Political Forum

LET THE ONSLAUGHT BEGIN!: "McCain Camp, RNC to Spend $160 Million in Final Weeks"

Louisiana-Oilman — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 19:30:27 GMT

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10...n-final-weeks/

Its time to get down and dirty and expose Obama for the liar he is and prove that John McCain is the man to lead the country with dignity and honor for which he has earned the hard way.
Quote:

John McCain�s campaign and the Republican National Committee plan to spend �upwards of $160 million� in the final weeks of the presidential race, according to a senior McCain adviser.

This will represent a massive counter-attack to combat Barack Obama�s lopsided spending advantage to date.

The McCain adviser told FOX News that, while Obama is outspending them in all but two of 14 battleground states, �that will change over the last four weeks.�

As national and battleground state polls show McCain trailing Obama consistently, McCain is urging voters not to count him out.

�In case you missed it, this is about the seventh or eighth time that pundits have said �McCain�s campaign is in trouble,�� he told Wisconsin voters Thursday. �We fooled them then and we will fool them again.�

Asked if McCain could still surmount Obama�s polling leads, the McCain adviser said Missouri, North Carolina and Indiana are �either close to or leaning for� McCain, and that the Republican nominee �will win those without much issue.�

�That brings us to 200 [electoral votes],� the adviser said. �The next level is where we make or break. We need to really worry about Ohio, Florida, Virginia and Nevada.�

The adviser expressed optimism for those states, based on conditions viewed as favorable to the McCain campaign. In Virginia, for instance, the adviser said the military vote could �offset any increased African American turnout.�

In Florida, the Hispanic vote is not a �normal Hispanic vote� due to anti-Castro fervor, and so Obama�s inroads could be reversed. In Nevada, McCain � from nearby Arizona � is familiar to voters. And the adviser said Ohio �seems to be persistently stronger for McCain relative to the other states.�

Under that game plan, the adviser said the election would, �come down to Colorado.�

So far, polls show Obama leading in Colorado. �

FOX News� James Rosen contributed to this report

What’s At Stake: Life, Liberty, Happiness

SeminalBlog — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 19:20:16 GMT

The longer we delay fixing the health care system - reigning in costs, covering everyone, and fairly sharing risk - the harder it will be to reform the system at all. And it’s not just because America is currently facing, in the words of just about everyone, “the largest economic crisis since the Great Depression.” As David Lightman and Kevin G. Hall point out today in McClatchy Newspapers, the simple demographics will be against us if we wait:

Beginning in 2011, the first wave of baby boomers - Americans born between 1946 and 1964 - will reach official retirement age. From that point forward, the federal government’s finances will be strained, as more and more Americans retire expecting a shrinking number of active workers to pay their promised health and pension benefits.

To put it more starkly: Medicare’s trustees project the hospital insurance fund will become insolvent in about 10 years, as its expenditures grow at a 7.4 percent annual rate. The government, the trustees said, will need $342 billion to cover insurance costs during that period.

…

“The longer action on reforming health care and Social Security is delayed, the more painful and difficult the choices will become,” said a Government Accountability Office study in June. “The federal government faces increasing pressures, yet a shrinking window of opportunity for phasing in adjustments.”

Medicare, the report said, “represents a much larger, faster-growing and more immediate problem than Social Security.”

A series of factors are driving up Medicare costs. According to the GAO and the trustees, medical technology is often overused; the health care market doesn’t operate on a supply-and-demand basis as people often don’t shop for the lowest price; and chronic health problems - such as obesity or substance abuse - require expensive, lengthy treatment.

Medicare (and similarly, Medicaid) face such staggering budget shortfalls to a large extent as a consequence of America’s private, patchwork health care system. Preventative care is less costly in the long run, yet, because the health insurance industry has been so deregulated as to allow them to deny care at every opportunity and price care out of the reach of millions, America has 47 million uninsured and millions more under-insured. This means millions of Americans don’t see their doctor as regularly as they should to catch medical problems early before they become costly emergencies. And, as the economy sinks, people are cutting back on care, making the problem worse.

Medicare (and to some extent, Medicaid) functions essentially as a high risk pool, a group of people (in this case, the elderly) who are less profitable to insurance companies because they use so much health care. High risk pools, basically by definition, don’t work. If the theory of insurance is to spread out risk (everyone in a system all pay into a pot so when one person needs to use their coverage, that cost can be absorbed by everyone), then high risk pools make no sense. Putting everyone who you know are going to use a lot of health insurance into the same pot and asking them to share costs is silly - there are no “low risk” people in the system to absorb some of the cost. And because everyone at some time in their life is “high risk” for large health insurance costs (everyone eventually gets sick or old), Medicare functions as a dumping ground for the private insurance industry. Private insurance takes monthly premiums from the young and healthy all their life, and when they get old and sick (and unprofitable), they are dumped on the government.

This is why Medicare is projected to be the largest driver of the national debt in the near future, and, because baby boomers are about to enter the system in huge numbers, this is why health reform needs to happen in this country immediately.

Simply getting everybody covered adequately would be a huge step forward. A guarantee of a certain level of care, no matter if you’re on private or public insurance plans, would make sure people receive the care they need throughout their life, lowering overall costs. A subsidized public insurance plan that would take everybody would go a long way towards eliminating the number of people in America without insurance. And regulating all insurance plans - public and private - to make sure they cover pre-existing conditions and can’t dump “unprofitable” customers would ensure risk is shared fairly, as it is meant to be.

This, of course, is Health Care for America Now’s vision, shared by 83 Members of Congress, including Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

Contrast that with the conservative vision, championed by John McCain:

Less regulation on insurance companies to do away with state based insurance, allowing companies to set up shop in the states with the least regulation and forcing Americans to shop on their own for health insurance.
Taxing your employee health benefits, doing away with the employer-based system
Funding a paltry tax credit (which goes straight to the insurance industry) with cuts to Medicare and Medicaid

No guarantee of care, no incentive to promote prevention, no fair risk sharing, and a plan that is estimated to grow the ranks of the uninsured in America by 5 million in just five years.

There is a clear difference here, and that’s why it’s so important to make health care a priority in this election and immediately after the next president is inaugurated. It seems the nation is waking up to that difference, too. In the past few weeks, health care has been a focus of some excellent debate questions, it has been targeted in campaign advertisements, and the subject of numerous news stories. And of course, Health Care for America Now has thrown our hat into the ring, spending $4.3 million to put advertisements about John McCain’s health care plan (as well as 7 congressional candidates) on the air across the country:

America is finally having the health care debate it needs to be having. What’s at stake is our economy, our national debt, our health, and our happiness. Let’s just hope the urgency is still there in January.

(also posted at MyDD and the NOW! blog)

(Source Link)

Maybe It’s 1952

SeminalBlog — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 19:20:16 GMT

Let me be contrarian for a moment.

I know this a “change election,” even a “realigning election” if you believe some of the more grandiose rhetoric coming from some bloggers. We hear comparisons to 1932 and 1980 frequently, and less frequently comparisons to 1960, 1968, and 1976 - all of which have merit.

