Add your comments
This page has been viewed 795 times
McCain Officials: Alaska’s Palin Is VP Pick
Two senior campaign officials confirmed Friday that John McCain has chosen Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate.
Palin, who is 44, is a self-styled “hockey mom” and political reformer.
McCain decided on his choice for vice president early Thursday. He will announce his choice Friday at a noontime (ET) rally in Dayton.
Posted by: Sammy on 08/29 at 10:05 AM
- 1. · EXCELLENT!!
Just the "right" shot in the arm to energize the GOP!!
Comment by cheryl on 08/29 at 10:22 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 2. · She seems like a real lightweight. Her speech sounded like she was running for a council seat in La Plata which is about the size of the city she was mayor of less than two years ago.
Obviously some GOP operatives have read tea leaves that show something positive.
Comment by burningcoal on 08/29 at 11:51 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 3. · She is the GOVERNOR (an Executive position) of Alaska which counts for a lot in my book!
If you want to throw stones such as "lightweight" you don't have to look any further than Obama...
Comment by cheryl on 08/29 at 11:59 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 4. · Was just an observation. Not going to get into that here. It should be a fun 67 days.
Comment by burningcoal on 08/29 at 12:02 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 5. · It certainly will be!!
Comment by cheryl on 08/29 at 12:10 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 6. · Palin is a lot prettier than Biden so I'm sure that will count for a few votes. Recently, I was in Alaska and there was a story about Palin that I am not sure of the exact details but, the meat of it was that there was a public school that had a lot of thorny brush around it and the town that it was in was asking the State to come up with $45,000 to remove it. Palin refused to allocate the money and told the town to either cut the brush down with their own funds or tell the kids to stay on the sidewalk. This gives me the impression that she is tough and fiscally responsible.
Comment by Iamangttia on 08/29 at 12:14 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 7. · Shes hot, she hunts and fishes, is a member of the NRA,is pro life,and plays hockey. I think she could kick both Obambi and the plagerists ass!!!
Comment by Carl Senior on 08/29 at 02:23 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 8. · McCain's choice of someone who appears to have a maverick's temperament suggests that he feels vulnerable about that label for himself. No wonder, since with the passage of time and especially since with this run for the Presidency, his capacity (or willingness) to buck the system has been waning considerably.
What if he gets elected and then for some reason becomes incapacitated and Palin automatically becomes President? Pretty scary, considering the meager experience she'd bring to the job. Anyway, if the idea is to appeal to Hilary Clinton supporters by putting a woman on the Republican ticket, bad thinking. My guess is a lot of those people would be, if not offended at the very notion, at least amused. They supported Clinton for the breadth of her experience, her grasp of the issues, and her long history of public service and advocacy. Whether you agreed with her or not, she was no lightweight. Palin may be a tough cookie, but Clinton ranks as a Tough Cookie.
Comment by sibyl on 08/29 at 04:45 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 9. ·
What if he gets elected and then for some reason becomes incapacitated and Palin automatically becomes President? Pretty scary, considering the meager experience she'd bring to the job.
What if Obama gets elected President? He has less experience than Palin.
Clinton is just a crying lib on the coat tails of her cheating husband. She is snotty and more arrogant than Obama. Palin was chosen to bring balance and history to Mccain's ticket not for the perceived Clinton vote that might remain. If people supported Clinton they will vote for Obama. Clinton was so far left that it would take a miracle to move someone to vote for McCain.
Comment by Bruce Wesbury on 08/29 at 05:32 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 10. · Outstanding selection!
Comment by patmd on 08/29 at 05:53 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 11. · patmd... you and I finally agree on something.
Comment by The Quack on 08/29 at 06:16 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 12. · I saw several times in the blogosphere and twitter she was "just a soccer mom".
Puleeze. Any woman that has a family, kids, is the Governor of ANYTHING, a beauty queen, a soccer mom (hockey's even better) and successfully manages all of them is an excellent choice in my book.
Comment by Craig Barrett on 08/29 at 08:21 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 13. · Anybody that good looking can't be bad. Let's face it, the 1st George Bush got elected with Dan Quale as his running mate--now that goes to show how much people worry about the Veep choice.
Comment by Iamangttia on 08/29 at 08:26 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 14. · She's pro-life and that's wonderful. But so is Mike Huckabee and he had more executive experience than she did. Inexperience aside (and that's a huge feat), what does this choice say about McCain's judgment? A 72 year old with four bouts with cancer chooses an unknown governor and former small town mayor to be "ready on day one" if necessary to succeed him, in a post-9/11 world. PALIN will sit across from Putin and Medvedev? PALIN will handle a nuclear armed Pakistan? This isn't bold and risky; it's reckless. I am disgusted by his arrogance and clear disdain for the office. Putting Country First? My ass. He's putting an election first. Palin is the crappy gift you get that you pretend to love. Let's not be so myopic as to think that just because she's staunchly pro life, which is wonderful, that she's the best pick. She's not. I can think of few people who would be worse. John McCain may have just handed the election to Obama/Biden.
You’re not to be so blind with patriotism that you can’t face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.
Malcolm XComment by voxoverguy on 08/30 at 08:46 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 15. · Voice over, PLEASE!!! You have forgot to realize that she has MORE EXPIERENCE than Obama. She has already sat across from Russian officials as she shares international waters with Russia. They set international limits each year for fishing. Obama thinks that Iran is a small country that poses no threat. I would rather have her sitting across from Putin than Hussein Obama.
Your right, McCain's move was "bold and risky" but voting for Obama would be incredible foolish, or to use your words "wreckless". My Mother called me yesterday and said she was in tears when the announcement was made. McCain's announcement was historic and the correct one. They have effectively stolen Obama's thunder and rendered him helpless in defense of his incredibly limited experience in government.
Comment by Bruce Wesbury on 08/30 at 09:14 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 16. · Bruce, there's inexperience and then there's inexperience. Do you honestly equate meetings about fishing waters with dealing with the Russia/Georgia conflict or any other inevitable move by Russia to bully a neighbor? Do you think that makes her ready to stare down China or North Korea? Please give me one substantive thing Gov. Palin has said on foreign policy, either as Gov. of Alaska or mayor of Wasilla. She's a nice lady, I'm sure, and a rising star in the GOP without question. But give her a nice speaking slot at the convention, don't put her a heartbeat away from the presidency.
And Sen. Obama said that Iran is a small country that poses no threat COMPARED TO RUSSIA IN THE COLD WAR. Please don't misquote or take it out of context, it makes you look intellectually dishonest or like a partisan hack. And you're neither, right?
