Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 294 comments Add your own | iPod friendly | Bookmark this What is this?

Congress must meet on energy

Staff

Published Saturday, September 13, 2008

With a presidential race in full swing, partisanship between Republicans and Democrats has reached a fever pitch.

But now is time for both sides to stop drawing lines in the sand, open their minds to a compromise and meet in the middle on an issue that is among the most important to Americans: Energy costs.

With gas prices set to rise once again, the battle over whose ideological philosophies is correct will likely heat up.

While it is impossible to lump every Republican or Democrat completely into either category, the general division is fairly clear.

Republicans favor more offshore drilling and production of domestic oil. The Democrats talk more about investing in alternative energy sources.

But the answer is also as clear: We need both and we need to start now.

Leaders from both parties need to step to the plate and draft a plan that will encompass both these approaches and incorporate other ideas as well.

Sadly, this issue seems to be getting used as an election hot topic on which the parties and the candidates can tout their differences. Our nation needs them to find where they agree and stop playing politics with an issue that has such a profound impact on the country and millions of families.

According to the Associated Press, the Senate will soon debate at least three proposals that call for an expansion of offshore drilling — one being developed by Democrats, another by Republicans and a third by a bipartisan group. It remains to be seen if any of the proposals being considered will garner the needed 60 votes required to overcome an expected filibuster.

The time for talk has long since passed.

Senators have talked about it. Representatives have talked about it. Presidential and vice presidential candidates have talked about it.

The American people cannot help but talk about it.

The problem is clear. The answers are there, if our leaders are willing to open their eyes and their minds and start really looking for them instead of being blinded by politics.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?

Comments

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 14, 2008 at 7:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The answer is simple. We need to drill now, everywhere, we need to build more nuclear plants and we need a "Manhattan Project" on energy. We need better wind, solar and renewables. And most important of all, we need better batteries and energy storage devices.

Posted by Slick77 (anonymous) on September 14, 2008 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Noesis, You make sense as usual. Been reading all your comments lately, (keeping up.) You and Padanorr and a few others are doing great. Just haven't had time to comment lately. Talk later.....

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 14, 2008 at 11:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

We from BOTH parties need to use every means at our disposal to meet our short and long range energy needs. For us to survive we need energy independance from foreign countries. The middle east is no longer a RELIABLE source for Oil. There are the countries that have "the bomb" and others soon may. Still other countries have the ability to stop or slow oil transportation by either pipeline or waterway passage for the tankers.

This is NOT a Democratic OR Republican energy crisis. It's an American energy crisis.

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 5:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As for a "Manhattan project", as I posted in this forum weeks ago, Obama has a plan to completely break our addiction to Middle East and Venezuelan oil within 10 years. We will have an effective energy plan when we have leadership in the White House to motivate the American people around this cause.

As for the "drill here, drill there, drill now" line of thinking, I trust oil billionaire T.Boone Pickens' expertise more than McCain's. Pickens is not "against" drilling for oil but is CRYSTAL CLEAR that we cannot drill our way out of this problem...not even close.

He proposes that we convert autos to run on natural gas, a fuel that we have in abundance here in America. This is a much better plan than McCain's and is much more similar to Obama's energy plan. Don't take my word for it, take it from Boone himself...

(VIDEO)

http://www.pickensplan.com/index.php

With all due respect, given that we've had two "oil men" in the White House for the last 8 years, I would say that the energy crisis IS a REPUBLICAN problem. Think about it. Who stands to gain from what we're going through? Which party has gotten rich off oil? Which candidate favors providing EVEN MORE tax giveaways to big oil companies? We're not better off than we were 8 years ago and a big reason is because we have a President and a Vice President who have a higher regard for their relations with the Saudis....for their connections with big oil companies.......and for all the millions of dollars they've made via this scheme than they do for the people of the United States (excluding their country club buddies, of course).

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 5:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually, if you watch the video above and if you are familiar with Obama's plan, I'd challenge you to find much of a difference. It would not surprise me at all if Pickens winds up endorsing Obama.

The two sticking points that make McCain's plan very different from the Pickens Plan is

1) McCain's stubbornness to drill our way out of this problem
2) McCain's blindness to how long it takes to get nuclear plants up and running.

Bottom line, if McCain's elected we'll be paying $5 / gallon within the first year...more than that in any of a variety of scenarios where he'd widen the war in the Middle East.

He just doesn't get it.

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 5:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

************************************************************************
************************************************************************

Greenspan: This Is The Worst Economy I've Ever Seen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fO9idrZs3...

We are NOT better off than we were 8 years ago.

************************************************************************
************************************************************************

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 5:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If you read between the lines, that means that Greenspan (Reagan's guy) says the economy is worse NOW than it was back in the late '70s under JIMMY CARTER.

Posted by Shooter (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 6:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

P.O. the Repubs- vote Obama!

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 7:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I only have one problem with using natural gas for cars... Natural gas was very, very cheap and abundant just a few years ago... and then they started building electrical plants that used natural gas for fuel lowering the inventory and causing the prices to go up and up... now on top of that you want to run cars on natural gas...

What's our heating bill going to be? $2,000/month in the winter?

Hey Neo... why is it that oil pumped out of the ground by evil corrupt republicans is bad but gas pumped out of the ground by the same people who pump the oil is good?

And Pickens would probably endorse Palin. Isn't she the one who pushed the Alaskan pipeline to supply natural gas to the U.S.?

"McCain's blindness to how long it takes to get nuclear plants up and running."

5-7 years is well within the 10 years for Obama's plan to take effect Neo. That's how long it will take to build nuclear plants.

And another bad thing about natural gas... you're still pumping CO2 to the atmosphere in large amounts.

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 7:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 7:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You obviously didn't watch the Pickens video I posted. It addresses your point. Here's the video link again.

http://www.pickensplan.com/index.php

Like the Pickens Plan? Vote Obama. Their plans are almost identical.

Neo

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 8:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 7:16 a.m.

Hey Neo... why is it that oil pumped out of the ground by evil corrupt republicans is bad but gas pumped out of the ground by the same people who pump the oil is good?

- Did you get mixed up in wording that sentence? It doesn't make sense to me. Just a couple of points. Republicans aren't evil. Bush and Cheney are, in my opinion. Oil is not evil but it's a dirty fuel and we don't have it in abundance here in America.

And Pickens would probably endorse Palin. Isn't she the one who pushed the Alaskan pipeline to supply natural gas to the U.S.?

- Sure. She's the one who McCain says "knows more about energy than anyone in America", right? Pickens might disagree with that. Pickens would agree with utilizing natural gas from Alaska but I'd be quite surprised if he agreed with McCain that she "knows more about energy than anyone in America" and I doubt he'd endorse McCain since Obama's plan is almost exactly the same as Pickens.

"McCain's blindness to how long it takes to get nuclear plants up and running."

5-7 years is well within the 10 years for Obama's plan to take effect Neo. That's how long it will take to build nuclear plants.

- Noesis, again, go back and watch Pickens video. You're talking about more like 20 years for the first nuclear plants to go online. Obama's plan for breaking our addiction to Middle East and Venezuelan oil ENDS in 10 years....McCain's nuclear power wouldn't be online until 2030.

And another bad thing about natural gas... you're still pumping CO2 to the atmosphere in large amounts.

- True. This is a great example of Obama being, as Joe Biden put it, a "clear-eyed pragmatist." Would it be ideal for us to be able to switch over to wind/solar/hydro and 100% of all autos running on electric within a year. Sure. It's not going to happen though and Obama has been clear about that as he's spoken on NUMEROUS occasion about the process we're going to go through, including the need to have "transitional" fuels.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 8:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Neo said: Oil is not evil but it's a dirty fuel and we don't have it in abundance here in America.

Actually Neo we have three times the amount of oil that Saudi Arabia has.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 8:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Noesis, again, go back and watch Pickens video. You're talking about more like 20 years for the first nuclear plants to go online. Obama's plan for breaking our addiction to Middle East and Venezuelan oil ENDS in 10 years....McCain's nuclear power wouldn't be online until 2030.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The consortium's other goal is to test a simplified licensing system created by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 12 years ago to help the industry go from reactor order to electricity production in 5 years, as opposed to the 10 or 12 years it took under the previous system.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht...

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 8:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Neo, you're never going to have 100% wind/solar/hydro... at least in our lifetime. You refuse to accept the lilitations of wind and solar. What is your supply of power if it's nitetime and the wind isn't blowing?

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 8:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is a great example of Obama being, as Joe Biden put it, a "clear-eyed pragmatist.

Joe often mis-speaks. I think he meant to say "Clear-eyed plagerizer"

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 8:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 8:15 a.m.
Actually Neo we have three times the amount of oil that Saudi Arabia has.
----------------------------------------
I'd like to see a reputable link to back that one up. I have NEVER heard anyone make the claim that we have more oil than Saudi Arabia, or even MORE oil than Saudi Arabia so I'll need to see some proof of what your talking about. Unless you're joking, I could only imagine that you'd be including oil 100 miles below what we can reach and offshore oil halfway out into the Atlantic and the Pacific.

As for your other post, I trust Pickens' opinion much more than I do McCain's or just about any one else's. Since I had about $80K in the market before I pulled out in advance of the really bad part of the housing/banking crisis we're in, I know that when Pickens talks, Wall Street listens. There is no partisan junk when it comes to where the money is going and who knows what they're talking about. Pickens knows what he's talking about and, so, you can count on nuclear being a long term proposition regardless of what McCain says.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 8:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama's energy plan is just as empty as his promise to lower the amount of taxes 95% of the American people pay.

How can Obama lower the amount of taxes on 95% of the American people when 40% of the American people pay no federal taxes??????

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 8:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually Neo we have three times the amount of oil that Saudi Arabia has.
----------------------------------------
I'd like to see a reputable link to back that one up. I have NEVER heard anyone make the claim that we have more oil than Saudi Arabia, or even MORE oil than Saudi Arabia so I'll need to see some proof of what your talking about. Unless you're joking, I could only imagine that you'd be including oil 100 miles below what we can reach and offshore oil halfway out into the Atlantic and the Pacific.
____________________________________________

While oil shale is found in many places worldwide, by far the largest deposits in the world are found in the United States in the Green River Formation, which covers portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Estimates of the oil resource in place within the Green River Formation range from 1.2 to 1.8 trillion barrels. Not all resources in place are recoverable; however, even a moderate estimate of 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil from oil shale in the Green River Formation is three times greater than the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.
http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/oilshale/in...

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 8:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 8:26 a.m.
Neo, you're never going to have 100% wind/solar/hydro... at least in our lifetime. You refuse to accept the lilitations of wind and solar. What is your supply of power if it's nitetime and the wind isn't blowing?
---------------------------------------------------------
Noesis - That's the kind of statement that makes me not like debating with you. I said:

"Would it be ideal for us to be able to switch over to wind/solar/hydro and 100% of all autos running on electric within a year. Sure. It's not going to happen though and Obama has been clear about that as he's spoken on NUMEROUS occasion about the process we're going to go through, including the need to have "transitional" fuels."

The whole gist of what I was saying is that Obama is practical enough to utilize alternative fuels like natural gas, as Pickens suggests. I actually stated that we're not going to see all of the green alternatives overnight, maybe even not soon. I'm sure, though, that we can do more than we're doing now and that's the point. We need to implement something like the Obama/Pickens plan to break the dependence on foreign oil and work on alternatives as we go. For the record, Obama isn't against nuclear either...if that's what you were getting at. He, like Pickens, recognizes that nuclear is not going to be a near-term solution to our energy problems.

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 8:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Straight from Wikipedia...

The fine-grained sedimentary rock known as oil shale contains significant amounts of kerogen (a solid mixture of organic chemical compounds), from which technology can extract liquid hydrocarbons. (Geologists may regard the name oil shale as a misnomer, since the rock does not necessarily consist of a shale and its kerogen differs from crude oil; it requires more processing than crude oil, which affects its economic viability as a crude-oil substitute and increases its environmental impact.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Also from Wikipedia...

With the United States domestic decline in oil production, it is important to research possible tar sand production in America (Alaska). Our consumption continues to increase, as well as our dependence on oil imports. Today, about 59% of the oil consumed in the United States are imported. The deposits of oil sands (oil shale) in the United States are massive....

Many countries in the world have large deposits of oil sands, including the United States, Russia, and various countries in the Middle East. However, the world's largest deposits occur in two countries: Canada and Venezuela, both of which have oil sands reserves approximately equal to the world's total reserves of conventional crude oil. As a result of the development of Canadian oil sands reserves, 44% of Canadian oil production in 2007 was from oil sands

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 8:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 8:39 a.m.

Obama's energy plan is just as empty as his promise to lower the amount of taxes 95% of the American people pay.

How can Obama lower the amount of taxes on 95% of the American people when 40% of the American people pay no federal taxes??????
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The fallout from both plans are right here...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

Both plans apply to working Americans who pay taxes. Both plans will have some getting back more than they pay in. I know your response to this...I've heard it many times.

Middle-class and working poor Americans are going through desperate times. They need help. Since many of the wealthy have done so by selling out American workers and exporting our jobs to China, India and many other countries where workers are paid pennies on the dollar, I believe this is fair. I believe that corporations should have more than just one obligation....to maximize return on shareholder dollar. They should also have an obligation to this country which provides them a stable home base and to the American workers who helped them rise to power in the first place. You'd think a "patriot" would share the same views on commitment to country and countrymen.

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

From Neo-pedia...go with the guy who made billions in the oil business when you're debating what's best for serving our energy needs.

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 8:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

OK...that ends the lightning round, at least for me, Noesis. I have business to take care of. Have a good day.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Both plans will have some getting back more than they pay in. I know your response to this...I've heard it many times.
_________________________________________________

Well, hear it again. I don't mind paying taxes. I do mind the tax plan posing as a wealth redistribution plan.

And why is Pickens pushing this plan??? Is it because he heavily invested in wind and natural gas? Do you think their maybe a SLIGHT conflict of interest going on?

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 9:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Of course. That's the way it works on Wall Street. At least you know that Pickens believes in these ideas because he puts his money where his mouth is. Further, he's putting his reputation on the line too. He's filthy rich. He doesn't NEED to drum up something like this just to pad his bank account. He believes this is the way to go for the future and wants his name in the history books as one of the early voices. That's what's important to guys like Pickens. You can throw Warren Buffet in the mix too since he's endorsed Obama quite a while back and I think he knows a thing or two about the economy. Your taxes, noesis, are not going to be redistributed to the poor. You're going to get more back than you would under McCain. If a rich guy like Buffet is backing Obama, that should tell you something. He knows how the economy works and realizes that if the middle class and working poor bottom out bad enough, that's worse for the rich than paying a few more dollars in taxes. They'll get it back and then some since the middle class and working poor will SPEND the money anyway. The rich always get their slice of the cake regardless of what the tax plan or anything else is. One would have to be very naive to believe otherwise. Now, I've got to go noesis. Don't drop another bomb and make it look like I'm running out on your question. I'm even running late now. Gotta go. Again, have a good day.

Posted by padanorr (David A. Norris) on September 15, 2008 at 10:38 a.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 11:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Many people are confused with the topic of tax plans and the rationale behind them. There are two primary ways you can look at this topic. One is from the practical standpoint and the other is from the moral standpoint. I will begin by addressing the practical standpoint.

Taxation, from a governmental point of view has nothing to do with the redistribution of wealth in the sense of "creating a world where we're all more equal." To think this is to ascribe a sociological ideal to the concept of taxation that is not accurate.

Taxation serves a few basic purposes. One is to fund government programs. This purpose is pretty obvious but is often not taken into consideration by those debating the merit of various tax plans. If, for example, you want to cut taxes across the board you must also cut government programs. You must identify which programs to cut or to reduce. While it's easy for us to make such proclamations here in this forum, it's not that simple in the reality of our nation's politics. The fact is, those who would seek to eliminate or reduce certain programs almost certainly do not have full or complete knowledge of everything that is involved in these programs.

Another purpose of tax policy is to stimulate the economy. Now before those of you on the far right start typing in your response, consider Reagan. He inherited a struggling economy from Carter. It was better than the economy we have today according to Alan Greenspan (see link above), but it was bad. Reagan used his supply-side trickle-down economic taxation strategy to stimulate the economy (although he also left record deficits).