But I’d like to suggest a somewhat anticlimactic but no less important comparison: maybe this is 1952.

An deeply unpopular incumbent, mired in a deeply unpopular war, who barely won re-election four years prior, finds he has squandered much of the popularity from his party’s last great leader, who is given credit for rescuing the nation from economic problems as well as winning a global struggle. The incumbent president has mismanaged a new global struggle even as the old one appeared to be settled. Decades of rule for the party in power end with the party divided as the other side, recovering from decades in the wilderness, comes forward with a new message and new leadership.

The president’s would-be successor finds himself irrelevant, speaking to the nation in a kind of political language they don’t respond to anymore. His opponent is a charismatic moderate with a high national profile and an attack-dog running mate.

There are strong parallels between Truman, who stood on FDR’s shoulders but then watched twenty years of Democratic rule collapse, and Bush, who stands on Reagan’s shoulders and is watching (what I would call) nearly thirty years of conservative rule fall apart. One could also say that there are parallels between Truman’s role as the first Cold War president, after a Democratic president presided over victory in World War II, and Bush’s role as the first “War on Terror” president, after a Republican president presided over “victory” in the Cold War.

The parallels between Obama and Eisenhower are not as strong, though I think both promised a kind of return to the center - and to peace - for Americans who felt the country had shifted to far to one side.

What intrigues me most are parallels between McCain and Adlai Stevenson. Both emerged from a weak primary field in their parties to be the designated successor of the president. Both were “footsoldiers in the revolution” - McCain of Reagan’s, Stevenson of FDR’s. And both promised to continue those revolutions at a time when they no longer felt relevant to a majority of Americans. Both McCain and Stevenson were called out of touch.

I make these comparisons partly just to show that we can compare this year to any year and conceivably find convincing parallels. But I also think this comparison has real merit, particularly because 1952 was the last completely open election in the US before 2008 - ie, one in which neither candidate was an incumbent president or vice president.

Does that mean I think Obama will govern like Eisenhower, instead of the FDR that many progressives are starting to hope for? Maybe. Circumstances could pressure Obama into more progressive stances on various issues, but perhaps he’ll see a moderate, centrist position as the wise course. There was a big swing from one ideology to another in 1932, and in 1980, in other words at the beginning of two political “revolutions,” but there was not in 1952, when the last revolution ended. That’s something for us to keep in mind when we set expectations for the next four or eight years.

(Source Link)

McCain/Palin - Fiscal "Hawks"

Palmetto Publius — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 19:14:14 GMT

One of the biggest positives we're told about the McCain/Palin ticket is how they'll be big spending reformers in Washington. Yet, if you take some time to see what they've actually done, the pieces of the puzzle don't quite fit.

One thing I caught at the last debate between Obama and McCain was McCain speaking about the national debt. He went on and on about the $10 trillion debt this country has incurred and how he intends to fight it. This was right before he discussed his plan to save the economy which would involve blowing another $300 billion, on top of the $700 billion we just threw away on Wall Street, to buy up peoples' bad mortgages. How fiscally responsible of him.

Then take a look at Palin's very mixed record:

Quote:

When Palin signed an operating budget this spring authorizing roughly $11 billion in spending � more than $16,000 for every man, woman and child in Alaska � she told state lawmakers she had three goals: "To slow the growth of government, live within our means and save for the future."

Palin vetoed more than $250 million in projects from the public works budget around the same time, the second consecutive year she angered legislators by cutting their pet capital projects.

Palin's record as a fiscal conservative has been mixed in the less than two years she's been in office.

_She authorized a $1,200 energy rebate for every Alaska resident on top of the $2,069 check they received this year from the state's annual oil royalty program.

_She raised oil production taxes on companies drilling in Alaska, but also offered $500 million in seed money to a company to start planning construction of a $30 billion natural gas pipeline from the North Slope.

_She has presided over lavish capital budgets but angered lawmakers with her veto pen.

_The operating budget she signed calls for a 28 percent spending increase, but it sets aside money to help pay for schools beyond next year and also socked away more than $1 billion for a rainy day.

AP

$11 billion budget for Alaska?? South Carolina's is only $7 billion and we have six times as many people! Let us also not forget the Bridge to Nowhere which she "voted for before she voted against."

The prognosis for this election is awful. The country is (*)(*)(*)(*)ed if it votes for Obama and it's (*)(*)(*)(*)ed if it votes for McCain. That is the reality. Regardless of who wins this election next month, the biggest losers are the American people.

Obama Wants to Impose Windfall Profits Tax on Oil Companies NOW

Louisiana-Oilman — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 19:12:01 GMT

What a stupid move. Our gas prices are falling and obama wants to pay for this stimulus package by imposing a Windfall Profits Tax on the oil companies - and guess who will pay for that? You will - every time you fill your gas tank, because the oil companies will pass the tax on to you!

Quote:
Democratic leaders are coordinating a potential lame-duck session with the Obama campaign, discussing an economic stimulus package of $100 billion to $150 billion.

Pelosi and Democratic leaders plan to unveil details at an economic forum tomorrow.

In the stimulus, Democrats are considering expansion of food stamps, extension of unemployment insurance, aid to states facing a budget crunch and billions in infrastructure spending for bridges and roads. The infrastructure spending in particular is designed to create jobs in bridge and road construction.

There is a fundamental difference, however, between Obama and Democratic leaders on one subject — how to pay for the stimulus. Democrats don't have a "pay-go" proposal, while Obama would pay for the stimulus with a windfall profits tax.

Also under debate is whether the stimulus would provide tax rebates or tax credits for individuals.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecry....html#comments

Key to world peace.

S.Jazzar — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 19:11:11 GMT

I personnally think that the cause of all problems in the world is the presence of Jewish strenght within all goverments.

Why Jews:
To begin with Israel is a state, a Jewish state, so it will be used in many of my examples.

It has commited atrocities against the Human kind beyond any "terrorist" organisation or country.
Palestine suffers from them each and every day, apart from that example the Israeli attack on Lebanon in 2006 almost caused a worldwide turmoil.
The IDF used wepons and missiles curently banned worldwide.
Plz go to this site for more explanation: http://abbc.net/jewish-photos/index.htm

The Jewish Lobbying forced the world to declare islamic "fanatiques" terrorists.
But when Al-Quaida bombs the WTC it is a terrorist act but when Americans kill thousands of innocent people each day by dropping missiles the size of your home in Iraq or Afganistan that is patriotism.

Radical Islamic groups are just defending themselves from the Jewish/American oppression. But since they are the only ones who form a true obstacle for world domination they are therefore called terrorists.

I can go on and on with these examples, but I leave you with this much.

