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

wrote:
> On Aug 7, 5:26 pm, wrote:
>
>> The causal contribution of the Bush White House to the mortgage mess,
>> the price of gasoline and food, and the weakness in the economy is
>> most certainly not due to its devotion to conservative principles.
>> The Bush maxim, "If someone hurts government's gotta move," is the
>> polar opposite of conservatism. 180 degrees out, you might say. The
>> 60% growth in the federal budget in seven years, the runup in food
>> prices, and the disastrous nation-building adventure in Iraq came to
>> pass for two principal reasons: one, that Bush is a buffoon, and two,
>> that we had a unified government (the same party in control of both
>> the White House and Congress) for most of the Bush years. These
>> things, and any other Bushist disaster you care to mention, are 100%
>> not due to Bush's "conservatism." I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks
>> Bush is a conservative, or even that he is right of center, either
>> does not know the definition of conservatism, has not been paying
>> attention or thinking for himself, or is an idiot. He's probably all
>> of the above.
>
> So we agree then... that the Republicans have only been pretending to
> be conservatives.
>
>> The correct analysis in any presidential election is, who ranks the
>> lowest on the scale of buffoonery/amateurism/foolishness,
>
> lol
>
> Intelligence, charisma and someone who articulates well.

I'll take someone with plain old common sense. None of the above makes
for a great, or even mediocre, president.

>> and which
>> party has control of Congress?
>
>> Unified government is the greatest evil of all, at least among those
>> evils we can easily control. Since the Republicans have managed to
>> manuver themselves out of a congressional majority for the foreseeable
>> future, the choice of McCain for President is automatic.
>
> I like McCain. But I would have to wait to see who his running mate
> is because I worry about how much four years in the White House would
> take out of him. If four years can age a 50 year old about a decade,
> what will four years do to a 71 year old guy?

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

>> On the buffoonery scale, Obama's promises that his administration is
>> going to blow up the role of federal government, e.g., in the
>> regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and in the federal takeover of
>> the 20% of GDP that is the health care sector, at the same time as he
>> intends to exclude the representatives of the affected industries from
>> any role whatsoever in the writing of the thousands of pages of laws
>> and regulations that these takeovers will require, gives him the edge
>> in a walk. In fact we should retire the trophy -- after we have
>> inscribed with the names of all the Obamaniacs who think it's a good
>> idea to have the amateurs who actually write our laws do so without
>> any input whatsoever on the part of the affected industries. How the
>> f**k is that a good idea? It's nuts.
>
> Yet, we elected Bush/Rupublicans to two terms and what has he/they
> done for our country's industrial base? In a word, nothing.

IMO, Bush was elected thanks to the Democrat's ability to throw liberal
candidates at us election after election. Bill Clinton didn't run as a
liberal and he got two terms.

> I think Obama would be smart enough that once in office he'd select a
> bi-partisan cabinet.

Obama is an empty suit, IMO. At best he is a blank slate and for me
that makes him too risky to be president. He is a loaf of bread that
was pulled out of the oven too early and still has a gooey center. Just
because he has an Ivy League education doesn't make him smart in the way
needed to run the country. Have you really watched him when he hasn't
got a teleprompter? The guy is a bumbling, fumbling, stuttering mess.
He has trouble stringing two sentences together and says "ummmm" to the
point I can't listen to him for long.

He also comes across as being very arrogant and I think he actually
believes the hype his campaign is spewing forth that he is the political
messiah we have been waiting for. In reality he is just the latest
liberal, elitist, sock puppet presidential candidate that George Soros
is trying to con us into electing president. The only thing that
differentiates him from Gore, Kerry, Ted Kennedy etc. is that his skin
is black and he has far less experience to qualify him to be president.

>> As to all the rest of the Obama agenda, he is more and more a stealth
>> candidate, a blank slate blathering generalities that each listener
>> can fill in with whatever content matches his personal values. That
>> is the most dangerous candidate of all.
>
> Because, again, these two really don't know what they can do until
> they sit in the big chair. Campaigns are more about sounding/looking
> Presidential, than addressing specifics on issues.

IMO, campaigns are about the candidates laying out their general
political leanings and the broad goals they intent to pursue. Their may
be surprises for the winner once they are in office but they also need
to know the general workings of the system. This is where McCain has a
big edge over Obama. I think Obama it being run by major players behind
the scene. It is why he is so scripted and they won't let him be put in
situations where he has to think fast on his feet. When he is in these
situations he tends to freeze up or say stupid things.

>> That is exactly what we have
>> in President Bush -- a content-free vessel interested in only one
>> thing: power.
>>
>> McCain is not a lot better on the buffoonery scale. But his small
>> margin in this area, combined with the giganitc benefit of the divided
>> government that his election would bring for at least four years, if
>> not eight, makes him the far better choice of the two.
>
> From what I seen/heard so far, I don't think the Democrats will own
> Congress for very long anyway.

I agree, judging by their performance the past two years. They have
accomplished absolutely nothing meaningful unless you consider holding
hearings on Bush's administration a worthwhile pursuit. Their lack of
accomplishment to pass a good energy bill might be what does them in
this fall. People are smart enough to know that unless we produce more
oil domestically we are going to continue to get hammered on gas prices.
Pelosi screwed the pooch by going on recess without passing a bill to
allow more drilling off-shore and elsewhere.

>> Put it this way: if you want to see another eight years with a 60%
>> growth in federal spending and a no-holds barred assault on personal
>> liberty in the form of Big Government interference in every nook and
>> cranny of our private lives, vote for Obama. Obama truly represents
>> the third and fourth terms of the Bushist regime. The difference will
>> be a fine-tuning in the quality of the Big Government disasters that
>> we will experience, but the quantity will be the same if not greater.
>
> I think at this point, another presidential win for the Republicans
> would be pat on the back for the last 8 years of Bush.

I disagree. I think it would be a signal to the Democrats that the
country is tired of their party being controlled by the far left,
radical liberal elites. If they had nominated a more centrist candidate
they would be beating ANY republican by double digits. Instead they
give us an unknown, untested, elitist liberal because they think the
majority of us are stupid enough to be fleeced into voting for him.

Also, don't put too much stock in just how poorly the country thinks of
Bush. He disapproval ratings are low because many conservatives think
he has betrayed them. Many people like to think (incorrectly) that his
rating are low because all those people that give him a thumbs down are
wanting a more liberal government. This isn't so.

IMO, the general population is still very much right of center and this
is why McCain is holding his own right now. Also, anyone that has
followed politics even a little bit knows McCain is nothing like Bush.
McCain is a true centrist right to his core. I would prefer someone
more conservative than him but when given a choice between McCain and
Obama the choice for me is very easy. McCain wins hands down. I
shudder to think what the Supreme Court would look like after eight
years of Obama in the White house. We would be well on our way to being
a full blown socialist society. Then the things that made, and make,
this country great would be lost.

