Sarah Palin RNC Acceptance Speech

I don't care about your guns or your gas. but i'll give you the guns cause it's one of your rights. you christian faith need not be defended for two reasons 1) it's not be attacked 2) it is also protected in that amendment that comes before the one that lets you have guns.

Get over the terrorist thing. Any government we have will try to protect us. but then again, 9/11 did happen, and under who's watch? Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11. Read the facts.

that Iraq has anything to do with 9/11. read the facts on that. 9/11 happened under Bushes watch, largely because Clinton gutted our intelligence capability. Bush has been trying to fix that ever since. I swear liberals live in an alternative universe. I tend to agree with one thing that Michel Savage says. Liberalism is a mental disorder.

as though it had even the vaguest connection with the truth. Clinton had a task force on permanent assignment in the Persian Gulf to catch Osama Bin Laden. The very first act Bush did when he entered the Whie House in January of 2000 was to call off that hunt and stand down the fucking troops Clinton had put there. You have no fucking idea what you are writing about, never have, never will.

You cuss at me and shout and say one statement and think you prove something besides your a moron. Well lets see do know how many time the clinton administration could have killed Bin Laden. No you don't. It's dozens. Do you know why the task force was publicly with drawn. No you don't. From pressue from people like you is part of it. I've wasted enough time on the likes of you. Go back to your CNN.

even vaguely related to the truth. The Bush administration has yet to do te first thjing because of public demand. He and his ilk listen only to their funders. You will never understand.

people don't wonder why the world really doesn't like the US. I don't even have anything personal against you guys, and my society teaches me to hate you as if you had raped my mother or something.

Oh wait! The number of times the US has screwed foreign countries over for its own benefit is quite high. I only need to think of two things, the Avro Arrow, a Canadian fighter jet program, and your country INVADING OTHER COUNTRIES FOR OIL. If you fucking cared about every country that had a dictator or problems you would've invaded some disease ridden country and helped everyone. You just "happened" to choose the one with oil. And WMDs, oh wait, those weren't real.

Stop defending Bush. It's sad.

pendragonshall down there just did. So which is it? You can't have it both ways.

Youtube if you want. There was a period when chenney was saying that iraq was funding terrorism and that they had met with al qaeda before the attacks. the clip is all over the internet. so yes. someone did say exactly that.

As far a real disorders go. This iraq war is a disorder. our economy is a disorder. our healthcare system. our foreign policy. our government giving into to lobbyist. Wake up. Your time is over.

these idiots seem to think this is the first and only war that has ever been. these people need to look and listen to reality instead of watching cartoons.

its the current war and it must be won. I may well be the most important war since WWII. It is a war we absolutely HAVE to win. The alternative is too horrible to contemplate.

And may i ask you... do you think that we won Vietnam and that it was "important?"

initiated a war against the wrong enemy that has s*cked resources away from our country when we most need them (Iraq).

failed to properly wage the war that actually justified (Afghanistan). Bungled the invasion of Afghanistan, which is currently resulting in a resurgence of those who actually attacked us on 9/11.

expanded executive power dangerously.

reduced the rights of privacy, habeas corpus, and freedom of speech.

expanded the federal government.

increased federal spending (with congress).

increased the deficit (with congress). Ran up a MASSIVE federal deficit, with the help of his pals in congress, that this country will be paying off for a decade at the very very minimum.

Consistently hide behind executive privilege to conceal his misdeeds from the public and congress, setting a new low for governmental transparency.

Guantanamo Bay.

Rendition utilized on a much larger scale than the past.

Enormous tax cuts for the rich, which helped run up the prior mentioned massive deficit, which has in turn made the burden on the middle class even greater.

go-it-alone, with us or against us, anti-intellectual and simplistic perception of the world.

The current administration.
promised to uphold the constitution.
then went and violated it.

And Bush LIED. He lied to congress, including a written correspondence signed by himself and sent to the speaker of the house and senate prez which claimed that removing Saddam was consistent in bringing the 9/11 perpetrators to justice.

He violated the first ammendment. He banned the photography of American funeral caskets coming from Iraq.

War criminals who violated constitutional and international law including the Geneva conventions treaties which US signed into by allowing, authorizing, defending and promoting the torture of detainees. still deny that the US uses torture even though they not only promotes how it is a "vital tool" but even the CIA admitted using torture!

allowed the mail to be opened and read without a warrant in direct violation of the fourth ammendment.

gave no bid contracts to Halliburton etc. even though they charged exorbidant rates for work they never even did, at the expense of the US taxpayers, and then renewed their contract.

-corrupt

-lying

-promise breaking

-constitution trampling

-war

In general, they abused the trust that was given to them after a terrorist attack on our soil. used that trust to bloat our government with unworkable security departments, wars, and unprecedented invasions of the peoples' privacy.

You can put lipstick on Palin but she is still a republican.

Your the person I've been waiting for. I knew from my paragraph above that some liberal

troll-er would do precisely what I said, ya just can't help yourself. Now seriously I don't

think you were trying to be mean, only give what you believe is "proof" of the evil

republicans who want to own the world. I'll be glad to discuss your "views" not facts. Facts

are what I'm going to give. I do apologize if I seem condescending but its amazing for me to

see people who swear they're intelligent say complete BS. I know I left myself Wide open for

you to say I'm spouting BS but I have actually studied both sides and been on both sides.

I'm not saying conservatism (republicans) is the Best thing and all other things are stupid.

But the democratic party has changed for the worse since Clinton took and held office. And

that the Republicans on a whole and "most" of the time have actual agenda's to help this

country not just win elections which is all Obama and the Democrats are doing.
OK issue one. Republicans initiated a war. No they did not. Congress overwhelmingly VOTED.

Read it again VOTED. 296-133 vote in the GOP-run House and a 77-23 vote in the

Democratic-led Senate. DEMOCRATIC led senate. Hillary Clinton voted for the war and Bill

Clinton agreed with her. They then LIED about voting for the war and later retracted and

said that yes they did vote for the war but have since changed their mind. The war

resolution breezed through without a single amendment to it by the way. If you understand

what that means. That in itself is amazing. Not one amendment put to it by ANY democrat.

Issue 2 it has sucked resources away from our country. Why yes it has and do you know why??

No its apparent you do not. President Bush declared he did not want ANYONE to think of this

war as a war for us to profit from (sic Vietnam). This was a war to stop a group of people

bent on attacking us (9/11). Several Republicans AND DEMOCRATS tried to convince him to

allow us to profit from their oil fields and Pres. BUSH, (not congress, and I'll point out

not ONE Democrat agreed with him at the time for this) stated that the Iraqi citizens will

be PAID for the oil. He did this to show the world that this was not a war on oil. But no,

every liberal TV station forgets this little tidbit and still says that this is what the war

is about. And people that think they're informed like yourself, just soak it up and spew it

out.

Issue 3 the wrong enemy. Hmm this is a tough one as the majority of America ( 80% ) and the

majority of congress and the house (see above for stats) agreed that after old Saddam Insane

admitted to hiding and helping Terrorists (heroes is what he believed them to be) that did

the attack and that the group that did the attack had a HUGE base of operations in Iraq (yes

I know Bin-Laden was in Afghanistan but there were troops in both countries, read). So it

really really seems that we have hit the right target and that unfortunately we may have to

step up attacks elsewhere to get them all. Even Obama knows we have to keep hunting out

terrorists, though he's unsure of exactly how to do this.

