to sweep aside a thicket of rules established over decades in favor of a less restricted financial marketplace that proponents said would result in greater economic growth.

. . .

In 2002, McCain introduced a bill to deregulate the broadband Internet market, warning that "the potential for government interference with market forces is not limited to federal regulation." Three years earlier, McCain had joined with other Republicans to push through landmark legislation sponsored by then-Sen. Phil Gramm (Tex.), who is now an economic adviser to his campaign. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act aimed to make the country's financial institutions competitive by removing the Depression-era walls between banking, investment and insurance companies.
ad_icon

That bill allowed AIG to participate in the gold rush of a rapidly expanding global banking and investment market. But the legislation also helped pave the way for companies such as AIG and Lehman Brothers to become behemoths laden with bad loans and investments.
. . .

McCain has not always opposed government regulation. He supported efforts to allow the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco. And he pushed to strengthen the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requirements, which were put in place after the accounting scandals involving Enron and other major firms.

But he has usually reverted to the role of an unabashed deregulator. In 2007, he told a group of bloggers on a conference call that he regretted his vote on the Sarbanes-Oxley bill, which has been castigated by many executives as too heavy-handed.

In the 1990s, he backed an unsuccessful effort to create a moratorium on all new government regulation. And in 1996, he was one of only five senators to oppose a comprehensive telecommunications act, saying it did not go far enough in deregulating the industry.

As chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee for more than a decade, McCain did not have direct oversight of the financial sector. But he sat at the center of arguments between telephone, cable and satellite companies, almost always pressing for more competition.

"I'm always for less regulation," he told the Wall Street Journal in March. He added: "I'd like to see a lot of the unnecessary government regulations eliminated."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... id=topnews

Boston Globe

By Michael Kranish and Farah Stockman
Globe Staff / September 18, 2008

WASHINGTON - Responding to the turmoil on Wall Street, John McCain said flatly yesterday: "We need strong and effective regulation." But throughout his two-decade Senate career, McCain has cast himself as an outspoken critic of government intervention in the markets, saying that he is "fundamentally a deregulator."

. . .

"After all the years of tearing down the regulations that govern financial institutions, it rings hollow to claim that he will build them back up," said Elizabeth Warren, professor of bankruptcy law at Harvard Law School. "This economy is the direct consequence of the deregulation that John McCain fought for day after day, year after year, since the mid-1980s."

. . .

Another analyst said that McCain has waited too long to speak out on stabilizing the US economy. "He has been very slow to recognize the severity," said Desmond Lachman, former managing director and chief emerging market economic strategist at Salomon Smith Barney.

"I think it has only been the last two days that it has finally registered that this is a serious problem," said Lachman, who is now a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/artic ... egulation/

Besides that!

Who would you rather have lead our military???

This is racist, despicable and a simple lie. You should apologize to this forum for offering this garbage as having any bearing on anything (or any truth).

Please feel free to provide a photo of Obama in uniform if you like. Perhaps that is what upsets you.

Nope. What angers me is the right wing lie that Obama is a Muslim.

Also please state exactly what is "racist" or a "lie" in any thing I posted.

See above.

I believe there is an apology needed here but it is not one that should come from me.

Yeah, right.

[PTravel]

Hmmm. a political discussion. Okay, I'll bite:

1. I doubt if you've ever heard Obama speak (beyond sound bites on television news), and certainly haven't read his speeches. Whatever you may think of the man, stupid he is not.

Sorry, I have to point out that just because Obama can deliver a good speech says nothing about him as a man, or candidate. He didn't write the speeches (none of the politicians do) so at best we can infer that the speech writers are intelligent.

Well, sorry, but you're wrong. Obama writes his own speeches:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/artic ... 68,00.html

Thanks for that link. Looks like he just may write all his own stuff (at least the accetptance speech that the article specifically references), but that still does NOT indicate anything about him as a person/leader.

I call your attention to http://sweetness-light.com/archive/did- ... eet-career wherein you will see many first hand accounts of Obama supporters claiming that he either lied, or grossly exagerated many parts of his pre-political work history. That gives us a more proper perspective to view his speeches from. Realistically, what he SAYS means NOTHING - what he does means everything! Again, he has almost no track record of accomplishments - something American voters should give thought to - but alas, most voters would rather not think that deeply and research the facts themselves. I don't blame them, after all it's easier to just listen to somebody speak and tell you what you want to hear rather than demonstrate how it needs to be fixed.

