Way to go Lorie. I read somewhere that Obama got his anti-war stance from one of his supporters who live in a Chicago Highrise. I cannot find the reference now. Wish I could

Obama is all about going with those what brung him to the dance. Noticed that he didn't throw Wright under the bus until he had no choice.

How can anyone who loves their country, loves democracy and freedom, look at that history and those associations and not be even a little disturbed?

We can't.

But most undecided voters haven't looked at that history, yet.

One of the McCain campaign's top priorities in the next four weeks has to be getting voters to take that look.

McCain refuses to personally bring up Obama's associations. His reasoning is (to me) very fuzzy. John if you want to win and save this country from Obama, you had better do the heavy lifting yourself.

Who is Barack Obama? Does it really matter if "our guy" won't even speek truthfully about who he is?

Well, maybe. But that means that we have to get vigilant. Tell everyone you know. Put up signs in your yard, you car window. Copy the news columns and put them up everywhere...Problem is though, due to the lame-streamers, nobody has ever even heard of ACORN. So if you tell people about Obama lying about his work for them, their response is likely to be, "Huh? What's an acorn?"

Sorry. Maybe a miracle will happen and all of the polls are really off 160°
some have said.

Oops, that's 180 °

Think about Obama with a filibuster proof congress. All the Bush judicial nominees that can be fired will be fired. The media is in his hip pocket and covers for everything he does. That leaves the Supreme court as the only check on power against him.

Ooops cant rely on that.

Congress sets the size of the supreme court.

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

The United States Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court; instead, Article III of the Constitution gives Congress the power to fix the number of Justices. Originally, the total number of Justices was set at six by the Judiciary Act of 1789. As the country grew geographically, the number of Justices steadily increased to correspond with the growing number of judicial circuits. The court was expanded to seven members in 1807, nine in 1837 and ten in 1863. In 1866, however, Congress wished to deny President Andrew Johnson any Supreme Court appointments, and therefore passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which provided that the next three Justices to retire would not be replaced; thus, the size of the Court would eventually reach seven by attrition. Consequently, one seat was removed in 1866 and a second in 1867. In the Circuit Judges Act of 1869, the number of Justices was again set at nine (the Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices), where it has remained ever since. President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to expand the Court (see Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937); his plan would have allowed the President to appoint one new, additional justice for every justice who reached the age of seventy but did not retire from the bench, until the Court reached a maximum size of fifteen justices. Ostensibly, this was to ease the burdens of the docket on the elderly judges, but it was widely believed that the President's actual purpose was to add Justices who would favor his New Deal policies, which had been regularly ruled unconstitutional by the Court. This plan, referred to often as the Court Packing Plan, failed in Congress. The Court, however, moved from its opposition to Roosevelt's New Deal programs, rendering the President's effort moot. In any case, Roosevelt's long tenure in the White House allowed him to appoint eight Justices to the Supreme Court (second only to George Washington) and promote one Associate Justice to Chief Justice.[6]

The dems can increase the supreme court and will most likely do so in the name of diversity.

Conspiracy theory? maybe. But do you put it past them.

It's pretty hard, isn't it?

No, it's not.

The first stop on this train should be campaign tone. Despite all the lies and dishonest attacks, Obama has kept it classy. That's a great sign for the future.

Secondly, he isn't buying into the trickle-down theories which will make the economy turn around hopefully.

Third, he's shown great judgment when it comes to foreign policy and I expect that will continue. Iraq was a horrible decision and he was one of the few Merkans to say "This is a dumb decision." Been on the money about everything else along the way.

I could go on all day, but who cares.

It's pretty hard, isn't it?

Only if you are trying to incite fear among independent voters, it is. And if you refuse to acknowledge hundreds of hours of stump speeches where he tells you exactly what it is he stands for. Or his website or issues2000.org, which will both tell you what he stands for, rather specifically. Or if you refuse to acknowledge the existence of teh Google.