My Letter to the Senate, pass it on.

timberpogo — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 19:04:50 GMT

Dear members of the House and the Senate of the United States of America-------

We as citizens are deeply disturbed about the recent economic meltdown in this country. The middle class (� the little people� as we are called by the obscenely rich by the likes of Leona Helmsley) are always left holding the �bags� or cleaning up the mess the CROOKS have created. I know this is not any news to you, but none of you have any plausible solutions to the problem that will really help us, � the little People!� You say the right things are to get re-elected to the office but none of you want to keep the promises that you make. Remember, and remember well that times are changing! The days of the middle class being the dumb sheep are over! We are realizing now how ignorant you are in your cozy situation thinking that you will be able to carry on as you always have. Since none of you have any idea how to solve the problem I am proposing one----none of you will like it because it takes backbone, moral courage, integrity and truthfulness of one�s self to carry on. But I will propose it to you anyway.

Confiscate those executives� assets. Freeze their accounts here and on the off shores and put the money back to the national treasury to offset the national debt. Redistribute what money they have stolen from our pension, retirement accounts and 401k accounts by returning it to us so WE can take care of our own future rather than the investment banks and insurance companies.

Put these crooks all to jail for life without parole AND without trial. THEY are guilty, we all know that, there is no need to have the farce of a trial to spend more money from the tax-payers. We have carried these fat-cats long enough and had to deprive our children, our grand children, and our elderly. These people have no conscience, no shame, no moral obligations to the country or its citizens. These people are just as guilty as the felons they criticize, sitting high above from their elite positions! These are crooks that are dragging the country down, making this great country a laughing stock of the world and are so stupid that they don�t realize that by their actions not only have they brought great national and economic disaster but also they have weakened the country! Those of you who have studied History know that � internal dissention and foreign aggression,� which we are facing now, is the recipe for total melt-down in every sector--- social, economic and political aspects of life in this country.

This letter does not come out of panic but I see the future trouble, as writing on the wall from inaction, ignorance, stupidity and selfishness. You members, if you do not work together for the common good then DO NOT call yourselves American, Patriots, or Champions for the people. You don�t deserve the respect, the loyalty of your people and of the World that you so covet.

Keya Banerjee
A concerned citizen and a patriot.

Please forward this letter with your name on it to the members of the House and the Senate----I sent mine.

BIDEN should be President...

CREEDnotGreedhaveFaith — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 18:52:05 GMT

Obama listen to BIDEN!!!

Conservative Government is best during these Troubled Times

Lopettaa — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 18:42:18 GMT

In 2006, the Liberal Party was in shambles because of a scandal they created for themselves. The Conservative government has been in for about two and a half years now and its record has been a good one.

Stephane Dion, stupid as he is, has made late campaign gains that polls suggest brought the two parties closer in this election.

I think it is the Conservatives who deserve to be reelected on Tuesday. Although I think a majority government would be better for Canada, it doesn't look like they will get it. We must credit the Conservative government for its prudence and constancy with Canada's finances. Because of this, Canada is not in the same economic disaster so many other countries are now facing around the world.

For The 10 Millionth Time

Nathan39 — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 18:39:52 GMT

There is no difference between Reps and Dems. They both tell you what you want to hear and take money from large companies.

If you want real change cancel the coming election and start from scratch.

ABNS is making up his own reasons to ban people.

frodly — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 18:34:23 GMT

In a thread, ABNS made a rule regarding mentioning the candidates. And did declared if people did it they would get banned. This seems like a major abuse of power. How can a mod arbitrarily decide to make something a bannable offense? Especially something as common as mentioning the presidential candidates. This is a political forum, and it is an election season. So not only is the rule stupid(which actually is irrelevant), but more importantly it is IMO a serious abuse of power. So can mods arbitrarily make up whatever rules they want? Then ban people when they break them?

http://www.politicalforum.com/politi...president.html

Do you think John McCain would be a WORST president than George Bush?

gregdavidson — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 18:32:01 GMT

So far Obama and Biden have done a pretty good job at associating John McCain with George Bush's policies. However, the argument that John McCain will be another George Bush may be giving him too much credit. Back when Bush was running for his "first term" in office I actually supported him because he seemed like a better candidate than Al Gore. Boy did he pull a blindfold over our eyes! But John McCain is ALREADY showing us erratic behavior and indecisiveness before he's even president. He can't make up his mind about why he's running and what he wants for this country. In fact, he's been "dividing" the country with these lies about Obama being a terrorist which most Republicans know isn't true. Something tells me that John McCain will be a far WORST president than George Bush. What do you think about this?

If a convicted felon tries to vote, what happens to their ballot?

gregdavidson — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 18:17:01 GMT

A buddy of mine is a convicted felon but still has his voter's card that he got prior to getting in trouble with the law. He claims that even though he's a felon he can still vote because his card was never taken away from. If he were to cast a ballot at the polls or send in an absentee ballot, would it still be counted as a vote? Or would the system figure out that he's not qualified to vote?

Anti Palin Thread

andy summers — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 18:08:16 GMT

Would like to see anything, ie. bumper stickers, tv spots, homemade junk, and gosh golly, just about anything shes been involved in that shows her true ignorance. And we all know there is a lot of it out there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwRnOHsRS48&feature...

This election proves racism is still alive and well in America

get over it — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 17:59:34 GMT

For many of those who've hidden their racist views, it's now time to let it all hang out.
Others will keep it hidden and show it only in the seclusion of the voting booth.

To think we've come a long way past the ugly day's in the country on this matter is now being shown to be a major falsehood.

Obama has done a fine job in staying above the nastiness McCain has allowed and Palin will continue. JMc knows he has to do damage control in a major way lest he sink completely out of competition in this campaighn, which is the only reason he's stepping up at all. But it will continue even as he put's up the facade, letting his surrogates do the dirtiest work, just like they, like Rick Davis did on FOX this morning while shouting over every sentence by David Axelrod to prevent an opposing word be heard.

America has to show it's better than this, and this election is the last chance.

Name One Case Of Voter Fraud Caused By ACORN

ObamaSuperStar — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 17:52:51 GMT

Lately, the GOP and it's follwers have a ideology that i would like to address. And that being the assertion that Obama will still the election via ACORN. Now is the time for the GOP members and conservative to point out to me one case of voter fraud that has occured at the hands of ACORN.

I would like to only use resources with credible sources, no blogs, right wing agenda sites, and certainly no ACORN imagingation sites. So let the games begin. Prove your case that Obama will still the election with Voter Fraud.

This election proves racism is still alive and well in America

get over it — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 17:38:12 GMT

Those who usually hide their racist views are now letting it all hang out.
Many others will show it in the voting booth.

To think we've come a long way past those and other pathetic ideas of ugly pages in this country's history, it's now being shown how deep in the woods of hatred way too many still are.

You've gotta hand it to Obama for keeping his head up and mostly out of the negative fray, and has shown himself and his supporters to be the better % of the two sides.

McCain on the other has had to do damage control and stifle the hatred from his supporters just to keep from sinking completely out of sight with no hope of even being competitive.

McCains Disrespectful Supporters.

Toby — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 17:34:56 GMT

Here is a link of crazy supporters that didnt make the news. Its funny that when Obama supporters are disrespectful it makes no news. but when you have a few McCain supporters that verbally disrespect Obama its all over the news. What gives? Check out the link!

