Later all - for real this time

My implication is that if John McCain thought the Swiftboaters were wrong and dishonorable, as he stated in 2004, then he shouldn't be trotting them out now to bolster his resume.

He thought they were wrong to target Kerry's service. He felt that evertyhing that happened afterward was fair game.

Also, he's not trotting all of them out. He's trotting 1 of them out - a cell mate who can corroberate his story amidst libelous attacks.

I guess this guy's personal observations are irrelevant since he's corroborating the story of a Republican nomineee?

You know what?

This is the gift that keeps on giving.

Go ahead, Dems. Swift the shit out of McCain. Mock his service as much as possible. Demean his service as much as possible. It's a losing strategy and I encourage it to the nth degree.

Please, continue...

In an umbrage-taking conference call Monday afternoon, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee unveiled his "truth squad," which featured one of McCain's cellmates (Bud Day)during his time as a POW who also was featured in two infamous ads from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth attacking 2004 Democratic candidate John Kerry."

Rogue...

So, your implication is that if Bud Day was wrong to tarnish Kerry then he must be wrong 100% of the time about everything?

Fact is, he was McCain's cell mate. As the lies against McCain's imprisonment come out, a primary source is the best weapon against that.

I guess McCain should say, "Fuck you. I don't care what you witnessed regarding Kerry's service. Talking about him in a negative way is reprehensible. Thus, your first-hand observations of what happened to me are now irrelevant. You didn't see what you saw. The fact that you corroborate my version of what happened to me makes you a liar!"

Larry,

It ain't funny at all.

Anyhow, nothing I've said makes any attempt at erasing any facts.

If you can prove my historical context wrong, be my guest.

Actually, I phrased that horribly.....

So, you bought 100% into every smear lobbied at the swiftvets yet you deride Murphy for doing the same to Clark?

Now I call bullshit.

Fuck off. That's total horseshit.

Really?

So, you defended the Swiftvets and their accusations?

I call bullshit.

It's the first time in US History that Torture was sanctioned by the Administration. No matter how hard You try JeffJ You can't erase that fact.

I am not trying to erase that fact.

Yes, an attempt at setting guidelines was made and said guidelines are clearly outside of what is sanctioned in accordance with Geneva. Nevertheless, it's always been done, but in the past it was done with a nod and a wink in lieu of a defined mandate.

You're a liar, pure and simple.

And you are naive.

Are you trying to suggest that politicians are above this type of thing?

If this were 2004 and this comment was directed at Kerry, you'd be spouting the exact same shit that Murph is spouting now.

Larry,

You are correct.

That said, I don't like watching 2 women make out, or dyke out, either. For me, it's all hetero all of the way.

PS - I recognize that I am in the minority when it comes to men watching 2 or more women get it on together.

Obama always praises McCain's service to his country and never "goes after" him as regards his military record.

That's true. Just as Bush praised and defended Kerry's service all-the-while having his surrogates trash Kerry's service.

This is the same thing, although on a much smaller scale. So far.

Bet,

I cede your point regarding the inaccuracy of the quote.

Are you willing to finally push that aside and address the broader point?

Blue,

The vast majority of people in America and the world believes that people have been tortured in American prisons these last seven years or so.

In Afghanistan, a supposed 'ally' came to the US with valuable information. He was treated as an 'enemy' and was subjected to a beating so brutal that he plead to be shot in order to no longer endure the pain. He died of his injuries 2 days later. The CIA interrogator, who was a violent thug his entire life, is on trial for this. Unfortunately a lack of an autopsy will make his prosecution more difficult.

Regardless, this shit has gone on for over a millenium. You are right to condemn this and to the extent that the Bush admin is responsible they should be held accountable. Nevertheless, don't sit there and pretend that this is unprecedented and has never occurred before within the US.

Shall I make up some quotes and attribute tham to Jeff or Murphy and then argue that it's in the spirit of what they actually said?

Accuracy is important, I'll give you that.

