When will it end? You guys who think the Democrats all ride around on white horses need to wake up and smell the roses.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8VLH37G2&show_article=1

I'm voting Republican now.

CJ, I always suspected there was a brain lurking underneath all of that misguided thinking you were displaying.

Yep. McCain is now my guy. This story is worthy of me changing all my goals and ideas. Hope? Gimme a break. There IS no hope. It's time I just embrace the dark side and grab everything I can.

Think for a moment how serious it is that we have law makers who allow an enemy government to fly them to their country, wine and dine them, propagandize the hell out of them, show them what they want them to see, and then have them come back and tell the American public that objectively they side with the enemy.

Is that really the kind of information and circumstance you're comfortable with.

"It's time I just embrace the dark side and grab everything I can."

Well, at least ChickenJuggler is honest about it.

Whilst grabbing around in the dark...if you end up searching in a dark refrigerator, how about sharing by grabbing us an icy cold Grolsch mini-keg?

Herb

"Is that really the kind of information and circumstance you're comfortable with."

Absolutely not. I know it would be easy for me to say " Oh, what's the big deal? " And honestly, I don't have every answer to that. But I heard a story once about Billy Graham; He will never get into an elevator if there is just one woman. It is SOLELY to avoid the APPEARANCE of impropriety - and the ensuing lack of witnesses' should there be any accusations.

You'd think that these Democrats would have at least considered looking into making sure they have ALL their bases covered. That's important.

But to be fair - and I find this to be MORE important, just barely - what did they do with that information? Is there ANY truth to the fact that this paid-for junket tainted the information or that they came back and " told American public that objectively they side with the enemy."?

Did that really happen?

That's important. And if it didn't - I have to admit, I have less of a problem with it. If it did, well, I'm disappointed and will have to think about how I think about things like that in the future. That's all I can offer right now.

I think what it all boils down to is:

For members of one political party to point out the deficiencies in the other party, those doing the pointing better be purer than Caesar's wife.

That being said, I don't think it will ever end. The Clinton's refined the politics of personal destruction upon their opponents, unto this very day with Mr. Obama. But the Clinton machine also used such heavy artillery among those outside the strictly political sphere, treating them as collateral damage...such as those with whom Mr. Clinton enjoyed trysts. Remember the 'nuts and sluts' attacks? If the republicans use personal and heretofore off-limits tactics, albeit in a slightly different form, they can merely justify them as 'self-defense.'

I despise a number of the left's more dastardly positions, so because of those few key issues, I don't mind piling on from time to time. However, at times it really does seem like WWI trench warfare. Political grenades are constantly being lobbed back and forth. The people end up as cannon fodder in a war that merely moves the line of engagement.

Aside from the increasing frequency of bombardment, it's predictable.

Herb

CJ, they came back and said we should lay off Saddam and settle with him diplomatically. That's code for do nothing.

Diplomacy works when both sides want a solution. Did you happen to notice anything Saddam did that indicated he wanted a peaceful solution?

ANYthing? Yes.

" CJ, they came back and said we should lay off Saddam and settle with him diplomatically."

OK. And it is your position that they did that because they felt obligated to do so because it was paid for by Hussein? Which they didn't even know? Or is it that you don't believe that they didn't know?

Did anyone else suggest diplomacy over war that wasn't " paid " to think that way? How do you explain that?

No come on, Deane. I am answering ALL of your questions. You answer mine. Answer them straight and without offering another questions as your answer.

Ok, I'm gonna step in here and make a mess.

First, on the dirty bombs warfare, I largely agree. It's thearaputic to pile on, and we all do it. No harm, no foul really.

IMHO, there is less fodder on the Dem side, compared to the GOP side, but that might be simply a matter of them being smarter about it, less pressure, etc... At the least, there are far more Dems that inspire me than members of the GOP. That's as fair as I can get on the matter.

On the matter of regulating behavior, there is just this:

Money, Norms, Physics, Law and Military Force. I'm adding the last one because we are talking about regulating nations and not just ordinary people. Really, one can put physics and the Military in the same group, but I think it's useful to break it out.

The reality is no one size fits all and that is exactly why we are in the mess we are in.

Deane, it is true that diplomacy works when both sides are looking to deal. However, the scope of diplomacy extends well beyond the conflicting parties. There are other allied or not nations to consider.

Basically, it's about who we are accountable to and who our friends are.

There is a basic truth about freedom that really cannot be ignored in this context; namely, we are accountable to those we need things from, period.

We've incurred a lot of accountability, in the form of debts we need to pay, over this conflict. That's a big ass problem that will impact us for quite some time. The roots of it are many too, not just this administration choosing to run a war on credit.

(that's gonna end up being a historic bad ---really bad call)

We've also lost a lot of friends over this thing and that impacts us globally in many ways I don't think I even have time or understanding to more than outline, so I won't. Let's just say we don't have all that many markers to call in right now that would matter.

When people go to regulate other people, those means and methods all play a part. If the utilization of them is poorly aligned to the dynamics of the people and situation to be regulated, the result of the regulation stands a chance of not being what was intended.

That chance scales with the misalignment too. So if it's a little off, we get a nice surprise or two that could be bad, could be good, largely no worries.

If it's off by a substantial amount, then those surprises, which always happen -->in a manner similar to how gas always escapes being contained, manifest as real problems of our own making.

That's part of what is going on right now.

For any of us to argue that it's correct to do military, or diplomacy, or dollars, or anything is just incorrect, period. We might prefer this or that, but the realities demand a greater consideration be given to the matter, or we have that misalignment by default.

Again, that's where this administration has not done it's job.

They wanted some specific results. Some of them are warranted, some of them are just self-serving, and who really cares about that. Happens.

Not representing them properly caused a misalignment right out of the gate! And looking at some of the trouble now, it's very easy to see where it all connects together.

Some will say, "but how can you know?"

Answer: By fully considering and persuing all options with the best analysis we've got.

Doing that means having the high ground, the action being defensible, and alignment potential runs high. This really should be foreign policy 101 for everybody.

If you think on that for a minute, it's easy to see where our friends went, why the region is not all that stable, it's costly, etc...

We denied ourselves the benefit of our collective analysis on the matter, because of that early mis-representation. Many options were off the table then, and some remain so right now!

No high ground.

Now, it's entirely possible it still could have ended up a mess, but had we done the hard work and represented things and demonstrated them to be defensible, we would have many of our friends at our back, putting some options back on the table!

See how that works? I really hope so.

Going forward, it's safe to say we are where we are right? We still need those friends, we still must use some force, we still gotta spend dollars and we've still got growing constraints on our actions because of the growing debt accountability we incurred along the way.

I don't hold high hopes for direct, "let's talk" diplomacy with Iraq. However, we need some friends to establish some national norms between nations, for support, and other things.

In that, some diplomacy holds high potential. With a bloc supporting us, setting norms, engaging in force, economic pressures, etc... Iraq will feel a far greater pressure to grow it up, or risk losing it all.

Gotta happen, period.

Another thing about norms. Remember when we decided fear trumped the rule of law and treaties?

Now the norm we are trying to establish is one where an eye for an eye rules, or maybe it's more like we will do what we think we need to and will not be held accountable to nobody. All variations.

Well, setting those expectations sharply diminished the support we had right after 9/11. Lost the high ground, turned off our friends, and now we are standing around, holding our cocks, trying to look like the bad ass.

We are not feeling the love for having done that.

Diplomacy is going to be necessary there too.

Anyway, that's it. The scope of the word is greater than, "hey! let's just talk to them.". I think most people here are smarter than that, so let's give credit where credit is due ok?

Presenting it like it was on this, and many other threads, is just spin to support the ends justify the means, "see, Bush was right afterall" dream we all know is just that.

IN RESPONSE TO CJ'S POST ABOVE:

I'm suggesting they took money from Saddam to go over there and get laid by him and come back and tell everyone how good it felt.

Diplomacy only works when you have a big stick, when the other side has something to lose.

If you think differently, explain diplomacy from your viewpoint?

Missing, I tried following your diatribe, but went numb about 2/3 of the way through.

The bottom line is not what they suggested, but rather that they traveled under the control of the enemy and came back and supposedly gave the American people an honest recommendation. That is a major conflict of interest. It's dishonest. It's distrustful.

Don't the American people have the basic right to have their representatives be honest with them? Don't they owe the American people the courtesy of being told they were taking from the enemy in making decision on a position?

Deane, you just can't answer simple straight questions? They are mostly yes or no questions. Why is it so hard to get straight answers from you?

It is your position that they did that because they felt obligated to do so because it was paid for by Hussein?

Which they didn't even know?

Or is it that you don't believe that they didn't know?

Did anyone else suggest diplomacy over war that wasn't " paid " to think that way?

How do you explain that?

