Idea of the muscle car is dead (Or, why Ford can't sell cars now)

On Aug 10, 6:13 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:

On Aug 10, 6:13 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:

> >>>>> I like McCain. But I would have to wait to see who his running mate
> >>>>> is because I worry about how much four years in the White House would
> >>>>> take out of him. If four years can age a 50 year old about a decade,
> >>>>> what will four years do to a 71 year old guy?

> >>>> I think McCain is physically and mentally tougher than many know. I
> >>>> don't think four years as president will be close to what he went
> >>>> through as a POW. His benchmark for what constitutes overwhelming
> >>>> stress is far beyond anything most people can comprehend. I want him to
> >>>> pick a true conservative for a running mate so that person can have the
> >>>> potential to become a president that actually governs from truly
> >>>> conservative principles.

> >>> Back in 2000 the Republicans/Bush campaign was telling us his years as
> >>> a POW made him mentally unstable. And we bought it. So now they're
> >>> telling us he's the best choice they/we have?

> >> ... and because is was said means it was true then or today? You are
> >> making a broad statement about why McCain didn't get the nomination in
> >> 2000. IMO, it was because he is not conservative enough.

> > And according to you, Bush isn't conservative enough either. But the
> > Bush campaign machine/Carl Rove destroys good records (like McCain's
> > war record) and turns dumb ****s like Bush into election winners.
> > It's crap. And they're back at it again this year with Obama. A
> > hardworking overachiever is slowly being branded an anti-American,
> > Muslim and elitist. And people, once again, are taking the garbage,
> > hook, line and sinker... hell, they're even gnawing at the pole and
> > are willing to swallow the reel. It pains me to watch/see it happen,
> > again.

> Both sides are presenting their arguments and it is up to us to decide
> who wins the most points.

But that's the thing. The talking heads on the 24-hour news networks
are not presenting "arguments". They're doing biased propaganda/bull
**** instead of presenting intellectually-based information. What
they deliver instead is some hot head "news" host carefully selecting
wacky guests to present the other side. Then he controls the
"discussion" demeans them/yells/calls them names -- like pinhead --
and then finishes with "tune in tomorrow for another 'fair and
balanced' report."

> The lefties assume anyone that doesn't vote
> their way are stupid.

And the righties are clannish.

> We are in a situation of once again voting
> against the other guy and not for someone.

Person-wise I like both candidates this time around. My beef is
rewarding the Republicans for the last 8 years.

> Before you get too involved in trashing the Republicans and their
> tactics you need to look into how Obama won his first election in
> Chicago. He forced his competition off the ballet through slimy legal
> maneuvering. He is far from the "pure as the driven snow" politician
> his handlers present to the public.

I'll have to research this. Hopefully, it's not a FauOX news
"report".

I think McCain is pretty clean in this regard. I just don't like his
handlers this go around. But I'm hoping, if he gets elected, that the
maverick comes out of him and he tells them to go F themselves.

> How do you justify Obama sitting in a church that preached racism and
> Black Liberation Theology?

And look at the religious extremists the Republicans have courted over
the years. The only difference is that their skin color is white.

> Now he either believes in the Rev. Wrights
> views or he stayed there for political gain and let his children be
> indoctrinated in this BS. As for him being a Muslim, that depends on
> your religious beliefs and point of view. He is actually a REFORMED
> Muslim since he attended Muslim schools for a few years and his father
> is Muslim. At one time he was a Muslim and this is undeniable fact.

Like I said before, who cares? Why is being a Muslim a bad thing?
And is it better or worse than being a Mormon, Hindu, Buddhist,
Shinto, atheist?

Seems you're scared that he's going to form terrorist training camps
and attack the US from the inside or something. Please. He's an
American. I'm pretty sure there's been enough people vouch for his
character over the years and passed enough background checks for him
to be this close to the presidency.

> The Republicans are only pointing out his political leanings

Yea, by making up some weird-ass story about a scary "terrorist fist
jab".

> and the
> FACT he has hardly any relevant experience to qualify him for the job of
> president. Saying this is attacking him just isn't true.

Yes, mentioning political experience is a consideration. But then
again, the Three Stooges' -- Bush, Rumsfeld & Cheney -- experience
didn't help much.

> Obama had
> hoped that he could use the fact he is black to bully anyone from
> criticizing him in any way.

Did he? Or is this what FauOX thinks?

> Well that just won't fly with the majority
> of Americans. All Obama is attempting to do is suppress the truth about
> his voting record and past in any manner possible because he can't deny it.

"dwight" > wrote in
:

> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> dwight wrote:
>>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>>
>>>> The lefties assume anyone that doesn't vote their way are stupid.
>>>
>>> This is the whole problem with mass populations. Two-dimensional
>>> thinking.
>>>
>>> I thought by now we would be beyond the black-and-white,
>>> Republican-Democrat, Ford-Chevy, AOL-restoftheinternet, man-woman,
>>> us-them kind of mindset.
>>>
>>> Sure, it's much easier to break all of humanity down into two camps,
>>> so we can clearly dilineate what separates the right-thinking from
>>> the wrong-thinking, but far too many of us insist on straddling
>>> lines.
>>>
>>> While the fringe on one side hurl epithets at the fringe on the
>>> other side, the vast bulk of us sit here somewhere in between asking
>>> the eternal question, "What the ****?"
>>
>> Most of us have moved beyond that point. I guess what comes with
>> that is apathy for forcing change to eliminate what remains along the
>> edges. It is discouraging to see less than 20-30% of the population
>> make the other 70-80% miserable. IMO, the only thing that will unite
>> us as a species is for a group of big, bad aliens to descend upon us
>> with the intent of annihilation. Even then there will be a few of us
>> that will side with the aliens and I bet they will be the
>> politicians.
>
> Substitute "nazis" for "aliens," and you'll see the truth of that.
>
> It was when my children were of school age that I began to notice (and
> regret) that the public school system was aimed squarely at the
> 50-percentile.
>
> It is no accident that television programming is geared toward a 12
> year old mentality.
>
> Politicians also play to the same bell curve. "Change," without any
> real definition. Or, hell, the every-four-years constitutional
> amendment against some outrage against society, like flag burning or
> gay marriage.
>
> But the broader the brush, the more distorted the image. As long as we
> have (virtually) only two political parties, both sides will pander to
> the largest possible constituency. This results in campaigns without
> substance, fear of taking a real stance on anything remotely
> controversial. We know what the party's ideals are, but we won't get a
> candidate who represents them (either party).
>
> The voting public is so evenly split, that both candidates have to do
> all they can to attract those just across the center, in addition to
> their own power base, WITHOUT losing the fanatical wing of their own
> parties. That's a public tightrope walk, and one slip means lost
> votes.
>
> In a sense, the two-party system and the nature of campaigns (and
> financing), by definition, means that those elected to office are
> deathly afraid to actually DO anything. As we see in every campaign,
> every vote cast while in office is recorded and rehashed, and can be
> twisted to have a variety of meanings.
>
> I laugh when I hear candidates for President talk about money - taxing
> or spending, since they can't very well usurp the powers of Congress
> when they get elected. Talk all you want, candidates, but know that
> you'll be working with a Congress just FULL of people who are afraid
> to make a mistake (or take a position). Unless there is a HUGE popular
> groundswell to support action, nothing gets done.
>
> Good luck, Obama. Good luck, McCain. Make your speeches, pander to the
> good citizens, gather ye voters while ye may. For tomorrow, you, too,
> will be stuck in the Oval Office, complaining about a do-nothing
> Congress and how you can't get anything on your agenda DONE.
>
> If you ask me, the whole problem with democracy is the
> one-man/one-vote thing.
>
> dwight

There ya go. What we really need is a benevolent dictatorship.

While I'm on a roll, here's an idea for your consideration (although it
will never really happen): Legalize marijuana under the same premise as
alcohol, and tax the hell out of it. It's something that can actually
bring this country back to financial prosperity.

Two points:

I wouldn't get too excited about Obama's education and his post-
graduate career. What I see is a portrait of a slacker. After
graduating from Columbia he slacked for four years. He had to work
hard to graduate with honors from Harvard, but jeeze that's just three
years of your life. Practicing attorneys work two or three times
harder, year after year after year, than they ever dreamed of doing
in law school. Obama also had an advantage of maturity over his
classmates at Harvard Law, being four years older than most of them.
Then he goes back to Chicago and becomes an utterly undistinguished
lecturer at the University of Chicago. I went to law school too (O
went to another top school, at UC Berkeley, currently ranked #6 by
U.S. News) and I know all about these high-end law school professors.
Slackers, most of them, through and through. Particularly in
Constitutional Law -- Obama's specialty -- it's a simple bag of tricks
they pull out and use week in week out, year after year, to the
amazement and admiration of their adoring students. But it's a very
low level of intellectual activity. The ground is very well plowed.
That which distinguishes a true legal scholar is -- what? -- legal
scholarship. On that metric Obama is a nobody. He did not publish
anyting. He did not collaborate with his colleagues at the law
school. He was a clock watcher and a resume builder. Not to mention
an affirmative action hire. He put in his time in the lecture hall
and that was it. A slacker.

The same pattern repeated in the Illinois Senate and the U.S. Senate.
A slacker through and through.

