BS: Popular Views on Obama

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 11:43 AM

"Basically, since John McCain has been alive a lot longer than Obama, if you focus only on the positive actions of both men but refuse to count any of Obama's positive actions then McCain comes off looking much better than Obama. Consequently, to Cohen Obama is a bit of a sketchy unknown figure:

I know that Barack Obama is a near-perfect political package. I'm still not sure, though, what's in it.
Now in an ideal world candidates for office might release statements, speeches, documents, etc. about their policy ideas. People could scrutinize these ideas. Most people, of course, might be too busy to plow into detail. But a professional newspaper columnist, at least, would be able to sit down and really dig into what Obama is proposing to do on taxes versus what McCain is proposing to do. You could look into their plans for health care and for the environment. All sorts of things like that. And then even a guy with a relatively brief record in federal office wouldn't appear to be such a blank slate. So it's really too bad nobody does that. You would think that with the dawn of the internet candidates could at least put something up on their website under an "issues" tab or something.

Oh well...."

Comments on this column from others:

"
So, if Cohen doesn't know anything, it means there's nothing there?

Funny, I just thought that would mean that dumbass would lose his job. I mean, if he doesn't know anything, what the fuck good can he be?

On Scarborough this morning, Cohen said Obama had been in the Senate "one year."
.


Posted by Grand Moff Texan | July 29, 2008 10:16 AM



In any sane nation Cohen would be torn limb from limb by an angry mob. The fact that that animal can safely walk the streets without fear of just retribution for his many crimes is one of the saddest facts about our current desperate situation.


Posted by voice of reason | July 29, 2008 10:16 AM



Heck, Cohen could look at Obama's Wikipedia entry.

But of course Cohen is just being a di*k.


Posted by DTM | July 29, 2008 10:18 AM



Maybe Cohen's been hanging out with Fred Hiatt again. Maybe Hiatt awards bonuses based on number of pro-McCain, anti-Obama columns, with bonus points for arguing in the dumbest possible way.


Posted by bob | July 29, 2008 10:20 AM
"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 12:04 PM

"From a foreign policy point of view, the only real difference was that Kennedy was more bold."



                        From any point of view, the major difference was that Reagan was a lot dumber.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 12:25 PM

"then it will be camouflaged somehow. That's how the game works."

So it is not "Change and Hope" But the same political bullshit as always.

Amos: "I just don't have any data, and all I can offer is a suspicion"

Could it be that you don't really know what you are talking about but you keep telling us you know this is right and that is wrong? We are wrong but you are right based on things you know nothing about?

Come now my good man, where is your credibility?

You are indeed intelligent when you can know facts with out knowing the facts.

I guess that goes along with AJ's "summary justice" manifesto. Fuck the facts, we know he is guilty based on "suspicion, based on general patterns in the past"

Hang'em first and have the trial later.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 12:28 PM

Fred Hiatt quote sic
"Technically Bush never lied about the Iraq war."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 12:39 PM

Sawz:

Oh, eff off, you cheap-shot scatterbrain.

I was speaking about one specific thing I have insifficient data on to comment about. You are so dedicated to smear and snarking snipery of the lowest sort that you have to puff smoke about it? Get off it and speak like a man, or buzz off and don't bother speaking to me at all.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 01:42 PM

Amos:

Can't you answer questions like a man?

Obama: "after eight years of the disastrous policies of George Bush, it is time to pursue direct diplomacy, with friend and foe alike, without preconditions."

Why not include the eight years before that? And the eight years before that? In fact, the disastrous policies go back to the beloved JFK so why single out the most recent four years unless it is for typical, business as usual, political gain.

There was a temporary easing of CA relationships when Bubba smoked genuine Cubans, with various flavorings, on the oval office. It was referred to as not "supporting their economy, but as burning their crops"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 01:44 PM

Amos,

Attacking the person making a comment rather than attacking the commnet is what you usually blame the Bush Administration and/or neo-cons for. Why do you keep doing it, when your own sacred "Obama" is criticised ( and mildly, compared to the vitriol that you present against those you disagree with)?


