THERE YOU HAVE MY COMMENT. HAVE ANYTHING AGAINST IT, POST BACK. I'LL TAKE ON ANY CHANLLENGE AND HAVE ANY IGNORANT OPPOSITION CRAWLING. I JUST HOPE BETANEWS KEEP MY COMMENT UP. ALOT OF COMPANIES AND CORPORATIONS HATE TO HAVE ANY TRUTH IN THEIR INVIRONMENT. SOME AGREE WITH MY VIEWS BUT FEAR TO GET IN TROUBLE BY THEIR BOSSES OR EVEN LOSE THEIR JOBS. HOW SAD. IF THE PEOPLE ON CNN, FOXNEWS, MSNBC, ETC. WERE ONLY UP FOR THE PEOPLE, THIS WORLD WOULD BE EQUALIZED OVER NIGHT. UNFORTUNATELY, THE SAME PEOPLE WHO RUN YOUR GOVERNMENT "OWN" THE DARN MEDIA! IT'S SAD YOU CAN'T EVEN WATCH THE NEWS TO GET ACCURATE INFORMATION.

How about this argument, DONT USE ALL CAPS!

ir33
you need to listen to Mark Levin on XM166 weeknights at 6:00 You'll learn something.. If your not scared to, listen a few nights.
Wake Up America!

ir33d
Have you been asleep for the last century...? Your past the point of no return... In fact, your past the point of common sense....
Bye...

Hard darn proof of what's about to come our way. How ignorant we people have become? Besides the fact that 9/11 was an "inside job" (meaning that any laws/bills passed based on the even were out of corruption), Obama - just like Hilary and McCain - is nothing more than a mere puppet in this game. Oh how I wish Ron Paul would have stuck around a little longer for people to see the truth!

I guess it IS true that the people with more money and hidden agendas make it into office with no problems. Those of you who don't research and are ignorant of the truth of what's happening in this world will laugh today but live in regret tomorrow.

Us Americans have been "dumbed down" to the minimum. Today we wake up in huge homes with nice jobs and a "good life". Tomorrow, we will be delivered our daily meals through the bars of our windows, all in the name of "sucuring us from non-existant terrorists", and swearing to GOD ALMIGHT we are still free.

All of these politics, left and right wing, democrat/republican cover-ups are just there to mislead you. Today, you really don't have much of a say so in what decisions are made in the govenment. President George Bush proved this several times. People! This game is being played in slow motion, which makes it hard to see how they take our freedoms and then never give them back. They do it slowly so that it will be hard for you to see.

Wake up and do your research. Don't take my word for anything because it is only information; make of it what you will. President Kennedy was the last go0d president we have had in so long. He tried to change things to protect YOUR freedom and was killed by the same people you suck up to like babies. We have been given yet another opportunity to stop this corruption and have just about blew it. Do the research people. The vast majority of people in this country vote out of ignorance. For example, most black people vote for Obama because of his race. I'm black myself, but FAR from ignorant. Don't vote because someone LOOK like they should be president or say they are going to support the war a protect us. LOL, that funny because the only reason the war started was because of 9/11, and you now know it was done by your GOVERNMENT! So why continue a pointless war. Why continue taking freedoms for NO REASON.

They create these problems (9/11), we react to them ("oh government, do WHATEVER it takes to protect us from these evil terrorists"), then they give the solution to the problem THEY created (taking our freedoms 1 by 1.) In a few years, you wont have the internet (which is the only way to get the truth outo) to save yourselves. They are putting cameras on every street (to catch terrorists that don't exist), which is really to spy on you and there's alot more to it that I wont go into detail about. The fourth amemdment is pretty much done with, and they are working on finishing IT off and the 1st.

Go to youtube and watch the following:
Zeitgeist
alex jones endgame
loose change final cut
9/11 chronicles
..and many more.. you will be automatically linked to more videos of importance when you begin to watch any of these (you know how youtube works already).

vacinity@inbox.com

Besides the fact that 9/11 was an "inside job"

...and with "facts" like that, who needs wild-ass paranoid speculation?

That's pretty much where we all stopped reading. Have a great day!

"That's pretty much where we all stopped reading."

How did you know? :)

In that case you would have missed this gem.. "Oh how I wish Ron Paul would have stuck around a little longer for people to see the truth!"

Finally...

A comment worthy of whipping out the:

EPIC FACEPALM!!!!111oneone

Centrist attitudes win elections:

This is definitely a Centrist move on Barak's part. Good. It shows that he truly supports the ENTIRE electorate, rather than the narrow far-left side of the electorate. Why anyone should attempt to KEEP him from gaining the Whitehouse away from the narrow, far-right electorate is a big mystery.

ONLY a CENTRIST government can ever hope to undo all the far right's anti-constitutional excesses in a single Presidential term of office.

Let's stop fighting, folks: BOTH sides of the aisle were complicit in Mr. Bush's anti-constitutional coup carried out in 2001. It is irrelevant that the Left side of the aisle were led astray by Mr. Bush's smooth-soundiing words about the necessity to jump right into the fray, and destroy the "Axis of Evil" (at a cost to date of a mininimum of 900 Billions of our dollars).

What IS relevant is the swift return of our basic Constitutional rights. If becoming more centrist will help to attain that noble goal, I say, "We can CHANGE the world! So let's stop our incessant fighting and just DO IT!".

I am completely ashamed of you people!!! Stop your fighting, and HELP us get our Country back from the Far Right!!!

Donald L McDaniel

LOL!

You are easily impressed by symbolism over substance.

Please cite one vote and substantial actionable step by Obama to further any centrist program or policy of the center as opposed to the left.
Voting "present" doesn't quite count.

GS5 Thank your Dem's for the price increase and those tree huggers. Without supply, the price skyrockets and we've been hog tied at doing anything to improve our oil supply by these left wing environmentalists. they didn't learn anything from the Caribou and the pipe line. Good thing we have a strong President who doesn't 'flip-flop' on every issue.God Bless America!!!

Thank your Dem's for the price increase and those tree huggers. Without supply, the price skyrockets and we've been hog tied at doing anything to improve our oil supply by these left wing environmentalists.

++ QFT

Just lipstick on a pig. aka SFN

Pat Paulsen in '08! Vote the Picky Picky Picky ticket! 8)

(Google it, youngsters!)

When will people learn that he is a typical politician! Lying and making falls promises is what they do for a living. The average American voter is just too damn stupid to know any better. Want proof? G.W.B got elected twice! The first time, OK, the supreme court gave him the White House. But it's not like he wasn't a disaster the during his first term. And yet they still voted for him again knowing how incompetent he is.

True. Politicians are all the same. Truth is, they have good intentions and once elected comes rolling in the wheels of corruption.

*sigh*
Say want you want about President Bush (trust me, I am not a big fan of his either) - but he DID win the 2000 election, fair and square.

Remember how the "media" said they would undertake the recount on their own? Ever wonder why you didn't hear much about it after all their blustering?

Check it out:
http://www.pbs.org/newsh...june01/recount_4-3.html

Now, notice it's PBS, not Fox News, not Rush Limbaugh or whatever. I don't know much about PBS other then I have NEVER heard that they were Right Wing Republican Pawns or anything silly like that.

The 2004 election is another matter - I just get tired of the "Bush stole the election" tripe.

:-) Yup!

That claim is just as tired as the "we were duped" line regarding the intelligence reports that were all agreed upon by the UN and the western governments prior to the Iraqi invasion.

But hey, its amazing how many believe what they want to believe, regardless of reality.

If you are a PBS fan, you missed quite a performance in Bill Moyer's melt down rant after the 2004 election on PBS that resulted in his leaving PBS. ;-) Now that was a show! ;-)

Bias? On PBS? Are you kidding? After watching NOW or POV or the Tavis Smiley shows?
Or who cam forget Gwen Eiffel's insightful 'neutral' question that assumes no pre-supposed political position (SIC!) after the Columbine shootings when one of her first questions was "What should the Government have done to have prevented this?" No bias(sic!) regarding the role of government in society for this ditz!