IMO, the biggest reason that Muslims have been painted with such a broad
brush is their lack of publicly, and vehemently, condemning the acts of
the terrorists. It also doesn't help when we see them demonstrating in
the streets en mass after events like 9-11 cheering the deaths of
thousands of Americans. I think interacting with Muslims one-on-one is
usually a pleasant experience. Now get these same people in a crowd of
Muslims, or under the influence of a radical religious figure, and you
might see a different side to them.

wrote:
> On Aug 7, 6:16 pm, Spike > wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> God help the USA if we have a left leaning President and a left leaning
>>>>>>>> Congress in control!
>> SNIP
>>
>>> I knows these days, in this country, the constant media drumbeat is:
>>> Muslim = Terrorist
>>> And it's B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T!
>>> I've lived in a 98% Muslim country, twice, for a total of almost three
>>> years, and my experience is that they are some of the most friendly,
>>> caring, warm-hearted and family-oriented people I've ever met. I'll
>>> go further and say I wish our society here in American was even half
>>> as good. And I'll finish this by saying I could/can ramble on for
>>> hours (please ask me to) telling stories about how well my family and
>>> I were treated by the "terrible Muslims".
>
>> Very likely true. I spent most of my life traveling the world. What I
>> found, from the deserts of north Africa, to the rice paddies of the
>> Mekong, is that "those" people are not in charge.
>
> Yet, the connection is Muslim = terrorist. And, again, that's
> bull****.
>
>>>> his family is Muslim and/or
>>>> atheist
>
>>> "and/or"? Wow.
>
>>> FYI -- they believe in a supreme being.
>
>> His mother was an aethist.
>
> So? And..? Does that automatically make her a bad person? And does
> being a priest automatically make you a good person?
>
>> Two of his fathers were Muslim and
>> extremist leaning.
>
> There's that Muslim = extremist thing, again.
>
>> Yes they believe in a Supreme Being. Yes, many of
>> the Christian biblical figures, like Noah and Abraham, figure
>> prominently in their religion. Belief in a Supreme Being does not
>> determine whether one is good or evil in the eyes of others.
>
> It seems to be belief in the _same_ Supreme Being is the determining
> factor -- if you're Muslim you're not one of us/the good ol' boys,
> regardless of your character. Yet in this debate what is getting
> glossed over is the fact that Obama is Catholic. Good job FauOX!
>
>>>> and I know he attended a Christian church where he never heard a
>>>> *thing* the pastor said.... Long drawn out nasty story.
>
>>> How would you know what he heard? And of that what he agreed or
>>> disagreed with?
>
>> Even Oprah heard what he says he never heard. Perhaps he didn't hear
>> anything because it fit with what he thought was right?
>
> "Perhaps" is a lllllloooooonnnnnnggggg way from fact.
>
>>>> And though you are generally correct about character I'll just leave it at I
>>>> disapprove of him for a number of reasons.
>
>>> Fine. But realize he is one of our/America's brightest (he graduated
>> >from Harvard with top honors), and could have picked any law firm he
>>> wanted to work for (cha ching!!), yet, instead he went into public
>>> service.
>
>> How many years did the terrorists plan to attack the WTC? Heck, they
>> tried twice. How many "sleeper agents" have the Communists had in
>> place in the USA awaiting orders? Being groomed to take over some
>> aspect of our society to bring it down at the appropriate time? Money
>> means nothing to such people. Germany did the same thing during WW2.
>
> Holy crap! WTF does ANY of this have to do with Obama?
>
> Factoid: The Democrats are not an extremist group. They're regular
> Americans who make up about 50% of the electorate.
>
>>> And McCain is an outstanding American too. (Though the Bush campaign
>>> team destroyed his character/war record back in 2000, like they later
>>> did to Kerry in 2004. Sad.)
>
>> Kerry deserved what he got. He really deserved worse, but it would
>> have been un-American for all of us who served in Vietnam to have
>> lynched him for the accusations and lies he told. Talk about giving
>> the enemy free publicity.
>
> God-loving people don't lynch/kill anyone.
>
> He fought over there. He earned the right to speak out. That's in
> our constitution -- freedom of speech.
>
>>>>> Obama is another good guy, and I think he has the potential to be a
>>>>> great president. That is as long as some Neanderthal doesn't
>>>>> assassinate him first...
>
>>>> Except that oil prices and taxes will likely go so high
>
>>> Oil prices -- like double or triple in price? What was the price of
>>> gas again around the year 2000? And what is it now?
>
>> What was it before the embargo of the 70s and what was it after the
>> embargo ended? Did it ever go back down?
>
> Nope, but the price stayed flat afterwards for more than 20 years and
> we never used the time to develop alternative sources.
>
>>>> that normal
>>>> people will not be able to afford to live.
>
>>> Seems anymore the Republicans spend the money (always leave with huge
>>> deficits) and the Democrats end up having to pay for it (balance the
>>> budget). Who's the "conservative" party, again?
>
>> I hope you can still feel that way when the new "social programs"
>> designed to "redistribute the wealth" have been instituted and your
>> taxes go through the roof to pay for them.
>
> And the middle class is doing good now after the last 7+ years?
>
>>>> At least McCain has not
>>>> admitted to wanting to raise taxes *that I've heard*, and he talks about
>>>> tangible things to do.
>
>>> Campaign promises. Even if you 'read their lips', I wouldn't bank on
>>> them.
>
>> But you're banking on Obama to make changes for the good of the
>> nation? If what politicians promise are simply "campagne promises",
>> how can you believe what either candidate says? They both make
>> promises.
>
> I'm not "banking" on either. But I think Obama has more potential to
> do some/more good.
>
>>>> Obama talks about nothing but change. When you
>>>> ask what change he says change for the GOOD! Well hell, how can you
>>>> argue with that?
>
>>> The fact of the matter is neither guy really knows what they can or
>>> can't do until they sit in the oval office.
>
>> That is true. However, if the Oval Office and the Congress both lean
>> the same way, I think the chances are pretty good that Checks and
>> Balances are right out the window, and the little peope, as Leona
>> Helmsley put it, will be the ones who pay.
>
> So why weren't we trying to restore those checks and balances in the
> Bush years?
>
> Patrick

wrote:
> On Aug 7, 6:26 pm, Spike > wrote:
>
>>>>>> God help the USA if we have a left leaning President and a left leaning
>>>>>> Congress in
>>>>>> control!
>
>>>>> After the last 7+ painful years, I say bring it...
>
>>>> Yep while they fly overhead in the Lear and Cessna Citations and flip us the
>>>> bird. I assume you heard the dems was all upset that they could not get
>>>> discounted gas by draining the city gas in Chicago for their convention,
>>>> since city gas has no taxes on it.
>
>>>> what the dems want is us in horses and buggies so they can commute by jet
>>>> and limo
>
>>> Sounds like the "reporting"/opinion of the FauxOX, spin zone,
>>> propaganda news channel.
>
>> How is it that anyone can say Fox is biased for the right, and CNN
>> ISN'T biased to the left?
>
> I don't know.
>
>> How is it that people who think that way
>> believe that people don't listen to both, weigh the information, and
>> come to their own conclusions? That is arrogant.
>
> Studies have shown people listen to what they believe.
>
> And if FauOX has a snippet about Obama "perhaps" being a Muslim
> terrorist...
>
>> That's saying you're
>> smarter than anyone who believes different from what you believe and
>> they ares stupid sheep, etc. Yet, from the opposite approach, you
>> would only accept what you are told by the left and not be a stupid
>> sheep. WTF????
>
> What I believe is that the extremist on both sides control the
> airwaves and I'm caught in the middle and have to listen to their
> bull****.

