The Last Stand
Advertisement
Steamboat Springs — I support the candidacy of Barack Obama for president because I see a bright future for the United States. I am troubled that so many in my age group (retired) are fearful that if we let down our guard, some boogeyman will capture our bodies and minds and destroy our way of life. If there is a message in Obama’s quest for the presidency, it is that this country is great, its people are great, and we can accomplish anything we set our collective mind to doing.
Rhetoric pervades the airwaves. The candidates make promises on which they cannot deliver. Talking heads pronounce polls that vary widely, day by day, and analyze the tidbits of sensationalism that sell programs, rarely delving into the nuances of policy because they fear (know?) that such discussion will bore 90 percent of their audience. After they get past discussing Obama’s blustering pastor, Clinton’s “obliterate Iran” or McCain’s mix-up of Shia and Sunni, and five minutes of commercials, there is no time for discussing what is really important.
If you want to know where Obama stands, read his book “Audacity of Hope.” In it you will find a well-written discussion of his views on values, opportunity, politics, faith, race, family and international relations.
You will find surprising praise for Ronald Reagan (to the consternation of many liberals): “Still, the conservative revolution that Reagan helped usher in gained traction because Reagan’s central insight — that the liberal welfare state had grown complacent and overly bureaucratic — contained a good deal of truth.”
And tribute to Obama and a prescient comment from George W. Bush: “You’ve got a bright future, but I’ve been in this town awhile, and let me tell you, it can be tough. When you get a lot of attention like you’ve been getting, people start gunning for ya. And it won’t just be coming from my side. … Everybody’ll be waiting for you to slip.”
To say that Obama’s religious background is eclectic would be an understatement. His mother exposed him to Christianity, Buddhism, Confucianism and Shintoism. His father was born a Muslim but was an atheist — neither belief probably had an effect since his father left when Obama was 4.
Living in Indonesia, he attended a Catholic school and a madrass, a Muslim school. His mother studied religion from the detached view of an anthropologist. His grandparents, who probably had the most impact on him as a youth, are probably best described as skeptics.
Obama describes his own coming to faith best in his earlier book, “Dreams From My Father.” In summary, as a community organizer for churches on the South Side of Chicago, he came to terms with faith. He attributes his epiphany to understanding his mother’s loneliness during her final months and concluded that it arose from her lack of faith and the spiritual healing he observed then accepted within the church community in which he worked.
Obama presents in his writings and his oral presentations one of the most positive views held by an American politician. He has an abiding faith in what this country can accomplish and a sincere regret for the divisiveness that has grown during the past three decades.
Murray Tucker
Steamboat Springs
Community comments
Note: The Steamboat Pilot & Today doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy.
another_local (anonymous)
May 11, 2008 at 7:12 a.m.
› Suggest removal
My concern with Obama is not so much what he wants to do but more, his ability to get it done. I would feel a lot better about him if he had actually been in a leadership position, any leadership position, before. He does not have a track record of building consensus, executive roles or even budget responsibility (public or private). That, and his state intention to raise taxes in ways that will stiffle the economy, are why I will vote for McCain.
freshair (anonymous)
May 11, 2008 at 1:09 p.m.
› Suggest removal
The most Liberal member of Congress, a wife who has never been proud of America, and a demagogue, radical preacher who he's known for 20 years,married him and his wife, has said was a second father to him and yet Obama would have us believe that Rev Wright's racist, Black Liberation rap was 'news' to him.
B Hussein Obama's talents, glib and camera friendly, would be much better utilized in many commercial endeavors. But, President of the USA? To any sober observer of the Domestic and World political scene that possibility is very scary, indeed.
Murray Tucker
May 11, 2008 at 1:37 p.m.
› Suggest removal
Dear another_local and freshair. You've made up your mind long before Obama was in Congress, and probably before he was born.
As to budget: You like what the current Administration has done with 7 years of experience? You like what McCain offers, more debt. And since you are concerned with Obama raising taxes I guess you are in the $250,000 plus (1% of the population) along with the farmers in this area who have collected well over $10 million for not planting crops in their swamps, one of which wanting to have us pay for his reservoir.
As to race bating freshair, “Hussein.” Yes, that is Obama's middle name. Maybe you need a new moniker-perhaps, “dogbreath?”
424now (anonymous)
May 11, 2008 at 2:11 p.m.
› Suggest removal
The audacity of severely misconceived allegiance.
Murray & 60408,
You would have us vote into the presidency a man with absolutely no experience in foreign affairs. You propose this at a time when there is a boogie man lurking in the shadows. At a time in history when a strong leader capable of driving threats to our collective safety and well being into the ground, you choose to support man with no leadership skills.
In this time of Anti-American rhetoric and emotion around the world you are supporting the pretty boy. I believe your reasoning behind this choice is a party based opinion.
In my opinion McCain is the only choice that will foster a secure future.
Please reference this previous thread to understand my reasoning and argument more completely.
http://www.steamboatpilot.com/forums/ope…
seabirth (anonymous)
May 11, 2008 at 3:11 p.m.
› Suggest removal
“You would have us vote into the presidency a man with absolutely no experience in foreign affairs.”
like george w bush?
one of my biggest problems with those who cry about obama raising taxes is the total disregard for the current situation we are in. the devalued dollar and higher inflation is a tax on savings. the increase in the cost of oil and gas, metals, and FOOD has had more impact on americans than the small amount an increase in taxes would have. it doesn't pass the smell test when bush and mccain supporters talk about fiscal issues… their policies of fiscal irresponsiblility have gotten us into the mess we are in.
of course, i laugh when people supporting mccain bring up rev wright… you know mccain not only has gone after the support of preachers who preach hate against catholics and gay people, but has flip-flopped on the issue of hateful pastors.
freshair (anonymous)
May 11, 2008 at 3:35 p.m.
› Suggest removal
60408…labelling me a 'Racist' because I used Obama's full birth name, Barack Hussein, Obama puts you in good company—with that other Race-baiting racist, Rev. Wright. You share that distinct blend of disregard for fact and outright stupidity which is a hallmark of many supporters of B Hussein Obama.
I have enough faith in the intelligence of the average American, yourself excluded, that come November they will reject this creation of the MTV era and elect someone with the character and experience to serve as president. And that is John McCain.
another_local (anonymous)
May 12, 2008 at 7:37 a.m.
› Suggest removal
60408, You have no basis for any statement about making up my mind. Whatever you mean to imply by the statement, I don't care for it.
I have voted in 13 presidential elections, most often for a democrat, but not always. I am not at all pleased with what “W” has done in the last 2 terms and voted against him in both elections. A year ago, I would have been astonished if someone proposed that I would vote Repulican this time around.
At this time, I think that experience in political world, both international and domestic is the most important thing we need in the white house. Since I am not 100% pleased with the policy plans of either side of the ballot, I will go with experience.
When you assume…….
PS, how is Braidwood these days? What brings you to our little blog?
seabirth (anonymous)
May 12, 2008 at 9 a.m.
› Suggest removal
domestic issues: mccain has stated “I don’t understand economics very well.” sounds like the man to lead us during these times of inflation and possible recession.
i know it sounds terrible, but to me mccain was a great candidate back in 2000… before he became the great flip-flopper. imo, his age is clearly a huge issue. i really do not vote based on VP's, but you clearly would have to with mccain.
Matthew Stoddard
May 12, 2008 at 9:35 a.m.
› Suggest removal
Actually, freshair…you didn't use his full given name. You used the name he normally goes by, Barack, as first initial then used his middle name in a formal sense. It's the same way Coulter does it…just to put the name Hussein out there in order to think that will frighten people. How many times did you ever put Bush out there as G. Walker Bush? Haven't seen that one pop up. It shows contempt by putting out the Saddam-sounding portion of his name, and is race-baiting in it's own fashion. Congrats! You're a Liberal, especially voting for McCain, because all Conservatives know he's not really a Conservative!
freshair (anonymous)
May 12, 2008 at 10:01 a.m.