Sorry Gwen, the answer is "nothing". Students, teachers and parents who were well aware of the history of the bullying of the few idiot nerds should have acted to identify and stop such behavior rather than turning their heads, abdicating their personal responsibilities, and having 'well-meaning' fools like her wanting the GOVERNMENT to assume the role rightly assigned to individuals! And such a pattern of negligence in dealing with bullies has been repeated in too many places, before and since!

As far as Bias in the media is concerned, Bernard Goldberg's "BIAS" - an expose of network bias written by the award winning liberal journalist is incredibly illuminating.

C'mon, you can't say that he was fairly elected. The recount was stopped so we'll never know if Gore could have won or not. It doesn't really matter who the winner was. Just the fact that the supreme court took the decision to stop the recount is why they gave the White House to G.W.B. By stopping the manual recount they simply disregarded the American people's vote.

But one thing I'm sure of is in 2000 I was paying about $1.30 for gas and now its $4.46 and climbing everyday.

"The average American voter is just too damn stupid to know any better."

Thats exactly why the founding fathers created the electoral college to actually elect a president, popular don't meant squat! Too bad it always seems rigged!

"But one thing I'm sure of is in 2000 I was paying about $1.30 for gas and now its $4.46 and climbing everyday."

Just wait till you reach $7.00 within the next 2 years!!!

Believe whatever you want to believe.

Its pretty obvious facts and the complexity of various interactive world factors only confound your simplistic world view.

But here is a link to the Green Party, HARDLY a conservative group that contradicts the myth that "Gore won the popular vote" mantra of those who insist on assuming the fetal "I am a poor victim" position - you know, like the folks for whom the ballots were simply TOO complex for them to punch out the little holes - or asking for help while completing the ballots (as opposed to of waiting until newsmen arrived a day later to complain)...

http://www.cagreens.org/...city/0803myth/myth.html

But funny, where are all of the poor victims now who seem nowhere to be found in working to change the electoral college system provided by the Constitution? Hmmmmm. Oh, I guess its ONLY important when they feel THEY have been slighted... Why am I not surprised.

Let's see, how many more Chinese and Indians are driving cars, where China is now the 2nd largest auto market in the world, not to mention the increasing growth in industrial development...yup, Bush is to blame for that too.

Part of the real problem is likely that folks with such a simplistic world view vote!

Besides, I don't know why you are complaining. Gore advocated the government imposing a tax to raise he price of gas to ~$5/gallon in his book 'Earth in the Lurch' even if the market did not, in order to encourage greater development of alternative technologies and to accelerate a change in consumer behavior.

Oh, but I guess you are just upset that we waited a few extra years before the price increase occurred.

...Just like Gore voted Against - and effectively killed the veto override - the balanced budget amendment!!!; citing the specific reason that it did not make allowances for deficit spending in time of war! Now why don't you complain about the deficit as well? A selective memory is sure helpful, isn't it?

"The average American voter is just too damn stupid to know any better."

...as illustrated by the myth that Gore actually won the election and by the same folks who can't figure out how to complete a ballot, or to ask for help while voting instead of complaining several days later!

Yup, you're a shining example of the enlightened voter - as distinct from the other idiots.

Now if we can only determine which group is more pathetic...

Or, instead of doing that, we could just look for someone else to blame - like you do!

But whatever you do, instead of simply grasping for simple slogans and simplistic generalizations, don't try to educate yourself regarding the complexities of some of the factors that underlie the major issues.

Nope, we wouldn't want to start a trend...

It is REALLY NICE to see this forum discussing properly about politics, without trolls, fanboys, smartys and such characters showing up on their usual roles.

Cheers! :)

you didn't look very hard. it took me about 5 seconds to find one person referring to him as "Barack Hussein" and another chiding people who support him.

in my opinion, politics has no business here and these articles about Obama seem to pop up more often then not. i would have thought we could churn out an article or two about mccain (lord knows him being "aware of the internet" would have been good for a laugh at least).

the affiliation choices of SMF III seem to be all too clear and i can't help but question whether he is reporting news or making editorials at this point. i guess i can always turn on, tune in and drop out of betanews at any point though.

Well, if those "affiliation choices" are so clear, would you mind informing me what they are?

-SF3

"without trolls, fanboys, smartys and such characters showing up on their usual roles.
"

Just wait....

There's a reason that, as a country, we should discuss policy endlessly during long nomination processes instead of MSNBC's obsession with Hillary's cleavage, ankles, and hair. obama always sidestepped policy talk during debates. Remember his tack? "I agree with Senator ____! (who has just answered). And looking at his record, he has never voted on a controversial bill, even going back to his hundreds of "present" votes in Illinois. The Democratic Congress has accomplished nothing they set out to do. Their policy seems to be to keep driving off the cliff that Bush the 12-year repub congresses drove us down.

It's as if the Dems had — like the repubs do — set out to find the dumbest guy on the block and anoint him messiah. Any questioning would label you a racist. I had no idea I was a racist until obama's wife and supporters told me so (for not supporting him).

All I can say to them is, I told you so.

The republican Congress did some amazing things when faced with having to overcome opposition and when not simply trying to become the new biggest Hogs at the trough with a republican president!

If you recall, we would have a balanced budget amendment had not GORE denied the 2/3 override as he complained (get this Dems!) that he could not support the balanced budget amendment as it did not make allowance for a deficit in time of war!

Now I want to hear a Democrats complain about spending - as the only objection they have had in Any spending bill being that it was not high enough! And now they b!tch about a deficit?

ROFLMAO!

Once again well said.

Lets do away with the two party system and get rid of that electoral college as well! A little revolution now and then is a healthy thing!

What is this no choice crap?

We have a HUGE choice!

For those of you who are confused as to how government works - the President may talk, but CONGRESS controls ALL spending.

Congress makes ALL the laws.

But you further miss the point if you are focused on either as individual personalities rather than as party functionaries who function consistent with the party goals.

The role of the President is as a gatekeeper. He either signs the bill into law, or he vetos it.

Thus, if we have a President from the same party who controls Congress - he is a rubber stamp. If he is from the other party, he vetos the partisan legislation. We lack a functional check.

If he vetos the bill, it requires a 2/3 majority to override it. And the only legislation that can do this is generally legislation that appeals to BOTH parties.

Thus, with Obama, we have the wacko Dems proposing and passing irresponsible wacko legislation - of which we have seen in the past 2 years!

With McCain, we at least have a check on the Dem Congress. With Obama, all bets are off.

But the President does have influence over foreign policy.

And regardless of what you think of the handling of the Iraq war (and granted, there has been substantial misplanning), we are still remiss if we fail to address the situation! Sticking yur head in the sand, or in the Democratic case, up their @ss, does not absolve us of a rational and responsible course of action. And simply pulling out leaves the world with a s***e led, Iranian pawn and we are ALL the worse for it. (And cool it with the intelligence crap - of which the Dems AND THE WORLD - the UN, France, Germany, et. al.!!!!- had the SAME intelligence and they all believed it correct - regardless of how screwy it was! Deal with it! No Democrat produced credible objections to it either!)

So we use leverage to get the rest of the 'moderate' (right!) Arab countries to engage and assume responsibility. And we hold Iraq, awash in oil revenue now, to its role of reimbursing us for our costs! And we gradually withdraw.

But face it folks, we have 3 groups who value their religion more than the freedom of their country. Bush shoud have known the can of worms before he went in! But that is all water under the bridge!

The problem is that the s***e dominated group controlling the govt has no incentive to reform - as they are just waiting for the US yto withdraw when they can exert total control over the Sunnis and Kurds - just like Saddam and the moderate Sunnis has done to the s***es and Kurds!

So it seems we need to get the Saudis ( who always seem to make demands but provide nothing but obsfucation) to become more involved in supporting a MODERATE Iraq by putting more pressure on Iran, Syria and the wackos in Lebanon.

But in any case, our simple withdrawal creates a worse situation than we have now.

But it does make me laugh to watch the Dems feign so much concern over the military of whom they have held in complete contempt since Vietnam.

Its one thing to simply offer contempt and complaints and opposition. Its another thing to offer a substantive, constructive contribution to a SOLUTION. And the Dems have proven utterly incapable of that.