Point two: just what are the advantages to foregoing the development
of fossil fuel resources in U.S. territory? Like it or not, we are a
CO2-based society. That is not going to change in this century. We
either produce the fuel we need domestically, or buy it from abroad,
or reduce our consumption. The wise choice is to strike a balance
between all three legs of this stool. For Nancy Pelosi and Harry
Reid and Barack Obama to say no to domestic exploitation ignores this
wisdom. What are the benefits of their foolishness? I can see none.

And by the way, the obstinance of the Democratic leadership is going
to melt significantly when Congress returns from vacation on September
8. Write it down. What will you think of them then? "Saving the
planet," indeed.

180 Out

On Aug 9, 10:37*pm, wrote:
> On Aug 9, 2:40 am, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>
> On Aug 9, 2:40 am, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>
>
>
> > >>> I like McCain. *But I would have to wait to see who his running mate
> > >>> is because I worry about how much four years in the White House would
> > >>> take out of him. *If four years can age a 50 year old about a decade,
> > >>> what will four years do to a 71 year old guy?
> > >> I think McCain is physically and mentally tougher than many know. *I
> > >> don't think four years as president will be close to what he went
> > >> through as a POW. *His benchmark for what constitutes overwhelming
> > >> stress is far beyond anything most people can comprehend. *I want him to
> > >> pick a true conservative for a running mate so that person can have the
> > >> potential to become a president that actually governs from truly
> > >> conservative principles.
> > > Back in 2000 the Republicans/Bush campaign was telling us his years as
> > > a POW made him mentally unstable. *And we bought it. *So now they're
> > > telling us he's the best choice they/we have?
> > ... and because is was said means it was true then or today? *You are
> > making a broad statement about why McCain didn't get the nomination in
> > 2000. *IMO, it was because he is not conservative enough.
>
> And according to you, Bush isn't conservative enough either. *But the
> Bush campaign machine/Carl Rove destroys good records (like McCain's
> war record) and turns dumb ****s like Bush into election winners.
> It's crap. *And they're back at it again this year with Obama. *A
> hardworking overachiever is slowly being branded an anti-American,
> Muslim and elitist. *And people, once again, are taking the garbage,
> hook, line and sinker... hell, they're even gnawing at the pole and
> are willing to swallow the reel. * It pains me to watch/see it happen,
> again.
>
> > *He got it
> > this year from dumb luck and a lack of popular good conservative
> > candidates.
> > Romney is a Mormon,
>
> Like this even matters. *So he's a Mormon... big deal. *These
> Republican party dis-qualifiers just kill me!!
>
> *> Rudy had **** poor strategy,
>
> Agreed
>
> > Huckabee is a preacher,
>
> I would have thought for a Republican this would have put him over the
> top.
>
> > Fred didn't want it bad enough,
>
> Fred pretty much sleep walked through the whole affair.
>
> > and McCain managed to win
> > NH and Florida. *When Rudy dropped out after his one worthwhile primary
> > try in Florida and endorsed McCain it was over. *Then when the
> > Republicans realized what happened they had no steam to push Romney aver
> > the top. *Then the last twist of fate is that McCain probably has the
> > best chance of winning in November of them all.
> > > And the Democrats are the demons...
> > Well, demons is a little too dramatic for me but go for it if you want.
>
> I was only repeating the "fair and balanced" FauOX news mantra.
>
>
>
> > >>>> On the buffoonery scale, Obama's promises that his administration is
> > >>>> going to blow up the role of federal government, e.g., in the
> > >>>> regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and in the federal takeover of
> > >>>> the 20% of GDP that is the health care sector, at the same time as he
> > >>>> intends to exclude the representatives of the affected industries from
> > >>>> any role whatsoever in the writing of the thousands of pages of laws
> > >>>> and regulations that these takeovers will require, gives him the edge
> > >>>> in a walk. *In fact we should retire the trophy -- after we have
> > >>>> inscribed with the names of all the Obamaniacs who think it's a good
> > >>>> idea to have the amateurs who actually write our laws do so without
> > >>>> any input whatsoever *on the part of the affected industries. *How the
> > >>>> f**k is that a good idea? *It's nuts.
> > >>> Yet, we elected Bush/Rupublicans to two terms and what has he/they
> > >>> done for our country's industrial base? *In a word, nothing.
> > >> IMO, Bush was elected thanks to the Democrat's ability to throw liberal
> > >> candidates at us election after election. *Bill Clinton didn't run as a
> > >> liberal and he got two terms.
> > > Liberal. *Find a Websters. *Gotta love how the Republicans repackage
> > > words.
> > ..... just like the Democrats. *Face it, liberals hate being called
> > liberals ever since Reagan made it a "bad" word.
>
> Always reminds me (liberal) of a "bad word" a little kid makes up to
> tease you with. *"You're a... ginglehopper." *Then starts laughing and
> thinks they've really got something on you. *You just smile and say,
> "boy, you really got me with that one… I sure hate being that."
>
>
>
> > >>> I think Obama would be smart enough that once in office he'd select a
> > >>> bi-partisan cabinet.
> > >> Obama is an empty suit, IMO. *At best he is a blank slate and for me
> > >> that makes him too risky to be president. *He is a loaf of bread that
> > >> was pulled out of the oven too early and still has a gooey center. *Just
> > >> because he has an Ivy League education doesn't make him smart in the way
> > >> needed to run the country. *Have you really watched him when he hasn't
> > >> got a teleprompter? *The guy is a bumbling, fumbling, stuttering mess.
> > >> He has trouble stringing two sentences together and says "ummmm" to the
> > >> point I can't listen to him for long.
> > > Ever listen to Bush? *And we elected his dumb ass. *And McCain's
> > > speaking prowess borders on an awkward monotone 6th grader delivering
> > > his first ever speech in front of a school assembly. *In comparison,
> > > Obama is light years ahead of these two.
> > Now to me you are being extremely shallow it what you consider
> > qualifications to be president. *So anyone that doesn't have a silver
> > tongue is disqualified?
>
> Obviously there are more qualifications, but those are important.
>
> > *Have you listened to Obama off a teleprompter?
> > The guy is a bumbling mess. *If you took "ummmm" out of his vocabulary
> > he would have a mental meltdown.
>
> Sure. *A top-honors Columbia/Harvard grad. *One of _this country's_
> best and brightest.
>
> For the record, he taught constitutional law for twelve years, was a
> Lecturer for four years, and a Senior Lecturer for eight years. So for
> some reason, I think the FauOX news "fair and balanced" reporting is
> off just smidgen.
>
> > *Hitler was a great speaker so that
> > made him a great leader?
>
> Please don't draw the line that Obama is now, somehow, a Nazi. *He's
> already, somehow, a Muslim and an elitist. *Care to explain how that
> is?
>
> > >> He also comes across as being very arrogant and I think he actually
> > >> believes the hype his campaign is spewing forth that he is the political
> > >> messiah we have been waiting for. *In reality he is just the latest
> > >> liberal, elitist, sock puppet presidential candidate that George Soros
> > >> is trying to con us into electing president. *The only thing that
> > >> differentiates him from Gore, Kerry, Ted Kennedy etc. is that his skin
> > >> is black and he has far less experience to qualify him to be president.

wrote:
> Two points:
>
> I wouldn't get too excited about Obama's education and his post-
> graduate career. What I see is a portrait of a slacker. After
> graduating from Columbia he slacked for four years. He had to work
> hard to graduate with honors from Harvard, but jeeze that's just three
> years of your life. Practicing attorneys work two or three times
> harder, year after year after year, than they ever dreamed of doing
> in law school. Obama also had an advantage of maturity over his
> classmates at Harvard Law, being four years older than most of them.
> Then he goes back to Chicago and becomes an utterly undistinguished
> lecturer at the University of Chicago. I went to law school too (O
> went to another top school, at UC Berkeley, currently ranked #6 by
> U.S. News) and I know all about these high-end law school professors.
> Slackers, most of them, through and through. Particularly in
> Constitutional Law -- Obama's specialty -- it's a simple bag of tricks
> they pull out and use week in week out, year after year, to the
> amazement and admiration of their adoring students. But it's a very
> low level of intellectual activity. The ground is very well plowed.
> That which distinguishes a true legal scholar is -- what? -- legal
> scholarship. On that metric Obama is a nobody. He did not publish
> anyting. He did not collaborate with his colleagues at the law
> school. He was a clock watcher and a resume builder. Not to mention
> an affirmative action hire. He put in his time in the lecture hall
> and that was it. A slacker.
>
> The same pattern repeated in the Illinois Senate and the U.S. Senate.
> A slacker through and through.
>
> Point two: just what are the advantages to foregoing the development
> of fossil fuel resources in U.S. territory? Like it or not, we are a
> CO2-based society. That is not going to change in this century. We
> either produce the fuel we need domestically, or buy it from abroad,
> or reduce our consumption. The wise choice is to strike a balance
> between all three legs of this stool. For Nancy Pelosi and Harry
> Reid and Barack Obama to say no to domestic exploitation ignores this
> wisdom. What are the benefits of their foolishness? I can see none.
>
> And by the way, the obstinance of the Democratic leadership is going
> to melt significantly when Congress returns from vacation on September
> 8. Write it down. What will you think of them then? "Saving the
> planet," indeed.

