October 06, 2008
"Obama Youth" Teacher Suspended
Remember these guys?
You just know that at this moment, Barack Obama is fighting the overwhelming urge to funnel the teacher some misappropriated grant money.
A middle school teacher in Missouri was suspended Monday for putting a video on YouTube of his students chanting lines from Barack Obama speeches and wearing military fatigues. The video, called "Obama Youth -- Junior Fraternity Regiment," was posted by a YouTube user named "keepitwildtv" on Oct. 2. The school learned the video was on the Internet and took action against the teacher Monday morning. Joyce McGautha, superintendent of the Urban Community Leadership Academy, a charter school for students in fifth through ninth grades in Kansas City, Mo., said that the video was probably taken last May during the Junior Fraternity's morning meeting at the school. She would not disclose the teacher's name. "At this time because of the legal action that we'll probably have to take against the teacher, I'm not going to give his name," McGautha said.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:41 PM | Comments (55) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Keepitwildtv's a joke in yo town!"
They're not saying the teacher's name?
It might be Sister Soldier.
Posted by: brando at October 06, 2008 05:11 PM (qzOby)
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at October 06, 2008 05:21 PM (OmeRL)
A charter school? Hmmmm, if it were up to Barrack this school wouldn't even exist.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at October 06, 2008 06:53 PM (vuXJQ)
Harry Reid + Nancy Pelosie + a Zero = Disaster
Posted by: Original Pechanga's Blog at October 06, 2008 06:56 PM (UB9AW)
Posted by: turtle at October 06, 2008 07:13 PM (ZiZaA)
Posted by: HarryS at October 06, 2008 07:40 PM (+r35v)
So Obama's followers are putting together a Regiment, under the banner of a political candidate.
That's weird.
Posted by: brando at October 06, 2008 07:43 PM (HtuDX)
Does Obama worship come under separation of church and state Constitutionally, so that it shouldn't be allowed in a school?
Posted by: NahnCee at October 06, 2008 08:03 PM (IuW+Q)
Posted by: Warm Mountain at October 06, 2008 08:22 PM (XMTFe)
Posted by: Tonto at October 06, 2008 09:12 PM (Qv1xF)
Yes. Charter schools in Kansas City, Missouri are tax payer funded 'alternative' schools, with specialized curriculum, that are part of the public (gub'mint) school system.
The KC, MO school district was part of the 1985 'judicial imperialism' of Judge Clark who took de facto control of the district and imposed a sweeping desegregation order on the district. By the time it was all over, $2,000,000,000.00 of state & local tax money had been confiscated and little, if any thing accomplished.
"And despite all the effort he had made to order the plan, fund the plan, and keep the plan on track--often in the face of intense opposition from the very people he was trying to help--the plan wasn't working. The number of white suburban students attracted to the district by all the new magnet schools was less than 10 percent of the number that Clark had expected. Year after year the test scores would come out, the achievement levels would be no higher than before, and the black-white gap (one-half a standard deviation on a standard bell curve) would be no smaller."
The state attorney general, Jay Nixon, complained of gross negligence, malfeasance, theft and lax accounting of millions of dollars under Clark's control.
"At one point, complained Nixon, 44 percent of the entire state budget for elementary and secondary education was going to just the 9 percent of the state's students who lived in Kansas City and St. Louis. Missouri was spending more on desegregation than it was spending on prisons, courts, the highway patrol, and the state fire marshal combined."
The KC school district is currently not state accredited, and has had 24 superintendents in 39 years. It is one of the worst districts in the nation thanks, in part, to a petulant & childish school board.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.html
The 'obama youth' incident doesn't surprise me.
Posted by: locomotivebreath1901 at October 06, 2008 09:16 PM (Oekhl)
Posted by: eileen at October 06, 2008 09:39 PM (Eo2z2)
How long are we supposed to wait?
Posted by: Jim Treacher at October 06, 2008 10:08 PM (NV3P1)
I'm just a fascist, I guess.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 06, 2008 10:14 PM (HcgFD)
Posted by: Jerome at October 06, 2008 11:00 PM (L6LQ+)
Posted by: dhan_su at October 06, 2008 11:14 PM (cJlsX)
Teachers used to be honorable folk.
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at October 06, 2008 11:16 PM (OmeRL)
Posted by: Jim Treacher at October 06, 2008 11:17 PM (koRkq)
This scares me for this country. First the little kids singing his praises, and now these.
I still have enough faith in the average American to believe this man will not come into power in this country.
Posted by: Tennessee Democrat at October 06, 2008 11:26 PM (BTvkH)
"I didn't think the post would actually be deleted."-JT
Doublethink at its finest.
So a political candidate has a regiment, therefore CY did something wrong? Let's talk about the subject at hand.
"Hit me
Going, going, gone
Now I dialed 911 a long time ago..."
Posted by: brando at October 06, 2008 11:35 PM (HtuDX)
Posted by: Kathrine at October 06, 2008 11:40 PM (koRkq)
Katherine is also "Jim Treacher" and "Candy."
These faux conservatives keep getting deleted and banned for one simple reason: I don't like sockpuppetry, or fraudulent identities.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 07, 2008 12:01 AM (HcgFD)
Does this school allow the pledge of allegiance with the words " under GOD "
Posted by: dhan_su at October 07, 2008 12:35 AM (cJlsX)
"I didn't think the post would actually be deleted."-JT
Doublethink at its finest.
It might be doublethink if the second one wasn't impersonating me. This is definitely the behavior of people who are confident in a big win this November.
Anyway, didn't realize you were dealing with a CCC ("Concerned Christian Conservative") infestation. Carry on, CY.
Posted by: Jim Treacher at October 07, 2008 01:09 AM (NV3P1)
This is definitely the behavior of people who are confident in a big win this November.
If nothing else, this tells us how intelligent the average lefty thinks we conservatives are.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 07, 2008 07:54 AM (fxHiG)
A lot of people have a pretty weak understanding of the First Amendment. CY can delete anything he sees fit(on his site), and is even kind to explain why.
He didn't take away your First Amendment. Don't be silly.
And speaking of not being silly. Heavy D and the Boys should be a tad less militant.
Posted by: brando at October 07, 2008 08:24 AM (qzOby)
Posted by: Ben Zona at October 07, 2008 09:02 AM (OxeoB)
Posted by: Penfold at October 07, 2008 09:07 AM (lF2Kk)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 07, 2008 09:17 AM (HcgFD)
I'll try this again:
"Kathrine" is clearly pretending to be someone she's not (and doing a pathetic job of it at that), but even sock puppets can accidentally make good points once in a while. Since when is it unheard of for "hardcore Republicans" to live in blue states? I suppose you'd think that I'm not capable of thinking intelligently and seeing through liberal bullPUCKY, just because I live in Massachusetts? You sound just like my obnoxious liberal neighbors.
Ben Zona
Posted by: Ben Zona at October 07, 2008 11:52 AM (OxeoB)
First (no pun intended) of all, let us look at what the First Amendment actually says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.
That's it. Short, sweet, and to the point.
Now, let's dissect some of those words.
First (again no pun intended) we note that the Amendment refers only to Congress, specifically prohibiting them from making laws that abridge (restrict) the freedom of speech.
Now, this may come as a shock to you astroturfers, but Bob Owens, a/k/a the Confederate Yankee, is not--I say again, not--Congress. Bob, as owner of this here establishment, has just as much right to control the content posted here as you have the right to control what people write on the walls of your house. Bob also has the same right to control who comes here as you have to control who comes into your house.
In short, screaming "First Amendment" is not only useless, but demonstrates quite clearly your lack of understanding of what the Constitution actually says.
Thank you for your attention, those of you who paid attention. Those of you who didn't, well, you now fully deserve all the ridicule you'll get.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 07, 2008 08:17 PM (fxHiG)
Great site...I enjoy your work.
Angry White Dude
www.angrywhitedude.com
Posted by: Angry White Dude at October 07, 2008 10:47 PM (3ifMk)
Obama, Ayers, and Dohrn, Oh My
The ties between Barack Obama and terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn go back over 21 years.
The long and short of it? Barack Obama knew, and knew well, that Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn were terrorists when he met them. He just didn't care. Roger Simon has more on Dohrn's celebrity.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:21 PM | Comments (61) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: mindnumbrobot at October 06, 2008 12:47 PM (d5LvD)
#1 is irrelevant, #3 is nice but inadequate, and to #2 I suggest the response "but he still doesn't think it was wrong."
Keep pounding. I think they've shown their entire hand.
Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at October 06, 2008 01:24 PM (FZP+j)
Posted by: John Steele at October 06, 2008 01:26 PM (UtsE7)
Not long at all. In fact, I'm surprised His Majesty hasn't already tried to throw Ayers under his bus. The problem for Obama Wan Husseini is that Bill Ayers, no shrinking violet, is going to retort, "The f*** I ain't the Bill Ayers you knew. I've ALWAYS been the Bill Ayers you've known."
I have ten bucks that say McCain is going to bring this subject up tomorrow night. "My history relating to Keating is well known, especially the fact that I was cleared of any wrongdoing. However, Senator Obama, your history with Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn IS NOT well known. I'm asking you, right now, to come clean and tell the American people what you know."
In sum:
1. If Obama tries to tap-dance about Ayers, he's f***ed.
2. If Obama actually tells the truth about Ayers, he's doubly-f***ed.
Posted by: MarkJ at October 06, 2008 01:26 PM (ZFVlP)
Posted by: DMoss at October 06, 2008 01:32 PM (z17GE)
Why should Obama start telling the truth at this point,he has been incapable of doing so from the beginning.
Posted by: MikeD at October 06, 2008 01:32 PM (GesDP)
Posted by: DamnCat at October 06, 2008 01:34 PM (J/+/i)
This could get ugly.
Posted by: BJM at October 06, 2008 01:40 PM (xzxBs)
Secondly, I think the general public needs to be informed about what a "Communist" actually is. There is some bizarre, ahistorical notion that one must be a Stalinist, a Leninist, a Maoist to be a "Communist" - as though there weren't doctrinal, tactical and strategic debates even within Stalin's closest cliques. As though there weren't endless debates and splits and conspiracies within the big perverse Marxist-Leninist tribe. There is some straw man that's been erected, or some unexamined sensibility, that there is some cartoonishly consistent and coherent image of a Communist, and if you deviate from this in some way well then you're just a "radical."
This is stupidity and it is harmful stupidity. Ayers is a type that any Old Bolshevik would easily recognize as a comrade. Communism is a mindset - it is just a theory of justice for angry people, a high-grade rationalization of total physical, moral and intellectual violence. Have none of these people read Ayers', SDS's, the Weathermen's many, many, many writings? Is this not exactly what they - to say nothing of their acts - stand for?
An assocaite of Lenin's, who fell out with him eventual, said Lenin "had visions of peace - through mists of hatred." Exactly! That's all there is to it. Let's not let the odd adjective "radical" distract us from the essence of the situation, and its historical antecedents.
Posted by: kulthur at October 06, 2008 01:43 PM (EglGC)
Posted by: Micropotamus at October 06, 2008 01:44 PM (fuC1N)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 06, 2008 01:44 PM (HcgFD)
Bill "Bojangles" Robinson was a tap-dancer.
Gene Kelly was a tap-dancer.
Fred Astaire was a tap-dancer.
Obama, trust me, is no tap-dancer.
Posted by: MarkJ at October 06, 2008 01:59 PM (ZFVlP)
Posted by: ineedalife at October 06, 2008 02:09 PM (X/57Z)
Racism is one of the ugliest diseases of the human mind. The fact that Obama debases the word by its overuse is no reason to wear the label proudly: I would no more do so, than I would wear the label "fascist" proudly just because the left flings that term like around like confetti.
Were I to wear that label as you suggest, I would cede to the left the authority to determine who is racist and who isn't, which I utterly reject. And it would also say that we on the Right do not regard true racism as a serious matter, which is not true.
In response to Obama's slander, we must point out that we are the true anti-racists: we eschew and abhor the judging of any human being on the ground of his race, be he black, white, red, yellow, brown, or whatever. We judge you, Barack Obama, not as a black man, but as a man: and it is as a man that we reject your candidacy for president of our republic.
Posted by: Brown Line at October 06, 2008 02:13 PM (VrNoa)
Dunno about that Voorhees bird, though...
Posted by: Mike James at October 06, 2008 02:15 PM (0re1T)
Posted by: megapotamus at October 06, 2008 02:25 PM (LF+qW)
The lefties are blind lemmings who are likely to push a closet radical into the Presidency, the consequences of which are likely to be terrible for all to behold.
Posted by: Tantor at October 06, 2008 02:28 PM (Jk2dl)
Tantor - and did you notice that their argument immediately changed into "Everyone always knew he was a liar, but..." A progressive's reset button is a remarkable thing.
Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at October 06, 2008 02:51 PM (FZP+j)
How did these vile specimens earn their rehabilitation?
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at October 06, 2008 02:52 PM (1ii59)
Response #1: City Journal has an article about an 9-year old 'victim' of Ayers' criminal violence. Link here ... http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0430jm.html
Argument #2: Ayers has "done his time" of community service
Response #2: fascinating that paid, low-stress education chin-stroking employment by a university is on the par with 'community service'. Any court-ordered 'community service' picking up trash on the side of an California Interstate during a hot August summer in broad daylight like the rest of us prols?
Argument #3: Obama has renounced Ayers' violence
Response #3: News to me. Has Obama unequivolcally stated that Ayers et al will have no place in his administration, will receive zero federal funds, etc etc?
Posted by: RM3 Frisker FTN at October 06, 2008 02:58 PM (JgFKc)
Posted by: RBL at October 06, 2008 03:02 PM (QRFiM)
Posted by: GeoffB at October 06, 2008 03:08 PM (qdOl+)
Truth be told, Ayres, Dohrn, etc. are awful people. But the dirty secret is that every major Presidential candidate over the past 40 years has had connections to questionable and appalling characters. It is absolutely proper to point out Obama's, and judge him on that fact, but hypocritical to pretend that McCain doesn't have them too (and yes, there are others beyond Liddy, though he is pretty appalling in his own right).
Posted by: IP Guy at October 06, 2008 03:14 PM (ystoz)
Posted by: Justacanuck at October 06, 2008 03:14 PM (zaK7j)
(Posted by: MarkJ at October 6, 2008 01:59 PM)
I agree, Mark.
With all that Chicago "political grease" sticking to his shoes, if Obama tried to tap dance... he'd fall in the sink!
Posted by: teebee at October 06, 2008 03:14 PM (ytuPs)
It's because almost none of us have come face to face with political violence of the kind advocated by Ayers and Dohrn.
A significant segment of this pampered and comfortable society really believes that the street theatre which passes for protest in this country, or the umpteenth movie about the McCarthy era are 'brave' demonstrations of 'political dissent'. They don't notice that the West's tinker-toy revolutionaries never show up to cause trouble at APEC Summits in Shanghai, where' they'd get to go toe-to-toe with the enforcement apparatus of a genuine police state.
It never occurs to people sporting bumper stickers declaring 'I love my country but fear my government' that they wouldn't dare express such sentiment in places where people truly fear their governments.
That, and reflex antipathy toward authority and the institutions of this society have been so fully institutionalized by our media-industrial and edcuational complexes that Ayers behavior can be contextualized and excused.
But only for some, mind you. The Unibomber and abortion clinic bombers get what they deserve -- one way tickets to incarcerated oblivion. Violent psychopaths on the Left get to set educational policy.
Posted by: Vinny Vidivici at October 06, 2008 03:15 PM (tg889)
1. Ayers = Tim Mcveigh, only Ayers is (fortunately)incompetent.
2. If Mcveigh had been let off on a legal technicality he would never have found a comfortable place in mainstream conservative circles, much less as exalted a place as Ayers and Dohrn have found.
I have heard pundits in the MSM discuss the "end of conservatism" based on the bailout and current economic situation. Aside from using Ayers to expose Obama for what his real beleifs are, who is the great communicator in the conservative movement to point out the true moral corruption at the heart of the American Left? At this point Sarah Palin seems to be out there alone.
Posted by: CFK at October 06, 2008 03:28 PM (Mv/2X)
This is a paradigm-shifting moment. In the last election, we saw how groups such as LGF exposed John Kerry by spreading the news about his anti-war activities.
Now, the coin has turned. The widespread reach of the Internet is allowing foreigners to fund Obama's campaign and flying mostly under the radar. In fact, if they send $200 at a time, it doesn't have to be reported.
If I can have my (little-read) site spammed several times a day by someone taking the trouble to type it in (and fill out the Chapta box), what's to prevent countries from funnelling money to Obama under the table this way?
Posted by: Lou Shoemaker at October 06, 2008 03:50 PM (ciSzi)
Posted by: Mike at October 06, 2008 04:09 PM (aBi2O)
What is fair and effective is to say that Obama is the guilty party. Say it directly: he funded, with a lot of money and over a long time, a radical left-wing reform movement on anti-capitalism and anti-Americanism in the Chicago public schools, and encouraged the children to agitate politically. He provided political cover for a corrupt property developer, and raised public money for him, some of which was kicked back to ACORN. He promoted ACORN by training them, funding them, and defending them in court. He donated to and publicly promoted the anti-white, anti-American Trinity church. He raised funds for the anti-Israel Arab American Action Network, which calls Israel's founding a "catastrophe."
Obama is the bad actor in all this. Wright, Ayers and Rezko should be treated as mere walk-ons; don't build them up. This is not about Obama's character. It's about his actual accomplishments, which he would have made with or without these other actors.
Posted by: George Ford at October 06, 2008 04:25 PM (KwoVF)
I have to wonder how Barack Obama ever made it to the U.S. Senate given his history of communist mentors. The idea of a radical Muslim running for President? It would seem that some real vetting might be in order now that we are 29 days from the election!
Obama is running as the first "black" president but he isn't black - he is 1/2 white, 3/8 ARAB, 1/8 Black. I don't care about race but I do have to wonder why the media isn't asking more questions and why so much has been ignored.
Posted by: Mickey at October 06, 2008 04:29 PM (CUBVt)
I agree with your first point: a radical muslim running for presidency is important news. Having communist mentors: real news. If Obama is really a radical muslim with strong communist connections, I really want to know about it. I haven't seen any of this yet. As far as I know Obama is connected to a wacky christian church.
Where we disagree is on the subject of race. You say that you don't care about race, but you dissect Obama into white, black and arab. Why does this matter and what questions do you want the media to ask about it?
Posted by: sillysas at October 06, 2008 05:07 PM (aBi2O)
I don't know the answer, but I would like to.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 06, 2008 06:07 PM (fxHiG)
...I'm wondering how long before we start hearing "so what, big deal" as we've heard endlessly since the wonderful (tongue in cheek) Clinton years ? People hear and retain what they want to hear and retain, and eventually it becomes the (un)truth. What a freaking sad country...
Posted by: DaveinPhoenix at October 06, 2008 07:31 PM (UuBUK)
Brown Line: The left invented the term, and has successfully 'branded' it as a one-way pejorative, always away from the sacred 'people of color' and exclusively convicting 'people of pallor' on the mere assertion. No evidence is required. Those not on the left are laughable when they attempt to take moral high ground against others using the term as a weapon.
Logically, this shouldn't be so - if race B mistreats race C based on mere genetics, then B is misbehaving and its activist perpetrators should be held to account. But the left has so abused, overused and confused the term 'racism' in its culture-war opportunism that it's now just a ritual call to summon their MSM and academic allies whenever it can be exploited for political gain. As a non-leftist, you have no moral authority whatever in using it to summon help against any opponent with more melanin than you. You have no hope in participating in determining who's racist and who isn't, since the term has long since passed out of logical use.
Therefore, let us wear it indifferently and help abuse it (for starters, by dishing it out as vociferously as it's received) beyond insignificance into total meaninglessness.
Posted by: Micropotamus at October 06, 2008 08:03 PM (fuC1N)
Posted by: sean at October 06, 2008 09:11 PM (6XqG8)
Obama is shrewd enough not to do so directly himself, but allows his cultists to do so for him.
Steve Skubinna wrote "What I cannot understand is the blase attitude towards Ayers and Dohrn among the left."
They actually believe the line that Obama didn't really know who Ayers was. And hey, when he finally did, he denounced him don't you know?
I think they also believe that since Ayers is a professor he can't be all bad... you know how they worship academia.
Posted by: Tom the Redhunter at October 06, 2008 09:41 PM (r0yU3)
"I did not have community relations with that man, Bill Ayers."
Posted by: redherkey at October 06, 2008 10:50 PM (kjqFg)
Posted by: dhan_su at October 06, 2008 11:39 PM (cJlsX)
http://rwor.org/a/063/ayers-en.html
This, folks, is Obama's idea of education reform?
Posted by: Andrea at October 07, 2008 09:05 AM (ZLAOb)
Obama's Attempt to Undermine The Constitution
While at the left-wing Joyce Foundation, Barack Obama was part of a plot to subvert the Constitution by corrupting legal scholarship with the goal of conning the Supreme Court into destroying the Second Amendment.
This isn't an op-ed. This is fact. Barack Obama has a lot in common with the goals of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. He just prefers to use laundered grant money instead of bombs.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:15 AM | Comments (30) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: Larry Johnson at October 06, 2008 10:09 AM (AdJ3R)
Posted by: mytralman at October 06, 2008 10:16 AM (0mKiN)
This is another example of Republicans using fear to try and win elections and get their way. Guess what? It's not going to work. Look at the polls. Game over.
Posted by: mj at October 06, 2008 10:29 AM (P2sX7)
I see where the dems are also very good at stuffing the ballot box. Look at what's going on in Ohio.
Posted by: belad at October 06, 2008 11:04 AM (YyJis)
Posted by: CrystalD at October 06, 2008 11:38 AM (a5r62)
Posted by: mike at October 06, 2008 11:44 AM (DBzDs)
Posted by: megapotamus at October 06, 2008 12:12 PM (LF+qW)
Posted by: andy at October 06, 2008 12:56 PM (cAMk9)
"You're kidding me right? This "plan" hinges on the fact that judges will cite law review articles to explain an opinion. Law review articles are not law, only secondary sources. You must think that all judges are pretty stupid."
Like the Supreme Court relying on European laws to ban juvenile death sentences? Or maybe "emanations and penumbras" which supported Roe v. Wade? Or Suiter writing for the majority in favor of eminent domain? By all means, let's assume that judges are smart, and that they will rule impartially!!
Posted by: Michael Smith at October 06, 2008 02:28 PM (j1ILX)
I think you are wrong about Cheney. I am pretty certain that is what Biden has been quoted as saying according to Foxnews.
Posted by: mike at October 06, 2008 04:03 PM (aBi2O)
Pro-Obama Group Runs Fraudulent Video
The video:
A video released by the Jewish Council for Education & Research which appeared to show several retired senior IDF and Mossad officials supporting Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has proven to be misleading, with a number of officials who appeared in the video saying on Monday that their words were taken out of context. "It's not only misleading, it was an interview about what the next president was going to have to deal with," former deputy chief of staff Maj.-Gen. (res.) Uzi Dayan told The Jerusalem Post. "And to know that they used this interview and took five seconds, and put me in a list of people praising Barack Obama…
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:39 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
The media won't report it, because they own the media. The judges they own would toss the case out anyway, so what is your point here exactly? And if you don't shut up, they'll be coming to your house next, right after they hang Sarah Palin up on meathooks and strangle her with piano wire on public television.
