http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23736254/

Hmmm. Now why would someone want to breach Obama's passport file? Talk about dirty politics. And this is proof that the GOP is indeed scared about running against Obama.

Whoever looked at the file didn't know it triggered a breach warning higher up the ladder making it obvious the people weren't too smart.

Yup, that's the same kind of non-smart people running the lying swiftboaters group.

..............


Will there be reaction from McCain?

He'll condemn it if asked. He's a stand up guy on things like that. But since it's a small risk to go out on that limb, then McCain will do it.

I think it was just a couple idiots. I can't buy into any conspiracy just yet.

And this is proof that the GOP is indeed scared about running against Obama.

Come on Vitalogy, you're smarter than that. I expect better from you.

Your posts are generally better researched than this one is.

Did you read the whole article?

This is excerpted from the Msnbc article;

The State Department does not check the political affiliation of its contractors, but a senior official told NBC News there was "no political motivation" to the incidents, adding that the three were low-level contract employees doing administrative work when they accessed Obama's records. This official told NBC News that he does not believe any of the accessed information was sent anywhere.

It doesn’t say anywhere in the article that it was politically motivated, in fact, it says it wasn't.

I agree with CJ. Just two idiots.

But thats not as fun to talk about. If you cant blame the other side then the story will die.

Tomorrow never knows ~

I've already heard that there is a Clinton machine connection to at least one of the break ins.

Senator McCain has already had to fire someone in his campaign for going over the top with a anti Obama video on youtube.

Not to mention all the 501c3's that are as fervent in their attitudes as we all are.

So no vast right wing conspiracy here, probably the Clinton machine calling in a favor. I wouldn't doubt it if turns out to be just that ... or just a bunch of errors. Remember, errors multiply .

Tune in tomorrow for the next set of spins on this one.

*****

A neutron walks into a bar. "I'd like a beer" he says.

The bartender promptly serves up a beer.

"How much will that be?" asks the neutron.

"For you?" replies the bartender, "no charge"

Yes...I'm sure it is completely unlike the time W's dad had a couple lackey's go through Clinton's passport info.

Now both CNN & MSNBC are reporting that Hillary's Passport file was also breached.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/21/obama.passport/index.html

I thought Obama was about openess, whats in his file, he's afraid is gonna get out, where's he been, and who went with him?

Nwokie, as usual you miss the point and desperately stretch it to fit your needs.

It is not important about what is in the information, but that Bush's people violated the law to look at it.

It was a couple of temp hires, not even carreer civil servants, and all they did wa look at a computer file. There is no indication they were asked to do it, or passed the info on to anyhone else. And the Bush administration took swift action to correct the error.

Where were the liberals complaining when someone released President Bush's military records, that was also a crime, don't remember Clinton punishing anyone.

We need to know who these people are.

Ah, the govt employees have a right to privacy also, unless they are charged with a crime.

Where is their right to innocent until proven guilty? Were they allowed counsel when their supervisor talked to them, probably not, so they can't be charged with anything, and I wouldn't be suprised to see them sue and get their jobs back.

Nwokie, what's your social security number, address, mother's madien name and date of birth?

Oh - I would like your phone number too, please.

Hurry.

You're killing me CJ!

I'm sitting here Friday pm listening to Sean McCormack, then John Mccain, and previously SoS Rice.

They were employed by a private firm doing contract work for DoS - processing the huge backlog (18 million) of passport applications and renewals. Normal Civil Service protections don't apply.

In the Clinton incident, the trainee was told to enter a name into the system to see what you'll see in the normal function. McCormack says trainees are encouraged to enter a relative's name. The trainee entered Clinton's name. The trainee was admonished, and they moved on.

In the McCain incident, the worker who accessed the Obama records but was only suspended (not fired, like two others) ALSO looked at McCain's file. That will certainly bear some extra scrutiny.

Need to know their names? No position from me (Mr. Fair and Balanced, yaknow). But I won't be surprised if we find one with a gun in his/her hand and half a brain missing.