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/12...y-insane-rage/

Palin Gives An Awesome Speech On Abortion. Slams Obama!

Toby — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 17:30:45 GMT

Palin Gives An Awesome Speech On Abortion.

YouTube - Sarah Palin attacking Obama on abortion

Its about time that Abortion was brought up from the McCain campaign. The debate moderators sure as hell isnt going to bring it up! I think everyone need to see Obama's atrotious record on Abortion.

Crazy Video About Obama's Citizenship.

Toby — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 17:18:55 GMT

Does this guy have a legitamit concern? Why hasent Obama released any of his college records? Why hasent Obama provided a birth cirtificait to these nuts allready? Is he just playing around with him? Why doesent Obama want to put this issue to rest?

YouTube - I Invented The Internet (Ep. 6: October...

Republicans For Obama

BlueBlog — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 17:10:13 GMT

Yes, you read the title correctly. It may come as a shock to some but not all republicans are like Sarah Palin or what John McCain has become. There are thinking republicans who care deeply about the war, the economy, the price of gas and Americas failed foreign policies. These republicans are concerned with the real issues that face all of us. They are disturbed with the mudslinging and lies that the McCain/Palin team spew. These republicans really do believe in country first.

Republican John Hutson for Obama

John Hutson, a retired US Navy Rear Admiral and New Hampshire resident, talks about his reasons for supporting Barack Obama for President.

Republicans for Obama website

Republicans for Obama is a grassroots organization of proud party members who all share one important trait� we are Americans first and Republicans second. (Even if it is a close second.) Founded in late 2006 as part of the nationwide effort to encourage Senator Obama to run for the Presidency, our volunteer-run, grassroots group now includes over 2200 registered members from across the nation.

Collectively, we have campaigned, worked for, and voted Republican all our lives, but recognize that our Country needs a new kind of leader at this time. While there will always be important issues on which thoughtful Americans will disagree, there are others that cannot be up for debate� our economic prosperity and our standing in the world.

Senator Obama has rejected the politics of division and the win-at-all-costs attitude that has hurt our ability to move forward as a nation. While we as Republicans will not always see eye to eye with a President Obama, we know that his politics of competency and unity will lead to a stronger America.

Why Obama
Fellow Republicans,

When deciding which candidate is best to now lead our nation, we ask that you consider supporting Senator Barack Obama. The U.S. faces serious challenges that are not being addressed by our political leaders. Elected officials of both sides have found it easier to appease their parties� fringes to win elections, and media companies choose to shock, amuse and divide us. In the meantime, the problems we face as a nation grow as they are passed on to future generations.

We need a leader who can lay the foundations of another American Century�someone who can get past our partisan and ideological divisions, as we strengthen our standing in the world and tackle the challenges we face at home. We need a leader who understands our differences, but who also knows the importance of finding common ground. While we continue to debate and address many issues on which we all have strong opinions�abortion, gay rights, the relationship between church and state, to name a few�we need a leader who can command the support needed to break our government�s paralysis and meet the growing challenges we face as a nation.

Senator Obama is the one candidate who can unite the American majority that wants to move forward and improve the long-term economic well-being and independence of our nation.

Republican for Obama at the Party’s Birthplace

©2008 BlueBloggin. All Rights Reserved.

.

(Source Link)

A Fairy Tale: If Israel agreed to recognize the State of Palestine

SeminalBlog — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 17:10:13 GMT

(originally posted at MWC News)

Recently I was asked by the German Else-Laker-Schueler-Gesellschaft, which commemorates the German-Jewish-Israeli poetess, to describe how peace would look like. On the eve of Yom Kippur, the day of reconciliation, I would like to distribute it instead of my weekly article.

A Fairy Tale

“If you want, it is no fairy tale!” Theodor Herzl, founder of Zionism

“You don’t want? Forget it!” Hebrew graffiti with Herzl’s picture in Tel Aviv

SEPTEMBER 10, 2015.

It has happened.

In a solemn ceremony, on a stage bedecked with Israeli and Palestinian flags, the peace treaty between Israel and Palestine has been signed.

Negotiations did not take long. The essential elements of the treaty had been known for a long time. The document held no real surprises.

Israel agreed to recognize the State of Palestine. The border between the two states was based on the so-called Green Line (the pre-1967 line), but both parties agreed on a limited exchange of territory. About 5% of the West Bank, including several “settlement blocs”, were joined to Israel, in exchange for an equivalent area alongside the Gaza Strip. Both sides expressed the wish to keep the border open for the movement of people and goods.

In Jerusalem, the Arab neighborhoods, including al-Haram al-Sharif (the Temple Mount) became part of Palestine, while Jewish neighborhoods and the Western Wall stayed in Israel. The two halves of Jerusalem remained physically united under a joint municipal authority, with equal representation.

Israel agreed to remove all settlements from the territory of Palestine.

On the refugee problem, a complex solution was found. A Committee of Truth and Reconciliation (CTR) was set up to investigate the events of 1948 and 1967 which led to the displacement of the refugees. Both sides agreed to abide by its findings. The CTR was composed of respected Israeli, Palestinian and international historians.

Israel recognized in principle the Right of Return, but both sides agreed that only a limited and mutually agreed-upon number would be enabled to return to Israeli territory, while all the others would be compensated and settled in the State of Palestine or elsewhere, according to their wishes, with international assistance.

Another committee was appointed to see to a just distribution of the water resources, and especially to the large-scale desalination of sea water, with international help, for the benefit of both sides.

After the Presidents of Israel and Palestine shook hands, all present shared in a minute of silence, in memory of all those who died in the generations-old conflict.

The secretary of the Arab League declared the treaty to be in conformity with the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002, and confirmed that all member states of the League would establish normal relations with Israel.

THE HISTORIC event was preceded by far-reaching changes on both sides.

After a long and painful rift, the new Palestinian President had succeeded in uniting the warring Palestinian factions in a rejuvenated PLO and a Provisional Government of Palestine. After some recriminations, both Hamas and Fatah supported the treaty.

In Israel, a charismatic new leader, who enjoyed much public respect, had succeeded in alerting public opinion to the dangers of the ongoing state of war in a region full of missiles and weapons of mass destruction. His new party, which attracted not only leaders and members from all the discredited old parties, but also a whole generation of young people who entered politics to bring about a change, had won a resounding election victory. The peace movement, which had long been dormant, played a major role in this upheaval.

When the two new Presidents shook hands, the whole world heaved a sigh of relief.

BUT THE signing of the document by the politicians was only the beginning of the struggle. As everybody knew, a decisive confrontation between the Israeli government and the settlers was looming.

The settlers and their allies had spent years preparing for this test. Supported by major elements of the army and the various ministries, they had access to large resources of arms and money. Many of them were determined to wage a civil war, if it came to it.