Ease up, admit he has *some* flaws (besides being perfect), and let us see that they are just enough to make hime human- THEN you might increase the support that he gets in the election!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 03:49 PM

If you are seeking someone with NO flaws to run for president....it's gonna have to be...ummm...let's see...who is that perfect?

William Shatner?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 03:54 PM

I can answer any question you care to pose, Sawz. If iI don't know, my answer is "I don't know", and I expect you should have no problem with that. So what question is it you are ragging me for?

Because I haven't seen a coherent question posed by you.

When I do, if it is not redundant, I will answer it.

Meanwhile, try reading the label on the bottom of your boots.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 04:45 PM

Mine say "made for walking".

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 05:20 PM

Bruce:

I am not attacking the person; I am attacking the whinging carping illogic of his communications, and asking for clear and simple statements or questions.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 06:49 PM

Yes, Obama seems to be losing his steam. One poll has McCain ahead for the very first time.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 06:59 PM

Ignore it Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 08:21 PM

I am delighted to hear you say it, Riginslinger; all the more surprise when you discover how steam is made, a secret Obama knows and won't hare with McCain, who wotteth it not.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 09:41 PM

Why won't he hare it with McCain?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 10:33 PM

I don't have to prove it. Its right there in the link you posted. I'm not going to read it for you. If you had read the whole linked page, you wouldn't be asking. READ IT YOURSELF!

You are flinging all of this half baked crap at the walls hoping that someone with bite. I'm not going to bite.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 08:40 AM

Jack:

You have not proven Jack. You are flinging the crap. If I am wrong prove it. I did not see anything to negates what I quoted. If you saw something, show it and explain how it negates.

Here is more for you to task me on:

Columbia Journallisim review
The tortured reasoning behind the Times' rejection of McCain's op-ed
By Lester Feder Tue 22 Jul 2008 05:01 PM

"McCain partisans have decried the Times's decision—and, if you read the two columns side by side, Shipley's justification does seem rather thin. The similarities between Shipley's words and an unsigned July 17th Times editorial denouncing McCain for not having "matched Mr. Obama's seriousness on Iraq" suggest that the rejection is an expression of its heightening exasperation with the presumptive GOP nominee—not an adherence to general principles of newsworthiness. Failing to be straightforward about this was a mistake. Instead of making a statement about its judgment of McCain's leadership—a judgment that it could defend on principle—the Times has only reinforced its reputation on the right as a biased liberal broadsheet."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 08:58 AM

Amos trusts the NYT "They publish against standards of newsworthiness"

However:

"Following the revelations of Blair's deceit, The Times moved to uncover how management had allowed a young reporter with what appeared to be obvious problems to rise so quickly through the paper's ranks. The Siegal committee, after a months-long investigation, found "a series of management and operation breakdowns" and "a stunning lack of communication within the newsroom." It found that Blair's quick advancement may have become favored as part of a "star system" that advanced some reporters close to then-executive editor Howell Raines. "He was given a regular tenured reporting job despite the misgivings of his immediate boss," the report said of Blair. "He was put on high-profile national assignments with his new supervising editors receiving no notice of the serious problems that had marked periods in his previous four years at the newspaper."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 09:18 AM

The Jason Blair story is years old, Sawz, and the newspaper stood up honestly and examined its errors. What an old hack.

Conflating one crook reporter (or evens everal, as there are other similar tales you overlooked) with a 150-year old leading news organization is a bit insane, IMHO.

And, perhaps you'd also like to explain why you are so focused on these ad hominem slurs? Have you nothing to say on the substantive issues?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 09:20 AM

In the NYT we trust. But:

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 25, 2003
Judith Miller NYT reporter said:

"I've been covering Chalabi for about 10 years (since 1993), and have done most of the stories about him for our paper. . . . He has provided most of the front page exclusives on WMD to our paper."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,DV
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 09:56 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,DV
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 10:02 AM

Sorry. Do over, here.

Amos, the NY Times was front and center, leading the charge of the Dim Bulb Brigade into Iraq.

Their very own Brenda Starr was at the center of Plamegate.

And that isn't even taking into account the fact they HAD to put a public omsbud forward to silence the scathing criticism and stem the bleeding in advertising revenue, in the wake of far more dastardly deeds than just hiring fake journos like Blair. There was that little flap over an editor or two if you recall?