Yes, they effectively moved Obama's history making speech off the lead story, which was precisely what it was meant to do, no surprise there. But when the convention is over and we see Gov. Palin on the stump and in interviews and debating Sen. Biden in October, I think the sobering truth will come to light. She's not ready and Sen. McCain has shown staggeringly bad judgment.
And by way of my conservative bona fides, I'm a registered Republican, pro-life Christian, former military, and former right wing talk show host briefly in Washington. I supported Mike Huckabee in the primaries and John McCain when he became the presumptive nominee. But McCain has become an embarrassment and this administration is the most corrupt and criminal I've ever seen.
You’re not to be so blind with patriotism that you can’t face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.
Malcolm XComment by voxoverguy on 08/30 at 09:34 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 17. · At least some on the right get it:
http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2VhOWE0N2VkOWI3MDdlODRlZWE4ODljMDc2NjliZDk=
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWY0YmM3N2JhMTVkYmI0ZjU0OTBiYTY3NmUyMjgxNTc
You’re not to be so blind with patriotism that you can’t face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.
Malcolm XComment by voxoverguy on 08/30 at 10:00 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 18. · Voice Over, You have got to be kidding me. As a Huckabee fan you must have missed his interview when he said that a Governor makes more executive decisions in 2 days than a Senator makes in a year. At least Palin HAS met with foreign officials. Your argument does not hold water. Your assumption is that she will be meeting with them when in fact she won't. That's President McCain's job. If Obama should manage to win,he WILL be meeting with them from the start and that should scare the hell out of everyone. Obama has ZERO executive experience and foreign policy experience. Palin has BOTH.
My quote is correct and you clearly did not listen to Obama when he said it. Here is the actual quote -"Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us,” Obama said.
This guy is an idiot and has no sense of the issues we face. Iran is a HUGE threat and a failure to realize that is a monumental mistake.
I think you need to re-read your quote from Malcolm X. Your reality is that you are blind by the issues. Being a pro-life Christian you should be delighted that McCain chose Palin. After all, Obama thinks is fine to suck a live baby from it's mother anytime you wish.
I can see why you talk-show days were short-lived.
Comment by Bruce Wesbury on 08/30 at 10:53 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 19. · Obama has only 143 actual work days in the Senate...the rest of the time he was out campaigning for President!
As for "experience" the way I see it, is that Obama, who is technically less experienced (i.e. legislative vs. executive) than Palin is running at the TOP of the Democrat's ticket whereas McCain, the one with the most experience, is at the TOP of the GOP ticket.
In other words, I'd rather see the MOST EXPERIENCED person at the TOP of the ticket (i.e. McCain) instead of the other way around!
BTW, since when has "experience" mattered so much for a VP pick anyway? Most VP's are there to support the President, and Constitutionally are there to break a tie vote in the Senate.
The Obama camp is grabbing at straws by trying to depict Palin as "inexperienced" and it could backfire on them.
Comment by cheryl on 08/30 at 11:32 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 20. · Bruce, it's clear you can't debate without getting personal. I can see why you lost your bid as a county commissioner.
Fact: Iran is tiny compared to the Soviet Union. Do you own a globe or map?
Fact: Iran does not possess long range ballistic missles as did/does Russia/the former Soviet Union. At the time the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, the Soviet Union had 12,117 strategic nuclear warheads, including 7,382 atop intercontinental ballistic missiles, according to a tally published by the Natural Resources Defense Council. Iran has zero nuclear warheads.
Therefore, they do not pose the SAME threat that the Soviet Union does/did. Yes, they are a sponsor of terrorism and can do damage to the US via a suitcase nuke or the funding of terrorists to strike us. No question. I don't think that Sen. Obama disputes that. If you can show me where he does I'd appreciate it. In fact, on June 4 Sen. Obama said "The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its president denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat." (emphasis mine)
Intelligence? McCain graduated 894th in a class of 899. Obama graduated near the top of his Harvard Law class.
The experience argument now cancels itself out. Neither camp should seriously bring it up and the Obama camp is changing course (rightfully) to question McCains judgment (or lack thereof).
Being pro life doesn't mean it's the single issue I look for in a candidate. Abortion is murder in my mind, but I'd rather have fewer safe and legal abortions than many more unsafe and illegal ones. Ultimately IF Roe v. Wade is overturned it will revert to the states anyway. Gov. Palin supports traditional marriage but signed domestic partner benefits into law in AK. Does that automatically disqualify her for higher elected office?
Cheryl, perhaps experience hasn't mattered in a VP choice before. But John McCain is the OLDEST PERSON TO EVER RUN FOR OFFICE and he has a history of health problems. Assuming he's elected to two terms he will be 84 when he leaves office. How in the WORLD does that not concern people vis-a-vi his choice of successor?
Now, for those of you supporting Gov. Palin, be honest with me for a minute. It's just you, me, and the fence post, off the record, I won't tell anyone or hold it against you: do you HONESTLY, in your heart of hearts, feel that she is the BEST GOP choice to be John McCain's running mate?
You’re not to be so blind with patriotism that you can’t face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.
Malcolm XComment by voxoverguy on 08/30 at 12:40 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 21. · The best choice?
It depends on what your looking for. The best choice to have a chance to win against Obama/Biden? Then yeah, probably.
When I agreed with patmd before that Palin was an "outstanding selection," it wasn't a statement that she is by any means the best qualified to be Vice President of the United States, it was an "outstanding selection" of a running mate to win the Presidency in the General Election.
Do I think her selection is a cheap political ploy? I think so, but cheap political ploys seem to work.
I don't think either Obama or Biden were the BEST choice for the Democratic Party for President and VP, but I think they're an excellent pairing to WIN. I seriously doubt that anyone with half a brain can honestly say that Obama is the BEST choice to lead this nation, or that Biden was the BEST choice as VP.
Its politics. We're all going to disagree. Neither McCain, Obama, Palin or Biden are going to change that.
Comment by The Quack on 08/30 at 01:27 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 22. · I think the real question is: Do you HONESTLY believe that Obama is the BEST choice for the Democrats?
Comment by cheryl on 08/30 at 01:30 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 23. · "EXCELLENT!!"
"Just the 'right' shot in the arm to energize the GOP!!"
"Outstanding selection!"
The reactions to this unbelievable choice prove to me what a complete bunch of sycophantic bandwagon riders some of you are. How on the face of this earth any of you can be PLEASED with this selection is beyond ANY sort of reason.
The other night Obama said that "Eight is enough!" I heartily disagree...eight is entirely TOO MUCH! We're lucky we have a country to live in after these last eight years of horrible leadership.