Nevertheless, Murph backed off (indirectly) the '5 times' comment and asked point-blank that if removing the '5 times' comment made the comment any less derogatory. Yet, you still continue to harp on the '5 times' comment after it's no longer important to the topic at hand.

At what point do you move on from that and actually address her point?

Later all.

Boyd--is this something that is less derogatory than adding "5 times" in the statement?

No, it isn't.

Nevertheless, Boyd has a tendency toward parsing semantics and asking a lot of meaningless questions in lieu of making declarative statements and actually engaging in to-and-fro discourse.

Larry,

I am not necessarily opposed to that.

We have more of a global military presence than is really necessary.

Spud,

Wot do torture allegations have to do with political correctness?

I don't agree with you often, but that is a very fair question.

KGB,

Wake up and realize that we better start bailing FAST or we're fucked. I fought and sold my god-be-damned soul for this country, and I'm not letting it get completely screwed by a bunch of chickenshit pseudo-patriotic idealogues who are currently manning the wheel...

What do you suggest?

Bet,

You raise some fair points.

I don't pretend that US intentions regarding 'Nam were 100% noble; not even close.

Nevertheless, until the end of the Cold War, our government, regardless of who occupied the White House, treated the thread of Communist expansionism as a grave threat.

Fact is, 'Nam was less dubious than some of our adventures in Latin America (post-Ike).

A lot of the foreign policy woes of the US can be attributed to the CIA. A truly effective intelligence agency requires a degree of secrecy and non-Democratic authority that is simply not a good fit for our degree of government transparency. Couple that with a culture of CYA at all costs and it's no wonder that time and time again presidents have made bad decisions based upon terrible intel.

Anyhow, it's easy for all of us to be armchair quarterbacks.

Null,

Just as long as you don't try to sic Rob on my headlines, you and I won't have problems!

;-)

Null,

Good catch regarding Cambodia vs. 'Nam.

Regarding 'Nam....

Although the carnage wasn't as severe as predicted, a couple of hundred thousand S. Vietnamese 'lost' during the 're-education' period plus the "boat people" who fled and then subjected to brutal piracy is nothing to sneeze at.

Turnleft,

The US is the most powerful and prosperous county in recorded history.

Despite her faults, that fact remains true - and it obviously pisses you off greatly, which makes me happy.

And McCain's experience is wholly better than Obamas --who has none-nil-zilch-nada-nin-zero!

So Murph....are you suggesting that Obama lacks experience?

;-)

It had nothing to do with communism

Actually, it had much to do with Communism.

Other than that, I agree with the remainder of your post.

Do you think we should have nuked them?

What??

Why would I feel good about that, dumbass? My side wanted to bring the troops home.......Nobody here is denigrating those who served in Vietnam, so stop lying.

Your side denigrated the shit out of those who were serving at that time.

Minutia notwithstanding, 'Nam was a proxy war against Communist expansionism.

Granted, the CIA grossly overstated Soviet strength. Nevertheless, Communism was (and still is) a human tragedy. Over 100 million murdered in the name of the workers' paradise.

We can denigrate US foreign policy all day long; particularly in regards to the countless failures of the CIA to provide accurate intelligence - and we'd speak a fair amount of truth in doing so. Nevertheless, the US was right to oppose Communism - oppose it with every tool within her arsenal.

The U.S. has a long history of covert actions.

Unfortunately, rarely have positive long-term results been generated. Usually, they've been a bust with adverse, long-term effects.

Nutcase,

I hate to break it to you, but Bush won both of his elections.

If the majority of the people dictate one point of view that's the tyranny of the majority.

A fair enough point.

However, what you are advocating is tyranny of the minority.

Of the 2 the former is more Democratic.

I've gotta run - I've got to go to my son's baseball game.

I'll try to check back in later.

We have more media options than ever before. We have extremely easy access to countless viewpoints, yet these people want to kill a venue that has the temerity to express an opinion that they disagree with.

Here's a synopsis of Null's points in favor of FD:

1. In the name of Democracy, we need easy access to a wide variety of views.

In the age of information we do have easy access to a wide variety of views. Talk radio is far from the only game in town. Strike 1 agaist Null's advocacy of FD.