› Suggest removal
Mentioning 'Hussein' is race-baiting? The last time I checked, Arabs were considered members of the Caucasian branch of humanity. So by your definition I am guilty of 'race-baiting' Caucasians. Try again.
Matthew Stoddard
May 12, 2008 at 10:28 a.m.
› Suggest removal
Then let's call it “Name baiting,” since Hussein implies seems to allude to how close it might remind you of Saddam Hussein's name, in order to possibly perpetuate a climate of fear around him.
He typically goes by Barack Obama. Why did you make it a specific point to go out of your way to call him “B. Hussein Obama” when only Coulter calls him that? I wonder why you didn't instead call him “Bra” Obama, since he was born in Hawaii and people say “Bra” for “Dude” all the time.
freshair (anonymous)
May 12, 2008 at 10:39 a.m.
› Suggest removal
B Hussein Obama or Barack Hussein Obama, what's the difference? FYI, Barack is also an Arabic name, so by leaving it out and just using his initial, and by using your logic, I am actually minimizing any 'taint' of ethnicity by only referring to him by one of his two Arabic names.
another_local (anonymous)
May 12, 2008 at 11:16 a.m.
› Suggest removal
Actually Seabirth, I spoke about political experience not issues experience and the choice was deliberate. We need political leadership with a history of both accomplishment and the ability to work both sides of the aisle. I am less concerned with McCain's ability to cover the minutia of the issue than I am with ability to put together a constructive majority to make decisions and get things done. I am also interested in leaders that have executive experience either in the private sector or in the public sector. McCain has it. Obama does not.
I agree, age is an issue. It cuts both ways.
Matthew Stoddard
May 12, 2008 at 11:24 a.m.
› Suggest removal
Minimizing the “taint”…that's hilarious! The difference is that B. Hussein Obama and Barack Hussein Obama aren't the general most people refer to him. Did you read “Godless” by A. Hart Coulter? Or are you always listening to the radio hilarity of R. Hudson Limbaugh? Nobody ever refers to a name of R. Wilson Reagan, do they?
Still- why didn't you just refer to him as the majority of people do: Barack Obama?
Matthew Stoddard
May 12, 2008 at 1:04 p.m.
› Suggest removal
Oops! Forgot to say, “The difference is that B. Hussein Obama and Barack Hussein Obama aren't generally the way most people refer to him.”
freshair (anonymous)
May 12, 2008 at 1:31 p.m.
› Suggest removal
Kielbasa, let me give you a quick reality check. Barack Hussein Obama is his given name. Why people do or don't refer to him by his full name is a matter of personal choice. Although I guarantee you those taking offense are, like yourself and the mostly Liberal media backing him, Obamophiles whose antenna are rotating 24/7 for any PC commandments violated in discussing or commenting BHO.
And another thing I can guarantee you is that outside of this country,especially the Islamic world, referring to him by his 3 names is the perfectly normal thing to do and this strange American taboo on the Left to acknowledge his full, given name is seen as one more example of American Political Correctness in action.
This heightened 'sensitivity' so prevalent among the Obamaites, is strictly a product of Election-anxiety. His 'name' is the last thing you should be worrying about. His record(or lack of it), his wife and his Radical Left associations are his real problem
momofthree (anonymous)
May 12, 2008 at 1:55 p.m.
› Suggest removal
freshair, you are being completely disingenuous, and it makes you look ridiculous. You did not refer to John Sidney McCain in your post above… why not? Because your purpose in refering to Barack Obama as B. Hussein Obama is indeed to highlight that middle name, Hussein. Whatever your reasons for doing that (and it's hard to imagine they're good ones), at least admit that's what you're doing.
freshair (anonymous)
May 12, 2008 at 2:14 p.m.
› Suggest removal
momofthree…I see you're also a member of the paranoid Obamaite segment. Try to follow along here….His given name is Barack Hussein Obama. He has never expressed any discomfort at being referred to as such, indeed, his profile on Wikipedia, which, one can assume has been contributed by his admirers owing to the overwhelming positive and glowing spin put on his 'accomplishments', he is prominently named Barack Hussein Obama.
Perhaps you're too young to remember previous presidents John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Richard Milhous Nixon, Ronald Wilson Reagan, George Walker Bush and William Jefferson Clinton. All of whom were frequently referred to in the media by their full names. I am not being disingenous but you are certainly being paranoid
and exhibiting symptons of a severe case of Election-anxiety.
As I previously stated, his name is the least of his worries. The 2 biggest millstones around his neck are his wife and his racist Rev Wright.
Matthew Stoddard
May 12, 2008 at 2:27 p.m.
› Suggest removal
ahhhhh!! So now you are addressing him respectfully as a Muslim! That's odd considering he's purportedly Christian. Do most Christians always address each other with all given names (or more) when speaking of each other? Evidently not, since…
From the idiotic post in question:
“I have enough faith in the intelligence of the average American, yourself excluded, that come November they will reject this creation of the MTV era and elect someone with the character and experience to serve as president. And that is John McCain.”
Didn't you mean, “J. Sidney McCain?”
You and Coulter seem to be the only ones that refer to Obama as “B. Hussein Obama,” using the lame-a$$ excuse that “it's his given name.” No, it's a way to purposely show contempt, the same way as some old idiot always saying “Dims” instead of “Dems.” My given name is Matthew Clay Stoddard, yet most people call me by my preference, Matt. Do people always address you by your “given” name or by the name you prefer to be called? Don't bother aswering since you are anonymous. It was rhetorical.
Plus, I'm not an Obama-ite. I've voting 3rd party this year since my party has put up J. Sidney McCain and I'm afraid he may die (of natural causes) in office during a 4 or 8 year stint, and I still don't know who his running mate is. I would have voted for him had he won the Party in 2000, and voted for him over G. Walker Bush earlier that year.
Matthew Stoddard
May 12, 2008 at 2:33 p.m.
› Suggest removal
Oh…do you mean this Wiki link?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obam…
or maybe this one where the header is “Ronald Wilson Reagan”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reag…
Ooops! Nope! That one also has a header with just “Ronald Reagan.” In fact, pretty much nowhere else except the first paragraph (where almost all Wiki biographies state the full, given name of people, when applicable) and above his picture does it state “Ronald Wilson Reagan.”
The one where at the very top header it says, “Barack Obama,” not “B. Hussein Obama?”
And where did we always see all the other Pres names in media print out in full?
freshair (anonymous)
May 12, 2008 at 3:18 p.m.
› Suggest removal
Kiel…I really, truly enjoy knocking back these softballs that pass for your analysis. From the leading paragraph of the wiki link you so kindly posted:
'Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. (born August 4, 1961) is the junior United States Senator from Illinois and a candidate for the Democratic Party's nomination in the 2008 U.S. presidential election.'….Ooops, they even inserted 'Jr.'. I'm sure you and momofthree and that other Obamawit will be expressing your outrage at Wikipedia for including that uncalled for 'slur.'
'So now you are addressing him respectfully as a Muslim!'….I am? Just how did you reach that conclusion? Never mind, the twisted and tortured illogic of the Left is familiar to all. The fact is his name is a very common Muslim name but other than that, I am no more addressing him as a muslim than I would address any person by their ethnic or religious name.
If I'm addressing someone named Jose Martinez as Jose Martinez am I addressing him by his Hispanic name? Of course! Because that's his name. Life must be very troublesome for you, seeing sinister conspiracies and motives behind the most benign events. My advice…It's not just Beauty which is in the eye of the beholder, there's plenty of Paranoia in there also.
freshair (anonymous)
May 12, 2008 at 3:22 p.m.
