Stephen Best

Which, of course, is the magic of class action and contingency fees, without which the United States would be more unjust than it already is.

So you don't believe in justice, fair trials, and holding the rich and powerful accountable for their crimes and abuse of power? You don't believe in the rule of law, or equality before and under the law, the Constitution, or a country of laws and not men. You must be a Republican: the party that Lincoln would never recognize.

Seems to me that the full details of what Obama means by "Change" are available on his campaign website. The question is what does John "I'm for change, too" McCain mean by "Change"? It would appear change to McCain means more Bush. Check out McCain's website.

Probably doesn't notice.

Well that's revisionist history. It was "your" camp that was touting her "executive experience" which, upon examination, proved very thin gruel indeed. As I say, executive experience is a canard, but even on that arbitrary test McCain and Palin measure poorly, indeed. Despite the ticket's putative experience, they've learned very little. Whereas, Obama has proven that he excels at management. FWIW, most of the duties of a President have to do with formulating, reforming, and administering laws. By that measure it would seem that a legal background, particularly a constitutional law one, would be the best experience. On that arbitrary test, the legally and ethically challenged Palin and McCain earn not poor, but failing, grades. Palin is accused of abusing laws, and McCain brags about breaking the rules when he was in the military. Barack Obama would get an A+ if law was the test. Would you not agree? Or, in your view, is it better to elect law makers who don't know anything about the law? It seems that Republicans and conservatives covet ignorance and stupidity as qualities to be protected at all costs.

What's the canard I keep hearing about "executive experience" being a perquisite to be President of the United States? First, John McCain has no executive experience, unless you want to count working for his father-in-law at beer distributorship company. Obama, for his part, is currently the "chief executive officer" of, in effect, a 300 million dollar plus, 2,500 plus employee, national enterprise called a presidential campaign. Obama's campaign is arguably one the best political campaigns ever run. That's a testament not only to Obama's skills as an executive, but also as someone who knows how to hire, inspire, and keep competent staff. See "Relentless: How Barack Obama Outsmarted Hillary Clinton". McCain's campaign on the other hand is bordering on disaster and chaos, thanks to incompetence at most levels: testament to McCain's executive management skills, or lack there of. A google search on McCain's campaign management and woes produces an impressive list of mistakes, messes, and screw ups. We don't know about his experience in the military because won't release his full military records. Gee, I wonder why? Maybe he's hiding something? Ya think? As for Palin, her executive skills are such that she sparked formal investigations into her management abuses at both the municipal and state levels. In Wasilla, it was an administrator, not Palin, who did most of the management work. The administrator was hired because of questionable firings by Palin. And lastly does anyone really think that John McCain, whose always lived off the charity, corruption, and avails of others, is going to give Sarah Palin with all her executive experience anything to do in a McCain White House more complex than feeding the Christians?

Not only that the McCain campaign screwed up one of the pictures. What they thought was a picture of the Walter Reed Medical Center was in fact a picture of Walter Reed Middle School in North Hollywood, California. Really, how dumb can a campaign be? Clearly, if McCain lacks the executive expertise to run a Presidential campaign and hire competent people, what makes him think he can run a country?

Let me take a wild guess. The right to choose. Would that be one?

Heaven's no! I'm offering a test of your thesis which asserts that most of the troops want to stay "in country" killing the enemy until the job (whatever that is) is finished, and that the majority would rather do that than picnic with President Jimmy Carter. You do have a way of leaping to non sequiturs don't you? And I'm shocked, shocked to learn that the troops don't get to vote to go where they want. Who would have thought?

Here's a thought. Let's let the troops vote, and majority rules, between coming home and having a picnic with Jimmy Carter or staying "in country" killing the enemy until the job (whatever that is) is done.

More on the Todd Palin's business partner story on Reddit here. The request to seal the divorce records was denied.

Who knows but the National Enquirer, the guys who reported on John Edward's affair, are reporting that Sarah Palin and Todd Palin's former business partner had an affair. Also, Sarah Palin has also been sent to back to Alaska apparently.

Not that anyone actually knows what the job is any more, given the lies about what it once was. Have you polled the troops to know they want to stay until the job is done, as you vaguely put it? It seems the troops are voting with their wallets and supporting Obama by a margin of 6:1 over John "100 years" McCain. You have some evidence that most of the troops want to stay in Iraq and/or Afghanistan until the job is done? Or are you just repeating Pentagon propaganda talking points?

You are living in an alternate reality or the distant past. Get real or get current.

Doesn't everyone want to bring the troops home? I suspect that most of the troops would rather go home, too. Do you not want to bring the troops home? Can I safely put you down as someone who does not want to bring the troops home?

You must care deeply about what I think because you keep responding to my posts--just as you have now. Do you not know your own mind, grasshopper, as I know mine?

What's this tax and spend bull? It's the liberals who, every time, pull countries like the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom out of the fiscal mess left by conservatives who tax, spend, and borrow. As well, do you have a problem with bringing the troops home? Or do you prefer that they be killed and maimed for no good reason in illegal wars that can't be won? Why to conservatives believe and spread such nonsense?

Get what?

Get what?

It appears that math is not an area of your expertise.

One must be of two minds not be a half wit. Wouldn't you agree?

I've changed my mind about Sarah Palin. My concerns about her deciding to campaign to be John McCain's Vice President while needing to care for a teenage daughter going through an unwanted pregnancy and a special needs child have been answered. I read the many posts on this forum. I read reports in the mainstream and the independent press. After all that I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly now with Bonnie Fuller, a mother of a 17 year old daughter, who wrote in the Huffington Post, "Is Sarah Palin ready to take the mantle of worst mother of the year from Lynne Spears? Has Todd Palin wrestled the title of worst father from Billy Ray Cyrus? Sarah Palin may be running for Vice President but is she any different from the woman who sold the story of her daughter Jamie Lynn's pregnancy to a magazine for $1 million, or from the father that allowed 15-year-old Miley Cyrus to be photographed semi-nude for Vanity Fair supposedly to further her career?" Read Fuller's article, and I think you'll agree she makes a compelling, irrefutable case that Sarah and Todd Palin are possible the worst parents in America. My minds now settled, and will not be changed by further posts on this matter.

Why is Sarah Palin running scared from the media? Palin's avoiding the Sunday news shows. If she hasn't the guts or skills to face the media, what makes her and McCain think she can face America's enemies and adversaries: Russia, North Korea, Iran, Syria, China, etc. Or help deal with America's problems: energy, debt crisis, national debt, two wars, etc.? Or, is this too an unfair, irrelevant question about Sarah Palin?

CBS new has done a fact check on Palin's speech. Given this thread what's particularly ironic is the item below about Palin slashing "funding for schools for special needs kids by 62%." re-copied article deleted by moderator

Certainly with Fergus Shanahan, it would seem.