BBC BLOGS - Justin Webb's America
« Previous | Main | Next »

Why poll numbers vary

Justin Webb | 16:34 UK time, Thursday, 23 October 2008

Back on the horserace - has it really tightened as AP suggests?

A pollster tells me the reason AP's figures are different from most other polls is that they take a very strict view on the subject of who counts as a "likely voter". The list of questions that they ask to determine likely voting includes whether you have voted in the past. Aha. So quite a few Obama people get missed out. Some other polls just assume all registered voters are likely voters - equally suspect in reasoning. So AP is a useful corrective but not quite the shock tightening of the race that Matt Drudge hopes it is...

Meanwhile, I missed this when it was first published, but it supports my argument that McCain might be the prefered outcome for those who hate America. Actually Palin would be number one: she pals around with people who believe in witches - opening up the possibility of the kind of clash on religious grounds of which the terrorists dream. True, Obama seems keen to bomb the caves on the Pakistan Afghan border but does anyone really believe he'd do it...?

Comments

  • 1. At 4:48pm on 23 Oct 2008, Matt wrote:

    The time is right for Obama.

    McCain and Palin can't hide their dinosaur and fmale George W Bush act any longer.

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 4:49pm on 23 Oct 2008, eightypercent wrote:



    The AP poll, as Justin Webb says, is a useful corrective but Fivethirtyeight polls of this morning show a strengthening of Obama's lead in the key states.

    Drudge shouldn't believe everything he is told !

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 4:55pm on 23 Oct 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Justin,

    "Obama seems keen to bomb the caves on the Pakistan Afghan border but does anyone really believe he'd do it...?"
    Hope not! Considering our record of "precision targeting", we should try other options.

    Peace and hominy
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 5:01pm on 23 Oct 2008, Belmons wrote:

    "Obama seems keen to bomb the caves on the Pakistan Afghan border but does anyone really believe he'd do it...?"

    I think an equally good question might be, does anyone really believe that if Bin Laden were killed, terrorism would cease to exist?
    The habit of demonising a particular person and then assuming that their removal would cure everything, has surely been discredited over the years. The terrorism is not a person or even a country, it is a belief system.

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 5:08pm on 23 Oct 2008, jlarkin wrote:

    Who says witches hate America?

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 5:18pm on 23 Oct 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Time to catch up, Justin. Best poll analysis by a long shot, but most on this blog already know that.

    Peace and grits
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 5:30pm on 23 Oct 2008, Brachioradialis wrote:

    Actually, there's an easier answer for the AP poll - it has a heavy weighting of evangelicals:
    http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/the_apgfk_poll_evangelical_sur.php

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 5:30pm on 23 Oct 2008, RomeStu wrote:

    Oh Justin - this one will open a huge can of worms.... and I like that.

    These issues must be addressed.

    Re the Al-Quaeda "endorsement" of McCain, many have been thinkingfearing that a last-minute terror attack (or even scare) would usher in McCain as a knee-jerk reaction to a threat to America.

    As to the Palin and the preacher video - as an atheist I believe in anybody's right to believe what they like .... and for those beliefs to be subjected to the utmost scrutiny, especially in the event of them running for office.

    Where in the Bible she holds so dear, does it mention witches (friendly or otherwise to America)?

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 5:31pm on 23 Oct 2008, HabitualHero wrote:

    "True, Obama seems keen to bomb the caves on the Pakistan Afghan border but does anyone really believe he'd do it...?"



    Oh yeah.

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 5:36pm on 23 Oct 2008, Eleritmlh wrote:

    After enduring the Bush White House saying my religion "doesn't exist", and watching families of slain Pagan American soldiers having to fight to get their religious symbol on their gravestones in the National Cemetery... this Pagan American Voter is happily voting for Obama.

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 6:00pm on 23 Oct 2008, OneThought wrote:

    The Bush policies and the deregulated wall street glee. My friends and I used to talk almost every day over lunch about both. We saw years ago that the economy was going to collapse because the abusive and greedy nature of the bankers was apparent. It's been obvious that wall street and Washington were in a wink wink partnership. Also, all you have to do is look at human nature. When there is nothing to stop the greedy people it's not difficult to know what the outcome will be.

    McCain/Palin are scary on many levels...too many to mention here but they've been pointed out 10,000 times across the internet and television news.

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 6:00pm on 23 Oct 2008, eightypercent wrote:



    I believe it was on these pages that we read a report from a rural town where the Bush/Rove team in 2000 and 2004 had worked strenuously to get out the evangelical vote (although why these god-fearing folk should have supported Bush/Rove is another story)

    Our correspondent told us that McCain had not bothered with these people.

    I, for one, am not convinced that producing the Palin bunny out of the hat at the eleventh hour is going to swing them to McCain's side. Sure, some will remain faithful to the GOP but there must be others who feel used, ignored and worried about the selfsame issues that every one else is worried about.

    The impression of Palin is not so much that she has energised the evangelical base as the redneck base. Don't tell me that they are the same thing !

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 6:05pm on 23 Oct 2008, sepdet wrote:

    Belmons -- you are quite right about terrorism, and one of the things that impressed me about Obama early (and Tony Blair, before Bush warped him) is that he said we can't fight the war on terror as a ground war when terrorist networks are scattered across so many countries-- the old "don't bomb a house to destroy the termites" metaphor.

    Obama says we need to change our approach and resources to combat the actual problem. He's a smart cookie. I suspect he's actually read the NIE report saying that Al Qaeda's pretty well been stripped of power at this point and that there are other terrorist networks which are more of a danger.

    However, he's got to convince sound bite Americans that he can be a strong commander-in-chief despite being a Harvard-educated lawyer. So he has to do some chest-beating and invoking of the word "bomb" to show he's tough. Also, the easiest way for Obama to show he's "tough" and silence naysayers is to kill bin Ladin, so don't put it past him to bomb those caves. (Although he might prefer other tactics, because he needs to be able to prove bin Ladin is dead.)

    And on the more symbolic side, letting bin Ladin get away with 9/11 looks bad. It's like Jack the Ripper; I'm sure Londoners really, really hated the fact that he was still out there somewhere and was never brought to justice, even decades after the killings when he was either dead or apparently wasn't into serial killing anymore. We need closure. Taking out bin Ladin could serve as a way to say "this part of the War on Terror is over; now it's time to reexamine our priorities and allot more effort/time to domestic problems while retooling our anti-terrorism approach for longterm operations."

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 6:06pm on 23 Oct 2008, eightypercent wrote:



    Midday reports from the pollsters show that Justin's McCain bounce is, in fact, one of Ed's floppy felines.

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 6:14pm on 23 Oct 2008, BritBeagle wrote:

    RomeStu at 8: "Where in the Bible she holds s dear does it mention witches?"

    Lots of places: Deuteronomy 18:10, 1 Samuel 28:1, 2Kings 9:22 2 Chronicles 33:6, Micah 5:12, Nahum 3:4, Galatians 5:20. Sorcery gets over 20 mentions on top of that, not to mention the dozens of references to evil spirits.

    BTW I don't think that sneering at Sarah Palin for attending a church that holds a fairly mainstream Christian belief (ie witches exist and are bad) is very constructive; nor do I think Americans will/should be swayed by their enemies' view of the candidates - that would be called "giving in to terrorists."

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 6:16pm on 23 Oct 2008, Reuben34g wrote:

    The polsters only take a small portion of the population so their numbers can be highly inaccurate, and their methods of polling can exlude certain voters like my elderly mother-in-law who is computer illiterate and doesn't answer the phone until she hears her children shouting on the answering machine:

    "Mom! It's me! Pick up the phone!"

    But while she's watching her game shows she sees the political comercials and says:

    "Why don't you show your [Obama's] dad? What are you hiding?"

    and

    "I like John McCain."

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 6:18pm on 23 Oct 2008, USA-immer wrote:

    # 1 - SEMIEROTIC: Your comments show clear, concise logic as to why to vote for Obama. And, besides, he's just so gosh-darned CUTE! -giggle-

    Give me a break - "dinosaur" and "female George Bush act"? Standard Democratic rhetoric! Actually, I should say standard POLITICAL rhetoric, as the Republicans are just as good at it. Issues, qualifications, positions - let's concentrate on that, not on standard, boilerplate, "My dad is bigger than YOUR dad" crap.

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 6:18pm on 23 Oct 2008, USA-immer wrote:

    # 1 - SEMIEROTIC: Your comments show clear, concise logic as to why to vote for Obama. And, besides, he's just so gosh-darned CUTE! I can almost hear the "giggle" in the background!

    Give me a break - "dinosaur" and "female George Bush act"? Standard Democratic rhetoric! Actually, I should say standard POLITICAL rhetoric, as the Republicans are just as good at it. Issues, qualifications, positions - let's concentrate on that, not on standard, boilerplate, "My dad is bigger than YOUR dad" crap.

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 6:19pm on 23 Oct 2008, rockSimon1 wrote:

    Justin,

    Your UTube clip about witchcraft should be seen by everyone. The potential VP, one heartattack away from the Presidency being blessed by Reverend Muther who clearly states that Islam and Buddhism are witchcraft.

    A fantastic grounding in foreign policy formation for a fledgling President to be.

    Be afraid, be very afraid. I know I am!

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 6:19pm on 23 Oct 2008, USA-immer wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 21. At 6:25pm on 23 Oct 2008, neohistoryman wrote:

    To #2
    Drudge is not naive as you seem to think- 'Drudge should not believe everything he is told'.

    Drudge Report is a rightwing conservative website!

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 6:32pm on 23 Oct 2008, Xie_Ming wrote:

    The number of people who believe in witches and current supernatural phenomena in the USA is rather high, like believing in the Rapture, etc., there are a lot of those and their religious mentors really want them to vote.
    ___________________________

    Another issue that has been ignored is the "unitary presidency". Cheney has assured that four of nine Supreme Court judges buy the principle.

    This quiet drive quietly overturns the US Constitution.

    But, it's more fun and less demanding to examine Palin's hairdressing costs.

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 6:37pm on 23 Oct 2008, proles wrote:

    Yeah, right here, in the back with the hand up - believe it!...Obama would most certainly "bomb the caves in Afghanistan" - and probably continue the bombing of schools in Pakistan (North Waziristan today, who knows where tomorrow?) Just like that other great "hope" & "change" Democratic huckster, Bill Clinton bombed the Balkans and Khartoum. Obama Copacabana will be anxious to prove his bona fides to the military-industrial establishment too, and will give the Pentagon everything it wants, like Clinton did. For those who hate American imperialism and all the horrific crimes that go with it, it's truly a tossup as to which Duopoly Party candidate is better/worse. They're both equally comitted to Pax Americana around the globe and have made it clear they will use whatever means necessary to advance it. As Obama once put it succinctly, "nothing is off the table". Which candidate if in the Oval Office might blunder most in pursuing these predatory goals and provoke the most resistance and reaction is not as clearcut as it is often advertised to be. Obama Copacabana is likely to bend over backwards to show how "tough" he can be wheras McCain would have the leverage to make a reconciliation with Iran the same way Nixon did with "red" China. But don't bet on it, they're both more likely to bomb anything that moves and use whatever ruthless means available to insure American rule around the world until they're stopped - the same way Nixon was in Nam.

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 6:37pm on 23 Oct 2008, AAlvinTwiningham wrote:

    McCain and a continuation of Bush 2's policies IS the exact thing AQ and other anti-American groups want. We are destroying ourselved by dumping billions a month on wars we can not afford.

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 6:52pm on 23 Oct 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    The height of fashion? Or just making an a$$ of one's self...

    ;-)
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 6:52pm on 23 Oct 2008, RedWhiteandermblue wrote:

    Yes, Rasmussen shows Obama increasing his lead. For all we know, this is a bunch of chatter. (That's chatter in the sense of random data error). Somewhat likely trends will likely emerge in the next few days.

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 7:00pm on 23 Oct 2008, OnlyHereForTheFood wrote:

    Obama will do whatever it takes to protect the US. I think many European liberals will be disappointed with his foreign policy when it comes into action.

    "I am not against all wars, just dumb ones" to paraphrase the man himself. He has a cool, almost ruthless streak in him, almost machine like. Just take the talking points - Obama has been repeating his about healthcare, economy, etc. for months now, while McCain's message jumps about all over the place.

    I don't think Obama is going to a President they'll love, but they'll certainly respect (except the lunatic fringes of course).

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 7:00pm on 23 Oct 2008, Highnoon1 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 29. At 7:05pm on 23 Oct 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Georgia on my mind....

    ""The Republican brand is tarnished in Georgia and a national wave threatens to carry the state to Democratic shores. Obama and Martin still trail and must make gains to win here, but the fact that Georgia is even close speaks to powerful political currents across the country.""
    Peace and grits
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 7:14pm on 23 Oct 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    A word in your ear....

    Don't say you weren't warned
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 7:18pm on 23 Oct 2008, HovelinHermit wrote:

    To inject a bit of well deserved humour into the campaign, not that Sarah "Pitbull" Palin for VP isn't enough hilarity in itself, but it seems that the $150,000 worth of designer clothes that the RNC bought for her to wear on the campaign trail, actually violates the Bi-Partisan Campaign Reform Act, Sec 313, which states that donations may not be used to fund "a clothes purchase."

    Strangely enough, the other name for this act is the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act...

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 7:21pm on 23 Oct 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    80%,

    "Midday reports from the pollsters show that Justin's McCain bounce is, in fact, one of Ed's floppy felines."
    Speaking of which, having seduced a 'bounce' out of the French, Belgians, and Brits, Wall Street has turned South again...

    Meeeeoooowwww
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 7:21pm on 23 Oct 2008, palebiscuit wrote:

    Is it too much to hope that if McCain wins not the popular vote but the electoral college vote, the citizens would do something to bring about justice - that is, see that the popular vote winner become president?

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 7:23pm on 23 Oct 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Zimmer (17, 18,20),

    Get a grip! ;-)
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 7:25pm on 23 Oct 2008, RomeStu wrote:

    #15 BritBeagle

    Thanks for the quotes on witch-craft - I stand corrected (these discussions are about learning as well as spouting)

    However I beg to differ that the video showed any form of "fairly mainstream" Christianity. Outside the US the evangelical movement with laying on of hands is a very minor part of Christianity.

    Anyway, as I said in my post #8 "as an atheist I believe in anybody's right to believe what they like .... and for those beliefs to be subjected to the utmost scrutiny, especially in the event of them running for office."

    I was not sneering at Sarah Palin, but her beliefs do merit scrutiny.


    RE your comment in #15 "nor do I think Americans will/should be swayed by their enemies' view of the candidates - that would be called "giving in to terrorists."

    .... I have to say I agree entirely, and so should some last minute scare or "event" come to pass, I hope that more people will cast their votes for Obama, and not crumble under the GOP cry for a "strong experienced leader". After all another 4/8 years of Bush style government is the best recruiting tool the terrorists have.

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 7:26pm on 23 Oct 2008, USA-immer wrote:

    Apologies for my last post being displayed multiple times - when I'd posted, I'd received messages indicating there was a problem with it . . .

    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 7:31pm on 23 Oct 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Just say NO!

    Talk to your parents before it's too late!

    Peace and a quiet word
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 7:34pm on 23 Oct 2008, aquarizonagal wrote:

    I like both grits and hominy but I would really love Peace!

    Perhaps polls can also be skewed by people such as my dear one who takes a wicked pleasure in lying about his age, ethnicity, gender and political beliefs. I tell him he should really not do this but I can not be too harsh because he does enjoy it all so much.

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 7:38pm on 23 Oct 2008, Stephen Derry wrote:

    15: BritBeagle

    All religions, in fact any completely implausible belief or belief systems are asking to be sneered at!

    I also enjoy sneering at the reality of American politics that you have to declare a belief in a particular implausible system (Christianity) to stand any chance of getting elected, regardless of your political or leadership skills. The result is anyone elected to office is either very gullible or a liar. I suspect both McCain and Obama are liars, and don't literally believe in a deity.

    Respect and tolerance is all very well, but seriously? Miracles? Virgin births? Transubstantiation? Life after death? Why is this any less crazy than believing in fairies or unicorns or aliens? (or Islam, or Hinduism, or Judaism, etc, etc).

    The Sarah Palin witchcraft clip reflects no more badly on her judgement than any of the candidates invoking God for political ends. Witches (the supernatural variety rather than the self-proclaimed) are no more or less implausible, unbelievable and nonsensical than religion in general, they simply have fewer fools believing in them.

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 7:39pm on 23 Oct 2008, frayedcat wrote:

    Heard NPR interviews of ex CIA and it's very likely bin laden has passed away - they said videos likely have since been doctored.

    Don't think an Obama incursion into Pakistan to seek Bin Laden likely, unless they pick a fight - always viewed this as campaign rant to mollify 'hawks' for the vote. On the other hand..they were the US' enemy until needed for the Taleban offensive.

    Palin is a total kook - she speaks of prayer warriors and mandates from God, and answers direct questions with incoherent psycho babble. Only I am allowed to do that. She exhibits no wisdom, humility, compassion, intelligence, or any other leadership quality I can think of apart from misguided enthusiasm.

    Obama is totally "cute"

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 7:39pm on 23 Oct 2008, eightypercent wrote:



    21 # neohistoryman

    Mat Drudge ? Is he really ?

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 7:44pm on 23 Oct 2008, Mike Mullen wrote:

    "The polsters only take a small portion of the population so their numbers can be highly inaccurate, and their methods of polling can exlude certain voters like my elderly mother-in-law who is computer illiterate and doesn't answer the phone until she hears her children shouting on the answering machine:

    "Mom! It's me! Pick up the phone!"

    But while she's watching her game shows she sees the political comercials and says:

    "Why don't you show your [Obama's] dad? What are you hiding?"

    and

    "I like John McCain."

    So you think the pollsters small sample size makes them suspect but your sample size of 1 is somehow proof of something? Have you considered getting a job with Zogby? With your approach to polling I think you would fit right in.

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 7:54pm on 23 Oct 2008, NoRashDecisions wrote:

    Good point about the poles, but surely Justin, you must know that there are thousands of people, both Christian and nonChristian, who probably believe in witches, don't you? That was not a very kind or respectful thing to post! And besides! Even if-God forbid!-she did get the presidency, you honestly believe, in your heart of hearts, that she would allow herself to get wrapped up in, or do you honestly think that she would gleefully be more than willing to get wrapped up in a heated, unwinnable argument about religion with terrorists? Knowing all the while that doing so would be playing directly into the terrorists's hands, therefore effectively handing our nation over to its enamies? With so many other pressing problems of which must be tended to? Come now think!! She'd never do that! No, if Sarah Palin ever became president, her first and most urjant task would probably be to aulter the first amendment so that the seperation of church and state would no longer be required by law to exist!! Well that, and adding a constitutional amendment strictly defining "patriotism!!" *shudder!!!*

    I sware Justin, sometimes the things you write are so encredibly off the wall!!


    As long as my leader doesn't let their religion or lack there of cloud their better judgement, I could care less what they believe!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 7:56pm on 23 Oct 2008, Zhurh1 wrote:

    In the last several Presidential elections, the polls ended up being wrong. I'd believe the polls if there was a 15-20 point difference, but I think it's a toss up till election day; anything can still happen. Bottomline, the pendulum swings every 8 years, nothing ever really changes.

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 7:59pm on 23 Oct 2008, NoRashDecisions wrote:

    And also, if Palin were to get involved in a war with terrorists over religion, can you even begin to imagine what encredible distructive damage it would do to what's left of our international image?

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 8:03pm on 23 Oct 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    For Aquarizonagal

    "PHOENIX -- The Republican Party in John McCain's home state is fracturing under the weight of a series of misconduct charges that threaten to sink the party's already deeply troubled Arizona candidacies. The GOP problems here, which include infighting and ideological splits, underline arguments made nationally in the final weeks of the presidential campaign that the Republican party is in crisis."
    Schadenfreude is hard to resist!
    ;-)
    ed


    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 8:05pm on 23 Oct 2008, AndyW35 wrote:

    I love this uncertainty and doubt with the poles at such a late stage, makes it more fun.

    From a Uk perspective where religious frenzies don't matter of course.

    Regards
    Andy

    Complain about this comment

  • 48. At 8:07pm on 23 Oct 2008, RedWhiteandermblue wrote:

    Thanks for the better polling site, Ed Iglehart. Much better than Rasmussen, and an opportunity to while away yet more work hours.

    "McCain seems to be giving up on any path to victory that does not involve Pennsylvania -- a state that we presently project Barack Obama to win by 9.7 points."

    These are interesting words, because it's what I've thought for a while. McCain has to win PA. If he does, he's got a real chance. If not, he's sunk.

    As someone who knows this state, and who spent quite a bit of time in some of its western (Appalachian) counties, the hope for McCain is the extraordinary number of die-hard racists here (not that they're so thin in the field in the rest of the state!).

    I would think McCain strategists are thinking, we've got to find some way of tapping into that.

    Could someone translate that into PC-ese and post? Thank you, I was speaking honestly for a moment....

    Incidentally, I think a full 30% or so of US voters would never vote for an African American for president. But since 80% of these are Republican, it only costs Obama 5% or so in the polls. Add the 1-2% he picks up from those voting for Obama because he's African American, and you get the 4-5% smaller lead Obama has than he should.

    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 8:07pm on 23 Oct 2008, sadevito wrote:

    Where in the Bible she holds so dear, does it mention witches (friendly or otherwise to America)?

    It's not in a lot of places in the Bible, but here's one:

    Deuteronomy 18:10
    Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft,

    But the Bible also says to put God first in your life (not COUNTRY) and it says a lot of other things that she and many evangelicals choose to ignore. For instance, why does 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' only get interpreted to apply to unborn children, and not innocent civilians in Iraq or people who die from pollution from coal-fired plants, or for that matter people who have committed crimes?

    Complain about this comment

  • 50. At 8:09pm on 23 Oct 2008, RedWhiteandermblue wrote:

    "For those who hate American imperialism and all the horrific crimes that go with it, it's truly a tossup as to which Duopoly Party candidate is better/worse."

    Yes, and this reasoning is why the German Communist Party was wise to sit out the '32 elections. After all, von Papen was just as bad as Hitler.

    Complain about this comment

  • 51. At 8:13pm on 23 Oct 2008, myfreedomforever wrote:

    The facts of the matter are that Obama refuses to disclose the country of his birth (a clear violation of the Constitution that the office of President requires a native-born American, which is why so many lawsuits are currently pending against him) otherwise I, being British-born, could also summarily run for the office and bring with me the tenets of an English-Muslim background consistent with the millions of dollars in contributions that I could conceivably endorse. Not quite what the founders of the United States had in mind ... And besides that, Obama is not even Black, and the black voters of America are even blinded to that fact ... So what of "voter-fraud" in 2000 and 2004?? That simply pales in comparison to what we have here in 2008 ...

    Complain about this comment

  • 52. At 8:22pm on 23 Oct 2008, mary gravitt wrote:

    People hate Palin because she is a philospher. She stated that "Real Americans" were located in Small Town America. These are suppose to represent the patriotic end of the spectrum.

    The question that questions is: What about the disproportional number of Urban minority men and women who died in Vietnam and other wars faught to make the world safe for democracy and General Motors?

    Her philosophy reminds me of a 20th Century Philosopher that said: Heroes are born in the Country side; while Cowards are bore/made in the cities. This could be true.

    Who am I to argue with philosophers or history.

    Complain about this comment

  • 53. At 8:26pm on 23 Oct 2008, b00mt0wn wrote:

    While in the US this August I listened to a Democratic radio station. The host was telling the listeners that despite the relative closeness of the polls, Obama would win the Presidential race by a landslide...and here is her reasoning.
    The polling companies carry out their research on the phone. The vast majority of people with land lines are those aged 55/65 or over. Therefore the results of the polls are wrong because harldy any 25/45 year olds are being asked the questions.
    She said the it is the older generation who have problems with race/colour and they would be inclined to favour McCain therefore distorting the views of the US population.
    We'll see if she is right on the 6th of November.

    Complain about this comment

  • 54. At 8:27pm on 23 Oct 2008, mary gravitt wrote:

    John McCain may very well win because he and the RNC represent "Joe the Plumber" like Johnson did that camel driver he found in the Middle East. What ever happened to him? The RNC has spent $150,000 making the Palin family presentable to the public. Do you think they can spare $1200 to remove the tax lein off Joe's (Sam's) house? Or perhaps take Joe and the family out to Mickey Ds and a quick shopping trip to Wal-Mart?

    I like populists who can make real people feel reel.

    Complain about this comment

  • 55. At 8:34pm on 23 Oct 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    #25. Ed Iglehart: "The height of fashion? Or just making an a$$ of one's self.."

    The 'donkey scarf' is pretty stupid, but has anyone considered that she just might be a closet Democrat? Ruining McCain's chances from inside his campaign would be the best modern Trojan Horse tactic in modern politics.

    Probably wishful thinking though . .

    Complain about this comment

  • 56. At 8:48pm on 23 Oct 2008, Parrisia wrote:

    Nationwide polls mean nothing in the case of US presidential elections. The game is played on a state-by-state basis and given the "winner takes it all" system McCain has got a strong chance of getting the electoral college and leave Obama with the "satisfaction" of winning the popular vote

    Complain about this comment

  • 57. At 8:49pm on 23 Oct 2008, eightypercent wrote:

    # 30

    Ed, glad you put the pissed off Moose up.

    LOL

    Complain about this comment

  • 58. At 8:50pm on 23 Oct 2008, RomeStu wrote:

    #25 Ed - nice ass!

    But that must be one mighty expensive scarf - $150k?

    Complain about this comment

  • 59. At 8:52pm on 23 Oct 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Tension or trust and mutual respect?

    Interesting...
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 60. At 8:59pm on 23 Oct 2008, HappyUK07 wrote:

    Justin

    As for opinion polls, try taking a statistics course sometime, and learn why so many polls and surveys, particularly those with biased samples, loaded questions, false causality and data manipulation are not taken seriously by statisticians.

    I'd also like to add that this constant smearing of Palin is not grounded in impartial and objective journalism but plain old-fashioned spite.

    It doesn't suit you.



    Complain about this comment

  • 61. At 9:04pm on 23 Oct 2008, tricia79 wrote:

    #5

    I don't think Justin meant to imply anything negative about witches or their patriotism. I think he's making reference to Palin's seeking for prayer from her pastor to guard her from witch's unholy hexes.

    Complain about this comment

  • 62. At 9:04pm on 23 Oct 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    McCain and Palin together

    Check the body language

    Love is all around us
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 63. At 9:06pm on 23 Oct 2008, eightypercent wrote:



    # 38 ~ Bravo to Aqua's dear one. Love it !

    Complain about this comment

  • 64. At 9:23pm on 23 Oct 2008, RomeStu wrote:

    #55 David - if Palin's a secret democrat, then that's a kind of deep cover the KGB could only dream of during the cold war!

    Complain about this comment

  • 65. At 9:30pm on 23 Oct 2008, HovelinHermit wrote:

    #55 I wouldn't credit her with that much intelligence...

    Complain about this comment

  • 66. At 9:35pm on 23 Oct 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Redwhiteandermblue,

    "I think a full 30% or so of US voters would never vote for an African American for president. But since 80% of these are Republican, it only costs Obama 5% or so in the polls. Add the 1-2% he picks up from those voting for Obama because he's African American, and you get the 4-5% smaller lead Obama has than he should."
    I have to admit that I'm one of those 1-2% who voted (in part) for Obama because of his mixed race (I overcompensate for being a White Southerner ;-)), but mostly because he's the most promising thing I've seen in American politics in years. I know exactly what Michelle meant when she said it made her proud of her country for the first time in a long while....

    Peace and Hope for us all
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 67. At 9:37pm on 23 Oct 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    #51. myfreedomforever: "The facts of the matter are that Obama refuses to disclose the country of his birth (a clear violation of the Constitution that the office of President requires a native-born American, which is why so many lawsuits are currently pending against him) otherwise I, being British-born, could also summarily run for the office and bring with me the tenets of an English-Muslim background . ."

    The facts of the matter are discussed at some length in this article article from Snopes.
    Your "facts" are incorrect - Mr Obama was born in the State of Hawaii - you can't get more "native-born" than that!

    Complain about this comment

  • 68. At 9:40pm on 23 Oct 2008, IrisRainbows wrote:

    Actually, Gallup does the exact same thing, Justin. They offer three models, in which Obama is currently leading 50-46, 51-45. and 50-43.
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/111415/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Has-Modest-Lead-Among-Likely-Voters.aspx

    Complain about this comment

  • 69. At 9:41pm on 23 Oct 2008, RedWhiteandermblue wrote:

    56. Of course anything can happen (I have little faith that polls are very reliable), but most observers believe it's Obama who has a better chance of winning the electoral vote while losing the popular one.

    So far, it's only happened twice: Bush vs. Gore and Tilden vs. Hayes, so the odds are against it, in any case.

    (Furthermore, one may argue whether Tilden actually won the popular vote. He was the Democratic candidate, and would have likely lost the popular vote if African Americans in the south had been allowed to vote.)

    Complain about this comment

  • 70. At 9:42pm on 23 Oct 2008, tricia79 wrote:

    #51
    Have you been in a box for a few months. Obama was born in Hawaii, and McCain was born outside of the 50 state but had citizenship from birth. Thanks for playing, but get a grip.

