Obama Furious with the Truth—again

Wow... my comment is 12 times more popular than the author's article :-)

By using "again" in the title are you indicating another rehash of a week-and-a-half old story?

Oops, sorry, I didn't read the whole thing. The Jerimiah Wright issue is at least a couple on months old.

You do know Obama smoked marijuana as a youth? As that was well over 20 years ago, I can't imagine how that was overlooked, as we are rehashing old things "again."

How about some new dirt?

I heard that he chewed gum once in class also.

i am glad he was a dope smoker. maybe he will legalize it.

The U.S. Congress is the branch of government where "it" gets "legalized." A president can advocate Cannabis legalization and press the congress to pass the appropriate legislation.

I presume you are thinking of a dictator.

I hope you don't think that you're voting for a dictator in November!

Larry H--if Obama was President and pushed for legalization it would get done. i know how our govt works man.

It is time for the republicans to stop the empty rhetoric, name calling and labeling. 2006 elections, Mississippi, and the Chris Matthews "appeasement" Smack down a couple of days ago, should be evidence that the old politics of emotional rants and empty rhetoric is not working.

It is time for republicans to chill, and come up with sensible arguments as to why they should stay in office. Hillary found it out the hard way. But it seems that republican establishment (not the republican voters) are the old dogs that refuse to learn new tricks. They will suffer the fate of 2006 because it seems they haven't learned the lesson of 2006.

I stopped reading right there. You know, with all those sources you cite at the bottom of your article, one would think that somehow, somewhere, you would have run across the definition of "appeasement."

Get back to me after you've looked it up.

You needn't bother Dennis, people like this aren't capable of doing anything other than repeating bully behavior. It fills a void in their lives, making up for their own personal shortcomings; makes them feel powerful by mimicking those they think have power.

This sets him apart from some on the right who do have a brain and can articulate original thoughts. See how in the first paragraph, he doesn't try to explain the (misunderstood) analogy, he just repeats it, verbatim, because like Bush, he doesn't understand it. A bully said it, and it makes you feel good and manly and intellectual. Once those requirements are satisfied, it's not necessary to think about the matter any deeper than that. It satisfies an emotional need to bully and control to make up for shortcomings in intelligence, self confidence, and insecurity.

Also note how there are no Democrats in this guys world, only leftist Democrats. It's not simple ignorance or illiteracy at work here, it's a sloppy repetition of trying to push an entire party into the extremist category -- a category that is indefensible -- turning an intellectually dishonest opinion into a virtual fact beyond reproach. Often used by conservatives to take everyday disagreements and place them in the realm of evil (abortion is evil, Iran is evil, angry leftist liberal Democrats are evil) so that honest debate is no longer possible. X has been deemed evil, and therefore anyone questioning X must be questioning evil, and therefore is evil.

It is literally the mentality of a child.

Also notice the "Democrat" epithet, another hit with the brainless who can think of no better way to articulate their thoughts and political philosophy than to resort to petty name calling and intentionally misspelling words. It's not surprising that a regular Joe would pick up on this theme, in fact it's what the faction that dominates current conservative culture cannot survive without. It allows them to:

A. Make something up even if it makes them look stupid.
B. Label it in such a way that it cannot be questioned, such as "evil", "extremist", or "far left."
C. Attack anyone questioning A by saying them are now obviously B since A is B.

This kind of logical fallacy should be well known to people who understand and appreciate the nuances of debate. This author I'm sure doesn't fall into that category and may not even realize that he's parroting easily refutable garbage that likes him look worse than the original offender. Yes, Bush was a moron for saying it in the first place, but you repeated it without question, so what does that say about you? And, naturally, you'll never even get that far because questioning A means you're evil, and evil people are to be ignored at all times.

Unlike you, Dennis, I'm going to go a bit further than the first few sentences however.

