Shady

John McCain Running For Bush's 4th Term <--- Bush's 4th term??? Who knew? Link Barack Obama Sees Dead People

Ok, this has to be said now, because it's gone on long enough. Barack Obama is brutal, just brutal, when he's not in front of a teleprompter. In fact, he's so bad, he gives President Bush some stiff competition. Here's a list of my favourites. Feel free to add your own. Obama claims he's visited 57 States <--- You're a genius Obama in Sunrise, Florida <--- It's Sunrise Florida, not Sunshine, dumbass Mitchell, South Dakota <--- You're already in Mitchell, Einstein Link Children get breathalyzer <--- Yeah, it must be the sleep Something about the cost of something <--- This Obama poetry is almost too painful to watch

His gene-line? His colour of skin? LOL! I guess the whole "judging someone by the content of their character, instead of the colour of their skin" holds no real substance with you.

Not at all. Obama will get a bump in the polls, and therefore a bump in the futures market from his mini-convention on tuesday, and all the positive media attention that followed.

It probably has to do with his recent speech at AIPAC, on WEDNESDAY. Let's see, that was, um, YESTERDAY.

I hate to brag, actually I don't. But it looks as though my political acumen is quite high, as this is something I've been saying for a while now. I guess it took the MSM a little time to catch up. It's quite obvious, as I've said in other threads, that Obama must pick Hillary as his VP. He has no choice now. Some people questioned why Hillary didn't dive out of the race in May, or April, or March. Well, this is why. She holds considerable political capital, and can now begin to wield it. You may not like Hillary, but she's a very smart person, and an even smarter politician.

See, now if you had said the Iranian theocracy that America (Jimmy Carter) strengthened by removing the Shah. I could have agreed with you, and, you would have been correct.

Not true. Under the American Constitution, the VP has very limited powers. One can't exceed what one doesn't have. And if she tried, she'd look like a fool.Anyways, it's pretty clear, especially after this weekend, Obama HAS to pick Hillary for VP.

That's not true. Hillary consistantly polled much higher than Obama in Michigan and Florida at any time during the primary process. And voter turnout was up significantly in both states. So I don't think many people stayed home. Especially with all the hype.

As of yet, I have not voted. However, when attempting to do so, I noticed an option that wasn't available. Two reasons why Hillary lost the nomination. Michigan and Florida. If they hadn't moved up their primary, as a result disqualifying them from participating, she wins both by large margins. As a result, grabs a large amount of delegates, as well as fund-raising, and as important, momentum. However, at no fault of her own, they wanted to have a bigger impact, and move up in the process. And even worse, it was the Republican legislature in Florida that did her in. It's pretty obvious that her winning both big states by double-digits on super tuesday would have seriously crippled Obama. Unfortunately for her, two of her biggest prizes aren't going to count for as much as they should have. Just think if instead of Michigan and Florida, it was Georgia and North Carolina that decided to skip to the front of the line. Does anyone think that Obama would be the nominee if those two states would have been disqualifed and counted for half of their value? Of course not. In conclusion, Hillary was done in by the process, not the opponent. That's undeniable.

Touche.

In terms of the individual candidates, Obama is raising much more money than McCain. However, the RNC has a tremendous amount of money available for the GE, while the DNC is nearly broke. The RNC will level the playing field in the fall and keep McCain competitive. However, if Obama chooses to break his promise, and reject public financing, he'll have a significant advantage in funds, but may have more political problems to defend in the fall, as to why he promised to accept public campaign financing, but then, flip-flop on his promise. Is that part of the new change he's promising to his voters?

Most of what you say is true. However, I don't believe Sen. Clinton ever referred to Obama as an extremist.And despite what others may say since Hillary's ridiculous RFK comments, she'd still be the best VP choice for Obama. If he doesn't choose Clinton, he loses in November.

You're point is wrong. A stronger government (whatever that's suppose to mean), doesn't make it a better government. More power centralized in one individual (The Prime Minster) is not necessarily a good thing. Senators should not be appointed to office. They should be voted into office. Supreme Court Judges should not be selected by the Prime Minster, they should be advised and consented on, as they are in America. And if I want to vote for the Prime Minister of one party, and vote for a local representative of another party, I should have that freedom. It's only common sense.

Their system of government is better then a parliamentary system. Please explain to us how it's not. I'd love to be able to vote for a Prime Minster seperate from my local representatives. And I'd love for out Senators to be elected, not selected, by our PM. And I'd love for our Members of Parliament to have the freedom to vote their conscience, and not have to worry about their party cutting off election funding or kicking them out of their seat altogether.Please explain to us how their system is "half-assed." Three seperate but equal branches of government, each with checks and balances over the other, is somehow inferior to our almost dictator-like parliamentary system. How so?