Issue 4 failed to run the war/bungled the war in Afghanistan/causing the resurgence of the

"actual attackers in Afghanistan"... OK read this carefully please, as it's horribly

apparent your clueless here. We (meaning the U.S.A and United Kingdom) hit and hit hard. We

were winning and essentially won. We then went to Iraq (and other places but this doesn't

seem to matter much to the media and obviously you have no idea because they haven't

declared these area's as war zones). And guess what, people like you and the rest of the

world insisted we needed to pull back/slow down. Pull out and let them handle it now. Well

guess what, we're not allowed to keep dropping bombs on them and save many of my fellow

Americans lives, oh no. That's wrong. See they love to hide in towns behind the skirts

(literally sometimes) of women and children. So we have to hit the ground and when we do. We

sometimes die. And now that we've almost totally won in Iraq, the democrats want to declare

a loss and pull out. We've bowed to people like you and tried giving to much power back to

people that aren't ready for it. And guess what, the bad guys are getting strong again so we

have to step back up. But do the Liberals admit there wrong. Do you?? Nope. It's blame Bush

and the republicans since Bush is in charge. Pfft.
I do apologize somewhat for going on a rant but that "statement" of yours was just proof of

how ignorant you are of what's happened. And people like you, need to educate yourselves

better. So I ranted, sorry back on topic now.

Issue 5 expanded power/reduced rights/ habeas corpus/speech/federal power/increased

spending.
OK that's an awful lot to get wrong but you are on a roll and you did get a lot of what the

liberal news media tries to portray. Now for facts, the power and increased government has

got to mean D.H.S.. Well D.H.S. actually existed years prior to the attack but was referred

to differently. It was somewhat restructured but is the same entity it was in 1998 (now who

was president at the time? That would be Bill Clinton). It is not a branch made up of

entirely new groups of people but a joining of several. But NOT the C.I.A. or the F.B.I.

which is intended to keep it in check. This Dept. of the government became official in 2002

however so I can somewhat understand you confusion. Now in a nutshell No rights have been

reduced of an American Citizen. I know you think they have but they are exactly the same as

prior to 9/11 some have been revamped but are still the same. I do not and will not

acknowledge rights to captured enemy people's, ever for any reason and your even more

idiotic than you sound if you do. You mention increased power and free speech. Omg listen to

what the democrats have proposed of late. Censorship of news media (but only it seems of fox

and rush Limbaugh for "hate" talk). Whether or not they do is not the point here (and they

do not, but I'll debate that later), but if they are censored then who else will the

government (insert democrat here) censor. And expansion, please that's an old anti-republic

idiom like , republicans favor the rich, blah blah. There has been NO expansion of power or

size, I know I know back to D.H.S. and again it's only a grouping of existing elements. I

know your going to quote different sites that claim that D.H.S. is proof of expansion or

that the dept. of Defense blah blah. or this agency blah blah. It isn't, but groups with no

proof and liberal media and Obama himself love to mislead by misrepresenting figures, I've

tried checking where they get their "facts" but they seem to just quote Ron Paul. That it

"will cause growth" blah blah. But as yet it hasn't. Could the C.I.A. grow. yep but that

doesn't mean it will. But since there's a "new" cabinet position it "must" mean expansion of

power since we didn't have it 50 years ago or whatever the ridiculous reasoning you have.

Increased spending, please to easy, the democrats are chomping at the bit to raise taxes and

they have said so. Do your checking.
Issue 6 increased deficit/spending . Ready for this one. Your right,, but do you know why.

I'm sure you think you do. Do you think ANY president could run a 2 front engagement (war to

you) and rebuild a Clinton reduced army AND go through several natural disasters cheaply.

It's not possible not for Bush not for anyone. And I would say that even if we had a liberal

like you in office, there is NO way to do that. (and please I know you want to say something

like, "I'd not be in war") I'm talking about reality where we are at now. I don't like being

there but with out enough foreign help and at home support its a slow painful process. And

now when it's looking promising the Democrats feed a bunch of garbage to little eager

liberals like yourself and you try and preach it as gospel when its obvious to any student

of politics what the truth is.
Issue 7 Guantanamo Bay. This is a place to hold very bad people but I know you don't

understand that. Several are released and a majority of those had several connections to

combat against American soldiers. Hundreds have been released but were brought there because

of legitimate reasons. Does that mean ALL were brought there because of legitimate reasons.

No, some were actually completely innocent but you know what, this is war and if the war

were in your back yard and your household you also could accidentally be arrested or killed.

This kind of thing happens in a WAR. It's horrible and its terrible for all involved.

Believe me soldiers do NOT on a whole go out and arrest just anyone its difficulty and if

you've done this type of fighting you should know that. When soldiers cross the line as some

did at GITMO they are prosecuted. And know this, the detainees should only have limited if

any rights. They are not Americans and this is a WAR. It's not pretty and it's not fun time

for anyone. If you've been watching what goes on there you should know this and if you

haven't just do some research.
Issue 8 .. violated constitution/tax cuts for rich/go it alone blah blah.. After reading to

this point of your "response" Again NO RIGHTS FOR DETAINEES.. there are not citizens. they

did not fall fully under Geneva law. And we didn't harbor THOUSANDS of people here just

hundreds and we are having a hard time getting them out of there because NO ONE wants them.

Not Iraq, not Iran, NOT YOU. No One. Oh and your line about hiding behind executive

privilege, please you don't want to go there (bill/monica anyone) and I'm not referring to

them having sex but his having highly confidential phone calls while having her, umm, in the

room.
Issue 9 Bush lied/1st amendment/war criminals,,
Bringing down Saddam was consistent and that's just stupid to say it isn't. Saddam himself

admitted to this. Bush admitted to banning for what reason? A legal and moral one, look into

it. And torture..TORTURE.. have you seen what the American and British captured soldiers

went through.. THAT was torture. What some soldiers did at GITMO was wrong and that's a fact

and there are being punished for it. Does and should our American troops use some violence

and humiliation to get these people to talk. That's another debate entirely but giving them

candy didn't work. Opening mail, who's the detainees or American citizens. If you mean

opening U.S. mail without judicial warrants in emergencies or foreign intelligence cases,

then yes he did. But that should never be your mail and if it is then its because they have

high suspicion your doing something pretty illegal. Again this was signed in legally. And if

the C.I.A. has reason to believe your going to blow up something then yea maybe they should

peek at your mail and save some lives. Or would you rather the lives be lost an then blame

Bush for not doing anything.
Oh and I did notice that after all your I hate/blame republicans for EVERYTHING you tried to

make a funny with your lipstick remark. Yes she still is a republican. Who as stated in my

above paragraph you noticeably didn't have a single argument with. She and McCain will

hopefully hold true to the republican doctrine of protecting all faith's, my guns, etc.

please read above.
Now finally I will say this. I got ALL of my information you read above from journalistic

sites that are pro democrat or non-partisan. I did not quote or go to any Conservative sites

such as Limbaugh's, foxes etc. Everything I said is true. Does it mean I agree with

EVERYTHING the current republican party does (BUSH's). NO. I believe McCain/Palin will cut

the gross spending done by both parties and proposed by Obama (yes Obama is for tax hikes,

you need to read). I believe they will pull out our troops faster than Bush. And No I do not

agree with everything the D.H.S. can do. All of the government for the past 50 years in my

opinion has grown to all powerful. But I know it would grow much worse under Obama.
Now I know you and several other Liberal kids are going to go crazy trying to quote things

you've heard/read on the news and net. But I'm telling you now everything you said was

garbage and you need to study much more on these subjects. I expect childish remarks such

as, no you do, your a f'n idiot and blah blah. That's usually what morons who can't find

anything to say but "feel" they're right do. I know most of you Liberals wont believe most

of what I've written but I guarantee you have NO IDEA of who you're typing to. I will prove

you wrong I have prov-en you wrong and I encourage anyone else to try and challenge what

I've said. And No I'm not telling you if I'm native or Hispanic, if I'm woman or man,

military or politically officiated or even if I'm young or old, well OK I'm not young but

I'm not over the hill quite yet. I'm not going to respond to hate and shouting (nothing but

bold type). I'm not going to respond to anymore Bush remarks. I'm talking about Republican

view's here and McCain/Palin only. I'm also not going to preach at you anymore and I'm not

going swear the Republican party has never and will never do anything wrong. Both parties

have and are and will. And I'm tired of people that hear someting on CNN and NBC typing it

out as if its fact. YOU need to check before you type because you sound stupid. That's all.