Calling Fox News FauOX doesn't make me think you are in the middle.

Michael Johnson wrote:
> IMO, the biggest reason that Muslims have been painted with such a broad
> brush is their lack of publicly, and vehemently, condemning the acts of
> the terrorists. It also doesn't help when we see them demonstrating in
> the streets en mass after events like 9-11 cheering the deaths of
> thousands of Americans. I think interacting with Muslims one-on-one is
> usually a pleasant experience. Now get these same people in a crowd of
> Muslims, or under the influence of a radical religious figure, and you
> might see a different side to them.
>


werd.... :-P

--



From what I've seen you doing in nana.sightings this
month, I really must question your conclusions. Of
the roughly 4079 reports you posted to nana.sightings,
my favorite will remain your LART of the mail you
received from Cron, running on your own computer. - David Ritz

Michael Johnson wrote:
> wrote:
>> On Aug 7, 6:26 pm, Spike > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> God help the USA if we have a left leaning President and a left
>>>>>>> leaning
>>>>>>> Congress in
>>>>>>> control!
>>
>>>>>> After the last 7+ painful years, I say bring it...
>>
>>>>> Yep while they fly overhead in the Lear and Cessna Citations and
>>>>> flip us the
>>>>> bird. I assume you heard the dems was all upset that they could not
>>>>> get
>>>>> discounted gas by draining the city gas in Chicago for their
>>>>> convention,
>>>>> since city gas has no taxes on it.
>>
>>>>> what the dems want is us in horses and buggies so they can commute
>>>>> by jet
>>>>> and limo
>>
>>>> Sounds like the "reporting"/opinion of the FauxOX, spin zone,
>>>> propaganda news channel.
>>
>>> How is it that anyone can say Fox is biased for the right, and CNN
>>> ISN'T biased to the left?
>>
>> I don't know.
>>
>>> How is it that people who think that way
>>> believe that people don't listen to both, weigh the information, and
>>> come to their own conclusions? That is arrogant.
>>
>> Studies have shown people listen to what they believe.
>>
>> And if FauOX has a snippet about Obama "perhaps" being a Muslim
>> terrorist...
>>
>>> That's saying you're
>>> smarter than anyone who believes different from what you believe and
>>> they ares stupid sheep, etc. Yet, from the opposite approach, you
>>> would only accept what you are told by the left and not be a stupid
>>> sheep. WTF????
>>
>> What I believe is that the extremist on both sides control the
>> airwaves and I'm caught in the middle and have to listen to their
>> bull****.
>
> Calling Fox News FauOX doesn't make me think you are in the middle.

Exactly, of all that I've seen it is the least biased available.
Although for the record I watch these extremely rarely. I've mostly
abandoned national news for the obvious reasons.

--



From what I've seen you doing in nana.sightings this
month, I really must question your conclusions. Of
the roughly 4079 reports you posted to nana.sightings,
my favorite will remain your LART of the mail you
received from Cron, running on your own computer. - David Ritz

On Aug 8, 10:15 am, wrote:

> Do yourself a favor. Go to this page --http://abcnews.go.com/thisweek
> -- and click the link "WATCH: Pelosi Drills GOP on Energy Policy" (a
> characteristically misleading left-wing-biased mainstream media
> headline, btw) and watch the first ten minutes of Speaker of the House
> Nancy Pelosi refusing twenty different ways to answer George
> Stephanolpoulos's very simple question, "Why not give offshore
> drilling a chance for a debate and an up-or-down vote?" Then tell me
> you want to see a Democratic President with this woman running the
> House

I want to see a Democratic President with this woman running the
house.

Wow! I'm shocked... Pelosi actually impressed me through most of
it... hanging tough on long-term solutions instead of caving on
"America's addiction to oil".

As we know, industrialized America has been built around cheap oil.
Everything is spread out/laid out, so that in most of the country, you
have to drive to get anywhere/get anything. Everything is just ducky
as long as the crude is flowing and the price of gas is low/stable.
But have any instability in the oil market and our economy quickly
goes in to convulsions, people bitch, and our politicians seek the
quick/easy solutions -- toy around in the Middle East, or their second
choice of petitioning to/and drilling in sensitive areas of our
environment and gamble that nothing gets ruined.

Choice number one hasn't been working too good lately. While we've
been trying to wiggle our way into Iraq's stash of the good stuff.
Iran, Venezuelan and Russia now have gangster rolls of dollars... I
mean Euros.

Since our fix isn't being met quickly enough, and the American people
are starting to get the shakes, our politicians are getting nervous.
So they tell us they can [quick] fix this. "Surely we must have a
stash of the good somewhere around in our own house." Like an addict
rummaging through his closets and drawers looking for old party
leftovers, the options become:

1) Gas tax relief

Let's subsidize the price of gasoline, so that people will go back to
using more, which will lower the supply/drive up demand which raises.
This less than brilliant proposal luckily got rejected! (Who was the
brainiac who came up with this one?)

2) Draining a fix from our National Strategic Oil Reserves

Here Pelosi, in a portion of the interview clip you supplied, gets an
F. For... are you ****ING stupid. Sure releasing a few million
barrels will lower the price, but only temporarily. It'll work much
the same way as giving the addict a small single rock of crack cocaine
-- happy for the night, but he'll be back tomorrow. And then
what...?

3) Drilling off our Florida coastlines or in pristine parts of
Alaska

This one is sorta like selling your kids on the black market. How
needs them? They were just eating up/using up your resources. Cash
those suckers in. What we don't realize is that their potential is
greater if we kept them and treated them right instead going for the
cash payout. But, unfortunately, with the politicians fighting for
the votes and the addict jittery, the kids will likely be put up for
sale.

So here we are... in the not too distant future. The Iraqi dealer is
sure to increase his supply because he needs the cash. And we may get
lucky and find a little stash of the coast somewhere. (Let's keep our
fingers crossed the kids don't come back later and kick our ass with a
major oil spill.) Or the other oil dealers may get nervous about the
addict whipping out his guns and starting a shootout. So the price
will likely level off, for a while, which will cause our search for
alternative fuels to get paused or nixed. And while we're high and
happy again, and not paying attention the demand for oil will continue
to rise.

If we pick this storyline, guess what happens in the sequel...

Patrick

On Aug 8, 10:18 am, Michael Johnson > wrote:

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

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

Mike,

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

And the Democrats are the demons...

> >> On the buffoonery scale, Obama's promises that his administration is
> >> going to blow up the role of federal government, e.g., in the
> >> regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and in the federal takeover of
> >> the 20% of GDP that is the health care sector, at the same time as he
> >> intends to exclude the representatives of the affected industries from
> >> any role whatsoever in the writing of the thousands of pages of laws
> >> and regulations that these takeovers will require, gives him the edge
> >> in a walk. In fact we should retire the trophy -- after we have
> >> inscribed with the names of all the Obamaniacs who think it's a good
> >> idea to have the amateurs who actually write our laws do so without
> >> any input whatsoever on the part of the affected industries. How the
> >> f**k is that a good idea? It's nuts.
>
> > Yet, we elected Bush/Rupublicans to two terms and what has he/they
> > done for our country's industrial base? In a word, nothing.
>
> IMO, Bush was elected thanks to the Democrat's ability to throw liberal
> candidates at us election after election. Bill Clinton didn't run as a
> liberal and he got two terms.