As to who he is, I've never met him or Sen. McCain. I know them equally well. It is entertaining, however, to watch conservatives cherry-pick five people the man knows (and try to include his wife in that group) who've been severely critical of American policy or engaged in legitimately heinous acts and try to spin that as 'surrounded by' them.

I just want to say I can not imagen America even considering Obama for president. Way too many things that don't add up with him plus no experiance of any kind to qualify him for the job. But the thing that really bothers me is that CNN news is so one sided. the best news team on TV is the most bias team on TV. If anyone says something good about McCain or Palin they will work as hard as they can to turn that negative. I have turn CNN and their sponsers off as a result

to watch conservatives cherry-pick five people the man knows

If five of the people McCain "knew" (as in, were mentored by, learned at the feet of, etc.) were: an abortion clinic bomber, David Duke, Juanita Bryant, Jerry Falwell & General Fransisco Franco, you guys would go insane....Oh God, I'm "reasoning" with a liberal again, what in the hell is wrong with me?!

Whenever anyone makes a positive comment about Obama, or an attempt to rebuttal anything informative (yet potentially negative) that was said, they say very questionable things:
"Obama is keeping it classy"
"He's shown great judgment"
"I like his ideas"
"People are cherry picking negative things about him"
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!!

What in the world are you people thinking? Have you ever, just once, looked at the HARD FACTS about this very questionable person named Barack Hussein Obama (HELLO??), with a very questionable background who has associated with very questionable people all through his adult life? This guy is trying to become the president - of OUR country!

It is a fact that he is the MOST liberal senator - period! He has NEVER voted against his own party! Can you say "gutless"?

There are so many reasons why you should be questioning what the heck this guy is doing, yet so many people have been duped into his "it's time for change" garbage. Sure, he's charismatic - SO WAS HITLER!

Please people, LOOK at the facts surrounding this guy. If he gets into office, we are in for an ugly, ugly ride.

I am truly concerned for the future of our country, if it's so easy for so many of us to get sucked into media propaganda and a silver tongued, sharp dressed speaker, without even personally looking at the facts.

I am deeply concerned...

jp2

Through the looking glass:

Obama has kept it classy

You mean when his campaign tried to shut down WGN when it has conservatives on the air? That was HIS campaign, not his supporters.

Attacking freedom of speech. Now that is real classy, NOT!

Ronald Davis was hired by Obama to kick Parker off the ballot for State Senator. He did his job through the examination of petitions for Parker and everyone else, except Obama, whose own petitions were never examined.

Yep, pretty classy.

Leave us look at Obama's associates: Emil Jones and his extended clan, lots of scandal there. The Ayers brothers and Daddy's money Thomas Ayers. Stroger, father and Son. Mayor Daley, where Michelle once worked, ACORN, Rezko, and a host of other characters.

Look, it is simple. If you want to get ahead in Illinois and Chicago politics, you had to kiss Thomas Ayers' ring and make the right friends. Because so many of those same friends have been indicted by Patrick Fitzgerald or have been terrorists in the past, or nut case Preachers, or whatever other big barn smell, Obama wants to minimize that same bunch.

Of course he does. Sheesh. . .

Does it matter? Good question. Obvously not enough so far. But classy?

Not in this lifetime.

hyperbolist

I hope you are reading this thread. Now you gotta buy me TWO beers.

click me please:

It, er, seems that Canadian politics is getting a bit, uh, uncertain, to say the least.

That is all the hint I am gonna give - read the link.

Obama has kept it classy.

Who cares what he says, as long as it's classy! If you want classy lies (is there such a thing?), vote for Obama!

I could go on all day, but who cares.

No, you couldn't go on all day. Your tunnel vision won't allow you to. The "who cares" part is right, though.

Just read his eyes. He won't look at anyone directly and if you watch the eyes they are constantly shifting so he can see who is watching him lie.He is nothing but a con artist and always has been.He has bullshitted his entire life this way.I used to tend bar and could always tell the BS.

