He got a look when Biden was making wise cracks about Justice Roberts at the swearing in. sm

• Obama gets irritated at - reporter.
  • He got a look when Biden was making wise cracks about Justice Roberts at the swearing in. sm - EmmaT
    • Ya know....I truly wonder if - Chele
  • Not surprising. Reporters ARE irritating. - !!!
    • Reporters are supposed to ask those questions.... - what we must remember.......sm
      • with designated time and place - N/M

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

My take on it is that this is a country founded on Christian principles.  The swearing in should be done with a Bible.  The Muslim gentleman swearing in on a Bible is no different than any other nonChristian swearing in on a Bible, which has been going on for years.  I am sure that not every member of Congress is Christian, but they all swore in on a Bible.   NonChristians are sworn in on a Bible in courthouses across this country on an almost daily basis.  The reason I say this is not just faith-based but also an effort to protect this country and its beginnings, our traditions, our history, etc.  The more we cave in on things like this, the further we slide down the slippery slope.  We need to be aware and very careful about our choices...as people seek to remove God from our public lives...and we need to be very extra careful about who or what they might seek to replace Him with.  It begins very quietly and insidiously....and I also believe that there will come a day when there are many who will wish they had not been so quick to want to remove God and His influence.  Just my take on it.

Never hurts to inject a little humor into such a serious subject.  Loved the graphics of the 50 jacked-up cars in the front yard. 

Think the capital “B” came about sometime in the early 80s in the aftermath the B/black-awareness phase of the civil rights movement, i.e., “I’m B/black and I’m proud,” and/or “B/black is b/Beautiful.”    Seems like w/Whites were given permission to use it as a socially acceptable replacement for the N/n-word.  As I recall, the capital “B” confers the same status vis a vis the capital “C” as in cracker, oops whitey, uh make that honky, er I mean C/caucasian.    

Maybe we could start a movement to introduce the C/c-word into the dictionary, all things being equal.  We might get by with adding the H/h-word to replace h/Honky in rap so as not to offend.  Broadcast media could use them to replace the bleeps during prime time. 

The first QA was probably a bleeding-heart liberal who was showing uncommon QA sensitivity and the second one was probably a bigot who didn’t get her email from the first.  Should have run this by the PC Editor before I posted it just to make sure I covered all the bases.

Maybe Fox's website???...ROFL.

her religious views from legal views?  Apparently NOT, if, during this secret conference call, a very select few Americans were privy to the information that, in fact, she WOULD overturn Roe v. Wade because of her religious beliefs.

If religion can't be a reason to exclude someone from the bench, it likewise can't be used as a reason to INCLUDE someone on the bench, as Bush attempted to do as a way to reassure his base *wink, wink, nod, nod* that they shouldn't worry, *She's one of US.*

That's only one troubling aspect of her nomination, though.  Even Robert Bork *borked* her, saying she is a *disaster* and that she was a terrible writer.

The fact that she's judged Bush to be the most *brilliant* man she's ever met casts even further doubt about her ability to *judge* (but I admit that's an extension of my personal opinion and doesn't really count).

John Roberts is reported to be a very devout Catholic, yet nobody raised an eyebrow about that because his religion was never an issue.  Bush himself MADE it an issue.

Can you name me even ONE evangelical who would NOT vote to overturn Roe? 

It's becoming clearer and clearer every day that this woman was nominated (1) because she's a Bush crony and (2) because she will guarantee that Roe will be overturned based on her own personal beliefs, not based on established legal precedent.

You know, the laws this country was founded on.  Tell me where it's written that our troops fight overseas and are killed for a corrupt president who LIES?????  They are fighting for oil and power, not our safety.  And we're supposed to just pretend it isn't so?  Even Colin Powell can't remain silent about Bush's treachery. 

Ruth Bader Ginsberg is a card carrying member of the ACLU with all it's wackiness.

It's only when a conservative is nominated that they better not have affiliations with anything *gasp* religious or conservative leaning.

Not buying that double standard.  Nice try though...

Wednesday 18 February 2009

President Barack Obama. (Photo: Gerald Herbert / AP)

my initial uninformed "gut" reaction was that he was a "good guy."  In fact, I had to check my pulse to make sure I still had one because I found myself approving of something Bush did.

The fact that he would take on this kind of case pro bono just confirms that my "gut" reaction was right (hopefully).

Sometimes karma has a way of kicking someone right smack in the butt when they come from a place of hatred, inequality and superiority.  I truly hope this is the case here and that Bush, even if inadvertently, happened to finally make a good decision.