Barack Obama is seeking to accomplish the same goal. By establishing the tax cuts in his program he will provide the economic stimulus that the US needs today. Since there is now a 3000 character limit on posts, I need to wrap this up. For those of you that might get bunged up over the idea of someone actually getting back more than they paid in, where are YOUR principles. Isn't it likely, or possible, that this person will make more money as they advance in years and pay an increasingly higher rate of taxes. Taxes are like social security. You never get out of the program exactly what you put in. Any common sense consideration of the program makes this obvious. The point is that the tax cuts to the middle class and working poor are not a social statement, they are a stimulus to the economy...purely pragmatic.

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As I have business to attend to, I'll come back later to post on the moral aspect of tax policy and "redistribution of wealth" in American society.

Posted by padanorr (David A. Norris) on September 15, 2008 at 11:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

... you rich guy analogy is wrong ... way wrong ...

Steve Forbes is backing McCain and is one of his economic advisors. Just to say because Warren Buffet has endorsed Obama's tax plan and correlate that because Warren Buffet is rich and Obama must be right is down right idiotic.

... the rich are going to be taxed and the proceeds redistributed to the poor. That is what Obama has promised in all his speeches and that is the basis for his entire tax plan. Did you know that 40% of American's pay no income tax?? Did you know that all those refundable tax credits go to those that pay no taxes? Where do you think that money is coming from? It isn't coming from those that pay no taxes. It is coming from the rich. Income redistribution is Obama's plan and it is absolutely wrong.

Then you say if we give the money at the bottom the rich will get their slice anyway.

Working back up from Retail through all the middle men how much of that money do you really think will end up in the hands of the rich? Very little of it ....

What is going to happen when rich folks, (Those that provide the jobs) for the poor folks find out their taxes have increased? They are going to cut expenditures. They are going to cut jobs. Whose jobs are going to be cut? Poor people's jobs, the lower income jobs.

Obama’s tax plan will discourage work … again it is the old adage of giving a hungry man a fish versus teaching him to fish.

Let me put it this way … a hungry man goes to a Democrat … the Democrat gives him a fish and says come back tomorrow and I will feed you again.

A hungry man goes to a Republican and the Republican gives that man a fishing pole and a fish and shows the man how to use the fishing pole. The man can now feed himself.

Obama is handing out fish and telling poor folks to keep coming back for more fish.

Posted by padanorr (David A. Norris) on September 15, 2008 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

------- Taxation should have nothing to do with redistribution of wealth ... but reality has very little to do with what is ... and what Obama's plan is ...

------ Sorry but that was not the idea of the writers of the constitution when it was framed. The power to tax was to provide services at a Federal Level and provide for a common militia. Welfare was not and still not mentioned in the constitution.

----- Trickle down Reaganomics idea was "Less Government" ... Less taxes ... letting folks keep their rightfully gained income ... thus stimulating the economy.

Barack Obama is seeking to accomplish the same goal. By establishing the tax cuts in his program he will provide the economic stimulus that the US needs today.

----- Barack Obama's tax plan will discourage work. Cause an enourmous deficit and slow the economy by preventing the wealthiest American's from investing in the market place. Poor people don't create jobs.

The point is that the tax cuts to the middle class and working poor are not a social statement, they are a stimulus to the economy...purely pragmatic.

------ You started off by talking about moral issues and taxation and then you end up trying to be pragmatic. There is nothing pragmatic about redistribution of wealth. It has been tried and proven to fail. The practice will harm this economy.

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 11:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

pad, What is going to happen when rich folks, (Those that provide the jobs) for the poor folks find out their taxes have increased?

They'll expand and hire more people so they can keep their "standard of living".

A hungry man goes to a Republican and the Republican SELLS that man a fishing pole at four times retail, tells the man for an extra 20% he'll show the man how to use the fishing pole. The man can now feed himself, except that only republicans can afford the bait.

Posted by padanorr (David A. Norris) on September 15, 2008 at 2:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What is going to happen when rich folks, (Those that provide the jobs) for the poor folks find out their taxes have increased?

They'll expand and hire more people so they can keep their "standard of living".

------ how is this a logical assumption? The rich folk cannot expand since he paid Obama so much in taxes ... if he wants to maintain his standard of living he is forced to cut jobs .... and those that have the jobs don't get a raise this time ...

----- actually I have it wrong ... the Republican gave the fishing pole to the hungry man ... taught him to fish ... and then taught him how to sell fishing poles to his neighbors ... The Democrats demanded free fishing poles.

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 3:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OK padanorr, you want to talk...let's talk. If it's OK with you I'd like to start with a simple question.

Premise:

"The United States of America including the Constitution, the government and everything foundational about this nation is based upon and was intended by our founding fathers to exemplify Christian values."

Of course, there is that part about tolerance for other religions but we don't need to get into that here.

So the question is this. Do you accept this premise?

Thanks - Neo

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

padanorr, I'm going to wait it out and give you time to respond to that last question if you want to.

My project for this evening is to try and have a polite and rational discussion with you. With that, I'll wait for your response.

Posted by padanorr (David A. Norris) on September 15, 2008 at 5:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

From a New York Post Story ...

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/pos...

Posted by padanorr (David A. Norris) on September 15, 2008 at 5:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Where is the liberal press now? If Obama did try to negotiate with the Iraqi government and delay the draw down of American troops, Obama is guilty of violating the Logan Act which is a felony ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 5:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

pad, What is going to happen when rich folks, (Those that provide the jobs) for the poor folks find out their taxes have increased?

They'll expand and hire more people so they can keep their "standard of living".
Lets say I have a business employing 500 people and I make 50k per employee, giving me $25M total. When the Dumya tax cuts expire I only make $40k each for those 500 employees, or $20M.

If I expand my business and add 125 new jobs, I retain my $25M total for the year.

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 6:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by padanorr (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 11:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

... you rich guy analogy is wrong ... way wrong ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** that was padanorr making a case against a comment I'd posted**
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 3:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OK padanorr, you want to talk...let's talk. If it's OK with you I'd like to start with a simple question.

Premise:

Of course, there is that part about tolerance for other religions but we don't need to get into that here.

So the question is this. Do you accept this premise?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

padanorr, I'm going to wait it out and give you time to respond to that last question if you want to.

My project for this evening is to try and have a polite and rational discussion with you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by padanorr (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 5:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

From a New York Post Story ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~ crickets chirping ~~~~
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just trying to have a friendly debate with the guy since he took a shot at rebutting my comment. And that's the thanks I get...

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 7:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OK...no problem padonorr. You don't want a friendly head to head debate that's fine. Just don't jump my back on every other post I make then, OK? I don't have anything against you personally but I'm just tired of seeing all the "Hey neo" remarks.

Anyway, here's one from daily ko's. Just totally disregard the article if you want...I know some of you doubt its credibility.

Just check out the pictures from this rally in Alaska.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 9:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by padanorr (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 2:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What is going to happen when rich folks, (Those that provide the jobs) for the poor folks find out their taxes have increased?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They'll move their accounts offshore where there are no taxes.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 9:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 11:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

pad, What is going to happen when rich folks, (Those that provide the jobs) for the poor folks find out their taxes have increased?

They'll expand and hire more people so they can keep their "standard of living".

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

MC, How are they going to be able to afford to expand when Obama has taken all their profits?

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 10:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

They are going to be able to afford to expand because Obama, right in his platform states clearly that he, will provide tax incentives for companies that create jobs here in America.

He will also stop rewarding American companies that send American jobs overseas.

Nice answer on the offshore accounts. See, the money always finds ways to trickle up or remain up at the high end of the wealth scale. No need to panic.

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 10:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And Noesis, Obama isn't taking "all their profit", Just TAXING more of their profit. Profit they made off the backs of hard-working Americans. Besides, being the good little businesspeople they are, they can start saving for expansion the night of the election, 'cause Dumya is out and there's not any chance of the senile old fart making it past the debate.

So, rich people, make that check out to BARAK OBAMA, PRESIDENT, USA and the IRS.

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 10:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And did you notice today that McBush couldn't even remember how many days til election? Homewrecker Cindy had to correct him. (I guess Lieberman went home since he lost out to Barbie)

Hey, Neo, did you notice on a different post I got pad to call him McBush, too??

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 12:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

No, I didn't MC, but that's c l a s s i c!

Actually, that's a compliment to McCain. Here's why I think that. Bush is clueless...we all know that. So is McCain...we all know that. But Bush at least had Cheney there in the White House to run the show. Granted, Cheney is possibly one of the most diabolical figures ever to hold that office but at least he was good at it...kind of like Richard Nixon (who he worked for:) until he got busted. McCain has a lightweight...no a flyweight...really that's not even good enough. He has a completely and unequivocally incompetent running mate.

Now that she's opened her mouth on the record in the interview with Charlie Gibson, we know that she is so clueless that she doesn't (or didn't) have the slightest idea what the Bush Doctrine is. She was barely able to string together two meaningful sentences in a row in this interview. Biden is going to tear her up in the debate because he's an equal-opportunity butt-kicker. He will annihilate her. Actually, she will annihilate herself just trying to answer the questions I can only imagine the questioner will have lined up. She's liable to short-circuit and go into her pageant speech "...and if I could have one wish...it would be for all the little children of the world....to join hands and sing in unison...." McCain threw deep on third and ten. The ball hit her in the hands but....Nooooooo. Not gonna happen. She is out of her league. Obama and Biden know it. The press knows it. McCain knows it. Soon the American people will know it. I really kind of hate to see it have to go down like this because she is a sort of likable person. McCain just put her in an impossible spot and now they'll both have to live with it.

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 8:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

McCain Lie Counter

http://www.mccainpedia.org/index.php/Cou...

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 8:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

McCain Loses Fox News: Megyn Kelly Rips McCain Flack For Claiming Obama Would Raise Middle Class Taxes

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/15/kell...

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

John McCain's Journey From Maverick to Liar

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/john-farrell...

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 8:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 10:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And Noesis, Obama isn't taking "all their profit", Just TAXING more of their profit. Profit they made off the backs of hard-working Americans.
_______________________________________________

MC, when did you arrive from Russia? Or... is it China? If you want socialism, head to a socialist country.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 8:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

John McCain's Journey From Maverick to Liar

_________________________________________________

Yes and a good example of McCain lying is when he stated that Obama voted for a bill that would teach kids in school ages K-12 grade sex-ed. Want proof that McCain is lying, lets look at the exact wording of the bill:

"Each class or course in comprehensive sex education in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV."
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzI......

See, see how McCains lies!!!!

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 9:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Palin releases e-mails detailing problems with Monegan:

....Among the e-mails released was one of farewell written by the public safety commissioner himself, Walt Monegan, when he was fired in July. In it, he suggested the governor had reason to believe she had lost his support, and urged his former colleagues to communicate better with her.

"For anyone to lead effectively they must have the support of their team, and I had waited too long outside her door for her to believe that I supported her," he wrote. "Please, choose a different path."...

...The e-mails made clear that some Palin staffers believed Monegan and the Department of Public Safety worked outside normal channels. One was written in May by Randy Ruaro, then a special assistant to Palin, to the governor's budget director, and concerned efforts to pay for and build a crime lab.

"I FEEL YOUR PAIN! DPS is constantly going off the reservation," he wrote.

In February, Monegan signed a public letter of support for a $3.6 million project designed to keep troubled teens off the street in Anchorage — even though the governor had vetoed the project last year and hadn't included money for it in her budget this year.

"I am stunned and amazed — do you know anything about this?" budget director Karen Rehfeld wrote to two other high-level staffers when she learned of the letter.

"Think about that: one of the governor's own cabinet members publicly contradicting her veto decision," Stapleton said.

Monegan acknowledged he shouldn't have signed the letter, because it put the governor in the awkward position of defending her veto decision. But he said he thought of the letter as simply making another run at getting funding for a worthy project.

The last straw, the McCain campaign said, was in July, when Monegan planned to travel to Washington to seek federal money for a plan to assign troopers, judges and prosecutors who could exclusively handle sexual assault cases — one of the state's most intractable crime problems.

In a July 7 e-mail, John Katz, the governor's special counsel, noted two problems with the trip: The governor hadn't agreed the money should be sought, and the request was "out of sequence with our other appropriations requests and could put a strain on the evolving relationship between the Governor and Sen. (Ted) Stevens."

Four days later, Monegan was fired.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/nati...

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Noesis, whose plantation have YOU been hiding on? Its just not right to make your fortune, sell off your company and leave loyal workers without their pensions and health insurance. (But thats just business)

Its just wasn't right for Chrysler (who BORROWED money from the gov't. to stay afloat at one point) to close a plant here in the U.S. and move it to Canada. (But that's just business.)

Its not right for companies to import tainted pet food and baby food from China. (But, thats just business.)

Dumya and a Republican-controlled Congress set into motion the tax breaks the rich have enjoyed all these years. You see, it was Dumya who set the tax breaks to expire in 2010. Obama hates to let them expire. (But, that's just business.)

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 9:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

For prosecution of Bush war crimes, planning begins

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/War_crimes...

Go ahead noesis...freak out. I LOVE this. I hope this comes to pass and it's on the TV every day for like 4 years just so redneck jerks that say things like "love it or leave it" can double over with ulcers every time they change channels. I'm sick of the bull from broke rednecks who act like they actually have any wealth to be distributed to anyone else in the first place.

Chew on that one for a while.

Maybe I'll just go on hiatus until after the election and then come back to ride you every day for the next 8 years just out of principle.

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Neo, I loved the article on war crimes. Thanx

Posted by padanorr (David A. Norris) on September 16, 2008 at 1:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 9:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

For prosecution of Bush war crimes, planning begins

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/War_crimes......

Chew on that one for a while.

Maybe I'll just go on hiatus until after the election and then come back to ride you every day for the next 8 years just out of principle.

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

Was that the angry left talking?

Chew on this neo ... it will never happen ...

Posted by padanorr (David A. Norris) on September 16, 2008 at 1:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If Barack Obama had his way ... Gianna would be dead ...

Gianna's biological mother was 17 when she had a saline abortion in her third trimester. After being burned alive for approximately 18 hours in the womb from the saline solution, Gianna was delivered alive in a Los Angeles County abortion clinic. The procedure left her with cerebral palsy, which led doctors to assert that she would never be able to hold up her head, sit up, crawl or walk. However, Gianna began to walk by the age of three years old with the help of leg braces and a walker. Now, she runs marathons across the world. On April 30, 2005 Gianna completed her first 26.2 mile marathon after running just over 7 hours. On April 23, 2006 she completed the London Marathon.

http://bornalivetruth.org/default.aspx

Posted by padanorr (David A. Norris) on September 16, 2008 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

you may ask ... how out of touch is Barack Obama?

Instead of a fund raiser for his campaign with the Hollywood elite, whom most American's view as out of touch, why don't they have the fund raiser for victims of hurricane IKE?

Does Obama really care?

No .... So instead of taking public financing like he promised in the primaries, he opted for private financing and hob nobbing with the Hollywood elite ....

DENVER (AP) — How does Barack Obama lure wealthy donors to a big-money fundraiser in Hollywood? Bring in Barbra Streisand as the headline performer.

The Oscar-winning singer and actress was to perform Tuesday night on Obama’s behalf in Beverly Hills. It was to be a two-step evening with a reception and dinner costing $28,500 a person followed by a later event featuring Streisand at $2,500 a ticket.

Obama was flying to Los Angeles after an appearance Tuesday morning in a Denver suburb.

The wealthy fundraiser comes on a day when the crisis in the U.S. economy remained an urgent issue for many Americans. Monday’s sharp sell-off left the Dow Jones industrials and the Standard & Poor’s 500 index down by more 4 percent, eroding the value of individual retirement and investment accounts.

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 4:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Pad, you right-wingers just LOVE to be in control. You want control from the womb to the grave. But, and here's where it really makes no sense at all, once the baby is born you will always look at the mother and child as just a drain on society.

And instead of criticizing Obama for his fundraiser (btw, Streisand is a bargain at ANY price), why not contact the old Geritol guy and get him to give one or two of his houses to the red cross. The red cross can sell them to raise money for the entire hurricane season. Or, were those houses intended for HIS undisclosed location?