The NY Times has zero credibility as far as I, and many others are concerned, and for very good reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 10:21 AM

"Conflating one crook reporter (or evens everal, as there are other similar tales you overlooked) with a 150-year old leading news organization is a bit insane..."


                  I wouldn't argue with that, but the NYT management and ownership has changed dramatically since its beginning. The story of how it came to be lost to the original owner is particularly interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 10:25 AM

Here Here. In my opinion, Chalabi is at the root of this WMD disaster. I fault the Clinton and Bush administration for not finding him out sooner.

Congress actually gave the bastard $4.3 million under the Iraq Liberation Act. He should be kidnapped and rendered to Jordan where he is was convicted of embezzling $70 million in 1992.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 12:14 PM

Obama holds bipartisan economy talks
By Edward Luce in Washington DC

Published: July 29 2008 03:00 | Last updated: July 29 2008 03:00

Barack Obama yesterday welcomed three prominent Republicans, including two former officials in the George W. Bush administration, to an "economic summit" aimed at displaying his bipartisan credentials.

The meeting, which followed Mr Obama's week-long tour of the Middle East and Europe, coincided with worsening economic news as the administration estimated that next year's budget deficit would jump to almost $500bn (£250bn).

It also came amid growing Republican concern about the sometimes confused economic message of John McCain, Mr Obama's rival for the presidency.

Mr McCain's tax and spending proposals would add an estimated $3,400bn to the US deficit over the next decade compared with an estimated $700bn deficit reduction from Mr Obama's plans, according to the Tax Policy Center, an independent think-tank.

The Obama campaign yesterday said the widening budget deficit was a further testimony to what it said was the administration's "unprecedented fiscal irresponsibility". "The deficit is an important issue because Senator John McCain is proposing to continue the same Bush economic policies that put our economy on this dangerous path and that will drive America even deeper into debt."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 12:37 PM

Analysis: Obama, McCain both have lobbyist ties

Story Highlights
John McCain, Barack Obama both speak out against lobbyists' influence

Obama vowed to not accept money from Washington lobbyists

Obama campaign says it does get money from state, local lobbyists

Candidates can avoid lobbyists but still rake in millions from bundlers

From David Mattingly and Joe Johns
CNN
   
(CNN) -- Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama like to portray themselves as Washington outsiders, but neither candidate is completely clean of the influence of lobbyists.

Politicians know that tough talk on lobbyists sounds good to the public, but the reality is that top level candidates can't live without them, experts say.

"They know they work with lobbyists. They have staffers who have been lobbyists. They are going to depend on lobbyists for a lot of the information on the decisions they make if they get elected. So, absolutely there's a lot of hypocrisy involved," said Larry Sabato, a politics professor at the University of Virginia.

During this campaign, lobbyists and trade groups donated $181,000 to McCain, while Obama received $6,000, according to the New York Times. In all, lobbyists reported contributions of $4.7 million to Democrats and $3.3 million to Republicans, the Times reported this week.

But those figures only include registered lobbyists and trade groups -- not big companies that could have lobbyist ties.

Still, both candidates maintain they are above the influence of lobbyists.

Obama has pledged not to take money from lobbyists, but even within that promise there are loopholes.

His campaign says it steers clear of registered federal lobbyists, but it does take money from lobbyists at state and local levels.
The senator from Illinois also has taken in $18.8 million from lawyers and law firms, according to estimates from the Center for Responsive Politics, and some of those firms employ lobbyists for special interest clients. Watch where Obama's money comes from »

"People who are not directly registered as lobbyists but perhaps working for a company, maybe working for a company in a capacity that's tangentially related to the government affairs, can give money," said Lisa Lerer, who covers lobbying for Politico.

"And just because you don't take money from lobbyists, of course, does not mean you're not taking money from big business."

This past April, McCain spoke out against lobbyists, saying "workers and entrepreneurs of America are taken for granted by their government while the lobbyists and special pleaders are seldom turned away." Watch more on McCain's interactions with lobbyists »

But McCain raised eyebrows in 2006 when he attended a fancy soiree of the little-known but well-respected International Republican Institute in Washington.

