82% of Americans (and 62% of Republicans) believe the country is on the wrong track

[HAL 9000 96]

Sure... the record is what it is. What is not is your clarity in objectivizing Obama as politically anywhere- which is by simple observation, a matter of personal taste- not liberal enough for some, just fine for others, too liberal for others.

Now, logic steps in to couple current state of events to the options the electorate will be presented with. And unfortunately for McCain, continuing the current state of events is not really an asset. Given the numbers, of course. I suppose people could have massive prefrontal lobotomies and then they'd vote according to whom they're told to vote for just before stepping in the voting booth.

As for the record again... given the massive blitz of media attention to that precise issue in the continued smear campaign against liberal this=liberal that=inexperienced etc Obama, I think that in itself shows quite a lot of free publicity for his campaign.

Most could care less about these defined and arbitrary liberal values in his record as those same values end up benefiting the electorate and constituencies he has represented thus far. And he's done so very well with ample support.

[GaryC 7]

I believe the numbers are very minimal, which by the way is something I find Ironic. For all the chaos Rush hoped to cause in the Democratic primaries, the vast majority of the problem was "caused" by the democratic voters themselves. Look at West Virginia. I've read time after time how Democratic voters are growing tired of these primaries and concerned about the impacts of drawing it out. If they were so concerned they would have just all voted for Obama in Pennslyvania and Indiana, but they didn't. That kind of says something.

Yes it tells me something as well. Demographics aside, we deserve whom we vote for. That says a lot in itself. And yes... the numbers I also agree to be quite minimal from chaos. Nevertheless, I do not underestimate the destructive and divisive nature of dirty politics.

Personal question Mav. How old are you? Understanding your POV really depends on what you have experienced first hand and what you know only from history.

Old enough to have voted in more than 2 presidential elections.

As for understanding a POV, it also depends on what kind of indoctrination we've been exposed to. Lucky me, I have been exposed to pretty much most POVs without sticking to one over the rest.

I have voted for presidents 8 times now. There is a difference between living something and reading about it as a history lesson. Words in a book do not relay the true nature of what was happening. You have been insulated by time from the 70's and 80's. Your lack of understanding about the cold war shows that. You never had to do the "duck and cover" drills in school. We got out of that alive because of strength and power, not negotiations and diplomacy. Whether you know it or not you have been indoctrinated by those that wrote history. It really shows in your attitudes. Your generation hasn't a clue about the way the world really works.

[GaryC 7]

Sure... the record is what it is. What is not is your clarity in objectivizing Obama as politically anywhere- which is by simple observation, a matter of personal taste- not liberal enough for some, just fine for others, too liberal for others.

Now, logic steps in to couple current state of events to the options the electorate will be presented with. And unfortunately for McCain, continuing the current state of events is not really an asset. Given the numbers, of course. I suppose people could have massive prefrontal lobotomies and then they'd vote according to whom they're told to vote for just before stepping in the voting booth.

As for the record again... given the massive blitz of media attention to that precise issue in the continued smear campaign against liberal this=liberal that=inexperienced etc Obama, I think that in itself shows quite a lot of free publicity for his campaign.

Most could care less about these defined and arbitrary liberal values in his record as those same values end up benefiting the electorate and constituencies he has represented thus far. And he's done so very well with ample support.

So your saying that his record means nothing to those that are considering voting for him? I thought you were an issue only type of guy? The only way to judge what he will do in the future is to look at his past. His past is hard left. There isn't any way of spinning that otherwise.

[Sheriff Uling 3]

It's simple logic. It is indisputable that Obama's voting record is hard left. I can post his entire voting record if you want to dispute that. Despite his charm no one on the right that is aware of that record will vote for him, in fact they will turn out in droves to see him defeated. Not because they love McCain but because they don't want this country run by a hard lefty like Obama. Those that call themselves moderates will also have reason to pause when they get to know Obama and his record. They will have a choice of a hard lefty and someone that has a demonstratible record of working with both sides. I think they will choose someone that best reflects their "moderate" values and vote for McCain. Please point out the flaws in my logic if you can.

Sen. McCain not only has to get beyond his own issues but those of the republican party, which is not in the best light in the American voters. Not unless Sen. McCain finds a way to truly demonstrate his vast political knowledge that somehow knocks Sen. Obama down a notch, it's going really hard for him to defeat Sen Obama. Although folks do not want to admit it, he can blame Presiden Bush. Honestly, I just don't see the American voters electing another republican successor given the current state of affairs left behind by a republican.