However, when the clash came, it was much less dramatic than had been feared. As agreed with the Palestinians, the settlers were allowed a year to leave voluntarily in return for very generous compensation. After initial hesitation, about half of the settlers accepted the offer and actually left the occupied territories. The rest were demoralized by the solid support of the great majority of the Israeli public for the peace treaty.

In the end, actual fighting was sporadic. In the hour of crisis, Israeli democracy stood the test and the army remained solidly loyal to the government, despite the efforts the settlers had been making for years to infiltrate the officers’ corps.

THE COMPARATIVE ease with which both governments overcame the often violent opposition in their respective countries was also due to the active support of the international community.

Many commentators doubted whether the peace treaty would have been possible without the profound change of US policy in the Middle East. After the 2012 elections, the President announced that America’s basic interests demanded an even-handed approach in order to overcome the hatred millions of Muslims felt for America. “We shall support both Israel and Palestine in their valiant quest for peace,” he declared. The pro-Israel lobby did not dare oppose this, sensing the fundamental change in American public opinion and fearing an anti-Semitic backlash.

Europe followed suit, as always.

IN ISRAEL, the public was quick to realize the practical benefits of peace. New joint Israeli-Arab ventures attracted large foreign investments. Following the earlier peace treaty with Syria, Israeli entrepreneurs were already busy in Damascus, making lucrative deals in a Syrian economy that was springing to new life. The Syrians, by the way, allowed the Israeli wine industry on the Golan Heights to continue operating. “Let’s go and eat Hummus in Damascus” became an Israeli slogan. And indeed, Israelis crowded the famous bazaars of that ancient city, turning the trip to the Syrian capital into an exciting experience.

While Arab businessmen were filling the hotels in Tel Aviv, looking for joint ventures, their Israeli counterparts were flocking to Riyadh, Baghdad, Doha and Dubai. Stories of their successes filled the television news programs and eclipsed the sight of settlers trying to repeat the scenes of the Gaza “disengagement” ten years earlier.

Owing to their position between Israel and the Arab world, Palestinians became sought-after middlemen. Former inmates of Israeli prisons, speaking excellent Hebrew, were especially successful in creating business connections. So were Arab citizens of Israel, with their intimate knowledge of Israeli political and economic processes. Their standard of living rose steeply to about that of Jewish Israelis. Their birthrate fell, as is usual with increased prosperity.

In this atmosphere, the return of several thousand Palestinian refugees to Israel passed almost without comment. Since the rapid growth of the Israeli economy had attracted many Jews from abroad, the “demographic balance” hardly changed.

Politicians and economists on both sides started to raise the idea of a “Middle Eastern Union”, a political, economic and security organization on the lines of the European Union. Others were talking of a confederation of Israel, Palestine and Jordan, perhaps also including Lebanon, where Hizbullah was by now a well established government party.

THE ISRAELI army remained a powerful instrument for protecting the state. But as in the US and Western Europe, the best and the brightest were drawn to high-tech, science and business. Soon the old conflict was seen as a thing of the past.

In the end, the old adage that “peace is not made between governments but between peoples” was prove once more. Human relations, economic interests and the passage of time completed the process that started with the formal peace treaty.

by Uri Avnery

(Source Link)

Spread of Democracy

Solutionone — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 16:46:31 GMT

On a personal level, I think the country isn't ready for a stable democracy, regardless of how many billions we pump into it.

But I want to know how the PF community feels about the U.S.'s recent efforts to establish a democracy in Iraq and our condemnation of other Governmental systems.

1. Is one Governmental system better than the others? Which one? Why?
2. Can a peaceful democracy exist in the Middle east?
3. Is it undemocratic to impose democracy?

Thanks.

You cannot talk about Obama�s friends without being a racist

Neoduck — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 16:35:42 GMT

So, we have Harry Reid Implying that you cannot talk about Franklin Raines without being a raciest.

Link- http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=192383

Now we have Democrat John Lewis of Georgia saying McCain talking like segregationist Gov. George Wallace

Link- http://news.aol.com/elections/articl...607x1200677416

It seams like as soon as you bring up people who Obama associates with you are logically a racist or someone who he trying to play up racist feelings

give me a break

How the Right Twists Large Facts and Bends Small Minds

Glinda — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 16:35:41 GMT

Recently, we were treated to a lovely thread by a member of our little PF community, regarding watermelon sales. In that thread, the OP stated that some unidentified *someone* was sending out letters in the Louisiana area indicating that, should Senator Obama become president, watermelon farmers would benefit because black people love watermelon.

This is, of course, a big pile of racist fly-blown doggie poo, but I did a little looking around and found the actual facts, which Surprise! have nothing to do with Senator Obama OR black people.

Seems that watermelon is high in a certain amino acid that may help make men's pee-pees hard.

Quote:

Watermelon: A Natural Viagra?
Researcher Says Popular Summer Fruit May Have Viagra-Like Effect on Blood Vessels

July 1, 2008 -- Men hoping for some fireworks in their love life this Fourth of July may want to skip the burgers and beer at the barbecue and eat plenty of watermelon.

Watermelon may be a natural Viagra, says a researcher. That's because the popular summer fruit is richer than experts believed in an amino acid called citrulline, which relaxes and dilates blood vessels much like Viagra and other drugs meant to treat erectile dysfunction (ED).

"We have known that watermelon has citrulline," says Bhimu Patil, PHD, director of the Fruit and Vegetable Improvement Center at Texas A&M University, College Station. Until recently, he tells WebMD, scientists thought most of the citrulline was in the watermelon rind. "Watermelon has more citrulline in the edible part than previously believed," he says.

How could watermelon be a natural Viagra? The amino acid citrulline is converted into the amino acid arginine, Patil says. "This is a precursor for nitric oxide, and the nitric oxide will help in blood vessel dilation." --WebMD Health News

In light of this news, it's an actual possibility that the price of watermelon will rise, given the obsession men have with keeping their pee-pees hard. BUT.... how Senator Obama fits into the story is a bit harder to discern.

Now, our Louisiana friend who called our attention to this matter could possibly be lying about the existence of such a letter - I was unable to find any evidence online about this and the news outlets are certainly not reporting such nuttery.

Or, our friend could have completely misread/misunderstood/misinterpreted the letter - a distinct possibility.

But I think by far the most plausible possibility here is that this racist letter was created and disseminated by sick and twisted conservatives/republicans hoping to further bend the small minds of those who read it.

Comments?

Obama`s education plan exposed, plunders hard working people.

johnwk — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 16:05:52 GMT

The following article provides a good clue as to who wins under Obama’s education plan.

NEA President to recommend Obama

Quote:

Obama's education plan calls for: (1) full funding for educational programs from birth to 5 years old; (2) increasing the number of teachers through scholarships and incentive grants for taking challenging assignments; (3) prioritizing math and science education; and (4) focusing on parental responsibility in education.

Now why would the president of the NEA’s 3.2 million member organization support Obama when the federal government has no authority to tax for, finance, or meddle in the public school systems established under state constitutions? Because Obama promises to expand the federal Department of Education even though hard working families living in Harlem will be taxed to finance Obama’s proposed expansion.