More like saving their political asses.

> On Aug 9, 10:37 pm, wrote:
>> On Aug 9, 2:40 am, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 9, 2:40 am, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> I like McCain. But I would have to wait to see who his running mate
>>>>>> is because I worry about how much four years in the White House would
>>>>>> take out of him. If four years can age a 50 year old about a decade,
>>>>>> what will four years do to a 71 year old guy?
>>>>> I think McCain is physically and mentally tougher than many know. I
>>>>> don't think four years as president will be close to what he went
>>>>> through as a POW. His benchmark for what constitutes overwhelming
>>>>> stress is far beyond anything most people can comprehend. I want him to
>>>>> pick a true conservative for a running mate so that person can have the
>>>>> potential to become a president that actually governs from truly
>>>>> conservative principles.
>>>> Back in 2000 the Republicans/Bush campaign was telling us his years as
>>>> a POW made him mentally unstable. And we bought it. So now they're
>>>> telling us he's the best choice they/we have?
>>> ... and because is was said means it was true then or today? You are
>>> making a broad statement about why McCain didn't get the nomination in
>>> 2000. IMO, it was because he is not conservative enough.
>> And according to you, Bush isn't conservative enough either. But the
>> Bush campaign machine/Carl Rove destroys good records (like McCain's
>> war record) and turns dumb ****s like Bush into election winners.
>> It's crap. And they're back at it again this year with Obama. A
>> hardworking overachiever is slowly being branded an anti-American,
>> Muslim and elitist. And people, once again, are taking the garbage,
>> hook, line and sinker... hell, they're even gnawing at the pole and
>> are willing to swallow the reel. It pains me to watch/see it happen,
>> again.
>>
>>> He got it
>>> this year from dumb luck and a lack of popular good conservative
>>> candidates.
>>> Romney is a Mormon,
>> Like this even matters. So he's a Mormon... big deal. These
>> Republican party dis-qualifiers just kill me!!
>>
>> > Rudy had **** poor strategy,
>>
>> Agreed
>>
>>> Huckabee is a preacher,
>> I would have thought for a Republican this would have put him over the
>> top.
>>
>>> Fred didn't want it bad enough,
>> Fred pretty much sleep walked through the whole affair.
>>
>>> and McCain managed to win
>>> NH and Florida. When Rudy dropped out after his one worthwhile primary
>>> try in Florida and endorsed McCain it was over. Then when the
>>> Republicans realized what happened they had no steam to push Romney aver
>>> the top. Then the last twist of fate is that McCain probably has the
>>> best chance of winning in November of them all.
>>>> And the Democrats are the demons...
>>> Well, demons is a little too dramatic for me but go for it if you want.
>> I was only repeating the "fair and balanced" FauOX news mantra.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>> On the buffoonery scale, Obama's promises that his administration is
>>>>>>> going to blow up the role of federal government, e.g., in the
>>>>>>> regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and in the federal takeover of
>>>>>>> the 20% of GDP that is the health care sector, at the same time as he
>>>>>>> intends to exclude the representatives of the affected industries from
>>>>>>> any role whatsoever in the writing of the thousands of pages of laws
>>>>>>> and regulations that these takeovers will require, gives him the edge
>>>>>>> in a walk. In fact we should retire the trophy -- after we have
>>>>>>> inscribed with the names of all the Obamaniacs who think it's a good
>>>>>>> idea to have the amateurs who actually write our laws do so without
>>>>>>> any input whatsoever on the part of the affected industries. How the
>>>>>>> f**k is that a good idea? It's nuts.
>>>>>> Yet, we elected Bush/Rupublicans to two terms and what has he/they
>>>>>> done for our country's industrial base? In a word, nothing.
>>>>> IMO, Bush was elected thanks to the Democrat's ability to throw liberal
>>>>> candidates at us election after election. Bill Clinton didn't run as a
>>>>> liberal and he got two terms.
>>>> Liberal. Find a Websters. Gotta love how the Republicans repackage
>>>> words.
>>> ..... just like the Democrats. Face it, liberals hate being called
>>> liberals ever since Reagan made it a "bad" word.
>> Always reminds me (liberal) of a "bad word" a little kid makes up to
>> tease you with. "You're a... ginglehopper." Then starts laughing and
>> thinks they've really got something on you. You just smile and say,
>> "boy, you really got me with that one… I sure hate being that."
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> I think Obama would be smart enough that once in office he'd select a
>>>>>> bi-partisan cabinet.
>>>>> Obama is an empty suit, IMO. At best he is a blank slate and for me
>>>>> that makes him too risky to be president. He is a loaf of bread that
>>>>> was pulled out of the oven too early and still has a gooey center. Just
>>>>> because he has an Ivy League education doesn't make him smart in the way
>>>>> needed to run the country. Have you really watched him when he hasn't
>>>>> got a teleprompter? The guy is a bumbling, fumbling, stuttering mess.
>>>>> He has trouble stringing two sentences together and says "ummmm" to the
>>>>> point I can't listen to him for long.
>>>> Ever listen to Bush? And we elected his dumb ass. And McCain's
>>>> speaking prowess borders on an awkward monotone 6th grader delivering
>>>> his first ever speech in front of a school assembly. In comparison,
>>>> Obama is light years ahead of these two.
>>> Now to me you are being extremely shallow it what you consider
>>> qualifications to be president. So anyone that doesn't have a silver
>>> tongue is disqualified?
>> Obviously there are more qualifications, but those are important.
>>
>>> Have you listened to Obama off a teleprompter?
>>> The guy is a bumbling mess. If you took "ummmm" out of his vocabulary
>>> he would have a mental meltdown.
>> Sure. A top-honors Columbia/Harvard grad. One of _this country's_
>> best and brightest.
>>
>> For the record, he taught constitutional law for twelve years, was a
>> Lecturer for four years, and a Senior Lecturer for eight years. So for
>> some reason, I think the FauOX news "fair and balanced" reporting is
>> off just smidgen.
>>
>>> Hitler was a great speaker so that
>>> made him a great leader?
>> Please don't draw the line that Obama is now, somehow, a Nazi. He's
>> already, somehow, a Muslim and an elitist. Care to explain how that
>> is?
>>
>>>>> He also comes across as being very arrogant and I think he actually
>>>>> believes the hype his campaign is spewing forth that he is the political
>>>>> messiah we have been waiting for. In reality he is just the latest
>>>>> liberal, elitist, sock puppet presidential candidate that George Soros
>>>>> is trying to con us into electing president. The only thing that
>>>>> differentiates him from Gore, Kerry, Ted Kennedy etc. is that his skin
>>>>> is black and he has far less experience to qualify him to be president.
>>>> And tune in tomorrow for more of the "fair and balanced" O'Reilley
>>>> Factor...
>>> ..... and Oberman and Chris Matthews are not blowing Obama every chance
>>> they get? I know Mathews' leg tingles when Obama speaks.
>> They're the talking bobble heads of the left. They suck as bad as the
>> FauOX team. ALL should all be thrown in the toilet, where turds
>> belong, and flushed.
>>
>>> The real truth is that Fox News is more balanced than any other network, period.
>> <COUGH CHOKE COUGH CHOKE... wheezing... dry heaves... now trying to
>> catch my breath> WOW! The power of advertising. Say it enough times
>> -- "fair and balanced" -- and people will come to believe it.
>>
>> Let's just say everything they/FauOX claim to be, they're not.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>> As to all the rest of the Obama agenda, he is more and more a stealth
>>>>>>> candidate, a blank slate blathering generalities that each listener
>>>>>>> can fill in with whatever content matches his personal values. That
>>>>>>> is the most dangerous candidate of all.
>>>>>> Because, again, these two really don't know what they can do until
>>>>>> they sit in the big chair. Campaigns are more about sounding/looking
>>>>>> Presidential, than addressing specifics on issues.
>>>>> IMO, campaigns are about the candidates laying out their general
>>>>> political leanings and the broad goals they intent to pursue. Their may
>>>>> be surprises for the winner once they are in office but they also need
>>>>> to know the general workings of the system. This is where McCain has a
>>>>> big edge over Obama. I think Obama it being run by major players behind
>>>>> the scene. It is why he is so scripted and they won't let him be put in
>>>>> situations where he has to think fast on his feet. When he is in these
>>>>> situations he tends to freeze up or say stupid things.
>>>> You don't think McCain is being run by major players behind the
>>>> scenes? The Bush machine is hard at work, my friend.
>>> Well, they all have players working behind the scenes. Obama has been
>>> groomed by George Soros and the slimy Chicago political machine and they
>>> own him.
>> No one is slimier than Rove. No one.
>>
>>>>>>> That is exactly what we have
>>>>>>> in President Bush -- a content-free vessel interested in only one
>>>>>>> thing: power.
>>>>>>> McCain is not a lot better on the buffoonery scale. But his small
>>>>>>> margin in this area, combined with the giganitc benefit of the divided
>>>>>>> government that his election would bring for at least four years, if
>>>>>>> not eight, makes him the far better choice of the two.
>>>>>> From what I seen/heard so far, I don't think the Democrats will own
>>>>>> Congress for very long anyway.
>>>>> I agree, judging by their performance the past two years. They have
>>>>> accomplished absolutely nothing meaningful unless you consider holding
>>>>> hearings on Bush's administration a worthwhile pursuit.
>>>> What the Republicans need to debate is another Terry Schiavo
>>>> case... spend a couple months talking about that to collect some more
>>>> religious votes.
>> Real problems to be solved and they spent ...
>>
>> read more »
>

> "dwight" > wrote in
>> If you ask me, the whole problem with democracy is the
>> one-man/one-vote thing.
>>
>> dwight

Just caught this one. It certainly sounds like you're advocating the idea
that there are some of us MORE equal than others.