[HAL 9000 96]

I believe the numbers are very minimal, which by the way is something I find Ironic. For all the chaos Rush hoped to cause in the Democratic primaries, the vast majority of the problem was "caused" by the democratic voters themselves. Look at West Virginia. I've read time after time how Democratic voters are growing tired of these primaries and concerned about the impacts of drawing it out. If they were so concerned they would have just all voted for Obama in Pennslyvania and Indiana, but they didn't. That kind of says something.

Yes it tells me something as well. Demographics aside, we deserve whom we vote for. That says a lot in itself. And yes... the numbers I also agree to be quite minimal from chaos. Nevertheless, I do not underestimate the destructive and divisive nature of dirty politics.

Personal question Mav. How old are you? Understanding your POV really depends on what you have experienced first hand and what you know only from history.

Old enough to have voted in more than 2 presidential elections.

As for understanding a POV, it also depends on what kind of indoctrination we've been exposed to. Lucky me, I have been exposed to pretty much most POVs without sticking to one over the rest.

I have voted for presidents 8 times now. There is a difference between living something and reading about it as a history lesson. Words in a book do not relay the true nature of what was happening. You have been insulated by time from the 70's and 80's. Your lack of understanding about the cold war shows that. You never had to do the "duck and cover" drills in school. We got out of that alive because of strength and power, not negotiations and diplomacy. Whether you know it or not you have been indoctrinated by those that wrote history. It really shows in your attitudes. Your generation hasn't a clue about the way the world really works.

Gary, all this shows is that you are older than me. That's pretty much it. Personal insults aside, what your dogma here shows is an inflexibility to embrace not just a change favoring what the prevalent attitude of our society but more so a logical train of though according to those same lines.

Funny you state my indoctrination since you have no idea where I have learned and how I have studied, under whom, and for what purposes. Or worked, for that matter. Like I've hinted at before, you may be in for quite a surprise should I ever decide to divulge that information.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

...and just so Gary doesn't dismiss that last article that pointed out the 911 Commission's criticism of the Patriot Act...

here is something from Paul Craig Roberts, former editor for the WSJ and National Review (Gary can't possibly discount this guy's opinion)

Viet Dinh is one of the authors of the so-called "PATRIOT Act," an anti-American piece of legislation recognized throughout the civil libertarian community as an assault on American civil liberties. Former Republican congressman Bob Barr has fought to restrain the act’s more egregious intrusions into the constitutionally protected privacy of American citizens.

Even Republican US senators, such as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, are concerned about the Bush regime’s proclivity for warrantless spying in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Senator Specter is drafting legislation with which he hopes to curtail President Bush’s illegal activity. As far as I can tell, the legal community recognizes that Bush’s warrantless spying is illegal, except for members of the Republican Federalist Society, a group of lawyers dedicated to concentrating unaccountable powers in the executive.

....

Barr confronted the conservatives: "Do we truly remain a society that believes that every president must abide by the law of this country" or "are we in danger of putting allegiance to party ahead of allegiance to principle?"

Barr’s questions were greeted with silence followed by booing. According to Milbank, "Dinh brought the crowd to a raucous ovation when he judged: ‘The threat to Americans’ liberty today comes from al Qaeda and its associates and the people who would destroy America and her people, not the brave men and women who work to defend this country!’"

How else are we to interpret Viet Dinh’s words? Clearly, he is saying that it is more important for Bush to seize powers to protect America from Osama bin Laden than to obey the law and abide by the separation of powers. The entire position of the Bush regime is that protecting the country from terrorists is more important than loyalty to habeas corpus, the Geneva Conventions, the proscription against torture, open government, and an accountable executive.

Dinh himself endorsed the Führer Principle and urged it upon the conservatives when he declared, "The conservative movement has a healthy skepticism of governmental power, but at times, unfortunately, that healthy skepticism needs to yield." Yield to what? To the Leader who works "to defend this country."

That’s exactly what Hitler said following the Reichstag fire, a staged incident that he used to remove himself from accountability.

Milbank notes that by turning the debate into the issue of who do you fear – George Bush or Osama bin Laden, Viet Dinh employed "the sort of tactic that has intimidated Democrats and the last few libertarian Republicans who question the program’s legality."

Milbank reports that Viet Dinh’s tactic did not work on Bob Barr who nailed Dinh: "That, folks, was a red herring. This debate is very simple: It is a debate about whether or not we will remain a nation subject to and governed by the rule of law or the whim of men."

