Support Obama Or Else...

[Peikko 1,575]

A fraud in what sense metta? A fraud in the sense that he is suggesting that he will change Washington in some material way when he really can't or is not even willing to try? Or a fraud in the sense that everything that comes out of his mouth is either a lie or self serving? Or a fraud in the sense that he is in some way ineligible to be president?

The 'empty suit' charge works only at the level that he has no legislative experience. I don't think it works at the level that he is incapable of handling the presidency or that it would be a risky bet to put him in the WH. Every debate he has participated in proves that he has a handle on what the issues are and that he understand the consequences of the actions he would take should he take office. I don't believe everything he wants to do is the right answer, but I do believe that on balance, his plans would stabilize the economy and provide economic relief to more Americans than would the McCain plan.

The McCain plan seems to revolve around the belief that Americans are the best, and therefore they will somehow magically solve their own problems without government intervention - that big business needs more tax breaks than ever before and that the average American tax payer doesn't need a break. Nice.

[alienlovechild 75]

Secret Service can do its job or not? Under its investigative powers, that is- not under frivolous expansions of police state tactics to weed out dissent from a society that IS a byproduct of things like the Patriot Act (as you fail to read yet again). Much like we've had laws in the past that have been stripped that would do the same. Nowhereman is spot on.

The HAL 900 is malfunctioning again and needs some it's data cards removed. I never said the Secret Service shouldn't do it's job nor have I claimed they are stifling dissent- yet. That would you and your need to contact Federal law enforcement for posts you think are linked to crazies at political rallies. Yeah, I know that was out of context like this post, too. There's a pattern here.

Both you and nowhereman never bother to show how the Patriot Act is so bad. Exactly how has the Patriot Act suppressed dissent. Number of non-violent political dissenters in U.S. jails? If political suppression is so widespread why do I see Obama ads on TV or his positive poll numbers? Isn't he the biggest dissenter of all as the leader of the opposition party?

I believe Obama voted for the Patriot Act in 2006 along with 88 other senators. Is he and most of Congress evil, too?

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll...&vote=00029

Arguing that an agency created a 143 years ago is a byproduct of the of a contemporary legislative act is lunacy. Hiding behind the word "like" is common copout on Internet forums. The Secret Service has had a narrow role and comparison to the Patriot Act which you guys claim is growing in scope and powers so this is another yet false comparsion.

We have had bad laws in the past so we are guaranteed bad ones in the future but I don't see the obvious signs we're heading for police state.

[HAL 9000 96]

Is that what I'm claiming? NO.

If you bothered to read our posts (even italicized and underlined for your benefit), you wouldn't be ranting yet again an apple where an orange is being observed.

Furthermore, even Obama has given reasons for his extension of the Patriot Act vote in 2006- something you are omitting from your knee-jerk- which is also a pattern here. Since you love wiki:

USA PATRIOT Act

As noted above, Obama voted to reauthorize the USA PATRIOT Act, which extended the Act, but with some amendments. Such amendments would clarify the rights of an individual who has received FISA orders to challenge nondisclosure requirements and to refuse disclosure of the name of their attorney.

He voted against extending the USA PATRIOT Act’s Wiretap Provision on March 1, 2006. This bill would give the FBI the authority to conduct “roving wiretaps” and access to business records. Voting against this bill would prolong the debate, keeping the USA PATRIOT Act provisional whereas voting for this bill would extend the USA PATRIOT Act as permanent.[254]

As for the Patriot Act itself perhaps you'd like to get into the actual details before sticking your foot in your mouth once again:

(Which you can get as well on wiki)

The Patriot Act harms civil liberties

POSITIONS

* Strongly Support means you believe: The Patriot Act is unpatriotic. The terrorists are winning because they have forced us to limit our Constitutional civil rights. We should not give up our liberties in exchange for security, because if we do we will end up with neither.

* Support means you believe: Homeland security needs should be balanced with respect for civil rights, and the Patriot Act goes too far. The sunset clause (automatic phaseout) should apply to all aspects so that the Patriot Act automatically disappears when the War on Terror is ended. Some provisions should be repealed immediately, because they grant too much power to the federal government and restrict our Constitutional rights too much.

* Oppose means you believe: To win the War on Terror, we need powerful tools to fight a new and powerful enemy. Hiding behind "civil rights" arguments coddles the terrorists and encourages them to strike again. We need to counter-attack the terrorists with financial weapons and legalistic weapons as well as military weapons.