"Deane, you just can't answer simple straight questions? They are mostly yes or no questions. Why is it so hard to get straight answers from you?"

I'm not going to let you phrase the answer to suit yourself and then have me endorse it by answering yes or no. Never going to happen.

"Did anyone else suggest diplomacy over war that wasn't " paid " to think that way?

How do you explain that?"

It's very common for the left, when they have no solution, to trot out the "diplomacy" rhetoric. There were plenty of liberals around to cry "diplomacy".

And I'm going to ignore the less-than-subtle bullshit about getting laid. ( Unless you were speaking metaphorically. And if you were, then you can understand, in these days of sex scandals, why it's understandable that I may take that literally ).

And you think they traded all of their ability to objectively assess the situation because they had a trip paid for? Which, again, they didn't know about.

Deane, I could absolutley crush your logic here. You know it. I know it.

And if you don't think so, then why don't you just answer my questions I have?

You can't do it.

Got it.

You are a bug fucking pussy.

And it's not like I didn't try and engage you without using bad words and somehow I have nothing left. Please, I treated you with 10 times more respect than you deserve around here.

You are a dick who is just all hat - no horses.

"Unless you were speaking metaphorically"

I was.

Sure.

So Deane, do you negotiate business contracts or do you tell prospective clients to suck your gun like a cock? I am a firm believer in negotiation and diplomacy. The needs of millions of Iraqis outweighed the needs of the leader we armed to the teeth and installed in their country.

When our government arms Saddam, coddles Saddam, kisses Saddam's hands and makes him a wealthy despot, it is swell. When our government realizes that they need to use Iraq as a political football, then the dynamic changes. This is not a partisan issue, this is an issue rooted in our sick and twisted view of an empire of brutal convenience.

I know it makes you dizzy to take big bites, but both Missing and CJ have made a good case in this thread.

I call bullshit, Littlesongs.

You can't negotiate anything if the other side doesn't want to negotiate.

You can't negotiate anything if the other side doesn't follow through and does what they say they will do.

You can't negotiate anything if the other side is making secret deals with UN countries to void what you have negotiated.

If one were to listen to you guys on this, one would swear that Walt Disney was still alive and writing the script.

"When our government realizes that they need to use Iraq as a political football, then the dynamic changes."

With all due respect, it wasn't just our government. The UN and plenty of our allies all agreed that Saddam had to go.

Herb

Herb, the problem is that liberals in general just don't get it.

Like most Americans, I also thought Saddam had to go. According to the military and the intelligence community, our forces could have done just that in the early 1990s. Instead, we used the country for two decades as a backdrop for dog wagging. The bullshit machine was bi-partisan, so take the liberal versus conservative argument out of the equation.

Either get in, get it done and get out, or have more than a cold and feeble "they volunteered" when confronted with the four thousand dead brothers and sisters who perished in a dumb war that has lasted longer than the defeat of Germany and Japan.

I did not like the Iraqi government for human rights reasons long before the rest of the country caught on to what was happening. When the goal became "kill a million civilians who might be bad guys" instead of "kill Saddam and rebuild a democracy" the reactionary morons on both sides of the aisle lost my support.

We could have done it successfully when we did if we had used overwhelming force in the first place. We should have had a massive force on the ground. Enough to stop the insurgents from pouring over the border at will.

Our other problem was Paul Bremer.

Every time the politicians pussy-foot into these things, we end up in a mess. It happened in Vietnam, it happened in Iraq.

"Either get in, get it done and get out..."

Now wait a minute. What do you mean, 'Either get in, get it done and get out....?' That sounds great. But what are we going to do, nuke them and simply unleash a firestorm upon entire cities? Rather than do that, we did a lot of house-to-house fighting and that takes much higher casualties on our own men than dropping the simple bomb.

In trying to save as many innocents as possible, Mr. Bush is executing a 'kinder and gentler war.' What do you want us to do, pull a Dresden? Can you imagine how much louder the radical left would be screaming if we harmed even one more innocent Iraqi whilst going after the evil doers? Democrats trumpet the commensurately few innocents being hurt now.

Get real! This is a war where we're bending over backwards not to harm the innocents. Instead, the dastardly terrorists put bombs on little kids and mentally retarded girls.

You wanna vent some righteous anger? Vent on those blackhearted terrorists. We're the good guys, trying to free an innocent people from the evil-doers amongst them.

Herb

Herb, we are not in a muskets and cannonball era. We have the sort of technology to make a successful surgical strike anywhere in the world. With the tools on hand, we could have killed Bin Laden as well, but it was not on the table because of the self-interest of a regime who maintained power by keeping him and Saddam alive.

Without a boogie man, the weakest elements of this empire would crumble, and be exposed as profit seeking charlatans. This administration used our strength to further policies based on corporate needs and an extreme religious agenda, not for the betterment of mankind, the fight against terror or for the liberation of Iraqis.

Saddam was not killed when he oppressed his people, gassed his people, tortured his people, raped his people, or murdered his people. He was killed when we were under so much pressure from the Iraqis that he had to stand trial and be executed. Remember, he was our dear buddy in a time when it was convenient, and only discarded when it was no longer useful to have him as an ally.

"Remember, he was our dear buddy in a time when it was convenient, and only discarded when it was no longer useful to have him as an ally."

Welcome to the real world, Littlesongs.

How was the fishing?

"Remember, he was our dear buddy in a time when it was convenient, and only discarded when it was no longer useful to have him as an ally."

Your talking about Stalin, right??
Or maybe Ho Chi Minh

No, Nixon.

Now wait a minute.

Go easy on the honourable Mr. Nixon or the gloves come off.

Herbert Milhous

"Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said investigators "have no information whatsoever" any of them knew the trip was underwritten by Saddam."

Sorry, but I don't see how this is an issue at all. If they didn't know Saddam was secretly paying for it, what's the big deal?

and another
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/puerto-rico-governor-obama-supporter-indicted-2 008-03-27.html

"Sorry, but I don't see how this is an issue at all. If they didn't know Saddam was secretly paying for it, what's the big deal?"

If these three geniuses couldn't discover that Saddam was paying for their trip, how can they figure out what we should have been doing.

Fact of the matter is, they simply had their liberal agenda and used the trip to try to give it more credibility.

Missing, I tried following your diatribe, but went numb about 2/3 of the way through.

That's bullshit!

He does that all the time.

Funny though. I tested it a while back. Switched things up, breaking them into a few smaller posts. Guess he likes bite sized pieces, because those went down just fine!

The amount of text was not significantly different than what I normally end up posting.

Funny how stuff works!

@Deane: Hey man. It's cool. Just know there is absolutely nothing you, or anybody can say, that will impact how I post. It's either real or it isn't. For me, it's just better to put it out there. I type fast and quite often think in groups of ideas at a time. I also normally type while thinking --the two are intertwined for me.

Some of the best stuff just happens when writing this way. Can't imagine giving it up. Would be posing and likely worthless.

Sometimes this is a problem. Most of the time, I find it handy, so I've very little incentive to change things up.

She just can't concentrate long enough to read. It's the FAUXNewsitis. If it isn't scrolling along the bottom or broken up into 15 second sound bites she doesn't get it.
She really needs to try another ADHD medication I think.

Deane, your argument does not stand up, as usual. This is only a story if, AND ONLY IF, it is to be found out that they accepted the trip and KNEW Saddam was behind it. Do you really think Congressmen do research behind every single transaction and trip as to who's the ultimate financier? Give me a break.

"If these three geniuses couldn't discover that Saddam was paying for their trip, how can they figure out what we should have been doing."

They already had it figured out Deane, that's why they were against the war to begin with. They knew better.

My senile grandpa on his deathbed at 88, full of drugs, had a better grasp on reason than Deane and his dittohead are showing here.

But surely others here are coming away further englightened from the posts by CJ, Kskd and littlesongs . . .

I can be truly dense sometimes. You know what game I am terrible at? Wheel Of Fortune. I can never see the blanks nearly as fast as others. I fully admit that. I don't think I am stupid - I just miss obvious things sometimes. I told my wife, while we were dating, that I don't take hints well. I have to go through a process and sometimes have to have things explained to me to help me understand how you got there. Asking questions has gotten me far in my business too. I have been spared getting financially burned MANY times by prying out hidden items that are sometimes hidden on purpose, other times they are genuinely inadvertantly hidden.

I have also, as a kind of good-to-me side effect, been able to spot VERY QUICKLY if something is being hidden on purpose or not.

People who feign being indignant or insulted - yet are never really able to answer the question - and I don't care HOW loaded you think it is - always show their colors on the table. Always. Without fail. You'd think that I would be good at cards - ah - alas, no. It's not because I can't tell who is lying or bluffing. It's because I don't have the patience for the game.