The 2 folks that run the passport office, were appointed by Bill Clinton, their carreer civil servants, and are in office until they retire.

People are trying to crucify a couple of very low level temperary civil servants, who just did what most people would do, if they had the chance.

They should have a set of test files, for trainees to practice with, telling them to use a relatives or friends is also asking for trouble. Can you imagine an employee seeing their spouse went to St Croix, when they were supposed to be in Toldedo on business?

Well, doesn't the conservative line emphasize personal responsibility?

Seems to me these people understood the conditions of employment right?

Violating those really isn't all that defensible.

Also seems to me the conservative approach ends up being all about teaching people a lesson, more often than not. So, now a lesson learned right?

And they were told to enter a name, in a training class, no one told them not to use any specific names.

How is entering your brother in laws name any different than Obamas, Clintons, McCains or Bush's?

Are you saying some people have more rights than others?

My guess is, that a Govt Employees Union lawyer will get them all reinstated, with back pay, and an apology.

Nwokie, I need your full name, address, social security number, date of birth and mother's maiden name, please...oh and home telephone number.

You don't have a problem typing that out here, right?

Nwokie, when you learn how to read, it might help your arguments better.

The Clinton search was done during a training class.


The Obama searches were done at least three times, not as part of a training class.

Are you sure it was they and names?

I only read about one person who made that mistake and they were not fired. The others did it on their own and that's different.

Everybody knows the difference between ordinary people. For most all of us, our brother or family member is a nobody, and we are highly likely to already know a lot of info about them.

For somebody significant, there isn't that common understanding, and motivations for doing criminal things run much higher. It's a common sense kind of deal.

We cannot process the information without people looking at it. So, we address this with strict regulation of the people. Poking around out of idle curiosity is not the kind of people we really should have doing these kinds of things.

Poking around at politically charged records is just stupid on a lot of levels. Has nothing to do with rights, and everything to do with making sure the processes we do have are solid and reputable.

A great analogy is your average corporate IT person. They've got the keys to the kingdom, and they typically don't operate under systems with anywhere near the kinds of checks on them that the fed has.

So, there's a mail server running mail. Is it ok to just go reading through those for jollies, or maybe to get dirt on people? Of course not. One does not go looking through the mail without a damn good reason. I personally prefer not to do that alone, so that the chain of authority and trust is there for accounting later. Mistakes might be made, and that's human. So the goal is to just try hard to do the right things and limit judgment accordingly.

Your average IT admin is gonna see some stuff and that's another test right there. How do they handle that? It's not an easy position to be in really. Criminal things are fairly cut and dried and there are processes for that. But what about that affair, or something?

Way back when I was first mentored into IT admin, we had this discussion. So we looked at mail to examine how the server worked. It went without saying that we needed to think about the selections we made to learn with.

Same with the financials, etc...

At the least, looking at that stuff just makes people mad for no good reason! Anyway, it's one of the first real tests for good sys-admins. Fail that one and you are gonna be a glorified tech, or change careers, or wait a good long time, then try it again.

It's all the same kind of thing, and it has nothing to do with some people having more rights than others. It's just about doing the job in a known reputable way.

---and you are an IT guy too. That's kind of scary Nwokie.

I read through corporate mail all the time, and report anything I see that's offensive, or determental.

Company E-mail is the property of the company, and there is no privacy.

I do the same with the web log, if I see an employee going to a non business site, that gets reported to the suervisor, if it happens again to the dept head, then the President.

At my last govt job, the Col I worked for, had me make copies of all the other col's e-mail and forward them to him. I checked with our legal officer, and he told me that was a legal order.

And you have a chain of authority for that right? You are then able to document that and know absolutely they will substantiate that right?

If so, then that's all just fine. Lots of companies do those kinds of things. Personally, I won't work for one, but that's just me. There is absolutely no problem with that otherwise.

The two in question did not have that chain of authority, and that's where the issue is.

Would you go off and do those things without that chain of authority?