This is getting ridiculous.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iVg2jiaBA1jwVfCdsisXI0FbZD0AD965BKCG0

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29030191/

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/08/hunter-biden-joe-biden-anthony-lotito.php

I believe his role was a bit larger than you suggested.  "Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. provided significant help to gay activists in a 1996 landmark Supreme Court case protecting gays from discrimination based upon their sexual orientation, the Los Angeles Times reported Thursday.

At the time, Roberts was a lawyer specializing in appellate work for Hogan & Hartson, a large D.C.-based law firm. Walter A. Smith, Jr., then head of the pro bono department of the firm, told the paper that Roberts didn't hesitate. "He said, 'Let's do it.' And it's illustrative of his open-mindedness, his fair-mindedness. He did a brilliant job."

At any rate, he's been portrayed him as a fair-minded, tolerant, fair person, and I'm glad President Bush nominated him because I believe we need a person like that in the Supreme Court.  I also hope if the president has another appointment to make that he chooses Alberto Gonzalez, who I also think has those qualities.

Have you even bothered to take the time to notice that EVERY SINGLE POST ON THIS BOARD about Judge Roberts is a POSITIVE POST???

What planet are you from, anyway?  Is your life so pathetic that the only pleasure you get is from stalking people on this board in the bizarre way you do and constantly put them down personally?  Dang.  You need a Happy Meal, dude. 

Secondly, to my democratic friends, have any of you watched the John Roberts' confirmation hearings?  I have been watching for two days now..In fact, right now they are in recess, so I thought..let me check out the MTStars political board..MSN news video site on the computer has live hearings and they are fascinating..I have to tell you, so far I kind of like Judge Roberts..My only hesitation is Bush recommended him..

Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel issued the following statement following the U.S. Department of Justice’s denial of preclearance of Georgia’s voter verification process

Atlanta - “The decision by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to deny preclearance of Georgia’s already implemented citizenship verification process shows a shocking disregard for the integrity of our elections. With this decision, DOJ has now barred Georgia from continuing the citizenship verification program that DOJ lawyers helped to craft. DOJ’s decision also nullifies the orders of two federal courts directing Georgia to implement the procedure for the 2008 general election. The decision comes seven months after Georgia requested an expedited review of the preclearance submission.

“DOJ has thrown open the door for activist organizations such as ACORN to register non-citizens to vote in Georgia’s elections, and the state has no ability to verify an applicant’s citizenship status or whether the individual even exists. DOJ completely disregarded Georgia’s obvious and direct interest in preventing non-citizens from voting, instead siding with the ACLU and MALDEF. Clearly, politics took priority over common sense and good public policy.
 
“This process is critical to protecting the integrity of our elections. We have evidence that non-citizens have voted in past Georgia elections and that more than 2,100 individuals have attempted to register, yet still have questions regarding their citizenship. Further, the Inspector General’s office is investigating more than 30 cases of non-citizens casting ballots in Georgia elections, including the case of a Henry County non-citizen who registered to vote and cast ballots in 2004 and 2006.

“It is important to underscore that not a single person has come forward to say he or she could not vote because of the verification process. Further, while DOJ argues that the process is somehow discriminatory, the historic voter turnout among Hispanic and African-American voters in the 2008 general elections clearly says otherwise.

“This decision provides a specific example of the inherently illogical and unfair nature of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. It is a sad day for the rights of our state and for the integrity of our elections. I remain committed to continuing the fight for citizenship verification. In the coming days, I will consider every option available to the state, including the possibility of legal action.”

Background:

As required by law and ordered by federal courts in October 2008, the eligibility of new applicants to register and vote is checked against the Georgia Department of Driver Services (DDS) and Social Security Administration databases to ensure that individuals registering to vote report similar information. If information in these databases does not match information reported on the voter registration form, the applicant is asked to clarify the information. Additionally, if the applicant previously reported to DDS that he or she is not a U.S. citizen, that person is asked by a registrar to provide proof of citizenship.

Prior to the November 2008 General Election, Secretary Handel sent letters to 4,771 voter registration applicants whose records at DDS indicated they were not U.S. citizens, asking them to provide documentation of their citizenship. As of March 2009, 2,148 of these applicants still have chosen not to resolve the question about their U.S. citizenship.

In the November 2008 General Election, county election officials reported that 599 individuals cast a challenged ballot because the voter had previously indicated to DDS that he or she was not a United States citizen and had not resolved their status with county officials at the time of the election. Of those, 369 ballots were accepted because the voter provided documentation of their citizenship after the election; and 230 were rejected because the individual chose not to confirm his or her citizenship status.