In fairness to Viet Dinh, coming as he does as an immigrant from a country without a constitutional tradition, without a Bill of Rights, and without a judiciary empowered to enforce civil liberties, Dinh may only naturally confuse patriotism with loyalty to leader. Trust the Leader, Dinh told the conservatives. They seemed to agree. This certainly is not America’s way.

Destroying America does not mean blowing up buildings. It means destroying the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the separation of powers. Al Qaeda is powerless to bring about such destruction. Only our own government, enabled by the public’s and Viet Dinh’s and Attorney General Gonzales’ endorsements of the Führer Principle can destroy America.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts150.html

....

That last paragraph sums it up nicely! It's too bad that Gary is so far out there, he's lost his bearings on what he actually believes in. What a shame.

[GaryC 7]

I believe the numbers are very minimal, which by the way is something I find Ironic. For all the chaos Rush hoped to cause in the Democratic primaries, the vast majority of the problem was "caused" by the democratic voters themselves. Look at West Virginia. I've read time after time how Democratic voters are growing tired of these primaries and concerned about the impacts of drawing it out. If they were so concerned they would have just all voted for Obama in Pennslyvania and Indiana, but they didn't. That kind of says something.

Yes it tells me something as well. Demographics aside, we deserve whom we vote for. That says a lot in itself. And yes... the numbers I also agree to be quite minimal from chaos. Nevertheless, I do not underestimate the destructive and divisive nature of dirty politics.

Personal question Mav. How old are you? Understanding your POV really depends on what you have experienced first hand and what you know only from history.

Old enough to have voted in more than 2 presidential elections.

As for understanding a POV, it also depends on what kind of indoctrination we've been exposed to. Lucky me, I have been exposed to pretty much most POVs without sticking to one over the rest.

I have voted for presidents 8 times now. There is a difference between living something and reading about it as a history lesson. Words in a book do not relay the true nature of what was happening. You have been insulated by time from the 70's and 80's. Your lack of understanding about the cold war shows that. You never had to do the "duck and cover" drills in school. We got out of that alive because of strength and power, not negotiations and diplomacy. Whether you know it or not you have been indoctrinated by those that wrote history. It really shows in your attitudes. Your generation hasn't a clue about the way the world really works.

Gary, all this shows is that you are older than me. That's pretty much it. Personal insults aside, what your dogma here shows is an inflexibility to embrace not just a change favoring what the prevalent attitude of our society but more so a logical train of though according to those same lines.

Funny you state my indoctrination since you have no idea where I have learned and how I have studied, under whom, and for what purposes. Or worked, for that matter. Like I've hinted at before, you may be in for quite a surprise should I ever decide to divulge that information.

It's obvious by your reactions and positions. Living history is always better than reading about it. That is why we respect our elders, because they have the wisdom of experience. You may understand that some day.

[HAL 9000 96]

Sure... the record is what it is. What is not is your clarity in objectivizing Obama as politically anywhere- which is by simple observation, a matter of personal taste- not liberal enough for some, just fine for others, too liberal for others.

Now, logic steps in to couple current state of events to the options the electorate will be presented with. And unfortunately for McCain, continuing the current state of events is not really an asset. Given the numbers, of course. I suppose people could have massive prefrontal lobotomies and then they'd vote according to whom they're told to vote for just before stepping in the voting booth.

As for the record again... given the massive blitz of media attention to that precise issue in the continued smear campaign against liberal this=liberal that=inexperienced etc Obama, I think that in itself shows quite a lot of free publicity for his campaign.

Most could care less about these defined and arbitrary liberal values in his record as those same values end up benefiting the electorate and constituencies he has represented thus far. And he's done so very well with ample support.

So your saying that his record means nothing to those that are considering voting for him? I thought you were an issue only type of guy? The only way to judge what he will do in the future is to look at his past. His past is hard left. There isn't any way of spinning that otherwise.

Matter of fact, my writings here reflect the issues. Of reality.

What I did say about his record is that quite frankly, if his record was so horribly and outlandishly liberal-left-wing, he wouldn't have so much support from those that have benefited from more conservative policies.

The rest is your interpretation of what left and right should be. Apples do not taste like oranges but they sure go together quite well in a fruit salad...

[GaryC 7]

That last paragraph sums it up nicely! It's too bad that Gary is so far out there, he's lost his bearings on what he actually believes in. What a shame.