---> and are you here on work time, holding yourself to the same standards?

This kind of discussion is what happens when things are not done in a reputable way. A whole lot of that depends on people, which is exactly why this is an issue. That's the point being made here.

Today is a company holiday, however, I have permission from the company President and CEO, to do pretty much what I want, in compensation for the approx 20 hours overtime I work per week.

I am not an hourly paid employee, The company president just purchased a large screen tv for my office, which I will use on weekends, and holidays while I am at work.

So, do you get the point then?

They didn't have the chain of authority to do what they did and that's a problem.

Right?

yes or no

You mean theh employees that looked at the files? It would depend on what they were briefed on what they could and could not do.

Plus as a govt employee , even a temp, they have certain rights, I am more concerned that high profile persons info is available to all of the employees, at the IRS, they have a list of high profile persons, and there data is accessable only by senior personnel. Which brings us back to the question, should certain people have more rights, than others.

To be fair, the agency needs to take the same action, it would have taken if an employee had accessed their neighbors file, or spouses.

Ok, that's a yes. Thanks.

Imagine your a houswife or stay at home husband, who takes a temp job to help with household income. you go through your orientation, are shown how to inuput data, work for a few days, then sitting at your desk on your lunch, got this computer in front of you, that doesn't have solitare, you got nothing else to do for 10-15 minutes, what you going to do, think , "Hey I wonder if wshoever, is in here".

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1724759,00.html?cnn=yes

See Nwokie, it is indeed Bush's fault. You can't blame Bill Clinton for this one.

Considering none of those law enforcement agencies were involved in this, its not relevant to this case.

You think various law enforcement agencies shouldn't have access to passport data?

U.S. law enforcement, yes, foreign governments, no.

Nwokie said " I thought Obama was about openess, whats in his file, he's afraid is gonna get out, where's he been, and who went with him?"

Nwokie, I need your full name, address, social security number, date of birth and mother's maiden name and phone number please. What are you afraid of? What are you hiding? What are you afraid is going to get out? Where have you been? Who went with you? ( And " who went with you " isn't on my passport - I don't even know why you tie that one in. ) But that's ok - I just would like you to post all the other stuff I asked for, publically, please.

Just check my passport file, both personal and official, or background info in my security clearances by DOD, State Dept and the treasury dept.

No, I need you to post it here please. You talk like the only reason someone would have a problem with it getting looked at by unauthorized people is because they have something to hide. Barring that, it should be available to everyone.

So put up, buddy.

I'm unauthorized too. So put it up.

But the people working at the passport are cleared to look at the info.

Ok, but now they have it, and are no longer employed. Secondly, they just went ahead and looked at it, despite having been told they need reasons for doing so.

Not trustworthy, cleared or not.

As of right now, this moment, there is very little difference between them, who they may have talked to, and Job Bob Internet user.

Nwokie, I take issue with the less-than-subtle jab that Obama must have something to hide. That was your WHOLE premise. It just falls apart on every level.

Do you still believe that was why he doesn't want anyone to see his passport information?

And where in the HELL does it say with whom he was travelling while using a passport?

You like to toss in a little bit of bullshit with just about all your statements. I'm fucking sick of it.

Actually it would be easy, because the passport info is linked to a record of your using it.

and you could simply see at what time/date location someone left the country, and cross reference it to other time/dates and locations.

But the main issue, is some low level temp govt employees, got bored, and decided to see something. The system logs who looks at which files, and some files have traps on the to let management know who looked at them. The system worked.

Obama is the only one screaming, makes me wonder why. I guess he doesn't know that all the info in his file, except specific personal info, is a matter of public record, and will be released with a FOI request.

Passport records contain specific personal info.

I'll tell you why he's " screaming " ( another example of a little bullshit from you ); Because it's PRIVATE. Isn't that enough of a reason?

Look, you are a hypocrite on this and many other matters. I shouldn't let it bother me so much - but it does. And yet I find time to do the other things that are important to me too.

I wish you weren't so retarded.