Posted by padanorr (David A. Norris) on September 16, 2008 at 5:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 4:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

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

That is where you and I differ .... to me ... the mother and the child are a blessing ... to you they are a drain ... and according to you the baby should be discarded ...

Posted by padanorr (David A. Norris) on September 16, 2008 at 5:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This is how deceitful Obama is .... and desparate ...

Fiorina: Obama Camp ‘Deceitful’ in Clipping My Quote

Barack Obama’s campaign was “deceitful” when it clipped part of an interview in which Republican Victory 2008 Chairwoman Carly Fiorina said John McCain was not qualified to be the head of a corporation, Fiorina said Tuesday.

Earlier in the day, Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, appeared on MSNBC, where she said none of the candidates is qualified to run a major corporation, but that should not prevent them from running the country.

“I don’t think John McCain could run a major corporation. I don’t think Barack Obama could run a major corporation. I don’t think Joe Biden could run a major corporation. But on the other hand a major corporation is not the same as being the president or vice president of the United States,” Fiorina said.

“It is a fallacy to suggest that the country is like a company. So of course to run a business you have to have a lifetime of experience in business, but that’s not what Sarah Palin, John McCain, Joe Biden or Barack Obama are doing,” she said.

But the Obama campaign, pointing to a version of Fiorina’s statement that was clipped after the first sentence, berated McCain for not winning the trust of even his own supporters.

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 5:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Not so, you purveyor of poo-poo. That child IS precious. But the republicans don't want to cover that child's health care. You just want the baby born, shoved in the mother's arms, told she has a blessing, and then kick her out the door.

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 5:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

NObody, but NObody, can be as deceiptful, mean, desperate, confused, babbling and just plain lying as the McBush campaign.

Posted by padanorr (David A. Norris) on September 16, 2008 at 5:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 5:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

-----

actually the liberal left extremist want control ... want that child and mother to rely upon the government for every necessity of life ... that is the real crime ... instead of teaching a generation to work and fend for themselves we have raised generations of citizens that don't want to work and think that the government OWES them a living ... a house and a car ...

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 5:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 4:39 p.m.
That is where you and I differ .... to me ... the mother and the child are a blessing ... to you they are a drain ... and according to you the baby should be discarded ..
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is where you and I differ .... to me ... all of mankind, including the mother and the child are a blessing ... to you they are a selectively expendible ... and according to you we should turn a blind eye to those who for whatever reason are down on their luck...just kick them into the gutter if they can't pull their own weight...talk about social darwinism...you can see the tragedy in ending the life of an unborn child but you consider it "acceptable" to bring the lives of untold thousands of actual living children to an end in the most horrific ways when they happen to be anywhere near something our military considers a "strategic target" in a war against a country that never attacked us...that we invaded...and the same goes for ANY other military action...you're for it all...you consider THOSE children to be "acceptable losses" for the greater good just because George Bush says "let's drop some bombs there..." The bottom line is that you vaunted morality ends at the borderline of your little world. Anyone outside of that, you don't care. And don't lie about it either. You have this grand delusion that you've earned your way and you have this giant sense of entitlement because of it. Big guy, I tell you this. There but for the grace of God go you.

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 5:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And if you decide to reply to that last post, padanorr, how about stepping up to the plate and answering this question?

OK padanorr, you want to talk...let's talk. Here's a simple question to start off.

Premise:

Of course, there is that part about tolerance for other religions but we don't need to get into that here.

So the question is this. Do you accept this premise?

Thanks - Neo

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 5:58 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by padanorr (David A. Norris) on September 16, 2008 at 5:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The real story on the housing bust is coming out ...

Obama in a statement yesterday blamed the shocking new round of subprime-related bankruptcies on the free-market system, and specifically the "trickle-down" economics of the Bush administration, which he tried to gig opponent John McCain for wanting to extend.

But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street's most revered institutions.

Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.

The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but "predatory."

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx...

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 6:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OK padanorr, maybe you're afraid and I can understand that. Still, for all the smack you talk, I'm going to have to call you out and challenge you to answer this question. You know, that "I'm not going to play by your rules" stuff is lame and completely transparent. Now, it's time to step up to the plate if you've got any guts at all.

Here's a simple question to start off.

Premise:

Of course, there is that part about tolerance for other religions but we don't need to get into that here.

So the question is this. Do you accept this premise?

Thanks - Neo

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 6:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

YES or NO would be fine. It's not a hard question padanorr.

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 6:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I would've imagined that your core beliefs would make it easy for you to give a simple "yes" answer to this question. Are you second-guessing yourself?

Posted by padanorr (David A. Norris) on September 16, 2008 at 6:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

neo ...

not going to argue with you ... or debate you ... I don't even owe you a reason ...

and if I disagree with something you have posted I will refute it ... and you can feel free to do the same ...

as for get in a debate with you ... no thanks.

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 6:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As I suspected. OK, it's documented right here for the world to see that padanorr will not step into the ring with me.

MC, that's the guy we're dealing with.

You see he knows if we debate, he's going down. All he can do is take cheap shots and post drivel from the right wing blog sites he loves so much. YOU, Mr. padanorr have been drinking the kool aid. You are like those people who Bill O'Reilly blisters because they won't come on his show to go one-on-one in the no spin zone.

O'Reilly calls people like that pinheads. I wouldn't do that to you, though. I'm way to nice of a guy. I get it. You don't want to take a public beating and that's understandable.

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 6:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

pad, I wouldn't have believed it --- you're SCARED of Neo!

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 6:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well then, I'm outta here for now...........PEACE !

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 6:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Neo, I haven't always agreed with you on every single issue, but of all the posters I've read on here, YOU 'DA MAN! Keep pad in his place.

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 6:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks MC, and back at ya. Of course, you know that PADO will either try to have some of our comments removed or will post in some lengthy copy/paste jobs to cover his tracks but at least we know the true nature of the beast.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 7:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey Neo, how about stepping in the ring with me?

Please show me how McBrilliant lied when he said that Obambi supported teaching sex-ed to kindergarteners. Lets review the the specific wording in the bill that Obama voted for:

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 7:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I guess somebody didn't want to be there...

It is difficult to screw up an appearance at Ground Zero on September 11th. You have to be either completely oblivious or completely indifferent. It is a signal feat of idiocy.

And yet Barack Obama accomplished it.

John McCain and Obama visited Ground Zero together. Obama and McCain entered the site. But while McCain took the time to shake hands with uniformed firefighters and a construction worker with an American flag helmet, Obama ignored them and stood around.

But he wasn’t done yet. Both McCain and Obama brought roses to place on the makeshift 9/11 memorial. Obama casually tossed his rose on the memorial, looking somewhat like Don Barzini tossing a rose on Don Corleone’s grave near the end of Godfather I. McCain and his wife, by contrast, approached the memorial gingerly, then placed the roses with care on the memorial....
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/pub...

Posted by padanorr (David A. Norris) on September 16, 2008 at 7:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 6:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As I suspected. OK, it's documented right here for the world to see that padanorr will not step into the ring with me.

MC, that's the guy we're dealing with.

O'Reilly calls people like that pinheads. I wouldn't do that to you, though. I'm way to nice of a guy. I get it. You don't want to take a public beating and that's understandable.

---------

neo ... I am definately not afraid of you ....

I will not debate you ... because you cannot debate unreasonable people ....

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 7:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama hates freedom of speech:

In a bizarre yet now predictable move, the Barack Obama campaign has decided to impugn David Freddoso, a conservative reporter who is perhaps the most careful of the Democrat's critics.

After pitching a fit last month over National Review writer Stanley Kurtz appearing on Chicago-based WGN-AM -- the premier talk station in the Midwest and hardly a right-wing operation -- Obama's people are back at it, this time protesting an interview with Freddoso, the author of the New York Times-bestselling The Case Against Barack Obama.

The Democratic nominee's people spilled forth with hyperbole, saying in an e-mail to supporters that "Freddoso has made a career off dishonest, extreme hate mongering." Urging Obama supporters to flood WGN with angry phone calls, the e-mail stated that "your help is urgently needed to make sure his baseless lies don't gain credibility." (And it's not as if Freddoso had unfettered access to the airwaves, as he was debating a Democrat on the pre-recorded show last night.)

Charging someone with "baseless lies" and "dishonest, extreme hate mongering" is pretty strong stuff. Unfortunately for Obama, little evidence exists to support the accusation. About the worst nugget Obama's opposition researchers could unearth was Freddoso's flip comment four years ago that Hillary Clinton had received Botox treatments.

Anyone familiar with Freddoso's work knows that he is a by-the-book reporter, and perhaps limiting his commercial appeal, not much of a bomb-thrower. In The Case Against Barack Obama, in fact, Freddoso steers clear of conspiracy theories or sensationalism based on anonymous single sources. Rather, his argument boils down to this: Far from being a transformational figure, Barack Obama is a typical liberal politician who has benefited from ambition, luck, good timing, and a healthy dose of Chicago's machine politics.

Freddoso's book might not be flattering, but it's hardly inflammatory, either. Which is why the Obama campaign's vicious rhetoric is so puzzling. Freddoso is the best up-and-coming reporter on the right -- and with his Obama biography sitting squarely at number 5 on the New York Times bestseller list, he's pretty much already arrived.

Perhaps the campaign is so bothered by him because his careful recitation of facts and caution against overstating the evidence makes his book more persuasive to fence-sitting votes. So, the logic appears to be that smearing Freddoso will marginalize him in the eyes of the mainstream media and swing voters.

Ironically, the campaign's gross overreaction only serves to buttress the main thesis of Freddoso's book: Unlike his self-marketing as a post-partisan leader, Obama is just another politician, lashing out at his opponents when his odds of winning appear more and more remote.
http://powerlineblog.com/

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 7:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Padanorr said: neo ... I am definitely not afraid of you ....

I will not debate you ... because you cannot debate unreasonable people ....
________________________________________________

There's that and he wants to debate things that people have no interest in... like why did McCain switch churches, lol

Posted by padanorr (David A. Norris) on September 16, 2008 at 8:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

exactly .... and that is why I will not waste my time debating neo ...

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 8:58 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 8:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Padanorr said: neo ... I am definitely not afraid of you ....

I will not debate you ... because you cannot debate unreasonable people ....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OH, is that all you're worried about? You don't have to worry...I can debate unreasonable people and that's why I challenged you. Since you've cleared that up you can now step up to the plate big boy. Oh, and that goes for you too noesis if you want to get a piece of the action.

Premise:

Of course, there is that part about tolerance for other religions but we don't need to get into that here.

So the question is this. Do you accept this premise? YES or NO?

Thanks - Neo

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 9 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Neo said: Now, it's time to step up to the plate if you've got any guts at all.

Here's a simple question to start off.

Premise:

Of course, there is that part about tolerance for other religions but we don't need to get into that here.

So the question is this. Do you accept this premise?

Thanks - Neo
________________________________________________

I'll step into the ring with you Neo even though I don't see what this question has to do with the price of arugula in Chicago....

No, I don't accept that premise. I believe that many of the founding fathers were Christian and their value system was based on what they were taught and believed. Did they want us to have a "Christian Nation" no. Did they want us to follow christian principles... like the ten commandments... though shall not murder, steal, lie, adultery... yes. A lot of them also believed in God and hoped God would bless this country. But that isn't the same as them saying that they wanted a "Christian nation".

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 9:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The best you could come up with was the way he laid the flowers????

I can see where the 2 of you would be concerned with flowers. Obama was probably trying to figure a way to fix the economy and save the world.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 9:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What's the matter Neo, scared to get into the ring with me with this question?

Please show me how McBrilliant lied when he said that Obambi supported teaching sex-ed to kindergarteners. Lets review the the specific wording in the bill that Obama voted for:

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 9:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

wait, I'll get the popcorn. Neo is gonna clean your clock!

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 9:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OK noesis, based on your response here is the next question.

PREMISE:

The founding faters' desire was for the United States to follow Christian principles.

Do you accept this premise?

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 9:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I pretty much took that premise from your last comment Noesis. This should be an easy answer.

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 9:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MC, your popcorn might get cold. What's up noesis, are you trying to think up a diversionary tactic so you can avoid giving an answer?

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 9:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The founding faters' desire was for the United States to follow Christian principles.

Do you accept this premise?

Nope. Not all Christian principles... just the ones that they based some of their laws and beliefs on... Like I said, the 10 commandments... and some English law. Their knowledge base was the bible and English law.

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 9:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Popcorn's fine, Neo. I've got one of those theater-style machines close to my 60" TV I use as a monitor. I figure Noesis and pado are consulting.

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 9:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OK, noesis...we're going down an interesting path here.

PREMISE

The only element of our nation that is "Christian" are laws that were based upon the 10 commandments.

Do you accept this premise?

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 9:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

LOL, honestly I don't know. You would probaly have to consult a historian in that regard.

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 9:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Please note, I'm customizing the premises to your responses. They don't reflect my beliefs.

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 9:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You don't know? I am asking for YOUR VIEW on this. You don't need a historian.

The only element of our nation that is "Christian" are laws that were based upon the 10 commandments.

Is this your opinion? Do you accept this premise??

Posted by Shooter (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 9:22 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 9:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OK, I can think of one U.s. law that isn't based on the 10 commandments but is based on the bible... marriage.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 9:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

and... All 13 original states had some kind of exclusion in their constitutions that ensured the governor would be a Christian.

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 9:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OK, let me make it simpler.

Other than the possible influence of the 10 commandments on laws and foundational documents, the United States is not a Christian.

Is that your opinion? Do you accept that premise?

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 9:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Not sure... why was it required that the 13 founding states that the govenor be a christian?

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 9:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I based the last premise on your previous answers.

You're now bringing information into the debate that contradicts your previous answer:

"Nope. Not all Christian principles... just the ones that they based some of their laws and beliefs on... Like I said, the 10 commandments... and some English law. Their knowledge base was the bible and English law."

So, let's take a step back now.

PREMISE

The founding faters' desire was for the United States to follow Christian principles.

Is this your opinion? Accept or deny?

Posted by Shooter (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 9:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Cause they knew the amish were nutzo's

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 9:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Historical evidence, drawn from civil law codes, judicial decisions, and declarations of great American lawgivers, affirms and reaffirms that the entire Decalogue contributed to the early common law and still continues today to make a significant contribution to the modern common law.
Here is a website that documents how ingrained the 10 commandments were to the founding colonists.

http://www.restore-christian-america.org...

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 9:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In regards to the 10 commandments and marriage... yes

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 9:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Penalty flag! noesis was the first to use a link.

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 9:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Noeses, come on. That's not an answer. You originally drew back to a position of "only the 10 commandments" were relevant in considering the United States a Christian nation.

Then you waffled and brought in the issue of governors having to be Christians, leaving the door open for "other ways" in which the US is a Christian nation.

Now you're posting a comment with a link...which I don't want, I want YOUR view...that seems to go back to the "only the 10 commandments" view. Let me amend the premise again.

PREMISE
The influence of the 10 commandments is the only manner in which the United States is a Christian nation.

Is this your opinion? Accept or deny?

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 9:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Of course Neo hasn't used a link, all he does is say:

Is this your opinion? Accept or deny?

or...

Is that your opinion? Do you accept that premise?

You really need to hurry up and get to your point Neo, you're up to the 8th round and the clock is ticking.... some of us have to work in the morning.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 9:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No, the 10 commandments is not the only means... like I said before, the bible is used for the marriage laws.

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 9:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

PREMISE

The influence of the 10 commandments is the only manner in which the United States is a Christian nation.

Is this your opinion? Accept or deny?

This is what's called a "foundational belief." We have to be clear on the foundational belief you hold in order to move forward.

All you have to do is give me YOUR answer to that question. I'm not going to try to prove you wrong by citing other ways that I might believe that America is a Christian nation.

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 9:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OK...we posted at the same time. Give me a second.

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 9:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

PREMISE

The influence of the Bible is the manner in which the United States is a Christian nation.

Accept or deny?

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 9:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No, I never said that the United States is a Christian Nation, you did. I said the bible and the belief in God is what directed most of the founding fathers and gave then their value system.

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 9:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OK, then.