I say all that to say this - and since Deane fell asleep during my first paragraph, Herb picked out words to make himself a jumble and Nwokie got distracted by Wheel Of Fortune and is now preparing a " Actually, if you just..." kind of statement to help win with Pat Sajak, I can speak freely and he'll never even know this about me or themselves;

All those poeple who never can answer a question directly around here? They think that everything that is asked is rhetorical. I'm beginning to see that now. They think they are being open and honest by implying things. And because it came from their head, it's obvious why they are saying stuff. Not because they know it's correct. But because they think I am trying to trap them. I can't honestly say that I've not been aware of that in myself. I know how I come off. But man, my questions are NOT rhetorical? Occasionally someone like Deane realizes that I am honestly asking a question as to how he got " there." He can never show how he got there because he never did anything to actually GET there. No journey. No questions. Just statements that feel right or good to say. And if you dare to question that in him, then he feigns being indignant purely to cover up and distract me from the fact that he has generalized someone or maginalized someone - and that makes him FEEL righteous. Not in the biblical sense. But intellectually.

I'm also aware that I come off like a snob. I wish I could do a better job proving that I'm not. But hey, words I use count for something - and I MEAN them to. But to claim my questions are either " so absurd that they don't deserve and answer from Deane " either that or he pulls the " Liberals don't get it." But given my admission about not seeing the gaps - and TRULY wanting to " get it " - it would be futile to ask him what " it " is. He would be insulted. Yet he would never actually spell out what IT is because, in the end, " it " means never having to say you're sorry...or something romantic like that. He's in LOVE with himself to a degree that blinds him to any plight of others - or even other POSSIBLE ideas.

And this is a thing that many Republicans do around here. It's always like pulling teeth to get a straight answer. They have to muddy it up with lukewarm comparisons or analogies - just hoping to trip you up for a game of " Gotcha! " ( If you're lucky and they pretend not to ignore something - but most of the time they just pretend not to see it until the subject shifts JUUUUST enough for them to feel better. So much pride. So little fortitude ) They embody the VERY thing that Politicans do that are getting us nowhere.

Do you want to blame Democrats for going on a junket that you don't even believe they knew was paid for by Saddam? Go ahead. I know you are lying. I know they are lying that they believe that because they know the very next question would be " How do you explain Democrats and Republicans who knew they'd had their trip paid for by The United States and came back with differing opinions? "

And then POOF! - their statement falls apart because the answer is " Because there was no impropriety going on on that count."

And finally, you Republicans around here should try asking questions more often. Watch how they get answered. Even if you disagree with the answer, at least you GET one.

Go ahead.

Try it.

I'm not going to correct my spelling errors. ( INGTCMSE )

CJ, I don't think they'll ask us any questions, so I'll ask myself a few to show how easy it can be:

Ever vote for Republicans? Yup, Tom McCall, Gerald Ford, Bob Packwood, Mark Hatfield and Norma Paulus. Maybe others.

Name 2 current "hot topic" items you side with Republicans on. The right to bear arms and supported the Iraq invasion to rid Saddam of WMDs.

Name 2 past "hot topic" items you sided with Republicans on. I wanted the Mt. Hood Freeway built and I thought Jimmy Carter would be a bad president.

Tell me something about you that would be shocking to people on this board. When I first registered to vote in Oregon, I checked the Republican box.

What sent you over to the dark side then? Ronald Reagan.

Has it occurred to anyone that when the 3 blind mice liberals got their vacation to Iraq paid for, it was by someone. Now, how many people or entities pay for something without an agenda? "Duh, we didn't know nothin."

" Has it occurred to anyone that when the 3 blind mice liberals got their vacation to Iraq paid for, it was by someone."

Yes. Exactly. And since you are such an expert on the details of this trip, I don't see anything that would have shown them that this trip was paid for by Iraq. And by your logic, this could have EASILY been a trip paid for by The United States. Something ( paying for a trip like this ) that The United States did FAR more than another nation paying for it. And also by your logic, when The United States pays for it, they have an agenda. So they went to Iraq thinking that it was paid for by The United States ( who was obviously making the case for and ramping up towards war or an attack ) and YET came back with a different suggestion. This is where your logic falls apart; If someone pays for the trip, they expect a favorable result? They thought they were going on The United States' dime, yet they came back with a reccomendation for diplomacy. How do you explain that? Shouldn't they have come back supporting a strike?

Now, how many people or entities pay for something without an agenda?

Exactly. Although I do not accept your premise that it's done without exception, but if I did, how come they came back NOT supporting The United States' agenda?

Answer; Because they weren't swayed by who was paying for it. And if they had known it was Iraq, they would not have gone as to avoid a story just like this. Just the appearance of impropriety should have been avoided. It was obviously a mistake. I don't assign as much of a scandal to it as you do - but it's still not a bad thing to know about. If for nothing else, toavoid it in the future. But they didn't know. There was nothing to make them think this was anything but another trip paid for by US.

If your premise held up Deane, then all Republicans and Democrats who were sent to Iraq for any reason would have returned supporting an attack. But that didn't happen. So your premise is incorrect.

"They thought they were going on The United States' dime,"

Duh, even they haven't said this.

"Just the appearance of impropriety should have been avoided"

Bingo!

CJ, if these had been Republicans you'd be all over them.

"They thought they were going on The United States' dime,"

Duh, even they haven't said this."

What if they had or do? Would that make a difference to you?

"Just the appearance of impropriety should have been avoided"

Bingo!

CJ, if these had been Republicans you'd be all over them."

Geeze Deane, if that's your point then we agree. Yet you still find a way to make it sound as though I don't.

Not true. I start more threads against Democrats then Republicans.

"What if they had or do? Would that make a difference to you?"

Statements concocted to try and sway thinking have little meaning to me.

Who cares?

A democratic vote equals a fairly balanced Supreme Court. A GOP vote means one leaning strong right for the rest of most of our adult lives.

So the point of this is what exactly? To somehow make the Democrats look bad enough to not be worth a vote?

Either we want things to follow this same ugly path, or we don't. McCain is the same path, whoever the Democrat ends up being, isn't.

Does this crap outweigh the implications that come with the court? No. Done, next.

What would a more right leaning court mean that bothers you, Missing?

A "right leaning" court, is one that reads the constitution as its written, doesn't make stuff up.

Know what?

I'm only going to give one answer right now:

It's not balanced. That, in and of itself, is a significant problem. If we are to have good decisions made, we must incorporate different view points, period.

As somebody who leans left, I don't want to have to live a lie, under the authority of a clearly biased court. As somebody who leans right Deane, you don't want to live under a similarly biased court either correct?

(assuming that bias is left)

Divisive crap is killing us. There is no need for it.

No, we don't want balanced decisions, we want decisions based on what the constitution says.

It's not up to the courts to set policy, or the law, they are simply tasked with enforcing it.

No, we don't want balanced decisions, we want decisions based on what the constitution says.

It's not up to the courts to set policy, or the law, they are simply tasked with enforcing it.

Nwokie, you've stated the truth. Liberals in this country want America torn down and rebuilt like what they think it should be. I suspect individuals like CJ don't even realize that, he just drifts along with the liberal crowd.

Control of the Supreme Court, and many other courts for that matter, is how they intend to accomplish their goal. Why do you think Ted Kennedy fights Republican appointees so hard. It sets back the liberal goal of rewriting the meaning of the constitution that led us to be the greatest nation on earth.

The hard core liberals like George Soros and Ted Kennedy fear the Supreme Court issue more than anything. Outside of that, they aren't nearly as uptight as to which side wins.

The constitution says what they say it does.

A diverse court means a solid, livable set of decisions. An unbalanced one does not mean this.

We have a Supreme Court because the law is a living thing. If it were not, we would not have case law.

There are no absolutes in this, which is what most people with some issue to press on the rest of us think they are getting.

As our understanding grows and public debate continues, the law can and will change. Decisions are overturned all the time.

" Statements concocted to try and sway thinking have little meaning to me."

Yeah. We know. But you apply that same logic to TRUTH too. You don't CARE what the TRUTH is. You only care what the truth LOOKS like.

How about this; If the TRUTH was that they didn't know it was paid for by Iraq, and thought it was paid for by US, would THAT matter to you?

"the law can and will change"

The Constitution does not change. You have showcased the difference in the liberal view from conservative viewpoint. We think the interpretation should be absolute and literal, not something that changes to fit the political views of a certain party.

Once again, it's whatever the liberals want that is right. Not.

How about this; If the TRUTH was that they didn't know it was paid for by Iraq, and thought it was paid for by US, would THAT matter to you?

I have no intention of getting into a discussion of hypotheticals. It could go on for decades.

I will go this far to say that if they are so damn dumb that they take a vacation in an enemy country and don't know who is paying for it, they probably shouldn't be issuing opinions on what things are all about.