› Suggest removal
'And where did we always see all the other Pres names in media print out in full?'
Oh, in media like the NYTimes, Wash Post, WSJ, Time, Newsweek, US News&World report to name just a few of the print media. I guess you don't read much outside of the Pilot. And of course the television outlets commonly referred to Clinton by his first, middle and last name.
freshair (anonymous)
May 12, 2008 at 3:29 p.m.
› Suggest removal
http://www.worldbiography.net/obama_bara…
freshair (anonymous)
May 12, 2008 at 3:30 p.m.
› Suggest removal
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-Obam…
Matthew Stoddard
May 12, 2008 at 3:57 p.m.
› Suggest removal
“And another thing I can guarantee you is that outside of this country,especially the Islamic world, referring to him by his 3 names is the perfectly normal thing to do…”
“…especially the Islamic world…” So what is that supposed to imply- Judaism?
As for Jr., why didn't you use that portion if you were so worried about printing his given name? You seem to be flipping back and forth as to what is a given name or not, now. Is this your Clintonization, like determining the definition of “is”?
And if it'a Leftist conspiracy, why did you not say McCain was “J. Sidney McCain or John Sidney McCain?” A little Freudian slip? It's an easy question, so I don't know why it's taking you this long to try and persuade us that you didn't purposely go out of your way to point out Hussein and not Sidney.
Matthew Stoddard
May 12, 2008 at 4:04 p.m.
› Suggest removal
No, I've subscribed to Time Magazine for almost 20yrs. and watch FOX News. They don't seem to always say “Hussein” or “W. Jefferson Clinton.” Weird.
Plus…look at the links you provided. I don't see Hussein in either link line. Sure, it says it at the header again, but then refers to “Obama” throughout the rest of the post.
Again- why the purposeful rendering of Obama's given name (even if you left Jr. out of it) and not McCain's name?
Matthew Stoddard
May 12, 2008 at 4:10 p.m.
› Suggest removal
In fact, you only listed in your initial post, in the first paragraph:
“The most Liberal member of Congress, a wife who has never been proud of America, and a demagogue, radical preacher who he's known for 20 years,married him and his wife, has said was a second father to him and yet Obama would have us believe that Rev Wright's racist, Black Liberation rap was 'news' to him.”
“…yet Obama…” (Not Barack Hussein Obama or B. Hussein Obama)
and
“…believe that Rev Wright's racist,…” (not Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Wr…)
Why not the full given names there, if that's how it's proper to put it? Why the multiple discrepancies all in the course of 1 thread?
Remember: the questions get harder as we go along!
spukomy (anonymous)
May 12, 2008 at 4:10 p.m.
› Suggest removal
Obama has shown poor judgement by staying in Rev Wright's church for 20 years. Only to push him aside when it became politically advantageous.
Michelle Obama is finally proud of the US, but won't show us her senior thesis. Probably because she soaked in all the Rev Wright had to say.
Oprah sat in Rev Wright's church for a bit. She quickly realized that this guy's teachings would hurt her career. At least Barrack now has Rosie O'Donnell's endorsment.
Is anyone in Barrack's camp actually trying to get him elected?
freshair (anonymous)
May 12, 2008 at 6:34 p.m.
› Suggest removal
Kielbasa, you are all over the place in trying to dig your way out of the typical illogical holes you construct. How does my referring to the islamic nature of the name Barack Hussein Obama-as a sidebar within the context of the rest of the world having no problem with the use of his full name as compared with the Politically Correct commandments of the American left and its media lackeys-how in your typically paranoid Leftist mental process do you reach the twisted conclusion that I am using his full name as a measure of Muslim respect?
The point to be taken were your thought process of a finer clarity was that to address him as Barack Hussein Obama, as the rest of the world does with no problem, is addressing him with Global Respect. Something which our Politically Correct special interest groups preclude us from being part of.
freshair (anonymous)
May 12, 2008 at 6:36 p.m.
› Suggest removal
Kielba, have you had an eye examination lately? One more time…
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-Obam…
freshair (anonymous)
May 12, 2008 at 6:39 p.m.
› Suggest removal
http://www.worldbiography.net/obama_bara……
stormpeakco
May 13, 2008 at 7:40 a.m.
› Suggest removal
Very Well Stated, Murray Tucker. I am a registered independent and what seems clear is that Obama is the only remaining candidate that provides an avenue for any considerable change. Sure we all ruminated over much of the Paul and Kusinich rhetoric but WitchClinton is far too polarizing and confrontational to have any overwhelming success in passing bills through congress. McSame provides no significant alternative to W in regard to the conflict in Iraq, “current voting record” with regard to torture, health care for John Q Public and his stance on the economy/tax cuts for high income recipients/trickle down economics.
I will live with perception of Obama's relative, political inexperience and actually consider it a positive without preconceived ideas and conditioned responses. Thoughtful minds including Dodd, Biden, Hagel, Kennedy, Webb and possibly Colin Powell may provide imperative and heterogenous guidance (not the 'Project for a New American Century' community). Hamas' recognition of someone different and ready to promote dialogue, present alternative views and direction with regard to Israel and a Palestinian state may be most beneficial. Toxic testosterone titers alone works only temporarily in sports and in the Clemens-Bonds-Canseco world of baseball (and no, let's not bring up Triple Crown since they already have 26 comments on their page).
The face and the heritage of Obama may make it more difficult to recruit middle eastern males with no hope of a future against lily white America.
Matthew Stoddard
May 13, 2008 at 8:13 a.m.
› Suggest removal
Hey freshair- Check you own eyes- in the URL (link line) how is his name put there? No “Hussein” in either URL you posted. D'oh!
Granted- Biography links…should have the full name. Now, find me 10 news articles (not editorials) that state any of the top 3 pres candidates with the full, given names.
And yet once again: Why are you all over the place when giving “given names?” You can say I'm all over the place, but each post I've put to you has asked this one, little question that you keep trying to avoid answering, since it will show you to not believe what you write. Otherwise, what harm could there be in answering it?
nikobesti
May 13, 2008 at 8:35 a.m.
› Suggest removal
Freshair: You should be proud of your fear mongering. How old are you? I'm surprised you haven't slipped in an “s” instead of a “b” in “Obama.” You didn't use anyone else's middle name so it's quite clear you’re playing childish games. When a speaker used Obama's middle name on stage during a McCain rally, McCain tastefully apologized, because he realizes childish scare tactics when he hears them. Of course we know McCain has more class than you, but at least you could have enough guts to admit you're using his middle name for a reason.
nikobesti
May 13, 2008 at 8:43 a.m.
› Suggest removal
spukomy: I hate to burst your bubble, but Obama has been running one of the best campaigns in recent history. He’s raising money at unprecedented rates. Despite trite attacks from Clinton and Limbaugh/Coulter, he has only gained more and more delegates on Hillary. Unfortunately for you, Americans are sick and tired of attack campaigns and are voting appropriately. Obama surely made some mistakes in the past and made a few slips of the tongue during the campaign, but it hasn’t hurt him because Americans are finally wising up. Obama’s camp most definitely is trying to get him elected, and right now he’s got McCain beat every heads-up poll. Nice try, though.
seeuski
May 13, 2008 at 10:28 a.m.
› Suggest removal
stormpeakco,
You said,”Hamas' recognition of someone different and ready to promote dialogue, present alternative views and direction with regard to Israel and a Palestinian state may be most beneficial. ”
Here is a link that will help you understand what Hamas's true goals are in regards to a so called Palestinian state.
(http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm)
edskis
May 13, 2008 at 12:29 p.m.