Again, what you seem to not want to see is this. The Patriot act was vetted by the SC. It is constitutional. It does not violate the bill of rights. And the dem controlled congress has renewed it 2 times now. Get over it. The Patriot Act is a good bill that has protected us.

[HAL 9000 96]

I believe the numbers are very minimal, which by the way is something I find Ironic. For all the chaos Rush hoped to cause in the Democratic primaries, the vast majority of the problem was "caused" by the democratic voters themselves. Look at West Virginia. I've read time after time how Democratic voters are growing tired of these primaries and concerned about the impacts of drawing it out. If they were so concerned they would have just all voted for Obama in Pennslyvania and Indiana, but they didn't. That kind of says something.

Yes it tells me something as well. Demographics aside, we deserve whom we vote for. That says a lot in itself. And yes... the numbers I also agree to be quite minimal from chaos. Nevertheless, I do not underestimate the destructive and divisive nature of dirty politics.

Personal question Mav. How old are you? Understanding your POV really depends on what you have experienced first hand and what you know only from history.

Old enough to have voted in more than 2 presidential elections.

As for understanding a POV, it also depends on what kind of indoctrination we've been exposed to. Lucky me, I have been exposed to pretty much most POVs without sticking to one over the rest.

I have voted for presidents 8 times now. There is a difference between living something and reading about it as a history lesson. Words in a book do not relay the true nature of what was happening. You have been insulated by time from the 70's and 80's. Your lack of understanding about the cold war shows that. You never had to do the "duck and cover" drills in school. We got out of that alive because of strength and power, not negotiations and diplomacy. Whether you know it or not you have been indoctrinated by those that wrote history. It really shows in your attitudes. Your generation hasn't a clue about the way the world really works.

Gary, all this shows is that you are older than me. That's pretty much it. Personal insults aside, what your dogma here shows is an inflexibility to embrace not just a change favoring what the prevalent attitude of our society but more so a logical train of though according to those same lines.

Funny you state my indoctrination since you have no idea where I have learned and how I have studied, under whom, and for what purposes. Or worked, for that matter. Like I've hinted at before, you may be in for quite a surprise should I ever decide to divulge that information.

It's obvious by your reactions and positions. Living history is always better than reading about it. That is why we respect our elders, because they have the wisdom of experience. You may understand that some day.

OK. So shut up and do as you're told, little boy, huh?

Quite condescending and more so ignorant of the argument, I suppose, is what can be said about this latest round of dogmatic thought.

Then again, like I've insinuated, there is always more to a brick wall than just brick.

[Sheriff Uling 3]

That last paragraph sums it up nicely! It's too bad that Gary is so far out there, he's lost his bearings on what he actually believes in. What a shame.

Again, what you seem to not want to see is this. The Patriot act was vetted by the SC. It is constitutional. It does not violate the bill of rights. And the dem controlled congress has renewed it 2 times now. Get over it. The Patriot Act is a good bill that has protected us.

Agreed...

[GaryC 7]

Sure... the record is what it is. What is not is your clarity in objectivizing Obama as politically anywhere- which is by simple observation, a matter of personal taste- not liberal enough for some, just fine for others, too liberal for others.

Now, logic steps in to couple current state of events to the options the electorate will be presented with. And unfortunately for McCain, continuing the current state of events is not really an asset. Given the numbers, of course. I suppose people could have massive prefrontal lobotomies and then they'd vote according to whom they're told to vote for just before stepping in the voting booth.

As for the record again... given the massive blitz of media attention to that precise issue in the continued smear campaign against liberal this=liberal that=inexperienced etc Obama, I think that in itself shows quite a lot of free publicity for his campaign.

Most could care less about these defined and arbitrary liberal values in his record as those same values end up benefiting the electorate and constituencies he has represented thus far. And he's done so very well with ample support.

So your saying that his record means nothing to those that are considering voting for him? I thought you were an issue only type of guy? The only way to judge what he will do in the future is to look at his past. His past is hard left. There isn't any way of spinning that otherwise.

Matter of fact, my writings here reflect the issues. Of reality.

What I did say about his record is that quite frankly, if his record was so horribly and outlandishly liberal-left-wing, he wouldn't have so much support from those that have benefited from more conservative policies.

The rest is your interpretation of what left and right should be. Apples do not taste like oranges but they sure go together quite well in a fruit salad...

I get the feeling that either you haven't looked up his record or are in denial about it. He has voted almost 100% of the time the liberal line. The reason you haven't heard much about it is because the primary is nothing but a beauty contest and the judges is the dems. Things will change drasticly when the general starts.