On October 10, 2008, activist organizations including the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit to attempt to prevent Georgia from verifying the eligibility of applicants to register and vote in the November General Election, including whether those individuals were citizens of the United States.

On October 16, 2008, U.S. District Court Judge Jack Camp denied the motion by MALDEF and ACLU; directed the State to continue the verification process; and acknowledged the State’s requirements to verify information under the Help America Vote Act. In his order, Judge Camp stated:

HAVA requires that Defendant Handel match information in the statewide voter registration database with information from the Georgia DDS and the SSA databases “to the extent necessary to enable each such official to verify the accuracy of the information provided on the applications for voter registration.”

Judge Camp also stated: ...

       www.sfgate.com        Return to regular view

(08-05) 19:27 PDT DENVER (AP) --

A decade ago, John Roberts played a valuable role helping attorneys overturn a Colorado referendum that would have allowed discrimination against gays — free assistance the Supreme Court nominee didn't mention in a questionnaire he filled out for the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The revelation didn't appear to dent his popularity among conservative groups nor quell some of the opposition of liberal groups fearful he could help overturn landmark decisions such as Roe v. Wade, which guarantees a right to an abortion.

An attorney who worked with Roberts cautioned against making guesses about his personal views based on his involvement in the Colorado case, which gay rights advocates consider one of their most important legal victories.

"It may be that John and others didn't see this case as a gay-rights case," said Walter Smith, who was in charge of pro bono work at Roberts' former Washington law firm, Hogan & Hartson.

Smith said Roberts may instead have viewed the case as a broader question of whether the constitutional guarantee of equal protection prohibited singling out a particular group of people that wouldn't be protected by an anti-discrimination law.

"I don't think this gives you any clear answers, but I think it's a factor people can and should look at to figure out what this guy is made of and what kind of Supreme Court justice he would make," Smith said.

On Friday, Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans released two memos by Roberts when he was as an assistant counsel in the Reagan White House. In one, Roberts argued that President Reagan should not interfere in a Kentucky case involving the display of tributes to God in schools.

In the other, Roberts writes that Reagan shouldn't grant presidential pardons to bombers of abortion clinics. "The president unequivocally condemns such acts of violence," he wrote in a draft reply to a lawmaker seeking Reagan's position. "No matter how lofty or sincerely held the goal, those who resort to violence to achieve it are criminals."

Meanwhile, the Justice Department denied a request by Judiciary Committee Democrats for Roberts' writings on 16 cases he handled when he was principal deputy solicitor general during President George H.W. Bush's administration. The department also declined to provide the materials, other than those already publicly available, to The Associated Press and other organizations that sought them under the Freedom of Information Act.

"We cannot provide to the committee documents disclosing the confidential legal advice and internal deliberations of the attorneys advising the solicitor general," assistant Attorney General William E. Moschella wrote Friday to the eight committee Democrats.

Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the panel's senior Democrat, said Roberts made decisions whether to pursue legal appeals in more than 700 cases. "The decision to keep these documents under cover is disappointing," Leahy said.

The gay rights case involved Amendment 2, a constitutional amendment approved by Colorado voters in 1992 that would have barred laws, ordinances or regulations protecting gays from discrimination by landlords, employers or public agencies such as school districts.

Gay rights groups sued, and the measure was declared unconstitutional in a 6-3 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1996.

Roberts' role in the case, disclosed this week by the Los Angeles Times, included helping develop a strategy and firing tough questions during a mock court session at Jean Dubofsky, a former Colorado Supreme Court justice who argued the case on behalf of the gay rights plaintiffs.

Dubofsky, who did not return calls Friday, said Roberts helped develop the strategy that the law violated the equal protection clause in the Constitution — and prepared her for tough questions from conservative members of the court. She recalled how Justice Antonin Scalia asked for specific legal citations.

"I had it right there at my fingertips," she told the Times. "Roberts was just terrifically helpful in meeting with me and spending some time on the issue. He seemed to be very fair-minded and very astute."

Dubofsky had never argued before the Supreme Court. Smith said she called his firm and asked specifically for help from Roberts, who argued 39 cases before the court before he was confirmed as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., in 2003.

Smith said any lawyer at Hogan & Hartson would have had the right to decline to work on any case for moral, religious or other reasons.

"If John had felt that way about this case, given that he is a brilliant lawyer, he would have just said, `This isn't my cup of tea' and I would have said, `Fine, we'll look for something else that would suit you,'" Smith said.