Sure, the Constitution does not change --much. We do change it, but it's tough to do.

However, it's not inclusive. Many matters are left to the courts, with the Supreme Court being the end point for all of that. For those matters, there is not an absolute. There is only decisions made over time.

How those decisions go is a matter of public interest. All of the public, not just a segment of it.

You want something, I want something, etc...

We have a representative government exactly for this reason. If you are represented in that court and I am also, then we can live with the results.

If we are not both represented, then it's a lot harder to live with the results.

Having a matter debated in the courts and a decision come from that is fair --if the courts are working for all of us like they should.

Why should the courts only work for you and not me?

Do you have some entitlement somewhere I missed? Are you somehow greater than I am?

Of course not.

Electing McCain means we lose that court diversity and that also means losing MY representation in OUR Supreme Court. Again, that's fair and balanced right?

Thought you righties were all about FAIR and BALANCED.

Is that not true then? Really you just want it your way, and the rest of us be dammed?

So that's a " No." from Deane.

I thought so. God forbid that you take a stand. It's better to just have a strong opinion go unchallenged.

Lame.

You think that somehow makes for a convincing argument? Just because you say it and refuse any follow up questions?

You're lying. You know it.

No guts.

Weak.

It's laughable, absolutley hilarious, that any of you conservatives even have the nerve to bring up the Constitution. If the Supreme Court had any interest in truly upholding the Constitution, both Bush and Cheney would have been removed from office. You can't simultaniously uphold AND piss on the Constitution at the same time. Talk about wanting to have it both ways!

" If the Supreme Court had any interest in truly upholding the Constitution, both Bush and Cheney would have been removed from office."

On what grounds?

There's too many to list, but we'll start of with the Iraq war, torture, Valerie Plame, and habeus corpus.

That's not even worth an answer.

If you have to ask --really ask instead of distract, then there is no hope.

Sorry man. I really am. We've got a full archive of that stuff. Look around and ask the average person on the street. They can tell you easily. You've got about a 7 in 10 shot at getting a good answer.

I'm not even gonna be shy about it. I don't want a right leaning court. I don't want it because I don't think it will serve my interests, and that's enough.

So, the game really is all about those interests, what their value is and so on.

70 percent of us do not approve of the current path. That's a GOP path, for the most part, and it's supported by a GOP friendly Supreme Court.

Escalating that, with McCain is just stupid, unless you don't want to vote your self interest.

I'm gonna absolutely vote mine, and encourage others to take a really hard look at what theirs really are and vote accordingly.

That's a done deal. No problem.

The only loser is enough confusion and artificial inflation of issues to trick people into voting against their own interests.

No answers, but plenty of liberals whining because things haven't gone their way.

Do you know of anyone in the U.S. who has been tortured. Do you know of any citizens who have been?

What's unconstitutional about the Iraq war? Not anything, it's just that the liberals didn't get their way.

Valerie Plame. Her husband outed her. What's she got to do with the constitution anyway?

"habeus corpus"

What's that got to do with anything. Which citizen has been denied that right?

This is nothing but liberal whining because of the 2000 election. Eight years have gone by and you can't get over losing.

No, it's about you being a selfish MoFo Deane. You and a bunch of others like you.

There is nothing wrong with everybody wanting a fair stake in how the laws go.

There is everything wrong with hogging all of that for self-serving reasons.

Edit: Nothing personal on that either. It is what it is. But don't expect to not be called on it.

Swearing at someone because you don't agree doesn't change the reality of the left's hand-wringing.

It only makes it appear that Deane has gotten your goat.

There will be plenty of back and forth, "gotcha's" and shifting polls before November. But whilst the 2 remaining democrats bloody each other up, be prepared for republican unity.

Herb

"But don't expect to not be called on it. "

That has never failed to happen.

I used that expression to color the statement. That's also why I abbreviated it.

Had I wanted to really slam, I would have just written "mother fucker", and meant it in the worst of ways.

Nobody has my goat at this time.

I think his view is really selfish! That does not mean I don't like Deane, or something like that. Not the case at all. IMHO, he's a good guy.

I rather like all the tension. It causes the opposition to lose control and make mistakes while I remain calm, cool and collected, and certainly fully in control.

...and devoid of credibility.

As Mr. Nixon would say whilst his jowls moved around like a bowl of jelly:

"That's all very well and good."

But really. When someone loses their cool, it really does make it look like their goat has been gotten.

I'm fine with passion. But I'm okay with civil discourse, too.

Herb

Let's put it another way. I think it's very ugly selfish. That's what the coloring of the phrase was about.

Saying selfish didn't get there. Deane does not like long passages, so that wouldn't get there either.

Easy solution to me.

Again, no cool was lost, no goat gotten. Just a statement with the right emphasis.

I know that's grey, but hey language is a subtle thing. We've been through this before. I absolutely grant you ZERO deference, in terms of how I choose to express myself.

None, nada.

Sorry, but you've not earned that.

I guess I'm the only one totally not bothered by the outburst. I always figure when someone loses it, they have indeed lost their footing and I still have mine.

I'd ask you why you think that - but you wouldn't answer. You can't show your work even if church words are used. So why bother catering to some Red Herring? It makes no difference to you to show you that you are incorrect in your assumptions. You just state them anyway.

So what is it that you DO want? Again - you won't answer that in an honest way. But I wish you would.

Do you believe in God?

"Do you believe in God?"

Absolutely! Unequivocally.

The constitution is not about fairness, never has been. for about 75 years, it explicitly allowed slavery. It gives voters in smaller states, a slightly larger voice in selecting the President. It allows giving some rights to certain groups, and not others. It says a barek Obama can be elected President but Arnold Schwarzengger can't.

CJ, have you noticed I don't lose my cool. Herb doesn't either. No matter what you throw at us.

Do you know why. It's because we know where we are coming from. We know what we believe and why. It's not following the crowd, it's our own understanding of the world we live in.

I think it's simply a matter of not having the balance of facts being on the supportable and defensible side of positions you hold.

When in that scenario, the perception of being solid is EVERYTHING.

What else is there?

Think about it and get back to me.

Deane sez: "We know what we believe and why. It's not following the crowd, it's our own understanding of the world we live in."

Sort of like the cuckoo bird in a cuckoo clock. It gets everyone's attention, but is the only one in the crowd that doesn't actually know what time it is. Congrats on your narrow view of life.

Skep, don't you have a picket line somewhere to go work in?

Nope. Employers have worked with the growing number of union workers around here to ensure fair wages and benefits for everyone.

I'd suggest you go on a cruise for a while. Your kind of thinking is now limited to the shuffleboard crowd.

"Employers have worked with the growing number of union workers around here to ensure fair wages and benefits for everyone."


Do you read that stuff off a union poster or do you have it memorized? Speaking of cruises, what you're actually seeing is your fair wages and benefits floating on a slow boat to China.

Deane, you have not lost your cool, but one would have to actually have coolness to lose it. As the great Cannonball Adderley once said, "Hipness is not a state of mind. It's a fact of life!" I would suggest that you have lost reason, and that is unfortunate to note. You once reflected opinions that may have been against the grain, but could be defended in your own terms. I am not sure that you will ever regain that standing, nor am I sure you give a damn.

It is unfortunate that someone who once had many admirers both in and out of media circles feels as if that legacy is solid regardless of what is said to acquaintances, friends and former colleagues. Once you were revered as an independent broadcaster, a strong voice against consolidation, and a fellow who could transcend politics for the sake of market success. At a time in the not too distant past, even those who strongly disagreed with you could respect you and like you. Now, to many here, you are merely a bitter old person who used to own a little pea shooter in the valley. It is sad to see you fall so far down after the years of building support in your former home state.

Without respect, friendships die, and many of those relationships are being buried forever by your increasingly erratic rhetoric. Like I said, mebbe you do not care what we think of you, but we used to care about you as a friend without expressing reservations. I am not sure that is true anymore. In an America that will need to be rebuilt by folks of all backgrounds, incomes and political opinions, there is not a whole lot of room for the stubborn embrace of division. Like it or not, we are all in the same boat and must learn to get along. Our future is at stake.

Speaking of cruises, how about an ice float?

A "manhattan-size" ice float departs Antarctica every hour on the hour. Make your reservation before they're all gone.



ps: littlesongs has made a heck of a post. Reread it carefully.

""Do you believe in God?"

Absolutely! Unequivocally."

Thanks for one straight answer, Deane.

You know that you are purposely not answering other questions of mine, right?

I'm curious, what goes through your head when you see me asking those questions? I won't judge you for it. I promise. What happens inside your mind when you see a question of mine and you intentionally dismiss, marginalize or pretend not to see it?