2. A wide variety of views is in the best interest of the public

It's up to the public to decide their own best interest. It's NOT up to a handful of elites to make that decision for them. The public wants conservative talk, therefore providing it is in their best interest. Strike 2 against Null's advocacy of FD.

3. Null likes to hear as many views as possible.

However, the mechanism he advocates stifles some of those very viewpoints he so desperately wants to hear, and it does so in a very draconian and tyrannical manner. Strike 3 against Null's advocacy of FD.

4. Null favors government-imposed fairness in talk because 'the people' own the airwaves.

However, Null would NEVER favor such a doctrine in the public education system - K-12 and public universities. Why the selective standard? The public owns the public education system every bit as much as it does the airwaves. Going further, impressionable children are required by law to attend school. Nobody is required by law to listen to the radio. I don't know if this is Strike 4 for Null, but it's certainly a peculiar double-standard on his part.

Fuck off, you condescending jackass.

Condescending? I would classify someone labelling people with whom he disagrees as "knuckle-draggers and corporate shills" as condescending. Pot meet kettle.

Free markets lead to monopolized markets. If they didn't, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Then you clearly don't understand how ratings impact radio.

The entire industry is completely depnendent upon listenership - they have to produce a product that 'the public' wants to hear or 'the public' simply listens to something else. That is NOT a monopoly in any way shape or form and it's disingenuous of you to characterize it as such.

Also, conservative talk doesn't just compete with liberal talk; it competes with sports talk, FM music stations, CD's, satellite radio and silence. It's successful because the public demands it via their radio dials.

Again, please explain how taking that venue away from the public is good for Democracy.

Democracy is too important to let the market dictate what views will be aired and which will not on the public airwaves.

You have still yet to show how killing talk radio (conservative and to a much smaller extent liberal talk) is good for Democracy. This is what FD does when applied. I've pointed this out several times yet you continue to run from it.

Democracy?

Since when does putting the interests of the Democratic party above public interest promoting Democracy?

Lastly, here in the Metro Detroit area from noon to 3 we have Rush on AM760 and we have Thom Hartmann (a devout liberal) on AM1310. That's the essence of FD in a free market minus all of the draconian government measures.

Also, in the information age people have easy access to a myriad of opinion. Again, you don't need to kill conservative talk.

Bill,

You are conveniently ignoring a lot of points being made and are simply spouting the same rhetoric about citizens in a democratic society getting the information necessary to participate in the process.

You have yet to demonstrate in any way how FD accomplishes this (it doesn't). In fact, all it does is shut up Conservative talk.

I don't want to shut up anybody, Eberly. I'd like to see a hundred points of view from far left to far right. Now there is only one point of view, the HannityLimBaughIngraham, etc., point of view.

I believe you.

However, your mechanism for achieving this (FD) when applied has the effect of killing talk radio and shutting up Conservative opinion.

The fact is, we have more divergent views available to us than ever before. You simply don't need to squelch the conservative talk format in order to achieve 'fairness'.

Oh, and Bill....

Don't celebrate too soon.

Talk radio is very popular and a resurrection of the Censorship Doctrine will be much harder than you think.

When the letters and petitions come into Congress by the tens of millions you can bet that even your beloved Democratic tyrants will think twice before royally pissing off their constituency.

If it's tried and fails as a result of the backlash, I will laugh awfully hard at all of you petty tyrants trying to squelch opinion that you disagree with.

Too bad the Fairness Doctrine is coming back and you rightwing shitstains will lose your monopoly. Tough shit.

Monopoly my ass.

Create a format that the public wants and you'd have an audience too.

I love when petty tyrants celebrate the government censorship of opinions they disagree with.

Horseshit. The broadcast media is owned by a handful of corporations. Free market my ass.

I have a lot more patience for the argument against media consolidation.

And yes, it still is a free market, your conspiratorial rants notwithstanding.

I don't care if the broadcast media market was owned by 2 corporations, if they aren't playing what 'the public' wants to hear, they won't have listenership and thus advertising revenues.