Cheap political ploys may be inevitable but when they affect the very leadership of this country, they are dangerous. Just remember that Sarah Palin could possibly be the President in late January - are you all REALLY comfortable with that?
Get used to saying "President Obama" folks!
P.S. Mr. Westbury - you could benefit greatly from some civility lessons.
Comment by harry-meanwell on 08/30 at 01:38 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 24. ·
Just remember that Sarah Palin could possibly be the President in late January - are you all REALLY comfortable with that?
You could ask the same thing about Chaney now... or Biden in January... or for any other VP choice in the future for any Presidential candidate.
I love and hate hypothetical arguments. Anything can happen... its great to think about what could be, what could happen, whats likely to happen... In some situations it is prudent to consider every possibility.
And I do understand the argument that statistically it is more likely to occur with McCain/Palin because of McCain's age and previous health issues. But isn't it just as likely to speculate that some radical white supremacist group (or other group) will do everything they can to assassinate Obama? Then isn't Obama's choice of VP just as likely to succeed him?Cheap political ploys may be inevitable but when they affect the very leadership of this country, they are dangerous.
I completely agree, but they seem to be necessary to win. They're nothing new -- not even for Presidential campaigns. And, even as dangerous as they are, they're not going anywhere anytime soon -- not while we have a two-party system.
Comment by The Quack on 08/30 at 01:50 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 25. · "But isn't it just as likely to speculate that some radical white supremacist group (or other group) will do everything they can to assassinate Obama?"
What???!!
Yeah, THAT'S as likely as McCain getting cancer for what? the 4th or 5th time???
Comment by harry-meanwell on 08/30 at 01:52 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 26. · We're talking speculatively here aren't we? In that sense nothing can be ruled out. If we're looking at the odds, I'd say (especially considering the dumb-asses who were recently arrested and stated they were going to kill Obama...) that there is a slight chance that it will happen.
Looking at the statistics for McCain's cancer... Medical experts who were consulted byTime MagazineNY Times (edited by Quack -- was looking at both, cited the wrong one...) [June 14, 2008], said that from the pathology reports released in the 1,500 some pages of McCain's medical records:For patients with a melanoma like Mr. McCain’s who remained free of the disease for the first five years after diagnosis, the probability of recurrence during the next five years was 14 percent and death 9 percent
Comment by The Quack on 08/30 at 02:15 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 27. ·
Bruce, it's clear you can't debate without getting personal. I can see why you lost your bid as a county commissioner.
I'm not sure where your coming from Voice Over. Where did I get personal. I simply stated that your arguments lack good judgement. Did I call you something? Did I hurt your feelings? You need to check your emotions at the door before signing on to the Duck. You and I both know why I lost my bid for Commissioner and it had absolutely nothing to do with getting personal.
I'm amazed at how you can read Obama's mind. Now Iran is tiny in size vs the soviet union. WOW, even I knew that. The fact is that terrorist threats have changed the battlefield forever. No longer is it necessary to have long range ballistic missiles, we'll just shoot them down before they do any damage. The real issues lie with the Muslim terrorists. If even one gets through they can take out most of NYC.
This is where Obama fails even the easiest test by comparing Iran to the former soviet union. But wait, Obama already said he would talk to Iran without preconditions, like I said before, this guy is a moron when it comes to foreign policy. Here's Obamas talking to Iran, "Please, Please don't hurt us, we can be friends, if you agree to stop cutting our heads off we can sing kumbaya". McCain eats guy's like Ahmadinejad for breakfast.
Class rank has nothing to do with future performance. I would much rather have an Annapolis graduate leading this country. Not a career politician who got into Harvard due to affirmative action.
So to answer your question Voice Over, I think Palin was the absolutely correct choice and it effectively put McCain in the Whitehouse. I received more than 20 e-mails today from people I have not heard from in quite a while telling me how proud they were to be a Republican. History will be made in this election and Palin is the right person to make it.
Comment by Bruce Wesbury on 08/30 at 02:25 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 28. · Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, July 28, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: Before friendly audiences, Barack Obama speaks passionately about something called "economic justice." He uses the term obliquely, though, speaking in code — socialist code.
During his NAACP speech earlier this month, Sen. Obama repeated the term at least four times. "I've been working my entire adult life to help build an America where economic justice is being served," he said at the group's 99th annual convention in Cincinnati.
And as president, "we'll ensure that economic justice is served," he asserted. "That's what this election is about." Obama never spelled out the meaning of the term, but he didn't have to. His audience knew what he meant, judging from its thumping approval.
It's the rest of the public that remains in the dark, which is why we're launching this special educational series.
"Economic justice" simply means punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat. It's a euphemism for socialism.
In the past, such rhetoric was just that — rhetoric. But Obama's positioning himself with alarming stealth to put that rhetoric into action on a scale not seen since the birth of the welfare state.
In his latest memoir he shares that he'd like to "recast" the welfare net that FDR and LBJ cast while rolling back what he derisively calls the "winner-take-all" market economy that Ronald Reagan reignited (with record gains in living standards for all).
Obama also talks about "restoring fairness to the economy," code for soaking the "rich" — a segment of society he fails to understand that includes mom-and-pop businesses filing individual tax returns.
It's clear from a close reading of his two books that he's a firm believer in class envy. He assumes the economy is a fixed pie, whereby the successful only get rich at the expense of the poor.
Following this discredited Marxist model, he believes government must step in and redistribute pieces of the pie. That requires massive transfers of wealth through government taxing and spending, a return to the entitlement days of old.
Of course, Obama is too smart to try to smuggle such hoary collectivist garbage through the front door. He's disguising the wealth transfers as "investments" — "to make America more competitive," he says, or "that give us a fighting chance," whatever that means.
Among his proposed "investments":
• "Universal," "guaranteed" health care.
• "Free" college tuition.
• "Universal national service" (a la Havana).
• "Universal 401(k)s" (in which the government would match contributions made by "low- and moderate-income families").
• "Free" job training (even for criminals).
• "Wage insurance" (to supplement dislocated union workers' old income levels).
• "Free" child care and "universal" preschool.
• More subsidized public housing.
• A fatter earned income tax credit for "working poor."
• And even a Global Poverty Act that amounts to a Marshall Plan for the Third World, first and foremost Africa.
His new New Deal also guarantees a "living wage," with a $10 minimum wage indexed to inflation; and "fair trade" and "fair labor practices," with breaks for "patriot employers" who cow-tow to unions, and sticks for "nonpatriot" companies that don't.
That's just for starters — first-term stuff.
(to be continued)...
