I fully agree with your words.

He's trying to win....not everyone in the country who votes is a liberal Dem and he needs to show that he can hear everyone....if elected he will be, as he said, president for ALL Americans. I don't think for a hot second that he will go right wing on us...and I also understand that he will not do everything that I hope for and I'm still going to work to get him elected...I'm not going to tear him a new asshole on a liberal message board because he isn't following orders...I can work with him, can't you? so Reggie...have a little faith....it's going to be a bumpy road and we have to be ready....we can't spend our time wishing we had a different choice...we have to go with what we have and make it work!

[quote name='Christine' date='Jul 2 2008, 10:00 PM' post='62786']
He's trying to win....not everyone in the country who votes is a liberal Dem and he needs to show that he can hear everyone....if elected he will be, as he said, president for ALL Americans. I don't think for a hot second that he will go right wing on us..



well put

WTF am I answering Reggie for anyway? he's a newbie, less than 6 posts...starts a thread pissing and moaning then takes off...hasn't been seen since. Go figure!!!!!

hmmmm...
I wonder as well if Obama is trying to centralize himself a bit to take some of the heat off of being called a 'liberal' (of which he is not, but extremely tolerant and open-minded)...Dennis was my first choice and when he came out to support Obama - that pretty much summed it up for me.

I think his discussions on faith based initiatives is really a waste of time at this point when we have far greater issues to discuss and he is way ahead of the game when it comes to talking points. The man needs to be cautious with teetering on flip-flopping, but he is a politician and he's trying to get the Republicans out...so for that - I thank him...

Meanwhile, while we are all questioning Obama's tactics and whether he's progressive enough - McCain is sitting back watching the show. We've got to get aligned or we'll never see an end to the current mindset in Washington.

* i know that is an awfully BIG "if."

Thank you! and likewise

good call...bottom line is our infrastructures are totally screwed. if we can actually reasses how F-BI can work without infringing on our religious freedoms and actually have an inclusive platform - I'm cool with that - lord knows we've got some hungry and homeless folks out there that can use some support...we've got soldiers coming back with major dysfunctions and aren't getting the help they need from our government...so if we can maneuver around the system and support these people via faith-based programs....why not?

I'm probably not looking at the larger picture, but we need to help people now and figure out the politics of it later...right?

Hot Damn! I like the way you think,danisnape!!

I believe other posters have addressed FISA and Faith-Based Initiative. Please tell us how Obama has flipped flopped on Iraq? The campaign finance mention is a big red flag. That is a product of the main stream conservative media's manipulation of the matter. 80% of Obama's donor base is from the average citizen, donating less than 100 dollars. He has public financing already. He isn't rejecting campaign finance reform, he's rejecting the way in which the current system is being manipulated by the Republican Party.

He is trying to find common ground with Republicans. He has always said that from the start. He's not running a Republican style campaign of us verses them. I see his continued support of Faith Based Initiatives in that vein.

The problem I see Obama starting to run into, which is being unfairly exploited by the media, is his nuanced approached to policy making. He's not a black and white thinker, but the media demands black and white solutions. In order to understand where the man is coming from demands that every citizens get the information from him directly. The media have their own agenda, keeping citizens well informed is not part of it.

How he gets from A to Z, makes a lot more sense when you listen to everything in between.

Well said!!!!!!

Alright you naive pisher - get an f'ing grip. Take you button off and vote for Mickey Mouse or Ralph or Cynthia. What the F, Fool? You're just that less important unless you make history - whip it. Whip it good.

Exactly!

Does any progressive or right-wing poster on this site stop to think how much crap Obama will have to clean up after BushCo leaves before ANYTHING major can get done??

Hellooooo?? We have no justice department. No working, self sustaining economy and two, maybe three out of control military occupations to weasel out of. What the hell do you expect any president and Congress be able to do day one after Obama is sworn in? No peeps. It will take months to get the government working again to pre-2000 levels once Obama gets into office.