In broadcast media, ratings rule the roost, much to your chagrin.

Since when is a choice between Hannity and Limbaugh, between Boortz and Beck and Ingraham and Savage and every other fucking knuckledragging shithead an intelligent use of the public's resources?

Given that it's what 'the people' want, I'd say it's a very intelligent use of the public's resources.

Corporate control of the public airwaves is only in the interests of corporations, not democracy, not the public.

Bullshit. Corporate control means they have to compete for listenership. If they don't play what the 'the public' wants to hear, they lose out to a competitor that does. The process is the very essence of Democracy and it most certainly serves the interests of 'the public' - what the public wants to hear is what gets airtime.

What you want obviously isn't what 'the public' wants.

Tough shit.

tyrannical minority doesn't like.

In application, the Fairness Doctrine shuts up opinions that a tyrannical minority don't like.

It's too fucking bad for you elitist shits that formats you advocate don't resonate with 'the public'. Deal with it.

The public airwaves are owned by the public, and the public has the sole right to decide how those airwaves are used, not Clear Channel or Fox News or dittoheads.

And that's just too fucking bad for corporate America and their shills.

And we have the perfect mechanism in place for 'the public' to decide. It's called free market competition. The formats that generate listenership prevail because that is what a majority of 'the public' wants.

And that's just too fucking bad for undesirable liberal talk shows and their bitter shills.

What about public universities?

I saw a stat that the ratio of liberal to conservative guest speakers is about 11-1.

Should the government step in and demand fairness at our public universities? I mean, we need a wide range of views to be heard in order to promote Democracy, don't we?

Oh, and why single out opinion and editorials?

What about how we go about deciding what does and doesn't get reported, on the public airwaves, as news?

Oh yeah, with the exception of talk radio, it's a well-documented fact that a majority of those who are in just about all other mediums are liberals and also happen to be deciding what is and isn't newsworthy. We can't have "fairness" on news reporting can we?

Comparing the public interest in promoting democracy

I love how you feel that you get to define terms.

Since when is killing the talk format "promoting Democracy"?

You are just pissed off that my supposed strawmen are the logical application of a policy that you are clamoring for.

Making diverse views accessible is the issue.

And your mechanism for doing so kills the talk format.

How convenient.

And Jeff blows straw all over this thread.

And Bill can't refute Jeff's points so he simply pooh poohs them.

And that's a stupid analogy.

It's not stupid at all. You and your ilk are arbitrarily deciding what's best for everybody else and are doing so under the false pretenses of "fairness" and "publicly owned airwaves". However, you are limiting your application of 'fairness' to the one venue where views you dislike are dominant.

Democracy requires an informed population that can hear a broad variety of views, the more, the better.

The ability to hear a broad variety of views has never been greater. We have countless print publications in a wide array of formats. We have radio, TV, satellite radio, cable TV, the internet, etc.

You guys don't need to shut down the talk radio format. You may actually crave a balanced format, but you know damn well that in application, FD will effectively kill the talk radio format; which is ultimately what you are stiving for.

What about the 'public' education system?

Shouldn't conservatives have just as much control and influence over it as liberals? Forget the fact that liberals flock to the acedemia in far greater numbers and as such, instituting fairness would actually result in inserting Conservatives who are less qualified than some of their liberal counterparts. We need 'fairness', damnit!

We, the public, own the public education system every bit as much as we do the airwaves.

I know, maybe we should just have the government run all of our media. It would be the '1984' Utopian wet-dream for all 'Fairness Doctrine' supporters.

If the airwaves are public and we need "fairness" (sic), what about music?

Is it fair to have 6 radio stations playing Rockn'Roll and only 1 playing polkas? That isn't "fair". What about the silent masses who love polkas? They are being unfairly under-represented.

What about the major TV networks? Those are public airwaves too. Shouldn't the government simply dictate their schedule to them to make sure their lineup is "fair" and all-inclusive?

Yes indeed my belief that who does not support something like a fairness doctrine is in fact supporting lies and liars.