Maybe this anti-Obama stuff is red meat for the IQ under 80 crowd, but it was made up by people that thought George Bush was a great idea, and voted for him not once but twice.

Now I know who answers those "Dear Sir or Madam" letters from Nigeria.

More non-substance from dr. lava. It's doesn't take a high I.Q. to figure out a politician's priorities:

How Obama got where he is. jp2, you need not be concerned, because this is more of the classy Obama that you support:

http://colony14.net/id41.html

Good read for all

I think Obama stands for Obama. I think he is arrogant as well.

As for what he actually intends to do, he is the master at nuance. He hasn't been real specific other than I am pretty sure he stands for spending tons of money on new entitlements and taxing rich people. Oh and he wants to go to war with Sudan.

Good condensation of the facts Cassy. It is very hard to imagine someone with such a shadowy past could get this far in the campaign. Especially with the way information moves around the world so quickly. Obambi has still released nothing of his college days, transcripts, associations, scholarships or grants, nothing. Even Kerry released his even though it showed that W. had a better GPA.

It's insane that someone with this radical of a background can get this close to running the country. This man couldn't get a federal security clearance any other way. His associates and background are just entirely too shady.

It is actually very simple to answer the questions you pose, Cassy. "Hope" and "change" are smokescreen words that have nothing to do with the answers.

Who is Barack Obama? Barack Obama is a believer in social theories inspired by Marxist thinkers.

What does he stand for? He stands for pushing America into adopting a national socialist government, not by revolution or by coup but by manipulation of our liberal democracy.

Barack Obama doesn't stand for anything this country was founded on.

Wow, pretzel. Love to see the point by point denial from hyper, jp and PH. But that will NEVER happen.

How about that right wing RAAAACIIIIST!!!! in Johnstown who held up the monkey doll with an Obama sticker on it?

When the show fits you ought to wear it.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/

JFO

When the show fits you ought to wear it.

If it's a show, it must be as big as
your mouth. Looks like it fits you.

Whoa! Go over to Hugh Hewitts Blog and read this interview from 2004. Enlightening and scary.

The Bill Ayers James Rosen Knows
Posted by: Duane R. Patterson

"in Johnstown who held up the monkey doll with an Obama sticker on it?"

Okay, but McCain asked for the crowd to respect Obama, even when the crowd booed him. I am not sure how you would tie racism into this when a lot of left extremists referred to Bush as a chimp. This may be a reaction of anger that McCain was anticipating ahead of time. The race card doesn't work if the symbols have been interchangeable.

Obama stands for Obama. As both clintons, schumer, boxer, pelosi, feinstein, murray, cantwell and dodd to name a few. Enemies of us all. And each and everyone a traitor.
Fat ted and fat john murtha are now fading. ted due to illness and murtha due to a Marine he accused of cold blooded murder while serving in combat. The courts will take him down.

maggie

Were you born a jackass or do you have to work at it?

Why not try responding to the monkey doll video? Oh. I forgot the shoe fits.
depp=true
notiz=Welcome to the real short list JFO.

Way to go maggie - i would have been shocked if you'd done differently.
depp=true

One test of governance has always been: What difference did it make long term. An honest evaluation counts both positive and negative.

I am curious if any of the Obama lovers who are here to defend his candidacy for the President of the United States can list TWO, count 'em, TWO positives, while at the same time listing TWO negatives. Just to make it a bit easier, how about THREE positives and ONE negative.

Try.

The measure is long term effect, either positive or negative. The effect can be for one individual, a class of individuals or a small group. The effect has to be longer than the "Affordable housing" built by Obama's friends in Chicago.

"It is entertaining, however, to watch conservatives cherry-pick five people the man knows..."

Okay, how about a more comprehensive list of friends, mentors and those with who he shares reciprocal support:

Rezko, Pfleger, Palmer, Kilpatrick, Wright, Ayers, Odinga, Khalidi, Davis, two of Fannie Mae's past disgraced CEOs, ACORN leaders, ...