* Strongly Oppose means you believe: The president should be granted all the means necessary to fight the War on Terror. When dealing with terrorists who want to destroy our country, stretching the definitions of torture and the Geneva Convention is necessary. Remember the victims of 9/11 first, and focus on preventing another 9/11 rather than focusing on civil rights of terrorists.

This question is looking for your views on balancing the War on Terror with the protection of civil liberties. However you answer the above question would be similar to your response to these statements:

* Domestic spying is unconstitutional.

* Guantanamo Bay's terrorist prison system should be shut down.

* Habeus Corpus (the right to a hearing) should be respected, even for terrorist suspects.

* The Patriot Act invests too much power in a centralized Executive.

* The Geneva Convention defines torture, and US actions must follow those international rules.

How do you decide between "Support" and "Strongly Support" when you agree with both the descriptions above? (Or between "Oppose" and "Strongly Oppose"). The strong positions are generally based on matters of PRINCIPLES where the regular support and oppose positions are based on PRACTICAL matters. If you answer "No Opinion," this question is not counted in the VoteMatch answers for any candidate. If you give a general answer of Support vs. Oppose, VoteMatch can more accurately match a candidate with your stand. Don't worry so much about getting the strength of your answer exactly refined, or to think too hard about the exact wording of the question -- like candidates!

* Strongly Support means you believe in the principle that the Patriot Act violates constitutional rights.

* Support means you believe that for practical reasons, the patriot Act goes too far.

* Oppose means you believe that for practical reasons, the Patriot Act is necessary, but might be amended over time as needed.

* Strongly Oppose means you believe in the principle of a strong Presidency as the best means to fight the War on Terror.

BACKGROUND

The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-56), commonly known as the USA PATRIOT Act or simply the Patriot Act, is an American act which was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. The Act passed in the Senate by a vote of 98 to 1, and in the House by a vote of 357 to 66. Although the bill enjoyed widespread Congressional and Presidential support it is a very controversial federal legislation.

Originally passed after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Act (full text) was formed in response to the terrorist attacks against the United States, and dramatically expanded the authority of American law enforcement for the stated purpose of fighting terrorism in the United States and abroad. It has also been used to detect and prosecute other alleged potential crimes, such as providing false information on terrorism. It was renewed on March 2, 2006 with a vote of 89 to 11 in the Senate and on March 7 280 to 138 in the House. The renewal was signed into law by President Bush on March 9, 2006.

FISA

In 1978, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was passed to produce legal guidelines for federal investigations of foreign intelligence targets. Among the rules put in place were regulations governing:

* Electronic Surveillance

* Physical Searches

* Pen registers and Trap and trace devices for Foreign Intelligence Purposes

* Access to certain Business Records for Foreign Intelligence Purposes

In addition to defining how foreign intelligence investigations were to be performed, FISA also defined who could be investigated. Only foreign powers or agents of foreign powers were to be subject to FISA investigations. Thus, targets are primarily those foreign persons who are engaged in espionage or international terrorism. Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, expanded FISA to permit targeting of so-called "lone wolf" terrorists without requiring any showing that they are members of a terrorist group or agents of such a group or of any other foreign power.

PATRIOT ACT

The original Act had a sunset clause to ensure that Congress would need to take active steps to reauthorize it. Like many sweeping reform laws, the people of the United States needed time to test and implement its measures before deciding what provisions to keep and which to modify. One of the challenges to the original Act had been perceived civil liberties intrusions. The reauthorization resolution passed in 2006 contained some civil liberties protections.

Much criticism against the 2001 Act had been directed at the provisions for Sneak-and-Peek searches — a term coined by the FBI. Critics argued that Provision 213 authorizes "surreptitious search warrants and seizures upon a showing of reasonable necessity and eliminates the requirement of Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that immediate notification of seized items be provided.

A second complaint against Sneak-and-Peek searches is that the owner of the property (or person identified in business/library records) does not have to be told about the search. There is a special clause that allows the Director of the FBI to request phone records for a person without ever notifying the person. For all other searches, the person must be notified, but not necessarily before the search.

Perhaps the most controversial section of the original Act was Section 215, dealing with a very narrow, implied right of federal investigators to access library and bookstore records. Section 215 allows FBI agents to obtain a warrant in camera (in secret) from the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for library or bookstore records of anyone connected to an investigation of international terrorism or spying. On its face, the section does not even refer to "libraries," but rather to business records and other tangible items in general. Civil libertarians and librarians in particular, argue that this provision violates patrons' human rights and it has now come to be called the "library provision." The Justice Department defends Section 215 by saying that because it requires an order to be issued by a FISA Court judge, it provides better protection for libraries.

