McCain starts defining Obama

Summer Rain wrote:

<quoted text>
So, you are too stupid to respond to a polite, factual post. Am I supposed to be impressed?

Frankly, I am growing weary of discussing any issues with Obama cultists. It is established fact that Obama voted against the bill which would have protected these innocent babies from being killed. It is also established fact that the excuse he has been giving for a number of years as to why he voted that way (i.e. that it wasn't the same bill as the federal bill), was a lie. His own campaign had to admit that this week. So, go ahead and defend your Messiah. If I have to take the your side or the side of innocent babies, I will take the side of innocent babies. Second, I don't give a rats a** whether the Medical Association agreed with Obama. In Nazi Germany many of the formal institutions were extremely helpful and supportive of his programs; that, of course, didn't make them right. Third, I just had a baby in the last month, and even the thought of the procedures which were supported by Obama (partial birth abortion; live birth abortion) make me want to vomit.

NateKnuckles wrote:

<quoted text>
You looked at the wrong map, Chucklehead!!! LMMFAO!

You are a LIAR!

I looked up the exact address that you gave.
You are nothing more than a discredited piece of shit!

Why don't post the link to a map proving your address, like I did in proving that YOU ARE A LIAR?

obamafan wrote:

<quoted text>
You can find concrete examples of Obama's plans for Iraq, energy, the economy, education, and dozens of other topics on his website. You can also listen to his speeches on youtube or any other site, if you wish. And yet you'd rather claim he has "no plan", which is patently false, and embarrassingly simplistic. So who's the fool, again?

It changes every week and you know that is the truth. To say otherwise is just foolish.

Speaking of Youtube....
http://www.youtube.com/v/4FCNKwHRCQM

Barack Insane NoBama wrote:

<quoted text>
Frankly, I am growing weary of discussing any issues with Obama cultists. It is established fact that Obama voted against the bill which would have protected these innocent babies from being killed. It is also established fact that the excuse he has been giving for a number of years as to why he voted that way (i.e. that it wasn't the same bill as the federal bill), was a lie. His own campaign had to admit that this week. So, go ahead and defend your Messiah. If I have to take the your side or the side of innocent babies, I will take the side of innocent babies. Second, I don't give a rats **** whether the Medical Association agreed with Obama. In Nazi Germany many of the formal institutions were extremely helpful and supportive of his programs; that, of course, didn't make them right. Third, I just had a baby in the last month, and even the thought of the procedures which were supported by Obama (partial birth abortion; live birth abortion) make me want to vomit.

I'd be interested to know your opinion on the death penalty and military deaths in Iraq/Afghanistan, as well as civilian deaths in those countries. I understand Bush is pro-life as well, which is incongruent with his other actions. Please respond.

I hope McBush doesn't work too hard on his defining or he'll pee himself again and have to take longer naps.

perplexed wrote:

<quoted text>I'd be interested to know your opinion on the death penalty and military deaths in Iraq/Afghanistan, as well as civilian deaths in those countries. I understand Bush is pro-life as well, which is incongruent with his other actions. Please respond.

I am pro death penalty. Heinous criminals merit death.

Military and civilian deaths during war. Regretable but necessary to prevent the victory of terrorists.

I am pro life. Other than self defense of the mother, there is no ethical reason for terminating an innocent, defenseless baby.

Do you have difficulty differentiating the morality of these deaths?

paul wrote:

<quoted text>
Lieberman Likely to switch party affiliation to Republican at Convention
Just announced during interview... Lieberman expected to switch to Repub Party during his speech at Repub Convention... heads are exploding on the Left. This would give the Senate to the Repubs until January, 2009.
Oh Boy! Nancy Pelosi caused this....boy is Harry Reid gonna be pissed....

This would be a beautiful thing. Go Joe!

perplexed wrote:

<quoted text>I'd be interested to know your opinion on the death penalty and military deaths in Iraq/Afghanistan, as well as civilian deaths in those countries. I understand Bush is pro-life as well, which is incongruent with his other actions. Please respond.

I am against the death penalty for many reasons, not the least of which is that I don't trust any government to make such a life or death decision. Just look at the death row inmates who have been exonerated by DNA evidence. I do believe in life sentences without the possibility of parole for particularly offensive acts. At least in those cases, if exculpatory evidence is later found, the sentence can be reversed.

Regarding military deaths, I feel that any death is regrettable, and that before any government sends its troops into a foreign land, it had better be sure that there is ample justification. If you are wondering about my position on Iraq; I was against the invasion from the beginning, however, now that we are there, I support policies which I believe would lead to stability in that country and that region.

Regarding civilian deaths, once a war is in progress, I believe that every effort should be made to limit the number of innocent civilian deaths. Unfortunately, in that regard, I think most countries who have been at war, including ours, have fallen far short in that regard.