Comment by cheryl on 08/30 at 02:27 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 29. · Obama doesn't stop with socialized health care. He wants to socialize your entire human resources department — from payrolls to pensions. His social-microengineering even extends to mandating all employers provide seven paid sick days per year to salary and hourly workers alike.
You can see why Obama was ranked, hands-down, the most liberal member of the Senate by the National Journal. Some, including colleague and presidential challenger John McCain, think he's the most liberal member in Congress.
But could he really be "more left," as McCain recently remarked, than self-described socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (for whom Obama has openly campaigned, even making a special trip to Vermont to rally voters)?
Obama's voting record, going back to his days in the Illinois statehouse, says yes. His career path — and those who guided it — leads to the same unsettling conclusion.
The seeds of his far-left ideology were planted in his formative years as a teenager in Hawaii — and they were far more radical than any biography or profile in the media has portrayed.
A careful reading of Obama's first memoir, "Dreams From My Father," reveals that his childhood mentor up to age 18 — a man he cryptically refers to as "Frank" — was none other than the late communist Frank Marshall Davis, who fled Chicago after the FBI and Congress opened investigations into his "subversive," "un-American activities."
As Obama was preparing to head off to college, he sat at Davis' feet in his Waikiki bungalow for nightly bull sessions. Davis plied his impressionable guest with liberal doses of whiskey and advice, including: Never trust the white establishment.
"They'll train you so good," he said, "you'll start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that sh**."
After college, where he palled around with Marxist professors and took in socialist conferences "for inspiration," Obama followed in Davis' footsteps, becoming a "community organizer" in Chicago.
His boss there was Gerald Kellman, whose identity Obama also tries to hide in his book. Turns out Kellman's a disciple of the late Saul "The Red" Alinsky, a hard-boiled Chicago socialist who wrote the "Rules for Radicals" and agitated for social revolution in America.
The Chicago-based Woods Fund provided Kellman with his original $25,000 to hire Obama. In turn, Obama would later serve on the Woods board with terrorist Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground. Ayers was one of Obama's early political supporters.
(to be continued)....
Comment by cheryl on 08/30 at 02:29 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 30. · Scratch Obama and McCain... Any chance of getting T. Boone Pickens to run for President?
Comment by The Quack on 08/30 at 02:30 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 31. · After three years agitating with marginal success for more welfare programs in South Side Chicago, Obama decided he would need to study law to "bring about real change" — on a large scale.
While at Harvard Law School, he still found time to hone his organizing skills. For example, he spent eight days in Los Angeles taking a national training course taught by Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation. With his newly minted law degree, he returned to Chicago to reapply — as well as teach — Alinsky's "agitation" tactics.
(A video-streamed bio on Obama's Web site includes a photo of him teaching in a University of Chicago classroom. If you freeze the frame and look closely at the blackboard Obama is writing on, you can make out the words "Power Analysis" and "Relationships Built on Self Interest" — terms right out of Alinsky's rule book.)
Amid all this, Obama reunited with his late father's communist tribe in Kenya, the Luo, during trips to Africa.
As a Nairobi bureaucrat, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., a Harvard-educated economist, grew to challenge the ruling pro-Western government for not being socialist enough. In an eight-page scholarly paper published in 1965, he argued for eliminating private farming and nationalizing businesses "owned by Asians and Europeans."
His ideas for communist-style expropriation didn't stop there. He also proposed massive taxes on the rich to "redistribute our economic gains to the benefit of all."
"Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed," Obama Sr. wrote. "I do not see why the government cannot tax those who have more and syphon some of these revenues into savings which can be utilized in investment for future development."
Taxes and "investment" . . . the fruit truly does not fall far from the vine.
(Voters might also be interested to know that Obama, the supposed straight shooter, does not once mention his father's communist leanings in an entire book dedicated to his memory.)
In Kenya's recent civil unrest, Obama privately phoned the leader of the opposition Luo tribe, Raila Odinga, to voice his support. Odinga is so committed to communism he named his oldest son after Fidel Castro.
With his African identity sewn up, Obama returned to Chicago and fell under the spell of an Afrocentric pastor. It was a natural attraction. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright preaches a Marxist version of Christianity called "black liberation theology" and has supported the communists in Cuba, Nicaragua and elsewhere.
Comment by cheryl on 08/30 at 02:31 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 32. · Obama joined Wright's militant church, pledging allegiance to a system of "black values" that demonizes white "middle classness" and other mainstream pursuits.
(Obama in his first book, published in 1995, calls such values "sensible." There's no mention of them in his new book.)
With the large church behind him, Obama decided to run for political office, where he could organize for "change" more effectively. "As an elected official," he said, "I could bring church and community leaders together easier than I could as a community organizer or lawyer."
He could also exercise real, top-down power, the kind that grass-roots activists lack. Alinsky would be proud.
Throughout his career, Obama has worked closely with a network of stone-cold socialists and full-blown communists striving for "economic justice."
He's been traveling in an orbit of collectivism that runs from Nairobi to Honolulu, and on through Chicago to Washington.
Yet a recent AP poll found that only 6% of Americans would describe Obama as "liberal," let alone socialist.
Public opinion polls usually reflect media opinion, and the media by and large have portrayed Obama as a moderate "outsider" (the No. 1 term survey respondents associate him with) who will bring a "breath of fresh air" to Washington.
The few who have drilled down on his radical roots have tended to downplay or pooh-pooh them. Even skeptics have failed to connect the dots for fear of being called the dreaded "r" word.
But too much is at stake in this election to continue mincing words.
Both a historic banking crisis and 1970s-style stagflation loom over the economy. Democrats, who already control Congress, now threaten to filibuster-proof the Senate in what could be a watershed election for them — at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
A perfect storm of statism is forming, and our economic freedoms are at serious risk.
Those who care less about looking politically correct than preserving the free-market individualism that's made this country great have to start calling things by their proper name to avert long-term disaster.
------------------------------------------------
Now before anyone gets their bowels in an uproar, this is from the Investor's Business Daily - I didn't write ANY of it - so please don't make any accusations. If you have any questions or comments contact the publication.
Comment by cheryl on 08/30 at 02:36 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 33. · "Now before anyone gets their bowels in an uproar, this is from the Investor's Business Daily - I didn't write ANY of it - so please don't make any accusations. If you have any questions or comments contact the publication."
I won't blame you, but this article is really off the wall. Oh, I think the writer means Kerinsky and not Olinsky.
Comment by Iamangttia on 08/30 at 02:41 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 34. · Here's the address to the website:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=302137342405551
------------------------
Comment by cheryl on 08/30 at 02:59 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 35. · Bruce, you're an idealogue. As such you are incapable of reasonable debate.