Issue 1)

War, by congress, was never authorized. there has never been a declaration of WAR signed.

Public Law 107-243, 10/16/02, Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002) included some specific conditions.

To avoid having to return to Congress for more debate on Iraq, Bush had pushed for and received authority to launch a war without further advance notice to Congress. Never before had Congress so trusted a president with this authority. But in granting this unprecedented authorization, Congress insisted that certain conditions be established as existing and that the president submit a formal determination, assuring the Congress that, in fact, these conditions were present. Specifically (and here I am summarizing technical wording; the actual language [is in section 3(b) (1) and (2) of PL 107-243]), Congress wanted a formal determination submitted to it either before using force or within forty-eight hours of having done so, stating that the president had found that (1) further diplomatic means alone would not resolve the "continuing threat" (meaning WMD) and (2) the military action was part of the overall response to terrorism, including dealing with those involved in "the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." In short, Congress insisted that there be evidence of two points that were the centerpiece of Bush's argument for the war.

We now know, of course, that there were no nuclear weapons program and no WMDs in Iraq. And that the claimed connections of Saddam to al-Qaeda were bogus, and the notion that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks even more so. And,of course, UN weapons inspections were under way in Iraq in 2003, but they were halted by Bush's decision to go to war anyway.

And by the way Obama voted NO. And Hilary isn't in the race BTW.

Issue 2

"President Bush declared he did not want ANYONE to think of this war as a war for us to profit from (sic Vietnam)."

Doesn't matter what he "said." IT IS! So was Vietnam at the time but they didn't say it. No-bid contract to Haliburton for work they sometimes didn't even do and then re-signing a contract with them. THAT WAS MINE AND OTHER AMERICANS MONEY!

"This was a war to stop a group of people bent on attacking us (9/11)."

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Please get over it.

Issue 4

"bungled the war in Afghanistan"

You are just way off here. I know people there RIGHT NOW. The taliban is having a resurgence. And you can't say that we pulled out before we finished the job cause of "liberals." The President decided to intent invade Iraq, so we sent our stuff there.

Issue 5

expanded power/reduced rights/ habeas corpus/speech/federal power/increased spending.

Gitmo! Just cause someone isn't american doesn't not mean they don't have rights.

And why do you think we need cold war type spending when the neo-cons can trick the people into believing we have a cold war type enemy? Oh "Terrorism." Whatever. That's just hooking up the military industrial complex.

Expansion of power? See issue 1.

"I do not and will not acknowledge rights to captured enemy people's." Interesting. So you don't agree in the Geneva convention like most of the first world countries do? Dangerous.

Issue 6 - increased deficit/spending

"Do you think ANY president could run a 2 front engagement (war to you) and rebuild a Clinton reduced army AND go through several natural disasters cheaply.

Of course. Saddam was under UN sanctions before we invaded (that was expensive too) but not as what we are into now. "

But just to be clear. I believe the the Iraq war is bullshit. As in, completely unnecessary. A terrible foreign policy that has destabilized not only our economy, but also our political relevance and standing in the world and has left open the option for other to behave in a similar way. And the stance of "what are we to do now?" just isn't creative at all. And you saying that when we shit in our pants we should sit in it?

Issue 7

Issue 7 Guantanamo Bay.

I'm really confused by your point here. Are you telling me "This is WAR, and if I don't know that I haven't done my research?"

But I thought these were more in line with police actions as they used to say. did congress authorize a WAR? Who are we at war with? Iraq? Afganistan? Terrorism? Sorry, i won't give you the blank check of "War on Terror" cause that is BS. If the long term goal is the defeat of Islam then I hope you understand that Christianity will go down the tubes with it and that you have a better tactic than a "War on Terror." But the reality of fighting a religious war (or using religious groups to support it) will backfire. It backfired on the Isalmic millitants (until 9/11) and it will back fire on US. there are much smarter ways to go about this issue.

BUT... I understand the sentiment of "they aren't american" etc. I once thought that way. Purely as emotion. But as I thought about it more I could see a reversed situation, if not now 20 years from now. AND I could see the danger of it when another first world country used similar tactics and justifying it by the US setting the prescience. Basically, I sat back and thought it out logically. i thought about all the consequences and objectives.

Issue 8

violated constitution/tax cuts for rich/go it alone blah blah..

NO RIGHTS FOR DETAINEES.. there are not citizens. (Nor Christians? right?)

they did not fall "fully" under Geneva law. --- So we no longer use our own common sense? Or we only know how to do what's right when it's the law?

And we didn't harbor THOUSAND.... does it matter how many? defending on mans rights is defending your own.

please you don't want to go there (bill/monica anyone) --- are you actually comparing bill/monica to lying about WMDs and things of that nature. You really can't compare sex and torture. LOL. Your morality stance doesn't work. Certainly not after you support torture. And should we talk about McCain and Bush's stance on this?

Issue 9 Bush lied/1st amendment/war criminals

"Bringing down Saddam was consistent and that's just stupid to say it isn't." did you say something here?

"Saddam himself admitted to this." Never happened. Admitted what? What the hell are you talking about? Are you now going to site Saddam as a reference?

"Bush admitted to banning for what reason? A legal and moral one"----- There is absolutely no reason to allow this. You can break the constitution if you think you are "morally" right to do so. honestly, that is jihad type reasoning.

it. And torture..TORTURE.. have you seen what the "American and British captured soldiers went through.. THAT was torture. What some soldiers did at GITMO was wrong and that's a fact and there are being punished for it. Does and should our American troops use some violence and humiliation to get these people to talk." ---- So if they can do it, so can we? Don't you think this is a step backward?

As far as your summary. I think it is pretty funny that you call me an idiot tell me I'm stupid, that i have no idea what I am talking about, etc. etc. etc. then at the end tell me you won't and don't want to. Lol. You call me a liberal, tell me I use liberal media sources (like it is an insult) etc. etc. when you know nothing about me.

Listen. I'm all about a good debate. I am a little confused as to whether you believe all this stuff or if you are just trying to come across that way in a effort to push the neo-con agenda on my republican neighbors. Unknow. Dupe them.

Your right, i shouldn't in anyway have said republican. i should have said neo-con. cause true republicans i can understand their fears, concerns, and points of view. But the neo-cons, hijacking the republicans and people of faith, the lies and manipulation, the total disrespect and disregard for other people lives and beliefs, I have a problem with. So you, to me, by defending torture, unjust wars, and few other things that stand out, seem like you have either been indoctrinated by them, or you prostrate and mimic to smoke and mirror true republicans. But i actually don't know because I don't know you.

