SuperJerk

The National Enquirer published that he'd fathered children out of wedlock, which was not true. We live in post-Bill Clinton America. An extramarital affair is not that big of a deal.

Hmmm....someone committing terrorist acts who's not a Muslim. Interesting.

I'm betting whoever drafted that regulation is Catholic. They've always taken the assault on reproductive freedom that far.

No wonder you're so paranoid about Obama losing.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080807/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_dhl First of all, promising less government spending during a recession is a monumentally dumb move. Second, there's no great demand for lower taxes right now. The public knows this war is running us hundreds of billions in debt. Third, between his campaign manager being partially responsible for the loss of 8,000 jobs at DHL, and his former chief economic advisor being partially responsible for the mortgage crisis, I doubt anyone's going to listen to anything this man has to say about the economy. And fourth, as far as Iraq goes, do you think McCain has heard the latest news? John McCain's proposals are so out of touch with reality, I honestly wish Obama would take him up on his debate proposal just to debunk how stupid they are in person. McCain's ideas are so flimsy, the second Obama's people start airing attack ads against them, Obama will be looking at a double-digit lead easily!

I saw Glenn Beck live in Pennsylvania. He came out with a toy gun. He talked about religion and its importance. He talked about illegal immigrants He got numerous standing ovations. People repeatedly said after seeing his tour that they would vote for him. I guess hes "encouraging" the "problem" And were you aware that when Obama said what I said almost word-for-word months ago everyone blasted him for it?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080807/ap_on_...a/iraq_us_bases

I don't see what's so baffling about it. The right wing in this country has just managed to use race/religion/guns/"political correctness"/whatever to essentially trick a whole bunch of people into voting against their own economic interests. It's pretty simple, really. People in small towns and rural areas, areas associated with "red states," have lost faith in the government to fix economic problems. It's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations. They vote for people based on these issues instead of their economic self-interest. Man, if only some politician were smart enough to realize this problem and talk about it. I'm sure if he did, the press would have no choice but to cover the problems facing these people instead of encouraging, and fanning the flames of, the name-calling and the knee-jerk moral indignation that's characterized this campaign so far. *sigh*

I don't see what's so baffling about it. The right wing in this country has just managed to use race/religion/guns/"political correctness"/whatever to essentially trick a whole bunch of people into voting against their own economic interests. It's pretty simple, really. People in small towns and rural areas, areas associated with "red states," have lost faith in the government to fix economic problems. It's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations. They vote for people based on these issues instead of their economic self-interest. Man, if only some politician were smart enough to realize this problem and talk about it. I'm sure if he did, the press would have no choice but to cover the problems facing these people instead of encouraging, and fanning the flames of, the name-calling and the knee-jerk moral indignation that's characterized this campaign so far.

Oh. My. God. My friends, this is not a man or a campiagn that can win. To reinforce this point, I proudly present this article from none-other than the Wall Street Journal... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121745962594698731.html

The only thing most Americans know about Obama is that he has a crazy preacher and he's black, and Obama still leads by 3-5 point margins in most polls. Three things will happen between now and election day that'll double that lead: 1. The convention speech. 2. The debates. 3. TV advertisments that actually contrast McCain and Obama on the issues. Quit worrying.

I was hoping for Bayh back before the Democrats took Congress back over and "everyone" thought only a moderate could win. Now I'm like "meh." While he is especially qualified, I'd think the guy who co-sponsored the Iraq War resolution wouldn't necessarily fit in at all with Obama's "change" message.

How is it hillarious when its true? What good will the billions of barrels of oil that we're sitting on top of be for us in the 20-30 year future time frame when we no longer use it for anything? Meanwhile we're still buying other country's oil today because they're tapping it now and selling like it was going out of style, making them rich when we could be buying our own oil and contributing to our own economy. I think I figured it out..when we go completely off oil and the rest of the world uses up all their oil but are still using oil cause they didn't worry about getting off oil like we did, we can sell our oil and the price will be even higher and we'll be the new Saudi Arabia! That has to be the plan, its the only way this makes any sense. The reason your argument is hillarious is because it assumes with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that at some point we'll be so energy efficient oil will not be worth anything, so we must use it all RIGHT NOW. And yes, I'd prefer America to be the last country on Earth to have any oil left. Maybe that doesn't make me a very good liberal, but better us than some other country.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...ons-not-enough/ The government already made an attempt at repairing the damage caused by slavery during the Reconstruction. Unfortunately, most of those measures were undone during the Jim Crow/segregation era. That era only ended within the last 50 years. People who suffered through that period are still alive today, and the long term consequences of that era are what feel are still feeling today. Reparations for slavery? No. Reparations for segregation and Jim Crow? That's a good idea.