› Suggest removal
For all you fans of liberal media darling, black liberation theology participator, Weather Underground associator, gee I think Marxism is cool, no I don't understand the Capital Gains Tax, wow I taught at the college level, so my wife isn't pround of America until I became a candidate, let me spend 660 billion when I become president, no I don't wear an American Flag lapel pin, no I don't care to know how to use the power of the American Presidency in foreign relations Freshman Senator B. H. Obama (can't deal with that given name stuff) with about about 14 months of senatorial experience, I didn't know that Kool-aid came in latte flavor!!!
twostroketerror (anonymous)
May 13, 2008 at 2:50 p.m.
› Suggest removal
I'm pround you turned an entire paragraph into a sentence…
Matthew Stoddard
May 13, 2008 at 3:18 p.m.
› Suggest removal
I couldn't tell if edskis was for Obama or against him, but it seems that edskis prefers the tainted latte over the Kool-Aid.
And how does wearing a pin make you more electable over someone else? Does the pin have special powers like Green Lantern's power ring? I suppose it makes for a good target if a terrorist was sniping people from afar. Tells you who to kill first just like a 'cruit officer wearing non-subdued rank on the front lines.
If he wears Stars & Stripes styled boxer shorts instead, might that that make him more patriotic than someone wearing tighty-whiteys? I guess it worked for Rocky since he wore plaing boxing trunks the first time he fought Clubber Lang and lost, but won the 2nd time when Apollo Creed gave him his Old Glory trunks (hopefully washed) to put Lang out!
And this $660 billion…How dare he spend that little!?!!?? He needs to make sure to incur at least $3.5 trillion in debt for up to 7yrs from being sworn in or he'll never get out of Bush's debt shadow.
Go 3rd Party Candidates!!
rsssco (anonymous)
May 13, 2008 at 4:15 p.m.
› Suggest removal
edskis proves that propaganda works for the simple-minded.
Matthew Stoddard
May 13, 2008 at 4:24 p.m.
› Suggest removal
Yes, but is edskis wearing his lapel pin and is edskis his full, given name?
edskis
May 13, 2008 at 4:45 p.m.
› Suggest removal
Maybe I turned a sentence into a paragraph but I misspelled “proud” like in proud to be an American. Ah….a little self-criticism; maybe our candiates should try some. Can someone pass me the balsamic for my arugula.
dogd (anonymous)
May 13, 2008 at 5:01 p.m.
› Suggest removal
Check out Obama's finance manager. Her resume= one of the worst bad-actors in the subprime mess-Superior Lending. Think Obama will rein in the hedge-funds, or the larcenous insurance or banking industries? Think again. It's actually ironic that the guy most likely to go against big business if it is in the national interest is definitely McCain. Obama?? not a chance. Hillary? even less of a chance.
seeuski
May 13, 2008 at 5:18 p.m.
› Suggest removal
Just like the OJ jury dismissed all the evidence the panting and fainting over B.H. Obama will overshadow anything that matters.
As evidenced by some of the earlier comments regarding race baiting etc. anyone who asks about B.H. Obamas connections get the tag.
Hammer (anonymous)
May 13, 2008 at 10:53 p.m.
› Suggest removal
I am not an Obama fan due to his politics, not his name or his preacher, but his politics. freshair, you are completely out of your mind. I value political leadership. If a person named Osama Bin Hussein ran for president and had the political qualities I value, I would vote for him in a heartbeat. Slam me if you will, but I refuse to be a prejudiced, superiority complexed, know it all, American twit.
spukomy (anonymous)
May 14, 2008 at 2:34 a.m.
› Suggest removal
nikobesti,
Congrads to Obama for raising lots of $.
The “attack campaigns” haven't even begun, on either side.
Yes, Obama made some mistakes in the past.
I guess they haven't hurt him ……yet…..I guess.
“Americans are finally wising up.”
Again, congrads to Obama for raising lots of $.
freshair (anonymous)
May 14, 2008 at 5:39 a.m.
› Suggest removal
Hammer….newsflash, you already are a 'prejudiced, superiority complexed, know it all, American twit.' However I would omit the 'superiority' adjective in your case. To think that this Ultra-Liberal and inexperienced product of Chicago Democratic Machine Politics is someone this country needs as Prez can only be the conclusion of clueless nitwits like yourself.
If the Democrats want to guarantee losing the General Election they'll nominate this Manchurian Candidate. As W. Virgina showed once again last nite, Obama has big, big problems in winning over your typical middle class blue-collar worker. He's lost California, Texas, New York, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio. But the Far Lefties who control the Democratic Party seem to be determined to go down in a blaze of glory with their flag bearer by ignoring the stronger candidate, Clinton.
weallnutz (anonymous)
May 14, 2008 at 6:35 a.m.
› Suggest removal
“edskis proves propoganda works for the simple minded,” nothing he quoted was untrue, the list was quotes and simple truths documented over and over again. When you don't like the argument call the messenger simple minded? I guess I would have to call Barrack Obama simple minded, I don't like his political arguments….at least the few he's made, does anybody really know his plans other than saving the world and making everybody rich and happy by change? He seems to always leave one thing out….How, tell me that maybe I'll change my opinion but until then I guess he keeps his propoganda aimed at the simple minded.
Hammer (anonymous)
May 14, 2008 at 7:54 a.m.
› Suggest removal
freshair, you crack me up. You are so typical of a person who desperately wants to sound and feel smart but isn't. If you would actually read my post, I said I am not a fan of Obama, yet you launch into a tirade as though I said I am in love with him. After reading some of your other posts, I fear your momma did not hug you enough. Now, hold your breath and count to ten, then go have a cookie and some milk and calm down.
Matthew Stoddard
May 14, 2008 at 8:01 a.m.
› Suggest removal
Hey freshair- Why did you use only Obama's last name in your 539am post this morning? I thought it's proper to use his “given” name? Or are you pulling a John F. Kerry, there?
freshair (anonymous)
May 14, 2008 at 9:05 a.m.
› Suggest removal
kielbasa…unlike you I am not locked into a rigid pattern of existence. Take my advice and loosen up and roll with the permutations of Life. Feel free to refer to me as the moment requires. Unless its outright insulting, in which case I will return the compliments, any combo of first, middle or last monikers will do. As in BHO, B Hussein Obama, Barack H Obama, B H Obama or even Barry Obama or JFK, John F Kennedy, John Fitzgerald Kennedy etc.
As always, keepin it real,yours truly, FA.
freshair (anonymous)
May 14, 2008 at 9:10 a.m.
› Suggest removal
Hammer….and what, Dear Hammerboy, have I referred to in voicing my opposition to his candidacy other than his politics and his associations with confirmed America-haters like Wright and Ayers? Huh? Why don't you take a remedial course in Reading Comprehension for a few months and then come back and see if you can make any sense.
Matthew Stoddard
May 14, 2008 at 9:21 a.m.
› Suggest removal
First comes, “And another thing I can guarantee you is that outside of this country,especially the Islamic world, referring to him by his 3 names is the perfectly normal thing to do and this strange American taboo on the Left to acknowledge his full, given name is seen as one more example of American Political Correctness in action.”
then comes, “kielbasa…unlike you I am not locked into a rigid pattern of existence.”
How Liberal of you to acknowledge a less rigid lifestyle. And this is why Dems won the Senate and House- we have people like freshair, Coulter and Limbaugh making the Republican party look worse than Michael Moore or Howard Dean have ever done for the Dems.
Just shows that you pander to the popularity contest of the day. Kinda like Obama wearing a lapel pin of late when he normally doesn't or when Hillary slams a shot at a bar.
freshair (anonymous)
May 14, 2008 at 10:04 a.m.
› Suggest removal
And you disagree with what portion of that brilliant analysis?
freshair (anonymous)
May 14, 2008 at 10:14 a.m.
› Suggest removal
“Some of the reaction to the Clintons, whose once-universal support among African-Americans has crashed, is due to the immense stake black Americans have come to invest in the Obama candidacy. But some of this is something else, something more sinister.