Is any of this starting to ring any bells with anyone? Nie Weider, my ass. It's too late now...
Posted by: JinnyB at October 06, 2008 12:30 PM (UYmdr)
October 04, 2008
More Indoctrinated "Obama Youth"
The pseudo-militant look of step-dancing in this video, combined with the old-style military woodland BDUs, is going to frighten those unfamiliar with stepping, though it shouldn't. In and of itself, it is an awesome form of dance to watch.
The stepping, combined with the cultish fanaticism focusing on Obama, however, is going to freak some people out.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:53 PM | Comments (92) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: Sara at October 04, 2008 01:07 PM (Wi/N0)
Posted by: RayC at October 04, 2008 01:39 PM (hD7Qb)
Turning the bullet points of Senator Obama's health care proposals into a semi-liturgical memorized chant is ultra-creepy.
Posted by: Clint at October 04, 2008 01:44 PM (oZ5OG)
Posted by: Matt at October 04, 2008 02:46 PM (Cn+Ma)
Posted by: db1820 at October 04, 2008 03:22 PM (W5g/T)
Either way you slice it, this video bothers the heck out of me.
Posted by: Nina at October 04, 2008 03:53 PM (cHSOu)
Posted by: Sara at October 04, 2008 04:06 PM (Wi/N0)
Sorry, but my religion states, "Thou shalt not have FALSE GODS before me."
End of story.
You might also want to check this out:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=307928498550592
Posted by: Gerry at October 04, 2008 06:04 PM (fHRdA)
Cult of personality
I know your anger, I know your dreams
Ive been everything you want to be
Im the cult of personality
Like mussolini and kennedy
Im the cult of personality
Cult of personality
Cult of personality
Neon lights, a nobel prize
The mirror speaks, the reflection lies
You dont have to follow me
Only you can set me free
I sell the things you need to be
Im the smiling face on your t.v.
Im the cult of personality
I exploit you still you love me
I tell you one and one makes three
Im the cult of personality
Like joseph stalin and gandi
Im the cult of personality
Cult of personality
Cult of personality
Living Colour
Anyone see the parallels?
Posted by: Big Country at October 04, 2008 06:28 PM (niydV)
Posted by: cmblake6 at October 04, 2008 07:56 PM (QSVQf)
Alpha Omega is a fraternity of Jewish dental students.
Idiot.
Name calling is fun.
Posted by: Vermin at October 04, 2008 08:19 PM (iO5n6)
If the "Obama Truth Squads" in Missouri are a portent of things to come, Americans who refuse to live on the liberal plantation if this angry unaccomplished empty suit gets elected, might get a good taste of the kind of velvet gulag today's liberal Democrats offer.
We must be ready to stand firm on both the First and Second Amendment of our Constitution if we have any hope of exposing the wolves in sheep's clothing on the left for what they really are in the coming years ... closet fascists.
Posted by: Libmeister at October 04, 2008 08:25 PM (hkLmQ)
Posted by: Chad at October 04, 2008 08:26 PM (kaeov)
Why does Barack Obama allow this to be done?
Don't tell me he doesn't know.
What kind of personality disorder does one have that allows this?
Posted by: JAL at October 04, 2008 08:30 PM (4TU0O)
Those kids need to get out and run around the track a few times. They look out of shape.
Posted by: miriam at October 04, 2008 09:00 PM (KuH24)
Posted by: Lazlo Toth at October 04, 2008 09:31 PM (fUOXs)
Posted by: Mister Snitch at October 04, 2008 09:37 PM (U+ya4)
Posted by: Richard at October 04, 2008 09:39 PM (bQHDM)
You are assuming our Constitution will still exist under the Obama Administration. I strongly believe it will be destroyed and the USA will become a One Party State.
That is what these radicals want. They want a revolution. They tried it by not funding the war in hopes that our troops would get tired and lay down their weapons and desert. When that didn't happen, they found an African-American to come along and secure the black/minority vote.
That way they could shout, "Racism!" whenever we disagree with their Master. And there goes our freedom of speech.
The McCain campaign better wake to this before it is all over...
And we true blue Americans better get on our knees and ask God to have mercy on us one more time....even though we do not deserve it.
Posted by: Artist at October 04, 2008 09:44 PM (1z/5R)
Posted by: dave at October 04, 2008 10:01 PM (ki+Cz)
When gangs of Obama Youth rampage through conservative neighborhoods, shattering windows, catching opposition newspapers on fire, cracking heads open with pool cues, raping, and throwing people off roofs, you might have a point.
Until then, all you've got is some overly impressionable kids singing some dumb songs.
Just how paranoid are you George Bush Republicans?
Keith Nolan
Posted by: KeithNolan at October 04, 2008 10:38 PM (2iAhy)
Posted by: bc at October 04, 2008 11:01 PM (i++qn)
When the Swift Boaters turned me into a Democrat in 2004 with their lies, I slapped on a Kerry bumper sticker.... and was flashed the finger by several GOPers, and almost run off the road by several fine youths in a pick-up truck. (I lived in rural Missouri at the time.)
It never occured to me that I'd been attacked by members of a non-existent Bush Youth gang. I just thought I'd encountered some jerks.
You guys are beyond paranoid! No one's gonna burn your car!
Posted by: KeithNolan at October 04, 2008 11:58 PM (2iAhy)
Murder and violence is no problem because it is viewed as exterminating those who stand in the way of true progress but in the end it is only a way that leads to eternal death. Once the USA as founded by the fore fathers of this nation disappears this world will lose its last restraint. Nobama! No Ayers! No Rev Wright! No Barney Franks! No Harry Reid! No Pelosi! Take your peaceful stand while you have the God given freedom to do so and speak out flush him and them out and vote this Obama thug down and out.
Posted by: TonyUSA at October 04, 2008 11:58 PM (KE4sc)
It becomes a simple matter to turn them into the equivalent of Chavez Thugs , the SA and what have you . Once Obama comes into power , it will be so easy for their leaders to use them as they see fit like silencing Obama's foes for instance .
Posted by: Will at October 05, 2008 12:05 AM (4sHuN)
Posted by: Will at October 05, 2008 12:14 AM (4sHuN)
With respect to the topic at hand, if the ever-present deification of Obama by his supporters doesn't unsettle you, then I pity you. Societies the sing songs to "great leaders" are not free societies... ask the Cubans, Koreans, et.al.
Posted by: Tom at October 05, 2008 12:37 AM (VmACN)
With that background, it was obvious the Swifties were lying about numerous subjects, from Kerry's supposedly unearned Silver Star (hundreds of officers got the exact same medal for very similar actions), to the actual conduct of the war, as testified to by Kerry's Winter Soldiers. (The Swiftees seem to have forgotten what search-and-destroy meant at the ground level, and seem never to have heard of My Lai, My Khe, Son Thang, the Tiger Force, the B/1/5th Marines incident, the Kerrey SEAL incident, General Ewell, the 1/27th Marines incident, the B/1/35th Infantry incident, the numerous 1/1 Cavalry incidents, etc., etc., etc., etc, etc., etc., etc.)
Anyway, I know at least one veteran who served with Kerry in Vietnam, and numerous veterans who were part of his anti-war organization, and their testimony (and the testimony to be found in memoirs, history books, and official publications) bears NO RELATIONSHIP WHATSOEVER to the feel-good, white-washing swill offered up by the Swift Boaters.
If you want gruesome details, and gruesome photos, to back up what I'm saying, we'll have to find another venue.
Anyway, read some scholarship about the village-burning, body-count-crazy conduct of the Vietnam War.... and then, to get back to the topic at hand, read some scholarship about the Nazis, at which point you guys might stop this utterly nutso linkage between Hitler and Obama.
It's ridiculous chatter like this that makes the modern-day GOP sound like the party of paranoids and know-nothings.
Enough with the Nazi B.S. already!
Sorry, but there it is!
Posted by: KeithNolan at October 05, 2008 12:54 AM (2iAhy)
Posted by: sunshine484848 at October 05, 2008 01:05 AM (i+DU3)
Our Student Body President was roughed up by a gang of thugs in front of dozens of witnesses, because he advocated DE-segregating Homecoming - Black leaders in the administration and faculty had spread the false rumor that the SB President was plotting to eliminate all black student groups. The student newspaper was too cowardly to condemn the attack.
At a campus meeting, a black student began his address to the group with the words "assalamu alaikum" and I reflexively responded "aleichem shalom". I was overheard, and 3 goons stood in front of me, facing me, for the rest of the meeting. A student sat next to me and grilled me about my name, address, etc. Everyone pretended not to notice.
And then there was the time Khalid Abdul Muhammad came to speak - this was years before his Kean College speech, but it was pretty much the same. Again, previously outspoken liberals fell silent.
Posted by: cincinnati kid at October 05, 2008 02:06 AM (aNA8P)
Posted by: indga at October 05, 2008 04:27 AM (RiNwE)
So, does it make it even creepier that this is likely some state agency permitting their charges to perform such a routine?
Posted by: SFC B at October 05, 2008 07:13 AM (pft8V)
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."July 2 2008,in Colorado Springs, Co.
Posted by: CrystalD at October 05, 2008 09:33 AM (a5r62)
Posted by: Mack at October 05, 2008 09:43 AM (GAf+S)
For all the words you had posted in response to my post , you have not answered my questions . Not one word about Kerry's SF-180 or Kerry's lie about a covert Cambodian excursion that never happened . I never even mentioned his three Purple Hearts and his Silver Star because that's another can of worms against John F Kerry when the real truth comes out about his Vietnam service . You could not explain to me why the Winter Soldier defamed millions of American Vietnam service men and women who never committed those atrocities that you mentioned but for the convenience of John F Kerry's ambitions and his anti-war pals had managed to included every single veteran as a blood thirsty barbarian that needs to be stopped .
I don't know what they taught you at J-school , but from where I stand as a foreign graduate and an immigrant , your command of facts is limited by your blindness to prove that John F Kerry had done nothing wrong .
Posted by: Wil at October 05, 2008 10:31 AM (4sHuN)
I am not intimidated by uniform and the marching, but I went to two military schools, the Naval Academy and had 20 years of active duty. The cadets and midshipmen with whom I studied were kept in much better physical condition.
Richard, have you ever seen the Top Secret Swiss Drum Line? It's amazing!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7k6VYGtm8g
Posted by: arch at October 05, 2008 10:41 AM (mf5lg)
That your service was free of ugly incidents is a testament to you, your comrades, and your leadership. It does not, however, turn into liars those who say they saw ugly incidents in their units.... and, who, I have discovered, have saved for decades polaroids of they and their buddies burning hootches, manhandling villages, beating captured guerrillas, and in one instance, mutilating enemy dead (that is cutting their heads off, and posing with the heads).
I don't think Mr. Owens wants me to hijack this thread into a refight of the Swift Boat wars, so all I will say is you should be glad you were a sailor in your particular unit, and not an infantryman or marine in numerous other units I could cite where ugly incidents where the norm, not the exception.
Oh, finally, my age has nothing to do with this. I don't remember the Swiftees casting aside the support of characters like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michele Malkin, or Ann Coulter because they were either too young (or supposedly unhealthy) to have served in Vietnam.
Anyway, back to the topic, do you really agree with this nonsensical link between Obama and the bloody Nazis, for pete's sake?
Best Wishes,
Keith Nolan
Posted by: KeithNolan at October 05, 2008 11:03 AM (2iAhy)
Anyway, back to the Nazi nonsense!
Posted by: KeithNolan at October 05, 2008 11:08 AM (2iAhy)
Let me be blunt , I don't care what are or were your political affiliations because they are not germane to the discussion at hand . John F Kerry can easily repute the Swifties by releasing his complete SF-180 as well as having the Pentagon release the After Action Reports of a Lt John F Kerry , the commendation that earned him his Silver Star and the injury reports that earned him three Purple Hearts . You are a journalist , yes ? You can ask the Pentagon via FOIA to look at those files and see for yourself .
As for objectivity , I have my doubts because it's common knowledge that during wartime , there are soldiers who would do things that are contrary to orders or exceed those orders and ignoring those orders . In Vietnam , it takes two to tango , care to explain to me why nobody bothers to check on VC and NVA atrocities against their fellow Vietnamese and against American POWs . Heck , ask the prisoners of Hanoi Hilton about their pleasant stay .
Ask for your previous post being against search and destroy missions , hate to tell you this , it's a common tactic in war. You go out and see where the enemy is located , kill them and deny them of their resources to engage war against you , the NVA and VC did it's search it's search and destroy mission during the Vietnam War , it's called the Tet Offensive and in addition to military targets , they also killed innocent civilians who does not sympathetic to their cause . If you want to be objective , do not ignore the rest just because you suddenly found out that not all US servicemen are angels .
Posted by: Will at October 05, 2008 11:50 AM (4sHuN)
Burning people's homes down, and slaughtering their livestock, were not the best ways to show that America was on the the peasants' side and convince them to rally to the GVN.
Posted by: KeithNolan at October 05, 2008 02:02 PM (2iAhy)
Again , you have not answer my original post about John Kerry . If you could not answer my original questions in regards to John Kerry and the Swifties, what's the point of your succeeding posts then ? What is the point then of raising the Swift Boats ? Is it to silence Obama's critics ?
Posted by: Will at October 05, 2008 03:05 PM (4sHuN)
1.) What was the net result of the search-and-destroy strategy as employed by General Westmoreland from 1965 through 1968?
2.) What exactly happened at My Lai, My Khe, and Son Thang?
3.) More importantly, WHY did it happen?
If you're serious about an exchange of ideas, I'll wait for your reply, and then try to answer your own questions.... questions, by the way, which have been answered a hundred times over to the satisfaction of all but the most locked-down Kerry haters. We're not really covering any new ground here, you know.
And, to repeat my original point, this nonsense about Obama and Hitler is just embarrassing to the GOP.
Posted by: KeithNolan at October 05, 2008 03:52 PM (2iAhy)
Posted by: KeithNolan at October 05, 2008 04:00 PM (2iAhy)
Three questions , three lousy questions you refuse to answer . As a military historian , you are not in the level of Victor Davis Hanson . Answer the questions that I require and I can let this go . Comprende ??
Posted by: Will at October 05, 2008 04:16 PM (4sHuN)
1.) We've already got all the after-action reports related to Kerry's service, his fitness reports, and the citations and witness statements related to his two valor awards.
In addition, Kerry's personnel file was poured over by a team of reporters, who gleefully reported that the senator's college grades were not so great. But there were no bomb shells in there about dishonorable discharges or the like, one of the rumors peddled by the Swiftees.
What exactly do you think is in a personnel file? Eyewitness testimony from people who served with Kerry as to how badly he was (or was not) injured when he received his Purple Hearts, or the extent (if any) of enemy fire when he received his Bronze Star?!?!
The dirt on Kerry's service (if you want to believe there is dirt to be found) is in the memories of his fellow veterans, not a personnel file.
2.) I don't know what to make of Kerry's tale of crossing into Cambodia on Christmas of '68. Sounds like a sea story to me, an attempt to personalize the fact that, yes, illegal operations were conducted in Cambodia under both LBJ and Nixon. Was Kerry really there? I have no idea. Did U.S. units cross the border under LBJ and Nixon? Repeatedly. Did Nixon conduct an illegal bombing campaign of Cambodia that he tried to hide from the U.S. Congress? Yes.
3.) You are completely confused about the Winter Soldier testimony. I am not aware of any mass uprising of Vietnam veterans who came forward to say, no, I was in the same unit as that Winter Soldier, and none of that happened. I think ONE former Marine did dispute a Winter Soldier account at wintersoldier.com, but the issue was not a war crime, but the manner in which some casualties were evacuated during Operation Dewey Canyon in '69.
Anyway, we know the Winter Soldiers were real veterans because most brought along their discharges, plus PHOTOS of themselves in Vietnam. We also know many of their stories were true because the historical record (official histories, CID reports, the testimony of other veterans) has confirmed their stories: see, for example, the testimony of Winter Soldiers Jamie Henry, Scott Moore, Robert Kruch, Mike McCusker, Jim Umenhofer, etc., etc., etc.
Gee, satisfied?
Oh, and thanks for the insult regarding my work vs that of Victor Davis Hanson. Wasn't aware that you'd read my books. I might also point out that whatever Hanson's excellence in ancient history, his writings on Vietnam are studded with inaccuracies. For example, in one book, he refers repeatedly to the Marines liberating the Cholon section of Saigon during the Tet Offensive, even going so far to identify the actual unit involved, the 3/7th Infantry, 199th LIB, US Army, as an element of the U.S. Marine Corps!
Hanson also repeats canards about the Battle for Ben Tre (again, during Tet) that defy the contemporary and historical record, but simply come from a revisionist piece of trash called Stolen Valor by B.G. Burkett. I wouldn't hold Hanson up as some kind of Vietnam expert.
Okay, now answer my questions, or I'll stamp my feet like you and scream and shout.
Posted by: KeithNolan at October 05, 2008 04:47 PM (2iAhy)
2) It's kind of difficult to do an illegal crossing using a Swift boat into Cambodia because a lot of military personnel would be asking too many questions and it's too obvious . If the US military wants to enter Cambodia illegally or covertly , they would use either air assets or just cross the border by walking . A gunboat ain't stealthy especially Vietnam era Swift Boats and the Mekong River was the most watched river by the Americans , Vietnamese , Cambodians and VC/NVA .
3) Why would they , Vietnam veterans in that era was marginalized into being called baby killers , drug addicts and so on and so forth . Besides , who would believe them when they were unpopular to begin with . Hell . lies about the Vietnam war are still currently ongoing .
Pity , you sounded like a kid that was ignored . Maybe someday when you really grow up , we can have a serious conversation about the place of my birth .
Posted by: Will at October 05, 2008 05:08 PM (4sHuN)
I answered your questions, now you're blowing mine off because "Pity, you sounded like a kid that was ignored. Maybe somebody when you really grow up, we can have a serious conversation about the place of my birth."
What condescending nonsense.
And what's this weird stuff from you (and Mack) about growing up? To hold a different opinion from you guys is a sign of immaturity?
Like I said: whatever, dude.
You don't know me, haven't read my work, don't really know what you're talking about, and have nothing to offer by way of argument but insults.
Seems we hijacked this thread to no real purpose.
See ya 'round.
Posted by: KeithNolan at October 05, 2008 05:27 PM (2iAhy)
As for that video.
Those dudes are:
Creepy.
Creepy.
Three times creepy.
Posted by: brando at October 05, 2008 07:25 PM (HtuDX)
Or a "former Republican," which KN did twice... guess he wanted to make sure we caught that part of the astroturf routine.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 05, 2008 07:35 PM (fxHiG)
What else you know-nothings got?
Posted by: KeithNolan at October 05, 2008 07:58 PM (2iAhy)
Posted by: KBK at October 05, 2008 09:15 PM (3iYDC)
Fine. I'll explain it. It's become fashionable and predictable for those on the left to use the Fallacy of Conversion. It's a silly, non-logical argument that goes like this:
The speaker says "I used to believe in X".
This is simply a weak form of asserting expertise. The speaker is implying that he has learned about the subject, and now that he is better informed, he has rejected X. Likely paired with calling those that don't agree "know-nothings".
Everybody sees it coming a mile away, and that's why it's so funny.
Heck, I even went to a lowly state school, and I even learned about it in my Principles Of Reasoning class.
If you have an argument to make, then make it. But don't try Fallacy of Conversion and Non Sequitor, and expect folks to not laugh.
C'mon. I bet even you think that's sort of funny.
Maybe not as funny as the Obama S1Ws, but a little bit funny.
Posted by: brando at October 05, 2008 09:17 PM (HtuDX)
Posted by: Trish at October 05, 2008 09:25 PM (oX9OR)
Interestingly, two want to be architects. Even more amazing, one wants to be a chemical engineer.
So good luck to them. They have made public commitments to work hard and learn. We could and often do worse.
Posted by: Day 37, After Sarah at October 05, 2008 09:33 PM (wREmy)
My detractors argue that I am lying about having once belonged to the GOP. I think it's kinda rude to tell a stranger he's a liar based on, well, nothing. If I were to label you a believer in X, Y, and Z, when, in fact, I don't know a thing about you, you'd be free to call me a "know-nothing," too.
Anyway, the problem with your post is that I'm not basing any of my arguments on my previous membership in the GOP. My arguments stand alone, or fall alone. I only mentioned belonging to the GOP in telling that anecdote about the different reaction I got when I slapped a Democratic bumper sticker on compared to my old GOP bumber stickers.
What is your point anyway?
And, again, if you want a dialogue, make it snappy, because I'm leaving the world of computers shortly.
Posted by: KeithNolan at October 05, 2008 10:23 PM (2iAhy)
If you can explain the overarching purpose of man's treadmill existense of war, famine, and disease, I'm all ears.
Also, please explain how religion has served the human race better than scientific advancement, and a philosophy of liberal western democracy in which religion is explicitely separated from government?
I suspect you're something of an atheist, too. I mean, you believe in whatever religion you believe in, which means you don't believe in the other couple hundred religions out there.
Anyway, you and I sound like a couple drunk philosophy students: i.e., neither profound, not fresh in our thoughts.
Posted by: KeithNolan at October 05, 2008 10:31 PM (2iAhy)
Posted by: KeithNolan at October 05, 2008 10:32 PM (2iAhy)
Do you believe that JFK wrote some (or all) of the after action reports that resulted in his being awarded medals?
Posted by: RicardoVerde at October 05, 2008 10:55 PM (PBTsv)
I know the Swiftees would have us believe that Kerry wrote all the reports himself, the implication being that he so puffed up his own part as to catch the eye of his superiors and thus see that they recommended him for valor awards.
This argument falls apart on inspection. First, it implies that Kerry's superiors (Elliott, Hoffman, Zumwalt) were out-of-touch, deskbound officers (they were not) who accepted whatever piece of paper floated under their noses without actually getting out in the field and talking to their junior officers and sailors.
If Kerry was constructing elaborate fantasies on paper, his plans would have fallen apart the first time Elliott, Hoffman, or Zumwalt did what they always did: go and talk with their men about "what happened out there."
Remember, too, that in the two incidents for which Kerry was decorated for valor, numerous other personnel also received medals, each with its own corresponding witness statements.
The military was very liberal with valor awards in Vietnam, but not so liberal that an anonymous junior officer could essentially pin medals on his own chest.
In addition, though opinions are now split about the extent of enemy fire on the day Kerry received his Bronze Star (some who were there remember only mine explosions; others, including some who detest Kerry for his anti-war activities, recall mines and AK-47 fire), no one who was present when Kerry earned his Silver Star has disputed the basic facts of what happened that day in February of '69.
At least, that's my take on the situation.
Posted by: KeithNolan at October 05, 2008 11:11 PM (2iAhy)
My take on the situation is that those guys can hear the drummer get wicked.
Posted by: brando at October 05, 2008 11:27 PM (HtuDX)
Posted by: Bandit at October 06, 2008 07:28 AM (/R+6i)
Indeed.
What's most logically inconsistent about atheism is that in order to be a "true" atheist, you'd have to know with absolute certainty that at no time, past, present, or future, at any point in the universe, out to the farthest reaches, has there ever been or will there ever be a god. If you knew all that, well... you'd be a god.