Until the leftist Democrats again attempt a major rewrite of history, the documented facts are that current Democrat leaders, including but not limited to former US President Jimmy Carter, Speaker of the US House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi and Barack Hussein Obama, have each advocated sitting down to talk with our enemies—or have already done it themselves.

Because people like this author are so ignorant when it comes to politics, they only know two things: What is happening now, and what people are saying about what is happening right now. When Speaker Pelosi took that trip to Syria, the right-wing rage was as strong as it was hypocritical. As documented by Glenn Greenwald on April 5th of last year, former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich antagonized the Clinton administration in 1997 by "sitting down and talking with our enemies".

From the New York Times:

Speaking with startling bluntness on an issue so delicate that diplomats have tiptoed around it for years, Newt Gingrich said today that he had warned China's top leaders that the United States would intervene militarily if Taiwan was attacked.

Asked about Mr. Gingrich's statements, a Clinton Administration official in Washington said Mr. Gingrich had received briefings about American policy toward China, but that Mr. Gingrich ''was speaking for himself'' in his conversations with Chinese leaders.

[Greenwald: "Several days later, Gingrich's remarks in China led to this -- New York Times, April 4, 1997:"]

China admonished the United States today to speak with one voice on foreign policy and accused Newt Gingrich of making ''improper'' statements on Washington's commitment to defend Taiwan from any military attack by the mainland.

The criticism was made by the Foreign Ministry spokesman, Shen Guofang, who earlier this week had expressed basic satisfaction with remarks made by Mr. Gingrich, the Speaker of the House, during a three-day visit to China.

[Greenwald: 'Back then, the media treated Gingrich like he was the American Prime Minister, and his right-wing supporters had no problem with the House Speaker travelling and expressing his own foreign policy views which deviated from the Clinton administration's. Quite the contrary, many right-wing leaders -- including Grover Norquist, Ralph Reed, and Vin Weber -- went on PBS and praised Gingrich's "aggressive role in China."']

"Sitting down and talking with our enemies" is traditionally referred to as diplomacy:

1. Negotiation between nations
2. Subtly skillful handling of a situation
3. Wisdom in the management of public affairs

As has been noted, the definition of appeasement is so different as to border on illiteracy:

1. The act of appeasing (as by acceding to the demands of)

Also note the use of Senator Obama's middle name, another childish expression of fear on the part of the author and conservatives in general, but also a not-so-insignificant level of stupidity. To place empahsis on his middle name like that is to point out ones own fears to the public, only to have it mirrored and amplified by those most prone to being taken advantage of (essentially the conservative base itself.) Rather than giving an impression of strength, people who use a name like that are actually showing their own fear and shallow mental capacity for rational thought and emotional management.

On the other hand, to see it repeated like that as with some of these other things is another paper on the pile pushing the theme of mindless repetition of things one does not understand. There is nothing added to the discussion (if there even is a discussion to be had here) about Senator Obama's middle name, it's just "out there", placed there intentionally to fester in weak minds but just part of the talking point for the regular Joes who don't comprehend, but just repeat.

Recently the arguably worst-US-president-in-history and noted anti-Semite Carter sat down "to talk" with the exiled leader of terrorist Hamas—which has vowed to destroy Israel and now publicly supports Barack Obama for POTUS—and Nancy Pelosi sat down to talk with Syria's terrorist leader Bashar al-Assad.

At this point I'm beginning to wonder if the author -- and I say this with much reservation as it these issues should not be taken lightly -- is even capable of thinking and then composing those thoughts above the grade school level. "Worst president in history" is a phrase that hasn't been common place since the Nixon administration, but has once again come to the fore due to President Bush. Now that the phrase is back in every day use, it's not surprising that it's perceived by some conservatives as a "good insult" rather than a literal description of a man and his entire administration. Their level of comprehension doesn't exceed adolescent name calling and therefore anything directed and their own as automatically an insult, like a rock thrown on the playground. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that you can do nothing more than substitute a persons name after the insult, and it'll all work out in the end. If Bush is the "worst president ever", than so is every Democratic president who has ever lived. Today it's Carter, yesterday it was Clinton. The day after Obama's likely inauguration, it'll be him too.