Bill and Hillary Clinton are not playing a race card. Rather, the liberal media and some black journalists with sentimental, emotional or ideological investments in Obama are playing the intimidation card.
They are setting limits around what may and may not be said about Obama. They are seeking to censor robust adversarial speech where Barack is concerned, by branding as racists “playing the race card” any who make Barack run the same paces as anyone else.
The Clintons are today victims of a double standard that has long been employed against conservatives.
Even African-Americans critical of Obama are feeling the lash. In Saturday's Washington Post article, “Black Community Is Increasingly Protective of Obama,” reporter Darryl Fears writes, “Standing in the path of Obama's campaign has been dangerous” for prominent blacks.”
seeuski
May 14, 2008 at 10:22 a.m.
› Suggest removal
Freshair,
You have hit it on the head, look at what has happened to Juan Williams for his honest dialogue regarding Rev. Wright, he is being threatened and castigated throughout the left and black communities. As I stated above, anyone who speaks out about Obama's connections are targeted and labeled.
Matthew Stoddard
May 14, 2008 at 10:30 a.m.
› Suggest removal
“As I stated above, anyone who speaks out about Obama's connections are targeted and labeled.”
Would that be the same way people who spoke out against the Iraq War were targeted and labeled as “unpatriotic?” (aaaaahhhhhh!!!! Moral Equivalence!!!! aaaaahhhhh!)
No, the only thing freshair hit on the head was him/herself.
seeuski
May 14, 2008 at 10:36 a.m.
› Suggest removal
Matthew,
It would be nice if you would stop personally attacking people who are neighbors in the same community as you. It sucks.
If you have something of value to say then say it.
Matthew Stoddard
May 14, 2008 at 10:53 a.m.
› Suggest removal
seeuski- Can't say I know any of you as my neighbors, personally, now can I? If you were my neighbor, or if you've actually read my posts right here in this thread, I prefer Matt when being personally addressed…same as Barack Obama seems to prefer that way of being addressed except in formal circumstances.
Not my fault you don't see the hypocrisy of what freshair says when called on being an instigator of the politics of fear. Has to purposely go out of the way to put a name in print, in a way only those trying to speak down upon a person will do (isn't that how a mother addresses a child when they've done something wrong?), then trying to explain it as being “proper,” while forgoing that same way of being “proper” as a rule due to “not leading a rigid lifestyle” and “keepin it real.” Maybe someone should worry more about “getting real” instead.
seeuski
May 14, 2008 at 11:16 a.m.
› Suggest removal
when reading the early blogs one can see that Freshair was attacked for what? Not stating Obama's name the way you see fit.
I think every voter will cast their votes as to their own preferences regardless of how Obama is refered to by anyone.
P.S. I thought you lived here in Steamboat and I will refer to you the way I see your name here not as you see fit. It seems there is a control issue going down here.
Very condescending. Take a chill pill and cast your vote.see ya matthew.
freshair (anonymous)
May 14, 2008 at 11:28 a.m.
› Suggest removal
seeuski….anything appearing under the byline 'kielbasa' is to be taken for exactly what it is and nothing else….the 'brain' droppings of a severely maladjusted psyche. Were I a health professional, I would recommend this individual seek professional help in working out his obvious problems which scream out to the reader following the thread.
As I've stated before, Obama doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of getting elected. How any major party could nominate someone who has lost every big multi-ethnic state primary is beyond belief. But we are speaking here of a party, the Democrats, controlled by Far Left special interest groups, who like any bunch of fanatics, think Islamo-terrorists, will gladly go down in flames rather than abandon the first Black major party candidate. For the Jihadis it's dying for their belief and for the Lefties running the Democrats, it's going to be losing the election to maintain their Liberal-Left 'street cred'. Anyone who thinks Obama has a chance of being elected is either on a regular diet of 'happy' pills or your common run-of-the-mill clueless, naive and brainwahed naif. Several of whom regularly deposit their laughable excuses for commentary on this same forum.
Matthew Stoddard
May 14, 2008 at 11:38 a.m.
› Suggest removal
seeuski- I actually live in Silver Spur and not the city direct. What I said is that I don't know YOU to be my neighbor…just an anonymous person, who might or might not live in Steamboat.
And work on your own condescending tone: when a person says, “Call me ______” it's condescending not to address them as such, as is what people who think they're conservatives tend to do, in order to try and assuage some inner inferiority complex while acting as if being condescending is only bad if others do it. They'll accuse other's of drinking the Kool-Aid, but never admit to doing the same while reciting Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh word for word, thinking it's their own thoughts. Nice try, seeuski. Maybe one day, you'll actually convince yourself of what you say. Maybe.
nikobesti
May 14, 2008 at 11:57 a.m.
› Suggest removal
Everyone knows that if you don't wear a flag pin you hate America and everything it stands for. You also beat puppies with a canvas sack full of undernourished kittens. It's a proven fact.
I wear two flag pins, just in case one falls off.
weallnutz (anonymous)
May 14, 2008 at 12:46 p.m.
› Suggest removal
not wearing a flag pin makes no statement at all, refusing to wear a flag pin makes a statement. Not attending church makes no statment, listing your pastor as one of the most influential people in your life when your pastor is a racist pig makes a statement. Keeping your mouth shut makes no statement, saying you've never been proud of your country makes a strong statement. Ignore all the signs if you want, you did when you elected our sherriff.
Matthew Stoddard
May 14, 2008 at 1:24 p.m.
› Suggest removal
Weallnutz- Do we know if the flag pins all made in the USA or assembled/painted/etc. in another country? Would all of Congress' pins come from here?
http://www.pinscentral.com/xq/asp/qx/abo…
or
http://www.worldflags101.com/about.aspx
What kind of statement would that send?
seeuski
May 14, 2008 at 1:33 p.m.
› Suggest removal
Well I think enough back and forth with K%#%*asa.
On the original topic, the media is reporting that Hillary has some big time dirt on B. Hussein Obama and is waiting for the right moment. Hmmm wonder what is next that will be blamed on the likes of Hannity, Coulter etc.etc.
It's curious how factual info on a candidate is called smearing and the left had no problem with the 10,000 books written or falsified documents smearing lies about Bush (remember Dan Rather)or half baked movies by the likes of Moore that are touted as gospel by the koolaide drinkers.
How about a left wing media that played the Abu Gahraib photos every day for well over a month causing(as reported by an insurgent leader who has recently seen the light and joined the coalition in Iraq)an increase in terrorist recruites that killed our soldiers just to hurt the Bush administration.
I think it matters weather the next President is proud enough to sport the flag on his lapel.
contrarian (anonymous)
May 14, 2008 at 1:52 p.m.
› Suggest removal
GOP Stunned By Loss in Mississippi
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article…
In a major blow to national Republicans, a Mississippi congressional seat that once voted for President Bush by a twenty-five point margin elected a Democrat on Tuesday…The results came despite national Republican efforts aimed at winning the seat. Senators Thad Cochran and Roger Wicker, former Senator Trent Lott and Governor Haley Barbour campaigned hard for Davis. On Monday, perhaps as an unfortunate measure of how Republican the district really is, Vice President Dick Cheney held a rally for Davis…The loss has already shaken establishment Republicans in Washington. After losing special elections in Illinois and Louisiana, the House GOP conference already expects a bad year for their party.
another_local (anonymous)
May 14, 2008 at 2:02 p.m.
› Suggest removal
It makes no difference what a candidate is “for” if they don't have the political chops to get it done. Carter is the example of a decent and very intelligent president widely considered a failure for being incapable of executing his good ideas. I expect a 4 year term of inaction if Obama is elected.