You're citing another right-wing Swiftboat as credible proof of something? Are you serious? Right. And John Kerry was never wounded in Vietnam. And man never landed on the moon.

As for Obama's accomplishments, I'd recommend you spend some time at his website. His biography recites his accomplishments and his record has considerably more depth and breadth than the McCain/Palin campaign would like to believe.

Why should I or anybody for that matter spend time on a candidates website and believe what they say?

Okay, then stick with right-wing blogs.

That is a guaranteed place to go to see everything spun into the most positive/least truthful light. Name anybody who posts negatives on their own website. Thats like hiring someone off of their resume without fact checking! Come on - give me a break! Heck, prisons are full of people who commited no crimes, just ask them! For that matter, lets just parole all of them when they are first eligible, after all they say they won't recommit right? Surely what they say means more than their actions. (See the pattern here?) ACTION IS THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS!

It is indeed, which is why I suggest you look for the objectively-verifiable recital of Obama's experience.

4. Sarah Palin may or may not be intelligent -- her community college career suggests the latter. However, it doesn't matter because she is insane -- delusional and a classic sociopath. She is also appallingly ignorant..

Not sure where your ability to determine insanity comes from, but lets just say it lessens your ability to be percieved with a straight face.

Okay, I'll explain why I think Sarah Palin is insane. Please note, too, that I'm not a doctor or mental health professional. My analysis and reference to psychological disorders are solely those of a lay person.

As I said, I think Palin is insane because she is delusional and sociopathic. Here's why I think she is delusional:

1. She believes the Bible records literal fact. She believes the world was created 6,000 years ago and evolution is wrong. In my book, anyone who believes this is delusional because, in order to believe it, it requires the denial of reality.

Evolution may well be wrong, after all it IS only a theory (albeit often taught as fact, regardless of the lack of science to back it up), I don't know the answer myself - but I assure you the Constitution allows her to have the viewpoints that she has, as do you.

No, evolution is not wrong and, sorry, but saying, "it is only a theory," indicates a lack of familiarity with the scientific process. The First Amendment of the Constitution allows anyone to say their opinion. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment forbids government endorsement of, or showing a preference for, religion. See, e.g., Lemon v. Kurtzman. Palin's contention that Creationism should be discussed in public schools along with evolution is violative of the First Amendment, constitutes an effort to vest her religious beliefs with the force of law, and is a compelling reason why she shouldn't be allowed near any public office. However, I'll modify what I said: anyone who thinks creationism is a valid scientific theory is either delusional or ignorant.

2. She believes that God mandated the invasion of Iraq. In my view, anyone who believes that God directs foreign policy of the U.S. is delusional. For that matter, anyone who, like Bush, believes that God speaks directly to him and tells him what to do is delusional.

Can't speak to that, haven't seen the quotes and the contexts with which the statement was alleged to have been made.

Okay, fair enough:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080903/ap_ ... n_iraq_war

Palin: Iraq war 'a task that is from God'

By GENE JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer Wed Sep 3, 7:23 PM ET

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told ministry students at her former church that the United States sent troops to fight in the Iraq war on a "task that is from God."

In an address last June, the Republican vice presidential candidate also urged ministry students to pray for a plan to build a $30 billion natural gas pipeline in the state, calling it "God's will."

Palin asked the students to pray for the troops in Iraq, and noted that her eldest son, Track, was expected to be deployed there.

"Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God," she said. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."

3. Because she believes in the literal truth of the Bible, she thinks that the End Times are upon us and Jesus will return to earth in her lifetime. Not only is this delusional but, in someone who is, literally, a heartbeat (or metastatic cancer cell) away from the presidency, it is beyond dangerous.

To be honest, I find your lack of tolerance for a different viewpoint in this matter to be "beyond dangerous".

I'm not intolerant of religious beliefs that I believe are not correct (which, incidentally, is a courtesy not reciprocated by Palin's church -- however, since Palin's campaign said, after the fact, that she didn't share the antisemitic beliefs voiced in a sermon given by invited guest David Brickner, I didn't include that in my reasons why I think Palin is sociopathic). What I am, however, intolerant of is attempts to vest religious beliefs with the force of law by, for example, teaching creationism in public schools, banning abortion, opposing gay marriage, etc. As long as you don't force me to conform my conduct to your religious beliefs, it's absolutely none of my business what you believe, and we can discuss MagicJack without the subject ever coming up.