But the fact that you failed to address the the failing economy, foreclosure on homes, TRADE deficit, taxholes for corporations outsourcing their workforce, failures to acknowledge other MAJOR players in the world economic and political scene. Not to mention healthcare, drug companies, oil companies, crippled infrastructure, energy crisis, rising cost of food, leads me to believe that you haven't really read non-partisan news sources and that you have never look at the US or the current situation from any other view than you have right now. I think that is a major flaw in critical thinking. We, the US, are in a much more desperate situation on the world table than you seem to let on, or understand. And it isn't the result of a smaller military or terrorism. Not by a long shot. It's the result of a misuse of spending, terrible foreign (and domestic) policy, corruption, and many other reasons. And no, the republicans aren't the ones to blame, but they won't be the ones to attempt to solve it. Palin/McCain sound exactly the same. "We must win the war. Russian aggression. Terrorism." It is jsut smoke and mirrors for the real issues and trying to dupe everyone with absolutism thinking about things like Patriotism and Russian aggression. LOL. Really? Lipstick on a pig and it's still a neo-con.

So, what do you think will happen when mccain drops dead from old age or whatever in the first 6 months in office? Then we have President Pailin, with no ideas, at the mercy of her advisers, that will be the same bush cronies that brought us what we have now. Do you think she is open minded enough to really understand the world issues. Say, for instance, Georgia? or the difficult situation in Pakistan? i question her grasp of some very basic aspects of reality. Believing creationism "teach both" shows a problem with some basic critical thinking skills. And if you think it will all be okay because she will be surrounded by people you support... I ask you... honestly... why have a president? How many steps away are you from believing something like that? THESE things worry me. And honestly I feel it is a legitimate fear. I think the current admisitration has bullied the media, bullied other nations, bullied congress and it's own people to get their way. And they got everything they wanted, and the truth is, it didn't work. we are weaker, losing or strength in the world, and the US economy that was once the stabilization of the world economy is in shambles, and slowly, those other nations are preparing, and they will move on without us, because as our unilateral actions have showed, there a great many people that we can't just bully.

It severs you no purpose to just label me as liberal, democrat, or of all things ignorant. That would only work if you were preaching to your choir.

That choir is getting smaller everyday cause we have real issues on the table. things that can't be avoiding or denied and falsified.

We are registering in dramatic number so we can put those failed politics to bed.

If you want to talk about the future. Things that you think are important (concerns and desires) i could listen to that, but to sit there and tell me the past didn't happen and try and half remember things probably isn't going to change anything.

Absolutism is a waste of time.

EVERYONE VOTE NOV 4th.

I said I was done preaching and I meant it. I'll keep it short. There was a VOTE. Power was given. We went to war. Saddam did admit to helping by protecting those involved, yes he said that, yes it happened. You don't want me to bring in Hilary cuz she isn't running, but you'll bring up Bush, he's not running either. You want to compare Vietnam to Iraq, why cuz it's a war? You want it to be a war on profit and it isn't but if you can find anyone that's found a way to profit you take this as proof? Did you know that some fast food chains have shown profits since 9/11. Is the war to blame, they must be friends of Bush then.

Please, and I said I was done talking about Bush. But you seem to think you can win some kind of "victory" by pointing out what you think is something factual. I don't want to bring up Clinton and his cronies profiting that' to easy a target. And hindsight is 20/20. At least for me. You seem to have problems with that. Taliban resurgence? It's because of why I stated previously. Your response has no thought or fact in it. Iraq is and has harbored terrorists that are involved in trying to attack us. I said why but you seem to just skip that and spout what you think is fact when in FACT it isn't.

Only limited Geneva rights were given to these combat detainee's so no they don't get the full protection, we need to stop this nonsense of coddling these people. You pull Christians out of the thin air and speak likes it's a bad thing. I'm sorry you have a problem with over 70% of this great nations faith. I have and will continue to defend Christianity AND the right to follow any/non religion in this country. What I said is documented fact. Most of everything you say is "its a known fact this is bs or this is wrong or we're stepping backwards" and then go on as if it's absolute truth and fact. These statements aren't fact but your opinion of current affairs. You go on the net and copy and paste and go "See look at this" when it's obvious you don't understand what your reading. This is a problem most Liberals seem to have of late. The separation not of church and state but fact from fiction. You copy and paste (like I said you would) parts of quotes and resolutions and actually think you've prov-en yourself right. Do you even read what you type. Do you do any fact checking. No way. Your trying to sound intellectual and copying phrases and thoughts posted on different Liberal sites and acting as if you've pr-oven yourself.

And you saying I'm being anti-Islamic. I never said anything about Islam you're inventing things here then calling them fact and then arguing about it. Which you do a lot in everything you typed. It's plain fantasy.

I've answered most of everything you brought up. No I didn't talk about ALL things involved in this country but I will gladly. If you bring up a topic one at a time and quit bringing up bush an your feelings on what you think is fact. I wanted to and posted this original message to talk about republican and democratic views. And McCain/Palin vs Obama/Biden. But in the true modern spirit of Liberalism you change the topic and say your not. You spout either flat lies or twisted opinions and swear its fact. You try and squeak in something and then drown the reader in hundreds of quick statements. You take little bits of what I say and turn it to your thinking but fail to comprehend the full paragraph I wrote. One topic on track and lets see what you've got. Oh wait I do see it. You've got Obama who stands for nothing and has lies spread and you've got CNN/NBC/NEWSWEEK etc who print flat out lies then do small retracts an go oops. I can tell it's going to be impossible to deal with you because you will not deal in truth or facts.

Oh and your "views" on creationism/bush's cronies running things/palin's got no idea's. Come on she has more experience than Obama and McCain/Palin will have their own team of republicans and you obviously didn't listen to Palin's remark on creationsism. You only listen and take as fact things said my Susan Surandon/Matt Damon and Liberal media obviously. Your are saying some very foolish things but think you
re standing on a soapbox getting righteous views out. You're the one talking using smoke and mirrors by not facing facts about your own canidtates and believing and passing lies about Conservative ones. It's diffucult to deal with people like you who deal only in fantasy liberal land where fiction is real and what you feel must be fact for everyone. That's all

all you managed to do with this was try and insult me to discredit me. If you are serious about considering issues and having a debate i'm open for it. I would like to set a playing field.

Listen. I believe absolutism is dangerous. I think it shows it's form by attacking someone instead of issues. It also shows a lack of open-mindedness.

Try and imagine where i am coming from...

For instance... when you dog those media outlets. It shows me where you get your information. Why? Because I get news from blogs, major news papers in the world, public radio stations, and more reputable sources. ones that aren't afraid of debate. I am away of those sources (as well as yours) and I keep track of who is saying what on different stations (transcripts), and i also read the major reports published by the major universities about the media outlets, fairness in reporting, and polls of how their readers and viewers fell about not only their source, but also about the others.

so... when you just label me as "liberal," tell me i get my sources "CNN/NBC/NEWSWEEK " etc. etc. It shows me where you get yours. If you stepped outside of your view for one moment, you would see how obvious the view point is. Why? Cause I don't get my news from any of them. And I see each sources trying to discredit the other. Some more so than others. It is a plain as day from where I stand.

So, unfortunately, trying to label me or group me in doesn't work. It just isn't reality. I have not used cable, network, or any of that in 10 years. Oh by the way I don't watch television. I'm not interested in anyone trying to scare me, tell me what to think, or what to buy.

I truly believe non-partisan views. Critical thinking and deciding for ones self. It gets hard with all the propaganda machines. but it is possible. I rely on a lot of foreign sources and sources where ratings don't matter. People that don't have an invested interest in having people think one way or the other.

Fortunately, I can communicate with nearly 1/4 of the world in their native languages, so it may be a little easier for me to tap into some sources than others. Although, honestly, many of those sources i can easily group with one source or the other when it comes to certain issues. But all this does help me get a better understanding of foreign policy, and in general the moral and social zeitgeist.

So, I am all about a good discussionc, and if you are open minded i can certainly point you to some very populated forums that have some very healthy debates about ALL the issues from ALL sides. Places where you can't just spout the rhetoric you've heard. Not meaning, you, meaning anyone.