It doesn't matter what public opinion polls say, whether the majority of the country actually does want us to sit down with Syria and Iran and try to work things out without resorting to more bloodshed. Those are matters of substance, and hence no interest to this author.

So often have conservatives painted virtually every Middle East nation as a supporter of terror, that even heads of state are now terrorists in their minds. "...Syria's terrorist leader Bashar al-Assad."

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad met with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani in Syria on 21 January 2007 and discussed terrorism in the Middle East and the situation in Iraq. They issued a a joint statement condemning "all forms of terrorism plaguing the Iraqi people and their institutions, infrastructure and security service." Assad and Talabani expressed "readiness to work together and do everything possible to eradicate terrorism."

I'm pointing this out for a reason. Hamas says it can't accept anything but the total destruction of Israel. Bashar is accused of supporting terrorism but says he wants to eradicate it. One of them is lying, possibly both. Nobody knows for sure because nobody is actually interested on finding out.

We lie when it suits our purposes and we accept lies too. That doesn't make it honest, right, or safe.

Getting back to this, "..noted anti-Semite Carter." This is like saying "the noted war veteran George W. Bush", a person who has never served in a war. Ever. This is in fact notable because it signifies the presence of the speaker in a very small group of people, principally the extreme right of the Republican party. It is not the favored belief in the American Jewish community nor is it even a majority opinion in Israel. It is unique in a very small but powerful segment in the United States that in many instances places wants and needs of a foreign country above our own.

The only way to defend that, given how irrational it is, is to pigeon hole the offender by placing them in the indefensible category. Evil. Far-left. Anti-Semite.

Among those that are not in this intellectually dishonest group, they are still prone to equating criticism of Israeli policy towards the hatred of Israel and its people. It is as empty as it is offensive.

Both of these Democrat "leaders" were operating in a rogue manner outside of US policy towards terrorist and terrorist-sponsoring states.

Just like Republican leaders do when they aren't in the White House. Imagine that.

Obama is also furious that he has been cited—by some accounts over 20 times—wanting to "sit down and talk with Iran"—a self-proclaimed enemy of the US, Israel and all Western countries—without any and all pre-conditions.

President Bush has rejected virtually every opportunity for diplomacy over the years and fostered the notion in the public that diplomacy is a sign of weakness and is actually worse than war. The obvious result is lots of war, and the obvious cause is a weak man making up for his shortcomings by overcompensating. A person with no strength doesn't understand what real strength is, doesn't understand that part of being strong is being restrained -- that in fact the ultimate test of strength is restraining ones self.

That approach is not working, it's time to try our ideas now.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has on numerous occasions called for the extermination of both Israel and all Western Civilization.

The authors inability to distinguish between rhetoric and reality, shared disturbingly with the Republican leadership that was overwhelmingly rejected in 2006 and looks to be overwhelming rejected this fall.

Iran is also in the process of building nuclear bombs—in defiance of United Nations' mandates and the rest of the world.

Ironically, so is Israel. Probably didn't know that, did you? Do you think Iran would feel like it needed nuclear weapons if Israel didn't already have a hundred of its own? Wouldn't you want some if a super power had just invaded two of your neighbors and was threatening to invade you as well?

I would.

Now I'd like to finish this, but I've got to leave (home). I'll definitely be back to wrap this up later tonight or tomorrow.

I'm home now now, it's a little past 3am and I'm not sure that after reading some of the comments here and the total lack of response by the author that it's worth my time to continue. What remains is just more of the same shallow, thoughtless repetition of right-wing talking points, some that have already been put to bed because they just didn't work as intended. That's all the proof one needs that it was never meant to be seriously discussed but was an attempt to link the actions of one person to another when the two were in fact entirely independent of each other. This has already been well covered by progressives -- nobody wants to call McCain on his extremist supporters that have called Catholics whores or saying that New Orleans deserved Katrina for tolerating gay pride parades and that it was God's punishment. These are not even a stones throw away from saying that we deserved September 11th, they are precisely the same type of ignorant hate.