Liberal. Find a Websters. Gotta love how the Republicans repackage
words.

> > I think Obama would be smart enough that once in office he'd select a
> > bi-partisan cabinet.

> Obama is an empty suit, IMO. At best he is a blank slate and for me
> that makes him too risky to be president. He is a loaf of bread that
> was pulled out of the oven too early and still has a gooey center. Just
> because he has an Ivy League education doesn't make him smart in the way
> needed to run the country. Have you really watched him when he hasn't
> got a teleprompter? The guy is a bumbling, fumbling, stuttering mess.
> He has trouble stringing two sentences together and says "ummmm" to the
> point I can't listen to him for long.

Ever listen to Bush? And we elected his dumb ass. And McCain's
speaking prowess borders on an awkward monotone 6th grader delivering
his first ever speech in front of a school assembly. In comparison,
Obama is light years ahead of these two.

> He also comes across as being very arrogant and I think he actually
> believes the hype his campaign is spewing forth that he is the political
> messiah we have been waiting for. In reality he is just the latest
> liberal, elitist, sock puppet presidential candidate that George Soros
> is trying to con us into electing president. The only thing that
> differentiates him from Gore, Kerry, Ted Kennedy etc. is that his skin
> is black and he has far less experience to qualify him to be president.

And tune in tomorrow for more of the "fair and balanced" O'Reilley
Factor...

> >> As to all the rest of the Obama agenda, he is more and more a stealth
> >> candidate, a blank slate blathering generalities that each listener
> >> can fill in with whatever content matches his personal values. That
> >> is the most dangerous candidate of all.
>
> > Because, again, these two really don't know what they can do until
> > they sit in the big chair. Campaigns are more about sounding/looking
> > Presidential, than addressing specifics on issues.
>
> IMO, campaigns are about the candidates laying out their general
> political leanings and the broad goals they intent to pursue. Their may
> be surprises for the winner once they are in office but they also need
> to know the general workings of the system. This is where McCain has a
> big edge over Obama. I think Obama it being run by major players behind
> the scene. It is why he is so scripted and they won't let him be put in
> situations where he has to think fast on his feet. When he is in these
> situations he tends to freeze up or say stupid things.

You don't think McCain is being run by major players behind the
scenes? The Bush machine is hard at work, my friend.

> >> That is exactly what we have
> >> in President Bush -- a content-free vessel interested in only one
> >> thing: power.

> >> McCain is not a lot better on the buffoonery scale. But his small
> >> margin in this area, combined with the giganitc benefit of the divided
> >> government that his election would bring for at least four years, if
> >> not eight, makes him the far better choice of the two.

> > From what I seen/heard so far, I don't think the Democrats will own
> > Congress for very long anyway.

> I agree, judging by their performance the past two years. They have
> accomplished absolutely nothing meaningful unless you consider holding
> hearings on Bush's administration a worthwhile pursuit.

What the Republicans need is to debate is another Terry Schiavo
case... spend a couple months talking about that to collect some more
religious votes.

> Their lack of
> accomplishment to pass a good energy bill might be what does them in
> this fall. People are smart enough to know that unless we produce more
> oil domestically we are going to continue to get hammered on gas prices.
> Pelosi screwed the pooch by going on recess without passing a bill to
> allow more drilling off-shore and elsewhere.

You should know my opinion on this one by now.

> >> Put it this way: if you want to see another eight years with a 60%
> >> growth in federal spending and a no-holds barred assault on personal
> >> liberty in the form of Big Government interference in every nook and
> >> cranny of our private lives, vote for Obama. Obama truly represents
> >> the third and fourth terms of the Bushist regime. The difference will
> >> be a fine-tuning in the quality of the Big Government disasters that
> >> we will experience, but the quantity will be the same if not greater.

> > I think at this point, another presidential win for the Republicans
> > would be pat on the back for the last 8 years of Bush.

> I disagree. I think it would be a signal to the Democrats that the
> country is tired of their party being controlled by the far left,
> radical liberal elites.

As opposed to 8 years of the radical righties?

> If they had nominated a more centrist candidate
> they would be beating ANY republican by double digits.

And why is that? Because the radical righties ran us into a ditch?

> Instead they
> give us an unknown, untested, elitist liberal because they think the
> majority of us are stupid enough to be fleeced into voting for him.

Hell, we were stupid enough to vote in George W, twice.

And why is Obama being branded an elitist? Because he was focused and
worked his ass off to get to/through law school? Trust me, my son
just graduated from a big name school, and I saw the commitment/hard
work it took. (And my son is far from an elitist now. In fact he's
spending, almost donating, the next year working in an inner city
charter high school working with kids who would have dropped out.)
But somehow a drunken spoiled rich kid -- George W -- gets branded a
good ol' cowboy and gets elected to two terms. Gotta love politics!

> Also, don't put too much stock in just how poorly the country thinks of
> Bush. He disapproval ratings are low because many conservatives think
> he has betrayed them. Many people like to think (incorrectly) that his
> rating are low because all those people that give him a thumbs down are
> wanting a more liberal government. This isn't so.

A "centrist candidate" is a more liberal government.

> IMO, the general population is still very much right of center and this
> is why McCain is holding his own right now.

I think it's because the Bush campaign machine is kicking in. They're
working overtime to brand Obama:

An elitist

A scary Muslim

A scary "liberal"

A hater of America

Unknown commodity

That's their keys to victory.

> Also, anyone that has
> followed politics even a little bit knows McCain is nothing like Bush.

And thank God for that!

> McCain is a true centrist right to his core. I would prefer someone
> more conservative than him but when given a choice between McCain and
> Obama the choice for me is very easy. McCain wins hands down. I
> shudder to think what the Supreme Court would look like after eight
> years of Obama in the White house. We would be well on our way to being
> a full blown socialist society. Then the things that made, and make,
> this country great would be lost.

The Republicans have been losing pieces of our great country for
years. And I'd have a hard time rewarding their incompetence with a
election victory.

Patrick

wrote:
> On Aug 8, 10:18 am, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>
>>> I like McCain. But I would have to wait to see who his running mate
>>> is because I worry about how much four years in the White House would
>>> take out of him. If four years can age a 50 year old about a decade,
>>> what will four years do to a 71 year old guy?
>
>> I think McCain is physically and mentally tougher than many know. I
>> don't think four years as president will be close to what he went
>> through as a POW. His benchmark for what constitutes overwhelming
>> stress is far beyond anything most people can comprehend. I want him to
>> pick a true conservative for a running mate so that person can have the
>> potential to become a president that actually governs from truly
>> conservative principles.
>
> Mike,
>
> Back in 2000 the Republicans/Bush campaign was telling us his years as
> a POW made him mentally unstable. And we bought it. So now they're
> telling us he's the best choice they/we have?