Cheryl, judging from many of your posts, I'm not sure you're even capable of writing the IBD article you cut and pasted.
Sadly, McCain/Palin might win. And you myopic idealogues will get exactly the trainwreck of a government you deserve. God help us all.
You’re not to be so blind with patriotism that you can’t face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.
Malcolm XComment by voxoverguy on 08/30 at 03:12 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 36. ·
Cheryl, judging from many of your posts, I'm not sure you're even capable of writing the IBD article you cut and pasted.
Maybe I'm slow today, but I'm not sure what you meant by that statement vox.
Comment by The Quack on 08/30 at 03:31 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 37. · Vox - NOT ONCE did I say I wrote it or any portion of it...
I have provided the link for anyone to check it out on their own..
As for my capabilities, you are entitled to your opinion. If you are not pleased with any of my posts, you are free to ignore them.
-- I always preface an opinion with "in my opinion" or if it's factual I provide the reference.
Be that as it may, the purpose of this blog is for news and opinion. I have provided both....
Comment by cheryl on 08/30 at 03:31 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 38. · Cheryl went out of her way to tell us she didn't write the posts. No kidding.
You’re not to be so blind with patriotism that you can’t face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.
Malcolm XComment by voxoverguy on 08/30 at 03:34 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 39. · And she never bothered to answer my question as to whether she honestly feels Palin is the best person for the job.
You’re not to be so blind with patriotism that you can’t face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.
Malcolm XComment by voxoverguy on 08/30 at 03:36 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 40. · "Where did I get personal."
You can see why I lost my radio gig? You have no idea why I "lost" my radio gig.
Obama's an "idiot"? Nah, not personal at all.
You’re not to be so blind with patriotism that you can’t face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.
Malcolm XComment by voxoverguy on 08/30 at 03:39 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 41. · I did. I don't think she's the best person for the job. Neither is Biden, nor is McCain or Obama for President.
But each of them are the best pairings each party has to win in 2008.
Comment by The Quack on 08/30 at 03:39 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 42. · If anyone here could pick any person they want for President who would it be?
Comment by harry-meanwell on 08/30 at 03:42 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 43. · Vox - the answer to your question re: Palin is the same as Quack's:
"I don't think she's the best person for the job. Neither is Biden, nor is McCain or Obama for President.
But each of them are the best pairings each party has to win in 2008."
Comment by cheryl on 08/30 at 03:44 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 44. · If I were choosing between the top Republican & Democrat Primary candidates, I would pick Huckabee and Edwards, of those two, I'd probably lean towards voting Democrat and vote for Edwards.
If I could choose anyone... I'll have to get back to you... there are just too many people to consider -- but I doubt any of those who ran for either party in the Primary would make my top ten list.
Comment by The Quack on 08/30 at 03:53 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 45. · Quack - Why don't you think McCain-Huckabee would be a better pairing?
Comment by harry-meanwell on 08/30 at 03:53 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 46. ·
Bruce, you're an idealogue. As such you are incapable of reasonable debate.
Vox, thanks for the compliment. Now go have a drink of your left-wing kool-aide.
Comment by Bruce Wesbury on 08/30 at 04:04 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 47. · Mr. Wesbury - Didn't Vox claim he was a Republican? Does his opinion carry no weight with you unless he COMPLETELY and TOTALLY toes the party line??
Also - I'm assuming that you have given up on any future in politics. The sort of public vitriol you spew here is not only distasteful and unseemly...I'd think that it's politically suicidal.
Comment by harry-meanwell on 08/30 at 04:15 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 48. · Boy, this has really become a tedious and boring thread. Nevertheless, I am happy to see that there is such enthusiasm for the next election. No one can tell me that people don't care after seeing all of these posts. I'm also happy that this Forum has been allowed to venture beyond the politics of Charles County for a change--which is becoming even more tedious and boring.
Comment by Iamangttia on 08/30 at 05:05 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 49. · Please call me Bruce. Yes Voice Over CLAIMED to be a Republican but his virtual love of the other side leads me to question his allegiance. I have NEVER met a person who says they are pro-life and then proceeds to throw their support behind the most liberal senator in history. Not to mention a guy that approves of late term abortions.
As far as running again, I might. I can not think of anything I've said on the Duck I would not say publicly. Calling Obama and idiot is no different than calling our current board of Commissioners mostly idiots. Would you prefer that I call them silly for the decision they have made? I think many of the employees think they are idiots. They only difference is I can call them that and don't have to fear losing my job.
Can you give me an example of something I said that was distasteful or unseemly?
Comment by Bruce Wesbury on 08/30 at 05:09 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 50. ·
I'm also happy that this Forum has been allowed to venture beyond the politics of Charles County for a change--which is becoming even more tedious and boring.
Iamangttia, anytime you're feeling bored, you are more than welcome to start a thread over in the Discussion Forums with a topic that's beyond the politics of Charles County.
Comment by Sammy on 08/30 at 05:53 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 51. · "Iamangttia, anytime you're feeling bored, you are more than welcome to start a thread over in the Discussion Forums with a topic that's beyond the politics of Charles County."
Unfortunately, because of the way this forum is set up, I'm not allowed to initiate a new thread here unless I give my Name, Rank and Serial Number, which most bloggers prefer not to do for reasons of anonymity. Perhaps you can give some good reasons why one must identify themselves here in order to be a respected citizen but, don't over in the Discussion Forums. In the words of that famous Statesman, John Edwards, 'Are there two Americas?'
Comment by Iamangttia on 08/30 at 06:45 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 52. · actually you don't have to give any of that... i've just granyed members more flexibility over on the discussion forums...
the programming that runs the discussion forum is different than what runs this section of the blog, but anyone CAN be set up to post a topic here... but there is quite a bit moreb involved.
I've debated about openning this section of the site up to some folks, but am afraid of being accused of playing favorites... to debunk that anyone and everyone has free range on the forums.
my choice. but no one has to give me anymore than I already know about them if I choose to open it up... anything they divulge is their choice.
**sent from my mobile device**
Comment by The Quack on 08/30 at 07:11 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 53. ·
Unfortunately, because of the way this forum is set up, I'm not allowed to initiate a new thread here unless I give my Name, Rank and Serial Number, which most bloggers prefer not to do for reasons of anonymity. Perhaps you can give some good reasons why one must identify themselves here in order to be a respected citizen but, don't over in the Discussion Forums. In the words of that famous Statesman, John Edwards, 'Are there two Americas?'