Type out the actual words that come into your head. I don't know how to engage you in a meaningful conversation. I'll even do it by your rules and with your preferences. Anything you want. Just tell me what your rules are.

I really want to know.

It's not a trap.

I'm asking you.

I find it humorous how if one doesn't join the collective thinking of the extreme liberal crowd then one has lost it all.

"You know that you are purposely not answering other questions of mine, right? "

Not true.

I'm curious, what goes through your head when you see me asking those questions?

I read them and if they appear to be questions that advance the discussion, I'll answer them. If they appear to be questions cleverly, or not so cleverly, designed to illicit a pre-determined and misleading answer, I move on. Sean Hannity uses the same technique on his guests. You're in good company.

"I would suggest that you have lost reason, and that is unfortunate to note."

Littlesongs, you're falling into the trap of not wanting any views other than the liberal one. The liberals would like to shut everyone up except themselves. It goes back to the liberals thinking they are so right, anyone disagreeing is pond scum. All that does is make the conservatives more determined than ever to make their point.

"I absolutely grant you ZERO deference, in terms of how I choose to express myself."

And that's what boorish, uncivil behaviour is all about.

Herb

No Herb it isn't.

Maybe this helps:

"Look at that guy, he's one hairy MoFo".

I literally meant "mo-fo" as in the literal prononucation of the ad-hoc word, not the full on, and quite nasty, "Mother Fucker".

You are making it way bigger than it is and I don't know how to explain it any better. It's kind of like, "Are you really that selfish !?!", only maybe the black version. (Members of my family are black and would understand this.)

Rather than get into a lengthly discussion over some crap with you, I took the strong road, hoping it might just not have to happen.

Well it's going to, so let's have it out. I like Deane, I do not think he is literally a "mother fucker", and would have said what I just said to the best of friends.

I do not feel obligated to account to you for any of this, Mr. "black and white", low-tolerance, stuck in the past, stalwart of proper use of the Kings English! That's why I also took the strong road Herb. Sometimes things are just stupid. This is one of these times, clearly.

Heck, let's just play that out a bit for some fun this morning:

Perhaps you, sir, might be so inclined to enlighten us.

Edit: In real-time, meat space spoken language, the full on "mother fucker" is likely what would have been said, but tone and context would have made it clear as to the intended connotation. In written form, the abbreviated ad-hoc term is used to the same end.

Think of it like how some languages use pitch and intonation to provide a similar connotation.

I was the one it was directed at, and I wasn't the least bit bothered by it.

I know Missing well, know he has black family members, and also know he's a very sensitive and thinking person.

Even without the above knowledge, I still wouldn't be bothered by it. If one is going to post strong opinions on a forum such as this, one had better be ready to receive almost anything.

Setting that aside, I am of the belief that many in this country are far too sensitive these days. It's time to lighten up. Where in the Constitution does it guarantee we have a right not to be offended?

Deane, you know that I like you. What I said was strong, but in the spirit of friendship, not a personal attack. It was not to shut you down, and certainly not to accuse you of being "pond scum" or any other water borne algae. I just felt that you might need to take a deep breath. You may not know me as well as Doug, but like Missing, I also have "black family members" and I am a "very sensitive and thinking person" too.

As I said before, I believe we all have a vested interest in a better future regardless of our background and we all should bring our POV to the table to find solutions. America by it's very existence is a "liberal" concept, so if I am to be labeled as such it is hardly an insult. Lump me in with our greatest leaders if you must, but do not pretend it gets my goat to have them for company, or that you look smart by doing it.

Actually, Littlesongs, I could end up preferring Obama for President, but he'll have to demonstrate he's a moderate for that to happen. McCain has some major weak areas and one of them by his own admission is economics. I doubt Obama has been on earth long enough to develop a good feel for economics, but his educational background indicates he might be a good learner.

What I object to is this blind liberal passion for Obama like he was a rock star and the liberals were little teen girls getting all excited.

I am glad we are having this discussion return to a more constructive place. A prominent Republican from your neck of the woods spoke about Obama in a conversation on the Charlie Rose show the other night:

Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) said last night that, among the 3 remaining candidates, he thought Barack Obama had the best chance of bringing the country together. While he did not dismiss McCain (he's done that in the Senate) or Clinton (she's had some success in the Senate, not as much as McCain), he said that he believed that Barack Obama, for generational reasons, could best bring the country together.

Hagel also stated that he believes the inventory of problems the next President will face is unprecedented and that that is why it is so important that the country be brought together so that it could really solve problems. Although Hagel did not endorse Obama, he did not rule out the possibility.

Hagel, who is retiring from the Senate and, for awhile, from public life, pointed to data showing 81% of the country believe we are on the "wrong-track", that registration numbers show Republicans to be in the teens and Independents higher than Democrats, and that trust in Congress and the President is at all time lows.

"In a democracy", said Hagel, "people push something else out there" to take the place of or transform institutions. He believes that that is what this election will ultimately be about.

Paul Abrams

If you were to say, "what I object to is this blind passion for a candidate like he was a rock star and the constituents were little teen girls getting all excited" -- I would agree wholeheartedly with you. I think that an informed electorate is a must. I have done more reading, studying and fact checking than most folks and I make my decisions based on information, not hype. If free passes are a sin, show me how "vetted" the current administration was by most folks at the turn of the century.

Folks in the media did not do any meaningful research on any of our Presidents in my lifetime. The "cult of personality" swept two horrible governors -- Reagan and Clinton -- into the White House. Both of them kept the American dream out of the reach of most Americans, legislated more power for themselves, brutalized minorities and destroyed fundamental checks and balances in the market, the justice system and our environmental quality. They also did the exact same things in their home states for several terms before running for the highest office, but it was largely ignored by the media during the campaign.

My distrust of folks in power is non-partisan. During the last 40 years, most personal successes were achieved in spite of our government, regardless of whether there was a "D" or an "R" after their name. As a entrepreneur in the volatile broadcast industry, you were not served well by a sluggish and increasingly corporate FCC, or by small local businesses who were too hand to mouth to afford regular advertising. Those challenges faced you regardless of who was in charge because the leaders did not serve the interests of Americans, nor did the population as a majority say enough is enough to the people at the top.

Add: I do take issue with your stab at Obama's youth. A 46 year-old fellow who eschewed big money to serve his diverse community for decades -- and only gained wealth when he wrote two bestselling books -- is definitely mature enough to have a "grasp of economics" in our current climate. This last week, he was the only one of the three in the race to give an "economic speech" to economists, students of finance and business leaders. He spoke at Cooper Union to a group of skeptics instead of spooning custard to the party faithful at a closed event. He is also the only candidate with large enough swingers to use the word "recession" in his remarks instead of pretending things were merely less dandy.

People keep saying Obama can unite the country, I find it hard to believe the most liberal member of the Senate, a guy that has never accomplished anything without eating at the public trough, can do that.

"...a guy that has never accomplished anything without eating at the public trough..."

You are a fool.

There is a lot of sensibility in what you say. The problem we Republicans have is that our candidate is good on some things, but lacking on others. That's holding down our excitement level.

The problem the Democrats have now is the one they always have. The candidates have to move so far left in their message to get nominated that they can't claw there way back close enough to the center to get elected.

I provided a link to his speech, and fear not my friend, he loves the free market. I will grant you that Obama is the most liberal Senator by comparison to his colleagues. However, the climate of the Congress where he serves is nowhere near the center, so the comparison is hardly balanced. The Senate was/is a reactionary, knock-kneed, unfocused crowd of entrenched folks, and quite frankly, most of them are still scared of tackling big things without a committee full of lobbyists. In that way, he is a fresh breeze across a cesspool. The odor is the system, not the man trying to change it.

If his record is compared to the way most of the country feels -- not just Washington D.C. -- one will find it right down the middle almost all of the time. His votes reflect a large midwestern district that runs the gamut from the far right to the far left, from hayseeds to suburbanites to ghettos to gated communities. He won their votes by listening to their problems, working to find solutions, and unlike most politicians, he did it without spreading blame around. His bills have shared sponsorship and votes from places no other Democrat has ever found cooperation. Regardless of party, most folks in Congress agree that he spends his time finding a bipartisan path to solutions rather than taking others to task for their positions.

Deane, the problem your candidate has is George W. Bush and the past 7 year's results of GOP policy. A disaster both domestically and internationally. John McCain will not be able to lift that weight above his knees.

I think W has done more to equate Conservative with Bad than anybody else in recent memory.

Moderate is clearly good. More liberal, progressive, left, might just present as solid change and that could be good too.

That leaves McCain as a worst case wager. Too many other scenarios that play out with positive potential to stick with.