    Complain about this comment

  • 71. At 9:43pm on 23 Oct 2008, Sankari wrote:

    Post #51; myfreedomforever wrote: "The facts of the matter are that Obama refuses to disclose the country of his birth"

    This is a lie. Obama has openly stated that the country of his birth is the United States of America.

    His birth certificate has been displayed online since June 2008. Meanwhile, independent political pundits have visited Hawaii and spoken with the Hawaii Department of Health, which has confirmed the authenticity of Obama's certificate.

    Read about it here: http://tinyurl.com/5vrus3

    The lawsuits are frivolous, and will be variously ignored/dismissed as a complete waste of time.

    I honestly don't believe how anyone can believe the conspiracy theories around Obama's birth and citizenship. You'd have to be deaf and blind to the facts - not to mention breathtakingly stupid.

    Complain about this comment

  • 72. At 9:50pm on 23 Oct 2008, tricia79 wrote:

    Also, #51, there are 2 qualifications stated by the US constitution.
    "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."

    the definition of natural born citizen is defined under TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401 of the US Constitution

    They added an Amendment that says you can only serve 2 terms, but that's it.



    Complain about this comment

  • 73. At 9:54pm on 23 Oct 2008, MagicKirin wrote:

    If were going to talk about luxury.

    Let start with Michelle Obama who got paid 300K for a so call diversity job which she had no resume for.

    Also her lobster lunches at the Waldorf Astoria.

    Hey Michelle work on your own soul.

    Complain about this comment

  • 74. At 9:55pm on 23 Oct 2008, Commercial_Lender wrote:

    I am not sure that anyone knows what could happen. We will have to wait and see.

    Complain about this comment

  • 75. At 10:02pm on 23 Oct 2008, CongyMan wrote:

    Gavin, witches do exist! Just Google witches, occult, wiccan etc and see what you find. There are plenty of people out there happy to call themselves witches. Now, whether they have the occult supernatural powers that Palin likely thinks they have is another matter!

    Complain about this comment

  • 76. At 10:05pm on 23 Oct 2008, Mike Mullen wrote:

    #22 Xie-Ming:

    "Another issue that has been ignored is the "unitary presidency". Cheney has assured that four of nine Supreme Court judges buy the principle.

    This quiet drive quietly overturns the US Constitution.

    But, it's more fun and less demanding to examine Palin's hairdressing costs."

    Just a suggestion but could you provide a link or some sort of explanation so people know what the hell you are going on about?

    Complain about this comment

  • 77. At 10:12pm on 23 Oct 2008, VardaNova wrote:

    On terrorism..absolutely it's a belief, a cultural issue. To think that removing Bin Laden will stop anything is misplaced.

    In fact personalizing terrorism or even pinning it to one particular, radical branch of a religion is wrong.

    Let's define terrorism first and then seek to counter all forms of it.

    The history of the Northern Ireland conflict will indicate that it will not be settled by armed struggle.

    Obama is absolutley right that it needs opposite sides to start to talk to each other, however uncomfortable it may seem, just like in NI.

    Complain about this comment

  • 78. At 10:15pm on 23 Oct 2008, Mike Mullen wrote:

    #56 Parrisia:

    "Nationwide polls mean nothing in the case of US presidential elections. The game is played on a state-by-state basis and given the "winner takes it all" system McCain has got a strong chance of getting the electoral college and leave Obama with the "satisfaction" of winning the popular vote"

    Unfortunately for that theory they do state by state polls as well and those are just as bad for McCain. Also it is close to impossible the way the individual states stack up for Obama to win the popular vote and lose the electoral college. It's been said before and it will be said again but if you want to see the cold hard numbers check out www.fivethirtyeight.com

    Complain about this comment

  • 79. At 10:23pm on 23 Oct 2008, Cassandra wrote:

    #51

    You're kidding, right? Hawaii became a state in 1959.

    Please watch the Palin videos on YouTube and check out the news articles about the irregularities in her charging Alaska to stay in her own home, and getting free transportation for her kids to things like hubby's snowmobile races. We're talking thousands of dollars.

    You also might enjoy reading about McCain's first wife. It's not just the MIA/ POW thing that Ross Perot was steamed about, but the treatment of the original Mrs. McCain.

    It's all out there (in reputable news stories not just opinion sites) for your viewing pleasure.

    Complain about this comment

  • 80. At 10:30pm on 23 Oct 2008, Tantivvy wrote:

    Justin Webb strikes me as a balanced analyst. Its outright bias with the likes of, Alan Bates, Matt Frei, etc.

    McCain could be a good choice because the Congress is almost certainly to become dominated by the Democrats. It would resist any extreme proposed by McCain leading to a balanced government. Even if Sarah Palin succeeded McCain she would be no more effective. So a good result all round.

    It is irresponsible to suggest that an individual must have prior experience for office. There are enough incompetent people who have been voted into parliaments around the world which underscores the observation.

    Complain about this comment

  • 81. At 10:46pm on 23 Oct 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:

    Here's an interesting analysis of three US elections in which the popular vote and electoral vote were in disagreement:

    http://www.presidentelect.org/art_evpvdisagree.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 82. At 10:47pm on 23 Oct 2008, 60022Mallard wrote:

    Justin.

    Do tell us if you still think Mrs Palin is a creationist, as you have said many times, or has the Editorial Complaints Unit message now got through to you, and I quote..."AND WE HAVE FOUND NO PUBLIC STATEMENTS BY MRS PALIN WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY CALLING HER A CREATIONIST. To the extent that Mr Webb's description went beyond Mrs Palin's publicly stated position, I believe it was not consistent with the guidelines on on Accuracy... (in particular the requirement that BBC output be "well sourced (and) based on sound evidence"), and I am therefore upholding your complaint. (Ref CT0800225)

    To me that just about sums up your reporting. A broadcast apology? I will not hold my breath!

    Complain about this comment

  • 83. At 11:08pm on 23 Oct 2008, john-In-Dublin wrote:

    # 73

    The semi-literacy, the sweeping generalisations, the strange obsession with Michelle Obama's soul

    Yes folks, "MagicKirin" is back

    Complain about this comment

  • 84. At 11:09pm on 23 Oct 2008, sudohnim38 wrote:

    #25 Sarah Palin subliminally making an ass of herself..?!

    Well... considering (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm English) the Dems motif is an ass and the GOP is an elephant... it looks to me like Palin just endorsed Obama in that scarf...

    .... I would not want a woman that stupid to be in any Govt Office let alone that of President.

    Complain about this comment

  • 85. At 11:15pm on 23 Oct 2008, altheteacher wrote:

    October surprise is on its way. Indeed the race is tightening. The time is just right for an October surprise. Randy Scheunemann, a McCain foreign policy adviser and paid lobbyist of the Georgian governmnet, will soon place a call to Mikheil Saakashvili. The Georgian government currently contends that Russian troops are "massing" in Sth Ossetia. Saakashvili will provoke a Russian response (no doubt it will be dispraportionate) and the impetuous Georgian(sorry, that's redundant) will cry victim. Mad Dog McCain and the Alaskan Imelda Marcos will fulminate against the Beastly Bear and decry Obama's appeasement ad nauseum. McCain will again talk about being ready for a crisis. He'll refer, again, to being on an aircraft carrier during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Naturally the real lesson of that crisis is lost on Ol Top Gun: the crisis was solved through diplomacy and compromise(giving up missiles in Turkey). Imagine if Kennedy had listened to Curtis LeMay! God help America and the world.

    Complain about this comment

  • 86. At 11:16pm on 23 Oct 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:

    Obviously, Justin, you are looking on the wrong
    continent for witches!

    Complain about this comment

  • 87. At 11:20pm on 23 Oct 2008, alanskillcole wrote:

    The Waldorf story is old hat...and false.

    And what's wrong with her having a good job? She's not sponging off the system - or have rich parents paving the way for her.

    Remind me of that Chris Rock "Grade C" joke ... if it's a black person he/she has got to be top of the class - yet for a white grade C person (take your pick, Bush Junior/Quayle/McCain/Palin/Arnie) no questions asked..
    -------------------------
    "Did the dangerously elitist Michelle Obama order "lobster hors d'oeuvres, two whole steamed lobsters, Iranian caviar" -- Iranian caviar, no less! -- "and champagne" while staying at New York's exceedingly upmarket Waldorf-Astoria hotel? [The New York Post retracts the original story, noting that she wasn't even staying at the Waldorf in the first place]"
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/oliverburkemanblog+michelleobama

    "October 21, 2008 --
    THE source who told us last week about Michelle Obama getting lobster and caviar delivered to her room at the Waldorf-Astoria must have been under the influence of a mind-altering drug. She was not even staying at the Waldorf. We regret the mistake, and our former source is going to regret it, too. Bread and water would be too good for such disinformation."
    http://www.nypost.com/seven/10212008/gossip/pagesix/room_disservice_134490.htm

    Complain about this comment

  • 88. At 11:24pm on 23 Oct 2008, HovelinHermit wrote:

    #73, the "lobster" on the menu was actually a fabrication and withdrawn.

    I wonder how gullible some people are, it makes me laugh that some people will believe anything that they hear. The rumours go from him being a Muslim to being born outside of the USA, to his eating babies as some sort of voodoo ritual. None of them are true.

    Complain about this comment

  • 89. At 11:33pm on 23 Oct 2008, myfreedomforever wrote:

    #67 David_Cunard "Your facts are incorrect - Mr Obama was born in the state of Hawaii - you can't get more "native-born" than that!" MMmmm ... wonder if Snopes is up to snuff, otherwise Obama is, well, not telling the truth ... Obama himself has stated that he was born in Kenya in 1961 when his mother was married to Barrack Obama Sr. When she divorced his father and moved to Indonesia, Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro and became an Indonesian citizen, and had his name changed to Barry Soetoro. Obama traveled to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport in 1981 when Pakistan was a "no-travel zone" for Americans. Also Obama's Kenyan Grandmother is proudly and publicly proclaiming that he was born in Kenya and is pushing for the international airport to be expanded for when her grandson comes to visit on AirForceOne! Plus, none other than Muhammar Ghadhafi has also publicly claimed that Obama was born in Kenya and studied in Muslim schools in Indonesia.
    Currently, lawsuits in eight states are seeking judicial authority to force the certifying or decertifying of Obama's qualification to run as a candidate for President as a natural born US citizen. Quite simply, all these lawsuits would be dropped if Obama would simply provide the requested documents supporting his claim of being born in Hawaii. 'Course, following Clinton's lead from a few years ago, he could claim that he was "borne" to Hawaii, and so it all depends on what "born" is as opposed to "borne." Then there's the other question of his opposition to requests for his education, employment, medical and financial records, all documents of which every President to date has made publicly available when requested ... Just what is Barrack Hussein Obama Barry Soetoro, citizen of Kenya and Indonesia and erstwhile apologetic resident of the United States afraid to reveal to the populace??? Surely not evidence to prove that he's not what he seems??? Tut, tut, tut ...

    Complain about this comment

  • 90. At 11:36pm on 23 Oct 2008, Sankari wrote:

    Post #73; MagicKirin wrote: "Also her lobster lunches at the Waldorf Astoria".

    False. This story was originally printed by the New York Post (a Murdoch newspaper, surprise surprise!)

    It has since been forced to print a humiliating retraction, which I now reproduce in full:

    >>
    THE source who told us last week about Michelle Obama getting lobster and caviar delivered to her room at the Waldorf-Astoria must have been under the influence of a mind-altering drug.

    SHE WAS NOT EVEN STAYING AT THE WALDORF.

    We regret the mistake, and our former source is going to regret it, too. Bread and water would be too good for such disinformation.
    >>

    Emphasis mine.

    Source is here: http://tinyurl.com/5nlopb

    See also here: http://tinyurl.com/63sojt

    Next time, do your homework.

    Complain about this comment

  • 91. At 11:38pm on 23 Oct 2008, alanskillcole wrote:

    The machinery seems to have run out of ideas - so now it's more rubbish about birth certificates/socialism.
    Where's the beef?

    Imagine something like the Cuban missile crisis and the likes of Palin/McCain (the order it's sometimes touted) at the helm. "Now I'm a Georgian"/Georgia for NATO/come to our allies aid...No JFK/Bobby/Adlai Stevenson but those two and possibly someone like Bolton at the UN - WOW! Talk about the Rapture/Armageddon!

    Complain about this comment

  • 92. At 11:48pm on 23 Oct 2008, sudohnim38 wrote:

    #82

    Um, this bit that Justin is writing isn't 'reporting' this bit is a blog...

    "Definition: an online diary; a personal chronological log of thoughts published on a Web page; also called weblog"

    Source: www.dictionary.com

    Complain about this comment

  • 93. At 00:02am on 24 Oct 2008, PaulMc83 wrote:

    This site is brilliant.

    http://www.palinaspresident.us/

    Please take it in the humour it is meant.

    Enjoy.

    xx

    Complain about this comment

  • 94. At 00:02am on 24 Oct 2008, aquarizonagal wrote:

    To#73Magickirin

    You really DO need to get some more diverse sources for your information. I am sure some one else will enlighten you regarding the errors you have accepted as fact.

    I am finished here.

    Complain about this comment

  • 95. At 00:08am on 24 Oct 2008, MagicKirin wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 96. At 00:20am on 24 Oct 2008, bk9061 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 97. At 00:58am on 24 Oct 2008, kecsmar wrote:

    Wonderful clip.

    Sounds like the guys has been at the bottle ....of Helium that is!

    Complain about this comment

  • 98. At 01:02am on 24 Oct 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    Considering the wide variety in poll results, I look at Real Clear Politics, which averages all of the polls. That puts Obama at 7.5 ahead of McCain. Then there is the unknown effect of those who cannot be reached on cell phone. Perhaps more reliable are the betting odds. But the most reliable indicator is that McCain acts as though he has already lost.

    Complain about this comment

  • 99. At 01:13am on 24 Oct 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    #89. myfreedomforever: "MMmmm ... wonder if Snopes is up to snuff, otherwise Obama is, well, not telling the truth ... Obama himself has stated that he was born in Kenya in 1961 when his mother was married to Barrack Obama Sr."

    If this were true, then where is the proof? If there is anything, a link, a book reference, the report of a speech in a major news organ, then perhaps you'd be kind enough to supply it. I feel sure that not only posters here but the entire voting public would find it of interest - as well as the rest of the world. Meanwhile, I refer you to the other posts above, all of which disagree with your statement.

    Failure to post something that is attributable to a reliable source will invalidate what you have written, so go ahead and post something. I'm not holding my breath . . .

    Complain about this comment

  • 100. At 01:13am on 24 Oct 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:

    I have just made a post to my blog,
    and invite all to look [Broken URL removed by Moderator] here.

    I'll post this announcement again because
    I know that there are some people who only
    read the first few posts in Justin's blog.

    Complain about this comment

  • 101. At 01:43am on 24 Oct 2008, booloohoom wrote:

    I don't understand why Sarah Palin's religious beliefs are likely to cause some kind of end-times catastrophic conflict according to so many of your readers, Mr Webb, whereas Obama's 20 years at the Rev Wright's church are of course not going to have any detrimental effect whatsoever.

    Could it be that the Governor of Alaska, who has never let her religious faith impinge on her governance of that state, is being grossly misrepresented in the comments above?

    Yup, any cheap shot, no matter how dishonest - as long as it's aimed at McCain or Palin.

    Complain about this comment

  • 102. At 01:48am on 24 Oct 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    PaulMc83,

    Thanks for that!

    "Oh, Oh!"
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 103. At 01:50am on 24 Oct 2008, gtfc2007 wrote:

    Justin Webb is a light-weight commentator. BBC need to find someone else to do the America columns.

    Complain about this comment

  • 104. At 01:51am on 24 Oct 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    Although the polls show Mr Obama as the potential winner, there remains the suspicion that somehow he will be denied the prize. On more than one occasion I have suggested that violence could occur if, by the narrowest of margins or by an Electoral College anomaly, Mr McCain succeeds. Some have said I am wrong, but this article from The Daily Telegraph is worth reading. Apparently am not alone in my thoughts.

    Complain about this comment

  • 105. At 01:53am on 24 Oct 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    95, ubermensch.

    Admit it, in your own sick way you lust for her.

    Complain about this comment

  • 106. At 02:09am on 24 Oct 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    #95. MagicKirin: "Hey I prefer to think of it as the response to one of the most hateful women in American"

    Would you care to explain why Michelle Obama is "hateful"? She may be hated by a good many on the far right, without good reason in my view, but in what way is she "hateful"? There has to be a reason, so please explain.

    If you can.

    Complain about this comment

  • 107. At 02:13am on 24 Oct 2008, jcputn5349 wrote:

    Lots of people believe witches exist; I've met people who say they are wtiches, and Palin isn't palling around WITH witches. That would be news.

    Complain about this comment

  • 108. At 02:22am on 24 Oct 2008, Cassandra wrote:

    #89

    And your source is...?

    If it were true don't you think McCain would be shouting this material from the housetops?

    Someone's been pulling your leg.

    Complain about this comment

  • 109. At 02:29am on 24 Oct 2008, Cassandra wrote:

    #95

    It might be more hateful to take the husband of a gravely ill woman.

    No, not Newt's second wife: Cindy.

    Although both situations were made public, I don't hear the Right discussing either one. And with all that talk about "family values" too. (tsk, tsk)

    I have found Mrs. O sometimes strident, but never dishonest. I don't see any abandoned exs in her background either.

    Complain about this comment

  • 110. At 02:40am on 24 Oct 2008, Wil wrote:

    I guess the hardcore republician are now foaming in the mouth thinking about how to defend Sarah's shopping spree. (When themselves are angry about it too) LOL

    Actually I find nothing wrong with spending that amount money on clothes on campaign. (This is good Image investment) However, why is she not using her own money? She wants to be VP, why is she not investing her own money.She is a millionaire and she not willing to invest in her own Career venture but rather people invest in her Career venture. This speaks volume.

    And thank you, republicians for donating an extra USD$150000 to boost the fashion industry in this economy downturn. The economy needs it, plus they will probably sell the clothes in EBAY after the campaign.

    Complain about this comment

  • 111. At 02:48am on 24 Oct 2008, jcputn5349 wrote:

    Lots of places: Deuteronomy 18:10, 1 Samuel 28:1, 2Kings 9:22 2 Chronicles 33:6, Micah 5:12, Nahum 3:4, Galatians 5:20. Sorcery gets over 20 mentions on top of that, not to mention the dozens of references to evil spirits.

    BTW I don't think that sneering at Sarah Palin for attending a church that holds a fairly mainstream Christian belief (ie witches exist and are bad) is very constructive; nor do I think Americans will/should be swayed by their enemies' view of the candidates - that would be called "giving in to terrorists."
    -----------------------------

    you tell 'em Sister, or Bro!!! :) Christians don't believe IN witches; they just know they exist (ref your Bible verses). Some Christians used to be witches. Non-Christians know they exist, too. Probably most of humanity knows they exist.

    You are right that Ams won't vote to please their enemies. They will vote from their instinct and their conscience--most of them.

    Justin must think we're easily led. He wrote, "McCain might be the prefered outcome FOR THOSE WHO HATE AMERICA." He's trying to push our button. Then, he tries to connect Palin to witchcraft, putting them in the same sentence. It's a old witchcraft press trick!!!

    Thanks for your post.

    Complain about this comment

  • 112. At 03:28am on 24 Oct 2008, kecsmar wrote:

    111..maybe the witch references are owing to the looming "invasion" of witches/warlocks etc next week ;)

    Complain about this comment

  • 113. At 03:35am on 24 Oct 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    104, David.

    I have said a couple of times on this blog that if Obama loses by a slim margin, the Democrats with suspect hanky panky and there will be blood in the streets. I would not like to see that. Please, Obama, win by a landslide.

    Complain about this comment

  • 114. At 03:41am on 24 Oct 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    I don't understand all this talk about candidates' spouses. They are not running for anything and don't matter. The only time one of them counted was when Hillary was running. You knew sure as anything that if she were elected we would get Bubba. But that was an exceptional situation.

    Complain about this comment

  • 115. At 03:49am on 24 Oct 2008, Via-Media wrote:

    #111 jcputn5349

    What? What? What?

    1st news flash: belief in witches is not "mainstream", and most Christians most certainly do NOT "know" they exist... at least since the 18th Century. Cherrypicking scriptural verses to bolster half-brained theories-du-jour, without any sort of contextual analysis or study of the cultures and history from whence they came, is intellectually dishonest and indefensible.

    Sheesh, it's no wonder most non-Christians have such a negative view of the faith.

    If you're so up on witches and witchcraft, you'll be dismayed to know that this regular churchgoer was born with a prominent "witch's teat". Proof positive for the Puritans... look it up.

    Complain about this comment

  • 116. At 03:52am on 24 Oct 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:

    Apparently somebody doesn't want my
    blog to be listed here, or the BBC is
    censoring it.

    Too bad.

    Complain about this comment

  • 117. At 04:07am on 24 Oct 2008, MagicKirin wrote:

    Ref #105 and 106

    105 is not worth dignfying.

    106 Michelle Obama also attend Rev Wright's racist church and she has never apologized for it. She criticized the mean spirit and hate of America. America which has been very genrous to her.
    I would like to be given a no work 300K job.

    And I resent the First time she is proud to be an American remark. That is why I think if Obama is elected Michelle Obama will embarass her country by the ignorance she display and the arrogance she has.

    Complain about this comment

  • 118. At 04:17am on 24 Oct 2008, jcputn5349 wrote:

    However I beg to differ that the video showed any form of "fairly mainstream" Christianity. Outside the US the evangelical movement with laying on of hands is a very minor part of Christianity.

    Rom,
    She's not outside of anything except Washington. This Palin video gives me confidence in her. I think it is precious. All this video does is shame her critics. I can't imagine who would be against a government leader humbling themselves before God and a congregation.

    Most government officials think they are gods. They need deliverance. I wish they all would march down the aisle and copy Sarah. I hope every Washington leader and journalist gets a copy of the video. Anyway,

    "[the] United States has a greater number of religious groups than any other country in the world, and Adherents.com has literally thousands of adherent statistics for the U.S."

    I can't post the link, but you can cut and paste it if interested. Videos like Sarah at church simply don't rile people who want to keep sacrificing rubber chickens in their hot-tub. It's always better to leave everybody else alone about their beliefs in case they start looking at yours.

    "Church" is not a narrowly defined word, and neither is "pastor." Recently, in the news some self-named "pastor" was running a legally recognized tax-exempt "church" in his home for swinging couples and...nevermind. Palin's church falls in the category of traditional. Also, almost every Christian denomination performs exorcisms, and almost every denomination has a group of "evangelicals" within their ranks. Some lay hands on people when they pray more often than others. It's in the Bible. It's not a big deal. The apostles did it, and Christians have always imitated them.

    Justin has shown us "us at church." Whoop-dee-doo.

    Now, if Palin's church was about discredited radical liberation theology or white supremacy (KKK) or a group that marries children to old men, that would be a huge problem for me. Common sense draws the line at breaking laws and overthrowing the government.

    Complain about this comment

  • 119. At 04:27am on 24 Oct 2008, fellowtraveler wrote:

    Justin,

    Thank goodness the AP poll is not the final word. McCain would almost certainly have the USA in a war somewhere in the globe during his presidency, if he gets in. Foreign policy is his self proclaimed expertise and this essentially means sending in the troops. By the way, the Republicans claim Obama is a socialist - well if giving the financial establishment huge amounts of bailout money is not socialism for the very weathy then what is it. It's a matter of do as I say not as I do. Palin is probably irrelevant, a curious distraction from the real world. She may have some very strange beliefs but so does an alarming portion of the world's population. Although I do hope the evangelicals are kept out of power. I'm also an atheist and despite what George H. Bush Sr. might want, I am also an American citizen.

    Complain about this comment

  • 120. At 04:42am on 24 Oct 2008, jcputn5349 wrote:

    67, David C,

    The story about O's birth certificate did not interest me until I learned that O is being sued in court by a fellow Democrat lawyer. O has not produced the birth certificate after a judge ordered it. You can google it and read more about it. It's worrying people on both sides for different reasons. If elected, he would be the first president who refused to submit his birth certificate. It's been common practice for a long time. A website copy isn't what the judge asked for and the case isn't going away.

    Complain about this comment

  • 121. At 04:48am on 24 Oct 2008, jcputn5349 wrote:

    Via-Media,

    Haven't you ever met someone who claimed to be a witch? I have met at least three, probably more who didn't want to say so. Someone else on this thread wants to know why anybody would assume witches hate America (good question), and gunsandreligion offers a link about witches. We're living in the same world and know these things are true.

    Complain about this comment

  • 122. At 05:01am on 24 Oct 2008, jcputn5349 wrote:

    112 (waving) it's all good!

    Complain about this comment

  • 123. At 05:15am on 24 Oct 2008, hontogaijin wrote:

    i really hope palin, by some godly stroke of luck, becomes president. we really need someone in the white house with the know-how and inside scoop on how to rid the world of witches. my suggestion is a pre-emptive strike at their jugular... their main base; however, i do not know where it is located.

    maybe in... wichita.

    *snicker snicker*

    Complain about this comment

  • 124. At 05:19am on 24 Oct 2008, kecsmar wrote:

    112...shall i get my broom stick out, or my pointed hat...sounds like a 'party' to me ;)

    Complain about this comment

  • 125. At 05:21am on 24 Oct 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    #103. gtfc2007: "Justin Webb is a light-weight commentator."

    He's the catalyst who spurs on the rest of us to make the comments. Rather than criticising Justin, why not add a pertinent opinion or argument - if you have one.

    Complain about this comment

  • 126. At 05:23am on 24 Oct 2008, OldSouth wrote:

    I think this will be very, very close--which may not be such bad thing, as long as we don't have a litigious conclusion as in 2000. Polls are all over the place, but all trending a bit closer every day, it seems.

    We voted early today, at the county election commission. No lines, but a steady stream, and the clerk had a large stack of completed ballot records in his inbox, and that was just from today. The very first day of early voting saw long lines, very unusual. Don't know what this signifies, though. Many more McCain signs posted around the country than Obama signs. The best Obama sign, however, is a huge banner proclaiming 'Unions Supports Obama!'. I have to assume, sadly, that this includes the teachers' union...

    The video of the pastor praying over Gov. Palin is not disturbing when seen in context.
    'American Evangelical' Christian practice is significantly different than 'Anglican Liturgical', in both theology and presentation.
    I've experienced a good bit of both, and appreciate both.

    With great variations in local practice and delivery, American Evangelical churches do posit the existence of Good and Evil, that there is a supernatural element that is at play in all of life, and that God can be approached and petitioned by the individual believer. In that context, this prayer is not the practice of voodoo.

    However, Justin's sneer about it is most telling, friends.

    Why, in the politically correct world he inhabits, are the practice of Sharia law, the rantings of Rev. Wright and Minister Farrakahn, or Wiccan rituals(which are witchcraft-just ask the Wiccans!), acceptable 'alternative expressions of faith', beyond criticism by informed sophisticates like himself, and the earnest prayers for the protection of Providence for the Governor of Alaska dismissed as extremist and intolerable?

    Justin may have lived on our shores for several years, but he has demonstrated once again that he does not know this country.

    And, it appears he has no intention of learning about it further.

    More fun to stand on the sideline and sneer, in that particularly charming and poisonous English fashion.

    And you, my UK cousins, are forced to pay for him!



    Complain about this comment

  • 127. At 05:25am on 24 Oct 2008, olgeezerfromVa wrote:

    Ahhhh, here is a link that should be of interest to all, rated number one political blog for 2008, straight from Alaska.

    http://mudflats.wordpress.com/

    I hope you all enjoy it as much as I do, really folks, The US, and for that matter the rest of the world can not take another four years of Republican rule in this country. The USA needs to learn to get along with our neighbors, and work for the good of all. McCain/Palin ticket is not the answer, if Obama/Biden do not perform, they will be voted out in four years. All I am saying is "give peace a chance".

    Complain about this comment

  • 128. At 05:27am on 24 Oct 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 129. At 05:30am on 24 Oct 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    123, hontogal.

    But after Palin gets rid of the witches, who will get rid of her?

    Complain about this comment

  • 130. At 05:41am on 24 Oct 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    126, OldSouth.

    "I think this will be very, very close--which may not be such bad thing, as long as we don't have a litigious conclusion as in 2000. Polls are all over the place, but all trending a bit closer every day, it seems."

    You think McCain is strong because you live in the middle of McCain country. Up north McCain doesn't stand a chance and Palin is the butt of jokes. And the same is true of the north Midwest and the Pacific coast. Those areas pretty well outrank the deep South. We are even taking bites out of traditional Republican territory - Virginia, Colorado, North Dakota, Missouri, Iowa, New Mexico. Maybe even North Carolina!

    Sorry, OldSouth, but a political new age is dawning and we are finally moving into the 21st century.

    Complain about this comment

  • 131. At 05:48am on 24 Oct 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:

    OldSouth and others, I'd appreciate it if
    you came and looked at my blog.

    Apparently, the BBC mods allow me to post
    links to Pravda, but not to my blog, which shows
    that having an open mind and using it
    are two different things.

    I'm going to visit my congressman, who
    is a Republican, to register a complaint,
    so as to draw attention to their behavior.

    As they say, there is no such thing as
    bad publicity!