Agnosticism is at least logically consistent.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 06, 2008 07:50 AM (fxHiG)
Posted by: Trish at October 06, 2008 10:34 AM (oX9OR)
Posted by: brando at October 06, 2008 12:30 PM (qzOby)
That's "Alpha Psi Omega" you're referring to.
Posted by: Granddaddy long Legs at October 06, 2008 01:25 PM (Y9fG5)
Posted by: brando at October 06, 2008 04:31 PM (qzOby)
Posted by: Dan at October 07, 2008 01:26 AM (wh08x)
Posted by: RuztyB at October 07, 2008 09:58 AM (+Fsm5)
Posted by: RuztyB at October 07, 2008 10:08 AM (+Fsm5)
RuztyB, I think you're more than a little arrogant in professing to know the mind of Jesus. Somehow, I doubt he speaks to you directly.
I also find your racism more than a little annoying.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 07, 2008 10:15 AM (HcgFD)
Posted by: RuztyB at October 07, 2008 10:57 AM (+Fsm5)
Posted by: RuztyB at October 07, 2008 11:20 AM (+Fsm5)
You act as if Jesus died 1970 years ago with everything he knew said, or all that he would know for all time captured on paper during his short 30 years of human life, and without comprehending that as part of the Trinity, he is part of the same God that waged war in Heaven and on Earth in that same Bible. Again... unbelievably arrogant.
You, sir are the one who first began casting slurs, everyone who disagreed with you "Texas rednecks," implying they were racists, without knowing the first thing about them.
As for the name of the blog, my ignorant, racist friend, you could have clicked on the "About" link to find out what it was named, but it apparent that it is far easier for you to label others instead of think.
Your biblical education is as under-served as your secular education, sir, and frankly, I have better things to do than spend any more time in this discussion.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 07, 2008 11:38 AM (HcgFD)
I just love all these "conservative Christian" astroturfers and their nonsense. Axelrod's not getting his money's worth from Rutzy-boy, that's for sure.
Rutzy's so pro life that he's carrying water for the most extreme pro-abortion candidate in history. Riiight. I don't mind the lying any more because it comes naturally to 0bama-supporters; after all, it's what their messiah does all the time. I just wish they'd take the trouble to be more clever about it.
Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at October 07, 2008 07:44 PM (1aw/n)
October 02, 2008
Biden-Palin Debate Reaction
As has become something of a tendency, I listened to tonight's Vice Presidential debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden on CNN, glancing occasionally at the reaction of their undecided voters, while splitting eyeball time between Ace's liveblog and the body language of the candidates.
Frankly, I was impressed with Biden. Given his recent history of unforced errors and obvious gaffes, not to mention his tendency to overestimate his own intelligence and speak condescendingly to his opponents, I thought there was perhaps a 10-percent chance he would meltdown, and instead, he put together a solid performance. Palin, however, clearly won the debate, thanks no doubt to a clever media that has spent the last few weeks belittling and attacking her as some sort of unschooled fanatical hick. By showing up and more than holding her own against expectations, she outpointed Biden convincingly. Granted, this probably doesn't matter. Probably. The media either will spin the debate as a draw, or they will minimize a Palin victory. Also, Veep debates don't usually have much of a long-term impacts on an election. But Palin's win—and it was a clear win—does help re-energize conservatives, and it will reassure voters leaning towards McCain that she does indeed have the ability to handle herself, and if needed, the country. At least some of those voters now comfortable that Sarah Palin could lead if called upon are also going to note that she has more executive experience and proven leadership experience than Barack Obama, the man who leads the opposing ticket. The media will try to make sure that message doesn't get out, but it doesn't make the freshman Senator's paper-thin resume any more impressive.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:42 PM | Comments (94) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: Chuck Simmins at October 02, 2008 10:43 PM (X1w6y)
Posted by: Willmoore Kendall at October 02, 2008 11:09 PM (a+DJ7)
Little mistakes she made, like repeating the well refuted tax slander against the Obama plan (just check with Politifact or Factcheck.org), or the misrepresenting other positions, and a very incomplete and distorted view of what the role of the VP is according to the constitution, she did ok. It doesn't matter that she believes she has never changed her mind since she entered politics; Just like our current president, she is incapable of growth, as growth involves change.
Writing as a person with a verbal/visual learning disability (dyslexia) I can understand how, under stress, the wrong word, or a completely new one, might come out when thinking the right one. Don't go after Biden on that one.
Posted by: Daniel Glasser at October 02, 2008 11:27 PM (QDUp3)
Posted by: Richard Romano at October 02, 2008 11:35 PM (kycO9)
Posted by: ann cannon at October 02, 2008 11:39 PM (iJIDI)
I don't recognize one of those and don't trust the other.
Wait! I got a better idea! Let's listen to the tapes!
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at October 02, 2008 11:39 PM (OmeRL)
Biden's job was to keep both feet out of his mouth, which he accomplished.
As to the perception of a winner, Palin was more conversational and Biden more professorial. On that note, Palin won the perception debate.
The fun will begin with the headlines and stories in the papers tomorrow.
Posted by: Mark at October 02, 2008 11:45 PM (w/olL)
Where the he** did Slow Joe get that the idea (he stated it as fact) the terrorists have been kicked out of Lebanon. It's more like the elected government has been kicked underground, some of them dead in the process. Terrorists run Lebanon.
Posted by: Scrapiron at October 02, 2008 11:52 PM (I4yBD)
Posted by: Conservative CBU at October 02, 2008 11:52 PM (M+Vfm)
Posted by: Scrapiron at October 02, 2008 11:56 PM (I4yBD)
Give me the editing facilities of a major network, combined with their overwhelming, blatantly obvious liberal bias, and I could make the most brilliant physicist on the planet appear to know nothing at all about science. It takes little work or intellect (just a complete lack of ethics and a great deal of bad will) to make a smart, capable, poised, quick-witted, decent woman like Sarah Palin look less than smart and capable. Of course, the media can also make poor excuses for humanity, and second class intellects like Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric look intelligent, such are the wonders of technology.
Given no media filter, it was a foregone conclusion that Palin would appear as exactly what she is, and that she would do what she is manifestly capable of doing. Did anyone, by the way, catch Ifel's little shot at Palin after Palin talked about extra credit for kids watching the debate? Ifel said that everyone gets extra credit tonight. Gotta help Biden any way we can, don't we? It would also be interesting to get a comparison of facial closeup time for the respective candidates when their opponents were speaking. I got the impression that Palin had more face time there, apparently because the media was hoping to catch her doing something untoward. Sorry, media trolls; she was a total professional--no Gore-like idiocy. On the other hand, I had the impression they were trying to minimize exposure of Biden's idiotic grins and smirks. Anyone else? I wonder what the Bosniacs think?
Posted by: Mike at October 03, 2008 12:02 AM (gP3FO)
But thats what we will get in the end of day. Did you miss that she had no answer, none, nada, zilch which was not recited ? Can you believe she just said she agreed with Dick in extending her powers as VP ? and all that folksy stuff.. Guys I agree most of you think "she is so like me, thats the american dream, where anyone can become what he want" Well here is surprise : If you are as dimwitted as Palin you ought not become the President of this country. Anyone can be aspiring to get to highest position, that applies to Obama who has struggled to get where he is not Palin who was handpicked to just appease Women and catholic base.. ( btw did you notice she supports gay rights and oh my god.... HAS A GAY FRIEND!!)
Posted by: Jed at October 03, 2008 12:15 AM (i+/J9)
Posted by: Conservative CBU at October 03, 2008 12:19 AM (M+Vfm)
I mean come on, she was reading directly off her notes in one of her rants. I will say though, she has come along way from the Couric interview.
Biden, on the other hand, didn't particularly connect with the people, but he knew most of his facts and most importantly answered every question. Do we want a vice president who listens to the people and answers our questions, or do we want a president who shys away from difficult questions and resorts to catchy, substance free speeches. Honestly, what substantive information did Palin share with America tonight? That she infact could sort of think on her feet??
Finally, for all those who enjoy Palin's word choice, do you guys really like being talked to like uneducated Americans? The woman is running for the vice presidency, I really hope she can speak a bit more formally to other world leaders.
Anyways, she did better than I expected
Posted by: Anonymous at October 03, 2008 12:20 AM (lCJA0)
Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
Posted by: Dan at October 03, 2008 12:24 AM (a6aJD)
Posted by: Todd at October 03, 2008 12:29 AM (0JQYH)
But I always can take heart in this. If McCain does not make it through his term and she becomes President, guess who the VP is? Nancy Peslosi. Now THAT, my friends, would be be fun to watch!
Posted by: LR at October 03, 2008 12:35 AM (Gk3jY)
She's got personality, I'll give her that. But she's no Veep, let alone a potential (especially given McClain's age) President. Face it, she's no Hillary Clinton and the McClain team's transparent ploy is blowing up in their faces daily, even among women. (Can you imagine her debating Hillary and Hillary not having to hold back for fear of appearing chauvinistic or like a bully? She'd be slaughtered. Of course, if Hillary WERE Obama's running mate, Palin wouldn't be McClain's.)
Posted by: Magus1986 at October 03, 2008 12:49 AM (od21S)
Posted by: Me at October 03, 2008 02:39 AM (Y2bu2)
Posted by: chris lee at October 03, 2008 05:47 AM (Ah8Kf)
Posted by: Truthsaying Bastard Spider at October 03, 2008 06:36 AM (s1iPl)
"it's a fresh wind that blows against the empire".
Posted by: veblensbastardchild at October 03, 2008 07:07 AM (Cto5S)
Biden came across as the professional and actually sounded like he believes in what can be achieved with Obama... you can't possibly say the same for the McCain/Palin relationship.
Posted by: Gar at October 03, 2008 07:17 AM (rixgi)
Posted by: ScubaSteve at October 03, 2008 07:27 AM (zqzYV)
Posted by: veblensbastardchild at October 03, 2008 08:19 AM (Cto5S)
Okay sure. Because you say so? Lets face it, you clearly think your opinion on Palin is fact.
Posted by: Robby at October 03, 2008 09:25 AM (D+TTb)
Posted by: Patrick L at October 03, 2008 09:41 AM (7wyw4)
Posted by: doubleplusundead at October 03, 2008 09:55 AM (5TQen)
Posted by: doubleplusundead at October 03, 2008 09:56 AM (5TQen)
Posted by: megapotamus at October 03, 2008 10:12 AM (LF+qW)
Please show me otherwise, I'm open-minded and welcome any facts to show my opinion is wrong. More so I would love to hear it from Palin herself without sounding like she's reading from her "Mavrick McCain" brochure. I Haven't seen one thing in the past weeks that shows me anything more than Palin's selection as a marketing scheme aimed at picking up the former Clinton supporters simply because she is female. Believe me, I would love to feel differently, but based on what I've seen I can't.
"ScubaSteve, are you a concerned Conservative Christian too?"
Concerned? Hell yes. Conservative Christian? No.
Posted by: ScubaSteve at October 03, 2008 10:12 AM (zqzYV)
Gteasy Joe lies and spins as usual to sound good, but if you look behind the curtan you realize that as usual there's nothing there. That's why his own party doesn't trust him in any non-seniority leadership positions.
Posted by: daleyrocks at October 03, 2008 10:45 AM (i/fLn)
BS = Biden Says
h/t Ace
Posted by: daleyrocks at October 03, 2008 11:04 AM (i/fLn)
Posted by: toby928 at October 03, 2008 11:42 AM (PD1tk)
Also, Steve, do you support Biden and Obama's desire for people to buy a house they can't afford, declare bankruptcy, and have all or part of the mortgage debt canceled? Why do you support this sort of irresponsible financial behavior?
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at October 03, 2008 11:48 AM (E3Yxq)
Posted by: Suzi at October 03, 2008 11:52 AM (MrPve)
Palin is smooth, feisty, attractive - but not that trustworthy. She answers when/what she likes. I would hate to have a contract with her - with everything reinterpreted to suit her. - Lack of knowledge, lack of caring - would heighten the mess the country is already in.
Posted by: betsylove at October 03, 2008 11:55 AM (o8J2J)
Posted by: ScubaSteve at October 03, 2008 12:04 PM (zqzYV)
I wouldn't trust Joe Biden to mail a letter.
Posted by: Trish at October 03, 2008 12:16 PM (YpXvJ)
Posted by: megapotamus at October 03, 2008 12:27 PM (LF+qW)
Get ready to have Sarah Palin as your president and leader of the free world.
Posted by: EJ at October 03, 2008 12:36 PM (zGWlx)
(I just can't imagine Pelosi and Reid sending a tax cut package to a President Obama in the first place).
Biden (and Obama) also keep mentioning the "100 million" who didn't get a tax cut. Where is the fact checking that 48% of Americans don't pay income taxes at all? Maybe they mean sending more tax dollars to people who don't pay taxes.
Posted by: muck at October 03, 2008 01:07 PM (dE5CK)
Posted by: Tonto (USA) at October 03, 2008 03:33 PM (Qv1xF)
Posted by: GET REAL at October 03, 2008 03:58 PM (IDoHr)
WTF !! This is worse that Gerry Ford's gaffe about Poland and Eastern Europe were not under the domination of the Soviet Union.
Posted by: Neo at October 03, 2008 04:05 PM (Yozw9)
Posted by: PUH-LEASE at October 03, 2008 04:11 PM (fvslN)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7649833.stm
Facts and figures were flying around in the debate between US vice-presidential candidates Joe Biden and Sarah Palin.
The BBC News website took a look to see which claims were accurate.
THE US COMMANDER IN AFGHANISTAN
Claim: Joe Biden said that the US "commanding general in Afghanistan said the surge principle in Iraq will not work in Afghanistan". Sarah Palin responded by saying that "McClellan did not say definitively the surge principles would not work in Afghanistan".
Fact: On 2 October, the Washington Post quoted the head of the Nato-led coalition in Afghanistan, Gen David McKiernan, as saying: "The word I don't use for Afghanistan is 'surge'."
Verdict: Mrs Palin not only got the name of the US commander in Afghanistan wrong, but it would seem she also distorted his position.
IRAQ'S BUDGET SURPLUS
Claim: Joe Biden said that "Iraqis have an $80bn surplus".
Fact: According to Factcheck.org, this is "an out-of-date projection. The Iraqis currently have $29bn in the bank, and could have $47bn to $59bn by the end of the year."
Verdict: Joe Biden is guilty of using out-of-date figures, but his substantive point - that the Iraqis have resources to "spend their own money... to take their own responsibility" - still holds.
OBAMA'S READINESS TO BE PRESIDENT
Claim: Sarah Palin reminded Joe Biden of his statement during the Democratic primaries that Barack Obama "was not ready to be commander in chief".
Fact: Joe Biden did indeed say this, on 19 August, 2007, in a TV debate between the various Democratic presidential hopefuls.
Verdict: Mrs Palin's quote was perfectly accurate. (However, Mr Biden did rethink his position. By May 2008 - before Mr Obama had sewn up the nomination, and before he had picked Mr Biden to be his running-mate - he was claiming that Mr Obama had "learned a hell of a lot".)
MCCAIN'S SUB-PRIME SURPRISE
Claim: Joe Biden pointed out that "John McCain said as early as last December, quote - I'm paraphrasing - 'I'm surprised about this subprime mortgage crisis'".
Fact: In a 4 November interview with a New Hampshire newspaper, the Keene Sentinel, John McCain said "I'd like to tell you I did anticipate [the mortgage crisis], but I have to give you straight talk, I did not".
Verdict: Mr Biden's paraphrase is a fair reflection of Mr McCain's words, although he got the date wrong by a month.
BIDEN'S SUPPORT FOR MCCAIN'S IRAQ POSITION
Claim: Sarah Palin said that Joe Biden "had supported John McCain's military strategies [in Iraq] pretty adamantly until this race".
Fact: Jonathan Weisman of the Washington Post characterises Mr Biden as "an outspoken opponent of... troop increases in Iraq as soon as Bush announced them after the 2006 elections". As Foreign Relations Committee Chairman, he led the most heated hearings before the troops were actually deployed.
Verdict: Mrs Palin's claim is untrue. Mr Biden opposed the surge - of which Mr McCain was a prominent proponent - long before the beginning of the presidential campaign, and maintained this position throughout the race.
MCCAIN ON SPAIN
Claim: Joe Biden asserted that "John McCain said as recently as a couple of weeks ago he wouldn't even sit down with the government of Spain".
Fact: John McCain, in an interview with a Spanish-language radio station, refused to commit to a meeting with the Spanish Prime Minister, saying only that he "would be willing to meet with those leaders who are our friends and want to work with us in a cooperative fashion".
Many observers said at the time that Mr McCain's answer was based on a mishearing of the question he had been asked (which had followed a series of questions about America's relationship with diplomatic foes in Latin America).
But a McCain campaign aide later confirmed that "the questioner asked several times about Senator McCain's willingness to meet [Spanish PM] Zapatero - and ID'd him in the question so there is no doubt Senator McCain knew exactly to whom the question referred. Senator McCain refused to commit to a White House meeting with President Zapatero in this interview."
Verdict: While it would have been true for Mr Biden to say that Mr McCain had signalled (whether intentionally or not) a cooling in relations with Spain, Mr McCain did not rule out a meeting with the Spanish prime minister.
Posted by: FactChecker at October 03, 2008 04:15 PM (2LJbm)
i couldn't help thinking of the end of the movie Billy Madison, when the Principal says to Adam Sandler, "Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
Posted by: movie fan at October 03, 2008 04:16 PM (zQPzV)
Your desperation in attempting to claim that Palin lost is itself evidence that she cleaned Biden's clock.
If any of you Obamamaniacs had the capability of thinking critically, you'd see that. But you don't, so you don't.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 03, 2008 06:23 PM (fxHiG)
An interesting question, that.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 03, 2008 06:56 PM (fxHiG)
Sarah, Jon W, Michael, and Old Con, are all logging in from the same IP, 70.193.247.135.
Interestingly enough, 70.193.247.135 is in New York, New York... not exactly known for being McCain country.
Why, if I didn't know better, I might suspect that Sarah, Jon W, Michael, and Old Con were all the same person—and probably not that conservative.
Anybody seen Glenn Greenwald lately?
BTW: banned, deleted, set on fire, etc...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 03, 2008 07:23 PM (HcgFD)
http://salesianity.blogspot.com/2008/10/sarah-palin-new-kind-of-politician-for.html
Posted by: Padre Steve at October 03, 2008 07:39 PM (Pqw7y)
Posted by: C-C-G at October 03, 2008 10:07 PM (fxHiG)
Olberman - She didn't answer the questions!!!???
Are you people insane? Did you NEVER watch Bill and Hillary Clinton? Did they EVER answer the questions? No. They were masters at turning right back to their talking points
each
and
every
time.
The Dem talking points on this one are comical and nonsensical - no wonder. She scares the sh-t out of you.
Posted by: Rose at October 04, 2008 12:48 PM (f4g+V)
Palin kind of dodged the question until she got around to telling about how she got a Alaska fund to divest from Darfur. Then she blathered, once again, about energy independence for America. We're all for that Sarah, but why don't you just plain ole answer the question?
As for Biden, I expected a far better answer than the one he gave. Yes, we're all against genocide in Darfur, but what was the difference between Saddam Hussein and the Sudanese Janjaweed Joe? Oh, and we're going to set up no fly zones over Darfur -- no mention of where our aircraft will be based. It sounds like Biden wants to repeat the Clinton experience in Bosnia/Kosovo -- no Congressional mandate, but support from NATO. Where's the equivalent of NATO in the Darfur situation? If I'm not mistaken, that organization is called the Organization for African Unity, and we all know that this organization is solidly behind the Sudanese government and it's Janjaweed bullies. But worst of all, Biden ignores the significant mainland Chinese presence in the Sudan. Over sixty percent of all Darfur oil goes to mainland China, and China is the Sudan's primary arms supplier. In addition there are significant numbers of Chinese "oil field workers" (read Peoples' Liberation Army personnel) in Darfur to guard and operate the oil fields. The BBC has also reported that these Chinese "workers" have been transporting Janjaweed back and forth from their murder campaigns against Darfut civilians. Joe, you claim to have 36 years of experience in foreign policy, but your performance during the debate didn't show it.
Posted by: Mescalero at October 04, 2008 12:49 PM (mJ3+S)
Posted by: Sara at October 04, 2008 02:49 PM (z8Gxp)
It seems to me that Biden and Palin were addressing very different audiences -- Palin addressing middle America (like most of us), Biden addressing that other part of America that considers itself aloof and beyond accountability (e.g., Barney Frank and Chris Dobbs) and basically ignorant of any facts that make the "messiah-gaffer team" look like the imbeciles and manipulaters they really are.
Posted by: Mescalero at October 04, 2008 03:35 PM (mJ3+S)
Let's be honest: Expectations were so low for Palin's performance that as long as she appeared a little more intelligent then her infant with down syndrome, we would be cheering at home. And she managed to reach this low-bar. Yahoo!, but let's not lose our heads here and try to pretend that she beat Biden. He didn't make his usual gaffs and instead too often addressed the questions asked, while Sarah turned down opportunities to talk about the current economic crisis and instead focused ad nauseam on energy policy. *wink*!
...wasn't me, but someone in Mt. Laurel, NJ, trying to pretend to be me. Their comment has been deleted, and their IP banned.
I agree with your assessment.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 04, 2008 03:48 PM (HcgFD)
Joe Biden merely did well for Obama.
But I have not yet heard anyone from any side express any concern about the most dangerous possibility if Governor Palin is elected to national office.
Posted by: Burr Deming at October 04, 2008 04:15 PM (1hLBg)
No one's tried to impersonate me yet, probably because my combination of intelligence and snark is one-of-a-kind. (And, please note, I didn't say which of those two is present in the greatest quantity.)
Of course, now that I suggested it, someone is sure to try to impersonate me. :p
Posted by: C-C-G at October 04, 2008 05:52 PM (fxHiG)
The McCain campaign put out a list of 14 errors by Biden. Flopping Aces had its own list.
This is one reason why I rate Palin as the winner of the debate.
Posted by: Phil Byler at October 05, 2008 02:42 PM (xqMGp)
Here's the first 22: http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTVhMThlNjRkZGFlMmUwOWFkNDZkZjk0MzBiY2JiYmY=
And the last two: http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Mzc5ZTllZDk1N2JkZTI2ODMxODFiNDdlYjYyMTQxMzA=
Wonder if we can make it to 30...
Posted by: C-C-G at October 05, 2008 06:12 PM (fxHiG)
The Communist's Son Lectures on "Patriotism"
One reason I so loathe progressives is their sincere belief that the power of government is more inspiring than the power of the individual.
Speaking in Michigan this morning, Barack Obama just gave a speech—I wish I had the exact quote—where he used the analogy of a factory worker in Michigan, "a grown man" losing his job and losing his pension because of a tough economy, and declared it "unpatriotic." Unpatriotic? Perhaps the son of an African communist who never stepped onto the shores of the continental United States until he was an adult, who then thrust himself into further radicalization through left-wing university indoctrination, radical foundations, Marxist activist groups, a racist cult, and the most corrupt political machine in modern America, shouldn't be lecturing America on patriotism. In Barack Obama's America, the government will provide for your every basic need. Your medical care will be determined, regulated, and provided by the government. Your job may or may not be be a government job, and you might opt not even to have one. You'll be able to get by with generous government assistance, and with taxes going ever higher, the impetus to work hard for what the government will give most of for free will be gone. Besides, why should we work hard to get rich, when Obama taxes the rich to death? It's far better that we all just exist, than see any of us excel. That is the real promise of Barack Obama's vision, the death of American exceptionalism.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:58 PM | Comments (30) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: Two Dogs at October 02, 2008 02:17 PM (iYzTn)
Posted by: C-C-G at October 02, 2008 05:41 PM (fxHiG)
Obama was born an American citizen and all the stupid crap you say about him jut does not wash.