Iamangttia, my suggestion was referring to the Discussion Forum in your posting a new thread for Discussion. You don't have to give your Name, Rank and Serial Number to post a thread there. I totally understand why most bloggers prefer not to identify themselves.
Also, if you'd like a certain article posted here on the blog, you can always email Quack with your request.
Comment by Sammy on 08/30 at 07:22 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 54. · Well now, I'm really confused. A long tome ago when Phil was running this site, he invited me to become a member and told me that the benefit of being a member was that I could initiate a new discussion whereas if I was not a member, I could only respond to existing threads. I have operated under that guidline for a couple of years or more now, even though there have been certain topics that I wanted to initiate from time to time. Sometimes, I have gone through the back door to initiate a conversation by subtly piggy-backing on an existing thread. The only way I have ever seen for a non-member to start a new thread would be by posting it under the "Open Thread" item which usually has a funny photo of a cat or a bird and a few light comments on the photo and is certainly not a thread that most people routinely check to see if there is a hearty subject present. If I've missed somewhere else on this Forum where I can start a new thread, please let me know.
"Also, if you'd like a certain article posted here on the blog, you can always email Quack with your request."
Unfortunately, my e-mail will show you my name and since I am always just one step ahead of the law, that would not be good for me.
Comment by Iamangttia on 08/30 at 08:22 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 55. · Maybe my typing on my phone wasn't clear:
On delusionalduck.com, anyone who is a registered member can comment on any of the existing threads. Only certain members, who I've granted 'access' to limited areas of the Control Panel can start new threads for others to read and comment on.
On delusionalduck.com/index.php/forums/ any registered member can read or comment on any existing topic or start their own. You can do that by simply clicking the button that says 'New Topic.'
The programming and format (and the database that holds the information) of forums and the 'regular site' are different. For a member to be able to start any new thread on the 'regular site' I have to set you up for access to be able to that. As I said, I've debated about allowing some to have access, but have too many reservations about it right now -- maybe that will change in the near future -- I don't know. But for now, comment away here, start anything (within reason) you want over on the forums -- and as for e-mailing me, the Duck Hotline is anonymous, and if you click the "Your Account" in the top right corner of the page, you'll see that there is a 'Private Message' feature in you account that will let you send message, like an e-mail, to any other registered user on the site. They will get an e-mail message stating they have a private message waiting at the same e-mail they get the comment notifications. No one will get anymore information than what they see when you comment.
Let me know if you have any more questions...
Comment by The Quack on 08/30 at 08:36 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 56. · Now, in so many ways I feel like RODNEY dANGERFEILD- I just cant get any respect around here!
Jeeze, ahem: I have to point out that in June of this year I started a thread in the forum (and yes anyone can start a thread on a forum- its just see if anyone will debate you there) where I talked mainly to myself for 4 pages, with a few exceptions.
AND HERE IT IS:
especially on page 1 and 3 I thinK;
Palin from Alaska would be a SMART choice for MCCAIN- On AUgust 1st, I posted her as a choice.
Do I get any credit here- watching the news that day all the political pundits were takin off guard- said it caught them completely by surprise- and yet I was patting myself on the head- saying good going.
I check here- and nothing, YOU BOOGERS! I beat the National News pundits and dont even get a hello? Maybe Im one of: you-people-are-un "f"ing beleivable targets- I dunno.
Do I like Mc CAin or his choice? Not really, even though I have always been a Republican.
But he made a SMART CHOICE politically to win.
Do I like Obamas choice- not really vain Biden wouldnt be my choice but I think as I said on the thread mentioned above that he needed to pick a white male running mate if he wanted a chance to win.
ANd as on the thread mentioned above (soory Quack I was first)- I might just write in_ (maybe I'll start a National campaign right now for right in votes)
T Boone Pickens and Ross Perot- non establishement, self made Billionares with two seperate interests and have them bring in Colin Powell for Diplomacy overseas (except I think Bush ruined Colin, for all time- what a B:tchin fiasco that was, same for Condelesa- no chance in hell now)
So enough patting myself- on to other topics- but you guys better start paying attention to the excellent political person you have right here.
A man must learn to understand the motives of human beings, their illusions, and their sufferings. einstein
Comment by BJGoodwin on 08/30 at 09:11 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 57. · And another thing-
QUacks comment about something happening to Obama- Its something I have feared for a long time- look his long time opponent was Hillary- what better thing could happen before the election from her point of view?
I was nervous the whole time he was out at mile high stadium.
A man must learn to understand the motives of human beings, their illusions, and their sufferings. einstein
Comment by BJGoodwin on 08/30 at 10:25 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 58. · "Jeeze, ahem: I have to point out that in June of this year I started a thread in the forum (and yes anyone can start a thread on a forum- its just see if anyone will debate you there) where I talked mainly to myself for 4 pages, with a few exceptions."
That has also been my observation but, better a member of the Duck to mention it than me.
Comment by Iamangttia on 08/30 at 10:30 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 59. · "Let me know if you have any more questions..."
Quack, thanks for this information.
Comment by Iamangttia on 08/30 at 10:39 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 60. ·
better a member of the Duck
you are a regular Imagination- come on.
And no kudos- PLEASE - Im begging for attention here, you dont know what my week has been like.
A man must learn to understand the motives of human beings, their illusions, and their sufferings. einstein
Comment by BJGoodwin on 08/30 at 10:51 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 61. ·
"Jeeze, ahem: I have to point out that in June of this year I started a thread in the forum (and yes anyone can start a thread on a forum- its just see if anyone will debate you there) where I talked mainly to myself for 4 pages, with a few exceptions."
Take a look at the 'authors' of many of the topics over on the forums, you'll see that most of the topics with the most replies and most views are posted by regular members. Its just a matter of posting that topic that sparks an interest or hits a nerve to draw people out. 90% of the threads on the 'main site' don't get any comments... some just a few... but every now and then we get 3, 4 or more pages full of comments.
That has also been my observation but, better a member of the Duck to mention it than me.
I also tend to not look at the number of comments, but the number of views. I wish people would comment more, but I think the measure of success isn't the number of people debating, but the number of people reading, regardless if they agree or disagree. I guess the point I'm trying to convey is don't be discouraged because no one is stepping up to debate you...
And Iamangttia... you've been around just as long as most of us... if not longer.. you are a "member of the Duck" like it or not.
Comment by The Quack on 08/30 at 11:28 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 62. · "And no kudos- PLEASE - Im begging for attention here, you dont know what my week has been like."
Just let me know the next time you post on the Forum and I'll come over and give you a hard time--that's my mission in life.