And as far as I see it, we need gridlock over domestic legislation whereby only bi-partisan legislation can pass with a 2/3 majority becomes law - at least minimizing the partisan damage Congress does!

And we at least need someone with an understanding of the real implications of foreign policy overseeing the draw down, as simple running is not a solution.

You still hold out hope for that region?

*shrug*

While I believe we have done some good over there, I can never see that region under control unless someone actually goes in there and not only supports stability, but forces it. (Note: I did not say this would be a good thing)

The region is inherently unstable due to the groups that inhabit it, their history, and the fact that they will *never* relocate. The region has been in conflict for centuries, mainly because the groups themselves won't allow it to be until one or the other is wiped out (either by conversion, genocide, or the "Wrath of God").

No, stability, the lack of conflict in that area is simply not going to happen, at least not peacefully, and not without destroying or relocating at least 2 of the groups in question and enforcing untenable security measures.

You still hold out hope for that region?

No.

Unfortunately, given the opportunity, they have proven either unwilling or incapable of ruling themselves in a manner that respects one another.

The irony is that we were better off with a complete @ss like Saddam - in a contained manner- subjugating 'his own' pets. He balanced the wacko Iranians and the s***es.

The really amazing thing to me was that Bush and his idiot advisers did not recognize the historically untenable makeup of the indigenous groups and expected them to all run out and cheer and form single file lines and act as if they were one homogeneous group after the fall of Saddam - as they failed to recognize the fundamental need to retain an intact infrastructure under a new more benign CONTROL. {A FACT readily recognized by the earlier Desert Storm operation about which so many idiots, including so many Democrats, whined that we "didn't finish the job" - well they finally got what they wanted! We 'finished the job' alright! Yeah, right... Enjoy! LOL!)

The irony is that those idiots and their expectations were even more naive than he current Democratic proposals that assume if we just leave all of the problems will evaporate!
As you said!

Now all we can do in minimize the repercussions on the world stage in the face of a culture who is still in the middle of their 8th century schism.

expected them to all run out and cheer and form single file lines and act as if they were one homogeneous group after the fall of Saddam

Do you actually believe that, or are you spouting rhetoric? It's hard to tell sometimes. You don't honestly think they all got together and ended up with, "they're all gonna love us!", do you?

Now all we can do in minimize the repercussions on the world stage in the face of a culture who is still in the middle of their 8th century schism.

Heh..preaching to the choir. I've had to stop myself more than a few times from going down the "lets just nuke them back to the stone-age where they obviously *want* to be so we can all get on with our lives" path. Tempting, but just as unrealistic as calling for peace and stability in that region.

:-O

LOL!

Its called hyperbole!

But what else did the idiot planners of the latest incursion expect? As this is exactly what they did while films of cheering folks tearing down statues played and they were declaring victory on carriers - that is, until the Iraqis discovered that they could do what they wanted (after they finished looting!). And they quickly instituted their form of societal 'payback' which we are still seemingly surprised happened.

Only an idiot completely ignorant of the history of the region would fail to anticipate exactly what has happened. But then most Americans are oblivious to the history of the region since the fall of the Ottoman Empire - and they can't figure out why they have hated (especially) the British, French and Dutch. And why we are now seen as occupiers of the same type.

We destroyed the entire infrastructure, forbade Sunnis from holding office and jobs and effectively dismantled EVERYTHING down to even the local dog catchers position - leaving NOTHING in its place instead of replacing the supervisory leadership with new leadership and holding them personally accountable for their behavior.

Can we say stupid?....Hell, we don't even do that with the usual patronage massacre after an election here!

The answer? I might suggest it would be a great place to test the Neutron Bomb.

PC_Tool,
All I'm asking is that ya aim is true, should this nigga, commie muslim mofo get anywhere near elected!
Real democracy is the number of twists in your rifling, as "The Good Lord" said.
Boys! Let's light him up!!!
Thought there oughta be an addendum to bring comfort to my buddies'.
Ain't gonna matter nohow, when we start newkin the other place in Nov'08 (recon shows they're already diggin their own graves 320.000 of em at last count) , SCOTUS in their supreme munificence will grant me indefinite reign, so breathe easy all.

No wonder our nation is headed for the trashheap: from the fighting you folks show in this forum, neither Barak Obama nor John McCain have a snoball's chance in Hell of winning in November, leaving the Winners to be the Imams in the MidEast.

I guess it will take little Israel to show enough gumption to take out the Nuclear program in Iran once for all.

If we, as Americans, can't agree among ourselves that Mr. Bush and his Far Right hoodlums have to go, he will just stay there, smiling like a mindless idiot as we fight among ourselves, while his unelected Kitchen Cabinet prosecutes a war BOTH sides of the Aisle agreed upon.

When you fight among yourselves, when you fight Obama's centrist moves, you just add fuel to the fires of hatred and mistrust the rest of the world rages with, especially the Arabs, who really don't care WHICH side wins.

All they care is that they have a weapon NONE Of us can fight, since we are just too selfish to allow ourselves to suffer the pain we must endure by finding alternate fuels for our gas-guzzlers.

Come on, folks, you idiots!! stop fighting your friends, and start fighting the true enemies: those who hate our Constitution and our way of life.

Mr. Obama is NOT being attacked from the Left (at least I hope he isn't: I am quite a ways from the Center, leaning to the LEft, and I am not fighting him: I've joined in the fray for the cause of the Anmerican people, who suffered enough from the Far Right for the last 8 years. WE can't stand another 8 years of Bush's failed policies in another anti-Constitutional administration.

Time to die to ourselves, and start living for the Constitution, and find common ground: Both sides have suffered. IF it takes Centrist language to get us gunning for Mr. Big and all his Piggies, then we damn well should use it.

GET the TRUE ENEMY, not our friends. The way I see it, the enemy of my enemy is also my friend. And the friend of my enemy is also my enemy. I know, I know, it sounds trite and corney, but it's true nonetheless.

If a REpublican wants to end the war, then he is our friend, and if a Democrat wants to continue it, he or she is our enemy.

Get your eyes on the prize, and off each other, folks.

Donald L McDaniel

Whatever.

If only centrist rhetoric had any basis in fact.

Examine Obama's***orical performance and support.

He has NEVER supported any centrist position.

So we are left to wonder just what he is, a liar for espousing his leftist policies to the core supporters that you imploy he doesn't believe, or in espousing centrist policies that he has never historically supported.

The left are not friends with the right. And it is amazing to listen to you tout Bush as such a tyrant when the left supported and enabled his original policies, and as Bush simply co-opted the liberal positions and made them his own with his education anything but reform bill and the prescription drug bill that exploded unfunded government mandates from $3T to $8T as the republican Congress grew NON-defense discretionary spending by the greatest amount since Johnson's Great Society where all the left has done is whine that NOT enough has been spent!

In fact, the 'terrible' Bush, that you think is so far 'right' (what a laugh! as the true conservatives favor a more limited in scope, strictly defined Federal government where you libs favor growing the federal government to be all things to all people - remarkably like Bush!!!) despite the republican Congress and the President - during his fisrt term, and despite low inflation, grew federal spending by a massive 28%!!!!, with non-defense discretionary spending growing by 35.7% (source GAO)- producing the largest deficits in US history and the greatest rate of government growth since Johnson's Great Society. All with the support of both pork barrel republicans and liberal democrats! After all, how many spending bills were opposed by the Democrats except to whine that not enough was being spent?????

And yet, since that time, bith Kerry ,as candidate, and Obama have called for even greater taxes and spending!

Ironically, as the press has remained silent, the only groups to consistently complain about both the spending increases and the issue of the invasion of privacy (as the liberals voted for both) has been conservative think tanks such as the Cato Institute and the Independent Institute.

Your simplistic generalizations and cliched imagery is not supported by the complexity of reality.

And unfortunately, it is the ignorance and quaint cliches that surround such an erroneous characterization of what has occurred that is the real enemy to real understanding and correct action.

We have no hope regardless which one win. They both donkey.

That settles it, I'm voting for me.

Don't underestimate the power of write-ins.