I was hoping that we had a candidate who spoke his views honestly rather than "positioning" himself by saying what he thinks people want to hear. What was all this crap about "change?" He's following the same old playbook.

THE WAR IN IRAQ

Let's start with his signature position against the Iraq war. Obama has sent mixed messages at best.

First, he opposed the war in Iraq while in the Illinois state legislature. Once he was running for US Senate though, when public opinion and support for the war was at its highest, he was quoted in the July 27, 2004 Chicago Tribune as saying, "There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage.
The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute." The Tribune went on to say that Obama, "now believes US forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation ­ a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration."

Obama's campaign says he was referring to the ongoing occupation and how best to stabilize the region. But why wouldn't he have taken the opportunity to urge withdrawal if he truly opposed the war? Was he trying to signal to conservative voters that he would subjugate his anti-war position if elected to the US Senate and perhaps support a lengthy occupation? Well as it turns out, he's done just that.

Since taking office in January 2005 he has voted to approve every war appropriation the Republicans have put forward, totaling over $300 billion. He also voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State despite her complicity in the Bush Administration's various false justifications for going to war in Iraq. Why would he vote to make one of the architects of "Operation Iraqi Liberation" the head of US foreign policy? Curiously, he lacked the courage of 13 of his colleagues who voted against her confirmation.

And though he often cites his background as a civil rights lawyer, Obama voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act in July 2005, easily the worse attack on civil liberties in the last half-century. It allows for wholesale eavesdropping on American citizens under the guise of anti-terrorism efforts.

And in March 2006, Obama went out of his way to travel to Connecticut to campaign for Senator Joseph Lieberman who faced a tough challenge by anti-war candidate Ned Lamont. At a Democratic Party dinner attended by Lamont, Obama called Lieberman "his mentor" and urged those in attendance to vote and give financial contributions to him. This is the same Lieberman who Alexander Cockburn called "Bush's closest Democratic ally on the Iraq War." Why would Obama have done that if he was truly against the war?

Recently, with anti-war sentiment on the rise, Obama declared he will get our combat troops out of Iraq in 2009. But Obama isn't actually saying he wants to get all of our troops out of Iraq. At a September 2007 debate before the New Hampshire primary, moderated by Tim Russert, Obama refused to commit to getting our troops out of Iraq by January 2013 and, on the campaign trail, he has repeatedly stated his desire to add 100,000 combat troops to the military.

At the same event, Obama committed to keeping enough soldiers in Iraq to "carry out our counter-terrorism activities there" which includes "striking at al Qaeda in Iraq." What he didn't say is this continued warfare will require an estimated 60,000 troops to remain in Iraq according to a May 2006 report prepared by the Center for American Progress. Moreover, it appears he intends to "redeploy" the troops he takes out of the unpopular war in Iraq and send them to Afghanistan. So it appears that under Obama's plan the US will remain heavily engaged in war.

This is hardly a position to get excited about.

above by matt gonzalez from this link:

http://counterpunch.com/gonzalez02292008.html


i like obama however i think america bought into him because of hope. just like when america bought into bushco's fear. i mean look at some of the rah rah obama comments in this thread.

when hillary pandered she was labeled a whore and a bitch by democrats but obama well he's just trying to get elected.

i dunno, i'm exhausted and this thread is hurting my weary head. (i may have quoted you starbuck but my reply other then the link about iraq wasn't really directed at you or your post. just babbling about the thread in general)

Some of the best plays are when you line up in a formation the other teams thinks they recognize and then you do something they've never seen before.

Yeah, like I said, same old playbook: lies and bullshit.

So quit pissing and moaning and run for office and do it yourself!

Okay, I'll buy that. I was born and raised on the Mississippi Coast BTW, so you're preaching to the choir on that one. BUT the movement was SUPPOSED to be AWAY from the power grabbing, liberty raping, lying, cheating, say anything scum bags who were using the Constitution for toilet paper. ANY of that kind of behavior from the hero of our "movement" isn't compromise, it's heresy.