.... and because is was said means it was true then or today? You are
making a broad statement about why McCain didn't get the nomination in
2000. IMO, it was because he is not conservative enough. He got it
this year from dumb luck and a lack of popular good conservative
candidates. Romney is a Mormon, Rudy had **** poor strategy, Huckabee
is a preacher, Fred didn't want it bad enough, and McCain managed to win
NH and Florida. When Rudy dropped out after his one worthwhile primary
try in Florida and endorsed McCain it was over. Then when the
Republicans realized what happened they had no steam to push Romney aver
the top. Then the last twist of fate is that McCain probably has the
best chance of winning in November of them all.

> And the Democrats are the demons...

Well, demons is a little too dramatic for me but go for it if you want.

>>>> On the buffoonery scale, Obama's promises that his administration is
>>>> going to blow up the role of federal government, e.g., in the
>>>> regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and in the federal takeover of
>>>> the 20% of GDP that is the health care sector, at the same time as he
>>>> intends to exclude the representatives of the affected industries from
>>>> any role whatsoever in the writing of the thousands of pages of laws
>>>> and regulations that these takeovers will require, gives him the edge
>>>> in a walk. In fact we should retire the trophy -- after we have
>>>> inscribed with the names of all the Obamaniacs who think it's a good
>>>> idea to have the amateurs who actually write our laws do so without
>>>> any input whatsoever on the part of the affected industries. How the
>>>> f**k is that a good idea? It's nuts.
>>> Yet, we elected Bush/Rupublicans to two terms and what has he/they
>>> done for our country's industrial base? In a word, nothing.
>> IMO, Bush was elected thanks to the Democrat's ability to throw liberal
>> candidates at us election after election. Bill Clinton didn't run as a
>> liberal and he got two terms.
>
> Liberal. Find a Websters. Gotta love how the Republicans repackage
> words.

...... just like the Democrats. Face it, liberals hate being called
liberals ever since Reagan made it a "bad" word.

>>> I think Obama would be smart enough that once in office he'd select a
>>> bi-partisan cabinet.
>
>> Obama is an empty suit, IMO. At best he is a blank slate and for me
>> that makes him too risky to be president. He is a loaf of bread that
>> was pulled out of the oven too early and still has a gooey center. Just
>> because he has an Ivy League education doesn't make him smart in the way
>> needed to run the country. Have you really watched him when he hasn't
>> got a teleprompter? The guy is a bumbling, fumbling, stuttering mess.
>> He has trouble stringing two sentences together and says "ummmm" to the
>> point I can't listen to him for long.
>
> Ever listen to Bush? And we elected his dumb ass. And McCain's
> speaking prowess borders on an awkward monotone 6th grader delivering
> his first ever speech in front of a school assembly. In comparison,
> Obama is light years ahead of these two.

Now to me you are being extremely shallow it what you consider
qualifications to be president. So anyone that doesn't have a silver
tongue is disqualified? Have you listened to Obama off a teleprompter?
The guy is a bumbling mess. If you took "ummmm" out of his vocabulary
he would have a mental meltdown. Hitler was a great speaker so that
made him a great leader?

>> He also comes across as being very arrogant and I think he actually
>> believes the hype his campaign is spewing forth that he is the political
>> messiah we have been waiting for. In reality he is just the latest
>> liberal, elitist, sock puppet presidential candidate that George Soros
>> is trying to con us into electing president. The only thing that
>> differentiates him from Gore, Kerry, Ted Kennedy etc. is that his skin
>> is black and he has far less experience to qualify him to be president.
>
> And tune in tomorrow for more of the "fair and balanced" O'Reilley
> Factor...

...... and Oberman and Chris Matthews are not blowing Obama every chance
they get? I know Mathews' leg tingles when Obama speaks. The real
truth is that Fox News is more balanced than any other network, period.

>>>> As to all the rest of the Obama agenda, he is more and more a stealth
>>>> candidate, a blank slate blathering generalities that each listener
>>>> can fill in with whatever content matches his personal values. That
>>>> is the most dangerous candidate of all.
>>> Because, again, these two really don't know what they can do until
>>> they sit in the big chair. Campaigns are more about sounding/looking
>>> Presidential, than addressing specifics on issues.
>> IMO, campaigns are about the candidates laying out their general
>> political leanings and the broad goals they intent to pursue. Their may
>> be surprises for the winner once they are in office but they also need
>> to know the general workings of the system. This is where McCain has a
>> big edge over Obama. I think Obama it being run by major players behind
>> the scene. It is why he is so scripted and they won't let him be put in
>> situations where he has to think fast on his feet. When he is in these
>> situations he tends to freeze up or say stupid things.
>
> You don't think McCain is being run by major players behind the
> scenes? The Bush machine is hard at work, my friend.

Well, they all have players working behind the scenes. Obama has been
groomed by George Soros and the slimy Chicago political machine and they
own him.

>>>> That is exactly what we have
>>>> in President Bush -- a content-free vessel interested in only one
>>>> thing: power.
>
>>>> McCain is not a lot better on the buffoonery scale. But his small
>>>> margin in this area, combined with the giganitc benefit of the divided
>>>> government that his election would bring for at least four years, if
>>>> not eight, makes him the far better choice of the two.
>
>>> From what I seen/heard so far, I don't think the Democrats will own
>>> Congress for very long anyway.
>
>> I agree, judging by their performance the past two years. They have
>> accomplished absolutely nothing meaningful unless you consider holding
>> hearings on Bush's administration a worthwhile pursuit.
>
> What the Republicans need is to debate is another Terry Schiavo
> case... spend a couple months talking about that to collect some more
> religious votes.

Domestic drilling will be plenty. Maybe throw in a little gay marriage
for good measure. Pelosi and Reid are giving them plenty of openings.

>> Their lack of
>> accomplishment to pass a good energy bill might be what does them in
>> this fall. People are smart enough to know that unless we produce more
>> oil domestically we are going to continue to get hammered on gas prices.
>> Pelosi screwed the pooch by going on recess without passing a bill to
>> allow more drilling off-shore and elsewhere.
>
> You should know my opinion on this one by now.

I haven't read the whole thread.

>>>> Put it this way: if you want to see another eight years with a 60%
>>>> growth in federal spending and a no-holds barred assault on personal
>>>> liberty in the form of Big Government interference in every nook and
>>>> cranny of our private lives, vote for Obama. Obama truly represents
>>>> the third and fourth terms of the Bushist regime. The difference will
>>>> be a fine-tuning in the quality of the Big Government disasters that
>>>> we will experience, but the quantity will be the same if not greater.
>
>>> I think at this point, another presidential win for the Republicans
>>> would be pat on the back for the last 8 years of Bush.
>
>> I disagree. I think it would be a signal to the Democrats that the
>> country is tired of their party being controlled by the far left,
>> radical liberal elites.
>
> As opposed to 8 years of the radical righties?

Polls are just numbers and don't tell the real story most of the time.
Especially approval/disapproval ratings. Congress has a lower rating
than Bush so what does that mean?

>> If they had nominated a more centrist candidate
>> they would be beating ANY republican by double digits.
>
> And why is that? Because the radical righties ran us into a ditch?