The irrefutable fact is Obama’s education plan requires the misappropriation of federal revenue for a function not authorized by our federal Constitution!

Let us look at the facts.

The People of Maryland delegated the power for a state funded and regulated educational system to their state elected officials, and not to the Congress of the United States sitting in Washington --- the wording being as follows:

Quote:

“The General Assembly, at its First Session after the adoption of this Constitution, shall by Law establish throughout the State a thorough and efficient System of Free Public Schools; and shall provide by taxation, or otherwise, for their maintenance.”

The Maryland Constitutional also states, in emphatic terms:

Quote:

“the People of this State have the sole and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police thereof, as a free, sovereign and independent State.”

Under Art. 3 of Maryland’s Constitution, the command is for local regulation and funding of education as opposed to a federally funded and regulated public school system.

The Maryland Constitution also states:

Quote:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution thereof, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people thereof.”

This very provision of Maryland’s Declaration of Rights is also agreed to by the People of the United States by their ratification of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States!

So why do we have a federal Department of Education which Obama wants to expand, when it is not authorized by our written Constitution? Because our federal government personifies a living creature, a predator: it grows, it multiplies, it protects itself, and feeds on those it can defeat, and does everything to expand and flourish, even at the expense of creating federal tax slaves living in Harlem, who will have their paychecks confiscated by Obama to finance the personal economic needs of his 5000 foot soldier army employed at the federal Department of Education! Keep in mind this foot soldier army is out there as we speak working to get Obama elected!

See: Teachers support Obama in Classroom

SEE: 'Indoctrinated' children ushered into Obama-ism

And Then see: Virginia teacher's group turns red over call to wear blue

And how will Obama’s foot soldier army do financially at the federal Department of Education?

FEDERAL EMPLOYEE OVERVIEW

Quote:

Are you considering a government job? The federal government employs more than 2,700,000 workers and hires hundreds of thousands each year to replace civil service workers that transfer to other federal government jobs, retire, or leave for other reasons. Average annual salary for full-time federal government jobs exceeds $67,000. The U.S. Government is the largest employer in the United States, hiring about 2.0 percent of the nation's work force. Federal government jobs can be found in every state and large metropolitan area, including overseas in over 200 countries. The average annual federal workers compensation, pay plus benefits, is $106,871 compared to just $53,288 for the private sector according to the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Now wait a second, a hard working family’s average annual wage amounts to about 53 K? Why are they earning less than those they employee?

In addition, here are other federal employee ``benefits`` which a hard working father living in Harlem will be gouged to finance under Obama‘s plan:

Life insurance plan___ our father in Harlem gets to pay 1/3 of a government workers federal life insurance plan.

Federal Employees Dental & Vision Program is a full coverage plan and federal employees get to use pre-tax dollars to pay for their vision and dental premiums while our family in Harlem is forced to use after taxed dollars to fund their Dental & Vision plan.

Under the federal employee retirement system, there is a tax-deferred savings plan known as the ``Thrift Savings Plan``. Under this plan, federal workers may contribute up to 10% of their salaries to the plan, with our hard working father living in Harlem being taxed to match up to 5% of a federal employee’s contribution.

Also, under the Civilian Service Retirement System a federal employee contributes 7% of their paycheck to retirement while our family living in Harlem is forced to match that 7 % out of their paychecks.

And, with reference to health insurance, which is in addition to the above mentioned dental and vision plan, see Federal Employees to See Moderate Rise in Health Insurance Premiums

Quote:

Health insurance premiums for federal employees and retirees will increase by an average of 2.1 percent next year, the Office of Personnel Management announced this afternoon.

Cut------

The federal program will offer 283 plans next year and will provide insurance coverage to about 8 million Americans: civil service and postal workers, retirees, and family members. The government picks up about 70 percent of premium costs in its role as employer.

What the writer meant to say is, our hard working family living in Harlem who can barely meet their own health care needs, will get to pick up about 70 percent of the premium costs to provide health care to Obama’s foot soldier army at the federal Department of Education if he gets elected.

The bottom line is, the Washington Establishment and its political plum job empire will win under the Obama plan, and our hard working father living in Harlem will be enslaved to pay the bills.

JWK

If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon a federal government check, we can then buy their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s working population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Obama’s game plan, a plan to establish a federal plantation on American soil.

ISLAM=THE BEAST Insane Suicide Lust and Murder

CREEDnotGreedhaveFaith — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 16:05:11 GMT

Suicide bombers! in the name of Satan lust because they rape and murder...
cause they do murder their own people and even non believers in the koran

koran=satan...

F satan

prepare the SWORDS prepare the Crossbows

nato stay out of this...

CHRISTANITY VS ISLAM

ARE YOU READY!!!

LETS GO TO WAR!

Evil Opec hates AMERICA

CREEDnotGreedhaveFaith — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 16:00:10 GMT

the reason for all the high gas prices throughout the years we need hybrids
F opec! Fu opec!

China reforming

WanRen — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 15:34:38 GMT

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7665907.stm

China agrees land reform package

Quote:

China's Communist Party leaders have agreed a package of rural reforms that could shape the country's economic policy over the coming years.

A four-day enclave including President Hu Jintao had approved "major issues" on reform, Xinhua news agency said.

No details were given but it is thought farmers will now have more power to transfer or rent out their land.

Leaders have said they want to lift the income of China's 740m rural population to boost growth and ease social unrest.

"The Communist Party of China Central Committee on Sunday approved a decision on major issues concerning rural reform and development," Xinhua said.

China for the past decades have been making serious changes mix matching between socialism and capitalism. The land reform reported is a model after that of KMT when the KMT retreated to Taiwan, the KMT first program was land reform the land reform carried out by the KMT was radical in a short period of time from 1953 -1960 it greatly reform and uplifted the living condition of Taiwan and was instrumental in changing Taiwan into a rich nation.

Important Message from Phil Berg on Obama

Louisiana-Oilman — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 15:31:37 GMT

Just recieved this:

Phil Berg here:

Please watch the following that is a video of me at Independence Hall, Philadelphia discussing the case of Berg vs. Obama, my allegations that Obama does not have the "qualifications" to be President.

YouTube - I Invented The Internet (Ep. 6: October...

Subprime scapegoats

catmando — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:46:42 GMT

Regulation was NOT the problem; greedy bankers were the problem.

Published on Saturday, October 11, 2008 by the Boston Globe
Subprime Scapegoats

Boston Globe Editorial

AMID A GLOBAL financial crisis that began with unsustainable loans to people with bad credit, it was only a matter of time before apologists for Wall Street excesses would try to pin the blame on the poor - and on government policies meant to help them.

Sure enough, the Community Reinvestment Act has emerged in recent weeks as a favorite target of conservatives and others who oppose any government intervention in the market, for it requires banks to lend in neighborhoods they might otherwise avoid.

And yet the Community Reinvestment Act has nothing whatsoever to do with the subprime mess.