Voting for oneself is much like being one's own counselor in a criminal case: You'll have a fool for a President.

Writing in yourself will only hurt the American people, friend. Please reconsider your position, and vote for the one who has the necessary gonads to go against both the Far Right AND the Far Left, who are much alike, when all is told.

You folks can't seem to get it right, can you? You read one thing, and see somethine else in it. Why? Because you are just as radical as the Imams in Iran and Afghanistan. I see absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between radical Right-or-Left-wingers and radical Anti-west Imams who want to institute the DEATH penalty for adultery.

You guys just show that in your case, Christ died in vain, since HE gave His life to ensure that radical religion does not triumph in the world.

All who think Obama is a "flip-flopper" because he supported a fairly even-handed Bill which restores the rule of law in the area the Prez trampled all over the Constitution are flip-floppers yourselves, if you refuse to vote for Barak in the Fall.

Get straight, folks. Stop yer fighting!! Gather the wagons in a circle, and face your ENEMIES, not your FRIENDS. If you can't tell the difference between the two, you need a few more lessons MR. Bush has taught the last 8 years, to our ruin.

Donald L McDaniel

I see absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between radical Right-or-Left-wingers and radical Anti-west Imams who want to institute the DEATH penalty for adultery.

*laughing*

Right, because the radical right and left commit genocide, and seek the death of any and all who oppose them (or do not believe as strictly as they do), right?

Step into a radical right or left person's office. You will be initially welcomed, perhaps argues with if you chose to discuss ideology, and possibly shown the door rather abruptly.

Step into the imam's office. You'll likely be killed without hesitation.

But feel free to try it on your own. Really. I have no problem with that whatsoever. :)

Start with the Imam.

You want change? I got your change right here.

Bill Clinton was the first "black president". Baraq Hussein The Patriot Obama, aka The Obamassiah, is the first "black Clinton"....

But the Husseiniacs and his supporters in the Democrat-Media Complex will use the typical Democrat defense when they get caught... "oh well, they ALL do it".

I guess John McCain made him flip-flop on this, just like McCain "made" him flip-flop on public financing...

Can't wait to hear the debates Obama will be owned since he wont have his writers around.

how many debates did he do with HRC again? 19?

you're delusional pal.

wow. could you at least tone down the racism or is that critical to your argument?

Not all and I am not your PAL. He is not capable of responding under pressure. He has made very stupid uninformed comments lately which show poor planning or scripting.

Have you seen any of McCains speeches?

Yes and they are better than Obama. I am refering to the off the cuff no planning speeches. Obama needs some serious work there.

If I see any more of those annoying Obama ads with that crap, oh - so - 80's "O" logo of his, on this site I may have to steer clear until after the election.
You want to vote for the guy? That "O" may mean a big zero too.

I've had it up to here with the ads beeseeching me to send money to save the harelip children as well. (tip) If you assault people with the same disturbing and grotesque images often enough, it starts to have a NEGATIVE effect.

I love the way everyone knee-jerks over political candidate remarks when the real issue is privacy vs security and the former is eroding quickly to benefit the latter. At the rate we're going, America will become the Soviet Union from the 1960's. Nobody seems to care either. Pretty sad.

Privacy vs the perception of security. Although the same can be said about privacy over the Internet.

I love how the no one in the DOJ or the Telecoms have been punished for their blatantly illegal activities. They were fully aware of the nature of their actions. Now that they have been caught red-handed, they are trying to save face by pushing through legislation to cover their asses. The scarier part is that our legislators are playing along. They are supposed to keep the executive branch in check!

Just let him enjoy his waffle.

;) Very, very good.

http://bigheaddc.com/200...nt-i-just-eat-my-waffle/

For all of you naive people who thought Obama was some magical creature who never gave in to the realities of politics and government... there couldn't possibly be more of an "I told you so" moment than this. It is utterly ridiculous for anyone to believe that Obama is any different than any other politician.

Now maybe we can get down to the realities of Obama policies vs. McCain policies, and nothing more. It is time to use your brains instead of your hearts.

I suggest reading this for some real insight: http://online.wsj.com/ar...121495450490321133.html

I think Obama is quite possibly the biggest joke of a candidate this country has ever seen. The sad part is I think the second biggest joke was competing for his nomination!

I think a much bigger joke is how mccain wants a terrorist attack to happen inside the U.S because he thinks it will help him win votes (scared people vote for war mongers).

Another big joke is that mccain thinks he'll be a good president because he was a fighter pilot and gets mad when people question how that helps him be a good executive decision maker...I guess every person that served in the Army would be a good president?

The biggest joke? Price of gas when Bush first took office, about $1.8, price of gas after bush, $4.5....and mccain thinks he could fix that by drilling on our shores, now that's a joke. :)

How about the gas tax holiday joke? Lets see if Americans will vote for me if I can save them $28 this summer...well assuming gas companies don't raise their prices by a few cents to pocket the profits themselves.

Don't forget the joke about bringing our troops home being "not important"...I mean, he wants us to be there for 100 years! Why not...it would be very profitable to the oil companies!

How about the joke about mccain wanting to give the richest people in America the biggest tax break while giving anybody who makes less then $250k a few hundred bucks back? I thought that was a pretty good joke.

There's a lot of good McCain jokes out there...the biggest joke is that some people think he'd actually make a good president.

Niro, you sound like one of those people who think that because Obama's middle name is Hussein, he must be a Muslim.

Instead of falling for the overly simplistic dribble, how about digging a little deeper into what people say and mean? Basing your decisions on sound bites provided by the media is ridiculous. Read the entire statements made by the candidates, or watch the entire videos of them speaking.

Context is what separates intelligent people from mindless idiots.

I'm assuming your talking about the "not important" comment...here's some context for you buddy.

http://www.huffingtonpos...lasts-joh_n_106913.html

"I think a much bigger joke is how mccain wants a terrorist attack to happen inside the U.S because he thinks it will help him win votes (scared people vote for war mongers)."

You know what is truly amazing? LIARS like you who intentionally mistake facts.

McCain NEVER said anything of the sort! But idiots like you hear some talking head misstate the facts and you adopt them like they are gospel!

An aid simply said that such an event would help McCain as it would refocus attention on national security - an issue that does favor McCain. And, like it or not, that is correct.

So if the best you can do is to promulgate more total BS, go back to your Rorschach blot called Obama and pretend that he is whatever you want to believe he is - despite the facts - like how he sat in Rev. Wright's congregation for over 20 YEARS and claims to have no knowledge of wacko's positions - despite the fact that the sermons publicized come from CDs/DVDs sold by the church! So which is he? A liar or totally oblivious?

Flip flopper? How can he be when he is trying to be all things to all people? NAFTA? Wright? and the list goes on....

And genius, who pays MORE THAN 97% of all taxes in this country? HMMMMMMM? Why give a refund to those who actually pay the taxes? And Bush is responsible for gas prices? Oh how simple the world is to an idiot. And drill off our coasts? Hell no! We can't - instead the CHINESE are drilling in the Gulf of Mexico! Oh...how come no comment on that, genius? But you're right of course, how could becoming more energy self-dependent benefit us? Just wait until nuclear is proposed as a green fuel due to its positive impact on CO2! What you cry then! Just like the PETA wackos fighting wind power as bird-Cuisinart's! LOL! And another joke - the Democrats who thought using foodstuffs to produce ethanol was a good idea INSTEAD of supporting cellulosic fermentation of NON-foodstuffs such as sedge grasses that require no additional use of fertilizer or water to grow and which do not use foodstuffs - something that has effected more prices domestically and worldwide than any of your issues. Heck, buying relatively low cost sugar cane as a source of ethanol from Africa and Central America would be cheaper and actually help struggling economies! But no! Oh, but that assumes you know what you are talking about! And how long have we been in Germany, Japan, the Philippines? (oh, more than 60 years!) Or for that matter, why in hell do we support the UN?

And let's not forget:
1. Special interests In January, the Obama campaign described union contributions to the campaigns of Clinton and John Edwards as "special interest" money. Obama changed his tune as he began gathering his own union endorsements. He now refers respectfully to unions as the representatives of "working people" and says he is "thrilled" by their support.