The Lambda Legal Defense Fund, which helped move the case through the state and federal courts, said Roberts' involvement raised more questions about him than it answered because of his "much more extensive advocacy of positions that we oppose," executive director Kevin Cathcart said.

"This is one more piece that will be added to the puzzle in the vetting of John Roberts' nomination," Cathcart said.

The Rev. Lou Sheldon, founder of the Traditional Values Coalition, said his support for Roberts' nomination has not diminished. "He wasn't the lead lawyer. They only asked him to play a part where he would be Scalia in a mock trial," Sheldon said.

Focus on the Family Action, the political arm of the Colorado Springs-based conservative Christian ministry Focus on the Family, said Roberts' involvement was "certainly not welcome news to those of us who advocate for traditional values," but did not prompt new concerns about his nomination, which the group supports.

"That's what lawyers do — represent their firm's clients, whether they agree with what those clients stand for or not," the group said in a statement.

URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/08/05/national/w135401D98.DTL

Roberts resisted women’s rights

1982-86 memos detail court nominee’s skepticism

var cssList = new Array(); getCSS("3216310")

By Amy Goldstein, R. Jeffrey Smith and Jo Becker

Updated: 11:48 p.m. ET Aug. 18, 2005

Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. consistently opposed legal and legislative attempts to strengthen women's rights during his years as a legal adviser in the Reagan White House, disparaging what he called "the purported gender gap" and, at one point, questioning "whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good."

In internal memos, Roberts urged President Reagan to refrain from embracing any form of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment pending in Congress; he concluded that some state initiatives to curb workplace discrimination against women relied on legal tools that were "highly objectionable"; and he said that a controversial legal theory then in vogue -- of directing employers to pay women equally to men for jobs of "comparable worth" -- was "staggeringly pernicious" and "anti-capitalist."

getCSS("3176006")

Roberts's thoughts on what he called "perceived problems" of gender bias are contained in a vast batch of documents, released yesterday, that provide the clearest, most detailed mosaic so far of his political views on dozens of social and legal issues. Senators have said they plan to mine his past views on such topics, which could come before the high court, when his confirmation hearings begin the day after Labor Day.

---

---

Covering a period from 1982 to 1986 -- during his tenure as associate counsel to President Reagan -- the memos, letters and other writings show that Roberts endorsed a speech attacking "four decades of misguided" Supreme Court decisions on the role of religion in public life, urged the president to hold off saying AIDS could not be transmitted through casual contact until more research was done, and argued that promotions and firings in the workplace should be based entirely on merit, not affirmative action programs.

In October 1983, Roberts said that he favored creation of a national identity card to prove American citizenship, even though the White House counsel's office was officially opposed to the idea. He wrote that such measures were needed in response to the "real threat to our social fabric posed by uncontrolled immigration."

He also, the documents illustrate, played a bit role in the Reagan administration's efforts in Nicaragua to funnel assistance to CIA-supported "contras" who were trying overthrow the Marxist Sandinista government.

In one instance, Roberts had a direct disagreement with the senator who now wields great influence over his confirmation prospects, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.). In a 1983 memo, Roberts was dismissive of a "white paper" on violent crime that had been drafted by one of Specter's aides. Noting that the paper proposed new expenditures of $8 billion to $10 billion a year, Roberts wrote: "The proposals are the epitome of the 'throw the money at the problem' approach repeatedly rejected by Administration spokesmen."

President Bush nominated Roberts, now a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, four weeks ago.

Yesterday's deluge of more than 38,000 pages of documents has particular political significance -- because of their content and their timing. The papers, held in the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California, are likely to be the last major set of written material from Roberts's past to become public before his confirmation hearings.

Extensive insight
Senate Democrats have been pressing the Bush administration to release Roberts's files from the highest-ranking position he has held in the executive branch, as the Justice Department's deputy solicitor general from 1989 to 1993 under President George H.W. Bush. But administration officials have asserted that those records should remain private on the grounds of attorney-client privilege.

Previously released documents, from slightly earlier in the Reagan era, when Roberts was a special assistant to Attorney General William French Smith, have established that the young attorney was immersed in civil rights issues of the time, including school desegregation, voting rights and bias in hiring and housing. The new batch provides the most extensive insight into Roberts's views of efforts to expand opportunity for women in the workplace and higher education.

Fool me once, shame on you....etc.

I feel better knowing Congress is smart enough to not believe BU_ _ SH _ _ twice from this farce of a president.