I wouldn’t call ending the war in Iraq a move designed to appease the political left. By any measure, the war in Iraq has proven to be extremely unpopular with the American people, and with good reason. Let us remember the rationale behind going to war against Iraq. Bush and Cheney spoke of those dastardly weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; proven nonexistent. Bush and Cheney spoke of Saddam Hussein’s alleged ties to Al-Qaeda; proven nonexistent. Let us to remember the pronouncements of prominent neo conservative Deputy US Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz prior to the war in Iraq. He said war against Iraq would last a year, cost us nothing (Iraqi oil revenues would pay for it) and loss of life would be minimal. Mr. Wolfowitz was wrong on all counts and by a long shot. To date, there have been 4,000 US deaths, 30,000 US injured and 80,000 Iraqis killed. Plus the taxpayers have spent $600 plus billion dollars on this war and counting.

This whole misadventure into Iraq is a Republican blunder of monumental proportions. What’s most disturbing to me is that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney will be long gone when the work of cleaning up this mess really begins. Figure more dead, more injured and over a trillion dollars spent. And to think that Republicans like to complain about how Democrats spend money. Nothing compares to this fiasco.

So again, when you look solely at the facts, I don’t feel Senator Clinton or Senator Obama have moved to the left on a defining issue which transcends party, the war in Iraq. If anyone has moved to the left, it’s the American people.

Sounds like a broken record.

Kind of like YOU...

Nwokie said>>>>
A guy that has never accomplished anything without eating at the public trough.

HOLY SHIT! What a COMPLETE dumbass.....

There goes the neighborhood.

Nobody will ever mistake you for Henny Youngman trixter...

Name calling, but nothing to refute the claim.
Obama went to school on the public dime, and immediatly went to work for the Daley machine.
Since then thats all hes done. Thats the public dime.

NOBODY needs to.

Nw You act like an ass by saying crap like that....
LOTS of people go to school on OUR dime! YOU DID!

Funny how you EXTREME RIGHTIES jump on the board at the same time.....

Name calling, but nothing to refute the claim.

NWokie you must be the worlds BIGGEST bigot. Dig some shit up on McCain. Like DUHbya and Co. did in 2000 when they threw Johnny Mc under the bus.

Yes, but I did put in 26 years military service at low pay to make up for it.

What has Obama done in return? Has he authored any legislation, that has passed? Has he given any specific legislation he will ask for if hes president? No, all he says is "trust me".

Couple of things hes done, he got a house at several hundred thousand below market value, from a slum lord, he authored legislation for. He got some extra land, courtesy from the same slum lord.

He continued to support a bigoted preacher even putting him on his campaign team.

What has Obama done in return?

What did DUHbya do? He was Prez for 8 years... What did he do?

He continued to support a bigoted preacher.

I support you! I may not like your bigoted views about Black people but you have that right.

McCain is clean?

I wouldn't be caught dead with a necrophiliac.

What has President Bush done?
1. He has eliminated Saddam as a threat to US interests.

2. He has eliminated Afghanistan as a training ground for el Queda, as well as killing over 90% of their top leadership.

3. He oversay the economy recovery, after the almost disaster caused by Clintons internet bubble.

4. He restructured America's intelligence gathering network, removing many of the binders placed on them by Carter and Clinton.

5. After the gross incopetencey of the local democratic officials in New Orleans, he got aid to the residents in record fashion after Katrina.

6. He got several constitutional experts appointed to the supreme court,so they will make ruilings based on what it says, not what they want it to say.

Obama has been in the Senate almost 4 years, name a bill he authored, that was passed.

He was in the state legislature before that , for several years, name one bill he authored there, that passed.

False assertion:

"Obama went to school on the public dime"

Proof:

"Punahou School, formerly known as Oahu College, is a private, co-educational, nonsectarian college preparatory school located in Honolulu in the U.S. State of Hawaii."

"Occidental College is a small private coeducational liberal arts college located in Los Angeles, California."

"Columbia College is one of the prominent undergraduate colleges at Columbia University. Columbia University is a private university in the United States and a member of the Ivy League. Columbia's main campus lies in the Morningside Heights neighborhood in the borough of Manhattan, in New York City. The university is legally known as Columbia University in the City of New York. The institution was established as King's College by the Church of England, receiving a Royal Charter in 1754 from George II of Great Britain. It was the first college established in New York, and the fifth college established in the Thirteen Colonies. After the American Revolution it was briefly chartered as a state entity from 1784-1787, however the university now operates under a 1787 charter that places the institution under a private board of trustees."

"Harvard Law School (also known as Harvard Law or HLS) is one of the professional graduate schools of Harvard University. Located in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard Law is one of the most prestigious law schools in the world. It is also the United States' oldest law school in continuous operation. It is home to the largest academic law library in the world. Harvard University is the oldest institution of higher learning in the United States, founded 16 years after the arrival of the Pilgrims at Plymouth. Harvard College was established in 1636 by vote of the Great and General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and was named for its first benefactor, John Harvard of Charlestown, a young minister who, upon his death in 1638, left his library and half his estate to the new institution. Between 1830 and 1870 Harvard became "privatized". While the Federalists controlled state government, Harvard had prospered, but the 1824 defeat of the federalist party in Massachusetts allowed the renascent Democratic-Republicans to block state funding of private universities. By 1870, the politicians and ministers that heretofore had made up the university's board of overseers had been replaced by Harvard alumni drawn from Boston's upper-class business and professional community and funded by private endowment."

Not one thin dime of public money went into the education of Barack Obama. I doubt that any one else on this message board can make such a claim.

Clintons internet bubble.

It was his fault?

removing many of the binders placed on them by Carter and Clinton.

I think Reagan and Shrub I were before Clinton. What happened during their administrations?

he got aid to the residents in record fashion after Katrina.

WHAT? Your fucking kidding right..... News today said some might have to pay back what they got. Thaks for nothing DUHbya!!!!

Obama has been in the Senate almost 4 years, name a bill he authored, that was passed.

Name something that DUHbya did before being appointed President?


He got several constitutional experts appointed to the supreme court,so they will make ruilings based on what it says, not what they want it to say.

To overturn Roe VS Wade and tip the CONSTITUTION to what they think it should say. Kinda like DUHbya an Co. did for the last 8 years.

Deane_johnson:

CJ, I always suspected there was a brain lurking underneath all of that misguided thinking you were displaying.

What are you going to do Deane, keep voting Republican until you get an honest one?

I'm sure that's what she's thinking.... Most EXTREME RIGHTIES think that way.

So, they filled out the paperwork wrong, and got too much, just like if you fill out your taxes wrong, and get a refund thats you shouldn't.

Most Americans think Row v Wade should be overturned, even the lady who initially filed the suit, and was called "Roe".

And check on how much pell Grant money Obama received.

Question:
"What has Obama done in return?"

Here are 15 bills Senator Obama sponsored or co-sponsored in 2005-7 that became law:

Two addressed foreign policy:
Promote relief, security and democracy in the Congo (2125)
Develop democratic institutions in areas under Palestinian control (2370)

Three addressed public health:
Improve mine safety (2803)
Increased breast cancer funding (597)
Reduce preterm delivery and complications, reduce infant mortality (707)

Two addressed openness and accountability in government:
Strengthening the Freedom of Information Act (2488)
Full disclosure of all entities receiving federal funds (2590)

Two addressed national security:
Extend Terrorist Risk Insurance (467)
Amend the Patriot Act (2167)

One addressed the needs of the Armed Forces:
Waive passport fees to visit graves, attend memorials/funerals of veterans abroad (1184)

Senator Obama introduced 570 bills into the Senate during the 109th and 110th Congress and here are a few:

25 addressed Energy Efficiency and Climate Change:
Suspend royalty relief for oil and gas (115)
Reduce dependence on oil; use of alternative energy sources (133)
Increase fuel economy standards for cars (767, 768)
Auto industry incentives for fuel efficient vehicles (1151)
Reduce green house gas emissions (1324)
Establish at NSF a climate change education program (1389)
Increase renewable content of gasoline (2202)
Energy emergency relief for small businesses and farms (269)
Strategic gasoline and fuel reserves (1794)
Alternative diesel standards (3554)
Coal to liquid fuel promotion (3623)
Renewable diesel standards (1920)
Reducing global warming pollution from vehicles (2555)
Fuel security and consumer choice (1994, 2025)
Alternative energy refueling system (2614)
Climate change education (1389)
Low income energy assistance (2405)
Oil savings targets (339)
Fuel economy reform (3694)
Plug-in electric drive vehicles (1617)
Nuclear release notice (2348)
Passenger rail investment (294)
Energy relief for low income families (2405)