No because that is where the majority of the country resides. It isn't
the far left or far right. Obama is trying hard to make himself LOOK
like a centrist but is won't be hard for the Republicans to prove he is
one of the most, if not the most, liberal (don't you love it when I use
that word?) nominees to be run up the flag pole. They are doing it now
and they haven't even called out the heavy artillery yet. Wait until
the Republican convention, they will define Obama as being so liberal
that he will make George McGovern look like a Rush Limbaugh.

>> Instead they
>> give us an unknown, untested, elitist liberal because they think the
>> majority of us are stupid enough to be fleeced into voting for him.
>
> Hell, we were stupid enough to vote in George W, twice.

I like to think of it as we were smart enough to not elect Gore or Kerry.

> And why is Obama being branded an elitist? Because he was focused and
> worked his ass off to get to/through law school? Trust me, my son
> just graduated from a big name school, and I saw the commitment/hard
> work it took. (And my son is far from an elitist now. In fact he's
> spending, almost donating, the next year working in an inner city
> charter high school working with kids who would have dropped out.)
> But somehow a drunken spoiled rich kid -- George W -- gets branded a
> good ol' cowboy and gets elected to two terms. Gotta love politics!

Well, I guess you didn't get the transcript of his speech to the liberal
San Francisco elites he made when he though there were no records in the
room. Pull off the glasses that are filtering you perception and you'll
see what the rest of us do. He is extremely liberal and that almost
always included arrogance, elitism and a belief the majority of the
population is too stupid to know what is good for them.

>> Also, don't put too much stock in just how poorly the country thinks of
>> Bush. He disapproval ratings are low because many conservatives think
>> he has betrayed them. Many people like to think (incorrectly) that his
>> rating are low because all those people that give him a thumbs down are
>> wanting a more liberal government. This isn't so.
>
> A "centrist candidate" is a more liberal government.

Not by my definition of centrist.

>> IMO, the general population is still very much right of center and this
>> is why McCain is holding his own right now.
>
> I think it's because the Bush campaign machine is kicking in. They're
> working overtime to brand Obama:

It is because they have figured out his weak spot and it is Obama's
arrogance. He really believes he is "The One" the political messiah we
have all been waiting for. If his head gets any bigger it is going to
explode.

> An elitist
>
> A scary Muslim
>
> A scary "liberal"
>
> A hater of America
>
> Unknown commodity
>
> That's their keys to victory.

Well, I think the public is getting tired of hearing the press do the
hard sell on this yahoo. Obama believes his own hype and it is showing.
The keys to McCain winning is to paint Obama for what he is, a
liberal, elitist candidate that wants to lead us down a path to
socialism. Obama's voting record is all you need to study to figure
this out. Check out what Black Liberation Theology is based in. It is
COMMUNISM. He sat in a church for twenty years listening to this
garbage and allowed his children to be indoctrinated with it. Now he
either believes in it or he sacrificed his children for political gain.

>> Also, anyone that has
>> followed politics even a little bit knows McCain is nothing like Bush.
>
> And thank God for that!

I'm not real pleased with Bush either but it is because he is too
liberal for my tastes is many ways.

>> McCain is a true centrist right to his core. I would prefer someone
>> more conservative than him but when given a choice between McCain and
>> Obama the choice for me is very easy. McCain wins hands down. I
>> shudder to think what the Supreme Court would look like after eight
>> years of Obama in the White house. We would be well on our way to being
>> a full blown socialist society. Then the things that made, and make,
>> this country great would be lost.
>
> The Republicans have been losing pieces of our great country for
> years. And I'd have a hard time rewarding their incompetence with a
> election victory.

The Democrats have been systematically destroying this country ever
since Roosevelt shoved the New Deal down our throats. They won't stop
until we are a full blown socialist society. Now that is something that
will truly destroy this country and no longer make it great.

wrote in :

> On Aug 8, 10:15 am, wrote:
>
>> Do yourself a favor. Go to this page --http://abcnews.go.com/thisweek
>> -- and click the link "WATCH: Pelosi Drills GOP on Energy Policy" (a
>> characteristically misleading left-wing-biased mainstream media
>> headline, btw) and watch the first ten minutes of Speaker of the House
>> Nancy Pelosi refusing twenty different ways to answer George
>> Stephanolpoulos's very simple question, "Why not give offshore
>> drilling a chance for a debate and an up-or-down vote?" Then tell me
>> you want to see a Democratic President with this woman running the
>> House
>
> I want to see a Democratic President with this woman running the
> house.
>
> Wow! I'm shocked... Pelosi actually impressed me through most of
> it... hanging tough on long-term solutions instead of caving on
> "America's addiction to oil".
>
> As we know, industrialized America has been built around cheap oil.
> Everything is spread out/laid out, so that in most of the country, you
> have to drive to get anywhere/get anything. Everything is just ducky
> as long as the crude is flowing and the price of gas is low/stable.
> But have any instability in the oil market and our economy quickly
> goes in to convulsions, people bitch, and our politicians seek the
> quick/easy solutions -- toy around in the Middle East, or their second
> choice of petitioning to/and drilling in sensitive areas of our
> environment and gamble that nothing gets ruined.
>
> Choice number one hasn't been working too good lately. While we've
> been trying to wiggle our way into Iraq's stash of the good stuff.
> Iran, Venezuelan and Russia now have gangster rolls of dollars... I
> mean Euros.
>
> Since our fix isn't being met quickly enough, and the American people
> are starting to get the shakes, our politicians are getting nervous.
> So they tell us they can [quick] fix this. "Surely we must have a
> stash of the good somewhere around in our own house." Like an addict
> rummaging through his closets and drawers looking for old party
> leftovers, the options become:
>
> 1) Gas tax relief
>
> Let's subsidize the price of gasoline, so that people will go back to
> using more, which will lower the supply/drive up demand which raises.
> This less than brilliant proposal luckily got rejected! (Who was the
> brainiac who came up with this one?)
>
> 2) Draining a fix from our National Strategic Oil Reserves
>
> Here Pelosi, in a portion of the interview clip you supplied, gets an
> F. For... are you ****ING stupid. Sure releasing a few million
> barrels will lower the price, but only temporarily. It'll work much
> the same way as giving the addict a small single rock of crack cocaine
> -- happy for the night, but he'll be back tomorrow. And then
> what...?
>
> 3) Drilling off our Florida coastlines or in pristine parts of
> Alaska
>
> This one is sorta like selling your kids on the black market. How
> needs them? They were just eating up/using up your resources. Cash
> those suckers in. What we don't realize is that their potential is
> greater if we kept them and treated them right instead going for the
> cash payout. But, unfortunately, with the politicians fighting for
> the votes and the addict jittery, the kids will likely be put up for
> sale.
>
> So here we are... in the not too distant future. The Iraqi dealer is
> sure to increase his supply because he needs the cash. And we may get
> lucky and find a little stash of the coast somewhere. (Let's keep our
> fingers crossed the kids don't come back later and kick our ass with a
> major oil spill.) Or the other oil dealers may get nervous about the
> addict whipping out his guns and starting a shootout. So the price
> will likely level off, for a while, which will cause our search for
> alternative fuels to get paused or nixed. And while we're high and
> happy again, and not paying attention the demand for oil will continue
> to rise.
>
> If we pick this storyline, guess what happens in the sequel...
>
> Patrick

Drilling in ANWR and off Florida will result in oil futures
immediately coming down. That said, oil companies also need
to start seriously pursuing alternative fuels and engines.
The solution is to be agressive on both fronts - oil and
future technology.