Smacks of Animal Farm.

Scott W.

On Aug 12, 10:31 am, wrote:

> Two points:

> I wouldn't get too excited about Obama's education and his post-
> graduate career. What I see is a portrait of a slacker. After
> graduating from Columbia he slacked for four years. He had to work
> hard to graduate with honors from Harvard, but jeeze that's just three
> years of your life. Practicing attorneys work two or three times
> harder, year after year after year, than they ever dreamed of doing
> in law school. Obama also had an advantage of maturity over his
> classmates at Harvard Law, being four years older than most of them.

From Wiki.

Obama entered Harvard Law School in late 1988 and at the end of his
first year was selected as an editor of the Harvard Law Review based
on his grades and a writing competition.[17] In his second year he was
elected president of the Law Review, a full-time volunteer position
functioning as editor-in-chief and supervising the law review's staff
of 80 editors.[18] Obama's election in February 1990 as the first
black president of the Harvard Law Review was widely reported and
followed by several long, detailed profiles.[18] He graduated with a
J.D. magna cum laude from Harvard in 1991 and returned to Chicago
where he had worked as a summer associate at the law firms of Sidley &
Austin in 1989 and Hopkins & Sutter in 1990.

> Then he goes back to Chicago and becomes an utterly undistinguished
> lecturer at the University of Chicago. I went to law school too (O
> went to another top school, at UC Berkeley, currently ranked #6 by
> U.S. News) and I know all about these high-end law school professors.
> Slackers, most of them, through and through. Particularly in
> Constitutional Law -- Obama's specialty -- it's a simple bag of tricks
> they pull out and use week in week out, year after year, to the
> amazement and admiration of their adoring students. But it's a very
> low level of intellectual activity. The ground is very well plowed.
> That which distinguishes a true legal scholar is -- what? -- legal
> scholarship. On that metric Obama is a nobody. He did not publish
> anything. He did not collaborate with his colleagues at the law
> school. He was a clock watcher and a resume builder. Not to mention
> an affirmative action hire. He put in his time in the lecture hall
> and that was it. A slacker.

Obama directed Illinois Project Vote from April to October 1992, a
voter registration drive with a staff of 10 and 700 volunteers that
achieved its goal of registering 150,000 of 400,000 unregistered
African Americans in the state, leading Crain's Chicago Business to
name Obama to its 1993 list of "40 under Forty" powers to be.[21][22]

In 1993 Obama joined Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, a 12-attorney
law firm specializing in civil rights litigation and neighborhood
economic development, where he was an associate for three years from
1993 to 1996, then of counsel from 1996 to 2004, with his law license
becoming inactive in 2002.[11][24]

Obama was a founding member of the board of directors of Public Allies
in 1992, resigning before his wife, Michelle, became the founding
executive director of Public Allies Chicago in early 1993.[11][25] He
served on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which
in 1985 had been the first foundation to fund Obama's DCP, from 1993–
2002, and served on the board of directors of The Joyce Foundation
from 1994–2002.[11] Obama served on the board of directors of the
Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995–2002, as founding president and
chairman of the board of directors from 1995–1999.[11] He also served
on the board of directors of the Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil
Rights Under Law, the Center for Neighborhood Technology, and the
Lugenia Burns Hope Center.

> The same pattern repeated in the Illinois Senate and the U.S. Senate.
> A slacker through and through.

Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996, succeeding State
Senator Alice Palmer as Senator from the 13th District, which then
spanned Chicago South Side neighborhoods from Hyde Park-Kenwood south
to South Shore and west to Chicago Lawn.[26] Once elected, Obama
gained bipartisan support for legislation reforming ethics and health
care laws.[27] He sponsored a law increasing tax credits for low-
income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased
subsidies for childcare.[28] In 2001, as co-chairman of the bipartisan
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, Obama supported Republican
Governor Ryan's payday loan regulations and predatory mortgage lending
regulations aimed at averting home foreclosures,[29] and in 2003,
Obama sponsored and led unanimous, bipartisan passage of legislation
to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of
drivers they detained and legislation making Illinois the first state
to mandate videotaping of homicide interrogations.

And now, at just age 46, is running for President of the United
States. Yep, no ambition, no drive... what a slacker.

> Point two: just what are the advantages to foregoing the development
> of fossil fuel resources in U.S. territory? Like it or not, we are a
> CO2-based society. That is not going to change in this century.

Correct. As long as the fossil fuels can just undercut the price of
any developing alternatives.

> We either produce the fuel we need domestically, or buy it from abroad,

Agreed. But the point is we're not going to drill ourselves to
independence. Supply goes up, price goes down, alternatives take a
back seat.

An interesting article.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pipelin...nsumption.html

> or reduce our consumption.

That doesn't happen when oil is cheap. Hell, the recent surge in
prices didn't really change habits until we neared the 4-buck-a-gallon
mark.

> The wise choice is to strike a balance
> between all three legs of this stool. For Nancy Pelosi and Harry
> Reid and Barack Obama to say no to domestic exploitation ignores this
> wisdom. What are the benefits of their foolishness? I can see none.

We have an addiction to oil, but be keep resorting to feeding it.

> And by the way, the obstinance of the Democratic leadership is going
> to melt significantly when Congress returns from vacation on September
> 8. Write it down. What will you think of them then? "Saving the
> planet," indeed.

Some unrelated to your post, but related to this thread info.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

Patrick

wrote:
> On Aug 10, 6:13 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>
> On Aug 10, 6:13 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>
>>>>>>> I like McCain. But I would have to wait to see who his running
mate
>>>>>>> is because I worry about how much four years in the White House
would
>>>>>>> take out of him. If four years can age a 50 year old about a
decade,
>>>>>>> what will four years do to a 71 year old guy?
>
>>>>>> I think McCain is physically and mentally tougher than many know. I
>>>>>> don't think four years as president will be close to what he went
>>>>>> through as a POW. His benchmark for what constitutes overwhelming
>>>>>> stress is far beyond anything most people can comprehend. I
want him to
>>>>>> pick a true conservative for a running mate so that person can
have the
>>>>>> potential to become a president that actually governs from truly
>>>>>> conservative principles.
>
>>>>> Back in 2000 the Republicans/Bush campaign was telling us his
years as
>>>>> a POW made him mentally unstable. And we bought it. So now they're
>>>>> telling us he's the best choice they/we have?
>
>>>> ... and because is was said means it was true then or today? You are
>>>> making a broad statement about why McCain didn't get the nomination in
>>>> 2000. IMO, it was because he is not conservative enough.
>
>>> And according to you, Bush isn't conservative enough either. But the
>>> Bush campaign machine/Carl Rove destroys good records (like McCain's
>>> war record) and turns dumb ****s like Bush into election winners.
>>> It's crap. And they're back at it again this year with Obama. A
>>> hardworking overachiever is slowly being branded an anti-American,
>>> Muslim and elitist. And people, once again, are taking the garbage,
>>> hook, line and sinker... hell, they're even gnawing at the pole and
>>> are willing to swallow the reel. It pains me to watch/see it happen,
>>> again.
>
>> Both sides are presenting their arguments and it is up to us to decide
>> who wins the most points.
>
> But that's the thing. The talking heads on the 24-hour news networks
> are not presenting "arguments". They're doing biased propaganda/bull
> **** instead of presenting intellectually-based information. What
> they deliver instead is some hot head "news" host carefully selecting
> wacky guests to present the other side. Then he controls the
> "discussion" demeans them/yells/calls them names -- like pinhead --
> and then finishes with "tune in tomorrow for another 'fair and
> balanced' report."

For better or worse we are now responsible for weeding out their
bull****. It really isn't too hard to do when you know what to look
for. The real reason for the MSM's decline is that we now have multiple
good sources to get informed due to the rise of the Internet. They
can't pull the wool over the public's eyes like they have been doing for
over 100 years. Their monopoly is over so they are going for those
fringe viewers that will eat up their dogma.

>> The lefties assume anyone that doesn't vote
>> their way are stupid.
>
> And the righties are clannish.

The biggest mistake the lefties make is to assume anyone that doesn't
agree with them are stupid, flawed morally and just plain unworthy to
breath the free air. They need to realize they are insulting 80%+ of
the population.

>> We are in a situation of once again voting
>> against the other guy and not for someone.
>
> Person-wise I like both candidates this time around. My beef is
> rewarding the Republicans for the last 8 years.

As opposed to rewarding the Democrats for the past 60 years of a slow
slide toward socialism?