If not. Sure. We can ignore the current administration and talk about the new ones and their policies.

I'd like to hear what you have to say about Mccain's energy policy vs Obama's. Let's hear.

Sigh again. I unfortunately got pulled off what I wanted to discuss and ended up discussing dozens of things you wanted to discuss. Which I did but you refuse to accept fact. I tell you how and why the sky is blue but you instead insist it is pink and argue it. I'm not going to get drawn anymore into a fool's argument because then we both lose. You see it your way no matter what. I see facts and show them to you and you still won't acknowledge them but instead LOL and try and rationalize what you said by saying you get ALL your knowledge from reputable sources and Implying I do not. I've said what I mean and I mean what I've said. I may be old fashioned but that doesn't mean I don't read and listen to reports and polls from Berkley to London, which I've actually been to. ((Some of what I've said I've experienced first hand. Have you actually spoken to an Iraqi citizen living in Iraq. Have you been to Iraq or ANY middle eastern country. Any other country? Have you served?)) But wait, you know it doesn't really matter, it shouldn't matter, personally going there isn't a must to talk and learn things which is what I've been telling people. If i've been overseas but can't speak french but you can and you can converse with france/beirut/india daily or your a regular Johnson and can't leave your city but search the web and listen to various programs. You can actually get accurate answer's, from these various sites on the Internet (this includes collegiate and non-American and scientific). Any degree I may or may not hold is also not necessary IF you express a desire to learn and research data. I'm sorry but it IS apparent you have not (outside Liberal sites you claim your not on). I have a friend in the NAACP who I've been debating with for years. He did not vote for Bush but has become a Republican in no small part to my talks (I added that little part to make him laugh as he reads some of these little blurps I comment on, sorry back on topic). He and I were both very Pig-headed on ideas for years and it was because of him I had to back up EVERY LITTLE THING I said. And if he can't agree with what your saying I should just let it go and start another debate. However:
With that being said we've both told each other what for, take that, I know this better blah blah. It seems you want to get back on my original topics and hopefully you will stay there. But I will not get drawn off topic again nor get in another Bush debate or we might as well go back and talk about Clinton and that subject is worn out beyond belief for me.
So. Energy plan. McCain vs Obama,, hmmm
McCain has one and Obama does not seems to be a start. Let me explain
Obama's original idea.. Health Care help to auto industries. Offset health care costs to auto industries buy using federal funds (that money is coming from somewhere, the taxpayer) to lower health care costs so they can afford to make better fuel saving cars. And completely be independent from oil (period) by 2020 or 2025 (depending on what he decides to say that day). And investing heavily (more tax money) into alternative fuel methods. Then there's the common sense plan that took us over 70 dollars more a barrel that he was part of. Pelosi/dem senate then begged Bush to push for more drilling in Saudi Arabia but refuses to drill domestically because that wouldn't help (that makes no sense at all and Obama agreed with her??). So the Dems/Obama promise if you vote for him in 12 years or more (after he's out of the white house) you'll see it get better but they can't do anything now but raise taxes and make long term promises they don't have any proof they can keep.. EMPTY WORDS..
McCain/Rebulicans Pushing car manufactures to make better fuel economic cars (the cars have a huge price tag). Being Completely oil free by 2025 (same bs the dems said). And basically saying much of what the Dems have said (all bs). However the republicans want to open all drilling right now to reduce fuel costs in the next 2 to 4 years (a far cry from Obama's 10). And Palin wants to use Alaskan oil both tapped an untapped to even further reduce costs until that day we can truly be independent from oil (that day is at least 50 years away and we need solutions to help now)
Both offer prizes to car makers for inventive new alt fuels and designs and are pushing for better transportation reg's and tapping the federal reserve. And both have recently agreed that we would only partially (25%) be oil free by 2025 (impossible promises to keep by both parties, no proof and stupid to say on both accounts).
So on this one topic you've picked neither side is just coming out wonderful but at least McCain is promising short term help with actual plans that will help where Obama is only talking long term (He has said short term on his site but the explanation is long term)
Also I believe since oil prices have dropped slightly and look as if they may drop by election time, whomever gets in office could by luck of the draw claim its because of them oil prices have dropped. Again neither sides shine on this issue but the Republicans are showing much more clout and promise than the Dems. I also realise you might think I have left key points out from the Dems but I left some points out from both as they are both empty and without any proof of do-ability, just promises.
Now how about a new topic after you respond to this one. Say Obama's experience vs McCains (I'm talking McCain not Palin or Biden, who incidentally have more than Obama)

PS I don't have television either and I don't care for what foreign papers think (I do pay attention to foreign government policies however and quote them, so in a sense I do read some foreign articles as they pertain to policy statements. I just don't care much what they think.)

Well, the Obama plan included a tax/share of the windfall profits of the last several years. McCain does not. That is pretty immediate. posting the highest quarterly earnings ever. 14 percent to $11.68. billion in August. Dems are talking about 500 for individuals, 1000 for families. I don’t have a car, so it doesn’t affect me directly. But these cats were totally cashing in so I got no problem with a little going back.

Obama wants to use some of the light oil from SPR. To offset prices immediately. And latter replacing it with heavier crude. So, Venezuelan we can assume. So that is immediate help. Way faster than drilling, but not as long effect.

After the Saudis declined to Opec to reduce their production a few weeks ago (oh by the way, the pressure on the saudi’s is about more than us not drilling Alaska √ DEMS. So if you want to dog Pelosi for her insisting on Bush pressuring them, why don’t you read the 28 blacked out pages in the 9/11 report and see who owes who. Oh. We can’t) I’m not sure how much influence The Saudi instability will have. Or even if it will stick. This week they met and decided to reduce, but it seemed the saudi’s again are not going to comply. So the power stuggle in opec continues. But opec won’t have the power (saudi’s got the reserves etc) to play as hard. And hopefully the plan won’t stick for Opec to reduce oil production. The Saudi’s will continue their overproduction 500,000 and meet demand. raking it in of course. So yeah, it will be cheaper. I guess a good hurricane could come through. Or Chaves losses his mind. But we are both pretty stuck and have no choice but to solve it. They need the money, we are next door and ready to refine it. But I wouldn’t be so quick to judge the Pelosi move. Although she seems like an idiot sometimes (especially taunting bush that the saudi’s wouldn’t increase production) but then you realize soon after she publicity does that, they come through. Must have been another phone call made. But with the Saudi’s doing their own thing, it can work out when we need to refill those reserves. As of now it’s as $95+. But in the long run, it’s good for Iran to know that everybody depends on everyone else. It’s bullying, but so are nukes. This is a major issue obviously. It has as much to do with foreign policy as energy. It is in these areas where I think John McCane doesn’t have the right ideas to work things out. He’s demonstrated it on the campaign. Not really effective to pretend he is going to invade. Makes use look clueless.

Obama and Mccain both want to work out the issues of the Commodity Futures Trading to make it more transparent. mccain use’s the wording “when we find abuses, we need to *swoop down on a bald eagle and* they need to be swiftly punished. Okay. I added that other part. So is possible by the next summer the price gouging won’t be going on. I think an important point here is iraq in general. With the Chinese things are starting to happening for then. The problem moves elsewhere, and actually gets more complicated. But the service contract, by the chinese can help iraq. So that should put some money in iraq (and infrastructure) and some oil in china’s economy. Iraq is trying to boost from2.5 – 3mil a day. And up to 4.5mil by 2013. The US companies thought they were in months ago, 35 world companies were bidding all together. But security and the contracts couldn’t really be worked out. Cept for china. I know you don’t think it was for oil. But I have a feeling at that moment there was a big “WELL DANG” in the white house. But I don’t really think it was just about oil. (and yes saddam is an asshole and sponsored terrorism – but not al qaeda – or so the institute for defense analysis says in the IPP – can talk about the jihad latter if you want) But there are other kinds of profiteering. That being said, were are getting 700,000ish crude from Iraq every day now. Also I don’t think Chavas is at full production yet. I’m not sure what “common sense plan” that took us over $70 a barrel,” but it sound likes you were trying to blame Obama? On increasing oil prices? I think I misunderstood that part .