---

But here's what I really want to know right now: Why aren't
we getting cash back from Iraq's oil profits? We've spent
billions on rebuilding Iraq, our economy's in the toilet,
we've sent thousands to their death, and Iraq gets a free
ride all the way to the bank. Yes, their profits are in
our banks right now earning interest.

Neither candidate is going to touch this one, because neither
of them have a clue. They're both idiots, right along with
the current administration.

Some links for your consideration:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/05/iraq.oil/
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20...latchy/3010139
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.s..._oil_prof.html
http://pundits.thehill.com/2008/05/3...vices-in-iraq/
http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/...5/1248831.aspx

On Aug 9, 2:40 am, Michael Johnson > wrote:

On Aug 9, 2:40 am, Michael Johnson > wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

> He got it
> this year from dumb luck and a lack of popular good conservative
> candidates.

> Romney is a Mormon,

Like this even matters. So he's a Mormon... big deal. These
Republican party dis-qualifiers just kill me!!

> Rudy had **** poor strategy,

Agreed

> Huckabee is a preacher,

I would have thought for a Republican this would have put him over the
top.

> Fred didn't want it bad enough,

Fred pretty much sleep walked through the whole affair.

> and McCain managed to win
> NH and Florida. When Rudy dropped out after his one worthwhile primary
> try in Florida and endorsed McCain it was over. Then when the
> Republicans realized what happened they had no steam to push Romney aver
> the top. Then the last twist of fate is that McCain probably has the
> best chance of winning in November of them all.

> > And the Democrats are the demons...

> Well, demons is a little too dramatic for me but go for it if you want.

I was only repeating the "fair and balanced" FauOX news mantra.

> >>>> On the buffoonery scale, Obama's promises that his administration is
> >>>> going to blow up the role of federal government, e.g., in the
> >>>> regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and in the federal takeover of
> >>>> the 20% of GDP that is the health care sector, at the same time as he
> >>>> intends to exclude the representatives of the affected industries from
> >>>> any role whatsoever in the writing of the thousands of pages of laws
> >>>> and regulations that these takeovers will require, gives him the edge
> >>>> in a walk. In fact we should retire the trophy -- after we have
> >>>> inscribed with the names of all the Obamaniacs who think it's a good
> >>>> idea to have the amateurs who actually write our laws do so without
> >>>> any input whatsoever on the part of the affected industries. How the
> >>>> f**k is that a good idea? It's nuts.
> >>> Yet, we elected Bush/Rupublicans to two terms and what has he/they
> >>> done for our country's industrial base? In a word, nothing.
> >> IMO, Bush was elected thanks to the Democrat's ability to throw liberal
> >> candidates at us election after election. Bill Clinton didn't run as a
> >> liberal and he got two terms.

> > Liberal. Find a Websters. Gotta love how the Republicans repackage
> > words.

> ..... just like the Democrats. Face it, liberals hate being called
> liberals ever since Reagan made it a "bad" word.

Always reminds me (liberal) of a "bad word" a little kid makes up to
tease you with. "You're a... ginglehopper." Then starts laughing and
thinks they've really got something on you. You just smile and say,
"boy, you really got me with that one… I sure hate being that."

> >>> I think Obama would be smart enough that once in office he'd select a
> >>> bi-partisan cabinet.

> >> Obama is an empty suit, IMO. At best he is a blank slate and for me
> >> that makes him too risky to be president. He is a loaf of bread that
> >> was pulled out of the oven too early and still has a gooey center. Just
> >> because he has an Ivy League education doesn't make him smart in the way
> >> needed to run the country. Have you really watched him when he hasn't
> >> got a teleprompter? The guy is a bumbling, fumbling, stuttering mess.
> >> He has trouble stringing two sentences together and says "ummmm" to the
> >> point I can't listen to him for long.

> > Ever listen to Bush? And we elected his dumb ass. And McCain's
> > speaking prowess borders on an awkward monotone 6th grader delivering
> > his first ever speech in front of a school assembly. In comparison,
> > Obama is light years ahead of these two.

> Now to me you are being extremely shallow it what you consider
> qualifications to be president. So anyone that doesn't have a silver
> tongue is disqualified?

Obviously there are more qualifications, but those are important.

> Have you listened to Obama off a teleprompter?
> The guy is a bumbling mess. If you took "ummmm" out of his vocabulary
> he would have a mental meltdown.

Sure. A top-honors Columbia/Harvard grad. One of _this country's_
best and brightest.

For the record, he taught constitutional law for twelve years, was a
Lecturer for four years, and a Senior Lecturer for eight years. So for
some reason, I think the FauOX news "fair and balanced" reporting is
off just smidgen.

> Hitler was a great speaker so that
> made him a great leader?

Please don't draw the line that Obama is now, somehow, a Nazi. He's
already, somehow, a Muslim and an elitist. Care to explain how that
is?

> >> He also comes across as being very arrogant and I think he actually
> >> believes the hype his campaign is spewing forth that he is the political
> >> messiah we have been waiting for. In reality he is just the latest
> >> liberal, elitist, sock puppet presidential candidate that George Soros
> >> is trying to con us into electing president. The only thing that
> >> differentiates him from Gore, Kerry, Ted Kennedy etc. is that his skin
> >> is black and he has far less experience to qualify him to be president..

> > And tune in tomorrow for more of the "fair and balanced" O'Reilley
> > Factor...

> ..... and Oberman and Chris Matthews are not blowing Obama every chance
> they get? I know Mathews' leg tingles when Obama speaks.

They're the talking bobble heads of the left. They suck as bad as the
FauOX team. ALL should all be thrown in the toilet, where turds
belong, and flushed.

> The real truth is that Fox News is more balanced than any other network, period.

<COUGH CHOKE COUGH CHOKE... wheezing... dry heaves... now trying to
catch my breath> WOW! The power of advertising. Say it enough times
-- "fair and balanced" -- and people will come to believe it.

Let's just say everything they/FauOX claim to be, they're not.

> >>>> As to all the rest of the Obama agenda, he is more and more a stealth
> >>>> candidate, a blank slate blathering generalities that each listener
> >>>> can fill in with whatever content matches his personal values. That
> >>>> is the most dangerous candidate of all.
> >>> Because, again, these two really don't know what they can do until
> >>> they sit in the big chair. Campaigns are more about sounding/looking
> >>> Presidential, than addressing specifics on issues.
> >> IMO, campaigns are about the candidates laying out their general
> >> political leanings and the broad goals they intent to pursue. Their may
> >> be surprises for the winner once they are in office but they also need
> >> to know the general workings of the system. This is where McCain has a
> >> big edge over Obama. I think Obama it being run by major players behind
> >> the scene. It is why he is so scripted and they won't let him be put in
> >> situations where he has to think fast on his feet. When he is in these
> >> situations he tends to freeze up or say stupid things.

> > You don't think McCain is being run by major players behind the
> > scenes? The Bush machine is hard at work, my friend.