Regarding Bush: I didn't vote for him in 2000 or 2004. I am a lifelong Democrat and Hillary Clinton supporter, who has, after much investigation and soul-searching, decided that I cannot support Obama.

One more point: I find it very distressing the extent to which some individuals lack concern over the death of innocent civilians in Iraq, or in any war zone, for that matter; especially those who consider themselves "religious." Although the people of the world are divided by artificial boundaries, I would think that those who consider themselves to be religious would be concerned about the plight of all God's children, not just those who happen to reside in their particular country.

perplexed wrote:

<quoted text>He taught Constitutional Law for 12 years at the U of Chicago - you know, the CONSTITUTION, something this administration and your boy, McSame have walked all over.

Teaching it and actually believing in somethign are two different things. If Obama truly belives in the US Constitution, he would not be marching toward Socialism and the cradle to grave government of his dreams. This is not what the Constitution is all about.
Obama is a fraud asnd makes a better Hans Christian Andersen than a President.

A seasoned conservative says “Don’t vote Republican!”
Are you ready for nuclear war?
By Paul Craig Roberts
<http://www.opednews.com/articles/Are-you-read... ;
August 18, 2008
The Republicans will get us into more wars. Indeed, they live for war. McCain is preaching war for 100 years. For these warmongers, it is like cheering for your home team. Win at all costs. They get a vicarious pleasure out of war. If the US has to tell lies in order to attack countries, what's wrong with that? "If we don't kill them over there, they will kill us over here."
The mindlessness is total.
Nothing real issues from the American media. The media is about demonizing Russia and Iran, about the vice presidential choices as if it matters, about whether Obama being on vacation let McCain score too many points.
The mindlessness of the news reflects the mindlessness of the government, for which it is a spokesperson.
The American media does not serve American democracy or American interests. It serves the few people who exercise power.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, the US and Israel made a run at controlling Russia and the former constituent parts of its empire. For awhile the US and Israel succeeded, but Putin put a stop to it.
Recognizing that the US had no intention of keeping any of the agreements it had made with Gorbachev, Putin directed the Russian military budget to upgrade the Russian nuclear deterrent. Consequently, the Russian army and air force lack the smart weapons and electronics of the US military.
When the Russian army went into Georgia to rescue the Russians in South Ossetia from the destruction being inflicted upon them by the American puppet Saakashvili, the Russians made it clear that if they were opposed by American troops with smart weapons, they would deal with the threat with tactical nuclear weapons.
The Americans were the first to announce preemptive nuclear attack as their permissible war doctrine. Now the Russians have announced the tactical use of nuclear weapons as their response to American smart weapons.
It is obvious that American foreign policy, with is goal of ringing Russia with US military bases, is leading directly to nuclear war. Every American needs to realize this fact. The US government's insane hegemonic foreign policy is a direct threat to life on the planet.
Russia has made no threats against America. The post-Soviet Russian government has sought to cooperate with the US and Europe. Russia has made it clear over and over that it is prepared to obey international law and treaties. It is the Americans who have thrown international law and treaties into the trash can, not the Russians.
In order to keep the billions of dollars in profits flowing to its contributors in the US military-security complex, the Bush Regime has rekindled the cold war. As American living standards decline and the prospects for university graduates deteriorate, "our" leaders in Washington commit us to a hundred years of war.
If you desire to be poor, oppressed, and eventually vaporized in a nuclear war, vote Republican.

paul wrote:

<quoted text>
Left wingers as strict constitutionalists...how absurd.
FYI: signing statements are nothing new

The real joke is Christian Conservatives - history has proven you can't be both.

paul wrote:

<quoted text>
I am pro death penalty. Heinous criminals merit death.
Military and civilian deaths during war. Regretable but necessary to prevent the victory of terrorists.
I am pro life. Other than self defense of the mother, there is no ethical reason for terminating an innocent, defenseless baby.
Do you have difficulty differentiating the morality of these deaths?

To answer your question first, pro-life is pro all-life. Are our military just collateral damage, or cannon fodder? Tell me, how do you feel about consciencious objectors?

Duh wrote:

<quoted text>
It changes every week and you know that is the truth. To say otherwise is just foolish.
Speaking of Youtube....
http://www.youtube.com/v/4FCNKwHRCQM

Kind of like Joe Liebermans party affiliation

Barack Insane NoBama wrote:

<quoted text>
I am against the death penalty for many reasons, not the least of which is that I don't trust any government to make such a life or death decision. Just look at the death row inmates who have been exonerated by DNA evidence. I do believe in life sentences without the possibility of parole for particularly offensive acts. At least in those cases, if exculpatory evidence is later found, the sentence can be reversed.
Regarding military deaths, I feel that any death is regrettable, and that before any government sends its troops into a foreign land, it had better be sure that there is ample justification. If you are wondering about my position on Iraq; I was against the invasion from the beginning, however, now that we are there, I support policies which I believe would lead to stability in that country and that region.
Regarding civilian deaths, once a war is in progress, I believe that every effort should be made to limit the number of innocent civilian deaths. Unfortunately, in that regard, I think most countries who have been at war, including ours, have fallen far short in that regard.
Regarding Bush: I didn't vote for him in 2000 or 2004. I am a lifelong Democrat and Hillary Clinton supporter, who has, after much investigation and soul-searching, decided that I cannot support Obama.
One more point: I find it very distressing the extent to which some individuals lack concern over the death of innocent civilians in Iraq, or in any war zone, for that matter; especially those who consider themselves "religious." Although the people of the world are divided by artificial boundaries, I would think that those who consider themselves to be religious would be concerned about the plight of all God's children, not just those who happen to reside in their particular country.

Although you and I may disagree politically (I too was a Hillary supporter, but if she's not the candidate, I cannot bring myself to vote for McCain), everything else you said is extremely insightful and in line with my beliefs. I don't think you can have it both ways - all life should be respected, certainly the unborn, and certainly all of the rest of the human species. Good post.

Summer Rain wrote:

<quoted text>
No. Obama would have given the kid a chance for an education, some training, a job, something.
Obama has made it clear that he regards aiding the poor as a Christian duty. His whole economic policy revolves around giving people a chance to earn their daily bread. He's been to a lot of trouble over the years to introduce and pass legislation supporting education, job training and work. He has put a lot of his personal time into charitable endeavors along those lines.
If he would go to that kind of trouble for strangers, why would he not help his own brother?

Lisa, Obama knew where his brother was in 2006 and more than likely also knew his situation as well at that time, and has since done NOTHING to help hios brother.

You really don't see a problem with millionaire Obama's lack of concern for his blood relative.

A $100.00 gift to his brother could have made a hell of a difference in his poor brothers life.

If he will not even help his own brother, what could he possibly do for America?

Summer Rain wrote:

<quoted text>
No. Obama would have given the kid a chance for an education, some training, a job, something.
Obama has made it clear that he regards aiding the poor as a Christian duty. His whole economic policy revolves around giving people a chance to earn their daily bread. He's been to a lot of trouble over the years to introduce and pass legislation supporting education, job training and work. He has put a lot of his personal time into charitable endeavors along those lines.
If he would go to that kind of trouble for strangers, why would he not help his own brother?

Lisa, Obama knew where his brother was in 2006 and more than likely also knew his situation as well at that time, and has since done NOTHING to help his brother.

You really don't see a problem with millionaire Obama's lack of concern for his blood relative.

A $100.00 gift to his brother could have made a hell of a difference in his poor brothers life.

If he will not even help his own brother, what could he possibly do for America?

My previous post was to Summer Rain.
My Bad.
Sorry for the double post.

perplexed wrote:

<quoted text>To answer your question first, pro-life is pro all-life. Tell me, how do you feel about consciencious objectors?

A pacifist, who is against all forms of violence, lives freely by having the luxury of someone else who is willing to defend them. Pacifism is an elitist affectation like environmentalism.

perplexed wrote:

<quoted text>Although you and I may disagree politically (I too was a Hillary supporter, but if she's not the candidate, I cannot bring myself to vote for McCain), everything else you said is extremely insightful and in line with my beliefs. I don't think you can have it both ways - all life should be respected, certainly the unborn, and certainly all of the rest of the human species. Good post.

I agree with you 100%. Thank you for your comment.

The Presidential election was too close to call. Neither the Republican candidate nor the Democratic candidate had enough votes to win. There was much talk about ballot recounting, court challenges, etc., but a week-long ice fishing competition seemed the sportsmanlike way to settle things. The candidate that caught the most fish at the end of the week would win the election.

Therefore, it was decided that there should be an ice fishing contest between the two candidates to determine the winner.

After much of back and forth discussion, it was decided that the contest take place on a remote frozen lake in northern Minnesota .

There were to be no observers present, and both men were to be sent out separately on this isolated lake and return at 5 P.M. with their catch for counting and verification by a team of neutral parties. At the end of the first day, John Mc. retu rned to the start ing line and he had ten fish.

Soon, Obama returned and had no fish. Well, everyone assumed he was just having another 'bad hair' day or something and hopefully, he would catch up the next day.

At the end of the 2nd day John Mc. came in with 20 fish and Obama came in again with none.

That evening, Harry Reid got together secretly with Obama and said,'Obama, I think John Mc. is a low-life, cheatin' son-of-a-gun. I want you to go out tomorrow and don't even bother with fishing. Just spy on him and see just how he is cheating.'

The next night (after John Mc. returns with 50 fish), said to Obama,'Well, tell me, how is John Mc. cheating?'

Obama replied,'Harry, you're not going to believe this, but he's cutting holes in the ice.'

Experience Counts