It is off-topic to ask that conservatives also be held to this ridiculous standard because there's no real defense for it. To approach it as unreasonable to hold one person responsible for the actions of another is so far beyond that, that it's not even considered. It lives in precisely the place these attacks should be, buried under a rock somewhere.

The attempted linking between Senator Obama and Ayers -- a loathsome person who has never been charged or convicted in a court of law with any wrong doing -- is of exactly the same ilk as the Wright association. But the process is really similar to what I've described above. It's not that conservatives really hate Ayers, that they fear him, think he's relevant in any way to the election. Because of what he's said, they've labeled him "evil" and by associating him with Obama, that makes Obama evil. Questioning that assertion makes the questioner evil as well, a theme that by now we should all be very familiar with.

No where do you find Senator Obama defending Ayers has McCain has defended Hege and Pat Roberts, where the later's actions really are as indefensible as they are reprehensible. The links aren't much more than "they aren't mortal enemies therefore they must be friends." Being friends with evil, we now know, makes you evil. Defending evil also makes you evil. That's pretty much as deep as this "intellectual hole" goes.

Next comes the long-ago discredited attempts to paint Obama -- a well known and devout Christian -- as a Muslim, something Christian leaders I should think would find disturbing as it not only coops religion for political gain, but is in no small part a form of religious racism, as if being a Muslim is somehow bad all by itself. Smears and lies such as this are a large part of why Obama lost by such a large margin in poor, uneducated areas of West Virginia and other parts of the south and raises questions as to whether or not the author of this article too is that uneducated, or is simply repeating information he knows to be in fact a lie -- a violation of the CoH I might add.

Finally we come to the end where Obama is declared not to "appear to be for America", something I find so baffling that there's just no way to approach it from a logical standpoint. Because Obama has been subjected to logical fallacies by conservatives unconcerned with substantiative issues -- something they can't ever win on -- he's "not for America." Being for America, as we have all learned just now, is being able to use logical fallacies and spreading character-based smears on your political opponents, because that's all there is in this essay.

Not only is that not surprising, it's the blue print for conservative political victory. If we're talking about Ayers and Wright and lapel pins then we're not talking about the GOP keeping us in Iraq for another 100 years. We're not talking about how the conservative nominee's only plan for ending this recession is to just keep doing more of the same. There's no room for more common-sense regulation of Wall Street and the financial sector when all we talk about his John Edwards' hair and Senator Clinton's bad memory and Governor Dean's "scream" moment.

The GOP wins on these issues because these issues allow them to skate by without having to answer for their mistakes and their complete lack of foresight. Democrats don't just lose when the media and small minded pundits not just focus on, but amplify this garbage, the entire country suffers.

Republicans and Democrats alike.

If the public is presented with the facts, conservatives don't just lose in this fall election, they'll get wiped out just as they in the 2006 mid-terms. They are terrified of it, and will avoid having to answer the tough questions at all costs. They'll smile and be charming, because it's all they're good at. They equate being intelligent with being an elitist while the rest of us who have suffered under the leadership of fools beg for a visionary with a brain to get us the hell out of this mess. Maybe it's not Obama, but it's impossible to know if we allow these pathetic smears to go unchallenged. They can't be silenced with tit-far-that, but only if they are exposed for what they are.

The last thing I wanted to do was spend my Saturday debunking the kind of trash that has already been debunked countless times before, but it has to be done if we're to rid society of it.

This kind of bull@!$%# has simply got to stop.

Paul William,

You should turn all that into an article so it doesn't get lost. That way, when these shills show up with this stuff, and they will, we can just link back to you in the first comment.