2. Public financing Obama replied "yes" in September 2007 when asked if he would agree to public financing of the presidential election if his GOP opponent did the same. Obama has now attached several conditions to such an agreement, including regulating spending by outside groups. His spokesman says the candidate never committed himself on the matter.

3. The Cuba embargo In January 2004, Obama said it was time "to end the embargo with Cuba" because it had "utterly failed in the effort to overthrow Castro." Speaking to a Cuban American audience in Miami in August 2007, he said he would not "take off the embargo" as president because it is "an important inducement for change."

4. Illegal immigration In a March 2004 questionnaire, Obama was asked if the government should "crack down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants." He replied "Oppose." In a Jan. 31, 2008, televised debate, he said that "we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation."

5. Decriminalization of marijuana While running for the U.S. Senate in January 2004, Obama told Illinois college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use. In the Oct. 30, 2007, presidential debate, he joined other Democratic candidates in opposing the decriminalization of marijuana.

And please tell us where he stands regarding NAFTA??????????????????????

"The Chicago Tribune," last November, Obama aides said on this very issue that Obama believed that the D.C. gun ban was constitutional, was fine. The morning of the Supreme Court decision, an Obama press aide says, "well, that was inartful, an inartful comment." Actually, Obama thinks that the District of Columbia went too far with this gun ban.

He filled out a questionnaire in 1996 when he was first running for office saying that he wanted all guns to be banned. Now, the campaign has said he didn't see that questionnaire, a staffer filled it out. All right? So this is the second time that a staffer has sort of been blamed for explaining his gun position. And the danger is that this -- that the narrative changes about Obama.

Why isn't the press all over him on this?

Cute incomplete talking points. If that's all you have and that is the depth of your understanding of each one, you've got nothing. And no wonder you supported Obama over the OTHER Democratic Bozo who proposed the gas tax holiday.

I am NOT enamored with McCain - a liberal light. But I will vote for him in order to enable grid-lock - meaning that Congress will not get a free pass when they pass their BS partisan crap. Instead they will have to get a 2/3 majority requiring bi-partisan support of both parties to pass their crap - and that will help to limit the damage.

Get your empty head out of you uncritical @ss and begin to do more than simply view the world from your myopic partisan POV.

Enjoy listening to your Rev. Wright CDs.

It is truly a shame that so many , in their rush for partisan positioning, fail to understand the underlying political structure and just what implications and lessons it affords.

We have goofy primary system which produces, not the best overall candidate (hell,look at GWBush! How many fiscal/libertarian conservatives supported him! Even D!ck Army, majority leader of the House, and Phil Gramm, ranking senator - both from Texas, who opted to retire on the eave of the first Republican control of both Congress & the Presidency as they already knew Bush too well - he was NOT a conservative - only a right wing social liberal) chose to retire when by all accounts they stood to win the lottery - as the Republican leaders failed to embody the very principles for which folks had voted - and now feel rightly betrayed. But that does not invalidate the principles! ONLY the frauds who falsely represent the ideas. And hopefully this year will begin a process of purging the phonies from the Republican ranks. (Start with Sen. Kaye Bailey Hutchison who opposed the moratorium on earmarks and justified her support of all of the pork and spending as she characterized her job function as one of bringing as much pork back to her state as she could! Yup, and she fancies herself a Conservative LEADER! My @ss. )

But instead we have a primary system that produces candidates who must pander to a small select base during the primary season in order to (A) secure the party nomination and then, (B) be competitive in the general election; which means going to the extreme right for Republicans and the extreme left for Democrats.
For the Democrats this is rather simple. For the Republicans, for whom 2 radically different groups vie for control of the term 'conservative' - the fiscally libertarian right and the religious social right of social engineering and right wing liberalism which are anything but libertarian; the stakes are higher.

But once they win the nomination, candidates must then veer back toward the center to woo general election voters who tend to be more mainstream than the primary voters. This leads to a rash of changes in position that has now crescendoed to the point where every candidate has to reverse course on almost every major issue in the campaign.

And yet we are surprised.

The only real surprise should be for those who expect ones' pre-candidacy positions to be radically different from his actual positions once elected. And in this regards, we have a rather radical distinction between the candidates. And as much as I disagree with McCain on many issues, Obama and what we DO know about the Democratic Congress is MUCH scarier. After all, who was it that proposed increasing taxes on gas until prices approached $5 a gallon as an answer several years ago???? (and yet now whine that it is Bush's fault! LOLO!)

Its time for the fiscal & libertarian conservatives to kick the religious right wing liberals to the curb and regain leadership of the Republican Party.

Ah, gods...the huffing and puffing post.

Well...that explains a lot.

thank you foxfyre.

You must live below a rock to believe all that crap. I swear some libs have no friggen clue.

Awesome, good stuff there. The left will run as they always do.

I'm sure he hasn't said it, as that would ruin his campaign in seconds. However, it certainly wouldn't harm his campaign if another attack did happen.

..and you blame him for it?

how about "bomb, bomb, bomb ... bomb, bomb, Iran"? is that something a president jokes about?

Are any bombs falling since that comment. No, not a single one. Please stop grasping at straws.

Like it or not with Americas love for oil and just greed in general we better stay there. We need their oil since the libs wont let us drill our own.

MSNBC what a bunch of lib hacks.

Sure.

It's called a sense of humor. More presidents should have those.

My friends and I have served proudly in the 82nd Airborne (1/325th Infantry) and we belong to that "left". I've NEVER ran...

What have you done for your country to sound so smug?

It is very clear that you have no idea what I am talking about. The person that I responded to will not get a response from the left.

Smug my as$.

If by, "it is very clear that you have no idea what I am talking about" you mean that I refuse to discuss politics in an article that focuses on a FISA bill and the resulting online outcry on a site that deals with technology then yes, I have no clue what you're talking about.

Your "uninformed, run away, lib hacks" comments spew ignorance. I am here to inform you that many of us on the "left" have fought (and died) for the right to earn our opinions. A civil conversation with some respect is due. ...especially since you didn't earn your freedom, you just leeched it off of us that gave it to you.

Didn't earn now that is a steaming pile.

Well spoken... The problem I have with your line of argument however is that there is an implied superiority of Republicans. Every Republican screwing up is not true to the cause in your view. On the other hand every Democrat screwing up is proof for Democratic failure. Nice try though otherwise with many good points.

Are you a lawyer? A politician?

But this site is not about technology. That's just an alibi for hordes of nerds and kids to vent their frustrations.

But see where all the heroism got you. There was no freedom to defend. Just the establishment of global power structures so that the kids here can have a PS3 plus X360 while literacy is on the decline. Special interest groups have dug in and ADD is soon the reference for a healthy mind of the general population.

A civil conversation with some respect is due.

You're on the internet. Put some of that spine you put to good use in the military back into use.

You new here?

You might want to ask Joe Lieberman that question.

What you have failed to discern is that the facets of the 'failure' for which each are held accountable are the same for the Democrats as for the Republicans.

The inability to be fiscally responsible, as well as the use of government and the rule of law through threat of fine or imprisonment by one group who self-righteously 'knows better and is more enlightened than the other and only cares about the other's welfare' (be they left wing or religious right wing liberals) to impose belief and behavior upon people in issues that are matters for individuals and families to decide - not for teachers, school administrators, government or public interest groups are consistent with all who are criticized.

And both characteristics are issues that separate 'liberals' from the 'conservatives' (noting that BOTH terms are used in any BUT their classical meanings!). The later of whom believe in s limited strictly defined role and scope for the Federal government as defined ('fundamentally') in the Constitution.

The degree is truly amazing to which so many of the left and the social right (two groups who both favor the same use of govt to effect change in OTHERS - but stay away from 'Them'!) both fear the ability of the 'masses' to make decisions about their own welfare. And both are so quick to assume the role of benevolent and enlightened overloads only too glad to make decisions on the behalf of those less enlightened - altruistically of course!