    Complain about this comment

  • 132. At 05:55am on 24 Oct 2008, Xie_Ming wrote:

    # 76

    The "unitary presidency" is the idea that what the President does is, ipso facto, legal.

    It is so extreme that the idea has not registered in the minds of ordinary citizens.

    Garry Wills discusses this in the latest issue of the 'New York Review of Books'. Charles Savage identifies Roberts, Alioto, Scalia and Thomas of the Supreme Court as supporting the idea.

    Google "unitary executive", and start to learn the magnitude of this movement.

    Complain about this comment

  • 133. At 05:58am on 24 Oct 2008, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    Justin are you checking the recent polls? Montana, Indiana, the Dakotas and even Georgia are in play for Obama. It is becoming virtually impossible for McCain to pull this one out the the hat ... witchcraft or no, and that is allowing for MOE. 538.com is suggesting about 375 ev for Obama with around a 95% confidence level, sure things may change ... if Russia invades the UK!

    Complain about this comment

  • 134. At 05:59am on 24 Oct 2008, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    guns how do I find your blog?

    Complain about this comment

  • 135. At 06:00am on 24 Oct 2008, Cassandra wrote:

    117

    So you haven't noticed anything mean-spirited about the rhetoric in American politics? OoooKay, then.

    BTW, if you want to get scared by a spouse, how about Mr. Palin's 7-year membership in the secessionist AIP? Alaska's "first dude" (pardon my cringing) wants Alaska out of the union? That doesn't sound as if he's too proud of his country.

    As for one of the other threads being covered: Witches? WITCHES?? For the love of [fill in deity of your choice], I can't believe we're have this discussion in the 21st century!


    Complain about this comment

  • 136. At 06:01am on 24 Oct 2008, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    I think allmy is right ... there is a-change-coming ...

    Complain about this comment

  • 137. At 06:08am on 24 Oct 2008, Cassandra wrote:

    131

    Let me see if I understand this....

    You're going to register a complaint (with an American politician) against the BBC because they won't let you post your link?

    And that will accomplish...what?

    I don't mind or anything, but I'm curious.

    Complain about this comment

  • 138. At 06:12am on 24 Oct 2008, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    Xie,132, this is very interesting but after a casual look I think i will need to take some time to fully understand. I presume that recent presidents wield far more power than the original framers of the constitution ever envisaged. Am I right?

    Complain about this comment

  • 139. At 06:18am on 24 Oct 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    135, nessie.

    In Maureen Dowd's semi-fake Latin OpEd piece, she calls Palin "Barracuda Borealis," and her husband "Primus Dudus."

    You mention of deity brought to mind a discussion in a previous thread that claimed atheists had a belief, and that their belief was that there was no god. I did not accept that, saying that it was a vacancy, not a belief. Ergo, I am going to use two new terms "non-goddist" and "goddist."

    Complain about this comment

  • 140. At 06:21am on 24 Oct 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:

    selfevidenttruths, if you give google
    the two words

    theamericandreamagain blogspot

    it will come up as the 2nd or third
    result.

    You may also be able to get to it
    by clicking on my name "in blue" on
    this blog, and if you go back a page
    or 2, it is under Colin Powell's America.

    However, google, will always work
    because they do a scan of the entire
    web every day or so, and cache it,
    so that even if someone on the BBC
    deletes it, they still have a record of it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 141. At 06:24am on 24 Oct 2008, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    re my comment regarding the polls (amused that some people have been spelling it poles : ))
    Of course they are only poles and many things have changed since the last election, the only numbers that count are those cast .... and validated or no by the supreme court : )

    Complain about this comment

  • 142. At 06:26am on 24 Oct 2008, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    am thinking of emigrating to the US, your elections are so much fun! If I get ill I can always fly back to the UK for free treatment ...

    Complain about this comment

  • 143. At 06:28am on 24 Oct 2008, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    thanks guns, see you there, maybe not tonight though ... woke up in middle of the night and the coffee is wearing off, as ed might say ... peace : )

    Complain about this comment

  • 144. At 06:31am on 24 Oct 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:

    Oh, BTW, selfevident, what you get from
    google is a day-old image of my blog, so
    you actually have to go to the link itself
    to get my latest post.

    Complain about this comment

  • 145. At 06:31am on 24 Oct 2008, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    to myself (141) polls! lol

    Complain about this comment

  • 146. At 06:35am on 24 Oct 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    136, selfevident.

    When I first supported Obama it was largely an intellectual choice based on his anti-war attitude and my belief that he would excel at foreign affairs. Also, I didn't want the Clintons back, and I surely didn't want Bush's successor.

    But quite recently I feel an excitement coming over me and I think the change he brings will be momentous. It is already sensed in Europe (and it wouldn't it be nice to have our allies back).

    As a bonus, Obama's election will inspire hope in young blacks who are looking to make something of themselves. I have worked all my life for racial equality and to see it on the threshold is enormously exciting.

    Complain about this comment

  • 147. At 06:36am on 24 Oct 2008, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    cheers guns, have found it and bookmarked ..

    Complain about this comment

  • 148. At 06:39am on 24 Oct 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:

    #137, we'll see how it goes.

    Like I said, there is no such thing as
    bad publicity.

    Complain about this comment

  • 149. At 06:45am on 24 Oct 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    I just heard from my son-in-law who is in Denver on business. He said the city is wildy pro-Obama. There are signs in windows, people wearing buttons, bumper stickers that say "Obama is not a Moslem," and everybody is talking. He also said that outside the cities the people are more conservative.

    Complain about this comment

  • 150. At 06:50am on 24 Oct 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    #120. jcputn5349: "The story about O's birth certificate did not interest me until I learned that O is being sued in court by a fellow Democrat lawyer."

    The lawyer is Phillip Berg, who also sued the President for having foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks. He's done a lot of talking, but doesn't appear to have provided any evidence that Mr Obama was born anywhere else but Hawaii. If he was born in Kenya, as Berg states, there would surely be some evidence of that - the Kenyans are very proud that the son of one of their countrymen is a candidate for the Presidency. I feel certain that if there was even a whiff of truth that he was born there, it would have surfaced by now. As far as I can determine, it has not.

    Complain about this comment

  • 151. At 06:55am on 24 Oct 2008, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    allmy I sure hope you are right, I think a concern of many is that he is able to rein (sp? - am tired) in some of the wilder members of congress and truly govern for the country, not just for the party. A lot of people are hoping, it would be such a shame to disappoint.
    There are so many challenges ahead. I am not a praying man, but in the absence of other words, lets pray that he really is what he seems to be and that the hope and change promised turns into reality.
    would like to continue but am sleepy

    zzz


    Complain about this comment

  • 152. At 06:57am on 24 Oct 2008, british-ish wrote:

    "a fairly mainstream Christian belief (ie witches exist and are bad)" . . .

    ?????

    I was brought up a Christian (non-conformist) as a child, and I seem to remember the concentration was mostly on the New Testament. When did that change?

    I was also brought up near Pendle Hill (Google Pendle Witches!) and at their depressing trial at Lancaster a spell was quoted that supposedly brought free beer to their doorstep. Tried that when I was a student. Didn't work.

    "witches can be patriotic", even . . .
    Somebody cited Google as a source? You probably get a billion references to phoenixes, but they don't exist either . . .I was going to use another mythical bird, common in our British 'sneering' ways, but I realised if the mods are Brits they'd probably not pass it :-)

    And to think somebody told me off a few days ago on the grounds that this blog wasn't here just to entertain me.

    But a bit more seriously, what surprises me about the polls, is that since most have a 'margin of error' of 3 per cent, Obama's 'lead' could have been interpreted as a bit 'tight' anyway if you deduct that 3 per cent. There's nothing new about that, apart from a bit of spin.

    I can't help suspecting that the popular vote is going to turn out to be a re-run of what we've seen before.

    By the way, I hope the question isn't just 'Did you vote in the last election' without some correlation with age . . .or that takes out all those people who've just become eligible to vote and therefore wouldn't have done -- which then renders the poll useless anyway.

    It's a rather tricky one: most British polls are qualified as being about 'voters' intentions' because there is really no way of ensuring a sample of actual voters before an exit poll taken at the polling stations.



    Complain about this comment

  • 153. At 06:59am on 24 Oct 2008, Cassandra wrote:

    139

    Hi marbles.

    Since "belief" can refer to either fact or opinion, it may be used in reference to a goddist or non-goddist.

    Faith is another matter.

    One of my favorite quotes is, "I do not pretend to know what so many ignorant men are sure of."

    That doesn't mean I'm an atheist, but it sure does mean that many religious people give me pause. If indeed you can tell the quality of a leader by his followers, I may have good reason for the chills I get from observing the actions of some of the devout.

    My spellcheck had trouble with your descriptive terms. (smiling)

    Goodnight.

    Complain about this comment

  • 154. At 07:01am on 24 Oct 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    #142.selfevidenttruths: "am thinking of emigrating to the US, your elections are so much fun! If I get ill I can always fly back to the UK for free treatment ..."

    Even if you could immigrate ( there are restrictions!) and become a permanent resident, domiciled in the USA, don't bank on the NHS to treat you for nothing. Foreigners and ex-pats are no longer automatically provided with free health care - and depending where you lived, the air fare might outweigh the cost of the treatment. If you were approved for permanent residency, it would most likely be for employment in which you would receive more than adequate compensation to pay for health insurance and which would most probably be included in your remuneration. If you're thinking of the next US General Election, November 2012, you might want to start preparing your application now, so that you're here for the primaries. On the other hand, stay in the UK and enjoy the entertainment.

    Complain about this comment

  • 155. At 07:07am on 24 Oct 2008, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    allmy: i don't your allies ever went away, they just became a bit frustrated, like you do when your brother or sister does something stupid. Not that the US has a monopoly on sech behaviour. Witness our government using anti-terror legislation against Iceland! Sometimes our government makes us ashamed ...

    now I really must sleep
    peace and zzzz

    Complain about this comment

  • 156. At 07:09am on 24 Oct 2008, british-ish wrote:

    139. allmymarbles wrote:

    No need for that. Atheists do not accept the existence of a god; agnostics allow that one (of many, or any) may.

    I've never quite worked out where that puts Buddhists, though.

    'Believer' or 'non-believer' used to be quite satisfactory, but they seem to have been taken over in US usage to mean only 'believer/non-believer in Christianity'. Er, and witches, apparently.

    (I forgot to point out earlier the inherent sexism of that: what about warlocks? Can we have some recognition of equality of the sexes, please, if that thread is going to continue?)

    I've always thought it's better to 'reclaim' words that relate to concepts rather than to try to create new terms.

    Complain about this comment

  • 157. At 07:11am on 24 Oct 2008, eightypercent wrote:



    # jcputn ~ 120

    Oh dear ! Here we go again with the barmier conspiracy theorists coming out of the woodwork.

    Jcputn refers to a "fellow Democrat lawyer", who is, I presume one Andrew (Andy) Martin who has been officially named as a vexatious litigant and is banned from numerous federal and state courts. He has been at this nonsense for over 20 years and his main claim to fame is as a serial time-waster. Look him up on Wikip.

    The "vexatious litigant" Mr. Martin is having a ball during this election - the extraordinary thing is that there are people who are willing to go along with him and then pop up with their dingbat theories on this site where most people know a thing or two.

    And where's Sam Tyler - I leave it to Sam to respond in due course to Magic's footlingly silly remarks about Michelle Obama.

    Complain about this comment

  • 158. At 07:11am on 24 Oct 2008, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    DC: damn, there's always a catch! Hold on though, I am Canadian as well, so maybe I can just move to the border. Thanks for the info
    night all

    Complain about this comment

  • 159. At 07:16am on 24 Oct 2008, hontogaijin wrote:

    #129 allmymarbles

    hontoGAI i'm no gal ;).


    how to get rid of palin after she rids of the witches? i'm not sure. maybe there's a magical chant we can utter over a pot of newt eyes and goats teeth.

    ...or something.

    Complain about this comment

  • 160. At 07:25am on 24 Oct 2008, eightypercent wrote:



    Wishin' and hopin'

    AP's headline tells me that "Obama fundraising drops, only $36 million in October".

    Oh, so October's over is it. That would be good because we would have done a time leap to November 4.

    Complain about this comment

  • 161. At 07:34am on 24 Oct 2008, eightypercent wrote:



    David C.

    My post about the conspiracy theorists clashed with yours. Yes - there's Philip Berg as well, star of the incredibly silly video which DougTexan inflicts on us.

    Complain about this comment

  • 162. At 07:39am on 24 Oct 2008, Soul News wrote:

    The symbiotic relationship between the Bush Administration and Al Quaida is something that experts have been commenting on for years.

    Its pretty clear that having someone like Bush or McCain or Palin in charge of the US plays right into Al Quaida's recruiting tactics.

    Average voters don't tend to consider this when reacting emotionally to events though, and Al Quaida is smart enough to exploit this.

    Hopefully AQ won't be able to infulence this particular election, and even if they try, maybe this time people will be smart enough not to fall for it.

    Maybe..

    Complain about this comment

  • 163. At 07:45am on 24 Oct 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    153, nessie.

    I do not like to use the word "belief" when referring to religion or lack thereof, because is is often turned upon the nonreligious person to suggest merely a different sort of religion. For me the god business is a vacuum.

    Complain about this comment

  • 164. At 07:47am on 24 Oct 2008, Talleyrand wrote:

    I have been wondering about the famous October surprise...

    Also if the continuing bombardment of Pakistan, resulting in considerable civilian death -- great way to win hearts and minds.... kill 'em! -- haven't been part of a strategy to "get him dead or alive" before the election. It would be a typical Bush strategy: ill-planned, too late, reckless and without any consideration of consequences.

    Anyway, the best thing that could happen for Bin Laden is a McCain win, it would wrap up 9/11 rather neatly, I hate to say. There is no way an enemy could invade the USA, but using the nation's timorousness to get two incompetents of the McCain and Palin stamp elected after 8 years of complete incompetence by Bush.... that would do the job, esp. in these times.

    Complain about this comment

  • 165. At 07:47am on 24 Oct 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    159, honto.

    Send me the recipe.

    Complain about this comment

  • 166. At 07:47am on 24 Oct 2008, Xie_Ming wrote:

    # 138

    The "unitary executive" is a sleeping Constitutinal volcano:

    "by Alito's speech to the ultra-conservative Federalist Society in 2000 when he was a sitting judge, in which he said that

    when I was in [the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel]...we were strong proponents of the theory of the unitary executive, that all federal executive power is vested by the Constitution in the president. And I thought then, and I still think, that this theory best captures the meaning of the Constitution's text and structure.... The case for a unitary executive seems, if anything, stronger today than it was in the 18th Century.


    The phrase "unitary executive" has been much used by conservatives anxious to increase the president's power, particularly in the "war on terrorism." Justice Thomas, for example, appealed to the doctrine to justify his dissent from the Court's refusal, in the Hamdi case, to allow the president unrestricted discretion to hold prisoners indefinitely as enemy combatants. John Yoo, then a Justice Department attorney, who has been widely described as the author of the administration's torture policy,[7] wrote after September 11 that

    the centralization of authority in the president alone is particularly crucial in matters of national defense, war, and foreign policy, where a unitary executive can evaluate threats, consider policy choices, and mobilize national resources with a speed and energy that is far superior to any other branch. .."

    From an article by Dworkin in the NYRB.

    Complain about this comment

  • 167. At 07:50am on 24 Oct 2008, Xie_Ming wrote:

    # 162

    Many will not know what a "symbiotic
    relationship" between terrorism and the Bush administration is.

    It means that they both help each other by their respective opposition.

    Complain about this comment

  • 168. At 07:51am on 24 Oct 2008, british-ish wrote:

    I've just read Dumeethra Luthra's report on the BBC:

    "In the primaries 12% of voters across the state said race was a factor - and that is close to Mr Obama's current lead in the polls here." ('Here' being Pennsylvania.)

    The people she quotes in her report is depressing news, but before anyone gets on their high horse I'm not saying it wouldn't be echoed here in the UK. I very much fear it might.

    Complain about this comment

  • 169. At 08:10am on 24 Oct 2008, british-ish wrote:

    166:

    I see what you mean by a 'sleeping volcano". Now I see how a President can get away with these 'Executive Orders' so easily.

    Why is it that the Right (despite all the claims of 'freedom' and so on) always tend towards the methods of dictatorship? One sees why it tends to threaten the voters with a 'socialist' one rather than one approaching from the opposite side.

    (This, by the way, coming from someone in a 'socialist' country whose parliament must now be consulted before we go to war, not afterwards.)


    Complain about this comment

  • 170. At 08:13am on 24 Oct 2008, kecsmar wrote:

    #162 soulgrind

    One could even argue that it is in Bush's/McC's interest to have him "out there". Give them a raison d’etre to justify their military intervention into countries that don't warrant it. Begs the Q, if they "found him"....what would happen then to their crusade?...no one to "to hate" then!...ergo...having him out there is beneficial to both!

    Complain about this comment

  • 171. At 08:14am on 24 Oct 2008, eightypercent wrote:



    Justin W. reports on BBC Radio that Sarah Palin is to be examined under oath today about Troopergate.

    This is one for our conspiracy theorists (wrong side, I know, I know) because when the brother-in-law was applying to become a state trooper, I believe he was backed by a glowing reference from the then Mayor of Wasilla.

    What goes around, comes around.

    Complain about this comment

  • 172. At 08:19am on 24 Oct 2008, FinMember wrote:

    Politics degerates into attack and lies, and a lot of Americans are willing to believe gop lies and misleading information. Hope it is just die hard Reps and the religious right. By the way has anyone explained true christian behaviour to the religious nuts out there. They seem to thrive on hate instead of love. How come they embrace sp a cultist and supporter of witches.

    Complain about this comment

  • 173. At 08:21am on 24 Oct 2008, tokando wrote:

    I read a funny blog yesterday, it said what the four scariest words in American history are....see if you can put them in order?

    1. "Mccain
    2. "President"
    3. "Dead"
    4. "Is"

    Good luck and let me know how you get on :)

    Complain about this comment

  • 174. At 08:23am on 24 Oct 2008, exserviceman wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 175. At 08:29am on 24 Oct 2008, deddancer wrote:

    #89 If Snopes ... known for its Urban Legends debunking ... is not good enough for you you could try FactCheck.org Annenberg Political Fact Check. Here is the link that will bring you to the Birth Certificate http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/has_obamas_birth_certificate_been_disclosed.html

    Sorry to burst your bubble.

    Regards

    Complain about this comment

  • 176. At 08:33am on 24 Oct 2008, exserviceman wrote:

    Troopergate:

    The trooper in question used a Taser on his 10 year old [Palin's nephew] son to "teach him a lesson,"

    Palin trys to get him fired, his boss refuses, so she removes him.

    Good for her, that guy is a danger and his boss a fool.

    You won't hear that explanation from the BBC, for obvious reasons. They love Obama.

    Complain about this comment

  • 177. At 08:33am on 24 Oct 2008, RomeStu wrote:

    #126 oldsouth wrote
    "Why, in the politically correct world he inhabits, are the practice of Sharia law, the rantings of Rev. Wright and Minister Farrakahn, or Wiccan rituals(which are witchcraft-just ask the Wiccans!), acceptable 'alternative expressions of faith', beyond criticism by informed sophisticates like himself, and the earnest prayers for the protection of Providence for the Governor of Alaska dismissed as extremist and intolerable?"

    Farrakahn, Wright, Wiccans and Muslims are not running for office - Palin is.

    For the record I am equally skeptical of all religions, and see little difference between the fundamentlist belief in one religion or another, but Palin's fundamentalist Chrisitianity is under discussion on this blog, not the other issues.

    If only Palin had some policy ideas, or even the ability to display some knowledge outside her very small worldview, then her religious views would not be of interest.

    Complain about this comment

  • 178. At 09:11am on 24 Oct 2008, paul939 wrote:

    #176 exserviceman

    And you love Palin, we know that very well. When have you ever said anything good about Obama? I don't think getting someone fired is enough qualification to become VP.

    Complain about this comment

  • 179. At 09:12am on 24 Oct 2008, deddancer wrote:

    On the Creationism issue, she has not issued a public statement either way.

    However she & McCain have both said it should be brought up in school but not in as a Science class.

    Please see: http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2008/08/creationist_mccain_picks_creat.php

    Having gone to a Catholic High School here in the States, at the school I went to we where not even taught creationism in Religion class as the Catholic Church did not require a belief in creationism as part of thier dogma. I was not Catholic so I just thought of the one religion class I took a year as "what the Catholic Church taught", though we did take at least one year of "Comparative Religion" that discussed the basic beliefs of various religions. That was when I got my first copy of "Religions of America" edited by Leo Rosten, which by the way covered Agnostic and The Religion of a Scientist. It was listed as a reference book for the class.

    I personally would not have a problem with a class in Comparative Religion taught in a school as an elective course as long as it did not state a preference for any one religion. I feel having a general knowledge of what various people believe is similar to having a education in the history of civilization. As a little bit of a "history freak" I have found religions do have a impact on the development of societies and governments.

    My parents always encouraged that we learn the history and laws of any country we moved to, my dad always said if you understand the history of a country and its laws it gave you a better understanding of the people and thier beliefs. If you have an understanding of that, you don't always have to agree with them but at least you will understand where they are coming from. Here stateside I still do that when moving to different states.

    For one thing a majority of the laws in U.S. vary by state, espically family law ... those things covering marriage, divorce, wills and inheritance. An example is "common law marriage", most states have some provision for it but how it is defined and the duration the couple have to be co-habitating to be considered "common law married" varies greatly. In some states you have to co-habitate for 10 years or more and here in the state of Texas you don't even have to co-habitate for even a week ... all you have to do is "hold someone out" (tell others) someone is your spouse. Probably stems from the fact that the state was so big and transportation was so limited when it became a state.

    And with the current "learn by rote" education that we have here in the states I would be happy to see anything that encouraged people to "think" and not just spout facts and dates.

    Regards

    Complain about this comment

  • 180. At 09:13am on 24 Oct 2008, eightypercent wrote:



    # Romestu

    I understand that Palin is to talk policy on Friday - devoting a speech to special needs children.

    All well and good - but not so good if we are to see more and more pics of that little boy with special needs being lugged around on the campaign trail and - in one particular pic - being seemingly dangled in front of a screaming crowd.

    Am I alone in wishing that she would just stop doing that.

    Complain about this comment

  • 181. At 09:36am on 24 Oct 2008, Justaline wrote:

    176. exserviceman wrote:
    The trooper in question used a Taser on his 10 year old [Palin's nephew] son to "teach him a lesson,"

    Thanks for that exserviceman, there's always two sides to the story and that is something I always look for. By the way I agree with you, those taser's have killed people.

    You see this is what annoys me by this whole election, we are not getting all the facts from both sides of the fence and we should be!


    Complain about this comment

  • 182. At 09:37am on 24 Oct 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:

    #152, do you happen to have a copy of the
    beer spell?

    If it was written in C++ or Common Lisp (computer
    languages) I could probably modify it to
    serve up a decent amber ale...

    Complain about this comment

  • 183. At 09:44am on 24 Oct 2008, liqahussain wrote:

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2008/10/_i_didnt_want_to.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

    What is the difference between pitbull and Sarah Palin

    Lipstick plus $150,000 worth of designer clothes

    Complain about this comment

  • 184. At 09:46am on 24 Oct 2008, Wozuna wrote:

    Hmm...

    However the polls turnout in reality, those on either side will demand a re-count (unless it is a landslide).

    You would think that any staunch republicans would see these early vote results and get voting...if they had not done so already. Yet this seems not to have happened, leading to the thought that a landslide may occur.



    Complain about this comment

  • 185. At 09:50am on 24 Oct 2008, liqahussain wrote:

    Osama bin Laden and Zawari tapes come out right at the time when they are needed most by Bush or his cronies. I give you a recent example. In Pakistan when there was a move to impeach Musharraf about 2 days before that Zawarhi tape surfaced saying that Musharraf should be impeached.

    One may ask this guy who are you to advise us and what do you get it. If you really want Musharraf to go then keep quiet but the timing was clear that the purpose was different. And later on it turned out it was a doctored tape.

    I would be surprised at the naivety of Americans if this time around then also change their mind if such a tape surfaces before the election - I would assume that they are not brave but to be honest cowards to be running for their mom and dad (McCain and Palin) for security.

    But then where killing 100000 innoncent Iraqi civilians with bombing and calling it collateral damage what can one expect. I wish and hope I am wrong this time.

    Complain about this comment

  • 186. At 09:55am on 24 Oct 2008, john-In-Dublin wrote:

    # 95 and #117 - MagicKirin AKA "Ubermensch The Illiterate"

    "Hey I prefer to think of it as the response to one of the most hateful women in American./The person who has been given a free ride Michelle the mean Obama"

    and "That is why I think if Obama is elected Michelle Obama will embarass (sic) her country by the ignorance she display (sic) and the arrogance she has"

    1 I know - it's not worth replying to this person. It just encourages him

    2 People can draw their own conclusions as to whom the words 'ignorance', 'arrogance' and 'hateful' best apply

    3 To all those people who linked to the truth about Michelle and the lobsters - stop confusing Magic with the facts! He's never needed them before

    4 This of course is the gent who recently referred to N Mandela and D Tutu as 'phonies', as I recall. In fairness, I don't automatically assume this is because they're all black. It's just as likely be because they are anywhere to the left of Genghis Khan - or possibly because they may at any time in their life have made a comment that was in any way critical of the State of Israel....

    Complain about this comment

  • 187. At 09:58am on 24 Oct 2008, exserviceman wrote:

    The moderator held up a post of mine. OK I have posted too many links recently.

    However, I am on topic because of the "palling arround" reference in Justin's blog entry.

    If you Google zombietime you will be able to quickly track down a article about a the Weathermen political manifesto "Prairie Fire"

    The Blogger has digitized scans of an actually physical copy. He writes objectively and fairly.

    Since Obama launched his political career in the front room of two Weathermen leaders, I think its only fair to point out what these people were planning to do.

    They were and are unrepentent revolutionary communists. The objective is the same, the method different.

    Complain about this comment

  • 188. At 10:02am on 24 Oct 2008, british-ish wrote:

    126: "However, Justin's sneer about it is most telling, friends. Why, in the politically correct world he inhabits, are the practice of Sharia law, the rantings of Rev. Wright and Minister Farrakahn, or Wiccan rituals(which are witchcraft-just ask the Wiccans!), acceptable 'alternative expressions of faith', beyond criticism by informed sophisticates like himself. . ."

    Well, how about discussing the Sharia perspective on the payment of interest then, as an example of the 'practice'? I seem to remember the Old Testament position on usury is not dissimilar?

    I for one am thoroughly fed up with the anti-Islam stance taken up by so many people here. Sharia law is not just about beheading apostates (burning witches?) and as far as I know it doesn't exonerate bombers (suicidal or otherwise) either. Any more than I thought Christianity (vis-a-vis Pakistani, Afghan or Iraqi villages/vlilagers) does?

    We've got the idea: Democrats/Obama are socialistic extremist Muslim sympathisers. And he might have a witchdoctor in his ancestry in Kenya . . .Could come in handy if he has.

    By the way, I don't want to speak for him if he doesn't want to say it himself (even though he did mention it once, now it would probably provoke a lot of insulting, not to say irrelevant, exchanges) but, Old South, do you know what religious faith Justin belongs to? (Or at least was brought up in?)

    Do you care?

    Would it matter to you? If so, why? It doesn't to anybody in Britain, I don't think. We don't either usually ask it of reporters or anyone else, nor expect to know. It's a matter of private conscience.

    Why do we have to keep reminding people that Justin is (I presume!) British, he writes from a British perspective -- albeit, many of us think, sometimes a wee bit too enthusiastically pro-American -- with British attitudes, on a British website?

    It's not his job to proselytise for the USA or American attitudes. You, and others, seem to assume he and the BBC should be writing only from a standpoint you agree with. If you hadn't grasped it yet, Britain is actually a foreign country. They (we?) do things differently there . . .Very differently, looking at some of the posts on this blog!


    Complain about this comment

  • 189. At 10:03am on 24 Oct 2008, cultwriter wrote:

    It took you long enough to get to the witches stuff J! The point made here:

    http://www.davidsouthwell.com/2008/09/witchfinder-general.html

    is for me the nub.

    If she was a member of an Aryan church that advocated persecuting Jews, there would be no tolerance, no language too strong. We should never accept persecution of any faith. We should decry anyone standing for office who is a friend of those who perpetrate such villainy. Anyone who backs those advocating a gospel of hunting for witches deserves to be met Hadleigh style.

    Complain about this comment

  • 190. At 10:06am on 24 Oct 2008, DNAtheist wrote:

    This article irritated me:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/us_elections_2008/7682876.stm

    It promotes a knee-jerk reaction along the lines of: "What a shocking indictment of America!" However, when you return to your senses and allow logic and reason to overcome the initial rage at statements like: "He's from Africa or something. I don't even know where he's from. I know he grew up here, but he's not from here. I think American presidents should be from America. "; you realise that the 'people' that make these sort of statements are really just the ignorant minority.

    Here's a break down of that quote:

    "He's from Africa or something." [We are all from what is now Africa, and we're all genetically the same. But of course, if you're prone to making a statement as above then you probably believe that god invented people six thousand years ago and genetics are a lie invented by evil scientists who are possessed by the spirit of satan.]