A video from the group's Web site shows the chairman of AT&T -- which had just donated $200,000 to the institute -- introducing McCain, who is still chairman of its board.

McCain at the time was fresh off a term as chairman of the Senate committee that regulates telephone companies.

AT&T said there were no strings attached to the donation, but that's not always the point.

"Access is the name of the game. It's getting in the door to see the candidate so you can make your case. Sometimes you don't even need to see the candidate, you just talk to staff members, the people who influence a candidate's decision," Sabato said.

IRI gets almost all of its money from the federal government to do things like promote democracy around the world and help governments run more efficiently -- a cause McCain believes in.

A former IRI staffer who also worked for McCain's 2000 presidential campaign said that while the IRI event may have brought McCain and lobbyists together, the event did not involve any favors or deals.

Additionally, a candidate can completely avoid lobbyists and rake in millions from so-called bundlers, deep-pocket contributors who work to get others to fork over the maximum individual contribution.

Sheila Krumholz, executive director for the Center for Responsive Politics, says the organization has been working to find out more about bundlers such as how much they have raised and where they work, so they can better identify the source of the money.

"We know that Barack Obama has raised at least $52.2 million from bundlers, or about 18 percent of his overall receipts," Krumholz said.

Obama's campaign figures show that 94 percent of the money going to Obama comes from people writing checks for $200 or less.

CNN obtained an e-mail in which a top-dollar fundraiser promised a private meeting with Obama for Iranian Americans if the group could raise $250,000.

The Obama campaign said the e-mailer was wrong to make such a promise and fell short of their financial goal.

A spokesman said Obama did speak to the group for about 15 minutes, pausing for handshakes and photos.

In fact, Obama's campaign is offering a chance to meet their candidate to anyone who joins their donor pool.

Obama on his Web site tells visitors anyone who donates any amount by July 31 could be selected to come to Denver, Colorado, to join him backstage at the the Democratic convention

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 04:12 PM

http://obama.senate.gov/votes/index.cfm?start=1

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 06:50 PM

All I hear form Amos is a dry cough as if he is undaunted by the truth, and more of his "carpet bombing".

As the sying goes, "you are only as good as your last" whatever. Whomever was in charge of the NYT in it's heyday is dead. Trying to rest your laurels based on past performances does not cut any ice, especially when the chips are down and the stock holders are breathing down your neck for dividends.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 08:02 PM

I am not sure you are speaking to the sam equestion. The retun on investments to stockholders is in no wise related to the editorial integrity of the various editors of the Times. By and large, I have read numerous of their self-appraising articles examining whether they were off-base on one or another issue, and my summation of these is that in general they try hard to present a fair story, check their facts and cover their stories equitably. Hell, they even hired a white-collar Republican to do a column for them regularly, and he is as biased and loopy as anyone in Hannity's camp.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 10:34 PM

Ludacris weighs in.

LUDACRIS - OBAMA IS HERE

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 09:39 PM

Being German, I have to disagree with Susan Neiman: Change we can believe in.

Although we think that it is out of place for us to support one American candidate more than the other, for we do not have a vote, there is indeed a lot of enthusiasm for Barack Obama here.

We fiercely hope that with him, the trans-Atlantic relationship will evolve into a friendship again. Nevertheless, we try not to be too optimistic, because we are not entirely sure if Americans define the word ÒfriendshipÓ the same way we do.

Friendship implies equality. Ms. NeimanÕs statements that President Ronald ReaganÕs hosts in Berlin Òsaw his speech as a tiresome bit of American na•vetŽÓ for Òthey had made their peace with a structure they thought would last foreverÓ makes me think that we are still far from being equal partners.

Germans are becoming more self-confident. We do not want to build our relationship with the United States on a debt of gratitude only. In fact, we might actually take Mr. Obama at his word and use the chance to choose our Òown tomorrow free from the shadows of yesterday.Ó

Katharina Thalmann
Germersheim, Germany, July 26, 2008

Letter to the NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 09:52 PM

I suspect that the reason there is a lot of support for Barack Obama in Germany is because--and almost anybody will agree--he makes a great first impression.

                      The German public is disadvantaged in that they don't have to see Obama over, and over, and over, until the viewer finally realizes that it's like watching reruns of an old TV sit-com. Once you've heard the punch line(s), you've heard the punch line(s).