But the common factor that is more intrinsic to each group is the fear and loathing of individuals to decide independently of their intrusion. The left says, oh, but we only care for their quality of life and our position is so objectively honorable, while the religious right wing liberals say the exact same - perhaps substituting the word "soul" here and there into the tired mantra.

BOTH groups, who differ not in method but Only in message, are TERRIFIED of a free people making independent decisions for themselves!

Both groups, if they want to be heard, are more than welcome to present their positions through reasoned discourse - and if the message is SO obvious and honorable, people can be left to decide For Themselves if such changes in belief or behavior are warranted...but NOT by the imposition via the threat or force of law.

And I don't care HOW enlightened any group claiming such insight may claim to be.

What would be nice is if you on the 'left' were simply content to have and apply a practice of the principles in your own home and to simply express your beliefs instead of attempting to use the government to impose your beliefs regarding how folks should act on OTHERS. Sorry, but that was NOT the principle under which the military functioned, whatever your beliefs may be. Walk your talk. And stop trying to impose your beliefs through social engineering. But like the net-kiddies who feel self-entitled to other audio files, you are not entitled to redistribute wealth as you see fit.

You can be proud of other 'left' supporters:

"Backing a major-party candidate for president would have been anathema to Michael Klonsky 40 summers ago, when the organization he led, Students for a Democratic Society, urged young people to spurn elections. “By ’68, our line was ‘Vote in the Streets,’” Klonsky told me last spring. “We thought we had to fight with Eugene McCarthy and those people.” In August 1968, protesters clashed with police outside the Democratic Party’s national convention in Chicago—but far from being political innocents who took to the streets to protest Vietnam War hawks’ capture of the Democratic presidential nomination, many of them never supported antiwar candidates McCarthy and Robert Kennedy. “Those of us who have been in the streets for the past five days didn’t give a flying **** whether McCarthy would win or lose,” SDS declared in posters around Chicago, “and now that he’s lost, still don’t.” On the eve of the general election of that year—in which less than 1 percentage point would separate the popular-vote totals of Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey—Klonsky’s SDS bluntly proclaimed: “The elections don’t mean s***.”

Klonsky, whose disgust for mainstream politics led him to launch a new, Maoist Communist Party in the 1970s, today supports Barack Obama so enthusiastically that until recently he was blogging on the Illinois senator’s campaign website. And boycotting this November’s election, Klonsky maintains, would be a “tragic mistake.” He notes that Barack Obama isn’t Hubert Humphrey, 2008 isn’t 1968, and the strong movement he served back then is “relatively weak” now. “My own support for Obama is not a reflection of a radically changed attitude toward the Democratic Party,” Klonsky recently explained to me. “Rather, it’s a recognition that the Obama campaign has become a rallying point for young activists and offers hope for rebuilding the civil rights and antiwar coalitions that have potential to become a real critical force in society.”

Michael Klonsky is hardly the only ’68 radical supporting Obama this year. In 1968, when Mark Rudd organized the student strike that shut down Columbia University, the SDS chapter that he chaired ridiculed Kennedy and McCarthy as “McKennedy,” claimed that “neither peace candidate offers an alternative to the war policies of Lyndon Johnson,” and suggested “sabotage” as an alternative to voting. Rudd succeeded Klonsky as national SDS leader, presiding over the organization’s metamorphosis into Weatherman and performing “a liaison function” for the plot to bomb a Fort Dix soldiers’ dance that instead killed three Weathermen, including two of Rudd’s Columbia SDS colleagues. Today, Rudd renounces bombs, embraces ballots—and supports Obama. “Probably the biggest difference between Columbia SDS people in 1968 and in 2008 is forty years,” Rudd explained in an e-mail. “Most of us have lived with compromise our whole lives. As kids we were raving idealists who thought that ‘The elections don’t mean s***’ was a slogan that meant something to somebody. It didn’t.”

Then there’s Carl Davidson, who was one of SDS’s three elected national officers in 1968, when the organization first urged young people to refrain from voting. His disillusionment with traditional politics became so pronounced that, in the post-sixties hangover that followed, Davidson joined Klonsky in rejecting traditional politics for fringe Marxist movements. More recently, he helped organize the 2002 rally in which Obama first spoke out against the Iraq War and now serves as the webmaster of Progressives for Obama. “The last thing we need is a simple repeat of 1968, which saw Nixon and the new Right as an outcome, as well as the defeat of [Humphrey],” Davidson contends. “One thing I’ve learned. Social change is not made by elections, but it certainly proceeds through them, not by ignoring them or chasing the illusion of end runs around them.”

Former SDS president Tom Hayden is also in the Obama camp. Hayden organized the made-for-TV protest outside the 1968 Chicago convention. But the catharsis of throwing debris at the Chicago police, the purer-than-thou sanctimony that tolerated no distinction between Lyndon Johnson and Eugene McCarthy, and the exhilaration of “voting in the streets” instead of in election booths combined to ensure liberal defeats. Hayden’s orchestrated anarchy proved more damaging to Humphrey’s presidential aspirations than any dirty trick Nixon’s henchmen could have dreamed up. Klonsky remembers Hayden plotting to spread nails on a highway; another SDS leader recalls Hayden encouraging activists to firebomb police cars. If the Democrats couldn’t run a convention, many Americans wondered, how could they run the country? “Did the radicalism of Chicago elect Richard Nixon?” Hayden asked, clearly pained, in his 1988 memoir. “Having struggled with that question for twenty years, I find there is no ‘neat’ answer.”

Now Hayden is one of the organizers of Progressives for Obama. “The difference is that back then the Democratic Party was directly carrying out the Vietnam War, which meant there was no anti-war critic to vote for after Kennedy was assassinated and McCarthy defeated by the establishment,” he offered in an e-mail last month. “Today the Republican Party is directly carrying out the war, which obviously will make a lot of people favor changing the presidency despite the uncertainty of what the Democratic candidate will do when in office.”

Progressives for Obama resembles a Who’s Who of SDS luminaries. In addition to Hayden, Rudd, and Davidson, the group includes Bob Pardun, SDS’s education secretary during the 1966–67 school year; Paul Buhle, a radical professor who has recently attempted to revive SDS; Mickey and d*** Flacks, red-diaper babies who helped craft 1962’s Port Huron Statement, a seminal New Left document; and SDS’s third president, Todd Gitlin. Age and experience have mellowed some of the SDSers in Obama’s camp. Gitlin, for instance, has evolved into a respected Ivy League professor and milquetoast liberal. But others still glory in a past that can only damage Obama’s future. The aging New Left still practices a therapeutic politics that places a higher value on feelings of personal liberation than on restrained pursuit of political aims.

Obama has already taken political hits for his connection to Weathermen Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. In the sixties, Ayers advocated that young people kill their parents, and Dohrn praised the Charles Manson murders. Alongside their Weather Underground cohorts, the pair declared war on the United States and participated in a bombing campaign that hit the Capitol, the Pentagon, and numerous law enforcement agencies. The couple eventually reinvented themselves—first as academics, then as players in Chicago-area Democratic politics. Obama praised Ayers’s book in the Chicago Tribune, sat with him on a foundation’s board, and benefited from a fundraiser held at the couple’s home. Ayers spoke at events organized by Michelle Obama; Barack Obama spoke at events organized by Ayers.

With the public revelation of this unseemly relationship—between unrepentant terrorists and the man who now seeks to oversee America’s war on terror—and the impact it’s already had on voter attitudes, one would think that other sixties extremists might be more reserved in proclaiming their support for Obama, knowing the damage such associations can do to his candidacy. As for Obama, he’ll need to do some distancing of his own. He protested that he was only eight when Ayers, Dohrn, Rudd, and company embarked on their bombing campaign, and that’s reasonable enough. But he’ll need to go further.

Fortunately for him, the Left has a long history of cold-shouldering predecessors to perpetuate its ideology, cleanse it from past failures, and make it appear fresh. The New Left dissociated itself from the Old Left’s Russophilic dogmatism through the Port Huron Statement and other declarations of independence. Even the phrase “New Left” was adopted to divorce the Left from its history.