>> Before you get too involved in trashing the Republicans and their
>> tactics you need to look into how Obama won his first election in
>> Chicago. He forced his competition off the ballet through slimy legal
>> maneuvering. He is far from the "pure as the driven snow" politician
>> his handlers present to the public.
>
> I'll have to research this. Hopefully, it's not a FauOX news
> "report".

It is well documented.

> I think McCain is pretty clean in this regard. I just don't like his
> handlers this go around. But I'm hoping, if he gets elected, that the
> maverick comes out of him and he tells them to go F themselves.

He might but I think anyone that gets elected can't do the one finger
salute and expect to get anything done.

>> How do you justify Obama sitting in a church that preached racism and
>> Black Liberation Theology?
>
> And look at the religious extremists the Republicans have courted over
> the years. The only difference is that their skin color is white.

Show me where any Republican sat in a church for 20 years and sucked up
a bunch of racist, hate America sermons. This guy was Obama's mentor
and he considered him to be family. You're just spewing out the
MoveOn.org mantra now.

>> Now he either believes in the Rev. Wrights
>> views or he stayed there for political gain and let his children be
>> indoctrinated in this BS. As for him being a Muslim, that depends on
>> your religious beliefs and point of view. He is actually a REFORMED
>> Muslim since he attended Muslim schools for a few years and his father
>> is Muslim. At one time he was a Muslim and this is undeniable fact.
>
> Like I said before, who cares? Why is being a Muslim a bad thing?
> And is it better or worse than being a Mormon, Hindu, Buddhist,
> Shinto, atheist?

You just blasted Republicans for associating with supposedly racist
preachers and then you say "Who care"? I don't really care about his
choice of religion. I care that he chose to sit and listen to racist,
hate America sermons for 20 years. There is something fundementally
wrong with a person that does this. He either did it for political
gain, he agrees with the content or he is too stupid to know what he is
listening to. Any of the three disqualifies him to be president of this
country, IMO.

> Seems you're scared that he's going to form terrorist training camps
> and attack the US from the inside or something. Please. He's an
> American. I'm pretty sure there's been enough people vouch for his
> character over the years and passed enough background checks for him
> to be this close to the presidency.

I'm scared he is not up to the job and can cause untold damage to this
country is he isn't. I won't take the risk of voting him into office.
McCain is a known quantity and a much safer bet, IMO.

>> The Republicans are only pointing out his political leanings
>
> Yea, by making up some weird-ass story about a scary "terrorist fist
> jab".

You need to see the larger picture.

>> and the
>> FACT he has hardly any relevant experience to qualify him for the job of
>> president. Saying this is attacking him just isn't true.
>
> Yes, mentioning political experience is a consideration. But then
> again, the Three Stooges' -- Bush, Rumsfeld & Cheney -- experience
> didn't help much.
>
>> Obama had
>> hoped that he could use the fact he is black to bully anyone from
>> criticizing him in any way.
>
> Did he? Or is this what FauOX thinks?

Listen to his own words to see it is true.

>> Well that just won't fly with the majority
>> of Americans. All Obama is attempting to do is suppress the truth about
>> his voting record and past in any manner possible because he can't
deny it.
>
>>>> He got it
>>>> this year from dumb luck and a lack of popular good conservative
>>>> candidates.
>
>>>> Romney is a Mormon,
>
>>> Like this even matters. So he's a Mormon... big deal. These
>>> Republican party dis-qualifiers just kill me!!
>
>> I agree it doesn't matter but I'm giving you what I believe is Romey's
>> biggest political liability. Read up on how the Mormon faith was
>> started. It is a relatively new strain of the Christian faith and has
>> had its fair share of scrutiny. We don't elect politicians for
>> president that stray too far off the beaten path of what is normal for
>> the majority of us. We don't elect as president people that we see as a
>> possible risk.
>
> Nice case in point. Republican's are clannish. You must fit, or
> you're not it.

Patrick, I know your mind isn't this small to make such silly statements.

> Me... I don't want the best white Christian candidate. I want the
> best candidate, period.

Look at any country in the world and when a country is made up of one
religion overwhelmingly that is almost always the person(s) they elect.

>>> > Rudy had **** poor strategy,
>
>>> Agreed
>
>>>> Huckabee is a preacher,
>
>>> I would have thought for a Republican this would have put him over the
>>> top.
>
>> Patrick, don't assume I am a Republican or I fit your definition of a
>> conservative. Here's my views in a nutshell:
>
>> I want low taxes;
>
> I want our tax dollars spent wisely.

..... and if they are spent wisely they need fewer of them.

>> a balanced budget;
>
> Agreed. And mandated.
>
>> a small government
>
> I want one that works.
>
>> along with restrained spending by it;
>
> Yes.
>
> I don't want attachments. Here's THE proposal. Do we spend the money
> or not?
>
>> let abortion, gay marriage etc. issues get resolve on a state by
>> state basis;
>
> Probably... though I think state borders may cause problems.
>
>> a strong military that we stand behind;
>
> I think everyone stands behind us. Just not the policies & decisions
> that make us act. And I'm okay with that.

Liberals have an inherent dislike of the military. They mask it better
than they did during the Vietnam War but make no mistake it is still
there just below their thin veneer.

>> welfare is for the truly needy and not the able bodied;
>
> YES.
>
>> I want politicians that don't make
>> careers as elected officials and think they are royalty; and lastly I
>> don't want politicians wearing religion on their sleeves like it is a
>> qualification for the job.
>
> Oh, wow... YES!!
>
>> I have other but those are the highlights.
>
> Mike, I think this shows we/most people are really down the center
> with slight leanings to one side or the other. And that's why is
> troubles me that left & right news media play it like it's us against
> them. We all want what's best for America regardless if we're Dems or
> Pubs.

I hope you see that I am not some right wing robot. Most CONSERVATIVE
people are just like me and many are not card caring Republicans. At
one time I considered myself Republican but as Ronald Reagan said, "I
didn't leave the Democrat Party. They left me." Just substitute
Republican for Democrat and you have my position.

>>>> Fred didn't want it bad enough,
>
>>> Fred pretty much sleep walked through the whole affair.
>
>>>> and McCain managed to win
>>>> NH and Florida. When Rudy dropped out after his one worthwhile
primary
>>>> try in Florida and endorsed McCain it was over. Then when the
>>>> Republicans realized what happened they had no steam to push
Romney aver
>>>> the top. Then the last twist of fate is that McCain probably has the
>>>> best chance of winning in November of them all.
>
>>>>> And the Democrats are the demons...
>
>>>> Well, demons is a little too dramatic for me but go for it if you
want.
>
>>> I was only repeating the "fair and balanced" FauOX news mantra.
>
>> Well, this just isn't true.
>
> Yes it is. You need to step away for awhile then go back and really
> listen to them critically.

I watch all the cable networks. I can see the differences clearly.

>> Fox has political commentators just like
>> CNN, MSNBC etc. so if you are going to paint Fox this way then go ahead
>> and do it to the others.
>
> I do.
>
>> In reality, Fox is the closest to being in the
>> center than any cable channel. Your problem is that you are using the
>> MSM as your benchmark for the center and they are way to the left so
>> anyone to their right you consider to be far right.
>
> MSM = extreme left. FOX = extreme right.
>
>> If you don't
>> believe me then just look at the number of journalists that have given
>> money to Democrat candidates or consider themselves liberal. The proof
>> it right in front of you.
>
> Fox has been the VOICE of the Bush administration/Republican party. I
> don't want propaganda. The media should be checking and balancing the
> administration, not just the Democrats.

IMO, Fox has leaned to the right for business reasons. It is smart to
offer an alternative to the large, more liberal MSM. It is even smarter
that they are the only big television media corporation intelligent
enough to do it.