Critics claim that some portions of the Act are unnecessary and allow U.S. law enforcement to infringe upon freedom of speech, freedom of the press, human rights, and right to privacy. Much controversy has arisen over section 215 (see above), which allows judges to grant government investigators ex parte orders to look into personal records (including financial, medical, phone, Internet, student or library records) on the basis of being "relevant for an on going investigation concerning international terrorism or 4 stine intelligence activities," rather than probable cause as outlined in the fourth amendment.

[Peikko 1,575]

Support Obama or else...

...Joe the plummer may become McCain's tax advisor

[Heracles 417]

I hope she sues the #### out of the ####### phone operator. Lets put the joke of a tort system to some real use.

Edited October 16, 2008 by Aficionado

[Heracles 417]

there are basic differences between the supporters of osama and mccain. there are no reports of dallas cowboys players registering to vote republican in missouri, but there are plenty of people in 14 states under investigation for registration fraud that are associated with the democratic candidate. a mentality of entitlement at all costs and a disrespect for process, and government in general, is at the root of the problem. if obama wins by a margin of less then 3%, we may see a court ordered stay of the result, pending investigation.

for posting this i am sure i will be accused of racism, bigotry, and etc, but i do have to say i have seen a shift in the "american" people in the last 20 years. America is a less "civilised" place to be. shopping malls used to have clean bathrooms. today there is #### on the floor in the best of them.

in 1980, 79% of Americans were anglo descended, 12 % were black, 6% were hispanic (mostly US born), and 1.4% asian. in 2000, 69% of Americans were anglos, 12% were black, 12% were hispanic, and 3.6% were asian. the trend has accelerated since. this shift has brought an increase in corruption of political process that is manifested in the famous ACORN registration scandals, which may cause up to 2.5% of all votes cast in this election to be fradulent votes made by illegal hispanic aliens.

America is rapidly becoming a third world country, and they won't let me do anything about it. even so, i must speak.

in our lifetimes we will see a Children Of Men scenario. we will see violence in the streets that is race oriented, and on a large scale. illegal immigrants are not acclimating, and are bringing this upon themselves. we will see chain link fences topped with razor wire, and mobs of anglos with big guns dealing with the problem the government will fail to keep under control. we will see martial law, and national guard involvement.

we will see a national ID card based on evidence of citizenship implemented years after it could have brought the problem under control. the representatives in congress who fought most vehemently against such proof of citizenship based identification are from the states that benefit most by the lack thereof. california's share of the federal budget is directly dependent on the fraud enabled by the lack of such a national ID card.

this board is peopled by those who care for and have interest in the lives of immigrants. i warn you now, then, be sure to resolve their legal status with dilligence and swiftly. if you fail to do so, your loved ones will be in the camps. i warn you also that your loved ones will face the backlash brought about by increasing illegal immigration. when the time comes, be careful what you do and where you go. vigilanties will not care how deep your stack of paper is when they see a brown face. asians will not have so much trouble, but God help the legal south and central americans.

Interesting post.

I certainly agree with the point America is becoming a third world country. The poverty in this nation is getting out of control. Both parties are to blame. No other country has ever been able to absorb so many poverty stricken illegal immigrants and prosper, ever. That is reality. People in this forum alone allow their emotion to guide them because they have spouses from those regions but are not accepting the reality and consequences of the 20,000,000 illegal immigrants who are here. On top of that we are doing absolutely nothing to help the poor in this country get on their feet.

Edited October 16, 2008 by Aficionado

[alienlovechild 75]

Furthermore, even Obama has given reasons for his extension of the Patriot Act vote in 2006- something you are omitting from your knee-jerk- which is also a pattern here. Since you love wiki:

"USA PATRIOT Act

As noted above, Obama voted to reauthorize the USA PATRIOT Act, which extended the Act, but with some amendments. Such amendments would clarify the rights of an individual who has received FISA orders to challenge nondisclosure requirements and to refuse disclosure of the name of their attorney.