                      If you're waiting for something more, you won't get it from Barack Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 11:39 PM

Rig:

I think your remarks are inaccurate, unfounded, and embittered by something entirely unrelated to Obama himself.

Give him some room and you will see him follow through.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 12:28 AM

Rig, here's the problem. The guys who not only made a great first impression on me, but continued on making a great impression over and over again (in terms of their content, policy, and substance) were Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul.

Obama makes a great first impression, yes, he's also a fine speechmaker son he continues making a rather good impression, but I'm not so sure about his content, policy, and substance.

But, McCain...well...he makes a poor first impression, and it just keeps getting poorer as time goes by.

So watcha gonna do? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 08:14 AM

I don't know, LH. Niether one of them is very attractive as a condidate.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 09:58 PM

"I think the country is so much harder on Obama than on any other candidate in recent memory. Occasionally he is lambasted for being a shrewd politician. He is skewered for being well-dressed, well-spoken, and being highly educated. He is condemned for being rational and cool-headed. These are criticisms? I guess what America is really looking for is a big, poorly-dressed, hot-headed white guy who doesn't finish his sentences and couldn't graduate from a junior college even if his Daddy owned it. See, I thought we already had that guy for President. So I'm confused. Enlighten me, America. I don't get it.

And here's the really bad part: It will be SOOOO hard for me to move to Canada this fall. I still can't sell the house I left in Indiana last year to move to Michigan, and now the house in Michigan isn't going to sell either. (Seriously, Michigan? It will be here twenty years from now with a 'For Sale' sign in the yard, ESPECIALLY if we have another Republican President). I've been to Toronto, and it's a wonderful, wonderful city, but it's damned expensive.

Bill and I will have to live in a basement efficiency apartment 45 minutes out. Where will our dog live? Where will we work? We'll be dishing up pasties at some roadside stand and living off the leftovers.

It won't be pretty.

So please, please don't let McNasty win. And if you have some compelling reason for national self-destruction, or some flash of insight into why Americans aren't leaning 90/10 toward a Democratic administration in 2008, do explain.

Like Obama, I'm all ears."

pgrundy at "Hubs".

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 10:09 PM

"I guess what America is really looking for is a big, poorly-dressed, hot-headed white guy who doesn't finish his sentences and couldn't graduate from a junior college even if his Daddy owned it."

Well...yeah! Isn't that what America's always looking for? LOL! That's certainly what it looks like to the rest of the world. I have never seen a society more afraid of being led by an intelligent, well-dressed, calm and reasonable man who finishes his sentences than the USA seems to be. Bizarre, isn't it? It's like the triumph of the Untermensch as a social ideal.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Aug 08 - 03:34 PM

Here Here. (Shouldn't that be Hear! Hear!, Sawzall? Editor) In my opinion, Chalabi is at the root of this WMD disaster. I fault the Clinton and Bush administration for not finding him out sooner."

Here is one contemporaneous article that implies that then-President Clinton wasn't too chummy with Chalabi. Feel free to counter.


Iraqi Exiles Want Strike Aimed at Hussein


Published: February 22, 1998
When Washington steps up its threats to unleash its military might on the Government of Saddam Hussein, it might seem logical for Iraq's exiled opposition to be leading the war chants.

In fact, Iraqi opposition leaders are warning that any operation that does not explicitly aim to remove President Hussein from power could be counterproductive. And since the Clinton Administration is disavowing that goal, they say the kind of attack the White House has outlined may leave the Iraqi leader stronger.

''What we're asking for is this: that any policy to strike Saddam should be in aid of an organized opposition move against Saddam,'' said Ahmed Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress, an opposition group.

1998

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Aug 08 - 03:43 PM

Ebbie, that's a good point.

I've read both of Anthont Zinni's books. He was CENTCOM commander at the time. He was very concerned with what would happen if Saddam were suddenly removed from power. His predictions were pretty much what happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Aug 08 - 03:48 PM

On the other hand, Ebbie, perhaps Chalabi was just doing precisely what he had been commissioned to do by certain people in the USA who were paying him off. That would be my guess. An empire that is bent on conquest in foreign lands finds and hires foreign agents like Chalabi to provide whatever false testimony or innuendo it requires in order to justify its next planned military operation.