>>>>>>>> On the buffoonery scale, Obama's promises that his
administration is
>>>>>>>> going to blow up the role of federal government, e.g., in the
>>>>>>>> regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and in the federal
takeover of
>>>>>>>> the 20% of GDP that is the health care sector, at the same
time as he
>>>>>>>> intends to exclude the representatives of the affected
industries from
>>>>>>>> any role whatsoever in the writing of the thousands of pages
of laws
>>>>>>>> and regulations that these takeovers will require, gives him
the edge
>>>>>>>> in a walk. In fact we should retire the trophy -- after we have
>>>>>>>> inscribed with the names of all the Obamaniacs who think it's
a good
>>>>>>>> idea to have the amateurs who actually write our laws do so
without
>>>>>>>> any input whatsoever on the part of the affected industries.
How the
>>>>>>>> f**k is that a good idea? It's nuts.
>>>>>>> Yet, we elected Bush/Rupublicans to two terms and what has he/they
>>>>>>> done for our country's industrial base? In a word, nothing.
>>>>>> IMO, Bush was elected thanks to the Democrat's ability to throw
liberal
>>>>>> candidates at us election after election. Bill Clinton didn't
run as a
>>>>>> liberal and he got two terms.
>
>>>>> Liberal. Find a Websters. Gotta love how the Republicans repackage
>>>>> words.
>
>>>> ..... just like the Democrats. Face it, liberals hate being called
>>>> liberals ever since Reagan made it a "bad" word.
>
>>> Always reminds me (liberal) of a "bad word" a little kid makes up to
>>> tease you with. "You're a... ginglehopper." Then starts laughing and
>>> thinks they've really got something on you. You just smile and say,
>>> "boy, you really got me with that one… I sure hate being that."
>
>> Well, if you prefer ginglehopper instead of liberal I can probably
>> accommodate you.
>
> No. You can call me a liberal. I like the true definition.
>
>>>>>>> I think Obama would be smart enough that once in office he'd
select a
>>>>>>> bi-partisan cabinet.
>
>>>>>> Obama is an empty suit, IMO. At best he is a blank slate and for me
>>>>>> that makes him too risky to be president. He is a loaf of bread
that
>>>>>> was pulled out of the oven too early and still has a gooey
center. Just
>>>>>> because he has an Ivy League education doesn't make him smart in
the way
>>>>>> needed to run the country. Have you really watched him when he
hasn't
>>>>>> got a teleprompter? The guy is a bumbling, fumbling, stuttering
mess.
>>>>>> He has trouble stringing two sentences together and says "ummmm"
to the
>>>>>> point I can't listen to him for long.
>
>>>>> Ever listen to Bush? And we elected his dumb ass. And McCain's
>>>>> speaking prowess borders on an awkward monotone 6th grader delivering
>>>>> his first ever speech in front of a school assembly. In comparison,
>>>>> Obama is light years ahead of these two.
>
>>>> Now to me you are being extremely shallow it what you consider
>>>> qualifications to be president. So anyone that doesn't have a silver
>>>> tongue is disqualified?
>
>>> Obviously there are more qualifications, but those are important.
>
>> Obama can read a teleprompter and that just isn't a reason to consider
>> him to be up for the job. The problem with making this too important is
>> that it makes a person not look at what is actually being said. If it
>> sounds good coming out of Obama's mouth then it must be the right
>> position? As I said, this is exactly how Hilter came to power by giving
>> good speeches.
>
> And so did Lincoln & Kennedy.

Comparing Omama to lincoln is such a stretch I can't go there. As for
Kennedy, he was a war hero, Congressman and US Senator. A much better
resume than Obama can put forth.

>>>> Have you listened to Obama off a teleprompter?
>>>> The guy is a bumbling mess. If you took "ummmm" out of his vocabulary
>>>> he would have a mental meltdown.
>
>>> Sure. A top-honors Columbia/Harvard grad. One of _this country's_
>>> best and brightest.
>
>> I have a BS in engineering and I can say without a doubt that there are
>> plenty of engineers with BS degrees that are dumb as a stone about
>> applying their book knowledge to the real world. ...
>
> But are they top-honors and well respected?

I doen't matter if they can't engineer their way out of a wet paper bag.

>>> For the record, he taught constitutional law for twelve years, was a
>>> Lecturer for four years, and a Senior Lecturer for eight years. So for
>>> some reason, I think the FauOX news "fair and balanced" reporting is
>>> off just smidgen.
>
>> ...... and this means what is the real world?
>
> That he must be pretty decent lecturer, despite what FauOX news
> reports.

180 gave a great response for this. I can't add anything to what he stated.

>> All this means to me is
>> he was insulated in the extremely liberal world of academia for several
>> years.
>
> Yes, they are exposed to a lot of different thoughts/thinking in our
> colleges. But they need to be to get the whole world picture. That's
> a good thing. You don't want a narrow mind to lead our country.

He was exposed to extremely liberal thinking. There wasn't much variety
in it and it shows in his words and conduct.

>> Hardly a qualification to be President of the United States.
>
> A better one is to be from a rich elitist family (e.g. the Bush
> family)

Well, what about any Kennedy that was, is or will be elected?

>> What is your beef with Fox News? It seems obsessive.
>
> Shawn Hannity & Bill O'Reilly are two.

Well, you have Oberman and Mathews to give you your dose of
Bush/Republican bashing.

>> Why is Fox the most watched cable news network is they are so biased?
>
> I have no idea. Why is American idol a top-rated TV show?

Fox has a monopoly on non-liberally biased news.

>>>> Hitler was a great speaker so that
>>>> made him a great leader?
>
>>> Please don't draw the line that Obama is now, somehow, a Nazi. He's
>>> already, somehow, a Muslim and an elitist. Care to explain how that
>>> is?
>
>> You drew the line not me. I provided a very good example as to why one
>> shouldn't put too much emphasis of a person's ability to give a speech.
>
> It's important. It's what made Reagan effective.

IMO, it was the quality of his convictions and having the balls to
follow through on them.

>>>>>> He also comes across as being very arrogant and I think he actually
>>>>>> believes the hype his campaign is spewing forth that he is the
political
>>>>>> messiah we have been waiting for. In reality he is just the latest
>>>>>> liberal, elitist, sock puppet presidential candidate that George
Soros
>>>>>> is trying to con us into electing president. The only thing that
>>>>>> differentiates him from Gore, Kerry, Ted Kennedy etc. is that
his skin
>>>>>> is black and he has far less experience to qualify him to be
president.
>>>>> And tune in tomorrow for more of the "fair and balanced" O'Reilley
>>>>> Factor...
>
>>>> ..... and Oberman and Chris Matthews are not blowing Obama every
chance
>>>> they get? I know Mathews' leg tingles when Obama speaks.
>
>>> They're the talking bobble heads of the left. They suck as bad as the
>>> FauOX team. ALL should all be thrown in the toilet, where turds
>>> belong, and flushed.
>
>> See, I don't let any of them both me that much. My TV has an off button
>> and the History Channel, HGTV, Food Network, Discovery Channel, Science
>> Channel, etc. have too many good shows for me to complain all that much.
>
> Yes, on all of the above!! When, and it's not often, those (toss in
> ESPN and Comedy Central) are the channels I watch.

As my wife will attest to, I am a colossal nerd.

>>>> The real truth is that Fox News is more balanced than any other
network, period.
>
>>> <COUGH CHOKE COUGH CHOKE... wheezing... dry heaves... now trying to
>>> catch my breath> WOW! The power of advertising. Say it enough times
>>> -- "fair and balanced" -- and people will come to believe it.
>
>>> Let's just say everything they/FauOX claim to be, they're not.
>
>> Well it is true. I watch them all to some extent and Fox is the closest
>> to the center. CNN isn't as bad as MSNBC. Now MSNBC as has their heads
>> up Obama's ass so far and for so long I think they have forgotten what
>> the Sun looks like.
>
> Just like Fox was with the Bush administration -- Hell, Fox even has
> Rove working for them. Talk about a conflict of interest!

Rove isn't employed by the government any more. Even the other liberal
commentators on the other networks have given Rove high moarks for the
quality of his commentary. He will smack a Republican almost as fast as
a Democrat.

>>>>>>>> As to all the rest of the Obama agenda, he is more and more a
stealth
>>>>>>>> candidate, a blank slate blathering generalities that each
listener
>>>>>>>> can fill in with whatever content matches his personal values.
That
>>>>>>>> is the most dangerous candidate of all.
>>>>>>> Because, again, these two really don't know what they can do until
>>>>>>> they sit in the big chair. Campaigns are more about
sounding/looking
>>>>>>> Presidential, than addressing specifics on issues.
>>>>>> IMO, campaigns are about the candidates laying out their general
>>>>>> political leanings and the broad goals they intent to pursue.
Their may
>>>>>> be surprises for the winner once they are in office but they
also need
>>>>>> to know the general workings of the system. This is where
McCain has a
>>>>>> big edge over Obama. I think Obama it being run by major
players behind
>>>>>> the scene. It is why he is so scripted and they won't let him
be put in
>>>>>> situations where he has to think fast on his feet. When he is
in these
>>>>>> situations he tends to freeze up or say stupid things.
>
>>>>> You don't think McCain is being run by major players behind the
>>>>> scenes? The Bush machine is hard at work, my friend.
>
>>>> Well, they all have players working behind the scenes. Obama has been
>>>> groomed by George Soros and the slimy Chicago political machine
and they
>>>> own him.
>
>>> No one is slimier than Rove. No one.
>
>> Some people just can't stand a winner.
>
> Rove is a loser.

Not based on his results.

>> Rove knows politics like no other person breathing today. You're
just too
>> politically jaded to appreciate it.
>
> That he does. And you can thank him for turning Bush into a
> conservative and destroying McCain's war record -- that act was
> appalling! McCain should have won in 2000.

I was around in 2000 and I didn't feel swayed by anything said against
McCain. McCain just isn't conservative enough for me and I really
thought Bush would govern more conservatively than he has.

>>>>>>>> That is exactly what we have
>>>>>>>> in President Bush -- a content-free vessel interested in only one
>>>>>>>> thing: power.
>
>>>>>>>> McCain is not a lot better on the buffoonery scale. But his small
>>>>>>>> margin in this area, combined with the giganitc benefit of the
divided
>>>>>>>> government that his election would bring for at least four
years, if
>>>>>>>> not eight, makes him the far better choice of the two.
>
>>>>>>> From what I seen/heard so far, I don't think the Democrats will own
>>>>>>> Congress for very long anyway.
>
>>>>>> I agree, judging by their performance the past two years. They have
>>>>>> accomplished absolutely nothing meaningful unless you consider
holding
>>>>>> hearings on Bush's administration a worthwhile pursuit.
>
>>>>> What the Republicans need to debate is another Terry Schiavo
>>>>> case... spend a couple months talking about that to collect some more
>>>>> religious votes.
>
>>> Real problems to be solved and they spent time debating this.
>>> Amazing.
>
>> ...... and Pelosi just goes hoe instead of doing something meaningful to
>> help the average person that is having to choose between filling their
>> gas tanks and buying decent food for their family.
>
> Can't think long term. Americans want immediate gratification. Keep
> the price down, keep alternatives from ever getting/taking root.