So . . . I've been trying to keep an open mind about Obama for a long time now, and I'll continue to, but what he SAYS and what he DOES better start to match up soon, cause so far I'm pretty discouraged. He sure has all the ear marks of just another one of these lying, manipulative politicians who've been letting us down for the last 8 yrs.

Come on. That's taking rationalizing and excuse-making to a whole new dimension. If you've got to come up with a whopper like that to explain away these flip-flops, it's pretty hard to understand what we're supposed to see in the guy at all.

Exactly. This is classic Obama, "taking a stand," and it's one of the main reasons I couldn't back him in the primary. He's acted as if his speech on Iraq MEANT anything. It was just a speech, and given the way he generally votes on controversial issues, and the way he's voted to fund the war, after he said congress should not when he was running for his Senate seat, well . . . I never did buy it. He's voted the opposite of what he's SAID too many times already, and that's a lot for a guy with such a short career in national politics.

He's all we've got at this point; McCain's just isn't a reasonable alternative, not the way he's changed in the last few years. But we have got to stop letting Obama get away with this crap now, or God help us all when he gets to the White House.

Addressed it HOW? By figuring out some cock-eyed way to make it sound okay to themselves? Sorry, I DON'T WANT ANY GOVERNMENT FUNDED AGENCY GIVING TAX PAYERS MONEY TO RELIGIOUS GROUPS AT ALL, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES? This White House Office of Faith Based Initiatives has had me screaming bloody murder since Bush installed it. No way, no how, am I going to swallow that rotten brew, no matter who is pouring. Only the most far right extremist, Bush loyal neo-cons, dying to Christianize our government supported this. Again, Obama CANNOT win moderate votes by trying to appeal to the far right - it's irrational, and that's who would back his newly minted positions on FISA and faith based initiatives. I sure as hell won't.

We can't allow ourselves to do what conservatives did for too long with Bush. Almost ALL of what Bush did in the last 8 yrs. has been in complete conflict with conservative principles, such as: no nation building, fiscal responsibility, small government, the importance of individual's and State's rights, etc., etc., etc., but so many republicans backed Bush's outrageous actions, cause they liked the guy and they were so happy he had the republican stamp on his forehead. Well, before long, you had William F. Buckley (the father of conservatism), Andrew Sullivan, and dozens of other influential conservatives FINALLY start calling Bush out for this stuff.

And Lucy did a comprehensive job detailing just exactly what is wrong with Obama's Iraq position, so I'll let Obama's actions speak for themselves.

While I understand your point, the overwhelming majority of Americans believe that the left (according to PEW research) does too much to keep religion out of government. I think the challenge is to educate the American public in understanding that separation of church and state is not anti-religious which is often conflated with being amoral.

I agree with that. 99% of the American public are sound bite voters who make their minds up on an issue based on some 5 min. read of a viral propaganda email, or the like. Are you saying that Obama is also uneducated on this issue? If not, HOW COULD HE take this position? It's time these politicians stopped pandering to the lowest common denominator. Isn't Obama supposed to be different? Isn't he? Wasn't that what made him so popular? Cause what else does he have, if he doesn't have that persona of a guy who's going to clear the trash out in Washington? If he can't even stand by his WORDS and be consistent at this point in the game, how in the world is he going to DO anything different?

I'm still just completely baffled by the entire Oba-phenomenon though. Now WHAT am I supposed to make of this guy I was already skeptical of? I mean seriously, there are a lot of thoughtful, knowledgeable, politically savvy people on this website who back Obama. Can someone PLEASE explain to me WHY? Most of the time, I just get attacked for asking these questions, like questioning the veracity of a leader who wants to be president makes me unpatriotic or something. Well, just the opposite is true, and I don't take ANYONE on blind faith, and neither should any American after what Bush has done.