PREMISE

It is not reasonable to insist that the Bible or Biblical concepts be utilized for legislative purposes.

Accept or deny?

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 9:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Personally, I would have to say no. Even though I'm opposed to gay marriage... I have nothing against gay unions, just don't call it marriage.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 9:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

LOL Neo, if that's your gotcha moment, I hate to disappoint you but I already held that position.

Dang, all your hard work for nothing.

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 10:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OK...

PREMISE:

Those who advocate Pro-Life legislation base the belief that "life begins at conception" on Biblical concepts.

Accept or deny?

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 10:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No...that wasn't a "gotcha" moment. I was just thoughtfully wording the next post...

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 10:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh stop it. This debate is over. The bell for the 9th round has rung. Some of us have to work in the morning.

Next debate, is mine... you get to answer the question on how McCain lied when he said Obama supported a bill teaching sex-ed to kindergarteners.

Night all!

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 10:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Those who advocate Pro-Life legislation base the belief that "life begins at conception" on Biblical concepts.

Accept or deny?

Sorry, that's above my pay grade ;)

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 10:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We're just getting to the point and you're going to quit? If you hadn't waffled earlier on the debate would have gone faster.

Answer the question.

Those who advocate Pro-Life legislation base the belief that "life begins at conception" on Biblical concepts.

Accept or deny?

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 10:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This is really where the rubber meets the road and you know it. Your previous answers have led up to this. I'll even word it a different way for you.

PREMISE
Since, per your previous answers, the Bible should not be the basis for legislation that leaves science. Science does not make a definitive statement that life begins at conception.

Accept or deny?

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 10:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you coward out at this point, that's worse that being afraid to debate in the first place.

We're talking about a front line issue that has raged for years and you're going to just brush it off so we can talk about some stupid political ad???

Posted by padanorr (David A. Norris) on September 16, 2008 at 10:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Invest in Lawmakers

Perhaps Mr. Obama has some xplaining to do to the American people ...

Obama accepted $126,349 from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae ... He is the 2nd highest on the list.

Sounds like "change" to me ... (sarcasm)

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/...

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 10:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As YOU said noesis, the clock is ticking. Have you run away?

PREMISE
Since, per your previous answers, the Bible should not be the basis for legislation that leaves science. Science does not make a definitive statement that life begins at conception.

Accept or deny?

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 10:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MC, can you believe these guys? One of them was smart enough to be afraid up front and the other one had to learn the hard way online in front of everyone.

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 10:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's been 10 minutes since your last post noesis. I'll give you five more minutes before considering this a concession on your part.

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 10:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, noesis, it looks like you've given up. Your smug side-step doesn't cover your trail.

You did not debate with me. A debate, in the true sense, involves arriving at a conclusion. You saw the conclusion that was inevitable based upon you beliefs and you didn't like what you saw...so your ran and hid.

Obviously, you'd prefer to sling mud back and forth and never get down to a real answer...like we did tonight, whether you like it or not. Given your acceptance of the premise that legislation should not be based on the Bible, you cannot ever support a Pro-Life position again.

I'd like to note, for the records, that my personal beliefs are different than those of noesis.

Padanorr (wisely) avoided debating me and said that he didn't want to "waste his time." Well, noesis, you have wasted my time by skipping out at the conclusion and not being man enough to face up to the implications of your foundational beliefs.

I feel certain that I have, today, demonstrated that both you and padanorr are not up for a real debate. It's not because I am unreasonable or for any other smokescreen reason you might want to give. It's because neither of you can support, in a meaningful way, the bunk you sling here every day.

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 3:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Neo, they CAN'T debate on ANY fact. All they have are McBush campaign talking points and lies. They pick at little things, such as the way Obama placed flowers at the 9/11 memorial.

There has to be a term or name for people who lie, get caught, and spin it as a lie their opponent told, and look at you expecting to believe them over what you KNOW to be factual. Oh, wait, I know! A Bushie republican! I know I'm preaching to the choir, so I'll chill.

Posted by padanorr (David A. Norris) on September 17, 2008 at 6:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

----------

I declined to debate you neo because debating you is a fools errand ... you set the rules, you ask the questions and if one doesn't play in your narrow view of debate, then you automatically declare yourself the winner. When you are confronted you throw temper tantrums and resort to name calling and then finding all the dirt you can on the opposition and start posting it ...

Again ... for the reasons stated ... I will pass ....

Posted by padanorr (David A. Norris) on September 17, 2008 at 6:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

neo ... if you are interested ....

Real Clear Politics electorial map ....

McCain / Palin - 227
Obama /Biden - 207

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 7:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Palin's popularity already declining" (VIDEO PLUS STORY)

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/a...

"To know her, it seems, is not necessarily to love her. .."

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 7:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barack Obama Saw it Coming!" (VIDEO)

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

Obama anticipated the Wall St. failure far in advanced and proposed solutions to prevent it.

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 7:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Virginia Republican ex-Governor to Campaign for Obama"

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virgini...

"Linwood Holton, Virginia's first modern Republican governor, will endorse Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) on Monday and start campaigning for him around the state..."

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 7:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Palin cut funding for Alaska Special Olympics" (VIDEO PLUS STORY)

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/15/pali...

"Campaigning in Colorado today, Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) promised renewed attention to kids with special needs. She declared, “Ever since I took the chief executive’s job up North I pushed for more funding for students with special needs,” and cited her own family’s experience with the issue. Watch it..."

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 7:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

McCain Campaign Claims Credit for Creating Blackberry"

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanma...

"Asked what work John McCain did as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee that helped him understand the financial markets, the candidate's top economic adviser wielded visual evidence: his BlackBerry.

"He did this," Douglas Holtz-Eakin told reporters this morning, holding up his BlackBerry. "Telecommunications of the United States is a premier innovation in the past 15 years, comes right through the Commerce Committee. So you're looking at the miracle John McCain helped create and that's what he did."

Al Gore, call your office. "

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 7:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How Phil Gramm Helped Create Our Current Financial Crisis"

http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/09/15...

Phill Gramm, aka McCain Chief Economic Adviser

Posted by padanorr (David A. Norris) on September 17, 2008 at 7:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 7:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Palin cut funding for Alaska Special Olympics" (VIDEO PLUS STORY)

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/15/pali......

---------

This is a lie and smear ...

The Truth
Palin Dramatically Raises Special Needs Budget by 175 Percent
They got their facts wrong. The Weekly Standard fact checked the fact checkers in their September 4, 2008 article corrected the story:
In fact, the December 2006 budget document that they cite would have been prepared by the outgoing administration -- that of Republican Frank Murkowski, whom Palin defeated.

[Actually in the latest budget] the measure raises spending for students with special needs to $73,840 in fiscal 2011, from the current $26,900 per student in fiscal 2008, according to the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development.

So the Netroots and CNN allege that Palin cut special needs funding by 62 percent, by crediting her with the budget proposed by a political opponent. And the truth is that rather than a 62 percent cut, she's actually increasing special needs funding by 175 percent.

Posted by padanorr (David A. Norris) on September 17, 2008 at 8 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 7:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How Phil Gramm Helped Create Our Current Financial Crisis"

http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/09/15......

Phill Gramm, aka McCain Chief Economic Adviser

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

No Actually it was the Clinton Administration that created this monster ....

Senator Obama was quick to blame President Bush and through him John McCain for causing the credit crunch that caused the banking meltdown which brought us the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers today. This claim totally ignores his own running mates role in the crisis. Obama also ignores the fact that Bill Clinton and his social engineers helped caused the crisis. They were the political catalyst behind this slow-motion financial train wreck.

http://www.israelated.com/node/52465

Posted by padanorr (David A. Norris) on September 17, 2008 at 8:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown ---

Democrats Are In Trouble!

Palin floats like a butterfly, stings like a bee

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...

Posted by padanorr (David A. Norris) on September 17, 2008 at 8:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 7:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Palin's popularity already declining" (VIDEO PLUS STORY)

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/a......

"To know her, it seems, is not necessarily to love her. .."

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

*LOL* ... of course Newsweek would say this ...

It is known fact that Newsweek is in the tank for Obama just like MSNBC elites.

That doesn't change the fact that McCain is leading in the polls and the electorial map has changed dramatically in favor of McCain.

Posted by padanorr (David A. Norris) on September 17, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Demosthenes (Obama) needs his teleprompter

The candidate with the vaunted rhetorical skills is a little awkward without his safety net:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/200...

It appears Barack Obama's teleprompter is hitting the campaign trail.
The Democratic presidential nominee has never tried to hide the fact he delivers speeches off the device, though normally he doesn't use one at standard campaign rallies and town hall events.

But the Illinois senator used a teleprompter at both his Colorado events Monday — making for a particularly peculiar scene in Pueblo, where the prompter was set up in the middle of what is normally a rodeo ring.

--- No wonder he declined to do townhalls with McCain.

Posted by padanorr (David A. Norris) on September 17, 2008 at 8:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If you haven't watched Obama's Bill Burton laughing at McCain's war wounds yet...

Barack Obama's campaign demonstrated what shameless hypocrites they are. This morning, they went up with an ad calling John McCain dishonorable and sleazy.

Yet on Friday, they released an ad that accused him of not using a computer (a strange accusation). When it turned out that his well-known mobility problem is part of the reason, what do they do? Change the subject by quoting him out of context. Watch the painful exchange

http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstate...

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/15/vi...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TW...

----- Just Remember ----

I am Barack Obama and I approved this message ....

Posted by padanorr (David A. Norris) on September 17, 2008 at 8:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

--- Brilliant:

GM unveils electric car while Obama unveils $5 billion tax hike on gas and electricity

http://www.redstate.com/diaries/rightmic...

Posted by padanorr (David A. Norris) on September 17, 2008 at 8:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

. . . Think Of All The Gaffes Being Missed By The Major Press

Press Section of Biden's Plane Is 'Totally Deserted'

This is pretty stunning, and I think the Obama campaign might even have a legitimate gripe with the national press:

Since the Delaware senator left Obama's side and ventured out on his own on Labor Day, he has hardly garnered any national media interest at all.

His plane, a blue chartered 737, now crosses the country with about three-quarters of its seats empty, rows and rows with nary a warm body to be found.

Biden's supporters maintain that he is connecting with voters and garnering positive media interest on a local level. They also say that Biden is a "governing" pick, not a "political" pick, unlike Palin. That is, Biden will actually be able to help Obama govern; he's not just a cynical selection to help his boss win the election.

Either way, as Air Joe flew from Wilmington to Charlotte Sunday, the only reporters onboard were off-air reporters from the five television networks and correspondents from NBC and Politico. There was only one camera crew. The back of the plane, reserved for press, sat totally deserted.

The New York Times? Gone. The Washington Post? Not seen since the first days of September. The otherwise ubiquitous Associated Press? Left even before that.

Heck, the McCain camp might find this worth complaining about - think of all the gaffes being missed by the major press.

Joe Who??

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/...

Posted by padanorr (David A. Norris) on September 17, 2008 at 9:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

McCain rips Obama over Streisand fundraiser

(CNN) – As he heads off to a high-dollar fundraiser featuring Barbra Streisand, Barack Obama is hoping the politically-active singer can help him capture the White House.

So is John McCain.

Speaking at a campaign event in the working-class Democratic stronghold of Youngstown, Ohio, the Republican presidential nominee said Obama “talks a tough game on the financial crisis, but the facts tell a different story.

“…He put Fannie Mae’s [former] CEO, who helped create this problem in charge, of finding his vice president. That’s not change — that’s what’s broken in Washington,” said McCain.

“Talk about siding with the people, siding with the people just before he flew off to Hollywood for a fundraiser with Barbra Streisand and his celebrity friends,” he said. “Let me tell you my friends, theres no place I’d rather be than here with the working men and women of Ohio.”

Streisand, a staunch Democrat, is scheduled to perform at a $28,500 a head Obama fundraiser Tuesday night in Beverly Hills, California.

Posted by padanorr (David A. Norris) on September 17, 2008 at 9:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Prominent Clinton backer and DNC member to endorse McCain

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a prominent Hillary Clinton supporter and member of the Democratic National Committee’s Platform Committee, will endorse John McCain for president on Wednesday, her spokesman tells CNN.

“This is a hard decision for me personally because frankly I don't like him,” she said of Obama in an interview with CNN’s Joe Johns. “I feel like he is an elitist. I feel like he has not given me reason to trust him.”

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/200...

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 10:06 a.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 10:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama Team Files Suit Over McCain Voter Suppression Efforts"

http://thepage.time.com/2008/09/16/obama...

"On afternoon conference call, Obama and Michigan Democratic officials say they’re seeking an injunction to block alleged “caging” by the state GOP — using home foreclosure lists to seek to block residents from voting.

Obama counsel Bob Bauer: “It is an absolute attack on their right to vote” and a “completely false and completely illegal basis” to challenge votes..."

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 10:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Governor Palin's Reading List"
by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-k...

"Fascist writer Westbrook Pegler, an avowed racist who Sarah Palin approvingly quoted in her acceptance speech for the moral superiority of small town values, expressed his fervent hope about my father, Robert F. Kennedy, as he contemplated his own run for the presidency in 1965, that "some white patriot of the Southern tier will spatter his spoonful of brains in public premises before the snow flies."

It might be worth asking Governor Palin for a tally of the other favorites from her reading list."

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 10:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

*****************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************

"Plan for Change"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONM7148cT...

*****************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 10:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by padanorr (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 8:08 a.m.

*LOL* ... of course Newsweek would say this ...

It is known fact that Newsweek is in the tank for Obama
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That was your response to my post:

"Palin's popularity already declining" (VIDEO PLUS STORY)

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/a.........

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

Really, it is a "known fact" that Newsweek is "in the tank" for Obama? The last time I checked Newsweek is a well-respected national news publication.

I know why you use "LOL" so much now. For you, it stands for "Lack Of Logic."

Posted by padanorr (David A. Norris) on September 17, 2008 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Really, it is a "known fact" that Newsweek is "in the tank" for Obama? The last time I checked Newsweek is a well-respected national news publication.

*LOL* ... so is MSNBC ... well used to be ...

Posted by padanorr (David A. Norris) on September 17, 2008 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 10:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Governor Palin's Reading List"
by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-k......

It might be worth asking Governor Palin for a tally of the other favorites from her reading list."

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

Just another non-sense Palin smear ... posted by our friend neo ....

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 2:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Now that the "Palin-effect" is gone, McBush supporters have returned to their pathetic, desperate ramblings. The republican party has an "excuse" for all of McBush's short-comings. Either he was "misquoted", "taken out of context" or treated unfairly by the biased media. (If you cite a news source that does not support McBush, they're automatically labeled "left-wing news organizations").

If truth is presented showing McBush in a less-than-flattering-light, the automatic response is "McBush" didn't do it, (this is where they insert a Democrats name) did it.

Yesterday McBush was highly critical of Obama for attending a $30K per plate fundraiser in California, with Barbara Streisand providing the entertainment. He told people here in Ohio that HE would rather be with hard-working people like us. PLEASE! On Monday McBush was in Florida, where HIS fundraiser cost $50K per plate.

Worthy of mention: McBush's $50K function netted him $6 million, while Barak's fundraiser @$30K raised over $9 million.

Undoubtedly you have seen and read hundreds of reasons Obama should be the next President. What you DON'T see are very many reasons supporting McBush. The Republican posters know they have little to work with, so in typical Karl Rove fashion they resort to smears.

When pressed to discuss FACTS about the candidates or campaign, they shiver, run and hide. True loyal Dumya puppets.

Posted by padanorr (David A. Norris) on September 17, 2008 at 3:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

First of all I would like to point out how some on the liberal left resort to the use of childish name calling to get their point across. Also when faced with the facts they also resort to personal attacks on those that oppose Obama as has been noted time and time again.

Obama on the economy

Obama wants to raise taxes. Period! He will raise Death Taxes, Capital Gains taxes, and taxes on energy and on those making over $250,000. Sure, Obama has promised the middle class the moon using class warfare saying he will surely tax the rich in favor of giving middle class a big tax break. What Obama doesn't tell you is how his plan will increase the national debt by Billions. Oh, and the $250,000 dollar cut off? What a joke! There are literally millions of small business owners that are shuddering at the thought of having to give MORE of their profits into Obama's economy.