Whikle you were busy talking about the capitalist free market system, Congress just under the table) authorized billions for the three auto makers. Now that is a free market! Did they give you your needed money if you wanted some help.
Govt insurance is not govt takeover! FDIC is govt insurance. Social Security is govt insurance etc but you dismiss it all as socialism...now what is your house worth on the market? and your share of the national deficit your kids and grandkids must pay?
and don't bs me about love of nation etc, pal: I have served in not one but two wars! Now you go to one, patriot.
Posted by: david still at October 02, 2008 06:35 PM (zYWtX)
That's where I stop reading -- incompetence discredits you and your rant.
Posted by: Richard Romano at October 02, 2008 07:10 PM (kycO9)
Obama's tax cuts for so-called 95% of Americans is hogwash. His plan is not tax cuts as he likes to say...it is tax credits in many forms going to those who don't pay or pay very little income taxes. Guess where that money comes from the 5-10% that pay the vast majority of taxes.
It's called wealth redistribution and that is Socialism.
You may also try researching the candidate Obama. Yankee is spot on.
It makes me laugh to see liberals supporting a man who has NO executive experience unless you include his Directorship with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge with his buddy William Ayers, the terrorist, at his side.
I would challenge you to name just one of Obama's "friends" and "mentors" who has shown an outward and unabashed love of America....
Most of Obama's mentors and relationships include people who follow the book of Socialism and Alinsky principles. They hate America as She is and will lie to transform her as they see fit.
Do your own research if you don't believe me...look up William Ayers, Saul Alinsky, Louis Farakkhan, ACORN, Weather Underground, Jeremiah Wright, Raila Odinga, Cloward-Piven Strategy,Michael Pfleger....to name a few.
McCain/Palin 2008
Posted by: sharprightturn at October 02, 2008 07:13 PM (n01Ov)
And if you search the archives from when I was an active commenter here (sort of fell away when CY had to shut down commenting for a while due to spammers), you might learn something about my political opinions.
Here's a hint... CCG stands for Christian Conservative Geek.
Next time make sure of the target you're aiming at before shooting your mouth off.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 02, 2008 07:27 PM (fxHiG)
Posted by: Conservative CBU at October 02, 2008 10:10 PM (M+Vfm)
I owe you a HUGE apology.
I looked at the wrong name. I am somewhat new to reading this blog, so I kindly ask you to disregard my comments toward you.
They were meant for the David Still post...I must admit even his post was a bit hard to understand, but I think he is an Obama supporter.
Call me an over zealous commenter.
Sorry CCG.
Posted by: sharprightturn at October 02, 2008 10:43 PM (n01Ov)
Posted by: C-C-G at October 02, 2008 10:54 PM (fxHiG)
Someone who can admit a mistake with grace and style is very worthwhile in my book!
Posted by: Mark at October 02, 2008 11:39 PM (w/olL)
Your health care will become the same, it cost a few bucks to cure you, forget it and die. Check a case in Socialist Oregon. It has happened there. Refusing to pay for medical care for a young man because it 'cost' too much in dollars.
By the way I've been reading today that Hussein has taken $200 million from the terrorist and terrorist nations. All illegal campaign contributions. Guess that's why the democrats wanted the FEC neutered.
Posted by: Scrapiron at October 03, 2008 12:03 AM (I4yBD)
What troubles me more is how the media has refused to look at any of this. I have been hearing Hannity say this is the year that the media in America died. About three months ago, I was titling all my media blog posts with "The Media as a Corpse" or "The Dead Media" --- it is rotting.
A last note on Obama, now that I know more about his biographies and background ---
--- I was lucky enough to live in Honolulu for three years --- so I don't need the media to tell me how ludicrous it is for Obama to align himself with the oppressed black masses and the anger that comes with that ---- based on who he was living with and where in Hawaii.
There might be some, but you'd be damn hard pressed to find a better place to grow up mixed race or black. There weren't many blacks around. But I was white and in the minority in most places I walked around. Hawaii is one of the most diverse communities in the whole nation - and an island paradise.
Obama notes how he was gaining so much understanding about the US from reading Malcom X and Dr. King and leftist books on the social ills of the US (mostly prior to that period ---- Obama having come of age after the Civil Rights Movement had already gained much for the nation). But, living in Hawaii - he'd have to get that stuff at that level out of books........
To me, it's a joke.
It is either self-delusion or someone who wants to ride the coattails of people who really have suffered poverty and racial discrimination. Milking their discontent to gain political power by pretending you are one of them...
Posted by: usinkorea at October 03, 2008 03:58 AM (oewcl)
That's one of the planks of the contemporary Democrat party, isn't it?
Posted by: Zhombre at October 03, 2008 03:10 PM (8owxX)
Given the way so many on both the right and the left run screaming from admitting that they're fallible (read: human), anyone with the cojones to admit and apologize for a goof publicly is more than welcome here, at least in this commenter's book.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 03, 2008 05:32 PM (fxHiG)
October 01, 2008
A Scene From Saving Private Palin

Caparzo: 'Hey, Mellish, look at this. An Obama Youth knife.'
Mellish: (jokingly) 'And now it's a moose skinner, right?'

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:40 AM | Comments (31) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: dba at October 01, 2008 12:16 PM (1XWfF)
Posted by: Conservative CBU at October 01, 2008 01:23 PM (M+Vfm)
Posted by: ME at October 01, 2008 02:04 PM (5dMYz)
Which begs the question: Other than yourself, who cares about or values your opinion?
Posted by: Boss429 at October 01, 2008 02:47 PM (V1z4W)
I'll be expecting you to agree with me that it reinforces my bad opinion of liberals.
Posted by: Conservative CBU at October 01, 2008 03:53 PM (M+Vfm)
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at October 01, 2008 05:28 PM (J5AYY)
Posted by: Tonto (USA) at October 01, 2008 09:52 PM (Qv1xF)
God help us
Posted by: Bill at October 02, 2008 08:41 PM (N3TQR)
Kindernacht Pulled, Apparently in Disgrace
The creepy "grassroots" video of children singing Obama's praises that turns out to have been the production of Hollywood film industry professionals has proven sufficiently embarrassing to Dear Leader, and has been pulled down.
Luckily, there are at least one copy of it still online, at least until the Obama Truth Squads exert a copyright infringement threat. Watch it again while you can, because it will be disappeared soon.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:46 AM | Comments (36) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
And, yes, the Cabaret reference is spot on!
Posted by: Ace O'Dale at October 01, 2008 10:18 AM (OgZM6)
Just in case you needed more evidence that NBC and MSNBC are in the tank.
Posted by: Clint at October 01, 2008 10:36 AM (oZ5OG)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 01, 2008 10:41 AM (HcgFD)
Posted by: fred at October 01, 2008 11:15 AM (0XpI7)
Posted by: Trish at October 01, 2008 12:46 PM (IJKUA)
I'm usually the guy looking for confirmation of these things.
Different Jeff Zucker.
Posted by: Clint at October 01, 2008 01:22 PM (oZ5OG)
http://nomayo.mu.nu/obama_childrens_choir
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at October 01, 2008 01:29 PM (R7LgM)
Adolph Hitler is our Savior, our hero.
He is the noblest being in the whole wide world.
For Hitler we will live. For Hitler we will die.
Our Hitler is our Lord, who rules a Brave New World.
Posted by: Jewel at October 01, 2008 01:58 PM (4wteF)
Richard Dawkins agrees with you: "Our society, including the non-religious sector, has accepted the preposterous idea that it is normal and right to indoctrinate tiny children in the religion of their parents, and to slap religious labels on them--'Catholic child', 'Protestant child', Jewish child', 'Muslim child', etc.--altough no other comparable labels: no conservative children, no liberal children, no Republican children, no Democrat children. Please, please raise your consciousness about this, and raise the roof whenever you hear it happening." [Dawkins, __Breaking the Spell__, p. 381-382]
Little did Dawkins know how deep into the cult of personality the modern Democratic Party has crawled.
Posted by: Malcolm Kirkpatrick at October 01, 2008 04:29 PM (ERqeN)
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at October 01, 2008 05:45 PM (J5AYY)
Case in point, the first ad on Fannie/Freddie is just now out. By the way, not to threadjack, but that's a good ad, in my mind.
Anyway, back to the original topic, give it a few days and we might just see that video in a McCain ad.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 01, 2008 06:13 PM (fxHiG)
Posted by: 1IDVET at October 01, 2008 07:27 PM (KVjIH)
My first reaction was that this must be a spoof. No, it isn't: Jeff Zucker, CEO of NBC, is one of the producers. It is frightening. Just frightening.
Posted by: Neo at October 01, 2008 09:16 PM (Yozw9)
Posted by: arch at October 02, 2008 07:13 AM (mf5lg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy09UpI60F8
Posted by: eaglewingz08 at October 04, 2008 11:04 AM (W88Qb)
September 30, 2008
Help Soldier's Angels
Squidoo is giving away money to charity. The company has $80,000 to give away and they're letting people vote on what charities to give the money to.
Please scroll down and choose "Soldier's Angels." Each click = $2. If you haven't heard about them before, check out Soldier's Angels and what they try to do. It's a good cause. (Thanks to Rusty Shackleford for pointing this out).Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:15 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: Mike the Snipe at October 01, 2008 10:09 AM (fqvpi)
Posted by: Trish at October 01, 2008 06:45 PM (IJKUA)
Posted by: douglas at October 02, 2008 01:14 AM (20QoQ)
The Media and Democratic Party Lied: Palin Did Not Charge For Rape Kits
We previously debunked this smear campaign here, here and here, but it is nice to now have Governor Palin on the record in her own words.
Flush another steaming, stinking, Associated Press-carried, Democratic Party-complicit, liberal-blogosphere- astroturfed lie down the toilet:A small liberal blog started the rumor, apparently after two Democratic Party researchers scoured the archives of the Frontiersman for dirt, and came up with an ambiguous story from 2000, that quickly bounced to an muckraking liberal blog. Top Alaskan Democrats for Obama Tony Knowles (whom Palin beat in the governor's race) and Eric Croft, the sponsor of the law HB 270, both claimed in a recent press conference by Democrats falsely claimed the law was passed because of Wasilla's Police charged victims. That is a demonstrable, bald-faced, and proven lie. Read the committee minutes for yourself. Palin, Fannon, and Wasilla are never mentioned. Three expert witnesses testified that they knew of no police agencies in Alaska that billed victims. The law was needed because hospitals occasionally exercised bad judgment and billed victims. The media and Democratic Party should be ashamed. Update: The New York Times-owned Boston Globe is still attempting to carry on with the smear. Perhaps you should register for a free account and let them know what you think about their editorial standards--or lack thereof.
The entire notion of making a victim of a crime pay for anything is crazy. I do not believe, nor have I ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test. As governor, I worked in a variety of ways to tackle the problem of sexual assault and rape, including making domestic violence a priority of my administration.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:54 PM | Comments (84) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: Dickie Moe at September 30, 2008 09:07 PM (l2SKC)
Posted by: Jeffersonian at September 30, 2008 09:14 PM (7whRx)
get them.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2008/09/30/wasilla_made_rape_victims_pay_1222822915/
Posted by: Laga at September 30, 2008 09:32 PM (dEGE8)
Posted by: deek at September 30, 2008 09:39 PM (TLGp2)
Yes, they should. But they are missing the necessary human components that would allow them to feel shame.
I call the missing parts "soul".
Posted by: LarrySheldon at September 30, 2008 09:41 PM (OmeRL)
Sure because if you got mugged and a tooth knocked out the State pays for you to have a new implants or if you're stabbed outside a bar the Government picks up the tab on your hospital visit. Can you name another violent crime that the state pays for any medical treatment for? Idiots like you should be institutionalized not let loose on the Internet.
Posted by: macten at September 30, 2008 10:20 PM (3g945)
And the email thing is nothing. I have about 10 different email accounts, and she had one for her Palin For Gov website, wow that is shocking news.
How about taking a look at Obama's time as a Community Organizer and his friends in Chicago??? Socialist,, Communists, Terrorists, and you going after someone for having more than 1 email. Pathetic
Posted by: Stix at September 30, 2008 10:23 PM (08XRp)
That claim was disproven by the "hacker" himself, who complained that he was disappointed because he found nothing but personal emails in the Yahoo account.
Why should we believe a single word in that story?
Aside from that, I wonder how many email accounts Obama and Biden have? Oh, wait, that's right. No one is trying to find that out.
As to the Tasergate story, I would applaud the governor for trying to have a lying, drunken, child-abusing trooper fired, if there was any evidence that she tried to have him fired. There isn't.
WRT the specific claim of trying to refute his disability claim, do you deny that any citizen has the right to submit evidence to the Workers Compensation Board that refutes another's claim to benefits?
Is not the Governor, her husband and every member of her staff citizens of the State of Alaska?
Case closed, bozo.
This is a totally manufactured "scandal" promoted by Obama through surrogates and greased by a compliant media that refuses to even look in the direction of any of Obama's rocks while sniffing the Governors panties looking for evidence of anything, no matter how fraudulent, which they can claim disqualifies her for a position she is eminently more qualified for than Obama is for the position to which he aspires.
Posted by: Antimedia at September 30, 2008 10:29 PM (qBz3m)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 30, 2008 10:33 PM (HcgFD)
In the current case, the person behind the "small liberal blog" is Dave Anthony:
profile. myspace. com/
index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=172962
(Spaces added)
Posted by: 24AheadDotCom at September 30, 2008 11:39 PM (EZiCN)
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/52266.html
Posted by: Kevin Gregory at October 01, 2008 01:37 AM (d9G9A)
Palin routinely used her Yahoo address for state business.
This article was written by Karl Vick, and appears on page A4. Research editor Alice Crites is said to have contributed.
Posted by: Valerie at October 01, 2008 06:23 AM (qIfnY)
Taste of your own medicine?
Posted by: Joe V at October 01, 2008 08:35 AM (wNOl7)
Even when Palin tries to emphasize that Alaska shares borders with Russia and Canada (two "foreign" countries), Obama "nation" ridicules her, because apparently they do not know their geography.... or location and importance of U.S. military defense facilities in Alaska.
Posted by: Ninch at October 01, 2008 09:58 AM (mrtUF)
If Palin is that stupid why don't you leave her alone to get on with being stupid? Why, because you knows she's a credible threat and it shows by your attacks. Give Biden the same treatment, I dare you.
Posted by: Limey at October 01, 2008 11:36 AM (bUaxK)
Let's all take a deep breath and acknowledge that both the GOP and the DNC are equally guilty of this "crap". The media is no longer interested in reporting facts. They are attention whore (forgive my language) and the more amazing; the better. Front page lie - - third page retraction. It swings both ways and always has - - Brokaw is pro-McCain; Fox is pro-McCain; MSNBC - pro Obama... and so on and so forth.
Palin is just fresh meat... plain and simple. Obama had just as much trial by fire - we are just such a society of ADD that we don't remember how ugly the DNC primary was.
Meanwhile, rather than spending time with our families or children (who will be soon grown and gone); we sit on the computers as if we will make a difference arguing between ourselves.
This is like only attending a Planning Board meeting when your house is affected. Make sure you vote and then, when the presidendial election is over... start giving the media hell for their shoddy work; subjective comments and bias.
Posted by: Cameron at October 01, 2008 12:06 PM (GAf+S)
Posted by: megapotamus at October 01, 2008 12:14 PM (LF+qW)
And, while it's true that the committee discussing HB270 did not specifically mention Palin, Fannon, or Wasilla, they did say the law was needed because a few small towns were charging victims of sexual assault.
So, according to the evidence you choose to point to, Wasilla, under Palin, was one of the few places in Alaska charging for rape kits.
Posted by: ActuallyLookedAtYourEvidence at October 01, 2008 12:38 PM (DPJZF)
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT[...] noted that it is "not standard police practice [to request
payment for forensic exams] and the committee will hear testimony from police agencies to that effect."
Del Smith, Director of the Alaska Department of Public Safety said he does "not know of any police
agency that has requested payment."
TRISHA GENTLE, Executive Director, Council on Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault, testified
"Police departments are willing to pay for
sexual assault exams, but it is an internal decision on the part of the hospital as to who
pays the hospital bill."
The closest thing to a concern about actual instances of rape victims being charged for rape kits comes from Croft, when he said "he'd heard" that some victims had been billed. Well, that's fine - but that bit of hearsay certainly doesn't point any fingers towards any one town or any one mayor in particular.
What IS patently obvious is that some who gave testimony about this bill were concerned that HOSPITALS were insensitively charging rape victims for rape kits....NOT mayors, NOT towns, NOT police departments....HOSPITALS.
Unless you're going to claim that former Mayor Palin somehow had control over a private hospital's billing practices, this smear is officially DEBUNKED.
Posted by: vox at October 01, 2008 01:14 PM (ptKf/)
This debunking has been unbunked numerous times. OF COURSE the police can't charge anyone for a rape kit. They don't perform them. They do order them though, and in Wasilla, the police don't pay for them, leaving the victim (and her insurance company) to pick up the tab.
The City should pay for the rape kit because it is for the benefit of the people, not the victim. And charging victims for their own rape kits only discourages them from going to hospital and thus, makes it more likely rapists will get away with raping people.
Period.
Posted by: seattle slough at October 01, 2008 02:02 PM (H5l9d)
Apparently YOU didn't, because the police chief of Wasilla has NEVER said that. Now scurry back in your rat hole liar.
Posted by: Antimedia at October 01, 2008 02:05 PM (qBz3m)
"While the Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies have covered the cost of exams, which cost between $300 to $1,200 apiece, the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests."
Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon does not agree with the new legislation, saying the law will require the city and communities to come up with more funds to cover the costs of the forensic exams."
What part of "Wasilla police department does charge" don't you understand?"
If you are charging the Frontiersman with fabrication, as you do so many others, say so; otherwise you need to simply admit that the Minutes from 2000 support in some ways, but definitely do not confirm the Frontiersman story.
Posted by: rastronomicals at October 01, 2008 02:14 PM (ds7Y/)
Yes, it is hospitals that bill for medical services. However, in the towns in which victims are not asked to pay, it is the police who tell the hospitals to send the bill to them. No one asks the victim to send the bill to the police.
In Wasilla, as Palin's appointee Fallon clearly states, the police were not doing this, and he was opposed to making it happen. That's why he says the law will now cost Wasilla thousands of dollars a year. You correctly point out from the committee minutes that this was not standard police practice around the state. You ignore that the same minutes say, "it's happening in some small towns", without naming Wasilla.
So, Palin's appointee as police chief was engaging in a non-standard practice that led hospitals to send the bills for rape kits to victims, while most other communities did not do this. It was enough of an issue to reach the state legislature, so it's hard to believe Palin didn't know it was going on (and if she didn't, she should have). So the issue seems a fair one to raise.
Posted by: ActuallyLookedAtYourEvidence at October 01, 2008 02:14 PM (DPJZF)
Here's the quote from the story (the new legislation referred to is the law that made it illegal for Wasilla to charge rape victims for their rape kits):
"Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon does not agree with the new legislation, saying the law will require the city and communities to come up with more funds to cover the costs of the forensic exams.
In the past weve charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible. I just dont want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer, Fannon said.
According to Fannon, the new law will cost the Wasilla Police Department approximately $5,000 to $14,000 a year to collect evidence for sexual assault cases."
So, what the media has been reporting, that the tests were billed to the victim and their insurance companies, is correct. Do not think that Fannon's statement that the bills are sent to the insurers means the victims don't have to pay. Almost all insurers apply co-payments these days. In addition, by sending the bills to the insurer, hospitals were (at Fannon's direction) notifying the insurer and anyone who handled the claim that the victim had been raped, which should have been a private matter. The approach was wrong on many levels.
Posted by: ActuallyLookedAtYourEvidence at October 01, 2008 02:20 PM (DPJZF)
Posted by: C-C-G at October 01, 2008 06:21 PM (fxHiG)
I would rather stick my fingers in my ears and drift away to a magical universe where reality bends to my imagination!
Posted by: Jennifer at October 02, 2008 01:39 AM (ixGwO)
I would rather stick my fingers in my ears and drift away to a magical universe where reality bends to my imagination!
No .. it's like ignoring that creepy, scraggly bearded guy with the sandwich board proclaiming, "The end is nigh!". You simply walk on by and shake your head - you never attempt to engage him because a conversation with a 'true believer' is meaningless.
Posted by: Dan Irving at October 02, 2008 07:41 AM (zw8QA)
"You ignore that the same minutes say, 'it's happening in some small towns", without naming Wasilla.'
I'm not sure what you're looking at - I have the transcripts in front of me of the march 2000 committee meeting minutes...I've read them over several times - even used the 'search' function to find the word "town" or "towns." Nada. Nothing. Towns are not mentioned...unless you're looking at a different transcript than I have.
Posted by: vox at October 02, 2008 08:31 AM (ptKf/)
"What part of 'Wasilla police department does charge' don't you understand?"
Rastro, what part of "UNSOURCED" don't YOU understand? The reporter, Jo C. Goode, simply states it without saying HOW she knows it to be the case, and without quoting any person who said it. Furthermore, all evidence uncovered (read the committee testimony minutes) since then has indicated that HOSPITALS, not towns, not Mayors, not Police Departments charged victims for rape kits.
There's not a an ounce of proof - not a shred, not a scintilla - that Mayor Palin had ANYTHING to do with rape victims being charged for rape kits, or that the Wasilla PD EVER charged ANY victims for rape kits...and when you sling mud without PROOF, that's called a SMEAR....and this one is SO debunked that only pure desperation on the part of Palin-haters motivates them to continue with this smear.
Posted by: vox at October 02, 2008 08:40 AM (ptKf/)
"So, what the media has been reporting, that the tests were billed to the victim and their insurance companies, is correct."
Er, no. Incorrect. The media has been reporting that "PALIN CHARGED VICTIMS FOR RAPE KITS," "PALIN'S TOWN CHARGED VICTIMS FOR RAPE KITS," etc. I saw NO mainstream media reports that truthfully told the actual story, which was there was/is NO evidence, none, not an iota, that Palin had anything whatsoever to do with victims being charged for rape kits, and all evidence so far is that the concerns the legislature had about this issue were based on the fact that some HOSPITALS were charging the victims' insurance companies.
So, given there's no evidence to support the smear that Palin "charged victims for rape kits," the NEW smear attempt appears to be "well, Palin should have known that the Wasilla Police Department didn't demand that the Hospital forward these bills to them, and not the insurance companies."
My response to that smear is that if that's the best the Palin-haters can come up with, then you're officially grasping at straws.