No. What we are supporting is allowing the people, via their radio dials, to dictate what's on the air. Afterall, they are public airwaves.

Obviously not true or GWB would never have been president and he wouldn't have been able to sell his unnecessary war.

That is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Get over yourself. You act as if everybody in this country, except for yourself and those who share your worldview, are complete and utter idiots incapable of independent thought.

people given one sided information don't have any way of knowing it is one sided.

What? "The Limbaugh Institute for advanced Conservative studies."

"Conservatism works every time it's tried."

"Etc."

That's the one nice thing about the opinion format - the broadcasters proudly wear their biases on their sleeves. I find biased journalists pretending to be objective (a wolf in sheep's clothing) to be far more dangerous. Rush has 20 million listeners per week and each and every one of them knows that his views are one-sided - he announces he's a conservative every chance he gets.

They then can present only what they wish and obviously it would be a message that benefits themselves.

Only if what they put on the air generates listenership. They can't put squat on the air without advertising revenues. They can't generate advertising revenues without listenership. In short, rigthwing talk dominates the airwaves because it generates listenership.

Broadcasters managed fine when the Fairness Doctrine was in effect.

What? AM radio was on its death bed. Lifting the FD is what saved the AM radio band.

Therefore is is important that even if it makes the righties mad, even if it makes the right wing talkers mad, even if it makes the owners of those radio stations

Translation: I want liberal talk on the air. Despite an enormous infusion of donations, Air America is a failing proposition. The most popular liberal talk show host has 1/10 the listenership of Rush Limbaugh. In short, it's obvious that liberal talk can't compete with conservative talk, therefore we must use the power of government to shut up conservative talk. After all, we know what's best and only our opinion of right and wrong is what matters.

Freddy,

See my example as a before and after scenario.

I firmly believe it is a far better measurement - we are comparing the same region and same Demographics with the only real variable of change being gun legislation.

It's not that the point you raise isn't meritous, it's just that it's not as accurate as my scenario due to more variables.

You raise an important distinction, Mod.

Saying that guns are bad for society is not tatamount to saying that the right to own gun ownership is protected by the Constitution.

Just because one opposes gun ownership doesn't mean that he believes that ownership isn't guarunteed by the Constitution.

DC,

Forgive my poor wording.

What I was really driving at is the Supremes deciding that abortion is a privacy issue and is thus enumerated in the Constitution.

The same judicial reasoning could be applied to assisted suicide - it's a 'medical procedure'.

Regardless, it's all water under the bridge at this point. With the possible exception of Thomas, the Supremes would likely never overturn Roe as a matter of Stare Decisis - doing so would be too unsettling to the public at large, thus the deference paid to precedent.

That is why i get so furious when one side claims it is the only one who "upholds the constitution". Anyone who thinks this is cut and dry is just revealing their ignorance of the law.

As true as that is, I think we can all agree that 'judicial activism' does sometimes take place. The Miranda ruling springs immediately to mind.

I'll feel free in the future to make up highly partisan headlines of my own.

Feel free.

That's not a headline, that's an opinion.

No, it's my presentation of what he said. Regarldess, I wasn't aware that interjecting my own bias into a headline was verboten.

PS - Do you have an opinion regarding Obama's comments that you'd like to share?

That's how I intepretted his comments, Bill.

Your are more than welcome to offer a rebuttal.

Freddy,

Comparing violence rates between Detroit (where guns are allowed) and, say, an affluent city in Western Europe isn't comparing apples with apples.

The most meaningful measurement I can think of is to compare the rates of violence before and after gun legislation is passed in the same area, i.e. if Detroit were to outlaw guns, measuring the rate of violence before and after the outlaw would be very meaningful. When looked at in this manner, every scenario that I've seen was a correletion between less violent crime with more liberal gun laws.

I just wanted to poke a few righties with a stick...

A noble cause!

Carry on.

That about sum it up?

What that sums up is a strawman which in no way addresses the points I have made.

Try again.

This debate should have been left to the will of the people, not 5 guys who decide to legislate from the bench.

Except that the right of gun ownership is explicitly addressed in the Constitution, therefore it is up to 9 guys to interpret the text in the context of original intent.