    "I don't even know where he's from." [I know it's a crazy way out idea but.... why don't you find out?!]

    "I know he grew up here, but he's not from here." [By the same token, neither are you. Every American is an immigrant or descended from immigrants. Unless you happen to be a descendant of the indigenous population...]

    "I think American presidents should be from America." [And what qualifies you as American exactly? Holding American citizenship would seem like the most obvious way to tell.]

    The problem is that people with these sort of warped beliefs are actually polled and actually allowed to vote. Being an ignorant, racist numbskull should automatically disqualify you from having any input into the election process. Racism is such a lamentably stupid, untenable position to adopt, it is almost laughable.

    McCain is concentrating heavily on Pennsylvania, where the above statement originated. You have to question the motives behind that.

    And you can bet that, willingly or unwillingly, Sarah Palin appeals to the sort of deadbeats who think (and I use that term very loosely) like that. Worse still, it appears that she may actually harbour the belief that we were invented by some invisible bearded guy in the sky six thousand years ago!

    I need a bucket...

    (And one final word: Obama, whatever he may believe privately, has to profess religious beliefs, because America is not ready for a President that professes no religious leanings whatsoever, despite what is written in the Constitution. When the day finally comes that America can accept an atheist as President, then it will truly be an enlightened society.)

    Complain about this comment

  • 191. At 10:09am on 24 Oct 2008, potatoman65 wrote:

    About witches....I have no axe to grind but I have been to a wedding on a beach here in Scotland, which was overseen by two lovely people who referred to themselves as witches. Their own beliefs, it seemed to me, were all about becoming "connected" with what can be seen and felt and touched and smelt. A very earthy sort of faith.

    For many years I was part of of an evangelical christianity that is probably the equivalent (in a very British way) of the sort of religion that Sarah Palin ascribes to. I believe it is a lot more prevalent in the US than here. I cannot accept the things I used to accept (and I have prayed against demons and witchcraft) but the people I knew were usually well meaning.

    I think that the idea of praying "against" witches is an ignorant thing to do, and it is a concern, but it is almost certainly a part of the culture Palin grew up in. People should be concerned, but they should be far more concerned with her grasp of issues and her ability to lead and represent the whole nation, not just a small section of it.

    Now that really is a worry.

    Complain about this comment

  • 192. At 10:10am on 24 Oct 2008, Peter_Sym wrote:

    If Obama is keen to bomb the caves on the Afghan Pakistani border then it is plain to see that he has learnt NOTHING from Vietnam.

    In Vietnam the VC used complex tunnel systems and jungle trails which the US sought to knock out by dropping more bombs than were used in the whole of WW2 onto them. It failed miserably. You need to get some brave men and actually send them in to fight hand to hand with the enemy (as Britain did very succesfully in Malaya). Even if bombing these caves DID work how would you ever know Bin Ladin was inside in the first place? Its a stupid idea and worryingly naive in a President.

    This is one of the few areas where I have far more faith in McCain than Obama. McCain has seen war and knows how it works and how nasty it is. Obama hasn't. Perhaps if Bush had gone to Vietnam rather than Lousianna he might have been a bit for sensible too?

    Complain about this comment

  • 193. At 10:11am on 24 Oct 2008, Wozuna wrote:

    written by 'exserviceman' post 176

    "you wont here that explanation from the BBC, for obvioius reasons. They love Obama'

    Has anybody else found that? I also find that the BBC media has a definite bias toward Obama, rather than a complete neutral report.

    Maybe I will find out if they do not allow this past BBC moderation!

    I hope they do show this, I have seen more controversial opinions on BBC blogs!

    Well? BBC (Back Barack Corp)

    (okay moderator, you can take off that last line!!)

    Complain about this comment

  • 194. At 10:11am on 24 Oct 2008, eightypercent wrote:



    May I suggest a quid pro quo with the mods ?

    The system's gizmo records the time that a comment was received. Could a second gizmo record when the comment was actually posted ?

    That would then explain any mysterious time lags in the debate.

    Complain about this comment

  • 195. At 10:15am on 24 Oct 2008, 60022Mallard wrote:

    No. 92 sudohnim38

    I am afraid you have got it wrong. The complaint upheld related to a BROADCAST on the World This Weekend on Radio 4. It also means that despite the best efforts of the BBC in London they have been unable to verify that Mrs Palin is a "creationist". Something which is taken as fact by many people and can only have come from inaccurate reporting by such as Mr Webb.

    Complain about this comment

  • 196. At 10:21am on 24 Oct 2008, Candace9839 wrote:

    Bush endorsement on SNL
    Will Ferrell rocks

    Complain about this comment

  • 197. At 10:22am on 24 Oct 2008, eightypercent wrote:



    # 187 exserviceman

    Dear exserviceman,

    We've pointed out before that using a blog called "zombietime" as your point of reference isn't necessarily the way to make friends and influence people on this particular site.

    Complain about this comment

  • 198. At 10:26am on 24 Oct 2008, Parrisia wrote:

    @ asascot 78

    no poll will ever take into account the Wilder reflex cause simply no poll asks that question

    let's wait unti 11/4

    Complain about this comment

  • 199. At 10:27am on 24 Oct 2008, Candace9839 wrote:

    I had read the AP poll was "skewed far too heavily in favor of Evangelical Christians".
    AP poll was flawed

    As of yesterday, Obama leads in eight key battleground states with early voting underway in many other states
    Big ten states

    Complain about this comment

  • 200. At 10:29am on 24 Oct 2008, Candace9839 wrote:

    Palin has ties to the Alaska Independence Party who could be considered domestic terrorists.

    Complain about this comment

  • 201. At 10:41am on 24 Oct 2008, british-ish wrote:

    152: Sorry, I threw it away. Didn't seem much point in keeping it.

    (I mean, nobody even offered to buy me a round in the pub when I tried it. We did think it worked once and got quite excited, but it turned out to be the girl's boyfriend who left the bottle of cheap wine outside her door. And that was about a week later, and it was her birthday, so on reflection we didn't think it counted.)

    I seem to remember it was in one of the appendices to a 'Stratford-on-Avon Studies' called 'Witchcraft in the 17th Century' or something similar if anyone wants to look it up.

    Don't think it was ever even written down until the trial, let alone in C++ or whatever . . .

    I did wonder if they missed something out though; I'd have thought it might have needed a bit of boiled bat or newt or something to get it going, but apparently you just had to say it.

    (When I was a kid I went up Pendle to look at the site where the 'witches' had lived. Terrible place to get to, devil of a trek to the pub even more than three centuries on. No wonder they needed a spell and a bit of supernatural help to get the beer in.)

    Complain about this comment

  • 202. At 10:41am on 24 Oct 2008, Mike Mullen wrote:

    #193 Wozuna

    "you wont here that explanation from the BBC, for obvioius reasons. They love Obama'

    Has anybody else found that? I also find that the BBC media has a definite bias toward Obama, rather than a complete neutral report."

    Alas for that theory the BBC is precisely where I read about the accusations against the trooper ex-brother-in-law, including the taser incident. I say accusations not because I don't believe them but because if they haven't been proven in a court of law then they are just accusations.
    Also look back at some of the blogs from the last week or two where Justin has bent over backwards to suggest McCain can still win.

    Complain about this comment

  • 203. At 10:46am on 24 Oct 2008, Mike Mullen wrote:

    #198 Parrisia:

    "@ asascot 78

    no poll will ever take into account the Wilder reflex cause simply no poll asks that question

    let's wait unti 11/4"

    I think this is more commonly called the Bradley Effect, and the pollsters DO try and account for it. Again(and I should be getting paid for this the number of times I've mentioned them) go to fivethirtyeight.com for some insightful analysis on the Bradley effect and whether it actually exists.

    Complain about this comment

  • 204. At 10:47am on 24 Oct 2008, Peter_Sym wrote:

    200. "Palin has ties to the Alaska Independence Party who could be considered domestic terrorists."

    Have they bombed the Capitol like the weather underground, black churches like the KKK or federal buildings like the 'patriotic militias'?

    When they do I'll 'consider' them terrorists as well.

    On a wider point can anyone direct me to any public speaches Palin has made where she says the world was made in 6 days etc? I've heard a lot of claims about her religious lunacy, yet heard less God bothering from her mouth than pours out of Bush or Blair.

    Complain about this comment

  • 205. At 10:50am on 24 Oct 2008, Andrew Prescott wrote:

    I can't quite beleive the Muthee video there is an element of the surreal. As a Buddhist I am at a loss for words. This is huge politically!

    Complain about this comment

  • 206. At 10:56am on 24 Oct 2008, PaulPieniezny wrote:

    Re 51 (by myfreedomforever)
    Of course, as someone else said "I suspect that if you found archival film footage of Obama coming out of his mom’s vagina with Pearl Harbor visible through a hospital window, some of these conspiracy nuts would still be claiming that “those battleships in the background look fake.”

    FWIW, Obama's birth on August 4th 1961 was announced in the Honolulu Advertiser on August 13th 1961. It was not a paid advertisement, as the PUMA who found this out (and published it on her website at http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/obama-was-likely-born-in-hawaii/) grudgingly explains:
    "In 1961, the hospitals would take their new birth certificates to Vital Records. At the end of the week, Vital Records would post a sheet for the news paper to pick up that contained births, deaths, marriages and divorces. The Advertiser routinely printed this information in their Sunday edition. This is not a paid announcement that his grandmother could arrange. This is information that comes from Vital Records - we know this because this particular section reflects those records."

    Note that if Obama had double nationality at birth (which is also sometimes mentioned to claim he has a conflict of interest, or is in fact a secret Muslim), the other nationality certainly was not Kenyan. There was no state of Kenya at the time of his birth. Being a British subject at birth does not automatically disqualify someone from becoming US president, as Obama shared (note the past tense) that characteristic with a number of US presidents. George Washington for instance.

    Of course, since this discovery people have continued to claim that the birth certificate on the website is a falsification. Conspiracy theories abound: they published a false certificate to get investigative bloggers to lose time pursuing this, or: there must something fishy on the real birth certificate. Like his father and mother were not married. Which would mean that his real name is actually Barry Dunham.

    Now does anyone really believe that a guy running for president of the US would prefer being called Barrack Obama rather than Barry Dunham? There is a reason why neither the McCain campaign nor the MSM are pursing this: because it is too weird a (non)story. Weirder than the claim he is from Krypton.

    Complain about this comment

  • 207. At 10:58am on 24 Oct 2008, Mark wrote:

    A slew of polls out yesterday ought to be causing McCain alarm, not so much at the national level, but at the state level. I suspect that McCain's support is holding at the national level because of those interior states like Oklahoma where he is up by an average of 28%. McCain's problem, however, is that he doesn't need more votes in Idaho, Utah, or Oklahoma; he needs them in Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania, and there the news is bad.

    The last two polls in Ohio have Obama up by 11.5% (Big Ten) and 14% (Quinnipiac with a large sample of 1360). In Pennsylvania, Obama has been scoring consistent double digit leads and 538 has a likely victory margin of 10.7%. In Florida it is closer and a couple of recent polls have put McCain up by 1%, but the rest have Obama by 5% or so and latest Miama Herald has him at 7%.

    Perhaps as troubling for McCain is that Georgia is now down to 4-5%, and Texas has narrowed sharply from 16 to 10%. In fact the best thing that could happen to the Republican party is if they lost Texas because it would force the kind of soul-searching that would put the evangelical rump in its place.

    Most pollsters are assuming a high turnout of 65%, but my feeling is that it may be over 70% and that will be because three under-represented groups in most elections are likely to vote heavily.

    First, turnout amongst African-Americans could get as high as 80% and that will have a big effect, not only in States like Virginia and North Carolina, but in Georgia and Texas. There are many touching stories coming from the polls of things like an 86 year old woman voting for the first time; or a 90 year old with four generations of her family breaking down and weeping uncontrollably because she never believed she would have a chance to vote for someone like Obama. There are going to be a lot more stories like this in the coming days.

    Second, for the first time since the 60s, young people are going to go out and vote and vote against war: old men get countries into wars, young people have to fight them. McCain is perceived by the young as someone who likes war, and they are tired or afraid of being asked to make the sacrifice. They are also furious at old men running up debts that the young will have to pay and the person seen as responsible for those debts is Bush because of the war and his economic policies: McCain is tarred with that brush.

    Third, the hispanic community, while more diverse, is consolidating behind Obama and his support amongst them is probably niow in excess of 70%. Once again, they are likely to vote heavily, and that is bad news for McCain in states like Colorado. In Nevada, registered Democrats have asked for twice as many early ballots as Republicans; last time the early requests leaned Republican.

    In fact, early voting is what may finally lift turnout beyond 70%. This time more states are offering it as an alternative, and the demand is much greater than previously. What the final impact of it will be is as yet uncertain, but the chances are that it will tip towards Obama and reinforce his lead. In the last two elections I had a gut churning moment about two weeks out where I realised that Gore and Kerry were losing the race; this time I suspect the question is not whether he will win, but how devastating and complete Obama's victory will be.

    Complain about this comment

  • 208. At 11:02am on 24 Oct 2008, Andrew Prescott wrote:

    Dear myfreedomforevor
    Obama's birth certificate is available here

    I have complained about your long comment to the moderators, to be so factually incorect in a defamotory manner must surely constitute libel

    http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate?source=source=sem-pm-fts-bc-search-us&gclid=COytvc3Mv5YCFQq4sgodBg8Hxg

    Complain about this comment

  • 209. At 11:05am on 24 Oct 2008, Pancha Chandra wrote:

    Poll numbers should be taken with a double pinch of salt. However it is clear Obama is way ahead of McCain and has an edge even in key battle drawn states. With the elections just days ahead, McCain is trying every trick in the book to discredit Obama. Very few electors are impressed by McCain's efforts. It looks certain that Obama will take the White House with relative ease. Of course reality will take a long time to sink in. The Republicans have not brought meaningful change in the last eight years and the voters are livid.

    Complain about this comment

  • 210. At 11:09am on 24 Oct 2008, Mike Mullen wrote:

    #206 PaulPieniezny:


    "the other nationality certainly was not Kenyan. There was no state of Kenya at the time of his birth. Being a British subject at birth does not automatically disqualify someone from becoming US president"

    Obama British? Well if he doesn't win on November 4th I suspect the Labour party could be persuaded to arrange a vacancy at 10 Downing Street... :)

    Complain about this comment

  • 211. At 11:19am on 24 Oct 2008, british-ish wrote:

    193. Wozuna wrote:
    written by 'exserviceman' post 176

    "you wont here that explanation from the BBC, for obvioius reasons. They love Obama'

    Has anybody else found that? I also find that the BBC media has a definite bias toward Obama, rather than a complete neutral report.


    Are you mistaking 'comment' for 'reporting' by any chance? Anyway, Obama is much more interesting. And Palin very amusing, in a scary sort of way. For us, anyway.

    You want the Beeb to report every single time McCain or a Republican associates Obama with terrorism, Islam, or being born somewhere else? Or there's another unsubstantiated rumour?We've read all that. It's boring. (Hint.)

    Oh, and to whoever it was complained about the association of Palin with creationism: please don't exaggerate:

    "so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution."
    [Sarah Palin; quoted in the Anchorage Daily News, October 30 2006.]

    The Republican Party POf Alaska is also quoted in the same report: "We support giving Creation Science equal representation with other theories of the origin of life. If evolution is taught, it should be presented as only a theory."

    Looks to me as though if you support that position, and presumably, as a member of that same party one is entitled to assume it, since as far as I can see she has not been 'maverick' enough to say she doesn't, then you must actually believe in it to some extent.

    Or, dare I be cynical and suggest that this fine upstanding honest woman merely thought that to hint she might was politically expedient?

    I am disregarding her alleged 'dinosaurs living alongside humans' since that was from someone who one can assume was partial.

    If it walks like a dinosaur, sounds like a dinosaur, it must be a dinosaur. Unless it's a homo erectus hunting one using its mating call, of course.

    When I was young, I can't say any of us kids had that much of a problem in believing that God created the world, only probably rather longer ago than the sums derived from some dodgy genealogy might have suggested.

    Good heavens, some of you Americans will have us believing in witches next.

    Ah. Yes. Well . . .

    Complain about this comment

  • 212. At 11:26am on 24 Oct 2008, Peter_Sym wrote:

    There are plenty of claims in #206 that are iffy.

    Kenya was not independently governed but it existed as a distinct legal territory and everyone born in the Masai Mara was not a British citizen. (In fact people born in the Falklands, Gibraltar or even Isle of Man aren't exactly 'British' in the way someone born in London is) My uncle was born in Rhodesia when it was part of the empire and his place of birth is clearly stated as Rhodesia. He was legally 'British' because his parents had been born in Britain.

    Equally the claim that having British citizenship doesn't automatically disqualify you from being President... why then will it take a change in the law to allow Arnie to stand?

    Complain about this comment

  • 213. At 11:26am on 24 Oct 2008, british-ish wrote:

    210. AsaScot wrote:

    "Obama British? Well if he doesn't win on November 4th I suspect the Labour party could be persuaded to arrange a vacancy at 10 Downing Street... :)"

    Hey, there's an idea. The Labour Party could do with some of that money he's raised, too. He could donate any that's left, because it wouldn't be a 'foreign' donation then, would it? As long as he doesn't hitch a lift over on a yacht :-)

    (Freudian slip: I don't mean 'left'; I mean 'spare'. One has to be so careful with some words around here these days. Mind you, he might be a bit too right-wing for Labour voters, don't you think? Could offer him to the Tories, though. They need the money even more, now, obviously.)

    Complain about this comment

  • 214. At 11:28am on 24 Oct 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Check out the names - you couldn't make it up!

    "Marcia Stirman, the head of the Republican Women of Otero County, will be asked to step down, Sassy Tinling, the chairwoman of the Otero County Republican Party, said Wednesday.

    In a letter published Tuesday in the Alamogordo Daily News, Stirman wrote that she believes "Muslims are our enemies." Stirman told The Associated Press in an interview: "I don't trust them at all. They've sworn across the world that they are our enemies. Why we're trying to elect one is beside me.""
    New Mexico is going "blue"!

    Peace, inshalla
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 215. At 11:36am on 24 Oct 2008, junai139 wrote:

    Has anyone else noticed that on the IBD/TIPP poll they have McCain 74% to Obama's 22% for the 18-24 age demographic? I find this extraordinary. Is this a mistake? I'd assumed that this was one demographic that Obama would have sewn up.

    Any Americans care to shed light on this for me?

    Complain about this comment

  • 216. At 11:36am on 24 Oct 2008, Peter_Sym wrote:

    #211. That was me. And that speech does not say 'I believe the world was created in 6 days'.

    I'm a scientist, I read Darwin in secondary school, believe 100% he got it right (although there's a few bits of crucial evidence we haven't found yet needed to fill a few holes), however I also think creationism should be explained in science class.

    Why?

    Simple. Because its nonsense and the best way of debunking nonsense is logical scientific examination of it. Coming from an oil rich state the world being 6000 years old doesn't quite tie in with the black expensive stuff forming over millenia from compressed fossilised plants does it? Even the dumbest kid can be shown in very little time that creationism doesn't add up.

    That speech by Palin isn't the speech of religious fundamentalist- its the speech of someone trying to appeal to everyone at the same time (i.e a politician trying to win). She doesn't state her own position once, but instead says she supports the teaching of BOTH theories.

    Complain about this comment

  • 217. At 11:38am on 24 Oct 2008, icetayoa wrote:

    This piece of digression is on the news about Obama suspending is Campaign for 2 days to be with his sick grandmother.
    It reminds me of the 1st week of the current financial/economic crises, when the Bush administration were trying to hammer out the $700 billion bail-out package. Senator John Mcain opted to suspend his campaign for 2 days and return to Washington to help seal the deal. He also suggested that the 1st presidential debate be moved forward because of the crisis.
    He was severely lampooned in the media for this and was heckled by the media into backtracking on the debate. He was labelled erratic by the media, Obama, the democrats and their apologists. I remember Obama himself saying that he was not going to suspend his campaign, and that as President of America, one should be able to deal with various competing issues at the same time. He also said that there was no better time for the electorate to hear from the candidates than during this period of crisis.

    Fast forward to present day. I think its rather amusing that Obama did not hesitate at a whim to suspend his campaign in order to be with his sick grandmother. When asked about how he came to making the decision to suspend his campaign, he replied and I quote ‘IT WAS EASY’. I wonder whatever happened to his quote about the president of America having to deal with various competing issues at the same time?? I guess he now remembers, that like Mcain, he is still a Senator and contestant for the presidency and not THE PRESIDENT OF AMERICA.

    What is most intriguing is that the choice is so easy for Obama. It is so easy for him to make a choice between providing leadership to the American people during this turbulent period and being with a sick relative. I guess Obama has safely come to the conclusion that the hero worshipping news media and the American people are retarded enough to give their deity a slap on the wrist for such bad judgement.

    I have no problem with Obama rushing to be with a sick relative. However, what the American people need to remember is that, when the choice of projecting and protecting their interest clashes with Obama’s personal interest, sadly, their interest comes a distant last. Making that decision also comes very easy to him.

    Complain about this comment

  • 218. At 11:47am on 24 Oct 2008, American Sport Fan wrote:

    I didn't excell in statistics while in college, but I learned enough about it to realize that who you include in your sample size affects the outcome of your survey. In this case, by weighting it towards evangelicals and not counting first time voters the survey has been sckewed towards the right. By not counting firsttime voters, you discriminate against the young and that's a shame.

    Complain about this comment

  • 219. At 11:52am on 24 Oct 2008, manchepaul wrote:

    For those quoting the bible on witches, could you please refer to the Latin version from which the English version was translated, or the Greek version from which the Latin was translated, or any of the other old language originals, and look again for your references.

    There is no mention of witches, simply because witches are a European old religion idea - see wicca, Cernunnos etc - which predates christianity, and which was unknown in the early middle east when the various early civilisations (city states) first wrote the documents that became selected for the bible by later groups.

    They may have talked about evil people (mostly just unbelievers) or followers of other religions of the time, but not witches. That is a European idea. That a modern person can still believe in occult powers beggars belief.

    Complain about this comment

  • 220. At 11:55am on 24 Oct 2008, Wozuna wrote:

    number - 207 Markfromoxford -

    From a very neutral perspective, I find it strange how it is taken that african-americans voting for Obmama not purely on canditate policy and credentials, is seen as a given, and not racially orientated at all.

    I detest voters who vote on colour across the board, and it should not happen.
    White voters being 'inhibitied' to vote for a black man is bad (though he is mixed race), but likewise many african americans will vote for Obama just because he is black, and that should equally be seen as questionable.


    It seems on this blog it is no more about core policies of the candidates but the general, often funny side stories that are taking president (see what I did there?)

    Put together all the main policies that each candidate is bringing to the table and see how they would benefit the people. (I know that is a very sweeping statement, so please take it as one!)

    Complain about this comment

  • 221. At 11:58am on 24 Oct 2008, exserviceman wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 222. At 11:58am on 24 Oct 2008, Xie_Ming wrote:

    The BBC is doing a better job than they are given credit for.

    On today's news, we see retirees in the USA disturbed because blacks might get social assistance for which they have not worked as much as the retiree.

    Of course , the retiree is on the government dole, but, for him, the other is "socialism".

    Another Republican explains that "socialism" is "Marxism".

    That is real life. And that could give an indication of why America might continue down the tubes to the point where the
    Christian evangelicals cut wood and haul water for the better educated Chinese and others.

    Complain about this comment

  • 223. At 12:00pm on 24 Oct 2008, junai139 wrote:

    #216

    Peter - good point, well made.

    As for the whole 'dinosaurs and people existing at the same time' thing, didn't creationsists use to claim that all the dinosaur remains were faked? Or have they changed their position?

    I used to find it highly amusing that people believed that evolutionists would go to the trouble of burying fake bones beneath the earth (and literally all over the earth) just to support their 'theory'. Quite apart from the obvious logistical impossibility of this, surely, if you trying to prove evolution, it would be more sensible to bury a fake 'missing link' skeleton instead.

    Complain about this comment

  • 224. At 12:04pm on 24 Oct 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Ms Marbles (146),

    "When I first supported Obama it was largely an intellectual choice based on his anti-war attitude and my belief that he would excel at foreign affairs. Also, I didn't want the Clintons back, and I surely didn't want Bush's successor.

    But quite recently I feel an excitement coming over me and I think the change he brings will be momentous. It is already sensed in Europe (and it wouldn't it be nice to have our allies back)."
    I couldn't have said it better! I'm with Michelle, and very proud of my country for the first time in a very long time....

    Peace to all, and Roll On November 5th!
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 225. At 12:07pm on 24 Oct 2008, iirlane wrote:

    I've noticed on this and other sites displays of venom towards Obama based on his skin colour, ethnicity (Arab) and alleged religion (Muslim). I don't think I ever witnessed anything like such visceral hatred of a person when Bush, Gore and Kerry contended for the presidency, among others. If I was Mr Obama I'd be worried not of losing but of winning. There's always some looney tune out there who will turn their nasty thoughts into action.

    He'd better wear a bullit proof vest from day one, the poor man.

    Complain about this comment

  • 226. At 12:09pm on 24 Oct 2008, Xie_Ming wrote:

    There has been a legal trial in Dover, Pennsylvania.

    The judge wrote a very long opinion and
    cited most of the evidence presented.

    He found:

    Creationism is NOT a science

    and therefore, has no place in a science class.

    That the Creationists had forged evidence and had perjured themselves.

    [Is there a paradox when self-proclaimed "Christians" commit criminal acts while seeking power over others?

    Could this have bearing on the American election campaign?]

    Complain about this comment

  • 227. At 12:15pm on 24 Oct 2008, icetayoa wrote:

    This piece of digression is on the news about Obama suspending is Campaign for 2 days to be with his sick grandmother.
    It reminds me of the 1st week of the current financial/economic crises, when the Bush administration were trying to hammer out the $700 billion bail-out package. Senator John Mcain opted to suspend his campaign for 2 days and return to Washington to help seal the deal. He also suggested that the 1st presidential debate be moved forward because of the crisis.

    He was severely lampooned in the media for this and was heckled by the media into backtracking on the debate. He was labelled erratic by the media, Obama, the democrats and their apologists. I remember Obama himself saying that he was not going to suspend his campaign, and that as President of America, one should be able to deal with various competing issues at the same time. He also said that there was no better time for the electorate to hear from the candidates than during this period of crisis.
    Fast forward to present day. I think its rather amusing that Obama did not hesitate at a whim to suspend his campaign in order to be with his sick grandmother. When asked about how he came to making the decision to suspend his campaign, he replied and I quote ‘IT WAS EASY’. I wonder whatever happened to his quote about the president of America having to deal with various competing issues at the same time?? I guess he now remembers, that like Mcain, he is still a Senator and contestant for the presidency and not THE PRESIDENT OF AMERICA.

    What is most intriguing is that the choice is so easy for Obama. It is so easy for him to make a choice between providing leadership to the American people during this turbulent period and being with a sick relative. I guess Obama is banking on the over zealous media to do his bidding as usual and give him (their deity) a slap on the wrist for such bad judgement.

    I have no problem with Obama rushing to be with a sick relative. However, what the American people need to remember is that, when the choice of projecting and protecting their interest clashes with Obama’s personal interest, sadly, their interest comes a distant last. Making that decision also comes very easy to him.

    Complain about this comment

  • 228. At 12:16pm on 24 Oct 2008, Maria Ashot wrote:

    American Presidential elections are notoriously hard to predict. That's just the history.

    As for the content level of the current battle, I am really and truly appalled that anyone considers the Palin wardrobe newsworthy. With war chests in the scores of millions -- in the hundreds of millions for the Dems -- why would anyone expect the candidates not to dress the part they are auditioning for?

    Yes, it is refreshing to see a new face on the American stage, and yes, it is nice that it is a stylish face, considering what we have had for years and years... Considering the amount of time we are staring at a screen, it is appropriate that the person privileged to be on the screen pays attention to their appearance. And may I also add to the diction they use, and the offensive language they edit out?

    Being a face on the screen pays very, very well: even for such unprepossessing faces as Bush & Cheney. So due diligence in the visuals department is not a bad idea, far from it!

    Besides, with the economy in free-fall, having someone out there actually buying a few items of clothes in fact sets a good example. And more of the affluent ought to be doing it.


    Complain about this comment

  • 229. At 12:19pm on 24 Oct 2008, PaulPieniezny wrote:

    Ref 212 (Peter_Sym)

    You made two points:

    1) If you read my post carefully, I never claimed that Obama has or had British CITIZENSHIP. I claimed that IF he had double nationality at birth, that second status would have been "a British SUBJECT". (British Subject and British Citizen were not the same things for a long time) It is important to realize this, as by the time Kenya became independent, Obama's parents were already estranged from each other: Kenya's independence dates from December 12th, 1963, and the filing for divorce from January 1964. There is realistically no way Obama's father could have registered his son as Kenyan without that having been contrary to the wishes of Obama's American mother. So where is the "split allegiance" that many people (the remaining PUMAs for instance) suggest? And no, since neither Obama nor his father seem to have done anything after Kenya's independence to remain a British SUBJECT (that at least no one is claiming), Barack Obama is no longer a British subject, if he ever was. But every US president before Martin (or Maarten, his mother tongue was Dutch) Van Buren was born a British subject, so that does not change a thing either.