I have only read the beginning of this thread. And I have this to say: on the expansion of Faith Based Initiatives, there's no move to the center there. It's all pretty well outlined in The Audacity of Hope. That's just consistency. There's a whole section of the book entitled "Faith." If your pissed at him for supporting a completely transformed version of what's now known as "Faith Based Initiatives" (the name of which causes me to shudder because I can't help but think that Bush, Rove, et al had in mind FBI in some twisted joke or mind game), you never knew Barack Obama's views on Faith. I'd only have to urge you to read at least just that one section of his book.

On FISA however. I'm just as perplexed. Actually I'm not. I think that Barack Obama is WELL aware of the facts that both Randi and Keith Olbermann laid on the table. The bill doesn't give legal immunity, just civil. But it's here that I have to break with Obama, Randi, and Olbermann. First, when Bush makes his talking point he says something to the effect that "Telecoms shouldn't be punished for being patriotic and willing to help the U.S. Government in the War on Terror. There's a lie right there. Let's look at the one major provider we know that DIDN'T do warantless wiretaps. Nacchio is in PRISON now. Gee, I wonder why! These companies weren't patriotic and volunteering their services to support the war on terror. They were being terrorized themselves and caved to threats by the Bush Administration.

So here, I agree with Mr. Bush, but lets not keep the lie: The Telecoms should not be punished for caving under psychological torture to illegally wiretap U.S. citizens. However, they SHOULD be sued and win. But in the process, they should be forced to give ALL of the evidence of what they did, and the threats brought against them if they refused to do so. In a civil case, the court can't deny the documents on account of Executive Privilege or any other form of National Security because it was coordinated with people who don't have the appropriate clearances etc (not to mention that the party that the Telcos are accusing aren't the same party that is charging them). That needs to make it into the public domain. Then the Telecom case can be dropped and criminal charges brought against George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and the rest of those complicit in illegally wiretapping U.S. citizens.

So here, I understand where Obama is coming from. But he and all those that are ok with this on account of the fact that the Telcos can still be criminally charged forget the point. It's not to get the Telcos that virtually caved in duress. It's the criminal bastards that put them in virtual duress to whom they caved. That's whose head I want!

The above illustrates what the Republicans will be doing against the Dems this election cycle. Keep in mind when the Dems said what they said. 2004 was the first year of the war. Situations on the ground have changed each year of the occupation.

The Democrats were advocating for supporting the troops on the ground to stabilize Iraq for the first few years of the war. When Obama said the above the US
was just a year or so in Iraq. At that time, more troops could have made a difference. It was Bush talking from two sides of his mouth. He never did any
follow through. He continued to keep troop levels low, until last year when he advocated for the failed surge. Obama is not flip flopping his position, nor are the
Democrats as a whole. This author is being dishonest and taking Obama out of context, by not explaining the time frame in which those words were said.

Obama's campaign says he was referring to the ongoing occupation and how best to stabilize the region. But why wouldn't he have taken the opportunity to urge withdrawal if he truly opposed the war? Was he trying to signal to conservative voters that he would subjugate his anti-war position if elected to the US Senate and perhaps support a lengthy occupation? Well as it turns out, he's done just that.

Who established that advocating for withdrawal is the only true measure of opposition to the occupation? Why isn't Obama taking the opportunity to urge withdrawal because there are military, diplomatic, and political realities that the author seems to know nothing about.



Valid criticisms of Obama's voting record and personal choices, but supporting Lieberman and Rice is not the same thing as outright supporting the war in Iraq. That's hyperbole. Continuing to fund the war hardly constitutes a flip flop on Iraq. There are multiple factors at play both militarily and politically. Some of which are prudent, some of which are done out of fear. But Obama has maintained that going into Iraq was a mistake. A flip flop would be equal to Obama outright supporting the war.



Bad decision, but that still doesn’t have anything to do with Iraq.