Obama on Respect for Life

As an Illinois State Senator, Barack Obama opposed the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act. The legislation defined any infant born alive as a "person” who deserves full legal protection. Not only once, but 4 times Obama voted against similar measures. Respect for life is NOT a side issue or a distraction.

Energy

Obama has decried McCain's call to build new nuclear power plants. Other countries are doing that without harm to the environment but Obama cries foul when you talk about nuclear. Obama panders to the wacko environmentalists. Obama is against increasing the domestic production of petroleum. And before some wacko liberal accuses me of wanting to drill to the exclusion of finding alternate sources of energy, save your breath, I support that and so does McCain.

Obama on Health Care

Barack Obama’s health care plan follows the Democratic template—an emphasis on dramatically and quickly increasing the number of people who have health insurance by spending significant money upfront. The Obama campaign estimates his health care reform plan will cost between $50 and $65 billion a year when fully phased in. He assumes that it will be paid from savings in the system and from discontinuing the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 per year. That the Obama health care reform plan would cost between $50 and $65 billion a year is highly doubtful. Obama claimed his plan was nearly identical to Hillary Clinton's and her plan was projected by her to cost more than $100 billion a year.

Now lets talk about smears

There is one liberal poster in particular that jumps at every opportunity to tell me and you ever little piece of dirt that is contrived on Sarah Palin and McCain. That person's usual source of information is the Daily Kos and the Huffington Post.

Lets talk about Obama's latest hypocritical add where he goes after McCain for not using a computer, when the Obama campaign knows all well and good John McCain cannot physically use a computer because of war injuries. How low can you get?

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 3:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 10:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama Team Files Suit Over McCain Voter Suppression Efforts"

http://thepage.time.com/2008/09/16/obama......

Obama counsel Bob Bauer: “It is an absolute attack on their right to vote” and a “completely false and completely illegal basis” to challenge votes..."

_____________________________________

Only one problem Neo, the source was a very liberal... and it wasn't telling the truth. It was a made up quote.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 4 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MasterChef said: The Republican posters know they have little to work with, so in typical Karl Rove fashion they resort to smears.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

It's not a smear if it's true. A smear would be what you guys use against Palin... that she's a member of the Alaskan Seperatist group, Her baby is actually her daughters, Her son was a drug addict who had to join the military, her kids were named for witches, No, Palin was not involved in porn movies, that she was a Pat Buccanan supporter, she's anti-semitic, that the Iraq war was God's will, that she had an affair, she cut funding to special needs kids, she banned books at the local library, she tried to have creationalism taught in school, she's a global warming denier, that she wanted rape victims to pay for rape kits (the Chief of Police wanted to charge insurance companies for the kits... standard practice in many states), no, she didn't cut funding for the WIC program.

Those are examples of smears...

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 4:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And I could come right back with asking that YOUR intimidation comments be removed, but I never have. I'm a man, not a childish whiner.

As I said earlier, when you're presented with FACT you can't deal with it. You label all FACT as left-wing propaganda. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss ISSUES with you or anyone else, although I'd prefer one issue at a time.

So, lets talk about tax plans. Obama has already said he would raise taxes for everyone (thats a nice inclusive word) making over $250K per year, including HIS. As far as the small business owner...I can't speak for the rest of the country, but, look around. MOST of our small businesses would be happy just making $250K a year. Once again, you're distorting the truth. The $250K is after ALL deductions, including several new ones, such as "going green" incentives. So, I'm not calling you a liar, but you sure can manage to D-I-S-T-O-R-T the truth.

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The FACTS are: It was Palin's husband who belonged to the Alaskan Separatist movement. FACT: Palin DID try to remove certain books from the library. FACT: In a restaurant in her little town she DID refer to Hillary as "the Bitch" and Obama as "Sambo". FACT: Palin DID order her staff not to talk to reporters. FACT: Palin first promised to cooperate fully in the "Troopergate" investigation. NOW, she is NOT cooperating, moreover, she now has refused to answer a subpoena AND has instructed her staff to do the same. WHAT is Palin hiding? She sounds like she's qualified for Dick Cheny's job. She's already above the law.

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 4:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

and about smears...the Republican party has never conducted a smear campaign against anyone as the outlandish, deplorable and sleazy campaign against Barak Obama as they have. I'm not saying smears are right, but when one side starts, the other will follow. Oftentimes the smears are started by someone not officially connected with the campaign.

Posted by padanorr (David A. Norris) on September 17, 2008 at 4:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by MasterChef on September 17, 2008 at 4:15 p.m.

And I could come right back with asking that YOUR intimidation comments be removed, but I never have. I'm a man, not a childish whiner.

----------

First of all there was NOTHING in my previous posts that would have been construed as intimidation. If there was I am sure the Tribune would have removed my comments.

Distort the truth? That is something that has been done in these forum by liberal posters in a feable attempt to make Obama look like he really gives a hoot about the middle class.

Fact ... there are millions of S-Corporations and LLC's around the country that make way more than $250,000. The United States doesn't revolve around Lawrence County Ohio. Obama's tax plan will hurt those businesses. In addition there are plenty of businesses in Ironton and Lawrence County that make more than $250,000 per year. Do you think a place like Integrity Motors makes less than $250k per year? How many automobile dealerships are there in Lawrence County? How about Grocery stores? They do a lot of business, and 250K is a drop in the hat to them. So are you going to count them out? Middle class American's shop at those places of business and Obama's increase in taxes will be passed right along to the middle American consumer. So how far does that extra $500 to $1200 go when they have to feed a family and buy gasoline.

Let me put it to you in simply terms ... how many business men do you see running around Ironton begging to have their taxes raised? Not very many if any at all.

You can play semantics all day long with the "after all deductions line" and anything else you can think of ... but the bottom line is ... Obama will raise taxes. Not only income taxes, but also items like the Death Tax, Captial Gains Tax, Taxes on gasoline and electricity. Let's see ... do middle class American's use gasoline or electricity?

Tell me now how in the world I am D-I-S-T-O-R-T-I-N-G the truth?

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 4:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What does the FACT that Todd belonged to the Alaskan Separist movement have to do with HER?

And here is the AIP platform: The AIP platform states that the purpose of the party is to "seek the complete repatriation of the public lands, held by the federal government, to the state and people of Alaska in conformance with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, of the federal constitution ... To prohibit all bureaucratic regulations and judicial rulings purporting to have the effect of law, except that which shall be approved by the elected legislature ... To support the privatization of government services ...”

And they want the people of Alaska the right to choose... to be able to vote on it... You have to remember, he is part native Alaskan.

And no it is NOT a FACT that she tried to remove books. She was asking a rhetorical question. The librarian stated that Palin did not ask for any books to be removed.... You better check YOUR facts.

FACT: In a restaurant in her little town she DID refer to Hillary as "the Bitch" and Obama as "Sambo".

And how do you know this is a FACT? Hey, I saw Obama and Hillary having sex... does that make it a fact just because I said it?

FACT: Palin DID order her staff not to talk to reporters.

Soooo... guess what, I'm not allowed to talk to reporters either about my plant. All info has to come from corperate. Up here in Toledo, the mayor has the same policy... that isn't anything unusual.

FACT: Palin first promised to cooperate fully in the "Troopergate" investigation. NOW, she is NOT cooperating, moreover, she now has refused to answer a subpoena AND has instructed her staff to do the same. WHAT is Palin hiding?

Well when you have a democratic special prosecutor who hasn't even done the investigation already saying she's guilty and he'll announce the results 3 days before the election... do you think politics may be involved?

Posted by padanorr (David A. Norris) on September 17, 2008 at 5:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by MasterChef on September 17, 2008 at 4:31 p.m.

The FACTS are: It was Palin's husband who belonged to the Alaskan Separatist movement.

--------- That was not Sarah Palin.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/...

FACT: Palin DID try to remove certain books from the library.

THAT IS A LIE ... and smear ... that never happened. As Mayor she inquired as to proceedure on how to get books banned so that she could answer questions from any citizen that might make a complaint.

FACT: In a restaurant in her little town she DID refer to Hillary as "the Bitch" and Obama as "Sambo".

THAT IS A LIE

That never happened. Again that is a bold faced fabrication. If you have proof then provide it!

FACT: Palin DID order her staff not to talk to reporters.

And your point is on this?

---- The actual fact is Palin is hiding nothing. The entire inquiry was another Obama campaign attempt to smear Palin. Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan was fired by Palin in July 2008 after he declined a transfer to become the director of the state alcohol control board. Palin says he didn't do enough to fill trooper vacancies and battle alcohol abuse issues.

This firing was legal and had nothing do with Palin's trooper ex brother in law.

Just another smear ....

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 5:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lets look at Obama's church:

Trinity United Church of Christ

About Us

We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian… Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization.

A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.

Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"

Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System

Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”

Classic methodology on control of captives teaches that captors must keep the captive ignorant educationally, but trained sufficiently well to serve the system. Also, the captors must be able to identify the “talented tenth” of those subjugated, especially those who show promise of providing the kind of leadership that might threaten the captor’s control.

Those so identified as separated from the rest of the people by:

Killing them off directly, and/or fostering a social system that encourages them to kill off one another.

Placing them in concentration camps, and/or structuring an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons.

Seducing them into a socioeconomic class system which while training them to earn more dollars, hypnotizes them into believing they are better than others and teaches them to think in terms of “we” and “they” instead of “us”…

Now, who's the seperatists?

Posted by padanorr (David A. Norris) on September 17, 2008 at 5:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 4:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

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

Wasn't it Obama who promised America a DIFFERENT kind of campaign? Seems like more of the same to me .... especially when go as low as to make fun of someone with a physical disability in order to make the opposition look bad ...

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 5:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 4:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To bad you don't know your facts MasterChef:

David Axelrod, Barack Obama’s chief strategist, said Sunday that John McCain is running the “sleaziest and least honorable campaign in modern presidential campaign history.” It was a line trotted out all weekend by various Obama staffers as part of an effort to portray the Republican nominee as a purveyor of the slimiest tactics in recent memory.

Yet presidential historians and political scientists interviewed by Politico scoffed at the notion, suggesting McCain’s approach is no harsher than those used in previous modern campaigns and certainly not by comparison to many historic campaigns.

“The idea that this campaign is the sleaziest ever is absurd,” said David Greenberg, a professor of history and media studies at Rutgers who has written books on Presidents Coolidge and Nixon. "In fact, there's been very little that's below the belt, and aides have been fired on all sides when they've gotten near, let alone crossed, the lines. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/090...

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 5:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Padadorr: Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan was fired by Palin in July 2008 after he declined a transfer to become the director of the state alcohol control board. Palin says he didn't do enough to fill trooper vacancies and battle alcohol abuse issues.

This firing was legal and had nothing do with Palin's trooper ex brother in law.

__________________________________________

Palin released E-mails yesterday or the day before detaing problems she had with him:

After months of swirling rumors and partisan politics, this evidence confirms what the Palin Administration has stated from Day One: the decision to replace Walt Monegan had nothing to do with concerns about the continued employment of state trooper Mike Wooten.

Government emails made public today show a pattern, from late 2007 through the middle of 2008, of Mr. Monegan’s refusal to comply with Administration policy. Despite repeated calls for budget discipline in the major state agencies, Mr. Monegan continued to press his own agenda without regard for either the formal budgeting process or the Governor’s clear policy priorities. Government staffers responsible for budget issues, and who had nothing to do with Mike Wooten, prevailed upon the governor to have Monegan replaced with someone who would not undermine the Palin administration’s budget goals.

As detailed below, insubordination and disputes over budget priorities – not Michael Wooten’s continued employment – led to Walt Monegan’s dismissal.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/mccain_...

Posted by padanorr (David A. Norris) on September 17, 2008 at 5:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Is Barack Obama guilty of Treason?

Here is the story ... during Barack Obama's trip over-seas in July he met with Iraqi leaders in private. This is a known fact.

Now it has come to the world’s attention that during that meeting Barack Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a “Strategic Framework Agreement” governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office.

In other words while telling all of us that the war should be ended and the troops sent home he was negotiating with the Iraqis' to have the withdrawal delayed until AFTER the election. What a two faced hypocrite Obama is.

Not only does Obama have mud all over his face, he may be guilty of a felony by having unauthorized negotiations with a foreign country. The law that was broken was the Logan Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

This is just another example of why I personal have a strong distrust for Obama. Again this is just more of the same politics as usual while Obama has promised change. This is the height of hypocrisy.

More on the story here …

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/16/di...

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 5:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Padanorr, Monegan was offered the director of the alcohol board because it had no budget for him to mess with...

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 5:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am back. Noesis, if you want to pick up with the debating that's fine with me. However, we have a small bit of housekeeping to finish up on the one we had last night. Shouldn't even take 10 minutes. Are you in?

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 5:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm in :)

Posted by padanorr (David A. Norris) on September 17, 2008 at 5:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

someone in this forum said earlier that the Palin Affect was over ....

Charles Krauthammer:

Palin steals Obama's fading spotlight

By Charles Krauthammer Washington Post
Article Launched: 09/12/2008 12:05:42 AM PDT

WASHINGTON — The Democrats are in a panic. In a presidential race that is impossible to lose, they are behind. Obama devotees are frantically giving advice. Tom Friedman tells him to "start slamming down some phones." Camille Paglia suggests, "be boring!"

Meanwhile, a posse of Democratic lawyers, mainstream reporters, lefty bloggers and various other Obamaphiles are scouring the vast tundra of Alaska for something, anything, to bring down Sarah Palin: her daughter's pregnancy, her ex-brother-in-law problem, her $60 per diem, and now her religion. (CNN reports — news flash! — that she apparently has never spoken in tongues.) Not since Henry II asked if no one would rid him of his turbulent priest, have so many so urgently volunteered for duty.

Paris Hilton ads

But Palin is not just a problem for Obama. She is also a symptom of what ails him. Before Palin, Obama was the ultimate celebrity candidate. For no presidential nominee in living memory had the gap between adulation and achievement been so great. Which is why McCain's Paris Hilton ads struck such a nerve. Obama's meteoric rise was based not on issues — there was not a dime's worth of difference between him and Hillary on issues — but on narrative, on eloquence, on charisma.

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10444672?s...

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 5:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'll give you another minute or two...can't wait around all evening you know. I appreciate you participating in the discussion last night.

I think it's important to speak to the "big issues" out there.

By the way, did I just see a post from padanorr with a link to "hotair.com" for further information, while he challenges the credibility of Newswek. LOL....Lack Of Logic, padanorr.

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 5:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OK, noesis, one moment...

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 5:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

For those of you who don't think raising taxes is a bad thing... lets go back and look what happened to the boating industry when in 1991 a 10% luxury tax was imposed on new boats:

The luxury tax, which began Jan. 1, is applied to that part of a new boat's sale price over $100,000. The National Marine Manufacturers Association, the industry trade group, estimates that from 10,000 to 15,000 boats nationally will be subject to the tax.

"In 1989, we sold 30 boats costing over $100,000," Mr. McMichael said. "We sold 8 last year in that category and so far this year, we've sold 2."

The business was founded in 1935. "Traditionally, we have always sold a mix of new and used boats, with the bulk of sales, or about 60 percent of them, in new boats," he said. "Today, new boat sales account for only 10 percent of our business."

Mr. McMichael's father, who founded the business, said this season is the worst he can remember.

The executive vice president of the National Marine Manufacturers Association, Frank Scalpone, said the tax had already adversely affected the nation's top boat builders. He cited companies like Pearson Yachts, O'Day Corporation, Shannon Boat Builders and Bristol Yachts as ones that have been forced out of business.

Exceptions to the Trend :

At the Mamaroneck shipyard of Robert E. Derecktor, work has just been completed on a custom-designed 58-foot sailboat commissioned for a New Jersey couple at a price of $1.6 million. And work is almost completed on a $6 million 110-foot motor yacht for another private owner.

Ms. Clerkin said Derecktor's customers were escaping the luxury tax by setting up off-shore corporations to purchase the boats. The corporations are exempt from all taxes, including state sales tax.