Perhaps sometime this evening or during the week. Thank you for the suggestion.

That would be nice as I really do not want to clip this worthless article, but I would like to save what you wrote Paul as that was excellent.

When I come across an article such as this I invariably have strong feelings of ambivalence. On the one hand there's the powerful visceral reaction that is outrage. As with the proponents of Intelligent Design, the crime is not blatant ignorance so much as the individual's insistence on inflicting that ignorance on the rest of the world.

While it's true that everyone has a right to their opinion, some people still think the moon is made out of green cheese (they read it somewhere)!

Alternatively, it occurs to me that had none of us dignified this "author" with a response, this nonsense would have died a quiet, pathetic death.

Well, since I'm in, I may as well make my point: by all means, SHER ZIEVE, let's continue to ignore, disrespect, de-humanize, de-stabilize and/or inflict military harm on any country that disagrees with us--because, you know, it's been working so well up till now!

For the record, Bill Clinton summed up the "misguided ideology" problem in this speech segment: philosphy vs. ideology

Alternatively, it occurs to me that had none of us dignified this "author" with a response, this nonsense would have died a quiet, pathetic death.

In an ideal world that may be true, but this world focuses on these things to the point of obsession. The only way to really make them go away is to not just refute points, but it show the flaws in a persons way of thinking. If you ignore them, they'll keep talking regardless, searching for something even more flamboyant that will get a response.

If you say, "no, you're wrong" they'll just ignore you and keep going. If you say "not only is that wrong, it's been understood to be a fallacy for over two thousand years" they may think twice about repeating things that do more than just look partisan, but actually make them look epically stupid. Nobody likes that and may choose to think before speaking in the future. Others will just keep on going no matter what you do, and by pointing out errors of logic to some people that will listen, you'll have at least reduced those who do not care to the fringe minority which is really the best you can hope for.

in an ideal world that may be true... ...Others will just keep on going no matter what you do, and by pointing out errors of logic to some people that will listen, you'll have at least reduced those who do not care to the fringe minority which is really the best you can hope for.

Well, I'm not sure that I agree with your conclusion. I would say that, despite the overwhelming nature of the evidence and counter-arguments, these types of ideologues have certainly NOT been reduced to anything even resembling a "fringe minority".

As Clinton said, the definition of an ideologue is someone who's already made up their mind and therefore tends to deny or ignore any facts or countervailing arguments regardless of the rationality.

It's been my experience in the real world that changing one's fundamental beliefs requires an effort/incident more akin to "getting beaten with a baseball bat" than any intellectual debate supported by empirical evidence.

That's not to say that we should stop trying. As I indicated in my original post I felt ambivalent. I'm convinced that, for example, a person's irrational patriotism is far more likely to be changed after being blown up by a road-side bomb than any verbiage written by you or me.

Alternatively, it occurs to me that had none of us dignified this "author" with a response, this nonsense would have died a quiet, pathetic death.

I see your point but consider people other than the author of the piece may have learnt something.

Also, to be honest, the whole 'antibodies surrounding the infection and annihilating it till only the residue of stock transparent face-saving condescension remains' kinda appeals to my inner pug.

I'm ignoring the author now, I'm certainly not wedded to this substandard dross but will give any new entrant who uses the presumption of emotionally led stupidity as the basis for their business model the same attention.

I have to say I found the phrase "strong feelings of ambivalence" deft.

and as to your second post, I believe kindness and patience can be used to good effect if you are actually dealing with and individual rather than a 'semi-professional'

It requires withstanding heaps of aggressive provocation though.

I see your point but consider people other than the author of the piece may have learnt something.

That's a very good point winsome. Thanks to you and Paul I have something to think about as well.

It requires withstanding heaps of aggressive provocation though.

Ain't it the truth! "It takes a busload of faith to get by" (song by Lou Reed).

:)

wow, after Paul William Tenny's reply I'll revise that to tossing the entire individual into a woodchipper and then soaking the residue in rye.