Mccain also talks about raising the value of the dollar to get a better exchange rate to make oil cheaper. Well, no shit. This is just magic or voodoo. Didn’t really have a plan of how he would do this. Just said “raise the value of the dollar.” So loosen credit and lower rates? Um… lower the Debt? Um… Raise interest on treasury? I think with the current trade deficit, budget deficit, the collapse of fannie and freddy and thus proving to the world our economic instability, we are in a major problem with the economy. And if we are not really smart, could get very bad. There were so many foreign investments in freddy and fannie, do you think we could sell more bonds? And beside, who exactly is going to be responsible for that 12 trillion dollars. And honestly I haven’t had enough of a chance to really think or read about it all yet. But just saying “we’ll increase the value of the dollar” ain’t really an easy solution for energy. And running around waving our flag at iran (3 largest oil reserves?) won’t do anything good for the world market and just makes us look like we don’t have a plan. Didn’t we piss them off in the 80’s? Aren’t we trying to sort out the other energy issue with them, the highly explosive one?

We will see the effects of the reserves and the tax faster than the drilling. I seriously doubt someone drilling and getting anything up and running could be done in any short time frame. And fuck the oil companies. They’ll be fine. Tapping into Alaska right now is just a bad idea, save it for latter in case things really start getting dirty. There’s also the dakotas which I believe obama was open to at some point. But in reality, we need to moderate and sort out our domestic and foreign policies and help stabilize the world market. Can you image if the FEDs didn’t bail them out
Tapping into our 3% won’t do much for our 20,000,0000 a day.


MAJOR Differences in their plans.

DEMS
The dems also want to provide $4 billion retooling tax credits and loan guarantees for auto plant and part manufactures. these guys may just be doomed. US auto manufactures are so far behind the curve, as well as our infrastructure (for alternative fuels), that all they can do is hold their breath. So they will have to be propped up as well. But… Jobs.

Republican want to commit $2 Billion Annually To Advancing Clean Coal. Hmm. I guess, sure why not. Dems mention clean coal as well, but not with a price. But Dem mention money for renewable with revenues of a cap and trade auction, along with tax money, they want to invest 150 billion over the 10 years for renewable, energy efficiency, “low emission plants” biofuel, fuel infrastructure, and begin work on new grid. (republican said something similar – but the dems focus more on the “renueables.” The McCain idea leads to more vague tax cuts for the ”renuables,” while offering the serious money to coal. But, that could shake out a few different ways. But let us not forget the blackout and the grid. Both cover it.

REPUBLICANS 45 New Nuclear Power Plants By 2030. 100 Really? Um… not a good idea. Only in the sense that it does take the technical and economic curve of new technologies into account. Especially ones that have yet to see heavy investments. Yes, we will probably need nuclear power. But the idea of 80% of our power buy nuke is silly. And I also see this as a theat to homeland security Not that I think want to worry about that. I’d rather just take it of the table.. But I was at 9/11. I was on the ruble after they fell handing out waters and coffees to firemen who at this point were digging with there hats. And I do remember thinking brelfly. Good thing is wasn’t’ Indian point. But the whole heavy nuke power thing makes me think old school, energy buddies, or a lack of understanding of how technologies develop. And I do recall congress bailing out the nuke industry several times. At least covering the 4bil in insurance or something like that.

Republicans want to remove mandates, subsidies, tariffs and price supports that focus exclusively on corn-based ethanol. This is specially a move that will not further “energy independence.” While it may reduce oil prices (probably not) it would open up us to competition with Brazil. Instead of using our corn, we would use their sugarcane ethanol (which is about 5 times more efficient). Instead of developing our energy, we would develop there’s. And with the agricultural potential of South America in general, that could clean our house. Granted they aren’t in the position to do that now. But that road is the hard road, maybe not now, but lets say when they have solved their own energy concerns and in 2012 or so, when they tap that major oil reserve off their coast. And we are needing their ethanal AND oil because we didn’t keep the $ here to develop our own in relation to the market. Maybe that wouldn’t be the case, but corn and sugarcane ethenal can’t compete. Sugarcane is way more efficient. There is also a concern here with GM crops and biodiversity but I’m sure that will get looked over by both.

Obama Is behind the natural gas pipeline that congressed already authorized the lone for but nothing has happened. Enhancing oil recovery from our existing fields. And drilling some of our reserves in the dakotas.

Dems idea for the vets is to also get them in job training for the green market. Work with industry for programs. I imagine this will be retrofitting homes, HVAC work with thermal pumps, and solar water and heating. There will be A LOT of work in this area when the nation gets behind energy independence when retrofitting their homes make them feel patriotic. There are already many state end tax incentives for this.

I heard JOBS from mccain, but the Dems seem more doable. But, we are talking ideas here.

Dems also mention money for manufacturing centers to modernize and help Americans learn new skills to produce green products. But I haven’t a clue in my mind what they think they will be manufacturing. But the idea was to give capital (1 billion a year) to small and midsized manufactures to help growth, and jobs, and development. I’m there are sure there are some entrepreneurs that could make that work out. I know of several small European companies that were recycling and doing other post consumer product companies that really took off once the EU got serious about these issues. JOBS, GREEN.

Dems, youth jobs program for disconnected and disadvantaged youth. Sure, why not.

The major points I see is for realistic thinking on the dems part. They bring up (although maybe not specifics ) land use decisions and development. Investments into walking, bicycling, and alternatives, and public transit. This wasn’t really mentioned by mccain. But if you look at red state, blue state, it could just be about location. But, I think is it import for you to understand. I don’t drive a car. I don’t even own a car. Almost no one I know owns a car. And I mean maybe 4%. I take cars from time to time. When I go to the airport. But for $78 a month I can go anywhere, anytime, in my city. I take the subway or sometimes a bus. So when we talk about energy needs and gasoline prices, and these things effecting my national security… well… a lot of that is people just driving, unwilling to carpool, buying gas guzzlers., causing me problems. And then obama says be sure the pressure in right in your tires and you will save energy. Maccain tries to make a joke of it and sells them on his site to raise money. Sorry. That is the first recommendation from the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY. Sure there are other things, commercial etc, but a lot of it si private vehicles. Now if you’ve been to iraq, well, that won’t be a good example, but any 2nd or 3rd world country, you know how creative people are and have to be about transportation. And how difficult it is and can become. And the reality is, the days of cheap oil have ended now that there are so many world players, and some of the guys out there in places with out public transit are going to have to give a little. Not the SUVs and gas guzzles. Carpool. Build a train. This is unavoidable. Think about it,…“Why should I let you use my oil? What am I getting out of it? Get a moped. A small car.” Okay. I don’t really think that way. But you can imagine that some people do, no? It’s not just about getting some oil now, there has to be a long term solution cause it isn’t getting better. And part of that solution is people going about things a bit differently. Here to me, the Dems get it. Not Republicans.


Experience.