Posted by: vox at October 02, 2008 08:58 AM (ptKf/)
post hoc ergo propter hoc
Posted by: Dan Irving at October 02, 2008 11:20 AM (zw8QA)
Posted by: Young1 at October 02, 2008 12:28 PM (u4ETL)
Posted by: Nobody at October 02, 2008 01:23 PM (0YPI5)
Show me a credible media report of one victim, JUST ONE, who was charged for a rape kit during Sarah Palin's tenure as Mayor, and I promise I will vote for Obama/Biden. By "credible media report" I do not mean anything from DailyKOS, DemocraticUnderground, MoveOn, or any similar website, by the way.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 02, 2008 05:57 PM (fxHiG)
Good day, Obamamaniacs. I said, good day!
Posted by: C-C-G at October 03, 2008 04:50 PM (fxHiG)
Before you start congratulating yourself...
1) Factcheck has already been cited. If you don't think that's credible, then I doubt any "news" source will fit your bill except rushlimpbaugh.com or littlegreenfootballs.
2) How many Obamamaniacs do you think frequent here?
So demolishing spin? Please. That's like saying you slayed a dragon after your hamster died.
Sorry about your hamster.
Posted by: MDS at October 04, 2008 08:11 AM (RXamR)
If you want to see a disturbing Obama video
check this one out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy09UpI60F8
Posted by: eaglewingz08 at October 04, 2008 11:01 AM (W88Qb)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 04, 2008 11:37 AM (HcgFD)
So, MDS, how about a story from the Anchorage Daily News showing that Victim X was charged for a rape kit at Wasilla's hospital? Since that's the closest large paper, they'd be the most logical to have it.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 04, 2008 12:43 PM (fxHiG)
And rape victims are never identified by name unless consent is given [rarely]. Thus, you go by policy in place. Tara Henry, an AK forensics nurse who used these kits, recalls Wasilla's policy well. Google away.
Posted by: MDS at October 04, 2008 10:03 PM (RXamR)
Wasilla town paper link.
http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt
While the Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies have covered the cost of exams, which cost between $300 to $1,200 apiece, the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests.
Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon does not agree with the new legislation, saying the law will require the city and communities to come up with more funds to cover the costs of the forensic exams.
Posted by: MDS at October 04, 2008 10:52 PM (RXamR)
You can't, because it never happened. There's a difference between a policy that exists and one that is actually followed. Apparently you're too blinded by Obamamania to see that.
For example, on a recent trip I stayed in a hotel next to the convention center for this particular city, so they shared the same parking garage. Your hotel door key opened the gate at the parking garage. The official policy--according to the person on duty when I first pulled in there--was that the guys in the booth made you put your keycard in the machine to open the gate both going in and coming out, probably as a security measure. In practice, when the guys in the booth saw me with the keycard in my hand, they hit a button in the booth and opened the gate for me. See, a policy existed, but wasn't followed. I'm sure the other commenters here can come up with lots and lots of other examples if you want to be stubborn about it.
If you want to be hyper-pedantic and say that this policy had the force of law, you should do a quick search for all the laws on the books that aren't enforced any more... like the one in Calgary, Alberta, Canada that says that all businesses must provide rails for tying up horses. Think many businesses get cited for that one? Or the one in Gary, IN, that says that people can't go into a theater (movie or otherwise) or ride a public streetcar within four hours of eating garlic... I'm sure lots of people can show you their tickets for violating that law (/sarc). How about the Kansas law that requires that pedestrians crossing the street at night must wear tail lights?
Here's three links to get you started on your search for unenforced laws.
So, I think we can lay this particular smear to rest now... even if there was such a policy, it was obviously never enforced, because not one woman who was actually charged can be found, despite the entire MoveOnMedia searching.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 05, 2008 08:31 AM (fxHiG)
Posted by: MDS at October 05, 2008 08:56 AM (RXamR)
The current Wasilla City Clerk, Kristie Smithers, can find no evidence that Wasilla ever charged anyone for rape kits during the 1997-99 period Palin was Mayor before H.B.270 took effect, and we know for fact none were charged in 2000, because I've seen the bill for the kits the city paid in 2000-2001. Chief of Police Angela has been blunt in that except for the 2000-2001 figures I published, she has found no indication that the Wasilla PD ever charged victims for anything.
There were 38 sexual assaults of all kinds between 1997 and 1999, and ten more in 2000. The city's crime stats does not get more detailed that that.
Also, for a City that is supposed to be processing a lot of rape kits, Wasilla doesn't have many rapists in the population... zero, in fact.
Doubt me? Go to http://www.familywatchdog.us/ and put in Wasilla, AK.
There are 35 sex offenders in the population, the vast majority convicted of statutory offenses against minors, the next largest group being for sexual battery, and a handful of "other" offenses, but no rapists. Perhaps they're all still in jail, but somehow, I doubt it.
Fannon's $5K-$14K was predicated on a worse case scenario, but the year he made his comments, they process precisely two kits both on the same day (June 20) which the city paid for at a cost of $1,060.00 for the year.
Perhaps there were rape kits that the city or police told the victim to pay for. I have an Alaska rape advocate who told me three days ago she could produce docs showing it was true, and I'll publish them (minus of course, identifying information) if they check out.
The fact remains that as of right now, the only evidence for such a claim is the word of two Democratic politicians that are supporting Obama, both of which have had their claims debunked by the very minutes kept during the committee meetings that created HB 270.
Fannon
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 05, 2008 10:17 AM (HcgFD)
Where?
That's all I am asking for.
And you can't deliver.
Since it is impossible to prove a negative (that no one was ever charged), it is up to you to prove the positive (that a specific person was charged). You've failed miserably, but predictably.
Come on, Obama sent 30 lawyers to Alaska, don't you think they could find one person who was charged if they existed?
Keep spinning, we're gonna hook you up to a generator. You could probably light up Vegas.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 05, 2008 10:34 AM (fxHiG)
Are you kidding me? Why don't you call your local abortion clinic and ask them the names of the women who had procedures that week. What? No Names? I guess they don't perform abortions then. [/roll]
CY:
If they weren't charging the victims, why did their local paper say they were? Why did the forensics nurse I listed earlier say they were? And how could the budget go up ANY? Maybe the reason that there are no rapists in Wasilla is because they are STILL in jail?
Sorry, but WAY too many holes in this one.
1) Official policy of Wasilla
2) Police chief comments with $ tally
3) Local paper confirmation
4) Forensic nurse confirmation
Posted by: MDS at October 05, 2008 10:55 AM (RXamR)
Either you are too stupid to see the difference, or you see it and are ignoring it.
I am leaning towards the latter.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 05, 2008 01:38 PM (fxHiG)
Ok CCG, nowhere does it say "policy" as you claim. It says victims WERE charged without listing them individually.
The angle you are playing is most bizarre, given the nondisclosure policy of rape victims.
If you want to counter the four points I listed, go for it. "Name the rape victims" is not a valid counterpoint.
I'll leave the light on for ya.
Posted by: MDS at October 05, 2008 06:53 PM (RXamR)
The fact is, there have been no records found of any specific individuals being billed during Palin's tenure. You keep spinning because you want to keep the smear alive despite having no evidence, that much is painfully obvious.
Don't leave lights on, it's not environmentally friendly... plus it costs money! Please turn them off when you leave.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 05, 2008 07:41 PM (fxHiG)
And it's bonus day for overwhelming proof!! Peggy Wilcox, a legislative staffer on the bill said it was "more than a couple" of victims, and the bill got off the ground due to victim complaints to Lauree Hugonin, of the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault!!!
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-10-wassilla-rape-exams_n.htm
So now we have SIX pieces of evidence, with the last two having spoke to the victims themselves.
It might not be the brand of proof you're looking for in your musical chairs request..but it was good enough for the state legislature, and good enough for the law to be changed.
Face it: I could get thirty victims to sign sworn affidavits they were charged, and you'd want a dna test or something just to keep from admitting you lost this argument. Palin herself could admit on youtube that she personally signed the policy that victims were charged, and you'd say it was Hollywood media tricks, lol.
Shame on you, Sarah.
Posted by: MDS at October 06, 2008 05:16 PM (RXamR)
Say you're a cop on the beat, and someone walks up and says that he heard there's a robbery that occurred up the street. Dropping your donut and running up the block, you find a large group of people gathered around.
Being a good cop, you start asking questions, and one of the first questions is, "who was robbed?" The people can't answer that question, but they push forward a person (use whatever stereotype of a robbery suspect you like) and say that here is the robber.
"Thanks much," you reply, "but there's no crime without a victim."
"But he said that he knew a robbery had occurred!" they cry.
"But who was the victim? Without a victim we can't possibly convict him," you point out.
"But he said he knew there had been a robbery! He must be connected with it!" they shout.
Now, Officer MDS, do you have enough to arrest the suspect?
If you say yes, you just flunked out of cop school.
In our story, Sarah Palin is the suspect that the crowd is pushing forward. (did I mention the crowd was all Democrats?) But without a victim, there is no case.
You can't point out a single victim. And before you bring out the old nondisclosure rule, in our story, all the crowd would have had to do is point out the person, even if they didn't have a name.
Oh, your USAToday story isn't a smoking gun, either. The quote from Hugonin is:
Rape victims in several areas of Alaska, including the Matanuska-Susitna Valley where Wasilla is, complained about being charged for the tests, victims' advocate Lauree Hugonin, of the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, told state House committees, records show.
Note that it doesn't say that the rape victims were in Wasilla, or had been processed by the Wasilla PD, bu that they were in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley. In short, the rapes could have occurred outside the city limits of Wasilla and been handled by the County Sheriff (or whatever equivalent they have there) or Alaska State Police.
Poof! There goes your evidence, Officer MDS. Case dismissed for lack of evidence.
Please, shut off the lights when you head back to MoveOn to brag.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 06, 2008 06:19 PM (fxHiG)
I've spoken with the publisher of the paper, the town clerk, and the police chief, and none foundevidence that any victims wee billed.
I've read the committee meeting minutes that clearly blamed the hospitals, and confirmed that leading Democrats in 2008 flat-out lied about Wasilla being the need for the law.
If anyone has actual evidence of victims being charged, I suspect that the bills (with personal information redacted) would have been released by now.
MS will believe what he wants, picking and chosing the information he desires, to support the reality he has chosen.
Ignore him. He's simply another kind of truther.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 06, 2008 06:35 PM (HcgFD)
I'll go one step further. I am certain that there is no evidence. Permit me to explain why.
The fact that MDS and others have been so desperately trying to say, "here's the evidence!" shows that they realize the importance of having evidence of an actual victim being billed. If they had believed that evidence wasn't important, they'd have skipped over any requests for evidence. We all know how well lefties can ignore things they don't wanna answer, after all.
Given the above, the fact that they haven't shown any actual evidence is itself highly indicative that there is no evidence. If it existed anywhere, one of those 30 muckrakers sent to Alaska would have dug it up by now, and it would have been trumpeted on the Communist News Network and MS-National Barack Channel, not to mention the NY Slimes.
MDS can spin and dance around it all he wants, but there is no record of "a victim of a rape on Palin Blvd in downtown Wasilla" being billed for a rape test. Of that I am certain.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 06, 2008 07:15 PM (fxHiG)
Campaign in Crisis: Obama Teleprompter Threatens Strike
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:52 PM | Comments (35) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: KeithNolan at September 30, 2008 08:46 PM (2iAhy)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 30, 2008 08:55 PM (HcgFD)
I mention I voted for Reagan, Bush I, and Dole, and Capitalist Infidel calls me a liar.
I mention that Sarah Palin (who, like George W. Bush, is just the sort to chase old GOPers like me out of the party) isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, and you've got me down as an irrational hater.
What hate?
Regarding Sarah Palin, I will say that she is something of a dividing line between the old GOP and the George W. GOP.
Her disqualifications are obvious, and those who pretend she's a champ.... well, they've got to be so full of hate for the ho-hum Obama as to make me look positively genteel.
Anyway, I promised myself I would never bug you about anything unrelated to your military posting, so I'm not sure what I'm doin' here!
See ya,
Keith
Posted by: KeithNolan at September 30, 2008 09:06 PM (2iAhy)
As for her being "disqualified" she meets every constitutional requirement, and is the only candidate on any spot on either ticket with any executive experience in government.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 30, 2008 09:26 PM (HcgFD)
Anyway..... why fight? We'll never agree.
But, I'd appreciate your take on the supposed membership of Sarah Palin's husband in some kind of separatist Alaskan party, and her sympathy (as expressed in speeches, etc.) for the party's position (even if she had the political savvy not to join such a fringe group herself).
A media lie?
True, but not an issue that bothers you at a gut level?
True, and an issue you'd rather not talk about?
In addition, is it true that she opposes abortion even in the case of rape and incest?
Finally, in your heart of hearts, would you really be on the Palin bandwagon, if she were a D instead of an R. I suspect you'd be incredulous that Obama had picked someone so unread, incurious, religiously extreme, inarticulate, sarcastic, and something of a fabulist when describing her role in the infamous Bridge to Nowhere.
Anyway, I'm convinced William F. Buckley does another spin in his grave every time Sarah Palin opens her mouth and lets the verbiage fly.
Thanks,
Keith
P.S. If Capitalist Infidel reappears to call me a liar again in regard to my past affection for the GOP, I'd be happy to lay out my bonafides for him. It's weird to be called a liar by a stranger hiding behind a pseudonym. At least you sign your posts when calling me an irrational hater!
Posted by: KeithNolan at October 01, 2008 01:51 AM (2iAhy)
Anyway, great video. My friends and I often discuss Obama and his teleprompter crutch. We especially got a kick out of teleprompter being set up in a bull ring in New Mexico.
Also we are Imac lovers. We agree with teleprompter that they are sexy.
Posted by: Ninch at October 01, 2008 10:14 AM (mrtUF)
Nothing -- but the Obamanauts will do ANYTHING to distract from his issues.
Posted by: Rob Crawford at October 01, 2008 10:50 AM (IuKAf)
Instead of sending out the invective of "semi-literate" towards Gov. Palin, why not reserve judgment until after the VP debate?
Furthermore, I happen to agree with Gov. Palin on the abortion issue. The ONLY time I even believe it should be considered is when the LIFE of the mother is in jeopardy. Babies created through rape or incest have done nothing to deserve the death penalty. Now for the rapist/incestuous bastard, that's a different story.
Does my agreement with her in this case make me "... someone so unread, incurious, religiously extreme, inarticulate, sarcastic, ..." in your view?
If so, then I would agree with your assertion that CY and CI believe you are "... pegged as some kind of raving, left-wing psycho who hates our troops and wants to spread communism over the USA". Note – that is YOUR assertion and are YOUR words...not theirs.
Of course, I'm an Independent Conservative...not a party shill.
Posted by: Mark at October 01, 2008 12:43 PM (4od5C)
HAHAHAHA ROFLOL
You would rather look stupid enough to not understand what people mean by "qualified" than admit that Pailn isn't. That's pretty pathetic.
Dude, find any homeless person over the age of 45 who was born in this country and doesn't live in New Mexico, and they also "meet every constitutional requirement".
Of course, Dick Cheney had to change his residence from Texas to meet the requirements himself... so at the time he was picked, he wasn't "qualified" either.
Posted by: ME at October 01, 2008 02:14 PM (5dMYz)
Dick Cheney is, has been, and will be a resident and citizen of the State of Wyoming. Even when he was CEO of Halliburton, his residence was Wyoming.
Care to retract your statement above? If not, you will merely confirm your position as a resident moonbat.
Posted by: Mark at October 01, 2008 05:49 PM (w/olL)
On what grounds?
I'm hardly an enthusiastic Democrat, just a former Republican absolutely ground down by the personality and politics of George W. Bush.
This makes me a shill? And, according to Mr. Owens, a hater. (This from a gentleman who keeps comparing Obama to the Nazis!)
By the way, I have no idea if those adjectives I'm willing to slap on Sarah Palin (incurious, inarticulate, sarcastic, religious extremist, etc.) have anything to do with you.... but, yes, I do think the viewpoint you share with Sarah Palin regarding forcing a woman to give birth to a rapist's baby is pretty damn monstrous.
If your sister or daughter were raped by some thug--and most rapists don't exactly possess the IQ and DNA that you'd really want to make part of your family tree--you'd actually force her to invest her health and emotions in bringing to term the result of this repellent crime?
You'd actually expect her to reshape her entire life to either a.) raise the rapist's baby; or b.) worry forever about what happened to the child she put up for adoption that was half her?
You'd actually enforce this by law?
Talk about government intrusion in the most personal, painful aspects of private life.
Anyway, what is it about Sarah Palin that floats your guys' boats? You're sympathetic to someone whose husband wanted to separate Alaska from the USA? You really believe the earth is only a few thousand years old? You really think being able to see the evil Russians from Alaska means a bloody thing? Etc.? Etc.? Etc.?
Best,
Keith Nolan
Posted by: KeithNolan at October 02, 2008 04:03 PM (2iAhy)
Please accept this instruction as the gift it is.
Your question:
Mark, you just called me a "party shill"?
My statement:
Of course, I'm an Independent Conservative...not a party shill.
Lesson #1 is on reading comprehension.
My statement is about me and me alone. The statement means I think independently through a conservative lens ... without being beholden to a single party. The "..." that separates the phrase is a tool to draw special attention to the phrase. The sentence is a stands alone with no other connection. That is all.
This is from your second comment and I only partially quoted it in my comment to you:
Finally, in your heart of hearts, would you really be on the Palin bandwagon, if she were a D instead of an R. I suspect you'd be incredulous that Obama had picked someone so unread, incurious, religiously extreme, inarticulate, sarcastic, and something of a fabulist when describing her role in the infamous Bridge to Nowhere.
Lesson #2 is on the implication of language and 'qualifiers'. (As a professional writer, I thought you already knew this, but I am wrong.)
There is an implication of the string of adjectives in that paragraph preceded by two interesting phrases (qualifiers) of "in your heart of hearts" and then "if Obama had picked...". That implication is that you, yourself, are 'incredulous' and believe in your 'heart of hearts' them to be true.
Lesson #3 is on perspective.
Your perspective evidenced:
If your sister or daughter were raped by some thug--and most rapists don't exactly possess the IQ and DNA that you'd really want to make part of your family tree--you'd actually force her to invest her health and emotions in bringing to term the result of this repellent crime? You'd actually expect her to reshape her entire life to either a.) raise the rapist's baby; or b.) worry forever about what happened to the child she put up for adoption that was half her? You'd actually enforce this by law? Talk about government intrusion in the most personal, painful aspects of private life.
(sorry, had to remove returns to get only one blockquote)
Your perspective is on the mother only.
My perspective as evidenced:
Furthermore, I happen to agree with Gov. Palin on the abortion issue. The ONLY time I even believe it should be considered is when the LIFE of the mother is in jeopardy. Babies created through rape or incest have done nothing to deserve the death penalty. Now for the rapist/incestuous bastard, that's a different story.
My perspective is on the baby with one caveat to the mother and justice for the perpetrator.
Do you now understand, Grasshopper?
Posted by: Mark at October 02, 2008 11:29 PM (w/olL)
Instead of sending out the invective of "semi-literate" towards Gov. Palin, why not reserve judgment until after the VP debate?
Well?
Posted by: Mark at October 02, 2008 11:34 PM (w/olL)
Gift?
Reading comprehension?
Understand, Grasshopper?
You're a hoot, professor. Thanks for the down-your-nose writing lessons. (I'll refrain from the boring rejoinders I could make.)
Anyway, I guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree about whether a woman's life, once violated by a rapist, should be violated forever more by the unwanted child you would force upon the victim.
Might I ask if said woman should qualify for government assistance to raise this unwanted child, and send this unwanted child to college.
Or are she and the child on their own once the rapist (if even apprehended) is carted off to do his half-dozen years in prison?
Maybe we should tie the rapist to the woman forever with parental visits and child-support payments and such?
Oh, and is there an age limit to your monstrous imposition on other people's lives? Say, a fourteen year old is raped and made pregnant; this semi-child keeps the baby, too?
I find it hard to believe that you -- and Sarah Palin -- have really thought through what you are asking of these rape victims.
KWN
Posted by: KeithNolan at October 03, 2008 12:18 AM (2iAhy)
Posted by: KeithNolan at October 03, 2008 12:37 AM (2iAhy)
Posted by: KeithNolan at October 03, 2008 12:59 AM (2iAhy)
I think most rape/incest victims have been violated in the most heinous manner and the perpetrator deserves a heck of a lot more than a 'half-dozen years'. I support up to and including the death penalty for these criminals. I'm sure you will have an issue with me on that and will say something like 'gee, you won't kill a baby but you'll kill a grown man'. Let me remind you before you try that gamut, the baby has done nothing deserving of a death sentence.
Now, on to the baby. I think most of those who became mothers via incest/rape should decide what they want to do with the child after (hopefully before) it is born. Some will not be able to make a rational decision thanks to the damage done to their psyche. I would hope most of those mothers would choose to give the child up for adoption. I also feel adoption processes need to be cleaned up, streamlined, and made much less costly.
My perspective is human life begins at conception. That means there are two human lives to be factored into the eventual answer, not only one.
Posted by: Mark at October 03, 2008 11:34 AM (4od5C)
I think she won the perception side of the debate by destroying many of those misconceptions.
Posted by: Mark at October 03, 2008 11:39 AM (4od5C)
Not sure how I feel about the death penalty for rapists (I mean, most murderers don't even qualify for capital punishment), but, in general, I'm not sympathetic to those thugs who lurk amongst us in society.... so, no, I don't see any disharmony between your two positions.
Still, as you say, we are not going to agree on the central issue. My sympathy is only with the psyche of the young woman who has been violated, not the little blob of rapist DNA that she would want out of her as quickly as possible.
Societies make hard choices all the time about life and death. This is one of those times, and in this case, I believe what the victim wants, the victim should get.... and most rape victims do not want to carry to term the result of their violation.
Anyway, that Sarah Palin is so extreme on the abortion question -- your stepfather rapes your fourteen-year-old self, and, bam, the law requires that you become a mother -- chills me to the marrow.
Best,
KWN
Posted by: KeithNolan at October 03, 2008 12:12 PM (2iAhy)
Therefore, "the little blob of rapist DNA" has no right to life in your view. My view comes from the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." as well as my religious beliefs. I find it monstrous you condemn an innocent child to death merely because of its circumstance of conception. Therefore, we are each monsters in each other's eyes.
You support the death penalty yet stick with the currently defined 'who qualifies for it'. I want to return to a more severe definition and expand the use of the death penalty for exactly these types of crimes. I consider rape/incest to be worse than murder because the victim must live with it for the rest of their life.
As I am sure you do, I know women who have been raped or subjected to incest. They carry that pain with them every second of each day. By punishing the perpetrators with the ultimate penalty, my hope is other potential perps will take heed. The obvious benefit is the executed will never be able to commit the crime again.
I shall not comment further on this topic unless you ask.
Posted by: Mark at October 03, 2008 02:09 PM (4od5C)
Posted by: KeithNolan at October 03, 2008 08:43 PM (2iAhy)
The HopeChange GroupThink Mindthoughts Song
Big Brother Approved! (not any more. The original video has been pulled. Enjoy this one while you can).
- Jeff Zucker —
American television executive, and President & CEO of NBC UniversalGaffer, Chief Lighting Technician in Boogie Nights. - Post-producer (former choreographer?) Holly Shiffer.
- Motion picture camera operator/steadicam specialist Peter Rosenfeld (appropriately enough, worked in Yes Man, a movie about " a guy challenges himself to say 'yes' to everything for an entire year."
- Darin Moran, another motion picture industry professional, who just finished filming — how appropriate — Land of the Lost.