So I'm saying...Chalabi found the American government's wish to attack Iraq convenient, just as the Bush administration found Chalabi's innacurate statements about Iraq convenient, and they both consciously deceived the public (or engaged in wishful thinking) (or both). A symbiotic relationship. These things always happen during wars. Someone is always found who says what someone else wants to hear. The Germans found cooperative people like Quisling in Norway, for example....and if the Germans had won the war, Quisling would be seen in the official histories of that war as a "freedom fighter" and a hero, not as a traitor (assuming he did not have a later falling out with the Nazis, that is, in which case he would have then become "expendable", and other Quislings would have been found...)

*******

As to the expression, "Here! Here!" It should definitely be "Hear! Hear!" It is an exhortation to others to listen to what is being said, not a statement meaning "I am present!" ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 02 Aug 08 - 11:00 PM

Obama's Remarks on the United States Economy.

Well-written.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Aug 08 - 11:19 PM

Was that delivered before or after he did an about-face on off-shore oil drilling?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 03 Aug 08 - 12:28 AM

"he preliminary plan would allow Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia to open up waters beyond 80 kilometers from shore to oil drilling. The measure would also repeal tax breaks for oil companies and devote $20 billion to converting cars and trucks to run on alternative fuels.

At a news conference in Florida Saturday, Obama said he still does not believe the United States can "drill its way" out of its energy problems, but said he is willing to compromise in order to get a comprehensive energy solution. "And if we can come up with a genuine bipartisan compromise, in which I have to accept some things that I don't like or the Democrats have to accept some things that they don't like in exchange for actually moving us in the direction of actual energy independence, then that's something I'm open to," he said.

Obama welcomed the bipartisan measure, but said he remains skeptical on the drilling provisions. On Friday, Obama also proposed a windfall profits tax on oil companies that would fund $1,000 emergency rebate checks for millions of Americans suffering under soaring gas and energy prices."

As you can see, he did not change what he believes -- just how he was going to discuss things in order to get cooperation on the more important aspects. EMphasis added for the benefit of those blinded by buttons.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Aug 08 - 08:45 AM

Woops! Dropped my cookie!


From the World Net Daily--

    "...while writer Jerome Corsi's "The Obama Nation" steadily climbed the charts to the top position, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's "Know Your Power: A Message to America's Daughters" actually moved downward most..."


                  They're baaaack!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Aug 08 - 09:37 AM

As for Chalibi, the Bush administartion paid him $300,000 a month up until things started going real sour on the WMD front when he was finally cut off...

Interesting statement from McNasty on the tube this morning where McNasty said yesterday that the only thing that he knows about Obama's energy policy is that Obama has recommended that Americans inflate their tires properly??? Well, if that is all that McDummie knows then he is dumber than I thought... Or lieing... Or both...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Aug 08 - 12:19 PM

Boy, I wouldn't mind getting paid $300,000 a month. ;-) I think most people would be willing to say almost anything for a salary like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Aug 08 - 12:49 PM

Or do anything, LH...

Heck, I'd wear a dress for that kinda money... No, no... Even worse... I'd come here everyday and say just what a great president John McCain would be and...

...wear the dress...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Aug 08 - 01:49 PM

To be fair the 300K a month was not his personal pay.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Aug 08 - 01:50 PM

Still, it probably came in handy for him.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 03 Aug 08 - 03:57 PM

etting things in order before the Denver convention later this month, presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) sent a letter Sunday to the Democratic National Committee Credentials Committee urging them to give a full vote to the Michigan and Florida delegations.

This move is symbolic and having to do with party unity--Obama will be the nominee whether Michigan and Florida Obama delegates have a full vote--or the half vote they now hold. Delegates from those two states were stripped of their full vote because their states held primaries in January, violating party rules.

Democrats decided to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates after a long and sometimes stormy session on May 31, with supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) charging at the time the settlement shortchanged Clinton. Obama and Clinton appeared on the Florida ballot though neither campaigned; Obama took his name off the Michigan ballot.

Chicago Sun Times