Well, mccain has more experience. Here are the recent ones I don’t’ like. Voted “no” on the intelligence bill? He wants to torture people? “No” on the Web GI Bill? Why? But sometimes it’s not what you have done, it’s what haven’t. So his 28 years doesn’t really help him for me. It gets old hearing him talk about viet nam etc (after I heard the story once) and I really think his battle cry of “patriotism” is a cheap tactic. But whatever, he is trying to win. So for me, he’s had twenty-eight years do these things we want and need, and now, out of nowhere, he’s the guy for the job? Why wasn’t he pushing energy independence before? It just makes me think he doesn’t really have the new ideas for the modern world. Sometimes you need politicians that do what you say. And sometimes you need ones that brings the right ideas to the table. New ones. Not war. Not trying to rally a crowd to near fanatical “patriotism.” It’s not about making people feel good it’s about making people think, and act. I’m sure there are Dems that are the same way, I’m just glad it isn’t a battle cry.

Mccain, is one of those people that is only as good as his opponent. And so it seems, sometimes just not as good. Oh, so now you have a plan. So now you want to address healthcare. Obama was already on topic from the moment he walked in the senate. Even before he was an elected official. Of course. These are all only opinions. Mccain’s record, he voted for the war. His rhetoric about war, iraq, iran, shows this shortsightedness and lack of general freethinking. Things I think are necessary to solve current world problems. The aggressive foreign policy stance. Really? “We will win the war!” That’s his campaign? What century is he from? Other issues, which I see as part of his record, McCain takes money from lobbyist. And I’m not talking about the Keating 5. I mean now. At every turn obama has set a prescient. NO LOBBIEST. ZERO. NONE. Every opportunity he tried to do the right thing. And I have a big problem with some of mccain’s lobbyist. Yes he did pass a great bill for reform. But do you see? it’s not enough. In obama’s short career he stepped right in and addressed major issues right away. The earned Icome tax credit. Education. Video tapping interrogations after people had been falsely sentenced to death. Vindicated after their deaths I believe. DNA etc. and in the senate pushed the transparent bill (with mccain). But don’t you see. Obama goes after it right away. McCain has had 28 years. Outside of government Obama tackled issues because he KNEW they were issues. Addressing poverty. Healthcare. Non-proliferation. And he got it things done. NOT cause he thought it was what people wanted. But because he knew it was what they needed. Obama shows he has that ability to get back to the issues and out of the distractions. Even though some (“no” to the war) would be VERY unpopular. I don’t want to discredit mccains record. He has done some good things. He just didn’t do enough. He had 28 years. Move on. And thinking we are all dumb enough to cite his POW experience as his credentials to be commander and chief of our army is absurd. He treats Americans like fools. Bad war, we was captured, tortured, and we lost. What does it have to do with now? Nothing. So he should stop mentioning it.

So, to answer a few of your early questions… with jmore questions.

Have you been to Europe? South America? Asia? Ever been to a sweat shop in a third world country? Ever actually seen people for sale in a black market? How about child prostitutes? Have you read the Geneva convention? Do you know people that have lived through genocide? Have you even been to the killing fields? Have you read Thomas Jefferson's biography? The works of Marx? Che? Alexander Pain? The Quran? The Bible (The WHOLE thing)? Do you know Iraq's history, The Ottoman Empire, The Brittish Mandate? Have you ever challenged the beliefs that we are all inevitably indoctrinated with by our family (like all of us)? Challenge your on ideologies? your own patriotism? tired to see the world from other peoples perspective? Do you have a clear understanding of current ideologies, religions, and religious influences other than your own? Ever been to a Jewish temple, and Buddhist temple, a Mosque? Or how bout temples of failed and forgotten religions? I have. But you somehow you think I don’t have a desire for knowledge or truth? If you are trying to call me ignorant, I’ll tell you now, I AM, I didn’t go to school, but that was the first things I had to realize before I started to learn anything.
I haven’t served. Not in the context you speak of. And I don’t speak French. And yes, I have spoken to an Iraqi. Not in Iraq. I know veterans and have been of service to them her in nyc, and I know people overseas Iraq, Kuwait, and Afghanistan right now. I do care about what other countries think, because I’m fully award that we depend on them, both finically, and for national security.
Stop watching TV.

Foreign policy?

a statitician (I do not think I spelled that rigt) you can make numbers say whatever you want them to. Statistics are all BS

Actually the economy does better under Republicans. You just constantly have the media telling you how horrible it is for the last 8 years that most folks start to believe it. Look some real hard facts and figures and you will see that you are wrong.

On a common sense note: How is taxing the living crap out of everyone "good" for the economy?

How is attacking any profitable business, both verbally, and with the weight of oppressive taxes, "good" for the economy?

seen anyone say. 'The economy does better under the Republikans'? Seriously? How's your economy doing right now, bud? How many people have lost their houses, jobs, savings, etc. How are you enjoying the TRILLION DOLLAR loss to the public of the 'sub-prime mortgage' collapse? And the THREE TRILLION dollar, (so far), cost of the pissing contest in Iraq? I've always said you hafta be a complete fucking idiot to vote Republikan, and you sure proved it, in spades.

the economy is not too bad right now. Contrary to all you hear in the leftwing media. Look at the facts. Unemployment is quite low and we have had growth for many quarters. Maybe not much growth but we are not in "shambles" and we are not in a recession. Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac failed because of liberal government policies. Good Lord! I feel like I am dealing with children.

shit that neocons keep repeating, 'the liberal media'. Who owns the media in the US, pal? Five groups, all huge corporations, all huge contributors to the RepubliKan Party. Look it the fuck up. You really are blind and brainwashed.

due to 'liberal' policies. LOL!! You asshole. You wouldn't know shit from Shinola if you had a mouthfull. Just coming here and denying everything that's going on won't convince anybody, bud. Take it somewhere else.

Like why buy a house or a car that you cannot afford? Where has personal responsibility gone in this country? Hello! I could have bought a more expensive house, but I knew I could NOT AFFORD IT. Take responsibility for your actions. I do not think it is the governments responsibility to take care of people when they make stupid decisions.

the subprime mortgage crisis happened? Government regulations were slashed on how much down payment and other qualifications were necessaary to grant a mortgage. Then institutions were free to hand out mortgages to anyone who walked in the door, and then 'sell the paper' to other lenders, who ended up taking the fall when millions of them foreclosed, as was expected. This was a trillion-dollar criminal enterprise, engineered by the Republikan adnministration. Deal with it.

What is it with this fear of media? I don't understand where this thinking comes from. And might I add, where did you get it? Let me guess. The Media. It's ALWAYS dangerous to get your info from one source. use them all. and use the public ones, use private companies, use foreign media. BBC. etc. If you want fair and balanced, all the major media sources of the world have english translated pages. use them.

Look at the facts. Things like unemployment rate. Average household income. under 8 years of dems +8000. Under 8 years of Bush -2000. The largest trade deficit ever. Terrible energy policies. etc. etc. etc.

I am referring to real GDP from 1948 to 2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34 years and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth of real gross national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats.
This includes all Americans with any income above the 20th percentile.

That 1.14-point difference, if maintained for eight years, would yield 9.33 percent more income per person, which is a lot more than almost anyone can expect from a tax cut.

are you really trying to include the economy after the second world war? REALLY! Out of touch my friend.

who pays zero attention could say what you just said. Liberal vs conservative is like evil vs good. Liberals are truly sick twisted people.

I say vote with your feet-Obamawants to kill the UNBORN and Mccain wants to kill the born. they are both stooges. 9/11 was and INSIDE JOB and neither of them address the reality of that.

They both represent statism in either form. Google Antony Sutton for an understanding of the shell game of liberal vs conservative. It will give your brain a shot of cold water that might wake you up.