- Andy Blumenthal, Hollywood film editor.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:25 AM | Comments (33) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: DirtCrashr at September 30, 2008 11:47 AM (VNM5w)
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at September 30, 2008 12:07 PM (a6wVH)
Posted by: Buzz at September 30, 2008 12:07 PM (kwhut)
When I saw this it brought another video of happy, beautiful kids singing a political song to mind: The Obama Youth Sing! I blame the parents.
Posted by: Robert L. www.neolibertarian.com at September 30, 2008 12:12 PM (PJyLt)
Posted by: Bob hale at September 30, 2008 12:37 PM (D5KaE)
Posted by: Rob Crawford at September 30, 2008 12:57 PM (IuKAf)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 30, 2008 01:01 PM (HcgFD)
Posted by: fred at September 30, 2008 01:05 PM (0XpI7)
Posted by: martine at September 30, 2008 01:45 PM (rqNVs)
Posted by: pennmom at September 30, 2008 01:59 PM (eZNJd)
Posted by: The Rememberer at September 30, 2008 02:19 PM (qaqFG)
Posted by: Bob at September 30, 2008 02:20 PM (+k7iZ)
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at September 30, 2008 02:26 PM (vuXJQ)
re: the “Vote” at the end of the video.
Posted by: George Bentley at September 30, 2008 02:28 PM (pA/ic)
Posted by: JohnW at September 30, 2008 02:33 PM (cGcIy)
The handwriting is on the wall. Too bad so many have been dumbed down and cannot read it.
Posted by: Bart at September 30, 2008 02:43 PM (+Jn1s)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMVql9RLP34
Posted by: arch at September 30, 2008 03:23 PM (mf5lg)
Posted by: Austin at September 30, 2008 03:27 PM (s6AOg)
http://silentrunning.tv/?p=3229
Posted by: Wind Rider at September 30, 2008 03:39 PM (JcCvJ)
Posted by: mbviews at September 30, 2008 03:48 PM (E4TDO)
Will Obama don a tiara for his Rainbow Tour?
Posted by: Tanna at September 30, 2008 03:51 PM (cXzEV)
Posted by: Stephen Morgan at September 30, 2008 04:00 PM (e1A+W)
Posted by: Anthony at September 30, 2008 04:07 PM (hMQke)
Posted by: Kens at September 30, 2008 04:20 PM (/pLzI)
Posted by: marybel at September 30, 2008 04:35 PM (e+2Jh)
Posted by: Janine at September 30, 2008 04:41 PM (k4DVm)
Posted by: J at September 30, 2008 04:52 PM (Xx1AV)
Posted by: Tertium Quid at September 30, 2008 05:04 PM (HqqaH)
Does your father listen in the afternoon??
He does? Really? He must like decadent old rock music, no?
Oh I see, he listens to a man talking all the time.
Are you in a rush to get home??
Hmmmm, Rush is the man who talks on the radio? I see.
Well, why don't you go with Comrade Magda. You won't be having a sweet today.
Posted by: Shooter1001 at September 30, 2008 05:05 PM (uDYLE)
That teacher should be fired for using kids in a political message and for using school property to promote a candidate...public or private school. I would love to know how many of those kids grow up to be Republicans.
Posted by: Mark at September 30, 2008 05:22 PM (U9wN9)
Posted by: Bill at September 30, 2008 05:28 PM (dTEzo)
Posted by: chitownjunkie at September 30, 2008 05:36 PM (7/WQl)
Posted by: kwistie at September 30, 2008 05:39 PM (UK1b6)
Posted by: chitownjunkie at September 30, 2008 05:42 PM (7/WQl)
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at September 30, 2008 06:34 PM (J5AYY)
Posted by: 2 cents at September 30, 2008 06:35 PM (byYil)
Posted by: SukieTawdry at September 30, 2008 06:44 PM (QawxF)
Posted by: SukieTawdry at September 30, 2008 06:57 PM (QawxF)
Can anyone imagine the explosions in the media if anyone on the right produced a video with cherubic youngsters (standing before the banners of The One, wearing the approved garb of The One) singing, in pseudo gospel style, praises to John McCain? The mere idea is preposterous. Not only would no one think of doing that, McCain would be the first to denounce and stop it.
That the left actually thinks such things and produces them is a sobering preview of the utter lack of human decency, restraint and rationality that would be the rule, not the exception, in an administration of he who will lead us to utopia.
Posted by: Mike at September 30, 2008 07:00 PM (gP3FO)
Posted by: Bryan Costin at September 30, 2008 07:06 PM (fmzOJ)
Posted by: whiteshadow at September 30, 2008 07:09 PM (YRZv7)
Thank you, Stalin. Thank you because I am joyful. Thank you because I am well. No matter how old I become, I shall never forget how we received Stalin two days ago. centuries will pass, and the generations still to come will regard us as the happiest of mortals, as the most fortunate of men, because we lived in the century of centuries, because we were privileged to see Stalin, our inspired leader. Yes, and we regard ourselves as the happiest of mortals because we are the contemporaries of a man who never had an equal in world history.
The men of all ages will call on thy name, which is strong, beautiful, wise and marvelous. Thy name is engraven on every factory, every machine, every place on the earth, and in the hearts of all men.
Every time I have found myself in his presence I have been subjugated by his strength, his charm, his grandeur. I have experienced a great desire to sing, to cry out, to shout with joy and happiness. And now see me--me!--on the same platform where the Great Stalin stood a year ago. In what country, in what part of the world could such a thing happen.
I write books. I am an author. All thanks to thee, O great educator, Stalin. I love a young woman with a renewed love and shall perpetuate myself in my children--all thanks to thee, great educator, Stalin. I shall be eternally happy and joyous, all thanks to thee, great educator, Stalin. Everything belongs to thee, chief of our great country. And when the woman I love presents me with a child the first word it shall utter will be : Stalin.
O great Stalin, O leader of the peoples,
Thou who broughtest man to birth.
Thou who fructifies the earth,
Thou who restorest to centuries,
Thou who makest bloom the spring,
Thou who makest vibrate the musical chords...
Thou, splendour of my spring, O thou,
Sun reflected by millions of hearts
written by A. O. Avdienko illustrates by what emotional bonds the individual was tied to Stalin, and through Stalin to the prodigious transformation of the Russian state and society that he was attempting
Posted by: whiteshadow at September 30, 2008 07:16 PM (YRZv7)
Posted by: Cayman Man at September 30, 2008 07:52 PM (YJP12)
Posted by: agravated GI at September 30, 2008 07:54 PM (+EsRo)
Posted by: larry at September 30, 2008 08:39 PM (ZJ7M2)
Welcome to the People's Temple of Obama !!!!
Posted by: Baxter Greene at September 30, 2008 08:50 PM (5NHPy)
Posted by: Bob Reade at September 30, 2008 09:07 PM (U19Lg)
You'd think they'd have learned a thing or two about personality cults by now.
You'd think.
Posted by: MarkJ at September 30, 2008 10:10 PM (IKzfP)
Posted by: gail at September 30, 2008 10:40 PM (I4yBD)
Posted by: TonyUSA at October 01, 2008 01:02 AM (LfEjI)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTb5EFZmgbs
Posted by: Henry Gomez at October 01, 2008 09:13 AM (GNctt)
Posted by: ME at October 01, 2008 02:16 PM (5dMYz)
Good work, americans!!!!
Soon you will be even more communist and totalitarian than the North Koreans!
Even in the mainland we never see crap like this anymore......children trained like robots to sing praises of their leader......so 1960s.
Posted by: edgeforall at October 01, 2008 02:57 PM (BWJmZ)
Posted by: Humbled Infidel at October 01, 2008 04:19 PM (7EIT6)
Posted by: paulrevere at October 01, 2008 05:46 PM (LRR/l)
Although it means nothing, because I am not an american, I had supported Obama up until now. This scares me, god help us all.
Posted by: Jacques Landiss at October 01, 2008 09:26 PM (e9O8T)
They seem genuinely embarassed by this particular effort. I would suggest ripping and reposting in perpetuity. This video mustn't disappear. It's too good an illustration of what these pods are really up to.
>
Posted by: Semi Cartman at October 02, 2008 12:04 AM (5rJId)
http://www.amazon.com/Barack-Obama-Promise-Child-Hope/dp/1416971440
This is perverse!
Posted by: Jayke at October 02, 2008 05:23 AM (El2jX)
Posted by: Jayke at October 02, 2008 06:33 AM (El2jX)
Posted by: Tony Petros at October 02, 2008 07:50 AM (p1BOr)
Posted by: Chris at October 02, 2008 08:59 AM (Ly6MF)
The way the kids sing as if in Sunday school, but about a politician, while the parents watch approvingly, is sad and disturbing. The parents think it is good to indoctrinate their kids with their politics. Kids should not have to worry about politics at this age.
Posted by: MPC at October 02, 2008 09:09 AM (q/Zff)
Even if this was not filmed at the school, the teacher recruited and rehearsed the children at their school. A definite ignorance of the public servant position in election times.
Not only do I deplore the premise, I also am frightened by this attitude of 'messiah-ness' portrayed by these innocent children. Is this a preview of four years with Senator Obama? What will we look like, as a country, at the end of four years?
Posted by: Jan Seago at October 02, 2008 10:30 AM (SZFBA)
Posted by: Tony Mc at October 02, 2008 10:52 AM (SZFBA)
pending death
Posted by: ann coffee at October 02, 2008 12:32 PM (kQgFY)
Posted by: Maria Jennings at October 03, 2008 09:40 AM (GAf+S)
Posted by: lrose at October 03, 2008 10:23 AM (THmBn)
do you honestly fail to see the stunning similarities between this and the previous use of children by the Nazi's and communists to sing praises to their leaders?
Both the children and the imagery chosen and used by this campaign are eerily similar to methods used by Hitler, Stalin and Mao.
perhaps it is you, and the blind loyalists to BH Obama, who need a reality check.
BTW - mcsame? I didn't see him recruiting a bunch of innocent children to sing his praises...
Posted by: bob at October 03, 2008 12:28 PM (BcYqy)
Posted by: Dan at October 04, 2008 09:36 AM (Reqfx)
جرائم ÙˆØÙˆØ§Ø¯Ø«
اغتصاب
اخبار عامه
ÙØ¶Ø§ÙØ Ø¬Ø¯ÙØ¯Ù‡
ÙØ¶Ø§Ø¦Ø واغتصاب
Ø§Ù†Ø§Ø´ÙØ¯
Ø§Ù†Ø§Ø´ÙØ¯ اسلامÙÙ‡
Ø§Ù†Ø§Ø´ÙØ¯ Ø§Ø·ÙØ§Ù„
Ø§Ù†Ø§Ø´ÙØ¯ Ø§Ù„Ø¹ÙØ§Ø³Ù
Ø§Ù†Ø§Ø´ÙØ¯ Ø·Ùور الجنه
كلمات Ø§Ù†Ø§Ø´ÙØ¯
خواطر رومنسÙÙ‡
خواطر رومانسÙÙ‡
خواطر
خواطر 2009
خواطر Ø¬Ø¯ÙØ¯Ù‡
قصص
قصص ØØ¨
قصص جنسÙÙ‡
قصص ØØ²Ùنه
قصص Ø¬Ø¯ÙØ¯Ù‡
قصص اغتصاب
قصص Ø§Ø·ÙØ§Ù„
قصص 2009
قصص واقعÙÙ‡
Ø±ÙˆØ§ÙØ§Øª
Ø±ÙˆØ§ÙØ§Øª طوÙله
Ø±ÙˆØ§ÙØ§Øª Ù‚ØµÙØ±Ù‡
اسرار بنات
عالم وجمال ØÙˆØ§Ø¡
عناÙÙ‡ بالشعر
Ø§Ø²ÙØ§Ø¡
Ù…ÙƒÙØ§Ø¬
اكسسوارات
موضه بنات
ÙØ³Ø§ØªÙÙ†
ÙØ³Ø§ØªÙÙ† عروس
ÙØ³Ø§ØªÙÙ† سهره
اكلات
طبخات
مطبخ ØÙˆØ§Ø¡
ØÙ„ÙˆÙØ§Øª ÙˆØ¹ØµÙØ±Ø§Øª
دÙكور
اثاث
دÙكور واثاث
غر٠نوم
Ù…ÙØ±ÙˆØ´Ø§Øª
ØØ¯Ø§Ø¦Ù‚
مسابØ
ØÙ…امات
Ø±ÙØ¬ÙÙ…
رشاقه
طب الاعشاب
تغذÙÙ‡
الطب والصØÙ‡
صور لاعبÙÙ†
صور Ø³ÙØ§Ø±Ø§Øª
صور
صور منوعه
صور Ø¬Ø¯ÙØ¯Ù‡
اغانÙ
Ø§ØºØ§Ù†Ù Ø¬Ø¯ÙØ¯Ù‡
اغان٠2009
ÙÙØ¯ÙÙˆ ÙƒÙ„ÙØ¨
اغان٠طققات
اغان٠طق
اغان٠طقطقه
اغان٠شكشكه
اغان٠طقاقات
كلمات اغانÙ
كلمات غنائÙÙ‡
كلمات طرب
صور مسلسلات
صور ممثلات
صور Ùنانات
Ø²ÙØ§Øª 2009
اØÙ„Ù‰ Ø²ÙØ§Øª
Ø²ÙØ§Øª Ø¬Ø¯ÙØ¯Ù‡
Ø²ÙØ§Øª تجنن
اÙلام
اÙلام اجنبÙÙ‡
اÙلام 2009
اÙلام عربÙÙ‡
اÙلام اكشن
اÙلام رعب
اÙلام هندÙÙ‡
اÙلام مصرÙÙ‡
اÙلام عربÙÙ‡ 2009
اÙلام ممنوعه
اÙلام عربÙÙ‡ للكبار
اÙلام لبنانÙÙ‡
مسلسلات تركÙÙ‡
مسلسلات mbc
مسلسلات
مسلسلات رمضان
مسلسلات Ø®Ù„ÙØ¬ÙÙ‡
مسلسلات ÙƒÙˆÙØªÙÙ‡
مسلسلات سعودÙÙ‡
مسلسلات مصرÙÙ‡
مسلسلات عربÙÙ‡
مسلسلات سورÙÙ‡
مسلسلات 2009
مسلسلات Ø¬Ø¯ÙØ¯Ù‡
مسرØÙات
مسلسلات اسÙÙˆÙÙ‡
مسلسلات تاÙوانÙÙ‡
مسلسلات لاتÙÙ†ÙÙ‡
مسلسلات كورÙÙ‡
مسلسلات ÙØ§Ø¨Ø§Ù†ÙÙ‡
مسلسلات صÙÙ†ÙÙ‡
مسلسلات مدبلجه
مسلسلات مكسÙÙƒÙÙ‡
اغان٠مسلسلات
اغان٠مسلسل
موسÙقى مسلسلات
Ù„ØÙ† مسلسلات
انمÙ
انÙÙ…Ù
اÙلام انمÙ
اÙلام كرتون
مسلسلات انمÙ
صور انمÙ
انم٠2009
اغان٠انمÙ
anime
برامج Ø¬Ø¯ÙØ¯Ù‡
برامج 2009
توبÙكات
توبÙكات Ø¬Ø¯ÙØ¯Ù‡
توبÙكات Ø¬Ø¯ÙØ¯Ù‡ 2009
توبÙÙƒ
توبك
توبكات
توبÙكات مسنجر
توبÙكات ماسنجر
توبÙكات للماسن
توبÙكات ماسن
توبÙكات ملونه
توبÙكات مسن
نكنÙمات
نك Ù†Ùمات ملونه
صور للماسنجر
صور ماسنجر
صور مسنجر
صور للمسنجر
صور رمزÙÙ‡ للماسنجر
صور شخصÙÙ‡ للماسنجر
صور مسن
صور للمسن
صور ماسن
صور للماسن
صور ماسنجر 2009
صور ماسنجر Ø¬Ø¯ÙØ¯Ù‡
العاب Ùلاش
العاب Ùلاش Ø¬Ø¯ÙØ¯Ù‡
العاب كمبÙوتر
العاب 2009
العاب اونلاÙÙ†
العاب بنات
العاب Ø¬Ø¯ÙØ¯Ù‡ للبنات
صور للتصامÙÙ…
صور ØØ¨
صور رومانسÙÙ‡
صور بنات
صور شباب
صور جاهزه للتصمÙÙ…
اخبار الجوال
مسجات
رساÙÙ„
مسجات Ø¬Ø¯ÙØ¯Ù‡
رساÙÙ„ جوال
رسائل وسائط
رساÙÙ„ ÙˆØ³Ø§ÙØ·
رسائل مصوره
مسجات mms
رسائل ØØ¨
رسائل ØØ¨ وغرام
برامج جوال
العاب جوال
Ø«Ùمات جوال
نغمات جوال
نغمات mp3
نغمات
نغمات Ø¬Ø¯ÙØ¯Ù‡
نغمات اغانÙ
مدونه اسوار
العاب اسوار
توبÙكات
ÙوتÙوب
مسلسلات
Ùوتوب
ÙÙØ¯ÙÙˆ اسوار
مسلسلات اسوار
ÙوتÙوب اسوار
منتدى Ø§Ù„Ø§ØØ³Ø§Ø¡
Ù…Ù†ØªØ¯ÙØ§Øª
=================================
Posted by: توبÙكات at May 13, 2009 10:31 AM (ZcQWB)
The Peter Principle Goes To Washington
I still don't know a great deal more about economics than I did last week, and guess what: neither do you.
That hasn't stopped our fellow Americans from assaulting the Congressional switchboards over our current economic crisis, assuring that the bailout bill in the House of Representatives failed yesterday. It wasn't even especially close, falling 207 for and 226 against it. Down party lines, Democrats voted for it 141-94, and Republicans against it 66-132. Yes, more Democrats opposed it (94) that Republicans voted for it (66). Nancy Pelosi could have passed this bill simply whipping Democratic votes into line, but she didn't. The conventional wisdom is that Democrats up for re-election voted against the bill in order to placate angry constituents that didn't want to be stuck with a $700 billion bailout. Speaker Pelosi, no doubt, didn't want the blame if there was backlash over the bill, and pulled a "Sir Robin, " and allowed her fellow Democrats to "bravely run away." This doesn't let Congressional Republicans off the hook. Many were hearing the same sort of howling from their constituents (and conservative bloggers) to kill the bill, and so they did. Later blaming Pelosi for her heated partisan rhetoric as a convenient excuse for the lack of Republican support was just as bad as Pelosi's idiotic and nonsensical rant assigning blame for the meltdown on the Bush Administration when the problems began during the Clinton Administration and were enabled by Congress. Glass houses, Madame Speaker. And so the bill died. We're now headed into a sizable recession, and the sad fact is that most of us don't yet grasp what it means. The same people who have been crying out to their Congressmen and Senators to "kill the bill" on ideological grounds will quickly change course once that ideology causes their company to shut down, their small businesses to fail, and their life's savings to evaporate. And sadly, it seemed that as a nation, we're poised to elect a President who will only make matters worse. If anything was under-reported about the first McCain-Obama debate, it was the fact Barack Obama couldn't come up with a single program or entitlement he would cut to rein in the cost of government to our faltering economy, and in fact, he was pitching massive new outlays. He was also insisting that he could cut taxes for 95% of Americans, while making up the difference by soaking the rich and corporations. The nasty, dirty truth is that the pending recession has made Obama's entire stated Peter Principle platform unobtainable. He cannot expect to run the existing government we have by cutting personal income taxes for 95% of Americans. That claim always an overt fiction to begin with, as nearly one-third of Americans already pay no taxes:If Obama truly cut income taxes for the 95% of individuals currently paying taxes—which is what he means to imply with his campaign speeches— the government of the United States would simply shut down. Period. There would not be enough money coming into the Treasury to make the federal payroll and write checks to those in various entitlement programs. Social Security, Medicare, etc... simply gone. Granted, they're bound to fail anyway within my lifetime because they are unsustainable in any form remotely similar to what they already are, and always were, but Obama's "robbing the rich to give to the poor" socialist platform just slammed into the ground. Obama's entire platform was premised on a bull market, and cannot pass even a cursory non-economist's scrutiny now.
One of the biggest challenges facing both John McCain and Barack Obama in their commitment to provide tax relief to working-class Americans is the simple fact that millions of them already pay no personal income taxes. According to the most recent IRS statistics for 2006, some 45.6 million tax filers—one-third of all filers—have no tax liability after taking their credits and deductions. For good or ill, this is a dramatic 57 percent increase since 2000 in the number of Americans who pay no personal income taxes.
| Barack Obama's Stance on the Economy | Reality |
| Heath Care: As President, Barack Obama will guarantee health coverage for every American and will lower the cost of health care for the average American family by up to $2,500. | Pure Fantasy. In a severe recession, the government cannot implement expansive new social programs, especially those costing tens of billions of dollars. To do so would either bankrupt the government, or create an additional tax burden that would plunge a fragile economy into a full depression. And I don't even want to think of the effect this will have on the research and development of new drugs. If there is no profit in finding a cure for cancer, pharma companies can probably survive on the existing market for sedatives and painkillers. |
| Tax Policy: Barack Obama will ease the burden on hardworking Americans, offering middle-class tax cuts three times the size of McCain's. | Pure Fantasy. Tax Foundation estimates show that if all of the Obama tax provisions were enacted in 2009, the number of these "nonpayers" would rise by about 16 million, to 63 million overall. If all of the McCain tax proposals were enacted in 2009, the number of nonpayers would rise by about 15 million, to a total of 62 million overall. In addition, as noted previously, Obama simply lied when he claimed he would cut taxes for 95%, as a third are already not paying. There is very little difference in what the candidates will directly do for the middle class. The big difference is that Obama will tax employers out of new hires. He can't seem to grasp that a poor person never employed anyone but gravediggers. |
| Energy Policy: Barack Obama will ease American's burden at the pump, giving American families $1,000 in rebates. Barack will also create five million new jobs by investing in clean energy technologies. | Pure Fantasy. Obama talks about future technologies that are nowhere near being commercially viable during the next President's term as if they are already here, and utterly ignores the all important short-term and transitional energy economies. We all, want a non-polluting, sustainable domestic energy resources. Obama utterly ignores how we get there from here. Once again, he's offering rhetoric, and voting "present." |
| Trade Policy: Barack Obama will end tax breaks for companies that send American jobs overseas, and reward companies who create good jobs here at home. | Pure Fantasy. This is the same Barack Obama that has consistently painted American corporations as the enemy, and who has pledged to increase their corporate taxes. Companies, if they want to survive, will have to leave American branches with a skeleton workforce until the oppressive Obama regime ends. He'll cost us jobs, and see his socialist policies grind our economy to a standstill, as those policies have in every singe country then been implemented in. I don't want to be France Lite. Do you? |
| Federal Deficit: Barack Obama will cut both taxes and spending, implementing a responsible budget that lowers the federal deficit by reducing wasteful spending. | Pure Fantasy. Obama was aked by McCain what he would cut during the debate, and couldn't answer the very simple, reasonable question. Why? Because he seeks to grow the size and cost of government, with socialized healthcare, and plans for other massive new government boondoggles. |
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:35 AM | Comments (22) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: Neo at September 30, 2008 11:09 AM (Yozw9)
I fail to understand how a high level finance crisis (which has already failed to meet initial "48 hours to catastrophe" doomsday predictions) will drive me to bankruptcy and make my savings evaporate. My FDIC insured savings.