Want more?

I think I know why dr lava keeps choosing 80 as the IQ he likes to attribute to those he disagrees with. His IQ is 81.

This from a guy who supports a party that specifically targets in their voter drives, more than any other group in the country, the least informed, the most knee-jerk reactive and emotional who have yet to develop critical thinking and risk assessment skills - those 18 to 25. Be proud dr lava. Be proud.

Do you not support giving 18-year-olds the right to vote? Just to go get shot, but not to vote?

There is a clear lack of civility from the far left in this election. But the focus of late has been on a near equal and equally inappropriate lack of civility from the far right loonies as well.

Matter of fact the far left loonies have been at it for a very long time.

One of the funnier (but serious) attacks I have seen against Sarah Palin was the hysteria over the white outfit she wore at a couple of rallies. Why you would have thought she had joined the KKK.

Marked differences between the campaigns boils down to a willingness on the part of the right to condem excess from their side and barely a mention from the left of their own over the top garbage.

How many Democratic candidates for office have gone after ACORN?

How many Democratic candidates for office have gone after the loonies that infest dailydos?

Parthenon:

That's guano from 30 years ago. Your bell bottoms and rose colored glasses look a little worn. Why don't you burn some ACORN voter registration cards now?

That's a good trick, considering I'm 26.

And you didn't answer the question, sir (or ma'am). Why would anyone not want 18-year-olds voting, especially given that they're allowed to fight in a war? Maybe it's a 30-year-old point, but how is it a bad one?

We don't allow 18 year olds to drink because their ability to make independent critical decisions is not mature. When fighting in a war, after significant training and indoctrination, with mature supervision, the 19-21 year olds act as well as their older colleagues. Your comment is effectively comparing apples to oranges, and that old emotional sap sprinkled on leftist pabulum to the masses apparently has soaked into your young cranium making you write like an aging hippy from the 60-70's. So its no trick that you write like you are wearing rose colored glasses and worn bell bottoms. It is a sad reflection on your ability to mature into a critical thinker, however.

Who is obama?

I'd say given his lack of career accomplishments and general lack of substance... about 99 of these.

The Obama File

"Do you not support giving 18-year-olds the right to vote? Just to go get shot, but not to vote?"

You know, I didn't say that. But I can understand why you might come at it from that angle as it dodges the issue I brought up. Why do you think they target youth? Why do you think they go after college students and youth in inner cities? These people aren't wasting their time in middle-class white neighborhoods like mine. Why is that?

Oyster, forgive me if I assumed too much. I expect they target these younger adults - emphasis on adults, as I said before, old enough to fight a war, incur the death penalty for crimes committed, take out a loan without parental permission, etc., but not, according to Epador, old enough to vote sensibly - because they are typically one of the least involved demographics of the electorate, and deserve to that their interests represented in a republic that deems them old enough for nearly all adult responsibilities. If you have a stake in the republic's maintenance and operation, then you ought to be involved in the process. Voter reg drives are removing the barriers these adults might have between them and exercising their constitutionally guaranteed stake in the process.

As to why they target inner city youth in voter reg drives - I have not seen this in action but I will take you at your word that it occurs. It's no secret to anybody that minorities vote overwhelmingly democratic, but my reply to anyone complaining about that fact is - why would you not want them voting? Because they tend not to prefer your candidates? They have as much at stake as any other voter. You guys almost sound as if you want to bring back the property prerequisite.

Epador, when I read your comments, I sort of hear the voice of Graham Chapman portraying a cranky old British intellectual in my head, monocle in one hand and electronic thesaurus in the other. And I mean that in the most affectionate sense.

So do you or do you not believe 18 year olds should be allowed to vote? And if not, where do you believe the cut-off should be? Would you be alright with it if they passed a civics test? Or registered with the young college republicans?