Now, if you were talking about an unmentioned right to privacy and then going even further and defining the arbitrary killing of a growing life as an issue of privacy, then I would agree with you - it should be debated by the Legislative body, not decided by 9 people wearing black robes.

Last night I was doing some work in a rather scary part of Detroit.

I was in the parking lot of a gas station and a cop rolls up next to me and motions for me to put my window down. He asked what I was doing and I told him. He then asked me if I had a CCW, to which I replied I did not. He then said I should consider getting one, given where I was working.

Freddy,

First off, can you back up your claims?

Secondly, you ONLY reference gun deaths or gun violence.

Which scenario is better:

A. Guns are outlawed:
1. Gun murders 10 per year
2. Total murders 20 per year

B. Guns are allowed
1. Gun murders 12 per year
2. Total murders 17 per year

See where I am going with this?

Mod,

In the past Zat has posted before and after scenarios (links) in terms of violent crime in areas that either banned guns or un-banned them.

In every instance, violent crime went up where guns were banned and down where they were un-banned.

The inaptly named "fairness doctrine" is nothing but a blatant attempt by Democrats and liberals to shut up views that they don't like.

It is far more fascist and freedom-inhibiting than anything ever done by the Bush administration.

I particularly love the whole 'public airwaves' arguement. A bunch of people and politicians, who are clearly in the minority, want to dictate to all of us what is and isn't appropriate in terms of opinion. We are not talking about prohibiting lewd topics or foul language (go ahead and make your obligatory jokes about Conservative talk being lewd and foul) here, we are talking about censoring opinions and views simply because a minority doesn't like them.

What a bunch of fascists FD supporters are. It's also typical of their collectivist mindset - screw competition and actually having to work for an audience, just look to the government to 'level the playing field'. Have you losers ever competed for anything in your pathetic lives, or do you expect the government to hand evertying to you?

Just because taxes are higher does NOT mean they're going to stop trying to make more money.

The higher rate in which income is taxed the less incentive one has to try and earn more income.

This is ECON101 and is a fundamental truth to human nature.

Nothing really new in this article.

I posted it because it was penned by Karl Rove and anything Rove says is going to raise the hackles of DR liberals.

Kliff,

Then please explain why suicide bombers are promised all of those virgins in the name of jihad.

Hmmmmm......

57 Islamic states?

Did Obama have his upbringing in mind when he mentioned the 57 states of the US?

;-)

To me, Obama's comments come accross as preemptively playing the victim card and the race card while simultaneously calling pretty much all Republicans a bunch of racists.

Here is the link to his actual comments:

San,

While I feel that you and Danforth are correct on this particular thread - Murphy really should offer a retraction now that her story has been proven false, you've gotta admit that Corky has become public enemy #1 simply for being critical of the Messiah. The fact is, none of his Obama criticisms were as bad as a lot of the mud I saw slung at his favorite candidate. Yet he's the one his is constantly ostracized especially now that Obama has won the primary yet Corky still has the temerity to point out some of his flaws which is clearly unacceptable in the 'big-tent' Democratic party. With the Cork, it's usually about shooting the messenger in lieu of addressing the message.

Off the top of my head, here are different brands of gas in Michigan:

BP
Shell
Sunoco
Speedway
Valero
Citgo
Firebird
Mobil
Amoco (although very few are left, they are almost all BP now)

The prices on gas vary from city to city in Michigan.

That's the thing with most guys--

They like tits, butts, and bragging about how big of a turd they had to flush 20 times to get down the toilet!

Posted by MURPHY

That is so true.

The website ratemypoo.com exists for a reason.

Danni,

I also find it pathetic that Bush didn't veto a single spending bill when it was his party doing the spending yet once the Dem's assumed the majority earmarks all of a sudden became distasteful to him.

Pathetic.

All of that being said, Bush and Reagan are 2 seperate situations.

Danni,

I certainly agree with you regarding Bush and his Republican majority.

I don't know that the Republican party will ever again be able to claim they are fiscal conservatives.