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 5:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

noesis, to summarize where we left off, you accepted the premise that legislation should not be based on the Bible. You also were in agreement that, while both you and I are against abortion, that science cannot definitively determine when "human life" begins. While there are various interpretations of what "human life" means and/or when it begins, SCIENCE does not give us anything definitive enough to arrive at a definite conclusion.

Have I accurately summed up where we left off?

Thanks - Neo

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 5:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, pretty much

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 5:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh Neo, based on your "science cannot definitively determine when "human life" begins."

Does this mean you accept the posibility that life has begun when a fetus is aborted?

Yes or no will be fine.

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 5:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OK...

CONCLUSION:

Senator Obama, at the Saddleback Civil Forum, extended the best possible solution the the abortion issue. This solution is to do everything possible to reduce the number of abortions in America.

This would be the logical conclusion if the matter cannot be legislated.

Accept or deny?

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 5:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I believe that the number of abortions should be reduced but also, shouldn't the abortion law be up to individual states just like the death penalty is?

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 6:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Possibly, to an extent. I think that most people, scientists or not, Christians or not, would agree that an unborn child has "human rights" (at least) by the point in time that it could survive outside the womb. Legislation on late-term abortions would be fine.

However, as you progress back earlier in the pregnancy, the issue becomes more blurry. I would argue that you could not justify legislation outlawing abortion unless you could, under the same logic, give the death sentence to a woman who has had an abortion.

An issue as big as this is something we need to have a national consensus on.

So, I believe that using all means possible to promote the reduction in the number of abortions plus appropriate legislation on late-term abortions is the only truly acceptable path, given the points we've covered to this point.

Your thoughts?

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 6:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I mixed my thoughts on that last point...no on having it be a states issue.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 6:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, I'm still waiting from your answer on my 5:50 post.

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 6:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

yes.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 6:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I would argue that you could not justify legislation outlawing abortion unless you could, under the same logic, give the death sentence to a woman who has had an abortion.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please provide examples of mothers who have been given a death sentance for killing her kids. I doubt if a death sentence would be given to a woman who has an abortion.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 6:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OK, since you agree that a fetus could be alive/be a life, shouldn't we error on the side of caution (disclaimer... I support abortion, I'm just playing devil's advocate)

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 6:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

*** sorry for the delay, I was interrupted ***

I'm not seeking to present a case study to provide legal precedent for how to handle women who have abortions.

My point is, from a philosophical standpoint, that if one is going to make the case that an early-term fetus is a full blown human with full human rights then aborting that fetus would be murder. Hence, an abortion in the early term would be considered murder under legal terms and anyone participating in one would be subject to the legal penalty for murder.

An issue as big as this is something we need to have a national consensus on.

Your thoughts?

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 6:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have to go for a while but will be back later. Noesis, just go ahead and leave your comment if you want and I'll pick up where you leave off when I'm back.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 6:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My thoughts on it.... jeez, I have a lot of them. First of all, I don't think anyone execpt the extreme radicals on the right would ever push to have an illegal abortion punished as "murder" with the associated death penalty. I have no problems with abortion after the first month or two. After that, I'd say give them a couple weeks in jail (except for rape, incest, the usual canards). You'd be surprised how fast the would learn other ways of not having a baby besides abortion.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 6:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Don't worry Neo, I won't declare victory because you ran from the debate ;)

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 6:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey MasterChef, run on over and check on Neo, he's not acting himself, he's being nice.

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 6:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you can keep your little finger off the “suggest removal” button long enough, I’ll explain your distortions, and NOW your lies. The FACTS are: It was Palin's husband who belonged to the Alaskan Separatist movement. You can’t live with someone as long as they have and NOT be influenced. FACT: Palin DID try to remove certain books from the library. Are you really that (insulting word removed) to believe that little Barbie McBush just goes around town asking inflammatory questions, just so she can be prepared to answer the question in case its asked??? The CORRECT response to someone wanting a book banned is “No, No. This is the United States. We don’t do that here. FACT: In a restaurant in her little town she DID refer to Hillary as "the Bitch" and Obama as "Sambo". On this you’ll have to fly to Alaska to talk to her waitress who overheard her. FACT: Palin DID order her staff not to talk to reporters. Palin would be within her rights to demand silence on issues pertaining to wage compensations, pending contracts and personnel matters. She can NOT put a blanket gag order on her staff. FACT: Palin first promised to cooperate fully in the "Troopergate" investigation. NOW, she is NOT cooperating, moreover, she now has refused to answer a subpoena AND has instructed her staff to do the same. WHAT is Palin hiding? If I had nothing to hide and I had been tapped for the VP slot, I’d go to the committee and tell them to ask anything they want, I’m not leaving until they’re satisfied. And then I would order all my staff to do the same. That would remove even the slightest doubt about my innocence. She sounds like she's qualified for Dick Cheny's job. She's already above the law.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 7:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MasterChef: The CORRECT response to someone wanting a book banned is “No, No. This is the United States. We don’t do that here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can you please go down to the local library and get the copy of the Anarchist Cookbook?

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 7:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Banned Book Lists

Lists of books that are frequently banned from public libraries and schools.
http://www.ipl.org/div/subject/browse/hu...

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 7:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So MasterChef, why don't you run up here and I'll tell you about me seeing Hillary and Obambi getting it on. Or better yet, Padanorr... that's all the proof you require right?

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 9 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Noesis - I'm back. Sorry I had to go on short notice but I had company walk in the door.

So, I'll pick up on where we left off. I'm not proposing that women who might have illegal abortions be sentenced for murder but, rather, that if we legislate, in definitive terms, that a fetus at conception is an unborn child with full and complete human rights...if we legislate definitively that abortion even in the earliest stages constitutes the "murder" of an unborn child then, from a philosophical perspective, anyone participating in an abortion would for all practical purposes be participating in a murder.

Does that make sense? Do you agree?

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 9:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I see from the timestamp that you might not be online right now. I'll check back for your response. Even better, I'll give you the follow up to that and you can respond to both.

My point is this. I am against abortion, as are you. However, for the reasons we've discussed, it's not practical to legislate this issue except in the case of late-term pregnancies. I believe that for all other circumstances, it is a profoundly serious moral question that the individual woman must address.

Therefore, I believe that the idea presented by Obama, the idea of doing everything possible to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions is the best course. Further, I believe that it was courageous for him to allow himself to be put in a situation where he'd be asked to give his thoughts on abortion in front of an audience comprised of the members of an evangelical church AND to have this broadcast on live national television.

I don't have a problem with admitting my disagreement with Obama on an issue or agreement with McCain. Given what we've covered, can you at least indicate some agreement with my statement about Obama in the last paragraph. It's not an endorsement, just a matter of intellectual honesty.

I will check back later. Yes, I'm being nice. That's what i want to be and what I will be when someone is willing to engage in a polite and challenging debate.

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 9:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Noesis was over on another post trying to yank my chain, Neo

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 9:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Noesis, I doubt that there is a list of banned books in town. But you can use your Republican Revolutionist's credit card to order on amazon

Posted by keta (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 10:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Even more disturbing than the attempt to ban books is the whole anti-science, Pentecostal worldview. Palin is Bush in a dress, flogging those wedge issues on the campaign trail. We're not going to teach creationism in science class, or decide to agree that climate change is a matter of opinion. We're going to leave that crap behind.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 10:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Neo, sorry didn't see you on this thread but I mostly agree with what you said... Like I said before, I believe that abortion should be allowed for the first month or two. Then, I think it should be criminalized but murder... no way.

And Keta, if 80% of Americans believe in God, why is it so wrong to teach creationism along with evolution?

And I don't think anyone is debating climate change, what we are debating is the cause. For instance what is the major source of greenhouse gasses? That would be water vapor which is 95% of all greenhouse gasses. This planet constantly cycles between ice ages and warm periods. The earth has been warmer that it is today in between ice ages. What causes ice ages and what causes us to get warmer?

And... why did the Vikings inhabit Greenland... because it was warmer than it is today... then it got cold again and the Vikings abandoned it. What caused the temperature back in the Vikings day to be warmer than it is today? You can't blame that on greenhouse gasses.

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 11:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Noesis - Thank you for being fair and reasonable about the outcome of our initial discussion/debate.....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My point is this. I am against abortion, as are you. However, for the reasons we've discussed, it's not practical to legislate this issue except in the case of late-term pregnancies. I believe that for all other circumstances, it is a profoundly serious moral question that the individual woman must address.

Thanks,
Neo

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 5:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

From the Fact Check Desk: Obama's New Spanish Language TV Ad Es Erróneo

September 17, 2008 5:53 PM

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has launched a new Spanish-language TV ad that seeks to paint Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., as anti-immigrant, even tying the Republican to his longtime conservative talk-radio nemesis Rush Limbaugh....
...The greater implication the ad makes, however, is that McCain is no friend to Latinos at all, beyond issues of funding the DREAM act or how NCLB money is distributed. By linking McCain to Limbaugh’s quotes, twisting Limbaugh’s quotes, and tying McCain to more extremist anti-immigration voices, the Obama campaign has crossed a line into misleading the viewers of its new TV ad. In Spanish, the word is erróneo.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/...

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 8:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Noesis - It appears to me that you last post was general info for the readers here. I'll check back later. I might make a few general posts in the meantime. I look forward to picking back up with our ongoing debate. Have a great day - Neo

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 8:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

ABC: McCain lying when says he warned of economic crisis

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/...

"Despite Claims Today He Warned of this Crisis, McCain in 2007 Said He Didn't See This Crisis Coming...."

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 8:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

McCain Bounce Over, Tracking Polls Show Race Swings To Obama

http://www.politicalbase.com/profile/Mar...

"Today's four daily tracking polls confirm what we suspect has happened...the McCain bounce is over and the race is slowly swinging back to Obama. Here's the data for the past four days of tracks..."

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 8:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The Associated Press: McCain has 2 faces: Washington in- and outsider

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i_jGU...

"VIENNA, Ohio (AP) — John McCain embraces and expels Washington like an accordion player belting out a song..."

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

12 Year Old Boy Invents New Type of Solar Cell

http://cleantechnica.com/2008/09/17/12-y...

Given the actual topic of this article, I think this is worth posting. It begs the question, "What is possible?"

"Now here’s a story that makes me feel profoundly unaccomplished: a 12 year old boy in Beaverton, Oregon recently developed a new type of 3D solar cell that makes other solar cells look inefficient by comparison.

William Yuan’s 3D cell can absorb both visible and UV light. According to his calculations, solar panels equipped with his 3D cells could provide 500 times more light absorption than current commercial solar cells and nine times more light than existing 3D solar cells..."

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 11:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Breaking news that you probably won't be hearing from the liberal MSM:

A stunning example of the incredible disconnect between the mainstream media and the blogosphere is this video of the interim Fannie Mae CEO, Daniel Mudd, addressing the Congressional Black Caucus, including Barack Obama, at their swearing-in ceremony in 2005. Although this video is spreading quickly in the blogosphere, you have yet to see or hear anything about it in the MSM. As you can see in the video, Mudd talks about the problems of Fannie Mae yet that didn't keep Obama and other Democrats from taking large contributions from that organization or doing anything to try to fix it. Here is a transcript of CEO Mudd addressing the Democrats (emphasis mine):

Good morning members of the Congressional Black Caucus. I am humbled to come here today to reaffirm the friendship and partnership between Fannie Mae and the Congressional Black Caucus. Fannie Mae is determined to keep tearing down the barriers to deliver on the American dream and that means we need to work together with the CBC. So many of you have been good friends to Fannie Mae and our mission. You've been friends through thick and thin. We have indeed come upon a difficult time for Fannie Mae. There is much to be done inside my company and I humbly ask you to help us and to help me. If there are areas where we are missing. If there are areas where we could do better, we'd like to hear it from our friends and I'd be so bold as to say our family first.

It is true that Fannie Mae has lent more money to more minorities and more underserved individuals than any single company in history.

We will work hard inside our company to resolve the serious matters before us to put our house in order and to forge a new future. And all the while you will see Fannie Mae reaching out and listening to the caucus. Over a century of endeavor you have earned the reputation as the conscience of Congress. In many ways I want to tell you today you are also the conscience of Fannie Mae. Keeping us on course to serve those who need serving the most.

As of this writing, a check on Google News shows NO news outlet has so much as mentioned this video despite the fact of Obama being present and later receiving $126,349 from Fannie Mae. Ask yourself this, if the CEO of Fannie Mae had addressed a similar "family" speech to a group of congressional Republicans who had received big donations from that organization, do you not think the video would have already appeared on the nightly news of the major networks?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnic...

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 11:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Neo, while what the boy did is amazing, it looks like it was all theoretical, not actual...

"He designed carbon nanotubes to overcome the barriers of electron movement, doubling the light-electricity conversion efficiency. William also developed a
model for solar towers and a computer program to simulate and optimize the tower parameters. His optimized design provides 500 times more light absorption than
commercially-available solar cells and nine times more than the cutting-edge, three dimensional
solar cell."

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 4:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe so. My understanding was that it was actual but the question was cost-effectiveness. The point is, this illustrates that we could have a major breakthrough any day that would change the game for alternative energies.

This might not be the one, but it exemplifies the potential for the future as we move forward with the practical applications to meet our energy needs for today.

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 4:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Former conservative writer and editor shifts to Obama

http://www.dmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?...

A SERIOUS READ FOR SERIOUS THINKERS

Former supporter of Barry Goldwater and editor of the National Review makes the case for why Obama better represents the genuine values of conservativism than John McCain does.

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 4:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bill Gates invests in algae fuel

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-100439...

I mentioned algae biofuel as a prime candidate to replace our transitional biofuel, corn-based ethanol, in a post several months ago. Now Bill Gates is getting in the game. Good news for this alternative fuel of the future.

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 7:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Noesis, are you out there? It's your turn to choose a topic and ask the questions. I'll check back later.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 7:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sure Neo, was finding 264 corrupt democrats for Jeffo under Obama not fit for President discussion line.

How about global warming?

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 8 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Looks like they have identified Palin's e-mail hacker.... suprise, suprise:

...The story was briefly posted Wednesday to the 4chan forum where the hack first surfaced. Bloggers have connected the handle of the poster, "Rubico," to an e-mail address, and tentatively identified the owner as a college student in Tennessee.

Threat Level was unable to reach the student by phone because his number is unlisted. His father, when reached at home, said he could not talk about the matter and would have no comment. The father is a Democratic state representative in Tennessee. http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/0...

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 8:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey Neo, I know what a fan of Olbermann you are...

Olbermann Uses False Information From Daily Kos To Smear Palin

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppa...

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 9:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Neo said: Therefore, I believe that the idea presented by Obama, the idea of doing everything possible to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions is the best course.
__________________________________________________

While I respect your opinion Neo, I don't think Obama's current idea's square with his past votes on abortion:

But Obama's record on abortion is extreme. He opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion -- a practice a fellow Democrat, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once called "too close to infanticide." Obama strongly criticized the Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth ban. In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion. And now Obama has oddly claimed that he would not want his daughters to be "punished with a baby" because of a crisis pregnancy -- hardly a welcoming attitude toward new life.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 18, 2008 at 10:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Noesis, I read your posts above...not 100% sure what your question is. Put the fault on me...my bad. As for conclusion regarding abortion, I think it's worth noting that voting records can be misleading because they're usually not as simple and one-dimensional as the topic itself. In other words, there are usually a slate of issues that go along with a bill and a congressman may vote against a bill just because of one specific part. Obama told Rick Warren in front of a live audience on live tv broadcast that he was against abortion, against overturning Roe v. Wade, in favor of legislation regarding late-term abortions and that he believes the best approach he could take as President would be to do everything possible to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and the number of abortions.

I've been busy tonight so my apologies for the late response. Pls let me know what topic you want to discuss and what your question is. I'll check back later tonight.

Thanks - Neo

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 1:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"John McCain and the Lying Game"

http://www.time.com/time/politics/articl...

"Politics has always been lousy with blather and chicanery. But there are rules and traditions too. In the early weeks of the general-election campaign, a consensus has grown in the political community — a consensus that ranges from practitioners like Karl Rove to commentators like, well, me — that John McCain has allowed his campaign to slip the normal bounds of political propriety.,,"

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 2:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Worst Crisis Since '30s, With No End Yet in Sight "

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12216943...

"The financial crisis that began 13 months ago has entered a new, far more serious phase..."