SDS’s***ory offers a template for eliminating the embarrassing past. Jack London, Upton Sinclair, and others founded the Intercollegiate Socialist Society (ISS) during the Progressive era, but by World War I the word “socialist” had fallen from favor. So, with the Left seeing labor unions as the agent of societal change, the ISS became the League for Industrial Democracy (LID). Then, by the end of the 1950s, theorists Herbert Marcuse, C. Wright Mills, and Norman O. Brown scoffed at the idea of blue-collar workers—often violently hostile to the Left’s aims—as transformative agents, and the LID’s student arm, the Student League for Industrial Democracy (SLID), rechristened itself Students for a Democratic Society. Just as SDS killed SLID as the fifties became the sixties, Weatherman killed SDS as the sixties became the seventies: SDS’s spirit of “participatory democracy” could not peacefully coexist with the vanguardism of Weatherman. And now, completing the circle, the SDS alumni of “progressives” for Obama resurrect a term that would have been more familiar to their distant forebears in the Intercollegiate Socialist Society. On the Left, everything old is eventually new again.

In 1968, the Left served as unwitting allies of Republicans, costing the Democrats the White House by rioting at their convention and withholding votes from Hubert Humphrey. In 2008, it is their vocal support that may cost Barack Obama the presidency. Obama can take a page from the early days of the New Left, which—initially, at least—refused to allow discredited radicals to discredit it. Either Obama publicly divorces himself from radical supporters whose association does more for them than it does for him, or he faces the prospect of Bill Ayers as his Willie Horton."

http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0629df.html

What's even funnier is that if McCain had a KKK member supporting him, we would never hear the end of it. Oh, but I'm sorry, the only prominent KKK member is now a senior Democratic Senator from West Virginia - Robert Byrd!

You talk too much.

Can you summarize this into some coherent brief and logical structure for the technical mind?

If the 'later' (Reps) are so "supportive of a limited strictly defined role and scope for the Fed gov as defined in the Constitution" -
How come they turn this place more and more into a fascist surveillance operation with the supreme court stepping in almost on a weekly basis?

You mistake Reps for moderate Libertarians. The goals of those groups have *nothing* in common.

Geesh...

You read one phrase and miss the entire context!

The Republicans are comprised of two primary ideological groups. The fiscally conservative/libertarian group is NOT in control of the party currently! The social/religious right who have no problem with the use of social engineering which is also a fundamental tool of the ideological left controls the party. And hence why so many Republicans are fed up with the party!

But to confuse you even further, NONE of the bills you mention would have passed without support from the liberals as well. So why are you blaming the Republicans?

And the extension of the bills didn't have a chance with a Democratically controlled House AND Senate, so where is your contention now? Aside from down the proverbial toilet?

Try examining things a bit more deeply than simply employing cliches and overused generalizations that fall apart at the fist hint of examination.

And you seem unable to read for meaning.

Of course you have reduced everything to the broad, almost meaningless labels of "The Republicans are responsible for" and can't figure out that the current Republican leadership is NOT ideologically fiscally/libertarian conservative who believe in a limited, strictly defined federal government; but instead are dominated by 'let's be the biggest hogs at the trough social/religious right social engineers who are simply right wing liberals.

If you need a summary, read the first sentence of each paragraph and you will discover a virtual who's who of the former Weather Underground actively supporting Obama.

Sorry its too komplekated for such a teknical mind.

the current Republican leadership is NOT ideologically fiscally/libertarian conservative who believe in a limited, strictly defined federal government;

I think that is what he was looking for.

Pretty much sums it all up. ;)

I'm sure that McCain would be proud of your diatribe on veterans but, as I said before this is a TECH site. I know, I know! McCain told you guys to find every website and dominate the posts with your propaganda. I hope that you realize this just annoys people, it doesn't change their mindset. It's worse than those "government conspiracy to brainwash people" blogs.

Of course he/she does! ...he/she is trying to force their opinion on you!

Right. It takes a LOT of spine to remain anonymous and sit behind the safety of a computer posting nonsense. Why don't we try that in Afghanistan and Iraq? Imagine the lives that could have been spared if we used that in World War II and Vietnam! /sarcasm

Right. It takes a LOT of spine to sit anonymously behind the safety of a computer screen posting nonsense. Why don't we try that in Iraq and Afghanistan? Imagine the lives that could have been spared if we used the internet instead during World War II and Vietnam!! /Sarcasm

It IS about technology. I've actually been using this site for over five years. It's been an invaluable asset to guide investment strategy. The comments are a way for people to hold intelligent discussion on TECHNOLOGY and its future direction, hence "BetaNews". Beta itself is a tech term meaning "pre-release".

You really have no clue what the current mission of the military is. The freedom that I and many of my fellow veterans provide is not one of "global power structure"; it is one of global stability. Ask any veteran that has served in an elite unit. We were deployed in various hostile parts of the globe throught our clandestine career. If you really believe that there is no freedom to defend, you should move to a place such as Zimbabwe. This is a great place for you where people have long since given up their fight for freedom.

You haven't. If you served in the military, you'd know exactly what it means to earn the right to call yourself an American (instead of taking credit for the works of others).

Well put foxfyre, while i have many differences with GW, and even more with john McCain, they are minor Libs, than compared with Obama. One key word among socialist including GW and John McCain and Obama, its MORE. They all want MORE.
There is a better word to describe these current politicians, however it may be rather inflammatory, but looking at history compared with the things being said, both sides included, the proper word would be fascist. for there is not a true conservative running.

....

And had *you* been in the military, you'd know that no-one needs to "earn" that right and not be making our military look like a bunch of elitist, arrogant pricks.

The military servers to protect our rights and defend our freedoms....not to "earn" their own.

And, on the off chance your sorry a** *has* been in our military, I feel sorry for *anyone* who served with you and had to put up with that BS.

lmao...

I take it back. I doubt you've ever even been in the military.

A civil conversation with some respect is due.

You seem to think you're special. Had you actually *been* in the military (through boot-camp), that would have been one of the first things to go. :)

.he/she is trying to force their opinion on you!

...with Facts!

*gasp*

Oh, the horror...

It does not matter what intrinsic subtleties you see hidden inside the party. You cling on to and highlight a minority that has either lost, doesn't care or doesn't exist. The present is defined and history is written by the winner - especially in this country where *everything* is for sale. Generalization is the winning factor and cliches sell to the masses - I am afraid your dream of a miraculous Rep admin that controls and limits itself instead of systematically undermining citizens liberties and rights is pure utopia. Instead of arguing the virtues of those noble knights - why don't you give some clear examples what they have achieved in the last 50 years?

And saying so doesn't mean I support Dems. In a time of globalization I simply believe they have a better chance at mending what has been kicked in the balls for the last 8 years - completely unrelated to inner sociopolitical factors.

You do know what lawyers, sales people and ad agencies do all day, right? ...they use facts to persuade people of their opinion. In fact, that's why we have lawyers in the first place.

*gasp*

I could use facts to support my opinions all day long also. ...but, this is a TECH website and I don't care to discuss politics here.

I got that point loud and clear. What does the statement imply however? What difference does it make for the subject at hand? Where are those noble knights of virtue? The Reps have changed and they won't revert back. It is an irrevocable process to turn from a limited strictly defined and self-controlled administration into a subversive propaganda machine thriving on abusive power.

Hey tool...

I graduated infantry AIT (I went to OSUT) from Fort Benning with 3rd Platoon Alpha Co. 1/38th in 1998. I turned 18 in boot camp while a 5'5" albino drill sergeant spat in my face and beat me with a flashlight while I did flutter kicks. I got my wings beat into my chest shortly after that. I volunteered for Bragg and the rest is history. If you'd like pictures, I'd be happy to send you some emails if you provide your email address. I've got my DD214 in hand and a current VA id (with matching Veteran license plates).

Seems that you know NOTHING about the military so, don't comment on something that you only think you know about. I AM special, my tab tells me so...

Son, you wouldn't have survived a day through what I've been through. Go back to typing.

We both know that military intervention is very selective. Primarily based on economical considerations, regardless of the rhetoric used to justify, ideals give way to reality very quickly once political powers get involved. Global stability as defined by those in power. In historic times there was always the horde of barbarians coming around the corner smashing up your sophisticated empire. Now things are locked down and degeneration can take its course.