[HAL 9000 96]

Sure... the record is what it is. What is not is your clarity in objectivizing Obama as politically anywhere- which is by simple observation, a matter of personal taste- not liberal enough for some, just fine for others, too liberal for others.

Now, logic steps in to couple current state of events to the options the electorate will be presented with. And unfortunately for McCain, continuing the current state of events is not really an asset. Given the numbers, of course. I suppose people could have massive prefrontal lobotomies and then they'd vote according to whom they're told to vote for just before stepping in the voting booth.

As for the record again... given the massive blitz of media attention to that precise issue in the continued smear campaign against liberal this=liberal that=inexperienced etc Obama, I think that in itself shows quite a lot of free publicity for his campaign.

Most could care less about these defined and arbitrary liberal values in his record as those same values end up benefiting the electorate and constituencies he has represented thus far. And he's done so very well with ample support.

So your saying that his record means nothing to those that are considering voting for him? I thought you were an issue only type of guy? The only way to judge what he will do in the future is to look at his past. His past is hard left. There isn't any way of spinning that otherwise.

Matter of fact, my writings here reflect the issues. Of reality.

What I did say about his record is that quite frankly, if his record was so horribly and outlandishly liberal-left-wing, he wouldn't have so much support from those that have benefited from more conservative policies.

The rest is your interpretation of what left and right should be. Apples do not taste like oranges but they sure go together quite well in a fruit salad...

I get the feeling that either you haven't looked up his record or are in denial about it. He has voted almost 100% of the time the liberal line. The reason you haven't heard much about it is because the primary is nothing but a beauty contest and the judges is the dems. Things will change drasticly when the general starts.

1. I live in IL Senatorial district 13.

2. Liberal = bad = according to your bias.

[GaryC 7]

I believe the numbers are very minimal, which by the way is something I find Ironic. For all the chaos Rush hoped to cause in the Democratic primaries, the vast majority of the problem was "caused" by the democratic voters themselves. Look at West Virginia. I've read time after time how Democratic voters are growing tired of these primaries and concerned about the impacts of drawing it out. If they were so concerned they would have just all voted for Obama in Pennslyvania and Indiana, but they didn't. That kind of says something.

Yes it tells me something as well. Demographics aside, we deserve whom we vote for. That says a lot in itself. And yes... the numbers I also agree to be quite minimal from chaos. Nevertheless, I do not underestimate the destructive and divisive nature of dirty politics.

Personal question Mav. How old are you? Understanding your POV really depends on what you have experienced first hand and what you know only from history.

Old enough to have voted in more than 2 presidential elections.

As for understanding a POV, it also depends on what kind of indoctrination we've been exposed to. Lucky me, I have been exposed to pretty much most POVs without sticking to one over the rest.

I have voted for presidents 8 times now. There is a difference between living something and reading about it as a history lesson. Words in a book do not relay the true nature of what was happening. You have been insulated by time from the 70's and 80's. Your lack of understanding about the cold war shows that. You never had to do the "duck and cover" drills in school. We got out of that alive because of strength and power, not negotiations and diplomacy. Whether you know it or not you have been indoctrinated by those that wrote history. It really shows in your attitudes. Your generation hasn't a clue about the way the world really works.

Gary, all this shows is that you are older than me. That's pretty much it. Personal insults aside, what your dogma here shows is an inflexibility to embrace not just a change favoring what the prevalent attitude of our society but more so a logical train of though according to those same lines.

Funny you state my indoctrination since you have no idea where I have learned and how I have studied, under whom, and for what purposes. Or worked, for that matter. Like I've hinted at before, you may be in for quite a surprise should I ever decide to divulge that information.

It's obvious by your reactions and positions. Living history is always better than reading about it. That is why we respect our elders, because they have the wisdom of experience. You may understand that some day.

OK. So shut up and do as you're told, little boy, huh?

Quite condescending and more so ignorant of the argument, I suppose, is what can be said about this latest round of dogmatic thought.

Then again, like I've insinuated, there is always more to a brick wall than just brick.

More like, wake up young man and see the world for what it is. Idealism is great for a personal foundation but realism must take sway when dealing with the world.

[Sheriff Uling 3]

1. I live in IL Senatorial district 13.

2. Liberal = bad = according to your bias.

Not all liberal views are bad... just like not all conservative views are bad...

Edited May 13, 2008 by Sheriff Uling