He voted against extending the USA PATRIOT Act’s Wiretap Provision on March 1, 2006. This bill would give the FBI the authority to conduct “roving wiretaps” and access to business records. Voting against this bill would prolong the debate, keeping the USA PATRIOT Act provisional whereas voting for this bill would extend the USA PATRIOT Act as permanent.[254]"

I know Obama voted for some revisions in the Patriot Act so you haven't had any substantial compliants with it since 2006? I doubt it. That's just not in context with your whole line of reasoning unless you think Obama will just use a waterdowned version of Patriot Act. After another major terrorist act in the U.S. it may interesting to see what Obama does.

As for the Patriot Act itself perhaps you'd like to get into the actual details before sticking your foot in your mouth once again:

(Which you can get as well on wiki)

I didn't see any numbers for arrests for political figures, suppression of political parties, closing of media outlets, . . . no link either. Pretty weak as it explains nothing about the actual violation of rights of named American citizens and just some unsubstantiated claims- no impact.

Edited October 16, 2008 by alienlovechild

[nowhereman 1]

What's ironic (I'd go as far as to say bordering on hypocrisy) is that the OP is complaining that the secret service is over-reacting to a woman's threats against Obama, yet this sort of thing is a by-product of the Patriot Act (which is largely a republican measure). Anyone else see the irony there?

I thought somebody would heckle nowheredudue for this one but the caliber of OT is spotty at best. Investigating threats against presidents and presidential candidates precedes the Patriot Act by nearly a century.

"It was the first U.S. domestic intelligence and counterintelligence agency. It no longer has (and has not had for over a century) these responsibilities, which are now vested in the FBI. After the assassination of President William McKinley in 1901, Congress informally requested Secret Service presidential protection. A year later, the Secret Service assumed full-time responsibility for protection of the President. In 1902, William Craig was the first Secret Service agent killed while riding in the presidential carriage, in a road accident."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secret_Service

Don't forget to blame the McKinley Administration for the Patriot Act from now on.

I'm not saying it's a new concept... what I'm saying is that the Bush administration has created an environment in which personal freedoms take a back seat to national security. Both are obviously very important and sometimes at odds, and it's up to our government to balance the two. The OP (an obvious right winger) tried to insinuate that the threat was investigated merely because Obama was involved, when over-reacting to perceived national security threats is a criticism of the republicans. That was the point I was trying to make.

[HAL 9000 96]

Furthermore, even Obama has given reasons for his extension of the Patriot Act vote in 2006- something you are omitting from your knee-jerk- which is also a pattern here. Since you love wiki:

"USA PATRIOT Act

As noted above, Obama voted to reauthorize the USA PATRIOT Act, which extended the Act, but with some amendments. Such amendments would clarify the rights of an individual who has received FISA orders to challenge nondisclosure requirements and to refuse disclosure of the name of their attorney.

He voted against extending the USA PATRIOT Act's Wiretap Provision on March 1, 2006. This bill would give the FBI the authority to conduct "roving wiretaps" and access to business records. Voting against this bill would prolong the debate, keeping the USA PATRIOT Act provisional whereas voting for this bill would extend the USA PATRIOT Act as permanent.[254]"

I know Obama voted for some revisions in the Patriot Act so you haven't had any substantial compliants with it since 2006? I doubt it. That's just not in context with your whole line of reasoning unless you think Obama will just use a waterdowned version of Patriot Act. After another major terrorist act in the U.S. it may interesting to see what Obama does.

As for the Patriot Act itself perhaps you'd like to get into the actual details before sticking your foot in your mouth once again:

(Which you can get as well on wiki)

I didn't see any numbers for arrests for political figures, suppression of political parties, closing of media outlets, . . . no link either. Pretty weak as it explains nothing about the actual violation of rights of named American citizens and just some unsubstantiated claims- no impact.

You seem to intrude your thoughts upon others quite often, so why wouldn't it surprise me that you project yourself upon mine? Get a grip Dave.

Like you've been informed before, a police state or its desire with such laws do not always necessitate what you describe.

[nowhereman 1]

there are basic differences between the supporters of osama and mccain. there are no reports of dallas cowboys players registering to vote republican in missouri, but there are plenty of people in 14 states under investigation for registration fraud that are associated with the democratic candidate. a mentality of entitlement at all costs and a disrespect for process, and government in general, is at the root of the problem. if obama wins by a margin of less then 3%, we may see a court ordered stay of the result, pending investigation.

for posting this i am sure i will be accused of racism, bigotry, and etc, but i do have to say i have seen a shift in the "american" people in the last 20 years. America is a less "civilised" place to be. shopping malls used to have clean bathrooms. today there is #### on the floor in the best of them.

in 1980, 79% of Americans were anglo descended, 12 % were black, 6% were hispanic (mostly US born), and 1.4% asian. in 2000, 69% of Americans were anglos, 12% were black, 12% were hispanic, and 3.6% were asian. the trend has accelerated since. this shift has brought an increase in corruption of political process that is manifested in the famous ACORN registration scandals, which may cause up to 2.5% of all votes cast in this election to be fradulent votes made by illegal hispanic aliens.