Posted by: Dawnfire82 at September 30, 2008 11:26 AM (785Pd)
Join with us at Grand Rants, and get mad! http://grandrants.wordpress.com/2008/09/30/mad-as-hell-and-getting-madder-all-the-time/
Posted by: Stoutcat at September 30, 2008 11:46 AM (kKdtK)
Note that the bailout bill is being loaded up with the usual earmarks - doesn't look as if Congress is really worried about the economy.
Note that the financial services companies apparently can afford to sit on billions in bad loans, not even trying to move bad paper at discounted prices, waiting for a bailout. Why? They must think they'll make more peddling bad paper to the feds than on the market. Why should we enable profit-taking at taxpayer expense?
As Glenn Reynolds says on Instapundit: I'll believe it's a crisis when the people who say it's a crisis start acting like it's a crisis.
Posted by: Joe Doakes at October 01, 2008 02:57 PM (a99KG)
September 29, 2008
In the Tank, and Not Even Trying
As if there was any doubt about the media being nothing more than an extension of the Obama campaign:
The Anchoress hears it also to no one's surprise. If you recall, several weeks ago Charlie Gibson used a doctored quote when interviewing Sarah Palin. Gene Johnson of the Associated Press was the person (I hesitate to use the term journalist at this point) who purposefully truncated the quote to make it mean something entirely different, and so I contacted his superior, and noted he had clearly violated APs code of ethics by doctoring the quote. After a period of silence, I asked the AP "In what way is altering a subject's quote to change the entire context of the quote, and present an entirely false interpretation of what the subject clearly said, not at odds with the Associated Press' ethics policy?" The response?
A READER AT A MAJOR NEWSROOM EMAILS: "Off the record, every suspicion you have about MSM being in the tank for O is true. We have a team of 4 people going thru dumpsters in Alaska and 4 in arizona. Not a single one looking into Acorn, Ayers or Freddiemae. Editor refuses to publish anything that would jeopardize election for O, and betting you dollars to donuts same is true at NYT, others. People cheer when CNN or NBC run another Palin-mocking but raising any reasonable inquiry into obama is derided or flat out ignored. The fix is in, and its working." I asked permission to reprint without attribution and it was granted.
Yes, when you allow persons to slice and dice quotes until they sound like what the media wants the victim to sound like, it certainly can.
"the remark could be interpreted in different ways"
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:37 PM | Comments (31) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: Aubrey at September 29, 2008 10:42 PM (+K6Z1)
Posted by: Willmoore Kendall at September 30, 2008 12:18 AM (a+DJ7)
Posted by: Brian at September 30, 2008 12:53 AM (OvWIx)
Posted by: Patrick Chester at September 30, 2008 01:45 AM (RezbN)
I've been getting to the point of frustration with it somewhat akin to when the US and global media refused to pay attention to what was going on in South Korea in 2002. (They waited until hundreds of thousands of people were pouring into the streets nightly in an anti-US orgy - then got the story wrong at the start). Back then, I and several other people independently set up websites and forums and eventually blogs in a desperate attempt to get the message out.
That is the only hope for the nation now.
The media is a key institution in our society, and it has turned to yellow journalism. It is dead as a viable institution - as far as its stated principles go.
It is now a political institution - aligned primarily to one side.
Talk radio and blogs will not return us to objectivity - but at least it offers a counter-balance.
Posted by: usinkorea at September 30, 2008 02:03 AM (dwk8m)
Oh sure. There are people in many countries who do nothing all day but think up remarks which can be "interpreted in different ways."
These people are called "political propagandists."
Bad news: the MSM may well find a way to drag Obama's fetid carcass first over the finish line.
Good news: Given current industry trends, Obama's election will likely be the MSM's last hurrah. With its circulation numbers and ad revenue entering a death spiral, I wouldn't bet a plugged nickel that the New York Slimes will still be around at the end of The Light Being's first (and maybe only) term.
Posted by: MarkJ at September 30, 2008 06:02 AM (IKzfP)
That reminds me of something George Washington said on the radio during the Civil War...
Posted by: Jim Treacher at September 30, 2008 06:51 AM (NV3P1)
That reminds me of something George Washington said on the radio during the Civil War...
After Patton stormed the Bastille, right?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 30, 2008 07:03 AM (HcgFD)
No - that was Tripoli. It was was Jackson who took Bastille.
Posted by: Dan Irving at September 30, 2008 08:59 AM (Kw4jM)
Posted by: Jon W at September 30, 2008 10:16 AM (6y4os)
Yeah Confederate Yankee, Jim and Dan are right. It is ALL the MSM fault for making Palin look bad. She is smart, articulate and well versed on ALL of the issues. I think she is a smoother speaker off-the-cuff then Obama, McCain, or even W.
Who said she was well versed on all the issues? Please, flog your strawman all you want, but do so in the privacy of your own home.
None of the Presidential or Vice Presidential candidates this time around speak well off the cuff once they hit an issue they haven't answered a variation of 100 times.
McCain just bites as a speaker period, Obama "uh, ah, uhs" us when he doesnt' have a memorized response to trot out and encounters something new, and often doesn't offer a substantive answer the question, while Palin does pretty much the same as Obama, just with far more criticism because she's had even less practice.
In comparison with the previous three, Biden is an extremely entertaining speaker and the best of the four when it comes to extemporaneous speaking, it's just that his mind and mouth often seem to be going in opposite directions, so his choice of words is sometimes laughably counter-productive.
The media, Jon, has actively taken a side, and has tossed objectivity out the window. Perhaps that is fine with you now, when happen to agree with who they are targeting.
We'll see how much you like it,and how loudly you'll howl, once that that focus is turned against you.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 30, 2008 10:31 AM (HcgFD)
So Confederate, Palin is criticized more because of her lack of practice, not because she is a poorer public speaker? Really? I like how you're continuing to try to put the blame on anyone besides Palin for her own shortcomings. It is an anemic attempt.
I also like how you assume that I am pro-Obama just because I no longer think that Palin was a good VP choice. In fact, I am Republican; I am a Republican who wants to win this election.
In fact, other conservatives, including Kathleen Parker of the Nation Review, are also coming out against Palin and asking her to drop out.
Should I assume that you will attack Parker (or imply that she is a liberal) because she thinks Palin is over her head?
Posted by: Jon W at September 30, 2008 04:19 PM (Jx32+)
Posted by: Mike S at October 01, 2008 03:56 PM (LtaDt)
Posted by: Eli at October 03, 2008 09:24 AM (mMkcF)
House Republicans: Pelosi's Rhetoric, Arrogance Derailed Bailout
House Minority Leader Boehner, Eric Cantor, and others just dropped the responsibility of the failure of the bailout bill to an extremely partisan statement by San Francisco liberal and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Fox confirms.
Does she not have the minimal common sense to save the partisan rhetoric until after the vote is passed? Uh, obviously not.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:49 PM | Comments (50) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: megapotamus at September 29, 2008 02:21 PM (LF+qW)
And that goes for the bill as well.
Posted by: Conservative CBU at September 29, 2008 02:34 PM (M+Vfm)
Posted by: mj at September 29, 2008 03:36 PM (bIZLx)
Posted by: DirtCrashr at September 29, 2008 03:37 PM (VNM5w)
Posted by mj at September 29, 2008 03:36 PM
MJ: Obama in the WH may end up like the dog who chased the fire truck and caught it. And got incinerated in the fire.
Posted by: Zhombre at September 29, 2008 04:33 PM (8owxX)
Obama better be careful what he wishes for -- he just might get it.
Posted by: Richard Romano at September 29, 2008 04:39 PM (kycO9)
Pelosi wasn't being stupid, she was being smart as only a Vermin Party partisan bitch politician can be. She didn't WANT this bill to pass. She wants the larded-up Vermin Party version to pass -- and now she can get it, on a party line vote. And she gets to paint the Republicans as obstructionists into the bargain. As a result of this vote, we're going to see a complete Democrat sweep of the elections: the White House and supermajorities in both houses of Congress. The Republicans won't even have enough Senate seats to stage a filibuster anymore. More spending, more taxes, more debt, amnesty and citizenship for illegals, and a complete collapse of the US economy within fifteen years.
Goodbye, United States of America. You had a nice long run, longer than many nations do, but all good things must come to an end.
Posted by: wolfwalker at September 29, 2008 04:44 PM (zpPCd)
"The crisis we are facing remains," said White House Deputy Spokesman Tony Fratto, who added, "We're obviously disappointed."
Fratto said that he thinks many Americans were mistaken by believing that the bill was a "bailout of Wall Street." Instead, he said the bill was to prevent a large economic crisis.
"Nobody wants to bail out Wall Street, and we understand Americans might be opposed to bailing out Wall Street ... This is not a bailout," he said. "We hope Americans don't need to see real evidence of a break down in order to prevent a break down. " (my emphasis in bold, the quotes are consecutive paragraphs)
Since when has the US Federal Government (or state or local) done ANYTHING, with respect to a 'crisis', proactively that turned out well in the long run? I'm falling further and further into the "don't do a *darn* thing and let the market sort it out" camp due to these sorts of statements.
Posted by: Mark at September 29, 2008 04:50 PM (4od5C)
Posted by wolfwalker at September 29, 2008 04:44 PM
Uhh... and where we are today is not at the fault of a Republican President*? So how does the current situation we are in reflect the situation we may be in if a democrat becomes president??
We are already losing everything, not because of a democrat, because of a lot of people on both sides, but mainly your cute little "w" YOU voted for.
*Iraq War, FEMA, Attorney General
Posted by: polpot at September 29, 2008 05:08 PM (LL0z/)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
Then tell me the Democrats don't have any culpability.
(BTW, I'm back! Hope the regulars missed me!)
Posted by: C-C-G at September 29, 2008 05:39 PM (fxHiG)
Bush, in April of 2001, was warning about problems with Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, and couldn't get Congress to act, and the roots of this go back to the Community Reinvestment Act... Clinton's signature is on that, isn't it?
And haven't Barney Frank and Chris Dodd been the legislators most directly involved in creating the credit risk pyramid scheme, all because of trying to pander to ACORN and other far left groups?
Socialist Democrats drove us into this, but Republicans allowed it to happen.
Meanwhile, we're in deep, deep trouble, folks.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 29, 2008 06:06 PM (HcgFD)
And weren't Frank and Dodd two of the biggest recipients of Fannie and Freddie donations, with Obama right in there as well? What incentive did they have to "reform" the folks that were paying them thousands?
As for being in deep, deep trouble, check out this very troubling article.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 29, 2008 06:12 PM (fxHiG)
Posted by: ML at September 29, 2008 07:01 PM (0be2X)
I am confident that, should the bailout bill pass the house and move to the senate, Senator Obama stands ready to firmly vote..."present".
That's leadership you can believe in!
Posted by: Just Askin' at September 29, 2008 07:26 PM (esv00)
Dodd was the #1 recipient of Fanny/Freddie largesse. Frank is down the list. Below Eric Cantor, a conservative Republican congressman, btw. The place & show spots are Obama and John Kerry.
Posted by: Zhombre at September 29, 2008 07:27 PM (8owxX)
Posted by: Conservative CBU at September 29, 2008 08:03 PM (M+Vfm)
The Fannie/ Freddie donation facts are not exactly correct. The donations are from the families of employees who work for Fannie / Freddie; not from the corporations themselves. Corporations cannot give to campaigns. In this case Fannie / Freddie employee thousands of people. Some of these employees gave small donations to Obama.
One fact you are leaving out is if you look at contributions from Fannie /Freddie's boards of directors and lobbyists, you will see that they gave $169,000 to John McCain and his related committees, compared with $16,000 to Obama and his related committees.
Posted by: ML at September 29, 2008 08:03 PM (0be2X)
Don't forget that Barney Frank DID benefit significantly from Fannie (pun intended!). Check out who his former bed "partner" was employed by.
http://paxalles.blogs.com/paxalles/2008/09/barney-franks-1.html
MI
Posted by: Militant-Infidel at September 29, 2008 08:10 PM (HPIdB)
The GOP should take this opportunity to devise their own bill to fix this mess, being sure to mete out punishment and a demand for restitution, and make political hay.
Posted by: Tonto (USA) at September 29, 2008 08:18 PM (Qv1xF)
-jwc_
Posted by: jwcoopusa at September 29, 2008 08:33 PM (pYggn)
But why did 94 Dems vote no too? Pelosi hurt their feelings too?
The Reps who got themselves quoted saying the votes were lined up and then people got angry at Pelosi are real idiots.........They GAVE the media and Dems perfect silver bullet material to blame the stock market dive on them. It is inexcusable.
This vote did not break down along stick party lines. If it had, the bill would have passed. The bill did not have enough confidence to even let Pelosi line up party discipline. A lot of Dems would not sign on.
But, the blame goes to the Reps for not having 19 more people crossover? ---
--- well, yes it does, in the nation's eye -- because those Reps who pointed their finger at Pelosi's speech ---- GAVE the media and Dems the perfect tool to broadcast that view of the situation to the American people.
McCain and his campaign refuses to layout the obvious, easily verifiable, easily demonstratable case of how this crisis is tied directly to the Dems -- tied to leading Dems including Obama and to Obama's current campaign advisers - as well as tied ideologically to Dem party thinking ---- using government power to influence the private sector to make decisions that "help the poor" - like giving "affordable housing" loans ----
And the media sure as hell isn't going to lay that case out for McCain's campaign...
....and now we have Reps helping the Dems cement the blame for the crisis on not just Bush's administration but current, right-this-minute actions by the Reps.
Instead of going out and telling the American people why they would not support the substance of the bill (and why many Dems weren't on board either) ---- they let their mouthes run off and say that stupid thing about Pelosi's speech.....
........And next year, it looks like we're going to have Obama and ACORN owning Fannie Mae and much more --- so he won't even have to work at nationalizing the housing industry........
Too bad for the Dems this isn't some major insurance meltdown too....
Posted by: usinkorea at September 29, 2008 09:14 PM (o0s35)
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at September 29, 2008 11:24 PM (OmeRL)
Does anyone honestly think that the Democrat plan is really just to give money to save private enterprises? Come on. Listen to what they say, openly, even now. Marx said that the first step towards Communism "is to raise the proletariat [modern Leftist translation: the elite Leftist bien pessant] to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy." First you take the elections - under cover, and, with ACORN and the NAACP's help: by any means necessary - then you tear down the "imperialist" free market economy. They have the House and the Senate, and the White House is nearly in the grasp of the closet radical Obama, and his openly anti-American, pro-Communist supporters. Already, supposedly mainstream "liberal" economists are discussing nationalizing the entire financial sector. Why bother raising taxes when you can just take over all the banks?
Ninety-plus of the most extreme Leftist Democrats in Congress voted against this bill. Now they have the upper hand. Any bill still has to get through the Senate, and the President (who sometimes remembers he is a Republican), slo we won't see the worst for a few months yet. But if Ayers' great comrade Obama takes the White House, the Socialist, or even - this seems extreme, but I use this word advisedly - Communist program of the "moderate" Democrats will be pushed far, far beyond anything which timid, establishment conservatives dare to imagine.
Sorry for the long post - I'm normally not so wordy - but it is terribly important for we conservatives to understand the big picture here. These people have been seething from their defeats when Bush and the Republicans were strong, and have grown terribly bitter, radical, and unhinged. I've been watching politics, and involved in politics, for well over 20 years, and I've seen a lot of moonbat Leftist nonsense in my day. But I can't recall anytime when so many people, so radical, so angry, and completely without principle, have been so close to the highest power in the land. The MSM is oblivious, by choice, but it seems that far, far too many conservatives are unable or unwilling to see what is happening right in front of them. We've only got a few weeks to head off this catastrophe. we can't do it with our heads in the sand.
Posted by: Willmoore Kendall at September 30, 2008 12:55 AM (a+DJ7)
"Now, as they blame "free market failures" for the catastrophe wrought by *their own failed multi-culti/socialist policies."
Somehow, over regulation of the market led to this crisis? But you also say that that these liberal commies are trying to crash the market:
"Marx said that the first step towards Communism "is to raise the proletariat. . . then you tear down the "imperialist" free market economy."
Which is it Willmoore? Sadly, you make the MSM and even liberals (to a degree) look like they are talking sense. your ideas are pure "moonbat nonsense."
Posted by: Willless at September 30, 2008 01:31 AM (OvWIx)
Is that what he said? I'd take it he meant what I said above - that it was the push to use government power to put pressure on private enterprise to make risky loans to lower income people to buy "affordable homes" that led to the crisis.
Anyway...
Somewhere in the same ballpark of this discussion is this article at American Thinker:
www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/barack_obama_and_the_strategy.html
A week ago, I'd have dismissed it out of hand.
Now, I'm not so sure. It is at least worth considering. Especially when you start looking a Ayers and things he's been saying for years and even recently....he calls himself a communist with a little c.....
One thing is for sure -- the current crisis was caused by the Dems - and it is going to give government - whoever has the upper hand in 2009 - much more power over the financial markets.
Posted by: usinkorea at September 30, 2008 02:15 AM (dwk8m)
Willess, of course over-regulation led to this crisis. Pull your head out of the NY Times. Here's a secret: Democrats do not like free markets. Free markets prove Marxism is a lie. They seek to undermine them. They do this through regulation. They seek to eliminate them. They do this through nationalization. This isn't some theory I made up. This is exactly what they are planning to do, out in the open, while conservatives argue amongst themselves and agree with Barbara Lee, Dennis Kucinich, and the farthest-left wing of the Democratic party. They intend to use the crisis to enact a socialist/communist agenda while the populace is in "shock" from the economic effects caused by their failed socialist program. Here is one of an endless number of examples:
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=a_liberal_shock_doctrine
The liberal blogosphere, liberal political magazines, and the liberal policy class are ablaze with this kind of talk, but most people can't even be bothered to notice. The Democrats do not want to save Wall Street, they want to devour it. So-called "conservatives", like yourself, find this too scary, so they ignore it, and pretend it makes no sense, despite the fact that it could not be simpler or more apparent. How could this possibly be simpler? How could they make it any more obvious for you? The point of Democrat economics is render capitalism non-functional, and eliminate it entirely, to absorb the economy into the State, which they will control. People who dare to look at things as they are, and who are interested in what the governing philosophy of the Obama/Ayers administration will aspire to should read Thomas Sowell's "Marxism: Philosophy and Economics", which is a very readable and illuminating treatment of the fountain from which Obama, his 60's radical friends, and the ascendant Leftist power structure of the Democrat party draw their ideas. Fake conservatives like the aptly-named Willless should continue to express open-mouthed astonishment at the proposition that the Sun will rise tomorrow morning.
Posted by: Willmoore Kendall at September 30, 2008 03:10 AM (a+DJ7)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EyKiOE78yU
Although some have suggested it, I personally doubt that the Democrats planned this wwhole thing out. (I mean, if they were that smart, why would they be Democrats?) But they are cunning and devious enough to use every failure to their advantage, and the Republicans - and especially McCain and the sleepwalking Bush - are lost and confused. You can't trust them to do the smart thing, and you can't trust the MSM to tell you the truth. Educate yourselves, for your country's sake.
Posted by: Willmoore Kendall at September 30, 2008 03:38 AM (a+DJ7)
Posted by: Willmoore Kendall at September 30, 2008 03:41 AM (a+DJ7)
What does that tell you?
Posted by: Trish at September 30, 2008 08:26 AM (uUjIy)
The Democrats made the bill fail. 94 voted against it. If only 82 had voted against it, the bill would have passed.
Posted by: SouthernRoots at September 30, 2008 08:26 AM (EsOdX)
Posted by: Sally Cohen at October 01, 2008 03:07 AM (4gHqM)
Busted: Obama Lied About the Depth of His Relationship With Terrorist Ayers
Ayers' wrote the grant proposal that led to the creation of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and saw Obama, who had no prior experience in education administration, installed to the Board of Directors, and then elevated over University presidents to the CAC chairmanship. As chairman, Obama oversaw the awarding grants to radicals for indoctrination instead of education, including a grant to Ayers' Small Schools Workshop, which was run by Ayer's associate former SDS radical and founder of the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist), Mike Klonsky. Klonsky, an Obama supporter, had his blog on BarackObama.com "disappeared" by the campaign earlier this year. Barack Obama funneled money that was supposed to be used for education to radicals bent on far left agitation, indoctrination, and community activism, pissing away the education of a generation of Chicago school children to pursue a far left political agenda. Kinda of makes you wonder what he would do with the power of the Presidency and an an ideologically-aligned Congress, doesn't?
While Barack Obama has long downplayed his connection to Bill Ayers, a co-founder of the violent Weather Underground radical group, new documents show the two worked much more closely together in starting an educational foundation than has been previously known. Recently released board-meeting minutes for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge show the two were present together at least six times in 1995 as the foundation's members discussed how to organize and operate the project, which was Ayers' brainchild.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:51 AM | Comments (28) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Obama only lived 1/4 mile from Ayers and Ayers was going to school at Banks College which is only 4 blocks away from Columbia.
Nobody wants to examine that time frame and it needs to be done.
I am trying to work it from open source places.
Posted by: JustADude at September 29, 2008 09:23 AM (1aM/I)
Posted by: Tonto (USA) at September 29, 2008 09:23 AM (Qv1xF)
Like Barry's "muslim faith", Rezko ties, Acorn connections, gun-grabbing ways, support for infanticide, presidential seal, etc., etc., this will never get any airtime or print space. Not germane to a discussion of the "real issues".
Like how to get national health care passed. Or how to ban all firearms. Or eliminate Republicans from government entirely. Issues like that are acceptable for discussion. Not these distractions.
Posted by: iconoclast at September 29, 2008 10:07 AM (TzLpv)
Posted by: megapotamus at September 29, 2008 12:34 PM (LF+qW)
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at September 29, 2008 01:09 PM (vuXJQ)
http://governor.mo.gov/cgi-bin/coranto/viewnews.cgi?id=EkkkVFulkpOzXqGMaj&style=Default+News+Style&tmpl=newsitem
Posted by: BC at September 29, 2008 01:43 PM (JKe0g)
But don't be surprised if your blog starts experiencing DOS attacks as have others.
Posted by: Cindi at September 30, 2008 02:45 PM (/8Bs3)
Love the Financial Crisis? Thank Your Local "Community Organizer"
And yes, the one running for President has his hands all over it:
Oh, it sounds all too familiar. The one constant of Barack Obama's rise to power is his ability to funnel money to radical groups without drawing undue attention to himself. As chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Obama directed educational monies meant for elementary and secondary school improvement into a series of grants to radical organizations bent on activism and ideological indoctrination. You'll be shocked—shocked!—to find out that those millions were directed to groups identified by the Chicago School Reform Collaborative—headed by domestic terrorist and Obama fundraiser Bill Ayers. Obama has also used the Woods Fund (as noted in the article above) and the Joyce Foundation to launder money from grant-giving organizations into funding for radical groups and causes that were too politically controversial to directly raise funds on their own. He's great for the economic welfare of radicals. And don't you love the mess he's helped get us all into now?