You know, after I typed that, I felt bad about calling you retarded.

I'm sorry.

The reasons Obama doesn't want anything about him seen is that it may not look so great. Why do you think he wants his supporters to only talk about "hope" and not bring up anything about issues?

what you see is not what you get.

OK Deane, which of the standard campaign issues would you like addressed by Obama?

Name just one at a time.

The floor is yours.

And once I show you that there is more than just " hope " - then you'll stop saying that, right?

He hasn't granted interviews, he doesn't talk to the press. He has instructed his supporters not to talk about issues but just talk about hope.

Now, has he appointed you his official spokesman to answer "issue" questions? Do you have a letter authorizing such activity? If so, be sure to get a picture of you and he standing together. It'll look good on your studio wall.

"The reasons Obama doesn't want anything about him seen is that it may not look so great."

What a tuna! Do you REALLY believe what you write? That statement is a blatant smear, and pardon my french, but you're an ass for saying it. You are playing the fear card, and it's pathetic and obvious. Who in their right mind would not be upset if someone breached all of their private information? I would be pissed!

Well, no. I am not a spokesperson. Official or otherwise. I was planning on basically copying and pasting from his website about the issues. Because you seem to be blocked from seeing it. You are the one that said he doesn't want any of " the issues " talked about. I am offering you the chance to get to read them. Look, you can pretend that Obama talks about nothing but the word " hope." But I'm calling your bluff.

Which issue would you like addressed?

He has instructed his supporters not to talk about issues but just talk about hope.

Johnny Mc hasn't done either one....

Obama is using the various media mediums very well.

Lots of detail can be had on the internet. That is where you go for solid details these days, not the TV. Obama knows this.

The TV is about personal impressions, getting known and establishing overall narratives. The various TV outlets all have their issues, so Obama handles them in a way that is to his best advantage.

That's exactly why he won't appear on FOX, for example. They are simply not reputable! Appearing there does not present as a gain, so why do it?

Most of the issues he has had to deal with have come straight from the TV. Shit attacks for shit reasons. IMHO, he's smart to limit the potential for damage there. All of that crap is extremely difficult to pull off, without looking like an ass, in public debates and discussions.

It's also very difficult to do on the Internet as there are just way too many people willing to do some thinking and fact checking too.

Local events and meet and greets are, in addition to the Internet, where one gets public support! He does a lot of these, often and executes well.

Over a million individual contributors, and more cash on hand than anybody right now. Funny how that works huh?

It's a big ass bluff Deane. Lots of people are saying that stuff too. It's like the kid at grade school that does not have the high ground. Tries all they can to get the other person to stoop down and play in the mud with them and their muddy friends.

Most of us learn, at some point in that time, that stepping down into the mud really doesn't present a winning scenario. So why do it?

I know exactly where the guy stands on a lot of stuff. In fact, I have a better picture of it than I do the others! Why? Because the message presentation is clear and effective most of the time.

BTW: Talking about the hope and change stories gets people interested. They then ask stuff. They ask their friends, they go online, they watch some TV and they listen to the radio.

Understanding and using this dynamic is a big part why he's doing well.

"you're an ass for saying it"

So, you're acknowledging I was correct. When one has to resort to personal attacks and name calling, that means they have lost.

No, that's the getting dragged down into the mud bit.

You threw the first turd Deane. Vitalogy just returned the favor.

You threw the first turd Deane.

STINKY!

Deane, you're an ass because I can see right through your veiled racism. It's a tried and true smear tactic old fart racist Republicans have been using for years. And you are one of them.

Vitalogy, you imagine that just as you imagine that liberalism makes any sense. You can't point to one single post I have ever made that indicates any form of racism.

If you think because I suggest we ought to slow down and take a serious look at Obama before elevating him to status of sainthood, it's racisim, it only shows how devoid of realistic judgement you really are.