The market determines what energy sources are viable, not the
government. All these high tech solutions are decades away even in the
most optimistic scenarios.

> Yes, high gas prices are going to hurt, but it's the only way.
> Becuase there NO WAY any alternatives will be developed when gas is
> cheaper than bottle water. The market doesn't work that way.

How many families have to suffer and for how long to have cheap
alternative energy? Is it 10 years, 20 years 30 years 50 years?

>>>> Domestic drilling will be plenty.
>
>>> Sadly, high gas prices is the only way alternatives will be found.
>
>> To some extent but the alternatives don't exist today so just how long
>> should we have to pay $4+ per gallon for gas to wait on these
>> alternatives to happen? Just how much is too much to charge for a
>> gallon of gas. How much inflation should we have to endure to give you
>> greenies as much time as needed for these alternative sources to
>> develop? You are on the losing end of this argument as far as 90% of
>> the public is concerned.
>
> You're right. Let's get it back down to $1.50 gallon. Then we can
> just keep pumping the money into the Middle East. And the
> alternatives will never come. Perfect.

When the alternatives cost less than fossil fuel the change will happen.
This change should be market driven, not government driven. The
liberals are trying to ARTIFICIALLY inflate oil prices to exert their
political will on the masses. Sounds a lot like economic Communism to me.

>>> This is a good article I just ran across.
>
>>>
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...809/AUTO03/808...
>
>> Sure keep gas at $4 per gallon. Al Gore and his limousine liberal
>> buddies can afford it all day long.
>
> Do you really think any of the Republicans are hurting? Ol' Rush and
> Bill aren't feeling the pinch.

The Republicans aren't trying to keep oil prices sky high either. That
is the distinction here.

>> Plus, Gore is making a fortune off
>> of the green movement and scaring people over global warming. People
>> are getting fed up with Democrats being controlled by socialists,
>> Marxist and wacko environmental fringe groups. It won't be long before
>> the Republicans are back in control of Congress if they don't get a
clue.
>
> The green movement needs to gain ground just like the health food
> industry does. For our health/health of the planet. I can't think of
> two more important issues.

The green movement doesn't care about the average Joe out there
struggling from day to day trying to feed his family and make ends meet.
They are promoting theory as though it is undeniable science and this
isn't going to continue to fly with the general public. The whole
global warming mess is a scam for people like Al Gore to make a fortune.

>>>> Maybe throw in a little gay marriage for good measure.
>
>>> Another pointless Republican rallying cry.
>
>> ..... and the liberals don't have any pointless battle cries they use to
>> get voters to the polls?
>
> As in...?

We can just go back and find them in your responses in this thread.

>>>>>>>> Put it this way: if you want to see another eight years with
a 60%
>>>>>>>> growth in federal spending and a no-holds barred assault on
personal
>>>>>>>> liberty in the form of Big Government interference in every
nook and
>>>>>>>> cranny of our private lives, vote for Obama. Obama truly
represents
>>>>>>>> the third and fourth terms of the Bushist regime. The
difference will
>>>>>>>> be a fine-tuning in the quality of the Big Government
disasters that
>>>>>>>> we will experience, but the quantity will be the same if not
greater.
>>>>>>> I think at this point, another presidential win for the Republicans
>>>>>>> would be pat on the back for the last 8 years of Bush.
>>>>>> I disagree. I think it would be a signal to the Democrats that the
>>>>>> country is tired of their party being controlled by the far left,
>>>>>> radical liberal elites.
>>>>> As opposed to 8 years of the radical righties?
>>>> Polls are just numbers and don't tell the real story most of the time.
>>>> Especially approval/disapproval ratings. Congress has a lower rating
>>>> than Bush so what does that mean?
>>> Has Congress EVER had favorable approval ratings?
>> WEll, when they slip into SINGLE DIGITS I think that is something to
>> take note of.
>
> Let me know when they do.

They have. Check he
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../07/020948.php

>>> Now we know Presidents have. And we know dub yah's ratings have been
>>> in the ****ter for months and months now -- the reason he's been made
>>> invisible and currently sent on a site-seeing trip overseas.
>
>> Bush's ratings are a result of him disappointing conservatives as well
>> as ****ing off liberals. Don't take it as a sign that the country is
>> turning liberal en mass. Just look at the polls between Obama and
>> McCain to figure this out.
>
> Either way it works out, I'm pretty happy.

Just don't expect election results to turn out as you expect.

>>>>>> If they had nominated a more centrist candidate
>>>>>> they would be beating ANY republican by double digits.
>
>>>>> And why is that? Because the radical righties ran us into a ditch?
>
>>>> No because that is where the majority of the country resides. It
isn't
>>>> the far left or far right.
>
>>> My feelings exactly. Yet we get these radical blow hards, from both
>>> sides, on the 24-hour "news" channels spouting their radical/biased
>>> doctrines.
>
>>> TV news has been reduced to put-downs, insinuations, yelling matches,
>>> etc. It's sickening... it truly is.
>
>> The press is worthless anymore, IMO.
>
> They've all become the People magazine of politics. It's all who said
> what and what did they mean by it, who hangs out with who, and who
> doesn't like who, etc. It's crap. But I guess that's what viewers
> want... soap operas...

Absolutely. I get more pertinent information from the Drudge Report
than the NYT.

>>>> Obama is trying hard to make himself LOOK
>>>> like a centrist but is won't be hard for the Republicans to prove
he is
>>>> one of the most, if not the most, liberal (don't you love it when
I use
>>>> that word?) nominees to be run up the flag pole.
>
>>> It's going to be sad to witness what Rove and his disciples will run
>>> Obama through.
>
>> Informing people of the truth is not sad. Obama is extremely liberal
>> and he knows that this will be his downfall. The people in this country
>> don't elect liberals as president. Especially, with people like Reid
>> and Pelosi controlling Congress.
>
> I would love to see it happen. The good ol' boy club take a fall.

The good old boy club is just as alive and well with liberal Democrats
in control.

>>>> They are doing it now
>>>> and they haven't even called out the heavy artillery yet. Wait until
>>>> the Republican convention, they will define Obama as being so liberal
>>>> that he will make George McGovern look like a Rush Limbaugh.
>
>>> Oh, I don't doubt it. If they could package G-W to look like the
>>> second coming of Jesus, I don't doubt they'll be able to tar and
>>> feather Obama. And we wonder why our Presidential picks are so crappy
>>> all the time. It's because most times the smart people won't allow
>>> themselves to be run through the gauntlet of smear campaigns.
>
>> How is pointing out a person's political leanings a smear campaign?
>
> Flag pins.
>
> Fist jabs
>
> A Muslim
>
> All good reporting.

Being extremely liberal, promoting Black Liberation Theology,
associating with know terrorists and felons, having absolutely no
relevant experience for the job to name a few are more than fair game.

>> Complaining about this makes Obama and his supporters sound like a bunch
>> of whiners.
>
> It's amazing they can keep their composer.

From what I see they can't, and don't.

>>>>>> Instead they
>>>>>> give us an unknown, untested, elitist liberal because they think the
>>>>>> majority of us are stupid enough to be fleeced into voting for him.
>
>>>>> Hell, we were stupid enough to vote in George W, twice.
>
>>>> I like to think of it as we were smart enough to not elect Gore or
Kerry.
>
>>> But in retrospect, we weren’t as smart as we thought.
>
>> Look at Gore now. The thought he could have been president scares the
>> hell out of me. Go watch some videos of him since 2000. He is a raving
>> lunatic and is why he won't run for president again. He looks like a
>> psych ward patient in them.
>
>>>>> And why is Obama being branded an elitist? Because he was
focused and
>>>>> worked his ass off to get to/through law school? Trust me, my son
>>>>> just graduated from a big name school, and I saw the commitment/hard
>>>>> work it took. (And my son is far from an elitist now. In fact he's
>>>>> spending, almost donating, the next year working in an inner city
>>>>> charter high school working with kids who would have dropped out.)
>>>>> But somehow a drunken spoiled rich kid -- George W -- gets branded a
>>>>> good ol' cowboy and gets elected to two terms. Gotta love politics!
>
>>>> Well, I guess you didn't get the transcript of his speech to the
liberal
>>>> San Francisco elites he made when he though there were no records
in the
>>>> room. Pull off the glasses that are filtering you perception and
you'll
>>>> see what the rest of us do. He is extremely liberal and that almost
>>>> always included arrogance, elitism and a belief the majority of the
>>>> population is too stupid to know what is good for them.
>>> Okay, but if he was all that why did all the Republicans tout him as a
>>> reanimated Reagan? And he got elected twice? But only now, late in
>>> his presidency, the vale has come off. WTF?
>> The only people touting him as a reanimated Reagan was Obama and his
>> talking heads. This was just another attempt on their part to mask over
>> his extremely liberal roots.
>
> No. This was in Bush's first term, WAY before Obama. Bush was second
> only to God. Thanks, Rove!