America is rapidly becoming a third world country, and they won't let me do anything about it. even so, i must speak.

in our lifetimes we will see a Children Of Men scenario. we will see violence in the streets that is race oriented, and on a large scale. illegal immigrants are not acclimating, and are bringing this upon themselves. we will see chain link fences topped with razor wire, and mobs of anglos with big guns dealing with the problem the government will fail to keep under control. we will see martial law, and national guard involvement.

we will see a national ID card based on evidence of citizenship implemented years after it could have brought the problem under control. the representatives in congress who fought most vehemently against such proof of citizenship based identification are from the states that benefit most by the lack thereof. california's share of the federal budget is directly dependent on the fraud enabled by the lack of such a national ID card.

this board is peopled by those who care for and have interest in the lives of immigrants. i warn you now, then, be sure to resolve their legal status with dilligence and swiftly. if you fail to do so, your loved ones will be in the camps. i warn you also that your loved ones will face the backlash brought about by increasing illegal immigration. when the time comes, be careful what you do and where you go. vigilanties will not care how deep your stack of paper is when they see a brown face. asians will not have so much trouble, but God help the legal south and central americans.

Interesting post.

I certainly agree with the point America is becoming a third world country. The poverty in this nation is getting out of control. Both parties are to blame. No other country has ever been able to absorb so many poverty stricken illegal immigrants and prosper, ever. That is reality. People in this forum alone allow their emotion to guide them because they have spouses from those regions but are not accepting the reality and consequences of the 20,000,000 illegal immigrants who are here. On top of that we are doing absolutely nothing to help the poor in this country get on their feet.

Aficionado you and I disagree on many things, but we are in agreement on the immigration issue. I've had a hell of a time trying to get my fiancee here legally & there are some posts on this forum asking for help regarding an illegal immigrant & I take personal offense to this.

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

What's ironic (I'd go as far as to say bordering on hypocrisy) is that the OP is complaining that the secret service is over-reacting to a woman's threats against Obama, yet this sort of thing is a by-product of the Patriot Act (which is largely a republican measure). Anyone else see the irony there?

What is no less ironic is that the OP (metta) was an ardent supporter of Hillary during the Primaries....like probably her number one fan. And even now, after the nomination process and Hillary's endorsement....he hangs on to one last glimmer of hope that if somehow McCain can win, then Hillary can run again in 4 years.

It's because

I simply believe...

Obama Is A fraud

No, metta, he's a politician....just like Hillary Clinton or John McCain. We're at this point in the election process to choose between two very different tickets. Most voters will decide on the issues, while some, like yourself, will decide based on personal 'feelings.'

[HAL 9000 96]

What's ironic (I'd go as far as to say bordering on hypocrisy) is that the OP is complaining that the secret service is over-reacting to a woman's threats against Obama, yet this sort of thing is a by-product of the Patriot Act (which is largely a republican measure). Anyone else see the irony there?

What is no less ironic is that the OP (metta) was an ardent supporter of Hillary during the Primaries....like probably her number one fan. And even now, after the nomination process and Hillary's endorsement....he hangs on to one last glimmer of hope that if somehow McCain can win, then Hillary can run again in 4 years.

It's because

I simply believe...

Obama Is A fraud

No, metta, he's a politician....just like Hillary Clinton or John McCain. We're at this point in the election process to choose between two very different tickets. Most voters will decide on the issues, while some, like yourself, will decide based on personal 'feelings.'

Well you know what they say. Some people get 'Hooked on a Feeling'

[metta 0]

A fraud in what sense metta? A fraud in the sense that he is suggesting that he will change Washington in some material way when he really can't or is not even willing to try? Or a fraud in the sense that everything that comes out of his mouth is either a lie or self serving? Or a fraud in the sense that he is in some way ineligible to be president?