Anyway, I appreciate your level headed responses and don't mean personal offense. Peace ;-)

Hey stupid,

Guess what? All of my friends have the same shining personality...and most of them remain in elite army units (one heads the 82nd Airborne Division sniper team, a few are infantry Drill Sergeants, a few went back to Ranger Battalion, a good amount are Special Forces in Afhganistan right now, one is SFAS cadre, one is Delta). ...and the army actually rewarded me for my behavior with medals! (army achievement medal, expert infatry badge, armed forces service medal, joint service achievement medal, etc.)

*gasp*

Actually, if you look up the archives...they filmed us for MTV. I believe it aired in 2000. It was a special about all branches but Serena Atchul (or however you spell it) followed us around for the Army segment because the Army picked us as the best of the best.

I'll make a deal with you. Next veteran's day, you go to your local parade and go up to a veteran. ...you tell him, "I'm a civilian that's never served and I don't have to earn my right to be an American." If you survive, come back and tell me about it.

If you were actually in the military, you'd know that half of our military cadences dealt with despising civilians. Despising civilians because while we're out in the middle of nowhere humpin' a 160lbs ruck and getting shot at, you're sitting on an internet board bragging about how you don't have to earn the right to be an American. Seriously...look up some cadences. Anytime you hear "Jodi"...that means "civilian scumbag". It's probably why military towns (like Columbus, GA and Fayetteville, NC) hate military guys...because they have to put up with us first-hand.

We're elitist because we earned that right in the army's elite units. Quit presuming that you know a single thing about the military because you've seen a movie or played a video game. Go out and actually do something for your country.

Thank you.

People on here aren't going to change my opinions so, why argue? ...even beyond that, if we practice disrespect here we'll let it bleed into everyday life. You respect me, I respect you and everyone is happy.

I would challenge your statement on military intervention. ...only because of my experiences.

- Haiti: We had a military base established there with active intervention (building schools, providing medical aid, keeping the police honest, etc.) up until the Iraq war.

- Kosovo: Another location where we "helped" out.

- Sinai: We actually had a base keeping peace between Israel and Palestine before Iraq.

There are countless (sometimes secret) bases established all over the world to provide humanitarian assistance or to help train local troops (that's actually the job of Special Forces: train foreign troops).

In the end, yes it does benefit us if we return stability to a region. Yes, stabilized nations become a new customer for our exports. Yes, we do tend to concentrate more of our resources on regions that benefit our economy the most (it is an investment). ...but, we're not as selective as it appears. Complete global stability really does benefit our economy also. I will agree, the considerations do change with the president. With Clinton, we spent time trying to groom indigent nations (part of the Democrat "help the poor and they'll spend more" philosphy). With Bush, we spent time trying to put our hands in the cookie jar (part of the Republican "give all advantage to big business and hopefully they'll provide a return in the economy" philosphy). Remember, part of our contemporary American freedom consists of our economy. You're right. We'll probably never face a threat to our physical freedom (unless our military falls apart and nobody enlists anymore).

...if you don't hear about our involvement (i.e. Zimbabwe), it's probably because we're there and it's classified or our involvement would produce complete chaos. (yes, even more so than Iraq)

It's probably why military towns (like Columbus, GA and Fayetteville, NC) hate military guys...because they have to put up with us first-hand.

I can't imagine...

I'll make a deal with you. Next veteran's day, you go to your local parade and go up to a veteran. ...you tell him,

How about I ask my father, or either of my two brother-in-laws? How about I ask my nephew and his wife? They all serve/served. Not a single one of them is anywhere near as much of a jackass as you.

Of course, they joined to do as I stated above, not for kudos.

You'll see a split. If not in a third party then at the very least from "Rep" to "Cons. Rep" and "Lib. Rep".

Such a wide gap in one party can't last long. The party will either break, or dissolve and reform.

(Hopefully)

*laughs*

...and you go back to bragging about what a *special* guy you are. ;)

Normally, I'd tell anyone in the military they have the right to brag...to be proud of their accomplishments...that is what they *earned*.

The right to be an American, however, is not. It doesn't need to be, and although you seemed to have missed that briefing, is actually one of the things you serve to protect.

....

this is a TECH website and I don't care to discuss politics here.

FISA is both tech (communications) and political.

If you do not wish to discuss the political aspect, here's a novel idea you apparently haven't thought of:

Don't.

Tool, to tell you the truth... He's no different in his stance than you in yours - if not even less offensive (remember your little trolling fan club on this site... ;-)

btw - I'm signing off from this thread...

...and I won't.

You can stop trying to get me to.

Right. ...according to your theory, the illegal alien jumping across the border has those same rights to be an American because as soon as you're on American soil you've paid your dues to society.

Exactly. I think they're McCain campaign volunteers. You know...they pay for advertising and then send guys to spam the site.

Again... YOU have no clue about the military. Bragging about someone else's achievements is basically stealing (and being a class A sh**bag).

You ask them. ...and if they actually served in a front-line combat unit (combat MOS and not some pogue) they'll tell you exactly what I told you. ...or they'll lie to you to be polite. ...go on a special operators' forum and ask what it means to be an American.

You're forgetting something; I underwent the toughest things a human (mentally and physically, both through the Army's toughest schools and experiences) can endure so that you can safely sit there and tell me that my contibution didn't mean a damn thing. ...you're the jackass. I'd actually listen to someone who went through it all. You're exactly what's wrong with America today, you think that the world owes you. In fact, you're a worthless part of society because you're just profiting off of other's hard work. ...and then you critcize their work.

People like you are the reason that I'm pro-choice.

so much for a change we can believe in. This is twice now in as many days he has done a flip like this.

How many flips has McCain done?

Oh here's a list from 2006!

http://www.thecarpetbagg....com/archives/9111.html

Here's a more recent one, 10 flips in two weeks??

http://www.crooksandliar...flip-flops-in-two-weeks/

Here's another list...I didn't read through the long list of flip flops so sorry if some of these have been mentioned in the other two articles...

http://www.thecarpetbagg...com/archives/15924.html

Anybody who thinks Obama is better than McCain needs to go back to school, and not rely on their misinformed self, which is about as Stupid as the statements you make. Don't take your facts from Google, or any other search engine, instead of talking so much s**t, go spend a day doing work for him, have you never heard the statement, keep your friends close and your enemy closer, you might just get a life and realize you know NOTHING about the Man and need to SHUT UP and vote on what you do know, in that respect, don't vote because it seems your to dam stupid to vote.

A 5yr old is a better judge of Character than most of you, the only reason a few of you don't like McCain is because his a man of Faith, declares Jesus as His Lord, and you don't like that.

Get a life, get saved and get a good president.

Ah....resorting to personal insults instead of actual arguments...I guess that's typical of the McCain supporters though?

Niro, in all honesty Obama sounded great with his idealistic attitude and made a lot of undecided voters believe his "Change" position. The only thing he had going for him was his lack of experience to keep attacks at a minimum. Because he hasn't been around Congress that long, he can get away with making statements about legislation he was never around to vote on. Now that legislation such as the FISA bill are being voted on, he needs to come clean on why he is voting this way.

The truth is he is no different than any other democratic candidate, except he's black and younger. This fresh new look for the democratic party is going to fall apart come November. If you really want to take a closer look at McCain, he is actually more centered than Obama is for a lot of legislation.

I didn't see *anyone* but you referencing religion. Most posters (surprisingly) seem to have progressed mentally since the middle ages and clearly focus on political and economic points instead.

honestly i think if you'd look at mccain and his temper you might come to a different conclusion. mccain was great in 2000 but he's jumped aboard the angry train for some reason.

besides we've swung so far to the right that i personally believe we need to swing hard to the left before we can come back to the middle.

we are energized and united. we will be heard in november. you will see.

That is a good plan swing way left and increase tax to support entitlement and socialism. Yeah that is a real good plan.

Funny how the we will be heard statement was being preached to the heavens last election and Kerry lost. So much for we will be heard. Yes some dems got into congress and look at what they have done. NOTHING.....