The mean IQ is 100, meaning there are just as many people with IQs above 100 as below. I'm not suggesting that supporting the Republican ticket means someone is below the mean -- that is obviously not the case. However, it is quite clear that the Republicans have adopted as a specific campaign strategy targeting the sub-100s.

And this has what to do with anything? History is riddled with average IQ'ers that have made many significant contributions to society, and is riddled with hi IQ'ers that can't function within a 'normal' society. The ONLY thing that matters is how well you apply what you've been born with.

High intelligence doesn't guarantee a good president. Low intelligence, however, ensures failure. The current administration is a perfect example.

Again, IQ has NOTHING to do with success or failure. Only the application of a persons given intelligence is the proof, obviously regardless of IQ. The current administration didn't apply it well - if at all.

I thought I was clear. I agree, that high intelligence is no guarantee of success -- plenty of brilliant people have failed miserably. However, low intelligence most certainly ensure failure.

-PGPfan

FWIW, the ONLY candidate with a real, proven track record - not to mention the only one with demonstrated integrity, is Ron Paul. Yet due to our controlled media, people outside of the internet haven't hardly heard of him.

Actually, I've heard quite a bit from Ron Paul, including, of all places, on the Daily Show where he has been a guest a number of times. I agree with you to this extent -- I am convinced of Paul's integrity, no question. However, as with McCain, I think he is simply wrong, and very, very wrong at that.

Gotta disagree entirely. Just on economics alone, Paul understands that you can't spend your way out of a deficit, which is something neither McCain nor Obama understand. Ever wonder why none of the 'corrections' that the Fed is making to correct the economy is working?

-PGPfan[/quote]Actually, no. These corrections are like the little Dutch boy trying to hold back the flood with his finger. These corrections haven't worked because, after decades of deregulation, it's become obvious that the "free market," as in, "completely unfettered," simply doesn't work. The reason it doesn't work is, frankly, the same reason that Communism can never work, and that's because people aren't altrusic, they're fundamentally greedy, and when in a position to increase their personal wealth and power they will do so at the expense of others absent some controls to see that they don't. Even McCain admits that . . . now.

[VaHam]

Go back up and read what I said. Sarah Palin is the only of the four candidates with executive experience. Some believe that ex-governors make better presidents than do ex-legislators. I did not say any of the four candidates were not qualified to be president. I just pointed out that Palin does have executive experience.

The biggest point is that Obama's experience is best compared with Palin's. John McCain's experience would be better compared to Biden's politically. But it is McCain and Obama who are running running for the presidency.

Alaska is an overwhelmingly Republican state. It is only in the last year or two that Bush's popularity finally started to drop with Republicans. Even so, with this presidency almost universally viewed as an abject failure, there is still a hard-core 20-25% with whom he is popular.

So if 20-25% favor GB then 75-80% disfavor him. So by your own logic judging on popularity Palin must be great then which is what I said to begin with.
And I wouldn't say this administration was is an "abject failure". I haven't seen another 911 style attack here in the US lately so the administration must be doing something right. I do not believe those who have vowed to wipe us from the face of the earth have changed their minds.

The point, though, is what each of these men has done. McCain has consistently blocked attempts at oversight and regulation of the financial sector. Obama has done the opposite. The financial mess this country is in is not the result of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac giving money to politicians, but to the clearly fallacious and Republican belief that the financial sector will police and regulate itself.

Wrong! Please read the quotes from the Congressional record in 2006 they are included in the following article which show McCain sponsored a bill to attempt to regulate FM/FM. Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae profits 'illusions' - McCain, May 25, 2006

One of the biggest problems with FM/FM came about due to the pressure of Bill Clinton's administration to provide affordable housing to low income families. This led to no documentation etc. loans. For background on this please see: Clinton Pressure on FM/FM

McCain Embraces Regulation After Many Years of Opposition

By Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 17, 2008; Page A01

A decade ago, Sen. John McCain embraced legislation to broadly deregulate the banking and insurance industries, helping to sweep aside a thicket of rules established over decades in favor of a less restricted financial marketplace that proponents said would result in greater economic growth.