Roberts: Iraq Will Affect Future War Votes
Experience With Faulty Data Has Made Senators More Wary, Panel Chairman Says

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 14, 2005; A04

The Republican chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence said yesterday that one lesson of the faulty prewar intelligence on Iraq is that senators would take a hard look at intelligence before voting to go to war.

I think a lot of us would really stop and think a moment before we would ever vote for war or to go and take military action, Sen. Pat Roberts (Kan.) said on Fox News Sunday.

We don't accept this intelligence at face value anymore, he added. We get into preemptive oversight and do digging in regards to our hard targets.

He said that agreement has been reached on the Phase 2 review that the intelligence panel is doing to look into whether the Bush administration exaggerated or misused prewar intelligence. The review may not be finished this year, he said.

The intelligence panel vice chairman, Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), also appearing on Fox, called the review absolutely useful because if it is the fact that they [the Bush administration] created intelligence or shaped intelligence in order to bring American opinion along to support them in going to war, that's a really bad thing -- it should not ever be repeated.

Appearing on CNN's Late Edition, national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley said the White House is supporting the study, adding: I think that what you're going to find is that the statements by the administration had backing at the time from accepted intelligence sources.

He said that when administration statements turned out to be wrong, that was because the underlying intelligence was not true, but that's not the same as manipulating intelligence, and that is not misleading the American people.

Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), appearing with Roberts on Late Edition, said that Iraq became the center of terrorism after the March 2003 invasion.

I'm afraid we're going to see Iraq is not only the center of the war on terror, which it was not before we attacked Iraq, but now it is going to, I'm afraid, export it.

He added that Iraq has become the heartland of terrorism. It was not before we attacked.

Levin, a member of both the Senate intelligence committee and Armed Services Committee, has been a leading critic of the Bush administration's handling of the war.

Levin also said that the United States must get allies, as many as we can, including in the Muslim world because this is a form of fanatic Islam which has to be defeated by the moderate Islamic people.

In a column in yesterday's Washington Post, former senator John Edwards (N.C.), the Democratic vice presidential candidate in 2004, said the failures of the Bush administration turned Iraq into a far greater threat than it ever was. It is now a haven for terrorists [and] has made fighting the global war on terrorist organizations more difficult rather than less.

The president and his senior aides have said since before the invasion that Washington went to war primarily because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was a threat to the United States and its neighbors because of his connection to terrorists. Once fighting began, they argued that Iraq was the central front in the battle against terrorism.

In his Veterans Day speech on Friday, the president turned his original argument around, saying, The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity, and therefore, We must recognize Iraq as the central front in our war against the terrorists.

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/090111_shame.htm

There is a definite tendency for some posters on these boards (not so much this one) to very negatively judge a post based on who posted instead of what was contained in the post.  And you're right.  That just detracts from the entire value of the post when they do that.  (Anyone who doesn't believe me can visit the Conservative and see how they chew up and spit out those who don't assign nicknames to themselves.)

Thanks for posting and thanks for the link.

who admitted he's had too many wives, done too many drugs....and was happy to admit he inhaled.

Ahhh the credibility....

I am without question loudly and proudly supporting Barack Obama.  I am not supporting him because of the color of his skin, nor am I not supporting John McCain because of the color of his skin.  I am supporting Barack Obama because he has inspired something in me.  The belief and hope and optimism that there are actually people in politics who feel as I feel and will make a difference towards that end.  The belief that people are people and that my neighbors next door and the people who live on the other side of town and the people who live in the next state and the people who live in the south and the people who live in the north all matter regardless of their ethnicities, regardless of their incomes, regardless of their education or lack thereof, regardless of whatever circumstances they have been born into.  We are all Americans and we all deserve a chance to be educated, a chance to have healthcare, a chance to have hopes and dreams, and the opportunity to work for those hopes and dreams. 

John McCain is not going to provide any of that, least of all hope.  It is actually scary that the people who are so dead-set against supporting Barack Obama are the people who would reap so much of the benefits of his presidency.  And I wonder why you don't support him?  Gee, that is such a mystery!  Yet you all go on about McCain picking a woman as his VP.  Big deal!  A woman or man can do the same job, but if you were smart you would realize it is about the right person and gender has nothing to do with smarts, compassion, fairness, hope, inclusion, and inspiration. 