    2) There is of course a bit of difference between "Barry" and "Arnie": Barry was Born in the USA, Arnie was not. Barry had one American parent, Arnie had none. The constitution says that you need to be a "natural born citizen". McCain was made a "natural born citizen" by a retroactive law on the status of the Panama Canal. There is therefore no doubt that both main contenders qualify. Whether someone born outside the USA's jurisdiction out of TWO US citizens is a "natural born citizen" and should be allowed to run for President, is still a bone of contention.

    Complain about this comment

  • 230. At 12:32pm on 24 Oct 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Doddancer,

    "I personally would not have a problem with a class in Comparative Religion taught in a school as an elective course as long as it did not state a preference for any one religion. I feel having a general knowledge of what various people believe is similar to having a education in the history of civilization."
    Seconded, except for the elective status. It should be a required subject, and an essential foundation for a general understanding of the "humanities"

    Peace and understanding
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 231. At 12:36pm on 24 Oct 2008, TrueToo wrote:

    I'm not sure why this is considered a serious publication. Justin Webb simply digs up as much dirt as he can on McCain and Palin, whether true or not, and smears it all over his blog while ignoring the highly disturbing facts about Obama's past associations and praising him at every opportunity.

    This blog needs a change of name, like Justin Webb's Democrats Support Group or Left Wing Alliance for America or whatever. That would be more honest.

    Closer to home, the BBC is basically a publishing agent for Labour Party propaganda and proved its support for Labour in Britain's 1997 election. The BBC's Jane Garvey let slip on radio that when Labour won, "The corridors of Broadcasting House were strewn with empty champagne bottles."

    If Obama wins, I don't think too many BBC people will make it to work the next day. they'll have the mother of all hangovers.

    The "impartial, fair and balanced" BBC? Yeah, right!

    Complain about this comment

  • 232. At 12:52pm on 24 Oct 2008, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    Wozuna - 220

    agree with you, in my world race is entirely unimportant and I don't think it should be assumed that all AAs are going to vote for Obama, in fact I'm sure some will not. However I can see that for some at least, having felt disenfranchised for historical reasons, will be motivated to vote purely because one of their 'own' has a chance to become president. Given that not 50 years ago race relations were in a very different state to where they are today this is not suprising. Many of course will vote for who they feels understands them better, like they did with Clinton. So we should'n't assume that they are purely voting for Obama just because he is black.
    On the other side of the divide there are some whites who will not vote for Obama just because he is black regardless (ie: pure racists - not many I hope), there are those who are voting Obama because they believe McCain/Pailn ticket doesn't have the answers and are 'holding their noses', those who are voting Obama because they have been shocked at some of the extreme sentiment expressed at the fringes of the McCain campaign and wish to disassociate themselves from it, and those for whom it is not an issue at all.
    Anecdotally I have seen a number of clips showing Americans discuss there choice and it seems to me that some people have thought very hard about this - comments along the lines of 'I would'n't have 10 years ago, but I am ok with it now", thats wonderful. Of course there will always be bigots, but they may soon need federal protection as a minority. lol
    Race should have nothing to do with a party's political platform, and it is up to the parties to reach out to all members of society.
    Finally, saw a poll the other day where amonggst Nascar men support was 50/50 between Obama and McCain, don't know if it is accurate, but I'd say that is progress.

    Complain about this comment

  • 233. At 12:53pm on 24 Oct 2008, icetayoa wrote:

    I apologize for posting the same comment twice.

    since it took so long for the moderators to paste the initial piece, i thot they had censored it, hence the 2nd slightly amended piece.


    Complain about this comment

  • 234. At 12:55pm on 24 Oct 2008, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    icetayoa 227, the difference is that Obama has never suggested that McCain should suspend his campaign while he visits his gran. Am sure you can find something more important to rant on about, like his birth certificate for instance : )

    Complain about this comment

  • 235. At 12:56pm on 24 Oct 2008, schranzo wrote:

    ha ha ha so now Mc Cain has got as big a gun backing him as Obama does in Colin Powell... Bin Laden.

    That should really convince a lot of voters to vote for him. Maybe the shareholders and employees of Halli Burton and the arms companies... But those were already going to vote for him anyway.

    Complain about this comment

  • 236. At 1:00pm on 24 Oct 2008, Clive Hill wrote:

    #348 (earlier thread) Sankari
    You said:


    Except that Iraq is not a Muslim country. It was - and still is - a secular nation. Hussein was particularly proud of this point, which helps to explain why his Muslim neighbours hated him so much.

    That was strictly true of the time of Saddam Hussein but a little misleading.

    According to this, which is about women's status in Iraq, Saddam Hussein was modifying that policy.

    In the years following the 1991 Gulf War, many of the positive steps that had been taken to advance women's and girls' status in Iraqi society were reversed due to a combination of legal, economic, and political factors. The most significant political factor was Saddam Hussein's decision to embrace Islamic and tribal traditions as a political tool in order to consolidate power.

    Complain about this comment

  • 237. At 1:02pm on 24 Oct 2008, Clive Hill wrote:

    #230 Ed Iglehart
    Thirded - as a mandatory course - provided it included agnosticism (me) and atheism.

    Complain about this comment

  • 238. At 1:07pm on 24 Oct 2008, MagicKirin wrote:

    ref #215

    First there are twice as many polls as in 2004.

    This poll however was the most accurate in 2004.

    Most polls require 15 minutes of the respondent. How many people want to spend that 15 minutes?

    Complain about this comment

  • 239. At 1:12pm on 24 Oct 2008, paul939 wrote:

    #231 truetoo

    As for those "highly disturbing facts", we would appreciate it if you could provide us some links. And justin doesn't claim his blog to be a serious publication, it's just a blog.

    Complain about this comment

  • 240. At 1:12pm on 24 Oct 2008, junai139 wrote:

    #228

    I think the point is, that by anyone's standards, $150k on clothes is a little excessive, especially considering the current economic climate. There's a big difference between 'looking the part' and spending that kind of money.

    I'm certain i could wear a different outfit everyday for the next three years and not spend that much.

    Your assertion that in these difficult times she is setting a good example by 'buying a few items of clothes' (surely that should be 'clothing') is frankly insulting to everyone who is struggling to make ends meet, nevermind cloth themselves. In addition surely a better example would be not to buy frivolous items but to exercise some thrift. After all, one of the reasons we find find ourselves in this troubling economic position is exactly because people have been spending (or borrowing for) on things that they just don't need.

    This coupled with the fact that Palin is considered representative of the 'average' American is what makes the story newsworthy. How many 'average' Americans do you know that can afford to spend $150k on clothes?

    Complain about this comment

  • 241. At 1:14pm on 24 Oct 2008, sudohnim38 wrote:

    #227

    Sorry, but I found your post a little sickening. I would expect either candidate to attend the bedside of a sick relative they were close to above the needs of the country. Sorry, but you're right when it comes right down to it, if it's a sick relative... or the country, then the relative is going to come first. Yes, ideally the person who is elected SHOULD be able to deal with several pressing issues at once but pardon me for being a humanist and stating the obvious... most people would drop everything to be with someone they cared about... especially an elderly Grandparent in their twilight time.

    Besides, that's what the Vice President is for, to step in when the President is either dead, sick or otherwise unable to perform his or her duties. Or are you really saying that you're expecting Mr Obama to be superhuman and do both...? Surely you wouldn't expect the same of Mr McCain...?

    Complain about this comment

  • 242. At 1:17pm on 24 Oct 2008, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    to the BBC, how do become a moderator, it seems as if you need a few!

    Complain about this comment

  • 243. At 1:24pm on 24 Oct 2008, sudohnim38 wrote:

    #225

    I've got some friends who live and work in Washington and the general feeling of 'whispered' rumours there is that if Obama wins they're taking bets there on when the first assassination attempt will be. Somewhere else on this blog yesterday, someone mentioned they thought the Presidential security would need to be stepped up (I'm not so sure about that because I would have thought Bush was as much a liability as Obama - for different reasons). It's not a nice thought but I'm pretty sure if ordinary people are assuming this, if they think it could happen... there's going to be some lunatic out there who would try it. Even if McCain wins, with a 3rd republican term and Obamamania on the increase, he'd be just as much a liability... so you'd hope the security services are on the ball and ahead of the rest of us...

    Complain about this comment

  • 244. At 1:24pm on 24 Oct 2008, junai139 wrote:

    #231

    Highly disturbing 'facts' about Obama's past?

    That has been discussed ad nauseum by various right wing, loony, posters on here.

    They have systematically failed to come up with any 'facts'.

    On the contrary, all the, 'Obama is an Arab terrorist', assertions have proved, is that the right wing are spiteful fantasists who are clutching at rapidly disappearing straws.

    Complain about this comment

  • 245. At 1:32pm on 24 Oct 2008, Clive Hill wrote:

    #211 (couple of threads ago) Sankari
    Again sorry to be boring.

    You said:


    It was for this perceived rebellion that he was publically crucified by the Britsh government before a House of Commons Committee

    I do not disagree with you about the behaviour of Andrew Mackay in the Foreign Affairs committee.

    The problem is that it is not entirely true to say that he was 'crucified by the British Govt'.

    There is this which seems to have caused the maximum pressure in the committee meeting.

    According to evidence from another journalist at the Hutton Inquiry, a Conservative MP loosely quoted David Kelly's own words back to him (presumably because they had been given to him by email) and he was forced to deny having said them.

    Complain about this comment

  • 246. At 1:33pm on 24 Oct 2008, Clive Hill wrote:

    #229 (couple of threads ago) Belmons
    Sorry to be boring about this...

    You said H G Wells referred to the concentration camps in 1939 or thereabouts. There were concentration camps then but they were not killing people in the pseudo-industrial manner of 'The Holocaust'.

    The Holocaust dates from the Wannsee conference run by Reinhard Heydrich early in 1942. It decided on 'The Final Solution' which was when the mass murder af the Jews and others began.

    This is not a trivial distinction. People had been imprisoned before in large numbers without any intention to kill them all.

    The term 'concentration camp' comes from the British camps established in South Africa during the Boer war. They were intended to deprive the Boers of support but due to maladministration many people died of starvation and disease in those camps.

    Complain about this comment

  • 247. At 1:37pm on 24 Oct 2008, shahzebm wrote:

    It would be a joke for a ticket having Sarah Palin on it, win. I believe that Obama would be better for the US but more importantly the world. Were he to lose now, the world would not believe that it happened for any reason other than race. There would be no other explanation that would be understood or bought.

    This election is crucial not just to the Americans, but the destiny of the world at large. The last 8 years have set us all back, and it could really have been the other way round. The world could have been brought together post Sep 11 but George Bush and his class of gun slinging ranchers didn't.

    We wait with bated breath and can only hope that we dont wake up on the 5th to find that the world's 'proudest' flagbearer of freedom did not have the guts to take the opportunity to free itself from the shackles of race and give everyone another opportunity at doing just that. Hopefully.

    Complain about this comment

  • 248. At 1:42pm on 24 Oct 2008, Peter_Sym wrote:

    #226 Creationism certainly isn't a science, however it has set itself up as such and if you plan on educating your kids you should compare creationism to darwinism and compare and contrast.

    There are two places to do this:
    Science class or religious education class (and 1 RE lesson a week is compulsary in the UK). Given that Science teachers generally understand the main points of creationism better than RE teachers understand Darwin I'd suggest the science class is the perfect place to study it.

    I'm not even speaking hypothetically either- this is exactly what my Science teacher (as part of the Scottish S-grade sylabus in the early 90's) did. Not only was it a very amusing class where we got to debate the issues between each other, it also helped us understand Darwinism and learn a bit about the minor holes in his theory which is precisely what science class should do.

    If you want scientists you need people who can examine, think and criticise. Teaching anything as dogma without considering the alternatives is bad educational practice, not least because most of the major scientific theories have been found to have exceptions and minor errors years later. Even parts of Einstein have been proven incorrect. Science is flexible.. when it becomes resistant to change and criticism it becomes no different to Religion.

    Complain about this comment

  • 249. At 1:43pm on 24 Oct 2008, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    icetayoa - sorry i should'n't have said 'rant' - provocative, apologies : )

    Complain about this comment

  • 250. At 1:43pm on 24 Oct 2008, john-In-Dublin wrote:

    # 231

    Every so often we get the same old whinge about how J Webb and/or the BBC are just a bunch of biased lefties. Mostly because they are not pursuing the latest Obama 'scandal', ie that he's a secret commie Marxist Muslim etc etc

    Interspersed with that - as I've pointed out more than once - are the others who insist that eg 'J Webb's latest outrageous statement is conclusive proof that he is a staunch Republican/McCain supporter'

    Both claims are generally notable for their absence of factual backing.

    So - maybe Justin is suffering from split personality.

    [However - personally , if anyone IS suffering from a personality disorder, I suspect it isn't Mr Webb....]

    Complain about this comment

  • 251. At 1:43pm on 24 Oct 2008, sudohnim38 wrote:

    I've read through today's discussion and I'm getting slightly fed up with people b!tching and complaining about the candidates' previous lives and previous issues.

    Barak Obama had an association with a one time terrorist (Bill Ayers, who it seems has grown up and gotten a grip and become Distinguished Professor of Education) back in the 60s. The fact that he had an association with the guy is definitely an error of judgement... of course it is. But lets see, how old would a young Barak have been in those days... lessee now.. hmm what maybe late teens early 20s. I defy anyone here to say they never made a questionable decision at that age (even if they believed in the cause at the time).

    John McCain in turn, professes to have a thing for family values and yet still turned his back on his wife (first one) and family and married a woman 18 years his junior. That wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the fact that he made a vow... in sickness and health etc etc. His wife, Carol, was disfigured and wheelchair bound after an accident and no two ways how you look at it, he walked away from her. Even his own people around him at the time said he was being a self-centred womaniser. He was in his 40s. He should have known better. He didn't. He did what human beings do, he made the best of a bad situation (for him).

    But you know what... for both these men.... both these issues, are in the past. What matters now, right this moment is what they're doing now. What their future intentions are. Both men have proved beyond doubt that they are completely human. Both men have proved beyond doubt they are not perfect. Both men have proved beyond doubt they have questionable judgement at times... as do we all. Anyone who says their judgement is perfect, is a liar or deluded.

    It is the job of the people of America to decide which of these men they feel is likely to do a better job for their country. What they did in their past doesn't matter. What they decided and when doesn't matter. It's what they are doing now which counts.

    Please just quit with the needless namecalling, haranguing and bitterness. There really is no need for it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 252. At 1:43pm on 24 Oct 2008, MidnightJunkie wrote:

    from icetayoa #227

    "I have no problem with Obama rushing to be with a sick relative. However, what the American people need to remember is that, when the choice of projecting and protecting their interest clashes with Obama?s personal interest, sadly, their interest comes a distant last. Making that decision also comes very easy to him."

    > Are you not committing the fallacy of hasty generalization on that statement? By choosing one isolated event of Obama visiting his sick grandmother, you spun one very inaccurate conclusion about how he rates his priorities. Can you prove, categorically, that Obama will put his personal interests first whenever it conflicts with the interests of the American people?

    > And you really have to resort to name calling do you? Over the past few days, you have referred to Obama sardonically as "Their Chosen One" "Their Deity" "Their Messiah" etc., Are you subtly suggesting that those people who support Obama worship him as a God? For all your bile and assumed intelectual superiority (the tone of your comments reminds me of an irate professor sarcastically commenting on his students' opinions), I still think my dog is a better judge of a person's character than you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 253. At 1:49pm on 24 Oct 2008, john-In-Dublin wrote:

    231 sudonhim38

    [Referring to a rant from 'Ice T']

    "#227

    Sorry, but I found your post a little sickening."

    Only a little!?

    Wish I could say the same

    What Mr T also fails to grasp is that Obama is taking time off from campaigning, not from running the country. And were there to be a family illness when - I hope - he's finally elected, no doubt he would remain in touch with his advisers.

    I'm reliably informed that they have telephones in Hawaii.......

    Complain about this comment

  • 254. At 1:55pm on 24 Oct 2008, RedWhiteandermblue wrote:

    I've been saying for some time that McCain has more of a chance than many think.

    Well, I think now he's running out of time. He needs an October surprise or some other game-changing development.

    Obama's margin in the polls reaching an all-time high does not bode well when it's 11 days till the election.

    Complain about this comment

  • 255. At 2:00pm on 24 Oct 2008, Y_K_Hui wrote:

    Polls change because moods change unless the person really knows and THINKS!

    Now what do you THINK, not feel, after you read this?

    http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78921

    Please don't respond unless you have read the arguments.

    Thank you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 256. At 2:13pm on 24 Oct 2008, Candace9839 wrote:

    No preconditions?
    McCain's meeting with Pinochet

    Complain about this comment

  • 257. At 2:24pm on 24 Oct 2008, Candace9839 wrote:

    Former Massachusetts GOP Gov. William Weld and President Bush's former press secretary Scott McClellan have both endorsed Obama.

    Complain about this comment

  • 258. At 2:26pm on 24 Oct 2008, JRhawk wrote:


    Which is more bothersome to you:

    $150,000 for a campaign wardrobe (destined to be donated)

    OR

    $150,000,000 for a campaign (raised in 1 month, for a candidate that reneged on his promise to abide by public funding guidelines)

    ???

    Complain about this comment

  • 259. At 2:28pm on 24 Oct 2008, TrueToo wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 260. At 2:29pm on 24 Oct 2008, junai139 wrote:

    I think the moderators have gone home early or are possibly not back from their pub lunches yet.

    Complain about this comment

  • 261. At 2:32pm on 24 Oct 2008, TrueToo wrote:

    My last comment was in response to paul939, no. 239.

    Complain about this comment

  • 262. At 2:34pm on 24 Oct 2008, access2dixons wrote:

    Ed 212,

    Cuts right to the heart of why I support Obama.

    Granted, this woman has been dealt with in being asked to step down but this rhetoric seems to be the norm from the GOP. The constant claims that BO is a Muslim is offensive on so many levels. Only Colin Powell seems to have latched onto this when he made the observation that many Americans (not all) seem to have overlooked - why should it matter?

    The more we bring religion into politics the more we create polarisation between countries. To create a "them and us" attitude with Christians and Muslims is not going to help relations with countries like Iran, whereas a more consutative approach may just be what is needed after 8 years of failed tatics. Surely we can all agree that treating those in the middle east with blind contempt is not the way to stifle extremism and bring about peace.

    If it wasn't for the rise of the internet and open debates like this one I dread to think of the campaigns that would spawn from worldwide ignorance.

    Stay informed

    Complain about this comment

  • 263. At 2:34pm on 24 Oct 2008, eightypercent wrote:



    Very sad to read through the discussion to hear that first of all Obama is a Brit (in which case please can we have him back) and then that he isn't.

    Truth is - whatever conspiracy theorists might like to think - that He Was Born In The USA. Didn't someone write a song about that ? Maybe, Ed ............

    Complain about this comment

  • 264. At 2:36pm on 24 Oct 2008, peterdough wrote:

    Justin,

    Al-Qaida believes McCain will continue like George W. Bush giving General Petraeus and others complete authority. They see the surge tactic as exhausting their enemy and providing the opportunities to strike back. Obama, on the other hand, would be in charge and would insist on a rigorous chain of command. Petraeus himself concedes Obama's more strategic perspective.

    Re: the Polls, there are a multitude of polls out there. We're not seeing any significant tightening across them yet, and maybe we won't this time, despite several polls tendency to bias.

    I think the most significant shift today is the news that some Republicans are already planning on a Barack Obama presidency, coinciding with the new Republican ad / GOP argument: Don't give President Obama a blank check.

    P.S. Born on August 4, 1961 to an American mother in Honolulu Hawaii, the 50th state which was admitted to the Union on August 21, 1959, makes him an American by birth, period.

    Complain about this comment

  • 265. At 2:41pm on 24 Oct 2008, ShadowVenus wrote:

    resp:231 - This is a BLOG, a forum in which a person posts their perspective on the topics of choice. This blog happens to be authored by a serious journalist. It is clear that we're not going to agree on this, so I'm not going to waste my time trying to "convince" you of anything. Simply because the blog writes unfavorably about your candidate does not mean they are a mouthpiece for the opposition.

    Complain about this comment

  • 266. At 2:55pm on 24 Oct 2008, olafpalme wrote:

    215.>junai139 wrote:
    "Has anyone else noticed that on the IBD/TIPP poll they have McCain 74% to Obama's 22% for the 18-24 age demographic?"

    Looks reversed to me. Like someone isn't getting enough sleep.

    Similarly, can anyone explain in the BBCs Gallup chart why McCain jumped 3% on Oct22? Quite a wierd spike.

    Complain about this comment

  • 267. At 2:55pm on 24 Oct 2008, ShadowVenus wrote:

    resp:240 - Ultimately, this outrage is mired in frivolity. The ire about Palin's 150K wardrobe is in direct contradiction of what people expect in their candidates running for higher office. People are expected to LOOK the part as well as they can perform the role.

    Despite many comments that I've heard while and since the debates aired, this has very little do do with the television era. Look at your paintings of heads of state, be they monarchs or elected officials, or military leaders and would-be rulers. They are pictured as robust, in the best of health, active and vigilant. They appear timeless and part of an enduring link to strong leaders before them, particularly when one looks at the motifs and set-ups in the portraits.

    People respond favorably to those images because it makes them believe that the leader in question will keep life running and steer the ship. Few would admit that they WANT their leader to be a step above themselves. If they didn't, there would be much less moral quibbling about behavior that is none of our business. The voting public would not respond as favorably as you'd think if Palin or any of the other's campaigning did not dress the part.

    Finally, it does matter where you get your clothes if you want to operate at that level. JC Penny would not cut it, Lane Bryant would not work, and Walmart certainly would stand a snowball's chance. Did she or the people that shopped for her have to go to Neiman Marcus? Who knows? I will argue that a woman in politics can't win, regardless, because there will always be an issue with what she wears.

    I'm not a McCain/Palin supporter, but I do find this rather ridiculous. Does it make her lines about "Joe Sixpack" and "Soccer Moms" sound hollow? No more than it sounded before.

    Complain about this comment

  • 268. At 2:56pm on 24 Oct 2008, Feohme wrote:

    One of the things I've always liked about the BBC is that it alows me to get a handle on the personality of other people by their reactions to it.

    Whilst no one and no organisation is totally free from bias, at the least the BBC is mandated to make the attempt - and on the whole, is rather centrist.

    This allows me to follow this quick rule of thumb;

    "The more often and vehemently someone complains about BBC Bias, the more biased they are in the opposite and equal direction".

    Nation shall speak truth unto Nation.

    Incidentally, if the BBC halls truely were carpeted with Champagne bottle after the 1997 election, they were only reflecting he mood of the nation as a whole - I was a trifle merry myself after my 'staying up for Portillo'.

    Complain about this comment

  • 269. At 3:00pm on 24 Oct 2008, tricia79 wrote:

    For pities sake people, it's not NATIVE BORN it's NATURAL BORN
    Native = born on US soil
    Natural = born on US soil OR to 1 or more parents with US citizenship abroad OR adopted by a US citizen before you reach the age of 18. Angelina Jolie's adopted children are considered natural born citizens and could run for US President one day if they wanted. As for polls, believe me I want Obama to win, but if the numbers fall within the margin or error it is completely plausable that he could still lose. I so wish they'd make statistics a requirement in public schools.

    Complain about this comment

  • 270. At 3:01pm on 24 Oct 2008, Simon21 wrote:

    "248. At 1:42pm on 24 Oct 2008, Peter_Sym wrote:
    #226 Creationism certainly isn't a science, however it has set itself up as such and if you plan on educating your kids you should compare creationism to darwinism and compare and contrast.

    There are two places to do this:
    Science class or religious education class (and 1 RE lesson a week is compulsary in the UK). Given that Science teachers generally understand the main points of creationism better than RE teachers understand Darwin I'd suggest the science class is the perfect place to study it."

    Perhaps they should study whether the moon is made of green cheese as well? Whether the earth is flat?

    Science is for science, creationism, if it is anything, should be confined to religious studies.

    Complain about this comment

  • 271. At 3:02pm on 24 Oct 2008, london0209 wrote:

    Why am i paying for this stuff?

    Complain about this comment

  • 272. At 3:09pm on 24 Oct 2008, Wozuna wrote:

    247 Shahzebm


    ...I think you could be right there about the world bringing it down to race if Obama lost, sad but true.
    If he wins I am sure his fellow country men/voters (as well as himself maybe?) would not want it to be because he is black?

    If he does win, it will be because he was the best person for the job, the most promising etc etc. If he loses....then it was racism.

    Sad but true.

    Complain about this comment

  • 273. At 3:09pm on 24 Oct 2008, niceBrianm wrote:

    John McCain should worry less about "Joe the plumber" paying higher taxes and more about him having access to bank financing to ease the cashflow of his small business.
    In this credit crunch economy Joe will have a hard time keeping afloat with the lending institutions acting like Ebeneezer Scrooge.

    Complain about this comment

  • 274. At 3:16pm on 24 Oct 2008, Mark wrote:

    220

    Thanks for being the only one who noticed that I said something more to the point of the lead than most ...

    Another question you might ask yourself is why do so many poor white voters identify with a party that oppresses them ... this is one of the true oddities of American politics.

    Sure, you might see that the African American vote is racially orientated, but that group has alweays voted predominantly Democrat since Civil Rights (another story is how the Republicans lost the African American vote ... after all the republicans were once the party of Lincoln): the difference I would put to you is not temperament or race as such ... most African American's hace genuine socio-economic reasons for voting Democrat ... the difference this time will be turnout, which will all but double because they have a candidate they believe in.

    What Obama has succeeded in doing is peeling away those who suffer through times of economic downturn from the Republicans and hehas recreated a link between the liberal rich and the conservative poor: that is why McCain will lose so heavily.

    Complain about this comment

  • 275. At 3:16pm on 24 Oct 2008, TheHandOfHistory wrote:

    I think McCain can still win this election providing he stops calling everyone his friends and rigs it in the same way Bush did in 2000.

    I think for Obama to secure victory he just has to keep saying stuff like "Yes we can!", "From sea to shining sea" and other cool stuff for the next ten days.

    If Ralph Nader wants to win he should just pray.

    Complain about this comment

  • 276. At 3:20pm on 24 Oct 2008, everyoneiscrazy wrote:

    What if 'SNL' mocked Michelle Obama?

    Michell Obama is not running as a VP ticket. Typical Pat Buchanan rubbish.

    Complain about this comment

  • 277. At 3:21pm on 24 Oct 2008, Mike Mullen wrote:

    #225 Y_K_Hui



    "Polls change because moods change unless the person really knows and THINKS!

    Now what do you THINK, not feel, after you read this?

    http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78921

    Please don't respond unless you have read the arguments.

    Thank you."

    I THINK Pat Buchanan is a jackass who would get along great with his fellow fundamentalist Osama Bin Laden. I FEEL like I need a shower after reading his bile.

    Sarah Palin has been mocked not because SNL has a liberal bias, though yes it probably has one, but because her own words and actions have made her a figure of fun. Michelle Obama is not standing for the post of VP of the USA, Sarah Palin is. If SNL were to make fun of Cindy McCain then they might have crossed some sort of line but sorry, Palin is fair game.

    Complain about this comment

  • 278. At 3:23pm on 24 Oct 2008, east_anglian wrote:

    As a long time observer of elections in the UK and Australia and from a distance the USA I find the current US elections both depressing and exciting.

    The level of personal attacks on Obama re race, religion, socialism etc etc is depressing. There are always nutters who can be found to spout all sorts of rubbish.

    What I find worrying is that these views do not appear to be condemned in the general US media and by the politicians themselves as unacceptable. What does that say about America?

    I'm excited that it looks likely that we will have an honest to goodness liberal in the Whitehouse. My democratic socialist views are showing I know.

    How America deals with a liberal black president will be very interesing.

    Complain about this comment

  • 279. At 3:33pm on 24 Oct 2008, Simon21 wrote:

    "255. At 2:00pm on 24 Oct 2008, Y_K_Hui wrote:
    Polls change because moods change unless the person really knows and THINKS!

    Now what do you THINK, not feel, after you read this?

    http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78921

    Please don't respond unless you have read the arguments.

    Thank you."

    Hey no problem. I particuarly liked the bit where Mr Buchanan blames Mr Biden et al for the "Cambodian holocaust".

    And here was the rest of the world thinking that it was the hideous bombing of the country and the installation of the Lon Nol governement that played a role!

    This man is so far to the right he has become a fantasist.

    One presumes he still fumes about the light sentence given to Galileo.

    Complain about this comment

  • 280. At 3:37pm on 24 Oct 2008, junai139 wrote:

    #255

    What do i THINK about that?

    Not a lot.

    Sounds like sour grapes to me.

    To compare the media's treatment of Palin to their treatment of Michelle Obama is, frankly, irrelevant. Palin is standing as VP, Michelle Obama is not.

    I'll concede that Biden's comments were bizarre and he has shown a certain level of historical ignorance but this pales in comparison to Palin's level of ignorance on practically every subject she has been asked about.

    To suggest that the media have only focused on the negative conotations of the Republican campaign is simply untrue - the article you have posted (and you're by no means the first to do so) is evidence of that. Besides it was the Republicans that started the negative campaigning and so it is only right that they be criticised for it. You reap what you sow.