No, you're suggesting that he has something to hide, which is another way to cast doubt on Obama and play the fear card that Obama is a Muslim, or that he hates America, etc. Right wing lunatics like yourself fall for it all the time. What I'm not sure of is whether you're dumb enough to believe it, or smart enought to use it. Maybe a little of both?

Clear minded people like myself can see right through your veiled racism. Obama, as any other citizen, should be upset that an unauthorized person looked at all his private and personal information. And you've made several posts that fit the mold of using racism to cast doubt on Obama.

It's much easier now for me to see why you're a liberal. Foggy thinking and liberalism go hand in hand, and you are indeed a showcase.

Deane, Vitology: this is turning into a simple, stupid pissing match. Let's get back to basics.

Deane: Why do you have the opinion that "(t)he reasons Obama doesn't want anything about him seen is that it may not look so great." What do you base this opinion on? Doesn't Obama (or Hillary, or McCain) have a right to privacy here?

Vitology: I've taken Deane up on his challenge to find even remotely racist comments in his earlier posts, and I found none; in fact, he has given solid praise to Obama. Why are you reading his skepticism about Obama's desire for privacy as racist? Doesn't that just muck up the discussion, or is racism a key point?

Deane, do you still want to know where Obama stands on the issues or are you content with this most recent distraction/shift in topic?

Which issue is important to you that he has only said the word " hope " to?

And it's good that you question where he stands. I would expect nothing less. Maybe you'll even end up voting for him.

Let's ask this another way. Why won't he grant interviews and answer questions? I'm not suggesting he's hiding anything sinister. I'm suggesting he wants to run on this emotional "hope" message and not deal with substance. I'm suggesting he doesn't want to answer questions because of his lack of experience and depth. He doesn't want those things to become obvious.

"Which issue is important to you that he has only said the word " hope " to? "

CJ, I'm not as gullible at liberals are. I'm not interested in his canned answers on his site no doubt written or honed by surrogates. The real Obama will come out when he grants in-depth interviews, something he has ran from. Don't you wonder why? I suspect it's because he knows he doesn't have the answers.

"Deane: Why do you have the opinion that "(t)he reasons Obama doesn't want anything about him seen is that it may not look so great." What do you base this opinion on? Doesn't Obama (or Hillary, or McCain) have a right to privacy here? "

Ed, I'm not talking about his personal life. I could care less if he tried cocaine in his college years, or whatever the issue may be. What I think every Presidential candidate has to be put through is detailed questioning on their knowledge and instincts on issues concerning the United States and being it's leader. Jimmie Carter got a pass on that score and look what we got.

"I've taken Deane up on his challenge to find even remotely racist comments in his earlier posts, and I found none;"

Ed, thank you for going to the trouble to set the record straight. There's plenty to discuss here without falsely interjecting racism which serves no useful purpose.

I've seen interviews of Obama. Read them too.

So let's stop pretending that he doesn't. He does do interviews.

And, once again, it's clear that you do not have one issue that hasn't been addressed. I asked you MANY times to provide one issue that's important to you that he has addressed with " hope " because you say that is all he ever says. But when I point out that I am willing to show you that he says other things too - you dismiss them as canned.

You had your shot to step up. You really fell apart - again.

Lame.

And once again, I fell for it. Thinking THIS time would be different from you. No wonder you have no faith in anything hopeful - you can't even FAKE it much less experience it.

More lame.

"The reasons Obama doesn't want anything about him seen is that it may not look so great."

-What might not look so great, in relation to his passport records? This is a purposeful statement to smear Obama casting doubt on his backround as a black man who has lived in Muslim nations. This would not be in play if Obama was white and grew up in the midwest.

"Brainl, you're not paying attention to what's really been going on with Obama. His support for 20 years of a radical anti-American pastor, his involvement with the Weather Underground, with Louis Farrakan.

Where there's smoke, there's fire."

-This is among the most racist stuff Deane has posted. This is meant to scare old, white America. White churches are filled with hate mongers as well, but because this is a black church, it's different. Black fear!!!