Your liberal bias is showing now.

>>>>>> Also, don't put too much stock in just how poorly the country
thinks of
>>>>>> Bush. He disapproval ratings are low because many conservatives
think
>>>>>> he has betrayed them. Many people like to think (incorrectly)
that his
>>>>>> rating are low because all those people that give him a thumbs
down are
>>>>>> wanting a more liberal government. This isn't so.
>
>>>>> A "centrist candidate" is a more liberal government.
>
>>>> Not by my definition of centrist.
>
>>> Bush’s ratings are low because he’s bungled everything up.
>
>> You won't get much of an argument from me here. He has killed a lot of
>> terrorists and that is why we haven't had suicide bombers in our
>> shopping malls under his watch after 9-11.
>
> Kind of like spending $50,000 to get a Fox Mustang into the 13s.

Or saving tens or hundreds of thousands of American lives from potential
terrorist attacks. Not to mention the hit our economy would have taken.
In hind sight it could be argued that the expense was worth it.

> And nothing he's done, or anyone could do, that would prevent suicide
> bombers in our malls. Case in point: We can't even keep kids from
> going on rampages in our schools and shooting groups of people.

We are much more tolerant of our home grown terrorists. If you don't
think the Muslim terrorists wanted to strike us again here at home the
past seven years then you way too naive. This is exactly why Obama
can't be entrusted with our national security.

>>>>>> IMO, the general population is still very much right of center
and this
>>>>>> is why McCain is holding his own right now.
>
>>>>> I think it's because the Bush campaign machine is kicking in.
They're
>>>>> working overtime to brand Obama:
>
>>>> It is because they have figured out his weak spot and it is Obama's
>>>> arrogance. He really believes he is "The One" the political
messiah we
>>>> have all been waiting for. If his head gets any bigger it is going to
>>>> explode.
>
>>> More FauOX news propaganda. The truth is the Republican wish they had
>>> someone of Obama’s caliber. (Note: I wrote caliber, not skin
>>> color.)
>
>> They do. Mike Huckabee can run circles around Obama verbally. He is
>> the best off-the-cuff speaker that ran for president this election by
>> far. Now the fact he is a preacher and doesn't think dinosaurs existed
>> is a deal breaker for most people. None the less, he is witty, funny
>> and can articulate his ideas with ease and in a way that doesn't sound
>> arrogant or demeaning.
>
>>>>> An elitist
>
>>>>> A scary Muslim
>
>>>>> A scary "liberal"
>
>>>>> A hater of America
>
>>>>> Unknown commodity
>
>>>>> That's their keys to victory.
>
>>>> Well, I think the public is getting tired of hearing the press do the
>>>> hard sell on this yahoo.
>
>>> So FauOX news (BTW -- Carl Rove works for them now – how convenient )
>>> goes into full character assignation. Make **** up, twist things
>>> around, insinuate… just keep the drum beat going, eventually people
>>> will believe it.
>
>> Fox News is just one cable outlet. Obama is being shoved down our
>> throats by newspapers, magazines, CBS/NBC/ABC nightly news shows, CNN,
>> MSNBC etc. We are suffering from Obama fatigue. why do you think he
>> has conveniently taken a vacation this week? Maybe the guys at
>> NBC/MSNBC had to pull their head out of his ass long enough to cover the
>> Olympics and he can't function without them up there.
>
> Polls show people are [more than] ready for a new administration.

.... and that can be either a McCain or Obama administration. Both are new.

>>>> Obama believes his own hype and it is showing.
>>>> The keys to McCain winning is to paint Obama for what he is, a
>>>> liberal, elitist candidate that wants to lead us down a path to
>>>> socialism. Obama's voting record is all you need to study to figure
>>>> this out. Check out what Black Liberation Theology is based in.
It is
>>>> COMMUNISM. He sat in a church for twenty years listening to this
>>>> garbage and allowed his children to be indoctrinated with it. Now he
>>>> either believes in it or he sacrificed his children for political
gain.
>
>>>>>> Also, anyone that has
>>>>>> followed politics even a little bit knows McCain is nothing like
Bush.
>
>>>>> And thank God for that!
>
>>>> I'm not real pleased with Bush either but it is because he is too
>>>> liberal for my tastes is many ways.
>>> I knew when Colin Powell got shown the door, it was truly over. I
>>> think that they told him to sell the war, and once he did, they no
>>> longer needed his services.
>
>> I don't think Powell had any answers either.
>
> Powell had answers. The Bush administration just never listened to
> him. They used him then tossed him when they were done with him.

Powell was a team player and I respect him for that. I have heard what
he has to say and there were no answers in the content of it.

>> Bush needed Patreus to
>> step in just after Franks stepped down.
>
> No, after Rumsfeld was [finally] ousted (after the election) Patreus
> had a chance to lead.

As I said, Bush needed Patreus after Franks. That would have been the
knock out combination for the opposition.

>> Then Bush would have been in a
>> completely different situation today.
>
> Bush problem was he circled himself with yes men. If you were a
> dissenting voice, you were labeled un-American and shown the door.

Bush's problem is he let people go too long without showing progress.
He should have kicked ass and taken names much sooner than he did.

>>>>>> McCain is a true centrist right to his core. I would prefer someone
>>>>>> more conservative than him but when given a choice between
McCain and
>>>>>> Obama the choice for me is very easy. McCain wins hands down. I
>>>>>> shudder to think what the Supreme Court would look like after eight
>>>>>> years of Obama in the White house. We would be well on our way
to being
>>>>>> a full blown socialist society. Then the things that made, and
make,
>>>>>> this country great would be lost.
>
>>>>> The Republicans have been losing pieces of our great country for
>>>>> years. And I'd have a hard time rewarding their incompetence with a
>>>>> election victory.
>
>>>> The Democrats have been systematically destroying this country ever
>>>> since Roosevelt shoved the New Deal down our throats. They won't stop
>>>> until we are a full blown socialist society. Now that is
something that
>>>> will truly destroy this country and no longer make it great.
>
>>> It isn’t the Democrats. It’s the corporations. They’re taking over.
>>> With lobbying groups, and deep pockets they can buy members of
>>> Congress and the President. And they’re buying the government. Case
>>> in point: they’re slowly taking over the military. Companies like
>>> Blackwater don’t answer to voters, they answer to stockholders. And
>>> what happens when these stockholders start getting influence/money
>>> from those outside the US?
>
>> You should watch the movie "War, Inc." You'll like it.
>
> I'll check in to it.
>
> Love the discussion... good stuff!

Same here. I really don't think you and I are far apart on many of the
issues and there are solutions to them all that we can both support.
I bet you and I could sit down and in an afternoon come to a consensus
on all these issues and plot a general course of action to begin finding
real solutions to problems we face. The reason for this is that you and
I really want to solve these problems for the good of the country.

I am very frustrated with politicians across the board. The problem is
that neither side seems truly interested in solving our problems and
they have proven this to us decade after decade by their inaction. Why
the public allows this to happen election after election is a true
mystery to me.

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 23:58:32 -0400, Michael Johnson >
wrote:

wrote:
> > On Aug 10, 6:13 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
> >
> > On Aug 10, 6:13 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
SNIP
>
>I am very frustrated with politicians across the board. The problem is
>that neither side seems truly interested in solving our problems and
>they have proven this to us decade after decade by their inaction. Why
>the public allows this to happen election after election is a true
>mystery to me.

Kick a dog (or voter) enough times and he'll either cower in fear,
bite, or give up and take it every time it comes.

Spike wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 23:58:32 -0400, Michael Johnson >
> wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>> On Aug 10, 6:13 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>>>
>>> On Aug 10, 6:13 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
> SNIP
>> I am very frustrated with politicians across the board. The problem is
>> that neither side seems truly interested in solving our problems and
>> they have proven this to us decade after decade by their inaction. Why
>> the public allows this to happen election after election is a true
>> mystery to me.
>
> Kick a dog (or voter) enough times and he'll either cower in fear,
> bite, or give up and take it every time it comes.

There are a huge number of voters, IMO, that are waiting for a decent
third party or independent candidate. The tide against the two party
system is rising and there are circumstances just off the horizon that
will be the catalyst to bring about a true independent movement. The
pending baby boom retirement is one, the inaction on a coherent national
energy plan is another and the increasing instances of politicians
thinking they are royalty (John Edwards is the latest example) are going
to bring about a slow mutiny in the next 10-20 years. Or at least I
hope it will.

"Scott W." <69ta_mustangatcomcastdotcom> wrote in message
...
>> "dwight" > wrote in
>>> If you ask me, the whole problem with democracy is the
>>> one-man/one-vote thing.
>>>
>>> dwight
>
> Just caught this one. It certainly sounds like you're advocating the idea
> that there are some of us MORE equal than others.
>
> Smacks of Animal Farm.
>
> Scott W.

When I see a statistic at this point in the campaign season that there are
still something like 11% UNDECIDED...

Yeah, I think some of us are more equal than others. What kind of a drooling
moron do you have to be to not make up your mind between the two viable
candidates?

dwight