"lye"

I like to drink my victims afterwards, you have a problem with that?

Not in this instance ;)

How many times do I need to warn you kids about consuming toxic ingredients? *smirk*

He he. Such sleuthiness.

Pamela,

You forgot to say "Welcome to Newsvine."

heh.

You forgot to say "Welcome to Newsvine."

I thought that omitting the term Wench, captured my welcoming spirit well enough. *smirk*

Thank you Pamela. Thank you Paul William Tenny. Thank you also, Winsome. Any time I feel a bit sick of nv I'm reminded of how great some of the people here are.

Maybe they have a good reason to worry about Obama, because his interests aren't theirs. They love Dubbya though. If history teaches us anything from the Bush Administration it's what blind support for the petrochemical, big oil and banking families does for Americans. BooYah, ain't no better way to prove Patriotismn than through record profits for Wall Street's favorite Board Members!!

Gee!....Maybe you're right!
....And it seems they've [Wall St.] already shifted gears....Doesn't it?

So much for the "King of SmallChange"!

Subscribe
CAMPAIGN '08
Clinton, Obama are Wall Street darlings Donations to Democratic campaigns prompt concern that the candidates will go soft on regulation of the financial markets. By Janet Hook and Dan Morain, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers March 21, 2008 WASHINGTON -- Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, who are running for president as economic populists, are benefiting handsomely from Wall Street donations, easily surpassing Republican John McCain in campaign contributions from the troubled financial services sector. It is part of a broader fundraising shift toward Democrats, compared to past campaigns when Republicans were the favorites of Wall Street. Some Democrats worry that the influx of money will make their candidates less willing to call for increased regulation of financial markets, which have been in turmoil after a wave of foreclosures on sub-prime mortgages. These concerned Democrats argue that their candidates, and presumptive Republican nominee McCain, should be willing to push for financial institutions to accept more government regulation -- in exchange for likely future bailouts, such as the recent deal the Federal Reserve orchestrated for JPMorgan Chase & Co. to take over Bear Stearns Cos. "I want to hear Clinton, Obama and McCain talk about a quid pro quo," said Jared Bernstein, an economist with the Democratic-leaning Economic Policy Institute. "If we don't hear it, especially from Democrats, it makes sense to ask why not and ask if they are inappropriately cozy with the financial services industry."

Thank you Pamela. Thank you Paul William Tenny. Thank you also, Winsome. Any time I feel a bit sick of nv I'm reminded of how great some of the people here are.

My pleasure.

DjehutyThank you Pamela. Thank you Paul William Tenny. Thank you also, Winsome. Any time I feel a bit sick of nv I'm reminded of how great some of the people here are. Paul William TennyThank you Pamela. Thank you Paul William Tenny. Thank you also, Winsome. ...............My pleasure.

Is this some kind of "Academy Awards" show?

you may not be aware but gratitude sometimes takes place outside the TV.

Is this some kind of ...

winsomecowboy
you may not be aware but gratitude sometimes takes place outside the TV.

Are you watching TV?
What do my [ above ] words mean? Are there Academies for other than Actors?
Are all shows on TV?

sorry.

Are all shows on TV?

Nope, mine is a feature film, banned from American television. Thanks for remembering indies too!

banned from American television.

But legal on Croatian TV ? oh oh, better call the cops....I think I just busted the case wide open......

Woman sat dead in front of TV for 42 years

Sorry Pamela, That was just the perfect opening, actually I love your video, I think I have watched it now about 10 times...

Gotcha! :~)

No doubt 'tis far better to be on my side than in my sites. Pay me the ultimate compliment by giving me all three syllables, a mere three more letters and go for Pamela rather than shorten it. :~)

You forgot to say "Welcome to Newsvine."

I am really sorry about that also guys, but...I just couldn't find anyone that would say it.
Does anyone have Ann Coulter's email address ? She might say offer something nice...