    Complain about this comment

  • 281. At 3:47pm on 24 Oct 2008, jcputn5349 wrote:

    150, David C,

    Hope you are right because there would be chaos if he's elected and the court declares him a non-citizen. I just don't get why O won't give the judge the birth certificate because the court case would be over by now. All the other candidates produced one in the usual way, like all candidates always do. Why wouldn't he?

    Website links and wikipedia information don't count. Plus, eye-witness accounts from Kenya and Hawaii both say he was born in either Kenya and Hawaii. The eye-witness accounts conflict with each other.

    I know only what you told me about the lawyer who brought the case. But, courts are neutral, right? Ultimately, it is a good thing for them to decide the issue, rather than the MSM. "The truth don't lie."

    Complain about this comment

  • 282. At 3:49pm on 24 Oct 2008, TrueToo wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 283. At 3:50pm on 24 Oct 2008, junai139 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 284. At 3:55pm on 24 Oct 2008, cyrilcroydon wrote:

    As MarkfromOxford said earlier, McCain's poll numbers are being boosted by the negative attacks and joe the plumber, but in areas where he doesn't need them, like the deep south and Kentucky.

    There are plenty of "values voters" and rednecks in southern Ohio, western Pennsylvania and western Virginia, but these are being offset by the anticipated huge turnout of blacks and white progressives in the urban areas of Cleveland, Cincinatti, Philadelphia and Richmond.

    Florida will be very close because of the elderly vote and Republicans are running ahead in absentee ballots.

    Since so many people would have already voted before election day, the exit polls on Nov 4th may be rather useless.

    Meanwhile, this is really funny!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVvmrum3cUA

    Complain about this comment

  • 285. At 3:55pm on 24 Oct 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    For those whose favourite colour is red... Feast your eyes on this!

    Peace and Feline protection
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 286. At 3:56pm on 24 Oct 2008, MICKBURKE wrote:

    I think the race will tighten up before election day. And if McCain wins I think it will be because people are unsure if Obama is ready to be president not because of any Bradley effect. It's a pity that McCain and Obama are not on the same ticket. I know different parties and all that but I think McCain has a more realistic view on foreign policy. Wheras Obama has a better handle on the domestic agenda. People may disagree with that assesment but that is how I see it. Also a Biden/Palin ( or vice versa) ticket would be something to watch. Just imagine what those two could come up with if they combined their talents.

    Complain about this comment

  • 287. At 4:03pm on 24 Oct 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:

    tricia79 (#269), your assertion that children born to non-citizens of the US become "natural born" US citizens upon adoption by a US citizen is incorrect. Such persons become citizens, but they are not eligible to the office of President of Vice President.

    Complain about this comment

  • 288. At 4:03pm on 24 Oct 2008, junai139 wrote:

    #267
    "Ultimately, this outrage is mired in frivolity. The ire about Palin's 150K wardrobe is in direct contradiction of what people expect in their candidates running for higher office. People are expected to LOOK the part as well as they can perform the role".

    Agreed - you do have to look the part. I'm not disputing that. What i am disputing is that it is necessary to spend $150k in order to look the part.

    Hilary Clinton always looked the part and was seen wearing the same outfit more than once.

    Besides, if Palin needs to look the part as well as she can perform the role then she should really be dressed in rags. That would better match her potential ability as VP. ; )

    Complain about this comment

  • 289. At 4:06pm on 24 Oct 2008, sudohnim38 wrote:

    #231 Truetoo

    [sigh]

    For the second time (amongst many). This web page is a blog. That means that the author is writing their own personal opinion on the current situation. Justin is writing rather generally regarding the USA elections and his own thoughts, we're here along on the sidelines to comment, to generate debate. Biased...? Of course it is..!! Personally as a UK citizen, I welcome this kind of approach the BBC takes to include it's license payers. If you look here Gavin Hewitt is following Obama and here Matthew Price is following McCain. Personally, I don't think the BBC could be any fairer than that.

    Complain about this comment

  • 290. At 4:07pm on 24 Oct 2008, bluepaddy13 wrote:

    The Polls are not a true accurate guide at all, I don't think they are asking REAL people at all

    I did a private survey of my own this weekend whilst down in Delaware, Supposedly Biden country on Saturday I counted all the political stickers on cars that I saw, it was 11 to 3 in favour of McCain, on Sunday it was 3 - 2

    My point is it is supposed to be a landslide for Obama even in Delaware but grassroots people are more for McCain that the media wants you to believe, I think the media is deliberatly distorting polls to try and influence voters to making them think vote Obama because everyone else is.

    It is going to backfire, at my wifes job, a women who is a democrat, would have voted Hillary, said quote "She is sick and tired of the media forcing Obama down everyones throat" she is voting McCain for that reason and the Tax and re-distribution of wealth issue

    Complain about this comment

  • 291. At 4:08pm on 24 Oct 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:

    JRhawk (#258), Obama is entitled to rely on private funding if he chooses. He is to be commended, I think, for not taking public monies for his campaign. McCain and his supporters are just jealous.

    Complain about this comment

  • 292. At 4:09pm on 24 Oct 2008, bluepaddy13 wrote:

    east_anglian wrote:

    As a long time observer of elections in the UK and Australia and from a distance the USA I find the current US elections both depressing and exciting.

    The level of personal attacks on Obama re race, religion, socialism etc etc is depressing. There are always nutters who can be found to spout all sorts of rubbish.

    WHY would you find it depressing, THERE is more attacks on Palin than there are on Obama, you are a typical one sided biased opinion. The most disgusting attack on Palin was the smear that she did not really give birth to her fifth child, I have seen NO FALSE smear on Obama that can equal that

    Complain about this comment

  • 293. At 4:10pm on 24 Oct 2008, bluepaddy13 wrote:

    276. At 3:20pm on 24 Oct 2008, everyoneiscrazy wrote:

    What if 'SNL' mocked Michelle Obama?

    Michell Obama is not running as a VP ticket. Typical Pat Buchanan rubbish.

    NEITHER is TODD PALIN or the Palin Children yet SNL mocked them too

    I think the comment "what if "SNL" mocked Michelle Obama" to be a fair and accurate comment.

    Complain about this comment

  • 294. At 4:10pm on 24 Oct 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:

    Y_K_Hui (#255), what I THINK is that you are disconnected from reality.

    Complain about this comment

  • 295. At 4:26pm on 24 Oct 2008, Sankari wrote:

    Post #258; JRhawk wrote: "Which is more bothersome to you:

    $150,000 for a campaign wardrobe (destined to be donated)

    OR

    $150,000,000 for a campaign (raised in 1 month, for a candidate that reneged on his promise to abide by public funding guidelines)

    ???"

    Obama didn't promise to use campaign funds. He said he would use them if McCain did. But McCain didn't stop at public funds; he solicited private money from lobbyists and special interest groups as well.

    Faced with this duplicity, Obama changed his mind and decided to stick with private money. This has cost him $85 million that he would otherwise have received through the public system.

    I'm personally delighted that Obama isn't dipping into taxpayer funds for his campaign. How can I complain about a guy who decides not to use public money to fund his campaign? Sounds like a great idea to me.

    The Palin wardrobe issue is problematic for two main reasons:

    (1) It totally destroys her carefully-groomed image of "hockey mum" and "someone just like you"; this is a woman whose combined household wealth comes to a whopping $1.2 million. She is not working class; she is not middle class; she cannot speak for either group because she has never lived like them in the first place.

    (2) There are serious questions of legality about the fact that she has spent a huge amount of RNC money on clothing for herself and her family (her seven year-old daughter has been given a Louis Vuitton handbag, for crying out loud!) Even Republicans are shocked by this revelation.

    So yes, Palin's wardrobe is more bothersome to me - and should be to all right-minded people.

    Complain about this comment

  • 296. At 4:31pm on 24 Oct 2008, Sankari wrote:

    >>
    There is already an attempt to blame the media -- as in, the liberal media would have looked askance at Palin if she wasn't clad in Neiman Marcus, but this won't wash.

    Republicans, RNC donors and at least one RNC staff member have e-mailed me tonight to share their utter (and not-for-attribution) disgust at the expenditures.

    This sort of spending is without precedent -- the closest approximation for any campaign I've ever covered is make-up expenses for television interviews and commercial shoots -- , and Schmitt's weakly defensive response tonight indicates that the campaign is deeply embarrassed by it and has nothing to say in their defense.

    Spokespeople have clammed up, a sure sign that they're trying to figure out who authorized the expenses and who knew about them. Did Palin wear all of the clothing? Where is it kept?
    >>

    Source: http://tinyurl.com/56mu77

    Looks like the Republicans are more concerned about this issue than they are about Obama's campaign finance sources.

    Complain about this comment

  • 297. At 5:05pm on 24 Oct 2008, Mike Mullen wrote:

    #293 Bluepaddy

    "I think the comment "what if "SNL" mocked Michelle Obama" to be a fair and accurate comment."

    If you think that article constitutes fair comment then you are so far off centre you must be in a parallel universe.
    It was largely a collection of unsubstantiated allegations against Barak Obama, and frankly libellous in at least one part unless Buchanan has some sort of police/court records to back it up.

    Complain about this comment

  • 298. At 5:15pm on 24 Oct 2008, john-In-Dublin wrote:

    # 255., Y_K_Hui
    "Polls change because moods change unless the person really knows and THINKS!/Now what do you THINK, not feel, after you read this?/http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78921/Please don't respond unless you have read the arguments."

    What do I THINK?

    I think that you've posted a link to Pat Buchanan, well known extreme rightwinger who helped Bush I to lose the '92 election by warning of how the culture wars needed to be raged 'block by block'. And what does he think? He thinks the nasty media are being mean to the Republicans. He thinks SNL should treat Michelle Obama the same as Sarah Palin - forgetting the minor point that Michelle is not a candidate for any office. He backs the Republicans - and especially Palin - who'd have thought it?

    As Andrew Sullivan, to name but one, has pointed out, the 'MSM' have indeed been extremely remiss in their dealings with Palin. She's apparently the first VP candidate in living memory never to hold a press conference. He argues that they should stop reporting her stock speeches until she does.

    I THINK you have confused thinking with believing Republican propaganda

    Complain about this comment

  • 299. At 5:15pm on 24 Oct 2008, Sankari wrote:

    Post #281; jcputn5349 wrote: "I just don't get why O won't give the judge the birth certificate because the court case would be over by now".

    Because there's no need for him to do this. His citizenship has already been established beyond all possible doubt; it's a frivolous lawsuit.

    "All the other candidates produced one in the usual way, like all candidates always do".

    Do they? And did they? Where can I find evidence that Sarah Palin is an American citizen? Where's her birth certificate?

    "Website links and wikipedia information don't count".

    LOL? Even websites written by people who have visited the Hawaiin Department of Health and have been told by that same department that Obama is a US citizen? They "don't count"?

    "Plus, eye-witness accounts from Kenya and Hawaii both say he was born in either Kenya and Hawaii. The eye-witness accounts conflict with each other".

    The Hawaii Department of Health says that Obama was born in Hawaii, and that they issued his American birth certificate. His birth was announced in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday, 13.08.1961.

    Any so-called eye-witness accounts of his alleged birth in Kenya can only be a mixture of lies, half-truths and irrelevant propaganda.

    Are you going to prove the Hawaii Health Department wrong? Give them a call and set them straight?

    I didn't think so.

    Complain about this comment

  • 300. At 5:18pm on 24 Oct 2008, british-ish wrote:

    MarkfromOxford:

    "It seems on this blog it is no more about core policies of the candidates but the general, often funny side stories that are taking president (see what I did there?)Er, you spelt it wrong?

    "Put together all the main policies that each candidate is bringing to the table and see how they would benefit the people.

    A handful of posters have tried to get that sort of thing going. Doesn't work. No more than my witches' spell for summoning beer did.

    Aha. Bulb lights up in brain. . . Anybody got a spell for summoning policies? I think we need one.

    Complain about this comment

  • 301. At 5:19pm on 24 Oct 2008, british-ish wrote:

    MarkfromOxford:

    "It seems on this blog it is no more about core policies of the candidates but the general, often funny side stories that are taking president (see what I did there?)Er, you spelt it wrong?

    "Put together all the main policies that each candidate is bringing to the table and see how they would benefit the people.

    A handful of posters have tried to get that sort of thing going for ages. Doesn't work. No more than my witches' spell for summoning beer did.

    Aha. Bulb lights up in brain. . . Anybody got a spell for summoning policies? I think we need one.

    Complain about this comment

  • 302. At 5:20pm on 24 Oct 2008, british-ish wrote:

    MarkfromOxford:

    "It seems on this blog it is no more about core policies of the candidates but the general, often funny side stories that are taking president (see what I did there?)Er, you spelt it wrong?

    "Put together all the main policies that each candidate is bringing to the table and see how they would benefit the people.

    A handful of posters have tried to get that sort of thing going. Doesn't work. No more than my witches' spell for summoning beer did.

    Aha. Bulb lights up in brain. . . Anybody got a spell for summoning policies? I think we need one.

    Complain about this comment

  • 303. At 5:20pm on 24 Oct 2008, british-ish wrote:

    MarkfromOxford:

    "It seems on this blog it is no more about core policies of the candidates but the general, often funny side stories that are taking president (see what I did there?)" Er, you spelt it wrong?

    "Put together all the main policies that each candidate is bringing to the table and see how they would benefit the people.

    A handful of posters have tried to get that sort of thing going. Doesn't work. No more than my witches' spell for summoning beer did.

    Aha. Bulb lights up in brain. . . Anybody got a spell for summoning policies? I think we need one.

    Complain about this comment

  • 304. At 5:21pm on 24 Oct 2008, TrueToo wrote:

    A few people here have commented on my no. 231 comment. I have tried to respond, but I just get censored. So I'll try one last time.

    People who are untroubled by Obama's past associations should Google his name together with the following:

    *Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn
    *Acorn
    *Khalid al Mansouri and Percy Sutton
    *Jeremiah Wright
    *Raila Odinga
    *Louis Farrakhan

    And people who really think that the BBC is unbiased in its coverage of these elections should conduct a little experiment. Count the number of positive and negative comments and insinuations by BBC staff about Obama/Biden as opposed to McCain/Palin over the past few days alone.

    You'll be surprised at the results.



    Complain about this comment

  • 305. At 5:23pm on 24 Oct 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:

    As for "mocking" of candidates and related persons by SNL and others, we are fortunate in this country to be free to make fun of anyone we please. This is a very old art form, which is a legacy from our British ancestors (remember Punch?).

    Complain about this comment

  • 306. At 5:38pm on 24 Oct 2008, jcputn5349 wrote:


    -- IF O is elected and --IF O is not a radical liberation theology Communist in alliance with Venezuela, Russia, and Iran--but is instead more like Jimmy Carter, or a “well-meaning socialist” (sorry for the oxymoron), who unintentionally gives advantage to terrorists and dictators, here is something to think about:

    There is a strong feeling about O that he's not a true American, as in, he doesn't share our experience, hasn't walked in our shoes, and doesn't "know us." That could be dangerous.

    A list of statements from O could fill this screen that show a distance between him and everyday Americans. The court case over O’s birth certificate and other objections demonstrate that people distrust him. And if O isn’t a US citizen, those interior “gut” feelings will explode.

    O might have more in common with Buffon and his wrongheaded assessment of America that T. Jefferson refutes in "Notes on the State of Virginia," or with English travelers who W. Irving discusses in "English Writers On America." Irving says the English endlessly debate the dimensions of a pyramid…Hold on, I’ll quote it:

    “How warily will [the English] compare the measurements of a pyramid, or the description of a ruin; and how sternly will they censure any inaccuracy in these contributions of merely curious knowledge, while they will receive, with eagerness and unhesitating faith, the gross misrepresentations of coarse and obscure writers, concerning a country with which their own is placed in the most important and delicate relations [,the USA]. Nay, they will even make these apocryphal volumes text-books, on which to enlarge, with a zeal and an ability worthy of a more generous cause.” –W. Irving.

    Irving says those English reporters cling to Old World prejudices and superstitions about America. There is nothing new under the sun, right? Our top universities teach from those text-books, and, if a person isn't an experiential American, they could make a lot of mistakes as American leaders. O went to Harvard and Columbia, elite schools, and had an unusual upbringing in that he did not have an American experience to compare book learning with, when he was developing opinions—He reminds me of a second language English student who reads "The Great Gatsby" to understand American culture. He seems to possess only head knowledge.

    O makes statements that sound more like the long history of European critics with Old World bigotry. For example, O said, Americans cling to their guns and religion. This shows he doesn't understand or love us. The critics sound like family members related to us only through legal marriage, not by blood. We don’t want a step-father for a president who doesn’t understand our inner life or love us.

    I interpret Irving's essay as advice for American writers that they should practice self-control in response to prejudicial criticism so that the American reading public will develop and maintain generosity as a virtue in the national character. I think American writers have done their part through the years--despite FOREVER and ALWAYS NO MATTER WHAT drip-drip criticism from Europe for being “insular.” “Insular” might really be a focus on strengthening ethics and character, something draconian step-parents typically mismanage. (See Cinderella :) )

    Europe’s dream of having a non-American as American President, which is why they support O, could very well backfire on them if traditional strengths of American character, like generosity or independence, are unrecognized, misunderstood, or treated as evil by the leader. O missed it with Joe the Plumber because he failed to recognize and confirm Joe's independence.

    In other words, O supporters around the world, you had better hope you are right.

    Complain about this comment

  • 307. At 5:39pm on 24 Oct 2008, junai139 wrote:

    #295 + 296

    Well put Sankari - i'm glad i'm not the only one that thinks the Palin, wardrobe issue is 'bothersome'.

    Complain about this comment

  • 308. At 5:39pm on 24 Oct 2008, Candace9839 wrote:

    Re:#296 Not to mention Palin's make-up artist was the highest paid staffer in October
    Blushing bribe

    Complain about this comment

  • 309. At 5:48pm on 24 Oct 2008, SamTyler1969 wrote:

    #73 et al

    Magic,

    On the subject of Michelle and the diversity job.

    Diversity positions address barriers to the success of minorities and under represented demographic groups in the workplace or community. This can be barriers due to race, gender, family situation or sexual orientation. Working these positions also requires an understanding of employment law. The ideal candidate for such positions is generally someone from one of the groups who face such barriers.

    You assert that Michelle Obama is unqualified. Since she is:

    - Black
    - A woman
    - A mom
    - A lawyer

    I can't think of anyone who would be more qualified. I would hire her tomorrow. She could only be a better candidate if she were also lesbian / bisexual.

    Need a cold shower now.

    Excited Sam

    Complain about this comment

  • 310. At 6:07pm on 24 Oct 2008, junai139 wrote:

    #300, 301, 302

    It was an amusing post but no need to send it three times.

    Seriously though - this is the celebrity, style over substance, age we live in. It's not about policies it's about personalities.

    And this being America also religion, race, expensive clothes, 'palling aorund with terrorists/witches/dictators and sick grandmothers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 311. At 6:08pm on 24 Oct 2008, british-ish wrote:

    295:

    It is a libel, isn't it, simply as written. The trouble is, if Obama's lawyers slapped an injunction on him, it would be "Aha, he wants to keep it hidden until after the election so it must be true" or people would be yelling about that notorious 'right to free speech' and their "need to know the facts".
    .

    (For those who don't know. the point at issue is an allegation made by Pat Buchanan presented without any supporting evidence, in a way that suggests it is a known fact.
    I can't quote it here, and neither could the BBC. That won't stop it being added to the regular list of detractions here, I shouldn't think. I imagine that was why the link was posted.
    I imagine we'll hear a lot of screams of 'censorship' as posts containing it are 'referred the moderator'. Be prepared.)

    Complain about this comment

  • 312. At 6:09pm on 24 Oct 2008, junai139 wrote:

    #304

    "You'll be surprised at the results."

    I doubt it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 313. At 6:10pm on 24 Oct 2008, british-ish wrote:

    Sorry about posting the same thing several times.The blog objected to my html, but obviously put the thing through each time anyway as I tried to correct it. Apologies.

    Complain about this comment

  • 314. At 6:13pm on 24 Oct 2008, bluepaddy13 wrote:

    297. At 5:05pm on 24 Oct 2008, AsaScot wrote:

    #293 Bluepaddy

    "I think the comment "what if "SNL" mocked Michelle Obama" to be a fair and accurate comment."

    If you think that article constitutes fair comment then you are so far off centre you must be in a parallel universe.
    It was largely a collection of unsubstantiated allegations against Barak Obama, and frankly libellous in at least one part unless Buchanan has some sort of police/court records to back it up.

    AsaScot, I said its a FAIR comment, what part of comment do you confuse with Article, I did not say that about the article, I merely pointed out that all and sundry are saying Sarah Palin is fair game, she is running for VP whilst Michelle Obama is not, HOWEVER that is hypocritical because Todd Palin is not running for VP yet SNL mocks him, so it shows they are biased as they should also do it to MICHELLE who unlke Todd GIVES SPEECHES, now do you get it. And explain what allegations against Obama are untrue?? can you prove them wrong?

    So apparently Michelle Obama is not running for VP or President so she should be hands off by the SNL crowd, YET SHE IS STUMPING and giving speeches, THAT means she should be fair game to, I do not see Mr Palin doing the same

    Complain about this comment

  • 315. At 6:19pm on 24 Oct 2008, Mike Mullen wrote:

    #304 Truetoo:

    "People who are untroubled by Obama's past associations should Google his name together with the following:

    *Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn
    *Acorn
    *Khalid al Mansouri and Percy Sutton
    *Jeremiah Wright
    *Raila Odinga
    *Louis Farrakhan

    And people who really think that the BBC is unbiased in its coverage of these elections should conduct a little experiment. Count the number of positive and negative comments and insinuations by BBC staff about Obama/Biden as opposed to McCain/Palin over the past few days alone."

    Sorry to burst your bubble but I doubt anyone needs to google those items because they have been discussed to death here, and I've seen them reported on the BBC and elsewhere. And if we did google them what would find? Hard facts or more people like yourself peddling innuendo and insinuation as 'the truth'?
    As to negative coverage of Palin/McCain, well what have they done that would offer an opportunity for positive coverage? Plain's inability to name one magazine she's read? McCain's inability to 'wing it' without his autocue? Palin's $150,000 dollar spending spree? Or maybe that ethics violation over troopergate? If you don't like the negative stories complain to the people who are ultimately responsible; Palin and McCain.

    Complain about this comment

  • 316. At 6:19pm on 24 Oct 2008, british-ish wrote:

    304. TrueToo wrote:

    "You'll be surprised at the results." If I google the combinations you suggest? No, I won't be in the least surprised that thousands of webpages repeat the same allegations ad infinitum, just as people do here.

    Because thousands of people repeat the same thing three times each doesn't make it true. It just supports the credulous and gullible in their erroneous belief.

    There are 55 million results googling 'the earth is flat'. Does that mean I'm supposed to believe that?

    Complain about this comment

  • 317. At 6:20pm on 24 Oct 2008, Candace9839 wrote:

    Re:#305 or Spitting Image in Genesis' Land of Confusion video?

    Complain about this comment

  • 318. At 6:42pm on 24 Oct 2008, Cassandra wrote:

    163

    I refer to myself as an "indifferentist" if pressed.

    An example of the behavior that has driven me FAR from the madding religious crowd: a very sweet woman I worked with responded to someone being rude to her with a charming smile as she confided, "God will make him burn in Hell for that."

    I think that a charming smile conceals - if incompletely - the same attitude in the current political ads and interviews.

    Complain about this comment

  • 319. At 7:12pm on 24 Oct 2008, british-ish wrote:

    306. jcputn5349 wrote:

    "-- IF O is elected and --IF O is not a radical liberation theology Communist in alliance with Venezuela, Russia, and Iran--but is instead more like Jimmy Carter, or a ?well-meaning socialist? (sorry for the oxymoron), who unintentionally gives advantage to terrorists and dictators, here is something to think about:

    There is a strong feeling about O that he's not a true American, as in, he doesn't share our experience, hasn't walked in our shoes, and doesn't "know us." That could be dangerous."


    That, precisely, is what many people consider much less dangerous than the alternative.

    'radical . . . .in alliance with Russia, Venezuela and Iran' and all the rest of it? I almost laughed out loud, for the first time in ages reading these posts.

    Just a minute: are you serious?

    Complain about this comment

  • 320. At 7:25pm on 24 Oct 2008, british-ish wrote:

    314. At 6:13pm on 24 Oct 2008, bluepaddy13 wrote:

    "And explain what allegations against Obama are untrue?? can you prove them wrong?"

    It is up to Pat Buchanan, and I emphasise, you if you repeat a particular one on a British site, subject to British law, to offer proof of what, as it is presented, is a libel. Obviously, given your own coyness in repeating it, you are well aware of that.

    It is a particularly unpleasant trick, I might add, to try to provoke someone into unintentionally repeating a libel which might well lead to an action in court, which would also involve, inevitably, the BBC.

    I had thought there really weren't any more allegations with nothing to support them that could be made, but I was obviously wrong.

    I suppose it won't be long now before some people demand to be shown granny's body if she dies to 'prove' Obama didn't cook any of it, such are the despicable depths to which this campaign (or at least many supporters) have sunk.

    I'm not just not laughing any more, I'm beginning to feel sick of all this 'free speech'.

    Complain about this comment

  • 321. At 7:27pm on 24 Oct 2008, british-ish wrote:

    310. junai139:

    Mistake. Said 'sorry'.

    Complain about this comment

  • 322. At 7:35pm on 24 Oct 2008, SamTyler1969 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 323. At 7:36pm on 24 Oct 2008, deddancer wrote:

    I aslo found icetayoa's comments insensitive about Obama canceling appearances (notice I said canceling appearances/not suspending his campaign since there will still be campaign rallies being held by Biden and other representatives/backers during that time) for 48 hrs to visit his quite elderly grandmother who is ill especially since our current president takes 3 months off a year to go chop wood on his ranch.

    One has to consider that 10-11 hrs of that 48 hours will be flight time alone ... I feel relatively confident if his grandmother was residing in the Continental US where the flight times would be shorter and he could visit her in less than a day that this would not even be brought up. Can you really see someone making a big deal over a "he cancelled one rally to go visit his hospitalized grandmother", or, heven forbid, "he cancelled one rally to go to a family members funeral"???

    And it is not like he will not be in contact with his campaign and with the senate during that time. There are phones on most intercontinental airlines, and Hawaii does have both land line and cell phone systems .. and they also have internet capabilities. I wouldn't be supprised if the Democrats in Hawaii requested that he do a "stump speech" before he left the island. Its not like they get much of a chance to see many of the presidents or canidates that run for election even though they are American citizens and are affected by the outcome of elections.

    Oh, and on a earlier post on the "comparative religion's" being an elective course ... well I think it would have a better chance of accepted if it was offered as an elective course. Here in Texas the actual requirements for graduating high school since 2004 is:
    4 english classes
    3 math classes
    3 sience classes
    4 Social Studies (one being Texas History)
    2 Foreign Language (can be both in same foreign language.

    A class usually means one acedemic year of classes.

    Other classes can be added, but those listed above are required to graduate. Now if you are planning to go to college (university) the college you select may require a few more courses. But to just graduate those are what you have to take.

    And please lets not get into how minimal that is compared to some other countries because that should be on another forum and would probably run in hundreds of comments.

    Regards,

    Complain about this comment

  • 324. At 7:38pm on 24 Oct 2008, TrueToo wrote:

    315 AsaScot,

    If the moderators would post my full comments on this issue at nos 259 and nos 282, then "people like you" wouldn't be jumping to confusions about me "insinuating" anything.

    Since they are censoring me, they are effectively making me argue with one hand tied behind my back.

    316 british-ish,

    I'm not sure why you wont argue the point I raised instead of ducking the issue.

    Imagine if McCain had intimate KKK connections stretching back decades. The media would be hounding him mercilessly. Obama has the black equivalent of those connections yet the media gives him a free ride. And the BBC is especially complicit in this regard.

    Complain about this comment

  • 325. At 7:40pm on 24 Oct 2008, john-In-Dublin wrote:

    The highest paid individual in the McCain camp

    Palin's make up artist.

    Over $11k a WEEK

    No wonder the Republicans are getting so excited at the idea of higher taxes for those on over $250k a year!

    Complain about this comment

  • 326. At 7:44pm on 24 Oct 2008, TheAgedP wrote:

    Great link, Justin – but at least it nails the rumour that Gov.Palin is racist. Now, being such a brilliant investigative journalist, why not toddle down to Chicago and use your forensic skills to find out how Sen. Obama got elected to the Illinois Senate unopposed in 1996 – here’s a clue…”Ronald Davis”. Then, when you have done that do a bit of research on Forrest Claypool – you know, the guy who stood against John Stroger, the boss of the Cook County Machine. You remember him, don’t you, Justin. Claypool had a lot of bipartisan support from local Democrats and Republicans who claimed that Stroger’s Machine was corrupt. Tell us how much support they got from Obama. Oh and while you’re there tell us if he supported the candidacy of John’s unqualified son Todd (that’s Todd STROGER, not Todd PALIN, Justin…) when John had his stroke.
    Then it’s off to the University of Chicago Medical Centre to find out when Mrs Obama got her $200,000 salary increase, pop over to City Hall to check on the links between Obama and his campaign manager David Axelrod and Richard Daley, Mayor of Chicago (that’s the one who has so many ex-associates in jail for corruption)
    Now I was going to mention Ayers, Wright and Rezko but I know you have done several in-depth investigations of their links with Obama. Unfortunately I can’t seem to Google them so maybe you could post them again?