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 5:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Neo: I think it's worth noting that voting records can be misleading because they're usually not as simple and one-dimensional as the topic itself. In other words, there are usually a slate of issues that go along with a bill and a congressman may vote against a bill just because of one specific part.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neo, That's just a dodge to coveup Obama's extreme record on abortion:

Obama's campaign website offers two reasons why the senator opposed the bill in 2003. First, the website claims that Obama did not support the state legislation because it lacked language "clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade." The website cites Obama's assertion that he would have supported the similar federal born-alive bill, which included language clarifying that it would not undermine Roe v. Wade when it unanimously passed the Senate in 2001.

In fact, the federal legislation and the final version of the Illinois senate bill were essentially the same. On Monday, the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) released documents that showed that the Illinois senate committee unanimously approved an amendment that made the state legislation almost identical to the federal legislation. The amendment provided that the act should not be "construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being 'born alive'". This was the precise language of the federal bill Obama thought to be a sufficient protection of Roe v. Wade.

Christine Radogno, a Republican senator who voted for the act during the 2003 committee hearing, thinks that the Democrats killed the bill for political reasons. "Anything promoted by pro-life groups, the pro-choice Democrats just wouldn't be for it," she says. "They just didn't want to give the pro-life groups a victory." http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Pu...

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 8:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Noesis, thought we're being friendly here. I didn't dodge a question. I didn't see a question in what you posted. Back to the issue, though, it's not a dodge because I didn't go back and research every vote he had.

I'll try to answer any question you want to pose, but it would be ideal if you can come up with premises we both agree upon that lead to a logical conclusion. Whatever you want, though. Just post a question and I'll do my best to answer it.

Thanks - Neo

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 8:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"McCain Seen as Less Likely to Bring Change, Poll Finds"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/18/us/pol...

"WASHINGTON — Despite an intense effort to distance himself from the way his party has done business in Washington, Senator John McCain is seen by voters as far less likely to bring change to Washington than Senator Barack Obama. He is widely viewed as a “typical Republican” who would continue or expand President Bush’s policies, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll..."

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"McCain Didn't Know Who the Prime Minister of Spain Is"

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-tra...

"...In comments that have caused a kerfuffle in Spain, McCain seemed to lump Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero in the same category as the anti-American leaders of Venezuela, Bolivia and Cuba. McCain's remarks came during in an English-language interview with Radio Caracol WSUA 1260AM in Miami, part of the Spanish-language radio group Union Radio, conducted Tuesday...."

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Long-time Admirer & Biographer: How McCain Lost Me."

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?u...

"I have been a longtime admirer of John McCain. During the 2000 Republican presidential primaries I publicly defended McCain against the pro-Bush Republicans’ whisper campaign that he was too unstable to be president (aware though I was that he had a temper). Two years later I published a positive book about him, “Citizen McCain.”

...McCain’s recent conduct of his campaign – his willingness to lie repeatedly (including in his acceptance speech) and to play Russian roulette with the vice-presidency, in order to fulfill his long-held ambition – has reinforced my earlier, and growing, sense that John McCain is not a principled man.

In fact, it’s not clear who he is. "

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 3:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Neo, am still trying to be friendly here. You said: "Obama told Rick Warren in front of a live audience on live tv broadcast that he was against abortion, against overturning Roe v. Wade, in favor of legislation regarding late-term abortions and that he believes the best approach he could take as President would be to do everything possible to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and the number of abortions."

You also said that voting is nuanced, that specific articles could cause Obama to vote against the bill (or words to that affect). I say B.S., the guy has NEVER voted in any way to restrict abortion. None, nada, he has always voted against any sort of limits. His voting record does not match up with what he's telling his supporters. Due to the word limit, I'll show his voting record in the next post.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 3:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Washington Post Fact Checker:

Obama has had difficulty explaining some of his 129 "present" votes in the Illinois legislature on issues such as promoting school discipline and prohibiting sex shops near places of worship. In the case of his votes on the anti-abortion legislation, however, he has had a solid alibi. The Illinois branch of the Planned Parenthood organization has given him a "100 percent" pro-choice voting rating and depicted the present votes as part of a previously agreed strategy to provide political cover for other legislators.

Under the rules of the Illinois legislature, a present vote effectively functions as a no vote because only yes votes count toward passage of a bill. Legislators vote "present" rather than "no" for a variety of tactical reasons, including making it more difficult for their political opponents to use their votes against them in campaign advertisements.

"We worked on the 'present' vote strategy with Obama," said Pam Sutherland, chief lobbyist for the Illinois branch of Planned Parenthood, an abortion rights group. "He was willing to vote 'no', and was always going to be a 'no' vote for us."

Sutherland said Planned Parenthood calculated that a 'present' vote by Obama would encourage other senators to cast a similar vote, rather than voting for the legislation. "They were worried about direct mail pieces against them. The more senators voted present, the harder it was to mount an issues campaign against the senator."

Here is a full list of Obama's seven 'present' votes on issues related to abortion:

1997 Votes

# SB 230 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. Senate approved bill 44-7, with five senators voting present, including Obama.

# HB 382 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. House version, passed Illinois State Senate, adopted as law. Under the bill, doctors who perform partial-birth abortions could be sent to prison for one to three years. The woman would not be held liable.

2001 Votes
# HB 1900 Parental Notice of Abortion Act. Bill passed 38-10, with nine present votes, including Obama.

# SB 562 Parental Notice of Abortion Act. Bill passed Senate 39-7, with 11 present votes, including Obama.

# SB 1093 Law to protect Liveborn children. Bill passed 34-6, with 12 present, including Obama.

# SB 1094 Bill to protect children born as result of induced labor abortion. Bill passed 33-6, with 13 present, including Obama.

# SB 1095 Bill defining "born alive" defines "born-alive infant" to include infant "born alive at any stage of development." Bill passed 34-5, with nine present, including Obama.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-ch...

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 4:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And here is the rest of his voting record, from his website:

#
Voting Record
# Supports Roe v. Wade. (Jul 1998)
# Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
# Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
# Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
# Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
# Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
# Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women. (May 2006)
# Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)

So based on the above, how can you say that Obama is for any type of limitations on abortions.... even late term abortions?

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 4:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"A new television ad released Wednesday by Sen. Barack Obama's campaign highlights the closure of Corning Inc.'s plant in State College, Pa., and accuses Washington with Sen. John McCain's help of selling out the workers," the Associated Press reports.

So what did Corning make at the plant? The ad, which you can see here, does not say, but the AP story does: "glass tubes for television sets and computer monitors."

It's hard to remember now, but in the olden days TV sets and computer monitors used a technology called cathode ray tubes. A CRT consisted of an electron gun that projects an image onto a fluorescent screen. In most cases the gun had to be some distance from the screen, with the entire assembly enclosed in glass, which meant that TVs were bulky and boxy (hence the term "idiot box").

In modern times, the CRT has given way to superior technologies such as plasma and liquid crystal, which take up less space and provide superior picture quality. This is an enormous blessing to all Americans who watch TV or use computers.

It's hard to imagine a more backward-looking position than mourning the decline of the picture-tube industry. What'll Obama do next, promise to restore American supremacy in the manufacture of buggy whips, iron lungs and floppy disks?

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 4:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

San Diego, California - The new offensive in the presidential election is a Spanish-language air war in which each party is trying to convince Latino voters that the other is no amigo to the nation's largest minority and that it did them wrong during the immigration debacle in Congress. (Snip) Stop the tape! The spots are hard-hitting, but only one hits the target. The McCain-Palin ad is accurate. But the Obama-Biden ad is riddled with problems.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/18/n...

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 5:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

noesis, you're spewing distortions so rapidly its hard to keep up.

Only someone with your IQ would think that a "present" vote counts as a "no" vote. It counts as "neutral". Only "yes" votes count toward passage. Only "no" votes count towards defeat.

How many employees worked at that plant that McBush helped close? Just because you think they are outdated is no reason to shut them down. If they were open someone must have been buying their product from them. Wouldn't McBush's "free-market" have taken care of that anyway? and FYI, idiot box did not come from the tubes. it came from the mass numbers who sat in front of tv's all day long watching senseless programming.

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 5:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

now there you go again, noesis. are you trying for personal best in distortions? McBush is no "amigo", supporter or advocate for latinos. People, don't take noesis word for it OR mine. visit both candidates websites

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 7:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

noesis, you're spewing distortions so rapidly its hard to keep up.

Only someone with your IQ would think that a "present" vote counts as a "no" vote. It counts as "neutral". Only "yes" votes count toward passage. Only "no" votes count towards defeat.
______________________________________________________

Uh MasterChef, what part of this didn't you understand? Do I need to type slower for you ;) (caps mine)

Under the rules of the Illinois legislature, A PRESENT VOTE EFFECTIVELY FUNCTIONS AS A NO VOTE because only yes votes count toward passage of a bill.

"We worked on the 'present' vote strategy with Obama," said Pam Sutherland, chief lobbyist for the Illinois branch of Planned Parenthood, an abortion rights group.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 7:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 5:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MasterChef, please show me where I made a distortion in my post about the McCain/Obama Latino ads.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 7:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

and FYI, idiot box did not come from the tubes. it came from the mass numbers who sat in front of tv's all day long watching senseless programming.
____________________________________________________

Idioms: idiot box

A television set, as in There they sit in front of the idiot box, hour after hour. This slangy and pejorative expression dates from about 1960.
http://www.answers.com/topic/idiot-box

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 7:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wouldn't McBush's "free-market" have taken care of that anyway?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It did, it was cheaper to make the tubes in China... and the plant closed in 2003.

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 7:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 4:05 p.m.

So based on the above, how can you say that Obama is for any type of limitations on abortions.... even late term abortions?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't see anything above that is a clearly defined bill against late term abortions, while still providing an exception when the life of the mother is in question.

The following:
# Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
# Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women. (May 2006)

...would seem to be measures designed to reduce the number of abortions in this country. You and I might prefer that the young women and their parent(s) went to church and just made the right moral decisions, but you've already agreed we can't legislate that.

The following:
# Supports Roe v. Wade. (Jul 1998)
# Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
# Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
# Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
# Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
.,.are, in my opinion, irrelevant as indicators of whether or not he'd approach abortion as I outlined above (as he outlined it in his answer to Rick Warren's question).

Noesis it seems that you're trying to make a compelling case, based on Obama's voting record, against the conclusion of our first topic:

"Therefore, I believe that the idea presented by Obama, the idea of doing everything possible to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions is the best course. Further, I believe that it was courageous for him to allow himself to be put in a situation where he'd be asked to give his thoughts on abortion in front of an audience comprised of the members of an evangelical church AND to have this broadcast on live national television."

I think that you've (noesis) actually presented information supporting this conclusion while providing none against it in the two posts above listing the various votes on the issue.

Obama has stated clearly (to Rick Warren, for example) what his approach toward abortion would be. You are in favor of this approach, based upon the answers you provided to my questions. So, given that so much of his record does not contradict what Obama himself says would be his approach, why are you trying so hard to argue that even though he told Rick Warren one thing...he'd do something totally different when he gets into office?

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 7:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OK, so how does his opposition to the "born alive bill" (means the mother already aborted the baby so, her life wasn't in danger) work? Where's your logic there?

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 8:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And of course Obama is "against" abortion, who in their right mind would think that abortion is the preferred method of birth control?

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 8:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Neo: I don't see anything above that is a clearly defined bill against late term abortions, while still providing an exception when the life of the mother is in question.

Here is where Obama voted "present":

1997 Votes

# SB 230 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. Senate approved bill 44-7, with five senators voting present, including Obama.

Now, lets look at SB 230:

Creates the Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act. Prohibits partial-birth abortions unless necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, provided that no other medical procedure would suffice for that purpose.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet...

HB 238: Creates the Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act. Prohibits partial-birth abortions unless necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, provided that no other medical procedure would suffice for that purpose.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet...

Now Neo... you were saying?

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 8:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Now Neo as you can clearly see, even when a bill contains words protecting the life of the mother, Obama would not vote for it. How can you say that Obama is against late term abortions now?

He didn't earn his 100% approval rating from the the right to choose groups for nothing. His voting record PROVES that he wants no restrictions on ANY form of abortion. He doesn't even want kids who survive abortion attempts to live.

His talk sure doesn't match up against his deeds, not even close.

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 9 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I was saying the following.

According to your previous answers, you are in agreement with Barack Obama's position on abortion as stated to Rick Warren....

- reduce the number of abortions as much as possible

- be open to legislation on late term abortions as long as there's a sufficient exception for cases where the life of the mother is in jeopardy.

It appears to me that the only question on the table, really, is whether or not he'll follow that policy when he gets into office. In other words, you're saying that we should have the same degree of suspicion that (with 20/20 hindsight) we should've had when Bush said "I'm a uniter, not a divider" and "I don't believe in using our military for nation building."

That's what you're saying...that we cannot take at face value the statements or promises made by politicians seeking the Presidency. Isn't it?

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 9:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

- be open to legislation on late term abortions as long as there's a sufficient exception for cases where the life of the mother is in jeopardy.
_______________________________________________________

Hate to burst your bubble but look at my previous posts proving that even when the life of the mother is taken into account, Obama didn't vote for it.

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 9:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You are in support of the position Obama stated to Rick Warren, though. Right?

Not asking if you believe he would follow through on it, just on the position.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 9:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Neo, Neo, Neo... I've proven that even when Obama has the provision to protect the mother's life he's voted against it and now you want to discuss Warren? I want to discuss what you've said and how I've proven you wrong.

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 9:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm not asking you to discuss Rick Warren. I am asking you about a specific position on abortion. Namely:

- reduce the number of abortions as much as possible

- be open to legislation on late term abortions as long as there's a sufficient exception for cases where the life of the mother is in jeopardy.

Do you agree with this position?

I'd be glad to discuss the other issues but I don't want to skip this point since it's the main question I was asking you to begin with.

So, can you just answer the question....do you agree with the stated position?

Thanks - Neo

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 9:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No Neo, answer my question. How can you say that Obama is against partial birth abortions and he would approve of them when I have proven that is a lie?

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 9:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Whoops, meant to say "How can you say Obama is against partial birth abortions and he would approve of them if they had a provision protecting the life of the mother" when I have proven that is a lie?

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 9:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I will answer your question definitively after you respond to the one I had already asked you earlier, way up the page. Do you agree with this position on abortion:

- reduce the number of abortions as much as possible

- be open to legislation on late term abortions as long as there's a sufficient exception for cases where the life of the mother is in jeopardy.

I have no problem at all being intellectually honest and answering your questions but I need a simple yes or no answer from you to this question I asked last night.

Thanks - Neo

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 9:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No, answer my question first.

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 9:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

McBush was having a Geritol day today. In trying to assign blame and retribution for the Wall Street debackle, McBush formally called for the resignation of ......the FEC (Federal Elections Commission) chairman, after saying if he were president (yesterday) he would fire Chris Cox, chairman of the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission).

And today it was revealed that Sarah Palin has a big pastor problem too. HER pastor, the one who "laid hands on her" to help her become Alaska's governor began HIS career in Kenya performing an actual witch hunt.

Well, after they lose the election, they can team up again and take their act on the road - Laurel & Hardy! HA! Honest, I've been laughing so hard since Barbie McBush I've cut my pain pills by one-half.

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 9:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

so, noesis, how many people worked at that plant McBush helped close?

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 9:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Since you won't do it, I will give your answer for you based on the premises you've already agreed to.

"Neo, I agree with the position on abortion that Obama gave to Rick Warren. However, based upon his voting record, I don't believe he'll follow through on that position."

Now, as for your observations about his voting record. The statement that you have proven anything a lie is a huge overstatement. I'd say that you have reasons for doubting him and I have reasons for believing him.

Here are some of the reasons I have for believing him.

1. He stated this position clearly and in no uncertain terms, in front of a live audience, on live television at the first major meeting of the two Presidential candidates.