Wake up or you people are going to be in the same situation 4 years from now that you are in now.   After all, how smart can you be if you voted for Bush over Gore.  And better yet, how smart can you be if you gave Bush another 4 years and actually believed the lies about Kerry.  My conscious is clear, I didn't vote for Bush.  I voted for Gore and I certainly voted for Kerry after the first horrific 4 years.  Please educate yourself and wise up.  Fear is the reason Bush is president.  Let go of it and make better decisions.     

And if you are wondering who I am, I will be happy to tell you.  I have been an MT for 5 years.  I am a single parent.  I own my own home and purchased it myself.  I have 1 son.  I homeschool him and he is above grade level in all subjects.  I  also happen to be African American and my son is of mixed race, as his biological father is Caucasian.  I state these facts loudly and proudly just as I loudly and proudly support Barack Obama the best person for the most important job in the world. 

Everyone loves Bill Clinton.  Every single democrat (well almost every single) democrat will praise Bill Clinton up and down.  Even D. Morris referred to him in an interview as being "the most brilliant man" (we about threw up, but we repect Morris' opinion).  He's always talked about with admiration by a great many and everything he says is true (according to a lot of the liberals).  So...here are words from the wise one.

(In an interview about Obama)

"When was the last time we elected a President based on one year of service in the senate before he started running.  He will have been a senator longer by the time if he's innaugerated.  But essentially once you start running for President full time you don't have time to do much else"

This is so so true.  How can anyone elect a person with only one year's time in Washington with no experience.  Forget who he is, who he's related to, who he associated with, and even forget the whole non-US citizen thing.

Experience.  That is what we need!  Not a bunch of "feel good" statements to make you believe he cares about you. 

I read an article that said the most rediculous campaign slogan is "Change".  Change into what?  Change into socialism?  "Change For The Worse" is a better slogan. 

"Hope".  There's another one.  Hope?  Hope for what?  Hope they don't see what I'm really about before I can mesmerize them and thell them I feel their pain and will solve all their problems.  "Hopelessness" is a better slogan.

Then his talks about changing the world?  Excuse me...we're voting for US president.  Not Global/Worldwide president.  You only have 1 year in the senate and now you think your qualified to change the whole world.  Oh yeah, I'm sure the other countries are really going to love us with that one.  They're already pretty "tanked up" that Bush is trying to change their government into the same kind we have.  Sure Obama you'll go over really well.  It doesn't surprise me though because the same people who financed Bush are financing Obama.

Sorry, I'm looking for

1.  Someone with more years experience in Washington. 

2.  I'm looking for someone who is prior military and who understands and values our troops.  Who will be able to end the war in victory and bring our troops safely home.  Someone who will not vote against a bill that will provide the funding needed to keep our troops safe.  Obama's plan doesn't tell you there will be a mass exodus to dupe everyone into believing he cares about our troops, but he'll turn right around and send them to other countries equally as dangerous, or what is worse, back to the same area but now the fighting will be worse.  He doesn't care about our troops.  He didn't even have the decency to go over there until forced into it.  And even then he only went to places where there were photo ops for him.

3.  I'm looking for someone who is going to fight for Americans (JM has and will). 

4.  I'm looking for someone whose running mate has more experience than the person running for President on the opposite side.

5.  I'm looking for someone who knows how to rebuild America.  Knows we can't just keep printing more and more money without anything to back it up.  Common economics (guess O skipped that subject in college).

6.  I'm looking for someoe who will not increase our taxes like Obama's plan will, all while sugar coating it and trying to convince us that it's good for us.

There are many many more reasons why I am for M/P over O/B, but those are just a few. 

And....seeing as Bill Clinton is considered to be one of the most intelligent persons in American I will believe his words out of his own mouth. 

I am proud to offer this suggestion to all of those who choose to ignore the fascism of the last 8 years and are frightened and terrified (and ignorant) of the idea of a black man in the White House:  America, Love It Or Leave It!  I have a few suggestions where you all can go, too! 

Yes, I too have been worried about some sort of attempt on President Obama's life before we can be rid of the Bushies, leading to an attempt by them to hold onto power forever.  However, I think they have screwed up the country so much that even THEY don't want it anymore. 

Keith is great.  The first of the mass media to speak up about the unconstitutional actions of the Bushies.  Why was the rest of the media so frightened? 

On a bright note, I suspect that Bush's appointment by the Supreme Court was our Thermopolis Pass moment in history:  Bush's appointment led indirectly to the election of Obama, as the defeat of the Spartans at Thermopylae led to the rise of democracy in Greece, just as the rise of fascism in America has led to the resurgence of democracy in our great country. 

Now, back to taunting Mr. 644 and the Evil Q!