. . .

Any one who wants to read the opinions of the Washington Post or Boston Globe you pasted can look above for it above or follow the links. I cut it here for brevity.

The thing about regulation is that there should be little of it.......only when required. So de-regulation in general is in fact a good thing. Do we need to have some regulation? Of coarse we do. Did John McCain realize that FM/FM needed regulation years ago? Yes he did......see above to link from the congressional record. Government intervention in most things only serves to make them worse. See the link Clinton Pressure to provide affordable housing as an example of this.
Banking executives need to be held personally responsible for their actions IMHO; but when the government pressures them to take actions which would have been unthinkable in the normal coarse of business that is hard to do.

Besides that!

Who would you rather have lead our military???

This is racist, despicable and a simple lie. You should apologize to this forum for offering this garbage as having any bearing on anything (or any truth).

Please feel free to provide a photo of Obama in uniform if you like. Perhaps that is what upsets you.

Nope. What angers me is the right wing lie that Obama is a Muslim.

Please show anywhere in my post where I said Obama was Muslim!!!!!!!!

Also please state exactly what is "racist" or a "lie" in any thing I posted.

See above.

And just how does the above address your accusations of me being a lier and racist? Are you in the habit of accusing everyone who disagrees with you a lier and racist without being able to point to anything which supports your accusation?
With regard to race I am not sure which one you would be talking about. But, from the following excerpt from Jack Wheeler's book, I would have to conclude your accusing me of being "racist" against the Irish (of which I am descended as well) and which comprises the largest percentage of Obama's ethnic background.

Source: Regarding Obama - Written by Dr. Jack Wheeler

"He has no real identity. He is half-white (Irish mix from his maternal side), which he rejects. The rest of him is mostly Arab, which he hides but is disclosed by his non-African Arabic surname and his Arabic first and middle names as a way to triply proclaim his Arabic parentage to people in Kenya. Only a small part of him is African Black from his Luo grandmother, which he pretends he is exclusively.

What he isn't, not a genetic drop of, is 'African-American,' the descendant of enslaved Africans brought to America chained in slave ships. He hasn't a single ancestor who was a slave. Instead, his Arab ancestors were slave owners. Slave-trading was the main Arab business in East Africa for centuries until the British ended it.

Let that sink in: Obama is not the descendant of slaves, he is the descendant of slave owners."

I believe there is an apology needed here but it is not one that should come from me.

Yeah, right.

That is not be the mark of a gentleman sir.

[VaHam]

Palin: Iraq war 'a task that is from God'

By GENE JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer Wed Sep 3, 7:23 PM ET

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told ministry students at her former church that the United States sent troops to fight in the Iraq war on a "task that is from God."

Palin asked the students to pray for the troops in Iraq, and noted that her eldest son, Track, was expected to be deployed there.

"Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God," she said. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."

Yes wonderful job of twisting a statement by taking quotes out of context on the part of the AP writer. He is in wonderful company however; since Charlie Gisbon did the same thing to Palin in his interview with her. Perhaps Gibson just got his quote from the AP article.

From: Charlie Gibson's Interview of Palin

GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war?

PALIN: You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote.

GIBSON: Exact words.

PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln's words when he said -- first, he suggested never presume to know what God's will is, and I would never presume to know God's will or to speak God's words. But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that's a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God's side. That's what that comment was all about, Charlie.

GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln's words, but you went on and said, "There is a plan and it is God's plan."

Palin's Exact Quote:

"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," she exhorted the congregants. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

Big difference between Charlie's out of context quotes and her actual words. She was clearly asking that we were doing the right thing in the eyes of God.

For more information regarding Lincoln's second Inaugural address please see the following: What Lincoln Quote Is Palin Referring to?

[VaHam]

The financial mess this country is in is not the result of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac giving money to politicians, but to the clearly fallacious and Republican belief that the financial sector will police and regulate itself.

I would point out it is the Democrats who have been in power in congress during the past few years and it is their responsibility to have passed legislation which would have reined in FM/FM.

As I showed earlier John McCain tried to do that in 2006 but was not able to get the legislation passed in the Democratic controlled congress.

Link: Who's Responsible for Financial Crisis?