The 'empty suit' charge works only at the level that he has no legislative experience. I don't think it works at the level that he is incapable of handling the presidency or that it would be a risky bet to put him in the WH. Every debate he has participated in proves that he has a handle on what the issues are and that he understand the consequences of the actions he would take should he take office. I don't believe everything he wants to do is the right answer, but I do believe that on balance, his plans would stabilize the economy and provide economic relief to more Americans than would the McCain plan.

The McCain plan seems to revolve around the belief that Americans are the best, and therefore they will somehow magically solve their own problems without government intervention - that big business needs more tax breaks than ever before and that the average American tax payer doesn't need a break. Nice.

Well, PH, I made a declarative statement fully aware that many like yourself will disagree and not intending to belabor the point.

However, I will say this...

In looking at his history, I find that the highlights of his entire career or acheivements if you will, have been securing progressively higher positions either by election or selection.. Very impressive. However, in each position he secured, there is a glaring lack of any tangible product or acheivement.

For example;

1. As president of Harvard Review, there was not one article published by him

2. Community organizer.... his community left with the same old housing situation. His only tangible achievement during his time as CO was a playground for children in the neighborhood. Ofcourse, his friends such as Rezco did profit (illlegally I might add) from their joint ventures..

3. No notable foot print left during time in Illinois stae Senate

4. From the time he got elected to the Senate, he started running for President. If he said to the people, yes I am running for the senate to position me for the next prize, i don't think he would have been elected to the senate in the first place. Well, one could say that he did get 1 billion earmarks and pork barrel his state.

That's it in short.

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

A fraud in what sense metta? A fraud in the sense that he is suggesting that he will change Washington in some material way when he really can't or is not even willing to try? Or a fraud in the sense that everything that comes out of his mouth is either a lie or self serving? Or a fraud in the sense that he is in some way ineligible to be president?

The 'empty suit' charge works only at the level that he has no legislative experience. I don't think it works at the level that he is incapable of handling the presidency or that it would be a risky bet to put him in the WH. Every debate he has participated in proves that he has a handle on what the issues are and that he understand the consequences of the actions he would take should he take office. I don't believe everything he wants to do is the right answer, but I do believe that on balance, his plans would stabilize the economy and provide economic relief to more Americans than would the McCain plan.

The McCain plan seems to revolve around the belief that Americans are the best, and therefore they will somehow magically solve their own problems without government intervention - that big business needs more tax breaks than ever before and that the average American tax payer doesn't need a break. Nice.

Well, PH, I made a declarative statement fully aware that many like yourself will disagree and not intending to belabor the point.

However, I will say this...

In looking at his history, I find that the highlights of his entire career or acheivements if you will, have been securing progressively higher positions either by election or selection.. Very impressive. However, in each position he secured, there is a glaring lack of any tangible product or acheivement.

For example;

1. As president of Harvard Review, there was not one article published by him

2. Community organizer.... his community left with the same old housing situation. His only tangible achievement during his time as CO was a playground for children in the neighborhood. Ofcourse, his friends such as Rezco did profit (illlegally I might add) from their joint ventures..

3. No notable foot print left during time in Illinois stae Senate

4. From the time he got elected to the Senate, he started running for President. If he said to the people, yes I am running for the senate to position me for the next prize, i don't think he would have been elected to the senate in the first place. Well, one could say that he did get 1 billion earmarks and pork barrel his state.

That's it in short.

In the context of your previous gleaming support for Sarah Palin as a credible VP choice, I find your argument that Obama is a fraud, silly beyond absurd. You can't possibly take yourself seriously.

[justashooter 430]

What's ironic (I'd go as far as to say bordering on hypocrisy) is that the OP is complaining that the secret service is over-reacting to a woman's threats against Obama, yet this sort of thing is a by-product of the Patriot Act (which is largely a republican measure). Anyone else see the irony there?

What is no less ironic is that the OP (metta) was an ardent supporter of Hillary during the Primaries....like probably her number one fan. And even now, after the nomination process and Hillary's endorsement....he hangs on to one last glimmer of hope that if somehow McCain can win, then Hillary can run again in 4 years.

It's because

I simply believe...

Obama Is A fraud

No, metta, he's a politician....just like Hillary Clinton or John McCain. We're at this point in the election process to choose between two very different tickets. Most voters will decide on the issues, while some, like yourself, will decide based on personal 'feelings.'

Well you know what they say. Some people get 'Hooked on a Feeling'

...that he's in love with them.

it's gonna be a three dog night, for sure.