Oh brother, more guilt by association. Why indeed. Why is the author assuming the only reason that Obama supported Lieberman is solely based on the Iraq War? Is the author privy to their personal relationship? What the hell does Lamont attending the same dinner party have to do with anything?

Obama’s been against the war from the beginning. The author doesn’t supply any real evidence that the popularity of anti-war sentiments caused Obama to suddenly take a new position.


Nor has he ever. Obama has never stated the day after he’s sworn in the troops are coming home. It takes months to move troops out an area. It has to be coordinated. Failure to acknowledge this, is a failure to acknowledge the complexity of military operations, which makes Obama easy prey to conservative talking points. There is real danger about what who will fill the void once American troops are gone. There can be a smoother and saner transition with new leadership willing to use diplomacy. That is something that the Bush Administration has failed to do.



Refusing to comment or being nailed down on how or when he will get the troops out of Iraq is not a flip flop. I don’t think this author fully understands the conservative dynamic of the media. How Obama’s words will be manipulated if he takes any committed stand.

Adding 100,000 combat troops to the military is not the same thing as adding 100,000 troops to Iraq. Our military has been depleted as a result of two unsuccessful occupations.


That position is hardly knew. It is the same position that the Dem leadership has been suggesting for some time now. Leave some troops behind to prevent Al Qaeda establishing a permanent base in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Redeploying troops doesn’t necessary mean keeping them in harms way 24/7 like the Bush Administration has done. They can be redeployed when needed from military bases in Kuwait for example and removed when they destroy their targets.


No but a realistic one. And a position that most of the Democratic leadership has been taking for some time now.

What the article also fails to mention is that with new leadership will come accountability, reform, diplomacy, and hopefully an end to private contractors wasting billions in Iraq. There is more to the Iraq occupation then just withdrawing troops.

No by acknowledging the political realities we are living under. There is a way to administer these programs without violating the Constitution. I don’t see Obama reaching out to the far right. I continue to see him trying to build a bridge between liberals and conservatives. The conservative strategy since the Nixon Era is to divide and conqueror. Divide Americans into thinking that each side hates each other. It has worked very well for them.



The article had no meat. It reads like something from the Free Republic. It contains talking points un-related to Iraq, failed to acknowledge the context in Obama made statements in the press, failure to acknowledge the Democratic Party’s approach in Iraq and was naively devoid of how the conservative media operates.

Best reason to keep your button on: Look how fast the media is manufacturing non-stories to slow democratic momentum. Look how wehn we got kids marching in the streets for once, they had to pull out every stop for an endless anti-obama damper parade. I don't know what people are behind these forces, but every time we get a little genuine political momentum, down comes the big wet blanket with that particular fecund aroma of cattle fields.

Being unenthused is just exactly what a lot of highly paid slime bags are trying to produce in you. Fight them with open and enthusiastic support of your candidate. Learn the platform:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

Find your reason to get excited.

I'll offer you Americorps:
If you know any kid stuck in the ghetto or on a farm with no chance at college, no health care, and no skills ... THIS IS THE ANSWER:





And there's a lot more to get excited about here:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/service/#enable-americans

In Obama we have an emberasment of riches - don't let the media hype machine tell you what issues are important. Look here and find out for yourself.

Apparently you don't grasp the sports metaphor. That could be why I wrote it in response to someone else. So since you are so concerned about the sound bite voters maybe you'll want to take a pass on defending whiny comments like this:



To explain the metaphor in greater detail, the point is that rather than just going along with the same agenda as the Republicans i.e."same old playbook" Obama is instead being very effective in framing the very same message he has been speaking all along, but making his message heard in a way that looks comfortable and familiar to independent and conservative voters, i.e. "lining up in the same formation."