In order to move forward (read “change” for those of you in love with the word) you first have to get in motion.
seeuski
May 14, 2008 at 2:11 p.m.
› Suggest removal
Democrat led Congress approval ratings at new lows!
washington, May 14 (UPI) — The approval rating of the U.S. Congress dropped to near-record levels and is lower than U.S. President George Bush's mark, a Gallup poll indicates.
The telephone survey of 1,017 U.S. adults indicates 18 percent of those interviewed May 8-11 approve of the current Congress. The score matches record lows from similar Gallup polls in August 2007 and March 1992.
Gallup said Wednesday the reason for the low approval rating is because “rank-and-file Democrats are providing no support cushion for the Democratic-controlled institution.”
The same poll indicated approval ratings of Bush hover around his record lows, with 29 percent of respondents voicing support for the president.
Gallup reported a sampling error of 3 percentage points.
contrarian (anonymous)
May 14, 2008 at 2:26 p.m.
› Suggest removal
Why GOP’s Mississippi House loss resonates
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24613179/
washington - Stunning? Only if you haven’t been paying attention in recent weeks.
Sickening? Yes, if you are a Republican.
That about sums up Tuesday night in Mississippi’s First Congressional district.
In a special election, Democrat Travis Childers defeated Republican Greg Davis in a district which had long been a GOP stronghold and where only three years ago, George W. Bush had won 62 percent of the vote.
Republicans ran ads linking Childers to Democratic presidential contender Sen. Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Obama gloated a bit on the campaign trail in Michigan Wednesday. “Look, they (the Republicans) just lost yesterday in the heart of Mississippi…. this is a hardcore Republican seat. And they lost it by eight points.”
The Republicans, he said, “did everything they could, you know they ran ads with my face on it, and they said, 'look at this former liberal,' his former pastor said offensive things, I mean they were trying to do every trick in the book to try to scare folks in Mississippi. And it didn't work.”
Matthew Stoddard
May 14, 2008 at 3:20 p.m.
› Suggest removal
“Well I think enough back and forth with K%#%*asa.”
And that proves there is no contesting that pu-ski is driving on the same Hypocrite Highway as the rest of so-called conservatives.
And you missed this poll, evidently:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c…
Take special note of the little blue column to the top right of the page, where Dems in congress were in higher favor over Republicans each month for the past year. D'oh! Looks like they all suck, no matter the party. Tough luck there, “neighbor.”
freshair (anonymous)
May 14, 2008 at 4:22 p.m.
› Suggest removal
A living lie
By Thomas Sowell
An e-mail from a reader said that, while Hillary Clinton tells lies, Barack Obama is himself a lie. That is becoming painfully apparent with each new revelation of how drastically his carefully crafted image this election year contrasts with what he has actually been saying and doing for many years.
Senator Obama's election year image is that of a man who can bring the country together, overcoming differences of party or race, as well as solving our international problems by talking with Iran and other countries with which we are at odds, and performing other miscellaneous miracles as needed.
There is, of course, not a speck of evidence that Obama has ever transcended party differences in the United States Senate. Voting records analyzed by the National Journal show him to be the farthest left of anyone in the Senate. Nor has he sponsored any significant bipartisan legislation — nor any other significant legislation, for that matter.
Senator Obama is all talk — glib talk, exciting talk, confident talk, but still just talk.
Some of his recent talk in San Francisco has stirred up controversy because it revealed yet another blatant contradiction between Barack Obama's public image and his reality.
Speaking privately to supporters in heavily left-liberal San Francisco, Obama let down his hair and described working class people in Pennsylvania as so “bitter” that they “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them.”
Like so much that Obama has said and done over the years, this is standard stuff on the far left, where guns and religion are regarded as signs of psychological dysfunction — and where opinions different from those of the left are ascribed to emotions (“bitter” in this case), rather than to arguments that need to be answered.
freshair (anonymous)
May 14, 2008 at 4:22 p.m.
› Suggest removal
A Living Lie (cont)
Like so many others on the left, Obama rejects “stereotypes” when they are stereotypes he doesn't like but blithely throws around his own stereotypes about “a typical white person” or “bitter” gun-toting, religious and racist working class people.
In politics, the clearer a statement is, the more certain it is to be followed by a “clarification,” when people react adversely to what was plainly said.
Obama and his supporters were still busy “clarifying” Jeremiah Wright's very plain statements when it suddenly became necessary to “clarify” Senator Obama's own statements in San Francisco.
People who have been cheering whistle-blowers for years have suddenly denounced the person who blew the whistle on what Obama said in private that is so contradictory to what he has been saying in public.
However inconsistent Obama's words, his behavior has been remarkably consistent over the years. He has sought out and joined with the radical, anti-Western left, whether Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers of the terrorist Weatherman underground or pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli Rashid Khalidi.
Obama is also part of a long tradition on the left of being for the working class in the abstract, or as people potentially useful for the purposes of the left, but having disdain or contempt for them as human beings.
Karl Marx said, “The working class is revolutionary or it is nothing.” In other words, they mattered only in so far as they were willing to carry out the Marxist agenda.
Fabian socialist George Bernard Shaw included the working class among the “detestable” people who “have no right to live.” He added: “I should despair if I did not know that they will all die presently, and that there is no need on earth why they should be replaced by people like themselves.”
Similar statements on the left go back as far as Rousseau in the 18th century and come forward into our own times.
It is understandable that young people are so strongly attracted to Obama. Youth is another name for inexperience — and experience is what is most needed when dealing with skillful and charismatic demagogues.
Those of us old enough to have seen the type again and again over the years can no longer find them exciting. Instead, they are as tedious as they are dangerous.
Matthew Stoddard
May 14, 2008 at 4:40 p.m.
› Suggest removal
Wow! A Town Hall columnist quote! How biased of you! LOL!!! That makes all the difference in the world!
Matthew Stoddard
May 14, 2008 at 4:47 p.m.
› Suggest removal
Here- I'll even post this one for you:
“John McCain is Bob Dole minus the charm, conservatism and youth. Like McCain, pollsters assured us that Dole was the most “electable” Republican. Unlike McCain, Dole didn't lie all the time while claiming to engage in Straight Talk.
Of course, I might lie constantly too, if I were seeking the Republican presidential nomination after enthusiastically promoting amnesty for illegal aliens, Social Security credit for illegal aliens, criminal trials for terrorists, stem-cell research on human embryos, crackpot global warming legislation and free speech-crushing campaign-finance laws.
I might lie too, if I had opposed the Bush tax cuts, a marriage amendment to the Constitution, waterboarding terrorists and drilling in Alaska.
And I might lie if I had called the ads of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth “dishonest and dishonorable.”
McCain angrily denounces the suggestion that his “comprehensive immigration reform” constituted “amnesty” — on the ludicrous grounds that it included a small fine. Even the guy who graduated fifth from the bottom of his class at the U.S. Naval Academy didn't fall for this a few years ago.
In 2003, McCain told The Tucson Citizen that “amnesty has to be an important part” of any immigration reform. He also rolled out the old chestnut about America's need for illegals, who do “jobs that American workers simply won't do.”
McCain's amnesty bill would have immediately granted millions of newly legalized immigrants Social Security benefits. He even supported allowing work performed as an illegal to count toward Social Security benefits as recently as a vote in 2006 — now adamantly denied by Mr. Straight Talk.
McCain keeps boasting that he was “the only one” of the Republican presidential candidates who supported the surge in Iraq.
What is he talking about? All Republicans supported the surge — including Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. The only ones who didn't support it were McCain pals like Sen. Chuck Hagel. Indeed, the surge is the first part of the war on terrorism that caused McCain to break from Hagel in order to support the president.