Fair point, Oldskool, but it should be noted that oil companies can increase production from sources already available at any time. And market forces can explain how parts of an oligopoly arrive at similar prices independently through attempts to match a price with what the market will bear. Also, I just read it again and Marvin's "let's use it all now while it is still worth something" argument is pretty damn hillarious.

"Obama is a bad speaker" will work about as well as "Obama is an elitist." You can't make a label stick when you have a mountain of evidence to the contrary. What is the more likely scenario: Just THINKING ABOUT offshore drilling has lowered gas prices, even though there's no indication that its actually going to happen. OR Prices peaked and are coming down on their own due to the ups and downs caused by market forces. YOU DECIDE. Also, can we have a moratorium on the term "flip flop"? Like "race card," its used so often and in so many different ways its lost any value it might have had. No matter what position he takes on any issue, he'll get attacked by Republicans for it anyways, and likewise for McCain and Democratic attackers. It doesn't matter if he switched positions, what matters is WHY he switched positions and if the position is the right one. Pointing out someone switched positions and yelling "flip flop flip flop" over and over is about as dumb as any other name calling, especially when the act of the switch is given more attention than the reason behind the switch.

Biden's plan is still my favorite.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080802/ap_on_el_pr/obama Bad side 1: Offshore drilling is a bad idea because we'll be depleting our own reserves and unbalancing the ecosystem just to lower prices a few dollars per fill-up at some point down the road. Bad side 2: Obama knows this and has offered a wishy-washy reveral of a positions he should have been changing the publics mind on and not the other way around. This hurts his credibility and gives ammo to his critics on the left. Good side 1: By acknowledging it as part of some future compromise with Republicans, he has helped innoculate himself against charges he's not willing to work with Republicans on important issues. Good side 2: He cannot be attacked for switching position when McCain did the exact same thing.

Polls have pretty much shown Obama consistently leading since Hillary Clinton dropped out of the race, so I'm not thinking we're see a Michael Dukakis phantom-lead, here. My point? Well, while I know there are lots of ignorant people out that are willing to beleive whatever bad things they hear about someone, and especially about a black candidate, must be true, I think the majority of Americans will see past the racist stereotypes that are pushed about Obama and vote for him based on the belief he is right on the issues.

The worst is when he brought on George Carlin for about 3 minutes and basically blew him the whole segment. Glen will take a shot in the mouth to get a few more miles down the road.

Indeed.

No, I am talking about what the actions of the government should actually be, regardless of what you call it. The words I use mean things, and I didn't just call it something different...I was describing a different strategy. I'm saying that a significant withdrawal of soldiers may be enough to show many of the radical groups that we aren't interested in making their country a imperial protectorate of the U.S. government, and that only keeping troops there as a contingency in case the Iraqi government becomes overwelmed. Responsibility for peacekeeping would then shift to the elected Iraqi government, a move that by itself might help bring less violence because it'll no longer look like a foreign occupation. I don't know if 60,000 is the right number, but immediately taking all troops out is too risky a gamble at this time. What Bush and McCain don't get is that so long as the current Iraqi government looks like a puppet of the U.S., it will never be completely accepted by the Iraqi people. But just leaving isn't an automatic recipe for success, because there are still too many different factions fighting for control. We have to use diplomacy to get ALL the ethnic and religious factions to realize they have a stake in the success of the Iraqi government, or some other peaceful government.

Hey, THIS is more like it... Obama slams McCain over oil company tax breaks. On a side note...can we please retire the expression "play the race card" from the political lexicon? For starters, its come to mean any time race is referenced by black people (which is a silly thing to use a card-game metaphor for), and second because that thing's been a cliche since the O.J. trial...you know, 13 YEARS AGO.

I said before the difference was between having troops there as a contingency while diplomacy goes on, and having troops there to kill and be killed as their only objectives. At no time did I say just changing which party was in charge would "magically" fix Iraq. Your straw man tactics are getting pretty obnoxious, dude.