"Do we really want the Presdient of the United States to be someone who has been attracted to individuals who hate America, who are involved in terrorism, who hate Jews, etc?"

-Now Deane is tying Obama to terrorists and people who are anti-jew. People that live in fear of the differences between races EAT THIS SHIT UP!

"Missing, this association with questionable elements has been going on with Obama for decades. Only now, while running for President does he denounce the Rev Wright's radical anti-American, anti-white ramblings. Only now, while it's necessary for his candidacy for President.

His wife recently let slip their anti-American views which are apparently pretty deep seated.

I'm telling you, where there's smoke, there's fire."

-In other words, because Obama goes to a black church, he's anti-American and anti-white.

"Andrew, when I started this thread way back when, I knew very little about Obama and really wondered what everyone thought. It was since that time I began to realize he has a history of gravitating towards anti-American and anti-white individuals. Since I started this thread, his wife has made her anti-American position known."

-More of the same race baiting using black fear.

"It's not possible to move forward TOGETHER with the member of the Senate who has the most liberal voting record of any Senator, and who throughout his life has gravitated toward friendship with those who are anti-white, anti-Jew, and anti-American."

-If you say it enough, it becomes true, right?

"If you want to move forward together, pick someone closer to the middle of the spectrum, not a radical who early in his life got involved with the Weather Underground who stood for the violent overthrow of the U.S. Government."

-Obama want to overthrow the US Government? Maybe it's YOU that's smoking the Oregon Gold.

"So far, it appears he isn't beholding to anyone except perhaps that Chicago gangster that he's been more involved with than has come out yet."

-Ah yes, let's bring the term "gangster" into play. Is Obama a gang banger now??

"Chris, if he associates with anti-white and anti-American individuals, and hangs around with Farrakan and the Weather Underground, how can he lead America to greatness?"

-Anti-white, anti-American, Farrakan...I'm surprised we aren't talking about the Black Panthers!

"I'm saying this is a person who as aligned himself with anti-white, anti-American, anti-Jew persons and movements. More than one alliance. More than just now and then. A 2 decade leaning in that direction. Is that what you want for the leader of the free world? Do you really want Louis Farrakan and Jesse Jackson running freely through the White House?"

-Okay, now we bring Jesse Jackson into the mix, that will raise some white eyebrows.

Judge for yourself whether or not race is an issue with Deane's comments. He may not be a racist in his own mind, but I see his comments as playing on racial fears in white America.

CJ, he instructed his supporters to not discuss issues but to stick to the "hope" theme and nothing else.

This was Obama talking, not me.

And yet I know where he stands on the issues and you don't. Why is that?

"And yet I know where he stands on the issues and you don't."

And where did you get this storehouse of knowledge?

And where did you get this storehouse of knowledge?

Probably the same place you get yours???? Maybe... Your facts seem to be flawed often though.

"And yet I know where he stands on the issues and you don't."

And where did you get this storehouse of knowledge?

Deane, are you actually saying that finding out where he stands on the issues is impossible? What issue are you talking about? And what does it matter where I get the information? If it's accurate, it's accurate. You keep saying that all he says is " hope " - I am here to prove to you otherwise.

Name ONE important-to-you topic that in which all he has said is " hope." ONE. One. Just one. If I can't answer it, then I'll cop to it. But pick one that is important to you. One. Just one.

Dude - you kind of suck at this part, don't you? You bluff too much.

How about if I quote Fox as a source of where he stands on your chosen issue. Will that work for you? How about MSNBC? How about ROlling Stone? What about Ramblin' Rod? What about Nwokie?

You tell me which issue you want addressed and by whom it would be acceptable and I bet I can do it.

CJ, stop acting like a teenage girl.

Obama has only wanted to spoon feed us his position on issues and you suck it up. What's wrong with him being asked hard questions with follow ups to test his knowledge and understanding of the world?

You still haven't told us where you got your vast storehouse of knowledge on Obama.

Multiple sources. Do I have to list them all in order for you to name an issue to whihc he only responds " hope."?

OK.