The law applies specifically to commercial banks, which in recent months have been the least volatile part of the financial-services industry. The measure was passed in 1977 to combat redlining, the practice of banks refusing to write mortgages in poor neighborhoods - even when they were taking deposits from residents of those neighborhoods.

To meet Community Reinvestment Act requirements, banks do make loans to low-income homebuyers - often in concert with community groups that provide financial advice and other crucial training. While banks at first had to be "dragged into participating," said Tom Callahan, executive director of the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance, loans made under the auspices of the reinvestment law have performed remarkably well. One key initiative of this sort, the state's SoftSecond mortgage program, has a delinquency rate of 1.8 percent - compared with about 5 percent for all mortgages in Massachusetts.

The subprime mortgages that have failed left and right are the antithesis of the carefully designed, well-supervised loans provided by tightly regulated banks. No law forced a mob of unregulated lenders to make loans in poor neighborhoods. Rather, mortgage companies and Wall Street financiers saw a business opportunity in subprime lending, where the risk of default was high but so were the interest rates.

Never mind that subprime mortgages were once considered as disreputable a business as check-cashing stores and payday loans; big-time investors took a keen interest once the potential rewards became clear. When financial firms began buying up and bundling mortgages, redividing them into securities, and selling them off, individual brokers had no incentive to make sure any given mortgage would be sustainable if housing prices fell.

Far from being forced to write new loans, brokers competed to sell home mortgages to lower-income customers. Nadine Cohen, a senior attorney in the consumer unit of Greater Boston Legal Services, has a client who had been living in public housing in Cambridge for $350 a month - before getting a $500,000 home loan.

In that case, as in so many of today's mortgage horror stories, the lender wasn't a traditional bank. According to Callahan, 98.4 percent of the subprime mortgages in Massachusetts in 2006 were made by lenders whose operations in the state are not subject to the Community Reinvestment Act.

To be sure, the act isn't the only vehicle by which government officials have sought to influence lending behavior. President Clinton and his Housing and Urban Development secretary, Henry Cisneros, did seek to raise homeownership rates among low-income and minority buyers. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government-chartered mortgage wholesalers whose practices were closely watched within the lending industry, did face political pressure to ease their lending standards.

But those were hardly the only factors behind lax lending standards. There was enormous pressure within the marketplace. As The New York Times recently reported, Fannie Mae was losing business because of competition from Wall Street and elsewhere, and mortgage lenders and Fannie Mae's own shareholders were pushing the firm to dive deep into the subprime loan business.

The subsequent meltdown of the nation's entire financial system could not have happened without a huge - and entirely voluntary - inflow of money from Wall Street into a sketchy sector of the mortgage market. Nobody forced investment firms to wager billions of dollars directly on these loans, or to build an elaborate web of complex financial transactions dependent upon their continued performance. But they did.

The recent animosity over the Community Reinvestment Act, in short, simply can't be explained by the facts. Among the law's critics, there's more than a whiff of social Darwinism - the certainty that only a government policy aimed at helping losers could lead the whiz kids of Wall Street so far astray. Hogwash. The current financial crisis grows out of loose regulation that gave big investors plenty of freedom to make foolish bets, and then force their losses upon the taxpayers.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/10/11-5

McCain's Bungling Foriegn Policy Costs Real Lives

alexg — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:43:41 GMT

John McCain has said that he'd be willing to extend the war in Iraq for a hundred years. He also said we'd be welcomed as liberators and that the war would be short and cheap.

So much for Sen. McCain's "foriegn policy credentials". Even those who suffered most under Sadaam Hussein would prefer Sadaam's rule to the nightmare that's been their lives since the US invaded.

Quote:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) visited the Roosevelt yesterday and shouted, "Next up: Baghdad!" from the carrier's bridge.

McCain has been pushing the administration to make Iraq and its dictator, Saddam Hussein, the next targets in the war on terrorism.

Pentagon officials and Powell have cautioned against focusing on Baghdad, but McCain said yesterday that Iraq poses "a clear and present danger" to the U.S.
-- January 10, 2002
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/07/john-mccain-on.html

Quote:

DUJAIL, Iraq (Reuters) - Saddam Hussein was hanged for killing 148 Shi'ite men and boys in Dujail in 1982. But today, some people in this town on the Tigris say they miss life under the Iraqi dictator because they felt more secure.

Even some of those from Dujail whose family members were murdered and imprisoned during Saddam's iron-fisted rule seemed seduced by the idea of a strong leader after years of chaos, bloodshed and deprivation since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

"If someone like Saddam came back, I'd not only support him, I'd invite him to dinner. My uncle was killed in 1982 in the Dujail incident. Still, life then was a million times better than now," said Saad Mukhlif, a Shi'ite.

Nostalgia for Saddam and his Sunni-led government in this largely Shi'ite town mirrors a country-wide sense of frustration despite a drop in attacks and killings.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081012/...us_iraq_dujail

Quote:

Senator John McCain, the Republican from Arizona who contested Mr. Bush for the nomination in 2000, made a point of saying today on Capitol Hill: ''I am very certain that this military engagement will not be very difficult. It may entail the risk of American lives and treasure, but Saddam Hussein is vastly weaker than he was in 1991.''
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/07/john-mccain-on.html

Quote:

U.S. Confirmed Deaths
Reported Deaths: 4181
Confirmed Deaths: 4179
Pending Confirmation: 2
DoD Confirmation List

Bob Barr

CREEDnotGreedhaveFaith — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:40:34 GMT

likes the Beatles, the Beach Boys, George Washington...

Obama has something to tell you.

Mindovermatter — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:39:43 GMT

I'm going to have fun as President!!

:laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing: This character goes from saying "you must know what your doing" to "believe in me ye who are burdened, I will give you rest"

John McCain Ain't No Maverick

Doc Bunkum — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:32:06 GMT

We all know McCain and his sidekick like to call themselves mavericks and get all mavericky when they�re on stage together, but there�s somebody that doesn�t take too kindly to them referring to themselves as mavericks.

That would be Terrellita Maverick, 82, a San Antonio native who proudly carries the name of a family that has been known for its progressive politics since the 1600s,

�I�m just enraged that McCain calls himself a maverick,� she said in an interview recently.

A little history�

In the 1800s, Samuel Augustus Maverick went to Texas and became known for not branding his cattle. He was more interested in keeping track of the land he owned than the livestock on it. Unbranded cattle, then, were called �Maverick�s.� The name came to mean anyone who didn�t bear another�s brand.

Sam Maverick�s grandson, Fontaine Maury Maverick, was a two-term congressman and a mayor of San Antonio.

This Maverick�s son, Maury Jr., was a firebrand civil libertarian and lawyer who defended draft resisters, atheists and others scorned by society. He served in the Texas Legislature during the McCarthy era and wrote fiery columns for The San Antonio Express-News. His final column, published on Feb. 2, 2003, just after he died at 82, was an attack on the coming war in Iraq.