21 addressed Health Care:
Drug re-importation (334)
Health information technology (1262, 1418)
Discount drug prices (2347)
Health care associated infections (2278)
Hospital quality report cards (692, 1824)
Medical error disclosure and compensation (1784)
Emergency medical care and response (1873)
Stem cell research (5)
Medical Malpractice insurance (1525)
Health centers renewal (901, 3771)
Children's health insurance (401)
Home health care (2061)
Medicare independent living (2103)
Microbiocides for HIV/AIDS (823)
Ovarian cancer biomarker research (2569)
Gynological cancers (1172)
Access to personalized medicine through use of human genome (976)
Paralysis research and care (1183)

20 addressed Public Health:
Violence against women (1197)
Biodefense and pandemic preparedness and response (1821, 1880)
Viral influenza control (969)
End homelessness (1518)
Reduce STDs/unintended pregnancy (1790)
Smoking prevention and tobacco control (625)
Minority health improvement and disparity elimination (4024)
Nutrition and physical education in schools (2066)
Health impact assessments (1067, 2506)
Healthy communities (1068)
Combat methamphetamines (2071)
Paid sick leave (910)
Prohibit mercury sales (833, 1818)
Prohibit sale of lead products (1306, 2132)
Lead exposure in children (1811, 2132)

14 addressed Consumer Protection & Labor:
Stop unfair labor practices (842)
Fair minimum wage (2, 1062, 2725, 3829)
Internet freedom (2917)
Credit card safety (2411)
Media ownership (2332)
Protecting taxpayer privacy (2484)
Working family child assistance (218)
Habeus Corpus Restoration (185)
Bankruptcy protection for employees and retirees (2092)
FAA fair labor management dispute resolution (2201)
Working families flexibility (2419)

13 addressed the Needs of Veterans and the Armed Forces:
Improve Benefits (117)
Suicide prevention (479)
Needs of homeless veterans (1180)
Homes for veterans (1084)
GI Bill enhancement (43)
Military job protection
Dignity in care for wounded vets (713)
Housing assistance for low income veterans (1084)
Military children in public schools (2151)
Military eye injury research and care (1999)
Research physical/mental health needs from Iraq War (1271)
Proper administration of discharge for personality disorder (1817, 1885)
Security of personal data of veterans (3592)

12 addressed Congressional Ethics and Accountability:
Lobbying and ethics reform (230)
Stop fraud (2280)
Legislative transparency and accountability (525)
Open government (2180, 2488)
Restoring fiscal discipline (10)
Transparency and integrity in earmarks (2261)
Accountability of conference committee deliberations and reports (2179)
Federal funding accountability and transparency (2590)
Accountability and oversight for private security functions under Federal contract (674)
Accountability for contractors and personnel under federal contracts (2147)
Restrictions awarding government contracts (2519)

10 addressed Foreign Policy:
Iraq war deescalation (313)
US policy for Iraq (433),
Divestiture from Iran (1430)
Sudan divestment authorization (831)
Millennium Development Goals (2433)
Multilateral debt relief (1320)
Development bank reform (1129)
Nuclear nonproliferation (3131,977,2224)

9 addressed Voting & Elections:
Prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections (453)
Voter access to polls and services in Federal elections (737)
Voter intimidation and deceptive practices (1975)
Senate campaign disclosure parity (185)
Require reporting for bundled campaign contributions (2030)
Election jamming prevention (4102)
Campaign disclosure parity (223)
Presidential funding (2412)
Integrity of electronic voting systems (1487)

11 addressed Education:
Increase access of low income African Americans to higher education (1513)
Establish teaching residency programs (1574)
Increase early intervention services (2111)
Middle school curriculum improvements (2227)
Public database of scholarships, fellowships and financial aid (2428)
Summer learning programs (116)
TANF financial education promotion (924)
Higher education (1642)
Build capacity at community colleges (379)
Campus law enforcement in emergencies (1228)
Support for teachers (2060)

6 addressed Hurricane Katrina:
Hurricane Katrina recovery (2319)
Emergency relief (1637)
Bankruptcy relief and community protection (1647)
Working family tax relief (2257)
Fair wages for recovery workers (1749)
Gulf coast infrastructure redevelopment (1836)

5 addressed the Environment:
Drinking water security (218, 1426)
Water resources development (728)
Waste water treatment (1995)
Combat illegal logging (1930)
Spent nuclear fuel tracking and Accountability (1194)
Asian Carp Prevention and Control Act (726)

4 addressed Discrimination:
Claims for civil class action based on discrimination (1989)
Domestic partnership benefits (2521)
Unresolved civil rights crimes (535)
Equality or two parent families (2286)

4 addressed Homeland Security:
Judicial review of FISA orders (2369)
National emergency family locater (1630)
Amend US Patriot Act (2167)
Chemical security and safety (2486)

That's quite a bit of accomplishments for a trough eater.


PS: According to Deane I'm not a liberal anymore. I haven't fallen for rock-star Obama like the other liberals here.

Nwokie: You'd appear smarter if you'd shut up.

Nwokie is correct. "Roe" is now pro-life:

http://www.leaderu.com/norma/

Soon, our supreme court will also be.

When it comes to credibility, Nwokie has far more than any radical abortion-supporting leftists around here.

Herb

Why?

Because he's pro-life?

Nice move on "abortion-supporting", BTW That's a new frame to work on debunking. Always fun. Pro-abortion fell flat awful quick. Maybe this one has some legs, right?

Reminds me of the absolute truth, biblical truth, ultimate truth, bit. Was fun too.

Pro-life cred? Maybe.

Really, I gotta ask how posting a lotta garbage helps the cause. How does it?

Herb: "When it comes to credibility, Nwokie has far more than any radical abortion-supporting leftists around here."

Nwokie: "Most Americans think Row v Wade should be overturned."


Survey Says...

The Harris Poll. Oct. 16-23, 2007

N=1,052 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that states laws which made it illegal for a woman to have an abortion up to three months of pregnancy were unconstitutional, and that the decision on whether a woman should have an abortion up to three months of pregnancy should be left to the woman and her doctor to decide. In general, do you favor or oppose this part of the U.S. Supreme Court decision making abortions up to three months of pregnancy legal?"

Favor: 56%
Oppose: 40%
Unsure: 4%

"Do you favor laws that would make it more difficult for a woman to get an abortion, favor laws that would make it easier to get an abortion or should no change be made to existing abortion laws?"

More Difficult: 42%
Easier: 16%
No Change: 38%
Unsure: 4%

Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll. Oct. 19-22, 2007
N=1,039 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Which comes closest to your view on abortion: abortion should always be legal, or should be legal most of the time, or should be made illegal except in cases of rape, incest and to save the mother's life, or abortion should be made illegal without any exceptions?"

Always Legal: 31%
Legal Most of the Time: 13%
Illegal With a Few Exceptions: 40%
Illegal Without Exceptions:10%
Unsure:6%

CBS News Poll. Oct. 12-16, 2007
N=1,143 registered voters nationwide

"What is your personal feeling about abortion? (1) It should be permitted in all cases.
(2) It should be permitted, but subject to greater restrictions than it is now.
(3) It should be permitted only in cases such as rape, incest and to save the woman's life. OR,
(4) It should only be permitted to save the woman's life."

All Cases: 26%
Greater Restrictions: 16%
Rape, Incest, Woman's Life: 34%
Only Woman's Life: 16%
Never (vol.): 4%
Unsure: 4%


Hey Herb, credibility must be earned.

42.7 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot.

About the same percentage that agree with Nwokie and Herb about abortion - coincidence?

Two peas in a pod.

You flatter me by mentioning my name in the same sentence as Nwokie.

We enjoy our freedom of speech on this board because of the sacrifice of brave men like Nwokie and John McCain.

As honourable defenders of liberty, I'm not worthy to carry the shoes of either man, nor are many others on this board.

Movie stars, professional athletes and musicians are not heroes, but the US military is full of heroes and plenty made the supreme sacrifice for us.

Herb

WOW!
Littlesong kinda kicked Nwokie in the nuts. If he has any.....

And why exactly should Nwokie be concerned about drivel from a socialistic faux republican?

Herb

socialistic

Thanks for the slander Herb!!!!!
You commie FACIST pinko black heart.

"We enjoy our freedom of speech on this board because of the sacrifice of brave men like Nwokie and John McCain."

...along with John Kerry, Wesley Clark, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, etc. Oh, and don't forget Nixon! All military, all worthy of your humble deference I assume.

"...slander..."

Show me where I'm wrong and I shall delightfully recant, oh liberal one.

Herb

"...along with John Kerry, Wesley Clark, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, etc. Oh, and don't forget Nixon! All military, all worthy of your humble deference I assume."

Only Mr. Kerry & Mr. Gore appear to have misrepresented parts of their service. Having said that, anyone who is honourably discharged has my respect given their efforts in serving their country.

For while John Kerry was no Audie Murphy, both served and were honourably discharged. They deserve that credit for defending our freedoms and they all have my sincere thanks.