IT would be tough to find an "on the ground" community organizer more closely tied to the subprime-mortgage fiasco than Madeline Talbott. And no one has been more supportive of Madeline Talbott than Barack Obama. When Obama was just a budding community organizer in Chicago, Talbott was so impressed that she asked him to train her personal staff. He returned to Chicago in the early '90s, just as Talbott was starting her pressure campaign on local banks. Chicago ACORN sought out Obama's legal services for a "motor voter" case and partnered with him on his 1992 "Project VOTE" registration drive. In those years, he also conducted leadership-training seminars for ACORN's up-and-coming organizers. That is, Obama was training the army of ACORN organizers who participated in Madeline Talbott's drive against Chicago's banks. More than that, Obama was funding them. As he rose to a leadership role at Chicago's Woods Fund, he became the most powerful voice on the foundation's board for supporting ACORN and other community organizers. In 1995, the Woods Fund substantially expanded its funding of community organizers - and Obama chaired the committee that urged and managed the shift. That committee's report on strategies for funding groups like ACORN features all the key names in Obama's organizer network. The report quotes Talbott more than any other figure; Sandra Maxwell, Talbott's ACORN ally in the bank battle, was also among the organizers consulted. MORE, the Obama-supervised Woods Fund report acknowledges the problem of getting donors and foundations to contribute to radical groups like ACORN - whose confrontational tactics often scare off even liberal donors and foundations. Indeed, the report brags about pulling the wool over the public's eye. The Woods Fund's claim to be "nonideological," it says, has "enabled the Trustees to make grants to organizations that use confrontational tactics against the business and government 'establishments' without undue risk of being criticized for partisanship." Hmm. Radicalism disguised by a claim to be postideological. Sound familiar?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:20 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
She and Valerie Jarrett are major players here but hidden in plain site.
My contention is that originally old man Ayers enabled Obama.
But after Obamas faile house run his finance manager who also worked for Pritzker Real Estate interests got her to buy into Obama.
Right now I believe Bill Ayers and Penney Pritzker are the pair behind the power and that is why Obama won't toss him under the bus and has lame excuses for her on his fact check section of his site.
She is the originator in the early 90s of sub prime loans and mortgage backed securities which are such a problem now and she has the failed Superior Bank on her resume to prove it.
Posted by: JustADude at September 29, 2008 09:31 AM (1aM/I)
Posted by: Krystal at September 29, 2008 10:27 AM (D2TAc)
"Who sent Obama?"
The fate of our republic may depend on the answer.
Posted by: MarkJ at September 29, 2008 10:47 AM (ZFVlP)
http://conservativepolitics.today.com/2008/09/29/open-letter-to-senator-john-mccain-from-conservative-politics-today/
Posted by: Virginia Shanahan at September 29, 2008 11:09 AM (c8djs)
To paraphrase the great McBane, "Laughing time is over now."
Posted by: megapotamus at September 29, 2008 12:20 PM (LF+qW)
September 28, 2008
The Fort Dix Terror Plot
A man who is a 21-year associate, business partner, fellow board member, and political supporter of the Democratic nominee for President led an organization that came within hours of carrying out the most deadly terrorist attack in American history prior to Timothy McVeigh's attack in Oklahoma City.
It's about time we talk about that.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:10 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: Big Country at September 28, 2008 12:23 PM (niydV)
That should come out in the middle of Obama's second term when he is starting the lame duck phase.
That way, it won't hurt the party's chances to pass meaningful bills through Congress and make necessary changes.
But, if we bring it up near the end of his tenure, the next nominee of the party can use it to distance themselves from him and be a champion of patriots.
[me wearing my DKos hat]
Posted by: usinkorea at September 28, 2008 12:27 PM (4AcJL)
Posted by: Zhombre at September 28, 2008 12:48 PM (8owxX)
That would certainly be more helpful to Michelle's children!
Posted by: Gary Rosen at September 28, 2008 05:43 PM (sHuCu)
That sounds even less important than the hacker who broke into Palin's account; all the suppression of free speech by Obamist thugs; Obama's ultra-pro-choice (even post-birth) position; Obama's anti-2nd amendment views; Obama's radical opposition to the U.S. military; etc...
Unlikely to ever become part of the firmly controlled national conversation, unless we have a revolution in the media...
Perhaps we (conservatives) should spend the next couple of years raising funds to purchase NBC from GE...
Posted by: Clint at September 28, 2008 06:36 PM (oZ5OG)
A lame duck is a politician who has LOST an election, but is serving out the few remaining months of his term. A president who has been elected to a second term is NEVER a lame duck.
Posted by: Trish at September 28, 2008 11:02 PM (Gjk92)
You noted, "Update: ABC is also censoring comments on the blog (mine, among others) for content that is anything other than profane, simply rewriting or deleting comments they do not like on apparent whims. The former gatekeepers do not like to be told that they are wrong."
ABC is back up to its old tricks.
Story at Gateway Pundit.
Posted by: Looking Glass at September 29, 2008 02:41 AM (p7VR5)
"It is really pathetic. Not only is the mainstream media not reporting crucial facts for this election, they are affirmatively patrolling their own user comments to remove material detrimental to the chosen one ... Barack Obama. This sort of nonsense is not fitting the fair reporting done by Jake Tapper so far during this presidential campaign."
Jake Tapper, a/the blogger at Political Punch, apparently comments at BH. [You'll have to go to Brutally Honest to read it. For some reason when I quote his comment here it gets flagged as 'questionable content.']
Posted by: Looking Glass at September 29, 2008 04:54 AM (p7VR5)
September 26, 2008
Obama Implodes in Debate
The McCain camp didn't have to wait until the end of the debate to make a commercial:
Orient.
Decide.
Act. Then Observe.
Orient.
Decide.
Act. Then Observe... Read Whittle for a full understanding of just how powerful this is, but let's be very clear in what occurred: John McCain out-thought Barack Obama early on, and increased that throughout the debate. I don't pretend to know if John McCain is smarter than Barack Obama, but in their first head-to-head, it was clear that thinks faster on his feet. Looking back through the campaign season at the various "3 A.M." moments and the candidate's reactions, this doesn't appear to be an isolated event.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:36 PM | Comments (76) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: ccoffer at September 26, 2008 09:52 PM (svvN8)
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at September 26, 2008 10:13 PM (vuXJQ)
Posted by: Clint at September 26, 2008 10:13 PM (oZ5OG)
I though McCain controlled the issues on the economy a bit better than Obama but the opposite is true in foreign policy. Obama looked more focused. McCain told stories and regurgitated oft heard sound bites. Still, I don't think either can claim a victory over the other. Both did well. The problem for McCain is he is connected to Bush and is behind in the polls. McCain needed a win. Obama only had to hold his own. Obama did that easily. As a side note, McCain's demeanor was a bit condescending and it just didn't go over well. Obama was more likable.
Posted by: algionfriddo at September 26, 2008 10:27 PM (PGYA7)
Posted by: Xrlq at September 26, 2008 10:32 PM (DI4j5)
the lesson from this debate: if you throw an attack at obama, his first instinct is to 'flinch' and then obssess-then try and lawyer his way out. most of the attacks were weak, which was lucky for the messiah.
had mccain gone with the money taken by obama from fannie mae, he would have never recovered. The scab will remain fresh for later debates.
mac needs to go with some stronger stuff. don't worry about being seen as mean, the tradeoff of crushing barry for the rest of the debate would make it worth it.
Posted by: paul at September 26, 2008 10:32 PM (YQWyY)
Posted by: Tonto (USA) at September 26, 2008 10:33 PM (Qv1xF)
McCain's still too nice to go after his opponent's throat. He's an inside-the-beltway guy, and still believes that Democrats will play fair.
The VP debate will be interesting.
Posted by: Trish at September 26, 2008 10:43 PM (R0c+f)
Posted by: David Warner at September 26, 2008 10:44 PM (+d/5E)
I like McCain, and I'll vote for him, but if I didn't already know a lot about the issues discussed, I think I would be pretty impressed with Obama. I think he came across well tonight, and made his policies sound much more mainstream than I believe they really are.
Posted by: JeanE at September 26, 2008 10:46 PM (itthy)
-trish
It's crazy, but you are right. No one could stick a knife in somebody and smile like Reagan. Expecting any partisan fire from a guy who probably puts his pant legs on at the same time is too much.
I guess he'll still do...
Posted by: paul at September 26, 2008 10:56 PM (YQWyY)
Posted by: Emilio Cerra at September 26, 2008 10:58 PM (WsrNT)
Posted by: ian at September 26, 2008 11:06 PM (n4Ret)
Palin can. If her handlers let her run free, the VP debates are going to be beautiful. She can call Biden "Mr. Kinnock - opps, I mean Senator Biden" and turn on the 1000 watt smile, and Biden will come apart.
Posted by: Richard at September 26, 2008 11:11 PM (W0sq/)
CNN just conducted an Opinion Research telephone poll. Obama beat McCain by big margins:
The debate: 52% to 38%
Iraq: 52% to 47%
Economy: 58% to 37%
[I tried to post the results here, but the comment won't go through because it must read as spam. The poll showed a clear win for BO. This is in NO WAY intended as a McCain slam--I am proudly voting for him and praying for an Obama loss. I have researched him thoroughly and very worried about him being elected. Unfortunately, the media bias and uninformed voters are a huge obstacle.]
I saw another "focus group" conducted by Luntz in Nevada (on FOX) of undecided voters. Obama won for them too. He was "understanding about the economy and the middle class." McCain was "antagonistic" and "talked too much about his history."
The world is upside down. If McCain does not win this election, the dumbing down of America has reached is nadir.
Posted by: fif at September 26, 2008 11:23 PM (ikYJe)
Posted by: Democrats Are Fascists at September 26, 2008 11:31 PM (tWGBg)
consider the source.
Incidentally, I'm a bit tired of these posts that say, "I'm a lifelong this who has always voted as this and now am going to vote as this but now there is this." It doesn't have the ring of truth.
Posted by: Trish at September 26, 2008 11:45 PM (R0c+f)
He just has a great voice. He has a perfect voice, in fact. The type of voice than makes female nipples beam out half an inch.
That is all he is, the perfect voice.
Posted by: Toad at September 26, 2008 11:45 PM (QRBhQ)
I am a lifelong Democrat, and I'm not supporting Obama. If you don't believe me, google my alias and see what I've written at Balloon Juice, Corrente, The Confluence, or just visit my blog.
Why would I come here to claim I'm not supporting Obama if I really was? To troll???
Posted by: myiq2xu at September 26, 2008 11:51 PM (UKQJU)
Posted by: Trish at September 26, 2008 11:54 PM (R0c+f)
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/
Jim Geraghty notes some meter he had to measure how Dems, Independents and Republicans reacted to various parts of the speech. Why do most of us not have this feature?
Posted by: somercet at September 27, 2008 12:51 AM (6a6vW)
he talked earmarks over and over and Obama didnt jump on Palin
on foreign affairs his experience didnt help him at all.
Posted by: nick at September 27, 2008 02:03 AM (EzwbQ)
Observe.
Act.
Sometimes without even the "Observe" part.
That's what I saw too --- but I have the feeling most Democrats saw Obama doing briliantly.
They'd see him doing brilliantly if he dropped his pants and sprayed arugula juice all over the stage. We can't worry about what they see.
Posted by: Jim Treacher at September 27, 2008 02:13 AM (NV3P1)
GW, God love him, is an abysmal public speaker (though I believe he has improved over time). Can we all, in honesty, agree on this? Both Gore and Kerry dominated him in the debates. But, they came across so personally unlikable, and downright weird, that they actually lost ground.
This is an important point to remember, those of you who think McCain should "get mean". Undecided voters do not share your antipathy to Obama, and will not suddenly have an epiphany and see things your way if McCain becomes overbearing. Tonight, he was a little edgy, but he kept his cool, and he didn't cross the line into unlikability. That is precisely how he needs to play it. There are more debates coming, more time to continue incrementally pushing the voters in his direction. He doesn't need to become the schizoid candidate from hell, like Gore and Kerry did, whipsawing between alternative personalities and ending up looking desperate and pathetic.
Posted by: Bart at September 27, 2008 02:51 AM (ayM76)
Posted by: Krystal at September 27, 2008 07:00 AM (I4yBD)
Everything was in McCain's favor on this, but he let Obama talk about CEOs and failures of the Republicans under Bush to prevent this crisis.
Those were perfect opportunities for McCain.
Obama mentioned CEOs a few times -- McCain should have nailed him with the fact two former Fannie Mae big shots are advisers to Obama's campaign.
McCain pointed out he was for accountability and had taken heat for calling for the heads to roll in this crisis -- he should have added that if Obama knew this crisis was looming, why did he reward two of its prime players with spots on his team...
McCain should have tied this to his leading effort in campaign finance reform.
He should have pointed out how the Dems twice killed legislation targeting Fannie Mae by screaming that the Republicans were attacking poor people and affordable housing -- but now the whole country is being attacked by this crisis.
The media isn't going to dig into these items. McCain needed to get them out there in this first debate.
He didn't....
Posted by: usinkorea at September 27, 2008 07:55 AM (Fuw9H)
Posted by: Dennis D at September 27, 2008 08:06 AM (EbvWp)
Uh, I thought this was a foreign policy debate? Yeah yeah yeah, dohbama got in a couple points re: the mortgage crisis, but on the whole he was a twitchy pouty doofus.
Think the next debate is economics, at which point McCain should do the obligatory beat down of this punk regarding the cash he took and so forth.
Relax, people- just because a troop of in the tank nimrods from the media say this mope won don't make it so. The wizard of uhs eats it- it's just a matter of time before enough people realize it and send him back to whining about asbestos.
Posted by: 2Brixshy at September 27, 2008 09:27 AM (twemG)
As to content, the choice should be clear to the undecided and independent. Are they for big government, socialism, redistribution of wealth and Neville Chamberlin like dipolmacy. Given the young probably don't know enough history to understand this last statement I am wasting my words.
Posted by: loco36 at September 27, 2008 11:00 AM (+Yw+0)
But here's what I want to know: WHO CHOSE THAT STRIPED TIE for him?? Don't they know small stripes like that get wavy and blurry on TV? Was he trying to hypnotize dims?
Please, next time, wear something more solid that has more contrast. I know this seems like a small thing, but with the bajillion ties available to men, surely there are better ones!
(Yes, I know there are larger issues here. Yes, I think he won last night. Yes, Nobama was a disrespectful, stuttering jacka$$. But you know he won on the tie...)
Anyone else share this opinion before everyone jumps on me for being too picky?
Posted by: crazed conservative at September 27, 2008 11:27 AM (5yv47)
We all know that great presidents don't pay any attention to polls, but they are the only meaningful measure of who won a debate.
And it seems that the polls show Obama to be a pretty clear winner.
I listened to the debate on the radio. When it was over, I thought McCain had done quite well. Then, I watched it. And I realized why the polls were in Obama's favor.
Posted by: Simon W. at September 27, 2008 11:38 AM (h3KhM)
Posted by: chris lee at September 27, 2008 11:40 AM (Ah8Kf)
I am a proud Conservative and Republican, but I cannot handle BS. The lead of this thread is the same type of political spin that we see from the hacks on TV. McCain didn't destroy Obama. Obama didn't implode. It seems to have been close enough that some think it was a draw and others think one candidate did a bit better than the other. Lets not leave reality when we have this discussion.
Overall I was pretty happy with McCain's performance but one thing made me uncomfortable: a few anemic attacks. When he said that Obama tried to cut troop funding, that was week and Obama called him on it by explaining that both of them voted against funding when (1) there wasn't a timetable (obama) and (2) when there was a timetable (McCain). McCain can't give away his credibility so easily.
Posted by: Jon M. at September 27, 2008 12:56 PM (dtm+h)
Posted by: Dan at September 27, 2008 01:38 PM (UuGn6)
Posted by: Trish at September 27, 2008 02:35 PM (f1NGI)
I don't think he did badly compared to Obama with the talk of taxes and whatnot - the economic discussion overall ---- but he SHOULD have nailed Obama and the Dems on Fannie Mae and the current crisis. That is what the country is scared about, and McCain's not mentioning his best points on that issue in rebuttal to the "Republican greed" idea that is common in the society Obama's camp has been selling --- was a blunder.
He's not mentioning it in the debate will weaken (to some extent at least) future references to it.
Posted by: usinkorea at September 27, 2008 02:54 PM (j4ceY)
It doesn't matter what they said- Obama seemed like a president and McCain seemed like a bitter old man.
Your party has spent the last three decades teaching people to vote on the basis of comfort level, and it's about to come back to haunt you.
Posted by: Green Eagle at September 27, 2008 04:04 PM (p7vLy)
In case you aren't aware (which you are obviously not to make such a ridiculous statement) over half of the US AND THE REST OF THE WORLD THINK THE EXACT OPPOSITE - that's how in touch you are.
From a Brit - who worries with BILLIONS of people around the world that most of America will do the right thing for once - and keep that gun toting moron and his inarticulate cheerleader as far away from the white house
Posted by: John at September 27, 2008 04:57 PM (hTk4L)
He could have addressed the bailout bill, saying his return to DC was critical at a time when the Dems were porking up critical legislation.
If you guys think that repeating the same soundbites he's used over the last 2 years are gonna win him the election, you're wrong.
The election will hinge on the economy, and he let Obama walk all over him on that.
Posted by: XBradTC at September 27, 2008 05:13 PM (YwVxe)
Mike, you are supposed to put "as a concerned Christian conservative voter" before all of that. Weren't you listening to Axelrod?
sheesh, and they say Republicans are dumb....
Posted by: iconoclast at September 27, 2008 06:39 PM (ax6+x)
You also say that McCain should have attacked Dems for proking up the bailout bill. When you saying porking do you mean putting in stipulations that CEOs of failed companies don't get golden parachutes paid for by tax payer money? Maybe you are are refering to Dems requiring that some of the money goes to help main street and people who are at risk of losing their homes and not just these financial giants.
Unfortunately it isn't the Dems who have been holding up the legislation the last few days. It has been house republicans. Negotiations between Republicans have deteriorated into shouting matches. Republicans these days are acting more like democrats. It is embarrassing.
Posted by: Brian at September 27, 2008 06:52 PM (z8Gxp)
Posted by: Jack Klompus at September 27, 2008 06:55 PM (PYRMV)
If the rest of the world supports Obama, then Americans had better do the right thing (once more)and elect that "gun-toting moron and his inarticulate cheerleader." Anything else would be a disaster.
The leader of any nation is supposed to promote the interests of that nation. Any American president who puts the interests of BILLIONS of people around the world ahead of the interests of America is a bad president and a failure as a human being. And if you believe that American interests are in any way similar to European interests--that shows how completely out of touch with reality you are.
Posted by: Trish at September 27, 2008 07:17 PM (f1NGI)
If the Republican congressional delegation are not cooperating with their democratic counterparts about the bailout , they may have a perfectly good reason to be uncooperative considering that a part of that 700 billion dollar bailout will be given to ACORN which is not a financial institution but an advocacy group . If we , the taxpayers will be billed for the stupidity of our elected officials and financial institutions , wouldn't it be fair to see why the republican congressmen and women are being stubborn about it .
Posted by: Will at September 27, 2008 07:22 PM (4sHuN)
You are right that the Republicans might have good reasons for being uncooperative. However, you are incorrect in assuming the fight right now is between Republican congressmen and democrats. It is in-fighting between Republicans.
I brought up the point not because I disagree with the idea of making sure we end up with a bailout that makes sense, but because XBradTC said:
McCain "could have addressed the bailout bill, saying his return to DC was critical at a time when the Dems were porking up critical legislation."
As a Republican I find myself agreeing that CEOs of failed companies shouldn't get huge compensation packages and we should be looking to help middle-income tax payers too if we are going to help these big companies.
Posted by: Brian at September 27, 2008 07:35 PM (Yn/ec)
and Obama and other democrats pulled on him at
the White House! Obama was the cause of the mess
in the White House meeting and Reid acted like he
wanted McCain there and then wants him to leave?
And I am sure Obama was in on it, why else did he
call McCain at that hour and say they need to do something!!! I would be mad and that is what they wanted out of McCain at the debate...
Posted by: Evie at September 27, 2008 07:43 PM (iyMwa)
The pork talked about isn't the CEO bailouts, its the 20% going to the very type of advocacy groups who helped lead the "affordable housing" euphoria that got the whole nation into this mess --- rich, middle class, working class, and poor....
Protect main street from losing their homes......homes they bought they couldn't afford by getting loans at a time when government was pressuring banks to lend to them and liberal lawyers were suing them for not giving out enough.
THAT is what got us into this crisis. And it was a democrat-led effort.
Hint: Affordable Housing also means you should be able to afford it ---- if you can't, you lose it.....
Posted by: usinkorea at September 27, 2008 07:48 PM (1Ho/4)
Posted by: Mike at September 27, 2008 08:33 PM (Fk+wj)
Posted by: Trish at September 27, 2008 08:53 PM (f1NGI)
you need to read up on the situation some more. The House Democrats need the House Republicans to provide some cover for their graft. House Republicans are, for some odd reason, finding enough spine to say no.
So tell your boys to vote in the package they like. No Republicans required.
Posted by: iconoclast at September 28, 2008 01:37 AM (TzLpv)
That's best left for the next debate. Doing that while the negotiations were still in play could have screwed the House GOP out of getting the concessions they wanted. That said, there's plenty of evidence and plenty of information that is on the record which hangs this disaster around the neck of the Congressional Demorats and their cronies at Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. Maveric should frame the basics of it and force Obama to respond to them. Then, he should refer viewers to go to his website where the "Burning Down the House" and other videos of Congressional hearings on the matter are made available.
McCain has a big, big hammer here and Obama has trapped himself with his "Final verdict on the failed economic policies of George Bush, which John McCain has supported" rhetoric. McCain needs to spike that back over the net and down his throat. If he fails to do so, then he's not all that interested in winning this thing or doing right by the American people.
Posted by: Pablo at September 28, 2008 10:18 AM (yTndK)
Ultimately, it seems clear it is going to take a big effort by the McCain people and Republicans and blogs and talk radio and others to get this story out the way it should be out.
Rev. Wright should have taught us that the media is going to go to great lengths to protect Obama. Not only will they refuse to report a story - when it begins to gain too much attention among average voters despite their boycott -- they will quickly pump out messages of defense for Obama - defending him on the issue in a variety of ways.
And they won the Rev. Wright issue among the masses.
Time is short. Obama and the press can easily define the current crisis as a Republican one.
That is why I wish McCain had pulled the trigger.
The media is not going to bandwagon this.
This is not Clinton at the start of his lame duck period with the Lewinsky Scandal.
This is the media after two Republican Bush victories and 8 years of Dems not controlling the White House.
The media is now openly a progressive activist NGO.
Getting the word out has become very hard. Republicans need to start mentioning Obama's ties to Fannie Mae board members and the Dem nature of this crisis --- every time someone sticks a microphone in their face.
Posted by: usinkorea at September 28, 2008 12:51 PM (X0O8A)
I do have to correct you on one thing.
Clinton was never a lame duck. A lame duck is a person who has LOST an election, but is serving out the remainder of his term. Clinton never lost a presidential election.
Remember this when the MSM start calling Bush a lame duck.
Posted by: Trish at September 28, 2008 10:10 PM (Gjk92)
Posted by: D. Aristophanes at September 29, 2008 12:38 AM (en1tY)
Processing 0.07, elapsed 0.4803 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.4194 seconds, 552 records returned.
Page size 420 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.