A whopper would be a lie, or a hamburger. Since my comment clearly isn't a hamburger you were probably insinuating the other and I'd have to insist you substantiate your claim with sufficient documentation that Obama has made a major shift in his policies. Something like before and afters of his website or the like. Unless you really mean that I did have to come up with a hamburger such as that to explain away the open-toed footwear in which case I'd have to inform you that I am not wearing any flip-flops right now. And what my opinion has to do with what "we" (a whole other area I don't understand the definition of as yet) are supposed to think of Obama, tell "y'all" to think what you believe is right, but strive to make it an informed rather than a knee-jerk opinion to hearing what doesn't on it's face sound to you like the kind of cookies you hope your next leader will be passing out for everyone. Since, after all, it isn't the position of a leader to pass out cookies, instead we call those Girl Scouts and they wear very distinct attire, but rather a leader brings differing opinions together to try and find common ground on difficult issues.

goodpoint. however, what did we do when he was the alone standing against the war in Iraq? He did the right thing and how was he judged back then? He had to have a strong mind in order to over come the social push in congress to go to war without cause. This is where his pattern is set in that one moment in time he started what only a few dared to do, to tell the truth to the american public. He did his job, just like john murtha did when he told the truth about getting the troops out of Iraq. Look what the congress did to him, laughed him right out of their way, knowing full well that the american public would just pass his news off as another britney spears news flash, rather than a call to arms to save four thousand more soldiers from being killed in Iraq. I heard a republican on the radio say there was not enough evidence to bring the president eand vice president to impeachment, specifically the 35 articles meant nothing. I know the are legit so what happened to the republican?

I could have told you during the primary season that this was going to happen. Chenge you can believe in my ass. Obama was NO DIFFERENT than HRC but you Obama supporters thought he was. Well now you got to HOPE that IF Obama becomes president he will shift back to the "Left Wing" talking points he use during the primary. A bit of advice, don't hold you breath. Obama the "Great Compromiser" will give the republican and DLC democrats everything they want just to get along.

Obama stood against the Iraq war when Obama didn't have to go on the record and vote for it. Obama's position on FISA is equal to his votes for war funding. IT"S ALL POLITICAL!!! He was running for president when he got to washington and knew if he stood against the war funding, he would not be where he is today. He's another washington insider saying everything the left wing wants to hear. Of course they don't want to hear him sound like HRC. I wonder what he would have done regarding FISA if we were still in the primary season. Ten bucks say Obama, the constitution law professor would have been against it NO MATTER how it was written. SAME OLD POLITICS.

Weasel A and Weasel B. Take your pick. Now Weasel A may be a very progressive weasel, but political reality forces him to behave like Weasel B from time to time. Weasel B has always been non-progressive until being non-progressive became a political liability so he is hell-bent on distancing himself from this and therefore looks like he is flip-flopping like mad.

Can you trust either one? No.

Hillary lost and has asked her fans to move forward. When are YOU going to?

another anti-obama post from you, shocking

for a minute there i thought you used the word trust in a discussion about politicians

yeah, i have to go along with you on this one. i dont trust them at all

It looks like the Senate is going to let the new FISA die a lonely death, right alongside the impeachments.

Hillary was and is the greatest panderer. From 3 damn states, telling illegals to vote for her, she is for the poor, then the rich, she spinned faster than a Mattel whizzer. Sorry, that was not speech I could believe in.

Go to Hillary.com, donate your paycheck and call it a day.

Maybe you need a deprogrammer to help you with this "Hate Hillary" thing, that is old news. Fred Thompson could use the same deconditioning I bet. It's really yesterday's spin, when are you going to get over it ?

I will vote for Obama as long as he does not say, "God told me I was going to become President" or "God told me to invade Iran" or "God told me to torture terrorists". I hate that God sponsored thing. Reminds me of people throughout history saying things like "Jesus told me to kill my wife, she was evil".

Randy, are you fearing that HRC will become Vice Presidential candidate ?