    Complain about this comment

  • 327. At 8:00pm on 24 Oct 2008, Mike Mullen wrote:

    #314 Bluepaddy:

    "AsaScot, I said its a FAIR comment, what part of comment do you confuse with Article, I did not say that about the article,"

    But the comment has to be considered in context in which it was presented, and in this case that was a defamatory diatribe which I would suggest was actually libellous. You can't attack SNL for their misrepresentation of Palin and let Buchanan off the hook for what he said, and I'm not going to repeat the specific allegation as I suspect it would get this post deleted.

    Complain about this comment

  • 328. At 8:04pm on 24 Oct 2008, TheFeldkircher wrote:

    309. At 5:48pm on 24 Oct 2008, SamTyler1969

    Comedy - amongst this web(site) of tears.

    Loved It... Keep it coming.

    Complain about this comment

  • 329. At 8:10pm on 24 Oct 2008, john-In-Dublin wrote:

    319 british-ish wrote [of 306. jcputn5349]

    "I almost laughed out loud, for the first time in ages reading these posts.

    Just a minute: are you serious?"

    He is serious

    As in seriously demented......

    Complain about this comment

  • 330. At 8:11pm on 24 Oct 2008, Stephen Derry wrote:

    Why do conservatives keep repeating the same nonsensical trivia long after it has been debunked? The obvious answer is "because they are losing."

    On every comments thread on Justin's blog the same tiresome nonsense is guaranteed to come up: the birth certificate, Acorn, Bill Ayers. Is that the best they can come up with? A frivolous lawsuit, and very tangential links from a decade ago to a popular community action group, and a reformed terrorist who went on to be named Chicago's Citizen of the Year? (as for the Acorn "voter registration fraud" scare story, surely everyone by now knows the truth behind the spin that the fraud was actually against Acorn by its own employees!).

    Everyone to the left of Rush Limbaugh (ie everyone) can see that there is absolutely nothing in any of those "allegations", yet posts on these way outnumber more relevant character and policy concerns such as bombing Pakistan, speaking to rogue nations, and redistribution of wealth, which Obama will happily admit on the record. Republican-supporting posters don't seem to want to argue those points, they just bang on and on and on again about the trivia which everyone already knows is discredited garbage. This is one of many reasons why your man is going to lose!

    Complain about this comment

  • 331. At 8:25pm on 24 Oct 2008, jcputn5349 wrote:

    281. Because there's no need for him to do this. His citizenship has already been established beyond all possible doubt; it's a frivolous lawsuit.

    jcp: No, it hasn't, and O owes satisfaction to the doubters because he is running for President. His citizenship would be established if he had done what McCain did: Produce a birth certificate. The court case came along because O would not share it when asked.

    It is not up to me as a citizen to research the hospital or region where he was born. Tell that to a company when you apply for a job. Go ahead. Tell them to contact the hospital where you were born. Tell them to contact the IRS if they want your social security number. The attitude is wrong.

    So there is a court case because there is not universal certainty. The citizen who files a court case has the right as a citizen to do it, and O owes that individual citizen satisfaction instead of public smearing and stonewalling (like a two year old or someone with something to hide.)

    Why hasn't the case been closed if it is frivolous? Why isn't the judge satisfied?

    You can't make up reality as you go along to suit your vision of how you wish the world should be.

    A fair number of Americans can handle unfiltered truth, and demand it as a test of integrity and humility toward the people. O seems to have failed every one of the usual tests. Producing your birth certificate is one of the easy hoops to jump.

    The case would be closed today if Obama gives the judge his birth certificate. Why can't he do it? Now, I doubt he is a citizen, too.

    Complain about this comment

  • 332. At 8:32pm on 24 Oct 2008, Mike Mullen wrote:

    #342 TrueToo:

    "Imagine if McCain had intimate KKK connections stretching back decades. The media would be hounding him mercilessly. Obama has the black equivalent of those connections yet the media gives him a free ride. And the BBC is especially complicit in this regard."

    You can imagine what you like but unless you care to offer hard evidence of wrong doing, and I mean records from law enforcement or or other official sources, without that you are just making insinuations, and you are right down there in the gutter with Pat Buchanan.

    Complain about this comment

  • 333. At 8:37pm on 24 Oct 2008, Mike Mullen wrote:

    On a more general point is it my imagination or are the McCain supporters, assuming they are pro McCain and not simply anti Obama, getting nastier and dirtier as the likelihood of an Obama victory increases? Somewhere along the line Obama ceased to be simply the 'opposition' and became the 'enemy', one against whom any tactic, any maneuver, is acceptable, if this is the best support McCain can muster no wonder he's on the brink of defeat.

    Complain about this comment

  • 334. At 8:48pm on 24 Oct 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:

    All this stuff in post #326 is old news. The Republican attack team has been slinging this mud for quite awhile now, and it hasn't stuck. It's not going to stick now, with only a few days left. As Obama said, McCain is out of ideas and almost out of time.

    Complain about this comment

  • 335. At 8:51pm on 24 Oct 2008, niceBrianm wrote:

    About Sarah Palin's wardrobe, people would not have made such a fuss if she put it on Cindy McCain's credit card. After all Cindy does have expensive tastes in clothing, at least.
    Gov. Palin claims to have experience in foreign relations by living in proximity to Russia. Perhaps she could qualify as an astronaut as she could see the moon from her backporch as well.

    Complain about this comment

  • 336. At 9:10pm on 24 Oct 2008, seanspa wrote:

    It has just struck me what 'natural born citizen' really means. Nothing to do what citizenship at birth, it's an anti C section thing!

    Arnie for President (assuming he wasn't too big for a natural birth that is).

    Complain about this comment

  • 337. At 9:23pm on 24 Oct 2008, TrueToo wrote:

    330 StephenDerry,

    You omitted Jeremiah Wright, Raila Odinga, Khalid al Mansour, Saul Alinsky and Louis Farrakhan.

    Ain't no doubt at all that Obama is on the far left and has had long-term and intimate associations with extreme subversives, definitely not the kind of people you would like to chat to over the garden fence on a Saturday afternoon.

    No mockery from you or anyone else will change that fact.

    Complain about this comment

  • 338. At 9:28pm on 24 Oct 2008, jcputn5349 wrote:

    319. :) glad I can entertain ya. You may have missed the point of my essay today, but thanks for reading it. My point is O supporters around the world underestimate the danger of a nonAmerican as American President. World citizens of the New World Order/UN/EU-type rely on certain English reporters (pointing up on the screen) and historical misinformation rooted in bigotry toward things native American along with the familiar wrong idea that life forms on earth naturally degenerate on the American continent. They are misinformed, and think they know everything and all about us. Therefore, they miscalculate the real danger of a potential Obama administration and support him. I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it since I'm a member of the fierce American unwashed mass we're discussing.

    Here's a sampling of possibilities: I'll quit working with first increase of SS tax on my paycheck. I'll go without medical care and medicine rather than betray the principle of free trade. I won't say what I'll do if we are attacked 9/11 style and our commander in chief does nothing to defend us, or if Pelosi, Reid and Obama pass an anti-energy bill. A line was drawn this year and some of us are going to step over it. I don't think that story has been accurately reported.

    Thank you for your consideration :)

    Complain about this comment

  • 339. At 9:35pm on 24 Oct 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:

    AsaScot (#333), I think it looks that way because the more rational Republicans can see the handwriting on the wall, and may have been turned off by McCain's rantings. They haven't been converted to Obama, but they've gone into early mourning.

    The right-wingnuts, on the other hand, don't get discouraged so easily. Since their views are irrational to begin with, the irrationality of flogging a dead horse is lost on them.

    Complain about this comment

  • 340. At 9:41pm on 24 Oct 2008, TrueToo wrote:

    332 AsaScot,

    Now now, there's no need to get personal and talk about me being in the gutter. I haven't insulted you. If you improve your reading comprehension you might notice that I mentioned at no. 315 that the moderators have prevented from presenting a detailed case about Obama's associates. Think about what that means.

    You, on the other hand, are free to say pretty much whatever you want on this blog, including personal attacks, since you sit on the BBC side of the fence in this debate.

    Complain about this comment

  • 341. At 10:02pm on 24 Oct 2008, british-ish wrote:

    324. At 7:38pm on 24 Oct 2008, TrueToo wrote:

    "Since they are censoring me, they are effectively making me argue with one hand tied behind my back.

    316 british-ish,

    I'm not sure why you wont argue the point I raised instead of ducking the issue."

    I'm getting very exasperated by this very silly kind of smear. I have said, and I repeat, the article you posted a link to contains an allegation of criminal behaviour unsubstantiated by any evidence whatsoever, and that in British law (under which this site operates) is a libel.

    Please do not play the injured innocent. If you are trying to repeat that allegation here in terms, of course your posts are being rejected. As mine would be, because I cannot actually see how I could refer to the allegation in such a way as not to repeat the libel.

    It does, as someone else said, belong in the gutter. But then, that is where much of this election now seems to reside. At least from reading some posts here.

    I suppose it's a pointless request, but can't we move on? I am not going to respond any further.

    I'm fed up with all the garbage too.

    Complain about this comment

  • 342. At 10:11pm on 24 Oct 2008, Mike Mullen wrote:

    #331 jcputn5349

    "jcp: No, it hasn't, and O owes satisfaction to the doubters because he is running for President. His citizenship would be established if he had done what McCain did: Produce a birth certificate. The court case came along because O would not share it when asked."

    And the drivel goes on. Admit it; if Obama knocked on your door tomorrow and handed you his birth certificate you would still find some reason to question it. You've made up your mind about the 'truth' and all the evidence in the world wouldn't change it.

    #337 TrueToo

    "Ain't no doubt at all that Obama is on the far left and has had long-term and intimate associations with extreme subversives, definitely not the kind of people you would like to chat to over the garden fence on a Saturday afternoon.

    No mockery from you or anyone else will change that fact."

    And there 'ain't no doubt' that you like jcputn5349 have gone beyond the realm of reason, immune to any argument or evidence that contradicts your views.
    There is an old fashioned concept called innocent until proven guilty, meaning that is up to you to provide proof, and I mean courtroom standard proof, of these allegations, it is not for Barak Obama or anyone here to have to try and prove they are false.

    Too all the smear merchants let me state my position bluntly:
    PUT UP OR SHUT UP

    Complain about this comment

  • 343. At 10:20pm on 24 Oct 2008, Mike Mullen wrote:

    #340 TrueToo

    "Now now, there's no need to get personal and talk about me being in the gutter. I haven't insulted you. If you improve your reading comprehension you might notice that I mentioned at no. 315 that the moderators have prevented from presenting a detailed case about Obama's associates. Think about what that means."

    Actually I feel you've insulted my intelligence and that of everyone else posting here. And as to the post that was blocked I suspect it was potentially slanderous and given your lack of supporting evidence the BBC weren't going to invite a lawsuit by putting it up, and they may have saved you from one as well so it means you owe the mods a thank you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 344. At 10:29pm on 24 Oct 2008, british-ish wrote:

    339. Gary_A_Hill wrote:

    "The right-wingnuts, on the other hand, don't get discouraged so easily. Since their views are irrational to begin with, the irrationality of flogging a dead horse is lost on them."

    I must admit I hadn't really grasped that. Do they go in for child cruelty as well as animal cruelty? They obviously believe the horse still has some life left in it.

    Just curious. I don't get to meet any normally.

    Complain about this comment

  • 345. At 10:43pm on 24 Oct 2008, Mike Mullen wrote:

    #339 Gary_A_Hill:

    "The right-wingnuts, on the other hand, don't get discouraged so easily. Since their views are irrational to begin with, the irrationality of flogging a dead horse is lost on them."

    Perhaps this has something to do with the influence of the evangelicals on the Republican party, its created supporters who are willing to take things on faith in the absence of any supporting evidence, or indeed evidence to the contrary.
    Or maybe its the internet, where once they would have been muttering alone their bedroom now they can find thousands of like minded individuals to reinforce their irrationality.

    Complain about this comment

  • 346. At 10:50pm on 24 Oct 2008, Mike Mullen wrote:

    Okay I apologize for getting ratty earlier but I went fivethirtyeight.com and read some soothing numbers, I guess British-ish is right, there's just no point in arguing further with these people. After all they can argue until their blue in the face but McCain is doomed...

    Complain about this comment

  • 347. At 10:51pm on 24 Oct 2008, TrueToo wrote:

    341 british-ish

    You are mixing me up with someone else. I have not posted any links on this thread, nor made any libellous accusations that I'm aware of. I can only assume that my post at 282 was left hanging because it made a comprehensive and persuasive case against electing Obama president because of his highly dubious and long-term associations with some extremely suspect people who, incidentally, have incriminated themselves by their own actions.

    Again, can you guys refrain from personal attacks, or are you incapable of arguing without sneering at your opponents?

    342 AsaScot,

    How many times do I have to repeat this? I have had to trim my comments down radically because the moderators will not publish the evidence I presented at no. 282. But I have given you enough to go on with if you really want to get to the truth about Obama. But I guess you would rather dwell on the trivia that is dished up on Sarah Palin. And it really is trivia compared to what has come to light concerning Obama.

    Now control your temper. It's not up to you to tell me what I can or can't discuss here. Perhaps you don't believe in freedom of speech?

    Complain about this comment

  • 348. At 10:53pm on 24 Oct 2008, RomeStu wrote:

    189 British-ish

    "We've got the idea: Democrats/Obama are socialistic extremist Muslim sympathisers. And he might have a witchdoctor in his ancestry in Kenya . . .Could come in handy if he has."

    I'm afraid Obama may need more than a witchdoctor .... Palin's got protection from that preacher - didn't you see the video-clip!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 349. At 10:56pm on 24 Oct 2008, british-ish wrote:

    338. jcputn5349 wrote:

    319. :) glad I can entertain ya. You may have missed the point of my essay today, but thanks for reading it.

    No, I think I grasped it. I've read much that's similar before emanating from the American right over the last few years. I just find it difficult to comprehend how anyone can believe it, that's all.

    "World citizens of the New World Order/UN/EU-type rely on certain English reporters (pointing up on the screen) and historical misinformation rooted in bigotry toward things native American".

    I don't think either Justin, I or any other British contributors have said anything against Native Americans. I confess I haven't read the position of either McCain or Obama as regards that section of the population.

    But now you bring it up, what is it?

    If you had read some of my early comments on this blog you might have observed that as far as foreign policy, trade policy and the environment is concerned, I view Obama as almost as much of a threat to the peace and stability of the rest of the world as Dubbya or McCain.

    But it's much easier to disregard posts like that and tell us we don't understand, isn't it?

    If people want to start the sort of internecine civil war that's been the subject of so many American sci-fi novels, thrillers and films the last forty years, as long as you keep it all to yourselves, fine. That is what you mean by "A line was drawn this year and some of us are going to step over it," isn't it? Like the Weathermen, only from a different political standpoint would that be? Democracy is fine, but only if it's the 'right' kind of democracy?

    How in heaven's name did it all come to this?

    Complain about this comment

  • 350. At 11:02pm on 24 Oct 2008, SamTyler1969 wrote:

    #331

    JCP,

    The case will be closed when it comes before the bench. It has not yet had a hearing. The matter is closed. But any whack job with a few hundred bucks can file suit and post on a blog.

    I wish I were a lunatic
    As happy as a clam
    I wish I were a lunatic
    Oh well. Perhaps I am

    Amused Sam

    Complain about this comment

  • 351. At 11:03pm on 24 Oct 2008, SamTyler1969 wrote:

    #341

    Ish,

    Yes. What about them Phillies?

    Sporting Sam

    Complain about this comment

  • 352. At 11:09pm on 24 Oct 2008, turningblueandgrey wrote:

    338

    There are no Non-American candidates for president among the 5 or 6 choices on the ballot;

    they only exist in some riled-up imaginations that are also filled with New World Order black helicopters, 9/11 conspiracies, and maybe UFOs.

    Complain about this comment

  • 353. At 11:37pm on 24 Oct 2008, RomeStu wrote:

    #248 Peter_Sym wrote:
    "#226 Creationism certainly isn't a science, however it has set itself up as such and if you plan on educating your kids you should compare creationism to darwinism and compare and contrast.

    There are two places to do this:
    Science class or religious education class "

    Peter, I agree entirely that the best way to debunk a ludicrous idea is not to shout at it but to discuss it rationally, and thus allow other people to see reason through logic......

    However my fear is that once creationism is even mentioned in science class it's supporters will simply cry victory as if discussing it seriously somehow gives it credibility. They even call it a theory or re-package it as "intelligent design" to make it sound less crazy. In areas where creationism is accepted (for example Kansas ) this would produce debate - just soundbites ... and it the teacher was deemed to be presenting it in a negative light then certain parents would not let their kids take that class, or would petition the school board to censure the teacher.

    This is the 21st century and these ideas have no place in schools outside of a "comparative religion" class (great idea, by the way, whoever posted that!).

    What people believe in their homes and places of worship is their business, but school science classes should not be touching this.
    Even teaching "religious education" for me is inappropriate for public schools, but I like this idea of "comparative religion" - teach the history and origins of the religions of the world - challenge children to think, and leave the sermons for the pulpit.

    Peace and understanding

    Complain about this comment

  • 354. At 11:44pm on 24 Oct 2008, SamTyler1969 wrote:

    #337

    Too,

    Couple of points.

    - Anyone who has 'true' in their monika has a serious issue with believing their own credibility

    - Taking one example. Raila Odinga is a guy in Kenya who claims to be Obama's cousin with strong links to him, none of which have been proved. I know a homeless person who lives under Brooklyn bridge who honestly believes he is Jesus and that he has slept with 700 women. He smelss a bit so I doubt the latter claim, and would doubt the former other than it seems like a bad bet without strong evidence. What relevance does any of this have to the campaign?

    Interested Sam

    Complain about this comment

  • 355. At 11:44pm on 24 Oct 2008, southernrockies wrote:

    Hey Justin,

    Reading through these posts has convinced me that you might consider declaring a moratorium on contributions until after Halloween. Maybe by then the community will be able to manage a bit more rationality. Until then, I fear that your blogs will be haunted by every sort of strange, rabid creature :-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 356. At 11:58pm on 24 Oct 2008, RomeStu wrote:

    #290 bluepaddy13 wrote:
    "It is going to backfire, at my wifes job, a women who is a democrat, would have voted Hillary, said quote "She is sick and tired of the media forcing Obama down everyones throat" she is voting McCain for that reason and the Tax and re-distribution of wealth issue"


    Wow - I'm convinced that McCain will win now, because one ignorant woman at your wife's work can't understand certain issues (tax and wealth redistribution which would almost certainly benefit her, unless she is a surgeon, or lawyer!) .

    If she were a democrat, she might consider sticking with her party on policy grounds .... or maybe she's a secret racist, and doesn't want to tell anyone!!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 357. At 00:00am on 25 Oct 2008, Candace9839 wrote:

    Re:#351. Go Phillies! Waving our rally towels and hoping for a win.

    Complain about this comment

  • 358. At 00:02am on 25 Oct 2008, jcputn5349 wrote:

    333 Asa,

    Please don’t be too surprised at the Republicans. What you describe is the natural result of things, I think. There is a portion of America, including Libertarian and third party, who is dead set against socialism that has been shoved down their throat for fifty years; Obama promises more of it, and Obama and his followers have run up against invigorated opposition. Republicans, because of the size in comparison to third parties, are simply more on the front line in opposing Democratic socialism. I guess the Democrats and their shining congressional leadership didn’t expect such opposition this year, but they should have.

    Obama orders his followers to "get in their face." So, Obama supporters call the non-socialists ugly names and try to silence them. Obama supporters throw firebombs at the McCain supporter's yard signs, scratch cars with McCain bumper stickers, or carve "B's" on McCain supporter's faces and give young women black eyes. Hollywood stars threaten the Republican VP with gang rape, shout out FU to her on national TV, and socialist commentators on TV say Joe the Plumber's dream to buy his boss's business is a "fantasy." (Have you ever heard the American Dream called a "fantasy" in your life? What do those elitists think of my American Dreams?) Obama supporters play violent games at the Obama website where Obama supporters shoot the Republican VP candidate in a virtual world. It's so disheartening for the Democrats the way Republican voters have acted this season, I'm sure ;)

    But, the dissenters of Obama and statism won't just shut up and sit down. Non-statists do not threaten to riot in the streets, as Obama supporters have threatened, because they respect other people's property and lives--Yes, this is an advantage the Obama camp has over the McCain camp. But, if Obama wins, get ready for a different type of rumble between non-socialists and the Socialist Democratic Party over the Bill of Rights.

    The dissenters want to keep the silly Bill of Rights and will probably do all sorts of non-Utopian things to protect it. ;) It will be better for non-socialists in the end because they have a spine, and they don't fight like Russian thugs.

    About private property rights: I hope Obama supporters won't get their feelings hurt when fellow Americans refuse to work for socialist programs, and Obama supporters and entitlement seekers will end up paying the bill. I don't think it's personal. I have a feeling the GNP will shrink because those dissenters (and all people) have a nature that won't cooperate with government mandated perfection: People naturally work less and invest less wealth into the nation when you take away their incentive and reward for achieving with "spread the wealth" scams. And those nasty people and their natures are everywhere--rich and poor, every color, in every area of life. Even the illegal immigrants are leaving. They came here to get away from socialism. So much for their American Dream, huh?

    I don't think Obama's opposition will let them down in the end. It may take a while, but those nasty voices of dissent are too stubborn to quit, and they are finishing the job. The only way they will leave is with the same wind that brought them here. ;)

    You and other Obama supporters can't go through life dismissing as lunatic those who oppose you, unless you would rather live under a uniform Democratic Party Absolutism with everybody joined at the head. Eventually, it will bite you. You just don't know it, yet.

    About the Birth Certificate: I have a right to know if Obama is a citizen because I'm an American citizen and Obama wants to be my President. If Obama gave the birth certificate to the judge, and the judge decided it is legitimate, I would be relieved. Otherwise, the possibility is still open that he's a Manchurian candidate. Don't laugh. We're in a war in the real world where real evil exists. Remember 9/11? Remember 10,000 of your fellow Americans murdered by terrorists between 1979 and 2001? Obama has to know he raises those kinds of fears among the people he wants to lead when he refuses such a simple request. A trustworthy leader anticipates these things and responds in good faith.

    Complain about this comment

  • 359. At 00:09am on 25 Oct 2008, RomeStu wrote:

    #314 Bluepaddy wrote
    "So apparently Michelle Obama is not running for VP or President so she should be hands off by the SNL crowd, YET SHE IS STUMPING and giving speeches, THAT means she should be fair game to, I do not see Mr Palin doing the same"

    I would love to hear Todd "secession" Palin give a speech - he may just manage to make his wife look lucid and eloquent.

    Also I think on an earlier post there was a link to show that SNL will be running a "Michelle" sketch this weekend, so let's just wait and see shall we.

    Complain about this comment

  • 360. At 00:30am on 25 Oct 2008, british-ish wrote:

    351:

    Phillies? I thought you were always going on about fillies?

    Mystified -ish.

    Why has no-one pointed out that a tenth of that miracle 700billion dollar bailout McCain helped to engineer is going through the Wall Street front doors and straight out the back as bonuses? It was headlined in the British paper The Guardian days ago, but I got so distracted by all the nonsense here I forgot to mention it.

    Isn't that a bit more important than witches and wardrobes?

    Complain about this comment

  • 361. At 00:32am on 25 Oct 2008, myfreedomforever wrote:

    OK all you like #67; 70; 71; 79; 99; 108; 175; 206; 208; and 263 who are sleeping and snoozing as the world passes you by, this is happening as you slumber ...
    http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/ ... RIP

    Complain about this comment

  • 362. At 00:41am on 25 Oct 2008, british-ish wrote:

    355. At 11:44pm on 24 Oct 2008, southernrockies wrote:

    Hey Justin,

    Reading through these posts has convinced me that you might consider declaring a moratorium on contributions until after Halloween. Maybe by then the community will be able to manage a bit more rationality. Until then, I fear that your blogs will be haunted by every sort of strange, rabid creature :-)


    I've got a better idea. 'Guns' offered to turn a witches' spell I once tried for gettiing free beer (see 152/182) into computer language. Maybe someone could do a kind of software 'bell book and candle' exorcism to get rid of them instead?

    We might as well take advantage of our living in the 21st century as opposed to their 17th or 19th, mightn't we?



    Complain about this comment

  • 363. At 00:59am on 25 Oct 2008, british-ish wrote:

    southernrockies: I had a suggestion linked to your 355; I've just read a post full of some of the silliest right wing rubbish full of misinterpretations I've ever read, and that's saying something around here.

    So on reflection, I don't think my proposal would work. It seems to me there have been more full moons than usual lately and it must be that that's responsible.

    Can't be a coincidence either that they all start appearing after midnight (GMT: that's the only real time) can it?

    Complain about this comment

  • 364. At 01:24am on 25 Oct 2008, british-ish wrote:

    I gather that jcputin and others are worried about the kind of violence the 'socialists' might unleash, if I get the gist. (Though I'm not sure I do.)

    You are right to be worried, if not teriffed. I would head for your bunker now, if I were you. A shockingly violent attack on a so-called 'socialist' Labour minister here in the 'Democratic Socialist Monarchy of Great Britain' has just been reported on the BBC news:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7690324.stm

    Yes, I think you should be afraid, very afraid, of what's in store.

    Complain about this comment

  • 365. At 01:30am on 25 Oct 2008, british-ish wrote:

    361. myfreedomforever

    You take what is in that link seriously? It must be a full moon.

    Complain about this comment

  • 366. At 01:57am on 25 Oct 2008, Stephen Derry wrote:

    337: TooTrue

    I didn't mention those because either I haven't heard of them (and I've been skimming these comments threads for several weeks now) or in the case of Farrakhan, never heard of any link to Obama, or in the case of Pastor Wright, McCain has already closed the book on it.

    Even you are missing some out, whatever happened to Rezko, why has his smear value dropped in favour of a bunch of people I've never heard of? If you're going to smear, smear properly, don't exclude dodgy Obama associates just because they haven't been in the news a couple of months! Unlike Ayers, Obama actually had close ongoing contact with Rezko. I know fraudsters are not as exciting as terrorists, but surely very-recently-convicted fraudsters have a little more currency in smearland than long-retired ex-terrorists who now sit on school boards with Republicans? Ayers has more in common with Nelson Mandela than Carlos the Jackel!

    On a more serious point, it won't be the end of the world if McCain wins; he probably won't die within 4 years and he can't do any worse than Bush. I still think he is an honourable man and he would probably be winning if they switched running mates.

    Equally it won't be the end of the world for conservatives if Obama wins; the wealthy ones will pay a little more tax for 4 or 8 years, but in general it's better long-term to let the other guys hold the football during a recession. Once the Democrats have fixed everything, the Republicans can step in again and spend the surplus on another couple of wars.

    Complain about this comment

  • 367. At 02:38am on 25 Oct 2008, myfreedomforever wrote:

    #365 ... Actually the Moon's in digression right now ... Which is where you are politically ...

    Complain about this comment

  • 368. At 02:50am on 25 Oct 2008, jcputn5349 wrote:

    • 349. At 10:56pm on 24 Oct 2008, british-ish wrote:
    338. jcputn5349 wrote:

    349: No, I think I grasped it. I've read much that's similar before emanating from the American right over the last few years. I just find it difficult to comprehend how anyone can believe it, that's all.

    Jcp: Glad you understand. Actually, I write a lot of tongue in cheek, and need to be more careful. However, all jests tell the truth about how people are feeling. I have profound fear about our future with an O administration, and I’m now looking skyward.

    349: I don't think either Justin, I or any other British contributors have said anything against Native Americans. I confess I haven't read the position of either McCain or Obama as regards that section of the population.

    349: But now you bring it up, what is it?

    Jcp: Oh, no, no, no…. I was referring to the root of all European bigotry toward things American, and pointing out that it started a long time ago with the first explorer’s writings. All things native American are plant life, animal life, minerals, crops, indigenous people, descendants of Europeans born in the USA... The fact that Obama was raised elsewhere must be a plus to Europeans who push Obama on us because they still have that idea that was laid down a long time ago that things degenerate on this continent. Anti-Americanism has a history longer than the United States. BTW, Native Americans don’t pay any taxes. They don’t have to go to war in a draft. I don’t know if they can vote if they live on the reservations. My sister in law votes and is a Cherokee, but she doesn’t live on the reservation, and she pays taxes. She is voting for McCain, and she is a hundred times more afraid of Obama than I am. I can’t even bring up his name to her.

    349: If you had read some of my early comments on this blog you might have observed that as far as foreign policy, trade policy and the environment is concerned, I view Obama as almost as much of a threat to the peace and stability of the rest of the world as Dubbya or McCain.

    Jcp: I’ll be looking for your nic. What are we going to do? I hope you find peace.

    349: But it's much easier to disregard posts like that and tell us we don't understand, isn't it?

    Jcp: I was saying something about anti-Americanism. And, yeah, I think Justin is pro-Democratic Party.