Further, am I going to be banned for thread hijacking? It was an accident, Wizbang overlords, I swears...

parthenon

I don't think that Jay bans anyone for boorish and one-sided rhetoric so you should be safe.

And please, don't confuse this side of wizbang with the blue side, where Lee Ward boots anyone who doesn't think like he does; more famous left wing tolerance for freedom of speech.

I am not at all concerned with the 18 to 25 vote patterns. They get all excited and their attention wanes toward election day. It is sort like an infatuation that blows over as they get to know a candidate. This is Obama's historical problem; looks great, less filling.

From what I have been able to gather, his campaign is engaged in a get out the vote effort that beats anything the Dems have ever done. Rove handed them their head in 2004 and they are determined to not let history repeat itself.

And they may succeed. Get out the vote is far more important than poll numbers that vary from day to day. Obama started his organization over a year ago. McCain is playing catch up.

We shall see how it works out in November.

That we shall, sir. Of course you're right that older people tend to vote overwhelmingly more than younger people, historically; ditto upper-middle class and rich over lower-middle and poor people.

If ever an election will be different, I have a feeling that this is the one. Part of that is the lack of conservative affection for their candidate; although that effect may be mitigated somewhat by anti-Obama sentiment. I don't know anyone for whom Sen. McCain was a first choice, but I know plenty of people who are voting for him quite begrudgingly.

But what does tell us about a large part of the population that willingly ignores the unsavory facts about Obama? Can they be written off as just ignorant or are they people who will justify anything in order to see their goals achieved?

"You guys almost sound as if you want to bring back the property prerequisite."

No. I don't seek to take rights from people. But I don't think it's unreasonable to demand that they be better informed AND behave in a manner consistent with individual responsibility.

Much like when someone criticizes someone's viewpoint, it's construed as an attack on free speech. That's what you're trying to do here in suggesting that my complaint is equal to a desire to take rights from others.

Look at the push to allow convicted felons the right to vote. If one feels comfortable allowing someone who can't even run their own life within the law to vote for, say, a certain judge who has a record for being lenient then they get what they deserve. Who's pushing that agenda? Democrats.

Likewise, someone who has made a life career of being on the government dole voting for someone who will ensure their handouts keep coming, and maybe more, is a bit counter-productive to a healthy society. That's a fact. Who's pushing to get these people to vote? Democrats.

They also target idealistic youth with little real life experience or even a rudimentary understanding of how government works or even the candidates they vote for.

My complaint is that these voter drives target those people and empower them to exercise their ignorance for political gain.

The answer is not to take their right to vote, but to teach them how to make informed choices.

Here in Florida we have quite a few people moving down here from states like Massachusetts to escape high taxes. Many of those people kept voting for Democrats in their state that raised their taxes. They move here and what do they do? They vote for more Democrats never understanding how that works.

You, Parthenon, seem to be fairly informed. Yet you appear to have made a decision different than my own. I won't demand that you vote like I do. You have a right to ignore or downplay that which seems important to me, but at least you are armed with information.

That's all I ask.

Bait and switch, smoke and mirrors, a real magician you are, Parthenon. I argue about the poor quality of the "old enough to die in a war is old enough to vote" argument and you jump to "epador does not believe 18 year olds should vote." Or at least question me as if I am arguing the matter.

I say your argument is not valid. That says nothing about the conclusion, nor about my position on the conclusion. Which has nothing to do with the thread and had no place in the discussion about who BO is and what does he stand for. Other than Oyster was trying to talk about how he goes after a certain demographic of vulnerably seduceable voters.

While I do tend to use my electronic spell checker (and not often enough, to my chagrin), I tend to use my paper OED for definitions and synonyms. Maybe that's where you get the British influence. While I was born in England, I was born on USAF base hospital there, so I a purely American curmudgeon. With bifocals, not a monocle, LOL.

I still think your arguments, quite civil and nicely written, need a little more careful attention to detail and logic.