Considering the family�s long history of association with liberalism and progressive ideals, it should come as no surprise that Ms. Maverick insists that John McCain, who has voted so often with his party, �is in no way a maverick, in uppercase or lowercase.�

�It�s just incredible � the nerve! � to suggest that he�s not part of that Republican herd. Every time we hear it, all my children and I and all my family shrink a little and say, �Oh, my God, he said it again.� �

�He�s a Republican,� she said. �He�s branded.�

McCain's dubius associations

siddhartha — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:31:58 GMT

The far right throws out Ayers and Rev. Wright.
Let's look at who John McCain pals around with, shall we?

Charles Keating
John Singlaub
Ali Jawad
Richard Quinn
John Hagee
Jack Abramhoff
Phil Graham
Insert your favorite lobbyist
Joe Banano
Grover Norquist
Terry Nelson
James Dobson
Rev. Parsley
George W. Bush

I bet the World is sick...of...

CREEDnotGreedhaveFaith — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:30:22 GMT

of having bases for many years Let them fight their own wars
let them build democracy and learn from our Constitution but...
give them a pamplet and leave let them learn and form their own...
similiar...

stop playing sheriff to the entire World...

ABC Refuses to Run Right to Life Ad That Attacks Obama

Toby — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:30:09 GMT

ABC Refuses to Run Right to Life Ad That Attacks Obama

More silencing of the Obama critics... http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...UwZWNkYjk4ZGM=

ABC television network is refusing to run an ad by a pro-life group that attacks Obama on his pro-abortion and infanticide voting record.

Pro-Life groups have been very hard on Obama this year for his 4 votes in support of infanticide:

YouTube - BornAliveTruth.org Gianna ad

The fact that Obama supported such a barbaric practice is something the media wants to keep a lid on.
LifeNews.com reported: http://www.lifenews.com/nat4432.html

Quote:

The ABC television network is coming under fire from a leading pro-life group for censoring a political radio ad http://www.lifenews.com/nat4427.html that criticizes Barack Obama's pro-abortion voting record. National Right to Life hoped to run the ad during the nationally syndicated Sean Hannity radio program.

The ad asks Obama when he will apologize for calling the group "liars" for pointing out how he misrepresented his votes in the Illinois legislature against bills that would require medical care for babies who survive failed abortions.

Two nonpartisan groups, FactCheck.org http://www.lifenews.com/nat4206.html and PolitiFact.com http://www.lifenews.com/nat4428.html have verified NRLC's claims as true -- leading the pro-life group to produce the ad.

On Friday, NRLC received notice from ABC Radio Network that it would not air the ad during Hannity's radio program.

In an email to National Right to Life, ABC Radio Network executives claimed the ad, "while supporting aspects of a Pro-Life position, weighs more heavily toward electioneering."

However, the ad is paid for by the NRLC political action committee, which is allowed to do "electioneering" under federal law.

"ABC's rejection smacks of being a politically motivated gag order," NRLC communications director Derrick Jones told LifeNews.com. "It seems that the pro-Obama leanings of the mainstream media have overflowed into their sales departments as well. To reject a political action committee's ad because they think it is too political, borders on the absurd."

FOX NEWS� Subliminal McCain Support UNCOVERED!

Doc Bunkum — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:04:02 GMT

In a closely analysed Fox News Video Lead-In� frame-by-frame analysis uncovers reveals �subliminal� evidence that it outwardly supports Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain.

Watch the evidence, judge for yourself...

Who's That Hiding In My Fox 5 News Logo?

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

Tax and Spend or just Charge it!!!

alexg — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 13:58:10 GMT

One of the continuing attacks on Barack Obama has been the charge that he will raise your taxes. In fact Obama has only proposed allowing the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans to expire, which will result in a change in their tax rate from 35% back to 39% and increase of 4%. While lowering taxes on working Americans.

Conversely McCain promises to lower your taxes but he doesn't say how. But he does promise to make the tax cuts for the wealthy permanent. As well as lower taxes on capital gains and eliminate the estate taxes on America's richest families.

Really?? Aren't taxes a product of spending? Well, no. Ronald Reagan pretty much invented the philosophy that you can spend big time AND cut taxes by increasing the national debt. Think of it as a head of household who decides to cut back on his hours at work, while buying an expensive new car and putting the deficit on his credit card. Sound stupid? It is. It's what George H. W. Bush (the current President's father) called voodoo economics.

In 2007 the INTEREST on our nations debt was $427 billion PER YEAR. Wow, you could fund a lot of education or health care or tax cuts or wars for $427 billion a year. For comparison that's the cost of about 5 simultaneous Iraq wars.

When Bill Clinton took office one of the areas where he and both parties in congress focused was on working to balance the budget and they were able to leave George Bush with a $100+ billion surplus.

John McCain promises to cut taxes but he has recently proposed at least one new spending programs that will dramatically increase the national debt, a proposal to increase the amount of the financial bailout package by $300 billion. His campaign later amended his comments to say that his proposal would use money already allocated as part of the $700 billion package.

So to Sen. McCain I say, if you're going to cut taxes that's fine, but I'm not buying it until you can tell me how you're going to fund these tax cuts.

And please don't say earmarks, we're not stupid. That's a drop in the bucket of government spending.

Surprise!... Obama Was Affiliated With National Socialist Party In The 1990's

Toby — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 13:57:25 GMT

Surprise!... Obama Was Affiliated With National Socialist Party Throughout Most of the 1990's!

No Quarters http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/10...-radical-past/ has the latest on America's most liberal senator. http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/ Obama's ties with Marxists are more extensive than previously reported:

from the Democratic Socialists of America website

Quote:

Barack Obama was an active participant in the 1990s, and a direct political beneficiary, of the Chicago New Party and, importantly, the Chicago DSA, a group of socialists affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America. http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html

The connections are extensively documented by Matthew Weaver. http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/10...-radical-past/

Of course, Obama has a long history of relationships with Marxists. His first mentor http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/20...st-mentor.html in high school was noted Communist Frank Marshall Davis. He admitted he attended socialist conferences during his college years in his first book, "Dreams From My Father", page 122: http://www.khow.com/pages/caplisreport.html

Quote:

"Political discussions, the kind that at Occidental had once seemed so intense and purposeful, came to take on the flavor of the socialist conferences that I sometimes attended at Cooper Union or the African cultural fairs that took place in Harlem or Brooklyn during the summers-a few of the many diversions that New York had to offer, like going to a foreign film or ice-skating at the Rockefeller Center."

Obama also wrote that he selected his friends carefully, the more Marxist and radical the better, page 100: http://www.khow.com/pages/caplisreport.html

"

Quote:

To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist Professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets."

Politically Drunk on Power has more on Obama's socialist recent past. http://politicallydrunk.blogspot.com...obama-was.html

Thomas Lifson at American Thinker describes Obama as a man groomed by an older generation of radical leftists for insertion into the American political process. That's frightening! http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...was_a_new.html

Obama signed up with the Marxists in 1995. http://directorblue.blogspot.com/200...d-up-with.html

Here is proof-- a screen grab from the Marxist web page promoting candidate Barack Obama in 1996: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../10/021724.php