I haven't read about him but it sound's interesting. Have you seen the documentary ""The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear" done by the BBC? It's talks about the neo-cons and the falsified strength of the USSR so we could have an enemy. And it follows the rise of these guys up till the present day and of all things... "al queda." It played at a lot of film festivals and on channel 4 as well. very much worth your time to watch.

It was pretty good as far as it went. Only they want to confine the argument to the same ol liberal vs conservative box. The money power really controls BOTH political sides and it is based on the dialectics of change: Thesis- antithesis and synthesis.
It is a 'controlled' controversy and 'they' have a predetermined 'synthesis' or outcome which is the New World Order--a totalitarian Police state. It is coming through 'controlled chaos'.

If Obama was white would he be running for Pres? I am not racist but come on.....Sarah Palin really is somrthing a bit different and I am Not a republican.

So your saying you think Obama is a pander for the black vote in the same way that Palin is pandering for the woman vote? Unlikely.

Saying that Obama is pandering for the black vote...which is ludricris since he is not "black" but I think Sarah Palin is a "woman" and she is being attacked from all sides. and Sarah is not being elected to lead America .... and truth be told there are a lot of women who will not vote for her because she is a woman .... is it the same for african americans (BTW Baracks father was not such a "good" man)

Like I said vote who you think is the best person. We all disagree. But I think I like this Hockey Mom! And I do not have kids. and I am pro choice.

who cares what barracks father? You're telling me to not worry about palin cause she isn't being elected to lead, but i should care about barracks father? REALLY?

And if palin isn't being elected to lead, i find it a frightening fact that 20% of vice presidents did lead the country. 9 vice presidents became present although elected as vice president. 9 out of 43 presidents died during there term. the odds of palin becoming president are VERY high.

I think ... actually I am wondering what you all are afraid of? Which President or Vice President has been perfect? Clinton? Kennedy? Carter? Gore, all have had their flaws. I think McCain & Palin are gonna do just fine. and attack me for my views even tho I have a right to them, just like the anarchists who tried to destroy our cities the past week. Except I am not trying to hurt anyone or destroy anything. EVERYONE has a right to their opinion in this country. That does not mean another person has a "right" to stop you from doing something you believe in.

Well, not exactly. If you are gay you do get to get married in a lot of states. If you're some extremist or racist to act out on it. They believe it. Just cause you believe it does mean it's right. we once had slavery, people were once subject to kings. People believed this garbage too. The McCain Palin issue is really about whether or not we as american want to take yet another step backward. "Do just fine?" You must be kidding, what do you know about Palin that makes you thing she will do "just fine" when mccain drops over dead iike 9 out of the last 43 presidents have. Palin vs Biden. no competition. A vote McCain/Biden is irresponsible. This short sighted republican garbage is why american has lost it's influence both in the world and in our own country.

actually live on Earth? I mean the same planet I live on? Liberals live in la la land where truth are lies and good is evil.

i'm sorry, what was your argument here? it's seems you didn't really say anything. so i guess i will. MCCAIN VOTES LIKE BUSH almost all the time. So if bush is change, well then. go for it.

I'm looking for a "hockey mom" with knocked up children. I'm looking for a vice president. She's as much of a hockey mom as mccain is maverick. lol.

could be as perfect and wonderful as you. How many families have had unplanned pregnancies? But thats your big complaint?! sheesh! Look up the qualifications of Teddy Roosevelt when he was running as a vice president. Reads almost identical to Sarah Palin. The hatred aimed at this woman is astounding!

"If only all of us could be as perfect and wonderful as you. How many families have had unplanned pregnancies? But thats your big complaint?!"

Um, no, i don't really care weather or not her kid is pregnant and what she does with it. that the mothers decision. MY complaints is that these are the same people in office now. The same failed policies. The same reason the united states has lost it's edge on education in mathematics and technologies. The same reason we have the largest trade deficit ever and well as debt. THAT's my complaint.

Really, in the end, it's not about qualifications, it's about policies of the mccain party. they are outdated and don't work. she's a distraction. If a majority of americans want four more years of the same junk, we are going to get it good and hard. rising energy and food prices, lower quality of schools, just downright irresponsible spending.

So no, her kid being pregnant isn't REALLY my complaint. It actually has nothing to do with the big picture. I just think it's funny that dispite the obvious failure of "teach abstinence" and all that poop, she has right infront of her the shinning example of why that doesn't work. And still can't see it. That's worrisome to me.

We as a country have too many problems a the moment to be that blind about things.

is for Hope & Change. Can anyone explain what that BS means....except to get you to vote for him

he has a comprehensive energy plan that will keep money here and create jobs. His foreign policy is responsible - he knows that we need to talk to our friends and foes. He supports civil unions. He believes that companies that wants to outsource should be taxed. He believes that all americans should have helathcare and that washington shouldn't be dominated by big oil and insurance companies. Really. If you don't already know these things (you had over a year to read it) i don't know what you've been doing with you time. Please, I encourage you to really see what all the candidates are about. McCain votes with Bush 90+% of the time. now if you think america under bush is "just fine" then that is a different story. Some people like MAJOR debt, trade deficits, and a general pandering to big business as opposed to doing what's right to the american people.... um.... I guess.

Just too much to respond to it all. Just suffice to to say. What a giant steaming shovel full of horse hockey! Sheesh!

P.S. You might want to actually learn about someone before you go about demagoguing them.

Your title alone explains your foolishness. It should say "women" not "woman" are fools. You are apparently in the small minority on this one buddy. Many people like the addition of Palin, and it was not just a pick out of the hat. She represents everything that the Conservative sector of the Republican party believes in. Yes, she is against the right to choose whether or not you want to kill your baby. Yes, she is ready to step up and be a leader. I am not sure what you think is a qualification of being a President, but I think being and executive leader of a state or even a small town should qualify you a thousand times more than a community activist - and thats the person you have at the TOP of your ticket! And yes, she is a woman. Contrary to what you believe, this is not to reach out to Hillary's supporters. It is to reach out to the conservative base. It shows just how little you know about politics. McCain would lose without his base and he did not have it without a strong Conservative on the ticket. The fact that she is a woman has nothing to do with it. Also, please show me where McCain has voted against "women's rights." What, did he vote to repeal women's suffrage? Please read up a little bit before you start posting liberal nonsensical lies from the media that have not real facts supporting them.

But there were lots of blacks at the R.N.C. Sheesh! Will the race baiter's never stop? Republicans aren't racists or sexist. Contrary to all the media demagoguery you constantly hear.

Well. I don't think republicans are racist. They just don't CARE about other races. KATRINA! But hey, look at the footage, there still aren't any black people in the crowd.

I did and there are!

Although I don't think bush cares about poor people. as katrina showed. but i would say that the crowd at that rally was not 13% black. but who knows, and who cares. these guys are faces of the failed policies of the last 8 years. time to move on people. they ruined it and it's over.

What does that mean? What did she oppose? BTW we Republican leave the lying to the Democrats. They are way more experienced in it than we are.

That us what she says she opposed, but was actually an advocate of. I think you can just search google for "bridge to nowhere" and find some reports on it. It's a pretty bold lie.

where are you guys getting this stuff. Even Sen Ted Stevens gives her credit for stopping it. Even a Democrat website in Alaska credits her for killing it. Barack and Biden both voted for it. Come on guys you need to give us some REAL scandal not made up BS

your post makes no sense.

"Woman of America are smart in general, which is why men such as myself support Palin."

What? Really? Is it that easy? Are we all supposed to be so blind and not actually think for ourselves?

installs covers on storm drains, or he grinds cheese? More evidence of why the Republikans always remove funding from education. Only the ignorant will vote for them.