Comment by Iamangttia on 08/31 at 02:04 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 63. · Thanks Imagination- you know I love your comments- both bad and good, especially if you get exasperating.
If I post, you have to post too!
A man must learn to understand the motives of human beings, their illusions, and their sufferings. einstein
Comment by BJGoodwin on 08/31 at 03:24 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 64. · "Thanks Imagination- you know I love your comments- both bad and good, especially if you get exasperating.
If I post, you have to post too!"
Sounds like a plan but, you'll have to wait about 2-weeks. I have to go to Atlanta for business, unfortunately. Will have my laptop with me so, I can still protest from the road if I get a chance.
Comment by Iamangttia on 08/31 at 03:46 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 65. · WOW!!! That "tiny" country is at it again: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/29/africa/29iran3.php
Thank God there not a threat! Iran says it has 4000 centrifuges working on enrichment..
Comment by Bruce Wesbury on 08/31 at 06:11 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 66. · Well by all means let's just blow them off the map!
Right?
Comment by harry-meanwell on 08/31 at 06:24 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 67. · How many warheads do they have, Bruce?
You’re not to be so blind with patriotism that you can’t face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.
Malcolm XComment by voxoverguy on 08/31 at 06:33 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 68. · It does not matter. They don't possess the means to make a nuclear warhead, but they can make a dirty bomb that is far more dangerous. But don't worry, Obama will ask them not to hurt us. McCain will take a centrifuge and stick it up their ass.
Comment by Bruce Wesbury on 08/31 at 06:49 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 69. · I do not condone weapns of mass distruction by any Country- but so many Countries have them - why are we the judge to approve a COuntry having weapons or not.
Heck, most weapons used now in all the uprising around the World were sold as surplus by the Russians or the good ol US of A.
Or because at the time, it was expediateant for Russia or us to "help" a certain COuntry.
Think Afganistan and Russia? Who supplie dthe weapons to Afganistan fighters who then had them to fight us?
We are might rightous arent we? We do so well at home we have to tell the rest of the World what to do- oh wait! only if it is an area that may be important to us in some way- the rest we turn a blind eye to.
A man must learn to understand the motives of human beings, their illusions, and their sufferings. einstein
Comment by BJGoodwin on 08/31 at 06:54 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 70. · Bruce - you appear to be a very angry man. Are you aware of how belligerant your remarks often are?
Comment by harry-meanwell on 08/31 at 07:03 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 71. · If it were up to me, I would remove all monetary help the US gives to other Countries. So much of it goes to corrupt governments and it is never paid back. We supply them with outdated and surplus equipment and far too often it is turned on us. Clinton is credited with giving China our most valuable nuclear secrets.
Comment by Bruce Wesbury on 08/31 at 07:06 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 72. ·
Bruce - you appear to be a very angry man. Are you aware of how belligerant your remarks often are?
OMG you are so right. I will try to tone it down a little in the future. If I offended you I'm very, very sorry. I forgot to take my medication today.
Being one of the few that has the balls to use my real name shows just how beligerent you must be. You-must-be-ufb.
Comment by Bruce Wesbury on 08/31 at 07:12 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 73. · I may be anonymous sir but I am right. Look in the mirror.
Comment by harry-meanwell on 08/31 at 07:27 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 74. · you-people-are-ufb, do you need to change your screen name to "bruce-is-ufb" or do you still think its the rest of us too...
Comment by The Quack on 08/31 at 07:30 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 75. · Clearly you don't know who I am. I speak my mind and I have never worried about being politically correct. If what I say offends you, go elsewhere.
I'm a REPUBLICAN and very proud of it. I can't stand our current elected leaders as all they do is tax us to pay for their problems(local). I don't think government should be involved in business(Ice rink, stadium, gymnastics center) and I'm for limited government. I could go on and on but I won't bore you with the details.
If I were in office right now I would be screaming bloody murder of the situation were in. The people on Charles County deserve better, much better.
Comment by Bruce Wesbury on 08/31 at 07:41 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 76. · All - I apologize for the admittedly antagonistic "handle" I chose yesterday. I'd prefer to remain anonymous but I didn't mean to offend everyone.
I was though quite surprised at the glowing love fest that many of you were showering upon this unproven and green Governor from a state with less people than a Waldorf McDonalds on a Sunday afternoon.
Be assured that I don't aim my disbelief at all of you and I will change my "duck name" ASAP.
As for Bruce Westbury, I am a GREAT admirer of candor and have little respect for across the board political correctness. HOWEVER, I find your brand of honesty utilizes little more than the language contained in a school yard fracas. Perhaps in your circles, pugnacious language is the norm...but I think you prove little more than how much disrespect and disregard you have for those you shout at.
See? I do think I know who you are and I'm quite glad that you do not represent ALL Republicans. I truly don't mean to offend when I say that if this is how you represent yourself, I am relieved that you do not represent the county.
Good day.
Comment by harry-meanwell on 08/31 at 08:16 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 77. · Sorry for the misspelling of your name, Bruce. It was unintentional.
Comment by harry-meanwell on 08/31 at 08:26 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 78. ·
They don't possess the means to make a nuclear warhead, but they can make a dirty bomb that is far more dangerous
So, a dirty bomb is worse than, say, Hiroshima, Bruce? Is that what you're saying?
And please re-read #20, particularly the text in bold.
You’re not to be so blind with patriotism that you can’t face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.
Malcolm XComment by voxoverguy on 08/31 at 08:41 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 79. · My name has been spelled incorrectly for 100 years. I'm used to it and no offense taken.
I'm not sure what your political affiliation is but if you take offense to me calling someone idiots, I don't know how to apologize. If your a Republican you should be screaming at the top of you lungs as to what is happening at the county level. As far as schoolyard talk, come on, I think I'm far from that. A final note, I do represent most Republicans as far as my positions go. You just don't agree on how I get my message out. Maybe I should become the chairman of the Republican Central Committee, would that give me more authority?
Comment by Bruce Wesbury on 08/31 at 08:43 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 80. · Voice Over, while I think it is great that you now realize that Iran is a threat. Yes, a dirty bomb is much more of a threat than Hiroshima. Fat Man and Little Boy were dropped to land in area the size of 100 square miles. A dirty bomb can be walked to a physical location and the detonated. Far more dangerous.
Comment by Bruce Wesbury on 08/31 at 09:13 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 81. · Wow. At this point, I'm just going to stop altogether because now you're just making yourself look foolish.
http://www.nationalterroralert.com/dirtybomb/
Have a glass of warm milk and curl up with a good book. Try Vince Flynn, he's one of my favorites.