2. You've cited several votes as an argument for why you don't believe Obama would follow through on what he told Rick Warren. I am not going to devote hours to scouring through all the nuances of the various bills that can be copied and pasted from any number of websites. Those are "gotcha" tactics. If there was ANY merit to the idea that, based upon his voting record, Obama would not follow through on what he stated clearly and unambiguously to Rick Warren that the McCain campaign would have been ALL OVER IT with an attack ad. As it is, McCain is in hot water with almost every media outlet over outright lying in his ads. Even Karl Rove has called him out on this. If McCain had the chance to run a meaty ad with a direct Obama quote and the list votes that "prove" he was not being intellectually honest, McCain definitely would have run it. Here's the thing, McCain knows the nuances of those bills as well as Obama. He knows that he can't run an ad with the kind of argument that, with all respect, that you have run here on Obama and his statement to Rick Warren about late term abortions. He knows that if he did the Obama campaign would come out with a response stating the rationale for whatever vote was in question and, again, McCain would be called a liar....on a very emotionally charged issue at that.

3. The fact that Obama DID state his position so clearly as I explained in point #1, it would be exceedingly difficult for him to veto a bill against late term abortions with provisions for situations where the life of the mother was in jeopardy.

So, do you want to start a new topic?

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 9:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Epic Fail: Palin can’t answer softball question about national security experience at first town hall meeting" (VIDEO + STORY)

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/18...

"Probably because she doesn’t have any. At all. Well, not unless you count the proximity of Alaska to Russia. Sarah Palin made her first unscripted appearance Wednesday at a town hall meeting..."

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"There He Goes Again: Fact Check on New McCain Ad"

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/...

"...In what has become an ongoing theme, the McCain-Palin campaign has released yet another ad that makes false claims about Barack Obama's tax plan..."

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 10:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Todd Palin Refusing To Testify In Troopergate"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/18...

Counting Sarah, that makes two. What are they hiding???

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 10:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

TIME says "McCain Plays the Race Card" (VIDEO + STORY)

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/...

"When politicians interject race into a campaign, they seldom do it directly. Consider McCain's new ad, which the campaign says it will be airing nationally..."

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 10:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"McCain Secretly Plans New Tax on Middle Class"
By United Steelworkers International President Leo W. Gerard

http://blog.thehill.com/2008/09/16/mccai...

"John McCain should not be traveling in a bus called the Straight Talk Express. No, that equivocating multimillionaire who kowtows constantly to the wealthy should be riding in one of those private, gilded railroad cars..."

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 10:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Congress has late night meeting with Fed. Chairman, Sec Chairman and Treasury Secretary last night"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/...

Behind closed doors meeting. "Not months or years away, but hours or days away from complete meltdown..."

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 10:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

McBush held a rally at a veterans hall. He was only able to fill 1/4 the facility. Here's a possible reason why:

Here's what McCain has done for veterans recently:

● Did not support new GI bill legislation because he thought it was too generous and would result in soldiers choosing to go to school instead of reenlisting. This bill passed 75-22 and McCain was one of three Senators who didn't show up to vote. Only after the bill was attached to the war funding request of the Bush administration, did McCain vote for the Webb bill. All 22 votes against the bill were by Republicans.
● Voted against providing at least $19 billion for military health facilities, paid for by eliminating tax cuts for the wealthy.
● Voted against providing $2.8 billion to increase veterans' medical care.
● Voted against establishing a $1 billion trust fund to provide improvements to health facilities that treat veterans and military personnel paid for by allowing dividends and capital gains tax breaks, for those with incomes greater than $1 million, to lapse.
● Voted against increasing medical services to veterans by $1.5 billion in 2007, paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes.
● In April 2006, McCain was one of 13 Senators to vote against $430 million for medical services for VA outpatient care and treatment for veterans. Despite his vote against, it passed overwhelmingly, 84-13. All 13 voting against were Republicans.

http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_de............

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 10:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hello, Neo. You were/are right. These two can't face facts. With the "Palin Affect" all but dead....no, check that....the "Palin Affect" IS dead...the poles are making a final swing back to Obama.

I predict a major blowout for Obama in November.

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 10:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Win, yes. Blowout, maybe. The driving factor between now and election day is going to be the economy. Check the video I linked above, just before your post.

We are looking at a potential crisis of epic proportions. Please note, I said "potential." To the extent that we can implement the necessary measures quickly and appropriately, the crisis can be mitigated to a certain extent.

Regardless, the economy is Obama's issue. The more headlines we have about...banks failing or being bought out, bailouts of institutions like fannie and freddie and chaos in the stock market...the more the landscape favors Obama.

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 11:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Especially with McBush not knowing the difference between SEC and FEC. :) On my way to link.

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 11:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Great video. Sobering!

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 1:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

MC - Besides the FEC and the MFI (a new commission suggested by McCain), let's not forget McCain's unfortunate (and repeated, of course) references to the SIPC as the "SPIC".

Is this senility or a Freudian slip regarding McCain's immigration thoughts kicking in?

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 1:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Holy cow, I've forgotten to post a poll update for a while.

IF THE ELECTION WERE HELD TODAY:

Electoral Votes
Obama - 303
McCain - 235

Popular votes
Obama - 50.1%
McCain - 48.3%

For those new to the site, I pull these numbers from a source that combines the results of all major polls, state by state, and runs an all-out general election simulation on a sophisticated computer model 10K times per day. Or, in other words, these are pretty reliable numbers (and pretty conservative numbers).

Personally, my opinion is that NONE of the polls have adequately taken into consideration the raw number of new Democratic voters registered by the Obama campaign along with their ground game to get out the vote, absentee vote, vote by mail, etc. We could see some real surprises on election night.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 4:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Don't go getting too confident Neo:

Obama has slight edge on McCain in Mich.

Democrat Barack Obama has the smallest possible lead -- one point -- over Republican John McCain in battleground Michigan, according to a new poll, setting up a six-week sprint that could determine who wins the White House.

The survey by EPIC-MRA, released exclusively to The Detroit News, WXYZ-Action News and outstate television stations WOOD, WILK and WJRT, shows Obama leads McCain 43 percent to 42 percent. Another 10 percent of voters are undecided; third-party candidates Bob Barr and Ralph Nader are at 2 percent each.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 4:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Neo here are Obama's exact words from his own website:

"On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I've said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn't have that."

As I have proven, the only partial bill abortion bill that came before him had the provision to protect the health of the mother in it and despite what he said, he did not vote for it.

So... as you can see he will lie about anything to get elected. 2009 - Sorry guys, my programs cost more than expected so instead of not raising taxes on those making more than $250,000, I'm lowering it to $60,000.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 4:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey MasterChef, I see by your lack of an answer that I didn't distort ANYTHING about the McCain/Obama spanish ad.

Posted by Slick77 (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 7:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Noesis...Looks like you and Padanoor are still winning the debates. Noesis, you stumped Neo as usual.

Wow, if I would have know you guys were on here last night, I would have joined in. I'm not sure if Neo could have handled my Pro-life, and Christian views too. Can't wait to get in on the continuing discussion on the "hot issues" regarding our morals and "Christian heritage". Looks like Noesis and Pad is doing a heck of job so far.

Neo...I heard Obama himself say that he wanted to implement sex ed. starting with 5 yr olds, Kindergarteners.
They can't even pronounce or spell those words. Like I said before, leave it in the hands of the parents. How about crayons, naps, recess, and snacks! Kids have already had their innocence taken away way too much. Wonder what he would think if I sat down with his 2 little girls and just went at it. Let em know everything there is to know concerning sex. visuals, words, etc. Probably wouldn't approve.

Talk at ya later....

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 11:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sort of how of how Obama is against allowing the poor people to send their kids to good schools by using school vouchers.... what public school did his kids go to again??? Oh, that's right, they went to private schools.

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 11:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Neo, I'm afraid its another indicator that he needs memory-enhancing drugs (shhh! don't mention drugs around Cindy).

The best thing that could have happened this week was to wake up and been unable to speak.

I can't wait to see Obama mop the stage with him next Friday.

If these three nuckle-heads on here would stop with the distractions and distortions we could get back to serious discussions.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 12:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey MasterChef, why is it that you have a problem with Cindy abusing drugs but not Obambi?

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 12:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 1:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Holy cow, I've forgotten to post a poll update for a while.
________________________________________________

Forgotten to post a poll or was it the fact that Obama was behind in the polls?

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 5:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Slick, I guess you see what you want to see. Noesis conceded that he was in agreement with Obama's position on abortion as stated at the Rick Warren forum.

After noesis gave voting records as an argument that Obama would not actually follow through with this position, I countered with an argument that at least nullified...if not refuted completely... his "voting record" argument. See my September 19, 2008 at 9:39 p.m. post. Noesis never actually came back and replied to the three points I made in that post, but I think it speaks for itself and anyone who cares to read can draw their own conclusions at this point.

As for jumping in the debate, Slick, I would be glad to debate you in an upcoming article (this one should be fading off into the archives soon). I will not, however, try to debate two or three people at one time. Whatever anyone might want to say, I was fair and civil with noesis during this debate.

So, if you want to step in the ring under those terms just say so.

Have a nice day - Neo

Posted by Slick77 (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 7:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey Neo....Well, you were kinda civil for once. What's wrong, MasterChef has your back! You have shooter, which his comments get deleted often, you have Vil, and Allison. Wow, what a team. Why can't you handle the 3 of us? Too many facts and truths? Don't forget we have Cashmere, or C-dub. Where are you C-dub?

Noesis says that only in the case of saving the mothers life, concerning abortion. He is pro-life. When Obama says, let's just try to cut down on abortions, he just says that to sound good and apieze the public. Gee,That makes so much sense...duh, lets just murder a few not all. What kind of statement is that? An Ignorant one.
Did you know that 90% of "Downs Syndrome Babies" are aborted? Why? What is the definition of "perfect" anyway? Palins baby is perfect in God's eyes. He created him. Look how loved and wonderful he is. Who put us in charge to just trash whatever child and baby we want because of our selfishness? That's what it amounts to. Abortion is used primarily as birthcontrol, and convenience.
very small pecentage is actually because of rape or risk of mothers life. Justify it all you want, but it is what it is.

p.s. I will be glad to debate you without Noesis and Pad. Sometimes, I just sit back and read the comments and absorb. I know you must read em and weep! Have a nice day too Neo........

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 7:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Noesis,

1. Obama experimented with drugs. Cindy McBush was (is?) addicted.

2. Cindy McBush STOLE her pain pills from an agency she worked for whose purpose was to help POOR families.

3. Obama didn't need a high-powered Senator to make the charges go away.

4. Obama quit drugs. Cindy had to go to a lavish rehab center.

5. One has class and character, one is a homewrecker.

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 7:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

slick, as you already know Neo is MORE than capable of taking care of himself. so, enter the ring with full body armour.

About abortion...ask 5 people, you'll get five different answers. My personal opinion is that unless that baby is growing inside you, then shut your trap and give the girl time to make HER decision. This election isn't about abortion. Its about all the miserably failed policies of Dumya, and McBush wanting to pick up his flag and rush forth to conquer the world.

Posted by Slick77 (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 8:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MasterChef, Chill....Go fix some popcorn with lots of butter! I never said the election was only about abortion. The only reason I gave my opinion was because Neo and Noesis and Pad were debating about it. I likle to give my 2 cents worth. Maybe you think its worth that, but many others agree and can relate with me. I'm never going to shut my trap like you "lefties" and "liberals" want. That's the problem, you guys don't like to talk about it because the guilt you feel. Once upon a time, I did in fact have a baby growing inside of me. Guess what? It wasn't a good time, it was a surprise, and a very complicated situation. But, I never once said, well I'll just kill it. That's the easy, cowardly way out! I had people say, "you have other choices"! Thank God I never listened to anyone else. So I have been there MasterChef. My one and only child is 17 now and the best, most valued gift, and purpose in my life. Wasn't easy at the time. It's all about accepting the situation as a blessing not a curse! I mentor alot of girls now and let them know my story and tell them I am there for them. I just don't talk the talk. I am there to guide, help with moral support, baby showers, whatever it takes. Trust me... they always thank me and the others who help. They are so glad they don't have to deal with the loss and depression and wonder about all the "what if's?" I also know many who have had abortions, I don't judge them and still love them, but I know the emptiness and guilt, etc. they go through. Like I said, Abortion isn't the only hot issue, but I feel like I have a personal story to share.

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 8:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And slick, you tell it well. Being an over-the-hill-fart who was never blessed with a child, I'm under the impression that before an abortion the mother is counseled and confronted with ALL alternatives. IF thats true, then I just don't think its right to impose our beliefs on her, let alone calling her a murderer.

Posted by Slick77 (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 9:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MasterChef....If I remember correctly you said, in 1969 you were a freshman in high school. Which would put you around 54 or 55? Am I right? That means you're not an over-the-hill-fart. Another 20 years maybe.

If a female goes to an abortion clinic or counseling at planned parenthood, then no, she only gets counseled on facts and info on abortion. Not alternatives, they are there to make money. On the other hand, if she goes to a church or pro-life it will be one sided also. Their goal is to save the life, whether adoption, etc... Each have their own agenda. It is not about me or religion or imposing beliefs, only about saving innocent lives and showing love and support. I realize there are those out there who go about the pro-life issue in a hateful and wrong way. "2 wrongs don't make a right." So, burning or protesting or "in your face" methods don't work and don't accomplish anything.
I have and never will call someone who has an abortion a murderer. Even though I feel they made a wrong choice, I can still help and support from there. I have made wrong choices and bad decisions so no one is perfect or even near. My agenda is to help prevent the wrong choice in a supportive and loving manner. Does that make sense MasterChef? Not all of us Pro-lifers are extreme and ruthless. Have a good evening, enjoy that popcorn.

Posted by Neo (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 12:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Slick,

If you want to debate, just go over to the home page under the article "How do we protect unknown freedoms?"

I already have the first question there waiting for you.

Thanks - Neo

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 3:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry, slick. I hit the sack early. You're certainly giving me an education. My experience with Pro-Lifers was always with the in-your-face-type. Apparently I've been misinformed. I'd been told that before an abortion the mother-to-be HAD to be counseled on the abortion AND all the alternatives, as well as what services were available to help in this area.

In the end I would accept the mother's decision. Personally, I'd like to see that little life have a chance. And I can understand that in certain cases (i.e. health & safety of the mother, rape or incest) abortion should be allowed without any of the outside pressure brought against that person.

I've read your posts as well. I have a question thats very personal, so I won't be bothered if you decline to comment.
You said your pregnancy was not at the right time. Has there ever been a single time in 17 years you had second thoughts about the decision to carry to full term?

Posted by Slick77 (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 9:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

MasterChef.....No, not 1 time or 1 second. Thanks for responding.

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 7:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

slick, thanks for sharing. You're the kind of Pro-Lifer I can talk to and I appreciate that. All these "in your face" postings are getting old. Perhaps if more adults shared "personal experiences" instead of "talking points" from both camps, we'd each have a better understanding of the entire situation.

One thing still "bugs" me. How do we make sure moms-to-be know all their options?

Posted by Slick77 (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 6:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MasterChef...Good question? I don't have the answers. I personally feel that moral support, counseling, lending a hand financially if needed (ex: for doctor visits, baby things, etc...) But, it is hard to find people who will actually come through and do something. I'm not saying I'm a "saint" or anything, but I try my best. I just talked to a friend from class today, she is 8 weeks pregnant. Not in a particularly good situation. Looking for a place to live, just a lot of stuff hitting her at one time. She is excited about the baby, but needs that moral support I was talking about. We talked about a baby shower to help out.
MasterChef... Nothing is easy in life, but we can learn from our setbacks and bad choices. We can rise above anything and be a "victor" not a "victim".
Thanks for all your imput.

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 8:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

slick...if you have the shower, I'd like to send a little something.

Posted by Slick77 (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 9:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MasterChef.... Wow, thanks. That's what trickling down effect is. I'll let you know. Thanks, that gives me hope. There are good people out there no matter which political party there for or what they believe. THANKS.........

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 8:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

When it comes down to a personal level we're all in one accord. Once the mother has made a decision, then the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice ideals go out the window.

We all get a little over-revved during elections, but even then, we're still neighbors.

Posted by Slick77 (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 10:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yep, after it's all said and done, we still have to go on and still need to unite, whatever the outcome.

The Ironton Tribune

Saturday, July 4, 2009

Congress must meet on energy

Comments

Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)

Most Emailed Stories

Quick Link