> Well, they all have players working behind the scenes. Obama has been
> groomed by George Soros and the slimy Chicago political machine and they
> own him.

No one is slimier than Rove. No one.

> >>>> That is exactly what we have
> >>>> in President Bush -- a content-free vessel interested in only one
> >>>> thing: power.

> >>>> McCain is not a lot better on the buffoonery scale. But his small
> >>>> margin in this area, combined with the giganitc benefit of the divided
> >>>> government that his election would bring for at least four years, if
> >>>> not eight, makes him the far better choice of the two.

> >>> From what I seen/heard so far, I don't think the Democrats will own
> >>> Congress for very long anyway.

> >> I agree, judging by their performance the past two years. They have
> >> accomplished absolutely nothing meaningful unless you consider holding
> >> hearings on Bush's administration a worthwhile pursuit.

> > What the Republicans need to debate is another Terry Schiavo
> > case... spend a couple months talking about that to collect some more
> > religious votes.

Real problems to be solved and they spent time debating this.
Amazing.

> Domestic drilling will be plenty.

Sadly, high gas prices is the only way alternatives will be found.

This is a good article I just ran across.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...02/1148/AUTO01

> Maybe throw in a little gay marriage for good measure.

Another pointless Republican rallying cry.

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

Has Congress EVER had favorable approval ratings?

Now we know Presidents have. And we know dub yah's ratings have been
in the ****ter for months and months now -- the reason he's been made
invisible and currently sent on a site-seeing trip overseas.

> >> If they had nominated a more centrist candidate
> >> they would be beating ANY republican by double digits.

> > And why is that? Because the radical righties ran us into a ditch?

> No because that is where the majority of the country resides. It isn't
> the far left or far right.

My feelings exactly. Yet we get these radical blow hards, from both
sides, on the 24-hour "news" channels spouting their radical/biased
doctrines.

TV news has been reduced to put-downs, insinuations, yelling matches,
etc. It's sickening... it truly is.

> Obama is trying hard to make himself LOOK
> like a centrist but is won't be hard for the Republicans to prove he is
> one of the most, if not the most, liberal (don't you love it when I use
> that word?) nominees to be run up the flag pole.

It's going to be sad to witness what Rove and his disciples will run
Obama through.

> They are doing it now
> and they haven't even called out the heavy artillery yet. Wait until
> the Republican convention, they will define Obama as being so liberal
> that he will make George McGovern look like a Rush Limbaugh.

Oh, I don't doubt it. If they could package G-W to look like the
second coming of Jesus, I don't doubt they'll be able to tar and
feather Obama. And we wonder why our Presidential picks are so crappy
all the time. It's because most times the smart people won't allow
themselves to be run through the gauntlet of smear campaigns.

> >> Instead they
> >> give us an unknown, untested, elitist liberal because they think the
> >> majority of us are stupid enough to be fleeced into voting for him.

> > Hell, we were stupid enough to vote in George W, twice.

> I like to think of it as we were smart enough to not elect Gore or Kerry.

But in retrospect, we weren’t as smart as we thought.

> > And why is Obama being branded an elitist? Because he was focused and
> > worked his ass off to get to/through law school? Trust me, my son
> > just graduated from a big name school, and I saw the commitment/hard
> > work it took. (And my son is far from an elitist now. In fact he's
> > spending, almost donating, the next year working in an inner city
> > charter high school working with kids who would have dropped out.)
> > But somehow a drunken spoiled rich kid -- George W -- gets branded a
> > good ol' cowboy and gets elected to two terms. Gotta love politics!

> Well, I guess you didn't get the transcript of his speech to the liberal
> San Francisco elites he made when he though there were no records in the
> room. Pull off the glasses that are filtering you perception and you'll
> see what the rest of us do. He is extremely liberal and that almost
> always included arrogance, elitism and a belief the majority of the
> population is too stupid to know what is good for them.

Okay, but if he was all that why did all the Republicans tout him as a
reanimated Reagan? And he got elected twice? But only now, late in
his presidency, the vale has come off. WTF?

> >> Also, don't put too much stock in just how poorly the country thinks of
> >> Bush. He disapproval ratings are low because many conservatives think
> >> he has betrayed them. Many people like to think (incorrectly) that his
> >> rating are low because all those people that give him a thumbs down are
> >> wanting a more liberal government. This isn't so.

> > A "centrist candidate" is a more liberal government.

> Not by my definition of centrist.

Bush’s ratings are low because he’s bungled everything up.

> >> IMO, the general population is still very much right of center and this
> >> is why McCain is holding his own right now.

> > I think it's because the Bush campaign machine is kicking in. They're
> > working overtime to brand Obama:

> It is because they have figured out his weak spot and it is Obama's
> arrogance. He really believes he is "The One" the political messiah we
> have all been waiting for. If his head gets any bigger it is going to
> explode.

More FauOX news propaganda. The truth is the Republican wish they had
someone of Obama’s caliber. (Note: I wrote caliber, not skin
color.)

> > An elitist

> > A scary Muslim

> > A scary "liberal"

> > A hater of America

> > Unknown commodity

> > That's their keys to victory.

> Well, I think the public is getting tired of hearing the press do the
> hard sell on this yahoo.

So FauOX news (BTW -- Carl Rove works for them now – how convenient )
goes into full character assignation. Make **** up, twist things
around, insinuate… just keep the drum beat going, eventually people
will believe it.

> Obama believes his own hype and it is showing.
> The keys to McCain winning is to paint Obama for what he is, a
> liberal, elitist candidate that wants to lead us down a path to
> socialism. Obama's voting record is all you need to study to figure
> this out. Check out what Black Liberation Theology is based in. It is
> COMMUNISM. He sat in a church for twenty years listening to this
> garbage and allowed his children to be indoctrinated with it. Now he
> either believes in it or he sacrificed his children for political gain.

> >> Also, anyone that has
> >> followed politics even a little bit knows McCain is nothing like Bush.

> > And thank God for that!

> I'm not real pleased with Bush either but it is because he is too
> liberal for my tastes is many ways.
I knew when Colin Powell got shown the door, it was truly over. I
think that they told him to sell the war, and once he did, they no
longer needed his services.

> >> McCain is a true centrist right to his core. I would prefer someone
> >> more conservative than him but when given a choice between McCain and
> >> Obama the choice for me is very easy. McCain wins hands down. I
> >> shudder to think what the Supreme Court would look like after eight
> >> years of Obama in the White house. We would be well on our way to being
> >> a full blown socialist society. Then the things that made, and make,
> >> this country great would be lost.

> > The Republicans have been losing pieces of our great country for
> > years. And I'd have a hard time rewarding their incompetence with a
> > election victory.

> The Democrats have been systematically destroying this country ever
> since Roosevelt shoved the New Deal down our throats. They won't stop
> until we are a full blown socialist society. Now that is something that
> will truly destroy this country and no longer make it great.

It isn’t the Democrats. It’s the corporations. They’re taking over.
With lobbying groups, and deep pockets they can buy members of
Congress and the President. And they’re buying the government. Case
in point: they’re slowly taking over the military. Companies like
Blackwater don’t answer to voters, they answer to stockholders. And
what happens when these stockholders start getting influence/money
from those outside the US?

Patrick