What the hell does "margreace" refer to? Do you mean them or then?Do us all a little favour, and take a bit of time before you add a reply, to make sure you're typing coherent thoughts. Thanks.

American Woman's right, Bill Richardson would be a great choice. And as unpleasant for Obama as it might be, Hillary Clinton. Everyone else is chopped liver.

I don't know, why did you bother to waste time with him then?

It's not your job to tell people whether or not to post in certain threads. If you have a problem, take it up with a moderator.

BUMP!

I think you're completely missing my point. I know Muslims had nothing to do with North American violence against homosexuals and bombed abortion clinics. My point is, that the apologists for Islamic terrorism, seem to have no problem finding reasons or issues that justify such behavior, but at the same time, cannot find any justification for similar behavior directed toward their sacred liberal institutions. Terrorism, should always be condemned, and no reason/issue should ever be used to justify that type of behavior. However, I can't help but think that, if only abortion bombers thought on a higher scale, and flew planes into clinics, maybe the same people who long for such understanding of Islamic terrorists, would apply the same standard to domestic ones.

Yes of course, it's "attitudes" that "make" people want to fly airplanes into buildings. Don't put blame on the individuals who fly the planes, put the blame on other people's attitudes. For if one expresses an attitude or opinion that offends, then airplanes may fly into buildings. Well, this argument/attitude expressed by Moonlight Graham is definitely offensive, as well as ignorant, but I can promise no planes, trains or automobiles will be plunging themselves in his residence.It's not attitudes that cause planes flying into office buildings. It's radical religious/political ideology, in addition to political instability and in some cases poverty. BTW, I've yet to hear the same apologists for Islamic terrorism, explain to us the attitudes that may lead people to commit violence against homosexuals, or bomb abortion clinics.

PETA also told Al Gore that he couldn't be an environmentalist and still eat meat. The reason so many go hungry in the world isn't because there isn't enough food produced globally. It's because of poltical and economic instability.Democracy + free market economy = well-fed prosperous populations. And I lost all respect for PETA after they started mailing pictures of tortured and abused animals to my younger sister, who was 14 at the time.

Well, let's take a look, shall we?Pentagon's prewar intelligence role questioned Speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press," the committee's chairman and vice chairman, Republican Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas and Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, respectively, expressed concern over actions by the Defense Intelligence Agency and Douglas Feith, undersecretary of defense for policy. Roberts cited false information on Iraq that the Bush administration had taken from a source code-named Curveball. CNN Former aide: Powell WMD speech 'lowest point in my life' "In fact, Secretary Powell was not told that one of the sources he was given as a source of this information had indeed been flagged by the Defense Intelligence Agency as a liar, a fabricator," says David Kay, who served as the CIA's chief weapons inspector in Iraq after the fall of Saddam. That source, an Iraqi defector who had never been debriefed by the CIA, was known within the intelligence community as "Curveball." CNN White House defends Bush's post-invasion WMD claims McClellan said the administration has implemented reforms to make sure that "the executive branch and the Congress have the best possible intelligence as they move forward to deal with the threats that face this country and face this world." Intelligence about the mobile biological weapons labs came mainly from a source whose code name was "Curveball." CNN CNN exclusive interview with John McLaughlin BLITZER: And on this point, let me read again from the Senate Intelligence Committee report. "The intelligence community"-- that would be you -- "relies too heavily on foreign government sources and third party reporting, thereby increasing the potential for manipulation of U.S. policy by foreign interests." That would seem to be a suggestion that people, Iraqis like Ahmed Chalabi, for example, who had a political interest were feeding false information. That's the accusation. There's this other source called Curveball, which the Senate Intelligence Committee report talks about extensively. And apparently was feeding all sorts of information that was bogus. What do you do about that? And is it true? CNN Alright. I'm tired of posting these examples. However, I'm more tired of people's self-constructed fallacies, particularly from those of you on the left, in an effort to strengthen an otherwise very weak argument. As you can see, you're wrong. As wrong as one can be. So please, stop spreading at best, ignorant opinions, or at worst deceitful lies. As the saying goes, facts can be stubborn things.

To suggest that MSNBC is the only news network to criticize the Bush Administration just isn't true. All of the networks have criticized them. And the primary job of network news isn't to criticize the Bush Administration, it's to report the news. I know, I know, crazy concept. Keith Olbermann's "special comments" always make me laugh. His unique style of melodrama and self-importance make for outstanding entertainment. I know I enjoy it, and I'm sure Keith's 10 other viewers do as well. I also enjoy the same 5 guests he has attend on a regular basis, who all agree with his views and politics.