Night night, Bruce.
LOL!!!
You’re not to be so blind with patriotism that you can’t face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.
Malcolm XComment by voxoverguy on 08/31 at 09:23 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 82. · BTW, anyone care to explain why Palin is LYING about Trig (the infant) being her son when in fact it appears that he's probably her grandson?
That's some pick ya got there, folks.
You’re not to be so blind with patriotism that you can’t face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.
Malcolm XComment by voxoverguy on 08/31 at 09:24 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 83. · I guess it depends on what you term "more dangerous."
The nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were fission bombs. Today's nuclear warheads are fusion devices, devices that yield about 1,000 times the destructive capability of fission bombs.
Dirty bombs are conventional explosive devices that contain any quantity of a radioactive substance. Radioactive substances can be found in hospitals, radiography facilities, construction sites, laboratories and industrial sites. The motivation behind a dirty bomb isn't the destruction of a nuclear fission or fusion explosion, but of the panic and wide-spread fear of radiation -- true terrorism. Nearly all dirty bomb threats wouldn't yield enough radiation the conventional explosive itself would be more harmful to individuals than the radioactive material.However, depending on the scenario, an RDD explosion could create fear and panic, contaminate property, and require potentially costly cleanup. Making prompt, accurate information available to the public could prevent the panic sought by terrorists.
A dirty bomb is in no way similar to a nuclear weapon or nuclear bomb. A nuclear bomb creates an explosion that is millions of times more powerful than that of a dirty bomb. The cloud of radiation from a nuclear bomb could spread tens to hundreds of square miles, whereas a dirty bomb’s radiation could be dispersed within a few blocks or miles of the explosion. A dirty bomb is not a “Weapon of Mass Destruction” but a “Weapon of Mass Disruption,” where contamination and anxiety are the terrorists’ major objectives.
If you're referring to "more dangerous" being the wide-spread panic and lasting fear... I don't know... its arguable. I think the devastation of a fission bomb or a fusion bomb would be thousands of times more devastating and destructive and would have even more of a "terroristic" affect.
Comment by The Quack on 08/31 at 09:51 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 84. · I didnt say it was my pick, vox.
I said I picked her as a political strategy that would be good for the REpublicans.
She is very to the rightest of right conservative, so she addresses all those issues that the ribald Republicans were worried about when choosing the "liberal" mc Cain.
It was a very clever strategy, just as Obama needed to pick a white male.
Wheres the critique of Biden with his hairplugs?
A man must learn to understand the motives of human beings, their illusions, and their sufferings. einstein
Comment by BJGoodwin on 08/31 at 09:55 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 85. · and ufb arnet you TP?
A man must learn to understand the motives of human beings, their illusions, and their sufferings. einstein
Comment by BJGoodwin on 08/31 at 09:58 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 86. ·
BTW, anyone care to explain why Palin is LYING about Trig (the infant) being her son when in fact it appears that he's probably her grandson?
Seems to be quite the gossip story... I guess we'll have to see how this one plays out.
If it is true, no one can accuse her of being a hypocrite, being as anti-abortion as she is an all.
Comment by The Quack on 08/31 at 10:18 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 87. · most downs children are born of moms over the age of 40- seems to fit with her being the mom
Maternal age influences the chances of conceiving a baby with Down syndrome. At maternal age 20 to 24, the probability is one in 1562; at age 35 to 39 the probability is one in 214, and above age 45 the probability is one in 19.[14]
Recent data also suggest that paternal age, especially beyond 42,[16] also increases the risk of Down Syndrome manifesting in pregnancies in older mothers.[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome
A man must learn to understand the motives of human beings, their illusions, and their sufferings. einstein
Comment by BJGoodwin on 08/31 at 10:35 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 88. ·
If it is true, no one can accuse her of being a hypocrite, being as anti-abortion as she is an all.
No, just a serial liar it would appear. First Troopergate, now this.
most downs children are born of moms over the age of 40- seems to fit with her being the mom
By her own admission, she flew to TX at 8 months. By her own admission, her amniotic fluid started leaking and instead of going to a hospital to deliver, she delivered a keynote address and then flew 8 hours back to AK. What ob-gyn allows a 44 year old woman carrying a child with special needs to fly at all? When she arrived in AK, did she go directly to the nearest hospital? No. In fact, she drove past 2 hospitals, one with the best maternity care in the state, and went to a small hospital 45 minutes away.
If she's not lying (and I believe she is), she has the worst judgment of almost any pregnant woman I know. It's clear now that Gov. Palin will go to great lengths to protect a family member. But abusing authority for personal vendettas and blatantly lying to protect your daughter's purity (as well as your standing) is wrong no matter who does it.
You’re not to be so blind with patriotism that you can’t face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.
Malcolm XComment by voxoverguy on 09/01 at 05:16 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 89. · Voice Over, man you must have taken a HUGE sip of the liberal Kool-aide. What about Obama being a Muslim? What about his dealings with Resko. What about Obama taking bribes. Voice Over, your off the deep end, go back to the Huffington Post where you belong.
Comment by Bruce Wesbury on 09/01 at 06:26 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 90. · Obama's not a Muslim, but for some people it's easier to call him a Muslim than to simply say, "I'm not voting for a ######."
His dealings with Resko may have shown VERY bad judgment but were not illegal.
I've seen no evidence that he's taken a bribe. If you can provide it I'll be happy to look at it.
And thanks for being so welcoming Bruce, but I'll stay right here or wherever I wish, thank you very much.
You’re not to be so blind with patriotism that you can’t face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.
Malcolm XComment by voxoverguy on 09/01 at 06:47 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 91. · OK - I'm back with an all new and hopefully unoffensive name.
BJ - I'm not Tom Petty or Toilet Paper or whatever...
Bruce - you asked VOX to go back to Huffington Post. Are not all voices welcomed here?
Comment by harry-meanwell on 09/01 at 06:49 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 92. · Hey Vox - easy with the n-Word stuff...I prefer HNIC.
That's what we'll all know him as on November 5!!
Yeah-Yeah!!!!
Comment by harry-meanwell on 09/01 at 06:51 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 93. · Ah, but Harry, Brucie reminded us in #27 that we must "check our emotions at the door" when coming here to the Thunderdome. He's a very big boy, I'm sure he can handle it.
You’re not to be so blind with patriotism that you can’t face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.
Malcolm XComment by voxoverguy on 09/01 at 06:56 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 94. · Can anyone truly "check their emotions?"
Ever?
Comment by harry-meanwell on 09/01 at 07:06 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
Page 1 of 1 pages