Fox News, CNN, Rolling Stone, all the pundits, his own website, interviews with Larry King, his book, ABC, NBC, CBS, Matt Lauer, Juggs, Republicans, Democrats, The Clintons, McCain - am I close?

Your turn.

Who's being denied asking him the hard questions? Which questions are you referring to? Like what? Name it. Ask it.

And I'm not sure what you mean about acting like a teenage girl, but if you are looking for a date, wrong site...well...as far as I know this is the wrong site for teenage girls. Maybe I'm wrong.

"And I'm not sure what you mean about acting like a teenage girl"

Me neither.

LOL!!!

So, we've got the following on the floor:

1. Is there an issue where "hope" is the only message element that is substantial?

2. Who isn't getting to ask Obama hard questions?

Well, FOX News isn't, but that's kind of their fault for marrying the GOP. Are there others?

3. Does #1 and #2 make the information currently available somehow not reputable?

IMHO, this is an extremely important discussion.

There are a couple of these two funny to pass up.

"interviews with Larry King"

Larry King hasn't tossed anything but softballs as long as he has been interviewing. So much for probing the future leader of the free world.


"Matt Lauer"

NBC News has admitted their candidate is Obama. So much for probing the future leader of the free world.

I think we have a clue about CJ's depth of research.

Considering how little you offer in support of your opinions, how is it you like to impeach everyone else's research? No one's going to accuse you of being verbose, rather, Deane, where's the beef?

Specifically, where/when did NBC "admit" they have endorsed Obama? Really, I'd like to read that.

OK. So you are not going to go out on a limb and actually raise any hard questions yourself because you know the answers are out there for anyone to read if they want to. Or they can ignore them, if they want to. You are obviously fine with being in the latter category.

As far as the cherry picking of the ones that made you laugh, yeah, I totally cop to that. It was funny to me too and I agree. But the question was " Where do I get my information? " I answered you and now you can just keep laighing in the hopes that we won't notice that you just are unwilling to answer a fairly straightforward question. Oh, let me guess, I have to " restate " it for you again.

No.

You're a big boy.

I also found it funny that you'd pooh-pooh ( sp? ) Larry King and Matt Lauer - yet not even comment on " Juggs."

You only comment on what you want to comment on. You realize, of course, that you are doing the VERY thing that you claim to take issue with about Obama, right? I know you are not running for President. But stop pretending that it somehow gives you license to go unchallenged here. That's the whole reason for this side of the board - at least, mostly, it is.

So when you are asked several times to name a single issue that he usues the word " hope " for ( the strong implication being that there is no substance behind anything he says ) and you pretend not to see that question but have no problem responding to the other stuff, you are defining being a hypocrite in this matter.

I win.

You lose.

I'm rubber - you're glue. And by the way Deane, I think it would you do you good to get information from more ( as in " additional " ) resources. You constantly rail against this or that source having some kind of obviously biased agenda - yet you never even read, watch or listen to those sources. Which is really the core of the problem, to me - not for you - to me;

You claim that Obama only uses the word " hope." How in the HELL would you even know that? You don't use any source to consider if that is true or not. You have made up your mind, profess it as fact, and then when challenged, dismiss EVERY single other source...THAT YOU'VE NEVER EVEN READ!

Go ahead, make fun of Matt Lauer or Larry King as an additional source. Where do you get YOUR information from? Who keeps telling you that Obama only responds with the word " hope "? Because I can tell you that Obama himself hasn't said only that. So who is it that is telling you he does? Maybe I need to reverse engineer you? Because you certainly won't engage in anything that would possibly make you look like anything less than having all the answers. ( Go ahead - have a field day with that remark. I know it makes you want to laugh some more. But after you calm down, try and disprove it. I have proven to you and anyone else who reads this that I can hold up my end. You haven't. So stop acting like you have, please ).

And, as usual, I'm not going to correct my spelling errors.

"yet not even comment on " Juggs.""

Is she a stripper in Beaverton?

I wish.