I have a feeling that Obama will bring up God and Jesus quite a bit in his Administration although I do not think he will hear the voices in the way that Shrub does. However, he might just listen to Zbigniew Brzezinski instead.

Too bad Obama is not an ethical atheist. I am sick of all these polticians who keep bringing up God and faith (i.e. Christianity) all the time.

Anyway, we're stuck with Obama who is a better option than McCain. If someone wants to take off his Obama button, then take it off. It's just a button. Just don't vote for McCain.

I don't know what Obama will say or will not say in the future because I don't own a crystal ball.

A Delusion of Grandeur is just another man's Higher Power I guess. I see forensically, that people who are disturbed manifest a God as a reflection of their own ego. Like a guy really hating his wife, may hear the voice of Jesus telling him she is evil, kill her. That is not too far out of the realm of possiblities to me. Fred Thompson said that while on his watch a woman would never become President. I guess Thompson does not understand federal and state laws of equal opportunity employment. And I am surprised that he was not sued for that statement. There may be an underlining cause here in "Hate Hillary" as maybe some people think the lil woman should be seen but not heard ?

Obama is an asset to me. He is quality personified. He does lack experience but I was glad to hear that Obama has accepted President Clinton as a campaign asset and counselor. That makes up for his lack of experience factor. I am an independent. I dislike extremist conservatives who threaten to deport 12 million people just as I dislike extremist liberals who keep Alaska a welfare State for the good of the Caribou. In both cases, people are being ignored.

So, I have an understanding that the far left is ticked off right now but that really makes me happy.

Not at all, I was simply pointing out that I did listen to all the candidates. Obama was the only one actually talking about the issues alongside Edwards and Paul. I did like Dodd's candor. Richardson also had some very insightful contributions. I am just tired of people not recognizing rule of law. This is a republic, ruled by law, that the leaders are also bound by. Pandering just makes me crazy. This is not a time for slogans, its time for action. My family hopes that Hillary will be picked, they do not like Obama simply because he is black. This is hard to deal with. I like Obama simply because he actually does try to talk to us, not just tell us what we want to hear. This is why he is so abrasive at times. We need to listen, we have time, but it is short.

Yea, I appreciate your reply too. Elitists or the Self chosen ones have a tendency to talk down to us and we already know that they are full of shit. President Clinton said he is confident in public insight regardless of spin. Or that a President better never forget that he is the Number One Public Servant in the Country. In fact, we personally own George Bush because of Bush Administration actions below the Rule of Law.

To me, some people are conditioned to think, Bill/Monica, Clinton/Nafta, Hillary/Biotch, hahahahahha. So you know, I am big into problem solving. What is good about NAFTA, what is bad about NAFTA, how does it fit right now in the 6th month of consecutive job losses ?

Freakin McCain is in South America sucking up when our own economy needs fixing today here at home. That guy just does not fit as a 21st Century President. He skipped the Elder Statesman role going right back into fulltime Politician after he knew that Presidential ambitions exploited during the 108th Congress really messed up some people big time.

So I say thanks cause I can see where people get exploited by their own egos putting basic fundemental principles on the back burner. Not to say that as a nation our security needs change. Those needs may require tax increases but politics says Democrats will tax you more when I say who was the fool that said we don't increase taxes in a time of war ?

You must support The Troops In Harms Way And Held Hostage do To irrational conclusion So They Could Still In The Confusions Of The Bush Regime Allusions.
To Use And neglect Them and really upset them Make Them Stay Our Military Solders With Out Support In Harms Way Is Not OK,
Or instead just bring them out of harms way And Stop The Play To Play What Do Ya Say.
Look Click to view attachment I Put One On Reggie

stinemetz - Your excessive use of title case (mixed case) Makes Your Posts Difficult To Read.

Or, "I'm a Liberal, it's all about me now".

I Know and They Play Hell on foreign language translation programs also. But the shift button is so tempting to hit on the first letter of every word.

I Think Your Format Is Capital!