True, McCain voted for the war. So did Hillary Clinton. Like her, he then immediately started attacking every other aspect of the war on terrorism. (The only difference was, he threw in frequent references to his experience as a POW, which currently outnumber John Kerry's references to being a Vietnam vet.)”
cont'd…
Matthew Stoddard
May 14, 2008 at 4:49 p.m.
› Suggest removal
cont'd from above…
“Thus, McCain joined with the Democrats in demanding O.J. trials for terrorists at Guantanamo, including his demand that the terrorists have full access to the intelligence files being used to prosecute them.
These days, McCain gives swashbuckling speeches about the terrorists who “will follow us home.” But he still opposes dripping water down their noses. He was a POW, you know. Also a member of the Keating 5 scandal, which you probably don't know, and won't — until he becomes the Republican nominee.
Though McCain was far from the only Republican to support the surge, he does have the distinction of being the only Republican who voted against the Bush tax cuts. (Also the little lamented Sen. Lincoln Chafee, who later left the Republican Party.) Now McCain claims he opposed the tax cuts because they didn't include enough spending cuts. But that wasn't what he said at the time.
To the contrary, in 2001, McCain said he was voting against Bush's tax cuts based on the idiotic talking point of the Democrats. “I cannot in good conscience,” McCain said, “support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief.”
McCain started and fanned the vicious anti-Bush myth that, before the 2000 South Carolina primary, the Bush campaign made phone calls to voters calling McCain a “liar, cheat and a fraud” and accusing him of having an illegitimate black child.
On the thin reed of a hearsay account, McCain immediately blamed the calls on Bush. “I'm calling on my good friend George Bush,” McCain said, “to stop this now. He comes from a better family. He knows better than this.
Bush denied that his campaign had anything to do with the alleged calls and, in a stunningly magnanimous act, ordered his campaign to release the script of the calls being made in South Carolina.
Bush asked McCain to do the same for his calls implying that Bush was an anti-Catholic bigot, but McCain refused. Instead, McCain responded with a campaign commercial calling Bush a liar on the order of Bill Clinton:
mccain: His ad twists the truth like Clinton. We're all pretty tired of that.
announcer: Do we really want another politician in the White House America can't trust?”
cont'd…
424now (anonymous)
May 14, 2008 at 4:49 p.m.
› Suggest removal
Well simply put I oppose Obama and I am a very typical white person at times bitter often gun-toting, God fearing, Anti-religious and Anti-racist working class kind of person.
I suppose you could stereotype me.
Matthew Stoddard
May 14, 2008 at 4:50 p.m.
› Suggest removal
cont'd from above…
“After massive investigations by the Los Angeles Times and investigative reporter Byron York, among others, it turned out that neither of the alleged calls had ever been made by the Bush campaign — nor, it appeared, by anyone else. There was no evidence that any such calls had ever been made, which is unheard of when hundreds of thousands of “robo-calls” are being left on answering machines across the state.
And yet, to this day, the media weep with McCain over Bush's underhanded tactics in the 2000 South Carolina primary.
In fact, the most vicious attack in the 2000 South Carolina primary came from McCain — and not against his opponent.
Seeking even more favorable press from The New York Times, McCain launched an unprovoked attack against the Rev. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, calling them “agents of intolerance.” Unlike the phantom “black love child” calls, there's documentary evidence of this smear campaign.
To ensure he would get full media coverage for that little gem, McCain alerted the networks in advance that he planned to attack their favorite whipping boys. Newspaper editors across the country stood in awe of McCain's raw bravery. The New York Times praised him in an editorial that said the Republican Party “has for too long been tied to the cramped ideology of the Falwells and the Robertsons.”
Though McCain generally votes pro-life — as his Arizona constituency requires — he embraces the loony lingo of the pro-abortion set, repeatedly assuring his pals in the media that he opposes the repeal of Roe v. Wade because it would force women to undergo “illegal and dangerous operations.”
Come to think of it, Dole is a million times better than McCain. Why not run him again?”
And where did this gem come from???
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AnnCo…
424now (anonymous)
May 14, 2008 at 5:04 p.m.
› Suggest removal
So….Matt
Who would you reccomend the average voter of concience look to in this upcoming election?
freshair (anonymous)
May 14, 2008 at 5:09 p.m.
› Suggest removal
He also writes for the NYTimes, Wash Post and Wall Street Journal, among others. But it's all in keeping with your pathetic attempts to ignore the message and smear the messenger. One of the best reasons I can think of for opposing Obama is that he is supported by psychopaths like yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowe…
Matthew Stoddard
May 14, 2008 at 5:14 p.m.
› Suggest removal
Not sure. I've settled on voting for a 3rd Party candidate, but not which one. freshair put up a Town Hall columnist against Obama like it was some massive epiphany. All I did was the exact same thing, from the same site's other columnist as it pertained to Sidney.
freshair (anonymous)
May 14, 2008 at 5:18 p.m.
› Suggest removal
He also writes for the NYTimes, Wash Post and Wall Street Journal, among others. But it's all in keeping with your pathetic attempts to ignore the message and smear the messenger. One of the best reasons I can think of for opposing Obama is that he is supported by psychopaths like yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowe……
Matthew Stoddard
May 14, 2008 at 5:19 p.m.
› Suggest removal
Supported by psychopaths like me…and where did I ever say I was supporting Obama? Could have sworn I've never said I was voting for Obama, let alone Hillary or Sidney.
A little smearing the messenger about a message not delivered of your own, eh? How “psychopathic” of you.
freshair (anonymous)
May 14, 2008 at 5:22 p.m.
› Suggest removal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowe…
freshair (anonymous)
May 14, 2008 at 5:29 p.m.
› Suggest removal
Give it a break. Come on out of the closet and declare what is perfectly obvious to anyone who can read the English language..You're a typical whacko Lefty. Trust me, you'll feel better. Confession is good for the soul. Your dog will love you and all those near and dear will appreciate the honesty.
424now (anonymous)
May 14, 2008 at 5:48 p.m.
› Suggest removal
Well Matt,
The apathy and disillusion of fringe Republicans like yourself are the main reason I suspect Obama fever will sweep a completely ill-equipped pretty boy into the office of president of these United States.
May God have mercy on our souls.
Hammer (anonymous)
May 14, 2008 at 8:20 p.m.
› Suggest removal
freshair, you are an interesting individual. You spew twisted and inflammatory analysis of every subject you approach, and use insults and recycled propaganda in a never-ending desperate attempt to defend yourself. And I believe you truly enjoy it! Perhaps you are not in a life position to be taken seriously by your peers, and use these forums to inflate your damaged ego.
Whatever the situation, I would just like to say that I agree with you on one point; John McCain will be the next president. And that is due not strictly to his superior political savvy, but also to the self-destructive nature of the contemporary democratic party.
My original post was meant to imply that a persons name and social connections do not dictate who I vote for, but instead political views and ambitions that I feel are going to help myself, my family, and all others that the American political process touches. Not one of the current candidates possess a perfect mix of these views and values, and one probably never will. That is the nature of politics.
There are people who believe a Clinton or Obama presidency would be a good fit for their needs and personal political outlook. Contrary to your rhetoric, this does not make them 'stupid', but instead displays the great American tenet of freedom of choice. I suggest you argue your views more tactfully, and perhaps you will be taken more seriously by a greater number of people.
I will not post again, but will be happy to read your next insulting comment. Have fun!
spukomy (anonymous)
May 15, 2008 at 12:51 a.m.
› Suggest removal
freshair, You hit it out of the park with that Sowell piece. Obama should really decide where he stands on the 2nd Ammendment. He should also try to figure out how he gave over $27,000 to a Church's Pastor he didn't agree with (for 20 years). Maybe he should listen more to MLK than the racist Rev. Wright.
freshair (anonymous)
May 15, 2008 at 3:39 a.m.