She might say offer something nice...

Honesty, where is Bandit when we need him?

Gawd--I hope it was not me?

Is there a way to check?

A thousand apologies if so...

JUST WAIT TIL YOUR FATHER COMES HOME!

OK own up! who clicked the 'post comment and vote' button by mistake.

Maybe Sher tried to see if it worked. She does seem to be going for a low profile in the comments.

well see it doesn't matter. It's the enemy of my enemy is my friend basic technique. You just have to put this stuff out, it cannot survive rational exposure so just putting it somewhere where it's read is the point.

Here are the assets involved in this production.

* every eyeball that reads this article is engaged and absorbent on more than one level with the emotionally laden content.

*That content may be consciously rejected but even in the rejection there is an acceptance that the opinions stated are validly held by another human being, thus the concepts broadcast are given validity in that at the barest minimum. {the fact that people are paid to fabricate these mock emotions and perspectives and enter them into the body politic should at the very least show you they serve a very real purpose in creating a 'fog of politics' wherein doubt is created and the subsequent insecurity made available for further exploitation by other, seemingly unrelated means]

this is advertising, not 101 but midlevel. [The most powerful advertising is subconscious while feigning empowerment, as such it suits politics well]

*Time spent digesting this pabulum on any level is time spent distracted from other things, activities, subjects, that certainly have a greater significance in the readers life. In simple terms distraction is a goal and focus is an operatives worst enemy. Thus far there have been a handful of newsviners, all completely opposed to the content of this article, yet all [myself included] took time and energy to address it because it was seductively vulnerable to us, or if you like objectionable.

* Still people wait, hoping this 'individual' will engage them. It's only natural. However this is not an 'individual' this is an employee paid to bull@!$%# by bull@!$%#ters with masters degrees in psyche and years of experience.

* all this stuff is incremental and steadfastly changes the political landscape, it's taken for granted now every-ones been slowly marinated in it but simply put the definition of bull@!$%# is constant whereas the ability to perceive it fluctuates, well not so much fluctuates as progressively decreases till rational people doubt their own perceptions and at that point the millions paid these pathetic cynical subhuman walking breathing turds is harvested for as any advertising expert will tell you doubt and insecurity, via subconscious realignment due to cerebral bombardment, the creation of jarring contrasts in form, content and emotional entrapment. {how many of you still want to talk with this woman even though you consider you have nothing in common but your humanity and ability to reason? See again it's only natural which is why it's so easy to distract you [and me, but I have my own hobbies you understand]

*here's a tip, if it appeals to your emotions it's bull@!$%#, either party.If it appeals to your intellect then you've inadvertantly gone back in time to sometime round the early 20th century when it was last seen in politics.

end of @!$%#ing lesson

I think the author realized he could vote his own article.

winsomecowboy--thought you were going to say "medieval" rather than "midlevel"

great stuff you wrote there man!

He's prone to error as well.

And Conservatives seem to be prone to ignoring the last 8 years of persons they implicitly endorse as President.

Definitely, Dubya was the best choice of all fielded candidates. We shouldn't lose sight of that.

Definitely, Dubya was the best choice of all fielded candidates. We shouldn't lose sight of that.

Wow. Just...wow.

yeah, its totally unfair comparing Obama to Bush though. too easy to make Obama look good.

Definitely, Dubya was the best choice of all fielded candidates. We shouldn't lose sight of that.....Wow. Just...wow.

You're just looking at it all wrong, Mr.Tenney. Has anyone done more for Defense Contractors, Investment Banks, toxic polluters, big oil or the teeny, tiny pool of extraordinarily wealthy? No.

Dubbya delivered big time for his Wall Street friendsters. It's only the rest of the world that look at the price of his Presidency in terms of losses! There is always a big winner on the other side of the losses. It's a matter of which glass you toast with. Time to switch glasses, eh?

"TurdBlossom"

It is a time honored favorite, but wonderful every time!