Acae,

I certainly agree with you, although I do find it amusing that so many liberals thought it was 'vogue' to rip on Romney's mormonism.

Please continue, Many.

Repeat it ad nauseum each and every day.

Please get Moveon to produce all sorts of ads calling McCain a traitor. Please, mock what he endured until you are all blue in the face.

This is the best thing you guys can do to improve McCain's chances of winning. Please don't stop. Ever.

Larry,

As much as I was opposed to swifting Kerry's actual service, it did have its desired effect.

That said, this is different in a number of ways:

1. Kerry made his service the central plank of his campaign "Reporting for duty." This tactic made the public more willing to accept scrutiny of his service. McCain hasn't done so, at least not yet, thus swifting McCain seems dirtier and nastier.

2. McCain roundly criticized the vets for their attacks on Kerry's service and he vehemently defended Kerry's service. This puts him in a perfect position to attack his attackers. "I was strongly against it when it was done to Senator Kerry and I am strongly against it now. This is gutter politics at its worst."

3. McCain's service is far more compelling than was Kerry's. Particularly his refusal to be released before his other servicemen. This refusal bought him a couple more years in the pit of hell and quite a few beatings as well. Since his service is more compelling that Kerry's the public would find swifting it to be even more repugnant.

In short, swifting McCain's service will backfire if it's tried.

So, please continue!

What people forget about 'Reaganomics' is that his proposed budget, which included cuts in the rate of taxation also included considerable spending cuts. However, said spending cuts were near and dear to the hearts of the Democratic party and since they had a majority, they wouldn't agree to the cuts. The Reagan-years deficits were a comprimise. Remember, the House ultimately controls the purse strings.

Excellent work, Jest.

This stuff doesn't bother me in the least.

I hope the Dems trot this out as much as possible. I think the Dems should swiftboat the shit out of McCain. Doing so is the quickest way to hand him the presidency.

Keep it up, guys!

Traitor?

He was brutally tortured and he reached his breaking point.

Have you ever been tortured for information, Many?

Nutcase,

No system of government or economics is perfect. All are fraught with corruption, fraud and incompetence and this has been so throughout all of human history. That said, I simply don't buy into your conspiratorial rants. The tenor of your posts suggest some grand conspiracy to brutally oppress 90% of the population and that the 10% doing so are in massive cohoots with not a decent, honest soul among them.

Your posts also suggest a Mercantilistic view of the economy - zero sum, one side's gain is another side's loss. If that is truly your view, you couldn't be more wrong about anything in your life.

Furthermore, your posts suggest that anything that is good for corporations and business must be bad for "common man". Moving even further, your posts suggest that 'common man' is getting fucked but is too stupid to realize it or care.

Lastly and what I find to be most perplexing, some days you advocate Socialism as the answer to societal ills, other days you seem to advocate Libertarianism.

Please note: I am not trying to make this about you personally; this post is not an attack. I am simply challenging what I've construed to be your views as they are a bit of an anethema.

Malik Obama didn't meet his half brother until 1985, when Barack Obama was around 24 years old. Why would anyone believe that Malik knows how he was raised?

Posted by rcade

When he saw Barack bust out the prayer rug 5 times a day, every day, I think he was able to put 2 and 2 together.

Tony,

You seem to get all misty-eyed over this:

Do you realize he could have walked into any number of Wall Street jobs paying well in excess of 6 figures but choose to work on the streets of Chicago instead

I agree, that it's commendable. However, I fail to see how it makes him qualified to be POTUS. Mother Theresa certainly isn't qualified.

And please, don't even go there with Wright. Take a few controversial sermons over 20 years

It's more than a few, Tony. I don't have the link in front of me, but it's been posted on DR before providing audio and transcripts for way more than a few controversial sermons.

and ignore the fact that the church has been doing tremendous good works in their community the entire time

That's a fair point, however Jerry Falwell has done 'tremendous good works' and none of his good deeds are ever acknowledged when liberals trash the shit out of him. Why you expect the racist-Wright to be treated by a different standard is beyond me.