Herb

I am not sure John Kerry was honorably discharged, he still refuses to release his original DD 214, as he has promised several times.

All your 214 lists are, military rank, service schools attended, awards received, and type of discharge. Why won't he release it?

A fair point.

As much as I disagree with Mr. Carter, I've never heard about him misrepresenting his military service.

Why Mr. Kerry won't come clean, I don't know.

But if Mr. Kerry WAS given an honourable discharge, then he has my sincere gratitude for his service.

Herb

What Carter did, which earned him the scorn of most military professionals was, A. Pardoning all vietnam era draft dodgers and deserters.
and B his mishandeling of the hostage rescue attempt in Iran.

If Mr. Kerry WAS given an honourable discharge, then he has my sincere gratitude for his service.

He has your sincere gratitude, Herb. Nwokie, now you can apologize for slandering him too.

In addition to a fine Snopes article destroying the myths surrounding his service, here is John Kerry's DD 214 to be read and shared.

I was also able to find his Honorable Discharge and a bunch of other documents relating to the 2004 candidates.

I spent fifteen minutes to find the truth. Some of you have spent over four years denying the facts without taking a moment to debunk yourself.

To me, all combat Veterans are heroes. Unfortunately, not all of our American heroes understand the value of preserving our liberties, not only with a gun, but with the facts too.

Nwokie: The military, not Carter, mishandled the rescue attempt.

Also Nwokie, he did not pardon deserters.

He did excluded many groups of individuals from the pardon: deserters were not eligible, nor were soldiers who had received less-than-honorable discharges. Also not included were the civilians who had protested the war.

No discharge certificate issued at time of seperation, that is probably an amended 214.

You get a discharge certificate, when you are released from active duty.

Another weird things, a silver star with a V, the military has never given a silver star with a V.

All I remember getting was the DD214 and the clerk made a typing error on it, so it is likely a clerk added the silver star V.

"I spent fifteen minutes to find the truth. Some of you have spent over four years denying the facts without taking a moment to debunk yourself."

Yet another bald faced example of conservative ignorance.

Radioblogman is absolutely correct. Operation Eagle Claw was a tragic moment that changed the way our military operates in poor weather, and the lessons learned from that day have improved logistics for generations of service personnel to come. Many references are available from the Wiki entry, the Carter Library and the Holloway Report.

According to his first DD214, he entered active duty in Aug 66, but he didn't get his honorable discharge until 78, he should have gotten his honorable discharge in 72. The DD 214 is either the one releasing him from active duty, into the reserves, and there should have been a DD214 dated in 72,

Show me where I'm wrong and I shall delightfully recant, oh liberal one.

MORE SLANDER!
Thanks for YOUR true colors....

I didn't think you could show me.

Game.
Set.
Match.

Herb

It would be very easy for Kerry to settle the question, release his DD214 dated in 72.

After all he demanded President Bush release all of his military records.

And by the way Adm Borda commited suicide for wearing a decoration with a V, when he wasn't authorized the V.

Thanks for the slander pinko commie UN-patriotic poster....

NO game was played
No set was set
And YOUR match is with whomever drinks the same kool-aid as you.
Keep drinking Herb all the way till November...
Nation dividing EVANGELICAL EXTREME RIGHT Bible thumpin' MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY.
Wait till God get's a hold of you.....

Plenty of things in this life are indeed black and white, Trixter, like stop at a red stoplight and don't murder.

And You're correct that I will have to account to the Almighty for my sins, and there are many.

But don't deceive yourself into thinking that those who profit by promoting abortion will fare any better.

Herb

I'm thinking a peek at NWokie's discharge papers will be VERY enlightening!

So, how about it?

But don't deceive yourself into thinking that those who profit by promoting abortion will fare any better.

WTF?
Smoke some good meth yesterday or what? Where did I say that?

No, you wouldn't make many declarative statments because to you, it's all grey.

Assisted suicide.
Abortion on demand.
Same sex marriage.
Legalisation of drugs.

No wonder you're a Clinton fan.

Herb

Assisted suicide.
Abortion on demand.
Same sex marriage.
Legalisation of drugs.

No wonder you're a Clinton fan.

MORE SLANDER!
I've said REPEATEDLY that if Hillary get's the nod I'm moving to Switzerland! What more do you have to read.
Herb..
I don't really know what kind of meds you are on but it would do you so good to UP your meds to their MAXIMUM dosage.
I've NEVER said anything about legalizing drugs, assisted suicide or abortion on demand.
You've just shown the rest of the people on this board what you are. A LIAR!
Lying is a sin if I'm not correct....? Way to sin there Herb....
Can't make a point based on fact so you have to lie. Way to go EXTREMEIE!

Whilst you name call and defend the left, I'm merely pointing out the views of those with whom you have chosen to associate.

Herb

DOESN'T MEAN I TAKE THEIR POINTS OF VIEW!

I sorry YOU can't understand that.... Just because I don't think 100% of your doom and gloom and hatred of homosexuals and that even if we outlaw abortions it WON'T stop them doesn't mean I'm a liberal. Only a closed minded fascists bassackwards thinking human would think that.....

Herb, please provide us with your opinion on the parents charged in the death of their child DUE TO NEGLECT (or as they defend their behavior, prayer.) Good christian parents, or child abusers who killed a kid? That's a good black and white position I'd like you to take.


Assisted suicide.

-Why not, it's a free country. Having a law against killing yourself in America seems mighty un-American.

Abortion on demand.

-I don't know anyone who believes in "abortion on demand". Is that a show on Comcast? However, the mainstream of society does not believe in government forced birth.

Same sex marriage.

-Why not? The Constitution guarantees the rights of all individuals, right? So if my wife and I get benefits of our legal arrangement, so should a gay couple if they are willing to agree to the same government offered contract.

Legalization of drugs.

-Why not? People do it anyway, might as well regulate it and tax it like other vices (liquor, alcohol, tobacco, guns, etc).

"Herb, please provide us with your opinion on the parents charged in the death of their child DUE TO NEGLECT (or as they defend their behavior, prayer.)"

Just like those who commit violence against abortion providers, I believe the parents in that case need to be given due process in court for the charges made against them.

If they are found guilty, then they should pay the penalty.

Matthew 22:21

Herb

I think the parents should be prosecuted, just as parents that kill a viable baby before its born.

I agree.

Hopefully that's what the court will determine, and I look forward to Roe v. Wade being toast.

When Ruth Bader Ginsberg leaves, it would be virtually impossible not to move the court to the right...even if an admitted Stalinist, Marxist or Maoist were her replacement.

Herb

When Obama replaces her with someone even more liberal and appoints a new chief justice and demotes Roberts, the only toast will be on Herb's breakfast plate.

Herb, with Scalia and Kennedy both about 72 new and likely to retire during Obama's 8 years, you can count on 2 more liberals appointed.

It doesn't matter, Radioblogman.

Unless Karl Marx himself were in Ms. Ginsberg's chair, the court will DEFINITELY move right.

She is so radical that I would take the blackhearted Castro over her. At least he doesn't pretend to be anything but an arrogant God-hating commie.

Herb

Obama can't demote the chief justice,he's appointed for life.

Nwokie, don't try to introduce reality to a liberal like Radioblogman. It destroys the fairytale world they live in.

Of course the demo's wern't afraid to use the filibuster to block supreme court nominees, the Republicans can block anyone the demos try to appoint.

There is nothing in the Constitution outlining a chief justice. That is a legislative creation that could be changed by a Democratic president and Congress.

And Deane, you know much more about fairy tales than me, with a world full of ogres like Cheney and trolls like Shrub.

If you lived in the real world, you would feel remorse for the dead troops.

Actually it does, it says that the "Chief Justice" shall oversee any impeachment hearings.

yes, but it does not set the term or creation of that role.

The supreme court if very big on precident, you would never get that to be accepted by the courts. Besides the chief justice has no more power than an associate judge.

So, effectively, Obama cannot remove Roberts from the court, but can make him an associate and appoint his own chief choice with approval of Congress.

I doubt it, its never been done, and judges and Federal judges are appointed to their position for life.

The number of justices could also be changed.

"I doubt it, its never been done,"

And we have never elected a liberal black man before either, so never say never.

And Radioblogman, you'll no doubt be predicting that Obama will bring in Tinkerbell to sprinkle around some fairy dust. You libs just don't live in the real world.

"You libs just don't live in the real world."

What do you call "the real world?"

There is only "the world".

"There is only "the world".

And it's on OPB Radio, 3:00 PM weekdays.

Sorry, Amus, Deane does not have a radio.

He just sits around the campfire telling ghost stories to little Democrats.

"You libs just don't live in the real world."

LOL!
And you do????