› Suggest removal
Hammer…your first response to me was 'freshair, you are completely out of your mind…. but I refuse to be a prejudiced, superiority complexed, know it all, American twit.'
Now you are complaining because I answered you in the same insulting tone? Grow up, get some Real Life experiences and learn to quit whining when you receive the same treatment you deal out.
weallnutz (anonymous)
May 15, 2008 at 6:34 a.m.
› Suggest removal
you know what is sad….in a country of the most successful people in the world, year after year we have a bunch of dingbats as the final choices for president. Its always the lesser of two evils, I don't like McCain, but I like him a heck of a lot better than Hillary or Obama….someday maybe we'll have a Real choice, and no those 3rd party guys aren't the answer, at least none of them yet
nikobesti
May 15, 2008 at 9:37 a.m.
› Suggest removal
Seeuski: OMG! Let me see if I got this right. The disgrace to this country that happened at Abu Grahaib is not the fault of the Bush Administration, who approved these torture techniques. These human rights violations are not the fault of the military commanders at Abu Grahaib. The soldiers that actually carried out these atrocities are also not to blame. It’s the fault of the “liberal media” for doing their job and covering the story. That makes perfect sense.
nikobesti
May 15, 2008 at 9:46 a.m.
› Suggest removal
…and the increase in terrorist recruites that are killing our soldiers is not because we're occupying a country. It's not because we're detaining their sons and husbands and fathers and torturing them. Al Qaeda is not getting stronger because of Bush's polices and actions. There are more terrorists because of the liberal US media.
Good Lord you are twisted. I'm always amazed that someone can be that blind.
Forget Obama's unity. Some of you need to be left far behind.
weallnutz (anonymous)
May 16, 2008 at 6:56 a.m.
› Suggest removal
nikobesti, is the fact that we were attacked 8 times in 6 years leading up to 9/11 and not once since Bush's fault? I'm sure the complaceny shown by your hero Clinton through the 90's had nothing to do Al Qaeda's power or 9/11. But you're right we should withdraw from their back yard….then they wont come to ours,….oh wait that didn't work last time. They hate us because we aren't Muslim!! they hated us before we “Occupied” a terroist state and the way the middle east is now, they will hate us until we denounce all religions and worship ALLAH, perhaps that is what we should do? Or maybe just maybe with a taste of freedom and free thinking leaders they will find a better way. Your narrow views are what should be left behind, you don't support your country or its leaders….LEAVE!
Joe_Mama (anonymous)
May 16, 2008 at 7:26 a.m.
› Suggest removal
Joe thinks ” See what organized religion does ?”
nikobesti
May 16, 2008 at 10:38 a.m.
› Suggest removal
weallnutz, give this issue some critical thought, please. You’re telling me a young Iraqi man would strap bombs to himself and blow himself up because some people half way across the world don’t practice the same religion as he does? Nope. It’s more than that. Yes, SOME Muslims don’t like the US and don’t like Americans. Dislike is not enough to force someone into terrorism. However, our foreign policy mistakes that direclty affect people like him are enough to push someone from dislike to radical hatred. Turning a blind eye towards the Israel government’s human rights violations, detaining and torturing Muslims, occupying a Middle Eastern country, now THOSE are the kinds of things that increase the rate at which terrorists are recruited.
Please. Are you trying to contend Iraq is not a breeding ground for terrorism since this debacle began? Or are you actually agreeing with seeuski’s ridiculous assertion that it’s the media’s fault for creating terrorists by covering the atrocities at Abu Ghraib?!? Instead of putting any amount of blame on the authorizers and directors of torture, you blame the left? That had to be the single stupidest statement I’ve read in a long time.
One more thing. Please spare me with your Dick Cheney “if you don’t support your country or its leaders, leave” BS. It’s my duty as a patriot to stand up for what I believe in and voice my opinion. So you would have supported the US segregation policies of the past? You supported not letting women vote? “Yes sir, whatever you say, Mr. President sir. Slavery was just fine and Americans had no right to question our government about that policy.” So when Obama is the next president, will you shut up or leave? I hope it’s the later….
Hadleyburg_Press (anonymous)
May 16, 2008 at 10:44 a.m.
› Suggest removal
nikobesti,
You forgot to blame the Jews. Do that and your indoctrination will be complete my young Jihadi.
Joe_Mama (anonymous)
May 16, 2008 at 10:53 a.m.
› Suggest removal
Joe was never a Clinton fan.
However, maybe wealnutz should ask Ramzi Yousef what he thinks about Clinton's “complaceny” [sic].
seeuski
May 16, 2008 at 12:34 p.m.
› Suggest removal
nikobetsi,
I new it was just a matter of time until you would blame the victims so here is a link with the names of some of the Israeli victims killed by the terrorists.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obs…
And here is alink to Hamas's charter so you can see for yourself the imposibility of negotiating.
http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm
Have great day.
seeuski
May 16, 2008 at 1:28 p.m.
› Suggest removal
niko,
Your'e post:
“One more thing. Please spare me with your Dick Cheney “if you don’t support your country or its leaders, leave” BS. It’s my duty as a patriot to stand up for what I believe in and voice my opinion. So you would have supported the US segregation policies of the past? You supported not letting women vote? “Yes sir, whatever you say, Mr. President sir. Slavery was just fine and Americans had no right to question our government about that policy.” So when Obama is the next president, will you shut up or leave? I hope it’s the later….”
Who is the patriot you are refering to here?
nikobesti
May 16, 2008 at 2:12 p.m.
› Suggest removal
seeuski: I’m looking back, but I just can’t figure out when I said no Israelis were ever killed by terrorists. Oh, that’s right. i never did. And when did I defend Hamas? Could you at least please read my posts and respond to them, not some figments of your imagination? I fully support protecting innocent Israelis, just as I support protecting the lives and rights of innocent Palestinians. How can it be bad when Palestinians kill innocent Israelis but okay when Israelis kill innocent Palestinians? (I’m not contending that Israelis are just as bad, but can’t you see how our foreign policy is inconsistent? Can’t you see how maybe our government would be seen as hypocritical?)
I'm all for kicking terrorist butt. There is no way to deal with many of the Al Qaeda types except for killing them. However, we must look at our policies and examine how they might be hurting us as a nation. I believe those policies I mentioned are creating more AQ types and putting Americans in more danger.
And I do consider myself a patriot. I love this country and much that it (used to) stand for. I honor important principles such as every American having the right to a trial. Principles like not torturing other human beings. Principles like freedom from my government spying on me without a warrant. Are those principles not important to you, seeuski? You can stand aside and watch Bush shred our constitution and the very ideals that make this nation great, but I’m not going to. Am I not a patriot when I speak out against discarding these important American principles?
Hadleyburg_Press (anonymous)
May 16, 2008 at 2:22 p.m.
› Suggest removal
nikobesti,
I would never ask you to be quiet or leave this country unless you took up arms or advocated violence against her. You have made some reasonable comments that are backed by what appears to be, in my humble opinion, a poor understanding of history, foreign policy, alliances, and the will of the radical islamic movement. So be it. You may very well be a patriot and perhaps someday that patriotism will be tested.
nikobesti
May 16, 2008 at 3:01 p.m.
› Suggest removal
HP: Well cool, at least I backed them up with something! I have respect for anyone's opinion as long as they can explain to me how they've clearly thought it out. Which is why I have little tolerance for a claim that our media is at fault for creating more terrorists by covering the atrocities at Abu Ghraib.
I am always open to schooling. I'd be interested in hearing about how I misunderstand “the radical islamic movement.” I am fully aware of the brainwashing and indoctrination that goes on in much of the Middle East, and concede that this will continue regardless of our policies. But to fully accept this indoctrination, a subject must witness something that reinforces what these radicals are preaching. Currently, these radical clerics have to do nothing more than point outside the mosque for proof.
Joe_Mama (