    349: If people want to start the sort of internecine civil war that's been the subject of so many American sci-fi novels, thrillers and films the last forty years, as long as you keep it all to yourselves, fine. That is what you mean by "A line was drawn this year and some of us are going to step over it," isn't it? Like the Weathermen, only from a different political standpoint would that be? Democracy is fine, but only if it's the 'right' kind of democracy?

    Jcp: No, not at all. What I mean is that while I was going without food this summer and fall and didn’t have gas to get to school, I received a bill from the IRS for $900 to cover the costs of the “stimulus” package Pelosi so generously gave to millions of other Americans for free. She went on TV, posed for the camera, and took credit like she always does. Then, she went on vacation to promote her book sales, you know—“Let them eat cake!”-- and left my representatives in Congress without considering the messages I was screaming into their ear almost everyday. I had Pelosi on speed dial, but she never responded. Then, at the bail out, long story…you probably heard all about it. Those are the things that drew a line.

    Jcp: After all that, they want to raise taxes and “spread the wealth.” I can’t afford socialism. They are going to have a tough time living up to their promises without my help and many other Americans…I don’t mind sacrificing for my dream. I’m not asking anyone else to sacrifice for mine. I’ve been in school for almost four years now. I do whatever it takes. I mind sacrificing for the Democratic Party good. All they do is run scams (Social Security, Freddie, Fannie…) They can forget it.

    Jcp: The Weathermen plotted to kill 25 million Americans in the 1980s, whereas, I would give my life for any of these Americans at this thread and Queen Pelosi. She would not do the same for me. I know this because at the Democratic Party convention she screamed at a group of dissenters of her energy policy: “You want me to drill here (pointing at the sidewalk), drill now. How about if I drill your head?” And when I heard that my stomach felt sick, and I felt hopeless. A week or so later, I read she wants to “give” another “stimulus package.” I wrote my poor Rebel Republican representative and begged him to oppose it, which he will, but a lot of good it will do because the Democrats, those so-called defenders of the little guy, will override his vote, and someone, somewhere will get a bill. (I graduate next summer and hope I make it, but don’t know if it’s still possible to accomplish my dream.) Our country is not a democracy. Democracy is mob rule, another form of tyranny that you will see in fruition if Obama wins. I call it Democratic Party Absolutism. They want to establish socialism as our economic system. Right now, we have a Constitutional Republic.

    349: How in heaven's name did it all come to this?

    Jcp: After WWII, something happened to the Democratic Party. The socialists gained strength in it until they control it completely today, and they want one party rule; so the rest of the country fights them. They call anyone who opposes them conservative right wing nuts. You can call me whatever you want, but I’m a lifelong Republican. I did not vote for Bush the first time. I voted for Ronald Reagan my first vote. I voted for Ron Paul in the primary. I took a political test in American Government class and scored so close to Milton Friedman that I was sitting on his lap, and I’m a Christian, so it wouldn’t have done him any good.

    Jcp: However, there is another layer of stuff in this. World citizen thinkers, or elitists, have varying degrees of loyalty to those outside their group. Bush is one of these, and so is Obama. Palin isn’t an insider, and that is why they can’t have that! McCain is more of a populist, like Ralph Nadar, IMHO. He’s not an elitist by choice. That's why I voted for him. We haven’t had a non-elitist President since Ronald Reagan. The mainstream media is part of the elitist class, and they are generally Anti-American. I'm stating the obvious.

    jcp: I just saw your link to the article and will read it, but will not respond today. I have homework to do. Nice talking to you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 369. At 03:08am on 25 Oct 2008, myfreedomforever wrote:

    From a pre-eminent scholarly position, and as a professor in worldly perspectives, I have come to the conclusion that you are all nuts ... wouldn't you all agree??

    Complain about this comment

  • 370. At 03:22am on 25 Oct 2008, southernrockies wrote:

    #363 british-ish

    "Can't be a coincidence either that they all start appearing after midnight (GMT: that's the only real time) can it?"

    No coincidence at all, at least since the prime meridian moved from Paris to Greenwich. We should recall that we are on a wanning moon which will be complete on Oct 28, at the new moon. New moons are just as powerful in their gravitational effects as full moons, only darker, much darker.

    I just had a few beers with a couple of expat friends, one from York, the other from Glasgow, spanning the Borders, they agree Justin, cut off posting until after All Hallows Eve before it is too late:-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 371. At 10:29am on 25 Oct 2008, TrueToo wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 372. At 3:58pm on 25 Oct 2008, Stephen Derry wrote:

    Meanwhile in a parallel dimension:

    FoamingConservative writes: "Does anyone realise that Obama's beloved white grandmother is now at death's door, and yet he cannot spare a couple of days from his campaign to go and see her? Could that be something to do with the fact that she lives in Hawaii, and it's only worth 4 electoral votes, and it's already sewn up for Obama?

    The man talks about family values and how he is a patriotic American but when it comes down to it he cares more about becoming President than he cares about his poor sick grandmother. I think it's disgusting and shows that this man isn't fit to be president."

    Complain about this comment

  • 373. At 4:06pm on 25 Oct 2008, Nick-Gotts wrote:

    jcputn5349,

    Do find yourself a good psychiatrist; your decgree of disconnection from reality can be dangerous.

    Complain about this comment

  • 374. At 6:25pm on 25 Oct 2008, jcputn5349 wrote:

    373, that is one spineless way of avoiding discussion when you're ideas are challenged. It works for you because you can stay ignorant and intolerant, which is your goal. Well done! It's important in the new socialist society to maintain uniformity of thought and to punish independence and achievement. We are making progress in our Declaration of Dependence upon the US government.

    Complain about this comment

  • 375. At 6:39pm on 25 Oct 2008, jcputn5349 wrote:

    Hi British-ish,

    hehehee A pie in the face is always funny. I don't think we were supposed to laugh. Thanks for the warning. We're obviously stepping into dangerous territory--be aware of enemies with banana peels.

    Complain about this comment

  • 376. At 6:47pm on 25 Oct 2008, Simon21 wrote:

    "347. At 10:51pm on 24 Oct 2008, TrueToo wrote:
    341 british-ish

    You are mixing me up with someone else. I have not posted any links on this thread, nor made any libellous accusations that I'm aware of. I can only assume that my post at 282 was left hanging because it made a comprehensive and persuasive case against electing Obama president because of his highly dubious and long-term associations with some extremely suspect people who, incidentally, have incriminated themselves by their own actions.

    Really I have never personally heard of someone "incriminating themselves" by some one else's actions.

    Complain about this comment

  • 377. At 6:49pm on 25 Oct 2008, Simon21 wrote:

    "349: How in heaven's name did it all come to this?

    Jcp: After WWII, something happened to the Democratic Party. "

    No disputing that. The War tended to have an effect on most political parties.

    World wars do that.

    However WWII was sixty years ago.

    Complain about this comment

  • 378. At 7:20pm on 25 Oct 2008, TrueToo wrote:

    StephenDerry,

    Since you appear to be one of a rare breed of Obama supporters who can respond to criticism of their hero without instant insult and venom, I tried to respond, at no. 371, to your comment at no. 366.

    However, any in depth exploration of the attributes of Obama's friends evidently leads to immediate censorship on this blog, so I have effectively been silenced. Should you have any genuine curiosity as to what all the fuss is about you could always grit your teeth and explore Obama's past associations using that wonderful tool called Google.

    Complain about this comment

  • 379. At 7:48pm on 25 Oct 2008, Stephen Derry wrote:

    I think you have a loose definition of the word "friends" - even the most remote and ancient tangential association with anyone considered dangerous or unamerican is being recycled. I'm sure Obama has met many of the people you named, but that does not make them his friends and does not mean he endorses their viewpoints or actions (in some cases as you know he has explicitly denounced them).

    McCain addresses all of America as "my friends" every other sentence - Bill Ayers is an American, so is Bill Ayers McCain's friend?

    The word "associate" may be technically more accurate but in a case like Ayers (and as far as I know, all the others) it just means someone Obama met during his political career. I suspect most black politicians will have some sort of association with Farrakhan, for example, because his influence depends on his ability to associate himself with them.

    Obama is a politician, and politicians often have to compromise, sign bills they don't agree with, refuse to sign bills where they agree with at least some aspects, and make political alliances with people they may wish to avoid (just like McCain and Bush). But serving on a school board is a worthy purpose, refusing to serve because of the past of someone else on the board would have sent out all the wrong messages about forgiveness and rehabilitation and looking ahead rather than looking backwards.

    Remember Ayers served his time, became a distinguished professor and contributed so much to society he was named Chicago Citizen of the Year - the man should be held up as a model for young people who have lost their way; what kind of message does demonising him send out?

    If Ayers is the standard then all the associations you mention are a whole heap of nothing. If Ayers is the least convincing of your associations, then I'm surprised it is the one I have heard the most about, and I wonder why you include it when it weakens rather than bolsters your argument.

    Complain about this comment

  • 380. At 9:59pm on 25 Oct 2008, jcputn5349 wrote:

    377 and in those sixty years, the Democratic Party held control of both the House and Senate for forty uninterrupted years in which they advanced socialism, until the Republicans took the House (not Senate) for six years under Ronald Reagan. The control returned to the Democrats and they re-instituted the "mixed economy," and they concentrated on dummying down the electorate through the teacher's union and government schools to make the population more receptive to collectivism. The Republicans have had control of the House for 14 of the last 52 years and the Senate for 16 of 52. You can google a history of Congressional majority control and see how we arrived here--Democrats brought us to the edge of the Socialist cliff. A vote for "spread the wealth" Obama is a vote for the US to jump completely over the cliff. There is no return, and FYI, the richest and biggest have already reconciled to the fact, aligned for survival with the elites, and abandoned the rest of us. "Big business" (Big Oil, Big Bank, Big Food, Big Clothing, Big Medicine, Big Yarn) survives no matter what form of government or type of economy exists in a nation. It's the rest of us proles who work for or own small business that provide 45% of the jobs in the USA who will suffer.

    Already, small businesses (97% of all business in the US) with fewer than #500 employees are breaking themselves down and laying off workers in preparation for a punishing O administration. Small businesses are selling off property, have stopped investing in the nation, are shrinking in size, and closing offices to hit under the punishment-for-success mark of $250K. A lot of those companies are family run. Some are going into early retirement after they sold off pieces of the "eveel" companies their blood built. Some will move to Mexico or elsewhere...

    Please do not ever forget that our US Constitution and nation were created especially for the poor. Our founders tailor made it for the poor. You can count your blessings if you are poor in the USA because half the battle has been won for you by the founders. The other half is up to you (not the Republican or Democratic Party).

    You can tell your great-grand-children about it if O wins the election. They won't believe what once was if Obama, Pelosi, and Reid rule the land in an absolute One Party Rule fashion where you are punished at every step for fulfilling the American Dream.

    There will be no possible means to undo all the damage they will do. You can't bring back the small companies that never opened. You can't call forth the inventions that never were. The American Dream will not return because of high taxes for social programs.

    You won't be able to repeal new government-run scams that are similar to Social Security, Fannie, Freddie, and the graduated income tax...no matter how many Rebels you send to Congress. Once those scams exist, only God in heaven can remove them at his second coming.

    The damage the Obama-Pelosi-Reid triangle will do to citizens will be permanent.

    The most we will be able to do is re-create a friendly business atmosphere after the hurricane is gone, and hope risk takers and individuals come out of hiding and start contributing a little to the GNP. You can repeal punishing tax rates on achievers and businesses (that consumers end up paying). You can remove regulations that stop businesses and risk-takers from investing in new energy, new medical cures, etc. Of course, "business friendly" policies would not apply to those industries the government has taken over.

    Complain about this comment

  • 381. At 10:54pm on 25 Oct 2008, Stephen Derry wrote:

    You live in a democracy. You have a Democrat congress, a Democrat senate and (shortly) a Democrat President because the American people have voted for all of them.

    Whatever the Democrats choose to do with the power you have granted them, you have collectively mandated this. And if they do as badly as you believe they will, you can kick them out in the next election cycles.

    In a democracy, you have to accept that occasionally you will be governed by people you do not like. In a genuine one party system, you would be governed all the time by people you do not like. Your fellow countrymen have made their choice, they think you are wrong and that things will be better under the Democrats. And they are the majority.

    You should respect their choice. After all, they might just be right, you know...

    Complain about this comment

  • 382. At 04:09am on 26 Oct 2008, jcputn5349 wrote:

    Stephen,

    I absolutely respect the process and O votes. I just hope they respect the Bill of Rights and my right not to contribute to the National Treasury and GNP that they need to borrow against in order to support the largest expansion of social programs the world has ever known. I hope they leave at least a root of free enterprise, too. We'll need it to rebuild the country after they tear it down. It's always easier to tear down than to build. If they are right, then the founders are wrong...

    Complain about this comment

  • 383. At 04:22am on 26 Oct 2008, jcputn5349 wrote:

    PS, Stephen, just FYI:

    Article IV Section 4 - the Guarantee or Guaranty Clause

    Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence. State referendums, and United States and State initiatives selected or qualified by popular signature petition or Citizens' Initiatives Assembly, are consistent with and not a contravention of a republican form of government.

    This clause guarantees a republican form of government--not a democracy. Democracy is mob rule, a form of tyranny.

    Complain about this comment

  • 384. At 05:49am on 26 Oct 2008, TrueToo wrote:

    jcputn5349,

    Talking about invasion, I was astonished that president Bush, a stalwart defender of the US against Islamic terror, would not only allow the illegal Mexican invasion of the US, but actively encourage it. It seems that McCain, if elected, will go the same route.

    Not being American, I'm a bit hazy on the details of this incredible capitulation but I recall that Bush said, "Family values don't stop at the Rio Grande."

    Any thoughts on this?

    Complain about this comment

  • 385. At 11:20am on 26 Oct 2008, Simon21 wrote:

    "380. At 9:59pm on 25 Oct 2008, jcputn5349 wrote:
    377 and in those sixty years, the Democratic Party held control of both the House and Senate for forty uninterrupted years in which they advanced socialism, until the Republicans took the House (not Senate) for six years under Ronald Reagan. The control returned to the Democrats and they re-instituted the "mixed economy," and they concentrated on dummying down the electorate through the teacher's union and government schools to make the population more receptive to collectivism. The Republicans have had control of the House for 14 of the last 52 years and the Senate for 16 of 52. You can google a history of Congressional majority control and see how we arrived here.


    I don't have to, its called democracy. You do not like democracy then go and live in China.

    Otherwise put up with it


    "Please do not ever forget that our US Constitution and nation were created especially for the poor. Our founders tailor made it for the poor. You can count your blessings if you are poor in the USA because half the battle has been won for you by the founders. The other half is up to you (not the Republican or Democratic Party)."

    s that so? Hmmm well you obviously do not run a bookshop otherwise you would have read that the U Consitution and Nation had slavery for over 60 years since independence.

    Odd in a nation "founded for the poor"

    Sorry to tell you but the US has been ruled by a rich, white, male and largely protestant elite ever since foundation - and including the present incumbent.

    Complain about this comment

  • 386. At 11:23am on 26 Oct 2008, Simon21 wrote:

    383. At 05:22am on 26 Oct 2008, jcputn5349 wrote:
    PS, Stephen, just FYI:

    Article IV Section 4 - the Guarantee or Guaranty Clause

    Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence. State referendums, and United States and State initiatives selected or qualified by popular signature petition or Citizens' Initiatives Assembly, are consistent with and not a contravention of a republican form of government.

    This clause guarantees a republican form of government--not a democracy. Democracy is mob rule, a form of tyranny. "

    Interesting and what do you think a "republican" form of government means in this context?

    Rule by Consuls?

    Complain about this comment

  • 387. At 11:55am on 26 Oct 2008, Stephen Derry wrote:

    "Democracy is mob rule, a form of tyranny."

    So the point of invading Iraq was..?

    Complain about this comment

  • 388. At 1:43pm on 26 Oct 2008, mulbahmorlu wrote:

    Mccain must bow out! His recovery is as distant from reality as planet Pluto. long live Obamamania, long live global reunification, long live democratic progressivsm!

    Complain about this comment

  • 389. At 5:05pm on 26 Oct 2008, jcputn5349 wrote:

    • 384. At 06:49am on 26 Oct 2008, TrueToo wrote:

    jcputn5349,

    Talking about invasion, I was astonished that president Bush, a stalwart defender of the US against Islamic terror, would not only allow the illegal Mexican invasion of the US, but actively encourage it. It seems that McCain, if elected, will go the same route.

    Not being American, I'm a bit hazy on the details of this incredible capitulation but I recall that Bush said, "Family values don't stop at the Rio Grande."

    Any thoughts on this?

    jcp: Perhaps a few; thanks for asking. The hyper-focus on Bush eliminates every other element in the big picture, excuses those elements from taking responsibility for failure, and sets up more failure.

    Here is the bigger picture from my perspective:

    The states have rights that presidents, congress, and courts cannot infringe; Responsibility for policy is shared. State legislatures, governors, Congress, the President, the courts, mayors, county commissioners, law enforcement, individual citizens, illegal immigrants, and even Mexico share responsibility. They all have power over US immigration policy and the outcome. For instance, Mexico has done all it could to ensure only criminals enter the United States; US men bound themselves together according to the law and defended themselves, their families and property. They, and tougher enforcement against employers, are accomplishing the job. Illegal immigration is shrinking. We have lowered the illegal population by eleven percent. Everyone is relieved because the policy is working and is a fantastic compromise between two polarized elements.

    You picked up on the conflict between interests. Here is my take on it. Feelings about our incredibly easy immigration policies hardened after 9/11. Fears of terrorists crossing the lightly guarded border along with heinous crimes committed by those who do cross the border into the US, slash the necks of sleeping children, steal a TV, and sneak back into Mexico fueled demands for resolution of conflicting interests. The criminals and terrorists created and empowered anti-open border advocates and put our easy immigration policies at odds with national security policies.

    We understand why foreigners risk their lives to immigrate here; they are escaping tyrannies located close to us, in our hemisphere; we share history and blood and culture with them. Large portions of people come from the southern and mid hemisphere because they have relatives already living here. We’re bound to treat them differently, than say, a German who touches down at an airport to work at a German engineering firm. Our policies reflect our tolerant feelings toward immigrants; we are so tolerant that we have to keep reminding ourselves that we are dealing with illegal, not legal, immigration. On an individual basis, at school or at the post office, it makes no difference to most people, minding their business and paying their bills, whether a person is legal or not.

    At the border, between Mexico and the US, sometimes you are not sure which country you are in, and communities have lived and developed with the open border for hundreds of years. Creating a wall to separate them from family members and friends at the “official” border would devastate those people; it would be similar to the USSR’s wall in Germany. You don’t want to punish families for what criminals do. Therefore, I support Bush’s and McCain’s supposed weak policies. There should not be surprise at the motivation or policies coming from Republicans.

    The mention of “family” fits with my understanding of Republican sentiments that are rooted in the history of the party. The goal of immigration policy towards our southern neighbors has always been for them to become American citizens. Ronald Reagan gave them amnesty and declared them citizens. The tradition of good-will toward immigrants comes from within the ranks of Republican Party, of whom McCain represents, and you can trace it back to the founding of the Republican Party. Bush decided to focus on the employers who hire illegal immigrants and who exploit them, rather than going home-to-home checking documents. States, communities, and other authorities are free to do as they please according to what they decide is best for them. But, Bush followed the historical Republican path in dealing with illegal immigrants, which considers the families more important than the criminals in setting policy.

    You can see the difference in history between parties played out when you consider the Elian case. All a Cuban has to do is land on the US, and he automatically receives legal asylum—not one authority has the legal right to send him back. That’s why it angered so many when Elian was deported under the Clinton administration. Elian’s little feet landed on sacred American territory where those aligned with heaven should have intervened to give him freedom. Clinton appointees not only refused him asylum, but also crashed into the house where he slept in SS-fashion and sent him back to Castro. Nice people, huh? Democrat history towards immigrants is the complete opposite of the Republican Party. You can trace Democrat history back from Elian and see the consistencies in their dealings toward immigrants and those escaping tyranny. The Cuban community in Florida followed the rules, and the Democrats shafted them. They abuse power when they target individuals of whom their collective heart has little regard.

    I’m in favor of going after businesses who hire illegal immigrants, as we have done, and who exploit them. We have a tough circumstance when the immigrant does not want to become a US citizen and wants to work here illegally. They have responsibility to follow the laws; otherwise, they are technically criminals. We do not want little papas and mommas and their little kiddie-ducklings to be criminals. We’d rather live-and-let-live, and it grates us to be any different and that is partly why the problem grew.

    Congress could have solved the crisis alone if they had reformed the laws with both national security and border communities in mind. They are too busy creating crisis with the laws they pass or don’t pass, having in mind expansion of their federal government power and election advantages, instead of the good of America, which is why Congress’ approval ratings are lower this year than Bush's. Congress reached nine percent approval during the summer, and they are now inching up to the high teens, the lowest in US history for any Congress.

    I have not been passionate on this issue probably because it does not affect me directly. We have Hispanics in my area, but my state does not reward illegal immigration with taxpayer funded unlimited social services, and it is not a border state; therefore, we do not suffer many of the problems you probably heard about. The Hispanics in my state are self-supporting and law abiding families successfully building their American Dream. They do not attract law enforcement. You might be surprised to discover how much more conservative they are than most Americans and how they bristle at the socialist dogmas of their native countries. Many are fervent Catholics. I know this because I have conversations with them, and they are part of my daily scene. I do not know if they are legal or not, and it would be rude to ask.

    Complain about this comment

  • 390. At 7:41pm on 26 Oct 2008, Sankari wrote:

    Post #331; jcputn5349 wrote: "Why hasn't the case been closed if it is frivolous? Why isn't the judge satisfied?"

    It has been closed; the judge wasn't satisfied.

    I quote:

    >>
    PHILADELPHIA (AP) — A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's qualifications to be president.

    U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick on Friday night **rejected the suit by attorney Philip J. Berg**, who alleged that Obama was not a U.S. citizen and therefore ineligible for the presidency.

    Berg claimed that Obama is either a citizen of his father's native Kenya or became a citizen of Indonesia after he moved there as a boy.

    Obama was born in Hawaii to an American mother and a Kenyan father. His parents divorced and his mother married an Indonesian man.

    Internet-fueled conspiracy theories question whether Obama is a "natural-born citizen" as required by the Constitution for a presidential candidate and whether he lost his citizenship while living abroad.

    Surrick ruled that **Berg lacked standing to bring the case**, saying any harm from an allegedly ineligible candidate was "too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters."
    >>

    Source: http://tinyurl.com/5z8gq4

    Frivolous lawsuit; already dismissed. You're a bit behind the times.

    "You can't make up reality as you go along to suit your vision of how you wish the world should be".

    Ah, the delicious irony...

    Complain about this comment

  • 391. At 7:49pm on 26 Oct 2008, jcputn5349 wrote:

    388. At 2:43pm on 26 Oct 2008, mulbahmorlu wrote:
    Mccain must bow out! His recovery is as distant from reality as planet Pluto. long live Obamamania, long live global reunification, long live democratic progressivsm!

    Complain about this comment
    ---------------------------------------
    Mulbah,

    You run the risk of disappointment when the only opinions you tolerate agree with your own Marxist worldview:

    From Reutgers: "Obama lead drops five points"

    "Things are trending back for McCain. His numbers are rising and Obama's are dropping on a daily basis. There seems to be a direct correlation between this and McCain talking about the economy," pollster John Zogby said."

    FYI, Polls usually show Dems in the lead at every election, sometimes in double digits much higher than Obama has been getting. Pollsters add more Dem opinions than Reps in efforts to shape the outcome. Guess which side of "global reunification!" the Mainstream Media is on? Guess which side of "democratic progressivsm!" Justin is on? The only opinions that actually matter are Fred and Wilma of Anytown, USA. We won't know the outcome until Nov 4th or beyond...So sit on your Marxist slogans for another week or so. I'll fold up my "Don't tread on me" t-shirt. My wallet and my life are safe for another day.

    ---------------------------------

    To those who asked me q's that I haven't answered yet:

    I'll will be back when I can to answer you and appreciate the opportunity and your time in responding.

    Complain about this comment

  • 392. At 7:56pm on 26 Oct 2008, Sankari wrote:

    Post #358; jcputn5349 wrote: "Obama supporters throw firebombs at the McCain supporter's yard signs, scratch cars with McCain bumper stickers, or carve "B's" on McCain supporter's faces and give young women black eyes".

    False.

    The woman who originally made this claim has now admitted that she was lying:

    >>
    Ashley Todd, 20-year-old college student from Texas, **admitted Friday that the story was false**, including the claim that the "B" stood for "Barack," said Maurita Bryant, the assistant chief of the police department's investigations division.
    >>

    Source: http://tinyurl.com/6okcsj

    My emphasis.

    It's not true. She lied. End of story.

    Complain about this comment

  • 393. At 10:11pm on 26 Oct 2008, TrueToo wrote:

    389 jcputn5349

    Thanks for that comprehensive reply. I'm not American and I got much of my information on Mexican illegals from people like Terry Andersen who is a black American battling the illegals. There is apparently a lot of resentment on the black side and violence from Mexican gangs against blacks and others

    Seems a strange way to live the American dream - come in illegally and work the system - so I can understand the resentment.

    Still, if they are getting the problem under control that's a good thing. I hope it works out for the best.

    Actually I have heard that many of the Hispanics are quite conservative. Since the Republicans are on their side I imagine they would vote for them, but I guess they would have to be legal to vote.

    Wouldn't it be funny if Hispanic Americans swung the vote the Republican way. But I don't suppose there would be any way to determine that.

    Complain about this comment

  • 394. At 04:08am on 27 Oct 2008, jcputn5349 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 395. At 05:50am on 27 Oct 2008, jcputn5349 wrote:

    389 jcputn5349

    Thanks for that comprehensive reply. I'm not American and I got much of my information on Mexican illegals from people like Terry Andersen who is a black American battling the illegals. There is apparently a lot of resentment on the black side and violence from Mexican gangs against blacks and others

    Seems a strange way to live the American dream - come in illegally and work the system - so I can understand the resentment.

    Still, if they are getting the problem under control that's a good thing. I hope it works out for the best.

    Actually I have heard that many of the Hispanics are quite conservative. Since the Republicans are on their side I imagine they would vote for them, but I guess they would have to be legal to vote.

    Wouldn't it be funny if Hispanic Americans swung the vote the Republican way. But I don't suppose there would be any way to determine that.
    -----------------------------------
    Truetoo,

    I can understand your friend's resentment, too. That name seems familiar.

    Those illegal immigrants who vote cast ballots for Democrats because Republicans won't register them or promise them government handouts. It is against the law for illegals to vote, but it is easy to get away with in Democrat controlled districts. Conservative Hispanics would not break that law. They vote absentee ballot in their native countries. Mexican-Americans won Mexico a conservative leader at their last election. Yes, you are right. If they could vote, they might vote for McCain and Palin.

    But, legal Hispanics, I heard, are not partisan. They don't have the deep connection to party history. It's annoying, I know. The only exception is the Cubans in Florida who have always voted Republican. Most Asians are Republican, too. It seems the more totalitarian the regime they escaped the more conservative they are.

    My heart goes out to your friend, and I pray that he wins every righteous battles.

    Nice talking to you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 396. At 05:56am on 27 Oct 2008, Andrew_J2008 wrote:

    Is this deja vu or what?
    As I recall there was a point when CNN etc camp declared Obama's victory over Hilary in PA based on their poll data...

    NOW CNN & rest of the media is chiming in on the consistent (?) 50% lead over McCain?
    Since when is 50% a majority? Is this intimidation tactic or the proverbial measuring the drapes?

    Complain about this comment

  • 397. At 06:09am on 27 Oct 2008, Andrew_J2008 wrote:

    Issue:
    IF Obama DOES hyjack the election (opps, politically incorrect = I mean: anointed THE CHOSEN ONE), how is he going to pay back all the people he has made promises to?

    After all, he has voted 90% with the unpopular democrats, has only TWO years as US Senator witha short career based on running for President, how can he manage it?

    With a VP choice like Bidan is this the leadership the country can look forward too?



    Complain about this comment

  • 398. At 07:02am on 27 Oct 2008, TrueToo wrote:

    395 jcputn5349,

    Thanks for your good wishes. I don't know Terry Andersen but I sometimes listen to his talk show online. He lives in LA, feels that America is under serious threat from illegal aliens and lobbies politicians about the problem. He has this slogan:

    If you ain't mad, you ain't paying attention.

    All the best.

    Complain about this comment

  • 399. At 02:34am on 28 Oct 2008, Stephen Derry wrote:

    Two points for Andrew:

    1) Obama doesn't have a 50% lead over McCain or a majority of support. He has the support of 50% (or whatever the number is today) of the people polled, compared to McCain's 44% (or whatever the number is today). Some people haven't made up their mind.

    Obama has led in every single national poll since the RNC bounce subsided, sometimes by 12% sometimes by 5%. He has also consistently led electoral college projections based on state by state polls. Even the Republican Party acknowledge they are behind in the polls and underdogs to win. That's not media bias, that's the way it is.


    2) Given all the above, plus the Democrats' domination of both houses of Congress, plus their almost certain net gains in the forthcoming elections, where do you get the idea that Democrats are unpopular?

    I think you're confusing the term "unpopular" with "I don't like them."

    Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.